Blog 5 consists of 2 different blog entries by Architecture Lobby members working on collaborative platforms for architects. I thank them for this participation.

Blog: Valérie Lechêne (Brooklyn, New York)

Reparative Cooperatives for a Just Transition to a Net Zero Economy

Founded in 2013, The Architecture Lobby (also referred to as TAL or 'the Lobby') re-envisions the architect's role in making the world, extolling the virtues of asking how versus asking what. Organised by architectural workers, TAL forms by a decentralised network of democratically run chapters located across the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia. Lobby members assemble in a variety of ways, namely in working groups in which they discuss, research, develop, and enact theories of change. The Lobby’s Green New Deal working group (colloquially abbreviated ‘GND wg’) was formed in February 2019 when Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Senator Ed Markey introduced House Resolution 109 to the 116th US Congress. The resolution asked that 'a Green New Deal [...] be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labour unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses.'[1]The Green New Deal’s unequivocal focus on labour enticed the Lobby to investigate the intersection of climate change and activism in architectural work. The working group has gone a long way since its foundation. At the moment, the GND working group is ideating ‘shovel-worthy’ projects to incentivise a green recovery from Covid-19. In this context, this blog post critically examines the design of reparative cooperatives for a just transition to a net zero economy. To that end, just transition, climate change, and net zero are first situated within the partnership of public and private sectors. The case for phasing out greenhouse gas producing industries and phasing in reparative cooperatives is then made. Finally, the incremental, participatory, and integrated, way process for edifying such a transition is discussed in more detail. The lean and agile frameworks so common in the development of platform economies is critiqued through a post-colonial lens.

The bedrock principle of the Green New Deal is the idea of a ‘just transition’. The term first emerged in labour movements in the 1970s, at the tail end of post-World War II prosperity and the beginning of an era of deregulation. Trade unions allied with environmental movements to transcend the impasse of ‘jobs versus environment’ or 'hippies-versus-hardhats.'[2] The earliest instance of this alliance advocated for two groups at once: super-funds for communities impacted by industrial pollution as well as super-funds to retrain and relocate workers whose livelihoods were impacted due to environmental regulations. The history of the term ‘just transition’ demonstrates that fifty years ago, workers were already engaged in the struggle against the ravaging effects corporate industries have on standards of living, biodiversity, and the planetary environment. These issues impact first, foremost, and most dramatically those with least access to capital. Furthermore, evidence indicates that over time environmental degradation and social inequality characterise a vicious cycle that further impoverishes those already destitute.[3] This struggle was problematised to employers and governments through the frameworks of ‘climate change’ and its relative the ‘net zero economy.’ Net zero indicates an overall balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced and greenhouse emissions taken out of the atmosphere. Achieving net zero involves major industrial transformation, namely in the energy sector which contributes about 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions[4]. Such a transition can only be just if workers, frontline, and vulnerable communities are wholly included in the decision-making process defining their existential conditions. Climate change is the result of the mediocrity of our current socio-economic organisation. The public sector deceptively tolerates and relies on the authoritarianism of a private sector built through century long traditions of extraction, exploitation, expropriation. To transcend this duplicity, Jane McAlevey advocates to reject 'the entire concept that there is a public sector, and even more profoundly, that there is a well-defined private sector. It’s a constructed narrative on the part of corporations and capital for very strategic reasons [...] there’s just the economy.'[5] Transcending the dichotomy of public and private by developing alternatives is central to a just transition. It involves developing alternatives to current models of ownership, as the latter the primordial apparatus orchestrating distribution of decision-making power as well as surplus value generated by labour, care, and maintenance.

Per Peggy’s third blog post, cooperatives are a promising alternative to current models of ownership. Elinor Ostrom’s fundamental insight of cooperatives forming a complete government implies that cooperatives can stand alone spatially and introduce forms of sovereignty alternative to the nation-state. Of course such a change can only happen gradually over time, and carefully defining the incremental, participatory, and integrated social process through which they are formed is crucial to a successful response to climate change. In a just transition, greenhouse gas producing industries must be phased out gradually to protect the practices, livelihoods, and arrangements of the most vulnerable members of society. Concurrently, the workers leaving these polluting and GHG emitting industries are phased into cooperatives enabling participatory ownership in a net zero economy. A beta platform for reparative cooperatives could serve to iterate, test, and hone a training and mentoring system to be deployed through a variety of economic sectors and communities. The beta platform may guide workers in forming trade cooperatives, housing cooperatives, and learning cooperatives. These cooperatives structures exist within the nation-state but are designed to aggregate in a polycentric system that may incrementally render the nation-state irrelevant. A platform for reparative cooperatives cannot be designed overnight. As a matter of fact, reparations are only possible through the intentional participation of subaltern groups otherwise known as black, indigenous, and people of colour who comprise the majority of workers, frontline, and vulnerable communities. A precondition for a reparative cooperative platform is their conception as open-ended feedback loops systems mold-able through the ritual of participatory democracy. Reparative cooperatives allow the pursuit of decarbonisation and decolonisation as a singular project and serve to gradually abolish the mediocre system of governance that not only created climate change but also denied people their ability to adequately respond to it. Multiple methodologies could be used to set up such a system. Emma Blomkapmt’s framework of co-design for public policy is of value. There is also the lean, agile, scrum, kanban, and design thinking methodologies endemic to Silicon Valley. But before they are employed, they must first be critiqued through a post-colonial lens.

Decarbonisation and decolonisation can be pursued jointly through a reparative cooperative platform to kickstart a just transition to a net zero economy.

Blog: Jack Guo (Auckland, New Zealand)

Blockchain Integrated Project Delivery

Introduction

Some in the Architecture Lobby have focused on the role standard design-bid-build contracts play in ensuring unnecessary and unproductive antagonism between architects, contractors, and owners, (See Deamer article in E-flux.) In my master’s thesis in architecture, I investigated how the procurement process involving these actors can be mobilised through digital platforms. While the thesis emphasised the conceptualisation of an app that seeks to challenge the canon procurement process through digitising Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) via IPD contracts—this blog post will take a step further to briefly explore the interoperability of IPD contracts with blockchain technology in order to address some of the challenges we currently face in IPD negotiation processes.

Integrated Project Delivery is an architectural contractual system that, unlike normal design-bid-build contracts based on enforcement, is based on trust. In its simplest form, IPD contracts serve as frameworks that postulate collaboration as paramount to the success of projects and provide non-standard agreements that facilitate new collaborative approaches between architects, owners, and contractors. In other words, contracts that implements IPD become the matrix for an agreement, as opposed to an actual contract per se. The agreement rests on articulating, understanding, and approving every participants’ priorities in the execution of the project; there is no incentive for any participant to hide what matters (aesthetic recognition, technical innovation, entry into a new market, profit, whatever) to them. Accordingly, each IPD contract must be carefully crafted and articulated, and the success of the project therefore heavily hinges on the quality of planning during initial stages of negotiation. As Ashcraft underscores, IPD is 'less of a contract, and more of a constitution'; such that it implies a point of entry for new delivery approaches by suggesting how goals can be achieved, rather than what you are liable for if something bad happens. All IPD contractual frameworks follow these principles:

1. Guaranteed payment for participants' direct costs

2. Sharing of project overruns/underruns (profits/losses)

3. Joint project management/control

4. Waiver of claims between participants

In this Blog, I want to connect IPD to blockchain technology, in such a way that the notion of trust is at the epicentre of this conversation, thereby folding IPD into a larger system of digital democracy.

Blockchain, DLT & Bitcoin:

Blockchain technology is a type of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) that administers a replicated consensus—essentially a record of every transaction (anonymously)—across all users in a network. While the decentralised nature is consistent across all DLT's, the blockchain sui generis implements a long string of hash-able blocks—each block representing a new transaction—and looks specifically for the hash number of its previous block (and thus rejecting any false matching hash numbers) to know which block it belongs to in the chain.

These blocks cannot be altered once hashed, and no blocks can be hashed until the mathematical equation it is tethered to is confirmed as true by all other participants in the network, hence ensuring a democratised form of consensus. The consensus is shared and digitally synchronised across all users within its network; thereby ensuring a secure peer-to-peer transaction without the need for any form of third party (lawyers, banks) intermediary. In other words, blockchain is a shared database run by many computers (called 'nodes') that belong to many different people (if not all) in the network. Because of this, not one single person or company has control over it. For example, if I (the designer) would like to make changes to a design, it will be lodged as a request, and it will only be recorded in the blockchain (validated) once all parties have approved, including the client, contractor, and/or engineers. While platforms are designed to be rent seeking machines, the blockchain system provides an automated trust system that does not arbitrage transactions: instead of Alibaba taking a slice of each purchase by providing the buyer with a list of suppliers that 'can be trusted', the buyer actually buy directly from the supplier without inferred costs. And, because the blockchain is only executed when the transaction is made, both parties will only receive their product/payment at the same time, on the condition that the transaction is successful.

Bitcoin, invented in 2008, was the first technology to implement blockchain. The purpose of Bitcoin was a political and technological response to the rising distrust in both corporate and government institutions following the financial crisis and rising inequality. There was a fundamental public distrust in standard banking greed and the government’s support to bail out banks and insurance companies at tax-payers expense. Additionally, the financial sector had become a black box, filled by corrupt and cunning transactions records that were not open to public scrutiny. The blockchain became an effort to shift the power of the fiat currency to the people.

Blockchain intends to decentralise and redistribute power by removing previously trusted intermediaries from our lives. A group of libertarians, led by Timothy May, John Gilmore, and Eric Hughes, championed the movement of crypto-anarchism. Following John Locke’s critique of centralised, corruptible, and flawed statism that 'had to be tempered with an overlay of decentralisation, the right of the many to object to the power of the few,' these 'cypherpunks' ensured that trust worked not by enforcement from above but by embedded transparency between all.

The success of bitcoin has empowered a new wave of entrepreneurs and investors to launch their own virtual currencies. Ethereum, one of these, has expanded the blockchain system to include more than currencies: it capitalises on blockchain's inherent flexibility to create systems that facilitate a multiplicity of purposes, with greater complexity. One key component of this is the facilitation of Smart Contracts, and the contract's enabling capabilities of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations Organisations that run themselves). This is where we can connect Integrated Project Delivery to blockchain technology and the potential transformation for how architectural practice is organised.

How to Create a (Cooperative) Platform for Architecture Work Using Blockchain Technology and IPD: DAOs & Ethereum

In a structurally and institutionally fragmented industry predicated on the overriding notion of risk aversion and finger pointing, trust is central to any conversation that addresses the future of practice. Despite small pockets of innovation regarding collaborative (and platform enhances) construction processes (innovation surely fuelled by its high market value: $400B in architecture vs $1.2T in construction), such collaborative innovation has been slow in coming to architect. While new contractual agreements such as the IPD – which are predicated on the use of BIM and its sharing of a virtual digital model – may begin to reorganise and challenge the traditional procurement processes, the likelihood of shifting current professionals mindsets away from traditional practices are low unless trust is built into the AEC system. As Attorney Howard Ashcraft – a contributor in the creation of IPD contracts – points out, when contingencies arise, professionals are likely to devolve into procedures of risk transfer, claims and finger pointing. As such, the importance of the negotiation process prior to an IPD agreement becomes the key determinant for the success of any IPD project. Given that blockchain implies a trust system predicated on the notion of distrust, the link between blockchain/smart contracts and the success of the IPD framework can be drawn.

Smart contracts are an agreement between two or more parties in the form of computer code. Similar to blockchain cryptocurrencies, the core feature of smart contracts is to remove the need for a trusted third party (be it banks, brokers, litigation lawyers or insurance). The transaction of the smart contract is automated and processed by a blockchain, and will only execute when the condition is met. Imagine that John wants Lynne to design his new home. For this to happen, a smart contract will be formed between John and Lynne, and a condition will be set. This might look something like:

'WHEN John deposits $100 into the contract, AND Lynne completes the design by this date, AND Lynne pays $10 to each of her 8 employees THEN Lynne will receive the full amount of $100 Ether, ELSE, Lynne will receive 90% of the total AND 10% is returned to John.'

In the variegated forms of smart contracts, the conditions can and do generally take on greater complexity. In an IPD context, smart contracts will be useful in negotiating rewards for new value propositions. For example, architects and contractors each put forward $15 (their base rate) in the smart contract, and the client puts $70 towards achieving a specific goal. This means, if the goal was to meet a certain green star standard, or to save the client energy and maintenance cost over a 5-year period, once the goal is met, the contract will automatically distribute the $100 to both contractor and architect party as rewards. If the architect and contractor fail to meet these conditions, the client will receive his $70 back and the participants will forfeit their profits. This process ensures the client will definitely receive their money back in the case of a contingency, or the parties will definitely be rewarded the right amount if the condition is met. In allowing professionals to circumvent the highly litigious nature of most architect/owner/contractor relations, smart contracts foster new forms of value propositions while also by-passing the expenses of those profiting from distrust (i.e. Lawyers, Insurance).

The coupling of smart contracts with IPD can then be packaged into a digital platform – an app that leverages mechanisms of existing platforms – and mediates architectural work and the procurement process. Shown here, we’ve traced some possible paths for engaging each participant in collaborating and forming the IPD contract. The platform begins with using a matching algorithm to connect the client – based on their initial aspirations and needs - to a list of best suited architects and builders within the vicinity of the project. Once the participants have been selected, a set of digital tools will be utilised to ensure the success of implementing an IPD contract. From this point, communication tools such as Microsoft Teams or Slack mobilise the collaboration. The design, planning, and procurement will require collaborative BIM software. Eventually, a series of user interfaces would be deployed to track the progress of the designated project and other comparable projects.

Using a set of blockchain smart contracts to operate this platform itself, an organisational framework similar to that of DOA (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation) can be constructed. Because blockchain is distributed among all its users, a firm organised around its blockchain smart contracts can be democratised. It becomes a DAO built on transparency, the diffusion of delegated power, and the absence of managers misdirecting and wasting investor funds. Effectively, the firm functions as a worker owned cooperative. Once the cooperative becomes sufficiently large where necessary voting is required, applications like FollowMyVote can be leveraged to form smart contracts which provide democratised voting that is protected from fraud.

This year marks the transition to a new presidency: the Biden administration. With this, we are likely to expect incoming laws and regulations surrounding big tech and the platform economy. At the same time, many investors have retracted investments in many unprofitable platform businesses. In spite of this, many unprofitable businesses (as well as some profitable ones) that nonetheless still provide value are being reconfigured into platform cooperatives.