The AIA’s formal statement, and follow-up, in response to Donald J. Trump’s election has elicited outrage within the architecture community. Architects, AIA-members and not, feel that the organization has failed to represent their interests, choosing instead to cooperate with what many equate to a fascist regime, and in so doing has compromised the entire profession. Architects have taken to social media to air their concerns and organize their own responses—we’ll be updating this piece with more statements as the issue evolves, and collecting them all over here. Share your thoughts with us by submitting to the news here.
Shortly following the election of Mr. Trump to the office of the President of the United States, Robert Ivy, Chief Executive Officer of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), wrote:
The AIA and its 89,000 members are committed to working with President-elect Trump to address the issues our country faces, particularly strengthening the nation’s aging infrastructure. During the campaign, President-elect Trump called for committing at least $500 billion to infrastructure spending over five years. We stand ready to work with him and with the incoming 115th Congress to ensure that investments in schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure continue to be a major priority.”
“We also congratulate members of the new 115th Congress on their election. We urge both the incoming Trump Administration and the new Congress to work toward enhancing the design and construction sector’s role as a major catalyst for job creation throughout the American economy.”
“This has been a hard-fought, contentious election process. It is now time for all of us to work together to advance policies that help our country move forward.
Almost immediately, the American architecture community reacted on Twitter and other social media, largely decrying the unilateral expression of support for the controversial President-elect. The AIA bills itself as “the voice of the architecture profession and the resource for our members in service to society.” However, Mr. Ivy published the statement without consulting the 89,000 members for whom he claims to speak. Most of the criticism centered around Mr. Trump’s comments and policy proposals that have been widely considered racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic, which some architects believe express a position antithetical to the central tenants of the profession of architecture. Additionally, Mr. Trump denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change, which many architects—as well as scientists—believe represents on the most serious threats to both the built environment and humanity at large.
The most visible displays of discontent surfaced on Twitter, where architects quickly began to employ the hashtag #notmyAIA, echoing the popular chant “Not my president,” which has been used in protests of the election. It seems the first use of the hashtag came from @Latent_Design:
Are you looking to serve as the next Albert Speer,” asked @ArchitectGlass. Others also made reference to Speer, one of the most prominent architects of the Third Reich, which infamously weaponized architecture as an expression of ideology. Soon, the story was picked up by Archinect, Dezeen and other media outlets such as the Architect’s Newspaper.
QSPACE, “a platform for research projects by students and professionals working on queerness in the built environment”, quickly released a statement, describing Mr. Ivy’s statement as “unnecessary, tone deaf, and an insult to marginalized groups within the architectural field”. QSPACE, and others, noted that the expression of support seems to contradict the AIA’s ethics policies, which state that members “shall not discriminate in their professional activities on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation.”
While some claim that Mr. Trump tacitly supports the LGBTQ community—he made reference to their existence during the Republican national convention—he ran on what has been described as the most explicitly anti-LGBTQ political platform in United States history. His Vice President, Mike Pence, has described homosexuality as a type of behavior “that facilitate[s] the spread of the HIV virus.” Mr. Pence opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, same-sex marriage and civil unions. He has support conversion therapy, a controversial and scientifically-unsupported practice intended to impose heterosexuality through means including electroshock therapy. Other advisors to President-elect Trump have been recorded employing gay slurs and anti-LGBTQ sentiments.
The Architecture Lobby, “a collective of architectural workers advocating for the value of the labor required to design, construct and occupy architecture”, quickly released a statement as well. The Lobby “unequivocally” denounced the AIA’s statement, noting, among other things, that the statement expressing support for President-Elect Trump’s infrastructure plan tacitly expresses support for the so-called “border wall”. The border wall, which would stretch across the southern border of the United States, is intended to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants. It served as a central proposal in the Trump campaign, and since election, President-elect Trump has vowed that it would be one of the first initiatives of his administration.
Soon the #NotmyAIA hashtag began to include wider denouncements of AIA practices. For example, Keefer Dunn tweeted, “it's not just the Trump thing, AIA's arcane attitude re: antitrust compliance is central to architecture's value crises.” Other architects, such as Cathy Braasch, pledged they would not renew their membership of the AIA, instead donating the money to charity.
Michael Sorkin, the prominent architect and critic, published a long missive condemning the letter. “While his words appear anodyne and reflect the judicious position and celebration of America’s history of peaceful transitions of power articulated by both President Obama and Hillary Clinton,” writes Sorkin, “they are an embarrassment to those of us who feel that the Trump presidency represents a clear and present danger to many values that are fundamental to both our nation and our profession.” Sorkin’s letter includes five points that he advocates as measures by which to evaluate Trump’s actions.
Michael Kimmelman, the architecture critic for the New York Times, likewise tweeted a denouncement of the AIA’s position:
The Equity Alliance, “a platform to promote the conservation of equitable practice in architecture and allied professions in the built environment”, also published a statement. “We are ashamed that our professional organization decided that the prospect of public commissions for a very few of us was important enough to silence concerns about the specter of an anti-elitist society defined by racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and the denial of science,” they wrote.
Likewise, Maryam Eskandari of MIIM Designs published an open letter against the AIA statement. Referencing the historic complicity of architects, particularly Le Corbusier, with the corporatist state of Benito Mussolini and other authoritarian regimes, Eskandari writes that the AIA’s statement will “have a huge impact for the next generation of young architects coming into the practice.”
Cheryl Noel of the Chicago-based studio Wrap Architecture sent us a statement, including in it personal experiences of sexism in the profession. In the letter, Noel condemns sexist remarks by Mr. Trump as well as in the architecture profession, among other things. “There are moments in time when we are presented with choices, choices that define who we are. Who will we choose to be?” Noel asks.
The group Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility, which “works for peace, environmental protection, ecological building, social justice, and the development of healthy communities”, created a Change.org petition, calling for architects to commit to “protecting human rights”. The petition can be found here.
Mitzi Vernon, Dean of the College of Design at the University of Kentucky wrote:
At the heart of a talk given by architect, Manuel Aires Mateus in 2013 was the idea of the idea. As he spoke about the ephemeral nature of the built world and the recovery of ruins, he was asking, in the end, what do we leave behind?
Ideas are the only thing that may survive us. So, we must be careful what we build because the ruin is often our mark. The Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, the long history of medieval city walls…these are ideas of exclusion that are built into the landscape and survive. Are there city walls in the United States, a country wall? One could argue that we are formed by an idea that is precisely opposite.
As for universities, it is our mission to offer unhindered passage (academic freedom) for students and teachers in the quest for ideas. We are fortunate at the University of Kentucky to have a president, Eli Capilouto, who is an unparalleled and formidable champion of inclusiveness. As the author, Stephen Greenblatt reminds us, “libraries, museums and schools are fragile institutions.” We might do well to re-read the history of Alexandria, Rome and the survival of an idea – Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things.
In our digital era the infrastructure of our ideas is captured by the binary system of 1s and 0s, indelibly it seems. We must be careful of this infrastructure as well. What we say is also what we leave behind.
While these comments have not been shared prior with my constituents in the College of Design, I hope that I have not unfairly represented my colleagues and those that I serve.
Media outlets that are not specifically oriented around architecture, including Quartz and Fast.Co Design, have also begun to pick up the story.
On November 12, Mr. Ivy published a response to the Architect’s Newspaper editors’ condemnation of the letter:
We recognize that the current, post-election environment is unique and has aroused strong and heartfelt feelings within all communities, including that of AIA membership. In this context, our recent statement in support of design and construction’s future role with the new Administration has been viewed with concern by a number of our colleagues.
The AIA, a bi-partisan organization with strong values, reasserts our commitment to a fair and just society, and also respects the right of each member to his or her political beliefs, knowing that we are all united in our desire to contribute to the well-being and success of our nation and our world.
The AIA remains firmly committed to advocating for the values and principles that will create a more sustainable, inclusive and humane world. The spirit and intention behind our statement is consistent with and in support of President Obama’s eloquent call for us all to unite for the best interest of America’s future.
For the most part, architects seem to agree that Mr. Ivy equivocates in the statement rather than clarifying or withdrawing his earlier statement. Mr. Ivy cites President Obama’s controversial call for unity after the election. While President Obama must ensure the peaceful transition of power in accordance with American democratic tradition, Mr. Ivy does not have such a responsibility.
We’ll be updating this post with more responses and developments as they come in. In the meantime, submit your response to AIA’s statement of support for Mr. Trump here and in our poll.
UPDATES:
2:50 p.m.: Tamara Roy of the Boston Society of Architects/AIA published a letter on November 9th, expressing the group's "shock and disappointment" with Mr. Ivy's statement of support for Trump. "The conciliatory and congratulatory tone of last week’s message in response to the election is at odds with the very goals and values articulated by the AIA," Roy writes.
3:00 p.m.: The AIA Chicago Board of Directors released a statement on November 14th stating that the organization "wants to assure our members that we do not support the recent statement made by national AIA on November 10, which prematurely expressed the support of AIA’s 89,000 members for an unarticulated infrastructure agenda made by the incoming presidential administration."
3:10 p.m.: A large group of students from the Yale School of Architecture published a statement “unequivocally [denouncing] the AIA’s endorsement of the new status quo.” They write: For too long, our profession has been complicit in giving form to landscapes of inequality and discrimination, and has itself been plagued by a history of racial and gender inequity. The AIA’s immediate and unquestioning pandering to the Trump administration threatens a continuation of our troubled past and demonstrates a willingness to pursue financial gain at the expense of our values.
5:30 p.m.: Mr. Ivy has spoken to Architectural Record by phone, stating: First, we say we’re sorry. I mean that sincerely. I say that we’re sorry we’ve hurt and angered our constituents…We have definitely listened and heard people within the community. They have spoken loudly and clearly. This has been an election unlike any that any of us has experienced, and unfortunately the statement that we issued hurt and angered many people…If it sounded as if we approve of the election results, that was not its intention. The AIA never endorses political candidates.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
9:15 a.m.: Mr. Ivy, alongside the 2016 AIA President Russell Davidson, issued a video statement apologizing for the statement. Watch it here:
Writer and fake architect, among other feints. Principal at Adjustments Agency. Co-founder of Encyclopedia Inc. Get in touch: nicholas@archinect.com
Former Managing Editor and Podcast Co-Producer for Archinect. I write, go to the movies, walk around and listen to the radio. My interests revolve around cognitive urban theory, psycholinguistics and food.Currently freelancing. Be in touch through longhyphen@gmail.com
Paul Petrunia is the founder and director of Archinect, a (mostly) online publication/resource founded in 1997 to establish a more connected community of architects, students, designers and fans of the designed environment. Outside of managing his growing team of writers, editors, designers and ...
80 Comments
Were not all the same and we don't need to all agree on issues, but that shouldn't give us the justification to HATE people that see things differently. To me that's a much more dangerous form of bigotry. This is a free democracy. A plurality of voices and opinions is the strength of a free people. Blinding, forced conformity is the end of liberty. Focusing on our common bonds that unite us as a people is where real growth can happen. We need to talk and we need to understand one another then move on from there.
Tell this to Donald.
Continue to believe in the Big Lies.
Look at what he is doing in the transition. Keep up with the news if you don't know already.
I've never been to Penn. I've never met you. I found your name because I did a bit of googling after the first insult you flung my way. That's the honest truth, not that you'd believe me.
I didn't vote for the guy, sure didn't vote for "Her" either.
But nothing gives me more laughter than watching angry Leftists lash out with every demagogue term they can string together in a sentence: Trump is a "racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, white supremacist, nationalist... who hates the environment, immigrants, anyone of color and small furry animals." Wait, did I leave anything out?
I haven't read all of the replies yet, but I'd be surprised if Godwin's Law hasn't been evoked yet.
Has anyone realized that Her's husband is a confessed adulterer, only the 2nd impeached president, accused rapist and has paid off women for his offenses? Oh ya, he's on the "good side" so we don't talk about that...
What you all need to realize is that every time you bring out the demagoguery and spew vile against "white males with small penises" you are making a large segment of our population very angry and then Trump is what you get.
Yeah, so stay out of the "bad part of town" or any consequences are your own fault. Right, 10mm? Right?
You missed the point.
It is not an analogy.
It is in fact the thing itself.
Research Stephen Bannon.
Could give a fuck what they think.
"Yeah, so stay out of the "bad part of town" or any consequences are your own fault. Right, 10mm? Right?"
Umm, what?
"Research Stephen Bannon." While I don't support the Alt-Right I do find their triggering of the Left amusing.
And one may reasonably argue that any accusations of Bannon's statements & behavior pale in comparison to the substantial accusations of the Clinton pay-for-play use of the State department and our national security.
But let's step back for a moment and remember that President Cheeto does not make laws. The usual congress critters do. And team Red has a tiny majority, so most likely Cheeto will go right down the center, like the preceding 4 presidents.
Trust me, for better or worse it's going to be business as usual.
"What you all need to realize is that every time you bring out the demagoguery and spew vile against "white males with small penises" you are making a large segment of our population very angry and then Trump is what you get."
Sure. It's all the fault of the people who DIDN'T vote for him. Not the ones who did. Just like being mugged is the fault of the person who walked in the wrong place, not...the mugger.
Logic for the win.
And one may reasonably argue that any accusations of Bannon's statements & behavior pale in comparison to the substantial accusations of the Clinton pay-for-play use of the State department and our national security.
Proof?
You are ok with Trump's son in law getting a top security clearance and sitting in on top level meetings and being married to someone who runs Trumps business?
Oh yea, Clinton got a blow job in the oval office....my god, that put the world in real danger. The impeachment was a fucking sham and you know it. It was just to impede him in his second term. This asshole has fucked and will fuck everything that moves but Trumptards will overlook any of his actions and words. I don't have any particular fondness for Clinton male, but to compare him to Rathead is a laugh. I'm not angry at all when I lash those terms together: they are the stone truth, and if the shoe fits, fucking wear it. For asswipes like you to even compare the shit he's done and said in every aspect of his life and who he's bringing on board to ANY other president is a fucking laugh. You're the one with business as usual: angry Leftists....LOL...wow, how original. Yea, Rathead got elected because we got fucktards like you angry....what a dick.
don you are funny....but yeah 10mm stop being rational about culture, lefties never are and neither are right wingers which equal lefties as far as irrational. go take your 10mm rational view elswhere, the lefties want to blame the world for their incoherance and naive behavior......but being impeached for putting a cigar up a chubby chicks pussy is fucking stupid. or why was he impeached?
Ostensibly for lying under oath during the Paula Jones civil deposition. They fed that to Ken Start and the rest is histoty. Too bad there are some of the same sleaze balls in Trumps camp.
"Sure. It's all the fault of the people who DIDN'T vote for him. Not the ones who did. Just like being mugged is the fault of the person who walked in the wrong place, not...the mugger."
False equivalency. Blaming someone that is a victim of a criminal act is different than poor political strategy. Let's make this more equivalent: the victim of your mugging was walking down the street in Compton shouting out the dreaded N word. Yes, being attacked is still not their legal fault, but umm, perhaps he might have brought much of it upon himself with irresponsible behavior? Kind of like calling out white men with small penises in a public forum dedicated to a profession comprised of the entire political spectrum?
LOL Don, angry much? Your reaction is awesome.
Damn. Those are some serious rhetorical knots you're tying yourself up in to try to discredit my analogy. I ain't buying the bullshit you're selling. Seems to me the tiny penis jokes get to you like the tiny hands jokes get to your illustrious leader.
Q, I don't know you. Never have met you. Either your deductive reasoning failed you or your Google fu did.
If you think I catalogued the insult you're mistaken. If you think that somehow proves your theory that I'm dishonest, then you're still living in a fantasy world. Knowing the general sequence of events without memorizing specifics is normal when a person doesn't really pay attention because the situation is unimportant. You chose to be a pretentious ass (like usual). That's as specific as my memory of you gets. If knowing your name suggests familiarity, my apologies. Much like Secretary Clinton and an annoyed parent, I use your name to get under your skin. I don't honestly care about you considering you're a paper architect, and not a cogent one.
I know you are but what am I?
Sure. Ok. Whatever. I'm done. You don't insult anyone without justification, you always add immense value to any conversion, and your website is an amazing work of intellectual rigor.
I figure I may as well embrace my "dishonesty"
I still don't know you. I just know the fecal trail you leave behind.
Apologist much? Anger? It's not anger, it's well directed satire (even olaf said it's funny). I'm having a great time, got my popcorn out; it's the only fun I'm going to have the next four years (well, until Rathead's impeachment) seeing small-penised and no-balls apologists for Rathead like you flail and spasms actually trying to rationalize and defend this asshole. Awww, poor us, we're in such sad shape that that bad wittle lady called the big white man "small-penis" on a public forum, oh woe is us; let's all look at our new pwesident as our shining example and insult the handicapped, war veterans, foreigners, women, etc, etc, etc, and make America great again.
I'm endlessly fascinated about the shaming around HRC, and holding her to account for her husband's actions, but go on wit yer bad self.
I couldn't care less if Bill or Hillary had gay sex in every room of the whitehouse... Hillary is still a political robot warlord.
Oh, man, Mr. Hawking, couldn't you make it 2 years instead of 1,000?
Politics has no place in Architecture or the AIA.
Leave this to vague interpretation or pragmatic expression if you will.
The art or practice of designing and constructing buildings: Architecture, should be void of the social frustrations of the times, the temperature of nationwide movements, individual opinions, & petty unfounded accusations or prejudices of large groups of people.
Politics Cycles & Trends. Architecture is Permanent. Digital threads are Permanent.
Lightly, I thee tread.
Political opinions do exist, of course, in the minds of 100% of the Architects, voters, & in a very large % of Patrons of the field of Architecture. <---The latter group are not all political ideologues; they are not building utopic inspired installations; they are not connoisseurs sipping wine and talking about Zaha & Corbu; they do not reside in museums; they pay no attention to piles of theses, stacks of unfinished projects that will never see light of day...They do...
However, they are also the portion of the population of the United States of America that own businesses, run companies, & build structures on Main St. America in every town in every state. Coincidentally, they are the most important. They pay for what they want and ultimately what gets built. They pay taxes that fund the Government & Universities, and patron the museums they visit. They do not need safe spaces, self actualization therapy, or trophies. They need an office, or a store or a home or a Church.
They need a building.
A political opinion is not at all physical in a tangible sense. It exists as a frustration, an emotional expression; perhaps a blast of color or a slicing, cutting, self deprecating, emotional rant of a creative geometry in a space or on a canvas individual, unique; inevitably left to its own interpretation.
Architecture is a Building.
Those that will not suffer professionally are the Ideologues, the Professors of Architecture, the govern-mentally employed, or the social justice warrior / leaders of that trendy media fueled cause (the ones that enjoy divisiveness, strife, and conflict... They thrive on it) They are those sheltered from Architecture, in the name of Architecture, that do not create Architecture.
Politics has no place in Architecture or the AIA.
Those that will suffer are those that get sucked into the nothingness of arguing over those intangible issues irrelevant to their real profession: Architecture.
In the end, those that lead the masses into discussions of "Politics & Architecture" are effectively "leading horses into the desert."
Do not follow them. It is a trap.
no, Mr. Hawking, make it a couple of hours....pretty please?
Oh, and on that vapid diatribe on politics and architecture: shouldn't you have posted that on the Patrik Schumacher thread? You obviously have your tongue firmly up his ass.
FFS, Architecture, Infrastructure is POLITICAL. Why do we have to consistently argue with these inane comments?
philosophically, not political is politcal and that is my policy, but i am not political philosophically. beer me.
True. But:
5.13 When the truth of one proposition follows from the truth of others, we can see this from the structure of the propositions.
5.131 If the truth of one proposition follows from the truth of others, this finds expression in relations in which the forms of the propositions stand to one another: nor is it necessary for us to set up these relations between them, by combining them with one another in a single proposition; on the contrary, the relations are internal, and their existence is an immediate result of the existence of the propositions.
...
5.132 If p follows from q, I can make an inference from q to p, deduce p from q. The nature of the inference can be gathered only from the two propositions. They themselves are the only possible justification of the inference. "Laws of inference", which are supposed to justify inferences, as in the works of Frege and Russell, have no sense, and would be superfluous.
nice beta, a little Ludwig............ i had some Chuck Palahniuk this morning for breakfast; a story I believe you would enjoy about what I believe would be Trump's base voters (the father in story) "Red Sultans Big Boy" in "Make Something Up Stories you can't Unread"[and that's a warning, the title]..............given that I am a white man I must go with I think was the last sentence of Tractatus Logico Philosophicus - "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." I can not really talk about oppressive political ideologies beyond being merely philosophical about them, as a white man in the USA..............also just started reading Sam Harrris ' " Free Will", well apparently that is all an illusion.
I have been reading with fascination Donna's emotional outbursts on Donald Trump and the replies. Donna I agree 100% with you. I am an architect who retired on his 80th birthday after a 63 year career, who loves this profession of ours.The spectre of Donald Trump is unfortunately real. I went through WW2 in England so I know first hand what happens when you get a fascist in power, I heard the guns of D Day from across the channel. Let there be no doubt that Donald Trump's approach mirrors that of Hitler to an alarming degree. First focus on an internal enemy, then make them the scapegoat; in addition make lying statements enough times so people end up believing them and make vainglorious comments about what he will do without a plan of action how to do them and you end up with Hitler junior. I say junior because Hitler did have a plan of action and we ended up with WW2. So maybe we should be grateful for that. Like a lot of people I was amazed that as Leaders of the Free World we have him as president. "Uneasy rests the head who wears the Crown" Well all I can say is those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
For the assclowns that felt we, opposed to the AIA, are not leaders, and the AMA and it's membership would never do such a thing. Eat a dick.
AMA members #NotMyAMA
“The A.M.A. does not speak for us,” says a petition signed by more than 5,000 doctors.
@b3tadine[sutures], I wonder if a difference though is that those MDs seem to be specifically taking issue with AMA position as a result of specific policies that Price and/or Trump administration have advocated for/put forward, that effect their profession directly (ie: repealing ACA, privatizing Medicare/Medicaid etc). Whereas, #NotMyAIA was (to this outsider) more a reaction to the seeming disconnect between the AIA's support for diversity/equity in the profession and what the Trump campaign/brand represents In other words #NotMyAIA wasn't reacting specifically (as it happened beforehand) to the nomination of Carson to HUD, as an example...
bennyc, It wasn't "the editor" and not this president.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.