BEYOND THE REAL:

DOMESTIC INTERVENTIONS IN SUPPORT OF

D I G I TA L O V E R L AY

A ngelina Sang ulin

B. A . Ar t Histor y and Huma n G eo g ra phy, Do ubl e Ma j o r.
The University of B r itish C o l umbi a , 2 0 1 5 .

Submitted in par tial f ulf il l ment o f the requi rements fo r the deg ree
o f M aster of Architecture i n the Fa cul ty o f A ppl i ed S ci ence

CO M M IT T EE

GP PART II, C HAIR J o s eph Wats o n

A nna L i s a Mey bo o m
To ny Os bo rn

GP PART I T hena Ta k

We accept this repor t as co nfo rmi ng to the requi red sta nda rd

. . ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jo s e p h Wa ts o n

. . ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . .
T h e n a Ta k

THE UNIVE RSIT Y O F B RIT IS H COLU MB IA

A pr il 2019

© Angelina Sangulin
ii
 ABSTRACT
This project is dedicated to a possible reality,
one in which the body inhabits the real, while
simultaneously perceptually consuming the
digital.
The design process investigates the boundar-
ies, possibilities and consequences of domestic
design and architectural consideration within
such a reality.
I argue considerations of the previously inter-
disciplinary field of architecture will be divided
into two realms: the materially experienced
reality and the visually experienced digital
overlay.
The project provides a practical solution to
commonly experienced unfavourable spatial
conditions: lack of space, lack of privacy, unfa-
vourable view etc.
Sensorial perception of space and verification
of perception is explored within the most inti-
mate space—that of the home.
While pursuing practical design goals, the
project places into question agency in the
digital age, the idea of free will and simulation.
If the simulation is indistinguishable from
reality, does it matter it is not reality? How
does one design within this realm?
iii
iv
 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

i-iii TITLE PAGE

iv - ix FIGURE LIST

x - xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1 - 3 DEDICATION

1 - 3 INTRO

4-13 BRIEF HISTORIC OVERVIEW: REALITY AND VIRTUAL REALITY

14-17 ON CYBERSPACE AND MIXED REALITY

18-25 ON VIRTUAL - REAL: TOWARDS DESIGN STRATEGIES

26-49 PRECEDENTS

50-77 DESIGN PROJECT

xiv-xvii ENDNOTES

xvii-xxi BIBLIOGRAPHY

v
 FIGURE LIST
Figure 1. Harry W. Crosby. Cave Paintings of the
Sierra de San Francisco. Baja California Rock Art
Archive. Accessed online at http://www.bradshaw-
foundation.com/baja/sierra_de_san_francisco.php
Figure 2. Side of black figure volute krater from
Chiusi, Italy. Detail of centauromachy scene. Museu
Archeologico, Florence 6th century BC. Accessed
online at http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/
Mythology/en/CentauromachyMAFlorence.html
Figure 3. . Robert Hooke, 1965, illustrations from
published book Micrographia depicting microscope
and microscopic landscapes. Accessed online at
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
Figure 4. Fisher, Scott. 1962. Image of Sensorama by
Morton Heilig.
Figure 5. Evans, David. 1968. Image of Sword of
Democles by Ivan Sutherland.
Figure 6. Medina, Antonio. 1991. Scene of computer
simulated teleoperation.
Figure 7. Image of 2010 Oculus Rift fundraising cam-
paign, courtesy of Kickstarter.
Figure 8. Image from University of Washington.
Babak Parviz 2009 Augmented Reality in a Contact
Lens, research paper.
Figure 9. Jensen and de Haven. 1989. Front cover of
novel Neuromancer by William Gibson.
Figure 10. Menardi, Adalberto. 2016. Google maps
glitch. Accessed online at Quartz.com
vi
Figure 11. Star, Arthur. 2016. Google maps glitch.
Accessed online at Quartz.com
Figure 12. Engel et al. 2008 (see bibliography)
study of visual-proprioceptive conflicts showing:
subject’s view along a path through a virtual city.;
and subject’s path bent into a tracked space using
a controller.
Figure 13. NBC TV Show The Good Place. 2018. Still
of the Good Place rendition of afterlife for pasta
lovers. Accessed on Netflix.
Figure 14. NBC TV Show The Good Place.2018. Still
of the Bad Place, rendition of afterlife for people
who despise frozen yogurt. Accessed on Netflix.
Figure 15. NBC TV Show The Good Place.2018.
The Architect explaining time progression in after-
life is non-linear and flows in a “Jeremy Bearimy“.
Accessed on Netflix.
Figure 16. NBC TV Show The Good Place. 2018. Title
of new neighborhood design. Accessed on Netflix.
Figure 17. Netflix original movie Bandersnatch.2019.
Interactive viewer moment / choice: deciding on
cereal. Accessed on Netflix.
Figure 18. Netflix original movie Bandersnatch.2019.
Interactive viewer moment / choice: deciding on
violent actio. Accessed on Netflix.
Figure 19+20. Netflix orignal movie Bandersnatch.
2019. Depiction of PACMAN game. Accessed on
Netflix.
Figure 21. Random International. 2012. User expe-
rience of Rain Room. Museum of Modern Art. New
York. Image by Random International..
Figure 22. Campbell-Dollaghan, Kelsey. 2012. Ceiling
detail of Random International Rain Room exhibition
Figure 23. Beck Robyn. 2012. Image of sensor activa-
tion of Random International Rain Room exhibition.
Figure 24. Random International. 2012. User expe-
rience, perceived immersion. Image by Random
International.
Figure 25. Bitter, Jan. 2018. Study of Swarm Lights by
Random International in Chemnitz, Germany.
Figure 26. Screenshot of Random International
video. 2018. Swarm lights perspective.
Figure 27. McRae and Tibbits. 2015. Jamming
bodies - diagram. From MIT Self-Assembly Lab.
Accessed online at https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/
jamming-bodies
Figure 28. McRae and Tibbits. amming bodies.
2015. McRae and Tibbits; Still from accompanying
video, Jamming - breathable, morphable “wall”.
Accessed online at https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/
jamming-bodies
Figure 29. McRae and Tibbits. 201. Still from accom-
panying video. Performance. Accessed online at
https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/jamming-bodies
Figure 30. Griffith, Damien. 2016. Image from Blur
Mirror installation by Random International.
Figure 31. Griffith, Damien. 2016. Blurring
detail from Blur Mirror installation by Random
International.
Figure 32. Chinsee, George. 2016. Image from Frag-
ments by Random International.
Figure 33. Random International. 2016. Image still
from Random International video accompanying the
Fragments installation. Dynamic detail.
Figure 34. Various alternate realities: cave painting,
mythology, cinematic reality and interactive SIMS
game. (see Figure 1 and 2; image still from Frank
Capras’ 1946 It’s A Wonderful Life movie; The Sims
Unleashed, unknown online source)
Figure 35. Original of highlighted and altered image
by Goodman, Zeb. Soft Light & Silhouettes. Pavilhão
da Cidadela, accessed by artist Instagram
Figure 36. Original of highlighted and altered image
by Goodman, Zeb. New Nordic. Kvarterhuset,
accessed by artist Instagram
Figure 37. Original of highlighted and altered image
by Goodman, Zeb. TRNK NYC interior space. www.
zebgoodman.com/trnk-nyc
Figure 38. Original of highlighted and altered image
by Goodman, Zeb. TRNK NYC interior space. www.
zebgoodman.com/trnk-nyc
Figure 39. Static image, by author.
Figure 40. Kinetic image, by author.
Figure 41. Dynamic image, by author.
Figure 42. Project site, 1401 Robson Street, by
author.
Figure 43. Site plan, Downtown Vancouver, facing
NW, by author.
vii
 Figure 44. Site Axonometric Drawing, building com-
ponents. Facing SW. By author.

Figure 45. Activation of digital overlay lens. Collage

by author.

Figure 46. Axonometric site plan, ground levels. By

author.

Figure 47. Details of virtual user experience on

ground levels. By author.

Figure 48. Single occupancy unit: material realm +

upward and downward circulation. By author.

Figure 49. Single occupancy unit in digital realm,

experienced as three levels. Axonometric view +
vignettes. By author.

Figure 50. New digital levels aquired. Axonometric

view + vignettes. By author.

Figure 51. Narrative moment 1: Hacking the system.

Model - paper + wood. By author.

Figure 52. Narrative moment 2: Hacking the system.

Model- paper + wood. By author.

Figure 53. Narrative moment 3: Hacking the system.

Model - paper + wood. By author.

Figure 54. Axonometric view of digitally overlap-

ping realities within a 4 unit assembly. Overlapping
realities are displayed as a section of the level the
resident is currently occupying. By author.

Figure 55. Axonometric view of materially existing

realities within a 4 unit assembly.

viii
ix
x
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my chair and mentor,

Joseph Watson, for the continual guidance and support throughout the conception
and development of this project. Thank you for all the belief, patience, immense
knowledge and pedagogy imparted throughout the year. Thank you for listening and
allowing the project to be truly mine, while always steering me in the best direction. I
could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor throughout the process.

Beside my advisor, I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee:

To AnnaLisa Meyboom, for the enthusiasm, engagement and knowledge which

immensely influenced the direction of the project. To Tony Osborn, for the critical
perspectives and detailed feedback without which the project would never be the
same. Additionally, I express deep gratitude to Thena Tak as my GP mentor, for all
the guidance and feedback influencing the development of the project. And to Chris
Doray, for the inspiration to engage with architecture on my own terms.

I am also gratefully indebted to Farwa Sadiq-Zadah, Gabriel Lacombe and Zoe Pearce
for all the support and help in the last project hours.

xi
xii
 D E D I C AT I O N

To Ryan, partner in life and partner in education, for 7 years of love and growth.

To Adriana, my sister and best friend, for the lifetime of laughs and long talks.

To my parents, for all the support.

To my absolute favourite, 89 year-old grandfather for continually mispronouncing

the word architect with his thick accent and calling me an “art-attack“ in “art-attack
school“.

Love you all.

xiii
 

 

BEYOND
THE REAL
DOMESTIC INTERVENTIONS IN
S U P P O R T O F D I G I TA L O V E R L AY


ANGELINA SANGULIN 


SINGLE LEVEL /∞

 INTRO

To define the virtual is to define the almost,
the nearly.
To define the virtual is to subtract everything
you know is, from all the endless possibilities.
The evolving potential of reality-virtuality con-
tinuum technologies declares an assurance
in the re-definition of current paradigms of
space, self-conception and societal organiza-
tion—producing inevitable and unprecedented
changes in the field of architectural design.

The following chapters explore reality, virtual

Traditionally, virtual reality is thought of as a reality, augmented and mixed reality through
computer-generated simulation of a three-di- terms and characteristics which are anticipated
mensional image or environment which can be to predominantly influence changes within
interacted with in a seemingly real or physical architectural conception and design mani-
way by a person using special electronic equip- festations. It is not the specific technology of
ment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or reality-virtuality continuum itself that is being
gloves fitted with sensors1 . The unprecedented examined, rather, how these technologies are
rate of creation, propagation and utilization of anticipated to act as a conduit for spatial, soci-
mass amounts of technology is currently result- etal and architectural revolution.
ing in a continual reconfiguration and boundary
extension of terms upon which virtual reality is
defined. Increasingly, modules and restrictions
on the achievement, experience and bound-
aries of virtual reality are dissipating. Further,
conversations previously restricted to solely
virtual investigation are expanding to include
enhanced forms of mixed-reality located on
the spectrum between completely real and
completely virtual. It seems fitting to declare,
we are at the dawn of an era of the reality-vir-
tuality continuum.

2
R E · A L· I · T Y
/RĒˈALƏDĒ/

W O R L D O R S TAT E O F T H I N G S A S T H E Y A C T U A L LY E X I S T, A S O P P O S E D
TO AN IDEALISTIC OR NOTIONAL IDEA
+/
S TAT E O R Q U A L I T Y O F H A V I N G E X I S T E N C E O R S U B S TA N C E .

VIR·TU·AL
/ ˈ V Ə R C H ( O͞ O ) Ə L /

A L M O S T O R N E A R LY A S D E S C R I B E D, B U T N O T C O M P L E T E LY O R
ACCORDING TO STRIC T DEFINITION
 I . BRIEF HISTORIC OVERVIEW
REALITY AND VIRTUAL REALITY
ON HISTORY OF REALITY
Most historical overviews of virtual reality
are technology-centered, with the primary
locus pinpointed within the 1900s. To truly
frame virtual reality in terms most relevant
to my investigation, this narrative features an
interweaving of the technology-centered per-
spective with the conceptual—and for this, we
are required to go much further back in time.
Human beings have always been mythmakers2.
Intricate Neanderthal burial practices reveal a
belief of a world extending beyond the con-
strictions of the material world3. From a very
early date, it appears human beings were dis-
tinguished from other living organisms by the
ability to have ideas extending beyond every-
day experiences4. The history of mythology
highlights two simple, well-accepted notions:
we are meaning-seeking creatures and we have
imagination. Imagination is a faculty enabling
the human to conceive of something which is
not immediately present, which at the moment
of conception has no objective existence5. Imag-
ination is the faculty behind the production of
religion and mythology, systems of intricate
“other-worldly” environments containing ele-
ments, senses and narratives translated from
the immediate “real” environment. Behind
the production of the “other-worldly” environ-
ments is the art of fictitious narrative. Through
the process of time, a mass curious narrative
communicated from one individual to another
4
is continually collected6. Fictitious narrative is
produced as a mediation of reality, produced
with varying levels of distancing from reality. As
described by John Dunlop in 1825: “The collec-
tor of agreeable facts finds that the sympathy
that they excite can be heightened by remov-
ing from their detail everything that is not
interesting, or that tends to weaken the prin-
cipal emotion, which it is his intention to raise.
He renders, in this way, the occurrences more
unexpected, the enterprises more successful,
the deliverance from danger and distress more
wonderful.7” A predecessor to virtual reality,
fictitious narrative allowed for dream-like
advances from reality, explorations of alternate
points of view and ultimate dissemination of
emotion-fueled perspectives. Fictitious narra-
tive allowed for the exploration of enhanced
beauty, enhanced crudeness and a height-
ening of any imaginable emotion. In further
tracing the evolution of fictitious narrative,
early writers of Greek Romance—Heliodorus,
Achilles, Tatius, Longus—provide insight into
the emergence of intertwining between fields
of mythology and philosophy8.
At a point, the history of fiction arises interest of
the philosopher within the context of the socie-
tal historical progress9. As philosophy emerged
from mythology, it embraced an interest in the
“structure of human experiences, the compo-
sition of beings, the complicated functioning
of cognition and hierarchy amongst existing
entities”10. Functions previously overlooked
F igure 1 : C u eva s de l a s F l e c h a s cave pa i nti ng. photo c redi t: Bra dd Kopp
F igure 2 : C e nta uro m a c hy s c e ne o n k rater f rom Chi usi , Ita l y
 as mere truth or fact, suddenly became prob-
lematic and examined through a framework of
questioning, criticality and rational argumenta-
tion—including existence, values, reason, truth
or mind. The momentum formed new-found
ideas of the “plural world (inhabited by essen-
tially different beings, which may even exist at
different levels of the Being) or a plurality of
worlds (each of which is inhabited by funda-
mentally different beings11”. Similarly, within
the “classical Aristotelian” worldview, space is
inhabited by (absolute) actual and (absolute)
potential beings12. In a stark departure from
previous traditions of mythology and ficti-
tious narrative, the cognition-fueled human
inadvertently relinquishes the power over the
narrative in the conception of reality. No longer
in control in channelling a dream-like narrative
for a specific purpose, the human enters a
critical quest and continual struggle towards
ontological “truths”. Fictitious narrative and
myth carry a strong grounding of reality upon
which a consciously constructed alternate
reality is translated. In contrast, the rise of
philosophical inquiry leads to the dramatic dis-
mantling of any strong grounding—of reality,
of consciousness, of free will to construct and
of existence and inhabitation of an alternate
reality.
The human function of imagination pro-
vides essential in the production of religion
and mythology in a quest to understand the
condition of humanity, or rather, the human
predicament: where did we come from, why
are we here and where are we going? It can
be argued imagination is also what enables sci-
entists in creation of knowledge and invention
of technology—mythology and science both
extend the scope of human beings13. Innova-
tion and knowledge accompanying each major
scientific revolution leads to transformations in
6
views on society and nature—and, by exten-
sion, radically transforming conceptions of
reality, space and human experience. The First
Scientific Revolution is characterized by a Hel-
lenistic replacement of accepted mythical and
theological efforts in explaining the universe
and human existence, mainly through a partial
empirical-rationalistic method of inquiry found
a precursor of later modern classical science14.
Initiated by Copernicus’s rejection of the
revered geocentric conception of the universe,
the Second Scientific Revolution culminated
in Newton’s cosmological theory of absolute
space and time15. Tracing to the latter 19th
century, the Third Scientific revolution was by a
discovery of subatomic particles, evolutionary
theory of natural selection, quantum mechan-
ics, theories of relativity and Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle16.
Each experimental discovery, dramatic para-
digm replacement and addition to scientific
discourse resulted in dramatic shifts in under-
standing of humanity and its existence within a
reality. The Newtonian idea of absolute space
and time posited existence as not dependant
on physical phenomena, while relationists
such as Leibniz determined space and time
as emerging from relations between material
objects, rather than things in themselves17. In
assessing the condition of human reality, sci-
entific inquiry drastically expanded discussion
of scale, quality and properties of space. In
examination of velocity of light or insight into
celestial bodies, the potential for discovery
and renegotiation of space became expanded
from microscopic to celestial scale. Evidence
supporting the post-big bang accelerating
expansion of the universe and suggestions to
the concept of multiverses further both simul-
taneously shattered, and remolded, paradigms
explaining the conception of human reality and
F i gure 3.
Rober t Ho o ke,
1665
Mi c ro s co pe +
thi n s lice o f co rk
 existence. Whilst a tumultuous relationship
with the idea of “scientific truth”, scientific
inquiry demonstrated a manner in which a
previously accepted and established paradigm
could be overturned by an single ingenious dis-
covery. The increasing lack of certainty became
the driving force to an opening up of imagina-
tive potential.
ON HISTORY OF VR/ AR
In addition to a brief overview of forces influ-
encing the definition of reality throughout
history, in this section I present an overview
of the history of technologies from which the
present-day state of the medium involved. The
listed moments include both conceptual and
technological advances, as well as advances
generated as result of economic, community
or social factors18. Without comprehensive
aspirations, the brief historical overview points
to major technological and conceptual shifts
within the development of AR/VR technologies.
While artists had long explored linear, oblique
and isometric perspective through painting, in
1435 Leon Battista Alberti published the math-
ematics of linear (single-point) perspective
rendering19. In 1787, Robert Barker creates a
special building apparatus designed to house
360 degree painted panoramas20. If painting
previously represented a two-dimensional
effort to capture a three-dimensional reality,
Baker’s invention now posited the two-dimen-
sional painting of three-dimensional reality
within a mediated alternate three-dimensional
environment. Mediation of photographs in
construction of alternate reality continued
through the stereoscope invention of Sir
Charles Wheatstone, presenting two separate
photographs to the viewer21. In 1862 John
Pepper accomplished an enhanced version of
8
the stereoscopic illusion through use of lighting
and reflective transparent surface—render-
ing two spaces as simultaneous and creating
and alternate reality22. An additional early
manifestation of head-focused reality alter-
ing device included Albert B. Pratt’s 1916 US
Patent for a head based periscope display23.
Stereoscope-based technologies generated
instrumental social change within the concep-
tion of self and reality. The relatively cheap
nature allowed for distribution throughout
cultural and class boundaries, while the ste-
reoscopic world seemed transcendent and
hyper-real24.
With technological focus oriented toward
warfare improvement in the World War
periods, Edwin Link developed in 1929 a
mechanical flight simulator allowing for pilot
training at stationary indoor location25. The
trainee could now immersively inhabit the sky
while remaining grounded, creating a form of
disembodiment. Permeating further science
fiction, in 1935 Stanley G. Weinbaum writes
Pygmalion’s Spectacles in which the main char-
acter wears a pair of goggles which transport
him to a fictional world within which dreams
become reality26. The 1946 ENIAC develop-
ment of the first electronic digital computer
at the University of Pennsylvania drastically
expedited consequent rate of technological
improvement.
In 1956 Morton Heilig created the Sensorama,
a multimodal experience display system in
which a single person would perceive the pre-
recorded experience via sights, sound, smell,
vibration and wind27. This event, according
to many, marks the true beginning of virtual
reality as a technological concept. Followed
in the 1960s by an insurge of innovation were
the concept of ultimate display and tracked
F igure 4 . S e ns o ra m a , 1 9 6 2 , M o r to n Hei l i g
F igure 5 . T he Swo rd o f D a m o c l e s , 1 9 6 8 , Iva n Sutherl a nd
 stereoscopic head-mounted display, most
notably explored by Ivan Sutherland28. With
the 1977 introduction of personal computers
for off-the-shelf use at home, digital tech-
nology begins to penetrate the larger market
and infiltrate broader social consciousness. In
1981 MIT produces an early augmented reality
display, allowing for users to explore subject
matter—including 3D drawing, architectural
visualization and 3D layout of computer chips29.
The production of DataGlove and EyePhones in
1984 by VPL Research Inc instrumented a rela-
tionship in mutual reporting between visual,
kinetic and virtual30.
The development within personalized VR expe-
rienced throughout this time allowed for the
basis on which social contact could become
integrated. W-Industries launched the first
public venue VR system Virtuality in 1990
as a dual player arcade game31. In 1992 the
Electronic Visualization Lab developed CAVE
which permitted up to 10 people to share the
visuals, with one person occupying the optimal
view. The 2003 creation of Second Life pro-
duced a massive-scale virtual world in which
people and institutions could inhabit and
purchase space, socialize and utilize a virtual
currency32. The constructed virtual world was
created as a parallel reality, mimicking worldly
conditions and functions with room for exper-
imentation. The 2012 creation of the low-cost
Oculus Rift was, interestingly, funded through
a social crowdfunding Kickstarter Campaign33.
Another low-cost item, the 2013 Virtuix Omni
reduced-friction walking surface allowed for
perception of walking whilst remaining within
a constricted body ring34. On the cusp of wide
commercialization, virtual reality technologies
transitioned into institutionalization, as large
varieties available to the public by 201535.
10
In addition, virtual and augmented reality
interfaces are slowly disintegrating in volume
and scale towards an imperceptible presence.
“Smart” contact lenses can utilize kinetic
energy through the act of blinking. In general,
application levels can be sorted through four
levels:
L E V E L 1 multifocal contact lenses or curing
color blindness
L E V E L 2 gathering information from your
body--like glucose monitoring for diabetics
L E V E L 3 augmenting vision with digital
overlay
L E V E L 4 complete virtual reality (PIV online)36.
With Level 1 and Level 2 relatively accom-
plished, most current research concentrates
efforts on realizing Level 3. In the near future,
contact lens systems could receive data from
external platforms in provision of real-time
notification, with inclusion of features such as:
antenna, circuitry for power harvesting, radio
communication and pixel control37. In 2011
University of Washington researchers created
a prototype of the first functioning bionic
lens with a single LED pixel comprising a light
emitting diode chip38. Radio frequence energy
emitted from a near-located transmitter is
gathered by a circular antenna a fifth of an inch
in diameter, printed on the lens39. The develop-
ment of further prototypes in the near future
working towards the achievement of Level 3
and Level 4 seem to be a matter of time.
F igure 6 . C o m pute r s i m ul ate d te l e o perati on, Antoni o Medi na , 1 9 9 1
F igure 7 . O c ul us Ri f t K i c ksta r t ca m p ai gn , 2 0 1 0
 ON VR/ AR CURRENT + PROJECTED
A P P L I C AT I O N
More recently, research within virtual and
augmented reality is shifting from a primarily
technology-centred focus to content driven
application, due to the advanced establish-
ment of the medium40. Far from being reduced
to technology intended solely for gamers, it is
anticipated virtual and augmented reality tech-
nologies will prove increasingly instrumental
in a variety of industries: government space
agencies and private space companies, manu-
facturing, marketing, medicine and healthcare
and many other41. Further, a 2006 American
Psychological Association study determined VR
headsets could produce calming effects and
be utilized as a form of stress management
in treating anxiety and post-traumatic stress
disorder42. With the mentioned increasing
availability and affordability of immersive visu-
alization applications utilizing head-mounted
displays and augmented reality devices to
consumers and smaller-scale enterprises, it
is anticipated these technologies will play an
increasing role in future governmental, social
and commercial development43.
ON VR/ AR CURRENT ARCHITECTURAL
A P P L I C AT I O N
Technologies allowing for seamless translation
and negotiation between physical and virtual
within the field of architecture have become
accepted as a new standard—from laser scan-
ners, three-dimensional digitizers, laser cutters,
3D printers, multi-axis milling machines44.
More importantly, the physical/virtual transla-
tions allow for negotiation between all forms
of architectural process, scale and represen-
tations—from two-dimensional drawings
to physical scale modeling, from building
12
plan to circulation network diagrams, from
detailed building drawing to urban massing
modeling, and so on45. Current use of virtual/
augmented reality translations within the field
of architecture focus primarily on rendering
technologies, marketing/immersion and aiding
the construction process. As an example of
rendering technologies, projects have utilized
digital photographs of the “real” world in order
to generate realistic 3D models and virtual
cinematography of architectural scenes46. In
exploring immersion for consequent market-
ing purposes, studies have measured extent
of presence in a mixed-reality design space in
order to investigate the relationship between
object presence and design performance in a
manipulated design space47. Further, studies
have examined the manner in which wear-
able augmented-reality computer systems can
promote architectural design process for the
user48. In exploring potential changes to archi-
tectural construction processes, studies have
proposed alternatives achieving interactive
simulation of construction activities on a con-
struction site in order to provide time and cost
efficiency49.
Pointing at a gap in current investigation of
changes within virtual reality and augmented
reality future application within the field of
architecture, this thesis is focused on how
our conceptions of architecture and space
might change with the wide acceptance of a
mixed-reality application to domestic space.
F igure 8 . B a ba k Pa r v i z , L eve l 2 bi o ni c conta c t, worn by ra bbi t.
 I I . O N C Y B E R S PA C E A N D M I X E D
REALITY
First coined in the 1982 science fiction novel
Neuromancer, William Gibson defines cyber-
space as:
“Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination expe-
rienced daily by billions of legitimate operators,
in every nation, by children being taught math-
ematical concepts. A graphic representation
of data abstracted from the banks of every
computer in the human system. Unthinkable
complexity. Lines of light ranges in the nons-
pace of the mind, clusters and constellations of
data. Like city lights receding...”50.
With the description, Gibson sought to capture
the immense complexity and incapacity of the
present human mind to grasp the increasingly
decentered and disembodied digital human
experience. Since Gibson’s 1980s initial grasp
of cyberspace, the network of global wire-
less infrastructure dramatically scaled up, in
contrast to a dramatically scaling down of
transmission and reception aparatus’51. On
one hand, cyberspace allows for the transcen-
dence and disembodiment from traditional
physical space: when online, we are partially
freed from bodily existence52. On the other
hand, it is argued cyberspace will never com-
plete supplantation of real space due to the
essential nature of kinetic, sensorial and
haptic sensation to the human experience and
identity-construction53. William Gibson refers
to cyberspace as “an infinite cage”54. While
the endless boundaries that can be travelled
14
electronically transcend the physical, imagined
and potential, to an embodied and temporally
finite being the digital infinity represents more
of a state of confinement55. The infinite digital
boundaries are further constricted by nature of
medium through which they are provided. An
interface, created by a human, is what provides
structure and systemic boundaries. Regardless
of the level of immersion, the cyberspace view
is curated and the infinite freedom within the
space is a matter of illusion.
Despite the seemingly finite boundaries of
our experience of an infinite cyberspace, it is
essential in manners in which we challenge and
reconstruct our perception of physical (natural)
reality. Cyberspace contains translations of
physical space through utilization of signs, sym-
bolism and points of locational interrelation to
the material realm. Spatial representation in
virtual reality is rooted in symbolic, operative
and rule-based reductions, which fail to trans-
late the nature of the space56. Yet, what is lost
in reduction, is gained through the potential
of dramatic expansion of human boundaries
through the achievement of ultimate display, a
form of achievement of an age-old desire for
complete physical transcendence57.
In 1994 Milgram and Kishino proposed the
virtuality continuum concept, presenting a
categorization of forms of mixed reality envi-
ronments on a continuum from solely real to
solely virtual objects58. Augmented reality is
Fi g ure 9 . N e u ro m a nc e r cover, i l l ustrated by Tom de Haven a nd Jensen, 1 9 8 9
 presented as partial, and minor, digital overlay
upon reality, while augmented virtuality refers
to a predominant digital information view
supported by real contextual data, such as a
navigational GPS device59. In either case the
augmented stretch of the continuum is dif-
ferentiated through the provision of a varied,
but prominent, degree of conscious and visual
negotiation between the real and virtual. Real
reality, without intervention, presents no
obvious presence or experience of the virtual.
In contrast, virtual reality presents an alter-
nate solely consumed reality—yet, in spite of
the level of immersion, is grounded to reality
through the human bodily experience. In this
thesis, I argue, the future expansion and dif-
ferentiation of the mixed reality continuum
could lead to the possibility of a simultane-
ously experienced virtual and real reality. Such
an experience would entail a more prominent
digital overlay over a unconfined, bodily expe-
rience within the real.
In 2003 Mee++ author William J Mitchell
declared:
simultaneity of simulated experiences. In
the physical world, or real world, presence is
defined as a natural perception of an environ-
ment61. On the other hand, telepresence is
defined as the extent to which one experiences
presence within a mediated environment62.
This thesis is concerned with potential changes
and effects within the realm of architecture and
society as a result of increased telepresence
within a mixed reality environment. Increases
within wearable and auto-stereoscopic
devices, data capture and video, sensor-rich
application, distributed augmented environ-
ments, programmability of parallel processes
and tasks divided between multiple proces-
sors63—all point towards immense future shifts
in the experience and incorporation of mixed
reality into our conception of reality. The fol-
lowing chapter explores a variety of subtopics
in exploration of thematic future projections
which may have influence on the consequent
shift within society, and as such, the realm of
architecture.

“The trial separation of bits and atoms is now

over. In the early age of the digital revolution,
it seemed useful to pry these elementary units
of materiality and information apart. The
virtual and physical were imagined as separate
realms: cyberspace and meatspace. Now the
boundary between them is dissolving.60”

With networked intelligence being embedded

everywhere, both natural and artificial, tra-
ditional boundaries between real and virtual
are becoming dismantled. Further, as dis-
cussed, the restrictive nature of a single
medium as a window to the alternate reality
is subdividing into smaller scale differenti-
ated apparatuses allowing for a increased

16
F igure 1 0 . G o o g l e m a ps g l i tc h , p ho to by Ada l berto Mena rdi
F igure 1 1 . G o o g l e m a ps g l i tc h , p ho to by Arthur Sta r
 I I I. O N V I R T U A L - R E A L : T O WA R D S
D E S I G N S T R AT E G I E S

ON PERCEPTION the exploration of similar motion compression

“There may be a time when we’ll attend
Weather Theatre to recall the sensation of
rain.”
In 1969, Jim Morrison64 “Locomotion is guided by visual perception.
In seminal works of psychology and philosophy,
a conscious and unified experience of one’s
body within peripersonal space is a prerequi-
site in the experience of the external physical
world65. Yet, studies have shown the application but we must also move in order to perceive.71”
of visuotactile contention between a physical
body and artificial bodily representation can
result in a bodily self-consciousness discon-
nection66. In an instance of conflict between
proprioception and vision, the brain is heavily
biased to prefer the stable visual information—
allowing for manipulation of real world path
in order to achieve a virtual goal67. The phe-
nomenon of change blindness occurs when
the subject fails to detect a change in object
or scene . Research on the change-blindness
68
phenomenon has successfully implemented
small scale manipulation to geometry of virtual
reality environment model in order to unno-
ticeably redirect user walking69. Similar tactics other perceptual elements can be manipu-
have allowed for walking-experienced virtual
environments to exceed dimensions of the
accompanying physical walking space. In 2010
Suma et al achieved a seamless walk through
a simulated virtual office building of 2352
navigable square feet within a real space envi-
ronment of only 196 square feet70. Throughout
techniques, it becomes imperative to consider
the interconnection of bodily sensation and
muscle movement in visual perception:
Not only does it depend on perception but per-
ception depends on locomotion inasmuch as a
moving point of observation is necessary for
any adequate acquaintance with the environ-
ment. So we must perceive in order to move,
While the content and kinaesthetic driven
experience of a designed augmented land-
scape drives the shape of a walk, the actual
movement is integrated in a visual-kinetic
feedback loop. Perception of an environment is
further rooted within a sense of touch, as sug-
gested by Maurice Merlau Ponty, as the tactile
experience of objects directly leads to direct
transfers in the experience of vision72. There-
fore, the projected anticipated mixed reality
environment allows for partial tactile verifi-
cation of certain elements visualized in the
digital overlay. In contrast, as explored above,
lated to achieve the reality projected within
the digital overlay. Seamless manipulation of
the real in lieu of a virtual goal, in combination
with a real world verification of certain digital
elements, would allow for an unprecedented
level of telepresence within the environment.
According to Evangelos Christou, “Experience is

18
F igure 1 2 . Enge l et a l . 2 0 0 8 study of v i sua l -propri oc epti ve conf l i c ts
A bove : s ubj e c t ’s v i ew a l o ng a pat h through a v i rtua l c i ty.
B e low: s ubj e c t ’s path be nt i nto a tra c ked spa c e usi ng a control l er.
 a matter of verification through sensible per-
ceptions”73. Following, Peter Carruther writes:
“Perception gives rise to beliefs, combination
of perception and the organisms bodily states
gives rise to desires; and then beliefs and
desires are combined with one another within
some sort of practical reasoning system to
select an appropriate behaviour”74. Hence, the
ways in which people perceptually experience
virtual or augmented space can be influenced
strategically and illusionary, eventually influ-
encing shifts in belief system.
Perception is one of the primary guiding forces
within the architectural realm. If perception of
immediate and distant space can be manipu-
lated kinaesthetically, tactically and visually,
real experience of space can be altered. Archi-
tecture, then, can either exploit, support or
expose the perceptual manipulation. Further,
as explored, perceptual manipulation is one of
the primary supporting forces behind the pos-
sibility of expanding space.
ON M AT E R I A L / I M M AT E R I A L
DISTINCTION
Virtual reality has the potential to mimic stan-
dards and rules of material reality, in order to
achieve a seamless immersion. To date, regard-
less of the level of immersion, the viewers’
body has presented the ultimate boundary. In
spite of the ability to achieve a certain degree
of disembodiment, a mere conscious thought
could recall the bodily experience in the real
material world. Further, as a medium, virtual
reality has been experienced through appa-
ratus’ of physical bodily extension—such as a
head mounted display. The human body has
the ability to filter out a continuously experi-
enced sensation if found unimportant or less
relevant to others. While sensation detecting
20
such an apparatus can fade through time, the
fact it can be recalled back consciously has
represented one of the major factors disal-
lowing complete telepresence. In traditional
forms of augmented reality, the digital overlay
is divorced from the material. Therefor, mate-
riality is experienced within the real world.
In augmented virtuality, an illusive cognitive
sense of materiality can be invoked by a digital
overlay displaying movement or presence
within a referenced space. In lieu of previously
explored “smart contact lenses” and the future
ability to apply an increased level of digital
overlay in comparison to previous forms of
augmented reality, the quality and experience
of materiality within future forms of mixed-re-
ality remains a matter of question.
According to Georg Flachbart, “real space
(1, OFF-LINE) and virtual (0, ON-LINE) are
continually superposed, obeying the rules
of quantum mechanics rather than classical
physics”75, pointing the impact of materiality
has the potential to exponentially be reduced.
Yet, the realm of architecture has so far been
based and grounded on these same unbend-
able rules of classical physics. Structure, order,
symmetry, aesthetics and so on, have all been
a direct result of the physical standards of
materiality. While the social, political and cul-
tural functions of architecture can be widely
debated, it is common to assume architectural
functions as provision of shelter, privacy and
environmental comfort, in pursuit of various
program. If we are to envision a future ability
to provide a seamless and significant digital
overlay over reality, the base needs, standards,
limitations and potential of architecture need
to be reimagined. There seems to be potential
within the dissipation of materiality considered
essential in the human experience, or at least
a subdivision into materiality required within
the material realm and simulated materiality
in the digital overlay. If one is to look around
their domestic space, or urban street context,
or experience in nature—what material is
essential in the experience of reality within the
space? What can be removed, altered, added,
without affecting the experience of reality?
Architecture is reliant on networks. While
wireless connectivity is increasingly linking
human mobile bodies to traditional resource
systems, networks of transportation, energy
supply, water supply and waste disposal do
not have the ability to operate wirelessly—or
“pipelessly”76. Still, increasingly, activities once
reliant on physical proximity to resources—
water, food, raw materials etc—are dependant
on mobile connectivity to geographically
extended delivery networks77. In addition,
the realm of architectural response to human
need seems to be dissipating from a solely rigid
material provision of structure and mechanical
services. Soft materials, responsive materials
and kinetic architectural features have been
permeating the previous traditions of rigid
architectural forms. In a mixed-reality environ-
ment, the materiality of architecture contains
necessarily material provisions—for example,
the floor the person stands upon or a specific
mechanical service guiding material or energy.
On the other hand, certain aspects of material-
ity experienced traditionally in architecture do
not necessarily need to be provided through
the material specifically. An architecturally
experienced view, a decorative architectural
element or even a wall—while these are all
visually perceived through our notions of mate-
rial knowledge, our direct experience of them
does not rely on tactile sensation. Therefor, I
argue, certain material aspects of architec-
tural structure, function and sensation can be
transferred on a mixed-reality digital overlay,
while others remain confined to the real-world
environment.
ON ARCHITECTURAL FUNCTION
According to William J Mitchell, “the micro-
terrain immediately surrounding our bodies is
providing habitats for new electronic species,
which may be classified according to their size
and shapes, their modes of attachment to the
body, their degrees of conformability to the
body and their degrees of visibility78”. Reliance
on the rigid large-scale fabric of buildings is dis-
sipating to smaller-scale and flexible systems,
with Mitchell proclaiming “as miniaturiza-
tion continues...more and more functionality
migrates to the body, literally off-the-wall (and
into the skin zone)...We will indeed approach
the condition of “walking architecture79”.
Functions architecture once performed are
increasingly shifting to implanted, wearable
and portable devices80. Future innovation in
the field of flexible system fabrics, as well as
current prototypes, point to the increased role
of clothing the provision of customizable and
regulated environmental comfort. As previ-
ously mentioned, a digital overlay presented
through a future rendition of the “smart”
contact lense provides the opportunity to
mediate and respond to needs of privacy within
an environment. One can envision small scale
sets of parasitic power generators, harvesting
kinetic, thermal and light energy throughout
the corporeal realm, in order to construct a
small scale bodily power supply grid81. The
increasing miniaturization of these systemic
functions and integration within the immediate
scale and vicinity of the body is key as they “are
insinuating themselves, like resourceful ticks
and fleas, into increasingly intimate spaces82”.
Rather than finding the role of architecture
to be reducing, it points to a restructuring of
 what is traditionally thought of as the realm of
architecture. Without harbouring nostalgia for
traditional form and boundaries, these changes
will forcing the architect to revisit their role as
a designer and restructure the boundaries of
their discipline. Rethinking traditional roles and
boundaries in pursuit of extended functionality
opens up to new possibilities: accommodat-
ing traditional functions within new locations,
future functions within traditional locations,
rethinking ideas of permanence, systematic
intervention, responsiveness etc.
ON ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM
“Dwell, word of nostalgia.
Today such dwelling is often thought to be
incompatible with our decentred metropolises.
Our lack of courage thus appears linked to an
unwillingness to confront and acknowledge
what has become ever more apparent since
Copernicus: our world has no center and knows
no proper places; these are illusions born out
of cowardice. Nietzsche seems to be pointing
to the incompatibility between our labyrinthine
souls and our buildings.83”
One of the primary functions of architecture is
accommodation of program—simply looking,
a structure must respond to programmatic
needs of form, structure or socio-political-cul-
tural needs. With increasing complexity within
human systems, programmatic needs have
become widely differentiated and specific.
Symbolism of architectural program carries
within it a certain level of nostalgia, as pro-
grammatic differentiation seems to be eroding
pillars of architectural definition. Once upon
a time, there was the religious, the govern-
ing, the resource providing (agricultural/
mercantile/industrial) and domestic program,
encapsulated for centuries or decades within
a consumable form. The simplistic division
22
of program pointed to a participation in a
common belief system, or a culturally shared
comprehension of architectural symbolism84.
Such rigid functional distinctions amongst
specialized program spaces have dissolved to
accommodate the present day systemic flexi-
bility, mobility and interconnectivity.
Within the realm of the virtual and mixed-re-
ality, architecture needs to redefine the
meaning of dwelling and domesticity. Domes-
tic program presents itself as a ideal candidate
for projective design in order to explore all the
mentioned changes within the realm of archi-
tecture, encapsulated within the following
quotes:
“Home is the universal archetypal symbol of
the self85”. Carl Jung
“The house, quite obviously, is a privileged
entity for a phenomenological study of the inti-
mate values of inside space86”. Bachelard
How does the potential of mixed-reality
address the needs, transformation and new
expression of domestic program? Current stan-
dard of domestic programmatic differentiation
are quite strong yet, I argue, will be revised in
the future. Regardless of the intimacy and nos-
talgia incorporated within tradition of dwelling,
new conditions will provide the potential to
respond and solve existing social, cultural and
practical domestic restrictions. Mixed-reality
offers potential in resolving practical domes-
tic program considerations in, for example,
a higher degree of control in distribution of
privacy, a potential to expand the practical
constrictions of space distribution or provid-
ing an increase in perceived economic spatial
value. While there might be a decreased need
for spatially strict program boundaries, the
architectural designer will have to exercise an
increased focus on transformative potential
and general space / program flexibility. In
contrast to the 20th century modernist focus
on separation and distinction of function, it is
likely the mixed-reality architectural expression
will focus on seamless, flexible and systemic
programmatic overlay. With novel program-
matic needs, changes in architectural form will
follow.
ON ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE
As explored in previous chapters, the poten-
tial of integrating an enhanced mixed-reality
digital overlay upon traditional forms of mate-
rial-based architecture points to a need in
reconfiguring the role, intervention and rep-
resentation within architecture. The nature of
architecture extends far beyond the materi-
ally expressed built form, as it simultaneously
reflects and reinforces the cultural, social and
ontological context of humanity. Within the
material realm, architecture encompasses the
structural needs, sensorial experience, func-
tional programming distribution and provision
/ accommodation of networks or resources.
Within the immaterial realm, architecture
encompasses identity, aspiration, agenda and
agency, experimentation and ideology. In lieu
of previous paragraphs exploring material-
ity, function and programmatic anticipated
change, I argue, enhanced mixed-reality will
guide the bifurcation of architectural extension
into two divisive realms: the material world
and the digital overlay. If a “smart” contact lens
can provide an extensive, or even complete,
digital overlay over reality, certain functions
of architecture will become accommodated
solely within that realm. If I am standing in
a constricted or austere space, through the
lens I am perceiving a large and indulgent
space—and while I might perceive this space
as unconstricted and freeing, the design inter-
ventions prevent me from facing the illusory
quality of my experience. In this case, the
digital overlay encompasses certain architec-
tural aspects of my experience, for example,
the sensorial or spatial quality of the space I
am experiencing. In contrast, the material
architectural grounding of the space I digitally
inhabit is liberated from the need to fulfill the
same sensorial or spatial qualities presented in
the digital overlay. In short, the functions the
lens is providing do not need to be provided
within the actual space. This bifurcation of
architectural function would result in practical
benefits, for example, transferring the majority
of visual experience to the digital would alle-
viate actual architectural costs while providing
enhanced space and experience. Within the
material world, common architectural consid-
erations of mechanical integration or achieving
specific sensorial qualities would no longer be
necessary. Instead, novel architectural con-
siderations in navigating the material world
and designing within the digital overlay would
appear. The role of the mixed-reality envi-
ronment architect, then, becomes curation
of viewer experience through illusory design
strategies, seamless integration of digital-real
navigation and sensorial crafting of the digital
overlay. Despite the initial agenda intended to
enhance user experience, the illusory nature
of the architecturally designed simulated envi-
ronment places the expanded extent of the
new architectural role into an ethically prob-
lematic realm.
ON UTOPIA / DYSTOPIA
To project into the future, is to reveal the
present.
According to to Daniel Czitrom, “The dream of
transcendence through machines is an ancient
one, and the urge to annihilate space and time
found particularly intense expression through
media. The accelerated evolution of media
hardware and software has been fueled by the
 at large.87”. Previously explored trends of
wireless technology and unleashing digital
potential have radically transformed society as
a whole, with the anticipation of exponential
transformation within the following decades.
The desire for complete freedom, infinite pos-
sibilities and physical transcendence have long
been a driving force behind societal and tech-
nological efforts88. In contrast, with each major
wave of technological innovation, anxieties on
the future of human condition and existence
have followed. From the invention of writing,
print, scientific inquiry, steam ships, trains,
industrialized metropoles, telegraph, radio,
telephone, TV, computers, virtual reality, arti-
ficial intelligence, and infinitely so on, the
uncertainty of the novel and its ability to shape
human activity has induced anxiety. An 1877
New York Times editorial of the telephone
declared: “We will soon be nothing but trans-
parent heaps of jelly to each other89”. To project
into the future, is to negotiate between utopia
and dystopia.
A mixed-reality digital overlay may serve as
a utopic device, in provision of an improved
version of life and possibilities existing within
the real material realm. The extent of the
overlay could commence as a minor interven-
tion, with a scope similar to current instances
of intervention in augmented reality. The real-
istic and familiar nature of the overlay could
consequently allow for a seamless transition
into a completely digital visual realm. If the
digitally experienced mixed-reality simulation
is indistinguishable from reality, does it matter
if it is not in fact reality? If human desires,
aspirations and experience are enhanced and
provide value, is this reality utopic? In contrast,
the entire orchestration of the mixed reality
depends on illusory architectural and digital
manipulation of human perception in order
to achieve their desires. The scope of illusory
manipulation becomes extensive, with the
24
accompanying technologies bearing unprec-
edented complexity. The systems rely upon
programmers and designers, as well as coor-
dinating entities remaining within the material
world. To immerse oneself into an expanded
mixed-reality is to relinquish control and fully
place trust into another, in hope their agenda
coincides with your own. This thesis, therefor,
navigates the boundary between pursuing a
utopia and revealing the dystopia. For, life is
neither purely black, nor purely white—it navi-
gates the realm of the grey.
O N U N C E R TA I N T Y, D R E A M I N G A N D
A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E P R E S E N TAT I O N
“Maybe it is a good thing for us to keep a few
dreams of a house that we shall live in later,
always later, so much later, that in fact, we
shall not have time to achieve it. For a house
that was final, one that stood in a symmetrical
relation to the house we were born in, would
lead to thoughts – serious, sad thoughts – and
not dreams. It is better to live in a state of
impermanence than in one of finality90”.
Bachelard
To design within the virtual or enhanced
mixed-reality realm, is to dream.
Speculative theorizing, common in experimen-
tal physics, has no reliance on observational
or experimental data to ground theories in
reality: it cannot be tested, cannot be verified
or falsified91. The realm of this thesis topic
is grounded in uncertainty and speculative
exploration, risking the product being dis-
counted as solely an arbitrary metaphor. Yet,
Nietzsche describes the human drive to form
metaphors in striking similarity to that of
conceptual design, finding: “It consistently
confuses the rubrics and cells of concepts by
setting forth new translations, metaphors and
metonymies; it constantly manifests the desire
to remake the world at hand, to make it as
colorfully irregular, disconnectedly unentailed,
fascinating and eternally new as the world of
dream92”. While the realm of architectural role
and built form has been explored in previous
paragraphs of this thesis, this one is dedicated
the scope and power of architectural represen-
tation. Architectural drawing embodies a way of
acting through the exploration of unbuilt envi-
ronment, as drawing provides the grounding
before tectonic experiences take place93. For
Nietzsche, “architecture was a means by which
we understand our consciousness—a structure,
a scaffolding of thoughts94”. The architectural
representation, then, embodies a negotiation
of measured systems, assumptions, projection
and symbolism, in a guided effort to pursue or
capture the unknown. At their time of writing,
both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche found the prob-
lematic nature of the modern world emerged
from the fact it is too well built, “much like a
cosmos that assigns our place, imprisoning cre-
ativity and imagination95”. While such thoughts
might seamingly posit science and technology
in a direct conflict with imagination and creativ-
ity, these realms are in fact closely intertwined.
Therefor, this part of the thesis ends within an
intertwining of imagination-led realms of myth
and art, reason and ordered led realm of scien-
tific inquiry, fictitious narrative, dreaming and
uncertainty—all in simultaneous pursuit and
negation of reality.
26
I V. P R E C E D E N T S
 THE GOOD PLACE: EXPLORING THE
ROLE OF THE ARCHITECT
MICHAEL SCHUR
The Good Place is a 2016 NBC comedy TV show
following the fate of four people who have died
and made it to the “good place” in the afterlife.
This particular neighbourhood of the “good
place” is designed by the architect Michael,
played by Ted Danson. The small city environ-
ment is pristine and every detail seems to be
designed with the purpose of providing the
residents with pure happiness. Every inhabi-
tant receives a dream home and a soul-mate,
calibrated specifically for their desires.
Yet as the first season unfolds, the characters
endure all sorts of moral trials and tribulations,
leading to the final recognition: the “good
place” is in fact the “bad place”. The architect,
Michael, is in fact a demon-architect whose
ultimate design goal is to subtly torture the
four individuals within the neighbourhood.
The key to the element of torture is the subtle
manifestation of the tortured individuals pet-
peeves throughout the design. For example,
the character of Eleanor despises the overused
and overcelebrated concept of frozen yogurt.
The presence of an exceeding amount of frozen
yogurt shops fuels her moral struggle, as she
desperately attempts to mimic other residents
bliss in order to conceal that she belongs in the
“bad place”.
The initial success of the “bad place” posing
as the “good place” is embodiment of 21-st
century American drean aspirations: clean
streets, small population, adequately spaced
28
single family zones, pedestrian streets, perfect
lawns and safe cul-de-sacs. The inability to feel
happiness or a feeling of belonging within a
seemingly perfect environment is the main
driver of constant psychological torture. The
design is too clean, safe, boring and bland—
designed for the ideal of an average person, it
is not ideal for anyone.
The premise of the TV show is relevant to this
thesis exploration precisely for the successful
simulation of a “good place” through shared
idealized conceptions of happiness and domes-
tic fulfillment, despite the fact they did not
manage to achieve the same feelings within
each individual. The major theme throughout
the seasons is the focus on morality and ethics
within present day complex environments. The
role of the Architect has a curious depiction—
at first “good” and obsessed with finding design
flaws within his work, then revealing himself
as a demonic-architect who tortures through
design, to becoming a leader in navigating
reality, afterlife and simulations in a search
for truth. The character of Michael speaks to
the ability of the architect to create illusions,
manipulate or navigate ethical considerations
of the design and affected residents. Further,
since the design system is located in the after-
life, the architect is designing in a system not
bound by laws of physics or time. If any design
flaws are found, the entire system can just
be rebooted—the multiple seasons of the TV
show feature endless neighbourhood reboots.
F igure 1 3 . T he G o o d P l a c e , re n di ti on of af terl i fe for pa sta l overs
F igure 1 4 . T h e B a d P l a c e , re nd i ti o n of af terl i fe for peopl e who despi se f rozen yogurt
 The design considerations are then, quite
obviously, drastically different from those real
world architects experience. The emphasis
is not within temporal, material or context
constrictions, rather the focus is placed on
achieving a specific conceptual goal through
the design. While laws of physics are non-es-
sential within the afterlife context, the afterlife
mimics real world design in order to envoke
feelings of familiarity within the residents. The
simulation can easily be manipulated, through
illusory strategies, in order to achieve specific
goals within the residents. The architect here
is a tortured soul, obsessed with his design and
finding design flaws, possessing an immense
amount of control, yet responding to deadlines
sent from “higher up“ and ultimately bearing
a continually negotiated ethical responsibility.
While outlandish and comedic in nature, the
context of the afterlife and goal of simulation
within the TV show connect to considerations
of moving parts of domestic design into the
digital.
“THINGS IN THE AFTERLIFE DO
NOT HAPPEN WHEN THINGS
ARE HAPPENING HERE, BECAUSE
WHILE TIME ON EARTH MOVES
IN A STRAIGHT LINE:
ONE THING HAPPENS, THEN THE
N E X T, T H E N T H E N E X T,
TIME IN THE AFTERLIFE MOVES
IN A JEREMY BEARIMY
----- W H AT ?
IN THE AFTERLIFE TIME DOUBLES
BACK AND LOOPS AROUND AND
ENDS UP LOOKING SOMETHING
LIKE THIS.
I T I S J U S T T H E WAY I T W O R K S .
I T ’ S J E R E M Y B E A R I M Y.
I D O N O T K N O W W H AT T O T E L L
Y O U , I T I S T H E E A S I E S T WAY T O
D E S C R I B E I T.

- - - - - - - B U T, WA I T, T H AT D O T O V E R
T H E L E T T E R I ? W H AT T H E H E L L I S
T H AT ?

OK, HOW DO I EXPLAIN THIS

C O N C I S E LY... T H AT I S T U E S D AY S ,
AND ALSO J U LY. O H , A N D
SOMETIME IT IS NEVER. YES,
O C C A S S I O N A LY T H AT D O T I S A
TIME-MOMENT WHEN NOTHING
N E V E R O C C U R S .”

M I C H A E L , architect in
The Good Place

30
F igure 1 5 . T h e A rc hi te c t ex pl a i ni ng ti m e progressi on i n af terl i fe i s non-l i nea r a nd f l ows
in a “Je re my B e a r i my “
F igure 1 6 . T i tl e o f new ne i g hbo r h ood desi gn
 B L A C K M I R R O R : B A N D E R S N AT C H
BROOKER + SLADE + MCLEAN
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is a 2018 Netflix
original psychological thriller interactive film
writen by Charlie Brooker, directed by David
Slade and produeced by Russel McLean. The
movie plot is set in 1984, as the viewers follow
a young progammer in his efforts to adapt a
fantasy choose-your-own-adventure novel into
a groundbreaking video game.
What sets the movie apart from previous epi-
sodes of the Black Mirror TV show anthology,
is the element of interactivity allowing viewers
to make choices at certain parts of the narra-
tive. For example, early on in the movie, the
viewer is presented with a simple choice of
which cereal the protagonist will choose to eat
that morning. While the choice between Sugar
Puffs and Frosties does not seem imperative,
the viewer is unaware of how influential this
choice may be for the narrative. The choices
grow larger in potential consequence and dra-
matic narrative as the movie progresses, each
leading towards a specific ending.
During the first choice, the scheme of viewer
interactivity is established. The two presented
choices are accompanied by a visual timeline
and ticking sound in order to highlight the
amount of time available for the viewer to
make a choice. The control given to the viewer
breaks the traditional boundaries of viewer-
ship, providing a mixed emotion of fear and
responsibility for the main protagonist. Yet, as
the movie progresses, the extent of the control
32
given to the viewer drastically diminishes. The
viewer has the ability to choose, yet, both
choices are located within the same spectrum.
The viewer has two choices of anger displays
Stefan will exhibit towards his father—whether
he will shout or throw tea over the computer—
yet, cannot choose to not exhibit anger. The
viewer can choose if Colin or Stefan will jump
off the balcony, yet, cannot choose for neither
to jump. With the increase in dramatic quality
and irreversibility of each viewer decision, the
actual level of control the viewer possesses is
put into question.
Further, depending on the choice made, the
viewer is occassionally looped back to a pre-
vious choice in order to suggest a different
choice should be made. If the viewer contin-
uously chooses the same option, the viewer
ends up re-routed each time until the will is
broken and decision is shifted. Further, if the
choice is not made on time, the programmed
preferred choice will be made. The free will,
agency and patience of the viewer is continu-
ally tested—while no choice leads to a happy
narrative end.
The movie is relevant to this thesis investigation
through the examination of free-will, authorial
control, monitoring, fate and exploration (and
questioning) of reality within the digital age.
F igure 1 7 . I nte ra c ti ve v i ewe r m o ment / c hoi c e: dec i di ng on c erea l
F igure 1 8 . I nte ra c ti ve v i ewe r m o ment / c hoi c e: dec i di ng on v i ol ent a c ti on
B lack M i r ro r : B a nde rs natc h m ov i e sti l l s. Netf l i x
 “ THERE IS MESSAGES IN EVERY GAME.

L I K E PA C - M A N . D O Y O U K N O W W H AT PA C S TA N D S F O R ?

P-A-C: PROGRAM AND CONTROL. HE IS PROGRAM AND

CONTROL MAN.

T H E W H O L E T H I N G I S A M E TA P H O R : H E T H I N K S H E ’ S
G O T F R E E W I L L B U T R E A L LY, H E ’ S T R A P P E D I N A M A Z E ,
IN A SYSTEM, ALL HE CAN DO IS CONSUME. HE IS
P U R S U E D B Y D E M O N S T H AT A R E P R O B A B LY J U S T I N
H I S O W N H E A D, A N D E V E N I F H E D O E S M A N A G E T O
ESCAPE BY SLIPPING OUT ONE SIDE OF THE MAZE,
W H AT H A P P E N S ?

HE COMES RIGHT BACK IN ON THE OTHER SIDE.

PEOPLE THINK IT ’S A HAPPY GAME, IT ’S NOT A HAPPY

GAME. IT’S A FUCKING NIGHTMARE WORLD AND THE
W O R S T T H I N G I S I T ’ S R E A L A N D W E L I V E I N I T.

I T I S A L L C O D E . I F Y O U L I S T E N C L O S E LY, Y O U C A N H E A R
T H E N U M B E R S . T H E R E ’ S A C O S M I C F L O W C H A R T T H AT
D I C TAT E S W H E R E Y O U C A N A N D W H E R E Y O U C A N ’ T G O .

I ’ V E G I V E N Y O U T H E K N O W L E D G E . I ’ V E S E T Y O U F R E E .”

- C O L I N R I T M A N in
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

34
F igure 1 9 + F i g u re 2 0 . PA C M A N .
B an de rs n atc h m ov i e sti l l s .
 RAIN ROOM
R A N D O M I N T E R N AT I O N A L
Founded in 2005 by Hannes Koch and Florian
Ortkrass, Random International is a collabo-
rative studio for experimental practice within
contemporary art. With a studio based in
London and Berlin, the collective explores
issues of identity and autonomy in the the
post-digital age through participation. Rain
Room, a 2011 large-scale responsive rainfall
environment is currently in the Los Angeles
County Museum of Art after debuting as part
of the MoMA PS1 exhibition EXPO 1: New York.
In contrast to traditional experiences of the
sensation of rain, as uncontrollably tempo-
rally and spatially dynamic, the project allows
visitors to actively engage in the fabricated,
yet sensorially rich, environment. In order to
foster an intimate participatory viewing expe-
rience, the installation adheres to a regulated
viewing que limited to 10 people at the time.
The installation plays with the notion of the
human-nature relationship increasingly being
mediated through technology. The installa-
tion consists of water, injection moulded tiles,
solenoid valves, pressure regulators, custom
software, 3D tracking cameras, steel beams,
water management systems and a grated floor
of around 100 square meters.
The rain downfall is initially continuous and
unobstructed. The human body and presence
observes the environment and is confronted
with the basic human nature of a desire for
shelter and aversion towards rain. Guided
36
to walk through the environment, the instal-
lation plays with human emotion and initial
excitement / hesitance. As the body enters
the installation, the sensors observe the pres-
ence of the body and control the solenoid
valves to prevent the rain from falling. A rela-
tionship is created, one between visitor and
artwork, human and nature, and human and
machine. The human observes the machine
mediated environment, the machine observes
the human presence. Upon the initial fear and
hesitance to become part of the environment,
the human becomes increasingly engaged, as
it experiences a sense of freedom and control
over the environment.
The installation demonstrates the ability to
engage technology, something that is often
seen to take away human participation and
action, with the human within the environ-
ment through a balanced relationship. Such
new explorations represent a dialogue, in
somewhat of an idealized form, where the
technological is at the service of the human
sensorial experience. In an age of omnipresent
data mining and surveillance, the installation
proposes a world in which the data and control
are guided by the human hand and for human
purposes. It is not difficult to presuppose, posi-
tioned in the slight future, the application of
such interactive technologies within the home,
public space or urban fabric.
F igure 2 1 . U s e r ex pe r i e nc e . Ra i n Room . Museum of Modern Art. New York .
F igure 2 2 . C e i l i ng d eta i l . Ra i n Ro om.
 “A LT H O U G H T H E S O U N D A N D S M E L L O F T H E
RAIN ARE INTENSE, ITS TOUCH REMAINS ABSENT
L EAV I N G V I S I TO RS D RY W I T H I N A CO N T I N UA L
D O W N P O U R A S T H E Y N A V I G AT E T H E S PA C E .”

38
F igure 2 3 . U s e r ex pe r i e nc e , s e n s o r a c ti vati on. Ra i n Room.
F igure 2 4 . U s e r ex pe r i e nc e , pe rc ei ved i m m ersi on. Ra i n Room.
 S WA R M S T U D Y I X
R A N D O M I N T E R N AT I O N A L
Another project by Random International,
Swarm Study IX is derived through a multitude
of smaller scale Swarm-studies exploring the
changing role of architecture in the post-digital
age. Initial Swarm-studies included brass rods
suspended within a cube or from a ceiling,
often arranged into larger cubes. In Swarm
Study III, as visitors in an art galley descend
and ascend the stairs, the light from the illu-
minated brass rods suspended from the ceiling
follows human activity with slight variations in
intensity. The environmental input, monitored
through human activity and movement, is
recorded on a camera to allow the stimulation
of the installation dynamics. With little infor-
mation on the complex algorithm controlling
the installation, Swarm Study III allows for the
recording, translation and utilization of envri-
onmental input into moving patterns of light.
As a result, engagement occurs between the
machine system and human activity—similar
to the Rain Room project. Each appear to be
influencing the exchange in a balanced dis-
tribution of power and agency, blurring the
boundary on whether the human or machine
are fundamentally in control.
In contrast, Swarm Study IX represents one of
the later applications of the project concept
through the revision and addition to pre-
vious installations and sculptural projects.
This Swarm-study occupies the facade of the
newly transformed Hauptbahnhof Chemnitz,
Germany. As noticable through the evolution of
40
each Swarm-study, this project represents the
artist’s largest work to date, transitioning from
a gallery-space to the realm of what is con-
sidered closer to architecture. The generating
principle behind the moving patterns of light
on the facade derrives from the study of birt
efficiency in flocking birds. Each single light
source located within the facade is embeded
with collective behaviour. Each unit of light is
physically singular, yet it encorporates a spe-
cific data set on how to act—to light on, or
light off—depending on the behaviour of the
other lights surrounding its area. While the
viewer observes the facade as a singular unit
with dynamic light movement, the facade is
actually subdivided into smaller sections which
continously interact with the surrounding light
subdivisions.
The facade demonstrates an exploration of
intelligence in motion of self-organizing systems
through the creation of dynamic, interactive
and highly sensorially rich environments. The
project relates to my field of inquiry through
the animate nature of the building, albeit only
surface/facade level, with the focus on collec-
tive behaviour derived through a collected data
set. The project opens up the possibility of the
future existance of a completely responsive
building or structure, one continually harvest-
ing data from its environment and responding
to it in real-time based on previously config-
ured parameters. As such, it opens towards a
realm of real-time responsive environments.
Swar m S tudy. C he m ni tz, G e r m a ny.
F igure 2 5 . Swa r m l i g hts , e l evati o n.
F igure 2 6 . Swa r m l i g hts , pe rs p e c ti ve.
 JAMMING BODIES
MCRAE + TIBBITS
JB1.0: Jamming Bodies featured a complete
transformation of Storefront gallery space into
a laboratory, in which the relationship between
the human body and the matter that surrounds
it is explored. A collaboration between science
fiction artist Lucy McRea and architect/com-
putational designer Skylar Tibbits with MIT’s
Self-Assembly Lab, the installation brings
together architecture, technology and art into
a single object. While Skin is found to usually
mark the transition between the exterior and
interior, the installation transforms the Skin
to act as a membrane marking both simulta-
neously. Acting as a breathing morphable wall,
the installation absorbs and expulses the atmo-
sphere around it while compressing the bodies
with which it is interacting. Simultaneously an
installation and performance piece, the piece
examines the implications of material transfor-
mation and self-reconfiguring membranes on
the feeling, behaviour and physiology of the
body.
In November 28, 1947: How Do You Make Your-
self a Body without Organs Deleuze and Guattari
do not write in defiance of Organs, rather in
defiance of Organism. Organism is seen as an
articulation of body into a hierarchic-harmo-
nious whole of organs, each in its place with
its function . The Body without Organs, on the
other hand, does not represent a contradiction
of organs, rather, it represents a non-hierar-
chic space in which a chaotic multitude (of
Organs), all equal float . The Body without
42
Organs is thus a process of singularization of
oneself, oriented toward a future that selects
against the representational domestication of
difference . If we perceive an individual human
being as a disorderly collection of organs (and
we do not have to perceive it as such neces-
sarily), the individual can be thought of as a
collection of active and passive powers. Each of
organs is produced by a means of interruption/
breakage of flow produced by another organ,
and itself produces a flow to be interrupted
by another organ . In contrast, the production
of the Body without Organs is determined in
coexistence with itself, through the reciprocal
determinations within and between its levels .
I would argue the Jamming Bodies installation
functions as a Body without Organs, as the pro-
duction within it is immediately consumption
and recording (without any sort of media-
tion). The recording and consumption further
directly determine the production. Which
grains are selected in the process of jamming
are once a matter of chance and necessity. The
piece, as a Body without Organs, consists of a
multitude of passive syntheses that make the
active syntheses through which movement
and interaction are fashioned. The process of
jamming upon which the installation is con-
stituted relies on the potential of disordered
materials ability to reversibly switch between
liquid, solid and semi-solid states by increasing
density. The piece further requires recipro-
cal action by human bodies in order to fulfill
and observe the variables such as turnable
 Swar m S tudy. C he m ni tz, G e r m a ny.
ph o to c re di t: Ja n B i tte r

F igure 2 7 . Ja m m i n g bo di e s - di a g ra m. 2 0 1 5 . Mc Ra e a nd T i bbi ts
 stiffness, reconfiguration, morphability and
dynamic internal/external forms . The Jamming
Body installation does not feature as dramatic
of changes represented through a distinct sig-
nificant difference, rather it relies on subtle
changes within the system. The significance,
hence, does not rely in the distance or speed
of membrane movement. Rather, we find the
significance of the installation in the fact that
the membrane moves at all. The body and
the moving membrane are brought together
at once, yet remain invariably distant. There The body falls into the surface.
is a sort of absence, or memory, of architec-
ture lingering between them. The membrane, The body is consumed by the surface.
constructed in relation to an abstract realm of
architecture, is not ontologically complete by The body is the surface.
itself.
The surface is silver and alien.
The Jamming Bodies installation is represented
as a complex system through the manner in The surface is skin.
which it was documented visually and textu-
ally. The structure is presented as neither a The body extracts itself.
passive reflection of the outside, nor a result
of an active pre-programmed internal factor . The membrane adjusts.
Rather, Jamming Bodies is perceived as a result
of the complex interaction between the envi- Repeat.
ronment- incorporating at once the present
state of the system and the history of the
system. The global behaviour of the system is
the result of patterns of traces, as the individ-
ual traces that constitute the patterns have no
meaning by themselves.

The installation, as a complex system, is an open

system in which it interacts with the environ-
ment in terms of both energy and information.
The installation is continually entrenched in a
network of continuous feedback loops with the
environment, with the following of continual
internal restructurings in response to external
relations. The provided video of the installation
represents the acts of jamming and interac-
tions with the body as seamless and organic
processes, as the scenes are organized through
a seemingly natural flow.

44
Jam mi ng b o d i e s . 2 0 1 5 . M c Ra e a n d T i bbi ts
F igure 2 8 . S ti l l f ro m a c co m pa ny i n g v i deo, Ja mmi ng - breatha bl e, morpha bl e “ wa l l ”
F igure 2 9 . S ti l l f ro m a c co m pa ny i n g v i deo. Performa nc e.
 FRAGMENTS + BLUR MIRROR
R A N D O M I N T E R N AT I O N A L
Continuing the discussion on the issues of
identity in the new digital era, the collective
Random International presented a 2016 exhi-
bition titled On the Body at the New York based
Pace Gallery. The exhibition was Random
International’s second one, upon the success-
ful 2013 debut of Rain Room at MoMa. The
entire exhibition focuses on the intricate and
developing relationship between humans and
machines/technology, mediated through the
physicality of the body. All installations and
sculptures respond and change in relation to
human presence and viewership, creating a
response-driven dialogue between the two.
The gallery setting and experimental nature
of the projects is a prime setting to provide an
isolation from a world in which it becomes sec-
ond-nature to interact with technology. Here,
the collective positions the viewer in direct
relation to an isolated form of human-technol-
ogy/machine interaction to foster reflection
and criticality.
I have here chosen two specific installations,
Fragments and Blur mirror, investigating the
mentioned relationships through the facet of
an everyday, yet exceedingly transformational,
object of a mirror. The three dimensional
human body becomes reflected upon a two
dimensional surface, which through manip-
ulation furthers the paradox of the spatial
translation. In both installations, the human
reflection is actively fragmented and morphed
to achieve a disjunctive effect of the vision.
46
In Blur Mirror, as one approaches a seemingly
conventional oversized mirror, the reflection
becomes increasingly blurred. The installation
plays upon the tradition of reflections in mirrors
becoming zoomed in and increasingly clearer
as one approaches. Here the opposite effect
is achieved, while the sensory sensitive mirror
adjusts to the presence of the body through a
blurring effect, one that increasingly brings the
issue of human identity in the digital age into
question. If the idea of a mirror is to recognize
and relate to the image of ones body, how will
the human react when its being becomes mod-
ified and distanced from its own conception. If
one is to rely on a mirror for objective expe-
rience, how does one process the anticipated
experience differing from ones subjective per-
ception of an objective experience?
The installations break the mold of static
objects within a gallery space, as they invite
participants to continously engage with them in
order to fully understand their hidden agenda.
The viewers come closer to the mirrors slowly,
with slight hesitance and unclear expectation,
and as they encounter the blurred reflection,
they slowly move back and forth, again and
again. The horizontal and vertical movement of
the human body in front of the mirror is para-
lelled with almost invisible movement within
the mirror components. With custom motion
tracking software, the mirror pannels detect
the figure and movement of the approaching
figure and respond through vibrating effects
B lur m i r ro r. 2 0 1 6 . Ra ndo m I nte r nati ona l .
F igure 3 0 . U s e r i nte ra c ti o n.
F igure 3 1 . B l ur r i ng deta i l .
 “ I F M O V E M E N T I S T H R O W N AT U S B Y A
MIRROR OR A KINETIC PIECE, HOW CAN WE
C O N N E C T T O T H AT E M O T I O N A L LY ? W H AT I S
OUR EMOTIONAL REAC TION TO MACHINES
T H AT I N S O M E WAY P R E T E N D T O B E U S ? ”

48
F ragm e nts . 2 0 1 6 . Ra nd o m I nte r n ati ona l .
F igure 3 2 . U s e r i nte ra c ti o n - m ul t i pl e users.
F igure 3 3 . C l o s e u p dy na m i c detai l .
50
 PA R T I I : D E S I G N P R O J E C T
 CONTEXT
A LT E R N AT E R E A L I T Y, D I G I TA L O V E R L AY A N D P E R C E P T I O N
As explored in greater detail in the previous
chapters, behind mythology, religion, fictitious
narrative, arts and philosophical inquiry, lies
a history of humans seeking to immerse into
a reality other than that of their existence.
These alternate realities allow for dream-
like advances, exploring enhanced beauty,
enhanced crudeness and heightening of any
imaginable emotion. Throughout time, the
creation and dissemination of alternate real-
ities have been facilitated through different
mediums. From thought, words and increas-
ingly technological interfaces mediating
between the existence of a current and alter-
nate reality, with the potential of replicability.
What has changed throughout time is the level
of immersion into the alternate realities, yet
what remains the same is the desire for con-
trolled escapism into a reality other than the
one experienced daily.
Western culture has long placed vision in a
hegemonic relationship to other senses, when
it comes to perceiving the environment. Yet,
according to Merlau Ponty, the root of human
perception is located within the sense of touch
and – by extension- embodiment96. Further,
locomotion is as central to visual perception
as vice versa – you must perceive in order to
move, but also move in order to perceive97. The
project, therefore, is located at the intersection
of visual perception, circulative movement and
tactile environmental verification.
52
The design focus is placed within the digital
realm and is based within the sense of vision,
with the argument of vision being more objec-
tifying than touch. As found by M. Ratcliffe:
“Vision, it seems, is an externally directed
sense, which is distinct from internally directed
proprioception or ‘body-sense’. The subject
looks out upon a world of objects and views
them in a way that is uncorrupted by bodily
feeling.98”
To see, is to project and detach from the bodily
experience. To see is to embody an alternate
realm. If a digital overlay is implemented upon
a material reality, the digitally overlaid visu-
ally perceived elements need to be supported
by tactilely verifiable objects and surfaces.
Figures 35-38 depict the dissection of space,
architectural features and domestic objects
deriving from this notion. Within any environ-
ment occupied, or any space within which the
body moves, the color indicates objects and
surfaces which could be completely digitally
overlaid. The features are visually consumed,
assumed to be real, yet their existence is not
necessitated by tactile verification. As long as
these objects and surfaces are integrated into
the surrounding environment, and apply to the
spatial parameters (for example consistency),
they are believed it to be real. Starting with
architectural features, the notion is trans-
ferred to domestic space, arguably the most
intimate space—a space filled with personally
Fi g ure 3 4 . Va r i o us a l ternate rea l i ti es: cave pa i nti ng , my thol ogy,
c i ne m ati c re a l i ty a nd intera c ti ve SIMS ga m e.
 F igure 3 5 . Ex pl o rati o ns towa rds di v i si on i nto two rea l m s: di gi ta l v i sua l l y perc ei ved a nd
m ate ri a l l y ta c ti l e l y ve r i f i e d

54
F igure 3 6 . Ex pl o rati o ns : a rc hi te c tura l / struc tura l features a re di gi ta l l y v i sua l l y consumed
 F igure 3 7 . D i g i ta l re a l m a nd ta c ti l e veri f i cati on el ements i n domesti c spa c e.

56
F igure 3 8 . D i g i ta l re a l m a nd ta c ti l e veri f i cati on el ements i n domesti c spa c e.
 catered objects of use, desire and aesthetic
pleasure, the most personalized commodities
and expressions of identity. And increasingly,
it seemed, many of the elements making
the space and constructing identity could be
achieved digitally. Further, apart from objects,
the height of the space, materiality or views
are identified as elements which could be digi-
tally overlaid in their entirety.

The background, on the other hand, indicates

objects and surfaces which occupy the material
realm by necessity, as they are continually tac-
tilely verified by the subject. These elements
are simultaneously supportive to the illusory
construct of the digitally overlaid reality, while
additionally serving as fundamental use-ob-
jects within the domestic space. The ground
the subject walks on, the objects which are
used daily—these are by necessity bound to
the material realm.

Objects, surfaces and vistas—by this new form

of categorization—become divided into two
equally important realms within the construc-
tion of an individuals’ reality: the digital realm
and the material realm. Further, the digital
realm itself is observed through three different
engagements with visual imagery: the digitally
projected image as static, kinetic and dynamic.
Figure 39-41 The architectural elements begin
to fade into the background, serving as a blank
canvas for the digital projection.

58
F i g ure 3 9 . S tati c i m a ge .
 F i g ure 4 0 . K i neti c i m a ge .

60
F i g ure 4 1 . D y na m i c i m a ge .
 DESIGN
1401 R O B S O N S T R E E T
SITE
The lot of 1401 Robson has been empty for
about 35 years now, and is owned by an
international company. For years it has been
speculated why the site, appraised at $9 million
has not been developed. Across the street from
the site, on 1400 Robson, the Landmark hotel
is being torn down. It is replaced with a two
tower mega residential structure of 34 each.
Described as a “tribute to absolute luxury”,
the towers are designed to provide “unprece-
dented” 270 degree views99.
The public is informed that the empty lot of
1401 Robson is finally being developed. An
international company, in partnership with
a tech company, is implementing the first
pilot project of digitally overlaid residences.
The proposed project is a 19 floor building
housing 245 single occupancy units. Housing
affordability in Vancouver has already gen-
erated new types of single-occupancy and
non-traditional residences, like micro-units.
The proposed development continues and ele-
vates the trend—it is marketed to single living
individuals, wanting to reside within the down-
town core with all its amenities. Details on the
project are scare, although prices for a three
level unit are boasted at half the market cost.
Person X applies to reside within the building.
A formal meeting reveals the building functions
through specialized contact lenses, which offer
an enhanced living experience. The contacts
are worn every day, yet are only activated
62
through sensors once the resident walks into
the building. The base residence price includes
a three level unit, with the ability to purchase
more levels at a later date. The prospective
resident is given a catalogue of images, some
include textures, scenery or just patterns. The
prospective resident chooses three images,
each serving as a basis for their digitally over-
laid environment. The information on the
implementation of these images remains a
mystery, providing a mixture of exhilaration,
anxiety and excitement.
The resident inhabits one unit located within
the material realm, measured at roughly 8 by
9 meters. The resident can occupy multiple
“digital“ levels while physically inhbitting the
single material realm level. The circulation is
located at the central point of the unit, resem-
bling an awkward dead end in the material
realm. Within the digital realm, the corridor
is contains an arc and barrier that guide the
resident to use the circulation: going clockwise
through the corridor indicates upward move-
ment, while counter-clockwise is downward
movement. The length, width and character of
the corridor is designed to provide remnants
of the process and ritual of using a staircase,
demonstrating the malleability of human per-
ception in adapting to the novel circulatory
construction. As time progresses, the resident
is inclined to purchase additional levels at an
extra cost. As the levels are purchased, the
tight level-based programming dissipates, as
F igure 4 2 . Pro j e c t s i te . 1 4 0 1 Ro bs o n street.
 F igure 43. S ite p l a n , D ow ntow n Va n co uve r, fa c i ng NW.
it begins to cater to the customized desires
of the individual. Further, as the resident
struggles to keep up with the flow of capital,
the random option is introduced--assembling
elements, fixtures and design features ran-
domly. Here architecture starts to break from
convention, as alignment in the structure and
elements is no longer perfect. The resident
becomes accustomed to odd, non-traditional
spaces with odd or non-existent programmatic
uses. As time progresses, the resident begins
to hack the system using the knowledge gained
through intuition and active investigation of the
space. A wall, as a barrier, is now understood
as digital and penetrated with an arm. A person
can sleep on a bed that is not visible by eye, yet
exists, while columns hiding the bed protrude
out of their body. Through this project, the
resident responds to the illusory perceptual
shifts, new habits and trickery implemented by
the designer. The moves are constructed based
on human shared desires and perceptual ten-
dencies —yet, once the resident becomes
acclimated to the system, it allows for an intui-
tive understanding and control for the intimate
64
domestic space. The space is now controlled,
explored and hacked in various level of detail
depending on the resident, promising some
form of control, creativity and ingenuity to
master the system.
Rather than subscribing to a solely eutopic or
dystopic narrative, throughout the project I
sought to navigate elements of both realms.
The project touches on, nods or responds to a
matrix of current trends / issues: the increas-
ingly aestheticized nature of marketable
commodities, control within digital environ-
ments, ideas of owning/controlling personal
space etc. Yet, the project centers around the
exploration of a potential system in which an
individual can co-exist between a material
and immaterial realm seamlessly. Through the
interplay of the two, the design addresses the
construction of reality and its inevitable media-
tion. Realities—within the project, as well as in
general—are mediated and constructed, often
in a seamless manner.
 

∞





















F igure 44. S ite A xo n o m etr i c , bui l d i ng co mponents. Fa c i ng SW.

 Digital overlay can alter the individual’s per-
ception (and therefor) construction of reality.
But reality is not only constructed through
individual perception, it is also synchronized.
If the realities are not completely synchroniz-
ing socially, it leads to isolation of mediated
subjects. Human perception is often thought
of as a static set of conditions, but it is mal-
leable. Human perception adjusts to the new
conditions of technology. Reality is increasingly
immaterial, mediation is both increased and
increasingly seamless.
The building housing the units is a window-
less block, an impenetrable structure with no
architectural bearings of view provision—yet,
on the inside creates and carries the possi-
bilities of all views. To place a window is an
active, operative way to frame a reality for a
viewer in a very deliberate and obvious way.
The project focused on providing the resident
a sense of complete control over their individ-
ual reality and visual preferences, therefor not
having previously curated architectural framing
seemed to fit. Windows have many function,
provision of light, air and arguably most prom-
inently, to establish a relationship between the
exterior and interior. The lack of addressing
this relationship is a statement on the way the
digital overlay destabilizes the sense of place.
It does not eradicate it—in fact, place is con-
sumed, replicated and sold throughout the
building and units. Yet, the idea of a material
place as a static and specific location becomes
destabilized. Therefor, no relationship between
exterior and interior exists in a static, finalized
way. The individual can change their desired
sense of place, or experience it around the
building. Further, framing of a window provides
a mediation, one which is already occurring
through the digital overlay. The spectator is
66
choosing a reality, visual stimuli and experienc-
ing a degree of control, although this control is
occurring within an available subset of choices.
The freedom being experienced is, therefor,
questionable. This is ultimately a subversion
of architecture: the wall is no longer a finite
impenetrable boundary, even if it materially is.
The wall is the window, the digital overlay is the
window. With all the framing and mediation
occurring, inserting a window seems archaic
and pointless.
Digital overlay is implemented in a way that
seems to be giving the resident increased
control over their construction of reality, yet
through this project the resident is buying into
a predetermined vision of a reality marketed
to them. In the end, the resident is living in
the same box as any other person within the
building, with control over minor and surface
level decisions, like interior decoration or
choice of view. The implementation of digital
overlay in this project makes the residents
adore a world of servitude, one from which
it becomes impossible to detach as time goes
by. Customization of commodities is key to
identity. What is motivating all these desires
is quite similar, only manifested in a different
way. Perception can be tricked and altered
using similar actions/principles across all resi-
dents. The project, then, starts with a promise
of freedom, control and customization for the
individual; but the individual becomes locked
down, essentially un-free, treated in the same
way and provided the same space/experience
as other residents; adjusting to the new envi-
ronment in an irreversible way.
Fi g ure 4 5 . A c ti vati o n of di gi ta l overl ay l ens.
 







 ()
 

+

 

68
F igure 4 6 , l ef t. A xo no m etr i c s i te pl a n, ground l evel s.
F igure 4 7 , r i g ht. D eta i l s o f v i r tua l user experi enc e on ground l evel s.
 
/




/ 



/ 

Fi g ure 4 8 . S i ng l e o c c upa nc y uni t: materi a l rea l m ; upwa rd a nd

dow nwa rd c i rc ul ati o n

70
 
 
/


 
/



 
 / 

Fi g ure 4 9 . S i ng l e o c c upanc y uni t: di gi ta l rea l m, experi enc ed a s three l evel s.

V i g n ette s o n pe rc e ptua l a nd spati a l condi ti ons l ea di ng up to c ha nges
i n unde rsta nd i ng s pa c e .
 









 


Fi g ure 5 0 . N ew di g i tal l evel s a re a c qui red upon the sa m e si ngl e-l evel m ateri a l u nit.
N ow i ntu i ti ve l y u nde rsta ndi ng the system, the resi dent begi ns to ha c k i t.

72
F igure 51. N a r rati ve m o m e nt 1 : di g i ta l a nd materi a l rea l i ti es overl a p a s resi dent ex tends ha nd
beyo nd a co n c rete wa l l to retr i eve a dr i nk f rom a n “ i nv i si bl e“ f ri dge.
 F igure 52. N a r rati ve m o m e nt 2 : di g i ta l and materi a l rea l i ti es overl a p a s resi dent rel i es on ta c ti l e
ex plo rat ion o f the f r i dge .

74
F igure 53. Na r rati ve m o m e nt 3 : di g i ta l a nd m ateri a l rea l i ti es overl a p a s resi dent ta c ti l el y f i nds the
so ught afte r dr i n k .
 

 



 









SINGLE LEVEL /∞
F igure 54. Axo n o m etr i c v i ew o f d i g i ta l l y overl a ppi ng rea l i ti es wi thi n a 4 uni t a ssem bl y. Overl a p-


ping re alit ie s a re d i s pl aye d a s a s e c ti o n o f the l evel the resi dent i s c urrentl y oc c upy i ng.

76
 




SINGLE LEVEL /∞


INGLE LEVEL /∞


SINGLE LEVE


SINGLE LEVEL /∞


F igure 55. Axo no m etr i c v i ew o f m ate r i a l l y exi sti ng rea l i ti es wi thi n a 4 uni t a ssembl y.
 ENDNOTES
1. Stevenson, Angus and Christine Lindberg. 2010.
Virtual Reality. New Oxford American Dictionary. 3rd
edition. Oxford University Press.
2. Armstrong, Karen. 2006. A short history of myth.
Toronto: Vintage Canada: 1
3. Ibid: 1
4. Ibid: 5
5. Ibid: 3
6. Dunlop, John T. 1825. The History of Fiction: Being
a Critical Account of the Most Celebrated Works of
Fiction from the Earliest Greek Romances to the
Novels of the Present Age. Longman Brown. London:
7 design. Amsterdam; Boston: Morgan Kaufmann
7. Ibid: 7
8. Ibid: 13
9. Ibid: 8
10. Ropolyi, László. Virtuality and Reality: Toward a
Representation Ontology. Philosophies 2016, 1: 42
11. Ibid: 42
12. Simplicius, of Cilicia, Urmson, James O. and
Peter Lautner. 2014. Simplicius: On Aristotle Physics
III. A&C Black, Bloomsbury: London: 17
xiv
13. Armstrong. A short history of myth: 1
14. Schlagel, Richard H. 2015. Three Scientific Revo-
lutions: How They Transformed Our Conceptions of
Reality. Gateway Bookshelf Series. Humanity Books:
1
15. Ibid: 2
16. Ibid: 5
17. Ferraro, Rafael. 2007. Einstein’s Space-Time:
An Introduction to Special and General Relativity.
Springer Science and Business Media. New York: 1
18. Sherman, William and Alan Craig. 2003. Under-
standing virtual reality: Interface, application and
Publishers: 24
19. Ibid: 28
20. Ibid: 28
21. Ibid: 29
22. Ibid: 29
23. Ibid: 30
24. Thompson, Clive. 2017. How stereographs were
the original virtual reality. Smithsonian Magazine.
online.
25. Sherman and Craig. Understanding virtual
reality: 31
26. Beqiri, Gini. 2018. History of VR: Timeline of
Events and Tech Development. Virtual Speech.
online.
27. Sherman and Craig. Understanding virtual
reality: 25
28. Ibid: 26
29. Ibid: 29
30. Ibid: 30
31. Ibid: 32
32. Ibid: 36
33. Ibid: 37
34. Ibid: 57
35. Ibid: 59
36. Pivarunas, Joseph. 2017. Smart Contact Lenses:
How Far Are They. Nanalyze. Online. https://www.
nanalyze.com/2017/03/smart-contact-lenses/
37. Ibid
38. Lingley, A.R et Al. A Single-Pixel Wireless Contact
Lens Display. Journal of Micromechanics and Micro-
engineering. 2011, 21: 2
39. Parviz, Babak A. 2009. Augmented Reality
in a Contact Lens. IEEE Spectrum: Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers. online.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/
augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens
40. Sherman and Craig. Understanding virtual
reality: xvii
41. Watt, Mark and Max Polyakov. The Next Big
Thing: How AR and VR shape new space exploration
age. Noosphere: Technology, Knowledge, Humanity.
2018
42. Ibid
43. Whyte, Jennifer. 2018. Virtual reality and the
built environment. 2nd ed. Oxford: Boston, Archi-
tectural Press: 1
44. Brandon, P.S., Tuba Kocaturk, and RICS Founda-
tion. 2009. Virtual futures for design, construction
and procurement. Oxford; Malden, Ma: Blackwell
Pub: xvii
45. Ibid: xvii
46. Debovec, Paul. “Augmenting Architecture with
Image-Based Modeling, Rendering and Lighting.”
in Virtual and Augmented Architecture (VAA’OI):
Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Virtual and Augmented Architecture, edited by Bob
Fisher, Kenneth Dawson-Howe and Carol O’Sullivan.
London: Springer Verlag, 2001: 1
47. Wang, Xiangyu and Marc Aurel Schnabel. 2009.
Mixed Reality in Architecture, Design and Construc-
tion. Springer, London: x
48. Ibid: xi
49. Ibid: xi
50. Gibson, William. 2000. Neuromancer. London,
UK: Penguin Classics: 67
xv
 51. Mitchell, William J. 2003. Me++: The cyborg
self and the networked city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press: 2
52. Heim, Michael. 1993. The metaphysics of virtual
reality. New York: Oxford University Press: 98
53. Levinson, Paul. 2014. Real space: The fate of
physical presence in the digital age, on and off
planet. Taylor and Francis: xii
54. Gibson, William. 1988. Mona Lisa overdrive.
New York, Toronto: Bantam Books: 49
55. Heim. The metaphysics of virtual reality: 80
56. Von Borries, Friedrich and Matthias Bottger.
2007. Space time play: Computer games, architec-
ture and urbanism: The next level. Barcelona; Basel:
Birkhauser Verlag AG: 45
57. Biocca, Frank and Mark R. Levy. 1995. Commu-
nication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates: 12
58. Milgram, Paul and Kishino, Fumio. 1994. A Tax-
onomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Trans.
Information Systems. vol. E77-D, no. 12. 1321-1329.
59. Whyte. Virtual reality and the built environment:
2
60. Mitchell. Me++: 3
61. Biocca and Levy. Communication in the age of
virtual reality: 36
62. Ibid: 36
63. Whyte. Virtual reality and the built environment:
4 Weibel. 2005. Disappearing architecture: From
xvi
64. Morrison, Jim. 1987. The lords, and the new
creatures: Poems. 1st Fireside ed. New York: Simon
and Schuster: 64
65. Pasqualini, Isabella et al. 2018. The architectonic
experience of body and space in augmented interi-
ors. Frontiers in Psychology. 9. 375: 3
66. Ibid: 3
67. Engel, David et al. 2008. A psychophysically
calibrated controller for navigating through large
environments in a limited free-walking space. ACM
2008 Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and
Technology. Bordeaux, France: 157
68. Suma, Evan et al. 2010. Exploiting change
blindness to expand walkable space in a virtual envi-
ronment. 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference: 305
69. Ibid: 305
70. Ibid: 306
71. Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach
to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
72. Scheer, David R. 2014. The death of drawing:
Architecture in the age of simulation. New York,
London. Routledge: 65
73. Christou, Evangelos. 2007. The logos of the soul.
2nd ed. Putnam, Connecticut: Spring Publications:
63
74. Carruthers, Peter. 2006. The architecture of
the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of
thought. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press: 7
75. Beigl, Michael, Georg Flachbart and Peter
real to virtual to quantum. Basel, Boston: Birkhauser.
76. Mitchell. Me++: 57
77. Ibid: 58
78. Ibid: 74
79. Ibid: 74
80. Ibid: 58
81. Ibid: 78
82. Ibid” 80
83. Kostka, Alexandre and Irving Wohlfarth. 1999.
Nietzsche and “An Architecture of Our Minds”. Los
Angeles. Getty Research Institute for the History of
Art and the Humanities: 35
84. Ibid: 262
85. Carl Jung, as found in Jacobi, Jolande. 1959.
Complex, archetype, symbol in the psychology of
Carl G. Jung. Volume 57. New York: Pantheon Books:
47
86. Bachelard, Gaston. 2014. The poetics of space.
New York: Penguin Books: xxxvi
87. Czitrom, Daniel J. 1982. Media and the american
mind: From Morse to McLuhan. Chapel Hill: Univer-
sity of North Carolina Press.
88. Biocca and Levy. Communication in the age of
virtual reality: 12
89. Marvin, Carolyn. 1988. When old technologies
were new: Thinking about electric communication in
the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press: 68
90. Bachelard, Gaston. 2014. The poetics of space.
New York: Penguin Books: 61
91. Baggot, Jim. 2013. Farewell to Reality: How
Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scien-
tific Truth. New York, USA: Open Road Media: v
92. Kostka and Wohlfarth. Nietzsche and “An Archi-
tecture of Our Minds”: 26
93. Frascari, Marco. 2011. Eleven exercises in the
art of architectural drawing: Slow food for the
architect’s imagination. New York; Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge: 5
94. Kostka and Wohlfarth. Nietzsche and “An Archi-
tecture of Our Minds”: 43
95. Ibid: 43
96. Scheer. The death of drawing: 65
97. Gibson, The ecological approach to visual
perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin: 223
98. Ratcliffe, Matthew. 2008. Feelings of being: Phe-
nomenology, psychiatry and the sense of reality.
New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
99. Project Collaboration: Asia Standard Ameri-
cas, Atelier Ikebuchi, PDP London, Musson Cattell
Mackey. Landmark On Robson Development
Website. http://landmarkonrobson.com/
xvii
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, Karen. 2006. A short history of myth. Toronto: Vintage Canada.

Bachelard, Gaston. 2014. The poetics of space. New York: Penguin Books.

Baciu, Ciprian & Opre, Dana & Riley, Sarah. (2016). A New Way of Thinking in the Era of Virtual Reality
and Artificial Intelligence. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ohio.

Baggot, Jim. 2013. Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth.
New York, USA: Open Road Media.

Beigl, Michael, Georg Flachbart and Peter Weibel. 2005. Disappearing architecture: From real to virtual
to quantum. Basel, Boston: Birkhauser.

Beqiri, Gini. 2018. History of VR: Timeline of Events and Tech Development. Virtual Speech. online.

Brandon, P.S., Tuba Kocaturk, and RICS Foundation. 2009. Virtual futures for design, construction and
procurement. Oxford; Malden, Ma: Blackwell Pub.

Biocca, Frank and Mark R. Levy. 1995. Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates.

Carruthers, Peter. 2006. The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought.
Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press.

Christou, Evangelos. 2007. The logos of the soul. 2nd ed. Putnam, Connecticut: Spring Publications.

Czitrom, Daniel J. 1982. Media and the american mind: From Morse to McLuhan. Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press.

Debovec, Paul. “Augmenting Architecture with Image-Based Modeling, Rendering and Lighting.” in
Virtual and Augmented Architecture (VAA’OI): Proceedings of the International Symposium on Virtual
and Augmented Architecture, edited by Bob Fisher, Kenneth Dawson-Howe and Carol O’Sullivan.
London: Springer Verlag, 2001: 1-11.

xviii
Dunlop, John T. 1825. The History of Fiction: Being a Critical Account of the Most Celebrated Works of
Fiction from the Earliest Greek Romances to the Novels of the Present Age. Longman Brown. London.

Engel, David et al. 2008. A psychophysically calibrated controller for navigating through large environ-
ments in a limited free-walking space. ACM 2008 Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology.
Bordeaux, France: 157-164.

Ferraro, Rafael. 2007. Einstein’s Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General Relativity. Springer
Science and Business Media. New York.

Frascari, Marco. 2011. Eleven exercises in the art of architectural drawing: Slow food for the architect’s
imagination. New York; Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, William. 2000. Neuromancer. London, UK: Penguin Classics.

Gibson, William. 1988. Mona Lisa overdrive. New York, Toronto: Bantam Books.

Heim, Michael. 1993. The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hodgson, Eric, Eric Bachmann and David Waller. 2011. Redirected walking to explore virtual environ-
ments: Assessing the potential for spatial interference. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP)
8 (4): 1-22.

Jacobi, Jolande. 1959. Complex, archetype, symbol in the psychology of Carl G. Jung. Volume 57. New
York: Pantheon Books.

Kandel, Eric R. 2016. Reductionism in art and brain science: Bridging the two cultures. New York: Colum-
bia University Press.

Kostka, Alexandre and Irving Wohlfarth. 1999. Nietzsche and “An Architecture of Our Minds”. Los
Angeles. Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities.

Levinson, Paul. 2014. Real space: The fate of physical presence in the digital age, on and off planet.
Taylor and Francis.

Lingley, A.R et Al. A Single-Pixel Wireless Contact Lens Display. Journal of Micromechanics and Microen-
gineering. 2011, 21: 1-15.

xix
 Marvin, Carolyn. 1988. When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the
late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Milgram, Paul and Kishino, Fumio. 1994. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Trans. Infor-
mation Systems. vol. E77-D, no. 12. 1321-1329.

Mitchell, William J. 2003. Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Morrison, Jim. 1987. The lords, and the new creatures: Poems. 1st Fireside ed. New York: Simon and
Schuster.

Neth, CT et al. 2012. Velocity-dependent dynamic curvature gain for redirected walking. Ieee Transac-
tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18 (7): 1041-1052.

Nunes, Mark. 2006. Cyberspaces of everyday life. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Parviz, Babak A. 2009. Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens. IEEE Spectrum: Institute of Elec-
trical and Electronics Engineers. online. https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/
augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens

Pasqualini, Isabella et al. 2018. The architectonic experience of body and space in augmented interiors.
Frontiers in Psychology. 9. 375: 1-15.

Pivarunas, Joseph. 2017. Smart Contact Lenses: How Far Are They. Nanalyze. Online. https://www.nan-
alyze.com/2017/03/smart-contact-lenses/

Project Collaboration: Asia Standard Americas, Atelier Ikebuchi, PDP London, Musson Cattell Mackey.
Landmark On Robson Development Website. http://landmarkonrobson.com/

Rampley, Matthew. 2000. Nietzsche and “An architecture of our minds”. The Art Bulletin. 82.4: 779-781.

Ratcliffe, Matthew. 2008. Feelings of being: Phenomenology, psychiatry and the sense of reality. New
York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ropolyi, László. Virtuality and Reality: Toward a Representation Ontology. Philosophies 2016, 1: 40–54.

Rothman, Joshua. Are We Already Living in Virtual Reality? Brave New World Department. New York
Magazine. April 2, 2018. Online.

Scheer, David R. 2014. The death of drawing: Architecture in the age of simulation. New York, London.
Routledge.

xx
Sherman, William and Alan Craig. 2003. Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application and design.
Amsterdam; Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Schlagel, Richard H. 2015. Three Scientific Revolutions: How They Transformed Our Conceptions of
Reality. Gateway Bookshelf Series. Humanity Books.

Simplicius, of Cilicia, Urmson, James O. and Peter Lautner. 2014. Simplicius: On Aristotle Physics III. A&C
Black, Bloomsbury: London.

Steinicke, F, G. Bruder, J. Jerald, H. Frenz and M. Lappe. 2010. Estimation of detection thresholds for
redirected walking techniques. Ieee Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16 (1): 17-27.

Stevenson, Angus and Christine Lindberg. 2010. Virtual Reality. New Oxford American Dictionary. 3rd
edition. Oxford University Press.

Suma, Evan et al. 2010. Exploiting change blindness to expand walkable space in a virtual environment.
2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference.

Thompson, Clive. 2017. How stereographs were the original virtual reality. Smithsonian Magazine.
Online.

Von Borries, Friedrich and Matthias Bottger. 2007. Space time play: Computer games, architecture and
urbanism: The next level. Barcelona; Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG.

Wang, Xiangyu and Marc Aurel Schnabel. 2009. Mixed Reality in Architecture, Design and Construction.
Springer, London.

Watt, Mark and Max Polyakov. The Next Big Thing: How AR and VR shape new space exploration age.
Noosphere: Technology, Knowledge, Humanity. 2018

Whyte, Jennifer. 2018. Virtual reality and the built environment. 2nd ed. Oxford: Boston, Architectural
Press.

Yamashita, Jun. 2004. The domain of “expanded virtual reality” extends from space to time. Research
Center for Advanced Science and Technology. University of Tokyo.

xxi