Crowd-funding as "Cost of Sustainability"

I recently read an article on archdaily.com on the “Role of Crowd-funding in Architecture”. It was seeking reader responses regarding this query and this blog entry is an indirect response to that.

Crowd-funding is a novel yet contentious idea for Architecture projects. Government architecture projects are already funded from public money (taxes, duties etc.) so involving crowd-funding in those is a dishonest approach at the onset. It’s like asking for double taxes on a single commodity. Private projects on the other hand are most of the times profit oriented and the profits are meant for a private entity, so why public should fund for such projects.

So, while looking for crowd-funding options in architecture we are only left with an interface zone which includes, privately funded projects completely dedicated to public. Here too the scope of crowd-funding could be for part portion only.

But in my view, there is a relatively better candidate available in Architecture projects for use of crowd-funding, and that is “Cost of Sustainability”.

There is no denying that sustainable development is need of the time, and not only in architecture. But in Indian architecture fraternity there is a wide spread belief that sustainability is only a cosmetic term, which is largely an incorrect interpretation. Main reason behind this belief is peer reviews arising from the excess cost involved in executing sustainable projects. In present Indian scenario, achieving sustainability adds on to basic project cost, so project stakeholders are not much interested in taking up this burden.  And since clients are not ready to spend, so the architects too are not keen on investing their skills for it. Sustainable architecture do form part of buildings; majority of them incorporating it due to associated relaxations in FSI norms; while some do it as a building USP. But overall, this image of sustainability being an ornamental fixture in architecture is sticking.

So, in my view if we could standardize crowd-funding as Cost of Sustainability then this approach of various stakeholders towards sustainability in architecture could be changed. As mentioned above, the scope of doing this is very limited. Why would public pay for it, even if it is sustainability.

Well, this is where we should innovate. Architects have to redefine sustainability in architecture in way so that, a) The sustainable nature of the architectural product essentially gives back to society (or public) a return of investment, rather than just giving back to primary stakeholders, b) we convert sustainability from just being a building’s USP to a society’s USP.

This might be a far better approach than to cast it aside as a cosmetic term in architecture. Thence we have to consistently look for newer ideas and play our part in providing sustainability in Architecture its deserved place. 

Ad-Farms- A new approach

Most of us would've observed heaps of big advertising hoardings while travelling from one place to other in our country. Majority of these advertisements happen to stick around roads and highways. 
They divert the attention of drivers, and the attention diversion quotient of these advertisements varies from minimal to drastic (depending upon the sobriety of content). This happens to be their first disadvantage in my view, as is obvious from presence of large number of road safety signages mentioning "savdhani hati durghatna ghati". Distraction to drivers is one of top 5 reasons of accidents on Indian roads. 
Second disadvantage is as significant as first one. Being an Architect I don't like them littered here and there as they are obstructing the view to built environment. The view to buildings, as attractive as it might be, needs to be unobstructed. Only then our conscious might ask us to improve upon the face of built environment. But that’s a separate topic, let’s stick to these ads.
Both of these disadvantages are good enough to seek alternatives, but what are the alternatives? 
Well, we could take a cue from standard human behavior. When humans seek a discipline in any practice, the first thing they do is to organize. Our basic approach regarding locating these ads needs to change from unorganized to organized one.Rather than placing these ads at random hazardous places on roadside buildings, we should seek spaces uniquely organized for Ads.  
This is where this idea of “Ad-Farms” comes into picture. Despite our concerns regarding rapid urbanization, it’s not stopping or even slowing. Farmlands are fast converting into parkings, parks & compounds of housing societies, converting natural into manmade. It’s very hard to even think of retaining any farm spaces in urban areas.
Through Ad-Farms, we could seek to change that. These advertisement farms could very well be our traditional mango or orange orchards or fields, occupied with corporate advertisement hoardings. They could very well act as public spaces, where people could understand these ads without any hazards. Where natural and manmade could complement each other.
These Ad-Farms could be source of revenue owners, both through advertisements, and if properly designed then through public visiting. On the other hand these Ad-farms would be a tiny share of social responsibility for corporates. The Ad guys might even think of innovative ways of displaying advertisements if they are sure that people would stand look and appreciate it, like on TV. These Ad-farms definitely seem a better option than the existing one.
Off course drastically changing the way things are normally done is a very tough job, as human nature resists change. Success of this concept too would depend on a lot of factors, like favorable government policies, corporate awareness, desire of organic approach in people. But it’s definitely worth a try.