This past Friday EyeBeam held a speaker series and panel discussion centered on the theme of Interactive Architecture. The event, sponsored by the Bartlett School of Architecture, featured presentations from Phil Ayres (Sixteen Makers), Carmen Trudell and Jennifer Broutin (EyeBeam), Marek Walczak (MW2MW) and David Benjamin and Soo-in Yang (The Living). The event was well attend and in general the discussion was thought provoking.

While discussing the idea of Architecture as a persistent model, Phil Ayres asked, what is the cycle or the behavior of the form or space? An interesting question if you buy into the belief that we will one day exist (and inhabit) mutable forms and structures. Some of Ayres' comments reminded me of Computer Science topics, 'physical objects can inform the digital model which informs the physical model once again'. At times it sounded as if he was describing recursion. In a sense, he was, but with the application to form, structure, and behavior. Can there be such thing as a recursive structure? Not using recursion as a modeling technique but in the cycle of how a building exists?

Carmen Trudell and Jennifer Broutin presented an ongoing project they have initiated at EyeBeam which aim to harness the power exerted when we open doors . They are specifically looking at how revolving doors in large buildings could act as a turbine of sorts and give energy back to the building. Afterwards someone mentioned that this is also being done in the Tokyo subway stations.

Marek Walczak addressed the fundamental question: 'Can the form of a building or a space be informed by what's going on inside?' taking the idea one step further and addressing aesthetics, 'by doing so can we create experiences that engage, surprise, and delight inhabitants? Walczak's work is simple, which I like. By design it is both conceptual and aesthetically pleasing.

In the Podium Light Wall, recently completed at 7 World Trade Center, the exterior lighting of the building maps the movement of people passing by, with lights that move with them as they pass by. One question that kept coming to mind (and this is a good question in general with interactive work): how would the system react with a crowd? The aesthetics may make sense if there is a one to one relationship between the lights and the person, but will the experience be as effective if there were a crowd gathered outside? Possibly it might strengthen the experience (for viewers) and provide a crescendo. Or, the lighting may seem to 'always be that way' if the crowd is persistent. Either way, the questions that arise by implementing real time reactive systems and build form are good things to contemplate.

David Benjamin and Soo-in Yang, co-teachers of the Living Architecture class at Colombia's GSAP presented two very interesting projects; River Glow an sustainable interface for public pollution monitoring and Living Glass, a responsive architectural system. The common them being:

Input - sensing environmental data in real time
Processing - interpreting the data (doing something with it) and
Output - changing visual and spatial configuration (also real time)

A question that Christian Croft brought up with regards to River Glow was: 'Is providing a public interface enough if there is no actionable recourse?'. For example, what if the the floating buoys were always red (and the water didn't get better or worse, but just worse)? Would people think that that's just how the were? While I generally think that raising awareness is a step in the right direction, this type of question fundamentally asks: Is awareness enough?