Aim@OMA – an iphone app about Koolhaas’s work

Aim@OMA is an iphone app that uses GPS functionality in order to organize OMA’s amazing buildings by distance based on the userʼs current location. If you find yourself enjoying your holidays and suddenly feel an urge to visit a Rem Koolhaas building, all you have to do is fire the app and get the distance and directions to the closest building. Aim@OMA keeps track of the projects you have visited, so in a way you can ʻcollectʼ OMA buildings by visiting them.
—————————————–

Screenshots of Aim@OMA

—————————————–
Software and architecture – interview with Rui Guerra

Q. What is Aim@OMA?
Aim@OMA is a free application for the iphone and ipod touch that documents all existing buildings designed by OMA. The app uses GPS functionality in order to organize the projects by distance based on the userʼs current location. If you find yourself enjoying your
holidays and suddenly feel an urge to visit a Rem Koolhaas building, all you have to do is fire the app and get the distance and directions to the closest building. Aim@OMA keeps track of the projects you have visited, so in a way you can ʻcollectʼ OMA buildings by visiting them.

Aim@OMA on simulator

Q. Why are you aiming at OMA?
At INTK software, the company that developed Aim@OMA, we often collaborate with professionals of diverse disciplines, such as designers, architects, researchers, media artists, philosophers, etc. During these inter-disciplinary projects we have developed an
interest in a broader approach to software that tackles projects in their cultural and social political context. We believe that OMA (with its research counterpart AMO) is a great example of an organization that uses a inter-disciplinary approach to their projects and by doing so has pushed the boundaries of architecture. Our aim is to learn from their example. Typically software companies ask themselves questions like: “How would Steve Jobs design this software?” or “How would Microsoft develop this project?” We wonder
about what would be the outcome if software companies would ask questions like: “How would Rem Koolhaas design this software?” or “What are the social-political implications of the software we are developing?”

Q. So you aim at developing software using similar methodologies to those deployed by some architects?
Well, we believe that there is a mutual beneficial exchange still to happen between architecture and software but we have to be careful with extrapolations between these two fields. Computer science is a recent study (approximately 60 years old). There has been a continuous search for appropriate methodologies. We are convinced that computer science and specially software development can learn from architecture but it does not mean that methods used by architecture can be successfully applied on software development. Currently, software and architecture are very different specially in respect to speed. Typically, architecture projects can take several years if not decades to develop. In software, we often talk about months not years. The development of a software project cannot last decades until it is first released to the public. After a decade, the technology would have changed so radically that the project would no longer make sense. Sure, a project can last several years, but its initial release has to happen within the first months and subsequent development occurs while the software is being used, sometimes by thousands of people. Speed is one of the main characteristics that keeps software and architecture apart.
————————————————————————————————————————-
[ad#468-banner]
————————————————————————————————————————-
Q. The differences between software and architecture are probably innumerable.
But what would be a fertile common ground between software and architecture? Architecture has always accompanied technological developments. This relationship has been celebrated in the media and in science fiction novels. Just think about all the plans
about smart houses or cities. However, we are not interested (yet) in intelligent buildings or science fiction scenarios. Instead, we focus on modest scenarios. Let me describe a simple but powerful example: V2_, is an international institute based in Rotterdam that
deals with electronic art. They have a space open to the public where exhibitions and conferences are organized and a website where most of their information is openly accessible. In the last years, their website has grown a central role and currently it has a
much larger audience than its physical counterpart. We are interested exactly in this relation between online and onsite, between virtual and physical. Typically, the strategy for the physical space is defined by architects and the online project is often developed by a software company. These two projects are usually born separated and the connection between the two is often inexistent. Let’s try an entertaining experiment and put side-toside some of the OMA projects and the online counterpart, as you can see bellow:

click image to enlarge

Q. Actually, the buildings appear to be technologically more advanced than the websites. What do you think about that?
There is no relation between the buildings and the websites. The aesthetic differences is the aspect that strikes you first. We believe that this can be simply solved by improving the websites. There is however a more relevant story to this comparison. How often have you visited the website of an organization or institution prior to visit their physical space? Have you noticed the difference between the online experience and the onsite experience? It is not so much that we are interested in a smooth transition between online and onsite. We are concerned with the fact that these two ʻplatformsʼ seem to be growing apart. We are interested in developing strategies that take into account both platforms. A possible strategy would be to open up communication channels between the online and the onsite ʻplatformʼ, allowing the physical space to influence the virtual space and vice versa. There has been pioneer attempts to this approach where NOX office from Lars Spuybroek is an example very close to us. The D-Tower, developed in 2004 by NOX, consists of a physical structure installed in the center of Rotterdam that changes color according to interaction that happens in a website. We think that projects like D-Tower are important but shy experiments. We are looking for something more structural. We believe that such structural changes can only happen in a close cooperation between architecture and software.

Q. Is your app Aim@OMA an example of such cooperation?
No. Aim@OMA is an attempt to get involved with architecture and more specifically with the works of OMA. We have previously developed projects that deal with public space.
One of the projects we developed, consist of a website where you could see in real time a physical space open to the public. Basically, is a website with a live stream, the difference is that online visitors can influence the physical space by uploading text, images or video directly to the walls of the physical space. The reactions of the onsite visitors can be seen online via the live stream. Again, this is another example of a shy experiment but we hope to further develop it in collaboration with architects into something more structural.
Currently, there is plenty of interest in this topic so future collaborations will lead to a deeper relationship between architecture and software.

Aim@OMA is available for download at the iTunes Store: http://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/aim-oma/id380877802?mt=8
——————————————————————————————————————————–
[ad#468-banner]
——————————————————————————————————————————–