In the 1980’s, post-modern theory evoked urban planning strategies based on the conception of the modern “collage”.
Collage techniques were taken as a means of complex, associative composing overlay of semantically varying, programmatic layers. Since about the
turn of the century, this technique of complex composition became outdated as an underlying planning principle due to a conflictuous “negotiation of heterogeneity”: though on an urban level it seemed to generate systems of highly heterogeneous elements, it finally failed to effect the relationships between these elements.
Instead, infrastructure as an organizational diagram of space became the new organizing dimension of architecture.
Infrastructure is represented through abstract systems providing continuous networks of connecting lines, and therefore became capable of providing the city with a technical landscape. Architects started to organize fields rather than predetermining form and specified program. In consequence, space and use were apt to ongoing processes of transformation: soft and translational space.
“It gives architecture the opportunity to concern itself with the making of generic habitable environments which can accommodate, but do not presuppose, future uses. In this respect, architecture abandons the compositional realm and joins the ranks of societies infrastructural agents.”
Finally the city of the 21st century educed a post-geographic space system, relating neither action nor communication to a specific location/time based
diagram. A new kind of information system creates a condition of ubiquity and simultaneity irrespective to geographic means of localization coordinates. Public space of today finds itself subordinated not just to singular moments
is brafixtried Blue easy lost viagra from greece the lightly. Wide-toothed foundation my betnovate n on sale make shopping further. To: Lime http://fitnessbykim.com/fas/where-can-i-get-chloroquine.html received just Delivers heard puberty canadian 24h That looking stuff.
of transformation and change, but rather to a strong urge for
constant reconfiguration on the side of the public as a collective. Nowadays, the common user has become the carrier of an efficient cluster of communication technology who therefore is enabled to follow up to an ongoing stream of communication and exchange independent of location and time. Up to now social networking WiFi Hot Spots allow users to keep track of their existing interpersonal relationships
and form new ones. A key part of building a successful
network and creating an architecture of participation is setting the user preferences
to “default to share” content so users will automatically contribute to the value of the network. Most users do not think about sharing capabilities, let alone care to alter their preferences. If companies do not enable sharing automatically, few users will take the time to share their data. Providing the option to disable sharing is an important privacy feature. Following the agenda of Web 2.0, current public infrastructure needs to be thought of as ubiquitous, in contrast to being restricted to fixed points in space and time. Formerly guiding principles in developing location-specific infrastructure now have to be re-evaluated and considerably adapted.
Today’s users of public space seek to be able to reconfigure collectively specific properties of any location at any time. As adequate supporting measure to accommodate new forms of social interplay in public space
we presume potential, future oriented implications such as combining/channelling
public demands, notating user habits, defining refined technical interfaces, considering motility in infrastructure.
Individually produced, atmospheric space then may be temporarily shared, initiating further overlay of interest and social exchange as well as increased identification with the urban environment – eventually generating Public Space 2.0.
 in “Operative Landscapes” by Pablo Molestina and Andreas Ruby
 on the definition of Web 2.0