Podcast appearances and mentions of bryan boyer

This week, Drewby and Yergy head back to Florida to discuss the case of 4-year-old Bryan Boyer, who just a year prior, escaped civil unrest in his home country of Haiti, only to be killed by the adoptive mother who was supposed to save him.  Support Our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/themiserymachine PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/themiserymachine Join Our Facebook Group: https://t.co/DeSZIIMgXs?amp=1 Instagram: miserymachinepodcast Twitter: misery_podcast Discord: https://discord.gg/kCCzjZM #themiserymachine #podcast #truecrime Source Material: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552694438537 https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2024/05/09/davenport-florida-child-beaten-death-adopted-son/73627577007/ https://www.yelp.com/biz/victory-enterprise-daycare-and-kids-transportation-davenport https://www.polksheriff.org/inmate-profile/2413278 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mother-accused-fatal-beating-adopted-boy-from-haiti_n_663e6f79e4b016fe0480a730 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DludENWoTMk https://www.yahoo.com/news/live-judd-discusses-case-mother-161141851.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADItM6SDiwFcoOhbklf0HYh2NQAqW5bEpyU39Fpy7UNLusgtrIWCrRt6ftXETvvHYTD65fqK4BktUkHiyCkhO1sta74ojGo_2t3VaA8xNDx8BleHiYD_WOcPNRs_6q96t9TpOzzUUdmzyzKe8zwLq5_JtC4j7Cs0FM-bp8Td5Zve https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2024/05/09/davenport-florida-child-beaten-death-adopted-son/73627577007/ https://www.google.com/maps/@28.2148206,-81.6375336,3a,90y,250.65h,82.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgMLukPHHE8poJEFmpQbqGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjPdfev2QgA

Our "Reckoning 375” series continues with a deeper look at how MDOT's "Reconnecting Communities" project is being implemented at the street level. Megan Owens of Transportation Riders United and Todd Scott of the Detroit Greenways Coalition explain how pedestrians are being ignored in the project. Then, two urban planning experts, Harley Etienne and Bryan Boyer, discuss the importance of conducting a better process to potentially remove I-375.

Hello Interactors,I recently returned from an extended trip back east for a talk at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design (GSD). I also threw in quick visits to Boston and New York to visit my kids, and then stopped over in Kansas City to visit family on the way back to Seattle.I was invited to keynote a two-day symposium hosted by the Laboratory for Design Technologies on the role of technology in micro-mobility in urban environments. My friend and colleague, Allen Sayegh, has been tracking my work on Interplace and thought my perspective was worth sharing. I was joined by two other speakers:Carole Turley Voulgaris, Assistant Professor of Urban Planning at the GSD. Carole focuses on explaining what influences decisions on travel through cities. She considers how transportation planning institutions utilize travel decision making to inform their plans, policies, and infrastructure design.Bryan Boyer, cofounder of the architecture and strategic design studio Dash Marshall. Brian is also an Assistant Professor of Practice in Architecture and Director of the new Bachelor of Science in Urban Technology degree at Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan. He is a graduate of the GSD.The title of my talk was a riff on one of my first essays about my time at Microsoft: A Computer on Every Desk and a Car in Every Garage: How Bill Gates and Herbert Hoover Altered How We Interact with People and Place.It was the PC revolution that enabled virtual interaction with others around the world – all while seated behind a glass screen. Meanwhile, automobile proliferation further isolated others from their neighbors and immediate surroundings enabling a virtual interaction – all while seated behind a glass screen. Given these trends, what are the implications for land use, the built environment, and collective mental, physical, and societal health? How did we get here, and where do we want to go…today?As interactors, you're special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You're also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.Please leave your comments below or email me directly.Now let's go…Thank you for reading Interplace. Please share!GSD, LDT, AND THE LCGSA“Technology is accelerating profound changes throughout society, affecting everything we do — how we live, work, produce, build, and think.”These are the words that frame Harvard University's Graduate School of Design's (GSD) Laboratory for Design Technologies. The GSD has a long-storied history. It was the first in the country to offer a landscape architecture class in 1893 and the first in the world to offer landscape architecture degree in 1900. The program was founded by Fredrick Law Olmsted, Jr., the son of the more famous Frederick Law Olmsted. That same year Harvard offered the country's first urban planning courses and by 1929 expanded to become the first urban planning degree in North America.In 1936 the official Harvard Graduate School of Design was launched housing schools of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture. A year later, the famous modern architect Walter Gropius became faculty chair in architecture and the GSD's reputation as a modernist powerhouse was established. In 1972 that reputation was solidified in the iconic concrete brutalist architecture of the GSD's new home, Gund Hall.But in the shadows of the looming starchitects climbing the stairs to the tiered terraces of sundrenched cubicles teaming with design students, was a computer lab. It was here technology minded design professors and students were incubating the foundations of software we repeatedly use everyday to find our way around the world – computer generated maps.In 1965, the Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis (LCGSA) was formed by a Harvard trained architect, Howard Fisher. He was enamored by the work of a University of Washington urban planning professor, Edgar Horwood. The University of Washington geography department had already established itself as a center of excellence in quantitative geography and computer cartography as part of geography's quantitative revolution. Horwood's use of computer cartography spread to Harvard, the LCGSA, and throughout the GSD for years to come.Fisher's program attracted grant money that helped it grow to forty researchers. In the 1970s, the Harvard administration encouraged the commercialization and licensing of research across the university. The LCGSA continued to innovate licensing software and graduating entrepreneurs that fed the infancy of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) industry and discipline of Geographical Information Science (GIScience). In 1969, one GSD landscape architecture graduate went on to create what is now the world leader in GIS software, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI).As more staff left for industry, funding also subsided. By the 1980s Harvard cooled on the commercialization of research, funding was curbed, and the GSD was encouraged by the administration to focus on pure research. The last director of LCGSA, which closed in 1991, was the late Dan Schodek.Dan continued to provide a place for technology minded designers and directed the Laboratory for Design Technologies. I was introduced to Dan by a Microsoft colleague and GSD student in 2007 and Dan invited me to spend a year at the GSD as a visiting fellow. I traveled back to Boston regularly to explore ideas for computer interaction design curricula inside the GSD. It was there and then I was introduced to Allen Sayegh.In the years since, Allen has turned his attention more toward my past – interaction with technologies – while I've turned my attention toward his past – interaction with the built environment. And it is precisely this kind of incongruent and serendipitous collaboration that keeps the GSD, and its technology lab, a fertile source of exploration and discovery. This symposium was no exception. With invited attendees from the University of Bergamo in Italy, who also study urban mobility, students and faculty spent a few days exploring the role technology plays in the built environment and the interaction of people and place.This topic is perhaps more pressing today than in human history, thanks to a worldwide pandemic and the PC revolution. In March the U.S. department of labor released their 2022 survey results on remote work. It reveals nearly seventy percent (67.2%) of information workers continue to choose to work remotely some or most of the time. This contrasts with more traditional industries that require a physical presence like those related to the built environment, including transportation (13.6%) and construction (10.5%).A gulf has formed between those able to chose to work in the ‘virtual' world and those required to work in a ‘physical' world. What does this split say about how we move and interact between and within the physical world and its occupants…or not? How will it impact how cities plan? To unravel how we got here, we should start with Bill Gates. His company, Microsoft, was the primary catalyst for enabling a new way of working and communicating on a tool many now take for granted – the PC.When I started at Microsoft in 1992, the graphical user interface was just taking off and computers stood alone, disconnected from each other. I worked on designing micro-interactions, on micro-computers, in micro-spatial environments. It was microcomputer software, Microsoft.Sharing information between computers required physically walking or mailing a floppy disk to another person. But that was short-lived. By the end of my first year, Windows for Workgroups released which connected computers through growing local area networks (LANs). The ‘sneaker network' was replaced by the ‘ether network'. But this ‘virtual' sharing of information was mostly contained within buildings and campuses. Still, Microsoft Windows enabled microcomputers to share information virtually at a microspatial scale through PCs that were growing in popularity.USER FRIENDLYAs popular as they were, computers were still relatively hard to use. I was hired as part of a growing team of usability engineers and user interface designers tasked with making them easier. Complex software made for complex behavior, observed scientist and Nobel Prize winner Herb Simon in his quote, “The apparent complexity of our behavior over time is largely a reflection of the complexity of the environment in which we find ourselves.”Through a bit of luck, ingenuity, and design iteration, progress on more learnable user interfaces was made. And by 1995, the advent of the ‘Start' button in Windows ‘95, a desktop icon labeled ‘The Internet', and software offered in many languages, Microsoft and the PC industry quickly grew globally. This growth coincided with, and was aided by, the widespread sociopolitical and economic expansion of globalism in the 1990s. Microsoft enabled and inspired people around the globe to consume, produce, and share information virtually at an historical scale. Micro-software at a macro-scale. This global reach prompted Microsoft's ad agency, Wieden+Kennedy, to invent the Microsoft tagline, “Where do you want to go today?”This worldwide virtual connectivity worked in both directions. While people were connecting and collecting, Microsoft was too. For those who elected to do so, we anonymously collected software usage data from far reaches of the world. A feat unimaginable just a few years prior. We could now see what features were being used, how often buttons were clicked, and statistically model how people were interacting with our software. We paired big-data quantitative analysis through remote telemetry with high-touch qualitative analysis from on-site usability labs.Addressing expanding markets and satisfying endless varieties of user goals, demanded more and more new features. By 1998, three years after Windows and Office 95, Microsoft software was perceived as slow and bloated with features. Recalling Herb Simon, the apparent complexity of user behavior was largely a reflection of the complexity of the software environment which we found ourselves creating. To better understand the issue, a colleague and I even sponsored a multi-day workshop at a conference that resulted in a paper paradoxically titled, “Too much of a good thing?” Customers and end-users would complain of too many features out of one side of their mouth and request three more out of the other.In the eyes of Microsoft and its shareholders, too much was a good thing. Between 1990 and 1997 the percent of U.S. households owning computers more than doubled across all demographics. Similar growth occurred throughout other parts of the world with necessary communication infrastructure and wealth. It took 25 years for Bill to achieve his domineering capitalistic dream of ‘a computer on every desk and in every home.' The PC had become a household appliance and Microsoft a household name. The world would never be the same again.Meanwhile, another successful vision of economic and product domination was already over 75 years old and was sweeping the country and parts of the world. In I928, future U.S. president Herbert Hoover, and the Republican party, ran on this campaign promise – ‘a chicken in every pot and a car in the garage.' That promise led to a flood of automobiles that reshaped our land, our behavior, and our society – including how we interact with people and place. The world would never be the same again.Transportation and how we use land are trapped in a perverse self-supporting spiraling circularity from the center outward.  As urban populations grow, housing creeps to the fringes of the city center. This spawn's transportation needs to further away places where more development welcomes new homes and businesses. These new developments require even more transportation which in-turn attracts more growth. More growth requires more transportation. It's a cycle that leads to sprawling urban metropolises and leap frog developments.America is known for its sprawling metropolitan areas, but Europe sprawls too. While 75% of Europeans live in dense urban areas, satellite imagery reveals many of their cities also creep and leap. Paris is currently the darling of championing a more walkable and bikeable “15-minute city”, but just beyond the urban core are the same car dependent suburbs you find in America. Sprawl exists around the world. Many factors play into the self-perpetuated circular calculus of sprawl, but it's broadly a function of income, population, agricultural land value, transportation costs, other socio−economic factors, and climatic and geographic realities.Attempts have been made over centuries to address sprawl with movements like ‘New Urbanism'. We have ‘new' urbanism circa 1950s to the 1980s, ‘new' urbanism of the 1990s to 2000s, and ‘new' urbanism of today. One could argue that even the walled cities of ancient Mesopotamian, Greek, Chinese, and American civilizations were also deemed ‘new' forms of urbanism. We humans seem to always be struggling with needing more space while wanting less sprawl. Bloat. Too much of a good thing?IMAGINING CITIESCity planners, managers, and policy makers have long rationalize planning schemes through quantitative reasoning. For example, in more modern times, beginning in 1826, Johann Heinrich von Thünen devised a model for urban planning in his book The Isolated State. With the city center as the middle of a bullseye, he articulated rings of land use for optimal agrarian economic development. The first ring was reserved for those items that may spoil the fastest or had the highest need, like dairy and market goods. Then came the forest for fuel, grains and crops, ranching, and finally ‘wilderness'…aka, optimal land for new urbanist sprawl.This model was improved upon by Walter Christaller and his Central Place Theory in 1933. I recently wrote about how his theory now has some empirical validity with the Universal Visitation Law of Human Mobility which states the frequency of visits to a location is inversely proportional to their distance.Top down, economic spatial reasoning remains the dominant method of urban planning to this day. And while it's served the economy well, it hasn't necessarily served humanity all that well. One notable critic of this style of planning was urban planner and author Kevin Lynch. Lynch was interested less in the top-down, God-like, cartesian, cartographic image of a city. He advocated for leveraging the mental maps people had of their surroundings. His popular book, Image of the City, included maps of the Boston area derived from the mental maps of area residents.Another popular and influential critic of traditional urban planning was urban activist and author, Jane Jacobs. She was a voice of the people – the occupants, users, and shapers of urban spaces. In her 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she wrote,“There is no logic that can be superimposed on the city; people make it, and it is to them, not buildings, that we must fit our plans.”She frequently spoke out against the patriarchal, top-down, carving up of cities like a monopoly board. And yet, here we are, still playing monopoly on a board carved with lines optimized for the flow of money, private wealth accumulation, and the moving and parking of cars. It's a game that results in players stuck in traffic, often in their car, waiting their turn, with this question in their mind – “Is this where I want to go today?”Sitting in that car, moving in physical space, motorists are increasingly digitally connected to a virtual world out there – just beyond the glass of their automobile. Many of them just came from sitting at a desk digitally connected to a virtual world out there – just beyond the glass of their computer.Embedded in our cities is the digital promise of the Internet of Things, Smart Cities, autonomous driving, and the pervasive, embedded, ubiquitous technology that has turned the automobile into a PC on wheels. And just as with software, a reciprocal relationship occurs. All those connected sensors embedded in the urban fabric, in our phones, and in automobiles make it possible to instrument and monitor how we interact with people and place.It's this very capability that enabled those scientists to turn Christaller's theory into power law through anonymized mobile phone data. But at what price? Both sitting at a PC and sitting in a car, humans are trapped in a physical bubble. The world is virtually available to them at an arms length distance to a mouse, keyboard, and computer screen or a steering wheel, dashboard, and windscreen. All while being inaccessible to the real world. Interactions are relayed through metal, plastic, glass, and silicon that virtually connect us to faraway people and places around the world on a PC, while physically separating us from our family, friends, neighbors, and neighborhoods in a car.It's also led to a digital divide. An estimated 90% of high-income earners in the world have accessed the internet in the last three months versus 20% of low-income earners. If wealth attracts, encourages, and perpetuates car and digital dependency that in-turn is shaping the form of our cities, what impact does this have on societies? It's impossible to predict, but this much we do know: The apparent complexity of our environment is largely a reflection of the environment we find ourselves in. That environment has grown in complexity, and so has our behavior. What emerges next depends, in part, on how each of us answer these questions: Where do I want to go today, how will I get there, what choice do I have, and who is most impacted? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

This episode originally aired April 11, 2018. — Bryan Boyer is a partner at Dash Marshall, an architecture and strategic design studio based in New York and Detroit, where he leads their Civic Futures practice. Bryan studied architecture and interior renovation before heading to Finland to help start the Helsinki Design Lab, where he worked on a team that helped improve public institutions through design. In this episode, Bryan and I talk about the value of an architecture degree, the ideas behind strategic design, and the limits of design thinking. Links from this episode can be found at scratchingthesurface.fm/71-bryan-boyer-rerun. — If you enjoy the show, please consider supporting us on Patreon and get bonus content, transcripts, and our monthly newsletter! www.patreon.com/surfacepodcast

In this conversation, Philip spends time with three of the editors of the recently released Design for Social Innovation: Case Studies from Around the World. They discuss the origin of the project, how you navigate geographies of power and how design moves from the fringe to replicable models. The Drop – The segment of the show where Philip and his guest share tasty morsels of intellectual goodness and creative musings. Philip's Drop: Gankutsuou: The Count of Monte Cristo (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437719/) Marianna's Drop: The Power of The Dog (Netflix) (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10293406/) Bryan's Drop: LaserWriter II – Tamara Shopsin (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374602581/laserwriterii) Special Guests: Andrew Shea, Bryan Boyer , and Dr. Marianna Amatullo.

Ep. 80 - Bryan Boyer on Autonomous Vehicles and Their Impact This week, Carla Diana and Tom Guarriello speak with architect and public sector innovator Bryan Boyer about autonomous vehicles and their impact on cities and on us. Show Notes Anthony Townsend of Bits and Atoms Carla's Popular Science Robot's Brain article Bloomberg Aspen Initiative on Autonomous Vehicles in Cities Stewart Brand's "pace layers" Garnter's Hype Cycle Global Atlas of Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Projects Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses Alain Kornhauser Smart Driving Newsletter Atlas of AV Civic Initiatives Ocado Robotic Grocery Warehouse The RoboPsych Podcast has been voted one of the Top 5 Robotics Podcasts by Feedspot readers. Thanks for listening to the RoboPsych Podcast. Please subscribe and review! Subscribe in iTunes Subscribe on Overcast RoboPsych.com

Bryan Boyer is a partner at Dash Marshall, an architecture and strategic design studio based in New York and Detroit, where he leads their Civic Futures practice. Bryan studied architecture and interior renovation before heading to Finland to help start the Helsinki Design Lab, where he worked on a team that helped improve public institutions through design. In this episode, Bryan and I talk about the value of an architecture degree, the ideas behind strategic design, and the limits of design thinking. Links from this episode can be found at scratchingthesurface.fm.

The New Citizenship project wants to challenge the idea of an individual as a consumer - and replace it with the individual as a citizen, using the techniques of marketing and public relations(usually associated with consumerism) to do so. in this latest podcast from Civic Radio, Jo Barratt talks to  Jon Alexander and Irenie Wilson, the Directors of the New Citizenship Project. Has the world of commerce encroached irrevocably on our civic spaces, and how much do we care? How much is civic exclusion growing because of what participation demands or expects of us? Civic Radio is on the road, seeking out the people and organisations that are exploring these topics in different ways. The New Citizenship Project is interested in how you create a shift in the dominant story of the individual in society from the Consumer to the Citizen. Subscribe on iTunes to Citizen Radio.. Produced by Jo Barratt. This is the latest podcast in the Civic Radio series. Other podcasts in this series can be found here: Launch of Civic Radio with writer and urbanist Adam Greenfield Social inequality and civic participation featuring Simon Willis, CEO of the Young Foundation At the service of the citizen:redefining civic tech conversation with tech activist Laurenellen McCann Re-imagining local government  with Anna Randle of Lambeth Borough Council, London Aral Balkan on being a citizen Can public servants change the face of local government? with Dave Seliger, a New York civil servant. Civic Innovation and the Interconnected City with Bryan Boyer

"Citizenship is about participating in a thing that is bigger than yourself and in which everyone has an equal stake.”  says architect Bryan Boyer.   In this latest podcast from Civic Radio, Bryan Boyer a US architect who spent some time in the Finnish Innovation Fund in Helsinki, talks to Jo Barratt about re-imagining the libraries in New York and the importance of reconceptualising the civic.   With a bill for repairs that would top $1bn dollars (more than a universal childcare pledge), a grand library building programme was unlikely to be championed by New York politicians, so Boyer and his team had to find another approach, one that would leverage alternative forms of capital – time, expertise and also the institutional weight of individuals, communities, museums,  and non-profit organisations  - which could effectively  de-risk investment in civic assets.  It is, he says, crucial to demonstrate that innovation can bring good results, and at the same time de-risk the innovation (innovation can be scary for politicians), so that local politicians can buy in. So what role does he see for public institutions?  For Boyer they provide ‘continuity and scale’.  Pubic institutions are important because, he says, they deal with large numbers of people in equal, fair and consistent ways.  However, because of their sheer scale they have often abstracted the detail – it is statiscitcal analysis rather than the experiences and needs of individuals, that drives policy. The big issue is making public instituions more responsive. A lot of people in the UK are talking about a ‘digital public space’,could this be the answer?  According to Boyer it is important (and he commends gov.uk for its friendly interface), but ‘we still need to coexist on the street.’  We have to rethink how the core of an institution works. So,  do civil servants really understand the potential of open data portals?  Boyer is clear that top civil servants know that a different approach is needed(but feel constrained by the system), and certainly front line staff at the bottom of the food chain know what is at stake and have the best ideas of what is needed.  But there are two problems.  Firstly, the tech community is not coming up with the killer apps that will seize the initiative, and secondly the huge number of civil servants in what he calls the ‘Fat Middle’ (a term he used in Helsinki) is so disconnected from the everyday concerns of citizens that they cannot see the need for a new way of working. How can  ‘civic spaces’ (such as schools, parks, post offices and libraries) retain their importance at the heart of the community when they are increasingly facing competition from private providers?  The so-called ‘white flight’ from US cities in the 1980s meant a lower tax base for public services, which led to a vicious cycle of decline – the services deteriorated, so few people were then prepared to fight for them, they became sink services. In part, says Boyes, this is a failure of the conceptualisation of the civic.  We need to develop services that people really want to use, and persuade them to participate in those services as citizens but, importantly, it is also about initiating a healthy conversation about funding the civic parts of our lives. A key recognition is that civic institutions are linked – the swimming pool and the library and the park together give us an understanding of the connectedness of the city as a whole – and of utmost importance is affordable, efficient public transport that enables us to move around the city, and the safety and cleanliness of our streets.  Here there is also a role for civic tech – to connect us to what is going on (though as Boyes points out, he doesn’t know of one single place where information on  all the events and activities being run by the public authorities can be viewed.) ====================== Photo of Tampa, Florida by John T Howard 

Has the world of commerce encroached irrevocably on our civic spaces, and how much do we care? How much is civic exclusion growing because of what participation demands or expects of us? Civic Radio is on the road, seeking out the people and organisations that are exploring these topics in different ways. In this episode we meet Bryan Boyer.    Civic Radio is part of the Civic Shop and is published by Tech for Good TV

The work we do, where we do it, who we do it for, how much of our time we spend on it, and why we work are all in flux. To understand where all of this is going, this week "Knight Cities" talks with Bryan Boyer, principal at Dash Marshall; a partner at Makeshift Society; and a member of the board of directors at Public Policy Lab. Bryan is both thinking and acting on the growth of the independent economy and what it means to America. His three-part meditation on the questions this new economy is raising appeared on Medium earlier this year while he was guiding Knight Foundation’s thinking on how to harness more talent in Knight cities. And he calls the startup of Makeshift Society in Brooklyn his exploration of what the 21st century chamber of commerce for the design community might look like.

Hear from Grace Bonney’s mentor and friend, Rena Tom, on this week’s installment of After the Jump. Rena is a California native who has been involved in everything from consulting, to jewelry design, to founding the collaboration-minded Makeshift Society. Tune into this episode to hear Rena talk about her upbringing, and how her family pushed her to start her own business. Learn about Rena’s time in Park Slope, and her experiences owning the jewelry design store, Rare Device. How do small businesses and creative circles differ in San Francisco and Brooklyn? Also in the studio is architect Bryan Boyer. Listen in to hear Rena and Bryan talk about her newest venture, Makeshift Society, and how it has grown and expanded to the East Coast. This program has been sponsored by Fairway Market.   “It’s been a lot of fun dreaming and trying to bring the vision of Makeshift to more people.” [18:10] — Rena Tom on After the Jump