A new Virtual Reality Fun Palace by Chhavi Mehta

Behaviour

A NEW VIRTUAL REALITY FUN PALACE Chhavi Mehta

Tutors: Theodore Spyropoulos

Architectural Association School of Architecture London, March 2021

TABLE OF CONTENT 1.

Abstract

Introduction - Fun Palace

Cedric Price - Architecture of Fun Palace

Gordon Pask - Cybernetics in Fun Palace

Game Theory in Fun Palace

Flexibility and Functioning of Fun Palace

Case Studies - Flexibility

7.1 The Shed

7.2 Prada Transformer Pavilion

8. Cyberspace

8.1 About

8.2 Cybernetics and Cyberspace

8.3 Virtual Reality

8.4 Virtual Reality Adaptive Environments

A New Virtual Reality Fun Palace

10. Conclusion 11. Bibliography 12. Image References

Keywords: Fun Palace, Cybernetics,Virtual Reality, Conversation Theory, Interactive, Performative, Adaptive, Flexible, Cyberspace

1. ABSTRACT Cybernetics is the science of communications and control systems in both machines and living things. Fun Palace is one of the most relevant examples of the use of cybernetics in architecture. It aimed to promote an architecture that was adaptive and responsive to the needs of its occupants. This concept of adaptive and flexible spaces has been adopted by many architects ever since. For example, The Shed in New York by Diller Scofidio + Renfro and the Prada Transformer pavilion by OMA and many more. Though these projects can be adaptable, it is only to a certain extent and is limited. The lack of flexibility is due to the physical constraints associated with the real world. This adoption of cybernetic principles to design an environment that responds to the needs of the users and interacts and learns from that can be better achieved not through being physically kinetic and adaptive, but through the use of virtual reality. This would enable it to be more dynamic, flexible, adaptive and interactive, with lesser constraints than the physical world. This essay explores the relationship between the fields of cybernetics and cyberspace and investigates the possibilities that arise when using both together. Through the use of virtual reality, a new model of the Fun Palace could be designed that would be able to not only satisfy the brief set out by the original designers but exceed it. Additionally, the Fun Palace, when designed, was a response to the social, economical and cultural context of postwar London. The context today is very different. It is one of a pandemic, where people are isolated and physically distanced. Today’s Fun Palace would not only bring a local community together but a global one. It would be interactive, dynamic and hold conversations with its occupants. The building and its dynamic features would become performers themselves. They would provide a framework for activity to take place in and help bring the global community together.

2. INTRODUCTION - FUN PALACE The Fun Palace was an innovative leisure center project designed for London. It challenged the conventions of architecture and was designed as a socially interactive, improvisational and performative space that responded to the needs of its occupants. It began as a collaboration between theater producer Joan Littlewood and architect Cedric Price in 1962. They then approached specialists, including cybernetician Gordon Pask and psychiatrist Morris Carstairs amongst others. It was a project at the intersection of architecture, theatre, technology, and cybernetics.1 Fun Palace was designed as a “continuously evolving organism”2 that could be transformed into different programmes and objectives. Different spaces like theatres, restaurants and workshops could be constructed, moved, rearranged or even be scrapped completely.

Figure 1

1 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace: Cedric Price’s experiment in architecture and technology,” Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research 3, 2 (2005). 2 Oliver Wainwright, “Flexibility,” AA Files 76, (2019).

It promoted a responsive and flexible architecture that would adapt to meet the user’s needs. It would self-regulate, and its physical configuration and operations would not only respond to the immediate actions of the users but also anticipate their probable patterns of use and respond accordingly. This was done by employing the principles of Cybernetics and Game Theory simultaneously. Fun Palace provided a framework for human activity to take place in and aimed to bring a community together through recreational and learning activities

3. CEDRIC PRICE ARCHITECTURE OF FUN PALACE Price was known for his interest in architecture of a flexible and ephemeral nature. He was deeply concerned by how architecture can have an impact on its occupants and believed it shouldn’t just be a vessel that contains human activity but also be an enabler and supporter of it.3 Price had a strong affinity towards novel means of exploiting emergent technology and is famously known for saying “Technology Is the Answer, But What Was the Question?”4 He looked at technology as a means to “expose inadequacies in the conventional wisdom of architecture”5 and was keen to explore the potential application of computer-learning systems and artificial intelligence in architecture. This is something he explored through the brief of Fun Palace.6 Price believed the brief of Fun Palace could be satisfied by temporal architecture; one that would allow for various spatial functions and whose spaces could readily transform. Since he approached architecture from the perspective of designing moments in time rather than objects in space, the collective brief set out by Price and Littlewood was more detailed in terms of events than its physicality and there was a shift in focus away from 3 Cedric Price, Cedric Price : the square book, Edition (Wiley-Academy, 2003). 4 Cedric Price, Technology is the Answer, But What Was the Question? (World Microfilms Publications Ltd, 1979), Audio Cassette. 5 Cedric Price, Cedric Price : the square book, Edition (Wiley-Academy, 2003). 6 Cedric Price, Cedric Price : the square book, Edition (Wiley-Academy, 2003).

conventional architecture.7 (Figure 2)

Figure 2

The physical structure was not designed from a spatial perspective, but more as systems that could enable and enhance the interactive, flexible and dynamic nature of the space. It was designed as a scaffold or framework to contain a socially interactive machine. It was designed as a kit of parts that could be assembled by the people themselves. (Figure 3)

Figure 3

7 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006).

Since the concept of Fun Palace was more focused on the methods of interaction, kinetic elements and flexible space, its planning was done more like an algorithm accompanied by a set of diagrams exhibiting kinetic elements than a traditional drawing of architectural spaces .8(Figure 4,5)

Figure 4

Figure 5

8 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006)

4. GORDON PASK CYBERNETICS IN FUN PALACE Cybernetics is “the study of control and communication in goal-driven systems of animals and machines.”9 Pask was one of the early cyberneticians and was one of the first to cross-pollinate with architecture as the lead cybernetician on Fun Palace. Pask believed that architecture interacts with its inhabitants; it serves them but also impacts the way they think and behave. He believed that through cybernetics, by designing intelligent spaces, architects could alter human behaviour and eventually create a social impact.10 This is something he incorporated into the brief of Fun Palace. He believed that the interaction between humans and their environment had a conversational nature. The actions of an occupant had an impact on the environment, which when sensed lead to further modification of actions thus developing a system of conversations between the participants and their environments.11 He called this Conversation Theory, and it was an essential element in Fun Palace. It is through these conversations that architecture can comprehend and respond to participants and learn their behaviour. Through interactions, the occupants and the architecture collectively work towards a shared goal for the environment. These goals are neither static nor predefined by the architect. They evolve based on the needs of the user and learn from the history of interactions and the context of previous responses. Pask referred to these goals as observer-constructed and underspecified. Such goals are critical for the systems to be authentically interactive as definite and predetermined systems can only respond to programmed behaviour predicted by the designer at the time of conception. Underspecified and Observer-constructed goals set up by Pask, because of their nature, were able to respond to novel and unprecedented situations and were capable of developing unique interaction profiles with each participant.12 Through these characteristics, Paskian environments such as Fun Palace are able to respond to complex and unprecedented environments without becoming restrictive or dictatorial.13 9 Usman Haque, “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask,” Architectural Design 4dSocial: Interactive Design Environments 77, 4 (2007): 54. 10 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006). 11 Usman Haque, “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask,” Architectural Design 4dSocial: Interactive Design Environments 77, 4 (2007). 12 Usman Haque, “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask,” Architectural Design 4dSocial: Interactive Design Environments 77, 4 (2007) 13 Usman Haque, “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask,” Architectural Design 4dSocial: Interactive Design Environments 77, 4 (2007): 55.

5. GAME THEORY IN FUN PALACE Cybernetics and Game Theory worked simultaneously to determine the behaviour of Fun Palace. While Cybernetics was used to regulate shortterm behaviour, as a way to generate a response to users activities, Game Theory contributed to the “long-term performative strategies” and thus added a layer of refinement to the predictive process.14 Game Theory took into consideration the interaction of different parameters and regulates the dynamic behaviour of the Fun Palace in the long run. Through the presence of such a control system, Fun Palace could not only respond to the immediate actions of the users but also learn their behaviour, predict their needs and adapt accordingly.15

6. FLEXIBILITY AND FUNCTIONING OF FUN PALACE Fun Palace started being designed as a series of flowcharts of cause and effect along with diagrams that focused on its interactive and dynamic nature. Electronic sensors would collect information that would help architecture respond to the immediate need of the users. This data would also then be computed to establish overall user trends which would set the criteria for additional physical transformation of Fun Palace to meet the predicted needs of its users in the long run. Price & Pask hoped that over time, the building would be able to learn the behaviours of its occupants, predict their needs and adapt for future activities accordingly.16 It was based on this data that the walls, walkways and other kinetic elements would move, thus adapting the space and floorplans of the Fun Palace. Though Fun Palace wasn’t realised for various reasons including political bureaucracy, planning permits, lack of funding and worries about social impact, physical constraints was another one. Even though Fun Palace was nearly physically built, it would not have been as successful as anticipated, mostly because of the presence of physical constraints. 14 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006). 15 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006). 16 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006).

7. CASE STUDIES - FLEXIBILITY 7.1 THE SHED

Figure 6

The shed designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro is inspired by Fun Palace and attempts to materialise a part of its concept.17 Though called “the world’s most flexible arts space”18, is “distinctly inflexible”. At the touch of a button, it is meant to roll back along its tracks to convert a 10 storey performance venue into a big open plaza. (Figure 7,8) Several other moving sections of the structure can be used to transform spaces to allow for different functions. (Figure 9-12) It has been referred to as a ‘smart building’ that is “responsive to the ever-changing needs of artists”.19

Figure 7

Figure 8

17 “The Shed - Diller Scofidio + Renfro,” accessed March 27, 2021, https://dsrny.com/project/ the-shed. 18 Oliver Wainwright, “Flexibility,” AA Files 76, (2019): 78. 19 “ArchDaily,” accessed March 27, 2021, https://www.archdaily.com/914450/the-shed-opens-in-new-yorks-hudson-yards.

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

The kinetic shed has been designed with a steel lattice structure with ETFE pillows to reduce the overall weight and has been optimised to move with the power of just one Toyota Prius. The designers invested a huge amount of time and resources to make this structure kinetic and its space flexible. Yet it is not.20 On the opening day itself, it became clear that the building did not meet expectations in terms of flexibility. The blinds couldn’t be opened because a specialist technician was needed to operate them, the shell couldn’t be rolled because a stage built inside was obstructing its movement and the glass walls couldn’t be opened because they affected the internal climate of the building.21 The physical constraints held the space back from being as flexible and dynamic as it could have been.

Figure 13

20 Oliver Wainwright, “Flexibility,” AA Files 76, (2019). 21 Oliver Wainwright, “Flexibility,” AA Files 76, (2019).

7.2 PRADA TRANSFORMER PAVILION

Figure 14

Figure 15

Prada Transformer Pavilion was a temporary structure designed by OMA and was conceived as a concept of four pavilions into one. The multiple sides of the pavilion were designed in different shapes including circle, cross, hexagon and rectangle. These were then wrapped to form one amorphous pavilion which when flipped onto different sides, performed different functions spatially.22 (Figure 16)

Figure 16

It seems simple as a hypothetical concept, but when introduced to physical constraints, the project fails once again. A group of three cranes was required to lift the structure, flip it and put it back in position. (Figure 17) Once this is done, the interiors have to be reworked to suit the new configuration to enable a new spatial function. Additionally, each floorplan corresponds to a different function like an exhibition, film festival and fashion show.23 But since 22 Oliver Wainwright, “Flexibility,” AA Files 76, (2019). 23 “the Prada Transformer pavilion by OMA,” Costas Voyatzis, accessed March 27, 2021, https:// www.yatzer.com/prada-transformer-pavilion-oma.

each floor plan is associated with a specific function whose space cannot be altered, it is flexible only in a limited sense.

Figure 17

This method of reconfiguring space is neither convenient nor dynamic and the spatial difference achieved through each strenuous transformation (Figure 18) is not distinct enough in itself to afford such an endeavour.

Figure 18

Following Fun Palace, many architects attempted to realise the architectural fantasy of flexible spaces such as The Shed and the Prada Transformer Pavilion. Even with advances in the technology of materials, fabrication, structural engineering and kinetic engineering, authentically flexible space remains unrealised because of physical constraints and even when it is materialised, it is often only in a limited sense and at a great expense.

8. CYBERSPACE 8.1. ABOUT The rise of computing and the internet introduced architecture to new concepts and perceptions of space. Any virtual spatial experience that has been computed can be called cyberspace.24 The instantaneous, spontaneous and dynamic nature of cyberspace can impart to architecture an ephemeral and fast-adaptable nature that allows for real-time spatial flexibility.

8.2 CYBERNETICS AND CYBERSPACE The term cyberspace is derived from cybernetics and can be seen as a theory in the field of architectural cybernetics and as an enabler of it.25 Both areas of research (cybernetics and cyberspace) view architects as system designers and collectively allow for an architecture that is truly intelligent, interactive, dynamic and flexible. A new architecture at the intersection of cyberspace and cybernetics would involve virtual spatial models that would adapt to the users’ needs. Architecture could then be seen as an essential instrument in the interaction between an environment and its inhabitants; it would be a means of both sensing and transmitting information.26

24 John Frazer, “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace,” AD Reader The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992 - 2012, (2013). 25 John Frazer, “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace,” AD Reader The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992 - 2012, (2013). 26 John Frazer, “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace,” AD Reader The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992 - 2012, (2013).

8.3 VIRTUAL REALITY Virtual Reality can be seen as an instrument to visualise this new architecture that emerges from the collective principles of cybernetics and cyberspace. Virtual worlds would not only dissolve any hindrance presented by physical constraints but also allow for more real-time spatial flexibility and dynamic behaviour while reducing the cost, time and resources involved in prototyping and production. The lack of physical constraints allows for more focus to be placed on spatial experiences and more creative freedom in the design of spaces, which can now be more interactive, dynamic and flexible. Additionally, the use of VR not only preserves architecture’s spatial and immersive qualities but also enhances them. The exploitation of virtual reality and cyberspace due to their location independent and decentralised nature can help achieve instantaneous and spontaneous global communication and effective dematerialisation of architecture. It could enable the creation of virtual worlds that could provide “an extra dimension which allows us a new freedom of movement in the natural world.”27 Patrik Schumacher believes that the post-Covid-19 world should be designed as cyberspace; a virtual four-dimensional space for navigation and communication.28

8.4 VIRTUAL REALITY ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTS A combination of Virtual Reality with biosensors is being used to create adaptive environments. This approach has found applications in the mental health sector, especially to treat people with PTSD and anxiety disorders.29 For example, Dream Machine, a virtual reality mental health tool designed by Dr Jamil El Imad involves the use of biosensors like EEG and pulse sensors along with VR headgear. It provides a responsive immersive experience that helps in treating anxiety disorders. Users are immersed into a setting of their choice that is adaptive based on the biofeedback provided by sensors. (Figure 19)The experience starts with a scene concealed by a thick layer of fog which slowly lifts as the users focus and get relaxed.30 (Figure 20-22)

27 John Frazer, “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace,” AD Reader The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992 - 2012, (2013): 49. 28 Patrik Schumacher, “The Future of Architecture - Spontaneous and Virtual,” Economic Times, March 27, 2021. 29 “Virtual Reality, biosensors and the coming self-care revolution,” Jamie Griffiths, accessed March 27, 2021, https://www.thepanoply.com/virtual-reality-biosensors-and-the-coming-self-care-revolution/. 30 “Sweet dreams are made of this: Using virtual reality to improve mental health,” Shreshtha Trivedi, accessed March 27, 2021, https://www.digitalhealth.net/2018/05/using-virtual-reality-to-improve-mental-health/.

The sensors pick up the slowing heart rate, shallower breathing and change in brainwave patterns and adapt the environment accordingly to reward the users for their success in calming down.31 If the users lose focus or get anxious, the fog reappears.32

Figure 19

31 “Dream machines: how IT is changing the world of neuroscience,” Alex Scroxton, accessed March 27, 2021, https://www.computerweekly.com/news/450433322/Dream-machines-how-IT-is-changing-the-world-of-neuroscience. 32 “Training your brain to relax on a virtual island,” Michael Dempsey, accessed March 27, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53245567.

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

This can be seen in a more developed sense in the INTREPID project. It employs Virtual Reality simulations to facilitate emotion regulation in people with anxiety disorders. This is done by encouraging relaxation techniques by making the patients aware of their physiological parameters and rewarding them in real-time for relaxing. Here, biofeedback is associated with specific modifications in the virtual environment. For example, the more relaxed a person is, the less intense the waterfall will be and the more anxious the user is, the more extreme the fire will be (Figure 23-25).33

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

33 Claudia Repetto, Alessandra Gorini, Cinzia Vigna, Davide Algeri, Federica Pallavicini & Giuseppe Riva, “The Use of Biofeedback in Clinical Virtual Reality: The Intrepid Project,” Journal of Visualized Experiments, (2009).

9. A NEW VIRTUAL REALITY FUN PALACE Since one of the main reasons Fun Palace was never realised was the complexity provided by physical constraints, as can be seen in the Shed and Prada Transformer Pavilion, the adoption of VR technology would be the best way of materializing it. Price always believed in the potential of technology to fill the gaps that architecture creates, such as that of physical constraints. Even when designing Fun Palace in the 1960s, Price did not turn to traditional architecture. Instead, he turned to emerging theories and technologies that he had at his disposal, including cybernetics, game theory and information technology. Additionally, both Littlewood and Price, seem to move away from the idea of permanent structures. Instead, Price approaches the design of fun palace from the perspective of designing moments in time rather than objects in space.34 Thus the brief of Fun Palace is clearly more suited for execution through Virtual Reality.By employing VR, the new Fun Palace would not only meet the requirements of the brief set out by Price and Littlewood, but also exceed it. The use of VR would allow for more instantaneous and greater flexibility than anticipated. For instance, Fun Palace was to have a system that would allocate spaces and resources based on the projected needs of an event. A popular event would be allocated a large amount of space which would shrink once it was over. This would be done through moving walls and altering the partitioning of space and would take time, energy and effort. But in VR, this could be done instantaneously, without any human effort or technical constraints. Ranulph Glanville believes that the role of architects is to design “frameworks for others to design with”35. This can be seen in Fun Palace where there is a clear displacement of control from the architect to the users and control systems. The architect designed a system involving a kit of parts including cranes and prefabricated modules that people could use to assemble their environments. Irrespective of how well designed the parts are to make assembly foolproof, it is still a technical and cumbersome process; it is not something that comes naturally to most people. The assembly and transformation of Fun Palace wouldn’t have been as seamless and efficient 34 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006) 35 Ben Sweeting, “Cybernetics and Spatial Experience” (paper presented at Acting Cybernetically: 2019 Annual Conference of the American Society for Cybernetics, Vancouver, June, 2019, https:// research.brighton.ac.uk/en/activities/cybernetics-and-spatial-experience).

as anticipated. Comparatively, most people today have enough experience with video games and computers to be able to customise environments in VR. The new Fun Palace would allow for greater customisation of the environment with minimal effort, resources and time. Fun Palace, when designed, was a response to the social, economic and cultural context of postwar London. But, the context today is very different. It is one of a pandemic, where people are isolated and physically distanced. People working remotely are getting exhausted of their surroundings and are struggling to interact with others to work and learn collaboratively. The new Fun Palace would provide a virtual spatial platform for the different social functions specified in the original brief with an added advantage of being more interactive, responsive and flexible. Because of the location independent and dematerialised nature of virtual reality and cyberspace, the new Fun Palace would not only bring a local community together but also a global one. Fun Palace was meant to be means of escape for Londoners living monotonous lives. As a way of engaging them and providing a creative outlet, along with the goal of personal development.36 Through the use of VR, the feeling of escapism can be enhanced further by stimulating environments and user experiences that wouldn’t be possible in the physical world. For instance, by designing experiences like flying through space or sitting in the galaxy. Littlewood aspired for Fun Palace to have a theatrical aspect to it. It would be a theatre of performativity where people would experience events not as audience but as players themselves. This was achieved through responsive spaces and by displacing control of the architectural space to users. Physical transformation of the building would be limited, constrained by technicality and slow. Whereas through VR, environments can be instantaneously interactive, responsive or transformed as can be seen in Dream Machine and INTREPID. Thus enhancing the performative characteristics of Fun Palace. Since the immersiveness provided by Virtual Reality is often more stimulating than the natural world, there is no better way to immerse a person into an environment and give them the control to adapt it in a dynamic way. Cybernetic theorist Roy Ascott proposed an ‘identity bar’ for Fun Palace which would provide paper clothing and allow users to adopt non-identical social personas or gender roles. He believed this would satisfy the human need to 36 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006)

exhibit themselves without prohibitions through concealing their real identity.37 This concept of identity shifting and role playing can be seen in VR platforms today through the use of avataars. You can choose to reveal or conceal as much of your identity as you choose in the virtual world.

10. CONCLUSION Even though Fun Palace was very nearly physically built, it may not have been as successful as anticipated because of the presence of physical constraints. But now, with innovations in technology and computation, along with developments in cyberspace and cybernetics, a new Virtual Reality Fun Palace could be developed which would not only satisfy the brief set up by Price and Littlewood, but exceed it in every way. It would be more dynamic, flexible, interactive and responsive. Additionally it would also be more cost efficient, sustainable, efficient and bring together a global community in a time where everyone is isolated. An environment doesn’t necessarily have to be physical. An adaptive, dynamic and interactive environment that is ephemeral and in a constant state of change is only held back by the presence of physical constraints. The concept of Fun Palace seems better suited to the virtual reality world. Additionally, a new Fun Palace through virtual reality would be able respond to today’s climate of covid 19 and isolation. It would act as a way of bringing a community together in a virtual space while they are physically distanced; providing them with a platform to socialise and learn collaboratively; it would provide a framework for activity. The virtual Fun Palace would be an environment that acts as an instrument to encourage interaction between its occupants and itself interact with them and adapt to meet their needs.

37 Stanley Mathews, “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy,” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006)

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• “ArchDaily.” Accessed March 27, 2021. https://www.archdaily. com/914450/the-shed-opens-in-new-yorks-hudson-yards. • Ben Sweeting. “Cybernetics and Spatial Experience.” Paper presented at Acting Cybernetically: 2019 Annual Conference of the American Society for Cybernetics, Vancouver, June, 2019. https://research.brighton. ac.uk/en/activities/cybernetics-and-spatial-experience. • Cedric Price. Cedric Price : the square book. Edition. Wiley-Academy, 2003. • Cedric Price. Technology is the Answer, But What Was the Question?. World Microfilms Publications Ltd, 1979. Audio Cassette. • Claudia Repetto, Alessandra Gorini, Cinzia Vigna, Davide Algeri, Federica Pallavicini & Giuseppe Riva. “The Use of Biofeedback in Clinical Virtual Reality: The Intrepid Project.” Journal of Visualized Experiments, (2009). • Dempsey, Michael. “Training your brain to relax on a virtual island.” Accessed March 27, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/ business-53245567. • Frazer, John. “The Architectural Relevance of Cyberspace.” AD Reader The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992 - 2012, (2012): 48-52. • Griffiths, Jamie. “Virtual Reality, biosensors and the coming self-care revolution.” Accessed March 27, 2021. https://www.thepanoply.com/ virtual-reality-biosensors-and-the-coming-self-care-revolution/. • Haque, Usman. “The Architectural Relevance of Gordon Pask.” Architectural Design 4dSocial: Interactive Design Environments 77, 4 (2007): 54-61. • Mathews, Stanley. “The Fun Palace as Virtual Architecture: Cedric Price and the Practices of Indeterminacy.” Journal of Architectural Education 59, 3 (2006): 39-48. • Mathews, Stanley. “The Fun Palace: Cedric Price’s experiment in architecture and technology.” Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research 3, 2 (2005): 73-91. • Patrik Schumacher. “The Future of Architecture - Spontaneous and Virtual.” Economic Times, accessed March 27, 2021, https://www. academia.edu/43367290/The_Future_of_Architecture_Spontaneous_ and_Virtual. • Scroxton, Alex. “Dream machines: how IT is changing the world of neuroscience.” Accessed March 27, 2021. https://www. computerweekly.com/news/450433322/Dream-machines-how-IT-ischanging-the-world-of-neuroscience. • “The Shed - Diller Scofidio + Renfro.” Accessed March 27, 2021. https://dsrny.com/project/the-shed. • Trivedi, Shreshtha. “Sweet dreams are made of this: Using virtual reality to improve mental health.” Accessed March 27, 2021. https://www. digitalhealth.net/2018/05/using-virtual-reality-to-improve-mentalhealth/. • Voyatzis, Costas. “the Prada Transformer pavilion by OMA.” Accessed March 27, 2021. https://www.yatzer.com/prada-transformer-pavilionoma. • Wainwright, Oliver. “Flexibility.” AA Files 76, (2019): 76-82.

12. IMAGE REFERENCES 12. Image References Figure 1: Cedric Price. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/ object/400588 Figure 2: Cedric Price. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/ object/309684 Figure 3: Cedric Price. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/ object/309687 Figure 4: Gordon Pask. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/ collection/object/378820 Figure 5: Cedric Price. https://www.cca.qc.ca/en/search/details/collection/ object/309747 Figure 6: Iwan Baan. https://www.archdaily.com/914450/the-shedopens-in-new-yorks-hudson-yards/5ca65e0a284dd1e4330000c2-theshed-opens-in-new-yorks-hudson-yards-photo Figure 7: Diller Scofidio + Renfro. Screenshot from https://vimeo. com/295117052 Figure 8: Diller Scofidio + Renfro. Screenshot from https://vimeo. com/295117052 Figure 9: Diller Scofidio + Renfro. Screenshot from https://vimeo. com/295117052 Figure 10: Diller Scofidio + Renfro. Screenshot from https://vimeo. com/295117052 Figure 11: Diller Scofidio + Renfro. Screenshot from https://vimeo. com/295117052 Figure 12: Diller Scofidio + Renfro. Screenshot from https://vimeo. com/295117052 Figure 13: Iwan Baan. https://dsrny.com/project/the-shed

Figure 14: Iwan Baan. https://www.archdaily.com/500362/5-years-latera-look-back-on-oma-s-prada-transformer/53571e97c07a804da90001 6f-5-years-later-a-look-back-on-oma-s-prada-transformer-photo?next_ project=no Figure 15: Iwan Baan. https://www.archdaily.com/500362/5-years-latera-look-back-on-oma-s-prada-transformer/5359cc76c07a808d140000 4a-5-years-later-a-look-back-on-oma-s-prada-transformer-photo Figure 16: OMA. https://www.archdaily.com/500362/5-years-later-alook-back-on-oma-s-prada-transformer/5359cff4c07a808d1400004e5-years-later-a-look-back-on-oma-s-prada-transformer-photo Figure 17: Prada. https://oma.eu/projects/prada-transformer Figure 18: Prada. https://www.prada.com/ww/en/pradasphere/ events/2009/prada-transformer.html Figure 19: Jamil El-Imad. Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ayU44AWDgJ4 Figure 20: Jamil El-Imad. Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ayU44AWDgJ4 Figure 21: Jamil El-Imad. Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ayU44AWDgJ4 Figure 22: Jamil El-Imad. Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ayU44AWDgJ4 Figure 23: Unknown Author. Screenshot from video https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144562/ Figure 24: Unknown Author. Screenshot from video https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144562/ Figure 25: Unknown Author. Screenshot from video https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144562/