arch-peace: all latest news

The Cultural Role of Architecture: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives (Paperback) - Routledge

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:15 GMT

With a contribution from our colleague Prof Ashraf Salama, The Cultural Role of Architecture explores,

"the ambiguities of how we define the word ‘culture’ in our global society, this book identifies its imprint on architectural ideas. It examines the historical role of the cultural in architectural production and expression, looking at meaning and communication, tracing the formations of cultural identities.

Chapters written by international academics in history, theory and philosophy of architecture, examine how different modes of representation throughout history have drawn profound meanings from cultural practices and beliefs. These are as diverse as the designs they inspire and include religious, mythic, poetic, political, and philosophical references."

The Cultural Role of Architecture: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives (Paperback) - Routledge:

'via Blog this'

A hospital with an attitude: the new Royal Children Hospital in Melbourne, Australia

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:28 GMT

I recently visited the new building for Royal Children Hospital in Melbourne, Australia and as I hope these images capture, the architecture and interior design reflect the intention of creating a friendly environment for children.

Hospital's main façade

On Koolhaas's Defense of Generic Architecture

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:02 GMT

When I read Rem Koolhaas I can't help thinking of Groucho Marx's words when he says: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."

I question whether a city with a 40% or more of foreign workers, particularly those in many African cities where Koolhass asserts his architectural power-- people who have no right to vote, many of whom don't have their family with them and where creating a community is pointless--can ever be really free. Richard Sennett discussing 'flexibility' (a work approach in capitalist societies) claims that, "Once people used to come to the city in search of anonymity, diversity and the freedom to meet others. Cities were also places of collective struggle and solidarity. Now, just as the workplace is affected by a new system of flexible working, so the city, too, risks losing its charm as businesses and architecture become standardised and impersonal." (Richard Sennett's "A flexible city of strangers").

Koolhaas believes the generic city is also the freest. Liberated from the codes and rules of the old city center, it’s a free zone, a safe haven for the migrant workers who make up (in Amsterdam’s case) 40 percent of the city’s population. Generic plug-in waterfronts (like the Baltimore Inner Harbor, New York's East River Waterfront and, yes, HafenCity) are the product of a simple equation between developers and city governments.

In these scenarios, architecture is "icing on the cake," a broken, out-dated profession, validated at random by an "unstable ideological environment" that changes according to the whims of an ever-evolving bureaucracy.

Find "Koolhaas's Defense of Generic Architecture" by Kelsey Campbell-Dollaghan here.

Remember those who live without peace and whose homes and land have been occupied

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:10 GMT

And, at this time of the year when we celebrate home, family, friendship and peace, it is important to remember those who live without peace and whose homes and land have been occupied. To them, to us, with hope for a more peaceful and just future.

Wide Open Road: how did Australia plan pedestrians, cyclists and transit out of its cities?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:04 GMT

Before the motorcar “owned” the road, cyclists weren’t seen as space-taking nuisance.

The ABC documentary Wide Open Road is a totally fascinating history of the car in Australia.

The characters who pioneered the car in the Australian bush 100 years ago are remarkable. The images of Australian cities as the first cars arrived on the scene are wonderful, with their carts and trams winding through huge flows of pedestrians and cyclists.
Read more »

Corporate Social Responsibility

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:35 GMT

The first time I evermet Simon was on the rooftop of a three storey car park overlooking theNicholson street Mall in Footscray. With a proud smile he told me ‘Footscray is the new Richmond!’ Backthen he was the Senior Planner responsible for overseeing the management of theFootscray TOD for Maribyrnong Council whilst I was the urban designer puttingtogether a bid to try and get a project for my then employer. Today, Simonstill works for the City of Maribyrnong, however in a different role as thePlace Manager for Footscray. When I caught up with him recently he told meabout his project - he was trying to get businesses in Footscray to talk toeach other by volunteering their time and or money towards a charity functionfor the most marginalised in Footscray. As I spent time with Simon and his teamfrom the City of Maribyrnong and the Assertive Outreach program of the WesternRegion Health Centre, the only question that went through my mind was ‘whywould anyone volunteer their time and money towards such a cause?’

There are a number ofsocial and moral reasons why individuals volunteer their time and money towardscharitable causes, but do those same reasons motivate corporations towardssocial responsibility. We live in a society where we want as much bang as wecan get for our buck as possible, hence the notion of value is critical; ‘howwe spend our money is directly defined by the perceived worth of what wereceive in return.’[1]How does a corporation decide the perceived worth of the return when it is providinga service on voluntary grounds? To fully comprehend such a decision we need todefine the concept ‘value.’

In economic terms ‘Value’ can be broken down into twoimportant concepts ‘Return on Investment’(ROI) and ‘Utility.’

ROI = (Gain from investment - Cost of investment) / Cost of investment [2]

Utility: An economic term referring to the total satisfaction receivedfrom consuming a good or service[3]

Hence to put it into simple terms ROI is a measure of economic value whilstutility is a measure of happiness[4];when put together they determine the total value added to any venture.Therefore the obvious question is – what value is there for a corporation toinvest time and money for this particular social cause?

Soon after I called Simon, he invited me to have coffeewith the organising committee from the City of Maribyrnong and theWestern Region Health Centre to get a more in depth unde

Pro Bono Publico

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:34 GMT

Recently I had the opportunity to be involved in a pro bono project for the charity Tong-Len. Their mission is to assist displaced communities in the Kangra Valley in north India to achieve a secure and sustainable future through a range of educational and health-based projects. Initially I was asked provide a sketch design for a hostel building accommodating more than 60 children who come from a local slum camp in Dharamsala. It quickly became apparent that the local ‘architect-engineer’ employed to progress the project was in fact the contractor and that further architectural services would be required. My partner in practice, Ryan Strating, became involved and for the last three years we have seen the project through to its completion and its inauguration by His Holiness the Dalai Lama last month.

In this editorial I would like to unpack some of my dilemmas around my experience of undertaking pro bono work, particularly within an intercultural context. This was prompted by a recent study into ethical agency and communication within community development and pro bono work by two final year students at the University of Tasmania.[1] One of the students interviewed me for my reactions to a range of provocations, two of which were particularly confronting:

Do you think some architects are motivated to undertake Pro Bono and CommunityDevelopment because mainstream practice does not allow the same level of creativity?
Do you think some architects are under the illusion that people in ‘other’ countries needour design services, when it might just be financial support that is necessary?[2]

I will come back to these questions more directly later. First, I will address the more general issue underpinning these provocations - the relationship between self-interest and altruistic motivations. As John Peterson, founder of Public Architecture, argues, “All generous acts involve similarly self-serving motives”.[3] Rather than lament this contention from a puritanical position, Peterson actively promotes the personal benefits – whether assuaging guilt or creating business opportunities. He sees them as a means to encourage the architecture profession to engage more extensively and systematically in pro bono work.

In an effort to advance pro bono work within the profession, Public Architecture launched the ‘1% program’ in 2005. This was designed to encourage practices to dedicate 1% of their time (a nominal figure) to pro bono projects. Despite this, the extent, or at least the visibility, of pro bono projects within the profession remains marginal. Type the words ‘pro bono’ into a search engine and without close inspection you would be convinced that it was a legal term. Unlike the legal framework for pro bono services, the majority of architecture projects are undertaken in an ‘ad hoc’ manner with work ‘fitted in’ around the priorities of commercial architectural practice. Thus a further agenda of Public Architecture is to advocate for the formalisation of pro bono services. Initiatives include ensuring clarity of purpose and commitments through contracts, invoices for time and, most importantly, maintaining pro bono services as part of core business rather than additional workload. This is easier to achieve in theory than in practice, particularly for small businesses.

In our case, the work was undertaken very much on an ad hoc basis – I did the initial sketch design for the project while on maternity leave and the detail design, documentation and advice during construction were fitted in between the hectic schedules of full time work and family. I was never able to visit the site (until the inauguration) and Ryan only went once at a critical point during construction. There were no ‘formal’ contracts. We only provided a basic documentation set and no permits (planning or building) were required. Communication with the client was irregular, mostly through occasional Skype meetings and email correspondence. Communication with the builder, who had no access to a computer or Internet facilities, was even more erratic. Clarity of communication was further complicated by differences in language and terminology.

The procurement process for the project transgressed all the norms and safeguards of professional practice. Admittedly this increases risk and requires greater trust between all parties, but this is sometimes the nature of engaging in such projects. I agree in principle with all the ‘best practice’ initiatives that Public Architecture suggests in structuring pro bono work. However, I think there can be some advantages in loosening the formalities of practice in certain circumstances, especially in intercultural contexts.

This leads me back to the provocations posed earlier, particularly in relation to undertaking work in intercultural contexts. What are the motivations behind it and is there any value in it?

To address the first question, the provocations suggested that ‘creative freedom’ is a contributing factor for architects. Rick Sunberg of Olson Kundig identified expansive creativity as one of the benefits of pro bono work as a condition of negotiating the tight budget and material constraints. There are also potentially creative opportunities in aligning interests since in pro bono work architects choose their clients as much as clients choose their architects. The opportunity for creative freedom may be part of the motivation to undertake pro bono work for some architects, but that is not my experience. My days in architectural practice were characterised by tight budgets and great clients. Rather than creative freedom, if anything I would say that the design of the Tong-Len hostel was underpinned by a degree of conservativism. This was fuelled partly by a fear of the unregulated environment and partly by inhibitions over challenging ‘norms’ of design and building in an unfamiliar cultural context with limited time to research and propose robust alternatives.

Without denying the potential creative benefits, commercial advantages and general kudos that can come from undertaking pro bono projects, to my mind the primary motivation is altruistic. The time commitment and financial burden to small practices is substantial. As an academic, arguably there is less selflessness in this regard – service to the community is a part of my job description (albeit a small and contracting part under increasing pressures from the competitive and commercialised university environment) i.e. I get paid for it. Nevertheless, pro bono services are not primarily about undertaking work for free. As John Cary, former executive director of Public Architecture, is at pains to point out ‘pro bono publico’ actually means ‘for the public good’ and its common misinterpretation as ‘for free’ “speaks of cost not cause”.[4]

The second provocation concerning the value, or efficacy, or undertaking pro bono projects in an intercultural context is more contentions. I have wrestled with the dilemma over whether the Tong-Len project would have been better undertaken by someone ‘in country’. Of course, this is a question that cannot be answered. Certainly there would have been advantages in local knowledge as well as regular access to the site. Nevertheless, I was under no ‘illusion’ about the need for our design services. As is the case with so many pro bono projects, there was an established personal connection with the not-for-profit organisation well before we were asked to contribute architectural services. Simply, we did it because we were asked to, and we felt we could do a good job.

Was the project a success? Honestly there were some struggles along the way, there were certainly some things that I wished I had had the time and energy to pursue and there would definitely have been advantages of being physically close to the site to maintain quality control during construction. Nevertheless, there were also benefits in our distance from the project in a more abstract sense. Working in unfamiliar contexts we see with different eyes and can offer different perspectives. Kashmiri Lal, the father of one of the girls in the hostel, came and spoke to me about what he liked about the building - the way it captured the sun, the way it separated boys and girls (necessary for cultural reasons) but allowed them to be one community, and the simplicity of the planning enabling future flexibility. These were all the things in my mind when I designed the building and he understood them all. However, it was the way he spoke admiringly about the windows as being ‘different’ but ‘right’ that warmed my heart.

If pro bono projects are about ‘public good’, then the measure of success must surely be how the projects fulfill the needs and desires of the communities that they serve. Seeking an answer to this question, I asked Vijay - the boy that I sponsor who lives in the hostel - if we had done a good job. He answered “yes”, then paused and said “no, you have not done a good job, you have done an excellent job”. My heart warmed further.

Yet, the measure of success must be an ongoing question. Will the building continue to serve the needs of the charity and enrich the lives of the people who inhabit it? This should be a question applied to all architectural projects, but particularly to those undertaken pro bono publico. I look forward to seeking answers to this question for many years to come.

Ceridwen Owen
Architects for Peace, December 2011

Ceridwen Owen is a full-time lecturer in the School of Architecture & Design at the University of Tasmania and a very part-time partner with Core Collective architects.

Thanks to Ryan Strating, the leading partner of Core Collective for working with me on the design and documentation of this project and giving up so much of his time for free and in the public good.
Thanks to Jamyang, Director of Tong-Len Charitable Trust for offering us the opportunity to do this project.
Thanks to my mother, Anna Owen, Director of Tong-Len UK who tirelessly works to raise money for all of Tong-Len’s projects, including this building.
Thanks to Jordan Davis for coming over for the inauguration and taking all of these amazing photos.
Finally, thanks to the kids in the hostel. You are all very special.

All images copyright Jordan Davis 2011 designwiththeother@gmail.com

References
1. Nikki Holdsworth and Jordan Davis (2011) ‘Intercultural Awareness: Communication and Ethical Agency within Architecture-related Community Development practice’; research undertaken as part of Advanced Design Research in the Master of Architecture, School of Architecture and Design, University of Tasmania
2. Nikki Holdsworth (2011) ‘Other-ly and alternative: social responsibility in architectural practice’; Honours research project, Master of Architecture, School of Architecture and Design, University of Tasmania
3. John Peterson ‘Why Pro Bono?’, Preface to Cary, J. (Ed) (2010) The Power of Pro Bono: 40 stories about design for the public good by architects and their clients, New York: Metropolis Books, p.xi
4. John Cary ‘Architecture as a Social Act’, in Cary, J. (Ed) (2010) The Power of Pro Bono: 40 stories about design for the public good by architects and their clients, New York: Metropolis Books, p.20