SLOW CITYINSTANT ECOLOGY [FACTORY]

William Smith - Howard Davis

Since its very beginnings, non hunter-gatherer civilization has been founded upon the basis of production through the use, modification and eventual destruction of ecosystems. For this to unfold required the incremental separation of our society from the environment that it fundamentally relied upon. Our initial production of agriculture laid the foundation not only for the coming of cities and their eventual concentration of wealth, but for an underlying way of thinking about the relationship between society and environment. This western relationship expanded under colonialist efforts and pushed further with the onset of the western industrial era. Where humanity began as nature, it separated itself with the advent of agriculture, and gained dominance over it through the revolutions of industry, capital and global economy. As explained by E.F. Schumacher:

“Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it...We are inclined to treat as valueless everything that we have not made ourselves... [which] is but a small part of the total capital we are using. Far larger is the capital provided by nature and not by man.”

In this sense, humanity and civilization as a whole have never really been producing at the most fundamental of levels. We have in fact always been consumers, our cities the greatest of them all. The environment and the resources we may extract from it have become predominantly the means towards our individual economic ends. And with some success, as we have built massive cities the world over, yet at a cost that leads to regional and global ecological implications, as articulated by Bill McKibben:

“Our ancestors, and we ourselves in the decades just past, piled up a great deal of wealth precisely by ignoring the finite nature of the planet. We also, through that willful ignorance, simultaneously wrecked the prospects for future growth. We are the heir both to the wealth and to the increasingly degraded planet it came from”

While this narrative might serve well for arguments of conservation and preservation, to focus solely on our extraction of natural resources for material production would miss the reality that all civilizations have simultaneously romanticized the very same landscapes they employ. From the Japanese gardens of miniature mountain-scapes with pagodas lost in forests to the English gardens of rolling hills dotted by Greek ruins, cultures have always defined romantic images of their landscapes. As we have employed the environment to serve material needs, we have simultaneously created artificial natures in the cities which we live, for recreation, relaxation and social gathering. This leads to a confusing situation as explained by Carolyn Steel where, while the greater environment suffers from our production, “urban dwellers [see] nature through a one way telescope, moulding its image to fit their urban sensibilities.” As external environmental degradation has taken place, we have filled our cities with artificial ecosystems, which have no self-function or inter-connectivity. While our parks are undoubtedly made up of the stuff of nature, it could be argued that in most cases they are not ecosystems in the true sense of the word, instead only images of the countryside which we might like to imagine, but not work and live in. Our architectural and urban form has manifested this contrived image of nature. Romanticist works placing architecture as gem in the “wild” garden. Modernism dropping green carpets around pure architectural forms jutting into the sky. Post-modernism pulling the romantic garden back into new-urbanist images. While these movements do use nature to different effect, in essence they all represent the same understanding of the environment; nature as idyllic scene, to supplement contemporary life. As said by James Kunstler, “the remedy for wounded and mutilated urbanism is not just flower beds [or] cartoons of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.” The consequences of our relationship towards the environment, of placing false images of ecology where we live, simultaneously causing degradation and loss of actual

Since its very beginnings, non hunter-gatherer civilization has been founded upon the basis of production through the use, modification and eventual destruction of ecosystems. For this to unfold required the incremental separation of our society from the environment that it fundamentally relied upon. Our initial production of agriculture laid the foundation not only for the coming of cities and their eventual concentration of wealth, but for an underlying way of thinking about the relationship between society and environment. This western relationship expanded under colonialist efforts and pushed further with the onset of the western industrial era. Where humanity began as nature, it separated itself with the advent of agriculture, and gained dominance over it through the revolutions of industry, capital and global economy. As explained by E.F. Schumacher:

“Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it...We are inclined to treat as valueless everything that we have not made ourselves... [which] is but a small part of the total capital we are using. Far larger is the capital provided by nature and not by man.”

In this sense, humanity and civilization as a whole have never really been producing at the most fundamental of levels. We have in fact always been consumers, our cities the greatest of them all. The environment and the resources we may extract from it have become predominantly the means towards our individual economic ends. And with some success, as we have built massive cities the world over, yet at a cost that leads to regional and global ecological implications, as articulated by Bill McKibben:

“Our ancestors, and we ourselves in the decades just past, piled up a great deal of wealth precisely by ignoring the finite nature of the planet. We also, through that willful ignorance, simultaneously wrecked the prospects for future growth. We are the heir both to the wealth and to the increasingly degraded planet it came from”

While this narrative might serve well for arguments of conservation and preservation, to focus solely on our extraction of natural resources for material production would miss the reality that all civilizations have simultaneously romanticized the very same landscapes they employ. From the Japanese gardens of miniature mountain-scapes with pagodas lost in forests to the English gardens of rolling hills dotted by Greek ruins, cultures have always defined romantic images of their landscapes. As we have employed the environment to serve material needs, we have simultaneously created artificial natures in the cities which we live, for recreation, relaxation and social gathering. This leads to a confusing situation as explained by Carolyn Steel where, while the greater environment suffers from our production, “urban dwellers [see] nature through a one way telescope, moulding its image to fit their urban sensibilities.” As external environmental degradation has taken place, we have filled our cities with artificial ecosystems, which have no self-function or inter-connectivity. While our parks are undoubtedly made up of the stuff of nature, it could be argued that in most cases they are not ecosystems in the true sense of the word, instead only images of the countryside which we might like to imagine, but not work and live in. Our architectural and urban form has manifested this contrived image of nature. Romanticist works placing architecture as gem in the “wild” garden. Modernism dropping green carpets around pure architectural forms jutting into the sky. Post-modernism pulling the romantic garden back into new-urbanist images. While these movements do use nature to different effect, in essence they all represent the same understanding of the environment; nature as idyllic scene, to supplement contemporary life. As said by James Kunstler, “the remedy for wounded and mutilated urbanism is not just flower beds [or] cartoons of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.” The consequences of our relationship towards the environment, of placing false images of ecology where we live, simultaneously causing degradation and loss of actual

ecosystems elsewhere, demands that we alter the underlying relationship. This means a change not only in our desire for a romanticized “natural” aesthetic, but more importantly the basic relationship of our production in regards to actual nature. Even in the height of the new deal era with the expansion of national infrastructure, President Franklin D. Roosevelt says in a 1932 campaign address:

“Our industrial plant is built... Our last frontier has long since been reached... Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people”

This change of understanding will most likely come about through experience, for the individual and for a community. An experience of an ecosystem functioning in and of itself, as well as for its potential production on our behalf. If we continue to work and live in environments that are separated from, or are false images of the the environment, we will continue to misunderstand our impact upon and responsibility to the land. To do this the city and its architecture must change, acting no longer as separated artifacts from the ecosystem that they draws resources from. Whereas cities historically have limited and removed ecological functions, we may now find ways of reinserting these functions for the betterment of the local environment as well as city life. William McDonough points out that there are processes carried out by ecosystems which we need even in an urban setting, “processes which, without any human help, [make sure] water and air are purified; erosion, floods and droughts are mitigated, materials... decomposed; soil created... and not least, aesthetic and spiritual satisfaction.” Our needs and ecological needs are in fact interdependent, one system potentially supporting the other in multiple ways. There are many movements beginning to take place which challenge the historical relationship of city, production and the environment. McDonough’s Cradle to Cradle stands

forward as one of the strongest contemporary accounts of sustainability. Yet inherent even in this manifesto lies an assumption that economic production comes before ecological benefits in hierarchy. “Just about every process has side-effects” says McDonough. “But they can be deliberate and sustaining instead of unintended and pernicious. We can ... be inspired by [nature] and design some positive side effects to our own enterprises.” Here economic growth is still the imperative, but with mitigated negative effects, with at best some positive side effects. While this is a step in the right direction, the problem of cumulative effects from our cities on the environment cannot be solved by a net-zero approach. Rather we may take a proactive stance, going beyond conserving and preserving to the propagation of ecosystems, not only to offset environmental damage but to reinvigorate and reestablish the productive hearts of our cities. Where contemporaries like McDonough offer healthy ecology as a side effect of economic growth, this project aims at a healthy urban ecology, with secondary potential economic growth. The concept of urban ecology offers the opportunity to provide a new kind of spatial, temporal and social organization of the city. Where cities have become dominated by the automobile, prior to their presence urban form generally followed open centers connected through various intertwined corridors, similar to the required spatial needs of urban habitat. As the demands of economic production have increased, so too has the rigid efficiency of our infrastructure and the faster pace of city life. The presence of active ecosystems within the city provides a slower timeframe, an adapting system that flexes with varying environmental inputs. The proposal of urban ecology also anticipates a different kind of interaction between people and their city, one where the physical landscape is alterable, interactive and potentially requiring active stewardship. Following are a series of projects which begin to explore a new relationship between society, production, environment and form.

ecosystems elsewhere, demands that we alter the underlying relationship. This means a change not only in our desire for a romanticized “natural” aesthetic, but more importantly the basic relationship of our production in regards to actual nature. Even in the height of the new deal era with the expansion of national infrastructure, President Franklin D. Roosevelt says in a 1932 campaign address:

“Our industrial plant is built... Our last frontier has long since been reached... Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people”

This change of understanding will most likely come about through experience, for the individual and for a community. An experience of an ecosystem functioning in and of itself, as well as for its potential production on our behalf. If we continue to work and live in environments that are separated from, or are false images of the the environment, we will continue to misunderstand our impact upon and responsibility to the land. To do this the city and its architecture must change, acting no longer as separated artifacts from the ecosystem that they draws resources from. Whereas cities historically have limited and removed ecological functions, we may now find ways of reinserting these functions for the betterment of the local environment as well as city life. William McDonough points out that there are processes carried out by ecosystems which we need even in an urban setting, “processes which, without any human help, [make sure] water and air are purified; erosion, floods and droughts are mitigated, materials... decomposed; soil created... and not least, aesthetic and spiritual satisfaction.” Our needs and ecological needs are in fact interdependent, one system potentially supporting the other in multiple ways. There are many movements beginning to take place which challenge the historical relationship of city, production and the environment. McDonough’s Cradle to Cradle stands

forward as one of the strongest contemporary accounts of sustainability. Yet inherent even in this manifesto lies an assumption that economic production comes before ecological benefits in hierarchy. “Just about every process has side-effects” says McDonough. “But they can be deliberate and sustaining instead of unintended and pernicious. We can ... be inspired by [nature] and design some positive side effects to our own enterprises.” Here economic growth is still the imperative, but with mitigated negative effects, with at best some positive side effects. While this is a step in the right direction, the problem of cumulative effects from our cities on the environment cannot be solved by a net-zero approach. Rather we may take a proactive stance, going beyond conserving and preserving to the propagation of ecosystems, not only to offset environmental damage but to reinvigorate and reestablish the productive hearts of our cities. Where contemporaries like McDonough offer healthy ecology as a side effect of economic growth, this project aims at a healthy urban ecology, with secondary potential economic growth. The concept of urban ecology offers the opportunity to provide a new kind of spatial, temporal and social organization of the city. Where cities have become dominated by the automobile, prior to their presence urban form generally followed open centers connected through various intertwined corridors, similar to the required spatial needs of urban habitat. As the demands of economic production have increased, so too has the rigid efficiency of our infrastructure and the faster pace of city life. The presence of active ecosystems within the city provides a slower timeframe, an adapting system that flexes with varying environmental inputs. The proposal of urban ecology also anticipates a different kind of interaction between people and their city, one where the physical landscape is alterable, interactive and potentially requiring active stewardship. Following are a series of projects which begin to explore a new relationship between society, production, environment and form.

[Precedent 1]INSTANT CITY Archigram

Concept: A mobile technological, entertainment and educational event that moves from one culturally underdeveloped city to the next in the aftermath of a socially ruining event. Once present in a city, giant dirigibles, balloons and floating robots descend upon the urban fabric deploying provisional structures for mass cultural events; bringing information, advertising, and society from culturally rich locations such as London to the hinterland areas. The inhabitants of the city then “consume” culture. After the event ends the dirigibles, balloons and robots leave to the next location, leaving behind instilled culture and technological connections to the greater region.

Relevance:

- Bringing “development” to an underdeveloped area through deployment of temporary architecture- Sudden infusing of development in stimulating and interactive event- Public space as experiment / event

Response:

Archigram’s concept brings the idea of a deployed action which leaves behind sustaining aftereffects. While Instant City is focused on the consumption of culture, this proposed project might “instantly” reinvigorate ecological production. Rather than culture being instilled in a place that is lacking as compared to a city such as London, ecology might be instilled in a place that is lacking as compared to an ecosystem as rich as the wildlife reserves.

[Precedent 1]INSTANT CITY Archigram

Concept: A mobile technological, entertainment and educational event that moves from one culturally underdeveloped city to the next in the aftermath of a socially ruining event. Once present in a city, giant dirigibles, balloons and floating robots descend upon the urban fabric deploying provisional structures for mass cultural events; bringing information, advertising, and society from culturally rich locations such as London to the hinterland areas. The inhabitants of the city then “consume” culture. After the event ends the dirigibles, balloons and robots leave to the next location, leaving behind instilled culture and technological connections to the greater region.

Relevance:

- Bringing “development” to an underdeveloped area through deployment of temporary architecture- Sudden infusing of development in stimulating and interactive event- Public space as experiment / event

Response:

Archigram’s concept brings the idea of a deployed action which leaves behind sustaining aftereffects. While Instant City is focused on the consumption of culture, this proposed project might “instantly” reinvigorate ecological production. Rather than culture being instilled in a place that is lacking as compared to a city such as London, ecology might be instilled in a place that is lacking as compared to an ecosystem as rich as the wildlife reserves.

[Precedent 2]ARCTIC FOOD NETWORK Lateral Office

Concept:

To recover traditional food networks and harvesting locations through the deployment of functionally specific architectures, thus limiting the importation of expensive non-local foods to local populations, creating new local micro-economies of food trade. The deployable architectures are designed as kits of parts that are easily transported and assembled on site by a team of of four or more people, creating infrastructure as way of fostering social activity, cultural identity and the updating of traditional practices.

Relevance:

- Development of architectural typologies based upon site implications, formal and informal program- Deployable architectures - Intermixing multiple functions into singular structures. Program overlays.- Deconstructable, temporary structures for seasonal use.- Establishment of cultural, environmental identity through architectural intervention.- Realization of hidden networks, manifested into built form

Response:

This project finds existing networks that might otherwise go unnoticed, taps into them and constructs architecture in response to those systems as a way of empowering communities. For this proposed project, typologies could similarly be identified based upon multiple overlayed systems, needs of the projected ecosystem and urban context, creating a continuous identity within the city.

[Precedent 2]ARCTIC FOOD NETWORK Lateral Office

Concept:

To recover traditional food networks and harvesting locations through the deployment of functionally specific architectures, thus limiting the importation of expensive non-local foods to local populations, creating new local micro-economies of food trade. The deployable architectures are designed as kits of parts that are easily transported and assembled on site by a team of of four or more people, creating infrastructure as way of fostering social activity, cultural identity and the updating of traditional practices.

Relevance:

- Development of architectural typologies based upon site implications, formal and informal program- Deployable architectures - Intermixing multiple functions into singular structures. Program overlays.- Deconstructable, temporary structures for seasonal use.- Establishment of cultural, environmental identity through architectural intervention.- Realization of hidden networks, manifested into built form

Response:

This project finds existing networks that might otherwise go unnoticed, taps into them and constructs architecture in response to those systems as a way of empowering communities. For this proposed project, typologies could similarly be identified based upon multiple overlayed systems, needs of the projected ecosystem and urban context, creating a continuous identity within the city.

[Precedent 3]DETROIT WORKS URBAN DESIGN STOSS

Concept:

Organizing public land assets into coordinated, strategic and productive use through the stabilization of neighborhoods and employment centers, reformation of zoning codes and the improved efficiency of existing city infrastructure. Defining a series of potential outcomes for an urban design within an adaptive and flexible framework.

Relevance:

- Clarifies general urban needs into 5 succinct landscape typologies: - Community open space - Ecological landscape - Blue/green infrastructure - Working/productive landscapes - Transitional landscapes- Identifies transitional landscapes as a typology, allowing adaptation and flexibility with the urban plan

Response:

Where the Arctic Food Network distilled program into a series of architectural typologies, the STOSS urban plan for Detroit offers a series of encompassing landscape typologies based upon ecological, urban and economic needs, which could prove helpful in approaching an otherwise chaotic list of potential needs. Within these landscape typologies various specific uses could take place within more general zones. A loose idea of future scenarios can be shown for the existing condition based upon these and other intermixes of developed landscape functions

[Precedent 3]DETROIT WORKS URBAN DESIGN STOSS

Concept:

Organizing public land assets into coordinated, strategic and productive use through the stabilization of neighborhoods and employment centers, reformation of zoning codes and the improved efficiency of existing city infrastructure. Defining a series of potential outcomes for an urban design within an adaptive and flexible framework.

Relevance:

- Clarifies general urban needs into 5 succinct landscape typologies: - Community open space - Ecological landscape - Blue/green infrastructure - Working/productive landscapes - Transitional landscapes- Identifies transitional landscapes as a typology, allowing adaptation and flexibility with the urban plan

Response:

Where the Arctic Food Network distilled program into a series of architectural typologies, the STOSS urban plan for Detroit offers a series of encompassing landscape typologies based upon ecological, urban and economic needs, which could prove helpful in approaching an otherwise chaotic list of potential needs. Within these landscape typologies various specific uses could take place within more general zones. A loose idea of future scenarios can be shown for the existing condition based upon these and other intermixes of developed landscape functions

[Precedent 4]ARC WILDLIFE CROSSING MVVA

Concept:

A landscape not for humans, designed instead solely for ecological needs. Rather than attempting to recreate surrounding nature, the design condenses and amplifies multiple landscape bands (forest, meadow, shrub, scree) into habitat corridors, providing connections for a larger cross section of species. Minimal site disturbance is achieved through a modular, installed system for easy assembly and deployment, adaptable to expansion or re-deployment based upon species migration patterns.

Relevance:

- Defining habitat types for corridor connectivity- Installed scaffold for ecological transmittance- Modular, deployed system for minimal impact on existing conditions- Hierarchical element of ecological needs.- Interaction with human system: transportation

Response:

This project serves as an example of deployed infrastructure for ecological needs, placing importance upon environmental needs at the same level of human need, a concept which would be challenging, though worth exploring for integration into an urban setting. Here a deployable architecture is used to minimize the impact upon the existing landscape, a necessary approach especially for an urban intervention such as this proposal. Once again articulates typologies, in this case habitat types that spatially and ecological organize the intervention.

[Precedent 4]ARC WILDLIFE CROSSING MVVA

Concept:

A landscape not for humans, designed instead solely for ecological needs. Rather than attempting to recreate surrounding nature, the design condenses and amplifies multiple landscape bands (forest, meadow, shrub, scree) into habitat corridors, providing connections for a larger cross section of species. Minimal site disturbance is achieved through a modular, installed system for easy assembly and deployment, adaptable to expansion or re-deployment based upon species migration patterns.

Relevance:

- Defining habitat types for corridor connectivity- Installed scaffold for ecological transmittance- Modular, deployed system for minimal impact on existing conditions- Hierarchical element of ecological needs.- Interaction with human system: transportation

Response:

This project serves as an example of deployed infrastructure for ecological needs, placing importance upon environmental needs at the same level of human need, a concept which would be challenging, though worth exploring for integration into an urban setting. Here a deployable architecture is used to minimize the impact upon the existing landscape, a necessary approach especially for an urban intervention such as this proposal. Once again articulates typologies, in this case habitat types that spatially and ecological organize the intervention.

[Precedent 5]BOOK HILL JaJa Architects

Concept:

Creating a unified entity, the city, landscape and library through the organization of a coherent, functional and programmatic composition. A boulevard of activity is created both internally and externally, leading from the Stockholm public library and city street up to the observatory hill.

Relevance:

- Rationally organizes programmatic functions- Integrates urban and building needs into a shared form and general route- Creates the opportunity for multiple routes of circulation within and without the building itself.- Creates varying sectional qualities with particular views of the city.

Response:

The Book Hill project explores a blending of architecture and urban space, while provided multiple ways of experiencing the building as well as the city in this particular location. The project also manages to adapt both programmatically and formally existing infrastructure/architecture, while exploring and exposing the sectional quality of this site. Importantly, the architecture serves to connect two otherwise separate parts of urban space into a continuous path.

[Precedent 5]BOOK HILL JaJa Architects

Concept:

Creating a unified entity, the city, landscape and library through the organization of a coherent, functional and programmatic composition. A boulevard of activity is created both internally and externally, leading from the Stockholm public library and city street up to the observatory hill.

Relevance:

- Rationally organizes programmatic functions- Integrates urban and building needs into a shared form and general route- Creates the opportunity for multiple routes of circulation within and without the building itself.- Creates varying sectional qualities with particular views of the city.

Response:

The Book Hill project explores a blending of architecture and urban space, while provided multiple ways of experiencing the building as well as the city in this particular location. The project also manages to adapt both programmatically and formally existing infrastructure/architecture, while exploring and exposing the sectional quality of this site. Importantly, the architecture serves to connect two otherwise separate parts of urban space into a continuous path.

[Precedent 6]BRIDGE SCHOOL Lixiodong Atelier

Concept:

Enlivening an old village community while sustaining traditional culture through contemporary intervention. Avoids competing with existing architectures (two nearby castles) by communicating in a contemporary architectural language, bringing together concrete massing, spanning steel and infill wood members together as a distinct system. The bridge combines multiple functions into one shared structure, providing space for a small school, playground and stage for villagers.

Relevance:

- Programmed bridge, serving as both “building” and as urban infrastructure across the creek underneath.- Provides two different ways of experiencing the structure and its context. - Integrates different structural modes, compression and tensile structures - Enters into dialogue with existing architectural context.- While open to its surroundings, creates semi-enclosed volumes of internal program

Response:

This serves as a unique example of architecture being much more than just a building. Here it acts as a distinct place that is simultaneously “in between,” performing as connector within the urban context. Like many of the previous projects the School Bridge overlays mixed uses into a simple, spatially flexible system, while remaining architecturally rich in detail.

[Precedent 6]BRIDGE SCHOOL Lixiodong Atelier

Concept:

Enlivening an old village community while sustaining traditional culture through contemporary intervention. Avoids competing with existing architectures (two nearby castles) by communicating in a contemporary architectural language, bringing together concrete massing, spanning steel and infill wood members together as a distinct system. The bridge combines multiple functions into one shared structure, providing space for a small school, playground and stage for villagers.

Relevance:

- Programmed bridge, serving as both “building” and as urban infrastructure across the creek underneath.- Provides two different ways of experiencing the structure and its context. - Integrates different structural modes, compression and tensile structures - Enters into dialogue with existing architectural context.- While open to its surroundings, creates semi-enclosed volumes of internal program

Response:

This serves as a unique example of architecture being much more than just a building. Here it acts as a distinct place that is simultaneously “in between,” performing as connector within the urban context. Like many of the previous projects the School Bridge overlays mixed uses into a simple, spatially flexible system, while remaining architecturally rich in detail.

[Precedent 7]THE BRAIN Tom Kundig

Concept:

A laboratory for creative experimentation, a hollowed cast concrete block intended as strong yet neutral background for activity, providing complete flexibility to adapt the space as needed. Sub structures are then inserted within the sides of the hierarchical concrete structure allowing open view to the surrounding context.

Relevance:

- Simple structure with rich materiality- Strong tectonic character without spacial, programmatic limitation- Sense of exterior is brought inwards, a carved out part of space- Kinetic, adaptable architecture

Response:

This Kundig project radiates architectural permanence, yet creates experiential dynamism due to its strong, mirrored connection to the exterior. The building becomes a literal container of space. Within one larger volume there are areas of programatic flexibility as well as specificity to the sides, allowing multiple scales of usable space. Materially and structurally the interior of the building is simple, with variation coming from the belongings of the individual who stays there, rather than from a complex architecture. The program becomes the dominant content, yet the architecture remains ever present.

[Precedent 7]THE BRAIN Tom Kundig

Concept:

A laboratory for creative experimentation, a hollowed cast concrete block intended as strong yet neutral background for activity, providing complete flexibility to adapt the space as needed. Sub structures are then inserted within the sides of the hierarchical concrete structure allowing open view to the surrounding context.

Relevance:

- Simple structure with rich materiality- Strong tectonic character without spacial, programmatic limitation- Sense of exterior is brought inwards, a carved out part of space- Kinetic, adaptable architecture

Response:

This Kundig project radiates architectural permanence, yet creates experiential dynamism due to its strong, mirrored connection to the exterior. The building becomes a literal container of space. Within one larger volume there are areas of programatic flexibility as well as specificity to the sides, allowing multiple scales of usable space. Materially and structurally the interior of the building is simple, with variation coming from the belongings of the individual who stays there, rather than from a complex architecture. The program becomes the dominant content, yet the architecture remains ever present.

[CONTEXT]PORTLAND Oregon

Portland has set out the “2009 Climate Action Plan” and the more generally encompassing “Portland Plan,” both of which outline a number of efforts to decrease the city’s global and regional ecological footprint, while also increasing sustainable transit, ecosystem services, local economies, community identity and general city livability. The Climate Plan articulates one of the main efforts as the reduction of energy usage required by buildings, which currently stands at 40% of city needs, adding that by 2030, at least 10% of city energy needs should be generated on site. Further, Portland has decided that future architectures and urban development must be adaptable, rather than solely mitigating, in their response to climate change. Regional climate patterns will likely fluctuate, energy, material and food costs will also rise, requiring that the city of Portland prepare for coming change through fundamental architectural and urban alterations to the city. The climate plan also calls for higher connectivity between neighborhoods and centers of business to allow 90% of Portland residents to easily walk or bicycle to meet all basic daily needs. The plan presents the concept of the 20-minute neighborhood, in which a person from leaving home may within 20 minutes reach most of their basic services needed on a daily basis. Urban natural systems are expanded under the climate plan, with a requirement that by 2030 one-third of Portland is covered by continuous urban forest canopy, with 50 percent of streams and river lengths at water temperature goals. The plan claims resilient watersheds as a key response to a changing climate, requiring the restoration of ecological functions, improving air quality, water quality, connected habitats, increased biodiversity and system wide resiliency.

[CONTEXT]PORTLAND Oregon

Portland has set out the “2009 Climate Action Plan” and the more generally encompassing “Portland Plan,” both of which outline a number of efforts to decrease the city’s global and regional ecological footprint, while also increasing sustainable transit, ecosystem services, local economies, community identity and general city livability. The Climate Plan articulates one of the main efforts as the reduction of energy usage required by buildings, which currently stands at 40% of city needs, adding that by 2030, at least 10% of city energy needs should be generated on site. Further, Portland has decided that future architectures and urban development must be adaptable, rather than solely mitigating, in their response to climate change. Regional climate patterns will likely fluctuate, energy, material and food costs will also rise, requiring that the city of Portland prepare for coming change through fundamental architectural and urban alterations to the city. The climate plan also calls for higher connectivity between neighborhoods and centers of business to allow 90% of Portland residents to easily walk or bicycle to meet all basic daily needs. The plan presents the concept of the 20-minute neighborhood, in which a person from leaving home may within 20 minutes reach most of their basic services needed on a daily basis. Urban natural systems are expanded under the climate plan, with a requirement that by 2030 one-third of Portland is covered by continuous urban forest canopy, with 50 percent of streams and river lengths at water temperature goals. The plan claims resilient watersheds as a key response to a changing climate, requiring the restoration of ecological functions, improving air quality, water quality, connected habitats, increased biodiversity and system wide resiliency.

Food production is seen as vital as well, through the development of community food networks. These networks might grow, distribute and sell locally sourced food grown on private and public land/rooftops. This effort asks for educational opportunities for organic gardening, fruit production, animal husbandry, food preservation and cooking. The Portland Plan discusses the cumulative needs of the city over the next decades and begins by outlining existing deficiencies which must be addressed in all oncoming projects. As of the writing of the plan, only 45% of neighborhoods are considered “complete,” in access to all basic, daily needs. 85% of the public does have access to existing parks, but only 30% of people have access to healthy food, and most watersheds are explained as 20% deficient in their overall health. The plan’s main focus is on increased equity, achievable through an educated youth, affordability of livelihood, and a healthy connected city. A strong effort towards economic strength and affordability is made through neighborhood business vitality, supporting micro-enterprises and entrepreneurship, as well as increasing partnerships between existing community organizations and institutions. According to the Portland Plan, a healthy connected city is achievable through the advancement of complete neighborhoods, where people have access to goods and services of daily life, where all people have access to healthy food, people can reduce their travel miles, public infrastructures are reliable and resilient to climate change, the improvement of watershed health with nature present in the city, in addition to many other efforts. This proposed project seeks to address these realized issues, using the integration of urban ecology as a way of redeveloping a center Portland in a way that provides multiple services, goods and way of life for the public, while also organizing and channeling existing efforts within the city. Outlined here are current community based

efforts and citywide, or federal, programs which might be integrated into this proposal.

- Better Burnside Alliance - An effort to channel $18 million of city funds towards the redevelopment of a sustainable-minded Burnside, in contrast with current transit-department planning.

- Grey to Green Initiative - Citywide program dedicating $55 million to the greening of streets, public acquisition of land, replacement of culverts and subsidies for eco-roofs as well as other efforts

- Green Streets Stewardship Program - Citywide volunteer effort to assist in activities that generate and maintain Portland’s green streets through an “adopt a street” concept

- Portland Endangered Species Program - Oversees the Portland Watershed Management Plan, its monitoring and implementation. Developed the Terrestrial Ecology and Enhancement Strategy to minimize urban projects’ impacts on wildlife

- Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) - Federal program allocating portions of $105 billion to state level alternative surface transit efforts. Eligibilities include environmental efforts, scenic sites, landscaping, and bicycle/pedestrian connectivity. Oregon state allocations typically limited to $1.5 million per individual project.

Food production is seen as vital as well, through the development of community food networks. These networks might grow, distribute and sell locally sourced food grown on private and public land/rooftops. This effort asks for educational opportunities for organic gardening, fruit production, animal husbandry, food preservation and cooking. The Portland Plan discusses the cumulative needs of the city over the next decades and begins by outlining existing deficiencies which must be addressed in all oncoming projects. As of the writing of the plan, only 45% of neighborhoods are considered “complete,” in access to all basic, daily needs. 85% of the public does have access to existing parks, but only 30% of people have access to healthy food, and most watersheds are explained as 20% deficient in their overall health. The plan’s main focus is on increased equity, achievable through an educated youth, affordability of livelihood, and a healthy connected city. A strong effort towards economic strength and affordability is made through neighborhood business vitality, supporting micro-enterprises and entrepreneurship, as well as increasing partnerships between existing community organizations and institutions. According to the Portland Plan, a healthy connected city is achievable through the advancement of complete neighborhoods, where people have access to goods and services of daily life, where all people have access to healthy food, people can reduce their travel miles, public infrastructures are reliable and resilient to climate change, the improvement of watershed health with nature present in the city, in addition to many other efforts. This proposed project seeks to address these realized issues, using the integration of urban ecology as a way of redeveloping a center Portland in a way that provides multiple services, goods and way of life for the public, while also organizing and channeling existing efforts within the city. Outlined here are current community based

efforts and citywide, or federal, programs which might be integrated into this proposal.

- Better Burnside Alliance - An effort to channel $18 million of city funds towards the redevelopment of a sustainable-minded Burnside, in contrast with current transit-department planning.

- Grey to Green Initiative - Citywide program dedicating $55 million to the greening of streets, public acquisition of land, replacement of culverts and subsidies for eco-roofs as well as other efforts

- Green Streets Stewardship Program - Citywide volunteer effort to assist in activities that generate and maintain Portland’s green streets through an “adopt a street” concept

- Portland Endangered Species Program - Oversees the Portland Watershed Management Plan, its monitoring and implementation. Developed the Terrestrial Ecology and Enhancement Strategy to minimize urban projects’ impacts on wildlife

- Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) - Federal program allocating portions of $105 billion to state level alternative surface transit efforts. Eligibilities include environmental efforts, scenic sites, landscaping, and bicycle/pedestrian connectivity. Oregon state allocations typically limited to $1.5 million per individual project.

SLOW CITYINSTANT ECOLOGY [FACTORY]

The concept of this proposal is a proactive mobilization of local, community resources towards the propagation of an experimental urban ecosystem. This act, while slower than the pace of city life will be performed faster than normal landscape time, “instantly” invigorating a part of the city which until that act was devoid of an interconnected living system. Within this idea lies the assumption that the production of ecology within an urban space offers multiple kinds of exchange between people and environment, social capital, financial capital, intellectual capital and natural capital. In this way, the production of urban ecology leads also to the production of new micro-economies, educational opportunities, ecosystem services, basic goods as well as cultural definition. The ecology factory is in fact the shared urban space of the city, reorganized as a productive center. Aldo Leopold wrote of the three orders prevalent in nature, the part, the body, and the network of bodies. Here a network exists as a watershed scale adaptive plan, a mosaic of efforts by individuals, neighborhoods and developments based upon continual research by city planners, ecologists, architects and NGOs towards a metropolitan ecosystem. The bodies within the network exist as architectural and ecological interventions throughout the city that, as individual and integrated efforts, “plug into” and contribute towards the larger network. The parts are then the individual, overlayed programs of these projects, ranging from urban agriculture to education areas, urban forests, rainwater retention efforts, flood mitigation, recreational areas, gathering points, etc. The ecology factory becomes a means of ecologically, socially and economically invigorating the city, bringing about the opportunity for culture and livelihood to be defined by ones relationship with ones ecology, as well as the city within which it thrives.

SLOW CITYINSTANT ECOLOGY [FACTORY]

The concept of this proposal is a proactive mobilization of local, community resources towards the propagation of an experimental urban ecosystem. This act, while slower than the pace of city life will be performed faster than normal landscape time, “instantly” invigorating a part of the city which until that act was devoid of an interconnected living system. Within this idea lies the assumption that the production of ecology within an urban space offers multiple kinds of exchange between people and environment, social capital, financial capital, intellectual capital and natural capital. In this way, the production of urban ecology leads also to the production of new micro-economies, educational opportunities, ecosystem services, basic goods as well as cultural definition. The ecology factory is in fact the shared urban space of the city, reorganized as a productive center. Aldo Leopold wrote of the three orders prevalent in nature, the part, the body, and the network of bodies. Here a network exists as a watershed scale adaptive plan, a mosaic of efforts by individuals, neighborhoods and developments based upon continual research by city planners, ecologists, architects and NGOs towards a metropolitan ecosystem. The bodies within the network exist as architectural and ecological interventions throughout the city that, as individual and integrated efforts, “plug into” and contribute towards the larger network. The parts are then the individual, overlayed programs of these projects, ranging from urban agriculture to education areas, urban forests, rainwater retention efforts, flood mitigation, recreational areas, gathering points, etc. The ecology factory becomes a means of ecologically, socially and economically invigorating the city, bringing about the opportunity for culture and livelihood to be defined by ones relationship with ones ecology, as well as the city within which it thrives.

[INSTANT ECOLOGY FACTORY]ADAPTING MOSAIC Network

The network develops through an adapting urban ecological plan, set in place by a research group at the IEF comprised of urban planners, architects, community groups, ecologists, public officials and partnering institutions. This plan monitors the urban ecological corridor and advises on particular interventions based upon system feedback data. In this sense, the constant status of the corridor is “live,” for the conducting of research and for visualization of the system to the public so as to further their understanding. Based upon the advisory groups findings, community groups and local institutions may carry out urban interventions, simultaneously addressing social, ecological, economic and general urban needs depending on what is most relevant in their given location. These interventions can vary in type. For a given community, access to healthy food might be a primary need, thus their particular intervention along the ecological corridor may take the form of an urban farm, that simultaneously taps into ecological needs outline by the mosaic plan. In another location, district power may be necessary, and the installation of a micro-hydro power station may be funded and installed by the city. These various groups will use the ecological corridor as a means of meeting their shared needs. Fundamentally this networked corridor will find its organization through the daylighting of Tanner Creek, along the redevelopment of Burnside from Forest Hill on down to the Willamette river. Along the corridor, as various groups carry out their specific interventions, the IEF will deploy specific architectures to facilitate and curate these acts. At times merely servicing an intervention, in other cases acting as an intervention itself, for example the formation of a bridge to connect two habitat patches within the city, such as the MVVA Arc Bridge, or creating niches for particular

species within the urban fabric, or the carving out of public space for open events and education of the corridor. As with the Detroit Works urban plan by STOSS precedent above, the network functions can be categorized into general urban and ecological uses. At time distinct from one another, at other times overlapping. These functions may include: Urban Functions - Connector (bicycle, pedestrian) - Hubs (social/recreational areas) - Producer (food, energy, materials) - Education (of city systems, ecosystem) - Utilities (rainwater capt. flood mitigation) Ecological Functions - Corridor (habitat connection) - Niches (off of corridor) - Patches (dedicated habitat areas) - Cycling (nutrient flow) - Fixers (cleaning water, temp, soil) These functions will vary over time, the needs of the corridor changing depending upon regional inputs both economically, socially and ecologically. At different points physically and temporally, these interventions may come into being and then recede depending upon their community’s needs with deployed architectures by the IEF serving for a time and then being removed as required. A community may need an urban garden for a time, until a local grocer moves in, at which point they may choose to convert the area towards some other use. Water flow may increase, requiring new mitigation controls, or it may decrease, requiring catchment strategies. The network remains adaptable, never fixed. The network of deployed architectures monitor these changes, and convey information to the IEF digitally, but also express system information in an analog, tectonic manner, so that those within the city may witness and understand specific ecological events within the city.

[INSTANT ECOLOGY FACTORY]ADAPTING MOSAIC Network

The network develops through an adapting urban ecological plan, set in place by a research group at the IEF comprised of urban planners, architects, community groups, ecologists, public officials and partnering institutions. This plan monitors the urban ecological corridor and advises on particular interventions based upon system feedback data. In this sense, the constant status of the corridor is “live,” for the conducting of research and for visualization of the system to the public so as to further their understanding. Based upon the advisory groups findings, community groups and local institutions may carry out urban interventions, simultaneously addressing social, ecological, economic and general urban needs depending on what is most relevant in their given location. These interventions can vary in type. For a given community, access to healthy food might be a primary need, thus their particular intervention along the ecological corridor may take the form of an urban farm, that simultaneously taps into ecological needs outline by the mosaic plan. In another location, district power may be necessary, and the installation of a micro-hydro power station may be funded and installed by the city. These various groups will use the ecological corridor as a means of meeting their shared needs. Fundamentally this networked corridor will find its organization through the daylighting of Tanner Creek, along the redevelopment of Burnside from Forest Hill on down to the Willamette river. Along the corridor, as various groups carry out their specific interventions, the IEF will deploy specific architectures to facilitate and curate these acts. At times merely servicing an intervention, in other cases acting as an intervention itself, for example the formation of a bridge to connect two habitat patches within the city, such as the MVVA Arc Bridge, or creating niches for particular

species within the urban fabric, or the carving out of public space for open events and education of the corridor. As with the Detroit Works urban plan by STOSS precedent above, the network functions can be categorized into general urban and ecological uses. At time distinct from one another, at other times overlapping. These functions may include: Urban Functions - Connector (bicycle, pedestrian) - Hubs (social/recreational areas) - Producer (food, energy, materials) - Education (of city systems, ecosystem) - Utilities (rainwater capt. flood mitigation) Ecological Functions - Corridor (habitat connection) - Niches (off of corridor) - Patches (dedicated habitat areas) - Cycling (nutrient flow) - Fixers (cleaning water, temp, soil) These functions will vary over time, the needs of the corridor changing depending upon regional inputs both economically, socially and ecologically. At different points physically and temporally, these interventions may come into being and then recede depending upon their community’s needs with deployed architectures by the IEF serving for a time and then being removed as required. A community may need an urban garden for a time, until a local grocer moves in, at which point they may choose to convert the area towards some other use. Water flow may increase, requiring new mitigation controls, or it may decrease, requiring catchment strategies. The network remains adaptable, never fixed. The network of deployed architectures monitor these changes, and convey information to the IEF digitally, but also express system information in an analog, tectonic manner, so that those within the city may witness and understand specific ecological events within the city.

[Instant Ecology Factory]IEF Center

While the mosaic network does not demand a hierarchy from an ecological standpoint, from a human perspective a holistic center to the system is necessary, functionally and culturally. The IEF Center serves as the main hub of this extended, ephemeral network as a permanent intervention within the city. The IEF Center serves primarily as enabler of the greater network. Here both literal and figurative tools are housed to empower the community in its propagation of an urban ecosystem. The center serves four main purposes with subordinate programs, some of which may also have peripheral locations within the greater network. First, the accumulation of knowledge. Second, the education of the public with this knowledge. Third, the means to apply this knowledge within the city. Fourth connector and center for the local community. The Center not only provides for the rest of the network but is an active participant in the network’s urban and ecological functions. The Center will be placed adjacent to or over top of the i405 interstate alongside the propagated Burnside ecological corridor, literally connecting downtown and uptown for both people, habitat and shared services. Much like the “Bridge School” precedent above, this structure will serve both as programmed building and as urban infrastructure. In this location the Center will allow the public to witness old and new infrastructures and the convergence of various urban and ecological systems at a dynamic crossing point of the city. The Center becomes not only a center for the propagated corridor, but as a center for the city, a place where the local and regional ecological systems may be understood holistically, the Instant Ecology Factory as only a part of this greater system.

Current Program

Knowledge [5,550] - Research Center [3,800 total] - Offices [2,500] - Meeting [400] - Data visualization [400] - Kitchenette [200] - Restroom [100] - Viewing platform [100] - Storage [100] - Library [1,750 total] - Digital volumes [250] - Analog volumes [1000] - Reading area [500]

Education [9,950] - Data Visualization [400] - Network Exhibit Area [2,000] - Habitat Area (analysis) [2,500] - Classroom [1,750] - Working Urban Farm [3,000] - Viewing Platform [300]

Production [16,400] - Seed Bank [2,900 total] - Racks [2,400] - Information [100] - Work Station [400] - Greenhouse [4,000 total] - Racks [3,800] - Tool Storage [100] - Control Station [100] - Network Tool Storage [3,000 total] Maintenance Station [400] Storage [2,500]

[Instant Ecology Factory]IEF Center

While the mosaic network does not demand a hierarchy from an ecological standpoint, from a human perspective a holistic center to the system is necessary, functionally and culturally. The IEF Center serves as the main hub of this extended, ephemeral network as a permanent intervention within the city. The IEF Center serves primarily as enabler of the greater network. Here both literal and figurative tools are housed to empower the community in its propagation of an urban ecosystem. The center serves four main purposes with subordinate programs, some of which may also have peripheral locations within the greater network. First, the accumulation of knowledge. Second, the education of the public with this knowledge. Third, the means to apply this knowledge within the city. Fourth connector and center for the local community. The Center not only provides for the rest of the network but is an active participant in the network’s urban and ecological functions. The Center will be placed adjacent to or over top of the i405 interstate alongside the propagated Burnside ecological corridor, literally connecting downtown and uptown for both people, habitat and shared services. Much like the “Bridge School” precedent above, this structure will serve both as programmed building and as urban infrastructure. In this location the Center will allow the public to witness old and new infrastructures and the convergence of various urban and ecological systems at a dynamic crossing point of the city. The Center becomes not only a center for the propagated corridor, but as a center for the city, a place where the local and regional ecological systems may be understood holistically, the Instant Ecology Factory as only a part of this greater system.

Current Program

Knowledge [5,550] - Research Center [3,800 total] - Offices [2,500] - Meeting [400] - Data visualization [400] - Kitchenette [200] - Restroom [100] - Viewing platform [100] - Storage [100] - Library [1,750 total] - Digital volumes [250] - Analog volumes [1000] - Reading area [500]

Education [9,950] - Data Visualization [400] - Network Exhibit Area [2,000] - Habitat Area (analysis) [2,500] - Classroom [1,750] - Working Urban Farm [3,000] - Viewing Platform [300]

Production [16,400] - Seed Bank [2,900 total] - Racks [2,400] - Information [100] - Work Station [400] - Greenhouse [4,000 total] - Racks [3,800] - Tool Storage [100] - Control Station [100] - Network Tool Storage [3,000 total] Maintenance Station [400] Storage [2,500]

Rental desk [100] - Work Room (flex space) [5,000 total] - Water Harvesting (visible system) [400] - Compost tank [500] - Mechanical rooms [500]

Public Connector [6,300]

- Community event room [1,500] - Public Kitchen [500] - Public Restrooms [300] - Open space (lobby) [4,000]

SUBTOTAL = 38,200+ 30% supplemental

TOTAL = 49,660 square feet

! This program is approximate and will change depending upon the evolving relationship between the network and the IEF Center. While the Center will be a permanent structure, its program may fluctuate, and therefore must be able to adapt to changing functions and spatial arrangements. Particular functions, though attributed to the building area will potentially engage the city directly, such as the educational urban farm, and might not be totally considered enclosed as interior space.

Following are more in depth descriptions of program elements.

Research Center [3,800] -Activity Description - Continual monitoring and research of the network. - Meeting point for local contributors to research, distribution of information - Data analysis and visualization

- Occupancy - The research center will be a place mainly for permanent staff, engaged city planners, architects, ecologists, volunteer community members, and students contributing to the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge about the urban ecological corridor.

- Space Adjacency - Public Area - Educational Area

-Character - Informal, well lit office and meeting area, with view to the interior public space of the building but with view out to the greater context. Easily accessible to the public

Library [1,750]

-Activity Description - Public informal/formal research

- Occupancy - The library will be for individuals from the local and greater Portland community, either individuals researching for personal projects, students engaged in studies or interested members of the public

- Space Adjacency - Public Area- Character

Rental desk [100] - Work Room (flex space) [5,000 total] - Water Harvesting (visible system) [400] - Compost tank [500] - Mechanical rooms [500]

Public Connector [6,300]

- Community event room [1,500] - Public Kitchen [500] - Public Restrooms [300] - Open space (lobby) [4,000]

SUBTOTAL = 38,200+ 30% supplemental

TOTAL = 49,660 square feet

! This program is approximate and will change depending upon the evolving relationship between the network and the IEF Center. While the Center will be a permanent structure, its program may fluctuate, and therefore must be able to adapt to changing functions and spatial arrangements. Particular functions, though attributed to the building area will potentially engage the city directly, such as the educational urban farm, and might not be totally considered enclosed as interior space.

Following are more in depth descriptions of program elements.

Research Center [3,800] -Activity Description - Continual monitoring and research of the network. - Meeting point for local contributors to research, distribution of information - Data analysis and visualization

- Occupancy - The research center will be a place mainly for permanent staff, engaged city planners, architects, ecologists, volunteer community members, and students contributing to the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge about the urban ecological corridor.

- Space Adjacency - Public Area - Educational Area

-Character - Informal, well lit office and meeting area, with view to the interior public space of the building but with view out to the greater context. Easily accessible to the public

Library [1,750]

-Activity Description - Public informal/formal research

- Occupancy - The library will be for individuals from the local and greater Portland community, either individuals researching for personal projects, students engaged in studies or interested members of the public

- Space Adjacency - Public Area- Character

- Warm, well lit space open to the public at most hours. Controlled light for reading quality. Serves as an informal gathering point for the public Data Visualization Area (Educational) [400]

- Activity Description - Public mechanism for engaging, exploring ecological corridor information

- Occupancy - Informal passersby - Visitors to the education center

- Space Adjacency - Network Exhibit Area - Public Area

- Character - Fun and interactive event for the casual visitor to the site. Basically an oversized interactive info-graphic system, which can be used momentarily for poking and prodding, or more in depth information gathering

Network Exhibit Area [2,000]

- Activity Description - Interactive exhibits of network - Information about community efforts

- Occupancy - Formal visitor to IEF - Informal visitors who decide to stop in

- Space Adjacency - Public Area - Green House

Habitat Area (Analysis) [2,500]- Activity Description - Live analysis of ecological corridor at IEF site

- Occupancy - Anyone walking through

- Space Adjacency - Public space - Education Area - Library

- Character! - Not in an fully enclosed space. Actually a continuation of the ecological corridor continuing through the architecture of the IEF center. Here the typical monitoring present throughout the network is immediately accessible. Like the system visualization but specific to this particular location. Serves to blur the boundaries of architecture and urban space

Classroom [1,750]

- Activity Description - Classes led by IEF or other institutions for the public, or for visiting students

- Occupancy - The public - Students from nearby educational institutions

- Space Adjacency - Educational Area - Library - Public Space - Urban farm?

- Warm, well lit space open to the public at most hours. Controlled light for reading quality. Serves as an informal gathering point for the public Data Visualization Area (Educational) [400]

- Activity Description - Public mechanism for engaging, exploring ecological corridor information

- Occupancy - Informal passersby - Visitors to the education center

- Space Adjacency - Network Exhibit Area - Public Area

- Character - Fun and interactive event for the casual visitor to the site. Basically an oversized interactive info-graphic system, which can be used momentarily for poking and prodding, or more in depth information gathering

Network Exhibit Area [2,000]

- Activity Description - Interactive exhibits of network - Information about community efforts

- Occupancy - Formal visitor to IEF - Informal visitors who decide to stop in

- Space Adjacency - Public Area - Green House

Habitat Area (Analysis) [2,500]- Activity Description - Live analysis of ecological corridor at IEF site

- Occupancy - Anyone walking through

- Space Adjacency - Public space - Education Area - Library

- Character! - Not in an fully enclosed space. Actually a continuation of the ecological corridor continuing through the architecture of the IEF center. Here the typical monitoring present throughout the network is immediately accessible. Like the system visualization but specific to this particular location. Serves to blur the boundaries of architecture and urban space

Classroom [1,750]

- Activity Description - Classes led by IEF or other institutions for the public, or for visiting students

- Occupancy - The public - Students from nearby educational institutions

- Space Adjacency - Educational Area - Library - Public Space - Urban farm?

- Character - Very open, well lit space, completely transparent to the interior and exterior of the building. Easily opened to the street.

Working Urban Farm [3,000]

- Activity Description - Urban farming education

- Occupancy - Volunteer educators - Public - Visiting students

- Space Adjacency - Classroom - Tools

- Character - Really and outdoor space that may be included in part of the actual architecture of the Center. Does not serve primarily for production, as that would take place elsewhere within the corridor, serving as hands on education. Completely open to the public.

Viewing Platform [300]

- Activity Description - Viewing of local and regional ecological system

- Occupancy - Anyone

- Space Adjacency - Public Area

- Character - Above the building, viewing up and down the Burnside corridor so as to witness and understand the system in its local entirety

Seed Bank [2,900]

- Activity Description - Housing/accessing of native and endangered plant species, an open catalogue to the public

- Occupancy - IEF staff - Visitors, users of IEF facilities

- Space Adjacency - Work Room

- Character - A somewhat secluded room. A deeper enclosure that feels almost solemn or holy, as it is the beginning point for many of the projects to take place along the corridor. Like an old, old library that contains incredibly valuable items.

Green House [4,000]

- Activity Description - Facilitates the pre-growth of plants/parcels to build up resiliency before being fully exposed to the city

- Occupancy - Users of IEF facilities

- Space Adjacency - Work Room - South facing - Public area - Library

- Character - Very open, well lit space, completely transparent to the interior and exterior of the building. Easily opened to the street.

Working Urban Farm [3,000]

- Activity Description - Urban farming education

- Occupancy - Volunteer educators - Public - Visiting students

- Space Adjacency - Classroom - Tools

- Character - Really and outdoor space that may be included in part of the actual architecture of the Center. Does not serve primarily for production, as that would take place elsewhere within the corridor, serving as hands on education. Completely open to the public.

Viewing Platform [300]

- Activity Description - Viewing of local and regional ecological system

- Occupancy - Anyone

- Space Adjacency - Public Area

- Character - Above the building, viewing up and down the Burnside corridor so as to witness and understand the system in its local entirety

Seed Bank [2,900]

- Activity Description - Housing/accessing of native and endangered plant species, an open catalogue to the public

- Occupancy - IEF staff - Visitors, users of IEF facilities

- Space Adjacency - Work Room

- Character - A somewhat secluded room. A deeper enclosure that feels almost solemn or holy, as it is the beginning point for many of the projects to take place along the corridor. Like an old, old library that contains incredibly valuable items.

Green House [4,000]

- Activity Description - Facilitates the pre-growth of plants/parcels to build up resiliency before being fully exposed to the city

- Occupancy - Users of IEF facilities

- Space Adjacency - Work Room - South facing - Public area - Library

- Character - A bright, transparent space filled with young and mid aged plants. Allows light and color into the deeper parts of the Center while presenting an open, public face to the city.

Tool Storage [3,000]

- Activity Description - Distribution of various tools to the public, users of IEF facilities and contributors to the corridor - Maintenance of tools

- Occupancy - IEF staff - Visitors, users of IEF facilities

- Space Adjacency - Public Area - Work Room

- Character - Friendly, easily accessible place, almost like a bike shop. People may causally enter with questions, damaged tools, inquiring into rentals etc. Informal education.

Work Room

- Activity Description - Flex space for the development of pre-grown parcels - Experimentation of soil, plant, nutrient types - Hands on classes - Informal place for gatherings, potential extension of public area

- Occupancy - IEF Staff

- IEF facilities users- Space Adjacency - Green House - Tool Storage - Seed Bank - Public Area

- Character - Tall light, a double height space imbedded within the building as a go-between for various other programs. A heart of the building where people develop parcels of pre-grown plant life such as the kind grown together on green roofs, to be deployed later “instantly” within the city.

Water Harvesting [400]

- Activity Description - Capture of rainwater and excessive ground water runoff

- Occupancy - Passersby

- Space Adjacency - Mechanical Room - Green House - Public Area

- Character - Not necessarily an enclosed volume, rather a series of larger tanks visible from the public area

- Character - A bright, transparent space filled with young and mid aged plants. Allows light and color into the deeper parts of the Center while presenting an open, public face to the city.

Tool Storage [3,000]

- Activity Description - Distribution of various tools to the public, users of IEF facilities and contributors to the corridor - Maintenance of tools

- Occupancy - IEF staff - Visitors, users of IEF facilities

- Space Adjacency - Public Area - Work Room

- Character - Friendly, easily accessible place, almost like a bike shop. People may causally enter with questions, damaged tools, inquiring into rentals etc. Informal education.

Work Room

- Activity Description - Flex space for the development of pre-grown parcels - Experimentation of soil, plant, nutrient types - Hands on classes - Informal place for gatherings, potential extension of public area

- Occupancy - IEF Staff

- IEF facilities users- Space Adjacency - Green House - Tool Storage - Seed Bank - Public Area

- Character - Tall light, a double height space imbedded within the building as a go-between for various other programs. A heart of the building where people develop parcels of pre-grown plant life such as the kind grown together on green roofs, to be deployed later “instantly” within the city.

Water Harvesting [400]

- Activity Description - Capture of rainwater and excessive ground water runoff

- Occupancy - Passersby

- Space Adjacency - Mechanical Room - Green House - Public Area

- Character - Not necessarily an enclosed volume, rather a series of larger tanks visible from the public area

Compost Tank

- Activity Description - Composting for IEF Center’s site and as necessary for greater corridor

- Occupancy (not inside!) - IEF Staff - IEF Facility Users

- Space Adjacency - Work Room - Water Tanks - Public Area

- Character! - Not sure what the character of compost is quite yet.

Community Event Room [1,500]

- Activity Description - Public events, lectures, parties, debates, meetings

- Occupancy - Community members, contributors to the ecological corridor, lecture attendees, etc.

- Space Adjacency - Public area - Green House

- Character - Open, flexible well lit space. Easily opened out into the street. Able to be formal or informal depending on event

Public Kitchen [500]

- Activity Description - Cooking of locally grown foods

- Occupancy - Community members, visitors, contributors to the ecological corridor

- Space Adjacency - Community Event Room - Public area

- Character - Rentable kitchen space, easily accessible from public space or the community event area, possibly the street as well as a cafe along the street.

Open Area (lobby) [4,000]

- Activity Description - In between space of most program elements as well as the ecological corridor itself

- Occupancy - Visitors to the IEF - Passersby

- Space Adjacency - Most all other programs

- Character - Grander space, with light from above serving as connector for most programs. The ecological corridor continues through this semi enclosed space, separating the building into sub areas, with pedestrians and bicyclists passing through.

Compost Tank

- Activity Description - Composting for IEF Center’s site and as necessary for greater corridor

- Occupancy (not inside!) - IEF Staff - IEF Facility Users

- Space Adjacency - Work Room - Water Tanks - Public Area

- Character! - Not sure what the character of compost is quite yet.

Community Event Room [1,500]

- Activity Description - Public events, lectures, parties, debates, meetings

- Occupancy - Community members, contributors to the ecological corridor, lecture attendees, etc.

- Space Adjacency - Public area - Green House

- Character - Open, flexible well lit space. Easily opened out into the street. Able to be formal or informal depending on event

Public Kitchen [500]

- Activity Description - Cooking of locally grown foods

- Occupancy - Community members, visitors, contributors to the ecological corridor

- Space Adjacency - Community Event Room - Public area

- Character - Rentable kitchen space, easily accessible from public space or the community event area, possibly the street as well as a cafe along the street.

Open Area (lobby) [4,000]

- Activity Description - In between space of most program elements as well as the ecological corridor itself

- Occupancy - Visitors to the IEF - Passersby

- Space Adjacency - Most all other programs

- Character - Grander space, with light from above serving as connector for most programs. The ecological corridor continues through this semi enclosed space, separating the building into sub areas, with pedestrians and bicyclists passing through.

SLOW CITYINSTANT ECOLOGY [FACTORY]

William Smith - Howard Davis