I love magazines. Although the industry as a whole model is busted, as titles are folding, advertising revenue is plummeting, and wholesalers are in lawsuits, while they are going out of business. Even before the recession hit, unsold copies (which are the majority of them) end up getting destroyed. On the bright side of things, Cunning and teamed up with HSBC to give travelers in Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 1 customized magazines. Passers-by had the ability to select content from 32 commissioned articles, get them bound, and take their personally curated magazine onto their flight with them.  Of course, the next step is to have the printing done by something like Espresso Book Machine.

Via the fine folks at PSFK.

Image source: flickr

1. If you are waiting for a train, and the incoming train cars go, packed, empty, packed… do NOT enter the empty car. The *best* case scenario is that the AC is broken.

2. The subway trains run in the same direction as that cars run on the street above the tracks.

Image source: backspace.com

3. The compass roses that the MTA is placing in front of subway entrances, started out as an intervention by riders, and is what I would call ethical graffiti.

4. The A and D trains run express from 59th Street to 125th Street, which is great if you want get to Harlem, but not so great, if you are trying to visit the American Museum of Natural History.

5. The subways do, in fact, run on a schedule.

6. Google Transit combines subway schedules (see point 5) and Google Maps to provide directions using public transportation in New York, and many other cities around the world.

7. The displays with real time updates of the next train that the MTA have been introducing on the L line has been in other systems, such as DC’s Metro and the London Underground for years and even decades.

Blogs on Subways:

Second Avenue Sagas

Subway Blogger

AMNY Subway Tracker

Going Underground’s Blog

Image sources: nymag.com, nytimes.

Not the freshest topic, but worth recording, Vogue India’s August’s spread has a 16 page of photo editorial with average India people wearing luxury accessories. What’s the issue with average?  When 465 million of 1.1 billion Indians survive on US$1.25 a day (according to the World Bank,) having them wear US$10,000 Hermes bags and US$200 Burberry umbrellas, came off, at best, a little tacky.

New York Times quotes the Vogue India editor Priya Tanna: “Lighten up… fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful… You have to remember with fashion, you can’t take it that seriously… We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world.”

The quote is most interesting in comparison to Vogue Italy’s July issue, dubbed the Black Issue, whose editorial was shot by Steve Meisel and only featured black models. The issue included established models such as, Alek Wek, as well as new comers, like  Jourdan Dunn. The issues sold out quickly and required an unprecedented second printing. Although, I wonder if other people had my first reaction flipping through the magazine: the first half of the magazine, were mostly ads, featuring white models. The difference was striking and adds poignancy to the statement made by the Vogue Italy editors.

The problem is that the fashion industry is itself an agent of fashion, trends, and the new. 2006 was the year of eco-fashion, when Elle’s green fashion issue was the fashion magazine that made mainstream headlines. The next green issues were yesterday’s news, even if the importance of sustainability is ever present. These magazine and luxury brands are trying to sell aspiration. Clearly, magazines such as Vogue need to clarify the messages they are hoping people to aspire towards achieving. This point is especially important in a country such as India, whose struggles with balancing their raising middle and upper class with highly visible poverty. As luxury continues to grow as a global obsession, fashion and fashion publishing obviously has an obligation to consider its social responsibility, in a way that exists beyond the realm of “the moment.”

Image source: flickr

Well, the internet is buzzing with the discussions and reviews of Google’s recently release browser, Chrome. Nick Carr has some good thoughts on the subject, his key take aways:

“To Google, the browser has become a weak link in the cloud system… Google can’t wait for Microsoft or Apple or the Mozilla Foundation to make the changes.”

“…winning a “browser war” is not its real goal. Its real goal, embedded in Chrome’s open-source code, is to upgrade the capabilities of all browsers so that they can better support (and eventually disappear behind) the applications.”

I agree with this basic idea of needing to move browser technology forward, and having a few competing products motivates people to innovate. I recently heard an explanation that Google’s “Don’t be evil” credo really meaning “Don’t be Microsoft.” However, they were often criticized for releasing non-standard products, including features in Internet Explorers but also C# and Active X (more on that later.) In order to give browsers more speed and capabilities, Google had to move away from web standards.

Just to be clear, web standards are basically a really good idea, even if adoption of new ones is a slow process. Leaping frogging the standards process brings us back to web development in the mid-90s. In those days, after creating a website, we had to test the web pages on all the browsers across all the platforms. More likely than not, the site never worked on the first try, which gave the process a Groundhog Day feel. (Of course, we still have to do that today, but it is thankfully not has bad as the days of Netscape 4 and IE 5.)

Google’s decision to go open source is clever, but there is an implied statement to the other browsers of “join us, or be left behind.” I suppose, at least the other browsers are given the option of having access to the code, unlike other proprietary browsers. I’ll admit that an optimal outcome would be the other browsers would adopt only the best features, and those features would eventually be accepted as web standards. However, the problem with this scenario is that it will take a while for time for the best features to emerge, as web developers create new kinds of content for them. In the meanwhile, developers will have to play the user percentages game, and make trade offs to maximize what the number of people who can see their work. More importantly, users will have to have multiple browsers to access different kinds of content.

The fundamental problem is that the moving away from standard and interoperability is going to fracture the internet. If you want a glimpse of the implications of this idea, an interesting place to look is Korea where a large percentage of sites use Active X, which I learned about first hand trying to plan a trip to Seoul last year. Blogger and friend, Danny Kim gives a interesting account of the use of Active X in Korea. He also sent me a parody of Google’s Chrome comic book, which is worth a look as well.

I’ve been to the Home Delivery show at MOMA twice on sunny weekends this summer. The show on prefabricated architecture is overall well curated. However, the true brilliance of the show is that they have full scale models of six homes. The all steel Lustron house is in the indoor portion of the exhibit. The others five are constructed in the parking lot next store to the museum. Architecture exhibits rarely show full scale buildings for obvious reasons, which relegates museum shows to drawings and models. Normally, to see architecture you have to go to the actual sites, which makes comparing structures challenging. But here, you get to experience multiple examples at full scale.

Of all the architects that were invited to show, the most remarkable was Housing for New Orleans, designed by Larry Sass of MIT. He researches new fabrication techniques using CAD and digital laser cutting. His houses are constructed from numbered jigsaw-like pieces which can be assembled with a rubber mallet, hot glue, and the occasional crow bar. The first prototype took five students to build over two days, however this example was erected with three people over two weeks. The individual pieces are small as compared to the normal two-by-fours that are normally associated with building houses, as seen in the details images. This iteration of his research 196-square-foot one-room shotgun house for post-Katrina New Orleans . The application of his techniques to the housing crisis caused by Katrina is also noteworthy, especially as related to my interesting in ethical design and prefab architecture.

Sass’ impressive approach to architecture comes from a completely new starting point, that is born digital. The designs are created using fabrication and cutting techniques which utilize the strengths of computation for something greater idea. Despite this use of technology, I was reminded of Japanese Shinto Temples, which use a centuries old technique of interconnecting wooden joints that do not require nails.

Unlike much of the work of say, Gehry, computation is not used to build once impossible complex structures. Rather, Sass’ research seems to be more about rethinking how to one goes about building a house (Housing for New Orleans, could be build without the use of computers.)  In his House for Katrina, there is a balance between shelter and ornament. The structure provides protection from the elements, while the flourishes still invoke local styles and nod to the human need of aesthetics and having their home relate to an surrounding architectural context. Although, I’m sure many people feel the ornamentation (and the structure itself) is a poor substitute to the grand architectural styles of New Orleans, there are limits to the not only his construction methods, but also what can be reasonable built during disaster relief.

Weeks later, I’m still thinking about the relationship between computation and architecture, and how Sass both makes architecture more abstract and more concrete. The abstraction comes from the reliance of the computer to design and cut the material. However, in the actually physical act of building, the methods allow a few people (instead of a team of builders and suppliers) to construct a house with a minimal set of skills and tools. Computation’s ability to make something simultaneously abstract and concrete is not all that new, but I’ve never seen the idea applied to architecture, which makes the discovery all the more exciting.

Image source: LifeStraw

Even though I haven’t posted much recently (sorry for that, especially when I got some nice links, Thanks Noah. Frontstudio.) I have been thinking a lot about the ethics of design. One post from Rob Walker’s murketing blog that has kept with me, which I’m finally able to post. Walker mentions luggage companies trying to design an airport security friendly laptop bag. Anyone who travels with a laptop knows the pain of having to take out the computer to be x-rayed. What was most interesting was an aside he made:

“(Okay, okay, it’s not the LifeStraw — it’s an annoyance problem instead of a mortal one, but still.)”

The LifeStraw is a hand held, point-of-use water filter, which is an amazing product. So, yes, Walker is correct is asserting that a laptop which makes it easier to get through airport security may not save lives (but it does help everyone in line.)

The question then is, how ethical is ethical? In defining an ethic of design does a product or service have to be life saving for it to be ethical? Be made of ompletely sustainable materials? Have a zero carbon footprint?

The answer, I believe, is no. However, what this implies is that there is a spectrum of ethics in a design. The big question is what are the metrics of that spectrum of the ethical.

“Bow down before the one you serve, you’re going to get what you deserve.” - Trent Renzor, Nine Inch Nails

I recently went to a conference on location-based services hosted by Columbia University’s Business School. The conference panels had some very good speakers, but before I get to that, I am more interested in putting down some of thoughts on the architecture of the b-school’s Uris Hall. In Bill Moyer’s now classic series with Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth, Campbell speaks on identifying a period of a civilization through its grandest architecture. At one time in civilization, the biggest and boldest architecture were religious, (Notre Dame, Angkor Wat, Borobodur.) Later, government buildings were the most monumental (Pentagon, Reichstag, UK Parliament.) Today, corporations inhabit a society’s feats of soaring architecture (Sears Tower, Tapei 101, World Trade Center.)

The hierarchy of buildings is a direct reflection of the society’s focus and emphasis. A similar phenomenon can be seen on university campuses. These reasons for this hierarchy is fairly obvious, schools that will produce the richest alumni and procure the largest private industry and government funding can afford to erect new buildings. Especially in the recent building craze, we often find that business school have the newest and shiniest facilities. Law and engineering schools also tend to the fair rather well in this regard as well. Humanities tend to be housed in older, albeit more charming, buildings which smell of learning. To be fair, one of the newest buildings on the Columbia campus is for the School of Social Work, and while not business, law, or engineering, it is still an applied discipline. Although, Uris is not the newest building on the campus, the Columbia Business has announced that they will one of the first to be relocated to their new Manhattenville (read: Harlem) campus. The use architecture as a litmus test of the focus of a society is a simple but compelling one.

Image source: Dulce Pinzón

And speaking of transformations, I recently saw the show Superheros: Fashion and Fantasy show at the Met’s Costume Institute. The show, skillfully art directed by a friend Shane Valentino, was well curated and displayed– mixing the source material from the original comics with film costumes and related representation in fashion. I mean, who doesn’t want to see Linda Carter’s outfit from Wonder Woman?

However, the photography of Dulce Pinzón takes the concept of the superhero and flips it on its head. Originally from Mexico, Pinzón takes photos of immigrant workers who come to the US to work and send back remittances each week. In 2006, an estimated US$45 billion dollars from 12.6 million immigrants were sent back to Latin American from the US, revealing the magnitude and symbiotic interdependent relationship.  In this example, Sergio García works as a waiter in New York. He is able to send back US$350 a week. Other heros include Superman as delivery boy, Batman as car service driver, and yes, Wonder Woman as laundromat worker. The subjects of her work are simultaneously honest, absurd, tragic, and inspiring, while questioning our concepts of the idols, hero, fame, and equality.

Image source: flickr

Image source: flickr

On the way out to Provincetown from Boston, a few weeks ago, I noticed a sole windmill on the shore, largely ignored by the passengers on the ferry. However, on the other side I saw people rush over with digital cameras to snap at a lighthouse on the other side. I made a mental note to get some pictures on the way back. Sure enough on my return, the lighthouse drew out the cameras, even in misty and slightly choppy waters.

In a time of soaring energy and fuel costs, plans to build modern windmills are decried as wrecking the “natural” landscape of the Jersey Shore as well as Nantucket Sound. T Boone Pickens, the legendary Texas oil business man, is placing bets on wind, investing millions into wind farms in Texas. In an interview in Fast Company magazine, he has an interesting quote:

And you’ll do all this on your beautiful 68,000-acre ranch?

“I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly. The hub of each turbine is up 280 feet, and then you have a 120-foot radius on the blade. It’s the size of a 40-story building.”

I appreciate Picken’s overall strategy that this country needs to shift away from dependence on oil and carbon-based fuel and towards sustainable and clean energy sources. But it’s too bad that he has such a distasteful view of the aesthetics windmill.

On the other hand, the lighthouse is an interesting piece of architecture. Once a crucial aid in navigating the waters at night or in storms, they usefulness is challenged by advances in GPS, telecommunications, and mapping. However, they remain camera worthy icons of the sea and coasts. Preservation societies have been formed to assist in their upkeep and some lighthouses have been designated as history buildings. I wonder if the original construction of lighthouses were challenged for corrupting the natural landscape. Or if they were largely ignored at telephone poles are.

I do not think that there is something inherent to the lighthouse that makes it more palatable to the mainstream cultural aesthetics, because the traditional wooden windmill have the same elevated sense of historic and aesthetic value.The funny thing is that I find windmills really beautiful, especially many of them in row. Without any post-modern irony, these structures conjure allusions from Boeing to Walter de Maria to Don Quixote.

How can the modern wind farm reach the same level of good will that lighthouses and wooden windmills are afforded? Is it just that they icons of another time, having lasted long enough to achieve a romantic cultural status? Are the protests even worth arguing? New proposes are suggesting that windmills can be moved further off-shore and out of sight. This sounds more expensive to operate and build that ones closer or on the shore. I do know that a high percentage of power is lost in transport. Aesthetics have an economic and social cost.

The relationship between the windmill and the lighthouse is emblematic of a larger question that been occupying brain space for over the past year, which has to do with building an ethic of design. Many people and groups including Buckminster Fuller (more on him soon) and designers in the Bauhaus movement have approached this idea, or least defined an intention for design to improve lives. However, we are at at turning point, where the stakes seem much higher and the need for ethical design seems more relevant.

Can a framework exist for an ethical approach to design that would balance aesthetics, sustainability, equality, and empowerment? If it doesn’t yet exist, what kind of structures would it entail? What can we provide that goes beyond a suggested philosophy? Can the advancement of technological tools and computational metrics can be utilized to guide the ethical designer?