Comments on: on finance

By: the best architecture of the decade - mammoth // building nothing out of something

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:01:35 +0000

[...] has written frequently about the city as it is constructed by complex interactions between systems, economies and societies, and argued that architects should engage this context. If one accepts [...]

By: dialogue: finance, context, scale, and intervention - mammoth // building nothing out of something

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:48:40 +0000

[...] a recent back and forth between myself and Rory Hyde in the comments of On Finance, Rory noted: To zoom out even further, are we just talking about ‘context’? To understand the [...]

By: Rory

Rory — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:04:59 +0000

Hi Stephen –
I like this idea of the ‘nature of our engagement’ with finance (or whatever other body of knowledge that’s ‘traditionally’ outside of architecture), there’s definitely a sliding scale from the ‘whole package’ approach Nam describes to the more blunt acceptance of given conditions.
To zoom out even further, are we just talking about ‘context’? To understand the context in architecture normally means literally to understand the site context – the two terms are used interchangeably – but as all of these other factors are now just as unavoidable as the site, they therefore warrant their own techniques (even personal styles) for dealing with them. Of which, as you say, subversion might just be one (perhaps more cynical or ‘activist’) approach. So yeah, what you said!

And if you hear of any other ‘unsolicited’, ‘creatively financed’ or ‘politically probing’ projects, please send them my way. I’m in discussions to hopefully put together something exciting… More soon.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:01:38 +0000

Rory –

Thanks for your thoughts, and the great examples written about on your blog. I hadn’t previously heard of any of them.

About the LIHTC: even without ‘actually doing’ the finance, architects are still forced to operate within the constraints of that process – whether or not we choose to engage it. The question becomes, what is the nature of our engagement? You identify subversion as one potential way forward, but I don’t think it’s the only one: as demonstrated by SuperNeutral and Kiva, financial mechanisms (when properly designed) can actually effect work which is quite good, no subversion necessary. I think what’s important for designers to remember (learn?) is that, similarly to buildings and landscapes and infrastructures, financial structures themselves are also a product of design. Sometimes, we’ll have to accept that design, and maneuver around it; sometimes we’ll be able to shape it ourselves. Regardless of the approach taken, we need to understand it, no matter how worryingly complex it may be.

I should also note that I couldn’t agree more with your assertion that marketing, politics, etc are equally realms in which we need to become more fluent (as the PLOT project demonstrates). I’m looking forward to talking about this more.

By: Rory

Rory — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:16:43 +0000

Super interesting discussion, sorry, I realise I’m a little late to the party. This engagement with finance as a design driver seems to form part of a movement to expand the scope of the discipline to deal with the broader context (political, social, economic, environmental, etc.). Actually it feels less like a ‘movement’ and more of an *imperative* – the grand old days of merely designing what it looks like and what its made of are long gone. We are firmly a part of economic and political power plays, and the sooner we come to understand this, acknowledge it, and learn to navigate it (instead of playing the naive and independent stylist) the better.

The complexity of your explanation of LIHTC got me a bit worried though, do we need to become economists or quantity surveyors as well? Thinking whether there’s a difference between architects exploring alternative models of financing a project ‘in principle’ (as in the OMA example above, and Andrea’s SuperNeutral project) and architects ‘actually doing’ the finance? I guess we just need to know enough in order to subvert it, like planning regs.

And cheers for picking up my post on unsolicited, I think there’s a lot in this.

By: rory hyde on unsolicited architecture - mammoth // building nothing out of something

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:37:27 +0000

[...] for Volume) comments on the “Office for Unsolicited Architecture” from Volume 14, which Stephen and I have both tangentially touched on in the past: [T]he role of reality in the production of an [...]

By: rholmes

rholmes — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:32:49 +0000

Stephen, totally agree about the desire to dust off the vegetative homesteading project. Need to push that one forward.

By: namhenderson

namhenderson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:34:05 +0000

becker,
No. I don’t think it is problematic. In fact it seems the logical direction if one wants to expand the “field” of architectural possibilities. i particularly like your suggestion of linkages between models of “proactive financing” and “activist architecture”.

I do feel as if there is hesitation (less so amongst a certain cohort of architects) to address such issues though. For example I remember a friend of mine finishing his MArch related how a professor asked (with a somewhat disparaging tone) do you want to be an architect or activist…Specifically because he was going beyond a simple image/object, fictional “thesis”.

Personally, i feel like it makes business sense, in general but especially in such difficult economic times. Plus, i think it gives a wider field to play on, allowing a architect to address issues of interest to them that might not be as easily addressed by traditional methods of funding.
I think also that “desiging” the funding mechanisms etc for a project as you all did in your Luanda project) also increases chances of actual implementation. Partially the divide seeming to be thus, between “architectural fiction” (competitions etc) and built work…

I found that Bittner piece interesting. Mainly because I feel it ties in nicely with recent (or not so recent) critiques of Staritecture and architectural tourism..

By: sbecker

sbecker — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:30:56 +0000

Nam, good to hear from you again.

I’m a little unclear on what you’re saying… do you think architects getting involved in politics and activism via developing a “whole package” is a problematic trend?

I didn’t mean to make an argument for architectural activism here (not that it is one I wouldn’t make); I was more interested in talking about the effect of finance on the development and execution of architecture. Though the examples of proactive financing I used could probably be accurately described as ‘activist’ architecture.

BTW, I’m looking forward to reading that essay you posted a while back on cities, image, and symbolism by Regina Bittner. Nice find.

By: namhenderson

namhenderson — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:34:01 +0000

I think this is the problem though. For many architects developing this additional aspects goes beyond design and into politics, activism or… I do feel though that their is a “generation” is not the right word, of architects who do create the conditions for their own projects. Personally, i think the whole package is the best approach. For these economic, environmental and societal times especially.

By: sbecker

sbecker — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:04:00 +0000

Rob, thinking about all this has made me want to dust off and polish up some of our musings on vegetative homesteading… I bet we could even score a collaboration with Rod Dreher if we tried.