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

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

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

Pannnnnnic button

The Government with its enviro-agenda, it seems to be neglecting one thing. The majority of us middle or low-income earners would like to ‘go green’ but it is just too expensive. I would love to have a wind turbine and solar panels generating household electricity but it would take me decades to recoup the initial investment.
Another example: nearly 200,000 Band G high-emission vehicles entered our road network last year. Why dose not the Government limit the number sold per year from the most polluting bands to 30,000? The prices would increase as supply would be less than demand and anyone willing to pay the premium to own one of the 30,000 should also be able to easily afford the congestion charges, oil, fuel and parking fees that these big and powerful organizations would attract.
In Wednesdays ‘Metro’ I have read that ‘Nasa is too skint to save us! The cost of finding all the asteroids that might hit Earth is too high to do anything about it’. Nasa says. Tracking at least 90 per cent of the 20,000 potentially ‘killer’ asteroids and comets by 2020 would cost about £519million. One of the solutions would be to build a new ground telescope solely with other ‘helpers’ telescopes for a total of £415million. Another option would be to launch ‘a space infrared telescope’ which is faster for £500million. After this proposal Nasa and White House officials have made their statement: ‘The decision of the agency is we just can’t do anything about it right now’. As if they have any other, more interesting things to do, than protecting millions of people on this planet from complete disaster!
My question: Is it all worth it? Does the recycling ‘things’, energy savings, green pollutions and all the rest of helping the climate change issues are going to change anything?
My opinion is: At the end of the day, the history like to repeat it self, so the world is going to the end and no matter how hard we will try to stop it, planet earth needs to reborn. We still have enough time to find another liveable planet and prepare it for our grandchildren to come.

bibligraphy: tv news, Metro, people

Futures

Futures
Liz Cullen

Looking back at the Pruitt-Igoe housing estate in St.Louis, we are struck by how giant the problem of housing in crowding areas is. The houses in St. Louis were built out of necessity; former slums, the eleven tower blocks were built to solve the problem of homelessness. Designed to incorporate, 'space, design and greenery', these ground-breaking new homes decayed into a horror zone in little over twenty years, and were destroyed by clashes of culture, race and circumstance. This chain of events happens surprisingly often.

In the UK 'regeneration' is occurring everywhere from Glasgow to London. Birmingham's Bullring is a prized example. The Bullring has changed from a 1960's iron/concrete structure, well known for being one of the most dangerous areas of the city, into the largest shopping centre in Europe. The entire city centre was cut out and regenerated and now, the crime rate in Birmingham has actually fallen.

Therefore, questions about the connection between crime and environment are not unfounded. So in theory, build a haven, and people will be happier. But what is a Haven? Le Corbourier's idea of a haven was 'Radiant City', 1930-1935. Radiant city consisted of a complex of streets, shops and living space suspended above green fields. So ideally, we could have an urban culture and yet still live, in some sense, rurally. Le Corbourier was able to envision perfect living conditions as he did not have the means to envision all the flaws and imperfections that his design would encounter. Also by looking back, we can see the errors of the St. Louis project, however at the time, it seemed the perfect solution to a very difficult problem.

Le Courbourir’s idea of a utopia is in itself, flawed. The definition of utopia is ’nowhere’, so in designing a utopia you design your creation in a kind of limbo, existing nowhere except in a projection of a perfect world. Pruitt-Igoe designed for a perfect world and as a result was met with, ‘corruption, rioting and disaster’.

This vicious cycle of disposable housing is a growing problem. A lot of the responsibility lies with the designers. Instead of designing for a perfect world it is more realistic to be thoughtful about what it could descend into, and the problems it could encounter. By taking into account the flaws of our environment we can begin to design for a more realistic world. Michel Serres’ ‘Disequilibrium’ addresses this idea promoting the concept of the worlds flaws being a starting point for creativity and, instead of pretending the do not exist, we should embrace them and design for them.