Complications of crowdfunded architecture

Overview

As Crowdfunding appears in many different ways, catering various services and fields, certain non beneficial aspects appear. This is an article discussing those aspects for architectural content. What are the downsides and weaknesses when trying to crowdfund an architecture project? How could they be avoided? Starting with an theoretic approach and finishing with examples and case studies.

Complications

following up is a list of complications that make architectural projects special when it comes to crowdsourcing.
It`s hard to summarize the problems which occur since they arise from very individual problems each architectural project inhabits. As the common ground between a museum, a school in a third world country, a new housing skyscraper or even a public pool is very little- The aim of this article is to focus on problems that a majority of them shares or at least has to consider. The list so far consists of:

Cost
more money involved, uncalculated costs, follow up expenses /...

Threshold
Limited demand, best solutions, 'one way' street /...

Catchment
Local reach, communication, publicity /...

Approval
bureaucracy, permits, unforeseen developments /...

Longevity
lasting responsibilities, long-term plans, maintenance /...

cost

When dealing with architecture its obviously not like financing a new book or design gadget. The money involved is in most cases excessively outranking other design fields. Making a realistic and understandable demand when starting a crowdfunding campaign is crucial for its success. Considering the high building costs, it seems viable to implement strategies to avoid overreaching the campaigns potential.

These strategies could be for example to break a big project into smaller pieces to make it more accessible. Step by step the Project reaches its goals. During the funding process it gains not only reputation, but also followers who will in turn further its completion.
Another potential strategy could be, to combine crowdfunding with other financial solutions. Private investors but also governmental funds tend to invest or support projects far easier when they see a potential market or demand for it. This follows a classic supply and demand economy.

Apart from the already high initial costs, there are a lot of other factors to consider. design costs, material costs, timelines, schedules and the potential for all of them to change during the long process of actually realizing a project. So what if the costs rise? who pays for them? who can really determine that a given calculation is trustworthy? often it seems to be just a rough guess. and what happens to the money when the guess is wrong in one way or the other?
All these arising questions give room for a feeling of unease when contributing to an architecture crowdfunding project. So when setting up a campaign its essential to be very comprehensible and clear with the costs and all the financial aspects involved.

main problems

- The cost of architecture projects is in comparison excessively high.
- additional costs may occur during the process. who is paying them?
- more then 10.000 often seems to be an unrealistic amount.

theoretical solutions

- crowdfunding step by step / research.
- crowdsourcing instead of funding
- combining crowdfunding with other approaches
- financing the growth instead of the initial project

examples

+pool

+pool is a great example on how to deal with a major financial expense in terms of crowdfunding.
The estimated project budget is 15$ million. This number not only scares people away, it is also very unlikely to be achieved. Especially considering the reach that architecture projects normally generate. So +pools solution involved a strategy of funding the project step by step while raising awareness and attracting other funds and supporters.
The initial kickstarter campaign therefore tries to generate 250.000$ for research instead of the whole 15million$. This is still a lot, but considering the public accessibility and the fact that new york harbors a world wide attraction it is realistic and met his goals.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/694835844/pool-tile-by-tile

prodigy network

Bogota tower, initiated by 'prodigy network', is an example of moving outside of existing crowdfunding structures to realize architectural projects on a scale far outside of regular possibilities. By creating a huge marketing campaign and project identity, prodigy network continuously funds projects as an investment for its contributors. Their campaign for Bogota tower states: "A way to turn common colombians into investors that are crowdfunding the tallest skyscraper in Colombia."

https://www.prodigynetwork.com/default.aspx

Seattle: Neighborhood Matching Fund

Seattles government created a 'neighborhood matching fund' which awards projects with funding if they generate a certain amount of money out of the community supporting it.
"Physical improvement projects (where something tangible and lasting, such as a playground or public art, is being created) require a 1:1 match (the community match must equal the funding request)."
"Non-physical projects (such as design, planning, events, etc.) require a ½:1 match (the community match must equal at least half of the funding request)."
Since it began, the Neighbourhood Matching Fund has awarded more than $49 million to more than 4,000 projects throughout Seattle and attracted an additional $72 million in community contributions. (according to Brickstarter)

http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/nmf/

threshold

The next complication circles around the need for an architectural project in a particular space and its specific value for the surroundings. Imagine for example someone starting a crowdfunding campaign to build a playground in your neighborhood. Sounds nice. But if the community chips in money, is this really what the area needs? maybe a school makes more sense? maybe an opera or a statue of Robocop?
What if the playground is build, but there is nobody using it? You can't just start over and build something else. Architecture is mostly build long term and follows an EITHER-OR principal. EITHER the playground OR the school etc.
So we have to really determine what is needed before we build it.

There it gets complicated! If a campaign is started it is mostly build on someones or a group of peoples interest. But what if there are better solutions? Or even within the same paradigm better architectural proposals? how do we determine these and how to make them publicly known? And on the contrary: What if all of a sudden a multitude of projects for the same area or demand show up? Contributions will just get divided and nothing will get build.

As you might see there are still a lot of open questions for which we need answers. The classic approach is that investors analyze and determine what is needed and then competitions are held in order to find the best solution. For crowdfunded projects flashy pictures and a good marketing often seem to work best. So just starting a campaign on a design brief might not work very well.

A strategy could be to locally research and develop an idea thoroughly. To crowdsource instead of crowdfund until the best possible project with the highest demand is collectively designed and only then go further.
Another option that seems to be working is to use niches that nobody else has any interest in using. To establish experiments instead of fix buildings or to create temporary solutions before going long term.

main problems

- exclusive.
- limited demand.
- either-/or principal.
- trade of

theoretical solutions

- research thoroughly
- use niches
- initiate urban experiments

examples

park fiction

a park in hamburg collectively designed and build by the local community.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/parkfiction/

catchment

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

main problems

- Reach mostly limited locally
- Only exceptional cases generate outsiders interest.
- smaller reach> more participation per person needed.

potential solutions

- Kampagne im ersten Schritt bewusst Lokal auslegen.
- Klare definition des Wertes für Aussenstehende. Vermittlung!
- Geographie realistisch ausloten
- Netzwerk gründen.
- Marke statt Gebäude > Identifikation > Wachstum
- Produktion im Produkt > Mehrwert.
- Crowdsourcing statt funding.

approval

It's not always the public demand that is fulfilled. One has to consider a wide range of permits and bureaucratic hurdles. A lot of these often can't be accounted for in advance or arise during the process. But how to deal with such unforeseeable circumstances? what if projects get funded and then break apart in the process? This can involve not only political issues but also

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

main problems

- Finanziert heist nicht genehmigt!
- Öffentliche/ Behördliche Interessen

potential solutions

- Aufklärung über Ablauf und nötige Genehmigungen.
- Einbindung in festgelegten Prozess
- Nutzung definierter Netzwerke zur Überwindung der Hürden.(Macht)

longevity

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

main problems

- lasting responsibility
- subsequent use
- who carries lasting costs? maintainance? renovation?
- Recycling possibilities?

potential solutions

- Nachnutzungen mit einplanen
- Temporär und recyclebar bauen
- Management und Nutzung von Anfang an einkalkulieren.

Conclusions

what can we learn from this article?

What seems to become clear during this research is, that there are a lot of different and often very creative solutions one can learn from. Even though one often has to deal with what for example 'brickstarter' described as a 'first mover disadvantage' there are lessons to be learned and the more we try to distribute them the easier things will get in the future.

Outlook

how could the future of crowdfunded architecture look like?