A post at Cool Town Studios, draws a distinction correctly I think, between creating the ICT infrastructure - wif-fi network etc - and creating the right conditions for people to make use of it. This is something I've posted on before (I'll add the links later when I have time). I read the post immediately after another post at City Comforts, where David Sucher, again correctly, draws the distinction between site planning and architecture.
I'm probably stretching the metaphor a bit, but both problems stem I think from an obsession with making a statement - putting up a flashy building without consideration for the users is it seems too easy - I haven't seen Koolhaas' library in Seattle, but all the reports suggest that is what has happened there. The NY Guggenheim - which I have seen - is another case where the statement overpowers the use.
Similarly all the community based ICT projects I have come across are about infrastructure - creating internet facilities in schools, community centres or teaching pensioners how to use a PC etc are fine, but without giving anyone an idea of what they might want to actually do thay have little chance of acheiving anything for the community.
PCs and PC networks, the internet , etc are tools. Buildings are tools. Their utility as tools comes from being able to use them to achieve other things. While some people get off on knowing about the innards of their PC or complex software development packages, they are the minority and usually recognise that the rest of us have different needs. Unfortunately in the case of architecture and urban design, the geeks have not just taken over, they have redefined the subject in line with their obsession with style and presentation - at the expense of utility for the rest of us.
A good read on this is by Stewart Brand in his book How Buildings Learn. You can see a sample page here.
