Pneumatic tubes and networks (as the one described in Boris Vian’s novels) have always fascinated me. The name itself is gorgeous and it really looks like a strange vehicle. Although there are sometimes still use to transport cash and documents (transparent supermarkets pneumatics are intriguing), their usage has often stop or led to new possibilities: using tubes to put optic fibers to serve as internet infrastructure OR use both technology and pneumatic to vehicle paper documents which still matters in the 21st century.

Also of interest is the mapping of pneumatic networks, see for instance the Paris network as shown in this article:

Why do I blog this? What is interesting here is not that you can get web-based remote control of an electro-pneumatic (nor the impact on net neutrality) but rather the existence and sometimes the resilience of this communication network. An old version of the “city of flow” sort-of.

Having speed few days in Rotterdam makes me realize how this European city was a very interesting example of how the spatial environment can show heavily-visible signs of mechanical and electronic processes. And this, with different levels of interaction with regards to whom (or what) can influence this process. Let’s pick up son pictures from my urban safari to illustrate this.

Given its geographical location, Rotterdam has a big port. Therefore, you have plenty of devices that are related to how a port process material. Cranes for example are omnipresent but other devices are just remnants of past activities (and machinery to activate them)

Still in terms of mechanics, bridges can be moved above canals (as in other cities in the Netherlands) and automation seems to be pervasive as indicated by those signs:

But the environment can also be responsive, as attested by these red crane-like objects on Schouwburgplein square. Designed by West8, theses hydraulic cranes can be controlled by a panel situated on the square so that anyone can set the position of the light.

Of course, this is also reflected in the architecture through very classical ambient displays such as the cladding of Renzo Piano’s building for KPN Telecom. It acts as a giant billboard that displays patterns that change throughout the day.

Back on Schouwburgplein square, very curious clock-like shapes are adopting dancing patterns in a somewhat ambient display-like ballet:

At the individual level, there are also lots of examples of spaces from everyday life that becomes reliant on software (sort of what Kitchin and Dodge refer to as “code/space”). See for instance, the use of chipkaart (metro pass), the omnipresence of chipknip or how the inhabitants can use their cell-phone to deal with parking lots:

That is even more intriguing when you encounters buildings whose shape adopt the form of machinery:

Why do I blog this? To some extent, I’ve been amazed by how wandering around in the city gave a feeling of “urban computing” at the lower level sense. As if there was some background sense of systems operating implicitly, quietly in a sort of ballet of movements and displays more or less controlled by the inhabitants. IMHO, it definitely exemplify the city as a dynamic process with changing shapes. My examples are of course not exhaustive, and some of them can also be found elsewhere but the combinations there seemed to be utterly explicit.

In addition, beyond “urban computing” notion such as location-based services or touch-interactions, it’s rather when I encounter street signage about “automation” that I feel the digital city.

See below, three very relevant occurrences of how space is transformed in the 21st century. These are 3 examples of “defensive space” (aka “defensible space”: architectural and environmental design used to reduce criminality by increasing field of observation and ownership) can be found next to where I live in Geneva.

The first and the second one consist in covering the ground with concrete instead of the vague lawn that was used by drug dealers to hide their stuff. Note that the first move was (before putting concrete on that poor little tree) to break a mirror there so that drug deals would cut their hands when trying to get their heroine.

The third one is maybe less conspicuous: two pieces of steel has been put on the ground to prevent people to park their car (which nicely complements the yellow signage).

Why do I blog this? well although this is, sort of, environmental scannning 2 meters from home, it’s definitely an important collection of signals that attest spatial changes. What does that mean for urban computing? I guess the next step when you’re done with concrete, steel and broken mirror is to use electrons to prevent people from doing certain things.

Please see also the classical and sad anti-skateboard devices.

Fabien and I finally manage to release a near future laboratory project: Sliding Friction: The Harmonious Jungle of Contemporary Cities, a booklet that assembles photos and annotations we took here and there along our dérive through the many cities we lived in and visited. Sliding Friction is an attempt to showcase the curious aspects of contemporary urban spaces. Through 15 topics and 4 themes we focus our lenses on the sparkles generated by the many frictions between ideas, practices and infrastructures that populate cities. We hope to provide some raw food for thoughts to consider the city of the future. Do we want to mitigate, or even eliminate these frictions?

You can find it here as a pdf.

It’s edited by Walabab editions, Designed by the (utterly fabulous) Bread and Butter, Preface by Bruce Sterling, Postface by Julian Bleecker.

An intriguing new “urban computing” in the form of “communicating bamboo” has been developed by Orange Labs (A France Telecom R&D subsidiary). The point of such urban devices is to make WiFi hostpots more visible in public spaces and to access push-based services (mp3 download, vocal announces, etc.). Beyond the “((o))” signs that are starting to be used to show that there is wifi in the vicinity, this project is curious since it provides people with a more tangible artifacts. Related to this project is the idea of “Data Forest” in which the bamboo would be an anchor to digital services (hence a forest made of lots of bamboos). (Via fabien eychenne). For people who can read french, there is a video about this service here (presented by Emmanuel Mahé).

Why do I blog this? What is interesting here is the design of something tangible that would reveal that digital-yet-invisible services are available. A new sort of urban furnitures to some extent. I bet the designers also expect different uses to appear such as wifi picnic Nintendo DS group-play or other weird behavior yet to be described.

Seen in Lyon, France last week:

Some graffitis removed, some other still there. How to establish a hierarchy of what should be removed? Is it the cost to remove big graffitis? the possibly-offensive content?

It gives an intriguing flavor of selectivity anyway. Stains are always curious as they are traces of activities and decisions taken by people.

The last step of a neverending story (see previous episode here and when it all started). The tagline for this would be “how to kill a an unofficial route, a path that is formed in space by people making their own shortcuts“

July 2006:

February 2007:

January 2008:

(the last picture shows the sign that say “please take care of the lawn, don’t cross it please”)

Why do I blog this? this is one of the most interesting aspect of urban life, how people’s intents materialize (’desire lines’ as one of the comment on my Flickr picture says) and how this is prevented by others forces. In this case, it’s “to protect the lawn”, which is a quite intriguing reason.

In addition, other things to think about: what’s more efficient? the barriers or the warning sign? why isn’t there any other elephant path starting on the other side (where there is no sign)? is it because you just get out of the building and it’s acceptable to take a longer path?

The last issue of Metropolis featured an article about See-it, a software tool developed by “Visible Strategies” that helps Albuquerque citizens visualize their cities’ eco-efforts:

“See-it (short for Social, Environmental, Economic-Integration Toolkits) organizes citywide data into a live
status report that the average citizen can quickly understand. At the center of the screen is a planet divided into three general areas of focus (ecosystems and agriculture, the man-made environment, and the economy and culture) and encircled by concentric rings of in-creasing specific ity (goals, strategies, and actions). If you’re interested in Albuquerque’s plans for its buses, for example, follow the “Greening Our Travel” goal to the “Vehi cle Efficiency” strategy, where you can read about the fleet’s ongoing conversion to alternative fuels. You’ll also find a graph that evaluates the plan’s progress (on track!) and a form to send feedback to a city manager. “It has forced us to take a good hard look at what data we have and how we measure our success,” says Danny Nevarez, who works at Albu quer que’s Environmental Health Depart ment.“

Why do I blog this? there are lots of projects in urban computing that aims at revealing the invisible/implicit phenomena such as pollution, I am curious to see how city dwellers understand/use/employ such platforms. I quite liked that comment in the article: “Of course, the program is only as good as the data behind it, which the city itself provides” but I am more dubious about this comment by a user: “I want to be part of this. I want to be able to see whether I’m reducing my ecological footprint. And if I can’t do that, how can I relate to a government plan?”

A quick glance at Fecal Face always lead to odd encounters. This time the crazy story that piqued my interest was the one of a high bench located on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, NYC. 10 feets in the air on metal stilts, this bench led to some head-scratching.

Photos of the sculpture installation on the Lower East Side by Brad Downey and Mike Wrobel (found on the Fecal Face website).

Why do I blog this? Well, I find this sort of urban intervention intriguing, although weird at first. It certainly raises eyebrow but can also lead to some questions about our city environments. It seems that the bench has been removed by the city Department of Transportation and the NYPost asks boringly “is it art or just odd”, which is definitely not the right implication to explore here. Fecal Face is clearly more relevant with that topic, proposing “Because Darwin was an elitist” as caption to the picture above.

Last week in Brussels, I ran across this signs on the wall of that house:

It quickly reminded me my parents’ house on which we found the same marks. At that time, I remember the discussion with local police who told us that burglars use codes to annotate house. It’s generally tags like this, with black chalk that express relevant information for them such as the one exemplified below (as shown in France’s signs or Belgium’s signs).

Simply put, it means that the marks on that belgian house correspond to: one kid, unoccupied house and planned robbery. Although it’s weird to imagine only one kid in an unoccupied house, this is what the tag describe.

Why do I blog this? that’s an interesting example of location-based annotation. It simply shows an intriguing signal of practices at stake in contemporary cities, a specific form of graffiti that aims at describing places to rob. It’s a different form of spatial tagging not that explored by the locative media frenziness (for obvious reasons) that also represents the “transparent society” we’re reaching. See here too.

In addition, it’s curious from a collaboration POV, how this sort of tagging has been put in place by a group of people. At first glance, one can think burglary is a competitive practice, but it can go beyond that, as shown by the establishment of a common vocabulary.

Perhaps one of the most important building I wanted to see in Brussels this week was the Atomium. Built for the Expo’58 (1958 Brussels World’s Fair) and designed by André Waterkeyn, this building is a 103-mettre connection of 9 steel sphere so that the whole forms the shape of a unit cell of an iron crystal magnified 165 billion times:

According to the wikipedia entry, one of the original ideas for Expo ‘58 was to build an upside-down (and 6 months lasting) version of the Eiffel tower but the architect felt that an atomic structure would be more symbolic of the era.

Why do I blog this? I find this building intriguing as its whole architecture exemplifies progress. The representation of where the future would lay (the atom) is embedded in this architecture. This whole style called “Atoomstijl/style atome” has also inspired other people such Yves Challand who drew comics in this retro movement.

A bench in Zürich, conspicuously rubbed with wax by skateboarders… reduced friction, makes is easier to grind the bench.

Why do I blog this? The tweaking of urban elements in an interesting practice to observe. What does that say about urban computing? possibly that a certain audience can modify the infrastructure they need to operate with regards to their needs. At the social level, the presence of wax on curbs/bench is also a trace of people activity, a social navigation indicator that skateboard hang out there. I recently wrote a short article about that topic for a trend book for JCDecaux (the street billboard/furniture/toilet/biking company) on cities, mobility and new media.

Speaking about Dubai, Mike Davis in his essay “Fear and Money in Dubai” highlight this quote from an article by Ian Parker in the New-Yorker:

“It’s as if a list of all known human pastimes have been collected on PowerPoint slides and then casually voted on by a show of hands.“

Adam Greenfield’s talk at Pic Nic was entitled “The City is Here for You to Use: Urban Form and Experience in the Age of Ambient Informatics. His presentation is basically about the implications of ubiquitous computing on the form and experience of the city.

After “Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing” Adam is now zooming on a more specific aspect of ubicomp: its influence on the urban environment. Inspired by Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander or Bernard Rurdofsky, he drawn our attention to their “generosity” about the life on the street and the recent changes exemplified by this quote from Alexander: “For centuries, the street provided city dwellers with usable public space right outside their houses. Now, in a number of subtle ways, the modern city has made streets which are for “going through,” not for “staying in.“. Through various examples, Adam showed how “we killed the street” due to cars, traffic, overplanning, the “repeating module of doom” (succession of franchises) leading to what Augé calls “non-places” and Rem Koolhas refers to as “junkspace”. The city then becomes “stealthy, slippery, crusty, prickly and jittery” through defensible space elements such as the following one I spotted in Amsterdam last week:

This situation leads to various forms of “withdrawal syndromes”: ipod usage, mobile phone/blackberry digging… and the city is less “a negotiation machine between humans“. In sum, “we lost something” and instead of lamenting (”nostalgia is for suckers”), Adam highlights the challenge: to rediscover the city of Jacobs, Rudofsky and Alexander in a way that is organic to our own age. This means that ubiquitous computing can be a candidate for that matter.

He then presented how ubiquitous computing (everyware) is already affecting cities. Information processing, sensors start showing up in new places at different scale. At the body level, he cited the Nike+ipod example, at the urban level, some dynamic signs allow people to be aware of bus schedule or use contact-cards, leading to more agency in infrastructures. This enable new model of interaction and “information processing dissolving in behavior“. The upside of this might be that people can get information about cities and their pattern of use, visualized in new ways (Stamen Design’s cabspotting, crime and real estate mapping, map of cities with WiFi hotspot)… and that information can be made available locally on demand in a way that people can act upon. Would ubicomp turn cities in more efficient and sustainable places? Possibly this is meant to allow better choices and entirely new behavior might emerge, will we get a participatory urbanism? a “genuine read/write urbanism” as he mentioned?

How will it affect urban forms? Adam showed some instances of how information as output at the building envelope: living glass modified by CO2 or the Blur Building by Diller-Scofidio (from swiss expo02). Ambient information becomes addressable, scriptable and/or query-able objects such as in the Chaos Computer Club Blinkenlights project.

(Picture courtesy of Diller-Scofidio)

One of the downside he presented concerned how this can lead to new inscriptions of class. He showed a DVD rental booth in NYC that allows cash to rent DVD but needs a credit card to access it. Another problem concerns the over-legibility of things: when there is too much explicitness and not enough ambiguity on plausible deniability, when everything is made public, what happens? maybe we do not want all our friends to know where we are, of course there are special case but not all the time.

“We cannot express its relation to ourselves in any other way than by imagining that we are in motion, measuring the length, width and depth, or by attributing to the static lines, surfaces, and volumes the movement that our eyes and our kinesthetic sensations suggest to us, even though we survey the dimensions while standing still. The spatial construct is a human creation and cannot confront the creative or appreciative subject as if it were a cold, crystallized form.”

- Schmarsow, August (1994)

Why do I blog this? I quite like how that quote reflects the importance of the body in space: it’s because we are embodied that we can create a spatial construct which corresponds to our reading of the spatial environment. An example? See this street spotted in Amsterdam below, if you’re a skateboarder, this quote will make sense: you felt the curved sidewalk only by seeing it, feeling how this would be experienced afterwards with your board. And indeed, the affordance is to make an ollie and use it to jump.

Now, what does that mean for the design of ubiquitous computing systems? I don’t have a unique answer but it certainly gives some inspiration about how to create affordances that can be bodily experienced through shapes, forms or representations.