Sustainability Through Individual Action
This essay says little about architecture, but since many architects now consider themselves to be experts on and advocates of sustainable development, I believe a contrarian analysis of the concept of sustainability is appropriate and necessary to architectural discourse. The essay presents a general theory of sustainability as the ability of individuals to satisfy their own wants, now and in the future. The problem of scarcity is described here as man's limited ability to satisfy his infinite wants with resources he produces from the infinite materials of the Earth. This is markedly different from the
pessimistic mainstream definition of scarcity as a finite amount of resources "provided" by nature that will eventually be "used up" by a viral population.
The solution given here is to allow individuals to accumulate the knowledge and capital required to find new and better ways to satisfy more of their wants over time. This is in opposition to the mainstream solutions of coercion employed to control the production and distribution of resources according to some plan of that accomplished cadre of environmental economists known as politicians.
The ideas presented here owe much to the Austrian school of economics. A treasure trove of Austrian economic thought can be found at
http://www.mises.org/. This essay was influenced in particular by George Reisman, Walter Block, and Murray Rothbard. My apologies to any author I have not directly cited.
Sustainability Through Individual Action
Tim Brochu
8/24/2005
The infinite wants of man and the infinite materials of the Earth
"Sustainability" is nothing more and nothing less than man's desire to survive, now and in the future. Each individual knows that he exists, that a world around him exists, and that it is necessary for him to act upon this world in order to continue to exist over time. His knowledge of the necessity of action engenders a series of "wants," which he prioritizes according to his understanding of their importance to his survival. By applying his faculty of reason to his action, he is able to learn which actions are most effective in satisfying his wants. When he is able to easily satisfy his most essential wants, he seeks opportunities to satisfy lower priority wants in pursuit of a higher standard of living and his own happiness.
The wants of man are practically infinite, ranging from the most basic desires for nutrition and shelter, to luxuries of love and beauty, to the most ludicrous such as the ability to fly or to become immortal. Similarly, the physical forces and chemical materials that comprise the Earth are practically infinite. While they frequently change in chemical composition and location, the only materials that have ever been lost from the Earth are a handful of man-made satellites and an American flag. Even the limited materials currently accessible to man within a few thousand feet of the Earth's surface are plentiful. The materials provided to man by nature are no less abundant than the entire mass and energy of the Earth itself, and can conceivably include the Universe as a whole. There is no practical scarcity of man's wants, nor is there a practical scarcity of natural materials.
The relative scarcity of resources
There is at all times, however, a scarcity of "resources" available to satisfy man's wants. A resource is a material that has value to an individual. To the degree that a resource satisfies the wants of an individual, it can be said to contain subjective value to that individual. A material that has no value is not a resource, and conversely, no material is a resource until an individual finds value in it. There are no objective values shared intrinsically by all mankind, although it is possible for individuals to possess subjective values in common with any number of other individuals. Likewise, there is no objective or "intrinsic" value in the materials of the Earth other than the simple fact that they exist in a physical form. A rock near the core of the Earth has no value to anyone now, but someday someone may be able to access it, making it a valuable resource to satisfy one of his wants.
The addition of value to materials can be called "production", while the reduction of value from materials can be called "consumption". All resources are renewable at some cost, which means they can be manipulated through human labor to be made valuable to someone (production). The "cost" of production is the removal of value from other materials (consumption) in order to perform this manipulation (e.g. burning coal to make steel). The resources consumed in production can be called "capital". When the value added is greater than the costs of production, the additional value can be called a "profit." When the value added is less than the costs of production, the lost value can be called a "loss."
The solution to scarcity
Man's capacity for production and profit, limited only by his ingenuity and capital, is the measure of scarcity of resources available to satisfy his wants. While man's wants and the materials of nature are both infinite, his ability to make the materials satisfy his wants is restricted by the incompleteness of his knowledge and his limited capital to apply this knowledge. The more he knows about finding and manipulating materials, the easier it is for him to use them to satisfy his wants.
Thus, the solution to the problem of scarcity, now and in the future, is to allow man to accumulate capital from his profits, and to encourage him to accumulate knowledge through his faculty of reason.
Specialization and trade
It is impossible for any individual to know everything about everything. It is likewise impossible for mankind as a whole to acquire such absolute knowledge, due to the changing nature of the world. However, it is possible for an individual to know almost everything about a few specific things. When an individual "specializes" in the production of a specific resource, he can apply his expertise to produce more of the resource than he could have without specializing in that production. By doing so, he will most likely produce more of the resource than he himself could ever want to consume. This gives him a surplus of the resource, which he saves as capital for the production of other resources or for trade. Through specialization, each individual's knowledge and capacity for production can be much greater than it would be otherwise.
In order to specialize in the production of this one resource, this individual would have to receive all of his other resources from other individuals. One way he could achieve this would be by finding people who produced different resources and giving them his surplus product in exchange for the resources they have produced. This transaction can be called "trade." Man can satisfy more of his wants if he is able to produce a surplus of resources and trade those resources with others who are willing to trade their surplus with him.
Through trade, both parties gain a profit by receiving resources of a higher value to them than those they have given away. An individual will only be willing to trade his surplus capital resources if he believes he can gain a greater profit by trading than by consuming them. When he has a surplus of resources relative to his wants for that resource, the surplus has little value to him. However, the surplus of another resource produced by a different individual may have great value to him, since he has not produced any of that different resource himself. In trading his surplus for the surplus of another individual, both parties gain valuable resources that were previously valueless as a surplus in the possession of their respective producers.
Human advancement through the division of labor
Specialization and trade allow for a "division of labor" to occur across mankind. In a division of labor, each individual plays a unique role in the production of resources through specialization. By trading with many other specialists, he is able to obtain a broad diversity of resources to satisfy his wants. Each producer tries to maximize his efficiency in order to be more profitable by consuming fewer resources in the production process. As each individual achieves greater efficiency in production, mankind as a whole will achieve greater efficiency in its production of resources from the materials of the Earth.
An increase in population will lead to accelerating rates of consumption of available resources. However, a larger population will also increase the efficiency of production inherent in the division of labor. In a large population, individuals can pursue ever narrower degrees of specialization, allowing them to develop greater expertise. In seeking this expertise, they are willing to trade their resources for knowledge itself in the form of education. Those who specialize in education can play a special role in advancing human knowledge, since the value of the education they offer in trade depends on the superiority of their knowledge. A larger population will tend to value academics, and will probabilistically produce more geniuses capable of advancing human knowledge in leaps and bounds. The efficiencies in resource production that result from such advances in human knowledge will almost certainly offset any increases in consumption required by an increase in population.
Advances in human knowledge will also make it possible for man to adapt to changes in his environment. As global temperatures change over time, an individual can alter his immediate environment through architecture and engineering to make it more habitable. If these solutions do not suit him, he can rely on his increased mobility to move somewhere more desirable to him. Mankind could conceivably achieve the ability to control global temperatures and climate systems, which may be valuable to some individuals. If an individual wishes to see a piece of land preserved in a natural state, he can offer the landowner something of greater value to obtain ownership of the land. If his own land is barren, he can plant it. If it lacks water, he can trade his own resources for water. If others value his preservation efforts, they can offer him resources in trade to continue them. The easier it is for humans to satisfy their most essential needs, the easier it will be for them to commit their own resources to less essential needs, such as the beauty of the environment around them.
A legacy of resource production for future generations
The wants of future generations will be more easily satisfied if the present generation continues to increase its knowledge and capacity to produce resources. The production of resources for man's most essential wants will become increasingly efficient as man's knowledge and capital increase, which means the production will consume less and less resources. This will make it easier for man to produce more resources to satisfy his lesser wants, which may include the maintenance of certain features of the world around him such as temperature, cleanliness, quiet, biological diversity, and beauty.
While mankind as a whole can progress in this way, it will not result from a collective will of the people striving to satisfy some objective want of mankind. Instead, it will result from the aggregate actions of individuals striving to satisfy their own individual wants. It is likely that many individuals will value similar resources in similar ways, and they will act collectively when they believe that doing so will satisfy their own individual wants. However, their individual wants are what motivate them to produce resources, for their own consumption as well as for the consumption of others through trade.
Individual sustainability
The scarcity of resources that exists now and that will continue to exist indefinitely into the future is defined as man's inability to convert an infinite supply of natural materials into resources to satisfy his infinite wants. As individuals increase their knowledge and capital, this process of resource production will become more efficient. An increase in population will contribute to this process by allowing broader specialization and trade. Greater efficiency will allow individuals to produce more resources to satisfy more of their wants, including those of lesser priority. These lesser priority wants may include the preservation or creation of "natural" features of the world around them. In this way, the ability of mankind to sustain itself and the Earth will result from the actions of individuals seeking to satisfy their own wants.
arch rival - contrarian architectural thought
The architecture profession has developed as an elite caste of like-minded individuals who have assumed considerable power over the shaping of the built environment. With scarce dissent in such a uniform group of people, it is easy for mainstream views to be elevated to the level of dogma. When such a group is given the power to
handpick its own members, it is natural for these views to be amplified through subsequent generations, making dissenting views scarcer still.
arch rival is a written collection of contrarian architectural thought. My purpose is to contradict the status quo of architectural thought with well-researched, provocative articles that identify and challenge broadly accepted values of the architectural profession. While I make every attempt to accurately report factual information, my analysis consciously explores possible interpretations of this information that are antithetical to those of the mainstream as I understand it. I hope that the reader will reconcile these interpretations with those of the mainstream to develop their own architectural thought.
I welcome submissions by other authors who share this purpose. I encourage comments by any and all readers to expand upon or oppose the arguments presented. I thank you for your interest in arch rival, and I hope you will find it to be stimulating, educational, and possibly offensive.
Tim Brochu
Intern Architect
arch rival XML site feed URL (Atom, RSS):
http://arch-rival.blogspot.com/atom.xmlarch rival contrarian architectural thoughtContents:Architectural LicensureThe Societal Costs of Architectural Licensure - 8.07.2005
Architectural TheoryThe End of Architecture - 8.07.2005
Sustainable Development(Mainstream) Theories of Sustainable Architecture - 8.07.2005
Sustainability Through Individual Action - 8.24.2005
(Mainstream) Theories of Sustainable Architecture
I wrote the following paper as an assignment for a course entitled "The History of Architectural Theory" as an undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon University. I have argued that the "problems" of sustainability have led to new theoretical foundations for architectural design. I think this is a fairly good synopsis of the mainstream view of sustainable design, which I had embraced wholeheartedly at the time with the encouragement of my professors.Since then I have learned much more about the economic distribution of resources and the inherent dangers of political solutions to perceived environmental threats. See Sustainability Through Individual Action for my current understanding of the problem of and solution to sustainability, which is radically different from the mainstream ideas presented here.I do recommend the article by Simon Guy and Francis Farmer which I have paraphrased extensively here. Their article outlines six distinct trends in theories of sustainable development.Theories of Sustainable ArchitectureTim Brochu5/7/01
The idea of sustainable development has inspired a new theoretical basis for architecture. A consideration of sustainability must confront the essence of architecture, the creation of a man-made habitat within the natural environment and the relationship between the two. It must also identify the influence of economic, social, cultural, and political forces on the built environment, as well as its reciprocal impact on each of these. Sustainability even suggests an ethical framework for decision-making in the design, construction, maintenance, and eventual destruction of works of architecture. Theories of sustainable architecture have developed from individual initiatives in the 1960’s and 70’s to more recent collaborative methodologies, in response to increasing global awareness and promotion of sustainable development. While the idea of sustainability holds promise for the future of architecture, the complexity of the problem has resulted in theories that are somewhat problematic and often conflicting. Nevertheless, sustainability is increasingly gaining acceptance as a premise for architectural design.
Ideas of sustainability have resulted from realizations that Earth’s available natural resources will not be able to support current global patterns of consumption indefinitely. “The built environment consumes 40 percent of extracted resources in most industrialized countries, and 30 to 40 percent of generated energy,” which often depends on resources such as coal, oil, or natural gas.[i] Many of these resources are not renewable, meaning they will become more costly and difficult to attain over time until they are ultimately no longer accessible. Thus architecture is significant to the long-term availability of natural resources.
The problem of the depletion of resources is further complicated by the increasing global population. It has been estimated that by 2026, the world population will have doubled from the population in 1986 of 5 billion people.[ii] The increased demand for resources that accompanies population growth will hasten the depletion of these resources. Since more architecture will be needed to accommodate this expanding population, the consumption or conservation of resources of this architecture could help to determine the future availability of resources.
Along with the increasing population is an increase in industrialization, a process that depends on natural resources for production:
"According to a recent study by the UN Department of International Economic and social affairs, 70 percent of the projected increase in the world’s population between now and 2025, which is expected to climb from 5 billion to 8.5 billion in that 34-year period, will occur in 20 of the least developed countries.[iii] "
North America and Europe contain 10% of the world’s population, yet consume over 50% of its resources.[iv] If this model of consumption expands to developing countries with rapidly increasing populations, the demand for resources could grow exponentially. Of course, new construction will accompany industrialization, so architecture will contribute to resource depletion during this process. The infrastructures that are created in these countries to support industrialization will also affect the habits of consumption in their cultures by dictating methods of transportation, land use, agricultural practices and countless other cultural paradigms. Thus architecture and urban planning have the potential to encourage sustainable lifestyles in developing countries.
Industrialization also tends to have the side effect of waste production and pollution. “Humans are the sole species whose waste is not food or a resource for other species.”[v] Solid waste, chemicals, and exhaust from combustion for energy production affect the quality and availability of even the most abundant resources of land, air and water. Waste also means that “high-quality, concentrated materials” are dissipated into the environment, losing the potential for reuse or recycling as a lower quality product.[vi] Atmospheric pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide also contribute to the greenhouse effect, the gradual warming of the Earth’s climate. This could lead to severe weather problems and could even cause the polar ice caps to melt, raising the sea level to heights that could threaten existing settlements. The United States, with 4 percent of the world’s population, produces 25 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide. If developing nations follow this example, global pollution may exceed the capacity of existing ecosystems to absorb it, with potentially devastating effects.[vii]
Architecture, as a significant consumer of resources in construction, operation, and disposal, contributes to waste production and pollution. Many materials are produced through processes that create waste and pollution. The delivery of materials and use of construction vehicles results in energy consumption and the pollution and fuel inefficiency associated with automobiles. The energy used in operating buildings throughout their lifetimes may cause pollution in its generation. The inevitable demolition of buildings usually results in large amounts of solid waste. In each of these phases, architecture contributes to the problems associated with waste and pollution.
Considered together, the problems of resource depletion, population increase, industrialization, and pollution paint a grim picture for the future. The most obvious effect is economic, in which an accelerating decrease in supply will eventually be insufficient to meet an exponential increase in demand. This means that at some point the Earth would no longer be able to support the human population, which would decrease from that point on as resources continued to decrease. It is possible that human behavior may make the planet unlivable even before we reach this economic breaking point. The deteriorating quality of land, air, and water could render any one of these resources useless before a total economic crisis. The loss of global biodiversity, another side effect of resource extraction and pollution through which species are becoming extinct, threatens food chains, genetic diversity, potential resources, and macro and micro ecosystems. The threats of global warming and depletion of the ozone layer, which provides protection from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun, may lead to global destruction on their own. Since architecture plays a role in each of these processes, an effort to prevent one of these dire outcomes would have to prescribe methods for conserving resources of materials and energy as well as reducing waste production and pollution in each phase of a building’s existence and at every scale of the design.[viii]Sustainable development was defined in the Brundtland Report of 1989 as “those paths of social, economic, and political progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[ix] Two components of this definition are “(1) the current generation must pass on its inheritance of natural wealth not unchanged but undiminished in potential to support future generations, and (2) all people have a right to their fair share of the earth’s resources.”[x] The feasibility of this goal is questionable:
"A reasonable sustainability scenario would be one in which a so-called “good” quality of life is maintained in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries while their economies are dematerialized and deenergized. At the same time, economic development in the lesser developed countries (LDC) must allow their vast populations to move beyond mere survival to a good quality of life.[xi]"
Beyond the difficulty of achieving even one of these goals, there is a potential conflict between the two. One depends on a decrease in production and consumption, at least as they exist now, while the other demands increased production and consumption where it does not currently exist.
This definition has spurred some “controversy and confusion” in its interpretation. The belief in the ability to quantify and manage natural resources and other aspects of the ecology may not be justified. The definition of “development” is debatable, raising the question of “development how, of what, and for whom?” The understanding of “needs” is also vague, since needs can vary widely between cultures and may include emotional or spiritual qualities beyond material needs. The notion of “progress” suggests a reliance on technology to improve processes of production to a sustainable level, which may not be the best solution.[xii]Another problem is the question of who should be responsible for achieving sustainability. Sustainable development in industrialized nations means a reduction of material consumption. It is possible that individuals could attempt to reduce their consumption and waste production. Community initiatives such as local recycling programs suggest that people can modify their habits of consumption in accordance with sustainable interests. Localized efforts also provide the potential to meet the goals of sustainability within the paradigms of regional culture. However, some habits of consumption are deeply engrained in the cultures of developed countries. For example, the condition of suburban sprawl in the United States, notably the result of a theory of urban planning, mandates widespread individual automobile use and makes public transportation systems difficult to implement. Ironically, sprawl has become sustainable socially and economically, perhaps making it more difficult to change to meet environmental demands.[xiii] The consumptive habits of individuals form the basis of sustainable development, yet individual initiatives may not be able to counter unsustainable systems beyond the local scale.
A “top-down” approach may be necessary to promote, coordinate, and implement a global program of sustainability, with the leadership of governments, corporations, and national and international organizations. Of course this would still allow for and most likely encourage community initiatives, but it could also provide a broader reaching plan of resource allocation and waste management. This could offer a wide range of solutions at several scales, from energy-efficient light bulbs to density in urban planning to international trade guidelines. However, there are problems inherent in this approach. It is difficult to imagine a top-down program free of political or corporate agendas.[xiv] The complexity of the problem of sustainability and conflicting interests of involved parties makes a singular methodology for sustainable development seem tenuous and possibly exclusive. The question of whether or not to mandate sustainable practices is also controversial; if they do not become mandatory now, it may be too little too late when environmental stress makes them necessary. A top-down approach may be necessary to account for the diversity of challenges to global sustainability, but this diversity may also complicate a centralized strategy.
There is a global movement to promote sustainable development that has taken this approach. In June 1992, representatives from 178 nations met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the first Earth Summit. These meetings produced Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, a broad and ambitious document intended to be little less than a blueprint for saving the Earth. It provides standards for decision making in economic, social, political, and physical development in global, national, regional, and local contexts. The Preamble reveals the optimistic spirit that produced the document: “…integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future.”[xv] It identifies Governments as primarily responsible for its implementation, but stresses the importance of cooperation between nations as well as the role of public participation and non-governmental organizations. Agenda 21 is significant as an international collaborative effort to consider and enact sustainable development in all its complexity.
Theories of sustainable architecture have followed trends in sustainable development. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, some architects began exploring energy consciousness in design. This was partly in response to the oil crisis, but also reflected the relatively new awareness of the depletion of natural resources, as well as the dangers of pollution. Individual architects designed buildings, mostly residences, for passive conditioning and energy conservation. These architects defined many of the principles that form the basis of contemporary sustainable design, including optimizing orientation for exposure to or protection from sun and wind, integrating photovoltaics and other renewable energy sources, zoning according to programmatic and temporal needs, promoting self-sufficiency, utilizing renewable and locally available materials, and providing exposure to benign outdoor climates. They also began to quantify regional climactic conditions, energy usage, and human comfort as a means of maximizing the efficiency of their buildings.[xvi]Recently, there have been collaborative efforts to define and promote sustainability. Like the Earth Summit, these efforts recognize a widespread desire in the field of architecture to achieve sustainability in design. In 1991, the American Institute of Architects introduced the AIA Environmental Resource Guide, a cumulative periodical with articles, material analyses, special reports, case studies, and bibliographies.[xvii] This provides architects with a base of knowledge for making decisions about sustainable design. A more assertive effort to encourage green design is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, initiated by the U.S. Green Building Council in 1999. This is a “voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven rating system” in which projects can be awarded bronze, silver, gold or platinum medals based on their compliance with LEED priorities.[xviii] These are presented in a checklist with the categories of planning sustainable sites, improving energy efficiency, conserving materials and resources, enhancing indoor environmental quality, safeguarding water, and improving the design process.[xix] While it may seem strange to literally “subscribe” to a method of design, these programs provide architects who want to design green with a carefully considered system for doing so.
While the various individual and collaborative efforts at sustainability have had a shared sense of purpose, their motivations, solutions, and understandings of the problem of sustainability have varied widely to reflect its complexity. The resulting theories have tended to have conflicting goals and practices, yet each may be internally consistent. Simon Guy and Graham Farmer have identified “six competing logics of sustainable architecture,” based on an analysis of built projects and literature.[xx] Their classifications of eco-technic, eco-centric, eco-aesthetic, eco-cultural, eco-medical, and eco-social describe the diversity of theories of sustainable architecture.[xxi] Each is internally consistent, and while none are mutually exclusive, they conflict with each other in their emphases, goals, and methods. They can be understood and compared in terms of their interpretation of the problem of sustainability, values for sustainable architecture, and similarities to broader architectural theories.
The eco-technic logic has tended to dominate attitudes towards sustainability. This logic views the problem of sustainability in its global context, as it has been presented here, with an emphasis on the “technorational” quantifying of resources and values. Eco-technic architecture relies on high technologies, energy efficiency, and overall control over building functionality. Architecture in this vein tends to follow the tenets of Modernism, utilizing regularity for flexible use of space, attempting to account for and control patterns of habitation, and opting for “high-tech” materials over those of the regional context.[xxii]The eco-centric logic contrasts strongly with the eco-technic. In this approach, the Earth is viewed as a fragile organism, often associated with the notion of “Gaia” put forth by James Lovelock. According to Lovelock, Gaia is “a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil,” essentially a singular form of life comprised of all of the living and non-living things on Earth.[xxiii] Preserving natural biological and ecological processes is more important than engineering new methods of control to maintain environmental equilibrium. Architecture produced within this framework emphasizes ecological preservation, restoration of nature, minimal development, and self-sufficiency. Its disdain for the objects of architecture makes it difficult to relate to theoretical precedents, yet the reliance on “renewable, natural materials” and harmony with nature is comparable to primitive types of architecture.[xxiv]The eco-aesthetic logic breaks from the pragmatic sensibilities of the previous logics to promote “a new language in the building arts.”[xxv] This theory applies sustainability as a metaphor for spiritually connecting man with the natural world, which is viewed as sensuous, complex, and often chaotic. Eco-aesthetic architecture is individualistic, encouraging creative interpretations of ecological models as the basis for a new aesthetic. This approach has traces of postmodernism, with its emphases on complexity and the communicative potential of architecture. It also suggests motivations for recent trends towards “blobs” and “folds.”[xxvi]The eco-cultural logic incorporates environmental concerns with a focus on maintaining cultural diversity and traditional values. In this view, sustainability is important not only as a means of preserving global ecosystems but also as a safeguard against cultural homogenization. Eco-cultural architecture accentuates the specific qualities of a place, often drawing from vernacular architecture, to perpetuate cultural values as well as equilibrium with the natural surroundings. This approach is similar to postmodernism in its emphasis on vernacular structures and community involvement. Kenneth Frampton’s theory of critical regionalism proposes many of the concerns associated with the eco-cultural logic.[xxvii]The eco-medical logic focuses on the quality of the built environment as it relates to individuals, and specifically to their health and well-being. As such, sustainability relates to the livability of occupied spaces, including the “quality of air, water, and urban space.”[xxviii] This view stresses the importance of individual comfort and control in buildings, as well as access to natural light and connections to the outside. This logic is a reaction to the sealed off, artificially conditioned boxes of modernism. However, these values could be incorporated with almost any style, since they are not necessarily prescriptive of form.[xxix]The eco-social logic incorporates the social factors that are often considered alongside sustainability. It recognizes social orders as a determinant of the ability to achieve sustainability, and thus promotes democratic and non-hierarchical organizations. This theory does not translate directly to architecture, but suggests “appropriate technologies,” which are accessible to everyone, as well as flexible, non-hierarchical organizations and the incorporation of local materials. Eco-social thinking, like eco-medical, could be applied with almost any style. Its implications of community identity and participation suggest similarities to postmodernism as well as regionalism.[xxx]The diversity of interests represented in these six approaches to sustainable architecture suggests that no singular theory may be able to account for all the demands of the environment and culture in which architecture is created. Instead, an attempt at sustainability must recognize these demands as relative, with regards to space, time, and culture.[xxxi] It should draw on a broad understanding of what sustainability can be to take full advantage of opportunities to preserve or restore environmental quality as well as social and cultural values. This holistic mindset may allow sustainability to expand from prescriptive theory, as in the LEED program, to an underlying framework of thought that can guide design decisions. This could allow for formal and functional flexibility, enabling integration with other design theories. Sustainability challenges current paradigms of architectural practice, but architects who choose to pursue it may be able to create architecture with lasting significance to local culture as well as to the global environment.
[i] Charles J. Kilbert, Reshaping the Built Environment; Ecology, Ethics, and Economics (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999) p. 2
[ii] Kilbert, p. 13
[iii] James Steele, Sustainable Architecture; Principles, Paradigms, and Case Studies (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997) p. 250
[iv] Volker Hartkopf, “Global Relevance of Total Building Performance” (1996) p.1
[v] Kilbert, p. 19
[vi] Kilbert, p. 19
[vii] Hartkopf, pp. 1-2
[viii] Kilbert, pp. 10-11, 13
[ix] Steele, p. 5: This definition was coined in World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
[x] Kilbert, p. 10
[xi] Kilbert, p. 11
[xii] Steele, pp. 19-22
[xiii] Susannah Hagan, “Urban Sustainability: Paradox or Possibility?” AA Files no. 34 (Autumn 1997): p. 84
[xiv] Steele, p. 22
[xv] Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. United Nations Publications (1992), p. 3
[xvi] Steele, p. 237
[xvii] “What is the Environmental Resource Guide?” AIA Environmental Resource Guide, intro .I 1 (1992)
[xviii] U.S. Green Building Council, “Introduction; What is Green Design?” LEED Reference Guide; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System Pilot Version 1.0 (April 1999) p. 2
[xix] U.S. Green Building Council, pp. xv-xvi
[xx] Simon Guy and Francis Farmer, “Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology,” Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 54, no. 3 (Feb. 2001): p. 141
[xxi] Guy and Farmer, p. 141
[xxii] Guy and Farmer, p. 142
[xxiii] James Lovelock, Gaia; a New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) p. 11
[xxiv] Guy and Farmer, p. 142-3
[xxv] Guy and Farmer, p. 143, quoting James Wines, “The Architecture of Ecology,” The Amicus Journal (Summer 1993): p. 23
[xxvi] Guy and Farmer, pp. 143-144
[xxvii] Guy and Farmer, pp. 144-145
[xxviii] Guy and Farmer, p. 145
[xxix] Guy and Farmer, p. 145
[xxx] Guy and Farmer, pp. 145-146
[xxxi] Guy and Farmer, p. 146
I submitted the following essay to the ArchVoices 2005 Essay Competition discussing the deleterious effects of current architectural licensure requirements on the public benefits of architectural practice. This will be a recurring theme on this site, and I hope to develop stronger arguments for many of the assertions I have made in this essay in the future. I encourage you to visit ArchVoices and read the other essays as well.
ArchVoices question:
"Graduates should be knowledgeable teachers and listeners, prepared to talk with clarity and understanding to clients and communities about how architecture might contribute to creating...a more wholesome and happy human condition for present and future generations."
--Boyer & Mitgang, Building CommunityCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996: 129.
How successful is contemporary architectural practice at engaging the general public? Do architects have a responsibility to do so? What roles can young professionals play in communicating the value of architecture and design? How might the public understanding of architects and architecture change as a result?
My answer:
The Societal Costs of Architectural Licensure
Tim Brochu
5/5/05
The most destructive conceit of architects is the assertion that we know what is best for everyone else. It is easy for us to frame the deficiencies of the built environment as the result of unimaginative builders pushing their products on an uninformed or uninterested public. But to do this is to deny our own responsibility, not for the projects we design, but for the projects we choose not to design and prohibit others from designing. We may try to impress our "value of architecture" on the general public, but ultimately it should be they who tell us what the value of architecture is.
A survey of the American landscape suggests that the general public values architecture much differently than we do. "Cookie-cutter" houses sprawl along asphalt tributaries that trickle into oceans of pavement surrounding garish islands of consumerism. The overriding themes of mass-production, homogenization, and mediocrity are ever-present. It is hard for us to imagine how so many people could choose to invest and live in such an environment, yet the suburbs are growing almost exponentially: 92% of metropolitan population growth between 2000 and 2003 occurred in the suburbs (1). This strongly suggests that the public overwhelmingly approves of the architectural values exemplified in "sprawling" suburban development.
Is this really the case? Despite their environment, it seems like it would be difficult to find even one person among the public who champions conformity and enjoys traffic. Perhaps the deficiencies of the suburbs are not on the demand side of the development equation, but on the supply side. 1.8 million housing units were constructed in 2004, approximately 1.6 million of them single-family homes (2). While this glut of single-family homes reflects some demand for this type of housing, there is a more subtle characteristic each of these homes share: they were permitted to be built without a licensed architect.
In New Hampshire, where I work, almost all buildings are required by law to be designed by a licensed architect. However, single-family and two-family residences are exempt from this restriction (3). I am assuming that similar restrictions and exemptions exist in most other states.
There are approximately 91,000 licensed architects in the country (4). If builders employed architects for each of the 2 million new homes that are demanded of them, each licensed architect would have to produce 22 housing units a year - that's one every 11 working days. In reality, only 12% of architectural firm revenues are from housing (5). There simply are not enough architects to meet the housing needs of the nation in any type of housing other than single-family homes. This suggests a much different perspective on the perpetuation of sprawl across America. The public is demanding architecture, and builders are giving it to them in the only form they are permitted by law - single-family houses.
Licensure is the thick black line that separates architects from the general public. In economic terms, licensure creates a government-granted oligopoly, a market form in which all of the services are provided by only a few companies. State restrictions on licensure are barriers to entry into the market. These barriers limit competition, keeping prices for architectural services higher than they might be in an otherwise free market. They also result in an artificial scarcity of available service providers, which is why there are not enough licensed architects to design every new home. This is especially detrimental since each project is a custom design that cannot be mass-produced and broadly distributed. This oligopoly is great for architects, who benefit from reduced competition and their choice of clientele, but the consumers in the general public suffer the costs of this privilege through higher prices and inaccessible services.
Like a roller coaster that prohibits people below a certain height from riding, architectural licensure prohibits people below a certain ability from designing buildings. Roller coaster operators have a very good reason for their prohibition. The shoulder restraints are not designed to be safe for shorter people. Similarly, governments justify the creation of an oligopoly through licensure by claiming that it protects the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. They reason that a poorly designed building poses a public safety concern, and thus that architects should prove that they are minimally competent in designing for safe occupation.
The challenge of effective licensure is to minimize the societal costs of architectural oligopoly while maximizing the public benefits of safe buildings.
The measures of a safe building are prescribed in widely adopted building codes, which are generally reasonable and comprehensive. If every code-compliant building is considered safe, the measure of a qualified architect should be a proven understanding of the building codes. This could be verified through an exam that tests specifically for this knowledge, and it could be enforced through periodic retesting or performance evaluations. Any motivated individual should be able to learn the building codes, through relevant experience or in a few semesters at a vocational college, then take a building code exam to earn her licensure as an architect liable for her work. This process would protect the public while allowing for a proliferation of competitive licensed architects of varying abilities. It would be inclusionary, objective, simple, and practical.
Instead, the licensure requirements in all 50 states are exclusionary, subjective, convoluted, and impractical. They marginalize understanding of the building codes in favor of "broad" design values and the preservation of an elite oligopoly that does not meet the needs of the public.
Most states' requirements for licensure conform to the criteria for certification defined by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The first requirement is acceptance into and graduation from a post-secondary architectural education program accredited by the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB). The next requirement is gaining employment in an existing architectural firm and documenting a minimum of three years of experience in a variety of tasks. The final requirement is passing a nine-part, 18-hour exam that tests a broad range of skills.
Of the three requirements for licensure, NAAB's severe limitations on "accredited" degrees are the most oppressive. "Building Code Compliance" is just one of 37 criteria for accreditation, which include such nebulous topics as "Human Diversity", "Use of Precedents", and "Formal Ordering Systems" (6). Of the thousands of universities, colleges, and community colleges in America, only 117 schools have bothered to develop NAAB-accredited programs (7). Most of these schools are among the most selective and expensive in the nation. While there are another 150 or so non-accredited architecture programs, schools have little incentive to offer architectural degrees that are worthless in the eyes of the state (8). As a result of NAAB's exorbitant requirements, 5,150 accredited architecture students graduated in 2004, and 20 million students in the general public were denied the opportunity to explore architectural ideas and skills at their schools (9)(10).
Architecture graduates are forced to choose between two options: we can either work for an existing architecture firm or we can drop our career in architecture. For graduates seeking licensure, there are no opportunities to start our own practice or explore related careers. Internship guarantees architecture firms an annual pool of willing employees who will accept almost any job at any salary for three years, as long as it counts towards licensure. Internship reinforces the oligopoly of existing architectural firms and discourages graduates from innovating in their careers and finding new ways to serve the public.
The Architectural Registration Exam seems to be a reasonable measure of an architect's ability to produce safe buildings for public occupancy, although I will reserve my final judgment until I take the exam myself. It is worth noting an apparent danger in its application. The architects who help author the exam are in a powerful position to impress their system of values on unassuming interns as required knowledge (11). We should judge whether each exam question truly is asked in the service of the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Through these three exclusionary requirements, licensure has generated a caste of like-minded architects who are intellectually, culturally, financially, and socially elite. Architects must be intellectually elite in order to graduate from the selective schools we are forced to attend. The majority of firms hiring interns are located in urban areas, perpetuating a bias towards urban lifestyles. Our privileged pricing allows 75% of architects to earn more than the $43,000 median income of the general public, with the top 10% earning at least twice that amount (12)(13). Our limited competition enables architects to choose business and civic leaders as clients, and through these associations we enjoy social stature (14). Elitism is not fundamentally good or bad, but we must realize that the values we hold dear may not resonate with the general public. With fewer restrictions on licensure, our "value of architecture" would be tested fairly in the free market of ideas.
A freer market in architecture would have numerous benefits for the general public. Many more schools would offer comprehensive architectural educations, allowing more students to graduate with useful architecture degrees, and allowing students in other majors to explore architectural studies at their school. This would produce many more design advocates within the general public. Architectural services would be much more widely available, from a more diverse group of people, and in a broad range of prices. Instead of mass-producing cookie-cutter houses, developers may find it beneficial to employ affordable architects to customize each of their projects. All of this would raise the public awareness and appreciation of architecture more than any public relations efforts by existing architects ever could.
If this argument has not been convincing thus far, consider the following analogy. Imagine if no restaurants were allowed to serve food unless their chefs had graduated from 5 years at one of 117 of the most selective culinary schools, completed a three-year internship documenting each dish they prepared, and passed a nine-part exam. The handful of restaurants that would emerge would be very good, but they would only serve a fraction of all the people who needed to eat. This insufficient supply would cause prices to rise, so only the wealthy would be able to afford to dine out. Most people would be left at home eating the same mass-produced, homogeneous, mediocre food day in and day out. Sensing their alienation, chefs might make an effort to educate the excluded public about how fine dining can contribute to "a more wholesome and happy human condition." (15)
Unlicensed architects and students are in a unique position to criticize the profession. Although we have been preselected for inclusion, we know how exclusionary licensure is. We can see how state restrictions on education limit the public's access to architectural skills and thought. We know that the NCARB, the NAAB, the AIA, the ACSA, and the AIAS all seek to preserve their elite oligopoly through the force of governmental regulation. We realize that state registration boards are comprised of unelected licensed architects, the very people who have benefited the most from this oligopoly. We know that this oligopoly excludes much of the public from accessing architectural services. We can envision how this exclusion has contributed to the conditions of mediocrity and sprawl that we deplore in the built environment.
Despite this awareness, it is unlikely that young architects will ever mount a campaign to uproot the reigning powers. Despite their oppression, the two options we currently have available - getting licensed or dropping out - are both easier and more productive than trying to change an ill-conceived system. Regulation has been expanding throughout the past century, and it will continue to expand as buildings become more complex, environmental and security concerns become more popular, and land use becomes more contested. However, the unconsidered societal costs of regulation often outweigh its supposed benefits. As architects pressure states to protect their privilege, the public is rendered powerless to do anything but watch the world we have designed as it is built around them.
Sources:
I have made every effort to properly cite sources referenced in this article. Please contact me if a source is not properly cited.
1. "Among the 53 metropolitan areas in the nation with more than 1,000,000 people, 92 percent of population growth occurred in the suburbs. And, much of the growth that occurred in core cities was in greenfield areas in those cities that are indistinguishable from suburban areas."
Cox, Wendell. "Metropolitan Growth: More of the Same; 2000-2003 U.S. Census Estimates," The Public Purpose, Number 80, June 2004.
http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-80pop.pdf
2. "An estimated 1,844,300 housing units were completed in 2004."
"Single-family housing completions in December 2004 were at [an adjusted annual] rate of 1,673,000;"
U.S. Census Bureau. "New Residential Construction in December 2004," U.S. Census Bureau Joint Release, January 19, 2005.
http://www.census.gov/const/newresconst_0412.pdf
3. "310-A:52 Exemptions. – Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent or affect:
I. The preparation of drawings and specifications for and the supervision of the construction or alteration of a single-family or 2-family residence or of any building used for farm purposes;
II. The alteration of an existing building not involving structural changes;
III. The practice of architecture by officers and employees of the United States while engaged within the state in the practice of architecture for the federal government; or
IV. The preparation of drawings and specifications for, and the supervision and alteration of, any structure which does not have as its principal structural members reinforced concrete or structural steel and is 2- 1/2 stories or less, and 4,000 square feet or less, and is not a building of assembly, which includes schools, churches, auditoriums, theatres, hospitals and any building for the elderly."
State of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated Title XXX Chapter 310-A:52
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/310-A/310-A-52.htm
4. "The AIA estimates the number of architects licensed in the U.S. at 91,000."
The American Institute of Architects. "Facts, Figures, and the Profession."
http://www.aia.org/press_facts&defPr=1
5. "Firm revenues can also be divided among building types nationwide:
24% are from the design of educational facilities
10% are from the design of retail and other commercial space
12% are from the design of health-care facilities
14% are from the design of office buildings
7% are from the design of multi-family residences
5% are from the design of single-family residences. "
The American Institute of Architects. "Facts, Figures, and the Profession."
http://www.aia.org/press_facts&defPr=1
6. National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc. "Condition 12: Student Performance Criteria."
http://www.naab.org/information1726/information_show.htm?doc_id=15297
7. Author's count from list of accredited programs: 117 schools offering accredited degrees
National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc. "Accredited and Candidate Programs in Architecture."
http://www.naab.org/usr_doc/Accredited_Programs_22.pdf
8. "The school membership in ACSA has grown from 10 charter members to over 250 schools in several membership categories. These include full membership for all accredited programs in the United States and government-sanctioned schools in Canada, candidate membership for schools seeking accreditation, and affiliate membership for schools for two-year and international programs."
Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. "About ACSA."
http://www.acsa-arch.org/aboutAcsa.html
9. Author's count from spreadsheets of degrees awarded: 5,150 accredited degree graduates
National Architectural Accrediting Board, Inc. "2004 NAAB Statistical Report."
http://www.naab.org/usr_doc/2004_Stat_Report.xls
10. Total students age 17 and older enrolled in post-secondary education: 20,587,000
U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income Program Participation (SIPP), 1996 Panel Wave 5. Internet Release Date: October 16, 2002
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/p70-83/tab01a.pdf
11. "The exam is written by dozens of architects from NCARB’s member registration boards, consulting engineers and code officials."
The National Council of Architectural Accreditation Boards. "ARE Frequently Asked Questions."
http://www.ncarb.org/are/faqs.html
12. "Median annual earnings of wage and salary architects were $56,620 in 2002. The middle 50 percent earned between $44,030 and $74,460. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $36,280, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $92,350."
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Architects, Except Landscape and Naval," Occupational Outlook Handbook, March 21, 2004.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm
13. "Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau."
U.S. Census Bureau. "Income Stable, Poverty Up, Numbers of Americans With and Without Health Insurance Rise, Census Bureau Reports," U.S. Census Bureau News, August 26, 2004.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html
14. "In comparing billings, as reported by AIA members, by client types:
24% are from business, industrial and commercial companies
26% are from state or local government
14% are from developers and construction companies
16% are from nonprofit institutions
11% are from private individuals
5% are from the federal government
3% are from other architects, engineers, and design professionals."
The American Institute of Architects. "Facts, Figures, and the Profession."
http://www.aia.org/press_facts&defPr=1
15. Boyer & Mitgang, Building Community
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996: 129.
http://www.archvoices.org/competition/pg.cfm?nid=4
The End of Architecture
In searching for content for what is sure to become a ubiquitous web log, I stumbled across this paper I had written as an undergraduate architecture student at Carnegie Mellon University. The paper was for a roundtable architectural philosophy course with the nebulous title of "Space, Time, and Mind." The assignment was to describe how the end of architecture might come about.
My argument was that as human experience becomes increasingly focused on the absorbtion of visual information, the physicality of the real world and of architecture becomes less significant to us. I originally ended it on this downer, but my professor urged me to find a solution to this problem (if indeed it is a problem). I rehashed the modernism-postmodernism dialectic to point out the role of imagery in expressing physicality. Finally, I suggested that a naturalistic architecture, of which traditional Japanese architecture may be an example, could encourage its occupants to investigate the overlooked physicality of their environment.
It's pretty heady and not entirely original or contrarian, but I got a kick out of reading it again after all these years. I hope you will too.
The End of Architecture
Tim Brochu
10/21/99
There have been a few times in my life when I’ve truly believed that I exist in a physical world. One such instance occurred during last spring break while I was visiting a friend in Boulder, Colorado. While on a leisurely bike ride around the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, I came across a rock formation that was like nothing I’d ever seen before. A sheet of red rock jutted vertically out of a gradual slope, the remains of a violent glacial movement eons ago. The implausibility of its structure and surreal quality of its appearance in the fading sunlight intrigued me, and as I engaged it with my hands and feet, I could not deny its materiality- the solid rock of the earth itself, exposed above its grassy covering.
What do I feel the rest of the time, if not this direct physical relationship to the world around me? It seems like this understanding of my environment is unnecessary, even subordinate to my everyday experience. I do not need to forage the land for food, nor do I need to seek shelter in the nooks and crannies of the earth’s surface. Changes in weather are at worst a hassle, and sickness rarely worries me for more than a day. The world I live in provides me with food, shelter, medicine- in short, security in my survival.
Ever since the first man learned how to control fire, we have been seeking ways to alter our environment to meet our needs and desires. To this end we created architecture, a physical barrier between us and the threatening forces of our environment. There became a controlled inside world separate from the uncontrollable outside world
[1]. This inside world could then be associated with a feeling of security that the outside lacked. As other technologies developed, more of our activities could take place inside, and we created more architecture for each of these activities (as well as architecture on wheels to move from building to building). Thus cities grew around interdependent societies, and we soon adapted to this new face for our environment as well as to the security it represented.
In our postmodern society this simple model has developed to be extremely complex. Not only do we have all of our necessities for survival provided for us by us, we have virtually unlimited options in the selection of these necessities. We have even more options in selecting things that are not quite as necessary, as well as the activities we occupy ourselves with. Now the challenge is choosing what is best for us from this excess of options. To do this we rely on our cultural preferences, values learned through our interaction with other people as well as with our environment. These preferences may change frequently, as we take in more and more information from other people and from our environment. Therefore, we place importance on the absorption of information in order to live our lives to their full extent (or so we believe).
This has been called the Information Age. Television, radio, newspapers, magazines, telephones, and of course the Internet give people access to more information than they may ever need, let alone be able to absorb. It is possible for us to use these technologies to our advantage, relying on our cultural preferences to make value judgements.
[2] However, we often do not have a choice in the information that we are presented with. Advertisements scream at us from every type of media, pervading any search for information and calling for our attention from billboards and buildings when we are otherwise engaged.
In this case our attention is what determines our absorption of information from the environment. It may be said that our attention could be focused on sensory information, and thus the forms of the outside world, or on internal thought, including meanings associated with sensory information. In order to attract our attention (to influence our preference for something), advertisements may use aesthetic means of stimulating our senses, such as bright colors, sharp contrasts, bold words, identifiable objects (especially people), and even lights or motion. Through internal thoughts we are able to evaluate the information we absorb, and thus we are able to control this step in the processing of information. However, the aesthetic appeal of an advertisement may itself influence this evaluation, and thus these aesthetics become increasingly important in the design of advertisements.
The proliferation of visual representation in most information bearing media, coupled with the increased interest of society in this media, may be causing society to rely on images more and more. In Learning from Las Vegas, the authors compare a commercial strip to a Middle Eastern bazaar. In the bazaar, goods are advertised by their proximity to shoppers as well as the “explicit oral persuasion” of the merchants. In a commercial strip, however, goods are advertised through prominent roadside signs, with the goods inside a less conspicuous building
[3]. This reveals the importance placed on the representation of the sign, as opposed to an awareness of the physical object.
This reliance on images may also affect the way in which we perceive space. In our navigation of the environment, we are guided not by walls and openings, but from sign to sign. This becomes most apparent when driving, as we must pay attention to signs that guide our behavior. Indeed, the signs of the commercial strip are intended for drivers. In a car we perceive our translocation in space less significantly than the time spent driving. Our motion through space is perceived by the motion of images (signs, buildings, trees) passing us. A similar phenomenon may occur within buildings – in almost any public building we rely on signage for direction. In department stores, hotels, and schools we move from sign to sign to reach our destination. Space is no longer perceived as “the interrelation of objects,” but rather as the interrelation of images.
[4]While this may seem to be a minor distinction, the reduced perception of physical objects to representative images could have far-reaching ramifications. If we begin to perceive images of objects as being real, we may begin to perceive all images not as representations of reality but as reality themselves. With increasing emphasis on visual perception, images become more accessible to us as the medium of the physical world. At the same time, real objects lose their meaning, their denotation as “real,” and instead become valued for the aesthetic quality of their image.
[5]A further effect of this perception is that aesthetics themselves become devalued. Jean Baudrillard states that “when everything becomes aesthetic, nothing is either beautiful or ugly any longer, and art itself disappears.”
[6] The excess of images produces an excess of aesthetics, widely varied and existing for very different purposes. Thus there is no general standard by which to judge the aesthetic quality of images, but rather specific values associated with culture, time, and place.
Yet even these distinctions are being altered by our dependence on images. Culture is becoming more globalized, through increased communication and mass media. We share the information and images we use to identify ourselves with millions of people around the world. Our values are shaped not by traditional cultural morals or practices but instead by corporate images and the persuasions of the mass media. It is these images, then, that become our standards of aesthetics and even morality. Our individual identities are determined through the act of choosing from the excess of images (as products or information), and thus relating ourselves to what we perceive to be the world around us.
[7] These images belong to us as individuals just as we belong to them. The act of choosing, however, is not as pure an act of free will as we might like to imagine – as previously stated we are subject to the ever-present competition for our attention.
This competition along with other elements of the Information Age is also affecting our perception of time. In choosing the images we absorb, we focus our attention on a given image for a period of time. This also means that we are shutting out the other images around us, missing any information they may have to offer us. With the assumption that the more information we have, the better choices we make, we may attempt to take in information from as many sources as possible in a given period of time. Thus our attention span is shortened, and we may spend more time choosing what to pay attention to then actually paying attention to it. As we occupy ourselves with the absorption of information, we favor convenience and accessibility over richness of experience and investigation. Time is no longer money; it’s information.
Our desire for convenience along with our dependence on images is also reshaping our perceptions of place. The uniquities of individual places are overshadowed by the placeless images of corporate franchises. Mom and Pop stores are replaced by more convenient superstores, and dinner at a local restaurant becomes an excursion away from the everyday patronage of more accessible fast food chains. As we identify more and more with the corporate images of these commodities, we may feel less of a sense of belonging to a specific place. The proliferation of franchises across the landscape allows us to associate our culture with any number of other places just like it, only the association is with the images of those places, not the actual local environment. Cultural boundaries are no longer drawn by regional borders, but by product lines.
There have been a few times in my life when I’ve truly believed that I exist in a physical world. As I climbed that rock formation in Colorado, I was somehow able to see through the image of the rock to understand its physicality. In doing this I confirmed my own physicality through my interaction with it. All of a sudden that place at that time became the whole of my experience, with no hidden meanings or corporate agendas. There were no choices to consider and nothing to assure my security, yet somehow I felt that this pure experience of the outside world made more sense than any postmodern cultural experience I could think of.
Architecture is physical. It is created through the assembly of physical materials into a form that rests in the earth and that is in accordance with gravity and the physical constraints of the materials. It experiences all the forces of nature, including sun, wind, rain, snow, and ice. It is subjected to scorching heat and freezing cold. It exists at one place through the events of a specific time. As the boundary of the outside world, it must exist as a part of that world.
As the boundary of the inside world, it exists as something else. Since the inside world is a mental projection of our security onto this boundary, its appearance to our senses determines the way in which we perceive our relationship to this inside world, and even our own identity within that context. With our adaptation to this secure inside world as our primary reality, we can perceive its image as a representation of this reality. Thus, architectural aesthetics are created by and reflect back to us our mental representation of reality.
But now aesthetics are perceived not as a representation of reality, but as reality itself. Our perception of security, previously associated with the physical barrier of architecture, is now associated with the images that surround us. The utility of architecture is taken for granted, while intangible images define our everyday experience. We do not engage the environment, but instead follow the signs that are provided for us. Thus physical architecture may be ending in insignificance, as we turn our attention to the images of our environment.
Every architect develops opinions of what architecture should be. This Information Age presents architects with a few general directions to take. With the materiality of architecture subordinate to its imagery and the images around it, architects may choose to enter their buildings in the competition for attention, with emphasis on aesthetics. The polar opposite of this direction would be to do away with aesthetic concerns, in essence ignoring people’s dependence on images. A third direction might be to attempt to create opportunities for people to experience the physicality of our world – to make architecture a bridge between the inside and outside worlds, rather than a divider.
In Learning from Las Vegas, the authors champion the explicit use of images in the design and interpretation of architecture. They describe the architecture of “decorated sheds,” ordinary buildings with symbolic ornamentation applied to their surfaces.
[8] This type of deliberate imagery extraneous to the basic physical form of the building is intended to be communicative, in the sense that it may evoke literal cultural associations. As such, it can be used self-referentially to express something about the form of the architecture, or it can express meanings extraneous to the architecture. It can also be used to attract people’s attention if so desired. This type of architecture uses people’s dependency on images to its full potential, embracing the current dominance of images over materiality.
While this type of architecture may be relevant to our culture, it may also be contributing to the current dependence on images, with all of its effects as described above. In order to communicate, the architecture may be endowed with images whose original meaning resides in some other context (which may have the effect of excluding some people from interpreting it as intended). Thus, the representation of the images becomes more significant than the physical reality of the building. Neil Leach describes this as “architecture of the spectacle,” in which the spectacle of its imagery overwhelms the content and meaning of its architecture.
[9]In opposition to this type of architecture is an architecture that shuns ornamentation, even to the point of disregarding aesthetics. This approach is fundamental to modern architecture, which emphasizes functionalism and clarity of structure. By allowing these concerns to determine its appearance, it is intended to be a pure expression of the architecture. Its self-referential image does not rely on extraneous cultural information for its interpretation. At its purest, it rejects the dependence on images.
By doing so, however, it does not compete for people’s attention, and thus runs the risk of being insignificant to people’s everyday experience. Furthermore, without an elaborate structure or unique function, it runs the risk of being perceived as mediocre and banal. The actuality of much of modern architecture is that it is made with regards for aesthetics, and that in fact the reduction of ornamentation becomes an aesthetic exercise in and of itself.
[10]However, the idea of clarity of function and structure may be the start of a way to enable architecture to bridge the division between the inside and outside world. While some modernists may believe that they are disregarding aesthetics in their designs, this may hinder the ability of their architecture to connect with people on a semantic or intuitive level. Therefore, a “bridging” architecture may combine the sensibilities of both image-oriented architecture and minimalist architecture.
The strength of minimalist architecture in this pursuit is that its purity offers a strong sense of the physicality of the outside world. The strength of image-oriented architecture is that it has the ability to get people’s attention and communicate with them. An ideal architecture might utilize its aesthetics to communicate its physicality. The expressed physicality should be inspiring so that people can see through its images to gain a more holistic understanding of its form. It should cater to all of the senses, inviting their explorations. It should also realize and incorporate the specificities of its place.
One means of achieving this might be through the expression of the materials in a work of architecture. Instead of using manmade, mass-produced materials designed with aesthetics in mind, it may be favorable to build with more natural materials. The raw, even chaotic quality of materials such as wood and stone may communicate their physicality through their individual variations and obvious authenticity. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater uses stone in such a way that the house abstractly appears to have grown right out of the ground, even with a boulder from the site penetrating the interior. This “organic” architecture engages the senses and truly provides a physical experience.
Fallingwater is also in harmony with its surroundings. Architecture that responds to the unique conditions of its site allows for people to perceive these qualities, focusing their attention not only on the images of the building but also the images of its natural surroundings. Thus the physicality of its site may become attainable through an investigation of it. Traditional Japanese architecture often seems to break down the border between inside and outside. Layers of sliding screens called shoji create a gradual transition from outside to inside. This derives from the Eastern philosophy that there is no difference between the manmade and the natural, that all things exist as a part of nature. Openings are positioned to frame views of the outside, accentuating the qualities of the natural environment. This involvement of the outside world within the buildings seems to effectively combine perceptions of the inside world with the physicality of the outside world.
It does seem to be possible to create architecture that reveals its physicality. This may even be a way to reveal to many people the forgotten physicality of reality. A hindrance to this goal may be the fact that any single work of architecture will only be truly experienced by a limited number of people, for a limited time. Thus its impact may only be significant to a handful of people, depending on its occupancy. Even mass media coverage of one such work, which would alert people to its existence and possibly its intentions, would not be able to effectively communicate its physical experience. In order for it to reach more people, this “physical” style would have to become widespread. Perhaps a corporate franchise could embrace these values, so that instead of mass-produced imagery it could develop individualistic works of architecture, responsive to their locations and engaging in their use of materials. Whether in this fashion or through some other means, it is possible to restore to architecture its lost physicality, and with that its significance.
Sources:
[1] Arnheim, Rudolph, The Dynamics of Architectural Form. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. P. 92 - Describes the perception of two separate “worlds,” with the “erection of a boundary” as the “primeval architectural act.”
[2] Collins, Jim, Architectures of Excess. New York: Routledge, 1995. Pp. 5-6 - Suggests that people are able to absorb information despite rapidly advancing technologies through “cultural mediation.”
[3] Venturi, Robert et al., Learning from Las Vegas. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1977. Pp. 9,13
[4] Arnheim 10
[5] Leach, Neil, The Anaesthetics of Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999. P. 5 – “In the process of reading an object as a mere image, that object is emptied of much of its original meaning.”
[6] Leach 6 – Paraphrasing Jean Baudrillard
[7] Collins 20 – “To choose with a vengeance is a way of gaining mastery over the excess of signs and the identities they entail.”
[8] Venturi et al. 87
[9] Leach 60
[10] Leach 11 – “Utopian architectural visions came to be seen as abstract aesthetic experiments of an architectural elite out of touch not only with the taste but also, more importantly, with the practical needs of the populace.”
