Who’s vs. whom
Who?s vs. whom
Ambient intelligence is the up and coming thing in architecture. Although the first buds to be seen are not architectural per se, it will soon become an impacting factor in building as well.
Many have probably noticed that every time they enter a mall, they receive an SMS from one of the local shops. This of course is not coincidental - someone identifies their presence via their cell phone, crossing this data with their consumption habits gleaned from their ?private? credit card, and presenting them with an irresistible ?sales campaign?.
This spreading phenomenon originated in a number of commercial companies (e.g. Phillips), which already back in the 1990s attempted to predict the consumption modes of 2020. The idea was to develop smart, yet ?user friendly?, low-cost products. One of the leading bodies in this field was the MIT Project Oxygen - a research group whose aim was to simplify computer operation, so that domestic users could get more out of their PCs with less effort.
Drastic changes in life patterns naturally constitute a challenge to architecture - its essential purpose being to supply a suitable habitat for human needs and activities. Concurrent with other areas of life, ambient intelligence was introduced into building already in the 1960s, under titles such as ?responsive architecture?; interactive spaces; and recently the ?smart house? - a comprehensive term combining multi-sensored operation systems to improve the efficiency of the building, by swift adaptability to changes, mobility, and interaction of man to man, and man to his surroundings.
One of the ?hot? areas in the professional milieu today, especially in architecture schools, is digital architecture, whose definition as such is still open to debate. Discussed widely in AI 63, this is the essence of the argument: while digitization advantageously enables rapid work on multi-sourced data to create immediate change, architecture is a static medium intended by definition to resist changes.
The meaning of this paradox is that digitization in architecture may be perceived as a superfluous advantage. However, breakthroughs in the history of architecture were always connected to technological innovations: the Greek gable which enabled a considerable decrease in supporting columns for wide spans; the Roman arch which freed the structure of the need for heavy lintel stones; the reinforced concrete that replaced the stone arches; and the digital technologies, which presently allow for multi-parameter planning manipulations, in turn, manufactured with the aid of robots on site, bypassing the need for human involvement.
Although contemporary expressions of digital architecture have taken their place of honor to star in professional journals, they focus primarily on the form without actually contributing to the building?s performance.
However, once this experimental stage is fully exhausted, it is quite likely that intelligence- adapted architecture will be expressed in buildings rapidly adjusted to change, to increase performance in the construction, operation and maintenance, saving time and cost.
A successful example of this can already be seen in the ?automatic storehouse?, which places the goods similarly to data stored on the hard disk - according to space availability, rather than catalogued ordering. A similar development is the automatic parking, which greatly improves space usage, with cars taken by elevators and sleeves to the parking places, thereby saving all the manipulations otherwise wasted on entrance/exit.
Another example of a building that will dramatically change its form by implementation of ambient intelligence is the Panopticon. Developed in the 18th century as a suitable model building for prisons, its variations appear to this day in many buildings where eye-contact for surveillance is an important planning factor: hospitals, schools, welfare institutes and even factories. Since it was one functional aspect that actually dictated both the building organization and its form, resorting to alternative means - sensors and cameras - will radically change its architectural essence.
A more concrete attempt to create responsive architecture can be seen in Lars Spuybroek?s interactive buildings (AI 68). In these buildings the presence of visitors, or certain actions they perform as perceived by sensors, can cause actual change in the building. Although not of substantial benefit, such experimental efforts may pave the way to purpose-oriented applications, such as real time adjustment of shading devices - contrary to the conventional method of general weather forecast based on the seasons and generic climatic regions; or to real time control of artificial lighting according to the activity, amount of people, and additional sources of light.
Combining new building technologies with ambient intelligence may advance one of the most prestigious areas of ecology today - ?embedded sustainability? - whereby the shelf life of a building is extended by its real time adjustment to various uses - especially buildings in which the activity is by definition limited in time: event halls, sport installations, education institutes, fairs, etc.
Another area open to improved implementation, by saving on superfluous resources, is interior design, whose products have a very short shelf life compared to architecture. First steps have already been taken by using laser lighting to define spaces, or by employing virtual content elements as atmosphere generators, thereby saving on expensive finishing material. Implemented along the lines of the theater, according to the nature of the activity, such ambient devices can yield dramatic change in the building with minimum investment.
Ambient intelligence may also be applied in buildings designated for people with special needs - handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly. In such buildings, sensors combined with prediction scenarios may save in manpower, as well as all direct and indirect expenses needed for their maintenance.
Characterized by masses of data arriving simultaneously from various sources, urbanity may expect vast improvement in terms of orientation, direction of traffic, availability of parking, and accelerated use of sensory means (e.g. camera surveillance) in the battle against crime and terror.
It is also possible that the deployment of computers vis-?-vis authorities and services - already on the increase in many fields - will cut down on office space in the near future, as it has already done to architecture offices.
Contributing to this is the IT revolution whereby telecommunication and transportation eliminate the significance of distance in architecture, particularly in urbanity. Consequently, there is already an accelerated process of population dispersal toward the periphery, where people can enjoy availability of building area, fresh air, and healthier means of livelihood, without detaching themselves from the big city.
Regarding saving: as with all ?green? gimmicks - too much ?goodwill? usually misses the point. Taking for example the ?smart house? increasingly popular among the affluent, one immediately discovers that extreme use of ambient intelligence and sophisticated systems creates a situation where cost exceeds benefit. Beyond simple and money-saving devices which, for instance, automatically turn off the lights, air-conditioning and TV after prolonged absence (as in hotel rooms), ?smarter? products also offer doors that open automatically, kettles that boil water and boilers that turn on when the owner approaches the house.
Although such ?smart? devices may mesh well with the (fictive) ?man-machine?, they hold no architectural efficiency. The more complex the system, the greater the need for space, infrastructure, ventilation, and complicated on-going treatment. This, in time, constitutes a waste of energy in production, operation and maintenance that supercedes the assumed savings.
It is worth noting that changing space according to needs is not a new field. The prevailing solution is a flexible space divided by screens, mobile partitions, and even lowered ceilings to reduce or extend the space. However, the main advantage of ambient intelligence is in real time optimization, thereby increasing the building performance and efficiency.
There is no question that rapid analysis of data arriving simultaneously from various sources may advance savings, safety and comfort, especially in architecture, where these three factors are bound implicitly to its existence. However, the dangers of turning man into a machine, or to be more precise - a cog in a mass machine controlled by the few, must not be overlooked. As in every information-enhanced technology, so too in architecture the danger exists of the individual losing his or her privacy and free-will.
When knowledge is translated into power, the home ?user? is enslaved by market ?user?, who dectates the use of his ever renovating products to his wish.
The fact that ?Big Brother? knows where you are, who you?re meeting, and what your consumption habits are constitutes a blatant infringement of man?s freedom, yet evidence shows that this demon train can no longer be stopped. With MRI technologies having successfully analyzed and documented thought patterns in our brain - the path to actual intervention in our most intimate decisions is now short.
Ambient intelligence is the up and coming thing in architecture. Although the first buds to be seen are not architectural per se, it will soon become an impacting factor in building as well.
Many have probably noticed that every time they enter a mall, they receive an SMS from one of the local shops. This of course is not coincidental - someone identifies their presence via their cell phone, crossing this data with their consumption habits gleaned from their ?private? credit card, and presenting them with an irresistible ?sales campaign?.
This spreading phenomenon originated in a number of commercial companies (e.g. Phillips), which already back in the 1990s attempted to predict the consumption modes of 2020. The idea was to develop smart, yet ?user friendly?, low-cost products. One of the leading bodies in this field was the MIT Project Oxygen - a research group whose aim was to simplify computer operation, so that domestic users could get more out of their PCs with less effort.
Drastic changes in life patterns naturally constitute a challenge to architecture - its essential purpose being to supply a suitable habitat for human needs and activities. Concurrent with other areas of life, ambient intelligence was introduced into building already in the 1960s, under titles such as ?responsive architecture?; interactive spaces; and recently the ?smart house? - a comprehensive term combining multi-sensored operation systems to improve the efficiency of the building, by swift adaptability to changes, mobility, and interaction of man to man, and man to his surroundings.
One of the ?hot? areas in the professional milieu today, especially in architecture schools, is digital architecture, whose definition as such is still open to debate. Discussed widely in AI 63, this is the essence of the argument: while digitization advantageously enables rapid work on multi-sourced data to create immediate change, architecture is a static medium intended by definition to resist changes.
The meaning of this paradox is that digitization in architecture may be perceived as a superfluous advantage. However, breakthroughs in the history of architecture were always connected to technological innovations: the Greek gable which enabled a considerable decrease in supporting columns for wide spans; the Roman arch which freed the structure of the need for heavy lintel stones; the reinforced concrete that replaced the stone arches; and the digital technologies, which presently allow for multi-parameter planning manipulations, in turn, manufactured with the aid of robots on site, bypassing the need for human involvement.
Although contemporary expressions of digital architecture have taken their place of honor to star in professional journals, they focus primarily on the form without actually contributing to the building?s performance.
However, once this experimental stage is fully exhausted, it is quite likely that intelligence- adapted architecture will be expressed in buildings rapidly adjusted to change, to increase performance in the construction, operation and maintenance, saving time and cost.
A successful example of this can already be seen in the ?automatic storehouse?, which places the goods similarly to data stored on the hard disk - according to space availability, rather than catalogued ordering. A similar development is the automatic parking, which greatly improves space usage, with cars taken by elevators and sleeves to the parking places, thereby saving all the manipulations otherwise wasted on entrance/exit.
Another example of a building that will dramatically change its form by implementation of ambient intelligence is the Panopticon. Developed in the 18th century as a suitable model building for prisons, its variations appear to this day in many buildings where eye-contact for surveillance is an important planning factor: hospitals, schools, welfare institutes and even factories. Since it was one functional aspect that actually dictated both the building organization and its form, resorting to alternative means - sensors and cameras - will radically change its architectural essence.
A more concrete attempt to create responsive architecture can be seen in Lars Spuybroek?s interactive buildings (AI 68). In these buildings the presence of visitors, or certain actions they perform as perceived by sensors, can cause actual change in the building. Although not of substantial benefit, such experimental efforts may pave the way to purpose-oriented applications, such as real time adjustment of shading devices - contrary to the conventional method of general weather forecast based on the seasons and generic climatic regions; or to real time control of artificial lighting according to the activity, amount of people, and additional sources of light.
Combining new building technologies with ambient intelligence may advance one of the most prestigious areas of ecology today - ?embedded sustainability? - whereby the shelf life of a building is extended by its real time adjustment to various uses - especially buildings in which the activity is by definition limited in time: event halls, sport installations, education institutes, fairs, etc.
Another area open to improved implementation, by saving on superfluous resources, is interior design, whose products have a very short shelf life compared to architecture. First steps have already been taken by using laser lighting to define spaces, or by employing virtual content elements as atmosphere generators, thereby saving on expensive finishing material. Implemented along the lines of the theater, according to the nature of the activity, such ambient devices can yield dramatic change in the building with minimum investment.
Ambient intelligence may also be applied in buildings designated for people with special needs - handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly. In such buildings, sensors combined with prediction scenarios may save in manpower, as well as all direct and indirect expenses needed for their maintenance.
Characterized by masses of data arriving simultaneously from various sources, urbanity may expect vast improvement in terms of orientation, direction of traffic, availability of parking, and accelerated use of sensory means (e.g. camera surveillance) in the battle against crime and terror.
It is also possible that the deployment of computers vis-?-vis authorities and services - already on the increase in many fields - will cut down on office space in the near future, as it has already done to architecture offices.
Contributing to this is the IT revolution whereby telecommunication and transportation eliminate the significance of distance in architecture, particularly in urbanity. Consequently, there is already an accelerated process of population dispersal toward the periphery, where people can enjoy availability of building area, fresh air, and healthier means of livelihood, without detaching themselves from the big city.
Regarding saving: as with all ?green? gimmicks - too much ?goodwill? usually misses the point. Taking for example the ?smart house? increasingly popular among the affluent, one immediately discovers that extreme use of ambient intelligence and sophisticated systems creates a situation where cost exceeds benefit. Beyond simple and money-saving devices which, for instance, automatically turn off the lights, air-conditioning and TV after prolonged absence (as in hotel rooms), ?smarter? products also offer doors that open automatically, kettles that boil water and boilers that turn on when the owner approaches the house.
Although such ?smart? devices may mesh well with the (fictive) ?man-machine?, they hold no architectural efficiency. The more complex the system, the greater the need for space, infrastructure, ventilation, and complicated on-going treatment. This, in time, constitutes a waste of energy in production, operation and maintenance that supercedes the assumed savings.
It is worth noting that changing space according to needs is not a new field. The prevailing solution is a flexible space divided by screens, mobile partitions, and even lowered ceilings to reduce or extend the space. However, the main advantage of ambient intelligence is in real time optimization, thereby increasing the building performance and efficiency.
There is no question that rapid analysis of data arriving simultaneously from various sources may advance savings, safety and comfort, especially in architecture, where these three factors are bound implicitly to its existence. However, the dangers of turning man into a machine, or to be more precise - a cog in a mass machine controlled by the few, must not be overlooked. As in every information-enhanced technology, so too in architecture the danger exists of the individual losing his or her privacy and free-will.
When knowledge is translated into power, the home ?user? is enslaved by market ?user?, who dectates the use of his ever renovating products to his wish.
The fact that ?Big Brother? knows where you are, who you?re meeting, and what your consumption habits are constitutes a blatant infringement of man?s freedom, yet evidence shows that this demon train can no longer be stopped. With MRI technologies having successfully analyzed and documented thought patterns in our brain - the path to actual intervention in our most intimate decisions is now short.
בניית אתרי אינטרנט