[This dis­cus­sion is the con­clu­sion of a series of talks: Design and the Green New Deal; Labor, Architecture and the Green New Deal; After Comfort; and Projecting Change: Extended Realities & Sea Level Rise]

Ijlal Muzaffar: I’d like to invite all the speak­ers as well as our dis­cus­sants Amy Kulper, Head of Architecture at RISD, and Johanna Barthmaier-Payne, Head of Landscape Architecture at RISD to come up on stage and maybe we can start our dis­cus­sion and you can you can respond ini­tial­ly, but we can also quick­ly open it up to ques­tions and answers from the audi­ence.

So, Amy would you like to begin by respond­ing, or should we open it up to the audi­ence as well [inaudi­ble].

Amy Kulper: [inaudi­ble]

Muzaffar: Okay so per­haps you and Johanna can respond to…have ini­tial com­ments and then they [inaudi­ble]

Kulper: So first thank you. It was such an incred­i­ble offer­ing of ideas and ways to think through these issues. And as I was think­ing about today, I was remem­ber­ing an arti­cle that I read last year in The New York Times that I sus­pect many of you read as well, that was about Bruno Latour. And the title of the arti­cle was The Post-Truth Philosopher Mounts a Defense of Science. And in it there’s a kind of dis­cus­sion of Latour, who’s an advo­cate of con­struc­tion­ism, or the belief that sci­en­tif­ic facts are cul­tur­al­ly con­struct­ed. And the author of the arti­cle began with an anec­dote that talked about about Latour being approached by a devel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gist who asked the ques­tion, Do you believe in real­i­ty?”

And so I’m not going to ask you that ques­tion. [laugh­ter] But Latour spent his career, or has spent his career argu­ing that sci­en­tif­ic facts need to be seen as a prod­uct of sci­en­tif­ic inquiry. In his terms that they’re net­worked, mean­ing that they stood or fell not on their strength or inher­ent verac­i­ty but on the strength of the insti­tu­tions and prac­tices that pro­duced them. And so, in a pan­el ses­sion that’s dis­cussing archi­tec­tur­al futures, I wan­na ask how we can address roles of our insti­tu­tions and prac­tices in shap­ing these future real­i­ties. So, Billy I think your exam­ple of ASLA Adapt is one ver­sion of that. Or Peggy, the CBIP Studio and Quilian Riano or… Daniel, this notion of dis­com­fort as a growth indus­try. Or Liliane, you know, the ques­tions of lol­ly­pop­ping or blue streets as pos­si­ble cul­tur­al prac­tices sur­round­ing these. And I won­der if you could maybe help us expand our vocab­u­lary about what social prac­tices design­ers, archi­tects, land­scape archi­tects, inte­ri­or adap­tive reuse archi­tects might use in these cas­es.

[long silence; laugh­ter]

Billy Fleming: That’s a real­ly hard ques­tion. I’m gonna try and…answer it, by not answer­ing it. So, rather than get­ting into spe­cif­ic cul­tur­al prac­tices I wan­na talk about maybe try­ing to place say like, ExxonMobil, McKinsey, and AECOM in the same con­ver­sa­tion. And I think it’s been real­ly inter­est­ing to watch the sort of come­up­pance of McKinsey, includ­ing just this week in a long New York Times piece, but I think peo­ple who did­n’t know a lot about the con­sult­ing firms sort of con­spir­ing activ­i­ties with sort of the worst actors the world has ever pro­duced, and that sort of chase of cap­i­tal and the sort of accu­mu­la­tion of wealth and pres­tige that McKinsey and oth­er glob­al con­sul­tants are known for. And I think about them, I think about Exxon, I think about AECOM… For folks who don’t know AECOM or are not design­ers in the room, this is the largest archi­tec­ture and engi­neer­ing firm in the world. They work in every coun­try, in addi­tion to build­ing like parks and water­fronts, they build pri­vate pris­ons, they build deten­tion cen­ters, they build all of the worst things that human­i­ty pro­duces.

And they all engage in a sim­i­lar set of prac­tices in the pur­suit of cap­i­tal, right. So Exxon, AECOM, McKinsey are also all giv­ing mon­ey to uni­ver­si­ties to laun­der their names, to pro­duce research, to pro­duce all of these oth­er things that help them con­tin­ue the sort of hege­mo­ny that they’ve sort of been wel­comed into and helped cre­ate and helped per­pet­u­ate. And I think you know, the lob­by has done a real­ly good job about sort of fram­ing the way that we might begin to refuse work? And I think in the acad­e­my, there’s a very active dis­cus­sion for peo­ple who are as extreme­ly online as I am, in the ener­gy and cli­mate world about fos­sil fuel-funded research. And you could extend that to AECOM and oth­er sort of fund­ed research that often schools like this are asked and invit­ed to do.

And I think there’s a real­ly disin­gen­u­ous set of argu­ments that, com­ing from the folks who take that kind of mon­ey, that we’re pro­duc­ing valid research in like, the very social sci­ence con­cep­tion of the word valid.” And so it should­n’t mat­ter that it’s fund­ed by Exxon, it should­n’t mat­ter that it’s fund­ed by AECOM or who­ev­er. And in fact like, that’s one of the most either disin­gen­u­ous or naïve fram­ings I could ever imag­ine because who the fuck cares if it’s social­ly, sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly valid, if the move­ments and the polit­i­cal world that you’re try­ing to serve don’t trust you or the research? And David Victor has become like the per­son in that world that every­one points to as you know, help­ing to lead the Paris talks, help­ing to pro­duce all of this oth­er very I think influ­en­tial cli­mate research with indus­try mon­ey. And I think many of the folks who are very ardent sup­port­ers of doing that kind of research, are also look­ing at him as maybe the first domi­no to fall…in a long set of domi­noes that includes them, whose work will no longer be con­sid­ered the sort of elite, pres­ti­gious kind of work that we all point to.

And so I think any­way, going back to the lob­by­ists like, I think…really com­pelling point about how we might think about refus­ing work in prac­tice. I think we all have some work to do think about how we refuse to con­spire with that kind of mon­ey in the work that we do, and it’s often very invis­i­ble, qui­et mon­ey. It flows into uni­ver­si­ty ener­gy and sus­tain­abil­i­ty cen­ters. And I think you know, it’s easy to say that we can only pro­duce cer­tain kinds of work if we take that kind of mon­ey. And that’s just fun­da­men­tal­ly not true. We’ve been approached and have rou­tine­ly turned it down, because we don’t feel com­fort­able doing the bid­ding of com­pa­nies like McKinsey and Exxon and AECOM.

Peggy Deamer: That was such an ele­gant response. So I feel like we should stop there. You know, I think that gives the big pic­ture.

What I think about in rela­tion­ship to your ques­tion but also this respons­es is, it’s not only that those organizations—including the sci­en­tif­ic organizations—are inter­est­ed in fund­ing in how they oper­ate with­in a market-driven econ­o­my and all of those things, but embed­ded in that is their own self-preservation. How do we as an orga­ni­za­tion make sure that we con­tin­ue. So they’re not ask­ing the big ques­tions, they’re ask­ing for self-preservation. So, even if they start out with good inten­tions, you know, in the end you build up the insti­tute, you build up the…pay for all those things. And then just to say you know, my feel­ing is that the AIA is an orga­ni­za­tion whose main job is one, to make archi­tects feel good about a bad sit­u­a­tion so that we’ll keep pay­ing our dues and keep doing the thing that we’ve done, begin­ning and end of sto­ry, and that’s real­ly self-preservation.

But also I think, you know that not just AIA but these oth­er insti­tu­tions that we’re think­ing about go beyond their own work to pro­duce ide­ol­o­gy, let’s just say it. And so ide­ol­o­gy in some way…capitalist ide­ol­o­gy is the thing that makes us as sub­jects feel like when we are doing some­thing that does­n’t have our own ratio­nal and sub­jec­tive [indis­tinct] in mind, that we will do it nev­er­the­less, you know, the rea­son that we will do things that we just know aren’t good for our­selves. And so, that…you know, I think the part of what we’re talk­ing about here is how insti­tu­tions play into an ide­ol­o­gy where we for exam­ple…absolute­ly we don’t ques­tion we have to be com­fort­able, that is just part of being human. No ques­tions asked. We don’t go beyond it. And you know, no ques­tions asked that I actu­al­ly have to have that sec­ond car or the top [indis­tinct]. I mean just we…we don’t ask, you know. Or no ques­tions asked that I as an archi­tect will take that job. Don’t real­ly believe in it. I should­n’t be doing pris­ons but my god, I have to feed the staff and do like—you know, all those things. So the insid­i­ous­ness with which all these things oper­ate go beyond the insti­tu­tions them­selves.

Daniel A. Barber: I’m gonna go back to your first ques­tion. Which is to say that I don’t real­ly believe in real­i­ty, right. And I think that— I’m try­ing to kin­da riff off also what was just being said, but I think part of what cli­mate jus­tice broad­ly framed has brought to the fore is the strat­i­fied nature of lived exis­tence around the plan­et, right. And I mean these are these are things that I’m assum­ing every­body in this room knows quite well, and whether we sort of fall back to the kind of end­less rep­e­ti­tion of William Gibson’s notion that the future is already here, it’s just uneven­ly dis­trib­uted, right? And of course, in the moment it was said, that was more about kind of some­day every­body will have cell phones. And now it’s more about kind of when do you start to retreat from the coasts, right. So it’s a dif­fer­ent sort of future that’s being imag­ined.

But I think to take real­ly seri­ous­ly that sort of premise that…and you know, kind of riff­ing off Latour of course, right, I mean, bring­ing that into the dis­cus­sion and his fab­u­lous new book Down to Earth, which kind of encour­ages some of this think­ing. You know, which is to say— I mean this is Negri too, this is so many of our impor­tant thinkers of the past few decades, that we are in the process of pro­duc­ing real­i­ty, right. And so this is not some exter­nal notion that we will then kind of shake hands with but that we in this room and cer­tain­ly we” is as ped­a­gogs and par­tic­i­pants in design edu­ca­tion, are in the process of con­struct­ing the real­i­ty of you know, not kind of the next cou­ple decades but tomor­row, right.

And so I think that kind of mil­i­tan­tism as Negri calls it of sort of rec­og­niz­ing one’s role in the pro­duc­tion of his­to­ry, right, and the kind of stream of his­tor­i­cal events I think is an impor­tant way to sort of con­cep­tu­al­ize real­i­ty and our capac­i­ty to in fact artic­u­late and enforce and defend and you know, even kind of fight for a spe­cif­ic ver­sion of real­i­ty, right. Which is to say that the Green New Deal and the con­flicts that have emerged around it are in effect argu­ments about sort of whose real­i­ty is more real, right. And I think that you know again, we’re sort of pre­sum­ably most of us in this room kind of on the same team there. But you know, it’s a pitched bat­tle. And it’s going to get more and more intense, right. So I think that kind of rec­og­niz­ing that we are kind of part of that process of the pro­duc­tion of real con­di­tions will be increas­ing­ly use­ful.

Muzaffar: Would you like to fol­low [indis­tinct]

Johanna Barthmaier-Payne: Thank you all very much. And I real­ly appre­ci­ate all of the exam­ples of what your stu­dents are doing in your aca­d­e­m­ic set­tings and how you guys are start­ing to approach these issues. And some­thing that I will hope to hear from you all is how do you see our stu­dents being able to exe­cute these sys­tems that you’re putting in place at a larg­er scale? How do you see our stu­dents being able to be edu­cat­ed to do that in the future?

Barber: Well I’ll just do briefly. I mean I love being embar­rassed by my stu­dents, right. I mean they’re always…I mean—you know it’s kin­da become a trope for that— And what did some­body call it, the Greta Generation or some­thing, right? That they are all kind of implic­it­ly so much fur­ther ahead in a lot of this thing— I mean quite direct­ly on this ques­tion of real­i­ty, right, I mean the kind of terms that they are kind of accept­ing and reject­ing often exceed all of the kind of care­ful thought som­er­saults that we try to do to sort of get some­where.

But I think you know…in the kind of straight­for­ward way of…you know, a lot of what my ped­a­gog­i­cal project has been over the past decade or so is effec­tive­ly artic­u­lat­ing a dif­fer­ent his­to­ry of the field of archi­tec­ture in par­tic­u­lar and it’s ten­drils around land­scape and else­where, to just recon­struct a notion of what that his­to­ry is, what that past has become so as to con­cep­tu­al­ize dif­fer­ent futures, right. And so, plac­ing our­selves again in the present across this broad­er stream of his­tor­i­cal devel­op­ments and giv­ing stu­dents the con­cep­tu­al tools and also the sort of his­tor­i­cal data­base, if you will, in order to con­struct a dif­fer­ent sense of iden­ti­ty of what a design­er does?, right, and how that has changed over time and will con­tin­ue to change over time.

Muzaffar: Liliane, would you like to, in a few short—student work more direct­ly? Would you…

Liliane Wong: I think giv­en the expe­ri­ence we’ve had in our depart­ment with quite a few spon­sored projects where we’re work­ing right on the ground, it is a huge leap for our stu­dents to step away from the thirteen-week semes­ter that we have and those twenty-six class­es that we have in stu­dio with them to focus on oth­er ques­tions. So for exam­ple with Projecting Change, we spent an enor­mous amount of time not try­ing to cut anoth­er sec­tion, which is prob­a­bly incom­pre­hen­si­ble to those who we hope would see our designs, but rather ask­ing them to do some­thing that I think that a typ­i­cal archi­tec­tur­al edu­ca­tion would not nec­es­sar­i­ly focus on.

But I think that to—and from my own back­ground, it was a huge leap, it was a gigan­tic stum­ble from acad­e­mia into the real world when my employ­er said, Well. You know, you did­n’t learn a sin­gle thing we real­ly need you to do.” Which was great. But I think that because we have an issue of great urgency, design edu­ca­tion is going to have to grab that chal­lenge of how those thir­teen weeks and the twenty-six stu­dio class­es that we have take on a dif­fer­ent way? to get our stu­dents out in the same amount of time and jump­ing right in on the ground.

Muzaffar: Peggy, you showed us as exam­ple of Columbia’s stu­dio which was sort of spread out over… So I was think­ing per­haps, I mean these studios—we think in stu­dio terms. Could there be oth­er mod­els of con­tin­u­ing in that stretch­ing and…you know, the cur­ricu­lum, along dif­fer­ent years, a stu­dent them­self devel­op­ing exper­tise and knowl­edge?

Deamer: Yeah, I mean just to focus on the fact that they had to break through that first year, sec­ond year, advanced stu­dio mod­el, you know. And insti­tu­tion­al­ly what that took for the three orga­niz­ers of that to do that in and of itself is an indi­ca­tion of how we need to break through insti­tu­tion­al rigid­i­ty around these things, whether that’s the cur­ricu­lum with­in archi­tec­ture or break­ing across in an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary round. But I think you’re ask­ing about how that actu­al­ly then con­tin­ues beyond edu­ca­tion.

Muzaffar: Yeah.

Deamer: And in some way that has to do with two things, I think. With oth­er kinds of… Oh I hate to say this word but, degrees, you know, where you can con­tin­ue to do this whether that’s con­struc­tion man­age­ment, or what­ev­er, or whether that’s inter­op­er­abil­i­ty or IPD, BIM exper­tise, so that one can con­tin­ue that. But it also means that we need to change prac­tice such that when you go into prac­tice you’re still learn­ing. This divide that we all feel like, between acad­e­mia, which is the only place we can do research into it and where we can do these exper­i­ments, and then you go into the real world and it’s imple­ment­ed, is a real prob­lem. And I’ll just say Sweden is an exam­ple where the gov­ern­ment gives grants to firms so that with­in a firm peo­ple can con­tin­ue to do research that is in some way inde­pen­dent of that fir­m’s work, but still is in some way under­stood to fur­ther the firm in terms of their break­ing out of their own habits and what­ev­er in terms of how you relate to con­trac­tors, in terms of how you pro­cure the mate­ri­als you’re doing. So we need to have a whole dif­fer­ent gov­ern­ment sys­tem, I think, in order to real­ly effec­tive­ly answer that ques­tion in a good way.

Fleming: Yeah. So I would say I get asked this ques­tion a lot, these days, by like the var­i­ous edu­ca­tion and schol­ar­ly insti­tu­tions that kind of like, over­see all of us in some way? And it always strikes me that it’s typ­i­cal­ly— I mean I love my senior col­leagues but it’s like a room full of senior col­leagues ask­ing their senior col­leagues like, how to do the things the young folks in their pro­gram are demand­ing of them.

And there are many answers to that ques­tion, prob­a­bly the first one is to like ask the young peo­ple in their pro­gram what they’re miss­ing. Which is…I think we’ve tried to do. My stu­dents are back there, they’ll tell you the stu­dio been kind of a hot mess, so it’s not like per­fect. But one of the things that we’re often asked to do in the MLA pro­gram espe­cial­ly at Penn, because there’s almost no read­ing, no account­abil­i­ty for read­ing and dis­cus­sion, is to spend a lot of time in a sort of joint sem­i­nar stu­dio envi­ron­ment where we spend the first six or eight weeks of the semes­ter doing close read­ing and dis­cus­sion of his­to­ry, of soci­ol­o­gy, of polit­i­cal the­o­ry, of all things—all the tools—they feel like they need that they don’t get in a typ­i­cal stu­dio envi­ron­ment and maybe even in the entire cur­ricu­lum, at least at Penn.

And the oth­er has been I think through the stu­dio, through some of the pro­gram­ming we’ve cho­sen to do, because I get to put on a cou­ple of events every semes­ter through the McHarg Center and some of the oth­er things we’re involved in, is to force us into spaces with peo­ple we would like, nor­mal­ly not be in spaces with. And if you look at the line­up for the Designing a Green New Deal event in September, I think Peggy is right, one of the things that urban design­ers sort of said after they left was like, Oh, there’s no design work. Where’s the urban design brief,” which is like, the most annoy­ing com­ment I could ever imag­ine because urban design, and design in gen­er­al, tends to put itself at the cen­ter of every con­ver­sa­tion. And so of course the first ques­tion they ask is like, Where’s the work for me in this? Like, what do I tell my busi­ness devel­op­ment offi­cer?”

But for us, we were far more inter­est­ed in putting peo­ple who were actu­al­ly plow­ing the ter­rain that’s allow­ing a con­ver­sa­tion about the Green New Deal to be pos­si­ble on a stage. And if we did­n’t talk about like, the spe­cif­ic design instru­ments and oper­a­tions, and like the con­tract nego­ti­a­tion process, that was per­fect­ly fine with me, if only because it forced them to I think devel­op rela­tion­ships and have a con­ver­sa­tion with move­ment lead­ers that would oth­er­wise nev­er be a part of an elite design school who were also very wary, right­ful­ly so, of elite design schools which have treat­ed peo­ple and places like that like shit for a real­ly long time.

Muzaffar: I’m tak­ing the segue away from young peo­ple…towards young peo­ple, I mean. I’d like to open the ques­tions to the audi­ence if— Especially the stu­dents.


Audience 1: Hello. Thank you. One of the through­lines through a lot of dis­cus­sion has to do with actu­al­ly trans­paren­cy, in my view. And I’m curi­ous how in these var­i­ous projects that you’ve talked about and these var­i­ous fram­ings that you’ve talked about, how you can engage peo­ple you know, like…me. I work on the ground in low-income com­mu­ni­ties around the world. And a lot of what you’re say­ing has two kind of prob­lems for me. It’s like you know, there’s the trope of you have now devel­oped and now you’re telling us we can’t. Which I guess I don’t need to explain. And the other…you know, a lot of the stuff that you’re talk­ing about is inac­ces­si­ble to us in terms of the tech­nol­o­gy, and even the lan­guage. And so…I mean, I think I under­stand what you’re say­ing. But you know, there are a lot of peo­ple I work with who I wor­ry that they don’t. And so I’m wor­ried about that too. Thank you. Could you address that?

Muzaffar: That’s an excel­lent ques­tion. And it’s open to— Yeah let’s take one or two oth­ers.

So the ques­tion of trans­la­tion in some sense, but also to me sounds like…it’s not a ques­tion that the peo­ple on stage have knowl­edge, there’s also knowl­edge on the ground, right. But then we don’t have means to inter­com­mu­ni­cate, or to find a com­mon lan­guage one can say, but also to trans­late back and forth, right? One more, please.

Audience 2: Speaking about like, real­i­ties and dif­fer­ent ver­sions of real­i­ty, we all… I think it’s very easy to speak about this work with­in this con­text where we’re all here due to shared val­ues, and we can to a cer­tain extent I agree and sup­port each oth­er’s work because we under­stand it with­in this real­i­ty. But speak­ing to peo­ple beyond that and to cor­po­ra­tions and indus­tries that already exist, how do you have those con­ver­sa­tions and invite them into your real­i­ty? Or is that even pos­si­ble? Or does your work have to exist by itself and like, work as an exam­ple?

Muzaffar: Okay, both hard ques­tions. So, go for it.

Damian White: A quick wrap-up.

Muzaffar: Who wants to…

Barber: Hook in quick­ly on the first ques­tion, which I think is a cru­cial one and real­ly in a way kind of the ques­tion of our con­tem­po­rary chal­lenge, which is you know pre­cise­ly how to mod­el a future, a sort of con­cep­tion of devel­op­ment,” which I’ll put in quotes, right. That it tends to…precisely the dynam­ic you played out, that kind of the North has devel­oped but now the South can’t, right. And so part of why I’ve been try­ing to work out through this research is the sort of frame­work of design for dis­com­fort, which is pre­cise­ly to sug­gest that kind of com­fort becomes its own sort of cur­ren­cy that can be redis­trib­uted, right. And so pre­cise­ly to begin to gain knowl­edge, and there’s a sort of broad­er grant pro­pos­al out there that you know, may or may not get fund­ed, but to work with indi­vid­u­als, design­ers, and oth­ers in non-industrialized areas to under­stand the terms by which they have defined and devel­oped modes of liv­ing that are rel­e­vant beyond those spe­cif­ic regions, right. So it’s in effect to bring knowl­edge from the South”, if you will and I’m not being too schemat­ic here, bring knowl­edge from the South to the North, right, in terms of respect­ing those forms of knowl­edge and under­stand­ing how those forms of knowl­edge will trans­form the lives of all of us in places such as Rhode Island, right, while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly under­stand­ing how that kind of redis­tri­b­u­tion of ther­mal cur­ren­cy or sort of car­bon cur­ren­cy can be redis­trib­uted back down South, right.

So it’s to say devel­op­ing a dif­fer­ent sort of knowl­edge net­work that respects that type of knowl­edge base and kind of on-the-ground work in a very dif­fer­ent way than we have hereto­fore on his­tor­i­cal terms and con­tem­po­rary terms and beyond.

Muzaffar: Anyone else would like to jump in on that, or the oth­er ques­tion? Whichever.

Deamer: Yeah. Just quick­ly I mean, kind of around the sec­ond ques­tion if I under­stood it cor­rect­ly is like, how do we invite oth­er insti­tu­tions that aren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly our own into the con­ver­sa­tion. And my feel­ing isn’t invit­ing them in, it’s like, we need to make sure that we’re invit­ed there. My feel­ing about archi­tec­ture is that even though I said at the end that the com­mu­ni­ties are say­ing archi­tects help us,” the gen­er­al sense is that the world thinks that archi­tects are self-serving, expen­sive, lim­it­ed in their abil­i­ty to lis­ten, and aes­thetes and effete, you know, and…rich them­selves.

So we have to do a lot of work to prove to the pub­lic the we actu­al­ly should be allowed into those doors. And that’s a whole rethink­ing prob­a­bly what this talk is about, about what we rep­re­sent as a group of design­ers. That we deserve… No…don’t deserve. That’s wrong. That we want to do more than we are now insti­tu­tion­al­ly con­struct­ed to do. And so, there’s work before that work.

White: Okay, should we leave it on that beau­ti­ful note? Yeah? So can we have one more round of applause, please.

Okay, so for rea­sons of time, as usu­al. We can’t keep any­thing to time here. Could we have a five-minute break, and then we are com­ing back to talk about racial cap­i­tal­ism and designs for ener­gy tran­si­tion, with the amaz­ing Myles Lennon, Shalanda Baker, and Jacqui Patterson. So, please come back. It’s going to be full of good social sci­ence.

Further Reference

Climate Futures II event page


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.