You mean prominent for being racist and xenophobic? Oh yeah. A Trump supporter kid in my class being all ugly towards other black and international students is what I can think of. He might have a big career, but good luck make through our theory class with all the inclusive design discussions.

That's pretty diminutive of what a '' republican " is. Not all republicans are pro-trump, and not all trump supporters are necessarily racists. It's more complex than that.

Of course it's more complex than that. "Prominent for" is not an equal sign. And I speak on what I saw in academic institutes. Maybe they suddenly become nice people in work space. You would wish so

This is true.

Excellent response, thank you.

I think he's really more a thing unto itself, rather than a republican... or even conservative. But yes. Perhaps ZHA is now the closest thing to a conservative architecture firm in the public eye. Haha. 

An anarcho-capitalist is much further from a fascist than an American democratic or “liberal” I’m sure more people understand string theory than a basic political compass.

I think people have Patrik Schumacher all wrong...he said at a conference that also private companies could run “public” spaces and that leaving everything up the public sector is not the solution all the time...analytically he is not that far off, he’s just everybody’s favourite piñata when Bjarne is not available.

*Bjarne=Bjarke(Ingels)...

Schumacher's got some pretty fascist ideas.

Really? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jan/17/architect-patrik-schumacher-depicted-fascist-zaha-hadid

I think it's the hair.

“ Schumacher's got some pretty fascist ideas.” citations needed

.

“ Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.”. Need to be careful with switching definitions. anarcho-capitalism is not fascism. It’s essentially the opposite. Fascism cannot exist without a state, and anarchism is by definition stateless

Fair enough, though we can pull different definitions from different sources. I'll concede on that. The point stands that recommending that all public spaces be handed over to private companies is superbly anti-democratic.

That's first and foremost anti-public sector and not anti-democratic. Civil servants are a non-democratic entity in our societies (at least in Europe), they are the real deciders irregardless of who is in office, they can't really be controlled or held accountable...

You mean people who believe in capitalism are better at it? What a coincidence.

Maybe reverse that causation jla. People who benefit most from a system are most invested in its continuance.

Maybe reverse that causation tduds. People who can’t manage to succeed in a system are most invested in its demise.

Both true.

I'd add, though, that while some people do merely fail on their own, some people can't succeed within a system because that system exists to oppress them.

Yes, I'm being deliberately vague because these conditions exist within many, perhaps most, dominant systems in the world today.

One can argue that a socialist system exists to oppress the exceptional and industrious.

Holy shit you're both right. What's the world coming to?

Agree on leaving the politics at the door. I had a boss that would send out emails advocating we exercise our right to vote in certain ways. He never went so far to endorse a particular candidate, but there were a lot of ballot measures that he felt we should vote for in the way he wanted us to, especially if it was anything that would impact the way he ran the business, or his approach to retirement. He generally sucked as an employer.

Hard to imagine anyone in business being a socialist.

I was going to say that anybody who works in "PRC" is a socialist, but "PRC" is not a communist, nor even a "socialist" state in a true sense. It's a full blown fascist dictatorship of the worst kind. Pretending to be communist where everyone is supposed to be equal; no rich no poor, but full of millionaires who got rich by shady, and corrupt means. Oh yeah, we shouldn't forget "re-education camps" either. In my opinion, anybody who does work there should be shunned be they an architect or car manufacturer from the west. We will see in the next little while how buddy-buddy Biden becomes with them. Yeah, not directly related to the OP's comment, but close enough as it involves architects.

The PRC is state-capitalist. Communist in name only. & they *definitely* aren't Republicans. This thread is unraveling.

Republicans are more conservative than Democrats, wouldn't you agree? Change to the Republicans is not always ideal or the right way to run our lives. No?

Yes Republicans are, on the whole, more conservative than Democrats.

"Change to the Republicans is not always ideal or the right way to run our lives. No?" I'm not sure what you're saying here.

my comment got chopped off, so here it goes;

Republicans are more conservative than Democrats, wouldn't you agree? Change to the Republicans is not always ideal or the right way to run our lives. No?

Same thing with the commies. Once the system is in, they don't want any changes, because, by definition, communist system is a perfect system...so, they say.

So, there is the similarities.

No offence to either nor to the Democrats. Funny, I was born in a communist country, lived part of it in a socialist system, and now live in a full blown capitalist (or as we were told as kids, fascist) system. So, here I stand on the sidelines and watch with some amusement US and World politics as it unfolds...

Communism and fascism are not too different.

apscoradiales - your comment (I'm unsure if intentionally) gets at a point I was making below. The very idea that "The Republican System" is what they seek to preserve is at odds with democracy. We don't live in a Republican (big R) country, we live in an ostensibly democratic (small d) one. Accountability to the electorate undergirds the stability of the country, and one party has chosen to deny that. Democracy means sometimes you lose, the actions of the GOP in this decade have shown they've forgotten this principle.

This is what I mean when I say the Republican Party is a fascist party. Autocratic or authoritarian might be a more accurate descriptor, but you get the idea.

I understand, and agree!

Ah Yes, Both Sides.

Since you seem to be genuinely curious : Democratic party platforms broadly attempt to use government as a redistributive force and a safety net for increasing equity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Republican Party platforms... well they literally don't have one right now, but in the past they broadly attempted to induce economic growth through deregulation and "free market" principles, on the idea that it will eventually lead to greater prosperity for all. Again, sometimes it worked but more often it did not. There's also social policy, which I won't get into at the moment but they align more or less with D = hands on and R = hands off.

I disagree with a lot of Democratic policy, but I agree with some Democratic policy. I disagree with almost all Republican policy, but I do agree with a little bit. 

That said, the striking difference over the past decade or so has been that the Republican party has shifted its efforts away from convincing the majority that its policies are worth voting for, and towards disenfranchising enough of the population to maintain a narrow margin in elections. Voter ID laws, REDMAP, overturning the Voting Rights Act, purging ballots, closing poling places... when that fails, challenging ballots in court and sowing a false narrative of "fraud", when *that* fails, denying quorum, walking out, shutting government down, filibustering, and - well, this week a literal attempted coup. 

I'll battle the Democrats on policy, but the Republicans are blatantly anti-democracy. My stance is that the Republican party should wither and die, so the Democratic party can take its correct position as the center-right American political party. Only then will there be a possibility of an actual progressive voice in US politics. But that's just my opinion.

(I don't have time right now to link citations to all of the above but if there's enough interest I'll come back with receipts later)

Somehow, people are leaving blue states for red states. Blue states are

failing, but nevermind evidence of failed tax policies and all that, all you need to know is that Dems are good and republicans are bad. Amen and Awomen to that.

"all you need to know is that Dems are good and republicans are bad" Not even close to all you need to know.

I don't think "red states" and "blue states" exist. Every state has a mix of liberal and conservative areas, and sometimes those areas don't even correlate respectively with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support. Red/Blue is a reductive binary that ignores much of the reality of America. 

Population shift, perfect example: I think there is a small but noticeable influx of people from high priced urban areas to lower priced rural areas, but that trend is much more driven by affordability and culture. My wife and I, for example, are progressives living on the edge of a metro area, closer to wilderness than downtown. That the area is more conservative is on one hand incidental, but on the other hand our arrival and subsequent involvement (along with many neighbors in similar situations) is pushing the area towards more progressive local policy. People take their ideas with them, political trends often follow population, rarely the other way around.

Happy to discuss the validity of anything I've said with people willing to provide cogent counterpoints with sources. Otherwise I'm disengaging after this comment.

Context? It’s all relative. Architect I know that is pretty middle of the road moderate is seen as a right-wing nut job around here. But when he was working in a conservative area he was seen as a bleeding heart liberal. Nothing changed except for the context.

I say this all the time. To my educated, privileged friends I'm probably seen as leaning right. To my clients and professional non-architect colleagues, I'm sure I'm seen as a extreme left wing. Context matters

Well your credibility vanished when you trying to imply all non-conservatives as socialist and mixing up socialism communism fascism. Speaking of definition, maybe you need a dictionary first lol

How does that work?

"In every American community, you have varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. 10 degrees to the left of center in good times, 10 degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. So here, then, is a lesson in safe logic"

Rusty: duhhhdurp. Also Rusty: duhhhdurp

No ugly nazis though.

George Costanza: Didja see the way she was looking at me? Jerry Seinfeld: She's a Nazi, George. A Nazi! George Costanza: I know, I know. Kind of a cute Nazi though.

I am honestly curious to hear your explanation of what you think white privilege is.

Not engaging. Been through this so many times with multiple people. Nothing anyone can say can convince me otherwise. It is a concept that is propagated by academics for their new research that justifies the steep tuition in institutions, and ultimately brainwashes people.

For the record, I won't try to convince you that white privilege exists, I am genuinely curious to hear your definition of it.

My position: there are racists in any organization, beit police, corporations, or any other type of community

(Clicked submit too fast) bear with me:

Few people truly discriminate against people solely based on skin color. They discriminate against perceived class and like in any business involving clients with a lot of money, employers want their employees to “fit in” when having client contact. This is not to say that client, employee, and employer have to be equal financially; they must be intellectually and culturally compatible. People want to do business with people they trust.

Few people truly discriminate against people solely based on skin color. They discriminate against perceived class and like in any business involving clients with a lot of money, employers want their employees to “fit in” when having client contact. This is not to say that client, employee, and employer have to be equal financially; they must be intellectually and culturally compatible. People want to do business with people they trust.

There is no privilege to being white if you are able

Thanks for answering.

"There is no privilege to being white if you are able" ...defines white privilege, I think.

Read my post below. It got cut off.

I understand, but it still works.

So a registered republican holding some democratic values

Classic "Social liberal, economic conservative" 

"The problems are bad, but their causes are very good."

This is only true because we are making small progress. Tell this to a white hick in the 50s if you could get him to stop being racist for just A MINUTE...

Just like I won’t hire someone who shows up to an interview who sags his pants. It is human nature to

Want to be in business with he/she who can have the potential of maximizing your profit.

Bulgar, that's literally white privilege, when race can be such a huge contributor to that feeling of "who's going to maximize my profit" when 99% of firm owners are white. It seems to be a blind spot for you, as you benefit from that privilege. Your denial doesn't change that.

Here’s the deal. The rhetoric of White privilege is too general and doesn’t take into account the many factors that create privileges and disadvantages in our lives. However, being black comes with a baked in disadvantage. My brother in law is black, and he’s also a contractor (different kind). He has a hard time with homeowners letting him in their homes to do his work. He was talking to me for hours about this last week. His problem can’t be overcome by working harder or changing his clothes. Most disadvantages that whites have are somewhat within their ability to change other than being ugly or something. This problem really negatively affects his
business.

White privilege is another bad choice of words to explain a real legitimate
thing.

"Privilege" was one of those words that existed in academia with a very specific context, but leaked into the mainstream and was taken up (both for and against) by people who misunderstand or deliberately disregard the context. I see this sort of thing a lot, the drift or outright hijacking of words. It causes a whole lot of problems.

Anyway, people who judge others based on their skin color, accent, mannerisms, or clothing choices are imo very stupid. Their loss. They are also going to miss out on a huge talent pool of the population because of their ignorant mindset. So maybe you think you’re “maximizing profit” but for what? To appease ignorant clientele? And at the expense of what? Stifling the creative potential of your company....

I was curious as well. There is so much stereotyping about people's 'beliefs' with political affiliation that some just can not believe you belong to one political group yet disagree with certain policies. Who would believe there might exist Republicans who believe in public housing projects, humane treatment of immigrants and cares about the environment? And on the flipside, who doesn't believe all Democrats want to redistribute other people's wealth while they build a socialist utopia for those who don't want to work? Afterall, it should be impossible for any 'good' architect who cares about the environment to be a Republican... just as it would be impossible for a Democrat architect to take on a project just because it pays well without considering net-zero buildings... Please don't tell me all the stereotypes may not actually reflect individual people's thoughts.

Entirely agree. My earlier response touched on the dulling of the progressive perspective when it comes to architecture, but in reality I think it tends to have a centering quality for either side.

That's just not true in any way.

Care to elaborate?

I'll bite. I have found that as a designer focused on healthy homes with minimal environmental impact, I tend to work well with left-leaning clients but not with right-leaning clients. I may like them personally, but things that I consider core principles that they may agree to consider are the first to be jettisoned when the budget comes into play. After going through this dozens of times, I have learned to test their commitment to these principles before entering into an agreement. Same for coworkers and builders--if we don't share core values, I am not going to enjoy working with you, and at this point in my career I don't have to. You may not think that things like IAQ and climate impact are political, but my experience says they are.

Edit: on some occasions I have found enough common ground with right-leaning libertarians to work together; I have two big (for me) projects with those types right now. 

Thank you Wood Guy, that was really helpful :)

Serious question WG - how do you "test their commitment to these principles before entering into an agreement" ?

Maybe "test" isn't the best word. I explain my position and experience, tell them that I have found that these issues are so important to me that I'm not interested in doing projects where they aren't a priority. I explain that I'm not militant about it but that I want the equivalent of a handshake agreement that we will do our best to build a "green" home. I reinforce those ideas at every step. I send articles I have written that explain my position--often this one, though it has a few minor errors: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2018/11/02/climate-change-builders-biggest-opportunity.

Nice article, Wood. Bit of a tangent to the thread, but I have to say I'm surprised how uncommon CLT is in the US! I've recently seen that there is a proposal in Vancouver CA for 'the worlds tallest passivhaus', which I'm sure you'll have seen.

Is this something that is generally politicised with clients? Right leaning people are less likely to build 'green'?

Thank you. I have others that are more technically oriented. CLT is gaining popularity in commercial buildings but just doesn't price out well for residential-scale projects. I don't know what the driver is but yes, in my experience there are very few conservatives who build green. "Green" is an imprecise term, and can include elements that libertarians (right or left leaning) like. But a core principle of green building is to reduce environmental impact, and I don't know of any conservatives who think it's worth thinking about their impact. In fact I would call that a core belief of conservatives, without judgement.

Personally WD I think it would be fun to work with you!

When green building shifts from a voluntary pursuit to a plethora of government mandated rules, conservatives have a problem with it. It goes against their ideas of limited government influence in citizen's affairs.

I'm pretty sure WG is neither A) the government, or B) mandating rules.

I'm pretty sure WG is using his heightened position to leverage where his services go - which is, ironically, a market-based argument, so I'm sure you should be on board with it yes?

Also I'd probably get on board with working for WG as well. Been trying to figure out how i could incorporate more sustainable approaches into my work, although it is on basically the exact opposite scale of small residential..

Thanks Chad, and Bench! You may find otherwise in practice ;-)

Thisisnotmyname, although I'm a Passive House consultant, the vast majority of what I do follows Pretty Good House principles: https://www.prettygoodhouse.org/. (I wrote most of the content and linked articles.) The basic philosophy is making energy improvements until they stop making financial sense, and using healthy, low-carbon materials when possible. No government involvement. Even showing decent financial returns and health benefits, most conservatives I have worked with prioritize low initial cost and aesthetics, and seem to be particularly fond of spray foam. Just an observation.

So it would appear that conservative clients tend to focus on the upfront cost and/or speed of build rather than the long term operating costs and environmental impact.

^^this. every goddamn day THIS.^^

Jaetten, yes, I would say that's accurate. But they may spend more for things that matter to them--just not things that affect their health, or others' health. It's a gross generalization but in my experience it's accurate.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating any position here, just relaying the sentiments expressed to me by others in the course of working on projects. The conservatives I am acquainted with have, in their minds, linked green building to government overreach. Another wrinkle is that, in the USA, companies that oppose environmental regulation are vastly more influential in conservative circles than any environmental-friendly thinkers who may be present in that community.

I don't think Conservative clients are against doing environmentally responsible design, especially if it is a feature that can help sell or lease their finished project. The priorities are in different order for those clients, but if they could they would probably want high energy efficiency and as little environmental damage as possible while still getting the return on investment they need to be able to move on to the next project. For example, a higher level of insulation and reducing west facing windows increases cost of the building envelope but decreases the size of the HVAC equipment needed is a much easier sell than to stop global warming we need R 40 everywhere.

Peter, I'm not making it up, on many occasions I have had clients who I'm sure are conservative (or libertarian) say outright that they are not interested in considering the environment, they just don't want to spend more than necessary to heat and cool their homes. I had one client who wanted me to design a replacement cottage for him, about 20' from the ocean's edge. When I brought up climate change and sea rise he took me to his boat house and showed me where high tide came to when he was a kid, and said it comes to the same height now. (1-3cm is hard to see.) Others, on many occasions, when I say early in the process that I try to find alternatives to climate-damaging spray foam and have earth-friendly options for most situations, tell me they don't want anything but spray foam. For over ten years I worked at a firm where most of our clientele were conservatives (or Susan Collins-supporting Democrats, which is about the same thing) and I could NEVER convince them to do any energy upgrades beyond code-minimum. For the six years I've been on my own, I've had mostly progressive clients, and the ones who are not stand out sharply. YMMV.

It’s sometimes hard to tell the political lean of clients, but I have found that environmentally conscious solutions are universally acceptable, but sometimes the sell needs to be tailored to the client. For example, I may sell the idea of using native plants to one person by emphasizing their positive role in the urban ecology, while emphasizing their low maintenance benefits to another person. I may talk about using less hardscape to reduce heat island to one person, to maximize efficiency and reduce cost to another person, or to feel proportional to another person. It’s all about feeling out the clients man objectives and concerns.

Huh, I never thought of finding out what's important to a client and tailoring my sales pitch to that. (Where's the eye roll emoji?)

I’m sure you have, but not everyone who reads this thread has experience. I’ve seen new people frustrated over their inability to convey the importance of sustainability. The pitch that worked in academia is not going to work in practice.

Fair enough.

More money will have to come from clients. Publicizing salaries won't achieve that, it will just hand more ammo to the clients to drive down fees while setting up a thunderdome for us to eat our own while on display instead of secretly in the back room.

The secrecy of salaries is largely based around people's unwillingness to share how much they make, lest others judge them as worth less as a result of making less money on paper. Tis a great ploy of capitalism in America to keep people from knowing their worth, by making them question it.

In Holland there are collective labour agreements for entire sectors with standard salaries, pensions, holidays, etc. If a company, such as an architecture office, works according to those collective agreements (negotiated by their unions every couple of years or so) the salaries can be easily checked...only problem is, are people being properly ranked in the correct range to their responsibilities.

AIA publishes a salary survey. It's very clear but relies on voluntary submissions of information so not deeply detailed. What Yao is thinking of is probably fee tables specifying what firms ought to charge. Even those don't make much difference though. Anyone with more than a few years experience can tell you full service architecture design should be between 6-15% of construction costs for the majority of projects, barring special situations. It doesn't matter how you actually bill or present the fee calculations- they tend to fit in this range. No one charges 50% of costs and no one lasts long at 1% of costs.

I think you are referring to the architectural fees the AIA used to publish not the salaries. There was, for a long time a book of the basic fees architects should charge based on a variety of project types and sises. this covered everything from airport control towers, to zebra enclosures at the zoo. But that was ruled as price fixing and is not allowed under our anti monopoly laws.

anti monopoly laws. Ha. What the fuck are those good for in 2021?

Didn't AIA take a stand recently against architects doing "death chambers?" A classmate of mine left Smith Group over their work on jails a little while back.

most architects are socially left, and anything but economically (aka, "bob's" buddy mfg posting anti-trump memes while treating his office with top-down authority and not paying interns). it's a really important distinction to make.

Yep! Well said, pnj02c.