On Liberty

from Commons-Wikipedia

Searching for an overarching world view based on Liberty at a time when there is much discussion about Liberty & Freedom, and/or lack thereof.

Definitions of Liberty (from Oxford Languages Dictionary):

1.    Liberty, the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views; the power or scope to act as one pleases.

2. Freedom, independence, free rein, freeness, license, self-determination; free will, latitude, option, choice; volition, non-compulsion, non-coercion, non-confinement; leeway, margin, scope, elbow room.

3.   Independence, freedom, autonomy, sovereignty, self-government, self-rule, self-determination, home rule; civil liberties, civil rights, human rights

Each decision and action should be viewed and weighed relative to the production or strengthening of Liberty. Those decisions and actions may, at their start, reduce a sense of Liberty in the short term in order to produce greater overall Liberty. Examples of this type of trade-off are as follows:

The concept of war. While war represents violence and constraint- even subjugation, it may be used to create greater Liberty by freeing a greater amount of people from tyranny. A war may be fought to liberate people, but it should never be fought to repress them. Because war is an extreme act, it must be the last act taken after all other methods of movements towards Liberty have been undertaken. If a war is not providing more Liberty and/or is never-ending, war should be ended.

The concept of marriage. While the joining of two people is, in one sense, the opposite of freedom and independence, the act of marriage is designed to create a bond between people such that their comprehensive Liberty is greater than the sum of their individual Liberty. This may also be accomplished by creating a small community of two (or more) that work together towards common goals that provide the best opportunities for life, liberty, and happiness. This may require a reduction of Liberty for one or more participants at times, but should always be working towards an ultimate increase of Liberty for all involved. If it fails to produce greater Liberty for too long a period, the marriage or communal arrangement should be ended.

The concept of employment. While the act of employment is a form of subjugation for an individual, it is often undertaken to provide for greater Liberty for that individual in the long-term. The employment may provide sufficient funds and free time for the individual to enjoy their lives in a greater capacity than without the employment. This may not always be the case immediately upon employment, but needs to eventually fulfill the need of sufficient or increasing Liberty in order to be of value to the individual. If employment does not provide greater immediate or eventual liberty, the arrangement should be ended.

Government, likewise, should constantly be working to increase Liberty, though may produce complicated situations. Think about the “social contract” citizens of the United States have with the police. We allow the police to hinder one’s Liberty, at times, in order to keep the greater peace.

There are many different views of what Liberty is. Laws may produce varying degrees of Liberty for different people. In order to figure out how to govern and produce laws that provide the greatest amount of Liberty for the maximum amount of people, there must be a great deal of discussion on weighing the options. And those discussions must constantly revolve around the idea of Liberty for the governed. This includes the notion that “all men are created equal,” with an understanding of “men” as all human beings (not the pejorative use of the word, but a much wider understanding of humans.)

But what if we expand our understanding of the notions of  “all ‘men’ are created equal” and “liberty and justice for all,” the latter being a part of the United States Pledge of Allegiance. What would it take to create true Liberty around the world for all species? For instance, there is a patchwork of justice for animals in the United States. Some protect typical pets (dogs and cats), while some (like Maine) have laws that protect “every living, sentient creature not a human being.”  

Though if we consider the world as an interconnected network of species and environments that are symbiotically joined, rather than consideration of a single animal, shouldn’t we create laws to protect everything? After all, if the animals cannot survive without places to inhabit and food to eat- which is provided by healthy ecosystems- then damaging the environment would equal cruelty to animals and therefore be against the law.

To look at this yet another and more historical way, the very old idea of The Commons, where natural resources belong to everyone to partake in. This concept should allow any and all of us to “live off the land.” The problem is when there are too many people utilizing The Commons using up all its resources, which then leaves most people with less than they need. And it begs the question: How can we have Liberty for ourselves, as humans, if we do not live in a healthy environment that provides us enough nourishment to live a free life?

Much of the ideas of Liberty stem from the basic human desire for self-determination. Yet the earliest humans imaginable gathered in communities, requiring each individual to make space for other individuals. Anthropologists surmise the goal was a greater chance for individual survival for each member of the community. Without the community, life expectancy for each individual would be significantly shorter. A shorter life equals less liberty. Giving up some self-determination can be beneficial overall in the long term, both for the individual and the community.

What appears to have changed is the concept and availability of individual wealth provided by modern law and liberal economic policies for the past 200 years. Those securing longevity through wealth (for themselves and their families) need not work to the benefit of others because they need little or nothing from “others.” This idea of stratification is seductive, as it suggests higher levels self-determination and less subjugation- for anyone with the gumption to work for their success. Though reality is far more complicated and unequal.

Not everyone that gives up on community needs such wealth. In our modern age, some Americans attempt to live lives of great personal freedom while willing to give up wealth and a potential safety net that comes with being a part of a community. Some surely feel it is worth it even if they struggle with health issues and may ultimately die prematurely. In many ways I feel these individuals should be allowed to forego the safety net.

Yet, the less people that participate, the less of a safety net there is. In addition, those that have no safety net are nearly always utilizing tax dollars to pay for huge medical bills at the end of their lives, as the majority will not live with the cruelty of letting them suffer and die without care. Some do not want to pay into a social system at all, while others live and die by the existence of a safety net. This makes governing difficult for the masses.

It is even more complicated when taking into consideration every species on the planet as potential equals with humans when it comes to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There is no wide-spread understanding on how much to prioritize plant and animal species relative to humans. A millennia’s-old idea that humans are more important than animals certainly tips the scale towards people. The “Great Chain of Being” even has a graphic depicting a specific hierarchy placing humans atop, larger animals above lower ones, plants below animals, and minerals last. Even with recent new scientific understanding of how our human bodies (and even brains) are in a constant symbiosis with invisibly small creatures, who sometimes guide us, we have a difficult time seeing them as life-partners. And equally difficult to understand large but out-of-sight animals, for instance the Grey Wolf, as important to our survival. But they are. Every part of every ecosystem is important for the survival of our species. If we destroy them, and the environment, we remove a great deal of our own personal liberties due to decreases in food, finances, and lifespan.

We know we are in the midst of a mass extinction of species on the planet, some referring to it as the Anthropocene Extinction (meaning human-caused.) The current great reduction of pollinators (ex: bees) as a serious threat to humanity’s survival is only one part of the complex picture in this mass extinction. There are other threats to humans from this issue as well, and they may be enough to wipe out humanity within a century. In the United States alone there are reports that 40% of animals and ecosystems are at risk of extinction. If that happens, many predict there will be a global food supply collapse. Some of the collapse will be brought on by wars that do nothing but lower Liberty for everyone involved. (The example of Russia’s war on Ukraine is an example of a completely unnecessarily brutal assault affecting so much of the world.) Deliberate industrial destruction and war will hasten a human demise.

Thus, one may argue providing more liberty to non-humans will ultimately produce more long-term liberty to ourselves in the form of individual and species immortality. (I think of Roy Batty asking his creator for “more life.” Given the sudden recent rise of artificial intelligence, this feels even more poignant.) Species longevity may be ultimately the most important way to think about Liberty. Without your life you have zero liberty—you simply do not exist. We should consider what we know will extend our own species existence, both for the self and our species, as a community. A healthy planet not only accomplishes human longevity, but does so in relative comfort.

Arguments are made against taking care of the planet because it would erode personal liberties such as the availability of convenient plastics or flying around the world to the finest beaches. Yet we can also demonstrate and are aware of lots of ways to help the environment. Some may consider each of those suggestions to be a burden eroding their personal Liberty. I can understand that. But there are always trade-offs in life, and undertakings that are burdensome in order to achieve something desired are often necessary. In this case, taking care of the greater environment is a trade-off that is ultimately in pursuit of your own life, descendants, and those of others.

Going back to our earliest ancestors’ decision to form communities, to give up some self-determination in order to stay alive—was that not the right choice? I would submit we are in that situation again, only we now understand the “wider community” we need to team up with is much more diverse (global, environmental) and we are largely in control of the relationship. It is up to us.

The real goal should be to not just live in harmony with nature, like a good neighbor, but to become a smarter and more passionate participant of nature. And while I am not 100% sure what that really means or looks like, I imagine it would include searching for all the ways we can encourage positive human interactions with nature to allow the environment to thrive and evolve while providing greater health for all species.

One simple example (by itself only a small start) would be to help bees grow their populations, thereby increase our own food production in the process, by providing bee habitats all over the world. A million tiny habitats could make a big impact, and can be provided around our homes and cities.

But the larger solution will require very large and complicated inclusive solutions. We will need to utilize all of our accumulated knowledge and compassion for each other and our environment. And we need to, simultaneously, hold onto our belief in Liberty. The task will be a lot harder without it, or may miss the target entirely.

Composting Toilet Basics to Reduce Your Water Footprint

This guest-written article was produced by Jess Taylor, Founder of Practically Green. Check out her website and this article. We all should reduce our water footprint and Jess provides a big step forward towards living in water-balance with the planet. And there are other advantages as well. Read on to find out more.

Photo by Arek Socha

Composting toilets - benefits for your home

There are many advantages to installing a composting toilet. The actual process of using it for your daily business is comparable to that of a regular toilet. But crucially, they are much more environmentally friendly. They use less water and can help non-edible plants grow faster in places where soil modification is permitted. Furthermore, they are well-suited to isolated locations.

To keep the process running, the material created by the system may be readily separated from the remaining liquid and used to generate heat and power. The solids are safe to handle and resemble coffee grounds in appearance, feel, and odor. The solid substance can be utilized as a fuel for heating and cooking, as a soil conditioner, and possibly as a carbon capture device.

Anti-fouling coatings for the system were created to reduce the quantity of water necessary to flush particles away from the toilet bowl while also assisting in the maintenance of high sanitary standards. It improves the rate at which water flushes away debris stuck to the toilet bowl's surface.

Composting toilets and their advantages

1. It is less expensive and quicker to install compared to a standard system.

Depending on the location and layout of the land, a single toilet’s septic system installation might cost anywhere from $1,500 to more than $5,000. Add another $300 to $500 for the toilet itself as a final expense. It is common for a household composting toilet to cost less than $1,000, with fewer installation requirements.

2. There is little to no influence on the land.

This toilet compost should not be used to grow edible food since it might transmit illness. However, this technology has a very low environmental effect on the land. Composted material may be used to fertilize other plants on the land, distributed or transferred elsewhere, and can save water. That equates to a water savings of nearly 7,000 gallons per person per year over a regular toilet. In fact, one can even sell the by-products from composting toilets to fertilizer production companies.

3. Install them anywhere.

To build or install a composting toilet, you don’t need a water connection. A good connection is not practicable for residences off the grid or situated in a remote area; therefore, this is a huge advantage. Since this sort of toilet may even be built outdoors, any problems about size and space can typically be handled with just a little imagination.

4. It’s easy to keep up with.

You don’t have to worry about keeping the compost moist as you would with other methods of composting. Moisture levels in a compost basin are maintained by human excrement. Depending on the model, you may have to periodically stir the compost to keep it well-mixed. For the greatest long-term outcomes, look for toilets that meet or surpass current criteria set by the American National Standards Institute or a comparable international body.

5. A lifetime warranty is offered by many.

There are various composting toilet manufacturers who offer a lifetime guarantee. In addition to saving a family of up to 28,000 liters of water annually. They rapidly pay for themselves, as described in item #1.

6. It can alleviate some of the stresses on the system.

The toilet allows for waste to be recycled in a method that does not harm anybody or anything. As a result, it could give you a lot of burden and stress to handle it.

7. Your composting toilet will be a point of conversation.

The more people find out about your composting toilet, the more inquiries you’ll get. Is it safe to use?” is a popular query. Because the toilet is “different,” some visitors may be hesitant to use it. From our experience, once people understand how it works and what benefits it brings, they are much more willing to use it. Furthermore, every conversation you have will be ‘spreading the word’, and this can only be a good thing.

Composting Toilets Have Cons

1. Composting toilets may have an odor.

A segmented composting toilet system is recommended, as odor is mainly created when urine and feces mix. There are also toilet-friendly items that may be put in the compost to decrease smells. If handled properly, your composting toilet won’t stink - but it may require a little TLC to keep it like this.

2. Only available in standard sizes.

The bowl of a composting toilet sits at the same height as a standard toilet. As a result, the user experience is almost identical to that of a standard toilet for most individuals. In certain cases, people with limited mobility need a toilet at least 17 inches higher than the standard type. In addition, those taller than 6’ 3” may have difficulty utilizing specific models.

3. They don’t always save space.

Smaller houses and cottages commonly have composting toilets installed, but this is not because of their size. Components that aid in waste management must also be installed to be composted correctly. This technology may not be able to fit in certain houses.

4. Single units may need more frequent visits to the composter.

The bowl of a composting toilet is constantly filled with both wet and dry waste. For single-unit systems, this is particularly true. Adding fresh carbonized pant waste to dry waste creates a variety of compositional levels. Homeowners may be forced to utilize a septic transportation service because of this variation in compost distribution.

5. It is possible that installing a composting toilet will require specific permission.

International construction rules typically allow the installation of composting toilets, but local code limitations may prohibit this from happening in certain communities. Consult your local municipal officials and code enforcement department about the applicable rules and regulations before purchasing a composting toilet.

What makes a conventional toilet a step backward in terms of technology or environmental impact?

The majority of the wastewater generated by flush toilets – more than 80% globally – is returned to the environment. There is no treatment, no use, only a plethora of open sewers. When flush toilets were invented, the amount of waste created when people went to the bathroom nearly doubled.

The Bottom Line

A gallon and a half of clean, treated water is wasted every time a toilet is flushed. If you have a typical 1.5-gallon toilet, a standard flush will take about 30 seconds to replenish the tank. That works out to 1.5 gallons per flush or 3 gallons per minute. This is a lot of water wasted over the course of a day, and fresh water is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity in our overpopulated world.

Composting toilets are a simple, readily available way for you and your family to massively reduce your impact on the world and bring you back into a closer touch with nature. As they, and other green technologies become more widely used and accepted, we can together make huge strides towards a more sustainable future.

Matthew Salenger - a brief life story

Haleakala, Maui at 7000 ft elevation. Photo by Andy Graydon

I have always been driven to explore, learn, and create- even when I was very young.

I do not remember the first few houses I lived in. My parents moved around a lot. I was conceived in Tucson, born in San Francisco, and lived my first couple of years in New Jersey. Then my parents moved to Maui in 1975- and that I remember. My dad was a General Practice Medical Doctor before I was born, and served in the Air Force during Vietnam. He was stationed in Guam, where my older sister was born 20 months before me. After being discharged, my dad changed his specialty to Pediatrics (in Tucson & SF) then Dermatology (NYC). He then accepted a job offer on the island of Maui and we moved there when I was three years old.

I was a “funny” little kid, often confounding my parents by following my creativity and curiosity in sometimes goofy ways. I would push a running hose into the soft red Maui mud, and keep pushing until it would stop after several feet of depth. Then I couldn’t pull it up. So, with the experiment finished, I’d turn off the water and walk away. Or I’d use 50 yards of dental floss to create an intricate spiderweb spanning my entire bedroom, with scores of back-and-forth strands. These actions did not amuse my parents at all- I was creating a type of hardship for them (new hose needed or not able to move around in my room). But I was just curious, and rarely deterred.

as a toddler with my paternal grandfather (cuddling with toy trucks instead of stuffed animals)

I drew a lot. Played with Legos for countless hours. I would take apart toys and re-imagine them. My best friend and I, in our early years, would invent characters with special powers and act out extravagant “stories” running all over the landscapes we had: beaches, a golf course, neighbor’s yards.

When I was six years old, I came to the realization that human beings designed and built buildings. And I knew, then and there, I wanted to do that. It helped that I grew up in a really well designed house, designed decades earlier by a renowned architect from Hawai’i named Charles Dickey. It was a Chinese-style courtyard house, surrounded on three sides by rooms and one by a wall. Every room was connected to an exterior covered hallway that ran on all sides of the courtyard. There was a wonderful garden in the center, with different themed areas. Different types of bamboo screens were in the garden here and there. There was even a pond (in the shape of Maui) with a small bridge across it, bordered by black lava rocks. There were large toads that lived in the pond that would croak and hop around at night.

And we lived near the coast- easy walking distance. Even at five years old I would walk down to the coast on my own. My friend lived at one end of the neighborhood, and had a high stone wall as a sea-break right on the North Shore. Varying surf and tide pools were our playground. We’d catch little fish, get scared by moray eels, and eventually learned to surf.

curious little dude- and right next to a hose

My parents divorced when I was seven. And the moving began again. Upcountry to higher elevation, then Oahu during middle school. Then I moved away from my mom and siblings and back to Maui with my father and step-mother, by choice. Back on Maui for my high school years, we lived in one of the highest elevation homes on the slopes of Haleakala (“House of the Sun”) at about 4300 ft elevation. Cold, damp, musty, and often foggy in a forest of eucalyptus and wattle trees- it was totally new and different. And very isolated, without neighbors close by, and nothing behind the house except a 10,023 ft high mountain to explore. I spent more time out behind our tiny little house than I did even at the beaches when I was little. Just checking out the life of what lived there.

As I got older I really got into surfing. The North Shore of Maui, where the wind and surf is rough, is not often beautiful and elegant like Oahu’s “seven mile miracle” shoreline. Yet the draw to be out on the water was inescapable. First with fishing, then body boarding, then full-on surfing. The north shore of all the Hawai’ian islands are unpredictable and, at times, dangerous. It takes a lot of observation power to stay safe. It helps to hone an awareness of nature’s patterns. Because of that, being on the water whether it is calm or rough you become fully immersed and a part of nature.

All those creative and natural experiences influenced my work and process.

I first studied architecture at Washington State University, for four years. I started at 17 years old, was immature, underachieved and barely missed out in acceptance to “upper division” in the program. I switched to fine arts and really got into it. I took eight studios in two semesters and got straight A’s. I spent my off hours drawing and painting with my friends there. It was full-time art and I loved it.

My paternal grandparents let me know they were very disappointed I had moved away from the “sure” paycheck path of architecture. They said I was not my father’s son, as he had attended Yale and Columbia and became a fine doctor. I was falling well short. That was a life changing moment.

I pivoted back to Architecture and was accepted to Arizona State University in 1993. In my first architecture studio there I was lucky enough to get an instructor who was fresh out of school himself, and pushed me in just the right way and things started to click for me. I started making connections between thoughts I had around art and applying them to designing buildings. In that first year I completed the first two years of studios in one year, and got As. I ended up being the #1 student to make upper division that year, and go on to win several design awards in school as well as the highest GPA award for my architecture class (thank you to all the great faculty there!). I ended up working my senior year with the renowned architects of Jones Studio, and would work for them for years afterwards.

During those semesters at ASU I continued taking art studios (mostly figure painting) and producing art. I hung out with and dated artists, partied with artists, etc. I did not want to leave creating art behind, but did want to make sure my (now deceased) grandparents’ hopes for me would be reached.

I decided to attend The Architectural Association of London (known as “the AA”) for two years as a Master Degree Equivalency. I struggled there mightily for a few months, then clicked in a big way again. I graduated with honors (one of 3 students to do so out of a class of 150). I was offered jobs in London and Europe- but wanted to return to Phoenix to start a career and study urban sprawl. (I’ve long been concerned with how damaging urban sprawl is to humans and nature.)

While I was applying to the AA in London, my Arizona girlfriend (now wife) was also looking for grad schools. Maria already had a Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture from University of Arizona, and wanted to get an Masters of Fine arts in sculpture. She attended the great Slade School of Art at the University College London. And again I ended up hanging out with artists as much as architects.

At the AA students are able to choose their instructor. I chose Götz Stöckmann for both years because his method was the most free of all the studios, and because I knew him as a visiting professor at ASU and had a bit of a friendship with him. He is one of the most amazing thinkers and designers I know of and I still feel fortunate to spend all the time with him that I did. I even was able to work in his Frankfurt studio during my last year in London. He is still a very dear friend to Maria and me.

Maria, Götz, and Ola (another friend from the AA) 2002

One of the most important aspects to learning from and working with Götz is that he was (and still is) professionally producing both architecture and art simultaneously. It was Götz’s model that we followed in creating coLAB studio (co-LAB was conceived to contain two cooperative laboratories, in both art and architecture).

Maria and I moved back to Arizona, started working again at Jones Studio in 1999. A few years later, just before my 35th birthday, I remembered a promise to myself that I would be a licensed architect and have my own studio by that age. I put in my two weeks notice at the end of 2006 and started running coLAB studio full time in 2007 while acquiring my license.

In the meantime, we produced a son. He sometimes sits in some of the meetings at coLAB studio when he has the opportunity, listening intently.

Over the years, I’ve continually questioned myself regarding my essence and professional compass. After all, I’ve tried so many different avenues; An employee in a great small studio, a business owner, an artist, an architect, a sole proprietor, a board member in community service, an employer/mentor, part of a collaborative, a community advocate, part of a tech start-up, a public art manager, and occasionally as a university associate faculty. Darting around, trying things out, experimenting, experiencing what I can… very much like the little kid I was growing up.

Facilitating an architecture workshop for teens, in conjunction with SMOCA.

The constant I have noticed over the past 30+ years is my desire to strengthen connections between people and living systems- particularly systems in nature. Having spent so much time, often in solitude observing nature, I have a deep respect in how living systems work so well and so automatically. That includes an interest in thriving human communities, well-running governments, happy families, healthy businesses and economies, systems of human guilds- all of which are living systems.

Though this may be most noticeably visible in coLAB studio’s public art, there are threads in the architecture projects too. Sometimes the connections are not made visibly. Sometimes they are in the process of a project more than the final outcome, such as community interactions we have engaged in.

I have been lucky enough to work for two great “organic” architects, having spent a year building models for Will Bruder in 1995-96, and then employed by Eddie Jones for 10 years. They both really understand the structural and visual compositions of nature and how to turn those into architecture. Götz, too, as he is a bit of a nature-worshiper, though in a Classical European way. Less about form and structure, more about conceptualizing and abstracting ideas from Nature. They all also each believe in something deep within themselves and strive to produce creative work that expresses that depth. All reasons why I gravitated to them to begin with.

coLAB studio public art called “Our Nature” from 2020

Along the way, Maria and I have developed a few themes stemming from our beliefs:

• Caring for the natural environment and human beings, working through projects to enhance living systems and appreciation for such systems.

• A strong skepticism of “modernity” in many of its traditionally understood forms. In the myopic view, we often prefer natural and sensuous materials and direct connections to nature’s living systems and biophilia. We think a lot about creating new languages of ornamentation, which we mostly experiment on with public art- though occasionally have the ability to include in our buildings. In the wider view, we try to find ways to reengage people with living systems in every interaction we engage in.

• A desire to slow things down within the world so people have a better chance to recognize, appreciate, and be a part of living systems. For 500 years our world has moved towards optimizing efficiency instead of life. Efficiency has helped the world so much, but it is time to take the next step in our evolution to incorporate awareness of all life into our actions.

• A like/dislike relationship with technology because “tech” creates a greater degree of efficiency and also separation from most real living systems. Though we also use technology at times to re-create bonds to nature and love using building science to create better structures.

Deep in Iao Valley, Maui, 2021

On the personal side…

I still surf whenever I can. I have three surfboards in Arizona, three on Maui (thanks to my parents’ willingness to hold them), and one in San Diego County (thanks to my younger sister and her husband). Maria and I have also taken up stand-up paddle boarding in the lakes of Arizona. Not quite the same immersion as ocean surfing, but we have had many great days of connecting to Arizona’s amazing environments.

I’ve always been into hiking- something my father exposed me to as far back as I can remember. I prefer to hike into areas where there are no man-made sights to see- or, to quote Joe Versus The Volcano: to get “away from the things of Man.”

I also love taking really long walks through cities. Any city and any size. Jerusalem, New York, London, Paris, Budapest, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Seville, Lisbon, Honolulu, Tokyo, Tangier, Dahab, Vienna, Tel Aviv, Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, York, Newquay, Amsterdam, and Edinburgh to name a few I’ve visited.

I have been a huge fan of music since high school. With some of my friends as great influences I became a voracious listener. I started playing drum kits when I was 15. My high school had a kit set up in the chapel and apparently no rules on who could play it. I’ve never been an outstanding drummer, but I know music well enough to be a useful member of a band. In 1995 I played a couple dozen gigs for a Tempe band when their normal drummer left for the summer. I’m proud I was able to play at the historic Long Wong’s on Mill a couple of times, Big Fish Pub, Atomic Cafe, Nita’s Hideaway, and other venues. I continue to collect music and play. I’ve been playing with a talented and close friend at his recording studio for over a dozen years now.

I’ve taken up an addiction for the Ukulele in the past couple of years. It is a great reminder for me of where I come from, but also a new avenue to experiment with, as I love to play hard core punk on it as much as the classics, and also develop my own compositions.

I also enjoy reading. The only publication I regularly read is The Economist Magazine, which I feel has the most balanced point of view and high quality writing. I read a lot of non-fiction about the built environment or texts by new and old wise masters (ie: Richard Sennett, Epictetus). In the past two decades I have rarely read non-fiction, and when I do read fiction I gravitate to 19th century literature because I find the exquisite language pleasurable (ie: Mary Shelley, Herman Melville).

I have three great siblings and more than a dozen amazing cousins, plus aunts and uncles. My Dad and Step-Mom continue to be a grounding force for me and full of Aloha. My friends and collogues constantly push me in positive directions. I am grateful.

What makes a Project Good?

Living Room by Formalhaut, Photo by Matthew Salenger

Five Factors of a Good Project*

by Matthew Salenger

Introduction…

Have you ever been drawn to or repelled by a certain building? Have you considered why you love it or hate it? Why you can concentrate better in some spaces than in others? Turns out there may be a scientific explanation on why some spaces allow people to be happier and function at higher levels.

There is growing evidence about how the built environment affects us in positive and negative ways, depending on how it is designed and built. Well designed environments provide greater health and happiness, whereas poorly designed buildings and communities inflict mental trauma and lower our cognitive and physical abilities. They can even create serious health problems, or reverse them. This raises questions on why so much of the built environment is designed without recognition of these important facts.

This text will explore how the construction/design/development industries moved away from designing for humans, how data shows what is at stake, and give examples of how to reverse course to provide better environments that will create a safer and more productive world.

(If you want to skip directly to the five factors, scroll down until you see “Five Factors of a Good Project” below)

*The title of this text is inspired by my friends and collaborators at vali homes, who talk about “five factors of a good building.” Their context for a good building is agnostic about aesthetics, focusing instead on comfort/health, efficiency/renewables, durability/resiliency, social equity/embodied injustice, and lifecycle carbon impact. Since we often operate together as two sides of the same coin/aspiration, I decided to cover the aesthetic and sensory aspect of what makes a good building/project, which means it is beautiful, emotional resonant & memorable, loved over time, well-functioning, and “sustainable”. A truly great project should embody all ten factors. In our experience, creating a project that “does it all” requires multiple experts (which can include Owners, communities, and the site or project circumstances) working as a team towards a common goal. That type of process is also the most rewarding.

“Sometimes it’s just a detail, a well-shaped door handle, a window framing a perfect little view, a rosette carved into a chapel pew. And we say to ourselves, ‘How nice. Someone actually thought of that.’” – Witold Rybczynski

How the built environment was once designed for humans:

Like the quote above, let’s begin with something simple. Start by thinking about where you live, and create an image of it in your mind. Which parts of your home town do you love and which do you ignore? Where in your town would you most want to be right now? How about your favorite place in the world, a built environment or fully natural- where is that? Close your eyes and picture being there now- how does it feel to be there? What is around you that feeds the senses?

My guess is the spaces you enjoy being in are rich, complex environments with aspects that appeal to the senses and put you at ease. Think about that term “at ease.” What does that mean, and how does an environment have the power to provide that feeling? I will return to this question in a moment, first taking a look at the history of the built environment.

The first shelters were truly of their natural environment through the use of raw materials at-hand. While out of necessity. This created a close connection between our shelters and the natural world- we were intimately linked to it. Although nature has often been considered full of danger through most of human evolution, it also provided physical and mental nourishment. Early humans understood we are a part of nature, as evidenced by the earliest known cave paintings. The developed ancient world (Ancient European, pre-colonial American, Asian, African, and Oceanic civilizations) acknowledged these connections through ornament and planning even as they built villages and cities creating safe separation from wilderness. Buildings often included depictions of plants that provided local building materials and foods in meaningful gestures to help us appreciate our world.

Let’s make a leap into the Industrial Revolution. Those holding power, and the designers they hired, held onto the importance of meaningful ornament in the early industrial movement, including during huge leaps in productive capabilities brought on with the industrial age. Early cast-iron structures often contained botanical ornament. Though one can note the gradual shift over time away from of precise botanical references and towards abstraction in iron work examples. One of the last true hold outs of elaborate ornament from the eighteenth century in the United States was the architect Louis Sullivan, whose beautiful buildings are still widely loved today. Sullivan began each ornament’s design based on a specific plant’s seed germ and/or form, transforming its simple shape into complex layered patterns that, while utilizing symmetrical geometries, took on the appearance of true nature. Sullivan’s buildings each provide ample evidence of how the right type of visual aesthetics produce near-universal love for buildings.

Through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, productivity grew rapidly- as did the population. People moved from agrarian-based jobs to industrial production, shifting populations from rural landscapes to urban centers. In order to house this shift in population, efficient construction methods were needed. The architectural style of housing changed from craft towards mass produced, with many housing developments designed and built with repetitive means. The transformation of urban environments, along with a change from agrarian lifestyles to urban ones, had huge consequences on human wellbeing and psychology along with changes in economics, production, and politics.

The built environment increasingly became more industrialized as well, more abstracted, less ornate. Many architects gravitated to new modern materials as a sources of inspiration. Many such architects were interested in creating better environment for working-class people through modern materials and better design. This may be best exemplified by the Bauhaus in Germany, who attempted to unify arts and crafts in replicable designs. The conversations held there produced early forms of what was labelled as “modern” architecture. Walter Gropius, founder of the Bauhaus, along with several other European designers, escaped Second World War in Europe and arrived in the wealthy United States to continue their practices. Many of them, along with many architects in the Americas, were interested in finding a universal architecture that would provide equality and unity for all people, as described in the book No Place Like Utopia by Peter Blake.

Much of the modernist ideals were based on creating healthy environments, a reaction to pandemics such as Cholera and the Spanish Flu. Eventually, the benefits of modernism’s economical design and building strategies were utilized by many people in power, and the designers they hired, away from good design and towards greater economic benefit. And the results can be seen in the bland and Placeless built environments we have around the world.

Some of my least favorite examples of economic-based design are of contemporary American industrial buildings and mass-produced housing. The latter typology has been covered by my friend, Jason Griffiths, in gruesome and hilarious fashion with his book Manifest Destiny, with what he calls “an expression of indifference.” The visible indifferences in contemporary architecture stem from valuing economics over humanity- something we see in many industries including health care, food production, and education. The consequences are often quite negative, though they need not be.

The value of good design:

In the book 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design by Terrapin Bright Green, various scientific studies are linked to specific biological responses in humans. Based on the work of biologist E.O. Wilson and author Stephen R. Kellert, this book discusses various design strategies and the benefits everyone can gain from them along with the scientific studies as evidence. For instance, the visual and/or acoustic presence of water can reduce stress, increase feelings of tranquility, lower heart rate and blood pressure. Certain enclosed environments, when designed correctly, can improve concentration, attention, and perception of safety. In each of the 14 design strategies they include in the book, corresponding scientific studies are provided, all within a useful table on page 12. For design professionals, the book Nature Inside (by William D. Browning and Catherine O. Ryan) goes deeper into the best pathways for producing better environments.

There is growing evidence from scientific studies that show our environment has profound effects on human wellbeing. As Winston Churchill famously said, “We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.” One of the best sources for this type of information is the book Welcome to Your World by Sarah Williams Goldhagen. Though Goldhagen is a well-known architectural critic, the text is aimed at the general public and not design professionals. While it gives plenty of examples of scientific studies, it is extremely easy to read.

The book provides a very wide spectrum for how the built environment affects humans physically, psychologically, and cognitively. One reference Goldhagen utilizes is Brain Landscape: The Coexistence of Neuroscience and Architecture (published in 2008) by John P. Eberhard, which serves “as an intellectual bridge between architectural practice and neuroscience research.”

Along with specific data on attributes to the elements of the built environment, there is growing evidence of psychological damage from poorly designed urban environments. In the article called City Living Marks the Brain by Alison Abbott, she suggests people raised in cities have greater stress leading to greater occurrences of mental disorders. She states: “This 'social stress' activated many brain areas, two of them specifically correlated with the volunteers' history of urban living. The amygdala, which processes emotion, was activated only in people currently living in a city. And the cingulate cortex, which helps to regulate the amygdala and processes negative emotions, responded more strongly in those brought up in cities than in those who grew up in towns or rural areas.”  She cites a Danish study that showed people who grew up in larger cities had a higher rate of schizophrenia.

In the article “The Hidden Ways that Architecture Affects how You Feel” from 2017 by Michael Bond furthers Abbott’s work by tying it to the studies of others such as Colin Ellard:

One of Ellard’s most consistent findings is that people are strongly affected by building façades. If the façade is complex and interesting, it affects people in a positive way; negatively if it is simple and monotonous. For example, when he walked a group of subjects past the long, smoked-glass frontage of a Whole Foods store in Lower Manhattan, their arousal and mood states took a dive, according to the wristband readings and on-the-spot emotion surveys. They also quickened their pace as if to hurry out of the dead zone. They picked up considerably when they reached a stretch of restaurants and stores, where (not surprisingly) they reported feeling a lot more lively and engaged.

There appears to be a very real and quantifiable connection between the built environment and human health. It is time people start paying more attention to the science and history behind good design.

Cathedral in Cologne, Germany; photo by Matthew Salenger

Five Factors of a Good Project:

What defines a good project? I’ve looked at several articles and books that try to pin down what makes a successful building or design. You may peruse such readings here, here, or here. Also, this from critic Aaron Betsky:

“If a new building is absolutely necessary, it should be good. It should work well and answer all codes, but that is only the beginning point. It should use minimal amounts of energy both in construction and in use. It should offer spaces that do not imprison and pigeonhole us. It should enhance its site. It should be beautiful…I believe that architecture can make our human-created world better. It can make it better in a social and an environmental sense. It can create spaces that are open, accessible, and sustainable. It can create the stages on which we can act out the roles we feel are ours to play with those we recognize as our fellow actors. Architecture should be neither weird nor boring, neither alien nor alienating, neither wasteful nor wanting in the qualities that make us human. It should be good.”

What ingredients go into a building or place within the built environment that allows it to be widely loved over a great deal of time? These are five factors I believe contribute to truly good projects:

1.       Beauty

In all the readings and definitions of the term, Beauty is hard to pin down. Hence the idea it must only be “in the eye of the beholder,” and not universal. That will always be at least partially true. Think of a favorite movie star or singer you find most attractive. Most likely you have a friend with a different opinion on that person. Beauty can also be subject to trends or environment. Though, concerning the built & natural environment, there is some evidence on why humans consider a design or place beautiful. And some may even be fairly universal. There was a study conducted in the mid 1990’s by two artists (Vitaly Komar & Alex Melamid) and a market research firm (Martila & Kiley, inc) intended to find out if there was a true “people’s art.” What they found is that people all over the world, China, Kenya, Iceland, USA, etc, gravitated towards very similar images. Those images included mountains, greenery, calm skies, animals, water, and food baring landscapes.

The explanation for this is simple, but wordy. You can read about it at length in The Art Instinct by Denis Dutton. The short version is: We all are attracted to places that are safe and have an abundance of what keeps us healthy; Food, water, calm weather, verdant landscape with places to hid from danger; Such environments are attractive to us because of how we evolved as humans.

The Komar and Melamid experiment dovetails well with Biophilic Design and recent scientific studies of how our bodies and minds react to certain environments. The findings of the studies on how certain spatial attributes lower blood pressure may, also, be based on human evolution. Have you ever been mesmerized looking at a campfire? That could be based in human connections to millions of years of evolution where our health and safety partially relied on the presence of fire. Dutton provides an analogy for this with the example of European pigeons in snake-free New Zealand that are still afraid of snakes even though generations of birds there have not seen a snake in two centuries. Some of human evolution appears to remain with us for a very long time.

William Browning of Terrapin Bright Green says “Biophilia is humankind’s innate biological connection with nature.” And what makes Biophilic Design compelling beyond the scientific biological studies are the economic lessons. In The Economics of Biophilia, Terrapin Bright Green provides data to show that retail stores that incorporate biophilia have higher sales and can charge more than stores that do not. They present data that schools built incorporating biophilia have higher test scores; Office spaces that incorporate biophilia have higher rates of employee retention and lower absenteeism; Health care facilities with biophilia have faster rates for healing; and onward.

It seems there is something very important regarding a connection with nature to human beings that is being ignored far too often in the built environment. The studies Terrapin Bright Green cite also show people are not just healthier in spaces that incorporate nature, they are also happier. In other words, biophilia is beautiful to people. No building or place is well loved over a great deal of time that is not beautiful in some way. And many of the great buildings we love incorporate Biophilic Design. There is also growing scientific evidence suggesting how to provide “universal” beauty in design. We should pay attention to it.

2.       Emotionally resonant & memorable

While something really beautiful will often stir emotions and create a memorable experience, I separate this aspect of good buildings and places mentioned in the last section because it has different characteristics beyond beauty. For instance, there are restaurants I have frequented that are not necessarily beautiful to behold, but still enabled a good time or experience that stuck with me. Those experiences made me want to go back many times, endearing me to the place over time.

Another example may be buildings from a beloved time period. There are buildings that some historic preservationists desperately try to protect, even though they are not good examples of architecture from the period, and/or have become problematic in their current situation. The buildings may even be down right ugly by most standards- yet people will rally to save such places. People may create emotional attachments to places because of nostalgia and/or life-experiences. Those attachments may go beyond logic or reason and can be very powerful.

The question is how to create emotionally resonant buildings and places. Both of the major mentors in my life (Eddie Jones, Götz Stöckmann) talk about the importance of creating memorable buildings and spaces. I believe the thinking is along the lines of: If a design creates a strong reaction in someone, they will think about it, dwell in it longer, and form a bond with it. While I have not found scientific evidence to prove this, I have experienced it. Though I will add, sometimes “memorable” projects have the opposite effect. The Denver Art Museum is a negative example of this for me, whereas the Kimball Art Museum is memorable in a massively positive way for me. Both are memorable- though the former feels like it is trying too hard to be memorable via only one sense (visually), whereas the latter excites many of my senses, which may be the difference.

Close your eyes and place yourself in spaces and situations that carry emotion and memory for you, and see how many senses are awoken for you in those spaces. Perhaps you find a connection between emotion/memory and sensory perception.

3.       Endurance to remain loved over time:

Most of the buildings I can think of that have remained widely regarded as “important” works, through the decades and centuries, adhere to these three standards:

a.       Strength-clarity of vision

b.       Well-made / crafted

c.       Intentional in all portions

I think of the Coliseum in Rome, Queen Hatshepsut Palace, Beijing’s Forbidden City, Machu Picchu, and also newer classics such as the Eames House in Pacific Palisades and Luis Barragan’s home in Mexico City. All have a strength and clarity of vision, are exceptionally well crafted, with each portion working in concert with the rest to create a palpable whole.  

There are always exceptions, though. Soleri’s Cosanti and Wright’s Taliesin West were built by “amateurs,” and look the part, ie: not expertly well crafted. Cosanti in particular is amazingly shabby when you compare it to, say, Lloyds of London by The Rogers Partnership. Though to physically be at Cosanti is special and comforting to me. I’ve never known anyone to go there and say they didn’t enjoy it. Having said that, how long it endures will be left to posterity. I would not be hugely surprised if it simply fell to ruin and was abandoned or torn down eventually. I can imagine the lower quality of construction may be part of its demise- after all, great expense to repair poor construction is definitely a reason many projects do not stand the test of time. Conversely, the amount of money that can be raised to repair or keep up a structure does signal a certain level of love for the project. Think of Notre Dame in Paris, with its $800m repair costs.

4.       Functionality:

Good buildings that last and are loved generally function well- either as intended or as, say, a museum or artifact. Gaudi’s ongoing La Sagrada Familia functions in both capacities. One has to believe all of Antonio Gaudi’s work will always be loved. His body of work would also seem to prove the value of several Biophilic Design’s principals and patterns.

Though functionality can be thought of in multiple ways, such as:

a.       Accessible (functionally, visibly, conceptually, and hopefully includes affordability)

b.       Thoughtful – that each portion has apparently been considered (includes ergonomic)

c.       Community contributing

Beyond simply being useful, the best buildings and places function at various levels. If one thinks of a desk, it must not be too short or too tall for its function. Buildings might be thought of as huge pieces of furniture, meant to allow people to fulfill tasks. If a bedroom is uncomfortable, it has failed its purpose. Though architects have sometimes abandoned such functions. For example, Peter Eisenman purposefully made spaces uncomfortable, such as with the infamous House VI, where the function was intentionally ignored. It is not a house to be lived in, but rather owned as conceptual art. It is an interesting exercise, and will likely be remembered past the architect’s lifetime. Though I imagine the house itself may cease to exist- unless it provides its own financial viability in its existence.

While direct function is important, equally a good building or project will work well with its community. Buildings that create civic pride, identity, and are easy for people to appreciate contribute to their communities, and in doing endear themselves to the people that use them. A great example is the Phoenix Central Library by Will Bruder with Wendell Burnett and DWL. One example of good civic design this building achieved is to have two entrances on flanking sides- both from the parking area and from the busy Central Avenue (with the hope of collecting foot traffic one day). They achieved this by funneling people from both sides to a central point near the center of the building, allowing efficient security to monitor people entering- though one does not notice being surveilled. It is a nifty device. From there, the glass elevators travelling vertically through a full-height five-story atrium are visible, allowing one to know exactly where to head next. Navigating through the large building is ridiculously easy. Every detail along the way is charming and well executed. It functions beautifully. The exterior cuts a strong form right at the center of town, like a man-made desert “Mesa”. It is simple, yet textured. It is a box, yet is curved and has a lot of visual and spatial depth. It stands as a point of pride for a growing city with its thoughtful use of corrugated copper skin, copper being one of the “Five C’s” of the State of Arizona. Though it is only about 25 years old, it feels like a building that will exist for a very long time.

Of these three aspects, accessibility is the most complex to cover. As pointed out in the paragraph above, civic buildings should be easy to enter. That is what enables function. Though even private buildings that are in a community should be accessible by its audience- if not always physically. Surely they should be visually and/or conceptually legible or enjoyable. That is not always the case. I think of the example of Sir Norman Foster’s Faber and Dumas office building, with its ceaseless smooth black reflective skin from sidewalk to parapet. While Foster is an important architect by nearly any criteria, this building hardly contributes to its urban environment. There is no street activation and the feel of being next to the structure is very cold. The concept for the black glass façade was that it would reflect its surroundings, and thereby become part of those surroundings.  Though this ignores so much of what we know about creating good urban environments- thanks to Jane Jacobs and later Jeff Speck. The building does not contribute to street life, provides no face of its own to the public, provides false spatial depth, and contains no tactile materiality. It is mostly inaccessible.  Compare that to Gaudi’s work, mentioned previously. Which building would you rather walk next to on the street?

Accessibility may also be measured by affordability. Great design only for the wealthy may not stand the test of time. Though the same could be said for poorly designed mass housing, whether it is Levittown or Pruitt-Igoe, the latter of which failed because of more than just architecture and is a true learning lesson far beyond design. But this text is about design, so we will stay on point… Pruitt-Igoe development was accessible from a financial standpoint, and functional to live in, and also was not beautiful, memorable, or emotionally resonant. It was overly “efficient” in its production, like most social housing from that time period.  

There are, however, good examples of social housing, unfortunately mostly outside of the USA. There is a push to revive public housing in America, but that is often a hard sell in these times. If we are to solve the housing crisis, we need solutions that serve as shining examples of success. Such projects would do well to follow these five rules, pick the right planners and architects, follow the best possible process that includes the future internal community as well as its external populous. After all, all design projects are nested within a larger whole or community, and should include that populous in the design process.

5.       “Sustainability”

Last but not least, all projects should now be “sustainable”- a word I put in quotes because I harbor strong distaste for the term in the context of environmental awareness. “Sustainable” suggests a status-quo. It sounds boring and is not accurate for our situation. We need to be regenerating and co-evolving with the environment, righting our wrongs but also improving it’s potential, with more vitality than it currently has. The word “sustainable” is hardly a call to action. And we really need a massive call to action to everyone in the world. We cannot get very far without first ridding the world of political untruths and never-ending power struggles. You may feel this is an unrealistic goal- though if we do not talk about the potential arising out of our species finally growing up we will never achieve it.

All projects now need to be doing all they can towards improving the environment. Carbon, biodiversity, water recharge, etc- all of it, all of the planetary boundaries. I make no secret of my alignment with the Living Building Challenge (and accompanying other challenges and programs) because I see it as the most thoughtful and thorough system to follow. Though the world could also really use more Regenerative Practitioners as well. (I am attempting to become one, and invite you to join in.)

To return to where I started- inspired by vali homes’ Five Factors for a Good Building- I will leave the building science of their factors to their good work. Look to them to learn more on the issues they focus on:

a.       comfort & health

b.       efficiency & renewables

c.       durability & resiliency

d.       social equity & embodied injustice

e.       lifecycle carbon impact

Hope Springs Eternal (A Conclusion):

As humans, we have constantly strived for better lives. Along the way we have left behind the some of the most important aspects (Humanity and working in concert with our environment) of what makes for the best form of living.

As humans, we have been so focused on efficiency- for hundreds of years. The built environment is too often the urban equivalent of fast food: devoid of what nurtures us.

The good news is there is rapidly growing evidence on how to bring humanity & the environment back into health and into our lives. And; more good news! There are more projects everyday that show the best ways to achieve this, which become case studies and guides for more projects.

Is it difficult to achieve a truly “good” project based on this text’s hypothesis? Currently the answer is probably “yes,” but the process of working towards it are so much more interesting and rewarding than the status quo. The end results are too.

Pandemic Potential on Human Habitation

A rendering commissioned by Melbourne imagining the outcome of Melbourne’s Green Our City Plan

The pandemic has created an inflection point in Western culture and society. As traumatic as COVID-19 (C-19) has been to live through, and though light may be visible at the end of the tunnel, there are many potential opportunities to capitalize on. After speaking with several people around the United States and around the world over the past few months, I will try to relay some thoughts for consideration on the future. Possibly your future too.

My goal with this exploratory text is to create a sense of recognition (literally to regain our own awareness) in how and why we have been caught off guard by C-19, how the virus may bechanging the way we want to live, and what the potentials are moving forward. Over the course of 2020 I spoke to people all over the USA and around the world. I heard stories of what people thought of the pandemic, but also of their current housing situations and how the pandemic changed the way they want to live.

Before you read this, first pause and consider how you feel about your current living situation. Maybe you’ve moved since the start of the C-19 pandemic. Or maybe, like me, you’ve hardly left your home. How does your home, your community, your city, and your nation make you feel?

As we use those feelings as our starting point, we will explore a brief history of pandemics and Western Society, look at where we are at the close of 2020, and what we might be able to create for ourselves for the future.

A historic look at pandemic patterns within human communities:

Pre industry, humans had always held a strong distrust and fear of nature. The natural world was dangerous. Societies formed in order to “crowd-source” security. Early Homo Sapiens started as pack-animals in forests, in caves, and on the plains. Staying together allowed early humans to survive by sharing resources and security. Though the natural world could also hurl viruses at societies. The innate human impulse is to survive by recoiling away from disease. Over time, through scientific knowledge and a growing ability to empathize with those in need, we have become more nuanced.

From the middle ages until the late 19th century, the prevailing notion was illness was spread through air tainted with organic particles that had transformed into a dangerous concoction of diseases, called “miasma”. In the Middle Ages, officials in urban areas would clear streets to allow fresh air, burn anything that might be tainted with miasma, lock people infected with the plague within their homes, and marking the door with a cross as a warning. People were, essentially, left to perish alone. In the 15th century, in an effort to keep cholera confined to smaller areas, cities built “pesthouses” and packed ill people within- though with unintended consequences. From The Economist Magazine:

“In the early 19th century the cities of Europe and America faced for the first time a disease long familiar in Asia: cholera. City officials responded by deploying the old anti-plague techniques—clearing the streets of rubbish and carting people off to pesthouses. This time the popular reaction was swift and violent. Many cities, including Paris, rioted. In 1831 a furious crowd invaded a St Petersburg hospital, killed a doctor and liberated the people who had been taken there. Sir Richard Evans, a historian who has studied these episodes, argues that the authorities were so spooked by the violent reaction to their measures that they hesitated to use them again. Instead they began to think differently. To break the cycle of disease and disorder, they would have to make cities healthier.”

The first way leaders in urban areas attempted to make cities healthier was to invest in cleanliness. This effort was the start of organized trash collection and disposal, sewage systems, and eventually zoning regulations. Since miasma was considered the culprit, fresh air was considered paramount. Streets were not only kept clean, but widened (often at the detriment of impoverished neighborhoods). And housing was designed with better- often vertical- ventilation. The materials of construction were also considered, favoring brick over wood to reduce disease-carrying vermin.

In the latter half of the 19th century, a connection to nature, fresh air, and open space became a major movement. The creation of Central Park in New York City was a giant project that many other cities sought to emulate. Olmstead believed both physical and mental health depended on such connections:

“Ideally, Olmsted thought, urbanites would not merely have access to parks but would live in places that resembled them. “It is an established conclusion”, he wrote to landowners near Chicago in 1868, that “the mere proximity of dwellings which characterises all strictly urban neighbourhoods, is a prolific source of morbid conditions of the body and mind”. Only low-density suburbs, with winding roads and lots of green space, could keep people safe.

“Others were reaching the same conclusion. By the late 19th century American urban reformers were focused on the densely packed rooming-houses known as tenements. These were regarded as breeding grounds for cholera and, especially, tuberculosis—a disease that by the 1880s was known to be caused by a bacterium. New York insisted on the construction of air shafts, which led to buildings that were wide in front, facing the street, and wide at the back, but narrow in the middle—known as dumbbells. The law tightened in 1901, when builders were obliged to create large courtyards. They responded by building higher, especially on corner plots. All this can still be seen in Manhattan’s old residential neighbourhoods.” (The Economist)

In the 20th century tuberculosis (and the formation of germ-theory) changed buildings and cities again. Healthy spaces were associated with white smooth walls and floor-to-ceiling glass to allow sunlight, known at the time to kill germs, to cleanse spaces. Flat roofs helped to prevent people being harmed by falling ice. The first buildings to be designed this way were sanatoriums in Europe. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 helped spread these trends around the world.

“The Finnish architect Alvar Aalto designed a celebrated sanatorium in Paimio, then went on to create libraries, churches and apartment buildings. Others, like Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, borrowed the sanatorium aesthetic…  Modernist architecture has sometimes been called sterile. It is supposed to be.” (The Economist)

Prior to C-19, it had been 100 years without a truly significant global pandemic. Multiple generations have lived without Western Society experiencing the effects of a fast-moving, wide-spread disease and how destabilizing it can be. In order to consider how to be better prepared for the future, we will next look at where many people are considering in 2020.

Snap shots at what C-19 has changed in our communities:

Many people I have spoken with have a desire to move to less dense communities. There are a lot of reasons for this, though I find it so interesting that after millenia of human history of living with a fear of nature, now people are actively seeking connections to the natural world. First let us look into reasons there is waning appeal of big cities. Again, from The Economist:

“London (June 2020) is only 15% as busy as normal. Such quietness poses a grave threat to cities, especially the big, global ones. Much of the joy of suburban life derives from the houses and gardens that are more affordable there. The pleasure of village life is the peace and the countryside. But cities thrive on their busy streets, restaurants and theatres, which are now quiet or closed. That is a loss for urban consumers, and a calamity for the many people, often immigrants, who sell services.

“The virus has attacked the core of what makes these cities vibrant and successful. They prosper not so much because of what they do for businesses, but because they cram together talented people who are fizzing with ideas. Americans in cities with more than 1m people are 50% more productive than those elsewhere.”

That was during early summer 2020. A look at one source that utilized data and polling suggested that as of late November 2020 nearly 16 million people moved during the pandemic, and 20% of those people said it was because of C-19. That link shows that people, in large, left crowded urban areas for destinations with lower density. There are also some great maps that show the in-state movements of people from dense parts to suburban and rural counties and other data. New York City and Brooklyn, though, had the most people move away. That could be bad for their economies, and for the nation’s economic future.

“If they lose people, cities will run into a fiscal crunch, too. Their income from things like hotel taxes and bus fares has evaporated. New York’s independent budget office reports “absolute gloom and uncertainty” and frets that tax revenues may fall by $9bn in the next two fiscal years. The great danger is that cities enter a spiral of budget cuts, deteriorating services, rising crime and middle-class flight. It would be the 1970s all over again… And yet cities are stronger and more resilient than they seem. As with so much else, the fate of cities hangs on the development of treatments and vaccines… Cities remain invaluable as places where people can build networks and learn how to collaborate. The brain-workers now logging into Zoom meetings from commuter towns and country cottages can do their jobs because they formed relationships and imbibed cultures in corporate offices.” (The Economist)

Though the data from late in the year shows a relatively small number of people leaving cities. NYC, for instance, had around 111,000 net people move out of the city.

Many of the people I spoke to were also struggling working from home (lack of good internet bandwidth, equipment, space, acoustic privacy, etc). Experts suggested anyone that could work from home should do so. Many did, including my wife. Many children have also been at home learning remotely. As I heard from many people, this was a drastic life-style change that created stress and anxiety in many homes, leading to other issues such as depression and frayed relationships. Housing stock, whether in cities or suburban communities, was not designed for a pandemic stay-at-home order.

What I heard from nearly everyone I spoke to was a desire to improve their living situation in some way. On the architectural side of coLAB studio, we had more calls from people looking for new Zero Energy (and “off-grid”) homes, renovations, or simply suggestions on how to improve their situations. We have never been busier. One aspect bringing people to coLAB studio appears to be our work with Biophilic Design, which aims to create a sense of place and connections to the natural world within the built environment. 

I believe part of the problem with current housing stock that the pandemic exposed is its lack of a significant connection to the natural world. Biophilic Design can greatly improve spatial experience and increase human health and cognitive performance, though it would be best to design our cities utilizing it in a holistic way at a planning level. Several studies have shown that the more urban an area is, the more stressful it is to humans. As Alison Abbot writes:

“This 'social stress' activated many brain areas, two of them specifically correlated with the volunteers' history of urban living. The amygdala, which processes emotion, was activated only in people currently living in a city. And the cingulate cortex, which helps to regulate the amygdala and processes negative emotions, responded more strongly in those brought up in cities than in those who grew up in towns or rural areas.”

We have largely ignored the natural environment in dense urban areas, but that is not to say cities cannot be planned, designed, and renovated with strong connections to the natural world. These studies show the opposite. Nowhere is it more important than crowded urban areas. That is what Fredrick Law Olmstead (who designed Central Park in NYC) got right. Unfortunately, his desire to see people live in more suburban areas came to fruition at a mass scale, which in turn created less ability for people to connect to the natural world. What we created, and continue to create, is a highly inefficient low-density urban form that is only slightly less stressful for humans than dense urban centers but much worse for every other species on the planet.

The pandemic created or increased a variety of insecurities, and one of the first human instincts seems to be to seek nature. The natural world is completely woven into the evolution of our brains and bodies, from the views we prefer to the foods we seek when healthy or ill. If people are seeking nature, the natural world should be designed into every aspect of the built environment in a very intentional manner.

The Future’s Potential:

As stated above, we know there is a current trend towards some people abandoning dense urban areas for more suburban and rural communities. Though, the continuation of sprawl and single-family houses is clearly a challenge for many known reasons. One of the most important is that C-19 (and other viruses over the past 50 years) have likely come about because humans have eliminated natural hosts viruses normally live with. Many scientists and journalists have written about the connection between the decrease of natural habitats with pandemics. You can find articles here, here, here, and a really thorough and well written example here. We are out of balance with the natural world and we need to reconnect with it, be a part of it, and help it thrive so we are also able to stay more healthy- mentally and physically.

The question is how to design very urban cities and communities and include the necessary strong connection to nature. Making dense cities more livable is so important to achieve for the long-term health of humans and the planet because low dense housing destroys so much habitat.

Some of the other trends I heard from people I spoke to also included wanting to live in communities with a limited population. One person described their goal as “a traditional small town in Mexico (around 200 people)” of a scale allowing one to know everyone in town, similar to where she grew up. The appeal is a small population provides a greater sense of connection, communication, and cooperation between people. Today, there are planned developments where people design their own social and organizational rules, often called Intentional Communities. I can imagine potential for small-scale communities within urban cities that provide that small town lifestyle- at least in social terms.

In terms of people desiring community during the pandemic, here is some data The Economist gathered:

“As lockdowns have limited socialising beyond cohabitants or small groups known as ‘pods’ or ‘bubbles’, stories abound of people moving in with others to lessen isolation or share housework. In fact, the pandemic may merely have accelerated an existing trend. More and more, people in the rich world are once again choosing to live together.

“In Britain households where couples share with at least one other adult were the fastest-growing type in the two decades to 2019. In Canada 6% of the population lived in multigenerational households by 2016, and it was the fastest-growing type of living. By the same year a fifth of Australia’s 24.5m people were living with others from outside their immediate family, a 42% increase on 15 years earlier.

“Companies have jumped on this opportunity. The Collective, a British outfit, runs three co-living buildings, one in New York and two in London. Its “members”, whose average tenancy is nine months, live in studio flats but share lounges, gyms and a roster of events from cocktail-mixing to running clubs. The firm has another 9,000 units in development.

“Ben Brock-Johnson, a 40-year-old journalist, moved from New York to live in Pioneer Valley, a community of 32 homes in rural Massachusetts, with his wife and their now five-year-old twins. The community has shared gardens, as well as a large communal dining area and an events space. He says it is “like having 100 parents for your kids”. There are people around—including his parents, who live on the same estate—who can play with them, baby-sit them and just generally look out for them. His family, he reckons, have a much better work-life balance for it.”

Another trend I heard about was the desire to have a more self-sustained lifestyle. People have a desire to live without a connection or need of centralized utilities or sources of food. They want to create or collect their own food, energy, and water. In a single-family house situation this is often highly inefficient or difficult to produce based on cost or other resources such as limited land/area. I once heard Donald Eggleston of SERA Architects present a study on the scale of water collection and filtration, waste water treatment, energy collection, and all are most efficient at the scale of a small college campus. I can imagine potential for creating more sustainable and self-sufficient communities of a small scale within urban cities as well.

In terms of transit, which is hugely important for creating better communities and greater connections to the natural environment in sustainable ways, The Economist gathered this data:

“In Berlin passengers on public transport who fail to wear masks are warned of a €50 ($60) fine with the slogan “Protect others. Yourself. And your wallet.” Our data suggest that many people will avoid such fines by driving instead. Traffic congestion in Berlin was 8% above pre-pandemic levels between August and October. The pandemic has driven up vehicle registrations in New York City. In every city we analysed, car use grew more quickly than public transport and walking, after lockdowns eased in mid-2020. Congestion has followed this trajectory in most places, though a drop in tourist numbers has freed space on the roads.

“Several cities, including Athens, Budapest, London, Milan, New York and Paris, have pedestrianised streets to aid social distancing and introduced new bike lanes. Many plan to make these changes permanent. As the combination of more cars and closed-off roads compounds congestion, that will help two other competitors in the race for space on the streets: bicycles and e-scooters… During the lockdowns in mid-2020 bicycles experienced a surge in popularity. New bikes were in short supply, and city residents who had previously considered bike-sharing schemes to be transport for tourists changed their minds. With few visitors around, London’s bike-sharing scheme saw a threefold increase in new users between March and July.”

While people may return to public transit and ride-share options if we are to reach a post-pandemic state, we should keep in mind what people naturally gravitate to: Individual transit options are appealing as they provide greater personal options. With small personal electric vehicles, it may be possible to have more people space and less vehicle space, allowing more urban area to be given over to natural habitat. There could be great potential for renovating streets into natural habitat and/or food production.

In Summary:

Many (all?) people want to live in close-knit communities of a small scale.

Many (all?) people want to live in communities that are self-sufficient.

Many (all?) people want to live in communities with strong connections to the natural world.

Many (all?) people want housing that can change with them through various stages in life and be flexible enough to work with the curveballs the world can throw at them.

I can see the potential for all these desires to work together to create great thriving communities in dense urban areas. If enough of us see the potential, and work towards it, we can create the next quantum leap of human civilization, help the natural environment thrive, and improve our lives.

What is a Building, Really?

< Photo Credit: Agora, Athens, Greece: greece - www.athenskey.comagora.html>

When you look around the built environment, what does it make you think of or feel? Do you feel connected to the place’s history, local culture, and natural ecosystem? Or are the buildings mostly a background to your life? Human history shows a long lineage of putting great buildings and public spaces high on the priority list for what makes a great city and community. The question is, are we building on that legacy, or failing to live up to it?

This paper will discuss patterns of human history providing for culturally relevant places and the causes for our current state of urban banality, particularly in the United States, and how to recreate a more thoughtful way to think about planning and designing.

Most people will name older locales when asked which is their favorite cities or towns to visit. Some of my favorites are Paris near Ile de la Cite, London’s St Paul’s area, New Orleans’ French Quarter, and Old Jerusalem. Take a moment to close your eyes and mentally place yourself within a public urban location you enjoy being in. What do you see, feel, and experience there? Chances are the environment is visually lively- at least as a start. Maybe there are lots of people activating the space, but maybe not. It is likely there is some way you sense the surrounding buildings (and landscapes) are contributing to the experience of what it feels like to be in the public open spaces, and likely in a variety of ways.

Old cities are inviting, at least in part, because of how the buildings address open spaces and streets. I’ll use the example of New Orleans, Louisiana, with its visually and culturally dense French Quarter. I’ll focus on one detail of how buildings in the French Quarter relate to the public atmosphere; Nineteenth century traditional balconies with ornate iron-work railings. This detail is critical to the popularity and longevity of the now-familiar style of architecture most often associated with New Orleans.

< New Orleans French Quarter buildings and balconies. Photo credits, left to right: rosie-kerr-nUkxLPE5Fto-unsplash; historicamerica.net; atlasobscura.com >

The most common building type often appears to fill up its lot, and stands two-to-three stories tall. It allows for commercial functions on the ground level and housing on the upper level, providing for street activation and private homes above. The street width and building height often have a near one-to-one proportion, providing a pleasing spatial configuration that is also found in many favorite cities around the world such as Paris. The buildings have balconies on each upper level, which provide much-needed shade at the street and upper levels and privacy for the private home interiors. The balconies also allow inhabitants of the homes to comfortably inhabit the public street space without needing to fully engage with the bustle of street level. The overhangs also provide spatial depth to the street, something modern buildings too often forego. The railings on the balconies provide further visual depth and meaningful site-specific imagery to the streetscape.

Iron railings of the nineteenth century in New Orleans have a deep history, tying the city to colonial pasts of France and Spain, the growth of wealth in the area, and the slave trade- as much of the craftsman labor for building and iron-work was completed by enslaved people from West Africa. (While much of those histories are unpleasant to think about, please bear with this example as it also shows critical hidden ways our buildings are tied to local histories we should pay attention to.) Designers and home owners would adorn the railings with richly ornate botanical themes, religious imagery, traditional or personal symbology, and sometimes family initials, making each building a method of externalized communication and the street experience a woven tapestry of information. Think of it as nineteenth century social media. The balconies are vibrant expressions of history, culture, and personalities that add to New Orleans’ identity, as well as providing a draw for tourists. Even though most people today may not appreciate all of the meaning these buildings provide, the diverse functional and visual depth is highly invigorating.

The balconies and railings of New Orleans are an example of how cities used to be planned and built with great attention to the public realm. Even the earliest archaic human dwellings we know of contained visual and cultural imagery. From prehistory, in caves all around the world we find illustrations on the walls of important animals, and sometimes action scenes, portraying what was important to the inhabitants. The paintings provide a sense of identity and community. They must have held aesthetic value as well. The caves at Lascaux https://www.ancient.eu/Lascaux_Cave/ are particularly well preserved and have large and beautiful paintings, though there are also several great examples in Asia, Africa, The Americas, and elsewhere.

< Photo Credit: lascaux cave painting - Ahmed, B. 2018, April 27. Lascaux II Cave Today. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from httpswww.ancient.euimage8664 >

Around the globe, architecture before the Industrial Revolution often demonstrated a reverence for a connection between buildings (and therefore: humans) and local ecosystems. European cornices from the renaissance to the twentieth century, for instance, often depicted ornate and locally-familiar plant forms. This stemmed (figuratively) from Ancient Greek column ornaments (800-300 BCE), which were based on structures made from bundled reeds, though Egyptians (2650-1200 BCE) also had such ornament long before the Greeks. These fluted Egyptian and Greek columns were based on more traditional reed structures, similar to the Mudhif by the Mudan of Southern Iraq (3300 BCE – present). During the ancient regimes of Egypt, Greece, Rome, and beyond the European Renaissance (around 1500 – 1650 CE), great expense had been paid to include ornament in buildings and define public social space in order to demonstrate and encourage community identity, commodity, and a set of values.

< Historical examples of purposeful ornament. Photo credits, left to right: Roman cornice from Anna’s Blog (no link possible); Egyptian column: Steve F-E-Cameron Merlin-UK - CC BY-SA https-creativecommons-org-licenses-by-sa-3.0; Sally_Port_of_Sheikh_Lotf_Allah_Mosque - Gire 3pich2005 with thanks to Hossein Majidi GFDL >

Contrast these examples with the public spaces, streets, buildings that exist where you live; In my case Tempe, Arizona, which was incorporated in 1892. In difference to older cities, many newer urban environments in the Western United States show little cultural value for public space. This trend is also commonly found in contemporary design and construction in most of the world, with varying degrees. Tempe has a fairly charming downtown main street, though much of the remaining main streets are full of characterless strip malls and multi-family housing complexes with very little street life.

The reason for this contrast between the past and present is simple: Our values changed over time. Once we, as humans, developed the ability to harness power from various forms of energy (including fossil fuels), we realized incredible advances in production. With that production, particularly during the Industrial Revolution starting around 1760, human population grew with increasing acceleration- further fueling (pun intended) the need for greater productivity to keep up with a growing demand for food, clothes, products, housing, wealth, and power. Over the last few hundred years, we went from working with nature to harnessing it with abandon; physically, culturally, and intellectually.

According to Jonathan Hale in “The Old Way of Seeing,” architecture in the United States started changing in the very early 1800’s. In his book (pp 38-39), Hale quotes Alexis de Tocqueville and Ralph Waldo Emerson stating how commercialized the United States had become as far back as the 1820’s. Productivity was running roughshod over all aspects of life, and has picked up the pace right up to the present. Everything we now produce revolves around ruthless efficiency of time, money, and other measurables. Intangibles, such as the value of identity, culture, and human spirit have been left behind. Architecture and urban spaces have not been spared. Most buildings in the US today are the equivalent of the McDonald’s Big Mac-- not the puffy lively version in the commercials, rather the actual sandwich one buys at the restaurant: the flat, defeated looking version with the buns misaligned and falling apart before you even pick it up. (Food production over the past 500 years is also an apt example of how our values have evolved.)

Our cultural standards also have shifted in terms of privacy. As Richard Sennett demonstrated in his book, “The Fall of Public Man,” there has been a general movement towards greater personal privacy and away from public life. The book was written in 1976, long before social media complicated the conversation, yet we see a familiar pattern in the built environment to that which Sennett provides on personal privacy choices. Building designs have increasingly removed themselves from interacting with the public, reducing open spaces that are truly public, and eliminating visual meaning of all kinds. Twentieth Century modernism mostly furthered architecture’s retreat from local ecosystems, symbology, iconography, visual patterns, and meaning. Efficiency, universality, and pure functionality are the values most often portrayed, which has become the default for much of what gets built today. Though, thankfully, there has been a trend in the twenty-first century towards re-aligning building designs towards street life. In Tempe, for example, multi-family complexes and strip malls now have parking areas hidden from view. It’s a good first step.

When you look around the town or city where you live, search for what the buildings and spaces are communicating to you. Perhaps you live in a place like London or New Orleans that is filled with character, history, and meaningful places. Even if you are surrounded by strip malls and big-box stores, attempt to discern what the value systems were of the people who paid for and designed the structures and spaces. Contrast what you notice between the spaces you love and those you do not.

Once we, as communities, value the notion of public spaces that provide for identity, meaning, and relating humans and eco-systems in more direct ways, people and companies who help develop cities will change their ways. We should seek to make our cities as positively experiential and fascinating as the older cities we love to visit. Or as those working with Biomimicry say, we should seek to make buildings as beautiful as a flower, and our cities as engaging to explore as a forest.

Steps towards re-generating more positive and active city planning and spaces:

1.       Designers recognizing all buildings, even small single-family houses, have a public face and function within the greater built environment. All buildings and landscapes shape the spaces between them.

2.       The built environment designed to include and communicate beauty, emotion, history, local identity, connections to local eco-systems, and meaning. Assemble a project team who have patience, knowledge, and ability to tap into a community’s essence in the world today. One method to create a better built environment is to include artists in every project imaginable. If an entity is building a factory (or multi-family housing complex, or a city hall, etc), hire an artist to work with the owners, communities, engineers, and architects to allow it to contain more meaning and reflect the best values humans have to offer.

3.       Include experts in how humans can be closer to natural systems through our built environment. Professionals working with biomimicry and biophilic design, for instance, allow our environments become as naturally practical, functional, harmonic, and beautiful as a healthy forest or coral reef.

Everyday Sustainability

A graphic about some of the little (and big) things we can do every day/year to help out the planet. This is not meant as a complete list. Just a few items jotted down.

There Are Too Few Housing Choices; Cause and Effect.

"The Oscar" by Stark-James thankfully breaks the standard mold. 

INTRODUCTION

            A well-functioning city is a wonderful place to be. Cities such as London, Boston, and San Francisco have a great feel to them because there is a balance of consistency and variety that allows for a wide variety of housing solutions to occur. Economic stability helps as well. However, those cities went through their most formative years over 100 years ago. Young urban areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Dallas struggle to create thriving urban areas with consistency. One reason is a serious lack of housing choices. And when typologies come together in sprawling cities, there is often strange transitions from single-family houses to mid-rise (or even hi-rise) urban areas because they follow a very stringent formula of density and scale.

            Young city housing typologies in the US stick to a script of 6-7 versions (see diagram below). The lack of choice in typologies leaves us with far less choice in where and how we live. Without better options, two major consequences have created ongoing difficulties for such cities: First, people tend not to interact with their communities because they do not live in any home for long; Second, thriving urban zones in and around neighborhoods do not form organically as easily as other more established cities. Though these social and urban problems may have additional causes, the lack of available housing types have contributed to them and other issues.

            We are often asked questions about housing within Phoenix: Why are there so many rentals being built and so few for purchase? Why is there nothing being built for low-income singles? Why does everything look the same? Why is this street getting all the attention right now while two blocks away there are no plans for development? All good questions.

This paper will attempt to answer these questions and cover why we have such limited choices when it comes to housing types, the effects of those limitations, and what it might take to create change. Some of the statements along the way may seem rather sweeping, however such generalizations are helpful for raising conversation on the problem within this short medium. A good sized book would be required to answer such questions in detail. We will back up some statements with links to online articles where possible. It is important to remember this paper’s discussion is based around newer and larger suburban cities such as Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Salt Lake City. Though many of the same issues apply to smaller and sometimes more “hip” cities such as Portland, Tucson, and Austin as well.

EFFECTS OF LIMITED HOUSING OPTIONS

            Once upon a time suburban homes were a repeatable solution to the fairly severe post-war housing need. Traditional families, with two parents and two-to-four children were, well… normal. But today with people working out of their homes (Mike Brady: Home work-force pioneer!), live-work-commerce models, “non-traditional” families, boomerang generation trends, and the massive rise in single-living many of the traditional models for housing types have become fairly obsolete. Aside from currently trendy but very limited access to micro-dwellings and the small-house movement attracting interest from singles, the models for housing types most often built are out-of-sync with contemporary living needs. Whether you are a single artist, a stay-at-home 3D printing manufacturer, a LBGT couple, or multi-generational family, a typical 3-bedroom house with its standard wall placement and structural configuration is often considered inflexible for a wide variety of required uses. And it is often very difficult to find housing types that fit those uses and needs. Let’s look at a diagram of typical housing:

As already mentioned, there are the six basic housing typologies in most cities, listed here at their most common density levels. The diagram demonstrates several important points:

1.     There is a clear division between attached and separated unit types. Other research coLAB has conducted indicates there is a large population of people who cannot envision themselves living in attached housing of any kind. This is why single-family housing (SFH) is still so popular. And because of rising land and construction costs, the way to make them more affordable is to build “patio-homes,” which have none of the positive value of traditionally rural SFH and all of the negative effects of sprawl (poor health, long commute times, inefficient energy use, social isolationism, etc). Still, studies believe that over 50% of all Americans live in suburban single family homes.

2.     Because of growing populations, increasing construction costs, shrinking available land in most cases, and growing awareness for the importance of living in balance with the environment, cities should be building with greater density.

3.     #1 and #2 above are at odds with each other.

4.     None of these models automatically provide the required space-flexibility for non-traditional modes of living. All are built with fixed walls set up for maximum bedrooms with traditional living spaces, though often homes and apartments are now built with slightly more flexible “great rooms” that combine living, dining, and kitchen. However, most fixed walls in most housing developments are structural and offer barriers to renovation while still disabling further flexibility of use and function.

5.     The most positive overlap of different types of lifestyles occurs at the “townhouse” and “apartment cluster” scales and densities. This could indicate a good place to start looking for new typologies with greater flexibility.

These building types are also so specific they may lead to abrupt transitions between types. The worst case scenario I can think of is a 20 story condo building where my grandparents lived in Westwood, California, which looked over a couple of two-story apartment clusters and a vast neighborhood of single-family houses. The views and spaces were fairly uncomfortable for everyone. Another example I can provide is in my current neighborhood within Tempe, which currently has a five-story apartment complex under construction directly behind single-family housing.

            The final effects of these poor transitions produces negative urban spaces and disharmonious psychological effects on the people living among these conditions. In fact there have been many studies that show that these environments create specific psychological and physical health problems. One publication that lists out what positive spatial attributes contribute to positive mind and body responses is 14 Patterns of Biophillic Design by Terrapin Bright Green. 

Hudson Manor, Tempe. Photograph by Matthew Salenger.

The discomfort that people feel in sprawling cities, with or without the transitions, seems to result in shorter time periods for people to reside in one place. It is not uncommon for people to move every five years or so when living in sprawl. The shorter one lives in a home, the less connected they are to the neighborhood and community. Greater mobility and isolation occurs. This, in turn, breeds the desire for looking for familiarity with well-known brands, big box stores, “chain” restaurants over locally owned choices. All this contributes to weaker street activation and dull urban areas, which can create huge areas of static growth or even spiraling decay.

CAUSES LEADING TO LIMITED TYPOLOGIES

One would think that with so many people desiring variation and flexibility in housing types more models for living would exist. But there are various controls on what gets built, none of them sinister in nature, but all of them work together to constrict what gets built. One of the most obvious is what people are willing to purchase. And what people are willing to purchase is limited to what they believe they can sell, preferably at a profit. These are part of what we call market forces, and it alters what gets built at the same level of a developer as the individual home buyer/seller. These are some causes of the housing issue:

1.     A developer will only build what they can make a profit on (or at least break even if they are the rare non-profit type). They seek to develop what the current buyer wants, usually based on historical data of what has made money in the recent past, and then guess what will garner a higher price based on trends. They take into consideration what land costs are and what typology of building will be possible (by zoning and neighborhood) and test its economic viability through design and/or pro forma (number crunching) models. Experimenting with new typologies is generally seen as risky; both for the developer and the buyer. Thus, this isn’t just on the developer, it’s on “us,” the consumer as well. These are some of the ways in which “market forces” work to decide what, where, when, and how housing developments get built.

Developers also prefer to stick to their scripts on the aesthetics of developments. Units are often of a similar size from project to project, which makes for the repeated exterior appearances of nearly all 4-6 story developments. They can alter the materials they clad the building in, but they hardly ever have a different presence from the street.

Land costs often dictate where developers build, choosing areas with lower land next to higher property values with proper zoning (see #3 below). For years the land costs have been higher than they should be, necessitating developers build rental units over for-ownership models in order to bring in long-term money to cover the higher initial costs.

2.     A huge reason for limited typologies lies with financial institutions who finance construction projects. Banks are notoriously conservative, and base many of their decisions on historical models of given typologies. There is a lot of data on the most familiar types of developments such as typical five story blocks of housing or sprawling single-family houses on the outskirts of town. There is little confidence from banks on any new and creative typologies someone might want to create, so the developers find it difficult or impossible to find financing for anything other than the familiar/traditional types of housing. Banks are also currently more eager to loan to larger/proven national development companies offering high-end rental units near downtown areas which we see so much of today. For-ownership models are more risky because the financial gain is more short-term and limited.

3.     Zoning, the establishment of local districts for certain uses, is a huge factor in deciding what gets built and where it can be situated. Municipalities designate zoning based on what is the perceived best interest of the public. Heralded as a great accomplishment more than 100 years ago, when factories would pollute the air and water directly next to worker housing, it has gotten very prescriptive in the last forty years or so. Zoning mostly prescribes various building densities (how many homes per acre, for instance), and uses (housing vs commercial vs industrial).

Municipalities often want to increase density in order to make civic service (fire and police), utility, and transportation infrastructure more efficient. Greater density provides increased tax revenue per acre, which is a benefit to the city’s ability to function- but also often for the population. Having more people per acre provides better commercial services for residents (as long as it is zoned appropriately) as walkability improves. When a town wants to increase density, it revises zoning to allow for greater density, and usually eliminates less density in an area. This is when you get 5-7 story buildings or even high-rises next to single-family homes.

Some municipalities don’t even allow for anything in between. We recently discovered that Scottsdale, Arizona, for instance, doesn’t allow townhouses that act as single-family houses for ownership (as opposed to rental units) as an in-between density level. They also don’t allow clusters of attached houses. They used to allow these typologies, but likely eliminated them thinking such typologies damaged a standard of living or lowered adjacent property values.

4.     Another deciding factor is how government gets involved. Prior to the 1970s, banks in the US would generally not loan to non-whites or females because they were traditionally seen as “high risk.” Congress helped to set up government backed loans for such people to equalize the loaning industry. After World War II, government also started to support development of low-income (or “socialized”) housing- sometimes with rather disastrous results. While these interventions have had their flaws, they at least recognize the need for assistance for those that do not have purchasing power within standard market forces. Without them, home ownership for a majority of people would likely not exist at all.

There are many limits on what government can do to level the housing playing field, and it is not evenly governed from state to state. In Arizona, for example, the state legislature has ruled out many options for its municipalities to provide for better urban environments. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to provide subsidies for such low-income projects is outlawed, as is mandating percentages of any development to provide for low-income housing. These restrictions are unique to Arizona, along with the recent meddling with Business Improvement Districts that allow an area to self-govern for greater improvement than municipalities provide. Though proven successful in other states, these tools have been removed from use in Arizona because of a strong belief in the market to cure all ills on its own. Though Arizona has a relatively low cost of living in the state, the current low wages and little incentive to build for diversity in urban areas, there is a location separation of the wealthy from those that must “drive till they qualify” out to the edges of town where sprawling developments so often occur.

This can be a trap for people with lower incomes, as the long drive times means there are few public transportation options, leaving them beholden to their private vehicles at greater cost than if they could live closer to urban areas where most of the jobs are. The neighborhoods, too, do not escalate in value as quickly as most other areas, meaning they don’t have the chance to build up as much wealth. 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

Though there are strong forces that create the limited housing typologies we have, there are possible solutions we can be working towards to create real and lasting change.

1.     Municipalities can push developers to be more creative. Municipalities should have design review boards that contain industry professionals who understand the issues, are endowed with power that goes beyond just “checking boxes,” and are accountable to the public. They should be able to recognize good creative design and not punish projects that stray from the norm. They could offer more European style competitions or design assistance with positive case-study examples developers might work with.

2.     There needs to be better education of financial institutions so they begin to feel more comfortable providing loans to more diverse projects. This requires utilizing housing types from other cities, states, or nations that have proven historically viable. Developers may also have to find creative ways to compare a desired typology model to something more standard in order to convince banks towards what is desired. Working with local banks with more community ties is always a good idea, and in some cases new private or public institutions could be created, such as state banks.

3.     Changes to zoning, to allow for more flexibility, could also help considerably. In some cities, there have been changes away from traditional models to what is called the Form Based Code. This is zoning that uses physical form rather than separation of uses and densities. These often still contain flaws, so with either format errors should be noted and improvements should be requested.

4.     Government rules and regulations are the most difficult issue to fix, though not impossible. Even in Arizona, there is movement towards getting a state legislature vote on TIF’s. However, regulation, in any form, often has negative consequences. Rules, or their abandonment, should be carefully considered and examples from other states should be studied. But with enough support, the right tools can be implemented.

Each of these potential solutions require a lot of advocacy from industry professionals, professional associations, affiliates, and the general public. For a lot of us, that may be as simple as acting the part of a good “consumer,” and tell developers we don’t like the choices we have. Housing developers want to provide what we will actually purchase, so let them know how to best serve you.

SYNOPSIS

            Within a lot of sprawling cities, such as Phoenix, there exist many acres of empty land waiting to be developed. If we want a vibrant city with a sustainable economy and thriving cultural events, we desperately need more housing types that provide for more community diversity. To see those types develop, we need to recognize the forces limiting our choices and work in the right directions to create the change we want. You can start by telling this developer, vali homes, what you are looking for in a home. They are working on new development models in the Phoenix area and would love to hear from you. More than anything, get involved in your community, educate yourself on the issues, and be vocal. 

Biophilic Design and Biomimicry Basics

Photo by Sherwood Wang of 180 Degrees

INTRODUCTION

            There are many different ways to bring about greater happiness and more value in our everyday living. Everyone wants to live more healthy, happy, interesting and productive lives. We also want to make our dollar stretch further. When it comes to designing products and buildings, there are new tools that help us do all of that. And thanks to new technologies and scientific studies, there are quantifiable methods of providing better, more comfortable, efficient, and attractive buildings.

            coLAB studio has experts in two of the most fascinating tools for designing innovative built environments: Biophilia and Biomimicry. As their names imply, both deal with ideas based in nature- however, there is less overlap than one might imagine. Many people, including designers, are not familiar with the base purpose of these two important tools for designing better, more efficient, and more productive buildings, spaces, products, and providing better life choices. This paper hopes to provide basic information about Biophilia and Biomimicry to help readers understand them and also describe how to incorporate both tools into their lives and professional practices.

We've provided links within the following text to more information- so be sure to check them out.

BIOPHILIA

            The root of the word, Biophilia, means a love for nature, life, and living systems. The term was first used by Erich Fromm as part of his conception for a productive psychological orientation. This is relevant for how we now use the term today, which was part of what Edward O. Wilson called the Biophilia Hypothesis. In his 1984 book, Biophilia, Wilson defined the term as “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life”. Recent researchers have found strong psychological, physical, and cognitive benefits from utilizing ideas put forward by Wilson that have been statistically verified in numerous studies.

Before discussing scientific studies, it is important to note that designers have instinctually known about the advantages of Biophilic Design for millenia. One can think about Mies Van Der Rohe’s Farnsworth House, and its elimination of boundaries between interior and exterior. Or Frank Lloyd Wright’s desire to, as he put it, blend the boundaries of interior and exterior. Frederick Law Olmstead designed Central Park with the purpose of bringing a sense of calm and joy to the working classes by connecting them to nature. Traditional Chinese courtyard houses were designed for centuries with nature at their core. Every culture on every continent have utilized tools of Biophilia to produce various benefits ever since people have made buildings. Now we have plenty of evidence showing these tools actually and quantifiably work.           

 There are several books on Biophilic Design available, though the one we find most helpful is Stephen R. Kellert’s Nature By Design. Though, there is another called 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Improving Health & Well-Being In The Built Environment by Terrapin Bright Green that connects over 100 scientific studies about how space effects humans to various tenants of Biophilia. The authors organize a wide ranging series of Biophilic Design tactics into fourteen categories and provide a matrix showing what each of those categories provide as benefits in terms of stress reduction; cognitive performance; emotion, mood and preference. The book cites scores of neurological, psychological, quantitative, and other scientific studies showing direct links between various design strategies and mind-body benefits. The book was written specifically to assist designers in making more conscious choices to improve the environments they create.

            As an example of Biophilic Design: Imagine a large residential courtyard. Picture it surrounded on all sides by eight foot tall opaque walls with a beautiful tree in the middle. This type of space providing a protected “retreat” falls within Terrapin’s fourteen patterns as “Refuge”. It appears to be engrained as a desirable space in all people, as it has been used all over the world over many centuries. This particular pattern provides increased cognitive performance including improved concentration, attention, and perception of safety as shown in a study by Grahn & Stigsdotter in 2010 along with two other studies completed in previous decades.

            Other studies have shown that particular patterns and colors can be combined to expedite healing in hospitals and calm prison inmates. Terrapin’s book does a great job of providing descriptions of the patterns and benefits. One of the most interesting is the pattern “Risk/Peril”, which provides strong dopamine or pleasure responses. Think of looking out from the observation deck of the Sears Tower or standing on the edge of a cliff. And though that may seem like simple “fun” (to some at least), there are actually quantifiable psychological and task-related benefits from occasionally engaging in such behavior. 

Courtyard House; Cedar Street Residence by coLAB studio

BIOMIMICRY

            Sometimes also referred to as Biomimetics, Biomimicry is the study and imitation of natural systems for the purpose of solving complex problems. A famous example you are probably familiar with is the invention of Velcro. In 1941, Swiss engineer George de Mestral went hiking in the woods and returned home with burrs clinging to his pants and his dog’s fur. He studied what made them hold on so effectively and noticed many tiny hooks designed to cling to any hairy animal passing by. A few years later, Mestral developed a tape that mimicked the hooks and hair that is still in use today.

            While Biophilia is ancient in origin, Biomimicry is a wide-ranging and ever-evolving field that is in many ways still in its infancy. It also has several ancient examples of people learning from nature, but many of the current ways in which we study nature have only been possible through recent technologies such as computer modelling and electron microscopes. The ideas that have sprung out are amazingly exciting - such as wind turbines modeled after humpback whale flippers that provide a 20% increase in efficiency. and self-healing plastics for aircraft. Another example is a tall building in Zimbabwe modeled after termite mounds that passively regulates the interior temperature of the building with no conventional air-conditioning- all through careful manipulation of form and air patterns. Biomimicry lessons can also increase efficiency and vitality when applied to business practices, group dynamics, and almost any aspect of life. 

Efficient turbine blade based on Humpback Whale fin by WhalePower.

The standard jumping off point for Biomimetic thinking comes from the idea called “The Genius of Place”, an imperative to study how nature solves issues related to a particular location. For instance, if one is building a structure in a very hot climate, studies of how local plants and animals have adapted to the climate may provide ideas for innovative answers to complex problems. For an example of this, coLAB studied how Saguaro cactus create micro-climates in their vertical flutes using the stack-effect to keep cool and developed a ventilated cladding system using similar systems. The exterior skin helps to keep the building cooler and reduces overall energy use. There is even a handy website to help find information on how nature solves problems.

Ventilated skin system, Vali Prototype Infill House 1 by coLAB studio.

            Nature is an amazing teacher. As more people study this field, the more we realize there are virtually no limits to what our environment can show us how to improve ourselves and the world around us. There are several entities delving into Biomimicry- and in Arizona we are lucky enough to have one of the most prevalent consulting groups in the world in this subject, Biomimicry 3.8, working right around the corner from coLAB studio at the ASU School of Sustainability on The Biomimicry Center. 

SYNOPSIS

            Biophilia and Biomimicry each provide amazingly helpful tools for improving our built environment, but do so in very different ways. Biophilia offers physical and psychological benefits directly for human health, wellbeing, and productivity. Biomimicry delivers innovative efficiencies for complex systems in the building industry and beyond. And though very different, they often work well together and even enhance each other’s value and benefits.

            Utilizing these tools in design requires a knowledge of the potentials and the processes to produce results. Biophilia can be intuitive to designers, but can also be enhanced through greater knowledge of the examples and scientific evidence available. Biomimicry usually takes a bit of training, and also patience to fully study a site, subject, or species. The benefits of both usually greatly outweigh the costs.

            Feel free to contact us to see how we can help provide greater value to your life through these and other tools. 

NET-ZERO WATER DESIGN BASICS

Central Arizona Project Canal in North Phoenix. Photo by Chuck & Micky.

INTRODUCTION

            We all need clean water to survive, yet is increasingly becoming scarce on the planet. While architects and engineers have gotten much better at how to reach Net Zero Energy (NZE) with buildings, Net Zero Water (NZW) remains more of a mystery. And yet access to clean drinking water could very well define the viability of every village and city in the future. Indeed, the overriding importance of water related to the built environment has not escaped some very big governmental entities. The US Army, for instance, has taken major strides at NZW (as well as NZE and Net Zero Waste), seeing it as an imperative part of their ability to function.

            There is a vital need to re-think our water supply and waste-water structures. After all, we base our supply and waste systems on technology that is over 2000 years old. And while centralized systems were extremely valuable achievements in their day, we have enough knowledge now to understand what should come next. And this is important because our cities have grown to the point where centralized systems have become less efficient than decentralized potentials. Two such examples of central inefficiencies are; first with the amount of energy it takes to pump water across urban and rural areas, and second with the problems of how to deal with massive amounts of black-water (toilet) waste- which currently is processed with toxic chemicals including chlorine. A recent study by SERA Architects found the most efficient way to handle a variety of utilities and waste is at a scale much smaller than that of cities and closer to the size of a college campus.

            Thankfully there are proven ways to deal with collecting and treating water on-site. There are several barriers to such systems, such as social misperception, lack of governmental understanding, and cost- but there are several excellent examples of built projects that provide paths on how to think about these issues for the future. One such example is the Bullitt Center in Seattle, which shows that NZW and waste water treatment can be achieved, even at urban sites.

            We hope to provide the basis for understanding how to conceive and design for NZW with this paper. For brevity, we will discuss a greatly simplified idea of how we think about on-site water use and provide a single-family residential project as an example. However, we will also provide links to examples of much larger projects to show that living in balance with the water cycle is achievable at essentially any scale. 

Ottosen Entry Garden at the Desert Botanical Gardens. Design by Spurlock Poirier, photograph by Bill Timmerman.

MINDSET AND NZW PROCESS

            Native Peoples around the world mostly lived in balance with the water cycle and their environment- though for the purpose of this paper, let's use an example of a familiar project type: A typical house. Let's imagine you are a nineteenth century "homesteader" attempting to start and run a farm on a piece of land with no centralized utility systems available. Water would likely come from one or both of two sources; A well tapping into a water table below ground; The collection of rainwater into a basin or cistern. Blackwater would most likely be treated either with an underground pit or an on-surface leach-field. If the black-water is handled correctly, the waste can be turned into fertilizer to increase crop yields. These types of systems are easier to utilize when there is enough open space for each house/project to avoid waste occurring too close to living and working spaces. However, with the use of some new technologies using ancient ideas, these processes can be placed in close proximity to populations without harmful effects. In particular, John Todd's Living Machines have been in use for decades with great results.

            To demonstrate how to conceive of getting in balance, and possibly "off the grid" when it comes to water, let's look at a simple residential example to understand how to consider and design for NZW. Look at the example graph and you'll see the tall column on the left representing typical water usage for a family of 3-4 people living in a single family home with a small yard including a patch of turf lawn (column A). What you'll notice is how much certain uses consume. The initial process to getting in balance is to reduce water usage as much as possible before considering the options for water collection.

By eliminating the turf, utilizing xeriscaping (native drought-tolerant plants), installing low-water use fixtures (such as low-flow sink faucets and dual-flush toilets), and good individual practice (the 4-minute shower, for instance), much of the water load is reduced as shown in the second column (B). This means we need to collect less water to achieve balance, which is a huge help. There are even some new low-flow shower heads that actually work well. Most low-use fixtures have been shown to lower actual water use. And though we all enjoy having turf and lush landscaping, we can instead consider increased placement of neighborhood parks, which can utilize area storm-water re-use to supply landscaped environments for entire neighborhoods. These communal spaces may also form better social cohesion and reduce social isolation. And there is an alternative to conventional turf, which is UC Verde Buffalo Grass, which uses only 20% of the water of turf and never needs mowing. Ok, let's return to our graph example...

            In column C, you can see that we've eliminated the need for landscaping irrigation with careful plant choices. We've also eliminated the need for water used for toilets by replacing them with composting toilets. While such toilets conjure up negative visions of port-a-johns or smelly camping facilities, new technologies in composting toilets with vacuum flushing (similar to what you've likely used on airplanes) provide bathrooms without odor and improved health over conventional toilets that spray germs with every flush. There is a choice here, though. One could choose to keep traditional water-flush toilets, but this comes with the requirement to collect more water and treat a greater amount of black-water. So, for this exercise, to keep it simple, let's stay with the example of composting toilets.

            For the use of composting toilets, there are now "plug-and-play" appliances that collect and treat the waste with non-toxic bacteria. The end result is a compost that may be utilized in gardens or sold (helping to recoup costs of the equipment) to companies that resell the waste as commercial fertilizer. If one chooses to additionally utilize a urine diverter in the system, the liquid waste may also be sold to companies for fertilizer and even for processing the resulting metals.

            Now that we've reduced as much as we can on the water requirement side, we know how much water we need to collect. Let's assume that our residential example is a 1500 SF house in the Phoenix Metropolitan area (PHX)- a place with far less annual rainfall than much of the USA. Even in the Sonoran Desert we can collect 6000 gal/yr from a 1500 SF roof area. The majority of the rainfall in PHX occurs in July & August during the monsoon period, with almost all the remainder falling in January & February. This results in long dry seasons between the two wet seasons. In order to stretch out the collected water through the dry periods, we have to gather everything possible during wet months and store the water. This requires large containers to be installed, monitored, and maintained to eliminate algae or other harmful agents. In column D, you'll see how far the rainwater collection and reuse gets us, with our water requirement now dropped to just 8,000 gal/yr.

            The other methods of water collection come through greywater (non-toilet uses such as laundry and showers) and black-water (toilets). As we've decided to use composting toilets in our example, we will skip the latter for this paper. Greywater also needs to be stored, but since it is collected on a daily basis (rather than seasonal), we don't need to add much additional water containment space. However, this water needs to be treated a bit more with enzymes and bacteria to ensure the water creates safe reuse for showers, laundry, and dishwashing. Here again, plug-and-play products are available, including for residential projects. By reusing this water along with rainwater and the reductions in usage, you can see in column E that we have achieved NZW.

             This examples shows a pathway to living in balance within our imaginary site, but let's take a moment to discuss some real-world barriers we likely have in our way. One perceived barrier is a lack of space for a given project. But as discussed earlier, urban projects such as the Bullitt center have shown that it need not be an insurmountable problem. It may add cost for the extra equipment required to achieve balance, however. And cost for the equipment, extra piping, and water storage systems may definitely be a barrier. But even if cost isn't a problem, quite often governmental regulations are in the way of gaining approval for the use of these systems. In Maricopa County, for instance, there is a requirement for all projects that have access to centralized water and waste systems MUST be connected to them. And many health regulators do not approve of on-site water collection and reuse. It can take a great deal of convincing to get regulators onboard with a project's goals. It may even require a client to become their own registered 'utility supply company'- though that may not be as difficult as it sounds. Still, the barriers are real and it takes a good deal of patience from designers and project owners to clear the hurdles. It also wouldn’t hurt if there was a greater amount of advocacy to demonstrate working project examples to regulators.  

            And while the path to living in balance with the water cycle may not be initially easy, there are huge benefits to our cities and planet. The good news is that there are some very good examples of projects out there finding new ways to achieve real NZW and potentially even creating a new interconnected infrastructure for collected and treated water. By sharing water across projects, we can help raise the efficiency of decentralized water production and usage.

Eco-Rain crates are inexpensive and can handle cars and trucks driving and parking on them.

SYNOPSIS

            Our planet is struggling to provide clean water sources as the population and industrialized production increases. Extended droughts are also creating dry areas with large populations, and many reservoirs and lakes are at record low levels. We have never lived in a time where producing projects that exist in balance with the water cycle has ever been so important. The project value of producing NZW projects is increasing, and it is important as owners, clients, designers, and students to understand the fundamentals of designing and living responsibly when it comes to water. We hope this paper will provide a basis for greater change when it comes to how we deal with on-site water, even in extremely dry areas such as Metropolitan Phoenix.

            For more information on water issues, NZW design and barriers, look to the Living Building Challenge.