Community

The development of a coherent nomadic community structure is necessary in order to facilitate a large number of nomadic travelers. The nomadic community will not operate in the same way as traditional nomadic communities – like the Bedouins, the Roma of South and Eastern Europe, or the reindeer herding Saami communities – where a familial or otherwise attached group of people travel together in larger groups. These groups are often pastoral and in search of grazing land for their herds, although many groups have done it for economic reasons.

The makeup of the traditional nomadic communities includes community, social and cultural functions. Because of the coherence of the community in terms of membership, the rituals and customs either do not need a separate method of facilitation or is built in to the architecture and rituals of the group.

American nomadism, because of the extreme cultural variation and individuation that will be inherent, will necessitate a more specific infrastructure that will accommodate the community functions that would otherwise be missing. The community needs that need to be addressed can be collected into hubs that will act as attractors and nodes of organization. Nomads can collect around a hub in one location and be able to fulfill any social or cultural functions that would otherwise be unmet. These functions will range from educational to civic to commercial. A range of base elements can be augmented by specific elements depending on the location, allowing for specialization and competition within the network of hubs while preventing excessive duplication.

Basic needs will be basic commercial (for the provision of food, energy, repair services, and other basic needs), cultural, and civic (especially a post office). Because of the material and staffing needs of these elements, the hubs will be located near populated areas. The size of these hubs can vary from small filling stations to larger scale destinations with specialized elements included.

Specialized facilities can vary based on location, but may include educational facilities, regional cultural facilities, etc. Because of the specialized nature of the elements in these hubs, it will be most effective to have them located near larger urban areas that can provide the skilled labor and services to maintain the advanced level of facilities.

Multiuse facilities can be augmented by traveling facilities. Traveling libraries and educational facilities have become increasingly popular in non-industrialized countries to allow a dispersion of knowledge over a larger area while working within more limited resources. Experiments with the Hawawir community in Sudan have proved successful in allowing them to maintain their nomadic traditions, while advancing the educational opportunities of their children.[1]

These facilities can also allow members of the nomadic population to maintain a more service based economic function – like a traveling salesman – while allowing them the freedom to move. The traveling salesmen of the

The suspicion that nomadism will diminish the importance of, or potentially eliminate regional variation for the sake of standardization, fails to take into account the impetus of moving. Regional variation ensures novelty and attracts the nomad. And what I propose is not the elimination of sedentary life, but the accommodation of nomadic life. A large sedentary population is not only to be expected, but is necessary to maintain two major elements of a successful nomadic society: provision of materials and services and destinations to travel to. Without a destination, a nomad has no reason to leave. Without the availability of materials and services at dependable and accessible locations, nomads would be physically incapable of maintaining a nomadic lifestyle in addition to the expected standard of living that has become so expected.

Studies of the optimal tours throughout the U.S. have been around since the start of the tourism boom of the 1950s. It has become a goal of computational mathematicians to solve the problem.

“Given a collection of cities and the cost of travel between each pair of them, the traveling salesman problem, or TSP for short, is to find the cheapest way of visiting all of the cities and returning to your starting point. In the standard version we study, the travel costs are symmetric in the sense that traveling from city X to city Y costs just as much as traveling from Y to X.”[2]

Because the problem is inherently based in the idea that the salesman will return to the same location, it ignores both the past examples of and the potential future for nomadic salesmen. Assuming that the salesman can continue to travel and never worry about returning to the same point remains an un-explored, and increasingly economically valid concept. As the importance of non-traditional commerce – E-bay and Amazon.com being major players in this new phenomenon – grows, the traveling salesman becomes a niche expert who can provide non-material or non-traditional services.

[1] http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC13855.htm

[2] http://www.tsp.gatech.edu/index.html

American Wanderlust

Wanderlust [image] is a strong element in American society. Early American settlers were willing to risk everything to move to a new place. Some settled along the coastline,[image] while other countries began exploring the interior of the country. As the vastness of the continent became increasingly obvious, settlers began setting out from the coasts and exploring the interior. The myth of the Oregon trail and the Wild West inspired adoration and an iconic status in the history and culture of the U.S.

As the country expanded, methods of connecting the far-separated network of cities became huge civic projects rivaling the roads and aqueducts of Rome. The railroad system [image] provided a major population boost in the west by making travel easier. Many who had found the east to be stagnant economically and socially were able to seek out opportunities.

But it wasn’t until the invention of the automobile that the North American continent truly opened up to exploration by the larger population. In the early days of the auto it was a specialty item, but Ford’s mass production of the Model T [image] provided the common man an unprecedented access to the American landscape… except that the infrastructure couldn’t handle the increased load. Roads were mostly unpaved, the vestiges of wagon trails and paths. Localized organizations in California created a better road system, but it was limited to the state lines.

The American Association of State Highway Officials was formed in 1924 to address this issue and create a unified highway system. They enabled the standardization of road building and eventually pushed through the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. Inspired by the German autobahn, this act was specifically directed at the standardization of the numbering and naming system of the interstate highway system and encouraged the building of divided highways. Twenty-five billion dollars was allocated for the development of the highway system. Though Eisenhower’s reasons for supporting the building of the system were motivated by military movement and defense, the results allowed the American motorist to travel easily throughout the U.S. The reduction of transportation costs led to booms on both coasts early on.

The new system also helped spur in the tourism boom of the 50s and 60s, often termed the “second discovery of America.” The road trip became the quintessential family vacation and a release for the youth. The availability of cheap oil and the growing middle class encouraged the growth of the now massive tourist industry.

Along the highways, roadside stands gave way to gas stations which gave way to service stations which gave way to elaborate full service complexes and eventually towns that relied on the flow of traffic. Seasonal towns started popping up in between tourist destinations that would fill up during peak travel seasons to take advantage of the motorists on holiday.

As the tourist boom was occurring, the urban environment was shifting away from the cities. The diasporas that traditionally made people escape to a different city or region became more localized. The development of the suburban development necessitated a car for transportation too and from the urban centers that were still the primary center of commerce. The American automobile industry was booming as millions of Americans responded to the desire, and eventually the need, for a high level of personal mobility.

Changes in the global economy have also necessitated an increase in travel and relocation for economic reasons. Americans are finding it easier and more beneficial to move to a new, and possible far removed, location for a new job opportunity than to seek more gainful employment within their existing context. This has become a personification of the concept of American “upward mobility” that was a driving force of the suburban movement and the economic development of the 20^th century. The desire to move to something bigger and better has been a major motivation for movement and relocation.

And yet despite technological advances and the boom of the “telecommuter” (upwards of 32 million in 2001[1]), the American wanderlust has not substantially diminished. This suggests that the novelty of the new place is a major consideration for a move. One of the most frequently cited reasons for moving, closely following economic factors, is the search for a new and better neighborhood.[2] Perhaps because of the lack of coherent community structures in many cities and suburbs has left Americans searching constantly for more, but evidence suggests that extremely localized, even associations between neighbors, can be a factor that leads to dissatisfaction even in areas with a strong community structure.[3]

In fact, the need to be able to escape stressful living conditions due to neighbors, crime or other factors is a major impetus for movement. The importance of the individual and the attainment of personal happiness takes precedent over the common good. Even social networking and community organizations are often developed with the goals of both personal growth as well as community growth in mind. When the community or network fails or is becoming difficult to maintain a place within, the easiest solution is often to move.

Proposals for dealing with highly mobile individuals are often targeted at the individual. The facilitators of personal mobility from the automobile to the RV are designed for the individual and are fit into existing community infrastructures as unobtrusively as possible. But the interactions between people are not being facilitated in a way that addresses the transience of the populations, which is unfortunate in a culture where involvement in social, political and community elements is declining rapidly.

“In the mid-1970s the average American attended some club meeting every month, by 1998 that rate of attendance had been cut by nearly 60 per cent… In 1975 the average American entertained friends at home 15 times per year; the equivalent figure (1998) is now barely half that. Virtually all leisure activities that involve doing something with someone else, from playing volleyball to playing chamber music, are declining.”[4]

The American wanderlust has...

Starbucks did it.

Highway system: travel and national defense

[1] http://www.businesswire.com/webbox/bw.022801/210590161.htm

[2] http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/realestate/22cov.html?ref=realestate

[4] http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm#DECLINE

Client Groups

There are several potential client groups that I have begun to study. Each of these client groups has needs and desires that define what type of housing and community life is best. These groups are the most likely to maintaina more nomadic lifestyle and offer a view of the variety within the groups as well as a window on several of the similarities.

These will help in the development of both unit types and comminty structures.

See below the need based groups (CEOs and homeless) and desire based groups (hipies and yuppies).

Hippie: Young idealist

Desires based.
Desires:
change
Non-conformist
sustainability
proximity to nature
economic
long lasting
Freedom
communal lifestyle
access to "spiritual experiences"
Needs:
kitchen/living/bed
dry place to sleep
joint functionality

CEO

Needs based.
Needs:
Location
proximity to work
home office
Formal
division of function
efficient
minimal
Desires:
Privacy
status symbol

Homeless

Needs based.
Needs:
dry place to sleep
place to squat
Security
long lasting
Movable
flexible
securable
Desires:
privacy
individual space
freedom

Yuppies: Young Urban Professionals

Desire based.
Desires:
Network
upgradable
separate functions
Chic
fashionable
grooming and wardrobe space

Needs:
minimalist
efficiency
entertaining

Thesis v12

“Home, rather than being a specific geographic location, is more and more about a set of personal activities, habits, and relationships than an established continuum of habitation in the same location.” (Swartz-Claus, 23)

Thesis

The automobile culture of the past century has allowed Americans to be more mobile and more expansive. But at the same time a stigma has developed against the mainstays of American nomadism, especially the mobile home and the trailer park. American’s neo-nomadic movement will have to address both the individual elements of a nomadic lifestyle (the units) and at the same time tackle the social and community implications associated with the move away from a distinctly urban society (the hubs). The way the American nomadic culture is developed must acknowledge a greater level of economic and environmental sustainability.

Theme

The average American moves every six years, spends seven weeks of every year in a car and upwards of $6,000 annually on their car. Americans are members of a growing throwaway consumer culture, where every commodity has a limited lifespan, even the house one lives in.

The automobile is an omnipresent element in American society, culture, and economics — so pervasive that its impact is often overlooked not only by the average American, but often by civic leaders and city planners. It has encouraged the development of a transient population and put a strain on traditional forms of city development. The American city is expected to provide ample housing to accommodate rapidly growing and frequently moving populations while at the same time providing a vast network of infrastructure to facilitate the commuter, the traveler and the upwardly mobile.

We may soon look back to “The Age of the Automobile” with wry nostalgia. A seemingly endless flow of inexpensive oil allowed America’s car culture to aggressively expand. Increased demand for oil in other world markets and recent disruptions in domestic oil production have stretched supplies and driven costs to new heights. The biological principle that growth is controlled by the scarcest resource available is equally applicable in economics, and indicates that the increasing scarcity of oil will significantly impact our car culture as well as our urban culture. The current expectation of maintaining both a house and a car -- one’s landed-ness and one’s personal mobility respectively -- is already being strained by changes in the availability of oil. However, the expectation of mobility has not yet been impacted noticeably by dramatically increased prices of fuel.

In order to adapt to these pressures, a choice will have to be made between the dream of the landed gentry and the desire for personal mobility. Despite the best intentions of architects and urban planners, Americans will continue to consider mobility a birthright.

There are three primary issues to be explored before development of prototypes can begin: sociology, sustainability, and economy. The principles of the American nomad movement can be defined by delving into the existing implications and research in these three areas, projecting the impact a nomadic lifestyle will have and predicting the effectiveness of these developments.

Vehicle

These issues will be explored at three scales:

Urban— an understanding of the urban implications of a large transient population has been needed for a while. As Americans have become more mobile, socially and physically, the result has been uncontrolled growth and sprawl. The infrastructural and cultural needs of a more mobile society will need to be reconsidered, with special care given to the importance of community groups, anticipation of use patterns, and the consequences of the transport and aculturalization of individuals.

Organizational— a focused development of architecture as furniture. Developing means and methods for distribution, assembly, upgrading, replacement, and transportation of the elements of a house will be the primary concerns. This includes an intense investigation into the size, use and makeup of spaces that make up a building as interchangeable modules. [is this still important?]

Architectural — based on developments in materials and methods that allow architecture to make a minimal impact on the environment while at the same time making it less materially transient and more mobile. This will include a strong emphasis on prefabrication and sustainability. [dependent on later investigations into materiality]

A series of small projects will be pursued to test the needs and limitations of this lifestyle as well as to establish potential cultural implications. Several prototypes will be examined that will focus on different mobile lifestyles: the ever-moving and the semi-nomadic; the single-family and the bachelor; and means of locomotion. The first dichotomy focuses on the difference in use, whether it is mostly transient or more related to the upwardly mobile segment of American homeowners who move regularly to bigger and better surroundings. The second will be an exploration of the different needs of a family with multiple members as opposed to the relatively simple bachelor lifestyle. The final category will explore a variety of options for the means of “nomadicity”[1].

Several client groups will be identified and critiqued in order to best determine the needs and desires of the new nomads.

All of the prototypes developed will rely heavily on techniques of prefabrication, developments in materials technology, and sustainability practices.

[1]"Nomadicity is the tendency of a person, or group of people, to move with relative frequency.” From “Definition of nomadicity,” Definitions, Dictionary for Internet and Computing Technologies (24 March 2006), http://www.whatis.com (accessed 19 August 2006).

The Classical Community

The Classical Community. Part 1:

Both the ancient Greek and Romans can be characterized by the importance of community space. The Greek agora and the Roman forum are both condusive to the commercial and civic functions performed in them, as well as acting as a place of general gathering and community.

The urban development of Rome represents an outward expression of the crowd mentality that predominated. Isn't it approporiate for the republic of Rome to appeal to the masses? But even more so by the time Rome was an empire stretching over 3 continents. The masses were so diverse and so spread that appeasing them and catering to them was vital to the survival of Rome.

Like the Huguenots of 16th century France, the Romans believed that their success was due to favor from the gods. Therefore the buildings and monuments that they built were allowed to be built because of existing conditions (i.e. the favor of the gods shown on them).

The Modern Community

The Modern Community. Part 1:

As opposed to the Romans, who believed that their good luck and success was a direct gift of the gods, the Modernists believed that they were the gods. Therefore, they had the ability and the right to change the built environment and therefore the cultural and social environment.

The Modernists believed that they were creating not only better environments, but that their architecture would inspire people and society to strive for greatness and perfection. This presumption has been maintained in contemporary community-based architecture despite periods of strife over the Modernist agenda.

Community architecture can be "the great equalizer." If you share nothing else from the experience of architecture, you can at least share the sense of awe (possibly insignificance... buildings of this scale can have that effect).

The step away from the modernist agenda seems to occur at the human scale. Where is the human scale? How does a person interact with the building at a scale that is not overwhelming and for which we have some sense of reference (be if your eye level or your hand or your stride)? The wide expanses of basically unbroken grass serve as public outdoor space and operate in a totally different way than the Italian piazzas. They are scarcly populated. They are not the result of a city density that demands the release of the pressure of so many people. The density is not there so the pressure is not there. Users are as likely to spend time in their own backyard. Why travel to a public outdoor space when you have them so close?

The Auto Community

The community of the Automobile. Part 1

Whatever happened to the traditional community elements? The churches, the sports facilities, the civic centers, the piazzas? They have been bastardized and pushed to the background. The churches have become drive thru, the sports facilities have become parking lots and nascar tracks, the educational facilities have become theaters, and the realm of the commercial is left to McDonald's and company.

And how do we interact? We have become isolated. Each individual in a personal bubble. How would we interact when not physically separated by a ton of steel and plastic? How can pedestrians expect to interact comfortably when the pedestrian environment has all but been destroyed?

The city has been banished and is fading from sight and memory,mearly a part of the background. It has been replaced by a repetitive environment.

Filter

Filter

(n)A program that processes individual, personal preferences in an attempt to deliver relevant information to a particular end user.[1]

How does the symbol of house filter how we experience and interact with our environments? The gridded, framed views of the exterior matched by mirroring gridded and framed views have saturated our experience and our environment.

Is the house more shelter or more idea? When presented with an object that looks like “house,” people respond with the concept of house. What are the associations connected with house? If the object has no roof, offers no protection from the weather, has no foundation, contains no rooms or dividers, is it still understood as “house”?

How is our clothing similar to our concept of house? They offer shelter. They are a status symbol. They are guided by fashion and trends. They serve a utilitarian purpose, but have been exalted and imbued with symbolic meanings.

[1] http://www.score.org/eb_1.html