Flexible Cities: A Multisided Spatial Application of Tracking Livability of Urban Environment

Authors: Maria Christofi, George Plastiras, Rafaella Elia, Vaggelis Tsiourtis, Theocharis Theocharides, Miltiadis Katsaros

Abstract:

The rapidly expanding urban areas of the world constitute a challenge of how we need to make the transition to "the next urbanization", which will be defined by new analytical tools and new sources of data. This paper is about the production of a spatial application, the ‘FUMapp’, where space and its initiative will be available literally, in meters, but also abstractly, at a sensed level. While existing spatial applications typically focus on illustrations of the urban infrastructure, the suggested application goes beyond the existing: It investigates how our environment's perception adapts to the alterations of the built environment through a dataset construction of biophysical measurements (eye-tracking, heart beating), and physical metrics (spatial characteristics, size of stimuli, rhythm of mobility). It explores the intersections between architecture, cognition, and computing where future design can be improved and identifies the flexibility and livability of the ‘available space’ of specific examined urban paths.

Keywords: Biophysical data, flexibility of urban, livability, next urbanization, spatial application.

References:

[1] J. P. Eberhard, Brain Landscape: The Coexistance of Neuroscience and Architecture. New York, Oxford, Oxford: University Press, 2009.
[2] P. Domingos, The Mater Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine will Remake our World. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2015, ch.1.
[3] P. Schumacher, “Parametricism: A new global style for architecture and urban design,” in Architectural De¬sign, vol. 79, 2009, pp. 14-23.
[4] F. Benita, G. Bansal, B. Tunçer, “Public spaces and happiness: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment,” in Health and Place, vol 56, 2019, pp. 9–18.
[5] P. Joshi, S. Srinanda, J. Hobson, “Experience with surveying and mapping Pune and Sangli slums on a geographical information system (GIS),” in Environment and Urbanization, vol. 14, October 2002, pp. 225-240.
[6] B. Woolf, “Intelligent multimedia tutoring systems,” in Communications of the ACM, vol. 39, no. 4, 1996, pp. 30-1.
[7] W. Barford (ed.), Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality. 2nd ed., USA: CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017.
[8] K. Reaver, “Three case studies in virtual preservation. Applying virtual reality to Cultural Heritage,” in AGATHON-International Journal of Architecture, Art and Design, no 06, 2019, pp. 210-217.
[9] J. Buthke, N. M. Larsen, S.O. Pedersen, and C. Bundgaard, Adaptive Reuse of Architectural Heritage. C. Gengnagel, O. Baverel, J. Burry, T. M. Ramsgaard, and S. Weinzierl, Eds. Springer, Cham, 2020, pp. 59-68.
[10] Impact – Design with All Senses. DMSB 2019, (Online) Available at: doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29829-6_5 (Accessed 30 October 2019).
[11] J. Weisman, “Evaluating architectural legibility: Way-finding in the built environment,” in Environment and Behavior, vol 13, 1981, pp.189–204.
[12] R. Arnheim, “Prägnanz and its discontents,” in Gestalt Theory, 9(2), 1987, pp. 102–107.
[13] M. Christofi, M. Katsaros, and S. D. Kotsopoulos, “Form follows brain function: A computational mapping approach,” in Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 44, 2020, pp. 108 – 115. The 1st International Conference on Optimization-Driven Architectural Design (OPTARCH 2019).
[14] J. M. Groh, Making Space: How the Brain Knows Where Things Are. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014, ch.9-10.