Of course, we know why architects are quiet on these fundamental issues of wealth and inequality. On the one hand they are just too busy trying to run their businesses and chase after ever fewer projects for less and less money. The other reason is that architects depend on the wealthiest segments of society for their livelihoods. Thus it seems to provide an obvious reason not to support a movement that stands for social and economic justice and an end to rules that favor corporations, banks and wealthy individuals over “everyone else.” Again, if you aren’t sure what the ruckus is all about, you can do some investigating on your own—start by reading outside the architectural press.
But here is an interesting paradox that hasn’t occurred in the architectural bloc just yet: if the people #OWS are talking about , the so-called “99%” were doing better financially there would be a vastly larger pool of potential clients for architects. This might sound simplistic, but it just might make sense. Think of it this way: architecture’s wealthiest clients are still doing well in the recession. In fact they may even be doing better than before. But architecture itself was one of the earliest and hardest hit industries.
Studies have shown that the wealthy top 10% and the super-rich “1%” are incapable of generating sufficient economic impact to sustain capitalist prosperity and fuel economic growth. This happens only when there is a strong working- and middle-class base. It makes sense. 1% of the people, no matter how wealthy, cannot and do not, consume as much as a strong, solvent, working- and middle-class, i.e. most of the people.
This is because, for all their ostentatious displays of wealth, the rich are notorious for being stingy penny-pinchers. Ever had a wealthy client fight you tooth and nail over the budget for that luxury home you designed or the fee you charged for your professional services? Moreover, the wealthy are the ones who pull the plugs on larger institutional or speculative investment projects because the economy put them in a mode of extreme caution.
It’s worth repeating: Architecture needs more consumers, not less. Architecture depends on a growing economy, not a contracting and ever-stratifying one. The only effective way to grow the economy, many economists argue, is to have a strong middle class capable of supporting it and driving demand. The wealthy alone can’t do it and evidence shows that when the economy contracts, they won’t.
History has also shown that when the middle are doing well the top does far better. This could be one reason billionaire investment banker, Warren Buffet thinks he and his cohort should pay more in taxes. He understands how a capitalist economy works. He and his pals win more when we are all #winning.
Architecture, as an economic sector, wins when these basic economic principals are being strengthened. So, as counter-intuitive as it seems, the AIA should be lobbying congressional leaders in support of fair and equitable taxation of the wealthy, even though for now, this is where the dominant client pool resides. But if they helped create wealth in all of our classes of society, we would all have more clients, not fewer.
That means that the AIA needs to stop just lobbying for more stimulus money, more federal building projects, and funding for the “greening” of federal buildings. These strategies do not do enough for the profession because they are short-term, band-aid fixes. In short, stop asking for handouts. Instead, have foresight and look at the long- term. Because what will have a more far-reaching impact will be lobbying for what economists (and now Occupy Wall Streeters) have been arguing for years.
Here is a good example of how the AIA and OWS actually have a lot in common: the debate over the deficit. How does this work? First, the AIA’s most-recent lobbying efforts in Washington DC have been focused on educating the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction on the importance of not making cuts that would impact the built environment, i.e. architects and their colleagues in engineering and construction. Please, please, please don’t make any cuts to the Federal Budget that would further damage our profession that has already been severely damaged by the continuing recession. As Christina Finkenhofer, manager for AIA Federal Relations, noted in her recent report, “AIA members have stressed that cuts disproportionately affecting the built environment will stunt America’s growth, jeopardize the safety and reliability of the country’s infrastructure, and stifle the already struggling economy. Only time will tell whether the Committee agrees with that assessment.”
While the AIA is technically correct in its assessment of the importance of the built environment (no surprise there), it is ignoring the fact that this is a very narrow interpretation, one that is solely concerned with the architecture industry and seemingly cares nothing for anyone else. It also ignores the opportunity posed by OWS to inflect its lobbying efforts toward a greater good, which is the re-structuring of the financial and banking sectors and an end to Bush-era deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. Repeatedly, the AIA has shown itself ignorant to the fact that sound financial practices that promote the growth of a strong working- and middle-class (and by extension a stronger upper-class) will strengthen architecture as an economic sector. That is the true trickle-down theory at work—though it’s more trickle up.
Therefore while the AIA might be interested in helping to protect the narrow interests of wealthy clients it should keep in mind that it would do much better in the long-run to support the wider interests of the middle majority, the vast numbers of people currently being represented by the concerns of #OWS. The reason #OWS is growing in popularity is because increasing numbers of rank-and-file citizens, feel #OWS better reflects their concerns about the economy than the government.
Attempts to gather information concerning #OWS from architects and architecture
students have been met with silence so far. It is likely that people in the profession don’t see how it is relevant to them. This passivity might be aggravated by either generation or by one’s membership in either the management class or the architectural working class.
But when it comes to the economic well-being of the nation, especially with the possibility of a “double-dip” recession looming, architects have more in common with #OWS than might be apparent. They, along with the AIA, should be on the same side of the economic argument. After all, architects are famous for making utopian proposals. Then how about making a utopian proposal rooted in sound economic principals that will foster long-term growth and lead to greater economic stability? The middle has been weakened and chipped away at for the last three decades and we are now seeing the outcomes of this. And that fact has not served architecture well (despite the nice projects you see in the glossy magazines—that is only a small part of the picture).
So, here is a utopia to imagine: Imagine a society where there is a strong working- and middle-class that is well-educated in public schools funded by taxes and that these well- educated folk are interested in the health and beauty of their built environments. Imagine the middle majority in financial positions stable and well-off enough to hire architects for custom homes and “green” renovations on existing homes (there was a time when architects did homes that were not merely for the super-rich but for the middle because the middle could afford it). Imagine architects being able to run their businesses so that all their employees were in the middle class, able to pay off their student loans and able to purchase architecture of their own. Just imagine the impact this would have on the crumbling built environment, on people’s shattered optimism and confidence. Imagine what architecture could do with a fraction of the passion being expressed by the swelling ranks of #OWS. This is why architects should pay attention to what is finally being expressed by the people.
--
Archinect's anonymous #ows survey is closed. Thanks to all of you who participated! The results will be analyzed and shared in next week's Contours feature article.
Guy Horton is a Los Angeles writer and author of the critical blog, The Indicator on ArchDaily.com, which covers issues ranging from the culture, politics, and business of architecture to theory and aesthetics. He is a frequent contributor to The Architect's Newspaper, The Atlantic Cities ...
5 Comments
Guy Horton is certainly a cheerleader of Architecture with his utopia idea. However, his argument is weakened when he calls "tax the rich" and in the next paragraph implores architects to "stop asking for handouts." I want to hear Mr. Horton's process behind how taxing the rich will lead to young people like myself eventually being able to afford to buy a piece of architecture for myself one day. I think we all need to take more responsibility for our own futures. I would love to see the Horton Utopia but I would love to see it achieved because those middle class 99 percent-ers used their minds to innovate and their bodies create that dream for themselves. A self-made middle class will have the esteem and fortitude that will make our economy truly sustainable.
Guy, while i would agree that "Architecture, as an economic sector, wins when these basic economic principals are being strengthened" and fully support all attempts to further equality (income, racial, gender etc), i wonder if the idea that "Architecture needs more consumers, not less" isn't part of the problem. Wasn't the growth of architecture commoditized in character and focused on consumption part of where architecture and the markets (housing, financial etc) and we have gone wrong in recent years?
From celebrity buildings and architects as marketing tool to rampant development and CDOs? I feel as if they are two sides of the same coin...
Isn't there a way forward for architects that moves from a consumption to service based model? Perhaps a de-materialization or even re-materialization of architecture? One less product and more productive?
I think the idea of a client and or a problem has to be readdressed. If the economy continues as is which is likely due to the roadblocks congress as an institution has in place we cannot expect this president to even attempt a public works projects like that of the New Deal era where artist, architects and other craftsmen were employed. The New deal got as many people back to work as possible to relive the despair long term unemployment brought to the middle and working class. The New Deal also preserved our base of technical skills needed when the economy recovered. The New Deal made the war effort and the mobilization possible by keeping our engineering, construction and architecture firms mostly intact, while creating the opportunity to innovate in design and construction techniques.
We need to start allocating stimulus in quantifiable terms, in jobs, direct employment by the government to construct a specific thing. This could be schools, bridges, parks, but the feds need to own the project from design to construction and every person on the job swinging a hammer or drafting plans needs to work for the feds or the state, cut out the middle men who skim profits off the top and just get architects, designers, artist and engineers out of retail and survivor jobs and on to something relevant, even if the pay is not much better we as a country can ill afford to lose a generation of skilled design professionals and thus fall behind as China and India become the dominant super powers.
We as a profession have to figure out what our future needs will be in terms of the people and skills and do more to preserve them. How can a firm or a school or a concerned group of unemployed or underemployed aspiring architects do something to hold together the profession of architecture?
How can we help each other to stay the course?
It is hard to stay in the architecture profession and it is even harder to get in, but should we let people in, how many and who should have to make room for those new people?
To advance as an intern in the US you have to complete your IDP Intern Development Program, You have several options to gain training hours outside of the traditional office but you still need a job and to work 15 hours a week minimum.
How can a firm take on a few 15 hour a week interns? Is it even possible for someone to earn their keep if they are in the office only 2 days a week? I do believe that 15 hours a week can be enough, barely enough to hold on to some people. In this profession being sidelined is worse than having pay and hours cut since you have to practice design, not just know it.
So to those who are working or own a firm, how much can you sacrifice to help hold on to your colleagues? Are you certain you can do without them when things pick up? Will you have to scramble, rush, pay huge amounts of overtime, burn out your brightest stars, or make costly mistakes when the deadlines start to pile up? Our military maintains reserves and the National Guard to pick up the slack, where are the reserves for the Architecture profession if we should have an economic recovery?
PROTEST UNPAID INTERNSHIPS.
and schools charging students for "class credit" for internships........
When I watched a video about OccupyParis I got a sense of architectural space. The place of the French utopian business quarter LaDefense is quite hostile to civic unrest or manifestations and dwarfs citizens. No one resides in La defense, you have to take the tube and cross the giant windy place. You simply don't have to crack down on La Defense OccupyFrance protesters because the architecture of the location does it for you. That the French Gendarmes did approach the Occupy crowd was superfluos. The place of La Defense is built in a way that makes it very simple to manage a crowd, to enable more police on site etc.
Modernist architecture does not leave an open space for civic unrest. Some sources argue that modern Paris Boulevards were build to simplify police/troops access. Indeed, for building 19 century barricades you need a suitable small street.
Architecture in that sense can be an enabler and disabler of these manifestations. The Grand Arch of La Defense is "architectura contra homine", a manifestation of mere power.
Ironically the skyscraper area La Defense commemorates the French citizen's defense of Paris in the Franco-Prussian war.
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.