The Future: The solve-it-all misconception of Innovations and

Traditions

The best way to predict the future is to design it. This is a statement
from the modernist architect, Buckminster Fuller. He is a successful planner in the
context of adding definition and at the same time, redefining the essence of
architecture, both in shaping man and the society through form-linked solutions that
innovate his approach in designing spaces. Form-linked solutions are basically
innovative and form-based ideas that aims to solve problems and issues that arises
in the modern context. The concept of such solutions employs change on the
structure of the solution itself in order to provide a new perspective in addressing
new problems. Several theories and propositions have been developed in order to
define and scrutinize the concept of innovation and its implications towards
fostering communal and societal stability. However several arguments are critical
enough to produce ontological statements that sharply influences the perception of
innovation in the built environment. On the other hand, the role of tradition is
inarguably a critical determinant in indicating the approach of the solution in the
context of the sensitivity and preserving the culture and genus loci of the place. It is
a consideration especially on innovation regarding industrialization, where tradition
will always be affected. The relationship between tradition and innovation are vital
components that will determine the structure of the future. Thomas Kuhn and
George Kubler, among other philosophers and theorist, have made an impact in this
prospect. They have set the pioneering definition of what it takes for an innovation
to happen. But regardless of their credibility, does tradition and innovation really
gives birth of a sustainable future or its just a fallacious misconception in order to
make an excusable account to create something new and prove the designers
proficiency in his field of expertise? Does innovation induce sensitivity to the
tradition? Is the future really defined by these two components?

Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher during the modern period, has made a

controversy in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution. He claims that
innovations are produced through the anomalies that lies on the present paradigm.
If well follow the postulate of imperfections of every solution and its inability to
provide all the answers, we can say that innovations will always be perpetual and
indefinite in its phase, thus helping to solve existing problems and at the same time,
produce new problems. In Kuhns point of view, the main misconception that
planners and scientist comes into, is the total reliance on theories and not crucially
looking on its origins and failure to develop concrete analogies. This intellectual
dependence leads to vague innovations and produces more conflicts. Form-linked
solutions out of dependence on theories will never be sensible enough to efficiently
solve the present issues.

If we need to go back to our origins, then we can have an assumption

on the concept of tradition as our prime source of innovation. Tradition is the

concept of originality and peculiarity of a certain community that sets it apart from
other communities. It is often characterized by a distinct culture and it is shaped by
the situations that the community gets involved over time. If these traditions will be
the basis of our model, there is a greater probability that innovations and formlinked solutions would have its more tangible source of credibility. Moreover, given
the different physical site and conditional differences, these traditions would also
have certain circumstances (during those times) that specifically shaped the
framework of the tradition itself. If we would never be certain of those

circumstances, then we will never have a perfect analogy to develop thus, we will
never have the most concrete solutions to every problems. If this concept holds true
to everything, then innovations and conflicts will be perpetual and the future will
never become the future that we might expect.

One example is the present situation of Intramuros. Century-old walls

may not have dilapidated due to preservation by the administration but it doesnt
help to the prevalence of urban sprawl inside the historic district. The innovation
that has been done today is the renovation and retrofitting of the neo-hispanic
buildings inside intramuros. On the other hand, this priority has left the
administration to ignore the urban residential context and the historic integrity of
intramuros. Being sensible to tradition does not totally incorporate a sensible
solution. The districts situation only concerns the tangible and concrete exemplars
by which the viewers and users benefits, using the plasters and other architectural
skins to develop a fraud frontage to make historic district, historic.

Furthermore, another concept have influenced on our perception on

innovation. The concept of Kubler on innovation lies on its dynamic model of

change and modification of form. He interprets that innovation is due to change in

pattern, thus producing a new one. This is developed through drift, noise, and/or
interference. In Kublers point of view , modifying something will eventually change
its structural configuration though it doesnt remove the fact that the origins core
is still there. This proposition was opposed by Joyce Brodsky, who states that
innovation is the gradual revealing as staying close in revealing the real pattern ,
and not necessarily creating a new pattern , which displaces the old. Over time, she
developed a concept which opposed Kublers point of view. She translated Kublers
opinion into the idea of continuity and discontinuity.

For Brodsky, continuity and discontinuity are natural phenomena that

occur in the built and natural environment. Every problem triggers the need for a
new solution that in the long run , will produce future conflicts. In this logical sense,
the concept of chained reaction produces societal instability. One example on this
concept is best illustrated on the consecutive patterns on Marcosian Brutalism
architectural style and the Vernacular Filipino concept by other architects such as
Manosa. During the 1970s, Brutalist buildings dominates the Philippines, creating a
strong character on the national context. This innovation solves the concern on the
lack of identity of Filipino architecture. Such architectural style that was applied on
convention centers also developed a sense of social involvement of Filipinos on the
Global Platform , gaining multiple investors during that time. But identity is not just
the problem during that time.

On the 20 th century, Climate change began to sprout as an alarm for

designers and planners alike to alter their programmatic solution towards
architectural innovation. This new problem discontinued the use of brutalist
architecture but it doesnt displace the importance and the contribution of the raw
concrete buildings towards architectural distinction and innovation. Until today,
vernacular and sustainable architecture is still prevalent since the issue on climate
change is not yet resolved. If we try to follow Joyce Brodskys concept of change.
The true essence of architectural pattern is adaptation. Regardless of what we

want to do as designers, well always design to adapt and to respond to the needs
of the users and broadly, of the society.

In a nutshell, innovation and tradition significantly contribute to the

development of solution to the problems in the society but on the context of future,
these two components also play a role in producing new problems, thus providing
us a different variation of future. If the future that we are pertaining is having the
Utopian ideology of a perfect society, it will never come true. This concept holds
true on all things, given the chained reactions among situations that produced the
present society. Embracing the societal condition and the underlying problems is the
key in order to appreciate the future. The future that we should expect must not be
something thats free from problem but rather, it should be something where
innovation, tradition , and culture will learn to live together, perpetually resolving
the natural disorder that exists.