Category Archives: Values

What would equity look like?

Posted on by
Reply

Income disparity has become a prominent part of today’s social and political landscape.  The gap between the highest incomes and the average income per person has been increasing from its historic low point in the 60’s, until recently passing the inequality spike of the 30’s.  A chart of income disparity over the last century reveals symmetry between the historic Great Depression and our own more self-conscious “Great Recession.”

The ratio between the income of the top 20% and that of the bottom 20% has doubled from a low of around 7:1 in 1968 to a 14:1 ratio today(*).  There are many indicators of inequity; one that has fueled a tipping point of public opinion is the fact that the top 1% of the US population captured half of the economic growth between 1993 to 2007 (**).  What’s more, the wealth of the top 1% has been increasing at a rate ten times faster than the middle income population (***).

“We are the 99%” signs from Occupy Wall Street and other Occupy groups are uniting frustrated individuals, each with their own discouraging story, under the common language of inequity.

While the media is delivering various representations of inequity, we at the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio are trying to understand the issue from a design point of view.  We have started asking the critical question: “What would equity look like in _____?”

For example we are asking:

  • What would equity look like in an affordable housing program?

  • What would equity look like in an inner-city redevelopment plan?

  • What would equity look like in a public park project?

 We are looking for equity in both the process and the products of our work.  We don’t claim to have the answers to our own questions.  However, we find asking these questions to be a useful critical tool.

To start, we believe that equity in design does not work like equity in money.  To illustrate in simple terms: ten dollars shared by four people equals two and one-half dollars for each person.  One the other hand, a design decision shared by four people equals a better decision.  This is because equity in access, equity in learning, equity in decision-making, and other such opportunity-based activities are not a zero-sum game like notions of equity in income, in which the only way one person gains money is when another person loses money.  (In reality, income distribution only looks like a zero-sum game when it is seen statically.  In the real economy, income is dynamic and is reproduced, recycled and multiplied as it circulates within an economic community.  Thus, systems that create opportunities for exchange within a community do more to increase distributed income than trying to bring income into the community by exportation.)

The Gulf Coast Community Design Studio is fortunate to be involved with a team of local planning and advocacy organizations working on a HUD Sustainable Communities Grant.   This three-year project aims to develop a regional plan for the Mississippi Gulf Coast that integrates housing, transportation, land use, economic development and other activities into a plan that is shaped by sustainability and equity.   At the federal level the Sustainable Communities Initiative is a manifestation of the unprecedented cooperation between HUD, the EPA and the Department of Transportation.  The language of sustainability is merging with language of equity.  Following this significant trend, the Gulf Coast team is calling its work “Plan for Opportunity,” using language that bridges equity and sustainability. The use of the word “opportunity” avoids the growing political division around the more liberal words “sustainability” and “equity.”

A 5th grade planning workshop for the Gulf Coast Sustainable Communities Initiative. Source: Ohio State University

At the international level, it is certainly more than a coincidence that the language of sustainability is being combined with equity.   Every year since 1990, the United Nations has sponsored an extensive study of global conditions, called the Human Development Report.  An overview of the report titles for the past twenty years is a reading of the dominant concerns and language of each year.  The report for 2011 is titled; “Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All.”  The report argues that the urgent global challenges of sustainability and equity must be addressed together, emphasizing the “human right to a healthy environment, the importance of integrating social equity into environmental policies, and the critical importance of public participation and official accountability.”

We at the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio are going to do more to articulate the integration of sustainability and equity in our own work and to do what we can to help others do likewise.  We are going to be using the question, “What would equity look like in____?” to share some lessons learned and to invite and challenge other practices to do the same.  We look forward to an encouraging dialogue from a range of practices.  We are hopeful that using the positive language of the imagination, rather than the divisive language of politics, will prove useful.

–David Perkes, Director of the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio

(*) Yen, Hope. Associated Press. “Census Finds Record Gap Between Rich and Poor.” Salon.com, September 28th, 2010.

(**) Saez, Emmanuel. “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2008 Estimates).”  University of California, Berkeley.  July 17, 2010.

(***) Congressional Budget Office. “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.” October, 2010.

 

 

It’s time for us to elaborate on “public design.”

Posted on by
Reply

We use the term “public design” as an inclusive label that points to the past as well as the future.  It aims to respect and sustain the heroic work of socially progressive designers of the past, and at the same time, it names what appears to be an emerging new force in contemporary practice.  Similar terms such as: community design, community-based design, community-driven design, and the newest term: public-interest design, communicate an aspiration for designers to be responsible to society.  We like the fact that both words of the term “public design” are imprecise to welcome a broad range of current practices and leave room for future inventions and reinventions. Nevertheless, even though the term is intended to include diverse activities, we believe that there are several qualifications for a practice to be called “public.”  First, the practice has a mission that is driven by service more than profit.  Second, the practice is able to provide design to groups that do not fit the standard definition of a client.  And third, the practice uses various activities to address issues that are relevant to the general public.

The term “public design” is also used to associate with other professions that have a public segment, such as law and medicine, in an attempt to make progress in design as we learn from other practices.  Technical progress in design advances naturally as material science and product development inform the design and construction of structures and landscapes.  Such progress is built into the building industry because technology is already driven by market forces and does not require changes in the way we practice.  However, social progress in design does not happen without effort. Changes in the social forms of practice are less apparent, in part because defining and measuring social progress is not yet institutionalized to the degree of technical progress, as evidenced by the popularity of LEED and the relatively unknown status of SEED**. Nevertheless, if we want to move practice forward we should be able to define social progress and consider the effectiveness of a practice accordingly.

A comparative view of progress in health care offers a way to look at progress in design practice. In health care, technical progress can be seen as advancements in the tools, procedures, and treatments that help people get well more effectively.  Social progress can be seen as improvements in access to health care and as an increase in preventive activities among the population, to reduce health problems. In short, progress is being made if more people get the care they need and if fewer people need medical treatment to begin with. We might ask: can the definition of social progress in health care inform a definition of social progress in design practice? Can we define progress similarly, as increasing people’s access to design and reducing problems of the general population resulting from deficient physical settings?

A public design practice is shaped by such questions about social progress.  Efforts to achieve social progress are often framed by a critique of traditional client-driven practice methods.  A public design practice strives to overcome the limitations of the traditional relationship between an architect and a client.  This traditional relationship is built on a fee for professional services, which means that access to design is limited to those who can afford it. It is impossible to significantly increase public access to design if each additional person is expected to be a client who can pay for design services. Likewise, preventive public design to address problems of the physical environment would take a rare client, one who was willing to pay for work beyond the self-interests of their project and to take responsibility for problems beyond their control.  Overcoming the limitations of client-driven practice motivates public design practitioners and results in a range of innovative methods found in various public design practices.  At the same time, sustaining a public design practice when the funding source is not a traditional client requires an alternative business model.

The Gulf Coast Community Design Studio has now been in practice long enough to be self-conscious of our own evolution.   We are aware that our name continues the tradition of place-based, community design work, though we wonder if we should replace “community” with “public.”  For the past year, our own work has been energized a new tool: the public design certificate program.  This program is changing our practice because we are becoming more reflexive.  The interns that commit to a year in the program are looking to learn from the work we (they) are doing.  We are also more conscious of how our local work has become part of the national landscape.  With each semester, when we add one or two public design interns, we get a larger number of applications.  We are currently accepting applications for two new interns and have received over 90 applications so far.  For those that have applied, this number may be daunting – though we hope it will not discourage their dedication to public practice.  But for those of us that are committed to service-oriented practices, seeing the increasing demand for public design experience is very encouraging and a good indication that the design professions are going through a positive transformation.

We are living in a time when well-founded encouragement is certainly needed.

–David Perkes, Director of the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio

East Biloxi residents

**LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a green-building certification system designed to provide building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. SEED (Social Economic Environmental Design) is a network and certification process to guide professionals toward community-based engagement within design practice.

Some Thoughts from a Public Design Intern

Posted on by
Reply

Lately some folks at the studio have been giving a lot of thought to equity.  Specifically, we’re thinking about equity in the design world and how it’s put into practice.  A big question that we’re thinking about is What would equity look like in… Construction?  Housing?  Community Planning?  Regional Planning?  Environmental Restoration?

These conversations have helped me realize the value of the outcomes that the GCCDS strives for.  It’s nice to work in an environment where, in some ways, I can take equity for granted. (We need to design a pedestrian bridge?  Well, of course it’s going to be accessible.)  But I’m beginning to realize that might not be the case in all firms.  How often do designers complete projects without considering how their designs might affect the neighbors or the community?  How often do they miss opportunities to provide public space or to work for under-served populations?

Now, I’m not saying we at the GCCDS design all of our projects to perfection — part of the reason there’s been so much discussion about equity is because we’re looking for opportunities to improve the quality of our work.  What I am saying is that the GCCDS has staff here who genuinely care about quality and equity in our design work, and that in turn creates a great atmosphere in which to develop one’s professional skills.  The research and thinking that we’ve been doing about equity issues has also taught me that we’re not alone.  There are many professionals out there who are working towards a more equal society.  And I must say, I’m happy to be a part of the effort.

Seminar Review: To what moral standards should we hold designers?

Posted on by
Reply

This week’s seminar reading included chapters 19 and 20 from Eric J. Cesal’s Down Detour Rd.: An Architect in Search of Practice and “Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?” by Bruce Nussbaum.

The two chapters from Cesal– “How to Become a Famous Architect” and “The Citizen Architect”– examine what it means to be a “citizen architect.”  The former chapter criticizes so-called famous architects, who design buildings to be used in post-disaster situations without paying due attention to the recovering community’s on-the-ground needs.  He concludes this chapter with: “I worked with men and women who would likely never be on the cover of the New York Times.  Men and women who did not aspire to make a statement, or ‘a weird metal thing… that doesn’t look like a house.’  Men and women who merely desired to use their skills to answer that basic human call of service” (Cesal 188).

Chapter 20 outlines Cesal’s views about architecture’s role in solving problems, “beyond those relevant to architects themselves, their paying clients, or those who track Herman’s ‘high’ architecture” (191).  While some contemporary architects suggest the profession turn its attention to broader social concerns, Cesal argues that all architects should concern themselves and their designs with broader social issues.  He then argues that addressing social concerns through architecture will give the profession more power.

Nussbaum’s article takes a more critical look at citizen architecture, which he refers to as humanitarian design.  He examines a question that I think haunts many non-profit designers: Are we being as sensitive as we need to be to the people we’re supposedly helping?  He refers to international projects in which western designers focus their work in non-western countries, asking “Are designers helping the ‘Little Brown Brothers?’  Are designers the new anthropologists or missionaries, come to poke into village life, ‘understand’ it and make it better–their ‘modern’ way?”   He asks, “Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers?”

Naturally, these readings sparked some lively discussion.  In response to Cesal, we eventually boiled it down to a basic question:  what can architects actually do to promote a more socially responsible agenda in their projects?  Cesal has grand visions for how an architect should behave, but in the actual practice of architecture it can be difficult to keep social responsibility as high a priority as we might like it to be.  And if the client isn’t particularly interested in social responsibility, what then?  Should architects refuse to be the designers on irresponsible buildings?  Should they go ahead with the project, regardless of what final decisions were made?  Of course, the answers to these questions are incredibly personal and can vary widely based on each situation; however, we want to know what tools architects have when their ethical standards conflict with their projects.  Other than quitting a job, what can an architect do?  And even then, is quitting a realistic option for most designers?  We certainly have no (or very little) legal support in the realm of ethical design.  So what then?

In response to Nussbaum, we agreed that participating in humanitarian design is especially challenging because of the sometimes huge cultural differences that can exist between designers and users, but we also speculated that those challenges could be addressed with some careful planning.  For example, most people who work for the Design Studio didn’t actually grow up in South Mississippi.  In fact, none of us did.  We came here to fulfill a need after Hurricane Katrina.  Are there similar needs in the rest of the U.S.?  Absolutely.  The Gulf Coast just happens to be where we decided to focus our efforts.  And in doing so, I believe we overcame one of the main challenges of humanitarian design: by focusing our attention on this region the studio has been able to earn credibility, to become a real, meaningful part of the community.

And in response to Nussbaum’s question Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers? we reply, “YES!”  In fact, many of the people who work at the studio spent time in other countries for the purpose of learning how non-western societies design and build.  Less drastic but just as important, upon moving to South Mississippi all of us learned (and are still learning) how things are done here.  Those of us in the Public Design Internship Program came to Mississippi to do exactly that– we’re here to learn.  And if we can serve the community while we’re here, the more the better.