Syracuse University SURFACE School of Architecture Dissertations and Architecture Senior Theses Theses Spring 2017 Metabolism for Cyborgs Christopher Bressler Colin Hoover Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/architecture_theses Part of the Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Bressler, Christopher and Hoover, Colin, "Metabolism for Cyborgs" (2017). Architecture Senior Theses. 390. https://surface.syr.edu/architecture_theses/390 This Thesis, Senior is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Architecture Dissertations and Theses at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Architecture Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. thesis METABOLISM FOR CYBORGS by Christopher Bressler & Colin Hoover Advised by Amber Bartosh with Brian Lonsway & Ivan Bernal Submitted May 9, 2017 Syracuse University School of Architecture 02 CONTENTS pg # chapters 05. 01 _overview 07. 02 _preliminary research image test | 1 image test | 2.1 image test | 2.2 image test | 3.1/3.2 image test | 4.1 image test | 4.2 image test | 5.1 image test | 7.1 image test | 7.2 image test | 8.1 031. 03 _image + city permutations 037. 04 _final permutation 051. 05 _final exhibition 055. 06 _appendix 059. 07 _bibliography _note // due to the formatting of this book, animations and videos, which were heavely involved in the production and final presentation of this project, were not included. please refer to appendix on how to view said information. thank you. 03 04 01 overview The networked device is becoming an integral part rooms, and a web of structure and services of the ways in which human beings interface with arises. The result is an edifice inscrutable to their environment. This project seeks to explore the few humans that remain - hundreds of rooms the architectural implications of this trend as suspended on top of one another. However, to the it reaches its logical conclusion in the cyborg cyborg, who is able to cull and sort through mind. Access to information concerning specific complex information, the web is a small town, geographic and architectural locations is already only a handful of virtual spaces occupying a tool used in the creation of communities and hundreds of physical instances. defining spatial boundaries. The ability to do so relies on the interconnected layers of virtual Although Brain-computer interfaces may be an and physical objects. This relationship is inevitable part of our future, we do not mean to described in Benjamin Bratton’s “The Stack” which present this project as an inevitable outcome. labels the mass of connected devices and users Rather, we hope to join a growing circle of as an “accidental megastructure.” Currently, architects exploring the possible manifestations our interactions with this megastructure are of overlays of physical and virtual space. mediated through external interfaces. However, Through a mix of conventional representation it seems inevitable that through augmentation, techniques and augmented overlays we hope to humans will adopt abilities that allow them to simulate the experiences of both human and interact directly with both physical and virtual cybernetic users, ultimately demonstrating spaces. As the cyborg becomes more prevalent, the necessity of new kinds and possibility architects will have to address structures that for architectural and urban organizations for can interface directly with the cyborg mind. cyborgs. Our investigation utilizes the city as a test abstract site for an iterative series of prototype communities. Divided into four phases, beginning in the present day, and ending in an urban megastructure that is fundamentally designed around the cyborg. In each iteration of cyborg gentrification increasingly claims real estate, first virtually, then physically. Once claimed, spatial instances are copied and pasted into empty areas of the existing city. Corresponding infrastructure arises to support these duplicate 05 06 02 preliminary research PROCESS: This project developed through a series of tests. Each week we developed a new image of the project as though it was the final product. Each iteration was analyzed and critiqued leading to the development of the next. In this way, even the drawings from the final thesis exhibtion would indicate successive iterations to come. This establishes the work as an ongoing project and in no means final. 07 image test | 1 TEST REPORT: Test 1 – Image production methods. Created in Photoshop, this is collaged from images of metabolist projects and the San Fransisco airport. The collage portion of the image was not laid out by hand, rather, a sections of buildings were placed in the background and the Photoshop content aware tool was used to successively build up the image. Thus, we end up with an incomprehensible image that still implies some kind of organization from the content aware algorithm. 08 09 image test | 2.1 TEST REPORT: Test 2.1 – Graphic [re] organization. This is a map of the United States that does not rely on either geographic adjacency or state shapes. Without those constraints, different information can be communicated. The states are each given new identities as polygons, and then filtered through a series of sorting mechanisms to reorganize the “map.” Here, area of a sate corresponds to its real world perimeter, while the number of points on a polygon correspond to real world area. Neither of these pieces of information can be communicated accurately on a projected map. Vertices are counted, color sorted by geographic coordinates, and displayed on the edge of the state. States are color coded by region, and a hatch pattern laid on top displaying population, with a greater population corresponding to a larger hatch scale (bigger dots.) States are packed into three containers not seen here, based on one person’s subjective ranking of the “quality” of states. Reading from the right to the left group, states fit into “worse” categories. This packing was performed by a nesting algorithm, not an intentional organization of objects. After attempting this exercise, we begin to understand that an overly large amount of abstraction can lead to the lose of intention – by all accounts, this is no longer a map. The question is raised as to whether having geographic information embedded in a graphic constitutes a map, or whether specific relational information is required. 010 5 4 2 1 5 2 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 6 3 6 4 3 3 13 12 7 6 8 4 7 2 1 1 14 5 9 3 4 3 7 2 15 4 10 2 8 5 3 078 2 16 3 1 6 2 New Jeresey 1 4 09 0517 2 11 1 9 9 New Hampshire Delaware18 1 190 7 1 4 200 19 420 12 250 8 7 6 Maine 6 Alabama 5 3 Michigan 9 5 10 18 5 10 19 6 8 4 20 Missouri 41 13 24 10 4 8 170 8 7 5 4 1 21 40 11 311 17 Penn 11 189 63 7 22 39 14 2312 2 9 16 23 15 22 12 16 8 7 12 1710 2 40 38 13 1 13 15 10 9 6 13 Rhode2 Island24 37 16 21 14 14 10 15 11 5 4 14 15 16 11 1 25 36 17 18 19 20 300 12 11 10 9 8 7 12 5 4 2627 35 8 7 6 15 Tennessee 1413 6 11 14 3 12 260 3 3 28 3334 9 5 4 29 15 5 12 13 13 2 Arkansas 6 292 3031 32 10 16 4 14 13 25 12 11 10 11 3 28 16 3 1 7 1 151413 9 8 172 27 17 2 15 330 14 24 16 7 12 18 18 16 8 17 6 13 1 19 26 19 1 Missisippi 32 15 23 180 18 5 20 25 410 17 6 5 16 22 19 4 14 290 21 22 23 24 20 31 7 4 17 21 9 West Virginai 20 3 Washington 8 7 6 5 21 Oregon 40 18 30 3 18 19 20 1721 2 15 28 9 4 39 19 8 2 22 1 10 22 38 14 13 12 11 29 10 16 16 27 323 16 15 10 9 20 289 1 23 500 26 11 224 3717 8 21 22 27 11 15 24 49 17 12 25 3618 7 23 24 25 26 10 220 25 Florida 48 18 25 1 26 3519 6 6 5 4 12 13 14 19 24 13 27 3334 5 7 3 11 Georgia 12 11 10 9 8 7 26 47 20 21 22 23 280 2829303132 20 8 21 1312 11 10 9 8 1413 6 27 46 13 12 11 14 New York 21 4 2 1514 7 15 528 45 1514 10 9 27 3 9 12 2016 6 5 16 429 44 1716 8 7 15 22 1 17 4 17 330 43 18 6 26 23 2 10 13 1918 18 231 42 19 516 25 1 230 14 18 19 3 1 32 41 20 417 24 11 15 16 17 2 19 333435 383940 21 18 24 25 520 Illinois 22 20 1 20 430 3637 22 3 19 22 23 12 21 460 21 Arizona 42 2 20 21 26 Texas 51 21 22 45 41 23 1 50 13 23 New Mexico 22 24 510 27 20 44 23 40 4 3 25 28 49 14 24 43 24 39 5 2 California 50 15 19 25 42 25 38 26 49 29 48 16 17 18 13 12 11 10 26 41 26 376 1 27 30 47 4 3 1514 9 827 40 27 36 28 48 46 2 16 7286 39 28 3435 7 47 15 14 13 12 11 31 5 17 295 38 2930313233 160 29 46 16 10 32 45 1 18 304 31 3637 10 9 8 7 30 45 9 33 44 19 32333435 4 3 12 11 6 5 8 Ohio 31 44 17 834 43 6 20 3 5 2 13 4 15 32 43 18 357 36 41 42 14021 2 14 3 3334 4142 37 38 39 40 7 Maryland 22 1 6 1 92 35936837383940 19 6 490 15 14 11 10 7 6 20 2313 16 1 10 12 5 5 8 24 Montana 487 150 370 11 13 13 4 25 47 Indiana 17 12 14 3 21 4 12 46 18 Nebraska 36 2 9 11 26 458 14 19 35 9 8 7 6 15 22 3 3 102 27 10 5 4 16 1 28 44 20 3411 350 23 1 29 43 9 13 21 33 3 17 2 4 30 42 10 9 8 22 3212 2 18 Louisiana 34 2 31 404112 11 710 11 12 23 3113 24 100 321 33 3839 13 6 5 24 30 1 19 33 1 Massachusetts5 3 34353637 14 4 2526272829 14 310 20 3225 15 3 7 6 5 4 21 31 530 9 08 16 2 8 3 15 Utah 30 22 30 6 4 Vermont 17 16 29 23 29 26 Alaska 52 8 18 1 9 2 2425 262728 76 5 4 19 400 10 171 28 13 12 11 10 27 7 35 7 Virginia 39 18 27 1514 9 8 51 2 20 38 11 240 19 26 16 7 6 8 6 21 20 25 17 5 28 50 1 22 37 12 North Dakota 23 21 22 23 24 18 4 9 10 9 8 7 623 36 19 329 49 210 12 11 524 35 13 22 20 2 10 13 254 34 21 1 30 Iowa 326 3233 14 21 22 48 11 2014 22728293031 15 20 23 470 31 15 16 19 Minnesota 46 47 1619 1 3 17 18 24 45 32 12 360 2 25 46 13 1817 4 26 44 33 17 Wyoming 35 1 27 43 10 9 45 14 15 16 18 4212 11 8 7 34 44 1312 11 10 9 8 19 34 5 13 12 11 10