It's Our World - The Cold Hard Facts (Part 2 of 3)

Please note, the author intends to publish this article in the near future. All discussion, comments, and criticism will be carefully considered before the writing goes into print. Ideally, the goal is to reach out to the larger community of students and spark insightful, intellectual debate.                                                                                                                                                                                                       -kuhlektiv 

Here are some numbers:

2.0 - (0.8 + 0.8) = 0.4

2.0

That’s the number of degrees Celsius the earth's average temperature can be raised in order for life as we know it to 

continue. (Read: water and food in stable supply for SOME nations, inescapable sci-fi-like conditions for others)

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?