Meeting with Kirsten Childs

Kirsten Childs, the Director of Facilities Planning & Interior Design for Croxton Collaborative Architects, is joining our class tonight to share with us her sustainability agenda. The soft-spoken woman comes around to exchange a handshake and a warm introduction. She has been involved in the initial development of the LEED rating program and her work in the field of sustainability has been recognized nationally and internationally. Her architecture company now stands as a pioneer in the field of sustainable design and was responsible for the renovation of the century old National Audubon society building back in 1991, a model of environmental architecture and design. Childs points out that the concept of “sustainable design” did not exist during this project and it was difficult to name the new approach of designing with the environment in mind.

The designer starts the dialog discussing the circadian cycle and how paramount it is to design for people to have access to daylight and the seasons. Her approach to any project starts with “the givens”:  the existing environment, solar orientation, wind orientation, waterways, local fauna & flora.

She describes how an interior designer’s role is to enhance human well-being, thermal comfort and daylight. These are paramount concerns in the design of our built environment. Therefore the transient pattern of sunlight in relation to the building is a main instrument in her design approach. As an advocate of Biophilic design, I could not agree more.

To illustrate her point, the designer reviews a few projects she has worked on including the gut renovation of a bankrupt “big box” store, turned into Library- community center. To optimize the site assets and opportunities, the once unsustainable shopping center was totally reclaimed to address two important needs of the town:  the first one being the restoration of the biodiversity of the land and water. The second being the need for the community to flourish and for children and adults to meet, relax, read, and study. I wish we had more great examples like this one showing the real potential at the fate of consumerism era giants.  I personally rejoice in the idea of seeing the end of fake cheap shopping.  As we all know, there is no such thing as cheap and eventually we must pay the price for “everyday-low-price” consumption. We are beginning to see this now with the lack of durability in our products that need to be replaced frequently, or the environmental disasters we frequently experience today due to our overuse of “cheap” oil. 

While Childs points out the importance of safeguarding endangered species, potable water resources, as well as enhancing indoor environmental quality and daylight access, she also has a holistic approach to design. Her method of designing in the built environment raises questions such as: Can it be built on a compromised land? How can I maximize the natural asset of the site? What is the cultural and historic significance of the place?

To conclude her presentation she reminds us of not only the importance of LEED but also the necessity of humane design. She believes that the ­­­successes of these concepts usually does not depend on architects but on interior designers and WE are the ones who must take a stand to achieve such design. 

Well... Thank you Ms. Childs for taking a stand for us!

Research Matters!

The MA of Sustainability for the Interior Environment was launched at FIT during summer 2011, with a small group of 10 Design professionals.  But it really began months before when we were contemplating the idea of starting a Master in sustainability and each of us asked ourselves: why do we care? And what can we do about it? While for most of us it was a career move, it was mainly a strong conviction that there must be a more responsible way to design and build. The urge to seek this out is what brought us together here.

The program began with a good dose of healthy debates over the societal impact of design. These discussions exposed both our common and conflicting ideals of sustainable design. Throughout the course of the first semesters, the program challenged our sustainable design assumptions by showing that simply taking a stand for the environment and the people who live on the planet is not enough. Design lives within a context that includes more than just materials and aesthetics. The program pushes us past the limits of conventional design practices by exploring literature related to such areas of study as behavioral research and policy studies revealing the incredible connectedness that takes place between design, people and the natural environment.

Being an FIT Graduate student certainly keeps us on our toes.  The classes give us the broad and big picture strategies about how we can make a difference. But it is the back and forth between expansive personal research and the collaborative approach in class that encourages discussions and fast forward thinking. Collectively we constantly ask ourselves: what resonates with us? What information do we select? What do we report on?

As working professionals that dedicate our time outside of our work-week toward this MA we are constantly navigating the inevitable hurdles of time-consuming research.  This same struggle is reflected in the real world. Behavioral Research and Policy analysis is lacking in the business of interior design…. And the reason, it’s time consuming. Interior design is a service-based industry that depends as much on market economics as any other service. But it has failed to recognize the value of these research initiatives. The business of interior design largely centers primarily on aesthetics. While it may be difficult to find conversations about Behavioral Research within most interior design firms we must take into account that these tools exist in other industries solely to increase profits. It works! So if these multi-national corporations successes can be attributed to the extensive social research then we can take this same model to impact the growth of sustainability and build a healthier environment.

While we are here to explore what “endures”, we have to break the current modus operandi to better illuminate both the themes and pillars of sustainable design: Environment, Economy, Equity and expose how these three E’s are not enough.  Research is what sheds light on how we have to look at the pillars of cultures, what Jane Jacobs identified as education, community, sciences, family and governments.

I feel that the MA program at FIT gives us the tools and resources to bring behavioral research and policy analysis to this field of study. As a result sustainable design is no longer a sysphean mission. And while we can’t predict the future, we hope we can set the pace for research to take place in the interior design field.

Revolution of Technology

I spent my evening at the Material Connexion Showroom. I was blown away by their material library: Photocatalytic powder coating that purifies the surrounding air, "Styrofoam" made of fungus (100% cradle to cradle), bio-based resins to name a few...   if you have not been there before I encourage all of us to go there. Note that as FIT students we are automatically members and this is a great opportunity! I spoke with Caroline Berna, account manager, who is looking forward to hearing from us.

To be continued...

“First, Do No Harm”

While pondering over how the Hippocratic oath would apply to research in SIE, I thought about the responsibility of designers to create spaces that no only safeguard the survival needs of the users (both physiological and physical safety) but also meet their needs of comfort, cultural identity, creativity etc… I thought that there was even more to it: What about the nurturing and restorative aspect of our design? Healthy buildings can be wonderfully comforting and lead to creating an emotional climate in which people can flourish and express their identity freely. 

Similarly when proceeding with experimental studies for design research, we owe our subjects to not judge them and respect their cultural differences and identity. in a nutshell, our experiments should be designed around concerns for the dignity and welfare of the participants.  Subjects should not only feel respected but also accepted for who they are and know how significant their testimony is for the experiment. As Nora mentioned in class, “refusal is data”.  Meaning, we must be open to and take into account our participants rights (and maybe duty) to refuse to go further in the experiment.    

When taking the subway I often think of a study Nora mentioned in class last semester: students (who were actually not the subjects of experiment that I know of) were asked by their professor to go up to strangers in the subway and to ask them to give up their sit for no reason whatsoever; the study found out that once in the field, the students could not get themselves to do it. They could not ask someone to just get up and give up their seat.  Their ethics is what stopped them from doing the experiment. Identically the meaning of this refusal, just like the controversial Milgram’s study on obedience to authority, is very relevant in regards to ethics in research;  results were certainly disturbing - our ability to obey authoritative figures or actually inability to say no to “orders” – but what was for me mostly disconcerting was the stress under which the participants were put. 

We don't want our participants to tell us what we want to hear and certainly not obey commands; with that in mind, we must remember to conduct our survey with full awareness that we must remain unbiased and praise our participant’s performance and remind them hat they are free to take responsibility for their action. 

On this last note, I think we (as class) are on good track: When we decline filling out a form that aims to grade one another, we fully know we are "disobeying” the board of education system.  Yet, for some of us, we feel we have to follow our codes and ethics: "First do no harm"; because we support one another to achieve the best of our capacity, we don't need to judge and rank each other. And that's ethics as well. 

Cook + Fox: A biophilic office for sustainability leaders

On Wednesday April 10^th, our field trip takes place to the office of the architecture firm responsible for the renowned Highline restoration and Leed Platinum certified One Bryan Park tower, the greenest skyscraper in the world.  Cook + Fox, which reads Cook plus Fox, is located in the landmarked lady’s mile district of Manhattan.  While modern, the design does not feel overly high tech as one could anticipate from such a fast-forward thinking company. I personally like how humble the place actually feels.

When walking in the office space we first notice that the architectural firm has preserved the original details of the interior of the space including a dramatic array of windows laid out as a semi-circle on one whole side of the office. In a city where most of the office workers are alienated from nature, it is good to see that from each workstation, one can see through a window. By offering not only daylight to the creative staff but also a view of NYC and 600 square feet of extensive green roof terrace, the office prides itself in following the biophilia philosophy.  And it shows!  Starting with the carpet tiles from the innovative company Interface that are laid out randomly to resemble a forest ground.  As the visit proceed, we also enjoy highly filtered air and I have to say overall the office “feels good”. There is a calming effect that I have not experienced in an office set up before. The combination of careful use of indoor sunlight, natural and artificial ambient and task light is “just enough”; I actually notice that it reinforces the balance between prospect and refuge of the space.  In terms of materials, the custom made plywood-base furnishings was finished to show the grain of the wood.  Thanks to the choice of the flexible materials the architects were able to create a spatial layout that feels organic and “natural” with curving forms and nooks (as opposed to typical lined up desks and cubbies). Interior plantings are striving across the office, adding to the biophilic features of the space.  

Overall the successful office proves again that the practice of biophilic design and connecting people with nature does provide not only comfortable but very productive places.

Connect the dots

Hi all,
While we are all connecting the dots with our research readings, surveys, questionnaires, behavioral mappings etc. others are "connecting the dots" on climate change around the world. As we all know already, these past years every country has seen "The worst of ... in its history"- fill in the blank: floods, drought, fires, famine... 
May 5th is the date to pencil in our calendar.  See this video and share it (You can also "like" in on Facebook)
http://www.climatedots.org/thingshappen/
Let's help with connecting the dots.  Tell people it's time to move away from fossil fuels and demand clean energy.  Though at this point, I don't think we have time to create an event, it would be nice if we could stand in solidarity: Think "butterfly effect"! Spread the word and drop a note about sustainability and climate change, or post a powerful picture on your Facebook page. And if you have something else in mind, share it with the rest of class. Thanks all! 

41 Cooper Square: biomorphic but not biophilic

Our Seminar class took us on April 6^th to a well-anticipated field trip location:  Thom Wayne’s new academic building for the iconic private college, Cooper Union, located at 41 Cooper square.  Conveniently situated kitty corner from the Italianate brownstone, the stainless steel construction facade is not what you would expect from the historic neighborhood (and I can only imagine that there was some neighborhood opposition to the futuristic project.)

The bold architecture building, which replaces the centenary Hewitt building, is located on the crossover between SoHo and East village;  everyday for about a year I had hopped on my bike and passed by the rapidly developing construction site.

So here I was for once inside the phantasmagoric building I had been watching growing.  The edifice, which had appeared to turn more like a space ship than a school building turned out to be not as uncanny as I anticipated.  But interestingly enough the first thing that came to mind, when walking into the atrium-like lobby, was the feeling of being inside the belly of a beast which was revealing its white biomorphic armature like a giant rib cage.

Following a shy introduction, we followed our tour guide to the top floor via elevators; these are programmed to stop at only few floors in order to encourage student’s physical activity. We then proceeded with the visit going downward the edifice, while itemizing the expansive and expensive innovative technology that had earned the building a platinum LEED certification.

As we arrived on the 4^th floor, and the top of the great staircase, I was expecting a magnificent vantage point if not a spectacular view of the city, but none of that was there. Not only the green roof and outdoor terrace were not accessible (for security purposes), I felt like the building was lacking of biophilic qualities. As we were regrouping, conversation with our tour guide took an interesting twist when asking him how he felt about the efficiency of the edifice. The 5^th year architecture student admitted that he did not think the building was built to “properly” meet true sustainable principles. He added that if it were not for the high tech equipment (sun sensitive operable panels, green roof, storm waster collection system…) the building would not meet any sustainable practices.

For my part I was surprised to hear that the building was built in lieu of a campus, a place for the student community to connect. A consternating surprise was that there was very little incentive for this to happen. The great staircase where we were standing and which was built for the students to circulate and mingle, looked more like a steep terrain impossible to crawl to the top than a meeting area. As a matter of fact it was entirely deserted. As we’ve been saying in class, if people don’t enjoy a place then it does not really matter how “green” it is. 

Even Apple cannot compete with sustainability!

So in the end even the Alpha brand of technology, Apple, cannot compete with sustainability....music to my ears! That's according to the NY times article How the Love Affair With Apple Might End by Alice Rawsthorn (click on title to enjoy the article); indeed the Godly brand will not get away with lack of responsible design anymore. We have heard it for a while now that Apple's success was built not only on innovative design but also on unethical practices: Obsolescence by design, workers abuse (in China), no recycling or reclaiming programs to name a few...
So my point is, after all, consumers are finally getting it: good design means sustainable design. And what really pleases me here is that it proves that if we want to change our criteria when choosing a brand then corporations are going to have to stay on their best behavior.  Because, today the consumer does have the power to make changes. The irony being that's probably thanks to the latest technology!