ARTHUR: A Collaborative Augmented Environment for Architectural Design and Urban Planning

Projects in the area of architectural design and urban planning typically engage several architects as well as experts from other professions. While the design and review meetings thus often involve a large number of cooperating participants, the actual design is still done by the individuals in the time in between those meetings using desktop PCs and CAD applications. A real collaborative approach to architectural design and urban planning is often limited to early paper-based sketches.In order to overcome these limitations, we designed and realized the ARTHUR system, an Augmented Reality (AR) enhanced round table to support complex design and planning decisions for architects. WhileAR has been applied to this area earlier, our approach does not try to replace the use of CAD systems but rather integrates them seamlessly into the collaborative AR environment. The approach is enhanced by intuitiveinteraction mechanisms that can be easily con-figured for different application scenarios.

Jan Fook: Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice & Karen Healy: Social Work Practices: Contemporary Perspectives on Change

In his recent book on the contemporary politics of social work, Powell (2001) nominates Jan Fook and Karen Healy as two Australian authors who have made significant contributions to the radical or critical social work tradition. I have chosen to review them together, as each, in different ways, attempts to achieve the same purpose. That is, they attempt to provide a convincing account for adopting a critical approach to practice in the contemporary conditions of the 21st century and, in doing so, re-invigorate the radical tradition of social work practice. My first comment, important for the readership of this international journal, is that both books easily 'travel' beyond the Australian context.

Educational and Anthropological Perspectives: An Italian View on Migration in Multi-cultural Urban Spaces

In contemporary societies there are different ways to perceive the relation between identity and alterity and to describe the difference between “us” and “them”, residents and foreigners. Anthropologist Sandra Wallman sustains that in multi-cultural urban spaces the frontiers of diversity are not only burdensome markers of identity, but rather they could also represent new chances to define “identity” and “alterity”. These frontiers, in fact, can work like interfaces through which to build time after time, in a creative way, a relationship with the other. From this point of view, the concept of boundary can offer many opportunities to creatively define the relation with the other and to sign new options for cognitive and physical movement. On the other side, in many cases we have a plenty of mechanisms of exclusion that transforms a purely empirical distinction between “us” and “them” in an ontological contrast, as in the case when the immigrant undergoes hostilities through discriminatory language. Even though these forms of racism are undoubtedly objectionable from a theoretical point of view, they are anyway socially “real”, in the sense that they are perpetually reaffirmed and strengthened in public opinion. They are in fact implicit “truths”, realities that are considered objective, common opinions that are part of day-to-day existence. That is the reason why an anthropological prospective including the study of “common sense” should be adopted in our present day studies on migration, as pointed out by American anthropologist Michael Herzfeld. My primary goal is to analyze with such a critical approach same pre-conditions of racism and exclusion in contemporary multi-cultural urban spaces. On the other hand, this essay would also investigate positive strategies of comparing, interchanging, and negotiating alterity in social work. I suggest that this approach can offer positive solutions in coping with “diversity” and in working out policies for recognizing a common identity which, at the same time, do not throw away the relevance of political and economic power.

Dutch boundaries

In many schools of architecture the 1970s have been an important watershed for the way in which architecture was taught. For example, recent studies have stressed the importance of Aldo Rossi for the changes in the teaching of architec-ture at the ETH in Zürich that before was based on orthodox modern principles. A similar struggle between an orthodox conception of modernity and its criticism took place at the architectural faculty of Delft, in the Netherlands. Although Delft is an important European school of architecture, the theoretical work produced during this period is not largely known outside the Netherlands. This is perhaps due to the fact that most studies were published in Dutch. With this article, I intend to make the architectural theory developed during this period known to a larger public. The article describes the intellectual journey made by Dutch stu-dents of architecture in the 1970s and 1980s. This was the quest to receive recognition for the intellectual substance of architecture: the insight architecture could be a discourse and a form of knowledge and not only a method of building. Specifically, the work of the architectural theoretician Wim Nijenhuis is highlight-ed. However, as I point out in this article, the results of this journey also had its problematic sides. This becomes clear from the following sentence taken from the dissertation of Wim Nijenhuis: "The search for metaphysical fiction and the tendency towards a technological informed absolute through fully transparent and simultaneous information, should be contested by a fantasy dimension, that does not wish to 'overcome' a given situation and that does not rely on 'creativi-ty' (that would still be historical and humanistic)." Texts like this have a hermet-ic quality that is not easy to comprehend for an architectural public. Even more, there is an important debate looming behind these sentences. As an important outcome of their quest the architectural students in Delft asked themselves: how do we give form to architectural theory once its claim to truth is exposed as an illusion? For Nijenhuis, the discourse about architecture is a mere 'artful game with words': a fiction, besides other forms of fiction like poetry or literature. The question is then if we have not entered the realm of total subjectivity and relativ-ism with this position. From what can the discourse of architecture derive its authority after the death of God?