The NUVALI community development in Sta

Rosa Laguna paves the way for sustainable eco-living. What brought about this initiative by Ayala Land to build the first sustainable community in the Philippines, is actually the desire to nurture the people who will live in it. At the core of it all, sustainable living is all about nurturing it's people – that means having a healthy relationship with our living environment through conscious evo-living.

I have been to Nuvali several times on family occasions whenever we feel like trying out something different. Malling can be pretty tiring, with all the white noise and visual overload, so on lazy weekends, the family goes to Nuvali for a breath of fresh air. Kids love the koi fish feeding and boat ride at the man-made lake. Personally, I love to take a walk on the jogging path that goes around the lake and after, breakfast at the nearby Starbucks coffee shop. It can get pretty windy there with all that wide open space, which is perfect for flying a kite. They also have bicycles for rent that you can use on the same wide jogging path. After all the activities, I just love to take a break at the nearby Conti's for a slice of my favorite cake.

Now isn't that just the perfect weekend? Both the kids and grown-ups enjoying quality time together, minus the stress that, sometimes, city living brings to us. That is what Nuvali is all about. That is sustainable living. All of those acitivities that I mentioned is all about living together with the environment. We give back to the environment, and it gives back to us. Now, how do you say is that eco-living? Nuvali answers.

At the farther building after the Solenad in Nuvali is the sales office of Ayala Land which also houses an exhibit of how the Nuvali community works for sustainable development. It is a very interesting exhibit with a clear explanation of everything they've done and plan to do there, plus it is also an interactive display which kids will just love. The materials that they used for the furniture are made of environment friendly materials like bamboo, cork and dedon fiber. For the interior finishes, they used bamboo flooring and wood paneling, terrazo flooring, water-based paints for the walls and ceilings, and sustainable wood. In place of walls, they used floor to ceiling glass panels that are oriented to avoid the harsh rays of the sun, while concrete walls are built on the side of the building that cast the most sunlight.

Read more...

Sugar, Spice and accessories And Everything Nice

I can be a little obsessive-compulsive but I'd rather call myself a neat freak. I just love to organize things, making sure they can be easily accessible when I need them. I also love sorting things together. After that, my being an interior designer kicks in. I'd make sure that my things are positioned nicely and visually balanced. This applies to most of the things I do, and even to wrapping gifts. I have a penchant for making my gifts look really nice. I have always believed that making the wrapping of the gift nice, makes the actual gift more special. I don't really splurge on expensive wrappers but putting on a creative touch to the wrapping is what makes it fun. Your like!??





So, image my excitement when I came across this little shop in Greenbelt 5 aptly called, Tie Me Up Buttercup. How cute is that??? It's a small kiosk in the middle of the Greenbelt 5 walkway (just a little across Tory Burch) that carries a multitude of specially designed ribbons for wrapping, decorating, scrap booking and in my little daughter's case, for her hair. Ribbons with themes designed for little girls and boys, baby girls and boys, tweens and toddlers. They also have ribbons for the more mature clientele such as the grosgrain ribbons with the running stitch, stripes, plain satin ribbons, dots and checks.

Read more...

St. Peter's Cathedral

Marquette is home to the beautiful and historic St. Peter's Cathedral. This church, with its twin domed steeples, sits upon one of the highest points in downtown Marquette and can be seen from afar. The building is lovely both inside and out, and is built from area sandstone.



The inside of the cathedral, looking toward the altar.



Looking toward the choir loft and the organ. The floor is made from beautiful tiles.



The steeples are adorned with colorful terra cotta tiling and stylized angels.



The cornerstone was laid in 1881 following a blaze that destroyed the first cathedral on the spot. A second blaze gutted the cathedral in 1935, but restoration started the following year. The domes were added to the top of the steeples at this time, hence the reason why the figures are depicted in an Art Deco style.

To read a full history of St. Peter's Cathedral, visit this site.

Read more...

The New Stuff

I'm not a huge fan of modern architecture. Anything built after World War II -- or, in architectural terms, after the Art Moderne style -- is generally quite ugly and bland. From time to time, something will stand out to me, but the architecture of the modern era is usually something I can pass by without looking twice.

This is why I rarely photograph "the new stuff." However, here is a blog entry devoted solely to Michigan's architecture of today. Enjoy it -- or not -- though when I photograph modern architecture, I try to make it look as appealing as possible, even when the actual structures stand out like a sore thumb in their surroundings. I will not express my displeasure or approval of the following five buildings -- that is for the reader. It is your duty to weigh these new structures against historic architecture, and draw your own conclusions.



The Radisson Hotel in Kalamazoo.



The planetarium, owned by Delta College, in Bay City.



An office building in Lansing.



Huron High School in Ann Arbor, built in the late 1960s.



The University of Michigan's School of Dentistry building in Ann Arbor.

Read more...

Evolving Norman Manley Airport since the 90's

The airport has undergone several refurbishment projects since 1999

 Including the resurfacing of the runway (2.8km) in 2001, the reconstruction of the eight taxiways (40ac) in 2002 and the replacement of the airport apron and also the replacement of the underground fuel hydrant system (1999).

As part of the 1999 to 2003 refurbishment project substantial upgrading of the terminal building and associated facilities were carried out.

Improvements were made to the customs hall in the form of a new 70t air-handling unit, along with associated ductwork and housing. In addition there was an extension and renovation of the existing departure / transit lounge; upgrading of the departure / ticketing concourse (550m²); reconfiguration of the customs exit and ground transportation arcade; construction of remote parking facilities; and redesign and expansion of existing roads, car park and landscaped areas surrounding the terminal.

Key Players:

Sponsors:

Airport Authority of Jamaica (AAJ), Norman Manley         International Airport Ltd

Lead ContractorsBoyken International Inc, Sypher Mueller, Llewelyn-Davies Joint Venture, Kier Construction Ltd, Cooper and Associates Ltd, Harold Morrison and Associates, Peter Jervis and Associates Ltd, Grace Ashley and Associates, Auto Solutions Ltd

Financing:

 European Investment Bank, Caribbean Development Bank.

New terminal master plan

The project seeks to increase the airport's capacity to cater for projected air and passenger traffic to 2033. The project is part of a master plan that will be implemented in three phases (1A, 1B and 2) and will cost about $130m. By 2022 it will have involved a virtual reconstruction of the entire airport.

Construction started in June 2006. The first phase, which is supposed to make the airport an IATA category C airport, was intended to be completed by 2007 in time for the Cricket World Cup 2007. However, it opened in June 2008

Phase 1A

Phase 1A commenced planning in 2004 (ground-breaking took place in September 2006). It has been completed substantially and launched for operations in June 2008. This phase included the construction of a new terminal building at the eastern end of the present terminal.

The terminal includes a three-level departures concourse of approximately 170,000ft² (10,000m²). Integrated with the existing ticketing concourse, the concourse comprises 66 airline check-in positions with common user passenger processing system (CUPPS), self-serve check-in kiosks and extended outgoing immigration and security screening stations with space to accommodate explosives detection equipment.

Boyken International provided cost management services during the programming, planning and design phases. Sypher Mueller International is the planning consultant for the new airport and Llewelyn-Davies Joint Venture is the architect.

Read more...

Services Explained

Since the SOA term was coined, many discussions raged on what a service was from a business and technical perspectives. In this article, I offer my views on the topic.

There are several categories of services. Many leading SOA vendors and thinkers typically break them down into Business and Utility types. A Business service represents a business capability that is needed to complete a step within a larger business process. Examples may include retrieving customer information, making payments, or checking order status. Utility services represent a technical capability that is business process agnostic. Examples are e-mail, logging, or authentication services.

Services can be combined together to create composite services. This is called orchestration. An example of this can be a Money Transfer service that needs to debit one account and deposit money into another one. Composite services can also be categorized as Business and Utility. Best practices and general orchestration guidelines as related to orchestrations, atomic services, and their relationships will be discussed separately.

Regardless of the type, a service is comprised of three components.

• Interface
• This defines how services are exposed and can be accessed by its consumers.
• Interfaces are not limited to Web Services and can be represented by any remote messaging protocol.
• Contract
• This defines what services expect during the interaction with the consumer. Message structures, relevant policies, and related security mechanisms are all part of a contract.
• Contract defines a “legal” agreement on how the service and its consumers should interact.
• Implementation
  
  • This is the actual service code.

A service may have multiple interfaces. Different consumers may have the need to access the service via different protocols. For example, a Java consumer would like to access a service via a Web Service protocol while a Mainframe application can only use MQ Series. Even though a service may itself expose multiple interfaces, it is more effective to let the ESB platform handle this. For more details about the rationale behind this recommendation, see “To ESB or Not to ESB?" post.

A service may also have multiple contracts. I have recommended in the past that for a service to be maximally reusable, it needs to implement the Service Façade pattern (see “SOA Façade Pattern” post and “Service Façade” pattern). This pattern recommends that multiple different interfaces and contracts for the same service be created. The Concurrent Contracts pattern also addresses this issue.

It is important to understand that while the interface, contract, and implementation describe a service as a whole, they are not closely tied together. An interface is not dependent on the contract details and should not be tied to the specific messaging structure. The opposite is also true – the contract should not be tied to any specific communication protocols. Additionally, the implementation should be flexible enough to accommodate the potential for multiple interfaces and contracts. Ideally, however, I would recommend that a service expose only a single contract and interface and the ESB would take care of exposing additional endpoints and facades as necessary.

Read more...

SOA Funding Models

One of the primary reasons SOA efforts fail in many companies is simply due to inadequate or inappropriate funding models. Costs are typically at the core of every problem and SOA programs are not exempt. We hear horror stories all the time – the initial investment to establish an SOA environment was too high, so the effort was cancelled; there are many services created in the company but they are hardly reused; etc. Establishing a funding model that is right for your company is the key to moving the SOA program forward.

Any SOA initiative is comprised of two parts – infrastructure and services. Both need to have a separate funding model established in order to successfully support SOA program’s goals.

SOA Infrastructure Funding

Infrastructure funding requires a pretty straight forward approach. When discussing SOA infrastructure, I am referring to shared platforms that are used by a number of services across the organization. Some companies host services on the same platforms whose functionality is being exposed. However, even if this is the case, some shared infrastructure components like ESBs, service management technology, Registry/Repository, etc. must exist to support SOA program’s needs. Thus, it is safe to assume that some form of shared SOA infrastructure exists. There are two possible ways to provide effective funding to build it out.

1. Fund all the SOA infrastructure centrally
2. Identify appropriate projects to acquire / extend new / existing SOA infrastructure

Central funding is probably the easiest and most effective approach. It allows the organizations to establish an independent roadmap for introducing and upgrading SOA infrastructure. It also makes the SOA program operate more efficiently as the cost, scaling, and availability issues will no longer be relevant to individual projects. If central funding option is selected, several approaches for recouping the initial and ongoing investment can be utilized.

• Do not recoup the investment
• Place an entry fee to use any SOA infrastructure component
• Charge a small fee for each usage instance

Since all the SOA infrastructure is provided centrally, not recouping the initial investment is a real option. If the organization’s fiscal model does not call for IT recouping all its costs from the business groups using their products, this option works well. If this is not the case, however, you have a choice between placing a predefined entry fee that each application / project must pay to use the specific SOA infrastructure platform and charging end users based on the total usage.

The per-use-fee scenario is a little tricky as each SOA infrastructure component needs to define what a transactional unit is and how much to charge for it. Transactional units can be different for each SOA platform. For example, an ESB transactional unit can be a service call, Registry/Repository – an individual user and/or a UDDI request, etc. In this case, total usage amount based on predefined transactional units would be calculated, multiplied by the unit cost, and charged to the business units. The most effective way to determine a unit cost is to divide the total investment made in the platform by the total transactional units being consumed. The obvious effect is that unit costs would decrease with increased usage. Here are all the formulae discussed above.

Usage charges per platform:Unit = Different per Platform
Unit Cost = Total Platform Investment / Total Amount of Units Consumed
Line of Business Usage = Units Used by Line of Business * Unit Cost

Some companies have chosen to grow their SOA infrastructure gradually, without a central program or funding. A typical approach in this scenario has been to attach SOA spending to the most appropriate projects. Thus, the projects would purchase new SOA infrastructure platforms or upgrade existing ones to suit their needs. There are several problems with this approach.

1. Typically, the projects purchasing the infrastructure don’t want to share it with other potential consumers unless there is significant pressure from above. The platforms don’t end up being reused or, if so, only minimally. The projects do not have any incentive to sharing their investments with anyone else, especially since they are seen as critical to projects’ success.
2. Projects often get cancelled due to over-inflated budgets. SOA infrastructure is expensive and cost conscious enterprises do not want to invest into what looks like excessive infrastructure for project’s needs.
3. Demand to extend a platform based on project’s needs typically comes without enough lead time to accommodate project’s timelines. Thus, projects face a tough decision – to extend their delivery date or use alternative infrastructure.

Funding the SOA infrastructure centrally is more effective in delivering service-oriented solutions faster, moving the enterprise more efficiently towards a higher level of SOA maturity, and addressing the project needs. Project-based funding will most likely spell doom to the SOA program as a whole.
Service Funding
As discussed earlier, funding for the SOA infrastructure should come from a central source. Where the money comes to build individual services, however, presents a bigger challenge. Since projects are the primary drivers behind demand for services, special consideration should be given to project needs and budgets. However, service design and implementation can incorporate additional requirements that fall outside of the project scope. Another typical project-related problem stems from the shared nature of services. It is unfair to burden a project with the full cost of a service that will be utilized by a number of other consumers.

There are three possible ways to address the service funding concerns.

1. Make the first project to build a service provide the complete funding
2. Establish a central funding source that will cover all service design and construction expenses
3. Provide supplementary funding to projects building services

If option1 is selected, several strategies for recouping the initial investment can be used.

• Do not recoup the investment
• Place a surcharge on each instance of service leverage
• Charge a small fee for each service call

As mentioned above, it is unfair for the project to carry the complete costs of the service build-out, especially if it includes additional requirements. Thus, unless the project implements one of the options to recoup its initial investment, funding option #1 is not going to be viable. Not recovering the funds is not a realistic option either as it does not incent the projects to build truly reusable services. The other cost recovery strategies may work but require detailed metrics to be captured on the service leverage and/or transactional volume.

Establishing a central funding source for all projects to use when building reusable services is probably the ideal approach. Few companies, however, would be willing to write what in essence would be a blank check for the projects to use in their service delivery efforts. The opportunity for abuse and misappropriations would be too tempting. Unless strong governance and control mechanisms are in place, this funding method will most likely end up costing the company more money and provide unrealistically small return on investment.

Providing supplementary funding to projects building services is probably the most realistic approach. A central fund needs to be established to cover the efforts falling outside of the project scope. Since shared services would typically incorporate other projects’ and enterprise requirements, the actual cost ends up being higher than what projects budgeted for their needs. Thus, the easiest way to distribute supplementary funding is to allow the projects to pay for functionality already included in their budgets and cover all the additional costs through the central fund.
Whatever the funding approach is used, it needs to be carefully administered. A party not involved in day-to-day project work is best suited to play the administrative role. There could be a couple different groups managing the infrastructure and service funding and chargeback mechanisms. Overall, however, this should fall under the SOA Governance umbrella and managed centrally as part of the SOA Program.

Read more...

A New Trend in Airport Hospitality

The American Farmland Trust blog had an interesting piece today on a new trend in airport hospitality – food service establishments that feature fresh products from the local region.  San Francisco International is one of the first to include this kind of amenity, and other airports including Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall and LAX are following suit on a smaller scale.  

Certainly any kind of fresh food is welcome, as airports are notoriously challenging environments for the healthful-minded traveller.  It is likely that it is easier to sustain a year-round supply of fresh food in the Bay Area than it might be in regions where fresh food is more seasonal in nature.

http://blog.farmland.org/2011/06/san-francisco-airports-farm-to-flight-%E2%80%93-green-and-local/

I’ve always wondered however, at the extent of flat land occupied by airports, and if there might not be a higher and better use for the fields in between runways.  If the safety issues could be resolved, could this land be made productive and/or more ecologically functional?  Wouldn’t it be interesting to land in a cornfield that happens to also contain an airport?  Food for thought.

Read more...

Announcing our new Community Design Studio

VIA Architecture is pleased to announce the formal roll-out of its Community Design Studio (CDS). Informally conceived in 2009 as an initiative to serve smaller-scale, yet equally visionary projects that have not been traditionally taken on by architecture firms, we are ready to introduce this approach to a broader audience.

VIA has built its reputation on integrated architectural design and community planning over a period of 26+ years, and we are perhaps best known for our large-scale projects such as the various phases of Vancouver’s SkyTrain system, the Seattle Monorail Project, and master planning for communities as diverse as Southeast False Creek, Bremerton, Kelowna and Tacoma. Yet quietly in the background, we have long served community groups, non-profits, and other smaller clients with thoughtful, crafted responses to much more humble needs. It is this work that we are now bringing to the forefront.

We are inspired by the growing interest locally and globally in urban agriculture, homesteading, community-shared resources, the revival of practical skills and preservation. Simultaneously, we are aware of communities across the country that are, in some measure, fragmented or even broken due to social, economic and environmental factors such as missing infrastructure, unequal access to food and outdated regulations. We recognize the great potential to address these issues in profound ways through small-scale, hands-on design approaches that can have a powerful cumulative effect.

Our focus with the CDS will be issues of applied craft, community resilience, planning and design for food production, and other problems where we can be of direct assistance to improving the quality of life for our clients. Our work seeks to restore and reinvigorate communities through thoughtful, practical and cooperative solutions around food, mobility and open space.

The CDS consists of architects and community planners within the VIA team who share a passion for helping to create connective communities that are resilient and thriving. The team is led by Catherine Calvert, VIA’s Director of Community Sustainability, who brings a background of not only architecture and sustainability work, but specialized training in areas such as Farm Design and Permaculture.

Our services include:

• Integrated design and planning for small-scale residential, commercial and institutional projects in rural and semi-urban areas.
• Visualization and early design services for agriculture-focused site planning and building projects, both urban and rural.
• Education around issues of strategic sustainability, local resilience and design for self-sufficiency.
• Resolution of regulatory barriers to community-based projects.
• Facilitation of community discussions or workshops.

To date we have worked on a variety of projects in the Seattle area, including:

Rainier Vista Community Farm – VIA has been assisting Common Ground in the design of shelters made from salvage materials.

Atlantic City Urban Farm – VIA has been working with Seattle Tilth and the Friends of the Atlantic City Nursery on site planning concepts for conversion of the former Seattle Parks nursery to a new urban farm.

Spectrum School Farm – VIA provided early site design concepts for a one-acre farm on the campus of the North Kitsap High School, designed to support the school science curriculum and provide food for the school kitchen

Option A

Option B

Finn River Cidery in Chimacum WA – VIA is working with this 33-acre organic farm on site planning concepts, as well as the design of the Chum Hut, a shelter for educational gatherings adjacent to the salmon-bearing Chimacum Creek that runs through the property.

Our projects are both urban and rural in location, serving the Puget Sound and Fraser Valley regions to date but with the potential to expand beyond these areas to wherever we can be of assistance.

VIA has been actively interested in the topics of food security, planning for agriculture, and issues around integrating art and agriculture in urban areas. See our previous blog posts on these topics:

- Grow: an art + urban agriculture project
- Trends in Small Farming - Kitsap County
- Rethinking Highest + Best Use
- Transitioning Towards Local Resilience
- Agriculture through Rose-Colored Glasses

Read more...

Monday News Roundup

Polish Pop-Up Hotel Made of Recycled Materials (Inhabitat)
Architects Jerzy Wozniak and Pawel Garus decided to solve their city's sold-out hotel problems by creating a pop-up hotel in an unoccupied apartment building. On a very tight budget, the team created Quotel, a comfortable temporary hotel, using inexpensive furniture and recycled elements.

Sustainable architecture in the Americas (Guardian)
From Rio to Cupertino, cities across the Americas are waking up to the benefits of sustainable design.

Bikes of Amsterdam by Charles Siegel (Preservation Institute)
This post is dedicated to all the Americans who have told me that most people can never bicycle, because (1) you cannot carry your groceries home on a bicycle, and (2) you cannot chauffeur children around on a bicycle... These pictures of bicycles in Amsterdam may open their eyes.

An edgy yet cozy urban garden (Remodelista)
In her outdoor compositions (or "3-D collages"), Beth Mullins uses alternative materials mixed with textural plant combinations to create evocative vignettes. We especially like this rooftop garden in San Francisco, where Mullins uses layering techniques to make the most out of a small space.

Thoughts on Blue Urbanism (Design Observer)
As planners and designers, we need to take up the mantle of blue urbanism. Just as green urbanism challenges us to rethink sustainability at the city scale, blue urbanism asks us to re-imagine ourselves as citizens of a blue planet. How can we become better stewards of the world's oceans?

Cities and Suburbs as New Economic Generators (The Atlantic)
In the wake of recession, cities and suburbs are being knit into giant city-states, with millions of people and billions -- even trillions -- of dollars of business.

A House That's Business in Front, A Party in Back (FastCo Design)
One one side, you've got exotic foliage sprouting wildly off a curving facade; on the other, a wall of flat, symmetrical windows that could pass for the front of an office building. We like to think of the place as the architectural equivalent of a mullet.

Transportation Reauthorization Plan Revealed (Infrastructurist)
John Mica, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, rolled out a proposal that would authorize $230 billion for transportation infrastructure spending over six years.

Read more...

Monday News Roundup

Here's all of the great articles and interesting tidbits you missed last week!

Escape Roundup: Hip Hostels (Apartment Therapy)
These days, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between a design-conscious hostel and budget-minded boutique hotel. Some places think of themselves as hostels, but call themselves hotels, while others call themselves hotels, but operate more like hostels. It’s all a matter of price and amenities...

Design:Made:Trade Round Up (Design Files)

Filling an important niche as Melbourne’s ‘indie’ trade show, D:M:T is always a mixed bag, and this year was no exception.

Wieden + Kennedy Portland Office (Wanken)

Impressive before and after photos of an abandoned-warehouse-turned-corporate-headquarters in Portland, OR. The massive office building holds several hundred employees and multiple organizations.

Urban Vitality + Mixed Use Dev't (Sustainable Cities)

Mixed-use developments have been gaining ground as a successful planning design strategy to increase transportation options, revitalize local economies and enliven communities.

Solar Panels Have a Cooling Effect? (Inhabitat)

It turns out that solar panels can do more than provide you with renewable energy - they can significantly cut down the power needed to heat and cool your building as well.

Colorful Kuwait Hotel (Dwell)

The interior design of a Kuwait hotel gets seriously daring with the use of color.

Vancouver to End Homelessness (Planetizen)

The city of Vancouver is planning to offer more than $42 million in land and capital grants aimed at developing affordable housing. Its part of a 10-year plan to end homelessness in the city.

The Colour of Cities (Yurbanism)

 I’ve noticed that various cities each have a unique colour palette that contributes to it’s underlying urban terroir. Here are the results for some major cities.

Considering a Car-Free LA (Planetizen)

After surviving Carmageddon, LA has caught a glimpse of the city with less traffic and carbon footprint and  it’s tempting to want to make it a sustained reality. A car-free California may be too ambitious and premature but it isn't stopping some groups from initiating a movement.

What billionaires do when we're not looking... (Inhabitat)

What would you do if you were a billionaire? Buy an Aston Martin? Live on a private island? Cure world hunger? A mysterious billionaire from the United Arab Emirates has loftier ideas – literally. He has carved his name on an island near Abu Dhabi, and it is so large that it can be seen from space.

Read more...

A Trip to Denmark

Jan Gehl is probably the best tour guide you could hope for in Copenhagen. And so it was, after luxuriating over a couple of long lunches together, wherein the topic of grandchildren was as least as prominent as kamikaze cyclists and professional liability insurance, my wife Susan Baker and I took Jan’s marked up map with us over several succeeding days of walking and cycling.

We rented bikes for 3 days, and traversed the city north-south-east and west. We enjoyed both the sunshine and the rain (having learned to wait on our bicycles under a big tree when a short downpour rolls in). We found almost all the special bits of street and park that Jan pointed us to, especially enjoying those pockets where people clearly pour their daily affection.

Highlights came in contrasts.  One was exploring the intimate streets at the edge of Osterbro with its, colour, texture and even the impromptu children dancing in the middle of the streets.  The all jammed in together, built as workers housing more than a century ago, but now a where-all-the-intelligentsia-want-to-live-there kind of place.  We walked through several of these environments, such as Jan Gehl extols in his book “Cities for People” on our way to the FC Kobenhaven soccer match where we watched them win the Danish Championship at the stadium just around the corner.





Another highlight was the wasteland of Orestad.  You can read all about its cleverness in the excellent BIG archicomic “Yes is More”, or you can enjoy the cycle there and back, stunned by its lack of beating heart in its relentless cleverness.  At the end of nowhere – otherwise known as a crashed up building called Otellalet, was a pleasant café, where the resident hermits came to gather. The ideas are visible, give everyone the freedom of an outlook of endless open air, and we don’t need to walk past anyone as we are all virtually connected, just a click away.



 
Right away I THOUGHT I understood what I was seeing played out – the gulf between the generations.  Expressed in Osterbro’s repository of safe memories that appeals to the baby boomer generations; in contrast with Orestad’s cyber space of openness, a clear reflection of the younger generation breaking free from convention.  However, it was the young kids who were happily playing in Osterbro’s city centre streets.  And it was a retiree walking his dog along the canal bank, who told us how he loved living in Orestad, much more amenity that the suburb he came from and well served by the metro and the shopping mall for everything that he might need.

The commonality of both environments was that in both the car was “coped” with (and very expensively) – both are about qualities of amenity, that the in-between of the suburbs cannot address.

What was not apparent, from all the construction and renovation, is that all this is to accommodate a country with a shrinking population, not growth.  This is about choice, not necessity nor affordability.

In our corner of the world, accommodating 30% growth in 30 years with any measure of affordability is the primary challenge. And the new places at the edge must have the qualities of the centre.  So with our tightly constrained land base, I see Orestad and automatically in that emptiness of place, I  think of opportunity for urban infil.  However I am sure it would take a doubling of density to make a meaningful local impact - which I am also sure is not the expectation of the current residents. These are the subrubanites, now freed from the tyranny of their car.

So, with neighbourhood life held hostage within the fortress walls of the shopping palace, I guess that a century could pass before the energy will build for the regeneration that I might envisage. That is about the time a neighbourhood seems to go from 'ordinary' to 'slum/wrong side of the tracks', to 'exclusive'. 

That is also the time it took Copenhagen’s Tivoli Gardens to go from being a leftover portion of the City’s military ring of defensive moats and ramparts, to being the amusement park that you have to take your children to  (grandchildren for Jan Gehl).  Thinking that over, don’t highway cloverleafs just make you immediately think of future ice cream cones and candy floss!

(Remember - the goal of city building is for the cafe canopy to be in the right place).

Read more...

Cloud Computing and the Reality

Cloud computing is all the hype nowadays. All you hear from vendors, analysts, and consulting companies is that cloud computing will solve all of your IT problems. Here are just a few promises associated with cloud computing:

• Eliminate your data center
• Solve all of your scalability and on-demand computing challenges
• Simplify infrastructure
• Reduce IT spend
• Make IT operations more efficient

Are they all true? It’s a possibility. To determine what cloud computing may mean to you, examine how it fits into your IT strategy and the way you deliver technology services to the business. Here are a few things to consider.

First of all, everyone needs to understand what cloud computing really is. According to Wikipedia, “Cloud computing is a style of computing in which dynamically scalable and often virtualized resources are provided as a service over the Internet”. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing.) Too many people, however, forget that it is only a style and begin to associate cloud computing with specific product offerings such as the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2), Google Apps, Microsoft Azure, and others. Companies are not limited to just third party solutions. They can implement their own private clouds if they choose.

Secondly, you need to understand the vision behind cloud computing. The idea is simple – to seamlessly provide flexible, on-demand computing resources whenever necessary. This is not a revolutionary development. The Application Service Provider (ASP) model has been in existence for years. Infrastructure outsourcing practices have been utilized a long time before cloud computing became a term. So, what is all the hype then, you ask. They keys are the ubiquitous nature of the protocols used, increased reliability of the Internet, and the packaging of the offering as a generic service. Cloud computing, as a general approach, may support outsourcing of specific applications, generic computing resources or platforms, and software services. It may potentially lead to outsourcing of the whole data center.

Finally, all the pros and cons behind cloud computing need to be considered. Having someone take care of all your computing resources without investing into expensive data centers is an appealing concept but loss of control and unreliable SLAs may be a cause of concern for a number of businesses. Since the Internet is the primary communication mechanism for the public cloud, its reliability and performance need to be questioned whenever considering third party cloud offerings. Private clouds provide better control, reliability, and performance but what is the real difference between those and existing data centers? In my opinion, aside from following a different architectural model of allocating computing resources, nothing. On-demand computing is a great concept but making it work effectively is a tough task. Technologies exist today to dynamically divert unused resources to those applications that need them most. Grid computing, virtualization platforms, and others all provide these capabilities. However, there are limitations. Whenever maximum capacity is reached, hardware needs to be added. No software trick will work to cover this up. Therefore, efficient capacity and pipeline management need to exist to make cloud computing an effective and viable platform.

While there are some cloud computing zealots (http://www.infoworld.com/d/architecture/soa-realized-enterprise-computing-cloud-computing-146) and realists (http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2009/03/09/Guest-commentary-SOA-cloud.aspx), many are still cautious about this technology. And for a good reason. In my opinion, cloud computing has proven its worth in a number of situations but it is still not ready for the enterprise. Public clouds are too fickle for really demanding applications. Private clouds have not yet been effectively built. More importantly, however, lack of cloud computing standards and consensus among the key players will present challenges for anyone trying to enter this arena.

Read more...

Microsoft Azure

When I first heard about Microsoft Azure, I thought it was yet another feeble attempt by Microsoft to get in on the hype with a subpar product just to get the foot in the door. I have to admit, though, that I was pleasantly surprised. Shockingly, Azure is a robust, well designed cloud platform that may yet prove to be better than some of its competitors.

In a nutshell, Azure encompasses three products.

• Windows Azure
• Compute: Virtualized compute based on Windows Server
• Storage: Durable, scalable, & available storage
• Management: Automated, management of the service
• SQL Azure
• Database: Relational processing for structured/unstructured data
• .Net Services
• Service Bus: General purpose application bus
• Access Control: Rules-driven, claims-based access control

Essentially, Azure provides the complete cloud computing stack that allows developers to write their own applications on top of it. The self administration interface is simple and intuitive. Depending on the services you are using, it allows you to allocate your server or database capacity, hook in the service bus, and configure your application in minutes.

The Windows Azure platform introduces the Web and Worker roles. This is the implementation of a similar pattern used in WCF that decouples the network transport from the component logic. The Web role allows the applications to accept incoming requests via a variety of protocols supported by IIS. The Worker role cannot accept any direct requests from the Internet but instead can receive messages from an internal Azure queue hosted by SQL Azure. Under the covers, Web and Worker roles run in their own instances of Microsoft VM engine. All the queues and communication protocols can be configured via the control panel.

SQL Azure is no less impressive. It allows you to store data directly in the cloud in three different forms:

• Blobs
• Tables
• Relational

All of these operations are exposed through RESTful services and are really easy to use. For relational data, complete databases can be hosted in the cloud and applications can access them directly whether they themselves are hosted in the cloud or a private datacenter.

The .Net Services platform provides a couple of services – access control and message routing. Access control serves the identity validation, transformation, and federation purposes. This is all based on the rules defined through the control panel. The service bus part of the platform does what you would expect any ESB to do – service endpoint registration and access, message transformation and routing, and improved security.

Even though Azure is still a relatively immature platform, it holds a lot of promise. Microsoft has finally hit the mark. Some risks still need to be addressed, however. The typical cloud computing concerns remain – security, privacy, longevity, etc. Additionally, a platform like Azure may cause some issues for IT departments that need to adhere to regulations like Sarbanes Oxley, SAS 70, and others. Division of responsibilities, following IT governance processes, quality control, and other sticky situations may keep CIOs and other IT managers up at night. These things will eventually work themselves out through maturing the Azure platform or enhancing the IT processes. Despite the drawbacks, I believe Azure is a viable and solid platform for “cloudizing” your applications.

Read more...

Architectural Thinking

I recently had to give an Architectural Thinking course. As I was putting the materials together, I wondered – what really makes a good architect? What is the difference? Is it personality, totality of experiences, different wiring, or natural inclination?

I always believed that while good architecture skills can be taught, it is the way we think that differentiates us and makes us good architects. Our natural ability to understand the problem and determine the right solution is the magic formula. This – and this alone – distinguishes good architects in our midst. You don't have to have "architect" in your job title or even be in IT to be a good architect. You can understand the technology in minute detail, know all the design patterns, possess tremendous depth of experience, have in-depth knowledge of various design techniques, etc. All this can be taught or acquired. At the end of the day, however, it is your approach to problem solving and the way you think that will make you stand out among your peer architects.

Why do I put such a heavy emphasis on the thinking style? To help you understand, we need to take a step back and define "architecture". According to Wikipedia, "the software architecture of a program or computing system is the structure or structures of the system, which comprise software components, the externally visible properties of those components, and the relationships between them." Many books, articles, and white papers provide a definition of architecture as well. However, in my opinion, these definitions are too complex and do not truly reflect the nature of architecture. My personal definition is very simple: architecture is a high level view of a technical solution to a business problem.

What does the definition of architecture have to do with our approach and thinking style? Everything! Taking all the specifics of how we actually deliver architectural solutions out of conversation, to do our job well we simply need to determine the right technical solution to the right business problem. We need to consider all the possibilities when addressing a business problem – what is there today, what is missing, what problem are we really trying to solve, is the current process the most efficient, what would deliver the most value, are we solving the right problem?.. We should be able to look at the problem from a very high level, abstract ourselves from the underlying technology or processes, and envision the most effective and efficient solution. As in the old adage, we should see the forest for the trees. Once the "ideal" solution is found, we can start concentrating on its details and understanding technology implications. Many times, we will discover that our vision cannot be readily implemented due to technology limitations, insufficient process maturity, and a host of other factors. Do not despair, however. Your vision becomes the solution goal state, and you would need to create a roadmap to get there.

Undoubtedly, some of you will disagree with the approach presented above. I can hear the arguments now – "You must consider the current situation to determine the right solution to the problem", "The project has a limited scope, and thinking broader is impractical", "The technology landscape should be considered upfront to design the most effective solution", etc. However, if we are to find the right technical solution, we must shed the old baggage. It is very hard to find new and innovative solutions if you cannot think outside the current box. To a large extent, the architectural thinking principles are grounded in the definition of what makes a good architect.

Architecture is an art, not a science. Therefore, a good architect is more of an artist – creative, imaginative, someone who can paint with a big brush. In my opinion, the characteristics and approaches listed below are the true differentiating factors among architects.

• Abstract thinking – this is the #1 quality of a good architect. You must be able to see the big picture and understand it abstractly, absent of many details that can cloud your judgment.


• Out-of-the-box thinking – many situations require us to be creative and innovative in our approaches. Good architects should be able to adapt to new situations easily and come up with the right solutions regardless of the situation.


• Clarity of vision – you, as an architect, should be able to clearly envision the solution and all of its implications including business process, technology, low level design, development, and potential phased delivery.


• Strength of convictions – architects should always try to do things right the first time, oppose inappropriate or wrong decisions, and stand up for what they believe are the right architectural solutions.


• Critical thinking – architects should always cast a critical eye towards their domain. You should challenge everything. Nothing should remain status quo or off limits. There are always opportunities for improvement. Don’t miss them because you feel comfortable with the current situation or are used to doing things a certain way.


• Problem solving skills – architects are problem solvers. Good architects strive to solve problems in the minimalist way, i.e. reaching the right solution in the most efficient manner. Even better architects ensure that they are solving the right business problem.


• Soft skills – this one is obvious. Good architects should have excellent soft skills to work well with the diverse audiences they are exposed to every day.

As in the everlasting nature vs. nurture debate, I believe good architects cannot be made – a large portion of what makes architects stand out is ingrained in how we think, act, and approach problems. To be truly effective, we should practice all the elements of architectural thinking and exhibit all the traits of a good architect.

Read more...