Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Beyond The Real : Domestic Interventions in Support of Digital Overlay Sangulin, Angelina 2019-04-26

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Sangulin_Angelina_Beyond_real_2019.pdf [ 42.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0378620.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378620-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378620-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378620-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378620-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378620-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378620-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0378620-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0378620.ris

Full Text

B E YO N D  T H E  R E A L :D O M E S T I C  I N T E R V E N T I O N S  I N  S U P P O R T  O FD I G I TA L  O V E R L AYAngel ina  Sangul inB.A.  Art  History  and Human Geography,  Double  Major.The Univers i ty  of  Br i t i sh  Columbia,  2015.Submitted in  part ia l  fu l f i l lment  of  the requirements  for  the degree of  Master  ofArchitecture in  the Faculty  of  Appl ied Sc ience COMMIT TEEGP PART I I ,  CHAIR Joseph WatsonAnnaLisa  MeyboomTony OsbornGP PART I  Thena TakWe accept  th is  report  as  conforming to  the required standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Joseph Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thena TakTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApr i l  2019© Angel ina Sangul iniiThis project is dedicated to a possible reality, one in which the body inhabits the real, while simultaneously perceptually consuming the digital. The design process investigates the boundar-ies, possibilities and consequences of domestic design and architectural consideration within such a reality. I argue considerations of the previously inter-disciplinary field of architecture will be divided into two realms: the materially experienced reality and the visually experienced digital overlay.The project provides a practical solution to commonly experienced unfavourable spatial conditions: lack of space, lack of privacy, unfa-vourable view etc. Sensorial perception of space and verification of perception is explored within the most inti-mate space—that of the home. While pursuing practical design goals, the project places into question agency in the digital age, the idea of free will and simulation. If the simulation is indistinguishable from reality, does it matter it is not reality? How does one design within this realm?  A B S T R A C T iii ivi-iii    TITLE PAGEiv - ix    FIGURE LISTx - xi     ACKNOWLEDGEMENT1 - 3    DEDICATION1 - 3    INTRO4-13    BRIEF HISTORIC OVERVIEW: REALITY AND VIRTUAL REALITY14-17    ON CYBERSPACE AND MIXED REALITY18-25    ON VIRTUAL - REAL: TOWARDS DESIGN STRATEGIES 26-49    PRECEDENTS50-77    DESIGN PROJECTxiv-xvii    ENDNOTESxvii-xxi    BIBLIOGRAPHYTA B L E  O F  C O N T E N T Sv Figure 1.  Harry W. Crosby. Cave Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco. Baja California Rock Art Archive. Accessed online at http://www.bradshaw-foundation.com/baja/sierra_de_san_francisco.phpFigure 2. Side of black figure volute krater from Chiusi, Italy. Detail of centauromachy scene. Museu Archeologico, Florence 6th century BC. Accessed online at http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Mythology/en/CentauromachyMAFlorence.htmlFigure 3. . Robert Hooke, 1965, illustrations from published book Micrographia depicting microscope and microscopic landscapes. Accessed online at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/Figure 4. Fisher, Scott. 1962. Image of Sensorama by Morton Heilig.Figure 5. Evans, David. 1968. Image of Sword of Democles  by Ivan Sutherland. Figure 6. Medina, Antonio. 1991. Scene of computer simulated teleoperation.Figure 7. Image of 2010 Oculus Rift fundraising cam-paign, courtesy of Kickstarter.Figure 8. Image from University of Washington. Babak Parviz 2009 Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens, research paper. Figure 9. Jensen and de Haven. 1989. Front cover of novel Neuromancer by William Gibson. Figure 10. Menardi, Adalberto. 2016. Google maps glitch. Accessed online at Quartz.comFigure 11. Star, Arthur. 2016. Google maps glitch. Accessed online at Quartz.comFigure 12. Engel et al. 2008 (see bibliography) study of visual-proprioceptive conflicts showing: subject’s view along a path through a virtual city.; and subject’s path bent into a tracked space using a controller.Figure 13. NBC TV Show The Good Place. 2018. Still of the Good Place rendition of afterlife for pasta lovers. Accessed on Netflix. Figure 14. NBC TV Show The Good Place.2018. Still of the Bad Place, rendition of afterlife for people who despise frozen yogurt. Accessed on Netflix. Figure 15. NBC TV Show The Good Place.2018. The Architect explaining time progression in after-life is non-linear and flows in a “Jeremy Bearimy“. Accessed on Netflix. Figure 16. NBC TV Show The Good Place. 2018. Title of new neighborhood design. Accessed on Netflix. Figure 17. Netflix original movie Bandersnatch.2019. Interactive viewer moment / choice: deciding on cereal. Accessed on Netflix. Figure 18. Netflix original movie Bandersnatch.2019.Interactive viewer moment / choice: deciding on violent actio. Accessed on Netflix. Figure 19+20. Netflix orignal movie Bandersnatch. 2019. Depiction of PACMAN game. Accessed on Netflix.F I G U R E  L I S TviFigure 21. Random International. 2012. User expe-rience of Rain Room. Museum of Modern Art. New York. Image by Random International..Figure 22. Campbell-Dollaghan, Kelsey. 2012. Ceiling detail of Random International Rain Room exhibition Figure 23. Beck Robyn. 2012. Image of sensor activa-tion of Random International Rain Room exhibition. Figure 24. Random International. 2012. User expe-rience, perceived immersion. Image by Random International. Figure 25. Bitter, Jan. 2018. Study of Swarm Lights by Random International in Chemnitz, Germany. Figure 26. Screenshot of Random International video. 2018. Swarm lights perspective. Figure 27. McRae and Tibbits. 2015. Jamming bodies - diagram. From MIT Self-Assembly Lab. Accessed online at https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/jamming-bodiesFigure 28. McRae and Tibbits. amming bodies. 2015. McRae and Tibbits; Still from accompanying video, Jamming - breathable, morphable “wall”. Accessed online at https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/jamming-bodiesFigure 29. McRae and Tibbits. 201. Still from accom-panying video. Performance. Accessed online at https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/jamming-bodiesFigure 30. Griffith, Damien. 2016. Image from Blur Mirror installation by Random International. Figure 31. Griffith, Damien. 2016.  Blurring detail from Blur Mirror installation by Random International.Figure 32. Chinsee, George. 2016. Image from Frag-ments by Random International. Figure 33. Random International. 2016. Image still from Random International video accompanying the Fragments installation. Dynamic detail. Figure 34. Various alternate realities: cave painting, mythology, cinematic reality and interactive SIMS game. (see Figure 1 and 2; image still from Frank Capras’ 1946  It’s A Wonderful Life movie;  The Sims Unleashed, unknown online source)Figure 35. Original of highlighted and altered image by Goodman, Zeb. Soft Light & Silhouettes. Pavilhão da Cidadela, accessed by artist InstagramFigure 36. Original of highlighted and altered image by Goodman, Zeb. New Nordic. Kvarterhuset, accessed by artist InstagramFigure 37. Original of highlighted and altered image by Goodman, Zeb. TRNK NYC interior space. www.zebgoodman.com/trnk-nycFigure 38. Original of highlighted and altered image by Goodman, Zeb. TRNK NYC interior space. www.zebgoodman.com/trnk-nycFigure 39. Static image, by author.Figure 40. Kinetic image, by author.Figure 41. Dynamic image, by author.Figure 42. Project site, 1401 Robson Street, by author. Figure 43. Site plan, Downtown Vancouver, facing NW, by author.viiFigure 44. Site Axonometric Drawing, building com-ponents. Facing SW. By author.Figure 45. Activation of digital overlay lens. Collage by author. Figure 46. Axonometric site plan, ground levels. By author. Figure 47. Details of virtual user experience on ground levels. By author. Figure 48. Single occupancy unit: material realm + upward and downward circulation. By author. Figure 49. Single occupancy unit in digital realm, experienced as three levels. Axonometric view + vignettes. By author.Figure 50. New digital levels aquired. Axonometric view + vignettes. By author.Figure 51. Narrative moment 1: Hacking the system. Model - paper + wood. By author.Figure 52. Narrative moment 2: Hacking the system. Model- paper + wood. By author.  Figure 53. Narrative moment 3: Hacking the system. Model - paper + wood. By author. Figure 54. Axonometric view of digitally overlap-ping realities within a 4 unit assembly. Overlapping realities are displayed as a section of the level the resident is currently occupying. By author. Figure 55. Axonometric view of materially existing realities within a 4 unit assembly.  viiiixxForemost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my chair and mentor, Joseph Watson, for the continual guidance and support throughout the conception and development of this project. Thank you for all the belief, patience, immense knowledge and pedagogy imparted throughout the year. Thank you for listening and allowing the project to be truly mine, while always steering me in the best direction. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor throughout the process. Beside my advisor, I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee:  To AnnaLisa Meyboom, for the enthusiasm, engagement and knowledge which immensely influenced the direction of the project. To Tony Osborn, for the critical perspectives and detailed feedback without which the project would never be the same. Additionally, I express deep gratitude to Thena Tak as my GP mentor, for all the guidance and feedback influencing the development of the project. And to Chris Doray, for the inspiration to engage with architecture on my own terms. I am also gratefully indebted to Farwa Sadiq-Zadah, Gabriel Lacombe and Zoe Pearce for all the support and help in the last project hours. A C K N O W L E D G E M E N TxixiiTo Ryan, partner in life and partner in education, for 7 years of love and growth.To Adriana, my sister and best friend, for the lifetime of laughs and long talks.To my parents, for all the support.To my absolute favourite, 89 year-old grandfather for continually mispronouncing the word architect with his thick accent and calling me an  “art-attack“ in “art-attack school“. Love you all.D E D I C AT I O NxiiiB E YO N DT H E  R E A LD O M E S T I C  I N T E R V E N T I O N S  I N S U P P O R T  O F  D I G I TA L  O V E R L AYA N G E L I N A  S A N G U L I NSINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ To define the virtual is to define the almost, the nearly. To define the virtual is to subtract everything you know is, from all the endless possibilities. Traditionally, virtual reality is thought of as a computer-generated simulation of a three-di-mensional image or environment which can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equip-ment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors1 . The unprecedented rate of creation, propagation and utilization of mass amounts of technology is currently result-ing in a continual reconfiguration and boundary extension of terms upon which virtual reality is defined. Increasingly, modules and restrictions on the achievement, experience and bound-aries of virtual reality are dissipating. Further, conversations previously restricted to solely virtual investigation are expanding to include enhanced forms of mixed-reality located on the spectrum between completely real and completely virtual. It seems fitting to declare, we are at the dawn of an era of the reality-vir-tuality continuum.The evolving potential of reality-virtuality con-tinuum technologies declares an assurance in the re-definition of current paradigms of space, self-conception and societal organiza-tion—producing inevitable and unprecedented changes in the field of architectural design. The following chapters explore reality, virtual reality, augmented and mixed reality through terms and characteristics which are anticipated to predominantly influence changes within architectural conception and design mani-festations. It is not the specific technology of reality-virtuality continuum itself that is being examined, rather, how these technologies are anticipated to act as a conduit for spatial, soci-etal and architectural revolution. I N T R O2R E · A L· I · T Y/ R Ē ˈ A L Ə D Ē /W O R L D  O R  S TAT E  O F  T H I N G S  A S  T H E Y  A C T U A L LY  E X I S T,  A S  O P P O S E D TO  A N  I D E A L I S T I C  O R  N OT I O N A L  I D E A+/S TAT E  O R  Q U A L I T Y  O F  H AV I N G  E X I S T E N C E  O R  S U B S TA N C E .V I R · T U · A L/ ˈ V Ə R C H ( O͞ O ) Ə L /A L M O S T  O R  N E A R LY  A S  D E S C R I B E D,  B U T  N OT  C O M P L E T E LY  O R A C C O R D I N G  TO  S T R I C T  D E F I N I T I O NO N  H I S TO R Y  O F  R E A L I T Y Most historical overviews of virtual reality are technology-centered, with the primary locus pinpointed within the 1900s. To truly frame virtual reality in terms most relevant to my investigation, this narrative features an interweaving of the technology-centered per-spective with the conceptual—and for this, we are required to go much further back in time. Human beings have always been mythmakers2. Intricate Neanderthal burial practices reveal a belief of a world extending beyond the con-strictions of the material world3. From a very early date, it appears human beings were dis-tinguished from other living organisms by the ability to have ideas extending beyond every-day experiences4. The history of mythology highlights two simple, well-accepted notions: we are meaning-seeking creatures and we have imagination. Imagination is a faculty enabling the human to conceive of something which is not immediately present, which at the moment of conception has no objective existence5. Imag-ination is the faculty behind the production of religion and mythology, systems of intricate “other-worldly” environments containing ele-ments, senses and narratives translated from the immediate “real” environment. Behind the production of the “other-worldly” environ-ments is the art of fictitious narrative. Through the process of time, a mass curious narrative communicated from one individual to another is continually collected6. Fictitious narrative is produced as a mediation of reality, produced with varying levels of distancing from reality. As described by John Dunlop in 1825: “The collec-tor of agreeable facts finds that the sympathy that they excite can be heightened by remov-ing from their detail everything that is not interesting, or that tends to weaken the prin-cipal emotion, which it is his intention to raise. He renders, in this way, the occurrences more unexpected, the enterprises more successful, the deliverance from danger and distress more wonderful.7” A predecessor to virtual reality, fictitious narrative allowed for dream-like advances from reality, explorations of alternate points of view and ultimate dissemination of emotion-fueled perspectives. Fictitious narra-tive allowed for the exploration of enhanced beauty, enhanced crudeness and a height-ening of any imaginable emotion. In further tracing the evolution of fictitious narrative, early writers of Greek Romance—Heliodorus, Achilles, Tatius, Longus—provide insight into the emergence of intertwining between fields of mythology and philosophy8.At a point, the history of fiction arises interest of the philosopher within the context of the socie-tal historical progress9. As philosophy emerged from mythology, it embraced an interest in the “structure of human experiences, the compo-sition of beings, the complicated functioning of cognition and hierarchy amongst existing entities”10. Functions previously overlooked I .  B R I E F  H I S TO R I C  O V E R V I E WR E A L I T Y  A N D  V I R T U A L  R E A L I T Y4Figure 1:  Cuevas  de las  F lechas  cave paint ing.  photo credit :  Bradd KoppFigure 2:  Centauromachy scene on krater  f rom Chius i ,  I ta lyas mere truth or fact, suddenly became prob-lematic and examined through a framework of questioning, criticality and rational argumenta-tion—including existence, values, reason, truth or mind. The momentum formed new-found ideas of the “plural world (inhabited by essen-tially different beings, which may even exist at different levels of the Being) or a plurality of worlds (each of which is inhabited by funda-mentally different beings11”. Similarly, within the “classical Aristotelian” worldview, space is inhabited by (absolute) actual and (absolute) potential beings12. In a stark departure from previous traditions of mythology and ficti-tious narrative, the cognition-fueled human inadvertently relinquishes the power over the narrative in the conception of reality. No longer in control in channelling a dream-like narrative for a specific purpose, the human enters a critical quest and continual struggle towards ontological “truths”. Fictitious narrative and myth carry a strong grounding of reality upon which a consciously constructed alternate reality is translated. In contrast, the rise of philosophical inquiry leads to the dramatic dis-mantling of any strong grounding—of reality, of consciousness, of free will to construct and of existence and inhabitation of an alternate reality. The human function of imagination pro-vides essential in the production of religion and mythology in a quest to understand the condition of humanity, or rather, the human predicament: where did we come from, why are we here and where are we going? It can be argued imagination is also what enables sci-entists in creation of knowledge and invention of technology—mythology and science both extend the scope of human beings13. Innova-tion and knowledge accompanying each major scientific revolution leads to transformations in views on society and nature—and, by exten-sion, radically transforming conceptions of reality, space and human experience. The First Scientific Revolution is characterized by a Hel-lenistic replacement of accepted mythical and theological efforts in explaining the universe and human existence, mainly through a partial empirical-rationalistic method of inquiry found a precursor of later modern classical science14. Initiated by Copernicus’s rejection of the revered geocentric conception of the universe, the Second Scientific Revolution culminated in Newton’s cosmological theory of absolute space and time15. Tracing to the latter 19th century, the Third Scientific revolution was by a discovery of subatomic particles, evolutionary theory of natural selection, quantum mechan-ics, theories of relativity and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle16. Each experimental discovery, dramatic para-digm replacement and addition to scientific discourse resulted in dramatic shifts in under-standing of humanity and its existence within a reality. The Newtonian idea of absolute space and time posited existence as not dependant on physical phenomena, while relationists such as Leibniz determined space and time as emerging from relations between material objects, rather than things in themselves17. In assessing the condition of human reality, sci-entific inquiry drastically expanded discussion of scale, quality and properties of space. In examination of velocity of light or insight into celestial bodies, the potential for discovery and renegotiation of space became expanded from microscopic to celestial scale. Evidence supporting the post-big bang accelerating expansion of the universe and suggestions to the concept of multiverses further both simul-taneously shattered, and remolded, paradigms explaining the conception of human reality and 6Figure 3. Robert  Hooke,1665Microscope + th in  s l ice  of  corkexistence. Whilst a tumultuous relationship with the idea of “scientific truth”, scientific inquiry demonstrated a manner in which a previously accepted and established paradigm could be overturned by an single ingenious dis-covery. The increasing lack of certainty became the driving force to an opening up of imagina-tive potential. O N  H I S TO R Y  O F  V R / A RIn addition to a brief overview of forces influ-encing the definition of reality throughout history, in this section I present an overview of the history of technologies from which the present-day state of the medium involved. The listed moments include both conceptual and technological advances, as well as advances generated as result of economic, community or social factors18. Without comprehensive aspirations, the brief historical overview points to major technological and conceptual shifts within the development of AR/VR technologies. While artists had long explored linear, oblique and isometric perspective through painting, in 1435 Leon Battista Alberti published  the math-ematics of linear (single-point) perspective rendering19. In 1787, Robert Barker creates a special building apparatus designed to house 360 degree painted panoramas20. If painting previously represented a two-dimensional effort to capture a three-dimensional reality, Baker’s invention now posited the  two-dimen-sional painting of three-dimensional reality within a mediated alternate three-dimensional environment. Mediation of photographs in construction of alternate reality continued through the stereoscope invention of Sir Charles Wheatstone, presenting two separate photographs to the viewer21. In 1862 John Pepper accomplished an enhanced version of the stereoscopic illusion through use of lighting and reflective transparent surface—render-ing two spaces as simultaneous and creating and alternate reality22.  An additional early manifestation of head-focused reality alter-ing device included Albert B. Pratt’s 1916 US Patent for a head based periscope display23. Stereoscope-based technologies generated instrumental social change within the concep-tion of self and reality.  The relatively cheap nature allowed for distribution throughout cultural and class boundaries, while the ste-reoscopic world seemed transcendent and hyper-real24.With technological focus oriented toward warfare improvement in the World War periods, Edwin Link developed in 1929 a mechanical flight simulator allowing for pilot training at stationary indoor location25. The trainee could now immersively inhabit the sky while remaining grounded, creating a form of disembodiment. Permeating further science fiction, in 1935 Stanley G. Weinbaum writes Pygmalion’s Spectacles in which the main char-acter wears a pair of goggles which transport him to a fictional world within which dreams become reality26. The 1946 ENIAC develop-ment of the first electronic digital computer at the University of Pennsylvania drastically expedited consequent rate of technological improvement.In 1956 Morton Heilig created the Sensorama, a multimodal experience display system in which a single person would perceive the pre-recorded experience via sights, sound, smell, vibration and wind27. This event, according to many, marks the true beginning of virtual reality as a technological concept. Followed in the 1960s by an insurge of innovation were the concept of ultimate display and tracked 8Figure 4.  Sensorama,  1962,  Morton Hei l igF igure 5.  The Sword of  Damocles ,  1968,  Ivan Suther landstereoscopic head-mounted display, most notably explored by Ivan Sutherland28. With the 1977 introduction of personal computers for off-the-shelf use at home, digital tech-nology begins to penetrate the larger market and infiltrate broader social consciousness. In 1981 MIT produces an early augmented reality display, allowing for users to explore subject matter—including 3D drawing, architectural visualization and 3D layout of computer chips29. The production of DataGlove and EyePhones in 1984 by VPL Research Inc instrumented a rela-tionship in mutual reporting between visual, kinetic and virtual30. The development within personalized VR expe-rienced throughout this time allowed for the basis on which social contact could become integrated. W-Industries launched the first public venue VR system Virtuality in 1990 as a dual player arcade game31. In 1992 the Electronic Visualization Lab developed CAVE which permitted up to 10 people to share the visuals, with one person occupying the optimal view. The 2003 creation of Second Life pro-duced a massive-scale virtual world in which people and institutions could inhabit and purchase space, socialize and utilize a virtual currency32. The constructed virtual world was created as a parallel reality, mimicking worldly conditions and functions with room for exper-imentation. The 2012 creation of the low-cost Oculus Rift was, interestingly, funded through a social crowdfunding Kickstarter Campaign33. Another low-cost item, the 2013 Virtuix Omni reduced-friction walking surface allowed for perception of walking whilst remaining within a constricted body ring34. On the cusp of wide commercialization, virtual reality technologies transitioned into institutionalization, as large varieties available to the public by 201535. In addition, virtual and augmented reality interfaces are slowly disintegrating in volume and scale towards an imperceptible presence. “Smart” contact lenses can utilize kinetic energy through the act of blinking. In general, application levels can be sorted through four levels: L E V E L  1  multifocal contact lenses or curing  color blindnessL E V E L  2  gathering information from your   body--like glucose monitoring for diabeticsL E V E L  3  augmenting vision with digital overlayL E V E L  4  complete virtual reality (PIV online)36.With Level 1 and Level 2 relatively accom-plished, most current research concentrates efforts on realizing Level 3. In the near future, contact lens systems could receive data from external platforms in provision of real-time notification, with inclusion of features such as: antenna, circuitry for power harvesting, radio communication and pixel control37. In 2011 University of Washington researchers created a prototype of the first functioning bionic lens with a single LED pixel comprising a light emitting diode chip38. Radio frequence energy emitted from a near-located transmitter is gathered by a circular antenna a fifth of an inch in diameter, printed on the lens39. The develop-ment of further prototypes in the near future working towards the achievement of Level 3 and Level 4 seem to be a matter of time. 10Figure 6.  Computer  s imulated te leoperat ion,  Antonio  Medina,  1991Figure 7.  Oculus  R i f t  K ickstart  campaign ,  2010O N  V R / A R  C U R R E N T  +  P R O J E C T E D A P P L I C AT I O NMore recently, research within virtual and augmented reality is shifting from a primarily technology-centred focus to content driven application, due to the advanced establish-ment of the medium40. Far from being reduced to technology intended solely for gamers, it is anticipated virtual and augmented reality tech-nologies will prove increasingly instrumental in a variety of industries: government space agencies and private space companies, manu-facturing, marketing, medicine and healthcare and many other41. Further, a 2006 American Psychological Association study determined VR headsets could produce calming effects and be utilized as a form of stress management in treating anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder42. With the mentioned increasing availability and affordability of immersive visu-alization applications utilizing head-mounted displays and augmented reality devices to consumers and smaller-scale enterprises, it is anticipated these technologies will play an increasing role in future governmental, social and commercial development43. O N  V R / A R  C U R R E N T  A R C H I T E C T U R A L A P P L I C AT I O NTechnologies allowing for seamless translation and negotiation between physical and virtual within the field of architecture have become accepted as a new standard—from laser scan-ners, three-dimensional digitizers, laser cutters, 3D printers, multi-axis milling machines44. More importantly, the physical/virtual transla-tions allow for negotiation between all forms of architectural process, scale and represen-tations—from two-dimensional drawings to physical scale modeling, from building plan to circulation network diagrams, from detailed building drawing to urban massing modeling, and so on45. Current use of virtual/augmented reality translations within the field of architecture focus primarily on rendering technologies, marketing/immersion and aiding the construction process. As an example of rendering technologies, projects have utilized digital photographs of the “real” world in order to generate realistic 3D models and virtual cinematography of architectural scenes46. In exploring immersion for consequent market-ing purposes, studies have measured extent of presence in a mixed-reality design space in order to investigate the relationship between object presence and design performance in a manipulated design space47. Further, studies have examined the manner in which wear-able augmented-reality computer systems can promote architectural design process for the user48. In exploring potential changes to archi-tectural construction processes, studies have proposed alternatives achieving interactive simulation of construction activities on a con-struction site in order to provide time and cost efficiency49.Pointing at a gap in current investigation of changes within virtual reality and augmented reality future application within the field of architecture, this thesis is focused on how our conceptions of architecture and space might change with the wide acceptance of a mixed-reality application to domestic space.  12Figure 8.  Babak Parv iz ,  Level  2  b ionic  contact ,  worn by  rabbit . First coined in the 1982 science fiction novel Neuromancer, William Gibson defines cyber-space as:“Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination expe-rienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught math-ematical concepts. A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranges in the nons-pace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights receding...”50. With the description, Gibson sought to capture the immense complexity and incapacity of the present human mind to grasp the increasingly decentered and disembodied digital human experience. Since Gibson’s 1980s initial grasp of cyberspace, the network of global wire-less infrastructure dramatically scaled up, in contrast to a dramatically scaling down of transmission and reception aparatus’51. On one hand, cyberspace allows for the transcen-dence and disembodiment from traditional physical space: when online, we are partially freed from bodily existence52. On the other hand, it is argued cyberspace will never com-plete supplantation of real space due to the essential nature of kinetic, sensorial and haptic sensation to the human experience and identity-construction53. William Gibson refers to cyberspace as “an infinite cage”54. While the endless boundaries that can be travelled electronically transcend the physical, imagined and potential, to an embodied and temporally finite being the digital infinity represents more of a state of confinement55. The infinite digital boundaries are further constricted by nature of medium through which they are provided. An interface, created by a human, is what provides structure and systemic boundaries. Regardless of the level of immersion, the cyberspace view is curated and the infinite freedom within the space is a matter of illusion. Despite the seemingly finite boundaries of our experience of an infinite cyberspace, it is essential in manners in which we challenge and reconstruct our perception of physical (natural) reality. Cyberspace contains translations of physical space through utilization of signs, sym-bolism and points of locational interrelation to the material realm. Spatial representation in virtual reality is rooted in symbolic, operative and rule-based reductions, which fail to trans-late the nature of the space56. Yet, what is lost in reduction, is gained through the potential of dramatic expansion of human boundaries through the achievement of ultimate display, a form of achievement of an age-old desire for complete physical transcendence57.In 1994 Milgram and Kishino proposed the virtuality continuum concept, presenting a categorization of forms of mixed reality envi-ronments on a continuum from solely real to solely virtual objects58. Augmented reality is I I .  O N  C Y B E R S PA C E  A N D  M I X E D R E A L I T Y14Figure 9.  Neuromancer  cover,  i l lustrated by  Tom de Haven and Jensen,  1989presented as partial, and minor, digital overlay upon reality, while augmented virtuality refers to a predominant digital information view supported by real contextual data, such as a navigational GPS device59. In either case the augmented stretch of the continuum is dif-ferentiated through the provision of a varied, but prominent, degree of conscious and visual negotiation between the real and virtual. Real reality, without intervention, presents no obvious presence or experience of the virtual. In contrast, virtual reality presents an alter-nate solely consumed reality—yet, in spite of the level of immersion, is grounded to reality through the human bodily experience. In this thesis, I argue, the future expansion and dif-ferentiation of the mixed reality continuum could lead to the possibility of a simultane-ously experienced virtual and real reality. Such an experience would entail a more prominent digital overlay over a unconfined, bodily expe-rience within the real. In 2003 Mee++ author William J Mitchell declared:“The trial separation of bits and atoms is now over. In the early age of the digital revolution, it seemed useful to pry these elementary units of materiality and information apart. The virtual and physical were imagined as separate realms: cyberspace and meatspace. Now the boundary between them is dissolving.60” With networked intelligence being embedded everywhere, both natural and artificial, tra-ditional boundaries between real and virtual are becoming dismantled. Further, as dis-cussed, the restrictive nature of a single medium as a window to the alternate reality is subdividing into smaller scale differenti-ated apparatuses allowing for a increased simultaneity of simulated experiences. In the physical world, or real world, presence is defined as a natural perception of an environ-ment61. On the other hand, telepresence is defined as the extent to which one experiences presence within a mediated environment62. This thesis is concerned with potential changes and effects within the realm of architecture and society as a result of increased telepresence within a mixed reality environment. Increases within wearable and auto-stereoscopic devices, data capture and video, sensor-rich application, distributed augmented environ-ments, programmability of parallel processes and tasks divided between multiple proces-sors63—all point towards immense future shifts in the experience and incorporation of mixed reality into our conception of reality. The fol-lowing chapter explores a variety of subtopics in exploration of thematic future projections which may have influence on the consequent shift within society, and as such, the realm of architecture. 16Figure 10.  Google  maps g l i tch,  photo by  Adalberto MenardiF igure 11.  Google  maps g l i tch,  photo by  Arthur  StarO N  P E R C E P T I O N“There may be a time when we’ll attend Weather Theatre to recall the sensation of rain.”             In 1969, Jim Morrison64 In seminal works of psychology and philosophy, a conscious and unified experience of one’s body within peripersonal space is a prerequi-site in the experience of the external physical world65. Yet, studies have shown the application of visuotactile contention between a physical body and artificial bodily representation can result in a bodily self-consciousness discon-nection66. In an instance of conflict between proprioception and vision, the brain is heavily biased to prefer the stable visual information—allowing for manipulation of real world path in order to achieve a virtual goal67. The phe-nomenon of change blindness occurs when the subject fails to detect a change in object or scene68. Research on the change-blindness phenomenon has successfully implemented small scale manipulation to geometry of virtual reality environment model in order to unno-ticeably redirect user walking69. Similar tactics have allowed for walking-experienced virtual environments to exceed dimensions of the accompanying physical walking space. In 2010 Suma et al achieved a seamless walk through a simulated virtual office building of 2352 navigable square feet within a real space envi-ronment of only 196 square feet70. Throughout the exploration of similar motion compression techniques, it becomes imperative to consider the interconnection of bodily sensation and muscle movement in visual perception: “Locomotion is guided by visual perception. Not only does it depend on perception but per-ception depends on locomotion inasmuch as a moving point of observation is necessary for any adequate acquaintance with the environ-ment. So we must perceive in order to move, but we must also move in order to perceive.71” While the content and kinaesthetic driven experience of a designed augmented land-scape drives the shape of a walk, the actual movement is integrated in a visual-kinetic feedback loop. Perception of an environment is further rooted within a sense of touch, as sug-gested by Maurice Merlau Ponty, as the tactile experience of objects directly leads to direct transfers in the experience of vision72. There-fore, the projected anticipated mixed reality environment allows for partial tactile verifi-cation of certain elements visualized in the digital overlay. In contrast, as explored above, other perceptual elements can be manipu-lated to achieve the reality projected within the digital overlay. Seamless manipulation of the real in lieu of a virtual goal, in combination with a real world verification of certain digital elements, would allow for an unprecedented level of telepresence within the environment. According to Evangelos Christou, “Experience is I I I .  O N  V I R T U A L -  R E A L :  TO WA R D S D E S I G N  S T R AT E G I E S18Figure 12.  Engel  et  a l .  2008 study of  v isual -propr iocept ive  conf l ictsAbove:  subject ’s  v iew a long a  path through a  v i r tual  c i ty. Below:  subject ’s  path bent  into a  t racked space us ing a  control ler.a matter of verification through sensible per-ceptions”73. Following, Peter Carruther writes: “Perception gives rise to beliefs, combination of perception and the organisms bodily states gives rise to desires; and then beliefs and desires are combined with one another within some sort of practical reasoning system to select an appropriate behaviour”74. Hence, the ways in which people perceptually experience virtual or augmented space can be influenced strategically and illusionary, eventually influ-encing shifts in belief system.Perception is one of the primary guiding forces within the architectural realm. If perception of immediate and distant space can be manipu-lated kinaesthetically, tactically and visually, real experience of space can be altered. Archi-tecture, then, can either exploit, support or expose the perceptual manipulation. Further, as explored, perceptual manipulation is one of the primary supporting forces behind the pos-sibility of expanding space. O N  M AT E R I A L  / I M M AT E R I A L D I S T I N C T I O NVirtual reality has the potential to mimic stan-dards and rules of material reality, in order to achieve a seamless immersion. To date, regard-less of the level of immersion, the viewers’ body has presented the ultimate boundary. In spite of the ability to achieve a certain degree of disembodiment, a mere conscious thought could recall the bodily experience in the real material world. Further, as a medium, virtual reality has been experienced through appa-ratus’ of physical bodily extension—such as a head mounted display. The human body has the ability to filter out a continuously experi-enced sensation if found unimportant or less relevant to others. While sensation detecting such an apparatus can fade through time, the fact it can be recalled back consciously has represented one of the major factors disal-lowing complete telepresence. In traditional forms of augmented reality, the digital overlay is divorced from the material. Therefor, mate-riality is experienced within the real world. In augmented virtuality, an illusive cognitive sense of materiality can be invoked by a digital overlay displaying movement or presence within a referenced space. In lieu of previously explored “smart contact lenses” and the future ability to apply an increased level of digital overlay in comparison to previous forms of augmented reality, the quality and experience of materiality within future forms of mixed-re-ality remains a matter of question. According to Georg Flachbart, “real space (1, OFF-LINE) and virtual (0, ON-LINE) are continually superposed, obeying the rules of quantum mechanics rather than classical physics”75, pointing the impact of materiality has the potential to exponentially be reduced. Yet, the realm of architecture has so far been based and grounded on these same unbend-able rules of classical physics. Structure, order, symmetry, aesthetics and so on, have all been a direct result of the physical standards of materiality. While the social, political and cul-tural functions of architecture can be widely debated, it is common to assume architectural functions as provision of shelter, privacy and environmental comfort, in pursuit of various program. If we are to envision a future ability to provide a seamless and significant digital overlay over reality, the base needs, standards, limitations and potential of architecture need to be reimagined. There seems to be potential within the dissipation of materiality considered essential in the human experience, or at least a subdivision into materiality required within 20the material realm and simulated materiality in the digital overlay. If one is to look around their domestic space, or urban street context, or experience in nature—what material is essential in the experience of reality within the space? What can be removed, altered, added, without affecting the experience of reality? Architecture is reliant on networks. While wireless connectivity is increasingly linking human mobile bodies to traditional resource systems, networks of transportation, energy supply, water supply and waste disposal do not have the ability to operate wirelessly—or “pipelessly”76.  Still, increasingly, activities once reliant on physical proximity to resources—water, food, raw materials etc—are dependant on mobile connectivity to geographically extended delivery networks77. In addition, the realm of architectural response to human need seems to be dissipating from a solely rigid material provision of structure and mechanical services. Soft materials, responsive materials and kinetic architectural features have been permeating the previous traditions of rigid architectural forms. In a mixed-reality environ-ment, the materiality of architecture contains necessarily material provisions—for example, the floor the person stands upon or a specific mechanical service guiding material or energy. On the other hand, certain aspects of material-ity experienced traditionally in architecture do not necessarily need to be provided through the material specifically. An architecturally experienced view, a decorative architectural element or even a wall—while these are all visually perceived through our notions of mate-rial knowledge, our direct experience of them does not rely on tactile sensation. Therefor, I argue, certain material aspects of architec-tural structure, function and sensation can be transferred on a mixed-reality digital overlay, while others remain confined to the real-world environment. O N  A R C H I T E C T U R A L  F U N C T I O NAccording to William J Mitchell, “the micro-terrain immediately surrounding our bodies is providing habitats for new electronic species, which may be classified according to their size and shapes, their modes of attachment to the body, their degrees of conformability to the body and their degrees of visibility78”. Reliance on the rigid large-scale fabric of buildings is dis-sipating to smaller-scale and flexible systems, with Mitchell proclaiming “as miniaturiza-tion continues...more and more functionality migrates to the body, literally off-the-wall (and into the skin zone)...We will indeed approach the condition of “walking architecture79”. Functions architecture once performed are increasingly shifting to implanted, wearable and portable devices80. Future innovation in the field of flexible system fabrics, as well as current prototypes, point to the increased role of clothing the provision of customizable and regulated environmental comfort. As previ-ously mentioned, a digital overlay presented through a future rendition of the “smart” contact lense provides the opportunity to mediate and respond to needs of privacy within an environment. One can envision small scale sets of parasitic power generators, harvesting kinetic, thermal and light energy throughout the corporeal realm, in order to construct a small scale bodily power supply grid81. The increasing miniaturization of these systemic functions and integration within the immediate scale and vicinity of the body is key as they “are insinuating themselves, like resourceful ticks and fleas, into increasingly intimate spaces82”. Rather than finding the role of architecture to be reducing, it points to a restructuring of what is traditionally thought of as the realm of architecture. Without harbouring nostalgia for traditional form and boundaries, these changes will forcing the architect to revisit their role as a designer and restructure the boundaries of their discipline. Rethinking traditional roles and boundaries in pursuit of extended functionality opens up to new possibilities: accommodat-ing traditional functions within new locations, future functions within traditional locations, rethinking ideas of permanence, systematic intervention, responsiveness etc. O N  A R C H I T E C T U R A L  P R O G R A M“Dwell, word of nostalgia. Today such dwelling is often thought to be incompatible with our decentred metropolises. Our lack of courage thus appears linked to an unwillingness to confront and acknowledge what has become ever more apparent since Copernicus: our world has no center and knows no proper places; these are illusions born out of cowardice. Nietzsche seems to be pointing to the incompatibility between our labyrinthine souls and our buildings.83” One of the primary functions of architecture is accommodation of program—simply looking, a structure must respond to programmatic needs of form, structure or socio-political-cul-tural needs. With increasing complexity within human systems, programmatic needs have become widely differentiated and specific. Symbolism of architectural program carries within it a certain level of nostalgia, as pro-grammatic differentiation seems to be eroding pillars of architectural definition. Once upon a time, there was the religious, the govern-ing, the resource providing (agricultural/mercantile/industrial) and domestic program, encapsulated for centuries or decades within a consumable form. The simplistic division of program pointed to a participation in a common belief system, or a culturally shared comprehension of architectural symbolism84. Such rigid functional distinctions amongst specialized program spaces have dissolved to accommodate the present day systemic flexi-bility, mobility and interconnectivity. Within the realm of the virtual and mixed-re-ality, architecture needs to redefine the meaning of dwelling and domesticity. Domes-tic program presents itself as a ideal candidate for projective design in order to explore all the mentioned changes within the realm of archi-tecture, encapsulated within the following quotes: “Home is the universal archetypal symbol of the self85”.   Carl Jung“The house, quite obviously, is a privileged entity for a phenomenological study of the inti-mate values of inside space86”. Bachelard  How does the potential of mixed-reality address the needs, transformation and new expression of domestic program? Current stan-dard of domestic programmatic differentiation are quite strong yet, I argue, will be revised in the future. Regardless of the intimacy and nos-talgia incorporated within tradition of dwelling, new conditions will provide the potential to respond and solve existing social, cultural and practical domestic restrictions. Mixed-reality offers potential in resolving practical domes-tic program considerations in, for example, a higher degree of control in distribution of privacy, a potential to expand the practical constrictions of space distribution or provid-ing an increase in perceived economic spatial value. While there might be a decreased need for spatially strict program boundaries, the architectural designer will have to exercise an increased focus on transformative potential 22and general space / program flexibility. In contrast to the 20th century modernist focus on separation and distinction of function, it is likely the mixed-reality architectural expression will focus on seamless, flexible and systemic programmatic overlay. With novel program-matic needs, changes in architectural form will follow. O N  R O L E  O F  A R C H I T E C T U R EAs explored in previous chapters, the poten-tial of integrating an enhanced mixed-reality digital overlay upon traditional forms of mate-rial-based architecture points to a need in reconfiguring the role, intervention and rep-resentation within architecture. The nature of architecture extends far beyond the materi-ally expressed built form, as it simultaneously reflects and reinforces the cultural, social and ontological context of humanity. Within the material realm, architecture encompasses the structural needs, sensorial experience, func-tional programming distribution and provision / accommodation of networks or resources. Within the immaterial realm, architecture encompasses identity, aspiration, agenda and agency, experimentation and ideology. In lieu of previous paragraphs exploring material-ity, function and programmatic anticipated change, I argue, enhanced mixed-reality will guide the bifurcation of architectural extension into two divisive realms: the material world and the digital overlay. If a “smart” contact lens can provide an extensive, or even complete, digital overlay over reality, certain functions of architecture will become accommodated solely within that realm. If I am standing in a constricted or austere space, through the lens I am perceiving a large and indulgent space—and while I might perceive this space as unconstricted and freeing, the design inter-ventions prevent me from facing the illusory quality of my experience. In this case, the digital overlay encompasses certain architec-tural aspects of my experience, for example, the sensorial or spatial quality of the space I am experiencing. In contrast, the material architectural grounding of the space I digitally inhabit is liberated from the need to fulfill the same sensorial or spatial qualities presented in the digital overlay. In short, the functions the lens is providing do not need to be provided within the actual space. This bifurcation of architectural function would result in practical benefits, for example, transferring the majority of visual experience to the digital would alle-viate actual architectural costs while providing enhanced space and experience. Within the material world, common architectural consid-erations of mechanical integration or achieving specific sensorial qualities would no longer be necessary. Instead, novel architectural con-siderations in navigating the material world and designing within the digital overlay would appear. The role of the mixed-reality envi-ronment architect, then, becomes curation of viewer experience through illusory design strategies, seamless integration of digital-real navigation and sensorial crafting of the digital overlay. Despite the initial agenda intended to enhance user experience, the illusory nature of the architecturally designed simulated envi-ronment places the expanded extent of the new architectural role into an ethically prob-lematic realm.O N  U TO P I A  /  D Y S TO P I ATo project into the future, is to reveal the present. According to to Daniel Czitrom, “The dream of transcendence through machines is an ancient one, and the urge to annihilate space and time found particularly intense expression through media. The accelerated evolution of media hardware and software has been fueled by the  at large.87”. Previously explored trends of wireless technology and unleashing digital potential have radically transformed society as a whole, with the anticipation of exponential transformation within the following decades. The desire for complete freedom, infinite pos-sibilities and physical transcendence have long been a driving force behind societal and tech-nological efforts88. In contrast, with each major wave of technological innovation, anxieties on the future of human condition and existence have followed. From the invention of writing, print, scientific inquiry, steam ships, trains, industrialized metropoles, telegraph, radio, telephone, TV, computers, virtual reality, arti-ficial intelligence, and infinitely so on, the uncertainty of the novel and its ability to shape human activity has induced anxiety. An 1877 New York Times editorial of the telephone declared: “We will soon be nothing but trans-parent heaps of jelly to each other89”. To project into the future, is to negotiate between utopia and dystopia. A mixed-reality digital overlay may serve as a utopic device, in provision of an improved version of life and possibilities existing within the real material realm. The extent of the overlay could commence as a minor interven-tion, with a scope similar to current instances of intervention in augmented reality. The real-istic and familiar nature of the overlay could consequently allow for a seamless transition into a completely digital visual realm. If the digitally experienced mixed-reality simulation is indistinguishable from reality, does it matter if it is not in fact reality? If human desires, aspirations and experience are enhanced and provide value, is this reality utopic? In contrast, the entire orchestration of the mixed reality depends on illusory architectural and digital manipulation of human perception in order to achieve their desires. The scope of illusory manipulation becomes extensive, with the accompanying technologies bearing unprec-edented complexity. The systems rely upon programmers and designers, as well as coor-dinating entities remaining within the material world. To immerse oneself into an expanded mixed-reality is to relinquish control and fully place trust into another, in hope their agenda coincides with your own. This thesis, therefor, navigates the boundary between pursuing a utopia and revealing the dystopia. For, life is neither purely black, nor purely white—it navi-gates the realm of the grey. O N  U N C E R TA I N T Y,  D R E A M I N G  A N D A R C H I T E C T U R A L  R E P R E S E N TAT I O N “Maybe it is a good thing for us to keep a few dreams of a house that we shall live in later, always later, so much later, that in fact, we shall not have time to achieve it. For a house that was final, one that stood in a symmetrical relation to the house we were born in, would lead to thoughts – serious, sad thoughts – and not dreams. It is better to live in a state of impermanence than in one of finality90”.    Bachelard To design within the virtual or enhanced mixed-reality realm, is to dream. Speculative theorizing, common in experimen-tal physics, has no reliance on observational or experimental data to ground theories in reality: it cannot be tested, cannot be verified or falsified91. The realm of this thesis topic is grounded in uncertainty and speculative exploration, risking the product being dis-counted as solely an arbitrary metaphor. Yet, Nietzsche describes the human drive to form metaphors in striking similarity to that of conceptual design, finding: “It consistently confuses the rubrics and cells of concepts by setting forth new translations, metaphors and 24metonymies; it constantly manifests the desire to remake the world at hand, to make it as colorfully irregular, disconnectedly unentailed, fascinating and eternally new as the world of dream92”. While the realm of architectural role and built form has been explored in previous paragraphs of this thesis, this one is dedicated the scope and power of architectural represen-tation. Architectural drawing embodies a way of acting through the exploration of unbuilt envi-ronment, as drawing provides the grounding before tectonic experiences take place93. For Nietzsche, “architecture was a means by which we understand our consciousness—a structure, a scaffolding of thoughts94”. The architectural representation, then, embodies a negotiation of measured systems, assumptions, projection and symbolism, in a guided effort to pursue or capture the unknown. At their time of writing, both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche found the prob-lematic nature of the modern world emerged from the fact it is too well built, “much like a cosmos that assigns our place, imprisoning cre-ativity and imagination95”. While such thoughts might seamingly posit science and technology in a direct conflict with imagination and creativ-ity, these realms are in fact closely intertwined. Therefor, this part of the thesis ends within an intertwining of imagination-led realms of myth and art, reason and ordered led realm of scien-tific inquiry, fictitious narrative, dreaming and uncertainty—all in simultaneous pursuit and negation of reality. 26I V.  P R E C E D E N T S The Good Place is a 2016 NBC comedy TV show following the fate of four people who have died and made it to the “good place” in the afterlife.This particular neighbourhood of the “good place” is designed by the architect Michael, played by Ted Danson. The small city environ-ment is pristine and every detail seems to be designed with the purpose of providing the residents with pure happiness. Every inhabi-tant receives a dream home and a soul-mate, calibrated specifically for their desires. Yet as the first season unfolds, the characters endure all sorts of moral trials and tribulations, leading to the final recognition: the “good place” is in fact the “bad place”. The architect, Michael, is in fact a demon-architect whose ultimate design goal is to subtly torture the four individuals within the neighbourhood. The key to the element of torture is the subtle manifestation of the tortured individuals pet-peeves throughout the design. For example, the character of Eleanor despises the overused and overcelebrated concept of frozen yogurt. The presence of an exceeding amount of frozen yogurt shops fuels her moral struggle, as she desperately attempts to mimic other residents bliss in order to conceal that she belongs in the “bad place”. The initial success of the “bad place” posing as the “good place” is embodiment of 21-st century American drean aspirations: clean streets, small population, adequately spacedsingle family zones, pedestrian streets, perfect lawns and safe cul-de-sacs. The inability to feel happiness or a feeling of belonging within a seemingly perfect environment is the main driver of constant psychological torture. The design is too clean, safe, boring and bland—designed for the ideal of an average person, it is not ideal for anyone. The premise of the TV show is relevant to this thesis exploration precisely for the successful simulation of a “good place” through shared idealized conceptions of happiness and domes-tic fulfillment, despite the fact they did not manage to achieve the same feelings within each individual. The major theme throughout the seasons is the focus on morality and ethics within present day complex environments. The role of the Architect has a curious depiction—at first “good” and obsessed with finding design flaws within his work, then revealing himself as a demonic-architect who tortures through design, to becoming a leader in navigating reality, afterlife and simulations in a search for truth. The character of Michael speaks to the ability of the architect to create illusions, manipulate or navigate ethical considerations of the design and affected residents. Further, since the design system is located in the after-life, the architect is designing in a system not bound by laws of physics or time. If any design flaws are found, the entire system can just be rebooted—the multiple seasons of the TV show feature endless neighbourhood reboots.T H E  G O O D  P L A C E :  E X P L O R I N G  T H E R O L E  O F  T H E  A R C H I T E C TM I C H A E L  S C H U R28Figure 13.  T he Good P lace,  rendit ion of  after l i fe  for  pasta  loversF igure 14.  The Bad P lace,  rendit ion of  after l i fe  for  people  who despise  f rozen yogurtThe design considerations are then, quite obviously, drastically different from those real world architects experience. The emphasis is not within temporal, material or context constrictions, rather the focus is placed on achieving a specific conceptual goal through the design. While laws of physics are non-es-sential within the afterlife context, the afterlife mimics real world design in order to envoke feelings of familiarity within the residents. The simulation can easily be manipulated, through illusory strategies, in order to achieve specific goals within the residents. The architect here is a tortured soul, obsessed with his design and finding design flaws, possessing an immense amount of control, yet responding to deadlines sent from “higher up“ and ultimately bearing a continually negotiated ethical responsibility. While outlandish and comedic in nature, the context of the afterlife and goal of simulation within the TV show connect to considerations of moving parts of domestic design into the digital.“ T H I N G S  I N  T H E  A F T E R L I F E  D O N OT  H A P P E N  W H E N  T H I N G S A R E  H A P P E N I N G  H E R E ,  B E C A U S E W H I L E  T I M E  O N  E A R T H  M O V E S I N  A  S T R A I G H T  L I N E :O N E  T H I N G  H A P P E N S ,  T H E N  T H E N E X T,  T H E N  T H E  N E X T,T I M E  I N  T H E  A F T E R L I F E  M O V E S I N  A  J E R E M Y  B E A R I M Y- - - - - W H AT ?I N  T H E  A F T E R L I F E  T I M E  D O U B L E S B A C K  A N D  L O O P S  A R O U N D  A N D E N D S  U P  L O O K I N G  S O M E T H I N G L I K E  T H I S . I T  I S  J U S T  T H E  WAY  I T  W O R K S .I T ’ S  J E R E M Y  B E A R I M Y. I  D O  N OT  K N O W  W H AT  TO  T E L L YO U,  I T  I S  T H E  E A S I E S T  WAY  TO D E S C R I B E  I T. - - - - - - - B U T,  WA I T,  T H AT  D OT  O V E R T H E  L E T T E R  I ?  W H AT  T H E  H E L L  I S T H AT ?O K ,  H O W  D O  I  E X P L A I N  T H I S C O N C I S E LY. . .  T H AT  I S  T U E S D AY S , A N D  A L S O  J U LY.  O H ,  A N D S O M E T I M E  I T  I S  N E V E R .  Y E S , O C C A S S I O N A LY  T H AT  D OT  I S  A T I M E - M O M E N T  W H E N  N OT H I N G N E V E R  O C C U R S .”              M I C H A E L ,  architect  in       The Good P lace30Figure 15.  The Architect  expla in ing t ime progress ion in  after l i fe  i s  non- l inear  and f lows in  a  “Jeremy Bear imy“Figure 16.  T i t le  of  new neighborhood des ignBlack Mirror: Bandersnatch is a 2018 Netflix original psychological thriller interactive film writen by Charlie Brooker, directed by David Slade and produeced by Russel McLean. The movie plot is set in 1984, as the viewers follow a young progammer in his efforts to adapt a fantasy choose-your-own-adventure novel into a groundbreaking video game. What sets the movie apart from previous epi-sodes of the Black Mirror TV show anthology, is the element of interactivity allowing viewers to make choices at certain parts of the narra-tive. For example, early on in the movie, the viewer is presented with a simple choice of which cereal the protagonist will choose to eat that morning. While the choice between Sugar Puffs and Frosties does not seem imperative, the viewer is unaware of how influential this choice may be for the narrative. The choices grow larger in potential consequence and dra-matic narrative as the movie progresses, each leading towards a specific ending. During the first choice, the scheme of viewer interactivity is established. The two presented choices are accompanied by a visual timeline and ticking sound in order to highlight the amount of time available for the viewer to make a choice. The control given to the viewer breaks the traditional boundaries of viewer-ship, providing a mixed emotion of fear and responsibility for the main protagonist. Yet, as the movie progresses, the extent of the control given to the viewer drastically diminishes. The viewer has the ability to choose, yet, both choices are located within the same spectrum. The viewer has two choices of anger displays Stefan will exhibit towards his father—whether he will shout or throw tea over the computer—yet, cannot choose to not exhibit anger. The viewer can choose if Colin or Stefan will jump off the balcony, yet, cannot choose for neither to jump. With the increase in dramatic quality and irreversibility of each viewer decision, the actual level of control the viewer possesses is put into question. Further, depending on the choice made, the viewer is occassionally looped back to a pre-vious choice in order to suggest a different choice should be made. If the viewer contin-uously chooses the same option, the viewer ends up re-routed each time until the will is broken and decision is shifted. Further, if the choice is not made on time, the programmed preferred choice will be made. The free will, agency and patience of the viewer is continu-ally tested—while no choice leads to a happy narrative end. The movie is relevant to this thesis investigation through the examination of free-will, authorial control, monitoring, fate and exploration (and questioning) of reality within the digital age. B L A C K  M I R R O R :  B A N D E R S N AT C H B R O O K E R  +  S L A D E  +  M C L E A N32Figure 17.  Interact ive  v iewer  moment  /  choice:  dec id ing on cereal F igure 18.  Interact ive  v iewer  moment  /  choice:  dec id ing on v io lent  act ionB lack  Mirror :  Bandersnatch movie  st i l l s .  Netf l ix“ T H E R E  I S  M E S S A G E S  I N  E V E R Y  G A M E . L I K E  PA C - M A N .  D O  YO U  K N O W  W H AT  PA C  S TA N D S  F O R ? P - A - C :  P R O G R A M  A N D  C O N T R O L .  H E  I S  P R O G R A M  A N D C O N T R O L  M A N . T H E  W H O L E  T H I N G  I S  A  M E TA P H O R :  H E  T H I N K S  H E ’ S G OT  F R E E  W I L L  B U T  R E A L LY,  H E ’ S  T R A P P E D  I N  A  M A Z E , I N  A  S Y S T E M , A L L  H E  C A N  D O  I S  C O N S U M E .  H E  I S P U R S U E D  B Y  D E M O N S  T H AT  A R E  P R O B A B LY  J U S T  I N H I S  O W N  H E A D,  A N D  E V E N  I F  H E  D O E S  M A N A G E  TO E S C A P E  B Y  S L I P P I N G  O U T  O N E  S I D E  O F  T H E  M A Z E , W H AT  H A P P E N S ?H E  C O M E S  R I G H T  B A C K  I N  O N  T H E  OT H E R  S I D E . P E O P L E  T H I N K  I T ’ S  A  H A P P Y  G A M E ,  I T ’ S  N OT  A  H A P P Y G A M E .  I T ’ S  A  F U C K I N G  N I G H T M A R E  W O R L D  A N D  T H E W O R S T  T H I N G  I S  I T ’ S  R E A L  A N D  W E  L I V E  I N  I T. I T  I S  A L L  C O D E .  I F  YO U  L I S T E N  C L O S E LY,  YO U  C A N  H E A R T H E  N U M B E R S .  T H E R E ’ S  A  C O S M I C  F L O W C H A R T  T H AT D I C TAT E S  W H E R E  YO U  C A N  A N D  W H E R E  YO U  C A N ’ T  G O. I ’ V E  G I V E N  YO U  T H E  K N O W L E D G E .  I ’ V E  S E T  YO U  F R E E  .”    -      C O L I N  R I T M A N  in     B lack  Mirror :  Bandersnatch 34Figure 19 +  F igure 20.  PA C MAN.Bandersnatch movie  st i l l s .Founded in 2005 by Hannes Koch and Florian Ortkrass, Random International is a collabo-rative studio for experimental practice within contemporary art. With a studio based in London and Berlin, the collective explores issues of identity and autonomy in the the post-digital age through participation. Rain Room, a 2011 large-scale responsive rainfall environment is currently in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art after debuting as part of the MoMA PS1 exhibition EXPO 1: New York.In contrast to traditional experiences of the sensation of rain, as uncontrollably tempo-rally and spatially dynamic, the project allows visitors to actively engage in the fabricated, yet sensorially rich, environment. In order to foster an intimate participatory viewing expe-rience, the installation adheres to a regulated viewing que limited to 10 people at the time. The installation plays with the notion of the human-nature relationship increasingly being mediated through technology. The installa-tion consists of water, injection moulded tiles, solenoid valves, pressure regulators, custom software, 3D tracking cameras, steel beams, water management systems and a grated floor of around 100 square meters. The rain downfall is initially continuous and unobstructed. The human body and presence observes the environment and is confronted with the basic human nature of a desire for shelter and aversion towards rain. Guided to walk through the environment, the instal-lation plays with human emotion and initial excitement / hesitance. As the body enters the installation, the sensors observe the pres-ence of the body and control the solenoid valves to prevent the rain from falling. A rela-tionship is created, one between visitor and artwork, human and nature, and human and machine. The human observes the machine mediated environment, the machine observes the human presence. Upon the initial fear and hesitance to become part of the environment, the human becomes increasingly engaged, as it experiences a sense of freedom and control over the environment.The installation demonstrates the ability to engage technology, something that is often seen to take away human participation and action, with the human within the environ-ment through a balanced relationship. Such new explorations represent a dialogue, in somewhat of an idealized form, where the technological is at the service of the human sensorial experience. In an age of omnipresent data mining and surveillance, the installation proposes a world in which the data and control are guided by the human hand and for human purposes. It is not difficult to presuppose, posi-tioned in the slight future, the application of such interactive technologies within the home, public space or urban fabric.R A I N  R O O MR A N D O M  I N T E R N AT I O N A L36Figure 21.  User  exper ience.  Ra in  Room. Museum of  Modern Art .  New York. F igure 22.  Cei l ing  deta i l .  Ra in  Room.“A LT H O U G H  T H E  S O U N D  A N D  S M E L L  O F  T H E R A I N  A R E  I N T E N S E ,  I T S  TO U C H  R E M A I N S  A B S E N T L E AV I N G  V I S I TO R S  D R Y  W I T H I N  A  C O N T I N U A L D O W N P O U R  A S  T H E Y  N AV I G AT E  T H E  S PA C E .”38Figure 23.  User  exper ience,  sensor  act ivat ion.  Ra in  Room. F igure 24.  User  exper ience,  perceived immers ion.  Ra in  Room.Another project by Random International, Swarm Study IX is derived through a multitude of smaller scale Swarm-studies exploring the changing role of architecture in the post-digital age. Initial Swarm-studies included brass rods suspended within a cube or from a ceiling, often arranged into larger cubes. In Swarm Study III, as visitors in an art galley descend and ascend the stairs, the light from the illu-minated brass rods suspended from the ceiling follows human activity with slight variations in intensity. The environmental input, monitored through human activity and movement, is recorded on a camera to allow the stimulation of the installation dynamics. With little infor-mation on the complex algorithm controlling the installation, Swarm Study III allows for the recording, translation and utilization of envri-onmental input into moving patterns of light. As a result, engagement occurs between the machine system and human activity—similar to the Rain Room project. Each appear to be influencing the exchange in a balanced dis-tribution of power and agency, blurring the boundary on whether the human or machine are fundamentally in control. In contrast, Swarm Study IX represents one of the later applications of the project concept through the revision and addition to pre-vious installations and sculptural projects. This Swarm-study occupies the facade of the newly transformed Hauptbahnhof Chemnitz, Germany. As noticable through the evolution ofeach Swarm-study, this project represents the artist’s largest work to date, transitioning from a gallery-space to the realm of what is con-sidered closer to architecture. The generating principle behind the moving patterns of light on the facade derrives from the study of birt efficiency in flocking birds. Each single light source located within the facade is embeded with collective behaviour. Each unit of light is physically singular, yet it encorporates a spe-cific data set on how to act—to light on, or light off—depending on the behaviour of the other lights surrounding its area. While the viewer observes the facade as a singular unit with dynamic light movement, the facade is actually subdivided into smaller sections which continously interact with the surrounding light subdivisions. The facade demonstrates an exploration of intelligence in motion of self-organizing systems through the creation of dynamic, interactive and highly sensorially rich environments. The project relates to my field of inquiry through the animate nature of the building, albeit only surface/facade level, with the focus on collec-tive behaviour derived through a collected data set. The project opens up the possibility of the future existance of a completely responsive building or structure, one continually harvest-ing data from its environment and responding to it in real-time based on previously config-ured parameters. As such, it opens towards a realm of real-time responsive environments.S WA R M  S T U D Y  I XR A N D O M  I N T E R N AT I O N A L40Swarm Study.  Chemnitz ,  Germany. F igure 25.  Swarm l ights ,  e levat ion.F igure 26.  Swarm l ights ,  perspect ive. JB1.0: Jamming Bodies featured a complete transformation of Storefront gallery space into a laboratory, in which the relationship between the human body and the matter that surrounds it is explored. A collaboration between science fiction artist Lucy McRea and architect/com-putational designer Skylar Tibbits with MIT’s Self-Assembly Lab, the installation brings together architecture, technology and art into a single object. While Skin is found to usually mark the transition between the exterior and interior, the installation transforms the Skin to act as a membrane marking both simulta-neously. Acting as a breathing morphable wall, the installation absorbs and expulses the atmo-sphere around it while compressing the bodies with which it is interacting. Simultaneously an installation and performance piece, the piece examines the implications of material transfor-mation and self-reconfiguring membranes on the feeling, behaviour and physiology of the body.In November 28, 1947: How Do You Make Your-self a Body without Organs Deleuze and Guattari do not write in defiance of Organs, rather in defiance of Organism. Organism is seen as an articulation of body into a hierarchic-harmo-nious whole of organs, each in its place with its function . The Body without Organs, on the other hand, does not represent a contradiction of organs, rather, it represents a non-hierar-chic space in which a chaotic multitude (of Organs), all equal float . The Body without Organs is thus a process of singularization of oneself, oriented toward a future that selects against the representational domestication of difference . If we perceive an individual human being as a disorderly collection of organs (and we do not have to perceive it as such neces-sarily), the individual can be thought of as a collection of active and passive powers. Each of organs is produced by a means of interruption/ breakage of flow produced by another organ, and itself produces a flow to be interrupted by another organ . In contrast, the production of the Body without Organs is determined in coexistence with itself, through the reciprocal determinations within and between its levels . I would argue the Jamming Bodies installation functions as a Body without Organs, as the pro-duction within it is immediately consumption and recording (without any sort of media-tion). The recording and consumption further directly determine the production. Which grains are selected in the process of jamming are once a matter of chance and necessity. The piece, as a Body without Organs, consists of a multitude of passive syntheses that make the active syntheses through which movement and interaction are fashioned. The process of jamming upon which the installation is con-stituted relies on the potential of disordered materials ability to reversibly switch between liquid, solid and semi-solid states by increasing density. The piece further requires recipro-cal action by human bodies in order to fulfill and observe the variables such as turnable J A M M I N G  B O D I E SM C R A E  +  T I B B I T S42Swarm Study.  Chemnitz ,  Germany. photo credit :  Jan B i tterF igure 27.  Jamming bodies  -  d iagram.  2015.  McRae and T ibbits The body falls into the surface. The body is consumed by the surface. The body is the surface. The surface is silver and alien. The surface is skin. The body extracts itself. The membrane adjusts. Repeat. stiffness, reconfiguration, morphability and dynamic internal/external forms . The Jamming Body installation does not feature as dramatic of changes represented through a distinct sig-nificant difference, rather it relies on subtle changes within the system. The significance, hence, does not rely in the distance or speed of membrane movement. Rather, we find the significance of the installation in the fact that the membrane moves at all. The body and the moving membrane are brought together at once, yet remain invariably distant. There is a sort of absence, or memory, of architec-ture lingering between them. The membrane, constructed in relation to an abstract realm of architecture, is not ontologically complete by itself. The Jamming Bodies installation is represented as a complex system through the manner in which it was documented visually and textu-ally. The structure is presented as neither a passive reflection of the outside, nor a result of an active pre-programmed internal factor . Rather, Jamming Bodies is perceived as a result of the complex interaction between the envi-ronment- incorporating at once the present state of the system and the history of the system. The global behaviour of the system is the result of patterns of traces, as the individ-ual traces that constitute the patterns have no meaning by themselves. The installation, as a complex system, is an open system in which it interacts with the environ-ment in terms of both energy and information. The installation is continually entrenched in a network of continuous feedback loops with the environment, with the following of continual internal restructurings in response to external relations. The provided video of the installation represents the acts of jamming and interac-tions with the body as seamless and organic processes, as the scenes are organized through a seemingly natural flow. 44Jamming bodies .  2015.  McRae and T ibbitsFigure 28.  St i l l  f rom accompanying v ideo,  Jamming -  breathable,  morphable  “wal l”Figure 29.  St i l l  f rom accompanying v ideo.  Performance. Continuing the discussion on the issues of identity in the new digital era, the collective Random International presented a 2016 exhi-bition titled On the Body at the New York based Pace Gallery. The exhibition was Random International’s second one, upon the success-ful 2013 debut of Rain Room at MoMa. The entire exhibition focuses on the intricate and developing relationship between humans and machines/technology, mediated through the physicality of the body. All installations and sculptures respond and change in relation to human presence and viewership, creating a response-driven dialogue between the two. The gallery setting and experimental nature of the projects is a prime setting to provide an isolation from a world in which it becomes sec-ond-nature to interact with technology. Here, the collective positions the viewer in direct relation to an isolated form of human-technol-ogy/machine interaction to foster reflection and criticality. I have here chosen two specific installations, Fragments and Blur mirror, investigating the mentioned relationships through the facet of an everyday, yet exceedingly transformational, object of a mirror. The three dimensional human body becomes reflected upon a two dimensional surface, which through manip-ulation furthers the paradox of the spatial translation. In both installations, the human reflection is actively fragmented and morphed to achieve a disjunctive effect of the vision. In Blur Mirror, as one approaches a seemingly conventional oversized mirror, the reflection becomes increasingly blurred. The installation plays upon the tradition of reflections in mirrors becoming zoomed in and increasingly clearer as one approaches. Here the opposite effect is achieved, while the sensory sensitive mirror adjusts to the presence of the body through a blurring effect, one that increasingly brings the issue of human identity in the digital age into question. If the idea of a mirror is to recognize and relate to the image of ones body, how will the human react when its being becomes mod-ified and distanced from its own conception. If one is to rely on a mirror for objective expe-rience, how does one process the anticipated experience differing from ones subjective per-ception of an objective experience?The installations break the mold of static objects within a gallery space, as they invite participants to continously engage with them in order to fully understand their hidden agenda. The viewers come closer to the mirrors slowly, with slight hesitance and unclear expectation, and as they encounter the blurred reflection, they slowly move back and forth, again and again. The horizontal and vertical movement of the human body in front of the mirror is para-lelled with almost invisible movement within the mirror components. With custom motion tracking software, the mirror pannels detect the figure and movement of the approaching figure and respond through vibrating effectsF R A G M E N T S  +  B L U R  M I R R O R R A N D O M  I N T E R N AT I O N A L46Blur  mirror.  2016.  Random Internat ional . F igure 30.  User  interact ion. F igure 31.  B lurr ing  deta i l . “ I F  M O V E M E N T  I S  T H R O W N  AT  U S  B Y  A M I R R O R  O R  A  K I N E T I C  P I E C E ,  H O W  C A N  W E C O N N E C T  TO  T H AT  E M OT I O N A L LY ? W H AT  I S O U R  E M OT I O N A L  R E A C T I O N  TO  M A C H I N E S T H AT  I N  S O M E  WAY  P R E T E N D  TO  B E  U S ? ”48Fragments .  2016.  Random Internat ional . F igure 32.  User  interact ion -  mult ip le  users .F igure 33.   C lose up dynamic  deta i l . 50 PA R T  I I :  D E S I G N  P R O J E C TAs explored in greater detail in the previous chapters, behind mythology, religion, fictitious narrative, arts and philosophical inquiry, lies a history of humans seeking to immerse into a reality other than that of their existence. These alternate realities allow for dream-like advances, exploring enhanced beauty, enhanced crudeness and heightening of any imaginable emotion. Throughout time, the creation and dissemination of alternate real-ities have been facilitated through different mediums. From thought, words and increas-ingly technological interfaces mediating between the existence of a current and alter-nate reality, with the potential of replicability. What has changed throughout time is the level of immersion into the alternate realities, yet what remains the same is the desire for con-trolled escapism into a reality other than the one experienced daily.Western culture has long placed vision in a hegemonic relationship to other senses, when it comes to perceiving the environment. Yet, according to Merlau Ponty, the root of human perception is located within the sense of touch and – by extension- embodiment96. Further, locomotion is as central to visual perception as vice versa – you must perceive in order to move, but also move in order to perceive97. The project, therefore, is located at the intersection of visual perception, circulative movement and tactile environmental verification.The design focus is placed within the digital realm and  is based within the sense of vision, with the argument of vision being more objec-tifying than touch.  As found by M. Ratcliffe:“Vision, it seems, is an externally directed sense, which is distinct from internally directed proprioception or ‘body-sense’. The subject looks out upon a world of objects and views them in a way that is uncorrupted by bodily feeling.98” To see, is to project and detach from the bodily experience. To see is to embody an alternate realm. If a digital overlay is implemented upon a material reality, the digitally overlaid visu-ally perceived elements need to be supported by tactilely verifiable objects and surfaces. Figures 35-38 depict the dissection of space, architectural features and domestic objects deriving from this notion. Within any environ-ment occupied, or any space within which the body moves, the color indicates objects and surfaces which could be completely digitally overlaid. The features are visually consumed, assumed to be real, yet their existence is not necessitated by tactile verification. As long as these objects and surfaces are integrated into the surrounding environment, and apply to the spatial parameters (for example consistency), they are believed it to be real. Starting with architectural features, the notion is trans-ferred to domestic space, arguably the most intimate space—a space filled with personally C O N T E X T A LT E R N AT E  R E A L I T Y,  D I G I TA L  O V E R L AY  A N D  P E R C E P T I O N52Figure 34.  Var ious  a l ternate rea l i t ies :  cave paint ing ,  mythology, c inemat ic  rea l i ty  and interact ive  S IMS game. Figure 35.  Explorat ions  towards  d iv is ion into two realms:  d ig i ta l  v isual ly  perceived andmater ia l ly  tact i le ly  ver i f ied54Figure 36.  Explorat ions:  architectura l  /  structura l  features  are  d ig i ta l ly  v isual ly  consumedFigure 37.  Dig i ta l  rea lm and tact i le  ver i f icat ion e lements  in  domest ic  space. 56Figure 38.  Dig i ta l  rea lm and tact i le  ver i f icat ion e lements  in  domest ic  space. catered objects of use, desire and aesthetic pleasure, the most personalized commodities and expressions of identity. And increasingly, it seemed, many of the elements making the space and constructing identity could be achieved digitally. Further, apart from objects, the height of the space, materiality or views are identified as elements which could be digi-tally overlaid in their entirety. The background, on the other hand, indicates objects and surfaces which occupy the material realm by necessity, as they are continually tac-tilely verified by the subject. These elements are simultaneously supportive to the illusory construct of the digitally overlaid reality, while additionally serving as fundamental use-ob-jects within the domestic space. The ground the subject walks on, the objects which are used daily—these are by necessity bound to the material realm. Objects, surfaces and vistas—by this new form of categorization—become divided into two equally important realms within the construc-tion of an individuals’ reality: the digital realm and the material realm. Further, the digital realm itself is observed through three different engagements with visual imagery: the digitally projected image as static, kinetic and dynamic. Figure 39-41 The architectural elements begin to fade into the background, serving as a blank canvas for the digital projection.58Figure 39.  Stat ic  image. Figure 40.  K inet ic  image. 60Figure 41.  Dynamic  image.S I T EThe lot of 1401 Robson has been empty for about 35 years now, and is owned by an international company. For years it has been speculated why the site, appraised at $9 million has not been developed. Across the street from the site, on 1400 Robson, the Landmark hotel is being torn down. It is replaced with a two tower mega residential structure of 34 each. Described as a “tribute to absolute luxury”, the towers are designed to provide “unprece-dented” 270 degree views99. The public is informed that the empty lot of 1401 Robson is finally being developed. An international company, in partnership with a tech company, is implementing the first pilot project of digitally overlaid residences. The proposed project is a 19 floor building housing 245 single occupancy units. Housing affordability in Vancouver has already gen-erated new types of single-occupancy and non-traditional residences, like micro-units. The proposed development continues and ele-vates the trend—it is marketed to single living individuals, wanting to reside within the down-town core with all its amenities. Details on the project are scare, although prices for a three level unit are boasted at half the market cost. Person X applies to reside within the building. A formal meeting reveals the building functions through specialized contact lenses, which offer an enhanced living experience. The contacts are worn every day, yet are only activated through sensors once the resident walks into the building. The base residence price includes a three level unit, with the ability to purchase more levels at a later date. The prospective resident is given a catalogue of images, some include textures, scenery or just patterns. The prospective resident chooses three images, each serving as a basis for their digitally over-laid environment. The information on the implementation of these images remains a mystery, providing a mixture of exhilaration, anxiety and excitement. The resident inhabits one unit located within the material realm, measured at roughly 8 by 9 meters. The resident can occupy multiple “digital“ levels while physically inhbitting the single material realm level. The circulation is located at the central point of the unit, resem-bling an awkward dead end in the material realm. Within the digital realm, the corridor is contains an arc and barrier that guide the resident to use the circulation: going clockwise through the corridor indicates upward move-ment, while counter-clockwise is downward movement. The length, width and character of the corridor is designed to provide remnants of the process and ritual of using a staircase, demonstrating the malleability of human per-ception in adapting to the novel circulatory construction. As time progresses, the resident is inclined to purchase additional levels at an extra cost. As the levels are purchased, the tight level-based programming dissipates, as D E S I G N1401 R O B S O N  S T R E E T62Figure 42.  Project  s i te .  1401 Robson street . Figure 43.  S i te  p lan,  Downtown Vancouver,  fac ing NW. 64it begins to cater to the customized desires of the individual. Further, as the resident struggles to keep up with the flow of capital, the random option is introduced--assembling elements, fixtures and design features ran-domly. Here architecture starts to break from convention, as alignment in the structure and elements is no longer perfect. The resident becomes accustomed to odd, non-traditional spaces with odd or non-existent programmatic uses. As time progresses, the resident begins to hack the system using the knowledge gained through intuition and active investigation of the space.  A wall, as a barrier, is now understood as digital and penetrated with an arm. A person can sleep on a bed that is not visible by eye, yet exists, while columns hiding the bed protrude out of their body. Through this project, the resident responds to the illusory perceptual shifts, new habits and trickery implemented by the designer. The moves are constructed based on human shared desires and perceptual ten-dencies —yet, once the resident becomes acclimated to the system, it allows for an intui-tive understanding and control for the intimate domestic space. The space is now controlled, explored and hacked in various level of detail depending on the resident, promising some form of control, creativity and ingenuity to master the system. Rather than subscribing to a solely eutopic or dystopic narrative, throughout the project I sought to navigate elements of both realms. The project touches on, nods or responds to a matrix of current trends / issues: the increas-ingly aestheticized nature of marketable commodities, control within digital environ-ments, ideas of owning/controlling personal space etc. Yet, the project centers around the exploration of a potential system in which an individual can co-exist between a material and immaterial realm seamlessly. Through the interplay of the two, the design addresses the construction of reality and its inevitable media-tion. Realities—within the project, as well as in general—are mediated and constructed, often in a seamless manner.Figure 44.  S i te  Axonometr ic ,  bui ld ing components .  Fac ing SW.∞66Digital overlay can alter the individual’s per-ception (and therefor) construction of reality. But reality is not only constructed through individual perception, it is also synchronized. If the realities are not completely synchroniz-ing socially, it leads to isolation of mediated subjects. Human perception is often thought of as a static set of conditions, but it is mal-leable. Human perception adjusts to the new conditions of technology. Reality is increasingly immaterial, mediation is both increased and increasingly seamless. The building housing the units is a window-less block, an impenetrable structure with no architectural bearings of view provision—yet, on the inside creates and carries the possi-bilities of all views. To place a window is an active, operative way to frame a reality for a viewer in a very deliberate and obvious way. The project  focused on providing the resident a sense of complete control over their individ-ual reality and visual preferences, therefor not having previously curated architectural framing seemed to fit. Windows have many function, provision of light, air and arguably most prom-inently, to establish a relationship between the exterior and interior. The lack of addressing this relationship is a statement on the way the digital overlay destabilizes the sense of place. It does not eradicate it—in fact, place is con-sumed, replicated and sold throughout the building and units. Yet, the idea of a material place as a static and specific location becomes destabilized. Therefor, no relationship between exterior and interior exists in a static, finalized way. The individual can change their desired sense of place, or experience it around the building. Further, framing of a window provides a mediation, one which is already occurring through the digital overlay. The spectator is choosing a reality, visual stimuli and experienc-ing a degree of control, although this control is occurring within an available subset of choices. The freedom being experienced is, therefor, questionable. This is ultimately a subversion of architecture: the wall is no longer a finite impenetrable boundary, even if it materially is. The wall is the window, the digital overlay is the window. With all the framing and mediation occurring, inserting a window seems archaic and pointless. Digital overlay is implemented in a way that seems to be giving the resident increased control over their construction of reality, yet through this project the resident is buying into a predetermined vision of a reality marketed to them. In the end, the resident is living in the same box as any other person within the building, with control over minor and surface level decisions, like interior decoration or choice of view. The implementation of digital overlay in this project makes the residents adore a world of servitude, one from which it becomes impossible to detach as time goes by.  Customization of commodities is key to identity. What is motivating all these desires is quite similar, only manifested in a different way. Perception can be tricked and altered using similar actions/principles across all resi-dents. The project, then, starts with a promise of freedom, control and customization for the individual; but the individual becomes locked down, essentially un-free, treated in the same way and provided the same space/experience as other residents; adjusting to the new envi-ronment in an irreversible way. Figure 45.  Act ivat ion of  d ig i ta l  over lay  lens . +	()68Figure 46,  lef t .   Axonometr ic  s i te  p lan,  ground levels . F igure 47,  r ight .  Deta i l s  of  v i r tual  user  exper ience on ground levels ./ /	// /	// /	/Figure 48.  S ing le  occupancy unit :  mater ia l  rea lm;  upward and downward c i rculat ion70Figure 49.  S ing le  occupancy unit :  d ig i ta l  rea lm,  exper ienced as  three levels . V ignettes  on perceptual  and spat ia l  condit ions  leading up to  changesin   understanding space.	/ //		Figure 50.  New dig i ta l  levels  are  acquired upon the same s ing le- level  mater ia l  unit .Now intui t ive ly  understanding the system,  the res ident  begins  to  hack  i t . 72	Figure 51.  Narrat ive  moment  1:  d ig i ta l  and mater ia l  rea l i t ies  over lap as  res ident  extends hand beyond a  concrete wal l  to  retr ieve a  dr ink  f rom an “ inv is ib le“  f r idge.Figure 52.  Narrat ive  moment  2:  d ig i ta l  and mater ia l  rea l i t ies  over lap as  res ident  re l ies  on tact i le explorat ion of  the f r idge. 74Figure 53.  Narrat ive  moment  3:  d ig i ta l  and mater ia l  rea l i t ies  over lap as  res ident  tact i le ly  f inds  the sought  after  dr ink. SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ Figure 54.  Axonometr ic  v iew of  d ig i ta l ly  over lapping rea l i t ies  with in  a  4  unit  assembly.  Over lap-ping rea l i t ies  are  d isp layed as  a  sect ion of  the level  the res ident  i s  current ly  occupying. 76SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ SINGLE LEVEL /∞ Figure 55.  Axonometr ic  v iew of  mater ia l ly  ex ist ing  rea l i t ies  with in  a  4  unit  assembly. 1. Stevenson, Angus and Christine Lindberg. 2010. Virtual Reality. New Oxford American Dictionary. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press. 2. Armstrong, Karen. 2006. A short history of myth. Toronto: Vintage Canada: 13. Ibid: 14. Ibid: 55. Ibid: 36. Dunlop, John T. 1825. The History of Fiction: Being a Critical Account of the Most Celebrated Works of Fiction from the Earliest Greek Romances to the Novels of the Present Age. Longman Brown. London: 77. Ibid: 78. Ibid: 139. Ibid: 810. Ropolyi, László. Virtuality and Reality: Toward a Representation Ontology. Philosophies 2016, 1: 4211. Ibid: 4212. Simplicius, of Cilicia, Urmson, James O. and Peter Lautner. 2014. Simplicius: On Aristotle Physics III. A&C Black, Bloomsbury: London: 1713. Armstrong. A short history of myth: 114. Schlagel, Richard H. 2015. Three Scientific Revo-lutions: How They Transformed Our Conceptions of Reality. Gateway Bookshelf Series. Humanity Books: 115. Ibid: 216. Ibid: 517. Ferraro, Rafael. 2007. Einstein’s Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General Relativity. Springer Science and Business Media. New York: 118. Sherman, William and Alan Craig. 2003. Under-standing virtual reality: Interface, application and design. Amsterdam; Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: 2419. Ibid: 2820. Ibid: 28 21. Ibid: 2922. Ibid: 2923. Ibid: 3024. Thompson, Clive. 2017. How stereographs were the original virtual reality. Smithsonian Magazine. online.E N D N OT E Sxiv25. Sherman and Craig. Understanding virtual reality: 3126. Beqiri, Gini. 2018. History of VR: Timeline of Events and Tech Development. Virtual Speech. online.27. Sherman and Craig. Understanding virtual reality: 2528. Ibid: 2629. Ibid: 2930. Ibid: 3031. Ibid: 3232. Ibid: 3633. Ibid: 3734. Ibid: 5735. Ibid: 5936. Pivarunas, Joseph. 2017. Smart Contact Lenses: How Far Are They. Nanalyze. Online. https://www.nanalyze.com/2017/03/smart-contact-lenses/37. Ibid38. Lingley, A.R et Al. A Single-Pixel Wireless Contact Lens Display. Journal of Micromechanics and Micro-engineering. 2011, 21: 239. Parviz, Babak A. 2009. Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens.  IEEE Spectrum: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. online. https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens40. Sherman and Craig. Understanding virtual reality: xvii41. Watt, Mark and Max Polyakov. The Next Big Thing: How AR and VR shape new space exploration age. Noosphere: Technology, Knowledge, Humanity. 201842. Ibid43. Whyte, Jennifer. 2018. Virtual reality and the built environment. 2nd ed. Oxford: Boston, Archi-tectural Press: 144. Brandon, P.S., Tuba Kocaturk, and RICS Founda-tion. 2009. Virtual futures for design, construction and procurement. Oxford; Malden, Ma: Blackwell Pub: xvii45. Ibid: xvii46. Debovec, Paul. “Augmenting Architecture with Image-Based Modeling, Rendering and Lighting.” in Virtual and Augmented Architecture (VAA’OI): Proceedings of the International Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Architecture, edited by Bob Fisher, Kenneth Dawson-Howe and Carol O’Sullivan. London: Springer Verlag, 2001: 147. Wang, Xiangyu and Marc Aurel Schnabel. 2009. Mixed Reality in Architecture, Design and Construc-tion. Springer, London: x48. Ibid: xi49. Ibid: xi50. Gibson, William. 2000. Neuromancer. London, UK: Penguin Classics: 67xv51. Mitchell, William J. 2003. Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press: 252. Heim, Michael. 1993. The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press: 9853. Levinson, Paul. 2014. Real space: The fate of physical presence in the digital age, on and off planet. Taylor and Francis: xii54. Gibson, William. 1988. Mona Lisa overdrive. New York, Toronto: Bantam Books: 4955. Heim. The metaphysics of virtual reality: 8056. Von Borries, Friedrich and Matthias Bottger. 2007. Space time play: Computer games, architec-ture and urbanism: The next level. Barcelona; Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG: 4557. Biocca, Frank and Mark R. Levy. 1995. Commu-nication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates: 1258. Milgram, Paul and Kishino, Fumio. 1994. A Tax-onomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Trans. Information Systems. vol. E77-D, no. 12. 1321-1329.59. Whyte. Virtual reality and the built environment: 260.  Mitchell. Me++: 361. Biocca and Levy. Communication in the age of virtual reality: 3662. Ibid: 3663. Whyte. Virtual reality and the built environment: 464. Morrison, Jim. 1987. The lords, and the new creatures: Poems. 1st Fireside ed. New York: Simon and Schuster: 6465. Pasqualini, Isabella et al. 2018. The architectonic experience of body and space in augmented interi-ors. Frontiers in Psychology. 9. 375: 366. Ibid: 367. Engel, David et al. 2008. A psychophysically calibrated controller for navigating through large environments in a limited free-walking space. ACM 2008 Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. Bordeaux, France: 15768. Suma, Evan et al. 2010. Exploiting change blindness to expand walkable space in a virtual envi-ronment. 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference: 30569. Ibid: 30570. Ibid: 30671. Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 72. Scheer, David R. 2014. The death of drawing: Architecture in the age of simulation. New York, London. Routledge: 6573. Christou, Evangelos. 2007. The logos of the soul. 2nd ed. Putnam, Connecticut: Spring Publications: 6374. Carruthers, Peter. 2006. The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press: 775. Beigl, Michael, Georg Flachbart and Peter Weibel. 2005. Disappearing architecture: From xvireal to virtual to quantum. Basel, Boston: Birkhauser. 76.  Mitchell. Me++: 5777. Ibid: 5878. Ibid: 7479. Ibid: 7480. Ibid: 5881. Ibid: 7882. Ibid” 8083. Kostka, Alexandre and Irving Wohlfarth. 1999. Nietzsche and “An Architecture of Our Minds”. Los Angeles. Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities: 3584. Ibid: 26285. Carl Jung, as found in Jacobi, Jolande. 1959. Complex, archetype, symbol in the psychology of Carl G. Jung. Volume 57. New York: Pantheon Books: 4786. Bachelard, Gaston. 2014. The poetics of space. New York: Penguin Books: xxxvi87. Czitrom, Daniel J. 1982. Media and the american mind: From Morse to McLuhan. Chapel Hill: Univer-sity of North Carolina Press. 88. Biocca and Levy. Communication in the age of virtual reality: 1289. Marvin, Carolyn. 1988. When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press: 6890. Bachelard, Gaston. 2014. The poetics of space. New York: Penguin Books: 6191. Baggot, Jim. 2013. Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scien-tific Truth. New York, USA: Open Road Media: v92. Kostka and Wohlfarth. Nietzsche and “An Archi-tecture of Our Minds”: 2693. Frascari, Marco. 2011. Eleven exercises in the art of architectural drawing: Slow food for the architect’s imagination. New York; Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge: 594. Kostka and Wohlfarth. Nietzsche and “An Archi-tecture of Our Minds”: 4395. Ibid: 4396. Scheer. The death of drawing: 6597. Gibson, The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin: 22398. Ratcliffe, Matthew. 2008. Feelings of being: Phe-nomenology, psychiatry and the sense of reality. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.99. Project Collaboration: Asia Standard Ameri-cas, Atelier Ikebuchi, PDP London, Musson Cattell Mackey. Landmark On Robson Development Website. http://landmarkonrobson.com/xviiArmstrong, Karen. 2006. A short history of myth. Toronto: Vintage Canada.Bachelard, Gaston. 2014. The poetics of space. New York: Penguin Books. Baciu, Ciprian & Opre, Dana & Riley, Sarah. (2016). A New Way of Thinking in the Era of Virtual Reality and Artificial Intelligence. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ohio. Baggot, Jim. 2013. Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth. New York, USA: Open Road Media.Beigl, Michael, Georg Flachbart and Peter Weibel. 2005. Disappearing architecture: From real to virtual to quantum. Basel, Boston: Birkhauser. Beqiri, Gini. 2018. History of VR: Timeline of Events and Tech Development. Virtual Speech. online.Brandon, P.S., Tuba Kocaturk, and RICS Foundation. 2009. Virtual futures for design, construction and procurement. Oxford; Malden, Ma: Blackwell Pub. Biocca, Frank and Mark R. Levy. 1995. Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Carruthers, Peter. 2006. The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press. Christou, Evangelos. 2007. The logos of the soul. 2nd ed. Putnam, Connecticut: Spring Publications. Czitrom, Daniel J. 1982. Media and the american mind: From Morse to McLuhan. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Debovec, Paul. “Augmenting Architecture with Image-Based Modeling, Rendering and Lighting.” in Virtual and Augmented Architecture (VAA’OI): Proceedings of the International Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Architecture, edited by Bob Fisher, Kenneth Dawson-Howe and Carol O’Sullivan. London: Springer Verlag, 2001: 1-11.B I B L I O G R A P H YxviiiDunlop, John T. 1825. The History of Fiction: Being a Critical Account of the Most Celebrated Works of Fiction from the Earliest Greek Romances to the Novels of the Present Age. Longman Brown. London. Engel, David et al. 2008. A psychophysically calibrated controller for navigating through large environ-ments in a limited free-walking space. ACM 2008 Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. Bordeaux, France: 157-164.Ferraro, Rafael. 2007. Einstein’s Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General Relativity. Springer Science and Business Media. New York. Frascari, Marco. 2011. Eleven exercises in the art of architectural drawing: Slow food for the architect’s imagination. New York; Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gibson, William. 2000. Neuromancer. London, UK: Penguin Classics.Gibson, William. 1988. Mona Lisa overdrive. New York, Toronto: Bantam Books. Heim, Michael. 1993. The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press. Hodgson, Eric, Eric Bachmann and David Waller. 2011. Redirected walking to explore virtual environ-ments: Assessing the potential for spatial interference. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 8 (4): 1-22.Jacobi, Jolande. 1959. Complex, archetype, symbol in the psychology of Carl G. Jung. Volume 57. New York: Pantheon Books. Kandel, Eric R. 2016. Reductionism in art and brain science: Bridging the two cultures. New York: Colum-bia University Press. Kostka, Alexandre and Irving Wohlfarth. 1999. Nietzsche and “An Architecture of Our Minds”. Los Angeles. Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities. Levinson, Paul. 2014. Real space: The fate of physical presence in the digital age, on and off planet. Taylor and Francis. Lingley, A.R et Al. A Single-Pixel Wireless Contact Lens Display. Journal of Micromechanics and Microen-gineering. 2011, 21: 1-15.xixMarvin, Carolyn. 1988. When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press. Milgram, Paul and Kishino, Fumio. 1994. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Trans. Infor-mation Systems. vol. E77-D, no. 12. 1321-1329. Mitchell, William J. 2003. Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Morrison, Jim. 1987. The lords, and the new creatures: Poems. 1st Fireside ed. New York: Simon and Schuster. Neth, CT et al. 2012. Velocity-dependent dynamic curvature gain for redirected walking. Ieee Transac-tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18 (7): 1041-1052.Nunes, Mark. 2006. Cyberspaces of everyday life. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Parviz, Babak A. 2009. Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens.  IEEE Spectrum: Institute of Elec-trical and Electronics Engineers. online. https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lensPasqualini, Isabella et al. 2018. The architectonic experience of body and space in augmented interiors. Frontiers in Psychology. 9. 375: 1-15.Pivarunas, Joseph. 2017. Smart Contact Lenses: How Far Are They. Nanalyze. Online. https://www.nan-alyze.com/2017/03/smart-contact-lenses/Project Collaboration: Asia Standard Americas, Atelier Ikebuchi, PDP London, Musson Cattell Mackey. Landmark On Robson Development Website. http://landmarkonrobson.com/Rampley, Matthew. 2000. Nietzsche and “An architecture of our minds”. The Art Bulletin. 82.4: 779-781.Ratcliffe, Matthew. 2008. Feelings of being: Phenomenology, psychiatry and the sense of reality. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ropolyi, László. Virtuality and Reality: Toward a Representation Ontology. Philosophies 2016, 1: 40–54.Rothman, Joshua. Are We Already Living in Virtual Reality? Brave New World Department. New York Magazine. April 2, 2018. Online. Scheer, David R. 2014. The death of drawing: Architecture in the age of simulation. New York, London. Routledge. xxSherman, William and Alan Craig. 2003. Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application and design. Amsterdam; Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Schlagel, Richard H. 2015. Three Scientific Revolutions: How They Transformed Our Conceptions of Reality. Gateway Bookshelf Series. Humanity Books.Simplicius, of Cilicia, Urmson, James O. and Peter Lautner. 2014. Simplicius: On Aristotle Physics III. A&C Black, Bloomsbury: London. Steinicke, F, G. Bruder, J. Jerald, H. Frenz and M. Lappe. 2010. Estimation  of detection thresholds for redirected walking techniques. Ieee Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16 (1): 17-27.Stevenson, Angus and Christine Lindberg. 2010. Virtual Reality. New Oxford American Dictionary. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press. Suma, Evan et al. 2010. Exploiting change blindness to expand walkable space in a virtual environment. 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference. Thompson, Clive. 2017. How stereographs were the original virtual reality. Smithsonian Magazine. Online.Von Borries, Friedrich and Matthias Bottger. 2007. Space time play: Computer games, architecture and urbanism: The next level. Barcelona; Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG.Wang, Xiangyu and Marc Aurel Schnabel. 2009. Mixed Reality in Architecture, Design and Construction. Springer, London. Watt, Mark and Max Polyakov. The Next Big Thing: How AR and VR shape new space exploration age. Noosphere: Technology, Knowledge, Humanity. 2018Whyte, Jennifer. 2018. Virtual reality and the built environment. 2nd ed. Oxford: Boston, Architectural Press. Yamashita, Jun. 2004. The domain of “expanded virtual reality” extends from space to time. Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology. University of Tokyo. xxi

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0378620/manifest

Comment

Related Items