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.

We want no part of it, the past. We're the young and strong futurists.

Започнах да пиша този пост на английски, но не ми се удаде. Много трудно превеждам изникналата мисъл на чужд език, отнема й се онова, първичното. Напоследък съм възхитена от Geoff Manaugh, автора на блога BLDGBLOG. Харесва ми нагласата на Джеф да пише не за архитектурата, а за света, който я определя, и да изследва промените в него. Някак си ти оставя избора, като архитект, да си извадиш изводите за този променящ се свят и да си съставиш стратегия за своята архитектурна реакция. За това как точно искаш да се промени света около теб и как да действаш, за да се случи това.

Днес писах на Мая, че светът ме плаши. И не е само глобалното затопляне, намирам, че наистина живеем в интересни времена, времена, в които светът се променя и е трудно да се предвиди как и накъде. Климатът е една насока. Политиката и войните - друга. Също така изобилието от достъпна и разнопосочна информация и стремежът на някои правителства да я контролират. Много интереси има в света, много стремежи, и се чувствам като дете, повечето от тях са ми неразбираеми и все пак се очаква да ги взема предвид и да живея и действам адекватно на средата си, адекватно на света, в който съм поставена.

Изпитвам носталгия към уюта на миналия век, когато сложният свят се е определял от далеч по-прости правила. Може би дистанцията във времето е причинада възприемам тези времена като по-прости и по-ясни. Студената война, двата лагера, петролът и бомбите. Прогресът, по-бързите коли, компютрите. Покоряването на космоса. Било е по-лесно да се живее тогава, в моралната система, ценяща по-бързо, по-високо, по-силно. В моралната система на черно и бяло.

Всичко е далеч по-сложно сега. Цени се по-умното. В науката и техниката се стремим към решения, които постигат максимум действие с минимум енергия и отпечатък върху средата. В политиката не винаги най-силна е държавата с най-голямата бомба. Информацията се превърна в ценност, стока, оръжие за контрол. и то в общодостъпно такова. Информацията стана public domain, обществена собственост. Това е все едно да продаваш акции от водородната бомба. Съдбите ни в момента се определят от много по-сложна система, зависима от много повече параметри. И изходът е доста мъгляв.

Вярно е, че и в миналото светът е бил сложен. И без значение дали си креационист или теоретик на хаоса, осъзнаваш несъизмеримостта му със собствените ти способности за осъзнаване. Това, което ме обърква обаче, е липсата на ясен модел. Можеш да синтезираш шейсетте в словесен модел от три изречения. Не можеш да направиш това за настоящето.

Това, което ме плаши най-много, е че я няма дързостта на хората да мечтаят. В началото на века хората са мечтаели за града на бъдещето и за летящите коли, за градове на други планети. Мечтаели са за хигиена, лекарства и мир. Действали са дръзко и иновативно, без страха от провал. В момента не виждам мечта, не виждам един споделен от обществото стремеж. Не се борим за мир, или за цивилизовани условия в Третия свят, не мечтаем за градовете си след 50 години.

Единствено се молим тези градове още да ги има.

Опитваме се да живеем по-скромно, да консумираме по-малко, да пазим, да бъдем плахи и смирени. Борим се за дипломация, която в последствие затъва в бездънна бюрокрация и в отказ от поемане на отговорност. Сякаш някой е откъснал топките на човечеството.

Ей в такива моменти оценявам футуризма. Прочетох статията в уикипедия, за хората, които в началото на века са имали дързостта да отрекат всичко преди тях и да започнат наново, търсейки. В момента BLDGBLOG ме вдъхновява с един съвременен футуризъм, с отказа си от презумпцията за света и с въпросите, които задава, изследвайки тенденциите и търсейки отговорите. Не ти предлага истини и решения, а те предизвиква сам да ги търсиш.

Не си представям живота без това Декартово съмнение, без изчистването на гнилостта от презумпции и аксиоми, докато стигнеш до здравата основа, върху която да градиш. Запазването на способността ти да мислиш, на чистия ти аналитичен ум, е за мен равносилно на живот - така оставаш адаптивен в един променящ се свят, запазваш способността си да реагираш адекватно на обстоятелства, които не си предполагал, че щети се случат.

Учудва ме обаче колко малко хора избират да мислят.

Aztecs!

The book I just finished reading, or should I say sort of finished, because its too ready overdue and I don't think I can afford to keep and enjoy it more, is a MVRDV one called "FARMAX -Excursions on Density". Now you may have heard that The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe and one of the most dense in the world - and the guys at MVRDV took that subject and started playing with it, trying to explore all the possible whatifs the future development of their country may be. But perhaps the word FARMAX needs an explanation - FAR means Floor Area Ratio, an index equal to the total built floor area of a building divided by the area of its lot (much like the Bulgarian КИНТ). So they wondered what would happen if they brought that to the max.

The problem in The Netherlands is that the continuous growth of cities spreads them among the adjacent countryside into low-density suburbs that fail to realize the dream of dwelling but at the same time ruin the quality of the country's landscape. For the authors of this book density can only be estimated if surrounded by nothing - in this way they try to study what would happen if their country's population is concentrated in a dense urban environment thus preserving the country's landscape intact for the future. The book examines some trends in society, the relations between density and social behaviour, and also some practical issues like light, air and access as the density is brought to the possible maximum.

The great thing about that book is that they get out of the box labelled 'common sense' and really push possibilities to extremes. In this way it becomes much easier to observe and study processes taking place now but at a very slow ratio and therefore of unknown consequences. Also these extreme studies produce a lot of material to think about and to be inspired. The book provides you with some answers - what would happen if you went in that direction, and gives you the extreme result, leaving you with the choice as to how far would you, the designer, go.

This is the moment to mention that MVRDV are not that popular at home and it's here in Belgium that I began to understand that their name has become somewhat of a religion among architecture students. The book I read is quite old (issued in 1998, come on, I was 9 at the time, playing the violin and building Barbie houses), but to a beginner in the urban studies and trends in societies and cities it turned out to be the right thing to read.

And this image so much reminds me of the current urban situation in Bulgaria... Aztecs!

чавки

Започнах да уча фотошоп. Вече и аз ще имам рендъри с чавки.

Here's the news.

Обмислям да започна работа за българското правителство. Така.


Иначе близостта на Бойко ме радва, всеки ден се събуждам и се усмихвам на 3000те километра помежду ни, и това, че научавам за дупета и таралежи и разрушение само по интернет само може да ме радва.

Искам чисти тоалетни и в УАСГ. Иначе не ме очаквайте да се върна, сериозно.

architecture is not art.

" - How do we make an architectural film interesting to the wide audience?
- We put sex in it. "

The witty quote aside, I find myself spending more time reading non-architecture blogs, ones about books and movies, and about space and provocation. I think architecture is becoming boring even to somebody interested in it, and to the general public I suppose it's the same as talking about nuclear physics. I think architects need communication on a different level. Simply said we need to get a life. And I need to create architecture that is less design-oriented and more people-oriented, even if that means giving up these fancy cantilevered stairs.

I find myself thinking that art has nothing to do with architecture - and if you wanted to do anythinng artsy, you made a wrong choice with architecture. It's a craft, not an art. But I love it.

защо нямаме урбанизъм.

Урбанизъм в интерес на цялото, на пейзажа в България е имало единствено по време на социализма. Разбира се, много може да се каже за цензурата, налагана на проектите, на шуробаджанащината при възлагането им, за стила и мащаба на периода. Но единствено тогава в цялата ни история някой е създавал комуникации, организирал градове и мислел за пространствата, обема и силуета на града като цяло.

В случая със социализма тази организация е била наложена от управляващите, а управляваните не са имали избора да не се съгласят.

В момента дори и да има инициатива от страна на държавата за промяна в начина на изготвяне на градоустройствени планове, тя не би могла да получи обществено одобрение. Ако на имотите, намиращи се на по-знакови места (примера със сградата на завоя на Раковска), се придадат по-благодатни градоустройствени показатели, веднага ще настане недоволство: защо на съседа давате, а на мен не. И всеки ще изнамери достатъчно експертни мнения, че неговият имот е знаков градоустройствено, и ще раздуе възможните квадратни метри до небето.

Единствените обективни критерии за градоустройствените закони в България са тези на хигиената и транспортното обслужване - и обема на възможното застрояване се ограничава според ослънчаването и проветрението. Така е справедливо - на всеки същото. Получава се едно егалитарно градоустройство.

За да се сбъдне елитарното градоустройство в България, трябва първо да има активна държавна инициатива в тази насока, и след това - обществено одобрение. По скоро редът трябва да е обратен и тази промяна трябва да започне от обществото.

За съжаление в момента това не е възможно - за да се случи, трябва да има разбиране на термини като "общото благо" и общия интерес - разбиране и желание за промяна, които не биха се случили без актовно гражданско общество.

Town Spaces - Contemporary interpretations in Traditional Urbanism

This is a resume of a book I read recently, entitled "Town Spaces - Contemporary interpretations in Traditional Urbanism" by Rob Krier.

The development of the Modernist movement in the beginning of the 20th century replaced traditional local buildings with global ones, whose structure and shape were based on function and hygiene. They were universal, but had nothing specific from the place they were built. This architectural tendency found place also in urbanism - functionalism divided cities into zones of interest, of living, working, leisure and culture, and created large boulevards connecting them, enabling large numbers of people to travel between them. This intervention almost erased the scape of existing cities, having no respect of the existing scale and structure. Even more, it caused traffic problems, forcing people to travel great lengths with vehicles rather than walking in the same neigbourhood. It also encouraged alienation, minimizing the accidental meetings, occuring between passers-by on the same street. Functional urbanism was a manifest to the new and modern, but forgot design's main purpose: serving the humans.

Traditional urbanism appeared as a reaction to that trend. As with all movements trying to preserve a tradition, it appeared after the tradition was no longer strong enough to manifest itself. This movement tried to re-invent the medieval image of the cities, serving as meeting points and inviting pedestrians instead of cars to the city streets. Contrary to the tendency of alienation, of one person households, this kind of urbanism created spaces in the cities in which people could meet and enjoy together. It created mixed-use areas, active in different parts of the day and enabling people of different age and social status to meet. It tried to preserve the human scale, replacing big buildings with smaller ones, fitted inside the urban tissue and carefully woven with public spaces.

The inspiration for this kind of approach were the medieval towns, where the narrow streets were full of suspense, the squares served as meeting places, and the disposition of spaces in relation to each other created different enjoyable views. This organic, human-sized structure was preferred to the straight axes that appeared in cities after the Baroque age, and that were often applied with disregard to the existing structure and spirit of the city.

Traditional urbanism is sustainable in its way – at one hand, as sustainable architecture does, it tries to slow down, to reinvent forgotten, peaceful and clever ways used in the past, with which to oppose to emerging bad trends in society. On the other, it has the biggest asset in sustainability, it creates spaces that are loved and desired by people. Rob Krier calls this type of urbanism seductive – appealing cities make people want to settle in, make them want to protect, preserve and develop these cities.

The main concept of this approach to city design is putting the human in the center of the city. Pedestrians are encouraged to use these new streets, while cars are presented with some obstacles; public buildings are created within reachable distance by foot, big government buildings are separated and scaled down, so that they no longer oppress people with their volume. Smaller buildings have one more advantage – they are more flexible and more easily replaced when they no longer serve their purpose. The constant image of the city is thus determined not by the facades, but by the urban grid. And if the designer manages to create a working grid, usable and loved by people, it will continue to form the city's image for generations to come.

Designing such a grid is a difficult task – the designer should try not to manifest himself, but rather to create a grid that seamlessly fits with the existing urban fabric. He should be modest in his project, and not try to discover new truths. In the field of architecture and urban design exist a lot of principles which can be transferred over generations and the designer should try to develop them instead of questioning them. This urbanism is an evolutionary continuation of the tradition rather than an invention – and this requires the designer to give up serving his ego and to start serving the community's taste and interest.

The main reason people are attracted to these human-scaled cities is nostalgia. They want to experience something unspoiled by time and technology, something authentic. This causes the tourists to come to historic cities and natural reserves, and the flow of tourists is also often the reason for the decrease of quality of these places. Creation of traditionally shaped cities is an answer to people's crave for authenticity. And the high interest of buyers means investors are also interested . People might enjoy the new and the modern, but when it comes to their own home, they prefer something classical and relaxing, they prefer “Catherine Hepburn over Marilyn Monroe”.

" I am interested in the garden from a sensorial point of view: to me, what it provokes is fundamental. If we consider the garden as a part of the architecture, we can say that it is the most sublime part, because its only function is to please, to refresh. If you build a parking lot, the cars must fit, turn, circulate. If you make a building, the structure has to sustain it. But the garden is about paths, sensations, odors, freshness. Imagine designing only for that purpose."

Alberto Karach