Adventures on Studio Shared 2.0 Part II
21st
March – It’s called false hope sweetheart
Week 4 and we are
diving deeper into our project. We began to focus on the issue of rising house
prices. It’s so defeating to just think that our future will be bombarded with
high buying prices when the job that we decided to do will not be suffice to guarantee
me to accomplish owning something. On the other hand, there’s that gnawing
tension between different classes, and also the loopholes of house ownership –
overseas investors buying things up and the amount of investment properties
accumulating overtime is terrifying.
The issue is, how
do we tackle it? As a society, we are constantly thinking majority of the time
for ourselves. We want security and a sense of dominance and authority by
establishing who owns what. Our project: what if people who are renting exploit
their own spaces in order to supplement their rent? It’s a tricky situation –
because it boils down to the idea of ‘trust’. Except, are we ready to be naïve
to allow strangers we barely know to live with us at the same time? Otherwise,
are we willing to let go of our pride and insecurities or our preciousness of
valuables in order to reconsider what we really need as a whole?
I’m only 22, and
there are already so many worries that are constantly swimming in my mind.
From being mature,
to whether I will be able to hold down a job.
This idealism will
not take me very far so long as I know how to tackle the crisis of our issues.
28th March
– We’re neighbours I guess…
Week 5 and we
finally hit a eureka moment! That is, we decided to break down a house into a
shell encompassing rooms. The idea of dividual spaces – is very much like the
capsule or internet cafes you find in Japan (still need to visit one). However,
I’m curious to know whether in the future people will adjust to the lifestyle
of living in rooms. On top of that, I wonder if the society as a whole where
majority of us have been growing up in big houses, can adjust to the lifestyle
of living in small square metre rooms/ apartments. I’ve already tried/
attempted to design my ideal kind of house and the rooms are excessively huge
(most likely cause I’m trying to have spaces that are related to the number 7).
However, it will be interesting if we turn a block into a share-housesque
lifestyle. To think though to be sleeping a wall away from your neighbours as a
permanent structure…
But hey we will be
earning something if we can afford to own a room of some sort!
18th April
– Please tell me you didn’t drop the needle in the haystack
Yes, mid semester.
I cannot believe
how fast time flies when you become so engrossed in what you do. My friends and
I were looking at our project, trying to understand how the potential impacts
it has on the ‘sharing economy’. I’m still not understanding the full
terminology of ‘sharing economy’ nor ‘neo-liberal economy’ (modification of the
economy within the private sector to become within the public sector). Let
alone, to think back the day when me and my friend were on our way to our
friend’s auction, his explanation of the sharing economy (which has
unfortunately blanked out on me) puzzled me more.
Safe to say, the
needle of definition has completely fallen into a pile of terminology and has
completely lost me.
To put it simply –
from my observation of my semester so far – I can only be certain of two
things:
1. The sharing economy is technically a
subdivision of capitalism
2. The main companies that define themselves
as the sharing economy, are technically pseudo sharing since there is money and
other agendas involved
During our mid
semester presentation review, I noticed there was a constant pattern on each of
my friends’ projects:
-
Where
is your position in regards to the sharing economy?
-
Is
your project critiquing the sharing economy or is it agreeing with the
potentials?
Should we
carefully look at our projects – I’d like to believe that we have actually
developed a standing point on our project. Rather our quite dim and dystopian
approach is perhaps the answer that has been camouflaged in our projects.
In all honesty, no
matter how hard we try – our solutions though look ideally utopian is asking
for it to become a dystopian matter. This is perhaps because we are living in a
dystopian world yet have come to accept it. Moreover – because we are arguably
culturally brought up to seek for loopholes and design alternative methods to
complete a procedure, it is very easy for us to exploit and twist our own
proposals. So from observing the projects we have done, we are perhaps
proposing another door that can allow the audience to manipulate the potentials
into a dystopian one should we decide that it should happen.
With regards to
our project however, considering that they mentioned that there is a note of
sadness where people can appear to only afford rooms. What struck a chord with
me was a comment by the critic “people want comfort, windows” and also our
observation just from looking at the images provided by the internet.
Personally, coming from a high density city (Hong Kong) – I partially disagreed
with what she said. Sure, the culture of Australia is to find a place where
people can live comfortably however, back at my hometown, I watch my friends’
parents scrambling to find some place they can just afford let alone sleep in
without wondering whether their current salary can pay off their rent. Come to
think of it, despite being a bit too emotional about my home town (and perhaps
constantly being cut off by my critis – which tends to happen very often) it
reminded me of the time where my friend countered my argument about privacy and
having privacy is a cultural thing.
Perhaps one thing
that makes certain topics become so debatable is because of each individual’s
background. We all grew up with different beliefs while developing our own
ones. Because we come in observing
someone’s project without understanding the personal side of the designer – we
are quick to apply different connotations towards the design. Which I guess
brings me to the next question.
How personal
should we make each design?
24th April
2018 – We might as well create a new dictionary for the sharing economy
After a tumultuous
week (and a couple of restful days of blissful rest) we settled into a new
project by starting off with a research question. My partner and I settled on
the idea of mass production dedicated for the sharing economy and how it gets
exacerbated.
That is until…
She pointed out
that we have completely irradiated the true intentions of ‘sharing’.
If we retrace the
steps to the original idea of ‘sharing’ – people are renting out their current
possessions in order to make a certain kind of profit (well pseudo sharing
their only available resources). However, considering that there weren’t much
regulations, on top of that because there is the sense of naivety of ‘trust’
within this sharing of own-possessions, it breeds another type of corruption
and greed. As I have mentioned in the previous entry, as desperation for money
increases coupled with lack of regulations and loop holes, your morality
decreased. Currently, we are facing a global issue where people are turning to
these so called ‘sharing’ platforms in order to generate easy profit that also
impact the lives of others. The most infamous cases – AirBnb and Uber, these
two major companies have affected the financial/ economic lifestyle of others.
With people buying up apartments for AirBnb simply because of the higher
turnover rate compared to actually renting on the real estate markets – it
really limits other people’s opportunity to find a place to rent long term. This
is similar to Uber, the ride sharing, while there is that novelty of sitting in
someone’s car to go from location A to location B – we are really dismissing
the skillset of Taxi Drivers or other cab businesses. Arguably it can leave a
thinking of “if earning money just really requires a small amount of effort,
why bother to hire people within that profession?”
While I could feel
that multiple people reading this can argue that these services are giving more
options and perhaps giving those who may not be as financially comfortable to
have these kind of luxurious services, we need to consider another perspective.
Put it this way, as an architecture student, I have spent an ample amount of
years studying to know what kind of design and materials would best suit a
house in certain conditions – however, I am competing with packaged home
companies that can cut corners and cost of materials and still build a house.
While I am aware that these people will also have experience and can still
tailor designs to suit customers, this ‘mass production’ of template homes does
not always deliver quality outcome, however people are still resorting to these
businesses due to the affordability despite the circumstances. Yet, if you
consider the longevity of a house designed by an architect compared to packaged
homes – while one lasts longer than the other, it breeds a question about being
sustainable. If the packaged home reaches its lifespan, it calls for another
rebuild, which asks for more materials and demolition – which means more
resources used and wasted.
Where am I going
with this? Consider the bought-up apartments for quick money solutions, these
empty houses that aren’t always occupied by someone is unsustainable and goes
to waste – therefore defeating the sharing purpose altogether. In addition, the
lack of presence of the actual owner within the space really reflects that we
might as well be living in a hotel altogether.
It really does go
to show that the original terminology has completely disappeared from the books.
What I find most
laughable is how easily this term can be applied to different uses and
activities. While researching on ‘sharing economy’ in other countries. In a
Forbes article by Yue Wang “Sharing Is Caring: China's Smartphone 'Share
Economy' Is Booming”, Wang
pointed out that China’s take on ‘Sharing Economy’ has obscured to short-term
rentals, however the borrowing on this term was to project an egalitarian ideal
– quite romantic if you put it that way. It also reflects on how companies are
clever in exploiting the meaning: from establishing booths that are short term
gyms (do you really want people to see you run solo in the middle of a park
though?), to charging stations or even basketballs. Since the general
population in the country doesn’t want to ‘own’ a lot of possessions (ironic
considering that owning designer items is still something that many seek) they
are completely compliant with these ‘rental’ services. However, this is also a
reflection on how heavily dependant we are on technology these days. Gone were
the days where we would seek a large phone book of services that would allow us
to satisfy our needs, now we simply have a digital screen and an application
and the internet – we are one touch away from a stranger who would deliver our
food or unlocking a bike that would enable us to go from place a to b. We are
so comfortable of having easy access to resources that we forget the hard work
of others that provide quality services since there are others who are less
skilled yet more affordable and still get the job done are so readily
available.
There is still this mental tug-of-war of where I stand about this
‘sharing economy’ – I am still idealistic in what I believe in yet, from just
seeing how easy it is to pick up the holes in these situations, I am starting
to feel very negative towards this ‘sharing economy’.
Especially when the service is really affecting our consideration of
those who have worked so hard for a specific job yet outnumbered by those who
haven’t.
Comments
Post a Comment