Designing Urban Technologies:
Define purpose and approaches for the 21st-century cities
This co-authored article first appeared in the Urban AI blog. As one of the inaugural class Emerging Leaders hosted by the think tank Urban AI, I explored urban technologies and principles for designing future urban spaces in tandem with Maxime Cunin and Gustavo Maldonado-Gil. The original article may be viewed here.
What is technology in the context of cities, what values does it contribute to a society, how can technology design process involve the community, and how can we ensure technology helps create and sustain livable cities in the long run? These questions have arisen after examining Dan Hill’s work and his distinctive framework at the crossroads of design, technology, and cities. We have reflected on his most important concepts regarding technology, urban context, the participatory design method and how to embed technology into cities. In this article, we bring all these ideas together to build the framework for designing the future of urban spaces and elaborate on the role of technology in this process.
We Live Technology
“It is not that we use technology, we live technology.” - Godfrey Reggio
We shall first define what we mean by technology. Technology has transformed the urban environment since the birth of civilizations, enabling new ways for people to interact with one another and experience the built fabric. In this digital era with full flourishment of technology, people in charge of designing new technology in cities need to take a step back to comprehend what technology is and which challenges (day-to-day problems) technological innovations should address.
If we look up the word in a dictionary, technology is defined as “the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area.” (1) This definition is all-encompassing: technology can be found everywhere, from prehistoric inventions such as the arches that were used to create bridges for cities to the latest innovations in public health systems, smart buildings and cell phones. Cell phones are a good example of how technology evolved to solve certain problems in the city. People needed a faster way to communicate with each other, so since 1973, multiple companies such as Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, and Apple have developed multiple iterations of products to meet this need. Even for those of us who do not consider ourselves technologically savvy, we are using some tools or devices to cook, move through the city, and pay for the local public transport. In other words, technology is already inseparable from our everyday life and takes many shapes.
Bringing the dictionary definition into our urban context, we see technology as the practical application of knowledge in cities. These applications come in myriad forms such as street design, land use developments and digital signing. Each technology widely accepted by city residents radically changes the physical environment and the social patterns. For instance, streets are one form of urban technology that has come into existence for centuries. They have progressed from the urban innovation of Cardo and Decumanus streets in ancient Roman towns to the congested traffic lanes that we now see in many locations throughout the world. Nonetheless, roadways provide much more than traffic movement. They have provided the grounds for public engagement and social activism, and have witnessed the evolution of mankind over the past centuries. Cities are places where technology interacts with the natural environment and supposedly assists human inhabitants with improving the social, economic, and environmental qualities. Technology thus needs to engage with the specific geographical and temporal characteristics, so only by taking the local context into consideration first, we are going to see successful urban technology.
We shall first define what we mean by technology. Technology has transformed the urban environment since the birth of civilizations, enabling new ways for people to interact with one another and experience the built fabric. In this digital era with full flourishment of technology, people in charge of designing new technology in cities need to take a step back to comprehend what technology is and which challenges (day-to-day problems) technological innovations should address.
If we look up the word in a dictionary, technology is defined as “the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area.” (1) This definition is all-encompassing: technology can be found everywhere, from prehistoric inventions such as the arches that were used to create bridges for cities to the latest innovations in public health systems, smart buildings and cell phones. Cell phones are a good example of how technology evolved to solve certain problems in the city. People needed a faster way to communicate with each other, so since 1973, multiple companies such as Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, and Apple have developed multiple iterations of products to meet this need. Even for those of us who do not consider ourselves technologically savvy, we are using some tools or devices to cook, move through the city, and pay for the local public transport. In other words, technology is already inseparable from our everyday life and takes many shapes.
Bringing the dictionary definition into our urban context, we see technology as the practical application of knowledge in cities. These applications come in myriad forms such as street design, land use developments and digital signing. Each technology widely accepted by city residents radically changes the physical environment and the social patterns. For instance, streets are one form of urban technology that has come into existence for centuries. They have progressed from the urban innovation of Cardo and Decumanus streets in ancient Roman towns to the congested traffic lanes that we now see in many locations throughout the world. Nonetheless, roadways provide much more than traffic movement. They have provided the grounds for public engagement and social activism, and have witnessed the evolution of mankind over the past centuries. Cities are places where technology interacts with the natural environment and supposedly assists human inhabitants with improving the social, economic, and environmental qualities. Technology thus needs to engage with the specific geographical and temporal characteristics, so only by taking the local context into consideration first, we are going to see successful urban technology.
Start with the Context
“Technology is the answer, but what is the question?” - Cedric Price, 1966
Context usually consists of the built environment, city inhabitants and the social and cultural actions taking place in cities. Urbanists, architects, planners, and politicians are the ones or should be the ones, in charge of designing these technologies in each one of worldwide contexts. However, we have observed that they are not the only people driving changes in a city. As active social creatures, all humans are shaping technology through urban interfaces to make sure it meets people’s daily needs.
Hill’s research prompts us to consider how technology can tailor to cities and societies where it operates in, and meanwhile in reverse cities also influence technology and its effectiveness. Thus, designing technology that drives positive changes needs an open mindset and systemic thinking. An open mindset allows designers to explore innovative alternatives that can shift unsustainable practices to sustainable models. Systemic thinking ensures that technology takes into account all aspects of the urban environment, from users to the physical space. In his lecture, Hill introduces an office building designed with information kiosks that display co-worker team messages to allow for seamless internal communication; closing an office door will also trigger an automation that updates the users’ digital workspace status update. The ultimate goal of any new design is to identify the purpose of these new technologies in order to solve issues conveniently, based on highly coded and technical questions but reliant on social interactions.
In addition to technology embedded in the physical environment, virtual programs and information technology have also shaped the spaces we live in. Apps such as Rappi and Pokémon Go have incorporated the real world into the virtual establishment, and enabled alternative ways for people to interact with the physical world. Artificial intelligence has blurred the boundary between cities in real life and the virtual world. One can depend on the other and build on the other. Therefore, technology, even those in the virtual realm, shapes the urban community, and we need to keep the context in mind while developing new ones that operate in either the real-life or virtual world.
Context usually consists of the built environment, city inhabitants and the social and cultural actions taking place in cities. Urbanists, architects, planners, and politicians are the ones or should be the ones, in charge of designing these technologies in each one of worldwide contexts. However, we have observed that they are not the only people driving changes in a city. As active social creatures, all humans are shaping technology through urban interfaces to make sure it meets people’s daily needs.
Hill’s research prompts us to consider how technology can tailor to cities and societies where it operates in, and meanwhile in reverse cities also influence technology and its effectiveness. Thus, designing technology that drives positive changes needs an open mindset and systemic thinking. An open mindset allows designers to explore innovative alternatives that can shift unsustainable practices to sustainable models. Systemic thinking ensures that technology takes into account all aspects of the urban environment, from users to the physical space. In his lecture, Hill introduces an office building designed with information kiosks that display co-worker team messages to allow for seamless internal communication; closing an office door will also trigger an automation that updates the users’ digital workspace status update. The ultimate goal of any new design is to identify the purpose of these new technologies in order to solve issues conveniently, based on highly coded and technical questions but reliant on social interactions.
In addition to technology embedded in the physical environment, virtual programs and information technology have also shaped the spaces we live in. Apps such as Rappi and Pokémon Go have incorporated the real world into the virtual establishment, and enabled alternative ways for people to interact with the physical world. Artificial intelligence has blurred the boundary between cities in real life and the virtual world. One can depend on the other and build on the other. Therefore, technology, even those in the virtual realm, shapes the urban community, and we need to keep the context in mind while developing new ones that operate in either the real-life or virtual world.
An Organic and Participatory Approach
“A really smart city is the one that harnesses the intelligence and creativity of its inhabitants.” - Brian Eno
Context is not the sole panacea to creating successful urban technology. A participative approach also plays a critical role. The fluidity of contexts and users’ intricate impact on technology have determined that the path to tackle urban issues can be in no way linear or completely predictable. In “Design Principles for the Street” (2), British musician Brian Eno draws the parallel between gardening and creating effective urban spaces. Gardeners cultivate thriving green spaces by “designing beginnings.” Although they can plan where to plant the different seedlings, gardeners have no complete control over and do not always attempt to manipulate how nature takes shape. They excel at listening to nature’s needs and wants, and facilitate the budding and blooming by providing the necessary nutrients as well as removing elements that disrupt the burgeoning process.
Urban stakeholders should assume a similar role in designing urban spaces. The current common practice often entails finalizing the ultimate design, laying out every single step towards the intended goals and calculating the costs and construction timelines. However, during the visioning phase, architects cannot necessarily predict all the functions and problems that arise after the space is put into real use. Designing these “endings” forces the space into one pre-determined model, and eliminates the potential for organic evolution and self-adjustment.
One clear example is in Japan; the timber Shinto temples of Ise Shrines are rebuilt every 20 years (3), the “ending” does not exist. Besides fulfilling dedication to deity in the Shinto belief, the reconstruction has also allowed builders to absorb religious beliefs previously unbeknown to them, take advantage of advanced technology and incorporate new design features into the subsequent iterations of the temple throughout the years. The mandate to rebuild defaults reflection and improvement as part of the construction process, whereas architects designing structures that are meant to stand forever need to intentionally keep an open mindset. The technology is designed on a short-term clock, where skills and meaning are to be constantly relearned and readapted, which allows on a long-term clock to sustain that cultural asset living in collective memories.
An opposite example is Pruitt-Igoe, a public housing project in St. Louis US. The buildings had a life span similar to every single iteration of the Ise Shrines; it was demolished within two decades of construction completion, but unfortunately would not have a rebirth. (4) This housing project demonstrated the detrimental effect of not keeping people in mind when drawing construction blueprints. The architect introduced technology in the form of elevators that would skip certain floors. This caused the stairwells with little foot traffic to become the perfect crime locations. In this case, the human activities within the buildings did not complete a desirable living experience but destroyed both the physical and social structures.
Human interactions with the urban environment and other dwellers influence space formation and in a way determine the longevity of built structures. Therefore, it would be wise to bring people in during the design process, especially for urban technologies, so some foreseeable scenarios can be accounted for early on. Architects should lay out the frameworks, the beginnings of “the beginnings.” Stakeholders can then identify problems they are experiencing and those that are emerging, and explore solutions with others. People use the physical spaces in their distinct ways, so the design teams should also consider the diversity of stakeholders beyond the numeric numbers of participants. Equity plays an important role in community engagement since not everyone who deserves to be at the table possesses the financial, social and cultural capital to claim their right to be heard. Designers need to facilitate an inclusive environment and provide the necessary support, such as language assistance for those who have a different mother tongue, visual aid for the visually impaired or childcare services for those who cannot leave their children at home. The fields of architecture and city planning contain numerous technical terminologies and complex processes, which oftentimes seem daunting to lay people. James Rojas, an urban planner, lowers the bar of entering these conversations that shape future urban designs with his “Place It” game. Community residents use randomly found objects to design mini-prototypes of their desired neighborhoods. This playful approach allows people with little experience in planning to communicate their visions.
Moreover, we have to be aware that even though we live in a society embedded with the internet and AI, there are also other ways to tackle city problems. Designing spaces that embed social cues is another strategy that puts humans at the center. This approach invites users of the spaces to co-create a culture and the space. Hans Monderman, a Dutch transportation planner, experimented with removing traffic lights, traffic signs and some street signs in Drachten, a small town in the Netherlands. Streets proved to be safer because the lack of signage forced road users to “seek eye contact” with each other. Monderman says that “you automatically reduce your speed, […] and you take greater care.” (5) Signage removal has outsourced the decision-making responsibility of who needs to yield to users. Users are not only complying with the system but also co-creating the system. Designers need to find the balance between maintaining system legibility and leaving room for human intervention. Thus, we can design the beginnings, not the endings and collaborate with dwellers on how to get to the endings where people are kept at the center of urban technology designs.
Context is not the sole panacea to creating successful urban technology. A participative approach also plays a critical role. The fluidity of contexts and users’ intricate impact on technology have determined that the path to tackle urban issues can be in no way linear or completely predictable. In “Design Principles for the Street” (2), British musician Brian Eno draws the parallel between gardening and creating effective urban spaces. Gardeners cultivate thriving green spaces by “designing beginnings.” Although they can plan where to plant the different seedlings, gardeners have no complete control over and do not always attempt to manipulate how nature takes shape. They excel at listening to nature’s needs and wants, and facilitate the budding and blooming by providing the necessary nutrients as well as removing elements that disrupt the burgeoning process.
Urban stakeholders should assume a similar role in designing urban spaces. The current common practice often entails finalizing the ultimate design, laying out every single step towards the intended goals and calculating the costs and construction timelines. However, during the visioning phase, architects cannot necessarily predict all the functions and problems that arise after the space is put into real use. Designing these “endings” forces the space into one pre-determined model, and eliminates the potential for organic evolution and self-adjustment.
One clear example is in Japan; the timber Shinto temples of Ise Shrines are rebuilt every 20 years (3), the “ending” does not exist. Besides fulfilling dedication to deity in the Shinto belief, the reconstruction has also allowed builders to absorb religious beliefs previously unbeknown to them, take advantage of advanced technology and incorporate new design features into the subsequent iterations of the temple throughout the years. The mandate to rebuild defaults reflection and improvement as part of the construction process, whereas architects designing structures that are meant to stand forever need to intentionally keep an open mindset. The technology is designed on a short-term clock, where skills and meaning are to be constantly relearned and readapted, which allows on a long-term clock to sustain that cultural asset living in collective memories.
An opposite example is Pruitt-Igoe, a public housing project in St. Louis US. The buildings had a life span similar to every single iteration of the Ise Shrines; it was demolished within two decades of construction completion, but unfortunately would not have a rebirth. (4) This housing project demonstrated the detrimental effect of not keeping people in mind when drawing construction blueprints. The architect introduced technology in the form of elevators that would skip certain floors. This caused the stairwells with little foot traffic to become the perfect crime locations. In this case, the human activities within the buildings did not complete a desirable living experience but destroyed both the physical and social structures.
Human interactions with the urban environment and other dwellers influence space formation and in a way determine the longevity of built structures. Therefore, it would be wise to bring people in during the design process, especially for urban technologies, so some foreseeable scenarios can be accounted for early on. Architects should lay out the frameworks, the beginnings of “the beginnings.” Stakeholders can then identify problems they are experiencing and those that are emerging, and explore solutions with others. People use the physical spaces in their distinct ways, so the design teams should also consider the diversity of stakeholders beyond the numeric numbers of participants. Equity plays an important role in community engagement since not everyone who deserves to be at the table possesses the financial, social and cultural capital to claim their right to be heard. Designers need to facilitate an inclusive environment and provide the necessary support, such as language assistance for those who have a different mother tongue, visual aid for the visually impaired or childcare services for those who cannot leave their children at home. The fields of architecture and city planning contain numerous technical terminologies and complex processes, which oftentimes seem daunting to lay people. James Rojas, an urban planner, lowers the bar of entering these conversations that shape future urban designs with his “Place It” game. Community residents use randomly found objects to design mini-prototypes of their desired neighborhoods. This playful approach allows people with little experience in planning to communicate their visions.
Moreover, we have to be aware that even though we live in a society embedded with the internet and AI, there are also other ways to tackle city problems. Designing spaces that embed social cues is another strategy that puts humans at the center. This approach invites users of the spaces to co-create a culture and the space. Hans Monderman, a Dutch transportation planner, experimented with removing traffic lights, traffic signs and some street signs in Drachten, a small town in the Netherlands. Streets proved to be safer because the lack of signage forced road users to “seek eye contact” with each other. Monderman says that “you automatically reduce your speed, […] and you take greater care.” (5) Signage removal has outsourced the decision-making responsibility of who needs to yield to users. Users are not only complying with the system but also co-creating the system. Designers need to find the balance between maintaining system legibility and leaving room for human intervention. Thus, we can design the beginnings, not the endings and collaborate with dwellers on how to get to the endings where people are kept at the center of urban technology designs.
Blur the Boundary between Agency and Ownership
“Like an operating system managing tasks in the background, space is a technology, a carrier of information, and a medium of polity.” - Keller Easterling
After addressing the definition of technology and ways to create functional technology, we cannot avoid the conversation around its implementation and management. Teasing out the nuances around the ownership of technology contributes to the maintenance and sustainability of technology and its social adoption. In the urban context, the owner of the technology and the owner of the issue being addressed are oftentimes misaligned. Technology in urban spaces is regarded as a public good in most instances. How do we reconcile the collective ownership of technology in the governing sense and individual ownership on the operating front? How do we induce stewardship of technology that cares for both the individuals and the achieve the greater good? Let’s explore these questions in a known case study in the Netherlands.
Rotterdam is the second-largest city in the Netherlands. Walking the city, one will encounter numerous ornamented streetscapes with flowers, plants and benches. This bucolic aesthetic in an urban scene, besides creating an enormous spatial quality, creates a city network of green corridors for the fauna, a water buffer preventing rain flood, counter acts as the heat-island effect, to only cite a few. While this scene seems to be a dreamed master-planned vision by the city planners aiming to produce strategic outcomes to maintain the city within livable conditions, in reality, it is delivered, governed and stewarded by the people using the streets themselves through participatory place-making.
The streets are lined with geveltuin, or façade gardens (6), and zelfbeheertuin, self-maintained gardens (7). At its core, governing streets as a piece of urban technology is in the realm of public institutions, but everyone has the right to use streets and shape them. Legally, enthusiastic neighbors can gather to remove paving stones within a delimited scope, take charge of the design, and maintain a small portion of the public space without acquiring a permit. This policy flexibility sets up a low-entry bar for resident participation. The municipality has made the process even easier by establishing an informational portal to guide citizens through the process and introduce them to plant ecology and other municipal tools. In this way, modular city paving of small-scale concrete tiles becomes a facilitating sub-component of the local streetscape which allows everyone to put their marks on the city they live in. It is not a singular aspect that allows this unintended climate-proofing intervention to blossom throughout the city. An array of hard and soft infrastructure supports this vision and fosters civic engagement.
This example illustrates a governance interplay, a reshuffle of who is responsible for what, and the political implications of collective stewardship. The public institution has left an intentional gap and created conditions that allow citizens to carve out niches of self-projection into that technology. Instead of tying agency to ownership, one can create the enabling infrastructure for appropriation, be it information, legal or economic infrastructure. In the words of Adam Greenfield, whose writings interestingly lie at the intersection of design, technology and culture, we ought to “deploy [technologies] in modes, configurations and assemblages” (8) with purposeful dispositions. Designing technology in the built environment is as much about creating the systems that will alter living conditions, as it is about creating the conditions that will alter living systems.
Urban technology should create a bridge between the collective environmental, social and economic performances and the individualized sense of ownership. A window brings light in and creates a view out, both of which we want to maximize; meanwhile, it creates energy depletion, which we want to minimize. In similar situations, citizens are refrained or excluded from taking an active role in the societal energy transition due to reasons such as financial constraints or housing tenure. A technological object as mundane as a window is a reflection of the context-at-large of its individualized productivity for its owner and its societal performativity. As illustrated by the geveltuinen and zelfbeheertuinen, porous interfaces between ownership and agency allow meaningful entanglements and balances between individual actions and collective interests. Cultivating the sense of relevance ensures people take ownership over urban technology as it reflects on their own values and capabilities.
After addressing the definition of technology and ways to create functional technology, we cannot avoid the conversation around its implementation and management. Teasing out the nuances around the ownership of technology contributes to the maintenance and sustainability of technology and its social adoption. In the urban context, the owner of the technology and the owner of the issue being addressed are oftentimes misaligned. Technology in urban spaces is regarded as a public good in most instances. How do we reconcile the collective ownership of technology in the governing sense and individual ownership on the operating front? How do we induce stewardship of technology that cares for both the individuals and the achieve the greater good? Let’s explore these questions in a known case study in the Netherlands.
Rotterdam is the second-largest city in the Netherlands. Walking the city, one will encounter numerous ornamented streetscapes with flowers, plants and benches. This bucolic aesthetic in an urban scene, besides creating an enormous spatial quality, creates a city network of green corridors for the fauna, a water buffer preventing rain flood, counter acts as the heat-island effect, to only cite a few. While this scene seems to be a dreamed master-planned vision by the city planners aiming to produce strategic outcomes to maintain the city within livable conditions, in reality, it is delivered, governed and stewarded by the people using the streets themselves through participatory place-making.
The streets are lined with geveltuin, or façade gardens (6), and zelfbeheertuin, self-maintained gardens (7). At its core, governing streets as a piece of urban technology is in the realm of public institutions, but everyone has the right to use streets and shape them. Legally, enthusiastic neighbors can gather to remove paving stones within a delimited scope, take charge of the design, and maintain a small portion of the public space without acquiring a permit. This policy flexibility sets up a low-entry bar for resident participation. The municipality has made the process even easier by establishing an informational portal to guide citizens through the process and introduce them to plant ecology and other municipal tools. In this way, modular city paving of small-scale concrete tiles becomes a facilitating sub-component of the local streetscape which allows everyone to put their marks on the city they live in. It is not a singular aspect that allows this unintended climate-proofing intervention to blossom throughout the city. An array of hard and soft infrastructure supports this vision and fosters civic engagement.
This example illustrates a governance interplay, a reshuffle of who is responsible for what, and the political implications of collective stewardship. The public institution has left an intentional gap and created conditions that allow citizens to carve out niches of self-projection into that technology. Instead of tying agency to ownership, one can create the enabling infrastructure for appropriation, be it information, legal or economic infrastructure. In the words of Adam Greenfield, whose writings interestingly lie at the intersection of design, technology and culture, we ought to “deploy [technologies] in modes, configurations and assemblages” (8) with purposeful dispositions. Designing technology in the built environment is as much about creating the systems that will alter living conditions, as it is about creating the conditions that will alter living systems.
Urban technology should create a bridge between the collective environmental, social and economic performances and the individualized sense of ownership. A window brings light in and creates a view out, both of which we want to maximize; meanwhile, it creates energy depletion, which we want to minimize. In similar situations, citizens are refrained or excluded from taking an active role in the societal energy transition due to reasons such as financial constraints or housing tenure. A technological object as mundane as a window is a reflection of the context-at-large of its individualized productivity for its owner and its societal performativity. As illustrated by the geveltuinen and zelfbeheertuinen, porous interfaces between ownership and agency allow meaningful entanglements and balances between individual actions and collective interests. Cultivating the sense of relevance ensures people take ownership over urban technology as it reflects on their own values and capabilities.
Conclusion
“We are taking 21st century challenges, evaluating them with 20st century ideas, and responding with 19th century tools.”
- Madeleine Albright, 2013
Technology in the urban context covers a very wide spectrum of subjects. It is about objects, spaces, institutions, people, systems, systems of systems, and all the penetrable interfaces amongst them. Technology alone is not enough to create livable spaces; we need to consider the values generated within and extracted from our urban communities. We should reflect on the context where it takes place in, the people who use it and maybe at times avoid using it, the ownership and many more concepts that we do not have the chance to touch in this article. Imagining and developing urban technology in the 21st century is about creating multi-dimensional conditions that facilitate human progress and positive changes, consolidating and realizing shared aspirations, and intertwining individual wants and collective needs by design as they are by nature. We invite all urban designers to continue reflecting on the challenges we are living in, bring everyone in to define the problems and adopt forward-looking approaches to sustain livable cities. We collectively inherit cities in their perpetual state of change, we ought to pursue purposeful urban evolution in line with our evolving sense of being. As everything in cities has been designed, consciously or not, everything can be purposefully redesigned. So it starts…
Bios
Di Cui is a storyteller who uses writing, photography, and videography to tell stories about social justice. Her first documentary film Song of Ourselves: Cultural Activism in Whitman’s New York premiered at the International Whitman Week in celebration of Walt Whitman’s bicentennial. She recently completed her Master’s degree in Historic Preservation at Pratt Institute, where she explored cultural heritage, public history, gentrification, and other urban issues. In her work with different communities in New York City and community-based organizations, she always brings a creative touch and empathy. https://dicui.weebly.com
Maxime Cunin is an architect and strategic designer active at the intersection of spatial technologies and design in the built environment, as an opportunity to embed societal values in the social technologies. He explores the craft of alternative social construct through place-based innovation design together with governments, public institutions, research organizations, and citizens associations. Former collaborations include MIT, Strelka, AMS Institute, ETH Zurich, MVRDV, Rotterdam and Brussels municipalities. Co-Founder & Lead Strategic Designer @Superworld
Gustavo Maldonado-Gil is a spatial data scientist, architect and entrepreneur. He has collaborated with organizations in the fields of design, business, technological start-ups, and academia in countries such as the United Kingdom, Austria, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and others. He founded the company i-DA, which works on projects that combine digital data with the design of built environments. www.gustavomaldonadogil.com
Note
Select quotes and case studies are drawn from Dan Hill’s lecture at the Urban AI Emerging Leaders program in 2022.
Works Cited
(1) Merriam-Webster. 2022. “https://www.merriam-webster.com/." Accessed June 03, 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology.
(2) Dan Hill. “Working with Brian Eno on design principles for streets.” Aug 31, 2021. Accessed June 14, 2022, https://medium.com/dark-matter-and-trojan-horses/working-with-brian-eno-on-design-principles-for-streets-cf873b039c9f
(3) Rachel Nuwer. “This Japanese Shrine Has Been Torn Down And Rebuilt Every 20 Years for the Past Millennium” October 04, 2013. Accessed June 14, 2022,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/#:~:text=SMART%20NEWS-,This%20Japanese%20Shrine%20Has%20Been%20Torn%20Down%20And%20Rebuilt,Years%20for%20the%20Past%20Millennium&text=Every%2020%20years%2C%20locals%20tear,up%20to%202%2C000%2Dyears%20old.
(4) Husock Howard. “The Time the Federal Government Built a Flawed Housing Project and Tore It Down 20 Years Later.” Reason. March 16, 2022. https://reason.com/2022/03/16/the-time-the-federal-government-built-a-flawed-housing-project-and-tore-it-down-20-years-later/.
(5) Max Borka. “Redesigning Mobility — Hans Monderman” February, 2018. Accessed June 14, 2022,
https://www.maxborka.com/mapping-the-design-world/redesigning-mobility-hans-monderman/
(6) Municipality Rotterdam. “Geveltuinen — Leg uw eigen geveltuin aan!” Accessed June 14, 2022, https://www.rotterdam.nl/wonen-leven/geveltuinen/
(7) Municipality Rotterdam. “Zelfbeheer, er kan meer dan u denkt! Zelf aan de slag met groen in uw buurt” Accessed June 14, 2022, https://www.rotterdam.nl/wonen-leven/zelfbeheer/
(8) Elizabeth Shove, Radical Technologies: The Design Of Everyday Life, p.112
- Madeleine Albright, 2013
Technology in the urban context covers a very wide spectrum of subjects. It is about objects, spaces, institutions, people, systems, systems of systems, and all the penetrable interfaces amongst them. Technology alone is not enough to create livable spaces; we need to consider the values generated within and extracted from our urban communities. We should reflect on the context where it takes place in, the people who use it and maybe at times avoid using it, the ownership and many more concepts that we do not have the chance to touch in this article. Imagining and developing urban technology in the 21st century is about creating multi-dimensional conditions that facilitate human progress and positive changes, consolidating and realizing shared aspirations, and intertwining individual wants and collective needs by design as they are by nature. We invite all urban designers to continue reflecting on the challenges we are living in, bring everyone in to define the problems and adopt forward-looking approaches to sustain livable cities. We collectively inherit cities in their perpetual state of change, we ought to pursue purposeful urban evolution in line with our evolving sense of being. As everything in cities has been designed, consciously or not, everything can be purposefully redesigned. So it starts…
Bios
Di Cui is a storyteller who uses writing, photography, and videography to tell stories about social justice. Her first documentary film Song of Ourselves: Cultural Activism in Whitman’s New York premiered at the International Whitman Week in celebration of Walt Whitman’s bicentennial. She recently completed her Master’s degree in Historic Preservation at Pratt Institute, where she explored cultural heritage, public history, gentrification, and other urban issues. In her work with different communities in New York City and community-based organizations, she always brings a creative touch and empathy. https://dicui.weebly.com
Maxime Cunin is an architect and strategic designer active at the intersection of spatial technologies and design in the built environment, as an opportunity to embed societal values in the social technologies. He explores the craft of alternative social construct through place-based innovation design together with governments, public institutions, research organizations, and citizens associations. Former collaborations include MIT, Strelka, AMS Institute, ETH Zurich, MVRDV, Rotterdam and Brussels municipalities. Co-Founder & Lead Strategic Designer @Superworld
Gustavo Maldonado-Gil is a spatial data scientist, architect and entrepreneur. He has collaborated with organizations in the fields of design, business, technological start-ups, and academia in countries such as the United Kingdom, Austria, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and others. He founded the company i-DA, which works on projects that combine digital data with the design of built environments. www.gustavomaldonadogil.com
Note
Select quotes and case studies are drawn from Dan Hill’s lecture at the Urban AI Emerging Leaders program in 2022.
Works Cited
(1) Merriam-Webster. 2022. “https://www.merriam-webster.com/." Accessed June 03, 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology.
(2) Dan Hill. “Working with Brian Eno on design principles for streets.” Aug 31, 2021. Accessed June 14, 2022, https://medium.com/dark-matter-and-trojan-horses/working-with-brian-eno-on-design-principles-for-streets-cf873b039c9f
(3) Rachel Nuwer. “This Japanese Shrine Has Been Torn Down And Rebuilt Every 20 Years for the Past Millennium” October 04, 2013. Accessed June 14, 2022,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/#:~:text=SMART%20NEWS-,This%20Japanese%20Shrine%20Has%20Been%20Torn%20Down%20And%20Rebuilt,Years%20for%20the%20Past%20Millennium&text=Every%2020%20years%2C%20locals%20tear,up%20to%202%2C000%2Dyears%20old.
(4) Husock Howard. “The Time the Federal Government Built a Flawed Housing Project and Tore It Down 20 Years Later.” Reason. March 16, 2022. https://reason.com/2022/03/16/the-time-the-federal-government-built-a-flawed-housing-project-and-tore-it-down-20-years-later/.
(5) Max Borka. “Redesigning Mobility — Hans Monderman” February, 2018. Accessed June 14, 2022,
https://www.maxborka.com/mapping-the-design-world/redesigning-mobility-hans-monderman/
(6) Municipality Rotterdam. “Geveltuinen — Leg uw eigen geveltuin aan!” Accessed June 14, 2022, https://www.rotterdam.nl/wonen-leven/geveltuinen/
(7) Municipality Rotterdam. “Zelfbeheer, er kan meer dan u denkt! Zelf aan de slag met groen in uw buurt” Accessed June 14, 2022, https://www.rotterdam.nl/wonen-leven/zelfbeheer/
(8) Elizabeth Shove, Radical Technologies: The Design Of Everyday Life, p.112