Liliane Wong: Good morn­ing. And I want to thank Damian for invit­ing me to his jam­boree. I believe I prob­a­bly fit into the line­up because of our focus in the depart­ment on adap­tive reuse. And so today I’m going to switch scales from the oth­er pre­sen­ters and show you a project of one of our grad­u­ate pro­grams which is not so much about design and the pow­er of our designs, but rather about help­ing those who we need to include in design for HR 109 to go for­ward. So, it is about con­vinc­ing the non-architects to give a damn about sea lev­el rise. 

In many ways the con­tem­po­rary rela­tion­ship of cli­mate change and adap­tive reuse can be traced to the ear­ly 2000s. In addi­tion to oth­er find­ings of that time, build­ings were deemed respon­si­ble for almost 40% of the annu­al glob­al green­house gas emis­sions. Organizations such as Architecture 2030 and their chal­lenge for the build­ing indus­try to reach net zero includ­ed a con­sid­er­a­tion of the exist­ing build­ing stock. The recog­ni­tion that two thirds of the two and a half tril­lion square feet of build­ings that exist today will still exist in 2050 set the stage for Carl Elefante, future pres­i­dent of the American Institute of Architects to make his 2007 state­ment that the green­est build­ing is one that is already built. 

The ped­a­gogy of INTAR, or the Department of Interior Architecture at RISD focus­es on exact­ly that, build­ings that are already built. And while the reuse of exist­ing struc­tures has been with us since time immemo­r­i­al, its pro­fes­sion­al recog­ni­tion as adap­tive reuse did not come about until the first decades of the mil­len­ni­um, through the advo­ca­cy of those such as Elefante. A recent study of the National Trust finds that it takes ten to eight years for a new build­ing that is 30% more effi­cient than an aver­age per­form­ing exist­ing build­ing to over­come through effi­cient oper­a­tions the neg­a­tive cli­mate change impacts relat­ed to the con­struc­tion process.

As the antithe­sis of demol­ish­ing, the act of reusing an exist­ing build­ing is a com­mit­ment not only to the envi­ron­ment but to the many embed­ded his­to­ries and social con­texts of that struc­ture. The cou­pling of envi­ron­men­tal con­cerns with social ones is a char­ac­ter­is­tic that adap­tive reuse prac­tice shares with the Green New Deal. The pas­sage of HR 109 in the near future will depend on many fac­tors, includ­ing pub­lic opin­ion on cli­mate change. A sur­vey tak­en a few months after the intro­duc­tion of the Green New Deal indi­cat­ed what we all know, espe­cial­ly in an elec­tion sea­son. And that is that cli­mate poli­cies vary by polit­i­cal party. 

But, par­ti­san­ship aside, the Pew Research sur­vey showed us two impor­tant pieces of infor­ma­tion. First that 49% of all US adults believe that poli­cies aimed at reduc­ing the effects of glob­al cli­mate change gen­er­al­ly either do more harm than good to the envi­ron­ment, or make no dif­fer­ence. Second, that 60% of all US adults believe that poli­cies aimed at reduc­ing the effects of glob­al cli­mate change gen­er­al­ly hurt or make no dif­fer­ence to the US econ­o­my. A suc­cess­ful pas­sage of the Green New Deal requires a sea change of such attitudes. 

Sea and change are the sub­jects of a project I would like to share with you today. Sponsored by the Van Buren Foundation and the Newport Restoration Foundation, Projecting Change was part our post-professional MA in Adaptive Reuse pro­gram. It was inspired by the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which turned Newport, Rhode Island into a lake. Since then, Newport’s old­est neigh­bor­hood, The Point, and our site, floods from the storm surge of every heavy rainfall. 

Built on grade and char­ac­ter­ized by close-set two-story hous­es, the 17th cen­tu­ry neigh­bor­hood lacks preser­va­tion guide­lines for flood man­age­ment. Without such reg­u­la­tions, those who can afford to raise their homes any­where from three feet to six feet above ground do so, and with­out regard for its impact on their close to 400 year-old neigh­bor­hood and their neighbors. 

This action cre­at­ed a phe­nom­e­non, termed lol­ly­pop­ping, which changes the char­ac­ter­is­tic of the his­toric com­mu­ni­ty. The objec­tive of our stu­dio was two-fold. The first was to pro­pose inclu­sive alter­na­tives for this his­toric com­mu­ni­ty as they look into a future with sea lev­el rise. With this first objec­tive in mind, the stu­dio exam­ined the term preser­va­tion,” clas­si­cal­ly defined by James Marston Fitch as the main­te­nance of the arti­fact in the same phys­i­cal con­di­tion as when it was received by the cura­to­r­i­al agency. Nothing is added to or sub­tract­ed from the aes­thet­ic cor­pus of the artifact.

Of five total projects in the stu­dio, four rein­ter­pret­ed this def­i­n­i­tion. Accepting that the Point neigh­bor­hood could not be main­tained in its present loca­tion in ris­ing seas, the project Memory Trace chose to retreat as a strat­e­gy. Assuming future inun­da­tion, the project relo­cates the neigh­bor­hood to high­er ground but leaves a memo­r­i­al con­sist­ing of the cast facades of the hous­es them­selves. This pro­pos­al main­tains Fitch’s require­ments for the phys­i­cal build­ings, but on a dif­fer­ent site. 

In con­trast, Grey, Green, and Blue uses an expan­sive strat­e­gy of both defense and adap­ta­tion in order to main­tain the Point neigh­bor­hood in its his­toric moment and in situ. A break­wa­ter is pro­posed to defend the com­mu­ni­ty, a wire­less sys­tem of blue streets and reten­tion ponds are cre­at­ed for accom­mo­dat­ing the water over time. 

Living with Water employed more exper­i­men­tal means to main­tain the neigh­bor­hood exact­ly as it was. Assuming ris­ing waters, the project pro­posed to replace all exist­ing build­ing and infra­struc­tur­al foun­da­tions with buoy­ant ones. Tethered in place, each house would rise and fall in place, and togeth­er with the water as it ris­es over time. 

Upstruct instead pro­pos­es to update Fitch’s def­i­n­i­tion of preser­va­tion in the face of cli­mate change. It posits that if the his­toric com­mu­ni­ty as we know it today is premised on a hor­i­zon­tal con­fig­u­ra­tion on land, why not rede­fine this rela­tion­ship through a con­fig­u­ra­tion defined by the water. Upstruct offered a new ver­ti­cal grid that main­tains the rela­tion­ships of the his­toric hous­es to each oth­er, but through a dif­fer­ent axis. And in this case the Z. 

These solu­tions take The Point togeth­er as a com­mu­ni­ty into the future, but they did so as draw­ings, mod­els, and ren­der­ings that priv­i­lege those who under­stand such representation.

The sec­ond objec­tive of our stu­dio was to make these designs for sea lev­el rise acces­si­ble to all mem­bers of the com­mu­ni­ty, many of whom in an ini­tial inter­view cor­rob­o­rat­ed the find­ings of the Pew sur­vey. And I should say that this sec­ond objec­tive real­ly was the pri­ma­ry objec­tive of our sponsors. 

To achieve the sec­ond objec­tive, we used both vir­tu­al and aug­ment­ed real­i­ty to dis­play the four projects to the cit­i­zens. With aug­ment­ed real­i­ty mark­ers placed around the neigh­bor­hood, mem­bers of the com­mu­ni­ty were able to see right on their phones the streets turn­ing blue, reten­tion ponds spread­ing into their gar­dens, or their house fly­ing into an upstruct con­fig­u­ra­tion. Visualization of this form allowed neigh­bors from mid­dle school­ers to octo­ge­nar­i­ans to final­ly see what sea lev­el rise might look like for their imme­di­ate surroundings. 

The fifth project in the stu­dio did not take on ris­ing seas through designs. Rather, using aug­ment­ed real­i­ty a game was cre­at­ed with the neigh­bor­hood as its game board, and the sav­ing of one’s home as its objec­tive. With one’s home as the game piece, a team of play­ers col­lab­o­rat­ed against a count­down to put the inter­ven­tions in place. 

The game con­tained four lev­el chal­lenges, each imple­ment­ing a dif­fer­ent design inter­ven­tion for com­bat­ing sea lev­el rise. Built on the con­cept of user inter­ac­tions and feed­back, the game holds a set of chal­lenges which can only be mas­tered in teams, and is designed in such a way that it can­not be won by a sin­gle play­er, no mat­ter how capable. 

At the end of the count­down, sim­u­lat­ed water floods the game scene to reveal whether or not the play­ers man­aged to save their neigh­bor­hoods. The greater the col­lab­o­ra­tion amongst the play­ers, the high­er the result­ing score, con­vey­ing the need to col­lab­o­rate if sea lev­el rise is to be man­aged to successfully. 

A Warning From the Garden, Thomas L. Friedman

These projects all uti­lize visu­al­iza­tion to allow one to see beyond what one can under­stand. On a January morn­ing in 2007, daf­fodils bloomed months ear­li­er than they should have. The phys­i­cal pres­ence in the depths of win­ter of these gold­en har­bin­gers of spring was the phys­i­cal proof of the effects of cli­mate change that caused Thomas Friedman to write his now-famous New York Times op-ed A Warning From the Garden and to coin the term Green New Deal.” 

As we look to gath­er con­sen­sus on cli­mate change and push­ing for­ward HR 109, visu­al­iza­tion might be instru­men­tal for allow­ing every­one to see into their future so as to take action now. 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.