All of our things, artifacts of our existence, the remains of our actions. These things when unused exist only as symbols of who we are. I use a ruler, I am a measurer, I use a basketball, I am a player, I use a long board, I am a badmamajama, I have pictures of flowers, I am a nature loving hippie.

Use in the present tense transfers meaning to the product. We see a welder welding but our focus is on the sculpture. The past tense diminishes the importance of what has been made, it shifts focus to the questions of how and with what tools. We see processes, methods, approaches, and patterns, so clearly in hindsight.

So these things around us, allow us to question how we have done what we did more often than they allow us to actually do. Tools become mementos, works become a way of sharing past processes despite the outcomes. The unfortunate fact is that these things we save, consume our space. Our environment is the filled space which influences our working patterns. Without extra space, we are constantly confronted with the artifacts of past efforts. The blank canvas with which we started is near complete, it no longer begs for our marks. And thus, these things consume our potential.

When we free this space, we free ourselves. We allow for new artifacts to be created, new processes to be developed, new methods to be attempted.

When we dissolve our artifacts of production, these symbolic objects of our conquests, we become open, uncomfortable, and new. This process of accumulation and dissolution will follow throughout life. Should we dissolve to early, we will surely under-apply ourselves. Should we avoid the dissolution forever we surely will become stagnant. Should we avoid it for too long, we surely will collapse.  We can see this collapse in the markets of today, but we can also see those new processes being developed, new opportunities being presented. The torch guys are up to something, and so are so many others.

Certainly one of the largest challenges is to identify the artifacts we no longer use. On a larger than personal scale, we must separate our intentions from our institutions. Should city hall be an artifact(a building) or should it exist on our cellphones? Should the bank be a quaint storefront on main street or should it secure itself within our homes and communities? Should our schools be fenced in grassyards and red brick warehouses, or should they exist in our places of work, within our parks, on our streets? And should our place of work remain the same from day to day as  a desk and chair, or should it be constantly negotiated against shared concerns and priorities?

So the question is, if we can rethink our own individual process, and part from the old symbolic artifacts of production within one organization, what is stopping us from rethinking the global system. What is stopping us from presenting a plethora of alternatives to this one system.

How might we cleanse ourselves of our artifacts, while gaining the insight they give us into our past identity?

Over the last few months, I have been interviewing the managers/facilitators/hosts/founders of coworking/shared spaces around the world.

This podcasting thing is hard. It seems in order to do a new episode I have to do a blog post for each. I’ve been uploading them over the last weeks, but here they are all at once. Let’s hope this works!

To get it in iTunes click here

To get it in another program, use the RSS feed for this blog, or the links below

 

 Shared Spaces 4: Facilitating [08:17m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (154)

Over the last few months, I have been interviewing the managers/facilitators/hosts/founders of coworking/shared spaces around the world.

This third episode is about the rules, or the absence of them in most cases.

To get it in iTunes click here

To get it in another program, use the RSS feed for this blog, or the links below

 

 Episode 3 Rules [08:17m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (239)

This is the first episode of a series of conversations about technology, work and communities.

Will technology encourage more local collaboration or will virtual communities take over? there are no easy answers, but the possibilities are intriguing for sure.

In this 20 minute episode Richard Hunt talks about the printed book as the first form of mass media and the stepping stone for proliferation of information. He compares social and economic models from the past with the new forms of collaboration and conversation made possible by digital technology.

Richard is a typographer and design educator based in Toronto. He can be reached at www.atype.ca

 

 The Future: Richard Hunt pt1: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (171)

Over the last few months, I have been interviewing the managers/facilitators/hosts/founders of coworking/shared spaces around the world.

This second episode is about the space, more more so the people and the space. What happens when you design a space for people, or let people design you’re space.

To get it in iTunes click here

To get it in another program, use the RSS feed for this blog, or the links below

 

 Episode 1: People [11:12m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (284)

Over the last few months, I have been interviewing the managers/facilitators/hosts/founders of coworking/shared spaces around the world.

In speaking with a friend about the podcast, I explained the amazing lesson was that all of these people sound like they’re describing the same place. In his subtle and knowing way, he responded: What I hear is that they are the same people. Either way you look at it, there are commonalities, and a general sense of optimism around these spaces.

So, the podcast release has begun. This first episode will introduce the people you will be getting to know over the next couple weeks. There are images in the podcast for your viewing pleasure. We spoke about the movtivations, inspirations, challenges, and surprises of seeing a shared space through its evolution. There are many insights and the experience was very eye opening.

To get it in iTunes click here

I hope you find some good nuggets in here, and grow to love these great people, in wonderful places.

 

 Episode 1: Spaces [5:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (332)

1 051 200 minutes. It’s the next two years. In this time we can change our economy, the way we work in it, and what we work on.

The economy. That word hasn’t been sounding as good as it used to. Maybe its the importance of those two words, as if all we’ve got is THE economy. All I know is that there is a huge energy swelling up inside of me as I look at the mirrors of people who seem to be bubbling themselves, and if THE economy is the only place this energy can go something’s gonna give.

In conversation with friends, the idea of declaring an un-recession came up. Could place a dome over our economy and keep our prospects up by just working and planning well? My reaction is one of understanding but minor disagreement. The things happening in Toronto(MaRS, Strategic Innovation Lab, CSI, Unfinished Business, The Movement, etc) are not unique to Toronto. But something unique is concentrated in Toronto.

What I mean to say is, can we place a bunch of smaller bubbles over the people and passions which seem to characterize this happening. Can we, instead of letting the recession decide our future of work, declare a recess for a year or two. Can we play, hope, dream, work, think, talk, connect, and create in this short time. And once recess is over, can we continue the endeavour into the most interesting classroom we’ve ever entered.

There is no better time to start this than now.

The market is going down, internet usage is going up, start-up costs are going down, and people’s amount of free time is going up. In short: the downmarket is a great time for start ups.

There is no better place to start it than here in Toronto, and the pockets of hope all over the world.

View Larger Map

And there are no better people to make this happen than the people around you.

There’s an article up at the Good Business blog discussing the idea of a social business

…unlike a traditional profit-maximizing business, it exists to serve a social goal: to feed the hungry, house the homeless, provide health care for the sick, or clean the environment. What’s more, it does not generate profits. Instead, any surplus generated goes right back into the business, enabling it to serve more customers and expand the benefits it provides. Hence this simple definition of a social business: a non-loss, non-dividend business with a social objective.

Its great to think about the structure which might best bring about continual change and betterment. What sort of legal structure would this social business exist as. Is it purely a conceptual reordering of a charity/Non-profit, or would this happen beneath an incorporated entity?

I am still reading out of poverty by Paul Polak. It sounds like the same approach, in that you look to sell to the people you wish to help. By treating them as customers, your interest becomes one of partnership rather than pity. Would this model seek to help the people who make less than a dollar a day? If so, would it not inherently need to approach business from a cost effective, context-aware, on-location perspective? Would these business still exist here and try to help over there?

If we are truly going to end poverty and allow all people to take part in the global economy, we must realize that most of the people earning lower than a dollar-a-day are on farms. What can we do as people who do not know about farming. Maybe we can facilitate information flow. Robert Wright says there are 3 economies which grow in complexity: Energy, Material, and Information. In these three progress is made either in production or processing. Certainly these people could use access to information, but how do we bring it to them for cheap?

Why is it that I am attracted to independent coffee places rather than larger corporate ones? I was at the intersection of Queen and Richmond. The option: Starbucks or Le Gourmand. Of course I ended up in Le Gourmand, packed as it is. The coffee is not the greatest, but it is the better of the two.

Where does my money go? This is my first concern. Who am I supporting? If it is true we are living in a consumer society, and that my dollar is a small act of consent on a large scale. It follows that I must consider these choices. Choices which not only lead to an immediate satisfaction, but also to long term investments in a particular cause.

Ownership. Who benefits from my purchases, who am I investing in, what are my options, and what does this purchase-vote actually communicate. What it comes down to is who owns the profits of my actions. There is no illusion that someone/thing will own my money, I am giving it away, exchanging it for something I want. But in this exchange I am giving my property, I am consenting to its future use. I want to ensure that property, once mine, will be used to better society somehow. Local seems to control that property. It keeps the money close to home, it limits hoarding of wealth, it makes visible inequality, it stifles power concentration.

Competition. Capitalist theory puts forth competition leads to innovation. A company which has made in roads into my community, usually means they have been successful. Success is fine, but the more I pay this corporation, the more they win, and the closer we are to a monopoly. A monopoly leads to decay and stagnancy.

Access. In a local joint, the owner is(hopefully) around. She has the power to make decisions which change the management and operations, and I have the power to talk to her. Though I have never really done this, it is still a factor in my decision. I will make a point of talking to the owner more often.

Unfortunately, my dollar is a very clumsy tool for empowerment.

Though my vote goes to more local establishments, there are many things I like about Starbucks. They pay for good design, they have nice staff, they get good locations, they don’t bug you when you’re there, everyone goes there, they close late, most of all they have big windows.

The generality. So this is the big flaw of voting with your dollar: businesses are not sure why you’re voting for them. The purchase-vote is generalized. It is assumed I made a purchase simply because I trust the judgement of the owner. My true intentions are muffled even more than my green vote was muffled in this first-past-the-post electoral system.

Two possible hacks present themselves.

One. Reform large corporations to adopt the benefits we seek in smaller business. We can see this with Ikea sourcing local wood, or Starbucks hanging local art.

Two. Work with local businesses to learn from lessons of the bigger companies. Adopt these practices and set up a constant dialog with purchase-voters to examine intent.

Both of these hacks are just that. I don’t believe Starbucks(Global) or Le Gourmand(Local) is ever going to truly be a democratic medium of intent. I believe our intent must travel with our purchase along the business cycle. If I bought a product because its green, my dollar should go to make it more green. If I came to a place because of the big windows, those windows should be cleaned. If I came to a place because my friend works there, they shouldn’t fire her. How will this intent travel? Maybe its a matter of a malleable money.

Going to the Landscape Infrastructures symposium yesterday helped me realize(for the nth time) the diversity of ways to think big. Not only to think but also make big things happen, in this case buildings.

I spent today printing out applications to grad school for architecture, but have been in a constant muddle about the whole ordeal. On one hand I’d like to push ideas further, get accredited, exercise possibilities, and write all about the process. On the other hand I don’t want to pay tons of money, to take time off work, focus on building skills, which are niche and specialist, while neglecting the wider possibilities of THE truly growing MOVEMENT.

From that last sentence you can guess that I’m leaning heavily on the side of not going to school at all. This process of applying however is an eyeopener. The questions in these applications, and the tedious procedure of getting all this material into place, would certainly help orient future pursuits.

So I realize now, that the process of applying, rather than clarifying my fit to a certain institution, will direct me to opportunities that fit the application. This may seem like an obvious notion blown out of proportion, but applying is more the question of what do you want to make happen rather than why are you good for here.

I’m going to continue these applications. I’m going to meld them into one piece. Its not enough to say I choose to work rather than to go to school. Whichever direction we move in we must apply. The application actually defines our direction. The best part about this application, is the resolve it brings. When we formalize our intentions in a request, we can rejoice in the acceptance, or better ourselves for the next time around.

What I mean to say here is, I want to apply to be part of THE MOVEMENT. I hope I get in!