Innovation: spatial and organizational
By comparing Light's "Sustaining Innovation" excerpts to architecture, I can also include some information from the Sacred Sites/ Sacred Sights symposium from this past weekend. The Dakota, Miqmaq, Navajo, Muslim, Jewish, Sami, Hindi, and Somali cultures were represented as well as various political and academic departments. Hearing many speak on topics of language, ownership, and the physicality of their culture has further honed my direction for a career in reparative architecture and innovation.
Is innovation a collective or individual movement? Can innovation emerge from a cumulative history [evolutionary]? Or is it always the influence of something from outside the box [entropy / spontaneity]?
[image by Mithun]
Light wrote not only on the collective movement of organizations, but the individual originators of the innovations. Chapter 5, "Changing the Leader's Work" dealt extensively with how an individual engaged with the collective [existing or ideal]. This begins with a clear statement of priorities and values as well as a transparent public presentation of direction [p141].
In previous reflections, the importance of physical organization of space to support these values has been discussed. Although architecture is not the focus of Light's work, his set of observations from a 5-year research effort on non-profit and governmental organizations can be applied to the state of my discipline and intended profession. Particularly with regards to the umbrella term of "sustainability," this question of continual innovation is critical to design. Surrounded by hallmarks of star-architecture in Minneapolis [Nouvel's Guthrie, Herzog & deMeuron's Walker, Gehry's Weisman] one can compare those gleaming gems to the labeled "sustainable" landmarks [Pelli's Central Library and Predock's McNamara Alumni Center]. The Living Future competition entry by Mithun above rethinks the program of a building [as half-urban garden] to break outside of the standard architectural box [physically and metaphorically]. Buildings can be community landscapes and production farms [for energy and food].
Dr. Daniel Bertrand Monk lectured on "Pseudoethics and Plutopolitics: the Greening of Architectural Mumbo-Jumbo" and lambasted the ethical propositions of architects doing sustainable buildings, using those working in Dubai as an example. Simply put: in a world where 50% of the population lives in cities, and 50% of those live in slums, can architects claim that a building for the elite, placed in an unsustainable climate [high-energy required for cooling, oil-based economy], really be called sustainable? Shouldn't we question not only what we produce, but who it is produced for?
Light references the need to give permission to fail [p145]. Does this apply to issues of our physical environment? As we explore new building systems [bioclimatic design, structural components] and new materials [recycled content, synthetic products] should architects be allowed to compromise not only budgets, but the capability of the building to provide shelter? More importantly, does this apply to failure to design for the right people? Lawyers lose cases, doctors have strict parameters on malpractice. Most of the organizations in these excerpts deal with effects on humans or relational systems; should the sustainability of architecture be assessed along the same lines? That innovation in architecture might not mean redefining the mission [appearance/ function] of a building but that it redefines who the building is for?
Light also mentions the need to minimize risk [p148]. Have architects lost credence with the populace with too many superficial and expensive explorations?
Pelli's Central Library was designed with the central atrium as a 24hr street. Access has been limited for security measures, and the protruding roofs compromise access with lethal icicle accumulation in winter. The public aspect of the library is compromised by funding issues which limits staffing. Could the form of the building have been changed to ameliorate the latter issue? By allowing certain floors to be closed off, staffing could be limited on off-days, still allowing some level of access to patrons that cannot take advantage of the current scheduled hours. Location or electronic linking of a parking attendant to also monitor the events in the public atrium could provide a greater security level to the atrium. Provision of free coffee to police for 24 hours from the Dunn Brothers outlet could also ameliorate the situation.
Architecture is undeniably innovative. Yet our profession needs to question what realm that innovation is best applied in. It can no longer be mere appearance or provision of accessible and transcendent spaces. It must rework the codes that guide its legality, regulate its liability, and ensure its legibility through greater educational access.
The question returns to values and priorities: is it necessary for an architect to be a star to make a difference, or can one seek to be an agent of collective change? If the latter, should one focus on: - material sustainability [locally produced, non-toxic, reusable and recyclable] - building sustainability [minimal footprint both physical and carbon] - policy and codes that structure the products [both scales noted above] - education and professional mores that structure access to the discipline - political activism that designs policy to regulate built environments
I'm logging votes - let me know what you think!
Mithun image as printed in Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce http://www.djc.com/news/en/11188954.html
Login to the blog
Post a new entry
Subscribe in a reader
Comments
Hey Sarah - This was really thoughtful. I'm always interested in hearing your explanations of buildings I know and of architecture in general. Interesting stuff for a dope who knows not-so-much about the structures around him.
Anyway, I was interested in your question about an architect's "permission to fail." I would think in many ways the architect has a duty, an obligation to fail. As I sit in The Death Star (McNamara) every day, I want to know that the architect has tested her or his creativity and subsequent innovations before making them part of my building. What I don't want is someone taking the public trust, developing something way out on the cutting edge, without ever giving her/his idea a chance to fail.
I suppose it's not a matter of IF they've failed, learned from those failures, then brought that education to bear on MY building. Rather it's a matter of HOW MUCH did they learn. An example with McNamara is how lousy cell phone coverage is inside that copper (or whatever it is...what IS it??) dome.
It's not like a green roof is causing my office roof to sag and runoff to stream into my office, but it's still something.
To your question about what kind of architect makes a difference - I would guess that question has a lot to do with the culture of your field. Are individual "heroic innovators" rewarded in ways that discourage being an "agent of collective change" as you put it? Or does "collective change" carry the largest incentive in the field?
I think you're right that it comes down to values and priorities but if yours run counter to those of the profession (and I'm not saying they do), then you'd better be someone who gets their ups from the inside - or at least from a smaller group on the outside. Not a particularly revolutionary idea, I know, but it's what came to mind when I considered your ballot.
Thanks again for a thoughtful post -
scott marshall
Posted by: Scott Marshall | April 6, 2008 09:16 PM
Why put an architect into a silo? I don't think it's necessary for an architect to be a star to make a difference...hmmm, but it does seem unique individual contributions are recognized by receiving grandeur opportunities, which could result in changes for the greater good - depending on how one uses star power. If an architect had their values and priorities in line, couldn't they succeed in either avenue, as a "star" or as a collective agent? Wouldn't either have a team of talented people to work with? Perhaps it's how one defines a star architect. On collective change... are these areas one could focus their studies on, couldn’t an architect cross all these boundaries? I think it takes knowing as much as possible about impact both now and into the future, like when the structures come down; what multiple purposes could the structure serve, more global understanding in the process, etc. And what’s a rebel architect without a [for the greater good] cause? ;)
Posted by: Alex | April 8, 2008 11:25 AM
Sarah - like your post (and the comments)!
A couple things have come into my mind while reading this. As Light wrote, many of the leaders interviewed were not out there to be stars. They simply threw themselves into what they were working on and what they believed in. They put much effort and energy in to support of the collective to achieve success.
Using architecture as the example, I certainly don't think that it's necessary for an architect to be a star to make a difference. I truly appreciate collaborative agents of change and a consciousness for the greater good. It does make me wonder however, how many architects would we have without those shining stars to inspire others? Design, including building architecture, is a critical aspect of how we live life and how we improve upon the lives we lead. Architecture for me should serve to combine function, efficiency and intrinsic beauty and enjoyment to our physical environment. It is, or at least should be, multidisciplinary in approach. So, in response to your question regarding which area an architect should focus, my vote is "yes." I think they're all critical and all play a part in a finished product. I couldn't choose.
To terribly paraphrase one of the "stars" Buckminster Fuller (apologies in advance): I design something for function, form, etc...and if the finished product isn't beautiful, I know I did it wrong. There are many aspects to design and potentially many experts contributing to the greater product. All are necessary.
Posted by: Nick Deffley | April 8, 2008 06:12 PM
Sarah - like your post (and the comments)!
A couple things have come into my mind while reading this. As Light wrote, many of the leaders interviewed were not out there to be stars. They simply threw themselves into what they were working on and what they believed in. They put much effort and energy in to support of the collective to achieve success.
Using architecture as the example, I certainly don't think that it's necessary for an architect to be a star to make a difference. I truly appreciate collaborative agents of change and a consciousness for the greater good. It does make me wonder however, how many architects would we have without those shining stars to inspire others? Design, including building architecture, is a critical aspect of how we live life and how we improve upon the lives we lead. Architecture for me should serve to combine function, efficiency and intrinsic beauty and enjoyment to our physical environment. It is, or at least should be, multidisciplinary in approach. So, in response to your question regarding which area an architect should focus, my vote is "yes." I think they're all critical and all play a part in a finished product. I couldn't choose.
To terribly paraphrase one of the "stars" Buckminster Fuller (apologies in advance): I design something for function, form, etc...and if the finished product isn't beautiful, I know I did it wrong. There are many aspects to design and potentially many experts contributing to the greater product. All are necessary.
Posted by: Nick Deffley | April 8, 2008 06:13 PM