After the dramatic decline in concentrated poverty between 1990 and 2000, there was a sense that cities were “back,” and that the era of urban decay—marked by riots, violent crime, and abandonment—was drawing to a close. Unfortunately, despite the relative lack of public notice or awareness, poverty has re-concentrated. — Paul Jargowsky for The Century Foundation
The Century Foundation publishes a Paul Jargowsky paper laying out the facts and statistics of decline and poverty's impact on American cities.
Paul Jargowsky is a fellow at The Century Foundation where he writes about inequality, the geographic concentration of poverty, and residential segregation by race and class.
This work was support by The Century Foundation and the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University–Camden. The author received helpful comments and suggestions from Marie Chevrier, Natasha Fletcher, Straso Jovanovich, Lucy Muirhead, Jason Renker, Christopher Wheeler, and Zachary David Wood and production support from Abigail Grimshaw.
This Archinect editor thinks architecture must pay much more attention to this issue and start producing solutions instead of getting shamelessly high on celebrating star architect designed luxury condominiums for the globally rich clientele and elitist minimalist lakeside homes, and teaching their renderings in schools.
51 Comments
In another news.., New York 'mansions in the sky' highlight wealth inequality
quondam, if the "geographic poverty concentration" is a physical space/environment, then we as architects are involved.
We can create join to alliances that advocate solutions to fair housing, designs that can be realized under social programs and accommodate, develop better ideas for healthier and livable cities. If we don't have those abilities and relevancy, we must seek and develop them.
Apologies for being rude, but I'd like to respond-
An indicator used to describe poverty is the (in)ability to accumulate, use and distribute wealth. While this is not in itself a matter that is directly addressed by architects, architecture is well positioned to address these matters, using three different scopes of service provided by architects on a regular basis.
1- The most direct method that architects may use to respond to this would be the design of housing that both stabilizes living conditions and encourages wealth accumulation. Engaged in a material practice, thermally robust housing could decrease costs related to utilities. Granted this is a careful dance between material costs, rental or purchase costs, and geographic location. Nonetheless, robust architecture could lead to resilient residents.
2- Further to the manipulation of materials, an optimistic approach to site can play a role in the establishment of wealth and well being. As demonstrated by countless projects, urban agriculture has become a solution to food deserts. While these spaces are frequently not "designed," the relationship of building to garden space is designed. This would not only include providing space for a garden, but sizing it based on intended occupancy loads and regional growing periods. Site design is of particular significance given the relocation of poverty from the center to the suburbs of many cities.
3- As a planning practice, understanding the long term impact of land use types and how they are used to create and sustain neighborhoods. This would be advocating for simple things such as job centers and daily services such as grocery stores to provide staples that promote healthy living. Granted these are not always uses that are easily moved, therefore an understanding of transportation networks and T.O.D principles is called for.
It may seem that designing for poverty may be outside the purview of the architect, but recall that we are approaching the century mark for subsidized housing policy and the subsequent projects in the United States. One of the goals was to provide better quality housing for middle class families, in order to improve upon their health and well being. If that was possible in the 1930's, there is no reason that architecture and architects cannot respond to the needs those with less.
Marc, I get the intent of your post but think the phrasing is erroneous.
Wealth accumulation isn't the answer, it's the problem. Affordable housing here was originally done with a lottery among the "qualified" (big argument what income level qualifies, turns out to be a very narrow window between too much and too little) who were required to occupy it for seven years at which point they sold it for market value and skedaddled off to greener pastures with the windfall. Now they town keeps the land and "sells" the building, mitigating the price increase and windfall for lottery winners.
After Katrina perfectly good affordable apartments that people loved were torn down to make way for the gold rush of upscale development, housing as an investment vehicle for wealth accumulation.
Housing shouldn't be an investment vehicle, it should be housing, providing the essential things that everyone needs. That it is an investment vehicle is why we have an absolute glut of luxury houses and apartments, why people collect them like Beanie Babies and why so many don't have a decent place to live or spend all their income on rent for some shitty shack.
Marc, not to discourage your ideas, but having been involved with some innovative housing solutions I can attest to the fact that it is only (perhaps) half of the equation. We can design better places to live, but it doesn't change how people live.
The last low income housing project I did was promised to include mentoring of the tenants, but 30 days after occupancy the housing authority pulled the plug on the mentoring. That was 5 years ago and the interior of the building is now beyond repair with no one to repair it, and those conditions just drive the tenants back around the circle.
Architects can change the architecture, but they can't change the people... get them well, educated, employed, build families... help them learn how to live productive lives, it's a two part equation.
Carrera- agreed.
Note that I didn't mention policy or other procedures outside the scope of architects being aware of the boundaries of practice.
Some quotes from the actual article:
These richer suburbs have used exclusionary zoning to keep out affordable housing, so the poor and low-income people can only live in the central city and dying suburbs that are being abandoned ... The whole process is legally enforced through zoning, and underwritten by the mortgage interest deduction and all the subsidies that go into building roads, sewers, and schools for the new suburbs.
Given that the housing stock lasts for decades, these policies build a durable architecture of segregation that ensures that racial segregation and the concentration of poverty is entrenched for years to come....
Concentration of poverty is the product of larger structural forces, political decisions, and institutional arrangements that are too often taken for granted. Our governance and development practices ensure that significant segments of our population live in neighborhoods where there is no work, where there are underperforming schools, and where there is little access to opportunity.
If anyone has been following the current argument in Seattle over changing zoning to allow more dense development in single family neighborhoods, it gives a very clear example of how inequality is enforced through zoning policy.
read the research a d to quondam's question - you can address this as an urban planner, city employee involved in zoning policy, an academic.....but since most of us are practicing architects - very little if anything directly can be done unless you change your career.......this is not to say you shouldn't pay attention to these issues, its just niave and frankly ignorant to think the actual practice of architecure in a real market as it stands today based on economy and related policies can be effective as everyone imagines. its a waste of energy on the current mode of operation and position of architecture. again, you may be a trained architect and then enter alternative fields to address these issues more directly, but if you took the ARE exams as a signifier of practice, nothing contained therein relates to any of this directly. you could also take state laws defining the practice or architecture and most of academic training as signifier for what the "apparatus" of architecture as established is good for. what can a good set of construction drawings do about this issue? reconcentration of media is plausible, but a total redefintion of architecture is a stretch...become a politician, an urban planner, a zoning lawyer, academic,etc....but don't bother sending your resume to an architecture firm if you think you will be able to address hese issues directly within the first 10 years of your career.
Minimum lot and house size requirements are exclusionary, but in the end economic inequality in our society is the real problem.
A recent big luxury condo development was required to put aside a number of 'affordable' units. Instead they negotiated a modest (maybe 2%) one-time payment to the municipality which disappeared into the bottomless void of bureaucracy.
Wealth can buy its way out, those without can't buy their way in.
Chris I agree in part, but consider this parallel: 25 years ago I could draw a great set of construction docs for a house using wood studs without considering sustainable forestry practice. Today I can't. This change is due to a long slow but intentional shift in thinking about our discipline led in part by architects. Isn't it part of the architect's scope to consider the larger implications of the things we draw?
yes Donna, but your example is plausible because it deals directly with the executable intent of what many of us do daily - our drawings represent physical realities well - for construction, but with regard to social its very questionable. Even with zoning as the closest path to addressing poverty and race relations, there is NO direct link or action item an architect can do or "draw" that resolves these issues let alone addresses them. you can walk away from the commision and you can fight for alternatives to provide affordable housing, but this is done on a personal level. nothing in architecture training or use of whatever power an architect is granted by law addresses poverty and race relations. there is a huge gap here, and to this degree Schumacher would be correct. nothing in the current immediate process and content of the practices of architecure is created to address any of this. i am having trouble even imagining a fictional situation in which a national policy with regard to poverty would find its way into a set of construction drawings? No Lead, require lead testing? quality housing minimums for more square footage overall(NYC), i.e. minimum unit size.....these are policies well beyond the world of architecture, actuall well outside of architecture....other than academicly defined.
You can try to influence your client. You can try to influence the process. In the end the most influence you can possibly have is to decline the work that conflicts with your principles and pursue or promote or create work that reflects them. If more of us shared such principles, and if the professional organization adopted and promoted them, then at least we'd have a tiny voice to compete with the giant megaphones funded by astronomical wealth that are trumpeting the glorification of excess and profiting wildly from it. All of which assumes of course that we actually share some common principles in regard to this issue.
As the old man said, if you're lucky you get a choice: you can eat or you can sleep.
Shoemuncher is largely correct in his observations. What bothers me is his complete dismissal of the problem and failure to address it in any way despite his powerful position and global stature. Fucking Kanye West does more for architecture than PS.
Miles,
Apologies for not seeing your post from last night, but wealth is that measure. I'm not talking about being wealthy, nor am I speaking of property for the sake of strategic investment. Wealth is simply the ability to improve your economic standing. Housing can- and has been designed to respond to that and similar issues.
The alternative would be to use "capital" and all the tropes that have grown from that term.
Miles, to be clear nothing within the "apparatus" of architectural practice can address anything in this research. similar to enacting American Disability Act into code, same would have to happen? so with that said besides media redirection can a trained architect install a valueable mechanism into its apparatus to address these issues? if so, how?
With mixed rate residential development becoming increasingly popular, it would seem to me that architects can have an impact with built design. Recall the discussion of the poor door. Similar discussions can be held regarding lower density projects in cities like Chicago, Pittsburgh and DC. In those cases the question of the blend of both market rate and affordable housing is described by costs per sf based on the unit type, and the locations of unit types on the developed sire.
Many of these matters are passed down from the developer or the public agency, but architects (should) still pursue some form of equity through design. Yes, there's convincing your client, but it's also "educating" (argh, I hate that phrase) the client that this will actually be to their benefit.
^ guess I'd be interested to see that as well.
ejecting other issues of the city and only use housing as a central problem to argue the architecture of segregation has became polemical.
we need to ask ourselves, what are 'the concerns of architecture' first.
quondam-
1- One of the core goals of the NY Housing Authority was to provide housing that exceeded the conditions of existing housing to improve upon the health of it's residents. As part of this goal of improving dwelling standards, it was also understood that the (economic) depression also had an impact well being. Yes, for some many reasons these building are failing or have failed, but I can't think of a building designed that does not require maintenance. Nor can I think of a building "type" that has not failed the user in some respect- perhaps with the exception of religious structures, but that's another issue.
2- Housing authorities are increasingly moving away from constructing centers of poverty to mixed income centers based on research that demonstrates an improved quality of life in both the short and long term with respect to health and education. For reference you could look at what was formerly Addison Terrace in Pittsburgh Pa -even with all the problems with subsequent implementation which goes to Carrera's point.
3- Optimistically, this was tackled by several early Solar Decathlon teams. In 03 Carnegie Mellon designed a proposal that was intended to provide low cost sustainable housing on roof tops. In 05 Colorado- among others- that year designed a house that was meant to be mass produced as something that was economical once produced in scale. Affordability was a very significant component of how student teams addressed the challenge of solar power and architectural design. I believe one team in 07 constructed two versions of it's design, one for transportation to the National Mall and one that was located on a Native American reservation. In each one of these case, living off the grid was seen as a means to improve upon the lives of the residents both architecturally and financially. Granted, "wait until they enter the real world, is the simple response to this, but these teams were trying to address the real world. It's only until they enter office and hear the mantra "we can't do that" that it becomes impossible.
4- I would also content that all that anonymous post WWII housing was also built for the social and economic benefit of the residents. Dumb construction made them affordable and the property and hackable. This provided residents with capital (social and economic), by provided them with a framework (2x4 in this case) to invest into.
Are there perfect examples? No.
But are there examples? Plenty.
Orhan,
Please expand.
Excellent post, Marc, as always.
Public spaces and buildings accessible to all, fair distribution of urban systems, health and educational services, public transportation, homeless sheltering, walkability of streets, architecture which compliments social equity, well-being and public engagement. Places those generate local economic opportunities and employment. Sustainable cities with stable and affordable housing and healthy non-speculative growth. These areas all require architects' input and skills.
Banks won't loan to low income people, leaving the low cost hosing market without buyers other than developers / speculators who purchase for rental income with rents as high as the market will bear. Thus we have slumlords.
Or, housing loans are available to the poor but at exorbitant interest, as unaffordable ballon notes, etc. designed to force foreclosure, eviction and resale. Rinse and repeat. Or the practice is instructional iced and the unsustainable high-interest mortgages are packaged and sold as investments (mortgage crisis, 2008, subprime loans).
The poor are not meant to be served, they are meant to serve. Economics is based on shortages.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be elusive. The point I'm trying to make is that by reconciling construction with the economics of dwelling, improvements can and have been made.
In the case of the NYHA, before the days of comprehensive health care improved dwelling meant fewer health care costs. Money spent elsewhere (or saved)
In the current model of mixed income living, economic integration has improved upon the overall well being of lower income residents to the point of improving the chances for some to attend colleges. That's an improvement as far as I see it. It may not be tomorrow, but it creates opportunities.
To return to the Solar D entries- numerous student teams made explicit connection between the economics of going of the grid, value and the accumulation of wealth (savings) into their presentations.
I hope this helps.
Miles you bring up a good point, but Detroit is a perfect example of a city where the basic metrics have been flipped.
Property is cheap, infrastructure is not.
So if architecture were to respond to that "simple" problem, how would that be accomplished? You'd need to change some basic assumptions about construction and resource management, but in the end you could end up with a responsive building.
Take it a level further and start thinking about projected costs (deferred maintenance) and how those will impact the lives of the people living there (stagnant wages) and things could become more interesting and challenging. Yes, this is purely projective thinking on my part.
As I mentioned before, we as architects are responsible for establishing our relevancy and engaging further with the concerns of architecture. A lot of this is not in place as of now. We are not well utilized and limited/delegated to building design service providers. Sure, we can do that but is the old model slowly taken over by mechanization of the professional services and factory direct ready to install products.
So an increased R value for a wall in a residence is not the charge of an architect.
Further to that, watch any television advertisement regarding re-insulating a house. At the end of the ad invariably you hear the word "savings."
in academia you can rewrite the definition of architecture and as per Marc's item #3 you can rewrite the process of the industry and socio-economic system (isolated of course). when we switch to "real" world and enter into politics and law, at minimum we have to agree on the strict definition of an "architect", and based on that alone nearly everything Orhan lists is not initiated nor controlled by the "architect". so either as Orhan may be suggesting, we rewrite the architects strict role, i would add removing the insistence on the legal title, or we admit its defined location within the system and resort to alterior methods......show me an AIA form for any of Orhans exampled?
to Marcs point, in high school in the small town of Fayette, Mo a truck driver taught me my first lesson in roof insulating. he said,see those private homes the snow is still on the roof, see the social housing ("projevts"), the snow is all melted. the projects were built poorly and may have not been to code, who knows....(if well insulated the heat would not escape and melt the snow on the roof, and maybe this was done on ourpose if the roof joists were undersized....)
I respectfully disagree.
I don't care about insulation lobbies. I care that an architect would make a design decision that is above any beyond the recommended minimum to improve the well being of the occupants.
I did find one excellent example...
http://www.amazon.com/Thanks-View-Mr-Mies-Lafayette/dp/1935202928/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439833014&sr=1-1&keywords=thanks+for+the+view+mr+mies
I am not sure about the definition of our practice is segregating and/or limiting us..?
However, there are a lot of possibilities in the first one, Investigation, evaluation, consultation, and advice. We can expand on that and make it more pronounced and add value onto those definitions.
§ 5500.1Practice of Architecture Defined
(a) The practice of architecture within the meaning and intent of this chapter is defined as offering or performing, or being in responsible control of, professional services which require the skills of an architect in the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings, or groups of buildings and structures.
(b) Architects’ professional services may include any or all of the following:
(1) Investigation, evaluation, consultation, and advice.
(2) Planning, schematic and preliminary studies, designs, working drawings, and specifications.
(3) Coordination of the work of technical and special consultants.
(4) Compliance with generally applicable codes and regulations, and assistance in the governmental review process.
(5) Technical assistance in the preparation of bid documents and agreements between clients and contractors.
(6) Contract administration.
(7) Construction observation.
(c) As a condition for licensure, architects shall demonstrate a basic level of competence in the professional services listed in subdivision (b) in examinations administered under this chapter.
No, quandam, I didn't say the investigation, evaluation, consultation, and advice should be pro bono. instead, we should further emphasize what those may bring towards shaping the build environment. Why do you say pro-bono? Because they are usually done pro bono to procure the project?
Marc, I don't disagree that we can design physical solutions in the form of reduced maintenance, energy consumption, etc.The most obvious way to do that is by reducing the size of houses, but in many places this is considered a devaluing of property and is therefore prohibited by code. Politics supports economics.
Another issue is that the features that are desirable for this application - high efficiency, solar, etc. are typically upscale, intended for a more profitable market. Development typically takes the path of least expense to maximize profit. Or in the case of municipal works, lowest cost, which is somehow imagined as being the best bang for the buck despite the absence of desired features.
As to Detroit, the market isn't there. Speculators have pumped and dumped every conceivable angle via finance, insurance, etc. and have pretty much picked the bones clean. If ever there is a market there you can be assured that developers will buy low and sell high.
In a way this is like the health care argument. Isn't everyone entitled to some basic level of existence including air, water, housing, medical care, etc.?
^ Miles, we all hear the rumble of unrest, but the politics is entrenched, not even LBJ could fix it today, even if it turned into thunder.
Architecture is a luxury. It has always been this way. Today's Architects remind me of 1980's chefs in that their art is still stuck in the 5 star restaurant and heavily garnished with fluff. The 21st century chef has taken their art out of the 5 star restaurant and food has become more fundamental. Not sure how it exactly happened, but the culinary arts have become more "everyday" in the last decade or so. This is fascinating to me. 2015 food trucks sell delicious quality fucking food. Back in the 80's you were lucky if it didn't give you listeria from street food. Changing architecture practice is more complicated, but we need to follow the general spirit of the culinary world. A new type of practice that allows/promotes an equitable influence over space. As of now, the main duty of the architect is to the client. The poor do not hire architects. The middle class do not hire architects. 99% of the built environment is dictated by the top 1% of society.
quondam I guess not, but how about next year?
Orhan thanks for posting but I have to agree with quondam, moreover item 1 is part of a list, so if item 1 was unclear with regard to what specific subjects should be investigated, evaluated, consulted, and advised on, the remainder of this list makes it clear........regardless, it would take heavy hitting politicing and money to ensure part of the task of an architect was to design and deliver just (as in justice) spaces to all in any situation with intent on desegregation of economic class and race........................ take ADA for instance in the case of a parking lot. for so many spaces you need so many handicap spaces. or to build such and such development you need so many affordable housing units, etc..........so lets translate this to poverty and race literally. For every new McMansion paid for by a white person the architect must find and design, paid for by client, an acdeptable habitable upgraded space for the very poor of non-white race origins. go lobby that proposal.......how would that zoning text read? In Zone XX deductible FAR may include #non same race housing upgrades# and #heavy-poverty renovations#..........note the 'AND'.....imagine the definitions. #non same race housing upgrades# capital improvements to non same race of capital investor as defined by the US Federal Census Bereau .......#heavy-poverty renovations# capital improvements to areas within 100 mile radius of reciprical FAR deduction proposal that are qualifed as heavy-poverty as per The Century Foundation at date of application.
quondam please do. I am looking forward. I'll try to think on it too.
Maybe in the future architects' design scope will expand previously unavailable zones eluded in above posts. I am advocating that and it is towards a 'for the better' change. We are inadequate and limited with our current scope as architects.
You guys made your point and I maintain mine. I hope you are wrong because with the current and increasing disparity we might be heading dystopic urban divides and segregations.
I see no reason to terminate the conversation. I did ask if there was a "mechanism" possible? In other words, what would the legal proposition be to encourage if not require a "moral" obligation by those who initiate and control the process and those who execute the process (the architect)?
Also, I was far to strict in my definition of architecture versus Schumacher. Schumacher would consider "media" part of the field of architecture (sections 0.# of Vol.1 The Autopoeisis of Architecture").
Zoning initially was invented and enforced to increase the living standards of those affected by development.
The New York City 1916 Zoning Resolution was a measure adopted primarily to stop massive buildings such as the Equitable Building from preventing light and air from reaching the streets below. It established limits in building massing at certain heights, usually interpreted as a series of setbacks and, while not imposing height limits, restricted towers to a percentage of the lot size.
If you read the zoning now, it clearly is a result of constant negotiations and extraordinary cases requiring new laws and ordinances to be enacted. The Attic and Mezzanine have been considerably better defined since the last boom in NYC...it was a gray area those who knew (Architects) offered to those who pushed (developers) ways of "cheating/taking advantage" contrary to the system's intent (zoning ordinance).
So keep in mind, your proposal for "moral" obligations must be negotiable and traded with "capital". The one advantage a person of virtue has over a person of capital - it's a lot easier to walk away from anything if you prefer virtue over anything else, than having a capital addiction, so think like a hustler, how would a capital junkie walk into a virtuous situation and leave money on the table?
I appear to have exhausted my argument because I can't prove it has been done, or that it responds to fundamental concerns of architecture such as a internal return on investment. Still, I'm not convinced that's end of it. It's a hard road, but the ability to define what you do- or the working towards that is one of the things that defines the spectrum of architecture as a pure service versus practice.
I'm sympathetic to Orhan's position that architects need to define what architecture and architectural practice are, which often means making new tools or metrics for practice. Some of our favorite architectural "whipping posts" defined their practices through change. I see Chris' speculation is a subversive modification of current market rate rate to affordable structures- which is a good thing. Perhaps they point to a need to consider capital as an instrument of architects and not just architecture. I believe this would be in line with some of the final comments made in the PS interview as well.
"Perhaps they point to a need to consider capital as an instrument of architects and not just architecture."...............Yes(PS) and Yes Marc and this starts with proper compensation from the bottom up. Excluding firms that operate on private wealth inherited or earned outside the practice as a model for practice....................Stop interning for free to get a name on your resume - means nothing and no one cares because everyone does it! .............. As quondam states, Architecture is indifferent to all these "morals" and social relations - just like capital. The "religion" of architecture, the academic and moral version which can be included as part of the field of architecture with regard to a minimum effective influence, for the most part constantly falls short of execution into the physical and politcal world................ This constant call to arms for social and moral obligation based soley on ethical practice fails time and time again. I am extremely pessimistic based on personal upbringing in a fundamental Christian missionary household with regard to the effectiveness of morals and beliefs alone on a world where clearly capital has Trumped everything. In my opinion a Will to Power by Nietzsche applies now to the US (at least observationally)............Nietzsche was a son of a Lutheran minister, and most people thoroughly misunderstand the anti-christ texts...........This faith in using the virtual - academia, media, art,etc....is complete disillusionment, its admitted defeat, moreover it can all be equated to gainful capital for those who see the opportunity in translating "morals" (not indifferent) to capital (indifferent) - have students in their exitement create political works about architecture that then are exhibited at a venue that puts more money in someones pocket. Hire the once renegade firm of Zaha Hadid to maximize profits of your development. Bilbao effect and so on.....its all been captured by the capital apparatus and resistance is futile. admit capital is necessary as a tool.........admit the current definition of architecure and go from there. coming out of left field without a plan is a waste of energy. socially inefficient.
Chris, I enjoyed the energetic tone of your post above. I don't know if you are addressing my posts as "morally" driven, they are not. I support all sustainable strategies, political and economical, to build up value for our opinions, work, and the way of practice as architects towards better cities and architecture, those accommodating large swatch of people. Let's not do a straw man.
Are we as architects in this country resigned to old and tired capitalist markets or are we going to be able to respond and find ways to take our practices further with rapidly morphing economical and political systems while shaping it with environmentally and socially ethical common grounds and dynamic developments of our business of architecture?
Is our work will only remain as instrumental to real estate ventures and gains? Do we have social responsibility? If architecture is intertwined with health, welfare and safety of people, do we also advocate that in our work?
These questions I am interested in advocating.
Yes, whether you accept it or not, "the Media" is part of architecture.
Under the logic of capital everything works very well.
Until we recognize that power always acts in the interest of wealth, and then take steps to operate outside of this sphere of control, or circumvent it, or find loopholes, and agitate, and instigate, and ultimately disrupt the structures that dictate power and space, we will be unable to design for the powerless. To play by the "rules" is a fools errand. I like Uber and other disruptive companies for this very reason. How can this marketplace disobedience be translated into urbanism? That's a really hard question...I feel that there are 2 main problems causing this chasm between the designer and the 99%.
1. Land/Lot divisions are too large.
2. Zoning is too homogenous and restrictive.
If you want to create a democratic city within the constraints of a capitalist system, the units of space / ownership need to be broken down into smaller more affordable/attainable parts. We are still operating more or less in the acerage divisions of the Jefferson grid that were sized for an agrarian society.
Good evening Orhan. I was using the term "moral" to address anything opposite to social indifference, hence the qoutations. was trying to simplify the possible opposite of capital and note its possible exchange as perverse and "corrupt" as it is to exchange "morals" for " capital". happens all the time in the wrong direction. See Miles Jaffe's posts on archinect in general....... and I tend to respond to all posts at once. Marc got me rolling....................Jla-x, the Uber example can be used to address both questions posed by Orhan's post above, somewhat. In my opinion with regard to rules, and the method in which high priced lawyers interpret the rules, Uber is very much playing by the rules and very much strictly defined within the world of Taxis and therefore would be a great analogy to a method for altering my very strict definition of architectural practice......For reasons mentioned in prior post I cringe when hearing words like advocacy, politics, social responsibility........profane capital (Agamben apparatus reference).......redirect indifferent material that has become "sacred" to address items such as health and safety of the public, which at one point in history actually were sacred....... equate jla-x "market disobedience" rather to Orhans "morphing" and "dynamic" developments and then make money doing it............... non licensed architects can be "disruptive" but not are all bad. My favorite reference as an example is architect Eberhards qoute I have posted here before somewhere,but back in the 50's ot 60's he and fellow recent grads from Illinois I think created a prefab process that built 100's of churches and he had stamped 100's of jobs by age 30 - guess what - frowned upon by the old guard of Architects. Given that this approach was well within the markets demand, had the old guard any foresight or actual understanding of reality, this could have been very much a major part of architectural practice today by injecting "legal mechanisms" to incorporate such methods of practice,but instead it is an industry we try our best to get into now, but 60 years too late........also see John Portman (architects love him, kidding (see your photo))........everytime a young disruptive architect comes along - they are outside the box and thats where it ends - tragically......sometimes a result of "old guard" and sometimes, more relevant to my point - they never were in the box........the redefintion of the "architect" is actually a start and redefining the "intern architect" as well...........by mechanism, I suggest legal language alterations putting architects in better positions for redirecting capital for everything Orhan is advocating. I don't think asking people to immediately advocate these things nor from academia begin working outside the box is highly effective,instead learn the box, discern what can and can not be effectively and immediately advocated or "disrupted"........legalize it.
I love to see some of those legal metamechanic alterations to definitions. In general I am trying to sort out what you are saying. I had to read some quick Foucault and other fragments.
I also like what jla-x offers on lot divisions stream. It would be a huge bomb.
The Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules. Therefore: Guerrilla architecture! And not just in the favelas.
If you want to create a democratic city within the constraints of a capitalist system
Not possible. Capital serves itself, and fuck everything else.
Miles - I would suggest Capitalism is nothing more than human nature defined by an indifferent currency, a very boring read of Adam Smith would illuminate this fact - the butcher,the baker,candlestick maker......Orhan, lets assume the strict legal definition of "architect" and "intern architect" are redefined, traditional architect becomes "registered architect" (funny how that works out).........i was trying to find that podcast, an early one with interview with someone who practiced very differently in LA, but searching for podcast sessions painful on phone.......i think same school as Orhans school? anyway, throw something out there, like something this person or another "out the box" architect might be doing that is "disruptive" as by jla-x definition, and then lets see if we can provide language for it for purposes of becoming a "legal" mechanism in a position of capital redirection,etc......again lets assume the first step,redefintion of architect has already been achieved
Chris, are you referring to the interview of Helen Leung / LA Mas? I would also submit the Katherine Darnstadt / Latent Design interview to that given their re-writing of policy to allow what were seen as non-conventional (but nonetheless vibrant) pairings of uses in public space. The process of changing political perceptions to make new and responsive "things"- or making changes to support your position, is an interesting practice.
Orhan, interesting that you mentioned foucault..."heterotopia" is exactly what I was imagining a micro land division being in essence...a finer grid within the normal grid...a mechanism to scale units of urban space for the common person ...Architecturally, and infrastructurally this could be done...the only obstacle is zoning restrictions...
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.