MArch dissertation - The interactive architecture for the Modern Society

The Interactive Architecture for the Modern Society

Is technology the vital part in this community building process?

Juliette Sung MArch Dissertation Tutor: Chengzhi Peng

ABSTRACT

People in the modern society are so used to communicating through digital media that it is an intrinsic part of the modern lifestyle. We probably have more than a hundred friends on social media but how often do we meet them in person? And how often do we or our friends tend to change the attendance of the meeting on the very same day? Or even right at the meeting time?

Technology has achieved such a success in improving the convenience and efficiency of our lives, which ironically is in effect distancing people, rather than constructing more intimate relationships.

People shape architecture and architecture shapes us, similar thought to Edward in The Hidden Dimension; ‘…how people are feeling toward each other at the time is a decisive factor in the distance used.’ 1 In order to cope with the rapid dynamism in the modern society, interactive architecture is suggested to respond to our contemporary lifestyle. This then begs the question, can interactive architecture, besides being a high-tech gimmick, actually reconnect people inside a community?

More importantly, is technology the vital part in this community building process?

This research examines the potential of architecture induced interactions as a means to improve human relationships.

1

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.108

Fig 0.1

The “Humachinery”, the installation for the experiment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank: My tutor Chengzhi Pang for his support and advice with this dissertation.

Stuart and Laura from the George Porter workshop at the University of Sheffield, for providing me such useful advices on the design of the installation.

Elaine, Dou and Sheng for helping me on the design of the computational programming on the installation.

Maggie and Mark from DOMAT for giving me such a precious opportunity of the trip to Yunnan, China.

My family and friends for their encouragement and support.

Fig 0.2

The digital dialogue at the installation

Introduction I. The history of Interactive Architecture a. b. c. d.

13

1960s 1980s 2000s 2010s

II. Existing Theories a.

Sociological reasons for people indifference in interaction i.

Traditional Societies ii.

Modern Societies

b.

Physical Interaction Theory i.

The importance of physical interfere ii.

The social problem in the current modern society

III. Personal Observations in FangNiuCang Village

23

39

CONTENTS

IV. Experiment a.

Apparatus

b.

Procedure i.

Trial ii.

Experiment 1 iii. Experiment 2 iv.

Experiment 3 v.

Experiment 4

c.

Uncertainties

d.

Predictions

e.

Results

f.

Analysis of Results

47

V. Evaluation

95

VI. Author’s reflection

97

VII. Conclusions

99

Illustration credits Bibliography Appendices

INTRODUCTION

Architecture creates places for people to survive, to live and more importantly, to fully enjoy life.

Architecture outlived human history, its very first existence was coarsely modelled by natural forces, crafted by wind and water into marvellous structures. Natural caves, considered as man’s earliest shelters, may turn out to be his last. Currently, they were chosen with great foresight as depositories for our most valuable artefacts, the business and government files. Public space is becoming more populated by “grey panthers” – theme parks, museums, holiday resorts – while schools are closing down because of the lack of younger generation. The distribution of power, freedom, responsibility, enjoyment, wealth and burdens is intensifying tensions. The young and old generations do not hold each other in great esteem and, because of their difference in perspective and values, they have little faith in one another. The new young bosses do not appreciate having some old-fashioned know-it-all members in their team who are reluctant to change and innovations. Well-established citizens cannot appreciate the lifestyle and perspective of their young neighbours, whom they perceive as materialistic and selfish. This topic has always been familiar to us from the debate surrounding multicultural societies: Interaction, exchange, networking, and the development of mutual dependencies rather than segregation are all important for the constructive coexistence of different groups within a limited space. Care is becoming increasingly expensive whereas the social connection needs to be strengthened.

In recent years in modern societies, we applied many audacious “old- fashioned” solutions in response to our cumbersome technology. Bernard Rudofsky mentioned in Architecture without Architects, ‘Many features invented are originally existed in vernacular architecture, such as the standardization of building components.’2 People in modern societies are often considered as the urban dweller, who would escape to a hideaway from his physical and mental deterioration by searching the definition of primitive surroundings: villages, mountains and maybe a tent in a countryside. Despite his crave for mechanical or electrical comfort, his opportunities for real relaxation in natural environment is very limited. Life in traditional communities is singularly privileged when the separation between a man’s workplace and living space is just few steps away.

On the other hand, the increasing demand generated from the modern societies has provoked the desire of the developers. Despite the confinement of the growth in community by the developers, the balance is actually matched with their understanding of the limits of architecture itself. They rarely consider providing profit and experience to the general welfare but obtaining financial profit for their own luxury privacy and enjoyment. Having the similar thought to a famous philosopher, Huizinga, ‘The expectation that every new discovery or refinement of existing means must contain the promise of higher values or greater happiness is an extremely naïve thought… It is not in the least paradoxical to say that a culture may founder on real and tangible progress.’3

2 3

Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture without Architects, New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc.,1967, p.3-6.

Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture without Architects, New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc.,1967, p.8-10.

According to the philosophy and the current presentations of the developers, there is the largest inaugural architectural inspirations for industrial man. Beyond the economic and aesthetic considerations on the future development, we should reconsider the increasingly troublesome problem of how to live in harmony between neighbours. Architecture should be spaces that create happiness and unity between people.

In terms of the interaction between people, the invention of internet, computer, gadgets and smartphones are developed since the 20th century. Technology transformed our society into a more connectable and efficient world. There are several local governments teaming up with technology companies to make their cities ‘smarter’ turning them into real-life experiments. Citizen initiatives all over the world have started to emerge bottom-up around numerous issues, from collective neighbourhood gardens to energy cooperations. Those personalized services such as Google Maps, local restaurant review sites and sporting apps possibly provoke a shift towards a more individualistic experience of the city. However, according to Susan in Forbes, she suggested that people nowadays seems to be over-dependent on technologies, lacking the basic urge of having physical interaction with each other.4 It affects the behaviour of people and gradually changing the culture of the societies. When things are in a more approachable distance, people ironically tend to give in less attention.

The author believes that architecture is a communal art that is produced by the spontaneous and continuing activity of a group of people with a common heritage. As Bernard Rudofsky mentioned in Architecture Without Architects, ‘Traditional cities were designed and built by everyday people, working together as communities to respond to local challenges using local materials.’5 The creators of the internet contained the similar kind of thinking in the design of recent new form of technologies, suggested in Smart Cities, ‘We have all built the Internet together. It is probably the most participatory construction project in human history.’6 But construction takes time, which is in short supply for those tackling the world’s urgent urban and social problems. Climate change marches on in its complex dance with urbanization, lack of resources, economic and political struggle in between nations.

4 5 6

Forbes contributor, Susan Tardanico, “Is Social Media Sabotaging Real Communication?” Forbes, Apirl 30, 2012, Rudofsky, B., Architecture without Architects, New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc.,1967,p.7-8.

Townsend, A. M., Smart Cities: Big data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia, New York, W.W. Norton & company, Inc., 2014,p.112

The aim for this dissertation is to explore the definition of “interaction” in architecture. Study is first carried out on the evolution of “interaction” in the history of architecture, while modern day “interaction” existed mainly in the virtual world of smart phones and internet. Afterwards, the author will review at the definition of “interaction” in the comparison between the traditional and modern societies. This includes an overview at the changes of the social behaviour in “interaction”.

This will be conducted with the reference of architecture, social order and personal live project experience in China. Last but not least, a participatory experiment is performed in Sheffield.

It consists of an interactive device which is designed and installed in a public space, acting as a metaphor of interactive architecture. This experiment will be testing the behaviour and awareness of people in comparison between the world with technologies and the world without it, to examine the effectiveness of hardware in interactive architecture.

I. THE HISTORY OF INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE

Part 1 of this dissertation presents a brief history of interactive architecture, providing readers some background understanding about the development of interactive architecture. It will be divided into the following chapters in chronological order.

Fig 0.3

The 1970 experiment SEEK by the Architecture Machine Group. Photo from the catalog of the exhibition SOFTWARE at the New York Jewish Museum.

13

The captions are translated from Dutch and abbreviated from their appearance in The Responsive House, edited by Edward Allen (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1974) “Nowadays man lives in an unnatural relationship with his domicile. This artificiality becomes apparent when we know whcih types of natural relationships exist. There are six natural types of relationships. The seventh form of relationship brings into being non-homes.”

1 “The first... is the simplest; the occupant builds his own house with his own hands.”

2 “The second type of individual relationship is that in which the craftsman... offers his services.

This relationship was very often responsible for housing in western history.”

3 “The third type of individual relationship is that in which the architect acts as intermediary between occupant and craftsman... There are very few who can afford this type of relationship...”

4 “The first collective type of relationship is that in which the community builds collectively the houses it needs, and does this without delegating the labor to craftsmen.”

5 “The second collective type differs only by the delegation of some or all tasks to craftsmen.”

6 “The third collective relationship is that in which the community and craftsmen do the actual building. The architect acts as the specialized intermediary.”

7 “The seventh relationship is a nonrelationship.

None of the previous types of relationship are found in mass production building. This seventh type is characterized by the fact that the occupants really take no part in it. They are unknown during the process of decision which leads to the production of dwellings.”

“It is for this reason that in the last diagram nothing reaches the architect from the group of the ‘anonymous multitude’ of people. The architect is commissioned by another specialist who is no more the occupant than he is.”

Fig 0.4

14

The different forms of relationship

THE HISTORY OF INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE 1960s Back in the late 1960s, the first concept of an adaptive, responsive architecture was developed, primarily as a result of developments in cybernetics and information technologies. For example, the Walking City hypothetical project by Ron Herron in 1964, imagining cities as giant mobile, transformable robotic structure that are movable to wherever there are resources available.7 Moreover in 1975, Nicholas Negroponte suggested that, ‘buildings could perform better when computer power is integrated, transforming buildings into “architecture machines” that are ‘augmented’, or even ‘replicated’ by a computer.’8 Nicholas stated that the “architecture machines” must have their own artificial intelligence that its mechanism must recognize and understand the context before operating the application. He said using set of sensors, coding and processors in the “architecture machines” is necessary to make them adaptable in the changes in context and surrounding. He predicted that the architecture in the future is more than just a static physical built environment but instead the people will live and evolve in them; ‘An environmental humanism might only be attainable in cooperation with machines that have been thought to be inhuman devices but in fact are devices that can respond intelligently to the tiny, individual, constantly changing bits of information that reflect the identity of each urbanite as well as the coherence of the city.’9

7 8 9

Negroponte, Nicholas, Soft Architecture Machines, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1975 Negroponte, Nicholas, The Architecture Machine, Cambridge, MA:MIT Pres,1972 Negroponte, Nicholas, The Architecture Machine, Cambridge, MA:MIT Pres,1972, p. 5

15

Fig 0.5

The interior of the Institut Du Monde Arabe, 1987, Paris by Jean Nouvel

16

THE HISTORY OF INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE 1980s Afterwards, catching a greater attention to energy demands and materials’ properties, architects and engineers started to turn the focus towards harvesting energy from the environment. They began to incorporate electronically manually, such as automatically controlling shading and ventilation systems into building envelopes. The building envelope is then become the locus of technological innovation in the late 1990s, such as the Institut du Monde Arabe by Jean Nouvel, being the first significant, large-scale building to have an adaptive, responsive façade.10 Since then, adaptive, kinetic or dynamic facades, and high-performance building envelopes become more popular in present architecture practices. It brings revolutionary changes into the architectural world, allowing fantasy to float alongside imagination and produce unique results.

10

Branko K. & Vera P., Building Dynamics: Exploring Architecture of Change, Routledge, New York, 2015, p. 4

17

Fig 0.6

Fig 0.7

18

Grey Lynn FORM

Sectional Drawings of the RV at Grey Lynn FORM

THE HISTORY OF INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE 2000s As the time goes by, the demand of energy supply and living resources is increasing. In the 2000s, the notions of adaptivity and responsiveness are not restricted to building envelopes only. The interest in dynamic structures in architecture is getting more significant. Buildings are designed to be able to alter their overall shape and internal configuration. They can reshape according to the environmental conditions and different use arrangements. As proposed by OMA in 2006, the large office building in Dubai is designed in response to the sun orientation. The building itself could reorient by rotation so that it always exposes the smallest surface area towards the sun.11 Another example by Greg Lynn, his RV Prototype House that consists of a small footprint area with just 60m2 but a usable 150m2 surface area. The house can be rotated around two axes on a robotic base, so that the wall and ceiling will be turned to floor surfaces. ‘Dwelling challenges the sedentary typologies of a home and introduces a new one based on movement and interaction.’ Grey said.12

11 12

OMA, Design competition: Dubai Renaissance, Dubai 2006, see http://oma.eu/projects/dubai-renaissance RV Prototype House, see http://glform.com/buildings/rv-room-vehicle-house-prototype/.

19

20

Fig 0.8

Living Room House

Fig 0.9

Living Room House

THE HISTORY OF INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE 2010s In response to the rapid development and dynamic changes in the modern societies, argued by Robert Kronenburg, saying a building needs to be “flexible”, that must be capable of adaptation, transformation, mobility and interaction, both internally and externally of the building.13 The “intelligent” building systems are then controlled by many different factors, ranged from environmental ones to the alteration of the building’s appearance, such as the control of energy use or varying patterns on the façade.

In 2011, the Living Room House in Gelnhausen in Germany, designed by Formalhaut, consists a bedroom that can be moved out from the main building’s body and became cantilever over the street below, acting similar to the mechanism of a drawer.14

13 14

Kronenbug, Robert, Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, London: Laurence King Publishing, 2007 See http://www.buildingcentre.co.uk/adaptivearchitecture/adaptive.html

21

Fig 1.0

The chart showing interplay of the distant and Immediate receptors in Proxemic Perception

22

II. EXISTING THEORIES

Part 2 of this dissertation analyses the theories of sociologist Paul Kecskemeti and anthropologist Edward T. Hall. The first chapter analyses Paul’s theories suggesting on the definition of both Static Societies and Dynamic Societies. The second chapter will focus on the theories of Edward about the important of interaction’ dimension between inhabitants and environment. The final chapter will evaluate the current social issues on the interaction of inhabitants, in regards with the information gathered through the articles and readers’ reviews in their fields.

23

24

EXISTING THEORIES a. SOCIOLOGICAL REASONS FOR PEOPLE INDIFFERENCE IN INTERACTION Traditional Societies American Sociologist Paul Keckemeti was concerned with the development of society and reflected his view of megalopolis. He suggested the definition of static society and dynamic society, reflecting his opinion on the balance between ‘tradition’ and ‘individualism’. He proposed that the development and planning towards a rational world should not be just focusing on dynamism, yet should be a synthesis of dynamism, traditionalism, and charisma.

In Static and Dynamic Society, according to his own interpretation, he stated that static society is a type of society that static man experiences little or no changes from one generation to another.

It is simple and non-literate. Static man lives in a static and changeless environment. His life is governed by tradition, when his production techniques, his beliefs, his social arrangements, the authorities he acknowledges, are all traditional. Static man abhors innovation and has no endowment for it. Each generation’s life in the static world is a replica of its predecessor’s and these kinds of societies remained so far thousands of years.

Paul suggested that static society is controlled by the traditional encoding, whereas is dominated and supplemented by institutional; ‘Both in the application of his intelligence and in the exercise of his will, he follows collective patterns. He thinks what he has been taught to think; he does what the group, or the dominant authorities of the group, expect him to do.’ 15 The traditional type of man appears unaware of the surrounding changes but objectively picked it up on his mind. He sustains the traditions, yet as we found it out from a second or third person view, the traditions change gradually alongside with the time. Traditions are repeated practices that have gone through higher and higher stages of elaboration or else will be disintegrated.

Besides indigenous evolution or decay, interaction in the traditional society will alter the cultures themselves. They are seen as constantly influencing each other by interaction, such as stories exchanging, observations and man visiting. Interaction causes influence to alter the elements of traditional cultures. ‘“Influence”, as an explanatory category, is a deterministic one. The concept is taken from astrology: ‘It refers to an active agent producing an irresistible and inescapable effect upon a passive one. The “influence” relationship excludes rational choice and deliberation. Thus it can be a vehicle of change in the “static” world as viewed from Megalopolis.’16

15 16

Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966, p.7 Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966, p.6

25

There are several criteria that illustrates the definition of traditional society; political, social and ritual. Politically in the static form of social organisation, the traditional encoding is free from laws and regulations as the traditional man must be proud of himself being the transmitter of the code, suggested by Paul; ‘Traditional encoding is essentially conflictless. The learner of the traditional skill is fully motivated to acquire it.’17 In terms of social aspect, suggested that the traditional encoding takes place within physical interaction, happen when traditional men are interfering in- person. It has also a socializing function that creates intimacy in between the participants during the process, explained by Paul; ‘Traditional encoding has a socializing function intimately connected with its skill- transmitting function.’18 Since these traditional transmitter of the codes are initially acquired the dignity to be the one, himself and the corporate groups should obtain in-group solidarity and loyalty.

Paul stated that the interaction in the static society, more specifically, the traditional encoding would not create a repetitive, robotic-like kind of behaviour patterns, except for the rituals encoding. The communication and production techniques, as in language, craftwork, are required to apply in creative and autonomous fashion.

‘The traditional code of language regulates speech but this does not render speaking a stereotyped, habitual activity.’19 In summary, the practices in the traditional society, either “ritual” or “technical” are incorporated into personal behaviour, the “natural” way of doing things. It is always a surprise to discover a new invention and belief, in both traditional and modern society. For example, you will find it amusing when you realise one of the members in your group that speaks another language that you do not understand. Interaction in traditional societies is mainly depended on the innate way, “natural” way of communication, always required to have face-to-face contact in interaction, often no technological support is needed.

17, 18 19

Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966 p.18 Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966, p.19

26

EXISTING THEORIES a. SOCIOLOGICAL REASONS FOR PEOPLE INDIFFERENCE IN INTERACTION Modern Societies In contrast to the traditional societies, “dynamic” man is often situated in a non-stop transforming living environment, commonly being stated as the modern western man. Modern man explores the world with curiosity in mind, described in Static and Dynamic Society; ‘Modern western man understands himself as a dynamic being, restlessly engaged upon transforming his environment, improving his conditions of existence, recasting his thinking about reality in novel terms.’ 20 Paul stated that, despite the individuality and freedom that a dynamic man can achieve in through the dynamism in the dynamic society, he will feel the happiness when he visits the traditional society, the “static” world. However, in the process of dynamism and progression, modern man will always look for a higher value on knowledge, discovery and individuality. He keeps going forward to a higher place, from the rural to the urban environment.

‘He must take the drawbacks of the “higher” mode of existence insecurity, conflict, frustration, disorientation, in stride. There is no turning back.’ 21 In terms of “individuality” and “freedom” in the modern society, it is clear to overview the dynamism of the current Megalopolis by reviewing the independency and autonomy of individuals.

Yet, the reality of the Megalopolis is actually not providing a full “individuality” nor “freedom” to the dynamic man in the dynamic societies. Due to the political, environmental and sociological conflicts in between each “dynamic” man, the more an individual has explored and criticised upon the given facts, the more he will take everything as granted.

‘And the more they swear upon critical, scientific fact-finding as the only road to truth, the more dependent will they be, the less will they be able to exercise their own intelligence autonomously.’22 Comparing to the commonly-seen traditional encoding in the static societies, traditional encoding is only found through the realm of language in the dynamic societies, claimed by Paul; ‘In modern urban culture, pervasive, fully traditional encoding is found only in the realm of language.’ 23

20 21 22 23

Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966, p.3 Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966, p.5 Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966,p.11 Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966,p.21

27

The traditional man is required to acknowledge will all production skills in the primitive societies, while the modern man in the modern urban society is being trained to be specialized on one “job”, the one he decided and studied. It requires non-traditional and institutionalized modes of encoding, in the process of dealing with different kinds of “apparatus”, such as computers and machinery, explained by Paul; ‘Productive activities in modern dynamic society are differentiated from those of static societies, not so much by specialization and division of labour as by the tendency of traditionally encoded production techniques (crafts, lores) to disappear.’24 Additionally, Paul suggested that the “dynamic” man in the modern world should not try too hard, because he might lose the sense of identity and the feeling of being home, his capacity for admiration. He said the urge and uncertainties in the dynamic world is inevitable. The development and breakthrough to dynamism in the 20th century was already claimed as perfectible and was complicated enough for dynamic individuals to handle relations among human beings through interaction.

Yet, we are now in the 21st century, are we on the right track on the development of civilization?

Are we actually creating more problems to ourselves? We often forgot the purpose of living when technology is built beyond our need.

‘Perhaps this goal is utopian beyond realization.’25, suggested by Paul.

24 25

Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966, p.22 Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966, p.37

28

Fig 1.1

29

The mix use of architecture styles in FangNiuCang village

EXISTING THEORIES b. PHYSICAL INTERACTION THEORY The importance of physical interfere ‘…we can never be aware of the world as such, but only of… the impingement of physical forces on the sensory receptors.’26 ‘Study of the ingenious adaptations displayed in the anatomy, physiology, and behaviour of animals leads to the familiar conclusion that each has evolved to suit life in its particular corner of the world…each animal also inhabits a private subjective world that is not accessible to direct observation. This world is made up of information communicated to the creature from the outside in the form of messages picked up by its sense organs.’27 In The Hidden Dimension, Edward proposed that the above two statements stated the importance of how human beings’ receptors be able to construct a varied perceptual worlds. The statements have also emphasized that the differences in these perceptual worlds cannot be neglected. He accentuates the logic of the understanding of man, one needs to know the nature of his receptor systems and how culture can modify the receptors. There are two categories of man’s sensory apparatus: 1.

The distance receptors – those concerned with examination of distant objects – the eyes, the ears, and the nose.

2.

The immediate receptors – those used to examine the world close up – the world of touch, the sensations we receive from the skin, membranes, and muscles.

The physical interaction between inhabitants consist of a wide range of sensory dimensions, ranged from the sight, to sound, to smell and to touch. Edward claimed that there is a general relationship between the evolutionary age of the receptor system with the quality and quantity of information conveying to the central nervous system, when physical reaction; touch and tactile are as old as life itself, then the sight came to the last and most specialized sense in the development in men.

He also suggested that stereoscopic vision of life experience is necessary in the evolutionary life of human beings; ‘Stereoscopic vision is essential in arboreal life. Without it, jumping from branch to branch becomes very precarious.’28

26 27 28

KilPatrick, F.P. Explorations in Transactional Psychology, New York: New York University Press, 1961 Lissman, H.W. “Electric Location by Fishes.” Scientific American, Vol. 208, No.3 (March 1963), London: Freeman, 1963 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.40

31

During the years of rapid discoveries and development, the desire of enrichment on sensory dimensions has been further emphasized. For example the invention of television, replacing the one-sensed apparatus, radio. Furthermore, the instruments with refined techniques for extending man’s senses create a great difference in the quality of the outputs of vision and sound. When the inputting senses are being altered to the original, man needs longer time and extra knowledge to reinterpret by the brain, explained by Edward; ‘The type and complexity of the instruments used to extend the eye and the ear indicate the amount of information handled by the two systems.’29 In terms of the physical interaction, the tactile space in between, Edward stated that the senses of touch and visual spatial experience are totally interrelated with each other that they cannot be divided.

‘Think for a moment how young children and infants reach, grasp, fondle, and mouth everything, and how many years are required to train children to subordinate the world of touch to the visual world.’30 The interaction with multiple senses give man different sensory of experience, in which it engraves a more remarkable memory on man’s mind. The psychologist, James Gibson, stated that if we use two ways for receiving information in which the subject itself automatically exploring with both senses, naturally creating the sense impressions in between. Moreover, the writer in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Michael Balint, proposed that there are two different perceptual worlds. The first one is one sight oriented, the other is touch oriented. He stated that the touch oriented is more direct and friendlier than the other one. He also says the sight oriented world, which is the virtual space, is still friendly but is occupied with danger and unpredictable things.

‘Touch and visual spatial experiences are so interwoven that the two cannot be separated.’31

29 30,31

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.41 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966

32

EXISTING THEORIES b. PHYSICAL INTERACTION THEORY

The relationship between man to his living environment is depended on his sensory apparatus, also is related to how this apparatus trigger to react upon. Edward mentioned that people nowadays are unconscious of their own self. He stated, ‘the life one leads, the minute –to minute process of existence – is constructed from the bits and pieces of sensory feedback in a largely manufactured environment.’32 Take America as an example, quite significantly that our urban spaces nowadays provide not much excitement or visual variation. It is important to create opportunity for public to build a kinaesthetic repertoire of spatial experiences. Due to the lack of consideration on the public space, more and more people are appeared as kinaesthetically deprived. Furthermore, the design of car, the automobile is actually creating the development of alienation for both the human body and the environment. We are creating items to make our life more convenient, yet maybe making it more complicated? The more sensory inputs to the man’s sensory capacities, the greater changes made on the emotional feedback to the individual, in respond to his personal nature from the environment.

‘Man can be viewed as having visual, kinaesthetic, tactile, and thermal aspects of his self which may be either inhibited or encouraged to develop by his environment,’33 stated by Edward.

32 33

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966

33

EXISTING THEORIES b. PHYSICAL INTERACTION THEORY The social problem in the current modern society According to the fact written in the Building Dynamics: Exploring Architecture of change, the world is going through dramatic social, economic and environmental change. In 1995, there were 16 million Internet users, equivalent to 0.4 percent of the world’s total population. By 2012, the number of internet users reached to nearly 2.5 billion, increased from 0.4 to 35 percent in 17 years.34 The striking change has brought in the world a wider web with faster transportation and global markets, resulting in a big shift in lifestyle with the increasing world’s population. The changes is seen significantly on social, economic and environmental aspects, happening against the background of urban infrastructures that often being struggled to keep pace with the rapid revolution.

However, the current city of concrete, glass and other conventional materials is now hidden with an underworld of computers, gadgets and software.

Connecting with the internet, a complex nervous system will be created by stitching the devices together, in which supporting the daily lives of billions in a world of growing cities. Everything from text messages to urban built development seems to flow more consistently, more effortlessly, more in control.

This revolution is not just a technological change but also a historic change in how we create and control cities. This technological change is suggesting a digital upgrade to our existing built environment, arising a new type of city, “smart” city. Smart cities are places where information technology can be exchanged and manipulated to acknowledge both old and new problems. In the past decades, infrastructures are constructed for the sake of a more efficient and convenient lifestyle. But, running along with arrays of sensors and devices, smart cities can collect and feed data into applications for a bigger picture and react on it.35 However, the presence of interaction between people is losing its quality when new technological living culture is being introduced. People will get more contact with their devices and software but not much face to face conversation nor activity with each other. Recently according to a software engineer, Greg Houchmuth, he quoted from The New York Times saying that the network effect is addicting.

‘A network effect is the idea that any network becomes more valuable as more people connect to that network. The phone system is the best example of this phenomenon -- you have to have a phone because everybody else has a phone.’36

34 35 36

Branko K. & Vera P., Building Dynamics: Exploring Architecture of Change, New York, Routledge, 2015, p. 30 Townsend A.M., Smart Cities: big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia, New York, 2013 Singer, N., “Can’t put down your device? That’s by design,” The New York Times, last modified December 5, 2015

35

The main addictive part of social networking is mainly due to FOMO – fear of missing out. When everyone is on social media, discussing things, sharing news and posting fact internationally 24/7, it is so difficult to get uninvolved. The consequences of network effect on addiction is accidental, yet the social sites are also addictive by design and profits. Greg also suggested that the biggest addictive tool in the social media is actually the addition toolbox for algorithmic filtering.37 It will tweak the social sites’ algorithms, then to monitor the users’ response. This will show if the tweaks able to keep the social sites on the market. On the other words, more engagement of the users, the longer the social sites can stay. We are all actually those lab rats in a giant, global experiment.

Since the result every day, or even every second is varied, people’ participation is inevitably giving addiction to the survival of those social sites. But while our nature human ability on resistance does not evolve with it.

Meanwhile, on those video showcasing media, those celebrities managed to obtain the speaking skill that be able to hold the attention of the viewer, in a way that they can create their own onscreen personalities addictive. This involves the innate human attraction for social interaction with a contest among the art of attention-grabbing charisma, with the other addictive social networking addictive element in the comments sections. Eventually, we will be controlled by the social media.

In terms of the inhabitant himself, suggested by a clinical psychologist, Barbara Greenberg, he might not be able to read non-verbal behaviour properly when he spends most of his interacting time in the social media, the virtual world.38 Part of the nature of man, is to learn how to cooperate with others, and unfortunately this skill is difficult to present on the internet. Furthermore, due to the addiction of the social media and internet, people will tend to spend most his free time on them. This habit will make them lose the opportunity of exploration in the real physical world.

Especially for those teenagers, when the time is critical for them to pick their interests.

As mentioned in The Hidden Dimension before, the sight-oriented world is friendly but dangerous and unpredictable. This theory applies to the social media nowadays that it creates excessive drama and misunderstanding. Those messages appear on the social media are only being read as words, while the attached emotions are completely designed by imagination.39

37 38 39

Singer, N., “Can’t put down your device? That’s by design,” The New York Times, last modified December 5, 2015 Greenberg, B., ‘8 problems with teens and social media,’ The Huffington Post, last modified August 20, 2013 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966

36

EXISTING THEORIES b. PHYSICAL INTERACTION THEORY

In order to cope with the new cultural shift with the ever-changing society, the informal of the building can enhance an interactive community of uses in which people can wander around, interact with activities and also meeting with each other. So what if in the future, can the relationship between computational programme and inhabitants be applied to the design of interactive architecture, hence, participatory architecture? Will it be able to provide immediate interaction with users, in resulting efficient responses to future changing situations? If the nature of human beings is flexible and emotional to the environment, and the world around us in constant flux, couldn’t our buildings, the largest and most complex objects that we make, be as interactive as we are?

37

III. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS in FANGNIUCANG VILLAGE

Part 3 of the dissertation presents the author’s personal observations and reflections throughout the live project.

The following information in this part will then be considered in the design process of the experiment in part 4.

DOMAT community & architecture https://www.facebook.com/DOMAT.hk/

Fig 1.2

39

The on-site meeting with the contractors

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS in FANGNIUCANG VILLAGE

Live Project, FangNiuCang Hope School Hygenic Station August 13th to August 22nd Banka, Yunnan, China Hygiene is often less valued in a rural context, facilities may be neglected and out of maintenance.

Charities and non-government organisations provide vital software programmes to teach children the importance of for better hygiene, but without decent facilities to shape their habit it is not easy for them to change their way of living.

In KPMG’s Fangniucang Hope School, we redesigned the facilities so that the shower rooms and toilet are united under the same roof. The concept is to create a sustainable living habit for children, hence improving the existing hygienic issues.

Having spent ten days on site with the children and workers, it made me reflected on myself and reminds me of the innate way of living. The FangNiuCang Village is a mountain village located two hours’ drive away from the closest town. It is a village consists of only 81 families and each of them has their own livestock and plantation. Villagers gain profit on making business affairs to the restaurant, while relying on their own stocks for living.

In contrast to the well-developed urban society, life in FangNiuCang Village is simple and fulfil only the basic necessities. Despite the fact that they own smart phones, televisions and radios, their traditional way of living still remains. They still burn firewood for cooking, make rice wine with their own hand-controlled machinery and especially, invite neighbours, friends and foreign people over for dinner. There is no presence or any mention about money because they do not need it at all. The interrelationship between each other is strong and faithful.

In terms of interaction, DOMAT conveys idea to the users and contractors through the physical model and hand sketches, right in the middle of the school’s courtyard. Residents were welcomed to join the discussion, even the children. The children’s feedback was really interesting and helpful to the design. Since the children will be the main users of the facilities, their feedback was very much valued, and contributed a lot to the design process. For the construction materials, we searched for local materials in the village. We found the grey bricks within the village by visiting one of the families. They are very friendly and offered us tea and snack although we were not invited. However, people in this village do not have much interaction with the people who live in the town. The journey from town to this village is complicated that the construction progress is often interrupted by the heavy rain and landslides. Therefore villagers rarely travel to the town.

41

Houses in FangNiuCang village are all constructed with simple materials, either wood or concrete.

They are all constructed in the same style and layout. There is no such place called playground in the village but children managed to create their own playground with those construction materials, such as bricks, wooden panel etc. This shows that children being brought up here are keen on adventure and exploration under their striking creativity. The parents of these children are the onsite construction workers. They do not have a specific working hour. They are all familiar with each other and treated like relatives. They work, dine, play and live together. The site office might be a tobacco factory but the outdoor space provides a perfect community space for workers to dine, to chill, to discuss and to have fun. They don’t have any proper chair nor table but they can recreate them by stacking the wooden panel on top of four concrete bricks underneath.

The author’s personal observation displays that the people in such traditional community, like FangNiuCang Village, are chiefly living for basic sustenance. Comparing to private ownership in the modern community, there is such communal proprietorship of material wealth in FangNiuCang Village. People are aware of the interaction in the community, and therefore the political views are mostly democratic and community oriented.

42

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS in FANGNIUCANG VILLAGE

Fig 1.3

43

Physical interaction in FangNiuCang village

Fig 1.4

Fig 1.5

Fig 1.6

Fig 1.7

Fig 1.4 Fig 1.5 Fig 1.6 Fig 1.7 Fig 1.8

Fig 1.8

44

Arranging furnitures for a communal dinner The manager on the right is helping in cooking Children are playing the wooden panel as seesaw Children are playing the bricks as dominos Children engage in the physical model

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS in FANGNIUCANG VILLAGE

Fig 1.9

Fig 2.0

Fig 2.1

Fig 2.2

Fig 1.9 Fig 2.0 Fig 2.1 Fig 2.2 Fig 2.3

Fig 2.3

45

Recycled grey bricks from a neighbour Street-snack cart Testing out the arrangement of bricks with the contractor Friendly bonding with each other, no social hierachy Discussion is relied on drawings

IV. EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery

The following part of this dissertation will use empirical data, collected from an installation-based experiment conducted by the author. The aim is to test the theories discussed previously and to suggest new theories discovered in the research procedure itself.

The experiment was conducted in September 2016 and was exposed for 4 sections in four hours, separated into two days: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Friday 23/9/16 4-5pm (with invited participants) (without servo) Friday 23/9/16 5-6pm (with invited participants) Friday 30/9/16 4-5pm (without servo) Friday 30/9/16 5-6pm

The installation is designed as interactive installation acting like a metaphor of the interactive architecture. The main objective of this research is to test whether sensors-based interactive architecture can improve the participation and interaction of people, comparing with the responses towards a sensors deactivated architecture. Along with the development of technology, interactive architecture nowadays are often considered as high-tech and computer controlled. Many existed precedents are effectively responding to the change of environment and climate, however none of them are seen to be responding to the participation and engagement of the users.

The experiment will be conducted in a public space, the concourse space next to the university’s student union. There will be 5 invited participants per section, excluding the uninvited participants from the public. They are asked to explore the concourse space without any given instructions. The aim of the experiment was to analyse the human behaviour with the following hypothesis: ‘Interactive architecture is able to encourage the interaction between people.’

Fig 2.4

47

Construction of the installation

Fig 2.5 School of Architecture | MArch

School of Architecture | MArch

The New Interactive Architecture for the Dynamic Societies

The New Interactive Architecture for the Dynamic Societies

Consent Form for Participants (16+)

Please put a circle around Yes or No.

You are being invited to take part in a university student’s research project. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. Before you decide, please take time to read this information. If there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information please speak to the student or contact their tutor as follows : Student Name: Juliette Sung

1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet explaining the above research project and I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.

Yes

No

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular question or questions, I am free to decline.

Yes

No

3. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential. I give permission for the student and their tutor to have access to my responses. I understand that my name will not be linked with the design research material unless I expressly give my consent.

Yes

No

4. I give my consent for my name / my organisation’s name to be linked with the research materials (for example in direct quotes)

Yes

No

5. I agree to sound recordings, photographs and video being taken of me and my work for research analysis. I understand that these will be deleted/destroyed once the University assessment process is complete.

Yes

No

6. I agree to photographs and video of me and my work appearing in the student’s research study or later publications, presentations and the School of Architecture Digital Archive.

Yes

No

7. I agree to take part in the above research project.

Yes

No

This project is part of the University student’s architectural studies. It has been organised by the student with support from staff at The University of Sheffield. The first goal is to support the student’s learning, but it is also hoped that this design research could further understanding in the field. There are no known disadvantages or risks associated with taking part in this research.

The main objective of this experiment is to study the responses of public towards interactive architecture. Apart from interacting with the natural environment, interaction can be made in between participants within the architecture.

In this experiment, you will be seeing an interactive installation in the open space. This interactive installation acted as a metaphor of the interactive architecture in the urban environment. It is made of plywood and designed in a triangular form, providing three sides of reaction space. The reaction of the users will trigger the output of the installation, which is a visualisation of shadow casting on the ceiling of the concourse space.

You will be asked to explore the space as long as you like.

Please try not to touch the installation. Thank you.

There will be two video recording in the experiment. One will be set up for capturing the visualisation presented by the installation, the second one will be recording the participants’ behaviour towards the installation. The collection of data will only be taken with your consent. The purpose of these recordings is for later analysis. If you give

__________________ Date

_____________________________ Signature

specific permission, the photos and/or videos might also be used for illustration in the student’s Special Study. All recordings will be stored only on the student’s password protected personal electronic devices and they will be deleted once the process of assessing the student’s degree is completed.

____________________________ Name of person taking consent

__________________ Date

_____________________________ Signature

The information gathered will inform the student’s Special Study that will be submitted to and become the property of the University of Sheffield. These studies are archived by the School of Architecture and made accessible to current and future students. The studies, or extracts of them, may also be exhibited in public.

____________________________ Student researcher

__________________ Date

_____________________________ Signature

To be signed and dated in presence of the participant

You/your organisation will not be named in any reports or publications unless you give specific consent for this.

Student researcher contact details: ssung1@sheffield.ac.uk Copies: Once this has been signed by all parties the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated participant consent form, the information sheet and any other written information provided to the participants. A copy of the signed and dated consent form should be placed in the project’s main record (e.g. a site file), which must be kept in a secure location.

If you do decide to take part in this research, please complete and sign the consent form attached and keep this information sheet. You can withdraw from the research at any time without giving a reason.

This research has been approved via The University of Sheffield School of Architecture research ethics review process.

occupation:

1. How enjoyable was the experiment?

Very bad bad

course name:

good

very good

2. Which part of the installation interest you the most?

Overall design the projection electronic components 3. What made you to stop by?

The crowd of people The design of the installation

‘…how people are feeling toward each other at the time is a decisive factor in the distance used.’

(Edward, T, (1967), P. 108)

structure

The projection

Eventually the people’ conversations in the digital world become so familiar that it became a daily habit for everyone. We probably have more than hundred friends on social media but how often do you really meet them physically in person?

4. Do you feel more inclusive when there is another participant at the installation? yes no 5. How well do you think this installation can encourage people’ interaction?

Very poor poor good very good 6. Do you have any past experience on interactive installation before? yes no 7. Have you heard of interactive architecture before? yes no 8. Do you find this interaction (with the installation) is more interesting than the virtual interaction on internet/ smart phones/ gadgets? yes no WHy?

The technology nowadays is such a great success that made our life more convenient and efficient. However, recently there are more people saying that social media is actually distancing people, when people focus more on quantity than quality. The research examines the potential of inhabitants’ participation in interactive architecture as a method of engagement between people and technology.

The installation will be designed as interactive installation that acts like a metaphor of the interactive architecture in the future. The main objective of this research is to study the responses of public towards interactive architecture.

Apart from interacting with the environment, interaction can also be made in between participants within the architecture.

9. In the future, do you wish to see more interactive installations in public space? yes no 10. Any comment or suggestion?

What if something goes wrong? Should you wish to raise a complaint about your treatment by the researcher or about something serious occurring during or following your/your organisation’s participation in the project, please contact the project supervisor (see above).If you feel your complaint has not been handled to your satisfaction by the studio tutor, you can contact the Head of School, Fionn Stevenson, architecturehod@sheffield.ac.uk Tel. 0114 2220301, School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, Arts Tower, Western Bank, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

Fig 2.7

Fig 2.5 Fig 2.6 Fig 2.7 Fig 2.8 Fig 2.9

Name:

E-mail: ssung1@sheffield.ac.uk

Tutors Name : ChengZhi Pang E-mail: c.peng@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: 0114 222 0318 Address: School of Architecture, Arts Tower, Western Bank, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN

____________________________ Name of participant

(if different from student researcher) To be signed and dated in presence of the participant

Fig 2.6 the humachinery - background

the humachinery - Questionnaire

thank you! have a nice day!

Fig 2.8

Fig 2.9

Laptop Camera Consent form Participant information sheet Questionnaire

camera

48

laptop

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery a. APPARATUS

2m

installation 49

Fig 3.0

The set up of the experiment

?

50cm

?

Fig 3.1

50

The set up of the experiment

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery a. APPARATUS

The installation

1 camera Laptop

10 invited participants

Consent form + information sheet Pens The design of the installation i. Plywood ii.

1.5mm arcrylic boards iii.

3 Arduino Boards + 3 sets of sensors and servos40 iv.

LED camping lamp v.

Laptop + cables It is designed in a triangular form, with 3 different orientations for 3 different users. An ultrasonic distance sensor will be assigned on each side of the installation and made reaction with the approach of participant. The attached servos will then result in the movement of the wooden plates. An LED portable lamp will be located in the middle of the installation. It will project light through the moving wooden plates and cast the shadow onto the top surface of the installation.

A varied pattern of wooden plates will be presented when there are more incoming participants towards the installation.

Acting as a metaphor of the interactive architecture, there are several criteria to be satisfied. First, this installation needs to be integrated with coding programme, sensors and actuators, which are the basics of being an interactive architecture. Second, the appearance of it must be welcoming and extraordinary, so that will attract participant. Third, the distance of visual connection between the participants among the public is afflictive, which justify the influences to the interaction between the participants. Fourth, the projection on the top surface must be obvious and clear, it then allows the occurrence of curiosity of the participants, in such representing the importance of the visibility of changes on interactive architecture.

For the design of computational system within the installation, the author used 3 Arduino Uno Boards with 3 sets of sensors and servo. The coding programme is designed for a specific distance measured by the sensors for the experiment. In addition to the data collection through the Arduino Uno boards, the author has inserted a micro SD card into the boards, so that the recorded distance from the sensors will be collected for infographic presentations.41

40 Arduino is an inexpensive sopen source microcontroller that was released in 2005 in Italy. It can be connected easily to a variety of sensors detecting light, motion, touch, sound, temperature, etc. and also to all kinds of actuators that can be controlled, such as lights, motors, and other devices.

41 See Appendix a4 for the result.

51

Servo

Servo

Servo

visualisation output

digital dialogue Ultrasonic distance sensors

data input

Arduino uno shields

300mm

1000mm

52

Fig 3.2

The installation

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery a. APPARATUS 1.5mm Arcrylic sheet Tracing paper 18mm plywood 1.5mm MDF

Servo

1.5mm Arcrylic sheet 1.5mm MDF

Servo

1.5mm Arcrylic sheet 1.5mm MDF

Servo

1.5mm Arcrylic sheet 18mm plywood

LED camping lamp Ultrasonic distance sensors

Magnetic sheet

Arduino uno shields

18mm plywood

Fig 3.3

53

Exploded view of The installation

Servo

Arduino uno shields

LED camping lamp

Ultrasonic distance sensors

Fig 3.4

54

The digital dialogue of the installation

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery a. APPARATUS

Arduino uno shields LED camping lamp Magnetic sheet

Ultrasonic distance sensors

Servo

Fig 3.5

55

Arduino set up

Fig 3.6

56

Arduino coding design, Data collection (see Appendix a1)

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery a. APPARATUS

Fig 3.7

57

Arduino coding design, Data translation (see Appendix a2)

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE The experiment is designed to be located in a public space authorized by the University of Sheffield. Booking and risk assessment need to be done before the experiment by getting permission through the school’s department of Estates & Facilities Management.42 After the construction of the installation, I have set out a trial on site, for testing out several appliances of the installation, such as the strength of the light projection and the location of the set up on site. Then, I invited participants to the experiments by sending them private invitation through email, with the attachment of information sheet.

On the day of experiment, an assistant of mine and myself transported the installation from the George Porter workshop to the site. I gave the invited participants with information sheets and consent forms before setting up my installation.43 The installation was located in an open space, right in the middle of the natural traffic of people, potential participants. There are three sources of data collection. One is the video recording set up at the background of the experiment, another one is the distance measurement detected by the Arduino Uno Boards and the final one is the questionnaire given at the end of the experiment.44 The invited participants were asked to interact with the installation with their own preference, without the limitation of time, space and the way of doing it. The overall experiment is informal and welcoming, other uninvited participants were expected during the experiment. For the uninvited participants, information sheet and consent form are presented with the questionnaire at the end of the experiment.

42 43 44

Risk assessment form is attached in Appendix b1 Information sheet and samples of consent form are attached in Appendix b2 and b3, the consent forms are kept safetly with the author Samples of questionnaire are attached in Appendix b6

Fig 3.8

Location plan of the experiment

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE Predictions Before setting out the experiment, the author predicted how the participants would react towards installation. The predictions are entirely subjective as they reflect the author’s perception of human behaviour. However, they may be useful to compare the actual results against, also highlighting those unexpected results that had not been predicted.

Briefly the predictions were: 1.

The installation is designed with three different directions, one participant on one side will attract the other participant from the other side.

2.

There will be more participant once the installation got louder voice, as in when it is attached with the servos and projections.

3.

With the support of the digital dialogue, participants will then interact with each other at the installation.

4.

People at the background will pay more attention to the installation when there is participant involving it.

5.

Participants should be able to understand the digital dialogue just by exploring it himself, despite the lack of guidance.

61

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE Trial (22/9/2016 5pm) The initial idea of the installation is to have the visual projection on the ceiling of the underpass.

It is important to have the projection clear and obvious in the public space because it is one of the main factors that attract participants. During the trial on 22nd September, the shadow projected on the ceiling of the underpass is shown vague and unclear. This reflects on the amendment made on the installation afterwards.

Fig 3.9

63

Visual projection of the installation

The first uninvited participant, an architecture student

The influence made by the invited participants

Discussion between the participants and the author Fig 4.0

64

The video recording from experiment 1

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE Experiment 1 (23/9/2016 4pm) This experiment aims to examine the behaviour of people when installation is not activated with servo and sensors, acting as an art sculpture in the public space. There were 5 invited participants and 4 uninvited participants. Most of them were attracted by the design of the installation.

Invited

Uninvited

5

4

Experiment 2 (Arduino)

5

6

Experiment 3 (Arduino)

0

0

Experiment 4 (Arduino)

0

3

Experiment 1 (Arduino)

The number of particpants

Fig 4.1

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

On-site observations of experiment 1: - people are more likely to involve when there are people at the installation - most of the uninvited participants are also studying in architecture - participants will not engage with each other until you told them to do so Fig 4.2

65

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment 1

Pedestrian walking by the installation

No participation is recorded

Pedestrians looking at the installation

Fig 4.3

66

The video recording from experiment 3

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE Experiment 2 (23/9/2016 5pm) This experiment aims to examine the behaviour of people when installation is activated with servo and sensors, acting as a metaphor of interactive architecture. There were 5 invited participants and 6 uninvited participants. Many of them were curious on the visual projection and unintentionally looked up to the ceiling.

Invited

Uninvited

5

4

Experiment 2 (Arduino)

5

6

Experiment 3 (Arduino)

0

0

Experiment 4 (Arduino)

0

3

Experiment 1 (Arduino)

The number of particpants

Fig 4.4

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

On-site observations of experiment 2: - people tend to play around with the sensors by hands, instead of the body - Some of the participants were very enthusiastic about it as in asking me for questionnaire to fill in - people attempt to try all three orientations of the installation before he or she leaves Fig 4.5

67

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment 2

Pedestrian walking by the installation

Girls are not interested

But guys are interested

Fig 4.6

68

The video recording from experiment 3

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE Experiment 3 (30/9/2016 4pm) This experiment aims to examine the behaviour of people when installation is not activated with servo and sensors, acting as an art sculpture in the public space. There were no invited participants and no uninvited participants. People just walking pass by, leaving stare at the installation.

Invited

Uninvited

5

4

Experiment 2 (Arduino)

5

6

Experiment 3 (Arduino)

0

0

Experiment 4 (Arduino)

0

3

Experiment 1 (Arduino)

The number of particpants

Fig 4.7

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

On-site observations of experiment 3: - A majority of male pedestrians were aware of this installation - People were aware of the light and had a natural reaction of looking up on the ceiling - Most of the people were aware of the installation but did not participate Fig 4.8

69

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment 3

Pedestrians are either looking up to the ceiling or directly to the installation

A professor is attracted by the installation

A researcher is interested in the design of the installation

Fig 4.9

70

The video recording from experiment 4

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE Experiment 4 (30/9/2016 5pm) This experiment aims to examine the behaviour of people when installation is activated with servo and sensors, acting as a metaphor of interactive architecture. There were no invited participants and 3 uninvited participants. They are people who are more mature in age and professions.

Invited

Uninvited

5

4

Experiment 2 (Arduino)

5

6

Experiment 3 (Arduino)

0

0

Experiment 4 (Arduino)

0

3

Experiment 1 (Arduino)

The number of particpants

Fig 5.0

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

On-site observations of experiment 4: - The participants are mainly professors or researcher, due to a research event happening nearby - People who study architecture, computer science or engineering are more attentive to this installation - The reflection of sunlight from the facade of the student union has brightened up the concourse Fig 5.1

71

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment 4

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery b. PROCEDURE Overall results and observations Apart from the invited participants at the experiment, there were uninvited participants attending the experiment. The general public who noticed the installation would walk pass by and gave it a stare. Uninvited participants are classified into two types, individual and groups. In general, individual is less likely to be involved within 50cm around the installation, while in groups, they are more likely to participate. Both types of uninvited participants were not given with information sheets before and therefore all of them were confused yet curious on the set up of the experiment, commented by one of the participants;45 ‘I am afraid to interrupt or damage anything of it, so that’s why I did not want to come closer.’ No matter how interesting the outlook of the installation is presented, participants are more likely to stay behind and observe, instead of participating. However, whenever I was standing nearby to the installation or having my invited participants surrounding it, the people from the general public are more likely to get interested and involved.

45

See Appendix c

Fig 5.2

73

The interaction between the participants, the author and the installation

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery c. UNCERTAINTIES Similar to other experiments, there are factors existed that affected the results and the following is my strategy to minimise the inaccuracy as little as possible.

A major uncertainty was that the amount of people in the public is uncontrollable that will affect the result of the experiment. Although the experiment is set up on a fixed day and fixed time, but the events and activities at the background are not under my authorization. Furthermore, it is difficult to justify the effectiveness of the interactive element of the installation due to the different preferences of every individual. Such as one may be majoring in electronic engineering or in architecture, who are more likely to be attracted to the installation. The preferences of each one is depending greatly on its culture and background; “As man developed culture he domesticated himself and in the process created a whole new series of worlds, each different from the other.”46 In order to reduce the uncertainty of the experiment, post-experiment conversations were conducted with the participants. It helped to further understand one’s perspective and identity.

“By interaction, guidance and example, an individual may become involved in a community of supportive individuals whose role expectations strengthen the self- concept.”47

46 47

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.5 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.2

75

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery d. PREDICTIONS Predictions In responding to the predictions stated previously, the author collated both collected data and personal observations from the experiments, then evaluated the difference at the actual outcome.

The following table will present the comparison between the predicted and actual results, also pointing out the unpredicted results.

Prediction:

Outcome:

1. The installation is designed with three different orientations, - Participant on either side of the installation did not attract one participant on one side will attract the other participant the other one on the other side, because they are not fully from the other side. understood about the design of the installation.

2. There will be more participant once the installation got louder voice, as in when it is attached with the servos and projections.

- There are more participants when the installation is attached with the servos and projections, because of the projection was able to obtain more attention.

3. With the support of the digital dialogue, participants will then interact with each other at the installation.

- Participants will only interact with each other when they are told to do so, despite the presence of the digital dialogue.

4. People at the background will pay more attention to the installation when there is participant involving it.

- There are more uninvited participants when there are invited participants at the installation.

5. Participants should be able to understand the digital dialogue - Participants are not able to understand the digital dialogue just by exploring it himself, despite the lack of guidance. until they are being informed.

Unexpected outcome: 1. The majority of male participants is presented.

2. Most of the uninvited participants are people who are either students or professionals in the similar field (i.e. architecture, computer science and engineering) 3. Participants are more aware of the design of the installation than the electrical components within.

4. Participants were so enthusiastic about the experiment that some of them were asking for questionnaire to fill in.

5. Both participants and pedestrians were aware of the light projection and looking up to the ceiling naturally.

Fig 5.3

77

Table showing the comparison between the prediction and the result

Data collection from the Arduino The data collected from the Arduino is being translated into infographic presentations.48 It is difficult to identify the behaviour of participants by looking at the presentations because of the complexity of the coding. However, the collections of other data are applicable to the research.

Questionnaire There were in total 23 participants and 17 of them did the questionnaire.49 The explanations of the result will be presented in the following session.

48 49

See Appendix a for the presentations See Appendix b for the full result of the questionnaire.

78

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery e. RESULTS

Q3. How enjoyable was the experiment?

Good: 58.82%

Q4. Which part of the installation interest you the most?

Overall design: 35.29% Electronic components: 35.29%

Q5. What made you to stop by?

Fig 5.4

Charts showing the result of the questionnaire

79

The design of the installation: 88.24%

Q6. Do you feel more inclusive when there is another participant at the installation?

Yes: 76.47%

Q7. How well do you think this installation can encourage people’ interaction?

Good: 64.71%

Q8. Do you have any past experience on interactive installation before?

Fig 5.5

Charts showing the result of the questionnaire

80

No: 68.75%

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery e. RESULTS

Q9. Have you heard of interactive architecture before?

Yes: 58.82%

Q10. Do you find this interaction (with the installation) is more interesting than the virtual interaction on internet/ smart phones/ gadgets?

Yes: 58.82%

Q11. In the future, do you wish to see more interactive installations in public space?

Fig 5.6

Charts showing the result of the questionnaire

81

Yes: 100%

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery f. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Methodologies Referring to the literature review and the results of the experiment, this chapter will analyse the previous collected information in an attempt to answer three questions. Firstly, what is the difference between the use of low-tech and high-tech in interactive architecture? Secondly, what makes people interact and participate? Lastly, in what way can the software in interaction can be used more effectively by architects?

There are three types of data collected from the experiment. Data generated from the sensors, the responses from the questionnaire and the third-sight view from the video recording. Qualitative (grounded theory) methods were used for collecting the data that involves creating codes empirically from the research data as opposed to a quantitative approach.

The data collected from the experiment and the post experiment conversations was initially coded ‘descriptively’, which involved identifying key words from the conversation transcripts and analysing the data with content of the recorded experiment. Quantitative analysis was only useful when justifying arguments formed by qualitative analysis.

83

Question 1: In terms of interaction, what is the difference between the use of low-tech and high-tech in architecture?

The qualitative data generated by the experiment and the theory mentioned earlier will be presented by discussing the themes that developed in response to the question: In terms of interaction, what is the difference between the use of low-tech and high-tech in interactive architecture?

The difference in social value between the traditional and modern societies In traditional societies, the city economy is generally weaker than the modern societies. They don’t have the money to obtain the high-technological stuffs. Therefore, most of the appliances in traditional societies are all manually interactive.

People are generally satisfied simply by fulfilling the basic needs for survival, such as food, shelter, clothes and medicine. People need to work very hard to make a living.50 Vacation to them is few days away from work. The limitation on money leads to the limitation on development of technology. People got no option on travelling and exploration. They are normally relying on a strong belief, ancestral knowledge and traditional practices. Based on my experience and observations during my live project in Yunnan, the local residents were very proud of their uniqueness and identity. People there are more united and down-to-earth. Since they got a strong belief on working hard for a better future, people in traditional societies are more willing to work.

When an individual in a traditional society lacks of money and power, he seeks help from his neighbours, in such men-power exceeds the power of money and fame.

In rich modern societies, basic needs for people are already satisfied. People work for their secondary needs, such as designer clothes, vacations, better shelter and exotic foreign food. People will always explore new things due to curiosity. Modern life is changing much faster than the buildings that house it. Buildings that are easy to modify will survive longer and represent a more efficient use of resources. Similar thought stated in Static and Dynamic Society; ‘Everyone lives for greater satisfactions, such as comprehensive knowledge, mastery over nature, comfort and safety, moral refinement, individual freedom. These can only be achieved by dynamism.’51

50 Robert Zahn in Engineering Perspectives of Human Society, stated that when human civilization reaches to a permanently prosperous level, material rewards will not be as successful as now in motivating individuals. While in the poor country, ordinary people have to work very hard for living.

51 Sociologist, Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966

84

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery f. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The low-tech applications in interactive architecture According to the video recording of the experiments, most of the pedestrians were aware of the installation and as such the observation indicated that the installation directly influences their perception of the environment. The installation remains attractive despite the setting of the mechanical and electronic components. Referring to the result of the questionnaire, almost 85% of the participants were attracted towards the installation because of the design of it but only around 40% of them were aware of the electronic components within. It shows that the visibility of the components is critical to users’ understanding of the environment.

‘There are purely visual cues to the perception of space such as the fact that the visual field expands as you move toward something and contracts as you move away from it.’52 There was another interesting observation during the experiment. Most of the pedestrians were looking up to the ceiling when walking pass by the installation, commented by one of the partipants; ‘I thought there would be some light projection up there!’53 Light, in general, is considered as low-technology that it has been used and seen for long.

Therefore, people would have an innate thought of having the light projected on the ceiling.

‘Man actually judges distance as a consequence of the interrelation of the senses with each other and with past experience.’54 Moreover, referring to the questionnaire, 95% of the participants prefer the interactive installation than the virtual interaction on gadgets. The main reason is because interactive installation can provide them physical interaction with environment and people.

Low- tech applications are more favourable to people because they understand its function and purpose. They feel more confident using it since they all got past experience on them.

52,54 53

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.63 See Appendix c for participant A

85

The high-tech applications in interactive architecture Throughout the experiment, more than half of the participants did not notice the setting of the electronic components of the installation, in which indicated that the interaction between people and environment does not mainly depend on the technology, but perhaps the engagement with the author and other participants. Since almost half of the participants are students in similar field, it is recorded in the questionnaire that 40% of them are interested in the technology setting of the installation.

The recent technology is more likely to be hidden away from the appearance, whereas the appearance sets up a gimmicky image to people. People tend to love the appearance for the first sight but gradually losing its interest because there is a lack of content. This effect also implies to the interactive architecture nowadays. Despite there are architecture participants, there is around 40% of them have never heard of interactive architecture before and almost 70% of them have no experienced with interactive installation before. This shows that the lack of popularity of high-tech applications in architecture nowadays.

Since technology is new to everyone, people should have certain guidelines and understanding of them before implications to real life. On the other hand, participants tend to appreciate the hardware more when they understood the effort made behind, commented by one of the participants; ‘I am impressed with the design of the whole installation and those handcraft work you produced!’55 When people put in more appreciation on objects, public properties or even architecture, they will always be properly considered. Therefore, interaction in architecture, either in between the environment and people or the technology and people, it always begins with engagement and guidance by people.

In summary, the number of uninvited participants in both “low-tech” and “high-tech” conditioned experiments is remained as low comparing to the experiments with invited participants. There were only maximum 2 participants shown up. This clearly indicated that interaction in architecture is strongly depended on the software, such as questioning and verbal instruction between people, however, not the hardware.

‘The theory that talking and understanding is a synthetic process is easier to accept than the idea that vision is synthesized, because we are less aware of actively seeing than we are of talking.’56

55 56

See Appendix c for participant B Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.64

86

Questions 2: What make people interact and participate?

It was difficult to determine the exact reasons and distance of people that provoke interaction and participation, because of the uncertainties at the background of the experiment. There were invited participants but almost half of the recorded participants actually came up uninvited. Participants’ behaviour changed significantly when given instruction.

The importance of physical interaction According to the questionnaire, a significant 80% of the participants from the experiment agreed that the installation is a good tool to encourage interaction among people, and also more than 80% of them felt more inclusive when they see other participants at the experiment. This suggests that engagement with participants in person can provoke their sense of belonging.

Michael Balint, stated in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, describes two different perceptual worlds, one sight oriented, the other touch oriented. He considered the touch oriented is more immediate and friendlier than the sight oriented world, whereas the space is friendly but is filled with dangerous and unpredictable objects.57 Another apparent result of the questionnaire is that 95% of the participants prefer interaction on interactive installation than the virtual interaction on gadgets, commented by the participant; ‘I was fascinated by how the installation interacts not only with the bypassers and participants but also with the built environment. The scene was a very theatrical one, as though it was a performance.’58 ‘I like it because it is touchable.’59 ‘This is more interesting than the screens on smartphones.’ 60 The feedback from the questionnaire shows that the physical interaction between the participants and the environment is a positive influence in both interpersonal relationships and also the relationship towards the public space.

57 58 59 60

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966 See Appendix c for participant C See Appendix c for participant D See Appendix c for participant D

88

EXPERIMENT - The Humachinery f. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The amount of sensory inputs in physical interaction is more diverse comparing to the virtual interaction, in such that leaving participants with a more memorable experience. We develop our own definition of the world through interaction with our physical and social environments, stated

by Edward; ‘Man’s relationship to his environment is a function of his sensory apparatus plus how this apparatus is conditioned to respond.’61 There is always a desire for more sensory experience in human being, similar reaction made by the participants; ‘Can the sound of servos get louder?’62

61 62

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.59 See Appendix c for participant E

89

The significant effect of peer influence According to the result of the data collection from the distance sensors, we can see the rate of incoming participant is higher when invited participants are presented. Similar theory to what has happened to those uninvited participants at the experiment, people have more motivation to participate once there is someone participating at the installation.

There is almost 80% of the participants recorded in the questionnaire felt more inclusive when there was another participant engaging at the experiment. We are all aware of how others behave towards us because we always are conscious about our identity and our sense of belonging in the social organization, similar thought to Elizabeth; ‘Through social interaction, interpretation of symbols (objects and ideas with shared cultural meanings), and the filtering processes of the mind, we acquire meaning about ourselves and the world. The sense of self develops from our perceptions of how others perceive us.’63 However, too much peer influence does not see as a good effect on a healthy social organization.

People then are depending too much on the others, hence losing its own innate definition of the world.

‘Crowding, however, disrupts important social functions and so leads to disorganization and ultimately to population collapse or large-scale die-off.’64 Interaction in architecture will only be successful when it incorporates the balance between technology, the distance between people and the environment.

63 64

Hutchison, Elizabeth D., Dimensions of Human Behavior: Personal and Environment, California: Sage Publications, 2008 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.29

90

Question 3: In what way can the software in interaction can be used more effectively by architects?

‘There is not one final space house by architecture constructed by the designers, architects or builders, but multiple versions construct through the mind of its occupants.’65 The above statement by a professor of neuroscience, Anthony Damasio, has expressed his theory of consciousness, developed in the book The Feeling of What Happens. The space in architecture is constructed by professionals however it is actually owned by the occupants. In order to obtain a better understanding on the perspective of the occupants, perhaps participation and engagement activities become essential in the process of design. The form and structure of architecture is the tool that provokes interaction of occupants, while interaction in architecture is based on the trust and memory within the occupants, hence, the participation.

As mentioned in the previous section, the physical interaction in social environment is critical to the engagement of the occupants, claimed by Patrick in Explorations in Transactional Psychology; ‘…we can never be aware of the world as such, but only of… the impingement of physical forces on the sensory receptors.’66 Similar theory is also applicable to the process of design and collaboration with the clients and contractors, when physical model and hand sketches should be used more often.

Similar practice was employed by the community Architect, Walter Segal, who is now synonymous with self-build housing.67 Segal system often applies to the quickly-built, timber-framed dwellings that are environmentally friendly. Apart from the flexible construction, this system seem to generate good interrelationship between the self-build groups, and often being claimed that their experience has changed their lives and perspective towards life.

65 66 67

Damasio, A., The feeling of what happens, New York: Harcourt, 1999 Kilpatrick, F.P. Explorations in Transactional Psychology, New York: New York University Press, 1961 See http://www.segalselfbuild.co.uk/home.html for more information Fig 5.7

92

Photo taken during the live project visit in China

V. EVALUATION

It is difficult to justify the effectiveness of a human behaviour experiment because there are too many influences that will affect the result. The questionnaires and conversations after the experiment are really helpful. They helped in narrowing down the subject in which making them more applicable to the analysis. Having the opportunity to participate the live project in Yunnan is also very helpful to the author. It has given her a great insight of the local residents and community in traditional societies. For the experiment, although it went through successfully, there are a few improvements can be done so that would have made the research more significant. The improvements are: The choice of participants For the invited participants, it would be better if the researcher managed to arrange participants who are not relating to the similar field, such as architecture nor computer science. Also, the age of the participants should be limited to a certain range, or perhaps balancing the age range with the amount of participants. Older participants have more past experiences than the younger ones, in which different perspectives will be occurred.

The design of the installations As a metaphor of an interactive architecture, the visual projection of the inner components should be designed as more grandeur in the sense that can attract distance audience. A certain guideline or instruction will be helpful for the uninvited participants, such as having directional labels or a big display board with simple diagrams.

Fig 5.8

95

The interaction between the participants, the author and the installation

VI. AUTHOR’S REFLECTION

The complexity of conducting a social research requires a certain period of time, background research and also a regulation on the control variables when applying experiments. Social research is strongly based on logic and empirical observaations, suggested by Charles C. Ragin; ‘Social research involved the interaction between ideas and evidence. Ideas help social researchers make sense of evidence, and researchers use evidence to extend, revise and test ideas.’68 The choice of this dissertation topic, as well as the design of the experiment are still required for further development and research, as social research is depended on any social patterns or regularity in social life. Quantity of experiments and observations are therefore critial to the quality of the research.

However, due to the openness of this research, there are many unexpected observations being made from the experiments. As stated by the sociologist, Glenn Firebaugh, the rule 1 of a good social research is, ‘There should be the possibility of surprise in social research.’ He then further elaborated, ‘Rule 1 is intended to warn that you don’t want to be blinded by preconceived ideas so that you fail to look for contrary evidence, or you fail to recognize contrary evidence when you do encounter it, or you recognize contrary evidence but suppress it and refuse to accept your findings for what they appear to say.’69 In responding to the above theory, despite the limitation on time, resources and research, the unexpected observations in this research are useful for the future aspect. Referring to the experiment 3, a majority of male pedestrains are recorded as more attentive than the female pedestrains. This observation is displaying the importance of gender- equality in interactive architecture, suggesting that the outlook of interactive architecture can perhaps act as a mediator for both male and female participants, in which can be further explored in another more valuable research.

68 69

Ragin, C.C., Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method, New York: Pine Forge Press, 1994 Firebaugh, Glenn, Seven rules for social research, Princeton University Press, 2008 Fig 5.9 Photo taken at the FangNiuCang Village school

97

VII. CONCLUSIONS

The central objective of this dissertation was to answer the research question: Is technology the vital part in this community building process? To answer this question a combination of

research techniques were applied, comprising of the review of existing theories, the observation made in the DOMAT Yunnan live project and the qualitative data collection of the experiments.

The dissertation also aimed to review and encourage the usefulness of users’ participation as a process of architectural design development.

Does interaction only apply to the high-tech functioned architecture in the modern societies?

In comparison with the modern societies, appliances in traditional societies are mostly manually interactive because of the lack of wealth capacities, as discussed in chapter 2. This indicates the development of architecture in traditional societies is usually standardized and mostly manually operated. Whereas the architecture in modern societies obtain wider-ranged of high-tech functioned operations because of the inevitable urge of individual’s satisfaction.

Furthermore, the author presented her personal observations in FangNiuCang Village, Yunnan, in chapter 3. This gave the author a better insight of the life style in the traditional community, suggesting that interaction in architecture is also applicable in the traditional society.

By analysing the results from the experiments in chapter 4, it indicates that interaction will apply to both low-tech and high-tech environment, it is the engagement of people that matters.

When the installation at the experiment acted as an artistic sculpture, the amount of incoming participants is about the same as those who came when it is an interactive installation.

Moreover, the experiment revealed unexpected conclusions: It highlighted that although new technology is being introduced at the built environment, participants who obtained past experience on subjects are more likely to engage in interaction. This echoes the following quote by Edward; ‘A keystone in the arch of human understanding is the recognition that man at certain critical points synthesizes experience.’70

70

Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966, p.62

99

Apart from interacting with the environment, can interactive architecture encourage the interaction between people?

It was initially hypothesised that interactive architecture could be employed to encourage the interaction between people.

After analysing the result of the experiment, it proves that my research supports this hypothesis.

Interactive architecture acts as a tool to provoke interaction between people however what make people interact is still depending on the software in between, such as participation.

The initial thought of “interactive architecture� is architecture that consists of technological components that only happens in the modern societies and the present projects are all depending on the changes of climate or the environment, but none of them is interacting with occupants.

After the literature review and live project experience in Yunnan, the author realised that architecture can be interactive in both traditional and modern societies, no matter manually or digitally.

What provokes interaction between people, is actually the human behaviour within the social organization. The balance between the physical interaction with the environment is critical to human interpersonal relationship in pair, hence, the sense of belonging of citizens in a society.

How can interaction be reconsidered by built environment professionals as a design method?

Nowadays in the architecture field, the development of technology has gradually changed the method of design process, from 3D computational model to virtual reality (VR). We often prioritise efficiency over the context of the design, whereas forgetting the importance of physical engagement with stakeholders.

In cope with the dynamism in the modern societies, technology should be reconsidered by emphasizing the importance of physical participation in architecture education and the profession.

The architects in the future should also obtain the skill of software in interaction, such as physical collaboration and participation.

Overall, the research carried out for this dissertation has confirmed in depth, that interactive architecture does not require the development of technology in the modern societies. Interaction in architecture is provoked by the engagement of people, instead of the presence of gimmicky technology-based hardware.

Fig 6.0

100

Photo taken at the FangNiuCang Village school

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

Figure

Caption

Source

0.1

“The humachinery�, the installation for the experiment

Photograph by author

0.2

The digital dialogue at the installation

Photograph by author

0.3

The 1970 experiment SEEK by the Architecture Machine Group. Photo from the catalog of the exhibition SOFTWARE at the New York Jewish Museum.

https://2016.transmediale.de/files/Blog/ blogpost_03_16_SEEK.jpg

0.4

The different forms of relationship

The illustrations taken from aap noot mies huis by N.J. Habraken Amsterdam: Scheltema & Holkema, 1970.

0.5

The interior of the Institut Du Monde Arabe, 1987, Paris by Jean Nouvel

Archdaily:http://images.adsttc.com/media/ images/5383/c39e/c07a/8044/af00/004a/large_jpg/ JN_GL_PS_AS_PARIS_Institut_Monde_Arabe_ GeorgesFessy_int02.jpg?1401144206

0.6

Grey Lynn FORM

Designboom:http://www.designboom.com/weblog/ images/images_2/andrea/greg_lynn/RV06.jpg

0.7

Sectional Drawings of the RV at Grey Lynn FORM

ArchDaily:http://images.adsttc.com/media/ images/5298/9941/e8e4/4e5c/5000/00f8/large_jpg/ Untitled-5.jpg?1385732409

0.8

Living Room House

http://2012.living-room.info/wp-content/ uploads/2012/02/exterior-closed-open.jpg

0.9

Living Room House

http://www.deutschlandschaft.de/ bilder/200_p/36_p_1.gif

1.0

The chart showing interplay of the distant and Immediate receptors in Proxemic Perception

Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension, London: Lowe & Brydone Ltd., 1966,p.118

1.1

The mix use of architecture styles in FangNiuCang village

Photograph by author

1.2

The on-site meeting with the contractors

Photograph by author

1.3

Physical interaction in FangNiuCang village

Photograph by author

1.4

Arranging furnitures for a communal dinner

Photograph by author

1.5

The manager on the right is helping in cooking

Photograph by author

1.6

Children are playing the wooden panel as seesaw

Photograph by author

1.7

Children are playing the bricks as dominos

Photograph by author

1.8

Children engage in the physical model

Photograph by author

1.9

Recycled grey bricks from a neighbour

Photograph by author

Figure

Caption

Source

2.0

Street-snack cart

Photograph by author

2.1

Testing out the arrangement of bricks with the contractor

Photograph by author

2.2

Friendly bonding with each other, no social hierachy

Photograph by author

2.3

Discussion is relied on drawings

Photograph by author

2.4

Construction of the installation

Photograph by author

2.5

Laptop

Photograph by author

2.6

Camera

Photograph by author

2.7

Consent form

Illustration by author

2.8

Participant information sheet

Illustration by author

2.9

Questionnaire

Illustration by author

3.0

The set up of the experiment

Illustration by author

3.1

The set up of the experiment

Illustration by author

3.2

The installation

Illustration by author

3.3

Exploded view of the installation

Illustration by author

3.4

The digital dialogue of the installation

Illustration by author

3.5

Arduino set up

Illustration by author

3.6

Arduino coding design, Data collection

Illustration by author

3.7

Arduino coding design, Data translation

Illustration by author

3.8

Location plan of the experiment

Illustration by author

3.9

Visual projection of the installation

Photograph by author

4.0

The video recording from experiment 1

Video recording by author

4.1

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

Illustration by author

4.2

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment1

Illustration by author

4.3

The video recording from experiment 3

Video recording by author

4.4

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

Illustration by author

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

Figure

Caption

Source

4.5

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment2

Illustration by author

4.6

The video recording from experiment 3

Video recording by author

4.7

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

Illustration by author

4.8

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment3

Illustration by author

4.9

The video recording from experiment 4

Video recording by author

5.0

Table showing the number of participants in each experiment

Illustration by author

5.1

Table showing the on-site observations of experiment4

Illustration by author

5.2

The interaction between the participants, the author and the installation

Photograph by author

5.3

Table showing the comparison between the prediction and the result

Illustration by author

5.4

Charts showing the result of the questionnaire

Illustration by author

5.5

Charts showing the result of the questionnaire

Illustration by author

5.6

Charts showing the result of the questionnaire

Illustration by author

5.7

Photo taken during the live project visit in China

Photograph by author

5.8

The interaction between the participants, the author and the installation

Photograph by author

5.9

Photo taken at the FangNiuCang Village school

Photograph by author

6.0

Photo taken at the FangNiuCang Village school

Photograph by author

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books A. Cristina, B. Matthijs, K. Froukje, L. Michiel, W. Martijn, The Hackable City: A research manifesto and design toolkit, Amsterdam, 2015 Architectural Design, 4dsocial: Interactive Design Environments, Wiley, West Sussex, 2007 Architectural Design, 4dspace: Interactive Architecture, Wiley, West Sussex, 2005 Barraza, Better H., Where are the Utopian Visionaries? Architecture of Social Exchange, Periscope Publishing, Pittsburgh, 2012 Bullivant, L., Responsive Environments: architecture, art and design, V&A Contemporary, London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 2006 Caldwell, Glenda A., Foth, Marcus & Guaralda, Mirko, An urban informatics approach to smart city learning in architecture and urban design education, Queensland University of Technology, 2013 Campbell, T., Beyond Smart Cities: How cities network, learn and innovate, Routledge, 2013 Charles M., Happy City: Transforming our lives through urban design, Penguin, UK 2013 Damasio, Antonio R. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999 Firebaugh, Glenn, Seven rules for social research, Princeton University Press, 2008 Fox, M. and M. Kemp, Interactive Architecture, Princeton Architectural Press, 2009 Hall, Edward T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden city, NY: Doubleday, 1966 Hutchison, Elizabeth D., Dimensions of Human Behavior: Personal and Environment, California, Sage Publications, 2008 Keckemeti, Paul, Static and Dynamic Society, California: The RAND Coperation, 1966 Kilpatrick, F.P., Explorations in Transactional Psychology, New York: New York University Press, 1961 Klanten, R., Sven Ehmann, Verena Hanschke, A touch of code : Interactive installations and experiences, Gestalten Berlin, 2011 Klanten, Robert & Feireiss, Lukas, Utopia Forever: Visions of Architecture and Urbanism, Berlin, Gestalten, 2011 Kolarevic, B. & Parlac, V., Building Dynamics: Exploring Architecture of Change, Great Britain, 2015 Kolarevic, B. and Malkawieds, A. M., Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality, New York: Spon Press, 2005 McCullough, M., Digital ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing, MIT Press, 2005 Negroponte, N., Soft Architecture Machines, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1975 Negroponte, N., The Architecture Machine, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1972 Ragin, C.C., Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method, New York: Pine Forge Press, 1994 Richard, R., Cities for a small Planet, London: Butler and Tanner Ltd, 1997 Rudofsky, B., Architecture without architects: A short introduction to Non- Pedigreed Architecture, New York, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964 Sadler, S., Archigram: Architecture without architecture, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 2005 Sommerer, C., Mignonneau L., The Art and Science of Interface and interaction Design, Berlin, Springer Science & Business Media, 2008 Townsend A.M. , Smart Cities: big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia, New York, 2013 Zahn, R., Engineering Perspectives of Human Society: Application of Control Theory, Game Theory, and Information Theory to Social Phenomena, Nova Publishers, 2004

Journal Articles Achten, H., ‘Closing the Loop for Interactive Architecture: Internet of Things, Cloud Computing, and Wearables, Smart and Responsive Design’, Volume 2, p. 623- 632 Benzer, M., ‘Lifelong death penalty: Adorno, Beckett’s drama, sociology, Journal of Classical Sociology,’ Sage Publications, 2012 Elisabeth, A., ‘The shifted middle ground. Urbanity not Energy’, GAM. Architecture Magazine 05. Austria, 2005 Greenberg, B., ‘8 problems with teens and social media’ The Huffington Post, last modified August 20, 2013 Karakayali, N., ‘Social Distance and Affective Orientations’, Sociological Forum, Vol.24, No.3, September 2009, p.538- 562 Lissman, H.W. ‘Electric Location by Fishes.’ Scientific American, Vol. 208, No.3 (March 1963), London: Freeman, 1963, p. 50-59 Meagher, M., ‘Designing for change: The poetic potential of responsive architecture’, University of Sheffield School of Architecture, 2015 Simmons, R., ‘Architecture, the Backbone of Robotic Systems’, 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, San Francisco, Apirl, 2000 Singer, Natasha, ‘Can’t put down your device? That’s by design,’ The New York Times, last modified December 5, 2015 Stevens, J., Nelson, R., ‘Digital Vernacular: Practice and Pedagogy’, Working Out: Thinking while building, p.319- 328 Tardanico, S., ‘Is Social Media Sabotaging Real Communication?’, Forbes, Apirl 30, 2012

Websites http://glform.com/buildings/rv-room-vehicle-house-prototype/ (Accessed September 2016) http://oma.eu/projects/dubai-renaissance/ (Accessed September 2016) http://www.archdaily.com/ (Accessed August 2016) http://www.buildingcentre.co.uk/adaptivearchitecture/adaptive.html (Accessed September 2016) http://www.dezeen.com/ (Accessed August 2016) http://www.segalselfbuild.co.uk/home.html (Accessed August 2016)

Appendix a1: Arduino coding (Data Collection)

110

APPENDICES

111

Appendix a2: Arduino coding (Data Translation)

112

APPENDICES Appendix a3 Arduino coding (Excerpt of the collected data from experiment 1)

Arduino coding (Excerpt of the collected data from experiment 2)

Arduino coding (Excerpt of the collected data from experiment 3)

Arduino coding (Excerpt of the collected data from experiment 4)

113

Appendix a4: Infographic presentation of the experiment 1

Infographic presentation of the experiment 2

114

APPENDICES

Infographic presentation of the experiment 3

Infographic presentation of the experiment 4

115

116

APPENDICES

Appendix b1: Risk assessment form

University of Sheffield Risk Assessment Form Examples Potential Hazards: 1.

Fall of person (from work at height)

6.

Lighting levels

11.

Use of portable tools / equipment

16.

Vehicles / driving at work

21.

2.

Fall of objects

7.

Heating & ventilation

12.

Fixed machinery or lifting equipment

17.

Outdoor work / extreme weather

22.

3.

Slips, Trips & Housekeeping

8.

Layout , storage, space, obstructions

13.

Pressure vessels

18.

Fieldtrips / field work

4.

Manual handling operations

5.

5 Display screen 5 equipment

Hazardous fumes,

26.

Occupational stress

Hazardous biological agent

27.

Violence to staff / verbal assault

23.

Confined space / asphyxiation risk

28.

Work with animals

29.

Lone working / work out of hours

30.

Other Hazards specific to your work.

chemicals, dust

9.

Welfare facilities

14.

Noise or Vibration

19.

Work with lasers

24.

Condition of Buildings & glazing

10.

Electrical Equipment

15.

Fire hazards & flammable material

20.

Radiation sources

25.

Food preparation

PERSONS AT RISK: Employees ( ) Contractors ( ) Public (√ ) Visitors ( ) Others ( )

Date of visit:23rd & 30th Sep, 2016

RISK (H) High (M) Medium (L) low (O) No Risk TASK or ACTIVITY:

Method of transport: walking

The installation is wooden made, around 1.5m tall, 35cm wide and 35cm depth. I want to put it right under the bridge, so that the ceiling of the space can be used to capture the shadow of the activity happening inside the installation.

INITIAL RISK LEVEL

Location and address: Concourse under the bridge, next to the student union FINAL RISK LEVEL

L

L

The aim for this experiment is to capture the people reaction and activity while having the installation presenting under the certain environment. The installation will be left there for at least 30 minutes, video recorder will be set at the back to capture the flow of people. I want to keep the environment as natural as possible, so that my installation can draw in more attention from the public.

Significant Hazard 6. Lighting levels

11. Fall of objects

10. electrical equipment

Potential Consequences of Hazard A relatively strong light L source will be used to cast the shadow, users should avoid to look directly to the light source.

The installation is portable L and supported by wooden legs. If the environment is very windy, there might be a possibility of falling down.

The installation is installed L with electrical hardware and circuit system, but users are not required to touch them.

Existing Control Measures Relatively soft light

Additional Control Measures (If Required)

The installation did not fall and managed to stay stable during free standing

L

/

L

Overall Risk:

Comments: Additional References, Tasks Etc Undertaken By:

Juliette Sung Sze Wing

Other Persons Consulted:

ChengZhi Peng

L

Revision Date: Revision Date: Revision Date: Revision Date:

Date: 9th September, 2016

117

L

Appendix b2: Participant information sheet

School of Architecture | MArch The New Interactive Architecture for the Dynamic Societies You are being invited to take part in a university student’s research project. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. Before you decide, please take time to read this information. If there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information please speak to the student or contact their tutor as follows : Student Name: Juliette Sung

E-mail: ssung1@sheffield.ac.uk

Tutors Name : ChengZhi Pang E-mail: c.peng@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: 0114 222 0318 Address: School of Architecture, Arts Tower, Western Bank, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN

This project is part of the University student’s architectural studies. It has been organised by the student with support from staff at The University of Sheffield. The first goal is to support the student’s learning, but it is also hoped that this design research could further understanding in the field. There are no known disadvantages or risks associated with taking part in this research.

The main objective of this experiment is to study the responses of public towards interactive architecture. Apart from interacting with the natural environment, interaction can be made in between participants within the architecture.

In this experiment, you will be seeing an interactive installation in the open space. This interactive installation acted as a metaphor of the interactive architecture in the urban environment. It is made of plywood and designed in a triangular form, providing three sides of reaction space. The reaction of the users will trigger the output of the installation, which is a visualisation of shadow casting on the ceiling of the concourse space.

You will be asked to explore the space as long as you like.

Please try not to touch the installation. Thank you.

There will be two video recording in the experiment. One will be set up for capturing the visualisation presented by the installation, the second one will be recording the participants’ behaviour towards the installation. The collection of data will only be taken with your consent. The purpose of these recordings is for later analysis. If you give

specific permission, the photos and/or videos might also be used for illustration in the student’s Special Study. All recordings will be stored only on the student’s password protected personal electronic devices and they will be deleted once the process of assessing the student’s degree is completed.

The information gathered will inform the student’s Special Study that will be submitted to and become the property of the University of Sheffield. These studies are archived by the School of Architecture and made accessible to current and future students. The studies, or extracts of them, may also be exhibited in public.

You/your organisation will not be named in any reports or publications unless you give specific consent for this.

If you do decide to take part in this research, please complete and sign the consent form attached and keep this information sheet. You can withdraw from the research at any time without giving a reason.

This research has been approved via The University of Sheffield School of Architecture research ethics review process.

What if something goes wrong? Should you wish to raise a complaint about your treatment by the researcher or about something serious occurring during or following your/your organisation’s participation in the project, please contact the project supervisor (see above).If you feel your complaint has not been handled to your satisfaction by the studio tutor, you can contact the Head of School, Fionn Stevenson, architecturehod@sheffield.ac.uk Tel. 0114 2220301, School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, Arts Tower, Western Bank, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.

118

APPENDICES

Appendix b3: Participant consent form

School of Architecture | MArch The New Interactive Architecture for the Dynamic Societies

Consent Form for Participants (16+)

Please put a circle around Yes or No.

1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet explaining the above research project and I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.

Yes

No

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular question or questions, I am free to decline.

Yes

No

3. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential. I give permission for the student and their tutor to have access to my responses. I understand that my name will not be linked with the design research material unless I expressly give my consent.

Yes

No

4. I give my consent for my name / my organisation’s name to be linked with the research materials (for example in direct quotes)

Yes

No

Yes

No

6. I agree to photographs and video of me and my work appearing in the student’s research study or later publications, presentations and the School of Architecture Digital Archive.

Yes

No

7. I agree to take part in the above research project.

Yes

No

5. I agree to sound recordings, photographs and video being taken of me and my work for research analysis. I understand that these will be deleted/destroyed once the University assessment process is complete.

____________________________ Name of participant

__________________ Date

_____________________________ Signature

____________________________ Name of person taking consent

__________________ Date

_____________________________ Signature

____________________________ Student researcher

__________________ Date

_____________________________ Signature

(if different from student researcher) To be signed and dated in presence of the participant

To be signed and dated in presence of the participant

Student researcher contact details: ssung1@sheffield.ac.uk Copies: Once this has been signed by all parties the participant should receive a copy of the signed and dated participant consent form, the information sheet and any other written information provided to the participants. A copy of the signed and dated consent form should be placed in the project’s main record (e.g. a site file), which must be kept in a secure location.

119

Appendix b4: Samples of Participant consent form (The rest of them are kept safely by the author)

120

APPENDICES

121

122

APPENDICES

123

Appendix b5: Template of the questionnaires

the humachinery - background

‘…how people are feeling toward each other at the time is a decisive factor in the distance used.’

(Edward, T, (1967), P. 108)

Eventually the people’ conversations in the digital world become so familiar that it became a daily habit for everyone. We probably have more than hundred friends on social media but how often do you really meet them physically in person?

The technology nowadays is such a great success that made our life more convenient and efficient. However, recently there are more people saying that social media is actually distancing people, when people focus more on quantity than quality. The research examines the potential of inhabitants’ participation in interactive architecture as a method of engagement between people and technology.

The installation will be designed as interactive installation that acts like a metaphor of the interactive architecture in the future. The main objective of this research is to study the responses of public towards interactive architecture.

Apart from interacting with the environment, interaction can also be made in between participants within the architecture.

124

APPENDICES

the humachinery - Questionnaire Name:

occupation:

course name:

1. How enjoyable was the experiment?

Very bad bad

good

very good

2. Which part of the installation interest you the most?

Overall design the projection electronic components 3. What made you to stop by?

The crowd of people The design of the installation

structure

The projection

4. Do you feel more inclusive when there is another participant at the installation? yes no 5. How well do you think this installation can encourage people’ interaction?

Very poor poor good very good 6. Do you have any past experience on interactive installation before? yes no 7. Have you heard of interactive architecture before? yes no 8. Do you find this interaction (with the installation) is more interesting than the virtual interaction on internet/ smart phones/ gadgets? yes no WHy? 9. In the future, do you wish to see more interactive installations in public space? yes no 10. Any comment or suggestion?

thank you! have a nice day!

125

Appendix b6: Samples of the questionnaires (The rest of them are kept safely by the author)

126

APPENDICES

127

128

APPENDICES

129

Appendix b7: Results of the questionnaires

The humachinery - user's experience Name: Response Response Percent Total 1

Open-Ended Question 1

01/10/16 10:18PM Diego Perez ID: 45158629

2

01/10/16 10:19PM Manazi ID: 45158647

3

01/10/16 10:21PM Syed Abdus Samad ID: 45158675

4

01/10/16 10:22PM Elaine ID: 45158693

5

01/10/16 10:24PM Samantha ID: 45158723

6

01/10/16 10:25PM Peter Tocian ID: 45158740

7

01/10/16 10:27PM Khaled ID: 45158773

8

01/10/16 10:29PM Christian Huges ID: 45158805

9

01/10/16 10:32PM Asfandyar Khan ID: 45158833

100.00%

15

answered

15

skipped

2

10 01/10/16 10:36PM Diego ID: 45158880 11 01/10/16 10:46PM Gary Cheung ID: 45158959 12 01/10/16 11:02PM Zhou Hang ID: 45159098 13 01/10/16 11:09PM Yang ID: 45159277 14 02/10/16 12:29PM Wanqing Wong ID: 45166229 15

04/10/16 7:22PM ID: 45339231

wenjiang dou

1. Occupation: Response Response Percent Total 1

Open-Ended Question 1

01/10/16 2:37PM ID: 45151283

100.00% Student

130

17

APPENDICES

1. Occupation: Response Response Percent Total 2

01/10/16 2:57PM ID: 45151630

Student

3

01/10/16 10:18PM Students ID: 45158629

4

01/10/16 10:19PM Student ID: 45158647

5

01/10/16 10:21PM Student ID: 45158675

6

01/10/16 10:22PM Student ID: 45158693

7

01/10/16 10:24PM Student ID: 45158723

8

01/10/16 10:25PM H&U Driver ID: 45158740

9

01/10/16 10:27PM student ID: 45158773

10 01/10/16 10:29PM Research Fellow ID: 45158805 11 01/10/16 10:32PM student ID: 45158833 12 01/10/16 10:36PM Enginner ID: 45158880 13 01/10/16 10:46PM student ID: 45158959 14 01/10/16 11:02PM Student ID: 45159098 15 01/10/16 11:09PM Student ID: 45159277 16 02/10/16 12:29PM Student ID: 45166229 17

04/10/16 7:22PM ID: 45339231

student

answered

17

skipped

0

2. Course Name: Response Response Percent Total 1

Open-Ended Question

100.00%

1

01/10/16 2:37PM ID: 45151283

Architecture design

2

01/10/16 2:57PM ID: 45151630

PhD Clinical Dentistry

131

15

2. Course Name: Response Response Percent Total 3

01/10/16 10:18PM Mechanical Engineering ID: 45158629

4

01/10/16 10:19PM MBB ID: 45158647

5

01/10/16 10:21PM BioMed ID: 45158675

6

01/10/16 10:22PM DDIBE ID: 45158693

7

01/10/16 10:24PM MSc in Human & Molecular Genetics ID: 45158723

8

01/10/16 10:25PM / ID: 45158740

9

01/10/16 10:27PM Mechantronics & robotics Eng ID: 45158773

10 01/10/16 10:32PM mechatronic and robotic engineering ID: 45158833 11 01/10/16 10:36PM staff ID: 45158880 12 01/10/16 10:46PM Master of Architecture ID: 45158959 13 01/10/16 11:02PM Master of Architecture ID: 45159098 14 01/10/16 11:09PM MAAD Student ID: 45159277 15 02/10/16 12:29PM Master of Architecture ID: 45166229

answered

15

skipped

2

3. How enjoyable was the experiment?

Response Response Percent Total 1

very bad

0.00%

0

2

bad

5.88%

1

3

good

58.82%

10

4

very good

35.29%

6

answered

17

skipped

0

Analysis Mean:

3.29 Std. Deviation:

Variance: 0.33 Std. Error:

0.57 Satisfaction Rate: 0.14

132

76.47

APPENDICES

4. Which part of the installation interest you the most?

Response Response Percent Total 1

Overall design

35.29%

6

2

The projection

17.65%

3

3

Electronic components

35.29%

6

4

Structure

11.76%

2

answered

17

skipped

0

Analysis Mean:

2.24 Std. Deviation:

Variance: 1.12 Std. Error:

1.06 Satisfaction Rate:

41.18

0.26

5. What made you to stop by?

Response Response Percent Total 1

The crowd of people

0.00%

0

2

The design of the installation

88.24%

15

3

The projection

11.76%

2

answered

17

skipped

0

Analysis Mean:

2.12 Std. Deviation:

Variance: 0.1

Std. Error:

0.32 Satisfaction Rate:

55.88

0.08

6. Do you feel more inclusive when there is another participant at the installation?

Response Response Percent Total 1

Yes

76.47%

13

2

No

23.53%

4

answered

17

skipped

0

Analysis Mean:

1.24 Std. Deviation:

Variance: 0.18 Std. Error:

0.42 Satisfaction Rate:

23.53

0.1

7. How well do you think this installation can encourage people' interaction?

Response Response Percent Total 1

very poor

0.00%

2

poor

17.65%

3

3

good

64.71%

11

4

very good

17.65%

3

answered

17

skipped

0

Analysis Mean:

3

Std. Deviation:

Variance: 0.35 Std. Error:

0.59 Satisfaction Rate: 0.14

133

66.67

0

8. Do you have any past experience on interactive installation before?

Response Response Percent Total 1

Yes

31.25%

5

2

No

68.75%

11

answered

16

skipped

1

Analysis Mean:

1.69 Std. Deviation:

Variance: 0.21 Std. Error:

0.46 Satisfaction Rate:

68.75

0.12

9. Have you heard of interactive architecture before?

Response Response Percent Total 1

Yes

58.82%

2

No

41.18%

7

Analysis Mean:

answered

17

skipped

0

1.41 Std. Deviation:

Variance: 0.24 Std. Error:

0.49 Satisfaction Rate:

41.18

0.12

10

10. Do you find this interaction (with the installation) is more interesting than the virtual interaction on internet/ smart phones/ gadgets?

Response Response Percent Total 1

Yes

94.12%

16

2

No

5.88%

1

answered

17

skipped

0

Analysis Mean:

1.06 Std. Deviation:

Variance: 0.06 Std. Error:

0.24 Satisfaction Rate:

5.88

0.06

Why? (12) 1

01/10/16 2:37PM ID: 45151283

Because u can touch

2

01/10/16 10:19PM Different, nice ID: 45158647

3

01/10/16 10:21PM Prefer human interaction ID: 45158675

4

01/10/16 10:22PM Strong interaction with people and environment ID: 45158693

5

01/10/16 10:24PM Because It is touchable ID: 45158723

6

01/10/16 10:25PM no idea ID: 45158740

7

01/10/16 10:27PM because it is touchable ID: 45158773

8

01/10/16 10:29PM because there are more ways to interact than will computers ID: 45158805

9

01/10/16 10:32PM More physical, less virtual ID: 45158833

134

APPENDICES

10. Do you find this interaction (with the installation) is more interesting than the virtual interaction on internet/ smart phones/ gadgets?

Response Response Percent Total 10 01/10/16 10:36PM It's physical ID: 45158880 11 02/10/16 12:29PM I was fascinated by how the installation interacts not only with the bypassers and ID: 45166229 participants but also with the built environment. The scene was a very theatrical one, as though it was a performance.

12

04/10/16 7:22PM ID: 45339231

it can let people take part in the design without just see it. What is more the different feedback to different action is quite interesting.

11. In the future, do you wish to see more interactive installations in public space?

Response Response Percent Total 1

Yes

100.00%

17

2

No

0.00%

0

answered

17

skipped

0

Analysis Mean:

1 Std. Deviation: 0 Satisfaction Rate: 0

Variance: 0 Std. Error:

0

12. Any comments or suggestion?

Response Response Percent Total 1

Open-Ended Question

100.00%

10

1

01/10/16 2:37PM ID: 45151283

Improve the power maybe

2

01/10/16 10:19PM Good job! All the best!

ID: 45158647

3

01/10/16 10:21PM no ID: 45158675

4

01/10/16 10:22PM The interactive motion can be more interactive and the installation can be developed ID: 45158693 into independent system without connection with computer.

5

01/10/16 10:25PM Face to face interaction = best by far ID: 45158740

6

01/10/16 10:27PM good luck ID: 45158773

7

01/10/16 10:46PM maybe some projections on the ceiling? And probably put the experiment into a more ID: 45158959 traffic space, perhaps with more participants.

8

01/10/16 11:02PM Try participants who are not architecture students. I think the installation is more like a ID: 45159098 small sculpture, more like an art piece.

9

01/10/16 11:09PM Perhaps more projections on the ceiling.

ID: 45159277

10 02/10/16 12:29PM I think Kate has a tool that she has used for her studio last year for the projection of ID: 45166229 films by attaching to the car battery. Maybe a projection of a larger scale would be more grandeur in the sense that it attracts more attention and creates a larger area of influence, hence, participation.

135

Appendix c: Excerpts of the conversations with the participants Participant A Juliette: Do you want to come and have a look?

A: Can I come forward? I am afraid to interrupt or damage anything of it, so that’s why I did not want to come closer.

Juliette: Do you have any comment on my installation?

A: I thought there would be some light projection up there! Maybe can consider using a strong light for a bigger projection! It will definitely bring in more attention!

Participant B Juliette: What do you enjoy the most at this experiment?

B: I am impressed with the design of the installation. Did you make it by yourself ?

Juliette: Oh yes, it took me quite a while to design and construct everything.

B: It looks beautiful and unique. I am impressed with the design of the whole thing and those handcraft work you produced! It is something different!

Juliette: Thank you!

Participant C Juliette: Do you have any comment or question about this experiment?

C: I think the stand of the installation is blocking our way towards the sensors, maybe should consider changing the location of the sensors, so that it will be more welcoming to the people. However, I am amazed how the movement of people can change the pattern of this visualisation. I feel like I am making a conversation with it!

Juliette: So have you ever heard of Arduino before?

C: No, never! It looks very complicated to me.

136

APPENDICES Participant D Juliette: What make you to come over?

D: This is something new to me so I am curious about it.

Juliette: Before giving you the information sheet, do you have any idea about this installation?

D: I saw the light projection first, so I first thought there would be something projecting up to the ceiling, but I had no idea what’s going on inside.

Juliette: Do you think interacting with this installation is better than using smartphones applications?

D: This is more interesting than the screens on smartphones, because it is touchable.

Participant E Juliette: Thank you for participating, do you have any comments or questions?

E: I wonder if the servos can produce louder noise? I really like how my behaviour can affect the occurance of the noise here, just feel like I am having a conversation with this installation.

Juliette: Do you think this installation will encourage the interaction between people?

E: I am not sure, because people normally would not talk to stranger. But if there is a task that requires discussion between people, I would say that will force people to interact.

137