The Agile Urbanism Manifesto:
A citizen-led blueprint for smart cities, smart communities, and smart democracy
Cities are volatile, unpredictable, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) places, making the delivery of responsive citizen-led solutions virtually impossible to predict or control. To compound matters, clear evidence shows prejudices or bias in design thinking seriously constrains architectural creations and user experience of urban spaces. This article reviews the impact of such effects, and how applying a new integrated model, the Agile Urbanism Blueprint (AUB) may help boost user engagement and interaction in citizen-led urbanism. Ultimately rendering our cities, communities, and democracy smarter and more resilient to future challenges.
Background
The need for smart city infrastructure
By 2050, 70% of the world’s population or 2.5 billion people will be living in cities, forcing more people to live on less land, consume more global energy, and generate more CO2 emissions. These pressures suggest new urban design infrastructures are needed to optimize functionality and effectiveness of systems [1]. One solution is to build smart cities — urban areas that harness information communications technologies (ICT) and networked devices (aka the Internet of Things or IoT). This citizen-led utopia is predicted to not only reduce costs but also solve many of the technical challenges related to rapid urbanization, such as traffic congestion, unsustainable resource allocation, and extreme weather events [2]. Smart user-led urban design systems may also deliver “smart health communities” which could help tackle some of the inequality-related epidemics harming populations worldwide such as obesity, poverty, and crime [3].
Despite evidence that “bottom-up” citizen-led projects provide better value and sustainability, most smart cities projects have applied top-down technocentric methods to improve city infrastructure [4]. In addition, architectural practice suffers from an innate “fear of the body” – which impacts future delivery of services. The fact positive body-environment relations determine receipt of services and ultimately citizen wellbeing implies architects must accept this reality and start developing citizen-led methods to encourage profitable “investments in corporeality” [5, p.14].
Industrial fragmentation
Architecture’s inability to make corporeal investments is complex, but likely stems from the discordant nature of practice itself. While operating outside the humanities, there is ongoing debate whether it belongs to the arts or the sciences [5, 6]. This identity crisis may sound trivial to the layperson, however internal divisions have seriously impacted knowledge across the board. Not only for educators and professionals, who find design methods confused and contradictory [7, 8] but also for people outside practice looking to measure its progress [9]. Rather than making things better, adoption of digital open source tools has amplified fragmentation [10, 11], incurring great bias on the minds of architects, which has continued to disrupt decision-making within practice [12, 13].
Biased minds, biased decision-making
The idea that certain worldviews or “paradigms” bias our thoughts and actions is not new. Bias was writ large in the Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy of Ancient Greece: Apollo (god of the sun) stood for rational thinking, logic, and order; whereas Dionysus (god of wine and dance) embodied irrationality, emotions, and instinct [14]. Ancient and Western philosophy has continued to adopt these two paradigms, either in the form of linear-based analytical thinking (e.g., Aristotle, Democritus, Bacon) or systems-based holistic thinking (e.g., Plato, Anaxagoras, Hegel, Marx), with rare examples of overlap [15, 16]. Art history reflects a similar dichotomy (Figure 1) maintaining psychic tensions between the rationality of Apollo and irrationality of Dionysius [17, 18]. Science by contrast continually undergoes paradigm shifts, depending on the changing methods of those living within them [19].
Shifts in worldviews are not surprising. From a biological perspective, our brain processes sensory information differently. Split-brain studies of patients receiving a corpus callosotomy (an operation severing the bundle of nerve tissue or corpus callosum connecting brain hemispheres) confirmed the left side specializes in analytical tasks, whereas the right deals with spatial perception [20]. Studies of human development also show analytical process are specialized between analytical left brain and holistic right brain processes [21–23]. Differences also appear to occur across genders, with men favouring left side verbal reasoning, and women using left and right areas to map emotional, verbal, and visual cues [24].
Radical changes to our environment also biases thoughts and actions over time [25, 26]. Within architecture, construction methods during the Medieval Age meant architects had no sense of the scale or wholeness of building [27]. Guttenberg printing during the Renaissance meant architects generated ideas via perspectival drawings [27, 28]. Mechanical clocks in the Industrial Age destroyed natural circadian cycles and individuality [29]. Mechanical reproduction in the Modern Age sparked cultures of distraction as a result of people’s nervous systems attempting to filter out noise [26, 30–32]. Personal computing during our current Digital Age has ultimately reduced human thought to information processing [33] and nature itself as data to be processed [34].
The scientification of architecture
To render architecture more scientific and less susceptible to biased thinking, leaders at the 1956 Oxford Conference of Architectural Education introduced Design Science into the curriculum [35]. The role of Design Science was to apply a systematic and rational approach to design thinking by breaking problems down into small parts and synthesizing them into grand solutions [36, 37]. To do this, Design Science drew heavily from the world of artificial intelligence (AI) in order to clarify “existing situations” and manipulate them towards “preferred ones” [38, 39]. These rationalist methods have been further amplified with the rise of digital computing tools and networks [40], to the extent that it’s virtually impossible to imagine design problems being tackled any other way [7, 41].
Digital tools have revolutionized certain aspects of design production, however architecture’s rationalist bias has also constrained diversity and made architects insensitive to user experience [5, 42]. These cultural norms not only negatively impact communities but also constrain innovation [43]. However, it would be wrong to blame Design Science for architecture’s rational bias. Rationalism is but one of four worldviews which have shaped architecture for millennia [41, 44]: (a) the rationalist paradigm, guided by mathematics; (b) the ecological paradigm, guided by science; (c) the technocratic paradigm, guided by engineering; and (d) the humanistic paradigm, guided by psychology (Figure 2).
While there is considerable overlap between worldviews and design methods [45], clear professional divisions still dominate practice. The following review examines each four worldviews in detail. Then, a final synthesis of models is created to fuel communications between worldviews and harness the kind of citizen-led knowledge cities need to thrive and prosper.
Review summary
In reviewing the design literature, we found new modelling tools are increasingly making our buildings and cites more human. Many of these human-centred methods however are governed by the limits of the tool’s function, which place constraints on human knowledge and communication [172]. In other words, we become tools of our own tools [26, 173, 174]. In the case of the design studio, specific technological revolutions have shaped how architects map, visualize, and create interactions between people and places [175]. Such radical shifts in practice confirm that design technologies, rather than influencing incremental change are totalitarian in their effects. It is perhaps not surprising such effects have, in many cases, resulted in the perceptual sensory capacities of people either overlooked [176] or ignored [177, 178]. This lack of technological convergence has come to standardize and ultimately constrain user experience. Such constraints are likely the result of four dominant paradigms that still continue to shape development and delivery of services.
The rationalist paradigm (mathematics-based)
Mathematical-based methods using CAD’s built-in geometric shape grammars enable architects to sharpen their design skills [179] and increase production [180]. While more recent tools have amplified and exploited these capabilities, CAD nonetheless places a rationalist bias on architectural thinking and practice [70]. This bias has rendered most architects insensitive to more nuanced spatial aspects of the environmental such as building scale, land usage, and boundary conditions [181]. These digital advances have also outpaced any critical understanding of their psychophysiological effects [182]. As a result, geometric shape grammars still cast human-environment relations as standardized norms, failing to engage diverse populations in the creation of meaningful urban experiences [183]. The ambiguous ways people apply meaning to objects and environments [184] implies shape grammars should only be used and interpreted in their original sense [185] i.e., as devices which specify language above all else [186] (Figure 3).
The ecological paradigm (science-based)
Science-based methods using reality mining tools enable architects to control entire systems, helping them accomplish in days what traditional methods would take months to achieve. While these tools have been useful in guiding architects towards more sustainable concerns, most of the top-down methods fail to account for the complexity and vulnerability of ecological systems [99]. Over emphasis of system needs not only ignores the exponential rise of virtual communities [187] but also comes at the expense of individuals [188] and the need for society to critique its own institutions [189]. Bottom-up crowdsourcing systems that gather crowdsourced data from mobile smartphones has created a new citizen-led participatory sensing paradigm for measuring urban spaces [100]. Despite its ability to gather citizen data, crowdsourcing remains poor at evaluating and controlling data or providing citizen feedback [107]. Middle-out smart city apps, which fuse the best features of top-down (centralized) and bottom-up (decentralized) methods allows data to be accessed and used by many agents at different times and places. Greatly improving the delivery of responsive city services (Figure 4).
The technocratic paradigm (engineering-based)
Engineering-based methods using testing suites enable architects to evaluate complex interactions between people, objects, and places. The problem with these methods is they tend to encourage a technocratic bias that favours mechanistic function over humanistic concerns. Recent replacement of physical testing suites with CAE programs has amplified this technocratic bias, creating knowledge gaps between people and environments. These knowledge gaps are rendered visible in many post-occupancy studies showing conflicts between idealized functional models and end-user comfort [130]. The fact CAE tools are too complex to use during vital early design stages [128] mean they tend to be poor generators of ideas [190]. These findings support the reality computers are language-bound and thinkers who rely on them are often utilizing a small part of their brain which is like a computer [191, p.22]. As Koestler prophetically observed: “Language can become a screen which stands between the thinker and reality. This is the reason that true creativity often starts where language ends” [192] (Figure 5).
The humanistic paradigm (psychology-based)
Psychology-based methods using human-centric data enables architects to build user interfaces into systems to ensure they are responsive and meaningful. While this humanistic bias is long overdue, cynical applications manipulate design features to fuel erratic consumer behaviour [152]. In projects which harness features to support wellbeing, studies show different people respond to different features in different ways [143, 193–195]. It follows buildings and cities design must incorporate more flexible (i.e., agile) elements beyond the visual, to ensure multisensory experiences can be adapted to user needs [196]. The ability of citizens to proactively create urban experiences with user-centred tools offers architects the unique opportunity to fuel urban engagement at every turn. Thus, improving the overall development and delivery of responsive city services. These benefits are also likely to spark healthy brain plasticity not only in the minds of people [197, 198] but also across broader realms of architectural practice (Figure 6).
Agile Urbanism: a citizen-led blueprint for smart cities
The idea that people who use public spaces and buildings should have a say in designing them is central to the notion of building smart communities [199]. Citizen-led initiatives were put forward in a Green Paper titled Open Sourced Planning by Britain’s Conservative Party in an effort “to rebuild Britain’s broken economy” [200]. This paper proposed a shift away from centralized regional planning towards decentralized local community development, where public design workshops (aka charrettes) could fast-track design proposals. Despite the potential of such radical decentralized planning to reinvigorate industry and society, our review found best design practices tend to adopt a multi-layered approach. Any future smart city proposals must therefore integrate similar multi-layered approaches into their structure to deliver responsive urban services.
To help organizations and architects make the kinds of corporeal investments our communities and cities need to thrive, they need to understand tools and methods are context dependent. To support this knowledge, current practices can be graphically expressed across an urban design continuum (Figure 7). At the left of the spectrum determinism is the norm (i.e., cause and effect can be analysed, predicted, understood). At the right end of the spectrum, non-determinism is the norm (i.e., cause and effect are unclear, thus prediction and control are virtually impossible). At the centre, real-time feedback tools enable rapid response to change. Understanding urban design as part of a continuum implies design tools either support analysis of parts, systems, or both. For example:
- At the left side of the continuum, top-down algorithmic methods apply. Rule-based machine learning technologies such as CAD/CAE, generative apps, and data mining help architects harness “machine intelligence” to solve rather simple problems that can be clearly defined and reduced to their constituent parts.
- At the right side of the continuum, bottom-up humanistic methods apply. Human-based tools such as experience maps, crowdsourcing apps, and reality mining help architects harness “human intelligence” to solve volatile, unpredictable, complex, ambiguous (VUCA) problems which lie beyond their prediction or control.
- At the centre of the continuum, middle-out synthetic methods apply. Real-time feedback tools such as brain-computer interfaces fuse top-down and bottom-up design methods, ensuring future urban infrastructures respond and adapt to rapid change.
The ability of the continuum to map methods to contextual challenges gives rise to what we call the Agile Urbanism Blueprint or AUB (Figure 8). The AUB aims to improve previous citizen-led approaches in at least two ways. First, the ability of citizens to self-signify their own narratives rather than having machine experts or analysts translate them will significantly reduce levels of experimenter bias. Second, the ability of real-time user feedback systems to boost responsive interactions between citizens and organizations will likely fuel user engagement. Potentially rendering services more responsive and ensuring they adapt quickly to change.
Summary
New urban infrastructures are needed to ensure future cities are fit for purpose. Smart cities that harness mobile networks and devices may help address challenges. However, limited feedback of systems has placed a negative bias on urban infrastructure and user experience. To reduce bias, a more Agile Urban Blueprint or AUB is needed. The AUB will help support smart city design in two ways. First, the AUB helps architects and urban planners understand certain tools and methods are only effective in certain scenarios. For example, in VUCA contexts such as cities, neither rationalist, technocratic, ecological, or humanistic design methods alone can map interactions fast or accurately enough to solve problems. Second, the AUB harnesses intelligence amplification via brain-machine interfaces and wearable sensors. Such real-time user feedback systems may help architects and planners collect more powerful user data sets, enabling them to build more reflexive solutions that adapt to change. Feedback systems also have the potential to boost levels of user engagement and interaction in citizen-led urbanism. Ultimately rendering our cities, communities, and democracy smarter and more resilient to future challenges.
To read the full article please visit Academia.edu
References
1. Desa, U., World urbanization prospects, the 2011 revision. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, 2014.
2. Townsend, A.M., Smart cities: big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. 2013: WW Norton & Company.
3. Feliziani, C., et al., Smart citizens for healthy cities, in IEEE Smart Cities Initiative. 2014: Trento, Italy.
4. Lea, R., et al. Smart cities: engaging users and developers to foster innovation ecosystems. in Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 2015. ACM.
5. Grosz, E.A., Architecture from the outside: essays on virtual and real space. 2001: MIT Press.
6. Cook, P., R. Llewellyn-Jones, and K. Norment, New spirit in architecture. 1991: Rizzoli.
7. Dorst, K., Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 2006. 22(3): p. 4–17.
8. Kimbell, L. Beyond design thinking: design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. in CRESC Conference, Manchester. 2009.
9. Buchanan, R., Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 2001. 17(4): p. 3–23.
10. Luke, R., et al. The promise and perils of a participatory approach to developing an open source community learning network. in Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices-Volume 1. 2004. ACM.
11. Margolin, V., Building a design research community. Design Plus Research, 2000: p. 2–6.
12. Cuff, D., Digital pedagogy: an essay. Architectural record, 2001(9): p. 200.
13. Robertson, B.F. and D.F. Radcliffe, Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design, 2009. 41(3): p. 136–146.
14. Nietzsche, F., The Birth of Tragedy, trans. Walter Kaufmann. Random House. 1967, New York.
15. McKeon, R.P. and T. Mann, Thought, action, and passion. 1954: University of Chicago Press.
16. Brumbaugh, R.S., Western philosophic systems and their cyclic transformations. 1992: Southern Illinois University Press.
17. Paglia, C., Sexual personae: art and decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. 1990: Random House.
18. McGilchrist, I., The master and his emissary: the divided brain and the making of the western world. 2009: Yale University Press.
19. Kuhn, T.S., The structure of scientific revolutions. 2 ed. 1970: University of Chicago Press.
20. Sperry, R.W., Hemisphere deconnection and unity in conscious awareness. American Psychologist, 1968. 23(10): p. 723.
21. Nisbett, R.E., et al., Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological review, 2001. 108(2): p. 291.
22. Pask, G., Styles and strategies of learning. British journal of educational psychology, 1976. 46(2): p. 128–148.
23. Witkin, H.A., et al., Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of educational research, 1977. 47(1): p. 1–64.
24. Frederikse, M.E., et al., Sex differences in the inferior parietal lobule. Cerebral Cortex, 1999. 9(8): p. 896–901.
25. Doidge, N. and J. Bond, The brain that changes itself. 2008: Brilliance Audio.
26. McLuhan, M., Understanding media: the extensions of man. 1964: McGraw Hill. 5.
27. Pérez-Gómez, A., A.P. Gómez, and L. Pelletier, Architectural representation and the perspective hinge. 2000, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
28. Evans, R., The projective cast: architecture and its three geometries. 1995, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
29. Mumford, L., Technics and civilization. 1934: Harcourt, Brace and World.
30. Benjamin, W., The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. 2008: Penguin UK.
31. Kracauer, S. and T.Y. Levin, Cult of distraction: on Berlin’s picture palaces. New German Critique, 1987(40): p. 91–96.
32. Selye, H., The stress of life. 1956: McGraw-Hill.
33. Weizenbaum, J., Computer power and human reason — from judgment to calculation. 1976: WH Freeman.
34. Postman, N., Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. 1993: Vintage.
35. Glanville, R., Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 1999. 15(2).
36. Alexander, C., Notes on the synthesis of form. 1964: Harvard University Press.
37. Fuller, R.B. and J. McHale, World Design Science Decade, 1965–1975. 1967: World Resources Inventory.
38. Simon, H.A., The science of the artificial. 1969: MIT Press.
39. Jones, J.C., Design methods. 2 ed. 1992: Wiley & Sons.
40. Lawson, B., Oracles, draughtsmen, and agents: the nature of knowledge and creativity in design and the role of IT. Automation in Construction, 2005. 14(3): p. 383–391.
41. Rowe, P.G., Design thinking. 1991: MIT Press.
42. de Graft-Johnson, A., S. Manley, and C. Greed, Why do women leave architecture. RIBA/University of West of England Research Project. London, RIBA, 2003.
43. Page, S.E., The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. 2008: Princeton University Press. 456.
44. Lawson, B., How designers think: the design process demystified. 1980: Architectural Press London.
45. Cross, N., From a design science to a design discipline: understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking, in Design research now. 2007, Springer. p. 41–54.
46. Agrest, D.I., Architecture from without: theoretical framings for a critical practice. 1991: MIT Press.
47. Mitchell, W.J., Vitruvius redux: formalized design synthesis in architecture, in Formal engineering design synthesis. 2001, Cambridge University Press. p. 1–19.
48. Corbusier, L., Modulor I and II. 1980: Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
49. Souder, J.J. and W.E. Clark, Computer technology: new tool for planning. AIA Journal, 1963: p. 97–106.
50. Whitehead, B. and M.Z. El’Dars, An approach to the optimum layout of single storey buildings. Architect’s Journal, 1964. 139(25): p. 1373–1380.
51. Archer, L.B., An overview of the structure of the design process. Emerging methods in environmental design and planning, 1970: p. 285–307.
52. Armour, G.C. and E.S. Buffa, A heuristic algorithm and simulation approach to relative location of facilities. Management Science, 1963: p. 294–309.
53. Moseley, L., A rational design theory for planning buildings based on the analysis and solution of circulation problems. Architects’ Journal, 1963. 11: p. 525–37.
54. Th’ng, R. and M. Davies, SPACES: An integrated suite of computer programs for accommodation scheduling, layout generation and appraisal of schools. Computer-Aided Design, 1975. 7(2): p. 112–118.
55. Auger, B., The architect and the computer. 1972: Pall Mall Press.
56. Sutherland, I.E., Sketchpad: a man-machine graphical communication system. 1964, University of Cambridge. p. 6–329.
57. Shneiderman, B., The future of interactive systems and the emergence of direct manipulation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 1982. 1(3): p. 237–256.
58. Dourish, P., Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. 2004: MIT Press.
59. Stiny, G. and J. Gips, Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. Information processing, 1972. 71: p. 1460–1465.
60. Stiny, G. and W.J. Mitchell, The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B, 1978. 5(1): p. 5–18.
61. Stiny, G. and W.J. Mitchell, The grammar of paradise: on the generation of Mughul gardens. Environment and Planning B, 1980. 7(2): p. 209–226.
62. Koning, H. and J. Eizenberg, The language of the prairie: Frank Lloyd Wright’s prairie houses. Environment and Planning B, 1981. 8(3): p. 295–323.
63. Downing, F. and U. Flemming, The bungalows of Buffalo. Environment and Planning B, 1981. 8(3): p. 269–293.
64. Li, A.I.K. Expressing parametric dependence in shape grammars, with an example from traditional Chinese architecture. in Proceedings of the fourth conference of the Association of computer aided architectural design research in Asia (CAADRIA). 1999.
65. Duarte, J.P., Towards the mass customization of housing: the grammar of Siza’s houses at Malagueira. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 2005. 32(3): p. 347–380.
66. Carroll, J.M., Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. Annual review of psychology, 1997. 48(1): p. 61–83.
67. Mandelbrot, B.B., The fractal geometry of nature. 1983, W. H. Freeman: New York.
68. Thompson, D.W., On growth and form: a new edition. 2 ed. 1942: Cambridge University Press.
69. Venturi, R., Complexity and contradiction in architecture. Vol. 1. 1977: Harry N. Abrams.
70. Till, J., Architecture Depends. 2009: MIT Press. 254.
71. Frampton, K., Toward a critical regionalism: six points for an architecture of resistance. Postmodernism: a reader, 1993: p. 268.
72. Hillier, B., Space is the machine. 1996: Cambridge University Press.
73. Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein, A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. 1977: Oxford University Press.
74. Terzidis, K., Algorithmic architecture. 2006: Architectural Press.
75. Kolatan, S. and B. MacDonald, Excursus Chimera? Architectural Design, 2000. 70(3): p. 70–77.
76. Lynn, G., Greg Lynn: embryological houses. In AD: Contemporary Processes in Architecture, 2000. 70(3): p. 26–35.
77. Chu, K., Metaphysics of genetic architecture and computation. Architectural Design, 2006. 76(4): p. 38–45.
78. Roudavski, S., Towards morphogenesis in architecture. International journal of architectural computing, 2009. 7(3): p. 345–374.
79. Banham, R., Theory and design in the first machine age. 1996: MIT Press.
80. Hight, C., Architectural principles in the age of cybernetics. 2008: Psychology Press.
81. Lang, J. and W. Moleski, Functionalism revisited: architectural theory and practice and the behavioral sciences. 2010: Ashgate Publishing.
82. Menking, W., Editorial: core curriculum. The Architect's Newspaper, 2009.
83. Howard, E., Garden cities of to-morrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1902.
84. Welter, V.M. and I.B. Whyte, Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the city of life. 2003: MIT Press.
85. Meller, H., Patrick Geddes: social evolutionist and city planner. 1994: Routledge.
86. Jacobs, J., The death and life of great American cities. 1961: Vintage.
87. Carson, R., Silent Spring. 1962: Houghton Mifflin.
88. Fitch, J.M., American building: the environmental forces that shape it. 1975: Schocken Books.
89. McHarg, I.L., Design with nature. 1969: John Wiley & Sons.
90. Fuller, R.B. and J. Snyder, Operating manual for spaceship earth. 1969: Southern Illinois University Press.
91. Soleri, P., Arcosanti: an urban laboratory. 1987: VTI Press.
92. Yeang, K., The skyscraper bioclimatically considered: a design primer. 1996: Academy Editions London.
93. Kolarevic, B., Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing. 2003: Spon Press.
94. Onuma, K., From abundance to scarcity: a strategy for the 21st century building industry. Doing more with less while creating value. Architecture and Society 14, 2009(18): p. 158–170.
95. Bazjanac, V. Virtual building environments (VBE): applying information modeling to buildings. in ECPPM 2004, 8–10 September 2004. 2004. Istanbul.
96. Meadati, P., J. Irizarry, and A.K. Akhnoukh, BIM and RFID integration: a pilot study. Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research and Practice, 2010: p. 570–78.
97. Aranda-Mena, G., et al., Building information modelling demystified: does it make business sense to adopt BIM? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2009. 2(3): p. 419–434.
98. Eastman, C.M., et al., BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, architects, engineers, contractors, and fabricators. 2008: John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
99. Poynter, J., The human experiment: two years and twenty minutes inside Biosphere 2. 2006: Basic Books.
100. Kanhere, S.S. Participatory sensing: crowdsourcing data from mobile smartphones in urban spaces. in 12th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM). 2011. IEEE.
101. Yuan, W., et al., Harness human sensor networks for situational awareness in disaster reliefs: a survey. IETE Technical Review, 2013. 30(3): p. 240–247.
102. Dutta, P., et al. Common sense: participatory urban sensing using a network of handheld air quality monitors. in Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems. 2009. ACM.
103. Manasseh, C., K. Ahern, and R. Sengupta. The connected traveler: using location and personalization on mobile devices to improve transportation. in Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Location and the Web. 2009. ACM.
104. Maisonneuve, N., et al. Citizen noise pollution monitoring. in Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government. 2009. Digital Government Society of North America.
105. Sakaki, T., M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo. Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. in Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web. 2010. ACM.
106. Kim, S., et al. Creek watch: pairing usefulness and usability for successful citizen science. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2011. ACM.
107. Brabham, D.C., Crowdsourcing: a model for leveraging online communities. 2011: p. 1–22.
108. Caragliu, A., C. Del Bo, and P. Nijkamp, Smart cities in Europe. Journal of urban technology, 2011. 18(2): p. 65–82.
109. Nickerson, J.V., Y. Sakamoto, and L. Yu, Structures for creativity: the crowdsourcing of design, in CHI Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation. 2011. p. 1–4.
110. Lanier, J., You are not a gadget: a manifesto. 2011: Vintage.
111. Immordino-Yang, M.H., Our bodies, our minds, our cultures, our “selves”: implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2009.
112. Gaver, W.W., The affordances of media spaces for collaboration. 1992: Rank Xerox, EuroPARC.
113. Onnela, J.-P. and F. Reed-Tsochas, Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010. 107(43): p. 18375–18380.
114. Burns, C., et al., Transformation design, in RED paper. 2006: Design Coucil.
115. Krippendorff, K., The semantic turn. 2006: Taylor & Francis. 368.
116. Taylor, F.W., The principles of scientific management. 1911: UK: Harper and Brothers.
117. Dempsey, P.G., M.S. Wogalter, and P.A. Hancock, What’s in a name? Using terms from definitions to examine the fundamental foundation of human factors and ergonomics science. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2000. 1(1): p. 3–10.
118. Borck, C., Communicating the modern body: Fritz Kahn’s popular images of human physiology as an industrialized world. Canadian Journal of Communication, 2007. 32(3).
119. Neufert, E. and P. Neufert, Architects’ data. 2012: Wiley.
120. Dreyfuss, H., Designing for People. 1955: Simon and Schuster. 57.
121. Wegner, P., Research paradigms in computer science, in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering. 1976. p. 322–330.
122. Card, S.K., S.K. Moran, and A. Newell, The psychology of human-computer interaction. 1983: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
123. Negroponte, N., The architecture machine: towards a more human environment. 1970, MA, Cambridge: MIT Press.
124. Negroponte, N., Soft architecture machines. 1975: MIT Press.
125. Duffy, V.G., Handbook of digital human modeling: research for applied ergonomics and human factors engineering. 2009: CRC Press.
126. Allen, B., B. Curless, and Z. Popovic. Exploring the space of human body shapes: data-driven synthesis under anthropometric control. in Proceedings of Conference on Digital Human Modeling for Design and Engineering. SEA International. 2004.
127. Case, K., et al., Digital human modelling and the ageing workforce. Procedia Manufacturing, 2015. 3: p. 3694–3701.
128. Oxman, R., Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 2008. 29(2): p. 99–120.
129. Bullinger, H.-J., et al., Towards user centred design (UCD) in architecture based on immersive virtual environments. Computers in Industry, 2010. 61(4): p. 372–379.
130. Purves, G., Healthy living centres. 2002: Routledge.
131. Humphrey, N., The mind made flesh: essays from the frontiers of psychology and evolution. 2002: Oxford University Press.
132. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson, Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and Its challenge to Western thought. 1999: Basic Books.
133. Tallis, R., Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the misrepresentation of humanity. 2011: Acumen.
134. Zeisel, J., Inquiry by design: tools for environment-behavior research. Vol. 5. 1984: Cambridge University Press.
135. Stankos, M. and B. Schwarz, Evidence-based design in healthcare: a theoretical dilemma. Interdisciplinary Design and Research e-Journal, 2007. 1(1).
136. Ruskin, J., The seven lamps of architecture. 1865: Wiley.
137. Gage, J. and J.W. Goethe, Goethe on art. 1980: University of California Press.
138. Antonovsky, A., The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health promotion international, 1996. 11(1): p. 11–18.
139. Neutra, R.J., Survival through design. 1954: Oxford University Press.
140. Heidegger, M., Being and Time. Revised ed. 1962: HarperCollins Publishers.
141. Merleau-Ponty, M., Phenomenology of perception. 1962: Routeledge & Kegan Paul.
142. Husserl, E.G., The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. 1970: Northwestern University Press.
143. Lynch, K., The image of the city. 1960: The MIT Press.
144. Whyte, W.H., The organization man. 1956: University of Pennsylvania Press.
145. Hall, E.T., The silent language. 1959: Doubleday New York.
146. Karwowski, W., Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems. Ergonomics, 2005. 48(5): p. 436–463.
147. Osgood, C.E., The measurement of meaning. Vol. 47. 1957: University of Illinois Press.
148. Johnston, P. and N. Bailey, The function of the oblique: the architecture of Claude Parent and Paul Virilio, 1963–1969. 1996: Architectural Association.
149. Norberg-Schulz, C., Existence, space and architecture. 1971: Studio Vista London, UK.
150. Küller, R., Semantisk miljöbeskrivning (SMB). Psykologiförlaget. 1975, Stockholm.: AB Liber Tryck.
151. Kotler, P., Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of retailing, 1973. 49(4): p. 48–64.
152. Michon, R., J.-C. Chebat, and L.W. Turley, Mall atmospherics: the interaction effects of the mall environment on shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 2005. 58(5): p. 576–583.
153. Green, P.E. and V. Srinivasan, Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of consumer research, 1978: p. 103–123.
154. Gibson, J.J., Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology, chapter The Theory of Affordances. 1977: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.
155. Mizuno, S. and Y. Akao, Quality function deployment. JUSE, Tokyo, 1978.
156. Kano, N., et al., Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 1984. 14(2): p. 39–48.
157. Mace, R.L., G.J. Hardie, and J.P. Place, Accessible environments: toward universal design. 1990: Center for Accessible Housing, North Carolina State University.
158. Nagamachi, M., Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of industrial ergonomics, 1995. 15(1): p. 3–11.
159. Pallasmaa, J., The eyes of the skin: architecture and the senses. 1996: John Wiley and Sons.
160. Zumthor, P., Thinking architecture. 1998: Lars Müller.
161. Engberg-Pedersen, A. and O. Eliasson, Studio Olafur Eliasson: an encyclopedia. 2008, Köln; London: Taschen. 527 p.
162. Gins, M. and G. Arakawa, Architectural body. 2002: University of Alabama Press.
163. Draper, S. and D.A. Norman, User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction. 1986: L. Erlbaum Associates.
164. Shostack, G.L., Designing services that deliver. Harvard business review, 1984. 62(1): p. 133–139.
165. Young, I., Mental models: aligning design strategy with human behavior. 2008: Rosenfeld Media.
166. Temkin, B., Mapping the customer journey. Forrester Research, 2010.
167. Kimbell, L., The turn to service design, in Design and Creativity: Policy, Management and Practice, G. Julier and L. Moor, Editors. 2009: Oxford, Berg.
168. Shostack, G.L., How to design a service. European Journal of Marketing, 1982. 16(1): p. 49–63.
169. Robert, G.B., Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: the concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. 2007: Radcliffe Publishing.
170. Vargo, S.L., The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions. 2006: ME Sharpe.
171. Kimbell, L., Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of Design, 2011. 5(2): p. 41–52.
172. Norman, D.A., Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions, 2005. 12(4): p. 14–19.
173. Flusser, V., The shape of things: a philosophy of design. 1999: Reaktion Books.
174. Thoreau, H.D., Walden. 2006: Yale University Press.
175. Dodds, G. and R. Tavernor, eds. Body and building: essays on the changing relation of body and architecture. 2002, MIT: Cambridge, Mass. 427 p.
176. Bloomer, K.C., C.W. Moore, and B. Yudell, Body, memory and architecture. 1977, New Haven ; London: Yale University Press. xii,147p.
177. Marble, S., Architecture and body. 1988, New York: Rizzoli.
178. Tschumi, B., Architecture and disjunction. 1994, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 268 p.
179. Lawson, B., CAD and creativity: does the computer really help? Leonardo, 2002. 35(3): p. 327–331.
180. Kalay, Y.E., The impact of information technology on design methods, products and practices. Design Studies, 2006. 27(3): p. 357–380.
181. Ratti, C., The lineage of the line: space syntax parameters from the analysis of urban DEMs. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 2005.
182. Cuomo, D.L. and J. Sharif, A study of human performance in computer‐aided architectural design. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 1989. 1(1): p. 69–107.
183. Gottdiener, M. and R. Hutchison, The new urban sociology. 4 ed. 2010: Routledge.
184. Hayles, N.K., Virtual bodies and flickering signifiers. 1993, MIT Press. p. 69–91.
185. Chomsky, N., Syntactic structures. Janua linguarum Series minor. 1968, The Hague: Mouton. 120p.
186. Krishnamurti, R. and R. Stouffs, Spatial grammars: motivation, comparison, and new results. CAAD Futures ’93, 1993: p. 57–74.
187. Herrmann, T., Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems, 2009: p. 336–351.
188. Veltman, K.H., Understanding new media: augmented knowledge and culture. 2006: University of Calgary Press.
189. Ryan, A. and J. Bohman, Systems theory in social science. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version, 1998. 1(1998): p. 8429–8432.
190. Charlesworth, C., Student use of virtual and physical modelling in design development an experiment in 3D design education. The Design Journal, 2007. 10(1): p. 35–45.
191. McKim, R.H., Experiences in visual thinking. 1972: Brooks Cole.
192. Koestler, A., The act of creation. 1964: Penguin.
193. Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan, The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. 1989: Cambridge University Press.
194. Kellert, S.R. and E.O. Wilson, The biophilia hypothesis. 1995: Island Press.
195. Ulrich, R.S., View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science (New York, N.Y.), 1984. 224(4647): p. 420–421.
196. Lathia, N., D. Quercia, and J. Crowcroft, The hidden image of the city: sensing community well-being from urban mobility, in Pervasive Computing, J. Kay, et al., Editors. 2012: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p. 91–98.
197. Damasio, A.R., Descartes’ Error: emotion, reason and the human brain. 1994: Penguin.
198. Varela, F.J., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch, The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. 1999: MIT Press.
199. Deakin, M. and H. Al Waer, From intelligent to smart cities. Intelligent Buildings International, 2011. 3(3): p. 140–152.
200. Conservative Party UK. Open Source Planning Green Paper. 2012 12 Dec, 2015]; Available from: http://www.cgms.co.uk/bulletin/Conservative%20Party%20Planning%20Paper.pdf.
