This is an interesting thread and Steven (Mr. Ward?) makes a lot of good points. The political system does play a huge role in the making of cities. After travelling through Europe I have conflicting views of cities that have had influence by a single vision. I have noticed that generally cities that have that influence (Rome & Paris) are more impressive, but at the same time I prefer cities/towns that have avoided that altogether (San Gimignano, Bruges, etc.) and have more organic/medieval influence. With Paris or Rome, the older/more organic part of town contrasts nicely with the planned parts of the cities.
In a way I do prefer the democratic model in that it allows diversity and adaptability but there are many problems with the American democratic model for construction.
Steven - thanks for the response, and the considered breakdown of the political organization involved the construction/planning process - although I'm still looking for your AIA specific post - smoething that tells me in what way you feel the AIA is beneficial to you - I am legitimately interested.
I spoke to a doctor friend last night about the AMA. It's a similar deal where one need not join but everyone does because of the benefits, apparently the AMA is a fairly powerful lobbying group. This is mostly because of the vast sums of cash involved in the practice of medecine. There is another organization altogether for the technicians which apparently does not have nearly the influence because not the same dollar sums are involved.
Now obviously the Architectural profession doesn't really generate a lot of financial capital, so if cash=power, we're screwed. Question becomes, is there another way to excercise power without cash (quick answer - yes through media control/manipulation)? Or, is there some way the profession can bacome a larger player economically (my immediate gut reaction is no).
Now, the above paragraph speaks more about the kind of power I'm looking for. I think my arguments have been a bit free ranging and have led to some slight misinterpretation - I'm not really arguing for a Robert Moses style of political power driving through single minded projects at all costs. Without debating the finer points, I do believe in our republican system. And absolutely agree that it is a messy system - and that it will remain so - I have no desire to anaesthetise it in a high modernist or fascist style of white washing everything, start fresh, make it clean. Not what I want to see - ever.
I'm saying, or asking really, what role does our profession play within that system? Is there a voice that argues for what I want as it specifically relates to architecture? The AIA appears to be it. Question becomes, what does the AIA do? How do they represent their constituents? Or more to the point - do they represent their constituents? And then more broadly - what are the set of criteria by which the AIA should be framing the pollitical discussion?
Obviously - this would be messy, not everyone will get what they want, and there would be abuses, etc. etc ad infintum - we is dirty, messy beings - I wouldn'y have it any other way.
My probelm is that Duany is the loudest voice (debatable?), he is controlling the focus of the conversation in many ways - and yet, he doesn't speak for me, he doesn't speak for you apparently, and he doesn't speak for most of the architects I know, so where is "our" voice? The AIA is all I see and they don't seem to have an actual vision for the profession - at least none clear enough for me to really understand. And quite frankly if I'm confused about the mission of the AIA I'm sure that it is even more so for those outside the profession.
But they have at least heard of the AIA so thats the first hurdle. The AIA may not be relevant or critical to the art of architecture but it is certainly underpinning the survival of the profesion.
Back to the burbs..... Is it fair to classify the early 20th century suburbs like Olmstead's Riverside, or say FLW's Oak Park with the exurban kind? In the 1920's Hemingway called Oak Park a city of broad lawns and narrow minds yet the typical 35' lot in Oak Park would hardly register on the sod measuring contest sponsered by toll brothers in a city near you somewhere. If you go to Oak Park today you will find the big boxes shoe horned into the fabric rather skillfully, as well as all the surburban consumerism people like to argue against, however these cities also seem to be an extension of the city - complete with rail and mass transit, as well as a blending down of the texture of the central city as it unwinds outwards.
First, they mantain a legal document library that is the starting point for most contracts. True they're usually added to and items struck but its a starting point that most archi's dont have time for. Imagine as a smaller practitioner to have to hire a lawyer all the time or retain one for the year...Second they do promote the profesion to industry and trade groups making the archiotect typically the point of contact people think about when they want to build. I worked for a contractor and believe me, they are increasingly becomming the point person people call to get anything done. Imagine if the AIA outlawed bow ties? Our profesions image image would shoot way up.
Messege to AIA old men wearing bowties - give it up. you make us all look like wannabe's. the bowtie was never cool, it never will be. It makes you look like eccentric old drunks trying to be noticed. Not the image people want to hire.
I would like to see the AIA do more to lower the requirements to becomming profesionaly licensed. Like an AIA vs. NCARB battle. No doubt school is critical to artistic development but the profesion is experiancing a mechanical brain drain. The nuts and bolts types are critical to justifying fees. Design is important, but in the end its the 80/20 rule....80% standard and repeat client 20% design intensive.
I think what we need is an elected Design Advocate who would propose large scale development projects for a city/region. Almost all large projects now are initiated by private interests, even when they end up getting public financing. The Design Advocate would have a budget for feasibility studies and design competitions but no power to impose design regulations. As a check on Robert Moses style megalomania, any project proposed by the D.A. would have to be approved by the City Council. It would be interesting to see a public debate about design and the future of the city in its built form before the elections for D.A.
BB - great idea - it kind of gets back to the heart of the original post/article. Getting architecture and urbansim into public discourse. A design advocate - I guess I was trying to determine if the AIA could/should/already did somehow play that role in addition to its bureaucratic role.
D.A. - whose going to run? Who would you want to be your local D.A.?
Sounds good in theory but wouldnt design advocates be another layer of beaurocracy akin to plannig commitees and appearance review boards? I find it interesting that some of our most successful public spaces in places like NYC, Boston and Chicago ( note the 19th century bias) were created by individule investment and their architects complimenting each other's works, and scaled to the 19th century way of life ie transportation. Chicago is scaled up due to the fact it was very much modeled for more efficiency, such as alleys for garbage collection and wider auto streets, after the lessons learned from its east coast predesessors. Could there be a universal human range of scale we are wired to find comfortable at urban street level? Maybe suburban city planning is best experianced at 35 mph. Then trick would be a dualistic city, a city existing as an inverse of itself when in motion.
Evil - WTC is the perfect case in point, the profession has had a woefully absent central voice. The LMDC did have an architect on it for a short period of time in the beginning but she was essentialy a lone voice with no impact and eventually resigned. The position of a D.A. should be a primarily political position not a bureaucratic one. In other words, it's not like they would work for the D.O.B. or planning commssions.
Let's not be naive - the bureacracy exists and politics are messy unpleasant, but I think it is a diservice to the profession for me as an architect to wash my hands of it and say, "I am above this, it is ugly and I don't want to get involved."
Having said that, I don't want to spend my time being an activist, it's not in my nature - I want to design buildings. But there are a lot of things going on out there right now that bug me, who do I look to to represent my interests as an architect? The AIA?
Politcally I can vote against a politician that does not share my views about architecture/design/urban issues. But typically these issues don't rate very highly on the general public's radar, unless it is something really big (like the Gehry/Ratner deal in Brooklyn) - but then the argument is usually about as complex as it's big and I don't like it. A D.A. could focus the argument. I still think that this D.A. should be a component of the AIA, someone dedicated solely to Publc Advocacy that is voted in by the members of the profession.
ok, lostinspace. here goes. 'what the AIA does for me'. i've made parts of this argument over and over in various threads over the past few years. here i just tried to gather it all in one place. i hope not to have to continue to defend the AIA anymore in the future but, if i do, i'll try to remember that my response was in this thread with a totally unrelated title. (good luck, steven.)
first, my firm pays, so it's free.
second, the AIA here is very active:
-the monthly program (sometimes more than one) is usually a tour of a new project or an information session which is good toward satisfying state board continuing ed requirements. this is how i satisfy MOST of my continuing ed requirements - without having to pay for out of town programs, etc.
-we sponsor pro bono design assistance in which teams of members and local students get together for charrettes to help communities or nonprofits (Kentucky Design Assistance Team or KyDAT). this is usually in the form of addressing urban planning/design issues, streetscape, preservation...a lot of brainstorming. these become the seeds of ideas from which small communities or neighborhoods can work toward a vision for their future development - hopefully sustainable/responsible, protecting their existing character.
-we sponsor active associate/intern members, offering free membership to one to three interns a year
-we send architects out into elementary and high schools to do introduction to architecture programs, to introduce them to thinking about the built environment, spatial thinking, and critical thinking
-we sponsor an annual tour of houses by architects, very popular, from which all proceeds go to Habitat for Humanity. very well publicized and attended, gets general public excited about more architectural solutions than what they see at homearama.
-we publish a quarterly newsletter with news about recent projects, updates on new legislation and state regs., book reviews, etc. i used to be a coeditor of this which, in addition to satisfying my desire to write, gave me some practice writing in a more 'journalistic' than academic way.
-we support the local universities (University of Kentucky and University of Louisville) through scholarships and studio sponsorship.
-the AIA does have its own lobby in washington. they not only lobby design issues (sustainability, transit, etc.) but also benefits issues. because of this lobby there was a big tax benefit for architects/business owners last year. it's not a powerful lobby yet, but that may simply be because the AIA is, compared to AMA and others, a relatively lesser-funded one. also because we don't speak with one voice very often. the AIA's lobbying efforts work at state as well as national levels. there has been a lot of effort expended in protecting the title 'registered architect' so that engineers can't simply assume the title (as was tried in TX recently) or that interior designers can't be called architects without similar educational/experience requirements.
-AIA documents are used throughout the profession and beyond the profession, in the construction industry at large. as someone said before, these are sound documents that have been vetted over time. you don't have to hire a lawyer to have a document that protects you in your work. (and these docs are available to nonmembers.)
-it's a support network. because of the AIA, architects in my community all tend to know (or at least know of) each other and know what's going on. it keeps us connected and we share info, advice, experiences.
- to an extent, it's a voice for local architecture community in issues of the local built environment. i've only known the board to take a position on things once in a while. usually they do an informal poll of a bunch of members and then vote as a board. they're very careful about using this, however, because - as you might expect - you'll never find an issue on which all architects agree so the organization taking a position that might be counter to some of its members' beliefs gets tricky...
-there are a good number of discounted things that are available through the AIA, including life insurance, car rentals, hotels if you've got business travel, etc. i used to think these were goofy product placement things until i started to use them. (about the same discounts as AAA, though, if you've already got that.)
-...and then you do get a subscription to ArchRecord.
i'm sure there is even more that i'm not thinking of right now, but key is that it's only worth it if the local architecture community gets together and makes something of it. you can't wait to be served by the AIA, especially if you're not a member and hope to gain benefit from it by it simply representing the profession. the AIA is only as good as the members willing to get involved with it. it's not just a 'they', at least not at the local level.
We're back at the old power / responsibility issue. Architects infrequently use knowledge as power and yet often they feel responsibility because of their knowledge.
I was reading, with horrified fascination, about the way in which the Israeli military have been co-opting post-structuralist and specifically architectural interpetations thereof to achieve operational tactics (see news section.)
This morning I was at a meeting that seemed to be transforming the primary schools I'm architect for into a sort of Ryker's Island due to the web of financial pressures created by local council, insurers, FM and Construction wings of the client body and here was me, poor li'l humanist architect, wide-eyed in despair over this garrisoning of what should be public domain. At this tiny level I'm straightaway outgunned... so control over cities? I'm getting my just-purchased 'easy-access-Deleuze & Guittari' book by John Rachmann out once I get home this evening...
Steven, don’t take this the wrong way, but what you have described goes beyond a "club" role, which only confuses me even more. No need to reiterate the facts – I get it - but the AIA obviously provides services to you and your community, which go beyond the typical club role (e.g. Washington lobbying; and providing a "voice" to the local architecture community versus social interest, common interests, discounts etc.)…
Can you name any issue at any time that the AIA offered advocacy or lobbyist efforts in Washington, and what was the outcome? Win or lose?
Steven - I am but a babe tugging at your pant leg my man - nice response. I'll come back in about 1 years time at which point I should be registered and looking at possible membership, to tell you any new thoughts I may have. I suspect AIANY may be a bit different but I am now, more than ever before interested in finding out. Until then I retreat in silence....
City plans? Hand me the matches!
This is an interesting thread and Steven (Mr. Ward?) makes a lot of good points. The political system does play a huge role in the making of cities. After travelling through Europe I have conflicting views of cities that have had influence by a single vision. I have noticed that generally cities that have that influence (Rome & Paris) are more impressive, but at the same time I prefer cities/towns that have avoided that altogether (San Gimignano, Bruges, etc.) and have more organic/medieval influence. With Paris or Rome, the older/more organic part of town contrasts nicely with the planned parts of the cities.
In a way I do prefer the democratic model in that it allows diversity and adaptability but there are many problems with the American democratic model for construction.
Steven - thanks for the response, and the considered breakdown of the political organization involved the construction/planning process - although I'm still looking for your AIA specific post - smoething that tells me in what way you feel the AIA is beneficial to you - I am legitimately interested.
I spoke to a doctor friend last night about the AMA. It's a similar deal where one need not join but everyone does because of the benefits, apparently the AMA is a fairly powerful lobbying group. This is mostly because of the vast sums of cash involved in the practice of medecine. There is another organization altogether for the technicians which apparently does not have nearly the influence because not the same dollar sums are involved.
Now obviously the Architectural profession doesn't really generate a lot of financial capital, so if cash=power, we're screwed. Question becomes, is there another way to excercise power without cash (quick answer - yes through media control/manipulation)? Or, is there some way the profession can bacome a larger player economically (my immediate gut reaction is no).
Now, the above paragraph speaks more about the kind of power I'm looking for. I think my arguments have been a bit free ranging and have led to some slight misinterpretation - I'm not really arguing for a Robert Moses style of political power driving through single minded projects at all costs. Without debating the finer points, I do believe in our republican system. And absolutely agree that it is a messy system - and that it will remain so - I have no desire to anaesthetise it in a high modernist or fascist style of white washing everything, start fresh, make it clean. Not what I want to see - ever.
I'm saying, or asking really, what role does our profession play within that system? Is there a voice that argues for what I want as it specifically relates to architecture? The AIA appears to be it. Question becomes, what does the AIA do? How do they represent their constituents? Or more to the point - do they represent their constituents? And then more broadly - what are the set of criteria by which the AIA should be framing the pollitical discussion?
Obviously - this would be messy, not everyone will get what they want, and there would be abuses, etc. etc ad infintum - we is dirty, messy beings - I wouldn'y have it any other way.
My probelm is that Duany is the loudest voice (debatable?), he is controlling the focus of the conversation in many ways - and yet, he doesn't speak for me, he doesn't speak for you apparently, and he doesn't speak for most of the architects I know, so where is "our" voice? The AIA is all I see and they don't seem to have an actual vision for the profession - at least none clear enough for me to really understand. And quite frankly if I'm confused about the mission of the AIA I'm sure that it is even more so for those outside the profession.
But they have at least heard of the AIA so thats the first hurdle. The AIA may not be relevant or critical to the art of architecture but it is certainly underpinning the survival of the profesion.
Back to the burbs..... Is it fair to classify the early 20th century suburbs like Olmstead's Riverside, or say FLW's Oak Park with the exurban kind? In the 1920's Hemingway called Oak Park a city of broad lawns and narrow minds yet the typical 35' lot in Oak Park would hardly register on the sod measuring contest sponsered by toll brothers in a city near you somewhere. If you go to Oak Park today you will find the big boxes shoe horned into the fabric rather skillfully, as well as all the surburban consumerism people like to argue against, however these cities also seem to be an extension of the city - complete with rail and mass transit, as well as a blending down of the texture of the central city as it unwinds outwards.
Katze - Tom Jones' pants. Tight.
Evil - please tell me how the AIA is underpinning the survival of the profession.
First, they mantain a legal document library that is the starting point for most contracts. True they're usually added to and items struck but its a starting point that most archi's dont have time for. Imagine as a smaller practitioner to have to hire a lawyer all the time or retain one for the year...Second they do promote the profesion to industry and trade groups making the archiotect typically the point of contact people think about when they want to build. I worked for a contractor and believe me, they are increasingly becomming the point person people call to get anything done. Imagine if the AIA outlawed bow ties? Our profesions image image would shoot way up.
Messege to AIA old men wearing bowties - give it up. you make us all look like wannabe's. the bowtie was never cool, it never will be. It makes you look like eccentric old drunks trying to be noticed. Not the image people want to hire.
I would like to see the AIA do more to lower the requirements to becomming profesionaly licensed. Like an AIA vs. NCARB battle. No doubt school is critical to artistic development but the profesion is experiancing a mechanical brain drain. The nuts and bolts types are critical to justifying fees. Design is important, but in the end its the 80/20 rule....80% standard and repeat client 20% design intensive.
I think what we need is an elected Design Advocate who would propose large scale development projects for a city/region. Almost all large projects now are initiated by private interests, even when they end up getting public financing. The Design Advocate would have a budget for feasibility studies and design competitions but no power to impose design regulations. As a check on Robert Moses style megalomania, any project proposed by the D.A. would have to be approved by the City Council. It would be interesting to see a public debate about design and the future of the city in its built form before the elections for D.A.
BB - great idea - it kind of gets back to the heart of the original post/article. Getting architecture and urbansim into public discourse. A design advocate - I guess I was trying to determine if the AIA could/should/already did somehow play that role in addition to its bureaucratic role.
D.A. - whose going to run? Who would you want to be your local D.A.?
Sounds good in theory but wouldnt design advocates be another layer of beaurocracy akin to plannig commitees and appearance review boards? I find it interesting that some of our most successful public spaces in places like NYC, Boston and Chicago ( note the 19th century bias) were created by individule investment and their architects complimenting each other's works, and scaled to the 19th century way of life ie transportation. Chicago is scaled up due to the fact it was very much modeled for more efficiency, such as alleys for garbage collection and wider auto streets, after the lessons learned from its east coast predesessors. Could there be a universal human range of scale we are wired to find comfortable at urban street level? Maybe suburban city planning is best experianced at 35 mph. Then trick would be a dualistic city, a city existing as an inverse of itself when in motion.
bb - every position created eventually degenerates into another level of control. Even design competitions, look at lower manhatten development corp.
Evil - WTC is the perfect case in point, the profession has had a woefully absent central voice. The LMDC did have an architect on it for a short period of time in the beginning but she was essentialy a lone voice with no impact and eventually resigned. The position of a D.A. should be a primarily political position not a bureaucratic one. In other words, it's not like they would work for the D.O.B. or planning commssions.
Let's not be naive - the bureacracy exists and politics are messy unpleasant, but I think it is a diservice to the profession for me as an architect to wash my hands of it and say, "I am above this, it is ugly and I don't want to get involved."
Having said that, I don't want to spend my time being an activist, it's not in my nature - I want to design buildings. But there are a lot of things going on out there right now that bug me, who do I look to to represent my interests as an architect? The AIA?
Politcally I can vote against a politician that does not share my views about architecture/design/urban issues. But typically these issues don't rate very highly on the general public's radar, unless it is something really big (like the Gehry/Ratner deal in Brooklyn) - but then the argument is usually about as complex as it's big and I don't like it. A D.A. could focus the argument. I still think that this D.A. should be a component of the AIA, someone dedicated solely to Publc Advocacy that is voted in by the members of the profession.
ok, lostinspace. here goes. 'what the AIA does for me'. i've made parts of this argument over and over in various threads over the past few years. here i just tried to gather it all in one place. i hope not to have to continue to defend the AIA anymore in the future but, if i do, i'll try to remember that my response was in this thread with a totally unrelated title. (good luck, steven.)
first, my firm pays, so it's free.
second, the AIA here is very active:
-the monthly program (sometimes more than one) is usually a tour of a new project or an information session which is good toward satisfying state board continuing ed requirements. this is how i satisfy MOST of my continuing ed requirements - without having to pay for out of town programs, etc.
-we sponsor pro bono design assistance in which teams of members and local students get together for charrettes to help communities or nonprofits (Kentucky Design Assistance Team or KyDAT). this is usually in the form of addressing urban planning/design issues, streetscape, preservation...a lot of brainstorming. these become the seeds of ideas from which small communities or neighborhoods can work toward a vision for their future development - hopefully sustainable/responsible, protecting their existing character.
-we sponsor active associate/intern members, offering free membership to one to three interns a year
-we send architects out into elementary and high schools to do introduction to architecture programs, to introduce them to thinking about the built environment, spatial thinking, and critical thinking
-we sponsor an annual tour of houses by architects, very popular, from which all proceeds go to Habitat for Humanity. very well publicized and attended, gets general public excited about more architectural solutions than what they see at homearama.
-we publish a quarterly newsletter with news about recent projects, updates on new legislation and state regs., book reviews, etc. i used to be a coeditor of this which, in addition to satisfying my desire to write, gave me some practice writing in a more 'journalistic' than academic way.
-we support the local universities (University of Kentucky and University of Louisville) through scholarships and studio sponsorship.
-the AIA does have its own lobby in washington. they not only lobby design issues (sustainability, transit, etc.) but also benefits issues. because of this lobby there was a big tax benefit for architects/business owners last year. it's not a powerful lobby yet, but that may simply be because the AIA is, compared to AMA and others, a relatively lesser-funded one. also because we don't speak with one voice very often. the AIA's lobbying efforts work at state as well as national levels. there has been a lot of effort expended in protecting the title 'registered architect' so that engineers can't simply assume the title (as was tried in TX recently) or that interior designers can't be called architects without similar educational/experience requirements.
-AIA documents are used throughout the profession and beyond the profession, in the construction industry at large. as someone said before, these are sound documents that have been vetted over time. you don't have to hire a lawyer to have a document that protects you in your work. (and these docs are available to nonmembers.)
-it's a support network. because of the AIA, architects in my community all tend to know (or at least know of) each other and know what's going on. it keeps us connected and we share info, advice, experiences.
- to an extent, it's a voice for local architecture community in issues of the local built environment. i've only known the board to take a position on things once in a while. usually they do an informal poll of a bunch of members and then vote as a board. they're very careful about using this, however, because - as you might expect - you'll never find an issue on which all architects agree so the organization taking a position that might be counter to some of its members' beliefs gets tricky...
-there are a good number of discounted things that are available through the AIA, including life insurance, car rentals, hotels if you've got business travel, etc. i used to think these were goofy product placement things until i started to use them. (about the same discounts as AAA, though, if you've already got that.)
-...and then you do get a subscription to ArchRecord.
i'm sure there is even more that i'm not thinking of right now, but key is that it's only worth it if the local architecture community gets together and makes something of it. you can't wait to be served by the AIA, especially if you're not a member and hope to gain benefit from it by it simply representing the profession. the AIA is only as good as the members willing to get involved with it. it's not just a 'they', at least not at the local level.
We're back at the old power / responsibility issue. Architects infrequently use knowledge as power and yet often they feel responsibility because of their knowledge.
I was reading, with horrified fascination, about the way in which the Israeli military have been co-opting post-structuralist and specifically architectural interpetations thereof to achieve operational tactics (see news section.)
This morning I was at a meeting that seemed to be transforming the primary schools I'm architect for into a sort of Ryker's Island due to the web of financial pressures created by local council, insurers, FM and Construction wings of the client body and here was me, poor li'l humanist architect, wide-eyed in despair over this garrisoning of what should be public domain. At this tiny level I'm straightaway outgunned... so control over cities? I'm getting my just-purchased 'easy-access-Deleuze & Guittari' book by John Rachmann out once I get home this evening...
Steven, don’t take this the wrong way, but what you have described goes beyond a "club" role, which only confuses me even more. No need to reiterate the facts – I get it - but the AIA obviously provides services to you and your community, which go beyond the typical club role (e.g. Washington lobbying; and providing a "voice" to the local architecture community versus social interest, common interests, discounts etc.)…
Can you name any issue at any time that the AIA offered advocacy or lobbyist efforts in Washington, and what was the outcome? Win or lose?
K
Steven - I am but a babe tugging at your pant leg my man - nice response. I'll come back in about 1 years time at which point I should be registered and looking at possible membership, to tell you any new thoughts I may have. I suspect AIANY may be a bit different but I am now, more than ever before interested in finding out. Until then I retreat in silence....
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.