Istanbul!

Да, изтрещяваме. Последната фаза на уъркшопа е, чува се бясно цъкане с мишки и умерено псуване, свилият три цигари словак от съседната маса изглежда малко нещо като Джони Деп, но може би е от недоспиването.

Да, изтрещяхме. презентацията е сигурно запазена на флашка, двама последни колеги довършват своята зад мен, три през нощта, светлината на Босфора в прозорците. Страшно се радвам, че дойдох.

Ойкодомос е международна онлайн платформа за обучение, засягаща всички аспекти на жилищата и обитаването, която функционира на базата на колаборация от страна на преподаватели и студенти по архитектура от няколко университета в Европа. По време на учебната година се възлагат задачи, резултатите от които се качват на сайта, където другите участници могат да коментират. А накрая на годината се срещаме в едноседмичен уъркшоп на тема, свързана с разработваната цял семестър.

Времето беше определено малко, напълнихме го с интензивно работене, срещане и опознаване, но рядко след пет дни в непознат град можеш да си отидеш, виждайки само вътрешността на университета и пода у някой твой приятел. Повече време ще отделя за този град следващия път, Истанбул - Истанбул е помитащ. Малко е странно как толкова години съм живяла близо, но никога не съм идвала - никога не съм и подозирала колко култура и колко дух има в единствения град, разположен на два континента.

Една моя колежка каза наскоро, да пътуваш - това значи да живееш. Не мога да не се съглася. За последната година съм научила повече за култура и история, за политика и география, отколкото за останалите двайсет и една - говорейки с хората, виждайки местата, четейки, мислейки. Невероятно съм щастлива, че имах тази възможност. Пораснала съм много, но по-важното е, че ще продължа да пораствам - съзнателно търсейки и избирайки предизвикателствата, за да се науча, за да заякна. За да стана по-добра.

The new normal

"Social cohesion is the capacity of a society to ensure the well-being of all its members, minimizing disparities and avoiding marginalization."

It goes without saying that society tries to provide the best for all its members. We fought for equal rights, now we try and preserve the superiority of the laws we created. Some things, however, cannot be provided by law – social cohesion, or the integrity and well-being of the whole community is something governments try to realize, but the only means for that is the involvement and willingness of all individuals to collaborate. A lot of social actions have been taken in this direction lately. But with the rapid change of social structure, brought by the advance of technology and the changes in the structure of the economy, we might want to reconsider our idea of social cohesion. Of course we want it – we want a stable, integrated, happy society. The only question is how exactly this can be achieved.

Society is often thought of as an abstraction, as the summa summarum of all people. And the dream of planners and politicians alike is for it to behave like a well-oiled machine, a utopia of happy gearwheels joining forces to create something greater than themselves. But ever since the ancient Greek cities grew large enough to substitute direct with representative democracy, it became clear: society is far too big and complex to reach a unanimous agreement, too big for everyone to know each other and to care for each other. Current society consists of intertwining networks of interest and physical proximity. Everyone is included, but not in the whole society. Everyone is included in their specific network of interest, of acquaintances, of physical neighbours. And it’s the complex layering of those intertwining networks that actually makes a society integrated.

Designers often make the mistake to aim their work at a simplified abstraction of the users, the society. We make general assumptions of what their behavior will be – and are often wrong. The role of a designer is often overrated – a good design can improve the social structure, but gradually and slowly. You cannot make a quantum leap in society, especially not with street furniture. For change to happen work should be done on many levels, also by social and government run projects. Communities will be more eager to be involved if the design is developed together with them, and fitted to their needs. A design without designers can sometimes prove even more successful because of people’s attachment to it.

It’s interesting to see what made a few examples successful. Business incubators are a recent invention and are about to replace expensive single-company run offices. The people renting a desk at those places do so voluntarily. And it’s not just because of the cheap office space, but also for the opportunity to meet people with the same interests and to exchange your thoughts over a desk lunch. If there’s already desire for meeting and collaboration, there’s a very high chance for the physical design to work. Cohousing is another working strategy - is a union of people willing to live together and share facilities and responsibilities and spend good times together. Once again it’s the desire of the people that got the idea off the ground, but not the desire of the whole society, rather that of a small, motivated group.

Designers work with the physical side of this inclusion, trying to force people from different backgrounds to bump into each other, to share resources. Often a residential project is accompanied by social condensers - shared kitchens or laundry rooms or meeting places, or social filters – more subtle shared spaces like a children playground. This idea, however, is not always working. No matter how hard the designer tries, without the individuals’ desire for participation, social cohesion cannot be reached. Communities cannot work without the individuals’ involvement.

It’s wrong to think of a community as an inseparable whole. To try and connect everything. To try and provide one all-working solution. As a member of society you no longer know everything about everyone, you don’t necessarily get involved. You don’t necessarily desire physical proximity with people around you, and that’s totally fine. The projects creating strong communities apply only to limited groups of people. They’re the designers’ attempts to return to the glorious days of the past, to be back to normal, to be happy again. But maybe this situation has changed for good, maybe this past will be no more and it’s about time to stop blaming society for being what it is but try and work with it and lead it to a better way. Smaller groups of people with shared interest might be more productive from a cul-de-sac of neighbours mowing each other’s lawns, moreover – they can be happier. In Seth Godin’s words, this is the new normal, and we’d better get used to it.

Future of the (sub)urban

“I’ve seen the future, brother – it is murder.”– Leonard Cohen

“The times, they are a-changing.” – Bob Dylan

One thing is for certain: Things are changing. The rich are no longer rich, the poor are making a stand for their rights. Oil is ceasing to be the world’s moving force, in fact energy altogether can give its world-leading role to information. What Google did for Egypt – providing alternative methods of communication after a government ban of social network websites - is indicative for the new tendency in the world. A ban on information can no longer be, as companies and entrepreneurs take a stand for the freedom of speech and against dictatorships. It’s simple: a free economy is more beneficial than a flawed one, entrepreneurship can only blossom in a fair trade environment, and educated workers are better than illiterate ones. It’s a simple battle for power, and information can only overpower the oil-based economy in a free and independent society.

The new world is here and now, The World 2.0: web-based and changeable on user demand; accessible for everyone, offering equality and freedom of speech. The concept of information being the new currency is revolutionary for our understanding of proximity, of connectivity. Information travels fast and cheap, its exchange is easy and improvements can be delivered by anyone anytime.

The need of humans in the workforce is diminishing; humans are contributing now with brainpower rather than with muscles. As this can be done from virtually everywhere, the city as we know it is becoming more a virtual network than a physical one. Suburb is no longer an applicable term, as work and leisure are no longer place-dependent. Instead of topographically determined, they are rather formed by common fields of interest. In its essence that is a repetition of the 1960s suburb as a herd of likely-minded people with similar income – only the spatial element of it has become irrelevant. The new city can be spread instead of centralized, as people no longer need to share a room to be together. This is turning our perception of traffic, urban structure, zoning, hierarchy upside down.

Decentralization is also present on a human scale. Sleep and work are flexible; offices are hubs of self-employed professionals, even in families activities are more often done individually. It’s not that humans have become more isolated, to the contrary – their relations have become so complex that they are no longer understandable in the social context of a family, school or office, but only from the individual’s point of view. We have turned into a universe of solipsists, whose universes, though complexly intertwined, only seldom touch.

Architects always try to connect everything. But it’s extremely hard to do this for the new society of individuals, with relations too complex for any human being to follow. The architect can no longer know everything about everything so it’s vital to turn the perspective from creationist to evolutionary principle. Instead of the architect being the all-knowing guy with all the answers, he just provides humans with knowledge and free will and watches as a new, vernacular architecture emerges.

New architecture is self-fabricated. It’s typical for the place; it complies with the taste of its users and the climate and weather conditions. It’s locally made, cheap and low-tech. And it has high-speed internet.

The architect’s role in it is limited, and, of course, he is not happy with that. I think professional journalists suffered the same when blogging became popular a few years ago. People no longer wanted the educated and objective view of the world, but a more personal one. They wanted it honest and they wanted it now. But without the power and accessibility of social media we wouldn’t get the coverage of the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, and the tidal wave of unrest might not have happened. We have to accept the fact that everybody is famous now – everybody has a far wider influence over others than only ten years ago. And we, as architects, should allow for the change to happen. We are faced with problems beyond our competences – ecological, social and political uncertainty, and it’s best to allow them to be solved with the effort of thousands of minds, thinking independently, gathering together, and trying out innovative solutions.