Co-Design Community Cong Liu & Rong Peng Chair of Architectural Informatics Technical University of Munich
2 Co-design community Chair of Architectural Informatics Prof. Dr.-Ing. Frank Petzold <Multiple Reality | Mixed Perspectives> <Supervisors: Nick Förster, Ivan Bratoev, Sarah Louise Jenney> <Student: Cong Liu, Rong Peng> <Immatriculation ID: 03665056, 03725447>
3 2523211915139731 TableContactCollaborationOutlookDiscussionFinalPrototypingConceptIdeationResearchIntroductionimplementationofContents
Our application is trying to be intuitive and easy interactive. We use boxes and surface layers to represent facilities that people would like to share in their community. Users only need to drag it around and express their preference by using game operators. As a result, a statistic report will be generated with several information, such as facility budget and area rate, and handed to organization or architects to bring this codesign project into reality.
AsIntroductionpeoplehavemoreexpectationsfor the living community, to renovate old residential buildings or to construct a new neighbourhood becomes more necessary. Collective housing projects are implemented in several places, for example Wagnis Art in Munich. But many residents don‘t have time to join the meeting and sometimes it is hard to discuss with a large number of people but only limited material. Also the shoebox model is not easy to keep for architects to analyze and review. So we have the idea to create a digital discussion platform, which is more flexible and more easily storable. To implement this idea, the municipality would start to organize recruiting community members, the future tenants, and architects would collect data from former projects to pre design the digital model in the game.
OurResearchfirstreferenceisproject
Planbude in Hamburg. It shows us a succesful organization in co-designing street blocks and a high level of participation with much fun of citizens in collective project.
The PlanBude is an interdisciplinary team from the fields of urban planning, architecture, art, urbanism, social district work and cultural studies and stands for a participation process conceived from the district. In 2014 the PlanBude was created from the autonomous district assembly “St. Pauli selber machen ”after the protests for the preservation of the Esso houses on Spielbudenplatz had ended abruptly with their evacuation and the subsequent demolition decision. The concept of the PlanBude, a collective wish production carried out by neighbors and experts [1], shows a constructive way out of the conflict-laden situation between the district and the investor and forms the basis for negotiations with the district management. The result of these negotiations is the commissioning of PlanBude by the HamburgMitte district office with the organization and implementation of a broadly accessible, low-threshold participation process with artistic and planning resources as the basis for an urban development competition for the new construction of the Esso houses.
The implementation of this concept is a collective production of wishes, the results of which become the basis of urban development. For the process, PlanBude has redesigned urban planning and artistic tools and further developed methods that can already be found in the participation repertoire. All tools are specified on the location, the environment and the question and direct the thoughts into the creative, playful, utopian: from the warming card to the Lego model, the clay model, the night and cellar cards to the questions of “Dachlandschaften 2.0 “ Or the gas station substitute “An der Tanke du und ich“. The night ticket asks for a picture of the facade of the “Reeperbahn im Jahr 2020”.
6
For many interactive activities, a container was built to collect ideas. This temporary meeting room was opened for everyone. People could use Lego to illustrate their suggestions and thoughts for the rebuilding of the former Esso area. The scale of the model is 1:150. The orange unit represents living area, grey means business area and white indicates the public area. All the designs were photographed and documented.
7
8 The„Regel“-Workshopfutureresidents worked with the architects according to jointly defined rules
In this project, the role of the architect becomes a kind of Game-Master. The architect bought 150 or 200 foldable and removable cardboard boxes to the workshop, allowing people to create what they want to do according to the rules of complete freedom, creating separate, spatialized work. In the later workshops, personal interests began to appear. Despite many conflicts, in which the community grows together, a new form of authority is created through a common level. In this game, everyone can design, but he cannot design his own apartment. Everyone pays more attention to the common spatial quality. For example, how do people enter residential groups, how to get there from public spaces, and finally enter their own apartments. The final structure itself is very open. People can enter these spaces freely. But after entering it, you will feel that it is a private place. People will also respect the privacy here. To some extent, this is a private space without a door. But on the other hand, there are many spaces in the building, such as a coffee shop, and a performance space that can accommodate 200 people. Architects develop good public-private relationships on many levels. When people wander inside, they feel a strong community.
Wagnis, established in 2000, is a young residential cooperative. Wagnis members are renters of their own properties, and each member still needs to pay a certain rent for their residence. But relative to market prices, this rent is much lower. Its funding model is that the Munich city government subsidizes social housing with funds.
9
Our second reference is the project wagnisART, a residential area designed together with its community members and rewarded with the deutscher städtebaupreis 2016 (German Prize for Urban Design, 2016), locates at the center of the recent discussions on affordable housing and social cooperatives as a successful example of projects as such.
10 Ideation1. 2.
3.
Inspiration by existing problems
11
For existing collective housing project, there are several problems. In pic 1, the resident want to update facilities in his old community. In pic 2, people are having meeting for collective housing project, but there are complains about low participation and inflexibility. After meeting, architects are analyzing the results, but they have no clue about the meaning of slightly destroyed shoebox model.
To implement this idea, the municipality would start to organize recruiting community members, actually the future tenants. And architects would collect data from former projects to pre design the digital model in the game.
Concept4.
5.
12
The concept of our project is to design a interactive platform for sharing space in collective housing project. It provides the opportunity to co-design a housing project online and reduce the complicated and tedious process in reality.
To become a member of this community, people have to apply and wait for approval from the collective housing organization. All new collective housing projects in the city could be co-designed on this platform. In a certain time, they could only cooperate in one project, in which they are interested and want to live in the future. Also they will have a contract for a minimum tenancy term.
13 6. 7.Joining the community Selecting project
14 8.
At the end of this co-design process, besides the form on the virtual map, a statistic report would be generated to present several information, such as average rent, size of apartment, facility area rate, to illustrate the summary of this co-design application and hand it to organization or architects to bring this codesign project into reality.
Playing together Architects analysing
We9. use volumes to transmit facilities that people would like to share in their community. Each box contains several basic information such as area, cost, capacity etc. People could express their preference with others to form a shared space.
15
Our application is trying to be more intuitive and easy for understanding and operating. So we keep the game process and interface simple and clean as much as Thepossible.firststep, selecting box, is to select a desired facility from the catagory and drag it on the map. Then, in the second step, expressing preference, people could participate the discussion of the existence of a certain facility and the location of this facility with game operators. Basically, these two systems and its operators are adopting and translating voiting system in different Prototypingcontext.
16
17 1. Select a facility box from the category „Catering 3.service„.Operating. For example with location, people could add weight to this box to dominate its location. 2. Click on the box, operators will pop up: „like, dislike, add and lose weight „. 4. Finish discussion with a result of disired facilities in satisfied places
The middle of the interface is the main interactive area, where users can see the main information, like the floors of the building, the urban context, the location of the cubes, etc.
We have implemented the main body of the whole codesign process, the discussion platform with drag and express function. With this application, people could shape their community together in a more gamificated way with more fun and flexibility. The main interaction is using mouse to drag and left click to vote.
The upper left of the interface shows the way users interact with others, and there are votes for each cube’s likeness and weight.
The interface of our application is like a box stacking game with neighboorhood. The operation interface is divided into four areas.
On the right side of the interface is a menu of all cubes, where user can drag and drop different cubes, representing different facilities, into the map.
At the bottom left of the interface are the assisting functions to help users place the box more easily and precisely, such as rotating the lens and zooming the lens.
18 Final Implementation
19
20 Zoom into levels Camera switch 4 directions Like & dislike For each user, there are limited times to like or dislike a box. Also there is a timer for each box. If in 10 min no one likes this box or more people dislike this box, it will be deleted automatically. Combined map (locked for selecting and dragging) Game interface
User
Category of facilities Add and lose weight The gravity system in the game is deciding the location of a box. The more weight added on the more difficult it is to drag it on the map. If the weight reaches the upper limit, for example 200 kg, the box could not be moved. also has limited times to add or lose weight on the box.
21 switchto observe this model Environment map will highlight the similar facilities in the near by selecting box.
22 WeDiscussionhavesomefunctionstobeimplemented that will make the whole process more complete. Firstly, this game is a website game for multiplayer, so it needs to add a controlling component, for example network manager in unity.
Also we would like to add a feedback function and a rotation function to adjust the digital model. If users want a larger space or have a common extra need for a certain facility, the feedback system could inform architects to improve the design.
1. Feedback 2. Rotation 3. Step 2_apartment
Lastly, we want to develop the step two for residents to discuss their sharing of apartment space. Each user has a unit to merge or stack with others in the same unit. If enough people have chosen and stacked the same unit together, the merged volume would be established as a space and then joint with other space.
23
Our guest critic Florian Otto has pointed out that it is very important to communicate with each other when people are designing together. In this game we were trying to solve conflicts by the four operators. So we did not implement any vocal channel for game. Indeed, the actual communication and discussion are playing a very essential role in the co-design process, because the bargaining process and the back and forth discussion is shaping the outcome. People could persuade others with a strong argument and people could also compromise to each other to have an achievable plan. So we would like to add a channel for virtual discussion, to better serve the collective project.
Based on the feedback on final presentation, we have collect some interesting points for improving this application.
It is also interesting to think the question from Prof. Petzhold about the possibility of implementation for other cities in differnt culture background, for example, in China. We think it is possible but we have to consider the mass migration movements in big cities, especially Shanghai and Beijing. Many local people are buying apartment for investigation, for example for renting. So the residents in those house are mostly immigrants. This is not an ideal context for our application. On the other hand, there are some high-tech business gardens merging in the suburban area. Consequently, the employee has built many staff quatier.
Eventhough the labor flow could not be underestimated, there are common needs and interests from all the new and former staff. For example, people who work in IT company are sitting all the day, so they might have the same demand of a gym or playground. In this case, I believe our application could offer a convenient and effective discussion platform.
24
AtOutlooktheendoftheboxdragging
game, we would have a architectural diagram, which will show some unique needs of community residents, and their relative positions hoping to be placed, which may create some new architectural forms. The game may not be played only once. After residents submit feedback, the game will change the options or rules and play again to get a result that most residents have identify. This diagram will be passed on to the architect for processing and the architect will consider not only the content reflected in the diagram but also the residents‘ comments and feedback and finally to form a plan.
25
At the beginning we tried to include the apartment and facilities together for a community in this application. And we used unit module to let residents merge their shared space with each other. But it is not easy to understand and ,as consequence, there are many operators to design, which is not clean and simple to play for the residents, who has limited architectual background. Therefore, we accepted Nick‘s suggestion to play it intuitive and easy. We have deleted many tedious process and left only the essence of the game. We appreciate Nick‘s effort about the idea of having gravity system in our project, and Ivan‘s technical support. Also we have discussed a lot about the environment infomation and the exploded map model with Sarah, and we are grateful to have so many valuable suggestions.
Speaking of our team collabortion, we have splited the script work approximately into two. Cong started with the selecting and dragging part and Rong is more in charge of the camera and grid system as well as the modelling in the beginning. Then in the middle phase, we have exchanged our work and debug each other‘s file in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of our project. So basically we worked mixed and together in every step.
interest of the topic about collective housing at the first storyboard presentation, we have decided to work together on this interesting topic.
AsCollaborationwehavefoundoutthatwehavesimilar
26
27 Screenshot of working together on solving coding problems.
28 Contact <Cong <1.<03665056>Liu>Semester> <Rong <2.<03725447>Peng>Smester>
29 [1]From Architectural Autonomy to Collective Values: A Talk with bogevischs buero about wagnisART , YANG Shan , <The Architect> 2019.02 [2]FHH (Freie Hansestadt Hamburg) (2002): Leitbild Metropole Hamburg – wachsende Stadt. http://www. wachsender-widerstand.de/wachsende_stadt.pdf (letzter Zugriff am 13.9.2016) [3]Tribble, Renée, Patricia Wedler, and Volker Katthagen. „PlanBude Hamburg. Kollektives Wissen als Grundlage von Stadtgestaltung.“ sub\urban. zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung 5.1/2 (2017): 267-276. Reference