 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
p r o t o t y p i n g (link) p o s t e r s & v i d e o s (link) c o u r s e p o l i c i e s (link) c o u r s e c u l t u r e (link) d e s i g n m e t h o d s
S T U D E N T E X A M P L E S
|
 |
Architectural Robotics C O U R S E D E S C R I P T I O N | D E A 6 2 1 0 P R E R E Q U I S I T E S | E N R O L L M E N T S Y L L A B U S | S E E A L S O M Y D E A 5 2 1 0 & D E A 2 7 3 0 L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Outcome 1: To understand the design, technical, social, ecological, and ethical challenges and opportunities of architectural robotics. This course is designed to guide you in designing meaningful solutions, while also encouraging exploration of who we are, how we engage with the world, and our place within it. "In order to understand things, we have to build them." H I S T O R Y O F T H I S C O U R S E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The pedagogy of this course has been the subject of my paper presented at ICRA (the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation) and my paper published in RAM (IEEE Robotics and Automation, Rethinking the Machines in Which We Live.) I also co-authored, with Mark Gross, an overview of Architectural Robotics for ACM interactions. Required reading for this course, my book, Architectural Robotics: Ecosystems of Bits, Bytes, and Biology (MIT Press), establishes this subfield at the intersection of robotics, (environmental) design, and psychology. I N T R O D U C T I O N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unlike a conventional building that has a limited range of designed responses to dynamic, changing conditions, architectural robotic environments are intimately bound together with their users and local conditions in a designed performance. More practically, architectural robotics is defined by the movement of physical mass and by its interactivity with and adaptivity to things outside it (e.g. people, other living things, objects, information). The prospect of this kind of environment was anticipated some fifty years ago by MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte in his vision of “a man-made environment that responds to and is ‘meaningful’ for him or her” [5]. Wired editor Kevin Kelly later imagined a “world of mutating buildings” and “rooms stuffed with co-evolutionary furniture” [3]. And while Bill Gates envisions “a robot in every home” [2], William Mitchell, the late Dean of MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning and director of its Media Lab, envisioned homes “as robots for living in” [4]. Architectural Robotics meanwhile raises such critical questions as:
Architectural Robotics must go beyond simplistic formal achievements; it must strive to improve life, enhance existing places, and support human interaction. For philosopher Andrew Feenberg, “technology is not simply a means but has become an environment, a way of life” [1]. Architectural Robotics is more than an aesthetic search, a stylistic possibility, or a technological quest; it is, instead, a way to develop new possibilities for dwelling in support of and augmenting people and their surroundings. References T H E P O W E R O F A S M A L L C L A S S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unlike a large lecture class at Cornell, this small class offers a unique opportunity for meaningful conversation, discovery, and collaboration. Don’t miss out on this chance to engage! To ensure attendance, a sign-in sheet will be available during the first ten minutes of each session. Additionally, a significant portion of your grade will be based on your active participation in collaborative learning and discovery (in part, by evidence of written peer evaluation). R E Q U I R E D R E A D I N G S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Readings for each class meeting are listed in the CLASS SCHEDULE (below). Please read the readings ahead of their assigned class session.
O P T I O N A L R E A D I N G S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Alexander, C., et al. 1977. A Pattern Language (excerpts). Oxford. • Every student, beginning Week 02, will upload to our shared Box folder, ahead of that class meeting, a one-page Word document that includes the following for each assigned reading: • One or two students will be assigned a reading for each Monday class session and will present this reading in class. Here is a good example of slides prepared tor a presentation for this course. This presentation should conclude with the presenter(s) sharing with us the most compelling questions submitted by student peers in their reviews found in the shared folder. • Following the student presentation, 2-3 non-presenting students will be asked to advocate for their chosen question from the curated list (30 seconds each). The class votes between the advocated questions. The student whose question is chosen then facilitates class discussion for 5-7 minutes. 3. Students (for assignment 1) and student teams (for assignment 2) will present status reports and demos on their design activities, as per the weekly schedule (below) under the heading, "In class." Your status report can be a physical model, a powerpoint slide, a digital image (e.g., a 3D model), a Word document, or any other document that communicates the status of design development. For demos, you simply share your current physical prototype; or, you can take a smartphone video of your working prototype, upload the video (or a URL to it) to our shared folder, and share the video with us. (Sharing the video is a good approach, as robotics demos often fail!) Reports are uploaded to the shared class folder ahead of class presentations. About class organization, more broadly, please also review course culture: link. S C H E D U L E B Y W E E K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SHOP TRAINING: We will also do D2FS shop training to learn how to use the basic power tools safely. Please come to this training session with close-toe shoes (no sandals) and something to tie-back long hair if you have long hair! STUDENT CRITICS: Each class session, two student critics-of-the-day will be selected randomly to offer feedback on developing work from other students or teams. This is a critical aspect of this course: we learn from each other! METHODS: See top-left of this page for more on the human-centered design methods identified below (e.g., scenarios, ...) BRING A LAPTOP AND GROVE KIT TO CLASS, ALWAYS! P R O L O G U E | G R O V E & C O U R S E I N T R O Week 01 | 08.24 INTRO | D2FS SHOP TRAINING | ARDUINO PROTOTYPING Week 02 | 08.31 SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE P A R T - 1 | C O N C E P T S Week 04 | 09.14 PATTERNS - I Week 05 | 09.21 INTERACTIONS Week 06 | 09.28 BODY BUILDING P A R T - 2 | S C A L E S & I M P A C T S Week 07 | 10.05 HABIT-ATIONS - - - - - - - - - - LAST DAY TO DROP/CHANGE GRADE OPTION |10/19 - - - - - - - - - - - Week 09 | 10.19 WORKSTATIONS | VIDEOS & REPORTS [DUE: 15 pts & 5 pts] Week 10 | 10.26 LIVING ROOMS & FURNISHINGS - I Week 11 | 11.02 LIVING ROOMS & FURNISHINGS - II Week 12 | 11.09 PORTALS TO ELSEWHERE Week 13 | 11.16 | ECOSYSTEMS OF BITS, BYTES, & BIOLOGY Week 14 | 11.23 WORKSHOP > NO CLASS THURSDAY P A R T - 3 | M O V I N G & T H I N K I N G Week 15 | 11.30 INTELLIGENT? Final Class | 12.07 Refined Prototypes, Assignment-2 [10 pts]. 12.xx | xam | DEADLINE: TEAM REPORT & VIDEO, uploaded for final grading: A S S I G N M E N T S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The first assignment, undertaken individually by each student, is intended as a fast-paced engagement that acquaints students with the full arc of physical computing design. The second assignment is undertaken by teams of 2-4 students and provides a longer, deeper development of the design following a trajectory like this:
Team composition for the second assignment will be formed by the instructor(s) based partly on proposals pitched in class by class members. Keep in mind: this course asks you to develop architectural robotic artifacts that have at least one input and one output which moves physical mass. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Assignment-1 | Addressing Emotional Isolation in Children with Trauma Drawing inspiration from E.M. Forster's "The Machine Stops," where characters live in isolated cells unable to connect meaningfully with others, you will design an interactive spatial intervention for children who have suffered trauma and struggle to understand, identify, and express emotions to others. These children often experience profound emotional isolation - not physical separation like Forster's characters, but social disconnection caused by their difficulty communicating feelings and connecting emotionally with caregivers, peers, and family members (see my overview). Your device should intervene in the child's environment to help them recognize, process, or express emotions in ways that facilitate connection with others - countering emotional isolation through embodied, responsive design that transforms the spatial experience. Consider how your yoga block-sized intervention extends beyond its physical boundaries to claim territory, cast light, generate sound, or move through the room. It may be mobile, wall-mounted, ceiling-suspended, or otherwise positioned to affect the broader spatial environment. Previous projects have included devices that crawl, swing, project patterns, or fill space with responsive soundscapes. Consider how your design might serve as an emotional translator, a safe space for practicing expression, or a gentle presence that encourages emotional exploration and communication. The goal is not to replace human connection but to create conditions that support it, demonstrating how thoughtful architectural robotics can help children overcome emotional barriers and reconnect with others, offering a tangible alternative to the emotionally disconnected existence Forster so presciently described. Physical Prototype Requirements:
Practically, the kind of artifact you are striving for is small in scale, whimsical/poetic, beautifully fabricated (in hi-fidelity), interactive in simple ways, and meaningful and purposeful. Limit yourself to the Grove electronics. Select and justify the sensors you use:
Your box should respond through:
If you diverge from the panels provided, generate your cut-files using e.g., CaseMaker and work with the D2FS to have these cut. Don't make the mistake of creating a prototype that is not meticulously designed and fabricated; prototypes that look like craft projects will receive low grades. Your finished product must not have ink-pen writing or coloring on it, or use craft materials like cotton balls or craft paper; any inscriptions should be subtracted by laser-cutter engraving; color should come from the LED stick provided. You are permitted (and even encouraged) to cut material away from the panels by laser-cutter or mat knife. You may also add on to your box other features that are meticulously fabricated and purposeful. The battery pack provided must go inside your box with all your electronics; design an elegant way for users to recharge the device. You do not have to generate code on your own: you can select one of the codes provided under the heading below, “Arduino Codes You Can Copy & Paste.” (An effective way to tailor your code to your wants without coding experience is to use ChatGPT as described below.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Assignment 2 | Mitigating Worksplace Isolation Among Remote Workers Building on Marco Frascari's concept of the tell-the-tale detail, this assignment challenges you to develop an architectural-robotic element that embodies the behavioral logic of an entire interactive environment. Extending themes from Assignment 1 and "The Machine Stops," you will design for remote workers suffering from workplace isolation -- a different population experiencing similar challenges of disconnection and reduced agency (see the New York Times article) as both the traumatized children from Assignment 1 and Forster's isolated characters. Your team will create architectural robotics that encourage physical movement, face-to-face social connection, breaks from screen-based work, and restoration of human agency over their environment - directly countering the machine-dependent isolation depicted in Forster's prescient vision. Teams of 2-3 students will work at two scales simultaneously: creating meticulously crafted 1:1 physical components and a screen-based environmental design that demonstrates how your components scale to create responsive architectural experiences that restore human connection and embodied experience. The Collaborative Component-First Approach: These are not devices or gadgets, but architectural elements such as panels, surfaces, thresholds, joints, or screens that integrate sensing and actuation capabilities. Each component must "tell the tale" of its role within the larger responsive environment designed to counteract the machine-dependent isolation of Forster's vision. Through careful material exploration and technical development coordinated with your teammates, you will discover the interactive possibilities that will inform your collective environmental design. In brief, you work from collaborative environmental visioning to individual 1:1 physical prototypes to a unified digital animation of your environmental design. Physical 1:1 Scale Requirements:
Multiple team members' components may work together (e.g., via wireless communication) to collectively form a functional, responsive workspace environment that counters the isolated cells depicted in "The Machine Stops." As in Assignment 1, your designs should consider presence, gesture, light, sound, movement, or other forms of spatial intervention to encourage human connection, physical engagement, and environmental agency. The environment or collection of components should be engaging and restorative, subtly challenging the machine-dependent isolation of remote work by exploring how architectural robotics can mediate social connection, embodied experience, and human control in richly interactive professional spaces that restore rather than replace human agency. G R A D I N G / G R A D I N G R U B R I C - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Please review carefully the Course Policies (link). These policies are not negotiable except under grave circumstances. Throughout this course—an intimate and intensive “conversation” across students and the professor— students will have ample opportunity to receive feedback on their work. Here is rubric for the two major assignments. The list that follows names and describes the graded components for this course. Each component is worth so many points, as shown in red type. The sum of all of these components equals the final grade of 100 points. The numerical scale for grading is as follows: A+ (98–100), A (93–97), A- (90–92), B+ (88–89), B (83–87), B- (80–82), C+ (78–79), C (73–77), C- (70–72), D+ (68–69), D (65–67), D- (below 65). • ATTENDANCE + PARTICIPATION | 15 points
Active participation requires being present, prepared, and engaged when called upon. Your participation grade will be negatively impacted by repeated unexcused absences, unresponsiveness in class, and persistent distraction from phones, devices, or off-topic conversations. • ASSIGNMENTS [rubric] | 40 points (A-1) and 45 points (A-2)
|
 |
||||||
 |
|||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. M. Forster, “