This is a Roomba.

If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a small robot that cleans floors — a small vacuum cleaner is inside it, and it randomly wanders over the floors of your house, sucking up dirt as it goes. It’s not a substitute for cleaning the floors, but it will stretch out the period between cleanings, and make cleaning faster when it does come. If you have a cat, the cat will most likely attempt to ride the robot, become startled, and it will be adorable.

This is a solar panel.

If you’re not familiar with it — say, because you’ve been living under a rock for the last twenty years — solar panels convert the suns light directly into electricity, and are often favored by environmentalists as a means of reducing your houses net carbon emissions. Although they aren’t market competitive yet, they’re rapidly reaching that point, and in the meanwhile, are the subject of many subsidies and grants.

What do these two technologies have in common?

They make something about your house easier. But they don’t really change your house at all.

You can’t run a house on just solar panels — that little detail of using power at night tends to get in the way. Your house still needs a grid connection, and will likely still face a power bill every month. Likewise, the robot just doesn’t do a good enough job to completely take humans out of the cleaning process. In both cases, the device is fundamentally passive. You interact with your house in exactly the same way you did before (using power and cleaning at regular intervals), the burden placed on you is just reduced — less cost for power or less time spent cleaning.

Like certain other things we’ve examined, these technologies do have a lot of potential to make the houses we live in today better. Lower power bills are as desirable as less household drudgery. But they don’t change the way you interact with, and live in, that building.

Negative criticism is always easy to write — we could list a lot of technologies that aren’t going to fundamentally change houses, but are still very worthwhile. Smart windows, high-efficiency bulbs, HVAC systems and more. A more interesting challenge is trying to list a technology that will have such an impact, this generations washing machine. Here at the Future Blog, we have a few ideas, but we’d like to hear our readers suggestions first.

What technologies do you think could fundamentally change houses? Leave a comment with your own ideas — and next week, we’ll cover your suggestions, along with our own answer.

 

There is an expression, “Generals prepare to fight the previous war.” It is meant to emphasize that when building an army, while generals may have new technology and new strategies to draw upon, they’re still trying to solve the problems they faced when they were young. It would be as accurate to say that companies prepare for last years market, the government deals with problems senators had before they were elected, and teachers prepare kids for the world they grew up in.

Designers of homes and living space fare no better. But by understanding why they design the way they do, we can see how they view buildings, homes, and the way people interact with them.

This is Babcock Ranch. Self-proclaimed “city of the future”.

Currently under development by independent investors backed by the State of Florida, Babcock Ranch is intended to be a model of efficiency, convenience, and environmental friendliness. It is designed to run entirely off of renewable energy, to be easily accessible by bike or on foot, and to feature complete computerized management. Every building in the city (its backers claim) will contain smart grid systems monitoring its power usage, enabling them to save energy, eliminate waste, and cut costs for everyone involved.

Now, there is a fine history of people trying to build “cities of the future” with technology that does not, in fact, exist. Mile-high buildings, atomic elevators, and 500 mile per hour trains have all featured in plans for “future living” that expected themselves to be taken seriously. But for a moment, lets take it as an assumption that the creators of Babcock Ranch can actually do what they claim — and see just how people would live in that city.

Generally, when people look at pictures like this, you get one of two knee-jerk reactions. “That’s very progressive and green!” or “That’s a rich-hippie vanity project.” Knee-jerk reactions aren’t very well thought out though, so lets take a closer look at that picture and see if we can make a more insightful observation.

For instance, we could ask, “What exactly is all of that green stuff on the roof for?” We could go to their website and look it up, but lets see if we can figure it out. There’s a few things it could be useful for:

  • It could be there to make the buildings prettier (beautification).
  • It could be a garden intended for use by people in the building (relaxation).
  • It could be there to absorb carbon dioxide and make the building more environmentally friendly (greenification).
  • Useful fruits and other crops could be grown there to be sold later (agriculture).

Now, imagine how people would have to live in this city, and interact with the buildings inside it, for any of these to be true. Beautification seems very straightforward, until you realize that these are 8-10 story buildings, so the roof isn’t visible from the ground. All we’d see if we looked from ground level is a strip of green. Babcock Ranch’s designers seem to be aware of this, as you can see the effect in their own promotional pictures.

See the little strip of green up there? Still — that is a benefit, so we can understand what interactions would make it worthwhile.

  • If the rooftop gardens are there to make the buildings prettier, people must take a lot of pride in living and working in buildings with the “strip of green” effect on the roof.

Of course, it would be much easier for people to appreciate the gardens beauty if they were standing in it, surrounded by the plants, so perhaps relaxation would be a better use. People don’t go up to the roofs of their buildings very often now, but, if there was a beautiful, warm garden up there, they might go more often. That lets us see very clearly how people would have to interact with the buildings around them for that to be a good idea.

  • If the rooftop gardens are there for relaxation, people must enjoy relaxing on their buildings roof more then they would visiting a nearby park.

Of course, if the gardens are just there to absorb CO2, nobody needs access to them but the staff. Then again, plants can absorb CO2 anywhere — they don’t have to be right on top of the building itself, and it is certainly much cheaper to build a garden outside the city then on a high-rise roof. But maybe there’s some kind of benefit to having it on hand — it might make the air quality in the building more pleasant, or prevent smog from accumulating. We can stop, and think about what might cause people to immediately care about that sort of advantage.

  • If the rooftop gardens are there for greenification, people must be concerned about the air quality in the buildings they work and live in.

Finally, the gardens could be there to grow fresh fruits and vegetables. Certainly, that sort of healthy eating is becoming more popular. But as you can see:

The cities stores, malls, and grocery stores have perfectly functional road access. There’s no reason fresh food couldn’t be brought in from outside — and if growing food on rooftops really was cheaper and easier, you could do it in existing cities, instead of building a new, planned community. Thus, we can see how people would have to interact with their buildings for this to be a sound solution.

  • If the rooftop gardens are there for agriculture, people must take pride in “locally grown” food from their own rooftops.

Babcock Ranch is preparing to fight the previous war — it has been under development for years and was designed by older, “veteran” environmentalists. It’s trying to solve the problems of decades past, not the problems of the future. So stop, take a second — you were alive in the past (we presume), and so you remember what people were most worried about then. Without going to wikipedia and looking up if rooftop organic gardening is popular or if buildings with green roofs sell for more — take a second. Which one of these four options do you think is the real reason? The answer is given below.

If you picked greenification for building air quality, you got it! Organic food, “green” living space, and environmentalism as a selling point for buildings are all relatively new, but people have been worried about urban air quality for ages. In cities that are subject to heat waves — and remember, this is in Florida — even the greenest of cities can develop clouds of “urban heat” and smog. Covering the roofs of buildings with plants helps prevent this, and gives the people living inside the buildings more pleasant air.

While they may use new technology — solar panels, fiber optics, computer management, and more, the designers of Babcock Ranch are looking at the problems cities faced in the 50′s and 60′s (smog and rolling heat), and the environmental concerns of the 80′s and 90′s (the need for clean solar power).

We actually like Babcock Ranch — it’s not the city of the future, but if its designers can deliver what they’re promising, it could be a very good city of the present. But it’s also a very good example of our ideas about how buildings are used and how we interact with them subtly biasing us. Without knowing a thing about air pollution, plant behavior, or environmentalism, we were able to determine the purpose of a very expensive feature, just because that’s what people were worried about when the designers of this system were young.

Any of the other three answers could have been correct. They could still be correct, 10 or 20 years from now, when the kids and teenagers growing up with today’s environmental concerns get older. If you enjoyed this article, stop and leave a comment about what that world would have to be like for one of the other answers to be correct — or tell us how you think future generations will interact with their buildings.

 

Not helped them. Created them.

The value of a washing machine is obvious to anyone who has ever had to do laundry — it’s one of the most ubiquitous labor saving devices, and arguably the most useful. Respected academics have claimed that the washing machine was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution, and it’s not hard to see why. People trying to pinch pennies may turn off the lights lights, turn down the heat, or even go without a car — but nobody washes their clothes by hand. There’s a number of arguments as to just how important the washing machine is — including one very entertaining video linked at the end of this post — but everyone can do the math.

Time to Wash a Load of Laundry by Hand: About 3 Hours
Loads of Laundry: About 1 per Day (in a house with kids)
Time Per Year Saved: Forty-Five Straight Days

Before the washing machine, a woman doing her own family’s laundry would do an amount of work equiviliant to an 8 hour shift, every day, four months out of the year — not counting time spent heating water, carrying water, or buying cleaning supplies. For women with large families, the situation would be even worse. The invention of the washing machine freed these women from a backbreaking, monotonous, relentless job.

And that is how it created stay-at-home mothers. Because the key word there is job.

Before the washing machine, before labor saving devices, maintaining a house was a full time position. Women who stayed at home may have raised children, but they would not say that child rearing was what they did. What they did was washing, cleaning, cooking, and supplying, but also such tasks as inspecting the house for damage, arranging workmen (or getting the men in their family to work), and managing expenses. Even if sexism stopped it from being seen as “real work”, the woman of the house was kept just as busy as her husband, being fully responsible for the management of the home. Upper class women didn’t do the labor themselves — but they were still employed, directing servants, ensuring the upkeep of the grounds, and managing household money.

There was even a term for it. When an unmarried man bought a house, he would hire a “woman of all work,” who would upkeep the building, and even manage other servants, if he needed them.

But then came the washing machine. There were still many household tasks to see to, but in houses with this amazing new device, women had more free time. Girls did not have to help their mothers carry and heat water, and women could spend some time focused entirely on raising their kids — or pursuing their own hobbies. A trend that would continue, until today, when a woman who chooses to stay at home is assumed to be primarily focused on raising her children, or pursuing her own ideas. In 1912, the term “stay at home mother” would have made as much sense as “stay at work employee” — keeping a house fit to live in was a job, and it took a hard working person all day, every day, to do it. Now, women have a choice, and so we need that distinction.

And this is how it all comes back to houses. The washing machine created the stay-at-home mother because it turned a house from a place of labor, in which people happen to live, into a place to live, where some labor happens to occur. Even if it would be too expensive, we can imagine a house where the laundry is done at the laundromat, food is ordered out, and the repairs are done by professionals — a house where the residents do almost no physical labor in the house. Before the washing machine this would have been absurd, ridiculous — a house was a place of work as much as any factory. Now, a house is a place to live, it’s just easier to do some work inside.

We still have some other ideas about how a house works, of course — more then just “a place to live”. For young people and students, making the transition from renting an apartment to renting a house can be an important step in their lives, signaling maturity. Moving into a house can be a sign of financial stability, a sign that we’ve “made it,” or something a couple does to seal a marriage and settle down. Buying a house can be an investment, or just something we do because we need a place that’s “ours.” These are all ideas about how a house works as unspoken and obvious to us, as the idea that a house is a place of labor would have been to someone in 1912. We don’t really talk about them, because we don’t need too — that’s just how things are.

But, there’s no reason things will always be that way.

If you enjoyed this article, leave a comment about ways you think of a home beyond “a place to live.” Be it a sign of stability, a place to run your home business from, or something that’s been in the family you don’t want to part with. We’d love to do a spotlight on one of our readers, and how you relate to the buildings you live in.

© 2011 The Inhabited Future Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha