We are in the midst of radical social and economic change brought on by the emergence of a global system that is completely and utterly uncontrollable -- it is too big, too fast, and too complex to control. Unfortunately, the lack of a global control system means that we face a long series of increasingly severe shocks (due to the system’s tight coupling, each new shock will sweep the world in months), wrecking long standing and established structures with ease. The first shocks, a bubble in energy and a financial crisis, have already done significant damage. More are on the way as the global system moves ever farther from normal patterns of operation.
by John Robb
So, how does this impact the future of architecture and design?
In general, this means that designers will need to focus less on macro or global level needs and much, much more on the needs of the local. Why? The solutions to macro level instability will be found in the development of local community’s that build systems and organizations that enable them to both withstand systemic shocks and prosper based on internal dynamics. This is nearly inevitable since architecture and design flow to sources of growth, and we will only see prolonged growth at the local and not the macro level.
The first change will require architecture and design that transforms previously unproductive spaces – most residences and communities are black holes of productivity – into spaces that can produce value, from food to energy. A home, whether it is an apartment building or suburban residence, in 2025 will gain its value from its ability to efficiently produce necessities, and even income (as measured by the value of the output in local trade), for the owner.
Community design will in turn focus on the creation of platforms that support and catalyze increases in production for the community as a whole.
NOTE: For those that are unfamiliar with the concept of a “platform,” it finds its roots in the technology industry. Essentially, it is a system that simplifies a set of processes required for a given activity and bundles them into an easily accessible package. For example, the Internet is a platform. Platforms radically accelerate development and often foster the creation of diverse ecosystems of participants that rapidly innovate to fill the available opportunity/space.
Within resilient communities, we will see the establishment of platforms that make it easier to grow/sell food, produce/share/sell energy, trade, share ideas/methods (social software), produce products (fab labs), collect/share/sell water and much more. For example, to accelerate the ability to share/sell energy within a community, smart grid technology and microgrids provide an excellent avenue of approach. More specifically, if my domestic wood-fired, combined heat power (CHP) system produces excess electricity, I could either sell it into the community's microgrid or store it locally depending on the pricing information I get from smart grid data flows. Another example would be platforms that support local agriculture. Platforms in this category such as vegitecture support localized agriculture and food production and include; centrally located open space for farmer’s markets, small fenced garden plots that can be rented, local cold storage, groves of nut trees, community composting systems, green roofs/walls and much more.
If this sounds like a return to the 19th Century way of life you would be wrong. IF done correctly, the intensity of production and the productivity of participants will be orders of magnitude higher than during that earlier period. Further, IF done correctly it promises a rapid, broad and sustainable increase in standards of living for all participants.
So, get ready and get innovating, for if we can crack the design of the models necessary to accomplish this, it will propagate virally across the entire world.
John Robb is a former USAF pilot in special operations and software/IT entrepreneur. His book Brave New War , and website Global Guerillas are both excellent resources for anyone interested in exploring the future security challenges and opportunities for enhancing modern society's adaptability and resilience in todays rapidly changing globally, networked environment. Currently he is exploring the topic of resilient communities and how communities can shield and/or insulate themselves from such rapidly changing conditions by developing local capacity. In the Op-Ed above he discusses a few ways in which architects and other design professionals can contribute to the development of such capacity.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License .
/Creative Commons License
10 Comments
interesting essay. quite similar to the work of lars lerup in suburbia usa, except that lars did not have the benefit of global financial crisis as rational for change. for him there was only common sense, which of course does not work out so well, simply because people do not tend to live sensibly when given the choice.
the current global hyper tie-up/mash up happened before and was most recently followed by long period of isolation that we have only just left behind really...it will be interesting to see if the world returns to isolation of my grandmother or if everyone instead tries instead to keep benefits of linkage without vulnerabilities. it is hard to imagine ways to make that work, but one never knows. perhaps we will come up with something really different this time around.
Jump,
Lars work is very interesting. I have been meaning to read his Megacities: Toxic ecology THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN NATURE AND CULTURE IN THE SUBURBAN MEGACITY lecture for awhile....
But i keep forgetting to print it out and it is a huge PDF.
I think the hope or idea in the sort of scenario you outlined is to build resiliency at the local level while still keeping connections open to global networks (or building resiliency through them). Using internet and other communication/software based platforms for instance.
I think we have gone past the point of only living with a ten mile horizon, but we need to be able to adapt/respond to connection failures of the global system...
is vegitecture
ready for prime time? I hope so, but wonder why we haven't seen more prototypes and realized vertical farms in non-tropical places.
nam- do you have a link for the lecture?
Let's step back for a moment here and consider the source of this op-ed. I had never heard before of John Robb, but his biographical links paint a very disturbing picture, to say the least. It begs the question of why this is being "instigated" but I'll assume that it makes sense to air a plurality of opinions (no matter how privileged and dominant the voice of the security entrepreneurs might be in our war-infected society). And nonetheless, it's quite an honor to have an op-ed by someone who's also written for the New York Times.
First of all, we learn that he is a "counterterrorism expert," as his Amazon book page presents. Then, the subheading of his book: "The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization." Dismal. His about page says more. His speaking engagements: "the DoD, CIA, NSA, NIC, Highlands Forum, Center for Biosecurity, and many more." He probably reinforces these organizations's ideology that Iraq is "the epicenter of the war on terrorism" instead of the hubristic invasion that it was. He also seems to brag (or is he perturbed?) about the amount of tax-payer money that has been spent on his career ("Other than the AF Academy, the government spent over $2.5 million training John." Some examples of his education: "Advanced low-level night flight training (night vision goggles). Advanced interrogation resistance training. Covert and clandestine mission training.") In other words, his educational background embodies all that is deplorable and objectionable about our collective nightmare of the last seven or eight years, does it not?
So what does he teach us from this background? First of all, much like those who preach endless war, he says: "We are in the midst of radical social and economic change brought on by the emergence of a global system that is completely and utterly uncontrollable -- it is too big, too fast, and too complex to control." Might as well give up any meaningful kind of opposition. There is no alternative. Regulate? Fat chance. Change any of the "organizational-complex" (to rob from Reinhold Martin) of the Katrina-Iraq-Foreclosure boondoggle of the last eight years? Forget it. Just adapt.
(to be continued...)
Pay no attention to globalization. Globalization is actually a mirage of chaos that has no direction. He tells us to pay attention "more on the needs of the local." (But, there is little clarity here as to what a "macro" scale is and what a local one is).
Then he says: "The first change will require architecture and design that transforms previously unproductive spaces – most residences and communities are black holes of productivity – into spaces that can produce value, from food to energy." In other words, people's meaningful social relations are unproductive. That's exactly why we invaded Iraq, so that we could change these black holes. The other part of the message is that people the world over have as of yet NOT been squeezed for enough "value" already.
The rest of the piece goes on to argue that there is more of the fabric of everyday life that is still outside of "productivity" and goes on to find ways to conquer it. Of course, there is no power structure to any of this. "it will propagate virally across the entire world."
Let's please turn decidedly away from these ideologies of the network, as if we were at the dawn of an era where the current crisis will flush out the governmental structure and leave nothing in its place. Afterwards, we will all be "free" to organize our little libertatrian communes. The rub is that we already have examples of what John Todd proposes. They look a little something like this.
Javier,
As someone who has been following/reading John Robb's work for a couple of years now, i think you paint an incomplete picture.
His Op-ED in the NYT you ink to only discusses Iraq as the epicenter of terrorism in the context of the post-invasion insurgency/freedom fight. He is surely not making an argument that Iraq should have been invaded.
His main concern is offering criticism, context and prescriptions on how to adapt/protect and deal with the new emergence of non-state actors of all stripes whether terrorist, computer geek or financial investor that now have the ability to rapidly alter and affect global level practices, lifestyles or institutions on a system wide basis.
As for the phrase "black holes of productivity" his point here (as i read it) is that we need to address/infill currently non-productive/efficient structures and institutions in order to create local resilience. Meaning as he suggested the creation of local power generation food and security. Such talk may have a libertarian connotation but the real issue as he articulates it, is the fact that in the context of a whole arrange of global structures and systems that are either failing or too complex and interconnected to avoid or be protected from Black Swans and systempunkts, that either intentional or otherwise, communities must be able to support themselves at the local level. I for one would love to see more localized food, energy et al production, if only for "green/sustainability" reasons.
Who cares about ideology it is practice and result that matters.
Nam,
Discussing Iraq as the "epicenter of terrorism" already codifies many reasons for invading it; for justifying that 'they' need 'us'. Second, I don't want to get into a tit for tat; surely it will be more interesting to see other people comment, but think again of this notion that at the level of the "local" there are gaps of productivity. You might think that we have no need for ideology but there is an inherent ideology already in that notion of lack of productivity.
Finally, that whole notion about "Who cares about ideology"? It was disproved when Alan Greenspan conceded.
This is a fascinating op-ed and a fascinating discussion.
Ideologically, I tend to agree with Nam here:
"Who cares about ideology, it is practice and result that matters."
I am very interested in the notion of the platform as presented here in the article, much clearer and more generally applicable than the more common technocratic interpretation of the word.
I am also very interested in your conflation, Javier, of development in underused or disused local urban spaces, and the democratization (does the word still need quotes?) of Iraq and other global rogue states. And of course, the call to the network, the virus, and the rhizome to legitimize the spread of use-value.
I think we are need to be extremely careful here. I wonder if we are kicking up a little bit too much sand in this discussion.
First, the discussion of the tension between localism and globalism is a valid discussion and one that has some urgency. I'm frankly game on hearing from whatever ideological corner it's coming from.
For example, about a year ago, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review had this to say as a critique of 'big government' conservatism:
"...I think its very important for conservatism is to maintain the dogma of being for a limited government...My silver bullet for all this is federalism, pushing most of these issues down to a local a level as possible, so that you can be a consistent conservative in your community and be a communitarian or be against Wal-Mart in your town and for gay marriage or against gay marriage or whatever. But you have to live with the consequences of your actions at the local level, you have to look the people you have pissed off in the eye at the local store and you can't escape and be a Barbara Streisand liberal and try to impose a way of life on people that live 3000 miles from you...This is my problem with a lot of the conservative vs. liberal stuff at the federal level- I think if you just push it down far enough, it works a lot better, it's more democratic..."
If you take Goldberg at his word, you will find a confluence between his view of small government conservatism and an emerging localism that has been popular on the left. This is an emerging reaction in the conservative movement against the Bush model of big government, activist conservatism. More here http://thotspace.blogspot.com/2007/04/left-vs.html
The terms of the debate are being framed. We should watch carefully and closely lest we miss a valuable opportunity.
The other possibility is that the debate on localism will be conflated in ways that are unhelpful. For example, the 'federal' model in Iraq was clearly a failure of ideology over culture, but it was a failure within a context.
The important lesson in Iraq was not that one ideology does or doesn't work, it was that in a contest between rampant globalization and local context, local context wins.
Whether the next outcome is the same will depend on local conditions.
Second. . .sometimes "even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day."
it seems to me that for the years to come, big government is in, not only in the states, but all the big players in the global economy, who have decided to persevere with expansionary policies by bailing out, investing in infrastructure, tax reduction and so forth. machine metaphor as implied in the article with the use of the words with -product- is still driving our societies, and at the local level, it is inevitable to deal with restructuring if have not already been dealing with from the phenomena of shrinking cities, etc. it is natural to think local in the face of undeniable global, but for instance in south korea, the whole country is trying to transform industry structure by dividing up major industries among 7 regions. so i don't know how we can be authentically local in this current financial/economic context. the speed of change is perceived rather unsustainable if we think about the crisis in terms of economy, and i am concerned about the quality of all the developmental plans; also educationally, it puts a lot of pressure on the young generation. so here comes our utopian ideals of architects, and i mean it literally. i know jump is interested in suburbs, so i think about single family houses first. it is argued that the typology has become unsustainable because of sprawl eating up the precious lands. at the same time, for a small country like south korea, it is not really a viable option although individuation is something humans aspire to. so collective dwellings interest me great deal. it is very numbing to look at the prototypical apartment complexes, and i want to experience more experimental urban fabrics in the cities especially the ones conceived tabula rosa. and why not a megastructure with plug ins if we are going to build another prototypical apartment complex? a satellite city of one gigantic megastructure for quater million people? it does not have to cost more money building it, more time designing maybe. i would have insisted building one just because it is interesting to think of one of prosaic satellite cities of seoul to be housed in a single poetic architectural object.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.