east coast architects

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

NEW PARADIGMS? - thoughts on the KZNIA ARCHI-EDUCATIONAL conference at DOCKLANDS HOTEL in the point on Friday 26th and Saturday 27th of October 2012 or ‘. . . . . now, where the hell did I leave my chalk?

Nice Venue! And great organisation – doff hats to Georgie, Kevin and the team – although the collapse of an adjacent, non-restrained, crumbling, brick wall on the eve of the conference could perhaps have stood as a worthy metaphor for the conference – if only in my own head!

I’m reminded of a cartoon that has been doing the rounds on facebook recently – Elephant on the shrink’s couch says ‘Doctor, sometimes I can be standing in the middle of the room and no one sees me!’

So too with architectural education and the launch of OPEN ARCHITECTURE (the cause-celebre of the conference) an on-line, webinar based programme of learning - toward council registration as a professional architect without ever setting foot in a university – no clarity yet on whether this will lead to a degree or just the nod from SACAP!

OPEN ARCHITECTURE is a joint initiative of KZNIA, SAIA and the School of Architecture at UOFS in Bloem. One of the founding principles – and this from memory – I am a lousy ‘note taker’– is that SA doesn’t have enough registered Architects! Justification for this statement is to make comparisons with architect/citizen ratios in Europe and the States! Tell that to the hoard of recent archi-graduates that aren’t able to find full time employment in SACAP registered practices – a precondition to SACAP registration – and also to the number of established, experienced professionals who are severely under-employed due to the vagaries of public infrastructure spend and B-BBEE/AA.

What wasn’t discussed – and this is/was the elephant in the room for the duration – is that the initiative arose largely in response to the virtual destruction of the much loved and respected UKZN school by Malagapuru’s mini-me despot, and the ‘shafting’ of an entire generation of dedicated teachers and academics in the name of ‘transformation’ – internationally acclaimed academics like Rodney Harber, Wally Peters, and Derek Wang were un-ceremoniously ‘dumped’ (it was made quite clear that super-annuation wasn’t on the cards), Dennis Radford ran for cover – ended up in Sheffield - and a whole bunch of others - Kevin Bingham, Kelly Aspinal, Barbara Jekot, Alethea Duncan-Brown, Paul Sanders and myself - were made to feel so ‘unwelcome’ that we all literally ‘threw in the towel’ - some to be snapped up by other schools – Wally by UOFS, Rodney by DUT, Paul Saunders by QUT in Brisbane, Barbara Jekot by UJ and Kelly Aspinal by the school in Darwin, Australia.

What also wasn’t talked about was the difficulty that many of our undergrad students had experienced in getting re-accepted into the UKZN school to complete their post grad masters - with many of them applying to (and likewise being snapped up by) other schools – UP, NMMU, UCT, UOFS, UJ etc. These, often excellent graduates, are now ‘lost’ to Durbs – perhaps forever!

It was, as ever, really encouraging to see the work of Rajeev Kathpalia (the best till last?) and his coining of the term ECOLOGICAL-REAL-ESTATE – come again? - and to hear of the great learning taking place at CPUT with their teach/design/build studio – I have my doubts about the ethics of using poor communities as design/play opportunities especially given our fiercely polarised histories of privilege and hardship – I hold that the poor deserve the BEST of and from us! It was also great to see Richard Stretton’s inspiring vertical studio at UOFS that enquired into the possibilities of MATERIAL to in-FORM.

So what COULD HAVE BEEN, wasn’t. NEW PARADIGMS? Not really. Are we addressing the fact that our buildings use up 50% of all generated energy while accounting for 50% of our landfills and for the most part reinforce and exaggerate the already wide chasm between rich and poor? And is this having any impact on how we teach a new generation of architects or is it at least shaping the way we currently practice our game? It seems not.

The conference petered out by Saturday lunch into back-patting smugness (again) by a profession that has all but lost its’ relevance in the complex, contested pseudo-eco/socio space that we imagine we occupy – we have become nothing more than corporate sluts, scrapping over the bones of a once proud tradition – Rome is clearly on fire? – and it was left to Jono Bennet (one of the UKZN refugees now re-located in UJ after his well-judged Master’s dissertation at UP in 2011) to remind us that ARCHITECTURE and ACTIVISM can be spoken of in the same sentence in his spirited presentation about recent interventions in Slovo Park and Alex.

Is it BAU – business as usual - or just EDUCATION OTHERWHERE?

Thursday, May 17, 2012

CONVERSATION WITH A JOURNO

Here goes! SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE 101

As an opener remember that 50% of all available, generated energy is used in the making and running of buildings and 50% of landfills comprise demolition and construction waste! So we (architects) are guilty at both ends of the resource chain!

JOURNO :Does KZN lag behind the rest of the country in terms of the application of environmental considerations?

DVH: It’s difficult to talk about KZN as an entity – Kosi Bay is totally different to say Durban which is totally different to Kokstad or Bergville as is a typical rural site different to an urban one or Cato Crest different to La Lucia Ridge. When it comes to ‘environmental’ considerations as you put it, perhaps a better word would be ‘contextual’ considerations – ultimately if a building is going to be ‘environmentally responsive’ it needs to be true to its’ context – maximise its’ opportunities around what’s there!! – physical, social, cultural, political, economic. One thing we know – most building/architecture in SA (and globally) that calls itself ‘sustainable’ is nothing more than ‘greenwashing’ – ‘SPIN’ being the new ‘BLACK’? It would seem that the Western Cape has more ‘green’ practitioners but then they also have Helen Zille and lots of great white sharks – not to mention the Stormers!!! The problem is – and every architect knows this deep down – Building/Architecture is FILTHY – some less, some more – but none of it is SQUEAKY CLEAN! None of it ‘does no harm’! The best we (architects) can do under the circumstances is ‘GET IT AS RIGHT AS WE CAN’ to save on later demolition and landfill waste!

JOURNO: You practice sustainable architecture. The Seven Fountains Primary School project is a fine example of your company ethos. Tell us more about this successful venture?
DVH: The school arose from a painful history of neglect and eviction – it was a farm school (hence the name) for 65 years with between 7 and 14 pupils. In 2002 an RDP township was built – Shayamoya – and 7 fountains was the nearest school – enrolment went to 450 in 1 year and after untold number of broken promises from KZNDoE the farmer evicted the school. We dialogued with the school community – learners, teachers, parents – around some of the issues and the new school was born out of this dialogue. We have attempted to make the school:             1) cost efficient in terms of services (electricity + water) so that available meagre funds can be spent on teaching and learning.              2) culturally/socially appropriate by engaging in transparent, bottom-up process (talking to our clients) and by use of familiar forms and materials and by planning for many of the facilities to be available to the broader community.                 3) comfortably accommodate the broad range of learning abilities (broader than say in your average ex model C school) by adding in mezzanines into the classrooms for occasional dual streaming.                     4)deal with the range of physical sizes of our clients – grade R (just post-toddler)to grade 7 (virtual adult) by arranging buildings around a series of dedicated quads and playgrounds.              4) support local economies by using materials and skills that are as close as possible to the site.        5) engender a sense of ownership of the facilities by the surrounding community by allowing as many as possible to ‘leave their mark’ as it were – murals, artwork, actual construction, on going involvement.

JOURNO: What are the trends in the market at the moment with regards to ‘green’ considerations?
DVH: After the collapse or near-collapse of western economies and the inability of our economists and politicians to ‘put humpty together again’ (2008 until now) the ‘green economy’ is seen as our saviour – it’ll create wealth, jobs, - all warm and cosy – AND save the planet! A visit to the COP17 EXPO brought this vividly home to me! So the ‘market’ as you put it is alive to these possibilities. Consider this: a ‘renewable energy device’ (the type that the market is flooded with at the moment) has not yet been made that can have a net energy yield – let alone ‘replicate itself’. Sure, the trend is ‘green’ – but that’s really just a colour. So if it’s business? then call it that but don’t talk about ‘reversing climate change’ or ‘saving the planet’ – that’s ‘a-whole-nother-debate’!!! On a parallel tack, one seldom hears any talk these days about CSI – what happened? Did I miss a meeting? Clearly when one third of all wealth disappeared as we watched (or didn’t) the last thing on anyone’s mind is the poor – rather spend on what’ll support business – the “GREEN” versus the “BLACK” economy!

JOURNO: Are there new/recent legislations in the industry that support the green ethos?
DVH: The new (environmental) building regulations will sell more solar thermal water heaters, heat pumps, plastic rainwater tanks and aluminium double glazed windows which in turn will escalate building costs AND create jobs and ‘stimulate’ the economy but will have negligible impact on climate change! Besides, where these regulations are REALLY needed in terms of real savings to health and welfare – RDP houses, Schools etc – government has conveniently exempted itself from its’ own regulations! Also, while government continues to burn coal as if there are no tomorrows (and there probably won’t be) and continues to sell the resulting dirty energy to BHP Billiton at one eighth of what you or I pay all for a thousand or so grim jobs, any new legislation introduced is just a mockery! Do they take us for COMPLETE IDIOTS? Obviously yes!

JOURNO: Which energy efficient or sustainable buildings in Durban do you feel are successful in adhering to the green ethos?

DVH: None that I am aware of. Steve my partner is just finishing a building in Ixopo that has gone further than any other I know of. This for Public Works (Provincial). It received 5 stars from GBCSA on the first submission – a first in SA! We also worked recently on a refurb/remodelling of an old building (this always scores big greenie points) for NUMSA (cnr Che Guevara and Umbilo) that tries a few things – light tubes, water harvesting, green balconies, recycled rubber (tyres) flooring. Full of hope? When we go there now the lights are always on (unnecessary - the light tubes provide adequate natural light), the aircon is set to arctic temperatures and the green balcony planting is dead for want of a ‘champion’ caretaker! Dis-heartening!

JOURNO: Are you presently working on any exciting projects? ( The Africa Centre Building??)
DVH: We have just finished a very exciting project up in Limpopo called Vele Secondary School. This project went quite far down the ‘building of place’ road and really tried to address the idea of ‘treating (poor/rural) clients with dignity’.

JOURNO: You state that you practice ‘social’ rather than ‘green’ architecture. What is the fundamental difference between the two?
DVH: The way we see it – SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE has to do with PEOPLE and finding out what THEY want from a given scenario that may result in a building – putting them first. On the 7 Fountains project when we put ideas for ratification to teacher/parent committees the general response was ‘What you are suggesting is fine but thanks for asking – we have NEVER been consulted before!’ We are lucky enough to have these kind of clients. I can’t imagine any ‘developer projects’ affording this opportunity. Case in point – the new beach front shelters for the informal traders (marine parade). Clearly the architects never consulted the women about the issues of their work! They received their brief from Sutcliffe who probably instructed them to NOT consult the end users!. No shelter from NE wind, early morning sun, nothing to hang goods on (a lot of towels, fabrics etc for sale), nothing to sit on (cold concrete floors) with the end result that all sorts of crappy add on’s have had to be effected by the occupants themselves – bits of rope, cardboard and tarps – very scrappy. If it was Sutcliffe’s intention to have ‘a little bit of Cato-Crest on the beach-front’ job-well-done! GREEN ARCHITECTURE on the other hand seems to have do with the TECHNICAL aspects – you can do it without getting off your butt!! Google, tick-box architecture!! If you have enough cash you can model almost every aspect of the building in terms of energy efficiency – both embodied (materials) and live (electricity, maintenance) and break down inputs to the fraction of a joule. While we don’t negate the importance of this process it SHOULD happen alongside the social compact stuff – 99.9% of buildings are for HUMANS. Patrick Bond’s recently published ‘The Politics of Climate Justice’ suggests that the real issue is not energy but the equitable sharing of it. Arundhati Roy also conflates Climate Change with Social Justice! For insight into my/our position have a look at the work of Sam Mockbee and Rural Studio – a school of Architecture in Auburn Alabama that constructs in the field AS WELL AS designs in the studio! A book on their work called ‘An Architecture of Decency’ sums it up! http://apps.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/Default.aspx

JOURNO: Do you feel that ‘business ‘ supports the ‘green’ ethos?
DVH: I’m not sure what you mean by ETHOS! Green Ethos is starting to sound like one of those oxymorons like ‘military intelligence’ or ‘clean energy’! I think that business supports the sale of ‘devices’ that can turn a profit. I think that business runs a mile in the face of real ‘sustainable architecture’ because perhaps the solution to all of this is to ‘consume less’ – definitely not a good business model! The Politics of Space! A recently published new house for Bruce Kerswell, ex CEO of GBCSA in (es)Capetown (EARTHWORKS AUG-SEPT 2011) – very green, recycled everything, on site sanitation treatment, rain water harvesting, LED lights and low energy fittings and appliances – the lot – till you get to the end of the article and you suddenly discover that the house is 575 square meters! This for a family of 4!!! The basic RDP home of about 15 square meters has on average 5 occupants!!! Green? GREED! It would appear that the current understanding of ‘sustainable’ is how to SUSTAIN my/our current lifestyle without having to make ANY sacrifices! An article by Harry Eyres in FT http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4e57fcfe-5981-11e1-abf1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1v1ZWzzin he quotes Simon Kuper as follows, “we in the west have recently made an unspoken bet: we’re going to wing it, run the risk of climate catastrophe, and hope that it is mostly faraway people in poor countries who will suffer.”