Thesis Prep

Sustainability has been the focus of the most current research. Assumptions and understanding of sustainability have shifted. Derrick Jensen’s book, the large and pessimistic environmental warning, Endgame, studies societies that live unsustainable lifestyles and why they do so. He attempts to identify the root problems and not the simply focus on temporary or superficial solutions. He states that “For an act to be sustainable, it must benefit the landbase.” A sustainable act must be beneficial in numerous ways, and not simply just do less harm. Green roofs and windmills are not the solution, but they are a step towards it. We need a society which fosters sustainable solutions, not one which may or may not choose to apply them. Sustainability, however noble and however slight its impact may be, only prolongs the inevitable. There is a new movement in green design which goes beyond sustaining, regenerative design, design which increases growth rather than sustains it. The root of the problem needs to be addressed before any massive change could be instituted, and these changes need to be greater than slightly damaging. This is where monument is beginning to make more sense. The ultimate intent of this project is to discuss whether a political statement in architecture can be the impetus for change. This may be through education, proclamation, or marking a significant event towards sustainability on the end of our culture or government. Norman Foster’s Reichstag dome remains a very strong case study in the realm of politics and marking a new direction. It represents the impact of government in projecting to its people that it intends to turn a new page, and it does so sustainably, as with all of Foster’s projects. Although technical considerations in terms of its design haven’t been investigated, its appeal is more in a gestural sense. This project may be served as a large political gesture towards sustainability (although designed green) rather than simply a sustainable monument. According to Jensen, it must impact a broader spectrum of factors sustainability and our society rather than simply earning a few LEED credits.

I. Unnatural Disasters

a. Definition: Massive environmental harm done by acts of man

b. Type. Coal mines, dam failures, government, industrial catastrophes, nuclear, oil spills, terrorism, toxicity, engineering mistakes, man-induced superstorms

Research is directing me more towards political disasters, as government has incredible power in terms of persuading/enforcing sustainable tactics, and holds a lot of blame in letting them go unnoticed/unrestricted in the case of the mentioned unnatural disasters

II. Site Selection – Parameters

a. Cultural – traction in the community, importance on a large scale to people relative to the social context

b. Political – strength as political statement

c. Monument – strength as monument or monumental building

d. Financial – expense of the project, potential for it to generate revenue through tourism or energy production

e. Audience – access to tourism and curiosity. How many visitors the surrounding area will bring.

f. Sustainability – potential for sustainable initiatives, environmental impact

Political and monumental considerations are being taken more seriously, as they lead to satisfying the other parameters. Sustainability is taking the direction of influence rather than simple implementation. A case study is farming in Germany. The government is providing great financial incentives for producing more solar and wind energy. My interest is more in the initiative to bring this change (government) rather than the base level tactics (wind and solar farms). The Reichstag is making great influence as a case study, as it is a sustainably built testament to a sea change in German politics. A culturally relevant political statement in the proper setting can generate monumentality, money, audience, and work towards sustainability.

III. Possible sites – Selected for unnatural disaster and site parameters

a. Gettysburg, PA – war, govt, currently sprawl

b. Centralia, PA – 40 year underground mine fire, engineering and environmental mistakes, ghost town.

c. Monument Valley – no unnatural disaster but fits site parameters

d. Washington DC – political apathy towards environment. Seat of indifference and power

e. New York City – terrorist attacks, linked to hatred of our unsustainable society and need for foreign oil, massive political and financial waste over rebuilding

f. New Orleans – environmental and political catastrophe. Superstorms linked to carbon emissions.

Gettysburg, Washington DC, and New Orleans are taking greater traction in possible design. Gettysburg is a monumental area in an unmonumental setting, the typical American suburb. It is typical in that it is becoming over developed, is an unconscious generator of massive amounts of waste and pollution (thousands of small cities polluting together probably do more harm than a few large cities, but the cities get the blame). The problems that brought about the Civil War are still relevant. In their case unsustainable practices (slavery, war, political separation) led to destruction. In our case, unsustainable practices (sprawl, energy consumption, pollution) are leading to destruction.

Washington DC is the seat of government, therefore the seat of visible power in bringing change. It is the second most visited place in the world, therefore very accessible for informing the masses.

New Orleans brings a lot of emotions. It is powerful on an individual level, and a large political level, it is the site of the most public display of govt apathy in our history. Should we rebuild? It is also the site of massive rebuilding under the ethos of build cheap and quick to make money.

IV. Program

a. Gettysburg, PA

i. visitors center

ii. experiential monument to sustainability (in terms of war, slavery, today energy and material waste)

b. Centralia, PA

i. power generator utilizing underground energy,

ii. monumental gesture towards taking advantage of past mistakes

c. Monument Valley

i. wind farm, solar farm,

ii. information center for tourism

d. Washington DC –

i. large scale monument

ii. monumental new headquarters for EPA or theoretical “Department of Sustainability”

e. New York City –

i. monumental new office center

ii. public memorial

f. New Orleans –

i. visitors center,

ii. solar farm

iii. massive fence/levy restricting rebuilding inside city limits. Argument: the city shouldn’t be rebuilt considering these disasters are becoming more common.

Program is still elusive. Any program must inform the public visually or experientially, and all of these have the potential to do so, though the most effective one can only be determined once more specific things are learned about potential site. Site is very important in determining program specifics, but each will be monumental, informational, and experiential pertaining to addressing an unnatural disaster, sustainability, learning from mistakes, and proclaiming they will not be made again. This is a testament to a social commitment to change.