UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

05/29/08 Date:______

Carl Sterner I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master in: Architecture It is entitled: A Sustainable Pattern Language: A Comprehensive Approach to Sustainable Design

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: T_om__ _Bible______Elizabeth______Riorden______Michael______Zaretsky______

A Sustainable Pattern Language: A Comprehensive Approach to Sustainable Design

Carl S. Sterner Bachelor of Architecture University of Cincinnati, 2006

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture

University of Cincinnati College of Design, Architecture, Art & Planning School of Architecture & Interior Design

Committee Members: G. Thomas Bible Elizabeth Riorden Michael Zaretsky

May 2008 Copyright © 2008 by Carl S. Sterner All rights reserved.

Please direct reprint requests and questions to: Carl S. Sterner, [email protected] Abstract

Sustainable design as presently prac- ticed focuses on technical solutions, ignoring the socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability. A truly sustainable society will require substantial change to our economic structure and social order. Architecture must therefore en- gage both the social and technical di- mensions of sustainability.

This thesis attempts to understand the architectural implications of these deeper, harder changes by developing and applying social-spatial patterns. The outcomes are (1) a menu of pat- terns, or a “pattern language,” (2) a design methodology for pattern devel- opment and application, and (3) design explorations in two contexts.

I would like to thank my wonderful wife, Colleen, for all of her support, emo- tional and material, while I completed this thesis.

I would also like to thank the following people whose insights, criticisms, and feedback were, and continue to be, invaluable: Terrance W. Clarke Lyle Solla-Yates

Table of Contents

Abstract iii Thesis Statement ix

1. Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society 1 1.1 Summary of Arguments 3 1.2 Sustainability, Defined 7 1.3 The Current Social Order 23 1.4 A Sustainable Society 61 1.5 The Role of Architecture 87

2. Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language 95 2.1 Discussion of Design Methodology 97 2.2 A Sustainable Pattern Language 101

Bibliography 131

vii viii Thesis Statement

Sustainability is becoming increasingly important in the discipline of architecture, yet it is largely being addressed at a technological or mechanical level—an approach that ignores the vital social dimension of sustainability. Because the built environment both embodies and perpetuates social norms and patterns, and because a truly sustainable society requires substantial change to our economic structure and social order, architecture must critically engage social and economic praxis. This thesis attempts to understand the architectural implications of these deeper, harder, more systemic changes. A prerequisite for this investigation is an understanding of the nature of the required social and economic changes. The theory of Jür- gen Habermas, Amory Lovins, Herman Daly, and Vernon Scarborough form the primary basis of understanding, and reveal important prin- ciples for a sustainable society, including resilience, diversity, decentralized production and consumption, labor-based economics, and abundant social capital. These principles guide the selection of specific patterns that sup- port a sustainable society.1 One framework for understanding the architectural implications of broad principles is presented in A Pattern Language.2 This provides a framework for creating patterns, understanding their interconnections, and exploring their architecture manifestations. It also provides a system flexible enough to navigate between multiple scales, from the city to the building detail. The processes of pattern development and applica- tion are themselves non-linear and interconnected: design explorations simultaneously test the validity of patterns, suggest improvements, and create new patterns entirely. This thesis will: (1) assemble a menu of patterns from a vari- ety of existing sources, based upon the principles outlined above; (2) develop a methodology for simultaneous pattern analysis and design

1 A pattern is a formal relationship between a human activity and the geometry of the physical environment; thus patterns have both a social and spatial dimension. 2 Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). ix development; and (3) explore the implementation of selected patterns through urban and architectural designs in several contexts and at several scales. What follows is the beginning of what promises to be a far larger study: an initial exploration that will continue to evolve long after the end of this thesis. The primary intent, then, is to lay the foundations, both theoretical and pragmatic, for a far deeper exploration.

x 1 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

To undertake sustainable design, we must first answer two questions: (1) What is sustainability? and (2) What is a sustainable society? This section ad- vances preliminary answers.

Robert Brulle states: "Environmental problems are fundamentally based on how human society is organized. Ac- cordingly, social change is required for their resolution."

This thesis argues that the current so- cial order is dominated by a growth-ori- ented market economy whose function- ing erodes social, natural, and human capital due to its interrelated biases toward growth, centralization, commod- itization, and hierarchy.

1 2 1.1 Summary of Arguments

The intent of this thesis is to navigate between the general prin- ciples of a sustainable society on one hand, and the specific designs of the built environment on the other. The focus is on a methodology that will allow this type of exploration, with different results in every context. Rather than presume to know what we mean by “sustainable design,” it interrogates this question and asks if there are other, more fundamental ways that architecture can contribute to the project of a sustainable society.

Organization

There are three questions implicit in the thesis statement presented at the beginning of this document. These questions must be answered (in the given order) for the thesis to proceed. They are: 1. What is sustainability? 2. What is a sustainable society? and 3. How do we design for a sustainable society? This, roughly, is the organization of the thesis. The first question, What is sustainability?, is the subject of section 1.2: Sustainability, Defined. The second question, “What is a sustainable society?” is actually comprised of three sub-questions: 2a. What is unsustainable about our current society? 2b. What are the important conditions for sustainability? 2c. What might a sustainable society look like? Question (2a) is addressed by section 1.3: The Current Social Order. This examination will help us answer question (2b), which will subse- quently help us answer question (2c). These questions are taken up in section 1.4: A Sustainable Alternative. This section will end by summa- rizing a number of “Principles of a Sustainable Society.” Finally, the third question, “How do we design for a sustainable society?,” is the subject of the remainder of the thesis. This is primarily a question of methodology; hence, a methodology will be presented and tested through design.

3 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Disclaimer

This lays the foundations: it is an investigation that will con- tinue. More concretely, I intend to revise and add to this document after graduation; those looking for more information or the most recent ver- sion are encouraged to contact the author at the contact listed below the copyright.

Summary of Arguments

The answers posited for the above questions are summarized below: 1. What is sustainability? Sustainability is the ability of a system to maintain viability over the long term. Here we are primarily interested in the human-natural system, or the multi-directional interac- tions of human society and the natural environment. A large number of variables effect this interaction; to add to the difficulty, many of these variables change over time at varying rates. For ease and simplicity, the significant variables, as far as they can be determined, are grouped into three conceptual categories: society, economy, and environment. Each of these categories has a corresponding form of capital that must be preserved to achieve the long-term human-natural viability being pur- sued: social capital, economic capital, and natural capital. The individual variables—or components—within these three categories are debated; this thesis attempts a preliminary synthesis. 2a. What is unsustainable about our current society? Draw- ing from Jürgen Habermas, Amory Lovins, and Herman Daly, this thesis argues that the current social order is dominated by a growth-oriented market economy steered by internal imperatives of production and prof- it, rather than by collective (democratic) decision-making. The growth- oriented market erodes natural capital (1) by growing indefinitely, or increasing the throughput of energy and natural resources through the economic system beyond the capacity of the natural environment to re- new resource or assimilate wastes; (2) by favoring resource-consumptive production methods that, while they maximize production and profit, do not use resource or energy wisely; and (3) by creating a system that is brittle and vulnerable should any of its exacting requirement not be met—a system created in part by the centralized resource-consumptive methods mentioned above, and that, due to its vulnerability, is prone to unpredictable, rapid change that is antithetical to the goal of long- term viability. The growth-oriented market erodes social capital (1) by growing into and appropriating the contents of informal economies that sustain communities (commoditization); (2) through its preference for centralized, large-scale, hierarchically-maintained production meth- ods, which by their very nature are controlled by powerful individuals and institutions, and are incomprehensible and/or uncontrollable by

4 Theoretical Background ordinary people (centralization); (3) via economic processes that favor flexibility and community, further eroding bonds to people and place (mobilization); and (4) ultimately socializing individuals according to the values supported by the market (market-based socialization). These social effects undermine the collective (social) processes necessary to put moral or ethical limits on market activity, or reorient the economy toward qualitative development rather than quantitative growth. The growth-market is socially unsustainable because it erodes the social capital and communicative foundations of the lifeworld neces- sary to (a) provide non-growth alternatives to the growth-market (in- formal economic activity), and (b) coordinate collective action to rein in the growth market. Alternative economies (informal economies and local economies) rely more heavily on social capital and interpersonal relationships. Social capital is also a desirable end in itself that increases community decision-making capacity, self-reliance, and resilience. 2b. What are the important conditions for sustainability? Fol- lowing from the above analysis: o restraining the market  social capital, human capital, basic needs o appropriate scale of collective action  social capital, etc. o appropriate scale of production  decentralization  alter- native economies (local, household, informal) and feedback mechanisms o development-oriented economy  maintain natural capital (no growth); cyclical economy (reuse, part of nature) o maintain resilience & diversity (important in ways we don’t even know—not only for stability and longevity, but also for happi- ness and joy) 2c. What might a sustainable society look like? Drawing from the primary theorists, this thesis describes two trajectories: one dominated by a growth-oriented market economy, centralized “hard” technolo- gies, and hierarchical socio-political organization. The other relies on a very different economic logic: accretional development that draws on appropriate-scale “soft” technologies, is organized heterarchically, and is steered by collective decision-making that emerges, as Habermas argues, from rational discourse in the public sphere. It exhibits the following conditions: o social capital o human capital o basic needs o decentralized production o cyclical economics o labor-based economy o maintenance of natural capital o diversity o resilience

5 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

3. How do we design for a sustainable society? After reviewing a number of methodologies, this thesis settles onA Pattern Language as a framework for understanding architectural implications of broad prin- ciples at many scales. Among its many strengths, it (1) connects social and spatial considerations; (2) is multi-scalar (broad  specific); (3) flexible; and (4) amenable to participation, which emerges as an impor- tant processual component of sustainable design that is not explored in depth here. How is it different from the existing work,A Pattern Language? Why re-do what’s been done? A Pattern Language, although it includes invaluable information and is generally oriented to sustainability, it is not specifically oriented to sustainability as described above. In addition, changes in science, philosophy, and design since the 1970s require that new ideas be incorporated—ideas that have the potential to achieve the goals outlined above. The “Sustainable Pattern Language” is synthetic: it draws from a variety of sources (LEED, New Urbanism, Jane Jacobs, etc.). Patterns come from many places: research, precedent study, interdisciplinary dia- logue, and/or design. It is a work in progress, constantly evolving: a way of opening the door to numerous other explorations. The methodology is successful if it (1) can demonstrably connect the above principles to design; (2) is flexible to operate well in public contexts and respond well to different situations, as well as (3) being open to public participation and (4) open to evolution and change (without losing its fundamental characteristics). Design explorations, not included here due to time con- straints, test the patterns according to these criteria.

6 1.2 Sustainability, Defined

Sustainable design must begin with a clear understanding of “sus- tainability.” This section draws from a number of existing sources in order to begin to define and describe sustainability for the purposes of this thesis. The full task of describing sustainability, however, will not be complete until the end of the following sections. The termsustainable simply means the ability to be maintained over the long term. It does not describe a static state, but rather a moving target as conditions change, often unexpectedly, over the long term.1 It is most commonly used in the context of environmental sustainability, which can be defined asa balance between human and natural systems that can be maintained over the long term. Most conceptions of sustainability recognize that sustainability involves three interrelated systems: the natural environment,2 human society, and the economy.

Three Views of Sustainability

There are three prevailing views of sustainability: one that takes environmental sustainability as its premise; another that sees three discrete types of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic—; and a third that sees sustainability as a complex problem involving a dynamic relationship between human society and the natural environment with components that cannot be neatly separated. The first view, while rooted in empirical evidence, is ultimately too narrow

1 This led the authors ofPanarchy to focus on “adaptive change” rather than only “sustainability.” C. S. Holling, Lance H. Gunderson, and Donald Ludwig, “In Quest of a Theory of Adaptive Change,” inPanarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, ed. Lance Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002), 3-22. 2 The termnatural environment is used to differentiate from thebuilt environment. While the very concept of “nature” has been correctly criticized as a human construct and a manifestation of a flawed dualistic worldview (man vs. nature), the author con- tends that “nature” can also be seen as the larger whole of which human society is a part—a conception that resists a simple dualistic interpretation. 7 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

to achieve a sustainable society. The second view presents operational variables; however, these are largely arbitrary. The third view presents a logical theoretical framework whose very complexity makes identifica- tion or analysis of components nearly impossible. Therefore, this thesis combines the framework of the second view and the understanding of the third view. Each view is described more fully below, followed by a description of the synthetic approach. The first view is primarily focused on environmental sustain- ability (see fig. 1.1). Because current human activity is seen as detrimen- tal to the natural environment, achieving environmental sustainability requires change in human activity. Even within this view, the nature of this change is contested. Some taking this view advocate technical fixes, or simple changes in efficiency or energy type—a view adopted by many in scientific disciplines.3 Others advocate change to economic or f i g 1.1. Sustainability as an environmen- social systems—for example, the discipline of environmental econom- tal issue. ics proposes economic shifts to internalize negative “externalities” such as pollution.4 However, even where the economy and/or society are considered, in this view they are seen as components of environmental sustainability that are only important insofar as they effect the natural environment. The linear rationality of this view makes it readily defen- sible, but its very narrowness makes its relevance questionable. Can a new balance between human society and the natural environment be achieved through minor adjustments? The second view considers three distinct types of sustainabili- ty—environmental, social, and economic—which are seen as equal in importance and value (see fig. 1.2). Each type of sustainability has associated forms of capital and a distinct set of requirements, with some critical areas of overlap. Because of this overlap, the components must be mutually supportive. This view has been advanced by the United Nations, most notably in the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtland Commission), and the 2002 Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable f i g 1.2. Sustainability as composed of Development. The Brundtland Commission famously definedsustain - three distinct spheres. able development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” where development is defined as “a progressive transforma- tion of economy and society.”5 The report explicitly brings together the concepts of human needs, social and economic development, and social and environmental limitations.6 The 2002 Johannesburg Declaration

3 The case for social change (as opposed to technical fixes) is made below. 4 For example, see Tom Tietenberg, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (Boston: Pearson Education, 2006). 5 World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Ox- ford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 43. 6 Ibid. 8 Theoretical Background: Sustainability, Defined on Sustainable Development elaborates on this concept by introduc- ing the “three pillars” of economic development, social development, and environmental protection.7 The terminology suggests that social and economic systems be improved in ways that do not damage the natural environment. This conception allows for the introduction of important concepts, such as equity and democracy, that are not seen as directly related to environmental sustainability. In this context, social sustain- ability has come to mean a social system that can not only be maintained over the long term, but also provides for certain basic human needs and civil rights and is relatively democratic and equitable. Similarly, economic sustainability has come to mean an economic system that can not only be maintained over the long term, but also provides jobs, creates and dis- tributes wealth in a way that is fair and environmentally sustainable, and improves overall quality of life. The qualitative and ethical elements of these definitions make them not only difficult to measure, but also sub- jective and contentious. While there has been broad agreement on the meaning of environmental sustainability, there has been far less agree- ment on the meaning of social or economic sustainability, or how they might be accomplished. Thus, in this view sustainability risks becoming an umbrella term for anything aimed at improving current conditions, and so risks losing its meaning entirely. Additionally, the subjective and arbitrary nature of the requirements negatively affects the political will necessary to accomplish them. While environmental sustainability is seen as a scientific issue with clear costs of inaction, social sustainability is seen as a fuzzy ethical issue with no comparable urgency. The third view sees environmental, social, and economic systems as inseparable and embedded within one another (see fig. 1.3). Human activities and the natural environment are interrelated in complex ways that resist simple understanding. A change in one system affects all of the others; therefore, any sustainable balance involves all three. This view is advanced by a growing field of cross-disciplinary scholars, including Lance Gunderson and C. S. Holling, the editors of Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, from which this view is largely drawn.8 In this view, there can be no separate realms of environmental, social, and economic sustainability, and considering elements in isolation inevitably leads to long-term in- f i g 9 1.3. Sustainability as interrelated stability. Compromise cannot achieve sustainability because privileging systems.

7 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustain- able Development, “Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/ POI_PD.htm. 8 Lance H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, eds., Panarchy: Understanding Transforma- tions in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002). 9 C. S. Holling, Lance H. Gunderson, and Donald Ludwig, “In Quest of a Theory of Adaptive Change,” in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002), 6-8. 9 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

one element over the others weakens the others over the long term. For example, present economic activity is considered detrimental to the natural environment and human society (an argument developed fur- ther in Section 1.3: The Current Social Order). While similar to the first view in its emphasis on scientific understanding, it differs in its focus on economic and social systems. And while similar to the second view in this equal emphasis, it differs by recognizing that (1) there are no “dis- crete” elements, (2) the significant components in each system are non- arbitrary, and (3) sustainability necessarily entails adaptive change rather than maintenance of equilibria because the natural environment itself is changing at many scales simultaneously.10 While the components of each system may in certain cases be similar to those advanced by proponents of the second view—for example, social capital or equity—they are only included insofar as they are demonstrably connected to the functioning of one or both of the other systems. This eliminates the arbitrary and subjective nature of the second view by only considering those compo- nents that affect the maintenance of the whole human-natural system over the long term. Additional components or principles may still be advanced on qualitative or ethical grounds, but these would not be con- sidered under the rubric of “sustainability.” This view also acknowledges the inherent unpredictability of complex systems; therefore resilience is a principal requirement for sustainable systems.11 While this thesis recognizes the third view as the most valid, it also recognizes that the field is still in its infancy and that the important components of the human sub-system have not been clearly identified. Therefore, this thesis will utilize the well-developed framework of the second view while keeping in mind the important contributions of the third view. Specifically, the three forms of sustainability—envi- ronmental, social, and economic—will be utilized as convenient con- ceptual tools. Also utilized are the forms of capital associated with each of these forms (table 1.1), which provide a framework for identifying the important components of each system. However, two important changes are made to this approach. First, in recognition that sustainability neces- sarily involves the interactions of all three systems, interrelationships between components will be explored. Second, in order to mitigate the arbitrary nature of each system’s components, components will only be included if they are credible—that is, mentioned by more than one of the identified sources—andinterconnected —that is, have an effect on at least one of the other systems based upon rational argument. The

10 Holling, Gunderson, and Ludwig, “Adaptive Change,” 9. 11 C.S. Holling and Lance H. Gunderson, “Resilience and Adaptive Cycles,” in Panar- chy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002), 25-62. See also Vernon Scarborough, “Resilience, Resource Use, and Socioeconomic Organization,” in Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Hu- man Response, ed. Garth Bawden and Richard Martin Reycraft (Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 2000), 195-212. 10 Theoretical Background: Sustainability, Defined

TABLE 1.1. Forms of capital

Environmental sustainability Economic sustainability Social sustainability

/"563"-
$"1*5"- '*/"/$*"-
$"1*5"- 1):4*$"-
$"1*5"- #"4*$
/&&%4 )6."/
$"1*5"- 40$*"-
$"1*5"-

t
SFOFXBCMF
t
mOBODJBM
TUPDL
t
CVJMEJOHT t
IPVTJOH t
FEVDBUJPO t
SFMBUJPOTIJQT SFTPVSDFT NPOFZ t
NBDIJOFSZ t
KPC

JODPNF t
TLJMMT t
TPDJBM
OFUXPSLT t
OPOSFOFXBCMF
t
QVSDIBTJOH
t
EVSBCMF
HPPET t
TFDVSJUZ t
MFBEFSTIJQ t
OPSNT SFTPVSDFT QPXFS t
FUD t
BDDFTT
UP
t
IFBMUI t
TPMJEBSJUZ t
FDPTZTUFN
TFSWJDFT FTTFOUJBM
t
WBMVFT t
DJWJM
TPDJFUZ TFSWJDFT

interrelationships described below are partial and limited; they rely for complete explication on the more detailed analysis of the current social order that follows in Sections 1.3 and 1.4. The components have been synthesized primarily from the following sources: Robert Goodland’s entry on sustainability in the En- cyclopedia of Global Environmental Change; the City of Vancouver’s 2005 definition of Social Sustainability; the 2006 paper “What is ‘Social Sus- tainability’?” by Glen Bramley, et al.; “Sustainable Community Indica- tors” by Elizabeth Kline; and Herman Daly’s writings on environmental and economic sustainability.

Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability means maintaining the func- tioning of the natural environment by preserving natural capital.12 Natural capital includes both renewable and non-renewable resources (both biotic and abiotic) as well as ecosystem services such as water purification, carbon sequestration, maintenance of climate and tem- perature, soil formation, pollination, and the production of the genetic diversity necessary for life (to name just a few).13 Ecosystem services are “free” byproducts of unimpaired ecosystems, and therefore depend on the preservation of natural resources, including species diversity, habitat, and natural processes. The components below are the elements of hu- man activity that directly affect environmental sustainability.

12 This definition is adapted from Robert Goodland, “Sustainability: Human, Social, Economic, and Environmental,” in Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (John Wiley & Sons, 2002), http://www.wiley.co.uk/egec/pdf/GA811-W.PDF. 13 For more on ecosystem services, see Gretchen C. Daily, ed., Nature’s Services: Soci- etal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997). 11 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.4. Inputs to (resources) and outputs Components: Scale and Resilience from (waste) the economy. Economist Herman Daly presents the requirements of environ- mental sustainability as an input/output rule. Resources must not be consumed faster than they are produced (input rule), and wastes must not be generated faster than they can be assimilated by natural processes (output rule) (see fig. 1.4). Special consideration is given to non-renew- able resources: these must not be consumed faster than renewable sub- stitutes can be found, as calculated from historical rates of substitution. These criteria ensure that natural capital is not depleted—that human society lives off the “interest” of planetary ecosystems.14 Rates of consumption and regeneration can be calculated and compared at a macro scale. Currently, resource consumption and emis- sion of waste far exceed natural capacity. A sustainable society therefore requires a substantial reduction in overall and per capita consumption. The proponents of the third view caution that sustainability must not be interpreted as maintenance of equilibrium states, as the mathematical model above might suggest. The complexity of human-en- vironmental systems resists such simple interpretations, and attempted applications of sustainable yield theory (for example, in fisheries) have often led to instability over the long term.15 The empirical measures presented above are useful and important, but they do not tell the whole story. Thusresilience emerges as a more important requirement than simple maximum or minimum limits.16 Resilience can be defined as a system’s resistance to outside perturbations—that is, its ability to con- tinue to function in the face of unexpected shocks or surprises.17 Resil-

14 Goodland, “Sustainability,” citing Herman Daly. See also Herman Daly, Beyond Growth, 45-60. 15 Holling, Gunderson, and Ludwig, “Adaptive Change,” 5-10. See also Filkret Berkes and Carl Folke, eds., Linking Social and Environmental Systems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1-2. 16 Holling and Gunderson, “Resilience and Adaptive Cycles.” See also Berkes and Folke, Linking Social and Environmental Systems, 6-12. 17 This definition synthesized from: Scarborough, “Resilience,” 195; and Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (An- dover, Mass.: Brick House Publishing, 1982), 179. 12 Theoretical Background: Sustainability, Defined

ience (1) accommodates changing conditions over time, particularly the TABLE 1.2. Principles of resilient systems interaction of changes on multiple time scales, and (2) accommodates the unpredictability of complex systems. Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Principles of resilient systems Lovins have described the criteria for resilient systems, which can be seen as design requirements for human systems (table 1.2).18 A sustain- small units dispersed in space able society therefore requires resilience—the ability to adapt to change. redundancy Thus there are two principal requirements for achieving envi- short linkages between modules ronmental sustainability: reduction in consumption, and resilience (or simplicity and repairability adaptability).19 diversity of components self-reliance Social Change v. Technical Fixes decentralized control large margins To this point it has been assumed that social change is necessary quick feedback to achieve sustainability in any form. There is another line of thought, Source: David W. Orr, The Nature of Design, however, that emphasizes technical fixes as a solution to environmental summarizing Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, sustainability. Technical fixes rely on efficiency and technological prog- Brittle Power ress alone, while social change emphasizes changes in lifestyle, behavior, and/or the social order.20 This distinction is crucial, because, as will be argued later, the current focus of so-called “sustainable architecture” is technical fixes. In contrast, this thesis takes the stance that social change is necessary, even to achieve narrowly-definedenvironmental sustainabil- ity, for the following reasons: 1. Technical fixes employed to date have largely failed to pre- vent environmental degradation, or their beneficial results have been more than offset by the deleterious effects of continued growth.21 2. Technological solutions by definition do nothing to change the overall trajectory of a society or its social institutions. However, the current social order is largely structured by the require- ments of a growth-oriented market economy, and perpetual quantitative growth is antithetical to sustainability.22 Additionally, the dominance of the market erodes the normative capacity necessary to make environ- mental protection a priority and the social capital necessary to provide

18 Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, Brittle Power: Energy Strategies for National Security (Andover, Mass.: Brick House Publishing Co., 1982), 191-213. 19 Other principles for achieving environmental sustainability, such as local knowl- edge or institutional learning, can be seen as falling under these two broad categories. For example, see Carl Folke, Filkret Berkes, and Johan Colding, “Ecological Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience and Sustainability,” in Linking Social and Environmental Systems (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 414-434. 20 This distinction is borrowed from Amory B. Lovins,Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1977), 32. 21 Robert J. Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective (Cambridge, Mass.; London, UK: MIT Press, 2000), 5. 22 Herman Daly, Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999), 8-24. 13 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

viable alternatives.23 (This argument is developed further in Section 1.3: The Current Social Order.) Finally, achieving resilience requires struc- tural changes with obvious social implications.24 3. In reality, both technical and social solutions imply social change because technical fixes implicitly allow continuation of current trends rather than proposing to freeze current conditions. Thus, as Amory Lovins describes, technical fixes do not represent a “no change” scenario, but rather an intensification of present practices.25 Yet extrapolation of growth (in consumption, production, energy use, etc.) (a) requires increasingly complex technologies whose scale, prevalence, and rapid deployment impose increasing risks and external costs on society, (b) necessitates a more specialized, centralized, and hierarchi- cal society to manage the increasingly complex technologies and risks, and therefore (c) implies some amount of large-scale changes in social order, lifestyle, workforce structure, and/or environmental conditions. If the past is any indicator, such intensification would likely come with a corresponding intensification of unforeseen consequences, “normal acci- dents,” social and environmental costs, centralized authority, uniformity, and inequity.26 Therefore, the decision is not between change or no change, but is a moral or ethical decision regarding what kind of change we want. This argument assumes (1) that the current social order is un- sustainable, and (2) that a sustainable social order would also be more desirable on moral or ethical grounds. These propositions will be dis- cussed further in Section 1.3: The Current Social Order, and Section 1.4: A Sustainable Alternative.

Interrelationships

There are two important economic implications of Daly’s input/ output rule. First, the overall size of the economy relative to the natural environment must shrink. Second, and more importantly, the economy must be organized differently—it must beome what Daly calls a “steady state” economy that can develop qualitatively without growing quantita- tively. This significant economic reorganization has significant social im- plications, and will likely affect every component of social sustainability (basic needs, human capital, and social capital). These interrelated social f i g 1.5. Relationships of environmental and economic shifts are discussed further in Sections 1.3 and 1.4. to economic and social components.

23 Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature, 50-56. 24 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 25-60, 147-159. 25 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 22-3. 26 Some of these relationships are discussed by David W. Orr in The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 17-19, 70. 14 Theoretical Background: Sustainability, Defined

Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability means maintaining economic vi- ability by preserving economic capital.27 Economic capital includes both financial capital (alternatively defined as money or purchasing pow- er) and manufactured capital (also referred to as physical capital, human- made capital, or real capital).28 Both forms are substitutable. The intent of economic sustainability is to maintain a functioning market economy that produces needed goods and services and provides jobs—not by providing them overtly, but rather by making it beneficial for individual households, businesses, industries, and institutions to do so.

Components: Viability, Resilience, Localization, and Equity

A review of relevant literature reveals four primary components of economic sustainability: long-term financial viability, resilience, retaining wealth at a community level, and equitable distribution of wealth. Individual households, businesses, industries, and insti- tutions must remain financially viable over the long term.29 Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins suggest that this can be achieved in part through cost savings associated with dramatic increases in efficiency and corresponding reductions in material and energy use.30 Much of this efficiency is predicated on matching the scale and quality of production to those of end-use needs. Maintaining resilience allows individual businesses and whole communities to adapt to changing conditions rather than becoming brittle and inflexible.31 According to Lovins’s principles of resilient systems (table 1.2), resilience tends to include small units, re- dundancy, and diversity. Applied to economics, particularly at the com- munity scale (although they can be applied at any scale), these principles favor having many smaller employers rather than a few large ones, having a diversity of businesses and industries rather than relying on a single sector, and having many businesses and industries that provide similar products and/or services, particularly basic necessities, rather than relying on a few

27 Goodland, “Sustainability.” 28 This definition of economic capital is different from the finance definition, which deals with financial risk. 29 Elizabeth Kline, “Sustainable Community Indicators: How to Measure Progress,” in Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities Healthy Planet, ed. Mark Roseland (Gab- riola Island, BC; New Haven, CT: New Society Publishers, 1997), 156-7. 30 Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Boston; New York; London: Little Brown and Company, 1999), eg. 11-14. 31 Resilience is stressed by Lovins and Lovins, Brittle Power, by Gunderson and Hol- ling, Panarchy, and by Scarborough, “Resilience,” among others. 15 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.6. Impact of spending money locally. Reprinted Sonntag 2008, p. 12.

major manufacturers. Interestingly, these conditions are also necessary for the efficient operation of market economies, according to economic theory.32 The economic sustainability of communities and regions re- lies on retaining wealth within the community or region.33 Money spent at locally-owned businesses stays in the local economy. The same dollar can pass through many hands, paying for many goods and services and supporting many individuals along the way. As Viki Sonntag describes, “each time a dollar is spent—or re-spent—in a community, the income to [the] community goes up by a dollar.”34 In economics, this is known as a multiplier effect. The effect is exponential (see fig. 1.6), which means that a small spending shift can have large impacts. Conversely, spending money at non-local businesses means that money leaves a community (see fig. 1.7). Retaining wealth at the local level helps communities become more self-reliant in terms of employment, goods, and services, and therefore buffered from the effects of fluctuations in national and international markets.35 The conditions that support resilience (small

32 For example, buyers and sellers must be too small to influence price, competition must be perfect, etc. For more information, see any elementary economics textbook. These conditions are also discussed by David Korten inThe Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press, 1999), 38-9; as well as Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins, Natural Capitalism, 9-10. 33 Kline, “Sustainable Community Indicators,” 157. 34 Viki Sonntag, Why Local Linkages Matter: Findings from the Local Food Economy Study (Seattle: Sustainable Seattle, 2008), public draft comment, December 31, 2007, http://www.sustainableseattle.org/Programs/LFE%20Files/LFE%20Report%20Pub- lic%20Comment%20Draft.pdf. Appendix C of Sonntag's report discusses numerous other local multiplier studies, which reached similar conclusions. 35 According to Joseph Gugler, “The impact of the global economy, in boom and in crash, is felt most dramatically in world cities heavily dependent on foreign 16 Theoretical Background: Sustainability, Defined

units, diversity, redundancy, etc.) also support local economies. There is, f i g 1.7. Indirect multiplier effects of buy- ing at local vs. non-local businesses. therefore, an important role to be played by local production in its many Redrawn from Sonntag 2008, p. 20. forms, including household production and informal economies. According to Herman Daly, more equitable distribution of wealth is necessary, given a steady-state or non-growth economy.36 We have not yet connected equity to the maintenance of the human/ natural system; this work will be done in the following sections. The politics of equity can be difficult, and there are two broad types of ap- proaches: (1) formal policy, legitimated and administered by the state, or (2) informal support networks and community organizations that elect to redistribute wealth in a variety of ways. These routes are not, of course, mutually exclusive.

Interrelationships

Overall, economic activity must be reorganized such that it can operate within environmental limits. In this model, long-term financial viability means not depleting natural capital, which is seen as the source of all value, thermodynamically speaking.37 Additionally, local econo- mies can be more environmentally sustainable by shortening supply

investments, exports, and tourism” (15). Joseph Gugler, Introduction to World Cities Beyond the West: Globalization, Development and Inequality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). See also Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 167-8. 36 Daly and Farley, Ecological Economics, 10-13, 259. 37 For a discussion of thermodynamics as it relates to economics, see Daly and Farley, Ecological Economics, 30-32. 17 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

lines, thereby reducing carbon emissions associated with transportation, and by better adapting to the local ecosystem, climate, and geography. Economic sustainability is related to social sustainability in several ways. First, the economy must provide jobs and basic necessities in order to support basic needs and social capital. Second, as we will see below, equity is important for achieving both human and social capital. Third, bothlocal spending and household production necessitate and cre- ate an economy based upon relationships and are therefore a critical element in building social capital.38 Finally, both optimal economic func- f i g 1.8. Relationships of economic to tioning and equitable distribution require social controls (an idea that environmental and social components. will be discussed in greater detail in Section 1.4: A Sustainable Society). Social controls—either in the form of norms or laws—require social capital to be enacted and/or maintained.

Social Sustainability

Social sustainability means maintaining a humane and resil- ient society by maintaining human and social capital, and providing for basic needs.39 Social capital refers to resources based upon group membership or community—for example, social networks, shared val- ues, and solidarity.40 Human capital refers to things that improve individ- ual wellbeing—for example, education, skills, health, and leadership.41 Providing for basic human needs is a prerequisite for the formation of either form of capital.42

Components

Basic needs are generally considered to include food, water, air, and shelter. Thus one basic need isappropriate, affordable housing. Another is safety and security, which is necessary to maintain an individ- ual’s health and wellbeing. In the context of a market economy, however, many basic needs are not provided directly. In these cases, individuals

38 Sontag, vii, 27-61. 39 This definition was synthesized from Goodland, and from Rick Gates and Mario Lee, “Policy Report: Social Development: Definition of Social Sustainability” (City of Vancouver, 2007), http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050524/docu- ments/p1.pdf, 3-6. Max-Neef’s Matrix of Human Needs may provide a more holistic approach to social capital. 40 The term “social capital” is used broadly rather than specifically. Certain disci- plines, such as economics, have attempted to develop more specific understandings of social capital. 41 The idea of human capital is similar to the idea ofcultural capital as articulated by Pierre Bourdieu, which refers to learned attributes that can give an individual a higher standing in society—a conception that appears to be primarily instrumental. 42 Gates and Lee, "Social Sustainability," 5. 18 Theoretical Background: Sustainability, Defined

must have the means to obtain basic needs themselves. Therefore, indi- TABLE 1.3. viduals must have access to work, or sufficient income. (Often this requires Components of social sustainability a certain amount of skill or education—that is, human capital.) They Basic needs must also have access to essential services and amenities, including (but not limited to) food markets, education, and healthcare. Access is defined to t
BQQSPQSJBUF
BGGPSEBCMF
IPVTJOH encompass (a) the right to use a good or service, and (b) the ability to t
TBGFUZ

TFDVSJUZ obtain a good or service, including (c) the financialmeans to procure t
XPSL
PS
TVGmDJFOU
JODPNF it.43 It is important to note that providing for basic needs means a certain t
BDDFTT
UP
FTTFOUJBM
TFSWJDFT

level of equity and precludes extreme poverty. BNFOJUJFT Human capital includes those things that improve indi- vidual wellbeing, or the private good of individuals. It consists of (a) Human capital knowledge, skills, and education, including (b) traditional knowledge—also known as indigenous or local knowledge—which is often passed down t
LOPXMFEHF
TLJMMT

FEVDBUJPO informally over time, (c) leadership, (d) health and wellbeing, (e) oppor- t
USBEJUJPOBM
LOPXMFEHF tunities for self-realization, which is related to psychological wellbeing, t
MFBEFSTIJQ and (f) internalization of social norms or values.44 Human capital can be t
IFBMUI

XFMMCFJOH enhanced by investments in education, healthcare, and programs that t
PQQPSUVOJUJFT
GPS
TFMGSFBMJ[BUJPO provide individual opportunities, such as entrepreneurial training and t
WBMVFT
JOUFSOBMJ[FE
OPSNT assistance programs. Traditional knowledge and values are often sup- ported by community stability and social interaction—that is, by social Social capital capital. Social capital refers to resources based on group participa- t
SFMBUJPOTIJQT
JOUFSBDUJPO

TPDJBM
OFUXPSLT tion—resources that communities can use to become self-reliant and/or t
TIBSFE
WBMVFT

OPSNT take collective actions to improve quality of life. Social capital is critical t
DPNNVOJUZ
DPIFTJPO

TPMJEBSJUZ for social sustainability: it results in greater resilience, local self-reliance, t
DJWJD
QBSUJDJQBUJPO

TUSPOH
DJWJM
and community participation. It is also critical for environmental sus- TPDJFUZ tainability because is provides the necessary means for establishing moral or ethical limits to human activity (e.g., environmental ethics), and its political manifestation (solidarity) provides the political capacity to enforce these limits, particularly in regard to economic activity. Social capital consists of (a) the relationships, interactions, and social networks that tie people together in communities, (b) the shared values and norms that facilitate mutual understanding and collective action,45 (c) commu- nity cohesion, which emerges from daily interaction and discourse, and is particularly important in creating the conditions that support (d) civic

43 These components have been synthesized from the following sources: Gates and Lee, "Sustainability," 5; Goodman; and Glen Bramley, et al., “What is ‘Social Sustain- ability’, and How Do Our Existing Urban Forms Perform in Nurturing It?” (paper presented at the Global Places, Local Spaces, Planning Research Conference, London, UK, April 5-7, 2006), http://www.city-form.com/pdfs/Pubs_Bramleyetal06.pdf, 3-6. 44 These components have been synthesized from the following sources: Goodman, "Sustainability;" Gates and Lee, 5-6; Kline; and Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature, 41. 45 For Habermas, shared norms and values emerge from (1) socialization in the lifeworld, and (2) rational discourse. Roger Bolton proposes that normatively regulated action is evidence of social capital at work (Bolton, 16-17). 19 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

participation, strong civil society, and solidarity, which have the ability to affect political change. Many elements of social capital are self-reinforcing, providing positive feedback. Social capital is both supportive of and enhanced by social interaction, inclusion, participation, equity, community stability, sense of place, pride, and empowerment with responsibility.46 It helps to create resilience by creating networks of support and communication that enhance community responsiveness and connectivity. Social capital can also enhance human capital. For example, social connections were one of the prime factors that determined whether elderly individuals survived a brutal heat wave in Chicago.47 Social networks also form the basis of informal economic activity, which, as will be discussed in Sec- tion 1.4: A Sustainable Alternative, is an important element of a sustain- able society.

Interrelationships

Many increases in human capital—particularly in education and leadership—can improve local economic performance by creating a desir- able workforce. Informal economies simultaneously help to retain wealth within a community and create social capital. At the same time, social net- works can support local economic activity. Finally, social capital creates the conditions necessary for putting ethical limits on economic activity, ei- ther through norms and values or through collective democratic action. Such limits are critical for achieving both economic and environmental sustainability, as will be discussed in greater detail later.

Summary

Sustainability, as described above, encompasses significant f i g 1.9. Relationships of social to envi- ronmental and economic components. changes to the current economy and the social order. The interrelation- ships described heretofore are partial and limited; they rely for complete explication on the more detailed discussions presented in Sections 1.3 and 1.4. Several preliminary trends emerge from the above analysis— namely, the importance of resilience, economic decentralization, and social capital. What role, if any, can architecture play in these broad changes?

46 Goodman; Gates and Lee, 5-6; Bramley, et al., 5-6; Kline, 163; and Trevor Han- cock, “Healthy Sustainable Communities: Concept, Fledgling Practice, and Implica- tions for Governance,” in Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities Healthy Planet, ed. Mark Roseland (Gabriola Island, BC; New Haven, CT: New Society Publishers, 1997), 42-50. 47 Klinenberg, Heat Wave. 20 Theoretical Background: Sustainability, Defined

The Role of Architecture f i g s 1.10 & 1.11. left: LEED Gold building in New Mexico (source: http://www. dpsdesign.org/images/photos/jeff_ Existing “green” or “sustainable” design focuses primarily, green_03.jpg); right: New Urbanist de- if not exclusively, on the technical aspects of sustainability—on velopment of Seaside, Florida (source: http://www.dkolb.org/sprawlingplaces/ concerns such as energy and water efficiency, environmentally friendly images/fullsize/seas.hss.st.jpg). materials, and indoor air quality. The eminently popular Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating systems developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) have, to date, exempli- fied this focus (fig. 1.10).48 Even the theoretically more stringent Living Building Challenge developed by Jason McLennan simply extends the same line of thinking.49 Many of the standard architectural references that deal explicitly with sustainability are concerned primarily with me- chanical systems—heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.50 At the same time, the New Urbanism movement has begun to address some important social aspects of urban life.51 A good deal of the forthcoming LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) draws from New Urbanist principles (fig. 1.11). However, the ideas that comprise New Urbanism are drawn selectively from historic precedents: they have not been adequately connected to the larger program of sus- tainability in a systematic way. Where it has been connected, such as in LEED-ND, the approach is disjointed: it is conceptually similar to the second view of sustainability described above, wherein sustainability was understood as being composed of discrete environmental, social, and economic spheres, the components of which could be determined in isolation.

48 See, for example, USGBC, LEED-NC. LEED-ND, in pilot phase at the time of writing, suggests a shift in focus. 49 Jason McLennan, Living Building Challenge. 50 For example, see Lechner, Heating, Cooling, Lighting; Stein and Reynolds, Mechani- cal and Electrical Equipment for Buildings; or Brown, Dekay, and Barbhaya, Sun, Wind, and Light: Architectural Design Strategies. 51 Congress for New Urbanism, Charter for the Congress of the New Urbanism. 21 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Both approaches discussed above have made important—if not sufficient—strides toward sustainability. But they suffer from an inadequate conception of sustainability—one that fails to meaningfully draw together the social, environmental, and economic systems. They have, however, succeeded in revealing an important role for architecture on both environmental and social fronts. The changes suggested here, however, are more fundamental: this thesis argues that sustainability will require substantial change to our economic structure and social order. Some of these changes have been hinted at in the preceding pages; oth- ers will be elucidated in the succeeding sections. f i g 1.12. The role of architecture in Of course, architecture cannot directly affect change in the relationship to the three spheres of sustainability. economy or social order. It can, however, affect such change indi- rectly by supporting specific types of interactions with the natural en- vironment and social interactions among people (fig. 1.12). Such shifts can (1) withdraw support from the dominant order, (2) be supportive of an alternative social order built upon local economies and a participa- tory democracy, and (3) be qualitatively, morally, and ethically superior, according to the values of freedom, democracy, and sustainability. We will return to these arguments later.

22 1.3 The Current Social Order

Before attempting to define a “sustainable society” we must first- un derstand what is unsustainable about our current society. An analysis of our current situation will help us understand what kind of changes are necessary to achieve a sustainable society and will begin to suggest some viable alternatives to present practices. The following analysis is based primarily upon the work of criti- cal theorist Jürgen Habermas, physicist Amory Lovins, economist Her- man Daly, and anthropologist Vernon Scarborough. I am using Haber- mas’s concept of modernity as a framework within which I am situating the work of Lovins, Daly, and Scarborough in order to elucidate specific pieces of Habermas’s theory and explicate their relationships to sustain- ability. While these scholars have not explicitly drawn from Habermas, I see their work as compatible, indeed complementary. Thus, while the practical function of the following two sections is to define a sustainable society, the theoretical task is to draw coherent connections between four relatively discrete bodies of work.

Habermas’s Conception of Modernity

Jürgen Habermas (fig. 1.13) is a prominent German philosopher and critical theorist. He has been referred to as “the last great rationalist” for his efforts to salvage the modern project of a just and rational society. His ambitious and interrelated research programs include the pragmatic theory of meaning, the theory of communicative rationality, discourse ethics, and social and political theory (see fig. 1.14). For the purposes of this thesis, I have relied upon several of Habermas’s essays, excerpts from his seminal Theory of Communicative Action, and a summary of his major f i g 1.13. Jürgen Habermas. Photo by Holbergprisen/Florian Beier. works—specifically,Habermas: A Very Short Introduction, by James Gor- don Finlayson. Habermas’s understanding of the historical process of mod- ernization helps to explain the formation and structure of the current

23 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.14. Habermas's interrelated re- search programmes. Redrawn from PRAGMATIC THEORY OF MEANING Finlayson 2003, p. xix.

THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE RATIONALITY

SOCIAL THEORY

DISCOURSE ETHICS POLITICAL THEORY

social order. He sees the function of theory to help to improve society;1 thus his understanding is well-suited to a diagnosis of problems and an understanding of an alternative way forward, which for Habermas is ulti- mately rooted in a participatory democratic society.

The Linguistic Basis: Validity Claims & Discourse

As fig. 1.14 suggests, Habermas bases his social, political, and moral theories on an understanding of communication and lan- guage. In contrast to modern social theory, which tends to view society as a simple aggregate of discrete benefit-maximizing individuals, Haber- mas’s conception of society is as a “complex intersubjective structure” in which language plays a vital role.2 In his view, individualistic approaches “neglect the crucial role of communication and discourse in forming social bonds between agents, and consequently have an inadequate con- ception of human association.”3 The pragmatic function of language is to bring participants to a shared understanding or agreement.4 The basic idea is that mean- ing in everyday speech rests on reasons, or underlying “validity claims” that may be challenged at any time. Discourse begins when a validity claim is challenged, requiring reasons to be presented. The implicit aim of discourse is always to achieve “rationally motivated consensus.” Habermas identifies three types of validity claims—claims to truth, rightness, or truthfulness—which are associated with three types of discourse—theoretical, moral-practical, and aesthetic—and three value spheres—scientific-technical, moral-legal, and aesthetic-expressive (see figure 1.15).5 He also identifies specific (albeit unspoken) rules of

1 James Gordon Finlayson, Habermas: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 4. 2 Finlayson, Habermas, 31. 3 Finalyson, Habermas, 51. 4 Finlayson, 33. According to Finalyson, the German word “sich verstangigen” can mean both understanding and/or agreement. 5 In his later work on discourse ethics, Habermas adds a fourth type of validity claim—authenticity—associated with a fourth type of discourse—ethical. Where 24 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

VALIDITY TRUTH RIGHTNESS TRUTHFULNESS CLAIMS

TYPES OF MORAL- THEORETICAL AESTHETIC DISCOURSE PRACTICAL

VALUE TECHNICAL- MORAL- AESTHETIC- SPHERES SCIENTIFIC LEGAL EXPRESSIVE

f i g 1.15. Structure of communicative rationality. discourse, including (1) arguments must be non-contradictory, (2) par- ticipants must be sincere, and (3) fairness and equality must prevail such that the best argument wins. The rules are idealizing: actual discourse may not always abide by them, but they nonetheless have a regulating effect.6 For example, imagine that my friend and I are in a coffee shop. My friend excuses himself to answer a phone call, despite a previous agreement that cell phones be turned off during our conversations. When my friend returns, I ask him why he did not honor our agreement. This is a challenge to therightness of his actions, based upon moral or ethical ideas of right and wrong.7 This challenge begins amoral-practical discourse. My friend may respond that his mother is ill, and that he needs to answer the phone in case of an emergency. He has presented a good reason, based upon other shared norms or values, and so I accept his actions: end of discourse. Perhaps later in the conversation I assert that the coffee is fair trade. My friend, who knows a barista at the coffee shop, challenges this assertion. He is challenging my validity claim to truth, and we begin a theoretical discourse in which we both present evi- dence supporting our claims: perhaps I saw a poster on fair trade at the counter; perhaps his friend gave him other information. The unspoken intent of our conversation is to achieve a rational agreement based upon good reasons. Such agreement or understanding can serve to coordinate action—in Habermasian terms, this would be communicative action, or action coordinated by understanding achieved through rational discourse. moral discourse is based upon universal norms, ethical discourse is based upon values particular to a place, culture, or time period. For simplicity, this thesis will utilize the tripartite scheme. 6 Finlayson, 43-4. 7 Hereinafter, moral and ethical will be used in the Habermasian sense described above (note 4). When the distinction is unimportant to the current discussion, both terms will be used for clarity. 25 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

TABLE 1.4. Types of action

Action Oriented orientation Action Oriented to reaching situation to success understanding

Nonsocial Instrumental --- action Social Strategic Communicative action action

Redrawn from Habermas 1984 TCA1, p. 285.

Types of Action: Instrumental vs. Communicative

In the Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas identifies four types of action. Teleological action is based upon an actor’s calcula- tion of the best means to achieve a desired end. The action is intended to achieve a specific goal, which is determined independently of the ac- tion. A subset of teleological action is strategic action, in which an actor attempts to predict the response of one or more other actors in order to act in a way that achieves a desired aim. Normatively regulated action is action that complies with a social norm or a general expectation of be- havior. It is inherently social in nature, and is often unconscious.Drama - turgical action is action in which an actor self-consciously presents him- self to an audience. It can take the form of another action presented in a certain style (e.g., an employee self-consciously acting deeply engrossed in his work when his boss walks past). Finally, communicative action, as we have already seen, is action coordinated through agreement and understanding between actors, which is in turn based upon rational discourse. Importantly, the desired ends (agreement and understand- ing) are inseparable from the means used to achieve them (discourse).8 Later, Habermas introduces a simpler typology divided ac- cording to two basic orientations: orientation toward understanding and orientation toward success (see table 1.4). In this typology, instru- mental action is non-social action coordinated by predetermined ends, strategic action is its social counterpart, and communicative action is social action coordinated by understanding.9 In general, Habermas uses stra- tegic as the general term for success-oriented action and reasoning (see fig. 1.16), and this more general terminology will be used hereinafter. In Habermas’s view, communicative action is more basic, and strategic

8 Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, Reason and the Ra- tionalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), 85-6. Hereinafter, TCA1. 9 Habermas, TCA1, 285-6. 26 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

social actions f i g 1.16. Types of social action. Redrawn from Habermas TCA1, p. 333.

communicative action strategic action

concealed open strategic action strategic action

unconscious conscious deception deception (systematically (manipulation) distorted communication) action is parasitic upon it as it obstructs language’s primary function of attaining understanding.10 For example, imagine that, in the prior scenario, when my friend’s cell phone rings, I promptly snatch it away and dunk it into my coffee, rendering it useless. My actions achieve the desired effect (pre- venting him from talking on the phone), but are not informed by un- derstanding: my actions do nothing to help me understand the reasons behind my friend’s actions, nor do they allow my friend to understand the reasons behind mine (though he is presumably aware of our agreed- upon prohibition of the use of cellular phones). The action isstrategic (in the broad sense)—oriented toward a predetermined end.

Spheres of Sociality: Lifeworld & System

Habermas sees society as being composed of two spheres: lifeworld and system (see fig. 1.17).The lifeworld is the sphere of ev- eryday human life, including the informal and unmarketized domains of family, household, culture, voluntary organizations, and politics out- side the formal domain of parties and institutions. It forms the backdrop of everyday life that structures an individual’s worldview or background convictions. Indeed, worldview is a critical element of the lifeworld.11 In Habermas’s scheme, the lifeworld is organized primarily through communicative action. Such action, inherently social and consensus- based, provides social integration—the “glue” that holds modern society together.12 Thus communicative rationality (the basis of communicative

10 Habermas, TCA1, 288-9. 11 Finlayson, Habermas, 51-2. 12 Finlayson, Habermas, 52-3. 27 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

POLITICAL CIVIL FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE SPHERES SOCIETY INSTITUTIONS BUREAUCRACY

TYPE OF COMMUNICATIVE POWER ADMINISTRATIVE POWER POLITICAL POWER

STEERING SOLIDARITY POWER MONEY MEDIA

INSTITUTIONS STATE MARKET

SPHERES OF LIFEWORLD SYSTEM SOCIALITY

TYPES OF SOCIAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION INTEGRATION INTEGRATION

TYPES OF COMMUNICATIVE INSTRUMENTAL ACTION ACTION ACTION

LINGUISTIC ILLOCUTIONARY PERLOCUTIONARY SPEECH ACT BASIS SPEECH ACT

LIFEWORLD SYSTEM f i g 1.17. The structure of the lifeworld vs. action) serves to achieve consensus and to reproduce the shared under- the system. standings that underpin the lifeworld, as Habermas describes: This concept ofcommunicative rationality carries with it con- notations based ultimately on the central experience of the unconstrained, unifying, consensus-bringing force of argu- mentative speech, in which different participants overcome their merely subjective views and, owing to the mutuality of rationally motivated conviction, assure themselves of both the unity of the objective world and the intersubjectivity of their lifeworld.13 The other sphere is the system, which includes the market and the administrative state—structures defined by particular patterns of strategic or instrumental action (for example, the market’s implicit preference for profit maximization). The functions of the system are material production of goods and services and, to an extent, the related

13 Jürgen Habermas, TCA1, 10. 28 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

coordination of actions, which provides system integration.14 The system is steered by the media of money and power, which are not related to understanding or consensus.15 Individuals operating within the system have little or no say regarding the ultimate ends of their actions: they are effectively limited to actions of instrumental rationality. Because of this, the ends of the system come to seem inevitable or natural—a character- ization resembling Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus.16 The result, as James Finlayson explains, is not irrational behavior, but rather an inabil- ity to understand or control social phenomena: Oppressive social systems survive, not because individuals mistake their own interests, but because their actions fall into pre-established, bewilderingly complex patterns of instru- mental reasoning. Because of the inherent opacity in social systems, the significance of actions exceeds the capacity of the agents to understand and to take responsibility for them.17 In the absence of meaningful input into social ends, many actors resort to simple strategic or instrumental rationality aimed at maximizing indi- vidual benefits. Thus the system is both structured by and supportive of strategic action.

Steering Media: Money, Power & Solidarity

Habermas identifies three resources that modern society has at its disposal to provide steering: money (associated with the market), power (associated with the state), and solidarity (associated with the lifeworld) (see fig. 1.17).18 The system and lifeworld are structurally different: the former is based on instrumental rationality, ends being predetermined or deter- mined through the media of money and/or power; the latter is based on communicative action, which is oriented toward achieving understand- ing and agreement, and whose political incarnation, solidarity, can be used to steer society in a more rational and just way than its instrumental

14 Finlayson, 51-4. 15 Finalyson, 55. 16 Bourdieu alternatively defineshabitus as “systems of durable, transposable disposi- tions” and “embodied history, internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as histo- ry” (Bourdieu, 108-11)—a conception that also incorporates psychology and history, and may add to the Habermasian understanding. The danger is that habitus seemingly constrains actors’ abilities to act in a rational way—a situation that could undermine the basis of communicative action. See Pierre Bourdieu, “Structures, Habitus, Prac- tices,” in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. A. Elliot (Oxford: Blackwells, 1999). 17 Finlayson, 58. 18 Jürgen Habermas, “The New Obscurity: The Crisis of the Welfare State and the Exhaustion of Utopian Energies,” in The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, trans. and ed. Shierry Weber Nicholsen (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989), 65. 29 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

POLITICAL POPULAR HUMAN RIGHTS CONCEPTIONS SOVERIGNTY

POLITICAL CIVIL FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE SPHERES SOCIETY INSTITUTIONS BUREAUCRACY

TYPE OF COMMUNICATIVE POWER ADMINISTRATIVE POWER

POLITICAL POWER THEORY POLITICAL

STEERING SOLIDARITY POWER MONEY MEDIA

INSTITUTIONS STATE MARKET

SPHERES OF LIFEWORLD SYSTEM SOCIALITY

TYPES OF SOCIAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION INTEGRATION INTEGRATION SOCIAL THEORY SOCIAL

TYPES OF COMMUNICATIVE INSTRUMENTAL ACTION ACTION ACTION

LINGUISTIC ILLOCUTIONARY PERLOCUTIONARY SPEECH ACT BASIS SPEECH ACT

f i g 1.18. Habermas's social and political (and non-communicative) counterparts. A free and just society is built theory. Formal democratic institutions 19 are of central importance as the "bridge" upon solidarity —indeed, Habermas’s hope for an emancipated demo- between the lifeworld and system, as is cratic society rests upon the ability of the lifeworld to meaningfully civil society, as the bridge between the affect political processes and restrain the market and state according to communicatively-structured lifeworld 20 and formal institutions. collectively determined norms and values (see fig. 1.18). Modernization: The Colonization of the Lifeworld

Habermas’s understanding of the historical process of mod- ernization is based upon the historical relationship between the lifeworld and system. It begins with the Enlightenment-era differentia- tion of the spheres of science, morality, and art—a concept borrowed

19 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 66. 20 Finalyson, 15. 30 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

f i g 1.19. Author's conception of the rela- tionship between the lifeworld, market, and state.

from Max Weber.21 These spheres correspond to and arise from the three types of discourse: theoretical, moral-practical, and aesthetic. The En- lightenment vision was that specialization would accelerate the develop- ment of each sphere, and that this development would lead to continued improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Over time specialized in- stitutions developed around the three spheres: strategic actions (goals) were institutionalized in the market; normative actions (ethics) were institutionalized in law and constitutional government; and aesthetic actions (self-expression) were institutionalized in the arts.22 As these spheres became more specialized, they also became increasingly re- moved from the realm of everyday human life, or the lifeworld. In Habermas’s view, the capitalist market became the domi- nant institution, subjugating the others to its internal imperatives (profitability and consumption). These imperatives had (and continue to have) adverse effects on the lifeworld: increased risk from wage labor (e.g., health risks, unemployment, etc.), commoditization of lifeworld activities (e.g., replacing household production with market produc- tion), erosion of social bonds (e.g., through the market’s preferences for a flexible labor force, change, innovation, and novelty, which tend to undermine bonds to people and place), and environmental deg- radation (e.g., contamination of water supplies and associated health consequences).23 Eventually the state intervened to stabilize the market and compensate for adverse effects, particularly the risks associated with wage labor: accident, illness, loss of employment, lack of provision

21 Jürgen Habermas, “Modernity Versus Postmodernity,” trans. Seyla Ben-Habib, in A Postmodern Reader, ed. Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 97. 22 Robert J. Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective (Cambridge, Mass.; London, UK: MIT Press, 2000), 32. 23 Habermas, “The New Obscurity,” 54-5. Here Habermas focuses primarily on the risks of wage labor. While Habermas does not focus on environmental concerns, Rob- ert Brulle, following Habermas, shows how his ideas are applicable to the environmen- tal movement (Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature). 31 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

TABLE 1.5. Social pathologies and proximate causes

Social pathology Proximate causes

anomie decrease in shared meanings social disintegration erosion of social bonds alienation helplessness & lack of belonging demoralization inability to control social phenamona social instability breakdown of social order (lack of integration)

for old age, etc.24 In doing so, the state, too, expanded into the everyday world of its citizens. Thus the process of modernization is characterized by the “colonization of the lifeworld” by the market and the administra- tive state (see fig. 1.19).25 Concomitant with these processes was a systematic rational- ization of human activity, which produced two opposing trends. On one hand, the rationalization of the lifeworld freed society from religious dogma and political autocracy by allowing rational discourse (critique of validity claims). Thus rationalization is necessary for communicative ac- tion, which is necessary for an emancipated society. On the other hand, instrumentally rational economic and administrative activity encroached upon the lifeworld. While the first type of rationality facilitates social integration via understanding through discourse, the second represses understanding in favor of other means of coordination.26 Money and power subsume “language’s function of coordinating action, so that media-steered interaction replaces communicative action.”27 Strategic decisions are increasingly made by the market and state, uncoupled from the lifeworld. The colonization of the lifeworld ultimately results in a number of “social pathologies,” including (1) decrease in shared meanings and understandings (anomie); (2) erosion of social bonds (disintegration or fragmentation); (3) increase in feelings of helplessness and lack of belonging (alienation); (4) consequent unwillingness to take responsibility for action or social phenomena (demoralization); and (5) destabilization and breakdown in the social order (social instability) (table 1.5).28

24 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 54. 25 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 20. 26 Habermas, TCA1, 341-2; Finlayson 67-73. 27 Roger Bolton, “Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action and the Theory of Social Capital” (paper presented at a meeting of the Association of American Geogra- phers, Denver, Colorado, April 2005), 19; citing TCA2 374-5. 28 Finlayson, 57. 32 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

In Habermas’s view, the modern welfare state was a neces- sary development in the face of the deleterious consequences of mo­dernization. The welfare state is predicated on maintaining a peaceful coexistence between capitalism and democracy. While recog- nizing its necessity, Habermas questions the continued viability of this strategy. His argument is two-fold. First, he questions whether the state can effectively keep the capitalist system under control. The problem is that the state simultaneously attempts to maintain economic growth as a vital source of revenue and employment on one hand, and buffer its citizens from the negative effects of growth on the other. The state cannot maintain a concurrent pro-growth and anti-growth position, particularly as the costs of growth begin to exceed the capacity of the growth-funded welfare state to mitigate them. Second, and more funda- mentally, Habermas argues that the very medium of power, which the state relies upon for its strength, is itself a threat to the lifeworld through bureaucratization, rationalization, and surveillance. According to Hab- ermas, the lifeworld “is equally threatened by commodification and bureaucratization—[and] neither of the two media, money and power, is by nature ‘more innocent’ than the other.”29 Further, the very complex- ity of contemporary society make steering a momentous task. Thus we arrive at a seemingly insoluble dilemma: The more complex the systems requiring steering become, the greater the probability of dysfunctional secondary effects. We experience on a daily basis the transformation of produc- tive forces into destructive forces, of planning capacities into potentials for disruption. […] The very forces that make for increasing power, the forces from which modernity once de- rived its self-consciousness and its utopian expectations, are in actuality turning autonomy into dependence, emancipa- tion into oppression, and reason into irrationality.30 The Enlightenment vision of increased wellbeing via specialization has not come to pass—indeed, it has led to unfreedom and instrumental rationalization—and consequently there is a growing skepticism of mo- dernity in general. The colonization of the lifeworld by the system cre- ates mounting negative consequences that the state, by its very nature, is helpless to mitigate. Habermas is critical of the way that modernization has occurred, and argues that the normative potential of modernity has not been realized—if anything, the Enlightenment goal of continued emancipa- tion has been subverted by the dominance of the system. But to Haber- mas this is not inevitable. Rather than abandon modernity all together, Habermas posits a critical rethinking of modernity that will continue the

29 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 63. 30 Habermas The New Obscurity, 51. 33 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

modern project of a more rational and just organization of social life.31 In order for this to happen, the lifeworld must be strengthened so it can resist, rein in, and keep in check the forces of money and power (the market and the state) by drawing upon a third force: solidarity—political power rooted in communicative action. We will return to this notion later.

From Modernization to Sustainability

Habermas shows that contemporary society is largely structured by the imperatives of the system—the market and the administrative state. I will attempt to show that the dominance of the market and state—in Habermas’s terms, the “colonization of the lifeworld”—is the primary force responsible for the erosion of social, humans, and natural capital. This argument focuses primarily on the market-driven (rather than state-driven) processes associated with the colonization of the lifeworld, because (1) in Habermas’s argu- ment, the market is the “prime mover:” its deleterious effects precede and ultimately prompt state intervention; and (2) economic rather than administrative forces form the basis of the critiques leveled by Herman Daly and Amory Lovins. In other words, Daly and Lovins prioritize the market as the driving force behind the erosion of social, human, and natural capital, and Habermas’s theory seems to support this approach. First, I argue that there is a parallel between Habermas’s concep- tion of the communicatively-structured lifeworld and the concept of social capital as previously defined; therefore, the particular (primarily market-driven) processes associated with the colonization of the life- world erode social and human capital. Second, I argue that these same processes are implicated in the erosion of natural capital. These argu- ments draw significantly from the work of Amory Lovins and Herman Daly, but also from economist David Korten and environmental studies professor David Orr. Third, I argue that the erosion of social capital also represents an erosion of the communicative basis by which the system could be restrained: social capital is not only a desirable end in itself, but also a necessary condition for achieving a balanced social order.

“Green” Critique of Habermas

There are, however, a few potential challenges associated with linking Habermas’s work to sustainability as I have defined it. These will be discussed but not necessarily resolved here. I believe that

31 Richard Wolin, Introduction to The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, ed. Shierry Weber Nicholsen (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989), ix. 34 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

these challenges are minor enough that they do not negate the general relevance of Habermas’s work.32 The underlying conflict is between universality and particu- larity. Sustainability favors particularity and diversity—adaptations to place that likely include ethical values particular to that place, by virtue of not only pragmatic adaptation, but also chance and the evolutionary processes of adaptive radiation, wherein isolated entities (species or communities) tend to diverge over time. On the other hand, Habermas’s communicative action rests on shared moral norms. In a diverse, het- erogeneous, and multicultural society, is universal consensus on moral norms possible? Furthermore, is it desirable? From the perspective of sustainability, the answer is no. Absent this basis for shared understand- ing, is Habermas’s theory still relevant? Perhaps more damning, is it possible that “truth”—particularly objective truth—is itself is a Western cultural concept? If so, is commu- nicative rationality is also purely Western and hence limited in applica- bility and in its potential to forge cross-cultural understanding? These questions cannot be fully resolved here. But a few prelimi- nary observations are appropriate. First, truth in the Habermasian sense does not necessarily imply objective fact. Rather, it refers to those things culturally accepted as true. Where these cultural definitions vary, could the very background convictions—the values and assumptions that inform these positions—become the subject of rational discourse, and understanding still be achieved? Second, and similarly, rationality does not necessarily mean objectivity. A rational argument can be made based upon situated perceptions. Rational agreement can be achieved between many situated perceptions. But this agreement may not be “objective”: it is rooted in shared beliefs or understandings regarding the nature of the world. As an example, Apache use place-names to engage in moral discourse: place-names are associated with stories that are infused with moral lessons; thus saying place-names is an instruction for individuals to imagine these stories and refer to their lessons.33 This moral-practical discourse works because the participants understand the stories (and, by extension, the place-names) as being right, and the discourse serves in the Habermasian sense to bring about consensus regarding the rightness of the behavior in question. This example does not resolve the culture question, but shows that Habermas’s schema can be applied in a non- Western setting.

32 Robert Brulle discusses and attempts to address other “green” critiques of critical theory in general. For his more comprehensive overview, see Agency, Democracy, and Nature, 42-48. 33 Keith Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996), 71-104. 35 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

The Erosion of Social and Human Capital

The very structure of contemporary society is unsustain- able—a social order dominated by a growth-oriented market economy that erodes social, human, and natural capital. The first step in this argument is to establish a link between Habermas’s social and political theory and the concept of social capital. The second is a discus- sion of the social effects of the growth-market: it will be argued that the principal processes that erode social and human capital are the market- based processes of commoditization, mobilization, centralization, and market-based socialization. The final step, completed in the next sub- section, links market growth to the erosion of natural capital.

The Lifeworld & Social Capital

Habermas argues that the appropriation of lifeworld activi- ties and functions by the market and administrative state—the “col- onization of the lifeworld”—ultimately produces social pathologies, including anomie, disintegration, alienation, demoralization, and social instability (see table 1.5).34 While Habermas does not use the term social capital, his social pathologies can be thought of as its inverse, or as evidence of its destruction. The opposite conditions—belonging, inte- gration, shared meanings, strong social bonds, and capacity for collective self-determination—are the defining elements of social capital, and, to invert Habermas’s terminology, can be seen as emerging from an empow- ered lifeworld. Social capital as previously defined includes (1) relation- ships and social networks, (2) shared norms and values, (3) community cohesion, and (4) civic participation, civil society, and solidarity. Indeed, this definition is drawn in part from Habermas, for whom solidarity and civil society are essential elements of an empowered lifeworld and participation is essential for individual development and socialization. While Habermas says less about community or social networks, they can be seen as providing the social context necessary for the other elements to form, and are therefore necessary preconditions for communicative action. According to Robert Brulle, Lifeworld communication establishes a mutually shared set of norms on which behavior can be based. This creates a situation of legitimately ordered interpersonal relationships, defines a series of mutual moral obligations, and defines legitimate individual and social memberships. This symbolic system enables social integration and the establishment of solidarity.35

34 Finlayson, 57. 35 Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature, 40. 36 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

Norms, relationships, social memberships, and mutual obligation are all aspects of social capital—indeed, “social capital” can be seen as conve- nient shorthand for these components—and therefore social integration and solidarity depend upon it. Similarly, Roger Bolton suggests that normatively-regulated action, or action based upon internalized social norms, represents social capital in action.36 Thus the production of Habermasian social pathologies is akin to the erosion of social and human capital; and social capital emerges from and creates an empowered lifeworld, setting the stage for commu- nicative action by providing shared background convictions, norms or values, and the social interaction necessary for robust discourse. What are the processes that erode social capital and produce so- cial pathologies? We will now look more closely at some of the processes involved—commoditization, mobilization, market-based socialization, and centralization. To do this, we turn to the work of Amory Lovins, Herman Daly, David Korten, and David Orr.

Commoditization

The growth-oriented market economy (hereafter, the growth-market) erodes social capital by growing into and appro- priating the contents of household economies and informal social activities that sustain communities. This process replaces community- based or informal activities such as home cooking, childcare, garden- ing, and storytelling with market-based commodities like fast food, daycares, processed food, and movies.37 Commodities generate profit and increase the Gross National Product (GNP) while their informal counterparts maximize neither profit nor production. According to economist David Korten, commoditization of previously non-market goods and services is one of the principal mechanisms of economic growth.38 The growth-market therefore has an implicit bias toward com- moditization. Commoditization ignores, however, the many non-market benefits that come from household production and informal economies. The latter are not simply means for producing goods and services; they also provide means of social coordination, a platform for building and maintaining interpersonal relationships, and daily situations for rational discourse, which serves to build and maintain shared norms and values

36 Bolton, 36. This connection is discussed further by Bolton, but only insofar as it applies to the relatively narrow neoclassical economic understanding of social capital. While Bolton’s analysis of compatibility was mixed, this thesis takes a broader view of social capital, with which the concept of the lifeworld is arguably more compatible. 37 Commoditization can also include expansion into environmental and cultural realms—for example, by patenting genetic code or appropriating traditional knowledge for proprietary purposes. 38 David Korten, When Corporations Ruled the World, second edition (West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press; San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1996), 46. 37 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Structural effect of Social market growth pathology

d meaning anomie ve basis of share erosion of discuri commoditization erosion of i e nformal economies rosi on of dis social curs ive people & place disintegration bas erosion of bonds to is o f s mobilization oci al r ord apid er no belonging t cha o place nge ; so cial ies alienation unre and hard technolog st inability to underst

centralization s orm n inability to c cial ontrol hard technol so ces ogies of rket for ce of ma tan bility demoralization ep nevita cc eved i icipation o a perci longing thru part market-based n no be socialization erosion of d iscursive basis of social order social instability

f i g 1.20. Social effects of market growth. upon which understanding and collective action are based. Social capital is both an output and input into household production: relationships and community are important resources, as well as emerging from daily practice.39 An increase in commoditized products and activities comes at the expense of social capital and any associated human welfare, as David Orr describes: Those things that people once did for themselves as competent citizens and self-reliant communities are now conveniently purchased. What’s good for the gross national product, however, is often detrimental to communities. Real communities can only be formed around mutual need, cooperation, sharing, and the daily exercise of practical com- petence. The effect of the growth economy and corporate dominance is to undermine the practical basis for community and with it the lineaments of trust.40 In Habermasian terms, the growth-market erodes the practical basis for communicative action by eliminating the social relationships and daily interactions that provide the context for the use of discourse and emer- gence of shared beliefs. The erosion of social capital also means greater inequity. Loss of informal economies means greater reliance on the market economy,

39 Bolton, 21. 40 David Orr, The Nature of Design, 208. See also Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone. 38 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

which, as Korten observes, “increases the dependence of the working class on money and thereby on those who own assets, provide profes- sional services, and control access to jobs.”41 To the extent that inequity means restricted access to goods and services that satisfy basic needs, this process is also detrimental to human capital. Thus commoditization is implicated in the creation of anomie, social disintegration, and social instability (fig. 1.20).

Mobilization

The growth-market erodes social capital in other ways as well. Economic activity encompasses many basic human activities: produc- tion, consumption, and meeting daily needs. The structure of the eco- nomic system therefore affects good deal of daily life. The social patterns of modernity—division of labor, structural differentiation, urbanization, and mobility42—are largely a result of growth-market imperatives and economic “efficiencies.”Growth-market preferences for a flexible labor force, change, innovation, and novelty tend to undermine the bonds to people, place, and history upon which traditional support networks and communities are based. Twentieth-century sociolo- gists Louis Wirth and Georg Simmel theorize that, as a result of these processes, modernization replaces traditional primary relationships (i.e., kin, community) with secondary or quasi-primary relationships (e.g., co-worker, client, neighbor).43 Anthropologist Vernon Scarborough observes that societies with higher rates of technological change “may experience considerable social unrest.”44 These processes help to explain the Habermasian social pathologies of erosion of social bonds and social instability (fig. 1.20).

Market-Based Socialization

As Robert Brulle discusses, in the relative void of traditional communities and social interaction, the market comes to play an in- creasingly significant role in the socialization of individuals. While traditional socialization relies on cultural learning (knowledge), accep- tance of social norms (values) and self-expression through participation (self-realization, leadership, etc.)—all important aspects of human

41 Korten, When Corporations Rule the World, 48-9. It is not surprising, then, that where informal economies and “alternative livelihood strategies” remain, it is largely among disadvantaged populations who have managed to stick together despite the disintegrating forces of the market—for example, see Halperin (Practicing Community). Informal economic activity can also be observed in many intentional communities such as co-housing developments. 42 Orr, "Modernization," 77. 43 Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life;" Simmel, "The Metropolis and Mental Life." 44 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 14. 39 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

TABLE 1.6. Characteristics of hard vs. soft technologies

Hard technologies Soft technologies

Fuel source typically non-renewable resources renewable resources Contextuality large-scale and centralized diverse and adaptable Complexity cumbersome and high-tech flexible and low-tech Spatial distribution large-scale and centralized generally small-scale and distributed Relation to end use use homogenous output to meet all needs matched to end-use needs

capital—personalities who develop in the context of a market- dominated society are focused to a greater extent on the satisfaction of personal ambition and individual self-expression through con- sumerism.45 These conveniently meet the needs of a growth-market and match the assumptions about human behavior upon which neoclassical economic models are based. Such characteristics also inhibit individual capacity for civic involvement, further hindering the replenishment of social capital. In the words of David Orr, a hierarchical non-participatory society helps to create the “rational” economic actor who plunders the commons.46 Thus the current social order erodes human capital and creates social pathologies, including alienation and demoralization (fig. 1.20).

Centralization

In addition to the relatively direct effects on society dis- cussed above, the indirect effects of the growth-market bias for centralized high-technology industrial production has important socio-political effects. To understand these effects, it is necessary to discuss in broad terms two different kinds of technologies: soft and hard technology—a discussion drawn from Amory Lovins. Amory Lovins (fig. 1.21) is a physicist whose writings on energy systems successfully bring together traditional “technical” considerations with their social and political implications. While he is often associated f i g 1.21. Amory Lovins. Photo from with the thesis that social change is unnecessary for a viable and sustain- http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net. able future, a more careful reading of his work shows that he is both

45 Brulle, 41; citing Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, trans. Thomas McCarthy (Bos- ton: Beacon Press, 1987), 325. (Hereinafter, TCA2.) 46 David W. Orr, “Modernization and the Ecological Perspective,” in The Global Pre- dicament: Ecological Perspectives on World Order, ed. David W. Orr and Marvin S. Soroos (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 77. 40 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

aware and supportive of broader, systemic changes.47 The sources cited below are several decades old, but the arguments remain both accurate and relevant, and continue to appear in Lovins’s contemporary work. Lovins’s analysis is rooted in a distinction between “hard” and “soft” technologies (table 1.6)—particularly energy technologies. Soft energy technologies are by definition “flexible, resilient, sustainable, and benign.”48 Specifically, they are: 1. based on renewable energy sources (consuming nature’s income, not its capital); 2. diverse and adapted to particular circumstances; 3. flexible and relatively low-tech; 4. matched in scale and geographic distribution to end use needs; and 5. matched in energy quality to end-use needs.49 Hard technologies are defined in the negative—they are technologies that are not renewable, diverse, flexible, or matched to end-use needs. They tend to be centralized, and include most traditional energy sources: coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power. But they can also include renew- able sources, such as large-scale solar collection, because these sources are centralized and poorly adapted to end-use needs. According to Lovins, such systems fall victim to the same problems as non-renewable hard technologies—inefficiency, high capital cost, and inflexibility— without taking advantage of the distributed nature of renewable sources. Thus, there are two principal distinctions between soft and hard technologies. First, soft technologies are matched in scale and quality to end-use needs. Most end-use energy needs are distributed and require relatively low-quality energy (e.g., space heating), and these needs are best met with distributed and low-quality energy sources. Says Lovins: Where we want only to create temperature differences of tens of degrees, we should meet the need with sources whose po- tential is tens or hundreds of degrees, not with a flame whose potential is thousands or a nuclear reaction temperature is equivalent to trillions—like cutting butter with a chainsaw.50 He concedes, “For some applications, electricity is appropriate and in- dispensable […] but these uses are already oversupplied […].”51 While electricity end-use has certainly increased with the rapid growth of

47 Lovins’s objections to social change are (1) forced or coerced change, and (2) pol- icy that is judged asymmetrically—that is, considering the social change involved with only one strategy but not with the alternative. See Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 15-18. 48 Amory B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace, (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1977), 38. 49 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 38-9. 50 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 40. 51 Ibid. 41 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

1973 2001 11.3% elec. 19.4% elec. Legend: Residential & Commercial other lighting clothes drying cooking

RESIDENTIAL 88.7% 80.6% refrigeration thermal thermal air conditioning

30.2% elec. water heat space heat

info. not available

COMMERCIAL 69.8% thermal 27.7% elec. Legend: Industrial other electrical electrolysis info. not electric drive available electricity generation INDUSTRIAL 72.3% process steam thermal direct heat

f i g 1.22. Energy consumption by end- personal electronics, a very high percentage of energy needs can still be use. 1973 data from Lovins 1977, p. 75; 2001 data from the Energy Information met with low-quality sources—space heating, most hot water needs, and 52 Administration 2001 Residential Con- lighting, for example (see fig. 1.22). sumption Survey. See Appendix A for The second, less general distinction between soft and hard complete data. technologies deals with the spatial implications of matching end- use needs: soft technologies tend to be decentralized or distribut- ed—but, Lovins cautions, this shift should not be taken to an extreme.53 The principle is meeting end-use needs in the best, most appropriate way, which minimizes economic, environmental, and social costs; the resulting tendency, but not the rule, is a decentralized or distributed system. In this discussion, it is necessary to make a clear distinction be- tween centralized, decentralized, and distributed organizations—a taxon-

52 For example, the end-use needs of University of Cincinnati’s 2007 Solar Decathlon house were primarily thermal in nature: space conditioning and hot water accounted for nearly 68% of all energy needs. Even this figure could be considerably expanded if daylighting is assumed in lieu of electric lighting during daylight hours, higher- efficiency appliances are specified, the matching of end-use quality is more vigorously enforced (for example, drying clothes with thermal rather than electrical energy), and the assumed human thermal comfort zone is expanded beyond the exceptionally nar- row range mandated by the Solar Decathlon rules. 53 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 100. 42 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

omy borrowed from Paul Baran (see fig. 1.23).54 The critical differences f i g 1.23. Centralized, decentralized, and distributed networks. Reprinted from between decentralized and distributed systems—plainly apparent in fig. Baran 1964, p. 2. 1.23—are obscured by the traditional use of “decentralization,” which tends to conflate the two. This thesis adopts Baran’s more nuanced terminology. While Lovins’s focus is energy systems, his taxonomy is broadly applicable to many other systems. The ideas of end-use ori- entation, scale, and spatial distribution are applicable and relevant to many other systems. Lovins himself admits that “scale issues are uni- versal in modern technologies.”55 He suggests that similar considerations are applicable to sewage treatment plants, transportation, industry, cit- ies, and administration.56 Additionally, the Rocky Mountain Institute, which Lovins founded, applies the soft/hard logic to water systems.57 As an example of this wide applicability, many cities are considering “low impact development” as a viable alternative to costly improvements to stormwater infrastructure. Where the traditional (hard) technology col- lects the stormwater and deals with it in a complex centralized facility, “low impact development” relies on many simple, small-scale, decentral- ized technologies like rain barrels, green roofs, and permeable pavement.

54 Paul Baran, "On Distributed Communication," 15. 55 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 103, note 41. 56 Ibid. 57 Rocky Mountain Institute, "Water." 43 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

TABLE 1.7. Social implications of hard vs. soft paths

Hard path Soft path

Politics concentrates control & power distributes control Society inequitable: divorces costs from benefits equitable: costs & benefits occur locally Environment inefficient: wasteful of resources & energy efficient: matched to end-use needs Economy expensive & capital-intensive economical via mass-production, simplicity & job creation

Structure brittle: enhances risk & vulnerability resilient: enhances flexibility

These technologies can be better matched to particular conditions, are cheaper, easier to maintain, and rely on (rather than subverting) natural processes.58 Similar comparisons can be made between hard and soft approaches to water use (centralized vs. decentralized purification, and quality that matches end-use needs), waste management (centralized sewage treatment plants vs. composting toilets, living machines, and biodigestors), agriculture (industrial farming that relies on enormous energy inputs vs. the decentralized approach that has been so successful in Cuba), and, perhaps less obviously, transportation systems (one- size-fits-all auto-centered development vs. a variety of solutions for the actual end-use need of access: well-designed communities, public transit, shared high-efficiency vehicles, etc.).59 Lovins’s criticisms of the hard path (outlined below) are applicable more generally to all of these hard technologies.60 Lovins argues that hard and soft technologies are associ- ated with two very different social trajectories, or paths, that have very different environmental, social, and political implications (see table 1.7). Thus his case for the soft path—the social trajectory associ- ated with soft technologies—is made from both a technical and socio- political perspective. His primary criticisms of the hard path can be divided into five categories: inefficiency, central control, inequity, cost, and brittleness. Inefficiency primarily affects natural capital, and will be

58 For example, Cincinnati’s Municipal Sewage District (MSD) recently proposed low-impact development (LID) as a more cost-effective alternative to traditional “gray infrastructure.” Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati, "Green Infrastruc- ture Program." 59 I differ slightly from Lovins in my opinions regarding transportation systems: I be- lieve that most end-use needs can be met with far less transportation than we presently have—and where transportation is needed, there are many alternatives to individual vehicle ownership that should be explored. But this represents a difference in emphasis rather than a significant difference in approach. 60 Hereafter, the terms “soft” and “hard” will be used to refer to general types of tech- nologies, rather than being particular to energy systems. 44 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

discussed later. Of principal concern here are the socio-political effects of central control, inequity, cost, and brittleness. Central control: Hard technologies are large in scale, neces- sitating centralized management and control. Whether power plants or sewage treatment plants, the very complexity of these systems means that they require a technical elite to design and maintain them. This control means a concentration of power: decisions affecting the public at large are made through private deliberations between institutions with vested interests in the outcomes and experts with vested interests in the technologies. The technologies themselves tend to be massive, requiring substantial long-term investments not only in the facilities themselves but also in the supporting infrastructure. Prior investment decisions influence future decisions in a way that is neither rational nor desirable. The state must play a significant role, as Lovins describes: The scale and the technical difficulty of the exacting projects are vast. Similarly vast concentrations of social resources must therefore be efficiently mobilized without substantive regard to diverse opinions or circumstances. Only large corpora- tions, encouraged by large government agencies, using large sums of private and public money to employ large numbers of workers on large areas of land, and shielded by the State from the vagaries of the economic and political marketplace, can possibly get the job done. It is not a pluralistic task for house- holds, small businesses, block associations, or town meetings. It is a monolithic enterprise that demands sweeping, uniform national policies specially devised, with local efforts only in an instrumental and supporting role. The gargantuan organi- zations involved tend to accrete great power—not only power given them by virtue of their supposed public utility, but further power that they subsume by feeding upon their very size.61 The institutions involved resist changes that might jeopardize their profits or importance. Both large bureaucracies and industries develop lives of their own, and seek policy that operates in their favor.62 In Haber- masian terms, such systems are steered by the media of money and pow- er rather than solidarity, and their ends are strategic—oriented toward success rather than consensus. The inability of ordinary people to un- derstand or control systems upon which they rely—energy production, waste management, water purification, and food production, to name a few—creates alienation and demoralization. These systems also create alienation from the natural environment: people are removed, physically and psychologically, from the natural processes that sustain them. Hard

61 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 149-50. 62 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 177; citing W. W. Lowrance, International Security 1:2 (Fall 1976), 147-66. 45 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

technologies are ultimately more arcane, less egalitarian, and more prone 24% distribution to commercial monopoly than their soft counterparts.63 Inequity: Hard technologies inequitably divorce costs from 19% transmission benefits. For example, the negative consequences of energy production and the benefits of energy use are allocated to “different people at op- 21% operation posite ends of the transmission lines, pipelines, or rail lines.”64 Lovins & maintenance notes that “most people […] who are on the receiving end of offshore and Arctic oil operations, coal stripping, and the plutonium economy 6% profit & error have greeted these enterprises with a comprehensive lack of enthusiasm 65 29% electricity […].” But these tend to be the same people already disempowered by the systems of central control. Soft technologies, on the other hand, tend to be decentralized or distributed; thus costs and benefits accrue to the f i g 1.24. Allocation of a dollar spent by same people at the same time. an average consumer on electricity. Data from Lovins 1977, p. 88. Cost: Hard technologies incur huge capital and maintenance costs, including not only production facilities but also collection and distribution infrastructure. Consequently, less energy is produced per dollar invested (see fig. 1.24).66 More money sunk into capital and infra- structure means less money for jobs—indeed, Lovins argues, investment in hard technologies creates fewer jobs than almost any other invest- ment.67 Soft technologies, on the other hand, composed of many small units, could easily take advantage of mass production and economies of scale to drive down unit costs. Also, for reasons of reliability, repairabili- ty, and low capital intensity, soft technologies require more labor relative to capital, thereby creating more jobs per dollar invested—jobs that tend to use readily learned skills.68 Brittleness: Finally, centralized systems are eminently vulnera- ble—an idea that will be discussed in more detail later, in the context of natural capital. Small disturbances can disrupt the functioning of entire regions.69 Current systems, dominated by hard technologies, are far from resilient, as demonstrated by the costly shortcomings of energy systems (evidenced by massive power outages on both coasts of the United States), brittle stormwater systems (evidenced by combined sewer overflows from numerous major North American cities),70 agricultural production (evidenced by large-scale contamination of food supplies,

63 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 52. 64 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 53. 65 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 4. 66 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 28-9. 67 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 9. 68 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 9. 69 Indeed, the motivation for Paul Baran’s study on decentralized and distributed systems was the creation of a communication network resilient enough to withstand nuclear attack. 70 MacDonald; Sierra Legal Defense Fund. 46 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order such as E. coli in spinach), and infrastructure itself (evidenced by the catastrophic failure of the levees around New Orleans). The social implications of Lovins’s analysis are of particular interest. Where the hard path leads to a centralized, opaque system that concentrates power in few hands and requires high security to mitigate its high vulnerability, the soft path can be achieved through decentral- ized, participatory, and transparent decision-making; ordinary people can fiddle with the technology; and its very flexibility decreases risk and enhances resilience. Where centralized, hard technologies generally lead to alienation and disempowerment due to the inability of normal people to understand or control them (fig. 1.20), soft technologies are empow- ering and invite participation. Greater decentralization also provides structural (and social) feedback mechanisms: decisions can be made locally, and costs and ben- efits accrue locally. Social values and expectations can place the system under normative and/or democratic control—a control made possible by the simplicity and understandability of the technologies. The local nature of the systems leads to greater accountability, equity, and sustain- ability: participants can perceive, understand, and control their function and effects.

Market Growth

The very conditions portrayed negatively above are actually favorable for the growth-market: they increase production, profit, and economic efficiency. Commoditization of previously non-market goods and services increased GDP. Mobility enhances economic ef- ficiency by more closely matching supply of workers to demand. And centralization, through its very inefficiency, preference for massive infrastructure, and concentration of power, helps to increase profit, pro- duction, and monopoly control. Inefficiency and consumptiveness (the case for which is developed further below) are not liabilities so long as somebody is willing to pay for them—and in this case they may actually be assets, as they create larger, more complex projects requiring greater investment and yielding greater profits. These inverse preferences existing for at least two reasons. First, As Amory Lovins notes, economists and engineers mean two very differ- ent things when they say “efficiency:” engineering (and environmental) efficiency is physicala output-to-input ratio; economic efficiency is a monetary output-to-input ratio. This is problematic when, as is often the case, monetary price fails to include important physical (and social) factors.71 This revels a second reason: the market prices of energy and

71 For a more detailed discussion, see Amory B. Lovins, “Energy Efficiency: A Taxo- nomic Overview,” in Encyclopedia of Energy, vol. 2 (San Diego; Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2004), 238-401. 47 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

resources do not reflect their full environmental or social costs because of (1) market-distorting subsidies and tax incentives; (2) important costs and benefits that are simply absent from the equation—in eco- nomic terms, externalities—; and (3) a market price that is ultimately arbitrary, based upon philosophical conventions and assumptions about future value.72 Externalities can include both costs, such as pollution or centralization of power, and benefits, such as the social value of informal economies. In both cases their absence favors centralized hard tech- nologies. The growth-market ultimately favors highly consumptive and centralized means of production: these increase production and profit, and their high environmental and social costs are borne by society at large rather than individual producers. As Lovins notes, hard paths also enjoy subsidies, tax write-offs, and government financing by virtue of the vital functions they perform, the catastrophic effects of failure, and their very size, which affords them political power.73 The processes that erode social and human capital are central to economic growth.

Social Capital & Sustainability

To this point we have seen that (1) contemporary society is dominated by a growth-oriented market economy, (2) processes associ- ated with market growth erode social and human capital, and thereby create social pathologies, and (3) returning to Habermas, these social pathologies ultimately undermine society’s ability to steer itself through solidarity, communicative action, or democratic participation. We will now link these social effects more explicitly with environmental sustain- ability, although the full extent of this relationship will become fully ap- parent only later. Robert Brulle connects the social institutions, cultural beliefs, and individual personality characteristics that emerge in the context of the growth-market to ecological degradation (see table 1.8).74 The hard path’s complexity, hyper-specialization, and lack of meaningful public participation help to create irrational and contradic- tory discourses that plague current social institutions. The dominance of the system vis-à-vis the lifeworld ultimately means that their strategic ends trump (and, in fact, hinder the production of) communicatively- generated social norms or values. And, as we have seen above, market- based socialization hinders individuals’ capacities to engage in com- municative action. The last point is of particular importance, because the solutions to the first two (social and cultural) problems hinge on

72 Herman Daly, “On Thinking About Future Energy Requirements” (Baton Rouge: Department of Economics, Louisiana State University, 1976); as quoted in Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 67-8. 73 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 149-50 74 Brulle, 60. 48 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

TABLE 1.8. Social sources and resolution of environmental problems

Social structure Cause of ecological degradation Outcome Corrective action

Social institutions Irrational and contradictory Ecological impacts are not Institutionalize discourses form dominant basis considered in the development ecological rationality for action of state and market action Cultural beliefs Market and state internal No ecological ethics bound Establish and legislate imperatives replace normative human activities ecological ethics considerations Individual Careerism and posessive High levels of consumption and Develop personality personality individualism are dominant lack of capacity to engage in characteristics of characteristics personality characteristics joint action “ecological citizen”

Redrawn from Brulle 2000, p. 60. communicative action. If individuals are not empowered to take such action there is little hope for Habermas’s emancipated society—nor, for that matter, of a sustainable one. In short, we need new norms (in Brulle’s words, “ecological eth- ics”) to bound human activities. These norms can be enforced socially or legally—but both the development of norms and their enforcement rely upon collective action rooted in civic participation and social capital.

The Erosion of Natural Capital

In addition to eroding social and human capital, the growth- market also erodes natural capital. Natural capital—encompassing renewable resources, non-renewable resources, and ecosystem servic- es—is related to the neoclassical economic system in two ways: (1) it generates the inputs into the economic system (in the form of resources and energy), and (2) it assimilates the outputs of the economy system (in the form of waste sinks and natural nutrient recycling) (see fig. 1.4).75 This discussion draws primarily from economist Herman Daly, but also from Amory Lovins and David Korten, who draw from and elaborate upon Daly’s arguments. Herman Daly (fig. 1.24) is a leading theorist in the emerging discipline of “ecological economics”—one of two sub-disciplines of economics that seek to redress the environmental problems associated with the current economic system. Environmental economics, arguably the more conservative, operates largely within the neoclassical paradigm, proposing revisions that properly value natural resources. Ecological f i g 1.24. Herman Daly. Photo from www.11thhouraction.com.

75 The term “neoclassical economics” is used to differentiate from environmental and/or ecological economics. 49 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.25 (left). Ecosystem as a subsys- economics, on the other hand, suggests that the paradigm itself must be tem of the macroeconomy. Redrawn from Daly 1999, p. 13. revised. It will be argued that the principal processes that erode f i g 1.26 (right). Macroeconomy as a natural capital are growth in economic throughput, structural inefficiencies subsystem of the ecosystem. Redrawn from Daly 1999, p. 10. associated with hard path technologies, and the resulting brittleness of the systems of production. This analysis also reveals an important, if often ignored, moral or ethical cast of economic models.

Growth / Throughput

The growth-market is environmentally unsustainable be- cause it is premised on increasing throughput of matter and energy through the economic systems. Herman Daly shows that perpetual quantitative growth is impossible within the confines of a finite ecosys- tem. Beyond a certain limit, continued growth has adverse effects on this system. He makes this argument in two ways. One is conceptual, based upon the “pre-analytic visions” of the relationship between economy and ecosystem. The other is theoretical, concerning the way growth is measured at the macroeconomic scale. The pre-analytic vision of the neoclassical paradigm, Daly ar- gues, is of the ecosystem as the “extractive and waste disposal sector of the economy.”76 The economy itself is not bounded and it is therefore plausible that it could grow forever (fig. 1.25). Conversely, Daly advo- cates a pre-analytic vision of the economy as a subset of the ecosystem: it is bounded and contained by the limits of natural capital and ecosystem services (fig. 1.26).77 In this view, growth is inherently limited, and beyond a certain threshold begins to have deleterious consequences for the very ecosystem upon which it depends for resources, services, and

76 Daly, Ecological Economics, 12. 77 Daly, Ecological Economics, 9-11. 50 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

nutrient recycling. By extension, growth has negative consequences for human welfare. In other words, beyond a certain threshold, economic growth destroys natural capital; yet the present economic system, blind to such consequences, simply keeps expanding. Historian J. R. McNeill describes the situation this way: The growth fetish, while on balance quite useful in a world with empty land, shoals of undisturbed fish, vast forests, and a robust ozone shield, helped create a more crowded and stressed one. […] Economic thought did not adjust to the changed conditions it helped create; thereby it continued to legitimate, and indeed indirectly to cause, massive and rapid ecological change.78 The scale of the economy in relationship to the natural environ- ment is determined by the throughput of matter and energy through the economic subsystem. Daly, following Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, describes the economy as inherently entropic, consuming high-quality (low-entropy) matter and energy from the natural environment and excreting low-quality (high-entropy) waste and heat.79 The scale of the current economy has far exceeded natural capacity to re-generate resources or absorb waste, as evidenced by mounting environmental crises—precipitous declines in biodiversity, loss of habitat, global cli- mate change, and loss of topsoil, to name just a few—that are ultimately detrimental to human welfare.80 In Daly’s terms, we have moved from an “empty world” to a “full world,” wherein the human economy has expanded beyond a sustainable scale relative to the natural system that contains it.81 The economy bumps against ecological limits, and pushes these limits only at the expense of the stability of the ecosystem upon which we depend for survival. Therefore, throughput must be reduced such that (1) human society lives off the “income” of the ecosystem (i.e., a sustainable yield of renewable resources) rather than consuming natu- ral capital, which is ultimately unsustainable (and implies growth of the economic subsystem); and (2) the rate of emissions does not exceed the rate at which the ecosystem can recycle and assimilate wastes. The prob- lem with this approach is that “sustainable yield” is not to easy to calcu- late: the ecosystem itself is dynamic, and attempts to apply any static or equilibrium-based resource-maximization models—even “sustainable” ones—have not fared well. In the face of this problem, the authors of

78 J. R. McNeill, Something New Under the Sun; as quoted in Herman D. Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications (Washington, DC: Is- land Press, 2004), PAGE. 79 Daly and Farley, 30-2. Entropy can be understood as the qualitative difference between equal quantities of resources and waste. 80 For a good summary of current challenges, see James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning. 81 Daly, Ecological Economics, 9-11. 51 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.28. Cost-benefit calculations at the macroeconomic scale reveal limits to economic growth. Reprinted from Daly 1999, p. 12.

Panarchy propose that resilience is the more important characteristic to maintain.82 Daly’s second argument involves macroeconomic accounting. Neoclassical economics measures the size of the economy (and hence its growth) in terms of Gross National Product (GNP), which can be defined as “the market value of all final goods and services produced in a nation during a particular period [typically a year]”83 Daly sees this measure as problematic because it merely tabulates production, mak- ing no distinction between costs and benefits like that made on the microeconomic scale.84 Thus hurricane damage does not lower GNP, but rebuilding from a hurricane raises it; crime does not lower GNP, but increasing gun sales raises it; pollution does not lower GNP, but increas- ing hospital bills and prescription drug sales raises it. The inability to discriminate between beneficial and deleterious production leads Daly to remark: “beyond a certain scale growth begins to destroy more values than it creates—economic growth gives way to an era of anti-economic growth. But GNP keeps rising, giving us no clue as to whether we have

82 Holling and Gunderson, "Resilience and Adaptive Cycles." See also Berkes and Folke, Linking Social and Environmental Systems, 6-12. 83 William A. McEachern, Macroeconomics: A Contemporary Introduction, Sixth Edi- tion (Austrailia: South-Western, 2003), 395. 84 Daly, Ecological Economics, 8-9. 52 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

f i g 1.29. Energy conversion losses as- sociated with delivering one unit of flow in a pipe with energy produced by a conventional thermal power station. Reprinted from Lovins 2005, p. 5.

passed that critical point!”85 On the microeconomic level, the optimal scale of economic activity is determined by comparing marginal costs to marginal benefits, but no such optimal scale exists in standard neoclassi- cal macroeconomic thinking. Applying this logic to the macroeconomic scale makes apparent the problems with the infinite-growth paradigm (see fig. 1.28). Daly’s macroeconomic cost/benefit curve reinforces the futility of the welfare state model, as discussed by Habermas. Under conditions of perpetual growth, costs eventually exceed benefits; at this point, the growth-funded welfare state is left without resources to alleviate the negative social and environmental effects of growth. Also not counted in GNP are informal or household econo- mies—cooking, informal childcare, entertaining, gardening, etc. The inability to count non-economic activity ultimately favors formal eco- nomic activity, when in fact the non-economic activity may provide greater human welfare through its myriad secondary (qualitative and experiential) benefits,86 many of which are incorporated into the concept of social capital. This is the economic mechanism of commoditization. It follows that rising GNP may correspond to decreasing human welfare. One possible mechanism for measuring the actual effects of eco- nomic activity—including environmental and social effects—is to use new indicators that, unlike GNP, take into account environmental and social costs of production.

Structural Inefficiencies

Lovins argues that hard technologies, in addition to the socio-political effects described previously, are less efficient in their

85 Daly, Ecological Economics, 7. 86 Herman E. Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications (Washington: Island Press, 2004), 228. Gross National Product (GNP) and Gross Do- mestic Product (GDP) are, for our purposes, synonymous. 53 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.28. Schematic diagram of Gross Primary Energy, End-Use Energy, and Quantity of Functions Performed by End-Use Energy in hard and soft energy paths. Reprinted from Lovins 1977, p. 47.

use of matter and energy. They can therefore be seen as complicit in increasing economic throughput. For example, traditional power plants waste two-thirds of the energy they produce through generation and distribution losses87 (fig. 1.28)—losses that would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by soft technologies. Because of their inability to treat different end-use needs differently, hard technologies deliver energy at higher qualities and higher levels of reliability than most end-uses require, and therefore require more backup than most end-use needs justify.88 Finally, production, collection, distribution, and backup infra- structure require significant resource and energy investments in their own right. The typical small electricity consumer pays 71 percent of her bill toward transmission, distribution, and maintenance, and only 29 percent to electricity (see fig. 1.24).89 Because of these conditions, gross energy consumption (read “throughput”) under the hard path scenario

87 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 28-9. See also: Amory Lovins, “Energy End-Use Effi- ciency” (Snowmass, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Institute, 2005), available at http://www. rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseEff.pdf. 88 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, citation needed. 89 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 88. 54 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order would likely continue to increase even faster than functions performed, because increasing amounts of energy would be lost to the supporting infrastructure (fig. 1.29). In the words of author Jeremy Rifkin, Technology makes us more dependent upon nature, even as it physically moves us farther away from it; we have become more dependent as we have required increasing doses of na- ture’s energy to sustain our cultural patterns and our personal life-styles.90 Similar scenarios could be painted for numerous other hard technologies. For example, at the time of this writing Cincinnati is con- sidering a “green infrastructure” solution to its stormwater problems, not because of its environmental merits (which are many), but rather because it is less expensive than the hard (or “grey”) alternatives. Tra- ditional thinking offered capital-intensive solutions: giant temporary storage tanks or new separated sewers for the entire city. The inefficien- cies of the hard path, and its preference for resource-intensive solutions, became painfully clear.91 It is worth noting that there is an existing connection be- tween the economy and the scale of production: economies of scale. Economies of scale implies higher efficiencies per unit output. But it also implies increased quantity of total output (i.e., increase throughput). Sustainability is primarily concerned with the latter—with the total consumption of matter and energy. It is therefore less con- cerned with the per unit efficiency as with total consumption. George Ritzer recognizes the implicit connection between economies of scale and economic growth (and hence economic globalization): […] economies of scale mean that the more that is produced and sold, the lower the price. This means that, almost inevita- bly, American producers […] must become dissatisfied with the American market, no matter how vast it is, and aggres- sively pursue a world market for their consumer products. The greater the global market, the lower the price that can be charged and this, in turn, means that even greater numbers […] can be sold […].92 Fewer less-efficient units may be preferable to many highly-efficient units. Sustainable solutions begin by looking at actual needs, then matching those needs with the best solution. We have already discussed the growth-market’s preference for centralized, capital-intensive “hard” technologies (“Market Growth” above); now we can connect these technologies to increased throughput

90 Jeremy Rifkin,Entropy , 95. 91 Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati, "Green Infrastructure Program." 92 George Ritzer, The Globalization of Nothing (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, 2004), 103. 55 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

of matter and energy, and thereby to the erosion of natural capital.Hard technologies increase throughput, and this growth, measured in selective terms that ignore its substantial social and environmental costs, is seen as beneficial. Soft technologies, on the other hand, aim to meet end-use needs with minimal total costs, including social and envi- ronmental costs.

Brittleness

An important part of Amory Lovins’s argument against hard technologies is that they are less resilient, or more brittle, than their soft counterparts. There are many reasons for this: they concentrate production, making facilities more vulnerable, at higher risk from failure caused by malfunction, human error, or sabotage; they are more complex, meaning there is more to go wrong; and massive invest- ments require long lead time and are therefore unable to adapt quickly to changing conditions.93 Indeed, Paul Baran’s work on distributed com- munications systems during the Cold War (see fig. 1.23) was driven by the security interest of creating a system resilient enough to withstand nuclear attack. Centralized systems were manifestly brittle; distributed, greatly resilient. Yet many current systems—energy, water, and food— are dominated by centralized, hard technologies and are anything but resilient. Small changes can have disastrous effects on these systems. They rely on maximization of yields or minimization of costs, elimina- tion of buffers, centralization, and large-scale infrastructure. Maximizing yields eliminates the buffers and built-in resil- ience upon which ecosystems depend for their stability. As a result, hard technologies further aggravate the destruction of natural capital by making ecosystems themselves brittle, more prone to disaster and rapid fluctuation. Monocultures, for example, are extremely brittle: the energy-intensive hard technologies deployed to eliminate pests and increase yields promote homogeneity. But homogeneity is unstable: a scenario easily thrown into disarray by drought, invasive species, disease, or any number of other occurrences.94 Ireland’s potato famine provides a dramatic example of this—a problem caused not so much by the po- tato as the potato monoculture.95 New technological fixes designed to overcome specific problems often make the structure even more brittle, and require ever-greater inputs (of matter, energy, and money) to sustain its precarious balance. The result is a perpetual race between natural adaptations and human ingenuity: new technologies must be developed and deployed ever-faster, supposedly to mitigate the negative conse- quences of the previous technologies, in a sort of modern-day myth

93 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 51. 94 Pollan, Botany of Desire, 225. 95 Pollan, Botany of Desire, 230. 56 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

of Sisyphus—all the while consumption, cost, and unforeseen conse- quences multiplying. Thus while yields per acre have increased with industrial agriculture, food yield per unit energy expended has dropped precipitously—and, perhaps most disturbingly, so has the biodiversity present on agricultural lands. Centralized hard technologies are unable to respond differently to multiple circumstances; their preference is homogeneity and unifor- mity, and imposed at a large scale upon the landscape, this makes not only human systems, but also natural systems, increasingly vulnerable and prone to rapid (sometimes catastrophic) change. Insofar as natu- ral capital is defined as the natural resources and ecosystems services that maintain life as we know it, the transformation of the diverse to the homogeneous—the resilient to the brittle—destroys natural capital.

Market Price & Ethical Questions

The argument presented thus far is that economic growth produces a number of social and environmental ills that are not accounted for by the market itself and are not reflected in market price or GNP. Indeed, the very difficulty of quantifying or counting these social and environmental costs helps to explain their absence from neoclassical economics. In response to this dilemma, a range of alternative indica- tors have been proposed to more accurately account for both costs and benefits of economic activity. For example, the Index of Sustain- able Economic Welfare (ISEW) suggests that, in the United States, eco- nomic growth gave way to anti-economic growth by 1980, if not earlier.96 In other words, the social and environmental costs of economic growth have exceeded the benefits. Other indicators seem to support these findings.97 One problem with such indicators—theoretically more use- ful in gauging actual welfare—is that they are highly subjective and depend upon a number of difficult questions such as the value of social capital, human relationships, and leisure time, as well as how costs and benefits should be allocated to future generations, and what levels of risk are appropriate or acceptable. Even the most basic question of what to count inevitably raises ethical questions. The answers to such questions have significant impacts on the indicators’ results.98 Therefore, determining what to count is an ethical question, not a scientific one.99 Like most ethical questions, it is likely particular

96 Daly, Ecological Economics, 15. 97 For example, see the Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators, or the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). 98 Daly, Ecological Economics, 234-5. 99 Ibid. 57 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

to a culture, locale, and time period.100 And like most ethical questions, it is not the exclusive domain of experts or political elites—rather, it can only be answered through open discourse in the public sphere. It is therefore apparent that the economic system itself is a tool of instrumental reason: it can show the most efficient means to achieve a given end, but says nothing about the desirability of various ends. This becomes particularly clear once one understands that market price itself is largely arbitrary and depends upon a number of philosophical conventions regarding the price of natural resources and the calculation of future value. Herman Daly explains the arbitrary nature of the price of resources as follows: All that economic theory can tell us about the price of re- sources in the ground is that they must fall between historical cost of production and present cost of replacement—i.e. approximately between zero and infinity for non-renewables! The competitive market with its short run vision selects in favor of the zero price convention, but any long run cost ac- counting would favor an approximation to the replacement cost convention. If cost were defined on a replacement phi- losophy[,] fossil fuels would become very expensive and solar energy would become [universally] economic overnight. The choice between solar and fossil fuels (and soft and hard tech- nology generally) depends largely on our philosophical defi- nitions of cost (historical vs. replacement; private vs. social) and not on some ‘value-free numbers generated by an imper- sonal market.’ Price calculations can help to achieve either the hard or soft energy future in an efficient manner, but cannot help us choose between basic goals. The choice between the hard and soft energy futures is price-determining, not price- determined.101 The choice of “basic goals,” like the related choice of what to count, is appropriately answered through robust public dialogue. This reveals an important role for collective action to determine what should be valued—as well as to set overall moral or ethical boundaries to market activity—a role appropriately filled, in Habermasian terms, by solidarity and communicative action.

100 Daly, Ecological Economics, 242. I am using “ethics” in the Habermasian sense of rules of behavior based upon cultural values, which are relative and non-universal. These are different from morals, which, according to Habermas, are based upon univer- sal norms. 101 Herman Daly, “On Thinking About Future Energy Requirements” (Baton Rouge: Department of Economics, Louisiana State University, 1976); as quoted in Amory B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 67-8. 58 Theoretical Background: The Current Social Order

Summary

Jürgen Habermas shows that the current social order is one dominated by the market economy, and by the interventionist state that attempts to compensate for adverse effects of market activity. These systems—market and state—are steered by internal imperatives (stra- tegic rationality) that are removed from the collective decision-making processes of the lifeworld. The lifeworld’s capacity for self-determination (and social steering) depends upon communicative action, which is based upon agreement or consensus arrived at through open and ratio- nal discourse. This capacity has been undermined by the dominance of the market, and by its adverse effects on society and individuals. The growth-oriented market erodes social and human capi- tal through the processes of commoditization, centralization, mobi- lization, and market-based socialization, and erodes natural capital by perpetually increasing throughput of matter and energy, favoring resource-consumptive hard technologies, and creating brittle sys- tems prone to unpredictable, rapid change. Thus the growth-market reinforces the centralized social order dominated by money and power: it favors arcane technologies and elevates internally-determined ends over means. These processes elucidate and help to explain the domi- nance of the market over the lifeworld. This discussion has revealed some important considerations for a sustainable society—considerations that begin to suggest an alterna- tive way forward. It is to this alternative that we now turn.

59 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

60 1.4 A Sustainable Society

What might a sustainable society look like? What conditions must be met? Can we identify any guiding principles? This section builds upon the analysis of the contemporary social order, first discussing the important conditions a sustainable society must meet, then outlining in broad terms two social trajectories or possible paths a society might take, and finally looking and the specific components of the sustainable path.

Considerations for Sustainability

From the preceding analysis of the current social order, several important themes emerged which warrant further consideration: (1) the detrimental effects of quantitative economic growth; (2) the necessary role of collective action in achieving a sustainable economy and society; (3) the important role of scale in social, political, and economic spheres; and (4) resilience as a design principle. These considerations will now be dealt with directly, in order to make clear what changes are required. This discussion will begin to illuminate an alternative way forward.

Growth vs. Development

Herman Daly makes an important distinction between growth and development. While quantitative growth is impossible (and undesirable) beyond a certain point, qualitative development is theoretically infinite (and desirable).1 Growth consists of a quantita- tive increase in the throughput of matter and energy through the eco- nomic system. Development, on the other hand, consists of qualitative improvement in social, cultural, and/or spiritual realms, which do not necessarily require material inputs. Daly calls the alternative system, based upon development, a “steady state economy,” and proposes it as a viable alternative to

1 Herman E. Daly, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), 1, 167. 61 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

the unsustainable growth-market. A steady-state economy would maintain an “optimal scale” in relationship to the natural environment (with plenty of buffer space to account for uncertainty and inadequate understanding). The intent is “to maintain constant stocks of wealth and people at levels that are sufficient for a long and good life.”2Thus it is in- herently founded on ethical or moral values or norms regarding human wellbeing. A steady-state economy is not a static state, but rather a dynamic equilibrium that is constantly changing and improving. In this model, the goal of the economic system is to get better, not bigger.3 The same “engine” of progress that drives physical quantitative growth has the potential to drive non-physical qualitative development, expand- ing non-physical areas such as knowledge, cultural creativity, democracy, community, and human wellbeing. A steady-state economy would focus less on goods than on services: as Amory Lovins notes, often it is not physical stuff that people want so much as the services physical goods provide.4 For example, most people do not want an air conditioner—the tubes, fan coils, and compressors—but rather the service of a comfort- able environment, which can be delivered in a myriad of ways. Daly lists three critical elements of a steady-state economy: sustainable scale (relative to the natural environment), equitable dis- tribution (there is no growth to provide opportunity to the poor), and efficient allocation of resources (via both market and non-market mechanisms).5 Throughput must be reduced such that (1) human society lives off the “income” of the ecosystem (i.e., a sustainable yield of renewable resources) rather than consuming natural capital; and (2) the rate of emissions does not exceed the rate at which the ecosystem can recycle and assimilate waste.6 Equitable distribution is important in order to provide for basic human needs, which is a prerequisite for the formation of social and human capital. Efficient allocation, while im- portant, is primarily an economic concern and will not be discussed at length here. It is sufficient to note that efficient allocated depends upon proper pricing, and that proper pricing, as we have seen, depends upon moral or ethical principles.

2 Daly, Ecological Economics, 55. This can be done via appropriate pricing or establish- ing absolute limits. Price being nearly impossible to determine and unlikely to be suf- ficiently limiting, Daly favors absolute limits or quotas on resource use. 3 Daly, Ecological Economics, 55. 4 Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins, Natural Capitalism, 17. 5 See Daly and Farley, Ecological Economics, Part VI: Policy. 6 As discussed in Section 1.1, one problem with this approach is that “sustainable yield” is not easy to calculate: the ecosystem itself is dynamic, and attempts to apply any static of equilibrium-based models have not fared well. It may be more impor- tant, then, to maintain resilience—but these ideas are not incompatible. For example, “sustainable yield” calculations could begin to incorporate large margins and rapid feedback—two characteristics of resilient systems. 62 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

Unfortunately, Daly is unclear on how equitable distri- bution or efficient allocation might be achieved. As presented in Ecological Economics (2004), Daly’s proposals appear to rely on strong central governments to set appropriate limits, although elsewhere he is critical of such “expensive, centralized, and […] large-scale government intervention.”7 Equally unfortunate, Habermas also gives little attention to the topic of distributional equity. However, it is clear that any efforts to redistribute income and/or wealth must emerge from participatory discourse and communicative action—through solidarity, not power. This is true whether equitable distribution is achieved legislatively through laws and taxes or informally through community intervention and social norms or values.

The Market Economy: Some Steering Required

Both Habermas and Daly reach a similar conclusion regard- ing the growth-market: in order for an emancipated society or sustainable economy (respectively) to be achieved, the market must be contained according to certain norms or values. In Habermasian terms, it must be brought under the normative control of the communi- catively-structured lifeworld. That some steering is required is relatively apparent. Accord- ing to environmental economics, for the market to take into account “external” factors such as environmental degradation and human rights, it must be regulated by an external source.8 For example, the market price of gasoline does not reflect the huge external costs associated with drilling for oil, smog and related health effects, acid rain and resulting habitat destruction, or global climate change with its myriad related costs. “Internalizing” any or all of these costs requires action by an exter- nal entity such as a government, and can come in many forms: limits on gasoline consumption, regulations, or additional fees on gasoline. In For the Common Good, Herman Daly and John Cobb show that the efficient function of a market economy relies on a number of conditions that the market itself cannot provide, including (but not limited to) full-cost pricing, fair competition, and allocation of public goods.9 David Korten makes a similar argument when discussing his distinction between capi- talism, associated with growth, and market economies, associated with the idealizing assumptions made by Adam Smith (which are in fact similar to Daly and Cobb’s list above). According to Korten,

7 Daly and Farley, Ecological Economics, 408. 8 See, for example, the policy suggestions in Tom Tietenberg, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, seventh edition (Boston: Pearson, 2006). 9 Daly and Cobb, For the Common Good, 49-60; quoted in Korten, When Corporations Ruled the World, 95. 63 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

[C]apitalism actively erodes the conditions necessary to the market’s efficient social function. Understanding the extent to which markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive forms of economic organization is the key to answering those who maintain that there is no alternative to global capitalism. Indeed, a market economy is the most obvious and promising of the alternatives.10 Korten’s conception of the market economy relies, like Daly’s steady- state economy, upon outside control in order to maintain the conditions necessary for appropriate functioning. Robert Brulle makes a similar assessment, arguing that the market alone cannot provide environmental protection and that collective action is therefore necessary in order to rein in the market and impose moral or ethical restraints.11 Ultimately the market is a tool of instrumental rationality: as described in Section 1.3, it can show the most efficient means to achieve a given end, but says nothing about the desirability of various ends.12 Either a growth-market or a steady-state economy can be “efficient” in the economic sense; the decision between growth and development is, in Daly’s words, “price-determining, not price-determined.”13 Deci- sions between ends, like those regarding what should be valued and how value should be determined, are moral/ethical questions most appropriately answered through robust public dialogue and accom- plished through communicative action. Thus a steady-state economy implies a communicatively-structured lifeworld at least as strong as the market in order to direct it according to moral/ethical considerations. Additionally, a steady-state economy relies to a greater extent on informal economies and household production, for reasons discussed below. These alternative forms of production also rely on social capital (or an empowered lifeworld). Both the steering of the existing system and the creation of alternatives rely on social capital. In addition to the environmental-economic need for social steering, Habermas presents a socio-political argument for social steering, as discussed in Section 1.3. According to Habermas, the dominance of the growth-market results in a number of social patholo- gies (what I call the erosion of social capital). A just and emancipated society—and, I would add, social and human capital—rely upon an em- powered lifeworld and the collective action that arises from it. This re- quires that the market be restrained and kept in check. Thus social steer- ing of market activity is not only instrumentally important as a means

10 David Korten, The Post-Corporate World, 38. 11 Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature; for example, 42, 47, 64. 12 Daly, Ecological Economics, 234-5, 242. 13 Daly, "Future Energy Requirements." Daly was speaking of the choice between soft and hard technologies, but the statement is even more relevant to types of economic systems. 64 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

for achieving a sustainable, steady-state economy, but is intrinsically important as a way of creating an emancipated society. An empowered lifeworld is both an input into social steering (it gains political power through communicative action) and an output from social steering (a restraining / guided market creates space for the lifeworld to flourish). A communicatively-structured lifeworld is both the means of social steer- ing and the desired end result. Neither Daly, Korten, or Habermas is anti-market. They argue, however, that the efficient, just, and/or sustainable operation of the market requires that it be guided by certain norms or values that direct it toward desirable outcomes, and that this guidance can only come from an external source.

Steering Media: Money, Power & Solidarity

How can such social steering be achieved? There are good reasons to doubt the ability of a central government to perform the task adequately. First, as discussed earlier, the interaction of human and natural systems resists simple mathematical interpretation, and that any approach that attempts town-down management based upon empirical evidence and calculation is unlikely to achieve sustainability (indeed, is likely to exacerbate problems due to the extent of unforeseen consequences and the internal resistance to change that characterizes large bureaucratic structures).14 A more important condition may be resilience, which emphasizes large buffers to account for uncertainty and unexpected change. Ultimately, however, these approaches may be compatible: for example, if empirical evidence is tempered by generous buffers or application of principles such as the Precautionary Principle.15 Second, and more importantly, Habermas questions whether the use of power via the administrative state is appropriate for the task of creating an emancipated society. He argues that the very medium of power is itself a threat to the lifeworld through bureaucratization, rationalization, and surveillance.16 The alternative media for social steering, according to Habermas, is solidarity: collective action based upon consensus or agreement arrived at through fair and rational discourse. Insofar as both discourse and a sense of collective identity emerge from social capital,

14 This argument is borrowed from Holling and Gunderson, "Resilience and Adap- tive Cycles," 55-60. 15 The Precautionary Principles basically states that, if an action / technology / policy may cause severe or irreversible harm, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the action / technology / policy will be restricted or denied. The burden of proof falls on those advocating an action / technology / policy. Most technologies threatened by this proposition are hard technologies: soft technologies tend to be simple and their effects localized. 16 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 63. 65 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.30. Mobilization of solidarity (based in political culture) against civil society (coalitions & groups) and formal institu- tions (dominated by political elites).

social capital is a necessary prerequisite to solidarity. It is in this sense that Habermas’s conception of solidarity has both a social and political dimension. 17 The social dimension is the social context of agreement, shared norms, and sense of community that form the context for rational discourse as well as the emergence of solidarity; the political dimen- sion is the lifeworld’s effect upon legislation and the state. The political power of solidarity can be manifest many ways: through social norms or values that contain market activity socially; through local participatory decision-making processes that contain the market legally; through civil society that works to affect regulation at the national or international level; or through a combination of these. The intent is to make formal democratic institutions—and, through them, the system as a whole— sensitive to the normative demands of the lifeworld. The market must be steered, but this steering must come from a lifeworld empowered by solidarity. Habermas’s conception of the political sphere consists of three groups: political elites, coalitions and groups (including civil society, as well as special interests), and “political culture,” which emerges from ev- eryday discourse. According to Habermas, “[…] any project that wants to shift the balance in favor of regulation through solidarity has to mo- bilize the lower arena against the two upper ones”—making both civil society and formal institutions more responsive to grassroots demands (fig. 1.30).18 Environmental sustainability requires democratic action; at the same time, democratic action is necessary for social sustainability.

Collective Action & Appropriate Scale

As discussed above, the internal logic of the growth-market must be contained by the norms and values of the lifeworld. This requires solidarity, which emerges from robust public dialogue. For Habermas, this dialogue takes place in autonomous, self-organized public spheres, which create social “space” for open and democratic discussion. This discourse creates consensus and forms the basis for col- lective action.19 The ultimate aim of public spheres is to “make the self-

17 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 67. 18 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 66. 19 Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature, 8. 66 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

regulating mechanisms of the state and the economy sufficiently sensi- tive to the goal-oriented results of radical democratic will-formation.”20 It is in the public sphere that the norms and values of the lifeworld gain their political power. The public sphere also serves a social function: participation in the public sphere helps to create responsible citizens ca- pable of robust democratic participation.21 Thus the means and ends of an emancipated—and sustainable—society are inseparable. An example of the public sphere, however imperfect, is the eigh- teenth-century salons and coffee houses that became fora for political and social discourse. While the salons had clear shortcomings—for one, they were class-based rather than egalatarian—they formed, for a time, a robust public sphere (fig. 1.31). While the communicative interactions are, of course, central, it is interesting to note that the public sphere had a spatial manifestation: coffee houses were a physical space that housed (and, to an extent, perhaps reified) the social space created by discourse. Does democratic will-formation operate best at a particular scale? According to Habermas, the public sphere and solidarity must operate below the threshold at which the goals of organizations become “autonomous” and disconnected from individuals.22 The authors ofPat - tern Language argue that beyond 7000 people, participatory democratic decision-making becomes impossible.23 Robust discussion works best f i g 1.31. Eighteenth-century salons. among small groups of people. This analysis bears some resemblance to Lovins’s description of centralized versus decentralized systems: whereas large, centralized systems require a technical elite to maintain them and become the domain of “autonomous” systems (corporations and interest groups), simple, decentralized systems are more amenable to local democratic control. They can be tinkered with by individuals and deployed in an organized fashion by neighborhoods and cities. Beyond a certain scale, both technical and social systems cannot be controlled democratically. Habermas has been criticized for neglecting the spatial-geo- graphic dimension of communicative action and lifeworld activities.24 Based upon the above analysis, however, this thesis argues that both the public sphere and participatory democracies must be local and small- scale: beyond a certain scale, meaningful participation is impossible. This is not to say that all political decisions must be decentralized— some centralization is necessary and desirable. Ultimately, however, even central democratic institutions must be responsive to local, self- organized units. The primary units of solidarity and decision-making, whether conceived of as the household, the neighborhood, or the

20 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 67. 21 Brulle, Agengy, Democracy, and Nature, 62-75. 22 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 67. 23 Alexander, et al., A Pattern Language, 71-74. 24 Bolton, 22-3. 67 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

community, are inherently local. It is these small local units that must be invigorated and mobilized in order to have a meaningful impact upon the larger political institutions of the state. It is at the local level that discourse occurs, consensus is achieved, and actions are coordinated. Furthermore, the social context required for communicative action relies on relationships between individuals, households, and organizations— relationships facilitated by, if not reliant upon, spatial proximity. Similar- ly, political solidarity relies upon the social context of the community or interest group—a social unit built upon a shared identity, an important component of social capital. Thus appropriate scale, both spatial and numeric, is necessary for communicative action. Communicative action forms the foundation for truly democratic politics, which is necessary both in its own right and as a means for providing ethical limits to market activity.

Production & Appropriate Scale

There are several ways in which scale is important to the produc- tion of materials goods. One, end-use orientation, has already been discussed: Lovins shows that hard technologies are generally more inefficient and consumptive of matter and energy. Great efficiency gains can be achieved by matching the scale of production to that of end-use needs; and because most end-use needs (as well as the natural resource inputs to production) are distributed, for most applications decentral- ized production is most appropriate. Soft technologies, which tend to be relatively simple and decentralized or distributed, require greater inputs of human labor relative to resource use. Indeed, this is an important strategy for reducing consumption: characteristics such as durability (borne of good craftsmanship) and repairability effectively substitute jobs for resource use.25 There are two other concepts that bring together issues of scale and production: informal economies and feedback mechanisms. Informal Economies: Decentralized or distributed produc- tion begins to suggest a role for household or informal economies. Such production is typically more efficient (in terms of resource use) because it is better matched to end-use needs; in addition, it contributes to social capital and to the empowerment of the lifeworld. Informal, household, and local economies rely more heavily on social capital and interpersonal relationships, which, as argued above, rely on appropriate scale. According to Rhoda Halperin, informal economies often require individuals to rely on one another (rather than on the market) to meet

25 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 152, 164. See also Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins, Natural Capitalism, 18. 68 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

their needs.26 Viki Sonntag emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships in establishing local food economies.27 This suggests that the means of coordination in such economies are not simply money and power, but also includes understanding, trust, and cooperation: Habermasian rational discourse at work. Social capital is both an input and output of these forms of production—that is, they are mutually supportive. Structural Feedback: Finally, the very scale of the current economic system is a barrier to its efficient operation. A global economy often prevents consumers from making ethical choices by subverting the information necessary to do so—information regarding production methods, environmental effects of production, and ethical practices of businesses. The result is a lack of feedback and of accountability.28 The problem, as David Orr describes it, is that we do not often see the true ugliness of the consumer economy […]. The distance between shopping malls and the mines, wells, corporate farms, factories, toxic dumps, and landfills, sometimes half a world away, dampens our percep- tion that something is fundamentally wrong. Even when visible to the eye, ugliness is concealed from our minds by the very complicatedness of such systems which make it difficult to discern cause and effect.29 Orr argues that limits on economic activity must be structural in na- ture. For example, the speed of the horse in Amish society provides a structural (albeit self-imposed) limit to the rate of economic activity.30 A local economy provides such structural feedback: it is more transparent, making visible the means and byproducts of production, and thereby rendering the market more vulnerable to the normative demands of the lifeworld, without requiring cumbersome administration and regula- tion, and without the corrupting influence of power and central control. Furthermore, such a system is inherently resilient: supply lines are short, feedback is rapid, and it operates well utilizing small modules dispersed in space.

26 Rhoda H. Halperin, Practicing Community: Class, Culture and Power in an Urban Neighborhood (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998). 27 Viki Sonntag, Why Local Linkages Matter: Findings from the Local Food Economy Study (Seattle: Sustainable Seattle, 2008). 28 Orr, The Nature of Design, 108. 29 Orr, The Nature of Design, 179. 30 Orr, Nature of Design, 5. 69 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Design for Resilience

Resilience can be defined asresistance to outside perturbations.31 Resilience is an important condition of a sustainable human-natural system, particularly given the complexity and unpredictability of both planetary ecosystems and human societies. As argued in Section 2.1, resilience (specifically, the structure of the system) may be even more important than total throughput: even where throughput can be ac- curately measured, it is not necessarily an appropriate guide given the ever-changing nature of complex systems, including ecosystems. Even a system designed to stay within the “sustainable yield” of a renewable re- source, if not also resilient, may not be viable over the long term. Lovins notes that we as humans know next to nothing about the carefully designed natural systems and cycles on which we depend; we must therefore take care to preserve resilience and flexibility, and to design for large safety margins (whose importance we do not yet understand) […]32 In Brittle Power, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins discuss a number of important characteristics of resilient systems (see Table 1-2). Achieving resilience is not simply a technical task—it involves the structure of society and has important socio-political implications. Some of these have already been discussed: brittle technologies tend to be those that rely on centralized facilities, which are vulnerable to failure from internal or external surprises. They are large and hence slow to change, and there is little redundancy or diversity.33 The characteristics of resilient technologies—dispersion, small units, simplicity, diversity, etc. (see Table 1-2)—also make them more amenable to democratic control, precisely because they are more understandable and require less capital investment. As discussed in Section 2.2, economic growth itself is brittle: it requires maximizing short-term production, which inevitably strains natural ecosystems and eliminates the buffers critical for maintaining resilience. As Lovins notes, resilience is about the ability “to survive un- expected stress: not [to] achieve the greatest possible efficiency all the time, but [to] achieve the deeper efficiency of avoiding [catastrophic] failures […].”34 The point is this: resilient systems rely on a number of condi- tions that are compatible with, or provided by, the social and economic changes already discussed. Decentralized production and consumption, structural feedback mechanisms, and a participatory democratic society

31 Scarborough, "Resilience," 195. 32 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths, 13. 33 Orr and Hill, 308-26. 34 Lovins, Brittle Power, 191. 70 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

are both facilitated by and supportive of resilience in ways that the cur- rent system can never be.

Two Trajectories

We have seen how the work of Jürgen Habermas, Amory Lovins, and Herman Daly are compatible and mutually reinforcing. Habermas asserts that market expansion has negative effects upon the lifeworld; Daly and Lovins illuminate some of the mechanisms associated with market growth (most notably, centralization and expansion of through- put) that produce these deleterious social and environmental conse- quences. Now we will tie these ideas together in a more general way, sug- gesting a broad correspondence between two basic paths, or trajectories, suggested by each of these thinkers. To do this, it is necessary to draw upon one final theorist: anthropologist Vernon Scarborough. Vernon Scarborough (fig. 1.32) has written extensively on the role of water management in ancient societies. As part of this research, he has developed a model of social trajectories that successfully brings together social order, economic logic, and environmental change. This thesis proposes to apply this model to contemporary society, as the complex interrelationships it illuminates are both relevant and useful, particularly in light of the preceding discussions.

Social Order: Hierarchy vs. Heterarchy

Scarborough makes a distinction between two types of socio-political organization. A hierarchy is a vertically stratified soci- ety, with centralized political and economic systems controlled by a powerful elite. In this view, power is the mechanism of coordination or control over labor, information, and goods.35 Conversely, a heterarchy is a horizontally stratified society, with more decentralized political and eco- nomic systems (see fig. 1.33). Horizontal stratification refers to resource specialization controlled to a far lesser extent by power relationships. In Scarborough’s model, heterarchy is associated with geographically dispersed settlements which trade with one another on relatively equal f i g 1.32. Vernon Scarborough. footing.36 These settlements are specifically not isolated autonomous entities, but, through specialization and exchange, form a larger inter- dependent whole.37 In Habermasian terms, the means of coordination at work appear to be both money (or goods traded in markets) and

35 Vernon L. Scarborough, The Flow of Power: Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2003), 11. 36 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 12. 37 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 12. 71 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.33. Author's conception of hierar- chy vs. heterarchy.

solidarity (action based upon cooperation). However, power is still in play: “the term heterarchy does not imply that centralization and coerced order are absent within a state. It simply emphasizes the role of interde- pendency within and among communities of variable size and produc- tion/consumption needs.”38 Importantly, both hierarchy and heterarchy are models of resource-specialized state-level societies. They are not, in Habermasian terms, “undifferentiated.” Scarborough acknowledges that hierarchy and heterarchy are the poles of a continuum along which most societies fall.

Economic Logics & Environmental Change

Scarborough identifies two strategies of “landscape alterations”—interpreted broadly here as environmental change— that are implicit in the hierarchy/heterarchy dichotomy: accretional versus expansionist development (see fig. 34). Theaccretional approach involves slow change over time, and is characterized by “complicated interdependencies between groups and their environment.”39 In this model, human society slows modifiesand is modified by the natural en- vironmental over a period of time, via a multitude of small, incremental changes. Thusaccretional change is characterized by multi-directionality, small individual interventions (although they can ultimately add up to great change), and the importance of the temporal dimension in large-scale change. Conversly, the explansionist approach involves rapid resource exploitation and equally rapid environmental change.40 These approaches are also associated with two economic logics: labortasking and technotasking (see fig. 1.35). Labortasking relies on highly efficient division of labor, often organized intergenerationally; technotasking, on novel labor-saving technologies.41 Adoption of novel technologies often corresponds to more rapid social and environmental change. According to Scarborough, “because each new technological input requires new skills and even structural adjustment in production […], the labor force cannot routinize tasks intergenerationally” and

38 Scaroborugh, Flow of Power, 12. 39 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 13. 40 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 13. 41 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 13-4. 72 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

f i g 1.34. Rate and process of landscape change in accretional and exploititative models. Reprinted from Scarborough 2003, p. 15.

therefore cannot maintain the efficient specialization required by the labortasking approach.42 Labortasking and technotasking are also the poles of a continuum; between them falls a third logic, multi-tasking, that incorporates aspects of both. Of particular interest are the linkages between hierarchy, expansionist development, and technotasking on one hand, and between heterarchy, accretional development, and labortasking on the other. Large capital investments (technotasking) enhance a society’s ability to exploit resources—as well as being more resource- consumptive themselves—and are therefore associated with more rapid environmental change (expansionist development). At the same time, such investments require central coordination and the concentration of labor and resources.43 Hierarchy provides the political capacity necessary to mobilize such resources. The power relationships implicit in the hier- archical model are legitimated at least in part by the increasing produc- tivity: the immediate physical returns of the expansionist model. Also of interest is the relatively resilience of each system. Ac- cording to Scarborough, resilience is related to social organization, and it is clear which is more resilient.44 The immediate gains from expan- sionist development cannot be sustained: it demands maximization of

42 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 14. 43 Richard Martin Reycraft and Garth Bawden, Introduction toEnvironmental Di- saster and the Archaeology of Human Response, ed. Garth Bawden and Richard Martin Reycraft (Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 2000), 2. 44 Vernon Scarborough, “Resilience, Resource Use, and Socioeconomic Organiza- tion,” in Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response, ed. Garth Bawden and Richard Martin Reycraft (Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum of An- thropology, 2000), 195. 73 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.35. Two social trajectories based upon Scarborough's taxonomy. SOCIAL TRAJECTORIES

SOCIO-POLITICAL HIERARCHY HETERARCHY ORGANIZATION

RESOURCE EXPANSIONIST ACCRETIONAL STRATEGY

ECONOMIC TECHNO- LABOR- LOGIC TASKING TASKING

SETTLEMENT CENTRALIZED DECENTRALIZED PATTERN

short-term yields, which strains natural systems, eliminates buffers, and relies heavily on capital- and technology-intensive systems, which are themselves brittle and more prone to failure. Because this strategy leaves less margin for error, there is increased risk of hazard, and increased potential for disaster should the delicate balance upon which it relies be disturbed.45 Furthermore, growth itself can place society at risk if population (or consumption) exceeds the capacity of the resource base. Therefore, “rapid decline, even catastrophe, is a possible consequence of the expansionist approach.”46 As noted in Scarborough’s diagram (fig. 1.35), the technotasking/expansionist trajectory is prone to overshoot and collapse. Accretional development, on the other hand, is not only more resilient, but also more productive over time.47 Technotasking is also less socially sustainable. According to Scarborough, the social change associated with the adoption of new technologies creates “a less sustainable anthropogenic environment. Pre- dictably, these societies may experience considerable social unrest.”48 Al- though he does not elaborate on the processes at work, the observation is consistent with Habermas’s notion that social pathologies result from the colonization of the lifeworld by the market and administrative state,

45 Reycraft and Bawden, 2. This is nearly identical to Lovins’s critique of hard technologies. 46 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 13. 47 Scarborough, Resilience, 202-4. 48 Scarborough, Flow of Power, 14. 74 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

as well as Lovins’s notion that centralized technology and government creates disempowerment and alienation.

Alignment of Theoretical Positions: Sustainable vs. Unsustainable Societies

The trajectories outlined by Scarborough bear remarkable resemblance those proposed by Amory Lovins, which also marry technology, social order, and environmental change. Lovins’s “hard path” is associated with capital-intensive technology (technotasking) and an associated concentration of power and authority (hierarchy). It is less efficient, and therefore biased toward growth in overall resource con- sumption (expansionist development), and, due to the concentrations of resources and power that it precipitates, is encourages urbanization (cen- tralized settlement). The structural result of this centralized, resource- maximizing system is brittleness and vulnerability. Conversely, the “soft path” relies on simple, decentralized technologies that are easily repair- able and create jobs (labor-tasking), and that can be controlled locally and specialized to local conditions (heterarchy). The technologies are not only more efficient, but their small scale allows them to be deployed incrementally and evolve slowly via individual experimentation (accre- tional development). Some specific difficulties arise—for example, the soft path says nothing about intergenerational organization of labor— but the basic distinctions between social trajectories are overwhelmingly compatible. Scarborough’s economic logics (expansionist vs. accre- tional) also bears marked resemblance to Herman Daly’s economic trajectories (growth vs. steady-state economy). The growth-market/ expansionist models are predicated on rapid economic throughput of re- sources and energy. This boosts short-term yields but ultimately erodes natural capital. Thus they are inherently unstable, and unsustainable over the long term. The connection between Daly’s steady-state model and Scarborough’s accretional model are less clear, but arguably compatible. In both models, novelty is created slowly and locally,49 and qualitative development accrues without substantial increase in overall levels of re- source consumption. Great progress can be achieved—the terraced rice patties of Bali, to borrow an example from Scarborough50—but slowly, and without overall growth. This reveals a temporal dimension of growth that has not been previously addressed. The critical element of Daly’s economic model, throughput, is ultimately a measure of the rate of resource and energy consumption: when human society exceeds the natural rates of resource renewal or nutrient recycling, growth of the economic subsystem occurs.

49 This concept is actually from David Orr, citation needed. 50 See, for example, Vernon Scarborough, "Rate and Process of Social Change." 75 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Low throughput, then, can be achieved through slower rates of resource use—a strategy clearly compatible with the accretional model. It is one of the strengths of the accretional model that is creates change at a pace at which natural systems can adapt. As Rachel Carson noted in her seminal work, Silent Spring, “Given time—time not in years but in millennia—life adjusts, and a balance has been reached. For time is the essential ingredient; but in the modern world there is no time.”51 In the accretional model, there is time. Finally, there is a relationship, perhaps less apparent, be- tween Jürgen Habermas’s system and lifeworld dichotomy and Scarborough’s taxonomy. Thehierarchical model is arguably dominated by the system—the state and the market—and steered by the media of money and power. These institutions are associated with instrumental rationality: individual actors have little say in the ultimate ends pursued. The heterarchical model arguably favors thelifeworld and is more ame- nable to social steering via solidarity. The heterarchical model relies on resource specialization; hence it is not, in Habermasian terms, undiffer- entiated or pre-modern. Activities in a heterarchy appear to be primarily coordinated in three ways: through equitable exchange in the market, through normatively-regulated action based upon shared norms and values, and through communicative action based upon understanding and agreement. Taken together, these four theories outline two basic trajec- tories: two very different ways of organizing human society charac- terized by very different social orders and human-environment rela- tionships (see fig. 1.36). These trajectories can also be said to represent two possible futures. One is based in increasing hierarchy, centralization, concentration of power, and the associated social pathologies and rapid environmental change. It is highly vulnerable to outside perturbations. This path erodes social, human, and natural capital, and is therefore un- sustainable. It also erodes democracy, rationality, and freedom, and can therefore be said to be undesirable. Un-sustainability, as we have seen, results from complex interrelationships between the means of produc- tion, technology, social order, form of government, means of social coor- dination, and discursive basis. The other path presents a viable alternative: it is what is meant by “a sustainable society.” It is based upon self-organization, large- ly decentralized or distributed means of production and control, slow and accretional change that works with rather than against natural pro- cesses. It is flexible and adaptable by virtue of being composed of many self-reliant units. Its decentralized order allows adaptation to context, and therefore reflects the diversity of landscapes and peoples of which it is composed. Its small scale is supportive of robust public discourse and the capacity for collective action that emerges from such discourse.

51 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1962), 6. 76 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

TWO TRAJECTORIES: UNSUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE

SOCIO-POLITICAL HIERARCHY HETERARCHY SCARBOROUGH ORGANIZATION

GROWTH- DEVELOPMENT- ECONOMY DALY ORIENTED ORIENTED

TECHNOLOGY HARD SOFT LOVINS

DOMINANT SYSTEM LIFEWORLD HABERMAS SPHERE

Sustainability emerges from flexibility, local adaptation, and the ability f i g 1.36. Correspondence of theories outlining two trajectories: sustainable of the local, self-organized systems to meaningfully steer society accord- vs. unsustainable. ing to shared norms and values (of which “ecological ethics” must, as Robert Brulle discusses, be a part).52 This path relies upon the viability of participatory democracy and the ability of human actors to come to consensus through rational discourse. Thus the same conditions necessary for ecological sustainability—self-organization, decen- tralization, diversity, and resilience—support a qualitatively better society, based upon the values of freedom, democracy, community, and self-determination. This is not to imply that a sustainable society is devoid of prob- lems, or that sustainability will be achieved automatically. But these are the structural conditions necessary for problems to be meaningfully addressed—for humanity to continue to develop a way that does not inevitably damage the natural environment or degrade human existence. One of the most basic of these conditions, drawn from Habermas, is self- organization: empowering people to make decisions for themselves—a vision both hopeful and pragmatic. Jürgen Habermas ultimately em- braces the utopian content of his work:

52 Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature. 77 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

If there is any small remnant of utopia that I’ve preserved, then it is surely the idea that democracy—and its public struggle for its best form—is capable of hacking through the Gordian knot of otherwise insoluble problems. I’m not saying we’re going to succeed in this; we don’t even know whether success if possible. But because we don’t know we still have to try.53 Habermas’s theory, like the sustainable society I have outlined above, may be utopian, but it is, as James Finlayson suggests, a “utopia […] worth pursuing.”54

A Sustainable Society

The intent of this section—or, for that matter, this thesis—is not to suggest a single “correct solution.” Rather, it is to posit a way forward based upon a number of simple principles. The principles themselves are very flexible: in fact, they explicitly favor flexibility, diver- sity, appropriateness to context, self-organization, and self-reliance. Un- like the unsustainable path, shaped by the hegemonic forces of growth and centralization, there is plenty of room for alternatives in a sustain- able society; indeed, it relies upon them. But this is not to suggest the opposite extreme, that there is no specific content to the sustainable path. It is defined by particular (though flexible) social, political, economic, and structural characteris- tics. These characteristics are described below. They are similar, but not identical, to the components described in Section 1.2: now we are pre- pared to more fully understand the components of a sustainable society.

A Sustainable Economy

Contemporary society is largely structured by an unsustainable growth-oriented economy. The primary importance of the economy in structuring current un-sustainable practices necessitates, first and fore- most, an alternative economic system. Therefore, this discussion begins with a discussion of economics. A steady-state labor-based service-and-flow economy pres- ents a practicable sustainable alternative to the growth-market. As described above, Herman Daly proposes a “steady state” economy in which there would be qualitative development without quantitative growth. The critical element of this economy islow throughput of matter and energy. Other theorists have looked more closely at these flows of

53 Michael Haller, The Past as Future: Jurgen Habermas Interviewed by Michael Haller, trans. Max Pensky (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), 97; as quoted at Finlayson, 137. 54 Finalyson, 12-3. 78 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

matter and energy. Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins propose a “service-and-flow” economy based upon shifting ownership rights so that producers lease (and take back) their physical products but sell their service.55 This creates an incentive for conservation, recy- cling, durability, and repairability. This system substitutes resource and energy use with good design, high quality craftsmanship, repair, and disassembly—tasks that require a good amount of human labor. In effect, then, this system replaces material consumption with human labor. To use Scarborough’s terminology, the economy moves toward labor-tasking and accretional change. William McDonough and Michael Braungart elaborate on the economic “flows” implicit in this model by making a distinction between biological nutrients, which can decompose, and technical nutrients, which must be recycled or used by humans.56 Finally, David Korten suggests that the very conditions necessary for the opera- tion of an efficient market economy—perfect competition, small-scale producers, free information, etc.—have the potential to create a more humane economy. Together these concepts represent a viable alternative to the present system: an economy utilizing human labor rather than material consumption in order to develop without expanding. This is not a subtle shift: it comes with important changes to social structure, which we will discuss momentarily. The essential criteria for a sustainable economy aremacro- economic scale, cyclical flow, alignment to end-use needs, appropriate means, moral/ethical limits, informal economies, and resilience. Each of these is discussed briefly below. Macro-economic scale: A sustainable economy must run from nature’s income rather than natural capital: this means that energy sources must be renewable and materials must not be harvested faster than they can naturally be replenished. Waste must not be generated faster than it can be re-absorbed and recycled by natural processes (a condition aided by appropriate use of materials—see “cyclical metabolic flows” below). Fundamentally, human society must not consume value faster than value is being created, where “value” is defined as high quality (low entropy) resources. The appropriate scale can only be maintained by appropriate feedback mechanisms. As suggested above, local produc- tion and consumption is itself a powerful feedback mechanism, because costs and benefits accrue locally and are therefore observable by the same people who control the production. Cyclical flow of material: A sustainable economy is concerned not only with how much we produce (scale) but also how we produce (a cyclical economy). In a sustainable economy, all material must either

55 Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Boston; New York; London: Little, Brown and Com- pany, 1999), 16-9. 56 William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 104. 79 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

f i g 1.37. A cyclical economy.

be recycled or decomposed. The economy must be conceived of as a cyclical system (fig. 1.37) rather than a linear one. In this way, material production can continue without growth in throughput. Alignment to end-use needs: A sustainable economy meets needs in the most appropriate way. Specifically, production must match the scale, distribution, and quality of end-use needs. For example, space heated is most appropriately achieved using the abundant, low-quality energy of the sun (i.e., by passive solar design). Stormwater management is most appropriately achieved by enhancing natural infiltration (via elimination of paved surface, use of permeable pavement, rain barrels, green roofs, etc.). Many end-use needs are distributed and small in scale; therefore, most production is most appropriately distributed or decen- tralized and small-scale. Decentralized production has the added benefit of being more transparent and accountable than global markets—indi- viduals can see the effects of production and can therefore make ethical choice based upon the production processes, environmental effects, and overall values of a company;57 thus decentralized production enhances the ability to impose moral/ethical limits (see below). Appropriate means: A sustainable economy utilizes human labor instead of resources to develop without expanding. Simple, appro- priate technologies inherently favor human labor. For example, a bicycle is easier to fix than a car, and requires fewer complex tools (which them- selves have a great deal of embodied energy). Cyclical economic flows, as discussed above, also tend to favor human labor. Informal economies: A sustainable economy leaves ample room for informal economies and household production. These have three benefits. First, they are one form of decentralized production, and

57 Korten, The Post-Corporate World; Korten, When Corporations Ruled the World. 80 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society are of an appropriate scale to meet many daily needs. Second, they are one form of labor-based production. Third, they reinforce social capital because they rely upon human relationships and promote social interac- tion. Informal economic activity can take many forms in modern soci- ety: home offices, workshops where people make and/or repair prod- ucts, etc. Many of these strategies require special facilities, and therefore have direct architectural implications. Resilience: A sustainable economy is inherently resilient: small- scale production can easily adapt to context and can quickly change when conditions demand it; decentralization provides rapid feedback; and a diversity of products and means of production creates a robust sys- tem. Attachment to place and emphasis on diversity allows adaptation to local ecosystems and climatic conditions. Moral/ethical limits: A sustainable economy requires moral or ethical limits on economic activity, according to collective norms or values. While these norms and values are flexible, it is assumed that they include an ecological ethic (economic activity should not harm the natu- ral environment) as well as favoring human rights and equitable distribu- tion. Moral/ethical limits restrain quantitative growth and commoditi- zation, as well as leaving room for informal economies. Moral/ethical limits are legitimated and enforced by collective action, which requires a robust democratic society and a strong foundation of social capital. The conditions outlined above require outside steering of the economy in order to establish ownership rights and responsibilities, establish appropriate conventions for price (whether through market mechanisms or regulation), and set overall ethical limits (either through legislation or moral norms). This steering must be accomplished through collective action, which this form of production supports pre- cisely because it favors the simple, accessible, and the local. The socio-political effects of these criteria are as important as their environmental effects. Whereas the present growth-market favors large-scale centralized systems, which leads to hierarchical control and concentration of power, a sustainable economy relies to a far greater extent on decentralized, local, and informal production, which enhance the prospects of local control, local self-reliance, and the formation of social and human capital. A steady-state labor-based service-and-flow economy provides an alternative to the current social order. It is compatible with—indeed, demands—a more participatory democratic society, non-hierarchical social order, decentralized production and consumption, and cyclical flows of matter.

81 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

A Sustainable Social Order

A participatory democratic society, rooted in local solidar- ity and community, presents a viable alternative to the current centrifugal political system, dominated by the forces of money and power. Habermas is primarily concerned with democratic politics—not so different from traditional notions of Jeffersonian democracy. These same conditions support, and are supported by, the formation of social and human capital. The essential criteria of a sustainable social order are a robust public sphere, social and human capital, apprpriate scale, and resil- ience. Each of these is discussed below. The public sphere, communicative action, and solidarity: A sustainable social order is built upon robust dialogue and discourse in the public sphere, which creates understanding and consensus, upon which collective action is based. This collective action is the source of political power, or solidarity. Thus discourse is important intrinsically, because it empowers people to make decisions, as well as being impor- tant extrinsically for its ability to bring the market under normative control.58 Open dialogue in the public sphere creates responsible citizens capable of robust democratic participation.59 Social and human capital: A sustainable social order builds social and human capital. David Korten suggests the revitalization of local communities as an end in itself, supporting higher levels of self- realization, creativity, and happiness.60 In addition, as argued above, strong communities are necessary in order to create the collective action with the power to rein in the destructive power of the growth market— they form the social context for communicative action and solidarity. Human capital supports and is supported by participatory democracy, as discussed above. Social capital supports and is supported by informal economies, which require individuals to rely on one another (rather than on the market) to provide many needs,61 simultaneously increas- ing social interaction and undermining consumerism. At the same time, informal economies provide a means of resisting poverty even in the poorest communities,62 thus helping to meet the basic needs of a larger number of people. Appropriate scale: A sustainable social order relies on local interactions within household, neighborhoods, and communities. It

58 Habermas, The New Obscurity, 64. 59 Brulle, Agency, Democracy, and Nature, 62-75. 60 David C. Korten, When Corporations Rule the World (West Hartford, CT: Kumar- ian Press; San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995). 61 Rhoda H. Halperin, Practicing Community: Class, Culture and Power in an Urban Neighborhood (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998). 62 Ibid. 82 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society

is from these interactions that collective action and solidarity emerge. These interactions support and are supported by decentralized produc- tion and consumption, which locates power within localities, creating a less centralized, more flexible, and therefore more resilient system. Resilience: A sustainable social order is inherently resilient: it has great capacity for local self-determination. It favors local expertise, short supply lines, rapid feedback, and diversity—all qualities of resilient systems. Finally, the collective decision-making capacity of a sustainable society, driven by shared norms and values rather than by the strategic aims of the market or state, have the potential to create the economic conditions necessary for resilience. The moral/ethical boundaries provided by a sustainable society are as important as their social benefits. A participatory democratic society is not only an emancipated society, but also has the potential to create a sustainable economy. Social and ecological sustain- ability are inextricably related: the conditions that support a more equitable and just social order are the same conditions that foster environmental sustainability.

Relationship to Components

We now understand more fully the important components of environmental, social, and economic sustainability, as well as the com- plexity of their interrelationships. But the three categories proposed at the beginning—social, economic, and environmental—are not ultimate- ly the most applicable. The important criteria really occur at two critical intersections: between the economy and the environment, and between society and the economy. Because economic activity is the primary way in which human society interacts with the natural environment, the in- tersection of society and environment contains no components.63

Nine Principles

As we proceed, we need a convenient shorthand for discussing many of the important concepts that have been discussed above. The fol- lowing principles summarize the important conditions for a sustainable society. They include three general principles (resilience, diversity, and self-organization), three forms of capital (social, human, and natural),64 and three strategies for achieving sustainability (decentralization, labor- based economics, and a cyclical economy). This list has no pretensions

63 Many important components may reside here, however: components such as spiri- tuality, sense of place, and ecological ethics. 64 Economic capital is not included here because it is the least important: it will emerge from a well-functioning society, or from the environmental-economic and social- economic criteria. 83 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

of completeness or evenness; rather, it is a summary of what has been learned thus far. 1. Resilience. A sustainable society must be flexible and adapt- able; it must be able to overcome unforeseen surprises. The conditions for resilience include small units dispersed in space, redundancy, short linkages between modules, simplicity and repairability, diversity of com- ponents, self-reliance, decentralized control, large margins, and quick feedback.65 2. Diversity. This is important, for similar reasons, to ecosys- tems (e.g., biodiversity), human society (local adaptation; many cultures and ideas), and economies (prevent over-specialization and brittleness). In ecology, there are three types of diversity: compositional, structural, and functional. Compositional diversity involves the heterogeneity of individual units (whether species, communities, or cities). Structural diversity involves how these units are related to one another (whether an ecosystem or a human community); in economics, this can be seen as diversity of subsistence strategies. Functional diversity involves the num- ber of functions being performed and the number of units performing the same function in different ways (whether nitrogen fixation or energy production). All are important to ecosystems, societies, and economies. For human societies, diversity is not only a means for achieving resil- ience and sustainability, but is also a desirable outcome itself.66 3. Self-organization. Social, environmental, and ecological sys- tems have remarkable capacity for self-organization. Human society self- organize via participatory democratic governments; economic activity self-organizes through market economics, as well as as via social capital and collective action. An emancipated society is one that self-organizes via communicative action. 4. Social and human capital. Again, these are intrinsically valu- able end products as well as extrinsically valuable as means for achieving solidarity and collective action, meeting basic needs, and creating and enforcing moral or ethical limits to human activity, including economic activity. In order for social or human capital to form, basic needs must first be met. 5. Equitable provision of basic needs. While this is embed- ded (as a precondition) within social and human capital, it is important enough to be listed separately. It can be achieved in a number of ways, but has the effect of eliminating extreme poverty. 6. Natural capital. Human society must, at a minimum, not consume natural capital, instead living from nature’s income (in the form

65 Orr, The Nature of Design, 114. 66 Temperate Forest Foundation, “Ecological Diversity,” http://www.forestinfo.org/ Discover/diversity.htm (accessed May 28, 2008); Kent Holsinger, “Functional Diver- sity,” notes from a course on Conservation Biology at the University of Connecticut, http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/diversity-stability/node5.html, updated October 2, 2007 (accessed May 28, 2008). 84 Theoretical Background: A Sustainable Society of renewable resources). Ideally human society will go beyond this basic requirement to invest in an enhance natural capital. 7. Decentralization. A sustainable society exhibits two forms of decentralization: economic (decentralized production) and political (lo- cal democratic control). In fact, the guiding principle at work is appropri- ate scale. But in a centralized society, our movement must be toward de- centralization and distribution. In other words, while decentralization is shorthand for the direction we must go, it must not become ideological: the aim is always for appropriateness for the task at hand. Decentraliza- tion must not occur to an extreme; there will always be a role for some centralized production facilities and governments. But, where they exist, they must ultimately be rooted in, and made sensitive to the preferences of, the (localized) lifeworld. 8. Labor-based economics. In fact, the guiding principle at work is appropriate means. But in a technological society, our movement must favor human labor. While labor-based production is shorthand for the direction we must go, it must not become ideological: the aim is always for appropriateness for the task at hand. 9. Cyclical economics. Materials and energy must flow cyclical- ly through the economy, as they do through the ecosystem. A sustainable society recognizes and participates in these flows according to nature’s rules. If we do this, our activities will not only cease to be destructive, but they can actually become regenerative and beneficial. Human soci- ety can once again become participants in creation with nature, rather than clumsy masters over nature.

85 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

86 1.5 The Role of Architecture

To this point, the discussion has strayed far from architecture. This has been necessary: one must have a clear idea of one’s goals and criteria in order to design intelligently and effectively. The central question of this thesis, however, remains architectural: what are the architectural implications of these deeper, harder changes? How could the build environment reflect and/or actively promote a shift to a sustainable society? The preceding analysis has given us clarity—an understanding of what needs to be done, and what architecture must help to achieve. The questions we ask as designers given this understanding are differ- ent from those asked by “traditional” approaches to sustainable design: not only must we ask “how can we save energy,” but also “how can we empower communities?” and “how can we encourage local solidarity and self-reliance (or social interaction)?” Also, “how do we design appro- priately, to limit the need for complex technological solutions to simple problems—to match solutions to end-use needs—to substitute human cooperation for technological complexity and human labor for resource use?” This section will present four broad ways in which architecture has a role to play in supporting and helping to bring about a sustainable society.

Design as Visionary

The design fields are uniquely positioned to imagine solu- tions to contemporary problems, rather than becoming hopelessly encumbered by the surfeit of data and intimidating extrapolations. In the words of David Orr, […] forecasting directed toward understanding the most probable futures differs in fundamental ways from the design- ing of alternative futures that are possible and desirable but not necessarily probable. Scholars [and designers!] must

87 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

become active participants in designing alternative futures […].1 In the face of the challenges posed by sustainability, society needs viable alternatives—and designers must help envision and realize these alterna- tives. A vision can inspire and mobilize people around a common aim. Such mobilization is essential, because the creation of this society must ultimately be democratic and participatory and cannot come exclusively from designers or politicians or elite control. In the words of Wes Jack- son, founder of The Land Institute, Until we have the physical manifestation of sustainable livelihoods demonstrated in enough places, we are going to continue the folly. So good examples, whether they are the good examples among organic farmers, or the good examples among research efforts, or just the good examples of ordinary right livelihood, give us a standard.2 This approach raises moral/ethical questions. Given the neces- sity of participation, what is the appropriate role for the expert designer? Except for unbuilt work, how can one simultaneously present a vision and solicit participation? Several ideas are explored below.

The Design Process

One way that the expert designer can engage social change is through the design process. The traditional process is an exercise in steering by power and money: wealthy and/or powerful clients—both private companies and public institutions—are those who can afford to hire the architects, planners, and developers, and whose visions are ulti- mately realized. An alternative design process is beginning to emerge— one that avoids such strategic interactions—one in which the desired end of a more sustainable society is inseparable from the means used to achieve it—namely, participatory design. In this model, design becomes, in the words of David Orr, “a community process that aims to increase local resilience by building connections between people, between people and the ecology of their places, and between people and their history.”3 Participatory design is discussed in greater detail in Pattern 1: Participatory Design.

1 David W. Orr and Marvin S. Soroos, eds, The Global Predicament: Ecological Perspec- tives on World Order (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 17. 2 Wes Jackson, quoted in Janine Benyus, Biomimicry. 3 David W. Orr, The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 180. 88 Theoretical Background: The Role of Architecture

Design Itself

This thesis ultimately expresses a faith in the built environment to deeply and profoundly affect the way people live. This faith is rooted in a view of building as intimately linked to culture and society. This section describes this view briefly, then discusses some specific ways in which the built environment can help to create social change.

Space & Society

There is general agreement in the social sciences—and within anthropology in particular—that there is a reciprocal rela- tionship between space and society—in the words of Wendy Ash- more, that “social relations and spatial structure are linked recursively.”4 Amos Rapoport sees residential environments as physical manifestations of a culture’s ideals, worldview, and social structure.5 Some theorists, Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood among them, go further, arguing that archi- tecture can be seen as a mechanism for creating such ideals and world- views—as “an active social agent shaping behavior.”6 Edward Hall calls fixed-feature space “the mold into which a great deal of behavior is cast,”7 and further states, “[…] people carry around with them internalizations of fixed-feature space learned early in life.”8 Despite this general agreement, difficulties abound. For one, space includes not only the built environment, but also the customs and social interactions, that prescribe the use of space and create spaces and spatial definition without built form.9 Amos Rapoport makes a distinc- tion between three features of space: fixed-features are architectural ele- ments, including buildings, walls, doors; semi-fixed features are physical but malleable, and include furniture and objects; and, non-fixed elements are primarily social in nature, and include social norms and behaviors that are particular to a situation.10

4 Wendy Ashmore, “‘Decisions and Dispositions’: Socializing Spatial Archaeology,” American Anthropologist, 104, 4 (2002); 1176. 5 Amos Rapoport, House Form and Culture (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969), 48. 6 Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, “The World Their Households: Changing Meanings of the Domestic Sphere in the Nineteenth Century,” in Housing and Dwelling: Perspectives on Modern Domestic Architecture, ed. Barbara Miller Lane. (London; New York: Rout- ledge, 2007), 167. 7 Edward T Hall, The Hidden Dimension (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1969), 106. 8 Ibid. 9 Ashmore, 1176. 10 Amos Rapoport, “Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings,” inDomestic Ar- chitecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study, ed. Susan Kent (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 13. 89 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

For example, my favorite coffee house occupies a former parson- age attached to a church. The prior occupation of this place by a man of the cloth presumably colored its prior meaning: to step through the threshold was to enter a space of piety and propriety—a space whose connection to the church was both physical (it shared a wall) and symbolic. Without substantial change to the space itself, it is now a cof- fee shop—a place associated, for me, with intellectual discussion, free thought (it hosts the weekly meetings of a student organization called “Skeptics”), physical enjoyment (good coffee can be sensual), politi- cal progressivism (it sells entirely free trade and organic coffee), and sometimes raucous music. As a second example, this same coffee house is occasionally used for wedding receptions. Again it becomes a different setting, with different expectations and standards of behavior—a change both symbolized and created by changes in the décor and behavior: the tables are rearranged into a neater, more formal order; table clothes, flowers, and matching flatware appear; people arrive in formal clothing and children are instructed to be on their “best behavior.” The meaning, importance, and function of the space has changed without significant change to the built form, indicating that the form is relatively passive. Architecture and planning peddle exclusively in fixed-feature ele- ments. Certainly there is some degree of “fit” between the built environ- ment and social behavior. But the degree of fit varies—and furthermore, the more “fixed” the physical environment becomes, the less precisely it “fits” social behavior, and semi-fixed and non-fixed elements play a larger role in accommodating changing conditions and meanings.11 Thus activities and meanings change independently of physical structures. While it is important to recognize these difficulties, they do not imply that built form is arbitrary or that there is no role for architecture to play in forging a sustainable society. Quite the contrary, the discus- sions above begin to reveal many roles for architecture.

Design & Worldview: Structuring Structures

At the most abstract level, the built environment does have a certain power to shape worldview. Previous landscapes modify cur- rent thinking, embodying relationships that come to appear as natural.12 This view appears to be similar to Pierre Bourdieu’s concept ofhabitus , which he alternately defines as “systems of durable, transposable dis- positions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures,”13 and “embodied history, internalized as a second nature

11 Nicholas David, “The Fulani Compound and the Archaeologist” World Archaeology 3 (2) (1971), p. 111-131. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/124068. 12 Ashmore 1179, quoting Crumley 1999: 272. 13 Pierre Bourdieu, “Structures, Habitus, Practice,” in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. A. Elliot (Oxford: Blackwells, 1999), 108. 90 Theoretical Background: The Role of Architecture and so forgotten as history.”14 Is the built environment a “structuring structure”?—one slowly inculcating the way things are? According to Da- vid Orr, the answer is clearly “yes:” […] we must being to see our houses, buildings, farms, businesses, energy technologies, transportation, landscapes, and communities in much the same way that we regard classrooms. In fact, they instruct in more fundamental ways because they structure what we see, how we move, what we eat, our sense of time and space, how we relate to each other, our sense of security, and how we experience the particular places in which we live. Most important, by their scale and power they structure how we think, often limiting our ability to imagine better alternatives.15 Finish architect Juhani Pallasmaa seems to agree: Architecture, as with all art, is fundamentally confronted with questions of human existence in space and time, expressing and relating man’s being in the world. Architecture is deeply engaged in the metaphysical questions of the self and the world, interiority and exteriority, time and duration, life and death.16 Design, then, has a role to play in reconnecting people to one another, as well as to the natural world—and specifically, with the flows of matter and energy through the ecosystem in which we participate. Design must express and embody this new participatory worldview. The first step is to enhance awareness and understanding of connectedness of natural pro- cesses. This is an end clearly served bydecentralization . Centralized facili- ties remove the processes of production and decomposition from daily awareness: they take place elsewhere and via processes about which we know very little. Production and decomposition that occurs locally ren- ders visible the natural processes at work, manifesting the close connec- tion between human economy and the natural environment. David Orr provides another example: Ecologically designed communities become a way to teach about land use, landscapes, and human connections. Res- toration of wild corridors and habitats instructs us in the ways of animals. In other words, ecological design becomes a way to expand our awareness of nature and our ecological competence.17

14 Bourdieu, 111. 15 Orr, Nature of Design, 31. 16 Juhani Pallasmaa, Eyes of the Skin. 17 Orr, Nature of Design, 32. 91 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Again, Pallasmaa agrees: “[…] the task of art and architecture in general is to reconstruct the experience of an undifferentiated interior world, in which we are not mere spectators, but to which we inseparably belong.”18

Design & Social Change: Incrementalism

Lewis Mumford suggests that one way to change the so- cial order is for local communities to withdraw from and “quietly paralyze” the current system.19 Amory Lovins provides an example (perhaps inadvertently) of how this might be done: a decentralized, renewable energy system that would not only be more efficient, stable, and sustainable than the present centralized system,20 but it could also be seen as withdrawing support from the existing centralized system. The same can be said for local food production, local manufacturing, and a higher degree of local self-government. John Lyle terms as “regenerative” decentralized technologies, and describes their societal effect this way: “because they are smaller in scale, dispersed, and modular, regenera- tive technologies do not lend themselves so easily to concentration of power.”21 Thus decentralization is both a powerful mechanism for social change and a desirable end state in itself. Author Daniel Quinn echoes these themes when he writes, […] hierarchy maintains formidable defenses against attack from the lower orders. It has none, however, against abandon- ment. This is in part because it can imagine revolution, but it can’t imagine abandonment. But even if it could imagine abandonment, it couldn’t defend against it, because abandon- ment isn’t an attack, it’s just a discontinuance of support.22 Many of the conditions of a sustainable society have a spatial element. Two primary spatial elements—distribution and scale—are of primary importance to sustainability, and directly affect resilience, social capital, soft technologies, and sustainable production, as described in Section 1.4. Moreover, both appropriate scale and decentralized distribution can be achieved incrementally: design can slowly withdraw support from the current social order by creating new, self-organized sys- tems. These small-scale experiments simultaneously demonstrate prac- ticality and inspire new experiments. This comports with both Vernon Scarborough’s model of accretional development, and maintains a large

18 Pallasmaa, Eyes of the Skin. 19 Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power (New York: Har- court, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970), 408. 20 Lovins, Soft Energy Paths. 21 John Lyle, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development (New York: John Wiley, 1994), 266. 22 Quinn, Beyond Civilization. 92 Theoretical Background: The Role of Architecture

role for participatory design and individual variation. Again quoting Quinn: There is no need for change across the board—for everything to suddenly begin to be done differently. It’s unnecessary for this to happen, and nothing in the world can make it happen. […] there is no one right way for people to live.23 The ends and means are inseparable: the most powerful way to create a sustainable society is to begin living it.

Design & Social Capital: Enabling Design

One has only to think of bad examples to reaffirm architec- ture’s effect on social behavior: high-rise public housing complexes such as St. Louis’s Pruit-Igoe or Chicago’s Cabrini Green are classic examples of an oppressive, even destructive, physical environments. This reveals a role for design in helping to foster social capital, social interac- tion, and community. While these elements are ultimately social in nature and rely ultimately upon human behavior, design can be, in Ran- dolph Hester’s words, “enabling.”24 David Orr, referring to Jane Jacobs’s seminal Death and Life of Great American Cities, states, There is an architecture of connectedness that includes front porches facing onto streets, neighborhood parks, civic spaces, pedestrian-friendly streets, sidewalk cafes, and human scaled buildings. There is an economy of connectedness that in- cludes locally owned businesses that make, repair, and reuse, buying cooperatives, owner-operated farms, public markets, and urban gardens—patterns of livelihood that require de- tailed knowledge of the ecology of specific places.25 These patternsenable social capital to form by creating favorable condi- tions. Another example can be drawn from Habermas’s discussion of the “public sphere.” Eighteenth-century coffee houses were one architectural manifestation of this imperfect public sphere.26 What might be the modern manifestations of a renewed public sphere? We need, in Robert Brulle’s words, “public space” for discourse to occur.27 This social space likely has one or more architectural counterparts—places that people gather to interact, talk, and engage in Habermasian rational discourse. Architecture can be designed to facilitate particular social patterns and lifestyles. Architecture has an important role to play in

23 Quinn, Beyond Civilization. 24 Randolph T. Hester, Design for Ecological Democracy, 15-9. 25 Orr, Nature of Design, 181, citing Jane Jacobs, The Life and Death of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage, 1961). 26 Finlayson, 10. 27 Brulle, Agengy, Democracy, and Nature, 276-82. 93 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

promoting sustainable living—not to control behavior, but rather to sup- port the types of use and interaction that are desired by users. This means getting the underlying structure right: appropriate scale and appropriate means. It means building people-centered developments, allowing and supporting local self-reliance, fostering social capital (interaction), and using appropriate infrastructure (appropriate scale). Small, incremental change or technical fixes, although important and necessary, are ulti- mately band-aid fixes as long as the structural characteristics of an unsus- tainable economy and social order remain intact. Architecture and design have an important role to play in the creation of this new social order. Thus certainpatterns of the built environment support and pro- mote a sustainable society. What are these patterns? How can we utilize them effectively? These are ultimately questions of design methodology. It is to the question of methodology that we now turn.

94 2 Methodology A Sustainable Pattern Language

Having defined a sustainable society, the next question is: How do we design for a sustainable society?

This thesis argues that a Pattern Lan- guage provides an appropriate meth- odology for design, because it is multi- scalar, adaptable, and accessible.

The Pattern Languaged presented here represents the first stage of what prom- ises to be a continuously evolving meth- odology. It is also synthetic: patterns are drawn from a variety of sources, and are included only insofar as they support the interrelated principles of sustainability described at the end of Section 1.4.

95 96 2.1 Design Methodology

A primary goal of this thesis is to understand how to navigate be- tween the broad principles of sustainability and specific design decisions. The task is therefore primarily methodological in nature: how to appropriate translate the abstract principles from Section 1.4 to built form, and how to deal with the complexity inherent in the prob- lem, as these principles (and therefore the design components aimed at achieving them) are interrelated? To answer this question, this thesis proposes to develop both a design methodology and a series of design explorations, in parallel, to inform one another.

Methodology Analysis

This investigation begins with a review of relevant design methodologies. The object of this review is to develop a methodology that can simultaneously begin to illuminate the central question of archi- tectural implications and provide a way to think about a complex system. The latter is of particular importance, and warrants further discussion.

Interconnectedness

Design is composed of a multitude of small decisions, and it is easy to become so immersed in the problem at hand that one forgets the myriad effects of each change.A process is needed that can clarify the complex design problem—that is, break it down into relatively discreet manageable pieces—yet was also rich enough to retain the complexity: to remind the designer of important interconnections. Both Amory Lovins and Christopher Alexander discuss the importance of interrelationships in design. According to Lovins, opti- mizing individual elements of a system can—and often does—pessimize the system as a whole.1 Worse, looking at elements as discreet pieces ignores the larger gains that can come from what Lovins calls “whole

1 Lovins, "End-Use Efficiency," 16; Lovins, "Energy Efficiency," 396. 97 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

system design.” For example, the designer of an energy-efficient house may individually optimize insulation, windows, passive solar design, and active heating system. But the largest benefits would come from looking at these together: if the other elements are well-configured, the active heating system may be greatly reduced in size or eliminated entirely, meaning even larger gains in efficiency and economy.2 The same is true of non-technical systems: a successful public plaza brings together nu- merous conditions at multiple scales; and optimizing any one of these conditions without considering the others could create a dismal and neglected space. Alexander approaches the problem from a design standpoint. Every design has numerous requirements: even a simple teakettle must be efficient, ergonomic, and aesthetically appealing. Adjusting one variable—for example, the material of the handle or the form of the kettle—has multiple implications. Alexander argues that a designer must be aware of the interconnections of the individual design variables; ide- ally, these variables could be separated into relatively discreet clusters.3 The designer must be able to navigate between multiple scales— from the individual element to the whole system being designed—in order to create designs that are effective, sustainable, and beautiful. As the design problem grows increasingly complex, the design approach and methodology must help to resolve this problem.

Precedents

Eight precedent methodologies were considered. These were drawn from diverse sources, and not all are full-fledged “methodolo- gies” capable of organizing a design: some were selected for specific contributions or qualities. Each methodology was evaluated according to three factors: (1) the ability of the methodology to engage both so- cial and technical considerations of sustainability; (2) the ability of the methodology to look at interconnectedness; and (3) overall strengths or weaknesses of the methodology. Many of these methodologies make important contributions. Many of them provide important ways of looking at small pieces of the problem. But few of them were sufficiently broad or flexible enough to answer the basic questions, which were multi-scalar and often qualitative. Among them, Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language was the most promising.

2 Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins, Natural Capitalism, 98, 114. 3 Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form. 98 Methodology: Design Methodology

A Pattern Language

Two questions must be answered before we proceed: (1) Why is a pattern language an appropriate methodology, given the goals established in this thesis? and (2) Why is a new pattern lan- guage necessary? —That is, how does the proposed pattern language differ from the one already written by Christopher Alexander, et al.?

Why a Pattern Language?

Why is a pattern language an appropriate methodology given the goals of this thesis? There are four primary reasons: 1. Patterns form a bridge between the social and the spatial dimensions. Patterns are, by definition, formala relationship between human activity and the geometry of the physical environ- ment. This is how we can make the leap from broad principles to specific designs: incrementally, one pattern at a time. 2. Patterns are multi-scalar: they can be both broad and specific, from the scale of the region to the building detail; thus they provide a way to navigate from large-scale concepts to ever more specific ideas. 3. Patterns are mutable. They can be used selectively, modified over time, and adapted to various contexts. Each pattern pro- duces different results in every application: “you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice.”4 Such flexibility and diversity are critical qualities for sustainable systems. 4. Pattern facilitate participation. Patterns are accessible; and their selection, creation, and use can involve many stakeholders. They codify goals and strategies, making them visible for public observation and critique. At their best, patterns are a mecha- nism for robust public dialogue about the design of the built environment. For these reasons, pattern languages are not only appropriate for creat- ing sustainable designs, but moreover embody many of the principles of sustainability: resilience, diversity, and public participation.

Why a New Pattern Language?

Why is a new pattern language necessary? How does the pro- posed pattern language differ from the one already written by Christo- pher Alexander, et al.? Once again, several points must be made: 1. Alexander himself hoped that new pattern languages would be developed: the authors called their work “‘A Pattern

4 Alexander, A Pattern Language, x. 99 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Language’ with the emphasis on the word ‘A,’” because they saw it as only one of “countless thousands of other languages we hope that people will make for themselves, in the future.”5 The patterns themselves were seen as “alive and evolving” and ripe for future improvement.6 2. New developments since 1977 have made updates necessary. Many disciplines have made great strides, both theoretical and pragmatic, in understanding sustainability since the publication of A Pattern Language in 1977. Some of the original “hypothesis” embodied in the original patterns have been challenged; and new hypothesis have emerged. These make an update necessary. 3. The requirements of a sustainable society require a new language. While Alexander’s pattern language focuses on many elements of sustainability—including social sustainability—it is not explicitly focused on the principles or theoretical foundation of this thesis. One of the aims of the methodology was non- arbitrariness, and so any patterns included here must explicitly be shown to support and achieve the principles of a sustainable society identified in Section 1.4. We will now discuss a Sustainable Pattern Language in more detail.

5 Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Language, xv-xvi. 6 Alexander, A Pattern Language, xv. 100 2.2 A Sustainable Pattern Language

The fundamental goal of the pattern language presented below is to create a sustainable society, as described in Section 1.4. Such a soci- ety does not need to be—indeed, cannot be—created all at once; rather, it must be created incrementally through the initiative of many people in many different places. Below I discuss the relationship between principles and patterns, the organization of the pattern language, and finally present the language itself.

From Principles to Patterns

The patterns contained herein arenot unbiased. They are, on the contrary, explicitly biased toward the principles of a sustainable society enumerated in Section 1.4. Therefore, while the patterns can be recombined in an infinite number of novel combinations and design will be completely different in every application, the application of these patterns will tend toward certain urban and architectural forms and away from others. If this were not the case—i.e., if the patterns had no formal content and allowed any type of development—they would be useless. If traditional suburbs are impossible given the patterns, it is because they do not support the desired ends. The intent is to understand how to de- sign according to certain principles—how to design sustainably.

A Note On Participatory Design

Design is an instrumental action: it succeeds insofar as it achieves predetermined aims. The design is largely the domain of the de- signer (the expert); the aims are the domain of the stakeholders. Patterns are a way of navigating between goals and end product: they are means. Ends have been partly determined by the aforementioned principles; in reality, they should be primarily determined by open discourse. (Even this admonishment is based upon certain moral/ethical preferences for equality and democracy.) Patterns do not provide much guidance for 101 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

the design process—specifically, the collaborative and participatory discussion that must take place. This is a vital second component of this project, but is beyond the scope of the current investigation. However, pattern languages are by nature compatible with participatory design: first, patterns are understandable and accessible and therefore amenable to public (non-technical) discussion; second, they are flexible: patterns can be adopted selectively, changed, or created anew; and third, they render visible the process by which ends are achieved, opening it to pub- lic scrutiny.

Methodology for Developing Patterns

The following patterns were culled from a variety of sources. The criteria for adding a pattern to the language were (1) it had to support two or more of the principles of a sustainable society outlined in Section 1.4, and (2) it had to be suggested by at least two independent authori- tative sources. The intent of the first requirement is that the patterns are non-arbitrary and collectively consistent. The intent of the second requirement is that the patterns are accepted as valid design strategies and are not simply “made up.” Authoritative sources include the theorists upon which this thesis is based; a number of other authoritative sources in sustainability—such as the U.S. Green Building Council—; sociolo- gists and/or other theorists whose writing informs the discussion on social sustainability; and built precedents at both the community and building scale. Additionally, patterns can emerge from the design process itself, and existing patterns can be modified. Following the organization of Alexander’s A Pattern Language, the patterns are organized roughly from the scale of the city to the scale of the building component. Also following Alexander, asterisks are used to denote the relative confidence the author and/or sources have in the patterns. Two asterisks (**) indicate a high degree of certainty that the pattern is correct. A single asterisk (*) indicates that there is less cer- tainty but that the pattern is moving in the right direction. No asterisk ( ) indicates a higher degree of uncertainty about the applicability of the pattern. Each pattern will contain (1) a description of the pattern, (2) a diagrammatic representation of the pattern, (3) a statement regarding how the pattern relates to the principles of a sustainable society, (4) sources from which the pattern was developed, and (5) relationships to other patterns.

Further Investigation

Patterns are a way of “lifting the lid” on many smaller investiga- tions. What, for example, are good strategies for urban parking lots? A typological investigation and/or literature review might follow, from

102 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language which several general strategies may be gleaned; finally, a general pattern may be able to be distilled from this. Patterns are meant to change and evolve. The lack of certainty regarding many of the patterns is not a bad thing, but an invitation for investigation. In the spirit of the original A Pattern Language, this docu- ment is merely a beginning: others are invited to use it, change it, and make it their own.

A Sustainable Pattern Language

1 participatory design 2 distributed agriculture 3 distributed energy production 4 distributed organic waste management 5 decentralized work 6 decentralized amenities 7 decentralized retail 8 many transportation options 9 landscape ecology 10 identifiable community 11 local & regional centers 12 residential density 13 four-story limit 14 housing variety 15 degrees of publicness 16 street hierarchy 17 bicycle lanes & parking 18 generous green spaces 19 small public squares 20 old buildings 21 mixture of uses 22 distributed parking 23 people-friendly sidewalks 24 street frontage 25 well-lit streets 26 tree-lined streets 27 non-organic & hazardous waste collection & management 28 enclave of 50-150 29 communal facilities 30 common land 31 child care 32 nearby amenities 33 access to public transit 34 site repair 35 on-site renewable energy generation

103 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

36 universal accessibility 37 adaptable building 38 passive solar design 39 natural ventilation 40 water collection & reuse 41 abundant daylight 42 ground-related units 43 building edge 44 zones of transition 45 intimacy gradient 46 common areas at the heart 47 windows overlooking the street 48 modest living places 49 flexible floor plans 50 home businesses 51 front porches 52 vegetable gardens 53 compost 54 bulk storage 55 sustainable materials 56 controllability of systems 57 efficient fixtures & appliances 58 native plants 59 user manuals & education 60 feedback

The first ten patterns are presented in depth below, in order to illustrate the more detailed presentation and explanation of patterns necessary to represent them to others. However, since the patterns and design have, in this thesis, evolved in parallel, it is not possible to bring every pattern to this level of completion.

104 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

01 Participatory design**

All stakeholders must have meaningful input into the de- sign and be represented throughout the design process. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to, clients, end users, neighborhood and community groups, nonprofit organiza- tions, area businesses, and local political leaders.

This pattern is critical for two reasons: first, because design that involves users better meets their needs, and second, because the end goal of an equitable and participatory society is inseparable from the means used to achieve it.1 This is the only pattern with no formal/spatial content. It is included because its importance demands it. According to Roger Bolton, participatory design emphasizes widespread public participation, sharing of infor- mation with the public, reaching consensus through public dialogue rather than exercise of power, avoiding privileging of experts and bureaucrats, and replacing the model of the tech- nical expert with one of the reflective [practitioner].2 This does not mean that there is no role for the expert—indeed, special- ized knowledge is vital for making informed decisions. The expert must take the lead in the design. But on decisions that involve moral or ethical dimensions, which are often central to and prior to design, “the opinion of any technical expert is entitled to no special weight […]”3

Purpose / Intent

The intent is to make design and development a participatory demo- cratic exercise and thereby to make it more equitable, diverse, and better suited to the needs of its users. This pattern enhancessocial and human capital by empower- ing communities and individuals to make significant choices that are typically restricted to experts and those with political or economic pow- er. The act of participation and decision-making brings people together

1 This notion is borrowed from Habermas. For example, see Jürgen Habermas, “The New Obscurity: The Crisis of the Welfare State and the Exhaustion of Utopian Ener- gies,” in The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, trans. and ed. Shierry Weber Nicholsen (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989), 59. 2 Roger Bolton, “Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action and the Theory of Social Capital.” Paper presented at a meeting of Association of American Geographers, Denver, Colorado, April 2005. Interestingly, participatory design as conceived by Bolton bears marked resemblance to emerging ideas of “open sourcing” in electronic media: both rely on public input to improve the end product. 3 Amory Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (New York: Harper Colo- pon Books, 1977), 14. 105 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

for dialogue and discourse, and builds the skills necessary for future exercises of solidarity. In addition, user input helps to ensure that basic needs are met. Finally, this pattern also enhancesdiversity , assuming that greater diversity of opinions and input will be reflected in a more diverse built environment.

Strategies

Possible strategies include: (1) assembling a group to provide specific input into design, (2) holding open public meeting throughout the design process, early and often enough to provide meaningful input, (3) using the design charette as a design tool, (4) making all design proposals available to the public via a variety of media (print, electronic, etc.), and (5) taking public feedback through a variety of media (editorials, com- ments, etc.). Specific guidelines for successful participatory design have not been assembled here, but the following sources may provide relevant information: 1. the emerging field of Participatory Action Research (PAR) 2. institutions studying collaboration, such as the University of Vir- ginia Institute for Environmental Negotiation (specifically, their report Collaboration: A Guide for Environmental Advocates)4 3. existing design processes that focus on user input5

Relationships

Participatory design is related to all other patterns: the decisions to include various patterns are moral/ethical decisions that are properly made with stakeholder input.

Sources

Jürgen Habermas Jürgen Habermas, “The New Obscurity: The Crisis of the Welfare State and the Exhaustion of Utopian Energies,” in The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, trans. and ed. Shierry Weber Nicholsen (Cam- bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989).

4 University of Virginia Institute for Environmental Negotiation, Collaboration: A Guide for Environmental Advoacates (available at http://www.virginia.edu/ien/focus. htm#collaborative) (accessed May 18, 2008). See also the Community-Based Collab- oratives Research Consortium (CBCR) (http://www.cbcrc.org). 5 For example, see Gerald S. Hammond and Stephen H. Schwandner, The Schoolhouse of Quality (New York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., 1977). 106 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

Amory Lovins Amory Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1977).

USGBC United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, Neigh- borhood Pattern & Design, Credit 15: Commu- nity Outreach and Involvement, http://www. usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008).

New Urbanism Congress for the New Urbanism, “Charter of the New Urbanism,” http://www.cnu.org/charter (accessed January 7, 2008).

AIA Diane Georgopulos, Introduction to Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? (New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005).

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Smart Growth: About Smart Growth,” http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_ sg.htm (accessed January 7, 2008).

107 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

02 Distributed agriculture*

Locate food production in and around the city, close to where people live. Provide opportunities for food produc- tion on many scales, particularly the small- and medium-scales (e.g., vegetable gardens and small farms).

Modern industrial agriculture is inefficient, creates numerous environ- mental problems, and creates health risks. A great deal of (primarily fos- sil) energy is used in the production and transportation of food. Its very structure is centralized and therefore brittle, as evidenced by widespread contamination of food supplies (with E.coli, mad cow disease, etc.). An alternative system is one in which most food is produced locally and re- gionally according to local ecological conditions and within the natural carrying capacity. Cuba provides an excellent case study.

Purpose / Intent

The small scale implicit in the distributed model supports adecentral - ized, labor-based economy run on human labor. This preservesnatural capital by reducing resource use involved in transportation and process- ing. It also supports social and human capital by providing more jobs, as well as by humanizing a centralized and bureaucratic food supply. Distributing food production enhances access to this basic need. Dis- tributed agriculture has the potential to engage with local organic waste management (compost) in order to create a cyclical economy. Many small units favors diversity; this enhances the resilience of the food- supply system.

Strategies

Distributed agriculture can include: strips of farming within city limits, gardens, roof gardens, orchards, and small family farms. Favor human labor over resource use (e.g., weeding by hand vs. using herbicides). Lo- cal near and within human settlement in order to reduce the energy and time invested in transportation, and to provide direct access to a large labor pool.

Relationships

Relationship to other patterns.

Sources

108 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

LEED United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); see Neighborhood Pattern & Design, Credit 16: Local Food Production.

Amory Lovins Amory Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1977).

AIA American Institute of Architects, Affordable Green Guidelines, http://www.designadvisor. org/green_critera.html (accessed November 17, 2007).

C. Alexander Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977); see patterns 3 (city country fingers) and 7 (the countryside).

109 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

03 Distributed energy production**

Locate energy production near energy use, and match the scale and quality of production with the scale and quality of end-use needs. Meet all energy needs with renewable en- ergy sources.

This system is more efficient, more resilient, and more participatory than the current centralized system.1 In order to most appropriately match supply with end-use needs, first evaluate the scale, type (i.e., thermal vs. electrical), and distribution of end-use needs. Then meet these needs in the most appropriate way, looking first to basic building design, then to passive systems, and only later at mechanical systems (see fig. X, from Lechner p. 8).2

Purpose / Intent

Energy production matched in scale and quality to end-use needs is highly efficient, thereby conservingnatural capital. Its distributed na- ture supports a decentralized economy, and its preference for simple, small-scale systems (since most end-use is small-scale and does not re- quire complex gadgetry) favors human labor (in the form of repair and tinkering) to resource use. Small-scale also allows diversity, or adapta- tion to local conditions, and both of these enhance the resilience of the system.

Strategies

In order to most appropriately match supply with end-use needs, first look at basic building design, then at passive systems, and only later use mechanical systems. Consider block layout and/or building design that exhibits solar orientation.3 Favor renewable energy sources: solar, wind, small-scale hydro, biogas, etc.4 Where both heating and electricity are needed, consider co-generation. Consider the most appropriate scale

1 For a more detailed discussion, see Sections 1.3 and 1.4. Also see Amory Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (New York: Harper Colopon Books, 1977), and Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins. Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (Andover, Mass.: Brick House Publishing, 1982). 2 Norbert Lechner, Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Design Methods for Architects, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001), 7-8. 3 United Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, (2007) http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008), 121-2. 4 USGBC, LEED-ND, 126-7; see also United States Green Building Council, LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations, version 2.2 (USGBC, 2005), 36. 110 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language for the needs being considered: building, block, neighborhood, or city. Also consider alternative forms of energy storage, depending on end-use needs—for example, wind can easily be used to create pressurized air (a much more benign storage medium than batteries); solar electric energy can produce hydrogen.

Relationships

Relationship to other patterns.

Sources

Amory Lovins Amory Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Du- rable Peace (New York: Harper Colopon Books, 1977).

Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins. Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (An- dover, Mass.: Brick House Publishing, 1982).

USGBC United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); Green Construction & Technology, Credit 11: Solar Orientation, Credit 12: On-Site Energy Generation, and Credit 13: On-Site Re- newable Energy Sources.

United States Green Building Council, LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations, version 2.2 (USGBC, 2005); Energy & Atmo- sphere Credit 2: On-Site Renewable Energy.

111 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

04 Distributed organic waste management*

Locate organic waste management near waste generation and within human communities so that communities can take advantage of the valuable end products of these systems.

Current systems of organic waste management—namely municipal sew- age treatment plants and landfills—are capital-intensive, inefficient, and plagued by environmental problems. The use of water to flush sewage is a misuse of an increasingly scarce and vital resource. Toxins, heavy metals, PCBs, and other pollutants frequently make it through sewage treatment facilities and are released into the environment, with increas- ingly problematic results.1 The treatment process often utilizes hazard- ous compounds and creates toxic byproducts.2 Moreover, the continued growth of cities has overwhelmed the capacity of many municipalities’ treatment plants. Major North American cities such as Chicago, Cincin- nati, Montreal, and Vancouver routinely discharge untreated sewage into local bodies of water, primarily during rain events and as a result of the overflow of combined sewage and storm water systems.3 Landfills pre- vent biodegradation, emit methane (a potent greenhouse gas), and can contaminate groundwater supplies. Alternative systems not only alleviate these deleterious effects; they also provide valuable end products such as fertilizer, clean water, and/or natural gas. Distribution eliminates the need for costly trans- portation (sewers or garbage trucks) and affords easy access to the end products. The quantity of organic waste could potentially increase in scope (and the quality improve) as biodegradable materials become more prevalent—what William McDonough and Michael Braungart call “biological nutrients.”4 These must be completely biodegradable and non-toxic—a condition not yet common. Non-biodegradable materials, or “technical nutrients,” are considered in Pattern 27: Non-organic & hazardous waste collection & management.

1 Graeme Wynn, “Risk and Responsibility in a Waste-Full World,” forward to The Cul- ture of Flushing: A Social and Legal History of Sewage, by Jamie Benidickson (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007), xvii. 2 Mark Roseland, Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and Their Governments, rev. and updated ed. (Gabriola Island, BC; New Haven, Conn.: New Soci- ety Publishers, 1998), 59. 3 Elaine MacDonald, The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card. (Canada: Sierra Legal, 2006 http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/great.lakes.sewage.report.nov.2006b.pdf); Sierra Legal Defense Fund, The National Sewage Report Card (Number Three): Grading The Sewage Treatment of 22 Canadian Cities (Canada: Sierra Legal Defense Fund, 2004, http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/sewage_report_card_III.pdf). 4 William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 92. 112 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

Purpose / Intent

Distributed waste management transforms waste into resources, and is thus an important element of a cyclical economy. This system reduces the environmental impact associated with hard waste systems, thereby conserving natural capital. Its distributed nature supports a decentral- ized economy, and its preference for simple, small-scale systems favors human labor (in the form of repair and tinkering) to resource use. Small-scale also allows diversity, or adaptation to local conditions, and both of these enhance the resilience of the system.

Strategies

Following Amory Lovins, waste management systems should be appro- priately matched to end-use needs. Consider the following technologies, both on the scale of individual buildings and/or neighborhoods: com- posting toilets, biodigestion systems, and/or bioremediation systems such as artificial wetlands or living machines. In general, higher settlement density requires more mechanized and centralized systems; less density means that waste management can be achieved using more passive and dispersed systems. For example, ar- tificial wetlands are most passive, but require the most land area and are likely most appropriate for rural situations.

Relationships

Relationship to other patterns.

Sources

LEED United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); Green Construction & Technology, Credit 16: Wastewater Management.

United States Green Building Council, LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations, version 2.2 (USGBC, 2005); Water Efficiency Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies.

C. Alexander Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977); pattern 178 (compost).

113 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

114 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

05 Distributed or decentralized Work*

Produce goods and services throughout a community or city. As far as possible, match the scale and distribution of production with the scale and distribution of end-use needs.

Distributing or decentralizing production—that is, situating it in and around the places where people live—affords easy access to employ- ment. It reduces commuting time (and associated environmental costs), promotes walking and alternative transportation, and helps to mitigate the contemporary psychological conflict between work and home.1 Some degree of centralization (clustering of production) can be benefi- cial because it allows business to easily provide goods and services to one another, and increases convenience for the consumer. Matching in scale and distribution to end-use needs is, as Amory Lovins describes, more efficient and more equitable.2 Many scales and types of employment means resilience: a community will not rely exclu- sively on one company or sector.3 Small-scale production can come in many forms: small businesses, live/work situations, freelance or consult- ing work, informal or household production, and a revival of cottage industry.4

Purpose / Intent

Decentralized production (1) supports small-scale businesses and increases diversity, (2) helps to create communities with a diversity of uses, (3) enhances economic resilience, and (4) enhances access to employment, an important basic need. Emphasizing walkability increases opportunity for social interaction and the formation of social capital; small-scale production is more amenable to democratic or self- management, which increases ownership and reinforces social and hu- man capital. Many types of small-scale production favor human labor to resource use, simultaneously supporting a labor-based economy and

1 The topic of work vs. personal identity has received a good deal of attention in recent years. For example, see Ronald J. Burke, “Work and Personal Life Integration,” International Journal of Stress Management, vol. 11, no. 4, 2004: 299-304; or Fred J. Dorn, “Occupational Wellness: the Integration of Career Identity and Personal Iden- tity,” Journal of Counseling and Development, November / December 1992: 176 – 178. 2 For a more complete discussion, see Sections 1.3 and 1.4. See also Lovins, Soft En- ergy Paths. 3 See Elizabeth Kline, “Sustainable CommunityIndicators: How to Measure Prog- ress,” in Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities Healthy Planet, ed. Mark Roseland (Gabriola Island, BC; New Haven, CT: New Society Publishers, 1997). 4 For more on the benefits of household production, see Herman Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological Economics. 115 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

preserving natural capital; reducing commuting also preserves natural capital.

Strategies

Neighborhood centers. Provide facilities for many types of production. (E.g., shared workshops to help facilitate cottage production, or homes with flexible rooms that could accommodate a home-based business.)

Relationships

Relationship to other patterns (diagram?)

Sources

Herman Daly Herman Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological Eco- nomics: Principles and Applications (Washington: Island Press, 2004).

LEED United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); see Smart Location & Linkage, Credit 6: Housing and Job Proximity.

Smart Code Andrés Duany, et al., SmartCode Version 9.0 (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2003); see Article 1.3.2(c).

C. Alexander Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977); see pattern 9 (scattered work).

116 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

06 Distributed or decentralized amenities**

Locate amenities throughout a community or city such that they are accessible to all residents, ideally within walking distance or accessible by bicycle or public transportation.

Amenities are understood as civic or cultural facilities, or public services, including but not limited to libraries, schools, post offices, museums, health care services, community centers, recreational facilities, and social services. Distributing or decentralizing amenities makes them more ac- cessible, reduces vehicular travel, and facilitates walkable communities.

Purpose / Intent

Decentralized amenities (1) help to create communities with a di- versity of uses, (2) enhances access to basic needs such as schools and social services (particularly important in low-income communities), and therefore (3) enhances human capital. Emphasizing walkability increases opportunity for social interaction and the formation of social capital and preserves natural capital.

Strategies

Neighborhood centers (CNU). Infill sites (LEED-ND). Public transit (LEED-ND). Mixtures of uses. Development density (LEED-NC) Community connectivity (LEED-NC)

Relationships

Relationship to other patterns.

Souces

LEED United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); see Smart Location & Linkages, Prereq- uisite 1: Smart Location, Credit 7: School Prox- imity, Neighborhood Pattern & Design, Credit 13: Access to Active Spaces.

117 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

United States Green Building Council, LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations, ver- sion 2.2 (USGBC, 2005); see Sustainable Sites, Credit 2: Development Density & Community Connectivity.

New Urbanism Congress for the New Urbanism, “Charter of the New Urbanism,” http://www.cnu.org/charter (accessed January 7, 2008); see Principle 16.

SmartCode Andrés Duany, et al., SmartCode Version 9.0 (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2003); see Article 1.3.2(c), (g), and (h).

C. Alexander Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977); see patterns 47 (health center), 72 (local sports), and 81 (small services without red tape).

118 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

07 Decentralized retail**

Locate retail throughout a community or city such that it is accessible to all residents, ideally within walking distance or accessible by bicycle or public transportation. Cluster retail in centers of varying sizes. Locate retail near production; con- sider joining them.

Decentralizing retail locations makes them more accessible, better serves people’s needs,1 reduces vehicular travel, and facilitates walkable com- munities. The small scale afforded by decentralization is compatible with distributed production (see Pattern 5: Distributed Work). Some degree of centralization, whether in the form of nodes, neighborhood centers, or downtown districts, increases convenience and walkability.2

Purpose / Intent

Decentralized retail (1) helps to create communities with a diversity of uses, (2) enhances access to basic needs such as grocery stores, and therefore (3) enhances human capital. Emphasizing walkability increases opportunity for social interaction and the formation of social capital and preserves natural capital. Small scale facilitates individual ownership and self-governance (e.g., democratic management), which enhance diversity and social capital, respectively.

Strategies

Neighborhood centers (CNU). Infill sites (LEED-ND). Public transit (LEED-ND). Mixtures of uses. Development density (LEED-NC) Community connectivity (LEED-NC)

Relationships

Relationship to other patterns.

Sources

1 See Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Language: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 104-9. 2 Alexander, 163-7. 119 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

LEED United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); see Smart Location & Linkages, Prereq- uisite 1: Smart Location.

United States Green Building Council, LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations, ver- sion 2.2 (USGBC, 2005); see Sustainable Sites, Credit 2: Development Density & Community Connectivity.

New Urbanism Congress for the New Urbanism, “Charter of the New Urbanism,” http://www.cnu.org/charter (accessed January 7, 2008); see Principle 16.

SmartCode Andrés Duany, et al., SmartCode Version 9.0 (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2003); see Article 1.3.2(c) and (g).

C. Alexander Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977); see patterns 19 (web of shopping), 30 (activity nodes), 87 (individually owned shops), and 89 (corner grocery).

120 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

08 Many transportation options**

Design regions and communities with many transporta- tion options so that residents have multiple modes of mobil- ity access to various facilities. Link these transportation net- works to one another at important interchanges.

Cars and auto-centric communities are environmentally and socially harmful, and the prioritization of the car disadvantages the poor, for whom accessibility is a major challenge. Reducing vehicle usage by providing multiple transportation options—including, but not limited to walking, bicycling, and public transit—reduces the consumption of natural resources and enhances opportunities for social interaction. As the authors of A Pattern Language note, the systems of public transportation “can only work if all the parts are well connected.”1 It is important, therefore, in designing transportation networks, to “treat interchanges as primary and transportation lines as secondary.”2 Transit- oriented development focuses largely on these interchanges, making them a prominent feature of local centers.

Purpose / Intent

Making alternative (non-car) forms of transportation more convenient and accessible (1) preserves natural capital, (2) promotes equitable access to basic services and amenities, and (3) improves social in- teraction and social capital. An accessible network also supports a decentralized economy; walking and biking represent expenditures of human labor rather than consuming natural resources (bicycles are also easier to maintain and repair); and a greater diversity of transportation options reduces reliance on any single form and therefore enhances the resilience of the system overall.

Strategies

Hierarchy: walking, mass transit, biking, shared vehicular transit, indi- vidual vehicular transit. All forms of transit must be within walking distance (1/2 mile). Walking, biking, bus, streetcar, subway, light rail, carshares, cars, gondo- las, boats (particular to context). See LEED for specific metrics.

1 Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Language: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 92. 2 Alexander, 94. 121 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Relationships

Relationship to other patterns.

Sources

LEED United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); see Smart Location & Linkages, Prereq- uisite 1: Smart Location, and Credit 4: Reduced Automobile Dependence.

New Urbanism Congress for the New Urbanism, “Charter of the New Urbanism,” http://www.cnu.org/charter (accessed January 7, 2008); see Principle 8.

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Smart Growth: About Smart Growth.” http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_ sg.htm (accessed January 7, 2008); see Principle 8.

SmartCode Andrés Duany, et al., SmartCode Version 9.0 (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2003); see Article 1.3.1(h).

AIA American Institute of Architects, Affordable Green Guidelines. http://www.designadvisor. org/green_critera.html (accessed November 17, 2007).

Diane Georgopulos, Introduction to Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? (New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005), 5.

Søren D. Simonsen, “Effective Planning for Re- gional Transportation,” in Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? (New York: Ameri- can Institute of Architects, 2005), 25-30.

C. Alexander Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977); see pattern 16 (web of public transportation).

122 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

123 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

09 Landscape ecology**

As far as possible, preserve or enhance the quality and functionality of a region’s ecology by creating large natural patches connected by continuous corridors, vegetated cor- ridors along waterways, and natural remnants, as appropriate to context.

Natural ecology has tremendous value—in terms of natural resources, its biodiversity, the ecosystem services it provides, its indispensable psy- chological value to humans, and in innumerable other ways—the extent of which we may never understand. It is therefore important that we preserve biodiversity and ecology in its own right. To this end, the authors of Practical Ecology discuss four “indis- pensable patterns for biological conservation,” which are worth quoting at length: 1. Large natural patches. Large patches are the only way to protect interior species and species with large home ranges. Large patches are also more likely to allow for a shifting mosaic in which natural distur- bances do not affect all the land at once and, thus, several successional stages (with their associated bi- otic communities) are represented at any given time.

2. Vegetated riparian corridors. Naturally vegetated streamsides are essential for protecting many aquatic species important to conservation.

3. Connectivity between large patches. The landscape must provide functional connectivity for species of conservation interest—that is, linkages that these species can use for home range movement, migra- tion, and dispersal. Wide, continuous corridors are most likely to serve this function, but stepping stones in a moderately suitable matrix will suffice for many species.

4. Natural remnants in human-dominated areas. Within urban or agricultural landscapes, three types of natural remnants should be protected, in order of descending priority: (1) areas of especially high con- servation value, such as microhabitats that are rare throughout the landscape; (2) landscape types that provide essential ecosystem services, such as flood control; and (3) remnants of the former natural

124 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

matrix that provide edge species habitat and human access to nature.1 In addition, the authors discuss the specific requirements for corridors: The most important factors influencing corridor functions are width, connectivity, and heterogeneity. A corridor of nat- ural habitat that is tens or even a couple of hundred feet (tens of meters) wide will be mostly edge and consequently will be used mostly by generalist species. To allow movement by interior species and many large mammals [i.e., connectivity], corridors must be hundreds to thousands of feet (hundreds of meters) wide […].2 These patterns presuppose a certain level of knowledge regard- ing habitat, ecological communities, and biodiversity of the area. This revels an important role for a biologist and/or ecologist in identifying significant areas and the most appropriate design strategies.3 The goal is to displace no existing habitat types, and in fact repair or restore damaged habitat. To this end, it may be helpful in this process to use a “pre-development baseline” of the habitat types and ecosystem services provided before development.4 (A word of caution: ecosystems change over time, and it may not be appropriate to simply transplant an ecosystem present in another era. Again, the role of the expert is paramount.)

Purpose / Intent

Preserving or enhancing landscape ecology is a direct investment in natural capital. It also, by its nature, cultivates diversity, and enhances the resilience of both ecosystems and the human societies that rely upon them by virtue of the vital services that robust ecosystems provide (many of them yet unknown). It is likely that nature plays a vital role in the development and well-being of humans, and therefore enhances hu- man capital.

1 Dan L. Pearlman and Jeffrey C. Milder,Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2005), 114; citing Richard T. Forman, Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions (Cambridge University Press, 1995), 452. 2 Pearlman and Milder, 102-3. 3 This is the approach mandated by BREEAM (Building Research Establishment En- vironmental Assessment Method), a European evaluation tool similar to LEED. In the absence of such an expert, the designs in this thesis have assumed certain basic ideas, such as the protection of riparian corridors. 4 This strategy has been pioneered and used with great success by Mithun Architects + Designers + Planners. See, for example, Mithun Architects + Designers + Planners, et al., Lloyd Crossing: Sustainable Urban Design Plan & Catalyst Project, (Portland, 2004), http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/convention_center/lloyd_crossing_sustainable.pdf (ac- cessed November 1, 2006). 125 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Strategies

Design strategies: (1) hire a local ecological expert; (2) create a “pre- development baseline” against which to test future designs; (3) appoint a “biodiversity champion” to the design team, who will ensure the imple- mentation of these ideas throughout the design process.5

Relationships

Relationships to other patterns.

Sources

Practical Ecology Dan L. Pearlman and Jeffrey C. Milder,Practi - cal Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2005).

Precedent Mithun Architects + Designers + Planners, et al., Lloyd Crossing: Sustainable Urban Design Plan & Catalyst Project, (Portland, 2004), http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/convention_cen- ter/lloyd_crossing_sustainable.pdf (accessed November 1, 2006).

BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmen- tal Assessment Method, http://www.breeam. org (accessed May 19, 2008). See the “Land Use & Ecology” section included in many of the BREEAM rating tools.

LEED United States Green Building Council, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Pilot Version, http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile. aspx?DocumentID=2845 (accessed January 7, 2008); see Smart Location & Linkage, Credit 9: Site Design for Habitat or Wetland Conserva- tion, and Credit 10: Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands.

SmartCode Andrés Duany, et al., SmartCode Version 9.0 (Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2003); see Article 1.3.1(g).

5 This strategy is borrowed from BREEAM (http://www.breeam.org). 126 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

127 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

10 Identifiable community*

Create communities of approximately 5000 people, and differentiate them from surrounding communities. Focus on scale, boundaries, and those special qualities that set it apart and create a sense of place.

1. Size. Scale is important for social and political reasons: so that people know one another and do not become “lost in the crowd;” and so that they can make collective decisions. Jürgen Habermas notes that com- municative action must occur at a scale below which organizations tend to become autonomous and disconnected from individuals.1 While Habermas does not suggest a particular scale, the authors of A Pattern Language recommend that a community be between 5000 and 10,000, largely for socio-political reasons: this number of people can be legiti- mately self-governing.2 William McDonough + Partners suggests that a community be approximately 3600 people, largely for pragmatic reasons (this number of people can share a school and/or central park).3 Some- where between 2000 and 10,000 is probably ideal.

2. Physical definition. Communities must be physically defined, (1) to create a shared identity—the cultural framework within which solidar- ity can take root and self-governance can happen— and (2) because bland homogeneity is demoralizing and ugly. Boundaries come in many forms, both natural and man-made. Physical definition also creates the context—a place—for a “sense of place” to develop.

3. Sense of place. The AIA Center for Livable Communities identifies “sense of place” as one of eight “essential elements” of a livable commu- nity.4 It can be cultivated by preserving or enhancing “a district’s unique combination of natural and man-made assets that distinguish it from other locales”5—assets such as landscape, public spaces, old buildings, and pedestrian scale.6 However, it can rarely be “created” or “designed,” and attempts to do so through signage or style often appear thin or artificial. Places can, and should, emerge organically over time: given the right material to work with—appropriate scale, clear definition, and some attention to special features—people, time, and the natural envi- ronment will create a sense of place.

1 Jürgen Habermas, “The New Obscurity,” 64. 2 Alexander, et al., Pattern Language, 71-4. 3 William McDonough + Partners, 23. 4 Georgopulos, 5. See also Gilchrist. 5 Georgopulos, 5. 6 Gilchrist, 7-11. 128 Methodology: A Sustainable Pattern Language

4. Variation within. Communities should be composed of identifiable neighborhoods of approximately 500 people, and have a diversity of places, both public and private.

Purpose / Intent

Appropriate scale and collective identity enhance local solidarity and so- cial interaction—both important elements of social capital. Distinct communities enhance different identities and promote local adaptation and diversity.

Strategies

See below.

Relationships

Community and identity both grow from resident participation— participatory design (1); the natural landscape can help define com- munities and/or create a sense of place—landscape ecology (9), as can old buildings (20); within each community provide a center for public life and commercial activity—local and regional centers (11), public spaces—small public squares (19) and generous green spaces (18), and identifiable neighborhoods.

Sources

C. Alexander Christopher Alexander, et al., A Pattern Lan- guage: Towns Buildings Construction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977); see patterns 12 (community of 7000) and 14 (identifiable neighborhoods).

WM+P Wiliam McDonough + Partners, Eco-Effective Design Strategies: University of California, Davis (unpublished manuscript, 2002).

AIA Diane Georgopulos, Introduction to Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? (New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005), 5.

William A. Gilchrist, “A Sense of Place,” in Liv- ability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? (New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005), 7-11.

129 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

New Urbanism Congress for the New Urbanism, “Charter of the New Urbanism,” http://www.cnu.org/charter (accessed January 7, 2008); see Principle 10.

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Smart Growth: About Smart Growth,” http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_ sg.htm (accessed January 7, 2008); see Principle 5.

130 Bibliography

Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, with Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, and Shlomo Angel. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964. American Institute of Architects. Affordable Green Guidelines. American Institute of Architects, http://www.designadvisor.org/green_critera. html (accessed November 17, 2007). American Institute of Architects. Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005. Ashmore, Wendy. “‘Decisions and Dispositions:’ Socializing Spatial Archaeology.” American Anthropologist, 104, 4 (2002). Baran, Paul. On Distributed Communications: Introduction to Distributed Communications Networks. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, 1964; available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_ memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf. Basso, Keith. Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996. Benyus, Janine M. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Morrow, 1997. Berkes, Filkret, and Carl Folke, eds. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Buildings Resilience. With Johan Colding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Bolton, Roger. “Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action and the Theory of Social Capital.” Paper presented at meeting of Association of American Geographers, Denver, April 2005; available at http:// www.williams.edu/Economics/papers/Habermas.pdf.

131 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Bourdieu, Pierre. “Structures, Habitus, Practices.” In Contemporary Social Theory, edited by A. Elliot. Oxford: Blackwells, 1999. Bramley, Glen, Nicola Dempsey, Sinead Power, and Caroline Brown. “What is ‘Social Sustainability’, and How Do Our Existing Urban Forms Perform in Nurturing It?” Paper presented at the Global Places, Local Spaces, Planning Research Conference, London, April 5-7, 2006; available at http://www.city-form.com/pdfs/Pubs_ Bramleyetal06.pdf. Brown, G. Z., and Mark DeKay. Sun, Wind & Light: Architectural Design Strategies, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001. Brulle, Robert J. Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. “BREEAM Buildings: From Starter Homes to Opera Houses.” Building Research Establishment, http://www.breeam.org/ page_1col.jsp?id=54 (accessed May 19, 2008). Burke, Ronald J. “Work and Personal Life Integration.” International Journal of Stress Management, vol. 11, no. 4, (2004), 299-304. Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1962. Congress for the New Urbanism. Charter of the New Urbanism. Congress for the New Urbanism, 1996; available at http://www.cnu.org/ charter. Daily, Gretchen C., ed. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997. Daly, Herman E. Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics: Essays in Criticism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999. Daly, Herman E. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996. Daly, Herman E. “On Thinking About Future Energy Requirements.” Baton Rouge: Department of Economics, Louisiana State University, 1976. Daly, Herman E., and John by Cobb, Jr. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, 2nd ed. With contributions by Clifford W. Cobb. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994. David, Nicholas. “The Fulani Compound and the Archaeologist.”World Archaeology 3, 2 (1971), 111-131; available at http://www.jstor.org/ stable/124068.

132 Bibliography

Dorn, Fred J. “Occupational Wellness: the Integration of Career Identity and Personal Identity.” Journal of Counseling and Development, November/December 1992, 176 – 178. Duany, Andrés, et al. SmartCode, Version 9.0 Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, 2003. Finlayson, James Gordon. Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Folke, Carl, Filkret Berkes, and Johan Colding. “Ecological Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience and Sustainability.” In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Buildings Resilience, edited by Filkret Berkes and Carl Folke, 414-436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Gates, Rick, and Mario Lee. Policy Report: Social Development: Definition of Social Sustainability. City of Vancouver, 2007; available at http:// www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050524/documents/ p1.pdf. Georgopulos, Diane. Introduction to Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005. Gilchrist, William A. “A Sense of Place.” In Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005. Goodland, Robert. “Sustainability: Human, Social, Economic, and Environmental.” In Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change. John Wiley & Sons, 2002; available at http://www.wiley.co.uk/ egec/pdf/GA811-W.PDF. Gugler, Joseph, ed. World Cities Beyond the West: Globalization, Development, and Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Gunderson, Lance H., and C. S. Holling, eds. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002. Habermas, Jürgen. “Modernity Versus Postmodernity.” Translated by Seyla Ben-Habib. In A Postmodern Reader, edited by Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. Habermas, Jürgen. “The New Obscurity: The Crisis of the Welfare State and the Exhaustion of Utopian Energies.” In The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, translated and edited by Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989.

133 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984. Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1987. Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1969. Haller, Michael. The Past as Future: Jürgen Habermas Interviewed by Michael Haller. Translated by Max Pensky. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994. Halperin, Rhoda H. Practicing Community: Class, Culture and Power in an Urban Neighborhood. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998. Hammond, Gerald S., and Stephen H. Schwander. The Schoolhouse of Quality. New York: McGraw Hill, 1977. Hancock, Trevor. “Healthy Sustainable Communities: Concept, Fledgling Practice, and Implications for Governance.” In Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities Healthy Planet, edited by Mark Roseland, 42-50. Gabriola Island, BC, and New Haven, Conn.: New Society Publishers, 1997. Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1999. Hester, Randolph T. Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Holling, C. S., Lance H. Gunderson, and Donald Ludwig. “In Quest of a Theory of Adaptive Change.” In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, edited by Lance H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, 3-22. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002. Holling, C.S., and Lance H. Gunderson. “Resilience and Adaptive Cycles.” In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, edited by Lance H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, 25-62. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002. Holsinger, Kent. “Functional Diversity.” Notes from a course on Conservation Biology at the University of Connecticut, October 2007, http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/ diversity-stability/node5.html (accessed May 28, 2008). Jacobs, Jane. Death and Life of Great American Cities, Modern Library ed. New York: Modern Library, 1993 [1961].

134 Bibliography

Kline, Elizabeth. “Sustainable Community Indicators: How to Measure Progress.” In Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities Healthy Planet, edited by Mark Roseland, 152-66. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1997. Klinenberg, Eric. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Korten, David. The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press, 1999. Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World. West Hardford, Conn.: Kumarian Press; San Fransicso: Berett-Koehler Publishers, 1995. Lechner, Norbert. Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Design Methods for Architects, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001. Lovins, Amory B. “Energy End-Use Efficiency.” Snowmass, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Institute, 2005; available at http://www.rmi.org/images/ PDFs/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseEff.pdf (accessed May 13, 2008). Lovins, Amory B. “Energy Efficiency: A Taxonomic Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Energy, vol. 2. San Diego: Elsevier, 2004. Lovins, Amory B. Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1977. Lovins, Amory B., and L. Hunter Lovins. Brittle Power: Energy Strategies for National Security. Andover, Mass.: Brick House Publishing, 1982. Lyle, John. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: John Wiley, 1994. MacDonald, Elaine. The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card. Canada: Sierra Legal, 2006; available at http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/great. lakes.sewage.report.nov.2006b.pdf. McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things. New York: North Point Press, 2002. McLennan, Jason F. The Living Building Challenge: In Pursuit of True Sustainability in the Built Environment, version 1.2. Cascadia Region Green Building Council, April 2007; available at http://www. cascadiagbc.org/lbc/Lb-challenge-v1-2. Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. Green Infrastructure Program. MSDGC, July 2007; available at http://www.msdgc.org/ downloads/wetweather/greenreport/Files/Green_Report.pdf.

135 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Mithun Architects + Designers + Planners, et al. Lloyd Crossing: Sustainable Urban Design Plan & Catalyst Project. Portland, 2004; available at http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/convention_center/lloyd_ crossing_sustainable.pdf (accessed November 1, 2006). Mumford, Lewis. The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power. New York: Harcort, Brace, Jovanovich, 1970. Orr, David W. The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Orr, David W. “Modernization and the Ecological Perspective.” In The Global Predicament: Ecological Perspectives on World Order, edited by David W. Orr and Marvin S. Soroos, 75-89. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Orr, David W., and Marvin S. Soroos, eds. The Global Predicament: Ecological Perspectives on World Order. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Pallasmaa, Juhani. Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. London: Academy Editions, 1996. Pearlman, Dan L., and Jeffrey C. Milder.Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2005. Pollan, Michael. The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s Eye View of the World. New York: Random House, 2001. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Quinn, Daniel. Beyond Civilization: Humanity’s Next Great Adventure. New York: Harmony Books, 1999. Rapoport, Amos. “Systems of Architecture and Systems of Settings.” In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross- Cultural Study, edited by Susan Kent, 9-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Rapoport, Amos. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, 1969. Reycraft, Richard Martin, and Garth Bawden. Introduction to Environmental Disaster an the Archaeology of Human Response, edited by Garth Bawden and Richard Martin Reycraft. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 2000. Rifkin, Jeremy.Entropy: A New World View. With Ted Howard. New York: Bantam Books, 1981. Ritzer, George. The Globalization of Nothing. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, 2004.

136 Bibliography

Rocky Mountain Institute. “Water.” Rocky Mountain Institute, http:// www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid128.php (accessed April 17, 2008). Roseland, Mark. Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and Their Governments, rev. and updated ed. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1998. Roseland, Mark, ed. Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities Healthy Planet. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1997. Scarborough, Vernon L. “Rate and Process of Societal Change in Semitropical Settings: The Ancient Maya and the Living Balinese.” Quarterly International, 2007; doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.09.037. Scarborough, Vernon L. The Flow of Power: Ancient Water System and Landscapes. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2003. Scarborough, Vernon L. “Resilience, Resource Use, and Socioeconomic Organization.” In Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response, edited by Garth Bawden and Richard Martin Reycraft, 195-212. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 2000. Sierra Legal Defense Fund. The National Sewage Report Card, No. Three, Grading The Sewage Treatment of 22 Canadian Cities. Canada: Sierra Legal Defense Fund, 2004; available at http://www.sierralegal.org/ reports/sewage_report_card_III.pdf. Simmel, Georg. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” InThe Urban Sociology Reader, edited by Jan Lin and Christopher Mele. London: Routledge, 2005 [1903]. Reprinted from The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited and translated by Kurt H. Wolff, 1950. Simonsen, Søren D. “Effective Planning for Regional Transportation.” In Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? New York: American Institute of Architects, 2005. Sonntag, Viki. Why Local Linkages Matter: Findings from the Local Food Economy Study. Seattle: Sustainable Seattle, 2008. Public draft comment, December 31, 2007; available at http://www. sustainableseattle.org/Programs/LFE%20Files/LFE%20Report%20 Public%20Comment%20Draft.pdf. Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. “The World Their Households: Changing Meanings of the Domestic Sphere in the Nineteenth Century.” In Housing and Dwelling: Perspectives on Modern Domestic Architecture, edited by Barbara Miller Lane. London: Routledge, 2007 [1999]. Speth, James Gustave. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004. Stahel, W. R., and G. Reday-Mulvey. Jobs for Tomorrow, the Potential for Substituting Manpower for Energy. New York: Vantage Press, 1981.

137 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

Stein, Benjamin, and John S. Reynolds. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings, 9th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Temperate Forest Foundation. “Ecological Diversity.” Temperate Forest Foundation, http://www.forestinfo.org/Discover/diversity.htm (accessed May 28, 2008). Tietenberg, Tom. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 7th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2006. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development. “Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development.” United Nations, http://www.un.org/ esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm. United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Smart Growth: About Smart Growth.” US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ about_sg.htm (accessed January 7, 2008). United States Green Building Council. LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations, version 2.2. USGBC, 2005; available at http:// www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1095. United States Green Building Council. LEED for Neighborhood Development, pilot version. USGBC, June 2007; available at http:// www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2845. University of Virginia Institute for Environmental Negotiation. Collaboration: A Guide for Environmental Advocates. University of Virginia, http://www.virginia.edu/ien/focus.htm#collaborative (accessed May 18, 2008). Vale, Lawrence J. Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century of Struggle in Three Public Neighborhoods. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. William McDonough + Partners, et al. Eco-Effective Design Strategies, University of California, Davis. Unpublished manuscript, 2002. Wirth, Louis. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” In The Urban Sociology Reader, edited by Jan Lin and Christopher Mele. London: Routledge, 2005 [1930]. Wolin, Richard. Introduction to The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, edited by Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Wynn, Graeme. “Risk and Responsibility in a Waste-Full World,” forward to The Culture of Flushing: A Social and Legal History of Sewage, by Jamie Benidickson. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007.

138 Bibliography

139 A SUSTAINABLE PATTERN LANGUAGE

140