Furthermore new possibilities of replacement and repair can

Furthermore, new possibilities of replacement and repair can improve the safety of glass structures. By incorporating both alternative load paths and de-bond-on-demand joints in the design, damaged structural elements can be replaced safely. Moreover, self-healing protective coatings, which can warn of their wounds, open up the opportunity to quickly provide the external stimulus needed for self-healing. In this way, the wounds can be self-healed in a matter of minutes. Thus, by lessening the harmful effects of damage, the safety of transparent buildings can be improved (Figure 31). Finally, in the near future, the revolutionary transparent screens can be fully exploited in glass buildings. With the next generation of gecko adhesives, light, transparent, flexible, and double-sided screens can easily be attached to and removed from glass surfaces. On glass surfaces, double-sided screens can be used simultaneously from both sides. In other words, advanced reversible adhesives can make glass buildings fully compatible with the new generation of transparent double-sided screens (Figure 32).
Conclusion Advancements in science and technology can improve both the efficiency and appearance of transparent buildings for the following reasons:
Introduction Residential neighborhoods are places of potential social interaction and social relations. Understanding how those interactions and relations develop needs to be understood, because the development of wee1 inhibitor life is a fundamental process in social organization and experience (Almgren, 2001). Neighborhoods expose their residents to factors distinct from (while operating in conjunction with) family processes inside the homes (Grannis, 2009, pp. 1–3). Different neighborhoods have different types of effects; they could maintain social order or disorder, facilitate or inhibit cooperative action, and make neighbors appear as either resources or threats. Gehl (2011, p. 77) measured a public space׳s social success, whether in civic, shopping, or residential settings, by its total “liveliness”, that is, the total number of people participating in the space. He presumed that if the people are there, active and complex urban life including social interactions can follow. In residential settings specifically, Brower (2011), Grannis (2009), and Gutman (1966) have sought interaction networks more explicitly; through network formation, a residential neighborhoods׳ social relations can tend toward identification of “community”. Putnam (2001) posited that social networks and their expectations of reciprocity have value, both to network members and, at least in some instances, to the general public. Even casual social interactions or connections have value; they increase the likelihood that one person will come to the aid of another when needed. Outcomes of social networks include child welfare, educational performance, personal health, public participation, compliance with laws, and frequency of crime (Holtan et al., 2015; Putnam, 2001).
Previous studies
Method
Results Table 1 lists the social networks found to reside or work in the dwellings facing the sample area. The different groups were not associated with the neighborhood׳s two types of dwellings (townhouses and apartments); residents in all groups lived in both types of dwellings. One lady who is classified in Table 1 with the “older” group had a unique role in the neighborhood. She was both retired and anxious for family-like company, so she interacted intimately with young families from the “outdoor” group. She had tragically lost her whole family in a car accident, and now was living by herself. She said that she was never going to be the grandmother she had always wanted to be. She sat on her porch reading, making herself more visible than other older residents. She joined one of the young families whenever they were in the shared space. She evolved into the surrogate grandmother for the family׳s young child, to the extent that the parents sometimes brought their child to her front door, where she took him inside to take care of him. There were no other individuals from the “older” group who regularly participated in the outdoor space, and no other individuals who casually mingled between the different groups defined in Table 1.