Platform Manifesto (v. 0.1)
An (incomplete) Platform Manifesto
Applications of new media hold the potential to connect what is going on in the Target Studio to the bridge deck plaza, encouraging engagement. Innovative use of new media is desired in design submissions for this competition. Here is an opportunity to combine the physical with the virtual to demonstrate new design solutions. Design of this space has the potential to influence the design of public spaces across the campus.
I already love this space that has been sketched. A few simple/complex moves have the potential to completely transform both the feeling and the function of the plaza. In one sense it is enough. At the same time I don’t think that as a group we have quite yet found “a model for the next generation of campus public spaces.”
What follows is a sketchy response to this sketchup model that tries to clarify, at least for me, what a “plug in” platform might be/mean for the plaza.
I don’t know what Chris is going to propose, and I’m not specifically proposing any of the examples that follow. But I agree with what I take to be Peter’s point: we need to go all out in whatever direction(s) we settle on. So I’m probably also overstating the case as well.
What is a (next generation) platform?
Platform is probably an overused term. Simpler just to say “building” or “landscape,” which from my unprofessional understanding I take to be ur forms of the platform – venues with a great deal of specificity that allow for a great deal of flexibility. But perhaps the now tiresome phrase “social platform” (or social media) does nevertheless add or emphasize an important aspect of a next generation platform: it’s as much user generated as it is “architected.”
What does it mean for a physical space to be user generated? Chris, I think, was focusing on this when he provided his mini-tutorial on data generation and crowd sourcing on the blog. User generated is a bit like emergence. Small bits can add up to stunningly complex yet beautiful results.
I’d like to add another idea for a next gen platform alongside user generated: distributed collaboration. How can different audiences become stakeholders in the success of the plaza and how can different stakeholders at the University care about it as well? I think the plaza can and should be a platform for the direct collaborative participation of different groups on campus from the “neighbors” WAM and SST to more far flung organizational entities on campus such as Northrop Performances and the dataviz lab.
A good platform is flexible and dynamic. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it is kinetic, but it has different uses/needs/possibilities at day/night, winter/summer, school/vacation, formal/informal, etc. Very likely, this leads to certain modular or “plug in” aspects of the platform.
Especially in a university setting, I would like to think, a good platform can encourage openness and an ethic of the commons.
Finally, there is a strictly artificial but desirable parameter that the platform/plaza be artist inclusive – not artwork, necessarily, but artist (if that’s a difference that makes a difference).
· Distributed collaboration
· An ethic of the commons
How can these be applied to the “DNA” of the plaza, not just as surface decoration or lonely conceptual silos, so to speak?
· The bridge is based on a stent. It seems like a perfect opportunity to engage the collaboration of the biomechanical engineering department at the U. Strictly, we may not need their input, but I bet we’d find out some interesting stuff if we met with them and talked about our idea.
· I’d also be interested to know what kind of data the cardiovascular or other research areas have. Is there a way to include their data in some aspect of the plaza platform?
· Also the biking community. Let’s invite them to comment on the plan – not just in the normal bureaucratic way that such “permissions” are sometimes required but in a spirit of collaboration.
· In terms of the bikers, we’ve paid a lot of attention to getting them safely and relatively speedily across the plaza, but what if they want to stay? What then? Can part of the bridge portal be used as hanging racks for bikes? Maybe maybe not but we need to figure out something for them.
· In terms of the art/display of/on the bridge, in one way it seems to be crying out for fiber optic cables on all the trussing that can light up in various ways according to the various data being captured. But this probably adds a lot of expense, mostly works at night, and has the potential for being very kitschy. What I imagine happening with the “flow” of traffic on the bridge is sonification. Just its structure almost looks like an Aeolian harp, like this really beautiful example by Ken Gregory in the Richard Meier designed San Jose City Hall Rotunda (http://www.cheapmeat.net/windcoilsoundflow.html).
Maybe there is a way to incorporate the sound of the flow of blood from the research units as an additional (distributed) background noise of the University. There are lots of other sound possibilities as suggested on the blog here: http://wamplazadesign.tumblr.com/post/7091114628/tuning-surfaces and here: http://wamplazadesign.tumblr.com/post/7106335695/acoustic-mirror-and-whisper-dishes-sonic-action#disqus_thread. If we did decide to do some sonnification, MAYBE it’s Chris, but maybe it’s a different artist. Or even a call. I don’t think a platform needs to have a single artistic voice to be successful. Think Millennium Park.
· What other data is being collected by/about/from the bikes and how can it be displayed. Maybe on the campanile and not on the bridge itself?
· In the spirit of openness, can we allow all the bikers to capture their own data, either to use or as a kind of visual memory of a day or week or month or semester or year of trips across the bridge, like Esther Pollak’s Real Time Amsterdam, only over time (http://realtime.waag.org/) and as a screen saver or Nike+ like app?
