Edward Purver
Future Perfect
Future Perfect is a multi-channel interactive video installation about the choices being made regarding the changing architectural future of the Prospect Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.
http://futureperfectbrooklyn.org/
Presented on three screens, Future Perfect compares and contrasts the architectural present with three different futures.
In December 2003, the controversial “Atlantic Yards” plan to develop this low-rise residential neighborhood was put forward by developer Bruce Ratner, proposing to build 17 skyscrapers and a sports arena. This proposal has met with much local community resistance, but has been pushed through nonetheless. Future Perfect seeks to visualize what this chosen future will look like, and to compare it with alternatives.
Each of the three screens shows the same Brooklyn streets, but each screen reveals a different future. The center screen shows a visualization of the officially approved Ratner plan, the right screen shows a visualization of the rejected alternative Extell plan, and the left screen shows my own animations of a future imagined and drawn by local schoolchildren.
If there are no viewers in the room, then each screen simply shows video of this neighborhood as it looked in December 2006, through a looping series of street scenes. As soon as a viewer enters the installation space, their presence affects the video on each screen, revealing strips of three different visions of the future that move with the viewer in real-time as they explore the installation. This glimpse into a future is sized and placed in exact relation to the size and placement of the viewer. If a viewer steps backwards, forwards, or to either side, they will cause a window into the future to move across each screen, revealing new parts of the image as they walk. The viewer can also widen these windows by stretching out an arm.
As a viewer changes their position through the installation space, they are able to explore, compare and contrast these different visions. Moving on both x and y axes, exploring the depth and the width of the room allows the viewer to examine and reflect on the urban landscapes that our society chooses to build.
Although not a New Yorker by birth (nor even American), I have lived in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn for the last two years, during my entire time at ITP. It quickly became clear to me that the impending architectural changes to the neighborhood, as proposed by Bruce Ratner’s “Atlantic Yards” development, were causing a very emotional debate in the local community, with many residents feeling that the proposed construction would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and some others being of the opinion that it would bring more jobs and money into the area.
However, despite the varying opinions, it became clear to me that neither myself, nor those I talked to had a clear visual sense of what was actually being proposed. We had only a generalized notion of some kind of change, as opposed to factual information. We were only imagining what this development was going to be like, instead of examining the actual plans, and our personal feelings and the opinions expressed in the media and the community, be they positive or negative, were serving to lend our non-specific impressions a vague association of “good” or “bad” that was not necessarily related to fact. The reality of the proposed architectural future was getting lost and obscured in opinion and assumption.
I embarked on my own research in the Fall of 2006, collaborating with Ariel Efron and Christian Croft. What I discovered was that the only available renderings were those made public by the architects and developers themselves. Understandably, these renderings were always made in such a way as to show the development in the best possible light. It is the job of the artists who make those renderings to display an ideal vision of the proposed future. The sun is always shining, leaves are on non-existent trees, and the most flattering angle of perspective is always chosen in order to make the new buildings seem as attractive as possible.
I decided that I wanted to create a responsive environment that would visualize how this proposed future would look from a non-privileged street-level view, from every angle; after all, this is the place from where we actually experience the city. I wanted to display something that would offer a more effective communication of how the daily experience of this neighborhood would be impacted for the residents who walk those streets. Our urban environment is profoundly shaped by architecture. Obviously, there are many factors that come into play in shaping the experience of a community, including amenities, local economics, lighting, crime, availability of nature and public recreation spaces, however it is my belief that the way that we feel and behave in an urban environment is deeply affected by our physical surroundings.
I also wanted to find a way to communicate the voices of community residents, that tend to get lost in the political and financial dealings of the planning and approval process.
When we first started to work on this project, the Ratner development plan had not yet received final approval. However, as of February 2007, the plan was approved, and initial demolitions of existing structures have already begun, despite the existence of a federal eminent domain legal challenge. The approval of the development inevitably changed the tone of the project. If my initial purpose was to provide missing information in order to help people generate informed opinions about something that was still undecided, and thus could potentially be altered, then what had it become when this future was already decided? Does it just become a matter of record, or does it exist only as a painful display of what will surely come to pass?
In order to maintain a sense of informational value, I decided to add a second screen to the project, which would display the only viable, financially backed alternative development plan that was offered to the Manhattan Transit Authority. If I want to display the future as has been decided, then I believe it is valuable to speak to that decision making process by also displaying the future that might have been, the future that was rejected.
In May 2005, after public pressure, the MTA issued a call for proposals for the development of the rail yards. After consultation with community groups, the Extell real estate development company put forth an alternative plan, which proposed lower-rise structures more in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood, and which proposed the construction of a new school (instead of a sports arena), and which would not use eminent domain to destroy local businesses and residences, but would rather build only over the rail yards themselves. The Extell proposal also bid over $50 million more for the purchase of the site than Bruce Ratner eventually paid for it. However, the MTA decided to sell the site to Ratner.
I think that this decision was a questionable one, and one that is worth reflecting on. I believe that it is both educational and provocative to visualize these two futures, side by side, and to compare what might have been with what will likely be. It is my goal to provide this visual information, in order to encourage a consideration of who is making decisions about the growth of our city, and who these decisions are being made for. I want to instigate debate, and raise questions in the minds of the viewer.
I also began to question the exclusive nature of how such planning decisions are made in New York. I am doubtful whether such a drastic architectural change could find approval in an area of New York that was composed of higher income residents. It seems unlikely to me that a developer could obtain permission to build a new sports arena within the confines of Manhattan, for example, especially with the purpose of housing a sports team that already has an existing arena, as is the case with the Atlantic Yards development (which will provide a new home for the New Jersey-based basketball team, The Nets). It seemed to me that the voices of local people were being lost in small, occasional local meetings. Residents are given few moments in which to express their opinions, and even then their words are not recorded or broadcast in any way.
In order to address this situation, we decided to invite local residents to contribute their opinions. The strategy we chose to implement was to post flyers around the neighborhood, inviting people to call a telephone number and to record a statement. We asked them to give their thoughts both on the Atlantic Yards development itself, and also what they think would be an ideal way to develop the place where they live.
As I continued to develop the project, I decided that I wanted to experiment with somehow visually displaying the voice of the local community. So far the project was visually dominated by the visions of developers and architects, and I began to wonder what it would be like to offer an entirely different vision, and whether in doing so I might raise questions as to the assumed dominance of a particular mindset.
I also realized that I was ignoring a large part of the local community: the children. I was directing all of my inquiries to adults. In addition to the visions of the two real-estate developers, I will display a third video projection, which features the hand-drawn imaginings of local schoolchildren. Rather than just privilege the images of the real-estate industry, I wanted to open up the visual narrative to the next generation of community residents – the people who will grow up and live with the architecture that is built – in order to see how they might question our assumptions of what our cities have to be.
Having begun with a single channel video projection that interactively compared and contrasted the present-day neighborhood architecture with that of Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards proposal, I am now designing a three channel video installation that not only visualizes this one specific future (now officially sanctioned and approved), but that visualizes a future that was rejected, and also a future born out of a different generation’s imagination.
It is my goal to provide missing visual information, and to broadcast voices that are often ignored, in order to encourage a consideration of who is making decisions about the growth of our city, and who these decisions are being made for. I want to create an immersive video environment that engages the viewer through interactivity and that both instigates debate and raises questions in the mind of the viewer.
People who are interested in urban planning, or the development of their own neighborhoods.
The installation consists of three video projections, each displayed on a different wall of a square room. Each of the three screens shows the same Brooklyn streets, but each screen reveals a different future. The center screen shows a visualization of the officially approved Ratner plan, the right screen shows a visualization of a rejected alternative plan (that met with much greater community approval), and the left screen shows animations of a future imagined and drawn by local schoolchildren.
As a viewer changes their position through the installation space, they are able to explore, compare and contrast these different visions. Moving on both x and y axes, exploring the depth and the width of the room allows the viewer to examine and reflect on the future that we choose through their own physical presence.
Audio speakers play the recorded voices of local residents, speaking their opinions regarding the future development of their neighborhood. Anyone can add their own opinion to the soundtrack at any time, simply by calling in from a telephone.
The primary tools that are used in the creation of this installation are Maya, Photoshop, After Effects, Max/MSP/Jitter and Final Cut Pro.
The 3D models of the proposed buildings are built in Maya, and then composited into the video of the streets using After Effects. The animations made from the children\'s drawings are made using photoshop and After Effects. These videos are then edited into a sequence using Final Cut Pro. In the running of the installation itself, the only software that is used is Jitter, which handles both the motion tracking of the viewer and the interactive playback of the video.
The audio was collected using an application written in Asterisk by Christian Croft, which allows people to call in by telephone and record their opinions at any time.
I learned that it is impossible to disguise my own bias, and that to pretend I do not have one is disingenuous. I can do my best to present impartial opinion, but in my desire to compose a compelling visual narrative, it is my instinct to chose the shots and the angles that show the most dramatic changes. Again, when I choose the lighting and texturing for the models, my own lack of sympathy for the project may well unconsciously show in how I visualize these buildings. My project is consequently not as impartial nor as neutral as I first believed it to be. I learned that it is important to take ownership of personal motivation and bias, rather than deny it.
On a more mundane, technical level, I came up against the limitations of the live processing of video. Even with the faster computers that are available to consumers, the more complex interaction designs that I tested could not work at an acceptable speed, due to the sheer load of data processing that the software had to handle. I realized that I have to work only with medium or low quality video images, and to limit the patch to the minimum of video processing that the installation required.
In December 2003, the controversial “Atlantic Yards” plan to develop this low-rise residential neighborhood was put forward by developer Bruce Ratner, proposing to build 17 skyscrapers and a sports arena. This proposal has met with much local community resistance, but has been pushed through nonetheless. Future Perfect seeks to visualize what this chosen future will look like, and to compare it with alternatives.
Each of the three screens shows the same Brooklyn streets, but each screen reveals a different future. The center screen shows a visualization of the officially approved Ratner plan, the right screen shows a visualization of the rejected alternative Extell plan, and the left screen shows my own animations of a future imagined and drawn by local schoolchildren.
If there are no viewers in the room, then each screen simply shows video of this neighborhood as it looked in December 2006, through a looping series of street scenes. As soon as a viewer enters the installation space, their presence affects the video on each screen, revealing strips of three different visions of the future that move with the viewer in real-time as they explore the installation. This glimpse into a future is sized and placed in exact relation to the size and placement of the viewer. If a viewer steps backwards, forwards, or to either side, they will cause a window into the future to move across each screen, revealing new parts of the image as they walk. The viewer can also widen these windows by stretching out an arm.
As a viewer changes their position through the installation space, they are able to explore, compare and contrast these different visions. Moving on both x and y axes, exploring the depth and the width of the room allows the viewer to examine and reflect on the urban landscapes that our society chooses to build.
Although not a New Yorker by birth (nor even American), I have lived in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn for the last two years, during my entire time at ITP. It quickly became clear to me that the impending architectural changes to the neighborhood, as proposed by Bruce Ratner’s “Atlantic Yards” development, were causing a very emotional debate in the local community, with many residents feeling that the proposed construction would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and some others being of the opinion that it would bring more jobs and money into the area.
However, despite the varying opinions, it became clear to me that neither myself, nor those I talked to had a clear visual sense of what was actually being proposed. We had only a generalized notion of some kind of change, as opposed to factual information. We were only imagining what this development was going to be like, instead of examining the actual plans, and our personal feelings and the opinions expressed in the media and the community, be they positive or negative, were serving to lend our non-specific impressions a vague association of “good” or “bad” that was not necessarily related to fact. The reality of the proposed architectural future was getting lost and obscured in opinion and assumption.
I embarked on my own research in the Fall of 2006, collaborating with Ariel Efron and Christian Croft. What I discovered was that the only available renderings were those made public by the architects and developers themselves. Understandably, these renderings were always made in such a way as to show the development in the best possible light. It is the job of the artists who make those renderings to display an ideal vision of the proposed future. The sun is always shining, leaves are on non-existent trees, and the most flattering angle of perspective is always chosen in order to make the new buildings seem as attractive as possible.
I decided that I wanted to create a responsive environment that would visualize how this proposed future would look from a non-privileged street-level view, from every angle; after all, this is the place from where we actually experience the city. I wanted to display something that would offer a more effective communication of how the daily experience of this neighborhood would be impacted for the residents who walk those streets. Our urban environment is profoundly shaped by architecture. Obviously, there are many factors that come into play in shaping the experience of a community, including amenities, local economics, lighting, crime, availability of nature and public recreation spaces, however it is my belief that the way that we feel and behave in an urban environment is deeply affected by our physical surroundings.
I also wanted to find a way to communicate the voices of community residents, that tend to get lost in the political and financial dealings of the planning and approval process.
When we first started to work on this project, the Ratner development plan had not yet received final approval. However, as of February 2007, the plan was approved, and initial demolitions of existing structures have already begun, despite the existence of a federal eminent domain legal challenge. The approval of the development inevitably changed the tone of the project. If my initial purpose was to provide missing information in order to help people generate informed opinions about something that was still undecided, and thus could potentially be altered, then what had it become when this future was already decided? Does it just become a matter of record, or does it exist only as a painful display of what will surely come to pass?
In order to maintain a sense of informational value, I decided to add a second screen to the project, which would display the only viable, financially backed alternative development plan that was offered to the Manhattan Transit Authority. If I want to display the future as has been decided, then I believe it is valuable to speak to that decision making process by also displaying the future that might have been, the future that was rejected.
In May 2005, after public pressure, the MTA issued a call for proposals for the development of the rail yards. After consultation with community groups, the Extell real estate development company put forth an alternative plan, which proposed lower-rise structures more in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood, and which proposed the construction of a new school (instead of a sports arena), and which would not use eminent domain to destroy local businesses and residences, but would rather build only over the rail yards themselves. The Extell proposal also bid over $50 million more for the purchase of the site than Bruce Ratner eventually paid for it. However, the MTA decided to sell the site to Ratner.
I think that this decision was a questionable one, and one that is worth reflecting on. I believe that it is both educational and provocative to visualize these two futures, side by side, and to compare what might have been with what will likely be. It is my goal to provide this visual information, in order to encourage a consideration of who is making decisions about the growth of our city, and who these decisions are being made for. I want to instigate debate, and raise questions in the minds of the viewer.
I also began to question the exclusive nature of how such planning decisions are made in New York. I am doubtful whether such a drastic architectural change could find approval in an area of New York that was composed of higher income residents. It seems unlikely to me that a developer could obtain permission to build a new sports arena within the confines of Manhattan, for example, especially with the purpose of housing a sports team that already has an existing arena, as is the case with the Atlantic Yards development (which will provide a new home for the New Jersey-based basketball team, The Nets). It seemed to me that the voices of local people were being lost in small, occasional local meetings. Residents are given few moments in which to express their opinions, and even then their words are not recorded or broadcast in any way.
In order to address this situation, we decided to invite local residents to contribute their opinions. The strategy we chose to implement was to post flyers around the neighborhood, inviting people to call a telephone number and to record a statement. We asked them to give their thoughts both on the Atlantic Yards development itself, and also what they think would be an ideal way to develop the place where they live.
As I continued to develop the project, I decided that I wanted to experiment with somehow visually displaying the voice of the local community. So far the project was visually dominated by the visions of developers and architects, and I began to wonder what it would be like to offer an entirely different vision, and whether in doing so I might raise questions as to the assumed dominance of a particular mindset.
I also realized that I was ignoring a large part of the local community: the children. I was directing all of my inquiries to adults. In addition to the visions of the two real-estate developers, I will display a third video projection, which features the hand-drawn imaginings of local schoolchildren. Rather than just privilege the images of the real-estate industry, I wanted to open up the visual narrative to the next generation of community residents – the people who will grow up and live with the architecture that is built – in order to see how they might question our assumptions of what our cities have to be.
Having begun with a single channel video projection that interactively compared and contrasted the present-day neighborhood architecture with that of Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards proposal, I am now designing a three channel video installation that not only visualizes this one specific future (now officially sanctioned and approved), but that visualizes a future that was rejected, and also a future born out of a different generation’s imagination.
It is my goal to provide missing visual information, and to broadcast voices that are often ignored, in order to encourage a consideration of who is making decisions about the growth of our city, and who these decisions are being made for. I want to create an immersive video environment that engages the viewer through interactivity and that both instigates debate and raises questions in the mind of the viewer.
People who are interested in urban planning, or the development of their own neighborhoods.
The installation consists of three video projections, each displayed on a different wall of a square room. Each of the three screens shows the same Brooklyn streets, but each screen reveals a different future. The center screen shows a visualization of the officially approved Ratner plan, the right screen shows a visualization of a rejected alternative plan (that met with much greater community approval), and the left screen shows animations of a future imagined and drawn by local schoolchildren.
As a viewer changes their position through the installation space, they are able to explore, compare and contrast these different visions. Moving on both x and y axes, exploring the depth and the width of the room allows the viewer to examine and reflect on the future that we choose through their own physical presence.
Audio speakers play the recorded voices of local residents, speaking their opinions regarding the future development of their neighborhood. Anyone can add their own opinion to the soundtrack at any time, simply by calling in from a telephone.
The primary tools that are used in the creation of this installation are Maya, Photoshop, After Effects, Max/MSP/Jitter and Final Cut Pro.
The 3D models of the proposed buildings are built in Maya, and then composited into the video of the streets using After Effects. The animations made from the children\'s drawings are made using photoshop and After Effects. These videos are then edited into a sequence using Final Cut Pro. In the running of the installation itself, the only software that is used is Jitter, which handles both the motion tracking of the viewer and the interactive playback of the video.
The audio was collected using an application written in Asterisk by Christian Croft, which allows people to call in by telephone and record their opinions at any time.
I learned that it is impossible to disguise my own bias, and that to pretend I do not have one is disingenuous. I can do my best to present impartial opinion, but in my desire to compose a compelling visual narrative, it is my instinct to chose the shots and the angles that show the most dramatic changes. Again, when I choose the lighting and texturing for the models, my own lack of sympathy for the project may well unconsciously show in how I visualize these buildings. My project is consequently not as impartial nor as neutral as I first believed it to be. I learned that it is important to take ownership of personal motivation and bias, rather than deny it.
On a more mundane, technical level, I came up against the limitations of the live processing of video. Even with the faster computers that are available to consumers, the more complex interaction designs that I tested could not work at an acceptable speed, due to the sheer load of data processing that the software had to handle. I realized that I have to work only with medium or low quality video images, and to limit the patch to the minimum of video processing that the installation required.