To a More Ambitious Place

London Debate / Wednesday 18 March / 6.30 – 8pm

Do we accept the status quo in place?

Speakers:

Warm up for the debate and kick start your exploration of the theme with our Think Pieces written especially for the Series:

Samar Héchaimé, Factors Ltd:

‘We should take the risk to imagine a different place, a better place and stop thinking that it is acceptable to do it in one particular way, since this is how it is done, the ‘Best Practice’. Best practices are what kill any potential inventions and innovations which will lead us to creating places that we only dream of.’ 

Sir Tom Shebbeare, Virgin Money Giving:

‘Our partners, and in particular the developers and planners, are unanimous that the new ‘super bits of village’ which we have designed together are simply better places than if the professionals had been left to their own devices. The ‘amateurs’ may have been aggravating or worse, but the professionals have certainly enjoyed the experience.‘

Alexei Schwab, Future of London:

‘The change in permitted development rights for office-to-residential conversions provides an extreme example of what can happen when placemaking is not part of the housing delivery process: without the need to negotiate with local authorities, developers have no requirement or incentive to meet good design standards.‘

Can’t make the London debate on Wednesday?
We’ll be live tweeting from 6.30pm sharp using the hashtag #GHdebate– add your questions and comments to the discussion!

Local partners:

National partners:

What happens when you bring an idea as simple as getting people back at the heart of the city and invite people to join in the discussion and the exploration? What happens when you remind the city, its governance and its planners that it is all about being human.

What happens is that you get an event that is fun and enlightening and that is aptly named Urban Factorisation. You get an event that opens the door for just one second, you can never close it again. You get an event where you start to hear the stories of the humanity of the city and how we have been stripping it away. You get a place to share, explore and innovate, a space where the outcome is unpredictable, the stories are memorable and where laughter is guaranteed.

This is what happened on Monday the 21^st at the Work Foundation, at the launch event for the Urban Factorisation.

It began with London Fusion telling us how they have been supporting the brain of the city by supporting its emerging small to medium enterprises, its creative and intrepid base that are reimagining the future of London and the UK.

Then MP Barry Sheerman engaged us and reminded us that knowledge is the centre focus for people and cities. He made the case that no city can emerge and compete on the market without a university, a knowledge and research base that engages with the city and its service and industry base. He emphasised the point that transportation and connections can revitalize the smaller cities. He highlighted how the future of the city is in crowdsourcing and crowdfunding. Ultimately he affirmed that it is about people and happiness.

MP Ben Gummer made the case for the small cities that struggle with loosing talent to London especially when it comes to design and planning talent. He showcased his point by telling the story, in very vivid words and mental imagery, of what is currently happening in Ipswich with a housing development that is needed but is not being designed with the behaviour and preferences of the people who already live in Ipswich in mind, and how a user centred design would have avoided a plan that barely took the people into consideration except to ask them would they like the school to be built “here” or “there”.. A question that is irrelevant without understanding the way of life of the people, the landscape of their lives and their stories. Ben pointed out that in order to release the potential of the small cities, or as he called them the Big Towns, user centred design needs to be brought in to understand the factors that make the place and its people.

Dr. Cathy Garner followed speaking about cities as places for people and the influence of people on the place. She maintained that we need to be ‘Thinking local and acting Global’. Cathy indicated that in order for our city to survive and grow we need to be ensuring the city is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Putting people back at the heart of the city and making the three legs of the city, society economy and environment, equally strong in order to be able to carry the city into the future. This strong city is the kind that develops, nurtures, attracts and sustains citizens, making the cities stronger and more liveable through its citizens. She emphasised that we should be building social capital not incurring social costs.

Afterwards came Ann Marie Aguilar who spoke of the influence of design on human behaviour. She explained the research work that is being done in collaboration between ARUP, the Department for Communities and Local Government, RIBA and RCA where the challenge was to identify the influence of behaviour on the built environment and vice versa. The behaviour change research agenda focused on the built environment as three categories: the product, the building and the district, crossed by the human interaction on three different levels health and wellbeing, energy and performance and how these two axes affect each other. She took her lead from the way that products are designed – with the needs and preferences of the user and the ways they wanted to use them as part of their lives at heart.

Samar Héchaimé concluded the talks by introducing the concept of Urban Factorisation, its origins and its emergence as a counterbalance to the effects of built environment, bad planning and modernism. She spoke of the influences of culture on behaviour in the built environment and how legacy can help balance impact of badly designed places and cities. But legacy is not enough and eventually it adapts to the influences changing ways of life and places. She mentions the crossovers between our physical environment and our digital environment and how we should be building cities that combat the isolating that is emerging from too much digitisation and bringing life back onto the street level. She brought all together by talking about how Urban Factorisation can point people back into the heart of urban design, policy and strategy building frameworks that allow cities to grow in a sustainable manner and create positive experiences and happier citizen. Building utopias rather than dystopias.

After lunch the Urban Factorisation Lab took place with everyone in the audience taking part in an interactive walk/ workshop around the St James’ area. This workshop was designed to allow participants to visualise and understand the city through the eyes of its citizens and visitors.

The walk was wrapped up with a download session identifying the challenges of the users and coming up with tactical recommendations that crossed the board from service, to built environment to digital. These recommendations would enhance the holistic experience of the area for its citizens.

The day ended with a networking event where the participants continued the conversation with wine and lots of excitement on how to take the ideas and methodologies to the next step within their own councils, cities and organisation since the methodologies are applicable to all spaces where people live and spend time.

#UrbanFactorisation

On Monday 21st July the London Creative and Digital Fusion Steering Group, National Centre for Universities and Business and Factors will host Urban Factorisation; an interactive event to celebrate user centred design.

Urban Factorisation will look at the interaction between the multiple factors involved in the design of environments and the experiences of those who work, live, visit and travel in them. The centrepiece of the event will be the launch of “Urban Factorisation”, an interactive case study of how these factors create harmony or clash in one particular city. Delegates will have the opportunity to participate in a workshop focused in the area around St James, London.

The following speakers have been confirmed:
• Barry Sheerman MP (Co-chair of APDIG) who will speak on the challenges and opportunities in the creative industry as it applies to policy and the economy.
• Ben Gummer MP who will speak on the case of small cities, its ambitions and development, and the connection between the inhabitants and the process.
• Cathy Garner, Strategic Director London Fusion and Non-Executive Director of Places for People who will speak on cities as places for people and the influence of people on the place.
• Jeremy Watson, Professor of Engineering Systems, UCL who will speak on the influence of design on human behaviour.
• Samar Héchaimé (Principal of factors) who will speak on and illustrate “Urban Factorisation”.

The event will be well suited to those interested or involved in city governance and in all forms of city development such as design of the user centred city and the city as a centre of modern innovation fusing the disparate cultures, of academe, business and civic society.

Samar Héchaimé (Principal of factors) says “People interested in making cities more liveable on all these levels should attend, whether they are in policy, in design, in services, in citizen engagement, in digital, in economy, in history and culture or in tourism.”

“All attendees will be able to see the city from a different perspective and imagine a better future for it from the perspective of its people, its unique essence and culture”

Please register your interest in attending this event by clicking here . There are limited spaces available so please register ASAP. If you are successful we will confirm your place via email with joining instructions. If you have any questions please email: factors@loriho.com.

If you are unable to join us on the day but would like to contribute , follow the conversation on Twitter by using the hashtag #UrbanFactorisation.

Further details
Date: 21st July 2014
Time: 09.30 -16.30
Venue: The Work Foundation, 21 Palmer St, London SW1H 0AD

factors – urban factorisation

Rationality, the refuge of the intellectual mind, has been a driver to many endeavours from economics to creativity. Rationality has driven the international style and modernism in early century architecture and still drives the field today. It is the centre of the neoclassical economics. It governs the fields of branding and advertising. Not to mention medicine, politics, law, engineering…

The centre of all these endeavours should be people. People are local beings, cultural beings living within communities, falling to the herd mentality, governed by habit, emotion, shifting states of mind, therefore intrinsically irrationality.

In order for our creative endeavours to be more inherently adoptable they should, think locally, culturally, humanely, in essence capture our irrational beings.

Behavioural Economics

Behavioural economics has emerged as a blend between the world of economics and psychology. It has found its way into the world of advertising through the application of the same methodology in the development and creation of systems aimed at consumer behavioural change. Manifestations of this emergence are seen through a number of TED talks (the global conferences for innovation and excellence), industry lectures, treaties, as well as the establishing of a behavioural economics unit at the IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising) and publishing of papers on the subject. One of the most vocal advocates of Behavioural Economics is Rory Sutherland, the Vice Chairman of Ogilvy UK, whose TED Talks I have recently come across (http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_perspective_is_everything.html) . Rory is not a behavioural economist but he wants to popularise it and get it into the mainstream. Even though Behavioural Economics is more prevalent now, he says his goal for true mass popularisation would have been reached when Daniel Kahneman (winner of Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic in 2002 for his work in developing the  Prospect Theory in Behavioural Economics) is be mobbed by a tour bus filled with enthusiastic star struck Japanese tourists. Maybe having it in songs sung by Justin Bieber pop star types to overenthusiastic teenagers is the answer. What excites me about such lectures is that it backs what I have been advocating, working on and developing with regards to user experience design and how it can affect behavioural change. I have been arguing for holistic & multidisciplinary strategies as the way to approach our designs and creative endeavours in all their forms. Those strategies then manifests themselves through all the various applications and user touchpoints that we can develop. These touchpoints could be either tangible or intangible or both.  Our holistic strategies should be human centred in order for them to render the necessary changes in behaviours and attitudes.

As it stands, when we design we seem assume working in a rational world, guided by pure Euclidean principles and inhabited by perfectly rational human beings. We count upon the notion that the conditions are going to always be optimal to experience our designs whether tangible or intangible. We think that we can choreograph these experiences to fit our ideal predefined pathways.

This is certainly untrue. The reason is that we suppose that rationality and instinctive ‘logic’ are congruent and that everyone will be able to reach the same rational conclusions we did. Nevertheless instinctive ‘logic’ is actually the driver of quite a number of decisions, not rationality. Instinctive ‘logic’ is idiosyncratic.

As an example it is irrational to think that Star Wars is anything beyond a fantasy world created by the fertile imagination of George Lucas and his team. Yet for the fans it is completely logical to unite under the banner of Star Wars, identify with characters, join conventions and even spend huge amounts of money buying paraphernalia that reference or are part of the Star Wars franchise. Therefore in order to influence any behaviour within this group it is important to appeal to the instinctive self rather than the rational self and weave the intended change within the story and timeline of Star Wars so that this behaviour change can become more intuitive and be adopted effortlessly.

Building frameworks

Seeing the importance of our instinctive ‘logic’ in our daily decision making, we should not focus so much on the rationality of our end users. We should help our clients build strategic and experience frameworks that account for the local taste, the element of choice and the shifting nature of our the user’s sense of belonging and decision making state of mind.

Whenever we cater to our global network of clients, whether they are large multinationals or local businesses, we need to think about the frameworks we develop and how these frameworks interact with the end user. The end user is inherently a local with local tastes and local frames of references. Nevertheless the design industry, seems to focus on the ‘human universal’ (the hypothetical person with behavioural traits that are only universal) rather than the human local (the more realistic person whose behaviour is coloured by local cultures, traditions and mindset). The shift in that design framework towards the human local might mean the difference in the adoption and the emotional attachment towards a brand, a corporation, a system, a product or an entity.

McDonald’s has successfully done that by first focusing on developing habit. Its burgers are certainly consistent in their quality and taste around the world. Second it focuses on local taste by adapting its menus slightly differently in different locations, again focusing on habit, whether it is a McKrokette inspired by the kroketten in the Netherlands or McFalafel based on the pervasive deep fried grain balls in the Egypt or the Nürnberger hamburger based on the local speciality in Nuremberg.

The service is also consistent, while catering to local preferences. For example McDonald’s offers valet parking in Beirut, the McExpress walkup window in China serving drinks in malls or 24hr delivery service in Singapore. Therefore McDonald’s focuses on creating a framework within which its end users are comfortable. The framework encompasses the global availability and readiness that McDonald’s is known for, with a local twist to the customer interaction, as well as the famous product accompanied by some local popular street food specialities.

McDonald’s has also been the master of nudging (term used from the book ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness’ written by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein) by combo packaging its products, to super-sizing, to cues and to visual stimuli within the store and beyond. This nudging has become so powerful that now the moment its customers see the golden arches they immediately start feeling hungry.

McDonald’s has been able to bridge the borders between the instinctive ‘logical’ and the rational, the system 1 versus system 2 of its consumers (terms defined Daniel Kahneman in the Dual Process Theory). McDonald’s might not be healthy, but our intuitive ‘logic’ justifies our choice by focusing on the salad we purchased and forgetting the rest of our order: the coke, the burger, and the fries.

Therefore the concept, as demonstrated by McDonald’s, and other such successful brands, is to create frameworks that are flexible enough to allow each user to write their own story within the brand framework. The brand story becomes the culmination of the multitude of their users’ stories constantly changing, growing and overlaying each other to come and represent the brand story as a whole.

The strengths of the user interaction frameworks we develop (whether it is a brand, a communication campaign, a business framework, a digital environment or a physical environment) are thus with the element of choice we offer the end user, whether it is a true choice or the illusion of choice. We all believe we are individuals with complete control over our choices and decisions. Yet our choices and decisions are culturally conditioned by the societies and the groups we belong to or identify with and our inherent ideologies. Some of these belongings are more encompassing and large scaled like national belongings. Others are more shifting whether it is throughout the day or throughout or lifetimes.

For example throughout her day, a woman can be a mother, a business executive, a health-conscious shopper, a community activist, and then again a mother and a wife.  Her mindset, the group of people she is surrounded by, and her objectives change throughout the day depending on the role she is playing at any one point in time. This shape shifting, and focus and refocus from micro to macro and back, determines her behaviour throughout the day. .

The designers in all disciplines, creatives and advertising account executives should concentrate on understanding the context of our multiple beings which is what will allow them to create effective experience design on the strategic level and convincing nudging on the tactical level.

User centred strategies

It is imperative not only to keep in mind the dynamic nature of our end users and target them in frameworks that encompass advertising campaigns and branding strategies for consumer goods and institutions, but also to think within that mindset across all disciplines and market sectors, whether it is a service design, a spatial design, a package, a digital realm and others.

My experience has included designing complex experiences and brand strategies and systems, for entities such as universities, healthcare systems, airports and transportation systems as well as the smallest product applications and touchpoints. It has always been primordial to understand who I was communicating with and who is going to experience the brand or system. From that user perspective I am able to create frameworks of multileveled touchpoints that allow each user to engage and interact with the system according to their own pathway of choice which is flexible and ever-changing. This goes against the idea of choreographing experiences since that type of design forces the user into predesigned pathways which are not flexible and biomorphic. The pathway of choreographed experience forces us into certain behaviours in a more overt manner which users tend to resist. In order to have the users change their behaviours and adopt new ones it has to be more subconscious and operate along gentle and persistent nudging which plays upon the preexisting mental frames of reference of the user as well as their memories allowing them to build new cognitive experiences.

User experience design, is a combination of design creativity, problem solving, anthropology, sociology, psychology, behavioural finance or economics as well as business understanding. The strength of good and successful user experience design is its multilevelled experiencing. It is not only about the communication strategy and advertising, it is definitely not restricted to the digital realm, it surely encompassed the brand, its architecture and its messaging, it absolutely manifests itself in the service design and business model of the client, and naturally expands into the built environment and architecture whether it is as small as a package or a sales touchpoint, or as big as a city.

Therefore we should not only focus on nudging and its effects on a momentary basis, at the point of purchase and from a consumption perspective. Nudging can also be effective on a long term basis to change societal and cultural behaviours, like a small stream of water painstakingly shaping the shape of a rock. The focus here is the ‘system 2’ and the deliberate learning of a behaviour to turn it into a ‘system 1’ which is intuitive action.

Take for example the massive transformation in the Brazilian city of Curitiba lead by the mayor at the time Jaime Lerner, who was an architect/ urban planner by trade. The changes that he has implemented, through his three tenures as a mayor starting in 1972, with very small budgets, has created a framework which turned Curitiba into the most liveable city in Brazil. 90% of its inhabitants would not trade living there, whereby 70% of the inhabitants of Sao Paolo want to live in Curitiba. The changes in behaviour that have been instigated by that framework raised the GDP, the quality of life and the population’s attachment to their city leading to intuitive continuous enhancement emerging directly from the population.

Jaime Lerner focused on developing the city development framework around three issues: Mobility, Sustainability and Tolerance and Social Diversity.

The first issue was tackled through the invention of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) a bus system that operates like an underground, with its dedicated stations (not shelters), lanes, and triple bendy buses. The way it was achievable was through co-responsibility. He approached the private sector asking them to fund the fleets while the city funded the routes and planned the itineraries. Residential development and businesses started developing around the system building a more dynamic and engaged city. The co-responsibility meant that the population, the private sector and the city all had a shared sense of partnership, pride and responsibility in the growth and upkeep of the system. Lerner understood that everything has to work together and that it is about successfully combining living, working and leisure. The transportation system should not act only as the link between those different facets otherwise the public transport will end up being used mainly twice a day at peak hours. ‘If you have a system that works always and connects living and working activities as well as leisure it is more of a city than a corridor of public transport.’ In Curitiba the BRT is the vein system that pumps vitality into the city. It has even lessened car ridership and usage since the cars get stuck in traffic but the buses never do.

In terms of sustainability he made sure to balance ‘the equation between what we save and what we use’. Focusing again on co-responsibility and shared partnership he did multiple interventions that have transformed Curitiba into one of the most sustainable cities. Teaching children how to separate garbage in school has transferred this behavioural shift to their parents who separate household rubbish, bringing down to a minimum the amount of separation needed to be done at the refineries. He engaged with the inhabitants of the slums and again made them partners in the system. The slums were too narrow for the garbage trucks to be able to efficiently collect trash. The inhabitants were throwing their garbage in the streams and on the small roads, the same streams and roads where their children would play. In order to stop that from happening Lerner started an exchange program. For every bag of garbage the inhabitants would take to a specified collection point where the trucks could go, they would receive either bus tokens or grocery bags. Not only has it stopped garbage from being thrown, but it was an incentive for the inhabitants to pick old rubbish and exchange it, creating a second stream of income for the families and getting the streets and streams clean in the process.

Another project was to engage with the fishermen. The deal was any fish the fishermen caught it were theirs to sell, but any garbage they fished from the water was bought by the city. On days where there was no fishing, the fishermen would fish garbage. The more they fished garbage, the cleaner the bay became. The cleaner the bay, the more fish there were. It was a win win situation.

The tolerance and social inclusion was manifested through all of these projects as he did not focus on gentrification and areas of specific income levels. The city was for all Curitibans. One of the projects that demonstrated this point the best, was the creation of new parks. Instead of building concrete walls to try to manage the floods, a method that has demonstrated its inefficiency namely in places like New Orleans, he built parks. These parks have made Curitiba more liveable and green, with nature accessible to all its inhabitants. To reduce the cost of the park upkeep the mowing of the lawns is kept to herds of sheep. Not only is it cheaper but it engages people with more nature in the city and it provides the city with another source of income.

These and many other interventions, whether long term plans or short term ‘urban acupuncture’ interventions engaged the population of Curitiba and changed their behaviour into one of co-partnership with the city, a shared responsibility and a sense of interconnectivity which allowed more grassroots interventions to emerge from within the population operating with the framework (physical and mental) that has been set.

The example of Curitiba demonstrates how a holistic strategy creates a framework which encompassed the different interventions and application, interconnecting them, thus bringing into existence multileveled experiences which constantly engage the users and grows with them.

Experience and its memory

There is value in helping our economic system to become more sensitive to human behaviour, and thus increasing its overall efficiency.  We cannot ignore individual choice, its dynamics and cultural references when analysing decision-making, whether in the simple context of shopping for consumer products, or in the larger context of developing societal systems.

Therefore we should focus on the development of holistic frameworks for our clients through which the end user can interact with their brands, consumer products, systems, policies or environments. These frameworks help change behaviours through a multifaceted experience and gentle nudging which will operate on creating memories that will help shift the user’s mindset. Building memorable user experiences is achievable though a holistic approach, with a cross-pollination of disciplines, under a centralised unifying umbrella, which acts as the facilitation in this multidisciplinary approach.

I believe that our experiences are made up of a continuous string of moments. Each one of these moments is an intersection of what I call the four cardinal points of experience. These four cardinal points are the individual, the community, the physical and the virtual. In order for these moments and intersections to leave a memorable impression and be effective in instigating behavioural change, the user experience should be the junction between human intuitive behaviour and rationality. Most importantly each interaction with the user and each experience they have has to end on a memorable positive note. As Daniel Kahneman reminds us, our experiences are as memorable as the way they end and that their time sequence is not linear but determined by the end of the experience which is what will or will not affect any change in our behaviours.

ROTTERDAM, The Netherlands – Rotterdam/ Amsterdam- based urban planning firm, Stipo B.V., just released their new book ‘The City at Eye Level: Lessons for Street Plinths’ and will be available for free download or hard-­‐copy via website on 11 January 2013. The book, a collaborative effort of five editors and 43 professional contributors from the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Demark, USA, UK and Germany, (including Samar Héchaimé of factors) delves deeply into the concepts, philosophy, and strategies behind planning the ground floors (“plinths”) of urban environments. Interviews, case studies, and first-­‐hand stories highlight important examples of best practices from cities in the Netherlands (in particular, Rotterdam) as well as Copenhagen, Antwerp, San Francisco, and elsewhere.

This books shows that good plinths require a smart strategy supported by many players including the city, the owners, the renters and the users, and introduces a host of new vocabularly to help define this innovative planning strategy. A great city at eye level requires a strategy based on three domains: software (use, the experience, the functions), hardware (design of plinths, buildings, streetscapes, hybrid zones and principles of sustainability) and orgware (organisation of functions and portfolio maintenance). The 215-­ page book offers ideas, solutions and examples of the best ground floors and ground-­‐level planning from cities across the world. The concluding chapter proposes 75 specific lessons for good plinths.

On 11 January, 2013, Stipo launched the book to the world in the city where it all started: Rotterdam. About 230 guests, including urban planners, entrepreneurs, housing associations, local civil servants, neighbours, and interested parties, all came together to celebrate. Hosted by several partners (EDBR, AIR, Deltametropool, Gemeente Rotterdam) the launch was open to the public and included a Plinth Safari for all guests-­‐-­‐parallel visits examining the best plinth planning practices in Rotterdam-­‐-­‐as well as a chance to meet a few of the book’s co-­‐authors who were also present for the evening. John Worthington, co-­‐ founder of DEGW and Director of The Academy of Urbanism in London, gave the keynote speech. He focused on how the book is relevant in an international context, in international cities.

The book is available through the publishing house Eburon and will be on bookshelves and Amazon.com in the coming weeks. It is also available for download at www.thecityateyelevel.com.

Let me start by saying I love public transport. Every form of it, well I do have a preference for those that are above the ground but under the ground is just fine when you need to get somewhere faster and in a more efficient manner. But everything falls into the realm of my love affair with sustainable public transport, bus, tube, train, plane, bike and occasionally taxis. Nevertheless my love is being tested lately and I even have been thinking I should cheat on my beloved and consider a more efficient yet individual mode of transport after spending a minimum 1 hr to move within zone 1 of London. it even took me 1.5 hrs today to go from W8 to N1!!! I could get to Paris technically with a bit more time! Quite absurd I would say. Don’t even consider flying as last week it took me 2.5hrs just to get through customs at Heathrow airport and the week before it took me 6 hrs waiting at Heathrow to get to Milan!… Goodness what is going to happen in July?

With all that I still believe whole heartedly in the communal modes of transport and have made many of my lifestyle choices around it and the flexibility it offers in terms of independent and sustainable mobility in a city. I do believe that it needs to constantly be enhanced and become more integrated and multimodal as well. I believe our roads, our city policies, and our way of life should become as car aversive as possible in order for us to build stronger communities and more greener ways of life for our children by regaining the interstitial spaces and the connective tissue of the city away from the car.

This week I attended one of the Street Talks that is organised by the Movement for liveable London in a conversation about what does the mode of transportation we take say about us. The conversation went around the gendrification of modes of transport, how biking is a majority of white men in London, how their attitude on the road is very much that of road warriors, how biking is also identified with a class that has already asserted its identity. Women and ethnic groups inhabiting London rarely find themselves on the bike for multiple and diverse reasons given. Yet moving away from that trend it was mentioned by one member of the audience that the Boris bikes, thanks to their sturdy and high design have allowed to a more relaxed, slow and elegant biking methodology that is more commuter than road warrior. You could hop on these bikes in a skirt and high heels and tackle the traffic easily from one point to another, well as long as you are in Central London. They also allow for a multimodal flexibility that allows you to bike in one direction and opt for a bus, or tube in a different direction in case weather changes or your mood and state of mind changes.

Yet these questions, and a raising debate comparing Amsterdam to London, has taken me back to my years living in Amsterdam where I immediately adopted the biking lifestyle even though I had not biked since I was a teenager, as biking was considered a child’s mode of transport at the time. It was our way to conquer the town on our choppers that had 4 gears and were wonderful to take us up and down the hills in my town. So here I was, just moved to Amsterdam in my mid-twenties and I did what you do when you get to a new place, adopt its way of life and integrate to what makes that place what it is. In Amsterdam biking was definitely one of those qualities. So much so that by the time I was moving out of Amsterdam more than 5 years later I owned 3 bikes! 3 bikes? Why would be the question you ask, and of course my answer is for my visitors to be able to bike along with me around the lovely city. At the time bike sharing schemes were not available and you would need to rent a bike for the duration of your visit, so it was cheaper to just buy an extra bike and keep it in my storage unit, and then another! Who in London would dream of being able to store 3 bikes. Storing one bike is hard enough sometimes which makes the bike sharing scheme even more valuable to the public. Yet biking in Amsterdam was not a singular way of travelling around the city. If your route was too long, or if you just didn’t feel like it you could take your bike on the metro and then bike around the centre keeping biking more leisurely. At the time the Nederlands Spoorwegen also introduced your bike can travel for free if it was a foldable bike. If you had an unfoldable bike you would have to pay for it to travel on the train. Daily commuters would bike with one bike to the train station in their town and then have another bike at the other train station they normally arrive at in Amsterdam biking from there to their office. The foldable bike travel just brought in another more integrated way of commuting that travellers adopted very readily.

In Amsterdam it is so easy use biking as a mode of transportation because of the attitude on the road which goes to bikes first. A road that is more a bike road rather than a car road is automatically a pedestrian road. The car is forced to move at no more than 20 km/hr and everyone is aware of everyone else. The bikes are mostly more upright bikes making them commuter bikes rather than sports bikes. Children have biking integrated into their lives from a very early age whether on the plastic seats, on the tag along buggies or for a bit older children either sitting on the baggage rack, the bar handles or even standing on bars coming out of the back wheel behind their parents. They have such a sense of balance and  a sense of awareness of their environment that it not only makes them intrinsically bikers but it makes them more environmentally friendly as well since they are not isolated from the environment by a car carcass but completely immersed in it and its elements. These children would bike to school, to university, and then to work later on and would not consider using other modes of transport except if the distances are too long. Biking in Amsterdam and in Holland in general is not an isolated activity. Since the family would travel together each on their bikes they travel in pack and they are aware of the rest of the bikers on the road, they interact with them and cohabitant with them. In London biking is more of an insular and isolating activity. On your bike you don’t connect with any other and you surely do not communicate. Once you have put your helmet, your lycra and your high vis you put on your blinders and get moving. This feeling of safety on the road makes bike ridership equal in all demographic, in all enthnicities and in all genders in Holland as it is the Dutch way of life you adopt from a very young age if you are born there or as soon as you arrive there. It is part of the inburgering, it is a way of becoming part of the Dutch society.  I loved my oma bike so much it has been travelling and settling with me every city I have gone to. Unfortunately she has not been feeling at home in all these places and has been shying away, as have I, from gaining the road and taking on biking as a method of transportation in the same way I used to in Amsterdam, even though in my borough of Kensington my council has attempted to make her feel at home and keeping her warm by offering her a seat cover!

In the same way that visitors to Holland immediately take on the bikes as they want to experience the place the same way the locals do, the visitors in London have been quick to hop on the Boris bikes as it is to them the way the locals do, as well as it being such an accessible mode of transport in Central London. To those who have experienced the Velib in Paris and other bike sharing schemes around Europe, once they come to London the Boris bike is just the same.

During the Street Talks conversation one of the points raised was that the free buses for Seniors and under 18s has universalised access to bus transport and made it democratically accessible to those demographics. Since all carry the free bus pass there is no segregation of class associated to using the bus. It just becomes universal. It destigmatises bus usage and removes it from perceptions as being the cheap and dirty mode of transportation, but rather the democratic and the defacto mode of transportation. The argument was that once the under 18 group grows into adults they will continue using the bus and keep steering away from a more individualised mode of transport, such as cars, since this is a mode they have already adopted from a younger age. Much like the Dutch kids and their bikes. Yet another counter argument to that is that these kids are used to adopting a bus over a more active mode of transport such as bikes which makes them lazier and less physically active. The debate went around to argue, rightfully so, that the bus allows the pack to move together, that it was a more communal and universal way of travelling. That the bike is considered the poor way of travelling and that kids would want to travel together. Yet as I mentioned earlier, in Holland Dutch kids learn early on how to move in packs on bikes and to them it is just as much a communal mode of transport as the bus or the tram is.

If this is what the free bus pass has done to democratise the bus usage for the two user groups that are the most vulnerable in the city, the under 18 and the seniors, democratising movement and making the city more accessible to them what happens if we open up the city more to them? What happens if we make the bike sharing scheme free for those two user groups. It might actually get the streets to become as democratised as the buses and open up a more active way of moving around, well at least in central london. Or it might get the youth to use the bus to get to central london then shift to the bike as a more internal mode of transportation. This will surely get the youth to regain ownership of the city and it would create a stronger sense of connection that would make them protect it rather than destroy it.

On the other hand I believe there needs to be a more interconnection between the different modes of transportation especially in London, as we need different types of transportation for different things but we would like to have the ease of one mode of payment. In Shanghai you can use your transportation car to pay for bus, metro, taxi or ferry. It was mostly very handy as you could shift easily from metro to taxi. Buses there were not very comprehensible if you could not read mandarin so you would rarely find any of us expats on the buses. But metro was a wonderful, clean and organised way of getting around the city. What was interesting in the design of the Shanghai metro is that most of the stations were also interconnected with other facets of your life. Many of the metro stops were under shopping centres which integrated grocery shopping, food courts, department stores, clothing shopping etc. This really brought together the things you needed during your daily life. As you come back from the office, at your stop you would be able get your groceries, or do some shopping as you are heading home. There was talk of that during the design of the new West entrance of Kings Cross which I visited today only to find almost the same chain stores that are in St Pancras, M&S, Boots, Paperchase, Pret A Manger… and a few other food outlets and clothes outlets. The design is nice and airy, but i would not call the station a place for the community to get together, nor would I call it a place for your lifestyle needs. The seating areas on the ground floor are so few and tucked on the side next to the escalators, which in terms of flow I do understand the need to keeping flow open but they could have created a more town square feeling along the sides. The restaurants are mainly on the mezzanine where it turns out the seating area is actually a public seating area, but that is not apparent if you are downstairs and you are not going to go up if you don’t plan on buying food, which means the mezzanine is more used by the restaurant patrons rather than by the general public. The same comments apply to the future design of the front entrance of Kings Cross. The plan there is to strip down the 1970s expansion, taking it back to the original brick facade, which is beautiful, but leaving us with a large plaza that barely has any shading, sheltering from the elements, natural shading by trees, or seating areas, eliminating what could be a wonderful town square and instead reinforcing the transience of the Kings Cross area. If you want to develop the whole neighbourhood and make it more community based, you need to give the community a more open space to commune, not obliterate it and encourage them to just keep moving on!

I do believe that we need to start looking at the design of our transportation hubs in a way that fits more the way we life and want to live. Humans are adaptable, will adapt to a place and make the best of what it offer, but that does not mean it functions properly for their needs. The transportation hubs that we have today isolate us from the city and isolate the city from our modes of transportation as if they were two separate things. The modes of transport that are on the ground level are the ones that are the most integrated with our city like the trams and the buses, yet they are the ones that we avoid as they also get stuck in traffic and take ages to get us to where we want to go. What if we start designing our stations and our transportation hubs that integrates our lives more, that integrates our cities more, that spills more into our cities and allow our cities to spill more into it, whether it is underground, overground, trains or planes? Can you imagine how different the feel of the place would become? What if we began re-centring  our lives, living and working in close proximities? We would stop creating zones that have no street life and that are empty after 6pm or in the weekend like the City in London or the Loop in Chicago. We would stop spending so much time commuting and we would be so much less frustrated and stressed during the day. We would start reconnecting with the places we live and we re-become part of communities. Our children would regain the streets and would connect with the communities they live in. They would understand how their communities function on all levels, cultural, economic and societal. We would recommune around the new town square which could just as well be the extension of our local multimodal transportation hub.

Food has long been an expression of our cultures and our way of life. That even prompts archaeologists to analyse the contents of tombs to understand how a civilisation lived and survived. The way we have shifted our search for food has fundamentally shifted our societies and the whole experience with food continues to define us till today.

When we travel we always want to experience the local food as a way of getting literally getting a taste of where we are. We call that experiencing the authenticity. The more adventurous of us want to go off the beaten track and try out the restaurants were the locals hang out. By doing so we get to savour a regional flair that tell us stories beyond what we read in the sponsored tourist books. It is even better when we get invited to someone’s home to taste the cooking served at that a particular family table. This not only gives us a taste of the culture of the country in general but also the flavours specific to that small microcosm that is more intimate and personal.

We have seen a lot of shows on the television that highlight that experience of  hidden culinary treasures while travelling to new countries. Take an example Anthony Bourdain’s no reservations. It makes you want to go savouring your way around the planet, exploring unexplored territories and share lives through food.

In most cultures there is a reflection of your acceptance into its midst and home when you are invited to share a meal.

When we first move out of our parent’s homes and go off to live the adventure filled life of a student, it is food whose cost we cut the most. Yet we learn the art of cheap eats and cheap levels. We live by an austerity that somewhat joyous and glorious.  We share our dime concoctions with our friends in these feast like events that were equivalent in our minds to Roman feasts, where boxed wine and laughter were abundant and discussions and plans grandiose. After all it is all a part of what is going to lead us to change the world…

Nevertheless austerity is not only something we enjoy as a glorious and romantic part of getting to adulthood. Austerity and hunger is experience massively around the world by people that can’t find enough to feed themselves and their families. This is not a problem suffered only by faceless sub-Saharan populations with whom we have no connection nor relation. This problem is felt by people around us, in the inner cities and in the suburbs of our big first world cities. Many a child and their parents goes hungry and cold to bed, whether it is in war torn countries or in major world cities.

In our aspirations we always think of the first sign of wealth is when we have plenty and more, when we can throw away. We aspire to become a throw away culture.  We consume without retention and the first sign of our ability to consume is the abundance of food.

The other day I was at the Imperial War Museum in London and there is section in  the museum about the austerity measure with food and rations during WWII. It is not anything that is unusual, nor was it an exceptional measure that the British government followed. Of course what is always amazing is the sense of inventiveness that immerges during these times to keep a sense of culture and taste alive. With the little rations of food supplies how can you change the recipe of pudding to still feed the whole family and try not to sacrifice on the taste. How can  you become entrepreneurial and barter with your neighbour with what they have that you need and vice versa. How can you save by growing your own food. It was a way of thinking and a way of life that was adopted by everyone and survived even a few years after the war.

Today we have lost touch with that sense of urgency that had emerged during the war. We have also lost touch with where our food comes from. Our children have no connection with the earth as a source if their food and thus have no qualms on throwing away without understanding the repercussion of every thrown morsel and discarded scrap. In our sense of getting over the austerity we wanted our children to never feel the want and did not teach them the value of that abundance.

There has been a rise to green movements with varied degrees of involvement, from the policy driven to the militant who live what they preach.

Nevertheless sustainable thinking and way of life only works with an interconnection and an understanding of the cycle from the source to the end, and how it related to us, to our lives. We can’t get active about something that doesn’t touch us directly.

Mobilisation and austerity measures in WWII worked because the causes and effects were felt by every person in the United Kingdom. I am not romanticising the effects and saying everyone became diligent and did not try to profit of the situation. Profiteering is something you will see in every situation unfortunately.

In order for us to see a change in tide in relation to sustainable living and sustainable development we need to have to feel a threat to our ways of life and especially to our food. We also need to feel a direct cause and effect for us to perform changes to our life and make them sustainable. Of course the best ways to perform changes in society are to go through the children. We have seen its adverse effects on how political movements have been able to really take hold when they targeted the children and the young. We also have seen its positive effects when children were mobilised to help bring in a greener way of life into the home in places like Curitiba in Brazil.

For example having markets all over the city, closer to where we live rather than destinations to the urban initiated organic militants, is a way to help children and young people connect with food and its source. The food experience is an interconnected sensory and sensual experience. It takes us over and immerses us. If it is seen as just sustenance might as well just distribute protein pills to everyone. But our taste buds would protest. They would have us have craving and would water just at the thought of something that we know tastes good.  These markets would spread the smell of raw foods and would connect it with the smell of the earth. As a child my favourite smell is that of the earth after the first rain of autumn. You could smell how alive earth is. You could feel it breathe. You could see it crawl with little animals. You see their trail lace over the brown fresh earth. And you could gather these little animals so that you could help your grandmother transform them into dinner. For me those snails are still probably some of the tastiest meals I have had. Same held true to every salad and every cake make out of the fruits and vegetables grown in my grandmother’s garden. She gave me my first lessons in cooking and showed me how it is about flair even in time of austerity.

Understanding that cycle what we need to understand how to help our planet not only survive but flourish in the future. Having our children experience and engage in it is a legacy we give them to the future. It should be the battle that mobilises all of us in a way that is intrinsic to our daily lives. It should not be something so hard for us to do that we just don’t do it. But in order to do it is should matter. It should make us do it. It should engage us like our grandmother and great grandmothers were engaged and mobilized without thinking of themselves as militants. This is what they HAD to do for US.

Food should be part of the education and the culture. There used to be home economics in schools which has now been removed. Home economics would teach us the basic logic of the economics of the home and how to make it sustainable. It allowed us to understand the connections with the food and the sustenance. It allowed us to bring in the creative solutions to solve the problems we might encounter in the home. I not only believe we should bring back home economics into the schools but I also believe cooking classes should be brought into the schools. It allows our children to understand the connectivity of raw food, its sources and the food that we have at the dinner table. But it also allows them to understand chemistry, physics and math in the most practical manner same as they are doing in the charter schools with the forensic experiments.

What if all those manicured lawns are also transformed into urban agriculture land. What if you could actually smell food growing closer to where you lived rather than having to have a trip to the countryside to connect with nature. What if the facilities and options to grow small plants were integrated into our flats and homes and onto the roofs of our buildings. What if we really created all these suspended gardens that made the fame of Babylon. Not only will we be more connected to the food we eat but literally we will be closer to the oxygen we breathe.

What if the austerity measures that the government was enforcing due to the economical downturn actually leads us to a richer life of health and abundance since it will teach us to be reconnected with the sources of our food and sustenance….

Museums also have a big role to play in all of this. Take the example of the exhibit on the mobilisation and the austerity of WWII. This could accompanied by interactive experiments and courses that teach us how our grandmothers and their mothers used their imagination and got through the though time while trying not to sacrifice on health. It could teach us how to prepare food. It could teach us about our tastes and culture through food. How it has been preserved or dissipated through the ages. It could teach us the meaning of truly being a community since cooking with someone and eating with them is not something you do with just anyone. You will not invite a stranger to your table to your kitchen, and if you do that person will not be a stranger for long.

With the change of our communication along the multimedia superhighways, the attention spans have been shortened and dispersed.

The average viewer will be bombarded with a million message every instant, from billboards to moving screen images to architecture to every type of message and communication we receive. The environments we live in have become highly branded with messages flying at us from every perceived direction that it has become more difficult to communicate. The competition has become extremely fierce.

To counter that attention seeking modern environment, the urbanite takes more and more refuge in isolation. This has become apparent in the amount of people walking the streets with headphones in their ears, a focused determined look and an impenetrable bubble around them.

We walk more and more with music, or podcasts or some other sound that we pump into our ears including phone conversation with people who are not present within our physical realm. We forget to let the street and our environment talk to us. We thus are telling people and the city to stay away and not approach us. Trust me I know it is well warranted sometimes. You surely would like to avoid the chatterbox who sees you as a perfect target to rant about their problems hoping to save on the price of a session at their psychiatrist. But most often than not by retreating into our bubble we miss out on some interesting interaction between us and the city, between us and a passer by or even between us and someone we know that we did not notice was around us. It is true that most urban environments are not conducive to that interaction really but you can find a stage anywhere. For example one of my favourite urban parks is Bryant Park. The way this park has grown throughout the years has turned it  into a wonderfully engaging and engaged urban open space. Every time I go to New York I try to spend an afternoon there at least. I head there with my lunch, and a book. Two activities to which this park is so perfectly suited. The central core is open, on one side you have the New York Library and all around you have the high rises of mid manhattan. From those high-rises the scale shifts around the periphery of the park with a layer of trees and shrubbery where you have more intimate enclosed spaced that reopen towards the center. That center is where one night a week in the summer new yorkers converge with their picnic baskets to come and watch a classic movie. On any other time of the day you can take over these wood and steel green cafe chairs and tables and have yourself a quiet reflective time…. or so i always think. It never turns out to be the case. Every time, inevitably, I end up approaching or being approached by a stranger with whom i engage in a conversation about the book in either in our hands or something we overheard the other say in a conversation, maybe even an earlier phone conversation. That conversation most of the time pulls in other people in the vicinity and before we know it our little green cafe chair and table are moved around and we create an outdoor living space. If I am sitting in that same park with my headphones on I am sending a clear message to people sitting around me to stay away. What a pity that is since it would make me miss those wonderful conversations with strangers.

The urban environment used to be experienced through the dialogue that happened between its street level and its skyline. The buildings, which are individual symbolic expression of its inhabitants, are also pieces of the whole skyline. They communicate with each other like individual letters do in a text. Each is a self standing symbol, but the linguistic articulation between them and their negative spaces creates the text or the whole story. So we don’t only see a building alone but also how it is in harmony or clash with its surrounding.

Their street façade has always been more of the window through which you could read the identity of the building or the space, the canvas upon which the brand gets painted.

Theoretically it still works that way. This is why we still rely on that street level to be the space where the brand mainly unfolds and plays itself urbanely. We still work on branding those environments through architecture, interiors, communicative graphics, etc.

Yet we are becoming less effective that we used to be. As communicators we are having more trouble reaching into that self imposed isolation within the urban landscape. The disjunction between voyeur and the object of voyeurism has become so that we are not catching his attention long enough to want to make him come out of the cocoon. We walk the streets without even noticing the differences and the discrepancies of the places and spaces around us. It takes something that screams at us, like a glass box of the Apple store for us to take notice.

The plane where that urbanite breaks his isolation has become the screen, whether it is the television, the computer screen, the movie theater, the pad or especially the smart phone. In the case of the television, we go home and immerse ourselves in the reality of the shows where the brands and then their environments suddenly become our own, and we identify with them as if we belonged to or they were part of our daily lives. For example, the Idol series. It had started as a televised talent show in the UK. Now it has become such a strong phenomenon that it has now gone global, with shows in being made all over the world. When we choose to watch the show we know that we are joined by a million other viewers. Thus the characteristics of community, space and environment get redefined. The community is now dispersed and unconfined by a location, even though it is still somehow defined by time and idea. But we also know that we can safely assume that when we get to the office the next morning will be able to strike a conversation with one or several colleagues about the happenings of yesterday’s show. Thus the community gets extended to beyond the time of the show’s showing, joining like minded individuals in a new manner that has transcended the traditional sense of the meeting, and allows us to get out of isolation every once in a while. What also happens is that people get together, gathered by a community created around someone else’s life, whether fictional or real. I personally have been marginal to those shows. But every morning after the air of Idol, or Project Runway or any of these reality/ competition shows people around me would be talking about it, about what this competitor… Oh My Goodness what were they thinking, singing country on American Idol… that is soooo daring and did you see what she was wearing? And of course that poor thing falling flat on his face as he was dancing… now THAT was what cost him the competition. But i would vote for him. The culmination of all that was the Susanne Boyle phenomenon. An obscure talent who did not have the looks or the presence to be a performer came an wowed the world through one song. All of a sudden everyone identified with Susanne, everyone routed for her, everyone cried tears of joy for her. Everyone, everywhere, around the world. Even those who did not watch the show their space was invaded by it, at least for a few days.

The space where we truly allow ourselves to come out is the virtual communities on the computer screen. Where we go to a virtual community, for example Facebook, we are there intentionally to communicate. We choose to whom we want to talk to, even if they are strangers, by virtue of a selection process that allows us to narrow from a few million to a few hundred… We can browse, chat and create virtual communities that create a network with time being the common bond.

On some websites we can create our own avatars and live alternate lives.

In our real physical world it is not that different, we continuously make choices, even though we do not have an elimination listing system, we do go through the same process but in a different manner. So the interaction between us and the people around us are more defined by the space and time continuum.

That confinement has gone a step further with the smartphones and pad where you can have apps allowing you to ‘check-in’ and where others within your network would be able to know your location and either meet up with you or give you recommendations. Or the apps that allow you to know who in your vicinity would be a potential good suit, or a potential adventure and allows you to connect with them virtually and then physically. Those apps confine us to a pre-set number or characteristics that bind our experience to what the app defines as ‘ours’. Our role of reading the space and scanning through faces and places become minimized to the app we hold in our hands and our ability to read it and use it. It removes the element of play and the unknown, restricting our experiences and our potential experiences while enhancing and reinforcing the ones we know and have experienced before.

Thus the city and the urban landscape have to contend with a very tough competition. The old dilemma raise by Victor Hugo in ‘Notre Dame de Paris’ about the advent of the Guttenberg press is back. ‘Ceci tuera cela, le livre tuera l’edifice’ (this will kill that, the book will kill the edifice).

‘Ceci tuera cela’ was a declaration of the loss of legibility of the architecture due to the spread of the books, thanks to the modern printing press. It was also about the fear of the clergy of loosing power over the masses, since up till then they alone had the power of knowledge and choice given by the book, and the architectural edifice was a manifestation of that power over the population. It was majestic, it towered over the population showing then that through religion they could gain the vertical connection to God and to the heavens. The edifice also offered the gathering space for the community, where they get united to be guided by the choice. The fear of the clergy was that knowledge through the book would offer the population choices, thus diminishing their power, and that the book would create isolation dispersing the masses and again diminishing their power.

Yet architecture never really lost its legibility. It simply acquired a new set of linguistic symbols through which it communicated. It was a language that was alive, changing and timeless at the same time. It reflected the zeitgeist (the spirit of the age). So when we see a certain type of architecture, we can tell what period it was built in as well as what is the message it is trying to convey to us.

The architecture has always been part of a branded expression, that speaks about identity. From the pharaonic pyramids, the temple, the church, the mosque, to the corporate edifice, even passing through residential and vernacular architecture. It is the stamp of identity of a certain group. It helped foster a sense of identity, of belonging, of attachment, a belief, and even sometimes a sense of structure and hierarchy through which norms were set and accountability was determined.

The brand expression was not only in the exteriors but it included the interior and the environment with every piece of it communicating whether iconoclastically or architectonically. In our modern architecture we have not shifted away from that paradigm.

The architecture was never killed by the book, its methods have shifted and altered, but it always finds a way to reinvent itself as communication tool. The book was nothing but an extension of the space to when you are not present in it, especially when it came to religion where the argument originated from. It created a virtual world build through imagination. But it did not have the same power the screen has these days since reading the book was still an individual endeavor.

Architecture is about the community and the connection with the other, while the books are about isolation and refuge.

Will our modern day isolation methods’ impact prove to be similar to those that have been felt by the book, an extension of the physical world, or will it prove to create something completely different where it becomes a alternate world? Will the physical world need redefinition in terms of its paradigm and its messaging in order to keep its stature as a major message giver? It should be able to compete with the Sim-Cities and the Second-Lives out there where people can go live their alternative lives and have more choices. Will this duality and dichotomy redefine our architectural and urban expression? Will it create a new architectonic language that has a different way of expressing, spaces, function, loyalty, power or any of the other expressions architecture and space are so adept at making? In some cases like in China it has. A lot of people there live dual lives, the shown and the hidden. They splurge on what others can see to give the impression of wealth, as well as conformity. Yet in the confines of their homes it is a different story, and on the ‘chinese Facebook’ and qq it is an even more different landscape. They lives lives that are non conforming the requirements of tradition and culture. When trying to communicate to the chinese consumer one has to know on which plane they need to be and how to communicate through it which has been a struggle western, designers, architects and communicators have been facing.

Choice is the key word here. For the corporate world, which in a way equates the clergy at the time of Hugo, there will be a necessity to overcome the stance it has long taken an imposing its values upon its consumer and shift to making the consumer part of the process by giving them more choices. Maybe if the physical environment offered choices that were parallel to the avatars, and the control-alt-delete, the disconnect between the screen and the 3D world would be bridged. Choice that might actually lead us to a more flat and democratic architectural expression. A different type of space that has a capacity to transcend its own physicality and break the traditional social norms.