Conclusions Conceptualising Locational, Relational and Virtual Realities

The disciplines of architecture, media studies, urban design, city planning, lighting design, digital design, urban studies, and art represented here, apply a range of paradigms and methods in addressing media-related phenomena. Such diversity makes a critical synthesis both stimulating from a perspective of reflecting on some relatively unfamiliar approaches, and also challenging due to the disparate discourses they each represent. This chapter undertakes analytical summaries of contributions within the three sections, with section overviews synthesising conclusions through a number of key themes arising from the chapter findings and propositions—First, these include the multiple roles that locative media interfaces (both interactive and passive forms) seem to play in individuals’ interactions with a range of places at varying scales, and their perceptions of its value. The considerations of how ‘framing’—of observation, and of contents—effects either more specific or habitual adoption of these media also recurred in a number of guises. Secondly, in terms of how social-media interfaces with spatial representations, the findings and propositions advanced here, also suggest the potential benefits of gamification interventions and urban props in public spaces, and their required locational /design limitations for effectiveness. An exploration of the level of social interactions facilitated in spaces, used the medium of media screens yielding counter-intuitive results about static versus dynamic locations. The outcomes of multiple applications and platforms in a campus context, appear to be possible outliers in considering both locative and social media (within specific time frames). This was followed by critique of prevailing top-down, data-driven approaches to the ‘smart city’ in terms of the data neutrality, representational agency and scale problems they have engendered, highlighting the limitation of this dominant narrative. In contrasting these with emerging design counter-practices, opportunities for re-purposing (‘hacking’) such data platforms for a more localised, collective, inclusive, and bottom-up, ‘smart-citizenship’ were posed. Thirdly, continuing the focus on technology-mediated public space interventions, the dangers of big-data analyses and practices potentially reinforcing existing spatial regimes and inequalities (and creating new ones) was highlighted. In contrast, a compelling case was made for knowledge-based geopolitics ‘noopolitics’ as a driver of spatial networks—with migrant camps & urban informalities posited as ‘counter-laboratories’ of future liveability. Place as context for lifestyles was highlighted in the demonstration of how brand operators and developments they anchor, use luxury to characterise new identities in the case of Milan. And finally, if as has often been proposed, media trends are leading to us becoming ‘more-than-human’, the issue posed is whether our cities need to become ‘more-than-urban’ in order to usher-in true sustainability—And if so, how might designers help to achieve the needed forms and dynamic actions entailed? We develop concept images visualising these key themes.