I've just finished reading "Against Kickstarter Urbanism" and was surprised to find that my position on this has shifted, granted I knew little of the subject before hand but I think Alexandra Lange made a couple of really valid and worthy points. Firstly, I didn't realize that Kickstarter projects are filtered first by its editors — this greatly changes my perception of Kickstarter as a platform. While it is understandable the desire to maintain some level of control over the quality of submissions, to me it seems that this process would happen naturally just by the very fact that not-so-great projects wouldn't get funded.Â
 Why censor ideas? Perhaps projects could be evaluated a different capacities based on their level of development and rather than funding solely money what if backers could fund the necessary skills and resources necessary needed to make an idea a step closer to reality? Grace make’s another valid assessment of Kickstarter’s curation flaw: “If one designer curates; then all the approved projects will speak to his/her personal design taste.” I think this is perhaps the biggest issue. Should the people themselves not have the choice to decide what they find appealing?
 In the Kickstarter model, finished and ready to produce products, or “gizmos” as Lange suggests, are inevitably the projects that will win out support.
 Why do we have the conception that by funding something we will immediately be rewarded by the benefits? Certainly from an economic perspective it may not make sense to throw money at something for no return on investment, but if people want to fund an idea like the Lowline for example who is to say that they can’t do that? This is one area I take issue with in Lange’s assessment. While I agree that projects of this scale are better suited to a platform that will allow for flexibility over a long period of time, I argue that certainly there is a place for projects like the Lowline to be a testing ground for ideas. As long as investors know upfront what they are giving money to I see no issue in this.
 Initially when I read Alexandra’s assessment I was quick to disagree with her questioning of the necessity for “gloss” in presentation of the idea. Bryan Boyer hit the nail on the head in the comments when he said "One important aspect of this is pitching. There are some comments above which are a touch derisive of the "glossy" video pitches on Kickstarter. I'd like to ask what's wrong with being convincing? Bear in mind that convincing does not necessarily mean misleading or frivolous. Those are valid concerns, but separate from the effectiveness of a pitch."
In my notes I wrote about the importance of being able to sell your idea. If you can convey a sense of ownership and quality in your pitch, this leads to trust by investors that you can also produce quality in meeting your promised __fill in the blank__.
However, Lange brought up an interesting point in her counter argument when she said "It isn't the glossiness of the videos that disturbs me so much as the apparent necessity for such glossiness." As designers we place a high emphasis on the necessity of high quality design. Maybe this is not always warranted? If we want to allow others the freedom to think creatively we can't put pressure on them to perform to a level of skill that they have only just begun to explore in. How can we address this issue as members of the design community?  This is something I've struggled with in DFA. Many other schools with DFA studios are not design schools and as such lack skills that are important in physically producing so called “good design”. This, however, does not cheapen the quality of their ideas. As designers how can we help to bridge the knowledge and skill gap to make the great ideas of others a reality?
Bryan Boyer asks the same question. "The Evolution from vauge possibility to realistic proposal is a key hurdle… Having a good idea is important, of course, and there are sites like Neighborland (http://neighborland.com/) which are doing good stuff to collect the desires of a community. With Brickstarter we're primarily interested in what's next. After you have a good idea, what's the infrastructure that helps you bring it into the world?"
Chris asks a great question: Can we always trust the crowd?
The Apple design model says no. Steve Jobs firmly believed that people don’t know what they really want until they are showed something. While I agree with this to an extent I have to ask at what point does this neglect the needs of those you are designing for rather than with?
Designers tend to have an attitude that we know best. This is well illustrated by the frequently heard phrase “We need to educate the client.” The very tone of this is condescending and arrogant. Who is to say that we know what is best for a community that is not our own? Yes, we can bring our skills, knowledge, and experience to the table but does that mean that we should be end all say all? I argue that we aren’t. In my opinion the role of the designer is to enlighten others to the possibilities informed by the process of design.
I love Lange’s idea of a “Collective Memory for Urban Proposals,” a database showcasing the successes and failures of all projects of all time would be immensely beneficial in many ways. One that particularly stands out is that such a database could perhaps reveal more deep-seeded patterns and be a valuable learning tool that could be referenced in developing new proposals.
Dark Matter – A clever way to describe the many barriers to entry
“Pop-ups are nice… until they pop down.”
This plays along with the notion of the “gizmo” and architecture as an objectified state. In contemporary society objects are seen not as precious heirlooms but as disposable goods. Whether or not you believe this to be true or as a good or bad thing (I believe it to be bad), does objectifying architecture also make it disposable? Are the temporary interventions, which are a hot topic in the design realm today, cheapening the idea of architecture, which has historically been seen as the creation of something that is enduring? Or can Gizmos again be seen as objects of virtue?
"Do we want to make it easier for people to put forward half-hearted proposals? I'd personally be happy with a platform which helps weed out the proposals which are not quite there yet."
After all these readings, especially the Atlantic Cities article, I feel empowered to go out and do this on Main Street. I had already been considering doing a Candy Chang type of experiment as a sort of awareness campaign for DFA but now its not matter of it but when. I’m looking forward to being a part of this crowd based urban phenomena!
Do websites like Brick/Kickstarter, Change by Us, etc. have the power to initiate a paradigm shift in thought about they way that people appreciate Design in America?
Further can a greater appreciation for quality American made products/projects jumpstart a new culture of consumption — or rather a culture of un-consumption?
If modernism was a top-down approach to urbanism can the gizmo be seen as the grassroots approach? Or are gizmos just a gimmick and crowd-founded and crowd-created projects the grassroots approach?
