Rael writes that one of the most devastating consequences of the wall is “the division of communities, cities, neighborhoods and families, resulting in the erosion of social infrastructure.” When we talked, he wondered how we might create something positive from something so horrible: “Can reform happen through borderland investment? If you build 150 libraries along the border, you’d get a very different outcome.” — The New York Times
The RFP for the border wall is out, but the conscience-bearing architectural community is staying in (and trying to imagine alternatives to this xenophobic concrete smear job). In particular, in this New York Times article they're suggesting building anything but walls, suggesting that perhaps investing in communities instead of splitting them apart is the way to go for the political and social benefit of everyone involved.
How sad, being against it and still coming up with proposals for it at the same time. It feels to me like a populist Trumpist way of getting your name out there by surfing on the wave of anti-Trumpism all at the expense of the people affected by such or any border wall, just to score a few politically correct PR points that amount to nothing for the people it's actually all about.