[iDC] Cities, Speculation, and the Non-addressable

[Mark Shepard]

On Sep 28, 2006, at 10:47 AM, john sobol wrote:

> instead of drawing direct links between new technologies and wild  
> new architectural forms, we would do better to ask first: what new  
> everyday social behaviours are being generated by these  
> technologies? and then: what kinds of spaces do these new social  
> behaviours need?

I think this remains an important question, John. One we keep  
returning to. How these technologies afford/enable new forms of  
sociality within the everyday life of cities, and subsequently how  
they impact architecture and urbanism. I think it's also important to  
recognize that these technologies and their social uses emerge within  
a given spatial topography, and the role that topography plays in  
framing social behavior in the first place (in urban public space  
particularly).

In some cases, the social use of these technologies emerge as a way  
to _create_ a space that is not provided or otherwise hindered by the  
existing topography of the city. (See the thread in July that  
discussed mobile phones as personal territory machines). In this  
sense, it doesn't make much sense for architecture to accommodate  
them, for they've already accommodated themselves. What does this  
imply for architecture and its role in defining urban public space?

Mark