Augmented futures
introducing Alternative Arcs + how a digital overlay can change our public spaces
Hello! This is Six Impossible Futures, a newsletter exploring untold futures beyond mainstream narratives. Today, futures of AR in public spaces.
This publication kicks off a series with a working title Alternative Arcs. I believe the best way to shake the feeling that the future is already mapped out — that we are just following along — is to introduce more people to alternative arcs: scenarios, speculations and alternative takes on what futures could hold. Every month, I’ll bring you a new piece in this series.
Augmented and virtual reality technologies tend to come in and out of our radar when major launches are grabbing the headlines — think PokémonGo in 2016 or Meta Smart Glasses release in 2023. Yet behind the scenes, the field goes on to evolve.
A range of AR technologies is in the making: optical see-through devices (mobile glasses, smart lenses, and video see-through), stationary monitor- or projection-based systems (perceived on billboards, public screens, street objects), and spatial AR that deliver immersive experiences in public. Glasses are what many big-tech playes lay money on even with likelihood of failure. Just recently, we’ve seen launches of Sony’s Xreal Air 2 Pro and Meta's collaboration with Ray Ban . But at the same time, Microsoft decided to discontinue their Hololens, and who could forget the infamous Google Glass going on and off the market three times in the past decade? (From 2024 Google is teaming up with Magic Leap, so it seems they are ready to go into the next round). Sure, this technology is yet to have a breakthrough, a killer device and app that will boost the wider adoption. But a significant progress in AR optics manufacturing and component miniaturization take mainstream AR glasses closes and closer to primetime readiness.
Social adoption of AR is also quietly growing through integration of AR into our smart devices. TikTok’s filters are inescapable. They require separate regulation and serve as tools to raise money for charities at once. Banners displayed around football fields in Euro-2024, augmented and tailored to individual viewers via their devices — this too is AR at work.
No doubt, AR can alter not only our personal, but also public spaces, with their ability to get involved into the way we perceive our surroundings. The world around us constantly gives us sensory signals which our brain combines to form the best understanding of what's happening. Our senses almost fully determine how we percieve reality. AR is, in its core, a sense-altering technology. Using AR we can see the invisible, hear, taste, or smell what is not here. Even tactile experience can be simulated with vibration or thermal sensation of special garments. AR therefore can engage our senses — or fool them? — to alter our reality.
Adam Greenfield, technologist and urbanist, in his book Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life, writes:
If nothing else, reality is the one platform we all share, a ground we can start from in undertaking the arduous and never-comfortable process of determining what else we might agree upon. To replace this shared space with the million splintered and mutually inconsistant realities of individual augmentation is to give up on the whole pretense that we in any way occupy the same world, and therefore strikes me as being deeply inimical to the broader urban project.
Put simply, a city where our shared physical reality is no longer truly shared can turn to a fragmented and hostile environment. Public spaces are where we share life with others, so adding sense-altering layers to them demands careful thought. We need to think critically about how this technology could reshape our lives. What would it feel like to live in a world with an augmented layer over the physical everywhere you turn? Let’s have a look at four scenarios that might help you picture it.
Augmented futures
In their 2023 article Augmented futures? Scenarios and implications of augmented reality use in public spaces, austrian researchers Gudowsky, Kowalski and Bork-Hüffer explor four plausible scenarios of how we can experience augmented public urban spaces in 20331. Their main focus is not the technological progress, but the social aspect of living with this technology. This research deals with Central Europe but the final scenarios make sense in relation to other parts of the world as well.
A peek at the methodology
Gudowsky, Kowalski and Bork-Hüffer use the classic way of creating alternative scenarios, that starts with a broad set of possible forces that influence the central issue (in this case, the experience of augmented public spaces). They process and analyze this set to identify the so-called critical uncertainties — the key drivers of difference between alternative futures. Using these uncertainties as a foundation, they craft and evaluate various scenarios, ensuring each one is internally consistent and plausible.2
Around 25 experts contributed to these scenarios, bringing insights from fields such as computer vision, architecture, public participation, media studies, digitalization, urban sociology, foresight, and smart city among others. Experts were invloved from the initial identification and assessment of the influencing factors to reviewing the scenarios as first readers. The research team did an impressive job in assessing the driving forces, not only with a standard impact vs uncertainty ranking, but also gauging mutual influence between them. This allowed the team to uncover factors with the potential ripple effect across the entire system. Let’s have a look at them.
Critical uncertainties
Four alternative futures of AR in public spaces are built on the basis of three critical uncertainties, each posing a question about the direction of change:
What will regulation look like? At one trajectory, strict national or international regulation could protect public spaces as public good, ensure privacy, or set up anti-monopoly measures. At the other, a shift towards deregulation might lead to the privatization of public spaces, unchecked data collection, and increased surveillance.
Who will produce, own, distribute AR content, and profit from it? One trajectory favors a top-down model, where content is centrally produced (think TV) the other — a bottom-up approach (think social media).
How will AR technology evolve? Each scenario correlates with different focus areas and developments in AR. We may see innovations in displays, interfaces, positioning and tracking technologies; development of lighter, longer-lasting and aesthetic devices; or improvement to the supporting digital infrastructure such as AI recognition, faster local networks, or reacher databases for 3D reconstructions and images.
Let’s now visit a city square in 2033, and see how it transforms through the lens of these four futures. We begin in the most plausible future (according to the authors), a.k.a. business-as-usual scenario where today’s trends continue to shape what comes next.
Scenario 1: Big-tech Monopoly
Regulation: largely unregulated in terms of media and content, but liability issues have been regulated for the benefit of technology providers
Content production and distribution: top-down model, heavily advertisement-driven content with personalized consumption recomendations for products, restaurants, shopping and leisure
AR technology: rapid innovation on affordable and user-friendly personal devices, supported by accessible public digital infrastructure such as Wi-Fi and electricity.
It’s a Sunday morning in 2033 and you find youself on a city square that feels both genuine and artificial. The air vibrates with digital signals as ads and personalized notifications steer you through the space, flickering overhead. The fusion of physical and digital brings a certain richness to this place, even if sometimes it feels overwhelming.
In this future, urban public spaces have become thoroughly augmented, thanks to user-friendly and affordable AR devices and free public infrastructure. Massive investments from tech giants have made hybrid reality accessible to everyone, even to previously marginalized groups, who now get targeted support. Most people benefit from this increased access and on-the-go consumption opportunities that come with it. Store windows show not just generic products but items tailored to your taste — perhaps even what you’ve left in your online shopping cart. Billboards feature targeted messages, from exclusive concert invitations to electoral campaigns. Beneath this seamless accessibility lies the engine driving it all: data. Your every step is now another data point harvested for hyper-personalization.
It is hard to resist the constant push of digital overlays. Opting out of augmented reality gives rather real FOMO, as you miss out on new forms of social interactions and brand deals. Polarization escalates between those who want to use the possibilities of augmented life, and those who experience digital fatigue and is concerned with privacy. For the first, public spaces now offer a convenience of a curated environment. For the last is feels like the spontaneity that make public spaces alive is missing. When unscripted encounters are replaced with customer journeys, what does that reveal about who truly owns our public spaces?
Time to leave this version of the city square behind — onward to the next scenario.
Scenario 2. DIY proliferation
Regulation: data protection, privacy, and public space regulations equal today’s, but heavy taxation has broken up tech monopolies, reshaping the digital economy to favor SMEs and individuals
Content production and distribution: AR content is created by smaller companies and independent creators. In creative, music, gaming, events industries there is a boom in AR applications
AR technology: personal AR devices are widely available, highly accepted, and in demand. Flexible usage options are offered, including multi-purpose devices and rental services. Supporting infrastructure is accessible and ubiquitious
The city square clock strikes noon as we enter the second scenario, where the buzz of digital overlays transforms into something different. A street musician’s melody draws you closer. As you near, you realize it’s an AR artist playing your favourite song, her music accompanied by augmented visuals that swirl and sync perfectly with the tune. Around her, clusters of people gather and enjoy the show. By the way, you know they’re hearing their favorite songs too, don’t you?
In this future, AR overlays are hugely embraced. They offer new ways to interact with public spaces: a visit to the same square never feels the same twice thanks to AR constantly offering fresh dimensions. The demand is high for devices and applications, that have become personal assistants, creative platforms, and navigational aids all-in-one. Public infrastructure has evolved to meet this AR boom to ensure you have constant access.
With the monopolies of big tech broken apart, space has opened for smaller businesses and individual creators to take part and profit from AR economy. Musicians, gamers, and visual storytellers thrive, their work transforming urban spaces with creative experiments. Augmented murals unfold on buildings over time, city-wide games turn public spaces into arenas. Even social media is a spatial experience — content anchored to specific locations. Your favorite influencer? They have left a digital message for you right here in the square.
However, loose regulation brings challenges alongside opportunities. For every brilliant piece of digital art or useful information there’s an intrusive ad or jarring disruption. The burden of navigating this landscape falls on individuals who must manage and secure their digital environments. Customizable filters and personal AI assistants become must-haves to curate what you see and block what you don’t. Personal privacy and anonymity is technically achievable but require investment in safety measures as well.
So, the unregulated augmentation creates a paradox in this future. On the one hand, it drives creativity and innovation, even a renaissance of public spaces. On the other hand, the lack of privacy and overwhelm with the flood of content force users to retreat into extremely personalized, curated bubbles, filtering the world down to what suits them best. As personalization deepens, the sense of shared public space dissolves. The city square, alive with overlapping AR layers and the occasional tune played just for you, reveals not only a burst of creativity but also a society divided into isolated realities even in a physically shared space.
Just as you’re starting to make sense of things, it’s time to move to the third scenario.
Scenario 3. Participatory public spaces
Regulation: strict EU-wide regulations in privacy and data security, clear content guidelines and requirements for responsible technology development; tech monopolies face heavy taxation
Content production and distribution: bottom-up, but limited to accredited producers
AR technology: govenment-driven funding improves R&D conditions and prioritize energy efficiency, longer deployment time of AR devices, and the development of open interaction surfaces that work independently of personal devices
In the afternoon, the familiar city square presents itself as a much clearer but in some ways more controlled space. You don’t notice any augmentation until a digital signpost appears as you approach, announcing an upcoming community concert. In this future, AR offers quiet and purposeful guidance, designed to amplify the social good. However, it is far from becoming an essential part of daily life, and for those preferring unmediated experiences, opting out from an augmented layer is always possible.
In this public space, you may occasionaly encounter curated overlays with navigation tips, cultural insights, or public campaigns. Negative media content is noticeably absent, replaced by opportunities for digital participation, collectivity, and co-creation. You spot personal stories of locals projected on the buildings and an invitation for an AR quest around local landmarks. These activities are created to help residents feel more connected to their surroundings and less lonely. People trust AR systems and local administrative structures and even donate selected personal data to improve public services. Many are also willing to engage in AR-based campaigns, such as a campaign for reducing litter. However, this ultra-slick version of public AR might be a little too polished for some: when content comes only form accredited institutions, some mess is left behind.
Government-backed initiatives and investment security ensure that new AR tools serve specific, practical purposes such as improving urban planning. They also make sure privacy stays intact and public spaces are protected as common good. Besides, heavy taxation of tech giants keeps them from tracking our every move and turning it into a profit. Tech giants see these restrictions as lost growth opportunities, a drag on economic prospects, and a serious roadblock to innovation. They are likely shifting gears, focusing on personal AR experiences in smart devices. Think of them as the next-gen camera filters — offering creative outlets on a much more personal scale.
Now let’s pack up this scene and step into our last scenario.
Scenario 4. Autocratic AR
Regulation: Heavy government involvement in tech corporations, strict content controlmandatory data sharing, and e-ID authentication for most services; anonymizing and masking are prohibited
Content Production and Distribution: Almost entirely state-controlled, focused on public services,shaping of opinions and consumption patterns
AR Technology: High-performing devices offered by state-backed corporations; widespread motion and facial recognition in public spaces
As we move into the last scenario, an AR overlay immediately greets you with state-curated announcements on public health and transportation schedules. A group of children gather in a circle, not to play but to watch an AR lesson displayed on their glasses. There are few people on the square, and its order feels unnatural and heavy. You notice a network of AR-enhanced surveillance sensors on top of lampposts and buildings watching every movement of those few visitors.
In this future, AR technology is undeniably powerful, but serves primarily the interests of the state. A small group of government-aligned tech giants produces AR glasses and contact lenses, equipped with advanced object, face, and motion recognition. Their infrastructure supports a data collection network, requiring mandatory e-ID authentication for connectivity. AR devices have become essential for tasks like identity verification at public facilities, transportation hubs, or checkpoints. Each interaction becomes a data point for the authorities, and anonymizing methods are prohibited. AR overlays offer mainly state-approved material: announcements, access to public services, and messages aimed at shaping behaviors and opinions. Of course, there are some entertainment and consumption opportunities, but personalization has been sacrificed for uniformity; everyone sees essentially the same content.
In this future, public spaces prioritize surveillance over social interaction. Parks and recreational areas are designed to discourage unsupervised groups, making them feel less like community hubs and more like places to avoid.
For the majority, life in these monitored public spaces has become routine, with the perceived security it provides. The surveillance and control have almost faded into the background, seen as a trade-off for the convenience of city life. For marginalized groups, however, this scenario is far bleaker. Those who don’t fit neatly into the state’s version of normal find themselves excluded, both socially and digitally. The frustration grows in those who’ve lost their privacy, freedom, and trust in democratic institutions. Every so often, sparks of resistance flare up — through protests, activism, art, or outright defiance — but they’re quickly spotted and suppressed.
As you leave the empty square, the tension between security and autonomy remains unresolved.
So, what’s the big picture here?
What a journey! We’ve seen how AR can alter or sometimes fully form how we engage with public spaces. It’s up to us to decide what we want to achieve with it. Three critical uncertainties established by the research team show the most important decision points that will determine which pathways remain open and which close. For instance, the DIY proliferation scenario becomes plausible only if tech monopolies are broken apart.
Beyond these uncertainties, several themes emerge through the scenarios.
Privatization of public spaces
AR can offer more opportunities to privatize public spaces – allow private companies to profit from them, instead of managing them for public good. Such public spaces can be used for commerce, data collection, and surveillance. In the first scenario, big tech monopolies may control not just AR technology but also the content itself. From Jenny Odell’s Saving Time, I really appreciate this quote:
I keep wanting to do something instead of consume the experience of it. But seeking new ways of being, I find only new ways of spending.
She is talking about the commercialization of leisure, including turning public spaces to places of consumption (one of the possible AR applications, as already pointed). Privatization leave fewer places to just exist and can create exclusionary zones, where you are either a consumer or a danger to the design of the space. Privacy in privatized spaces, too, takes a hit. Across all scenarios, except the third, data collection and/or surveillance put privacy at risk.
Mediating our relationship with spaces
AR overlays won’t just show us content — they will shape our experience of the spaces we inhabit. There is a lot to unpack here: who will decide what’s displayed? Why should we interact with this area in a particular way, and whose interests it will serve? The balance between public and privare, chaos and sterility, control and creativity is delicate, and each scenario favors a unique mix of these components.
Meanwhile, genuine exploration of spaces could diminish in all scenarios. The authors cite a parallel research of theirs, about location-based social media content shaing people’s perception of public green spaces. It is quite clear that consuming social media in a public place channels attention toward selected elements mentioned in those media, rather than the whole environment. AR could intensify this effect, with overlays guiding you through spaces and provoking certain emotional responses — and not alvays positive. Negative content might form the spaces of fear, areas where we won’t want to go, and this can be done on purpose
Opting out of AR varies by scenario, too: from autonomy to choose between mediated and unmediated experience in Participatory public spaces, to the peer pressure or outright coercion, if AR use becomes mandatory for accessing public services.
Digital fatigue and other mental health issues
Not everyone can — or will — learn to navigate an augmented world. Managing AR environments may complicate urban life, especially if comes with additional costs. Interestingly, increased digitalization doesn’t automatically come with an increased understanding of how to manage the tools and ensure one’s safety. Gen Z, for instance, might be born digital but struggles with basic computer skills, because no one ever taught them, assuming their knowledge is a given. With digital environments unchecked, we may see fatigue, screen/device addictions, anxiety, and nature deficit disorder on the rise.
Safety Risks
Beyond societal challenges, there are simpler but no less critical issues, like basic safety. If you’re distracted by an AR overlay — reading, interacting, recording, or just marveling — you’re less aware of your surroundings. One study showed that the accident frequency rose almost 27 percent at intersections augmented with PokéStops. There’s even a Pokémon Go Death Tracker, equal parts alarming and absurd, revealing a side of AR that is not often discussed. The New York Times journalist recently spent a week in Meta Smart Glasses and reported constant feeling of distraction. The device’s built-in camera kept his mind occupied with spotting opportunities to shoot videos, reducing his ability to focus even in risky situations like driving or bouldering. BMW introduced an augmented reality ride concept earlier this year. Are we sure drivers will focus on using navigation aids and safety cues, or or will virtual media screens and gaze-controlled games distract them?
Visual Pollution
The boom of AR could lead to visual (digital? augmented?) pollution, impacting the perception of and quality of life in public spaces. The idea is for overlays to add value, not create a mess. But when the field is unregulated during the technology-adoption phase, or within certain scenarios, using overlays might disrupt public spaces. We need to answer the questions of what’s acceptable and where it’s appropriate, especially when it comes to augmented marketing communications or social media content. Last year NY mayor declared social media an environmental toxin — and that’s before it even stepped into the spatial dimension.
Environmental Costs
The environmental impact of AR adoption is no small matter. Especially in scenarios where personal devices undergo rapid innovation, their frequent upgrades can generate mountains of e-waste. Meanwhile, energy demands may spike, with public spaces turned into continuous streams of location-based data with AI algorithms always on.
Fragmentation of society
Finally, let’s talk fragmentation – a theme that looms more or less over every scenario. Here I come back to Greenfield’s quote on the risks of dividing one reality into individual, mutually inconsistent augmented realities. That fragmentation could manifest in several ways. First, between those who embrace AR to create and consume and those who either opt out or are excluded. Next, inagine how we might find ourselves increasingly trapped by manufactured realities, unwilling to escape them.
There’s the risk of transferring our online echo chambers into the real world (in the first and second scenarios that risk feels particularly pronounced). Charli Chats in her video essay suggests that we’ve grown to expect algorithms to cater to our preferences so precisely that we feel almost betrayed when they don’t. This sense of entitlement might extend to public spaces. What may happen when we expect our shared environments to reflect us perfectly? Naomi Klein in Doppelgänger writes about the importance of unselfing in a culture where “we’re being fed ourself back to us” with the help of algorithms. An interesting reflection on The Practice of Unselfing by
ends with a conclusion that we need unselfing to find common ground with others. From my standpoint, individualized AR bubbles serve for anything but unselfing.And what will happen to social spontaneity? Why strike up a conversation in the dog park to ask about someone’s dog breed when your smart lens can tell you instantly? Public spaces that once thrived on such connections risk becoming lifeless. Worse, as seen in the last scenario, unsupervised encounters might even be discouraged entirely.
By looking at these themes, it’s clear that we should start a big conversation about ethics of AR, similar to that about AI ethics (and no, we shouldn’t delay this discussion until AR gets to its ChatGPT-moment, it will be too late then). We must change focus from technical details of AR to how it will shape not only what we see but how we live, connect, and coexist.
So, the next time you step into a public square, imagine what it could look like if augmented reality worked here. Then, lose yourself in the raw, unfiltered experience.
Honestly, in my opinion a 10-year horizon barely allows for a radical distinction between scenarios to be plausible. While scenarios can be developed for any time frame, they become more insightful and valuable when extended long-term, as uncertainty and possibilities grow with time.
In addition, full-blown scenarios often include pathways detailing how changes or decisions lead to each of the alternatives. Though not part of this research, such pathways would verify if the chosen time horizon is enough for these extremes to unfold. Nonetheless,the four resulting scenarios are thought-provoking and worth exploring.