Report TUW

Discussion with TUW, Wednesday 080807

In this meeting, we discussed about what we are going to prepare for our workshop in Vienna.

Shortcut: The workshop will still take place 1st, 2nd of October 2007.
The “urban rules” are our contribution to the IP-City project.
The workshop will not take place as a field trial, although the subject will be the Aspern site. In the framework of the EU-Project we diminished it from a “field trial” to a “technical prototyping session”.

The topics that we addressed were the following:

- Technical content; the urban rules that have to be developed and scripted.
- Interaction at the table: what kind of discussion we expect from the workshop
- Site: how we deal with the vastness of the Aspern Flugfeld and the perception of it on screen.

I presented the rule series you can find in the blog “summary 2”, and your material in the blog.I also showed some images of the “Aspern Flugfeld”: Birdview and views.

1. Technical content

Status quo:
The rule series I presented was quickly comprehended, although they expected another degree of development.
The question rose if the dynamic transformation of the volumes confuses the participants. For the TUW the potential of dealing with this layer of urban realty in this way was not convincing in the beginning. We discussed the general meaning of the urban code, and its meaning and dimension in urban planning and design. After a while, we figured out two possible ways of manipulating the volumes.

a) the one I presented: dynamic transformation of the volumes according to their interrelations.
b) manual manipulation: the system tells (writes) the participants if the limits are exceeded, and they have to change the volume with the barcode.

We decided to keep the idea of dynamic transformation because it seems that more people are involved in the discussion; the change of one object affects all its neighbours. So the scene keeps it manipulability without always having to use the barcode - scanner. The dynamic transformation enables other perceptions and potentials in dealing with the given restrictions, by primarliy discussing the possibilities instead of the limitations. (dynamic masterplan)

To do:
The TUW people need a more composed set/ scene of rules.
We will “design” it in a kind of game, where one foresees to certain extends the possibilities - and defines them by its limitations. The whole thing is about what happens if? We have to decide what could happen and what not. Summary 2 is the basis for any further development. These 6 rules have to be worked out.

Here are a few underlying coherences
- geometry, math.: the urban code of Vienna the abstract -law.
- space, arch.: volumes, solid, voids, typologies
- program: programs are related to specific cubature (void or solid)
- people: numbers and kinds of people are related to typologies and dimensions


2. Interaction at the table
We have to think about how people will use the colourable and the given content to discuss about what they do and what they see.
We have to be aware that a negotiation that solely sticks to the following issues is not sufficient:

1. technical: problems in understanding the technique (which object on the table represents what on the screen, barcode …
2. aesthetic: people discussing about what they personally likes and what they don’t like.


To do.
In our case - what should they discuss? - density ? - The imagination of it will influence the way we set up the rules.


3. Site, Aspern

I reported about our Sunday - discussion on the problem of scale, and perspective: On the colour-table itself we have a kind of aerial view condition, but at the screen we see only a specific angle of the site. To be able to understand what is done on the table it is important to see the scene from several angles.

TUW will prepare some 360° or 180° panoramas, that serve as an underlay, and we will have the workshop either at TUW or at Angewandte.

To do.
We have to define the points at the Aspern field from which they will take the panoramas. - where, how many, day/night? etc.

Summary 2

Last Sunday we had a small workshop in Vienna with Yue, Peter and Thomas to sum up and combine the different proposals everybody posted. During our discussion, we tried to relate the material to the three topics I gave at the beginning.

RULES: - geometrical interrelations, in this case: which affect the city´s morphology considerably.

SCENARIO: - hypothetical “play processes”; how can the interaction at the table be guided meaningfully

SITE: - first evaluation whether a field scenario at "Aspern" can fulfil the requirements of the workshop.

A number of questions and some answers arose during our discussion. (these were the main-problems)
- since the most important issue is the interaction between participants and participants and objects, the rules are not to be thought as a kind of simulation generated by the computer
- because of the configuration of the colour table plus screen we have to include the fact, that the manipulation should be perceptible within that view - out of a human perspective.
- so we agreed to think about the variables and interrelations in a very abstract way, to enable the application to any scale and any site.

Here is the outcome of our Sunday discussion. (Any comments, questions and thoughts are most welcome!)







Today I discussed it with the TUW; there are still a lot of things to be solved or even thought about, but generally the task is now clear. More soon.

Miha 3 concrete examples

Whole area













First empty space














Second empty space














Third empty space














Perhaps this simple schemes could work with scripting. Important thing with this concept is the interest in unplanned behavior of neighboring objects (and the whole field)...how they react on impacts of empty spaces (get higher, change shape, decrease/increase in number etc.). I also defined radius of influence, which I am not sure, if it's necessary ...maybe it can also work without it, because subject of influence is suppose to be the whole field.
I will be away till 23.8.

Miha empty space

This is one quick example of two different empty spaces with the transition between them. In this case I took the middle value of blocks dimension, while proximity between blocks stays the same, I could also took middle value of building coveridge, or FAR etc., but it also depends on the nature of empty space.
Andrea, you already found an example in my Neumayr project about how neighboring masses are affected by empty space... they just get taller.

Field of Work

Reinhard

Here a new proposal for discuss !!!!!!
I think this could be very interesting for us and for our Masterthesis.
Use the IP-City technology for create an urban density field. Different results come out during an interactvie group workshop. The people works with urban objects (Different building types - cinema,...) and create a urban concept for their task.

IP-City technology for Urban density
















Various City objects
















City objects create various densities
















Create a urban concept with urban objects

Various densities defined by numbers
















The density numbers can we translate into population numbers and FAR numbers and than we can start to create a masterplan.



















"Urban objects"
- Infrastructure objects
- station for tram, bus, underground
- Parking (place, house, garage)

- Institutions, facilities for culture
- museum, gallery, ...

- Institutions, facilities for education
- university, schools, ...
- library, ...

- open urban space
- public square and park, ...

- facilities for food
- shops and Restaurant

- facilities for night life
- clubs, ...

This should be enough for the first step.
Later we can define a big list.

For characteristics i need more information was is possible in skripting.
And in a scenario i have the same problem because i don´t know what can the TUW people skripting for interations between the objects.

More information about dencity mapping:
http://dencity.konzeptrezept.de/