From Architecture to Wikitecture: Can mass collaboration and collective intelligence improve the quality of architecture and urban planning?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Prokofy on December 23, 2007 at 10:58am

Keystone, I don't think it can, no, if it is a group of Westerners descending on the Asian culture in Nepal and "doing good". I think there's an enormous amount of self-congratulation, political-correctness, guilt, anxiety, indifference, and obliviousness that accompanies a venture like that.

Did the people of Nepal ask you to do this, or did one of their helpers ask you to do this? Did you offer it and find nobody said "no" because they didn't know how to? Did you pick this particular project because it had high value for a sense of political-correctness and cause-worthiness? (The Nepal cause is a popular underdog leftwing cause and cultural touchpoint).

Leaving aside all the problems of when West meets East in this fashion over "development" issues, I would have to say that the bane of most public spaces is architecture -- architects' architecture which is chosen by individual architects but sustained by their firm and their ability to put over on the public decision-making process various "schools" that persist and persist despite obvious unsuitability and even ugliness (I.M. Pei). These "schools" have enormous influence and power, obviously, as they command big construction budgets.

You asked in another blog the feasibility of getting over this problem of the individual architect who clogs up entire cities with his vision by having some wikitecture. However, that merely substitutes the individual and his firm and his political connections in city design selection to a collectivist group that will merely be more of the same thing, perhaps even more virulent, and with more power. Indeed, our only salvation has been eclecticism.

You may know my opinion of wikis -- I think they are terribly false in their advertising of being "open" or "open-sourced". What they are is a means to leverage groups of elites and professionals with credentials into more powerful bargaining positions against other elites and groups of professionals. In this case, it seems to be an effort to create online "schools" to fight offline schools. I don't see that the public gains from this. The public can't join the wiki; they aren't architects. They could join and comment, but it may be either hard to keep them up to speed, or their taste and culture may not match that of the elites (and that's why in fact our cities are ugly, in the belief that the mass taste cannot democratically select beauty, and that's why we have to substitute ugly modernism instead).

I imagine that in your wiki, like any wiki, what really happens is that a few strong and enthusiastic individuals carry the entire project, and other people sort of kibbutz or just lurk and watch. I imagine the "wiki" concept is emerging as a way to make a new paradigm for the architectural firm. Instead of having to have bricks-and-mortar offices and lengthy procedures for architectural apprenticeship and advancement, I guess the idea is to get instantaneous collaboration on the Internet by people who then won't have to cross those hurdles. That could be a very good thing, since the Western system of credentialing tends to be merely a connection reward system, not always about actual excellence. But...how will you determine excellence? Do you get to vote off the island anybody who turns out to be a lousy designer for obvious reasons?

Wikis get started with likeminded enthusiasts who would work together regardless of whether they had the "wiki" as a tool to collaborate. So that's why it's misleading to suggest that Second Life or online "wikis" are now the thing to subvert everything and replace to solve all the problems of the meat-world. The problem is in identifying what you mean by like-minded, and finding those like-minded. Perhaps something like Second Life makes it easier. But what about the people of Nepal? Do they get a wiki?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Keystone Bouchard on December 23, 2007 at 1:17pm

Thanks for your comments Prokofy.

First, I'd like to clarify that our entire Wikitecture methodology is nothing more than an experiment. We started this exploration by asking a question, and set out to find the answer. You could very well be right about everything you've said here, time will tell.

To answer your first question, the people of Nepal actually did indirectly ask us to do this. Nyaya Health, a local non-profit organization working to improve the health of poor communities in Nepal submitted a request and were chosen as the recipients of a grant offered by the Open Architecture Network, another non-profit community dedicated to improving living conditions through innovative and sustainable design. We chose this project specifically because of the many similarities between the structure and orientation of OAN and the open-source design ideals of Studio Wikitecture. And, yes, I think most of us agree that this is a worthwhile cause...cultural touchpoint or not, these people really do need help.

I'm afraid of getting ahead of myself here, but one of the core tenets of Wikitecture is to challenge the notion of "architects' architecture," to which you refer, and to offer an alternative to the influence and power of the "school-driven persistence and ugliness" you describe. What better way to regain control of the decision-making process than by giving the public community a voice, and a platform from which to more effectively share their views? Maybe you're right, and our open community of contributors will merely make more of the same thing, but is it really a bad thing to try?

I think I could actually use your statements about the public's taste and culture to build a case for Wikitecture, not against. The public *can* join the wiki - that's the whole idea. Given that everyone has access to the same tools and forums, I don't see why anyone sincerely interested in participating would have a hard time keeping up to speed. If enough members of the public community have taste and culture that don't match with those of the perceived 'elites', they could finally have a forum and a vote with which to challenge it. It might not be perfect, but in the end, isn't this attempt to enable open public participation in the design process better than the back-seat the community so often sits in today?

In this, our first real experiment with the new Wikitecture process, we are still actively trying to grow a numerous and diverse community of contributors. Anyone is welcome to join regardless of background or experience. These are early days, and it takes some time to learn the process (we're working hard to make it as simple and easy as possible). So, for the time being, you're right - we have necessarily started off with a small group of core contributors, but that reality is changing quickly. I've already been pleasantly surprised by contributors I hadn't even met who come from out of nowhere with solid and feasible ideas to share. Members have jumped in, some with little or no architectural experience, and contributed concepts based on their own comprehensive and passionate research into regionally available materials or construction techniques. Some members have lived or studied in Nepal, or are in contact with groups who regularly travel to Nepal and understand the culture and regional vernacular. Some choose to only share their expertise and research in the forums, and provide invaluable information that other contributors have then folded into their own 3D ideation. Even without rezzing a single prim, these members can quickly become very potent contributors to the project. We're only a few weeks into this experiment, and have already assembled a staggering amount of research, and a diverse range of feasible design solutions submitted to the Wiki-tree.

Its funny you should ask if the people of Nepal get a wiki. Several members of the group had the same conversation a few days ago. We agreed that the ideal way to design this telemedical center would be to let the people who will actually use the facility design it for themselves. After all, their 'tele-medicine' center is supposed to give regional medical staff access to the advice and input of a worldwide network of medical professionals. Perhaps our 3D wiki serves as a kind of 'tele-architecture' center, enabling regional staff to ping our worldwide network of contributors to solve ongoing and specific design challenges they face as the facility grows and evolves.

Idealistic? Maybe. But I strongly believe virtual world technology will open doors like this very quickly in the months/years ahead, and it won't be long before this level of participation will be feasible. Why not start inventing and experimenting with the tools and methodology we'll need to take full advantage of these new opportunities?

I'll be the first to admit that Wikitecture might not work. We'll find out in time. But is it really such a bad thing to at least try?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jack Ryker on February 3, 2008 at 5:28pm

Is the discussion about workflow? I think the group determines some criteria and requirements for the building. Then maybe either one person or the group can create a working theme. Then...I would choose one architect to start off the process. He can then forward his completed idea to the next architect to be further improved upon. back and forth.. I dont know how it really works, but I have discovered that at a certain point in the process, I need to be alone to take it to the next step. :)

▶ Reply to This