Peggy Deamer: Hi. I too real­ly want to thank Damian for this invi­ta­tion, and it’s an hon­or to be includ­ed in this fab­u­lous group and this amaz­ing dis­cus­sion. I feel like I learned much more than I than I give. So I look for­ward to this day. 

So just to say, the work that I’m doing is very much part of the work of The Architecture Lobby, for which I am the research coor­di­na­tor. And so I want to acknowl­edge very much their work. Some of the things I’m going to say don’t rep­re­sent every­thing that The Architecture Lobby sug­gests, but def­i­nite­ly the think­ing and the work is very much a group effort, even if I drag them into a direc­tion that they may not want to go. 

But just to say I think that most of you know that there was an event at Penn that was orga­nized by Billy Fleming, Daniel Cohen, and Kate Aronoff. We saw the pic­ture with Naomi Klein as part of that event. And at that event I was real­ly pri­mar­i­ly argu­ing for the fact that as archi­tects we need to orga­nize. We do not need to pri­mar­i­ly give a vision of a design future to which we have no respon­si­bil­i­ty and no knowl­edge, and where we actu­al­ly think archi­tects might lead that dis­cus­sion. We need to orga­nize so that we can speak as a unit­ed voice. I real­ly believe in that. 

But I do want to sug­gest that, after that there was a lot of dis­cus­sion about the lack of talk about design in that. And so in some way I want to build on that dis­cus­sion and kind of revise the top­ic of my talk today to real­ly insert design and think through design as an orga­ni­za­tion­al but also as a spa­tial act. 

So this talk will be divid­ed into three dif­fer­ent parts. One is Organizing Designers, the sec­ond is Defining Design, and the third is Designing Citizenship, archi­tec­tur­al citizenship. 

So for the first, Organizing Designers, in some way this is a repeat in a very col­lapsed way of what I real­ly do want to empha­size and which was talked about at Penn. And to real­ly kind of empha­size that what we don’t want to do is sug­gest if we talk about design or you know, think about our work as what I would con­sid­er to be the kind of self-serving idea, or self-satisfied and self-aggrandizing and I think very mis­lead­ing idea of many archi­tects and design­ers about what they are con­tribut­ing to the Green New Deal and the sus­tain­able move­ment. This was a recent pro­mo­tion in Architectural Record, you know, and this was just one of the many projects that then was shown about this new ide­al­ism, the action­able ide­al­ism by this par­tic­u­lar designer. 

So in lieu of this I want to be talk­ing about and orga­niz­ing design­ers in two dif­fer­ent ways. One is reform­ing prac­tice and labor, and the oth­er is redefin­ing resilien­cy and tech­nol­o­gy. In some way what these two things are doing sets off some­thing that I think is impor­tant all the way through, which is if we’re try­ing to refor­mu­late how archi­tects behave and can par­tic­i­pate mean­ing­ful­ly in chang­ing our prac­tice and chang­ing the way we actu­al­ly oper­ate in the world, one is to inter­nal­ly reor­ga­nize our sense of archi­tec­ture with­in the AEC indus­try and with­in the build­ing indus­try. So it’s an inter­nal reor­ga­ni­za­tion, and that’s what the reform prac­tice and labor” is about. But the oth­er is a rethink­ing about how we engage with the pub­lic, with the out­side world. You know, kind of an exter­nal rethink­ing, and that is what the redefin­ing resilience and tech­nol­o­gy is about so. 

So, for reform­ing prac­tice and labor, I want to empha­size and I’m going to go through this quick­ly, but I real­ly real­ly want to sug­gest how impor­tant these quick bul­let points are. So, if we actu­al­ly are think­ing about a new prac­tice and a new idea of archi­tec­tur­al labor, we need to union­ize. No ques­tion about it. 

The sec­ond is we need to work with and realign with the con­struc­tion unions. And here I real­ly do hon­or Damian’s work in just tran­si­tions. But if we don’t union­ize our­selves and speak as a unit­ed voice, we are not going to be able to work with and rethink and realign with the con­struc­tion indus­tries that are bor­der­line in their com­mit­ment to the Green New Deal to say the least. We need to coop­er­a­tivize instead of com­pet­ing against each oth­er for a small pie, and for again a mis­lead­ing sense of what it means to do green work.” We need to coop­er­a­tivize togeth­er so that we think about our shared research, our shared knowl­edge, and our shared impact. This is not the moment where we com­pete against each oth­er and see oth­er firms as the ene­my, the ene­my is actu­al­ly the cri­sis that is at hand.

And last­ly we need to insert pro­to­cols that derail the market-driven shap­ing of the human envi­ron­ment. That’s the large project and we need to think about that as the ulti­mate goal.

For redefin­ing resilien­cy and tech­nol­o­gy you know, again this is how we need to kind of not just inter­nal­ly reor­ga­nize but rethink our project with­in the pub­lic. You know, archi­tects’ role with­in the pub­lic. We need to reimag­ine resilien­cy and its pro­cure­ment at all scale, which means not think­ing about LEEDs what­so­ev­er, but also I think as Billy Fleming and his fab­u­lous arti­cle that he referred to here, we can’t think about this as a series of com­pe­ti­tions for grants for a small pie, when in fact we need to be orga­niz­ing the gov­ern­ment. The state should be doing the work, not com­pet­ing archi­tec­ture firms for a small piece. 

We need to embrace decar­boniza­tion as a social jus­tice issue and not as a tech­no­log­i­cal issue. We need to bridge between com­mu­ni­ties and pol­i­cy­mak­ers to pro­mote just tran­si­tions. We need to make sure that every­body who is affect­ed by this work is at the table; this is a demo­c­ra­t­ic process. Again, this is a large part of what makes the Green New Deal so dif­fer­ent from oth­er dis­cus­sions about sus­tain­abil­i­ty and cli­mate change. And we need to devel­op mod­els for large-scale adap­tive reuse and retro­fitting of buildings. 

So then to move on to the sec­ond part, which is defin­ing or redefin­ing design. And part of that is real­ly to think about design in a sys­temic way. We can real­ly think about a rede­f­i­n­i­tion of design that is in some way a blue­print that under­stands where we are in a very very com­plex sys­tem, and part of that com­plex sys­tem is neolib­er­al­ism and cer­tain­ly cap­i­tal­ism itself. We’re not doing our work if we under­stand our­selves as hav­ing a defined task with­in our par­tic­u­lar dis­ci­pline that has for­mal design as its call­ing. We can no longer do that.

So, again I want to kind of empha­size that there are two parts of this. We’re try­ing to change the nature of archi­tec­tur­al design and what it does. The first is what I would be call­ing diachron­i­cal­ly, which is under­stand the work of archi­tec­tur­al design over a tem­po­ral peri­od. But that’s with­in the dis­ci­pline, so we no longer think of design as giv­en a pro­gram, design­ing it, hand­ing it off, hav­ing it built, tak­ing a pic­ture and going good­bye.” It’s a much longer process. But that’s one that real­ly makes us think dif­fer­ent­ly about our prac­tice inter­nal to the discipline.

But the oth­er is syn­chron­i­cal­ly, which is to under­stand how struc­tural­ly, we are embed­ded with­in a much larg­er sys­tem of pow­er, eco­nom­ics, social norms, with­in which we need to be think­ing about. 

So, just think­ing diachron­i­cal­ly, I think this is all kind of very obvi­ous. But if we’re try­ing to think about design as not just a six-month [indis­tinct] that we do on our boards but some­thing that tru­ly under­stands where our resources come from, the embed­ded car­bon foot­print, but also the labor that’s involved in many of the prod­ucts that we think are actu­al­ly ben­e­fi­cial. This is just an an image of cobalt extrac­tion that hap­pens in Africa. And when we think of our smart phones that rely on cobalt, we need to think about the labor extrac­tion and abet­ted ener­gy, way way way at the front end of our design process before we actu­al­ly put pen­cil to paper. This is an app that is designed by Kieran Timberlake called Tally that allows us dur­ing the design process to under­stand many of those conditions.

So this is at the front end of the design process. At the back and we also need to under­stand post-occupancy. And as long as the pub­lic, the world thinks that we walk away when our build­ings get built and have tak­en our pic­ture, it’s a prob­lem. And one of the things that I think we might think about is not giv­ing any design awards what­so­ev­er until we’re five or ten years out. I have this image here of the Gherkin, Foster’s build­ing that won a Sterling Design Award in 2004. And with­in five years we knew that all of its claims for sus­tain­abil­i­ty were basi­cal­ly untrue. So we need a much longer time­frame to see what’s up front and what’s at the oth­er end of our process. 

Synchronically, and again kind of under­stand­ing where our work is with­in a larg­er net­work, one of the things that archi­tects can do when we’re think­ing about a rede­f­i­n­i­tion of design is pow­er map­ping. And I have an exam­ple here. These are just two images of mul­ti­ple ones that were put togeth­er by the Bay Area chap­ter of The Architecture Lobby. This is Ashton Hamm, Alice Armstrong, and Meghan McAllister’s work that is real­ly try­ing to under­stand exact­ly how hous­ing, afford­able hous­ing, is brought to the fore and how dif­fer­ent pow­er play­ers oper­ate with­in that sys­tem, and then try­ing to reimag­ine how archi­tects could insert them­selves in a dif­fer­ent process. So pow­er map­ping is one. 

But the same group of peo­ple, again in their work on afford­able hous­ing in the Bay Area, were doing a map­ping of where peo­ple work ver­sus where peo­ple live. And again this is just two maps that iden­ti­fy the infor­ma­tion work­ers, but they did it on ser­vice work­ers and they did it on con­struc­tion work­ers, that actu­al­ly shows exact­ly the dif­fer­ence between what a kind of dream idea of a life is and a dream job is in rela­tion­ship to the dif­fi­cul­ty of where you’re gonna actu­al­ly live and be able to afford in order to do that work. So again, we can talk about mapping—I’m call­ing this dis­place­ment mapping—but that again is part of the work of what a rede­f­i­n­i­tion of design for archi­tec­ture might be. 

So then the last thing that I want to talk about is Designing Citizenship. You know, which is to say design does have a role with­in acad­e­mia, and how we teach design in acad­e­mia in some way sets us up to be the archi­tec­tur­al cit­i­zens that will actu­al­ly do the work that we are call­ing for and that the first two parts of this talk have been and done. You have to cre­ate that cit­i­zen who knows that that work is impor­tant, who knows how to for­mu­late it, and is com­mit­ted to that work. This is the role of the econ­o­my, and it’s not hap­pen­ing now.

So again I think there are two ways of think­ing about that cre­ation of the archi­tec­tur­al cit­i­zen and the role of the econ­o­my. One is again to kind of rethink how we under­stand what it means to be an archi­tect with­in the larg­er indus­try, how we relate to con­struc­tion, how we think about research. But the oth­er is then how we actu­al­ly cre­ate an archi­tec­tur­al cit­i­zen who goes out into the pub­lic and thinks about their role and thinks about design in the capac­i­ty of a con­ver­sa­tion with the public. 

So very quick­ly, for the first one where we’re design­ing the kind of archi­tec­tur­al cit­i­zen, this is a project that I com­plete­ly admire. I want to say both these projects that I’m going to show are way before the Green New Deal. They don’t actu­al­ly demon­strate how we edu­cate for the Green New Deal. I do think Billy Fleming’s stu­dio is very much doing that. I look for­ward to see­ing the result of that work. But I think this is an exam­ple of how to rethink what a stu­dio looks like so that we’re pre­pared to do that work. 

This is a stu­dio that was called C‑BIP. C‑BIP is [Columbia Building Intelligence Project]. And it was unusu­al in as much as it com­bined a num­ber of things. One, they saw this as hap­pen­ing over three dif­fer­ent years, and so this was­n’t the nor­mal do this in your advanced stu­dio” where you do it for one semes­ter. They orga­nized it so the stu­dents can come in ear­ly on and over their three years at Columbia work on this. It took three crit­ics. They came togeth­er so they had a much larg­er group. That’s what allowed them to actu­al­ly have a larg­er impact with­in the school itself. But they also saw the stu­dio embed­ded with­in what they called the Think Tank exer­cise. And so they held three Think Tanks every year, with­in which the stu­dio was embedded. 

The way that stu­dio was run was inter­est­ing, which was that indi­vid­ual students—again in these three groups—were asked to design a par­tic­u­lar ele­ment that would in some way help the sus­tain­abil­i­ty and the health of exist­ing build­ings. So two inter­est­ing things about that. It was a com­po­nent, it was­n’t a build­ing; and the build­ings were exist­ing build­ings, so they weren’t design­ing exist­ing build­ings. So they designed those ele­ments, and then those ele­ments allowed dif­fer­ent stu­dents to find strate­gies that they would apply to exist­ing build­ings in New York. 

So for exam­ple these are some of the ele­ments that the indi­vid­ual stu­dents designed that had to do with facade work, had to do with ven­ti­la­tion, had to do with how you can actu­al­ly use the facade to grow things, how you can have smart facades. These were all indi­vid­ual students. 

But again those ele­ments, after they com­bined togeth­er to work in a group and left that indi­vid­ual design work, worked in a group to think about com­bin­ing those strate­gies togeth­er on an indi­vid­ual build­ing. Which then looks some­thing like this. Those stu­dents had to come togeth­er— But one of the things that was inter­est­ing is that those orig­i­nal com­po­nents that came with a kind of oper­a­tion man­u­al, when those ele­ments were com­bined in dif­fer­ent strate­gies they had to be mod­i­fied. And so the stu­dents then had to go back to the orig­i­nal own­ers and like an IP con­tract argue for and rewrite the man­u­al so that those com­po­nent pieces could be changed. So in some way it’s a very inter­est­ing mod­el about how one needs to work as a group, but also think about the design as not about a new build­ing but actu­al­ly retro­fitting healthy build­ings and see­ing your design ele­ments in oth­er ways.

The sec­ond one that I’m going to look at here, and this will be the end, is again a stu­dio that was done at Parsons. This was led by a group called Design Agency which is real­ly Quilian Riano’s work. This was a project that he had a grant to do but he was teach­ing this as a stu­dio also at Parsons. And this again is kind of teach­ing the archi­tec­tur­al cit­i­zen to engage with the pub­lic and think about design as an aspect that allows you to com­mu­ni­cate with the public. 

So this was a project in Corona Plaza. And it basi­cal­ly start­ed out with what he called Action 1, which was dia­gram­ming and map­ping, and this was get­ting the peo­ple in the Corona area to think about what mat­tered to them, what func­tions there were, who was allowed in spaces, who was­n’t allowed in spaces, who had pri­or­i­ty. And this was done as group work, so dia­gram­ming and mapping. 

The sec­ond was to have a shared game where the peo­ple of Corona Plaza would begin to par­tic­i­pate in the nego­ti­a­tions of how you real­ly cre­ate a com­mons. If you do this, who’s exclud­ed? If you do that who’s exclud­ed? How do you come togeth­er? So it was lit­er­al­ly a game that peo­ple brought to the orga­ni­za­tion. Here they are play­ing that game, doing the map­ping of that game, think­ing again about the give and take of what that con­ver­sa­tion is like. 

And again, that then yield­ing some­thing that is actu­al­ly built in the Corona Plaza, which itself was in some way a pub­lic event that invit­ed the pub­lic to come, but was also kind of at a scaled role a map of all of the con­stituents and all the dif­fer­ent com­po­nents that real­ly come togeth­er when one is think­ing about mak­ing a pub­lic space. 

So let me stop here, but I want­ed to say that one of the things that I have been most struck by as I par­tic­i­pate in these var­i­ous Green New Deal symposia—Penn, then there was one at the Queens Museum which was an event that was orga­nized by Reinhold Martin in the dis­trict that AOC was a part of—was very much hear­ing how bottom-up groups one, are the ones that we need to be pay­ing atten­tion to, that this is not pri­mar­i­ly a top-down thing but if we real­ly are think­ing about just tran­si­tions it’s a bottom-up. But that bottom-up com­mu­ni­ties are beg­ging archi­tects to be at the table. Part of me resists this idea that they think that we’re going to visu­al­ize their future for them, which I think is irre­spon­si­ble. But I very much under­stand the call­ing that we need to work with­in the com­mu­ni­ties in order to do exact­ly this kind of work. 

So again, I want to sug­gest that the main thing that we need to be doing is work­ing as a dis­ci­pline, as a pro­fes­sion, as a uni­fied voice, so that we sit at the table of pol­i­cy­mak­ing and are believed as not just ambulance-chasers for work for our­selves but as peo­ple with knowl­edge and what­ev­er embed­ded­ness in the com­mu­ni­ty, and our design exper­tise with­in the com­mu­ni­ty is absolute­ly essen­tial. Thank you.

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.