Background, Purpose and Goals of the Pocantico Charrette

The process that led to this event began in the Fall of 2004 with a few people talking about what's next? That is, what can we or should we be doing beyond LEED, in addition to LEED?

The charrette was intended to begin a process of exploration of that question. The goal was to lead us through a process that takes us to the next step(s), recognizing that we're heading into uncharted waters, and will be needing a comfort level in the group with that—exploring these ideas without a clear roadmap or preconception of where we might end up.

Support for this work has been provided by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Why GSA cares about this: * GSA wants to push the envelope with the Border Station (Alexandria Bay, NY Port of Entry) and go beyond LEED, if possible. * GSA is looking for what it can contribute that the private sector is not doing. GSA's job is providing good workplaces for government workers—providing value, not necessarily lowest cost. Figuring out how the built environment affects people and how can we do a better job—research on these topics is an appropriate government function. * GSA has an interest in getting beyond a checklist approach.

The organizers' deliverable to GSA is envisioned as some type of report, framing the process: 1. Document the meeting 2. Highlight things to be followed up on 3. Point out how some proposed approaches have been applied in people's work 4. Identify resources, books, websites that have been inspiring 5. Propose a map of process(es) for going forward

We recognize that the eventual report may be radically different, based on the discussions and outcomes of the charrette.

The event will unfold as we feel our way through: We have prepared a default map for the next couple days—the hope is we won't have to use it.

Group Conversation

Participants organized into four smaller groups. Each group was asked to look at the questions that were submitted in advance by participants [see preparatory material] and to explore patterns of relationships that emerge from the questions. Can systemic ways of looking at things be found in the questions? The groups were asked to focus not on which questions are better or worse, but on the patterns they represent as a whole.

In an effort to avoid the "dreaded report-out" groups were asked to bring back a graphic representation of what was discussed.

First Group

• Need to reconnect with our own genius—how do we break through current consciousness to get to a deeper level? Also need to recognize our own ignorance and arrogance.
• Emphasize synergism between nature and human nature—grandmothers, who used to share cultural wisdom are no longer there, so we have to find these values for ourselves.

Second Group

• How do we change what exists—change our view of the center of the universe so that it is not human-centric. How do we become the change?
• What is the purpose of change—sustainability?
• What processes do we need?
• What capabilities do we need?
• What outcomes do we need?
• Networks, connections, interdependencies of life

Third Group

• What are the most important issues facing our world and which ones can we address in our work on buildings and communities?
• Need to work in three areas
• Vision (what's important)
• Getting the "nuts and bolts" right (practice)
• Communication (sharing information, spreading the word)

Fourth Group

• How do we get innate shared core values to emerge? These values are often obscured by mental models.
• We need to get past "us" and "them"—there is only "us."
• Skit was performed, showing neighbors discovering the benefits of a green home and drawbacks of their own home/lifestyle.

Whole group conversation: Common themes from the report-outs

• Core values
• Communication
• Interconnectedness and complexity
• Nature and the place of humans in nature; recenter dialog so that it is not homocentric

What makes buildings meaningful and loved?

It clearly isn't just about the architecture. You want to spend time there. Buildings that are loved may be so because of their shared history with a community. The Quaker community offers an interesting model: Among Quakers designing a building, like doing most anything else, called for a great deal of reflection, using the format of a Quaker Business Meeting where all are heard and considered. (See Quaker Aesthetics: Reflections On A Quaker Ethic In American Design And Consumption, 1720-1920, edited by Emma Jones Lapsansky and Anne A. Verplanck)

People take care of things they love—what do we need to know about a place to love it? What does it mean to understand a place? Each place has its own spirit.

What is the next idea that has the potency to create change? How can ideas be transformative?