|
Author Tay Kheng
Soon |
2000 A SHORT CHRONOLOGY OF THE AOF PROJECT 1994 Start UIA (Union of International Architects) Council
Meeting in Tokyo May JIA (Japan Institute of Architects) for AOF and
JIA Working Group was formed by core members of the JIA Environmental
Committee and the International Committee 1995 Dec AOF International Symposium in Tokyo Report: Architecture of the
Future, compiled by JIA 1996 July AOF International Symposium in Barcelona Sep Tentative AOF Report from Barcelona,
compiled by JIA to be distributed to UIA national sections. 1997 Aug AOF International Symposium in Helsinki,
in conjunction with Alvar Aalto Symposium Sep AOF presentation at ARCASIA FORUM 9, in
Tokyo 1998 July AOF International Symposium in Kassel,
Germany 1999 July AOF Presentation by JIA, at the XX UIA
Congress in Beijing Publication of the AOF
Document, compiled by JIA BDA (German Institute of Architects)
was assigned to host secretariat for AOF until the next UIA Congress in
Berlin. JIA declared to cooperate with
BDA for further activities of AOF, especially in Asia. 2000 June Publication of the “Global Document 2000”
compiled by K. Iwamura. July International Symposium “AOF Asia 2000” in
Tokyo Oct AOF International Workshop, at
“Sustainable Building 2000” in Maastricht REPORT AND IMPRESSIONSI participated in many of the
discussions from the inception of the AOF project. At the 1995 meeting in
Tokyo, I formulated a working hypothesis based on the human condition as it
affects architecture and the environment. This was presented at a special
session of the UIA congress at Barcelona in 1996 among other presentations. I
missed the Helsinki meeting but attended the Kessel meeting in Germany which
was an eye-opener through a visit organised by the Germans to the Rhur valley
to see the environmental repair work going on and the commitment of the
German Government and people and architects to the vision of a cleaned up
environment after 100 years of industrial pollution. In 1999, AOF presented
its findings at the Beijing UIA congress but failed to gain much attention
due to the tendency of architects to be attracted to “star’ architect
performances. The AOF presentation by Koichi Nagashima was overshadowed by
Tadao Ando’s concurrent presentation. The Sec.Gen of UIA however found the
presentation important and decided to continue the work of AOF. The recent meeting in Tokyo was very
fruitful and challenging. It will form the substance for the Maastricht
conference in October this year and then finally presented at the Berlin
Congress of UIA next year. Throughout these years, JIA’s consistent support
and the efforts of Koichi, Iwamura and many others are indeed impressive. JIA
is to be congratulated. Koichi, in his summary of the
recent Tokyo meeting, said that when JIA was approached by UIA in 1994 to
lead in the AOF project, the thought then was that since Japan was looking
into mega structure buildings that this would be an indication of the future.
Far from this, Japanese architects were beginning to take a serious look at
sustainability of the environment and its implications on architecture and
practice. So very early on in the AOF discussions, the focus turned to
sustainable architecture. I gave strong support to this line. At the recent meeting, several
papers stand out in my mind. There seems to be two main strands emerging with
the usual third. The first strand is scientific and quantitative. The second
is social and participatory. The third is aesthetic. The first strand is reflected in the paper by Prof. Raymond Cole*
of University of British Columbia who gave a report on the state of play on
the development of evaluative criteria of Green Buildings. He explained that
there was an internationally felt need to have objective criteria and
methodology to judge the claims made by architects about green buildings. So
he devised “GBC” (Green Building Challenge), a methodical quantitative
evaluation system which would attract international submissions. The first
round was in 1999 which attracted 19 country submissions. The present round
has grown to 28 National submissions. It looks like this is going to be the
internationally definitive standard of measurement. The measurement criteria
are very comprehensive, they take into account the life-cycle implications of
the design, construction, use and post construction modifications. Included
are such things as embedded energy in the choice of materials, co2 emissions
caused by the processing and transportation of the chosen materials during
construction, energy use in the operational life of the building,
transportation of workers to and from the building, emissions due to
modifiability of the building, waste disposal, water use, recyclability of
components etc. etc. Nations voluntarily prepare their own evaluations and
then submit to GBC for cross checking. All participants benefit because there
is much to be learnt from the exercise nationally through the experience of
others. The second strand is best represented by
architect Lucien Kroll* of Belgium and Prof. Ysuhiro Endo* of Chiba
University. Both dwelled on the people-factor in the process of making the
living environment. The implications are important. The unstated premise is
that in the process of participating in designing and managing one’s own
housing environment, people are empowered. Their lives change. They become
different people. They are capable of living fuller lives and therefore are capable
of taking group and personal responsibility for the environment. In both
Lucien’s and Endo’s slide presentations, it was shown clearly that
people-participation does generate individual and social energy. Some
examples stand out. Endo showed children in one of the co-op housing projects
taking responsibility for the gardens and greens*, maintaining the ponds and
streams, growing herbs and vegetables, old people voluntarily teaching
traditional skills to the young. An old woman was teaching the children how
to make traditional straw shoes*, and an old man giving weekly puppet shows*
and telling stories of the old days to the children on his own initiative.
The Balconies are all connected, landscaped, children and neighbours visit
one another via the connected balcony, barbecues take place there, there are
koi ponds on the balcony. The roof gardens are venue for community
activities. We visited a scheme for retired residents in suburban Tokyo,
developed along the same lines by Iwamura*. The up-keep was very good, people
care. There is no litter. Roofs are planted, some very well done. Materials
from the old houses are reused in the scheme*. People identify with these
materials. Old trees cut down are used as paving. Old roof tiles are reused
as edging for lanscaping*. Old wells in the area are preserved. Links with
the past are remembered this way. There are many touches of self-help and
people initiative in the planning and management of the shared environment. The third strand is aesthetic. Within this strand, one would also
include conservation and also new specially designed buildings. The museum of
botany by Hiroshi Naito* was an environmentally sensitive design. It stands
out as an inspiring spiritual experience. There is certainly a place for the
special. These buildings are spiritual markers in our journey through life.
They fill a void in the everyday world of pragmatics. Having renewed and
refreshed our spirits, the need for quantity is reduced as the need for
quality increases. There is thus less need to fill personal space with lots
of things. This is a fundamental strategy in achieving sustainability.
Reduce, then reuse and finally recycle. These are the three principles of
sustainability. Sentiment and spirit are key factors in a changed paradigm. Whereas in the first strand,
the assumption is technocratic in essence, the second and third strands bring
out the human aspects, which ultimately are crucial in the necessary paradigm
shift. But establishing scientifically measurable performance criteria and
having an incentive and disincentive system will also achieve desired
results. A balance is best. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course,
but whereas the first depends on an impersonal system, the second is totally
involving. Probably, a mix of the two systems is necessary. I expressed that
although I was in favour of transparency to access green design claims, which
can be achieved through application of scientific methods, the results can
also be horrific green boxes! Some of the examples from Taiwan seem to
indicate this tendency. The dilemma is that while this strategy is effective,
it runs the risk of erosion of the architects’ design prerogative resulting
in engineer domination in answer to the present claims by some ‘green architects’
who are confusing the public. There have to be pull and push factors. There
has to be macro-management backed up by micro-management techniques.
Micro-management strategies alone could be too restrictive. New strategies
are necessary. Still, while the debate goes
on, industry is quietly pre-empting the situation. We visited Misawa homes, a
large system builder in Tokyo, one of five, we are told. We were shown their
“Mercedes” class prefab house. It was astoundingly well designed and
detailed, and cheap by Japanese standards. It was touted as a “zero energy”,
250 m2 enclosed space, two cars, single-family independent house. The roof is
a photovoltaic option costing S$95,000 of which Tokyo Metro Government pays
1/3 as direct grant. Energy is pumped into the grid and the owner pays only
the difference between the output and the consumption. The interior is
thoroughly designed. Everything works to the nth degree. There is a lift for
the aged. Everything has been thought out. Workmanship is super. The house
gets built in 30 days after signing the contract. Where do architects
stand? There are other models
capable of erection in 8 hours, all superbly executed. Not great architecture
but very functional and decent looking and affordable. Kyouichi Nakamura, another
Japanese green architect has been self-financing research on charcoal
concrete. He claims that the internal environment is free of dampness and
pollutants due to the charcoal. Due to special hydration effects caused by
the charcoal, the concrete gets 10% stronger his research proves. He gets no
support from the authorities. I sense he is getting tired after so many years
of sustained independent effort. Why can’t there be a strategic alliance
between builders, technologists financiers and innovative architects like
him? New strategic alliances must be considered. The challenge is very much on
the architect as a profession. The fact is that conditions of practice are
changing fundamentally. The opportunities are there if we only know how to
use them. Mr. Shoichi Ando of the
housing section of the Japanese Ministry of Construction gave a paper on
sustainability policy in Japan having just returned from OECD in Europe. His
final question was what is the difference between an engineer and an
architect where sustainability is concerned. The implication of his question,
from a bureaucratic point of view, is how can non-quantifiable criteria be
factored into rules and regulations. Paraphrased, how can architecture be
factored into sustainable rules? Within the technocratic assumption, I fear
that it cannot. Here is where there has to be a real paradigm shift in
thinking. The tentative answer comes
from community-organisation based architects like Lucien Kroll, Kazuo Iwamura
and Ysuhiro Endo. Their work suggest that a new balance between quality and
quantity of human life and nature can be achieved through awakening healthy
human initiative and sensibilities in the joint making of the living
environment rather than through the exclusive exercise of rules. In such a
case, the architect is the dialogical facilitator with the community. Ysuhrio
Endo suggests that there is a fundamental value shift from professional ego
to ‘dialogic self’ involved. He says that in community-based design
approaches the following values come to the fore. It is definitely slower but
more thorough and builds in the sentiments and commitments of the community.
From experience the new values encountered are as follows: They are: Chaotic
(organic) Open-ended (process driven), Non-repetitive
(specific), Flexible (changeable),
Innovative (new), Diverse (differences), Experiential (involving), Nurturing (enabling), Critical and creative (not fixated)
and finally Explicit
(transparent). The acronym is C O N F I D E N C E. Confidence is everything.
It releases pent-up energies. It
creates new leaders. It changes the relationship of people with reality. It
shifts perception from the ritualistic to the real. It makes better humans.
Sustainability can then become a personal commitment and a social goal. Only
then will sustainability become a universal ethic. Clearly, acquisition of
all these values cannot be through the technocratic method because it will
run counter to normal bureaucratic culture. It has to be a new cultural
movement. In the Singapore context, it has to be a civil-society project. It
will not be easy. For me the two presentations
on community-based housing were truly exciting. The obvious success of the
community-based initiatives in design unexpectedly coincided perfectly with
the trend of my thoughts on the subject of sustainability since 1994.
Suddenly, the truth dawned on me that if robust community is fulfilling and
viable, the alienation and displacement of self in the contemporary economy
could be assuaged. A new spiritual dimension in human lives could replace the
need for obsession with materialism. I had earlier set out to find
the underlying causes for the degradation of the environment due to human
action and appetites. I wanted to know what is the internal dynamic that
drives economies. I have found that it is human dis-equilibrium. When
disequilibrium is excessive, disorders abound. Thus, in 1994, I had posited
in Tokyo that disorders in the environment are merely reflections of
disorders in the human condition within the specifics of place and time.
Analysing this, I could trace the passage of the human condition historically
from the 1500s, i.e., from the renaissance to the first oil crisis of 1973 as
a curve of rising consumption and materialistic values. I could also see the
decline of non-material values in the process. It could also be seen in the
re-emergence of non-material values from 1846, i.e., after the publication of
the communist manifesto by Karl Marx. This was followed by the new physics
and the rise of Eco-feminism and the counter-culture of the 60s. The youth
revolt of the 60s culminated in the 1968 Paris Commune in Europe and USA and
later in 1973, Thailand and Philippines can be seen as the contestation
between non-material values and the dominant material values, which had swept
the world since the renaissance. In constructing this history,
I had identified the motor of human action. What is it that makes history? I
found this by combining Western psychology and Buddhist epistemology in the
theory of ‘self’. Dis-equilibrium is located in ‘self’. Thus the
disequilibrium generated economic growth and materialism in history. If
self-in-being, (a Buddhist concept) is defined as Noia, (the Greek word for
undifferentiated unity of consciousness); self, displaced from being is by
definition Para-noia. In everyday life, this condition does not however
amount to clinical paranoia, but is the condition of existential anxiety.
This is what drives the economy and the excessive despoliation of nature,
generates greed and carelessness. At this recent meeting, this same idea developed further
in my mind thus: The situation of self and its distance from being changes
with maturation. There are five stages in this. A child’s conscious mind
migrates from the centre of its being to the edge of being as it
differentiates the world. This is differentiated knowledge. Thus knowledge
grows as reality is divided into ever-smaller categories. An adolescent’s
mind is thus at its greatest displaced distance from centre. The teenager
thus wildly seeks out the world, tests ideas and craves experiences, is in
great disorder. This is the condition popularly known as the terrible teens.
Adult consciousness returns closer to centre of being. One can theorise that
in maturity, consciousness comes back to being, that state of bliss or
undifferentiated consciousness longed for throughout life. Thus, the dynamics
of self accounts for the shifting perceptions and changing springs of human
action. Noting this, it is possible to theorise appropriate strategies. Not
being aware of this phenomenon, much misplaced or misdirected actions occur. |
|
|
|
|
|