Although there's always a few ignorant and ignoble members of any profession, architecture is primarily made up of progressively-minded, ethically-bound professionals. So why is architecture so white, male, and socioeconically monolithic? More importantly, how can these statistics be changed?
Architecture is not an easy nor widely understood profession. For many people, especially students from working class or poor backgrounds, it is simply exotic: architecture belongs to a realm they believe they can never enter, either because of lack of funds or because they've never seen someone like themselves in that role. Like any complex problem, the solution must be attained by asking the right questions This lack of diversity is hardly a secret within the profession; yet, like any complex problem, the solution must be attained by first asking the right questions. This is why Will Wright, Director of Government and Public Affairs at the Los Angeles chapter of the AIA, has spearheaded the organization of a conference at the California African American Museum in L.A. this upcoming Friday, May 5th, titled "Encompass" (you can register here). With a roster of over 30 speakers including Rachell Morris, Raven Hardison and Archinect's own Orhan Ayyuce, the conference hopes to formulate the right questions and create a plan to start to diversify the field. I spoke to Will Wright about the origin and goals of the conference, as well as some of his observations about what fuels the profession's lack of diversity.
At the national AIA conference last week, keynote speaker Michelle Obama was conversing with AIA President Thomas Vonier about the fact that only two percent of architects are African-American. Yet, it’s a profession that seems to be fairly progressively minded. Did this longstanding issue prompt you to organize the upcoming “Encompass” AIA conference this Friday in Los Angeles?
Yes, the conference is organized in order to tackle exactly that. I think what happened was when Bob Ivie wrote the letter that everyone reacted to really strongly, we had a lot of membership locally here that wanted us as a local chapter to establish some core values. One of the first programs in January of this year was a roundtable discussion about “how do we become more inclusive as a profession?” The architecture profession is dreadfully underrepresented especially in Los Angeles, where we have one of the most diverse cities in the world, practically. Therefore, the conversations that came out of that initial roundtable in January led us to put this conference together. And the objectives of this conference are to establish some measurable action items that we can then use to start to demonstrate progress on. One of the themes that we recognized was “how do we inspire and encourage young people that are from all different walks of life in Los Angeles that the idea to even become an architect is a possibility?”
I think one of the outcomes of this Friday’s conference is, in addition to us establishing some very clear, proactive measurable outcomes that we can start taking seriously and to implement, the idea that we need to reach younger and younger people. We need to reach them especially before they enter high school, and let them know that this is, first of all, a profession that’s accessible to them, and secondly, that it’s a profession that’s rewarding. We need to reach them before they enter high school Regarding how firms can benefit from having more diverse architects on staff, I think that’s an important distinction to make as well. I think what the various architecture schools in Los Angeles are experiencing too is that they’re benefitting from international students but is it practical for these students to stay in L.A. and the United States after they receive this education or do they go back to their own home countries? So I think that’s a deeper dive that we need to take. Not only attract but retain this human resource. This goes hand in hand with other core values, including sustainability and our affordable housing crisis. Our next roundtable will be called “Design for Dignity” and it’s a part two of what we did last year, which is looking at proactive answers to provide more housing affordability in the region. What do these programs look like? How does design personally benefit and restore the dignity of human lives?
I want to go back to this concept you brought up of engaging students at the high school level or even earlier. In a recent conversation with Christopher Hawthorne, the soon-to-be USC Dean of the School of Architecture Milton Curry brought up this same idea of community engagement and reaching out to younger people with varied backgrounds. As a method of this outreach, do you see more architects going in and talking to students at their schools?
That needs to be done more, I think. Occasionally the school districts will reach out to us for career day. There’s a couple other programs that we want to highlight this year. One’s called “Spark” and the other’s called “Ace” and they’re student mentorship programs where you actually bring younger people into an architecture office and show them the office so they can gain insight into what daily lives are like. I think some of the unfortunate aspects of why more people aren’t going into architecture from a diverse set of backgrounds is that it’s such a difficult licensing process that it sort of self-selects to only allow people who can afford that long apprenticeship process. If between the ages of 18 to 30 you can't make a decent income as an emerging professional, are you really going to go into that field unless you're already rich and entitled?
Much like a film director, it’s unfortunate that that’s the way the profession is. It doesn’t necessarily have the mechanisms to support younger people from entering into the profession over the course of the ten to fifteen years it might take for you to get your feet on the ground. There is a pay equity issue. There’s no data that supports this, it’s just an observation: if between the ages of 18 to 30 you can’t make a decent income as an emerging professional, are you really going to go into that field unless you’re already rich and entitled?
Julia Ingalls is primarily an essayist. Her work has appeared or is forthcoming in Slate, Salon, Dwell, Guernica, The LA Weekly, The Nervous Breakdown, Forth, Trop, and 89.9 KCRW. She's into it.
1 Featured Comment
Another point. Many of the barriers to entry occur well before lisensure, before architectural education- as noted in the post.
All 20 Comments
Finally people are seeing the true problem...licensing.
Right...
Architecture will indeed become more diverse not when the students (and faculty) seen in schools represents a broader spectrum of pronouns and faces- or that their salaries will stop being compressed when they enter practice-
it's all just the exam a the end of all of this...
Their salaries are compressed because of the intern system. No one is raising the test as an issue. The axp-
*idp system extends career security, independence, and living pay 3-7 years out from an already very expensive education. Yes this system favors city hoping 20 somethings with no kids and economic backing from family.
Not having billable skills pushes security, independence and living pay out by 3-7 years. If schooling wasn't about "living with a wolf" but actually about professional skills that made you valuable on a project team right out of school you'd be able to get those hours and earn a decent wage immediately. Being an artist is never going to provide career security or create a profession that doesn't primarily consist of wealth backed participants.
You are painting all grads with a broad brush. Let the ones without billable skills fail, and the ones with prosper accordingly. No need to nanny these young men and women. Licensure is preventing the types of small innovative startups that may fill the gap that orhan mentions below (in his last paragraph.)
How is this a license issue? Just like many people called the women's strike, a white women's strike, this is a pay issue. If you are low income, you aren't going to get highly trained to make shit. The "if you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life" garbage is pretty much a suburban statement.
This was a great conference. It was fully attended by architects, urbanists, planners, community organizers and people from all walks of life. It was carefully curated by AIA Los Angeles chapter to be inclusive of African American architects and designers, immigrant AIA members, students and all genders and sexual orientations were represented. It was diverse and voiceful. It was hosted by African American Museum of Los Angeles. Discussions and stories of diversity and inclusiveness in architecture were abundant. We, as a community of architects, need to do this more often if we want to free our discourse from the exclusive monopoly of certain architectural power management Julia mentions above.
Problems need to be well understood before coming to quick action items if we as the architectural community want to deal with them in a sustainable manner.
How do we connect people of the city with architecture? How do we function within adverse economic conditions? How do we help as architects beyond being boxed in as a service profession? How do we include more people of the communities shaping the built environment? How can we apply our talents designing better cities and habitats for all? Questions are many. Licencing is just a small part of the challenges we face and need to take on if we want to go beyond just a threshold of minimum relevancy.
There are hardly any architects or offices in poorer neighborhoods. This simple fact is a good indication what we have been serving and whom we are designing for a long time. It has to change.
Agree. Good post.
My architecture school was more progressive than most, offering a special scholarship for african american students (think there were 7-8). But after graduation, all the white kids went to grad school and all the black kids had to get jobs (couldn't progress in architecture without the grad school degree). Add in years of low pay internships and its impossible for anyone who isn't born on 3rd base to get there. The problem is probably that 4 years of undergrad aren't accredited by AIA and their lobbyists. Education should be optional and interchangeable with apprenticeships (as it was back in the golden age of architecture). But that will never happen as the AIA is too tied with the economy of education.
All of this talk about "connecting to poor neighborhoods" and "starting dialogues" will never work unless the AIA gets the schools and profession out of its own way.
That's not compression, that's a low entry level wage. Compression is more about how much lower your wage is compared to others with a similar experience due to bias. No, exams were not explicitly mentioned - but if I recall that's the prevailing manner in which licensure is gained. But bear in mind that one of the reasons why licensure was establish was to expand access to professional practice given it's limited access to a small group of people.
Regardless, this jump to "the exam," still does not address all the events that occur prior to that- access to design education, support in design education, and effective mentoring towards becoming a mentor. All these are conditions prior - no post - to the license.
Marc, the exams do not create an unfair barrier to entry. The mandatory IDP process does. Lets just imagine that 10 firms are hiring. 2 of those 10 are biased towards white males, 3 are located in expensive areas, too far for commuting, that require supplemental income aside from the offered salary to lice, etc. Right there, a minority grad without extra financial support is 50% less able to land that internship that serves as a path towards licensure. Im not looking to make the process easier, but rather to make it more reliant on self determination, and less reliant on other
practitioners.
Basically, if you agree that workplace bias exists, and that a workplace is required for licensure, them logically that bias acts as a barrier to licensure. Since bias and financial inequality
cannot
* be changed in any realistic way, lets instead strip the mechanism and systems that give power to that bias. Create a system that maximizes economic/entrepreneurial liberty.
Orhan, your points are well taken.
If I'm understanding some of the comments, an effective way of dealing with bias is to deregulate lisensure because that will eliminate the need for expenses related to record keeping because idp would be eliminated. So record of qualifying work and reciprocity go out the window.
1- How does thus address fundamental bias towards (non)hiring practices and mentoring.
2- If we consider bias with respect to gender we already know the outcomes based on research from Equity by Design (formerly the missing 32%).
3- The above sounds like a derivative of trickle down economics. If we are given more freedom, we will become more diverse by choice. Presumably, this would be supported by the flood of under represented peoples into architecture programs across the United States, based the already existing academic freedoms (more later Chris). I'm aware there be a point made here.
4- That said, this does not address one of the base reasons why exams and lisences were enacted- which was to diversify the types of people allowed in because a standard set of expectations were created, very being part of the club (e.g. Having easy access to people and capital).
5. This gets to the last point- we all know self determination requires capital (again a point will be made here), but the suggestion that pulling ones sent up by their bootstraps has been demonstrated to be a trope.
All that said- yes idp/reciprocity are burdens for everybody. So let's fix that instead of throwing out the lisence.
Marc, im not understanding how you are acknowledging institutional bias and simultaniously defending institutions. This gets into a strange political idea (mostly amongst liberals) that we can simply force inclusiveness through social pressure and polite surfacy things like manners and language. Thats impossible in my opinion, because there are plenty of fake bullshitters. A more realistic approach is to strip the structures of heirarchy and power and allow for more of an autonomous path from a-b. Its the difference between limiting police power in a legal way vs adding sensitivity training. Sure the latter may help a bit, but ultimatly stop and frisk gives power to predjudice...my argument is that licensure dependent on internships does something similar.
Chris- sorry for not responding/commenting sooner. running about give me one step at a time. And I'm car lagged/over caffeinated now so forgive the crazy nature of the post.
1- Architecture has always been about the 1%, look back to when it became a rarified "thing" in the Renaissance - associated with names and referencing culture. Yes it's a problem, but it's foundational.
2- I bring this up merely to point out the difference between architecture and it's intellectual pursuits versus the built artifact. The significance of this being that one approach is part of the liberal arts and the other the illiberal (hammers vs. heads). Given who started all this chat, we all know which direction it went in the academy.
3- This leads to the problem of the time spent learning it in school. Architecture could indeed be taught in 2 years if it were an illiberal pursuit and repetiton was sole goal of education. It's likely that this is what basically happens at the community college level. But- then you omit the cultural/critical thinking that is so cherished in the liberal aspects of it, and it would be a rejection of the ethos that has always been a part of architecture (and the pathos of design studio).
4- Given this- Michael Ford's argument that Hip Hop is a cultural critique of modernism and modernist architecture would have never been borne because critical thinking about culture would not be present. Zara's pastels would never be present because Robin Evan would have never questioned the role of drawing. So those extra years are indeed important. As a person who enjoys critical readings about the role of architecture (not the construction), I hope you can appreciate this point.
5-Bringing this back to the topic of the post, this would limit the opportunities of those who are marginalized simply because they would "not be at the table." The canon was never designed to admit them, and struggles to do so now. If this were a matter of just repeating the past...
And it's ok to teach to the 1%. If would be a problem if you just aimed for lowest common denominator and said that's that. You can always work for the 99% if you so choose to.
Somewhat related;
Michael Hayes lecture on a free course at GSD is reviewed to be a fresh example of reiterating the "club." I mean.., true it is foundational. But time is also right to bust the house.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-cm-building-type-harvard-course-20170507-story.html
So is the general consensus that architecture as it stands will never be inclusive, that we need to change the field from academia on into licensing to be a profession that stands on profitable yet conscientious design practices instead of catering to an elite cadre of illusive starchitect projects or a never-ending slew of concept competitions that don't make money?
My previous comment is not to say Architecture education is not valuable (it is essential) but it may take other forms, as an apprenticeship or in education not prescribed by arbitrary rules. But by enforcing a set of standard rules, the AIA and co not only drives up the cost of education (as a monopoly and controlling power) but sets a meaningless set of obstacles that happen to limit both diversity of class, race as well as experience.
It's crazy that someone who has an undergraduate in literature and a 2 year grad degree in architecture can be licensed but not one who may have a 4 year undergrad in arch but cannot afford another 2 years of completely arbitrary requirements. Or someone who could apprentice for an architect if they could not afford education.
Those that have the priveledge of design education and expertise should want to give that information to as many as possible, not set up a system of expensive walls between architects and the world. Good design is too important to the world.
Great comment
My response would be that architecture has historically been confronted with a question of who practices it and who it is for. If that is not directly addressed then yes it will remain exclusive. This requires a broad look at business tendencies, trends and stereotypes in addition to challenging pedagogy, advocacy and exposure(emphasis on the last link).
Tearing apart institutions does not benefit any person that is not in the position to benefit from from this, and is nonproductive much of the continued burden of proof on those who are disenfranchised to continuously prove they belong in the circle of opportunity (privilege?).
forgot this link referenced here.
I agree that privilaged grads with rich uncles will still have an advantage if idp where to disapear, but this isn't about creating an even starting line, its about removing state mandated barriers that contribute to an uneven starting line. There is a very big difference between the two. The latter can actually be done with a little will and leadership from the profession.
Thought this was about increasing diversity, not about removing state mandates. I can't find a reference to that anywhere in the post.
Its about increasing diversity by removing barriers to entry. I did,
*I didn't make this up...occupational licensing was even being targeted by the obama admin because it stiffles upward mobility. This is known.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf
And I'm not sure Ford (or Cox, or Curry) would be who he is with a 2yr degree. But his is an interesting critique that far too often gets dismissed simply due to the driving content. And even ability to assemble a "good set (this is a relative term determined office by office)," there's no guarantee of advancement. And there are schools out there that do produce students stable of making good sets. Those are the portfolios that get buried because who wants to look at a set of details as a point of reference for creativity. Then in which case, you'd just hire someone from a 2yr school or a mediocre for profit.
Thought game, say you did get it down to two years. How many schools would stick to 4 just to have that as a differentiator? Furthermore, what do you need to provide in 2yrs to be really good? I'm thinking of the Culinary Institute as a reference.
Or McEwen, Sutton, Darnstadt
great point of reference there-
we can all watch what happen in Indiana as they proposed to deregulate engineering (which didn't get key support) or Arizona (and others) with respect to landscape architecture has already been.
Strange though, I still see no reference to increasing diversity, just job creation. With that in mind I refer back to DiTomaso. Or we could look at counterparts that lack regulation like development or programming...
Another point. Many of the barriers to entry occur well before lisensure, before architectural education- as noted in the post.
Marc, those deregulation efforts where fought hard by the universities and the asla. The public had very little knowledge of the proposed bills. If they had, they would have without a doubt support the deregulation. the industries that didnt show backlash where in fact deregulated incliding geology . The arguments supporting the bill from the profession where hilariously hyperbolic, whinny, and desperate. ....The media made fun of them in a few articles and made them look like morons. It was ridiculous.
As for "diversity", diversifying the vocational and educational backgrounds of professionals is just as important as diversifying race and socio economics. To suggest that licensure barriers do not limit this is completely false. I have a degree in architecture for instance, and cannot get a license in LA without investing way more money, taking a huge pay cut, and jumping through arbitrary hoops. I practice within the states exemptions, and sometimes have to turn down work that I am perfectly capable of doing...
If you look into the Indiana proposal, you'll see that it's not a university/academic or "Asian" driven proposal, but part of a regular check by the Board of Professionals to determine if licensure is making the state less competitive.
With respect to the LA deregulation case in Arizona, it was established that deregulation places all landscape architects with Az. licenses exclusively at a disadvantage because they would be placed at a disadvantage in other parts of the US (with license requirements), in their own state and they would be competing against out-of-state practitioners with licenses and the perception of stronger qualifications.
All this suggests that licensure would need to be disbanded at a federal level, because the professional organization(s), nor the accrediation boards or independent record holders have the ability to dissolve state managed policies all at the same stoke of midnight. But that's a drastic top down solution.
And this post isn't about architects who discover landscape architecture. But I'd respecfully suggest that you look a what you can get through reciprocity of education and experience. The last I checked it's easier to get architecture experience to transfer over to landscape than visa versa (mmv). Find a partner willing to sign off on your work while you bring in projects. Regardless, reciprocity between practices is not and has not been the topic here.
are you saying that idp is universally accessible? Your argument seems to acknowledge that privilaged grads have easier access, but then seem to suggest "thats life". All im saying is that alternative paths should be available that allow for a self determined path where you do not need to rely on idp employment. Those 3-7 years of idp are very difficult to fullfill for some people. The difficulty is not merit based but rather circumstantial. Its very common for interns to become pigeon holed into a job role that doesnt satisfy the broad categories needed for idp. A mother with 3 kids is less likely to have the flexability to leace for a better job
than a single guy with a trust fund.
Also, as I alluded to, a young black grad is probably going to face some hiring bias. Even if only 1:100 firms exhibit this biased hiring, he/she is still less likely to secure an internship. geographic mobility is another issue. It is very difficult to chase jobs when you have school age kids. A young single person doesn't face this barrier as much. The process is weighed towards a young single trust fund baby. The process favors privilage. No surprise that it produces a demographic that aligns with that of privilege.
Sure there are many many other factors that preclude school and idp, and we can work on that too, but this is one that can be changed fairly quickly with a few pen swipes and some will/lobbying from within the profession.
I acknowledged the burden of IDP/NCARB recording earlier in this thread, I was merely against the idea of removing licensure to fix the problem of the exorbitant pricing. Secondly, to throw it out would not make a difference with respect to pigeon holing, and it seems to me having that excel spreadsheet with required hours that you can record makes it easier to find the gaps and address them as required. Not to mention, this is being addressed at some schools already.
And yes, there are other factors, but as Orhan mentioned above "Licencing is just a small part of the challenges we face and need to take on if we want to go beyond just a threshold of minimum relevancy." Compound that with Michelle Obama's point made during the AIA conference about the importance of introducing underrepresented groups to architecture well before college - and supporting their interest longitudinally. This would point to larger questions regarding how architecture interfaces with primary education, not how can we open the market up for anyone who can benefit from it now (which has been established does not include those people who are underrepresented). Seem to me that points that have been suggested need to be put aside are central to the thread.
Lastly, I still find it difficult to imagine the the practice as a whole would all sign on to removing licenses from practice -think California and seismic requirements, or Florida and Mangroves (LA supplemental exam). And again, it would be a federal mandate, not a state wide set of agreements. Can you imagine Governors from 50 state agreeing to sign off at the same time? Can you imagine 50 state-based lobbying groups making the same argument about how this would happen, without tweaking the language to "their" benefit? For that matter, can you imagine the general public trusting the value of a profession that signed away the need for licensure?
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.