Interactive Architecture: friend or foe? by KAROLOS MICHAILIDIS

INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE: friend or foe? The social and psychological need of humans to interact and its translation to Architecture in the process of redefining the social

Karolos Michailidis 4238052

Architecture Theory Thesis_AR2DSD820 TU DELFT 2013| Q3/4_31/05/2013

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

“I go up”, said the elevator, “or down” “Good,” said Zaphod, “We are going up.” “Or down,” the elevator reminded him. “Yeah, OK, up please.” There was a moment of silence. “Down’s very nice,” suggested the elevator hopefully. “Oh yeah?” “Super.” “Good,” said Zaphod, “Now will you take us up?” “May I ask you,” inquired the elevator in its sweetest, most reasonable voice, “if you’ve considered all the possibilities that down might offer you?”1

Conversation with an elevator designed by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams.

1 Haque, U. “Architecture, interaction, systems”. AU: Arquitetura & Urbanismo 149, August 2006.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

CONTENTS 00

Preface

The Argument: Hypothesis Statement Introduction

Part 1: Understanding Interactivity -A brief History of interactive Architecture -Theoretical framework -Defining Interactivity in Architecture

Part 2: Architectural Analysis - The Evolving Sonic Environment - The Piano stairs - The Fun Palace

Part 3: Agent based interactivity - The Makers Movement - The Telaithrion project: A self-reliant community - The Zimbabwe Bush Pump

Conclusion Bibliography

3 Â

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

PREFACE My observation and fascination starts with my belief that architecture has to facilitate human relations, and realize people’s visions, desires and needs, and not the other way around. In this respect, interactivity has made its appearance the past few years as a solution to link architecture to this notion. However the irony is that most interactive architectural examples realized up to today have a very short life spam. Contemporary smart technologies may fuel our imagination but in the same time this advancement can result in somewhat limited imagination, constrained and altered by the over optimistic approach that ‘anything is possible’. In a lecture of one of my tutors in Hyperbody, Tomasz Jaskiewicz, started his presentation by saying: “This isn’t a lecture about interactive architecture. It is a conversation.” It is this conversation I want to focus on and discuss.

* First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis tutor Dr Heidi Sohn for the inspiration and guidance I received and most of all her patience. Furthermore I would like to attribute this essay to my colleagues and also my tutors in Hyperbody, Prof. Kas Oosterhuis. Nimish Biloria, Henriette Bier, Tomasz Jaskiewicz and Christian Friedrich for their inspiring lectures throughout the semester and the discussions and interaction with them which constituted fruit for thought and an understanding on how each one independently perceives the notion of interaction.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

The Argument The argument of this thesis emerges from the need of contemporary architects and designers to add the adjective ’interactive’ to every instance, aiming to establish a correlation between the word ‘interaction’ and the concept of hi-tech, advanced and current. There is nothing wrong with the use of the word as long as it designates what is already apparent and does not introduce superfluous assumptions about the social aspect of interactivity and its importance in the formation of every agent. Problems arise, when ‘Interactive’ begins to relate to materials and physical elements in our environment. At that point the meaning of the word breaks down to two different approaches: the first is a materialistic, technological struggle trying to imitate a social phenomenon, and the other a ‘grassroots’ discourse where the core is the collective consciousness as a mutual responsibility. Taking in consideration that something hi-tech can be far from interactive, one should question the meaning of the word ‘interactive’ and how does ‘interactive’ architecture re-define the role of the agent and network. We are faced with a new generation of architecture that focuses on the kinetic and the adaptive, the interactive technology and the componential logic. An era that might be over optimistic and overwhelmed by the possibilities that array and tries to respond to building occupants, user needs, environmental factors embracing new systems in order to form relationships between people, their space and their environment. And simultaneously we come across the contrasting idea of the social in relation to participatory planning in urban communities, which is completely agent based and non-tech, aiming to construct mutually participatory interactions. What is the role of technology towards the emergence of social interactions? This paper will discuss the relationship between human-human interactions in comparison to human-building interaction. The focus will be mostly on the physical world and the built environment, without excluding the existence of cyberspace as part of the Architectural space and a protagonist to the objectification of human, taking in consideration the importance of culture in the emergence and occurrence of interaction. The thesis will be investigating, on one side, the failure of Interactive Architecture to replace (or represent) the human-human interaction without erasing the human agency, and on the other side, the ways in which interactive architecture can be the interface/mediator for a new culture of human-human interaction, redefining and reassembling the social to match the trends and needs (existence, relatedness and growth needs) of today. Several questions arise that will be guides in the structure of the thesis. Why do we seek ways of replacing human-human interaction? What are the fundamental human needs and what does interactive architecture add to these needs? Does it create more? And what could be the result of developing architecture with its own brain, emotion and logic?

Key Words: interactivity, network, interactive architecture, agent based, collective consciousness, multi-loop interaction, hierarchy of needs, mutual responsibility

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

Introduction Within the broad scope of Non- standard and Interactive Architecture many studies have been conducted related to Architecture and Interactivity. From a social approach, the definition given by Rafaeli, S. (Interactivity: From new media to communication, 1988) will be used in combination to the research of Brown and Yule (Discourse Analysis, 1983) in order to understand interactivity based on system and communication theories. ’Ultimate Interaction’ will be defined in relation to Architecture. The term ultimate interaction will be used to describe a relationship between two sides where the correlation of equality and brain, memory and emotions are fundamental for having a successful, multi-loop, interaction. The learning curve should be able to increase infinitely on both sides. Thus, a first conclusion is that at the moment we cannot define a relationship between human and building as a successful ‘ultimate’ interaction. Although in Architecture, several examples are attempting to form designs that aim to interact with the user, as long as one side is prevailing and has control over the other, setting limits, the interaction fails to reach higher levels of complexity. Theoretical and methodological approaches in the framework of Non-standard and Interactive Architecture will be discussed with a focus on Interactive design. These aspects will be approached simultaneously from a social and Architectural view. In the first part of the paper there will be an analysis and understanding of interactivity based on communication theories and how this can be related to Architecture. A brief history of interactive design will give an insight on the progress and development of technologies as a step closer in achieving to conduct interactive environments. The scale (re-action, single loop interaction and multiple loop interaction) and definition used by Usman Haque (Architecture, Interaction, systems, 2006) will be used to analyze the examples and understand how do those affect our existing urban fabric and the way we engage with it. The second part will be an analysis of three architectural examples that showcase the use of technology in making interactive environments. The Fun Palace by Cedric Price (1961) The Evolving Sonic Environment by Usman Haque (2007), and The Piano Stairs by the Fun Theory (2009) will be analyzed in respect to human needs as discussed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation". The discussion will focus on the role of the agent and what needs are fulfilled and what new needs possibly occur through this ‘interactions’. The third part will discuss low technology and agent based examples to form a different perspective and discourse compared to the levels of interactivity discussed in the second part of the thesis. The three case studies, The Makers Movement, The Telaithrion project and The Zimbabwe Bush Pump will be the canvas to analyze how our existing environment and infrastructure can become a foundation to built participatory interactions and re-new the role of the agent in conversation with architecture. Interactivity can be described as everything and as nothing. This debate defines the scope and perception of each actor. It is highly linked to the culture and the background of the agents involved. Thus, in the framework of this paper, interactivity will be discussed with respect to the examples mentioned in order to identify the human needs fulfilled and subsequently the extent of this fulfillment as an attempt to understand and narrow down the idea of interaction.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

PART 1 A Social Theoretical Framework In the fields of information science, communication, and architecture, there exists a continuous debate over the meaning of interactivity and its relationship to system thinking and design thinking as part of a network. In the “contingency view” of interactivity, there are three levels: 1. Non-interactive, when a message is not related to previous messages; 2. Reactive, when a message is related only to one immediately previous message; and 3. Interactive, when a message is related to a number of previous messages2 and to the relationship between them Sheizaf Rafaeli defined Interactivity as “an expression of the extent of communication exchanged between a given series, any third (or later) transmission (or message) is related to the degree to which previous exchanges referred to even earlier transmissions3” Interactivity is the condition of communication in which simultaneous and continuous exchanges occur, and these exchanges carry a social, binding force. Brown and Yule (1983) and Zack (1993) summarize additional qualities of interactive communication: allowing for multiple types of cues, potential spontaneity, emergent progression of the content, the ability to interrupt, mutuality, and patterns of turntaking4. But our definition of interactivity goes beyond Schegloff’s simultaneous exchange and Goffman’s continuous feedback 5 . What does interactivity do? Interactivity in communication settings is associated with the attitudinal dimensions of acceptance and satisfaction. But it is also related to performance quality, motivation, the sense of having fun, cognition, learning, openness, frankness and sociability (Rafaeli, 1988)6. Interactivity operates in a supplementation mode. Quasi-interactive (reactive) media can allow people to use the media as a substitute for sociability. The human need for interaction (Beniger, 1987), when satisfied, allows people to use interactive media to bolster their favorable disposition towards interacting with others7. From positioning interaction in the bigger picture it occurs that ‘interaction’ lies completely on the scope and point of view of each participant and also the topic on which it is discussed. Many arguments did occur in discussion with tutors and students about whether or not even the simplest things did interact or not. In sociology, psychology, politics, technology, media or architecture, interactions and interactivity can be translated in completely different terms. Thus, narrowing down interactivity we can bluntly divide it in an interaction between living organisms (human/human, human/animal), living with non- living (human/building, human/environment, human/computer) and non-living with non-living (building/building, environment/building, computer/computer).

2 Wikipedia contributors, "Interactivity," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interactivity&oldid=554301091 (accessed May 30, 2013) 3 Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, 16, 110-134. Beverly Hills: Sage. 4 Rafaeli, Sheizaf, and Fay Sudweeks. “Networked Interactivity.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication’s 2, no. 4 (March 1997). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html 5 ibid 6 ibid 7 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

A Brief History Theoretically, Interactive Architecture has been around for a long time dating back to the 1960’s but it was mainly stuck in the phase of experiments and ideas8. The transition from idea and theory to practice has developed throughout the past decades with extraordinary results in the way technology is applied. University of MIT has invested many years of research and investigation in techniques and technologies that could take architecture a step further. We have seen examples of the “Intelligent Room”, the “Adaptive House” led by Michael Mozer both trying to fuel and stimulate architectural development. “There is a lot of terminology for specific interpretations of Interactive Architecture including: “intelligent environments,” “responsive environments,” “smart architecture,” and “soft space.” About ten years ago, Interaction Design started to infiltrate architecture in all sorts of projects like building facades, plazas etc, but this was mostly by means of digital media and not robotics. Only as recently as the early 1990s, did interactive architecture begin to take a foothold as the ideas became both technologically and economically feasible. It was also at this time that the long history of kinetics in architecture began to be re-examined under the premise that performance could be optimized if it could use computational information and processing to control physical adaptation in new ways to respond to contemporary culture.”9 Thus we can see a huge dependency on computers and a transformation of the role of the Architect and the process of designing as we have known from previous generations. Defining interactivity in Architecture Translating the definition in Architecture some things need to be re-thought and set into a new context. In sociology or psychology or even media culture interactivity in theory can be easier applied and understood. But in architecture it has to acquir another dimension in order to adjust to the complexity of the field but still retain its initial status. One thing to consider is that in Architecture interactivity does not necessarily mean high-tech. An object or building may be interactive yet not technological. By re-formatting the scale of interactivity in Architecture we resulted in 3 main categories as presented by Usman Haque:10 1) Re-action (Action): The example of the brick wall and the rain. Since there is no transaction of information between the wall and the rain, and even if we could claim there is, the transaction would be in some sense circular and as a result the relationship is seen as ‘reactive’. The environment is not changing its behavior as a result of the wall falling down. 2) Single loop interaction: The example of the cash machine or an art installation. There is a two-way transaction of information, but both the input and output are predetermined. And with an art installation, even if we have not expected any visual phenomena, the designer of the installation has determined specific reactions and after a few moments there is exchange of information and what is expected is received. So the interaction stops when there is no more information to be exchanged and the ‘learning’ curve does not increase. Key element is the single

8 Fox, Michael A. "Interactive Architecture will change everything." ZHUANGSHI: Chinese Journal of Design

(September 2010). http://en.izhsh.com.cn/articles/10/82.html (accessed March 28, 2013). 9 ibid

10 Haque, U. “Architecture, interaction, systems”. AU: Arquitetura & Urbanismo 149, August 2006.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

loop interaction is the aspect of time: a single loop interaction can last a few seconds but it can also last for months or even years. 3) Multiple-loop interactions: The conversation with the bank teller. The productive and engaging conversation leads to a multiple loop interaction. Unexpectedness is the key in this case.11 [IMAGE 1] “An interactive system is a “multiple-loop” system in which one enters into a “conversation”: a continual and constructive information exchange 12 . As people interact with architecture, they should not be thought of as “users” but instead as “participants”. Marcos Novak uses the term transactive intelligence, to define architectural intelligence that not only interacts, but that transacts and transforms both the user and itself.”13 Complexity does not make an interaction multi-looped but continuity, evolution and creativity make it successful and is most often, or we could say always, found between human beings. The question is whether the interaction described can be achieved between human-machine and human-architecture or is interactivity a trait only represented and described by the human-human relationship? “Interactive architecture can be defined as the total integration of the disciplines of interaction design and architecture. Although today, we are surrounded by smart and networked architectural devices and appliances, they are not considered from and architectural point of view in terms how and when they are used or how they work together. It is built upon the convergence of embedded computation (intelligence) and a physical counterpart (kinetics) that satisfies adaptation. The combination of these two areas will allow an environment to have the ability to reconfigure itself and automate physical change to respond, react, adapt, and be eventually interactive.” 14 It is therefore clear that the ‘interaction’ achieved in Architecture does not rely yet on the ‘conversation’ but on the mechanisms that represent this conversation and try to imitate it.

IMAGE # 1

11 ibid 12 ibid 13 Wikipedia contributors, "Interactive architecture," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interactive_architecture&oldid=529398007 14 Fox, Michael A. "Interactive Architecture will change everything." ZHUANGSHI: Chinese Journal of Design (September 2010). http://en.izhsh.com.cn/articles/10/82.html (accessed March 28, 2013).

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

An important consideration is the aspects that form the ‘interaction’ and determine the kind of interactivity that will occur- it can be either a simple and unsophisticated interaction or a more complex interaction. Time, Scale and size, complexity, memory, necessity, function and emotion are some essential aspects, that the existence of one or more of them combined makes an interaction more complex and substantial. Although narrowing down some of the aspects can help in the understanding and application of interaction in Architecture, one can find unlimited aspects, which may define the level of interactivity. Thus one could describe every single relationship as interactive- even the example of rain falling on the wall- or completely opposing proposing that all relationships are just a set of actions and reactions and interaction does not really describe anything more than this exchange of actions. Clever enough, Philip Beesley and Omar Khan in their publication ‘Situated Technologies Pamphlets 4: Responsive Architecture/Performing Instruments’ chose the title ‘Responsive’ to present a set of so called ‘interactive’ relationships. It is structured as a succession of nine “conversations” between researchers, writers, and other practitioners from architecture, art, philosophy of technology, comparative media studies, performance studies, and engineering. “As Mike Weinstock acknowledges in his recollection of EM Forster’s refrain ‘Only connect!’ interaction has to be consciously sought out and worked towards. He gives the example of UN Studio's Möbius House, where the architecture enfolds the family in a continuous surface that takes in shared and separate living spaces, enabling the occupants to be simultaneously alone and together.’’15 Interactive architecture is designed with the desire to create spaces and objects that can meet changing needs with respect to evolving individual, social, and environmental demands16. “According to McCullough17 architecture and interaction design can overlap in their subject matter and escalate social consequences. He described it as ‘operable inability’ systems where two disciplines converge on the design and shift from foreground object to background experiences18. Among some other technical issue McCullough mentioned certain properties of such spaces: (i) User-centric: physically situated and support user’s intention, actions and etiquettes (McCullough, p 101). (ii) Participative: should support multi-user participation for richer experience (McCullough, p101) and (iii) Transformative: Should have some open systems for extensible places and this extensibility must be casual and learning; and should not burden the user with technology (McCullough, p114).”19 “Michael Mozer, who led the development of the pioneering Adaptive House in the late 1990s speaks of the “intelligence” of the home as that which arises from the home’s ability to predict the behavior and needs of the inhabitants by having observed them over a period of time20. Instead of being programmed to perform

15 Castle, Helen, ed. “4d Space: Interactive Architecture.” Architectural Design, January/February 2005, page 4. 16 Fox, Michael and Kemp, Miles, Interactive Architecture, Princeton Architectural Press, 2009. 17 McCullough, Malcolm.: 2004, Digital ground : architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental knowing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, page 154. 18 ibid

19 Rahaman, Hafizur and Tan Beng-Kiang. "Interactive space : Searching for a dual physical-virtual world." In CAADRIA 2009 : Between Man and Machine. Taiwan, 2009. 20 Mozer, M. C. “Lessons from an adaptive house.” In Smart environments: Technologies, protocols, and applications, edited by D. Cook and R. Das, 273–294. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons, 2005

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

certain actions, the house essentially programmed itself by monitoring the environment and sensing actions performed by the inhabitants, observing the occupancy and behavior patterns of the inhabitants, and learning to predict future states of the house.” 21 But how can a behavior be predicted when human psychology is so unpredictable and when we live in a consumers society where human reactions are affected so drastically from political and economic pressure that it makes it almost impossible to monitor? And we return to the question of what could be the result of developing architecture with its own brain, emotion and logic? In our understanding, interaction, simple or more complex, exists when there is exchange of information, and when at least one of the aspects noted earlier is present. Although an ultimate interaction would have an equal exchange of information and the ‘learning curve’ would increase for both sides, we can also describe as interaction when only one side is benefited more and the other one follows. Lets take a musician and his piano for instance. Initially the user does not acknowledge and expect the noise that is created by the instrument. However after a period of time the user gets to know all reactions of the instrument. But the learning curve can increase for an unexpected time period since you can find unlimited combinations and you can continuously learn new information from playing the piano. For the pianist the piano is more than just a tool. He sees it as a communication method. His relationship with the piano affecting the user’s feelings and emotions in multiple levels. However in this case, only the user gets an input and the instrument has a linear performance. Although this is a single-sided interaction there is still growth and evolution, time, memory and unexpectedness are all present making the human/instrument an interactive relationship Although it is higher in the scale comparing to a single-loop interaction it is still not a multiple loop interaction. In addition, in the input-system-output loop the existence of feedback would change the output in every instance, either negatively or positively, making this learning curve continuously growing and fluctuating.

21 Wikipedia contributors, "Interactive architecture," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interactive_architecture&oldid=529398007

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

PART 2 In architecture, interaction seems to have occurred as a trend in the past couple of years, aiming to make everything interactive and using the title ‘interactive Architecture’ as a mean to propose a technological advanced and futuristic built environment. Most examples still lie upon experimental installations and artwork or small-scale structures. Understanding what ‘interactive’ means will help us determine why we might want to make our environment, an ‘interactive’ space. In order to establish whether one can really 'interact' with architecture, a mere theoretical study would be insufficient as we saw that the term is altered based on the filed that it is applied. Therefore the following chapter regarding three architectural examples, or experiments, that deal with space and explore the ways in which we can enter into a conversation with our built environment and form complex, dynamic interactive architecture. The examples are driven by technology and although they might use it as a designing tool and not the driving force towards the formation of interactivity, they seem completely dependent on the range and capabilities of the technologies in hand. A correlation that is necessary to be made is between the hierarchy of needs and the occurrence of interactivity. This model will be helpful in the understanding of what needs each example fulfills and thus, how the user perceives it. Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" proposes a hierarchy of human needs. Together with human development psychology and the growth of every human being, Maslow introduces the terms Physiological, Safety, Belongingness and Love,

IMAGE # 2

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

Esteem, Self-Actualization and Self-Transcendence needs to describe the pattern that human motivations generally move through22. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid with the largest, most fundamental levels of needs at the bottom and the need for selfactualization at the top.23 [IMAGE 2] The most fundamental and basic four layers of the pyramid contain what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs": esteem, friendship and love, security, and physical needs. If these "deficiency needs" are not met – with the exception of the most fundamental (physiological) need – there may not be a physical indication, but the individual will feel anxious and tense. Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire (or focus motivation upon) the secondary or higher level needs. It is important to note that these needs are highly affected by the cultural background of each human. And in every situation these needs change throughout different periods of time. It is also logical for a person who lives under difficult circumstances in countries with limited resources, these needs to be re-arranged or different in scale. The pyramid represents a ‘generic’ and average visualization of what our needs are based on. Furthermore, although the physiological needs form the base of the pyramid, a well-equipped person will need to fulfill partly or wholly all the different levels of human motivation. “The few major studies that have been completed on the hierarchy seem to support the proposals of William James (1892/1962) and Mathes (1981) that there are three levels of human needs. James hypothesized the levels of material (physiological, safety), social (belongingness, esteem), and spiritual.24 Mathes proposed the three levels were physiological, belonginess, and self-actualization; he considered security and self-esteem as unwarranted. Alderfer (1972) developed a comparable hierarchy with his ERG (existence, relatedness, and growth) theory. His approach modified Maslow's theory based on the work of Gordon Allport (1960, 1961) who incorporated concepts from systems theory into his work on personality.”25 [IMAGE 3]

IMAGE # 3 The relationship between human needs and interactivity is highly connected and corresponds to the understanding and analysis of a human being as an agent from a social or physiological scope. Humans with similar levels of satisfaction in the different spectrums will lead to more complex multi-loop interactions, which will be more productive and engaging. Maslow recognized that not all personalities followed his proposed hierarchy. While a variety of personality dimensions might be considered as

22 Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–96. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm 23 Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–96. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm 24 Huitt, W. (2007). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA:

Valdosta State University. Retrieved from, http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/regsys/maslow.html 25 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

related to motivational needs, one of the most often cited is that of introversion and extroversion26. Reorganizing Maslow's hierarchy based on the work of Alderfer27 and considering the introversion/extraversion dimension of personality results in three levels, each with an introverted and extroverted component. This organization suggests there may be two aspects of each level that differentiate how people relate to each set of needs with different personalities relating more to one dimension than the other. For example, an introvert at the level of Other/Relatedness might be more concerned with his or her own perceptions of being included in a group, whereas an extrovert at that same level would pay more attention to how others value that membership. 28 The Evolving Sonic Environment --The Evolving Sonic Environment presented at Artist in Residence (June 2007) in Netherlands Media Art Institute by Usman Haque and Robert Davis is an acousticallycoupled analog neural network, consisting of a society of devices whose behavior collectively changes in response to the pitch ascendancy or decadency that each one detects 29 . The immediate presence of the public determines the acoustic environment and is comprised of multiple units each of which emits a sound with a different frequency, hang on the ceiling. This can be seen as a successful example and attempt to form an interaction between the user and the units. “Learning circuits in each device enabled them to adapt over the long term to different patterns of occupancy so that after a while the society of devices collectively developed their own perceptual categories of "occupancy" that were not explicitly programmed, and which therefore did not necessarily correspond to human-determined patterns of occupancy.”30 “Each device can output at any one time a rising and/or descending tone: however, if a device hears too much of one type of tone it may get 'bored' and slowly modify its behavior. On the other hand, they may all coalesce in equilibrium where they are all 'content' with the state of pitches in the room. This 'contentedness' may get disrupted when humans enter and start making their own sounds, thus perpetuating

IMAGE # 4

26 ibid 27 Alderfer, C. (1972). Existence, relatedness, & growth. New York: Free Press. 28 Huitt, W. (2007). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA:

Valdosta State University. Retrieved from, http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/regsys/maslow.html 29 Haque Design+research: http://www.haque.co.uk/index.php 30 Haque, U. “Architecture, interaction, systems”. AU: Arquitetura & Urbanismo 149, August 2006.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

the evolving acoustic characteristics of the space.31 During their residence Haque and Davis will be investigating to what degree the collective conduct of the units is influenced if the space is occupied by people and mobile objects, in order to be able in this manner to develop a ‘perception’ for the space.”32 [IMAGE 4] The problem is that there is a limit to the complexity of the installation. Although it is an attempt to make the devices respond on their own and act independently there is always a controller. Thus the interaction achieved will always be in some respect expected. However, the experience of this experiment does give an input in the way people perceive the space and how they act around it. Curiosity is one element that triggers the user to think and imagine. Although the learning curve might not be very long, the devices can be seen as actors, just like their users and a dependency is created. What happens however when you turn off the energy and the devices stop working, and become lifeless, immobile objects? This is a question that should make us think about the potential and possible evolution of such a ‘clever’ device. The Piano stairs --The Piano stairs in Stockholm, Sweden designed by The Fun Theory (2009) 33 encourage people to take the stairs instead of the escalator; regular stairs at the Odenplan subway station in Stockholm were turned into piano keys. It aims through the space and its arrangement to form a social action and criticism. Basic on the interaction design, the piano stairs resulted in a 66% increase on the people using the stairs rather than the escalator thus promoting physical exercise34. “Theory of Fun” is an initiative of Volkswagen, which showcases efforts to get people to change by simply making things more fun. The campaign asks, "What Happens When We Make Choices Fun?" and answers itself: "Fun can obviously change behavior for the better."35 The project through its simplicity achieves to be perceived and understood by the users in a very positive way. However, can we assume that the user interacts with the stairs? The relationship achieved between the piano stairs and the user is a simple reaction. The stairs respond to the user but do not change the way they perform. After the first few moments the user understands the performance of the stairs and the cycle closes since the capabilities of the stairs are very limited compared to the human perception and level of communication. A consideration that rises is whether or not it makes sense to use the technology and finance such a project and what are the associated benefits. From the scope of this paper, the interactivity between the human and non-human, in this case the user and the stairs, is non-existent, However other features of this project make it a valuable example towards a new way of interacting with our environment. Three main goals can be extracted from this project: the promotion of fitness, promotion of real time art, and creating sustainable awareness. Building this idea as part of the Fun Theory, citizens can relate and perceive it as a positive addition in their city and counteracts to suspiciousness and fear of something new and unknown.

31 Haque Design+research: http://www.haque.co.uk/index.php 32 Netherlands Media Art Institute: http://nimk.nl/eng/rob-davis-usman-haque-evolving-sonic-environment 33 “The Fun Theory”: http://www.thefuntheory.com 34 Dell Social Innovation Challenge: http://www.dellchallenge.org/projects/piano-stairs 35 “Yes! Magazine”. Last modified November 2013. http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/the-pianostaircase-what-happens-when-we-make-choices-fun.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

The Fun Palace --A final and more controversial example is Price’s Fun Palace who’s primary function is a theatre, after developed as The Wyly Theatre in Dallas, by REX/OMA and realized in 2009. It covers many configurations of the scene/audience relation within one, open-space environment. The space offers a lot of possibilities for artistic performances and many other possible uses. The users (artists, vendors, performers) can quickly transform it to fit their needs. This reconfiguration forms a relationship between the space and the user and in a way the interaction appears in the aspect of the space being able to offer numerous options and conditions. However this example is also the embodiment of conflict from agent-based approach to technology based approach. From responsive architecture as a performing instrument brought forward from Cedric Price and theatre director Joan Littlewood by creating the idea of the so called Fun Palace to a more technological approach by OMA aiming to reach a higher level of interactivity, to re-think and advance what Price tried to achieve. A new approach that uses new control systems, a number of actuators, sensors and components and fabrication techniques with digital simulations to achieve a more comprehensive approach towards our built environment. However the question is still whether or not does this new era of design methods benefit the interaction between us and our built environment and consecutively the interaction between each other. The key element in the Fun palace and what makes it a successful attempt to create interaction is that it is what it is and is not thought as something more or wanting to do more than what it can. The creators treat it more as a tool rather than a building without relying on technology but on responsiveness. Fifty five years after this envisionment its collective action is still a matter of discussion. What makes this architectural project really stand out and propose ideas is that it has a specific target group: the working class wanting to learn new crafts. A clear aim and vision that triggers a specific social group. Instead of trying to address everyone the Fun palace becomes a white canvas for people who want to get involved. The reconfigurable space changes based on people’s needs and the inhabitants can change and adapt the space. The architectural elements do not try to interact with the user but mostly to respond and this creates the platform for the formation of interaction between the users. The seventy five-tower skeletons, constructs a visual incompleteness, an unfinished Architecture creating this curiosity, this attraction to act on the structure and engage with the space36. A debate can come up about whether the set up forces the user into a particular behavior and constrains him to perform in a limited way. The way it can be more accurately criticized is that the space proposes combinations. The vision of an architectural process, as a neverending procedure, implies the involvement of the different inhabitants and creates interaction through space producing a new form of urban life- a form of collectiveness and a source of debate37 . Could this be seen as the genesis of a collective consciousness? The rules of engagement propose a peer relationship with the social action- or even a political action. [IMAGE 5/6] Although it can be seen as an analogue for cybernetics it acts upon a feedback system where inhabitants inform the space and the building acts upon the inhabitants. The palace responds by offering the basic needs: security, comfort and

36 Khan, O. and Beesley, P. ‘Responsive Architecture/Performing Instruments’, in Khan, O. Scholz, T. and Shepard, M. (eds.) Situated Technologies Pamphlets 4. The Architectural League of New York: New York, US, 2009. 37 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

light, air and energy controlling38. In a way it is necessary for the user to become familiar to the space. But this responsiveness does not imply an interaction between the user and the building. It aims in creating the conditions for engagement of the users and the development of a mutual relationship between the people and their environment. Philip Beesley and Omar Khan describe this negotiated relationship as a mutual responsibility. A form of conversation that can lead to friction as part of the public debate and the creation of interactivity as a form of companionship. 39 Based on our knowledge and perspective right now it is still impossible to name a relationship between a user and a building – or any part of the built environment- an example of ultimate interaction. Our understanding of the most successful interaction is the existence of equality between the two sides. Thus, both sides having a brainand memory-feelings and emotions are crucial in order to establish a successful multiple-loop interaction between a living and non-living organism. Several examples in architecture are attempting to form interactive design but as long as one side is prevailing over the other, having control, and setting limits the interaction fails to reach a higher level of complexity. This argument does not necessarily mean that these examples are not successful but mostly that in our struggle to generate interactivity we loose our initial scope.

IMAGE # 5/6

38 ibid 39 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

PART 3 System Thinking and Design Thinking are closely related to the ideas, both social and technological, of Interactive Architecture. But it relies more on the agent and the interactions of agents in a community. System thinking arouses from social consideration and is a way of understanding reality that emphasizes the relationships among a system’s part rather than the parts themselves. Both interactivity and System thinking require users and performers and need each other to function. This new way of thinking based on the ‘whole’ and the ‘relationship’ is a way of solving organizational problems and be a catalyst of change and evolution- either in the sense of the way buildings are built or the social framework of the built environment. As in interactive architecture, system thinking needs feedback in order for it to develop. All interactions are parts of smaller or bigger systems and the way this system functions or thinks acts on the kind of interactions that is established. Socially, system thinking should be the core of every community and this would prevent dysfunction. It would promote collectiveness, which in turn would affect also the output of this community. System thinking can and does influence design and forms an approach orientated towards Design/designer thinking. As expressed by Tim Brown (president and CEO of IDEO) “Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success”. 40 It proposes the resolution of problems using a variety of different perspectives. “In systems thinking epistemology, understanding the process of knowing, takes on an important role. Instead of viewing scientific knowledge as objective and independent of the observer, systems thinking tries to integrate the influence of perception and methods of observation into scientific knowledge41. Ultimately, Capra argues that in the new way of thinking science can only be approximate, it can never provide any complete and definitive understanding. Systems thinking can be expressed in terms of connectedness, relationships and context and uses networks as a metaphor.”42 Differently to the architectural examples analyzed in the previous chapter, this chapter will focus on the ideas than inform interactivity and which mostly use the existing infrastructure of a city as well as ways people can use the tools they already have. It does not necessarily exclude the use of technology but it has its base on the notion of participatory planning in communities. The economic and social crisis that is raging in the Western world the last decade has been a major factor concerning the re-definition of system thinking and the ways communities function and interact. According to Capra, the rise of systems theories is causing a shift to a new paradigm, the ecological paradigm43. The ecological way of thinking is based on the emerging theories of living systems that offer a unified view of mind, matter and life44.

40 “Ideo.” Accessed January 03, 2013. http://www.ideo.com/about/. 41 Jameson, F. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991) p. 263. 42 Capra, F. The Web of Life. (New York: Doubleday, 1996), p. 10 43 ibid 44 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

The Makers Movement “…rather than the closed object, the maximum expression of design today is the process- the activation of open systems, tools that shape society by enabling selforganization, platforms of collaboration independent of the capitalist model of competition, and empowering networks of production’’ 45 . (Joseph Grima, Adhocracy) The rise in unemployment has been the reason for the creation of new labor models and an increase in environmental awareness as part of a distribution network that has formed in Europe, mainly in countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece. Modern cities have to been seen as dynamic systems of changing equilibriums, both as a whole and as a network of parts 46 . What makes this system progress is the constant negotiation between the different parties involved, which sometimes are antagonistic. But clash is an integral part of interactivity, as discussed in the example of the Fun Palace. It creates discussion and debate. The economic downfall has affected the dynamics of people creating tension and uncertainty, which leads to protest and extreme reactions47. However, it is always in darker periods of crisis when creativity rises and ideas flourish. “When radical change occurs, it often implies a serious conflict, or imbalance, of opposites. The notion of creative destruction is often viewed as one of the pillars of modernism.”48 For example in order to create something truly new the old must first be destroyed. In this conflict of opposites, one side of the opposition overthrows the other. Assuming that change is constant and that one side can never completely destroy the other, it is likely that at a given time the previously overthrown side will return to a conflict, causing a shift into another imbalance. 49 In a balance of opposites it is recognized that both sides of what seems to be a conflict, can be important. According to Capra, in a healthy and diverse community there will be a need for stability and change, order and freedom, tradition and innovation. By avoiding rigid decisions for one or the other, a dynamic balance can be established, Capra argues.50 What composes out built environment is the relationship between the infrastructures; the buildings and the transport system. In the article “THE CITY, SPACE, WORK AND PEOPLE WHO MAKE THINGS”, César Reyes Nájera notes that “The flow of information, matter and energy through human and non-human components is a daily phenomenon that is boosted by the heterogeneity of all of these elements. From this point of view, the city is not an inherited concept, or a series of spaces organized according to a master plan; it is a reality that is built day by day”51. This point of view proposes a city as a system that thinks and acts. But composed not of ‘smart’ technological gadgets but of smart innovative citizens.

45 Nájera, César R. “The City, Space,

Work and People Who Make Things.” CCCBLAB:Research and Innovation in the Cultural Sphere, April 24, 2013. (Accessed December 05, 2013). http://blogs.cccb.org/lab/en/ciutat-espai-treball-i-gent-que-fa-coses/. 46 ibid 47 ibid

48 De Ridder, E. “Bottom up Adaptive Building: The Role of the Architect in Cooperative Architecture.” Master Architecture Theory Thesis, TU DELFT, 2012. 49 ibid 50 ibid

51 Nájera, César R. “The City, Space, Work and People Who Make Things.” CCCBLAB:Research and Innovation in the Cultural Sphere, April 24, 2013. (Accessed December 05, 2013). http://blogs.cccb.org/lab/en/ciutat-espai-treball-i-gent-que-fa-coses/.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

IMAGE # 7 The case study focuses on Spain, and the creation of a new movement, the so-called Makers Movement. The unused, abandoned spaces distributed in key points of the city become the spaces of interaction and a source of political and civic education52. Empty spaces increase every day in cities struck by the economic crisis, due to the shutting down of many companies. As a result, large spaces and industrial building blocks are changing the urban fabric, by introducing broken links and unadsorbed properties. [We are holding a one-liter bottle of liquid detergent in our hands. It doesn’t have a label or a brand yet. A few days ago, it contained vegetable oil for cooking. All it took was a bit of curiosity, some environmental awareness, a few Internet searches and a citizen network to light a spark and spread an idea. The home-made detergent, which has been made in one of the kitchens in the neighborhood, is being tested by the local residents. Now they need a space for their project, so that they can take the manufacturing process out of the kitchens and junk rooms of people’s apartments and, if possible, set up a distribution network in the local area.]53 The above extract is a great example of a genesis of an idea and the creation of a new product relying just on the tools available in hand. This promises success for two reasons: first it aims at the present and local needs of the citizens, and secondly they focus on self-supply, self- sufficiency and teamwork. This reaction is a positive and

52 ibid 53 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

constructive output resulting from the friction between politicians and citizens due to the economic crisis. The real solution proposed by the inventors has a direct link to the way people interact with each other and aims to improve the quality of their everyday life by making it easier. This non-conventional way of working and the use of abandoned spaces and empty shops propose a new way of collaboration, production and entrepreneurship. But with one difference: the gap between the idea and the production is minimized and is now about people gathering, sharing ideas, helping each other and making things. It’s the evolution of the famous to all DIY (do it yourself) to a new communal version of DIWO (do it with others). A realization that by collaborating you can always get further and quicker. Although this might assume a low-tech approach, there are plenty of more complex and technological projects that serve the same purpose and facilitate the needs providing real time solutions.54 It uses the principles of a thinking system, informed by the culture and the situation prevailing for the current time period. “What we need are spaces for interaction, where the ideas of citizens who have training and experience can mix, cross-fertilize and spread. Rather than big factories, we need workshops and networks to strengthen them locally and connect them globally.”55 The added value in this initiative and relating to the human needs is that it re-enforces some of the basic needs leading to more healthy interactions between the people of a city. Imagination is the added value that is striving to create a strong citizen infrastructure. This notion might be opposite to the industrial production but as a strategy it transcends to stronger relational networks, which reflect the real needs of the citizens able to configure new urban connections56. The Maker Philosophy can be seen an attempt to form a level of interactivity in the fields of production, education and organization that will use the potential of the citizens in a more productive way, proposing a solution to current problems of western communities. The framework of citizen interaction can guide activities according to what is better for the majority, in order to avoid potentially destructive uses of the new tools.57 As stated very well by Usman Haque in ‘Future Everything’ “We are not talking about planning the city of the future as a place full of technological gadgets, but about learning to interpret and promote the energy interface that is generated between empathetic citizens and the spaces that they now inhabit and negotiate. And let the technology follow.”58

54 These kinds of ideas can be found in designs such Jesse Howard’s Transparent Tools, which is a family of household appliances in which users are encouraged to be actively involved in producing, repairing and modifying their own products. Other examples include the variations of Street Food Printing, developed by Paco Morales, GGLab, Luis E. Fraguada and Deniz Manisali; Stratigraphic Manufacturing, by Unfold, which explores a new model for fabricating porcelain pieces that can be produced locally, with designs that can be shared globally, allowing additions to be made to the original model depending on the local production context; and ELIOOO, a home hydroponic cultivation system that subverts IKEA instruction manuals, developed by Antonio Scarponi and made possible through a crowdfunding campaign. 55 Nájera, César R. “The City, Space, Work and People Who Make Things.” CCCBLAB:Research and Innovation in the Cultural Sphere, April 24, 2013. (Accessed December 05, 2013). http://blogs.cccb.org/lab/en/ciutat-espai-treball-i-gent-que-fa-coses/. 56 ibid 57 ibid 58 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

A self-reliant community In Greece on the slopes of Mount Telaithrion on the island of Evia, a group of young Greeks have left the busy city and created a self-reliant rural community. Their goal is to eat only the organic products they grow on their own, to free themselves from the national electricity grid, and to exchange what they grow or make instead of using money. The project, whose ultimate goal is to create a school for sustainable living, was the idea of four Athenians who met online back in 2008 and bonded over their dissatisfaction with the daily grind of city life59. “I just try to be the change I want to be, instead of waiting for a government to make the change, or instead of voting for someone to make the change. I try to be the change.” [Panagiotis Kantas, Co-Founder of 'Free and Real'] In their second year of living permanently on a forested patch of land next to the village of Aghios, 80 percent of the food they eat now comes from their two herb and vegetable gardens and the fruit they pick off the trees6061. The group, almost all of whom follow a strict vegetarian diet, sleep communally in yurts – portable, tent-like dwellings made of tarp often seen in Central Asia. Whatever is left over from their gardens, they exchange in the village for the supplies they cannot produce. 32-yearold co-founder Apostolos Sianos quit a well-paying job as a web site designer in Athens to help start the community, which is called ‘Free and Real.’ («Freedom of Resources for Everyone, Everywhere & Respect, Equality, Awareness and Learning») The statement on the website (http://telaithrion.freeandreal.org) of the project is a perfect articulation of an action promoting new ways of interacting and new formulas of educational progression: “We want to learn from our mistakes, to evolve the way we communicate with our fellow men, to re-establish our self’s by re-establishing our environments and our needs and at the end to act on the research and knowledge of mankind to the areas of health, technology, energy, education, farming, social structure, entertainment and empathy. To embrace diversity and uniqueness and become better than our own self’s, accepting the daily feedback as food for thought and conscious harmonious creative and productive communication. We want to live with the lowest possible ecological footprint and simultaneously with the greatest possible freedom in education (information) and creative living.”62

This is a more extreme example compared to the Makers Movement, aiming however to re-invent and re-inform the very basic human needs. Relating to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the Telaithrion project sets a new base for the physiological and safety levels, more healthy and in a way ‘back to the basics’ in order for the rest to have solid foundations. This comes in hand with the relationships and interactions built

59 “The Delight Makers.” Accessed March

06, 2013. http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/young-greekscreate-self-reliant-island-society/ 60 The group actively uses social media, and last year over one hundred people from Greece and abroad asked about joining or collaborating in some way. They currently organize seminars on organic farming and have drawn up the plans for a large school on sustainable living to be constructed later this summer, and for which they raised money on a crowd-funding site on the Internet. 61 “The Telaithrion Project.” Accessed November 05, 2013. http://en.telaithrion.freeandreal.org/project/. 62 “The Delight Makers.” Accessed March 06, 2013. http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/young-greekscreate-self-reliant-island-society/

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

in such a community. Re-enforcing the biological and physiological needs and you make sure that the interactions that will be established in the newly created community will be productive and engaging. Thus in this case too, the environment changes and evolves based on the needs of the users. Our environment in any case is affected by our actions and our performance. Compared to the aim of the ‘interactive’ architectural examples discussed in chapter 2 to create authentic multiloop interactions in actual built projects, in this case the agents change their setting to re-invent both the interactions between each other and their interaction with their environment. Thus we see a different scope in the needs that this action aims to fulfill. The Zimbabwe Bush Pump In the paper “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology, Marianne de Laet and Annemarie Mol, use the simple and common example of a water pumpthe Zimbabwe Bush Pump 'B' type- to describe what makes it an appropriate and suitable technology 63 . They make their case by showing that the pump was not invented by one human actor (the opposite of what they call heroic actorship64), but through a slow process of fluid actorship, where there is not one clear human creator. This approach will be used to explain the impact and effect such an object can have on a single agent but also on a society and the collective network and give an insight of the idea of system theory and system thinking. The main argument about the Bush Pump is its fluidity, concerning its boundaries, working order, and its maker and the way its acts as a fluid object which does not impose itself but tries to serve, and this is what makes it adaptable, flexible and responsive. The interactivity that occurs through this example is multileveled, bust is also fluid, which we will try to define and understand. As a starting point it is important to understand the essence of the pump as an object and as an actor: it is just a hand pump and its technology is completely pragmatic. It is a technological piece whose mechanics does not need to be high tech, and is so advanced in its simplicity, solid and mechanical but also fluid and flexible in the same time. Situated in villages of Zimbabwe, the Bush Pump has become the national water pump, invented and developed by Dr. Morgan and manufactured by Mr. Von Elling (Harare, CV+W Enginnering) 65 . However what sets it apart from other examples discussed in this paper, and many more executed daily, these two actors never claimed authorship or ownership. In a way they are modest inventors who have more of a system thinking approach. “…in Morgan's eyes the current pump is no more than a perfected version of a longestablished and locally-developed technology that has always been part of, and belongs in, the public domain…Morgan creates a non-creator subject, a dissolved self- not so that he will fade away, but in order to get clean water flowing everywhere.”66 The success of the Bush Pump lies upon the fact that it belongs to everyone. It is made for the people but in the same time made from the people. Although there is the idea behind the product it had been locally developed though distributed action and the hero behind the end result is fluid, just like the product itself. The fact that the pump has no patent, no name, no rights, no legal fees make it an affordable

63 De Laet, Marianne and Mol, Annemarie. “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump : Mechanics of a Fluid Technology”. Social Studies of Science, 30 (2). pp. 225-263. April 2000 64 ibid 65 ibid 66 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

technology and makes it easily acceptable from the community and the local authority67. So people pay just for its maintenance and for the raw materials but it reflects one of their fundamental everyday need, the source of water. Taking a nonhuman, non-rational element and giving it a role of an actor re-defines our understanding of actorship. An actor as defined by sociology and in philosophical terms would be “a rational man- a well bounded, sane and centered human figure.”68In a way a perfect man- a Homo Universalis. However, the pump is far from perfect and that is what makes it flexible and fluid and easily adaptable to human needs. As Marianne de Laet and Annemarie Mol describe “the Bush Pump is not a solid character. Not only can actors be non-rational and non-human; they can also or so we hope to demonstrate - be fluid without losing their agency. Effective actors need not stand out as solid statues but mainly fluidly dissolve into whatever it is they help achieve.” 69 In todays case we always see the inventor pose before his technological innovation. Rarely we can see examples where the final outcome, either a product or built environment, is set free to become its own actor, but is always controlled by its maker and the limitations he sets. In analyzing the way the pump acts and interacts, Marianne de Laet and Annemarie Mol set three levels of activity: a mechanical object that provides clean water and promotes health- preventing diseases, a link for the community- a gathering point similar to the Ancient Greek ‘Hestia’ (fireplace) as a symbol, and a nation buildercreating a foundation for interaction between the smaller communities and the local state. The newest model of the pump- the Bush Pump Type B, is composed by a pump head, the base (pump stand) and the lever.70 Its function is as simple as one can imagine but complex when you have a close look to the joints, bolts and connections and the way they are all synchronized. The parts that are invisible, underground, the hydraulic components and forces than enable it to function, and draw water from deep into the ground up to the surface, is what makes the strokes of the pump stronger, more efficient and powerful compared to other pumps. A number of factors have made its establishment successful. It has an attractive design; it is compact, colorful, durable, easy to use, effective, versatile and can be applied in various well types making it universal. And above all it can provide clean fresh water, something important for Zimbabwe communities and thus act as a health promoting technology especially because of the high risk in diseases and AIDS incidences. 71 The second aspect is a promoter of locality and community. Creating a ‘joint ownership’ and a ‘collective responsibility’ villagers of Zimbabwe gather together and embrace the pump.72 The bush Pump is nothing without the community it serves. It is designed to maintain themselves and all interventions concerning the pump are based on a communal decision which forms a level o collectivity and participation.73 It is this action of the pump that establishes interaction between the people. Through something as simple as the pump people embrace its installation as a festivity, a celebration. The success of the pump lies upon the community accepting and agreeing on the location, installation, and participation. It is site specific and the community plays a decisive role on the organization and division of responsibility that

67 De Laet, Marianne and Mol, Annemarie. “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump : Mechanics of a Fluid Technology”. Social Studies of Science, 30 (2). pp. 225-263. April 2000 68 ibid 69 ibid 70 ibid 71 ibid 72 ibid 73 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

the pump implies. Cause the Bush pump requires a community to maintain it but also constitutes its community which forms around it.74 The final aspect is the way it builds the nation. Making the Bush Pump a national symbol and forming a nation around water creates strong bonds and a mean of communication and collaboration between smaller and bigger communities reenforcing the origins of people. It creates an incentive for citizens, and actively affects the way villages are formed around the successfully installed pumps. Another aspect is the formation of specializations and jobs to offer maintenance to the pump. This makes people relate to the pump more and the fact that everything and every part is locally produced makes something more than a mechanism or a pragmatic technology, it becomes a fluid actor. In conclusion the Zimbabwe bush Pump shapes new configurations in Zimbabwe socio-technical landscape and although it exist for over half a century its technology is still current and appropriate, because it acts and it performs and it serves its users, giving a different interpretation to adaptability 75 . It has changed over time, developed, evolved and gone through constant reviews. In today’s architecture world “Design thinking” and “Systems Thinking” are being considered disjointedly. Specifically, the role of design in either approach is not transparent. The challenge remains how the "DESIGN THINKING" community can learn from the "SYSTEMS THINKING" community and vice versa”. Design can be greatly enhanced if it improves the performance of the system as whole. This to happen, successful interactions need to be established. Which can benefit all aspects and parts of a project realization; from planning, to brainstorming, decision-making, fabrication, and can bring the whole system to the discussion from the beginning, not just in parts. Questioning the same issue as in the discussion about interactive design, about having a system that functions and thinks on its own without any human intervention, can reveal a lot of considerations and maybe limitations concerning the way a System thinking approach can benefit, or not, a design process.

74 ibid 75 ibid

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

IMAGE # 8

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

Conclusion A project might start from the concept of Interaction and then develop a system thinking approach, material performance, get involved into parametric design, and how can industrial customization and robotic fabrication be applied and finally a debate between the modernist and contemporary approach in Architecture. Even from Peter Cook’s, Plug-in-City (Archigram, 1964) he stated that a ‘building should be able to change’. This expresses at its best the correlation and relationship between a balance between a technological approach and a social, agent-based approach. And it is these conceptual, theoretical and scientific ideas that will be the foundation of non-standard and interactive architecture that will enable to actually and actively make a ‘building to change’. An issue to consider in relation to creating interactive architecture is the aspect of necessity and to what extend does interactive architecture offer something more to our basic existence needs. The basic needs through satisfaction lead to the relatedness needs, which evidently evolve to growth needs. This escalation is triggered by society’s media brainwashing that make the public believe that they need more than what they actually do need. So a question to be answered is if the ultimate interaction between human and building is a life necessity or is it only a small installation that can satisfy the same purpose- to make the user think, imagine, broaden his horizons and experiment? However there is a counterpoint, proposing that Interactive architecture doesn’t only mean “responding to users”, but also making something people didn’t know (they wanted) yet. 76 This arouses considerations about the limit and the level of danger that might occur by over coming these limitations. The aspect of the unknown which arises by interacting with virtual reality and artificial intelligence is what creates fear but also curiosity, which in turn makes people want to investigate. But the social issues that would occur with creating a building with a brain of its own, being able to walk away anytime and equalizing human with non-human are greater than what we can imagine. Either automated, reactive, responsive or transactive, taking different definitions, interactive architecture can be newly defined as ‘’an architecture that exhibits autonomous behavior in which behavior evolves through interactions with architecture’s users and environment’’77. “In the next few years, emerging practices in interactive architecture are set to transform the built environment. Whereas ‘smart’ design was once regarded as the preserve of museum exhibits or Jumbotrom advertising screens, ‘multi-mediated’ interactive design has now entered every domain of public and private life.”78 There are several different ways of using Architecture to establish interactions between the users (agents), from Usman Haque’s more contemporary and technological approach through installations and performing Architecture to Herman Hertzberger’s, Space and the Architect: Lessons in Architecture 2, describing the idealized collective space as a nuanced compilation of architectural elements arranged to invite the visitor to slow down enough to allow time to greet a neighbor or simply experience the building. However either low-tech or high-tech the purpose is the same: augmenting social interactions and delivering new experiences (unexpected, surprising, engaging).

76 Tomasz Jaskiewicz, Design Strategies: Interactive architecture, November 2, 2013. TU DELFT. Retrieved from:http://studiolab.io.tudelft.nl/ie2012/design-strategies-interactive-architecture-by-tomasz-jaskiewicz/ (20, May 2913) 77 ibid 78 Bullivant, Lucy, '4dspace: Interactive Design Environments'. London: AD/John Wiley & Sons, 2005.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

The answer to the thesis “Interactive Architecture: friend or foe?” is that it can be both a friend and a foe. It is the user who decides his position and actorship towards the emerging interactive architecture. A successful interaction will occur when the user is an actor and participates either it has to do with technological advancements or dealing with existing situations. Ultimate interaction, as defined in the introductory part of this thesis, is still a notion that cannot yet be proven between a human and a non-human. All the examples analyzed gave an insight on how the needs of the users change and how people evolve around their environment but there is still a huge gap to bridge for achieving a successful and constructive ‘conversation’ between the user and his built environment. If architecture is to continue to respond to the possibilities of technological innovation that surround it as a profession, then we may no longer ask “What is that building?,” or “How was it made?,” but rather, “What does that building do?”79 In the end of the day, as Ralph Erskin has said, the job of buildings is to improve human relations: architecture must ease them not make them worse.80

79 Fox, Michael A. "Interactive Architecture will change everything." ZHUANGSHI: Chinese Journal of Design (September 2010). http://en.izhsh.com.cn/articles/10/82.html (accessed March 28, 2013). 80 Eirinichristofidou: a blog on architecture and education. “Space in the making. Ethics in the making”. Last modified: 15.12.2012. http://eirinichristofidou.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/space-in-the-making-ethicsin-the-making/

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

Bibliography

•

Alderfer, C. Existence, relatedness, & growth. New York: Free Press, 1972.

•

Bullivant, Lucy, '4dspace: Interactive Design Environments'. London: AD/John Wiley & Sons, 2005.

•

Bullivant, Lucy, 4dsocial: interactive design environments. London: Wiley, 2007.

•

Bullivant, Lucy . "Sky Ear: Usman Haque." Architectural Design, Jan. - Feb. 2005.

•

Capra, F. The Web of Life. New York: Doubleday, 1996.

•

Castle, Helen, ed. “4d Space: Interactive Architecture.” Architectural Design, January/February 2005.

•

De Laet, Marianne and Mol, Annemarie. “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump : Mechanics of a Fluid Technology”. Social Studies of Science, 30 (2). pp. 225263. April 2000

•

De Ridder, E. “Bottom up Adaptive Building: The Role of the Architect in Cooperative Architecture.” Master Architecture Theory Thesis, TU DELFT, 2012.

•

Dubberly, H., Haque, U., & Pangaro, P. (JAN-FEB 209). What is Interaction? Are There Different Types? Interactions, XVI(1), 69–75.

•

Fox, Michael and Kemp, Miles, Interactive Architecture, Princeton Architectural Press, 2009.

•

Fox, Michael A. "Interactive Architecture will change everything." ZHUANGSHI: Chinese Journal of Design (September 2010). http://en.izhsh.com.cn/articles/10/82.html (accessed March 28, 2013).

•

Frazer, J. An Evolutionary Architecture, London: Architectural Association Publications, Themes VII, John Frazer and the Architectural Association, 1995

•

G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

•

Haque, U. “Architecture, interaction, systems”. AU: Arquitetura & Urbanismo 149, August 2006.

•

Haque. U. “What Is a City that It Would Be ‘Smart’?” Volume 34. Archis. Amsterdam 2012

•

Hertzberger, H. (2000). Space and the Architect: lessons in architecture 2. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

•

Huitt, W. (2007). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from, http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/regsys/maslow.html

•

Khan, O. and Beesley, P. ‘Responsive Architecture/Performing Instruments’, in Khan, O. Scholz, T. and Shepard, M. (eds.) Situated Technologies Pamphlets 4. The Architectural League of New York: New York, US, 2009.

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

•

Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-NetworkTheory. UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.

•

Latour, Bruno, and Albena Yaneva. “Give Me a Gun and I Will Make All Buildings Move:An ANT’s View of Architecture .” In Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research, 80–89. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008.

•

Lowenthal, Marjorie F, and Clayton Haven. “Interaction and Adaptation: Intimacy as a Critical Variable.” American Sociological Review 33.1 (1968): 20– 30.

•

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–96. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

•

McCullough, Malcolm: 2004, Digital ground : architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental knowing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

•

Mozer, M. C. “Lessons from an adaptive house.” In Smart environments: Technologies, protocols, and applications, edited by D. Cook and R. Das, 273– 294. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons, 2005

•

Nájera, César R. “The City, Space, Work and People Who Make Things.” CCCBLAB:Research and Innovation in the Cultural Sphere, April 24, 2013. (Accessed December 05, 2013). http://blogs.cccb.org/lab/en/ciutat-espaitreball-i-gent-que-fa-coses/.

•

Pask, G. “Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics.” Architectural Design, September 1969

•

Pourdehnad John, Wexler R. Erica, Wilson V. Dennis, “Systems & Design Thinking: A Conceptual Framework for Their Integration.” Presented at the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) 55th Annual Conference, "All Together Now: Working Across Disciplines," at University of Hull, Hull, UK, July 17-22, 2011

•

Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes, 16, 110-134. Beverly Hills: Sage.

•

Rafaeli, Sheizaf, and Fay Sudweeks. “Networked Interactivity.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication’s 2, no. 4 (March 1997). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.

•

Rahaman, Hafizur and Tan Beng-Kiang. "Interactive space : Searching for a dual physical-virtual world." In CAADRIA 2009 : Between Man and Machine. Taiwan, 2009.

LECTURES • Tomasz Jaskiewicz, Design Strategies: Interactive architecture, November 2, 2013. TU DELFT. Retrieved from: http://studiolab.io.tudelft.nl/ie2012/designstrategies-interactive-architecture-by-tomasz-jaskiewicz/ (20, May 2913)

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

WEBSITES •

“The Fun Theory”: http://www.thefuntheory.com

•

Dell Social Innovation Challenge: http://www.dellchallenge.org/projects/piano-stairs

•

Except. (2009, May 16). Symbiosis in Development (SiD): Systemic sustainability methodology . EXCEPT: Integrated Sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.except.nl/en/#.en.articles.148-symbiosis-indevelopment-sid

•

Futureeverything Contributors. (2013). “FutureEverything CIC”. Retrieved from http://futureeverything.org

•

Haque Design+research: http://www.haque.co.uk/index.php

•

“Ideo.” Accessed January 03, 2013. http://www.ideo.com/about/.

•

“Netherlands Media Art Institute”: http://nimk.nl/eng/rob-davis-usman-haqueevolving-sonic-environment (accessed April 12, 2013)

•

“The Delight Makers.” Accessed March 06, 2013. http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/young-greeks-create-self-reliant-islandsociety/

•

“The Telaithrion Project.” Accessed March 05, 2013. http://en.telaithrion.freeandreal.org/project/.

•

Wikipedia contributors, "Maslow's hierarchy of needs," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs& oldid=557052368 (accessed May 5, 2013).

•

Wikipedia contributors, "Interactive architecture," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interactive_architecture&oldid=529 398007 (accessed May 1, 2013).

•

Wikipedia contributors, "Interactivity," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interactivity&oldid=554301091 (accessed February 20, 2013)

•

“Yes! Magazine”. Last modified November 2013. http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/the-piano-staircase-what-happenswhen-we-make-choices-fun.

ONLINE BLOG •

Eirinichristofidou: a blog on architecture and education. “Space in the making. Ethics in the making”. Last modified: 15.12.2012. http://eirinichristofidou.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/space-in-the-makingethics-in-the-making/

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

IMAGES SOURCES #1 One-way, two-way, and interactive communication: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html. #2 Maslow's Hierarchy of needs: http://paf9120fall2010.blogspot.nl/2010/10/maslows-hierarchy-of-needsupdates.html #3 Levels of Human Needs: http://studiolab.io.tudelft.nl/ie2012/designstrategies-interactive-architecture-by-tomasz-jaskiewicz/ #4 Sonic "neurons" suspended in space; neurons designed and built by Robert Davis; observing the room's "observation": http://www.haque.co.uk/evolvingsonicenvironment.php #5 Sketch of Fun Palace by Cedric Price 1961: http://www.leoniewelling.nl/portfolio-view/fun-palace/#prettyPhoto #6 Cedric Price. Fun Palace, diagram, 1961: http://relationalthought.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/315/ #7 Parts and components. OS Waterboiling by Jesse Howard: http://blogs.cccb.org/lab/en/ciutat-espai-treball-i-gent-que-fa-coses/. #8 Pump Head as Pictured in Instruction Manual: De Laet, Marianne and Mol, Annemarie. “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump : Mechanics of a Fluid Technology”. Social Studies of Science, 30 (2). pp. 225-263. April 2000 #9 The Jetsons: Work in the Modern World (1962): http://www.philosophymatters.org/2012/07/the-jetsons-work-in-the-modernworld/

TU DELFT 2013| Architecture Theory Thesis AR2DSD820 Karolos Michailidis 4238052

IMAGE # 9