But even these cars that seem so revolutionary…aren’t. What we’re seeing today is the second coming of the electric car (see Mass Transit and the Restructuring of Cities for more info), and while this is undoubtedly a move in the right direction environmentally, it doesn’t bring with it a critical reexamination of the car as a whole. Even these most exciting new cars are just cars, but electric.

To build a car that can really change the game, you have to think outside the box. That’s what Joe Justice is doing with his SGT01 car and his network of volunteer mechanics called WikiSpeed. Let me start by saying the SGT01 isn’t electric. It isn’t even a hybrid. But it is one of the most fuel-efficient, intelligently designed cars ever made. It gets 104mpg city and 114mpg highway, which with a 4-gallon tank gives it a range of 400 miles. Couple that with 0-60mph in 5.5 seconds and 5 star crash safety and you’ve got a pretty good car. Oh, and it only costs $25,000.

Okay, I know that last part sounds impossible, and it probably is, but not as impossible as you might think. See, what Joe Justice is doing differently than most is building light and building modular. An extruded aluminum chassis and a carbon fiber body make the car only 1,042lbs, about half the weight of the Prius. Less weight means more fuel efficiency and more speed. But the really cool part about this car is the second way Justice is changing the game: modularity.

One of the core concepts behind WikiSpeed cars is the ability to swap components. This doesn’t mean you get to choose between real or faux paneling, or how many cup holders. If you owned a WikiSpeed car, for about $1000 you could take it into the shop and get the body swapped for a newer model. Or if a more efficient (or powerful) engine came out, just bring your car in and let them upgrade it. The idea is that the car isn’t a single entity, it’s a modular assembly of parts that can be traded in or upgraded at will.

I can’t say this enough: this is a brilliant idea. Think about choosing a car to buy right now; it isn’t an easy decision to make. Even the most fuel efficient cars on the road are going to be hopelessly outstripped in 6 or 7 years, and a good car ought to last you more than that. What if you go gasoline, and the electric infrastructure blows up in a few years while oil prices skyrocket? What if you go electric, and it never really pans out, and breakthroughs in hydrogen technology make it the dominant automotive tech? With a modular car, you don’t have to worry about it, you can just take it in and have them swap the engine for a better one. And as your car begins to look dated, you can upgrade it’s appearance. Or the audio input, or the GPS system, or anything else  you don’t like!

As far as WikiSpeed cars actually go, well, they’ve still got a long way. The car is only a prototype right now, and WikiSpeed is desperate for more capital investment. The modular system they have in place is highly efficient, but still pretty ugly. And most of the work being done right now is volunteer work, so the car is far from being profitable. But I think its value lies in its vision. There are good ideas here that deserve to be considered by major companies and demanded by consumers.

If you’re interested in WikiSpeed, check out the article in Seattle Met, then head over to their website.

First up is his project fittingly titled, “8-Objects.” It consists of 8 chairs that have been outfitted with elements of other bedroom furniture. There’s a desk, clothing rack, shelves, and even a bedroll. These “chairs” can be spread around the room, or combined to form a bed platform. I put chairs in quotes there because it seems misleading to designate these innovative multifunctional objects with so mundane a term. And yet when it comes down to it, they are first and foremost chairs, I think that’s the most interesting part. To me, these are clearly not new items of furniture, they are chairs who have experienced a growth of function and character.

Then there is Object-A, a beautifully organic, spatially efficient, and downright weird hybrid between a chair and a set of shelves. Of the project, Seung-Yong says, “I am looking in every nook and cranny of the room to find hidden spaces. Under the table, beneath the bed, above the wardrobe … All the space in the room is completely full of odds and ends. There’s no other choice. And I start building my objet like the city’s tallest building seen from the window in the room.”

Object-B is similar to A in that it also offers the functionality of a shelving unit, but it also functions as a ladder. The reason I’m including it here though, it primarily because of the striking form achieved by putting two of them back to back. This attention to combination and orientation is one of the things that makes this such a wonderful series of objects.

Finally, I’ve got to mention Object-E, a rocking chair with a drying rack above it, so that the clothes dry in the breeze as you rock. This is a brilliant synthesis of purpose that, although perhaps awkward to carry out, makes for a great idea. What impresses me most about all of these projects is the open mind that went into their design. Seung-Yong speaks to this same point. “The unique name of things limit the range of product’s shape and function, but above all, the fact that there exists stereotyped function in accordance with each unique name suppresses my imagination. I am not willing to deny or destroy the identity based on the stereotype, but I only reinterpret the uses I need in my own design language.”

This willingness to look first to function and necessity, and only then to the archetypes that traditionally serve, is the mark of a truly great designer. In cognitive psychology there is a concept known as an “anchor,” the idea being that if we are given a suggestion before having to estimate a particular variable, we will almost certainly be influenced by that suggestion, no matter how irrelevant it seems. For instance, if I ask you if Ghandi was older or younger than 144 when he died, and then ask you to estimate his age of death, you will clearly see the implausibility of my suggested number, yet you will nonetheless tend to overestimate his age of death as a result. You will have been anchored to some degree by my suggestion.

Similarly, it takes extraordinary effort to avoid the anchor of conventional design interpretation. A car is just a vehicle for self transport, and a chair is just a device for sitting; nowhere within the project constraints is there anything about a combustion engine or a back of a certain height. But while all designers can appreciate the intellectual importance of these ideas, it takes great willpower and determination to ignore these cognitive anchors, and yet this is what designers must do – and what Seung-Yong has done here.

Sources: Dezeen, seungyongsong.com.

Okay, before I start in with an analysis of this idea, let me start with a disclaimers. I’ve done my share of camping, and I would characterize myself as an outdoor enthusiast, but I’m hardly a fanatic or up to date on all the latest tent technology. This is the first time I’ve seen a modular system like this, but I wouldn’t be surprised (and would like to hear about them) if there are others out there. Okay, now that that’s out of the way, I’ll move on.

What I love about the decagon tent is how it actually makes the tent a desirable physical space. Usually, tents are simply shelters; they’re cramped and dim, a place used to escape the elements and not much else. But with Logos’ design, the tent becomes something more like an abode, a place that we’d actually like to occupy and spend time in. It also allows for the functional division of space, and so creates feelings of greater comfort and utility.

Now, that might seem like a lot of unnecessary nonsense to those of you from the warmer, drier parts of the world, but for those of us in Seattle (or, fittingly, Japan), having a tent that feels more like a functional interior space sounds pretty nice. When the skies open up and it starts to rain, who wouldn’t rather a tent that feels like it’s meant to be enjoyed, instead of merely tolerated?

Perhaps the bigger point here though, is that the setup shown in these photographs isn’t that much different from what we’re used to seeing at campgrounds – clusters of tents are common. What’s uncommon is a cluster of tents that link together to create a unified interior space. So instead of setting up a bunch of individual shelters, the decagon tent allows for a more shared and comfortable experience.

I’d love to hear what you all think of the idea though. It definitely has some downsides to go along with it’s many positive features. For instance, the available car port is a great idea, but mostly because the only way you could ever conceivably use such a monstrous tent is while car camping. Still, it’s a pretty cool product.

Sources: Architizer, Logos.

Okay, but onto Mirrorcube. As I was saying, Mirrorcube is the latest addition to this already eclectic mix of commodes. It’s a 4x4x4m cube sheathed in reflective metal and impaled on the trunk of a surprisingly narrow tree. A 12m long rope suspension bridge leads up to the door from the forest floor. Inside, the room is modern and minimal, with plywood walls, a double bed, bathroom, and a rooftop terrace.

What makes it special though, isn’t the inside or the accommodations it offers, it’s the way it fits into the surrounding area. According to Tham & Videgard Arkitekter, the firm behind the Mirrorcube, “The construction…alludes to how man relates to nature, how we use high tech materials and products when exploring remote places in harsh climates (Gore-tex, Kevlar, composite materials, light weight tents etc).” And the cube is high tech, despite it’s simplicity. One of it’s most interesting features is that the reflective surfaces of the box were coated in an infrared film that’s invisible to the human eye, but keeps birds from inadvertently flying into its walls. That’s the sort of pragmatic thinking that is all too often missing from conceptual projects like this, and one of the things that makes the Mirrorcube live up to its intentions.

Like Ring, this is a structure that seems to simultaneously blend into and pop out of its environment. At a glance, you might not even notice it nestled in the low canopy, reflecting views of the surrounding landscape. But once you do notice it, you can’t look at anything else. I think that’s the magic of these mirror projects, they seem to exist on the edge of reality. We don’t actually see them, but they change the way we see space. They perform the ultimate act of architectural deference in turning our gaze outward, and enhancing the environments that they occupy. But in a way, they take the easy road in getting there. A mirror is a mirror, and while they are certainly eye-catching, might we wonder if this degree of effect can still be achieved without literally reflecting nature?

Sources: Architizer, Tham & Videgard Arkitekter, Tree Hotel.

The French artist Arnaude Lapierre has created a mind-bending new installation piece in a square in Paris called the Place Vendôme. The sculpture consists of a stacked grid of reflected cubes, arranged into a standing cylinder. Now the idea of using borderless mirrors to distort space and play with perception is not really a new idea, but this project has two components that make it vastly more interesting. The first is that the reflective cubes are interspersed with empty space, so that at a glance (and even upon closer inspection), it can be difficult to tell what you’re looking at. As if that weren’t enough, because these checkerboard, mirror walls form an enclosed circle, from the inside they bounce images back and forth to each other. So instead of having to decide whether you’re looking at a window or a mirror, you now additionally have to consider the view of mirrors reflecting mirrors, and your mind simply gives up trying to sort it all out!

I think this is a brilliant piece. It chops up and rearranges slices of reality in real time, creating an aesthetic that is both disorienting and beautiful. We are so used to a certain way of seeing, that we aren’t able to process this kind of reality collage, and what at first seems like a simple geometric sculpture ends up feeling like an optical illusion.

My favorite part about this installation though, is that you can’t actually see it. You can point to it, sure, because you can infer its structure from the pattern of reflections, but that’s all there is to see. There isn’t any frame or visible support, that’s all been concealed, so the images are left to stand on their own, abstracted from any kind of physical form. This lack of substance is elegant and poetic, making “Ring” seem more like an optical anomaly materialized in a Paris square than like a human object. Sometimes the best works of art are so jarring and unique that you’re forced to abandon analysis or rationalization and just appreciate what’s there.

Sources: Architizer, DesignBoom.

Follow this link for the whole story:  World Architecture News

The project is called Your Rainbow Panorama, and it takes the shape of a massive circular catwalk surrounded by rainbow hues of glass on the roof of the building. The idea is that as you walk around the roof your perception of the city will change with the colors. According to the artist, “Your rainbow panorama enters into a dialogue with the existing architecture and reinforces what is assured beforehand, that is to say the view of the city. I have created a space which virtually erases the boundaries between inside and outside – where people become a little uncertain as to whether they have stepped into a work or into part of the museum. This uncertainty is important to me, as it encourages people to think and sense beyond the limits within which they are accustomed to moving”.

Now, to be completely honest I don’t really get or even follow the allusion to Dante’s Inferno. But that aside, this is a very cool project for much less conceptual reasons. I think that Elasson is right in thinking about the way that color can change the way we feel about a space and about a view. Not to mention the simple beauty of standing inside a rainbow space like that. I think that the group that selected his proposal did a good job recognizing these more practical considerations: “The project complies in a brilliant way with the competition’s aim to convert ARoS’ rooftop surface to a unique artistic and architectural sight of international stature. The proposal creates an extremely beautiful and poetic place, which unifies the panoramic view from the roof with an exceptional artistic-architectural dimension, contributing to the development of a new understanding of the visual art interface of architecture. It also establishes a strong identity-creating landmark for ARoS and Aarhus city.”

One of the key points they make is that this is a work of art that isn’t meant just to be experienced from the inside. The effect from far away is almost more striking, especially at night. That’s one of the main things I like about this project: how unique it is visually. On one hand, it seems odd on top of a building in a major city; it isn’t a conventional part of the urban dialogue at all. And yet, it doesn’t seem particularly out of place. It isn’t discordant or jarring, it’s just different. And that’s a really great thing because it’s also beautiful and completely centered around the human experience. The more we can break out of the modernist glass box of functionality the better (in my opinion!), because although it clearly speaks to a certain human aspiration and yearning, it doesn’t speak to what it actually is to be human. Humanity is colorful and organic and occurs (obviously) at a human scale.

Now that may seem like a somewhat ironic argument considering Your Rainbow Panorama is still a sort of modernist glass enclosure, but sometimes it’s just about baby steps. Admittedly, there are many much more interesting (and I would argue, successful) new buildings around the world, but it’s the use of color in this one that sets it apart. It still exhibits a modernist sensibility, but instead of a box, it’s a disc, and instead of clear glass it’s a burst of color. And sometimes that can make all the difference.

Source: Evolo, ARoS.

But, as odd as it might seem to say, all of that is fairly standard for the modern day megabuilding. What is not standard, by any stretch of the imagination, is the Marina Bay Sands sky park, a massive boat-shaped building that sits on top of the three main skyscrapers, improbably cantilevered out into space. To give you a decent sense of the size of this structure, it’s roughly the size of the Eiffel Tower laying on its side, or the equivalent of 4.5 jumbo jets lined up nose to tail. It features a huge infinity pool that looks out onto the Singapore skyline, unofficially claiming the title of “most terrifying way to relax.”

I honestly am not sure how to relay the grandeur of this building, so in desperation I’m just going to read you some more: “A canal runs through the length of the Shoppes, in the same style as the Venetian in Las Vegas. Sampan rides on the canal are available for guests and shoppers at the shopping mall, similar to the gondola rides available in the Venetian. Also housed within the Shoppes are the six of the seven Celebrity Chef Restaurants – Cut (by Wolfgang Puck), Waku Ghin (by Tetsuya Wakuda), Pizzeria and Osteria Mozza (by Mario Batali), Guy Savoy (by Guy Savoy), DB Bistro Moderne (by Daniel Boulud), and Santi (by Santi Santamaria).

Two notable attractions of the resort are the two Crystal Pavilions. Despite a brief legal dispute in June 2011, it has been decided that one of the Pavilions will house two internationally-renowned nightclubs – Avalon and Pangaea. In addition, the second Pavilion will house the world’s largest Louis Vuitton boutique, in addition to being on a floating island, at 20,000 square feet, which will be connected to the portion of the boutique in the Shoppes via an underwater tunnel.”

Alright, let’s review. A canal runs through the shopping center? Seven celebrity restaurants? An underwater tunnel?! This is clearly a pretty spectacular complex. But to be honest, as shockingly huge as it is, I’m actually pretty intrigued by what it stands for. It would be easy to attack such a project for representing capitalist overconsumption and material waste, and it is obviously extravagant and targeted for a wealthy minority, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair critique. Because what seems so offensive at first glance is its enormous size, but this might just be a function of a changing urban environment.

This isn’t the first megabuilding or complex we’ve seen, at least in concept. Dubai is currently resuming plans for the construction of Dubailand, a massive theme park complex twice the size of Walt Disney World; a more theoretical proposal has for a while suggested that Japan build a massive pyramid structure in Tokyo bay; and a proposal we featured early would construct a colossal urban farm in the heart of New York City. Admittedly some of these are still just ideas on paper, and utopian or fantastical building ideas have been around for decades, but what sets these apart is two things: we’re rapidly developing the engineering capacity to actually build these buildings, and due to a number of global factors, there might actually be enough incentive to do so.

There continues to be a worldwide immigration into cities, and housing the growing population can be a serious challenge. One of the only solutions, outside of increasing public transportation to suburbs, is to build up. The area of the city proper is a fixed quantity, but it’s volume has ample room for increase. By creating massive living structures within urban environments, we can house far more people in the same area than ever before. Now this might not seem like a particularly appealing prospect, but there’s another reason for doing this. As I’ve talked about before, dense urban living is actually one of the most sustainable ways to live. There are problems we will have to deal with (and are already facing), like disposal of that much concentrated waste, and sufficient production of food, but the fact is that the green cities of the future will almost certainly incorporate these megabuildings. They’ll have to if they want to house their untold millions in a sustainable way.

While it would be wonderful if we could stop the rush to cities and live in a more decentralized, environmentally-friendly fashion, consuming less and growing more, I think that’s a naive vision, at least for the world as a whole. People want things, and lots of them, and cities provide the best opportunities for fulfilling that ambition. While it’s certainly a good thing to try to reduce people’s wants and to encourage frugal living, I think the environmental developments that are going to save us (if any) are going to be the ones that let people continue to do what they do, but with less impact. The electric car is going to take some getting used to, and it’s seen a lot of push back, but at the end of the day it allows people to drive all they want with a greatly diminished effect on the environment. Similarly, megabuildings might seem frightening at first, but they just might become a necessary part of our urban future.

Source: Wikipedia, MarinaBaySands.com.

But what if that didn’t have to be the case? I’m not just talking here, about stools with storage compartments in them or drawers under the bed, I’m talking about full queen beds that (tastefully) disappear into the wall and coffee tables that transform into dining tables. That’s the kind of magic being produced by the Italian furniture company Clei. I realize that this might not sound all that impressive since these products have been around in some form for decades, but there are two differences in the way Clei is doing things. First, as I mentioned before, they look good. As in, for a lot of the products, you’d never know they were actually transformers. And second, they’re easy to operate. Very easy.

I’ll be honest, it’s a little hard to articulate the beauty of these systems without seeing them for yourself. What first drew my attention was this video produced by Resource Furniture, the North American distributor of Clei’s space saving furniture:

These types of furniture are really exciting because they make it not just possible, but actually comfortable to live in a small space. Efficient spatial living is a hugely important issue these days for a number of reasons. There is typically a correlation between square footage and energy use, since larger homes tend to have more lighting and greater utility needs; there’s a materials cost since larger spaces use up more materials and labor than smaller homes; there are numerous potential sustainable and social benefits of density that become reduced as individual spaces increase; and finally we have to recognize that larger homes don’t make us any happier (studies have shown that while the size of the average American home has more than doubled since the 1950′s, happiness has remained about the same).

It seems then, that smaller housing is something that we should really be aiming for as a society. But the reality is that most people still feel the pull of the big house, the ever-increasing American Dream. There’s a sense that if most people are living in enormous homes, it would require almost ascetic self-denial to live in a small apartment or house. That’s where efficient furniture enters this discussion. Spatial efficiency increases the livability of a given area. By allowing us to use the same space for multiple activities, it increases the effective square footage, essentially letting us count one space two or three times. Obviously you aren’t actually getting a larger house, but the point is that you get all of the spatial benefits of having a larger house, while maintaining a much smaller physical and ecological footprint.

As I’ve pointed out before, super dense cities are – counterintuitively – the most sustainable human environments on the planet. They are also typically the most culturally rich and socially active. More an more people are choosing city living over a more conventional suburban lifestyle. Space saving furniture can make the experience more comfortable for these people, but it can also make city living viable for people for whom it otherwise wouldn’t be feasible, whether economically or spatially. And that’s good for all of us.

For further reading NPR published an interesting (and short) article on increasing home sizes back in 2006. Check it out here. And as always, comments, criticisms, and questions are encouraged!