Share Economy and Sustainable Architecture in the 21st Century

Introduction: Sustainability and the Architectural Profession

One of the most pressing challenges facing architects in the 21st century is the issue of sustainability. Not only is there no consensus on how to approach sustainability in academic circles, but there is also no formula for integrating it into architectural curricula (Wright, 2003). This deficiency underscores an even deeper problem: 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 meaningful connection between the myriad academic approaches and professional architectural practice. Wheeler (2015) asserts that this disconnect 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 profit 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 around the world and share information at essentially no cost. This sharing and connectivity has given rise to today's share economy 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. 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 therefore essential to overcoming the challenges of depleted resources, shrinking economies, and failing community infrastructures (Escobar, 2014).

Sustainability, Form, and Function: Historical Trends in Theory

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." This architectural manifesto gave birth to America's first real burst of architectural creativity and design.

The 20th century gave way, however, to Marcel Breuer's Brutalism, which can be viewed in one sense as a result of the loss of a sense of function. Tenement dwellings were not conceived as housing people of inexpressible worth and value, but rather as serving a bureaucratic purpose — packing as many bodies into as many meters as 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 results 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 is again becoming important. This shift has come about as a result of a new socio-cultural trend rooted in both economics and environmental studies. Sustainability is now a growing concern among developers and designers: how to create a building that is efficient and sustainable, leaves as small an environmental footprint as possible, yet maintains a diversity of life. This was not an issue for the Brutalists of the 20th century. For Sullivan at the end of the 19th 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 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 their structures.

In collaboration with the economic ideas of "collaborative consumption," sustainability in architecture can be viewed in terms of resource efficiency. Imagine an architectural system that can accommodate various functions and programs regardless of the day, time, year, or season — then ask: what resources will need to be consumed in order to sustain this system efficiently? Consuming less and utilizing more — in terms of space, energy, and other finite resources — is essentially at the heart of the unique problem facing architects in the 21st century, whether they are "green," eco-friendly, constrained by urban limitations, or simply energy-conscious. 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 than Sullivan was in 1896, but the essence of the problem is more nature-driven, in terms of respect for the environment, 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 while requiring fewer resources is what this notion is all about. A share economy framework 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 sensibility 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, and utility, while maximizing function, potential, affordability, and scale.

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

Problems of Consumerism and Capitalism

The consumer culture that exists as a result of our current global economic system has resulted in environmental destruction 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 real possibility. One of the economic reasons for this collapse — at least in the West — is that the means of extracting and processing fuels needed by industry have become too expensive relative to profit margins (Hadley and Rennell, 2015, p. 29). Other corporate entities are destroying the environment by attempting to "modify" nature's organisms, such as wheat, which as a GMO has been shown to be toxic to both people and land (Engdahl, 2007). Meanwhile, the consumerist culture that for so long kept industry intact is now shrinking as the financial world continues its unchecked global pillage 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 given that it is primarily the excessive waste and materialism of the former that has brought about the latter (Kasser, 2002). As Calvo and Mendoza (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, businesses, and 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 both impact and are impacted by the environment in which they create.

Any number of examples illustrate the point that global-scale consumerism leads to environmental devastation. The demand for oil and for ever-greater profits has led to the implementation of environmentally harmful methods of extracting energy from the earth — namely, fracking and off-shore drilling, both of which are only profitable when the cost of oil per barrel is high (Hadley and Rennell, 2015, p. 29). With the recent decline in oil prices as part of the energy conflicts being waged in the Middle East (Escobar, 2014), more and more extraction facilities are shutting down. Ironically, the consumerist culture that spawned the fracking industry is now responsible for its collapse: consumer demand does not match the oversupply of oil, and with the impending global economic pressures foreseen by many analysts, it is a further sign that consumerism (Kasser, 2002) — which led to an overexpansion of extraction facilities (Hadley and Rennell, 2015) — will be the same force that ultimately kills the industry, but not before that industry helps to damage the planet.

Another example lies in the demand for automobiles. Rather than favoring carpooling or public transportation, individuals feel compelled to own a personal vehicle as soon as they obtain a driving license. This is not only impractical in the long run, as the current surplus of cars on lots indicates, but also wasteful in terms of fuel consumption and harmful in terms of emissions. The consumer culture, however, can only last as long as there is a significant middle class willing to spend. When that class shrinks or disposable income constricts, the consumer culture comes to an end.

One reason that consumers have been slow to wake up to this reality is that they have divorced themselves from the natural world. Industry has created artificial environments where air conditioning and electricity 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 mass migrations of citizens from the land to the cities during the Industrial Revolution. The technological advances of the past 200 years have dehumanized people, removed them from their natural surroundings, placed them in ever more sterile and unnatural environments, and depleted their sense of community. People have become increasingly dependent on materialism, as though all of human fulfillment could be satisfied by the accumulation of 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 in particular must feel disconnected from their past and heritage, as their own country "began as a nation of farmers" (Hagenstein, 2011, p. 9). What followed the war for Independence was a communal shift away from an agrarian way of life toward a new way that would secure a "commercial economy" (Hagenstein, 2011, p. 11). Having its own independent government brought 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 profits privatized — not shared. It was the antithesis of today's share economy, and it fueled a malnourished system that came 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 Sullivan's "form ever follows function" manifesto and adopted a substanceless, functionless attitude that served only the capitalistic, consumerist empires — which are now in recession and outright decay (Escobar, 2014).

Share Economy and Architectural Design: Literature Review

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

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

Schwarz and Krabbendam (2013) define sustainist as the ability to sustain life independently, thereby avoiding the definitional pitfall Wheeler (2015) warns against. Their study 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 aspect of such a structure — from its use of energy (which is shared) to its use of space (which is also shared) — is conceived and implemented not on the basis of aesthetic value but of social value in a share economy sense. Their study is helpful in exploring the ideas and range of possibilities for 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 society but also on the natural world. Botsman's study shows that 21st-century architects need to rethink the tools in their belt and apply the mechanics important to individuals in the Digital Age to the field of architecture. All three aspects — economic, social, and environmental — must be considered, because the emphasis on values and preservation has shifted to incorporate them 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 from the outset 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 traditional local culture. One key aspect 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 sharing economy is revolutionizing the way people think, act, and expect the world and the community to operate. AirBnB, for instance, is a service by which homeowners 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 conventional hotel experience. 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 accustomed 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 a facility is better than conventional ownership. Splacer allows users to book time in a facility rather than own the space outright. Through this strategy, individuals can share a single space for different occasions throughout the year, utilizing it more efficiently instead of striving to own a space for a single purpose that sits unused for the remainder of the time. Splacer reduces inefficiency in urban locations by anointing commercial space with the share economy concept. In effect, it is even better than seasonal ownership (the time-share model) because it is occasional ownership: it gives priority to necessity and allows everyone to profit — both leasers and 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 share economy principles. Organizing around people rather than around profits, and acknowledging one's environment and the needs it evokes, elevates the present space to a transcendent order of operations. It is the coming together of architecture, business, and community under the umbrella of share economy.

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

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

Several lessons from organization theory can also be applied to this question of architectural design (Selznick, 1948). Depending on the structure of an organization or a work of architecture, all activities have their place, and some naturally mesh with others — and in this sense can actively facilitate multi-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 imaginative use of all the possible applications for a structure is partly what lies at the heart of sustainability in architecture.

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 a 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 devise 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.

According to organization theory, an organization must not be too dependent upon its suppliers; similarly, sustainable architecture must not be too dependent upon energy or resources it cannot sustain or harness on its own, since such dependence would defeat the purpose of sustainability. In business, such a circumstance creates a weak and unstable organization, and in architectural design the same principle holds. If an organization can control its own supply chain, 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 organizational and architectural structure often emerges. 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 bureaucratic, capitalistic states supporting growth and was easily copied and replicated. Deviation from the norm is rare. In architecture, however, this conservatism is somewhat reduced as the 21st century places new demands upon the field — namely, the preservation of natural resources, space, and purpose. Imaginative processes and revolutionary ideas are now wanted and needed.

According to the Breckenridge Institute, one of the forces that will impact organizational and architectural theory over the next fifty years is the advancement of science and technology. An organization must be able to effectively interact with the dynamic environment of which it is a part, for as the 20th century has proven through the development of quantum physics, science and technology are paving the way to how societies manage themselves. Likewise, the field of architecture is changing: due to challenging economic forces, communities cannot afford to erect expensive structures that serve a single purpose. Multi-purpose structures are not only desirable but necessary (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 finding presents a serious challenge to the 21st-century architect — namely, how to produce sustainable architecture in a world desperately in need of it.

Contending not only with economic and natural forces, the architect must also consider a social force situated in the redistribution of knowledge and sharing of information via the Digital Age's greatest achievement — the Internet (Ritala, Olander, Michailova, and Husted, 2015). In the 21st century, knowledge truly 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 is essential.

Similarly, the physical environment must 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 and work together to benefit one another. The external environment can make or break a work of architecture, so it is important to consider all the forces that impact it.

Conclusion: Toward a Share Economy Architecture

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 the hosting of events. On the other hand, the area surrounding the racetrack is designed to serve only one purpose: the track. The gap between these two examples illustrates precisely the challenge that sustainable, share economy architecture must address.

The answer, as this study has argued, lies in incorporating share economy principles — drawn from platforms like AirBnB, Splacer, and ZipCar, and from design projects like HBNY (Parenthetical Space) — into the fundamental logic of architectural design. From Sullivan's "form ever follows function" to the bioclimatic designs outlined by Bovill (2014), from the rehabilitative architecture of the West Kimberley Regional Prison to the community-centered Waterloo Youth Family Community Centre, the evidence is consistent: architecture that serves multiple functions, conserves resources, and connects people with one another and with nature is both possible and necessary. The share economy model, applied architecturally, offers a path toward a built environment that is efficient, equitable, and responsive to the demands of the 21st century.