Walkacross: Space–Motion Metric for Responsive Architecture
Nowadays it is possible to collect more data than ever before. Yet, producing meaningful insight from such data is perhaps the most difficult task. This is particularly true when collecting data from people as for attempting to make architecture responsive to them, or for informing the design process. For example, some buildings respond to the environment temperature or light in real time. In such cases sensors trigger precise responses; high radiation equals to producing more shade; radiation is a straightforward indicator. However, determining how architecture might become responsive to people’s spatial behavior is far from being a straightforward matter. Human–space interaction has been barely studied and usually is defined in not quantifiable terms. To address this quantification difficulty, I identified motion as the main indicator of human–space interaction. Motion is quantifiable and is composed by space and time. Motion is understood as a sign of people’s perception of space. Furthermore, the goal of this study is the development of empirical research and data analysis of how architectural spatial configuration affects people’s motion. The architecture design process is the focus to assess meaningful insight. A metric, denominated space-motion, was developed as a result of the need to categorize data. The space–motion metric is composed by 6 indicators that correlate people’s motion with architecture features. The data collections for the analysis were recorded with Microsoft Kinect, tested in several data collections at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the world. Kinect data, assessed with space–motion metric, might bring unforeseen advancements for contributing to responsive architecture and architecture design process in general.
KeywordsPeople’s motion Human–space interaction Kinect Metric Data
- 1.D’estrée Sterk, T. (2003). Building upon Negroponte: A hybridized model of control suitable for a responsive architecture. Chicago: The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.Google Scholar
- 2.Chŏng, Y., Branzell, A., & Chalmers Tekniska Högskola. (1995). Visualising the invisible: Field of perceptual forces around and between objects. Göteborg: Design Methods, Department of Building Design, School of Architecture Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
- 3.Iturriaga del Campo, S., & Valdés, C. (2008). Cristián Valdés: la medida de la arquitectura. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones ARQ : Escuela de Arquitectura, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar
- 4.Gonzalez Rojas, P. (2015). Space and motion: Data based rules of public space pedestrian motion. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Department of Architecture.Google Scholar
- 5.Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces Inc.Google Scholar
- 6.Narahara, T. (2007). The Space Re-Actor : Walking a synthetic man through architectural space (Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/39255
- 8.Michelis, P. A. (1949). Space-time and contemporary architecture. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 8(2), 71.Google Scholar
- 9.Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 10.Mohler, B. J., & Thompson, W. B. (2007). Visual flow influences gait transition speed and preferred walking speed. Experimental Brain Research, 181(2), 221–228. doi: 10.1007/s00221-007-0917-0.
- 11.Evans, R. (1997). Translations from drawing to building (p. c1997). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 12.Godinez, R. (2015). Nicholas Negroponte with the architecture machine (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, from http://rudygodinez.tumblr.com/post/78209795322/nicholas-negroponte-with-the-architecture-machine-group.