Job title: Community Pollinator

There was a comment made in week two of our lecture series that,to paraphrase, went 'Who cares about animals as long as we survive what do they matter?'. This wonderful naive comment addresses how we contextualise our existence within nature. The remark suggests that in-fact we aren't within nature,  we are a separate entity. Side by side trying to coexist or maybe even against nature. This ideology is biologically ridiculous as we are animals down to our every molecule and despite our cranial development that has set us apart from other animals we are very much a part of and rely on an ecosystem. 

Currently we are experiencing a global crisis and I'm not referring to formidable illustrious issue of climate change but the drastic decline in bees. 30% of British bees died last year, 25 of our native species have become extinct over the last 50 years and 7 more are officially at risk. Causes are said to include the changes in the weather we are experiencing and also pesticides and modern intensive farming practices. Bees are a crucial part of a food chain and their decline will impact many other animals. But above all they are pollinators; carrots, onions, apples and potatoes are reliant to name a few. Without bees there will be a drastically different menu available, less oxygen return, fewer flowers and a very different landscape. Welcome to a world where alongside the postman and the milk man there is a community pollinator.

This example is just to highlight what i feel is a misguided attitude that is very inherent within our culture. I agree with Chris's comment that "it’s important to remember that we invented the word nature and created its model. We created its boundaries, what it is and what it stands for. As a model it doesn’t actually tell us what is going on and if anything tells us more about ourselves than the universe around us." Through the way that things are designed and produced and the grasp that consumerism has we are now ignorant to the influence that we have over our planets delicate structure and the consequences of our behaviour that will inevitably impact us. Insects are the stitches that hold together the very fabric of our planet. Eco design shouldn't just be soy based and organic for us to feed on with a cleaner conscience it ought to be conductive and begin to alter our relationship with nature so that we become compassionate. 

Artificial Natural - Genetically modified foods, the Science Museum, and food miles

Recently, I went to the London Science Museum especially to see their ‘Future Foods’ exhibition. I was extremely disappointed at the way the subject of genetically modified food, which I am passionate about, had been treated. I had to ask directions from a member of staff in order to find the tiny area, which was more like a bad trade stand, hidden away at the back of the museum. The design was un-engaging, overly text-heavy and difficult to interact with. The repetitive content didn’t deal with what I feel are some of the most relevant questions in the debate. This reflects badly on the Science Museum, who should be at the forefront of raising the issues around controversial new foods.

If we are to take this as an example of the institution’s attitude to GM foods, it could be argued that the UK needs to embrace design in relation to GM food, with a view to encouraging the general public to become more aware of and to engage with the debates surrounding it.

However, avoiding GM is not as simple as one might think. As a conscientious shopper, in my local supermarket I often notice that the organic products (which must be non-GM in order to be certified as organic) come from much further afield, and therefore carry a larger carbon footprint than the non-organic equivalents.

‘Consumers are increasingly worried about the ‘carbon footprint’ of transporting the contents of their shopping trolley. Grapes from Egypt, basil from Israel and green beans from Kenya are favoured over British and European produce by supermarkets. In response to shoppers’ concerns, Tesco is developing a label that will map the carbon footprint of products, including tomatos and orange juice.’
crEATe, 2008

Why should we have to make a decision between these ethically grey options? Organic produce is definitely not GM or full of chemicals, so should therefore be better for us, but often comes with a massive carbon footprint; whereas regular foods could contain ingredients and additives not tested on humans, but often come from within the UK.

Instead of debating this moral dilemna, I feel that we should be moving towards self-sustainability; growing our own food ourselves and not relying on it being shipped halfway across the world for us.

‘…Consumers are beginning to take matters into their own hands by producing their own food. UN Development Programme researchers have found herbs growing on rooftops in Santiago, cacti in Mexico City and pigeons kept in Cairo.’
crEATe, 2008

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/local-river.php

CrEATe : eating, design and future food, Robert Klanten et al., Berlin, Gestalten, 2008

The Arts of Survival - ‘Design for the other 90%’ as a solution to the global problems that consumerism has created

‘The more we consume, the better our lives will be…it’s a very seductive idea. But it’s also a lethal idea…the trouble is, as consumers, we don’t always know the real cost of what we’re buying…’
Jonathon Porritt, 2007

Consumerism has massively contributed to the global issues that we are being asked to deal with today, such as global warming, the exhausting of many resources, sweatshops, child labour and low wages. Every year, 1.5 million computers and 3 million fridges go into landfill, in the UK alone. On average, a person gets a new mobile phone every 18 months. If all six billion people in the world were to live in the same way as we do in the UK, we would need two more planets to support their demands. In response to these problems, many designers have created ‘green’ alternatives to the everyday products that are to blame.

However, I believe that there is currently an over-production of ‘green’ and ‘eco’ products that aren’t truly sustainable and don’t solve the problem. Despite this shift towards responsible design being better than nothing, in that it has raised awareness of the issues involved, it could be argued that these products just add towards already over-saturated consumer markets. There are already enough pens, bags, and cups in the world. I feel that as designers, we should not be pushing more consumption.

‘Design for the other 90%’ could be a solution to the crisis that consumerism has created.

Designers can direct their talents towards making the lives of the ‘other 90%’ easier. Design can be used to combat disease, for example the ‘Lifestraw’ project. ‘LifeStraw, a personal mobile water-purification tool, is designed to turn any surface water into drinking water’ (www.other90.cooperhewitt.org/design). On the other hand, designers must be careful not to patronize these users, as they are in fact already designers, and have adapted the objects and materials around them in order to live. It is also essential that any new products created now address the importance of sustainable materials and methods for making, so that while helping to improve lives, they do not add to the problems we all face.

www.other90.cooperhewitt.org/design

Big Ideas that changed the World: Consumerism, written & presented by Jonathon Porritt; produced & directed by Jane Cameron, Mentorn, Channel 5, 2007

The value of an attempt...

By taking a look at ‘Treetents’ by Dré Wapenaar, we can attempt to analyze how design really has the potential of changing the world. The tents were originally designed for England’s Road Alert Group – members of which were opposing the destruction of forests for motorway expansion. Wapenaar designed these tents so that the activists could protect the trees and have a safe and comfortable place to sleep during the project. Sadly, the project was never fully realized and was not implemented into the desired situation. Instead, the tents were sold to a campsite in the Netherlands in 1998, where you can now rent one for approximately fifty pounds per night, with enough space for two adults and two small children.


What frustrates me about this is that the designs original goal was never met. They are now being used in an awkward in between space, stuck between nature and that of civilization. This isn’t to say I’m not happy that they’re being used because I am, but it just comes to show that designs may not always fill the niche that people want them to. Imagine an Amazonian rainforest with each and every tree with a treetent parasitically attached to it. I’m not exactly sure how effective that would be but it is creating a rather absurd visual in my mind. Maybe the treetents had to be sold to a campsite as to gradually introduce such a smaller scaled idea into society and spur criticism about its sheer existence as a design; as well as determine its potential for the future. In my opinion, no matter if a design project is successful or unsuccessful in achieving its intended goal, it will almost always be beneficial as long as it spawns this kind of criticism and pushes design to do better for the future. An attempt is better than none at all.

References:
Antonelli, Paola, ed. Safe: Design Takes on Risk (New York: Museum of Modern Art,
2005).
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/11/21/treetents-by-dre-wapenaar/
http://www.ardoer.com/nl/camping/hertshoorn_camping_de/home/verhuur/de_boomtent/

SLUMDOG

It’s a very enjoyable film, but that’s that.
A story about a kid from the Mubai slums that goes on to win india’s “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” through answering incredibly convenient questions that also happen to tell the story if his life is NOT A VALID REFERENCE POINT.
It is a fantastical story, the slums are depicted in a way that makes them look exciting and vibrant, but with elements of the harsh reality that exists there. It is not necessary to point out that it doesn’t illustrate life in slums accurately, that’s not what it says on the tin. IT’S A STORY.
So yes, it is not 100% accurate, it makes slum life look like a colourful, if a bit risky existence.
But there is still the ‘fact’ that the children see their mother get murdered for her religion and are then forced to beg on the streets with the potential of their eyes being gouged out.
So its not all cheeky scamps and lucky breaks.

I have never been to a place where poverty or slums exist, it is a world I am naïve to. I think it is patronising to even assume any ‘understanding’ of the life in the slums. Whether we feel they are “getting on with it” and don’t know any better (I would imagine not often the case) or they need to be ‘saved’, over 31.6% of the worlds population live in slums or shanty towns (figures compiled by UN-HABITAT in 2001). So either something there is working, or something ‘out here’ clearly isn’t.

Useful?

Projects such as the Q Drum, Lifestraw and Big Boda are useful. They have been designed functionally to address specific needs but are they resolving a situation or merely reacting to it?
Frances Whitehead, in her piece Primary Plus, examines products used to contain toxic oil spills and questions whether these “sophisticated remediation strategies perpetuate unsustainable practices such as shipping crude oil across the oceans?”.1 Similarly I would question whether these projects fulfill a similar role by ameliorating the immediate situation without tackling the root issues.


In particular the Q Drum presents an elegant, simple solution to ease the transportation of water -it is round so it can roll. However, what I find particularly interesting about this project is its inbuilt assumption that nobody had thought of a rolling container and that it required a designer to bestow this gift of innovation.
Rolling containers obviously already exist (such as the Aquaroll pictured) so it is not the lack of a container design which is the problem but the lack of access to existing products and adding another unobtainable product to the roster doesn’t help anybody.





That is not to say that design cannot be of use unless it deals directly with large problems and that there can be no value in small scale intervention. Michael Rakowitz’s paraSITE project, in his own words, “ does not present itself as a solution.” as it does nothing to get the homeless off the streets (instead actually prolonging life on the streets).2 This project, however was never intended to directly solve problems but instead to provoke public debate. Rakowitz hopes that “the failure of paraSITE as a design project may put the onus on designers to provide proposals for longer lasting structures” but I would argue that Rakowitz has already created a successful design project.3 As with the water drums the problem here is not the existence of a physical object solution but the underlying social-political-economic structure which creates the problem and this is what his project addresses.


N:1 Stephanie Smith and Victor Margolin. Beyond Green: Toward a Sustainable Art(Chicago: Smart Museum of Art, 2005): 131.
N:2 Michael Rakowitz, “The paraSITE - an inflatable shelter for the homeless that runs off expelled HVAC air”, gizmag.com, http://www.gizmag.com/go/4455/3/ (accessed March 4th 2009).
N:3 Stephanie Smith and Victor Margolin. Beyond Green: Toward a Sustainable Art(Chicago: Smart Museum of Art, 2005): 123.

Garden cities of today:

The ‘Thanet Earth’ project in East Kent, is a vast greenhouse complex, the size of eighty football pitches.  The project proposes to be able to produce fifteen percent of the UK’s consumed salad vegetables, reduce carbon consumption on imported foods and provide over five hundred new jobs.   Therefore, the project could potentially be economically and ecologically beneficial.    

In 1902, Ebenezer Howard first published his idea of Garden cities; where country and town living would no longer be separate societies but combined into one suburban farming concept.  Howard’s intentions were for a mass cultural re-framing in the distinction between the horticultural and industrial worlds, however the theory was only implemented into two towns.  Is ‘Thanet earth’ a pioneering venture or just a modern adaptation of Howard’s utopian vision? Instead of bringing more country into town, as in Howard’s concept, the Thanet project could be accused of imposing industrial behaviours into the countryside, blotting the landscape with fields of glass.  The project is unlikely to be replicated, as there are few areas with the correct climate in the UK.  However, if it was to expand further natural growth could effectively be eradicated and replaced with more soilless growing complexes, in which plants grow from nutrient-enriched water.  As a result, is our horticultural production going to turn in a world of battery farmed Iceberg lettuces?  

Hello Mount DOOOOM!

Another mount Fuji? Hang on, it's actually taller, wider, bigger than ever, and a lot uglier. This is the X-Seed 4000, one of many mega-structure projects idealized in japan not so far away from mount Fuji. It's the tallest building ever fully envisioned, meaning that the designs for construction have been completed. Its proposed 4,000 meters (13,123 ft) height, 6 km (3.7 miles) wide, and 800 floor capacity could accommodate five hundred thousand to one million inhabitants.

Designed by the Taisei Corporation in 1995 as a futuristic sustainable building with ultra-modern living and interaction with nature. Unlike conventional skyscrapers, the X-Seed 4000 would be required to actively protect its occupants from considerable air pressure gradations and weather fluctuations along its massive elevation. Its design calls for the use of solar power to maintain internal environmental conditions. Some estimate that the cost to construct the X-Seed 4000 structure may be somewhere between US$300-900 BILLION!


For me, it's not the design that puts me off the most, even if it does. It's the concept of building such a structure, which accommodates up to a million inhabitants. It's that one step the architects and the silly idealists took further. Really annoys me. I understand they've calculated how this mega-structure would be able to maintain light, temperature, and air pressure in response to changing external weather conditions, but do we really need this sort of architecture; what do you think?

For the record, this building will not be built, and I advise these people to put their minds into something that's more sustainable on a realistic scale, even if it were to gain publicity (if that's what they were going for in the first place.)

Good bye Mount Doom !

Money makes the world go round

When looking at the issues of sustainability, eco-living, global warming and all other ‘green’ subjects, I find it interesting to consider who and what is the driving force behind their progression. Is it about being moral and ethical or is it about making money from a bad situation? There is a growing consumer demand for environmental products and services. Obviously this is a good thing, indicating that society is warming to sustainable living. However as an article in ‘The Economist’ states, ‘many businesses are seeking to make the most of such opportunities.’ The question here then is whether these businesses truly believe in being eco-friendly or whether they are taking advantage of our new found moral selves.

The arts of survival

Once again about reasons for occurrence of slums

There are many reasons for formations of slums. One of them is deeply connected to the place where I come from. I believe that globalization and transitions of political system were one of them.

The era of globalization promoted the most successful type of economy and political system such as capitalism and market economy. Some country’s political systems collapsed and they had to adopt new system(such as capitalism)."In the early 1990s extreme poverty in the former ‘transitional countries’ (as the UN calls them) soared from 14 million to 168 million: a mass pauperization almost without precedent in history."(Mike Davis, PLANET OF SLUMS, 22)

Some countries such as ex-soviet union countries (Russian Federation, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Byelorussia, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan) had recently shifted its political system and economies to capitalist system. For most people living in those countries it was hard to adjust to new type of life. There was a mass depression in these countries. They all went through transition of political systems.


Changes occurred instantly. Roubles (soviet currency) lost its value and people had useless paper instead of money in their pockets. There were cases when educated people who had diploma or doctorate degree in their hands were left without jobs and any demand for them. People had to survive and start over again. Some people survived and some went crazy. It was the end of the world for most people and for some people it was an opportunity to make money. In despair you could find people who sold their clothes, furniture, medals and everything which is more or less sellable in their houses in order to buy some food.


People did whatever to survive. Some managed to leave the country in search for better life and some simply couldn’t afford it. Of course people had to change their professions, habits, thoughts, beliefs, desires,etc in order to survive. They were exposed for constant compromises.These historical moments together with other factors lead to occurrence of slums.

The arts of survival

One of the reasons for slums is...modernization

“One crucial political result of modernization is the gap it produces between countryside and city. This gap is, indeed, a preeminent political characteristic of societies undergoing rapid social and economic change. It is the primary source of political instability in such societies and a principal, if not the principal, obstacle to national integration. Modernization is, in large part, measured by the growth of the city. The city becomes the locus of new economic activities, new social classes, new culture and education, which make it fundamentally different from the more tradition bound countryside.”

“The city and countryside become different nations, different ways of life.”

“Historically, the emigration of the peasant from village cottage to city slum was a decisive and irreversible change. In the later modernizing countries, however, the very process of modernization itself has made the move less decisive and has reduced the gap between city and countryside.” (Samuel P. Huntington, Political order in changing societies, Yale University Press, 1968, p72)

Hidden reason for urbanization is modernization. We can clearly understand why there are slums in the cities. People all over world try to get from countryside to the city. Naturally, everyone understands that you can earn more money and there are more opportunities there.
“The standard of living in the city is often four or five times that of the countryside. Most of those in the city are literate; a substantial majority of those in the countryside are illiterate.”(Samuel P. Huntington, Political order in changing societies, Yale University Press, 1968, p72)

The city is not planned to have so many people living in one space and if there are slums in the city it indicates that state authorities simply can’t afford providing basic facilities for their citizens.

We are the Car

‘Within living memory Britain has become a nation of drivers’* and as a consequence the car defines the world we are building around us. Town Planning has become dominated by road networking. Pockets of new build houses are linked to out of town retail parks, spaghetti tendrils of macadam to join up the spaces between.

Milton Keynes has become the showcase for town planning around the car. It is seen as the current pinnacle, an ideal for our motoring desires. Traffic is rarely a problem and the car is able to flow through the city with access everywhere. On the other hand, Milton Keynes is a monster; it removes the city from a local human scale. We spend so much time in our cars now that we lose time for normal human interactions. The car should become secondary in city transport planning and put people first!

*Michael Smith

Mimicking nature for our future?

The Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, is the country’s largest office and shopping complex, inspired by African termites!

The termites build mounts reaching several feet in order to farm a fungus that feeds them. The finicky fungus must live at exactly 30 degrees C. While temperatures outside the mound walls vary by about 21 degrees C, they had a problem to solve. The termites achieve this feat by constantly opening and closing a series of heating and cooling vents throughout the mound over the course of the day. Air is sucked in at the lower part of the mound, down into enclosures with muddy walls, and up through a channel to the peak of the termite mound. The termites constantly dig new vents and plug up old ones in order to regulate the temperature inside.

I think that the use of Biomimicry is what we need for the future. We are constantly evolving and wanting to make the future of design more sustainable. In order to achieve this it is sometimes better to look back in history or even into nature to find the most efficient way of dealing with current problems.
Mick Pierce and Arup Engineers designed a system in the building that draws outdoor air in and heats or cools it against the building mass depending on which is warmer, the building or the air. The air is then vented into the building through the floors and exits through chimneys at the top.
The complex is made up of two buildings connected by a glass passageway that is open to the fresh air. As air is drawn from this space, fresh air is constantly replacing stale air. This is healthy for the people inside the space, as nature is doing most of the work.

As nature has evolved throughout the years can we depend on it for the future?

Xeritown - The Future of the City

Whenever we look at Dubai today developers are haemorrhaging money. Eco town planning is been taken to the rich as Dubai builds Xeritown.
Xeritown is proposed to be the worlds first carbon neutral town, offering free reign to architects and designers to propose and build a fully sustainable city. With limitless money and ideas this town should become the benchmark for ideals on eco living. Could we have a rejuvenated blueprint for town planning first pioneered by Le Corbusier? My fear is this city will simply be the new showcase for the money of Dubai, which shuts out the undesirables of their society.
This will be an eco city, but is it an ethical one?

                                              POOOOOOFFFFF.. Now you have one of these!!

As you may have heard the Government has decided that it would be a wise idea to offer £2000 to any person that would like to trade their "banger" of a car in for recycling. This £2000 then can be spent on a new car or a one year old model, which will be more environmentally friendly.

"Under the proposed stimulus package, drivers would be able to turn in their car, which must be at least nine years old, and get a £2,000 discount on the purchase of any new or one-year-old car bought at a dealership in Britain"

Now I am up for saving the environment and treating it better, but this is just a waste of time. Firstly the cheapest new car is around the £4000 mark, and that is a very basic model. Even if you went second hand, when looking for a one year old car they will still be around this price even with a basic model. Now i don't know if the government had left its brain at home, but no one will want to trade there 8 year old car with full extras for a 1 year old pile of far eastern junk? 

Why would anyone ever do this, the fuel consumption on a good car 8 years ago is as good or slightly under a standard car now.. If you wanted to beat this fuel consumption you would have to spend allot more than £2000 pounds. I would say triple that amount and you may be on to a winner... But again, why would anyone do that in the this current economical climate and how is this going to help save the Environment...??

Reference: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5904540.ece

Consumerism

We live in a consumerist society, driven by aesthetics and wants. Judy Attfield gives reason to why we could possibly be in the dire straits of an uneven share of resources, and why we are swimming in a pool of product clutter . Within her book The role of ethics in the practice of design she looks at Britain within the second world war where a British Utility Scheme was implemented which would ensure well-designed goods in terms of balance between degree of quality and the management of resources this was to achieve minimum price and to promote the fair distributions to all sectors of the population . This therefore meant resources were used accordingly and not wasted allowing people to still have a quality of life without infringing on the resources needed for the War effort. After the War people resented modernism and wanted something fresh and new and exciting, thinking of a higher level and designing where aesthetics take priority, welcome to post-modernism.

One laptop per child - Arts of Survival

'One laptop per child' is a scheme aimed at children in developing countries . The laptops are designed as an educational tool in an experiment to promote socially responsible design. The idea is simple, A non profit organisation makes 'low cost' laptops on a massive scale, and governments buy the laptops and distribute them to schools.

Now this idea has it's obvious educational and informative benefits, but developing countries are still in desperate need for fresh water and shelter. Before governments start shelling out sums of money on laptops, $100 each, these basic necessities need have to be provided or progression of developing countries will just not happen. Most governments in developing countries will not be able to afford laptops for every single child. This just seems like another designers quest to give everyone in the world the same opportunities, which is fine, but in reality, what is more important, fresh water or a free laptop?

The philosophy of dwelling

“To be a human being means to be on the earth as a mortal. it means to dwell. The old word bauen, which says that man is insofar as he dwells, this word barren however also means at the same time to cherish and protect, to preserve and care for, specifically to till the soil, to cultivate the vine. Such building only takes care-it tends the growth that ripens into its fruit of its own accord. Building
in the sense of preserving and nurturing is not making anything. “
Martin Heiddeger

Heidegger's essay "building dwelling thinking" is today one of the most popular philosophical texts read by architects. In the essay Heidegger states -"only if we are capable of dwelling, only then can we build“. As human beings, we cannot fail to dwell, as dwelling is the essential existential core of human being in the world, from which there is no escape. The questions are: how do we dwell in our particular situations and how can we shape the quality of our dwelling? Heidegger links the quality of our dwelling to the quality of buildings. Heidegger argues that, in our modern age, human dwelling is reduced and so is building. His explication of why we dwell less fully today is complicated; he suggests that, in part, it is because we manipulate and demand from our world rather than it sparing and preserving.

In 1961 Parker Morris created a report on housing space standards in public housing in UK (a set of minimum criteria for good housing construction, design, and facilities). In 1967 these space standards became mandatory for all housing built
in new towns, extended to all council housing in 1969.Unfortunately, the standards stopped being mandatory in 1980, and little of the public housing built in the quarter of a century meets all of Morris' aspirations. Nowadays the UK has some
of the lowest space standards in Europe.

POINTLESS DESIGN

“Increasingly, many of us (especially the young) have come to reject the mere accumulation of material possessions. That this emotion is engendered largely by the fact that we live in a post-industrial society bursting with gadgets, knickknacks and manufactured trivia is abundantly clear.” Victor Papanek
When I think of pointless designs the first that springs to mind is the souvenir. There are many stores and stalls around central London selling various objects to remind travellers of their visit to England. The flaw is that most if not all of what is on offer is pure tack. All of which is probably mass produced in China. My opinion has always been that souvenirs are pointless designs and I have never bought anything from a souvenir store when travelling. I generally only buy postcards to send home and take photographs to record places I have travelled and to use as my memorabilia or souvenir. After research I have discovered that some people buy souvenirs because they are tacky and do buy them with the intention of keeping them as memorabilia for themselves. Another point to this discussion is that they will buy souvenirs to bring back to their family and friends but not in the form of ornaments or teddy bears or t-shirts, but they will bring back confectionary and biscuits. Although on most occasions the sweets available in souvenir stores are universal or produced outside the given country. So really what is the point of souvenirs because while they may come in the form of a famous landmark they are generally produced outside the country they are sold.

Consume Your Ethics / Slums

Living in a developed capitalist society, speaking about sustainability and swimming in the sweet mud of consumerism is uncomfortable. Here are some resources in this regard:

In Massive change, by Brice Mau, on page 191, William McDonough’s speaks about setting clear goals and distinguishes between eco efficiency and effectiveness. I would paraphrase this idea through a metaphorical cliché:

Not What to do with the plastic bag?

but

Why still producing the plastic bag in the first place?

Consequently, in order to avoid hypocrisy in our thinking and doing in regard to Ethics and Sustainability, we could either:

Embrace the current consumer capitalism status quo, which is spreading like a disease over the planet, imposing proven as unsustainable structures on communities, societies, and countries while wiping their existent, sustainable structures off, and hiding behind the notion of “development” (see the Chinese and Indian economic/industrial boom for example).

So we: Enjoy it while it lasts / Get it while we can.

or:

Take a radical stance, choosing holistic Prosperity instead of (industrial) Development. Do not design packaging but design facilities.

In the context of the Slums discussion, I found the work of the architect Alejandro Aravena very relevant, important and empowering in respect to the stated above. Presented with the task to build for the poor with little money, he designer only the basic and necessary structure of the houses:

“When you have money for half the house, the question is what half do we do?”, he says in an interview in the January issue of Icon magazine.

The project he refers to is called Elemental. Given the basic structures, the inhabitants made their own, unique furnishings, so the result was the best of both worlds: the compulsory for a healthy living standard infrastructure which is sanitation and weather shelter + indigenous, vernacular, personalized finish.

Aravena forever!

DESIGN FOR SURVIVAL

i haven't written about design in the slums i have a different take on 'design fior survival'.
Many designs now are made solely for aesthetic purposes and not for their usability. Design sometimes, is about propaganda making us believe that it is what we want. I am talking about design for survival in this instance as feasible design solutions that help further our civilisation. In Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek, his chapter titled Design for Survival he describes how “in industrial circles today, most major research concerns itself not with producing for actual needs, but rather propagandizes people to only desire what has been produced.”
Design seems to have a taken a step further in to the extreme of ensuring our survival. On a trip to the design museum I stumbled upon a design called ‘Life Support’ challenging the design of the dialysis machine by Revital Cohan. Using animals to ensure human survival is the key element even though this device is actually advertised to ‘save’ greyhound race dogs after their short lived careers on the racetracks.
The design is looking at a “way of disconnecting people from the therapeutic machines and cold technologies they are harnessed to” and placing animals in that position instead. It’s no worry that the dog is now known and used as a “respiratory ‘device’” for human purpose, they all get “complementary training” thrown in. Well I’d say that’s a pretty sweet deal they get “complementary training” thrown in with a life of imprisonment and slavery. That definitely makes up for the fact that they are prisoners to the NHS.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am slightly worried that this is what certain designers are proposing. If Victor Papanek is right, which I think in some circumstances he is, does that mean that in the future people will start believing that this is the way forward?

::Contemporary Art with an environmental context::

Art can be used as space for exploration, presenting novel ways of exploring ecological issues and challenges that don’t fit neatly into boxes.



The strength of artists is that they often work across margins and disciplines, revealing new insights and asking questions in the process.
These new insights can be used as a catalyst for envisioning alternative futures, new ways of seeing land, nature and “unbuilt” environments.
Furthermore art is a framing device for visual and social experience and artists can be good at slipping between the institutional walls.

There are several artistic projects about environmental concerns to highlight. The “Shapeshifter” exhibition by Brian Jungen would be one example.
The Canadian artist Jungen is fascinated by the way we view animals and seeks to overturn assumptions and cultural stereotypes.

His recent works are large-scale whale skeletons made from dissected and reassembled plastic garden chairs.

“The chairs are a petroleum product which was once organic, yet as a result of the manufacturing process the matter became inorganic”, Jungen commented.



Taking the plastic chairs as a suburban icon of mass production and delighting in the irony of using this decidedly non-biodegradable material to represent endangered species, Jungen’s series is concerned with the status of both the familiar and the rare as commodities in a globalised economy.

The Arts of Survival

The cities of tomorrow. The new urban world.

Let's number crunch. 1 in 6 people on the planet live in slums. By 2030 that will have gone up to 1 in 4 and then up to 1 in 3 by 2050. *

These astonishing statistics are proof that we need to engage with these communities. After all, these are the cities of the future. It seems that these future urban landscapes are about regression rather than progression. Less building up with glass and steel and more mud and concrete huts.

This migration from rural landscapes into urban living is ever increasing. But why is this? This urban slum life may look terrible but, unlike the rural living, cities provide jobs and resources. These urban squatters are not bound by rules or laws. Instead they are free to do what they want. No legal neighbourhood can offer this. They may have to pay a small fee for the land they live on but, other than that, they are not bound or restricted by anyone. With this they are able to form communities of their own. This may be one of the only upsides however; in many cases there is a lack of balance. Slum dwellers are not able to get their hands on the simple commodities, sanitation and infrastructure that we take for granted. Although a surprising number have Internet access they are not linked up to a clean water supply or their own electricity. This results in situations like this image shows, where skilled individuals manage to tap into overhead pylons. Maybe this illustrates the haphazard and temporary nature of urban slum life as well as any written account.

* Robert Neuwirth: The "shadow cities" of the future (Ted.com)

let’s replace the old version

According to Red Cross on average more than 211 million people have been affected by natural, or manmade disasters each year. What’s more the agency reports that this number is constantly growing.

The design brief is based in a scenario where all of the sudden hundreds thousands of people loose their relatives, properties, become homeless. What role can/does design play in crisis situations? Can design make a significant difference to those in despair?

My research made me realise how many issues aid agencies have to face while distributing aid. I always thought that main problems are to accumulate needed funds and to get appropriate amount of aid workers, but now i see that there are plenty of other issues. Logistic, transportation, conflict of interests with local governments, cultural differences, lack of cooperation from local societies are just some of them. Therefore, is design a solution for mentioned problems?

Already some aid organisations turn to designers for help in solving their issues. There are crisis relieve projects run by profit and non-profit design practices and universities. Designers like Fred Cuny show via their activity that creative, well considered approach can make difference. Unfortunately the importance of design is still underestimated. Some designs never pass the stage of prototyping because of lack of funds for this purpose. The solutions used by aid agencies are often outdated, inappropriate. For instance, same canvas tents are being in use since 20 years although new lightweight designs should have replaced them years ago.

“In our business it’s really difficult to say, ‘I have something new, and let’s replace the old version’”

Ghassem Fardanesh, UNHCR

Hopefully this situation will soon change.