Arkki is an interesting non profit, the first school in Finland specialising in providing after school architectural and environmental eduction for children and young adults.
The weekly architectural clubs are tailored for each age range. 4-6 year olds learn about architecture, nature, light, colours and shapes through play and imaginative projects like model making. 7-14 year olds explore issues like ecology and sustainability as well as cultural history and the impact of tradition in design. They also analyse the spatial experience and use their senses to experiment with space.
As they get old the topics become more complex, by the time they reach the 14-18 year old age group they explore design problems from small scale like designing door handles to the larger designing houses and city planning. They also learn about architectural history and contemporary architecture.
Around 500 children between the age of 4-19 participate in the courses on a long term bases. They also run short term courses every year.
They use a range of methods including models, 1:1 scale, using their senses to experience architecture and digital tools. Play is essential as it is the way children explore the world and learn natural, so a playful approach allows the kids to use their imagination, intelligence and experiment.
Find out more on their website arkki.net
Katie Crepeau’s recent blog post on Design Affect got me thinking about why and how I got into Public interest design, Impact Design, socially driven design, humanitarian design or people centred design, however you want to call it. I realized that there wasnt a single moment that lead me to this, more a series of small moments that pulled me in this direction. I’m still very much at the start of my career and learning in this field but it is interesting to look back at the random steps that led me here.
I found my personal statement which I used to apply to university a few months ago. In it I wrote of comparing the environment I saw in my community, with the unwelcoming buildings, graffiti and general air of neglect to that of places like Canary Wharf which seemed to gleam and shine. I remember feeling like good design could make an impact in the way people see themselves. It was one of the reasons I got into architecture, I felt like we all had the right to live in beautiful places.
Through undergrad I didn’t really think much about this field. My first exposure to it was a lecture by Anna Heringer. She told us about her building in India, and how she’d used the process as a tool for educating the local community and architects about designing sustainably and for the climate. Telling us about the desire for western architecture and how that didn’t work with the climate and even culture. It was amazing to see, my friend and I left the lecture being like this is why we decided to study architecture.
Another moment was the OMA exhibition at the Barbican, I barely remember any of it but I picked up a piece of paper with some text that has almost become my mantra. I have no idea who wrote it or why but it is a statement that resonates with me totally.
The role of the creative class should be less receiving, rather broader, faithful and responsive
During my summer holidays I tried to work for architectures office to build my experience and then worked for two more in my year out. I found working in the office environment difficult, I would get so bored, so easily. And although I ended up working or doing work experiences with about 7 offices I never found one that clicked with me. I loved the people I worked with, enjoyed the projects but just didn’t find them stimulating. It was really interesting to see how much the client and sometimes quantity surveyor drove the project.
It was only when I started my Diploma (the last 2 years of architecture course) that I started to be more exposed to this field and maybe even think about it as a legitimate career path. My dissertation was quite pivotal. I wanted to write about Lagos in Nigeria. I was between writing about a development for middle income clients or a slum called Makoko that I’d somehow come across. And I had a meeting with one of the tutors impressed on me that I had a key choice to make.
This project continued into my thesis project where I designed a maternity centre for Makoko. Again it was having a fantastic tutor while I was on exchange in Vienna that encouraged me to do this. Despite it being totally different from what everyone back in Glasgow was doing.
Final year was tricky, everyone was talking about what they wanted to do next and I knew I didn’t want to go back to working in a traditional office, but I didn’t feel like I had enough courage to go out on my own and do it. There was a symposium at the University, Clean Conscience Dirty Hands that was organised by one of the tutors, who had set up his own humanitarian design studio as a 19yr old student (and is now my colleague). I think that was the biggest turning point for me. Seeing the speakers from a range of countries all working in this field whether in the UK or abroad, made me realize that it was possible. I was still scared of course, I told my brother that the longer I waited to start the more fear would set in.
Since then it’s been a total whirlwind and I am learning so much about people centred design and making a positive impact in communities. I can’t believe I graduated last year.
Urban Planner and Architect, Denise Scott Brown became one of my heroes last summer after reading an interview with her on Gizmo Web. There was so much to learn from even this interview.
On communication in architecture. I particularly found in interesting her examination of the way architects look at the ‘masses’ and how instead we should understand that society is made up of many subgroups with individuals being part of several of these groups.
“Social scientists in America now would say that we cannot usefully talk about the masses, that we need to consider the subgroups that form large populations, that even the commercial discussion of «markets» and «market segments» is better than rhetoric on the masses. And mention of the word in our profession usually carries the corollary «We the architects know the real needs of the little people». The same goes for the “mass media”. Modern means of communication permit messages to be targeted to families, women, men, young people, intellectuals, non-intellectuals, poker players, football fans, philatelists, entomologists – there are million ways to cut the media pie. And one individual can belong to several groups. I may hold certain opinions as a woman, others as an architect, and yet others as a planner. To fulfill these roles I must internalize conflicts among them. How could it be otherwise? And should it be otherwise? When people harbour no internal conflicts they become one-dimensional and may become ideologues. That can be dangerous. Conflicts within the individual may be a valuable protection against extremism, against the possibility of another Hitler or Mussolini. …. if communication is one of the functions of architecture, then we architects must understand the hierarchies of messages and the forms of communication that should co-exist, at certain locations and within different building types from a city hall to a suburban house.
Denise Scott Brown spent time learning from fields outside architecture and urbanism. I feel like that is what I am doing at the moment, learning about other ways of doing and it is fascinating to see how her experiences influenced her work and approach.
DSB: I was at that time searching for new methods of analysis and synthesis “outside” architecture – that could help architects break from their narrowly architecture-centric views. I found useful thought and techniques in urban sociology, systems thinking, Pop Art, Mannerism, and the area of land economics called Regional Science – to name a few. Even in the 1960s computers played an important role. After War World II American social scientists and planners tried to adapt war-time computer techniques to research on cities.
Denise on on exploring and analysing cities.
“Learning from” studies to date have appropriated only limited facets of our LLV and LLT material and techniques, and the research studio’s role within an overall education plan has not been thought through. Therefore it’s hardly surprising that architects today use urban research information for sculptural purposes – city mapping, for example, as an aid to discovering cool new forms. They ignore the relationships these maps reveal. And they miss the powerful resources offered by mapping that shows how social and economic conditions distribute “on the ground” . Architects need such information to achieve what they have long desired: ability to design what Aldo van Eyck called «the physical counterform to social form», what the Smithsons called «active socioplastics».
This is where I got the name of my blog, I love the thought of active socioplastics, the relationship between physical forms and social and economic behaviours? On people?
Her essay “Sexism and the star system” is a fantastic womens experience in architecture. Although written over 20 yrs ago in 1989, it still rings true.
DSB: «So you’re the wife! Are you an architect too?» was a question asked me throughout my career at VSBA and up to today. And I have answered, pointing to Bob: «No, he’s the “architect too”! I am an architect». However this is a problem of being married to a guru, not the one faced by young women as they progress in the field.
SM: At that time women’s rights were at the center of social debate. Today I perceive a new social problem, which is the struggle between generations. In Italy the phenomena is most relevant, it seems that young architects have trouble to take over the previous generation, as there is a sort of “resistance”. What do you think about it?
DSB: There is always a generation problem, and it exists at both ends – I have been at each. But do you believe there is no longer a women’s problem? You’re right – but only in the sense that there never was one. It was always a men’s and women’s problem! And I believe it exists today as strongly as ever. You have not yet perceived it, because as a young architect you are accorded the greatest equality that you will ever know. It gets worse as you proceed, and when it does, you’ll find it is a strong problem. And sadly, because you don’t have a feminist awareness, you’ll think it’s your fault.
Although women start out in practice equal with men, complications set in when they must juggle child-rearing and practice, just at the point in their professional development when seniority brings responsibilities for project management and the need for one hundred percent participation in the studio. Then even if you are brighter than they, the men will go further than you, and you will think: «There’s something wrong with me!»
There are other reasons why men receive preference over women when both reach “the glass ceiling”. And there are reasons – too many to consider here – why architects don’t make gurus of women. And another theory is sometimes offered women: «You have power in your own sphere. Look at the power of the Spice Girls. Why must you compete with men?» This is the age old power of seduction. But where has it got us? As an old feminist recently said: «If the Spice Girls really had power, Dick Cheney, would wear a tutu»!
Denise Scott Brown is an inspiration 🙂
Architecture school is definitely an experience like no other. I ended up going to 3 schools, in London, Glasgow and Vienna. A mix of traditional universities and arts schools, each with it’s own approach. Architecture students were the same everywhere working all day and sometimes night, the studio’s buzzing with chat and creativity. I ended up making some life long friends and learning a lot not only about design but about an approach to life. Here are some great things I learned from architecture school.
1. Presentation is important
Not only how you talk about your work but also how you visually depict it. We live in a highly visual age and if you can explain your idea visually it makes a huge impact. I also found that how you talk about your work makes a difference to how it’s perceived. It’s about having confidence in your ideas and work.
2. There is no correct answer
There are of course some things that you see that make no sense but good design is highly subjective, it takes for every to realise this but with creative courses like architecture there is no right answer. We all bring our own perspective that is formed by our experiences. This can be hard to see sometimes because each school has their own way of thinking about design, be it contextual, theoretical, narrative based or technical.
3. Choose your heroes carefully
every school has the people or offices they reference constantly and you absorb them by osmosis. The internet also make it easy to spend time swiping through beautiful photographs of buildings but a photograph cannot tell you as much as actually visiting the building can do.
4. Failure is part of learning
I failed second year and at the time it felt like the worst thing, however it ended up being a fantastic opportunity to take time away from intense study, explore what I wanted to do and even earn some money. I ended up learning so much in that time.
5. Fear is stifling
Some architecture schools seem to think they need to put the fear of God in students. Separate the wheat from the chaff, e.t.c e.tc, but I truly believe that fear is the biggest killer of creativity. It causes people to play it safe it afraid to take risks in case they “fail.” But failing is a step to succeeding.
6. How to do late nights
This is definitely one of the first things you learn at architecture, how to stay up all working all night. Especially around final deadlines and reviews. You end up sleeping in the studio and drinking a lot of energy drinks. It’s almost a badge of honour for architecture students and even working architects.
7. To have a life outside of the studio
I found that doing things outside of the studio gave me so much balance and perspective. I took salsa classes, joined the fashion society and took classes in other departments when I could. It was a tough one because architecture students like medical students often stick with people from their course and the intense hours make it almost impossible to do anything outside the course.
8. Don’t wait for permission
It took me till my final year, when I decided to do my final project on a slum in Lagos, Nigeria. I was on exchange in Vienna and the thesis tutor asked us to say the first project that came to our head when we thought about what we wanted to do. It was so refreshing to learn to just go for it, trust my instincts and not worry about how it’d end up. It was amazing.
Here’s a great post on Archi-ninja of the 10 things they don’t teach you in architecture school.
Image via realstarchitectssleeparound.tumblr.com/
Zabeleen is a community in Egypt that shows how people can self organise to manage their own waste. At first glance it can seem like a chaotic place ewith the community living in what looks like a garbage dump. But a deeper look reveals well organised and highly effective waste management system for Cairo.
Cairo like many cities around the world is going through a massive urbanisation with governments struggling to keep up with infrastructure developments. What has developed in Zabeleen is a decentralised, participatory and low tech approach to Cairo’s waste management which also provides a livelihood for the community. They have been collecting and recycling Cairo’s waste for over 70 years without little acknowledgement from the state or secure land tenure.
Cairo’s waste management system is a mix of formal and informal systems. They governments policy since the early 2000’s has been a focus on privatisation, limiting their involvement and involving citizens in the cost of paying for the services. Local authorities manage the solid waste collection and contracts are aware to private companies for the collection and transfer of waste. Composting is mostly managed by the formal sector whilst recycling is managed by the informal sector.
The Wahiya and Zabeleen are the two cultural groups that manage the informal waste system. The Wahiya are Moslem migrants from the Western Desert oasis of Dakla, who arrived in Cairo about 100 years ago and entered into contracts to receive a monthly fee for collecting and disposing of waste. The Zabeleen arrived in the 1930/40s in search of employment and discovered they could make a living by renting garbage routes from the Wahiya.
Their system of waste collection has ended up being both more efficient than the state run or private systems and has provided employment for many people. However the community and their livelihoods are under threat as the government seeks to encourage privatisation of its waste service.
The community live in makeshift structures on the west and northern fringes of the city. They process more that 6000 tonnes of garbage a day, recycling 85% of them through micro enterprises. The waste is sorted into 16 categories like tin, glass, rags and plastic which can be sold. Organic waste is fed to the pigs they breed. The pigs are central to the their livelihood strategy and come from the rural tradition of owning a pig yard. Every family owns one, usually adjacent to the sleeping quarters, and they use this space to sort and store domestic waste. The meat from the pigs is then sold to hotels for good profit. This creates a cyclical economy where the waste activities generate further employment for people in other neighbourhoods.
The settlements have continued to grow over the years. Growing vertically in a sort of haphazard manner. The flat roof terraces are increasingly being used to sort garbage and rear the pigs, creating a colourful messy aesthetic. This highly localised method of recycling has a low carbon footprint, reducing the need for transportation, landfilling and compaction. Their recycling system is cited as one of the best in the world with the highest material recovery at 30% of the total waste generated. It is a high efficient system reducing the demand for transport, collection and disposal as the scale and organic shape of informal settlements are not designed for large removal trucks.
Zabeleen is an interesting example of how communities can develop appropriate and local methods of successfully managing their urban spaces and it would be a great shame to see this thriving ecosystem impacted as the governments privatisation of waste disposal threatens to do.
“Making things the best versions of themselves…. how can we make it the most eventuated, most wonderful version of itself… rather than trying to make Romford Copenhagen”
Studio Weave are a London-based architecture practice that are doing some fantastic and beautiful work. Started by Maria Smith and Je Ahn. They have a passion for narrative as a tool for designing, engaging with people and a love of making which has allowed Studio Weave to deliver projects that nurture a strong sense of place.
What I love about their projects is the sense of joy and playfulness that is evident. Each project is unique yet there seems to be a sense of the fantastical and craftmanship that runs through every project.
I remember the lovely lecture Maria Smith gave at the Mackintosh School of Architecture a couple of years ago.
And check out Maria Smith’s writings for the Riba Journal. They are brilliantly funny and irreverent 🙂
It is essential that everyone in the town, including those that will be dead by the time the project begins construction, is happy with every aspect of all the proposals. We have therefore carried out extensive community engagement over the last 50 years. This has resulted in reams of fantastically useless questionnaires that the council does not have the resources or intelligence to interpret, and consultation fatigue on a spectacular scale. Last year alone saw three deaths that have been linked to pointless questionnaires.
Maria Smith, from the article Civic Slide on RIBA Journal
“If a theory is well constructed and spread abroad, it has the advantage of no longer being the property of specialists, but of stemming from the public domain. The present-day monopoly of the architect has to do with the fact that there is no real theory, but merely a set of pseudo-theories in other words, observations which only reflect the preferences of their authors”.
“A theory must be general and valid for anybody”.
Who is Yona Friedman?
Yona Friedman is a Hungarian-French architect and theorist who design utopian projects that deal with urban planning and empowering the user. His ideas went beyond architecture and planning incorporating contemporary art, sociology and economics. Key to his work was the idea of individual freedom, that is encouraged through unpredictability, play and empowering the end-user.
How did he get started?
Yona Friedman was born in Hungary in 1923 and became a famous architect and urban planner in the late 50’ and early 60’. He grew up in Hungary and during the Second World War joined the resistance during the short time Germany occupied Hungary. His experience as a refugee during the 2nd WW is said to have influenced his social theories. After 10 years in Israel he decided to move permanently in Paris in 1956, here he received a favourable reception to his ideas.
Friedman’s ideas centred on an “architecture with the people, by the people, for the people.” A Democratic architecture that is conceived and materialised by the people. The architect provides ideas, techniques new aesthetics, which are validated only with the people.
The same year he presented his “Manifesto de l’architecture mobile” to the 10th International Congress of Moderne Architecture. He first presented the principles of the “mobile architecture” which is an architecture that is able to understand the constant changes of social mobility. This «architecture mobile» called «mobility of living» by the team 10, promoted planning rules that could be created and recreated, according to the need of the inhabitants and residents.
What is his why?
“I have always tried, in architectural studies, to develop projects that were feasible”
As Friedman’slater projects show, he practiced his concepts of a feasible utopia through his work with the United Nations and UNESCO on self-building manuals in Africa, South America and India. Friedman always sought to develop projects that were easy for even non-professionals to understand. He even wrote how to comics to explain how to build and make communities.
He sees society as a utopia, which has been realized. In “Utopies Reaslisables”, and he tried to build an objective and coherent theory of social organizations. For him, utopias appear as remedies for a collective dissatisfaction. These utopias could become feasible if they get a collective agreement.
What is his process?
It was Friedman’s emphasis on participation that set him apart from his contemporaries. The user is raised above the architect and the master builder. Friedman used his drawings as a way of expressing his ideas and developing a way to making his ideas understandable for everybody. For example with his work for the UN he developed a language of pictograms that could communicate a method of building using local materials and show information on dealing with issues ranging from water management and infrastructure to food policy.
How is he changing the world?
He sought to widen the relevance of architecture, seeing its practice as a non-specialist discipline, at the crossroads of philosophy, ecology, spirituality, mathematics and the sciences, and relating to every area of society. He has considered that as an architect, his role is to observe individuals, their emotions and their actions, rather than to construct and impose a model. “I think like a sociologist”, he says. Human nature, is unpredictable and uncontrollable so ideal form in architecture is the very absence of planning but it should be free. So the idea of authorship becomes redundant and deceptive; instead, he encourages an organic, growing and improvised architecture, modelled on the future user, who is ultimately given the title of author and creator.
Find out more at Yona Friedman
Image via… Impact Design Hub
Inspiring article on Architizer about the women who are changing the world through public interest design. From teaching young girls to weld, to designing prisons and working in impoverished settlements. I will definitely be exploring their work and finding out more about why and how they do it. Keep an eye on this space!
Emily Pilloton: Founder and Executive Director of Project H Design
Julia King: Sanitation specialist working in India’s informal settlements and the Architecture Journal’s 2014 Emerging Woman Architect of the Year
Erin McGurn: Co-Founder & Executive Director of SCALEAfrica
Liz Ogbu: Social design innovator and consultant who tackles “wicked social problems”
Emilie Taylor: Senior Program Coordinator and Design/Build Manager at Tulane City Center
Chelina Odbert: Co-founder and Executive Director of Kounkuey Design Initiative
Deanna VanBuren: Principal and Design Director of FOURM Design Studio and 2013 Loeb Fellow at Harvard GSD