But How Do You Fund It?
Go to any conversation about interventionist practices and one question is sure to be asked before any others: How can designers fund this type of projects and maintain a practice? This simple question becomes more complex as one considers that funding sources can put limits on the work that interventionists take on. Alternatively, relying on crowd-sourced funds can be problematic as communities with already limited resources are asked to self-fund projects.
How do funding sources affect the type of interventions designers can work on? What forms of funding should designers begin to look at that will allow their practices to be sustainable while having the freedom to tackle politically sensitive topics?
this is a key question in this context, and as much as it gets asked, it is not asked enough, or not reported enough. above all, we should provide and demand transparency. there is no perfect solution, but whichever way funds are coming from, designers should be upfront about it.
Asking for transparency in a network era appears to be a tough task, but nothing is possible (a French proverb). Anyway, the difficulty to funding, then, may impact architecture (architects, practice, content) critically (both in negative and positive ways). Indeed, during the long apex of fordist production, projects were realized albeit cost overrun. It appears that this time, now, is passed. Beyond and on further consideration, scarcity is a complementary issue at stake that must be taken into consideration regarding funding sources — the idea of scarcity as a general word that includes financial crisis leading architects to do more with less. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to take account of doing more with less — funding sources, natural resources, etc.? Better still, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to look at this issue as forcefully opportunity to reconsider the profession, the approach to building and reengineering cities, the relation between architecture and communities, etc, in a new and scalable way? The forthcoming Bracket issue 2 Soft Systems is symptomatically an example of doing more (reengineering urban and rural areas, landscape, etc.) with less, acting soft at local level. Revealing also that architects will intervene with limited budget. That architects will be asked to reengineering rural and urban areas with less. And let’s consider that the lack of and/or difficulty to funding may help re-envisage this issue more positively. In conclusion (because I am way too long as usual), the issue at stake is not funding sources (or lack of funds) but it’s above all the fact that, and allow me for repeating myself, architects will be doing more with less. This, of course, is my personal point of view.