Architecture & Society... discuss.

[Thorgnor]

Just thought I'd make a link to the pics (and what I could see turning into an interesting conversation) from the Pictures forum.

hippies...

http://www.jambands.ca/sanctuary/showtopic.php?tid/251701/

[SaggyBalls]

I think it's high time that someone makes the case well that design need be valued.

It is very easy for many people to side with the 'it's too expensive/frivolous' side of things, but as people begin living more closely together (and it's gonna happen) architecture - civil(? bridges, roads, walking paths, etc.), landscape(parks, boulevards, to create a sense of organic space), and traditional (? cool buildings) - will be the one thing people may regret not demanding in spaces everywhere.

I most often think of architecture as being buildings, but I was thinking about this earlier today...if we don't organize and plan our space to ensure that we're comfortable when we've built our towns and cities to capacity (and start tearing down subdivisions to put up apartment buildngs) then there'll probably be more 'heated' discussion as time goes on.

Cost versus Value?

Am I the only one that sees how we've been bullied into being cheapskates when it comes to urban planning and community design?

[Thorgnor]

No your not... it's probably the most important area of theoretical research in architecture and design right now. Beyond making comfort though, is the need to incorporate the reality that conflict or "antagonism" can be trained into collaboration or "agonism" through design. Look for an interview with Markus Miessen & Chantal Mouffe in Verb Crisis, or check or Alesandro Aravena's way of creating community collaboration and the re-use of waste as building materials.

The McDonough stuff is fascinating and well worth the read.

oh yeah... my point about the "architect-as-technician" is exactly that architects have been coralled by materials and planning constraints into not building what people really want and need. Instead they've mostly become engineers, who have many uses, but they are problem solvers and life is not a problem, I think that is at the root of many of the problems in opur society.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

The 'what people want and need' concept is interesting...

...how do we gauge this? a free market?

If we take that into account, people want single family dwellings, lots of cars, lots of fancy silly crap, among other things.

How can we accomplish this without creating an enormous drain on resources and infrastructure?

Is the answer more single-family dwellings, or in designing communities with multi-family dwellings, cohousing communities, housing cooperatives, loft living, and multi-use development?

I admit that it is quite nice to be in a house with a lawn and some space from time to time, but how much of that is really important to hold as necessity and how much can we adapt the concepts of space/healthy solitude to value a synthesis of suburbia and urban living?

there's the 'people want' and the 'people don't really understand what they want' sides of the argument/discussion and both sides can quite easily become insulted by the other without proper understanding.

[Birdy]

so the architect now manufactures communities, and even could go so far as adapting the family unit?

for some reason, i always cringe at the idea of co-housing communities. i'm so of the 'i like a nice front lawn, big backyard and dinner around a table' variety. And i'm a little weary of adapting the family structure - but i suppose in this day and age of single parents, having three dads and four moms is better than one mom who is too busy to parent. I'm an idealist though.

that said, in bigger cities, i love pedestrian only zones and think architects and town planners could do the world one solid huge favour by putting more of these in - one big car park at the edge and then use your feet and get some exercise. Town squares of parks in the middle for green space - or tall buildings with roof-top parks. The possibilities are limit-less.

[SaggyBalls]

Co-Housing doesn't have to be intrusive as long as that's the goal of the group.

In time we'll probably see sides of the movement make it sort of a shared facilities condominium aesthetic - considerate volume development...at least that's where I see it having the most potential in my life. Sure a few regular community meals, events, or gatherings are nice, but I want to be able to use a workshop or have a huge organic garden without having the entire responsibility of caring for it.

Help and Sharing, Birdy. Help and Sharing.

Anyway, the 'architect' designs. it's up to the community to make demands on the architect and find ways to implement the designs. I like your ideas. how do we ensure we get these rooftop parks and pedestrian zones?

[Birdy]

Raise gas prices and decrease our dependency on cars to move us around. Build high-speed rail to move people quickly and efficiently instead. Wait for the green movement to really shift public attitude on what acceptable levels of pollution in our cities are. Lobby urban planners and council members for smart infrastructure and pedestrian only zones. Build up instead of across because we realize cars aren't as efficient as we once thought. The list could go on... and is probably (hopefully) only a matter of time. Emphasis on the hopefully.

Help and Sharing, Birdy. Help and Sharing.

I'm a competitive gardener. :laugh:

[SaggyBalls]

oh! well you're onto something...

...but lobbying is costly. And necessary.

[Birdy]

I think i'd be on to something much better if i knew how to make all the aforementioned work or happen, but i don't. Other then vote for the Green party, i guess. And hope people don't cast away their votes because change is unlikely. And ask my friends to start phone-trees to our local councillors.

For the most part, i think green-savvy architects and engineers knew all of this well before i even thought about it and are probably sitting around entering design contests waiting for society to shift it's opinions.

[SaggyBalls]

Of course there's voting, but then there's sharing your understanding and keeping your eyes andears open for ways to make the shift.

Seems to me that as far as what you can do you're doing.

I think that building homes and buying into dwellings give the consumer the biggest opportunities to vote for 'Green Architecture' easiest.

[Thorgnor]

Interesting web-Journal regarding sustainable design and what you can do to/for your own house...

http://www.ecotecture.com/

York University Press Release - "TORONTO, April 17, 2009 -- Torontonians must become less car-dependent and reside in higher-density housing closer to work if they want to live in a city that is environmentally and economically sustainable, say researchers from Ryerson and York Universities."

http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.php?Release=1655

Edited June 15, 2009 by Guest

[Birdy]

I'm not sure if Toronto does this (i'm thinking not), but one idea is to impose a congestion charge much like the city of London (UK) does on motor vehicles. Cars have to pay 8GBP every day they enter into one of the 'congestion zones' and then get a much heavier fine if not paid. Needless to say, it's a major deterrent to driving around the city - one that Toronto could definitely use as that city is a gridlock nightmare at times. All profits from the congestion charge can be used for infrastructure upgrades.

It's too bad city planners didn't consider building up and not out when it came to Calgary. That city is an urban sprawl disaster.

[Birdy]

Oh and stricter urban growth boundaries. Not so surprisingly, Calgary doesn't have any.

[Birdy]

Namba Parks’ design is inspired by the transformative force of the elements found in nature. Among the project’s most striking features are its urban rooftop park with groves of trees, clusters of rock, lush lawns, ponds, waterfalls and outdoor terraces, and canyon promenade that mimics the natural curves and stratification sculpted by wind and water in stone. Designed as an armature, the canyon reinforces the projects connection with nature. The 3.7 hectare site of the former Osaka Stadium presented owner Nankai Electric Railway with a prime opportunity to create a true urban center for one of their city’s main entry points. Jerde, along with the architectural team from Obayashi Corporation, conceived the design concept, which resulted in the verdant sloping park that gradually ascends eight stories from the street. The man-made canyon divides the park and forms the primary pathway through the project. Lifestyle focused retail and entertainment venues rise effortlessly within each layer of the canyon interior. The project creates a corridor that connects the east and west edges of the site with urban circulation patterns. The two sides of the canyon are connected by glass bridges which become arcing tubes of light at night. “With Namba Parks, we have been able to take the next step in an important goal of the firm: to blur the line between nature and the built environmentâ€, said Jon Jerde, founder and chairman of The Jerde Partnership.

[hamilton]

I'm not sure if Toronto does this (i'm thinking not), but one idea is to impose a congestion charge much like the city of London (UK) does on motor vehicles. Cars have to pay 8GBP every day they enter into one of the 'congestion zones' and then get a much heavier fine if not paid. Needless to say, it's a major deterrent to driving around the city - one that Toronto could definitely use as that city is a gridlock nightmare at times. All profits from the congestion charge can be used for infrastructure upgrades.

It's too bad city planners didn't consider building up and not out when it came to Calgary. That city is an urban sprawl disaster.

We have the technology today to charge people for annual mileage, but we aren't using it. Instead, we are still using a flat rate - also known as your annual license plate sticker renewal - to charge people for driving. Pay your $150 once per year, and then drive as much as you want. The guy who drives 60,000 km per year pays as much as the guy who drives 6,000 km per year. Imagine how many people would choose public transportation if we were charged by the km instead of per annum. Of course, all the major cities would have to do massive upgrades to their public transit systems, but that's not such a bad thing, is it?

[Thorgnor]

We need a total re-think... our cities are part of the problem.

Static living means heavy footprints.

http://www.slowdesign.org/slowdesign.html

Edited June 16, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

Imagine how many people would choose public transportation if we were charged by the km instead of per annum. Of course, all the major cities would have to do massive upgrades to their public transit systems, but that's not such a bad thing, is it?

Why not have it based on kilometres driven and the fuel efficiency of the vehicle driven?

I suppose it would be a slight hit on families driving SUVs and Minivans compared to the compact car, but this could be taken into account, no?

People shouldn't have to be coerced into getting back to Public Transit. It needs to be more comfortable and convenient.

Thanks for the link, Thorgnor. I saw that earlier.

It seems to me that the current concept of 'growth' is how many more people move to an area or how many jobs are created.

It's a shame that the details in our collective standard of living and opportunities to free ourselves from struggles of daily life are neither easily measured nor recognizably valued by planners.

[Birdy]

These all seem like such good ideas until i remember that i live in Chatham and i don't have public transportation to rely on. My work place isn't within the city limits and i have to drive 10km each way, every day. I'm afraid when we talk about decreasing the dependency on cars, we're in effect planning to ghost town rural Canada.

I've yet to be able to wrap my head around this one. And because of that, i'm kinda now feeling thrown off the whole idea.

How do we counteract these problems our solutions create?

[hamilton]

These all seem like such good ideas until i remember that i live in Chatham and i don't have public transportation to rely on. My work place isn't within the city limits and i have to drive 10km each way, every day. I'm afraid when we talk about decreasing the dependency on cars, we're in effect planning to ghost town rural Canada.

I've yet to be able to wrap my head around this one. And because of that, i'm kinda now feeling thrown off the whole idea.

How do we counteract these problems our solutions create?

I'm sure there would have to be a minimum annual free distance allowance in order for the idea to work. Kind of like the tax-free allowance on your income tax. You would only be charged after you exceed the limit. Of course, establishing what the limit would be would cause a huge debate.

[Birdy]

Yah, definitely - as free distances would differ greatly from urban to rural living, highly dependent on what levels of public transport you have readily available. Seems like it would be a difficult program to implement for this reason... and what if a person moves? they'd need to register this and probably have their distance allowance recalculated...

[SaggyBalls]

What about someone not living in the urban area but working there?

Would they be exampt or would it apply to everyone?

Though ultimately 'fair' to be universal, Rural sommunities have a huge potential to be redesigned to be as-or-more 'urban' than most cities in Canada (minus the public transit) due to geographic size.

If Smaller communities were able to impose a limitation on development, this potential could be so easily realized.

How would we then overcome the almost inevitable rural building that would then surround these dense little settlements?

Could we ensure that single family dwellings be planed to benefit the environment (Drainage, consumption of materials, etc., incentives to green techniques and supplies?) and the local economy/community (tax credits/incentives to buy/build local)?

How important are park lands, walking trails, nature conservatories, and heritage land in this topic?

Though it's Architecture & Society, it almost feels like it's getting to being 'Architecture OF Society' when getting into the constructs and reworkings of our inefficient systems and aspirations.

[hamilton]

Yah, definitely - as free distances would differ greatly from urban to rural living, highly dependent on what levels of public transport you have readily available. Seems like it would be a difficult program to implement for this reason... and what if a person moves? they'd need to register this and probably have their distance allowance recalculated...

It could be tied to your driver's license, which you have to change when you move anyway. It might be difficult to implement, but it wouldn't be impossible. The trick would be linking up all of the computer databases from all the different government agencies. It would also certainly be easier to implement a policy like this in smaller countries than in Canada.

[Thorgnor]

Virilio - "To invent the ship is to invent the shipwreck."

May - "Sustainability is only a minimum condition for survival."

[Birdy]

That Virilio quote is somewhat defeating in it's truth, Thorgnor.

I wonder if we'll ever get to the point where humans exist in harmony with nature. Or if we'll just continue on down the same line - fixing solutions of the preceding generations. It's hard wanting the harmony and settling on the latter. To think that we're doing good only to be proven incorrect with time and science.

Fuck.

[meggo]

since this is a thread about architecture, i would like to toot my grandpa's horn! he was an architect [birdy will be very familiar with this!].

grandpa joe the architect