Well as long as we can keep throwing our eTrash in Nigeria... everything will work.

"Pervasive computing is the wave of the future"

I see a lot of problems with that phrase

overall there is a lot of dumb on that webpage

yeah, the word pervasive sounds a little frightening.

spam?

whats a smart environment?? do i want to live in a smart environment, as alluded to in there??

thats a really weird website, kinda has an religious feel to it.
and as such i am still a skeptic.

How is that website weird? The writers info from the site is stated as:

Sensing Architecture is produced by Maria Lorena Lehman, an architect and author from the United States. Maria holds a Bachelor of Architecture with Honors (BArch, 1998) from Virginia Tech and a Master in Design with Distinction (MDesS, 2004) from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design.

So - A GSD graduate, a viable voice - no?


My only issue is the lack of specificity within the 7 points...could one be more general? I would think a Harvard grad could get into some specifics of how this all might work...?

the writers bio doesn't stop it from feeling weird, actually it makes it even weirder.

I guess you and I differ on the definition.

A smart environment takes the notion of interactive architecture a little bit further. With the use of sensing devices and actuators it will be possible to coordinate different objects and materials in a built environment to make buildings more functional and better meet occupant needs. One trend is to make smart environments “goal-based” (thus, occupant-centered).

That was just a basic description, but much research is being done in this area at both MIT and Harvard. You can also google “smart environments” to learn more. Also, here is the Widipedia definition: Smart Environments as defined by Wikipedia. An interesting book on both the pros and cons of ubiquitous computing is: “Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing”.

Now, here is just one basic example:

If you are living at home and need help with your health, a smart home might wirelessly communicate with worn devices (tiny devices possibly embedded in your clothes) to monitor your vitals (or whatever your health deems important to monitor).

Now, let’s say you just got home after having heart surgery – your smart home could help you go through the stages of recovery. For instance, your smart home might suggests things like exercising more, buying healthier foods, helping you with daily grooming and relaxation.

The idea is to make architecture more helpful for occupants – helping them to meet their goals. Thus, smart environments can be “goal-based”.

i wonder if the creepiness of smart architecture systems comes from a perceived loss of control that may occur within that type of environment. maybe there is too much mystery involved for a lot of people relating to the mechanics of sensory/reactive environments. (i.e. "weird, how does it do that? how does this device know what i need/think/feel?") although the computers would be responding to certain cues we give, i imagine it still may feel like the control of our surroundings is transferred to something artificial.

That is just computing though. Architecture itself does not facilitate those things - they could currently be deployed with various disparate technologies, both software and hardware. I could see a company like google creating an open source api on which to create and deploy a complex system of newtork, sensor, response and feedback. But all of this is without the need for architecture itself to facilitate it. And, to me, it would seem odd to try and embed it in that system in a hard interface.

Architecturally I see more promise in things like responsive material intelligence...in the sense that we can begin to program and combine complex material intelligence. Such as absorbent phase change skins that are also capable of absorbing moisture and heat and utilizing it while also moving between opaque and transparent states.

I believe the computational component, while very important, is not without its limitations. It must be able to have a greater level of discourse with material and application than that of personal terminal space.

At any rate I do find all of the research and discourse very exciting.

So this would be a material based extension of a type of programming like a thermostat?

somewhat, yes. But a thermostat is a singular method of sensor. We will be able to embed materials with multiple layers of complex function - as well as the ability to feed results back to a more extensive network...eventually with all buildings of a city aware of every building around them. surfaces that could constantly be giving feedback of what germs are on its surface. or a surface that cleans itself and at the same time can be photo luminescent.

There is a company in Albuquerque called nanopore that has an r45 insulation that is an inch thick and far lighter than anything we use now. The same company makes materials that evacuate heat much more effectively than ice...Imagine a room that cools itself by material property alone, no hvac.

All of this is going to become more and more possible as we become more and more capable of fabricating specifics at smaller smaller scale complexities within all material applications.

Thanks! You've given me a nice chunk of good reading material to go over with this post (and your reply to my transitional housing post).

I'm definitely going to have to talk to the mechanical engineer at my office about the nanopore materials. I'm sure he'd be really into it.

My only problem is that it is no where near being sustainable. I mean why it is nice to have these little futurist technocratic circlejerks... the world is becoming a more and more perilous state.

The number of people facing water security issues is slipping. Food security? bwahaha.

Not to mention, it is technically illegal to dispose of most electronic waste in the United States.

Why is when we talk about energy efficiency... few people ever bring up thicker walls or taller windows?

Why does everything have to be some magical plug into the wall device?

How come no one has been stressing that compact fluorescent lights are relatively one of the most toxic things in the household?

I mean, we might have a problem with climate change now... we'll have problems with flooding, ocean salinity, salt water intrusion, extinction on ecological borders, increases or decreases of tree lines et cetera.

But I can assure you that climate change will look like a rather friendly alternative than the problems that will come forth with accumulation of deep earth elements and rare earth metals that come with the manufacture and disposal of electronics are very grave.

This is where your plasma TV came from.

And the computer you are typing on.

What is actually promising about many of the nano technologies is they are being conceived with full lifecycle consideration from the get go. i.e. they can be reconstituted into the same or similar materials...something our current purely petroleum based synthetics cannot do.

And many, such Hassan Fathy, have done well to preach the efficiency of earthen thick walled structures...but that does not mean there is not going to be a constant reach to investigate and develop new materials that have more and more of the properties that are mentioned above - a lot has changed in the past 10 years in regards to production capabilities.

[url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB5-4P7FD20-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0e9712d113d325128a0a0077e0da9d88]Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment

Bernd Nowacka and Thomas D. Bucheli[/url]

If we can't even treat wastewater, I'm not sure to what extent nanoparticles are really going to proliferate. There's a large part of the world that's still roughly stuck in the Georgian to Victorian era. I think we should be focusing more on bring everyone up to speed rather than expanding the gap between the haves and the have-nots by increasing the use of technology where proper risk mitigation and understanding of risk has yet to be implemented.

Fathy also did most of his research and practice in situ and cannot be applied to very much of anywhere else. Passive cooling and earth bricks cannot be used in areas with high humidity nor do projects incorporating a lot of earthwork be suitable for highly urbanized environments.

While I do have a computer and it is hypocritical of me to point out that electronics are hazardous... where is the line to draw? How much more [electronics] does society need to own? And is society ready to embrace the enormous risks that come with the increasing utilization of electronics? How much more of our electrical supply are we going to reserve towards the operation of electronics?

"While I do have a computer and it is hypocritical of me to point out that electronics are hazardous... where is the line to draw? How much more [electronics] does society need to own?"


It is not about electronics. It is about the continued advancement and application of technology. We have swallowed the pill already. While efficient and modest solutions should be utilized it should not be without the continued advancement consideration and application of new technologies and possibilities. This research has actually led to helping plenty of people with water world wide...what doesn't is geopolitics, greed, etc...but those should not eclipse the persistent need to push technological application.

I don't see it as a black and white rift like you seem to be arguing. You seem to want analogous application of technology to people when in reality it happens much more complexly and abstractly. For instance, the same technological research has helped greatly in the application of medicine in fighting disease.

It could also be argued that the Sun is damaging the Earth, eventually swallowing the earth. We know this. Should we do away with the sun? The future is complex and fearing it does nothing to solve it. That said, I think it is always wise to profess skepticism and encourage others to be critical in their own argument that counter your perspective.

I di find it ironic when people are using advanced technology (computers, networks, systems, electrical etc) to argue against advanced technology.

your code was missing a little something

And there is no access to any specific data on that link. Just a short abstract.

whenever i hear of smart environments i am reminded of '2001' and wonder if Hal would let me through the pod bay doors. i hope my smart house doesn't have pod bay doors and a malfunctioning over-mind that forces me to sleep outside.

"It is not about electronics. It is about the continued advancement and application of technology."

Unfortunately, that technology will kill us very rapidly. Some of the components that go into 'technology' are carcinogenic in parts per billion, some of them have biological half lives that last for millennia. These are not contingencies or externalities-- these are direct consequences.

The issue here is that deep Earth mining leads to increased accumulation of products in question and their bioavailability and bioreactivity is greatly enhanced by the fact that these chemicals are no longer in their stable natural forms.

This is essentially the issue with global warming is that we're extracting carbon that has no direct impact or interplay with the surface of the planet for millions of years. Some of the things we are mining haven't seen the light of day since the Pre-Cambrian Era.

We're putting out products in the environment that have never, ever been previously a part of any biological interaction in the history of Earth-- and some of them are actually completely synthetic... as in they have never actually existed on the planet.

"We have swallowed the pill already. While efficient and modest solutions should be utilized it should not be without the continued advancement consideration and application of new technologies and possibilities. This research has actually led to helping plenty of people with water world wide...what doesn't is geopolitics, greed, etc...but those should not eclipse the persistent need to push technological application."

We haven't used technology to find a "good source" of "new water" in a long time. In fact, most of the gains in tapping into new water sources have lead to massive geological and ecological disturbances worldwide.

Sinkholes are increasing at rapid rates, subsidence is a major problem, desertification has been nearly exponentially increasing at rapid rates, ground liquefaction probability has been increasing, ground water contamination is becoming a major problem, phosphate release has been wreaking havoc within the oceans by disrupting breeding cycles and so on.


As for the medical technology point, basic problems are not being solved at the source. Medical technology at the moment is purely a treatment approach to many of the world's most troubling issues.

And since malaria, tuberculosis, heart disease, traffic accidents and diarrhea as a group kill more people world wide than most of the "serious" diseases combined.

TB... taken out by pasteurization... which really isn't a "high-tech" process. Heart disease, malaria, traffic accidents and diarrhea? Well, those are all quality-of-location dependent. Proper land use regulation, proper urbanization, development of utilities, simple sanitation practices and a focus on water and food quality... would you know... solve these problems.

Malaria could easily be reduced if we repeal the law banning, for a small period of time, the widespread use of DDT-- this would solve most of the World's malaria problems if governments were allowed to indiscriminately apply DDT.

I don't "seem to want an analogous spread of technology." I think before we dump dangerous amounts of dangerous chemicals all over the place to develop "smart sensing" electronics controls... we could uhh solver our own and others basic low-tech problems.

You know, like telling people it is not okay to poop in a hole behind their house.

I don't think anyone argued against people not pooping in holes behind their house.

You were saying that the advancement of technology should triumph of the widespread application of "old" technology.

How is technology going to solve our Дискомалярия [DISCO MALARIA] problem?

You were saying that the advancement of technology should triumph of the widespread application of "old" technology.

How is technology going to solve our Дискомалярия [DISCO MALARIA] problem?

"You were saying that the advancement of technology should triumph of the widespread application of "old" technology."

No, I never said that. I don't even think they are in competition with each other. All technology has a functional application - it is up for us to find it. The digging stick is technology, one with the greatest affect ever. After we began using it, we soon began our transfer to an agrarian life.

Disco Malaria - I blame the digging stick.

:)

"You were saying that the advancement of technology should triumph of the widespread application of "old" technology."

No, I never said that. I don't even think they are in competition with each other. All technology has a functional application - it is up for us to find it. The digging stick is technology, one with the greatest affect ever. After we began using it, we soon began our transfer to an agrarian life.

Disco Malaria - I blame the digging stick.

:)

Questions to be asked:

What are potential consequences (ex:physiological and ecological), of constructing such an environment?

Is this what needs to be done most? if not than what does?

"Ubiquitous computing is giving architecture many benefits that we will continue to see embedded in our buildings."

What is the nature of a building in a digital realm?

Questions to be asked:

What are potential consequences (ex:physiological and ecological), of constructing such an environment?

Is this what needs to be done most? if not than what does?

"Ubiquitous computing is giving architecture many benefits that we will continue to see embedded in our buildings."

What is the nature of a building in a digital realm?

Is this a blind pursuit of technology for technology's sake or will it serve in the greater good for mankind?

after skimming thru this post it now seems appropriate to call a window that opens an operable thermal exchange interface light gathering plenum

it's all language

For those of you that are interested...

I posted a follow-up article that highlights many of the challenges and concerns that have been expressed here about smart environments. I think that my readers will benefit from reading this type of article - so that they can advance their interactive designs in the best way.

Hopefully, it will push the discussion even further.

Here is the link: What Challenges will Smart Environments Face?