The digital condition of the next generation of architects.

Mario Andre Sampaio Kong

Social Me

The digital condition of the next generation of architects.

MA (Hons) Architectural Design Dissertation

Mário André Sampaio Kong (0789924)

The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

April 2011

Acknowledgements

It would have been next to impossible to write this dissertation without Richard

Coyne’s motivation and guidance: his thought provoking conversations and blog posts

provided me with much inspiration. I am forever grateful to my parents whose gener-

ous efforts have always ensured me every condition to be able to excel in my studies. I

would also like to thank Carlos Infantes, my mentor at Opera Design Matters, who first

sparked my interest in the relationship between architecture and digital networking dur-

ing my placement in Barcelona. Lastly, I would like to thank all my Facebook ‘friends’

who had to put up with my often-despaired status updates during the writing of this

piece!

2 | 3

Abstract

This dissertation seeks to examine the predictions of the future of architecture through

the social reality of generation Y. It compares and contrasts the discourse of the tradi-

tion of the sociology of architecture with the current, broader digital social network

discourse, speculating on how the latter may inform the former.

Given the digital nature of the personal and professional lives of this generation within

the already mutating condition of the architectural profession, a new type of architects

is bound to enter the market with original, more collaborative, multidisciplinary ideas

and different approaches to design.

Using up-to-date reports examining current and possible future scenarios surrounding

the use of social network sites and social behaviours, together with first hand observa-

tion, the argument constructs and lends itself to speculation of the years to follow.

4 | 5

List of Figures

Figure 1: Social Network Sites Timeline (1997 -2006).

Figure 2: Facebook screenshot of an uploaded photo of The University of Edinburgh architecture studio (via Facebook for iPhone).

Figure 3: Facebook screenshot of the group for Unit 2 of the Architectural Design Option.

Figure 4: Relationship of the habitus to structures and practices.

Figure 5: Screenshot of Architizer.com home page.

Figure 6: Architizer brochure diagram explaining the different users.

Figure 7: Screenshot of Archello.com home page.

Figure 8: Augmented Reality on Archello.

Figure 9: Connection Badges on Archello displaying a project’s network of Products and Materials, Companies involved, People, and Social Media links.

Figure 10: Architizer for the iPad - Launch event.

Figure 11: Architizer virtual architecture map.

Figure 12: Plug in City, Archigram.

Figure 13: De Stijl publication.

Figure 14: Archigram publication cover.

Figure 15: Building Futures Report (2011) cover.

6 | 7

Contents

Contents.........................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................11

SECTION 1: Digital Lives – A generation of networked individuals...............................15

1.1 Social Network Sites (SNSs)...............................................................................17 1.2 Generation Y (the techno pop culture)..............................................................19 1.3 Architecture Studio Today....................................................................................21 1.4 Architizer and Archello.........................................................................................25 1.5 Social vs. Anti Social – The architect’s demeanour..........................................31

SECTION 2: Amongst the Architects – A socio-historical perspective...........................35

2.1 The Architect’s Circle ...........................................................................................37 2.2 Clusters of Networks – Collectives, Groups, and Clubs................................43 2.3 The profile/picture today.....................................................................................45 2.4 Bridging Offline and Online................................................................................49 2.5 Conclusion..............................................................................................................51

SECTION 3: Towards a Digitally Networked Studio...........................................................53

3.1 Networks Now.......................................................................................................55 3.2 Building Futures Report (RIBA)........................................................................59 3.3 Speculating and imagining (what if…)..............................................................63 3.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................69

CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................................71

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................75

IMAGE CREDITS....................................................................................................................81

8 | 9

INTRODUCTION

Given the surge of social digital media that has invaded almost every aspect of life, one

is left to question what impact it has had on the architectural profession - a community

that has for centuries, been networking offline, knitting webs of influence, power and

trust. This subject is of contemporary relevance, and it is important that it be studied

now as the subject is in a constant state of hyper-growth – an analysis done in a months

time will contain a mass of new material and statistics compared to one done today.

Indeed, during the process of collating information and resources, new ideas kept

stemming from news and developments in this field, which, due to the limitations on

the scope of this study, had to be filtered. For this reason, the dissertation that follows

will act as an argument responding to a snapshot of the history of today.

This dissertation looks into the effect that generation Y will have on architectural prac-

tice in the near future. Within the argument, which crosses the historical discourse of

the sociology of architecture (drawing largely from the case presented by Gary Stevens

in “The Favoured Circle”) and that of social networking sites (SNSs), I have included

short references to my own experience as a member of generation Y, in the hope that

this will provide a more personal but also unique account and therefore argument.

From this perspective I can build upon everyday observation with speculative reports,

literature and quantitative data, such that, I can write from an informed position.

The ideas discussed ultimately surround the current crisis experienced in the profession

today, where the architect is increasingly loosing power to other roles in an industry that

is becoming ever more specialised and fragmented. How will the emerging architects of

generation Y respond to these challenges, and how can social digital networks be used

to their advantage? Will there be a restructuring of traditional architectural hierarchies?

What are its effects on the production of architecture? The discussion within the fol-

lowing three chapters will seek to answer these questions and more, and will hypoth-

esize and imagine scenarios where the developed use of SNSs might best be used to

architects’ benefit.

10 | 11

By combining two known bodies of research from different fields, one historical and

the other current, I hope to unveil and discover new ideas. This investigation could be

of considerable interest to those engrossed in speculative futures in architecture, but

also for software architects developing design based platforms. Furthermore, it pro-

vides food for thought for other students who will be going into practice, in particular

with regard to the importance of collaboration. Lastly, it is aimed that this text will be

an interesting and current take on trending topics that would be informative for archi-

tectural tutors who are dealing directly with generation Y, and are shaping their under-

standings of architecture today.

12 | 13

14 | 15

SECTION 1 Digital Lives – A Generation of Networked Individuals

Figure 1: Social Network Sites Timeline (1997 -2006)

SECTION 1 Digital Lives – A Generation of Networked Individuals

1.1 Social Network Sites (SNSs)

Since their first appearance in 19971 social network sites (SNSs) have quickly become

dominant threads within the digital fabric of the web. Such sites include Facebook,

MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, and LinkedIn, amongst a vast array of others, forming a

densely packed environment of SNSs that fluctuate in popularity, historically and geo-

graphically. The sites range enormously in their style, target users, interests and con-

cepts. As somewhat of a web-flâneur, I come across new SNSs that aspire to become

a part of this exponential surge of connectivity, daily. Evidently, such hype is driven by

economic ambition (even though they are free for users, they generate income else-

where along the chain through advertising), but nonetheless, it has formed an extremely

fascinating social scenario that has implications on several other fields, including that of

architecture.

Facebook is currently the most visited website in the world, with more than 500 mil-

lion active users, therefore making it the most widespread SNS.2 It is incredible to see

how, single-handedly, this SNS that launched only six years ago is now subject to more

web traffic than Google - the most popular search engine for all web data,3 and this is

despite the fact that China (accounting for a sixth of the global population) has blocked

access to it. The Facebook phenomenon is by far the most impressive case of online

community activity - on average each user creates 90 pieces of content each month

posted visible to the average user’s 130 ‘friends’.4 Over a third of these users actively

access their profiles through mobile devices, giving evidence of the technological au-

tonomy of this virtually voyeuristic, active community.

1 Danah Boyd, “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications”, in Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture onSocial Network Sites, Ed. Zizi Papacharissi, pp. 39-58, (London: Routledge, 2010), Available online at <http://www.danah.org/papers/>, [Accessed on 23/03/2011].2 Facebook.com, “Statistical Data”, Pressroom – Facebook.com, Available at <http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics>, [Accessed on 05/04/2011]3 Reuters, Facebook tops Google as most visited site in U.S., 30/12/10, Available at <http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/30/facebook-google-idUSN3011260620101230>, [Accessed on 06/04/2011]4 Facebook.com, <http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics>.

16 | 17

Whereas Facebook is particularly geared towards personal relationships, personal life

and the links between users as ‘friends’ or ‘family’, the focus of Twitter is on content (in

the form of tweets), that is posted by users and seen by their ‘followers’, who they may

or may not know. To a certain degree it can be considered to fall outside of the SNSs

category because its concept and structure follow that of a blog (or a microblog in this

case).5 It does, however, create an intricate network of information exchange within

society, which ranges widely in its content. Its significant expansion over the short time

it has been in use can be associated with the adoption of twitter by pop-celebrities like

actor Ashton Kutcher or pop-star Britney Spears.6 The relationships between the media

and SNSs are undoubtedly strong and therefore concepts associated with celebrity, pop-

culture are an influence on the content, attention and style of many of these on-line

environments.

MySpace is a prime example of how a SNS has naturally evolved through user interac-

tion. If at the outset this SNS was a generalist socialising platform, it naturally directed

itself to the music industry, providing a launching platform for new artists and bands

such as Lilly Allen or Arctic Monkeys.7 This did not, however, imply subject exclusiv-

ity within the form, thus creating a hybrid community where those interested but not

necessarily participating can still be involved. This is not the case with some other

‘niche’ SNSs that close themselves off from the general user by being very specific and

restrictive in their content. (Further on this phenomenon will be analysed in relation to

architecture-focused SNSs like Architizer and Archello.)

1.2 Generation Y (the techno-pop culture)

Generation Y is a term used to describe the first generation to grow up during the

boom in digital technology. It refers specifically to those born in the 21-year period

between 1977 and 1997.8 This generation has come to use Web 2.0 to interact and com-

municate, in contrast to the old HTML coded web that was a “platform for the presen-

tation of content”9; a static network. This generation lives within two parallel worlds:

on and off-line. Due to the nature of their interactive digital lives, both co-exist and

feed into each other, providing a truly integrated experience of both. The development

of more mobile, more sophisticated equipment like smart-phones and tablets enables

5 Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd, I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience, 2010, Available at: <http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/22/1461444810365313>, [Accessed on 05/03/2011], pp3-6.6 Ibid.7 Robin Goad and Tony Mooney, The Impact of Social Networking in the UK, Hitwise, 2008, Avail-able at: <http://www.hitwise.com/uk/registration-pages/the-impact-of-social-networking-in-the-uk>, [Accessed on 26/02/2011]8 Don Tapscott, Grown Up Digital: How the net generation is changing your world, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009) p17.9 Ibid.

18 | 19

Figure 2: Facebook screenshot of an uploaded photo of The University of Edinburgh architecture studio (via Facebook for iPhone).

The photo shows a laptop with a Facebook page open. The comments that follow the post, by other architecture students, read “Always Facebook...”, “I was probably on Facebook too as this photo was taken haha!” and “I wonder who I’m stalking”. These comments show perfectly the facebook environment within the architecture studio today.

users to be autonomously and continuously online during their offline lives – online life

is no longer tied down to a desktop computer.

Given the recent shift in focus from traditional media (e.g. TV and print) to digital

forms of on-line entertainment (YouTube, blogs etc.), the media has strongly pen-

etrated the digital communications realm to ensure the continuation of its existence.10

The term social digital media has strong ties to SNSs that largely operate as interactive

media; where users can comment, select, post and become active participants, selecting

only what they wish to see, and at high speed.11 Naturally, pop-culture - that is intrinsi-

cally a source for media coverage - has found an environment in such networks that is

both hospitable and sustainable. Pop-celebrity culture presents an attractive lifestyle to

this generation, providing idealised icons that are portrayed as wealthy, popular and liv-

ing fun-filled, glamorous lives.12 There is a public curiosity in relation to the private lives

of other people’s, something that came into the spotlight with the advent of popular

reality shows such as ‘Big Brother’ in 2000. This voyeuristic cultural context is relevant

when observing the attitudes that generation Y users adopt on SNSs. Despite the high

interactivity level within SNSs that would suggest a communitarian attitude, there is also

a recognisable pattern of narcissistic behaviour in a lot of the users. Studies on SNSs

have divided users into categories dependent upon their role within such networks. One

of these is the ‘Attention Seeker’, which denotes users who network as a way to call

attention to themselves, rather like pop-celebrities do.13 The style of the posted content

of these users is primarily: photographs, ‘status’ updates and personal comments. They

believe their network follows them and enjoys the content they upload. In other words,

they become micro celebrities with the perception that they entertain a group.

1.3 Architecture Studio Today

Given the general socio-technological environment of generation Y, how is this envi-

ronment manifested and experienced in the architecture studio as a gestational space

for future architects? From an insider’s perspective and through first-hand daily experi-

ence, the patterns observed in research on generation Y and the popularity of SNSs are

strikingly discernable in the studio today. Architecture students appear to use Facebook

for anything and everything: to communicate privately, to communicate publicly, to

ask questions, to socialise, to work, for entertainment and even for dating. Indeed, one

most regularly sees students working on AutoCAD and browsing Facebook profiles

and pages in parallel. Even most ‘offline conversations’ will occur surrounding online

content either on a laptop or smart-phone (and more recently a few tablets). Through-

10 Robin Goad and Tony Mooney (2008) p4.11 Don Tapscott, (2009) p42.12 Geert Lovink, Zero Comments– Blogging and Critical Internet Culture, (London: Routledge, 2008) p28.13 Ofcom, Social Networking – Research Document, 2008, Available at: <http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/media-literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/>, [Accessed on 27/12/2010] p6.

20 | 21

Figure 3: Facebook screenshot of the group for Unit 2 of the Architectural Design Option where students discuss work, collaborate in group work and organise meetings and work division. There is the option for live chat as seen on the bottom right corner of the image.

Figure 4: Relationship of the habitus to structures and practices.

out a normal day in the studio, one is certain to hear the word ‘Facebook’ said more

often than ‘building’. Facebook has come to absorb almost every student in the studio

– it is an organisational platform for their (or should I say our) lives.

Architecture students also choose to engage with Facebook to collaborate and com-

municate with their peers about university work; it is not exclusively social. University

based platforms like The University of Edinburgh’s MyEd and SMS mail are almost

exclusively used for communication between students and tutors – rarely between stu-

dents. For this Facebook is preferred. For instance, in the Architectural Design Option

courses where the studio is split into different units, students informally set up private

groups for those students in each unit to communicate through messages, live chat or

posts, to organise meetings, and to exchange data between peers. This presents a re-

markable scenario whereby students log into their private social profiles to engage with

their academic and work related projects, in a seamless transition between personal life

and work. Facebook is the easiest method of communicating with everyone, given that

everyone is so active on it already; there is no need to set up more complicated alterna-

tive forums or blogs that are not part of everyone’s daily interaction.

It is worth questioning, however, if the habitus of architecture students at university

predisposes students to act in this digital manner.14 Habitus refers to the complex so-

ciological construct that defines the social posture of an individual, defined by acquired

sensibilities such as taste.15 One can only be digital if one has access to technology that

enables the opportunity to learn and become fluent in it. The interest in social and

symbolic capital comes from the habitus of an individual. Studies have revealed that

the majority of architecture students come from higher income groups.16 This suggests

that as a whole, architecture students will have been exposed to a structure that will

have not only enabled them a more educated form of perception, but also a familiarisa-

tion with technology. This could denote that digital users with a more socially advan-

taged habitus may use technology in a more sophisticated and truly integrated manner.

Indeed, the Wellman team found that “those with a university degree were more likely

to be involved in synchronous online activities and those with lower qualifications

were more likely to play multi-user games online, concurring with other researching.”17

Furthermore, within Facebook one can observe a distinct division between those users

who come online to socialise and those who come online to play Facebook game ap-

plications such as ‘Farmville’. The former group (who frown upon the spam requests to

‘help find a lost horse’) are often found to ridicule the latter.

14 Gary Stevens, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998) pp56-59.15 Ibid. p57.16 Ibid. pp189-193.17 Howards, Rainie and Jones (2001) cited in Deborah Chambers, New Social Ties, (New York: Palgrave, 2006) p119.

22 | 23

Empowering ArchitectsArchitizer is a new way for architects to interact, show their work, and find new clients. It is a social networking website where architecture is the tool through which connections are made and relationships are built. Architizer is an open community of architects, architecture curators, critics and fans, a site designed to transcend its editorial-based peers and empower the architecture. It is the online place to see and show contemporary architectural design.

Everyone Links to a ProjectCreated by architects for architects, Architizer is built specifically for the nuances of the architectural field. Architizer’s design is predicated on the intense collaboration that goes into any architectural project. One project has dozens of contributors, from the intern who made the conceptual models to the construction administrator. This kernel of information links all members of the architectural community.

Your project on

university

The university that two people on the design team attended is linked to the project

manufacturer

The window manufacturer sponsors a page for their product used in the project

firm

The firm that designed the project administers the building’s page

museum

The museum that hosts a show featuring the building receives a link

junior designer

The junior designer who worked on the design is credited for their contribution

institution

The institution that awarded the building a prize is linked to the building’s page

fans

Fans post comments, video and pictures of their visits to the building

guest editor

The guest editor features the project in an article about trends in architecture

blog

The design blog featuring the building receives a link on the page

Figure 5: Screenshot of Architizer.com home page. The similarities to other mainstream SNSs is evident.

Figure 6: Architizer brochure diagram explaining the different users.

1.4 Architizer and Archello

Architectural SNSs have recently begun to appear. Since the launch of ‘Architizer’ in

October 2009, almost 6,000 firms worldwide have joined this website, collectively up-

loading over 21,000 projects. It can be compared to an architect’s version of Facebook

with features of LinkedIn and Issuu:

Architizer is a new way for architects to interact, show their work, and find

clients. It is an open community created by architects for architects. One

architectural project has dozens of contributors, from the intern who made

the conceptual models to the construction administrator. A project on Ar-

chitizer links all members of the architectural community.18

To certain extent, there seems to be a contradiction in ‘an open community by archi-

tects for architects’. If for generations the architectural profession has had a reputation

for being closed,19 ironically, this intentionally open community that can be used to ‘find

clients’ seems to include, into the description of its utopian mission, the reality of its

condition. It does not function the same way as MySpace did for musicians, because

this SNS grew out of the desire of the users, and not that of the site developers.20 It

does, however, give the opportunity for ‘anonymous subordinates’ in architectural firms

whose name or face rarely sees the limelight, to have a presence as an individual, a con-

tributor to a project or as part of a team. In fact, there is currently a rather weak level

of interaction amongst architects. It returns to the earlier question of online narcissistic

behaviour. The website is mostly used as a self-marketing tool (which is only one of

its many intentions), with architects uploading their work, and the interactive potential

aspect of it is still to be reached. This could possibly be due to a lack of interest in

communicating or collaborating in architecture (that goes against the argument that

generation Y is fully capable and interested in this), a sense that is an added burden to

the already busy lives of architects, or it could also simply be that at an early stage, with

such a focused and limited user base, the website has not gained enough momentum

to pick up user interest in interaction. Such phenomena are dependent on exponential

behaviour that is then self-sustained by its own inertia.

Lovink rightly regards that the, “recycling of old content that is reheated online is a

good indication of the integration of the Internet into our society, but is not particular-

ly innovative.”21 Having said this, I believe it to have a considerable amount of poten-

tial, especially when one begins to imagine what added features could enable architects

to better communicate and collaborate globally. Interest in the site can be seen by the

18 Architizer.com, About Architizer, Available at <http://www.architizer.com/en_us/intern/about-architizer/>, [Accessed on 12/12/2010].19 Gary Stevens, (1998) p13.20 Danah Boyd and Nicole Elisson, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11, 2007, Available at: <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.el-lison.html>, [Accessed on 14/03/2011].21 Geert Lovink, (2008), p110.

24 | 25

Figure 7: Screenshot of Archello.com home page. The platform is similar in many ways to Architizer.com

Figure 8: Augmented Reality on Archello.

Figure 9: Connection Badges on Archello displaying a project’s network of Products and Materials, Companies involved, People, and Social Media links.

younger, conceptually and architecturally identical (as well as visually) website Archello,

that has regarded it to be a niche market with potential by launching a competing site.

Despite the uncanny resemblance, Archello comes with new added features and gim-

micks that could potentially give the advantage required to increase users’ attention and

surpass its original model: Architizer. Such features include augmented reality models

that users can ‘play’ and interact with on a webcam, and an explicit focus on a shared

materials library, connection badges for projects, displaying the different connections of

the project to different people, companies, social media channels, and product and ma-

terial libraries. Additionally, a case study database invites collaboration more effectively

than the more linear showcase structure of Architizer.

The two slogans that promote each website are also telling of their attitudes. When

it was launched, Architizer’s tagline was “Empowering Architects”. This brought into

question why architects needed to be empowered and how showcasing projects within

an architect community could achieve this. Essentially, it was extremely sensational-

ist - even the name ‘Architizer’ itself, a hybrid of ‘architecture’ and ‘socialiser’, evokes

a science fiction weapon to combat all evils of professional architecture. The tone and

language used throughout the site carries this idea on, suggesting it is aiming to ap-

peal to a younger, ‘hip’ crowd, heavily under the influence of pop-culture, the users

of such social networks – their main user target, in order to bring architecture into

the mainstream (the profitable) field.22 Today the tagline is: “Where clients find Ar-

chitects”, which is indicative of a more overt attempt to reel in more users by spelling

out the ‘benefits’ of joining. In an essay on the subject of architecture and advertising,

Dirk Van Den Heuvel says “to broadcast a message you need to know which message

to broadcast.”23 It appears that Architizer is still trying to find this message, perhaps

because of the loop that can be detected in their mission.

In contrast, Archello’s slogan: “Your connection with architecture”, carries an emphasis

on relationship, community, and user content. Archello is less explicitly and exaggerat-

edly dramatic in its tone, which is indicative of the differences in the philosophies of

the two sites and gives an indication of the direction in which they may develop and be

used in years to follow (given they survive).

Nonetheless, Architizer, as the pioneer, currently holds the advantage over Archello in

terms of site visits and users, and also in terms of diffusion. Architizer has launched an

i–pad application and is using a competitive marketing strategy which follows the more

22 Ibid, p27.23 Dirk van den Heuvel, “The Delft Attraction”, Volume -Broadcasting Architecture, 3, Ed. Ole Bouman, (Amster-dam: Archis + AMO + C-LAB, 2005:3) p12.

26 | 27

Figure 10: Architizer for the iPad - Launch event.

Figure 11: Architizer virtual architecture map.

traditional conventions of offline networking, in the form of hosting branding events

with important names in architecture such as B.I.G. (whose pop presentation style is in

sync with that of Architizer). Similarly, they have ensured a group of ‘starchitect’ pres-

ences (such as Libeskind, Mayer, and OMA) on their website to attract aspiring ‘starchi-

tects’. Indeed, advertising today “is pure communication”,24 consistently projecting the

sites’ aspirations to widen their audience – the need to communicate and make aware.

Both these websites take advantage of the popularity of Facebook and Twitter by using

‘Facebook Connect’ technology to bridge the social networks so that ‘likes’, ‘friends’

and ‘tweets’ are synched.

Both of these SNSs create a virtual map of architecture that acts as a geo-referenced

archive for contemporary architecture; built or un-built and designed by famous or

unknown architects everyone stands on equal ground. In this respect these SNSs do

considerably alter the structure of the field as we know it: a system of long established

hierarchies led by chains of influential masters and pupils.25 In this virtual world every-

one starts off on equal ground but is subject to public critique – the widely adopted

star system, a favourite feature within web 2.0.

Both websites are already extremely useful for students, who can access precedent

material more readily here – by searching by location, programme, keywords, materials,

architect amongst other criteria, providing a highly flexible architectural search engine.

In the future it could become a valuable architectural history resource, with a wealth of

information about different architects. It would provide an unedited future equivalent

of today’s Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects, “the most comprehensive assemblage

of architectural biography ever attempted”,26 containing around 26,000 biographies of

leading figures in the history of architecture and construction. It would be up to the

user’s judgement and discretion to decide what is of value and what is not, but they

would have full flexibility to do so. This would avoid accusations of biased selection for

such archives, where to include one figure or another is, to a certain extent, a subjective

matter.

What Architizer seems to be doing is creating a platform for architects to be able to do

what other platforms such as YouTube have done; where users post and expose their

content to be viewed by the masses, an opportunity that would otherwise be unavailable

to them. An example is the case of YouTube celebrities such as Ana Free who used

this medium as a means of getting exposure as a singer, and has now over 20 million

views, over 51,000 subscribers and from it has gained a record label contract. What

such platforms end up doing, therefore, is reorganising the way that professional links

24 Paul Virilio, cited in Brett Steele, “Brandspace”, Archis – Branding, 181, Ed. Ole Bouman, (Amsterdam: Archis/Artimo Archi, 2001:1) p1.25 Gary Stevens, (1998), p144. 26 Ibid. p126.

28 | 29

are established within a network. The structural hierarchy that previously shaped several

industries has been completely reconfigured. It seems to me, however, that the main

difference is that music as a product is a natural fit with respect to the mass media and

architecture is not (or has not been so far), and that is why Architizer endeavours to

be mainstream in its style - attempting to steer architecture in a more profitable direc-

tion. The product of architecture is just simply not cut out for mass entertainment and

Architizer would be better looking into the possibilities that it offers for architects to

develop and collaborate on new projects.

Architecture SNSs can, therefore, perform two main roles: 1) they can be used more

superficially as a social and marketing tool, for the promotion of architectural renders

and glossy money-shots within a traditional architectural operative mode (although this

could also provide a valuable historical archive), or 2) they can be used as an internal

collaborative and interactive tool within the construction industry, to provide a novel

structure for the different sectors to work together more efficiently in a global envi-

ronment. As it stands, it could be argued that SNSs almost create a dangerous case of

franchising – a set of parameters and templates that without true development and

interaction could produce a clone environment for all of architecture and for people.

1.5 Social vs. Antisocial – The architect’s demeanour

What may not come across as immediately evident is that social networking sites are in

fact, considerably antisocial offline. Despite today’s mobile online condition, they isolate

users preventing them from socially interacting to the same extent in offline or ‘real’

life. It gives way to an antagonistic relationship between the social aspect of networking

and its antisocial resultant condition: “this is the network paradox; there is a simultane-

ous construction and destruction of the social at hand.”27 It is particularly interesting to

assess such a situation against the current situation of the architect, given that despite

the long history of networking for architectural commissions and the fact the construc-

tion industry constitutes a team environment, “a definite tendency is seen for architects,

particularly the more eminent, to be most unsociable.”28 As in architectural practices,

online social networking is as much about group interaction as it is about self-promo-

tion of artistic genius. It poses itself swaying between the social and the antisocial.

Combining the qualitative analysis of generation Y’s online behaviour with quantita-

tive data relative to SNSs use, and taking into account empirical observation within an

architecture studio, one can begin to profile a representative model of an architecture

27 Geert Lovink, (2008), p29.28 Gary Stevens, (1998), p13.

30 | 31

32 | 33

student today. It appears that the youngest generation to enter architecture offices is

incredibly capable of simultaneously living on and offline, being able to conciliate more

than one task at hand at any given moment, and making no distinction between the

two. Their social and professional or academic lives are separated by extremely tenuous

boundary; they are able and available to work in their social time (responding to emails

and reviewing material online) but also expect to spend social time within the work

environment, communicating with friends (in and outside of the practice).

SNSs have therefore created a generation for whom life has less rigid boundaries,

between work and leisure, off and online, ultimately creating more adaptable, and

integrated young architects. This sociological shift in attitude is bound to have an ef-

fect on the already mutating practice of architecture. If people in this area are opening

up to meeting people on line for intimate relationships, surely there is a disposition to

find new ties and links for collaborations in their work: “architects working live within

network effects, positioning themselves vis-à-vis media, branding, investing, advocacy,

energy policy, and social welfare.”29

29 Jennifer W. Leung cited in Gary Lovink, (2008), p103.

34 | 35

SECTION 2Amongst the Architects – A socio-historical perspective

SECTION 2Amongst the Architects – A socio-historical perspective

2.1 The Architect’s Circle

Since the early days, social circles, architecture collectives and chains of influential

individuals have powerfully shaped the field of architecture. Networks and networking

have therefore existed in offline mode for centuries and now become absorbed by an

online condition. This chapter will take a retrospective look at the way social relations

within the network of architecture have transformed to date, and what effect that has

had on the architectural discourse as a means of speculating about what may come in

the future.

Network refers to “the interlocking of relationships whereby the interactions implicit in

one determine those occurring in others.”1 Networks are ever-dynamic structures with

patterns, clusters and layers, which have various nodes and links charged with different

levels of power, density and influence. Following Stevens’ analysis of the Macmillan

Encyclopaedia of Architecture, one becomes aware of the long history of the social

milieu of architects and the way the most ‘significant’ or ‘major’ contributors can be

situated within a network of masters and pupils, in closed social circles of nepotism.2 It

suggests from the outset that only those in higher social tiers (those advantaged with a

predisposed symbolic and cultural power) get the chance to be recognised by the archi-

tectural community. Indeed he argues that:

If success were strictly a personal individual matter then one would find a

good deal of social mobility between strata. The evidence is that while there

is considerable mobility between the various levels within the middle strata

of society, there is very little social mobility into and out of both the highest

an the lowest strata.3

The architectural community is interpreted historically as one of an elite: a group of

influential individuals that control and dictate matters of sophistication and lifestyle.

1 Siegfried Frederick Nadel cited in John Scott, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, (London: Sage Publica-tions, 1991) p30.2 Gary Stevens, (1998), p144.3 Ibid. p69.

36 | 37

This view is supported by the idea that,

To say one is an architect is not only to say one has a certain sort of degree,

or that one can design building, it is to say that one has a certain set of at-

titudes, tastes and dispositions, all the forms of cultural capital that distin-

guish an architect from a mere builder.4

Architects thus enjoy the reputation of being distinguished individuals. Such evidence

would reinforce the perception of the antisocial character of the architect. The only

way for the dominant antisocial attitude to work in social situations is to be in a posi-

tion of power. Nevertheless, those who are less influential - working under or in the

shadow of this more prominent network - still constitute a network. In fact, this is a

denser network, as there are more subordinates than leaders in the field. These ar-

chitects are caught between symbolic and economic capitals,5 however, the symbolic

capital is the capital desired by the architect.6 It defines the status within these networks,

providing an intellectual and aesthetic superiority: to the extent that Stevens proposes,

that, “the basic dynamics of the architectural field are driven by symbolic concerns and

the quest to achieve reputation through the production of great architecture, which

is, of course, that which the field defines as great.”7 The subordinates therefore enjoy

a certain amount of symbolic capital through the power-imbalanced ties that connect

‘genius’ and subordinate. It provides them with an association that, however weak (in

terms of power), represents a degree of symbolic capital within the subordinate’s own

network. For example, there are architects working for Sir Norman Foster who have

never even spoken to him. The link between master and subordinate is extremely feeble

and yet what this link represents in the subordinate’s own network is strong. The same

does not happen to those who are subordinates in the field, not because they work

under some other powerful individual but simply because their work is not recognised

for its symbolic capital. These may very well seek to exchange this for a more purely

economic capital and ‘sell out’ into purely commercial practice.

Thus, there are two overlapped layers of networks, one with the exclusive influential

leaders, and the other under it with the subordinates. The latter is denser than the first,

however these two layers are highly connected, creating a three-dimensional network

but through links charged with a power imbalance, given that to lead implies interaction

with those who follow.

Stevens raises yet another pertinent point regarding the distinguished network of

architects of high symbolic capital, by suggesting that the intellectual field has only got

room for so many ‘architectural geniuses’ at one given time.8 This would imply that

4 Ibid.5 Ibid. p144.6 Ibid. p94.7 Ibid.8 Ibid. p125.

38 | 39

such an overlapping network of power has a saturation point. This network may not

be too dense otherwise that would imply a loss of power within the nodes, as it would

become diluted. This ultimately means that newcomers, unless being ‘invited’ by one

of the nodes within the network will experience a challenge in being accepted in. One

can therefore argue that personal networks become more powerful than professional

ones, given that true trust and ‘opportunities’ lay within the personal network connec-

tion, and less in the professional (because here people are also in competition). These

networks may overlap and most probably will, in cases where professional and personal

relations are blurred. In fact, these might be the most powerful of connections as they

combine the sense of loyalty and clique to the professional opportunities.

It could be further speculated that the more influential network of powerful architects

will itself be connected to more influential networks of other fields therefore ensur-

ing a position of sustained power (through the management of more important work).

Indeed this can be seen throughout history in the several commissions that eminent

architects have obtained from friends:

Again and again we observe architects beginning their careers with com-

missions given to them by wealthy members of their families or by wealthy

friends; in some cases, the commissions are among the most substantial

they will ever have.9

This perpetuates a vicious cycle of architectural power relations that would support

the idea that there is little social mobility between the strata of architectural society.

These are instead formed within families, schools and friendships. One can observe this

happening in other fields, and it is perhaps simply a condition of humanity rather than

architectural social comportment. In Steven’s argument, he further cites R.K. William-

son in saying that,

In the course of examining biographical material in the literature of ar-

chitecture, I found factors that surfaced with surprising regularity. Family

advantage, schools, and social connections (…) For architects this means

contact with wealthy potential clients and with decision makers, whether

they are politically or socially based. A number of famous architects did

gain access because of their families’ social contacts and because they at-

tended Ivy League schools where their classmates included potential future

clients.10

It should be noted however, that both references in Steven’s arguments date as far back

as 1982, and so that it may not be the same scenario today. Indeed, schools have at-

tempted to increase access to educational attainment, varying the spectrum of students

9 B. Gill, cited in Gary Stevens, (1998), p178.10 RK Williamson cited in Gary Stevens, (1998), p178.

40 | 41

Figure 12: Plug in City, Archigram.

Figure 13: De Stijl publication.

Figure 14: Archigram publication cover.

in architecture degrees.11 Over the past thirty years society will also have reshaped itself

and the technological revolution (favouring all amateur work and giving new opportuni-

ties to all) will most likely have had impacted today’s networks and hierarchical relation-

ship structures.

2.2 Clusters of Networks – Collectives, Groups, and Clubs

Historically, architects have been seen to have collaborated or formed groups within

networks of friends. Archigram (in England), The Four (in Glasgow), the Italian

Futurists, or De Stijl (in the Netherlands) are but a few of the groups and collectives

within architecture that have resulted from the collaborations within a social network

of friends and acquaintances. Interestingly, all of these collaborations came to define

a particular movement or style. Furthermore, one can observe a geographical correla-

tion within these collaborations. Given the limitations of mobility contemporary to

these groups, the elements of such groups would be required to be in physical proxim-

ity (however this would not be a forced condition, as the natural network of personal

relations would too be localised geographically). These groups are united by shared

ideals and constructed manifestoes. Many times (as is the case of Archigram and De

Stijl), they have involved the idea that such a message had to be disseminated through a

communication device (in this case publications), therefore social networking platforms

could be the perfect environment for a contemporary take on such practices. Today,

given the speed of mobility and transfer of information, there is no longer the need for

geographically fixed groups. Indeed, the project for Architizer itself came about from

the initial collaboration of friends Marc Kushner and Matthias Hollwich (based in New

York) who then partnered with professional contact Alexander Diehl (in Berlin), an

expert in this field. The project, in many ways, finds points in common to some of the

ideals of Archigram. Both have names that link architecture to communication: Archi-

gram hybridised telegram and architecture, and Architizer merged architecture to the

idea of a socializer (with the letter “z” – given its American origin). Both worked within

mass media (magazine publication and online digital media) and their emphasis lays on

the idea of communicating a forward thinking idea presenting themselves through a

pop culture artifice, be it in the form of comic books or mainstream SNSs.

Archigram’s schemes, however, ultimately represent a manifesto for the change of

architectural design – putting forward avant-garde ideas of how technology and net-

work structures (as seen in Plug-in City) have influenced the making of architecture and

urbanism itself.12 What Architizer does, is it focuses on changes in architectural com-

munication and relations. Nonetheless, I believe Archigram would have been interested

in the possibilities of Architizer as a process and tool for architecture. In both of these

11 Maggie Woodrow et al., Social Class and Participation, (London: UK Universities, 2002), Available at <www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/feti2.pdf>, [Accessed on 15/04/2011] p49.12 Peter Cook et al., A Guide to Archigram 1961-74, (Berlin: Academy Editions, 1994) p50.

42 | 43

one can perceive the ambition to change the architectural scene; to maximise efficiency

through the introduction of technology to combat “the stagnation of the architectural

scene”13 or “empower architecture.”14 Could this mean that an architectural identity

could result of integrated, interactive, architecture social platforms as an environment

for the formation of groups? As we have seen, these collaborative groups originated

from groups of friends. If one were to speculate about a scenario where global col-

laboration would work to exchange and integrate different knowledge and expertises,

one would probably identify that these would not be built on personal relations but on

a shared interest or belief. With evidence from blogs, chat rooms, forums and dating

websites, people today have come to develop a pseudo-anonymous cyber intimacy,

where one may not have met the person but develops a virtual (even if momentary)

relationship. It is plausible however, that these are considerably weaker, failing to foster

the sense of trust that is what many of offline social circles are founded upon. Indeed

the process of spending time together (even if involuntary) has been studied to prove

that those who interact more frequently will develop the feeling of liking and therefore

engage in other types of interaction.15

Nonetheless, these studies have not looked at whether time spent online together pro-

duces the same effect. Given that SNSs have been observed to sustain offline relation-

ships this would seem plausible. For example, if you meet an individual at a conference

and then develop an online relationship that could lead to a trust based online col-

laboration. Collaboration does not however, imply friendship and as Pahl points out,

“personal relationships are being undermined by the superficial glad-handedness’ which

is becoming a feature of much corporate culture.”16 Pahl proposes that genuine friend-

ship is not on a par with today’s superficial network culture. Helpful work acquaintances

(regarded as ‘false friendships’) are distinguished from affectionate relationships in a

public context in a situation where friendship is often established out of obligation and

personal gain.

2.3 The profile/picture today

In contrast to theories of social disintegration and social segregation, Manuel Castells

argues that, “the ‘regeneration of the social’ involves a technology-based recovery of

community life through networks.”17 There seems to be evidence in the arguments

that have been discussed so far, to suggest that there is in fact a tendency towards such

an idea. At points in history it has been believed that in restructuring the architectural

13 Ibid. p106.14 Architizer.com, About Architizer, Available at <http://www.architizer.com/en_us/intern/about-architizer/>, [Accessed on 12/12/2010]15 John Scott, (1991), p26.16 Pahl (2000) cited in Deborah Chambers, (2006), p117.17 Deborah Chambers, (2006), p113.

44 | 45

hierarchy an overall social reformation would take place. This is revealed in the manifes-

toes of the architects of the 1920s and 1930s, arguing that,

the reformation, the betterment, of the whole social order can only occur

if there is a reformation of the architectural field: to overturn the hierarchy

of social relations as a whole requires first the overturn of the hierarchy of

architects.18

To speak of a reformation in the architectural field by overturning the structural hierar-

chy of architects is to identify a need for restructuring of networks, as they provide the

circumstances that derive the initiatives. Indeed networks are crucial given that they:

- Provide robust and dispersed communication channels

- Create opportunities for reflection and learning

- Facilitate collective action and underpin multi-agent partnerships

- Promote social cohesion19

Traditionally, social mobility was more difficult within analogue networks. Today, with

digital networks, supported by efforts made in the education system to balance the

social strata within architectural education (‘widening access’), I would argue that it is

now easier for members of lower income groups, with a degree of talent to ascend and

integrate within groups of individuals of a different habitus. This is possibly reinforced

by this idea that with online profiling people can gain more extrovert and confident

alter egos, enabling them to enact a different habitus through mimicry. On the other

hand, given the social and technological revolutions over the past century, such theo-

ries are yet to be significantly proved within the circles of architects. Not much seems

to have changed in the social relations amongst architects: to this day the emerging

architects can be directly traced back to the masters of the previous generations. For

example, Bjarke Ingels, one of the most recent and youngest phenomena in the archi-

tectural scene today, has strong links with Rem Koolhaas, having worked at OMA for

three years. Similarly, Marc Kushner, the founder of Architizer was himself a disciple

of Jurgen Mayer. This view is shared by Bauman Lyons Architects who say that, “the

‘old boys’ network’ has a less defined identity today, but it lives on nevertheless.”20

Worryingly, Deborah Chambers raises the point that, “in the context of work, network

18 Gary Stevens, (1998), p104.19 Alison Gilchrist, The Well Connected Community, (Bristol: The Policy Press, 2004) p41.20 Bauman Lyons Architects, How to be a Happy Architect, (London: Black Dog Publishing, 2008) p81.

46 | 47

culture is mainly benefiting the lives of the urban elites, and in particular, elite men.”21

If this is true, it would suggest that very little indeed has changed, not even the gender

power imbalance within the workplace. This idea is further reinforced when we realise

that some of the most acclaimed architecture schools in the world, from which a major-

ity of the most successful architects have graduated, are not affordable to the majority

of students. To go to such schools one needs to either be exceptionally talented, to be

sponsored or wealthy enough (notwithstanding with a certain degree of talent). The

rich and the best are therefore put together, giving advantage to those who are already

naturally advantaged by their socio-economic condition.

2.4 Bridging Offline and Online

Research on SNS use indicates that, with existence of some exceptions, they are primar-

ily used to support and maintain existing social relations.22 They sustain what Chambers

refers to as both ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ relations: they serve to cement already existing rela-

tionships in a traditional structure, but also serve to “provide the source (due to their

[online] vulnerability) of collaborative assistance if required.”23 Acknowledging this,

architecture SNSs have attempted to bridge the social world of the architect between

his or her on and offline condition. They bridge real life professional contacts and

friendships within the architectural and wider construction community (allowing users

to maintain, cultivate and make use of existing contacts), they link online clients to po-

tential architects through search engines, post job opportunities and provide the space

for new online relations to be established between architects, manufacturers amongst

other members in the industry. It invites discussion and participation generally, by ad-

dressing current topics in editorials and launching design competitions (in addition to

those that are posted by the users). The intended spirit is one of community aiming to

provide an equal ground for all, independent of their social or educational background.

Everyone is welcome to this online, open community and the traditional hierarchical

structure is abolished; in that leading names in the industry are put in the same category

as those whose work is not published by glossy magazines. This gives the chance for

me as a student of architecture to have a profile that may, for example, appear next to

Steven Holl’s. Although this has its advantages, it would take a great deal of arrogance

and unawareness for any relatively unknown architect or student to perceive themselves

as having the right to be in that position. A hierarchy does not simply exist as an unfair

structure of networked opportunities; those with talent who have obtained recogni-

tion (even if helped within their social circle) have worked for a status of seniority and

respect. Having said that, what happens here is the opportunity is to start from an equal

grounding, with the aim of dissolving preconceived barriers of architectural distinc-

tions.

21 Deborah Chambers, (2006), p116.22 Danah Boyd and Nicole Elisson, (2007), <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>.23 Deborah Chambers, (2006), p114.

48 | 49

50 | 51

If masters are acclaimed by the rest of the architectural community and general public,

this will now be achieved through the icon of modern acclaim and popularity: ‘likes’

and ‘star ratings’. In doing so it abolishes the presumptions of the elite, and given the

importance of individual attainment, celebrity, and reputation in the creative arts (of

which architecture is one), architects will become more prevalent. It treats architects

in a popular celebrity style; with a fan-base of followers. Many architects enjoy this - a

ration of self-profiling fame, ultimately providing a stimulus for a larger user base such

that it can really take off. Ultimately, it symbolises choice and self-judgement, which is

something that has come to be hugely significant in the success of web 2.0 – the choice

of flexibility and customisation.

2.5 Conclusion

The social milieu of the architect has traditionally and is still today (if to a lesser extent)

one charged with influence based on networks of nepotism, linking masters, pupils,

families and friends. Not surprisingly, it has, therefore, always been a circle of middle

and upper class members that are the classes holding most symbolic power. It operates

in two layers: a sparser network of powerful nodes (the masters) overlays a network

of less distinguished subordinates. Personal ties are more likely to rule the network of

masters operating within circles of trust.

Given the technological limitations earlier in architectural history (and more generally),

networks used to be more geographically localised and clustered. Thus, architecture

collectives and groups that had a significant impact in architectural history often had a

specific country or city that brought it together. Nowadays, with the new global mobil-

ity enabled by technology and the Internet, together with an increasing presence of ar-

chitecture platforms for architects to communicate, could this provide a new realm for

new collectives and collaborations to take place? And could the social hierarchies within

it be restructured to finally achieve the visions of the 1920s’ manifestoes for a social

improvement? Like the aforementioned groups, drawing upon their contemporary val-

ues, online collaborations clearly give way to a new expression in design, however, there

seems to be a major difference that would be required to be overcome if this new realm

and restructuring were to happen. In history groups would come together locally, with

a common concept and vision that gave rise to a movement. The idea to use integrated

systems today seems, rather, to be driven more by the economic implications of the

benefits it may comport. If there is in fact a stronger emphasis on the economic capital

than symbolic capital, then it seems unlikely that an architectural movement would

come out of it. On the other hand, the very structure of this economic capital circle

in architecture through digital optimisation has in itself symbolic capital, as it reflects

today’s social context in the way the architecture is produced; it becomes an architecture

of its zeitgeist – a fast networking economically driven world.

52 | 53

SECTION 3Towards a Digitally Networked Studio

SECTION 3Towards a Digitally Networked Studio

3.1 Networks Now

Reading the following account by Chris Luebkeman, one gets the idea of just how

global architecture can be today:

I have just completed a competition in Zurich with the Tokyo based ar-

chitect Shigeru Ban. He is working with another Arup designer on an art

museum in the States, and in addition, we are discussing working together

on a high-rise residential project in Australia and on an educational building

in Lebanon.1

This has of course, been enabled by the injection of collaborative digital tools in design

today. As architects, we are now working within an increasingly fast paced environment,

under exponential pressure to absorb new information from the media, technology, ac-

ademia, obliged to memorise an increasing number of passwords for different website

accounts, and to perform faster, aided by new software that itself needs to be absorbed.

We are trying to keep up with the superhuman pace that technology has reached in

order to maximise opportunities.

Within the construction industry project teams have grown and individuals have be-

come increasingly specialised given the increasing complexity of buildings. This ulti-

mately requires an increasingly efficient and organised collaboration within a networked

frame. Given the digital condition observed in the work environment, this is naturally

being developed online, given today’s strength in the bond between architect and online

portal:

The laptop has become an extension of the body, allowing for international

hot-desking, 24-hour working, on tap presence and response, simultaneous

private and professional communication and all entertainment not involv-

ing movement.2

1 Branko Kolarevic, Architecture in the digital age: Design and Manufacturing, (New York: Spon Press, 2003) p279.2 Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008), p16.

54 | 55

This is becoming even more of a reality with smart-phones and tablets that are taken

everywhere, professionally and in personal life, blurring the boundaries between the

two.

Certainly, communications within today’s architectural studios are mainly by email and

one also increasingly sees the use of Skype for meetings or interviews, where face-

to-face contact is required but not possible. For offices that still have not realised the

potential of social networking sites in this field for their architects to keep a large list of

contacts (personal and professional – both useful), there is evidence of the perceived

need to regulate the use of social networking. Indeed, at Bauman Lyons Architects

where, “the average time spent at one’s desk is 30 per cent of a working week”3, it is

believed that, “the silver bullet has not yet appeared that allows us to incorporate these

new ways of communication into [their] everyday work routine and productivity.”4 The

fact they have not yet discovered this, however, does not imply they are not moving

towards a networked studio. In fact, an extremely revealing point in Bauman Lyons

Architects’ account of their office experience indicates a significant change towards a

digitally linked office:

We threw our technical library three years ago. Magazines still arrive but

they are rarely read beyond headlines. Instead they are viewed almost en-

tirely online. Samples are never kept and the CD-based technical informa-

tion service have been replaced by a web library.5

This is particularly interesting in reference to one of the principles that Archello fo-

cuses on, discussed earlier. Archello has a vision of an online technical library that is

linked to the suppliers and to the projects in which they are used sharing a communal

open platform for collaboration. This account points towards a similar direction. It

does, however, still conserve the rather protective closed secrecy of an archive for ma-

terials and details. On the other hand, details by architects have been shared for decades

in publications such as Detail and case studies on materials catalogues are used to show

the projects that architects have used their products in. It is therefore perhaps simply

a case of changing the attitude and being more sharing and open, understanding that

if it becomes truly communal then there will be benefits for all sides. Ultimately, I see

this a symptom of a transitional generation. This is the attitude of those who grew up

using work analogue systems and later adopted and learned to use technology to their

benefit, however they are not generation Y, native to this mind frame of online commu-

nities. The Internet is being used seriously but not yet fully adequately to go beyond the

dialogue mimesis and as a technical and promotional tool.

3 Ibid.4 Ibid. p16.5 Ibid.

56 | 57

2008

TODAY

REDUCTION INDEMAND FORARCHITECTS’SERVICES

50%-40%

“ARCHITECTS HAVE SHED PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, AND COST, AND ULTIMATELY IF THEY LOSE DESIGN COORDINATION THEN YOU HAVE TO ASK WHAT THEY ARE THERE FOR…” PROJECT MANAGER Global consultancy

“THE INVASION OF THE ARCHITECT’S ROLE SHOULDN’T BE SEEN AS A THREAT BUT AS A NATURAL CHANGE THAT CAN BE EXPLOITED- WE MUST FIND OUR OWN NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND EDUCATION SHOULD SHIFT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.” ARCHITECT Large global practice

“I THINK WE NEED TO STOP BEING OVERLY POLITE AND LEARN HOW TO BE BUSINESSPEOPLE.” ARCHITECT Medium sized design-led practice

“OUR MAIN THREAT IS NOT BEING PAID FOR THE WORK WE DO - PARTICULARLY THE BRIEF MAKING PART. BUT WE NEVER TURN DOWN UNPAID WORK BECAUSE IT MIGHT LEAD TO PAID WORK IN THE FUTURE.” ARCHITECT Small metropolitan boutique practice

INTRODUCTIONIn this study Building Futures sets out to explore the future role of architects, asking: who will design our buildings in 2025; what roles will those trained in architecture be doing then and how will architectural practice have changed as a result? Through a series of one-to-one interviews and round table sessions the study aims to examine the breadth of those who shape the built environment: including traditional architects and those working in expanded fields of practice, as well as clients, consultants and contractors. The resulting speculations should be an opportunity for discussion and interrogation- an exploration of the imminent changes likely to affect the industry over the next 15 years.

WORKLOAD OFUK PRACTICES 50%PUBLIC

SECTOR

LARGE PRACTICES(>31 ARCHITECTS)

SMALL PRACTICES(<30 ARCHITECTS)

PRIVATESECTOR

42%14%

58%86%

TOTAL UK WORKLOADIS FOR CONTRACTOR

CLIENTS

“THE PROBLEM IS THE SEPARATION BETWEEN WHAT ARCHITECTS WANT TO DO, AND THE REALITY OF THE MARKETPLACE.” CLIENT ADVISORGlobal consultancy

“I THINK THE ENTIRE RANGE OF MIDDLE SIZED PRACTICES FROM ABOUT 25-150 PEOPLE WILL BE GONE, AND WE’LL END UP WITH TWO VERY DISTINCT TYPES OF PRACTICE AT EACH END OF THE MARKET” CHIEF EXECUTIVEGlobal consultancy

GET THE FULL REPORT ATWWW.BUILDINGFUTURES.ORG.UK

PROJECT TEAM: CLAIRE JAMIESON, BUILDING FUTURES. DICKON ROBINSON, JOHN WORTHINGTON AND CAROLINE COLE.

THE FUTURE FORARCHITECTS?

“IN 10 YEARS WE PROBABLY WILL NOT CALL OURSELVES AN ARCHITECTURE PRACTICE, IT WILL BE SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.” ARCHITECT Small metropolitan boutique practice

70%INFRASTRUCTURE

CONSTRUCTION GROWTHSHARE OF

GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION

46%

GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH 2000-2050

WILL LIVE IN URBAN AREAS BY 2050

128%EMERGINGMARKETS

18%DEVELOPEDMARKETS

2010 - 2020 BY 2020

Emergingmarkets

Developedmarkets

MORE PEOPLE, BIGGER CITIES, MORE CONSTRUCTION...

55% 45%

PRINT_A3_11.02.11_AW_resupplied.indd 1 14/02/2011 14:27

Figure 15: Building Futures Report (2011) cover.

Ultimately, these information and communication technologies are increasingly enabling

the spatial reconfiguration of collaborative work, enabling remote working. Architects

today are operating within a crucial moment of transition, facing a crisis. Thus, the

transition from an industrial to an information society is changing the environment in

which the architect draws upon to inform design. In an age where the tertiary sector

and software development (emerging quaternary) are the leading sectors of the indus-

try, the architect has to reassess the terrain of the discipline seeking to find opportuni-

ties for new ideas in this transition: “The way in which we think and design is changing

accordingly, as the centre shifts away from the objectivity of the machine to the subjec-

tivity of information.”6

3.2 Building Futures Report (RIBA)

The Building Futures Report, published this year in partnership with the RIBA, sets out

to predict the state of the construction industry for UK architecture practices in 2025,

speculating on the roles of architects and the configuration of “new and diverse forms

of architectural practice.”7 The report forecasts that infrastructure construction growth

in the next 10 years is expected to increase by 128% in emerging markets compared

to 18% in developed markets, therefore the majority of all architects’ work in the

world will be in developing countries. This implies that most architecture companies in

developed countries will have to take on work abroad, and ultimately that these com-

panies will have to develop collaborative strategies between the headquarters, travelling

architects and foreign partners in each of the industries’ many fields. The report also

points, however, at the reluctance of small practice to take on work aboard due to their

scale, means and infrastructure.8 It therefore suggests that small practices will take on

local small and medium scale projects and that large multinational companies will take

on the international projects using BIM software, putting medium scale practices out of

business. I do not agree, however, that small practices could not take on international

projects, as there is the opportunity for outsourcing teams of architects local to the

project location to complete later stages of work at cheaper rates.9 Given the extent of

the communication made possible online this would not be unfeasible. As a response

to the situation, “some practices [have] taken the step of creating offshoot companies

with a separate identity and different branding to their main practice that [does] not

use the word ‘architect’”.10 This widens the work they are able to get given the embed-

ded perception of what an architect traditionally does. The findings reflect this a strong

move towards multidisciplinary practice.

6 Branko Kolarevic, (2003), pp236-237. 7 Claire Jamieson, The Future for Architects – Full report, (London: Building Futures/ RIBA, 2011), available at <http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/the-future-for-architects>, [Accessed on 27/03/2011] p6.8 Ibid. p11. 9 Ibid. p21. 10 Ibid. p10.

58 | 59

Ultimately, architects are looking to be more flexible, especially recent graduates who

have shown that this is in fact their idealised work environment. Generation Y is not

only fluent in SNSs management; the technological skills and increased flexibility has

developed in them an interest to take these skills into the practice of architecture, un-

willing to be limited by the fence of the construction industry. Indeed, the report states,

in reference to this type of emerging interdisciplinary practice, that:

This type of practice could do well if it is driven by technology, and by the

new markets where technology provide opportunities. They might pool the

collaborative talents of brand consultants, researchers, product and indus-

trial designers, with architects. This is a strand of practice that may well

break free from the constraints of the term ‘architect’, possessing a much

broader base than the term can provide. Service design and design of expe-

riences might be significant areas for these practitioners.11

The report further suggests that there will always be a market for a certain amount of

signature star architects, however even these will increasingly collaborate with other

signature designers from other fields such as the fashion industry in acts of marketing

and promotion.12 This once again reinforces that the whole industry is moving towards

collaborative work with other design industries, and with new roles within the construc-

tion industry. It also suggests that it may not be as easy to accept and assume a less

self-centred posture within architecture SNSs, given that fame within the industry will

continue to blindly inspire celebrity wannabe’s (even if their chances of entering this

circle without a ‘master’ are extremely low).

In addition to this, the role of the architect within the construction industry is seen

to be losing importance, especially to engineers who are regarded as more technically

knowledgeable individuals on whom responsibility can be laid. It is suggested, there-

fore, that architects should be learning management skills earlier in their education, to

learn to stand their ground. Once again, it was felt that:

there was a gap for architects to take advantage of in the realm of ‘inter-

disciplinary leadership’ – embracing their skills and putting them to use in

senior positions within construction firms or as clients, developers or policy

makers.13

The most valued skills of the architect are creativity and the ability to work across disci-

plines, product of the condition of the subject in academia. These are the same quali-

ties that make the architect’s condition especially suited to network organising, being

social networkers or socialisers (that derived the term Architizer).

11 Ibid. p25.12 Ibid. p14.13 Ibid. p13.

60 | 61

62 | 63

Contrary to such predictions, and despite the unquestionable contemporary predomi-

nance of the engineer in the construction industry, Chris Luebkeman argues that, “the

number of engineers required to complete the design of a complex project is steadily

decreasing as tools become more powerful and automatic.”14 As the project complex-

ity increases, however, someone who is multi-skilled has to be able to manage all these

different inputs, however automatic they are. Indeed, it means that this person must be

digitally proficient and able to network and bring together all the links. These require-

ments could, therefore, mark the re-emergence of the architect in the field of construc-

tion. This view is shared by John Pittman who affirms that, “the architect will reappear

on centre stage as the master builder of information, the key figure upon which all of

the other players in the process depend.”15

3.3 Speculating and imagining (what if…)

Today we take on the ‘what if ’ approach. The world of anti-dogmatic think-

ing, ‘hypothesis’, and ‘the principle of contradiction’ is embedded in the

contemporary approaches to architectural issues. It is this epistemological

shift that provides a very strong link to information technologies.16

Antonino Saggio suggests that “the crucial aspect of interactivity it its role as a catalyst

for a new aesthetic condition in architecture.”17 I disagree with him on this point, given

that the interactive and collaborative nature of architecture making, should not follow

the same patterns as those collectives in the past that came to define a visual identity.

Given the novel nature of their working methods, the mere pursuit of a new aesthetic

would seem like a lost opportunity. It should strive to make a better, more integrated

architecture with its users, not simply define an aesthetic. He does, however, go onto

elaborate the point saying that, in a way that it defines both an ethic and an aesthetic,

“interactivity will be one of the key architectural paradigms in the future [and that] it

will play a role similar to that of transparency in the Modern movement.”18 So ‘what if ’

architecture did adopt an online network as a framework for making architecture?

Saggio argues that currently, “new experiments show that the new subjectivity im-

plies not only users’ desires, but also a fascinating path that brings life, knowledge and

intelligence to the buildings themselves.”19 Imagine an online collaboration of several

specialists from different fields from all over the world, linking together within an open

digital platform and working together on a project, for example, for the urban regenera-

tion of a square. Proposals of variations could be posted and voted upon with ‘likes’,

14 Branko Kolarevic, (2003), p285. 15 Ibid. p258. 16 Ibid.17 Ibid. 23918 Ibid.19 Ibid.

64 | 65

giving way to a techno democratic architecture. Architecture influenced by popular

choice. Not only would this create a more satisfactory space for the public which they

would feel a part of (as they may see parts realised that were of their selection), but it

would engage people in the making of architecture and urban planning, making them

excited to see a project grow and ultimately making them feel they live in a more inclu-

sive society. This proposal would thus make new use of SNSs within architecture and

outside, change the way architecture can be made, and also change the way democratic

society works - handing over part of the decision making to those who will use the fa-

cilities built for them and with their tax payers money (in the case of publicly financed

projects).

As well as restructuring the internal hierarchies within architecture, in doing so it would

also change the societies in architecture. This would constitute the realisation of the

manifestoes of the 1920s and 1930s architects who argued that for social reformation, a

reformation of the architecture circles would be necessary. The opportunities for such

project where architects, artists, designers, engineers, anthropologists, sociologists, phi-

losophers could come together amongst all the citizens and collaborate with feedback

from those for whom it is for, would be endless. This could manifest through forums,

polls, interactive mappings, competitions, walls posts or ‘likes’, amongst so many other

online tools of web 2.0.

This would bring architecture closer to a pop industry, and in fact could have a posi-

tive impact; if architecture is going to be ‘for the people’, then architects should not sit

and observe from above presuming to know what it is people want. Architecture itself

would become more social through the online socialising of its makers. There is evi-

dence that the increase in architecture reality shows such as Grand Designs has increased

the public’s interest in architecture.20 It seems that the potential is there, however, unlike

the fast changing music industry, architecture is a slow process and it is a challenge for

it to sustain the interest of society that demands instant satisfaction:

Any architectural project we do takes at least four or five years, so increas-

ingly there is a discrepancy between the acceleration of culture and the con-

tinuing slowness of architecture. The areas of consensus shift unbelievably

fast; the bubbles of certainty are constantly exploding.21

In terms of the relation of interactivity to architectural practice, there are at least two

other possible levels. The first level is interactivity between architects and the public -

making the process of design making a more socially integrated one. The second is a

physical interactivity between the user and the architecture. Recent experiments show

that buildings’ environments can be altered according to the situations within it. This

20 Claire Jamieson, (2011), p4.21 Rem Koolhass (2004) cited in Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008) p12.

66 | 67

is seen both in new houses for the wealthy, in public buildings and cultural centres.

Responsive reactions include changes in the conditions of light, ventilation, but also

an “architecture that changes according to the variations in moods and feelings of the

inhabitants.”22

One could suggest that there could be an extension of this online reality into the spaces

themselves, pre, during and post construction. The spaces where the interventions are

proposed for could be targeted before the project is decided so that the people who

most use it and already frequent it are ensured to have a say. For example the site could

see the installation of interactive spots where passers by get notified on their smart-

phones that this space has a proposed project for it and invite them to participate. Dur-

ing construction, users could be able to see the progress, visualise how the project will

be finished and some minor design specification decisions could intentionally be left

open until the construction has begun, so that there would be a continuous input of

feedback and interest from the public right up to the point that it is complete.

Within this kind of strategy there is large amount of consideration given to marketing

within architecture, pulling it closer to the pop industry. Pop culture is what the masses

are most exposed and accustomed to, so by adopting techniques that are foreign to

the architectural industry perhaps the general public (and not just those with a level of

higher education) could enjoy and participate in the making of a project within param-

eters and options set by the ‘experts’. This is similar to music talents shows where there

is an ‘expert’ pre-selection of the candidates that will then be elected by the public vote.

Even within and during the show the experts get a say, being able to choose between

the two least voted. It is not, in this case, completely handed over to the public to make

the decision and it would probably be best to do the same within this architectural

scenario.

Finally, post-construction, the project itself could continue to be interactive with its

users. One could even speculate that SNS data could be the input mechanism to a

personalised environment. For example, analysis of the status updates of different us-

ers, might be responded to through the architecture – an aggressive status update could

prompt an environment to be transformed so as to be more soothing.23

22 Branko Kolarevic, (2003), p285.23 This could be supported by NESTA’s Connect Programme, an initiative leading to new experiments to test the potential of digital technologies for collaborative and use-centred business models. This programme showcases and celebrates the best ideas and projects based on collaboration and participation.

68 | 69

3.4 Conclusion

Digital architecture social networks may not only become a platform for more multi-

disciplinary collaborations, as there are endless opportunities to create more integrated

ways of working within the increasingly proliferating building industry. The opportuni-

ties for such networks to integrate professional and social relations hold an important

opportunity for the architect as cross-disciplinary individual to reclaim power of the

construction industry.

Informed architectural imagination and a belief that a new attitude to the process of its

making is possible, is required for its realisation:

If we want a new architecture that incorporates the crucial and mobile as-

pects of our time, if we believe that art is the highest form of knowledge

and of salvation, if we think that technologies must reinforce a conscious-

ness of progress and of widespread rights, then we must first have the

courage to dream it.24

For a real change to happen, a change of attitude coupled with a desire for social and

technical transformation, must be expressed by the majority of architects of the next

generation – those native to the tools that enable this realisation. Only then will the art

of collaboration come to life and the Internet will reach its potential as a resource for

architects. This may seem an overly idealistic statement, but to follow Bill Gates’, “we

always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate

the change that will occur in the next ten.”25

24 Branko Kolarevic, (2003), p242.25 Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008), p152.

CONCLUSION

Social networks dominate the digital realm today. This can be seen through the expo-

nential integration of Facebook in personal life, the media and in business, making it

the world’s most visited website. Generation Y was not born within the period of the

full integration of these systems but have grown up digitally, allowing them to fully

adapt to new technology. As a group, Generation Y is highly influenced by the mass

media and pop-culture that feeds technology and which in turn survives on it in a

symbiotic relationship between information and technology. Information is transferred

at an unprecedented pace today, and architects in this increasingly globalised society are

learning to deal with this by incorporating the benefits of organised networks into their

practices. The next wave of architects to enter the saturated construction market is a

digitally articulate generation Y one. The technological skills and fluency that has natu-

rally developed in them will most likely be their key asset in redefining what architecture

will be in the future. Their lives have an increasingly blurred division between work and

leisure and are ever productive, given the speed their environments allows them to live

at.

The emergence of architecture social networks, such as Architizer and Archello, re-

spond to a niche where both the increasing number of architects who use social and

professional networks and a disjunction within the construction industry have been

recognised as an opportunity for SNSs to establish. These networks have yet to prove

themselves but show signs of features that one can imagine being developed in the

next few years to create more collaborative platforms. This, however, is only possible

if architects do collaborate. Currently, we are observing a transitional generation that is

mostly using these as self-promotion tools (the result of an inherent narcissistic attitude

in the field and more widely in contemporary culture), in a direct translation of ana-

logue customs into digital content. I believe, however that many of the issues today will

be overcome once generation Y is operating with its full power.

SNSs in architecture can operate in two ways: firstly, on a more superficial level of

promoting architecture, and secondly, on a truly interactive collaborative platform of

people (within and outside the field) that may ultimately promote architecture in new

ways (connecting not only with clients but with users too). A key goal for architecture

70 | 71

is to break out of the aforementioned circles of nepotism and the structured hierarchy

of geniuses and subordinates, in a closer manner to the way collectives have worked

throughout history. If, throughout history, these had been limited by the geographical

conditions, then today, with communication technologies as they are, this would no

longer present a challenge - a global collective of architecture, of online ‘friendships’

and collaborations would, like the collectives before them, end up itself defining a new

expression for architecture. Such a scenario would respond well in the conditions of

today, and react to the predictions made by the Building Futures Report. Even though

architects are currently losing power to an increasingly complex industry of contrac-

tors and sub-contractors, our skills in technology and our flexibility to move across

fields should enable us to network across this complex field successfully, and give us the

opportunity to work in an industry that will be forced to work abroad given the condi-

tions of the markets. It will also make it possible for architects who wish to explore and

expand beyond the field of architecture to more effectively collaborate with other fields

in multi-disciplinary projects.

The ideas argued for in this dissertation may appear idealistic and utopian, however in

a fast evolving world, the possibilities for digital technological are potentially vast. It is

a challenge to foresee what may come out of the current conditions. Perhaps genera-

tion Z will reconfigure their own views depending on generation Y’s true capability to

take on these issues in practice. Concrete conclusions can, therefore, not be fixed. This

was never the aim of this research and discussion, but investigation into this subject

does, however, allow informed speculation as to how practical research projects could

develop the principles of the discourse of SNSs in architecture. There is indeed an

unprecedented opportunity for research given the online traces SNS users leave behind.

The architect must be a prophet…a prophet in the true sense of the term…

if he can’t see at least ten years ahead don’t call him an architect.1

Frank Lloyd Wright

1 Frank Lloyd Wright cited in Bauman Lyons Architects, (2008), p152.

72 | 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bauman Lyons Architects, How to be a Happy Architect, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2008

Blau, Judith, Architects and Firms: A Sociological Perspective on Architectural Practices, Cam-bridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1987

Boyd, Danah, “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications”, in Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Net-work Sites, Ed. Zizi Papacharissi, pp. 39-58, London: Routledge, 2010, Availible online at <http://www.danah.org/papers/>, [Accessed on 23/03/2011]

Burke, Anthony, Network Practices: new strategies in architecture and design, New York: Princ-eton Architectural Press, 2007

Chambers, Deborah, New Social Ties, New York: Palgrave, 2006

Christakis, Nicholas and Fowler, James, Connected: the amazing power of social networks and how they shape our lives, New York: Harper Collins Publishers Limited, 2010

Cook, Peter, et al, A guide to Archigram 1961-74, Berlin: Academy Editions, 1994

Cuff, Dana, Architecture: The Story of Practice, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1992

Doesinger, Stephan, Space Between People, Munich: Prestel, 2008

Gere, Charlie, Digital Culture, London: Reaktion books, 2002

Gilchrist, Alison, The Well Connected Community, Bristol: The Policy Press, 2004

Johnson, John and Crandall, Jordan, Interaction – Artistic Practice in the Network, ed. Scholder, Amy, New York: Eyebeam Atelier, 2001

Kolarevic, Branko, Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing, New York: Spon Press, 2003

Lovink, Geert, Zero Comments– Blogging and Critical Internet Culture, London: Routledge, 2008

Mitchel, William, City of Bits: Space, Place and the Infobahn, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995

Mitchel, William, Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2003

Rossiter, Ned, Organized Networks: Media Theory, Creative Labour, New Institutions, Rotter-dam: NAi publishers, 2006

74 | 75

Scott, John, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, London: Sage Publications, 1991

Stevens, Gary, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, Cam-bridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998

Tapscott, Don, Grown Up Digital: How the net generation is changing your world, New York: McGraw Hill, 2009

Publications, Articles & Reports

Armour, Stephanie, “Generation Y: They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude”, in USA Today, 2007, Available at: <http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm>, [Accessed on 14/03/2011]

Bouman, Ole (ed.), “Branding”, Archis, 181, Amsterdam: Archis/Artimo Archi, 2001:1

Bouman, Ole (ed.), “Broadcasting Architecture”, Volume, 3, Amsterdam: Archis + AMO + C-LAB, 2005:3

Bouman, Ole (ed.), “New Architectural Practices”, Archis, 172, Amsterdam : NAi/ Elsevier, 2000:4

Bouman, Ole (ed.), “Old and New Media”, Archis, 162, Amsterdam: NAi/ Elsevier, 1999:6

Boyd, Danah and Elisson, Nicole, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11, 2007, Available at: <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>, [Ac-cessed on 14/03/2011]

Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Digital Britain – Final Report, TSO, June 2009, Available at: <www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/7650/7650.pdf>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011]

Evans, Leighton, “A phenomenological analysis of social networking”, in Humanity in Cybernetic Environments, Ed. Daniel Riha, Oxford: Interdisciplinary press, 2010, Available at: <http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/publishing/id-press/ebooks/humanity-in-cybernetic-environments/>, [Accessed on 15/03/2011]

Halford, Susasn, “Hybrid Workspace: re-specialisations of work, organisation and management’, in New Technology, Work and Employment, 20:1, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005

Hodge, Brooke, “Seeing things – Architizer connects architects”, NY Times, 2009, available at <http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/seeing-things-architizer-connects-architects/>, [Accessed on 15/01/2011]

Jamieson, Claire, The Future for Architects – Full report, London: Building Futures/ RIBA, 2011, available at <http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-fu-tures/the-future-for-architects>, [Accessed on 27/03/2011]

Maj, Anna & Derda-Nowakowski, Michal, “Cyber-Communities in Their Quest for Free Culture: User-Generated Content Portals in the Anthropological Perspec-tive”, in Humanity in Cybernetic Environments, Ed. Daniel Riha, Oxford: Interdis-ciplinary Press, 2010, Available at: <http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/publish-ing/id-press/ebooks/humanity-in-cybernetic-environments/>, [Accessed on 05/02/2011]

76 | 77

Marwick, Alice and Boyd, Danah, I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience, 2010, Available at: <http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/22/1461444810365313>, [Accessed on 05/03/2011]

Nealludevig, “Interview with Architect Marc Kushner of Architizer, Part I”, BaseNow, 01/10/10, Available at: <http://www.basenow.net/2010/10/01/interview-with-architect-marc-kushner-of-architizer-part-ii/>, [Accessed on 03/02/2011]

Nealludevig, “Interview with Architect Marc Kushner of Architizer, Part I”, BaseNow, 24/09/10, Available at: <http://blog.thisisbase.com/2010/09/24/interview-with-architect-marc-kushner-of-architizer-part-i/>, [Accessed on 03/02/2011]

Ofcom, Social Networking – Research Document, 2008, Available at: <http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/media-literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/>, [Accessed on 27/12/2010]

Puybaraud, Marie, et al, Generation Y and the Workplace - Annual Report 2010, London: Johnson Controls, 2010, Available at: <http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/pub-lish/etc/medialib/jci/be/global_workplace_innovation/oxygenz.Par.41451.File.dat/Oxygenz%20Report%20-%202010.pdf>, [Accessed on 01/03/2011]

Goad, Robin and Mooney, Tony, The Impact of Social Networking in the UK, Hitwise, 2008, Available at: <http://www.hitwise.com/uk/registration-pages/the-impact-of-social-networking-in-the-uk>, [Accessed on 26/02/2011]

Williams, Alex, “From Scion to ‘Service Provider’”, New York Times, 03/11/10, Avail-able at, <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/fashion/04upclose.html>, [Accessed on 12/01/2011]

Woodrow, Maggie et al., Social Class and Participation, London: UK Universities, 2002, Available at <www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/feti2.pdf>, [Accessed on 15/04/2011]

WebPages

Alexa.com, Site Information – Architizer.com, Available at <http://www.alexa.com/sit-einfo/architizer.com#>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011]

Apple Inc, “Architizer”, itunes preview, Available at <http://itunes.apple.com/app/archi-tizer/id423084127?mt=8>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011]

Architizer.com, About Architizer, Available at <http://www.architizer.com/en_us/in-tern/about-architizer/>, [Accessed on 12/12/2010]

Bjarke Ingels Group, BIG Architects, Available at <http://www.big.dk/>, [Accessed on 05/02/2011]

Compete.com, Site analytics – Architizer vs. Archello, Available at <http://siteanalytics.compete.com/architizer.com+archello.com/>, [Accessed on 01/04/2011]

Facebook.com, “Statistical Data”, Pressroom – Facebook.com, Available at <http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics>, [Accessed on 05/04/2011]

KKLD Architects, Architizer, Available at <http://www.kkld.net/en/architizer/>, [Ac-cessed on 17/03/2011]

Reuters, Facebook tops Google as most visited site in U.S., 30/12/10, Avail-able at <http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/30/facebook-google-idUSN3011260620101230>, [Accessed on 06/04/2011]

78 | 79

80 | 81

IMAGE CREDITS

Figure 1: Boyd, Danah and Elisson, Nicole, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11, 2007, Available at: <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html>, [Accessed on 14/03/2011]

Figure 2: Courtesy of www.facebook.com.

Figure 3: Idid.

Figure 4: Stevens, Gary, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998. p58

Figure 5: Courtesy of www.architizer.com.

Figure 6: Ibid. Brochure.

Figure 7: Courtesy of www.archello.com.

Figure 8: Ibid.

Figure 9: Ibid.

Figure 10: Courtesy of HWKN Architects.

Figure 11: www.architizer.com.

Figure 12: Courtesy of Archigram Archival Project, available at http://archigram.west-minster.ac.uk/project.php?id=56

Figure 13: Courtesy of www.wikipedia.com, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Destijl_anthologiebonset.jpg

Figure 14: Courtesy of Archigram Archival Project, available at http://archigram.west-minster.ac.uk/magazine.php?id=99&src=mg

Figure 15: Jamieson, Claire, The Future for Architects – Full report, London: Building Fu-tures/ RIBA, 2011, available at <http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/the-future-for-architects>, [Accessed on 27/03/2011]

Social Me

The digital condition of the next generation of architects.

MA (Hons) Architectural Design Dissertation

Mário André Sampaio Kong (0789924)

The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

April 2011