The Toolbox and the Arena
presented at eme3, Barcelona & Architekturos Fondas [Vimeo], Vilnius
photo by Ethel Baraona Pohl, Barcelona
Last week I was in Barcelona at eme3 (phonetic Spanish for cubic meter), international architecture festival, held at cccb, and was very honored to present the opening lecture at the inaugural session of the festival. Besides the festival itself it was very nice finally meeting some people in real life that have been on my online radar (Mario Ballesteros, Ethel Baraona Pohl, Cesar Reyes Nájera andPedro Gadanho).
What will follow is the lecture I presented there and at the end the some additional remarks based on the debate that was held on the next day. For printing purposes, here is the entire slide-show and lecture text.
The Toolbox and The Arena,
Strategies for Expanding Architectural Practice
The financial crisis has made it again very clear, architecture is a depended profession. Many architects lost their jobs, saw their project portfolio shrink as well as their offices, and not by a few percent but by half or more. While other sectors of the economy are slowly recovering, the building industry is still down. A sector that is dependent on big investments, political will and the rest of the economy. Architects have always been dependent of those in power. Gaudi needed the Güell family and Aalto needed the Ahlström family and many other architects made their best works when side by side with remarkable and powerful clients. Besides the networks of power that are still important today, the real estate developers and investment funds are those in key positions, … and they’re waiting. Architects and their projects are ‘on hold’, thus a good moment to reassess the current architectural profession, and to see how the profession can regain initiative.
In this lecture I would like to explore two movements that are currently present in architectural discourse and practice:
The first is the movement to expand the toolbox of the architect beyond design. Architects are specialists in making physical spaces and places, it is their responsibility to provide society with well built environments, ranging from cities to chairs. But as I just explained architecture depends on clients and budgets, amongst other things. One could say that perhaps design is not enough anymore to guarantee well built environments. Perhaps more influence can be exercised on what our cities should look like, and shaping how we could live and work, through other tools. This implies the expansion of the architectural toolbox with tools from other disciplines, so the architect can fulfill his responsibility to work on a better built environment better.
The second movement is to export architectural or design intelligence to other fields. Architects and designers are trained in a specific way of thinking, something we could call architectural or design intelligence. Architectural knowledge and thinking has an application outside the building industry. Architecture and design have become powerful metaphors through which we can understand and engage the world. Architects and designers employ modes of thinking that make them able to deal with a wide variety of data; economic, cultural and social, and an ability to synthesize these into solutions. In this scenario its about expanding the arena for architecture beyond building.
What these movements have in common is that in both cases architects are exploring new territory beyond the traditional perimeter of the architectural profession. Another similarity is that both are reactions to a sense of marginalization of the profession, but the difference is that the first reacts against a marginalization of the architects influence in shaping the built world, the second takes the flight forward in search of new arena’s where the architects influence may be useful. Where the first movement is committed to the product; building, the second movement is committed to the process; thinking.
Both these scenario have potential as well as certain problems. I will elaborate on both.
Movement 1:Expanding the Architectural Toolbox Beyond Design
First let’s take the scenario of expanding the tool box of the architect. To overcome marginalization, to regain initiative one needs to reinvent practice and reinvent the business-models that goes along with it. In the fall of 2007 at Volume we worked on an issue titled Unsolicited Architecture which was addressing precisely this. In the issue the following was proposed. To overcome marginalization, and in search for a more autonomous role, the architect needs to seek out urgencies and/or opportunities that are in need of response. Wether these projects are idealist, politically inspired or supported by any other agenda, one can only speak of unsolicited architecture when one or more of the traditional four corner stones of architecture is missing, these are; client, budget, site and program.
The practice to overcome these missing elements is where one needs to reinvent practice. Besides the design of the architectural object itself, the project might need financing, a marketing plan, collaborators, strategic alliances etc. If one just focuses on one element, the practice becomes something else. If you design the object without the financing, you’re an academic. If you design the marketing without the object, you’re a politician. If you design the financing without the object, then you’re a capitalist.
The main idea of Unsolicited Practice is; “mr. Architect, don’t wait for the phone to ring” in other words, criticizing the passive architect, the dominant form of architectural practice that waits for the client. Instead the Unsolicited Architect promotes a vision of the architect that is an amalgamation of the idealist, activist and entrepreneur. Active, not waiting for the world to come to him or her. Someone with his or her own agenda, sensible to the urgencies of society. With a commercial sensibility, yet an idealist, a politically conscious activist.
But what does this mean in practice? The architect already likes to think of himself as an intellectual, as a social and culturally conscious being. The architect as businessman and entrepreneur is a rendering of the architect we’re not used to, it’s an exception to the rule. In general commercial success is of secondary concern, good ideas are more important. The architect cherishes his craft more than his business, the architect loses initiative to those who hire him.
The average size of an architecture office is 4.1 persons, large firms are an exception, not the rule. Running a business in architecture is usually the result of an accident. Most offices become a business by surprise, when they win a competition, or when the first serious commission comes in. Suddenly office space needs to be expanded, personnel hired, etc. Business happens TO architecture, its not a conscious decision or deliberate and integral part of setting up an architectural practice. Thus with proposing the figure of the Unsolicited Architect, what needs to be added to the architect mix is the entrepreneur, wether this is a social, commercial or a political entrepreneur. The entrepreneur searches out the tools needed to realize a project, checks if the project is viable, and manages the execution. We could wonder if this ideal architect we’re talking here is a figure that is architect and developer. Vision and money united in one character. A constellation in which architectural visions could be realized without compromise. But this is a dangerous dream.
An infamous example of this figure is John Portman, who developed and designed large parts of Atlanta and huge hotel complexes around the world and introduced new urban and architectural types, the result being spectacular, but very debatable. Koolhaas writes the following about John Portman in SMLXL:
“John Portman is a hybrid; he is architect and developer, two roles in one. That explains his tremendous power: the combination makes him a myth. It means, theoretically, that every idea he has can be realized, that he can make money with his architecture, and that the roles of architect and developer can forever fuel each other. In the early seventies, to a power-starved profession, this synthesis seemed revolutionary, like a self-administered Faustian bargain. But with these two identities merged in on person, the traditional opposition between client and architect – two stones that create sparks – disappears. The vision of the architect is realized without opposition, without influence, without inhibition.”
In contrast to the John Portman model, The architect as activist, as public intellectual is certainly a role that does create sparks, because bringing a particularly architectural way of seeing things into public discourse can be a very powerful tool, when used in the right way. I will tell you about an example to illustrate this notion, that I got through my fellow blogger Rory.
In response to Copenhagen’s housing shortage that forced out the lower wage earners that are crucial to a functioning city, PLOT (BIG and JDS) produced this scheme. A housing block wrapping Kløvermarken park, providing 3000 new apartments, without sacrificing any of the soccer fields in the park. The next step was to generate public debate by promoting it in the media, and through this get public support for the proposal. This is a crucial step of the unsolicited process, since you don’t have a client or the political power to execute it alone, getting the public behind your cause can generate the necessary momentum.
However, after much attention and public support instead of PLOT getting the commission to execute the plan, the government organized a competition with seven offices in which PLOT was awarded second place. In that sense this unsolicited strategy might be considered failed in terms of acquisition strategy, but in terms of raising awareness of a social need, and stressing the urgent need for action it was a success.
The important difference between the story of John Portman and PLOT, is that Portman adds a tool that is new to architecture, where PLOT on top of expanding its toolbox with politics and PR campaigning, expands the application of architecture itself. Both are expanding the arena of architecture but via different strategies.
In PLOT’s case the architectural design process produces an answer to a societal problem, and architecture’s power visualize and communicate these answers is utilized as a political tool in a mediatized debate. In Portman’s case the architectural design process works integrally together with the real estate development process, these two rationalities are intertwined into a hybrid form of practice.
Movement 2: Exporting Architectural and/or Design Intelligence to Other Fields
PLOT’s story already hints at the second movement of exporting architectural and design intelligence to other fields. This movement is based on the premise that design has a universal quality, that it is a kind of meta-discipline. Design is not limited to objects and Architecture is not limited to buildings. The whole world is our arena, design can be applied to anything.
Design has a certain obsession with the universal, whether it’s the latent wish to make that timeless piece of design, the urban plan that will shape the perfect society or the renaissance edifice that wants to tells us that we are united with the universe through geometry and proportion. More recently the design process has also risen to be the bearer of a universal characteristic, designing as a general method for problem-solving and innovation, ranging from businesses to cities and from continents to entire geo-engineering schemes.
For a commission from the EU, AMO, OMA think tank, recently presented a solution for Europe’s energy needs. Roadmap 2050. AMO proposes a European energy grid, that makes use of the geographic difference in terms of sustainable energy solutions. In a complementary scheme, North and South are coupled. Windy Northern Europe provides most of the energy in winter, Sunny Southern Europe provides most of the energy in summer.
Bruce Mau can make an entire country transform, or at least that’s what he claims with the ¡GuateAmala! communications project in Guatemala. His portfolio states:
“This multi-year communications project continues to develop strategies to galvanize action and mobilize a nation”
In business circles Design Thinking is hot, here are some of the headlines from the business press.
“Desperate to innovate, companies are turning to design schools for nimble, creative thinkers”
- Jessi Hempel and Aili McConnon, Bloomberg Businessweek (9 october 2006)
“Thinking like a Designer can transform the way you develop products, services, process – and even strategy”
- Tim Brown (IDEO) in Harvard Business Review (June 2008)
“The methodology commonly referred to as design thinking is a proven and repeatable problem-solving protocol that any business or profession can employ to achieve extraordinary results.”
- Mark Dziersk, Fast Company (20 March 2006)
And this is what Businessweek’s Bruce Nussbaum wrote in 2005 on the occasion of the World Economic Forum in Davos:
“This year the conference may as well be called Design in Davos because for the first time there is an entire category of programs, meetings, dinners and late-nite talks called Innovation, Creativity and Design Strategy”
Within architectural discourse Volume, since its inaugural issue, in 2005, is seeking to expand the arena for ‘architectural intelligence’. Here are two quotes from that issue:
Ole Bouman: “Architecture has become a universal access key that can open countless doors in culture and society”
Rem Koolhaas: “In order to escape the prison created by the architectural office as it is currently constituted, we must consider architecture as applicable in almost any other domain, with the comfort that there is at this point a great potential welcome for the conquering intruder from those domains”
The processes of design are useful for shaping not only what is physical, but are also increasingly involved beyond the object, beyond the visible and at every imaginable scale. Design is everywhere, or like Mau proclaims in and on his book Massive Change: ‘It’s not about the world of design, it’s about the design of the world.’
But it is not just that designers and architects can start seeing the whole world as their playground. This movement is not one-way, it’s two way traffic. For a mere$US 9,500 Stanford is training CEOs to become ‘design thinkers’ over the weekend, so they can unleash the power of the design process in their corporations. Here is what the brochure says:
“Design Thinking Boot Camp: From Insights to Innovation offers executives the chance to learn design thinking – — a human-centered, prototype-driven process for innovation that can be applied to product, service, and business design. We believe that innovation is necessary in every aspect of business, and that it can be taught. We invite you to join us here at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, affectionately called ‘the d.school,’ for an experience that will enhance your ability to drive innovation in your organization.”
In this case the design process is reduced to a method that is teachable over the weekend, this is a ridiculous claim. The thinking that is involved in the design process is more than a couple of techniques like; observing human behavior, brainstorming and rapid prototyping that CEO’s can learn.
But also the other way around the notion that designers and architects can be put on any problem, independent of the disciplines of knowledge involved is an equally ridiculous claim. Thinking of one’s practice as ‘universal’ is a dangerous notion, and especially in design, which is so involved with the contextual. The designer’s thinking is to such a large extent informed by the culture, context and experiences that are instilled within themselves OR that they have to actively seek out in order to deal with an unfamiliar context. On his blog ‘City of Sound’,Dan Hill calls it ‘method designing’; after method acting, as a way of ‘getting into character’ that consciously and subconsciously informs the design process:
This approach might come from the fact that, as a designer, I’ve actually spent a lot of time writing, curating, and doing strategic work. All these activities require the ability to process vast amounts of data (often media) fairly rapidly and synthesize into some new form – as does designing, or at least the kind of designing done by designers like me. I find it difficult to have a discussion around form and function without trying to get at the ineffable, intangible aspects of a project’s context, for which I’m yet to discover a good word. Raymond Williams’ ‘structure of feeling’ partly does it, and mise-en-scène does to a limited extent, but ‘context’ isn’t quite enough, and doesn’t get at the lived experience and cultural aspects as well as the socio-economic and form-based.
What this reminds us of is that design is also deeply cultural and specific practice, which can be better specified as a form of artistry or craft. To render the designer more as a craftsman gives more credit to the kind of knowledge the designer has and uses. This is what Design theorist Nigel Cross in his bookDesignerly Ways of Knowing has to say about it:
‘Designers are immersed in this material culture, and draw upon it as the primary source of their thinking. Designers have the ability to both ‘read’ and ‘write’ in this culture.’
The ‘thinking’ in design thinking’ is not a method; it is deeply imprinted in the mind through experience and education. The methods of design are but the surface of a process; they are the ‘container’ in which the actual thinking takes place.
So what to do with this knowledge? How can you use it when you get back to your office next monday morning? What to do when make your cup of coffee and sit down at your desk next to your computer, telephone and sketchbook? (referring to Willem-Jan Neutelings’ remark at Projective Landscape conference)
I’m a firm believer that architectural design practice can be influential and powerful in today’s society. That it can promote certain agenda’s and certain values. To do this architecture must take initiative, it must not wait for clients. It must seek out how ideas can be realized. For this we need new collaborations across disciplines and new business models to support these new forms of practice.
So the first thing you could do is pick up the phone and call a potential collaborator from outside your architecture bubble, a professional from a discipline unlike your own.
With collaborations across disciplines I do not mean, fusing architect and developer in a John Portman like figure, I am more of a believer in partnerships between specialists from different disciplines. For instance the business mind is dedicated to another ratio, another way of seeing the world than the design mind, although they certainly have and especially need an overlap, a common ground.
A week or so ago I saw Paul Pangaro speak at PICNIC, a conference on innovation, technology and new media in Amsterdam. Pangaro is specialized in the cybernetics of conversation, and innovation processes, and was quite critical of the current promotion of design thinking as a panacea for companies that want to be innovative. He told us about a student of us who did an internship at Apple, and he asked him if he ever see Steve Jobs in real life. The student told him that he saw Steve Jobs in the cafeteria every day. And every day he sat there he was chatting with Jonathan Ive, Apple’s lead designer, and they clearly had a great time. Pangaro explained that companies that do great innovation, and that use design in a smart way aren’t based on method, but on a conversational partnership, people from two different disciplines, but that share the same language. These are the kind of partnerships that are valuable, and perhaps not that different from Gaudi who found its conversational partner in Güell. But today we shouldn’t look for a mecenas but for collaborators unlike ourselves.
The second thing you could do is to revisit your business model. New collaborations ask for different forms of business. What are you actually selling? are you selling? Do you make something? do you trade? do you provide a service? are you an investor? a stakeholder?, a capitalist? or a socialist? I don’t have any answers, I’m not a business guru, or an organizational specialist, but I do know that Google doesn’t earn money with selling an email service,video’s or scanning books, and that Wikipedia isn’t selling me an encyclopedia. Google, Wikipedia or for that matter the entire internet is providing us with business-models that go beyond a two party economic transaction of customer and provider. Every business that the web touches is heavily disturbed, shocked even. The web shows that a lot of things are for free, while behind the scenes money is made. In contrast the building industry is one of the most conservative and slow sectors of the economy. In that sense there is an immense potential to tap into.
Thus, I would say expand the crisis beyond the economy, make the crisis also cultural, social and personal. Use this moment to induce catharsis, to get the adrenalin needed to build momentum towards shaping other collaborations, other forms of practice. Practices that are more powerful, more architectural and more independent. Let’s go from the collective ‘On Hold’ condition to ‘Hold On, we’re going for a ride!’
