The Future Includes Venice

       The Future Includes Venice
          Ian Ellingham
        A version of this was published originally in OAA Perspectives, Spring 2014

Looking ahead is an unexpectedly difficult exercise, something surprising given the popularity of science-fiction and a couple of centuries of speculation about it. Ask someone about the future - perhaps fifty years from now. It is likely that you will receive the same hackneyed answers, typically something about ‘world peace’ and ‘food for all’. The other possible response is some apocalyptic vision of an earth and humanity in a shambles - if they still exist. Planet-wide disaster is strangely popular - just look at the fare of trashy movies each week. One can see New York or Los Angeles destroyed (but saved at the last minute) by (check one), asteroid impact, volcanic eruption, climate change (up or down), pandemic, space aliens, resurrected dinosaurs, runaway technology,... the possibilities seem only limited by film-makers’ imaginations. Indeed, there is a substantial and fascinating academic literature on why we are fascinated by apocalyptic notions (hint - think about the messages in the ancient account of Noah and the flood).

Quite apart from the entertainment value of ominous movie scenarios, other possibilities do exist. It might be more interesting to ask the question what you would like the future to be? If we don’t have any idea about what we want it to be like, it will be difficult to get it, perhaps thereby accepting outcomes as a matter of chance. Of course, people in the future will decide what they want for themselves - it would be pretentious to try to make excessively-detailed plans for them based on our own preferences.

On a larger scale, one would hope that human well-being continues to increase. Much research indicates that increasing affluence does make people happier, but only to a point, and then the relationship tapers off. If one is starving, a crust of bread can be vital, but once one has five or six German cars in the garage, another one doesn’t make much difference to one’s well-being. This suggests that we have to look not to quantity (more electronic devices, more cars, bigger houses,...) but to something else - perhaps some sort of increase in quality. Goals imagined in this form, imply going against millions of years of evolution, where our ancestors - back to single-celled times - struggled to simply survive and reproduce. The problems inherent in this are obvious - it is not uncommon for individuals who have inherited significant wealth to descend into a life of endless partying, drugs, alcohol and dangerous sex, wild living and forgetfulness, perhaps as an attempt to relieve boredom. Could it be that our fate as a species is to become terminally bored?

John Maynard Keynes, writing in 1930 in an essay ‘Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren' [1], wondered about this. He observed “To those who sweat for their daily bread leisure is a longed-for sweet - until they get it.”...  “Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem - how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” Keynes thought that, for this reason, this future might be regarded with dread.

The apocalypse might not come accompanied by massive bangs, but with widespread yawning - or worse. Late 1914 saw queues of young men outside recruiting offices - hoping that the war would last long enough for them to see some action. Are we fated to do such silly things to alleviate the monotony of material prosperity? Is this why we have problems envisioning a positive future? Recall your upbringing - being encouraged by teachers and parents to diligently attend to studies to get a good job: did anyone ever tell you how to enjoy the fruits of your labour?

Of course, problems do remain, in particular the allocation of wealth:  we also know that inequality decreases happiness, and the demand for some goods, such as housing, can be effectively insatiable - those are things to be overcome. But, what do we do once we have filled our material needs and wants, and no longer have to struggle to survive? Some people, such as many architects simply keep working well after most people have retired (see ‘Improving with age” - Perspectives, Spring 2004).  Work maintains their sense of relevance and human contact, and the odd bit of flirting with construction disaster does heighten the adrenaline. The last issue of OAA Perspectives (Winter 2013-14) reflected on what people do when they are not working, which in one sense is why we work - to be able to do other things. So we saw architects engaged in sailboat racing, beekeeping, travel photography, restoring cars, welding up artwork, practising yoga, pursuing music, reading Proust, and on an ongoing basis, writing for OAA Perspectives. They seem to continue with some sort of struggle - perhaps to achieve some improvement in their capabilities. Others indulge in charitable works, in an attempt to better the lot of humanity. But all of these activities have one thing in common - while they may add to individual and societal well-being, they do not have much impact on GDP figures.

Where does this take us as creators and managers of the built environment?  We might hope that our cities become more thoughtful agglomerations of people - oriented towards social interaction, which is better achieved through walking and bicycling. We will worry more about the quality of our environments. Indeed, returning to a future Venice for a moment, in the reign of George VII, protection of the cultural monuments of humanity - the things that help to define us as a species will become more important than trying to generate a bit more measurable GDP. In our future world of affluence we will be able to take commodity and firmness for granted - it is the delight that will be the increasing focus of humanity. Venice will never be allowed to sink, because it will simply be worth too much to us. In this hoped-for world, architects will have a role of increased importance, although it will change. Utilitarian, functionalist architecture will become so 20th century, as people increasingly expect built environments to enhance communities and carry more complex meanings, something apparently already happening [2].

Such a change in the nature of demand should be an opportunity.  Perhaps we don’t have to invent anew, but only look around at the many examples of built environment alternatives around the world which are loaded with cultural meaning and human interaction and try to learn from them. Compact cities provide examples, as does the mixing of uses seen in so many places throughout the world. This article is being written in a sidewalk restaurant in Brussels, finishing a delightful meal and drinking a wonderful, exotic beer. The question is,... do you just want more beer, or better beer?

Other risks exist, that might compromise this view of a wonderful future. Marx, Hegel and de Sade saw religion as the opium of the people - but they had not seen computer gamers in action. Widespread availability of passive entertainment and distractions may turn the focus of the leisured people to the unproductive pleasures of the virtual. We also need ongoing progress to support this emerging future. Unfortunately, most civilisations do have periods of decline - even if some do rise again from their ashes. It is easy to count them - ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, China, Renaissance Italy, Mayan civilisation, the Khmer Empire - as well as numerous other cultures who remain only as subjects for archaeologists. Some were conquered, but many seem to have just fizzled away. Architects were usually exposed to the glories of the Italian renaissance in school or on various ventures of first-hand discovery (see ‘Pilgrimages’ Perspectives, Fall 2004) - but what happened afterwards is often forgotten. If we consider our current well- being, in particular relative to how our great-great-grandparents lived, it becomes obvious that we stand on a long stream of intellectual and technical innovation. After all, only a hundred years ago, people faced dangerous childhood diseases, staggering levels of infant and maternal mortality, and only fifty years before that, serious water and sewage-borne diseases. We can only hope that world wars are a thing of the past - rendered obsolete by nuclear weapons and increasing globalisation. But those ancient empires should serve as a warning - we have to remain vigilant, and not bring an end to increasing global well-being.

With this caution, one might go back and at least give the future some consideration.  What do you want for your grandchildren? In some visions of the future, you should hope they become architects!

[1]  Widely available on the internet. The one used was on www.econ.yale.edu/smaith/econ116a/keynes.1.pdf Accessed October 14, 2013.

[2]  Research that indicates this is now underway: See: (a) OAA Perspectives: Why are (some) buildings so ugly? Vol.20, No.3, Fall and (b) papers presented at 2005 Conserving the Modern in Canada Conference, in Algie, S. and Ashby, J (eds) Conserving the Modern in Canada: Buildings, ensembles, and sites: 1945-2005, Trent University, pp.55-66. (available at www.winnipegarchitecture.ca/wp-content/uploads/201...