Futures

When I think of utopias, my mind is full of images of failure. Vast housing schemes being knocked down before they are even paid for. Cities the product of an individuals dream, meant to be the perfect city but containing no evidence to support the reason why they would. Then these models, parts at least, become realised and the evidence that they don’t work becomes all to clear. The Dragons of Eden, by Carl Sagan (1977),

‘Deals with the human brain in the context of the evolutionary history of the animal kingdom and recognises four major phases of development, each of which continues to function in its own cerebral layer, and each of which would have implications for home-making.’

The first component, we see in limpets that form a protective shell, shrimps that burrow into the sand, and snails that create a mobile home. The second development relates to increased power to interact with other organisms, through ritual behaviour, social hierarchy and aggressiveness, which lead to the acquiring of territories. In the third phase birds and mammals developed warm bloodedness and endocrine glands, intensifying consciousness through feelings and emotions. Creating the need for nests and burrows to combat the fear of attack and provide care of the young. Finally, the primate-human neocortex developed a high level of foresight, manual dexterity, reasoning, concern, and ethical understanding, developing home making as an adaptable, individual process.

‘Each major edition overshadowed the parts of the brain so that we tend to ignore them, but we do so at our own peril; we are adaptable but not infinitely adaptable. However, in the matter of housing we are discovering our adaptive limits very slowly and through trial and error and during the utopia epoch both the trial and the error seem to be on a more massive scale than the discovery.’ The failure of utopian cities such as Radiant and Garden Cities are clear to us today; much work has been done on understanding why. Alice Coleman writes in Utopia on Trial of some of the shortfalls of housing estates that sprung up predominately in the sixties, as extracts of Radiant City, to combat housing shortages. Town planners saw multi-storey flats as the answer, after the Second World War, to housing shortages and solving the problem in the least amount of time. This was in spite of the fact that the US had already built similar blocks of flats with negative results; in the UK these were seen as American problems, and that they wouldn’t exist here. Jane Jacobs was one of the first to predict and later witness the troubles that estates could cause she argued that the successful areas of a city, are those with many small streets close together, busy with people walking through. As those who live there become familiar with others who live close by, individual skills can be noted and called upon at times of need. It also provides a network of surveillance to care for children in the community and apprehend criminal behaviour. ‘Their involvement is reinforced by ‘eyes on the street’ from the windows of the buildings’

Radient City proclaims that it provides a strong, stable social structure, when infact its design segregates the city into areas such as residential, business and parks. This makes it impossible to rely on walking from place to place, forcing citizens to drive down the main roots of the city, which in turn get overcrowded while elsewhere becomes abandoned. Jane Jacobs also describes how the car restricts the normal interaction two strangers might encounter on a street, making a city a more isolated and lonely place.

‘In 1961 there were still too few post-war housing estates for her message to be inescapably self-evident.’ Her argument was mostly ignored if not attacked by planners in this country who continued to build high rise housing estates. Oscar Newman analysed many such projects. ‘Newman’s aim was to discover which design features attracted the most crime or vandalism.’ In a book titled Defensible Space, he picked up on three main topics to account for discomfort in housing estates caused by crime. Firstly, anonymity, a criminal seeks to be unseen and avoid being confronted. High-rise blocks created the perfect cover. Newmans studies revealed that crime rates are higher in flats with a greater number of floors. Internal corridors with no windows looking onto them and the greater number of people living there also pushed up crime rates. When there’s many people living in one building, it is harder for residents to recognise everyone. Making it easier for criminals to go unnoticed. Secondly, surveillance, the positioning of the entrance as to whether or not it is possible for residents to see who passes through affects safety. Crime rates are lower when there is clear site of the entrance. Thirdly, escape roots, criminals like an easy get away if they need it, security guards have often complaned of it being too easy to loose the suspect with a multidude of exits.

When you analyse the facts like this it becomes clear as to why these Utopias failed. Next time, before instigating an idea for Utopia, force-feeding countries capitalism or eating fish, stop and check it works.

Futures

Can we as designers design the future? It might sound very easy to answer, because we cannot design for the past, the time and technology goes so fast that we are unable to design for the present. So, my answer is simple, we can design for the future, and we do so, but we cannot design ‘the future’.
In everything we do, we think of the future. We are studying, than working to save some money for holidays or to buy a house etc. and all those things we are planning to happen in the future.

From a designer point of view, future is like a final exhibition for the artist. We are looking back to the past to get some inspiration, and than we are working on the developing idea in the present to see the results in the future. Everything would be nice and simple if we wouldn’t have to live in the world that is going to the end.
For some reason I feel like the society is trying to blame us, designers for all this mess. Most of my, not related with design environment, friends suggested that in around 70 percent we, designers, are responsible for the future. Apparently, in most cases it depends on us for example, which material to use to build the house, or how much energy this object would have to use to meet the clients expectations etc. Of course, in this profession we do have to have a sense of reality and strong opinion on things that we do design. But it is also public or clients demand to posses certain goods, which most of the time are not ecologically friendly. Perfect looking fruits and vegetables, nicely packaged (usually in plastic or paper) goods, free newspapers (every day), flayers, bank statements and so on. Public should realise that somebody (like a designer) by the pressure of consumerism designed all those things. By saying all this, I’m not trying to defend other designers, to be more specific, myself, because we should all be ethical in everything we do. But, as we can see in many examples being moral is sometimes impossible to achieve.

For some people it might sounds a bit funny but right now technology is on such a high level of development, that soon humanlike machines could replace us. So, from this point of view I am not so sure if we should have so much ‘power’ in designing the future.
There is another side of the coin. Technology is helping many people with communication and exchange of information. In many situations, Internet and high technology, such us CAD software or modelling computer systems, can help with communication with certain communities near and faraway. At the same time, we are able to design and produce a safer, more disaster-resistant buildings using those advance computer software.
In my opinion every single person on this planet is equally important and responsible for designing the future. Everybody should be moral and use it as a guide to live, create and help others.

Futures

‘Perhaps the greatest utopia would be if we could all realize that no utopia is possible; no place to run, no place to hide, just take care of business here and now.’
Jack Carroll

Futures have always been idealised throughout history and it is a common way of thinking to look to the future for hope. Utopian visions are one way in which people have recorded their hope. The Modernists vision compared to that of the Post-Modernists can be simply viewed as two topics set in binary terms. However, Post-modernism forms a more discursive way of thinking rather than Post-modernism being viewed as the Anti-Modernism that is so frequently spoken about. Michel Serres says that we should no longer be ‘answering yes or no to questions of having sides’ and instead suggests that there is ‘an infinite amount of answers.’ The usual Utopia tries to restructure the world into an entirely successful space. However, it is this view of respecting the world as an arena for varying standards of success that relates to my thoughts on improving design practice.

‘Some men see things as they are and say, why?
I dream things that never were and say, why not?’
Robert F. Kennedy

Victor Papanek speaks of design as the ‘underlying matrix of life’ and speaks against the idea of seeing design as a ‘thing-by-itself.’ I can see why an argument like this formulates because designers are able to have a direct impact on the future. Objects that are created impact the environment that they are situated in. Due to this idea, it is as designers that we can break a future as well as make the future. My argument is that there needs to be an emphasis on minimising problems rather than eradicating problems entirely. However, it becomes easy to become transfixed on creating solutions rather than simply being ethically and socially aware of what is created and therefore, reducing problems. It comes back to Michael Serres’s idea to stop seeing the world in binary relationships. The world is not either broken nor is it fixed, it is continuously in a state of change. Grey areas exist and that is ok.
I find designers can become transfixed in the idea that design will be able to provide solutions to the worlds problems. Utopian visions are formed and through ideas the world’s problems seem to be able to be solved. It seems a beautiful idea as a designer to believe in this. However, I find it difficult to believe that designers alone are going to overcome problems such as third world debt as well as prevent pollution to the environment single handed. It is true that designers have a large role to play in the grand scheme of things because of the very nature of design. However, Utopian visions such as LeCorbusier’s Pruitt-Igoe prove that trying to create an ‘all knowing’ system often ends in failure. Maybe Utopian visions are a warning for us not to try and ‘fix things’ on a grand scale because this is unpractical, but rather improve upon the obtainable problems that already exist.

Surviving the Help

As I read through our ‘virtual space’, I notice that a lot of people write about Far Eastern slums,poverty and ways of trying to understand and address this ‘social problem’.
I really like Ange’s optimistic suggestion in trying to understand the problematic issue -- from the entry on the 13th March when she wrote, “if you truly care and want to help them, you must do it right! Go live with them (for example) and feel with them to fully realize what they need. You could be surprised that they might not even need any help actually.”

However I cannot agree with Samuel Clarke’s entry posted on the 4th April when he comments on Olivier’s entry:
“It was suggested, as Olivier Ward writes, that people began to argue positively for favelas in the class seminar, arguing that there was ‘enjoyment’ in living in such a place or that it would be ‘ok’ because ‘mother earth’ will sort out the situation. I do not believe that either of these suggestions made, were thought about in an ethical manner but it does go to show the extent to which people begin to try and detach themselves from the situation and also end up at ridiculous solutions to the problem”.

I would like to focus not on the Far Eastern slums but on “Cardboard City” - a famous slum of one of the richest European cities – London. I would also like to focus on the supposedly ‘ethical’ way the British government dealt
with ‘the issue’, and question what is a designers position in solving this type of ‘inconvenient’ problem.

Cardboard City was an area of cardboard boxes, lived in by homeless people in London near Waterloo station
from 1983 until 1998.
In the mid-1980’s the site, in the pedestrian underpasses under the Bullring roundabout, was home to up to 200.
It was famously regarded as a symbol of society's failure to deal with homelessness.
By 1998 the local Council won an eviction order, enabling to clear the remaining people from the area, to make way for a £20m IMAX cinema.
In many articles we can read about how wonderful the government was, offering the last 30 homeless flats
and small sums of money to ‘get straight’, however no one seems to mention that the big number of the rest 170 people were threatened and intimidated (with a use of physical violence), and left what for years use to be their ‘home’ simply out of fear.
But even the previously mentioned ‘lucky 30’ didn’t find the opportunity of being re-housed appealing…

“(…) those who live in Cardboard City feel there is a real sense of community. People know each other, they have been living together for a long time and it's probably the first time that many of them have had what they feel is a family"

"They have no concept of a normal life and just spend the £500 that you give them to get straight on drink or drugs. It might work if the people you are trying to rehabilitate are given some counselling because most of them have no idea what it is like to settle down and live in a flat."

While the life of those sleeping rough is unacceptable to most of us, those who lived in Cardboard City felt there was a real sense of community.
That’s why I do not agree with Samuel stating that people’s comments, suggesting that maybe there is ‘enjoyment’
in living in such a place, were unethical or that they tried to detach themselves from the situation.
…if anything they were trying to understand and it seems that they got it right.
As one man who lived in Cardboard City for 15 years put it:
“I know it stinks, I know it's shitty, it may seem like hell to you but we've chosen it”.

The question I want to raise is – how can designers help in difficult social situations like this one?

I don’t have a perfect or fulfilling answer but what I am sure of is that as designers we have to be able to use our empathy to the extreme. And if our imagination can’t take us far enough, we then need to put ourselves into the actual situation.

I partly agree with Samuel that “This topic is larger than a righteous designer saying how ‘devastating’ the situation is and how they as a designer are going to make a difference”.

I wrote ’partly’ because it is clear that without the political will there can be no fundamental change, however if our ethics don’t let us sleep at night, what is there to stop us from trying to make a difference as individuals…?
Yes, it would be like giving first aid, but if we can really understand their needs, just that little help might mean a lot more than a flat and £500.




http://shockgenerator.blogspot.com/2007/03/arts-of-survival.html samuel
http://shockgenerator.blogspot.com/2007/03/arts-of-survival_13.html ange
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980225/ai_n14148779
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardboard_City_(London)

“Your future depends on many things, but mostly on you“.

Being a designer is difficult. No. Sorry, let me start again…
Being an ethical and socially conscious designer is difficult.
It is much easier to block those aspects of design profession out and be glamoures, designing pretty things, which can go straight onto the window display of an expensive shop or a gallery wall.
But as soon as you start considering ‘bigger issues’ in your work, the level of expectations seems to go up, and no longer are you being praised for the ’good bits’ but questioned whether you could have done better.

In today’s world full of threats of nuclear war, biological catastrophe, and climate change, (which brings into question, how can humanity continue to survive?), there seems to be forming, a general state of panic, which echo’s directly into the design world.
When scientific reports contradict themselves… ‘global warming is happening and we have to change our style of living to save the Earth’ vs.. ‘it is too late to do anything, we should be investing into moving to some other planet’… it is difficult to know what to believe and what are the priorities.

And it doesn’t get any easier when we take to the consideration the ‘smaller picture’ - not the global crisis but the day-to-day community problems.
As Kate Stohr suggests, designers should “(…) humbly venture into the communities in which they live, listen to the needs of their neighbours, and offer their services".
Very well, but again – what are the priorities? and what are the expectations?
On one hand we are told to ‘design for the future’, yet on the other ‘to solve the existing problems.

I believe that we-designers shouldn’t worry too much about the future, as long as we keep in mind that “The future is always beginning now”. There is now point in trying to predict what will happen in 50-100 years time and what kind of problems will we be facing than… as it is almost if not completely impossible.
I agree that while designing we should be ethical and do not forget to consider the possible future impact of our work (i.e. using sustainable materials, building homes which will last etc), however I feel that we shouldn’t try to jump ahead of our times as the conditions can change drastically (for example the resources of today might no longer be available) and all we’ll be left with, will be set of sketches and concepts.
As Eric Hoffer puts it:
“In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists”.

A Buddhist saying says:
“If you want to know your past, look into your present conditions.
If you want to know your future, look into your present actions.”

So let’s make ethical decisions about the way we design and about what we design and remember that each one of us can be a butterfly whose fluttering wings can cause a storm on the other side of the planet.




• http://www.quotegarden.com/future.html
• Kate Stohr, ‘100 Years of Humanitarian Design,’ in
Design Like you Give a Damn (London: Thames and Hudson, 2006)
• http://quotations.home.worldnet.att.net/future.html
• http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_future.html

Building for the Future

When designing for the future designers need to consider how people will be affected or even react to design. Instead of designers attempting to enforce their ideals on people’s behaviour it is important to incorporate their ethical ideals into people’s day-to-day lives. In western societies life is fast paced and no matter how much some of us want to help the environment crisis, we do not have time or financial means to do so. Architectural determinism is the term applied to the concept that building environments directly affect our behaviour and attitudes. Can the built environment really impact social structures?














“We shape our buildings; thereafter shape us!” (Winston Churchill)

The impact buildings have on us is evident, for instance high-rise tower blocks were first built in the UK after the Second World War. Initially, they were welcomed as a good option for low cost housing in the UK. However over time the buildings themselves deteriorated, they grew a reputation for being undesirable symbols of urban decay and alienation. Design flaws such as poor ventilation leading to condensation and mould, inappropriate use of materials, i.e. asbestos, lack of community facilities and poor design making cleaning and maintenance difficult, contributed to creating unpleasant and unsafe living environments. This consequently created a breeding ground for drugs, violence, crime and lack of prospects for its inhabitants. As Adolf Behne points out "you can kill a man with a building just as easily as with an axe."

In comparison Dr Ken Yeung considered the occupants and surrounding eco systems when he designed the EDITT tower in Singapore. Many Singaporeans live in high-rise housing or work in skyscrapers to save space for it’s ever growing population.
The EDITT tower is a 26 -storey building that accommodates for humans, plants and birds, in order to improve a degraded eco system in a busy inner city spot. The key biological aspects is the creation of planted areas vertically streamlining the building, whilst the lower six floors are landscaped ramps filled with cafes and shops, integrating the surrounding street life.


















The building is designed with a ‘loose fit’ this includes removable partitions and floors in order for future generations to adjust the building when required. Singaporeans rely a lot on its neighbour Malaysia for water supplies, the EDITT building is designed to collect rainwater providing 55% water self sufficiency. When Dr Yeung designed the building he wasn’t just concerned with the environmental solutions but he also made it pleasant for the occupants who live there. Comfort levels were ensured by including elements designed to direct wind for ventilation and ceiling fans with water misters to humidify the air (Faud-Luke, 2005, p239).

As seen with environmental determinism, the designed environments can impact and influence people’s thoughts and behaviours. Designers can learn from past mistake and move forward to design for all species and eco systems, as seen in the design of the EDITT tower. Taking the future into consideration and making sure that past mistakes are not repeated will create a brighter and better future for all of us.

‘The answer will likely depend on the willingness of architects and designers to reach beyond the design community and its traditional audience —to humbly venture into the communities in which they live, listen to the needs of their neighbours, and offer their services.’ (Stohr, 2006, p53)


Bibliography

Faud-Luke, A. (2005) The Eco-Design Handbook, London: Thames & Hudson Ltd
Fletcher, A. (2001) The Art of Looking Sideways, London: Phaidon Press Ltd
Stohr, K. (2006) 100 years of humanitarian design, London: Thames and Hudson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_determinism
http://www.sustainingtowers.org/SOA-hist-decline.htm

The Future is bright, the Future is...

( Pruitt-Igoe in the process of being torn down)

When you say the word future are you talking about tomorrow or 100 years from now? How far can we look into the future, as designers? Fashion changes every season, yet we have fashion designer who think they can design styles that would be worn until the end of time. Meghan asks in her blog the ultimate question, ‘can we design the future?’

Everyone has their own idea as to what the future will be like. When many look into the future they see the world 50 or so years from now. Seeing flying cars and vacuumed packed food. This is the type of future that has been designed for us, do we then comply by its rules of development? We as designers should know that to design for the future is not as simple as product development but also human development.

One example of product development without thinking about human development is the 33 tower public housing Pruitt-Igoe project, in St Louis Missouri. The buildings were designed for a space that was predominantly inhabited by black people. The designs originally had a notion to divide the blacks from the whites. Maybe if Le Corbusier had considered a way of slowly collaborating black and white people in one space before the project, it may have lasted longer. There were other reasons as to why the project was unsuccessful, according to Alexander von Hoffman the project was destined to fail. “From 1950 to 1970, the city's population fell by 234,000 people, and its share of the St. Louis metropolitan area's population plummeted from 51 percent to 26 percent. This sad fact adds what may be the largest failure to the formidable list of failures associated with Pruitt-Igoe: even if it had been built as proposed, Pruitt-Igoe, the child of a grandiose vision that failed, probably would have failed anyway.” (Alexander von Hoffman, Why They Built the Pruitt-Igoe Project). Maybe if Le Corbusier designed more for the future of the space that the future of architecture the project may have been more successful, later in the future.

As designers we should steer away from this futuristic brief of design and focus more on what is here today. As Meghan says in her blog post, “designers could not absolutely blueprint the future they can use the shortcomings of the past to aid them” (Meghan, shock generator, 2007).

Bibliography

Meghan, shock generator, 2007

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/PruittIgoe.html

Tony Fry, A new design philosophy, 1999

The Arts of Survival

The ingenuity showed by the millions of slum dwellers across the third world really is remarkable, not just in the way their houses are constructed, but the fascinating and beautiful objects they can create from what we deem to be waste, such as the Volkswagen Beetle pictured in James’ blog constructed from used Fanta cans. The resourcefulness and creative ability of the people themselves raises questions as to whether it is necessary for western designers to intervene at all in these slum societies. The work of artist Marjetica Potrc reflects the creativity of the slum dwellers in Caracas themselves, re-fashions it as art and brings it into the public forum. ‘Growing house,’ ‘dry toilet’ and ‘house with extended territory’ are all examples of ingenuity which Marjetica has observed in the city.

The dwellings constructed by those in squatter communities often eventually form a ‘large part of the low income housing stock.’ (Skinner and Rodell 1983:1) Their abilities and determination to build are hindered by the lack of adequate sites and fear of being moved off the land, as well as lack of public services, infrastructure and ‘construction credit.’ (Skinner and Rodell 1983:1) After the failure of housing policies in the fifties and sixties, new approaches to housing policy which take into consideration these limitations on the abilities of the people themselves have emerged. Following observations of the way unofficial housing is created, it is often the case that if the housing agencies set out to meet the residents halfway, a successful outcome can be reached. These new housing policy initiatives of the seventies enabled the residents and government to work together, in the form of self help schemes. Skinner and Rodell calculate that a city with 100,000 squatter houses represents 100 million hours of family labor. With ‘five-hundred thousand to 1 million’ (Web 2) people estimated to live on the hillsides of Rio de Janeiro, surely they represent a resource which could be used more productively in the formal sector?

The extent to which this family labor can be utilized as part of a self-help scheme varies according to the design of the scheme. If family labor can only be involved in the preparation and finishing of the site, wage savings for the build project would be slim, whereas if the dwellings are designed in order that the families can construct them unaided, or if training is given to the families themselves, labor costs are virtually eradicated. Another concept for self help schemes was developed by Abrams and Otto Koenigsberger, where the government to play no part in the design or construction of housing, but ‘lay out and provide plots and utilities,’ allowing the owner to either build himself or employ others, according to the families budget. Abrams himself stated that the result may still be described as a slum, but it would be an ‘alterable and improvable slum.’ (Skinner and Rodell 1983:8)

A point worth bringing to attention is that even the word ‘Favelas’ is not recognised by spell-check on Microsoft Word. The massive injustices and problems in society cannot begin to be rectified whilst the predominantly white, and excessively rich turn a blind eye. Yes capitalism works pretty well for us, we have job opportunities, health care, money to spend, and we are legally obliged to complete eleven years of education. However our economy as a nation still thrives on the exploitation of others.

People Poverty and Shelter, Skinner and Rodell, 1983
Web 2: http://www.macalester.edu/courses/geog61/chad/thefavel.htm

More Politics? Why?

“The Bush administration ran a systematic campaign to play down the dangers of climate change, demanding hundreds of politically motivated changes to scientific reports and muzzling a pre-eminent expert on global warming, Congress was told yesterday.”

What is this guy on?

cornucopia, city of the future>?

How can the use of design shape the future away from the consumer lead world we live in, and what will this change do for us in the future? People have always liked to speculate about the future state of the world, what people will be doing and mostly the products they will be using from hover cars to chips inlayed under the skin of humans. This has been happening at an increased rate as the consumer society we live in expands and grows.
Vance Packard talking about the dreams of a sales and marketing person “ If we could probe the dreams of those marketing people as they slumber restlessly at night we would find – that they are not dreaming mealy of those bewitching products to sell us but more likely are dreaming that they are in there private world of the future where markets have become easy because the haunting problem of saturation has vanquished.”
Now is seems that the projection of trend is starting to turn do the ideals of healthy living, environmental awareness, and fair trade and equality. I feel design has had a major part in these shifts as time goes on. You just can see the numbers of eco design companies, and projects geared towards the aid of others through design has enabled the situation to be viewed in a way that previously had not been seen. Such projects as the paper log housing that was discussed in the lecture I feel can really give a positive message to the turning around of peoples opinions and the whole idea of being more aware of what we can do with cheep materials to really improve the life of others. I find that it gives me hope for the future and we won’t continue to consume ourselves to destruction.

Futures

Though not all designers have the opportunity to aid poverty, any designers can respond to the even larger scope of anticipated changes to humanity, that of global warming. The job of a designer is to design for the future; in order to create a successful design, the designer must accurately anticipate the consequences global warming. If a designer ignores these climate changes the sustainability of their work will be affected. For example, the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth, estimates that “global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide” (Davis Guggenheim, 2006). If a designer is not aware of the water levels rising, and he or she designs a building for a costal area, he or she risks wasting millions of dollars and polluting the sea. Though this designer may be designing for a future, it is not the right one. Thus it is the designer’s responsibility to be informed on the anticipated changes to the environment.
the melting polar ice caps will be destroy the
natural habitats of almost all the Artic species.

Predicting the disputed climate changes may seem easer said than done, but not responding at all can lead to catastrophic results. Michel Serres states in The Natural Contract that the ”past, however distant, never knew such experiences. Because of our action, the composition of the air, and thus its physical and chemical properties is changing” (4). Others have used this claim to support their inaction with the belief that the climate is constantly experiencing these irregularities. However, it cannot be denied that our actions are the cause of these changes and that we must be held responsible. For it is because of our actions that the state of humanity and the world as we know it is at stake. Serres quotes “If we judge our actions innocent and we win, we win nothing, history goes on as before, but if we lose, we lose everything” (5) Here Serres means that if we don’t act we could forfeit the world, if we do act and it turns out that nothing changes we don’t lose anything. For a designer, every new challenge is an opportunity. Accurately anticipating the future may be impossible but the opportunity is a positive one and stakes are too high not to try.


Who could have guessed? Who guessed and did not act?


If the designers are aiming towards an environmentally friendly future, the question is, what chance do they have at truly altering the future of the climate? I have shown earlier that they must be aware of climate changes for the sake of their individual designs but what degree can they use their designs to help change the world? Harvey Moloch answers the question by explaining that “Design determines about 80-90 percent of an artifact’s life-cycle economic and ecological cost, in an almost irreversible way—raw materials will be used, gasses emitted, who will get hurt, how much will get to the landfill” (245-246). Because global warming is caused from a buildup of carbon dioxide, the designers, whose creations determine the admittance of gas can alter, on a large scale, the amount of carbon dioxide. “The concentration of carbon dioxide has been growing in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, a byproduct of the fossil fuels: the propagation of toxic substances and acidifying products is increasing…” (Serres 4). Designers can control the uses of these toxic substances and aciditying products by changing what their products are made of and how they are made. The simple alteration of materials comprising a cell phone for instance could have a huge impact on the environment.
By: Katie Brunero

An Inconvenient Truth, The Science. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/. Al Gore.
March, 12, 2007.
Moloch, Harvey. Where Stuff Comes From: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars, Computers and Many Other Things Come to Be as They Are. New York: Rotlede, 2003.
Serres, Michel. The Natural Contract. The University of Michigan Press, 1995.

Bridge City

There is no question that the living conditions in the third world are not the most favorable. Life in many townships and slums around the world is not the safest, healthiest, and need to say appealing of conditions. However, there is something to be said about the community that is created within these areas. One of the most common misconceptions about life in slums and townships is that they are all extremely violent and miserable. This is not always the full story in the cause of many townships within Southern Africa there is a vibrant culture that emphasis music, art, and family. Along with this culture comes a large pride for their expression of the act of sacrificial.

This pride does not excuse for the lack in sustainable and healthy living conditions. Any people that travel to South Africa can see one of the main conditions that this nation is faced with is the division of the poor and the rich. Many rich urban developments are built with in meters of local townships. Over the years each development, the township and the rich urban establishment, grow larger and are beginning to meet each other. Through the architectural landscape of South Africa it becomes clear that this problem is not only an economic one but a larger ethical one. How can one person live next to poverty and attempt to do nothing about it?

The South African goverement, aware of this problem, has begun to address the poverty gap. Currently in the areas of Inanda, Ntuzuma, KwaMashu and Phoniex, which were previously disadvantaged areas, are being transformed into a town centre, called Bridge City, which will be funded by Moreland Development Company. The town centre will help the movement of the poor into sustainable living conditions, where RDP (Reconstruction and development programmed) housing will be placed in certain areas.

Moreland and the presidential back project hopes that Bridge City will live up to its name and “bridge” a community between the poor local communities and the rich. Moreland MD Gordon Hibbert furthers this hope, “Deification is the means with which poorer members of society can be intergraded into the economic fabric of society. Essentially, urban design control will improve the use of infrastructure to minimize costs and maximize economies.” Thus by creating a manufactured urban environment, which will most likely mimic those of the rich urban areas.

What worries me about this project is that the design, feel and space of this complex may get rid of the cultural aspects that these slum communities have created. This leaves the designers of these new communities a hard job have incorporating the cultural aspects of these slum communities with the rich urban landscape that has become prevalent in South Africa. The “urban design control” that Hibbert reveres to may hinder the ethos of the African community. Bridge City can clean up these areas and be successful, but only if the African community is considered. Like Richard Neutra says in his book Survival Through Design, “Design as an aid to survival must always have an intimate kinship to the life processes it serves within time”(171) Thus Bridge City will only be effect if the space serves a kingship the people it means to serve.


Bibliography

Moreland Developments. “Moreland Views-Bridge City”. (Wednesday, 07 June 2006)[http://www.moreland.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=1] (12/03/07)

Neutra, Richard. 'Survival Through Design'Oxford Universit Press, Inc. New York, 1954

Shortcomings

Can we design the future? Kate Stohr’s “100 Year of Humanitarian Design” and thinking about the differences and similarities within cultures stimulates the thoughts about designing for the future. With the examples and explanations she give it becomes clear that designing for the future is a rather difficult task and at times appear impossible. Although current designers could not absolutely blueprint the future they can use the shortcomings of the past to aid them. Every decade influences the next in fashion, art, theatre, and design. A pervious decade is usually the reason why the youth of the next develop a new way of thinking. In theatre the avant-garde movement, as in most art forms, began as a reaction against the normality of a linear plot line. As each past design influences the actions of the new generation, thus creating process. Although, new ideologies can be influenced by the past, no one person or group can fully predict the beliefs and ethos of the next generation.
Stohr articulates the exploration of humanitarian design through the shortcomings of past designers. Thus providing the foundation blocks that influenced each decade. One of the main issues that each of these projects, such as Hassan Fathy, the Kampung Improvement Program, and Habitat for Humanity, have is has the World Bank phrased it in their 2004 World Development Report, “the main difference between success and failure is the degree to which poor people themselves are involved in determining the quality and quantity of the services they receive.” ( Stohr, Kate. “100 Years of Humanitarian Design” pg. 49)
Thus the problem is more with the communication between the designer and the recipient. If a designer and his or her client or beneficiary cannot have general exchange of ideas in the present then how can a designer design for someone or group in the future when it appears that in past and even currently there are issues with fully providing and producing functional design. Hopefully through the shortcomings of others, current designers can learn and begin to design functional products, objects, homes, and ideas for the future, enabling humanity to move forward.

Lead The Way

Having previously been encouraging us to shoulder our responsibilities by being prepared to address current states of affairs, I now try to advocate it’s urgency with regard to taking up the reigns and steering humanity in the right direction. The doomsday clock has been moved forward due to the current situations, reflecting that as a planet there are issues that need to be addressed in order for our existence to be maintained. The impending Global Climate Change catastrophe we are entering is now almost incontestably upon us and we need to be saved. But who will give us the miracle cure? Richard Branson thinks a big fat money reward is the answer to the way forward, such a shallow attempt at showing his concern if you ask me. Personally I think that the answer lies within the very structure of modern society. We need to attack the Climate Change issue at the same level as is effective in aid work. At its grassroots level, it’s most basic, using products and strategies that will change the framework of our current society and culture.

We need to alter our own behaviours enough to avoid self-destruction and to do this means that the 6 billion of us on earth today need to recognize that we cannot live the way that we do. ‘If everyone in the world lived like an American we would need three earths to accommodate us.’ (Planet Earth, The future) Are we so short sighted to think that this can go on? Unfortunately it seems the answer is yes.

Our consumerist behaviour is like smoking, as in both we seek immediate satisfaction from something that ultimately in the long term is damaging to our health, or our very existence. This reckless behaviour cannot go unchecked for much longer but if there are no alternatives then what can we do but keep digging our hole deeper and deeper.

Looking to the future as designers does seem like a daunting task, especially when we have no idea where we want to go. ‘Trying to solve most problems is like trying to assemble a jigsaw without first seeing the picture on the box.’ (The Art of Looking Sideways) but this is a challenge that we have no choice but to take up and engage with. ‘The only way to predict the future is to invent it.’ (Eternally yours) and that is really what we are here for. No one is going to change unless we make it easy for him or her to do it. Recycling would not be half as successful if strategies such as door-to-door removal of the rubbish did not come about. Essentially we are a lazy bunch of self-satisfying oafs who will only do something positive if there is a direct benefit for the individual who is doing it.

What this means is that in our designs we not only need to address the usual aspects of convenience, use and price but that they actually need to exist within a sustainable moral value that becomes the accepted opinion throughout society. ‘The manufacture and use of sustainable products should support basic human rights and natural justice’ (Experimental Eco Design) and in turn this should be reflected on how we as humans live with the earth and respect it as the essence of our existence.


Bibliography:

Brower. C, Mallory. R and Olham. Z (2005) Experimental Eco Design, Rotovision, Switzerland.

Fletcher. A (2001) The Art of Looking Sideways Phiadon Press Ltd, London.

BBC 4 (10/12/06) Planet Earth, The Future.

Van Hinte. E (2004) Eternally Yours, Time in Design, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam.

Body-builder cows

Should we investigate and alter the architecture of life?

How can we know what’s going to happen in the future, from eating genetically modified foods? We don’t know whether they can ‘modify’ our genes if we eat them! This is one thing that preys on peoples minds when they eat meat, or veg, and don’t know where it’s been reared or grown.
But is this more sensitive, when it is the life of an animal that’s being transformed?

I recently watched a programme named Animal Farm on channel four, and one topic of discussion was the ‘Belgian blue’ bull. With the use of genetic engineering and ‘natural’ selection the cows with the best muscle tone have had their genes selected and ‘reproduced’ over many years to create ‘double muscle’ (or as we know it-more meat!)

In Seb’s blog ‘squirrels and potatoes’ he discussed how the potato originated from America and spread to the rest of the world, he also considered the ‘naturalness’ of these foods, and how they are no longer considered as ‘exotic’ after their acclimatization.
But isn’t that just desensitization?
And could we become desensitized to ‘body-builder cows’ roaming around our farms?!
This cow has been ‘designed’ (scarily) for our own greed.

But another thing which is more frightening, is meat being modified from cow stem cells and grown in a vat into a burger! The geneticists on the programme claimed this could be an alternative for vegetarians to start eating meat. But this is not meat. Yes, it is a derivative from an animal, and surely this would be considered by a vegetarian (and carnivores alike) as much more controversial than eating a ‘natural’ animal!
(I’ll just say this concept did not appeal to my vegetarian flatmate! Who claimed “that’s just weird!”)

But there are other ways in which intensive farming can be utilized in a positive way. For example, vitamin A deficiency kills 2.5 billion people a year, especially in the third world. So, geneticists have designed a form of rice named ‘golden rice’ which has been derived from genes of a daffodil and rice to increase keratin levels and vitamin A.
The scientists claimed that if this new strain of rice was to replace regular rice it could save millions of peoples lives.
Yet the farm where it is grown is treated like a bio-hazard sight. Its true that if the pollen of these plants were to pollinate other plants it could alter their genetics considerably, but would this be devastating? Not so much, compared to what a ‘Belgian blue’ bull could do to a herd of heifers!

Seb is right, there is no “right/wrong” or “black/white”, but there are some aspects that are more morally disturbing than others.
I think that when it comes to designing our future, with regards to genetic modification, it can come across as a mockery of nature.
The ‘Belgian blue’ seems to be an example of this, but this shock factor appears diluted when contrasted to the genuine benefit vitamin A rich rice could incur on our environment if put to use.

Animal Farm-Channel 4

Regine Pilling-flatmate

Seb Mitschl

Debate Till Late.

Come and join the debate this friday night at 33 Breakspears Rd.

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

Futures

Managing design outcomes

Designing for the future is what design is in a nut shell. We revisit and re evaluate designs as inspiration for a new design. Katka’s blog confirms how designers tend to revaluate past good or bad design, in this case there were designs such as the cave that could be an alternative to slums; “‘A cave’ is associated with the past left far behind”. Design has the potential to infiltrate change but whether we can manage to get the reponse it was designed for can be a risk. Can design manage the consequence it was designed for? Victor Papanek in ‘Design for the real world’ describes change as; “Acceleration, change, and acceleration of change itself arise from the meeting of structures or systems along their edges”.

Le Corbusier designed the Pruitt-Igoe housing estate in St. Louis. The incentive was to build housing for the homeless. To Le Corbusier astonishment, however, the homeless would rather stay in their current condition. He designed these buildings as a better alternative.
However “Ever since Le Corbusier first suggested the assembly-line house, architects have been pre-occupied with finding a solution to the world’s housing crisis through mass manufacturing. In the 1950’s French architect Jean Prouvé developed modular houses for post-colonial Africa that could be shipped, erected, dismantled, and shipped again like an industrial-scale erector set” Kate Stohr (article on snap house).

In disasters such as the earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 accommodation had to be enforced eventually in consequence of such a long term effect, there were 40,000 refugees in destitute. They were “concerned by the possibility of permanent squatter settlements”. So “at the center of this strategy was the design for a small wooden cottage”. So these were designed with the incentive of “providing temporary shelter but also a path to homeownership for hundreds of San Francisco’s low-wage-earning families who might otherwise have never had the means to purchase a home”. So in the case of Le Corbusier design; was there enough research to foresee whether the homeless would be attracted to his alternative? Kate Stohr also explains that Le Corbusier lived in an era where architects and designers harnessed the potential of industry to produce low-cost buildings.


So reiterating on past successes and failures in this field is a good way to apprehend how the client will respond. “The design team is structured to bring many different disciplines to bear upon the problems that need solving, as well as to search for problems that need to be rethought” claims Victor Papenek. Buckminster Fuller, however, believes that “extinction is a consequence of over-specialisation. As you get more and more over-specialised, you inbreed specialisation. It’s organic. As you do, you outbreed general adaptability, so here have the warning that specialisation is a way to extinction”. So maybe an excess of re design isn’t the way forward?

The world development report explains a possible reason for designs outcomes, which can be in relation to the designs I have disscussed. “The main difference between success and failure is the degree to which poor people themselves are involved in determining the quality and quantity of the services they receive”. Architects have continued to respond to the issue of cheap housing and an example is “Alchemy Architects’ factory-built WeeHouse, a tiny 336 square foot dwelling that costs just
US$49,000 and arrives on a flatbed truck”.



www.samsung.com/Features/BrandMagazine/magazinedigitall/2005_spring/feat_02a.htm
Kate Stohr, 100 years of humanitarian design.
Victor Papenek, Design for the real world.
Katka

The Arts of Survival

Living in a slum - as Mike Davis says so - is fundamentally unpleasant. Slums are overcrowded, lacking basic needs such as clean water, sewage systems or waste facilities, generating dirt and disease. Infant morality is high, life expectancy is low and no real medical care is provided. Slums dwellers also have to contend with high crime rates, drugs and the fear of gang violence, the police do not offer their services and inhabitants are left to pay local groups for protection; this is predominantly the case for slums in Brazil known as favelas.

Some slum dwellers make a living by selling services to each other, from dressmaking and sex to taxis and drugs, they lack resources but somehow make do with what little they have. For example slum dwellers in Senegal, Africa, make toys out of fizzy drink cans found on rubbish heaps by their homes, selling them on to tourists. They create objects from other peoples waste displaying ingenuity and innovation, making a living off our rubbish. We can learn from their means of survival and incorporate our waste back to slum communities, supplying them with materials to earn living.
















It seems that the main concern of Governments is to prevent the slum population from spreading. In parts of Cape Town, electrical fences have replaced guards creating new forms of apartheid-like exclusion, making it harder for slum dwellers to become part of the mainstream. Governments have tried in the past to alleviate the slum problem by bulldozing them away, however the poor need to survive and slums keep on re-remerging. It was never taken in to consideration that the inhabitants are part of a community and some slums are more than 100 years old where many generations have lived.

Argentine born architect, Jorge Mario Jauregui was the mastermind behind a project that transformed Rio de Janeiro’s slums into functioning neighbourhoods, it won him several international awards including the prestigious “Habitat Award” from the United Nations. Rather than eradicating the favelas, Jauregui decided to integrate slums into the city by transforming them into real neighbourhoods. Jauregui and his team replaced dirt paths with paved walkways, creating streets to accommodate vehicles, building sewage systems and cleaning up polluted rivers. However he did not stop there, Jauregui also provided the residence with social centres, clinics, daycare centres and athletic complexes. This allowed the inhabitants of the favelas to integrate themselves into mainstream society, by simply providing them with their basic needs and creating centres for opportunities and employment.

Therefore designers should not limit themselves to creating tangible outcomes, design may also involve the creation of new systems and societies as Jauregui did. Design is finding solutions to a problem and it is not just left up to governments and politicians. The possibilities of design are endless.

‘The only limits are, as always, those of vision.’ (James Broughton)


Bibliography

Davis, M., (2006), Planet of Slums, London, Verso
Colors, (2005) 1000 Extra/Ordinary Objects, Germany, Taschen

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/12.14/08-gsdprize.html
http://www.macalester.ed u/courses/GEOG61/espencer/slums.html
http://www.roadjunky.com/brazil/favelas.shtml

Futures

Go Backwards and Gain

The question I ask is the one mentioned at a lecture (6th March) on Futures. Can we design for the future? Indeed, can we design the future? To improve for the future in order to create a better future is on the mind of every designer. Much has been said and written about this topic. This is why I intend to use my last blog to turn this ‘upside-down’ and ask a question: Can we design (for) the past?

At first, this seems to be impossible. Even Sam Hill commented on this at the same lecture. However, if more thinking is applied to this topic, interesting answers or thoughts can be found.

‘Is it still possible to live in a cave nowadays, with no electricity?’ (Fischli&Weiss, 2006) Responding to the blogs on ‘Slums’, this is actually a very topical quote. To live in a cave without electricity does not seem to be possible nowadays. However, how different is this description to the living conditions in slums? Sometimes, a cave would actually give a better shelter than a shanty. As for the electricity, it is not always the solution to light and heat whereas fire (in a cave) delivers heat and light as long as one has matches and some wood. Which one is better then?

One big difference is that ‘a cave’ is associated with the past left far behind whereas ‘slums’ is something with which we still have to live, something that will probably remain with us as we go towards the future (based on economy of a relevant country).

‘How should I decorate my tree?’ (Fischli&Weiss, 2006) Ethically, to think like this is wrong. Nobody wants (anybody) to live in trees or (as already mentioned) in a cave. However, the quote above brings to life many potential projects for a designer. This approach takes the designer ‘out of the box’ and helps him come to interesting solutions for the future. Therefore, to pretend that we could go backwards (towards the past) in our future could be seen as a gain.

This relates to Michel Serres and his idea of ‘harmony’ (or ‘disharmony’ to be more precise). According to him, the planet is not perfect. There are imperfections. Consequently, there is not only good and evil; there is the grey area in-between. If we accept this and start from here as suppose to seek the ‘harmony’ we may come to a better understanding of current problems. This approach is evident in a life of a multicultural city. It develops naturally and when a structure is applied, suddenly it is thrown out of its balance. This structure is foreseen as a ‘parasite’, as something extra.

We for some time now ‘parasite’ over our planet. We do not live alongside nature. We want to rule it and with any attempt to change our habits, both humans and nature suffer. Therefore the option of designing (for) the past deserves some thought. At this point, it is only fair to round up by saying: ‘Is life a strange system of caves?’ (Fischli&Weiss, 2006).


Fischli, P., Weiss, D. (2006), Will Happiness Find Me? (quotes translated by Catherine Schelbert), Koenig Books, London
http://tcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/1