With the birth of augmented reality, new environments in architecture are also created. It seems to be a topic that hasn't been discussed too much in architectural circles... This video hints at some possibilities.
I'd be interested in getting a discussion going to see what other people think about the dialogue between AR and the built environment.
It's practical in areas where you need marketing and informational devices-- museums, storefronts, tradeshows and possibly airports.
Otherwise, it is pretty useless. Assuming at the minimum real world objects would require at least a bluetooth (or wireless) chip and GPS chip to be able to interface with AR in any meaningful capacity.
Given Bluetooth runs at about 8 dollars a chip, GPS about 20 dollars a chip and a standard processor at about 30 dollars a chip-- ignoring wiring, memory or power-- it seems already prohibitive.
You know, given the fact that most people in the US won't whip it out the extra 5-15 dollars for a toaster made by a factory worker in the first world.
I'm not entirely sure I would want to add 58 dollars to a toaster (and make it a constantly power drain) to augment reality with it.
what i am hoping to see is AR and RFID's being used in materials and systems, so that i could, in the future, walk in to an existing building and know right away what the wall system is comprised of, who made the curtain wall and what model it is and then bring me to mftrs websites, etc...beyond that i am not sure...
I don't think it's smart to dismiss it right away as impractical simply because current technology makes it seem cost prohibitive. Computers with less processing power than modern cell phones used to take up entire rooms. I do think it will be interesting to see how some of these ideas develop over time. There have been some interesting videos speculating on the future of AR, whether or not the future that they present seems desirable. I saw this one a few months ago on BLDGBLOG. Manaugh suggested that AR drop down menus may be the "Gothic ornamentation of tomorrow.
I don't know how to embed video here so here's a link: vimeo
I saw another video of a building in Tokyo that has incorporated some AR functionality into the facade through an IPhone app. Apparently it lets you see the tweets of the people who are inhabiting the building through your IPhone along with allowing the camera to recognize the building's existence. Not very practical but does present some interesting ideas, for instance companies putting tagging their products so that someone with the right smartphone app could walk in and point their phone around to see who manufactures a specific product, and bring up a link to their web site.
"In the longer term, AR could lead to the effective “merger” between the internet and the world around us. Objects and buildings wouldn’t just be what they are – they would be the portals to a wider world of data. “The way I like to look at it is to see architecture, physicality, as being the backbone of information,” says Robert Miles Kemp, an architectural theorist and author who is an advocate of heavily networked and even robotic environments. “So without the physical object you can’t ground the information. That’s why AR is really important to architecture – it’s an added layer onto the physicality of space.”...
"But at the moment, architects are barely involved in developing this interactive environment – something that troubles Haque, who fears the profession will be sidelined. “The production of so much of what we call architecture is done by people other than architects,” he says. “The experience of space is more and more guided by technologists.”
It’s possible, as these technologies develop, that the effect on “un-augmented” reality could be harmful. As more signage and advertising is geared towards triggering AR content, for instance by including QR codes, the city might look increasingly baffling to un-augmented eyes. “Even now in Japan, often a third of a billboard advertising a new TV show will be a huge blocky QR code – one third of that poster has become unreadable to human beings,” says Matt Jones, director of design at creative design consultancy Schulze & Webb. “We might see less and less information in the world that’s human-readable, as more of it becomes machine-readable.” "
GBB, a lot of what you're saying/quoting hints at some of the more essential aspects of the discussion.
..It's obvious that AR is extremely primitive at this point and people are less excited by what it's doing now than what it can become. At the moment, it's easy to be skeptical since current examples/uses for AR in architecture are pretty useless and purely based on visualization/representation... as seen here.
The reason why AR and architecture are so important to each other is precisely what you say : "AR could lead to the effective 'merger' between the internet and the world around us"... it becomes Spatial. So far however AR has been sold as objects/data rather than immersive environments.
The Augmented (hyper)Reality video by keiichi matsuda is a good example that breaks this trend in a way, but still falls short since it only engages/designs the digital side of it. the physical side (the kitchen) is just a found space. Ultimately, i think the physical and digital will be empowered the most if they are able to be designed together from the start... once a building is physically built, the AR side of it (walls, information, materiality, procession) can keep updating to allow for new experiences and adjust based on user input.
"AR could lead to the effective 'merger' between the internet and the world around us."
No it can't. The world around us is irreducible. It doesn't need electricity, money or a server to sustain itself. The sky will not go dark if the cord is kicked out.
A few of these comments sound like some of the lofty aspirations modern architecture had for humanity in its early years. All homes coming as concrete cubes and kits of parts or machines running the world so the rest of us can devote ourselves to higher order activities.
Looking back we can see how these things may have seemed plausible at the time but now seem foolish. And even worse, these goals would rob us of our humanity and appreciation for the ephemeral and experiential qualities of human existence.
I wholeheartedly agree with iheartbooks. It's far too easy for augmented reality to become diminished reality. I'd suggest that we are removed and distracted enough as it stands today. How does AR really lead to happiness or betterment of oneself? (besides the obvious information overload)
Still, I doubt that it's going away. Within arms reach I've got three devices that connect me to the internet: my laptop, my phone and my IPod. Is that making me happier? Probably not. Is it leading to the betterment of myself? More likely the opposite. I'm not super excited about the prospect of pop-up ads while I'm making dinner or that of covering building facades and billboards with qr code. (for that matter, I'm not to thrilled about billboards in general), but I suspect that we might be headed in that direction.
"The sky will not go dark if the cord is kicked out"
I think you underestimate how far technology, and the internet itself, has permeated our society. Look at how quickly that happened. I'm a young guy and I still remember a world without the internet, cell phones, or mp3 players. And it's not likely to stop, in fact the internet doubles in size every 5.32 years. So, as distasteful as it may seem, these are the kinds of things we may have to be thinking about in the near future, that is, if they don't replace us with robots.
The only "desirable" outcome that I can think of is the ability to visualize a building, full-scale, on the actual site. Imagine if you could go to a site, put on your stylish architect glasses, which also happen to contain a networked computer system and the latest Google-Autodesk design software, and you start to design your project, right there. That seemed to be more like what the original video was alluding to.
But I do agree that we have enough technological distractions as it is. As much potential as technology has to actually lead to the betterment of society, it will often revert to the lowest common denominator. If you think of Twitter, for ever Iranian protester who used Twitter to get the word out after the "elections," there are endless amounts of people making inane comments with the intention, i believe, of causing your brain to explode.
I doubt the internet is going away also, and I'm sure this technology will lead to great breakthroughs in the future, but thats not my point.
It is this idea: "AR could lead to the effective 'merger' between the internet and the world around us" to be incorrect" that bothered me.
Such a scary and dehumanizing thought.
The internet may seem important to you and I, but that has more to do with a lifestyle thing, less to do with it's inherent necessity.
Life on earth does not need the internet to exist. it is nice, but not a necessity. The technology you are describing needs electricity, funding, hardware and software to function.
In my opinion, it is this distinction that proves that statement wrong. the two really can't merger, they can blur, but can never become one in the same.
Obviously we don't NEED technology (I can quit any time I want), and life would go on if all of a sudden all electricity just stopped running. But could you imagine the riots that would ensue if all the banks' computers went down and all your money was all of a sudden gone? If all of a sudden the stock market didn't just crash but stopped existing? If you couldn't go to the store and buy food because you came to rely on your debit/credit card and stopped carrying cash? Half of America's food supply gone because we can't run refrigerators or freezers? Sure the survivors would adapt, but it would be a disaster on par with any natural disaster I can think of.
Anyway, it might have been too much to say "merger," but I don't think it is. Can't really say because I can't see the future, and honestly I don't know enough about this to make an accurate prediction, but I do think that at some point we will see buildings where some of the "architecture" doesn't even physically exist. Buildings that are half physical half virtual. Look at Times Square. The "experiential" architecture of Times Square is the digital billboards, a constantly changing (if only superficially) urban environment.
If you think it will dehumanize us I think you underestimate our own humanity. We are not our environment. Maybe it's just a semantics issue. Whether something intangible even can be "merged" with the physical world. I think we agree that it would be better to keep them separate. I like living in the city, but the best times of my life are when I go visit my grandparents, who live on the side of a mountain in Webster Springs, West Virginia, surrounded by forest, with no internet, no tv.
i don't really know what you are arguing for at this point.
is it for technology in general, or is it for the type of technology that attempts to augment human experience?
Because i agree that to function properly, society (obviously) needs certain pieces of technology and infrastructure, but this specific type of technology that allows us to simulate human experience attempting to merge technology and the physical world seems to be more of a luxury the it is a benefit to mankind.
if your point is "maybe something cool will come out if this" then yes, you are right.
But if you are arguing that "this is the future of how people will interact with their surrounding, it will benefit us greatly" then you and i will have to agree to disagree.
in any case... i think that describing it as a 'blurring' rather than a 'merging' is much more accurate and i entirely sympathize with the fact that AR probably won't make us happier... It's almost definitely unneeded stimuli.
However, almost everyone researching this stuff comes from the technology side of it and as it moves forward its going to engage the space around us more and more. If the people who design it are non-architects, then they will only be able to create the digital side (which becomes applique over physical reality)...
As architects, we actually do build real things and have the potential to mediate that relationship in a way that is functional/useful rather than entirely excessive (or just "cool"). I think that there can be a dialogue between the two which is beneficial, ambient and genuinely architectural...
The original video shows some of this, but real-time examples shown here might help in the discussion as well. They're very basic, but ideas from 0:20 to 1:00, begin to illustrate AR and architecture (digital/physical) in simple spatial conversation. http://www.vimeo.com/12025678
This can affect procession, enclosure, interior/exterior relationships and most interestingly allow for a multiplicity of experience in the same physical space.
who design it are non-architects, then they will only be able to create the digital side (which becomes applique over physical reality)...
People who aren't architects can design architecture.
Maybe not safely. Maybe not efficiently.
But that's was designing is-- the process of prototyping concepts and ideas into reality, a visual synthesis of data.
After designing, it's generally up to engineering to make designs real.
An architect is both a designer and an engineer.
To say a potter, a java developer or a housewife can't design a building is a fallacy of the worst kind.
"People who aren't architects can design architecture.
Maybe not safely. Maybe not efficiently."
..maybe not consciously
..and I feel like this subliminal design methodology might be what's driving a push for AR? there might not be much we can do to fight this guys(if we wanted to). perhaps we will be the 'engineers' of this existence.. or at least engineers to the whims of potters, java developers or housewifes..
apologies unicorn... i wasn't intentionally pushing that as the main concern, but your point is well taken.
i didn't mean that they couldn't design it at all... just wanted to indicate that it would be harder for it to become real and that the designers might not be invested in the same ideas an architect would (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
Our profession has very little to offer the development of this type of technology that it can’t get elsewhere. It is not our fight, or our place to step in. It is a different animal then what we are working with.
In my opinion, this type of augmented reality is not architecture, and can never be.
Architecture is inherently connected to the world of lived experiences, materiality and the art of construction. We as architects are assigned the difficult task of navigating these real challenges: gravity, costs, social responsibilities, climatic differences, and construction techniques.
AR, at its best, seems to be about disseminating information. At its worst its seems like it boarders on the development of parallel universe where the restraints of reality are lifted (even if only superficially.)
The only responsibility architects have in this situation is to make sure that when these wealthy, aloof individuals exit their artificial world of morphing building and insulation-less walls that they have well crafted homes and functioning cities to return to. We also have a responsibility to those who can’t afford to play in these worlds, to make the physical world more enjoyable.
Like I said before “if your point is "maybe something cool will come out if this" then yes, you are right. But if you are arguing that "this is the future of how people will interact with their surrounding and it will benefit us greatly" then you and i will have to agree to disagree. “
Augmented reality has its own set of opportunities for architecture and design, though compared to VR it is still emerging as a platform for applications in our field.
Apr 20, 20 3:07 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Augmented Reality and Architecture
With the birth of augmented reality, new environments in architecture are also created. It seems to be a topic that hasn't been discussed too much in architectural circles... This video hints at some possibilities.
I'd be interested in getting a discussion going to see what other people think about the dialogue between AR and the built environment.
P-p-p-p-ppppppower drain.
It's practical in areas where you need marketing and informational devices-- museums, storefronts, tradeshows and possibly airports.
Otherwise, it is pretty useless. Assuming at the minimum real world objects would require at least a bluetooth (or wireless) chip and GPS chip to be able to interface with AR in any meaningful capacity.
Given Bluetooth runs at about 8 dollars a chip, GPS about 20 dollars a chip and a standard processor at about 30 dollars a chip-- ignoring wiring, memory or power-- it seems already prohibitive.
You know, given the fact that most people in the US won't whip it out the extra 5-15 dollars for a toaster made by a factory worker in the first world.
I'm not entirely sure I would want to add 58 dollars to a toaster (and make it a constantly power drain) to augment reality with it.
what i am hoping to see is AR and RFID's being used in materials and systems, so that i could, in the future, walk in to an existing building and know right away what the wall system is comprised of, who made the curtain wall and what model it is and then bring me to mftrs websites, etc...beyond that i am not sure...
I don't think it's smart to dismiss it right away as impractical simply because current technology makes it seem cost prohibitive. Computers with less processing power than modern cell phones used to take up entire rooms. I do think it will be interesting to see how some of these ideas develop over time. There have been some interesting videos speculating on the future of AR, whether or not the future that they present seems desirable. I saw this one a few months ago on BLDGBLOG. Manaugh suggested that AR drop down menus may be the "Gothic ornamentation of tomorrow.
I don't know how to embed video here so here's a link:
vimeo
I saw another video of a building in Tokyo that has incorporated some AR functionality into the facade through an IPhone app. Apparently it lets you see the tweets of the people who are inhabiting the building through your IPhone along with allowing the camera to recognize the building's existence. Not very practical but does present some interesting ideas, for instance companies putting tagging their products so that someone with the right smartphone app could walk in and point their phone around to see who manufactures a specific product, and bring up a link to their web site.
vimeo2
See also:
Article on AR in Icon Magazine
"In the longer term, AR could lead to the effective “merger” between the internet and the world around us. Objects and buildings wouldn’t just be what they are – they would be the portals to a wider world of data. “The way I like to look at it is to see architecture, physicality, as being the backbone of information,” says Robert Miles Kemp, an architectural theorist and author who is an advocate of heavily networked and even robotic environments. “So without the physical object you can’t ground the information. That’s why AR is really important to architecture – it’s an added layer onto the physicality of space.”...
"But at the moment, architects are barely involved in developing this interactive environment – something that troubles Haque, who fears the profession will be sidelined. “The production of so much of what we call architecture is done by people other than architects,” he says. “The experience of space is more and more guided by technologists.”
It’s possible, as these technologies develop, that the effect on “un-augmented” reality could be harmful. As more signage and advertising is geared towards triggering AR content, for instance by including QR codes, the city might look increasingly baffling to un-augmented eyes. “Even now in Japan, often a third of a billboard advertising a new TV show will be a huge blocky QR code – one third of that poster has become unreadable to human beings,” says Matt Jones, director of design at creative design consultancy Schulze & Webb. “We might see less and less information in the world that’s human-readable, as more of it becomes machine-readable.” "
GBB, a lot of what you're saying/quoting hints at some of the more essential aspects of the discussion.
..It's obvious that AR is extremely primitive at this point and people are less excited by what it's doing now than what it can become. At the moment, it's easy to be skeptical since current examples/uses for AR in architecture are pretty useless and purely based on visualization/representation... as seen here.
The reason why AR and architecture are so important to each other is precisely what you say : "AR could lead to the effective 'merger' between the internet and the world around us"... it becomes Spatial. So far however AR has been sold as objects/data rather than immersive environments.
The Augmented (hyper)Reality video by keiichi matsuda is a good example that breaks this trend in a way, but still falls short since it only engages/designs the digital side of it. the physical side (the kitchen) is just a found space. Ultimately, i think the physical and digital will be empowered the most if they are able to be designed together from the start... once a building is physically built, the AR side of it (walls, information, materiality, procession) can keep updating to allow for new experiences and adjust based on user input.
"AR could lead to the effective 'merger' between the internet and the world around us."
No it can't. The world around us is irreducible. It doesn't need electricity, money or a server to sustain itself. The sky will not go dark if the cord is kicked out.
A few of these comments sound like some of the lofty aspirations modern architecture had for humanity in its early years. All homes coming as concrete cubes and kits of parts or machines running the world so the rest of us can devote ourselves to higher order activities.
Looking back we can see how these things may have seemed plausible at the time but now seem foolish. And even worse, these goals would rob us of our humanity and appreciation for the ephemeral and experiential qualities of human existence.
but other then that it looks sick bro.
I wholeheartedly agree with iheartbooks. It's far too easy for augmented reality to become diminished reality. I'd suggest that we are removed and distracted enough as it stands today. How does AR really lead to happiness or betterment of oneself? (besides the obvious information overload)
Still, I doubt that it's going away. Within arms reach I've got three devices that connect me to the internet: my laptop, my phone and my IPod. Is that making me happier? Probably not. Is it leading to the betterment of myself? More likely the opposite. I'm not super excited about the prospect of pop-up ads while I'm making dinner or that of covering building facades and billboards with qr code. (for that matter, I'm not to thrilled about billboards in general), but I suspect that we might be headed in that direction.
"The sky will not go dark if the cord is kicked out"
I think you underestimate how far technology, and the internet itself, has permeated our society. Look at how quickly that happened. I'm a young guy and I still remember a world without the internet, cell phones, or mp3 players. And it's not likely to stop, in fact the internet doubles in size every 5.32 years. So, as distasteful as it may seem, these are the kinds of things we may have to be thinking about in the near future, that is, if they don't replace us with robots.
The only "desirable" outcome that I can think of is the ability to visualize a building, full-scale, on the actual site. Imagine if you could go to a site, put on your stylish architect glasses, which also happen to contain a networked computer system and the latest Google-Autodesk design software, and you start to design your project, right there. That seemed to be more like what the original video was alluding to.
But I do agree that we have enough technological distractions as it is. As much potential as technology has to actually lead to the betterment of society, it will often revert to the lowest common denominator. If you think of Twitter, for ever Iranian protester who used Twitter to get the word out after the "elections," there are endless amounts of people making inane comments with the intention, i believe, of causing your brain to explode.
I doubt the internet is going away also, and I'm sure this technology will lead to great breakthroughs in the future, but thats not my point.
It is this idea: "AR could lead to the effective 'merger' between the internet and the world around us" to be incorrect" that bothered me.
Such a scary and dehumanizing thought.
The internet may seem important to you and I, but that has more to do with a lifestyle thing, less to do with it's inherent necessity.
Life on earth does not need the internet to exist. it is nice, but not a necessity. The technology you are describing needs electricity, funding, hardware and software to function.
In my opinion, it is this distinction that proves that statement wrong. the two really can't merger, they can blur, but can never become one in the same.
and thank god for that.
this thread needs some references to more people writing/working at the forefront of this !
Obviously we don't NEED technology (I can quit any time I want), and life would go on if all of a sudden all electricity just stopped running. But could you imagine the riots that would ensue if all the banks' computers went down and all your money was all of a sudden gone? If all of a sudden the stock market didn't just crash but stopped existing? If you couldn't go to the store and buy food because you came to rely on your debit/credit card and stopped carrying cash? Half of America's food supply gone because we can't run refrigerators or freezers? Sure the survivors would adapt, but it would be a disaster on par with any natural disaster I can think of.
Anyway, it might have been too much to say "merger," but I don't think it is. Can't really say because I can't see the future, and honestly I don't know enough about this to make an accurate prediction, but I do think that at some point we will see buildings where some of the "architecture" doesn't even physically exist. Buildings that are half physical half virtual. Look at Times Square. The "experiential" architecture of Times Square is the digital billboards, a constantly changing (if only superficially) urban environment.
If you think it will dehumanize us I think you underestimate our own humanity. We are not our environment. Maybe it's just a semantics issue. Whether something intangible even can be "merged" with the physical world. I think we agree that it would be better to keep them separate. I like living in the city, but the best times of my life are when I go visit my grandparents, who live on the side of a mountain in Webster Springs, West Virginia, surrounded by forest, with no internet, no tv.
GBB, with all due respect:
i don't really know what you are arguing for at this point.
is it for technology in general, or is it for the type of technology that attempts to augment human experience?
Because i agree that to function properly, society (obviously) needs certain pieces of technology and infrastructure, but this specific type of technology that allows us to simulate human experience attempting to merge technology and the physical world seems to be more of a luxury the it is a benefit to mankind.
if your point is "maybe something cool will come out if this" then yes, you are right.
But if you are arguing that "this is the future of how people will interact with their surrounding, it will benefit us greatly" then you and i will have to agree to disagree.
in any case... i think that describing it as a 'blurring' rather than a 'merging' is much more accurate and i entirely sympathize with the fact that AR probably won't make us happier... It's almost definitely unneeded stimuli.
However, almost everyone researching this stuff comes from the technology side of it and as it moves forward its going to engage the space around us more and more. If the people who design it are non-architects, then they will only be able to create the digital side (which becomes applique over physical reality)...
As architects, we actually do build real things and have the potential to mediate that relationship in a way that is functional/useful rather than entirely excessive (or just "cool"). I think that there can be a dialogue between the two which is beneficial, ambient and genuinely architectural...
The original video shows some of this, but real-time examples shown here might help in the discussion as well. They're very basic, but ideas from 0:20 to 1:00, begin to illustrate AR and architecture (digital/physical) in simple spatial conversation.
http://www.vimeo.com/12025678
This can affect procession, enclosure, interior/exterior relationships and most interestingly allow for a multiplicity of experience in the same physical space.
who design it are non-architects, then they will only be able to create the digital side (which becomes applique over physical reality)...
People who aren't architects can design architecture.
Maybe not safely. Maybe not efficiently.
But that's was designing is-- the process of prototyping concepts and ideas into reality, a visual synthesis of data.
After designing, it's generally up to engineering to make designs real.
An architect is both a designer and an engineer.
To say a potter, a java developer or a housewife can't design a building is a fallacy of the worst kind.
"People who aren't architects can design architecture.
Maybe not safely. Maybe not efficiently."
..maybe not consciously
..and I feel like this subliminal design methodology might be what's driving a push for AR? there might not be much we can do to fight this guys(if we wanted to). perhaps we will be the 'engineers' of this existence.. or at least engineers to the whims of potters, java developers or housewifes..
apologies unicorn... i wasn't intentionally pushing that as the main concern, but your point is well taken.
i didn't mean that they couldn't design it at all... just wanted to indicate that it would be harder for it to become real and that the designers might not be invested in the same ideas an architect would (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
We don't need to fight it.
Our profession has very little to offer the development of this type of technology that it can’t get elsewhere. It is not our fight, or our place to step in. It is a different animal then what we are working with.
In my opinion, this type of augmented reality is not architecture, and can never be.
Architecture is inherently connected to the world of lived experiences, materiality and the art of construction. We as architects are assigned the difficult task of navigating these real challenges: gravity, costs, social responsibilities, climatic differences, and construction techniques.
AR, at its best, seems to be about disseminating information. At its worst its seems like it boarders on the development of parallel universe where the restraints of reality are lifted (even if only superficially.)
The only responsibility architects have in this situation is to make sure that when these wealthy, aloof individuals exit their artificial world of morphing building and insulation-less walls that they have well crafted homes and functioning cities to return to. We also have a responsibility to those who can’t afford to play in these worlds, to make the physical world more enjoyable.
Like I said before “if your point is "maybe something cool will come out if this" then yes, you are right. But if you are arguing that "this is the future of how people will interact with their surrounding and it will benefit us greatly" then you and i will have to agree to disagree. “
Augmented reality has its own set of opportunities for architecture and design, though compared to VR it is still emerging as a platform for applications in our field.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.