Day 32: The sandwich remains the same

Sitting through the International Union of Architects' (UIA) COP 17 session on design for climate change, I was struck by the sandwich buffet. Why are these platters always the same, no matter where you go, you are greeted by the cheerless little triangles of tuna, cold cuts and the occasional vegetarian delight. Will there be a climate crisis for conferences, forcing innovation of the environment for intellectual exchange? The conference provided a lot of food for though but today I'll only write about the architects of change.

The group structured the panel discussion around David Holmgrem's Four Scenarios. By viewing peak oil and climate challenge as the key parameters defining the future, the architects were able to dive into specific scenarios. The panel discussion focussed on their role in responding to and shaping societal safety. The key word of the day was "capacity."

Is "sustainable living" the new "progress?" A concept forced upon an unsuspecting and somehow inferior populace who are just not smart enough to be considered as part of the solution? Just like Gropius and van der Rohe, today's architects seem intent on solving climate change in spite of the humans who inhabit and apply their structures. How do we make the human interaction the smartest part of a smart grid? How do we avoid the unintended decay of pristine utopian visions sprung from individual genius minds, and the social devastation they leave in their wake?

Even though there were some lovely examples of integrated design, using biomimicry and local engagement to build Richard Palmer's "Democratic Space" in Niarobi for instance, the general tenor was that of Mr. Fixit. Only one of the panelists challenged the architectural paradigm. He felt that no one is going back to ask the fundamental questions. Instead of asking "how do we reduce the impact of cars and commuting?" we should be asking "why do we need cars and commenting in the first place?" Solving problems at source.

The sandwich buffet played nicely to the example of Peter Menzel's hungry planet project that was shared. I wonder what the mental diet of change conferences would look like if you compare them over time. It seems that as far as big conventions go, the songs and sideshows may change but how we are being fed, both physically and mentally, remains the same. How do we develop an intellectual exchange that does not inadvertently, through its very nature become stale. Perhaps biomimicry can give us some hints on how to make better mind sandwiches.