Living Dialogs

Can the buildings that we live in come alive? Could such living buildings help us to create a healthier, more sustainable future? Could they become adaptive, resilient structures that care for the planet while empathizing, comforting and inspiring us? The Living Dialogs series brings together scholars and thinkers to collectively reflect on living architecture and its implications for our changing world.

In each episode, guests and listeners are invited to reflect on prompts designed to encourage thoughtful, in-depth discussion. You are invited to contribute your own thoughts and questions, which may be taken up at the Living Dialogs Webinar with the same guests a couple of weeks following each episode’s release (webinar info in sidebar).

This extended format is born of our belief that knowledge creation is also a collaborative and living endeavour – that meaning is not simply created through the exchange of information but that ideas are formed through open and emergent conversations.

192.61 MB

Podcast S1E1: Principles, Aesthetics, and Sustainability of Living Architecture

With Jenny Sabin, Mitchell Joachim, Philip Beesley

35:03 — https://livingarchitecturesystems.com/podcast/living/

March 15, 2021

In this episode, expert architects and designers Jenny Sabin, Mitchell Joachim, and Philip Beesley consider the core principles, aesthetics, and sustainability of living architecture.

Guests

Supported by the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, Michigan State University Center for Interdisciplinarity, University of Waterloo, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

  • Toolbox Dialogue Initiative
  • Michigan State University Center for Interdisciplinarity
  • University of Waterloo
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Your Thoughts

In each Living Dialogs episode, guests and listeners are offered a number of prompts for reflection.  In this episode, the prompts considered by the guests are listed below. We encourage you to spend some time considering them, and leave us your thoughts or questions on the prompts or on living architecture more generally.  Then, join us a couple of weeks following the episode release for the Living Dialogs Webinar (information in sidebar) with the same guests, during which some of your thoughts and questions may be taken up for further discussion.  The webinar will also include a live Q&A portion.

The following prompts were discussed in our first episode of Living Dialogs. The guests opened the discussion by stating how they scored their level of disagreement or agreement with each statement. The scale goes from 1 to 5, 1-disagree to 5-agree. Guests then elaborate on their rationale for the position they took. There are no right or wrong answers to these statements, and the goal is not to convince each other to converge. They are simply a grounding mechanism for opening a free-flowing conversation between guests.

 

  1. The living architecture community has identified clear principles for what qualifies as living architecture.
  2. Within living architecture, utility should be prioritized over aesthetics.
  3. The primary goal of living architecture should be to engineer sustainable living.

Note: comments are moderated, so there may be some delay on submission.

 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wonderfully thought-provoking podcast. Thanks for sharing this.

I’m fascinated with the moment when Philip Beesley and Jenny Sabin recoil at the word, engineering.

I loved how Philip called it ‘premature’ in the context of living architecture. There’s a sense for me too that many 20th Century interventions would have done well to go just a little slower, a little more thoughtful. Less racing, more spacing.

As much as I do appreciate all the concerns raised, the reaction to the word, ’engineering’ felt almost delusive. Is this generational guilt? An aesthetic judgement, more about the connotations of words than what they mean in the statement? If not through engineering, then how? I was pleased to see the conversation move to the question of fostering an attitude of activist resolve. Hopeful there can be a sensitive approach to geo-engineering.

But also – let’s look at the object of the statement. Sustainability has come to mean so many things that it feels empty, maybe even dangerously misleading. Sustainable living of who? Us presumably, along with whatever of nature is needed to sustain us. So why not say it like it is? “The primary goal of living architecture should be for humans to live constantly.” That is after all, Sustain-ability. But it doesn’t feel so true to the discipline anymore.

So, how about subbing ‘sustainable living’ out of the statement?

As a provocation: “The primary goal of living architecture should be decay.” Decomposition seems like the underrated, underemphasized aspect of living in living architecture, at least in this conversation. And the design of endings still seems generally neglected by those disciplines who build the built environment.

Or — as a suggestion:

A primary goal of living architecture should be the continuous conditioning of homeostasis.

Along with aesthetics and utility, I think there is also a feeling, a feeling that I associate with architecture or cities that seem living (or rather, ALIVE) to me. The feeling has to do with vigor, co-existence, diversity, and joy. Thanks for a great conversation!