The complex (data) behaviours of the street
I never cease to be impressed by the quality of Dan Hill’s thinking and writing on urban spaces and technology. In his most recent post on the street as platform, Dan claims that “the way the street feels may soon be defined by what cannot be seen with the naked eye.” He draws out detailed and “banal” scenarios in which the typical high street is imbricated with “a new kind of data, collective and individual, aggregated and discrete, open and closed, constantly logging impossibly detailed patterns of behaviour…”
When urban computing most often relies on the adoption of near-future technologies, it’s nice to read something that is “very deliberately based on the here and now.” It’s also interesting to see urban computing, as a domain of practice, increasingly positioned as belonging to urban and environmental planning, rather than computing.
In order for such data-saturated streets to become reality, Dan explains that
There are decisions to be made about raw infrastructure - the equivalent of transport networks and power supply. Without this infrastructure, the street only half-exists, becoming a residual dead-zone in the city … The complex interplay of these fibres will help define the sense of the street, and planners first of all need to identify this rich, sometimes slippery network, before going on to decide where it can be shaped and where it should be shaped … It’s also worth bearing in mind that complex software models can convey some of this data fairly exactly, yet still not tell us about the cultural memory of the street. This system is in turn a part of other, more complex systems of behaviour and representation.
Read City of Sound: The Street as Platform.
- Anne
February 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
How is this any different from Adam Greenfield’s ‘central dogma’? As an admirer of both Adam and Dan, I’m disappointed that Dan hasn’t made more of the obvious connections between their thinking.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
First up, huge thanks for the kind words, Anne, much appreciated.
Secondly, Amanda. Adam posted his ‘central dogma’ piece at pretty much the same time I posted ‘The street as platform’. Either way I didn’t see it ’till afterwards. Equally, there are quite different approaches in style, purpose and audience for our sites and thoughts - and both those pieces if you read carefully - even if we’re on the same side of the street as Adam rightly put it. I didn’t link to much theory at all in that post, you’ll have noticed, partly due to the audience it was written for (see caveat at top of post.)
So I very much value Adam’s thinking and contributions, we email each other pretty often, I’ll link to him for sure in a follow-up comment (and of course I’ve pre-ordered the book!), but I sometimes will look to ignore “obvious connections” and leave that to others. Ultimately, I guess it’s good that we’re all approaching this space from slightly different tangents, yes? (Of course, including Anne’s excellent thinking too.)
February 16th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
My pleasure Dan, and thanks for the return props
Amanda - I hadn’t seen Adam’s ‘central dogma’ piece until just now reading Dan’s comment, but would agree with him that each post is unique despite their obviously shared interests. In any case, I’m learning not to be bothered by people who fail to “make more of the obvious connections between [our] thinking”…
February 19th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Amanda: What Dan said. I do sincerely appreciate your support, though.