For the term Green Goo I’m indebted to Mark Jarzombek, who used the term in his 2010 essay “Post-sustainability,” published in CJ Lim and Ed Liu’s Smart-cities + Ecowarriors. the term described building proposals in renderings draped in Photoshopped jungle green colonizing the surfaces of buildings from the equator to the arctic circle. I remember well the futility that joined with such jingoistic green, but I also remember well the critical discussion that provoked the aesthetic, and reminded that it seems to be forgotten, and too soon. the discussion was both about how food was produced and consumed in our cities, and, perhaps more interestingly, about renegotiating the relation of urbanism and landscape. These relations are essentially social mechanisms where social/political relations are formed across species barriers.
The tendency has existed for some time in architectural discourse, in projects as diverse as, for example, Peter Cook’s Veg houses, or Ken Yeang’s Eco-skyscrapers, and reminds us that cities already exist in parasitic or metabolic relation to the landscapes they occupy. that is to say, there’s a certain artificality to a landscape/urban relation that might be mined for architectural effect, an effect that would let its users understand and involve themselves more closely in that relation.
CJ Lim continues to produce such work in his books Smart-Cities + Ecowarriors, and more recently, Food City, and the books are helpful reminders that the discussion of the sustainability and self-sufficiency of food production in late-stage capitalist cities is hardly resolved. Even the discussion of landscape or non-human subjectivities has subsided into a leitmotif in contemporary architectural discourse. Such provocation, or propagandistic work reminds us that we the radicality necessary to enact a cultural shift is tragically missing, and bold solutions are necessary.
There are two points, however, where Lim goes spectacularly wrong in enacting this ecological imaginary, where the supposed radicality of his solution is met with uncritical reproductions of existing power structures with respect to social and ecological relations. First, in the conception of landscape, and second, in the ill-considered political landscape that his work implies. The work is borne out of a conservative interpretation of the role of ecology in landscape and urbanism, it uncritically reproduces food production in a mode that seems to ignore the imbalance power relations that have created the problem in the first place. The concept of ecology necessitates an acknowledgment of the complexity, and the continued re-negotiaton or evolution of relations in non-linear systemic processes.
Politically, Lim ignores the problem of ownership and agency suggested by his images. The scale and totality of the solutions can be, and only have been enacted, by totalitarian governments. In their imposition of planning over such a scale, the schemes most closely resemble totalitarian housing and factory schemes. Lim even goes so far as to suggest a schedule for his inhabitants, somehow forgetting that the only places where time relations may be so tightly regulated are prisons.
Again, the problem is in ignoring the implications of ecological and systemic relations, where ecosystemic relations can and should be understood as social relations on a fluctuating and dynamic field. Any top down approach will inevitably miss the fine grain of negotiation that is necessary to replicating the complexity of relations inherent in any landscape. However, we may say that understanding and reproducing the complexity of such relations requires a dispersed agency, and a great deal of redundancy and openness in relations. Top-down optimization, after all, was the goal of totalitarian goverments the world over, but inevitably missed the individual needs of their citizens. Instead of a water scheme imposed from above, for example, we might have to trust two citizens to understand and implement water-sharing on behalf of their own corner of a landscape relation. That is to say, the political implications suggested by Lim force us to advocate their opposite, in bottom up, retro-fitted, parasitic relations to existing cities, communities, and landscapes, in ways which allow for and encourage multiple agencies, both human and non human, to be enacted and negotiated.
The title of CJ Lim and Ed Liu’s book is Smartcities + Eco-warriors implying an affinity to (perhaps militant) politico-ecological movements. I symptathize with their aims, certainly. Unfortunately, if there is anything of leftism implied in the schema they have developed, it is in the totalitarian mode of the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems as if Lim has been unable to stop himself ‘architecting,’ to stop himself from reproducing the closed and top-down planing method of totalitarian governments the world over. The type of design necessary now is precisely the opposite. what is needed is design in a minor mode, that provokes agency in individual users that allows for dispersal, negotiation, redundancy and excess, rather than a fixed and closed system that discourages growth and evolution in that most dynamic and fragile element of human society, our relation to non-human others that sustain human life.