22 s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n

Joris Hoogeboom

public sphere 2.0

Today, our notion of Public Space is shifting

increasingly as an inevitable outcome of

technological and cultural developments.

Shaping how we perceive and interact with

this space and what we count towards Public

Space. Consequently also in!uencing the very

designers of this Public Space, or can it be said

that Public Space is a collective act, no longer

designed but put together by a variety of ever

so complex processes. Is it even a matter of

physicality, or has media perhaps taken on a

much bigger role. What constitutes this Public

Space and what position do architects have in

the forming of this?

One of the earliest and most famous depictions

of public and private space has been done

by Giambattista Nolli, an itialan architect but

foremost a surveyor. By far the most accurate

map made of Rome until the 1970’s, it shows the

relation between privately used spaces and pub-

lic spaces. Using !gure-ground representation

black represents built space and private space,

while white being unbuilt and public space.

However this also includes the pantheon and

publicly accesible buildings. This depiction of

space is based on the ownership of the physical

buildings, boundaries speci"c to material p

erception. In this case the interior public space

depicted is territory owned and controlled by

a government, who has allowed some form of

freedom within restrictive boundaries.

According to Foucault(Deleuze, 1986) we can classify

eighteenth and nineteenth century society as

disciplinary societies. A model for how society

in a spatio-temporal manner is organised into

closed environments with a very clear and

encapsulated laws. Consequently giving rise

to Societies of Control (Deleuze, 1990), which are not

based on physical boundaries and institutions as

such but rather an open "eld in which power is

regulated through control mechanisms. Marxist

theories aside, the importance of this shift is in

the way that public space and it’s role are de-

"ned as outlined very clearly in the introduction

of Cognitive Architecture (Hauptmann, 2010)

“Deleuze, in his essay ‘Postscript on Control

Societies,’ also argues that the dispositifs

of power and control that once operated

primarily on the body(read pace Fou-

cault) now operate on the mind through

technologies of communication. With

this we are no longer within the closed

spaces of control outlined by geographic

or political boundaries (sovereignties as

such) of individuals or populations; but

in the open spaces of public opinion, of

multiple affiliations and dispositions

dispersed across the globe.”

As indicated by Hauptmann, these spaces and

temporalities are also inhabited by architecture

and urbanism. Examples of which can be

explained as social sites being manifestations of

the Public Sphere (Habermas, 1989). Such sites included

but were not limited to co#ee houses and salons,

places where one could discuss political mat-

ters based on a couple of institutional criteria,

namely: disregard of status, domain of common

concern and inclusivity. The emergence of these

‘Deleuze also argues that the dispositifs of power and control

that once operated primarily on the body now operate on the

mind through technologies of communication.’

Nolli depicting private and public space using figure ground-representation.

23s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n

social spaces was supported by liberal democ-

racy, giving rise to apparent self-organisation.

“Public debate was supposed to transform

voluntas into a ratio that in the public

competition of private arguments came

into being as the consensus about what

was practically necessary in the interest

of all.”(Habermas, 1989)

However with the coming of mass-media, we

have witnessed the downfall of the Public Sphere

as outlined by Habermas. At the basis being a

consumerist drive, leading to less interest in

political matters and ultimately leading to media

becoming a tool for politics.

“Therewith emerged a new sort of in!u-

ence, i.e., media power, which, used for

purposes of manipulation, once and for all

took care of the innocence of the principle

of publicity. The Public Sphere, simultane-

ously prestructured and dominated by

the mass media, developed into an arena

in"ltrated by power in which, by means of

topic selection and topical contributions,

a battle is fought not only over in!uence

but over the control of communication

flows that affect behavior while their

strategic intentions are kept hidden as

much as possible”(Habermas, 1989)

In this we can see a shift in modalities of dis-

tribution of power, shifting from Foucauldian

environments to rationally critic social spaces,

to societies controlled by mass-media under

capitalism. Information now seems to be the

most prevalent object for control, which has

implications for Public Space. As outlined in

Venturi’s writings, Las Vegas’ Public Space o#ers

insight into how symbolism in architecture

represents information.

Most of the theorists of modern architecture

are speaking about space. It is space which lets

architecture clearly be distinct from painting,

sculpture and literature. But the architectural

language in Las Vegas does not talk about space,

it talks about symbols. Symbols which are used

to communicate over space, the space as an ar-

chitectural element becomes dominated by the

communication. This is prevalent in the arche-

typal symbols like the duck and the decorated

shed (Venturi&Brown, 1977). This notion transforms the

function of Public Space into a one of informa-

tion. The duck being an example of architecture

showing o# information in a symbolic way, by

directly mimicking the message that is to be

sent. Decorated sheds on the contrary do not

directly mimick the message but apply this to

a generic space in a graphic way in the form of

signs, banners, etc.

However in these examples we are confronted

with a predetermined sender and receiver of

information. Namely the owners of these build-

ings being the senders and the receivers being

the consumers. With the rise of the internet

and media networks however, our collective

ability to share and receive information has

been drasticly empowered. Coupled with a

desire for individualization this leaves us with

a fragmented public space, hardly the pure

Public Sphere as imagined by Habermas, but

also extraordinarily capable of self-organisation.

“Our societies are increasingly struc-

tured around the bipolar opposition of

the Net and the Self;the Net denotes

the network organisations replacing

vertically-integrated hierarchies as the

dominant form of social organization, the

Self denotes the practices a person uses in

rea$rming social identity and meaning in

a continually changing cultural landscape.”

(Castells, 1996)

On the other hand Vogelaar(2010) argues that

urban/architectural space and information

networks are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

For one, mobile telephony in open urban spaces,

intermingles private and public space. Devices

capable of augmented reality provide a layer

of information on top of the physical reality,

providing a fuzzy combination of the two.

Whereas symbols would guide one in an era of

commercialism, the representation in an age

of informationism is placed on a di#erent level.

Navigating the physical world as an instance

of the virtual world is going to take integral

urban and architectural visions in order to

connect them. Rather than trying to "gure out

how architects can re-envision our traditional

public space in the new context of social media,

Bohman envisions a more democratic way of

using Public Spheres.

“Bohman articulates three minimum

conditions for democratic public spheres:

(i) First of all a democratic public sphere

must be a social space in which speakers

may express their views to others and who

in turn respond to them and raise their

own opinions and concerns; (ii) secondly

a democratic public sphere must manifest

commitments to freedom and equality in

the communicative interaction in the fo-

rum; (iii) and "nally the public sphere must

address an inde"nite audience” (Bohman, 2004)

As outlined below this contains a premise for the

contemporary architect.

“thinking in (spatial) relationships and not

in geometries, implies that’ the architect

no longer designs objects, but relation-

ships…Instead of thinking geometrically,

the architect must design networks of

equations.” (Vogelaar, 2010)

Clearly with space being less of a critical factor in

the contemporary architectural context the role

of the architect in the forming of public space

is now more than ever one of connections, one

of information and the logical representation

of it. //

‘a battle is fought not only over in!uence but over the control

of communication !ows that a"ect behavior while their

strategic intentions are kept hidden as much as possible’

Sources:

>> Nolli, Giambattista, Pianta Grande di Roma, 1784>> Deleuze, Gilles, “Postscript on the Societies of Control”, 1990>> Deleuze, Gilles, “Foucault”, 1986>> Hauptmann, Deborah “Architecture & Mind in the Age of Communication and Information”, 2010>> Lazzarato, Maurizio “The Concepts of Life and the Liv-ing in the Society of Control”, 2006>> Habermas, Jürgen “The structural transformation of the public sphere”, 1989>> Venturi, Robert, “Learning from Las Vegas (with Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour)”, 1972>> Castells, Manuel, “The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I”, 1996>>Vogelaar, Frans & Sikiaridi, Elizabeth, “Idensity”, 2010>> Bohman, James; John Michael Roberts, “Expanding dialogue: The Internet, the public sphere and prospects for transational democracy”, 2004

34 s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n

indesem /11juryMilou Joosten

Competition: Inside the Jury

Since we can remember InDeSem has always

selected its participants by means of a selection.

This year was no di!erent and I was honored to

be one of the members of the jury.

The brief of the competition was to create

a physical, architectonic intervention that

connects the physical and virtual world to

create or contribute to social interaction. The

students had to pick a public space in their home

town and describe their solution in words and

images. We received more than 120 entries from

students all over the world. But only 80 students

will be able to participate in the workshop.

On Thursday March 10th, the jury deliberation

toke place at DSD o"ce. The jury consisted of

Deborah Hauptman (supervisor of this year’s

InDeSem), Machiel van Dorst (environmental

psychologist and our theory mentor), Mark-

David Hosale (working at Hyperbody Research

Group), Henriette Bier (teaches at design

studios within Hyperbody and SpaceLab),

Joris Hoogeboom (chairman of the InDeSem

board 2011) and myself – Milou Joosten -

(commissioner of lectures of the InDeSem board

2011). We invited Mark-David and Henriette

as well, because they both will be workshop

leaders during this year’s InDeSem.

In less than three hours, we selected the 80 best

entries, using the following criteria:

answering the question stated in the assignment;

spatial/ architectonic value (no gadgets);

possibility of contributing to a better functioning

public space;

contribution to discussion: virtual vs physical

;new social developments, etc.;

re#ection on own design, topic discussion;

presentation.

Due to the limited time for deliberation, we

split up in two teams. Machiel, Henriette and

Joris looked at half of the entries and Deborah,

Mark-David and myself took the other half.

Surprisingly, both teams ended up with almost

exact the same amount of ‘yesses’, ‘no’s’ and

‘maybe’s’. Forty students did a good job: their

presentation consisted of multiple elements

(diagrams, schemes, sketches and renderings)

and/or their solution was quite unique. They

were directly put to the pile of ‘yesses’. It was

a bit of discussing which other entries were

adequate as well. Because a lot of students came

up with a more technical solution, consisting of

screens, electronic cubes and so on. But we were

looking for more fundamental solutions. It was

remarkable that the Dutch entries in general

weren’t that good as the entries from abroad. We

could see that they didn’t put as much e!ort in

their entries as the international students. This

came as a slight disappointment. Is it because

Dutch students aren’t hungry enough for

knowledge? Or are they just overworked? We

wanted to look at quality only and that is why

we didn’t end up with a perfect ratio of Dutch

students and students from abroad. But well…

InDeSem is an International Design Seminar. We

as the InDeSem board will manage the practical

aspect of the larger amount of internationals

than we expected.//

35s t y l o s / / l o s i n g g r o u n d / / a l g e m e e n

indesem /11 winnersPeter Smisek

received praise for “coming up with a one

liner that no-one else came up with” and thus

contributing to the debate. [ENTRY 97]

So what was the jury looking for? Although few

entries were completely original by themselves,

Henriette Bier commented on one of her favour-

ite entries “It engages people in both analogue

and virtual ways, it encourages interaction with

the object, but also with its other users and

touches on a number of questions posed by the

assignment”. [ENTRY 69]

Another entry, also by a Delft student addresses

the necessary public provisions that arise in a

society where people are increasingly spending

their time tweeting and facebooking on their

smartphones. Machiel van Dorst comments: “By

making this charging stations for mobile phones,

people are forced to stop for a moment and

come together and interact in a non-digital way”.

And of course, he adds with a smile, the roof

edge of the structure is a screen that displays

last messages sent by the owner of the phone

that is being charged. [ENTRY 49]

The 80 winning entries were (at the time of

writing) displayed along the corridor that runs

through Oostserre, attracting quite a large

amount of attention from passers-by. So far,

things have run quite smoothly for Indesem,

and the Indesem team (including yours truly) has

continued working to make the event a success.

Stay tuned.//

Competition: And the winners...

Few days before the announcement of the

competition winners, the Indesem o!ce was

abuzz with excitement, anticipation and stress.

On Friday 4thMarch, we have already received

about 85 entries, by the closing time of the

competition, Monday 7th March, this number

rose to 125. We all breathed a sigh of relief,

knowing that we could surely fill up the 80

places originally open in this. After the obliga-

tory computer crashes while printing out all of

the entries, we handed these to the jury and

hoped that the jury would be able to pick the

80 winners in just under 2 and a half hours on

a Thursday afternoon, since right afterwards,

we have scheduled a small jury statement and

invited the participating students.

Apparently, this was the "rst time, Machiel van

Dorst told us, that Indesem competition results

were being announced to straight to the public,

instead of just an exhibition and a list of names

on the internet. Although not prepared to admit

it, we were slightly worried that there would be a

very limited turnout and that jury would rather

walk away than talk to a completely empty room.

In the end, around 25 students, not including

the Indesem committee, turned up to see the

jury statements.

“What we saw were many one-liners,” said

Deborah Hauptmann, a member of the jury

and director of DSD, “but we were looking for

entries with more depth and complexity”. And

indeed, many of the entries featured screens

in public spaces that projected images from all

over the world, while quite a few took the idea

of projecting facebook statuses and “Likes” onto

existing structures. In the end, Hauptmann com-

mended only one one-liner. A Delft student, who

decided to let people embed any information

they want to share by uploading into the paving,

as information for future urban archeologists,

more information

Indesem.nl

Facebook.com/indesem

Twitter.com/indesem

B NIEUWS 11 26 APRIL 20112 NIEUWS

Addendum BN 10In het artikel ‘Architectuur van

de politiek’ (B Nieuws 10) mist

er cruciale informatie. Hoewel

XML architects het initiatief

namen, werd het onderwijsproject

georganiseerd samen met

Christoph Grafe (Interior Archi-

tecture) en Hans Teerds (Public

Building). De afdeling Interior

Architecture heeft het onderwijs

gecoördineerd.

B Nieuws 10, pagina’s 06 - 07

Bouwkunde wint prijsDe faculteit Bouwkunde van de

TU Delft heeft met het project

BK City een belangrijke Euro-

pese prijs voor het behoud van

Cultureel Erfgoed gewonnen: de

EU Prize for Cultural Heritage/

Europa Nostra Awards 2011.

bk.tudelft.nl

Call for new editors B Nieuws is looking for new

editors to join our team. Since

three of our lovely editors will

probably leave the editorial board

after the summer, we are looking

for new talents in writing, editing

and InDesigning. So do you have

the skills and are you interested

in working for the periodical of

the Faculty of Architecture, please

send an e-mail to:

bnieuws-bk@tudelft.nl

Winnaar STYLOS folly bekendgemaaktHet ontwerp is van Martin Fiala

en heet 'Act of Folly'. Vanaf nu

zal STYLOS zich voornamelijk

bezig gaan houden met de

vergunningen en het zoeken van

sponsoren. Naar verwachting kan

de folly volgend studiejaar

worden gebouwd op het

voorplein. Voor meer informatie,

check de website van Stylos.

stylos.nl

KORT NIEUWS

BK–City This year's InDeSem, discusses the

influence of digital information and social

media on (our perception of) architecture and

human interaction: “because InDeSem 2011 is

somewhat theoretical and conceptual, we

invited the relevant theorists and academics,

but also designers and artists who deal with

the more practical side of the theme”, says

Milou Joosten, a member of the organizing

committee. The list of speakers therefore

features such renowned academics as Saskia

Sassen, Arie Graafland, to the young interac-

tive artist Daan Roosegaarde and a founding

member of Archigram, Sir Peter Cook. Another

person who won’t be missing is Herman

Hertzberger, the spiritual father of InDeSem

and a social architect par excellence.

The event kicks off on the 13th May with a

mini-symposium, in which international

speakers, as well as our faculty’s own heavy

hitters will introduce the topic to the eighty

participants of the Indesem workshop, as well

as the general public, which is welcome. The

weekend programme includes a book launch

at V2 Institute in Rotterdam on Saturday 14

May, while Sunday features a movie night

(which is only available to the participants).

On Monday 16 May, Indesem will return to the

faculty, where it will stay until its end on 20

May, the day of the public presentations of the

workshop results and a final debate.

The lecture programme, which is free to all

interested, might still undergo a few minor

changes, but the times and places of each

lecture are already negotiated. “We might

have to shift one or two speakers, but the rest

is already confirmed”, Joosten informs and

assures that the Indesem website will be

updated as soon as any changes occur.

For now, the last preparations are under way,

but it seems that Indesem 2011, if the organi-

zing committee succeeds in its plans, will

definitely be one to remember, at least until

Indesem 2013. (PS)

PUBLIC LECTURES INDESEM 2011:

13 May 2011 / Opening Indesem 2011 by

Karin Laglas / Mini-symposium featuring

Andreas Angelidakis, Arie Graafland, Saskia

Sassen and Kas Oosterhuis, debate modera-

ted by Deborah Hauptmann

14 May 2011 / Book presentation of

‘Sentient City’ by Mark Shepard and Martijn

de Waal and moderated by Michiel de

Lange (non-participants €4)

16 May 2011 / Lectures Herman

Hertzberger, Chris Speed, Marcos Novak

17 May / Lectures Adriaan Wormgoor,

Warren Neidich, M. Christine Boyer

18 May / Lectures Frans Vogelaar, Daan

Roosegaarde

19 May / Lecture Neil Leach

20 May / Final presentations / Lecture Sir

Peter Cook / Jury debate

For more details go to indesem.nl

INTERNATIONAL DESIGN SEMINAR (INDESEM), WHICH ALTERNATES EVERY

OTHER YEAR WITH BK BEATS, IS JUST AS LEGENDARY, ALBEIT FOR ANOTHER

REASON. THIS YEAR‘S EVENT IS NO DIFFERENT. FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH

INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED LECTURERS, A BOOK LAUNCH A FILM NIGHT

AND A MINI-SYMPOSIUM, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW EVENTS STUDENTS

SHOULDN‘T MISS.

INDESEM IS

ALMOST

HERE!!!

INDESEM ’11PROGRAMME REVEALED

InDeSem 2009

5

Dutch interactive-installation

artist Daan Roosegaarde, the

famous Dutch-American sociolo-

gist Saskia Sassen, as well as

Marcos Novak and theorist/digital

design-architect Neil Leach.

Naturally, Herman Herzberger

will take part in the event as well.

Furthermore, InDeSem is also

currently discussing collaboration

with other well known architects

and theorists.

And it is not just the keynote

speakers that had been contacted.

The workshop of 80 students is

actually split into smaller groups,

each group being led by two

tutors, one for theory and one for

design. For this, mostly Dutch,

but also international tutors have

been invited. Some of the confir-

med mentors are Tomasz Jaskie-

wicz, Henriette Bier and Mark-

David Hosale from Hyperbody and

Ekim Tan from the department of

Urbanism. InDeSem was aiming

to find knowledgeable tutors with

a background in the subject, but

the idea is that they each add

their own twist to it, according to

their specific expertise and ideas,

and their quest is now almost

finally over. This, coupled with

the students enormous enthusi-

asm for the project should

produce very diverse and innova-

tive solutions to the workshop's

main task.

Because of the interest that

InDeSem generates, the potential

participants are asked to do a

small assignement ahead of the

main workshop in order to show

their understanding of the topic,

but also to provide feedback to

the organizing committee about

how the participants perceive the

topic at hand. The task is to take

a familiar social space and

redesign it to reconnect the

physical and virtual reality. The

deadline for the competition entry

is Monday 7th March 2011, the

participants will be announced on

the 10th March.

“HAVE YOU ALREADY USED THE 'LIKE' BUTTON TODAY?” HAS BECOME A KIND OF

MANTRA FOR INDESEM 2011, HAVING BEEN REPEATED COUNTLESS TIMES ON VARIOUS

ARCHITECTURAL WEBSITES AND BLOGS. HOWEVER, THE TOPIC OF THIS YEAR'S SEMINAR

GOES DEEPER THAN THIS FACEBOOK-INSPIRED PHRASE SUGGESTS...

InDeSem 2011 takes place at the Faculty of Architecture in Delft from 13 May until 20 May. There are 40 places reserved for Delft students. In order to participate, send in your competition entry by 7 March 2011. For more information go to indesem.nl or send an email to info@indesem.nl

BY PETER SMISEK

BK CITY InDeSem, or Internatio-

nal Design Seminar is a biennial

event that has been set up by

students and supporting staff as

early as 1962, and it has drawn

big architectural names since its

inception. The first event featured

some of the most renowned

architects of its time like Peter

Smithson and Aldo van Eyck.

Since then, a long succession of

famous names followed, ranging

from Rem Koolhaas to Adriaan

Geuze and Jean Nouvel. One

architect in particular who has

been involved with InDeSem

since its beginning is Herman

Herzberger, who still finds time

every two years and tries to

attend as much of it as he

possibly can.

“The theme explores the manner

in which people interact with

each other and the changing

interfaces they use to do so. Not

so long ago, people used to

interact in public space that was

given form by the architect or the

urbanist. These days, however,

more and more people spend their

time interacting online, giving

rise to new virtual public spaces.

Students will be encouraged to

challenge the time-worn notions

of public space and invent not

only new ways in which archi-

tects can deal with this space, but

also give form to it,” says Joris

Hogeboom, the chairman of the

InDeSem Committee. Further-

more, the reconnection of the

physical and virtual reality is key

to this, but not through designing

“gadgets”. “We do not see this

design challenge simply as a way

to ask students to design an

internet kiosk or a long bar with

touch-screens,” Hoogeboom

continues “it should be more

fundamental than that”.

Speaking of fundamentals, the

workshop is also always super-

vised by a senior member of the

faculty. In the past, Michiel

Riedijk (2009) and Winy Maas

(2007) have taken their position,

and now, it is Deborah Haupt-

mann, the director of the Delft

School of Design (DSD) who will

help the organizing committee

grapple with the theory. Coinci-

dentally, Hauptmann recently

co-edited a book on Cognitive

Architecture that included a

chapter on the changes in the

human perception that arise from

the proliferation of internet and

other networks. A seemingly

perfect fit...

InDeSem itself consists of two

parts. Firstly the week long

workshop in which 40 students

from Delft and 40 international

students from abroad take part.

This is accompanied by a series of

public lectures by well-known

architects and theorists. The

board informs B Nieuws that

InDeSem 2011 has had a great

response. So far students from

over twenty different countries

have signed up for the competi-

tion. Students from as far as

Japan, Malaysia and even Sierra

Leone showed interest in the

event. This interest is no doubt

generated by the choice of the

highly actual topic; the first

potential participants signed up

before there was any indication of

possible speakers or a more

defined direction. Thankfully,

InDeSem 2011 can now confirm a

couple of speakers, including the

INFORMATION

INDESEM 2011: LOSING GROUND

Dune 4.1, an interactive installation by one of the confirmed speakers, Daan Roosegaarde.

BK IN FOCUS 5