MICHAEL FLOWERS

JUDSON MOORE

farm architecture 1 research

LORI RYKER

Artemis Institute

Introduction

Anticipating the responses to the call for Alter-

native Architectures j Alternative Practices, we

inevitably had expectations about the types of

design projects and scholarly essays that would

be submitted. As it turned out, by the very nature

of the concept ‘‘alternative,’’ the submissions we

received formed a population of thoughts that

invariably expanded beyond our preconceptions.

The consequence of the review process for us was

a broadened discussion of what it means to

operate in the margin of the Alternative, and how

proposed alternatives respond in time to relevant

issues identified by those who propose them.

Alternatives arise from a variety of conditions:

personal reflection of a design process, interfaces

of new technologies, recognizing a problem that

could be solved through the production of a par-

ticular architectural response. Regardless of the

forces that drive an alternative, all are tied to

evolving value systems and respond, explicitly or

implicitly, to the existing center.

Always in flux, alternatives simultaneously

operate between global and local conditions,

developing universal and specific traits that

characterize their identity and form their effective

territory. For this reason, attempting a compre-

hensive definition of Alternative, as it relates to

the practice of architecture, seems counter to the

idea’s very nature. Instead, we have elected to

begin with this simple statement: an alternative is

something beyond convention. This statement

implies that in order for the Alternative to exist,

there must also be a Center that influences the

accepted norm. The norm, in Bergsonian terms,1

is at any given moment a snapshot of a formative

consensus, constantly evolving to address rec-

ognizable issues and problems. The identity and

scope of the norm continually evolves as pro-

posed alternatives are accepted and incorporated

into the Center through diverse interrelated net-

works of technologies, resources, and economic

conditions.

Considering networks of architectural produc-

tion and education in their Op Arch essays,

Christopher Hight and Hashim Sarkis evaluate and

discuss a range of contexts and operational mech-

anisms of alternative practices. Examining the core

conception of Alternative, Hight proposes bypass-

ing definitions altogether and extrapolating the

modern architect’s role as the assembler and pro-

ducer across domains, re-inventing the field of

operations to create novel concepts and objects of

knowledge. Sarkis considers that another pursuit of

the Alternative exists precisely in the differentiation

between what is considered form and what is con-

sidered outside of form, between the internalities

and externalities of architecture.

Resisting a categorical definition of Alterna-

tive, our immersion into the content of the readings

revealed certain universal traits that provide rec-

ognizable common threads between alternatives

found in this issue: the crossing over or blurring of

boundaries, broadening existing peripheries of

alternative positions, and the reconfiguring of

conventional methodology and strategies.

We have also come to recognize that alterna-

tives are generative, rather than solely critical,

producing projects and solutions that respond to

conditions in the world or intellectual mindsets.

They offer refinements to ensure that the work and

thoughts regarding architecture remain relevant

and necessary to an evolving society and its envi-

ronment. When reviewed, alternative practices

maintain historical signatures, traceable signs of

their incorporation into the norm through events in

the history of social evolution, ecological con-

sciousness, or pedagogy. The history and influence

of an alternative adopted by the Center conse-

quently broadens the search space of the norm.

Alternatives that cross boundaries of thought

and application borrow from other arenas and

blend identities previously considered discrete.

Traveling to the Atacama Desert in central Chile,

Chris Taylor presents fieldwork from Atacama Lab:

07, advocating for potentials in a multiplicity of

departure points, exploring the decentralization of

patterning and connections between architecture,

populations, and environments as impetus for

physical creation. In ‘‘Alternating (the) Currencies,’’

Perry Kulper extends the potential of alternative

architectures by diversifying and broadening

methods of architectural conception and produc-

tion, suspending conventional criteria of design and

freely incorporating an understanding gained from

other disciplines such as psychology, arts, literary

criticism, sociology, and politics to optimize the

intersection of architecture’s cultural agency and

spatial innovation.

Annie Coggan-Crawford crosses boundaries to

provide a fresh interpretation of biography through

her meshing of furniture and narrative. Keenly

interested in how an object can tell a story, Coggan-

Crawford employs a methodology that draws from

a deep reading of her client/subjects in order to

respond to their ethical point of view in both formal

expression and construction methods. Furniture’s

intimate scale allows her to create highly articulated

responses to her interpretations and observations

of the individuals she studies. The result of her

alternative practice encourages the remembrance

of some of the more obscured, but valuable,

aspects of architecture, such the ability to know

something or somebody through an experience

separate from itself.

Broadening the periphery, Colin Ripley,

Geoffrey Thun, and Kathy Velikov, of RVTR,

propose that while architectural practices may make

use of alternative modes of design, production, and

funding, the immanent role of designers requires

a critical reassessment of fundamental concerns

they refer to as future ecologies, situated infra-

structures, and emerging inhabitations. AnnaLisa

Meyboom investigates the development of infra-

structure as an alternative practice, suggesting that

its inherent scale and interconnected qualities

provide the potential to create place and suggest

Journal of Architectural Education,

pp. 4–5 ª 2009 ACSA

INTRODUCTION 4

future growth patterns through amplified degrees

of interactions. Jason Sowell and Nichole

Wiedemann work with the landscape and culture of

New Orleans, discovering an alternative notion of

preemption by exploring the potential of infra-

structural projects that anticipate rather than react

to flux in ecological, economical and technological

systems. The result is a tactical integration of

architecture and landscape that resiliently mediates

between cultural and natural forces.

Gustavo Crembil and Peter Lynch create an

alternative architecture through collaborative pro-

cesses, employing globalization-age craft in their

Pleasure Garden proposal for the 2008 YAP PS1/

MoMA competition. Their work examines the

synching of analog and digital methodologies to

create resonance between architecture, craft and

culture.

Recognizable alternative practices have

recently evolved out of reconfiguring conventional

methods and strategies to address identified

problems. In particular, alternative practices are

emerging as social and environmental emergencies

occur across the globe. These practices draw from

the potential for architecture to be of ‘‘immediate’’

value to a community. The tactics necessary for

working in these situations are flexibility, respon-

siveness and an ad hoc working process. Operating

in the territory of direct implementations, Robert

Corser and Nils Gore pursue an alternative peda-

gogical model by developing design strategies that

deploy direct action design-build projects for

everyday life in the recovering New Orleans

Seventh ward. Their prescribed strain of ‘‘insurgent

architecture’’ addresses social and educational

demands while productively meshing with the

immediate needs of fragmented cultural networks.2

David Perkes, the founding director of the Gulf

Coast Community Design Studio, describes an

alternative that engages its social context. Working

through an alternative model of practice, Perkes

circumvents the conventional professional stream

of financial compensation between architect and

client, in order to provide immediate support to

clients in need. The realignment of compensation,

contracts and formalized communications of con-

ventional practice also allows for an immersion in

place, flexible relationships and the ability to pro-

vide relevant and immediate services.

Through a program of Alternative Philan-

thropic Architecture, Marga Jann and Stephen

Platt claim that communities in need can be

supported by nongovernmental development

projects that not only result in ‘‘good’’ architec-

ture, but also promote social justice, sustainabil-

ity and equity. Jann and Platt both recognize and

provide a critical perspective regarding recent

work taking place across the globe. What they

claim is that buildings as solutions are necessary,

but ‘‘knowledge transfer’’ to the communities is

also critical to subsidize the cycle of need from

external sources.

The intent of this issue is to provoke or chal-

lenge the way that the reader thinks about Alterna-

tive and Architecture, not only relative to their

practice, but in ways that drive the internal identity

of the profession. As James Wines’s Op Arch

conveys, the fluid nature of alternatives provide this

challenge while also serving as an initial response to

the need for cultural transformation. As the world

continues to change, the practice of architecture will

be measured by its ability to smoothly reconfigure

itself not only to address evolving needs, but also to

effectively anticipate them.

Perhaps a new model for operation could

evolve from one that resists change to one that in

its very nature considers and adapts with change,

in direct correspondence with the needs of

society. Such transformations would not be sim-

ple adjustments to the edge of the thinking and

activities surrounding architecture, but would be

a revolution in responsiveness, recalibrating how

practices are aligned and transformed, evolving

and continuing the business of productively

engaging the world rather than operating through

routine.

Acknowledgments:Thank you immensely to those who peer reviewed

for this issue. Much appreciation to those who

launched the theme during the ACSA Special Topic

session in the Spring of 2008: Ursula Emery

McClure, Trevor Boddy, George Dodds, and Jori

Erdman. And a special thanks to all who gave of

their time in discussion and editorial comments:

Jonathan Schechter, Coleman Coker, Chris Hight,

and Kenneth Luker.

Notes

1. Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, Arthur Mitchell, trans. (London:

Macmillan and Co.,1920), p. 319.

2. David Harvey, Spaces of Hope (Berkeley: University of California Press,

2000).

5 INTRODUCTION