what, not where (4): filipino architects as innovators

The same good people who brought you Design Like You Give a Damn, will soon (March 8) bring you, the Open Architecture Network.

The blurb on the site:

"How do you improve the living standards of five billion people?

"With 100 million solutions. Your solutions."

Which is Idea #3 -and my last post on this series that is a rejoinder to Paulo Alcazaren's "Where are the Filipino Architects?"

My contention is the question should not be "where," but should instead be "what."

IDEA #3: What can Filipino Architects do? They can be innovators.

There has always been a tension in the field of architecture that revolves around the question: Are architects artists? Or are they craftsmen and artisans?

The answer, of course, is both. All the starchitects of the world started out as drafting monkeys. And because of the adulation, the temptation for all architectural students is to aspire to reach that kind of recognition. (Which is probably the recognition Paulo is talking about when he asks his rhetorical "where?")

To rise above the cacophony of the our cities, the aspiring starchitect wants to stand out by creating buildings that express his deep intellectual artististry.

I have nothing against that. Iconic building define place. But real cities cannot be built only of iconic buildings.

The Guggenheim crowns the success of Bilbao, it did not predicate it.

Yes, Metro Manila could use an iconic building or two -and yes, it would be nice to have a Filipino architect's name propelled to the heights of cultural stardom. But the bigger problem staring us (and our sister megacities) is the challenge of turning our squalid slums into livable communities. Over and above a policy solution, that challenge requires a design intervention.

The Open Architecture Network defines the challenge of our day as such:

One billion people live in abject poverty. Four billion live in fragile but growing economies. One in seven people live in slum settlements. By 2020 it will be one in three. We don't need to choose between architecture or revolution. What we need is an architectural revolution.

The U.N. Millennium Development Goals aim to "achieve improvement in the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by the year 2015." Reaching this goal will require a profoundly new approach to improving the built environment.

The Open Architecture Network aims to be just such a catalyst for change.

Think of it. Instead of expending their collective hearts, minds and souls into finally building that one iconic building that will define us, our art and our culture -that one building that will maybe house 100 people or 100 corporations; Filipino architects could instead take to solving the problem that is confronting and will confront Two Billion People Around the World.

What if a Filipino architect could become the Muhammad Yunus of architecture?

How's that for long term impact? How's that for monumentality?

(And the great part is that our own megacity could be a living laboratory for this change. The best solutions will come from the people who live with the problem.)

what, not where (3):the filipino architect as advocate

"The architects' skills as creative thinkers, problem solvers, planners, listeners, organizers, and implementers are valuable and needed skills within the public arena."

-Harris Steinberg, AIA,
"Toward an Architecture of Engagement,"
in The Sustainable City II: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability, 2002.

So here's idea number 2, in this series of posts on what Filipino architects can do. A rejoinder to Paulo Alcazaren's column entitled "Where are the Filipino Architects?"

IDEA 2: They can begin advocating for plans, policies and investments that create more livable cities.

Like I said in my rejoinder, architects, as professionals trained to understand the built environment, should "speak out and help find solutions to the urgent issues that confront their countrymen who must live in that built environment...They should be an active voice in the shaping of policies that ultimately shape our built environment."

By all accounts we are one of the most rapidly urbanizing populations in the world (59% and rising). The majority of our population already lives in urbanized areas, and the number will only continue to grow. Where are the public discourses on the health of our cities? Can we think about metropolitan issues beyond traffic congestion?

Architects and the allied professions should be speaking with very loud voices on the challenges of our urban landscapes.

More after the jump...
One of the most overlooked aspects of requirements for democracy is the need for democratic space - real, three dimensional space. Civic life cannot prosper without civic spaces. I strongly suspect that the ailments of our democracy are somehow pathologically linked to our lack of dedicated civic space. Plaza Miranda, notwithstanding, the space of our democracy is defined by borrowed spaces - EDSA and Ayala Avenue -spaces dedicated to vehicular traffic. (Does this lend to the notion that the practice of our democratic rights is the exception rather than the rule?)

Even if they do not directly mention civic spaces and urban livability (or even architecture), our existing policy frameworks actively shape our built environment. From the use and restrictions of eminent domain, to infrastructure budgets that prioritize roadway expansion vs. all other transportation options; from housing policies, to rent control; from squatter relocation to regional planning -there are many, many policy conversations that could better be informed by the voices of architects, planners and designers who can bring an understanding of the spatial implications of the policies.

Perhaps the United Architects of the Philippines can take its cue from the American Institute of Architects who highlight the leadership role of architects in the public discourse. One of their key projects is the Center for Communities by Design, "a nonpartisan forum that provides information, develops policy, creates partnerships, and assists in advocacy efforts to facilitate discussions of community design and inform choices for neighborhoods, cities, regions, and the nation."

The AIA has also released "How architects can be advocates for more livable communities" (pdf 2.3mb), a 24-page guidebook that defines the role architects can play as advocates in their communities.

Over and above leading the conversation on the livability of our cities, architects and the allied design professionals, trained as they are in design thinking, can bring new insights and innovative approaches to solving some of the most vexing problems we face.

Image Credit: Photo by Dan Burden,
from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center
image library (www.pedbikeimages.org)

what, not where (2): the filipino architect as educator

Further to my rejoinder to Paulo Alcazaren, in my succeeding posts, I will showcase of what our local architects community could be doing to become more relevant to the urban discourse and have more of an impact in improving the quality of life in our megacity.

IDEA 1: They can begin educating their countrymen about the built environment and how it shapes our civic life.

The UK has the Commission of Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), a government funded statutory body, that "is the government’s advisor on architecture, urban design and public space."

From the CABE site:

We work directly with architects, planners, designers, developers and clients, offering them guidance on projects that will shape lives. And parks and open spaces are as important to us as bricks and mortar.

As the government's advisor, CABE provides expert, practical advice.

More after the jump...

CABE encourages policy makers to create places that are safe, beautiful and efficient to run. Our activity includes:

• advising clients, contractors, architects and planners - design review of significant proposals for buildings and public spaces
• helping public agencies with good design - providing free enabling advice direct to public agencies which are commissioning new buildings, masterplans, urban frameworks or green space strategies
• supporting public agencies in boosting their in-house design expertise
• promoting better education, skills and careers for the built environment
• conducting research and running campaigns on architecture, design and public spaces and encouraging the public to demand higher standards in buildings and spaces.

One of CABE's key projects is to prepare educational materials and curricula for UK schools. The program "invites pupils to approach the places and spaces they inhabit from different perspectives, encouraging long-term engagement and a realisation that, as young people, they have a valid contribution to make to the development of their local area."

CABE leads the outstanding How Places Work -a program of facilitated visits to buildings and spaces for secondary schools designed to inspire young people to learn about the built environment through first hand experience. (Download the Teacher's Guide here. -pdf 1mb)

I used to teach in a local private high school and I remember the students would go on immersion programs that introduced them to the issues of the urban or rural poor. What strikes me now is how the conversations about the plight of the poor were totally disconnected to the conditions of their physical environment. Economics is not the only determinant of poverty in our megacities, it is also determined by physical and locational factors. The conditions of our slums has its roots in our shared (but largely unconscious) paradigm of "the good city" and our understanding of the dynamics that shape it.

The United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) ("awardee of the Professional Regulation Commission's Most Outstanding Accredited Professional Organization of the Year 2002" -so they trumpet) could do well to put "educating the nation about the role of the built environment" in their otherwise bellygazing organization objectives.

And while we're asking about where the architects are -or what they should be doing -I also have to ask, where are the Filipino urban planners?

(Up Next: IDEA 2 -They can be advocates.)

Image credit: Extract from How Places Work, Teacher's Guide.
Published by CABE.

what, not where: the filipino architect in the megacity

A month ago, landscape architect and urban historian Paulo Alcazaren asked the question "Where are the Filipino architects?" in his CITY SENSE column for The Philippine Star. The column is reprinted in this entry on Arkiboks and in this post at the Heritage Conservation Society-Youth egroup. (You have to be a member to read the egroup thread.)

So this is a belated reply to Paulo's thoughts. I offer a critique, not a reaction and I hide behind Malcolm Gladwell who thought that "the immediacy of web publishing makes some people lazy. They type faster than they think; or they believe that a reaction is the same thing as an argument."

Alcazaren bewailed the lack of visibility (and business) of local architects:

"Philippine architecture in 2006 finds itself at the edge of another construction boom. The problem today is not so much how to project Philippine architecture abroad as it is to project itself into the consciousness of contemporary Filipinos.

"Filipino architects are generally invisible. Almost no Philippine designer is a household name. This is because of the commodification of the whole process of making houses. These are known as "housing products" (the term used by developers), designed anonymously and built by model number or mass produced like burgers and fries."

I agree with him that the Filipino architect is largely invisible - the big names in the field are a generation old (Locsin, Nakpil, Santos, etc.). And yes, the local industry is not immune from the commodification of architecture into "housing products" -but that trend has been around for more than half a century. He should not be surprised that the factory paradigm (the dominant business model since Henry Ford invented the assembly line) should invade the business of real estate.

I do think, though, that he is looking in the wrong place, bewailing the wrong cause. He's not so much asking "where are the Filipino architects?" as he is asking why the architects aren't landing projects and making money.

"Where are the 30,000 or so Filipino architects and affiliated design professionals? They are invisible, save to their immediate relatives or project managers of real estate development firms who are tasked to produce the best product with the least budget (cheap but good) and if there was a budget, to pay a foreign consultant premium fees, which more often that not cut into the local consultants' fees."

Alcazaren argues that "Good Filipino architecture and its related disciplines can create the physical settings for social and economic change." Which I cannot disagree with but he ends his rant with an exhortation to the public and the profession to:

"give Philippine architecture a long hard look. Filipino clients have to give Filipino architects and related professionals the chance to do what they do best – design wonderful buildings, malls, resorts and housing to world-class standards (emphasis mine -udc). But to do this, world-class fees must also be part of the deal. If you pay peanuts, you get houses for monkeys."

This is where I part with him. I think the Filipino architect is invisible because they are worrying about the wrong problems. They look at the building boom and their own lack of commissions for the "buildings, malls, resorts and housing." They look at the money trail and worry that the big names from the western world (brands, really) have eaten their share -and this, they claim is the reason why they cannot build imaginative, inspiring Filipino architecture. Alcazaren presses their case (despite his pontifications) and unabashedly says that the Filipino architect can become visible -can be relevant -if only they get a fair cut of the big projects coming down the pike.

I contend that they are irrelevant because the problem they are bewailing is selfish and irrelevant to the current issues challenging our megacity. They worry that upper and middle class housing has become commoditized when the big problem staring Metro Manila in the face is a housing shortfall of 1M units. They worry about the big private projects when the issue at hand is the lack of civic life and civic sense in our urban life. They worry about their names on condominiums and subdivisions when we are challenged by unlivable streets and the lack of public spaces.

I do not hold it against architects to seek profit, they are running businesses not charities. But I do expect them, as individuals trained to understand the built environment, to speak out and help find solutions to the urgent issues that confront their countrymen who must live in that built environment. I hold it against them for looking at the "buildings, malls, resorts" and overlooking the dense squatter colonies and the inhospitable roads that are the fabric of our megacity.

I would be remiss if I generalized that all Filipino architects are infected with the above irrelevance, there is the work of CentroMigrante and TAO-Pilipinas. I also know that semester after semester, students from the UP and UST schools of architecture work on projects that consider design solutions to the problems of informal and low-cost housing.

I don't intend this post to just be a counter rant -but as a challenge. I leave you dear reader (perchance you might be an architect) to find inspiration in some of the work that I cite below. Innovations are coming to the field of architecture and the business of building human habitats. Our megacity presents an amazing real world laboratory for which our architects can create innovations that we can share with the other megacities that share our plight and our challenges. Instead of dreaming of achieving the monumentality of I.M. Pei, they should inspire themselves to find the sensitivity of Charles Correa. They should be an active voice in the shaping of policies that ultimately shape our built environment.

The two projects below take the idea assembly line beyond the pre-fab of products like Vazbuilt and the catalogue houses it takes its patterns from. Green technologies - new paradigms and new technologies are promising to both lower the cost and speed the roll out of housing. Our architects would do well to consider these approaches.

	This article in the January 2007 issue of WIRED magazine, featured the Loblolly house. Snapped together from a combination of modules, panels, and preformed structural frames, the Loblolly house, named for the loblolly pines here in the Maryland tidewater area, is a manifesto for a new way of building. Architect Kieran and his partner, James Timberlake, have long been known for their finely crafted and energy-efficient buildings and materials. But the Philadelphia-based pair wanted more than just high-profile commissions – they were looking for a breakthrough technology that would let them make smarter, greener structures that could go up quickly and cheaply. In 2001, after studying how the automotive, aircraft, and shipbuilding industries had revolutionized themselves over the previous 15 years, Kieran and Timberlake realized that architecture needed the equivalent of an integrated circuit. They began to combine glass, drywall, pipe, and wood frames into finished units, each precision-engineered for cost, beauty, and sustainability. In the Loblolly house, the walls and floors are made of panels (some as tall as 21 feet) that were manufactured with wiring, insulation, plumbing, and ductwork already in place. And the main power systems of the home, including two bathrooms and the galley kitchen, were delivered to the construction site in preassembled, plug-and-play units. After the site was prepared, the 2,200-square-foot house took three weeks to assemble.
	Then there is the soon to be rolled-out technology that allows construction companies to "print out" a building. Contour Crafting (CC) is a layered fabrication technology developed by Dr. Behrokh Khoshnevis of the University of Southern California. Contour Crafting technology has great potential for automating the construction of whole structures as well as sub-components. Using this process, a single house or a colony of houses, each with possibly a different design, may be automatically constructed in a single run, embedded in each house all the conduits for electrical, plumbing and air-conditioning. The potential applications of this technology are far reaching including but not limited to applications in emergency, low-income, and commercial housing.

Image credit: Previ Housing by Charles Correa. (Lima, Peru. 1969-1973).