ICT-enabled Civic Empowerment and Participation: inDesign, through Design

Burak Pak1, Johan Verbeke21,2KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture1,2http://arch.kuleuven.be1,2{burak.pak|johan.verbeke}@kuleuven.be

This paper aims to discuss the potentials of novel modes of participatory designin relation to the latest developments in Information and CommunicationTechnologies (ICT). The first part of the study involves the elaboration of basicprinciples from the extraordinary cases of the Medical Faculty Housing byLucien Kroll (1976) and Cedric Price's Fun Place (1965) in which various formsof ICT-enabled participation were conceived. In the second part, we reframe theexisting ICT tools and strategies and elaborate their potentials to support themodes of participation performed in these two cases. As a result, by distilling thecreated knowledge, we introduce a model of ICT-enabled design participationwhich exploits a set of collective action tools to support sustainable ways ofself-organization and bottom-up design.

Keywords: Participatory architectural design, crowdsourcing, crowdfunding,self-organization

1. INTRODUCTIONThe concept of bottom-upparticipationwas broughtonto the agenda of architectural design prominentlyafter the SecondWorld War and gained traction withthe movements of 1968 (Jencks 2011).

Habraken (1961) was one of the first to intro-duce the idea of spatial self-determination as a cit-izen right. Habraken's concept of a supporting/en-abling megastructure was not novel at that time;it can be traced back to Nieuwenhuys's New Baby-lon experiments between 1956 and 1978, Friedman'sMobile Architecture in 1958 and Fuller's structuraldesigns (Lobsinger 2000). His ideas also resonatedwith André Lurçat's ground-breaking participatorydesign practices for the reconstruction of Maubeugein 1945 (Kroll 2014), Jane Jacob's (1961) critique of

planning practices in the USA as well as Team 10's re-volt against CIAM in1959and the Situationists (Math-ews 2006).

In parallel with these contributions, in 1962, Wal-ter Segal developed a low-cost housing solution suit-able for self-build while trying to address his ownproblem of providing a temporary home for his fam-ily. This practice evolved into the development of"The Segal Method" and several participatory designprojects in which 27 families worked with architectsto design and build their own homes (Broome 1995).

Following these developments, Bernard Rudof-sky (1964) organized an influential exhibition in theMuseum of Modern Arts (MoMA) with the title "Ar-chitecture without Architects". His work was a clearcriticism of the discipline and the role of the archi-

Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change- eCAADe 32 | 1

tect as an authoritative figure; a recurring theme inHabraken's, Segal's and Team 10's contributions.

In this intellectual climate, director Joan Little-wood commissioned Cedric Price to design an in-formal and dynamic entertainment center: the FunPalace. This center has never been realized, but it isstill known as one of the most prominent participa-tory design cases to inspire numerous architects; in-cluding Richard Rogers' and Renzo Piano's PompidouCenter (1976).

Around the same time period (1969-1978), Lu-cien Kroll orchestrated the design of the MedicalFaculty of the Catholic University of Louvain (UCL)with the student organization "La Maison Medicale-LaMéMé". The resultwas an ambitiouspieceof "anar-chitecture", challenging every possible aspect of thearchitectural practices of the time. It became an "iconof democratic architecture" (Poletti 2010) for Kroll'salteration of the usual hierarchical relationship be-tween the architect and the user during the process-and most importantly- the development of noveldesign interventions to enable bottom-up participa-tion.

In both of the projects referenced above (FunPalace and La MéMé), the designers attempted touse various technologies and computational meth-ods for augmenting participatory design processes.However, the capacity and potentials of these werelimited at the time and Internet was non-existent.Acknowledging this gap, this paper aims at the dis-cussion of potentials of modes of participatory de-sign in Price's and Kroll's projects in relation to thelatest developments in Information andCommunica-tion Technologies (ICT). In accordance with this aim,the research questions to be explored in this paperare:

1. What are the participatory design principlesof the Fun Place and La MéMé?

2. Which forms of ICT use were conceived inthese?

3. Can these serve a basis for a novel integrated

participation model that incorporates state-of-the-art ICT?

In this context the first part (Section 2) of our studyinvolves the extraction of basic principles from thetwo referenced cases. In the second part (Section 3),buildingon thefindingsof our case study,we reframethe existing ICT tools and strategies in terms of spaceand time and elaborate their potentials for support-ing the revealed modes of participation. As a result(Section 4), by distilling our findings, we introduce amodel of ICT-enabled design participation which ex-ploits a set of digital and non-digital collective actiontools to support sustainablewaysof self-organizationand bottom-up design.

2. A CASE STUDY OF KROLL'S LA MÉMÉAND PRICE'S FUN PALACEIn this section, informed by the introduced back-ground, we will discuss the influential projects ofKroll and Price with a focus on two main aspects: a)the employed participatory design principles and b)the ICT tools and strategies used to enable bottom-up participation. The order of presentation repre-sents the increasing complexity and relevance to ICT-enabled participation.

2.1 LaMéMéThe project was initiated when the Catholic Univer-sity of Louvain (UCL) decided tomove itsMedical Fac-ulty to Brussels, Saint-Lambrechts-Woluwe. The uni-versity authorities made an exceptional decision andpresented the preliminary design of the Medical Fac-ulty Housing to the student committee. The studentsrejected the project and contacted Kroll for his ser-vices (Kroll 1987).

As a close follower of Pierre Bourdieu, Kroll ques-tioned every aspect of the institutionalized practiceswith the contributionsof the spirited studentsofUCL.He intended to create anopendesignprocess, "an ac-tion open tonewnecessities and todecisions that arealways provisional and incomplete" (Kroll 1987). Heaimed at establishing an intellectual climate throughwhich a kind of friendly organization would emerge

2 | eCAADe 32 - Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change

to result in a homeopathic kind of architecture (Kroll2005).

Kroll organized meetings with the committeesand discussion groups. In these meetings he re-ceived conflicting ideas. Instead of flattening out allthe differences of approach and attitudes he triedto incorporate them into the design process (Kroll1997). This was a creative refutation of the idea of"consensus".

Throughout the project, the students were em-powered to participate in two forms: getting in-volved in the design process and through the partic-ipation opportunities provided by the architecturaldesign per se (Figure 1).

Figure 1Medical FacultyStudent Housing byLucien Kroll. Theusers participatedin the decisionprocess and thearchitecturalproduct enabledthem to shape andreshape theirsurroundings.

Kroll developed a flexible structure systemwhichhe called "wandering columns" based on a looselydefined grid. He collaborated with a professor ofcomputer engineering tomanipulate the grid to sup-port the irregular and heterogeneous shell of thebuilding. He designed the artificial ground aroundthe project to provide raw space for further devel-opment (the aspects of wandering columns and hislong-term vision for expansion are more evident inthe Alma Metro Station which was built as an exten-sion to the project).

The "infill" -inherited from Habraken- is hypo-thetically removable: demountable window frames,moveable partitions andprefabricated sanitary units.The architect used his own interpretation of theHabraken's SARmodule but refuted the idea of func-tional zones (Kroll 1987). According to the princi-ples of co-habitation, the infill can be torn down bythe users, which encourages them to take initiativein planning and re-planning their environments. The

plan would always be incomplete.In La MéMé, Kroll did not see aesthetics as the

central point of design. Through this project, hestrongly criticized what he called the "easel archi-tecture": aesthetically pleasing but isolated from thepeople, culture and community.

ICT tools and strategies for participationIn his book "Architecture of Complexity", Kroll (1987)reserved a whole chapter to the computers. Insteadof computer aided design (CAD), he suggested com-puter use in design (CUD) as amore appropriate termfor describing his vision. He stressed the importanceof open-endedness and heavily criticized the inflexi-ble artificial intelligence practices of the time whichled to self-contained, closed and repetitive results.

In contrast, Kroll envisioned the drafting soft-ware as a potential tool that allows open-endednessthrough which the architectural product and the so-cial relationships can be involved in the design andmanufacturing process. However, the communica-tion technologies were not developed enough tofully realize the social part of the potential.

The computer-based social interactions he fore-saw were limited to three dimensional drawingswhichhe founduseful for the communicationof earlyideas to the inhabitants. He suggested that infiniteinteractionswere required to dealwith the infinite di-versity of the real world.

In close contactwith theusers, he employedvari-ous algorithms to create diversity and differentiationand presented a library of components that can becombined according to user needs (Kroll 1987). Hetested a computational method -anthromorphism-to allow a type of architecture with variant buildingprograms and devised the role of the architect as adeveloper of "types" which can be varied by the in-habitant. The diversity of the outcomes was unman-ageable due to the technological limits of the time.As a result he worried that the process would lead tothe Taylorist practices that he criticized (Kroll 2013).

In the same chapter relating to the ICT use, Kroll(1987) described another possible role for the com-

Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change- eCAADe 32 | 3

puter: evaluation and modification. During the de-sign process, a custom program provided compar-isons between the choices of components designedby the architect and enabled rapid updates of thesespecific components throughout the process. Fur-thermore, by creating associated representations ofthe components, Kroll used a computer to generatefaçadedrawings tobe revised anddetailedby thede-signer. But he stressed that this process can never bereliant on automation, which Kroll found "an absurdand unhealthy claim".

2.2 Fun PalaceIn the Fun Palace project, Cedric Price, Joan Little-wood and numerous intellectuals from different dis-ciplines collaborated in the design of a flexible the-ater in London's slums with a dynamic program. Theproject aimed fusing information and communica-tions technologies and industrial building principles"to produce a machine capable of adapting to theneeds of users" (Price, 1965).

In contrast with Kroll's refutation of Le Corbus-ier's metaphor of architecture as a "machine-to-live-in", Cedric Price adopted and developed it further.The project was an attempt at exploring improvisa-tional architecturewith themeans of cybernetics andinformation technologies (Mathews 2005).

Figure 2The Fun Palaceproject by CedricPrice and JoanLittlewoodproposed adynamic programthat joins ICT andindustrial buildingprinciples toproducearchitecturecapable of adaptingto the needs ofuser. Illustrationsare from the CCALibrary Database[1].

Fun Palace did not have a fixed floor plan and in-tended to "encourage random movement and vari-able activities" (Lobsinger 2000). Mobile compo-nents such as flying escalators, walkways, and ac-

tivity enclosures were carried by a megastructureand transported by a crane when necessary [1]. Thesuggested time and place specific facilities coveredjam sessions, dance and science playgrounds, teach-ing film, drama therapy, modeling and making areasandmusic stations with instruments on loan (Landau1984).

Similar to La MéMé, Fun Palace was not primar-ily an aesthetical exploration. The building was con-ceived to be super-functional and adapt to the peo-ple's needs in a sustainable manner (Figure 2).

ICT tools and strategies for participationAs introduced in the previous section, the interdis-ciplinary design team which Price collaborated withincluded an English cybernetician and psychologist,Gordon Pask. During the project, several practiceswere proposed by Pask for the cybernetic regulationof day-to-day activities (Mathews 2006). In this sense,Fun Palace would be an ongoing conversation be-tween the building and its users - "an assemblage ofinteractive systems of interaction" [2].

Pask (1969) defined a number of domains of in-terest for cybernetic interventions. Among thosewere the Fun Palace and environment, visiting pat-terns, mechanical and architectural considerations,provision of specific participant activities, interactiveactivities, individual participant situations (teachingmachines), controlled group activities, conditioningsystems and cybernetic art forms (Mathews 2005).

As a proof of concept, Pask created an apparatusto collect feedback from the users after the realiza-tion of theproject (Figure 3). Theproposed toolwas a"physical communication system" which he plannedto be used informally in one of the theaters to "ac-commodate an invited audience" (Pask 1969). Theaudience would be responding to a variety of activ-ities using this tool and would be able to transformthe theater based on their preferences.

Through this exercise, Pask questioned to role ofthe users and explored novel ways of participation inan open-ended and performative manner.

4 | eCAADe 32 - Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change

Figure 3Fun Palace; diagramfor a cyberneticstheatre by GordonPask (1965).

3. CONCLUSIONS: DEVELOPING A MODELOF PARTICIPATION {IN} AND {THROUGH}ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNKroll's and Price's works can be considered as pro-totypes of participatory, bottom-up architectural de-sign. But it is necessary to differentiate betweenthese two projects. First of all, Price and his teamfailed to realize the Fun Palace. Although it was de-signed to bebuilt, it can be seen as a proof of conceptfor a utopic project.

On the other hand, La MéMé was partially re-alized and served as a semi-functional prototypethrough which many inspiring ideas were experi-mented. It still stands in Brussels as a heterotopia be-tween the ideal and the real, frozen in time.

In this context, in both projects, two intercon-nected modes of participation were evident:

1. Participation {in} the design process

2. Participation {through} the design product

These two modes were significant in the ways they

enable the users and architects to co-produce archi-tectural designs in a sustainable and participatorymanner. To start with, Participation {in} the designprocess is similar to today's widely recognized inter-pretation. It involves practices that "allow various ac-tors to contribute to the overlapping phases of theplanning and decision-making" (Horelli and Wallin2010).

In the case of La MéMé, Kroll has arranged nu-merous meetings with committees and discussiongroups to empower the student groups (althoughthe level of participation and openness were chal-lenged in the following years).

Price, on the other hand, did not believe that theuser needs can be precisely forecasted. The user par-ticipationmodel he conceivedwould takeplacepost-occupancy. However, he shared his authority withseveral intellectuals such as Littlewood who actedas an essential part of the design team. Instead ofpursuing traditional consultationmeetings, he askedfor the participation of an interdisciplinary commit-tee to collaboratively design an enabling type of ar-chitecture that facilitates participation to the highestknown extent.

The second and the most interesting modeobserved in the presented cases is participation{through} the design product. This kind of empow-erment takes place when various spatial qualitiesof the architecture enable the inhabitants to shapeand reshape their own living environments. In bothprojects, Kroll and Price aimed at the participatorycreation of infinitely flexible interactive spaces whichrepresent the diversity of the needs of the inhabi-tants. The forms of their designs were intended to bealtered to accommodate the changing needs of theusers.

In the LaMéMé case, the dynamic elementswerethe "infill": demountable window frames, moveablepartitions and prefabricated sanitary units. The FunPalace project envisioned mobile components suchas flying stairs, walkways andmodular activity enclo-sures.

Furthermore, in both of the cases a structure in-

Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change- eCAADe 32 | 5

dependent from the infill (Kroll's wandering columnsand Price's megastructure) was used for facilitatingthe dynamism of the architectural program.

Besides the participation modes discussedabove, the case study enabled the extraction of sev-eral common principles conceived in both of theprojects. Among these, the most recurrent oneswere:

• Orchestrated self-organization

• Intense focus on the impact which architec-ture can make on the users

• Incorporation of user variety and differencesinto the architectural designprocess aswell asthe product

• Incomplete, dynamic program as an enablerfor the continuous representation of the userneeds

• Embracing spontaneity and improvisation inthe design process

• Development of design rules or systems that"regulate" the building in an open-endedway

Building on the principles and the participationmodes introduced above, it is clear that a more in-novative approach to participation is possible. In thiscontext, we reframe participation as a reflective self-organization practicewhich includes interactions {in}the design process as well as {through} the designproduct.

In this approach, ICT tools fuse two cycles of co-operation inwhich the output of oneprocess is trans-formed by a second process and transferred to theother one as input (Figure 4, on the next page). It isimportant to note that the model does not suggesta completely digitalized mode of operation: ratherit involves, augmentation and enhancement of tradi-tional participatory practices through the use of ICTtools and strategies.

Figure 4ICT-enabled civicparticipation in andthrough design:fusing two cycles ofcooperation

The first cycle (Figure 4, on the left) involves atype of social knowledge construction, building so-cial capital. This capital is transferred to the secondcycle (Figure 4, on the right) throughwhich the usersgather resources, take action, accumulate experienceand give feedback to the first cycle.

This open-ended process involves several stepswhich can be supported by different types of ICT-enabled participation accessible today:

• Crowdsourcing: collection and sharing oflived experiences

• ICT-enabled public meetings: information,ideation and integration

• Crowdfunding: fund-raising, resource collec-tion

• Event-based participation (blended activi-ties): intervention

Operation PrinciplesFirst of all, from the perspective of cybernetics, therole of the architect in our model cannot be neutralor observant. It should be one of active participant inthe system. According to the second order cybernet-ics, observers of a system cannot see how it works bystanding outside. They are engaged with the systembeing observed in a cybernetic manner. Thus whenobservers observe a system, they affect and are af-fected by it (Foerster 1974).

Second, sustainable and informed participation{through} the design product requires the develop-ment of open-ended cybernetic systems which en-able user organization, feedback and intervention in

6 | eCAADe 32 - Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change

a self-regulatory, indeterminatemanner and withouta limited end-state.

Third, according to the law of requisite vari-ety, for the appropriate regulation of participation,"the variety in the regulator must be equal to orgreater than the variety in the system being regu-lated." (Ashby 1958). Therefore the proposed modelshould not be closed but open to external input ofdifferent actors at various stages.

Forth, the model should embrace reflexivity inother words, circular relationships between causeand effect.

AHypothetical Use Case in PracticeLet's we take a large-scale housing project as a hypo-thetical case for demonstrating the potential of ourparticipation model.

Following the cooperation cycles introduced inFigure 4, the participatory design process starts withcrowdsourcing through which the needs and re-quirements are collected in a structured manner.Then, these are converted into several alternative de-sign ideas and integrated into the context by the ar-chitect, with the continuous ICT-enabled feedback ofthe users.

Afterwards the users are asked to fund theproject through crowdfunding. If the process suc-ceeds, the project gets transferred to the secondcycle and constructed with the contribution of theusers.

If the funding process fails, the design processcycle is repeated: through a new crowdsourcingpractice, the user feedback is collected to identify theproblems of the design, and to develop new alterna-tive projects, which will then be asked to be crowd-funded by the users.

The contribution of our model becomes moreevident after the construction of the architecturalproject. Following the experiences of the resi-dents, post-occupancy feedback is collected throughcrowdsourcing.

When necessary, novel ideations on how to im-prove the architectural design are created with the

continuous ICT-enabled feedback of the users and in-tegrated into the existing context. Examples of theseideas can be making interventions regarding thecommunal or personal spaces, removing/addingpar-titions or reconfiguring the rules for co-habitation.

In the following stage, the users are again askedto fund the changes through crowdfunding. If thereis enough support, the process moves to the secondcycle and suggested interventions aremade. Follow-ing the intervention, the user feedback is collectedand the participation continues to take place whennecessary. In this context, it becomes possible to de-velop habitats which can adapt to the users' needs ina sustainable manner.

Future Potentials of the ProposedModelReflecting on the latest developments in ICT, it is pos-sible to claim that sensor networks and smart struc-tures can play an important role on the gathering offeedback as well as the support of user interventions.

For the operation of the model, it is necessaryto create sustainable multidimensional virtual repre-sentations. In this sense, developing participatoryand more user-focused building information model-ing (BIM) methods is crucial. These can also be usedas a basis for advanced visualizations to be displayedduring the ICT-enabled public meetings.

Furthermore, integrated with the informationmodel, web-based and mobile social platforms canplay a vital role for the collection and sharing of userexperiences through crowdsourcing aswell as raisingfunds through crowdfunding.

In the near future, low-cost robotic manufac-turing methods have a potential to unlock self-production practices, which can also be integratedinto the proposed model after the crowdfundingstep.

As suggested by Kroll (2014) in his response tothis paper, one the biggest challenges facing the in-troduced practices will be "helping to organize socialgroups and supporting the consistency of their dis-cussions in a democratic manner, against the author-itarian business-oriented approaches."

Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change- eCAADe 32 | 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank Lucien Kroll and RanulphGlanville for their valuable contributions to this pa-per.

REFERENCESAshby, WR 1958, 'Requisite Variety and its implica-

tions for the control of complex systems', Cyber-netica (Namur), 1(2), pp. 83-99

Architectural Association, ML 2000, 'Cybernetic The-ory and the Architecture of the Performance:Cedric Price’s Fun Palace', in Goldhagan, J andLegault, R (eds) 2000, Anxious Modernism, MITPress, Cambridge, MA

Banham, R, Barker, P and Price, C 1969, 'Non-Plan: anexperiment in freedom', NewSociety, 13(338), pp.2-21

Broome, J 1995, 'Segal Method Revisited', ArchitectsJournal, 202(20), pp. 53-55

Charles, J 2011, The Story of Post-Modernism: FiveDecadesof the Ironic, IconicandCritical inArchitec-ture, Wiley, London

Foerster, H 1974,CyberneticsofCybernetics, Universityof Illinois, Urbana Illinois

Habraken, JN 1961, De dragers en de mensen - Heteinde van de massawoningbouw, Scheltema &Holkema, Haarlem

Kroll, L 1987, TheArchitectureofComplexity, MIT Press,Cambridge, MA

Kroll, L 2013, 'FriendlyArchitecture',OASEJournal , NaiPublishing, 90, pp. 28-31

Kroll, L 1997, 'Anarchitektuur', in Besch, JD (eds) 1997,Componenten 2, Omtrent de Modernisering vande architektuur, Publikatiebureau BouwkundeDelft., Delft

Kroll, L 2005, 'Animal Town Planning and Homeo-pathic Architecture', in Blundell, J (eds) 2005, Ar-chitecture and Participation, Taylor and Francis,Kindle edition

L, Kroll 2014 'Private feedbackof architect LucienKrollthe authors (Pak, B, Verbeke J.) in response to thedraft version of this conference paper',Documentsent via email in 15/06/2013 (in French), p. 2

Landau, R 1984, 'A Philosophy of Enabling: CedricPrice, Works II. Cedric Price', AA (Architectural As-sociation) Files, 8, pp. 3-7

Mathews, S 2006, 'The Fun Palace as Virtual Architec-ture Cedric Price and the Practices of Indetermi-nacy', Journal of Architectural Education, 59(3), pp.39-48

Pask, G 1969, 'The architectural relevance of cyber-netics', Architectural Design, 9, pp. 494-496

Poletti, R 2010, 'Lucien Kroll:Utopia interrupted', Do-mus, 937, p. .

Price, C 1965, 'The Fun Palace Project', ArchitecturalReview, 74, pp. 15-27

Rudofsky, B 1964, Architecturewithout Architects, Mu-seum of Modern Art, New York

[1] http://cel.cca.qc.ca[2] http://people.bath.ac.uk/jeh33/Publications/Harding

8 | eCAADe 32 - Contribution 113 (Preprint) - figure and table placement subject to change