The Case for Experience

The trouble with disaster scenarios is that they are evocative. Geoff Manaugh's BLDG BLOG discusses the disaster photography of Armestre and Gomez for Greenpeace. Their images envision coastlines across the world under meters of water, the effect of global warming. The problem is, "do i care about a coastline in spain?" It feels like a photographic work of fiction, a fiction that on some levels might be cool to see someday. As long as i'm not affected where I'm at, its pretty damn interesting, right? The pictures don't describe any tangible evidence of human suffering. All Gore's imagery in An Inconvenient Truth showing Florida and Manhattan being submerged are equally scary and evocative, but have less impact than they deserve. Perhaps detractors of America would rejoice at seeing Manhattan submerged. He also describes differing opinions on New Orleans. The images of the submerged city, depending on which side of the fence you're on, show either a tragic amount of lives lost due to nature and political apathy, or a tragic amount of lives lost when they made themselves so poor that they couldn't escape and our government had to bail them out.

Manaugh also talks about "liberation hydrology" in Miami:

"The implicit, if inadvertant, message here seems to be: hey, south Floridians, and all you who are bored of the world today, sick of all the parking lots and the 7-11s, tired of watching Cops, tired of applying to colleges you don't really want to go to, tired of credit card debt and bad marriages, don't worry. This will all be underwater soon. "

A flooded Miami (ficitonal) and flooded New Orleans (actual) are a lot less exciting knee deep than from a birds eye view.

Imagery and experience in this case are wholly different things.

The point is:

My monument must be evocative through experience. The most successful monuments are experiencial, even if on different levels. I will continue to point to Eisenman's and Foster's monumental buildings in Berlin. Users define their meaning through experience. My project will be successful if I can convey the weight of our actions to the users through experiencing what, where, how, and why i build my monument.

Regenerative Monument

Lisa provided me with articles about truly green design, regenerative design. This goes beyond the idea of sustaining our environment to actively working to improve it. Ben Haggard describes it as "...conceptualizes projects as engines of positive or evolutionary change for the systems into which they are build. Rather than looking at how to minimize the impact on wildlife habitat and corridors, for example, regenerative designs look at how to increase habitat quality." It is a more holistic design in terms of integrating the process of building with the economic health and stability of the local community.

He describes 4 concepts behind regenerative development

1. Flip your paradigm - view slopes, drainages, roads, buildings, etc not as things, but as energy systems.

2. Go to the Core - understanding the dynamics that create the character of place

3. Learn from the Master - learn from nature. it naturally develops the most efficient systems.
4. Build to Place, Not Formula - utilize the particulars of a place to determine appropriate engineering and design.

In his examples he describes site specific buildings which take advantage of their surroundings in places the at have been misused previously. Communities are active in the process from conception to completion, and learn how to apply these tactics in other areas of thier life and building. All exaples given are very rural, and i'm unsure of how this works in a more developed or urban context, if it works at all there. I'll see what i can find.

Anyway, the greatest and purest monuments are built to last, so they are within the realm of sustainability. Perhaps they all require a considerable amount of resources for their completion, but ask for little more once built. The building as monument requires a considerable amount of resources for completion, use, and maintenance with a much shorter life expectancy than grand monuments.

I'm start to think that what i'm going after is not sustainable monument, but regenerative monument. Sustainable in its methods of construction and materials, regenerative in its ability to add to the physical environment in terms of energy development, water usage, and add to the cultural environment in terms of education and expressing the impact of that which is memorialized and the effects of actions on the environment.

Monday Meeting Recap

Site selection is beginning to stagnate, so I need to focus on theory to move forward

Site – New Orleans, Gettysburg, DC

New Orleans – abandoned city, walls not levies around worst hit places to prevent rebuilding, new FEMA headquarters, monument to the dead and failings of government, emergency shelter

DC – not discussed much, but maybe the Reichstag is so clear an example of my intentions that it could harm my thesis were it to be placed here.

Gettysburg – John finally convinced (collective sigh of relief), experiential “monument” relating built form to nature

Theory – continue to work on my definitions, especially at the elemental level of “what is monument?”

What is the life span of my monument? What is the short view and the long view? Is anything permanent, or is it our perception of permanence? What is permanent today, does anything need to be permanent?

Can this monument “pulsate” with the needs of the times? Serve its purpose, disappear, or be recycled?

Who will sponsor this? Is government pure enough to make this statement? Who can be a “neutral party?” Investigate the origins of the most high profile monuments to understand how they came to be.

Also, no one builds a monument like a dictator, but not a single dictator ever thought what he was doing was wrong. Is something I want to do on this scale right? Am I going to be the Temple U thesis student version of a dictator?

More case studies, temple of Solomon, Michael heizer, Goldsworthy, Watts Towers in LA

Anything i missed? Throw any case studies my way if you think of them.

Un Monumental Gettysburg

Gettysburg is a rambling countryside marked with hundreds (thousands?) of small monuments and occasionally large monuments. It is unique in that it marks very specific instances in the battle where things worth marking happened. Not every soldier is mentioned, but every battalion, regiment, etc have their place. Every state that fought there has its monument, Pennsylvania's being the grandest. One needs more than a day to walk/drive across the Battlefield and see everything, but it often leads to numbness and disinterest in the monument. The monuments become diluted by their numbers. It is monumental in its scope, less so in experience. There is no one singular, all encompassing monument on the site. The question is, does Gettysburg need one? Can what I want to express fit into Gettysburg? I am interested in marking a turning point, a point where we say "we made a mistake, it will never happen again." Gettysburg doesn't say this, it marks where tragic events happen, but pays no homage to what brought these tragedies to Gettysburg. My "sustainable monument" for lack of a better term, will attempt to address the core of our problems, not its consequences. It will be a monument before the fact, not after. If death is so important that it is worth memorializing, wouldn't resources best be suited to preventing death rather than remembering it? No one will be there to memorialize the death of industrial society if and when our natural resources run out and we enter a new ice age or whatever is the projection of our unsustainable society. Gettysburg is a significant place in our history, in a very insignificant setting. Depletion of our resources is a significant problem with its roots in poor practices at the suburban level, practices which multiply. If anything in such a setting can have an impact in changing the way we think, it is a positive gesture. We don't see the impact of our unsustainable practices in Gettysburg, therefore we are not inclined do anything about them. There are major issues that have hit Gettysburg in the past, and they are still there only in a different form. People need to be enlightened on this level. Can the built form have anything to do with this? That's what I'm working on.

New Orleans?

I've been thinking about New Orleans. I had brushed it off out of lack of interest, but I think I simply hadn't thought enough about it. Catching up with readings and comments provided by Lisa, my interests in political influence on the build environment and environmental disaster meet in New Orleans. Should we rebuild? Probably not, but people want to. They want to keep their idea of home. But should home be such a dangerous environment? These storms are only going to become more frequent. Speaking of sustainability, what if all the progress made since the storm gets wiped away? All of the rebuilding efforts put a considerable strain on the price and availability of materials throughout the entire country, and could all be for naught. Could the rebuilding effort be a planning initiative to restrict parts of the city? Instead of levies, what about walls? Housing towers way above the high water mark? I don't know, just a few thoughts, but I might be bringing New Orleans back to the table.

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.

What Conversation Do I Want To Have In April?

During our last meeting, Andrew posed the question "what conversation do you want to have with the jurors in April?"

Since my travels in Europe this past spring and summer, I've become fascinated with "permanent" architecture. This encompasses monumental buildings that continue to move people generations and centuries after their construction. In most cases their initial use has shifted and the buildings take on new meaning over time, this meaning may or may not be relevant. In most cases it is simply for historic curiosity and generating money through tourism.

Today, little built implies permanence. The only permanence we have today is rapid change, change which many can argue is unsustainable. We build under the idea that what we do today won't matter down the road, make your money now and enjoy it while it lasts. This sets a rotten precedent and if this continues we will reach a turning point where our quality of life will not be sustainable. We will soon be entering "a period of consequences" as Churchill put it decades ago.

If monumental building had great meaning for the time it was constructed, meaning that continues today (if in different respects), meaning that continues to benefit society, can monumental building be part of the solution to today's problems?

If architectural landmarks benefit society today through education and revenue from tourism, can today's architectural landmark benefit society through educating the public and regenerating the local or national environment. Instead of simply revenue from tourism, can it send energy back to the grid? Can it encourage others to do so?

Can architecture be a political statement which states that we have learned from our past mistakes (in this case, environmental disasters), and that we will no longer foster a society whose practices encourage these mistakes to happen again?

more to come