The Hackable City

hackable_city_model_01.png

Excerpts from the Hackable City Blog

The Hackable City (normative definition): 
In a hackable city, new media technologies are employed to open up urban institutions and infrastructures to systemic change in the public interest. It combines top-down smart-city technologies with bottom-up ‘smart citizen’ initiatives. 
In a hackable city, the urban (data) infrastructure functions as a platform that can be appropriated and incrementally improved upon by various stakeholders.

The Hackable City (research project):
 The goal of this research project is to explore the opportunities as well as challenges of the rise of new media technologies for an open, democratic process of collaborative citymaking. How can citizens, design professionals, local government institutions and others employ digital media platforms in collaborative processes of urban planning, management and social organization, to contribute to a liveable and resilient city, with a strong social fabric?

Hackable citymaking revolves around the organization of individuals into collectives or publics, often through or with the aid of a digital media platform.

Ubiquitous commons

This has made me think of xAPI  and Learning Record Stores. And then, right at the end of the page, I bump into the concept of community yet again (!). I read:

Ubiquitous Commons allows for attributing citizens control over the data which they produce, and also to generate shared, meaningful patterns of perceived sensibility and responsibility, by enabling novel reflections in terms of identity, relation and belonging.

These can be used to foster new practices in which a new concept of digital public space emerges, which is accessible and inclusive, and also respectful of people’s right to self-determination and self-representation and, thus, to be able to more freely express our subjectivities, as individuals and as participants to multiple relational networksculturesbelief systemsFrom consensus to co-existence.

Ubiquitous Commons is the commons in the age of Ubiquitous Technologies.

Ubiquitous Commons is a legal-technological protocol: it positions itself among the other technological protocols which operate at the level of networks and technologies and among their legal implications and the set of laws, regulations, standards and norms which regulate them. Ubiquitous Commons is an open protocol.

protarch

In the Ubiquitous Commons environment, users can define a series of identities, which they hold and manage in what we have defined as their identity pool; each identity corresponds to a digital certificate, composed by a private and public key; identities can be of different types: individual/ collective/ anonymous/ temporary/ nomadic/ or a combination of the above.

Whenever a certain user generates data, this data is encrypted; the encrypted data is coupled with an attribution, stating which Ubiquitous Commons identity generated it (from), and which Ubiquitous Commons identities can access the data (to); this attribution is generated by the “from” identity; the encrypted data goes on to the service or application for which it was generated for; the attribution goes on to a peer-to-peer network or infrastructure –currently the BlockChain – in which the identifiers of the content (data) and of the from-to identities are published; in this way, the user can grant the availability and access to this data to the specified identities, determined autonomously.

A user who desires access to the data, executes a query onto the peer-to-peer infrastructure, asking whether data identifier X has been granted access to the user’s Ubiquitous Commons identity (the “to” identity in the attribution, picked from one of the identities in the accessing user’s identity pool) by the generating user (the “from” identity); if the user turns out to be attributed with the possibility to access (the query returns a positive result), the user obtains the decryption mechanism (recomposing the private key necessary to decrypting the data); the user uses the decryption mechanism to decrypt and access the data; the transaction is logged onto the peer-to-peer network.

 

Excerpts and Image from Ubiquitous Commons Website

The benefits of Teaching Commons

teachingcommons 2

Pedagogy: In order to counter institutional antipathy towards studio based learning an effective and inclusive counter argument, grounded in educational research from wider scholarly sources, could offer a common position for all schools in presenting the studio as a unique, authentic and invaluable learning environment.

Resources: An Architectural Learning Commons could share knowledge and initiatives to drive economies of time, money and effort through open and constructive collaboration through:

  • the sharing of resources
  • reciprocal arrangements for staff exchanges
  • shared use of expertise, contacts and physical spaces
  • the co-operative funding of visiting speakers from overseas

Policy: a collaborative and concerted position could strengthen a collective bargaining position for schools of architecture, in contrast to the currently divisive and target-driven competition between institutions

Ethics: a collective architectural education constitutes a Scholarship of Integration in support of valuable, relevant and good work/ schools will not necessarily lose their distinctive values and philosophies by sharing common knowledge, skills, resources
and expertise with one another/ further collaborative educational research would benefit the critical development of architectural pedagogies to address recalcitrant problems of traditional teaching methods

 

References

Holgate, P., Sara, R., 2014. Towards a learning commons for architecture. In Charrette 1(1) Summer 2014

Image available here