another good question: does interactivity undermine design? at one point in school i delved in to interactivity because it seemed like a great tool to humanize the space/project and encourage active participation/awareness, but felt left out as a designer at the end and unimpressed with the resulting designs. in general, with projects i've seen by others playing with interactivity, it seems that if you really make the design truly and potently interactive, the design isn't that great (practically or aesthetically) in the end, and if it looks good/works well, then it treats interactivity to superficially to be worth it salt.

I don't think the project has to suffer due to interactivity. There has been a pretty wide range of types of interactivity. Some other example that come to mind would be the lenticular displays (think cracker jack toys that change image as you shift them in your hand) that had different images and were displayed in a series to tell a story. I think that was also a diller and scofidio project (could be considered more an art project than architecture, I suppose) The house by shigeru ban that had mobile 'pods' for rooms in an essentially open pavillion that allowed the owner to move them around to reconfigure the space.

Then there's the whole unintended interactivity like the wearing down of stone steps in europe, or the highly polished brass rail that has a different sheen due to people touching it. Along those same lines the Vietnam Memorial which people are always touching, running their fingers across the carved names or adding to with remembrances, notes, flowers etc.

On the more hi-tech front, there's the glass that goes from transparent to opaque in the dressing rooms of the OMA Prada store.

there's a plaza project (Europe) in which pedestrians can adjust a series of hydraulically controlled, crane type lights...can't remember who it was done by at the moment.

DECOi / Mark Goulthorpe's Aegis Project...interactive skin installation for the Birmingham Hippodrome that reflects on the exterior what is happening on the interior, 94,000 metallic facets powered by 10000 pneumatic pistons, all patched into the buildings base electrical system.

Oosterhuis Assoc.'s transPORTs2001

The last two projects are in Peter Zelner's 'Hybrid Space', worth checking out, there are a few more examples of interactive arch. within.

the cranes in europe are in rotterdam - the schouwburgplein by west 8.

steven holl's hinged space/void space housing in fukuoka is interactive, but not in a public way. the units inside can be completely reconfigured with operable panels, walls, etc.

any playground is interactive architecture if you will.. a dining hall is interactive as well.. so, this concept isn't so new, it's just been taken to another level.. but if taken too far it can become incohesive, and just get ugly..

how about scripted space ie. amusement/entertainment space or stage set if you will. though the participant does not necessarily physically manipulate the space, he does physically interact with/in props written in the set script that engages and transports the participant to the center stage of his own imaginative interplay. amusement space is more obviously scripted but it can be applied widely through architecture. study psycodrama or catharsis.

when i speak of interactivity, i'm talking of things that are above and beyond much of the interactivity that has been mentioned. i very much like the effects of users on doorknobs, playgrounds, and the concepts of open/flexible space, but they aren't what i'm questioning in my above question. i mean more 'intense' interactivity, such as the decoi project. interactivity that has evolved due to the postmodern/etc movement(s) and/or has only more recently been made possible through new technology.
so then,
joe: i wasn't suggesting that it weakens the architect's vision, i was asking for opinions on that line. personally, i've seen it both weaken and strengthen projects and haven't formed a more general, topic-wide opinion yet. i was getting at the interesting paradox that interactivity can add a major human element to the design, while taking the human element out of designing it.

heterarchy -
I think for the most part interaction architecture has, if anything, a more human element to it. I guess it depends on how it's done, but in my own investigations its seemed like I have to design more of the building in order to create that interactive/flex space. While I may not be able to state the exact width and angle of a wall, I can determine the character and more existential qualities of that wall. It's scary not haveing total control but you could flip that and say that the "forms" take a secondary role and the architect takes an elevated position designing the interactions which are more powerful then the forms.
..or maybe I'm just blowing out my ass... I still don't know, ask me after 20 or 30 years of experimentation.

on a side note.
have you seen these sites.
infosthetics
we make money not art

somewhat related to the idea of interactive design.

lifeform

check out just about everything by oosterhuis Their MUSCLE project is an excellent precedent.

NOX .....The D tower, h20 pavillion, house etc.

Books

Reflexive Architecture by Neil Spiller Amazon.

These guys always interested me...

someone once mentioned a collective/ firm called Ran TV ( or something like that) that explores work in this vein

i was haunting the AA's webpage and found this lecture new issue of AD

is AD not one of the best architecture magazines ever???

but i agree with pencrush in that interactivity doesn't necessarily imply a "high- tech" component

also with pasha and his comment about playgrounds. i was totally obsessed with the idea of 'playgrounds' as being the truest form of architecture at one point.

eh i have a lot of obsessions.