Tariffs for a Green Economy

Can we use tariffs to build a green economy?   Imagine if the debates you hear on the news were of tariffs like these: 

1. Tariffs on products that cannot clearly prove freedom from exploitation throughout their supply chains.  Including freedom from exploitation of people, animals, land, water and natural resources. 
2. Tariffs on goods that cannot demonstrate that they were produced under fair working conditions. Including living wages, freedom from discrimination, the right to organize, compulsory time off, etc.
3. Tariffs based on the environmental footprint of goods; including, carbon emissions, water use, natural resource use, and waste production.
4. Tariffs on products that do not have a clear and sustainable end-of-life.  Meaning they must be easily compostable, readily recyclable, readily adaptable for future use, or come with a buyback program from the manufacturer. 

Shortly there would still be debate about tariffs, some of the arguments would likely be the same while others would be clearly different.  Most are aware that the general goal of tariffs, putting politics aside, is to change the behavior of those whom the tariff is being placed upon.  A sort of tax on “bad” behavior if you will. Justification for the current tariffs has included unfair trade practices and national security, among others. So, one could argue, the tariffs are a tool, used to influence those engaged in unfair, or undesirable behaviors, with a goal of changing those behaviours.  Alternatively, tariffs can be used to encourage more preferable behaviors, using more domestic supply chains for raw materials and technology, for instance. So, it seems like tariffs could be a tool in our path towards a more sustainable society.  

In practice, the cost of tariffs are not paid directly by the entity upon which they are placed, but are instead paid by those who purchase the tariffed goods.  This has been a point of contention in our current situation in the USA, where the general public perception of tariffs is that they are “bad” as they hurt consumers by increasing prices on consumer goods.  These increased prices can serve as an encouragement to purchase other, non-tariffed goods, the producers of these alternate products may look at these tariffs as “good,” as they make their products more competitively priced and, potentially, bring in new customers.  Presumably these goods are produced by entities with more favorable behaviors, fair trade practices for instance. These changing purchasing behaviors, away from the tariffed goods, are the real cost paid by those being tariffed. With the goal that they will lead to a change in the behaviors that provoked the tariffs in the first place, creating a more fair playing field. 

It is here that we see the case where tariffs can be a tool in our move to a more sustainable economy, and society.  The fact is we should be paying the true value of the products we consume, and, in all likelihood, we are not. I’m not in favor of putting undue financial burdens on people, but I’m not opposed to tariffs either, in fact I would support them for the right reasons.  It’s hard to argue against the fact that our capitalist society has thrived off of worker exploitation. There are countless stories of the use of child labor, slave labor, menial wages, and horrid working conditions in factories overseas that produce goods for the western world.  A sustainable society is built around the triple bottom line, which includes social equity. If we are to build a society that promotes social equity, that includes fair and equitable labor practices. This includes fair living wages, a safe and healthy working environment, access to healthcare and time off, freedom from discrimination, no child or forced labor, and the like.  These aren’t unreasonable requests but, some, or all, of these are lacking throughout the world.  

It’s sad to say but, while the USA has laws against child and slave labor, we still benefit greatly from unfair labor practices throughout the world, and even within our borders.  Even those of us who work to be more sustainable may support illegal labor practices, through the purchases we make, due to the lack of transparency. We are often ignorant of where our products come from, what they’re made of, and who makes them. If tariffs were placed on all goods entering the country that could not demonstrate fair labor practices we would likely be paying a more realistic price for all of the items we consume, from food, clothing, electronics, etc. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, that if we lived in a world where all workers had a living wage and the other benefits listed above, and abandoned this culture of abuse, prices would rise, likely significantly.  For this reason, this approach would likely not find immediate favor with many and can only come with a real push towards a sustainable society while working holistically.  

If we are truly looking to build a sustainable economy and sustainable society we should be paying a fair price for all we consume.  A price that reflects the true value; the true cost of raw materials extraction, farming, production, transportation, the whole life cycle.  By identifying unsustainable practices, as well as sustainable practices, tariffs can be used as a tool to help build a sustainable world.

Inclusive Space

Union Square, New York. Inclusive space attract people and encourage all types of activity.

In light of recent events, particularly in public space, i feel compelled to address the issue of the design and use of public space and inclusive design.  It's not my intention to debate the about the groups identified that have been the center of much of the recent press coverage but rather to focus on the spaces people use to express their opinions, and how these spaces reflect the values of the society in which they exist.

I will state, for the record, however, that i'm a firm believer in democracy.  To me democracy is inclusive, welcome to all, without condition or prior approval.  The contrary to this are those actions, groups, beliefs, and spaces that exclude, setting standards or criteria which, must be met, for participation. People who gather for inclusion, in my view, cannot be classified as equal to those who gather for exclusion.  The groups we support and associate with as individuals, or as a society as a whole, reflect our values, our priorities, and our goals.

So how does all of this affect us as architects and designers?  All of the spaces we create reflect these very same things; the values of us, our clients, and the public we engage.  Whether specifically intended for public use or not, many of the projects we participate in affect the public in some way. Even if a public space is not included, everything we do exists in a context that includes building users, and non-users, who interact with our projects even if just as a passerby.  So, do our projects contribute to inclusion and limit exclusion?

Inclusive space, simply put, includes people.  Public space that is fairly distributed, with free access and movement within, is characteristic of inclusive space.  However, it doesn't have to be exclusively public space.  Private space that engages the public can also be inclusive.  Space that is accessible, invites people in, welcomes participation, allows for free expression and the exchange of ideas; are qualities worth striving for.  Inclusive spaces may consist of different areas for different levels of involvement, active or passive, for the spectator and for the active participant, but it provides the same level of access to all, without exclusion.

Conversely, exclusive space, well, excludes, separates, prohibits.  While private spaces may first come to mind, exclusive space may be either public or private.  Either way, exclusive space can be associated with barriers, both physical and social.  The term "exclusive" has the air of of prestige in our society, as in an exclusive club or event, where attendance is highly desirable but limited, typically only to those willing to pay an exorbitant fee or meeting a specific set of criteria.  Exclusive space may be the V.I.P. area at an entertainment venue or even a private neighborhood park.  Even the unfair distribution of public space can be considered exclusive city planning.  Of all the public parks initiated by Robert Moses very few are located in minority neighborhoods. As he designed the roadway system that would provide access to Jones Beach, and other State Parks, low bridges were added to prevent access by public bus.  This is clearly inequitable, allowing only those of certain abilities or wealth, access.  Even accessible space , if it limits movement within, and allows for the control of space by others, may be exclusive.

So, how do we work to insure the spaces we design are inclusive?  Start with a thoughtful approach, respect the scale and character of the community in which you're working and invite community organizations to participate in design charrette's during all phases of the project.  As you design include features that attract and engage the public, even for private projects.  Provide amenities that improve usefulness of the space by the public and encourage people to say a while and explore.  A recent study, investigating factors that encourage kindness between citizens, singled out art as a key contributing factor that inspires empathy, critical thinking, and healthy dialog. Including public art, as part of our projects, not only enriches the visual character of our communities but can increase our public engagement and is one way to create more inclusive spaces.

I urge everyone, architects, designers, and engaged citizens, to strive to make all spaces inclusive, and to advocate for more equitable public space.  This happens at all scales; from city planning, whose broad strokes can define a communities character before anyone has moved in; the design of public spaces that allows free access and movement; down to the design of site features, including furnishings, barriers, site lines, and lighting; along with public policy that governs the use of our public spaces.  Those spaces where we open dialog, express ourselves, and work for progress are necessary to maintain a healthy society which engages its citizens in a fair, equitable, and inclusive way.

Community Ownership

Back in 2007 my now wife and I joined a local farm, often referred to as a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), because we were interested in where our food comes from and wanted to be more in touch.  For an annual fee we purchased "shares" in the farm and for that year were part owners.  We could vote or even run for the farms Board of Directors who were responsible for the budget and overall direction of the farm.  This ownership also tied us to the production of the farm.  If the farm had a good year we were rewarded with plentiful fruits and vegetables at our weekly pickups throughout the season.  Likewise, if the farm had a bad year our weekly pickups would reflect that. Plus we could visit the farm whenever we would like, help the farmers, feed the chickens, pick some herbs, or just enjoy the outdoors.

Recently however, our farm has changed its structure from this community ownership model to a more traditional business model, an LLC to be specific.  Of course this change had to be approved by the current owners, all of us shareholders.  Prior to the vote a message was sent out to shareholders in favor of the change, stating how the proposed change was primarily to make financial decisions easier on the farmers, that we wouldn't see a difference in our weekly shares, and this was the way most CSA's were run anyway.  However, there was no counter argument in favor of keeping the existing structure.  To my dismay the vote was overwhelmingly approved with just two dissenting votes, ours and that of one other couple.

We remain members of the farm.  To one of the points made in the arguments for the change, however, the point that changes in the weekly shares wouldn't be noticed, I will have to argue.  While the specific amount or types of fruits and vegetables may or may not have changed, and this is a lesser issue in the big picture, there is a disconnect from the farm.  There is less of a relationship between the farms success and its members.  The community bond and tie to the original CSA created a sense of ownership far stronger than the actual ownership.  Community ownership gives people purpose and motivates those to participate and work to build a better community and creates a sense of pride, regardless of how successful a specific initiative may be.  However, when one "buys in" and becomes a mere customer, of an LLC for instance, this is lost.  We live in a society that lives on the mantra that "the customer is always right".  With fee-for-service when we lay out our hard earned money we expect to get what we paid for, emphasis on expect, and if we don't get what we expect or "what we paid for", we demand a refund, replacement, or some other remedy to "make us whole."

Of course this relates to more than my example of the CSA turned LLC.  We live in a world where everything is sponsored.  Sports arenas and sporting events are a prime example but it extends to all of our recreation, culture, food, even our education and health care.  This is concerning, as well, because we are raising a generation that doesn't know any different.  As part of my professional life I volunteer with ACE, an organization which connects high school students with professionals in Architecture, Construction and Engineering firms, where each year student teams present a project of their own design. I have seen countless times where students propose a mall or a sponsorship opportunity. They often have to be prodded to include any amenity that is purely for the community benefit.  As design professionals it is our duty to stress the importance of community ownership within our own communities.  While we are doing this hopefully we can encourage younger generations to build the community they want and demonstrate that this doesn't come with a purchase or a corporate sponsorship but with engagement and an ownership of a different type.

Firmness, Utility, Delight

Vitruvius, the original author on architecture, stated that architectures function is firmitas, utilitas, and venustas, that is firmness, utility, and delight.  Firmness, of course, refers to the ability to stand up and resist the forces of man and nature, whether they be the heavy stone of the buildings of Vitruvius's time, wind, rain, snow, furnishings, or people.  Utility, again quite obviously, speaks to the fact that architecture serves a specific function.  This can be a very specific function as in a residential building that has rooms or areas designated for specific uses or a large community space that can accommodate many different functions.  This brings us to delight, a more ambiguous or subjective quality.  Certainly when Vitruvius wrote of delight he was pointing to the form, order, and proportion used in his day, the subject of his Ten Books on Architecture.  However, since the time of Vitruvius, some 500 years ago, our opinions of what brings delight have changed.  

Delight from architecture, or anything else for that matter, reflects personal taste, style, and culture.  Looking through a book on art history illustrates how much taste and culture has changed.  The fact that architecture is experienced in many different ways using all the senses it is important to point out that its delight may come in many forms.  One may enjoy the form from the outside, the view from the inside, its usefulness, the materials employed or countless other characteristics, but not others.  This leads me to wonder, what defines "delightful" architecture?  Put another way I could ask what defines “good” architecture.  Again, this can be quite subjective but I believe there are a number of characteristics of good architecture that could be agreed upon, looking beyond the firmness and utility of course.


The first characteristic of good architecture is that it respects its context.  Every piece of architecture exists in a specific place at a specific time and addressing this is paramount.  Context should be considered completely from the community through to the site and even on-site microclimates.  The siting of a building should consider orientation as it relates to its environmental context; the climate of the region, the sun, wind, the ecology of the site and surroundings, water bodies or wetlands, and migration patterns of local wildlife.  Likewise there is the man made infrastructure context; this can include utilities like power, water and sanitation, roads and public transportation, as well as nearby buildings and community resources.  Cultural context is also important to remember, this includes the character of the community, whether it is rural or urban, residential or commercial, what the local customs are and even the massing of the surrounding buildings and the predominant architectural styles.  


In addition to respecting context good architecture should respect its users, after all without users there is probably not much need for the architecture to begin with.  Speaking of which good architecture should address its primary function in direct relation with the people who will be using it.  This means bringing in the users during the design process to learn how the building will really be used, not designing it how you think it should be used.  To truly respect its users architecture needs to have comfortable and healthy interiors.  Much of this will relate to respecting its context, which I addressed above.  For instance, a building that has been poorly sited in its context and is left exposed to harsh summer sun may overheat and cause its occupants discomfort, so it should be stated that all these items relate to each other and should be considered holistically.  Providing a healthy indoor environment may include providing fresh air, access to daylight, and non-toxic finishes.  The fact that buildings cost money should also be a consideration.  A building may have a bold form or display an innovative use of materials but if its users can’t afford its operations and maintenance than it can’t serve its function.


I have a strong belief that architecture should also respect its time.  I have worked on both modern and historic buildings and find part of my love for architecture is in the fact that they are different.  Each with its own massing, form, materials, details, layout, character, I can go on and on, the point is that good buildings are of their time.  To build a modern building to look like a historic building to me is disrespecting both the past and the present.  On the one hand it’s like telling our predecessors, “we can do better than you” and on the other we are telling our contemporaries “you’re not good enough”.  So I think good architecture respects its own time and the issues of the day.  


Finally, good architecture should consider the future.  Buildings have a long life, hopefully beyond the lifetime of their designers and builders so they will be part of the future and so must consider that from the beginning.  Through its lifetime a building may serve many functions.  In New York City the Church of the Holy Communion, finished in 1845 has gone through many changes since it was a church it has become a nightclub and now a market, the Limelight Marketplace.  Surely if this wasn’t good architecture it would have been torn down a while ago.  This brings up another point when considering the future; what will happen to the materials when the building is demolished?  Is it full of toxic materials that have no value and will be thrown in a landfill to pollute our air and water, or can it be deconstructed or reused?


Green building has been growing over the past decade, it has had some false starts in past decades but it looks like it’s finally catching on.  These buildings, in my view, best demonstrate the qualities I described above.  Apart from a certification or a label I think defining good architecture is still subjective but we should hold it to certain high standards, it must respect its context, its users, its time, and it must consider the future.  I might be so bold to update Vitruvius and say regardless of style in order for architecture to be considered good, or even great, it must be useful, appropriate, and thoughtful.

Public/Private Space

Public Space

Of all the things considered when designing, whether architecture or city planning, among the most important are private and public space, and the transition between the two.  There are times when the need is obvious, private space in a residence for instance, and other times when it's more ambiguous, such as in the case of privately owned public spaces where who the "public" is can be widely interpreted.  The move between private and public spaces can also vary from a well defined boundary to a more loose transition.  These ambiguities are increasing especially in this time of increased connectivity.

Throughout history the outdoors has been considered the ultimate public space.  For millennia people have gathered outdoors for the most basic of activities from celebrations, sharing news, preparing and consuming food, and socializing.  Outdoor public spaces can take many forms, there are spaces that have been deliberately created for this function and others that have been adopted by the local population to serve this function.  In our time the manifestation of outdoor public space has largely included public parks and town squares but also includes the streets and paths that connect us.  These are the places that fill with people to commemorate an event, like the Fourth of July, join a parade, or start a protest.  When not used for this type of large scale function outdoor public spaces offer a place of recreation and relaxation.  People often use a public park as one would use a private yard; reading a book, having a picnic, talking with friends, or just enjoying the space.  Others have used the town square to sell their wares, provide entertainment, and practice their right to free speech. 

Public space is key to the health of a community.  While providing a place for the activities mentioned above they also contribute to public health by providing fresh air and a place to exercise.  Access to public space also provides the opportunity to be around other people.  Humans are social creatures and have a inherent need to interact.  An active public space can offer this interaction.  Jane Jacobs in her book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" spoke of the security active streets offer, illustrating how public spaces and the surrounding community have a symbiotic relationship.  The value of public spaces offer to individuals and the community as a whole is undeniable.

More recently the shopping mall has become a type of public space.  While offering areas for some of the activities mentioned above the fact that retail centers are technically private spaces means that we do not necessarily have the same rights as we would in a truly public space.  A discussion of the pros and cons of this is sure to be a lively one but isn't the subject here so we'll save it for another time. 

Complementing public space is, of course, private space.  As with public space there are many different scales of private space.  The private space of your personal bedroom is quite different than the private space of a corporate office.  Regardless of the level of privacy a private space it is typically smaller than a public space, if for nothing else than the fact of a lower occupancy.  Historically private space has been as small as a bed or as large as a castle.  Either way it offers security, safety, and a place to rest.  Activities that society, or an individual, has determined are not appropriate for public are carried out in private.  Our society values personal space, whether a child or an adult we all want our own space.  This may be a space used for work, hobbies, self reflection or to wind down.  The best part of private space is we can do whatever we want.  As like public space, the value of private space is clear.

We seem to be entering an age where these two types of spaces are overlapping and, in some instances, shifting.  With the increased connectivity of the world and the rise of social media more and more traditionally public activities are taking place in private spaces.  The news media highlighted the role social media played during the so called Arab Spring in the Middle East towards the end of 2010.  This specific example demonstrates an overlap of traditional public and private spaces; people organizing, from their private space, protests to be carried out in the public space.  Generally this use of technology illustrates how people with common interests and/or goals can be brought together without the benefit of proximity, I would consider this one of its primary advantages. 

This type of shift in the relationship between public and private space is illustrated in the fact that people often use their private spaces to communicate with the public using online public forums.  More often than not the groups organized online or through social media never meet in a public space, in fact many participants may never leave their private spaces.  I write this now in my home office, in a room all alone, definitely a private space.  Where I start to see this shift as a detriment is in the fact that everyday people are making "friends" without ever meeting, while in their private space.  While this may not be harmful in itself, increased connectivity may negatively impact our interaction with the public.  I'll admit, the interaction available with the use of technology can be productive it doesn't yet offer the nuance, spontaneity, or physicality of real life interaction.  In the worse cases people are substituting online communication for real life contact.  While this can be quite troubling I don't think it is common enough to be cause for concern.

Where the biggest risk lies is the reduction of our public spaces.  If large numbers of our community are filling up on conversation and interaction in virtual public spaces will they still have a need, or desire, for our physical public spaces?  From my own observations it appears that many people don't want to interact in public.  I understand we don't always want to be social but it seems when walking on the street or taking public transportation people used to talk to each other and now they have their heads buried in some sort of device, trying to avoid the fact that they are in a public space.  I wonder, is one of the core functions of public space, to bring people together, is starting to disappear?  If it is the blame cannot be put solely on technology, there are other factors, but I would argue it is the main factor. 

Technology has given us many reasons not to use public space.  It has increased private mobility with the automobile, allowing us to travel to distant places without ever having to interact with someone we don't choose.  We now have abundant at home entertainment with the television and video games so we don't need to leave the house to have fun.  When I was young outside was my entertainment, many children now stay in for theirs.  Often we don't even need to leave the house to go shopping.  In fact the rise of social media may be the most beneficial technology for public space, reminding us that sometimes we need to literally stand together as was seen during the Arab Spring. 

Integrated Design.

If you are planning a construction project, whether it's a new office complex or a home addition there is a good chance you will not be the one doing the actual design or construction.  Sure you'll have input, it is your project after all, but you hire professionals because they have the expertise you lack.  The majority of construction projects follow the "design-bid-build" formula.  That is you hire an architect to design your building or addition, use the drawings to secure your building permit, solicit bids from a number of contractors, award the project, usually to the lowest bidder, and have it built.  Using this process each step is distinctly its own and there is very little, if any, interaction between the design and construction teams, both of which you hired.  You may in fact find that the architect and the contractor bad mouth each other.  If this is the case you run the risk that what was designed and what gets built may not quite align. 

With the design-bid-build process decisions are largely made based solely on cost.  A more holistic, some would say better, way of making these decisions is through integrated design.  Integrated design is just what it sounds like, integrated, joined together.  The entire project team, both design and construction teams, is assembled at the start and works together for the duration of the project.  That means you don't have a set of drawings to show a contractor before s/he's hired, you have to interview contractors and select one, not based on cost but on the value they bring to the table.  In this sense you are using similar criteria to hire a contractor that you would to hire an architect or other design professional. 

While the owner will be ultimate decision maker regarding the project s/he can make more informed decisions with input from the design and construction teams and set overall goals for the project in terms of scope, performance, and cost.  By facilitating a dialog between the design and construction teams early in the project each team member is able to share their thoughts and concerns on how to reach those goals.  The construction team will be able to assess how design decisions will affect construction and solutions to potential problems can be discussed while still in the design phase.  Additionally, the design team will be able to anticipate construction activities and adjust the design accordingly.  Everyone knows it's a lot easier, and cheaper, to change the design when it's still ink on paper than when they are brick and mortar. 

When the construction team is included in the design process they have a complete understanding of the design and there is buy-in.  The construction team, by being a part of the design phase and providing input on design decisions, has effectively endorsed the design.  After taking part in this process the construction team will work its hardest to ensure a successful project.  Additionally, by being a part of the design phase the construction team will be able to more accurately price the job.  Thorough discussions on how design decisions affect construction should lead to a full understanding of the project.  This should reduce the amount of change orders and help keep the project on schedule meaning the owner can be more confidant in the prices submitted by the construction team. 

Each phase of the project will move more smoothly with continued communication.  When construction starts the construction team will have an intimate knowledge of the design and will know the reasoning behind each decision.  If additional changes are required in the field it is important that the entire team understand the full implication of all decisions, which is more likely with integrated design.  By discussing all issues that arise after the start of construction with the entire team solutions can be reached that everyone agrees with and will help meet the projects goals.    

With a full understanding the design throughout the project, continued communication, and collective problem solving the project team should be able to deliver a building that all those involved are proud of.   By making decisions based on value, not cost, and with the entire project team, the final result of integrated design is a quality building that meets the owners goals while working towards a better way of building. 

Are You Indigenous?

Indigenous is defined on dictionary.com as "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native".   It is often used to describe native people, there customs, and architecture.  I would describe indigenous architecture as that which uses locally available resources manipulated those familiar with the material to provide shelter appropriate to the local climate and culture.  This can include simple, nomadic shelters, which can be portable, like a tipi, or seasonal, like an igloo.  There is also more permanent indigenous architecture such as southwestern adobe pueblos and Mediterranean cave dwellings.  One thing that these examples share is there purely functional aesthetic.  However there are examples of indigenous architecture that include ornamentation and more "architectural" forms such as the elaborately painted Ndebele painted houses and the dramatic tongkonan of Indonesia.  However, indigenous architecture shouldn't be associated solely with native people from times past, it should be considered for all people in all times, even our own. 

Peter Caradonna, for whom I work, once gave a lecture that started with a question:  Who here is indigenous?  One or two people of the 50 person crowd raised their hands.  If we aren't indigenous that what are we?  The same dictionary.com entry noted above included antonyms of indigenous as "foreign, alien".  So if we are not indigenous are we then foreign?  Where I live, in the United States, many people would take offense to that, so maybe we need to reevaluate how we interpret indigenous.

If you were to ask an American to give an example of indigenous people the most common answer would be American Indians.  Ask them to name some characteristic traits of these indigenous people and you are likely to get answers that include a deep appreciation for the earth, respect for tradition, and awareness of their heritage.  Nobel traits regardless of your origin.  Traits that that some may say are lacking in our current society. 

Prior to the industrial revolution much architecture around the world would have fit my description of indigenous simply due to the fact that it wasn't economical to bring in exotic materials for buildings.  Additionally, the import of new and unfamiliar materials would often require the import of the skilled labor necessary to have it installed.  With the rise of technology and transportation it became more economical to bring in non-regional materials.  Advances in technology also saw the emergence of more standardized building materials symbolizing a loss of the connection to local materials.  Following this standardization of materials came the standardization of aesthetic personified by the International Style of architecture. 

The acceptance, and promotion by many leading architect of the time, of a singular International Style can be seen as the turning point away from the elements of indigenous architecture that made it valuable to its occupants and culture.  People love to travel because it exposes them to something new.  We visit different places to eat their food, listen to their music, see their architecture, experience their culture.  Increased globalization is increasing homogenization, I've traveled to different states and seen the same style housing, the same strip malls, the same food, I had to search out the things that made it unique. 

There is currently very little regional variation as far as building materials are concerned, the local lumber yard in New York and Arizona stock the same items, therefore the skill set of the labor force differs very little based on location.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is a part of the culture of our time, an ever shrinking world with ever growing technology.  Another element of indigenous architecture that has largely been lost is its relationship to local conditions, specifically climate and culture.  While some try to mimic the styles of the past it is often done without regard to why it was done in the past, which was usually a direct response to specific local conditions whether it be materials, climate, or use.  Even if the reasoning is understood, indigenous architecture isn't about copying the past, it's about addressing the specific needs of the place in which it exists. 

Modern, or contemporary, indigenous architecture can take the form of the favelas of Brazil or the High Line in New York.  It is about its time and place so it is ever changing.  If we think of ourselves as indigenous, we're all indigenous to somewhere, we can think of our architecture as indigenous and create an architecture of our time and place to serve our needs.  I'm not a sociologist but maybe if we reconsidered our indigenousness we would approach things differently and feel more of an ownership to the place we are indigenous to.  With ownership comes pride, which demands thoughtfulness, which will result in art, architecture, culture that is more unique and appropriate to its time and place.