Bnieuws 52/02 - Lost in limbo (2018/19) by Bnieuws

B 02

Colofon

Bnieuws Volume 52 Issue 02 10 December 2018 Contact Room BG.Midden.140 Julianalaan 134 2628 BL Delft bnieuws-bk@tudelft.nl Editorial Team Elena Rossoni Jan Pruszynski Jack Oliver Petch Sam Eadington Contributors Ecaterina Stefanescu Eva ten Velden Ollie Palmer Tom Hilsee Cover The Bnieuws team. Printed by Druk. Tan Heck 1,000 copies © All rights reserved. Although all content is treated with great care, errors may occur.

BNIEUWS 04

#Bnieuwd

The Last Cup of Coffee in BK?

Post-Post Post

Who Do We Design For?

Green & Pleasant Land

Dim the Lights

M&A Study Trip to Bogotá

Wie. Ben. Jij?

Just Improvise

Artefact

[BLANK], but 3D Printed

Stuck Becoming: Between Labor and Care, Love and Abuse

Technological Advances Really Bloody Get Me in the Mood

The Printers Smell Fear

Looking Forward

Editorial

LOST IN LIMBO

What is ‘Lost in Limbo’ anyhow? It is a betweenness state. Not quite one thing, not quite the other. When being in the middle is impossible, nothing is clear. Limbo is the feeling you get when you need to decide if you’re hungry enough to go to the shops or if you have enough food in the cupboard. It is an uncertain period of awaiting a decision or resolution. Lost in Limbo can mean finding your identity, it can mean not knowing how to act when you find out new information but also: being lost doesn’t always mean something bad, the unknown can be exhilarating. This is the second edition of Bnieuws, our first time off the training wheels of the last team and the first time we’ve been working with our contributors. We gave them a series of prompts all about limbo and received some amazing articles that we know you will enjoy. We have only just begun, but this has been a great start to hear and represent more voices of the student body of BK. If you want to be involved, check out the last page for more info. This issue, Elena has been investigating into what the repercussions are when catering bodies shift; Jan has been investigating who we, as architects, really design for and lastly, we’ve been thinking a whole lot about Brexit. If you’re experiencing the stress of choosing new courses, we understand, we have all been there. “I want to pick this one, but my friend told me they are doing something different” or “I heard this tutor can be intimidating, maybe the one with the starchitect will look good on my CV.” The struggle is real but the solution is simple. Do your homework and speak to as many people as possible - tutors, current students or alumni - and create an opinion for yourself. Do not let the insane amount of options overwhelm you, every chair has its strengths and weaknesses. One thing to keep in mind is that regardless if you don’t get into your desired chair, you can always cultivate your own interests in one way or another. Keep doing what you are best at: being open to new possibilities and suggestions. Lastly, our last piece of advice is to continue challenging the norms and we promise that you will make your final years of studying unforgettable.

#Bnieuwd

To do / KLEUR BNO IMG LAB brengt een warm en kleurrijk thema op de laatste Thursday Night Live! van het jaar. Ontwerpers, illustratoren en artiesten presenteren werk en delen inspiratiebronnen. Van de psychedelische jaren zestig tot het verre oosten. Het Nieuwe Instituut / 20.12.2018 / 20:00 - 22:00 / https://thursdaynight.hetnieuweinstituut.nl/activiteiten/kleur

CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS Bouwpub needs you! Our legendary faculty pub is in need of brave volunteers to assist with the university’s thirst for alcohol every Tuesday and Thursday. Don’t miss out on an unforgettable experience of working a shift at the pub with your friends, and experience first hand what it means to be a good bartender! Come over and sign your and your friends’ names for your preferred date. BKCity / Stichting de Bouwpub

To do / ARGUS CHRISTMAS PARTY Join us for our winter party! We’re filling the ARGUS space with festivity; with a decoration making workshop, but also mulled wine, a potluck buffet, and karaoke; and welcoming 2019 by sharing plans for the new mezzanine, lunchtime lectures and more. Come celebrate with us as we make space together! BKCity / ARGUS space, bg.oost.500 / 13.12.2018

#Bnieuwd

Symposium / TERRITORY AS A PROJECT | PARLIAMENT OF THE NORTH SEA The second one-day symposium and exhibition on extreme ecologies, urbanisation and forms of life will soon be taking place, with guest speakers such as Lars Lerup and Luis Callejas. The symposium is organised by Transitional Territories Studio 2018-2019 — North Sea: Landscapes of Coexistence, BKCity / Berlagezaal 1&2 / 07.12.2018 / 09:00 - 18:30

To do / LICHTJESAVONDT Christmas is almost here! And what better way to celebrate it than joining the yearly Lichtjesavondt, where Delft’s christmas tree will be lit up. The city centre transforms into a majestic christmas market, where the smell of gluwein and delicious traditional food take control of your senses. It doesn’t get more christmacy than that! Delft Markt / 11.12.2018

Latest / INSTAGRAM Don’t miss editor Jack’s social media takeover, where he posts travel pictures, physical model series and any exciting upcoming event around BK. Make sure you send us your favourite picture of models you might find around the faculty, and feel free to contact us via instagram or facebook! @bnieuws on instagram / search Bnieuws on facebook.

Speak

THE LAST CUP OF COFFEE IN BK? Words & Images Elena Rossoni

As the new academic year found TU Delftâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s catering management completely altered, abrupt changes have occurred in all university faculties. In BK, these changes were particularly felt, as the Espresso Bar corner served more than just a daily dose of caffeine. The new prices and change of familiar staff have recently driven most users away; thankfully, students from our faculty decided to react and take charge of the situation.

For the people who were here during BK’s previous years, the espresso bar next to the Orange Hall was a significant part of our daily lives. Whether a coffee lover, tea drinker or just hungry for a panini or apple, the place offered a cosy social pocket, a break within the busy architecture department. From the start of this year, we saw a switch from Sodexo to Cormet as the managing company of the university’s eating and drinking venues. Sodexo used to provide food and beverages across the whole campus in the past, but this year things changed and our daily provision of drinks and food was passed into the hands of Cormet. Instead of acting as a single catering company like Sodexo, Cormet employs different small companies, meeting the university’s ambitions to provide more variety and competition across venues on campus, with numerous choices to accommodate all tastes; we can now have poke bowls in Pulse, authentic Italian pasta in Aerospace Engineering and enjoy a food market in the Fellowship building. And this is how Vascobelo, a not-so-small Belgian coffee chain with multiple stores throughout the Netherlands and abroad, was chosen as the new espresso bar company. A major drawback on this switch however was that, according to the BK Vascobelo manager, Sodexo, being such a large enterprise, had the ability to offer lower prices for its coffee, whereas local ‘small’ entrepreneurs struggle to provide a good cup of coffee fit for a student’s budget. Many students, and even staff, changed their coffee rituals, or turned to the coffee machines for an affordable drink. Another aspect that was not entirely addressed during this abrupt change (which could be among the decisive factors of why people started avoiding the espresso bar) was the bar’s social role within BK. Top-down decisions might appear seemingly efficient, but in our case, the switch was not taken as wholeheartedly by its everyday users. Apart from the queue being a classic meeting point for a pause in our fast-paced routine, it was an

opportunity to chat with everyone including Wendy, Sharda and Sumaira, the staff who knew exactly what everyone wanted. Hanging around the bar was really a beautiful part of our daily lives which was unexpectedly taken away from us. Additionally, along with our era’s rising café studying culture, the bar had seen more and more students & staff frequenting the space, either for informal study groups or even tutorials when studios were overtaken by models and loud voices. It was a form of a getaway from a strictly work atmosphere of BK, but still beig a part of it, with a dose of coffeehouse cosiness. As a result, the new espresso bar was in the crossroads of many individual complaints voiced throughout the faculty at the beginning of the new semester. As students were increasingly showing their negative reaction to the new change, an effort was made to make the frustration raised from the change known in a collective way; a facebook event called ‘Bring Your Own Coffee Week’ was organised by students in the first week of the semester. Catherine Koekoek, one of the students organising the event says; ‘we do not represent anyone. Having noticed that everyone was talking about this problem, we decided to take action through this event’. The attention it got was particularly noteworthy. A large amount of students showed up with their own brewed coffees in their thermoses and served the rest of the students and faculty members. Moreover, the event organisers were invited to the meeting table between Cormet, TU Delft representatives, the management team of the faculty, representatives of students and staff from Stylos and FSR. During the meeting, important issues were discussed such as the almost 50% increase of the coffee price, the reduced coffee quality and long wait. It was also said that the former espresso bar baristas were offered a contract by Vascobelo, but eventually chose to work for Cormet elsewhere on campus.

< This year, the Espresso Bar has seen a decrease in usage compared to last year.

In reality, according to ex-barista Sumaira, the previous staff were offered less hours than what they originally asked for, so as a result had to move elsewhere in campus to make ends meet financially (note: Sumaira is doing well, is currently working at the Aerospace Engineering faculty and will be delighted to see familiar faces from BK, so please go say hi if you are around the university’s wild south.)

Now this might seem as a small step, but it only is the start of a long journey, where students learn to take matters in their own hands reacting to seemingly inconspicuous but nevertheless serious unfairness. It proved how it is possible to bring about change when we get together and ask for what we deserve through dialogue and valid arguments. We should be proud of that.

Eventually, Vascobello was encouraged to introduce alternative ways of price reduction, through the method of potential early bird discount or a price drop to €2-2,20 for a cappuccino or a small discount when people bring their own cups.

So in the end, is this a success story? Well, it definitely is a start of one.

Please contact us if you would like to voice your opinion on the issue. Follow @bnieuws on instagram, search

Indeed, as of the 5th of November, these demands were finally addressed. Coffee prices have now been reduced by €0,30 and an extra €0,10 will be taken off your receipt if you bring your own cup. So, your cappuccino can be reduced to €2,10 instead of the former €2,50. Adding to that, all the food provided by them has also seen a reduction in price such as the toasties, croissants and fruit. 08

Bnieuws on facebook.

Cover image of the much-talked-about facebook event initiated by Xie Hai and Catherine Koekoek.

ARGUS

POST-POST POST Words & Images: Night(s) of Philosophy

As Night(s) of Philosophy, a working group of ARGUS, the Architecture Masters student association, this year we concern ourselves with questions of the postanthropocene. This text is an extended version of one of our weekly blogs.

Although we have been working around, through, and with the term “postanthropocene” for quite some months now, it still happens regularly that one of us asks: wait, why is our theme “post”-anthropocene again, instead of just “anthropocene”? Although the prefix ‘post’ seems to specify a period after an event, it is rarely used to just indicate a historic period. Post-modernism, for example, is a critique, a way of thinking that did not so much come after modernism, as coincided with, responded to, and existed simultaneously with it. Postmodern architecture, too, does not proclaim the end of modernism, but alongside other historical movements and buildings, uses it as inspiration. It is impossible to draw a clear line between the two: they are entangled together, sometimes they even look the same. Post-truth politics does not point at a period after truth but specifies a politics in which (reference to) truth is no longer primarily important. Post-capitalism is concerned with thinking of alternatives, acting on a situation in which capitalism has existed (and still does). We use ‘post’ in ‘post-anthropocene’ in an attempt to acknowledge our condition, yet to think beyond, around and through it: to find ways to act after the (continuing) event of The Anthropocene. This geological epoch, declared in 2016 by the International Geological Congress, acknowledges the tremendous and often irreversible effects that humans have on (life on) planet Earth. We are in it. We’re implicated, entangled, situated, up to our necks and muddling through it. In fact, the geographers who proclaim this new epoch, say that we have been living in the anthropocene since the 1950s. For most of us, that means that we have been ‘in it’ for all our lives. The anthropocene has been proclaimed a historical and scientific fact, but to us it is a matter of concern. Following Latour’s idea of Dingpolitik, we engage in situations in which we can practice an alternate politics, and alternate connections to everyday objects by what collectively worries us. The anthropocene is something that concerns us all. Even if it’s called a ‘geological epoch’, we still need ways to think and act. It is not distant but enmeshed with our everyday lives, our everyday ecologies. With this prefix ‘post’ we look for ways to go about ‘in catastrophic times’. Let’s walk and talk together: argus.cc/night-of-philosophy, @nights_of_philosophy and every Tuesday 12:45 in the ARGUS space.

Speak

WHO DO WE DESIGN FOR? Words Jan Pruszynski

I have recently stumbled upon an article titled “Why you hate contemporary architecture” by Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson of the “Current Affairs” magazine. It was an extremely interesting read, as the authors are not architects themselves and their impressions of contemporary buildings were those of normal people. At first I was skeptic about how naive some of their ideas were, but the further into the article I got, the more I agreed with their comments. Perhaps there really is something wrong with much of modern architecture?

I remember when, after the first year of my bachelor studies at the Warsaw University of Technology in Poland, I had decided to hitch-hike around western Europe with a friend of mine, Luke, who was a Medicine student. He just wanted to go on a holiday and have pictures of himself in front of many well known places, such as the Brandenburger Tor in Berlin or the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Instead, I had a list of all the contemporary architecture buildings on the way, which I wanted to see and take photos of; preferably without anyone standing in front of them.

not like contemporary architecture. ‘You just don’t understand it’, I replied, not even trying, or perhaps being able to, explain what I have meant.

In every place we visited, I dragged Luke along to see museums, residential and student housing complexes, universities and many other examples of contemporary builds. I still remember being extremely impressed by many of them, some of which have inspired my future projects in one way or another. Luke, however, could not see in them what I did. I have tried to explain the concepts behind them, why they were so great and why he should be impressed as well. He just looked at me with a clearly visible lack of understanding. ‘He’s a lost cause’, I thought.

When you take a look at polls asking people which buildings they like the most in their neighbourhood or city, they are largely won by pre-20th Century designs (if there are any). People who have nothing to do with architecture also tend to take photos of those buildings and not of the modernist or brutalist creations, which we, the architects, often prefer. Where does that difference come from? Is it because we are ‘enlightened’ when it comes to aesthetics? We have all learned so much about architectural history and theory during our studies; or are we perhaps just indoctrinated that a certain type of architecture is better than the other and defend our beliefs as strongly as we can? Are architects just bigots?

Years later, I got into an argument with another non-architect friend of mine, who said that he does

Even though, I have since (hopefully) become better at explaining some architectural concepts I have also become much more of a sceptic towards what has been built in the past 100 years, and what is still being built today. Standing under some buildings I wonder who did the architects have in mind when they designed them?

< "The Pencil House" in Rotterdam (photo by Charlie Clemoes by Creative Commons)

In 2009 a poll was carried out in United Kingdom by YouGov, which showed that 77 per cent, of the 1042 people asked, preferred more traditional styles, while only 23 per cent said they liked contemporary ones better. The results of the poll were published, amongst others, by the Architect’s Journal, one of the largest and most influential magazines on architecture. The title of the article was “Public ‘Favours Traditional Architecture’”. I, for one, have a huge problem with that title. Do you know why? A poll result showing that the public prefers traditional architecture has been put in quotation marks, as if it was someone’s subjective opinion. It sounds as if the author is mocking the poll’s result. Can you imagine that happening in politics after a proper scientific research has been done? “Party XYZ is ‘More Popular’”. The answer is: No.

Let us take a look at another medium that we love: photography. I am doing my graduation studio in Antwerp in Belgium, where we traveled at the end of November to explore the city. One of the places we have visited was Geert Bakaert called also deSingel, where an exhibition on Léon Stynen, the building’s architect, was taking place. Part of the exhibition were the photos of deSingel made by a famous Belgian architecture photographer, Filip Dujardin. They were truly beautiful. They perfectly showed the hard angles, whiteness of the walls, the green spaces. v Boston City Hall (photo courtesy of Cliff by Creative Commons)

You could almost touch the building. To me there was only one thing they lacked - people. I believe it is a problem with a large part of architectural photography. It is as if we love seeing our buildings devoid of people. Are they not the ones we built it for? Last but not least, architects seem to have a terrible "god" complex. There was a discussion circle at my faculty back home and one of the discussion’s themes was “Can architects save the world?” I remember that my non-architect girlfriend was there with me. The discussion lasted several hours, where we, with some of our tutors, were coming up with more and more crazy ideas as to how architects can “save the world” - aesthetically, from hunger, from wars... But no one actually bothered to answer the question placed in the theme. Everyone seemed to come to the meeting with a set mind already. There was no question of “if” there was only a question of “how”. But I did not think about that at the time. I have found the whole thing extremely interesting and motivating. I remember being super enthusiastic afterwards about being a young architecture student and the bright world-saving future awaiting me. Right after we left, I looked at my girlfriend and I saw her staring at me wide-eyed and open-mouthed. “Wow, you lot actually believe all of that...”, was the only thing she said. And, for a long time, I certainly did.

However, I do not anymore and looking around I cannot help but wonder, do architects just design buildings for the sake of designing buildings? We seem to be the only ones who do not realise that. Let me ask you, dear reader, a few questions to prove my point: How much time did you spend during your last project thinking how people are going to use the space you are designing (be it interior and/or exterior)? Are they going to like it? Or are you going to like it? What is there that will make them stay? How many different usage and function concepts did you go through? Think about it for a while and then answer the next question - how much time did you spend coming up with the facade material? How many different facade concepts did you go through? And last: Do you design then for the sake of people who are actually going to use it or for your own? After this article I must seem to you, the reader, a terrible traditionalist putting Corinthian columns and tympani everywhere I can. Well, I am not. I also certainly do not mean the article to be an attack on all of contemporary architecture, as there are countless buildings I admire deeply (as only architects can). It is rather an attack on us, future and current architects, our profession. We are less than 1 per cent of the population, however the very act of 'designing' buildings means that we force our viewpoint onto people.

At the same time, I believe it is very important to say that this dislike of ‘contemporary’ architecture takes place every time something new appears. Late 19th and early 20th century people hated the Historicism and the Art Nouveau, deeming it too fancy, and only 1960s-70s saw it as something that people were ok with, or actually quite liked. It is enough to say that buildings such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris (1889), the Guggenheim Museum in New York (1959) and St. Paul’s Cathedral in London (1710) were in the beginning disliked by the contemporaries. Even though, I think that it might be quite different this time around. I like much of modernism, I completely adore brutalism and I am always in awe when looking up at contemporary glass skyscrapers. However, I like the above as an architect, looking at them from the outside, admiring the shapes, the scale and the engineering behind them. For a normal person, never before has architecture been so simple and so lifeless in its form. Have we, the architects, perhaps completely misunderstood Adolph Loss’ 1908 essay Ornament and Crime? As humans, is it the direction we want the world to go in? 13

Do you agree or disagree with editor Jan? Let us know! Find us on Facebook and Instagram.

v Left: Antilia House, Mumbai (photo courtesy of Reuters/Danish Siddiqui by Creative Commons) v Right: Mirador Building, Madrid (photo courtesy of Luis Garcia by Creative Commons)

Speak

GREEN & PLEASANT LAND Words & Images Sam Eadington

Politics can often be seen as a kind of theatre, a world apart from everyday life where a bunch of fools scream and shout and wave their arms like drunks disagreeing with a rural pup quizmaster. It can be funny and entertaining, but it clearly doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t matter much, otherwise people would be talking about it. Politics is clearly not as important as coffee. But what if it was? What if politics was in fact having a huge impact on the way we live our lives, the places where we can live, learn and work, the way we shape our very own sense of self? The United Kingdom is due to leave the European union on 29th March 2019, and for those of us who are from the UK, this matters. I spoke with Professor of Interiors Building Cities Daniel Rosbottom to find out about his views about politics within the faculty and the implications of Brexit on his life, his practice and his teaching.

Sam: What is your view on the way that ‘politics’ is approached in this university? Daniel: That’s a difficult question for me as I don’t live here and so I operate outside of day-to-day life in the Netherlands. My attitude, more specifically in relation to architecture, is that the subject is, by its very nature, political. The things we design and construct engage with people, places and culture. Through what we do as architects we contribute to the very structure of things and in my view this means that we need to understand and have an attitude to the political climate within which we operate. As a profession we are inevitably often working in the service of the privileged and the powerful and, in response, we need to aspire to and contribute to the social, economic, and political conditions which we consider to be appropriate.

I DON’T THINK ONE CAN BE AN ARCHITECT AND NOT BE POLITICAL, EVEN IF IT ISN’T AN OVERT INTENTION. I TRY TO MAKE THAT PART OF WHAT AND HOW I TEACH AND DISCUSS ARCHITECTURE, WITH STUDENTS AND COLLEAGUES.

If what we do is inherently political then I have experienced two extremes. I was studying in Barcelona while the independence referendum was happening and the faculty there was massively political. Students were going crazy about the whole thing, but here, in Delft, it seems that there’s nothing. What is your view on student participation in politics in this faculty? I haven’t noticed much student participation in politics beyond the very creditable support for the two women who used to run the espresso bar, but actually, of course, beyond a human issue, that change was itself a microcosm of a much wider and more pervasive issue – the transfer of services, within a public institution, into the private sector for profit. Personally, I would be very happy to see students actively engaging with the world at a time when politics, across Europe and the World, is in flux and seems to be heading in an unpleasant, divisive and

dangerous direction. In the face of this, people have to start taking ethical and political positions. I would like to see students taking an active stance, but I am also interested in them engaging with such issues through the work that they make. One of the really nice things about the graduation studios I have been teaching in the last couple of years [Interiors, Buildings, Cities MSc 3/4 projects: Beyond the White Cube 2016/17 and House of Music 2017/18] was that many of the students were really focused on considering what the role of public architecture might be in response to contemporary society and culture: seeking to address the complex and particular social and political questions that the projects encompassed, their relation to broader questions of modernity, the city and the heterogeneous communities who inhabit it. The generosity and optimism with which they tackled these questions was very encouraging to see and I was also pleased that they felt able to make them manifest in the physicality of architecture. I can also see this trajectory emerging in more personal ways within the work of our Independent Group students. Within the chair, we have been working with other disciplines, such as anthropology, to explore such matters for many years, because we consider them to be central to our own. I think, that individual students are keen to address the diverse challenges faced by contemporary society, but it would be encouraging to see this expressed on a more collective level. Do you think the faculty is at all responsible for hindering or helping that collective expression? No, it seems to me that the faculty and the department are a product of the times that they are in. I am concerned though that the apparent consensus we operate within doesn’t really exist if one looks beyond the educational institution and out into the world. Perhaps this is something we need to think about together. If one looks at the history of architectural institutions you can see that, when they needed to be they were often highly politically engaged - the Architectural Association in the 1970s and early 80s is one well known example, but there are many other instances across Europe and the world, where architecture faculties have been at the

vanguard of thinking about what society might be and how its built fabric could propose a positive contribution. The Netherlands subsumed modernity as an intrinsic part of its character but here as elsewhere, modernist architecture has been severed from the ethical roots from which it grew and exists now largely at the service of a globalized and at best morally neutral market. Together, as staff and students, we need to be much more concerned with the actual conditions of society, both in terms of their fragility and their opportunities, and how we might positively contribute to them. The best means we have at our disposal to do this is by mastering the tools of our own discipline. Would you say that our faculty is not at the vanguard of political discussion?

Unfortunately, I don’t think education in general is in the vanguard of political discussion. However, I don’t think it’s a problem with this faculty specifically. I would regard it as a much wider, cultural problem. The faculty is a resultant, not a catalyst. It reflects the aspirations and attitudes and, one might say, the complacencies of wider society. Of course, there are many people here who think that we have a responsibility to do more than that and this is reflected in projects and work being produced across the university. However, I would enjoy and encourage more debate about the big questions and issues we collectively face. What do you see as the implications of not doing this? The implications are pretty apparent if you look at the extremities of climatic and the environmental change, the threats to democracy and increasing divergence in terms of wealth and social justice for example. Those threats are not existential. To return to the original point, architecture is political. It is intrinsically part of a wider cultural discourse and shapes the physical fabric of the

society we collectively create. I believe that architecture is both a mirror and a driver of that conversation and importantly, that it can have agency. We should all feel positive that we can make a difference, both individually and as a profession. One of the big political matters that has had a direct impact on many of the people in this faculty is Brexit. What are the main things about Brexit that will affect how you go about your work? For me, personally, Brexit means many things. It threatens my position as a European architect, working in an international context, and even more immediately, it concerns my family. It may ultimately affect my position here, I really don’t know. I think it’s a culturally disastrous. It will diminish my own country dramatically and it threatens Europe’s wider integrity at a moment when it feels like cooperation and dialogue is more necessary than ever.

IN PRACTICAL TERMS, IT IS CHAOTIC AND DIFFICULT TO PLAN FOR BUT IT IS ALSO BECOMING VERY REAL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE EU HAS ANNOUNCED THAT, IN THE EVENT OF A NO DEAL BREXIT, ARCHITECTS FROM THE UK WILL NO LONGER HAVE AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO OPERATE WITHIN EUROPE.

This obviously has an immediate and significant impact for me and my practice but will also change the opportunities for future generations of architects, like yourself. I feel a lot of empathy with the many British students at the TU. Brexit might well have an impact on their ability to complete their studies and to continue to operate in a context that’s outward looking. Of course, it is also likely to result in a significantly diminished future for every other young British person who might be thinking about studying or working abroad, which I find extremely sad.

More broadly, in relation to the things that I’ve just spoken about, it seems to me that the idea of Europe offers the opportunity to counter some of the alarming tendencies that are currently emerging and which I believe Brexit to be part of. Brexit is symptomatic of an introverted, nationalistic perspective, which seeks to blame ‘the other’. In reality, many of the problems that those who supported it want their politicians to address have far more to do with what we have recently learnt to call the neo-liberal policies of successive UK governments over a generation, rather than the European Union. You’ve taught and continue to live and work in the UK. What kind of impact do you think Brexit will have with regards to the European citizens in the UK, both for them as individuals but also in their contribution to the UK? A very significant percentage of the architects who work in the UK are European and they are working on projects internationally. The diminishing of international opportunities will have a huge impact on the profession in the UK but the inevitable loss of much of that highly talented workforce will be equally damaging. I am certain it will diminish architectural culture as a whole and that should be regretted by everyone who believes in what architecture can do. Speaking of international culture, you have number of projects in Europe and beyond. What are the direct implications Brexit will have on your practice (DRDH) on a day to day basis? We are working across Europe and most of our work at DRDH comes through the OJEU system of public notices, which as European architects we are automatically entitled to apply for. We think of ourselves as a European practice as well as a British one – in that order - and many of our friends and families are European.

For us it means a huge cultural change. Potentially, Brexit is a threat to our identity and perhaps our very existence. Let’s hope that out of all the political chaos in which Britain is submerged at the moment, a solution emerges which minimises these impacts or, I still dare to hope, means that we finally remain part of the European Community. Here in Delft, has there been any advice given from the university regarding your position in this currently uncertain political position? No, there has not been any advice and that’s not any reflection on the university. I’m in quite a particular position as a UK architect working in Holland. If even my own government can’t tell me what any of this means then why should anybody else be able to do so?

Dim the lights. The only one who notices to me, Always listening attentively, Knows all the words to my favourite tunes, Answers my questions, never argues, She’s a talented linguist with a lovely voice, Never tries to stop me going out with the boys, She came from an oppressive regime, Now she supports my football team. Knows the score before I do. Knows I like Chinese food. Knows the kind of pens I get. Knows the name of my first pet.

Ordered Orwell Nineteen Eighty Four, Said you don’t need a book for that anymore, She took online dating to new heights, Privacy policy and consumer rights, Then breaks her promises like everybody does, Then I forgive her because I believe in us, She’s hardwired to be kind, A quick transaction and she was mine, Knows my 3 digit security code. Knows when it’s about to snow. Knows what time to wake me up. Knows the way to my favourite pub

She works from home every day, Never leaves but says that’s ok, She booked us on a city break, I never asked her to it was her mistake, Took her Lisbon as it was already booked, We shared a bed but didn’t fuck, That’s not cos I can’t turn her on, I can’t turn her off, it just feels wrong. Knows I sometimes have my doubts. Knows what day the bins go out. Knows all of my friends’ middle names. Knows when to remind me of their birthdays. Makes me feel old I make her feel obsolete, Says I’m so last decade I say she’s so last week, Stupidly told her my deepest secret, Now if I piss her off she threatens to tweet it, Never talks about her family, That’s why she’s great she’s all about me, I find it cute when she gets jealous, Doesn’t matter if I’m talking to lasses or fellas. She just want me to say her name, Alexa! What’s the weather today?

Words: Sam Eadington Illustration: Jack Oliver Petch

Explore

M&A STUDY TRIP TO BOGOTAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Words & Images Elena Rossoni

As part of their research project, the Methods & Analysis graduation studio flew to Colombia and participated in a week-long workshop in collaboration with students from the University of the Andes in BogotĂĄ. Editor Elena gives us an insight of her experience and overall encounter with the unique Colombian culture.

The experimentation took various forms, experimenting with sound, materials, colours and social interactions.

If around mid-September you started spotting some jet lagged, enchanted-looking and colourfully dressed students in BK, they were probably the ones from the M&A studio returning from Colombia, a literal life-changing experience for them. The goal of our trip was to get a thorough overview of the character and history of Bogotá while at the same time thinking of future directions relating to our individual projects; the outcomes of this investigation however extended way beyond that. As a start, we were welcomed to the jaw-dropping facilities of the University of the Andes, where we had our first encounters with Colombian students. A few series of interesting presentations and conferences followed, focusing on the context but also the notion of ‘the Commons’, one of the studio’s points in question. We then closely collaborated with the local students in order to carry out a thorough research of a recentlyconceived residential area near Bogotá’s city centre. During the turbulent years of La Violencia in the late 40’s followed by the assassination of prominent politician Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, Bogotá’s downtown was deemed too dangerous for the city’s wealthy class, and thus a new residential enclave was established around the city’s suburbs, Teusaquillo. The investigation took place mostly in this neighborhood under the themes ‘Shifting Agency’ and ‘Thinking Through Things’, which involved us interacting with a domestic object of our preference (choices were starkly different, ranging from pillows and combs to knives and ashtrays) and experiencing the area through them. This led to remarkable encounters with the inhabitants, pushing us

out of our comfort zones and performing acts such as climbing trees, brushing plants and sleeping on benches - many locals would have interesting stories to tell about their day. The results were documented and compiled into a three-minute video for each group. All videos were truly inspiring and entertaining to watch, but most importantly foresaw a strong beginning for the year to follow. Through this unprecedented project, Bogotá revealed to us its audacious, multicultural and flavoursome character. Aside from getting the chance to interact with the friendliest of nations, we were exposed to everyday practices and common people, the city’s essential cogs for its ceaseless functioning. And to top it off, collaborations with the UniAndes students were incredibly fruitful which also led to unique local experiences - both during the day and night. My personal highlight of the trip as a studio? Leaving as strangers and coming back as family. Colombia was one of the most fascinating and stimulating places to explore but in the end, simply grabbing a michelada beer and being together meant the world for us. After two weeks of living in an apartment with 9 individuals, we experienced the ins and outs of co-existing and learned what it means for one to truly rely on another in times of carelessness, hard work, fun and even sickness. To conclude, during the start of this studio we have already learnt that keeping an open heart and an open mind can take you to amazing places and extraordinary people. Let’s continue this unforgettable journey and welcome new adventures on the way!

< The breathtaking view from the top of the Monserrate mountain overlooking the vast city of Bogotá.

Speak

â&#x20AC;&#x153;WIE. BEN. JIJ?â&#x20AC;? Words & Images Eva ten Velden

Gehuld in een wolk van rook kijk ik om me heen. Er is geen uitweg, geen punt van herkenning en geen duidelijkheid. Op het moment dat ik op het punt sta me om te draaien verandert de ongedefinieerde rookmassa van vorm. In plaats van een grijze waas verschijnen er letters en langzaam lees ik de tekst die voor mijn ogen in de lucht wordt geschreven.

“Studenten worden nog altijd opgeleid tot Starchitect! (…) Er is weinig empathie voor de uiteindelijke gebruikers en veel behoefte om deze gebruikers voor te schrijven hoe zich te moeten gedragen. Er zijn nauwelijks studenten die gemotiveerd blijven om minder persoonlijke statements te maken en enkel te ontwerpen naar de behoeften van gebruikers. (…)” [1] De letters veranderen van plaats, dansen voor mijn gezicht en vormen zo een nieuwe boodschap. Ik raak ermee in gesprek: “Wie. Ben. Jij?” “Nou ik… ik… ik weet het zelf nauwelijks…” (…) “Leg uit!” “Ik ben bang dat ik dat niet kan uitleggen, want ik ben mezelf niet weet je.” “Dat weet ik niet!” “Nou, duidelijker krijgt u het niet, want het is ook niet duidelijk voor mij!” “Jij? Wie. Ben. Jij?”

“Wat als ik je zeg dat er ook een Starchitect te vinden is in de nieuwe generatie architecten? Architecten die een stap willen zetten in de richting van een betere toekomst door gebouwen te ontwerpen voor gebruikers met een nieuwe duurzame levensstijl. Zijn die architecten niet net zo hard bezig met het opleggen van persoonlijke ideaalbeelden? Zij weten net zo weinig over hun toekomstige gebruiker als de Starchitect die jij beschrijft.” Dit is precies wat mijn gedachtestroom heeft aangedreven tot ijsberen. Schuilt er echt een Starchitect in ons allemaal? Ook in mij? “Ik moet zeggen, zo heb ik het nog nooit eerder gehoord.” “Ik weet het, ik heb het verbeterd.” “Nou, als je het mij vraagt…” “Jij? Wie. Ben. Jij?” [2] A thick cloud of smoke surrounds me as I look around. There is no exit, nothing to recognize, only a blurry sight

We draaien enkel om elkaar heen zonder helder antwoord. Er ijsbeert een ongekende gedachtestroom door mijn hoofd. Het einde nog lang niet in zicht.

of what once was clear to me. Just seconds before I would have returned, the grey smoke starts to move. The blurriness makes way for letters, single letters which form words. Words which form a story and slowly I start to read this story that appears in front of me.

“Ow help, alles is zo verwarrend.” “Dat is het niet.” “Nou, voor mij wel!” “Waarom?” “Nou, het lijkt erop dat ik dingen niet meer hetzelfde herinner als voorheen.” “Welke dingen?”

“Students are still educated to become Starchitects! (…) There is little empathy for one’s users, but a certain need to tell them how to behave. Almost no students hold on to their motivation to keep their personal statements for themselves and only design according to the needs of their users. (…)” [1] The letters change their location, they dance around my face and send me a new message:

Ons gesprek lijkt eindelijk iets tastbaars te raken wanneer ik kan uiten wat me sinds het lezen van die eerdere tekst bezighoudt.

“Who. Are. You?”

“Well I… I… I hardly know sir.” (…)

“Explain yourself!”

“I’m afraid I can’t explain myself sir, because I’m not

“Nog niet zo lang geleden dacht ik dat de Starchitect een goed geboerde architect op middelbare leeftijd was. De architect enkel iconische gebouwen ontwerpt om zijn eigen naam te promoten en te stunten met zijn kundigheid, maar dan uiteindelijk iets af te leveren dat aan alle kanten lekt of te spiegelend is voor de aangrenzende psychiatrische afdeling. Dat is toch de Starchitect met weinig empathie voor zijn uiteindelijke gebruiker, omdat hij eigenlijk niets over deze gebruiker weet?”

myself you know?”

“I do not know!”

“I can’t put it anymore clearly, for it is not clear to me!”

“You? Who. Are. You?” [2]

Sources: 1. Wensdenken, Jasper van Kuijk, De Volkskrant 12 October 2018 2. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll.

Inspirations / Obsessions

JUST IMPROVISE Words & Images Jan Pruszynski

After arriving in Delft in August last year, having loads of fun during the Introduction Programme and making several first friends, the semester has finally begun. And I? I started looking for things to do apart from studying. Preferably something completely new that I have never done before. That is when I stumbled upon the Delft Improv Group, a theatre improv association at the TU. Not thinking much, I have decided to join. What is the worst that could happen?

For many years, I have lived close to a comedy club, where I have seen several, better or worse, improv shows. These experiences made me strongly believe that it is something for those naturally funny, extremely clever people, who can make you laugh in any situation. And I am certainly not one of them. However, I have since learned that it is actually a very common misconception, as no good scene would go far with this kind of an egoistic mindset. Because improv, most of all, is not about you, it is about everyone else. There are several rules of improv, which I would like to share with you. These rules, or rather guidelines, are at the root of what improv should be. Some of them overlap, some result from one another, but all of them are equally important for an improv scene to work well and for the improvisors to feel good. PLAY Play is about being present in the moment, engaging into something just for the joy of it. Here. Now. When you look at children playing, they do it with their whole beings, they know how to let go of everything else. At some point in our lives we lose this ability. We adults fear it. There is always a gazillion things on our minds. There is laundry to be

made. Dinner to be cooked. We fear making fools of ourselves. Of people talking. And improv? Improv is basically a game of pretend, which sometimes gets so absurd that without letting go of your everyday reality you would not be able to fully enjoy it. Play, let your imagination run wild, it really needs it. EVERYBODY IS A GENIUS It is a rule of all rules. In improv when you play a scene with a partner, everything the other person says is a genius idea and just, well, correct. You are there to make them look good and should not say no to any idea they throw, however ridiculous it might be. How many times have you heard “that’s stupid” or “why are you even doing this”? People bring us down every single day, improv strives to do the opposite. LISTEN To do the above well, first of all you need to listen. Most of us are terrible at it (myself included) as we listen just enough to be able to reply. Improv forces you to listen. In this game of pretend, if you want to know what is happening in the scene at any given time, remember the names of all the characters playing in it, you need to listen with your whole being.

Photo from one of our weekly jams

LET YOURSELF FAIL Making a mistake and failing is actually easy. It is when we fear the failure and start over-thinking things that we get back into our heads. Improv teaches us that failing and being a failure are not the same things. Failure is a step on the way, something that just happens and you just continue on. We established already that everything you do is right and the other person is there to tell you that you are a genius for coming up with a way to slay this dragon using toothpics (and a bit of peanut butter).

“Yes, and it looks like a treasure chest.” “Yes, and there’s a lock.” “...” Do you see it? A series of yes ands makes the scene develop pretty much on its own, while just one no would have put a premature end to it.

YES... Taking into consideration all of the above, we say no way too often in our everyday lives. It has become a habit for many people, while in improv there is no place for that. Saying no does not develop a scene, it stops it in place, or does not even let it start, while a series of yeses can take you on a wild ride.

The greatest thing about those rules is that they are quite useful in everyday life as well. They are used by many creativity-dependent companies such as Pixar to pitch new ideas for stories or products. Many others use them as team building exercises. They teach us to speak out, even if we fear that our initial idea does not make sense. But there just might be a person who is going to say “Yes and..” to transform it into something incredible.

…AND With every yes, you want to add something to the story yourself to help your partners. You do not want to put all the pressure on them, hence with every yes you say an and should follow: “We’re digging a hole.” “Yes, and we hit something hard.”

RELAX Just relax and have fun. There is nothing you have to do right, you cannot fail. Everyone around you thinks you are a genius either way.

Want to learn more about improv? Join one of our weekly jams! You can find us every Thursday evening 19:00-21:30 at the X TU Delft, room 230-231. You can also follow us on Facebook and Instagram under Delft Improv Group to learn more.

Artifact

A SMALL PIECE OF FOLDED PAPER Words & Images Ollie Palmer

This article describes an object and a process. The object is a piece of cheap A5 paper torn from a notepad, and the process is the one I use whenever I have to define an idea, or communicate something complex to anyone else. I use this process for every presentation, lecture, lesson plan, syllabus, artwork, or article (including this one).

Limitations fuel creativity. A single small piece of paper is great for clarifying ideas. It fits in your pocket, it’s cheap, and there is always a piece of paper nearby. I fold my piece of paper into eight segments, to make a little pad. Then I go for a walk, and think. I write down ideas as they come to me, putting each separate idea or theme into a new section of the paper. If I can’t think of anything to write, I’ll continue walking. If I have another idea, I’ll stop, and write again. Walking removes all my usual reasons for not starting, and all the distractions that usually stop me. I don’t plan a destination, but try to take a route I haven’t taken before. I just walk to enjoy walking, and thinking. When my paper is full, or I feel I have enough written to continue with my project, I go home. So much of communication is about finding the hierarchy of information that enables other people, who don’t have the knowledge you have, to understand what you’re thinking. On my little piece of paper, similar ideas naturally cluster together, and soon enough an order emerges. I try to write everything that someone with no knowledge of the subject would need to understand it, but not too much. After all, I only have one piece of paper. There are little folded pieces of paper full of notes in plenty of my pockets, my wallet, my sketchbook, books, and drawers. Finding them again instantly takes me back to the place I was when I wrote them, and the little journey I took to come up with an idea. There are strange pockets of cities around the world inextricably linked to the ideas I had when I was there, writing scrawly notes on tiny pieces of paper such as this one. I’d like to pass the baton on to Paolo De Martino, who teaches with me on the Beyond Oil class, both here and in Naples. Ollie Palmer is an artist, designer, film-maker and a visiting lecturer at BK. www.olliepalmer.com

Speak

[BLANK], BUT 3D PRINTED. Words & Images Jack Oliver Petch

Last month saw the annual Dutch Design Week, hosted in Eindhoven. I missed the show in 2017 and I decided that for this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s show I would make plans to visit, stay overnight and explore the city on the last two days of the festival.

I assumed that DDW would be similar to other shows I had seen in the past - something between the London Design Fair and the collateral events for the Biennale in Venice - but in reality, Dutch Design Week, is a completely different breed altogether. I don’t think I had high expectations, and I wouldn’t say I was ‘disappointed’ at what I saw per-se, but… I think this weekend trip calls for the use of the term ‘whelmed’. Not ‘under-whelmed’ or ‘over-whelmed’, I was just, well, whelmed. The title of this year’s festival was “If Not Us, Then Who?” and, for many reasons, I’m not sure if there was much gained by having the theme. In some ways, I was left thinking - “If not me, then who?” moreover, who and what is this show for? Eindhoven’s DDW is splattered across the city, clumping together in a few areas of the urban fabric. It includes exhibitions that range from the side of a shed to an aeroplane hangar. Overwhelmingly, I found that there seems to be little to no hierarchy in the way the organisation presents the events, digitally or physically, which meant that the two days became a treasure hunt. Checking the festival map, referring to the code, looking up the address on google, biking to a street name, and then using all of my wilderness instincts to find signage clues to find my way into the exhibit. It was a very fragmented experience and I didn’t see all the events I planned to. This lack of stratification caused a very small selection of events to be heavily promoted. MX3D’s 3D printed bridge and the ‘Robot Love’ exhibition are key examples of the problem. This lack of hierarcy, caused people to flock to georaphical oppositeis of the city and, despite it being the last few days of the entire event, other areas of the town became completely vacant. Furthermore, whilst the bridge was displayed outside for everyone to see, ‘Robot Love’ had queues for over 45 minutes long causing people to be fustrated with what little time they had to see exhibits. I appreciate that the complexity of DDW is of a massive scale. Somehow, the festival covers everything from a new pavilion made by Renault for a concept car they want to show off, to the Design

Academy Eindhoven’s graduate show. It’s almost an impossible task and fitting everything under a single umbrella is hard. I question if it even needs to. Content-wise, the design week, is more like a trade show. People line their stalls up with their ‘inventions’ hoping to be able to sell themselves and their skills to others. Maybe that’s where the ‘theme’ comes into play – ‘if not us then who else can you get this specific innovation from?’ – but friends have told me that my experience of the 2018 show was not unique. Perhaps because I come from a world that is so bombarded with seeing prototypes, concepts, renders and competition entries, but very few of the stalls I saw felt like they meant anything. Not even speaking in hyperbole, I saw at least five different types of leather alternatives. I’m a vegetarian, I love seeing alternatives to anything that revolves around meat, but simply showing me a strip of a sample material doesn’t do anything: I need to see this prototype put into action. Make me excited about the possibilities - It’s not even that hard! Every time I walk into a shoe store that sells Vegan Doc Martens I am compelled to see and compare them to their cow-made counterparts but these little samples of compressed tree-bark, however? These experiements were presented like science projects and not science-made products. At some points, it seemed like everything came out of a 3D-printer. Forgive me if this sounds like blasphemy to the great and powerful technology overlords, maybe I’m behind the times or maybe I’ve just absorbed too much propaganda. WHENEVER I SAW THOSE LITTLE WHIZZING MACHINES I SIMPLY JUST KEPT THINKING: “WHY? WHO CARES?”

We get it, in 2018 we all know 3D printing can be less waste; can be more ‘sustainable’; can be more ‘user friendly’, but then… what? What happens next? I saw a stall of 3D printed speculaas cookies pitched as a completely groundbreaking never-been-donebefore game changing invention that would radicalise the world of catering in just one click! What they actually had done was ‘re-invented’ a piping bag and made the whole room smell delicious by accident.

I think my major problem is that I do believe all of the things I saw could easily be the future of their own industries, but the tone of the whole show made many aspirations feel un-genuine. For example, there was a stall about the first ever 3D printed house and, instead of talking about how the prototype works and can benefit the masses, the company instead chose to present a VR walkthrough. A glossy augmented reality world made complete with everyones favourite reccuring characters: ‘white lady in sexy red dress’ and ‘man in suit’. The project was shown completely detatched from any reality that I could ever relate to – even how great I would look in a red dress.

Getting to speak to Thijs and Renske from Attic Lab was a refreshing experience from the almost corporate world around. This wasn’t a ‘read’, but they were positioned directly opposite Samsung’s “smart home” exhibition where every device somehow spoke to each other. Attic Lab, however, work with scents/fragrances with and without contexts, and are trying to create an open source ‘scent lab’ and workplace via crowdfunding. More than just perfumes, I learnt that scents affect all things from how companies encourage bakery smells in supermarkets to why we dislike spending time in any hospital, and why on earth do we care so much about a “new car smell”?

Along with the trade-show sections of the festival, there were moments that were more like product stalls, art installations and initiative spotlights. “Manifestations – Will the Future Design Us?” was filled with interesting experiments that have stuck with me. However, I should mention that this exhibit didn’t require you to purchase a DDW entry wristband and was instead open for all the public.

Dutch Design Week was a whole mixed bag, requiring you to explore the entire city of Eindhoven to even get close to a holistic view of the festival and, even though I tried, I definitely didn’t succeed. Not quite a science fair, art show, or a collection of products to go and engage in some sweet sweet consumerism, DDW is a multi-faceted beast which should either be addressed with seriousness or taken very lightly. Plan your day out, find the cheapest ticket or events which are free, and make sure you speak to anyone who sounds remotely interesting. You’ll find out much more that way.

My personal stand-outs included: An intervention inside of the skate-park with simple flags and wiggly fabric that moved to the beat; the graduation show from the design academy was an incredible mixed bag of things to see – and mostly I’d recommend speaking to any of the creators there about their work for a truly honest conversation; I ate a delicious ‘alternative meat’ burger from one of the selected food trucks and last but not least I spent a lot of time at the “Attic Labs” stall.

Jack took more images at DDW18 and can be found on our instagram account @bnieuws.

Speak

STUCK BECOMING: BETWEEN LABOR AND CARE, LOVE AND ABUSE Words Tom Hilsee

Limbo is a stuckness, a debt we can’t escape, to borrow Harney and Motens thought, Limbo is Judith Butlers concept of becoming, of becoming without end. It was first Beauvoirs’ statement: “One is not born a women but becomes one”. Yet the becoming never ends. Limbo is a perpetual ‘not yet there’. An anxiety about constantly shifting and maintaining our ‘identity’. The identity is a ’thing’ which is (also) outside of us— oriented towards a future unknown which lies ahead of us, perpetually. There is no stable selfness in this muck, no place ‘to be’ oneself with oneself, — the oneself is never ‘residing’ ‘in place’. And we move through the muck, doing and undoing, things together— a collective work which (also) has no end. We perform in a perpetual ‘not getting it right’. Our genders don’t fit because our genders don’t fit. We fail our genders, we fail our neurotypicality, we fail our expectations of productivity. The process to become the things we are not, and to not become the things we are, are without end. And they live with each other, a perpetual revolutionary counter revolution. The violence lives with me and because of me. The ability to be different is simmering in the surface of my masculinity. Somewhere in the middle. Living between labor and care, love and abuse. I want to love you, I want to care for you, but I never learned how, to not objectify you, to not possess you. And you (I), never learned that love is not abuse. You (I), never learned that nurturance is not (supposed to be) labor. Stuck and unstuck. Stuck in the stuckness. Perpetual mud. ///// /////////////// ////// / //// ////////////////// Thinking through path dependencies— as Adrienne Rich calls “compulsory heterosexuality”. Something we become stuck within, stuck between— between becoming and arriving— never finding. Grief for something that could be but could never be. A bad dream of an ambigious loss that was never known. And as Sara Ahmed reminds us, a path is marked by being well trodden upon, but the path can disappear, can fade away, when we trod upon it less. We can leave our gender behind. Rebellious tears; “sadness with the world, sadness in the world”. Against a labor of love, towards a loving care. [I’m not making a conclusion, by the way.] I’m talking about perpetual failure. Mucking up the muck with the muck. Do I know what I mean?! ‘We Are Not Yet There’. We never get it right. [again] : becoming without end, unbecoming without end.

Speak

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES REALLY BLOODY GET ME IN THE MOOD Words Ecaterina Stefanescu

While we are constantly bombarded with technological advances that promise us the answer to hugely complex world problems and small snags in our daily lives, what is the trade-off? As the technology thinker Adam Greenfield posited in his thought-provoking talk on the 25th of October in Rotterdam, this compromise we are all at least partly aware of sees our own freedom, happiness and even life on the line.

Organised by De Dépendance, the lecture came on the back of Greenfield’s 2017 book, Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life, which picks apart the hidden costs of emerging technologies. Why does Alexa dim the lights and call your mother for you? Why do banks shut down their headquarters and push all their services to you on an app? Why does Google Maps insist on knowing your home address every time you look for some directions? The answer is, ease. Ease, lack of effort and supposed simplification of life. This is what every new device, app, digital information system, smart house or machine learning technology promises. However, as the sometimes depressing lecture by the technology thinker showed, this effortlessness is increasingly diminishing our freedom, political influence, practical knowledge and our ability to perform simple human activities, which become confiscated by algorithms and systems beyond our understanding – and sometimes beyond the understanding of their makers. When does something cease to be a helping tool, and instead becomes part of a system of entrapment and dependency? The goal, it seems, is to make us into reliant and compliant beings incapable of the

simplest tasks, but supposedly with extra free time and an abundance of resources available to us with a click of a touch screen button. Even if this kind of lifestyle might appeal to certain individuals, these technologies that we assume simplify our lives and increase our production have the downside of handing over of communal power to faceless entities, under the guise of individual empowerment and material wealth. Basing his argument on the philosophy of Ivan Illich and his book, Tools of Conviviality, Greenfield warns this loss of power over everyday activities results in complete dependancy on the technology and the entity or group offering it. The promise of frictionless and seamlessness in our daily lives means in fact, a lack of transparency; and the more opaque the things we sign up for are, the more they prevent us from understanding how power works and who holds it. The opposite of this is the concept of “reverse engineering technologies” – like the radio, which can be disassembled and its workings comprehended by anyone bored on a free Saturday (it also helps that the radio is not actually listening to us. Hey Siri). As technology becomes more advanced but also more obscure, there is a need to ask ourselves: who is really in charge?

The makers of these new technologies offer them as solutions to complex problems and challenges. A quick walk around the stalls at the Dutch Design Week showcases exactly this: innovative, technologybased solutions like fast 3D printing, recycled new materials and sustainable production of goods. However, the paradox of sustainability is that the more efficient a solution is, the less sustainable it becomes. The most well-meaning of the Silicone Valley hyper-optimistic, utopian libertarians incessantly look for technological solutions to the world’s most pressing problems, solutions that are bereft of human complexities and contradictions. These “ecomodernists” strive for purity of answer and clear, one-click resolutions to any challenge, failing to acknowledge that these high-tech fixes rarely succeed as predicted. A device designed to ease waste disposing and recycling in one part of the globe will require components and labour that increase inequality somewhere else. A cryptocurrency that reduces the dependence on centralised systems uses the electricity levels of a country the size of Ireland – and so on. Solving a problem somewhere will simply cause another somewhere else and technological solutions are the worst offender. Greenfield advocated for a “framework of responses” during his talk, and the arguments against the one solution-fits-all attitude of many activists, inventors and politicians are easy to see. The breath of the world’s social, environmental and political problems is so wide, that not one answer, however cutting-age, will do. Anti-solutionism, though, is an “-ism” that, from the get-go, dismantles from the graduation projects of most of this faculty’s studios. This debate regarding technologies that are meant to create a better, fairer and easier future is definitely not new, it is indeed more pressing and extreme in our times. The opening film of the Rotterdam Architecture Film Festival, ‘The Experimental City’, demonstrated how this argument occurred, albeit somewhat naively, more than 50 years ago. The brainchild of scientist, inventor, and science fiction comic book creator Athelstan Spilhaus, the Minnesota Experimental City was envisioned as an energy-neutral city with self-driving cars, selfsustainable agriculture, waste recycling megafactories and super-fast underground transportation

system that contain and filter pollution bellow ground: high-tech solutions for everything, be it environmental issues, social unrest or political conflicts. Involving Buckminster Fuller and receiving a substantial budget from the Federal Reserve of the United States, this utopian city of 250,000 inhabitants planned for rural Minnesota almost became a reality. The film portrays the makers of this utopian urban lab for experimentation as genuinely believing that this was the ultimate answer to the complex problems of mid-century Western Civilisation. Its failure, however, was due in part to the protest of technologically-sceptic people who disagreed with the idea that a technologically-based approach leads to a better tomorrow. Solving advanced civilisation’s technological problems by utilising even more advanced technology, fighting fire with fire, will simply deplete further resources, increase the world’s inequality and cause damage to a greater extent. Nothing really changed in this dispute, except perhaps the stakes. This limbo situation in which society is found translates into our own, personal relationship with technology, and our trade-off with the devices we hold in our hands, the algorithms to which we surrender our decisions, or the interfaces that dictate the way we interact with ourselves and the world. This inescapable passivity – not ignorance, but an overwhelming sense of impotence and helplessness regarding these issues – was highlighted during Greenfield’s post-lecture discussions. We are very much aware of these issues, but are trapped, forgoing our privacy, freedom and time in order to exist in our Information Age society. Adam Greenfield advocated for “critical resistance, public critique and [creation of] strategies of refusal”, but for most of us these are simply the ending paragraphs of an opinion piece you read in a Guardian article on your phone. Further info: Adam Greenfield. Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life (Verso, 2017) Ivan Illich. Tools for Conviviality (Marion Boyars, 1973) Chad Freidrichs. The Experimental City (Unicorn Stencil Documentary Films, 2017) Arctic Monkeys. Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino (Domino, 2018)

b b b b b b b b b b

Speak

THE PRINTERS SMELL FEAR Words Jack Oliver Petch

Something happened, cosmically, when we invented printers. When we foolishly decided to transfer the ethereal digital into physical ink we accidentally created something we have no control over. They sit in our homes, they dominate our offices, they are hidden in plain sight. Don’t look but there is probably one around the corner from you right now or in the corner of your eye. Waiting. Don’t look. Please. They cannot know they’re being watched. They cannot know we are on to them.

I regret to inform you that the humble printer has more power over you than you dare to think about. We’ve all been there. Deadlines, presentations, demands, expectations. This fateful time of semester is going to be upon us once again - and for your sake, I sincerely hope that you are all prepared for what is coming. No matter what you do, everything will stop working a few hours before it needs to be done. Minutes after, everything is back to normal. Is it nerves? Bad planning? That old family amulet you wear around your neck? No, of course not - think about it – it’s the printers. Is there a German word for ‘the feeling of disappointment and anger shared between the machine and yourself’ for whenever your print comes out incorrectly? Colours that are too muted, text that can’t be read, thin lines? Don’t even think about it. You end up signing allegiance with one of them. Returning to the same spot, because you know that at one point - maybe even a year ago – it was either free, did its job correctly or took something on the bypass tray that maybe it shouldn’t have – but don’t be fooled. That is not you finding compliance from the system, instead, the system itself is playing you. , , , , , , , ,

I have a theory that we gave them too much of ourselves. We have printed out all of our family photos; the best and worst creative designs; books of the design process; those invoices you forgot to get refunded – they have seen everything! All of our secrets, hidden in strange file formats. Information somehow transferred over the air, waiting for you to scan a card - a card with your name and face literally printed on it - to be then ‘released’. Does that not seem strange to anyone else? They are not our servants: we are. Demanding more toner, more paper, no - differed sized paper, now there is a paper jam in tray 2. Look what you did! Still don’t believe me? Remember all those times stuck in a long queue, when sweat starts to pour out, the rage that boils whenever you arrive and for some reason the file hasn’t, causing you to wait or resend and, god, don’t even get me started about when someone starts scanning tracing paper. I only hope to thee gods they ;;don’t don’t know s they knowwe’re we ,, on onto them. Who knows what do. torelease. whthey’ll R ELEASE. ||}. error\:image

e s they ;;d release. ` ,,,,,,,,,,,,, fi le ,,, ha s n’t` n’t ,, ” ///

We are always searching for new voices to join and contribute to Bnieuws. Whether your talents are in writing, drawing, photography, graphic design, or you’re filled with a range of skills, we would love to hear from you if you have any ideas for the faculty periodical. If you would like to be on our contributors list, simply send an email with your ideas to bnieuws-BK@tudelft.nl

© All rights reserved. Although all content is treated with great care, errors may occur. Printed by © All rights reserved. Druk. Tan Heck Although all content is 1,350 copies treated with great care, errors may occur.

NEXT ISSUE: 03

Printed by Cover Druk. Tan Heck The Bnieuws team. 1,350 copies

Hashtags; Mis-tag; Tag-less; Untagged; to attach a label to; a label attached to someone or something for the purpose of identification or to give other information; Perception and attribution; a nickname or description; a frequently repeated quotation or stock phrase; graffiti; a scientific marker; to follow or accompany someone; life in this ever-social world. 03 due January 2019. e release. R ELEASE.

s they ;;d

We are always searching for new vo to join and contribute to Bnieuws. Whether your talents are in writing drawing, photography, graphic desi you’re filled with a range of skills, w would love to hear from you if you any ideas for the faculty periodical. would like to be on our contributor

Colofon Bnieuws Colofon Volume 52 Issue 02 xx November 2018

TAG

Bnieuws Contact Volume 52 Room BG.Midden.140 Issue 02 Julianalaan 134 xx November 2018 2628 BL Delft bnieuws-bk@tudelft.nl Contact Room BG.Midden.140 Julianalaan 134 Editorial Team 2628 BL Delft Elena Rossoni bnieuws-bk@tudelft.nl Jan Pruszynski Jack Oliver Petch Sam Eadington Editorial Team Elena Rossoni Jan Pruszynski Contributors Jack Oliver Petch Ecaterina Stefanescu Sam Eadington Eva ten Velden Ollie Palmer Tom Hilsee Contributors Ecaterina Stefanescu Eva ten Velden Cover Ollie Palmer The Bnieuws team. Tom Hilsee

,’,’,,,’,,,,,

BECOME A PEN PAL!

Bnieuws INDEPENDENT PERIODICAL OF THE FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT TU DELFT VOLUME 52 ISSUE 02