ideas

Oh my! What we have electrified.   (contemplation on electrification)

I think of all the things, in my life and history, 

upon which we have bestowed the gift of electricity. 


Awoken by a clock that lacks a winder or weight 

No need for some paper to help me plan out my day


Some coffee or tea, juice or a smoothie

Just press a button and you’ll have it, it’s really that easy. 


Burn some bread to make toast and smear it with butter

Just plug in the filament and I need nothing other. 


What are the things, that you do every day, 

That have been improved with electricity? 


Time to clean up with a clip and a shave

With no need to lather, I guess it’s something that’s saved. 


Don’t forget the teeth, you must brush them well. 

But you must charge the batteries, that much I can tell. 


To check my mail, ride a bike, read a book, 

All preceded with an ‘e’, upon a closer look. 


Recharging my brain, reveals a mystery,  

Is there really a need for so much electricity? 


Now off to that thing which I do all day. 

With electric energy, is there no other way? 


Does everything I do, or have, need a watt? 

When I stop to think, it adds up quite a lot. 


Surly there’s a game i can play with no power 

How did they used to get light after hours? 


I think of the future, oh what a pity, 

If we can’t live our life without electricity 


Are we able to learn, come together and share 

Without an electrician to help us prepare? 


Get together with friends, to dance and to sing, 

To live our life as we wish, without the need to plug in 


May be a quest that is worth the task, 

But is it achievable, who knows, alas 


Maybe I’m wrong or thinking cynically, 

But we may have been cursed with electricity. 


A life support system can save you in time. 

Or electrocution for a bad enough crime. 


Electrons surround in life and in death.

Can we even escape after taking our last breath? 


When we lay down our heads, for eternal sleep. 

Will we finally unplug and let the power deplete? 

What is architecture?  

What is architecture?

This may seem like a silly question to ask on an architecture website.  You may think: easy, ask anyone or look it up in a dictionary; architecture is the design of buildings or other constructed spaces; or it could, also, refer to a style of building, that's a nice clean answer.


So we're done, right?  Not quite.


When asking a question like "what is architecture?'', what is really being asked is what makes a building or space architecture as opposed to just a building or a space.  I recently came across an article that started by noting; 'asking an architect to design a safe building is like asking a chef to cook a safe meal'.  It's a low threshold of expectation, something expected but much less than what the architect, chef, or even the person making the request, really wants.  In fact, this is so low of a threshold that the architect or chef is unlikely to even mention these specific criteria when defining architecture or cuisine respectively.  So asking "what is architecture," is in a sense, akin to asking; 'what is cuisine' or 'what is fashion'.  All food is not cuisine, all clothes are not fashion and, likewise, all buildings are not architecture.  Some would even argue that architecture does not exclusively include buildings.  This may seem a bit pretentious but as architects it is important to evaluate what we are doing, in the big picture.


So, again, our question; what is architecture?

If you ask an architect, you are likely to find a variety of definitions.  In fact you are likely to get as many different answers as architects you ask.  In his "Ten Books on Architecture" Vitruvius devotes a chapter to the fundamental principles of architecture and goes on to assert that architecture "must be built with due reference to durability, convenience, and beauty."  All ten books describe architecture in detail, but many have looked at this passage as Vitruvius' own definition of architecture.  Since this, our oldest surviving example of architecture theory, there have been countless writings that address just what defines architecture.  Vitruvius' definition does offer a basic framework that many others have referenced; durability - a physical object with sound structure; convenience - functional design that serves its users; and beauty - a pleasing aesthetic in form and materials.  These have been singled out by some as having more importance than others.  



Durability


One thing we can agree upon is that architecture depends on the built form, right?  I mean many architects have famously, and less famously, noted the importance of a built structure to define architecture.  Vitruvius’ own definition starts with stating architecture “must be built….”  Likewise, Le Corbusier declared "a house is a machine for living in", the physical structure must exist to do the “living in” after all, right?.  Alvaro Siza stated "architecture is geometry",  also noting the importance of the physical.  Nicolai Ouroussoff wrote that “Architecture is a physical experience, it needs to be seen and touched to be wholly understood.”, and even Ludwig Mies van der Rohe insisted that "architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together."  


But if we dig further we find that even the point that architecture starts with a building, or other physical object or form, is not necessarily in the consensus.  Some have completely rejected the idea of architecture having to be built at all, perhaps most famously Lebbeus Woods who wrote that we should "resist the idea that architecture is a building", insisting that "architecture is about ideas", a sentiment echoed by, Francisco Mangado who similarly stated "architecture is not always synonymous with building"  and Qingyun Ma who said "architecture is more about ideas than materials."  


These thoughts are not, necessarily, contradictory.  Much of the architecture we study in school we study only as their representations.  We may not visit the buildings we study, let alone all of the buildings that are published which have an impact on the profession.  After all, who among us has the time or resources to visit all the buildings we want.  Can we not expand our knowledge of architecture other than through first hand experiences?  If we don’t visit a building and experience it, is it not architecture?  We have surly studied and appreciated buildings that have since been demolished or succumb to the ravages of time.  But we may have descriptions, drawings, or other physical representations of them.  If a building is demolished, is it no longer architecture?  If you would agree that it is still architecture, then what is the difference between a building that was demolished 1,000-years ago and one that was designed but never built 1,000-years ago, and what does 1,000-years have to do with anything, how about 1-year, 1-day ago, does it make a difference?  



Convenience


So, if we can't even agree about architecture being built, where do we go from here? Well we can look back at the quote from Le Corbusier above which alludes to the function of a building, referencing the convenience part of Vitruvius' definition. Many are surely familiar with the statement attributed to Louis Sullivan that "form follows function", putting use in the driver's seat.  Without an initial need to fulfill a function, form cannot start to take shape, regarding architecture.  In fact function is a familiar theme when looking at how architects describe architecture.  Steven Ehrlich said that "architecture is first and foremost about serving people..." and "to design buildings that fulfill their practical purpose...."  Some have even given so much priority to function that the importance of form seems to start to dwindle.  For instance Harry Seidler stated that "architecture is not an inspirational business" and instead "it's a rational procedure...." André Tavares has said that “architecture is not about the creation of newness but rather about the fulfillment of needs and expectations." While, Yoshio Taniguchi stated "architecture is basically a container of something, I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea."  


Some of these statements by architects seem to suggest that, if a solution to a problem of function is solvable without building, it could still be an architectural solution.  If function is key, there are many ways to solve problems, even spatial ones, which may not include what we typically consider architecture.  It is even conceivable that a building could be the source of a problem, and removing it is the solution.  That was the approach taken with the Pruitt Igoe housing projects.  So, could the destruction of a building be architecture?  This seems counterintuitive to how we are trained, but likely something that someone like Gordon Matta Clark, who explored “making space without building it”, could agree with. However, it is hard to defend that function alone defines architecture, as much as it defines cuisine or fashion.  Purely utilitarian structures are not typically those which are applauded as great architecture or advancing the profession.  While architecture does center around functional space, those that are designed with care and have other qualities beyond function alone, are the ones we celebrate.  While you may be hard pressed to find an architect who thinks function, or convenience is not important, most believe aesthetics, or beauty, are nearly, just as, or even more important.  



Beauty


Many, arguably most, architects would put beauty at the top of the list when defining what makes a building architecture.  Alvaro Siza took this to the extreme when he said "Beauty is the peak of functionality! If something is beautiful, it is functional…. Beauty is the key functionality for architects… a search for beauty should be the number one preoccupation of any architect."  Many may not take this intense of a stance but most feel strongly about beauty.  R. Buckminster Fuller famously stated; “When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.”  So, it is probably safe to say that beauty, aesthetics, is key in defining architecture.  However, as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Architects have debated what defines beauty in architecture, probably since the beginning of time.  Vitruvius’ book sets out a set of complex rules about architecture.  Presumably if you don’t follow the rules the result is not beautiful. But, again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Rem Koolhaas once said “talk about beauty and you get boring answers, but talk about ugliness and things get interesting,”  highlighting our interest in discussing beauty and aesthetics about architecture, and in general.  


Similar conversations happen around art.  What is art, what is beautiful.  Art is something else countless architects have compared with architecture.  Some have even equated the two and placed architecture at the forefront of art.  Frank Lloyd Wright stated "the mother of art is architecture, " and, while not typically associated with architecture Havelock Ellis stated that "...architecture is the beginning of all the arts…”  But what kind of art?  Julia Morgan plainly stated that “architecture is a visual art” while Peter Zumthor insisted that "...architecture is a sensuous art..." something you experience and is perceived with the senses, something you feel, beyond the visual”.  I think Jay A. Pritzker, of Pritzker Prize fame, summed things up nicely when he said “Architecture is intended to transcend the simple need for shelter and security by becoming an expression of artistry."  


Using such a subjective word as beauty, then, may not be our best approach.  Since what is considered beautiful does change across space and time, just like fashion, or even physical features.  Different cultures, different times throughout history, define beauty differently.  With so many different interpretations of beauty, can we agree that architecture must be beautiful?  If it is not beautiful, is it not architecture, or is it bad architecture?  When identifying something, or someone, as beautiful we are usually referring to physical features including shape, form, proportion, symmetry or balance, and the entire composition, the relationship between different parts that make up the whole.  With architecture we also consider context, scale, materials, color, texture, details, decoration, or lack thereof, and countless other factors.  Is it possible to create an objective definition of beauty?  Philosophers have tackled this question throughout time, so we will leave it to them.  Even if we do not agree what is beautiful, maybe there can still be a consensus that aesthetics play a role in defining architecture.  For lack of anything better let’s consider beauty as thoughtful design, that considers the factors mentioned above, even if we still debate its success.  After all, we live in a world where everything is designed.  



Design


As we, I, struggle to define ‘what is architecture’ we may consider what else can define architecture beyond the three characteristics outlined by Vitruvius.  Considering what has been addressed thus far, are there any commonalities between durability, convenience, and beauty?  Even if everyone doesn’t agree on these characteristics, can we believe that the act of architecture is deliberate?  It is created on-purpose (and for a purpose, i.e. convenience), is it not?  It has never been argued that architecture is a natural occurrence, even if that natural occurrence has the properties established by Vitruvius.  Think about it, a cave can offer durability, convenience (function), and beauty, but, is it architecture?  Architects would surely argue against this.  So, let’s agree that a key factor in defining architecture is that it is deliberate, intentional, designed.  As discussed above, design also considers beauty, or aesthetics, but doesn’t assume a subjective nature.  Design, whether good or bad, is still design.  


Design, of course, is not exclusive to architecture.  We live in a world where everything is designed, the technology on which you are reading this, whether digital or print, the clothes and shoes you are wearing, the mode of transportation you use, packaging, literally everything.  So, how do we separate architecture from everything that is designed?  Does it have to do with size, or scale?  Maybe.  Architecture is typically thought of spaces that can be occupied or buildings that can be observed from afar.  But there is large scale art that we can occupy, how do we separate that from architecture.  Richard Serra, who famously creates pieces of art many have compared with architecture, offered a suggestion when he stated that “art is useless, not useful.”  He is offering a clear separation between art and architecture, that of function. 


Likewise, architects often talk about placemaking.  Yes, all types of designers work to create places with simple interventions, like landscaping, benches, even signage, but none of these are architecture.  So, if we are to "resist the idea that architecture is a building,” what do architectural ideas and architectural buildings share?  What are these ideas about?  Perhaps Victor Hugo offers some insight in his observation that “architecture has recorded the great ideas of the human race.”  Christopher Janney shares some wisdom when stating that “architecture is a frame of mind, it’s about ideas” but noted that “the profession is about how to translate those ideas into the real world.”  This implies a separation between architecture as an act and architecture as a profession, and recognizes that architecture is complex and cannot be singularly defined.  



Contemporary


In order to take in the big picture sometimes it is important to step back and consider the context and perspective of architecture.  As with art, the meaning of architecture has changed throughout history depending on the context, both physical and social, and perspective, which changes constantly.  Just as what is found favorable aesthetically has changed throughout time, so have the factors that define architecture, and influence what is considered “good” architecture, throughout history.  We live in a time where sustainability, equity, and history are playing larger roles in the world, including architecture.  With this in mind, this may be a good time to reflect on how we define architecture, good, bad, or otherwise.  Asking ourselves, from time to time, “what is architecture?” is a time to reflect on what the state of the profession is.  While it may seem like a purely academic or philosophical question, it does not have to be, and shouldn’t be.  


The question we are really asking is, what is architecture today?  Yes, it has function and is designed, but in our time it must also respond to the zeitgeist.  Today, architecture must address issues of sustainability, social responsibility, and equity as much as it must address changing technology, material science, and changes in social norms, like how we use space.  Considering the time we live in, it is quite likely that architects will be engaged in more and more projects that are not buildings but do address the issues of architecture.  Architects are problem solvers, so architecture’s primary goal should be to solve problems.  Our first step in this process is to understand what the problem is, or more likely what the many problems are and seek out the solutions.  Architecture is multifaceted and, therefore, cannot be defined singularly, it cannot exist if it fulfills only one criteria.  So, maybe searching for a single definition could be considered a fool's errand (seems I may have played the fool here).  But, just as in the practice of architecture, the process can be just as rewarding as the outcome.  


Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said “architecture is frozen music.”  But, architecture is a journey, both figuratively and literally.  Architecture is physical as well as temporal, it is three-dimensional, no, it is four-dimensional as it requires experience, even if not in situ, likewise, architecture exists during its time in history.  Architecture cannot be frozen as it must exist in time as well as space, and so must its definition. 



Final Thoughts (for now)


Architecture is about more than buildings, it is also about ideas.  A drawing, essay, or model, could be considered architecture, just as a recipe could be considered cuisine, or a composition considered music.  It may be incomplete but it still is.  Considering the differences between clothes/fashion and food/cuisine, may offer insight.  What separates buildings from architecture may be quality of materials (ingredients) and design, the user's experience, the designer's intent, and its role in culture.  Often a notable moment in art, music, fashion, and yes, architecture, has an impact that shapes the future both within and separate from the profession.  An impact to the built environment, even if academic or theoretical, is what defines architecture.  So, while architecture is about more than buildings and can be created or influenced without a building, it is about the built environment.  The final product that we, as architects, produce is typically a set of construction documents; like a composer writes music, until it is performed it has not been fully realized.  Architecture is about buildings in the macro but is not necessarily about buildings in the micro. 


I challenge you to explore and answer this question for yourself, based on your context, perspective, and values.  To continue the conversation, quotes from others who have attempted to answer this question will be posted on Twitter with #quoteforarchitecture, join in by sharing yours.  


Thank you. 

Inclusive Space 

In light of recent events, particularly in public space, i feel compelled to address the issue of the design and use of public space and inclusive design.  It's not my intention to debate the about the groups identified that have been the center of much of the recent press coverage but rather to focus on the spaces people use to express their opinions, and how these spaces reflect the values of the society in which they exist.

I will state, for the record, however, that i'm a firm believer in democracy.  To me democracy is inclusive, welcome to all, without condition or prior approval.  The contrary to this are those actions, groups, beliefs, and spaces that exclude, setting standards or criteria which, must be met, for participation. People who gather for inclusion, in my view, cannot be classified as equal to those who gather for exclusion.  The groups we support and associate with as individuals, or as a society as a whole, reflect our values, our priorities, and our goals.

So how does all of this affect us as architects and designers?  All of the spaces we create reflect these very same things; the values of us, our clients, and the public we engage.  Whether specifically intended for public use or not, many of the projects we participate in affect the public in some way. Even if a public space is not included, everything we do exists in a context that includes building users, and non-users, who interact with our projects even if just as a passerby.  So, do our projects contribute to inclusion and limit exclusion?

Inclusive space, simply put, includes people.  Public space that is fairly distributed, with free access and movement within, is characteristic of inclusive space.  However, it doesn't have to be exclusively public space.  Private space that engages the public can also be inclusive.  Space that is accessible, invites people in, welcomes participation, allows for free expression and the exchange of ideas; are qualities worth striving for.  Inclusive spaces may consist of different areas for different levels of involvement, active or passive, for the spectator and for the active participant, but it provides the same level of access to all, without exclusion.

Conversely, exclusive space, well, excludes, separates, prohibits.  While private spaces may first come to mind, exclusive space may be either public or private.  Either way, exclusive space can be associated with barriers, both physical and social.  The term "exclusive" has the air of of prestige in our society, as in an exclusive club or event, where attendance is highly desirable but limited, typically only to those willing to pay an exorbitant fee or meeting a specific set of criteria.  Exclusive space may be the V.I.P. area at an entertainment venue or even a private neighborhood park.  Even the unfair distribution of public space can be considered exclusive city planning.  Of all the public parks initiated by Robert Moses very few are located in minority neighborhoods. As he designed the roadway system that would provide access to Jones Beach, and other State Parks, low bridges were added to prevent access by public bus.  This is clearly inequitable, allowing only those of certain abilities or wealth, access.  Even accessible space , if it limits movement within, and allows for the control of space by others, may be exclusive.

So, how do we work to insure the spaces we design are inclusive?  Start with a thoughtful approach, respect the scale and character of the community in which you're working and invite community organizations to participate in design charrette's during all phases of the project.  As you design include features that attract and engage the public, even for private projects.  Provide amenities that improve usefulness of the space by the public and encourage people to say a while and explore.  A recent study, investigating factors that encourage kindness between citizens, singled out art as a key contributing factor that inspires empathy, critical thinking, and healthy dialog. Including public art, as part of our projects, not only enriches the visual character of our communities but can increase our public engagement and is one way to create more inclusive spaces.

I urge everyone, architects, designers, and engaged citizens, to strive to make all spaces inclusive, and to advocate for more equitable public space.  This happens at all scales; from city planning, whose broad strokes can define a communities character before anyone has moved in; the design of public spaces that allows free access and movement; down to the design of site features, including furnishings, barriers, site lines, and lighting; along with public policy that governs the use of our public spaces.  Those spaces where we open dialog, express ourselves, and work for progress are necessary to maintain a healthy society which engages its citizens in a fair, equitable, and inclusive way.

Tariffs for a Green Economy 

Can we use tariffs to build a green economy?  Imagine if the debates you hear on the news were about tariffs that promote sustainability. 

What if there were of tariffs like these: 

Shortly there would still be debate about tariffs, some of the arguments would likely be the same while others would be clearly different.  Most are aware that the general goal of tariffs, putting politics aside,  is to change the behavior of those whom the tariff is being placed upon.  A sort of tax on “bad” behavior if you will.  Justification for the current tariffs has included unfair trade practices and national security, among others. So, one could argue, the tariffs are a tool, used to influence those engaged in unfair, or undesirable behaviors, with a goal of changing those behaviours.  Alternatively, tariffs can be used to encourage more preferable behaviors, using more domestic supply chains for raw materials and technology, for instance.  So, it seems like tariffs could be a tool in our path towards a more sustainable society.  

In practice, the cost of tariffs are not paid directly by the entity upon which they are placed, but are instead paid by those who purchase the tariffed goods.  This has been a point of contention in our current situation in the USA, where the general public perception of tariffs is that they are “bad” as they hurt consumers by increasing prices on consumer goods.  These increased prices can serve as an encouragement to purchase other, non-tariffed goods, the producers of these alternate products may look at these tariffs as “good,” as they make their products more competitively priced and, potentially, bring in new customers.  Presumably these goods are produced by entities with more favorable behaviors, fair trade practices for instance.  These changing purchasing behaviors, away from the tariffed goods, are the real cost paid by those being tariffed.  With the goal that they will lead to a change in the behaviors that provoked the tariffs in the first place, creating a more fair playing field. 

It is here that we see the case where tariffs can be a tool in our move to a more sustainable economy, and society.  The fact is we should be paying the true value of the products we consume, and, in all likelihood, we are not.  I’m not in favor of putting undue financial burdens on people, but I’m not opposed to tariffs either, in fact I would support them for the right reasons.  It’s hard to argue against the fact that our capitalist society has thrived off of worker exploitation.  There are countless stories of the use of child labor, slave labor, menial wages, and horrid working conditions in factories overseas that produce goods for the western world.  A sustainable society is built around the triple bottom line, which includes social equity.  If we are to build a society that promotes social equity, that includes fair and equitable labor practices.  This includes fair living wages, a safe and healthy working environment, access to healthcare and time off, freedom from discrimination, no child or forced labor, and the like.  These aren’t unreasonable requests but, some, or all, of these are lacking throughout the world.  

It’s sad to say but, while the USA has laws against child and slave labor, we still benefit greatly from unfair labor practices throughout the world, and even within our borders.  Even those of us who work to be more sustainable may support illegal labor practices, through the purchases we make, due to the lack of transparency.  We are often ignorant of where our products come from, what they’re made of, and who makes them. If tariffs were placed on all goods entering the country that could not demonstrate fair labor practices we would likely be paying a more realistic price for all of the items we consume, from food, clothing, electronics, etc. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, that if we lived in a world where all workers had a living wage and the other benefits listed above, and abandoned this culture of abuse, prices would rise, likely significantly.  For this reason, this approach would likely not find immediate favor with many and can only come with a real push towards a sustainable society while working holistically.  

If we are truly looking to build a sustainable economy and sustainable society we should be paying a fair price for all we consume.  A price that reflects the true value; the true cost of raw materials extraction, farming, production, transportation, the whole life cycle.  By identifying unsustainable practices, as well as sustainable practices, tariffs can be used as a tool to help build a sustainable world.


Scale 

Scale is about size, specifically relative size.  It's best understood relative to people. Since we all know how big people are, generally speaking, a relationship can be easily determined.  Scale can also reference the relative size of buildings, landscapes, and all types of objects.  But the key to understanding scale is in the relationship to something known.  This is perfectly illustrated in the 1977 short film "The Powers of Ten" Charles & Ray Eames (above).  With it's single constant shot the film brings us through scale both large and small starting with the human scale (10 to the power of zero), the undeniable relationships at at each scale is presented.

Awareness and the consideration of scale when designing leads to better design. When our cities, buildings, public spaces, furnishings, hardware, etc., are "in scale", design intent becomes more clear. Thus, understanding scale leads to a better understanding of our surroundings; both natural and man made. This understanding, in turn, makes us better designers and, just as important, better critics of design.  Better critics can more effectively demand, and get, a well designed society, which means more engagement, open dialog, and the free exchange of ideas, while ensuring the needs of the public at large are being served.

Granted, scale isn't the only thing that leads to good design but it is of fundamental importance.  Sometimes we need a reminder, and it's important to get back to the basics.  So, consider the scale of the places you visit.  Find the relationships between the city plan, the building plan, and the detail.  If the relationships aren't there or there is conflict, offer your critique, for all of our benefit. 


Community Ownership

Back in 2007 my now wife and I joined a local farm, often referred to as a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), because we were interested in where our food comes from and wanted to be more in touch.  For an annual fee we purchased "shares" in the farm and for that year were part owners.  We could vote or even run for the farms Board of Directors who were responsible for the budget and overall direction of the farm.  This ownership also tied us to the production of the farm.  If the farm had a good year we were rewarded with plentiful fruits and vegetables at our weekly pickups throughout the season.  Likewise, if the farm had a bad year our weekly pickups would reflect that. Plus we could visit the farm whenever we would like, help the farmers, feed the chickens, pick some herbs, or just enjoy the outdoors.

Recently however, our farm has changed its structure from this community ownership model to a more traditional business model, an LLC to be specific.  Of course this change had to be approved by the current owners, all of us shareholders.  Prior to the vote a message was sent out to shareholders in favor of the change, stating how the proposed change was primarily to make financial decisions easier on the farmers, that we wouldn't see a difference in our weekly shares, and this was the way most CSA's were run anyway.  However, there was no counter argument in favor of keeping the existing structure.  To my dismay the vote was overwhelmingly approved with just two dissenting votes, ours and that of one other couple.

We remain members of the farm.  To one of the points made in the arguments for the change, however, the point that changes in the weekly shares wouldn't be noticed, I will have to argue.  While the specific amount or types of fruits and vegetables may or may not have changed, and this is a lesser issue in the big picture, there is a disconnect from the farm.  There is less of a relationship between the farms success and its members.  The community bond and tie to the original CSA created a sense of ownership far stronger than the actual ownership.  Community ownership gives people purpose and motivates those to participate and work to build a better community and creates a sense of pride, regardless of how successful a specific initiative may be.  However, when one "buys in" and becomes a mere customer, of an LLC for instance, this is lost.  We live in a society that lives on the mantra that "the customer is always right".  With fee-for-service when we lay out our hard earned money we expect to get what we paid for, emphasis on expect, and if we don't get what we expect or "what we paid for", we demand a refund, replacement, or some other remedy to "make us whole."

Of course this relates to more than my example of the CSA turned LLC.  We live in a world where everything is sponsored.  Sports arenas and sporting events are a prime example but it extends to all of our recreation, culture, food, even our education and health care.  This is concerning, as well, because we are raising a generation that doesn't know any different.  As part of my professional life I volunteer with ACE, an organization which connects high school students with professionals in Architecture, Construction and Engineering firms, where each year student teams present a project of their own design. I have seen countless times where students propose a mall or a sponsorship opportunity. They often have to be prodded to include any amenity that is purely for the community benefit.  As design professionals it is our duty to stress the importance of community ownership within our own communities.  While we are doing this hopefully we can encourage younger generations to build the community they want and demonstrate that this doesn't come with a purchase or a corporate sponsorship but with engagement and an ownership of a different type. 

Sustainable Communities

We are all part of, participate in and serve as the foundation of the communities we live in.  The decisions we make, the policies we adopt and the actions we take all have an impact on our communities and those around us.  If we want to move towards more sustainable communities we must consider what that impact (from our decisions, policies, and actions) will be and if those outcomes are desired.

One of the most commonly sighted definitions of sustainability comes from the UN Brundtland Commission Report of 1987 which states sustainability is meeting the “needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  Stephen Wheeler simplified the definition, stating “sustainability...improves the long-term health of human and ecological systems.”  Further, sustainability has been defined as meeting the triple bottom line, equally considering economic, social and environmental factors. 

A sustainable community, one that meets the “needs of the present” while “improving...long-term health,” would provide everyone with not only their most basic needs of sustenance and safety, but also meaningful employment, fulfilling recreation, freedom, a fair and equitable justice system, and the freedom of self-expression and self-actualization along with the opportunity to thrive.  All of this must be achieved by allowing “future generations to meet their own needs,” improving “the long-term health of...ecological systems,” and meeting the triple bottom line. 

In building sustainable communities, we must consider the short and long-term impacts of our actions.  The “seven generations,” a concept attributed to Native American communities, is an approach that considers how the actions of today will affect the next seven generations. When thinking in terms of 140 years, one could imagine a change in the decision making process.  This type of analysis is becoming easier with the access we have to information and advanced software which helps us to ensure we are making informed decisions and are learning from past successes and failures.

To start, we need to accomplish the first part of the Brundtland commission definition of meeting the “needs of the present.”  There is no way we can know how to accomplish this for future generations if we aren’t able to meet our current needs.  We need to identify where and why people aren’t meeting their current needs in order to design solutions.  Partnering with local businesses and governments can help in developing new practices and policies to ensure everyone’s needs are met.  Taking small steps is a good start to move communities closer to their goals, however large structural changes are needed in many cases which can be difficult.

Applying lessons that have stood the test of time is likely to be beneficial to the long-term health of all.  We should be using the environment to our advantage and nature as a guide when designing and building our communities.  Nature offers millions of years of research and is solving some of the same problems with which we struggle. Likewise, we should be designing our buildings and communities along with nature, taking advantage of its available heating, cooling and lighting when possible.  If we analyze how nature designs structures, we can relearn some lessons we’ve lost throughout the years.

Charrettes must be organized to include community leaders in active, decision-making roles when planning our communities.  Community groups are often given a token role with no real power, a mistake that risks failing to meet the community’s needs. Communities know what they need most and to not use this knowledge is a missed opportunity.  In order to create sustainable communities we need to maximize the use of renewable resources while offering a variety of employment, housing, recreation and transportation options. Improving efficiency is a good step, but only allows us to extend our non-renewable resources long enough to identify suitable renewable replacements.

Sustainable communities cannot live in isolation or as an island in a sea of unsustainability.  We must continue to work within our communities, learn from the successes of others, and share the things that are moving us towards true sustainability for the global community.  Sustainability is not something we do to or add onto our communities, it is how they survive and it comes with continuous effort, experience and evaluation.  A sustainable community requires the active participation of us all to advocate, live, work and play in a way that improves the quality of life for the future.  We should continue to strive to answer the question William McDonough has asked, “How can we love all the children of all species for all time?”


This originally appeared in the New York Real Estate Journal. 

Public Space

Of all the things considered when designing, whether architecture or city planning, among the most important are private and public space, and the transition between the two.  There are times when the need is obvious, private space in a residence for instance, and other times when it's more ambiguous, such as in the case of privately owned public spaces where who the "public" is can be widely interpreted.  The move between private and public spaces can also vary from a well defined boundary to a more loose transition.  These ambiguities are increasing especially in this time of increased connectivity.


Throughout history the outdoors has been considered the ultimate public space.  For millennia people have gathered outdoors for the most basic of activities from celebrations, sharing news, preparing and consuming food, and socializing.  Outdoor public spaces can take many forms, there are spaces that have been deliberately created for this function and others that have been adopted by the local population to serve this function.  In our time the manifestation of outdoor public space has largely included public parks and town squares but also includes the streets and paths that connect us.  These are the places that fill with people to commemorate an event, like the Fourth of July, join a parade, or start a protest.  When not used for this type of large scale function outdoor public spaces offer a place of recreation and relaxation.  People often use a public park as one would use a private yard; reading a book, having a picnic, talking with friends, or just enjoying the space.  Others have used the town square to sell their wares, provide entertainment, and practice their right to free speech. 


Public space is key to the health of a community.  While providing a place for the activities mentioned above they also contribute to public health by providing fresh air and a place to exercise.  Access to public space also provides the opportunity to be around other people.  Humans are social creatures and have a inherent need to interact.  An active public space can offer this interaction.  Jane Jacobs in her book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" spoke of the security active streets offer, illustrating how public spaces and the surrounding community have a symbiotic relationship.  The value of public spaces offer to individuals and the community as a whole is undeniable.


More recently the shopping mall has become a type of public space.  While offering areas for some of the activities mentioned above the fact that retail centers are technically private spaces means that we do not necessarily have the same rights as we would in a truly public space.  A discussion of the pros and cons of this is sure to be a lively one but isn't the subject here so we'll save it for another time. 


Complementing public space is, of course, private space.  As with public space there are many different scales of private space.  The private space of your personal bedroom is quite different than the private space of a corporate office.  Regardless of the level of privacy a private space it is typically smaller than a public space, if for nothing else than the fact of a lower occupancy.  Historically private space has been as small as a bed or as large as a castle.  Either way it offers security, safety, and a place to rest.  Activities that society, or an individual, has determined are not appropriate for public are carried out in private.  Our society values personal space, whether a child or an adult we all want our own space.  This may be a space used for work, hobbies, self reflection or to wind down.  The best part of private space is we can do whatever we want.  As like public space, the value of private space is clear.


We seem to be entering an age where these two types of spaces are overlapping and, in some instances, shifting.  With the increased connectivity of the world and the rise of social media more and more traditionally public activities are taking place in private spaces.  The news media highlighted the role social media played during the so called Arab Spring in the Middle East towards the end of 2010.  This specific example demonstrates an overlap of traditional public and private spaces; people organizing, from their private space, protests to be carried out in the public space.  Generally this use of technology illustrates how people with common interests and/or goals can be brought together without the benefit of proximity, I would consider this one of its primary advantages. 


This type of shift in the relationship between public and private space is illustrated in the fact that people often use their private spaces to communicate with the public using online public forums.  More often than not the groups organized online or through social media never meet in a public space, in fact many participants may never leave their private spaces.  I write this now in my home office, in a room all alone, definitely a private space.  Where I start to see this shift as a detriment is in the fact that everyday people are making "friends" without ever meeting, while in their private space.  While this may not be harmful in itself, increased connectivity may negatively impact our interaction with the public.  I'll admit, the interaction available with the use of technology can be productive it doesn't yet offer the nuance, spontaneity, or physicality of real life interaction.  In the worse cases people are substituting online communication for real life contact.  While this can be quite troubling I don't think it is common enough to be cause for concern.


Where the biggest risk lies is the reduction of our public spaces.  If large numbers of our community are filling up on conversation and interaction in virtual public spaces will they still have a need, or desire, for our physical public spaces?  From my own observations it appears that many people don't want to interact in public.  I understand we don't always want to be social but it seems when walking on the street or taking public transportation people used to talk to each other and now they have their heads buried in some sort of device, trying to avoid the fact that they are in a public space.  I wonder, is one of the core functions of public space, to bring people together, is starting to disappear?  If it is the blame cannot be put solely on technology, there are other factors, but I would argue it is the main factor. 


Technology has given us many reasons not to use public space.  It has increased private mobility with the automobile, allowing us to travel to distant places without ever having to interact with someone we don't choose.  We now have abundant at home entertainment with the television and video games so we don't need to leave the house to have fun.  When I was young outside was my entertainment, many children now stay in for theirs.  Often we don't even need to leave the house to go shopping.  In fact the rise of social media may be the most beneficial technology for public space, reminding us that sometimes we need to literally stand together as was seen during the Arab Spring. 

Integrative Design

If you are planning a construction project, whether it's a new office complex or a home addition there is a good chance you will not be the one doing the actual design or construction.  Sure you'll have input, it is your project after all, but you hire professionals because they have the expertise you lack.  The majority of construction projects follow the "design-bid-build" formula.  That is you hire an architect to design your building or addition, use the drawings to secure your building permit, solicit bids from a number of contractors, award the project, usually to the lowest bidder, and have it built.  Using this process each step is distinctly its own and there is very little, if any, interaction between the design and construction teams, both of which you hired.  You may in fact find that the architect and the contractor bad mouth each other.  If this is the case you run the risk that what was designed and what gets built may not quite align. 


With the design-bid-build process decisions are largely made based solely on cost.  A more holistic, some would say better, way of making these decisions is through integrated design.  Integrated design is just what it sounds like, integrated, joined together.  The entire project team, both design and construction teams, is assembled at the start and works together for the duration of the project.  That means you don't have a set of drawings to show a contractor before s/he's hired, you have to interview contractors and select one, not based on cost but on the value they bring to the table.  In this sense you are using similar criteria to hire a contractor that you would to hire an architect or other design professional. 


While the owner will be ultimate decision maker regarding the project s/he can make more informed decisions with input from the design and construction teams and set overall goals for the project in terms of scope, performance, and cost.  By facilitating a dialog between the design and construction teams early in the project each team member is able to share their thoughts and concerns on how to reach those goals.  The construction team will be able to assess how design decisions will affect construction and solutions to potential problems can be discussed while still in the design phase.  Additionally, the design team will be able to anticipate construction activities and adjust the design accordingly.  Everyone knows it's a lot easier, and cheaper, to change the design when it's still ink on paper than when they are brick and mortar. 


When the construction team is included in the design process they have a complete understanding of the design and there is buy-in.  The construction team, by being a part of the design phase and providing input on design decisions, has effectively endorsed the design.  After taking part in this process the construction team will work its hardest to ensure a successful project.  Additionally, by being a part of the design phase the construction team will be able to more accurately price the job.  Thorough discussions on how design decisions affect construction should lead to a full understanding of the project.  This should reduce the amount of change orders and help keep the project on schedule meaning the owner can be more confidant in the prices submitted by the construction team. 


Each phase of the project will move more smoothly with continued communication.  When construction starts the construction team will have an intimate knowledge of the design and will know the reasoning behind each decision.  If additional changes are required in the field it is important that the entire team understand the full implication of all decisions, which is more likely with integrated design.  By discussing all issues that arise after the start of construction with the entire team solutions can be reached that everyone agrees with and will help meet the projects goals.    


With a full understanding the design throughout the project, continued communication, and collective problem solving the project team should be able to deliver a building that all those involved are proud of.   By making decisions based on value, not cost, and with the entire project team, the final result of integrated design is a quality building that meets the owners goals while working towards a better way of building. 

Indigenous 

Indigenous is defined on dictionary.com as "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native".   It is often used to describe native people, there customs, and architecture.  I would describe indigenous architecture as that which uses locally available resources manipulated by those familiar with the material to provide shelter appropriate to the local climate and culture.  This can include simple, nomadic shelters, which can be portable, like a tipi, or seasonal, like an igloo.  There is also more permanent indigenous architecture such as southwestern adobe pueblos and Mediterranean cave dwellings.  One thing that these examples share is there purely functional aesthetic.  However there are examples of indigenous architecture that include ornamentation and more "architectural" forms such as the elaborately painted Ndebele painted houses and the dramatic tongkonan of Indonesia.  However, we should consider thinking of indigenous architecture not only as that associated solely with native people from times past, but from people in all times, even our own. 


I attended a lecture that started with a question:  Who here is indigenous?  One or two people of the 50 person crowd raised their hands.  This made me thing; if we aren't indigenous that what are we?  The same dictionary.com entry noted above included antonyms of indigenous as "foreign, alien".  So if we are not indigenous are we then foreign?  Where I live, in the United States, many people would take offense to that, so maybe we need to reevaluate how we interpret indigenous or open a dialog on its varying degrees. 


If you were to ask an American to give an example of indigenous people the most common answer would be American Indians (i.e. Native Americans)  Ask them to name some characteristic traits of these indigenous people and you are likely to get answers that include a deep appreciation for the earth, respect for tradition, and awareness of their heritage.  Nobel traits regardless of your origin.  Traits that that some may say are lacking in our current society. 


Prior to the industrial revolution much architecture around the world would have fit the above description of indigenous simply due to the fact that it wasn't economical to bring in exotic materials for buildings.  Additionally, the import of new and unfamiliar materials would often require the import of the skilled labor necessary to have it installed.  With the rise of technology and transportation it became more economical to bring in non-regional materials.  Advances in technology also saw the emergence of more standardized building materials symbolizing a loss of the connection to local materials.  Following this standardization of materials came the standardization of aesthetic personified by the International Style of architecture. 


The acceptance, and promotion by many leading architect of the time, of a singular International Style can be seen as the turning point away from the elements of indigenous architecture that made it valuable to its occupants and culture.  People love to travel because it exposes them to something new.  We visit different places to eat their food, listen to their music, see their architecture, experience their culture.  Increased globalization is increasing homogenization, I've traveled to different states and seen the same style housing, the same strip malls, the same food, I had to search out the things that made it unique. 


There is currently very little regional variation as far as building materials are concerned, the local lumber yard in New York and Arizona stock the same items, therefore the skill set of the labor force differs very little based on location.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is a part of the culture of our time, an ever shrinking world with ever growing technology.  Another element of indigenous architecture that has largely been lost is its relationship to local conditions, specifically climate and culture.  While some try to mimic the styles of the past it is often done without regard to why it was done in the past, which was usually a direct response to specific local conditions whether it be materials, climate, or use.  Even if the reasoning is understood, indigenous architecture isn't about copying the past, it's about addressing the specific needs of the place in which it exists. 


Modern, or contemporary, indigenous architecture can take the form of the favelas of Brazil or the High Line in New York.  It is about its time and place so it is ever changing.  If we think of ourselves as indigenous, we're all indigenous to somewhere, we can think of our architecture as indigenous and create an architecture of our time and place to serve our needs.  I'm not a sociologist but maybe if we reconsidered our indigenousness we would approach things differently and feel more of an ownership to the place we are indigenous to.  With ownership comes pride, which demands thoughtfulness, which will result in art, architecture, culture that is more unique and appropriate to its time and place. 


This essay does not promote or intend to appropriate indigenous cultures but to open a dialog.