“Life is not necessarily how matter acts within itself but also how it interconnects/interacts with interconnected system and how they perceive their surroundings.” —Uexkull
This ‘interconnectibility’ that Uexkull speaks about is apparent and absolutely necessary in todays world. Dating back to the creation of our worlds, feedback loops, connections and associations between species have allowed the growth and advancements to create our current environments. Whether it be a local connection between the same species, similar to an ant colony, or a more global network in which different ideas and technologies are transferred, these interactions allow for the innovation and modernization to become apparent.
Interactions may be perceived on a variety of levels. Beginning within the structural makeup of the human body, interactions are relevant for the creation as well as the ability to sustain life. For instance, our heart, which is part of our circulatory system, does not beat unless our brain, which is part of our nervous system, tells it to. Our skeletal system is dependent on our digestive system for increase in size and strength. Our muscular system needs our respiratory and circulatory systems to supply energy in the form of oxygen and nutrients.
With the connectivity of all of these systems working simultaneously, human growth and development is able to occur.
Moving to a slightly larger scale, a car works in a similar way. Without power, the car will not turn on and obviously not run properly. It takes all of the gauges to co-mingle and signal to the machine that everything is working correctly to start the engine.
But could this happen at the city scale? What if buildings could actually sense each others presence and relate to its user? Architecture is actually transforms into a body that breaths, replicates and supports us with everything the inside of out body gives us. With the relationship of its user, the building could create the ideal atmosphere. But what is the ideal? Some people may argue that a building currently does this. It provides shelter, it allows us to interact with it, it allows change to pertain to what we like and what we want. Yet, to only to a certain extent does this happen. This can only happen with the inputs of ourselves and what we add or give to the structure to allow it to perform a certain way. And, no I am not necessarily interesting in ‘smart skins’ that react to the user and sustainable buildings that reduce their impact on its environment (or increase) where the building can perform by itself. But more interested in a structure that is knowledgeable and knows where one is located and adapts to humans through the use of its own senses. Can a city “talk” to one another to create the ideal?
Going back to my interest of the 5 human senses, could architecture in fact take over this notion and interact with its user in a sense where it is self-replicating, self-repairing, self-altering, self-absorbing, and self-adapting?
When sick, body temperatures rise because of the infections. One purpose of a fever is thought to be to raise the body’s temperature enough to kill off certain bacteria and viruses sensitive to extreme temperature changes. Everyone thinks a fever is bad however it is this that is killing off the diseases in ones body. This give rise the thought of how cities can benefit from devastation. Not necessarily preparing one to take on a disaster but what it means to take advantage of all of the bad things that come out of it. In a city of ruin, can destroyed architecture sense its surroundings and similar to a human body reform itself and become working again?
Then there is the whole idea of public and private (at a broad scale) that I am interested in as well. To what extend is a city considered public and when is it private? How do such devastating events transfer from public to private and vice versa. The talk about transferring diseases could begin in a private body however once you touch a door it could become public until another soul comes by and touches that same spot, transfers the disease and it becomes private again in a different persons body which may help or hurt them. Can one sense when a public entity is apparent that may be harmful to them? Can an architecture sense the same thing which then relates to its user and gives a heads up telling the inhabitant what is helpful or harmful? To what extend can architecture be created in that it gives back to its user rather than something that is given and just used by its inhabitant?
The following diagrams are a quick study about the extent of what public and private is a different scales:
Note: (Most public begins at center with more private spaces surrounding)
Public in the body:
Public in environment:
Public in United States:
Public in the world:
Public in the universe:
By doing this exercise, what delineates the public vs private is dependent upon the size of such categories it seems. However, could architecture challenge this idea and switch the roles of such entities? By knowing what delineates public and private spaces, can the architectures’ senses interact with its user and create an ideal scene for all of its inhabitants? The ‘interconnectivity’ between species definition may change, not only pertaining to the human and human interaction within such architecture but the human and architecture connection where its architecture not only becomes its habitat but becomes a living species.