The reflections and observations of a sustainable practitioner on the recent International Union of Architects World Congress (UIA) in Durban

As a senior lecturer in the Architectural Technology department at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology I get the opportunity to write and present papers at conferences, congresses and symposiums, with the benefit to see what is happening in the field and to consider where my own work is situated and where it could be going. Last week I was privileged to attend and present at the International Union of Architects World Congress in Durban. Besides the wonderful weather, I got to experience being part of an international discussion on practice and education, attended by about 4500 people from around the globe.

In the words of the conference organizers, the theme was ‘OTHERWHERE – looking elsewhere for other ways of creating a better future. The subthemes were ‘resilience, ecology and values’. ‘Resilience‘ explored questions around ideas of emergence, poverty alleviation, and the spatial economy. The second subtheme of ecology sought to “acknowledge the role of the architect in a bigger, interlinked, and systemic network and encourage a longer term view in the design of the built environment”. The third subtheme, ‘values‘, explored approached to “practice in Africa with a feeling that the agency of external donors needs to be tempered to benefit local inhabitats – who are currently being excluded from their own self-determination”. These themes resonated with my own experience as an educator and someone that is passionate about natural building.

The underlying tone of the Congress was self-reflexive, and a lot of presenters questioned the role of the profession while almost demanding it to become more responsive to both social and climatic issues facing the planet. There was a call to move from the “starchitect” syndrome to a more huminatarian and appropriate technological approach. This call resonated strongly with the paper I presented there with Rudolf Perold entitled “Towards Entrepreneur-Activist Architectural Practice”. We started with this quote:

“For we may soon find that we have too many architects skilled at designing museums and mansions and too few able to work with indigent people and communities in need of basic housing, sanitation, and security” (Fisher 2008). 

One of the key note presentations was by Toyo Ito, winner of the Pritzker Prize in 2013. The form of the buildings presented could have one swooning, but the underlying tectonic principles of that form took so much steel and concrete that one cringes at the environmental effect. The formal ideas of most of the buildings were apparently inspired by nature and natural principles, for example, the way in which a tree grows or the bones in a human body connect. But that is where the analogy to the natural ended for me. Such a form executed in steel and concrete, in my opinion feels entirely inappropriate and becomes an empty albeit beautiful response.

But then there were also keynote presentations by the likes of Cameron Sinclair who started Architecture for Humanity in 1999 together with Kate Stohr, with a cellphone and laptop and one or two projects. Currently the organisation is involved in designing, developing, managing and financing the construction of a variety of projects in over 20 countries (Aaronson & Architecture for Humanity, 2012). Their modus operandi is to embed architects on site that volunteer and help restore or rebuild community facilities, often in the aftermath of disaster. What wonderful work they have been doing over the past decade or so!

Another personal highlight was from keynote speaker Francis Kéré who you probably know of if you are reading this blog. Francis Kéré came from a small village in Burkina Faso, studied in Germany, then returned to his own country to work in his own community. He went on to win the Aga Khan award for Architecture with his very first building! He does work similar to that of Architecture for Humanity, but he works mostly in African countries, almost exclusively with natural materials and has a deep understanding of local passive design strategies. It is worth reading the “about” page on the website, and browsing the projects that they have done and are involved in.

There were many “side shows” at the congress. I presented in two of these with my colleague Rudolf Perold. The first, was the Architectural Education Forum (AEF), a locally initiated forum which “critically discuss how to improve architectural educational practice here and now and to exchange relevant information. Its main focus is issues that are relevant to architectural education in Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, which includes global and regional concerns. Its membership consists mainly of teaching staff from schools of architecture from over Africa, but there has also been support and interest from other associations concerned with architectural education based on other continents” (Janse van Rensburg, A. 2014).

The presentation that followed ours in the AEF was by Professor Vasanth K Bhat from Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, where he is Dean at Acharya’s School of Architecture and has his own practice. He presented “A Case for Inclusion of Appropriate Building Technology and Sustainable Building Design in Undergraduate Curriculum in Developing Countries” and discussed the inclusion of local earth technologies into the undergraduate curriculum. Often architecture programs follow a very generic curriculum without specific local content and he is making a concerted effort to include locally relevant technologies.

Our second presentation was for the Global Studio. This studio focuses on work in and for communities. Again there was much discussion that resonated with our paper about the architect becoming a more active participant in society. We discussed the idea of “architectural professionals that have re-defined the manner in which they work, and for whom they work, specifically addressing informality and poverty in their practice. These professionals are changing from being predominantly pre-determined problem solvers into a problem identifiers or project initiators” (Cary & Public Architecture, 2010, p.xii). This change in work approach asks of the architect to become an entrepreneur, identifying the project and problem and then finding the funding to pay for both the professional services and the execution of project. A place has opened, locally and internationally, for this new kind of professional – one that works on the ground, close to the needs of the broader community”. (Voulgarelis and Perold, 2014)

In my opinion, UIA 2014 was all-and-all successful and gives me hope for the future of (earth) architecture in the world.

 

Sources

Aaronson, D., & Architecture for Humanity (Eds.). (2012). Design Like you Give a Damn (p. 335). New York, New York, USA: Abrams.

Fisher, T. (2008). Public-interest architecture: a needed and inevitable change. Berkeley Prize. Retrieved April 02, 2014, from http://www.berkeleyprize.org/endowment/essays-and-articles-on-the-social-art-of-architecture/tom-fisher-essay

Van Rensburg, A. (2014). Architectural Education Forum. (p.1). Internal discussion document. WITS. South Africa.

Voulgarelis, H. and Perold, R. (2014) Towards Entrepreneur-Activist Architectural Practice. International Union of Architects World Congress. Durban, South Africa.

 

See our Disclaimer

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s