27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Complexiteit, Cognitie en Stedebouw
Transcription
27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Complexiteit, Cognitie en Stedebouw
Complexiteit, Cognitie en Stedebouw De rol van emoties in het ontwerpen en de beleven van de stad in samenwerking met Juval Portugali Egbert Stolk, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, [email protected] 27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Challenge the future 1 Happy City • Connected communities are happier, more resilient in hard times and better equipped to handle economic challenges; • Cities can help to facilitate these positive social connections. • Architecture, urban design, public spaces and transportation systems together alter the way we think, feel and treat other people in ways most of us never realise. People have reported being happiest in cities where they expressed the highest levels of trust for their neighbours. Challenge the future 2 Challenge the future 3 Unhappy cities • Post-war cities are mostly designed around private cars, where homes, workplaces, shops and recreation areas are segregated into distinct zones. • People living in these segregated neighbourhoods feel less trust for their neighbours compared to people living in walkable mixed areas. • The more time people spend on commuting, the less likely they are able to play team sports, hang out with friends, etc. • Residential towers suffer from the same issues: less trust for neighbours, more feeling lonely (while being packed closely to others). Challenge the future 4 Challenge the future 5 Donald Appleyard (1982) Livable Streets Challenge the future 6 Some lessons • Limit the amount of people in any particular residential cluster; • Pay attention to soft zones between public and private space (3.25m!); • Even small amounts of green make a huge difference; • Facades matter: permeable facades cause people to walk slower and pause more often, turning empty spaces into lively places; • People who cycle to work report feeling more joy and less fear, rage and sadness than drivers of transit systems. Challenge the future 7 Complexiteit, Cognitie en Stedebouw De rol van emoties in het ontwerpen en de beleven van de stad in samenwerking met Juval Portugali Egbert Stolk, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, [email protected] 27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Challenge the future 8 Mensen kunnen zich nog niet-bestaande toekomsten inbeelden, en deze realiseren door het ontwerpen en produceren van artefacten. De stad is een grootschalig en collectief artefact. Spel spelen voor een beter begrip van de stad als grootschalig en collectief artefact. Reflectie op het spel vanuit een aantal theoretische noties (complexiteit en cognitie). Challenge the future 9 Let’s play! Complexiteit, Cognitie en Stedebouw in samenwerking met Juval Portugali Egbert Stolk, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, [email protected] 27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Challenge the future 10 The city game: the area of the future city • The paper represents the possible area of the future city; • There are two existing elements: 1.The sea on the south-side 2.Train-station in the centre, and the rail from the North. Land N Sea Challenge the future 11 The city game: building blocks • Blocks represent buildings; • You’re free to place the blocks; • Everyone gets 7 buildings; • We play 7 rounds; • Each round takes maximum 1 minute. Challenge the future 12 The city game: rules • RULE 1: the minimum distance between buildings is 1 cm; • RULE 2: buildings cannot be placed in the sea, on the trainstation or train-track. • RULE 3: all places are accessible by (imaginary) roads. • RULE 4: no talking!!! Challenge the future 13 Let’s play! What happened? Challenge the future 14 Complexiteit, Cognitie en Stedebouw Waarom deze concepten? Egbert Stolk, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, [email protected] 27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Challenge the future 15 What happened? • • • • • Bottom up initiatives Emergence of rules and patterns Top down rules? Self-organisation, no central control Collective production of a city Aerial view of Hamar-Weine (old city), 1923 Challenge the future 16 Talk #1 The goal of this first talk is to place these concepts in a theoretical framework. 1. Complexity, cognition and the production of artifacts 2. Synergetic Inter-Representation Networks (SIRN) Challenge the future 17 1. Complexity, cognition and the production of artefacts Challenge the future 18 What are complexity theories? • An umbrella name to a set of theories about open and complex systems that interact with their surroundings/environment, that achieve their order spontaneously = by means of self-organisation. • Complexity theories are about material, organic and human systems. • All theories/methodologies of complexity have been applied to cities with the implication that we now have a family of Complexity Theories of Cities. Challenge the future 19 What is self-organisation? Self-Organisation is a property of open and complex systems … it is an umbrella name to several theories about systems that achieve high level of organisation spontaneously, without external planning/design and control. Challenge the future 20 Key-concepts from Synergetics. • Out of the local (bottom-up) interaction of parts a global order emerges; • This global order starts to act as a top-down force, enslaving the parts; • The local parts obey the global order, which strengthens the global order; • This process is called ‘circular causality’, which is the key to self-organisation; • This continues until bottom-up forces give rise to another global order, which replaces the existing global order. Top Emergence Obeying (O) (O) time Slaving (S) (S) circular causality (S) Bottom • So,self-organisation does not refer to bottom-up only: but to the interaction of bottom-up and top-down as described above. Challenge the future 21 Exercise • Please think of an example of a complex system • Individual; 1 minute! Challenge the future 22 Singularly complex (material) system: Complexity is a property of global system but not of the local parts Local Global The emerging complex global system has no effect on the structure of the atoms as the parts of the system (not only their behaviour) An atom as simply behaving part Bénard experiment 1904 Simple local part -> Complex global system Challenge the future 23 Singularly complex (organic) system: Complexity is a property of the global system but not of the local parts Adaptation is a slow moving process Hence: the complexity of the parts can be ignored Local The bird is a complex, adaptive, self organizing system by virtue of the fact that it is subject to the slow process of biological evolution Global Self-organised collective behaviour: because biological evolution is slow, the feedback impact of the flock on the single bird can be ignored. The focus is on the global system. Singularly complex local parts -> complex global system Challenge the future 24 Dually complex (human) systems: Complexity is a property of both the global emerging system and its local parts Adaptation is a fast moving process Hence: the complexity of the parts cannot be ignored Local Global The home sapience sapience (HSS) (the homo faber - Bergson) is subject to two evolutionary self-organizing processes: the slow process of biological evolution and the fast process of cultural evolution the result of which is the production of artifacts Doubly complex part -> Complex global artificial system Challenge the future 25 Summary: three types of complex systems Type of system Nature of the parts Nature of the whole Material systems Simple local parts Complex global system Singularly Organic systems complex local parts Human systems Urban systems Doubly complex parts Adaptation Concequences No adaptation Complex global natural system Adaptation is a slow moving process Complexity of parts can be ignored Complex global artificial system Adaptation is a fast moving process complexity of parts cannot be ignored Complex global hybrid natural~artificial system need to include cognitive sciences and the production of artefacts Challenge the future 26 Organic systems: animals don’t have a choice The bird made this nest out of artificial materials; is it an artefact? Dawkins: the nest is the bird’s extended phenotype and is in this respect it is part of nature The same with beavers, termites.... They have no choice but to build dams and castles Beavers’ engineering and Termites’ architecture Challenge the future 27 Human systems: humans do have a choice Nature tells us to build artificial shelters but not how to build them Nature tells us to build artificial collective shelters but we built/build cities Challenge the future 28 The homo faber is covered by artifacts and is living in artifacts = artificial environments such as a city We have choices with small artifacts... ... and this is so with large artifacts such as buildings and whole cities Challenge the future 29 There is a continuous interplay between the urban agents and the environment How do people behave in space? Environment-‐behavior studies How do people adapt and change space? Design thinking, urban planning and design How to understand the dynamics of the urban the city is a major means of environment? On the other: the city is an environment to its many On the one hand, adaptation to changing environmental conditions urbanoagents – a complex, self-organizing, artificial Complexity Theories f Ci9esenvironment – to which urban agents have to adapt Challenge the future 30 How do people behave in space? Environment-‐behavior studies How do people adapt and change space? Design thinking, urban planning and design How to understand the dynamics of the urban environment? Complexity Theories of Ci9es Challenge the future 31 Question: how do people produce artifacts? Answer 1: By means of their representation capabilities (SIRN) and, Answer 2: By means of their construal level (CLT), planning and design capabilities. Challenge the future 32 2. Synergetic Inter-Representation Networks Many cognitive processes, evolve as an interaction between internal and external representations. Challenge the future 33 (S)IRN: the interaction between internal and external representations REPRESENTATION INTERNAL Brain Vocal Visual Bodily ...Haptic Information Processing Approach EXTERNAL Mimetic ...Lexical Artificial Tools ...Cities B-B Inter-Representation-Network (IRN) Challenge the future 34 The general SIRN model INTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS information in the brain information reproduced/ constructed in the brain INPUT OUTPUT information in the world: behavior & action in the bodily, artifactual world: bodily, artifactual EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS (Haken and Portugali 1996) Challenge the future 35 Intrapersonal SIRN submodel Bull - Picasso The Kiss - Brancusi Challenge the future 36 Interpersonal SIRN submodel Bartlett scenario Bartlett, F. C. 1932/1961. Remembering : a study in experimental and social psychology, Cambridge, The University press. Challenge the future 37 Intragroup SIRN submodel City Game by Portugali Challenge the future 38 Intergroup SIRN submodel http://www.playthecity.nl/ Challenge the future 39 The world on paper World on Paper World out there O dR ≈1:10.000 Scale A’ A oR Scale D Stolk, E.H. Part 1 - PhD Thesis [Unpublished] Challenge the future 40 Collective SIRN model Intrapersonal sub-model ‘on paper’ Intrapersonal sub-model ‘in the real world’ Interpersonal sub-model ‘on paper’ Interpersonal sub-model ‘in the real world’ Intragroup sub-model ‘on paper’ Intragroep sub-model ‘in the real world’ Intergroup sub-model ‘on paper’ Intergroep sub-model ‘in the real world’ Stolk, E.H. Part 1 - PhD Thesis [Unpublished] Challenge the future 41 N.a.v. de presentaties: ‘collectief’? Er zijn verschillende soorten groepen te benoemen die grofweg ingedeeld kunnen worden naar omvang en bestaansduur. 1. Primaire groepen zijn relatief kleine, lange termijn groepen met een hoge mate van sociale cohesie, solidariteit, en zijn vrij gesloten van aard. 2. Sociale groepen zijn kleine groepen van een beperkte duur die worden gekenmerkt door een gemiddeld niveau van interacte tussen de leden gedurende een langere tijd, waarbij veelal een gedeeld doel wordt nagestreefd. 3. Collectieven zijn verzamelingen van individuen die spontaan tot stand komen, deze zijn veelal van korte duur zijn zeer open voor inmenging van buitenaf. 4. Een vierde type groep zijn categorieën van verzamelingen van individuen die op een of andere manier aan elkaar gelijk zijn, zoals in geslacht, etniciteit, religie of nationaliteit. Challenge the future 42 Complexity, Cognition and Urban Design #2 A CLT view on Planning and Design Egbert Stolk, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, [email protected] 27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Challenge the future 43 Talk #2 The goal of this first talk is to relate planning and design to this SIRN framework. 3. Construal Level Theory (CLT) & dimensions of the psychological distance 4. Design and planning as moving on and between dimensions Challenge the future 44 Question: how do people produce artifacts? Answer 1: By means of their representation capabilities (SIRN) and, Answer 2: By means of their planning and design capabilities, using high and low level construals (CLT) Challenge the future 45 4. Construal Level Theory & dimensions of the psychological distance Challenge the future 46 Abstraction in drawing concrete bull abstract bull ? ? ? a bull? a goat? ? a gnou? a deer? Challenge the future 47 Scale and abstraction abstract concrete small scale large scale Challenge the future 48 Question: is there a relation between level of scale and level of abstraction? D D D D A A A dR dR Scale A D dR dR dR Scale B A Scale C Scale D Scale E D = designer; A = designed artifact; dR = representation of the designed artiffact More concrete ? More abstract Challenge the future 49 Answer: according to Construal Level Theory (CLT), yes! “People experience themselves in the here and now, but consider, evaluate and plan situations that are in many respects far away. These situations require a mental construct to bridge this distance.” Trope and Liberman 2010 Construal Level Theory describes the relation between the psychological distance and the extent to which people’s thinking is abstract or concrete. concrete concrete a bit abstract abstract concrete very abstract Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. 2010. Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. Challenge the future 50 Example: metaphorical use of physical entities Challenge the future 51 Dimensions of the psychological distance concrete abstract time now past future space here there social close distant hypotheticality familiarity analogy low high known new close Low-level Construal concrete unstructured incoherent distant High-level Construal abstract structured coherent contextualized decontextualized analytical tasks creative tasks Challenge the future 52 we they they we Relation between spatial and social distance Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. 2010. Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. Challenge the future 53 A. Moving between past, present and future perspectival location mental leap Chronesthesia, or mental time travel (MTT): the brain’s ability to think about the past, present, and future: internal position position as well as “…. certain regions in the left lateral parietal cortex, left frontal cortex, external and cerebellum, future future now now the thalamus, were activated differently when the subjects thought about the past and future past past compared with the present. Notably, brain activity was very similar for thinking about all of the non-present times (the imagined past, real past, anddistance imagined future).” (Nyberg et al 2010) perspectival proximal now future past medial now distal future past future past now direction of viewing retrospective past now fMRI Chronesthesia prospective now future Back to the future past now now future P. Piolino - Prospective memory Based on:of Stocker, K. 2012. in OurofMind. Cognitive Science,ofpp.1-36. Nyberg, L., Kim, A. S., Habib, R., Levine, B. & Tulving, E. 2010. Consciousness subjective time inThe theTime brain.Machine Proceedings the National Academy Sciences Challenge the future 54 A. Moving between past, present and future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_in_Product_Design Challenge the future 55 B. Moving from small-scale to large-scale • Scale (A)-(B-C-D-E): Manipulability • Scale (B-C-D)-(A-E): Locomotion required • Scale (A-B-C)-(D-E): Complete information • Scale (A-B-C-D)-(E): Experienced Challenge the future 56 C. Moving between individual and collective Socially close Intrapersonal sub-model ‘on paper’ Intrapersonal sub-model ‘in the real world’ Interpersonal sub-model ‘on paper’ Interpersonal sub-model ‘in the real world’ D D D D A A A Intragroup sub-model ‘on paper’ Intragroep sub-model ‘in the real world’ oR oR Scale A D Scale B SC A oR oR Scale C oR Scale D Scale E D = designer; A = designed artefact; oR = representation of the designed artefact Intergroup sub-model ‘on paper’ Intergroep sub-model ‘in the real world’ Specific users or user groups Humans in general Socially distant Challenge the future 57 D. Moving between realistic and hypothetical Planners~designers’ tasks might be: • ‘low-hypothetical’, like implementation plans; • ‘medium-hypothetical’, like a short term vision; • ‘highly-hypothetical’, like a long term vision. Salustri, F. A. & Eng, N. L. 2007. Design as…: Thinking about what Design might be. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 1, 19-28. Challenge the future 58 E. Moving between familiar and unfamiliar Defamiliarization or ostranenie (остранение) is the artistic technique of forcing the audience to see common things in an unfamiliar or strange way, in order to enhance perception of the familiar. Tilt-shift photography Pablo Picasso (1942) Challenge the future 59 E. The Market Gardener Giuseppe Arcimboldo, The Market Gardener, 1590, Civic Museum, Cremona Challenge the future 60 E. Defamiliarisation in architecture and urban design Challenge the future 61 F. Moving between close and distant analogies between domain global analogy Source Target between/within domain regional analogy Source Source within domain local analogy Target Target source = target Dunbar, K. 1995. How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.) The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Holyoak, K. J. & Thagard, P. 1995. Mental leaps : analogy in creative thought, Cambridge, Mass. ; London, MIT Press. Challenge the future 62 F. Using a close analogy Challenge the future 63 F. Using a distant analogy From an abstract idea (using a mental leap) - to a concept for a ‘birthplace’ - to a primary generator for the overall structure of this part of Almere Hout - reflected in a building proposal. Challenge the future 64 Question: how do people produce artifacts? Answer 1: By means of their representation capabilities (SIRN) and, Answer 2: By means of their planning and design capabilities, using high and low level construals (CLT) Challenge the future 65 5. Design and planning as moving on and between dimensions Challenge the future 66 Mental Time Travel view on (cognitive) planning and designing While planning often evolves from the concrete here-and-now and becomes abstract as it “time travels” to the future, designing often starts as an abstract future and evolves/”travels” back in time to the concrete here-andnow. Planning Designing starts concrete, with gathering data starts abstract anticipates on events tries to cause events less uncertainties more uncertainties less hypothetical more hypothetical Salustri, F. A. & Eng, N. L. 2007. Design as…: Thinking about what Design might be. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 1, 19-28. Challenge the future 67 Moving on all dimensions mental leap narrowing designing contextual cognitive concreet lo-sys focus abstract glo-sys now past future space here there social close hypotheticality familiarity analogy low known Creativity time high new distant close LLC analytic distant broadeing contextual cognitive planning HLC synthetic focus Förster, J. (2012) GLOMOsys: The How and Why of Global and Local Processing; Current Directions in Psychological Science 21(1) 15-19 Gabora, L. 2010. Revenge of the “Neurds”: Characterizing Creative Thought in Terms of the Structure and Dynamics of Memory. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 1-13. Challenge the future 68 Concrete happiness and abstract happiness? • Discuss and write down the differences between planning and design Low level construal High level construal #1 … … #2 … … #3 … … #n … … Challenge the future 69 Backward designing Ontwerp voor Katenbroek (Amersfoort) door Kuiper Compagnons Challenge the future 70 Piecemeal designing & strategic planning mental leap mental leap A concrete (backward) designing A abstract concrete B C D E n piecemeal designing abstract mental leap A B C D E n A concrete (forward) planning abstract concrete strategic planning abstract Challenge the future 71 Piecemeal designing Tan, E. & Portugali, J. 2012. The responsive city design game. In: Portugali, J., Tan, E., Meyer, V. J. & Stolk, E. H. (eds.) Complexity Theories of Cities have come of Age. Heidelberg: Springer. Challenge the future 72 Let’s play! #2 Complexity, Cognition and Urban Design in collaboration with Juval Portugali Egbert Stolk, Department of Urbanism, Delft University of Technology, [email protected] 27-02-2015 InnovationLAB Challenge the future 73 The city game: the area of the future city • The paper represents the possible area of the future city; • There are two existing elements: 1.The sea on the south-side 2.Train-station in the centre, and the rail from the North. Land N Sea Challenge the future 74 The city game: building blocks • Blocks represent buildings; • You’re free to place the blocks; • Everyone gets 7 buildings; • We play 7 rounds; • Each round takes maximum 1 minute. Challenge the future 75 The city game: rules • RULE 1: the minimum distance between buildings is 1 cm; • RULE 2: buildings cannot be placed in the sea, on the trainstation or train-track. • RULE 3: all places are accessible by (imaginary) roads. • RULE 4: formulate a collective vision, and collaborate and talk during construction. Challenge the future 76 Two types of design • Top-down design: order is imposed, typical for small-scale individual design • Self-organised design: order emerges out of the interaction of local (bottom-up) forces, typical for large-scale collective design. Challenge the future 77