Planning and Design Practicein the Virtual Space

Ileana Apostol

Panayotis Antoniadis

Tridib Banerjee

XXIII AESOP Congress

Liverpool July 16, 2009

Université Pierre & Marie Curie, ParisUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles

The Virtual Space

• the underlying communication networkthe Internet: access fee or public (e.g. WiFi city coverage, Athens Wireless, Seattle Wireless Net)

• the digital information exchanged between thenodes of the network

public and private rights over its content

• the computer software that defines the rules forusing and transforming this information

some public and/or open source (e.g. Drupal), butmost of the social software of the currently successful online communities is privately owned(e.g. Yahoo, Google, Facebook)

Why the Virtual Space?

• its complex uses substitute, supplement or areentwined w/ social life in physical environments

• there is the opportunity to bring to reality spatialvalues like users’ control over the space, buildingstrong communities, future flexibility, choice,diversity, preferred lifestyle (Lynch 1981)

users may influence cyberspace development from “one to many” to “many to many” (Shirky)

• software design impacts users behaviour & thedynamics in online socialnetworking/communities

under debate: the Internet neutrality and its regulation (e.g. Odlyzko, Crowcroft etc)

• besides increasing the quality of cyberspace,the social software could promote place-basedcommunities in the physical space

Social Contract without Social Contact?

The Culture of Computer Networks:Virtual Space

From Facebook toFace-block Communities

The tradition in planning theory and practice

Methodological frameworks that assist us inspatial perception, experience and conception

What Type of (Virtual) Space?

• relational social space that exists only insofar as itcontains and represents relationships

phenomenological view on space: meaning and human experiences like emotion, desire, volition, imagination, thought, action etc…

• cannot be conceived in separation from timedynamic changes within social networking, synchronic/asynchronic exchanges, past records,collective memory

• the representational spaces of the networksociety are the object of spatial knowledge (rf.Lefebvre ‘91)

spaces directly experienced through their associated images and systems of signs and non-verbal systems (including artistic representations)

Representational SpacesLandmarks XIX-th Century

Representational SpacesLandmarks XXI-th Century

Planning Contribution in Cyberspace

• Knowledge:

1. Places

2. Communities

• Practice:

1. User interface

2. E-places

3. New forms of social organization

Planning Knowledge for Cyberspace1. Places

• users’ behaviour in cyberspace suggests a senseof belonging and identity that

achieves a “form” through self-representation;

through the images and language employed; through frequent system operations and process reiterations

• they appropriate space and transform it intoplaces, namely e-places

early place vocabulary: chat room, electronic frontier, information superhighway, city of bits

• places (Arefi & Triantafillou ‘05)a set of visual attributes (image);

product (information content);

process;

meaning

Identity of Spatial User

The tradition in planning theory and practice

Methodological frameworks that assist us inspatial perception, experience and conception

Identity of Spatial User

Identity of Spatial User

The tradition in planning theory and practice

Methodological frameworks that assist us inspatial perception, experience and conception

Planning Practice in Cyberspace1. User Interface

• the user interface mediates the spatialexperience, and works as a cross-sectionthrough the software components andcommunicates its functionality

• the social software mediates the online socialexchanges

Planners can integrate various choices forinterface details with their effects on socialexchanges, and recommend those inaccordance with the particularrepresentational spaces

Interface: Appearance and Wording

Planning Practice in Cyberspace2. E-places

• the methods of practice in the physical spacecould be transferred between the two environmentsfor social life like, for ex. Kevin Lynch’s methods:

Taxonomy of Images

• paths: space navigation (rhythms)

• edges: space separation, division

• nodes: space of gathering

• landmarks: identifiable (unique) signs

• districts: space unification (groups)

Sketch (Cognitive) Mapping

• representations of space

Representations of Virtual Space:Geographical

Representations of Virtual Space:Web Trend Map

Representational SpacesPaths and Edges

Representational SpacesPaths and Edges

Representational SpacesNodes and Districts

The tradition in planning theory and practice

Methodological frameworks that assist us inspatial perception, experience and conception

Representational SpacesNodes and Districts

The tradition in planning theory and practice

Methodological frameworks that assist us inspatial perception, experience and conception

Planning Knowledge for Cyberspace2. Communities

• online communities shaped out by members ofsocial networks

based on common interest (e.g. Flickr, MySpace,Facebook)

users begin to define their particularized space, beyond the control of software designers (i.e Friendster)

• hybrid (place-based online) communities thatoverlay spatial neighborhoods

common locus of activities and interest;

provide the necessary links between physicalspace and their online space and activities, facilitate recording and building an archive of collective memory, short- and long-term feedback;

challenge: building common interest, sharedvalues, community identity

Representations of Virtual in Physical Space:San Jose WiFi Yellow Chair

Image physical to virtual

Representations of Physical in Virtual Space:Online Communities

Bridging Virtual and Physical Space:Hybrid Communities

Quality of Places (E-places)

A good place is one which, in some way appropriate tothe person and her culture, makes her aware of hercommunity, her past, the web of life, and the universe oftime and space in which those are contained […]sensible, identifiable places are convenient pegs onwhich to hang personal memories, feelings, and values.Place identity is closely linked to personal identity. “I amhere” supports “I am”. Intense familiarity will create asense of place” (Lynch 1981 p.142 &132).

Planning Practice in Cyberspace3. New Forms of Social Organization

• the cyberspace capabilities allow to easilytransform and even reset community rules, andmembers roles and identities

Planners could promote community values thatlead to conviviality, vitality and ecology,instead of online addiction and commercialobjectives

Planners could mediate the public and theprivate, and build trust between the communityand the entity holding their information, owningthe software or the communication network(e.g. municipality)

Planners may provide guidelines for easilycustomizable and self-configured software

No matter how hard we’d try,we cannot escape reality :o)

bekathwia@flickr

Planning and Design Practice in Cyberspace

Summary

• the emergence of e-places and of thriving onlinecommunities bring up a new challenge for planners:

Their contribution to cyberspace development:

User Interface Design

Evaluating the Quality of E-places by means ofLynch’s Taxonomy of Images

Breaking the Ice for Community Engagement:Sketch (Cognitive) Mapping

Supporting Hybrid Community Building andBridging the Physical with the Virtual Spacethrough Social Software Design