the illusion of democracy and the scaffolding of a new one

To Form a Collective Society

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REVISE, EDIT, AND ADAPT "TO FORM A COLLECTIVE SOCIETY" AS YOU SEE FIT. - kolektiv




Manifesto Defined:Above all else, a manifesto is a document that must be provocative. In order to act provocatively the writer of a manifesto may demand, reexamine existing traditions, beliefs, ideals, and strategies; raise questions, inspire, invoke anger, and so on. Unlike formal treatises manifestos are generally not set in stone, but act as a starting point that can lead to an immense variety of outcomes. Some possibilities include: new building strategies, new application of materials, new concepts and ideologies, and more writing. In a sense, the emotions projected through the written text of a manifesto can be compared to that of a vocal call to arms. They are less about specific technical details, than they are about making initial contact with paper. Through a manifesto a writer is allowed to express his or her thoughts and emotions on paper, which can in turn open a dialogue with potential readers.
According to Ulrich Conrads in Programs and manifestos on 20th -century architecture, “Nearly every important development in the modern architectural movement began with the proclamation of these convictions in the form of a program or manifesto.” A manifesto does necessarily provide a finite solution to any problem, but presents a foundation with enough information to inspire continual development. The brevity and concise nature of manifestos makes their reading relatively easy and enjoyable even for even the most inattentive, uninformed individuals.
One need not be a connoisseur of architecture nor formal politics in order to learn from a manifesto. Manifestos are not political in the sense of government, but stand to act in the Greek meaning “of, for, or relating to citizens” in which groups of people make collective decisions. This document is one person's position on a given topic that many people can respond to. Readers are encouraged to take as much as they can from a given writing and begin to adapt, or change, it as they see fit. Finally, manifestos are architectural in multiple ways, but not only on the topic of physical built forms. More importantly, manifestos begin to divulge ideas for a new social architecture. Some ideas they may explore include: the reform of existing policies, the effectiveness of existing social practices, how design may act as an important factor in changing the quality of life, and possibly even the formation of a new collective society.

To Form a Collective Society:
1. To form a functional collective we must first establish or values and commonalities. After all, without communal interests and goals we shall always stand alone.

2. Once established we must begin to understand the dynamic relationship between our governing theories, or doctrine of thoughts, and how we can apply these practices in real life situations.


3. To maintain a collective capable of lasting social change, a large quantity of participants is necessary. Though we may start with a small, core group of organizers and facilitators, as more challenges are overcome our support will grow.

4. The core shall only provide themselves to stir discussions, provide lecturers and readings, help further the education of the collective, etc. They will by no means declare themselves as leaders, restricting the progress of the collective for personal gain. As long as the collective continues to agree upon its goals and ideals, always intending to push forwards, the group can conduct itself.

5. The collective will not be made up of one specific race, ethnicity, or community of people.

6. The members of the collective are entitled and encouraged to support their own freewill, gaining knowledge in order to nurture the ideas they place value in, as long as the outcome intends to benefit everyone.

7. Agreements or disagreements must be voiced in order for the realization of potential areas of collaboration. In the event of a disagreement we shall discuss and debate until a practical and universally agreed upon resolution can be made.

8. Together we are an assembly of individuals organized to determine how we can design a better tomorrow for all. Our common interests and determination to make lasting social reform are the glue that holds us together. In our society no one is left behind.

Roots

Her roots have long been rotten
Her leaves have long been dust
Her gnarled branches, cracked and broken
Her bark all mold and must
At any moment, a gentle wind
might tear her from the ground
So we use our genius to revive her,
to reawaken her renown
We fortify her dead foundations
with layers of brick and stone
Stilts and ropes return her sagging branches
to what we think we've known
Upon her bruised and naked body
We clothe her in plastic leaves
Upon her skin, a concrete bandage
seals her at the cracking seams
She does not move, she does not stire
but we sense that deep within,
something ancient, wooden and earthy
a dormant heart that can beat again
So we shoot her full of potions
to awake this sleeping soul
But they cure no cancer, no sickness, no plague
and yet the take a putrid toll
These toxins that we put within her
now leach into the ground
into the woods, the rivers and oceans
our poisons now resound
Death within us and all around us,
we pray for a spring to save her
But there will be no spring approaching
That will make her branches stir
There is no sun, no rain, no soil
that will heal her twisted knots
Her wooden heart will given no more life
Until she crashes down,
and rots.

Progressive Reform Movements

The main question I wish to raise is in regards to the possibility of humans fundamentally shaping, or changing, the society in which we live. In order to do this I feel that we must determine to what extent capitalism and politics are called into question. Looking closely at politics, what role do politics actually play in formal building practices? For example, some common causes for a building's physical design include: varying building codes and design restrictions, public policy for individual cities or towns, mass standardization in the housing industry, the ability to acquire funding, etc. Finally, does design act in direct response to political stipulations or agendas? Maybe it is possible for design itself to inspire an entirely new agenda. Imagine starting a progressive reform movement intended to better society at large through simple acts of design. It could start with something as small as a park bench and spiral progressively forwards from there, gaining momentum and support.

systems are not made of bricks, but of people

A reminder to architects everywhere that design is for people.

Philly: a quick and dirty re-imagining in 20 minutes

Did you ever wonder if SEPTA could be improved if you had some say in how it ran? Do you think you might appreciate school more if you could determine what you were learning? What if you could decide what happened with the vacant lots in your neighborhood?

This afternoon I took a break from my occupation of studio and I went to a workshop on the commons at Occupy Philly and we discussed some of these questions. We sat in and around the empty fountain at City Hall. They gave a quick introduction in which the facilitators explained what commons meant, which was space that is owned, maintained and for lack of a better word, managed by the people. This is not the same as city-owned public space, which is controlled by the city's various bureaucratic departments.

Then we split up into four groups and were each given a giant yellow sheet of paper, one for each topic: Transportation, Education, Vacant Lots and Libraries/Recreation Centers. Our task was to re-imagine these public goods and services as commons, that is, not run by the city or an executive, but by Philadelphians themselves. As would be designers we like to think that studying a user or user typology (that is one person or a certain group of people who will, you guessed it, "use" your design) gives us enough of an insight to know how to make an appropriate intervention that will function well. We may visit the site, we may even test out the design in studio, but we will not live with it everyday and architects are rarely accountable to the public if it does not work.
But the great premise, and promise, of this workshop is that the plans for these systems were user-determined. For each topic there was a small group of 3-4 people who didn't know each other, who were not necessarily in possession of any specialized knowledge on the topic, shouting out ideas. We were given 20 minutes and at the end each group presented their ideas to everyone.

Here is the direct link to the audio/pictures from that workshop: http://occupyphillymedia.org/audio/private-public-commons-reimagining-philly-report-backs


The transportation group had plans for improving accessibility, lowering fares, connecting transit to other transportation methods and making it more pleasant to ride. The libraries group wanted to make libraries community run, so that the city could not simply close them when it wanted to make budget cuts. People would contribute books, determine what was available at the library, staff it themselves and could even write their own books for the shelves. The education group wanted to create free schools, the curriculum would be determined by the community and not simply dictated by professional organizations, corporations and the need to get a job. And vacant lots became parks, hair salons, community meeting spaces, schools, party spaces or even vertical farms (and many of these functions could probably happen on the same lot).
So that all sounds great, but what about this will work practically? I think the Occupy protests are an example of how these self-organized systems can be successful. Occupy Philly has given shelter and food to hundreds of homeless people and protesters daily, they've organized a tech tent, medics, media, workshops, have working groups, and basically have a functioning small town in Dilworth Plaza. Why can't working groups of people make decisions about the things that happen in their everyday lives? Why do they need the city to approve it, or a group of design professionals to create an extravagant plaza with colored steam?

Occupy works because its not just the usual activist line-up, all agreeing with each other, but a diverse group encouraged to think for themselves. During our workshop people came and left, giving the opportunity for fairly independent input (so the ideas were not shaped by groupthink). It may not look pretty to corporate funders, but I'm willing to bet on the argument that well coordinated groups of diverse people like this can come up with more practical, functional and imaginative planning ideas than a group of architects, planners and city bureaucrats. Just imagine telling a group of architects to re-think the city in 20 minutes, they would waste the entire time just arguing about how to talk about redesigning the city.

Public Participation: Reality or an Unnecessary Headache?

I feel that we can all agree that architecture is a public art. It is most likely never the goal of a designer to slave away over models and drawings with the intention of hiding them from the rest of the world. I also feel that we can agree on the multitude of poor design strategies witnessed in society today. Often times, people claim buildings to be too small, too large, excessively decorative, out of context, lacking function, poorly constructed, too expensive, and on and on.

Upon completing any visual arts project there will always be supporters and critics, no matter the designer's level of satisfaction with his or her work. This is a fact that anyone involved with the visual arts scene will understand. The general question I wish to raise is how can public participation effect current design standards? Do you think the involvement of the general public, the people who actually use the spaces that architects create, will have positive or negative results? Are the potentials for better, more effective design strategies great enough to warrant the headache of involving the majority? Keep in mind that participation and public consensus are two very different concepts. By definition, participation refers to the act of being physically involved in a process. On the other hand, consultation simply refers to the ability or allowance of an individual to provide input on a certain subject.

In my opinion, by allowing citizens a greater role in the design process, a greater majority of the people will respond to a design in a postive way. At this time a question regarding consensus arises. If we as desigenrs request the widespread public participation in design projects, how do we achieve a consensus? As I stated earlier there will always be people who respond both positively and negatively to any type of work, so it is probably safe to assume that a total agreement between all parties will never be reached. If this is the case, what should we do in order to achieve some sort of mutual agreement? Should we discredit the idea of public participation? Should we simply use the general public as consultants, but not actually allow them participation when it comes to finalizing descisions? Or maybe we should completely disregard public opinion and design as we see fit? We're the experts anyways, right? Obviously these are not acceptable solutions regarding the issues of public participation and reaching a consensus. But really, what should we do? Is there even one set solution on this issue, or a variety of potential solutions?