UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Mobile technologies and public spaces Mani, Sanaz 2008

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2008_spring_mani_sanaz.pdf [ 1.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0066322.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066322-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066322-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066322-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066322-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066322-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066322-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0066322-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0066322.ris

Full Text

MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES AND PUBLIC SPACES by  Sanaz Mani M.Arch., Tehran Azad University, 2005  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  Master of Advanced Studies in Architecture in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Architecture)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  March 2008 © Sanaz Mani, 2008  ABSTRACT: Mobile technologies are the latest technologies in the realm of communication media. They have the potential to flatten the world by making it a place where gender, age, class, race and nationality can no longer hold us back from being heard and being informed.1 We have learned that these technologies can help to liberate and empower us, and they can lead to a collective cognition as much as they can distract us from what we need to know about the world we live in. In Greece thousands of years ago, a selected number of Greeks had a public space called the Agora to discuss the issues that concerned the public, meaning each and every citizen. They were the first to be able to create the space and place were the word “democracy” could be brought into language; the very word that was used to start a new war in the era of a communication revolution in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.2 There are still issues that concern the public today such as wars, global warming, homelessness or human rights which are all matters of our collective cognition. However, today in an age of information revolution the public life of people and their collective cognition is being exercised mostly in the virtual spaces of the internet. Simultaneously, some physical spaces are being abandoned by people. This thesis investigates the possibility of having physical public spaces that are enriched with communication media and not weakened by it. If architects rethink their designs based on a new understanding of the networked society it might be possible to turn this “networked individualism”3 into a networked collectivism. However, most designed public spaces fail to offer new possibilities that can transform space for the new generation of users. Here, the aim is to understand a new generation of users. Who have they become as a result of new communication media? And how can architects design in a way that responds to this new subject in architecture?  1  Thomas L. Friedman, The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005). 2 The secondary rationale for the war in Iraq in 2003 was Iraq’s human rights reports and promoting democracy in Iraq and eventually in the Middle East. From Sandalow, Marc, Washington Bureau Chief. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/29/MNGE590O711.DTL September 29, 2004. 3 The term networked individualism has been proposed by Manuel Castell to describe today’s society. Manuel Castells, The Network Society : a cross-cultural perspective (MA: Edward Elgar Pub., 2004).  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS: Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................ii Table of contents ..........................................................................................................................................iii List of figures ................................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................vi Dedications..................................................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1- Subject in Architecture ..........................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................2 1.2 Terminology .....................................................................................................................3 1.3 Brief history of subject in architecture .............................................................................4 1.4 Le Corbusier and the subject ............................................................................................7 1.5 The post-humanist subject ..............................................................................................13 1.6 Cyborgs...........................................................................................................................16 CHAPTER 2- Mobile Phones and a New Subject in Design......................................................................17 2.1 Mobile phones have made a new subject of design .......................................................18 2.2 Terminology of mobile phones ......................................................................................19 2.3 Who are cyborgs?...........................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 3- A Mobile Subject.................................................................................................................26 3.1 Are we changing?...........................................................................................................27 3.2 What’s in my bag?..........................................................................................................28 3.3 What makes you into who you think you are? ...............................................................30 3.4 Why we are no longer passive in creation of ourselves as subjects? .............................32 3.5 Bio power looses power .................................................................................................36 3.6 We can not be controlled by materiality/physicality......................................................39 3.7 Mobile subject ................................................................................................................41 3.8 Multitudes ......................................................................................................................42 3.9 Multitudes are not bound by physical control ................................................................43 3.10 Flash mobbers ................................................................................................................44 3.11 A Sky Train station and reality television ......................................................................47 3.12 Project: where you definitely don’t want to be ..............................................................49 CHAPTER 4- Mobile Phones and Public Spaces .......................................................................................51 4.1 Rescuing public spaces...................................................................................................52 4.2 Public spaces ..................................................................................................................53 4.3 History of mobile phones and public spaces ..................................................................54 4.4 Mobile phoning is annoying...........................................................................................55 4.5 Urban spaces and new communication media ...............................................................57 4.6 Shibuya.............................................................................................................................9 4.7 A social revolution .........................................................................................................60 4.8 The concept of social space by Lefebvre .......................................................................64 4.9 Social softwares as new public spaces ...........................................................................67 4.10 Collective cognition .......................................................................................................72 CHAPTER 5- Design of Public Spaces ......................................................................................................74 5.1 Mobile public spaces .......................................................................................................75 5.2 DOCOMO Competition ..................................................................................................76 5.3 What makes this a public space for the new subject........................................................79 5.4 An application for Facebook ...........................................................................................84 CHAPTER 6- Conclusion and Further Research........................................................................................89 6.1 Conclusion and further research ......................................................................................90  iii  Bibliography................................................................................................................................................91  iv  LISTS OF FIGURES: Figure 1.1 The avatar that represents me in a social community called IMVU............................................1 Figure 1.2 Vitruvius man, Modular man, Philip Stark’s presentation of subject, a Cyborg .........................2 Figure 1.3 Vitruvian man ..............................................................................................................................4 Figure 1.4 ‘Modular’, Le Corbusier, 1997 ....................................................................................................5 Figure 1.5 Anthropometry.............................................................................................................................6 Figure 1.6 Still from Dziga Verotv’s The Man with the Movie Camera, 1928-29 .......................................7 Figure 1.7 Villa Schwob, version as published in L'Esprit Nouveau............................................................8 Figure 1.9 Le Corbusier, "Roneo" drawing...................................................................................................9 Figure 1.10 RENEO drawing and Vitruvian man are overlaid ...................................................................10 Figure 1.11 Porte fenetre by le Corbusier ...................................................................................................10 Figure 1.12 ‘Modular’ by Le Corbusier has been overlaid on his drawing of RENEO..............................11 Figure 1.13 Co-op vitrine by Hannes Meyer, 1925.....................................................................................14 Figure 1.14 Ludwig Hilberseimer, Hochhausstadt project, 1924................................................................15 Figure 2.1 Personalized cell phone bag.......................................................................................................18 Figure 2.2 Representing a cell phone as an extension, personal collection ................................................20 Figure 2.3 Smart clothing............................................................................................................................21 Figure 2.4 Steve Mann as a cyborg since 1980...........................................................................................22 Figure 2.5 Sterlac as a cyborg .....................................................................................................................25 Figure 3.1 Pink- what’s in my bag? ............................................................................................................29 Figure 3.2 What is in my bag? I am a man .................................................................................................29 Figure 3.3 IMVU is a 3d chat with more than 7 million users....................................................................34 Figure 3.4 Riot police taking a lunch break on the sidewalk ......................................................................37 Figure 3.5 flash mobbing at a rug store in Manhattan.................................................................................44 Figure 3.6 The biggest looser......................................................................................................................47 Figure 3.7 ‘Average Joe,’ a reality show ....................................................................................................48 Figure 3.8 A large screen will project what people capture on their mobile technologies .........................50 Figure 3.9 A Sky Train station designed for Yaletown, Vancouver, Canada .............................................50 Figure 4.1 Samsung phones ........................................................................................................................51 Figure 4.2 Burrard station, Vancouver, Canada, January 2006 ..................................................................66 Figure 4.3 Orkut is a ‘social software’ and a ‘mental public space’ ...........................................................68 Figure 4.4 Homepage of Orkut ...................................................................................................................73 Figure 5.1 A project for the new public spaces...........................................................................................74 Figure 5.2 The virtual surface above the city can be reached on the screen of your cell phones ...............77 Figure 5.3 If no one uses the system the virtual platform will look flat .....................................................78 Figure 5.4 Once the peers start to vote the flat surface will start to transform ...........................................78 Figure 5.5 The transformed surface is put on the map of the city...............................................................78 Figure 5.6 Perspective of urban spaces mixed with the space of the virtual information...........................80 Figure 5.7 The virtual space overlaid on the elevation of the city ..............................................................81 Figure 5.8 The virtual platform can be accessed on cell phones.................................................................81 Figure 5.9 Competition panel, 2006 DoCoMo, Japan.................................................................................82 Figure 5.10 Part of the Competition panel, 2006 DoCoMo, Japan .............................................................83 Figure 5.11 Facebook can be accessed on iphones .....................................................................................84 Figure 5.12 A profile on Facebook .............................................................................................................85 Figure 5.13 As an example, TravBuddy application is currently popular with users .................................86 Figure 5.14 The TravBuddy application .....................................................................................................86 Figure 5.15 This image shows the proposal for a new application called Public Life................................87 Figure 5.16 The proposed Public Life application will be activated once you click on it ..........................87 Figure 5.17 This map shows the physical public spaces that have had the most votes...............................88 Figure 5.18 How the application works ......................................................................................................88  v  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I offer my enduring gratitude to the faculty, staff and my fellow students at the UBC, who have inspired me to continue my work in this field. I owe particular thanks to Oliver Neumann and Sherry Mckay, whose questions taught me to search more deeply and see my research in a wider spectrum. They guided me and let me explore what I liked to, always being there to change my perspective to a new angle. I thank David Voght whose lecture at Robson Square about cell phones inspired me to question how architects look at the subject of design and I think forever changed my view of how I value a design practice. I thank Graham McGarva, the first architect that introduced me to Vancouver and made me enthusiastic about its current architecture. Special thanks are owed to my parents and my sister, Elnaz, who have supported me throughout last few years, emotionally and financially. Special thanks to all who made my experience at UBC full of wonderful and unforgettable memories: Graham McGarva Mina Piri Taghi Mani Elnaz Mani Newsha Mirzayee Abdallah Jamal Joyce Chaw Ali Omidvar Behnam Faraji Mani Golparvar Yehia Madkour Riham El Halabi Farshad Jamali Leensory Chan Hanna Malik Guadalupe Fonte Wayne Pai Chhaya Nirwan Sepideh Firouz bakhsh Mai Mai Chao Babak Sarvari Aya Okabe  vi  DEDICATIONS:  My parents  vii  CHAPTER 1: Subject in Architecture.  Figure 1.1 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'an avar that represents me in a social community called IMVU'. From: IMVU, <www.IMVU.com)>  Figure1.1 The avatar that represents me in a social community called IMVU.1  1  A sample from the avatars that are offered by a virtual community called IMVU <www.IMVU.com)>  1  1.1 . Introduction: Throughout history, architecture’s definition of the subject has evolved. From Vitruvius to Le Corbusier to today’s media-saturated environment, the evolution of the subject’s position coincides with shifts in the perception and generation of space. Using the right term for the subject is important and reveals the attitude of the designer towards the inhabitants of space. Of course, the subject of design and our notion of the relationship between subject and object have changed through history and today, due to the new technologies and modes of production, there needs to be a new understanding of the subject. Currently the subject has new forms of social power, new ways to organize and understand space. We need to understand human beings and their societies today to be able to design the spaces they require.  We are all Cyborgs now. Architects and urbanists must begin by W. Mitchell, 2003 re-theorizing the body in space.2  Figure 1.2 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed includes: 'the Vitruvius man' from: “Vitruvian man,” The drawings of Leonardo Davinci, 9 November 2007 <http://www.drawingsofleonardo.org/images/vitruvian.jpg> , 'the Modular man' from: “Ergonomic modules for the human body,” 0 Sep 1999, Design language etc, 10 Nov. 2007 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/4217/ergonomy.html>. 'Philip Stark’s presentation of subject' from: “Philippe Starck, Yoo Adelgade,” 6 March 2005, Arcspace, 12 November 2006 <http://www.arcspace.com/architects/starck/yoo/yoo.html>,'a Cyborg' from: Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,” Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991)149.  Figure 1.2 From left to right: the Vitruvian man,3 the Modular man,4 Philip Stark’s presentation of subject,5 a Cyborg,6  2  William J. Mitchell, Me++: the cyborg self and the networked city (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2003). “Vitruvian man,” The drawings of Leonardo Da Vinci, 9 November 2007. <http://www.drawingsofleonardo.org/images/vitruvian.jpg> 4 “Ergonomic modules for the human body,” 30 Sep 1999, Design language etc, 10 Nov. 2007 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/4217/ergonomy.html> 5 “Philippe Starck, Yoo Adelgade,” 6 March 2005, Arcspace, 12 November 2006. <http://www.arcspace.com/architects/starck/yoo/yoo.html> 6 Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,” Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991)149. 3  2  1.2. Terminology: Architectural spaces can be considered as objects of a subject’s experience or observation. Some times the subject is a person and sometimes a thing or a subject of discourse. The Oxford dictionary explains the subject as: Subject: 1) a person or thing that is being discussed, studied, or dealt with. 2) a branch of knowledge studied or taught. 3) Grammar: the word or words in a sentence that name who or what performs the action of the verb. 4) a member of a state owing allegiance to its monarch or supreme ruler. 5) Music: a theme, leading phrase, or motif. 6) Philosophy: thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind or ego.7  The subject in architecture has had different names based upon the notions of architects during history. Some of these names are: man, being, individual, user, observer, audience, people, architects, society, middle class, bourgeoisie, masses, cyborg or agent. For example during modernization the subject was sometimes referred to as the middle class. So, during different times or within different contexts different terms have been chosen to refer to the subject of design that can be also traced through different styles of architecture that was proposed for that view of subject.  7  “Subject,” Oxford, 29 March 2006 <http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/?view=uk >  3  1.3. Brief history of the subject in architecture: In modernism and the post humanist subject, Michael Hays explores the ideas of the ‘subject’ in architecture. In the first pages of his book he explains the reasons he is interested in studying the subject of design: Modernism, whatever else we may mean by the term has something to do with the emergence of new kinds of objects and events and at the same time new conceptualizations of their appearance, of the changed event structures and relationships between objects, their producers, their audiences and consumers. A history of modernism, then must involve the concept of producing, using, perceiving subjects as well as objects.8  Hays indicates that new objects, products and event structures (consider cell phones) will lead to a re-conceptualization of subjects as well as objects. In his book, Hays begins by introducing humanist thought which continues up to modern times during which post-humanist movements start to appear. ‘The Vitruvian Man’ (Figure 1.3) is a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci that illustrates Vitruvius’ description of the proportions of the human body. This picture illustrates the body of the subject that was referenced in arts and architecture when humanist thought was prevalent. According to Hays, the subject in humanist thought is “the originating agent of meaning, unique, centralized and authoritative.”9 The subject is shown as a tall male body in a center of a circle that represents the universe and has an ideal human figure and proportions as well as an ideal  Figure 1.3 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Vitruvian man' from: “Vitruvian Man,” Wikipedia. 12 April 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vitruv ianman>  human mind and perception. However, today we know that there is no such thing as an ideal universal set of proportions for the human body. .  Figure 1.3 Vitruvian Man.10  8  K. Michael Hays, Modernism and the Post-humanist Subject (Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1992) 4. Hays 5. 10 Image from “Vitruvian Man,” Wikipedia. 12 April 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vitruvianman> 9  4  Modernization however changed the view towards subjects. Modernization brought seriality, standardization and the division of labor. Hays explains that the engineering of architecture created houses with no resemblance to human being. This functionalist architecture is for the labor-divided human beings, its abstract technology and the commodity world automation.11 After modernization, the individual was no longer the center of the world. The individual disappeared into the masses and the middle class. Functionalism, born out of modernity, saw subjects as users and focused on designing spaces appropriate for the function of each space. Diversity and individualization in architecture were replaced with repetition and universal unity as expressed in the international style. The subject was considered a standard mechanical object that needed standard room sizes, window sizes … The first to represent this new perception of the subject as a standard, mechanical, and modular user was Le Corbusier. The Modular (Figure 1.4) is a scale of proportions devised by the Swiss architect Le Corbusier (1887–1965). Le Corbusier developed the Modular in the tradition of works like the Vitruvian man to discover mathematical proportions in the human body and to use these proportions to create architectural forms that are both aesthetically pleasing and also function well.12 Le Corbusier described  it  as  a  "range  of  harmonious  Figure 1.4 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Modular by Le Corbusier, 1997' from: “Moduelar,” Wikipedia. 20 March 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/modular>  measurements to suit the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and to mechanical things."13 So Le Corbusier attempted to describe subject as an ideal universal concept which was not more than a modular machine. The architecture proposed for this subject was also a machine. Figure 1.4 ‘Modular’, Le Corbusier, 1997.14  11  Hays 83-86. “About perspective in architecture,” Architectradure, 8 March 2008, < http://architectradure.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html> 13 Oswald, Le Corbusier, 22 March 2006 <http://www.nexusjournal.com/reviews_v3n1-Ostwald.html> 14 Image from “Ergonomic modules for the human body,” Design language etc, 10 Nov. 2007 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/4217/ergonomy.html> 12  5  A ‘Modular’ subject was a concept in scientific research early in modernization, decades before Le Corbusier brought it into architectural thinking. At the end of the 19th century, anthropometry was introduced to the world which may have influenced Le Corbusier’ Modular (Figure 1.5). Anthropometry refers to the measurement of living human beings in an effort to understand the different variations of the human body. Alphonse Bertillon found that some features of the human body never change and retain the same dimensions during adult life. He called this system of signification ‘anthropometry’ in 1882, few decades before the drawing of the Modular.15 This system is now used by NASA to develop design requirements for body distances, dimensions, contours, and techniques for use in developing design requirements.16  Figure 1.5 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is: Anthropometry from “Anthropometry,” Wikipedia, 22 march 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anthropo metry >  Figure 1.5 Anthropometry. 17  Anthropometry and biomechanics along with ‘Modular’ relate to a modern world that saw subjects as mechanical, standard entities containing modular parts. But was it only our physical body that was thought of as standard and universal? What about the subject’s experience and perception?  15  “Alphonse Bertillon,” Answer, 8 March 2008, <http://www.answers.com/alphonse+bertillon&r=67> “Introduction,” NASA system integration processes, 8 March 2008 <http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm> 17 “Anthropometry,” Wikipedia, 22 march 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anthropometry > 16  6  1.4. Le Corbusier and the subject: Beatriz Colomina, in an article called “Le Corbusier  and  photography,”18  develops  arguments about Le Corbusier which allow for a more extensive understanding of the subject during modern times.  Figure 1.6 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'still from Dziga Verotv’s The Man with the Movie Camera, 1928-29' from: Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 7, 2 June 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici= 0889-3012%28198710%290%3A4% 3C6%3ALCAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4>  Figure 1.6 Still from Dziga Verotv’s The Man with the Movie Camera, 1928-29.19  Le Corbusier believed that we use our eyes to look at things and then draw them to fix our experience of them.20 Like drawing, the camera frames what is seen through its lens and then fixes the experience in a print. However, since the camera’s eye is a standard mechanical one it also makes our experiences mechanical and standard (Figure 1.6). Le Corbusier redrew his own photographic prints and some of the photographs he encountered, to escape this fixed standard experience. Colomina elaborates on why he drew sketches from photos: This activity seems to indicate Le Corbusier’s resistance to a passive intake of photography, to the consumption of images occurring in the world of tourism and mass media.21 She explains that although traditionally photography was looked at as a direct presentation of a real scene, during modernity photography became a reflection of a mechanical perception of the world through a mechanical eye. As an artist and innovator, Le Corbusier wished to have his own eye, not a mechanical one. However, he was well aware and comfortable with the idea that the modern subject was bound to have a standard experience by looking at photographs and prints in the mass media. Indeed, Le Corbusier went further than only discovering the standard mechanical experience of the subject in modern society. In fact, he attempts to radicalize the process of standardizing perception and experience by modifying photos before they were printed in the mass media. For example he air  18  Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 6-23, 2 June 2008. Image from Colomina 7. 20 Colomina 8. 21 Colomina 9. 19  7  brushed the pictures of Villa Schwob to adapt them to his original conceptual ideas of the house (Figure 1.7). He actually discarded everything in the picture that pointed to the site and context of the villa. Colomina explains that “by eliminating the site and context he can make architecture into an object relatively independent of place.”22  Figure 1.7 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is: Villa Schwob, version as published in L'Esprit Nouveau from: Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 6-23, 2 June 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici= 0889-3012%28198710%290%3A4% 3C6%3ALCAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4> Figure 1.7 Villa Schwob, version as published in L'Esprit Nouveau.23  Colomina states that for Le Corbusier “any document that better reflects the process, which better reflects the concept of the house, takes precedence over the faithful representation of the actual built work.”24 The modified pictures published by Le Corbusier clearly undermine the experience of the actual built architecture by the inhabitants or visitors. Therefore, any individual experience of that building is willingly dismissed. What matters is the concept of the producer; the camera man: Le Corbusier. He knows that the standard experience and perception evoked by these photographs will be consumed by the masses. So, he modifies the result of the mechanical eye of the camera to represent the pure concept of architecture for the mechanical user. Any detail, aspect of the site or context that may point to a subjective conception or memory of the house is eliminated so as to represent a pure formal object or machine to masses that are also considered as machines. Le Corbusier once stated that: “Mass media makes everything contiguous and equivalent.”25 The perception that Le Corbusier wishes the subject to experience is a predefined universal experience of architecture (a machine) that evokes the same standard universal experience in all subjects (machines). 22  Colomina 16. Image from Colomina 13. 24 Colomina 14. 25 Colomina 18. 23  8  A modern view of the standard subject is also apparent in his proposal for Buenos Aires; another example in Colomina’s article (Figure 1.8). It is an urban development that consists of twenty replicas of his villa Savoye designed for a site in France. The site and the context are not considered or shown, and a house designed for someone in France has been proposed for the subjects living in Buenos Aires, since all clients are  Figure 1.8 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is twenty replicas of the Villa Savoye for the Argentinean countryside, Le Corbusier, 1929, from: Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 12, 2 June 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici= 0889-3012%28198710%290%3A4% 3C6%3ALCAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4>  considered to be operating the same universal way. Figure 1.8 Twenty replicas of the Villa Savoye for the Argentinean countryside, Le Corbusier, 1929.26  Figure 1.9 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is: Le Corbusier, "Roneo" drawing, illustrating the polemic between Le Corbusier and Auguste Perret over the fenetre en longueur. from: Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 19, 2 June 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici= 0889-3012%28198710%290%3A4% 3C6%3ALCAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4>  Figure 1.9 Le Corbusier, "Roneo" drawing, illustrating the polemic between Le Corbusier and Auguste Perret over the fenetre en longueur27  26 27  Image from Colomina 12. Image from Colomina 19.  9  Later in the article, Colomina gives us a better view of the modern subject in an argument made about the dispute between Le Corbusier and Auguste Perret. The dispute is about two kinds of windows: the ‘fenetre en longueur’ and the ‘porte fenetre’ (Figure 1.9). I argue that the descriptions of Perret about the ‘porte fenetre’ relates to a humanist subject whereas Le Corbusier’ ‘porte en longueur’ points to a modern one.  Auguste Perret claimed that the porte fenetre (the vertical window) “permits a view of the street and the garden and the sky, giving a sense of perspectival depth whereas the porte en longueur (the horizontal window) diminishes perception.”28 He believed that the porte fenetre represents the landscape as an objective reality. Therefore the subject could look at it in his own subjective and individual way. To open it, the subject stands in the center of the window (Figure 1.11). Perret claims: “A window is man himself...”29 this man is the humanist subject, the Vitruvian man, standing in the center of the world; when the world was ‘man’ himself! The Vitruvian man is standing in the center of the window, the center of the landscape, the center of the world outside, opening his arms wide to discover the world through himself, through his own subjectivity (Figure 1.10).  Figure 1.10 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Porte fenetre by Le Corbusier' from: Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 19, 2 June 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici=0889-3012%28198710%290% 3A4%3C6%3ALCAP%3E2.0.CO% 3B2-4> with Vitruvian man being overlaid on top of it.  Figure 1.10 Vitruvius man is modified and overlaid on the subject in the drawing of porte en longueur by Le Corbusier’s in RENEO.  Figure 1.11 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Porte fenetre by Le Corbusier' from: Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 19, 2 June 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici=0889-3012%28198710%290% 3A4%3C6%3ALCAP%3E2.0.CO% 3B2-4>  Figure 1.11 Porte fenetre by le Corbusier30  28  Colomina 18. Colomina 20. 30 Original image from Colomina 19. 29  10  However, as Colomina has described, Le Corbusier’ horizontal window made the landscape into a modern purist painting in which everyday objects were represented with perfect readability. The objects depicted in purist paintings were easily recognizable. Indeed, these paintings diminish the subjective interpretation of each individual and turn it into a defined and predictable mechanical one. In contrast to the man in the last sketch (Figure 1.11), the subject is shown standing beside the long window (Figure 1.12). He is not standing in the center and is not part of the landscape. He slides the glass panels on the window frame to let the outside be where it is while he hides from it behind the wall. The movement of his hand sliding the glass panel on the frame accentuates a separation between the outside and the inside. He is a well defined machine, looking at the world passively through his mechanical eyes, movements and perception. For Le Corbusier who says: “the client is a man, familiar to us and precisely defined,” the subject has become a “surrogate machine in an industrial age.”31  Figure 1.12 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Porte en longueur by Le Corbusier' from: Beatriz Colomina, “Le Corbusier and Photography,” Assemblage, No.4 (Oct. 1987): 19, 2 June 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici=0889-3012%28198710%290% 3A4%3C6%3ALCAP%3E2.0.CO% 3B2-4>  Figure 1.12 ‘Modular’ by Le Corbusier has been overlaid on his drawing of the porte en longueur to illustrate his intention of defining a modern subject through his debate over this kind of window.32  Siegfried Kracauer, a modern architect contemporary to Le Corbusier, gives a similar description of the modern subject. Unlike the humanist subject who had the world as its resource,33 he finds the modern subject passive and frustrated with the outside world:  31  Colomina 20: “Viewing a landscape through a window implies a separation. A window breaks the connection between being in a landscape and seeing it. Landscape becomes purely visual…Any concept of the window implies a notion of the relationship between inside and outside. In Le Corbusiers' work this relationship has to do with the contrast between the infinity of space and the experience of the body, a body that has become a surrogate machine in an industrial age.” 32 Image from Colomina 19. 33 Hays 6.  11  The world is split into the diversity of what exists [outside the window] and the diversity of the human subject confronting it [standing beside the window, behind the walls]. This human subject, who was previously incorporated into the dance of…the world [standing in the middle of the window or the center of the circle], is now left solitarily confronting the chaos as the sole agent of the mind, confronting the immeasurable realm of reality. The subject is thrown into the cold infinity of empty space and Siegfried Kracauer time.34  34  Hays 6.  12  1.5. The post-humanist subject: Not all modern architects contemporary to Le Corbusier saw the modern subject quite the same way. In his writings on the post-humanist subject, Hays claimed to have identified a new subject in the works of two modernist architects; Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Hilberseimer. The ‘post-humanist subject’ is different from all previous definitions of the subject in that it realizes the influence that objects such as space, society, art and technology have on an individual. So, there is a great shift in what Hays introduces as the post-humanist subject from the humanist subject as well as the modern Corbusian ethos. Unlike humanist thought in which the subject rules the objects, manipulates them and has the world as its resource, the post humanist subject is at the same time shaped by the objects in the world. Also, whereas the Corbusian subject stood lifeless besides the window as a parallel machine gazing at the mechanism of the world, now the post humanist subject starts to understand himself through understanding the outside world and as part of a society. In the theory of a post-humanist subject, individuals are believed to be influenced by objects such as space, architecture and art. The object and subject are no longer separate entities. Hays mentions that: “the object must now be reconstructed by Gideon in such a way as to bear the place of the subject within itself.”35 The significant outcome of this proposal (subjects are influenced by objects and vice versa) is that subjects can be made! Indeed, Hays believed that architectural objects have a “subject-productive force.”36 Simply by manipulating the objects or the outside world, architects can now mass produce the subjects. So it is no longer only an issue of mass producing perception or experience as Le Corbusier tried by modifying published pictures of his work, but it is about actually mass producing the subject, its being, its actions as well as its perception! Therefore, Hays concludes that artists and architects are able to create change, improve, manipulate, control and therefore shape individuals, people and societies. Now, if you believe that the subject can be made then it will be possible to produce a collective subject. This is indeed another theoretical identification made by Hays. The posthumanist subject is not an individual but a collective subject. Ludwig Hilberseimer and Hannes Meyer refer to the subject of architecture as ‘people’ in their lectures; they eliminate the single  35 36  Hays 18. Hays 7.  13  subject and instead create societies and people.37 Therefore, these architects construct a collective subject, a unified homogenized collectivity, which is beyond the individuality of each human being. In writing about Hannes Meyer’s industrial and architectural design, Hays argued that: “the function of Meyer’s repetitive module is to inscribe across the architecture the reiterative, serial building system of a collective society, to unfold architecture into the exteriority of mass technology and standardization...”38 Meyer also has a project called Co-op Vitrine which contained co-op products and was exhibited in Basel in 1925 (Figure 1.13). Hays argues that at first glance this vitrine may appear to be a gesture pointing to commodity production distanced from the producer and the user. It bears no indication of the producer or the consumer. Therefore the vitrine threatens the viewer’s sense of self and individuality. Indeed, because the product should appeal to a large number of consumers, it can not be designed for subjective tastes and preferences. Therefore, the commodity is displayed independent of subject. However, Hays claims that there is more to the vitrine. What has been shown in the vitrine is what Walter Benjamin called “simultaneous collective reception.”39 The vitrine is an attempt to show the collective modes of production and reception that produces or even enforces a new collective subjectivity.  Figure 1.13 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Co-op vitrine by Hannes Meyer, 1925'. Original image from elKhoury, Rodolphe. Deviant, 9 June 2007 <http://architecture.mit.edu/thresholds/ issue-contents/23/el-khoury23/elkhoury23.htm>  Figure 1.13 Co-op vitrine by Hannes Meyer, 1925.40  37  Hays 121. Hays 87. 39 Hays 39. 40 Image from el-Khoury, Rodolphe. Deviant, 9 June 2007 <http://architecture.mit.edu/thresholds/issuecontents/23/el-khoury23/el-khoury23.htm> 38  14  Furthermore, the idea of a collective society as a post-humanist subject is apparent in drawings by Hilberseimer (Figure 1.14). As can be seen, this drawing is as much about the subjects as it is about architecture. The characters presented here have maintained the same order and the same distance from each other as do the cars and buildings. Also, the representation is not void of human beings, site or context as is in the case of Le Corbusier’ prints. The way subjects are presented suggests that architecture has the power to shape subjects and therefore a society. This picture indicates how architecture is thought to have the power to make subjects act.  Figure 1.14 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Ludwig Hilberseimer, Hochhausstadt project, 1924, perspective of the north-south street' from: K. Michael Hays, Modernism and the Post-humanist Subject (Cambridge: MIT press, 1992) 121.  Figure 1.14 Ludwig Hilberseimer, Hochhausstadt project, 1924, perspective of the north-south street.41  So the crystallized utopia that Hays attributes to the ideas of this period is about the perfect ideal subject that is produced in seriality as a collective subject, and is programmed to perceive and act in a universal way. Only then can they reach this utopia.  41  Image from Hays 174-175.  15  1.6. Cyborgs: One recent name for the subject is ‘Cyborg’. In short, “cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism.” 42 In the 1920s post-humanism had dissolved the boundaries between object and subject. Cyborgs now dissolve boundaries between animal/human, human/machine, nature/artificial and physical/immaterial.43 After this brief introduction to different concepts of the subject in architecture, I will continue with examining a subject that is equipped with mobile technologies. Today, instead of seeing the subject as a body inside the space that is either controlling everything around it (as in humanist thought) or is controlled by space (as in post-humanist thought) or is simply gazing passively at the world (as in Le Corbusier’ modern subject), we can see the subject as a powerful set of processes that overlap or disconnect with other processes at times and can willingly participate in the world as a collective subject. I have called this new subject a mobile subject.  42 43  Haraway 150. Haraway 149-156.  16  CHAPTER 2: Mobile Phones and a New Subject in Design.  17  2.1. Mobile phones have made a new subject of design. Mobile technologies such as cell phones, laptops and ipods are becoming increasingly available. These new communication technologies operate in a variety of non-hierarchical, flat systems of control and organization (grass root systems, peer-to-peer networks, and open source systems) that are changing how human beings socialize, identify themselves and use space; resulting in a ‘social revolution’ with new ‘social softwares’ (Flickr, myspace, Lavalife, Orkut). This chapter describes the changes in the concept of the subject of design from a stereotyped passive object in space to a new idea of the subject as an active operating agent who is indefinable, collaborative, responsive and emergent. Beyond the new understanding of the subject of design, results can lead to a new way of seeing space. This chapter is derived from ideas of social space proposed by Henri Lefebvre and ideas about the production of subjects developed by Michel Foucault.  Figure 2.1 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'a personalized cell phone bag' from: “Mobile Cozy,” 15 June 2006, Flickr, <http://www.flicker.com/photos/19584975@n00/164408619/ >  Figure 2.1 Personalized cell phone bag.1  1  “Mobile Cozy,” 15 June 2006, Flickr, <http://www.flicker.com/photos/19584975@n00/164408619/>  18  2.2. Terminology of mobile phones: Terminology used for cell phones can tell us how they are thought of or used. In Japan ‘Keitai’ is the word that is used for cell phones. It roughly means “something you carry with you.”2 The meaning of ‘Keitai’ contrasts to that of the ‘cellular’ phone of the United States, which is defined by its technical infrastructure. It also contrasts with the term “mobile” of the United Kingdom, which is defined by its freedom to move. A Keitai is not so much about a new technical capability or freedom of motion but about an intimate and personal device supporting communications that have a constant, lightweight, and mundane presence in everyday life.3  There can be another interesting comparison made between Japan and Finland, the two countries that have high numbers in application of mobile technologies. Keitai is used to refer to something you carry with you and emphasizes the personalization of this small device, and is usually put in pockets or bags in Japan. You can also find small bags made just for cell phones (Figure 2.1). However, in Finland they are called ‘Kanny’, meaning the extension of the hand and you can usually see them in hands.4 Japan and Finland show two different approaches to technology. Japan sees the cell phone as a personal and intimate tool that one carries with one always, but in Finland technology has become the extension of the body, no longer separate from it but woven into our sensory system, extending our physical being. The use of the word ‘cyborg’5 with regards to cell phone users also suggests that mobile technologies have become part of our physical body. In the Philippines the use of cell phones is described as a form of “mania”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, mania is a kind of madness characterized “by great excitement, extravagant delusions and hallucinations, and, in its acute stage, by great violence.” The insistence on having cell phones nearby, the fact that they always seem to be on hand, indicates an attachment to them that surpasses the rational and the utilitarian... The cell phone gives its owner a sense of being someone who can reach and be reached and is thus always in 2  Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe and Misa Matsuda, Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: mobile phones in Japanese life, ed. Mizuko Ito. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005) 1. This is one of the most comprehensive books about cultural effects of mobile technologies. 3 Ito 1. 4 Howard Rheingold, Smart Mobs: the Next Social Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2002) 12. 5 Cyborg is discussed further on pages 21-25.  19  touch. The “manic” relationship to the cell phone is just this ready willingness to identify with it, … One not only has access to it; by virtue of its omnipresence and proximity, one becomes like it. That is to say, one becomes an apparatus for sending and receiving messages at all times.6  Figure 2.2 Representing a cell phone as an extension.  Country  Term  Representing  Japan  Keitai  Something you carry with you always  Finland  Kanny  Extension of the hand  Philippine  Mania  Extreme attachment to the device  England  Cellphone  Technology of cellular antennas spread in the city  U.S.  Mobile  Freedom of movement  Mobile technologies are based on the technical development of wireless technologies. When talking about wireless and mobile technologies, terms such as 1G (first Generation), 2G, and 3G are frequently encountered. The most popular mobile technologies available to the public in the market include PDA (personal digital assistants), notebooks and cell phones. Most of the small, personal, portable, pedestrian electronic devices of the last decades are becoming unified in one device and that is the cell phone. Services and features that are currently provided by cell phones include ring tones, dictionary, music, games, video, snap, search, SMS, Bluetooth, caller ID, internet, GPS and many more are developing each year.  6  Vicente L Rafael, The Cell phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines, 20 March 2006 <http://faculty.washington.edu/vrafael/cell_phone_and_crowd.pdf>  20  2.3. Who are cyborgs? “Cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism.”7 By the advancement of technology some machines have become attached to our bodies. Wearable computers fall under the topic headings of Human Intelligence (HI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The main focus in designing wearable computing is to combine machines and humans together to empower humans. The machine and human can divide the tasks and take on the tasks that they can each do best. This turns the machine into an extension of the mind and body, just as cell phones are thought of in Finland as an extension of the hand. We learn to bond with and use the machine like we learn to use our hands. Wearable computers are reconfigurable and programmable. They can be fully intertwined with the wearer and create a personal space which is accessible and controlled by the user while the user attends his daily life.8 One example is the cell phone. Cell phones are part of the field of smart clothes and wearable computing.  Figure 2.3 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'smart clothing' from: Steve Mann, “Humanistic intelligence,” 8 January 1998, U of Toronto, 13 March 2005, <http://n1nlf-1.eecg.toronto.edu/hi/index.htm>  Figure 2.3 ‘smart clothing'. (a) Portion of a circuit diagram showing the new notation developed to denote four L.E.D. indicators (b) Four kinds of conductive fabric. (c) Back of a recent article of smart clothing showing a solder joint strengthened with a blob of glue. (d) Three LEDs on type-BC1 fabric, bottom two lit, top one off. (e) Steve Mann, 1985.9  7  Haraway 150. Steve Mann, “Definition of Wearable Computer,” 12 May 1998, U of Toronto, 3 August 2006. <http://wearcam.org/wearcompdef.html> 9 Steve Mann, “Humanistic intelligence,” 8 January 1998, U of Toronto, 13 March 2005. <http://n1nlf-1.eecg.toronto.edu/hi/index.htm> 8  21  Figure 2.4 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Steve Mann as a cyborg since 1980'. from: "Steve Mann," Wearable computers, 21 October 2005 <http://wearcam.org/steve5.htm>  Figure 2.4 Steve Mann as a cyborg since 1980.10  Wearable computing is one of two approaches toward the development of new technologies. Some developments focus on objects and spaces and develop technologies that augment space. However, some other projects, like wearable computing, focus on human beings and their abilities. They look to see how, through developing new technologies, we can empower human beings. Wearable computing tries to empower humans by developing computing technologies that combine with human bodies and turns them into cyborgs. Steve Mann is one of the main researchers of wearable computing. Opponents of wearable computing, including Steve Mann, criticize the approach taken by others to only augment space. They are concerned that new surveillance, and social control has adapted the new technological powers instead of guns to control people.11 Mann criticized the smart room projects of MIT while he worked on his Ph.D. in MIT labs. He states: The smart room is a retrograde concept that empowers the structure over the individual, invading our houses, streets and public spaces with the right to constantly observe and monitor us …the… benefit of ensuring we are never uncomfortable or forced to get up from the armchair to switch on a lamp…The MIT researches privileges things over people.12  Instead of privileging things over people, Mann proposes the development of technology in a way that empowers the user and makes for new ways for him or her to be. The word Cyborg, referring to the mobile user in scholarly writings, has been used to illuminate the changes that the  10  Steve Mann, Wearable computers, 21 October 2005 <http://wearcam.org/steve5.htm> Rheingold 106. 12 Rheingold 108. 11  22  user of wearable computing goes through. “Cyborg means a human being whose abilities have been extended by implanting mechanical devices in his body.”13 Alexander Chilsenko, a Russian researcher at MIT, has suggested two kinds of classification for the extensions to the body that can make a human being into a cyborg. Types of extensions relative to their position to the body according to Chilsenko include: 14 Attachments and interfaces: positioned on the surface of the body, they mediate our interaction with the environment. Physical objects are attachments, while information utilities would be called interfaces. Example: a receptor of X-rays is an attachment. Implants are internal enhancements: positioned inside the body. Most current implants are replacements, such as an artificial bone. Implants modify the functions of the body - like drugs - or add new functions. Example: implants for internal memory backups… Wrapper: Wraps the body. It is a layer of technology that mediates the whole contact between our body and the environment. Clothes are physical wrappers; a car is a transport wrapper.  Types of extensions relative to their System functions according to Chilsenko are: Manipulators: allow people to modify the environment and enhance the human physical functions. First effectors were tools like sticks or spears. New effectors can function independently and require less attention. Example: Weapons turned from sharpened sticks to things that act at a distance. Sensors: Biological organisms possess two types of sensors: one to allow them to identify their internal states, the other - to analyze external conditions. Sensors of both types can be augmented and connected in various ways. An example of enhanced internal sensors is medical equipment that identifies the internal states. Sensing of the environment includes collecting data from basically any source and location in time and space, and delivering it – like TV, Radio. Resource storage have become increasingly distributed, shared and abstract, and also plays an increasingly active role, deciding by themselves what to store, when to accumulate the resource and when to disburse it. A very interesting example of a memory enhancement is the remembrance agent created by Brad Rhodes and Thad Starner at MIT Media lab. It memorizes things that happen around you, and reminds you about them when you get into a similar situation, providing active external associative memory. 13  “Cyborg,” Online oxford dictionary, 30 May 2006 <http://www.oed.com> Definitions of the two types of extensions to body used here are summarized versions of Chilsenko definitions. For a complete definition look at: Alexander Chislenko, “Technology as extension of human functional architecture,” 18 July 1999, Lucifer, 2 June 2006 <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/articles/techuman.html>  14  23  Cell phones are external enhancement to our body. According to Chilsenko’s classification they can be called attachments relative to their position to the human body. The system function of cell phones currently includes all three of the mentioned types. They are effectors because they allow us to modify our physical environment. For example, by pressing 9 on my cell phone, I can open the door to my apartment from another city and therefore extend my physical ability. I can be reached at any time any where by my friends and can reach them. This has also enhanced my physical ability. Cell phones can operate fairly independently and require less attention since they can be operated as I am doing my every day activities, like taking calls on voice messaging services or text messages while I am doing something else. Cell phones perform as sensors that analyze external conditions. I can use them to obtain information on bus schedules, weather conditions, traffic flows. They also perform as resource storage. For example, they can act as a calendar holding my future events or store my correspondences with my friends over the years. They can store music or lectures that I like to listen to while on the bus or doing exercises. I can take pictures of anything I want to keep in memory or show to someone else. This research is based on understanding cell phones as an enhancement and extension to the human body. It extends to understanding humans as cyborgs and examining them as users of architectural spaces. Cell phones are the first machines to have made millions of humans into cyborgs. We need to acknowledge their integration with this new technology. Sterlac is an Australian artist who works on the human body and machines. He states: Just as the Internet provides extensive and interactive ways of displaying, linking and retrieving information and images it may now allow unexpected ways of accessing, interfacing and uploading the body itself. And instead of seeing the Internet as a means of fulfilling out-moded metaphysical desires of disembodiment, it offers on the contrary, powerful individual and collective strategies for projecting body presence and extruding body awareness. The Internet does not hasten the disappearance of the body and the dissolution of the self- rather it generates new collective physical couplings and a telematic scaling of subjectivity. What becomes important is not merely the body's identity, but its connectivity- not its mobility or location, but its interface.....15 STELARC  15  “STELARC,” Parasite Visions: Alternate, Intimate and Involuntary Experiences, 19 April 2006 <http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/articles/index.html>  24  Figure 2.5 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'amplified body' from: “STELARC,” Amplified body, 19 April 2006 <http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/ampbod/ampbod.html>  Figure 2.5 STELARC as a cyborg. In this experiment he has a second hand attached to his right hand that functions with artificial intelligence.16  16  “STELARC,” Amplified body, 19 April 2006 < http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/ampbod/ampbod.html>  25  CHAPTER 3: A Mobile Subject.  26  3.1. Are we changing? Cell phones are one kind of mobile technology that have changed us in many ways and lead to massive changes in our cities and architecture. Today we see the influence cars have had on cities and how spaces are organized according to their requirement. Cars created small physical spaces that became containers of our physical body, extended our domain of physical access and made our physical movements in space quicker. Today most people own at least one cell phone; even in underdeveloped countries where telephone lines have yet to be provided. Although many technologies have been designed since the invention of automobiles, there is something about mobile technologies that makes them unique and in urgent need of attention: since cars, cell phones are the only mass technology designed to move with our body. They move with our body and therefore influence our being and the ways we inhibit space. Cars changed our understanding of place, time and proximity and therefore made a significant change to city planning and architecture. Now, we are holding very complicated but small devices in our hands that are once again changing all of that and also how we socialize. After Henry Lefebvre and his introduction of ‘social space’ into architectural thinking, it is crucial for architects to be aware of the social revolution that is happening and the space it produces. Understanding the change cell phones bring to the ways people socialize is crucial in designing spaces adequate and appropriate for the new generation of users.  27  3.2. What’s in my bag? As indicated in the name given to cell phones in Japan, Keitai (something you carry with you) cell phones have become like an external attachment to our bodies. They have turned us into “hybrids of machine and human” or, in other words, cyborgs.1 People are aware of the change they are going through because of this attachment. Someone has described the importance of what we carry with ourselves in a group discussion on Flickr2 called “What’s in your bag?” I took a photography class once…, the instructor had everyone pull everything out of their handbags or pockets and place it on the desk... Then we were told to write down what impressions we got of the person whose stuff was on the table. ...Are you curious to see what others might guess about you just on the contents of what you deem important enough to carry with you? I am!3  In this group there are hundreds of pictures uploaded from around the world titled “What’s in my bag?” These series of photographs show the content of people’s bags which includes their most personal objects from Lipsticks and tooth brushes lying beside their latest gadgets like cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players, and laptops. Indeed, Mobile technologies have become part of our everyday experience. We organize our time, meetings, and social relationships by them. All of the advanced communication systems of past decades once only accessed while sitting behind a computer desk are now free from the prison of enclosed rooms. They move with us into our parties, streets and right into our bedrooms and bathrooms. There is no escape any more from being connected. I believe these photos are a great place to start a discussion of how people have extended their sense of being through these new wearable technologies and are aware of having done so. Designers need to know more about how much these technologies have changed who we are.  1  Haraway 150. Flickr was developed by Ludicorp, a Vancouver-based company founded in 2002. Flickr has become a social software for interaction and sharing. It is widely used to upload personal photos taken by digital cameras or cell phone cameras. “Flickr,” Wikipedia, <Wikipedia.com> 3 “What does the contents of your bag say about you?” Flickr, 30 February 2006. <http://www.flickr.com/groups/whats_in_your_bag/discuss/72157594401405062/> 2  28  Figure 3.1 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'Pink- what’s in my bag?' from: “Pink-What’s in my bag?” Flickr, 4 June 2006, <http://www.flickr.com/photos/allthingspin k/437995207/in/pool-whats_in_your_bag/>  Figure 3.2 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'What is in my bag? I am a man.' from: “What’s in my bag? I am a man” Flickr, 4 June 2006, <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebedoun/37 8442153/in/pool-whats_in_your_bag/>  Figure 3.1 Pink- what’s in my bag?4  Figure 3.2 What is in my bag? I am a man.5  4  Image from “Pink-What’s in my bag?” Flickr, 4 June 2006. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/allthingspink/437995207/in/pool-whats_in_your_bag/> 5 Image from “What’s in my bag? I am a man” Flickr, 4 June 2006. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebedoun/378442153/in/pool-whats_in_your_bag/>  29  3.3. What makes you into who you think you are? Mobile technologies have changed who we are, how we construct ourselves and more importantly what we can become. Michel Foucault’s ideas on ‘subjects’ create a base for my discussion by answering this critical question: what makes you into who you think you are? Foucault proposed that there are three ways a subject is made. First he introduces us to the ‘dividing practices’ that separate us into different groups like female, Spanish, lepers, mentally ill, homeless and so on. He explains that dividing practices give us a social and personal identity by limiting us in pre-defined groups. The Second way is ‘scientific classification’ that divides our undifferentiated mass into different classes like alive, dead, black and so on. He reminds us that in both of these mentioned ways we remain passive in the making of our subjectivities and identities. In both ways, ‘bio power’, the institutional power of the modern state, divides and classifies us into different groups. However, Foucault also introduced a third way of making a subject called ‘subjectification’ in which the subject is active. In this case, the subject actively turns him-herself into a subject. In this process we consciously make an effort to create a personal and social identity for ourselves.6 In Foucault’s argument, except in the third case, the subject is a docile body, a body that can be controlled. He says: The other pole of the ‘bio power’7 is the human body. The body approached not directly in its biological dimension, but as an object to be manipulated and controlled...Institutions aim to forge a docile body that may be subjected, imprisoned, used, transformed or improved.8  Consequently bio power controls subjects using space and architecture as a tool to manipulate their bodies. Foucault explains that controlling our body is done in several ways: through “training of the body, standardization of actions over time, discipline and control of space requires a specific ‘enclosure of space.’9  6  Michel Foucault, The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow (New York: Pantheon, 1984): 1-40. ‘Bio power’ is the practice of the modern state and literally means having power over other bodies, "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations" from Michel Foucault, History of sexuality, (New York: Vintage Books, 1990) Vol. I, P.140. 8 Foucault 17. 9 Enclosure of space in this paper will be referred to as architecture takes its meaning from Foucault. See the ‘The Foucault Reader.’ 7  30  Foucault’s Ideas of making subjects and enclosing space have had ramifications in architecture. The post-humanist subject proposed by Hays in architectural writings seems similar to Foucault’s understanding of subject. Hays proposed that Meyer and also Hilberseimer believed that through architecture (enclosure of space) people and individuals can be affected.10 The individuals were considered docile bodies prone to being influenced by architecture and unified as ‘people’. However, it is not that simple anymore! The practices of making subjects passively are weakened today by new communication technologies because these technologies empower us to be active in creating our own identity.  10  K. Michael Hays, Modernism and the Post-humanist Subject (Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1992).  31  3.4. Why we are no longer passive in the creation of ourselves as subjects? First, dividing practices that divided us into homeless, leper and so on don’t work in virtual spaces. Internet and virtual spaces have eliminated boundaries and divisions such as race, nationality, age, gender, class, time and place...making it difficult to enforce the previous dividing practices. For instance, recently, virtual identities such as ‘Avatars’ are being introduced. Avatars are used to represent you in the virtual world. They are usually teenage cartoon characters dressed up based on your taste. Many avatars can jump, laugh, flip, clap, and hug or do gymnastic movements impossible for the user to perform. Avatars exemplify how it has been possible to go against the divisions and classifications of bio powers in this space. Your real sex, location, nationality, time, age, class or physical disabilities can remain as your own private information in social softwares and you can make up new virtual ones for yourself. Even names may make no sense in a virtual chat room. Although, the first question asked when starting a chat with an unknown person ‘a.s.l?’ abbreviates ‘Age, Sex and Location?’ the answer to that can remain unknown. Certainly, My Yahoo ID, or avatar, does not divide me into the female middle class Persian immigrant division of virtual space since there isn’t any. So the way an ID is created in the virtual space of the internet strongly denies the enforcement of previous dividing practices and ways of making subjects introduced by Foucault (Figure 3.3). As we are now forever more connected to the internet and each other through cell phones and laptop within chatrooms, or by emails and social softwares we are being identified more frequently with our virtual identities without any dividing practices as such. William Gibson in IDORU, a Science Fiction novel, predicts a time when every newborn child will be provided with a cellphone number as an ID for life.11 IDORU tells the story of a musician that has fallen in love with a virtual woman; he describes her as a process of making new data. He has fallen in love with ‘constant process of data making’ and believes that a new world has emerged where reality and virtuality are the same. In the story, there is ample evidence of controlling virtual identities and spaces, but this control is done by people on people or private institutions. There is no mention of any governments. The main character of the story, Chia, is 11  William Gibson, IDORU, (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1996). There are two kinds of Virtual identities. One is called Avatars when they represent a real person. The other kind of virtual identities are designed like dolls. They do not represent any physical being. In ODURO, a great singer called LO REZ announces in a club in front of the world that he is in love with a virtual woman. William Gibson explains about this woman called IDORU: “she is a personality-construct, a congeries of software agents, the creation of information-designers. She is akin to what I believe they call a ‘synthespian,’ in Hollywood.”  32  looking for truth about the musician and his love story. During her search she travels to Japan and meets with her friends in virtual spaces. Sometimes she meets with avatars that represent her friends. There she will be followed by Russians that manage to follow her by tracking her credit cards and also where she connects to the internet. She uses love hotels that seem to give people the most privacy and protection against people that control the data that each person produces. The story is full of cyborgs with mechanical eyes that can use infrared lights to see at night. Moreover, there is a concept called ‘the walled city’ where there are no rules like the first days of the internet. Gibson predicts a future where people are able to produce information, investigate information and also hide information in virtual spaces of the internet like ‘the walled city.’ If someday the internet becomes controlled and ruled, people will create walled cities that are out of control and don’t obey any rules. In Gibson’s novel subjects are considered as processes of making data. Whether one is a virtual identity or a material identity, every day activities and social interactions of the subject produce data constantly. For example, a hired investigator for LO REZ examines the stream of data of every day activities to find irregular patterns that probably lead to answers in his investigation. Seeing subjects as processes makes it more difficult to divide them into classes or groups. Second, in addition to the creation of ‘Avatars’ and ‘synthesipains’12 of virtual space there are more reasons why today we are not passive in our construction as subjects. Foucault explained that in order to make passive subjects, specific enclosures of space (architecture) are needed as a tool. However, today the specific enclosure of space is becoming less and less significant and desirable and what is promoted is flexibility and diversity.13 Laptops and cell phones can turn any space into our instant desired use. Zoning in cities seems unnecessary, since concepts like home offices; distant education and online shopping are being introduced. Virtual spaces of social softwares are becoming increasingly used as places to meet or hang out, threatening the vitality of some city centers. Even some judicial matters are being solved through telephone conferencing where parties meet in the privacy of their own home or offices in different cities to resolve their issues. This has become more intense with the popularity of cell phones because they have freed us from location and in the future can offer us many of the 12  “A synthespian is any synthetic actor. It consists of the words synthetic, meaning not of natural origin, and thespian, meaning dramatic actor. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, for instance, were animatronic synthespians. From: “Synthespian,” Worldwidewords, 3 June 2007 <http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-syn1.htm> 13 William J. Mitchell, Me++: the cyborg self and the networked city (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003) 164.  33  Figure 3.3 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is some of the different versions of avatars found at IMVU social software at <www.IMVU.com>  Figure 3.3 IMVU14 is a 3d chat with more than 7 million users. This service is growing more rapidly than myspace.com.The primary focus of IMVU is the ability to use personalized 3D avatars and environments that let the user interact with the person they’re chatting with. Full 3D scenes are intended to make users feel as if they are sitting with a friend in a coffee shop, on a Ferris wheel, etc. The secondary focus of IMVU is allowing the members to develop content that can be purchased by other members for use in personalizing their avatars and environments.It is interesting to know that this is not a virtual world but a virtual community.15  Figure 3.3 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'an avatar in a virtual coffee shop' at IMVU, from: <www.IMVU.com>  Figure 3.3 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'two avatars in a virtual living room' at IMVU, from: <www.IMVU.com>  14 15  “IMVU,” IMVU, 2 January 2007 <www.IMVU.com> “IMVU,” Wikipedia, 3 December 2006 <www.wikipedia.com>  34  possibilities of virtual space on the go. Since, mobile technologies can undermine some constraints of the physical enclosure of spaces, we are getting closer to a day when the physical enclosure of space is no longer an effective tool for making subjects.  35  3.5. Bio power looses power: If it is true that bio power can no longer divide and control us through physical enclosure of space as effectively as it once did, then there should be a change in the relationship between power and subjects. This is in fact true. This change can be sensed in oppositions to power that have happened recently. For example, Vicente L. Rafael has explained how cell phones let crowds of protesters overcome physical constraints of their city: The power of the crowd [of mobile users] can overwhelm the physical constraints of urban planning in the same way that it blurs social distinctions ... [power of cell phones] rests in its ability to move freely and thereby undermine the pressure from state technocrats, church authorities and corporate interests to regulate and contain such movements. Centralized urban planning and policing wants to routinize the crowds, but at moments where such planning fails, routine can at times give way to the epochal. At those moments one can feel the potential for reaching out across social space and temporal divides.16  Rafael is describing what actually happened in the Philippines. It is a good example of how bio powers have lost power while mobile users have gained power. On January 2, 2001, President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines became the first head of state in history to lose power to mobile users. At that time Estrada was being impeached as the president for charges of corruption. However there were senators who were linked to him and were able to suddenly end his trial without any conviction. Oppositions began by people. Swarms of mobile phone users gathered at Edsa Avenue wearing black. A million citizens gathered by a text message within an hour. The massage said: ‘Go 2 EDSA, Wear Black.’ After four days when more than a million people had showed up the military withdrew its support from the regime. “President Estrada fell and the legend of ‘Generation Text’ was born.” 17 Mobile phones were instrumental in organizing public pressure in response to personal corruption charges that forced Philippine president Joseph Estrada from office in 2001. Anti-Estrada text messages, like hostile slogans and jokes, were aggressively propagated over the system. One government response was to encourage people to turn off their cell phones.18 16  Vicente L Rafael, The Cell phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines, 20 March 2006 <http://faculty.washington.edu/vrafael/cell_phone_and_crowd.pdf> 414-415. 17 Rheingold 158. 18 Katz 2-3.  36  What happened in the Philippines is not unique, similar movements against bio powers was demonstrated using cell phones to coordinate actions and movements. On November 30, 1999, protesters against the World Trade Organization used cell phones, lap tops, web sites and hand held devices to successfully organize their crowd (Figure 4.4). In September 2002, mobile users organized a political protest against the rise in gasoline prices by dispersed groups in Britain. Also In the spring of 2000, at Toronto a group of journalist researchers recorded anything they saw at a violent political demonstration by mobile technologies. 19 I have experienced similar movements happening in Iran against President Ahmadi Nejad. Jokes, videos of injustice or illegal use of force by the police against people are recorded and broadcasted one by one on cell phones. The response from the government has been to stop people on streets to search the content of their cell phones for anti-government slogans, jokes or videos and arrest them.20 However, controlling people through material means, whether by an architectural physical space or physical force has become less effective and reliable.  Figure 3.4 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'riot police taking a lunch break on the sidewalk' from: Go Jake, “Riot police taking a lunch break on the sidewalk” Flickr, 5 May 2007 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/go_jake/903884226/>  Figure 3.4 Riot police taking a lunch break on the sidewalk.21  In order to understand the subject of today, we need to understand their relationship with those in power, how these powers want to make us into subjects and how or if we resist them. As Rafael mentions, centralized city planning and institutional architectural spaces like churches or armies and policing could routinize people before but, today mobiles have offered them the  19  Rheingold 158. After a law was enforced to control the gas consumption in Iran, on June 2007, the government stopped SMS services throughout the whole country for a few days in fear of the crowd of cell phone users. 21 Go Jake, “Riot police taking a lunch break on the sidewalk” Flickr, 5 May 2007 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/go_jake/903884226/> 20  37  possibility of freedom from the constraints of physical space. There are two reasons for this that point to two very important factors of mobile technologies. These factors have changed how subjects are made today and how they perceive space. One reason is the immaterial economy and the other one is the peer-to-peer networks.  38  3.6. We can not be controlled by materiality/physicality: Controlling people has become less possible through material means, whether it is by an architectural physical space or a physical force. One of the reasons for this is the economy of information. Two contemporary theorists, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, in their book Empire, claim that today’s commodity has become immaterial and therefore there is an immateriality attached to global capitalism; to its products and its labor.22 Instead of making physical commodities, as in the era of industrial capitalism, many of us have come to spend our time producing ‘social being’ itself—that is, information, entertainment, culture, meaning, identities, and so on. Postmodern capitalism is less about factories making widgets than about life itself becoming the subject and object of production and consumption. 23  Therefore, this form of immaterial capitalism provokes immaterial opposition that can not be controlled by physical means. View of capitalism's immateriality was significant, since the forms of opposition to capitalism celebrated by Hardt and Negri were similarly immaterial; to their minds, revolution is no longer a question of seizing the means of material production but of multiplying and diversifying ways of living in common. 24  Controlling people by physical means and enclosure of space has become less effective not only because mobile technologies create an immaterial resistance, but also because they work in flat decentralized systems of social structure and are difficult to track down. For example, the resistance against the Philippine president was successful and impossible to stop because mobile users could organize their movements and protest instantly in real time without relying on a central leader. This structure is called peer-to-peer networks where every member of that system has the same ability and position as the others and therefore is called their peer. Peer-to-peer networks are composed of personal computers tied together with internet connections, each node a quantum zone of uncertainty, prone to going offline whenever its owner closes his laptop.[…] Peer-to-peer networks aren’t owned by any central authority, nor can they be controlled, killed, or broken by a central authority. Companies may program and 22  Julian Bourg, “Empire versus Multitude: Place Your Bets” Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 18.3, (2004): 97– 107. 23 Bourg 98-99. 24 Bourg 99.  39  release software for peer-to-peer networking, but the networks that emerge are owned by everyone and no one. They are fearful infrastructure, networks whose maps form weird ndimensional topologies of surpassing beauty and chaos... In a nutshell, peer to peer technology is goddamn wicked. It’s esoteric. It’s unstoppable. It’s way, way cool.25  Mobile technologies work in peer-to-peer networks (P2P). They are the result of a collective use of wireless technology. When all the Philippines decided to send the SMS to each other, they were all organizers of that movement. They were all equally responsible and equally important. There was no centralized authority to be tracked down and stopped. This is true about most of the social networks on the net today. Napster, EBay, Flickr, Facebook are all social networks that work with a P2P system. Napster only works if every peer is sharing and using the system at the same time. This revolution is changing society and individuals in how they communicate, make networks of friends and socialize.  25  Rheingold 63.  40  3.7. Mobile subject: We have become mobile subjects, not controlled or divided by the ‘enclosure of space.’ Now, P2P networks and immateriality have made it difficult for bio powers to make us into passive subjects. Centrally controlled authoritarian systems are disappearing and as a result of that, we have become dynamic emergent cooperative processes that turn ourselves into subjects actively. As long as you[r cell phone] is not low on battery, you are in the groove, in a fighting mood.26  As was explained in the discussion of the overthrow of Estrada, mobile technologies give us a power that overcomes many physical constraints. Individuals, all armed with the same weapon, the cell phone, are not passive docile bodies. Always connected to each other through the network, we are nodes that may be activated or activate others at any place, any time. Therefore, Hardt and Negri in their book Empire introduce a post-modern society in which we cannot even be grouped as ‘people’. New possibilities of making a subject compelled Hardt and Negri to question the term ‘people’ as it unifies all individuals in a single category. The word ‘people’ is questioned and a new word ‘multitude’ takes its place. 27  26 27  Rafael 402. Bourg 100.  41  3.8. Multitudes: Multitude refers to the population of the world which is increasingly networked and as such has the potential of overthrowing Empires28 and establishing genuine democracy.29 ‘Multitude’ is meaningless and indefinable: Representation, law, and the state could not grasp the multitude because they defined ahead of time its possible meanings and experiences. Even the notions of "the people" and "class" seemed too homogeneous and bounded for Hardt and Negri's tastes.30  Subjects in a multitude are becomings, not beings. Therefore, any attempt to define them as something other than indefinable is doomed to fail. Multitude is also collective, cooperative and decentralized. When we work with p2p networks the central authority fades away and a collectivity comes to power that is not obedient and therefore has the potential to become almost anything. The possibilities are endless. Rheingold talks about a manifestation of multitude in his book about the next social revolution brought on by mobile technologies, but he prefers to give this multitude a name: ‘smart mobs’. Smart mobs consist of people who are able to act in concert even if they don’t know each other. Smart mobs cooperate in ways never before possible because they carry devices that possess both communication and computing capabilities. Their mobile devices connect them with other information devices in the environment as well as other people’s telephones. Dirt-cheap microprocessors are beginning to permeate furniture, buildings, and neighborhoods; products... Groups of people using these tools will gain new forms of social power, new ways to organize their interactions and exchanges just in time and just in place… new social contracts are beginning to change how people meet, mate, work, fight, buy, sell, govern, and create. 31  28  Empire is the power that develops against and parallel to the development of multitudes and takes the place of States. "The Empire can only be seen as a universal republic, a network of power structures and counterbalances structured into an inclusive and unlimited architecture. The expansion of the Empire has nothing in common with imperialist expansion and is not based on nation states bent on conquering, pillaging, massacring, colonizing peoples into slavery. Unlike this imperialism, the Empire expands and consolidates its power structures [...] Finally, remember that at the basis of the development and expansion of the Empire is the quest for peace." From Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri, Empire. (Mass: Harvard U P, 2001) iii. 29 “Multitude,” Wikipedia, < www.wikipeida.com> 30 Bourg 100. 31  Rheingold xii.  42  3.9. Multitudes are not bound by physical control: Hardt and Negri see a shift from the disciplinary society of Foucault with its panopticon prison and the nature of power exercised over people by the physical space of architecture to a new society that they call ‘multitude’. Hardt and Negri argue that there is a shift from the disciplinary society that stemmed from Michel Foucault to a bio-political ordering of power. Disciplinary society of Foucault describes a social ordering that relies primarily on physical and spatial mechanisms for instituting power. This is epitomized by Foucault’s iconic description of panopticon prison. This disciplinary society differs dramatically from what Gilles Deleuze termed the control society, in which power is instituted from within and at the scale of the body. Combined, Foucault and Deleuze’s work suffused biopolitics that marks an important shift in the nature of power exercised upon general classes of society via physical space (and by extension architecture, at least as constituted in modernity) to the use of information at the scale of the individual subject as a virtual controlling mechanism.32  Foucault’s physical and spatial mechanism of the panopticon has surrendered to the mobility and immateriality that cell phones offer to the mobile subject. The mobile subject, instead of being watched (controlled and defined) from the center of the panopticon, is now armed with the same weapons as those of the center. Every prisoner is watching every other prisoner inside that prison! It is as if the multitude has made multitudes of panopticons stacking beside each other forming a mesh of ‘intelligent collectivity’ in which the center fades away not because there is no center but because there are multiples of centers. We are all watching and being watched. Cell phone users themselves became broadcasters, receiving and transmitting both news and gossip… Indeed, one could imagine each user becoming his or her own broadcasting station: a node in a wider network of communication that the 33 state could not possibly monitor, much less control.  32 33  Christopher Hight and Chris Perry, “Collective Intelligence in Design” AD, (Nov. 2006) 6. Rafael 403.  43  3.10. Flash mobbers: Certain characteristics of Mobile subjects in a multitude can be seen in a new phenomenon called ‘Flash mobbing’ where subjects have been called ‘flash mobbers.’ The first ‘flash mobbing’ happened in Manhattan On June 17, 2003. About 100 people gathered at a furniture store around an area rug priced at $10,000. They were gathered there by emails, text messages and blogs, instructed to tell the salesperson that they all lived in a love community and needed to buy a love rug. After 10 minutes of discussing the rug with the sales people and among themselves, they dispersed.34 After that, ‘flash mobbing’ happened around the world and even in Vancouver. In Vancouver, Canada, 35 people met up in late August 2003 at a major intersection and danced and several minutes later, they dispersed into the crowd of viewers. 35  Figure 3.5 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is 'flash mobbing at a rug store in Manhattan' from: “Manhattan Flash Mob Photos,” 17 June 2003, cheesebikini? 3 August, 2007 <http://www.cheesebikini.com/archives/000275.html>  Figure 3.5 flash mobbing at a rug store in Manhattan.36  Judith A. Nicholson states that even though in the 1990s and 80s the use of mobile phones was understood as privatization of public spaces and a threat to public spaces, a shift occurred in the late 1990s and 2000s to a collective use of mobile phones with text messages and emails. This collective use of cell phones resulted in public gatherings and face to face interactions like flash mobbing or political protests. In the late 1990s, North Americans began to use their cell 34  “Manhattan Flash Mob Photos,” 17 June 2003, cheesebikini? 3 August, 2007 <http://www.cheesebikini.com/archives/000275.html> 35 Judith A. Nicholson, “Flash! Mobs in the age of Mobile Connectivity,” Communication Studies, Concordia U, Montréal, 22 Oct. 2007 <http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/issue6_nicholson.html> 36 “Manhattan Flash Mob Photos,” 17 June 2003, cheesebikini? 3 August, 2007 <http://www.cheesebikini.com /archives/000275.html>  44  phone for rapid, decentralized and multiple interactions. This kind of interaction is fairly new and is called ‘mobile mass communication.’ 37 ‘Flash mobbing’ is peer-to-peer, decentralized and does not require a specific ‘enclosure of space’. While some believe that new communication media have created a new kind of control and new centralized powers and means of control, the use of cell phones can be an exception because they are mostly for communicating with peers, the intimate group of friends and family and therefore are mostly in control of the user 38(except when governments send text messages or providers send advertisements - although this practice has been banned in many countries). When the power of each individual is used collectively for organizing events such as Estrada protests or Seattle’s protests they occur as a result of the distribution of text messages to one’s close friends. This also means that communication is decentralized and has no leader. For example, the flash mobbing that happened in Manhattan was part of a project known as ‘the Mob Project’. This project was started by someone whose ID is Bill and has not yet revealed himself outside of the virtual world. He sent emails to his friends for the ‘love rug project’ that they then sent to their own friends. In ‘the Mob Projects’ the only way to find out about the event is through a text message or email received through a friend. This is how cell phones can create cooperative, emergent and dynamic processes (subjects) that can gather from any part of the city to participate in a public performance. 39 Wired magazine explains that Bill doesn’t think of himself as a leader: The idea is mine, and I write the e-mails, but I don't think of myself as the leader of the mob," Bill wrote in an e-mail. "In my mind (the mob) is led by whoever forwards the e-mail around. People make the mob through whoever they know.40 37  Nicholson also explains in the same article that the practice became at once visible and contentious in the U.S.A. and Canada as a result of anti-globalization protests in the streets of Seattle and Quebec City during WTO meetings in those cities in 1999 and 2001. These gatherings, although at first not political, were soon recognized by the government as having the potential to become political. 38 Katz, Rheingold, Ito. 39 Nicholson: ‘… Several political moments occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s that signaled a shift from an era of centralized communication dominated by commercial mass communication to an emergent era of decentralized communication dominated by mobile mass communication… moments included the November 2002 protests by Muslim Nigerians against the Miss World Beauty Pageant, the April 2002 rally by Venezuelans to protest the coup to oust President Hugo Chavez and the attacks by a mob of religious extremists who were linked virtually via mobile phone in the U.S.A. on September 11, 2001. In these instances, people used mobile phoning and texting to communicate in the moment or within the span of a few hours to target sites of significance for peaceful or violent mobbing.’ 40 Michelle Delio, “E-mail Mob Takes Manhattan” Wired , 19 August 2003 <http://www.wired.com/culture/ lifestyle/news/2003/06/59297>.  45  Individuals are starting to become aware of their newly gained individual power and sometimes use it collectively to organize movements whether with political or social purposes or just for the fun of it.41 However, these new means of communication don’t always bring power and control to the individuals in the society or end in peaceful democratic practices. They can also be used by states, the market, terrorists, groups or any institution to enforce power or repress and threaten freedom and democracy. For example, in the Philippines after the protests against President Estrada and his resignation, Estrada’s successor Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo put a tax on mobile texting when she took power, possibly to prevent a similar collective use of cell phones to shape public opinion against her and the uprising that could follow. Another example of repressing individual power is the jamming of signals from radios and mobile phones around the G8 summit meeting of world leaders in the forests of Kananaskis, Canada, to keep unwanted groups from gathering in unexpected places.42 Despite the resistance against the creation of mobile subjects, grass root systems have found new ways to escape it. As Gibson has explained in IDORU, walled cities will be created inside the internet if someday there is too much control in the internet. Subjects today have a potential to be very different from the previous notions of subject in history, whether they will use this potential or be constrained will only unfold by time.  41  Rheingold responded that he defines a flash mob as “a group of people who organize through the Net to stage a public event for the fun of it: (Nicholson). 42 Nicholson.  46  3.11. A Sky Train station and reality television: There seems to be a new approach to the subject in some television programs that is similar to the subjects in a ‘multitude’ and has created a new design culture in television programs. At the beginning of this research a project was designed for a new Sky Train station that aimed to address an innovative approach to the subject in these television programs. Many television programs in the last few years have been using ordinary people instead of trained actors and emphasize that they are about real people and real incidents. They include various quiz shows, reality shows and talk shows most of which have been categorized as ‘reality television.’ Reality television is a genre that “presents purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and features ordinary people instead of professional actors.”43 Although this genre can be traced to the beginning of television programming, the name reality television is usually used to describe programs produced since 2000. This genre includes many current programs like ‘What not to wear’, ‘American idol’, ‘Next Super Model’, ‘Weakest Link’, ‘Judge Judie’, ‘Bachelor’, ‘Average Joe’, ‘Survivor’ …and many more. 44 Figure 3.6 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is '‘The biggest looser’from: Tracy Rose, Biggest Looser, 17 Nov. 2007, <http://www.realityshack.com/module s/articles/article.php?id=1459>  Figure 3.6 ‘Biggest looser.’45  Although some critics think of the term ‘reality television’ as a misnomer,46 the tendency towards portraying the real and the ordinary of each subject suggests a new approach to the 43  “Reality TV- unscripted, unpredictable…irresistible!” Macquarie University, 6 March 2008. <http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=109> 44 “Reality Television Links,” Sirlinksalot, 18 February 2008. <http://www.sirlinksalot.net/realitytelevision.html> 45 Tracy Rose, The Biggest Looser, 17 Nov. 2007 <http://www.realityshack.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=1459> 46 Some commentators have stated that the term ‘reality television’ is a misnomer for many of the programs categorized under this genre. In many of these programs the producers design the environment and the format of each show and create particular settings to encourage certain behaviors or conflicts. Some edit the recorded movies to create heroes or villans and even create a new scenario out of what really happened in reality at the time of recording. Even the participants or contestants sometimes behave differently in order to get more camera time. So as Mark Burnett, the creator of Survivor, has stated this genre is more of an ‘unscripted drama’ than a ‘reality television’  47  subject in their design. In these programs there is usually no script and the drama is created as the camera records the reactions, behaviors, experiences and perceptions of each subject. So the producers of these shows believe they can create drama out of the reality and challenges of everyday life of each subject. This is very different from a drama that is produced according to a movie script. In this approach, ‘Average Joe’ (also a name of a reality show) with all its faults and misfortunes and individual perception of love is drastically different to the perfectly defined and ideal Romeo who experiences a universally defined love.  Figure 3.6 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is '‘‘Average Joe,’ a reality show, from: “Average Joe,” the Reality TV Calendar, 18 Nov. 2007 <http://www.realitytvcalendar.com/shows/ averagejoe4.html>  Figure 3.7 ‘Average Joe,’ a reality show.47  The new approach to subject in design in reality television shows inspired me later in one of my school projects for a Sky Train station in Vancouver, Canada.  47  “Average Joe,” the Reality TV Calendar, 18 Nov. 2007 <http://www.realitytvcalendar.com/shows/ averagejoe4.html>  48  3.12. Project: where you definitely don’t want to be. The project proposes a design for a new Sky Train station in Yaletown. Yaletown is located in one of the oldest parts of Vancouver in Canada and is famous for its night life and bars. In this design, the site was turned into an underground station and left the street level to perform as a public space. This public space is intended to be a transition space for exploring the life of Yaletown’s densely populated neighborhood and bars. A large screen is located at the west border of the site that is connected to a Location Based System. People who own a cell phone or camera can record or take pictures of what is happening in the neighborhood and post it on the large screen. This allows the public square to present individual interpretations of each subject from what is happening at that time in Yaletown. Bars can rent smaller divisions of the screen and present smaller projections that show what is happening live at their bar. People can look at the screen and find out where they definitely don’t want to be that night and therefore choose which bar they would like to be in. Like reality television, the project for a sky train station at Yaletown in Vancouver explores the idea of subjects producing space by their own perception, experiences and everyday lives. The designer of space would take on the role of the producer of reality television and use the potential of the new subjects to create the space out of their own ordinary subjectivity. The designer therefore has created an unscripted drama in space.  49  Figure 3.8 A large screen will project what people capture on their mobile technologies.  Figure 3.9 A Sky Train station designed for Yaletown, Vancouver, Canada.  50  Figure 4.1 Samsung phones, in this advertisement the social interaction has been illustrated as wallpaper on the cellphone.1  Figure 4.1 has been removed due to copyright restriction. the information removed is 'Samsung phones' from: T-Mobile, 6 March 2007, <http://www.samsung.com>  CHAPTER 4: Mobile Phones and Public Spaces.  1  T-Mobile, 6 March 2007 & <http://www.samsung.com.>  51  4.1. Rescuing public spaces: Mobile technologies, such as cell phones, laptops, and ipods are becoming increasingly available. It was discussed in the last chapter that these new communication technologies have changed the subject of design into a mobile subject that is part of a multitude. This has had consequences in the ways in which the subject perceives and uses space. The main focus of this chapter is the consequences of how mobile subjects socialize and use physical public spaces. The new communication technologies are creating a revolution in social interaction and practices that have made them immaterial, decentralized, disembodied, peer to peer and delocalized. This social revolution, if not recognized by the professions that shape and maintain public spaces, can be a threat to the physical and local public spaces accommodating the public life of people.  52  4.2. Public spaces: Traditionally, “public spaces were also transportation hubs. They always worked and were actually produced at nodes in transportation networks. The central crossroad was often the focus of rural village life, and in larger settlements this crossroad often grew into a village green, a piazza, or a town square.”2 However, many physical public spaces today are not performing in a way that a space should perform in order to be called a public space. According to Marcel Haneff, author of Public space and Democracy, “in public spaces what is public can and must be seen and heard by all, nothing concerning the public domain may be secret. While this ‘publicity’ is primarily the publicity of institutions and of political practices, it can also be found, just as fundamentally, in the places and in the monuments that organize its space and that allow for a public expression of passions and of bodies.”3 Moreover, in the tradition of western thought “the idea of democracy is inseparable from that of public space. We may initially understand public space as a disposition to open and contradictory debate with the aim of making possible a reasoned understanding between citizens with regard to the matter of the definition of institution, the formulation of laws and their enforcement. From this point of view, public means simultaneously: open to all, well known by all, and acknowledged by all. Public space is citizen and civic space of the common good; it stands in opposition to private space of special interests.”4 However, wireless technologies, by creating mobile subjects who can socialize, communicate and interact in new ways and bringing a bubble of private space of special interests inside physical public spaces, have eliminated the publicity needed in public spaces. New communication technologies are affecting the traditional roles of civic public spaces.  2  William J. Mitchell, Me++: the Cyborg Self and the Networked City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003)154. Marcel Haneff, and Tracy B. Strong, Public space and democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001) 12. 4 Haneff 35. 3  53  4.3. History of mobile phones and public spaces: From the very beginning, mobile phones have been a concern when used in public spaces. The mobile phone was adopted first by business men and then by teenagers for private communication. As a result, in the 1980s and 90s, as mobile phoning was growing, it was immediately seen as a symptom of an “aggressive individualism” in the world. There was heated debate during this period in Canada, the U.S.A. and other countries regarding the appropriateness of using cell phones in various public and semi public spaces such as schools, cinemas, hospitals, restaurants, cars, public transit and places of worship. The mobile phone was considered a negative practice in public space because it isolated the user from others. It created floating private space in a public space. It offended bystanders by forcing them to eavesdrop on private conversations. Public complaints against the use of cell phones in public spaces started and forced some politicians to respond by writing legislation which banned or discouraged mobile phoning in some public and semi public spaces. 5 James E. Katz and Mark Aakhus highlight many examples of how mobile phones can threaten public spaces. They believe that “the dual engagement in interpersonal interactions is a threat to the smooth development of ongoing, face to face interactions, and thus to the social order itself.”6 So not only do they believe that mobile phoning can isolate a person or offend bystanders but that it can also be a problem in interpersonal and face-to-face interactions. For example, a woman, herself an active mobile phone user, tells of her experience in costumer service of a post office: Well, they come to the post office, it rings, this gets me mad. You are talking to them and they do not listen to you. This really gets me steamed up. They are in front of you, they have asked you for some kind of service, and you do not exist anymore. Well, this I can’t stand. One the other hand, I do not pay attention to their talk unless something really strikes me.7  These incidents have been thoroughly studied in the social sciences. Many experiments have been conducted to find out how these practices are affecting the ways we socialize.  5  Judith A. Nicholson, “Flash! Mobs in the Age of Mobile Connectivity,” Communication Studies, Concordia University, Montréal. 13 August, 2007& http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/issue6_nicholson.html. 6 James E. Katz, and Mark Aakhus, Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 99. 7 Katz 99.  54  4.4. Mobile phoning is annoying: “Why mobile phones are so annoying?” is the title of published research done at the University of York in 2004. It includes experiments which suggest that people are more annoyed by people talking on the phone in public spaces than when two people are having actual face to face conversations. Logically the sound energy created by two people conversing should be twice that created by one person talking to an unheard partner on their phone. However mobile phoning appears to be more annoying. The researchers offer a few reasons why: loudness of the ring tones, talking in a high volume or the private content of conversations. They also argue that there can be another reason that has something to do with how humans converse. When listening to a phone conversation we can only hear one side of the conversation. However, a conversation always includes two parties being able to explain and defend their ideas. This doesn’t happen in phone conversations when we listen to them as a secondary audience. If annoyance is caused by the volume of talking or loudness of ring tones or even the content of the conversation, finding remedies for public spaces can be easy. By simply being more considerate of others we may be able to reduce the annoyance. However, if it has to do with hearing just one side of the conversion it is not so easy.8 In the conclusion, the researchers make a few suggestions for reducing the annoyance caused by cell phones in public spaces that include manufacturing cell phones that automatically adjust their ring tones based on the context or encourage the users to face away from the bystanders while talking. 9 However, as much as automatically adjusting the ring tones and being considerate of othersalready being referred to as mobile phone etiquette - will be helpful, there seems to be a social revolution that needs far more attention and more comprehensive solutions for physical public spaces. Indeed, anywhere that cell phones have become part of the human body, public spaces have been affected. New York Times reported in 2001 about the Philippines: Malls are infested with shoppers who appear to be navigating by cellular compass, groups of diners sit ignoring one another, staring down at their phones as if fumbling with rosaries. Commuters, 8  Andrew Monk et al., “Why are Mobile phones annoying?” Behavior & Information Technology, Vol. 23 No. 1 (Jan–Feb 2004): 33–41. Another interesting discovery from their experiment was that the context is very important in how much phone conversation in public can be disturbing. Between two experiments, one in a bus the other in a train station, mobile phoning in the bus was reported less intrusive than in the station. Also mobile phoning when sitting face-to-face is more intrusive than when they are facing away from you. So these options need to be considered. 9 Monk 38–41.  55  jaywalkers, even mourners everyone in the Philippines seem to be texting over the phone… Faye Slytangco, a 23 year old airline sales representative, was not surprised when at the wake of a friend’s father she saw people bowing their heads and gazing toward folded hands. But when their hands started beeping and their thumbs began to move, she realized to her astonishment that they were not in fact praying. People were actually sitting there and texting. Filipinos don’t see it as rude any more.10  Mobile phones may get smaller and more invisible, but mobile phoning- and the ubiquitous computing that comes along with it- is not about to go away. We are going to be forever more dependant on them. Many men and women that were interviewed by Katz, Ito and others declare that they can not imagine their lives without a cell phone. In order to get the bigger picture we need to study the new subjects and the ways they socialize.  10  Wayne Arnold, “Manila’s talk of the Town is Text Messaging,” New York Times (5 July 2000).  56  4.5. Urban spaces and new communication media: Anthony Townsend, in “Digitally mediated Urban Spaces,” explains that “In the 1990s, the digital revolution led many urban designers and architects to fear the growth of digital communications networks. It seemed as if nearly every stitch of the urban fabric was under assault, as chat rooms challenged corner cafes and e-commerce threatened the retail lifeblood of the street.”11 However as Townsend later explains in the article, many of the attempts to dematerialize the key elements of our cities have failed to do so. Cafes and market places are still crowded with costumers even if they are working on their laptops or are chatting on their cell phones. The failure to dematerialize our urban spaces shows that our physicality is a great part of our being and we need physical, face-to-face interactions and engagement with our environment.12 Townsend has examined the different ways designers have looked at reconfiguring urban environments by incorporating new communication technologies. He divides them into four groups based on how these technologies function in the urban environment: “display and expression, communications, positioning, documentation.”13 The projects that he groups as ‘display and expression’ like Times Squares use of outdoor light-emitting diode (LED) display systems and liquid crystal display (LCD) systems. These projects have made large digital screens a familiar element in today’s urban environments.14 The second group, called ‘communication,’ is related to mobile technologies. Townsend believes that mobile technologies are shaping today’s streetscapes. He claims that “the rigid system of commutes and work schedules introduced during the industrial age is breaking down into a constantly renegotiated swarm of communications and movement.” He also states that “To date, however, wireless networks have remained largely outside the realm of architectural and urban design, despite their powerful impacts on the movement and space requirements of individuals, families, and workgroups.” The third group of urban spaces works with ‘positioning systems.’ Positioning systems produce information about the movement of the users that can be employed in urban spaces and interactive designs. The fourth group works with the documentation systems that can document  11  Anthony Townsend, “Digitally mediated Urban Spaces: New Lessons for Design,” March 22, 2004, Anthony Townsend Urban blog, 1 Nov. 2007 & <http://urban.blogs.com/research/2004/03/praxis_article_1.html>. 12 Townsend 101. 13 Townsend 100. 14 Townsend 101.  57  information about the different geographical locations of each city. Metadata about the geographical location of urban environments can be stored, browsed and searched.15 From a very optimistic perspective, William Mitchell claims in ‘ME ++: Cyborg Self and the Networked City’ that “the trial separation of bits and atoms is over.”16 But I believe, although some physical public spaces are taking advantage of only some potential of new media as Townsend has explained, there is still a lot that we are not exploring. The ‘Cyborg Self’ still finds itself disconnected from the physical and material environment and human beings inhabit two parallel spaces of digitally mediated space and physical urban spaces. They are yet to be intertwined and until we do so we have not yet achieved the space for the new subject.  15 16  Townsend 101. Mitchell 3.  58  4.6. Shibuya: Shibuya, an intersection in Tokyo, has attracted a lot of attention as a digital urban space. Howard Rheingold talks about ‘Shibuya epiphany’ in the introduction of Smart Mobs and describes the unbelievable use of cell phones he noticed at this crossing which led him to write this book for ‘the next social revolution.’17 According to Townsend, Shibuya has incorporated three functions of the four digital technologies he has explained: ‘display and expression, wireless communications, and automated positioning.’ Townsend explains that Shibuya crossing is in the forefront of the digital signage industry; it has the highest density of mobile phone users in the world, and also for the lack of sequential street addressing in Tokyo it has inspired a lot of innovative applications for automated positioning and way finding.18 Rheingold believes that cell phone users at Shibuya have to pay attention to three places (or spaces) at the same time. One is the physical world of our immediate surroundings; the second space is the city as the larger environment that we know and the third place is the “private channel of the texting tribes [produced by cell phones].”19 So Rheingold, like Mitchell, has recognized a cyborg self that inhabits a few spaces at the same time and later calls these cyborg selves the Smart Mobs, also the name of his book. These expressions can be related to works of Edward Soja and also Henry Lefebvre’s on space that will be explained later in this chapter. These new digital urban spaces are alive, crowded, and popular public spaces. To understand how to design them and how to incorporate more of the potential of the new digital communication media we have to know more about the new social revolution and its impact on the subject’s perception of community, time, place and presence in their social activities.  17  Rheingold 2. Townsend 102. 19 Rheingold 3. 18  59  4.7. A social revolution: Wireless technologies are creating a social revolution. The extrovert and out-of-door nature of mobile phones has made them part of our everyday identity. Cell phones have not been as cut off from the spaces we experience as the internet and pc were at first. “They carve out spheres of personal space within the urban environment.”20 They have affected our understanding of community, time, place and presence and have created new social practices and social strictures. Barry Wellman calls this new social phenomenon a networked individualism.21 Before, a community, public life and socializing practices needed people to be close together, physically accessible and to be at a specific place or vicinity. The traditional concept of ‘community’ or ‘public life’ revolved around the idea of a neighborhood where many of the residents knew each other and could perform face to face interactions. Subjects were made passively and through divisions. Now, mobiles have made it possible to be connected regardless of our physical location and place. As already stated, many of the physical and material boundaries have been eliminated. Today I, as an individual, am connected to all the people I socialize with, always, everywhere. “I, alone am reachable where I am: at home, office, highway, shopping center, hotel, or airport […Or, in other words,] connections are to people and not to places.”22 Communities have expanded and are shifting from groups interacting face-to-face in visible public spaces to individuals communicating over immaterial public spaces on the net. Each individual would be part of so many different groups that may share no physical or spatial overlaps.23 “Their work and community networks are diffuse, sparsely knit, with vague, overlapping social and spatial boundaries.”24 These communities are also dynamic, emergent and cooperative as is the ‘Mobile subject’ defined in the last chapter. Immaterial public spaces: Orkut, Facebook, Myspace.com, chat rooms… Civic public spaces:  City centers, Parks…  20  Ito 9. Barry Wellman, “The mobile-ized society – communication modes and social networks,” Receiver, 4 June, 2007, <www.receiver.vodafone.com> 22 Ito 160. 23 Ito 160: “People in networked societies live and work in multiple sets of overlapping relationships, cycling among different networks. Many of the people and related social networks they deal with are sparsely knit, or physically dispersed and do not know one another.” 24 Ito 161. 21  60  Networked individualism means that at the same time that the communities have grown we have become more individualized. This is because now we are able to go beyond the dividing practices of our physical and local communities and become part of any group or division that we individually would like to and disengage ourselves when we wish. However, this doesn’t mean that the social relations of each individual are mostly with virtual IDs and virtual communities that the person would never physically interact with. Mobile phones in particular have been used to reinforce the existing relationships between a person and others encountered in face-to-face interaction. Ito explains that “…findings contradict with moral panics over fast and footless mobile phone relationships. Instead of creating indiscriminate social contacts in an undisciplined urban space, most youth use their cell phone to reinforce existing social relations fostered in the traditional institutions such as schools and home.”25 The internet and other new communication technologies are helping individuals to personalize their own communities and to keep in contact with people they want to, even if the physical accessibility gets disconnected at some point. Networked individualism contradicts traditionally communal and spatially defined relationships. Once communal and spatially defined, social ties are now individualized. The new social ties are called a networked individualism by Berry Wellman. He defines network individualism as a selective sociality that is not based upon spatially defined spaces. 26  Integration of mobile phones into everyday life has changed our abilities to coordinate our social interaction and consequently has changed our concepts of time, place and presence. The perpetual contact, a result of wireless communication, has created new aspects in our social lives and practices of everyday life. Two Norwegian researchers, Richard Ling and Birgitte Yttri introduce two concepts called ‘hyper-coordination’ and ‘micro-coordination’ that address the new behavioral and social patterns in Norwegian teens. The phenomena that they have dealt with, although about a particular country, can be extended to most industrialized countries.27 Cell phones can be used as an ‘instrumental tool’ for security and also coordination. Before the adoption of cell phones one needed to make an agreement with others to meet at a specific time and a specific place long before the meetings. However, today the subject has the ability to use cell phones as an instrument to redirect and change the time and place of meetings. This 25  Ito 9. Ito 10. 27 Katz 139. 26  61  creates social interactions that look like the movement of a school of fish and are called swarm systems. Meeting places can be moved at the last minute and time of meetings can also be adjusted if parties are going to be late. Moreover, if a group has gathered, one might be in contact through SMS or on phone and seem present until he/she gets there. Cell phones can also be used to soften time like when one is sitting in a traffic jam and is able to call the other party to say they will be late. These phenomena have made time, place and the idea of presence fluid and flexible and are called micro-coordination.28 In addition to the instrumental use of cell phones to coordinate where and when, cell phone adoption has taken on two other dimensions. One dimension is the expressive and emotional use of cell phones for social communication. Users can chat or send images to each other to express their emotions and thoughts. SMS between young users contains a lot of short signals like ‘good morning’ or ‘whatz up?’ that are only used to express a perpetual presence and an emotional attachment to the receiver. The third dimension of cell phone usage is their ability to construct a self image in one’s social space. The type of cell phone one owns, the ways one uses it and the group of people that one is in contact with can be used for self-presentation. These two dimensions push the adoption of cell phones to something beyond micro-coordination of everyday activities and have been called hyper-coordination.29 Cell phones allow users to be accessible all the time and accessibility has become a very important factor of their social life. It is very important for today’s teens to be available to their peers and know what they are doing and how they are. They create their own peer-to-peer network that makes up a community. This perpetual accessibility also lets them be aware of what is happening at a given moment. One of the informants in Ling and Yttri’s research explains: “it is very stressful not to have my mobile phone because I don’t know what is happening.” Other informants also expressed that they find it irritating not to be able to reach people when you need to reach them and get them involved in what is happening. 30 William Mitchell explains that before mobile technologies, meetings needed specific prearrangements of where and when, random encounters or showing up at standard meeting places at popular times. Traditional public spaces like Italian piazzas, for example, depended on their central locations and regular conventions of showing up that made them efficient and work well 28  Katz 139-147. Katz 140. 30 Katz 151. 29  62  as public spaces of a city. “Now Italians simply call one another and arrange meetings on the fly. Piazzas still look the same and work superbly well as public space, but their patterns of use have become far more flexible.”31 Micro-coordination, hyper-coordination and perpetual accessibility have given mobile subjects the ability to perform very fluid and flexible social practices. The ways they perceive time, place, space and presence have changed from rigid and absolute to flexible and relative because peers can be accessible regardless of place and time. These phenomena can have a great impact in how subjects today understand their city, public spaces and socialize. This new social revolution is parallel with the emergence of multitudes and mobile subjects that can personalize their own neighborhoods, public spaces, identities…and have relationships and public lives that are not spatially defined. This new social revolution according to Henry Lefebvre can lead to a new production of space and forces us to rethink the ways we are designing public spaces today.  31  Mitchell 157.  63  4.8. The concept of social space by Lefebvre: In the studies of mobile technologies and how they relate to architecture and urbanism, Henry Lefebvre’s theories are often mentioned. Lefebvre is a good reference because he sees space as a social production and believes that every social revolution needs to produce its own space.32 Therefore, a new social revolution by cell phones needs to produce its own space. A revolution that does not produce a new space has not realized its full potential; indeed it has failed in that it has not changed life itself, but has merely changed ideological superstructures, institutions or political apparatuses. A social transformation, to be truly revolutionary in character, must manifest a creative capacity in its effects on daily life, on language and on space.33  Writings of Lefebvre have had tremendous affect on how we view space. Today instead of seeing space as a geometric or formal object, we can see space as a social product. Not so long ago, space was considered empty and was given a geometric meaning. Now, instead of talking about Euclidean, isotopic or infinite space, it is possible to talk about social and mental spaces.34 Lefebvre, in the introduction to his book The Production of Space, explains that from Aristotle ‘space’ and ‘time’ were considered as “empirical tools to order our sense data” or they were considered as general terms that were “superior to the body’s sensory organs.”35 Furthermore, when Cartesian logic was introduced in mathematics, the concept of ‘space’ had entered the world of the ‘absolute.’ Space was superior to the subject, untouched, unchangeable and absolute! Space contained all bodies and senses! Not much changed even after Descartes, Spinoza, Newton, and not even after Kant. “The Kantian space albeit relative is still a tool of knowledge separated from the empirical world.”36 However, Lefebvre argued that ‘space’ today is also a mental thing. Lefebvre had a tripartite conception of space. He explains the three fields of space:  The fields we are concerned with are, first, the physical, nature, the Cosmos; secondly, the mental, including logical and formal abstractions; and, thirdly, the social. In other 32  “Henri Lefebvre's The Production of Space,” NoteBored, 4 Sep. 2007. <http://www.notbored.org/montreal-space.html>. 33 Ibid. 34 Henry Lefebvre, The production of space, (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1991)1. 35 Lefebvre 1. 36 Lefebvre 2.  64  words, we are concerned with logico-epistemological space, the space of social practice, the space occupied by sensory phenomena, including products of the imagination such as projects and projections, symbols and utopias.37  For Lefebvre, space is not a compartment of the three fields of physical, mental and lived/social space. He believes it is impossible to separate each part from the others. Space is a synthesis of all three fields. The ‘social/lived field’ of space is our experience of actually practicing social life and living in space. Here, we can recall Rheingold description of the three spaces that are understood at Shibuya crossing in Smartmobs. The third space that Rheingold mentions as the “private channel of the texting tribes [Produced by cell phones]”38 is also a social/lived space in Lefebvre’s terms. Social practices and lived experiences in physical spaces are changing and the mental and social fields of space are changing with it. This means that space in its totality is changing because, as mentioned before, space can not be compartmentalized to three parts but rahter is a synthesis of all three. Today, the subject is cooperative, emergent and dynamic and is not absolute and defined and neither is his social and mental space. Moreover, Lefebvre believes that people, through their social life and practice, in space produced space and he warns us that we have eliminated the collective subject. After the new social revolution the subjects have been able to create a new collectivity again. As was discussed in the last chapter, the subject today is part of a multitude, a collective intelligence. Lefebvre explains that we hear about different kinds of spaces: Picasso’s space, architectural space, literary, leisure, work, educational spaces and so on. “We are thus confronted by indefinite multitudes of spaces, each one piled upon, or perhaps contained within, the next: geographical, economic, demographic, sociological, ecological, political, commercial, national, continental, global. Not to mention nature's (physical) space, the space of (energy) flows, and so on.”39 He believes that this infinite multitude of spaces is a production of a new society; a society that has endless divisions within intellectual and manual labors. By the new social revolution and the creation of multitudes, a new infinite space has to be produced by architects, city planners and subjects.  37  “Henri Lefebvre's The Production of Space,” NoteBored, 4 Sep. 2007 <http://www.notbored.org/montrealspace.html> 38 Rheingold 3. 39 “Henri Lefebvre's The Production of Space,” NoteBored, 4 Sep. 2007 <http://www.notbored.org/montrealspace.html>.  65  So what happens to our public spaces? Lefebvre sees space as a social production and suggests that space is the product of people and societies and not architects and city planners. Lefebvre questions who is to design or produce public spaces. According to Lefebvre only people can produce space. Now that people have been replaced by multitudes and the subject has become emergent, dynamic and cooperative, they will consequently produce spaces that are also collective, emergent, dynamic and cooperative. Ito explains about the new subject: “Their work and community networks are diffuse, sparsely knit, with vague, overlapping social and spatial boundaries.”40 Can public spaces have the same qualities? Next, I will bring some examples of social softwares that I offer as new public spaces on the net which today lack the physical field of space but are very effective as mental and social/lived spaces. Flickr, Myspace, Orkut and Facebook are great examples of social softwares increasingly used as public spaces. I will describe how the new subject, who is part of a social revolution, socializes and uses public spaces on the internet, in some cases more than physical public spaces. I believe that by studying peer-to-peer networks and the behavior of the users in decentralized systems, which are the basis of the new subject, as well as these social softwares, it will be possible to design public spaces that will enrich our civic public spaces.  Figure 4.2 Burrard station, Vancouver, Canada, January 2006.  40  Ito 161.  66  4.9. Social softwares as new public spaces: “What public spaces appear when new kinds of communication have arisen in a society that has developed ubiquitous computing technology? Two phone companies in Japan, DoCoMo, Inc. and Shinkenchiku-sha, presented a competition in 2006 calling for proposals for these new spaces that consider new social values in a mobile society, with a comprehension of future changes in technology and society.”41 To find the answer to this question about new public spaces I believe we should consider Lefebvre’s ideas of a mental social space. A space very familiar to users of mobile technologies is the space of social softwares; a space that is produced by them and for them to exploit and produce in a cyclical process. The following social softwares are proposed as new social spaces produced by multitudes. They are a great example of networked individualism, peer-to-peer networks, decentralized systems and immaterial mental social spaces. By stacking spaces produced by each networked individual beside other networked individuals, a networked collectivism can be created inside the public spaces, of the net. This space is my idea of many panopticons stacked one-by-one beside each other to make an intelligent networked mental space for the multitude. Examples of social softwares and their main purposes include: Orkut (Figure 4.3), socializing; Facebook, socializing; Flickr, sharing photos; eBay, trading; Myspace, socializing and self promotion; YouTube, sharing videos. These social softwares share the same basic ideas with each other. They are based on decentralized systems, peer- to-peer networks, and reputation systems. They are very dynamic and diffuse because these systems change as their subunits change. They have platforms for sharing information and using information in a cyclical process. Systems that are used in social softwares have been studied in the social sciences as well which brings us back to the discussions of the previous chapters: the subject of today and ideas of flash mobbing and swarming. The systems that are used for these social softwares are relevant to the shaping of subjects. Kevin Kelly, a journalist and a founding director of Wired, works on the systems in computer programming and networking and compares them with systems in nature. He is very interested in complicated dynamic systems that are related with ecosystems, cultures or economics.42 41  The question is posed by the Japanese Phone Company (DoCoMo) which is in the forefront of mobile communication in the world. DoCoMo is also the beginner of I-phones that connect with internet on the phones. 42 Gray 82.  67  Figure 4.3 has been removed due to copyright restriction. the information removed is 'a profile on Orkut, explaining different parts of the page that includes sharing information, reputation system, self-presenation tools, network of peers, overlaps between peers, and communities. source: < www.Orkut.com>  Figure 4.3 Orkut is a ‘social software’ and a ‘mental public space’. Everyday, my friends and I spend at least half an hour in this space. Coming here, I have met new people, reconnected with my childhood playmates, shared my interests, and even expressed my condolences. One of my friends who died in an accident last year is still here and we still write her when we want to talk to her. You can read what others have written for her as well (Some texts in the picture are in Farsi written with English characters).  68  Kelly calls these systems “networks, complex adaptive systems, swarm systems, vivisystems, or collective systems.”43 These systems have, according to him, “four distinct facets of distributed being” that can also be found in mobile subjects: “the absence of imposed centralized control; the autonomous nature of subunits; the high connectivity between subunits; the webby nonlinear causality of peers influencing peers.”  44  Kelly describes these systems as  very similar to the colonies of social insects like bees or ants. These systems are what is used in social softwares and operate in peer-to-peer networks of decentralized governance. It’s an election hall of idiots, for idiots, and by idiots, and it works marvelously. This is the true nature of democracy and of all distributed governance.45  Kelly is describing the process of decision making by a swarm of bees. A swarm of bees decides anything and everything by a ‘mob vote.’ This reminds us of ‘smart mobs’ or ‘flash mobbers’, the new social phenomenon that is said to create a social revolution. Kelly wonders about the bees: “who chooses the chooser?” and he answers “the hive chooses.”46 As was said in the last chapter about flash mobbers, Bill the initiator of flash mobbing also acknowledged the fact that he was not the leader but that flash mobbing was a phenomenon that was created by all the people that forwarded the messages to their friends. Gray explains about bees: But really, no one chooses the chooser; it is the evolved rules the bees follow in their discourse that does the choosing. This discourse, as with all interesting discourses, isn’t just made of words; it is constituted of bodies and their actions. Dancing is one of the strongest arguments among bees.47  Kelly describes the interaction between the social insects as decentralized and decided by distributed governance. This is a kind of space that is produced in social softwares like Orkut or Facebook. ‘Smartmobs’, ‘flash mobbers’ or ‘multitudes’ or whatever you like to call them, have become only possible through these kinds of systems that allow these kinds of interactions among peers. “Kelly lists the benefits of these ‘swarm systems’ as adaptable, evolvable, resilient, boundless, and novel and understands their disadvantages as being non-optimal, noncontrollable, non-predictable, non-understandable, and non-immediate.”48 43  Gray 82. Gray 82. 45 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: the New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World ( New York: Addison-Wesley, 1994) 7. 46 Gray 89. 47 Ibid. 48 Gray 82. 44  69  Now if we combine these ideas with Lefebvre’s ideas of space, we can begin to see these social softwares as social spaces. As was explained before, Lefebvre sees space as a social production and suggests that space is the product of people and societies and not architects and city planners. Just as Kelly wonders about the interaction among the bees and asks: “who chooses the chooser?” and answers “the hive chooses the chooser,”49 Lefebvre also questions who is to design or produce public spaces. According to Lefebvre, only people can produce space. Actually, in social insects, ‘the hive’ is the chooser and in the case of the creation of the space in social softwares, ‘the multitude’ is the designer or creator of these spaces, not the city planner or the architects. As was explained about peer-to-peer networks in the last chapter, they are owned by everyone and no one. These networks and interactions are created through the decision making and creation of each subscriber of these social softwares. These social softwares are mental social spaces created by peers in a multitude. It is not a geometric or formal space but a social space. Space in Lefebvre’s ideas is the historical production, at once the medium and outcome of social being, it is not a theatre or setting but a social production, a concrete abstraction, such that social relations have no existence rather than except in and through space. The relationship between the social and the spatial in Edward Soja’s term “the socio-spatial dialectic” is an interactive one, in which people make places and places make people.50  Therefore, according to Lefebvre, social softwares can be seen as social spaces, but we can go even one step further to propose that these spaces have all that is needed for a space to be called a public space. According to Grey, in one way of classifying spaces there can be three different kinds of space: public, common, private. He explains the different criteria of each space on the basis of what they must have for one to enter them and also their ownership. ‘Private space’ is where individuals set the rules of who enters and the individual owns the space like my room, house, garden, party, meeting or the home page of my profile on Facebook. ‘Common space’ is not owned or controlled and there are no criteria for who uses it. Common spaces don’t belong to anyone and don’t manifest or represent anything. They are not a human construct and can be exemplified by deserts. Public space is a human construct created by and  49 50  Gray 89. Lain Borden, The unknown city: contesting architecture and social space (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 200) 5.  70  for people, and is always contestable because the criteria for its ownership or control and the right to set these criteria are always in question.51 These social softwares not only operate on the basis of the mobile subject but also conform to the ideas of traditional public spaces that today many physical public spaces fail to achieve. According to Grey, public spaces are human constructs. “They are an artifact, a result of an attempt by humans to shape the space and place and therefore the nature of their interactions.”52 Public spaces should be open so that it is possible for people to use and enter the space. Public space is also theatrical so that it is a place where one can see and be seen by others. If we study Facebook as an example, we can find these criteria: It is open meaning anyone can subscribe and use it. It is a human construct as it is only shaped and created if people make an attempt to shape it and interact with each other. It is theatrical as people put up information and pictures of themselves for others to see and to also see others.  However, beyond the above mentioned criteria of these social softwares there is another very important factor that makes them very significant to study in relation to public space and that is the collective cognition that stems from them.  51 52  Henaff 1-10. Henaff 5.  71  4.10. Collective cognition: Collective cognition is part of what should be achieved in public spaces. It is what comes out of connecting, discovering and sharing with each other. “The necessity of shared information and knowledge is the requirement of democracy. Truth is what can be verified according to discussed and acknowledged rules.”53 Collective Cognition is defined as agents participating in a body of knowledge and by extension, benefiting from that aggregated information.54  As an example, Orkut’s home page mentions three main activities used by its users (Figure 4.4). It invites users to connect, discover and share. These are what the social softwares as new social and mental spaces are offering to the mobile subject. These are the qualities that physical public spaces once provided for the subject but, because of the changes that subjects have undergone, they are failing to provide. Tierney explains about social softwares: The systems that are introduced are not merely graphical websites but are social softwares that benefit and transform the user like Flicker, Orkut, and my space …These examples operate as dynamic social ecologies that are structured to both reflect and extend our cognitive and social engagement.55  Collective intelligence as both a concept and a term has its roots in a number of historical and contemporary contexts. In the 1960s, Marshall Mcluhan noticed the emergence of new social organizations based on principles of decentralization and collectivity. Enabled by the advent of telecommunication technology, Mcluhan referred to this model as ‘the global village’. All these potentials of new communication media were once only accessed through desktops but now, by the adoption of wireless mobile technologies, they are available to us anywhere we go. In the heart of our civic spaces we can mix and create these social mental spaces and create collective cognition about our physical environment and physical civic public spaces.  53  Henaff 11. Therese Tierney, “Collective Cognition and Neuronal Fabrics and social software,” Collective Intelligence in design, AD, Vol. 76.5 (November 2006): 39. 55 Tierney 45. 54  72  In the next chapter the objective is to create a virtual, social, mental space that is linked to physical spaces of cities. The design will create a platform to make public spaces open to all and publicity will once again be felt in these physical public spaces.  Figure 4.4 has been removed due to copyright restriction. The information removed is 'homepage of Orkut' from: <www.Orkut.com>  Figure 4.4 Homepage of Orkut.56  56  “Home page,” Orkut, 2 May 2007 <www.orkut.com>  73  CHAPTER 5: Design of Public Spaces.  Figure 5.1 A project for the new public spaces.  74  5.1. Mobile public spaces: As the subject has undergone changes due to mobile communication, it’s social interactions and public life have changed. Many public spaces are still designed as they were long ago. I believe there is a great need to re-envision public spaces and people’s interactions in them. If not, as has been recognized by researchers already, physical public spaces are in danger of extinction. We are loosing a great opportunity to enrich them with our new abilities as human cyborgs to use them and maintain them. Mobile technologies can lead to a new way of producing our environment, our public spaces, and ourselves. This chapter concludes with two projects. One is a project for a competition in Japan that asked for new public spaces. The second project aims to bring the project for the competition into practical use by creating a website application for a social software called Facebook. This application will provide a virtual platform for physical public spaces.  75  5.2. DoCoMo competition: The ‘Mobile society research institute of Japan’ proposed a competition in 2006 with the theme of ‘Public space for the ambient technology.’ The theme description states: What new kinds of public space exist in a society sustained by ambient intelligence (ubiquitous computing)? …A "mobile" is not limited to the function of making telephone calls, but has come to be used for communication between person and person, between person and thing, between thing and thing…We hope to receive proposals for new social values in a "mobile" society, with a comprehension of future changes in technology and society after, for example, ten years…1  This competition was a great opportunity to think about a project for the new mobile subjects and their public spaces. In the proposed project, most of the systems and characteristics of the new subject and his/her system or process of interaction have been considered. As Lefebvre has explained, this project provides a mental and social space that is interconnected with the physical public spaces of the city and the physical existence and location of our interactions. A virtual platform has been designed to gather the information provided by each cell phone user in the city. This information is about the location and nature of the public activities that each person wishes to have in the future. It is visualized as a surface above the map of the city. The public spaces will be rated by people putting the information in this software using their cell phones. Sending information can also be done through SMS to a certain phone number provided by the software. Through SMS, participants can say where they will be and what kind of activities they will want to do and during what times. Looking at the map of the city, the elastic yellow surface that contains the information will have peaks and valleys that show the level of interest in each geographical location of the map. For example, on Canada Day subjects would send information about which places they want to be at. These locations on the yellow surface will go higher than the other parts of the map. So by a quick look with this system anyone can know on Canada Day where the multitude will be  1  “DoCoMo Competition,” NTT DoCoMo, Inc. Mobile Society Research Institute, 12 April 2006. <http://www.japan-architect.co.jp/docomo/2006/en/index.html>.  76  Figure 5.2 If no one uses the system, the virtual platform will look flat. Just like Napster, Orkut or any other social software this space will not be a social space unless subjects are using it.  Figure 5.3 Once the peers start to vote or choose the location and time of their public activities, the flat surface will start to transform. The most chosen points on the map will go higher and the points that get a negative rate will go down. This is almost like the reputation system in social softwares like eBay that allow you to rate the sellers with highlighting stars or vice versa.  Figure 5.4 Once the transformed surface is put on the map of the city, it is very easy to get a collective cognition of the public activities. This will work as a catalyst to experience the city. Of course the elastic surface is always in motion as in time the votes will differ. You can imagine a flash mobbing happening at one of the points where a peak can be seen.  77  gathered and also what they want to do. With this system you can also find out about your friends’ choices for that day.  Figure 5.5 The virtual surface above the city can be reached on the screen of your cell phone. With the new I phones you can be connected to the internet at all times. With the GPS systems already available on cell phones, we will see new applications like this offered by software companies very soon.  78  5.3. What makes this a public space for the new subject? This surface is an elastic immaterial space that is intertwined with the materiality and physicality of the city. It will constantly change as the information is updated, night to day and season to season. Consequently, it can evolve and is not a definite or absolute space. It is a mental social space not a geometrical formal one. It is definitely not a formal solution and not even an organizational solution, like that of Le Corbusier for the city, but it is more of an infrastructural solution to the crisis of urban public spaces. Public spaces will be in the hands of the multitude not any centralized, controlling base. It is controlled by a flat horizontal power of peers. This space is created on the basis of peer-to-peer networks of communication. Each peer will send the information to the software and this space can only be created if all the peers send their information and use it. This project processes the uninterrupted stream of data and creates knowledge of public spaces that could not be achieved before we became mobile subjects. This makes a collective space based on a collective cognition of our city. Information will help to enrich and empower public spaces instead of distracting us from the spaces we physically inhabit; any tourist or stranger will know the city as a local does. So now, instead of looking at the cell phone as a bubble of private space floating and invading public spaces it is actually contributing to a collective cognition that creates a mental social public space. This collective cognition easily produced and picked up from this elastic space can be used by the professions that work with space (like city planners, traffic analysts or architects) to have a better understanding of the city and the processes that shapes it. The proposed public space is dynamic, emergent, cooperative, flexible, elastic, and diffuse. It has all the advantages and disadvantages of the systems studied by Kelly. Advantageously, it is adaptable, evolvable, resilient, and novel. It has also the disadvantages of being  “non-optimal,  non-controllable,  non-predictable,  non-understandable,  and  non-  immediate.”2 This public space works on the basis of concepts such as networked individualism, peer-to-peer networks and decentralized control. [What the project provides is] the collaborative closeness of co-creating content with others and place itself. So it becomes a Catalyst to re-experience the city. It gave the participants a sensory awareness of the city that goes beyond  2  Gray 82.  79  the mere visual experience of the spaces. They would share their memories, sounds, pictures, fantasies with each other.3  What I propose for public spaces is an information processing system. It is an organism that produces meaningful information about the environment from an uninterrupted stream of data gathered from participating cell phones and mobile technologies. So the material of my project is plastic because it alters form in response to different choices of activity in space. “In the larger sense, the constant data flow exchanged between organism and environment is continually being mapped and remapped in this space.”4  Figure 5.6 Perspective of urban spaces mixed with the space of the virtual information 3  Katrina Jungnickel, “Urban tapestries: Sensing the City and other Stories,” June 2004, Proboscis, 8 March 2006 & <http://proboscis.org.uk/publications/SNAPSHOTS_sensingthecity.pdf> 4 Tierney 39.  80  Figure 5.7 The virtual space overlaid on the elevation of the city.  Figure 5.8 The virtual platform can be accessed on cell phones.  81  Figure 5.9 Competition panel, 2006 DoCoMo, Japan.  82  Figure 5.10 Part of the Competition panel, 2006 DoCoMo, Japan.  83  5.4. An application for Facebook: The next step after the competition was to find a way to see the design for the competition as part of the new public spaces that already exist in virtual space, which are the social softwares. My challenge was to find a social software where peers already have their own profile and that I can use and integrate with physical public spaces. Facebook, a social software, which is used more than other social softwares in Vancouver is the best choice for development of the competition project. Unlike Myspace or Orkut, Facebook has created a free platform where individuals or independent privately held companies can design their application and use this space to offer them to the users.  Founded in February 2004, Facebook is a social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers. The company facilitates sharing of information through the social graph, the digital mapping  of  people's  real-world  social  connections. Anyone can sign up for Facebook Figure 5.11 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The information removed is ' illustrating that Facebook can be accessed on iphones' from: “Press,” Facebook, 12 September 2007, <http://www.facebook.com/press.php>  and interact with the people they know in a trusted environment. Facebook is a part of millions of people’s lives and half of the users return daily to many of its applications. Facebook is a privately-held company and it’s headquarter is located in Palo Alto, Calif.5  Figure 5.11 Facebook can be accessed on iphones.6  5 6  “Press,” Facebook, 12 September 2007 <http://www.facebook.com/press.php> Picture from “Facebook on iphones,” Facebook, 12 September 2007 <http://www.facebook.com/press.php>  84  The Founder of Facebook, Marc Zuckerberg, announced in 2007 that Facebook would open its platform to its users free of charge. In the opening of a lecture he stated: Today together we are gonna start a movement! Welcome to F8. At Facebook we are pushing to make the world a more open place! And we do this by building things that help people to use their real connections to share information more effectively. We have already built a handful of applications to do this like photos groups, events… But imagine of all the things we could make if we work together. This is a big day for facebook…7  These words explain what the new mobile subject needs today. This is the kind of public space they can have, a public space that they can all cooperate to create and produce. It is a public space where they can use their connections to make new connections and also discuss what they need, an open space created by their flat structure of individual authorities. What Facebook has offered is a free place to create applications by users to use and share. The collective cognition that I had explained earlier for the 2006 competition in Japan can be easily achieved in this space.  Figure 5.12 has been removed due to copyright restriction. the information removed is 'a profile on Facebook that will be used to demonstrate how the Public Life application would work in this site.' resource: <www.Facebook.ca>  Figure 5.12 This is a profile on Facebook that will be used to demonstrate how the new Public Life application would work in this site.  7  From a lecture that can be accessed & http://developers.facebook.com/videos.php  85  Figure 5.13 has been removed due to copyright restriction. The information removed is 'TraveBuddy application on a Facebook profile that will be used to demonstrate how this application would work.' resource: <www.Facebook.ca>  Figure 5.13 As an example, TravBuddy application is currently popular with users. It is used to share the countries you have traveled to with others. You can also find others with the same destination as yours in the future and as a result find travel buddies! The application gets activated once you click on it.  Figure 5.14 has been removed due to copyright restriction. The information removed is 'illustrating TraveBuddy application when activated and shows the countries that the user has traveled to.' resource: <www.Facebook.ca>  Figure 5.14 The TravBuddy application is showing the countries this user has traveled to in her life.  86  Figure 5.15 has been removed due to copyright restriction. The information removed is 'showing a modified image of a profile on Facebook that illustrates the proposed application called Pulic Life.' Original image from: <www.Facebook.ca>  Figure 5.15 This image shows the proposal for a new application called Public Life for Facebook.  Figure 5.16 The proposed Public Life application will be activated once you click on it.  87  Figure 5.17 has been removed due to copyright restriction. The information removed is 'showing the proposed application for public spaces called Public Life when it gets acatiavated.' Original image from: <www.Facebook.ca>  Figure 5.17 This map shows the physical public spaces that have had the most votes. The red dot shows the place that has been recommended to be avoided by other peers because of a civic disorder that is happening there.  Figure 5.18 How the application works: The way this application works is that first a user will create his Public Life profile and then the application updates the map based on the information gathered through all the users and will show a collective result on the Google map when requested. The controls at the left of the image can be adjusted to different days or to adjust the time in a day. For example, to plan where to go at 10 pm on a Saturday you will adjust the time bar with the mentioned time and you can see the result on the map.  88  CHAPTER 6: Conclusion and Further Research.  89  6.1. Conclusion and further research: It is important to note that applications like the proposed ‘Public Life’ will not be successful if the information provided by the users is inaccurate. However, like all social relations these relations will develop their own forms of social etiquette. Emails and cell phones now do have rules that we try to follow. For example, SMS is usually responded to in less than an hour, E-mails less than a day and we do not usually talk loud on cell phones in public spaces or while in the company of others. This application will need to develop its own forms of etiquettes for socializing. If someone sends information stating that they will be somewhere at a certain time but decide not to without correcting the information, this application would not lead to successful mutual relationships or experiences. This mental public space can be seen as a weather forecast because of the complexity of the process of its production. It is impossible to predict weather conditions for more than a week and the weather forecast is rarely reliable for more than two days. Similarly, the public space forecast of this project may not be reliable for more than two days ahead of time. Probably the social etiquettes of this space will compel the user not to be inaccurate about their whereabouts. For example, they may collectively come to an agreement to update it at least four hours before meetings if they can not make it. Although this application is not making any modifications to the physicality or form of physical public spaces it will help to join physical public spaces with the virtual and social life of the mobile user and create an opportunity for gaining collective cognition in our public lives. As Lefebvre has suggested, this project may be able to hand the production of public spaces to the multitudes instead of architects and city planners. This application has helped to produce space via modifying the mental and social aspects of the production of space.  Further research in this issue could investigate how Location based systems and peer-topeer networks can enrich the experience of public spaces. There should be more research on the differences between public spaces today and the past, especially on the ones that are considered successful by the users. We need to realize the kind of changes that the users have gone through by adoption of mobile technologies and figure out how we can incorporate those changes in the ways we design public spaces. The changes may only impact the social and mental aspects of space and not the physicality of space but what kind of impact needs to be investigated. 90  Bibliography: Books and articles: Arnold, Wayne. “Manila’s talk of the Town is Text Messaging.” New York Times. 5 July 2000. Borde, Lain. The unknown city: contesting architecture and social space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001. Bourg, Julian. “Empire Versus Multitude: Place Your Bets.” Ethics & International Affairs Vol. 18.3 (2004). Castells, Manuel. The Network Society : a cross-cultural perspective. Cambridge, MA: Edward Elgar Pub., 2004. Foucault, Michel. The Foucault reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow, New York: Pantheon, 1984. Gibson, William. Idoru. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1996. Gray, Chris Hables. Peace, war, and computers. New York: Routledge, 2005. Haneff, Marcel and Strong, Tracy B. Public space and democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. Haraway, Donna. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York; Routledge, 1991. Hays, K. Michael. Modernism and the Post-humanist Subject. Cambridge: MIT press, 1992. Hight, Christopher and Perry, Chris. “Collective Intelligence in Design.” AD, Vol. 76.5 (Nov. 2006) 5-9. Ito, Mizuko. Okabe, Daisuke. and Matsuda, Misa. Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: mobile phones in Japanese life. Ed. Mizuko Ito, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Katz, James E. and Aakhus, Mark. Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, and Public Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Mitchell, William J. Me++: the cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. Monk, Andrew et al. “Why are Mobile phones annoying?” Behavior & Information Technology. Vol. 23.1 (Jan. /Feb. 2004): 33–41. Rheingold, Howard. Smart Mobs: the Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2002. Tierney, Therese. “Collective Cognition: Neural Fabrics and social software.” AD. Vol. 76.5 (Nov. 2006) 36-45.  Online resources: “Average Joe.” the Reality TV Calendar. 18 Nov. 2007 <http://www.realitytvcalendar.com/shows/averagejoe4.html>  91  “Canada.” 15 November 2007, The World Fact Book: Central Intelligence Agency. 18 November 2007 <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html> Chislenko, Alexander. “Technology as extension of human functional architecture.” 18 July 1999, Lucifer. 2 June 2006 <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/articles/techuman.html> Colomina, Beatriz. “Le Corbusier and Photography.” Assemblage. No.4 (Oct. 1987): 6-23. Michelle Delio, “E-mail Mob Takes Manhattan.” Wired. 19 August 2003. <http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/06/59297> El-Khoury, Rodolphe. Deviant. 9 June 2007 <http://architecture.mit.edu/thresholds/issue-contents/23/el-khoury23/el-khoury23.htm> “Ergonomic modules for the human body.” 30 Sep 1999, Design language etc. 10 Nov. 2007 <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/4217/ergonomy.html> Go, Jake. “Riot police taking a lunch break on the sidewalk.” Flickr. 5 May 2007 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/go_jake/903884226/> “Henri Lefebvre's The Production of Space.” NoteBored. 4 Sep. 2007. <http://www.notbored.org/montreal-space.html> “IMVU.” Flickr 3 December 2006 & <Wikipedia.com> “Philippe Starck, Yoo Adelgade.” 6 March 2005, Arcspace. 12 November 2006 <http://www.arcspace.com/architects/starck/yoo/yoo.html> “Vitruvian man.”16 October, 1994, The drawings of Leonardo da Vinci. 9 November 2007 <http://www.drawingsofleonardo.org/images/vitruvian.jpg> Rafael, Vicente L. The Cell phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines. 20 March 2006: 399-425 <http://faculty.washington.edu/vrafael/cell_phone_and_crowd.pdf> “Manhattan Flash Mob Photos.” 17 June 2003, cheesebikini? 3 August 2007 <http://www.cheesebikini.com/archives/000275.html> Mann, Steve. “Definition of Wearable Computer.” 12 May 1998, U of Toronto. 3 August 2006 <http://wearcam.org/wearcompdef.html> Mann, Steve. “Humanistic intelligence.” 8 January 1998, U of Toronto. 13 March 2005 <http://n1nlf-1.eecg.toronto.edu/hi/index.htm> Mann, Steve. Wearable computers. 21 October 2005 <http://wearcam.org/steve5.htm> “Mobile Cozy.” n.d. 15 June 2006. Flickr <http://www.flicker.com/photos/19584975@n00/164408619/ >  Nicholson, Judith A. “Flash! Mobs in the age of Mobile Connectivity.” Communication Studies. Concordia U, Montréal, 22 Oct. 2007 <http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/issue6_nicholson.html> Online oxford dictionary. 30 May 2006 <http://www.oed.com>  92  Oswald, Le Corbusier. 22 March 2006 <http://www.nexusjournal.com/reviews_v3n1-Ostwald.html> “Pink-What’s in my bag?” Flickr. 4 June 2006 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/allthingspink/437995207/in/pool-whats_in_your_bag/> “Reality Television.” Wikipedia. 7 Sep. 2007 <Wikipedia.com> Rose, Tracy. The Biggest Looser. 17 Nov. 2007 <http://www.realityshack.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=1459> Sandalow, Marc. Washington Bureau Chief. 9 September 2006. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/29/MNGE590O711.DTLS>. “STELARC.” Amplified body. 19 April 2006 & < http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/ampbod/ampbod.html> “STELARC.” Parasite Visions: Alternate, Intimate and Involuntary Experiences. 19 April 2006 <http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/articles/index.html> Textually. 8 Feb. 2007 <http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set2/cellphone_hand.jpg> T-Mobile. 6 March 2007 <http://www.samsung.com> Townsend, Anthony. “Digitally mediated Urban Spaces: New Lessons for Design.” March 22, 2004, Anthony Townsend Urban blog. 1 Nov. 2007 <http://urban.blogs.com/research/2004/03/praxis_article_1.html> “Whatz in your bag?” Flickr. 4 July 2006 <http://www.flickr.com/groups/52241283780@N01/> “What does the contents of your bag say about you?” Flickr. 30 February 2006 <http://www.flickr.com/groups/whats_in_your_bag/discuss/72157594401405062/> “What’s in my bag? I am a man.” Flickr. 4 June 2006 <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebedoun/378442153/in/pool-whats_in_your_bag/>  93  

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0066322/manifest

Comment

Related Items