Rachel Armstrong | Letter to Arup

Mitchell Joachim. TERREFORM1: BlimpBumperBus

Response to ‘Under Imagined Future of Transport’ posted by Susan Claris
Letter to ARUP, by Rachel Armstrong

I don’t agree that the importance of forward-thinking long term planning is over sold!
What I do think is over-sold – is the productisation of very specific solutions to challenges that are not well characterised and we don’t yet know how to face. The current economic & political system only deals with short term-ism (returns and period in office) so investment in research and development that deals with decade or more kinds of solutions does not exist to properly support the strategic development of implementable solutions. In other words, realistic future solutions are ‘evolved’ not ‘born’. So, in my view the ‘over selling’ stems from a contemporary set of expectations and restrictions where some/one is going to profit handsomely from investing in an immediate sole solution, wrapped in IP and patents, which cannot evolve on the basis of this legal bondage and whose benefit to society is ultimately of secondary interest!

In fact, the future is very poorly invested in and governments are currently slashing funding for basic science which underpins technological and economic developments. Central funding is becoming increasingly focussed on promoting near-ready-for-market research or bolstering established industry-research partnerships.

As for the issue of under-imagining, I don’t think that there is a crisis in this capacity at all!

An example of how an alternative future has been well imagined and is being developed in the form of international collaborations between design, engineering and science is the field of synthetic biology applications for the built environment. This research has excited a great deal of public and commercial interest with high profile papers in Nature, CNN and a recent blog series in Wired outlining the necessary strategic approaches (Week 3) with very little central investment and has thrived on open innovation and creative ways of funding key projects. Synthetic biology, of course, is not a cure-all for every challenge that cities face but it is a strategic tool that, if properly developed, could indeed increase a portfolio of approaches to the grand challenge of Megacities and harvesting energy – and will, as a result, impact on our ‘future’. In this CNN article on buildings that ‘eat’ carbon Dick Kitney notes the real ‘challenge’ for developing new approaches and products is in making the transition from academia to industry where not only the technology needs to be scaled up, but so does the funding underpinning the often, shoestring budgets that researchers work with.

So the alleged scenario of ‘under-imagination’ suffers from the same root cause of ‘over selling’ the future as a product, rather than as a systemic approach, building teams and developing skill sets that may help address the challenges appropriately – the kinds of ideas presented to industry are ones are productised and are immediately recognisable to particular markets and pander to our immediate concerns and expectations. After all, thought experiments and sharing ideas are only part of the innovation process … the challenge is putting them into practice and this is where the methods and strategic approaches are vital to enable solutions to be identified based on research, not presumptions, which can change with experience and time (an evolutionary process).

Take for example, NY architect Mitchell Joachim’s vision of a ‘blimp’, soft car system for the city of New York – a well imagined scenario where if one of the proposed vehicles ‘runs over your sister’ (heavens forbid!) that is will only ‘tickle’ her [Archinode ].

So no, I don’t accept that the future is over-sold : it’s productised an as a result it’s over constrained by our current ways of thinking and immediate practices …

And no, I don’t accept that our innovators are under-imagining at all: they’re being asked to make products rather than provide systems and methods that underpin change. They are grossly under supported in forging the necessary networks and partnerships that can help us make the transition from practices embedded in our current reality to new approaches that we can all benefit from …

If we do want want solutions that evolve to meet the needs of our rapidly swelling populations then we need to seriously think systemically, rather than industrially. This also needs to be a symbiotic partnership rather than a battle of ideologies! I cannot stress the importance of the amount of work that we need to do right now to find the appropriate infrastructures to provide people with basic resources in increasingly urbanised environments. If we don’t invest in creating evolvable (rather than sustainable – which preserves the status quo) practices then humanity itself will meet stark extinction scenarios in the middle of this century rather than making decisions based on evolutionary-style challenges …

The future is now … it’s not a fetishistic obsession or architectural style … building a city for 2050 should have started 50 years ago – we’re already late for managing our human investments – so let’s not make it too late!

Real budgets are needed for open research & development. Investment is needed in long-term (in today’s manner of thinking), joined-up, interdisciplinary, international teams of innovators from industry and academia to be able to do more than imagine, but act and build and re-evaluate ways of generating evolvable cities … We need to invest in people, not just products, which are the byproducts of the human imagination!

I do not think that we can be too creative or too visionary when it comes down to grand challenges – such as, transport for this century – but let’s stop productising the future and evolve our solutions using open platforms, invest in people – more than we do in gadgets – and enrich our problem-solving practices using the connectivity that this particular epoch has bestowed us with!


Categories: Research


studying: architecture design


Connect with archimorph and help grow the network.

15 Comments on “Rachel Armstrong | Letter to Arup”

  1. October 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    Absolutely spot on Rachel! Couldn’t agree with you more. Fit for Future Purpose innovators and ideas are out there, but, as you say, they are woefully under-resourced and supported. Sadly not a new scenario, for past innovators from Da Vinci to Buckminster Fuller found themselves in the same scenario. May the tide turn swiftly, so that today’s groundbreaking pioneers don’t constantly find themselves battling currents that try to steer them towards short-termism and the product, not people centric scenarios you have highlighted.

  2. October 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    You posed the right questions and highlighted the challenge that we are starting to face like what we can see in Bangkok. If we start by thinking of “right now” instead of the future or cities in 2050, we may avoid or, at least, withstand the issues such as flooding, air pollution, to quote a few. For this, we need to work together, to join manufacturers and academia, to implement a real budget to invest on research that think the city of today for the city of the future. Then even though I agree that polycentric and compact city is a good solution, it will not be enough if we do not invest on creating buildings that will help adapt and respond to the environmental constraints. So you posed here and there (other essays) the good questions, and I totally agree with you….

  3. October 15, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    People thinking future possibilities are something inevitable and necesary …Otherwise, we are following those with the eyes looking their navel and their benefits, those who have the present technology. Supporting research people,is a must. We need people who think that other better reality is possible. I agree with Rachel…

  4. October 16, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    Great letter Rachel!!!

  5. October 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    From sustainable to evolvable to thrivable, yes. Why is it so difficult to attract investments in people, nature, technologies? Could be that the money system itself, discounting the future as it currently does, is a likely root cause? Researchers like Bernard A. Lietaer point us in this direction. http://www.transaction.net/press/interviews/lietaer0497.html

  6. October 17, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    Great letter Rachel. Maybe Arup should put some development monies your way rather than investing in employees looking to suck up to the nearest boss with some ‘clever’ observations on a blog. The game’s still the same, Rachel just brings in a new way to play it. Love your work.

  7. October 27, 2011 at 5:45 am #

    Excellent Rachel – mindshaking and expanding the visions of what is possible!!! We have a great museum on traffic here in Dresden – a bit on the edge – yet probably a good place to expand the future of traffic. I am connected with them, more than happy to connect.

  8. September 20, 2014 at 11:57 pm #

    I got this site from my pal who informed me about this site and
    at the moment this time I am browsing this web site and reading
    very informative articles here.


  1. KERB 19 / Paradigms of Nature: Postnatural Futures | ArchDaily - October 20, 2011

    […] over constrained by our current ways of thinking and immediate practices …”- Rachel Armstrong, letter to ARUPHave you ever wondered how a single cell can finally transform in a complex organism? And how the […]

  2. KERB 19 / Paradigms of Nature: Postnatural Futures | My Blog - October 24, 2011

    […] – Rachel Armstrong, letter to ARUP […]

  3. KERB 19 / Paradigms of Nature: Postnatural Futures | Architecture Documents - November 7, 2011

    […] – Rachel Armstrong, letter to ARUP […]

  4. Por una Ciudad Viva: Del Crecimiento a la Resiliencia « La Ciudad Viva - November 13, 2011

    […] Realistic future solutions are ‘evolved’ not ‘born’ Rachel Armstrong, letter to ARUP […]

  5. Metabolic Venice | Algae and protocells anticipating evolved landscapes. « dpr-barcelona - December 16, 2011

    […] “So no, I don’t accept that the future is over-sold : it’s productised an as a result it’s over constrained by our current ways of thinking and immediate practices …” – Rachel Armstrong, letter to ARUP […]

  6. Metabolic Venice | Algae and protocells anticipating evolved landscapes « dpr-barcelona - December 16, 2011

    […] “So no, I don’t accept that the future is over-sold : it’s productised an as a result it’s over constrained by our current ways of thinking and immediate practices …” – Rachel Armstrong, letter to ARUP […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: