Adam Nathaniel Mayer

Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead' and the Problem with Ideology

2011-01-11T13:19:00.001+08:00

Upon high school graduation, I was given a copy of Ayn Rand's book The Fountainhead by a neighbor. A book whose protagonist is an unwavering architect was an appropriate gift as my neighbor knew that I would be heading off to architecture school 3 months later. At that time I was a naive 18 year old with limited knowledge about architecture. Thus, the story's main character, Howard Roark, seemed a good model to aspire to at the time given his ability to never compromise his perfect integrity.

I devoured Rand's book with intensity- fully absorbed by her descriptive prose. I loved how Roark was unmoved by attempts to undermine his magnificent designs. Only a few years later did I fully understand that the world created in The Fountainhead could never exist in reality. While Rand's characters do exhibit traits of people in the real world, they are exaggerations of these traits to the point of absurdity. Peter Keating, the talented architect who sells his soul for material gain; Ellsworth Toohey, the conniving art critic; Gail Wynand, the omnipotent yet flawed and lonely publishing mogul: all of these characters are caricatures lacking the complexity of real people.

Howard Roark, the protagonist of the story, is also an exaggeration of pure genius and self-interest. Roark may have been better portrayed as an artist rather than an architect, because at least an artist has more opportunity to create without the impediments facing practicing architects. Even then, no human being, save sociopaths, could be as cold and devoid of emotion as Roark.

I was reminded again of the flaws of The Fountainhead last November when I read an excellent blog post by Josh Stephens on the urban planning website Planetizen. The post, titled Deconstructing a Tea Party Muse, discusses the worrying trend of U.S. citizens involved in the 'Tea Party' movement subscribing to the Randian notions of 'individualism' (i.e. self-interest) without concern for broader social aims.

It is well documented that Ayn Rand's objectivist ideology is essentially a reaction to Soviet Communism. Communism, in its pure ideological form, was a disaster, as was proven by the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of Maoism. Yet it is not communism, or its ideological opposite, individualism, that are at the root of conflict. The problem is the very notion of ideology itself.

Contrary to what many believe, the world is not binary, consisting only of 'either-or' absolutes. The world is fluid, different cultures see things through different interpretations. The Tea Party movement fails to see the world as it is, instead accusing anyone associated with anything other than rampant individualism a 'socialist' or a 'communist'- words that have lost their meaning due to their gross overuse.

Ideology of any form is dangerous, whether it be a political system or religious dogma. It is human nature to search for meaning, to make sense out of the chaotic environment around us. Ideology provides an easy solution. Unfortunately human nature is also fickle and emotions easily trump pure logic.

Perhaps this would be too unnerving a reality to face for the Tea Party free-market ideologues, radical Islamist militant groups, evangelical Christians, or any other group that strictly adheres to a fundamental set of beliefs that leaves no breathing room for differing opinions or interpretations. The further clashing of belief systems in an ever-connected world is a grim prospect indeed.

New Blog: China Urban Development Blog

2010-09-13T14:31:00.001+08:00

My apologies for the long delay on updating this blog. My most recent NewGeography article about China, Distilling China's Development, received a great deal of positive feedback and encouragement from readers to write more about China's urban development. Given that there appears to be a strong demand for information and analysis about the current state of affairs (and also because I currently live over here), I opted to create a new blog focusing specifically on China-related urban issues.

The new blog,China Urban Development Blog, will cover all issues related to urban development in China, including, but not limited to: the housing market, transportation infrastructure, architecture, historic preservation, social issues and macroeconomic development. In addition, special attention will be paid to China's 2nd and 3rd tier cities, which are currently in the throes of massive change, following on the heels of development in Beijing and Shanghai which were first to initiate large-scale urban reforms.

I will continue to maintain this blog as more of a personal channel through which to discuss architecture and urbanism issues that are non-China related. Although expatriated, as an American I still take a very great interest in the issues facing urban development in the Unites States. China and the U.S. have a lot to learn from each other, despite their very different histories and cultures. My aim is to strike a balance, find common ground, and come to conclusions that will ultimately help both prosper and build successful cities for the 21st Century.

Floating China's Currency Will Not Bring Manufacturing Jobs Back to the U.S.A.

2010-07-12T14:25:00.004+08:00

Many urbanists (myself included) lament the demise of manufacturing in the once great industrial cities across America. As such, urban planners have taken to proposing various solutions to revitalizing these decaying regions. Prior to the Great Recession, many of these solutions promoted the Silicon Valley mantra of information technology and knowledge work to lure what is known as the creative class. That idea failed to materialize, so now it seems urban policy wonks have thrown in the towel so to speak and shifted gears to discussing the best way to ‘shrink’ cities in post-industrial decline.

The dialogue regarding the death of manufacturing in America has been going on for at least a couple decades, perhaps beginning with Michael Moore’s 1989 documentary Roger & Me, where he examines the dire impact of General Motors assembly plant closures in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. Moore’s film incites a gloomy outlook for Flint’s future as he shows local leaders hopelessly vacillate over ways to replace lost jobs. More than 20 years later, Flint’s future doesn’t look any brighter than it did back then.

Flint is just one representative example of an American city in post-industrial decline. Among planners and urbanists, Detroit is the preferred charity case (Aaron Renn did a good summary of Detroit interventions in this NewGeography piece last year). Yet Detroit and Flint, which seem to get an inordinate amount of attention, are far from the only problem cases in the U.S. As a matter of fact, the loss of manufacturing has affected the whole country in a way that is perhaps not fully grasped in the same way the physical manifestation of a derelict city is.

The reality is that development equals opportunity and America is currently severely lacking in both. This affects the national morale as people continue to be wary about their future prospects. Unfortunately, ‘development’ as it is traditionally conceived, is directly at odds with the green movement. When it comes to new and proposed regulations regarding carbon emissions, hardly anyone in America today would be in favor of a large-scale factory building campaign. Furthermore, industries such as single-family home construction have failed to become a model of long-term sustainable employment. Certainly, at the beginning of the Millennium the home-building industry employed everyone from construction workers to mortgage brokers to city planners, but in the end the results of the boom proved to be disastrous.

One only needs to visit a city in China like Chongqing or Dongguan (among dozens of others) to get a quick reality check about how the paradigm of opportunity has shifted eastward over the Pacific. It is not only the ‘cheap labor’ pool that has helped China rise to prominence, but the organizational structure of the top-down planning model. Surely, there are many other places around the world where one can find cheap labor but what has been China’s strength is the development of infrastructure, both physical and social, to allow growth to take place.

American companies have benefited tremendously from China’s global rise and low cost of doing business, so it is hypocritical for members of the U.S. Congress to criticize China over its ‘currency manipulation’. Rather than finding solutions, U.S. politicians are busy pointing fingers at the big red straw-man assuming that if China lets the value of its currency increase, manufacturing jobs will somehow magically come back to America. This is highly delusional thinking. China commentator Shaun Rein drives this point home in a February article for BusinessWeek when he states:

“China bashers are raising expectations too high with dubious assertions that if the yuan were revalued, manufacturing jobs would suddenly move back to the U.S. and the trade surplus would be reduced. If manufacturers found costs were too high in China, they wouldn't return to the U.S. They would just move to countries such as Vietnam and export back to the U.S. from even lower-cost production centers.”

So, in essence, America’s manufacturing demise is not a ‘China problem’ but rather an American one. Until politicians start focusing inward, opportunity and upward mobility for America’s future generations look bleak. There are always the techno geeks who believe that America’s future of opportunity lies solely in knowledge work. Realistically though, not every American is going to become a computer software engineer designing the latest ‘killer app’ for the iPhone. Even more unnerving is the prospect of knowledge work being outsourced, which is already happening as ever more Asians master the language of computer programming.

Where does this leave America? Well, there appears to be no easy solution as global competition continues to grow. Government regulation preventing U.S. companies from outsourcing overseas does not seem to be in vogue, nor does trade protectionism make any sense in this day and age. Curiously enough, America’s strength lies in its cultural capital as the preeminent model for successful economic progress that is currently emulated by developing nations. Perhaps it is time America takes a cue from its own past glory and once again adopts an ambitious large-scale development program. Until this happens at a national level, America’s free fall will continue and urban planners will keep busy debating the best way to ‘shrink’ Detroit and possibly many more once-great American cities.

Style and the Pretense of 'Parametric' Architecture

2010-06-01T17:15:00.048+08:00

'Algorithmic Housing' project in Shanghai by Marcin Pilsniak:
an exercise in 'parametric' frivolity

The word style is a pariah within the realm of high architectural design. Mention the word in any self-respecting design school and you are most likely to be mocked with derision. After all, an aspiring designer with cutting-edge ideas should not be held slave by the tyranny of history. Unfortunately, the disconnect between how the public versus design professionals see and evaluate architecture directly undermines the ability of the architecture profession to be understood or respected in a meaningful way.

In a recent piece for The Architects’ Journal, architect Patrik Schumacher attempts to counteract this disconnect by fully embracing the notion of style and acknowledging that outside of the design professions, style is ‘virtually the only category through which architecture is observed and recognized.’ Schumacher, a partner at Zaha Hadid Architects, uses this notion to argue in favor a new style dubbed parametricism. He proclaims, “Parametricism finally offers a credible, sustainable answer to the drawn-out crisis of modernism that resulted in 25 years of stylistic searching.”

The ‘25 years of stylistic searching’ refers to the period dominated by the reactionary architectural movements post-modernism and deconstructivism. Schumacher argues that these were not styles per se but rather ‘transitional episodes.’ This is his first mistake. However short-lived post-modernism and deconstructivism were, both movements share particular characteristics that can be classified as a style. His second mistake is to arrogantly assert that parametricism will somehow be above these two in its ability to create a ‘hegemonic unified style’.

There are many troubling things about parametricism, not the least of which being that most of the products of this particular style are aesthetically egregious. Yet the notion of parametricism, when thought of as a process rather than a style, is not inherently a bad thing. As a matter of fact, parametrics, or the definition of systems which are based on relationships, is quickly becoming a powerful tool for architects to design buildings faster and more efficiently than ever before.

But in his article, Schumacher is not talking about parametricism as a process but rather explicitly propagating a new type of aesthetic expression that is made possible by the power of computer modeling software. Exploiting technology to create new forms might seem revolutionary on the surface, but without broader social aims the movement is likely to quickly fall out of fashion.

A Modern History of Architectural Style

In his revolutionary 1908 essay, Ornament and Crime, Vienna architect Adolf Loos declared that architectural ornamentation was nothing short of a criminal act. He claimed that the truly modern man had no use for superfluous decoration on his home or dress, and compared architectural ornamentation to the tattoos of ‘degenerates and criminals’. Loos was of course rallying against the popular architectural style of the time, Art Nouveau.

With Ornament and Crime, Loos set the tone for the next century of architectural design. His message reached far and wide, influencing everyone from members of the Bauhaus to California-based immigrant architects Rudolph Schindler and Richard Neutra (both of whom happened to be students of Loos back in their native Austria). This new class of architecture, characterized by clean lines, right angles, smooth surfaces and neutral colors, came to be known as modern architecture.

Yet the first participants in the new modern style of architecture did not consider it a style at all, but rather an ideological movement (‘modern-ism’) – a complete rejection of the historical notion of ‘style’. Why should say, a house, be bound to the laws of architectural history when it could instead be, as Le Corbusier famously said, a ‘machine for living in’? The social agenda of the Modernists not only included a rejection of style, but also emphasized a new way of living for the masses. According to the Modernists, the key to living an enlightened existence was to put faith into the religion of technology.

By the latter half of the 20^th Century, a backlash against the purist dogma of modernism emerged. Beginning with Jane Jacobs’ 1961 extraordinary treatise against the pitfalls of modern urban planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she not only attacked the destructive policies of development but also the dehumanizing architecture of Le Corbusier-inspired public housing projects. Following in 1966, American architect Robert Venturi released his ‘gentle manifesto’, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture; a refutation of ‘the puritanically moral language of orthodox Modern architecture.’

Venturi’s manifesto is in direct contrast to Loos’s Ornament and Crime. Where Loos derided ornamentation, Venturi celebrated it. Venturi went a step further in 1972 when he released Learning from Las Vegas along with his collaborators Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. Learning was a major breakthrough in architectural discourse as it signaled a paradigm shift away from the archetypal Modern architect as ‘omnipotent creator’ peering down at his unenlightened subjects from the ivory tower. Instead, Venturi and company courageously embodied a contrarian attitude by discovering the crass banality of American life in the Mojave Desert boomtown.

Venturi’s explorations led to what would later be known as post-modern architecture. The related movement, broadly referred to as post-modernism, permeated not only architecture but other disciplines as well (art, fashion, cinema, literature, philosophy, etc…) and sought to come to terms with the condition of ‘late-capitalism’. In other words, post-modernism embraced plurality, subjectivity, and uncertainty as truths (whereas under the Modernist paradigm, ‘technology and progress’ were the only truths).

Although today the world arguably remains in a state of postmodernity, the architectural community has since rejected the post-modern mantra. It seems that despite the attempts of Venturi and others to reconnect architectural expression with the common language of man (in contrast to the cold, geometric abstractions of modernism), consensus regarding post-modern architecture is that it was a collective error in stylistic and aesthetic judgment. This is too bad, as post-modernism is now judged within architectural circles as an unfortunate ‘style’ rather than a useful method to analyze the communicative and symbolic capabilities of architecture.

Following post-modernism, an unapologetically cynical style of architecture emerged. Deconstructivism did not do much to enhance the quality of architectural dialogue among the public but rather established a new basis for formal genesis: the ‘chaotic state of a globalized world’. Like its stylistic older brother, post-modernism, deconstructivism looked to define a novel architectural language. Practiced by architects such as Daniel Libeskind, Zaha Hadid, Bernard Tschumi and Peter Eisenman, deconstructivist architecture is characterized by its jutted angles, fragmented appearance and rough sculptural qualities.

UFA-Cinema Center in Dresden, Germany by Coop Himmelb(l)au:
Typical example of deconstructivist architecture

Parametricism: A Continuation of Deconstructivism

In the end, post-modernism and deconstructivisim are two sides of the same architectural coin. Both sought to counteract the aesthetic poverty and failed social agenda of modernism. Parametricism is not much different from deconstructivism in its disorderly physical appearance. Yet instead of the tilted planes and sharp angles of deconstructivism, parametric architecture takes on a ‘blob-like’ formal expression. The supposed social benefits of both styles are not much different either. As Schumacher explains in his article:

“Parametricism aims to organize and articulate the increasing diversity and complexity of social institutions and life processes within the most advanced centre of post-Fordist network society.”

It’s a nice sound bite for sure, but contradictory in its execution. Certainly, especially in the Western world, we are living in an evolving ‘post-Fordist network society’. This does not mean we need to make all of our new buildings look like blobs, though. If anything, ‘network society’ is unsympathetic to architectural form and renders it meaningless. What does it matter if we live on the 75^th floor of a crystalline skyscraper in Dubai or a cookie-cutter suburban home in Atlanta, as long as we are digitally connected?

Strangely enough, while the physical form of buildings has become ever more meaningless in our network society, the tools which we use to connect have taken on a more prominent role on fulfilling our design needs. Think of the stylish mobile phones, the iPads- these gadgets satisfy the design niche of representing current social zeitgeist better than a piece of architecture ever could.

Disrespectful of Reality, Better Suited for Virtual Worlds

Given that there is no social need for parametricism as a new 'epochal style,' is there any other value that these type of designs can provide? For wealthy developers looking to awe the public with unconventional buildings, the parametric blobs will most likely achieve a purpose. But after the initial shock of seeing something different, the public will realize just how hideous and useless these creations are and the style will quickly lose favor. Thankfully, parametricism will probably never become prolific within the built environment due to the exponential costs of constructing such unconventional forms. In fact, to this day the majority of parametric designs are confined to the realm of ‘paper architecture’, with few built works aside from small pavilions and art installations.

'Blob Wall' - a parametric art installation by architect Greg Lynn

Parametricism is also disrespectful of cities. Examining various renderings of proposals for parametric designs for infill projects will confirm this. Anti-contextual and disregarding classic architectural principals such as scale and proportion, parametric designs are better suited for the virtual worlds of video games and science-fiction movies. Just because we have the software to produce buildings that look like the ‘pods’ from The Matrix does not mean that we should build them.

Desperately Seeking Relevance in an Indifferent World

Credit should be given to Mr. Schumacher for being bold enough to be one of the first to declare parametricism as a legitimate style. And to be sure, the fact that top architecture schools around the world have adopted the parametric mantra adds some legitimacy to his argument. Ultimately though, his cause ends up missing the mark. Instead of engaging with the real world tackling relevant issues, Schumacher continues the tradition of myopic insularity within the avant-garde circles of the architectural profession.

While post-modernism as a style is no longer popular, the lessons of Venturi and the Postmodernists are now more pertinent than ever. The world is increasingly globalized and absolutes are still giving way to ever-more pluralism. Schumacher directly refutes this reality and even claims that parametricism must ‘combat stylistic pluralism.’ He continues by stating:

“The mainstream has, in fact, returned to a form of pragmatic modernism with a slightly enriched palette; a form of eclecticism mixing and matching elements from all modernism’s subsidiary styles. The inability of post-modernism and deconstructivism to formulate a new viable paradigm led to the return of modernism in the guise of minimalism as the only consistent, ideologically stringent style that confronts parametricism today. The primary confrontation in the struggle for stylistic hegemony is thus between parametricism and minimalism.”

Schumacher never explains why ‘pragmatic modernism with a slightly enriched palette’ is inferior to parametricism. He assumes that it is inferior because it builds upon lessons of the past and is not totally new and flamboyant. But in fact some of the finest architecture being built today is by architects whose work could be described as minimalist. Architects like Peter Zumthor, Tadao Ando, Kengo Kuma, and David Chipperfield design buildings that are formally understated, yet rich in materiality and spatial experience. They rely on classic design principles and a modern vocabulary to create buildings that appropriately respond to context while at the same time remain dignified and novel without resorting to gimmicks.

If anything, Schumacher’s article is timely as it represents the death rattle of the architecture profession as it is now conceived. To posit that parametricism is the ‘next big thing’ is nothing more than a poorly-veiled attempt at desperately seeking relevance and recognition in a world indifferent to the feelings of the architect. As the past 2-3 years of global economic slowdown has clearly demonstrated, the architecture profession and the livelihood of its practitioners are inextricably tied to the state of global financial systems. Coincidentally, the development of parametricism as a style took place during a time when economies were flush with credit– possibly giving the false impression that such creations would have the unlimited budgets to be built someday.

With the exception of a few Middle East Sheikdoms and to an increasingly lesser extent, China, the potential market for parametric architecture is fairly limited. This is not to say that the style will die-out overnight. Rather, parametricism is likely to continue being promoted in architecture schools as cutting-edge for a few more years before the trend wears itself out. Until then, Schumacher and his ilk would be better suited by spending their time preparing for a career change to video game design or developing a Second Life avatar.

Schumacher ends his piece by proclaiming, "Parametricism is ready to go mainstream. The style war has begun." What he doesn't realize yet is that he has already lost the war.

San Francisco Supervisors to Developers: Not In Our Backyard!

2010-04-30T17:27:00.078+08:00

Rendering of the rejected proposal 555 Washington St.

with the Transamerica Pyramid behind

San Francisco reaffirmed its position as the most antagonistic to development city in America once again when it rejected a proposal for a new 38-story condo tower two weeks ago. The tower at 555 Washington Street, designed by local architecture firm Heller Manus, takes the form of a torqued cylinder, adding what would be a graceful and understated new member to the San Francisco skyline. Yet nice design does not matter when it comes to politics. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to turn down the proposal based on an EIR (environmental impact report) study that they claimed was 'fatally flawed'.

Preparing an environmental impact report is a fairly standard procedure for new development projects in California - this is in accordance with CEQA (The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970) which makes submitting an EIR a requirement for approval. Developers are cognizant of this and accept the up front costs of putting together an EIR in order to proceed with building their project. In the case of 555 Washington St., the developer had already spent upwards of $6 million dollars before the EIR was finally rejected. According to the developer representative, Andrew Segal, recirculating the EIR would cost an additional $1 million - an amount that essentially kills the project.

Real estate developers tend to have a negative reputation in the eyes of the public. To many, they are a ruthless, greedy and unscrupulous group of people out to destroy historic neighborhoods and natural habitats with their irresponsible yet highly profitable building projects. And to be sure, this reputation is not entirely unfounded. Stories like the epic battle between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses and historically-based fictional narratives like the movie Chinatown have influenced the public consciousness to a point where the 'evil developer' has become a cultural archetype.

Preventing irresponsible development is why we have checks and balances like EIR studies and city planning commissions in the first place. Yet, San Francisco, notorious for its anti-development climate, takes the 'evil developer' archetype much too far. For a city that flaunts itself as a paragon of sustainability, San Francisco contradicts itself when it shoots down projects that would increase density - which would allow more people to call the city home. Instead, the lack of new development activity keeps prices unaffordable for the middle-class, contributing to the much despised 'sprawl' seen at the eastern fringes of the Bay Area. The hypocrisy is so palpable in fact that even Chris Daly, one of the most left-leaning San Francisco Supervisors, purchased a house in exurban Fairfield for his family last year.

I will concede that the developer for 555 Washington St. took an enormous risk by proposing a tower that exceeds the height limit of the site by 230 ft. In a last-ditch attempt at saving the project, the developer told the Board of Supervisors that they would lower it to comply with the 200 ft. height limit, but to no avail. This brings up another problematic issue in regards to development in San Francisco: zoning.

Architects are usually the first ones to take the blame for the poor aesthetics of a building - especially with something as visible and prominent as a skyscraper. Yet what most people do not realize is that zoning codes (building use, height limit, floor-to-area ratio, setbacks, bulk limits, etc...) set forth by local municipalities is what dictates the parameters of what can be built on a given site. This means architects must comply with these constraints when designing a project. All too often, complying with zoning codes while at the same time fulfilling the needs of the developer leads to a building that lacks proportional harmony. Architects can only do so much to 'dress-up' a building that is proportionally flawed. Poorly conceived zoning codes is why there are so many 'ugly boxes' dotting the skylines of American cities, not architects.

With the consideration of skyline aesthetics, it becomes apparent as to why the developer and architect for 555 Washington St. took the risk of breaking the height limit. At a height of 430 ft., the building still complies with the allowable F.A.R. (floor-to-area ratio) of the site. Early on, the design team probably realized that if they complied with the 200 ft. height limit while maximizing the F.A.R., the result would be a short, squat-looking building. Instead, they took a leap of faith and came up with a design that is proportionally sound and adds dynamism to the San Francisco skyline without being visually arrogant. Not only does the taller, slender tower look better aesthetically, the smaller footprint means that the developer could propose expanding the adjacent Redwood Park - which would create more open space for the city.

Ultimately none of this mattered to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Despite the effort put forth by the developer and the design team, the Board defaulted to their usual NIMBY stance and were able to play into the 'evil developer' archetype by claiming that the EIR was too lackadaisical. The failure of 555 Washington St. to get approval is especially harsh at a moment when most development in the U.S. is still frozen due to the unwillingness of banks to give out construction loans. Not only would've 555 Washington St. added much-needed residential square-footage to the city, it would've provided hundreds of construction jobs for unemployed workers.

One can only hope that other American cities do not follow the San Francisco model of (anti)development. While the majority of Americans are likely to continue preferring the suburban model of low-density living in the future, there remains a growing market of Americans who would instead opt for an urban lifestyle were it more affordable. In conclusion, I'll leave you with a New York Times blog post by Harvard Professor Ed Glaeser, who does an excellent job of articulating the need for more tall buildings in regards to the issue of housing affordability in cities: Taller Buildings, Cheaper Homes.

U.S. - China Trade Complications

2010-04-13T10:30:00.091+08:00

Chinese President Hu Jintao is in Washington D.C. this week meeting with Barack Obama and other world leaders for the 'Nuclear Security Summit'. While the ominous discussion is likely to be focused on containing the nuclear threat to the world, underlying the meeting between Hu and Obama will be issues of trade. But before the U.S. goes on pushing China to revalue its currency in order to re-balance the trade deficit, the U.S. needs to take a good hard look at itself to understand why there is such an imbalance in the first place.

I am no economist, but I was flabbergasted by Paul Krugman's NY Times Op-Ed piece last month about pressing China over its 'currency manipulation'. It is rather audacious to suggest that the U.S. press China to increase the value of the renminbi (RMB), given that it is U.S. companies that have directly benefited from the cheap cost of labor in China for at least the past two decades. Hypocritical to say the least, that the U.S. press China only now on increasing the value of the RMB just as the country is beginning to enjoy the prosperity from being the 'world's factory'.

One American company that has benefited greatly from China's economic rise is General Motors. GM, headquartered, rather ironically, in the poster-child for American de-industrialization, Detroit, is one of the top selling automotive brands in China. Just this week, the company announced that annual sales may top 2 million in China - 4 years ahead of schedule. This is great news for GM executives and shareholders but meaningless to the average unemployed American auto-worker. Don't think for a second that those millions of new cars for Chinese consumers will be manufactured in America by American workers - nope - they are being made in the same market where they will be consumed. The United Auto Workers have already voiced their lament on this subject (UAW Furious Over New GM Plant in China), but to no avail.

Auto-makers are not the only American companies that have benefited tremendously from the low-cost of doing business in China. Santa Clara, California-based computer chip maker Intel has expanded its base in China to not only include manufacturing facilities but research and development facilities as well. This is unnerving because it means that China is no longer just a 'cheap place to manufacture things' but is also now a cheaper alternative for American companies looking to expand their R&D work. The outsourcing of knowledge work from the U.S. means that even highly-educated engineers and programmers will see their jobs moving overseas.

Outsourcing from the U.S. in search of cheaper labor is not a recent phenomenon but has been going on for some time now. CEO and corporate executives have said the same thing to justify these actions: "It's good for business" and "it benefits the American consumer because we will be able to deliver products at cheaper prices". While the latter statement has some truth to it, I believe that it is no longer a proper justification. How will Americans be able to consume anything if they don't have any money to spend because they don't have any income because they don't have any jobs?!?

Which brings us back to the issue of the value of the Chinese RMB. Currently, 1 U.S. dollar buys 6.85 RMB. Krugman and others suggest that this exchange rate undermines America's ability to compete with China in terms of manufacturing and exports. Well of course! This is an insulting revelation because it did not take a Nobel Prize-winning economist to figure it out - GM, Intel and others already knew this a long time ago. Even if China theoretically did raise the value of the RMB overnight, this would do nothing to bring manufacturing jobs to the U.S. - companies would just go somewhere cheaper like Vietnam, the Philippines or Indonesia.

But China will not do this because it would completely wreck their economic traction. Chinese leaders know this, and are very aware of the threats to social order that a devastated domestic economy would cause within their country. Not only would manufacturing jobs be lost, but a rapid rise in RMB value would inflate an already-shaky real estate bubble to astronomical proportions. Instead, Chinese leaders are doing all they can to keep a steady growth and avert catastrophe. Keeping the RMB valued at a low rate is critical in achieving this goal. If China does raise the value of the RMB in the near future, it most likely will be a just small increase to appease international pressure.

Furthermore, anything coming out of the U.S. Congress or President Obama pressuring China over the RMB value should be viewed by Americans as nothing more than political grandstanding. Indeed, Obama just refused to give a timeframe for China to act on the RMB. This proves that the talk coming out of Washington is nothing more than empty rhetoric meant to appease a clueless American populace looking for an easy scapegoat for their economic woes.

Readers of this blog might be wondering why I am talking about international trade and economics when my focus tends towards architecture and urbanism. The reason is because the the future of American cities lies on the ability of the U.S. to reinvigorate it's economy, and vice-versa. The industrial wastelands of the rust-belt are not an acceptable model for the future of the U.S. - nor are the over-priced consumption playgrounds of the 'luxury cities' like New York or San Francisco acceptable either. But in order to go about improving our cities and economy, we need to first tell the truth about why things are the way they are instead of blaming a straw-man (China, immigrants, terrorism, Iran, etc...) for all of our troubles.

2010 Pritzker Prize Winner(s): Japan's SANAA

2010-04-02T11:48:00.038+08:00

Residential project by SANAA in Gifu, Japan

As an institution celebrated primarily by architects and the cultural elite, news of the annual Pritzker Prize typically eludes the general public's radar. This is unfortunate and reflects the ongoing reality that despite its ubiquity in the everyday world, most people fail to actively notice the art of building. The Pritzker Prize, sometimes referred to as the 'Nobel Prize for Architecture', does its part in helping to abate architectural apathy by bestowing its international honor upon a deserving practitioner each year.

Last week it was announced that the Japanese architectural duo SANAA would be the recipient of the 2010 Pritzker. Consisting of Kazuyo Sejima and her partner Ryue Nishizawa, SANAA's work is characterized by its delicate sensitivity and lightness. The architects are also masters at crafting spaces that play with the notion of transparency/translucency - giving their buildings an ephemeral quality.

Similar to last year's Pritzker recipient, Peter Zumthor, SANAA are quiet iconoclasts and unapologetic minimalists. This speaks volumes about the current architectural zeitgeist: specifically that the maxed-out deconstructivist building forms might finally be out of vogue. Hopefully this shift will stir architects and designers away from the whimsical swoops and jutted angles of the past two decades in favor of the more essential and timeless qualities of architecture.

Above the Chaos: China's Pedestrian Overpasses

2010-03-11T12:03:00.057+08:00

China's chaotic streets

Crossing the street in any of China's cities is a harrowing experience. In the U.S. one of the primary tenets of driving is that the 'pedestrian always has the right of way' regardless of if they are jaywalking or not. In China, expecting automobiles to yield to you as a pedestrian (even when you have a green crossing signal) would be a huge mistake. Not only are cars, buses, and electric bikes reluctant to put on their breaks, they will blare their horns while coming at you to warn you to get the hell out of the way.

Chinese pedestrians think nothing of this reality as it is what they are accustomed to, yet being a foreigner from America I always become slightly frustrated at what I perceive to be the rude behavior of the drivers. Some attribute the non-existent driving courtesy to the fact that mass personal car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon in China. As such, the theory goes, it will take time for drivers to develop the sense of respect for pedestrians, not to mention other drivers on the road.

While China's driving culture sees no sign of evolving anytime soon, local governments have taken action to make walking the streets less hazardous for people by constructing footbridges over heavily trafficked roads and highways in cities all over the country. Beijing, renown for its wide boulevards, is a prime example of where these pedestrian bridges can be seen throughout the city. In many places, these bridges are an extension of the street in the sky where vendors sell everything from pirated DVDs and socks to small electronics and other trinkets. Some bridges even serve as landmarks that act as popular meet up spots for friends.

In Chengdu, the provincial capital of Sichuan, where I currently reside, the pedestrian overpass is a very recent development. Local English-language blog Chengdu Living has taken notice of this and posted a write-up discussing some of the pluses and minuses of these brand new structures.

One notable fact about Chengdu's new footbridges is the speed at which they have gone up around the city. Just at the beginning of February, I recall traversing the local streets and seeing the bridge kit-of-parts in neat piles on the side of the road along prominent arteries like the 1st Ring Road and Kehua Beilu - a heavily foot-trafficked road adjacent to Sichuan University. Just a little over three weeks later, just as everyone was returning from the Chinese New Year Holiday, several of the new bridges were already assembled and ready for use.

The new pedestrian overpasses of China are unlikely to get the same media recognition that the flashy new skyscrapers and huge infrastructure projects receive. Yet, from the standpoint of an urbanist, it is important to acknowledge the role that these simple structures play in defining the ever-changing character of the Chinese city.

The New Sensualist: Architect Kengo Kuma

2010-02-21T13:28:00.049+08:00

Great (Bamboo) Wall House project - just outside of Beijing

Traditional Japanese architecture is known for its precision, connection with nature, and delicate use of materials (primarily natural wood). The influence of this long architectural tradition is strongly perceptible in the work of Japanese architect Kengo Kuma. Similar to other New Sensualist architects, Kuma's work adheres to a rigorous minimalist aesthetic with atmospheric results.

Back in 2006 I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Kuma at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). One point he mentioned that stuck with me is the great amount of time and attention he devotes to a given design project. Having worked in the profession myself for a few years, I have noticed that there is a definite correlation between time spent designing and thinking about the details of a project and the quality of the final product.

Unfortunately, devoting an abundant amount of billable hours to designing the intricacies of a project does not pencil out from a business perspective for most practicing architects (nor will clients see the value in paying for such time). As such, reaching the level of refinement that Kuma does with his buildings is no easy task.

At the time of the LACMA lecture, most of the projects he presented were of a smaller scale: home and pavilion designs. And to be sure, the kind of command over detail that Kuma expressed as part of his design philosophy is more easily achieved in smaller projects as opposed to huge mega-developments. So it was much to my surprise when I learned that it was none other than Kuma himself who was the architect behind one of Beijing's most new and popular upscale shopping areas, the Sanlitun Village.

Sanlitun Village shopping center - Beijing

Sanlitun Village is a deviation from Kuma's earlier portfolio of work in terms of scale yet it retains the sense of material sophistication present in his other work. In this case, Kuma is playing subtlety with glass forms. And rather than using colored glass as it appears in the above image, Kuma has specified colored window shades to give the effect of a dynamic colored facade pattern. This is smart planning in that in the future the shades could be replaced to give another reading of the facades.

The Opposite House Hotel - Beijing

If Sanlitun Village was not enough, Kuma also designed the adjacent boutique hotel dubbed The Opposite House. Like the Village, The Opposite House employs glass panels with colored shades to give the facade its appearance. Once inside the lobby, the wood floors and minimal interiors hearken back to his earlier works.

Rising on the other side of Workers' Stadium North Road from Sanlitun Village and The Opposite House is yet another Kengo Kuma-designed mega-project: Sanlitun SOHO. Scheduled to open this year, Sanlitun SOHO is conceived as a 'compact city' or a 'city within a city'. Due to its large scale and diverse mix of uses (office, residential, retail, park space), Sanlitun SOHO is bound to become a Beijing landmark. The organic forms of the towers and playful facades give the architecture a soft touch in spite of its grand size.

Sanlitun SOHO under construction

It is highly encouraging that an architect such as Kuma, who is reputed for thoughtful and detailed design, is being awarded contracts that will leave a significant mark on the urban fabric for years to come. The success of Sanlitun Village as a popular urban space (albeit a private and controlled space) is a testament to the power of architecture to incite attraction. Large-scale urban development is often criticized for being insensitive and cataclysmic but as Kuma's Sanlitun projects demonstrate it does not always have to be.

China, The U.S. and the Politics of High-Speed Rail

2010-02-03T11:06:00.127+08:00

China's Passenger Dedicated High-Speed Rail Network

"Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products."

- U.S. President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010

For years the European passenger rail systems have been the envy of Americans who have gone abroad for travel, study or business in the continent. High-speed trains are not only a fast and efficient way to get from point A to point B, they also provide a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere for viewing the passing geography.

Europe isn't the only place that has well-developed high-speed trains. Japan is also reputed for its Shinkansen bullet train which has served the country for several decades. When the first high-speed line opened between the economic hubs of Tokyo and Osaka in 1964, it revolutionized the way the Japanese did business in their country. Now, 45 years later, Japan's East Asian neighbor, China, is raising the bar of passenger rail travel to a new level.

Like everything else in China, the country's high-speed train network is developing at unfathomable speed. Instead of building one line at a time, several lines are under construction simultaneously; including both national scale passenger-dedicated lines and more localized 'intercity' lines. Speeds for these new trains are designed to go anywhere from 250 km/h to 350 km/h (155 MPH - 217 MPH).

China's new CRH3 train, designed by Siemens

As if the new skyscrapers weren't enough, China's race to build the most modern, and sophisticated passenger rail system in the world is nothing short of amazing. And while China zooms past the United States regarding rail technology, many Americans are wondering why their country is being left behind in the dust. The answer lies in the substantially different political zeitgeists of the the two countries.

China is a quasi-'command economy' with strong control over national development by the central government in Beijing. This affords China the ability to construct extensive high-speed rail lines quickly without the nuisance of NIMBY-ism. Opposition regarding rights-of-way is highly discouraged and often ignored. Dissenting voices from both within China and outside its borders are quick to point out the negative social impacts that building new large-scale infrastructure can have - primarily on displacing residents who are 'in the way' of new development.

Yet, despite the elements of dissent, there is no question that the majority consensus within China is in favor of development - especially when it comes to the high-speed rail network. This is not only attributable to a strong shared sense of national pride, but also because most Chinese citizens perceive the real benefits of having access to such a network. As the country continues to grow economically, many young Chinese are moving from their hometowns seeking opportunities in the bigger cities - often miles away from where they grew up. Given that there is a cultural emphasis on the value of strong family ties, the psychological comfort that comes along with shrinking travel times (and a cheaper alternative to flying) is very welcome.

So what is going on with high-speed rail in the United States? How come we can't get anything built? Well the good news is that President Obama just the other day approved $8 billion in government grants to help develop high-speed rail across certain regions of the country. $8 billion may sound like a large sum but it pales in comparison to the $300 billion China is spending on their network. Despite this reality, Obama's approval of funds is good to get the ball rolling.

Proposed U.S. High-Speed Rail Corridors

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been a growing grassroots movement in the U.S. that is much in favor of seeing high-speed rail come to fruition. National organizations like the U.S. High Speed Rail Association and regional advocacy groups like the Midwest High Speed Rail Association and Californians For High Speed Rail have been instrumental in raising awareness about the many benefits of high-speed rail and swaying public opinion in favor of development. Unfortunately, there is also a strong opposition to the entire concept of an American high-speed rail network.

It would be nice to say that high-speed rail development is an aspiration in which everyone can agree on the benefits (creates jobs, helps the environment, enhances mobility, etc...) but the reality is that the issue is remarkably politically charged. There are many arguments against high-speed rail, most of which come from the libertarian and conservative realms of the political spectrum. The most frequent argument from this camp being that it is a 'waste of taxpayer dollars'.

The 'waste of taxpayers dollars' mantra is something that has been the battle cry of politicians on the right for as long as I can remember (I was born when Ronald Reagan was President). The 'waste of taxpayer dollars' argument not only applies to high-speed rail but to practically every other political issue ranging from health care to social welfare services. At this point, it is dead argument that has lost all of its credibility and is devoid of meaning.

The 'waste of taxpayer dollars' argument coupled with the selfish culture of 'Not In My Backyard' (NIMBY) is what has crippled the ability to develop large-scale infrastructure in recent years. Surely, the real estate boom from which we are now hungover saw a lot of construction activity but that was mostly relegated to the private sector development in housing. Libertarians (who I agree with on other issues) also use the argument that high-speed rail will not be profitable.

The obsession with privatization and religious devotion to the 'market' hampers libertarians' ability to see any large-scale public undertaking as anything other than 'greedy socialist' money squandering. Last week, Wendell Cox wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal that makes the same points regarding the waste of money that investment high-speed rail will be. Cox suggests that car and air travel will continue to suffice as the primary modes of transportation between American cities.

It is possible that high-speed rail will not be profitable initially given the high cost of construction. But there are potentially greater benefits to the broader economy that are not immediately apparent. For instance, if comprehensive high-speed rail can save money on transportation costs for individuals, there will be more money available to invest in other goods and services. Also, transportation nodes where high-speed trains make stops will be ripe for new real estate development. Finally, the added sense of intercity 'connectivity' make trading and doing business across regional boundaries more efficient.

There really is no reason that those on the right of the political spectrum, for who the idea of 'freedom' is so sacred, should be against developing high-speed rail. If anything, a high-speed rail system will enhance 'freedom' by giving Americans another alternative to intercity transport besides driving or flying. The cost of owning a car (including gas, maintenance, insurance, etc...) is prohibitively expensive and restricts personal savings. Airplanes are great for long distances, but the hassle of going through check-in and security for shorter flights could be avoided with high-speed rail.

This is not to suggest that we should forget about airport or road infrastructure. Referring back to China again - the country is making substantial investments in airports and roads in addition to passenger rail networks. China's love affair with the automobile is just in its infancy - and as incomes continue to rise more people will indefinitely purchase cars. Considered as status symbols by the Chinese 'Nouveau Riche', cars are more likely to be used primarily in the new sprawling cities on a leisurely basis rather than out of necessity such as is the case in the United States. For travel between cities and regions, most Chinese will opt for transportation by high-speed rail or airplane.

It's time for America to move forward. The partisan bickering of American politicians has devolved to a point where the government cannot get things done, nor do many citizens have faith that it can get things done. As President Obama alluded to in his State of the Union Address, the United States was at one point in time a top competitor. Being an American on the ground in China has opened my eyes to the reality that the U.S. is quickly falling behind in its ability to compete. The Chinese political ideology is offensive to many, but regardless of this fact, the country is grabbing hold on the future faster than most Americans are willing to acknowledge. If the U.S. wishes to remain competitive in the 21st Century, complacency needs to subside. Building high-speed rail would be a great start to ending this complacency.

Richard Florida Takes a Beating

2010-01-25T15:37:00.086+08:00

Urban guru Richard Florida

The beginning of 2010 has not been nice to Richard Florida. Starting with an article in The American Prospect by Alec MacGillis earlier this month titled "The Ruse of the Creative Class", the web's urban commentators have been quick to jump on the Florida-bashing bandwagon. Following The American Prospect piece was an elaboration of Florida's flaws by Willy Staley for Next American City. Staley discusses how MacGillis's piece reminds him of The Simpsons episode where the fictional city of Springfield is sold on building a new monorail system by a swindler who then proceeds to skip town stealing the profits. In Staley's mind, Richard Florida is the high-paid swindler who fooled real cities and towns to bank on luring the 'Creative Class' (essentially a post-modern version of 'The Organization Man').

It is hard to imagine anyone paying attention to urban economics during the past decade and not recognizing the name Richard Florida. Florida, famous for his 2002 tome The Rise of the Creative Class, poses the thesis that for cities to be competitive in the 21st Century, they should possess the 'three Ts' of technology, talent and tolerance. His ideas for urban success center around the notion that places ought to focus on attracting knowledge workers (i.e. the 'Creative Class') by catering to their bohemian tastes.

Since garnering fame for his seminal book, Florida has toured the U.S. (and world) promoting his ideas. In the The American Prospect piece, MacGillis takes aim at Florida in what I consider to be an ad hominem attack by questioning the amount of money he earned through paid speaking and consulting gigs. Furthermore, MacGillis implies that Florida is a hypocrite because of a March 2009 article in The Atlantic where he says that some places are beyond recovery.

Staley for the most part agrees with MacGillis's characterization of Florida as a smooth-talking yet hollow evangelist. Joshua Leon, also for Next American City, jumps into the ring for round 3 and delivers a further blow to Florida by poking a hole in his argument for greater geographic mobility. Leon is correct in pointing out that a more mobile workforce is not necessarily good for fostering a sense of local community, nor do many people have the means to just pick up and move to another city where there might be better opportunities. I have made the same point before in regards to Florida's flawed notion of 'city as commodity'.

Yet, even as I have been critical of Richard Florida myself, I do think that his work is not without merit. On the contrary, Florida is very much an urbanist of his time. When I first read The Rise of the Creative Class I could not help but keep thinking back to the place where I grew up: Silicon Valley. Indeed, Florida references Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area quite a bit in his book and dedicates many pages discussing the rise in technological prominence of the region. He cites the Bay's culture of 'openness and tolerance' as one of the primary draws for ambitious entrepreneurs looking to explore new ideas.

Florida made this observation at a time when Silicon Valley had just finished going through the 'dot-com boom' of the late 1990's. And to be sure, it was the Creative Class that was in large part responsible for making the region an economic success story. It is no wonder that other cities and regions (especially ones in post-industrial decline) were quick to embrace Florida's ideas to help attract the much coveted 'creatives'.

Fast-forward to today - nearly 10 years later and in the midst in one of the worst recessions in a generation and we can see why Richard Florida is taking a beating now. The Silicon Valley ethos did not magically replicate itself all over the U.S. transforming every city with economic problems into a bustling technology hub. Furthermore, even the places held as information age paradigms have seen their fair share of suffering and may still face more trouble in the days ahead.

While artist districts, independently owned coffee shops and organic farmers markets are nice additions to any city, they are not nearly as important in attracting workers as the one thing that has brought people to cities for centuries: economic opportunity. One case in point is myself. After the opportunity for new architecture work shriveled up in the U.S. early last year, I hopped on a plane to Beijing. China is certainly not renown for its 'openness and tolerance' but they are building a lot of new buildings in their cities at the moment - and that is exactly why I am here. Strangely enough, as China has improved its economic situation in recent years, so have the creative industries begun to germinate.

The things Florida has been preaching are not 'magic bullets' for economic success. Rather, opportunity, as always, will come first and the amenities that are desired by the Creative Class will follow - it doesn't matter if it is the U.S.A. or China - human nature begs for opportunities that can improve life first.

Although his emphasis on the importance of the Creative Class and their influence may have been overestimated, Florida is a keen observer of trends effecting city development. He is also responsible for engendering a broader interest in the city beyond planners and urban fanatics - which is a great thing. I agree with his notion that 'Mega-Regions' will take the lead in driving emerging economies in the coming years. Though the rise of the Creative Class might be over now, it will be interesting to see what Dr. Florida has in store for us in his upcoming book The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity.

Job Creativity

2010-01-24T17:26:00.008+08:00

Kudos to the New York Times for producing an article about the plight of out-of-work architects. As the most e-mailed story a few days ago, journalist Kristina Shevory does a great job of highlighting the creativity of young unemployed designers. While I sometimes lament that architecture professionals are out-of-touch with the real world, this article goes onto show that when market forces come to bare hardship, young architects are able to flex their creative muscle well beyond the designing of buildings.

Newsweek on the 'Recession Generation'

2010-01-20T11:38:00.037+08:00

Last year I wrote a NewGeography piece titled 'Milllennials' First Recession' about the impact of the economic crisis on the youngest demographic in the workforce. Being part of this group myself, the article was based more on empirical observation of my fellow peers rather than hard data. I noticed that while many of my friends across all sectors had lost their jobs, most people remained optimistic knowing that they still had long careers ahead. Some people moved back home to save money while others applied to graduate school and are now sitting comfortably in the halls of academia waiting for the economy to recover.

Perhaps most encouraging, some of my peers have been able to find full-time employment after being laid-off near the beginning of the recession. Though we are by no means in the midst of a full-on recovery yet, the fact that companies are beginning to open up again to young people is a good sign. Furthermore, the pervasive optimism (not blind, mind you) of Millennials means that the future might not look so dark after all.

Newsweek took the time recently to ponder the influence of the recession on Millennials' future spending habits in an article called 'The Recession Generation'. The writer of the piece, Rana Foroohar, compares this generation to that of those who came of age during the Great Depression. This comparison is meant to imply that as a result of the recession, Millennials are more likely to be savers rather than big-spenders like their Boomer or GenX counterparts.

While the comparison of today's Millennial generation to that of the Depression generation in terms of fiscal responsibility makes sense, that is where the similarity ends. It is important to note that global economic dynamics have changed drastically in the 70-80 years that separates these two periods. First off, it is unlikely that an event like World War II will occur to unite Millennials around a common goal and instill a sense of unified purpose. Secondly, the concept of life-long corporate loyalty, so important to the livelihood of my grandfather's generation, is dead and buried. Social institutions are unreliable and benefits like health insurance and retirement plans are no longer standard incentives offered by companies seeking to minimize overhead costs.

Although Millennials are faced with much more economic uncertainty, this may not be such a bad thing. Instead of building an identity around the corporate brand they work for, Millennials will (and already have been with tools like Facebook and Blogger) need to develop their own personal 'brand' as they gain experience in the working world.

The optimist in me views this recession period as part of the 'creative destruction' process, enabling young people to explore new opportunities that could potentially lead to innovation. Regardless of what happens in the future, the damage has already been done, yet the outlook for the days ahead need not be so dim.

Complexity Creep: A Warning from Kazys Varnelis

2010-01-08T17:26:00.058+08:00

Since the Deconstructivist days of the bleak late 80's/early 90's ended, architectural theory has been in the doldrums. As usually happens during building booms, architectural critics get deliriously hung up on the flamboyant new structures going up around them and take little time for pondering deeper matters. It only makes sense that during this time of prolonged recession that architectural thinkers have the renewed space to reflect upon the philosophical questions of urbanism once again. As such, welcomed new voices are bound to emerge.

One of the most astute rising voices in architectural theory belongs to Columbia University professor Kazys Varnelis. In the most recent issue of the online urbanism journal, Triple Canopy, Varnelis has a discussion with the editors in a piece titled 'The Wrong Way Forward'. The title refers to the creeping complexity of bureaucratic networks and its adverse effect on urban development.

In particular, Varnelis mentions the problematic nature of the 'bottom-up' political approach to development that has evolved over time in the U.S. While well-intentioned, a number of small moves to monitor and regulate urban development has created an environment where building new and beneficial infrastructures in America's cities is next to impossible. This is in contrast to a place like China, where a 'top-down' approach is responsible for engendering the astounding urbanization we are witnessing today.

This is not to suggest that the U.S. should change from a democracy to a more authoritarian model-this would hardly be feasible. Instead, American cities should find ways to reduce the amount of bureaucratic red-tape involved in the development process. Ironically, this is already happening as the recession has forced municipalities to slash budgets and services due to decreased tax revenue.

Towards the end of the Triple Canopy discussion, Varnelis warns of the common trap of myopically searching for 'the next big thing and its close relative, the urge to find a quick fix'. This has been an affliction of the architecture and planning professions in recent years as they have blindly grabbed onto any trend (LEED certification, parametric/generative design, New Urbanism, etc...) that appears to be a panacea for all of society's ills.

Design professionals are generally deluded into thinking that their narrow ideas will have a significant impact on the built environment when in reality it is money, power and politics that ultimately determines what gets built. This reality is especially pronounced in bad economic times like now where there isn't even the money for designers to produce new work.

Instead, architects and planners would better serve both themselves and society by coming down from their technocratic ivory towers and engaging in a deeper understanding of the complexity that surrounds them. This may mean becoming more familiar with subjects other than design. Varnelis drives this point home when he concludes: 'Architecture has always been about much more than just designing buildings.'

Wither San Francisco

2010-01-07T10:04:00.035+08:00

Stockton Street Tunnel

I hate to keep hammering on the precious 'City by the Bay', but please understand that I do it out of love. For many urbanists, there is usually one city, possibly one experienced during childhood, that remains close to heart and provides a lens through which to view other cities. For urban greats like Lewis Mumford and Jane Jacobs, that city was most obviously New York. In his book Invisible Cities, Italian writer Italo Calvino used Venice as the archetype for which a fictionalized Marco Polo describes the otherworldly cities he encountered during his travels. Being a native of the Bay Area, the cardinal influence on my early civic awareness is derived from none other than San Francisco. This is true so much so that back then we even referred to it just as 'The City'.

San Francisco continues to be an anomaly as it is the most famous city in a highly prosperous region (The Bay Area) where it is neither the most populous city nor the economic heart of the region. For a few decades now, the city's economy has been coasting on its 'post-card image' capital: beautiful scenery and charming Victorian architecture. Yet what has probably been most detrimental for San Francisco is its reputation as a bastion of liberal idealism.

The era of social progressivism has officially ended. What is left, especially in San Francisco, is nothing more than a farce-a postmodern bastardization of once noble ideals. The angry spirit of so-called 'progressives' (most often people who are not actually from San Francisco but move to the city so they can live what they think is a utopian 'urban' lifestyle) is embodied by a group of people who participate in events like the Critical Mass.

Critical Mass bikers taking over SF streets

I recall one beautiful October evening walking home from work down Market Street when the wave of Critical Mass bikers came rolling down the street, disregarding traffic laws and running through red lights. As I was crossing the street (legally, as I the pedestrian had the right of way at that moment), I was almost run over by about 10 rogue bikers. While I told them to please respect the pedestrian (hey I was being more 'green' than they were by walking...carbon was spewed into the atmosphere to manufacture those bikes), I got nothing more than a 'FUCK OFF' from one of the female riders.

This little personal anecdote is just one example of the entitled attitude that is pervasive in San Francisco. Much of the responsibility lies with the city's leaders, who have let this entitlement spirit spin out of control. Now, all my gripes have been affirmed by a recent story in SF Weekly titled 'The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S.' The authors, Benjamin Wachs and Joe Eskenazi really nail it with this one as they pick apart the complete dysfunction of the city at the government level. This is an excellent piece that is long over-due and one can only hope that this will be a wake-up call for everyone who cares about San Francisco's future.

Another item that has been circulating around the San Francisco blogosphere lately is the issue of street thugs in the Haight neighborhood. The issue was originally brought to attention last month by SF Chronicle writer C.W. Nevius who called out the thugs on being detrimental to quality-of-life in the area. Surely, anyone who has been down Haight Street in recent years has seen them: young and crusty wannabe pseudo-hippies with nothing better to do than to aggressively harass people just walking down the street.

Apparently, Nevius's story worked and now the issue is being addressed by the San Francisco Police Department. Much credit goes to the city's new Police Chief, George Gascón, who seems to be proactively bringing much-needed reform to the department. This is highly encouraging and I look forward to seeing more policies implemented that discourage harassment on San Francisco's streets.

Anyone reading this blog who does not know me personally might assume, based on what I have just written, that I am an ultra-conservative 'values' voter who would like nothing more than to see San Francisco fall into the Pacific Ocean. On the contrary, I am quite proud of the city's legacy of social justice. I take pride in San Francisco's influential role in the gay rights movement and being a place where diverse groups of immigrants have historically been able to establish communities and work their way up the socioeconomic ladder.

Yet what the city has become today is not acceptable. One should not have to worry about stepping on human feces when walking down the street or getting stabbed by a mentally-deranged person while riding on the Muni, San Francisco's public transportation system. These basic quality-of-life issues are often overlooked by the 'progressives' in City Hall, where money is often squandered on social services that do nothing to enhance livability for the typical resident. San Francisco is blessed to have the assets of natural beauty, architectural charm and a compelling historic narrative. It's time to stop taking these things for granted and respecting the city by making it livable once again.

Reflections on Starchitecture and its Implications on City Life

2009-12-18T21:47:00.030+08:00

The Vdara Hotel & Spa at City Center by Rafael Viñoly Architecture

The end of the year is usually a time of reflection. Looking back, 2009 has been particularly difficult across all sectors given the continued lackadaisical state of the world economy. Although the root of the crisis lies with the questionable practices of the banking and finance industries, the physical manifestation of our troubles is most apparent in the built environment. From the abandoned exurban communities of foreclosed McMansions to half-built luxury skyscrapers in the central cities, our hungover neighborhoods tell the story of a wild credit party of yesteryear.

Just over a year ago, I wrote a piece for NewGeography about 'Architecture in an Age of Austerity'. My intention was to put a spotlight on the connection between built form and economic exuberance in our secular era. Certainly this is a connection made by the media when it mentions large-scale building projects that were planned and designed during the height of the boom only to finish construction during the free fall. Not only is this another reminder of the lagging pace of the design and construction industry, it also provides a glimpse into the recent past.

One such project worth mentioning is the Burj Dubai-the world's tallest skyscraper which is scheduled to open early in January. The design and execution of this building is no small feat-and regardless of the negative social implications, this tower is sure to inspire awe for many years to come. Yet, at a time when more of the general public is becoming concerned with issues like sustainability and allocation of financial resources, the Burj Dubai is bound to stir up controversy. No doubt this will be a pivot journalists use to wag their finger at economic exuberance.

Another project that provides a snapshot of the recent past is the newly opened 'City Center' complex in Las Vegas. Situated on a large super-block prominently on the Strip between the Bellagio and the Monte Carlo, City Center lacks the requisite Vegas-style theatrics of its neighbors. That is not to say City Center does not have a theme, though-it just happens that its theme is 'starchitecture'.

The roster of marquee level architects who contributed building designs to the project is quite impressive: Norman Foster, Rafael Viñoly, KPF, Cesar Pelli, Helmut Jahn, and Daniel Libeskind-not to mention an art installation by Maya Lin. From the view of a pure aesthetic critique, each of the buildings looks beautiful: sleek, modern, and tectonically sound. From the view of an urban critique, the implications of City Center are quite troubling.

Nate Berg, one of the editors at Planetizen, has written an overly sardonic piece criticizing City Center for its phony urbanism. While the approach of the article is not subtle, Berg's frustration with the new development is understandable.

For better or worse, we have reached a point in the history of urbanism where the concept of modern urban life is being used to market private mega-developments. This hijacks what was once sacred about the randomness of civic life and repackages it as a consumer good. Years from now, City Center may represent a turning point where cities have transformed to become mere simulacra of their former selves.

Dubai's Demise: No Big Surprise

2009-12-10T00:19:00.029+08:00

With all the recent media hullabaloo surrounding the Dubai debt crisis, the one thing that I keep asking myself is 'Why is anyone surprised by this?' Long before the global recession came hurling at us like a fastball to the jugular, the seeds were already sown for what would inevitably turn out to be a nosedive for the world's most famous Emirate.

As a general rule, anything that is hyped up as much as Dubai was during the past decade is usually too good to be true. Like Las Vegas on steroids, Dubai was trying to bankroll on the mythical 'tourism and services' industry at a time when it seemed like the credit party would never end. By building the world's largest mall/man-made island/skyscraper, Dubai was able to grab international headlines, yet the novelty of these accomplishments quickly wore off.

Marketing itself as a 'luxury destination' for the global elite was another asinine idea. I am not part of the global wealthy class, but if I were I could imagine countless other places more suitable for a lavish vacation than a sweltering desert prone to sandstorms-try Paris or Hawaii. Even the Saudi sheiks already have the option of party-hearty Bahrain nearby.

Appealing to such a narrow demographic proved to be unsustainable for Dubai as is physically apparent by the scores of unsold residential property sitting empty-not to mention the financial struggles of Dubai World. Yet not everyone is as pessimistic about Dubai's sense of place (or lack thereof) as I am. Harvard economics professor Ed Glaeser takes a more sensible tone in a recent blog post for the New York Times about The Ascent and Fall of Dubai.

Glaeser understands that Dubai's growth over the past decade has been a gamble and acknowledges the fact that is has been sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum's intention to steer the city's development towards that of consumption in order to make it a place worth staying. At the conclusion of Glaeser's entry he states that, "Even if Dubai’s real estate prices continue to drop, which is certainly quite possible, there will remain a strong incentive to fill its buildings. If the structures remain occupied, then Dubai, and its sheik’s dream of a great metropolis, will survive."

I disagree that this will be the case if Dubai continues on it's path towards being a city solely based on 'luxury consumption'. Instead, if Dubai can assert itself as a bastion of economic freedom and social tolerance in an otherwise ultra conservative Middle East, my feeling is that this will better aid the future chances of long terms success.

Le Corbusier the Fascist

2009-12-06T20:29:00.021+08:00

It could be argued that famous historical figures remain in memory not only for their contributions to the world but also for the notoriety stemming from controversial aspects of their work. This is especially true of artists. Le Corbusier, the French/Swiss architect and painter, was one of those artists whose mysterious aura has led to prolonged inquiry into the significance of his legacy.

In most architecture schools, Le Corbusier is regarded as the most important architect of the 20th Century. Based on the vast number of books and articles written about the influential man, this may very well be true. But to claim that his influence was ultimately positive for architecture and urbanism remains a point of contention throughout architecture and planning circles.

Aware of this ongoing debate, the autumn issue of the Manhattan Institute’s quarterly publication, City Journal, takes Le Corbusier to task in an article titled ‘The Architect as Totalitarian’. The author, Theodore Dalrymple, compares Le Corbusier to Pol Pot, the former dictator of Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia). Now, to make this comparison is a bit on the extreme side as Le Corbusier was merely an architect, not a military leader responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Upon further investigation, it becomes clear that the comparison is meant to take aim at Le Corbusier’s urban planning proposals, which in a sense, were designed to commit ‘genocide’ on the historic fabric of cities and start over anew.

Le Corbusier’s famous urban planning concept, misleadingly called the ‘Radiant City’, aimed to rebuild cities from nothing. Even though the Radiant City is most often associated with Corbusier’s plan to rebuild Paris (Plan Voisin), it was his intention that this model of regimented ‘towers in the park’ could be applied internationally to any city, devoid of reference to local context.

There is no doubt that this 'tabula rasa’ approach to urban development reeks of fascism. Corbusier was not subtle about his desire to wipe the slate clean of history and start all over again (Cultural Revolution anyone?). His rationale stemmed from his disgust with the dirty and messy urbanism that plagued cities during the Industrial Revolution. Yet, like the 20th Century authoritarian dictators, he was intellectually lazy and naive in his solutions to the problems posed by industrial development.

Stringent ideology predicated on radical and swift transformation will almost always inevitably lead to chaos. Le Corbusier’s planning ideas have influenced everything from the hideous communist housing blocks of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the abject failure known as the housing projects of inner-city America. Even though he might not have been involved in any bloody revolutions, Le Corbusier’s dangerous legacy has left a permanent scar on the history of urbanism.

The New Sensualist: Architect Peter Zumthor

2009-11-23T09:14:00.035+08:00

Vals Thermal Baths - Photo Courtesy of Simon Vahala

Ask any architect who their favorite architect practicing today is and chances are highly likely they will mention the elusive Swiss designer Peter Zumthor. A true 'architect's architect', Zumthor was awarded this year's Pritzker Prize-the highest honor in the profession. Among admirers around the world, he is regarded as a master of craft; someone who has never compromised the intricacies of his designs in favor of the snapshot image.

Following with his personal philosophy about building, Zumthor's slim manifesto, Thinking Architecture, is minimal in imagery, focusing instead on the careful composition of words which convey the essence of his design process. When he speaks about the atmospheric memories of experiencing architecture as a child, Zumthor comes off Jungian in his descriptions. The theme of the experiential over the cerebral is the common thread that runs through his architectural works.

Like the other New Sensualists, Peter Zumthor's recent ascent in global popularity is a very welcome departure from the frenetic megalomania of 21st Century iconographic architecture. From his humble beginnings as a carpenter's apprentice, to his selectiveness in choosing projects, Zumthor's unique background and architectural process set a new standard for both aspiring architects and clients who wish to commission buildings of timeless quality.

Pay very close attention to Peter Zumthor. His is a name that will surely be mentioned in the design media more frequently in the months and years to come. As he begins to venture outside his native Switzerland and take on international design commissions, it will be interesting to see if he can remain steadfast in the aesthetic integrity that has come to define his portfolio thus far.

San Francisco is Bad for Business

2009-11-16T18:53:00.026+08:00

It is a shame that one of the most scenically renown and charming cities in the world is not the economic powerhouse it once was. Formerly a booming port city of factories and docks that incubated companies like Levi's and Gap, San Francisco has become the poster-child for post-modern stagnation in the Digital Age. For a more comprehensive background on the history and development of the city, I highly recommend the compelling book by Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco.

San Francisco's decline is not like that of other American cities, particularly the Rust Belt metropolises such as Detroit or Cleveland, which relied more on single-industry manufacturing to sustain their growth. Instead, San Francisco has in a sense suffered as a result of its own success. As a geographically constrained, picturesque, and highly sought after destination, the city has become over-time a paragon of NIMBY-ism run amuck; a place where many residents put the status-quo above any kind of beneficial new development.

San Francisco's transformation is well-documented. My editor over at NewGeography, Joel Kotkin, has made the same point before regarding San Francisco's evolution. He puts San Francisco into a category of cities called 'Ephemeral Cities'; cities that are based primarily on lifestyle rather than economic development and upward mobility.

Now we have further evidence of San Francisco's lack of economic chutzpah in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article: 'Building in S.F. not expected to grow for years'. The title of the piece pretty much says it all, yet it should be no great surprise to anyone who has tried to build anything new in the city, even prior to the recession. The inherent problem lies not with developers (there are many well-qualified to undertake large-scale projects in the city) but with the anti-business climate of City Hall, which continues to pander to whiny constituents with nothing better to do than complain about any new change.

As the Chronicle article mentions, there is no demand for new buildings in San Francisco because businesses do not want to deal with the regulations or tax burdens of locating operations there. The trend has been going on for years now as the economic heart of the Bay Area region has shifted south to suburban Silicon Valley. For all the lofty talk about becoming a 'green' city, San Francisco is currently failing miserably at attracting businesses, which would actually help the green case by cutting down on 'reverse-commute' distances for the city's residents.

Oxford University Press 'Place of the Year' 2009: South Africa

2009-11-13T17:03:00.020+08:00

As someone who is constantly reassessing the notion of 'place' and what it means in the 21st Century Digital Age, I am intrigued by different interpretations of the word. For a few years now, the Oxford University Press, who publishes the annual Atlas of the World, has given their own take on the idea of 'place' with the 'Place of the Year' designation.

According to Michelle Rafferty, who is in charge of publicity for the 'Place of the Year' campaign, the selection criteria is not limited to any specific geographic entity-meaning it could be a country, city, or even a street (Michelle tells me that Wall Street made the shortlist last year). This year, the Place of the Year title goes to the country of South Africa.

I have never been to South Africa, nor is it a place that I am familiar with other than the common knowledge about it's modern history as a turbulent colonial state. It makes sense that South Africa wins the title this year as it anticipates the country's ascension to the international stage next year as host of the 2010 World Cup.

Choosing South Africa as 'Place of the Year' also speaks for the entire continent of Africa as it begs the question of if it is indeed a place we should be paying more attention to. There are arguments on both sides about whether hosting the World Cup is a good boost for the economy or a waste of resources that could be invested in more beneficial ventures for South Africa's people. Yet, one thing is clear, the publicity South Africa gets from this worldwide event will not hurt.

China's Bold New Rail Network

2009-11-04T15:06:00.011+08:00

In this week's issue of Newsweek, Duncan Hewitt discusses China's burgeoning high-speed rail network in a piece titled "The Shrinking of China". The article is important for two reasons: for one, it acknowledges the symbolism that such an undertaking will have in uniting the country in a way which highways and air travel cannot. Secondly, it serves as a wake-up call to the United States that China is currently far ahead on developing the most modern and efficient transportation infrastructure in the world.

Recently, I had the privilege of riding the year-old Beijing-Tianjin Intercity Railway mentioned in the article. Upon entering the sleek, stream-lined bullet train, I was in awe of the clean design and comfortable cabs (Yes, I have also been on high-speed trains in Germany and Japan-this has them beat). If this is any indication of what the future looks like for China, then it's huge population is soon going to have the honor of being the most mobile in the world.

Failed Concept: Steven Holl's 'Linked Hybrid' Building

2009-10-18T19:37:00.038+08:00

The architectural 'concept' is the guiding principle designers use to organize their thoughts about a given building project. Similar to modern art, where the 'idea' or 'statement' behind the work is paramount to any kind of purely aesthetic merit, architects use the notion of the concept to devise a narrative which gives meaning to their design. Furthermore, the architectural concept is oftentimes the selling point for which clients agree to take the risk of building an unconventional design.

Such is the case of the 'Linked Hybrid' complex in Beijing, China, which was designed by American architect Steven Holl. The Linked Hybrid, which is a collection of mid-rise buildings linked by 'skybridges', consists of residential, commercial, hotel, educational, and recreational components; a diverse array of functions serving metaphorically as a 'microcosm' of the larger city. In the architect's own words, "The 220,000 square meter pedestrian-oriented complex, sited adjacent to the site of the old city wall of Beijing, aims to counter the current urban developments in China by creating a new twenty-first century porous urban space, inviting and open to the public from every side."

Holl's conceptual statement about the project is bold given the status of these type of large-scale 'superblock' developments that dominate a majority of Beijing's urban fabric. That is, developments which are off-limits to the public yet act as quasi-public realms to their privileged occupants. Upon visiting the Linked Hybrid complex, I expected a 'porous' boundary with the public realm that connected with the city the way in which the architect had described. Much to my surprise, I found an imposing fence surrounding the site with guards stationed at each entry.

After being denied entry to the 'public' complex by at least 3 security guards, I concluded that the Linked Hybrid suffers from what many other high-profile architectural projects do: the finished product does not match the original conceptual intent of the designer. This is not necessarily the fault of the architect, and I do not mean to place blame upon Mr. Holl himself, yet given the noble statements made about the design, it certainly was a disappointing experience.

The story of the Linked Hybrid brings about larger questions regarding the disconnect between good intentions on paper and the built reality as it relates to architecture. More often than not, the client/developer of a project will make last minute changes that go against the wishes of the architect; and in the end, it is the one paying for the project that has final word. The disconnect further reinforces the relationship between 'starchitects' and the preconception that a client who hires a high caliber architect has about expecting a 'trophy' building...and trophies do not belong to the public.

The New Sensualist: Architect David Chipperfield

2009-10-13T17:21:00.002+08:00

In following with the exuberant economic climate, the architecture media has in recent years focused relentlessly on the flashy, photogenic buildings designed by 'starchitects' like Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid. In places as diverse as Dubai and London, many of these buildings were a result of an easy flow of capital. Now that the credit party has ended, so has the proliferation of architectural one-offs. With a lack of new eye candy to report on, the architecture media is now giving well-deserved attention to works by a group of international architects that can be called 'The New Sensualists'.

The New Sensualists' architecture reflects more upon the use of materials, craft of construction, and ultimately, genuine tactile experience. Although the buildings of a New Sensualist may not look as interesting in rendering form as say a Daniel Libeskind offspring, the aim is to return to architectural essentials.

One of these 'New Sensualits' who has been working quietly under the radar for years is British architect David Chipperfield. Chipperfield was recently profiled in the Times Online where he compares British architecture to 'Twitter'-that is, fleeting and forgettable messages. His architecture, in contrast, asks to be experienced. Minimal in form yet rich in materiality and spatial procession, Chipperfield's buildings represent moments of tranquility in an otherwise chaotic and noisy world.

Tony Blair on China

2009-10-09T21:43:00.002+08:00

A recent piece for the Wall Street Journal titled 'China's New Cultural Revolution' by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair takes an optimistic tone towards China's development. As he notes, it is critical for world leaders to grasp the importance of supporting, rather than demonizing, the country as it continues to evolve and develop further westward. Blair also mentions aspects of cultural life, such as film, art and fashion which are thriving in modern China-this will be very apparent to anyone who has visited the country recently. From my perspective, cultural development tends to follow on the heels of economic development-and at the moment, China seems to be right on track to rediscovering fully the creative potential of its citizens.

Pondering The People's Republic of China at 60

2009-10-01T18:40:00.002+08:00

I woke up this morning to the sound of fighter jets and helicopters flying past the window of my 23rd floor Beijing apartment. Below, I could see a caravan of military vehicles, including several tanks, traversing up the 3rd Ring Road. 4 KM west, thousands gathered in the cordoned off Tiananmen Square to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the People's Republic of China.

While it is easy to dismiss the bombastic events I witnessed today outside my window and on my TV screen as nothing more than an empty display of patriotic propaganda, the overarching optimism shown by the participants and speakers relayed a message of pride stemming from the accomplishments of recent economic growth rather than the 60-year old promise of a self-sufficient Communist state.

Indeed, it is amazing how China has been able to transform itself in such a short time span. The quality of life is markedly better than it was 60, 30, and even 10 years ago for a great many people. Forbes recently produced an intriguing special report about China @ 60 featuring articles from several prominent Chinese players-I highly recommend it.

Seeing the Good In the Bad

2009-09-07T12:48:00.002+08:00

Although I have not yet read the new book by Anthony Flint, "Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs took on the Master Builder and Transformed the American City", Harvard Professor Ed Glaeser offers a reasoned analysis in this review of the book about the frivolous dichotomy present in practically every debate about planning. The dichotomy in this case being the all-too common battle between the grass-roots level activism of obnoxious 'NIMBYs' versus the greedy ambitions of the 'big bad developer'.

As Glaeser notes, both Jacobs and Moses have become caricature-like figures in representing the opposing sides of the dichotomy. This characterization reduces planning debates to a Biblical 'Good versus Evil' dialogue, resulting in the prohibition of many potentially worthwhile urban proposals. In fact, urban development is much more random and unpredictable than planners, developers, and city officials would be comfortable admitting. Ultimately, it would be beneficial to all stakeholders if this was kept in mind before engaging in yet another pointless argument about new development being 'evil'.

A Sense of Place

2009-06-16T15:40:00.003+08:00

Visually documenting the important sites visited is the primary mission of the traveler and the camera is his most effective instrument for achieving his goal. If he is visiting Paris, he must take a picture of himself standing in front of the Eiffel Tower and if he is in San Francisco, he must have one with the Golden Gate Bridge. This 'postcard image' of place serves as proof that he has in fact visited these locations. Rather than just settling with purchasing the postcards (which are now mere nostalgic reminders of the past) or superimposing himself on a downloaded image with the help of Photoshop, the traveler strives for authenticity in his quest for a sense of place.

I am guilty of this crime myself. In the image above, I am standing in front of a view of Gamla stan-the Old City of Stockholm, Sweden. Yet the notion of cities reduced to a few iconic images undermines a true sense of place. In a globalized world represented by visual media, it is easy to forget that cities are dynamic entities where people (and their actions), not just the built environment, define their character.