A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR PRACTICE
PROPOSAL STATEMENT
I’ve made an attempt at answering Paul’s first two questions. If you all agree with the direction more or less (changes are welcome of course), we can collectively assemble evidence for question three. In thinking/writing, two things came to mind:
↘ How should we define ‘collaboration,’ or more precisely, what stage/scale of collaboration are we interested in studying? Of interest to me is collaboration at the global/local interface – for example between a dispersed large-scale organization such as Architecture for Humanity and local communities. By looking at the global/local interface rather than the internal structure of something like AFH’s Open Architecture Network, I think we open ourselves up to looking across disciplines and avoid the limits of a profit/non-profit dichotomy. Since the transition from global knowledge/resources to local implementation/action is a challenge across fields – medicine, finance, economic devt – we can draw from outside programs and structures and see if they are productive models in an architectural context. This takes the question we are asking from “How do architects collaborate” to “How are collective knowledge/resources implemented in a unique local context.” Micro-loans is the obvious example (since it enables people to help themselves, rather than gift giving), but I believe healthcare, and economic development deal with this same problem and might provide some innovative ideas that we can adopt. There is a rather long article (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030fa_fact1) here about micro-loans and the benefits of adopting a for-profit business model for long-term success.
↘ To further narrow down the field of our research, do we have a preference about a specific context in which we want to work? Using AFH as an example, they seem to work in a host of venues – Urban/Slum, Rural/Remote, Disaster/Catastrophe sites, Temporary Refuge sites related to Disaster/Catastrophe. Each is a different call to arms, so I vote for choosing one for our work. Following the discussion in class on Monday, I lean towards the Urban/Slum. It has the most potential in terms of precedents and ultimate impact. And it would be nice to move beyond the typical fetishizing that architect’s are prone to when it comes to unplanned settlement. I like them too, but doubt that all the attributes I like about them are universally celebrated by their inhabitants. That and the fact that these areas will only expand/multiply in the future – just because there are political/economic forces in place, I don’t think that these places are predestined to some unalterable fate.
1 – PROPOSITION
The challenge of working within marginalized communities resides in the need to form effective collaborations between global-scale distributed networks and local actors. As architects, designers, and thinkers (and collaborative problem solvers by nature) we are uniquely capable of organizing and implementing systems which may foster and support such collaborations and allow them to prosper socially and financially. Our research will extend beyond current collaborative efforts in the field of architecture to explore innovative models for social entrepreneurship in the fields of healthcare, finance, and economic development. Through critical examinations of these diverse models, we hope to uncover potentially new structures for architectural collaboration – specifically in relation to community development - at the global/local scale. It is our position that the feasibility and viability of such action rests in our ability to find productive overlaps between social, financial, and economic systems and the development of physical structures. We intend to propose a self-sustaining model (or models) that may support a new sub-field of architects working as social entrepreneurs in traditionally marginalized markets.
JD - This is great, but hopefully will become more precise as the semester moves along. I wonder if we might start to tie our proposition into a professional/economic model. For example, elaborating on the 1% method, stating that firms are to devote 1% of their annual capital (incl. man hours) to "the other 90%." Perhaps we look into how the US government structures tax benefits, such as those relating to sustainability (for hybrid cars, solar panels, etc) and model a proposal off of these?
2 – RATIONALE
Rapid increases in global population and urbanization demand that architects reconsider the context in which they work. Significant gaps in economic, social, and environmental conditions have emerged between populations enjoying global prosperity and those left aside. The current state of urbanization, particularly in less-developed countries, has been largely ignored. Large unplanned settlements, housing a large percentage of urban population in some areas, have recently emerged as a typical mechanism for housing the city’s expanding population. In the absence of proper infrastructure, environmental protections, ownership, and public representation, it remains to be seen how long these settlements can function sustainably. As it is destined that such settlements will expand and eventually spawn new settlements elsewhere, there is an urgent need for planning and design processes which can guide growth in an intelligent manner. Although these issues are multi-dimensional - political, economic, and socio-cultural – their primary manifestation is physical environment at large. In this context, the architect – a by trade a coordinator and collaborator – has a principal role in bringing attention and action to such communities.
Many of the structures that sustain today’s global economy (technology, communications, access) also provide a contemporary means for aiding the development of marginalized populations. Leveraging the potential inherent in these structures, architect's may establish sustainable business models (vs strictly service models) for practicing in non-traditional markets. Similarly, the work in such markets must expand beyond buildings per se, to designing solutions for global/local collaboration, coordination, financing, and construction.
As this process is simultaneously global and local in nature, its participants are diverse in terms of geography, scale, and capability. The key contributors include: Global Architectural Organization, Lead Architect and Team, Local Liaison (architect or other, government official), Local Community, Financing Body (outside non-profit, local organization, architect himself, consortium of financiers), Other. The aim of this research is to provide innovative models for collaboration between all participants to realize projects of ‘shared investment’ rather than ‘gifts from outside.’
3 – EVIDENCE
To add