Futures

When we look at the patchwork of improvised shacks on the hillside Favelas of Brazil, one thing becomes apparent. Each dwelling, though constructed of rusting iron, waste plastic and recycled bricks, is completely unique, constructed by the inhabitants, or previous generations, for their family. Planned housing projects like Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis denied families and communities this individuality. Assumptions were made on the needs of the generic population, and studies of social groups rather than the actual personal needs of the potential residents. Liz’s blog discusses how designers overlook the flaws of users, whilst we imagine we are designing for law abiding hard working members of a utopian society; anything we ever design will actually be subverted, customised and manipulated if it can be.

The envisioned context we design for may be intensively researched, but our ability to predict alternative uses and outcomes becomes crucial in order to prevent unplanned and undesirable futures. There are many examples of where the subversion of design has damaged the reputation of those behind the ideas, notably nuclear technology from a source of energy to a weapon. Enrico Fermi created the formulas for the first self sustaining chain reaction, but shortly afterwards reactors based on his research were used to produce the Plutonium necessary for the bomb dropped on Nagazaki. Apple are probably unaware that the motherboards from their original imac’s are stripped out and used to power small sonar imaging machines and it’s arguable that not all subversions can be predicted, but as responsible designers we need to invest time in considering as many of them as possible.

Liz mentions how Le Corbusier envisioned utopian living conditions and solutions for the housing crisis, yet unfortunately 'he did not have the means to envision all the flaws and imperfections that his design would encounter.' Clearly it is difficult for anyone to take a step back and accurately analyze problems within their own vision of utopia and the designs they have planned for it. However, ironing out all of the potential flaws and subversions of our designs before they ever leave the drawing board is crucial for socially responsible and future proof design.

But surely if we design for grim reality, we are confessing our inability to envision a better future? Perhaps the mistake Le Corbusier made was trying to design specifically for the future; we can design for the needs of the present whilst also being considerate of the future. The saying ‘look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves,’ obviously describes a different system, but the theory can be applied to design. As designers we can influence ‘the materials that are used; how they are constructed; how efficient they are to use; their ease of maintenance; and even their recycling/reuse potential.’ If we as designers made this ‘cradle-to-grave,’ approach standard practice, the future would inevitably start to look brighter.

Jennifer discussed the way all systems, both human and natural, have flaws and there are no examples of perfect, sustainable systems. However small systems can work, like the tiny gardens enclosed by glass bell jars. The living plants can successfully exist within the closed system, re-using their own ‘watse’. Often the best way to tackle problems is to take a holistic approach, but perhaps design also needs to be considered on the micro or personal scale, rather than for mass consumer groups.

‘Design for society’ - Nigel Whiteley, 1993
http://www.roadjunky.com/article/544/rio-de-janeiro-brazil-coke-and-favelas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power