Stories that seed the future

Gary Burt and Roy Sharples discuss some of the most provocative stories from 2021 that are the signposts for change of what is to come in 2022 and beyond—bringing together news, events, fashion, films, architecture, design, economics, politics, socio-culture, technology, and creative practice that influenced pop culture.

Creativity Without Frontiers available at all relevant book retailers

Stay in touch with Unknown Origins

Music by Iain Mutch

Transcript

Roy Sharples: 0:06

Hello, I'm Roy Sharples, welcome to the unknown origins podcast. Why are you listening to this podcast? Are you seeking inspiration? an industry expert, looking for insights, or growing your career? I created the unknown origins podcast to provide access to insights and content from creators worldwide with inspirational conversations and storytelling, about art, architecture, design, entrepreneurship, fashion, film, music, and pop culture. Welcome back to the show, the erudite soothsayer Gary Barth, on this episode, where we're reviewing some of the provocative stories from 2021, but other signposts for change of what is to come in 2022 and beyond. But don't worry, this isn't all doom and gloom by any means. And it also isn't about crypto, NF, t's and AI either. In fact, we're not going to mention any of that. What we're going to do is bring together news stories, events are films together of architecture and design that have influenced the pop culture and highlight some great outcomes, and some less successful events that we hope people learn from.

Gary Burt: 1:23

I think one thing, one key thing that I learned from a lot of my work and envisioning is that whilst the future isn't foreseeable or predictable in detail, if you take a wide enough view of the changes and mean a cross cultural cross domain view, you can start to identify shifts, issue and trends that are going to be important in the future. These don't just come from new stories, they can come from art, film architecture, and a whole range of creative disciplines. So the key here is to take a broad, diverse view across disciplines, so you can balance out the hyper manipulation. So what we're looking for, are those changes in shifts in a way that they impact people.

Roy Sharples: 2:05

Firstly, let's start with a video that the economist put together based on the rise of China, the metaverse hybrid working models, an African fashion boom and the space race. The Metaverse is the convergence of many technologies like virtual reality, and augmented reality and video, where users live within a digital universe, which is massively scaled, and an interoperable network of real time rendered 3d virtual worlds that can be experienced synchronously and persistently by an unlimited number of users with a unique sense of presence. And with continuity of data, such as history, entitlements, objects and identity, rather than bow to the technology, ingenuity and the art of the possible of what this could all mean, do you not think we're going too far too quickly, with technological advancement? And maybe it's time just to slow things down a little bit on that front? Don't we have more pressing problems to focus on solving the world than thinking technology is always the answer. It's not. So things like fixing the humanity, environmental, economical, and political and socio cultural problems. First, there's an argument that really struggles to see the purpose and benefits of this to humanity with the intent of what it is trying to achieve. How is it making people better? How is it helping society progress positively, is the intent to replace people eventually, isn't doing things that people can't do, where there's a clear value out in need. Surely all the creative power and resource that we have in the world needs to be proportionally dispersed into other things rather than purely fueling, and advancing technology. Secondly, the recycling of fashion I think is a great step forward by making clothing from use materials such as plastic bottles, nylon, polyester and old clothing, which will influence causing companies to hopefully practice sustainable production more. And a friend of mine, Jonathan Burns, who is a young entrepreneur, and professional label based in the UK that delivers recyclable clothing to its customers every month to their doorstep every month. He shared a fascinating data point. And I've mentioned this in other podcasts that we've done guerriers the fashion industry produces more carbon emissions than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. And 20% of global wastewater comes from textile production, and more than three fifths of clothing ends up in incinerators or landfills within a year of being produced. And so, it's great to see movements like this where We're taking a moral standpoint, by being empathetic, and having a social conscience about what businesses do, and how deeply committed they are to making a positive difference to the planet on people's lives by looking at ways of recyclable and sustainable fashion. The other point, the perceived successes of Chinese communism, and their political system over America's perceived failed democracy, the matter of the American political system has failed to protect protected citizens by making them safe and prevent deaths during the pandemic is one example, guarding as we've discussed previously, on the utopian futures, podcast, political systems, like communism, socialism, capitalism and government, and foreign government forms, such as all our key and monarchy, democracy, Republican anarchy, I've been proven time and time again to be unworkable. And overall and politic politics as we know it is surely over. And what needs to happen is defining a society that's based on fairness, equality, that's open to everyone and led by people led and socially conscious and skilled people who can lead and innovate in modern political, economic, social cultural policymaking. And what we're doing

Gary Burt: 6:19

is we are looking to build a world that very few people will control, where the assets to create those are going to be available to those who will already hold a lot of power in terms of how owning that infrastructure. So we're going to be creating a world where people are buying virtual shoes, in a world where people don't have shoes, where we create virtual food in a world where we have people hungry, and we create virtual mansions in a place in a real world where we have homelessness. So I think the the irony of this is not lost, but I think there's something that we need to look deeper. And this is what we've talked about many times on, on these episodes, which is about why, for whom what is the benefit? And, you know, we're both living in, you know, we've both been successful from technology. But I can't help look at this. And think I couldn't think of a better way for a few people to get incredibly rich, whilst ignoring the plight of a huge number of others was promising. middle group, you know, huge success. But I think at the moment, if, you know, does the does the metaverse have a role, if it's going to make money for people, if it stands a chance of making money, you're not going to escape it. I just wish we'd see some balance and start to be really harsh about asking us the question why? If you want to live in that world, then why then then, you know, you live in a world where you start to bring this together. But what is that? What is that world that world is is what a guy sat at home in a little room staring at even bigger screens. You know, this is, this is not what humans were designed for. We were designed to experience physical things. I think there's a real you know, physiological thing here, which is our bodies are meant to be physically used, we're meant to experience physically, we're meant to experience the environment, we're meant to experience joy, pain, we're meant to experience love. And, you know, one of the things we know is I can go on a virtual bike, I could go on a virtual run in a way where I'm not doing anything. And the reaction of my body is that I become less well. So if I wanted to live in this world, the logical conclusion of this, I would live in a world that was technologically maximized, to allow me to be enveloped, embraced and immersed in this environment. But what would happen to me physically? Well, the reality is I wouldn't be going out. So I become hypersensitive to a whole range of things, I wouldn't be moving my body, so he would start to atrophy. So the end, and this is this is assuming that it's it has a net positive into my mental health. Surely the last year, and isolation has shown that this is the opposite. You know, we know that virtual relationships and isolation is bad. No for society, just society, but actually at a human level as well. So does it have a future? Perhaps, but it should be within the context of what it means to be human. You know, that's, um, I can see I can see some benefits of it. I can see, you know, if we're talking about me, making, you know, teams meetings better making zoo more immersive, that's one thing. But that's that's not where that's not what we mean. That's certainly not what a lot of the leading creators mean, when they talk about the metaverse what they're talking about. About and let's be absolutely brutal about this is a an economic environment. It's, that's what's the core drivers. And for me, I think that as soon as you put the human lens on there, it starts to expose the problems really, really big. My son,

Roy Sharples: 10:16

like many others play the Xbox and Hemin has friends, believe they if they're able to do trickery, and by playing FIFA as an example, that they can actually do that themselves, you know, these fantastic overhead kicks, been able to score goals and the top right hand corner from 50 yards out in an environment, they translate that to real life that they claim that they can do that. But physically, they can't do at all, they can't even play football properly, you know. So it's thought, this distortion of reality, which the edges are no longer the boundaries between physical and virtual life. And it becomes a belief system, they actually believe that's a skill.

Gary Burt: 10:55

I'll give you. I'll give you another example. So, you know, we've got teenage sons of same age, you know, same same machines, you know, the kids. But, you know, there's only Xbox and there's, there's suddenly this loud, expletive, and then followed by referee. Come on. Yeah. And I'm just thinking, like, son, it's an algorithm. Yeah. And actually, you know, you and I know this a bit deeper that algorithm is is really tune. Yeah. Is it delivering the most factually correct? Decision? are actually the code is being really careful and putting in controversial decisions, because we know you could you could do this in the computer, your programming where the kid will go, it can instantly calculate whether that was in our output, maybe they've just been a little bit smarter, you know, and they're just, they're putting those tricks in. So yeah, you thought it was it, I think may have been put the referees gonna call it out. But this is just another, you know, it's an algorithm. Yeah. And I think what the shift has been, I know that, you know, Gary, and Roy are old enough, and cynical enough to be able to step back and look at this and go, son, you're playing the game, but the game is playing you. And I don't know what, no, certainly to the teenagers, that that that angle of being played is just missed, you know, whereas we're criticizing, you know, social media for this, we need to look deeper into a whole range of games, which are using No, the very best psychological techniques to drive engagement. It isn't just making Forza, you know, more accurate, it's also creating, you know, friction, by design into the games to be able to, you know, stoke those emotions, you know, what we have is super smart, a cognitive researchers helping game designers putting a load of behavioral characteristics to drive engagement, you know, it's happening in social media, as we know, the leaking of the information this year about Facebook and Instagram, what's up, you know, it's exactly the same as going into the games, this is dead, their attractiveness, their addiction is 100% by design. Anyway, let's, let's move on to fashion because I'm actually I, you know, we were talking about this is not going to be a tech bashing, it's not going to be on negative. I think this is a huge thing. So, you know, the negative thing, fast fashion is, is is incredibly bad. You know, the idea. And we see it, you know, you know, I'm in the UK. So we see this in give you a really good niche example, but one is absolutely characterized as this, which is, oh my god, Kate Middleton, Princess Kate has worn the same dress twice. Oh, my God. And, you know, you see that as like a Oh, she's like, she's, she's so like, the rest of us wearing things more than once. Really, you know, I mean, I'm, until they're really care. But, you know, I'm wearing it to falls apart, wherever it was, if you see me, you're likely to see me wearing a very similar set of clothes. Most of the time, you're gonna see me, you know, but I think, you know, flipping up to the positive, I think there's two things we can take out of this. One is that fast fashion is being called to account which is way way overdue. And, and it isn't just in the manufacturer, it's just in the concept. I think the other thing which is which is the huge positive is the focus on recyclable clothing, the focus on clothing with an ecosystem. So not only are we having this increasing ecosystem of clothes being sold and resold and hired, but also the the very real, hugely positive of, you know, reselling. By calling ocean plastic and turn these into clothing, and you know nothing, but congratulations to the companies that are standing up and doing this, because they are absolutely showing that it can be done or not, I think, you know, we talked about the chef's, one of the chefs will be this is going to become an expectation, it will start with the higher end consumers, you know, we're seeing it now with companies like Patagonia arcteryx Rab, certainly in the outdoor clothing wear that they're leading on that recycling, I think this is going to increasingly become a norm. And manufacturers certainly in the upper and mid markets are going to be really challenging if they don't have a credible story here. And for me, that's, that's, that's a huge positive because it will drive behavioral shifts, what we've got is a lot of forces combining and, you know, the biggest downside of next year is this increasing tension with China, you know, economically, politically, militarily. And I think, you know, you've seen, we're in the position where China clearly has its has its own agenda, it has its own philosophy, how it wants to behave, you know, I have my own personal views about their, their economy and their society, I'm certainly not a fan by any stretch of a lot of the things they're doing. But I think also, you have to balance that with understanding, you know, about Chinese history in Chinese culture, to understand why they believe that's right, because it is a completely different mindset to the one we have. I think that the challenge, the challenge comes in, when we start to see these these philosophies challenging each other, I think, where, where the difficulty is going to come. And this actually, I think, will relate to a thing that we're gonna come back to again and again, is around resources, consumerism, and access to access to raw materials. So one of the things we've seen, not this year, but over many years now, is China's increasing investment overseas to secure resources, not just metals, but also a huge range of minerals, you know, investment in Australia to secure energy, particularly coal investment in Africa to secure resources. So I think one of the things we need to be really careful of is about seeing this as a, as a Chinese versus American thing. It's far more complex, because it's it actually spans American influence in a huge range of company of countries and cultures, and Chinese investment in a hue rate, huge range of areas so that, you know, the future no simple, no simple answers, I think, hopefully, we will see more collaboration between them. And perhaps, and this is, this is going to be really hard to take for a lot of people, a position where we see a level of, I don't like it, I realize I'm limited to what I can do about it. So I need to come to terms with accepting that that's not something that I can change. I know, that's a that's not a great thing to say. But I think that the idea of, you know, we go back maybe 20 years, the idea that America say something and, you know, any country will will take note of that, that's that's clearly not the case with China. So I think, you know, one of the things we need to do is look for how we're going to find that harmonization that we can at least find and seek out a greater level of stability. But it's it's gonna be a rough, bumpy ride. And, you know, there's so many trigger points, particularly militarily that are going to become a challenge. But, you know, the harsh reality that the two, the two economies are incredibly closely linked, you know, America is fueled by Chinese production, there's a huge amount of Chinese debt, sorry, China holds a huge amount of American debt. So they are very the two countries are incredibly co closely linked. But I think maybe, you know, one of the changes is we need to see a level of not necessarily respect, but we need to dial down that posturing at the top level, it's not going to help anyone, we're going to have to find a way that we can agree, perhaps disagree, but do that in a way that allows each each of the other countries to to be able to do what they want, and minimize the impact on the other. So I wish I could be more articulate but no simple Yeah, no,

Roy Sharples: 19:37

that's a great concluding point that needs to be a mutual respect and appreciate the kind of difference and the differences and just to find that mutual ground where they can collaborate and get the work on the best get the best out of one another to contribute towards a better world. Ultimately,

Gary Burt: 19:54

number two in the big list is, you know, we've got to a point where a lot of people moving jobs, not necessarily to the jobs that they love, but certainly away from jobs that they really don't like. So what we're seeing employee and exploitative employers finding impossible to hire, you know, those not even minimum wage, but you know, the minimal wage, zero benefits, horrible oppressive conditions are finding the kind of high people. Fantastic, because that means that the people who would have normally worked in those jobs have found better opportunities. Now, you know, we're going to have economists point to the fact that this is going to rise prices, this is going to sort of increase prices, this is going to cause big disruption. It is temporary, it's what we have is we have, you know, flexibility in the labor market. And when we see that, from an employer's point of view, it's always seen as a positive, but I think there's a huge positive in this for a whole range of reasons. Firstly, forcing, you know, forcing employees to raise the bar is only a good thing. You know, not the the US has been has been really slow in raising minimum wage, you know, that there's a lot of work showing that the US real term wage should be minimum wage should be certainly double what it is, and maybe more. And if we look at European countries, and I don't just mean Norway, but also the UK, a lot of Central European countries, we've seen the use of the minimum wage actually have, you know, it's defied a lot of its critics and it's worked, what it's done is it's raised the standard of living. And what we find is, people and businesses adapt, some things do get more expensive. But we need to move away from a model that just relies on exploitation. Certainly, there's some great stories in the US about, I'm trying to think of the name and we'll put it in the notes afterwards. But employers in industries where they're going, you can't do this, you can't make a burger for this, the burger will become $20. And we've seen that absolutely shot through the reality. And this is a super simple narrative here is you treat people better, you're going to get better outcomes in all ways. So you start to help people with their lives, you become a better employee, you get more out of them, people do not give you their best, when you're providing minimum wage, no sickness cover, no prospects, and the fact that we've got to the point where people are jumping away from those jobs, and it forces those employers to review those situations is only a good thing. Just to balance out the bad thing. I do not want to hear employers put things, you know, on their, on their social media, in their shop windows, you know, criticizing people who don't want to work in that environment. You know, we've seen a lot of those publicized and, and thank God they are because it's really showing some of these poor employers for what they are. The reality is, you know, we talked about this, many times people deserve better. If you if you can't run a job, if you can't make your business work on less than minimum wage, then the reality is your business needs to be reviewed, because what's happening is your cost of being subsidized by the government. You know, it's it's a good thing. I think it will settle down. And hopefully we will see a norm where we start to see that the some respect for people, particularly around health care in the US start to become the norm. It isn't today. It needs to be. And I think, final point, if you're in a well paid job, if you have great health care. And if you have really good security, do not criticize those who want that as well. It's amazing how many people you have in a really privileged position going well, I've worked for this, you know, they shouldn't have that. No, they should. They should that should be open to everybody.

Roy Sharples: 24:08

Number three, best TV show The squid game.

Gary Burt: 24:13

Absolutely. South out of South Korea, knocked it out of the park with this on giving Netflix a truly viral smash at this dystopian drama, and I'm not going to spoil the story because if you haven't seen it, go and see it deals with a number of really nascent themes, debt, gambling, gaming, greed, and with some really innovative twists. What all you know, rather than just talk about the squid game, I think there's some great things about actually looking at the story behind it. So originally, originally written in 2009, the creator, writer and director, and apologies if I get this pronunciation wrong Handong York, was unable to find a production company until Netflix took an interest in 2019. Now the reason it took an interest was because He wanted to have a drive to expand foreign content. What's another word we use for diversity? Fantastic. We wouldn't have seen this if we weren't looking. And this is why it matters. Anyway, going back to this uncommon tip, when he wrote this, he wanted to write a story that was an allegory or fable about modern capitalist society, something that depicts an extreme competition, sort like the extreme, competent competition of life, but he wanted to use the kind of characters that didn't met in real life. So the core theme around corruption, gambling, gaming, combined with the dream of being able to get out of this situation actually came from his own experiences after the financial crash in 2009. And the names of the key characters were based on his own childhood friends names. Now, I've talked about this, and you know, some but some really quick facts as to how big this was. So it was released originally in September, September 17 21. As of November 21, it's Netflix most watched series becoming the top viewed program in 94. Countries with 142 million member households. It was number one search for show on Google in 21. And Twitter said it was the most tweeted about TV show is the staggering facts. I remember, you know, until a couple of years, a couple of years before it was commissioned, it was very, very difficult to see anything other than English language films get this level of support. It costs 21 point 4 million, but it's generated value of over 900 million million. And there's clearly a lot more to come with a second and third series very, very likely. So very quick one to wrap this up. Well done. 200 on York, for persistence and commitment, not only in telling a fantastic story, but you know, echoing what you said Roy, you know, be persistent, but also, you know, don't be afraid of committing to tell in a fantastic story.

Roy Sharples: 27:03

Number four, our pick of the year, the 25th double oh seven James Bond film, no time to die. The return of the silver tongued and immaculately groomed British Cavalier with a difference, who navigates the world to slay the criminally vulgar terrorists. We find his magnetic and charismatic appeal because he does things most people can only dream of doing, and we gush over what he can do. The film is a signpost for the end of an era and laying the seeds for what the future may be. We were in a file for it. But it indeed attempted to make it all encompassing. Action. Love, some fearless stunts, vintage classic epic bond sets. Okay, pretty obvious twists. But that gracious swansong finale to the Daniel Craig double oh seven franchise? The question is, where our next Do you

Gary Burt: 28:03

know what I'm going to I'm going to leave that with the producers. Anyway, keeping positive. Let's move on to the next one. Best environmental news of the year, the greening of Paris was lost as right. If you want a big change, you're going to need a big vision. And Paris has done this. So building on an environmentally positive strategy for the 2024 Olympics, Paris has committed to developing itself as a sustainable green city. The pandemic showed us what a city with massively reduced traffic could be like, and Paris smashes this with a fantastic vision of a people first city. In the notes we've linked to some of the artists renditions of Paris and Paris isn't alone of course, Barcelona, Amsterdam, even London, become more more people centric. But the vision for Paris goes much further than this, you know, with the greening of large areas making it a truly people centric place. So let's hope this becomes a challenge for other cities to pick up

Roy Sharples: 29:01

keeping it light and fun, but also informative, whilst allowing us to quickly cover Money and Finance. Best financial news. Lego a better investment than gold.

Gary Burt: 29:10

This story highlighted that holding Lego can produce a better return than gold. The only downside to this, I think is that Lego is going to be increasingly bought by investors and kept in air conditioned rooms. Whereas should be played with but how it beats holding crypto. Anyway, in case you didn't know, there's a fantastic site called Brick economy that not only shows the value of LEGO sets but tries to calculate future value. I'm hooked just one thing. Why didn't buy falling water in Lego when I first saw I'm using the price of this really? Yeah. I remember looking at going I think it was about 70 pounds in a bra for $100. And it's now you know mid sets are going for like 400 Close to 400 500 pounds. Now The big thing is even if you bought it you go, don't leave it in the box and hold the value or build it. Maybe Maybe I'll treat myself to a good one that's already built or certainly out of the box and then I don't need to make that decision. So a bit more positivity. This is they say it couldn't be done award, friends bands, plastic packaging for lots of fruit and veg in that world and again to France. In the UK, I despair when I see the amount of packaging and plastic particularly on fruit and veg. We don't need it on every vegetable or fruit. It doesn't need a plastic wrapper. Nature wrap much of this already. It's called skin or peel. So the soft, curvy yellow fruits called bananas, they've got a fantastic wrapper. They've also got a built in indicator for the condition of fruit from under ripe to rotten, allowing you to clearly determine the condition of the fruit. If you bury this wrapper, it will completely be composed and it doesn't leave micro banana in the ocean. Likewise, these tubers core potatoes are dug up from the soil. They have a built in protective skin. But hey, you can actually do this and it gives you additional dietary benefits. It doesn't need plastic packaging. Yes, plastic packaging can extend a lifetime. But when we have daily deliveries of fruit and veg and every house has a fridge we don't need this for the vast majority of fruit and veg. And don't believe that the elimination of plastic is not possible for fruit and veg. A visit to a farmers market or farm shop or a local greengrocer will show you that plastic is not required. So let's be clear. This is about convenience and profit convenience for us, but also for the supermarket. But it isn't needed.

Roy Sharples: 31:42

Yeah, what is really disappointing is that some UK and American supermarkets did make some steps forward but then reverse these by ripping out the missing displays and replacing these was plastic people stick with it and make it work. help educate your shoppers stand out by your convictions take a stand

Gary Burt: 32:01

and to show it can be done I want to highlight and call out killin farmshop NIST dipped in in the UK near where I live. This is a local store near me that shows how it can be done. local produce where possible, minimal packaging and herb shopping experience. And in the notes, we've put the the link so you can go and see that interestly Roy, I think this is an area where the US is actually doing pretty well in supporting farmer's markets having more fruit and veg on display without excessive packaging. So let's move back to the real world with a couple of stories about designing architecture. First one, the style over substance award goes to the cold cool pool. You may have seen this story a rooftop pool connecting two buildings with a transparent acrylic pool at Embassy gardens in London's incredibly hip Battersea area. It looks stunning 25 metres long and 35 metres above the ground. It wasn't without controversy when it first opened because the pool was not accessible to those living in the developments mandatory affordable housing apartments. But now we've got a follow up story that really brings a sense of karma to this. it transpires that it costs 450 pounds in a day to heat the pool. And the pool is so cold you can only stay in for five to 10 minutes. The message is simple. Stop making cool stuff for magazines, designed for people not magazines. This poll was completely about image not used. It cost 450 pounds a day to hate. That's obscene. It's vanity architecture. Good design is not a pool that is unusable, inaccessible, and unaffordable. Success would have been a pool that created a social space for everyone in the building to enjoy was environmentally sustainable and could be used. So let's hope that other architects learn from this. And their clients highlight the emperor's new clothes before the maid. So number nine, the What were you thinking award? No, no, Roy, you've got to hear this one. This has got to go to the panel that thought that letting a nonagenarian hobbyist architect design limit living accommodation for students will be a good idea. It wasn't. But I bet few considered are bad this could be. So what am I talking about? But those who have not heard this is a famed manga Hall at UCOL Santa Barbara. So what the challenge was here was they have a big shortage of student accommodation. So what's the solution to that? Oh, have a billionaire design your building. This is a building designed to maximize the number of students per square foot in the building. The only problem though is that the design is completely ignored the concept of humanity in the architecture. You need to see this building all the designs let's hope we never see it physically. No one No windows for many students. I think nine out of 10 don't have access to natural light, limited natural light in this bases with the majority having no natural light in their living space. I don't need to go on. Monkey claims that the concept is molded modeled on the iconic unity deputation modernist housing project in Marseille designed by Luca Boosie only it isn't unit A, the tabulation? Excuse My French, you get the idea. Yeah, it built in 52, almost 70 years ago. And this contribution, what the contribution to this design is to remove any connection to natural light in most rooms, replacing this with a Disney Style cruise virtual window. Let's be clear, this is a monitor on the wall. So in the last couple of years, we've seen students confined to their rooms to limit COVID spread with a corresponding rise in mental wellness issues. We know that natural space and natural light matters. We know about circadian rhythms. And we have a proposal that removes this and removes natural light. Even prisons have Windows Charlie, well, at least in the US that case. Even prisons out windows Charlie, well, at least in the UK, they do. It's hard to know where to start, because we need to look a bit deeper here. So let's begin with the basics. Buildings are for people, the other people to fucking live in. Would you live in this, Charlie? I think not to get out of your ivory tower, and then architect do their job. But it's worse than that. Because what we should be examining is why a hobbyist billionaire is even able to propose this, he's clearly a fantastic money manager, because he has the money to be able to donate 200 million towards the cost of it 1.2 total. But this can this comes with a condition that is designed is used. So a minor donor of the cost, you know, this is only about less than 20% of the total cost. So minor donor gets to make fundamental design decisions that impact 10s of 1000s of lives. So this is the biggest failure, a donation is fine. But what is the concern for the welfare of the students? For me, this is not a failure architecture. It's a failure of governance. So what we have here is a process that echoes some of the worst design processes in architecture that we've, you know, it's these processes that have produced some of the most notable failings in buildings. The one that most comes to mind is the concept of tower blocks. In the UK, there was 15 to 20 storey buildings for social housing. These were never buildings that were going to be lived in by those who design them. There were designs and this is probably controversial. For those who should be grateful of what was offered. The only problem is that they were built to a budget meaning costs were cut, and the designs fit and fail to really appreciate how people actually lived and what their needs were. The point isn't that tower blocks are bad. Any visit New York will show there's a lot of very desirable high rise buildings. But when we come to social housing, built a budget with little or no appreciation of who will live in those, we have a recipe for failure. So whenever a building has an agenda of social engineering, we should be very, very careful. When the designer is a nine year old, I think 98 year old very soon 9798 year old, who proposes something he has never personally experienced, then alarm bells should ring. You may have seen the windows in the Disney Cruise rooms. But I'm pretty confident you never stayed in these. I'm going to stop there because this really boils my blood. But if you want to read more, there's a brilliant article by Aaron pecky. In Article architect, I'll get it right that I would highly recommend. I'll leave you with this final conclusion maunga Hall is an abomination. I can only hope that other universities will continue to understand the need to invest in human scaled, human orientated and community building canvases that will help students learn to become part of an open, sustainable and beautiful world. And that the discipline will learn from this case to a better job defining and communicating the true worth of architecture

Roy Sharples: 39:14

in this context. The purpose of architecture and design should be to influence how people feel positively think and behave at design and an expression that inspires a culture of creativity and allows people to interact in meaningful ways. Setting the right conditions, atmosphere and environment encourages creativity, art and beauty that people adapt and react to and reflect and their life and work affects how they view and interpret the world around them. Their capacity and ability to live a fulfilled and happy lives. Modernist architect, Pioneer liqueur WBCA reinvented industrial housing and to tenement buildings that mirrored ground level streets and maximize space. And we've spoke about this and several other podcasts that we've done and articles that we've published Gary, but also in his movie, A Clockwork Orange Stanley Kubrick used these principles to create a futuristic world, a dystopian world if you will, as did the designers of Park Hill, a public housing estate in Sheffield, England, which was inspired by the Corbusier a streets in the sky and the spirit of this place, a vote was captured sonically within some of the early recordings of the city's local synth pop band, The Human League. Similarly, with home crescents in Manchester, and Quarry Hill estate, and Leeds, did the architects place people at the heart of what they were doing? Was this designed for the people who lived there, or the local government council who wanted to solve a housing problem and put as many people as possible into that space that they had? Even at a basic level? Anyone could spot some big issues. You did not have to be an architect to question this was the community or was the social space? How would people feel living on the sixth floor? What happened to gardens? How do people get to their homes? Would this encourage people to be more communal, or to get home and stay home safely? tenement housing blocks made? Many people feel like prisoners than their own homes. I wonder how this architecture and design has impacted how people feel because it feels like the intent of its purpose is to punish and oppress just like you mentioned, Gary, prisons are taking a closer look to determine how this has affected people's mental well being

Gary Burt: 41:53

now couldn't agree more. I mean, I the last thing I saw it was going ahead. I hope it isn't. One of the things we saw recently in the UK about four years ago was the tragic death of a large number of people in a tower block, because of bad cladding. This was an architecture change in architecture shift done to people for money, that completely ignored the people living in there and completely ignore the needs. Now the public inquiry is still going on. But the point is the same. architecture should be about people, it should not be about doing things to people. And when we start to see those, you know, we should be going. There are so many case studies about this going wrong. So when we start to see, you know, a building, which if you took off the label, you would look at it as a prison. Yeah, you know, we should be going this is not what we're about. Yes, you have challenges with building. Yes, there are financial challenges. That doesn't give you one potential outcome. You need to look creatively about how you can solve this because this is not the right answer. Two final thoughts. One, this is going to rely on students wanting to live that. Yeah. And I'm not sure they will, and I'm not sure their families will want them to be in that space. Any inner thing, the last couple of years that we talked about, I've seen a real increased awareness of mental health. I think any family who has an awareness of the building is going to go you're not going their son or daughter. You know, that's, that's a bad choice. The other one is, I can't escape that I can't escape this thought that five years down the line, you know, we start to say manga Hall, I was there for four years. This, we know that the environment changes people, you know, you could be you could see UCOL, essentially, but putting a building in place that is going to get delivered the world. Biggest lawsuit for mental damage. Yeah, I would get my virtual money out here. My Metaverse money. If I was gonna make a bet on the most likely outcome, 1020 years down the line, if this gets built, it would be huge, huge losses for mental damage that that building will do to people. I think this is I think this this humanity design is if you put this as a simple test, how the heck did this get through that first yet? Exactly. You know, who were the people in the room? Who went Hang on? Can I just ask guys, four and a half 1000 people in a building? A couple of things. One, there's a really small number of exits. You know, when you think that even at a practical level, I will never stay in a hotel room that I couldn't put a chair through. Because I know that if there's a problem, you know, yes, I know. I know where the fire escape is. I cannot imagine what this the risk this can do. And it's not about you know either Go on a Disney boat and you go, yeah, but people love the Disney rooms. What Yeah, they might for seven days because the bulk of their time is not going to be in that room. It's going to be in the social space that is the rest of the boat. These buildings don't have that that social space. He's also artificially lit. You know, on a Disney cruise you going on for seven days? This one you're going to be in for years. I I'm staggered. That's exactly right. It's past that first cup, you would be hard pressed to look at any architecture competition, and find an analogy for this being anything other than a complete disaster. You know, look at award winning houses or watering in architecture, it's about connection with the environment. It's about embracing space, it's about community, you know, every aspect that you would judge architecture, perhaps other than people per square foot, you know, this fails miserably, but it's still progressing.

Roy Sharples: 46:03

Okay to close out then Gary, highlights in a social movement trying to prevent ecological collapse. social cultural movements encompass ideals and sensibilities as a reaction to the status quo, which has grown uniform and monotonous by influencing popular culture by driving progressive change in politics, and society. And that's just what extinction rebellion are doing, by taking a passionate and convicted stand against oppressive and ignorant forces without fear of retaliation to provoke action to change means by using non violent civil disobedience that provoked governments to take action for climate, biodiversity loss, and to de risk social and ecological collapse. And the BBC put together a good article about what extinction rebellion does, what their manifesto is geared towards, is forcing the government to declare a climate emergency that the UK must legally commit to reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2025. And thirdly, a citizen's Assembly must be formed to oversee these changes. And they've gained significant traction to date. They, I mean, they were funded, you know, three, four years ago in 2018. And by 2025, the group wants greenhouse emissions to reach net zero. And they have a community of almost half a million as a result of the protests. 3672 extinction, rebellion demonstrators were arrested across three London protests, I think the stance that they're taking taken and their bravery, and their conviction is really admirable. And the traction that they've gained in a very short space of time is is impressive.

Gary Burt: 48:01

So I'm going to share a story. So I was due to go to a company event in a big high rise building on the top floor. That was right in the middle of an extinction rebellion event. Yeah. So I knew it was going to be there. And I'm thinking, you know, I'd seen that the stuff in the press, it looks really agitated. I couldn't be further from the truth. Here's the reality. It's all it isn't a load of hippies. Outliers. And, you know, activists. It was a load of people, it was students, it was mums. It was people with postures, it was dads. It was young people. It was all people. That's the first one to dispel the fact that it's a group of activists. It isn't it's a group of people who care. The second thing was that it was friction. It wasn't. It was incredibly friendly. And you go well, what about the police? The police were talking chatting, and getting on really well with the protesters. Yes, they were protesting. But here's what you don't often see. Yeah. So what happens, they sit down in the road, they block it, the police will give them a matter of time. And then they will politely go up and say, Could you could you please move now please, essentially, sort of shortening this? But essentially, could you now please move it? That's what the response was. It wasn't riot shields. It wasn't heavy handed. It was you know, Can you can you please move and then you No, no. Okay. Can you please move because this essentially read out the legal text, this is an illegal activity and we will move you who don't move. So they go, I'm not going to move. And they go. Okay, you know, essentially, third warning, if you don't move, we're going to move you that will involve you being picked up. Essentially, anything we need to know about, you know, is that that this is what I saw. Yeah. And they went no, I'm not going to move on protesting against x. And then what you would see is a large number of policemen, you know, Maybe six, to pick them up, you know, pick up young people, old people carefully. It wasn't, it wasn't, you know, picking up people and dropping them didn't note, the reason they have so many people to pick them up is because people would typically go stiff, so it makes them hard to move. So they picked them up, they put them in the van, they'd, you know, they'd be ferrying them to the police station. But what was interesting is the fact that, you know, how different it is to how you often see this. See this portrayed? And I think, going back to your last point, I think you're absolutely right, is bravery. Because what, what really comes over to me is, is there are a lot of people who must be really fearful of change of of actually doing things positively for the environment. Because that's not what I saw, what I experienced was absolutely not what it's often protested. I'm not saying it's not, I'm not saying there aren't violent scuffles. I'm not saying it doesn't cause disruption. But it's interesting how it's reported, versus what the reality is, because in many cases, you have people sharing food, you have people having picnics, you have people helping each other out, they're sharing drinks, it was nothing like the coverage. And you you say brave. And I wonder that, you know, with the increasing message around the criminalization of protests, certainly we're seeing that more in the UK, the this increasing narrative of change, whether the intention is to stop, demonstration, stop protests, because actually, people do realize that change is possible. And what they may think of niche, I love this, but it's not going to possible, maybe it is possible. And the worry facing a lot of organizations and government is actually there are far more people who support this than we think. So why highlight this, because the core of the protested demands are clear actions to address environmental change. But the the irony of this, of course, is what the protest is asked for, is this is the solution to the biggest challenges facing government. We look at them with different lenses, but they're actually the same thing. What is government care about? energy security, energy independence, rising inequality, managing increasing environmental costs, we want the same things. And what the challenge is going to leave us with a really positive one. When I look at the challenge and the responses to this, I'm reminded of the quote from Mahatma Gandhi. First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. There is actually a real connection between loads of these things, between China between the greening between usually co activity between the recycling. And actually, I think, and the billionaires and I think we do, what we are coming towards this is this crux, and I'm hoping it flips positively. I think what we've seen in 21 is a number of issues, as we said at the start that appear incredibly diverse, that appear disconnected, but they're part of a much bigger macro agenda that I don't necessarily think a lot of people are making the connection round. And for me, there's actually a lot of positives. You know, the fact that we have cities commit committing to green, the fact that we have increasing focus on recycling, the fact that we have a challenge to exploitative employment through the great resignation, the fact that we're starting to see assets in toys, the start the fact that we are calling out, you know, architecture that is wrong for people, these are all connected, I think the extinction rebellion thing is a very visible one. For everything we've seen. For me, if I was looking at a macro change, if the macro change here is about a world that is becoming much more unhappy. And that's actually a positive thing. So it's becoming more frustrated with the lack of change towards a people centric world. COVID has shown you know, that it is possible people have spent time in their gardens if they had them. They've spent more time in nature, they've reflected on things. And I think that the shift we will see in 22 is the realization and their collective push, actually for hopefully some more fundamental change in how we live, how we work and how we, you know, play a PA in this world. So I mean for me, yeah, it's never going to be all positive. But I think that direction without a doubt isn't going in the right place.

Roy Sharples: 54:47

Do you want to learn more about how to create Without Frontiers by unleashing your creative power? Then consider getting CREATIVITY WITHOUT frontiers. How to make the invisible visible by lighting the way into the future, it's available in print, digital and audio on all relevant book platforms. You have been listening to the unknown origins podcast. Please follow subscribe, rate and review us. For more information go to unknown origins.com Thank you for listening