From the Ground on Up: Architecture for Humanity takes on Leadership in Biloxi Mississippi

Where does architecture cross the line from benefiting only those who can afford its luxury and into the realm of serving those in poverty? While some help the families effected by Katrina in the form of money, medical aid, or food, Architecture for Humanity is commit ed to helping those in need with their greatest tool: design. From re-designing public buildings to community housing, Architecture for Humanity has reached out to offering its expertise where it is needed, and has many projects in progress as well as completed. The organization is a conglomerate of many participating firms all of which are dedicated to offering the most affordable, useful, and sustainable solutions possible. The projects which the initiative encompasses include a vast number of design issues including temporary structures, mobile dwellings, and pre-fabrication.

This pooling of resources represents a shift in the way society understands the true potential of design. Historically, architecture's primary purpose in the public realm has been to create national identity in order to compete with other countries. The largest surges in architectural innovation have been fueled by national pride, and have benefited not any given individual, but rather the invisible entity we call a country a state, a province, or what have you. With increasing global environmental hazards, will architects and planners rise to the challenge of aiding those who have been disaster stricken? Architecture for Humanity shows positive signs of this effort becoming more and more of a reality.

The benefits to in which design has on these areas becomes clear in cases such as the Biloxi Model Home Program. In this program, architects, engineers and other design professionals meet face to face with Katrina victims to discuss simple questions regarding rebuilding on hurricane torn property. The House Fair, which was set up by Architecture for Humanity gives Katrina victims the benefit of choosing from a variety of architects by seeing their designs first hand.

One of these designs, by Studio/Gang Architects, fully represents the imaginative and functional potential of design in areas such as Biloxi Mississippi. The design, (shown in two images above) takes its insiration from the pine cone, where scales open and close to dispense fertilized seeds to be deposited back into the ground. The house, in a similar fashion, is fully breathable to maximize natural breezeways, reducing the need for energy consuming air conditioning, while at the same time being fully modifiable by the inhabitants. Also, patio spaces embrace the lifestyle of the people who may enjoy a peaceful gathering space. The design also incorporates pre-fabricated trusses which allow significant structure to the raised platform of the house. Underneath, ample storage space is available, and also the platform prevents water damage to the interior of the building in case of future flooding.

Other designs, such as the Blox House by Bret Zamore Design incorporates basic issues of raising the house above flood levels. The design concentrates on affordability and adaptability. By making the construction method simple, requiring "little cutting" the house can be rapidly made and added on to. Through its configuration in plan, the Blox House can be modulated to serve many occupants who wish to live in the same immediate dwelling, while at the same time offers a simple livable aesthetic.

With the staggering amount of loss of property (shown at right, click to enlarge), designs such as these represent a shining light for many residents of Bioxi. The House fair is most applicable to those families who have lost their homes completely, however, to those who have faced over 50% structural damage, it may be the case to start over again with the design of a new home. It is truly inspirational to see architects of such expertise working with families to better their lives. With the help of organizations such as Architecture for Humanity, these will once again be able to enjoy their home town of Biloxi, Mississippi once again.

Olympic Developments; In with the Old, Out with the New

This week’s post is directed towards plans for the 2012 and 2016 Olympics, which, despite their far proximity, have been under continuous review and discussion among the architectural community. With the recent environmental, or “green” push, issues of sustainability have been applied to these future projects. The first of which, the 2012 Olympic Games, to be held in London, is said by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), to be the “greenest games in modern times.” With innovations such as integrated renewable energy systems, water conservation, and low pollution along with recycling of materials during construction, the Olympic Village is doubtlessly gearing up to represent this popular shift towards sustainable living that the turn of the millennium has witnessed. The proposal for the 2016 Olympics has includes re-using the Los Angeles Coliseum as the centerpiece to the games. Although the design doesn’t add any of the “green” advantages, as does the London Village, the act of reusing the existing structure, is in and of itself environmentally savvy. The comments, posted below, address the balance between the design aesthetic and the intentions towards sustainability of these two projects.

Comment to How Green Will the London Olympics Be?
by Bonnie Alter

I appreciate your point that the environmental standards of the project are being put under tight review and are seen as possibly being not strict enough, while the idea of local indigenous communities being destroyed doesn’t raise concern. This gets into the issue of what is more sustainable: buying a brand new hybrid car, or just repairing the old one in the garage? Although I do believe it is more environmentally sound to take better advantage of existing structures and public spaces than to erect new ones that cause more pollution and create other environmental dilemmas, I do think the creating of a new Olympic Village is vital. Having not seen the full competition documents for the London Village, it is difficult to access whether the design would complement the Olympic Ceremony, but in the past, and in other proposals, the designs for these “global villages” represent international community and promote peace among nations. The erecting of new structures is symbolic of this effort and, without it I believe that the potency of the project would diminish. Given that, by erecting a building that is “green” is by all means appropriate in that it represents the global effort to be more environmentally efficient.

Comment to “Coliseum preps for face-lift; Games plan leaves the historic portion of stadium untouched” by Rick Orlov

My response to this proposal it double edged. I believe it is a great idea to re-use an existing stadium for the 2016 Olympics (as was mentioned, "this will be the crown jewel of the Olympics, as it was twice before”) however, there are glaring issues with the design and with the functionality of the renovation. Before commenting on these let me mention that the notion of re-use is for me the most sustainable process we have as designers. What is better for the environment isn’t to build a sustainable structure at all, but rather use what we have more effectively. However, although Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa embraced the plans, developed by architect David Jay Flood, I would like to state my disgust with these purely monetarily driven designs. In short, Flood’s proposal compounds the issue of a lack of student seating by reducing the total occupancy by 13,000 seats, and replaces them with 204 “luxury” box seats. These box seats are by no means luxury, but rather reflect the superficiality, in terms of both of its design aesthetic and structural integrity, that the entire endeavor is imbued with. The design is horribly unappealing, and rather than gearing the renovation towards improving the overall quality of the space, it is rather directed towards facilitating for the select high-dollar few. This move which still doesn’t bring resolve to even the box seats also sacrifices the experience for everyone else. In conclusion just let me add while the intent of some individuals may be interested in "spread[ing] the Olympic spirit throughout the region with events to be held everywhere" in order for this spirit to be experienced in the Coliseum is for a different design to be chosen.

Stitching Up the Gaps: The Architecture of Fashion

Skin + Bones, the current exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Downtown Los Angeles, challenges the notion of space making by drawing on parallels between architecture and fashion design. Through a concourse of both architectural and fashion based-projects, the exhibit brings to the surface the pertinence of their interrelation. Although vernacular understanding may place the two trades into disparate classes, work done by leaders in both professions proves that the practices of both architecture and fashion have intersected. However, the identification of this link between architecture and fashion is not new. In fact, the origins of their bond can be traced back to Adolf Loos, an architect and theoretician who was involved in the beginnings of the Modern Movement in architecture during the turn of the 20th century. Loos focused on the role that clothing and dwelling have an individual’s establishment of their own social standing and personal identity. While the ideas that he generated from this association indirectly influenced his architecture, current architecture has taken Loos’s exploration a step further by making more direct references to the fashion world.


The MOCA exhibit begins by stating the strategies in which architecture has adopted from fashion design. Such processes include printing, pleating, folding, draping and weaving. The first segment of the exhibit labeled “identity” features fashion collections that constitute distinct permutations of personal individuality. For instance, The “Defensible Dress” by J. Meejin Yoon from MY Studio, is equipped with latex dipped “quills” that become erect when movement is detected, thus the identity of the dress responds to changes in its surrounding environment. Similarly, the project entitled “Afterwards” by Hussein Chalayan and Marcus Tomlinson deals with the concept of an adaptable identity that also reacts to a dynamic setting. The chair upholstery in the installation can be removed from chairs to become a gown and the remaining structure of the chair can be transformed into a briefcase while the table is extruded from its center and is worn as a skirt. As noted in the gallery, the concepts of Chalayan and Tomlinson’s design “deal with fleeing one’s home and relates to the fragility of both shelter and identity.”

This project is contrasted with architect Jean Nouvel’s “light screen” for the Arab World Institute where metal patterns function as apertures that open and close mechanically to allow varying degrees of light through to the inside of the building. This concept came from the Islamic latticework screen that traditionally is used to prevent a woman inside from being seen. Here social paradigms relating to personal identity and self-expression are mirrored in Nouvel’s design. By beginning the exhibit with projects that are non-traditional, however share such direct similarities; there is an immediate interest in the potential of both fields as well as a curiosity into how the two trades correlate.

More specific similarities are seen as one progresses through the exhibit, making the correlation become increasingly apparent. For example, the shared tectonic principle of “folding” is seen in the fashion works of Tess Giberson, in her Structure One collection, and the works of architects Preston Scott Cohen, and Peter Eisenman. Gibson folds simple materials to achieve elegant and functional designs. The language of these designs is that of honesty in that the process of how the clothing was made becomes apparent. Similarly, in Cohen’s Tell Aviv Museum of Art, a single surface is “folded” to create a functional light well that illuminates the museum space. His design achieves the same sense of structural integrity and grace as does the fashion projects. At this point, the link between the actual processes of fashion and architecture has been confirmed in the mind of the onlooker. The rest of the exhibit expounds upon how additional production methods are used by both architecture and fashion. The portion of the exhibit titled “Structural Skin” shows projects that use this similar design quality. The fashion project by Miyake Issey and Fujiwara Dai attempts to create a pair of jeans in a single production process without using seams. Therefore, the surface material of the product or “skin” is in fact acting as the structure, thus “structural skin.” This same concept is seen in Herzog de Mueron’s Prada Aoyama Epicenter where the structure of the building functions as its skin. In the Prada building, the “honeycomb” moment frame structure is repeated three dimensionally inside the volume of the building to create spaces to serve the varied program. Thusly, the skin of the building is indeed its structure and visa versa.

The ideas made apparent in Skin + Bones represent the cross disciplinary-effort to advance societies notion of perceived space. By focusing on the most current of projects, the exhibit is projecting the direction of the future by identifying the radically progressive state of these fields today. In relating concepts seen in history to today’s high tech society, architecture’s imminent potential as a tool to redefine the urban condition becomes increasingly apparent.