"Resiliency" or "Economic Sustainability"

Yesterday at the School of Architecture and Urban Planning at U. W. Milwaukee the Charles Caussier Memorial Lecture was held in conjunction with the Architecture departments 40th Anniversary. Timothy Beatley was the guest lecturer and the topic was 'Resilient Cities' or the resiliency movement in general. The latest evolution of environmental or sustainable design that captures man's true place in the world. A movement where man is promoted to intimately interrelate with his natural surroundings, including his fellow man, creating beautiful and productive responsive environments, and not punished for being a scourge to the planet.

The question and answer session soon became a corporation bashing bonanza. Maybe soon is the wrong word. Does anyone realize that this is straight out of atheistic Marxist ideology? That we were all sharing resources until one group decided to hoard the resources for themselves; the origin of evil in the world. A theistic view teaches that we are all subject to the same proclivities that are inherent. Proclivities not dependent on how much money (material) one possesses as communism professes.

One question came to mind for the distinguished speaker that I kept to myself; "Have you found it easier working with government or corporations?"

Friday February 20th, at the school's Friday Afternoon Live (FAL) lecture series the 'Congress for a New Urbanism' had a forum on what the Obama stimulus package means for Wisconsin. In general it was to support the principles of Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). There was a common agreement on the panel that the dollars should be going more to urban infrastructure rather than freeways. A position hard to deny with our overbuilt out lands and the condition of the roads in our urban areas.

Mark Ernst of Engberg Anderson Design Partnership was one of the panel members and made an interesting comment.

He said, 'the number of dollars determines whether good or bad decisions are made.'

So much for the quality of one's character. But he went on to qualify that by lamenting that people with educations in architecture and planning are not more involved in government; in seeking elected office and shaping our communities in a more responsible fashion.

I asked the FAL panel how they could support rail solutions, a topic that took a good portion of the discussion, without the potential for any real growth in Wisconsin; with companies leaving Wisconsin. To have a truly vibrant community we need not only jobs to increase, but corporations to decide to make their headquarters here. Much of the arts and other amenities a city has to offer can only be supported with corporate sponsorship. Amenities that draw people into the city.

The answer was, developing unspecified water based and green industries will bring growth and a supposed justification for rail. Most likely heavily subsidized corporations and rail. And how profitable will those companies be? How many jobs will that create? What kind of profits, corporate dollars, will go back into the community and what percentage of those actually originated in government subsidies? (is there any real tax revenue generated?) In our current tax and anti-business climate, even if such jobs materialize they will not bring vibrant corporations to Wisconsin that can support the amenities that define a major urban center. Corporations and jobs have been leaving Wisconsin far before this economic down turn.

The blunt reality is that centralization of capital is required for man to advance. Corporations have been the centers for free market development in the past and abuses are far to easy to find. But man has been abusing his fellow man irrelevant to ones social or economic condition. As we see the consciousness of man advance we find the inverse to also be true. Corporations are becoming more and more responsive to their employees, the environment and the world condition. There are many examples of corporate philanthropy. Architecture is no exception. Below is a picture of a Carnegie Library in Ladysmith, Wisconsin, now a bed and breakfast.

On the other hand the centralization of capital in government is the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity that exists in the world today. No organization wastes money more efficiently and is subject to scams and abuse than the government. And government produces nothing. Even more dangerous is the misdirection of resources. Resources that could be directed to real need rather than manufactured need that breeds dependency. A dependency some may call buying votes whether you are on the dole, working in a government run health care system or building structures ever increasingly funded by the public dollar.

Under my last employer I learned some very basic economic realities. If a church comes to you wanting to do an addition or new building ask them if they have a segregated building fund. If they don't... don't waste your time, the project isn't going to happen. As far as Day Cares, it is not an uncommon occurrence that the investors will realize, far before they inform you, that they cannot afford to go ahead and they don't understand why they have to pay for something they are not doing. If you already brought in consultants, such as an engineer, it is a cash flow catastrophe.

But are Planners and Architects aware of the public capacity to fund the projects they promote, such as rail based on archaic technologies? Tax dollars are not a bottomless pit of money. As organized as the AIA is, do they hold any views on the economic sustainability from the public perspective of the projects its members are working on? The reality is Architects and Planners have much more influence on how our money is spent than they want to admit. (I was working in one of the more prominent firms in the city before a major Presidential election some years past. Next to a junior partner who spent the greater part of his day organizing vehicles and drivers to bring people to the polls.) Do they understand their own bottom line but are incapable of understanding economic sustainability on a larger level? Can any responsible organization look at Southeastern Wisconsin with it's density, tax burden and business climate claim with competence that rail is economically sustainable? They claim, Architects and politicians alike, that it is an amenity that will draw people and businesses to Milwaukee. I guess that is over other cities such as, San Francisco, Seattle or Phoenix. I believe 'Penny wise but pound foolish' is the proper expression for the profession. And just foolish as far as government goes...

No,... just foolish overall.

I am not against dedicated mass transit under the right conditions, but the conditions do not exist and new technologies are not being implemented to the extent they should be.

Charities, NGO's, other organizations such as Architects for Humanity, Center for Resilient Cities and even corporations, that must produce to remain viable, are far more accountable and do far greater economic good for the world as a whole than any government that can simply raise taxes that must be paid under threat of imprisonment. Government that has increasing power to outlaw or ostracize those in contention with their policies as the masses become more and more dependent on the mind numbing dole effect. Dependent on monies bound to dry up along with the charities and fore mentioned engines of human advancement.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and no corporation comes close to the power of the government.

Natural Lighting

I was in Madison today, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Designers spend a lot of time designing buildings, finding materials, products and systems to provide as much natural light as possible with the least amount of heat loss and/or gain depending on the climate. In this age of environmental consciousness and man's tendency to work from illuminated screens reducing energy consumption has become a priority.

As you can see in the liberal capital of the United States, in a building with a near completely glazed exterior, the lights are on. And it's lunch on this clear sunny and first truly warm day this year. There is no one inside.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink... yet.

Diagonal Parking

Over the past several years planning and development work has been done for the Menominee River Valley east of Miller Park. The industrial park infrastructure includes, if you look closely, diagonal parking. If you reflect a moment one thing should strike you. The parking stalls angle opposed to oncoming traffic, called reverse angle parking.

When I went by earlier on bicycle, on this late summer day, I did not have my camera with me. Though one might conclude that traffic would back into the stall, giving the driver better visibility when leaving, I witnessed the contrary. Even with the median vehicles had crossed over and pulled in front first. How much more so will that occur when there is no median as we see in the photo below? And how dangerous will that will be for traffic when the driver backs out crossing both lanes? Perhaps signage would control man's natural urge to take the path of least resistance and worry about the consequences later, or traffic volume would be such that it is inconsequential.

I had a group project when in school where all three in the group planned to use diagonal parking, at least initially. Though diagonal parking has received a bad rap for being a traffic hazard, according to our then professor studies had shown it is no more dangerous than parallel parking. We had put together a kind of mixed use traditional neighborhood approach that worked it into the scheme with additional parking shielded from view from the street by the buildings.

Anyway... that was the plan we thought we were all following until four weeks into the six week project. At that point, in our group revue with our professor, one member of our team, I'll call 'Pompous One', walked up with three sheets of marker on mylar drawings with a scheme completely contrary to what we had been doing for four weeks. A modern concept with parking lots directly off the street. He really had a problem with diagonal parking. We all looked at him like he was from Mars and he at us like fools for not just falling in line with his obviously superior design.

Of course this didn't sit well with anyone. I certainly was not going to compromise myself by producing (not producing) a group project in which I had no input, even in the final production. The young lady in our team surely didn't recognize his genius and wasn't going to give in to the 'Pompous One.' And the professor wasn't motivated to let him pull this stunt again. The same thing the 'Pompous One' had done on the previous group project, and gotten away with for the most part. (He has blood relations in the profession)

The 'Pompous One' wasn't going to budge either, but it is when we had our individual meetings in our professors office when things really ... Let's just say got interesting. When the young lady in our group was meeting with our professor the conversation became obviously heated. I walked to the far end of the hall wishing nothing to do with petty quibbles that ultimately tear down. Another young man who I knew fairly well was just outside the door waiting for his personal revue. He kept looking back at me with a nervous tension.

A few moments later the young woman yelled, with such force that not only I could hear but most of the building as well,

"I WONT WORK WITH HIM!"

And as she clearly wouldn't give in to the 'Pompous One' it became clear it was not he she was speaking, or screaming, about. I was told we were working together and continuing our original concept and the 'Pompous One' was on his own, but the young lady refused to acknowledge my existence. Whenever I went to speak to her in regards to the project it was as if I wasn't there, and she said, had said, nothing to me.

One of the more charismatic members of our studio who knew her, came to me with a wink wink, nod nod, telling me she was graduating valedictorian. Most likely some other honor like summa cum laude, since I don't believe she gave a speech at our graduation. But the message was clear; 'Why mess up her honors?'

The professor had an entire studio to guide and there was no time for him to get dragged into conflict resolution, beyond his initial attempts, without detriment to the others in the studio. What was done or not done to address the issue, I believe was decided by the larger administration.

The young lady in our group worked on a very detailed and well crafted perspective drawing modeled from a book. A drawing to reflect the residential part of the project. And that was it. And it wasn't a clear match to the design concept. It didn't reflect the street plan that in the end I had to resolve, or the surrounding environment of the real world site we were working with.

We were to produce four sheets of ink on mylar for the final review. As I said the 'Pompous One' brought three sheets of mylar drawings to the week four review. He spent the next two weeks, when he was in the studio, lamenting that he was burdened with producing the entire project himself. He shuffled around his work and then left muttering under his breadth. He had a job in the profession and spent little time, and did little to no work, in the studio. In fact I was nearly the only one in the building Thursday evenings when "Friends" was on. This was 1997. But I digress.

I feel I'm a good judge of people and in fairness I would say the 'Pompous One' was just that, and he didn't care what my religion was. And yes we are talking about religious bigotry. I could have been Jesus Christ, Gandhi or Charles Manson in a blood lust and he would have treated me or anyone he was working with the same. I received several words of sympathy from the two who worked with him on the previous project on more than one occasion.

For the final review the 'Pompous One' put up the three mylars he had at week four and one more he had produced since. The young lady of our group put up her rendering off to the side. I had spent the last two weeks of the six week project developing all the designs and all but one drawing required for the final review. Work that was intended to be dome by three. I also produced a perspective of the commercial buildings to highlight the tower and heavy column feature I had designed to connect the design to the water tower down North Avenue and a church steeple down Humboldt. I was only able to complete one ink on mylar sheet with the remainder of the required drawings (on trace, vellum or paper) taped to sheets of foam core. The Dean shooed away the camera man as he came to our presentations.

At graduation the young lady seemed intent at parading in front of me with multiple chords over her shoulders, much to the chagrin of the dean as we all waited to enter the auditorium. I had spoken with the administration about this and other problems more than once in my time there. One of the Chairs expressed sincere regret on any problems I may have experienced and another simply wanted to know if I had any evidence.

The stark reality is if you are part of any group that may be associated with the label 'cult' you really are a second class citizen, if even that. This is a problem not specific to the Architectural profession, where diversity generally comes with a foreign accent. If the administration had come down on this young lady that would be one more person, with her family and relatives, who would blame Reverend Moon and the Unification Church for the consequences of her actions. Our society is so adverse to so called 'cults' that the University itself very well could have faced ridicule for taking any action against this young lady. While religious discrimination is illegal in employment and enrollment neither were clear as the issue here. I didn't look into it either. And I certainly do not know, or care, what her justifications would have been.

Bigotry was validated. Did I make an impression on anyone with how I handled the controversy? Was just letting it ride the proper approach for the University? Or myself? Of course, as in the profession, most if not all teachers and administrators in the school belong to the AIA, an organization that claims to hold its members to ethical standards. There is a reason I have little to no interest in belonging to a group that makes such claims. On many levels, not just personal but public, of which I will write more when the opportunity presents.

Well ....

So much for diagonal parking.