Buildings are bored, they are controlled by programmatic schemes and designed not to respond to users but instead house them under typical configurations. Alternative interaction in its own process will provide an architecture that sufficiently becomes responsive to resolutions, becoming a hub of natural experience and providing re-imagined value to the user. By means of an activity-based defining procedure, we can solicit awareness in users of space, human condition that occupy the space, and uncover new devices that were hidden.
By rejecting focus on vanity and praise from the beginning, a reorientation can manifest for how architects/developers base their practices. The perceptual approach of photorealistic images manifests a false narrative that promises an effective place of making. However, an investigation of these environments through objects and activity can be a basis to speculate on the possibility of interactive architecture. This argument focuses highly on objects and activities as identifiers for human ability and discourse. This investigation has potentially disruptive and far-reaching effects for architecture but it can be argued that these fields haven’t been developed as a direct response to previously identified architectural demands. Instead, they have risen as a consequence of new technology availability and mass consumerism. Can Architectural development, with its practical conceptualisation and realistic context promise useful spaces for the future? Or do we need to reexamine our built environment not as a deployment to mimic or influence interaction through a program but rather use air as its medium to engage with events directly.