Progress gives the human essence a positive direction. It can be quantified through concrete examples of advancement and evolution as measured through biological, social and technological processes.
The Industrial and Digital Revolutions are considered the pinnacle of progress, each harbouring a radical reinvention of life and a promise of prosperity for all. Yet, they also tie to displacement, distress, and a frantic search for equilibrium. It becomes the responsibility of the human agent to asses and adjusts to these changes. However, if we deem something as progressive, it seems like there should be a steadfast set of criteria to go about identifying it. This responsibility translates into a divide of Individual and Common Wealth values. While actions of the former neglect interests of the latter, the formation of community is often feared to eradicate the Individual. The contradiction calls for a certain temporary stagnation. Instead of recognizing progress as a goal, we should perhaps look at it as an endless string that is stretched as the two entities seek balance. Architecture is a medium that maintains and preserves this notion over time, placing progress more as a journey than a goal.
Positivists proclaim that progress is scientific, but understanding it as a goal that can be reached through the principles of love and the guidance of order is like suggesting that Aristotle’s Eudaemonia — the ability to achieving true happiness through knowing God, is a realistic end. Science gives us the means to measure, identify, and justify. Although surely applicable to most things in life, adopting a positivist lens invites social injustice that ultimately contradicts the identified goal. In this instance, progress becomes a fallacy but perhaps the problem stems from Comte’s inability to create a clear distinction between progress and innovation, as well as his dedication to reducing the term as a means to an end.
Innovation can often be misrepresented as progress. The Digital Revolution enables technologies that can get people from point A to point B in a more efficient manner. This has vastly impacted many aspects of modern civilization — Crunch Culture and the hyper-connected home are just a few examples. Innovation is merely technology-driven and not an end-in-itself. Rather it represents the direction of progress as it is realized. Architecture can be identified in similar terms — things get build in the synchronicity of events and demands. Later, these monuments are re-worked to fit a more cohesive standard that addresses overlooked or purposefully neglected issues.
Progress can only be experienced when innovation is implemented for the common good. Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, for instance, advocates for collective growth through the abolition of class hierarchies and the management of climate change, rather than an increase of efficiency, convenience, and personalization. Such progressive and utopian concepts are stunted by the tension of Individualist and Communal cultures whose struggle is enhanced through the self-serving interests of developmental and profit-oriented mentalities.
As a medium, architecture can display the direction and remnants of progress, regardless of successful implementation. The past seems to be governed by religious and artful principles, the present is powered by ecological and economic climates, while the future is subject to speculation. It is here where the pace of progress as a journey can be measured.
In Toronto, the transition from Classical to Modern to Robotic has transpired over the course of 150 years. The University of Toronto showcases how the past adapts to the demands of the present. Hart House and other older buildings are aesthetically grandiose but built as largely unsustainable and inaccessible – an issue that the university is addressing with a five-year plan. Thus, the progression of education embellished the city with structures of exceptional appearance, but they also alienated people who couldn’t afford it and the differently-abled. Moving to the present, these past innovations are workshopped to fit a more ubiquitous notion of progress, one that is closer to ideals of equality, diversity, and tolerance. This signals that progress might not be a goal — as Comte suggests because that ties it to a degree of permanence. Instead, progress is a dynamic phenomenon that is dependent on trial-and-error and the human consciousness of it all. Initial plans for buildings are often subject to the architect’s stylistic preference, however, their usability over time is determined by the self-realization of the community.
The university’s five-year plan justifies to an extent that there is no immediacy in the concept of progress, rather it is an amalgamation of things that propel forward an institution who seeks to be recognized by ethical and sustainable values.
In the present, progress becomes translated through innovation. Sustainability and social good move forward through projects like MIT’s digital fabrication system or Stephanie Chaltiel’s drone-led rapid construction method. Tools such as these are a means for exploration of all possible avenues of implementation. However, even in their primitive forms, they have an effect on urban infrastructure and the human agent who becomes displaced or perplexed by their introduction. A great example of this is Artificial Intelligence and its ties to big data-powered rapid growth. While developers expand Toronto — a “tech hub,” in height, the discourse becomes skewed. This is enhanced through an individualized culture that is fearful for its own agency in the community, but municipal bodies also contribute to the crisis. A demand for DIY spaces that serve artistic communities is replaced for real estate development. The problem is rooted in the failure of the City to produce an infrastructure for these venues to operate in the first place and thus, halting communal self-realization. When the onus is placed solely on innovation, the community is negated on behalf of self-interest – a massive condo will surely contribute more to the wealth of real estate moguls than a simple DIY venue that will benefit many but not necessarily in monetary ways. Jane Jacobs explains this tension quite eloquently — “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.”
A sense of sterile order in the form of buildings with clearly defined private spaces is introduced to the DIY disorder. If Positivism operated with order as basis, then progress is built on the notion that communities should be silenced and preferably homogeneous. Revolutions, however, are social. The French Revolution contributed to progress with the abolition of monarchy — an order, bringing rights and freedom to the common populace of France. If progress is based on order, then who establishes that order is important. It seems that the scientific method, which Comte so vividly proposes to be the catalyst for progress, is one that others community. Yet, in all instances of progression throughout time the common denominator is people and the environment.
Looking to the future, there is plenty of promise. Architects and designers harness technology, with an emphasis on sustainability, affordability and social space to fully revolutionize the industry. One of the big future-facing projects is a neighborhood development on Toronto’s waterfront, overseen by Sidewalk Labs. Dubbed Quayside, the concept is made up of savvy urban innovations like heated sidewalks, sprawling public spaces that connect residents with the outdoors, and tall timber-made structures which are built with renewable and locally sourced wood. The later feature guarantees a boost for the Canadian economy. The infrastructure of Quayside is expected to adapt to the climate year-round and it is rooted in an attempt to provide a secure and connected environment, with an emphasis on affordable housing and public spaces. Sidewalk Labs hones “the core of [the] future city [to be] a layer of digital infrastructure that provides ubiquitous connectivity for all, […] and encourages creation and collaboration to address local changes.” One can see a certain focus on building communities and allowing individuals to exist in the collective mindset as their own being, guided by the Principle of Utility.
Sidewalk Labs’ proposal hits the right marks for likability, suggesting that there is a formula to follow for progress to be made. However, the development is a utopian concept that is hard to envision or gauge the influence of when it is physically non-existent. Change needs to happen through disruption and Sidewalk Labs’ Quayside will be successful if and only if the concept is executed in the right ways and toward the benefit of all.
Architecture makes the case that progress is dependent on human direction and the successful implementation of concepts for a greater good. Suggesting that Progress is a goal in-and-of-itself produces a limitation that imposes a sense of permanency and a resistance to change once Progress is perceived to have been achieved. However, change is integral to the human psyche. The idea of Progress extends across time and is rooted in applying innovation and later, troubleshooting implementation. How far humanity has come can be identified through comparison, with an emphasis on urban infrastructures and social relations. In this sense, progress is a string that is pulled through community values.
Artwork:
El Lissitzky – Hit the Whites with the Red Wedge!, 1920
References:
Block, India. “Mud-Spraying Drones Could Help Build Emergency Homes.” Dezeen, Dezeen, 2 Oct. 2018, www.dezeen.com/2018/10/02/stephanie-chaltiel-mud-shell-southbank-spraying-drones-emergency-homes-architecture-ldf/. Web.
Gibson, Eleanor. “Alphabet Set to Create High-Tech ‘Future City’ on Toronto Waterfront.” Dezeen, 6 Nov. 2018, www.dezeen.com/2017/10/19/alphabet-google-sidewalk-labs-high-tech-future-city-toronto-waterfront/. Web.
Gillis, Carla. “Vanishing Music Venues.” NOW Magazine, 1 Mar. 2017, nowtoronto.com/music/torontos-vanishing-music-venues/.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities . Random House, New York , 1962. Print.
MIT Mediated Matter Group. “Project Overview ‹ Water-Based Additive Manufacturing.” MIT Media Lab, MIT, www.media.mit.edu/projects/water-based-additive-manufacturing/overview/. Web.
Raworth, Kate. Doughnut Economics. Random House UK, 2018.
University of Toronto. Energy Conservation & Demand Management Plan, 2014, www.fs.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/EnergyPlan.pdf. Web.
originalmess 