So I posted before I had any thoughts of my own about this,,,needed some time to mull it over...

I guess I take issue with the dismissal of this design challenge. After all, public spaces, in any shape, size, location, are areas of potential contention. It becomes political by default, as you have numerous parties with various, often times, conflicting interests. To dismiss the challenge proposed by the Times to think about the border condition between countries, and the network of potential pitfalls and political issues that arise by the proposal, seems...well...like a cop out, really. At least to me. Shouldn't we embrace these types of challenges, both as a way to question the actually conditions set by the proposal as well as the number of "solutions" already being considered? Rather than being "silly", isn't this exactly the type of work architecture, as a profession, should be trying to participate in?

Woo go Penn. Corner and Norten both teach at Penn. I say sharks and ninja. WOW! Ninja RIDING sharks! With machine guns.

how about auschwitz?

ok, extreme comparison, but the fence is stupid. borders of that kind first of all don't work and second, they make more problems than they solve.

d and s were right on to refuse it. some things architects just shouldn't be inolved in.

to paraphrase Carl Sagan on science and politics:

"surely some of the blaim for the development of the most terible and destructive weapons lies with the scientists for whom the interest and challenge of the work itself outweighed their consideration of the end product"

the problem is that it appears that 'challenging' the condition of the fence isnt really on the agenda, just make it look nice from the american side, seems to be closer.

some of the suggestions are terrible, EOM's remindes me of those ultraviolet bug zappers, like a lantern, drawing everyone in then sending them away after having a look at how the other side is living, what kind of social interaction can really occur when the very thing that is supposedly facilitating the interaction is actually designed to stop it?

"Antoine Predock, based in Albuquerque, "dematerialized" the fence, he explained, with a physical wall designed as a mirage. An earthwork of rammed, tilted dirt would be pushed into place by Mexican day laborers. Crushed rock scattered before it, and heated from below, would appear to lift it off the ground, in the way that heat in the desert appears to make objects hover, like mirages.

"There would be confusion about the materiality of the wall," Mr. Predock explained. "It would discourage you from crossing, but the message from both sides would be one of good will."

bullshit. how is that any different to a landlord getting his pesants to dig a ha-ha around his estate to hide the undesirables while avoiding the incovenince of a wall ruining the view?

'making the unwelcoming welcoming'. so what, the immigrant turns away and says 'oh well, at least we were stopped by a nice fence'.

Well said, u-d. It does really seem like an acceptance of the design challenge (and reframing it as something positive, like a "productive, sustainable enterprise zone") makes the designer complicit in defending the wall itself. And a refusal to participate is a decided form of resistance. Though ... maybe someone could have expressed that protest by submitting some visualizations of the border realities.

I agree ... I think framing this as a design issue is incredibly wrongheaded and shortsighted.

I would say the submittals were shortsighted - they didn't take advantage of the challenge and submit work that challenges the wall, either the need for it or they way it is expressed; I think Enrique norten started something in proposing a continuous infrastructure between the two countries, which acknowledges the economic interdependence we have. That's interesting, to me, and as a design proposal, I think it begins to ask people to reconsider the conditions of the challenge itself. But it wasn't enough.

I guess, for the most part, in this design challenge specifically, everyone seemed to deal with aesthetic issues. And, for me, yeah, it becomes really problematic, for the reasons you mention Heather.

But, I would hope that, if further challenges like this were proposed, there would be architects willing to use their design skills to reconfigure the conditions of the challenge itself, and propose something that makes people think of new ways to solve the conflict.

Is that over-reaching?

A wall for the intended purpose is an ugly thing. If it was well designed it would still be an ugly thing.

The NYT seems to take for granted that design can act redemptively. The more interesting question for me is: what are the limits of the redemptive capacity of design?

Hasselhoff: We got the american version of ninja riding sharks with machine guns....they're the minutemen militita with chevy pick-ups and shotguns. They're already camping out...I wish I were joking...

Good point, afga8x .... it seems people are good at identifying the limits of design, but often do not question the extent of its freedom.

Is there a site to view all the entries?

Dyee, I'd be interested to know what you would propose instead. It seems to me that those designs, Predock's aside, did indeed challenge the idea of what a wall is and why purpose it would serve. It's not beneficial to our profession to make us irrelevant by saying we won't touch something. We're the only profession that can actually create vibrant and sustainable places when the alternative ("designed" by engineerings and policy-makers) would be bland, barren and lifeless.

I particularly see Corner's as almost a deceit to those who want a wall. By proposing a zone of sustainable energy production and business interaction, he's saying, ok, let's build this thing that basically functions as a wall for now, but what it's really doing is helping us become more energy independent while creating jobs for people. Any macro-economist would tell you that economically isolating a nation is a death sentence. An engineer isn't going to think about broader issues like that. We're saying we realize that a wall is essentially bad policy, but using our power to influence program to make it something more, something that could perhaps eventually replace a wall while temporarily satisfying the people in charge.

In longer ranger terms, of course we should be more active in influencing policy, but this is a short-term issue and we, as a politically flaccid profession, have no power other than our creativity to make something better than the base alternative. Curling up and saying that we won't touch it doesn't solve any problems.

unlike science and engineering professions, to design presumes a subjective position. therefore it is political.

however, taking the position that - this will be built anyway might as well make it look interesting - in my opinion is taking the wrong position. publically boycotting this project, or proposing something radically different than a wall is a way of influecing policy. i would hope that architects have some kind of conviction, otherwise i would have become a lawyer, banker, or politician.

Norten's notion of connectivity is legitamate...perhaps the only deliberately valid response of the bunch.
D/S took a fine position, but it would have been nice to see something more to back up the position.
Corner's proposal seems compromised. It's nice to create jobs and smart energy, but the problematic border condition was still embraced... ... hmmmm... maybe responsible to embrace the inevitable after all? make the most of a horrible situation?
my opinion - Corner was too quick to resign to the present reality of a fence. Maybe archtopus is right - Corner is being crafty...I would like to think that is the case.

Predock...what a joke.

dot, I'm assuming that was a response to my post, to which I can only say that I entirely agree that design is political and that proposing alternatives is a way of influencing policy. I said absolutely nothing about making something bad "look interesting". My sense is that those proposals are in fact proposing something other than a wall, or at least in addition to a wall. We really have to be prepared to do two different things. First, oppose the wall and come up with alternatives, but secondly, if that plan fails, be ready to design a better wall that achieves some of your goals while satisfying the requirements of "decider". Less bad isn't good, but it's a whole lot better than bad and unfortunately, sometimes it's the only option.

When I say we should be involved politically, it has nothing to do with design. It means actually advocating policy in the boring, policy sort of way. The difference between architects and lawyers/doctors etc is that they have codes of ethics that actually tell them to be ethicallly responsible and politically pro-active. All ours says is to be "as competent as your peers".

American cars blow.

as a strong supporter of legal immigration, i fully support a complete wall that clearly defines the edge (umm ... border?) between the u.s. and mexico as well as the u.s. and canada.

i agree that predock made a joke, and one in bad taste, at that. but had he removed the phrase 'built by mexican day laborers', i believe the general architectural public would see that his created the most intersting effects. his focus on how the structure meets the ground could actually be quite beautiful.

we should not shy away from design challanges, especially ones that support very sensible laws that benefit the hard-working legal immigrants who come to the united states to fulfill their dreams.

givemeabreak

I agree, that not participating is a cop-out and can only further the irrelevance and marginilization of architects in contemporary society.

Moss' proposal was interesting in that it completely disregarded the idea of a wall, allowing north/south and west/east passage underneath and above. But realistically, who is going to hang out and exchange ideas in the middle of the desert, unless of course they're searching for the dehydrated bodies of those trying to pass into the promised land.

Predock's was if anything disturbing and completely inappropriate, a lava pit might be less insulting, at least then we would be straight forward in our message.

Norton's, while underdeveloped was definitely the best. Commerce and interconnectivity instead of isolation, it's ideas like this that sometimes only architects can be audacious enough to suggest. I hope Mr. Socifdio takes note and regrets his decision.

archtopus, like AP was saying, Norten's proposal is the only legitimate alternative. i think the others are walls, no matter how you look at it.

to concede by designing a 'better wall' would demonstrate a lack of conviction and would weaken our influence.

upsidedown, thank you so much for that quote. well said.

architects have long been willing to subsume whatever abstract morals and/or convictions they might have in order to get a piece of the design pie. part of this is a long-standing myth within the profession that we are alchemists -- in other words, that architects can turn shit to gold.

this competition is just one example. corb in vichy france, speer in nazi germany, niemeyer the communist doing prada stores...all some more examples.

i am way less liberal than most of those architects (and most of y'all) but i think building a giant wall between what is still part of mexico and what used to be part of mexico is a expensive, brutal, and ultimately pointless endeavor. it will only reinforce the fifth-class status of the illegal immigrant in the US, because employers will utilize fear of that wall to further subsume immigrants in the morass of low wages and exploitation that they currently are drowning in. but lemme tell ya, it won't stop the flow. because 200 years ago that line on a map did not exist and just like how the berlin wall slashed a culture in two, the US/mexico border is not a border between cultures but a border through a culture.

if these architects really cared about the world outside their own designer glasses, they might use all that design energy (such as it is, these renderings having likely been made by interns whose status and wages are probably around illegal-immigrant levels) and work on making mexico a better place to live. so that maybe a reduction in the demand to cross might eliminate the need (such as there ISN'T) for any physical barrier.

fortunately architects like teddy cruz are doing just that, and somehow i'm not surprised that he is much closer to the border both physically and emotionally than a lot of the pricks who thought this might be an amusing design problem to hand off to their minions.

I like the concept behind Norten's proposal, but can we make it solar and wind powered high speed trains instead of more unsustainable freeways? Study after study proves that there's more economic potential in mass transit systems than in freeways anyway.

givemeastamp ... a design challenge that supports legal immigration? How does a wall support legal immigration? That seems like an overbroad way to describe the nature of the design challenge as well as that of the itinerant political issue. When you talk about designing a wall that "support" a particular political view, bear in mind that a wall is wall. A barrier does nothing but entrench political imprimatur ... it symbolizes only strength. If you believe in legal immigration, then enact laws that do so -- don't build a wall. The track record of such "walls" is very poor.

This is not a design issue.

"You might as well leave it to security and engineers." bullshit. i agree, d+s copped-out.

there have been many a structures throughout history that have had sensitive political issues involved but were still designed by architects who brought something inspiring to the table rather than question the nature of the project itself....

i just don't think questioning whether there should be a wall at all(however valid) should be done by the architects competing. its a conflict of interest.

what's better, a nasty utilitarian wall w/ barbed wire or a wall thats actually beautiful? unfortunately, i think that the issue in this case.

the laws are there that support legal immigration, the u.s. just has to enforce them.

a proper wall would reduce illegal crossing. please people, think of all the illegal immigrants who die in the desert each year .. this wall is much needed.

canada, the united states, and mexico are all three different countries. every country has a right to allow immigration as they see fit. the u.s. allows about 1 million legal immigrants in each year, 37% of whom are from mexico. proper border enforcement does not stop legal immigration, it slows illegal immigration to a level the u.s. can handle.

and to everyone who wants open borders (then where's the border?) george bush supports that idea. he has done nothing with regard to the problem of illegal immigration (that national guard stunt a few weeks back was a drop in the bucket of what's required). then he goes on to that gay marriage ammendment? givemeabreak, indeed.

"[graffitti artist] Banksy records on his website how an old Palestinian man said his painting made the wall look beautiful. Banksy thanked him, only to be told: 'We don't want it to be beautiful, we hate this wall. Go home.'"
unwelcome intervention

givemeastamp, i agree with you.

i have several mexican friends who came over here legally, and their view is similar. all of these illegals leapfrogging those who actually do it right is not the answer. i think they deserve an opportunity at a better life... but there are deep problems within mexico that need to be addressed and our money and aid would be better than our exploitation south of the border.

archtopus...I don't know if I have a proposal of my own...I do think that i would try to do something more along the lines of Norten, and hopefully think about ways in which we can avoid the "wall", both the physical presence that it assumes as well as the symbolism that it carries. I just think it is a short-sighted solution - one that will cost millions and do nothing to really address the central issue of immigration. And I think the "wall", either as a physical object or a political debate is a design issue...ultimately, the solutions that the government is looking at are Architectural Objects, or some type of architectural intervention. I agree with you...if we oppose the wall, then we should try and proposed solutions that challenge the need for the wall in the first place...and if that fails, we should also participate in the execution of the wall, as it will have a lasting effect on that region.

no. if we oppose the wall, then we oppose the wall. we fight against the wall. we do not participate in the execution of the wall.

simple as that.

there we go again, thinking we're the good doctors sacrificing ourselves to the good of the hospice patients.

it's like...opposing the death penalty but focusing on making sure only guilty people get executed. it's like...opposing abortion but focusing on making sure only young fetuses get aborted.

frankly, the wall makes it harder to get across...but certainly not impossible. because they'll never build a wall down the middle of the rio grande. but...once across, those illegal immigrants who do make it will be even more at the mercy of low-paying slavemasters who point a spear called "la migra" at them in order to get them to work longer and harder for less.

why is heroin so expensive, so much more so than the most addictive drug out there...nicotine? because there is DEMAND for heroin but barriers to its supply which increase its premium relative to nicotine, which isn't even regulated. extend that metaphor as you wish.

so do we redecorate the DEA uniforms so that the agents look friendlier and more accommodating? the agents'll still have guns, so what's the point? you've just muddied your own waters without cleaning up theirs.

The problem with your argument, ochona, is that things like the death penalty and abortions happen multiple times, so in the process of opposing either, you can hope to eventually completely stop one of them.

Opposing a wall is a matter of two different questions. First, should it be built? You're fine outright opposing it in that circumstance, but if you lose that argument and keep yelling the same thing, you become irrelevant. The discussion has moved on to the second question, how should it be built? You then have no answer and it gets built without your input and without the benefits of your insight. You're better off having a plan B for the second question so at least some of your wishes are incorporated.

I don't know .... the argument that a proposed wall would save lives really makes me uncomfortable.

Again, I still think framing the political creation of a wall as "architectural object" or "architectural intervention" asks the architect to venture in realms that he or she may be unequipped to deal with.

Man .. I feel old ... maybe I don't buy into the "architect as sociocultural critic" kind of thing. If an architect is indeed a sociocultural critic, then how far must he or she go?

Perhaps part of the issue revolves around defining this type of intervention? Maybe it is worthy of another category?

Anyways, good thread. Good comments and insights.

don't worry, smcss, tafuri didn't buy it either.

absolutely, great conversation.

I still think Norten's point of view is most valid. Then again, I would like to see money and focus re-directed from the Middle East to Southeast (Gulf Coast)...

archtopus, your framework is interesting, and if we accept it, I like Corner's strategy. His proposal is a sort of non-wall. It answers your 2nd question - wall as inevitable - how to proceed with this reality? In my opinion, it's too early to take this stance...provocative as it may be.

Archtopus:

"You're fine outright opposing it in that circumstance, but if you lose that argument and keep yelling the same thing, you become irrelevant."

I don't think certain politicians would agree with that statement. Certainly every Senator that voted against the Iraq war will be reaping the benefits this election cycle. And the fact that they were right 3 years ago gives their voice much more relevance now.

i think as architects we need to now our boundaries. we design buildings, end of story. yes, they can have consequences beyond the field of architecture; but if we want to change society we're in the wrong business. the twenties taught us that valuable lesson.

if we overstep our boundaries, we become like those annoying actors who think their political opinion is more valuable than others just because they're actors. there really is no more a correlation between acting/politics and architecture/politics.

Then who do you suggest we allow to solve our cross-cultural problems, politicians? oh, right, they seem to be doing a fantastic job, either 300 miles of fence or 600 miles! Architect, stockbroker, engineer, school teacher, whatever; it doesn't matter. As members of an enlightened society it is all of our duties to find better solutions to those we find simply unacceptable.

I disagree with "we design buildings, end of story". Buildings have latent effects on the surround areas...you mention the twenties, and I assume you refer to US public housing design at the time. Yes, architects thought they had solutions...and yes, the results were disasterous...but consider the model they were based upon. Corb's model in france works, and it works because it wasn't stripped of the "public excesses" that were eliminated from the US versions. Values were put on the table, and the value of money overrode the value of certain design solutions...ones that ultimately held greater importance that the decision-makers imagined. That is a mistake we can hopefully learn from and move on.

But, does that one example mean we should never think about the impact what we do has beyond the immediate considerations of client/user? In the end, what we do has more impact than simply having consequences beyond our field. Whether we like it or not, what we do does change society; hopefully, if we are conscientious, we can plan for those changes and make accomodations for things we can't plan.

The issue I have with this situation, in particular, is what Gravitas points out. The government's proposal is something built...and what is being proposed is absolutely ridiculous. I would much rather see people debating the pros/cons/options/opportunities rather than dismissing this issue as something outside our realm of interest or expertise. Because, if something is built, whatever that may be, it will have HUGE affects on our society, our international relationships, the cities and communities now lining the border. I think that makes a pretty strong argument for the relationship between politics and architecture...

...Elizabeth and Megan's projects are primarily about the people—users, clients, characters, passer-bys, observers, protagonists, good and bad guys: in short, the cast of humans that make architecture a "social science."

this is taken out of context, but reading this quote parallel to silverlake's comment seemed oddly co-incidental...

If were building walls along land....what is next walls along the Oceans which join the United States? It would be a hard sell, cause the South Hamptons and North Dakota border have nothing in common from the economic sector. Then again those Bible Thumping Conservatives might find it perfectly ok...just like they found Bush when they elected him.

i don't dismiss this as outside architecture's interest or expertise at all. indeed, architecture and politics are inevitably and inextricably intertwined and have been since at least imhotep. but it's similar to the prison issue. would you design a prison? if you would, then you would. get on it.

same with this wall. if you think this wall is right, then go for it, have at it.

but if you oppose it, then it's not in your best interest -- nay, in the interest of your position -- to make the wall nice. that quote from the palestinian is right on. we would rather have no wall at all than your pretty wall. go home.

what this is, is a design opportunity, and so many architects will insert their egos into any orifice available...no matter how filthy it is.

in 50 years or less, when the US and mexico have similar socioeconomic situations -- that is, when the US and mexico are both intensely stratified nations with humongous undereducated overworked underclasses, miniscule middle classes, and tiny yet omnipotent overclasses, then this wall won't mean a thing anyway.

i think if i were to make a proposal i would have to build a wall around all of the known illegal communities as well. you know, barricade manhattan, make sure LA is on the mexican side of the wall, that sort of thing...

the reality is that there are millions of illegal immigrants in the USA (and canada) already. what yall propose as architects to do about them? even georgie porgie knows better. the wall is stupid, ineffective, and morally questionable. brutality is not an art form and shouldn't be treated as such; auschwitz would still have been auschwitz even if the fences were covered with pink fluffy-poohs.

full disclosure i was involved for 7 years with a young lady from guatemala who snuck into the states when she was booted from her house at gunpoint by the guerillas...her family were able to stay in the states as refugees till ronnie reagan was voted in and he decided that guatemala wasn't dangerous anymore (canada disagreed, and her family made a dash to the north). that was pure politics, and a wall, well-designed or not would not have changed the situation.

while it is not exactly the same thing it is a good idea to remember that there are real people involved in the wall, and a lot of them are coming from farther south than mexico for a lot of powerful reasons. this isn't abstract and it isn't conceptual. it's political...and it needs a political solution, not some architects doing a souped-up version of trading spaces.

how is a wall morally questionable?

i keep reading comparisons to concentration camps and the berlin wall but those were under different circumstances with different purposes.

the berlin wall (and concentration camp walls) were built to keep people in the country against their will.

the u.s. wall would not stop citizens and legal aliens from leaving the states. the u.s. wall would, however, greatly reduce an illegal act: sneaking into the u.s. without going through the proper immigration procedure.

how is enforcing the law immoral?

it's more of an apartheid wall. like in south africa.

how is enforcing the law immoral?

here's one example of how.

and here's what's happened to those immoral laws:

jim crow laws were current at one point in history, and did require enforcement.

stamp, we've disagreed before so to refrain from steering this thread too far off the specific topic at hand, i'll gladly take our debate to the side if you like. feel free to email me.

the "border", such as it is, is just a line on a map. in texas it was drawn in 1836 and confirmed in 1848, which also drew the border across southern california. the US purchased most of what is now southern arizona and new mexico in (double jeopardy, folks) the gadsden purchase in 1853.

spend any amount of time in any part of texas south of san antonio and you realize HOW arbitrary that line is. hell, san antonio itself is 60%+ "hispanic" and you had better BELIEVE that a good number of its residents can claim ancestry in the area that is now south texas that goes back WAY before mexico even became a nation.

the global north and global south come together like two hands in south texas. the border is something that people cross daily: to work, to play, when they're sick, when they want to go shopping, when they want to visit their aunt across the border. how on earth can we put up a wall against that? there's not a problem with having sovereign states, and with having immigration laws, but why not make them a hell of a lot less stringent? why should someone have to break the law to find a better life?

this wall is borne out of a perception that the border is a desert, a no-man's land, and for much of its length it is. but go to tijuana or juarez and you find you're not in mexico, you're not in america...you're somewhere in between, and people want to partition that inbetweenland just like running a wall through jerusalem.

perhaps this competition is misdirected in focusing on the wall itself, the thing I like about teddy Cruz's work at the border (that I've seen anyway) is that it the fence, and the policies and system behind it are taken for what they are, a reality with which people on both sides live. his work seems instead to engage with that life on both sides, some of which may be subversive to the wall, but he clearly and principally decides that is not his job to subvert (or enforce) the wall, that will happen anyway.

some of the proposals may have had the same intention, but choosing to address the structure of the wall itself compromises that intent. better to design for how to live with the wall, or argue against its construction

once again, well said...and you can do both, you can design for how to live with it AND argue against its construction, but not if you actually touch the wall. then you've made a commitment to it....again, well said.

the migrants are not the problem- coyotes are the problem- what we need is some gizmo from acme products that the roadrunner can blow the smugglers to bits with. Destroy the debt slavery and then we won't have people dying in the desert or in the backs of vans that overturn.

We don't need a stinken fence if we deal with the economics that drive people to migrate!

At each boarder station have two lines- one for people that want to eventually assume citizenship and one for 'temporary' visitors. Charge a high fee to gain citizenship and make the temps post a bond for their entry. For the temps, deduct any social service costs and make them pay taxes for all earned income along with set a time limit for their visit. Then let them return as often as they want to- mo' money to build stuff with!

These fees should be based on the typical smuggler fees as they follow the free market value of enter the US & Canada. Legalization of immigration should profit the citizens and also remove the radical right's argument that 'illegals' cost our country money for services.