When we use the word "architect" or "designer," what we usually mean is a professional, someone who gets paid, and we tend to assume that it's those professionals who are going to be the ones to help us solve the really big, systemic design challenges that we face like climate change, urbanization and social inequality. That's our kind of working presumption. And I think it's wrong, actually.
Kada koristimo reč "arhitekta" ili "dizajner" ono što obično pod tim podrazumevamo je profesionalac, neko ko je plaćen. Težimo da pretpostavimo da su oni ti koji nam pomažu da rešimo zaista velike, sistemske projektantske izazove sa kojima se suočavamo - poput klimatskih promena, urbanizacije i socijalne nejednakosti. To je neka vrsta naše pretpostavke. A zapravo, mislim da je to pogrešno.
In 2008, I was just about to graduate from architecture school after several years, and go out and get a job, and this happened. The economy ran out of jobs. And a couple of things struck me about this. One, don't listen to career advisers. And two, actually this is a fascinating paradox for architecture, which is that, as a society, we've never needed design thinking more, and yet architecture was literally becoming unemployed. It strikes me that we talk very deeply about design, but actually there's an economics behind architecture that we don't talk about, and I think we need to.
2008. upravo sam završavao arhitektonski fakultet nakon nekoliko godina i krenuo da tražim posao i desilo se ovo. Ekonomiji je ponestalo poslova. Nekoliko stvari me je pogodilo. Jedna je - ne slušaj poslovne savetnike. A druga je da, a to je fascinantni paradoks arhitekture, društvu nikada nije više bila potrebna projektantska misao, a arhitektura je doslovno postajala nezaposlena. Govorimo veoma detaljno o projektovanju, a zapravo ekonomija je iza arhitekture, o kojoj ne govorimo, a mislim da bi trebalo.
And a good place to start is your own paycheck. So, as a bottom-of-the-rung architecture graduate, I might expect to earn about 24,000 pounds. That's about 36,000, 37,000 dollars. Now in terms of the whole world's population, that already puts me in the top 1.95 richest people, which raises the question of, who is it I'm working for? The uncomfortable fact is that actually almost everything that we call architecture today is actually the business of designing for about the richest one percent of the world's population, and it always has been. The reason why we forgot that is because the times in history when architecture did the most to transform society were those times when, actually, the one percent would build on behalf of the 99 percent, for various different reasons, whether that was through philanthropy in the 19th century, communism in the early 20th, the welfare state, and most recently, of course, through this inflated real estate bubble. And all of those booms, in their own various ways, have now kicked the bucket, and we're back in this situation where the smartest designers and architects in the world are only really able to work for one percent of the population.
A dobra tačka za početak je vaša plata. Kao diplomac arhitekture na začelju liste, verovatno sam očekivao da ću zarađivati 24.000 funti. To je oko 36.000 ili 37.000 dolara. U kontekstu čitave svetske populacije, to me stavlja na vrh od 1.95% najbogatijih ljudi, što povlači pitanje, za koga ja to radim? Neprijatna činjenica je da je zapravo skoro sve što danas nazivamo arhitekturom, u stvari posao projektovanja za otprilike najbogatiji procenat svetske populacije i uvek je tako bilo. Razlog zbog kojeg to zaboravljamo jeste da su kroz istoriju kada je arhitektura činila najviše da promeni društvo, bila upravo ta vremena kada je uglavnom 1% gradio zbog interesa onih 99%, iz različitih razloga - kroz filantropiju u 19. veku, komunizam u ranom 20. veku, u periodu blagostanja i najskorije kroz ovaj mehur građevinske inflacije. Svi ovi udari u svojim raznovrsnim oblicima sad su zamrli, a mi smo se vratili u situaciju gde su najpametniji dizajneri i arhitekte na svetu, sposobni samo da rade za 1% populacije.
Now it's not just that that's bad for democracy, though I think it probably is, it's actually not a very clever business strategy, actually. I think the challenge facing the next generation of architects is, how are we going to turn our client from the one percent to the 100 percent? And I want to offer three slightly counterintuitive ideas for how it might be done.
Ipak, to nije baš toliko loše za demokratiju, iako ja smatram da verovatno jeste, a to zapravo i nije veoma pametna poslovna strategija. Mislim da je izazov za narednu generaciju arhitekata - kako da promenimo naše klijente sa jednog na 100%? Želim da predložim tri pomalo nelogične ideje za rešenje ovog problema.
The first is, I think we need to question this idea that architecture is about making buildings. Actually, a building is about the most expensive solution you can think of to almost any given problem. And fundamentally, design should be much, much more interested in solving problems and creating new conditions. So here's a story. The office was working with a school, and they had an old Victorian school building.
Prva je, smatram da treba da ispitamo ovu ideju da se arhitektura bavi pravljenjem zgrada. Zapravo, zgrada je najskuplje rešenje koje možete zamisliti za bilo kakav problem. A u stvari, projektovanje bi trebalo da ima mnogo više udela u rešavanju problema i stvaranju novih uslova. Pa, evo priče. Arhitektonski biro je radio projekat škole, stare viktorijanske školske zgrade.
And they said to the architects, "Look, our corridors are an absolute nightmare. They're far too small. They get congested between classes. There's bullying. We can't control them. So what we want you to do is re-plan our entire building, and we know it's going to cost several million pounds, but we're reconciled to the fact."
Rekli su arhitektama: "Vidite, hodnici su nam velika noćna mora. Veoma su mali. Zakrčeni su na odmorima. Javlja se maltretiranje. Ne možemo da ih kontrolišemo. Stoga ono što želim da uradimo je da ponovo isprojektujemo čitavu zgradu i znamo da će nas to koštati nekoliko miliona funti, ali pomirili smo se sa tom činjenicom."
And the team thought about this, and they went away, and they said, "Actually, don't do that. Instead, get rid of the school bell. And instead of having one school bell that goes off once, have several smaller school bells that go off in different places and different times, distribute the traffic through the corridors." It solves the same problem, but instead of spending several million pounds, you spend several hundred pounds. Now, it looks like you're doing yourself out of a job, but you're not. You're actually making yourself more useful. Architects are actually really, really good at this kind of resourceful, strategic thinking. And the problem is that, like a lot of design professions, we got fixated on the idea of providing a particular kind of consumer product, and I don't think that needs to be the case anymore.
Tim je razmišljao o ovome, otišli su i rekli: "U stvari, nemojte to da radite. Umesto toga, rešite se školskih zvona. Umesto jednog zvona koje zvoni jednom, postavite nekoliko manjih koja zvone na različitim mestima u različito vreme i tako rasporedite gužvu u hodnicima." To je rešilo problem i umesto da potrošite nekoliko miliona funti, potrošićete nekoliko stotina funti. Deluje kao da sami sebi uzimate posao, ali ne. Vi zapravo sebe činite još korisnijim. Arhitekte su u stvari veoma, veoma dobri u ovoj vrsti dovitljivog, strategijskog razmišljanja. Problem je to što smo, poput većine profesionalnih projektanata fiksirani idejom snabdevanja kupaca određenom vrstom proizvoda, ali ne smatram da to treba da bude slučaj nadalje.
The second idea worth questioning is this 20th-century thing that mass architecture is about big -- big buildings and big finance. Actually, we've got ourselves locked into this Industrial Era mindset which says that the only people who can make cities are large organizations or corporations who build on our behalf, procuring whole neighborhoods in single, monolithic projects, and of course, form follows finance. So what you end up with are single, monolithic neighborhoods based on this kind of one-size-fits-all model. And a lot of people can't even afford them. But what if, actually, it's possible now for cities to be made not just by the few with a lot but also by the many with a bit? And when they do, they bring with them a completely different set of values about the place that they want to live. And it raises really interesting questions about, how will we plan cities? How will finance development? How will we sell design services? What would it mean for democratic societies to offer their citizens a right to build? And in a way it should be kind of obvious, right, that in the 21st century, maybe cities can be developed by citizens.
Druga ideja vredna razmatranja je dvadesetovekovna stvar, da masivna arhitektura predstavlja veliko - velike zgrade i velike prihode. Mi smo, u stvari, zaključani u ovom industrijskom načinu razmišljanja, koje kaže da samo velike organizacije mogu da grade gradove ili korporacije koje grade u našu korist, obezbeđivanjem čitavih naselja, u malim, monolitnim projektima i naravno, da forma prati finansije. Ono na čemu se sve završi su pojedinačna monolitna naselja bazirana na ovoj vrsti modela jedne veličine. A dosta ljudi to ne može da priušti. A šta ako je danas moguće da gradove gradi ne samo nekolicina onih koji imaju puno, već mnogi koji imaju malo? A kad grade, oni donose sa sobom potpuno različite vrednosti mesta u kojem žele da žive. To rađa veoma interesantno pitanje: kako ćemo planirati gradove? Kako ćemo finansirati razvoj? Kako ćemo prodavati projektantske usluge? Šta bi značilo za demokratsko društvo da ponudi svojim građanima pravo da grade? I na način na koji bi to trebalo da bude očigledno, da u 21. veku, građani možda mogu izgraditi gradove.
And thirdly, we need to remember that, from a strictly economic point of view, design shares a category with sex and care of the elderly -- mostly it's done by amateurs. And that's a good thing. Most of the work takes place outside of the monetary economy in what's called the social economy or the core economy, which is people doing it for themselves. And the problem is that, up until now, it was the monetary economy which had all the infrastructure and all the tools.
I treća ideja je, treba da zapamtimo, da sa potpuno ekonomske tačke gledišta, projektovanje deli istu kategoriju sa seksom i brigom o starijima - uglavnom se radi amaterski. To je dobra stvar. Najviše posla se odvija van monetarne ekonomije koja se naziva društvena ekonomija ili jezgrovita ekonomija, koju ljudi stvaraju za sebe. Problem je to što, sve do sad, to je bila monetarna ekonomija koja je imala čitavu infrastrukturu i sve alate.
So the challenge we face is, how are we going to build the tools, the infrastructure and the institutions for architecture's social economy? And that began with open-source software. And over the last few years, it's been moving into the physical world with open-source hardware, which are freely shared blueprints that anyone can download and make for themselves. And that's where 3D printing gets really, really interesting. Right? When suddenly you had a 3D printer that was open-source, the parts for which could be made on another 3D printer. Or the same idea here, which is for a CNC machine, which is like a large printer that can cut sheets of plywood. What these technologies are doing is radically lowering the thresholds of time and cost and skill. They're challenging the idea that if you want something to be affordable it's got to be one-size-fits-all. And they're distributing massively really complex manufacturing capabilities. We're moving into this future where the factory is everywhere, and increasingly that means that the design team is everyone. That really is an industrial revolution. And when we think that the major ideological conflicts that we inherited were all based around this question of who should control the means of production, and these technologies are coming back with a solution: actually, maybe no one. All of us.
Tako da je izazov sa kojim se suočavamo, kako ćemo graditi alate, infrastuktru i institucije za arhitektonsku društvenu ekonomiju? To je počelo sa otvorenim softverom. Tokom prošle godine, prerastalo je u stvarni, fizički svet sa otvorenim hardverom, slobodno deljenim nacrtima koje svako može da preuzme i napravi za sebe. Tu su 3D štampači postali veoma zanimljivi. Zar ne? Kada imate 3D štampač otvorenog koda, njegovi delovi bi mogli biti napravljeni na drugom 3D štampaču. Ili ista ideja ovde, a to je CNC mašina, koja je kao veliki štampač koji može da seče šperploču. Ono što ove tehnologije rade zapravo je drastično smanjenje problema vremena, troškova i veština. One izazivaju ideju da ukoliko želite da nešto bude pristupačno, sve treba da stane u jednu veličinu. Oni imaju masivne i prilično složene proizvodne mogućnosti. Idemo ka budućnosti gde su fabrike svuda, a to znači da svako može da bude dizajnerski tim. To je zaista industrijska revolucija. Kada mislimo da su glavni ideološki sukobi koje smo usvojili, bili bazirani na ovom pitanju ko treba da kontroliše stvaranje, ove tehnologije se vraćaju sa rešenjem: u stvari, možda niko. Svi mi.
And we were fascinated by what that might mean for architecture. So about a year and a half ago, we started working on a project called WikiHouse, and WikiHouse is an open-source construction system. And the idea is to make it possible for anyone to go online, access a freely shared library of 3D models which they can download and adapt in, at the moment, SketchUp, because it's free, and it's easy to use, and almost at the click of a switch they can generate a set of cutting files which allow them, in effect, to print out the parts from a house using a CNC machine and a standard sheet material like plywood. And the parts are all numbered, and basically what you end up with is a really big IKEA kit. (Laughter) And it goes together without any bolts. It uses wedge and peg connections. And even the mallets to make it can be provided on the cutting sheets as well. And a team of about two or three people, working together, can build this. They don't need any traditional construction skills. They don't need a huge array of power tools or anything like that, and they can build a small house of about this size in about a day.
Bili smo fascinirani onim što bi to značilo za arhitekturu. Tako da pre oko godinu i po dana počeli smo sa radom na projektu pod nazivom WikiHouse, a to je sistem građenja otvorenog koda. Ideja je da se omoći svakome da ode na internet, pristupi besplatnoj biblioteci 3D modela, koje mogu da preuzmu i preoblikuju trenutno u SketcUp-u jer je besplatan i jednostavan za korišćenje i gotovo klikom miša mogu da stvore set izvođačkih planova koji im omogućavaju da štampaju delove kuće korišćenjem CNC mašine i standardnog izvoda materijala, poput šperploče. Delovi su numerisani i ono što proizvedete je gotovo veoma velika IKEA granitura. (Smeh) Sve se spaja bez ikakvih šrafova. Koriste se šipke i metalni zglobovi. Čak i čekići za pravljenje mogu biti obezbeđeni na izvođačkim planovima. I tim od otprilike dvoje ili troje ljudi, zajedničkim radom, može ovo da napravi. Nisu im potrebna tradicionalna znanja iz konstrukcija. Nije im potreban nikakav arsenal alata na struju ili bilo čega sličnog. Mogu napraviti malu kuću ove veličine za jedan dan.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
And what you end up with is just the basic chassis of a house onto which you can then apply systems like windows and cladding and insulation and services based on what's cheap and what's available. Of course, the house is never finished. We're shifting our heads here, so the house is not a finished product. With the CNC machine, you can make new parts for it over its life or even use it to make the house next door. So we can begin to see the seed of a completely open-source, citizen-led urban development model, potentially.
Ono što napravite je osnovni okvir za kuću na kom možete primenjivati sisteme: poput prozora obloga, izolacija i drugih radova, baziranih na tome šta je jeftino i dostupno. Naravno, kuća nikada nije završena. Mi gledamo u ovo, a kuća nije završen proizvod. Sa CNC mašinom, možete napraviti nove delove izvan plana kuće i čak da napravite susednu kuću. Možemo početi da gledamo začetak kompletno otvorenog pristupa modela urbanog razvoja koji stvara stanovništvo.
And we and others have built a few prototypes around the world now, and some really interesting lessons here. One of them is that it's always incredibly sociable. People get confused between construction work and having fun. But the principles of openness go right down into the really mundane, physical details. Like, never designing a piece that can't be lifted up. Or, when you're designing a piece, make sure you either can't put it in the wrong way round, or, if you do, it doesn't matter, because it's symmetrical. Probably the principal which runs deepest with us is the principal set out by Linus Torvalds, the open-source pioneer, which was that idea of, "Be lazy like a fox." Don't reinvent the wheel every time. Take what already works, and adapt it for your own needs. Contrary to almost everything that you might get taught at an architecture school, copying is good.
Trenutno smo napravili i nekoliko prototipova širom sveta i izvukli nekoliko zanimljivih lekija. Jedna od njih je da je to uvek neverovatno druželjubiva aktivnost. Ljudi se zbunjuju između građevinskih radova i zabave. Ali principi otvorenosti sažimaju se u prilično rutinskim, fizičkim detaljima - poput, nikada ne dizajnirajte deo koji se ne može podići. Ili kada dizajnirate deo, budite sigurni da ga ne možete staviti na pogrešno mesto ili ako to uradite, da to nema veze jer je simetrično. Princip koji nam verovatno najviše odgovara je princip projektovanja Linusa Torvaldsa, pionira slobodnog pristupa, a njegova ideja je bila: "Budite lenji kao pas." Ne izmišljajte stalno nove delove. Koristite ono što već funkcioniše i prilagodite to svojim potrebama. Nasuprot gotovo svemu čemu su vas učili u školama arhitekture, kopiranje je dobro.
Which is appropriate, because actually, this approach is not innovative. It's actually how we built buildings for hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution in these sorts of community barn-raisings. The only difference between traditional vernacular architecture and open-source architecture might be a web connection, but it's a really, really big difference. We shared the whole of WikiHouse under a Creative Commons license, and now what's just beginning to happen is that groups around the world are beginning to take it and use it and hack it and tinker with it, and it's amazing. There's a cool group over in Christchurch in New Zealand looking at post-earthquake development housing, and thanks to the TED city Prize, we're working with an awesome group in one of Rio's favelas to set up a kind of community factory and micro-university. These are very, very small beginnings, and actually there's more people in the last week who have got in touch and they're not even on this map. I hope next time you see it, you won't even be able to see the map.
Što je i logično jer u stvari ovaj pristup nije inovativan. To je način građenja objekata, kao ovo zajedničko podizanje štala, stotinama godina pre industrijske revolucije. Jedina razlika između tradicionalne narodne arhitekture i arhitekture otvorenog pristupa, može biti internet veza, ali to je mnogo, mnogo velika razlika. Delili smo sve kolekcije WikiHouse pod Creative Commons licencom i ono što počinje da se dešava je da grupe širom sveta počinju da ih uzimaju koriste, dorađuju i bave se njima i rezultati su iznenađujući. Postoji veoma kul grupa u Kristčurču na Novom Zelandu koja se bavi gradnjom kuća otpornih na zemljotres i zahvaljujući TED City nagradi sarađujemo sa fenomenalnom grupom u jednoj od favela u Rio de Žaneiru kako bismo smestili neku vrstu lokalne fabrike i mikro-univerzitet. Ovo su veoma mali počeci i više ljudi tokom poslednje nedelje je ostalo u kontaktu, a koji čak ni nisu na ovoj mapi. Nadam se da kada ga sledeći put pogledate, nećete moći da vidite mapu.
We're aware that WikiHouse is a very, very small answer, but it's a small answer to a really, really big question, which is that globally, right now, the fastest-growing cities are not skyscraper cities. They're self-made cities in one form or another. If we're talking about the 21st-century city, these are the guys who are going to be making it. You know, like it or not, welcome to the world's biggest design team.
Svesni smo da je WikiHouse veoma mali odgovor, ali je mali odgovor na zaista veliko pitanje koje je globalno - trenutno, najbrže rastući gradovi nisu oni sa oblakoderima. To su samostalno pravljeni gradovi u jednom ili drugom obliku. Ako govorimo o gradovima 21. veka ovo su ljudi koji će ih napraviti. Znate, sviđalo vam se ili ne, dobrodošli u najveći svetski dizajnerski tim.
So if we're serious about problems like climate change, urbanization and health, actually, our existing development models aren't going to do it. As I think Robert Neuwirth said, there isn't a bank or a corporation or a government or an NGO who's going to be able to do it if we treat citizens only as consumers. How extraordinary would it be, though, if collectively we were to develop solutions not just to the problem of structure that we've been working on, but to infrastructure problems like solar-powered air conditioning, off-grid energy, off-grid sanitation -- low-cost, open-source, high-performance solutions that anyone can very, very easily make, and to put them all into a commons where they're owned by everyone and they're accessible by everyone? A kind of Wikipedia for stuff? And once something's in the commons, it will always be there. How much would that change the rules? And I think the technology's on our side.
Ako budemo ozbiljno razmišljali o problemima kimatskih promena, urbanizacije i zdravlja naši postojeći modeli razvoja nisu dovoljni. Mislim da je Robert Nojrvirt rekao da ne postoji banka preduzeće, vlada ili nevladina organizacija koja će to moći da uradi ako budemo tretirali stanovnike samo kao potrošače. Kako bi samo bilo izvanredno, kada bi zajedno razvili rešenja ne samo za problem strukture na kom radimo, već probleme infrastukture, poput klimatizacije na solarnu energiju struje van mreže, kanalizacije van mreže - nisko-tarifna, otvorenih izvora, rešenja visokih performansi, koja svako može veoma lako da napravi i da ih implementira u zajednicu, gde bi ih svako imao i gde bi svima bili pristupačna. Neka vrsta Vikipedije za robu? A kad nešto postane zajedničko, uvek će i biti. Koliko bi to promenilo pravila? Mislim da je tehnologija na našoj strani.
If design's great project in the 20th century was the democratization of consumption -- that was Henry Ford, Levittown, Coca-Cola, IKEA — I think design's great project in the 21st century is the democratization of production. And when it comes to architecture in cities, that really matters. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Ukoliko je dobar dizajnerski projekat u 20. veku bila demokratizacija potrošnje kao što je Henri Ford, Levitaun, Koka kola, IKEA - smatram da je dobar dizajnerski projekat u 21. veku demokratizacija proizvodnje. A kad govorimo o arhitekturi u gradovima to je veoma značajno. Hvala vam. (Aplauz)