Vivarium
Eric Hunting
[soundtrack: Constructors - Zatoichi OST]
The Drive To Build:
There is an instinctive compulsion to architecture in the human being.
Left to their own devices, as children more often were in the recent
past, they build. Growing up in the suburbs of the NY metropolitan
area at a time when American children were not quite yet relegated by
their parents' paranoia to an existence as juvenile inmates, I was
witness to an interesting phenomenon that emerged in response to the
cultural squalor of the suburbs. Contrary to the common delusion that
suburbs are designed for child raising, there has generally never been
a place for children in that environment. Suburbs are made for cars,
not kids. (as if the number of them run over by their own parents when
backing vehicles out of the driveway hasn't made that fact obvious)
The problem with suburbs, of course, is a distinct lack of spacial
identity. There is no 'sense of place' anyplace, let alone places for
kids. And so kids of the time were inclined to create this themselves
in spaces adults overlooked or abandoned, most commonly the 'green
belts' and other fractured bits of natural landscape in the
surrounding areas. Thus throughout the wooded areas of the
metropolitan fringes one was (and still) likely to find -aside from
the piles of trash, abandoned cars and appliances, and mysterious
masses of rusting unmarked chemical drums, a variety of makeshift
encampments, tree-houses, shacks, 'forts', skate board ramps, and
'dirt bike' courses, all created by and for kids using whatever cast-
off materials they could scrounge up from the trash around them.
Adults (those who actually owned these forgotten bits of land
especially), of course had no respect for such endeavors and these
constructions were routinely declared Dens of Iniquity, raided, and
razed whenever some less intelligent child managed to injure himself
in a sufficiently dramatic manner or when the local generation of
children reached That Certain Age, only to re-appear in some other
location once the 'heat was off'.
Clearly, invention and building represent essential human forms of
play that are sadly unfulfilled in our contemporary culture,
manifesting among children in activity adults seem to compulsively
suppress as 'dangerous' and would rather redirect into the safer forms
of 'hobbies' they can better control. The DIY and craft industries,
the customization of cars, the fanatical adult fans of building toys
like Lego, and the more recent Maker movement certainly seem to
reflect this suppressed desire for making and building as play that
isn't exclusive to the child or the specially talented. But often the
social dimension is missing. What point creativity without an
audience? What point invention without others for it to benefit? Thus
in the communities that emerge around these hobbies a compulsion to
gather exists, realized through conventions, expositions, and
competitions.
A Sandbox for Architectural Recreation:
We don't normally think of architecture as a form of play. Assuming
the task beyond us or simply too important for failure and thus beyond
personal experimentation, we relegate the creation of our built
habitat to professionals. To a certain extent this is quite practical.
Without some degree of engineering knowledge employed to insure their
integrity, large buildings would be quite dangerous. But for most of
the history of human civilization, most construction was conducted
without the benefit of such professionals and, since adopting the
dependence upon them in modern times, our instinctive desire to
express ourselves through our built habitat goes unfulfilled. What if
we could better integrate this form of play and constructive/creative
socialization into our built habitat? What if we could create an
environment specifically for casual 'architectural recreation'; for
building as social play? Recently, the P2P cultural community has
begun to explore the notion of P2P Architecture and Open Source
Urbanism. But these are concepts hard to move beyond the level of
theoretical discussion -particularly in a world where the structure of
the built habitat is so often under the control of people incapable of
comprehending much of this intellectual discussion. It would be
extremely valuable to have a venue for physical experimentation with
principles of P2P Architecture and the technologies of adaptive
architecture and I think the key to that may rest in this notion of
architectural recreation, in the idea of creation a place where one
builds space for fun. Thus we arrive at a proposal I call the Vivarium.
The Vivarium is a simple idea. It is a place whose functional purpose
in fun and comfort, intended as a public meeting and lounge area -a
social club- where people go to relax and amuse themselves in a casual
social venue. Nothing unusual there except that in this place all the
structures used for these purposes are created by the users of the
space. Thus they get to collectively/interactively decide how the
space is used and they create the structures they want for that. The
participants decide what 'fun' and 'comfort' mean and it's up to them
to implement that.
The Vivarium would be based on appropriating some relatively large
clear-span whether-sheltered 'purposeless' space -an empty industrial
building for example- that is in a relatively convenient location for
its community of users and which would support the creation of light
free-standing structures inside it. The basic space supplies little
itself; basic toilet facilities, electricity, basic heating and
cooling, access to Internet and television. Everything else is up to
the users to make. To facilitate the project, a companion workshop and
storage facility may also be provided so as to eliminate the need to
fabricate parts for structures within the Vivarium space, limiting
work there to simple assembly and disassembly to keep it clean,
comfortable, and relatively quiet. The ideal community would be a
group of creative people, artists, and their friends with some
inclination toward making things and perhaps some experience with some
of the common adaptive building technologies currently available;
Matrix/Box Beam/Grid Beam, T-slot profile framing, simple space
frames. tent structures. creative cardboard construction, etc. The
club would be invitation-based with building access limited to the
membership in order to reduce the potential for theft and vandalism.
However, regular open houses would be conducted to provide a public
demonstration of the project.
The key to the experiment represented by the project would be to
impose as few rules as possible on how the space is used, leaving this
up to the imaginations of the participants and their negotiations on
use of space. But a few simple 'house rules' would be useful as a
starting point.
1) Employ Common Sense. A pretty obvious rule. No open fires. No
hazardous material. No blocking emergency exits. Use electricity
safely. Etc.
2) No Nails. All the structures deployed in the space must be
demountable, assembled without nails or glues except with the
fabrication of subcomponents. Structures of two or more levels may be
allowed given the ceiling height, but for safety without serious
engineering approvals two or three storeys may be a practical limit.
3) Space is alloted on a first-come-first-serve basis moderated by
consensus. Members propose an amount and use of space and the
collective membership approves or rejects this proposal. Relatively
small private personal structures can be built without approval as
long as there's no dispute over the location. Larger structures will
require more active negotiation with and consensus approval by the
group -and most likely group participation to build them. Initially,
space may be alloted to initial members as a percentage share of the
overall volume and they can contribute all or portions of this to
group-built structures.
4) All built structures have a 30 day 'lease'. At the end of 30 days,
the members of the club vote on whether to give them another month or
remove them to free up space. They can also vote to adapt rather than
remove, giving the creators of a structure the option to adapt it to
accommodate specific issues the group may have in order to gain
another 30 days lease. And, of course, the creators of the structure
can, for as long as the structure is allowed space by the group, adapt
it or remove it as they see fit. This 30 day lease is intended to
insure members maintain the structures they build and that
underutilized space is continuously freed-up for other uses.
5) Habitation is limited to 48 contiguous hours in any week period. It
may not be practical to let people actually live in this experimental
project, though later this rule could be dropped if it seems like a
functional cohabitation is possible. In later larger scale Vivarium
experiments, continuous residence would be the key objective.
These basic rules would be intended only as loose conventions. As the
members of the Vivarium gain social experience, they may add or drop
house rules as they see fit by consensus. Since all structures would
be demountable and adaptable, free and dynamic negotiation on space
would be no particular problem.
To facilitate brainstorming at the start of the project by helping
people easily visualize possible structures, an initial common
building system may be proposed, with Grid Beam or similar post and
beam systems a likely choice based on economy and recyclability of
parts and materials. This would be helpful where the project is
largely supported on grants. Structures with common building systems
would have the advantage of structural integration, allowing
participants to link up their structures and trade in components and
their fabrication.
Many of the issues associated with P2P architecture -social,
logistical, and technical- on larger scales would potentially be
represented in this simple experiment. Cultivating systems of
negotiation over space use, public and personal property, management
of noise, energy efficiency, and much more would need to be worked
out, with this casual venue offering 'low stakes' environment to
explore this. Technology and designs developed in this experiment
would also have many applications elsewhere, particularly for relief
architecture, public art projects, and exposition structures.
The Vivarium has the potential to generate many imitations or spin-
offs and produce progressively larger projects using more
sophisticated building technology, eventually moving beyond the limits
of repurposed pre-existing enclosures to the use of independently
weather-tight structures in an open environment. Clearly, this idea of
group architectural recreation -of building adaptive structures and
evolving complex environments as art and play- has much potential and
could become the impetus for many projects and experiments. Certainly,
events such as Burning Man, increasingly focused on inventive
temporary structures as artistic installations, hints at the potential
a continuous venue for such creativity might afford. This seems an
accessible project, well within the means of any sufficiently
motivated and creative group in most location, though likely better
suited to urban areas with a concentrated community of art and design
enthusiasts able to casually access this space like a local social club.
Eric Hunting
erich...@gmail.com
Paul D. Fernhout
For some reason I was reminded of the homeless building shelters in tunnels;
for example:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DB1330F932A35752C0A96F948260&pagewanted=all
"Transit officials have no firm figures on the number of homeless living in
the tunnels, but say they have found several hundred furnished rooms, some
complete with running water, electricity, furniture and such conveniences as
televisions, within the labyrinthine New York City subway system. The
transit police fear that the homeless are increasingly risking death to have
such a space for their own. ''They all want their own little piece of
turf,'' Sgt. John Greco, head of the Homeless Outreach Program, said. ''It
is definitely getting much worse.''"
Or this:
http://gliving.com/dark-days-documentary-about-nyc-homeless-living-underground/
"I have decided to start looking at what might happen to the millions of
people living on the economic edge. Those people living meager pay check to
pay check. What will happen to them as even the low paying jobs begin to
evaporate? Here is a film which was made in the 2000, which features a
community of homeless people living in the tunnel systems of New York City.
A glimpse of life on the edge."
And other similar things:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=homeless+living+in+tunnel
It's interesting how much of your proposal has to do with the social aspects
of managing as shared space. Again, I think the issue of what it means to
have "equity" in something comes up, as well as the distinction between
being a "citizen" and being something else (employee, customer, consumer,
attendee, guest, participant, whatever). Citizens may have some rights in a
space, customers and participants rarely do.
Also, by just assuming electricity, waste disposal, communications, shelter,
production infrastructure, and presumably some materials, you've removed a
lot of what is really interesting about envisioning alternative ways of life.
Many months ago on Slashdot there was an article about a company (Google?)
that let employees design their own office in creative ways linking to lots
of pictures.
This also reminds me some of what goes on in the backlots of movie studios
or on big sound stages.
By the way, I thought at first from the title you might be referring to this
other famous "Vivarium" project by Alan Kay and others related to
cutting-edge design and computing set in a "magnet" school:
"Vivarium History: The Vivarium Program"
http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/VivHist.html
Anyway, what I find most interesting about your idea is how, in a sense,
after you have stripped away the interesting sustainability issues related
to OM, you have shown how, even if people are just making cardboard castles
in a shared space, the social issues are ones that most of us in the USA may
be unprepared to deal with on a reflexive basis. So, it's an interesting
thought experiment in that way. How do we deal with others who want to paint
"our" cardboard castle, or tear it down to build one of their own?
Still, if (sometimes mentally ill) homeless people living together in
tunnels can work this out, you would think the rest of us could? Or maybe
sometimes being mentally ill is an advantage (given our society's dominant
paradigm of war and competition)? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Hearts_(1966_film)
"King of Hearts (original French title: Le Roi de Cœur) is a 1966 French
film set in a small town in France near the end of World War I. As a German
army retreats they booby-trap the whole town to explode. The locals flee
and, left to their own devices, a gaggle of cheerful lunatics escape the
asylum and take over the town — thoroughly confusing the lone Scottish
soldier who has been dispatched to defuse the bomb. ... The film ends with
the question of who is more insane, those in the asylum or the soldiers on
the battlefield."
Maybe implicit in your idea is also scarcity -- scarcity of space. If there
were 10000 Vivariums in every city, maybe people would not be talking about
thirty day leases on floor space and so on? So, in that sense, would the
emerging culture of rare Vivariums really be applicable to, say, life on
artificial island on the ocean or artificial habitats in outer space (where
presumably, at least for many centuries, space would be plentiful again?)
--Paul Fernhout