sustainability & democracy

Essay on democratic systemic design and architecture

AN INCLUSIVE TRANSITION

The average consumer is rarely willing to pay more for sustainable, ethical or design quality, clients looking for a specific added value, actually are. But at a comparable price, that average consumer, will choose for the better designed, more sustainable and/or more ethical product. Which partly explains IKEA's succes, with their ‘democratic design for everyone’. However affordability or inclusivity shouldn’t equal, low quality, in any sector. Like the saying: ‘I am to poor, to buy cheap’, meaning: it’s more expensive in the long run. Referring to more replacements, production, transport, incorporated CO2 or human costs, depletion of raw materials and additional waste.

With our stricter building standards and rising prices of land, stakeholders in the construction industry are rightly concerned about affordability. Exclusive solutions, without concern for the many and the commons, will boomerang like a yellow- and green vest, right back at us. Decreasing our health and life quality, while increasing energy-, technology- and mobility inequality. In the long run, an exclusive transition or a society at two speeds, could also have a huge, destabilizing, social and economical price-tag.

“Democracy is not just the right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity.”, Naomi Klein.

As a result of an aging population, shrinking families or the loss of the core family as a standard, a growing segment of consumers, seems to be left in the cold. Meaning the segment between 'social housing' and those who can afford to live in 'rich ghettos'. Even in dual-earner households, the ratrace between life and work and the mortgage pressure, challenges the boundaries of their carrying capacity. Having a social and a personal price-tag, that’s to high. In some cities, like Amsterdam, gentrification and working poverty is pushing families and bottleneck professions like teachers, caregivers and technical staff out of their centers. Economically creating a labor shortage. So it seems that short-term investment-wins, without a local sense of responsibility, moves us against our common interest. In this growing segment, looking for affordable life-quality, lies a large potential for inclusive, sociale innovation, that can even benefit the building industry.

DEFAULT BY DESIGN: BOOMERANGS & BUTTERFLY EFFECTS OF EXPOSABLE STUFF AND PEOPLE

When confronted with health-, climate-, economic crisises or we encounter yellow-vests, climate- white-, Lgbt-, blm- or women’s marches, … etc. Have we been deaf and blind to part of the system? Natural, human boundaries and -rights? When things are ‘only great again’ for pieces of the system. Do these ‘butterfly effects’ highlight systemic design flaws and ‘opportunities for positive change’? Symptom relieve, instead of tackling the root cause, keeps the status quo in place. But eventually boomerangs right back at us, at an even higher price. So back to the drawing-board?

As seen, trespassing human and planetary boundaries isn’t for free, it comes at a price: a boomerang, one we pay though our taxes. Prevention, is not only better but cheaper than cure. Especially when on a budget, which all governments are. We just can’t afford these boomerangs. Basically: it’s like preventive health care. Or like Lieven Annemans, a health economist, puts it: “We need an economy in function of wellbeing, not at the expense of it.” Human and planetary wellbeing. A sustainable systemic approach acknowledging the systemic complex interconnection of social-, environmental-, public- and economic aspects and its ‘glocal’ cultural heart.

Planetary boundaries. Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank economist, concluded the financial benefits of intervention, or prevention, far outweighed the cost of inactivity. His research ‘The economics of climate change’ showed humanity would need 5 to 20% of the global GDP to cover the costs of natural disasters, health and social issues if we don’t intervene against ‘climate change’ in a timely manner. To avoid the worst effects of ‘climate change’ the cost would be 1% of the global GDP.

autonomy mastery and purpose

On the other hand when it comes te human boundaries this illusion of ‘make-ability’ or meritocracy, moves us against our common interest. This ‘self-serving-bias’ actually reinforces inequality. While keeping the status-quo in place. Offering it’s believers a false sense of safety or controle. As if, ‘shit’ could not happen to themselves or loved-ones. But only to ‘certain kinds of people’. In psychology they call this logical error, ‘cultural attribution’. Or what we Westerners understand as ‘karma’: ‘they’, brought it upon themselves. In a democracy our worth should be equal. But like child- and adolescent psychiatrist, Peter Adriaenssens, states: the idea that we’re born with equal chances or privileges is false. Meritocracies are subtle and resourceful forms of ‘victim-blaming’, disregarding body and context. Dismissing the basic concept of nurture and nature, privilege and chance. Or like in the lyrics of a Baz Luhrmann’s song: ‘Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much. Or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance, so are everybody else's’. It takes courages governance, to address and acknowledge an uncomfortable truth or underlying complex systemic causes. Solely demanding those, bearing the consequences to account for them, isn’t courages. Preferably in their underwear, so they can prove, to expert ‘authorities’ of social or private insurances, that their burn-out, brain injury or missing leg is still a ‘visible’ fact. Resources well spend? Authority? Or inhuman, humiliation and power? Forces of nature humble. But in context, nuture, chance lies the sphere of influence of our society. Will the nature switch stay off or go on? Some contexts create costly boomerangs. Showing up in our health budgets, in labor participation, tax receipts, social security, law enforcement and justice system costs. So in being blind we’re all losing out.

Our working and living circumstances, what we eat, working poverty, the ‘chronic stress of pure survival’ and inequity are costly boomerangs.

So companies going ‘back to business as usual’, while presenting our governments with the health- and economical bill, should be a no go. Businesses are already confronted with scarcity of raw materials, also in our building industry. Even when purely driven by profit, competitive advantages or reputation, still prices will make a innovative switch to clean, renewable and circulair solutions unavoidable.

HEALTY BOUNDARIES, ROOTS & WINGS: DIRECTION THE BUTTERFLY DEFECTS & ROOTLESSNESS

Ian Goldin, an Oxford economist states globalization and hyper-connectedness, through digitization, aviation and financial systems creates both opportunities and systemic risks: butterfly defects. In short: undesirable side-effects. Amplifying existing systemic cracks. Referring to rising inequality, bank crisises, pandemics, cyber attacks, geo-political shifts, digital echo-chambers influencing our voting- and consumption behavior, … etc. Big challenges to tackle alone, when tiny like Flanders, if you’d ask me. Besides this, Goldin believes, it is making our systems more vulnerable to the actions of one ‘disruptive’ individual. In times when, data collecting ‘smart’ technology enters our bodies and homes, it makes you wonder. And yes, historian, Rutger Bregman does conclude ‘most people are a-okay’, in his book ‘Humankind’. But lets remember Batman too: ‘Some aren’t looking for something logical, can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some just want to watch the world burn.’ Nevertheless, Goldin thinks our unprecedented connectedness, especially its scale and speed makes our systems to complex, to unpredictable. In ways even history can’t predict the magnitude of what’s coming, aligned with climate tipping points. Therefore he believes we need additional input from innovators. This addresses the importance of artists, filmakers, creatives and imaginative minds: imagineers. Giving us a critical foretaste of various scenario’s, seeds for introspection. Visions of where we could or want to go. Like John Dykstra’s puts it: “If you can imagine it, you can make it.” But while mapping the direction of our future route, the guidance of psychosocial- and philosophical sciences will become increasingly important. Especially concerning basic human needs and ethics.

“If not us, then who?”, theme of the Dutch Design Week, DDW 2018.

I wonder, when speed and seize get scary, is closing off or blame our stick of choice? Leading to climate denial, populisme, nationalisme, conservatism, buildings walls or Brexit, … Offering us a false sense of controle, as in Brené Browns definition of ‘blame’? Freeze-flight-fight, in other words: ostriching, closing off, us versus them and extreme thinking. Or what psychiatrist, Dirk De Wachter calls our ‘borderline times’. Blaming ‘the other’? The Walloon, the Flemish, our southern European family, newcomers … etc? Is Dirk De wachter pointing at a consequence? Can the cause be: fear for speed, scale and the absence of ‘glocal’ answers? Fear of losing our diversity, oneself in the bigger whole? Are extremes sides, actually scared of the same thing? Or what philosophers call: ‘ontological alienation’, anxiety of rootlessness or not really belonging.

Yet, individuals or groups spoon feeding this context, even more fear, propaganda or reactive controle, catalyze it. While activating the very worst in people, leading to more escalation. Solving what exactly? Loss of trust, efficiency, money and time? And while bickering, we’re missing our momentum, namely this decade. Our only ‘window of opportunity’ for a global and European cooperative task, towards an inclusive sustainable transition. We’re not focussing on the problem and metaphorically ‘chasing rabbits, while we should be hunting elephants’ and cooperate. Eyes on the ball? Self-destruction isn’t an option, so we’re on the same team here. What if there’s no such thing as a global vs a nationalistic paradox? Who ever calmed we can’t have both: healthy roots and wings?

“When becoming a global village, we need village-elders: trust wordiness, integrity and wisdom.”, Ian Goldin.

But the more connected we are, the more vulnerable, we become to each other's behavior and vulnerabilities. What we do, affects others. Even islands, aren’t islands anymore, cause some challenges ignore borders, seas and walls, no matter how high. Therefore Goldin believes, trust wordiness, integrity and wisdom will become increasingly important. And as seen, hyper-connectedness, equals hyper-transparency. Basically, this is John Nashes ‘game theory’ in non-cooperative settings, saying: ‘play nice! Doing what’s best for the group and yourself, is best for all involved’. Basically he’s addressing ‘reciprocity’, while saying you can’t have your cake and eat it too. So apparently in families, groups, business, politics and research settings collaboration and cooperation is best. But Goldin’s book ‘Butterly defects’, refers to the ‘chaos theory’. Known as the ‘butterfly effect’, stating: ‘The clap of a butterfly at one end of the world, can cause huge changes at the other end. But I wonder, weren’t ‘chaos theory’- basics, alined with nature? Meaning: small steps, trial and error, while observing the whole system and redirecting, in short: evolution. So is this global scale and speed, Goldin’s rightly concerned about, moving us against basic natural laws and cycles? But gravity always wins, no?

BIO-MIMICKING: NATURE & HUMAN INSPIRED DESIGN

So are there other design approaches? When confronted with health-, climate-, economic crisises or we encounter yellow-vests, climate- white-, Lgbt-, blm- or women’s marches, … etc. Have we been deaf and blind to part of the system? Natural, human boundaries and -rights? When things are ‘only great again’ for pieces of the system. Do these ‘butterfly effects’ highlight systemic design flaws or ‘opportunities for positive change’? Symptom relieve, instead of tackling the root cause, keeps the status quo in place. But eventually boomerangs right back at us, at an even higher price. Back to the drawing-board? Hence, can we learn from the most intelligent systemic design around: nature, by nature inspired design or biomimicry? Innovative, future proofed designers and thinkers already are. While mixing exact- and human sciences in their approaches.

In his book ‘Gigantisme’, economist Geert Noels, points out the human and environmental consequences of monocultures or oligopolies. Declining innovation, while leaving the social and environmental costs to our governments. Aligned with nature, he advocates for diversity, smaler, slower, more human: a more systemic or holistic approach.

Oxford economist, Kate Raworth’s, book ‘Doughnut economics’ is also inspired by natural eco-systems. Like Noels she’s addressing human and natural boundaries in her doughnut model. Stating our solutions need to be regenerative and distributive, to all including our planet.

Their research is consistent with that of sustainable economic geography for regions, cities and neighborhoods. In which sustainability is aims further than agility or resilience. By looking at areas as living, evolving eco-systems : human seized, diverse, with their own identity, decentralized and connected, while protected.

BLOCKED COOPERATION?

In her book ‘Doughnut economics’, Kate Raworth states, our brains are wired for empathy, mutual support and cooperation. She believes we need to evolve to a new portrait of humanity. But still the ‘homo economicus’ is consuming his way beyond natural- and human recourses, even in our building industry. So cooperation is not what we’re seeing, yet. Not on some online fora, twitter, chat boxes, in some companies or politics. And while pushing send, one doesn’t have to witness ‘what happens to the heart’, to put it in Leonard Cohens words. Distance seems to make dehumanization, a lot easier. Can we do things differently? When in ‘seemingly’ apposing views, aiming to win, one wonders like John Farnham’s song: ‘How long can we look at each other, down the barrel of a gun?’ As in 99 Luftballons: ‘99 Jahre Krieg, Liessen keinen Platz fuer Sieger.’ So we all lose. But what’s blocking dialogue and cooperation here, despite acceptable solutions? Can it be two things: our bias and decision-making process? Bias and compromise?

WHO ARE YOU, WHERE ARE YOU FROM? AND WHERE ARE WE GOING? MOVING FROM BIAS … TO PURPOSE

I believe a first obstacle is our bias. Research by Adam Waytz, Liane Young and Jeremy Ginges shows the cause of reactive conflicts is ‘motive attribution asymmetry’. This bias or prejudice tells us: I act out of love, you out of hate, my motives are good, yours are bad, I am right, you’re wrong. Brené Browns social research shows ‘knowing and being sure’ about ‘the other’ is like wearing earplugs and blindfolds. In addition our individual and collective experiences, our history and roots, colors our glasses. It does so in our relationships, business, politics, even in our algoritmes or AI. So when manmade, it’s by definition biased. Basically it says: know your biases, privileges and stay curious. Moreover Browns ‘shame’ research, concludes one can’t decouple bias from having hard, uncomfortable conversations, about crossed human- and planetary boundaries, real consequences and costs. Or: truth and accountability, yes. Blame-sticks, fear-spoons, earplugs and blindfolds, no. Because it stops us from really understanding the issue, each other. And thereby stops creative problem solving all together. The ‘motive attribution asymmetry’- research shows a bypass is recognition of our bias plus an incentive to get it right. In their research they’ve used money. But could a shared narrative, purpose, longing or ‘inner why’ work too? This hypothesis is consistent with Dr. Vivek Murthy’s necessity for dialogue: ‘relation’, something to ‘relate to’. As in Seth Godins vital ingredient for a tribe: a ‘common belief’ and Simon Sineks ‘inner why’, distinguishing great leadership. Tomato tomaaato?

“Perhaps it is true, that we do not really exist until there is someone there to see us existing, we cannot properly speak, until there is someone who can understand what we are saying in essence.”, Alain de Botton.

Yes. It is in line with other research in social psychology. Muzafer Sherif’s famous ‘boys-summer-camp’-experiment, demonstrated how easily one can brake down relationships. Alined with bullying-research he demonstrated individual behavior is structured by group-dynamics. Sabotage, abuse, bullying, hatred and a toxic ‘us versus them’ attitude kicked in between the two camp-groups, once he ‘installed’ a competitive incentive. Ones an in- and out-group was created. Belonging to our tribe, there’s a challenge solvable together. But when you’re not one of us, it stands between us. Or worse, you ‘are’ the problem. Resulting in exclusion, inequality, dehumanization and out go our sustainable development goals. Full circle.

“Diversity is having a seat at the table, inclusion is having a voice and belonging is having that voice be heard.”, Liz Fosslien.

Here John Farnham stops singing: ‘We’re all someone’s daughter. We’re all someones son’, while Michael Kiwanuka wonders: ‘Love and hate. How much more are we supposed to tolerate?’. Creative problem solving stops. Problematic, when in shit together. Tragically, group dynamics are built on fear or treats, even fake ones. But the hopeful and beautiful part of Muzafer Sherif’s experiment was, hatred between the two was disarmed, ones a common incentive, purpose, goal or treat was installed. Goals or treats, not achievable or solvable alone, like preventing boomerangs and butterfly (d)effects. Muzafer Sherif showed our biases are flexible, creating lots of rooom to do better.

DECISION MAKING

In my opinion a second obstacle, is our decision-making processes. There’s compromise, consensus and a third, more integrated approach.

Consensus or DIALOGUE on the other hand, takes all positions in a system into account. While peeling the onion to the core issues, needs and boundaries. We equally matter, so diversity and differences are OK. Such mutual respect and openness to all parties realities and narratives leads to what, Lieven Migerode calls ‘the eternal dialogue’. Also known as ‘democracy’, when working properly. Yep, this is not the easy way out: it’s time consuming. This is short- as well as long-term thinking and emancipatory. We lose the ‘either/or’-approach and peel the onion up to a common goal or purpose: common ground. Leading to cooperation and progress. Resulting in new alternatives, feeling OK to all parties. It’s boomerang- and butterfly-effect prevention, aiming to build trust and save money. In line with Nashes ‘game theory’: we cooperate, so we all win, together. Here we all join the table, everyone is curious, heard, seen and we’re all wearing our wellies. It’s all about finding solutions: so we’re transparant and motivated. Walking boots are not allowed. Out together, home together. We keep our eyes on the ball, in this case: a peeled onion. And yes, sometimes our wellies get stuck, it slows us down, we redirect, but we’ll be OK.

“Know your bias and privileges. Put the stick, spoon, earplugs and blindfolds down. Lose those walking boots. Because for going though shit together, we need wellies.”

But occasionally, three uninvited spoilsports still join the table and a missing party:

• one: insincerity, that is: ignoring science. Yes, you are entitled to an opinion, but not to your own facts. In short: no cherrypicking and don’t speak bullshit at the table.

• two: ignorance to sytemic reciprocity or hyper-connectedness. In other words: sustainable development equals a balans between environmental-, social-, public- and economic aspects. Based on science and conscious of its glocal cultural heart.

• three: the headless man in a bubble

• the missing party, who needs an invitation: those with ‘skin in the game’, like Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls them.

THE FLOWER MODEL: INTEGRATED - NEEDS BASED PARTICIPATION

Still there is a third option: an integrated approach or a ‘participatory and needs oriented’ - design approach. It assumes that every difference or antithesis is just in our heads. In this approach none of the core issues, needs and boundaries gets judged or denied. This thought-process is a known innovation technique. It doesn’t believe ‘it can’t be done’, called the superhero technique. We’re consciously setting a positive bias. Or to put it in Proximus’ words: ‘think possible’. Solutions feel more than OK, they feel true, because everything is integrated. This approach is based on interdisciplinary teams of exact and human sciences, stakeholders and end-users, giving needs based input. The team is supplemented by a designer, serving possible integrated solutions. Re-evaluating and refining the output together. Why a designer or architect? Well they’re generalists and trained systemic problem-solvers. Political scientist and psychologist Phillip Tetlocks’ research, showed well-informed generalists and citizens are better at synthesis than experts. Why? Apparently to much expertise narrows ones field of view. And complex systems, need a systemic view. This integrated approach is an existing innovation method, used by our dutch neighbors and has similarities with a methodology seen at the architecture department of MIT. This is Nashes ‘game theory’ supplemented science, grassroots knowledge and creativity. Here we’re offering Nashes ‘Beautiful mind’, a beautiful planet and society. Nicer than a pen, no?

“As you will find in multivariable calculus, there is often a number of solutions for any given problem”, John Nash.

Again we all join the table, everyone is heard, seen and we’re all wearing smart wellies. We’re moving faster and love puzzling. We believe diversity and both nerdiness plus bottom up input are needed for creative problem-solving. Aiming to create regenerative and distributive solutions, to all, including our planet. Getting stuck can still happen, because our data may be incomplete, for now. Unscientific bullshit or short-term thinking are not allowed at this table. Because Nash, well he deserves better. This way, we evolve and grow to a new portrait of humanity, together. A creative ‘Homo empathicus’, with real smart wellies.

INCLUSIVE & SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE

What does this have to do with inclusive & sustainable architecture? Well, everything. An inclusive, circulair transition in our economy, architecture and urban planning, means legislation, good leadership and politics supporting it. We need mixed sciences, cooperation and creativity. Surfing against this upcoming wave, won’t work. We can’t tackle these huge challenges, while taking each-other, democracy or Europe for granted. What’s coming is just to big to do alone. And we don’t have to, because we’re not in it alone. By cooperation and collaboration, meaning smart wellies, it is still possible.

And although the urgency and awareness of the climate transition is rising, obtainability of housing is still key. A sole focus on sustainability, without price awareness, would only reach a small green-niche. And due to the mere seize of this segment we would lose the required ‘speed and impact’. So the underlying needs of the whole system; investors, local authorities, the social midfield, neighborhoods, end-users … etc. must be integrated in the approach. Because as an incentive for a swift sustainable densification, all parties need to be heard. If not so, one of the stakeholders will protest, delay or even worse, bring the necessary transition to a halt. Or to put it in Kate Raworth words: long-term solutions are regenerative and distributive by design, to all, including our planet. These are not opposites, there is no such thing. It will in fact be a necessity in all sectors, to stay relevant.

In collective housing models, innovative financing- and business models lies the potential for an inclusive 'bleu ocean' for the industry. In this way the demographic transition, can be a catalyst for sustainable densification. But in some cohousing or community land trust projects the slow democratic process with future residents, sometimes takes up to 5 years or more. At that point designing and building still has to start. Sometimes this results in high planning costs and even the most enthusiastic buyers or participants pulling out. Although these projects are necessary, innovative examples and inspiring. When impact, quantity and speed are key in sustainable densification, this may not be the only option. A participatory traject with other stakeholders, like local authorities, the social midfield and socially responsible project developers, could add the desired speed and segment size, so impact to the equation.

FINDING COMMON GROUND

“Our climate-, health- and economic crisis, is a crisis of democracy.”

References: “Design value: a strategy for business success. Red dot design”, book by Jacob Burkhard, Peter Zec. - “Doughnut economics” book by Kate Raworth - or watch the VPRO documentary: Tegenlicht - De donut economie - “Gigantisme: van to big to fail naar trager, kleiner en menselijker”, book By Geert Noels - “Allemaal Sociaal 3.0 - Kunnen ondernemers de wereld redden” , book by Piet Colruyt, Marieke Huysentruyt, Steven Sereels, Johan Moyersoen, Philip Michiels - “Blue Ocean Strategy. How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant.”, book by W. Chan Kim, Reneé A. Mauborgne - “In the bubble. Designing in a complex world” book by John Thackara. - “Why we hate” documentary series, directed by Geeta Gandbhir and Sam Pollard, produced by Steven Spielberg and Alex Gibney's Jigsaw.