Easing and Developing
A virtual exhibition for our carbon present
This text continues a virtual exhibition curated by participants in the 2022 Toolkit for Today: Carbon Present seminar, which highlights and rereads objects from the CCA collection according to various themes related to how carbon shapes our present built environment and ways of being.
Easing
Arièle Dionne-Krosnick, Iva Resetar, Christian Saavedra
How does urbanization—particularly the transformation of environments to meet human needs for comfort and leisure—channel and redistribute access to natural elements like vegetation, water, and air? And how do design practices then reconstruct or substitute these “missing” aspects of nature in the built environment?
This thematic cluster of objects examines how design provides comfort in ways that paradoxically exacerbate carbon production. Practices of reordering access to resources for human well-being operate diffusely and across multiple scales: from technologies like air conditioning for improving physical comfort and infrastructures such as pools in suburban dwellings and holiday resorts, to recreational landscapes in post-industrial urban systems. While providing grounds for leisure and greener living, and often underpinned by ethical proposals to repair faulty aspects of urban life, practices of easing and mitigating discomfort propose our retreat—and, to some extent, isolation—from the public sphere. However, the cumulative effects of controlled micro-environments, especially their carbon emissions, have more serious implications for communal use and experience.
Practices of easing and mitigating the undesirable impacts of the carbon present are tied to everyday social conventions. The notion of “substitutability” plays a central role here: large-scale leisure facilities, which are often designed as compensatory green spaces in urban areas, can be seen as a public commitment to more sustainable and collective modes of managing natural resources. Even so, as Jeff Wiltse has charted, the “substitutability” of natural elements like greenery, water, and air in built spaces risks redistributing access to them from public to private spheres; for example, in the 1990s, “[m]illions of Americans abandoned public pools precisely because they preferred to pursue their recreational activities within smaller and more socially selective communities.”1 Similarly, air conditioning, as an early industrial and later domestic mechanism of environmental control, can heat, cool, and purify air “at the touch of a button”, in effect substituting a building’s climate by displacing its emissions outdoors. Writing about the commonality of breathed air, Luce Irigaray recalls the ethical tension of such a redistribution of air: “If breathing estranges me from the other, this gesture also signifies a sharing with the world that surrounds me and with the community that inhabits it. […] I can breathe in my own way, but the air will never be simply mine” —the carbon impact of such technologies is intrinsically a communal concern, even if it manages climate in disconnected spaces.2
-
Jeff Wiltse, Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America (Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press, 2007). ↩
-
Luce Irigaray, “From The Forgetting of Air to To Be Two,” in Feminist Interpretations of Martin Heidegger, ed. Nancy J. Holland and Patricia J. Huntington (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001). ↩
The selected examples, spanning modern, postwar, and contemporary eras, illustrate ethical concerns and frictions over the management and ownership of natural elements, and the reshaping of boundaries between the private and the public in the carbon present.
Developing
Asya Ece Uzmay, Maria Rius Ruiz, Putrikinasih R. Santoso
From the late modern to the contemporary era, we have made significant interventions in natural and built environments. These range from oil mining and landscape modifications—like excavating underground tunnels and building artificial islands—to industrializing and developing infrastructures that organize global shipping and manufacturing. The objects in this thematic cluster focus on how humans have voraciously consumed resources over the past century in ways that have significantly—in some cases irreparably—transformed and modified our planet
At the same time, monumental transformation projects were entangled in key development projects of the post-war era. As a new paradigm introduced to stabilize the post-war global economy, development has produced and enhanced asymmetric power relations between the so-called “developed” and “Third World” countries. For nearly eight decades, developed countries have been using “development” as an umbrella term to rationalize industrialization in the Third World. This process follows the interests and priorities of the global economy, in which the production and consumption of goods and services are no longer locally bound. Employed to support certain paradigms of global transformation, development has led to a more pressing concern regarding resource consumption and scarcity in local environments.
Amid nascent concerns over the availability of natural resources and their global consumption in the 1960s and 1970s, architects and planners such as Doxiadis, Buckminster Fuller, and Van Ginkel Associates conceived design as a means of optimizing resource use and creating more efficient, sustainable systems of building and living. Their approach suggested that architecture should embrace a planetary view, putting Earth at the centre of design thought and practice. Such a transformation from an anthropocentric to a planetary perspective in architecture would unfold across various scales. Fuller, for example, believed that human survival relies on our ability to use design to account for the interdependence of all living systems and the long-term consequences of our actions. At the level of regional and national planning, this planetary view was reflected in attempts to shift from purely addressing economic demands to embracing a human-centred development model involving diverse sources of expertise and addressing local contexts.
At the same time, the transfer of carbon-based expertise between “developed” and “developing countries” enabled political authorities to ascertain and categorize levels of industrial development. In particular, the import of climate control technologies presented a compelling design prompt to impose global standards of comfort and efficiency in regional contexts.
While development policies and strategies prioritize the transfer of carbon technologies, architectural publications rarely represent non-carbon-based architectural forms. In rare instances that showcase carbon-free technologies for building, those projects are described with ambiguous and open-ended terms, like “the builder in warm climates.” In other words, prioritizing carbon-based over carbon-free technologies produces distinct hierarchies of knowledge and expertise in architectural discourse.
Contemporary development practices rely on carbon-intensive engineering to effect extreme land alterations, exercising high consumption of resources and high emission levels. In this context, carbon is present in ubiquitously produced and consumed materials (crude oil, plastics, fibreglass, etc.) and as the ecological trace of construction processes (transporting, excavating, transforming). Under the still persistent rubric of global development, carbon-intensive design practices underscore an obstinate tension between global agendas and local interests. These practices have contributed to spatial and physical transformations of the Earth and have perpetuated a homogenized understanding of the environment and how we deal with geographic and climatic issues. They have eroded local, situated practices into standardized, manufactured solutions, which, in turn, fuels further and endless extraction and consumption.