publications cover

1 downloads 0 Views 5MB Size Report
spirit nurtured, however, an ironic and humor- ous “antiproject” to modernist ...... in Soft- Tech: A Co- Evolution Book, ed, Jay Baldwin and. Stewart Brand, 40–45 ...
l yd i a k a l l i pol i ti

From Shit to Food Graham Caine’s Eco-­House in South London, 1972–1975

Early in 1975, at a corner of Thames Polytechnic’s playing fields in South London, an ecological house was demolished. It not only looked like a spaceship but also functioned as one, even though it had been erected from materials scavenged from the streets and bore a striking resemblance to a giant outhouse. From the beginning of its construction the Eco-­House emerged as something uncanny, as “something that landed on the earth rather than growing out of it,” in the suburban context of Eltham.1 Neighbors used to walk around the house’s site disenchanted with its aesthetics, calling it an “eyesore.”2 They were quite pleased with its eventual demolition. In fact, they accelerated the process by helping to pull down the house. These neighborly commentaries notwithstanding, the historic significance of the Eco-­House lies in the fact that it was a built laboratory inhabited by its architect and manifested for its creators a statement for political and social reform. Inside the envelope, digesters, hydroponic gardens, solar panels, and other machines endowed the house with more functions than simply to shelter. One of the earliest ecological houses, the Eco-­ House was built in 1972 as a laboratory and living experiment by Grahame Caine, a member of the anarchist group Street Farmers, originally formed by Peter Crump and Bruce Haggart. The Eco-­House was a fully functional, integrated system that converted human waste to methane for cooking and maintained a hydroponic greenhouse with radishes, tomatoes, and even bananas. Its construction had been supported by a donation of two thousand pounds from Alvin

Boyarski, the chairman of the Architectural Association of London (AA). Caine, a twenty-­six-­ year-­old, fourth-­year student at the AA, designed and built the Eco-­House on borrowed land from Thames Polytechnic, as part of his AA diploma thesis (Figures 1, 2). He received a provisional two-­year permit from the Borough of Woolwich District Surveyor with the promise to build an “inhabitable housing laboratory” that would grow vegetables out of household effluents and fertilize the land with reprocessed organic waste. With the help of the Street Farmers, Caine was Figure 1. Grahame Caine in the 1960s. Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

Figure 2. Caine in front of the Eco-House. Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

87

able start construction in September 1972, during his fifth year, and to install himself by Christmas. After having lived in the house for two years with his family, he was asked to destroy it in 1975. By that time the Eco-­House had already received wide attention from the British press, architectural magazines, as well as British tele­ vision. It was the main subject of a BBC Open Program for Television episode in June 1973 entitled “Clearings of a Concrete Jungle,” which featured the promotional line “Spring is here and the time is ripe for planting in the streets.”3 Other publications about the house included “The House That Grows” and “A New Way of Living” in the London Garden News, “Living off the Sun in South London” in The Observer, and “A Revolutionary Structure” in Oz magazine (Figure 3). 4 Despite the extensive press coverage and the massive logistical and administrative struggle to acquire permission to use land for an experimental facility, Caine failed his final examinations at the AA and never received his diploma as an architect. In his final presentation, he did Figure 3. The Eco-House in Oz (November 1972). Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

88

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

not present to the committee any architectural drawings. He did present, however, endless arrays of scientific diagrams and tables monitoring in excruciating detail the performance of the Eco-­House’s interconnected machines, as well as sketches that envisioned an alternative political reality. Although Caine envisioned his scientific analyses as a crusade for the individual’s political liberation, the jury could never quite forgive the obliteration of an “architectural middle ground,” that is, his rejection of conventional forms of architectural representation. In 2008, when this author met Caine in Ronda, Spain, and asked him to recollect this story, he was comically apathetic to his deprivation of the architect’s certified title. This was normal at the time. They could give you funding for a project they believed in, but they could not risk giving a degree to someone like me, interested more in biology than in drawings. Honestly though, it did not matter to me. I was convinced at that point that architecture is immoral.5

Even though Caine failed his thesis exams, the AA hired him as an instructor the day after his presentation. The story of the Eco-­House in South London raises a significant disciplinary paradox. It was an experimental laboratory sponsored by the Environmental Council of London and a house that compelled the public’s imagination as well as the interest of the popular press; it raised hopes for an alternative sustainable occupation of the urban sphere. At the same time, it was rejected and notoriously criticized by the architectural community for its lack of canonical references to core disciplinary conventions: investigations of form, proportions, and spatial syntax. Alvin Boyarski and Martin Pawley recognized this critical moment of disciplinary outreach, thinking of the Eco-­House as a spatial tool for social reform propelled by scientific investigations, rather than as a project fostering technological supremacy. Therefore, they both supported Caine in his experiments and allowed him to further his research in the academic framework of the AA. Because of architects like Boyarski, Pawley, the Archigram group, and Cedric Price and cyberneticians like Gordon Pask and Roy Landau, the AA at the time comprised a complex cultural environment that espoused experimental work originating from scientific discoveries. This spirit nurtured, however, an ironic and humorous “antiproject” to modernist technological determinism. Price and the Archigram group argued for the transference of military technology to civilian use, as a social welfare mission in an era of the global worker, student protest, and cultural revolution. David Greene’s “LogPlug” project and his L.A.W.u.N. series (pro-­landscape and anti-­architecture projects) poignantly resembled the Street Farmers’ collages in their self-­published homonymous magazine. In Street Farmer, Haggart and Crump portrayed the city entirely covered by a carpet of nature with cows roaming on top of embedded microelectronic devices. Apart from the AA, Caine’s Eco-­House was part of a larger continuum of countercultural practices that rose to cultural prominence in the

early 1970s. At the time, algae digesters, water filtration systems, solar plate collectors, wind generators, composting toilets, and in general the technical “know-­how” of alternative technologies pervaded architectural debates, especially as related to communes in the United States South­ west and the squatting movement in England. Caine’s work was contiguous to Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Catalog, Steve Baer’s Zomeworks, John Todd’s New Alchemy Institute, Sim van der Ryn’s Farallones Institute, and Integral Urban House, as well as Colin Moorcarft’s “Recycling” section in Architectural Design. These figures represented an entire generation of environmentally concerned architects and thinkers that popularized autonomy from the grid of supplies as an ecological and libertarian way of living and acting. The 1970s witnessed dense environmental debates with the terms “self-­sufficiency,” “self-­reliance,” “life-­support,” and “living autonomy” surfacing as a consistent lexicon for alternative technologies, described by Architectural Design in 1976 as an “architectural prevailing cult project” that preoccupied the British avant-­ garde scene for several years.6 What is unique in Caine’s Eco-­House is simply that it was built. Caine was clearly a step ahead of Archigram’s pictorial iconography. The Eco-­House did not represent a cultural fascination with self-­reliance but was actually an integrated household system that functioned as closed-­loop ecology. Moreover, Caine started working on the logistics of the project in 1970 (while studying at the AA), evidently before Brenda and Robert Vale’s Autonomous House of 1975 and the Integral Urban House at Berkeley in the late 1970s. In this sense, the Eco-­House cannot be historically interpreted as a direct response to the 1973 oil crisis (as were many other projects of a similar nature). It preceded the oil crisis and emerged from an investigation on self-­ sufficient systems that occurred before the crisis popularized the energy problem. In addition to its alliance with the 1970s do-­it-­yourself, off-­the-­ grid countercultural movement, the Eco-­House conjures key disciplinary questions about the physiology of inhabitation, the nature of the design process, and the idea that large-­scale urban

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

89

change may occur from an alternative awareness of the domestic interior. More specifically, the Eco-­House was built and inhabited by its architect, who used his body as a test bed for living experimentation; it was an integrated system where a man and his physiology of ingestion and excretion became a part of the system he inhabited. Caine called the house a “semi-­scientific” experiment, which for him was only partially designed but mostly calculated and grown. With the re­ cycling of organic substances, Caine imagined the segmentation of matter into infinitesimal units that could then be recombined into new assemblages. This line of thinking propelled a chemical imagery in architectural thought, beyond the implications of recycling byproducts as a response to the solid waste crisis. In addition, he conceived of the Eco-­House as a physical and spatial tool that not only contributed to the individual’s liberation but also simultaneously demonstrated an answer to this ontological problem: creating an autonomous personal space or a protective environmental enclosure around the human. Therefore beyond technical innovations in ecological design, the Eco-­House demonstrates an unrooted spatial paradigm, detached from the urban condition, which alludes to a novel territorial paradigm of the twentieth century that German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk named modern individualism.7 The Architect as Guinea Pig While living in the Eco-­House, Caine used himself and his family as guinea pigs in order to test the function of several components of the house.8 He experimented with his waste, his cooking habits, his use of water, monitoring closely every activity of daily practice until the day the house was demolished. Caine was undoubtedly the steward of the house; he alone knew how to feed the house with the right nutrients­—how to supply engines with the appropriate amounts of fuel, and how much to water the plants in the greenhouse. The architect, therefore, was an indispensable biological part of the house he built. He portrayed himself as a combustion engine for generating electricity, connected to the house in

90

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

a diagram where excretion was a vital constituent of the system’s sustenance (Figure 4). In many respects, the house was grown more than constructed. It needed care from its caretaker; without human presence its living biotechnical systems would degenerate and die. This absolute requirement, for daily connection to the house to assure its wellness, meant that Caine rarely left the house. Robin Middleton, then technical editor of Architectural Design and a colleague of Caine at the AA, humorously spoke of a Gordian knot between Caine and the house. As Middleton recalls, Caine “never left, in order to assure that all systems were working. At some point, he had to leave for a while for some reason, someone got ill, and he had his favorite AA student to look after the house and make sure that all systems keep going.”9 According to Middleton, everyday housekeeping habits affected the health of the Eco-­House and vice versa. In other words, the house’s health was physiologically codependent with the dweller’s health as in an interlinked biological pattern. The fragile bond between occupant and shelter­— as enveloping environmental enclosure—demonstrates an intensive preoccupation with the physiology of inhabitation. Caine considered detailed instructions for daily housekeeping to be a remedy and a regulating mechanism for the health of the Eco-­House, as well as his own fitness. In many respects, housekeeping was a curative practice for Caine. Nevertheless, there were daily housekeeping routines that were unrelated to cleanliness and hygiene. Caine was intensely preoccupied with the physiological footprint of his inhabitation and developed an obsession with managing, retaining, and reorganizing his excrements. In his interview he mentions, “I did several small-­ scale experiments, defecating in buckets. It was awful; I don’t want go into details. I mixed feces with liquids in different solid-­to-­liquid ratios. If they were too liquid, they produced no gas.”10 Describing his house as a life-­support system and sarcastically alluding to the architect’s confounded identity, Caine argued that it allowed the architect to better relate to his own shit. Caine wrote:

Figure 4. Grahame Caine’s diagram for the Eco-House. Courtesy of Grahame Caine. This drawing was reprinted in Stefan Szcelkun’s Survival Scrapbook, vol. 5: Energy (Bristol, UK: Unicorn Bookshop Press, 1975).

Within the ecological house, which I believe to be a real alternative to official architecture, the individual is not only involved in its production, he is directly involved within the biological cycles that constitute so much of its life support systems. one 11 relates to one’s own shit.

As witnessed in several diagrams, drawings, and statements, the act of defecation was vital to the nutrition of the house. Caine was tied to his house with an umbilical cord. Feces as a material substance were incorporated in the power generation the house. Like plants and animals, humans were also a requisite part of the overall house system in a complete cycle

of organic matter, based on the interaction of plant and animal life.12 Moreover, he organized an extensive step-­by-­step procedure on how to hold on to feces, in order not to damage aquatic subecosystems, allowing natural decomposition for the reconstitution of food and energy.13 To accomplish successful conversion of energy cycles, Caine thoroughly studied the physiological cycles of humans, organisms, and machines. Numbers, statistics, numeric calculations, and the logistics of injection and excretion were vital components of his research. In order to construct a recirculatory household, Caine needed to thoroughly examine his internal biology.

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

91

that the human body fascinates me. How much energy can it derive from one boiled egg? How long does it keep you, as an animal, going? It is really amazing.14

Figure 5. The EcoHouse’s toilet bowl, drawn by Grahame Caine. Courtesy of Grahame Caine. Figure 6. The EcoHouse’s toilet bowl, drawn by Grahame Caine. Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

Numbers were very important. I did all the homework. I knew how many calories and how much energy was being used up by the human body. I broke down my daily activity into components, which was an important part of running the Eco-­ House. I monitored daily what I ate. I have to say

92

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

Alongside caloric calculations for the conversion of “excrements to food,” Caine used himself and his wife in order to draw diagrams and take measures for the bathroom commode. The toilet bowl was manufactured by Caine himself after a series of studies on man’s digestive system and the interface between defecation and the human’s rear. Based on his experiments, he drew a close-­up of routine defecation, documenting the regular locations of liquid drops in a given area (Figures 5, 6, 7). Caine also drew sections and plans recording variable rear pressures, inspired by Alexander Kira’s diagrams in The Bathroom. 15 The book was put together by the Center for Housing and Environmental Studies at Cornell University, in collaboration with Cornell’s Aeronautical Laboratory, in order to optimize the activities of urination and defe­ cation for NASA’s manned space missions in zero-­gravity conditions. Caine was also influenced by the Gobar bio-­ gas movement building at the time in India and focused on the topic of assembling methane generators.16 One of the most prominent figures in this field, Ram Bux Singh, directed bio-­gas experiments for two decades at the Research Station at Ajitmal in Northern India. Bux Singh developed more than two hundred low-­cost digesters designed to convert plant and animal waste into composted fertilizer and methane for fuel.17 He invented a chemical method that not only accelerated the fermentation and decomposition in the composting process but also produced a valuable byproduct, combustible gas.18 During the early 1970s, the bibliography on the topic of methane generation (natural and nonpolluting power sources) boomed. The work of Ram Bux Singh, whose fame spread to Britain and the United States, was popularized through The Whole Earth Catalog, Mother Earth News, and Colin Moorcraft’s “Recycling” section in Architectural Design. Bux Singh claims to have received ten letters a day as a result of articles ap-

pearing in these periodicals, all asking for more information about his experiments.19 Overall, the initiative of reusing worthless by­ products of chemical reactions for something useful was fundamental for the rising discourse of ecological design in the postwar period. Like Witold Rybczynski’s experiments in recycling sulphur, an abundant worthless chemical element, into building blocks, Caine and Bux Singh furthered expectations for waste recovery by proposing to use human and animal excrement.20 This line of thinking constructed a connecting value system across nations, from the methane digesters in the farmlands of India to Britain and the United States, through periodicals on alternative lifestyles and structures. Caine’s absolute involvement with the Eco-­House’s organic lifecycle opened up the possibility of a new world, one that recycled materials perpetually and fed all leftover substances back into cycles of production.

brated for proper function, however Caine could not quite pinpoint what it was that eventually produced methane. Whatever the malfunctions, Caine was still captivated by the thought that the design of the system was overtaken by life (Figure 8).

Chemosynthesis When speaking of his digesters, Caine could not quite relinquish his fascination for the strategic management of organic matter. The process of recycling necessitated a series of organizational assessments similar to decisions taken throughout a design process, yet the end product was somehow unpredictable when compared to the architect’s plan. Each digester was carefully caliFigure 7. The EcoHouse’s toilet bowl, drawn by Grahame Caine. Courtesy of Grahame Caine. Figure 8. A cross-section of the Eco-House, published in Street Farmer 1. Courtesy of Grahame Caine and Peter Crump.

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

93

Caine carefully employed the phase change of materials as a regulating mechanism to moderate temperature in different sections of the Eco-­ House. In particular, he fabricated a solar collector out of wax, like a satchel on a window, which melted when the window opened and returned to wax when the window closed. The wax’s change of state emitted more energy than conventional cooling mechanisms. Still, it was more than the performance of the material that mattered to Caine, as he was watching it grow in a molded state, inflating and deflating. He could well understand the utility of the wax’s cycle, but the effect of the material’s phase change, on a molecular scale, left him speechless to the extent that he described it as a “germinal form of art.” As he recalls, The wax was pink and I put red paint in it, just so that it looks wild. One day, the expansion and contraction of the material got out of control and it burst into the whole wall. Just like that, suddenly, there was all this wax all over the room. I would never call this type of material misbehavior a failure. I had an artwork on my wall.21

In the Eco-­House, several interior and the exterior envelope surfaces were made from materials that were temperature tuned at a molecular level. Caine’s archive included samples of thin membranes that underwent phase changes in response to varying environmental conditions. Like the wax window, Caine installed an invisible wall membrane that purified water, which was developed by the General Atomics in San Diego.22 The product’s advertisement in Science Digest featured a joyful woman behind a thin translucent partition, which would modify its material state from transparent to opaque according to inner microclimates. This variable “see-­t hrough” quality in membranes was taken on by Day Charoudi, a colleague and friend of Stewart Brand and Steve Baer and principal of the Suntek Research Laboratory in Corte Madera, California. A close successor of the Eco-­ House, Charoudi’s house would operate like an “organism through the exclusive use of interactive materials that amended their microstruc-

94

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

ture followed by ecological parameters.”23 In both Caine’s and Charoudi’s cases, aspirations were to explore the possibilities of design with biological substances and organic reactions that can partially be controlled on a molecular level. Caine’s series of digesters in the Eco-­House were deployed to produce methane and to power the house with self-­sufficient means. Parallel to that goal, however, Caine was enchanted with the methodic evolutionary character of the recycling process and the transformation of substances. Although the Eco-­House was built out of wood panels, steel beams, cellophane enclosures, and other components, the way the house operated as a system of cyclical interdependencies raised an alternative understanding of materiality. His experiments signaled a shift from mechanical devices to soft material structures. Like the wax used in the window, many substances in the recycling process existed temporally in a “smectic” material state, derivative from the Greek word rlejs, meaning “smeared,” as in the case of liquid crystals in a mesomorphic phase, where molecules align in series of layers, form alliances, and coalesce. In physics, for instance, a phase diagram shows the preferred physical states of matter at different temperatures and pressures; within each phase, the material is uniform with respect to its chemical composition and physical state. At typical temperatures and pressures, water is liquid, but it becomes solid ice if the temperature is lowered below 273 K and gaseous steam if the temperature is raised above 373 K. Such numeric thresholds, equivalent to the case of water, were carefully applied by Caine to achieve the functions of energy supply. In this sense, Caine’s series of digesters in the Eco-­House, aside from an assemblage of machines, suggest a theory of space and matter under constant reformation. Caine was far more invested in the procedure of assessing and channeling organic matter as a design process than with the conventional design of structure and envelope. Inside the house, substances were nurtured, grown, and developed until the moment of their “deliberate death,” to be transformed to energy and food for plants (Figure 9). One could argue that the Eco-­House,

with its assemblage of interconnected machines, was a type of life form. The architect’s design intentions were focused on the controlled growth of living tissue, step by step, until substances would reach a certain threshold of performance. Therefore, the design of the Eco-­House has little to do with the construction of an enclosure and more to do with the design of a parametric biological system, where thresholds, ranges, and domains of performance constitute the major design criteria. Previous to his work on the Eco-­House, Caine startled the British wing of the profession when

he entered a 1971 competition for a self-­growing bamboo shelter, announced as the “house that grows itself.”24 In his competition entry, Caine proposed to raise giant Japanese bamboo, which can grow to a height of twenty meters in three months, to be trained into shape for the framework of a home. The entire bamboo house was estimated to cost between four hundred and five hundred pounds. This particularly low budget was based on the idea that the house would grow itself, rather than being constructed, thus reducing the cost of labor. The architect proposed three main stages to grow the house: In the first Figure 9. The EcoHouse, as published in Garden News (May 5, 1972). Courtesy of Grahame Caine and Peter Crump.

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

95

stage, bamboo would grow and the main drainage would be laid to a communal service area. In the second stage, the bamboo was aligned to a formwork and curved into a dome with a wooden frame covered by flexible PVC (polyvinyl chloride), until it finally took shape.25 In the third stage, when the bamboo had grown into place, the growing box would be removed and the bottom of the bamboo sealed and cast into small concrete pad foundations. Caine’s research for the bamboo house and his overall investment in engineering organic processes evolved into the prototype of the Eco-­ House. Excerpted from Howard Mattson’s article “Keeping Astronauts Alive,” Caine underlined and rewrote the word “chemosynthesis” in his research papers.26 The reference was to NASA’s conversion diagrams for space cabins, though Caine’s efforts focused on developing a molecular type of design process through moderating chemical compositions. In chemical engineering, chemosynthesis heralded a new biological approach, which was eclipsing algae. Living microorganisms­— hydrogen monads­—were used as hydrogen-­eating bacteria, assimilating carbon dioxide and urea as they grew; their cell stuff could (theoretically) serve as a protein-­rich diet without energy from sunlight. The whole reaction could take place in the dark. At the time, Mattson described “chemosynthesis” as a “black box” in the closed ecology of the spacecraft, since it did not provide oxygen directly. The water needed to be subsequently broken down in the electrolytic systems to hydrogen (recycled to the biosystem) and oxygen (two-­t hirds to the bacteria, one-­t hird to the astronaut).27 Overall, the approach labeled as “chemosynthesis” carried out the hypothesis that matter could be segmented, going down many scales, in the hope of refiguring substance at an atomic level or at least in the hope that all solid waste could be decomposed to a powder-­like state. NASA’s conversion machines treated all human waste chemically and aimed to dissolve matter into base data, such as the prime strings of proteins and eventually to atoms that could potentially be reconstructed in new combinations.

96

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

Following this line of thinking, the interior space of the Eco-­House was an environment that was nurtured and was dependent on the subtle fluctuations of materials’ phase changes and the growth of living substances. For Caine, this fragile process was an evolutionary design practice with unexpected outcomes. Even though certain experiments failed to convert all input into usable output, it becomes evident from the architect’s confessions that recycling is not just about optimized material conversion but about the journey of transference and the migration of one thing to another. Domesticated Machines In the unpublished addendum to Street Farmer 2, a photograph of the Eco-­House with a tractor shown next to it are referred to as a “spaceship” on earth. Though ironic in its deliberation, Caine recurrently used NASA’s terminology to describe the Eco-­House as a fully regenerative “life support system.” His personal archive was replete with NASA papers for manned space missions, bioastronautics, and aviation medicine on the ecology of closed systems and reports on the feasibility of NASA’s living simulators, supported with mathematical equations for water reclamation from urine.28 The collection of these essays addressed a readership of chemical engineers and microbiologists, and therefore Caine went through exhaustive study in order to understand these papers in detail and implement their findings. The Eco-­House could not have existed without citations on methods and techniques like electrodialysis, closed-­cycle air evaporation, vacuum compression distillation, or measured substance reclamation from man’s waste products in weightless conditions.29 Caine also studied the American scientific bibliography on space heating, including George Lof’s General Report on the Use of Solar Energy.30 Most of these papers originated from United Nations reports on global energy consumption for heating, which accounted for 20 to 30 percent of total energy consumption.31 The confluence of papers from NASA and the United Nations was no accident. Caine laboriously worked toward as-

sembling a database with accurate information on global ecosystems in order to provide “a realistic alternative to the exploitational vision of the environment” in the form of a house that “steals” natural resources and reuses captured energy to power itself as a life-­support system.32 Caine was staunchly critical of the architect’s ceaseless desire to “architecturalize” the universe philosophically and endow all design products with logos; he was pointedly apathetic to figurative metaphors and ideational associations with spaceships. Rather, he espoused the Eco-­House as “a shed” that actually performed like a regenerative system. As he speaks of his research anthology, “the only agencies with the capacity to monitor global ecosystems, with access to statistics, to relate these findings and handle all the data are the state agencies: state propped universities, the military, NASA, etc. who aren’t going to give out good news anyway, at least without conditions.”33 Reprocessing all this technical information for a different cause, Caine domesticated all the circuits and machines in the Eco-­House with the objective to sustain life perpetually by fine-­t uning cyclical material interdependencies. The Eco-­House included solar collection panels that collected heat and filtered rainwater, a series of tanks and digesters that converted human and vegetable waste to methane gas for cooking and nutrients for soil cultivation, as well as a fish pond that acted on the fringe of the cycle as a heat sink, like an extra water storage tank and a source of protein.34 It was this performative utility that brought Caine’s activist ideas to fruition, to the extent of receiving financial endowments from public authorities like the London Environmental Council. The Eco-­House was literally a productive machine that performed more functions than simply to shelter; it collected organic and environmental dross­— sun, rainwater, organic waste, wind­— and returned gas, food, heat, hot water, clean water, and electricity. The engineering value of the processing machines­— primary digesters, algae digesters, algae tanks, solar flat plate collectors, rainwater collection tanks, soilless (hydroponic) vegetable beds, wind

generators­—made a strong rationalist case for Caine.35 Even though Caine was carefully implementing technical means to broadcast a socially activist agenda, eventually he acknowledged that it was the Eco-­House’s network of machines that provided him with funding and that popularized the project to a broad audience. He wrote: Even just the physical “goodies” of the Ecological House should make it desirable to a lot of people within the present value system. The thought of free gas, heating, and food with no sewerage and water rates is appealing, to say the least, so it would not only be dug by “eco-­freaks” who are already into it, but perhaps by a lot of straight people.36

In many respects, the Eco-­House was a “living machine,” which, along the lines of comparable experimental facilities such as John Todd’s Living Machines in the New Alchemy Institute, conduced to a critique of Le Corbusier’s metaphor for a “machine for living.” Caine, who consistently evaded any connections to the ideologies of the modern movement, was bemused when confronted with the reflection of ecology announcing a new type of modernist ethos.37 For Caine, it is clear that the pervasive recovery of ecological concerns in contemporary design debates is of different political and ideological orientation compared to those of the 1970s. In the past, ecology embodied an alternative to mainstream political action, while today it stands as a defense mechanism for the rescue from late capitalism. At the time that the Eco-­House was conceived, designed, and constructed, the assemblage of technological apparatuses was viewed as a liberating toolset for the individual. The connection between the Eco-­House­—a three-­dimensional collection of domesticated machines­— and Reyner Banham’s famous “environmental bubble” collage is evident.38 However, for Caine and the Street Farmers, self-­sufficiency was understood as a political statement against consumerism and capitalism. The productivity of the Eco-­House, in terms of its payoff in food and energy, embodied for its builders a grain of resistance against the

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

97

state’s networks of centralized control. According to Caine, capitalism could be illustrated in a linear scheme, while the recycling of organic matter, the collection of rainwater and sunshine Figure 10. Unpublished addendum to Street Farmer 2 (1972–1973), featuring the Eco-House under construction. Courtesy of Peter Crump.

98

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

that in its turn produces food, gas, and heating, represents an alternative political reality of cyclical behaviors where material can be used and reused perpetually.39

“From Here We Grow” The Eco-­House carried a large hand-­w ritten banner in its façade that read, “from here we grow.” The same logo appeared on BBC’s open program for television, as well as in several publications in the press (Figure 10). The phrase was inspired by Murray Bookchin’s Post-­Scarcity Anarchism and his definition of liberatory technology as a means of endowing “power to the people.”40 It also appeared on the cover of Anarchy in 1971 (Figure 11). Featuring the growth of new roots, the logo implied that with the intelligent use of technology, each person can create living environments and habitation islands in the city, detached from the centralized networks of energy distributed by the state’s authorities. Wrath against the government, policymaking for the distribution of resources, highlighting the inequality of living standards, and decrying

institutionalized education were vivid in numerable proactive manifesto drawings of the Street Farmers and statements idealistically calling for freedom. Caine drew tractors demolishing buildings, the statue of liberty wearing an oxygen mask, and a fist growing out of the land with the inscription “up against the hedge” (Figures 12, 13). His sketches were coupled by rarified reports: “Caine, to free people from what he fears may soon be a massive grid of centralized control.”41 In another statement he declared, “We seek independence from wasteful, dirty public power.”42 Although veiled behind facts and hard science, the Eco-­House cannot be separated from political ethics. It announced an ideology that the only way to be free is to detach oneself from the government. In this sense, it is deeply ironic that NASA’s regenerative life-­support systems opened the ground for an ecological fantasy in the promise

Figure 11. The Eco-House in Oz (November 1972). Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

99

Figure 12. Unpublished Street Farmer conceptual drawing for the TV documentary “Clearings in a Concrete Jungle,” broadcast in 1973. Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

Figure 13. Unpublished Street Farmer conceptual drawing for the TV documentary “Clearings in a Concrete Jungle,” broadcast in 1973. Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

of freedom. In the context of Britain’s counter­ culture in the early 1970s, the “closed system” was imagined by Caine to be the only way out. Caine and the Street Farmers were locked in fury, and that fury necessitated a credible practice. 43 In many respects, the Eco-­House was anger articulated in the form of a house; it not only expressed a radical reaction against the alienating reality of inanimate gray blocks but was also built on hard science. Even though the Eco-­House has often been described as revolutionary, in refer-

ence to its technical concepts, Caine fervently insisted all along that his intention was to twist the hard data into a revolt against the existing social and political situation. 44 It is critical to observe that the revolt did not begin from the streets and the official demonstration squares but from the interior of the urban tissue, the very fabric within which one lives. 45 The Street Farmers imagined the core of the social and political revolution would start from the domestic interior of the house, with a design based on a new way of inhabiting the land. In this sense, the Eco-­House was an instrument of what Caine, Crump, and Haggart called “co-­operative liberation” by means of the indi­vidual’s manipulation of biological cycles. Caine’s underlying supposition was that by controlling our biology, we could eventually repossess control of the enveloping social and urban sphere. As Caine argued, By treating shelter as energy system to provide a basic life support system it is hoped to reduce the individual’s dependence upon a centralized power structure, and this increase the choice of the individual’s area of contribution within the context of a life killing culture. 46

100

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

Upon the house’s completion, Caine monitored day after day and with great precision the biological performance of the house. He kept numerous tables with the altitude of the sun’s zenith on a monthly basis; spectral transmittance diagrams with glass, teflon, weatherable mylar, and polythene; diagrams of spectral energy percentage transmittance (based on the angle of solar incidence on different materials); measurements for the optimum pitch of glasshouse angles (for the maximum winter gain from the sun’s spectral energy); and diagrams of energy wavelength spectrums with various sun altitudes (Figures 14, 15, 16). Like his own body, the house was a laboratory table, which Caine called a “test-­bed.”47 Nevertheless, Caine poignantly characterized all his experiments as a kind of “semi-­science”: a calculated scientific methodology driven by political motivations to overturn the very structure of society. 48 As the Street Farmers wrote in their self-­published Domeletter, “We are not so much concerned with providing alternative means of servicing existing systems, as changing these systems, the very logic of which precipitated ecological disaster.”49 In fact Caine had little, if any, interest in the optimization of results and the servicing of the grid’s supplies. Technical studies were a valid enough pretense for convincing the authorities to borrow the land for experimentation. The Eco-­House was never intended as an ecological remedy for environmental catastrophes. It was neither a tool of ethical restoration in design thinking, nor a technical solution to environmental problems. Rather, the house was at once an ontological and scientific problem, combining in a single space numbers along with a vision for a new society. This becomes prescient in the following quotes:

Within the institutionalized political arena of the city, the Eco-­House is like an “island.” This literal and conceptual detachment from the main urban supply networks represented a collective Figure 14. Diagram monitoring the environmental efficiency of the Eco-House, Grahame Caine, 1972–1974. Courtesy of Grahame Caine. Figure 15. Diagram monitoring the environmental efficiency of the Eco-House, Grahame Caine, 1972–1974. Courtesy of Grahame Caine. Figure 16. Diagram monitoring the environmental efficiency of the Eco-House, Grahame Caine, 1972–1974. Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

We don’t intend to become white-­coated full-­time laboratory workers, rather amateurs producing energy just as gardeners on allotments produce food . . . For the purpose of this report, we might describe ourselves as occasional liberatory technologists (if the term had meaning to anyone other than ourselves).50

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

101

renunciation of the urban condition, which was portrayed as a catastrophic environment that restrained individual imagination and freedom. In the minds of the Street Farmers, the abundant resources of nature constituted a substitute network that the built environment could tap into, rather than into the veins of the man-­made manufactured network of energy distribution. Murray Bookchin’s phrase, “from here we grow,” was dear to the Street Farmers as it rendered a visual analog to a reconstituted political reality. Being self-­reliant, the Eco-­House was an island, uprooted from the urban context, like its own planet. We may perceive this detachment, outFigure 17. “Transmogrification,” the Street Farmers, 1972; published in Street Farmer. Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

102

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

lined as an ecological and political imperative, as a fundamental reorientation of the house in relation to its urban condition. The Eco-­House suggested a new network of interrelationships with the natural elements, a network that would be superimposed on the existing grid of supplies and would challenge its authority, like a parasitic web. In many respects, this initiative idealizes nature as distinct from the man-­made world and reinforces a binary opposition between the “natu­ ral” and the “man-­made” that we may evalu­ate as regressively romanticized or even naïve. How­ ever, looking deeper into Caine’s profound elaborations on artificially altering natural resources,

as well as Haggart’s and Crump’s drawings, the authors advocated for a genetically modified state of nature’s integration into the built environment. In Street Farmer, Caine, Haggart, and Crump named this process of nature’s fusion into the inanimate built space “transmogrification.” Drawings, which also appeared in Caine’s publications on the Eco-­House, illustrated pixels of nature injected into buildings, altering their material state; buildings appeared in a “mesophase” condition between a natural and an artificial condition (Figure 17). The etymology of the word transmogrification, which dates back to Francois Rabelais, depicts a strange or grotesque transformation of the built environment, one where buildings are overhauled by natural forces almost in a vulgar manner. Likewise, the highly satiric drawings remained at the level of iconic figuration and visualized only a metaphor for what the term could actually imply. However, Caine’s experiments for the Eco-­ House pragmatically backed up these ideologies and forecast an ecological approach distant from the positivist sustainable agenda and techno-­ rational standards of contemporary practices. This house alluded to the reinvention of physiological and ontological interrelationships between the individual, the habitat, and the environmental sphere, thus extending the oikos from the body outward to the intricate waves of global flows (Figure 18). Conclusions Weaving Caine’s political assertions with the premises of NASA’s space probes, it is striking to observe how the same cybernetic prescription of a system migrates from governmental complexes to a countercultural political theory mediated through a different ideological lens. On the one hand, NASA’s scenario for self-­sufficiency combines a project of technological supremacy with the aspiration to conquer a new frontier and an underlying colonial modality. On the other hand, the equipped interior of the Eco-­House is fantasized as an “exterior” to the political reality. The Eco-­House is envisioned as a strategy for political autonomy, enabling withdrawal from the tentacles of society and the state’s organizational

infrastructure. NASA’s space probe and the Eco-­ House represent two very different political realities and existential problems, yet they came to be expressed by the same strategy of self-­reliance. Recycling waste, either organic or inorganic, was fundamental for the rising discourse of ecological design. As a result of viewing the earth as a closed system, the new ideal household system of the 1960s and 1970s would be immune to material and information loss. Leftovers and waste were negated in a compulsive convergence of all wasteful streams to useful ones. The re­cycling of materials promised a new world in which one

Figure 18. The EcoHouse, in Colin Moorcraft’s “Recycling” section in Architectural Design (July 1972). Courtesy of Grahame Caine.

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

103

could regenerate materials perpetually and feed all leftover substances back into cycles of production; it spoke of the world as a perceivable complete whole, very much in contrast to George Bataille’s notion of excess and base materialism. Such a view of the world is philosophically problematic not only because it suggests a natural cosmic order but also because it is technically unviable. The vast majority of regenerative systems and recirculatory houses failed to function autonomously. Recycling systems are extremely fragile closed systems that redirect all input into output; they are more than likely to exhibit un­ predictable behaviors, such as the production of new substances that are not predicted in the internal organization of the system. Robin Middleton claimed that the Eco-­House at some point derailed from its normative cycle and produced its own destruction, when Caine left the house because of an emergency. Normally, Middleton recalls, Caine would never leave the house in order to assure that all systems were working properly. In Middleton’s own words, “Caine had a family emergency and needed to leave England for a few weeks; he then trained his favorite AA student to take care of the house while he was gone. In the meantime, the student who stayed at the house got the flu, and the doctors gave him antibiotics. The antibiotics came through the system in his “crap,” and the crap was part of the whole re­ cycling system. The whole system was eventually destroyed. It was amazing!” Middleton said, “The antibiotics killed the house!”51 To conclude with this anecdote, and independent of the success or failure of the Eco-­House as a technical system, the real concern central to this study is how biological and environmental processes invade the domestic realm and the practice of everyday life, how the division and distribution of organic, growing matter is vital for the sustenance of the house’s health. It is finally critical to observe that in the rise of postwar ecological design theories, recycling was more than a technical task; it was a psychosocial position for the migration of life via the phase change of material substances. In this view, matter does not come to an end; it is not wasted. Instead, it changes state. Recycling, therefore, is not just

104

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

about the formation of new materials but also about the transference and migration of properties from one substance to another and all the intermediate stages of a productive cycle.

au t hor bio gr a ph y Lydia Kallipoliti is a practicing architect, engineer, and theorist living in New York City. She holds architecture degrees from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is completing her doctorate at Princeton University. Currently, she is adjunct assistant professor at the Cooper Union and Columbia University. Kallipoliti is the editor of “EcoRedux: Design Remedies for a Dying Planet,” a special issue of Architectural Design. She is also the author of the EcoRedux, an online nonprofit educational resource for ecological experiments in the postwar period; it was honored at the Fourteenth International Webby Awards and won a silver medal in the W3 competition of the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences.

no t e s 1. Bruce Haggart, “Clearings of a Concrete Jungle,” Street Farm Open programme for Television, in BBC2. Broadcast on June 18, 1973, on the BBC 2 Street Farmer Show and narrated by TV broadcaster Melvyn Bragg. 2. Lydia Kallipoliti in conversation with Grahame Caine in Ronda, Spain, January 8, 2008. In the interview, Grahame Caine mentioned: “I remember that the neighbors of the Eco-­House used to complain that the house was an eyesore. They were really upset and wanted it removed. Honestly, they accelerated the process of pulling the house down . . . After the demolition, the land returned to its normal state, producing nothing.” 3. The TV documentary was broadcast on June 18, 1973, on BBC 2, narrated by Melvyn Bragg. It was featured in the London Radio Times, June 16–22, 1973: 29. 4. Accounts of the Eco-­House were published in the following: Glenn Barker, “A New Way of Living,” Garden News, no. 780 (June 15, 1973): 2–3. Grahame Caine, “A Revolutionary Structure,” Oz, November 1972: 12–13, supplemented by Mike Moore’s diagrams based on Grahame Caine’s originals; Grahame Caine,

“The Eco-­House,” in Street Farmer, ed. Bruce Haggart, Peter Crump, nos. 1 and 2 (London, UK: 1971–1972): unpaginated; Grahame Caine, “The Ecological House,” Architectural Design 42, no. 3 (March 1972): 140–41; Grahame Caine, “Street Farmhouse,” in Survival Scrapbook, vol. 5: Energy, ed. Stefan Szcelkun, unpaginated (Bristol, UK: Unicorn Bookshop Press, 1975); Grahame Caine, “The Eco-­House,” Mother Earth News, March/ April 1973: http://www/motherearthnews.com/ Nature-­Community/1973-­03-­01/The-­Eco-­House.aspx; Grahame Caine, Bruce Haggart, and Peter Crump, “Some Proposals on the Reservicing of an Urban Terraced House,” Domeletter, No. 4, ed. John Prenis, 1–6 (Philadelphia, Penn: Self-­Published, 1972 and in the archives of the Architectural Association, London); Gerald Leach, “Living Off the Sun in South London,” The Observer, August 27, 1972: 1–2; Eve Williams, “The House That Grows” (based on an interview with Grahame Caine), Garden News no. 722 (May 5, 1972): 13. 5. Author’s interview with Caine, 2008. 6. See Martin Spring and Haig Beck, “Cooperative Autonomies,” Architectural Design 47 (January 1976). These notes were published on the contents pages of the magazine. 7. See Peter Sloterdijk, “Cell Block, Egospheres, Self-­Container,” Log 10 (Summer/Fall 2007): 89–108. 8. As Caine writes in Mother Earth News, “The architect becomes his own ideal guinea pig.” See “The Eco-­ House,” Mother Earth News (March/April 1973): n.p. 9. Author’s personal interview with Robin Middleton, New York, N.Y., August 1, 2007. 10. Author’s interview with Caine, 2008. 11. Caine, “A Revolutionary Structure,” 12. 12. Caine, “The Eco-­House.” 13. Caine, “The Eco-­House.” 14. Author’s interview with Caine, 2008. 15. See Alexander Kira, The Bathroom (Ithaca, N.Y.: Center for Housing and Environmental Studies, Cornell University, 1966). 16. “Gobar” is the Hindi word for “cow dung.” For a standard bibliography on methane generators, see Ram Bux Singh, Generating Methane from Organic Wastes; “How to Generate Electric Power from Garbage” Mother Earth News, no. 3 (1967): http://www .motherearthnews.com/Renewable-­E nergy/1970-­ 05-­01/How-­To-­Generate-­Power-­From-­Garbage.aspx; “Interview with Ram Bux Singh”; M. A. Indiani, C.  M. Acharye, “Biogas Plants: Their Installation,

Operation, Maintenance, and Use” (research paper issued by Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, 1963); A. Ortega, “The Ecol Operation,” research paper produced at the School of Architecture, McGill University, Montreal Canada, 1972; “Gobar Gas: Methane Experiments in India” Mother Earth News, no. 12 (1969): http://www.motherearthnews .com/Renewable-­Energy/1971-­11-­01/Gobar-­Gas.aspx. 17. “Interview with Ram Bux Singh” in Mother Earth News, no. 18 (1973). See http://www.motherearthnews .com/Nature-­Community/1972-­11-­01/The-­Plowboy-­ Interview-­Ram-­Bux-­Singh.aspx. 18. Ram Bux Singh, Generating Methane from Organic Wastes (Research paper, Gobar Gas Station in Ajitmal, Etawah, India, 1973), 2. 19. “Interview with Ram Bux Singh.” 20. Sulphur is an abundant tasteless, odorless, multivalent nonmetallic element, best known in yellow crystals. It occurs in many sulphide and sulphate minerals and even in native form. See Witold Rybczynski, “People in Glass Houses . . . Shouldn’t Throw Away the Bottles,” On Site no. 5/6 (1974): 84–85; Witold Rybczynski, “From Pollution to Housing,” Architectural Design 43, no. 12 (1973): 785–90. 21. Author’s interview with Caine, 2008. 22. See David X. Manners, “Invisible Wall That Purifies Water,” Science Digest, June 1971: 70–71. 23. See Day Charoudi, “Buildings as Organisms,” in Soft-­Tech: A Co-­Evolution Book, ed, Jay Baldwin and Stewart Brand, 40–45 (San Francisco: Waller Press, 1978). 24. See Williams, “The House That Grows,” 13. In the article, the journalist wrote: “A giant bamboo structure is covered with double plastic skin, hydroponic beds for growing fruits and vegetables, and a fishpond. Towards the back wall of soil or clay slurry is a staircase leading to the sleeping quarters and housed in the central retreat area too are the cooking and storage facilities and water filtration and storage plant. Also included are solar flatplate heat absorbers for heating the digester and domestic hot water supply. . . . By the initial organization of piped services, all organic refuse could then be centralized into a small anaerobic digester, providing a methane source adequate to run a composting stabilizer. The product of this should be adequate for hydroponic culture and thus, waste is turned into resources to reproduce and sustain life.”

lyd ia kal l i pol iti, F rom Sh it to F o o d  

|

105

25. See Barker, “A New Way of Living,” 3. 26. Howard W. Mattson, “Keeping Astronauts Alive,” International Journal of Science and Technology 54 (June 1966): 28–37. 27. See Mattson, “Keeping Astronauts Alive,”36. 28. Two research papers in Caine’s personal archive (in Ronda, Spain), both thoroughly underlined, specifically focus on NASA’s Langley and Douglas living simulators. The theme of the first paper referred to the NASA Langley simulator. See Mattson, “Keeping Astronauts Alive,” 28–37. The second paper was a report on the performance of the Douglas simulator for the Advanced Biotechnology Department of Douglas Missile and Space Systems Division under Independent Research and Development Program Account No. 81645-­400. See Captain Willard R. Hawkins, USAF (MC), “The Feasibility of Recycling Human Urine for Utilization in a Closed Ecological System” presented on March 24, 1958, at the twenty-­ ninth annual meeting of the Aeromedical Association in Washington D.C. 29. Caine thoroughly studied Leonard Elikan’s Aerospace Life Support volume published in the Chemi­c al Engineering Progress Symposium Series by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. It included papers such as, “Space Vehicle Water Reclamation Systems,” “A Flight Prototype Water Electrolysis Unit,” “An Approach to Water Management for Long Duration Manned Space Flights,” and “Continuous Atmosphere Control Using a Closed Oxygen Control.” See Leonard Elikan, ed., Aerospace Life Support (New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1966). 30. George Lof was a consulting chemical engineer at Denver, Colorado, and a research associate at the University of Wisconsin and Resources for the Future, Inc. 31. See George O. G. Lof, John A. Duffie, and Clayton  O. Smith, World Distribution of Solar Radiation (Madison: Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, 1966). This study was study supported by Resources for the Future, Inc. and produced in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin Extension Division. 32. Caine, “Eco-­House,” n.p. 33. Caine, “Revolutionary Structure,” 12–13. 34. See Grahame Caine’s interim report to the Greater London Council in the summer of 1974, two years after the Eco-­House was constructed. The scope

106

| 

B ui l di n g s & L a n dsc a p e s 1 9, n o . 1 , sp r i n g 201 2

of this report was to determine the Eco-­House’s degree of success, in terms of its energy self-­sufficiency from London’s supply networks. In order to renew Caine’s license to experiment on the land, which had been loaned to him by the London Greater Council, he needed to comply with certain standards of water quality, energy generation and so on. Brochure in Grahame Caine’s personal archives, Ronda, Spain. 35. The primary digesters received all liquid and organic waste from the household, processed and separated different organic substances of human excreta, eventually channeling the decomposed substances to the algae digesters and the algae tanks. The algae digesters broke down algae in order to produce gas for cooking and an organic nutrient solution fed to vegetable beds in the greenhouse. The algae tanks received the displaced liquid effluents from the primary digesters. 36. Caine, “Revolutionary Structure,” 13. 37. Author interview with Caine, 2008. 38. The “environmental bubble” appeared in Reyner Banham’s “A Home Is Not a House” (illustrated by Francois Dallegret), first published in Art in America 53 (April 1965): 70–79. The same article was republished by Clip-­Kit and in AD 39, no. 1 (January 1969): 45–49. 39. Author interview with Caine, 2008. He mentioned: “For me, the reciprocal, cyclical process of recycling of the Eco-­House represents an alternative political system, a kind of liberal anarchy. The cyclical system certainly cares; it is a caring system. I don’t think it necessarily represents a political party but perhaps an alternative social consciousness.” 40. Murray Bookchin, Post-­Scarcity Anarchism (Berkeley, Calif.: Ramparts Press, 1971). 41. Barker, “A New Way of Living.” 42. Caine, “Eco-­House.” 43. Haggart, “Clearings of a Concrete Jungle.” 44. Caine, “Revolutionary Structure,” 12. 45. Caine, “Revolutionary Structure,” 13. 46. Caine, “The Ecological House,” 140. 47. Caine, Haggart, and Crump, “Some Proposals on the Reservicing of an Urban Terraced House,” 1–6. 48. Author interview with Caine, 2008. 49. Caine, Haggart, and Crump, “Some Proposals on the Reservicing of an Urban Terraced House,” 7. 50. Caine, Haggart, and Crump, “Some Proposals on the Reservicing of an Urban Terraced House,” 1–4. 51. Author interview with Middleton, 2007.