Date               : March 1st. 2016

To                  : European Commission

From              : Martin Pot - interior-architect, researcher, writer.

Subject          : Horizon 2020, FET Proactive-program,

Home in a networked world; or rethinking architecture

 “Architecture is the art of reconciliation between ourselves and the world and this mediation takes place through the senses”, Juhani Pallasmaa, the Eyes of the Skin

abstract:

In an increasingly networked world our built environment threatens to become the last topic to be discussed; while at the same time it is what we all share in terms of human values: we all dwell. Architecture, i.e. the adaptation of space to human needs, is the discipline that shapes and articulates the current dichotomy of private vs. public space. What is needed is thorough research and discussion about its ontology in a hybrid world; (how) can we experience private space without its built connotation? How to dwell in a networked world?

introduction:

The FET-Work Program 2016-2017 consists of 3 initiatives, which, under area 1 Future Technologies for Societal Change includes “ Being human in a technological world’. In February and July 2013 I was participating in the discussions about the Onlife Initiative (OI)[1], which has more or less the same subtitle. The basis of this valuable report was its emphasis on human values: what does it mean “to be human in a hyper-connected era”. Issues repeatedly discussed were the contemporary need for private space as well as the distinction between private and public. I have pointed out in the discussions concerning the ‘blind spots’ that – so far – it is architecture, i.e. the adaptation of space to human needs, that frames the current dichotomy between private and public space. I also emphasized that architecture as such should be (made) part of the discussions and above all become part of appropriate and focused research, in particular concerning its non-technological topics. OI-chairman Floridi, later in his book states that  “ We shall be in serious trouble, if we do not take seriously the fact that we are constructing the new physical and intellectual environments that will be inhabited by future generations”.[2]

I do consider his warning to be an important additional conclusion that supports my statement concerning architecture; i.e. acknowledging that it is architecture that frames and articulates the ‘physical environment’ makes it most necessary that we rethink this with regard to ‘future generations’.  "

background:

As (interior)architect, researcher and writer I am since about 12 years devoted to the research concerning technology – the last 6 years in particular the internet of things - with regard to our built environment. I am connected to Council, the international independent think-tank for the IoT and organize each year since 2011 a one-day conference on April 9 – WW.IoT.day – on these issues. Only since last year the attention and awareness for our built environment in increasing; now we witness a serious concern about the implications of technology/iot within our private space. The internet of things/people/everything connects not only virtually, but also locally, i.e. what matters is where people and objects are connected. Given the number of objects to be connected to the internet – some 250 each second according to Cisco – we must conclude that our built environment converts into an interface. In theory this provides the inhabitant the opportunity to adapt, interact, enhance; not only for reasons of comfort but as well for reasons of control coming from the public and/or virtual space. Assuming that we maintain our current (legal) notion of private territorial space as well as the conclusion that it should be the inhabitant who controls what determines his/her most private space, it implies that it is the inhabitant that should have control over this (built) space. Our traditional connotation of a private (built) space in which we retreat and feel protected may have become inadequate or even obsolete; we do however need to rethink what the alternative is/can be. If we build housing we know that it will last some 100 years; while its inhabitant changes place every 10 years, varying per country. This implies that almost by definition we build the ever wrong answer to a question unknown; while at the same time the accompanying technology develops so fast that ‘traditional’ architecture almost becomes an anachronism. Architecture is no longer based in time, thus representing its time and development. In Derrida’s words: “we must learn again how to inhabit”.[3]

architecture:

As mentioned above; most countries use/know a (legal) notion of privacy, of the dichotomy between public space and private space; we need some form of privacy to be able to act in public. We all need some space in which we can be unwatched, protected, ‘free’; so far it is architecture that frames and articulates that space. There is no need to explain here further that this private space is under increasing pressure; our private space is rapidly becoming a hybrid space in which only the built appearance suggests a form/level a privacy; it is the traditional notion of a home that still prevails over any virtual home which can only exist within some physical entity. In the words of Bailey: “our architecture is becoming less viewed as a shell which encapsulates a body toward one that is a part of a system interconnected with the body and ecology”[4].

 addressing the FET-programs questions:

• The big picture: Describe your vision for a game-changing future technology. Why is it new? What difference would it make for Europe's economy, society and citizens?

 Since decades the built environment within its social and societal framework is subject for discussion; looking at various utopian projects in the last century we remember a serious and creative research for other ways of living and dwelling. (see e.g. the Archigram projects, Constant’s New Babylon) Most of these projects were thinking projects; developed in times that questioned actual situations and their needs. In that sense it is not surprising that the majority of these projects have a spatial context; it was a research for life and dwelling in ‘modern’ times. Utopian or not; what we need is a renewed ‘utopian’ vision, not only because we fail to answer practical needs (see e.g. the current problems with refugees, changing households and/or aging people staying at home) but at first because we need to address the issue of ‘home’ within its contemporary frame. Home is a home in time and place.

• The work needed: What are the main breakthroughs that a proactive initiative on this would need to achieve? What range of disciplines and stakeholders should be involved?

The current developments in technology are to a large extend tech-driven; many are/become reality because they are technologically feasible. At the same time our home basically has little to do with technology; we have a home for reasons of experience, imagination, recollection, ‘peace’. The developments in home-technology emphasize comfort and automating (former) manual actions. What is needed is a more fundamental attitude towards technology in general and in particular within our built environment/home. Our place within our future habitat needs an understanding of technology that surpasses the comfort and control/automation context. That is not a task to be passed on to economic partners but to social and anthropological science/research as well as those disciplines that research the important ethical and privacy issues involved. Dwelling is at first an ethical issue.

• The opportunity: What makes you believe that, with suitable time and investment, this can be achieved? Are there developments in science or society that make it plausible? What will drive this to real innovation and impact?

The question whether this can be achieved is, referring to Floridi’s statement above, in fact irrelevant; it needs to be achieved. If not, we will experience serious problems where it concerns our ever needed amount of/place for privacy, as also the OI states. That does not imply that I make a plea for not incorporating technology within our (home) environment; we are beyond the point of return in this. Many scientists/researchers have concluded that our relation towards technology as well as our understanding and definition of privacy/private space need rethinking; what we need to discuss and determine is the shifting ontology of our ‘home’ and the role architecture should play within this discussion.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/onlife-manifesto

[2] Floridi, L. (2014). the 4th Revolution. Oxford University Press.

[3] Derrida, J. (1986). Point_du_Folie.pdf. In la Case Vide, Tschumi, B (p. 15). London: Architectural Assocation.

[4] Bailey, J. (2011). Posthumanism, Cyborgs + Interconnected bodies. Retrieved from http://archimorph.com/2011/04/05/posthumanism-cyborgs-interconnected-bod...