frontstepdesign

Managing scarcity

(warning: deep thoughts ahead, pull on those hip-waders)

I had an interesting talk with a friend about a book he's reading, on medieval food habits. He was telling us about how people would be fed according to the amount of work they did that day, not so much rank (if they were permanent residents of the place). Apparently food was dear enough that an early notion of calorie rationing was constantly in effect. 

Conjoined with judging a competition entry on Renaissance aprons that cited linen being allocated for them 4 times a year…this got me thinking about scarcity and abundance. 

We know we're heading into times where things that have been fairly abundant will be scarcer. Oil, water. Right now, credit and employment are scarce. I heard an economist arguing on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last night that true value is scarce, we just don't have a good way to measure that yet. (As this was somebody who predicted our current state, I'm concerned.) 

So I'm pondering scarcity - what else is scarce now? It isn't physical stuff. It isn't really energy, either…the market is solving that. It sure isn't information, or entertainment. Technology has solved all of these supply chains. What could technology not solve?

Attention, perhaps? Because we all have the same number of hours of awakeness, and yet the clamoring for that time is deafening…and that's just from people who think they can sell advertising to capitalize on those channels. The quiet options are what make me nervous…what am I missing that's wonderful out there, that could change my life, that will give me the solutions I want… 

Well, there's another one, then…emotional security is scarce, too. I think lots of people try to soothe their emotional discontent with online games, food, etc.

Love is scarce…I am so happy when I get to a gathering of friends, and so relaxed when I know I am a welcome part of a dinner conversation, or a puppy pile.

What to do about it all?**  Therapy strategies.

Devices for self-listening: 
- meditation
- journaling
- deep conversations
- education and experimentation opportunities

Activities to refine direction:
- editing intentions
- research

Interacting with others:
- kindness in thought
- volunteering

**which is supposing that one ought to try.  I don't see how I'd not try, that's my own morality.

Stewart Brand's How Buildings Learn, in video

I had no idea this had been made!  Go now, and see why architects don't have the greatest reputations for being sensible thinkers...

Google video link here

Stewart Brand's book, "How Buildings Learn", would be on my required reading list, should I ever teach an architecture studio.  This video version is a great interpretation.

Eric Owen Moss gets caught up in information overload

I listened to Seth Godin's presentation on his book "Tribes" recently, and one of the many useful things I got out of it is that we are really in the post-advertising age.  The idea that throwing a branded message at a selected market over and over until it gives in and purchases, is dying, because we're all overloaded with channels and alternatives and avoidance technology like Tivo.  We just turn off.

So why is Eric Owen Moss proposing a new and improved billboard?

(Image from archdaily.com)

One of my student projects had to do with how television could affect our lives.  This looks like it could have been from our studio...and that was 1991.  We didn't even have YouTube.

I wonder what will happen in phase 3 of this creature's life?  Phase 1 will be what the poetic description says, a place for "artistic display" which we all know will be gradually taken over by Phase 2, corporate sponsorship.  So will anyone react against that, I wonder?  Does Culver City have Times Square-like ambitions for its "redeveloped zone"?  Their motto is "The Heart of Screen-Land."  Will the advertisers get measureable returns on the investment?

Perhaps another of Godin's messages from "Tribes" might apply here: You can build a tribe whose anthem is "we're so exclusive" or you can build one that feels "everyone can contribute".  This structure seems to have potential for either, just in its management.  I think there's a real opportunity in either direction, for a top-down beloved expression, or a bottom-up useful (if not profitable) landmark.

Top down: The city (who does this thing belong to, anyway?) or some other public institution designates someone to keep this thing full of wonderful content.  That person is an editor, and they gatekeep what goes on the media tower - it's exclusive, so everyone wants to make something that 'deserves' the exposure.  I daresay the higher the artistic standards, the more successful it will be.

Bottom up: Everybody gets to put something up, for a price.  Sometimes PDAs go up, sometimes inspirational messages, sometimes marriage proposals.  I don't think this could be profitable, because there's a lot to look at, and the challenge in designing billboards and signage is keeping the message simple enough to communicate to the speed of travel.  Even for pedestrians.

But if they try to straddle the fence with how it's run, it'll just be 'that weird 5 story billboard on the edge of downtown'.  We don't need Stewart Brand to tell us what happens to things that aren't loved.  They die wasteful and ugly deaths, until they're reincarnated by the market to be useful.  "Wasteful" is not what this high-performance phase of the Information Age needs to be encouraging.

The IKEA effect works for architectural design

I've turned my focus from residential design, but here's a neat concept to keep in mind, when figuring out how to make a difficult process appeal to people...the IKEA effect.

When people construct products themselves, from bookshelves to Build-a-Bears, they come to overvalue their (often poorly made) creations. We call this phenomenon the IKEA effect, in honor of the wildly successful Swedish manufacturer whose products typically arrive with some assembly required.

I certainly found this to be true in my practice; allowing the homeowner to make as many (guided)  decisions as possible made the entire design process flow much more smoothly, and moral through some really difficult projects stayed high.

IDEO in Iceland

IDEO in Iceland, but lessons for us all:

"Intelligence and capability are not enough, There must be the joy of doing something beautiful."

~Dr. Venkataswamy, eye doctor who was inspired by McDonald's to set up a 'franchised' model of eye hospitals in India.  Link to film.

More good stuff from the film:

"Crisis breeds transparency...a very dynamic, 24-hour conversation..."

"How do you bring all those natural resources together in a way that creates the most value for everybody?"

Desperate to use brain cells...

(I'm so desperate to use my brain cells, I'm fixing other designers' prototypes on the web, for fun...I need a job!  Sigh.)

jastrapko, on Twitter, liked this desert prototype:

I do too, it's a great idea, from the notion that an umbrella left outside will collect dew, even in a desert.  I also love the notion of two layers of roofs; in a hot climate it's very good biomimicry (building in the shade, as it were).

However, I wonder if there might be a logic error in scaling up a 4' diameter umbrella to a 80' one...dew is tiny in scale, and has to battle considerable friction while rolling down to the collection well - by the time it travels 40', how much of it has evaporated away?

I would suggest to the designers, to investigate the Johnson Wax Building as a form-maker (not that I am a tremendous Wright fan, I'm not).

(image stolen from here)

Obviously the umbrellas would be shaped differently, and you'd make their edges fit closely together, and they'd be not-concrete, but this sort of repetition and spacing would probably be more efficient in water collection, and more easily withstand wind storms, with multiple support/tie down points throughout.

Creativity thrives under constraint

Normally I totally agree with marketing guru Seth Godin - and I don't disagree with his second premise here - but I do wish he wasn't encouraging one of the prevailing myths about architecture here:

There are two ways to work with talent.
The first is to give someone as clean a sheet of paper as possible. "We have these assets, we have this opportunity, here is our budget, go!" That's a great way to build a house if you have a ton of money and brilliant architects.

My own creativity thrives under constraints.  I bring more constraints - energy-efficiency, wayfinding, surprise and delight, improved utility - to the table, to further improve the product.

"You're Only A First-Time User Once"

More on the 'building your tribe' idea that Seth Godin hawks so well...

An article from Cooper Journal, You're Only A First-Time User Once, fleshes out the introductory angle of that notion.

If we concentrate purely on getting more customers/users...instead of pleasing the ones we've got, then we're stuck in the '“Would my mother/grandmother/Luddite Uncle Bill be able to use this product on the first try?”' world, that frequently doesn't offer enough complexity to be truly useful.

Whereas, if we find another way to deal with first-time users, to turn them quickly into second-time users...then we have advocates.

For architects, this sheds some helpful light on wayfinding, surprise and delight, and true usability.  Also metrics, and design of client presentations.

Evidence-based design improves health in hospitals

New York Times article enumerates multiple ways this is so.

To the thinking layperson, the idea of "evidence-based" design seems like a no-brainer...wouldn't every multi-million dollar building project, particularly one that contributes to the health and survival of thousands over the course of its lifetime, be based on research of what works and what doesn't, in that building's precedents?

Er, yes, and no.

In school, I first encountered this idea under the name of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, in the Psychology of Space world, and under Christopher Alexander's "Patterns of Architecture" rubric in design studio.  I was enchanted and very much encouraged that some building designers tried to listen to how well or poorly buildings succeed.  However, I was warned that it was out of vogue.

Entering the working world, I began to see how and why - economic engines ran high at the time, and pressure was on to produce inhabitable buildings NOW.  I heard complaints everyday from ordinary people about how this building we were using would work better if...but these complaints didn't make it to the owner, or if I carried them to the sealing professionals, I was asked for "evidence"...I was standing there with "evidence"!  What was meant was "show me in a design standard book produced for the entire world to use, regardless of local needs".  These design standard books obviously lagged behind the times, and their usefulness was diluted by their attempt to serve every typology.

So, economic engine and lack of efficient communication of results.

Both of these conditions have changed now, and I hope I see a resulting change in the attitude towards building design, led by the high-stakes world of health care...where every penny is rapidly becoming scrutinized, increasing data tells us how the organization of space helps to reduce infection and promote healing, and the whole country worries about future market demands.  I look forward to working in such a world - this is truly using teamwork to learn from precedent!

(Caveat:  The research quoted in the NYT, on May 18, 2009, dates from 2000, 2003, 2005.  The AIA's requirement of single-occ rooms dates from 2006.  Very long lapses, these days.  Why does this data languish?  Do people not know about it?  How might publicity improve?)

White roofs as snowcap replacement

Would it be possible to plan to replace the reflectivity of the Earth's polar snowcaps, and other snowy mountaintops, with white roofs on buildings?

1) What was "ideal" area of snow cover, averaged over a year?

Okay, Wikipedia has satellite numbers only from 1979.  Most coverage for the northern hemisphere seems to be 1.35x10(13); while most for the southern hemisphere seems to be around 1.6x10(13).  Square meters.

2) What does that translate to, in terms of building area?  (How many Super Walmarts?)  A Supercenter Walmart, again per Wikipedia, is about 200,000 sf.  1,580,000,000 Supercenters.  One and a half billion.  Okay, maybe that's not feasible, even if they were not at 80d latitude.  But what about other buildings?  Surely, with a world population of 6.5 billion people, we could come up with 1.5 billion x 200,000sf = 300 trillion square feet = 45,941 sf per person.  Do we have that much extra built structure?  Could we?

3) Where should these white roofs be located?  I'd think they'd be more effective at reflecting solar heat at the equator, but I bet this is a complex thing.  Also, not all roofs need be the same slope (really shouldn't be), but just for starters I'll assume they're flat.

I'm not sure I know where to find these answers, but perhaps my friends can help.