Collaborative Consumption and Architecture

¶ … architects in the 21st century is the issue of sustainability. Not only is there no consensus opinion on how to approach the issue of sustainability in academic circles but there is also no formula of integrating sustainability into architectural curriculum (Wright, 2003). This deficiency underscores an even more stressing problem, however: as Edwards and Hyett (2010) note, "the techniques and technologies of green design are now generally understood -- what is still lacking is an architecture profession which gives priority to ecological issues" (p. 5). In other words, there is no connection between the myriad academic approaches and the professional architectural life. Wheeler (2015) asserts that this issue is due to an inadequate definition of sustainable architecture. In the capitalistic, consumerist global environment of the 20th century, the concept of preservation and connectivity to nature was largely overshadowed by corporate demand and higher margins.

Yet the end of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century has witnessed a revolution in thinking about community-based standards, thanks in large part to the impact of the Internet and its ability to connect individuals from around the world and share information essentially free of cost. This sharing and connectivity has given rise to the share economy of today and the concept of collaborative consumption, seen in enterprises from AirBnB to ZipCar. These new enterprises correspond to Wheeler's (2015) assertion that what is needed is "a philosophical reconsideration of relationality" in terms of generating a "sustainable built environment." Relationality is understood as the way in which two or more persons or things interact and relate. Thus, understanding the gap between what is theorized about sustainable architecture and what is practicable in the dynamic and changing world of the 21st century is essential to overcoming the challenge of depleted resources, shrinking economies, and failing community infrastructures (Escobar, 2014).

Sustainability, Form and Function:

Historical Trends in Theory and Concept

American architect Louis Sullivan wrote in 1896 that "form ever follows function" (p. 403). Sullivan noted that this was "the law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman" -- in short that "life is recognizable in its expression," an architectural manifesto that gave birth to America's first real burst of architectural creativity and design.

The 20th century gave way, however, to Marcel Breuer's Brutalism, and this can be viewed in one sense as a result of the loss of a sense of function. Tenement dwellings were not viewed as housing people (of an inexpressible worth and value) but rather as serving a bureaucratic purpose -- boxing up as many bodies in so many meters as could be possible in a city block and then forgetting all about it. Surfaceless, oblique, anti-aesthetic, cold and unattractive, these dwellings became the soul of modern architecture, as various architects attempted to utilize this conceit and twist it or add to it their own peculiar sensibilities. The result ranged in expression from the Guggenheim Museum to the Whitney Museum of Art (Johnson, 2003). In the absence of function, form fell apart, and minimalism and abstraction filled the void.

In the 21st century, function again is becoming important. This has come about as a result of a new socio-cultural trend that has roots both in economics and environmental studies. The short of it is that sustainability is now a growing concern among developers and designers: how to create a building that is efficient and sustainable and leaves as little environmental footprint as possible yet maintains a diversity life. This was not an issue for the Brutalists of the 20th century. And for Sullivan at the end of the19th century, the issue centered more on how to create an aesthetically pleasing skyscraper that did not crush the human spirit (Morrison, 2001). Having lost sight of this manifesto over the course of a century, architects can now return to it with a renewed focus as they seek to solve the problem of sustainability while addressing both the needs of the environment and the people who will use the structure.

In collaboration with the economic ideas of "collaborative consumption" sustainability in architecture can be viewed in terms of resource efficiency. Imagine, for instance, an architectural system that can accommodate various functions and programs no matter the day, time, year or season -- and then ask: what resources will need to be consumed in order to sustain this system in an efficient manner? Consuming less and utilizing more (in terms of space, energy, and other finite resources) is essentially what is at the heart of the unique problem that faces any number of architects in the 21st century, whether they are "green," eco-friendly, restrained by urban limitations, or simply energy efficient. The function is the same: preserve the natural as much as possible and make maximum use of what is built. The dynamic is admittedly less concerned with aesthetics, as Sullivan was in 1896, but the essence of the problem is more nature-driven (in terms of respect) than the architecture of the 20th century.

The notions of share economy and collaborative consumption serve as the foundation for this study in sustainability in architecture. From AirBnB to ZipCar, the share economy is revolutionizing the way in which the modern world comes to terms with the changing needs of society. The concept of utilizing more and requiring fewer resources to do so is what this notion is all about. A share economy structure is relevant to this thesis because, like HBNY (Parenthetical Space) and co-housing projects, there is an architectural basis for addressing this need. The architectural design proposition of this study is that a share economy sense can be and should be incorporated into architecture in order to advance the aims of the 21st century in terms of preserving energy, space, time, utility, and maximizing function, potential, affordability, and scale.

The question this study poses is: How can the notion of share economy be facilitated architecturally?

Problems of Consumerism and Capitalism: Theory and Trends

The consumer culture that exists as a result of our current global economic system has resulted in the destruction of the environment on a substantial scale. As Calvo and Mendoza (2000) note, the crisis in developed (and developing) worlds is coming to a head with economic collapse a high possibility. One of the economic reasons (at least in the West) for this collapse is that the means of extracting and processing the fuels needed by industry have become too expensive in relation to the profit margins (Hadley, Rennell, 2015, p. 29). Other corporate entities are destroying the environment by attempting to "modify" nature's organisms, like wheat -- which as a GMO has been shown to be toxic to both people and land (Engdahl, 2007). Yet, the consumerist culture that for so long kept Industry in tact is now shrinking as the financial world continues to rape and pillage unchecked on a global scale and the purchasing power of the middle class continues to decline (Lewis, 2011). That the demise of the middle class is coinciding with the demise of the environment is only ironic since it is primarily the excessive waste and materialism of the former that has brought about the latter (Kasser, 2002). One might be tempted to call it karma, but as Calvo and Mendozza (2000) suggest, the factors of modern collapse have been forming for decades.

Share economy is thus an important aspect of the 21st century and is relevant to the field of architecture because architects are the ones who will be providing the space for the people of tomorrow, the projects of tomorrow, the businesses of tomorrow, and the dwelling places of tomorrow. In a share economy, such as has arisen in recent decades, architects should understand the implications of their designs and how they impact and are impacted by the environment in which they create.

Any number of examples may be used to illustrate the point that global-scale consumerism leads to environmental devastation. The need for greater and greater results or for more and more supply (as in oil production) is one: the demand for oil and for bigger oil profits has led to the implementation of questionable and/or environmentally harmful methods of extracting the needed energy source from the earth. In the case of oil, these methods are found in fracking and in off-shore drilling, both of which are incredibly expensive and are only profitable if the cost of oil per barrel is high (Hadley, Rennell, 2015, p. 29). With the recent decline in the cost of oil per barrel as a part of the energy wars being waged in the Middle East (Escobar, 2014), more and more oil extraction facilities are shutting down. Ironically, the consumerist culture that spawned the industry of fracking is now responsible for its collapse: consumer demand does not match the oversupply of oil and with the impending global economic collapse that many foresee it is all just another sign that the consumerism (Kasser, 2002) which has led to an overexpansion of extraction facilities (Hadley, Rennell, 2015) will be the same force that ultimately kills the industry -- but not before the industry helps to kill the planet.

Or another example may be in the demand for automobiles. Rather than persons favoring carpooling or public transportation, everyone feels as if he must have his or her own car as soon as he or she gets a driving license. This is not only impractical in the long run (as there surplus of cars on car lots now indicates) but also wasteful in terms of gas and harmful in terms of emissions. The consumer culture, however, can only last so long as there is a significant middle class willing to spend. When that class shrinks or the money constricts, the consumer culture comes to an end.

One reason that consumers have neglected to wake up to this reality is that they have divorced themselves from the world of nature. Industry has created artificial worlds, where air conditioning and electricity help keep everyone comfortable. This is what the tenets of agrarianism suggest: the root cause of human alienation from nature is urban life and the rise of industry, as seen in the vast migrations of citizens away from the land to the cities during the Industrial Revolution. The advancements of technology over the past 200 years have dehumanized man, removed him from his natural surroundings, placed him in an ever more sterile and unnatural environment, and depleted his sense of community. He has become more and more dependent on materialism, as though all of his being could be satisfied by the accruing of more and more physical goods. What is lost is an idea of the soul, of mental health, spiritual well-being, and an appreciation of the environment (Kasser, 2002; Lewis, 2011). Americans especially must feel disconnected with the past and with their heritage, as their own country "began as a nation of farmers" (Hagenstein, 2011, p. 9). What happened after the war for Independence was a communal shift away from an agrarian way of life towards a new way which would secure a "commercial economy" (Hagenstein, 2011, p. 11). Having its own independent government brought forth new pressures, and the people of America adopted a "Hamiltonian worldview," putting profit and capital gains ahead of spiritual and natural nourishment (Hagenstein, 2011, p.14). The Hamiltonian worldview was essentially a capitalistic, materialistic one in which all power was centralized and on profits privatized -- not shared. It was the antithesis of today's share economy and it fueled a malnourished system that came to crashing down in the first decade of the 21st century with the onset of the global economic recession.

This lack of nourishment is evident in the architectural designs of the 20th century which moved away from the "form ever follows function" manifesto of Sullivan and adopted a substanceless, functionless attitude that served only the capitalistic, consumerist empires -- which are now in recession and outright decay (Escobar, 2014).

Precedent Studies

Dead and Empty, Decorative, Single Function Buildings

Decorative, single function buildings were something that enabled individual architects to show off their talents and indulge in their craft. They were style without substance. They were form without function. This is evident in developed as well as developing countries. In South America, for instance, the famous architects have constructed decorative, single function buildings that have been praised for their style but that simply lack functionality. This is a problem especially in urban regions where multi-functional facilities could be of great use.

Moreover, what is significant about these decorative, single function buildings is that they represent an amalgamation of influences, from social to political to economical to historical -- yet rarely do they have environmental influences or serve a multi-purpose social function beyond the generation of remunerative results for owners (such as is the case with hotels, where there may be significant vacancy for whole segments of a year -- while at the same time locals find it hard to find shelter). Green-conscious architects are only lately coming into fashion -- alongside the rise of share economy (Thorpe, 2012), but this is one influence that architects of the 20th century have not experienced.

Prior to this explosion of green consciousness, architects fostered a spirit of showmanship, endeavoring to illustrate how they could follow in the style of the Bauhaus or the Brutalists or the Classicalists. Understanding these architects and their works can help to shed all the more light on the urgency and necessity of 21st century architects to answer the question -- is this necessary? More to the point, these studies can help to draw attention to the pressing need for conservation in an architectural sense, and allow a more robust response to the question of how the notion of share economy can facilitate architectural design today.

One may take the work of architect Villanueva, for instance. Lejeune notes, for instance, that for the Venezuelan there are a number of influences that shaped his architectural design. These are worth noting because they show how there is awareness of culture and style on the architect's part -- but no sense of shared responsibility or sense of share economy -- mainly because these works predate the modern notion by half a century. All the same, they are indicative of the mindset that has steered societies towards overconsumption. For Villanueva, there was the political scene in Caracas that had an impact on his work in Venezuela as well as the history of the nation and the European influences: "the synthesis of formal rationalism and Baroque plasticity"

(Lejeune, 2003, p. 86). But Villanueva was born in London and moved to Venezuela later. His particular tendency in constructing housing in Venezuela was to use "space" and "color" in order to make his houses stand out from the "demon city" that encased them and which Villanueva sought to escape through architecture (Lejeune, 2003, p. 86). Thus, his main objective was not to make space more functional or multi-functional but rather to use it up and deplete it -- giving only decorative aestheticism to the city. For this reason one sees in his houses "El Paraiso" (1952-1954) and "23 January" (1955) as well as "El Silencio" this tendency to use color and space to set the homes apart from their surroundings and transcend the civic and public turmoil in which they were situated. This was escapist architecture. One finds traditional European Baroque sentiments infused with Bauhaus styles, flats and horizontals, that effect a dynamic hybrid of old world and new world architecture -- but it has no social significance or purpose that is able to address the needs of a world overburdened by poverty, pollution, waste, and diminishing resources.

How and what these "old school" architects decided to design their houses with was based on their influences, as Lejeune (2003) has noted. Villanueva had spent time at the Beaux Arts in Paris so this had an impact on him and in the 1950s and 1960s, the style of architecture in the world was influenced by the Bauhaus movement. Thus, his residential houses were at times decorative and at other times without ornament, after the brutalist fashion of Breuer and others. In his Caracas homes, Villanueva displayed a gigantic faAade of shells which were used to alleviate the sense of space by playing off one another within the composition. But in terms of creating space or expanding the purpose of the rooms, they did nothing. He played with balances between height within his space and gave distinction and variance to the surroundings rather than blending in with everything else in a uniform fashion -- but these designs had only an aesthetic value; again, it was form without function.

Like Villanueva, Vilamajo prioritized his materials for his houses based on the aesthetic appeal of the current architectural flow. Thus, the Vilamajo House (now Museum) built in 1930 in Montevideo has a style that is very Frank Lloyd Wright in character and even Bauhaus. Its flats and horizontals are offset by its funky character that emanates from a lively, joyous exterior faAade that is surprisingly variant with its dotted surface and various window sizes. But Like Villanueva, Vilamajo's designs are in response to the 20th century corporatism that Sullivan decried, the rise of the skyscraper with its soul-deadening lifelessness, which Sullivan attempted to ornament at least with some style and beauty (though even these skyscrapers had multi-purpose functions -- which is more than can be said of the single function designs of the mid-20th century architects, who promoted style over substance). These two architects however are dealing with the infusion of corporatism in Latin America in a way that is meant to elevate the spirit or give the onlooker a transcendent experience. This was the primary aim of the design -- whereas today the aim of architecture in a collaborative consumption sense is to provide a multitude of variant possibilities within a single structure; transcendence is not a primary focus.

Indeed, the ornamentation -- the hieroglyphics, the "intricate patterns in an all-over coating" -- all of it speaks of an articulation of soul -- of a heart and mind that the new towers of "functionalism" would lack (Korom, 2008, p. 209). Implicit in Villanueva's architecture was the sense that form should never lose its soul -- or never cease reflecting the transcendent quality of the human spirit. This idea was also apparent in the Vilamajo House, which sits like an extraordinary gift to a city steeped in homogenous works. Vilamajo might as well have been channeling Wright with his use of flats and horizontals and simple materials for his creation, because it was Wright who identified this style of architecture as "the triumph of human imagination over materials, methods and men, to put man into possession of his own earth" (Pfieffer, 1988, p. 48).

This issue of defining what is important to the architect in the time in which he lives brings the focus back to the question raised by Wheeler (2015) -- which is that sustainable architecture must be defined. For the South American architects, their sense of sustainable architecture (if it may be called that) was completely opposite to what scholars and architects might define it as today.

Still, in their own personal designs, the two Latin American architects embrace the Bauhaus influence on art, which was to encourage a movement away from pre-conceived or old-world methods of illustrating the spiritual, just as in design, it encouraged a movement away from old world modes of production. In terms of design and architecture, Bauhaus encouraged the Industrial design -- the mass-produced technique, utilizing new metals, new materials, and absolving nations of national characteristics. Villanueva decried this yet utilized it in El Silencio, and the Vilamajo House reflects the urbanization of the Wright style, which is a kind of prairie-post-industrial style in its own right. In this sense, these architects did advance the movement of design theory towards the modern state that in which it has now developed.

Such poetic hybrids were certainly not new and existed in old world. Indeed, Greek architecture favored an organic feel, and strove "to put a bit of life into buildings to make them breathe [and] flex their sensuality," as Johnson (2003, p. 69) has stated. The way they did this was by using any of five different tactics to convince the eye of a depth, line, and curve. Each tactic required more cost, as it required more labor, and so not every temple employed them. The same is true of Villanueva and Vilamajo, whose houses feel organic as though sprung up out of the earth, with Villanueva's use of the shell faAade to offset his home from surrounding buildings and the Vilamajo House's insistence upon parallel and perpendicular designs and flat surfaces to convey the simple spirit of Frank Lloyd Wright in a Latin American context, situated beneath the urbanized city's own depressing, corporatized landscape. These concrete constructs justify their existence by being something other than what the ordinary building in the neighborhood is even if the materials used are not really any different.

King's (2004) assessment of Villanueva's houses is based on the materials used as well, which replicate the corporatist shift in the architect's mentality. For example King (2004) views that in the 1950s, Villanueva used the "reinforced concrete" of the age to "create curves, arches and undulating canopies" -- as in the "giant, curving external ribs of several of the University City buildings in Caracas" (p. 230). Yet in his houses, there is more of a personal appeal despite the use of concrete that comes through in the style of the house and overrides the materials. In Latin America, as King notes, "concrete is more than just a means to an end" and has an aesthetic appeal. Unfortunately, this appeal does little to confront the mounting issues of modern urban cities struggling to overcome the problems of space, time, resources, and feasibility that now plague them.

Share Economy and Architectural Design

Reviewing the Literature

Existing literature on the subject of share economy, collaborative consumption and doing more with less in terms of architectural design includes a number of approaches. Minke (2012) discusses the possibility of using earth as a building material, depending on the climate region. Minke (2012) finds that "an increasing tendency to build with loam in cooler climate zones" is facilitating a "do more with less" approach to architectural design that serves to support "environmental awareness as well as the desire to live in a balanced and healthy indoor environment" (p. 7). The earthenware architectural design is one that can be utilized to achieve significant strides in conservative building usage of materials. Minke's (2012) focus is therefore helpful in highlighting the important role that earthenware projects can do for communities, especially in a global climate that is more aware than ever before of the footprint that mankind is leaving on nature and the potential dangers to communities that can result from this.

Gorbis (2013) examines the concept of Free-Range Architecture as a method of socialstructured education that allows everyone to contribute to the concept of understanding what is architecture. It takes the "expertise" out of the hands of the academic "instructor" and puts it into the hands of everyone: essentially, all with knowledge are allowed to contribute and work together, just as the parts of an arm work with the body in order to be functional (Gorbis, 2013). This is applying the concept of share economy directly to the field of architecture by encouraging share learning through iPhone or Android apps like ArchGenius that allows users to learn about works of architecture by pointing the phone at them and allows users to upload information that may be missing about those works. This is a shared information system and takes the study of architecture out of the classroom. This concept is far from perfect, however, as it does not address practical issues of building, such as getting permits, crews, designs, and structures up and running -- none of which is possible simply through an app or through share learning. But it can be viewed as a stepping stone towards the merger of the architectural field and the science of share economy.

Schwarz and Krabbendem (2013) define sustainist (as the ability to sustain life independently), thereby avoiding the pitfall of Wheeler's (2015) warning. Their study of the concept allows them to assert that sustainist design "forges a fundamental connection between design for sustainability and design for social impact" (p. 25). This connection allows the architect to create a structure that has social importance and social value in terms of collaborative consumption. Every one of its aspects from its usage of energy (which is shared) to its usage of space (which is also shared) is thought-out and implemented on the basis, not of aesthetic value, but of social value in a share economy sense. Their study is helpful in exploring the ideas and range of possibilities about how architectural design and share economy can go together in the 21st century.

Botsman (2010) notes that "the sustainability movement has pressed designers to stop focusing on 'thingification' and address the ecological impact of the products they design" (p. 187). This means that architects are now facing the challenge of considering the impact of their design not only on the economy and the society but also on the natural world. Botsman's study shows that architects in the 21st need to rethink the tools that are in their belt and apply the mechanics important to individuals in the Digital Age to the field of architecture. In short, all three aspects must be considered in the 21st century, because the emphasis on values and preservation has shifted to incorporate these aspects in much of the developed world. And just as form ever follows function, "design drives the raw materials required" (Botsman, 2010, p. 187). Thus, in architectural design, it is necessary to consider what materials will be used to construct.

Donovan (2015) asserts that as a result of globalization, more and more urban areas are becoming homogenous and divorced from the traditional local culture. One key aspect to the preservation principle that sustainable architecture can address is the mediation "between the existing cultural heritage and the future built environment" (p. 3).

The examples of AirBnB, Splacer, and ZipCar also serve as precedent examples of how a share economy is revolutionizing the way moderns think, act, and expect the world and the community to operate. AirBnB, for instance, is a service by which home owners are able to "rent out" their homes or even spare rooms to visitors who prefer a "real home" experience for the duration of their stay as opposed to the "hotel" experience of the baby-boomer generation. As Zervas, Proserpio and Byers (2016) show, the impact of AirBnB on the traditional hotel structure has been enormous; in effect, the rise of the share economy has disrupted the service economy and the hotel chains used to catering to travelers. Today's economy is one in which 21st century travelers and individuals in general want to "share" what they have -- and AirBnB is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Splacer is a similar example of how access to facility is better than conventional ownership. Splacer allows users to book a time to use a facility rather than own the space outright. Through this strategy, individuals can share a single space for different occasions throughout the year. It means that they utilize space more efficiently instead of simply striving to own a space for a single purpose for only a portion of the year and then allowing that space to go unused for the remainder of the time. Splacer reduces the level of inefficiency in urban locations by anointing commercial space with the share economy blessing. In effect, it is even better than seasonal ownership (the time-share community), because it is occasional ownership: it gives priority to necessity and allows everyone to profit (the leasers and the lessees). Splacer gets to the core of the main idea of this study because it shows how commercial structures can be utilized for multi-purpose activities through the application of the share economy notion. Organizing around people rather than around profits, and acknowledging one's environment and the needs that it evinces elevates the present space to a transcendent order of operations. It is the coming together of architecture, business, and community under the umbrella of the concept of share economy.

As Sundararajan (2013) shows, share economy has even entered into the automotive sphere, thus indicating that a true revolution in social organization has come about as a result of technological advances (the Internet) and environmental needs. ZipCar is a service which takes the share economy theory and applies it to car rentals. Instead of renting a car from a company, ZipCar users can "borrow" a car from other ZipCar users wherever they happen to be. All that they pay is a service fee, which can be applied monthly (in the form of a subscription rate) or hourly (in the form of an as-needed basis). Gas and mileage are all included and all the user has to do is return the vehicle to the spot from which he picked it up at the designated time. There is no paperwork, no exchange of keys, and no hassle. It is an example of a what's-mine-is-yours attitude -- a true marriage of minds who connect in the virtual world via the Internet so as to take advantage of the sharing culture in the real world.

Thus, AirBnB, Splace, and ZipCar all provide access to shared spaces, services and facilities upon need/request and perform more efficiently in terms of servicing a need than the philosophy behind conventional ownership. If these ideas can be applied to residential spaces, commercial spaces, and automotive spaces, they can surely be applied to architectural design.

Several lessons may be learned from organization theory and applied to this question of architectural design (Selznick, 1948). Depending on the structure of the organization and/or work of architecture, all activities have their place and some naturally mesh with others and in this sense can be actively facilitative of mult-purpose intents (Perrow, 1991). Production determines structure just as according to Louis Sullivan form ever follows function. The two ideas are essentially the same. In architectural terms, a building's structure will naturally limit it to certain activities and open it up to others. Making use, through the imaginative process, of all the possible applications for a structure is partly what is at the heart of sustainability in architecture.

However, just as structure is important for organizations, so too is environment -- and the same applies to architecture. An organization must be able to adapt to a stable environment just as an architect must adapt to the demands of the location. If there is no adaptation, a process of natural selection will occur. In a sense, this aspect of organization theory also incorporates contingency theory -- and the best contingency plan that a sustainable architect can come up with is one that is all-seasons and all-purpose, open to a variety of uses and efficient in its utilization of energy, space, time, structure, and application.

But, according to organization theory, an organization must not be too dependent upon its suppliers, and so too must sustainable architecture not be too dependent upon energy or resources that it cannot sustain or harness on its own (such would defeat the purpose of sustainability). In business, such a circumstance creates a weak and unstable organization, an in architectural design it is the same. If an organization is able to have power over its suppliers, it can control its own environment rather than be controlled by it -- and this idea translates equally well into the architectural arena.

For this reason uniformity in organization and architectural structure often happens. For example, he who makes a successful film will find others who imitate it the following year. In the 20th century, the minimalist style of the Bauhaus architects and the Brutalists worked rather well because it was simple, economical and disinterested in providing communities with any sense of aesthetic value -- in other words, it was the anti-Sullivan ideology of architecture that appealed to the bureaucratic, capitalistic states supporting growth and that was easily copied and replicated. Deviation from the norm is rare. If the organization at the top of the game adopts a new method of governance, those below will likely too out of fear of being blamed for either a) not following the example of the most successful, or b) losing ground by doing things "their own way." In architecture, this fear is somewhat reduced as the 21st century now has new demands placed upon it -- namely, preservation of natural resources, of space, and of purpose. Imaginative processes and revolutionary ideas are wanted and needed.

Thus, it is important to understand that according to the Breckenridge Institute, one of the forces that will impact organizational and architectural theory over the next fifty years is advancement in science and technology. An organization must be able to effectively interact with the dynamic environment of which it is a part, for as the twentieth century has proven (through the development of quantum physics) science and technology are here to stay and are paving the way to how societies manage themselves. Likewise, the field of architectural is changing: due to inclement economic forces, communities cannot afford to erect expensive structures that serve a single purpose. Multi-purpose structures are not only necessary but (Peters, 2014). As Peters (2014) notes: "Scientists have predicted that if we maintain our product culture and our current rates of consumption, as soon as 2030 we would need the equivalent of two planet Earths to meet our needs" (p. 6). This scientific finding presents certain problems to the architect of the 21st century -- namely, the problem of how to produce sustainable architecture in a world that is desperately in need of it.

Contending not only with economic and natural forces, the architect must also consider another force -- a social one, which is situated in the redistribution of knowledge and sharing of information via the Digital Age's greatest achievement -- the Internet (Ritala, Olander, Michailova, Husted, 2015). In the 21st century, knowledge really is power. And how that knowledge is controlled and distributed will determine which societies succeed. In terms of growth and development, applying the most important lessons regarding sustainability are essential.

Similarly, the physical environment has to be considered. For architects, global consciousness and earth consciousness must go hand-in-hand. Organizations that are able to promote earth consciousness stand a better chance of appealing to consumers who worry about the planet's sustainability, just as the architect must pursue a plan of building sustainability. An organization that cares about the planet is an organization that cares about its people, and in architectural terms, the structure must do the same by providing multi-purpose facilities. As Falzon (2015) indicates, environments and people have a symbiotic relationship: the work together to benefit one another. The external environment can help make or break a work of architecture, so it is important to consider all the forces that impact it.

Precedent Studies

Louisville is home to a diverse community, wealthy and poor alike; low income housing, university housing, historic mansions (as in Old Louisville), and more. However, when one drives through downtown Louisville, one quickly realizes that the disparity in income creates physical features in the community that has impacts on the community's health. One solution to this challenge is co-housing, a plan being adopted and utilized by Co-Housing Louisville to effect a sense of community and share economy into the urban area. This is not only important and helpful but it helps to contribute to the overall health of the city as well. Through the use of retrofitted structures, multifamily buildings, shared floors, partnerships, and standalones near common spaces, the Co-Housing project in Louisville is set to make an impact and provide a "solution" for "suburbia" in the form of share space environments (Clark, 2007).

At the end of a college semester in Louisville, in summer for instance, one can drive through the streets and see all the two- and three-story brick houses that appear to be gutted and hollowed out. Part of this is because some of them are (windows boarded up, roofs collapsing). Part of it is because the tenants are moving away for the summer (mattresses left on the lawn for owners to pick up, the porches trashed). There is a sense that much of the downtown living quarters are given to transients rather than to real home owners. That is mainly due to the fact that the University of Louisville is only a few blocks away. Yet nearby in Old Louisville, a beautiful row of brick mansions sits at St. James Court, where front yards are kept in pristine condition and tour groups actually stop to take pictures. Meanwhile, just around the block at Central Park, a diverse arrangement of locals, black, white, Hispanic, Latino, Asian gather to walk, play tennis, read, or enjoy the outdoors.

Two features that stand out in Louisville are Central Park and Churchill Downs. Central Park is a place where people can get outside and exercise and enjoy fresh air and green surroundings. This has a positive impact on health in the community. The Park helps to promote a healthy consciousness among individuals. As Shinew, Stodolska, Roman, and Yahner (2013) show, "adolescents who expressed greater fear of crime also engaged in less physical activity and outdoor recreation" (p. 541), and Central Park is right off St. James Court where the nicest part of Old Louisville is -- so it is not surprising to see young people getting exercise at the Park -- it is in a nicer area and they feel safe. Churchill Downs on the other hand has a negative impact on the community's health in the sense that it promotes gambling and excess drinking for persons who come especially during Derby Week. It does not foster a spirit of health awareness in the same way that the Park does, especially as it is not located in the best part of town and does not inspire outdoor activity that is health conscious. It acts like the attractive cheap housing in the neighborhood but does not provide quality or safe shelter for the body or raise awareness of healthy living standards.

Louisville thus serves as an example of what is needed for the 21st century architect: on the one hand, there is the co-housing project at St. James Court where various families, owners and renters live together within a community and share the common spaces. It is utility and multi-functionality: with access to parks, aesthetic value, rooms for recreation, museums, shelter and hosting events. On the other hand, the area surrounding the race track is designed to serve only one purpose: the track. How can share economy better facilitate architectural design here?