Designing for the Internet of Things

Chapter 2. Architecture as Interface: Advocating a Hybrid Design Approach for Interconnected Environments

ERIN RAE HOFFER

The Blur of Interconnected Environments

We spend 90 percent of our lives indoors.¹ The built environment has a huge impact on human health, social interaction, and our potential for innovation. In return, human innovation pushes our buildings continually in new directions as occupants demand the highest levels of comfort and functionality.

Our demand for pervasive connectivity has led us to weave the Internet throughout our lives, to insist that all spaces link us together along with our handheld devices, that all environments be interconnected. Internet-enabled devices creep into the spaces we inhabit, and these devices report back on spatial conditions such as light, radiation, air quality and temperature, count the number of people stopping at retail displays minute by minute, detect intruders and security breaches, monitor locations and track characteristics of equipment and supply chain elements, enable us to open locked doors remotely using our mobile devices, and pass terabytes of data to backend systems that analyze, report, and modify the environments we occupy.

The space that surrounds us is transforming to a series of interconnected environments, forcing designers of space to rethink the role of architecture and the rules for its formulation. Similarly, designers of emerging technologies are rethinking the role of interfaces and the rules for their creation. During this period of experimentation and convergence, practical construction, and problem solving, architects must reinvent their roles and become hybrid designers, creating meaningful architecture with an awareness of the human implications of emerging technologies.

Design Traditions from Architecture

Architects begin with a human need and develop solutions through inspiration and information—human, social, natural, economic and technological. The architect is charged to envision a new reality that addresses explicit and tacit needs, to create an expansive solution set that suits this vision. For millennia, architects have been given the task of imagining spaces to support people and human interaction, describing design intent, and producing concrete instructions for realizing designs as objects in the physical environment. Admittedly, many spaces are designed by builders or lay people, not by licensed architects. Whatever the professional and academic background of the creator, a building design stems from centuries of traditional practice and refined interaction models.

Upon encountering a device for the first time a user or occupant builds a conceptual model about it. The same approach plays out when humans encounter new environments. To design a space, an architect makes assumptions about the building’s future occupants. As cognitive scientist and design critic, Donald A. Norman points out, “Good design is a communication between the designer and the user.” This manifests through the appearance of the device (object or space) itself.² In terms of the built environment, Japanese philosopher Kojin Karatani observes that the dialogue between an architect and an occupant of a space occurs through a system of communication without commonly understood rules.³

Over time, architectural problems have become increasingly complex, driven by economics, technological innovation, and changing societal needs for buildings to support new functions and offer innovative features to improve efficiency and safety. Practitioners rely on a body of design theory that influences the products of architectural design, and highlights the duality of a profession whose aspirations are to create artifacts that serve practical needs at the same time that they encode meaning for individuals and communities.

The pervasion of Internet-enabled elements into the physical space of everyday life and work forces us to rethink both the requirements of our world and the way we design it. Today’s consumers can connect a smartphone-enabled door to a system of security; comfort-focused devices that transmit video sense and adjust temperature and lighting. As interactive environments proliferate and these choices expand in the future, designers must expand theory to apply these new modes of interaction and meaning to our most pressing objectives.

Architectural Design Theory: Models of Interaction and Meaning

Architectural theory analyzes and describes architectural design in terms of appropriate elements, their relationships to cultural understanding, and the process of devising them. In this context, theory is an explanation that does not proscribe a specific end result. It is a structure of concepts, categories, and relationships intended to explain things or to advocate, not a defined roadmap or a step-by-step methodology.

No single comprehensive structure of ideas can be applied in the same rigorous way to resolve all design problems in architecture. It is unlikely that a formal set of rules lie behind all of the many complex decisions that produce an existing building. However, practitioners have long valued theory in making decisions on complex projects or to retrospectively clarify a body of work.

Architectural theory can be traced back to the first century BC. The Roman writer and architect Vitruvius⁴ wrote a treatise that laid out the salient aspects of Roman architecture in a series of volumes. The Ten Books of Vitruvius illustrated the principles of design and construction and emphasized the three “laws” placing architecture above mere building, namely that a work of architecture must possess the qualities of Firmness, Commodity, and Delight.⁵ These three laws clarified that a work of good design must be physically and structurally sound, must support the functional and practical needs of its occupants, and must be aesthetically pleasing to the viewer.

By comparison, Hewlett-Packard User Experience Lead Jim Nieters’s blog on Interaction Design lists the goals of an interaction model as being Discoverability, Learnability, Efficiency, Productivity, Responsiveness, and, not coincidentally, Delight.⁶ Although these two thinkers lived in different times, these somewhat analogous sets of “laws” underscore the relevance of aligning UX design with the design of interaction and experience in physical space.

Since the time of Vitruvius, architectural theory has relied on classifications and definitions—grouping buildings into types, defining accepted applications of morphology, focusing on uses, appearances, and the appropriateness of combining elements from different periods, styles, or construction types. Theory has even suggested that the components of architecture exist as elements of a language that has a particular grammar, as elaborated in A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction by Christopher Alexander et al. Alexander laid out the idea of pattern and usage as a way of building what he called “timeless.” He states, “Towns and buildings will not be able to come alive, unless they are made by all the people in society, and unless these people share a common pattern language, within which to make these buildings, and unless this common pattern language is alive itself.”⁷

Theorizing Digital Culture: New Models of Convergence

In more recent times, computers became prevalent in society and architects theorized about the impacts of digital culture. Observers of the design professions considered the implications of digital technology, both for the environments we would occupy alongside these new devices, and for the process of design itself. Theorists in the 1960s and 1970s discussed cybernetics,⁸ digital approaches to systems of work and habitation, and explored through programming Negroponte’s concept of “the architecture machine,”⁹ a theory about the ability of machines to learn about architecture as opposed to being programmed to complete architectural tasks.

More recent investigations of the merger of digital and architectural realms have been undertaken since the 1990s, with research considering the concept of adaptive feedback loops,¹⁰ of environments such as Rodney Brooks’ Intelligent Room Project,¹¹ or environments such as the Adaptive House.¹² These experiments explored the principles of combining digital with architectural environments and processes. Malcolm McCullough observed an impending future of opportunity when computing pervades architecture and activities are mediated in new ways. He commented that, “The rise of pervasive computing restores an emphasis on geometry.... In locally intensified islands of smarter space, interactivity becomes a richer experience.”¹³

Theories and manifestos proliferated with a focus on the cultural and societal imperatives that should guide practitioners in navigating the choppy waters between meaningful and merely practical arrangements of space. As Michael Speaks described in his introduction to Kojin Karatani’s Architecture as Metaphor, a tug of war ensues between two metaphors, “Architecture as Art” versus “Architecture as Construction.”¹⁴ If we are to believe Vitruvius, the aspiration of architecture has always gone beyond function and effectiveness to incorporate the difficult-to-define idea of “delight,” a notion beyond aesthetics. In today’s post-modern age, we expect a work of architecture to mean something to inhabitants and observers. Architecture has always conveyed meaning, or “spoken to us” through form, since the time when illiterate occupants needed the cathedral to convey the meaning of religious texts. Alain de Botton stated that, “Belief in the significance of architecture is premised on the notion that we are, for better or worse, different people in different places—and on the conviction that it is architecture’s task to render vivid to us who we might ideally be.”¹⁵

Enter Interconnected Environments

Our intention as architects to design meaning into space broadens when we conceive of spaces as interconnected environments, linking devices to devices, and thereby connecting occupants with remote individuals, communities, and information sources. Although we have long incorporated the practical opportunities of automation—environmental control systems that manipulate building heat and cooling, raise and lower window shades, and control other architectural elements and systems with little or no human intervention—emerging technology can move us beyond digital integration with architecture as “practical construction” to digital integration with architecture as “art.”

We are surrounded by smart homes, schools, workplaces, shopping malls, and even the city itself with its smart grid. These anticipatory models purport to make all decisions and do all the work for us. But, our models for digital interaction have evolved, and the conceptual models for user interaction now stretch to accommodate decentralized structures that include mobile “anywhere” access, feedback and input from “the crowd,” increased transparency, simulation, and analysis. We are moving from anticipatory centralized models such as the Encyclopaedia Brittanica¹⁶ to adaptive decentralized ones along the lines of Wikipedia.¹⁷

Christian Norberg-Schulz said that the job of the architect was to visualize the spirit of the place and to create meaningful places for people to inhabit.¹⁸ Perhaps the modern person is less able to understand the meaning of architecture because our education and training no longer emphasizes this appreciation. Nevertheless, architects still aspire to produce buildings and spaces that go beyond function and effectiveness, which can become meaningful to people who occupy or encounter them. With the advent of digitally connected architecture, we have an opportunity to reinvent architecture as a source of meaning. Pervasive computing will provide feedback about perceptions and physical experiences as our bodies interact with our spaces. Documentation and analysis of feedback will increase our awareness of what it means to embody and occupy space. To move to this next stage, digital experience designers and architects must enlighten one another and collaborate to inspire hybrid models of design practice (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2-1. Hybrid design will emerge when the patterns of digital experience designers and architects converge (courtesy of the author)

Hybrid Design Practice

Traditionally, architects are trained to think about interaction in terms of form and physical occupation, activity, and movement bounded by space—walls, floors, and ceilings, illuminated by sun or artificial light, defined by materiality. There is no dominant theory that governs the work of all architects. Rather, practitioners follow a range of methods and apply design theories based on their academic training and compliance with firm methods in keeping with their own personal approaches. After spending time gathering information about the context and deepening their understanding of the problem, some architects aggregate programmatic elements into systems. Others might begin with a metaphor and work to fit client requirements into physical forms that represent their vision. Tomorrow’s spaces will be formed from interconnected and intelligent components that are aware of the human presence, able to communicate, assess, and act. The role of the designer must evolve to incorporate both sets of skills—architect and interaction designer—so that we can create meaningful places that support systems of linked intelligent devices. This mix of methods and sensibilities can be termed hybrid design practice.

Hybrid design practice will augment metaphor or context awareness with maps of information and communication from digital sources and delivery systems. The work of hybrid design calls for new theories to help us create meaning from electronic communications and digital resources as well as physical ones. As McCullough observed, “The more that principles of locality, embodiment, and environmental perception underlie pervasive computing, the more it all seems like architecture.”¹⁹

Trapelo Road Case Study

Figure 2-2 shows a rendering of Autodesk, Inc.’s Trapelo Road²⁰ office just outside Boston. This fit-out is an example of a project that aspires to integrate Internet monitoring and control systems in the architectural design of a commercial office interior. Sensors that collect data about comfort and energy utilization are linked to the building automation system, which taps into weather data from an external system. Data provided by the sensors helps facility managers realize energy efficiency improvements by refining the sequence of operation for building HVAC equipment while continuing to meet temperature requirements at business start time each day. Experimental projects applying sensor data at Trapelo illustrate how designers can become smarter about the way space and systems need to be laid out to enable sophisticated measurement and increased efficiency. Better data gained from interconnected devices embedded in architecture enables continuous diagnostics and automated commissioning so that anomalies in the system can be flagged more quickly and addressed sooner. The insight gained from sensors is now displayed to employees and visitors through a prominently placed plasma screen, potentially shifting occupant behavior as individuals “see” the impacts of their actions.

Figure 2-2. A Building Information Model of the Autodesk HQ provides a framework for information about usage and resources (courtesy of KlingStubbins)

Ultimately, this experiment suggests the way that the entire space could be reconfigured to put both information and means of control at the fingertips of all occupants at all times. But beyond the practicality of an application designed to drive energy efficiency, how will occupants of the space interpret the meaning inherent in the display—both in terms of the practicality of efficient use of energy and of the significance of the initiative in the context of the social community and issues of climate change?

Human to Machine, Machine to Machine

The explosion of Internet and web creates new interaction models that lead to dynamic configurations of people, networks and machines. The hybrid design practice will accommodate these new interaction models. To our traditional human to human (H2H) and human to architecture (H2A) interactions, we’ve added human to machine (H2M) and machine to machine (M2M).

H2M interaction models connect humans to machines in “everywhere” mode—from any device, at any time and place. Manufacturers of building elements—garage doors,²¹ ceiling fans,²² appliances,²³ and many other automation systems—are smartphone-enabling spatial elements so that people can control devices and receive messages and images. Our machines are speaking to us. “The garage door was left open.” “Your dog Ella’s heart rate is elevated. She has found the stash of chocolate hidden inside the upstairs closet.”

With M2M, a sensor or monitor device can capture an “event” (such as the state of temperature of light, or other environmental or asset conditions). The state can be transmitted over the Internet or a local network to a cloud-, desktop-, or server-based software application that analyzes, stores, or processes the information, or applies it to a downstream action. Apple Computer’s iBeacons, based on Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) technology, enable place-aware applications to light up when you enter a room (or at least when your smartphone does).²⁴ Beacons embedded in architecture can sense when you approach and reach out to you in location-specific ways.

Emerging Models of Convergent Design

Beyond machines, spaces themselves can speak to us. Alex Hawkinson of SmartThings²⁵ connected the architectural elements—floors, walls, ceilings, windows, and doors—of his home based on low-power sensor network standards such as Zigbee.²⁶ Wired editor Bill Wasik described this house as he predicted three phases of evolution on the path of ubiquitous and full integration of devices and digital intelligence into the physical world—proliferation (more devices, more sensors), interdependence (devices learn to rely on one another to take action), and integration (sets of devices organized into programmable systems).²⁷ Wasik’s vision of the third stage of fully integrated devices suggests that hybrid design practitioners will be called upon to map space in terms of the system of data and decision flows as well as the flow of people and human activity, to work simultaneously as interaction designers as well as designers of physical space.

The age of space populated by integrated and interconnected devices will require an important skillset, which can be labeled network understanding. Albert-László Barabási of Northeastern University observed, “Today, we increasingly recognize that nothing happens in isolation. Most events and phenomena are connected, caused by, and interacting with a huge number of other pieces of a complex universal puzzle. We have come to see that we live in a small world, where everything is linked to everything else.”²⁸ Barabási applies tools of network science to increase understanding of the way the information network of the Web is structured and how it develops. The complex linkages of the individual to a community, society, and a world are becoming manifest through architecture. Beyond providing opportunities for efficient communication and problem solving, this manifestation will change the nature of our relationship to architecture. Network understanding, or insight about the way elements exist in dynamic patterns of cause and effect, will be needed alongside traditional architectural skills. The hybrid design practice will incorporate network understanding alongside knowledge of technical requirements for particular spaces for human occupation.

Interconnectedness in the design process opens up opportunities to invite stakeholders or “the crowd” into decision making. Hybrid design practitioners will understand how to tap the wisdom of communities through a connected design process. Design influence by consensus is not new. It is often applied when projects require community support to thrive. Christopher Day, in his book Consensus Design,²⁹ discussed the benefits and pain of socially inclusive processes. A design professional gives up control over project decisions, faces the challenge of getting a group to align around the needs of a situation, and reaps the value of the contribution of many voices to strengthen a project. This practice requires leadership, social skills, and conviction in the outcome. Yet, how these skills will be translated into situations in which the crowd is geographically distributed and linked by the Internet remains to be seen.

Changing Definitions of Space

As interconnected environments become commonplace and our interfaces move from H2A to H2M to M2M and beyond to aggregations that link people and machines and architecture into emerging systems—H2M2M2A2H—we need to consider the meaning inherent in design decisions. Successful hybrid design demands insight about how people interact with space as much as knowledge about digital interfaces. The connectedness represented by these new models compels designers to understand the simultaneous effects of digital and spatial experience, to anticipate the effects of design on human, machine, and architectural contexts. And beyond successful problem solving to achieve functionality, the designer must consider what conceptual model of the future community is encoded in the solution.

Hybrid designers will embed architecture with programmable interconnected devices and apply knowledge, content, and interpretation that make interconnectedness meaningful in a social context as well as practical in a physical context. As increasingly sophisticated systems of information inherent in social networks are integrated into physical spaces, interconnected environments will do more than sense the need for change in environmental controls. Layers of information—virtual geometry and relevant data—will be interpreted and presented to us as we scan space with augmented reality devices. When we encounter architectural elements, we will have the opportunity to unpack history and connect to counterparts elsewhere in space or time. Upon arriving at my hotel room for the first time, I look out the window and have access to digital messages and artifacts left by decades of past occupants, pointing out noteworthy features of the city outside. The window can inform me of the best approaches to reducing the energy footprint during my stay by manipulating the window position, shading, or reflectivity. But the way this information is positioned relative to the room will make important statements about the relationship between these individuals and my occupation of this particular space at this specific time.

Space itself will become malleable, capable of reconfiguring to suit our profiles—presenting differences in lighting, materiality, even form as we move from place to place. The design of interaction between architecture and machine—A2M—incorporates the technology of smart buildings, structures whose systems are automated in order to improve their efficiency. In fact, the earliest building automation systems and “smart building” examples provide an important foundation for hybrid design. But emerging technologies—pervasive and mobile access, social community, and augmented reality, among others—will highlight new opportunities for innovation and development of A2M models.

Lorraine Daston noted the importance of objects in the environment and the deep connection of things to human communication. Daston states, “Imagine a world without things... without things, we would stop talking. We would become as mute as things are alleged to be. If things are “speechless,” perhaps it is because they are drowned out by all the talk about them.”³⁰ As we move toward a world filled with articulate things, a categorization of these new environmental elements positioned by their sphere of application will help us gauge the progress we’ve made, give us ideas for innovation, and start us on a path toward a hybrid design theory for interconnected environments.

A Framework for Interconnected Environments

To categorize the contribution of interconnected sensors and devices, observe that the modes of H2M interaction are already a primary differentiator for the applications that have emerged in the marketplace. A framework can help clarify opportunities that might exist at the intersection between modes of interaction—the different ways that humans engage with machine-enabled architecture—and spheres of inquiry—the different objectives that we have, or the purpose for engagement. By interrogating each cell of this framework, shown in Figure 2-3, a range of directions for hybrid design practice will emerge.

Modes of Interaction

There are a number of modes of interaction, spanning information gathering, understanding, transmission, manipulation, and storage. Different interaction modes suggest the types of information to be stored, processed, and exchanged. Each mode addresses a specific question, and as a collection they offer the potential to build sequences of interactions, eventually linked to form increasingly sophisticated collections of tools, or systems.

1. Awareness: what can we measure, what can we learn?

   At a fundamental level, sensors track a condition in the environment. Sensors can report on the presence or movement of individuals or objects in a space. They can determine temperature, light levels, or detect moisture. Awareness of a condition is a fundamental step required for reporting and decision making.

2. Analysis: what useful knowledge can we glean from data?

   When an environmental condition is detected, the interconnected environment can make this information useful by using it in a predefined algorithm that layers data about the condition with a judgment about the implications of that condition. If the sensor reports light, the algorithm might compare the illuminated condition with data about current weather conditions, time, or solar positions. If it is nighttime, the office is closed, and the room is suddenly illuminated, this might mean that someone has entered a space unexpectedly. The Analysis interaction mode might include more sophisticated algorithms, for example to calculate the amount of energy used by the light, or heat that the light could predictably generate.

3. Communication: how should insight be reported?

   The judgment call stemming from the Analysis mode of interaction would activate the next mode in the sequence: Communication. If illumination is not anticipated, the next interaction is to send a message or flag an alert in a system that is monitoring the status of the environment. Messages would be directed to people or other machines. A system of integrated sensors, assessment, and communications could be designed to produce a complex set of effects based on situations and reactions.

4. Action: what action can a system initiate based on insight?

   In addition to Communication, a myriad of Actions could be integrated into a system of cause and effect. Such actions might impact the space in which a condition is being observed. For example, an unexpected light might be analyzed and found to produce excess heat in a space, which would call for draperies to be repositioned, or for a cooling system to be engaged.

5. Feedback: how can we assess the impact and learn from action?

   Ultimately, the detection, analysis, and action loop reaches a point where Feedback at a systemic scale becomes useful. After prolonged observation and analysis, assessment might determine a pattern of lights going on and off during certain periods. Appropriate judgments could be made and actions taken, based on this more holistic assessment. Ongoing assessment and prolonged interaction would improve decision making and suggest the most appropriate actions so that the space could reach an ideal environmental state.

6. Recollection: how can we retain knowledge for later access?

   As the system proceeds through cycles of interaction, there will be value in maintaining a record of observations and changes. Storing the details and organizing the data into patterns provides a resource that can be tapped to improve the intelligence and performance of the overall system as it evolves.

Spheres of Inquiry

Across all modes of interaction, three spheres of inquiry describe the different objectives that we have for understanding or transforming the world through physical or human systems. As developers and designers of tools, inspecting the opportunities through the lens of objectives helps to suggest the prominent marketplace for tools based on interconnected environments (see Figure 2-3).

1. Environmental: how can we optimize and minimize use of resources to produce ideal conditions by combining data gathered through monitoring with external data sources?

   Interconnected applications naturally gravitate toward tracking and improving the environmental conditions they are ideally suited to monitor. Applications can alert individuals to dangerous conditions in a surrounding space, for example if toxins are building up in a confined room,³¹ if noise levels have increased,³² if a space is threatened by flooding when water is detected on the floor. Environmental alerts can range in scale from a single room, to a building, complex, or community scale. Environmental conditions for a specific building or campus can alert individuals or systems to take action to control energy usage, for example.

   

   Figure 2-3. A framework for connected environments with examples of potential tools at the intersection of each interaction mode and sphere of inquiry

2. Behavioral: can we incent preferred behaviors? Can we monitor human interactions, and assess and modify conditions based on knowledge of preferences?

   Environments are capable of exerting pressure on individuals and shaping behavior. Data about behavior or environmental conditions force individuals to confront situations and these confrontations can drive change. The proliferation of interconnected devices to drive improved health behaviors (such as WiFi-connected pedometers and scales)³³ and other monitoring systems enable people to track themselves, fostering improvement in behavior from diet and nutrition health³⁴ to greener environmentally friendly living.³⁵

3. Social: how can we produce network-based discussion and action through social connection? Can we modify settings to be conducive to human interaction?

   Architectural history teaches us that environments have tremendous power over the actions of communities and groups. They can be designed with the power to divide us, or to unite us. Interconnected environments will be capable of monitoring and impacting social patterns of interaction. Ranging from observation to assessment and action, the social sphere of application raises questions about how systems should be designed to provide the information and actions to the group and its constituents in a useful manner.

An Exercise in Hybrid Design Practice

Apply the Interconnected Environments Framework to design a space and an experience (see Table 2-1). You can use this sample narrative as a model:

Begin by considering an indoor place that has been meaningful for you. This might be a room from your childhood or a space you recently visited where a significant event occurred.

1. Write a brief narrative describing how this meaning is connected to your relationships and to clusters of knowledge that you possess or seek to tap.

2. Launch your design process with key questions. How do the answers contribute to the engagement of the visitor with the meaning of the space—in the past, and in the future?

3. Design the space and outfit it with a series of Internet-enabled devices. Be specific about the devices; specify the data they gather. What does each device do to process, store, analyze, or transmit information?

4. Next, design an interaction for a visitor to this space that takes advantage of emerging technology to convey meaning and engage visitors through experience. Script or storyboard this interaction.

Table 2-1. Sample

	ENV	BEH	SOC
SENSING	What light, sound, smells, and temperature should the visitor experience? How can sensors augment what the visitor should be aware of while occupying the space?	Who is the visitor? What is the purpose of the visit?	What interactions should occur between multiple visitors arriving at the same time, or one after another?
ANALYSIS	What analysis should be done on the environment—changes in light, accumulation of heat?	What insights should the space produce about the visitor’s behavior?	What actions of others outside the space should be considered? How should they be analyzed?
COMMUNICATION	How should spatial conditions be communicated and conveyed? How should the space be organized to present these reports?	How should behaviors be reported?	Which social interactions should be reported? How can they be useful to visitors to the space?
ACTION	What actions should the space take when certain environmental conditions occur?	How can the space drive the visitor to take a specific action? Should it?	How will the visitor be connected to others? How will others shape the visitor’s experience in the space?
FEEDBACK	What response should the space provide based on the visitor’s physical movement, gestures, directional gaze, facial expressions, or vocalizations?	Can the space provide feedback on the effectiveness of the configuration to support desired outcomes?	Can feedback be collected on the impact of the space on driving desired social interactions?
RECOLLECT	Would it be useful to record the environmental changes in the space over time?	How can the space record, document, and recall the actions of visitors?	Should visitor responses be collected and presented over time?

Architecture as Interface

The process of spatial design evolves continually and emerging technology opens up new modes of inquiry in design on a regular basis. Today, rapid prototyping of physical components is possible with cost-effective 3D printing of a wide range of materials.³⁶ Some designers adopt a fabrication-based design process by aggregating manufactured or 3D printed components. Form-generating experimentation driven by algorithms³⁷ is as valid as by heuristics. The existing world can be captured, rendered digital, and used as a backdrop for design and experimentation in virtual environments.³⁸

The adoption of a model-driven design process enables architects to consider issues of geometry and issues of information simultaneously through building information modeling (BIM).³⁹ With BIM, the designers employ digital elements conceived as architecture—with parametric geometry that parallels each spatial entity, attached to data that describes the entity in terms of costs, manufacture, and physical properties. A new breed of BIM tools will be needed so that designers can assess the impact of spatial and user interaction decisions across different modes of inquiry.

Augmented reality, which layers digital visualizations with real space, as shown in Figure 2-4, must next incorporate an information visualization aspect so that environments and interfaces can be experienced virtually before they are actually constructed and programmed.⁴⁰

Figure 2-4. Layering of digital and information visualization (courtesy of the author)

Perhaps it is time to revisit Alexander’s notion of patterns in the environment and to develop a pattern language for the age of interconnected environments. In this new pattern language, each pattern would be a formal response to a design problem linking interactive systems with spatial environments. As a starting point, the framework suggests a range of patterns that can be developed to link modes of interaction with spheres of inquiry.

Consider the bevy of building types that we inhabit and reimagine them in new ways—whether homes, workplaces, or industrial, ceremonial, or social settings. A museum that responds to your background and interests by highlighting key exhibits modifies the text that accompanies the artifacts to suit your knowledge of history. An exhibit might connect you to others with similar responses or comments, spawning a network of virtual relationships. Consider a nightclub that reconfigures to accommodate an impromptu gathering and points you to a room filled with graduates of your college when the club’s “operating system” assesses the profiles of all visitors and finds commonalities. As you enter, the walls of the room have already shifted to reflect your group’s publically posted images of your time together, along with music of the time period. Surgical rooms maintain awareness of the presence and movement of particles linked to infectious diseases, which leads to movement of equipment and lighting and modification of airflow to protect the patient from harmful conditions and inform clinical professionals of medical history and environmental changes.

Conclusion

Tomorrow’s spaces will be formed from interconnected and intelligent components that are aware of the human presence, and are able to communicate, assess, and act. The role of the hybrid designer must evolve to incorporate both sets of skills—architect and interaction designer—so that we can create meaningful places that support systems of interconnected intelligent devices.

The hybrid designer will not be responsible solely for “concretization” of the building as an object, as described by Christian Norberg-Schulz, but rather for orchestrating a new context—a dynamic system of elements that flex and adapt to support our needs for environmental, behavioral, and social settings. Its choreography will be influenced by an evolving set of actors. As Nishat Awan states, “The dynamic, and hence temporal, nature of space means that spatial production must be understood as part of an evolving sequence, with no fixed start or finish, and that multiple actors contribute at various stages.”⁴¹

The hybrid designer will go beyond problem solving and practicality, to write the manifesto and express what it means to live in an interconnected society through architecture. To articulate how our buildings have become gateways to communities of connection and alternative experience. Or, to personify each building as a character in the story of a life, responding to you, shaping your environment to suit your needs, analyzing situations, providing feedback, and recalling past experience. In fact, by giving voice to architecture through interconnectedness, we may re-create a time when humans had a closer relationship to space and its meaning. If nothing else, at least we can become better listeners.

References

• Alexander C, et al. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York, Oxford University Press, 1977.

• Alexander C. The Timeless Way of Building. New York, Oxford University Press, 1979.

• Awan N, et al. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. Abingdon, Oxon, England; New York, Routledge, 2011.

• Barabaási A-Ls. Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life. New York, Plume, 2003.

• Brand S. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. New York, Viking, 1994.

• Brawne M. Architectural Thought: The Design Process and the Expectant Eye. Amsterdam; Boston, Elsevier: Architectural Press, 2005.

• Carpo M. The Alphabet and the Algorithm. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 2011.

• Conklin, E. J. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2006.

• Conrads U. Programmes and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture. London, Lund Humphries, 1970.

• Daston L. Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science. New York; Cambridge, Mass., Zone Books; MIT Press distributor, 2004.

• Day C, Parnell R. Consensus Design: Socially Inclusive Process. Oxford, Architectural, 2003.

• De Botton A. The Architecture of Happiness. London; New York, Hamish Hamilton, an imprint of Penguin Books, 2006.

• Frazer JH. “The architectural relevance of cybernetics.” [Univ of U., Belfast (United Kingdom)]. Systems Research. Retrieved from http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/457730, 1993.

• Eastman CM. Adaptive-Conditional Architecture in Design Participation, edited by Nigel Cross. London. Academic Editions. 1992;51-7.

• Fox M, Kemp M. Interactive Architecture. New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 2009.

• Hays KM. Architecture Theory since 1968. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1998.

• Jencks C, Kropf K. Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Academy, 2006.

• Jones JC. Design Methods. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.

• Karatani KJ, Speaks M. Architecture as Metaphor: Language, Number, Money. Cambridge, Mass.; London, MIT Press, 1995.

• Lawson B. How Designers Think. London; Boston, Butterworth Architecture, 1990.

• LaVine L. Mechanics and Meaning in Architecture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2001.

• McCullough M. Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 2004.

• Mayerovitch H. How Architecture Speaks and Fashions Our Lives. Montreal, Robert Davies, 1996.

• Mückenheim MA., Demel JA. Inspiration: Contemporary Design Methods in Architecture. Amsterdam, BIS; Enfield: Publishers Group UK [distributor].

• Negroponte N. The Architecture Machine. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1970.

• Nesbitt K. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory, 1965–1995. New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

• Norberg-Schulz C. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York, Rizzoli, 1980.

• Norman DA. The Design of Everyday Things. New York, Basic Books, 2002.

• Rowe PG. Design Thinking. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1987.

• Sánchez RA, et al. “Construction processes using mobile augmented reality: a study case in building engineering degree.” In Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, Rocha Á, Correia AM, Wilson T, Stroetmann KA (Eds.). Springer Berlin-Heidelberg. 2013;206:1053-62.

• Vitruvius P, et al. Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

¹ http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/resnotes/notes/94-6.htm

² Norman (2002)

³ Karatani and Speaks (1995)

⁴ Vitruvius (1999)

⁵ As translated by Sir Henry Wotton in the 17th Century

⁶ Nieters, Jim, “Defining an Interaction Model: The Cornerstone of Application Design” blog post, http://bit.ly/1nTB1h5.

⁷ Alexander et al. (1977) and Alexander (1979)

⁸ Frazer (1993)

⁹ Negroponte (1970)

¹⁰ Eastman, in Cross (1972)

¹¹ R. A. Brooks. 1997. The Intelligent Room project. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Cognitive Technology (CT ‘97). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 271-. http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/aizu.pdf.

¹² http://bit.ly/1nTB2BH

¹³ McCullough (2004)

¹⁴ Karatani and Speaks (1995)

¹⁵ De Botton (2006)

¹⁶ http://www.britannica.com/

¹⁷ http://www.wikipedia.org/

¹⁸ Norberg-Schulz (1980)

¹⁹ McCullough (2004)

²⁰ “Autodesk’s East Coast Headquarters Draws Accolades for its Sustainable Design and Collaborative Building Process,” EDC Magazine, August 2010, http://bit.ly/1nTBik8.

²¹ http://www.liftmaster.com/lmcv2/pages/productfamily.aspx?famid=213

²² http://bit.ly/1nTBiAL

²³ http://www.whirlpool.com/smart-appliances/

²⁴ http://bit.ly/1nTBm3q

²⁵ http://www.smartthings.com/

²⁶ http://www.zigbee.org/Standards/Overview.aspx

²⁷ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/05/internet-of-things/

²⁸ Barabasi (2003), http://www.barabasilab.com/

²⁹ Day (2003)

³⁰ Daston (2004)

³¹ https://www.alertme.com/

³² http://www.widetag.com/widenoise/

³³ http://www.fitbit.com/

³⁴ http://quantifiedself.com/about/

³⁵ http://www.makemesustainable.com/

³⁶ “California duo create ‘world’s first 3D printed architecture,’” dezeen Magazine, http://bit.ly/1nTBYpN.

³⁷ http://bit.ly/1nTBXly

³⁸ http://autode.sk/1sSidAJ

³⁹ Eastman, Charles and Sanguinetti, Paola “BIM Technologies That Inform Concept Design,” AIA Conference 2009, http://bit.ly/1nTC28Z.

⁴⁰ Sanchez (2013)

⁴¹ Awan (2011).