Architecture & Society... discuss.

[Thorgnor]

That Virilio quote is somewhat defeating in it's truth' date=' 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.

[/quote']

I think the point is that the solution likely won't be technological, but that it may actually consist of deciding which technologies to accept and when to best use them. It seems that all the major trends in architectural theory point to something they rarely say openly, that to sit heavily on a foundation is to walk heavily on the Earth. Life passes through time and space, and if we continue to make attempts towards a technocentric Utopia that nostalgically clings to toxic histories and materials, that tries to hold us in place, we will fail at health and harmony.

Step faster, dig less, burn less, move more often, put ourselves in more peril personally.

“a taste for the light, the practical, the ephemeral, the swiftâ€

Instead of worrying about objects, about the autonomy or the self-referential aspects of architecture, we have to think in terms of mobilizing and adjusting limits, and ultimately in retrofitting institutions, allowing them to frame other types of scales and other kinds of social and economic diversity.

Ultimately we should take the idea of sustainability to task not because it is a bad idea; precisely the opposite, in fact. We should care for it because it needs constant reconceptualization. The threshold for its application should be absurdly high, almost impossibly so.

Some of these new techniques are undoubtedly positive developments insofar as they forestall or retard certain accumulative processes. Unfortunately architects have managed to convince themselves that this time will be different, because this time We Have Gone Green. But these devices, like any technology, are already generating associations that we cannot foresee. Later we will call these accidents and malfunctions, but we should know better by now.

{An ecologically sound lifestyle} involves imagining less comfortable and convenient methods of being in the world, and probably more uncertain and dangerous individual lives.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

using more resources/materials is one of the problems we face.

I'm all for tent homes, T - it's actually one of the things that I really want for myself. A great, cost effective, low impact way to build homes.

Why does the solution have to be dangerous and Uncertain - a mobile life?

Our civilization is not nomadic, even those of us that have to travel for work.

A simpler existence would foster mobility...I know for one I hate to move as I have a bunch of stuff, but how is this crucial to this new era of sustainability/Eco-consciousness?

If you're comparing these lovely dwellings to monoculture home developments, then great. I'm convinced that in time (never fast enough) we will change the way developers build homes, the way homeowners demand homes be built, and in many case change the way we choose to live.

I'm a proponent of finding better ways to live more densely - for infrastructure, and for the pooling of green/park/recreation space.

We're at a point where people think that high-rise living is unattractive - mostly because it's been designed as such. med-high rises are a great way to both mix land use (stores, offices, groceries on the ground floors for instance) and consolidate multi-level dwellings to save us making a large footprint.

We're also at a point where urban sprawl is one of the biggest problems - culturally and environmentally - that we face in this new century.

I would love to see villages of tent dwellings with thriving small economies, fresh running water, greenhouse/hydroponic and small farm agriculture thrive in little pockets all over because not only is it possible but it's low-impact and entirely sustainable.

For this to work and be attractive for the masses it will take either some clever sales/marketing, or an immense shift in our civilization.

It's been said somewhere that the best places for urbanized communities (amenities within walking distance, communities based on geography) to flourish is in small towns and villages.

Imagine - living somewhere that you could walk to do errands, bike to any number of friends/neighbours, easily be entertained, have a relaxing afternoon in a park, and not be tied to an automobile...

Large towns and most cities in Canada are downtown/suburb to a fault and it ties many people to their cars, their home, and their routine.

Rural/country living is quite similar, except for those people that enjoy the company of their neighbours, and live simply so as to not need to do the same number of errands.

Perhaps a complete deconstruction/reconstruction could work, but there's probably a way to not demand it occur.

I appreciate the freedom we have in Canada. On the other hand, I kinda wish that somehow there would be limitations or restrictions on the WAY our communities grow. Up before out. Bike and Walking paths, transit...advantages to going downtown to shop to combat mall culture and the big box phenomenon.

Many of these new 'advantages' (big box stores, more affordable suburban homes) are only seen as advantages because we're collectively being backed into a corner and bullied into making these choices.

How do we create more wealth and abundance so that Canadians have the time and freedom to not have to live in a way that is harming ourselves and our future?

[Thorgnor]

Put in another way, and theories/conspiracies/anti-authority aside, the destruction of the world trade centres was not the end of the buildings. They have become lore, they survive in our minds. What is interesting is that for the same reasons churches and temples survive in our memories. But these things do not survive intact, they are fragments, deconstructions, they are gaps and holes in our efforts to gain security, to reach the heavens. But if they become gaps and holes, these are really gaps in relationships, the neglect of maintenance. The relationship between people and constructions explains the relationships between people and their environment (which includes the people they srround themselves with), mediated through economics, debt, ownership, pride, what have you. The desctruction of buildings is conversation.

How do we incorporate these types of conversations, how can we answer?

What if we had no construction for others to converse with? What if they had to speak directly to us, rather than to our buildings as we speak to the world through the degradation that our contemporary building styles produce.

We must deconstruct our narratives and find out thier foundations, figuratively and literally.

We must want to live differently. This "green" shift must be more than marketing or ingenuity and innovation, it must be a moral shift, a want to be more in tune with the resonance of the earth's energy.

[SaggyBalls]

Resonant with the earth's energy?

How about to let our own energies resonate properly? When that happens, we will be in HARMONY with the Earth's vibrations and the vibrations of the rest of our universe.

Purely focusing on 'Mother Earth', while a nice concept is myopic at best. Some see the power of the earth to be deep, but compared to what we can do with our planet and beyond, it's shallow.

If you are putting conspiracy theories aside, then sure - mother earth is all powerful, but if you're someone that doesn't then you're probably open to the concept that we are more powerful than we're 'allowed' to believe.

As much as the artists' drawings of what 'The Venus Project' could have us accomplish, it seems to be more of an 'all at once' or master plan.

www.thevenusproject.com

I like the ideas...and the layout of the cities, giant buildings that are both amazing to look at and could be nearly perfect and requiring litle upkeep.

A long way from a forest tent palace or yurts on the plains, but certainly a realistic evolution of human ingenuity and simple spirit.

[SaggyBalls]

Funny how i see similarities between my posts here and in the YAY God thread...

...because in the past, the church did its best to stop us from believing that we have as much power as the divine while dazzling us with sacred geometry and impressive spaces in those churches/mosques/temples.

I think that it doesn't have to be THIS or THAT'

I like the word 'and' it's far more inclusive.

In time the things that don't fit will work their way out of our lives.

So really - Demolition isn't necessarily taboo.