30+ views and no responses... its that bad huh?

if life were so easy as to have others do the hard work...

I've been trying to trudge through, this is what I have now:

Architecture should be ingrained in our primal instincts. I’m sure in some ways the architecture of today does have some of our primal features shining through, but in the evolution of our modern societies we decided that our primal instinct was barbaric and uncivilized to nurture. I believe that because of this denial we have lost our relevance in the world today. We don’t fit into our ecosystems anymore and it’s correcting that. Looking at things realistically urban architecture can’t be made out of the same found materials our Neanderthal ancestors used. We are bound to the social being we’ve created and that context demands a type of permanence and security in architecture. So in what ways do you reconcile the two?

Critiques?

first off, is this a 5th year thesis?

I heard a radiolab episode a couple weeks ago about domesticating foxes and the idea that the entire human race is breeding out our own primal and harsher tendencies. The podcast for that particular show isn't out yet but may be before too long.

so are you possibly looking at instant cities similar to military base camps? when people storm a beach what is the process of establishing safety and control on that beach? I'm thinking of the D-Day scene in Saving Private Ryan, that kind of thing?

Or how cities convert back to more basic instincts during crisis? Like what happened to New Orleans architecturally during Katrina (hopefully omitting Mr. Pitt)? Or whats happening to migrant workers in Dubai right now? The creation of tent cities and slums?

Today I heard some of the conversations going on in the Senate and, though we've cleaned up a bit and speak more technically, I somehow have my doubts we are really much more socially civilized.

Listen to spiral architect. I haven't in far too long and right now I just want to go running or something. Not that its related, its just good advice.

None of these may be any way what you want to do but it may at least help you know what you don't want to do.

Surely you meant this?

Save Western-- that concept is known as neoteny.

But I would gamble a better avenue to pursue would be the biological equivalent of the "Law of Averages" known simply as "averageness."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averageness

It's a new field of research that states that individuals are attracted the most to perfectly average people.

This is similarly related to neoteny in Humans as attractiveness in humans correlates to neotenic features such as reduced facial features and so forth.

Extremities on both sides often show differing signs that can be pursued as genetic and behavioral abnormalities-- whether they actually exist or not.

Avoidance of subpar and extraordinary features seems to be preprogrammed into our psyche.

to survive you don't need architecture. you may need shelter, a cave, a tent, a refrigerator box, but you don't need architecture. architecture comes much later than that. why don't you just do a nice art museum?

a carry-around musuem that doubles as shelter, a cave. a tent, a refrigerator box.

We can learn a significant amount from homeless, those in extreme poverty,

you make extreme poverty sound like extreme sporting

The Lagos project seems to be the thing for you.

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.

@save western
I want to look at how this idea applies in a variety of cases with the ultimate goal of relating that back to slums, homeless, and temporary shelters that arise in times of crisis. The way that I see it is that these places exist out of the realm of our "structured" society but also out of the realm of a "primal" society. In order to design for them or to aid them you have to understand what the middle ground means.
ps. this is a 5th yr Barch thesis.

@vado retro
I think we have different definitions of what architecture is and/or should or could be. Granted, I know the architecture you are referring to is much more than just shelter. The architecture of today is a product of the social environment we live. What I see increasingly in architecture, however, is that architects are looking back to how humans made buildings that naturally cooled and heated themselves, collected rainwater, delt with the forces of nature, used local materials etc. We realize that architecture in many ways had gotten out of control and needs to be reined back in and thus we have the sustainability movement. Here's what I see:

"Modern" Architecture <- -> Sustainable Architecture <- -> Survival Architecture <- -> Primal Architecture

well that's a good point although i wonder really how sustainable any architecture has ever been.local materials were used certainly but were they stewarded? no not really. i doubt if anyone really gave much thought about that. christ where i live was once covered with forest. its all farmland now. hardly sustainable and i doubt that it was any different with most "architecture" anywhere else.this all has nothing to do with the homeless or the extreme poor, however, who will use whatever means available to survive.

i am all for architecture without architects as long as its architecture.

You all call that survival? Geesh!

And I though survival was living in a stone maison gilded in gold leaf and adorned of statues of young naked men.

at first you were alone you were petrified...

you might be interested in the work of some of the people associated with team 10... a lot of them were looking at "primal" or "indigenous" architecture... for example, you should take a look at aldo van eyck's writings about the dogon tribe... also, candilis-josic-woods were heavily influenced by the informal bidonvilles around casablanca...


you might also be interested in some of the archigram stuff like the cuschicle...

...thinking you could never live without me by your side?


anyway, for some slick images of slums and a tour through the living conditions there I would try theplaceswelive. Though I will say if you are intending to do your thesis on solving the problem of homelessness and poverty then you need a radical scope change. I've seen lots of projects start out with the grand idea of ending homelessness or any other grand utopian idea and I guarantee you its more than you can chew on for a single thesis. If you don't whittle it down to something more manageable you risk burning yourself out and making your thesis very generic and weak. Trust me, my thesis was often a miserable thing to be a part of.

what about looking at instant 'cities', burning man for example or something, and trying to find maslow's hierarchy of needs within that?

...and as for as averageness goes, I think that sounds like a pretty good justification of polygamy. I could have twelve wives and though none of them might be very hot, the combined wife they make would be incredible.

homelessness isn't really an architetural problem. it has more to do with education, jobs, addiction, familial connections etc.

I don't think or expect to "solve" homelessness or slums. In the same way, I don't expect or want to be an architecture hero. Humanitarian architecture in so many ways has become that and it irritates me. I once attended an architecture lecture and after the talk I asked the lecturer, "how do you come to terms with introducing a foreign architecture that 'improves' a culture but yet alters it?" He didn't have an answer.

All I think is that structured societies can learn from the way the homeless and impoverished live and vice versa. In many ways I think homelessness, slums, and shanty towns are unfortunate circumstances to be in, but yet people choose to be there rather than on their own. Yet, I'm fully aware and appreciate your concern.

Looking at burning man might be an good exercise, thanks for the idea.

@vado retro
I totally agree. I've been studying in Copenhagen, Denmark for four months and homelessness is a rarity because of the laws put in place. If you don't have the economic means to afford a home, the government will give it to you. Architecture has no play in that solution.

But also, the way government runs in the US and the rest of the world is pretty different.

Save Western Though I will say if you are intending to do your thesis on solving the problem of homelessness and poverty then you need a radical scope change

I don't think that this is the suject matter of her/his thesis. s/he says "learning from homelessness". do we really need "homelessness" to teach us to be more basic, more compact, sustainable and detatched?

or is this is an aestheticizing of povery (hence, extreme sport). for instance, that usage of the word "primal", which is a suspiciously mythical word signifying in equal measures origin-ality and primitivness/animality: ie, the homeless person as asphalt animals. this intellectualizing on homelessness sanitizes it from its actual miseries and hardships. do you really want to learn all these, because its part and parcel.

if you really want to learn from the homeless....why are you asking a bunch of housed, fed and clean architects. go down to the street (ie might necessitate you to travel abroad then) and ask the homeless.

mguhanasjr Humanitarian architecture in so many ways has become that and it irritates me. I once attended an architecture lecture and after the talk I asked the lecturer, "how do you come to terms with introducing a foreign architecture that 'improves' a culture but yet alters it?" He didn't have an answer.

perhaps, because compared to a very pragmatic of solution of satisfying the basic needs of a suffering individual, your "grandiose" question sounds trivial and nonsensical. humanitarian architects don't need to elevate each project to the status of a philosophical theory on life and culture.

and...i agree that you could be in danger of de-architecturing yourself completely. identify what you are truly interested in. is it urban mobility and detachment? or is it being cold and hungry and hoping to find shelter before the blizzard kills you.

http://www.beyondshelter.org/aaa_initiatives/ending_homelessness.shtml

"Housing first" or rapid re-housing as it is also known, is an alternative to the current system of emergency shelter/transitional housing, which tends to prolong the length of time that families remain homeless. The methodology is premised on the belief that vulnerable and at-risk homeless families are more responsive to interventions and social services support after they are in their own housing, rather than while living in temporary/transitional facilities or housing programs. With permanent housing, these families can begin to regain the self-confidence and control over their lives they lost when they became homeless.

For over 20 years, the housing first methodology has proven to be a practical means to ending and preventing family homelessness. The methodology is currently being adapted by organizations throughout the United States through Beyond Shelter's Institute for Research, Training and Technical Assistance and the National Alliance to End Homelessness' Housing First Network.

The concept behind housing first is pretty much that rehabilitation can only take place after someone is in a housing unit (presumably one they feel that it is "their place".)

In the United States, those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are often segregated away from society to a point that they typical interventions are often more alienating than being homeless.

This whole system of treating homelessness at a surface depth level is actually becoming more expensive than it is to just typically give the homeless actual housing.

When you run the numbers over a long term period, shelters and soup kitchens are in the multiple times more expensive than the housing first approach.

As an architect, you can find ways to help integrate housing first housing units is a way that's harmonious to everyone else around.

The first stipulation is that the housing first unit can not or should not be institutional or perceived as institutional. The second stipulation is that all possible risks and nuances need to be addressed without violating the first stipulation.

Let's face it-- homeless people smell, they're full of bugs and parasites, they carry a high-risk of tuberculosis transmission and some of them aren't pleasant to be around.

You'd need to essentially create a hermetically sealed portion of an apartment building with multiple entrances and exists to make sure that none of the more obvious problems are visible to neighbors and to make lesser issues less noticable (social workers, police officers et cetera coming and going all the time).

Essentially, you need to make a halfway house not seem or look like a halfway house.

One last thing to point out...

The United States over the last 40 or 50 years has made some pretty good strides to eliminate and/or tone down the "bachelor pad" apartment. Housing stocks of affordable 1 bedroom/1 bathroom apartments have fallen if you adjust everything out over the time period.

There's also a big lack of efficiencies and "micro" sized apartments being built over the last 30 or so years.

This "transitional housing" is pretty important when dealing with generational planning issues and homelessness.

Combine that with a lack of cheap long-term lodging and hostels, there isn't much of a safety net left for the poor, young, old and homeless.

Thanks so much for all of your help and suggestions, I was accepted into the thesis program at my school.

vernacular architecture = architecture of instincts is imp to look into - Karl Pruscha, Paul Oliver, Rudofsky.. all the ppl who have pioneered in this field.

and def read 21st century perspectives on vernacular architecture