On this week's show we are trying out something new by inviting on guest hosts to take over the mics. Our guest hosts today, Mitch McEwen and Marc Miller, are familiar figures to regular listeners of this podcast and readers of Archinect.
Mitch is the principal of McEwen Studio, co-founder of the studio collective, A(n) Office, and an Assistant Professor at Princeton University’s School of Architecture. Mitch's writing can be found on her Archinect blog Another Architecture. She has also been a guest on previous episodes of Archinect Sessions Equity, Secrets and Relevancy of AIA; 1 Year After #NotMyAIA, Twilight Zoning: What 100 years of zoning hath wrought, and Another year, Another Architecture.
Marc is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture at Penn State University, in addition to being a regular voice of reason and intelligence in our discussion forum and comments section. Marc previously joined us on the podcast to discuss HUD and Zaha Hadid Architects in HUD-winked: Ben Carson takes on housing for Trump and ZHA distances itself from Patrik Schumacher.
Listen to episode 118 of Archinect Sessions, “Mitch McEwen and Marc Miller Steal the Mic”.
Let us know what you think of this format! Do you have any guest hosts that you would like to nominate for a future episode?
Discussed on the show:
76 Comments
Loved the talk. My question, and this goes to much of the talk, poor inputs = poor outputs, no? I'm all for data, and aggregation, but wonder about the biases in selection sets? Is it possible to aggregate narratives, stories, what generations tell one another? At least in that, the biases are built in, but it's connected to personal narratives?
I remember in school there was always this resistance to 'arbitrariness' but the choice of where to begin is always arbitrary, it's what we do when decide to start where we start that matters, no? Like what you were both discussing when it comes to the 'who' we include in renderings. Once the choice to place people in our spaces, the rigor in the 'who' ends, perhaps it shouldn't, perhaps the analysis, data, aggregation shouldn't end in the choice, but go deeper?
Ken,
In some way I think our conversation can be summarized as the two of us, from architecture & landscape architecture, looking for the legacy of 1968 in architecture today. (It's unfortunate the headline says we are stealing the mic, btw. We're the main black voices on archinect and we have to be stealing something. Ug.)
As far as the data piece, I think we are both looking for richer connections between social sciences and architecture. Your questions about data are rigorously addressed in sociology and political science and other disciplines. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, and we don't have to learn whole other disciplines. We can just be aware of them and have dialogue with them, the way we do with structural engineering or historical preservation. DuBois is useful to look at, as his sociology was incredibly precise, spatial, and detailed to the point of locating out-houses.
"Stealing the Mic" isn't the name of this episode, it's the name of the new format we're introducing, where we let guest hosts take over the show.
Richer connections, that's great, and I think you're correct, we don't have to reinvent the wheel, just be skeptical of, and aware of who is doing the collection, so we can have that richness and authenticity. I've been so drawn to what you have been doing, because I've admired how you weave together personal narrative, justice, and design in way that inspires me.
Ken, I think some of what you are saying goes to my comments about the AIA reporting. Aggregation is fine to a point, but the resolution they elected was by far too gross. In some respect data needs to be disaggregated to tell stories. In the example of the AIA content, I'm willing to bet there are significant difference between graduation rates based on states. And from there can start to make correlation between average incomes by the state and tuition rates. I think that's a far more productive report than what was presented- especially because you can identify initiatives.
To add on to the importance of the DuBois study is that it's one of the 1st comprehensive examinations of urban life based on a specific demographic. This was counter to the Sanborne fire insurance maps (1866 onward) which focused on value. If there was no significant value those properties/neighborhood often were not drawn on the map at all.
Marc, I guess I'm talking about all data. On Twitter for example, if you set your location to Germany, you won't get anything Nazi related, or so I've been told. In the US,Twitter and Facebook feign the impossibility of running off white nationalists, and I'm saying that they're not trying. They control the inputs, write the code.
If the people writing this look like me, then it's all suspect.
That's the problem. We need to take control this stuff and not have it fed to us.
I also like Mitch's idea of using 1968(ish) as a theme for organizing sessions.
It's a critical time in US urban and political history, but there are all the other subtle events that occur around then too. McHarg is investing in the overlay method, Tomlinson has pitched is as a working method in Canada as the CGIS. Rem Koolhaas becomes and architecture student, the list goes on.
Bernard too! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Tschumi
Back in the fall of 68...
If I recall, in Architecture and Disjunction he writes a bit about the experience in Paris.
I was born in 68'. Heavens.
"We're the main black voices on archinect and we have to be stealing something. Ug"
Are you joking?
I responded below.
Why would you consider that a joke?
cause it' s funny
Then there really isn't a question, right, Einstein?
Marc has a good radio voice.
Thanks, I competed in radio on the speech and debate team in hs. Personally, I think I’m talking through my nose a little much.
Thayer-D: My very first thought, when I saw "Steal the Mic" as the name of this series, was that it was going to read differently, and not in a good light, given that our first guests in the series are two African American practitioners.
It's not a joke. It's the time we're living in. We're finally realizing as a society that so much racism and other discrimination is *built in* to how we communicate with each other that it can't be written off as insignificant or a joke.
I mean this in full respect: when someone says they feel slighted, or disrespected, or overlooked, or whatever other kind insult, the knee-jerk response of "It's just a joke - you're being over-sensitive" is no longer acceptable. It's just not.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8
Yup.
And both want authoritarianism. Just different flavors.
You know what I want? I want to live in a country where content of character matters, where people aren't colorblind, where misogyny is shouted down by men, where acculturation is the norm. Where people aren't afraid of being connected to their own culture, and where fear and hate of other cultures doesn't exist. If that makes me an authoritarian, then that's what I am. Happily.
"As we move toward a nation where white people are less dominant, it will be critical that white people stop being racial ostriches, or sleepwalkers, and deal forthrightly with what it means to be white. Many white people say they have a strong desire to not discuss race because there's a chance they could make a mistake and end up somehow looking racist. But a lack of discussion about race leads to a lack of sophistication about race."
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/art...
Holy Fuck. That guy is roving turd. Is he against the Constitution?
First, being “white” is a very very broad category. Second, I want people to not be racist too, but controlling the
outward expression
controlling outward expression to control inner thoughts is exactly the definition of Orwell’s newspeak. Third, individual liberties and rights are the cornerstone of everything. Fourth, your second post contradicts your first. Yes we need dialogue. This hypersensitive culture is making that harder. How can open dialogue happen in the toxic environment that the campus, media, and much of our academic circles have become?
To have an open conversation you need to sometimes say things that may offend people. My response was directed at Donnas assertion that “calling someone over sensitive is not acceptable anymore.” Says who? I think that being over sensitive is harmful and gives more power to certain words or expressions. I want people to be empowered as individuals. That’s the opposite of being racist. Making people feel like constant victims trapped within this dystopian patriarchy is not empowering at all. My anti-hypersensitivity statement comes from good intentions...from a genuine desire to see people succeed in life. Donna says it’s not acceptable for me to make that statement. Who decides what is and is not acceptable?
The video shows how many “liberals” are being turned off by the wacky unreasonable culture of the sjw far left.
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't have any negative racial associations with the chosen wording "stealing the mic" and the fact the hosts are black. I had a hip-hop rap battle association which I think to me (not sure because I can't compare) is not related to the race of the guest hosts.
Maybe it's also because most thieves in the Netherlands (where I'm from) aren't even black but are either of Polish/Eastern-European or Moroccan/Northern-African descent... [that's a joke, and a bad one too, sorry]
Well, I grew up in a majority black neighborhood. 90+%...and I can only imagine a very small minority taking offense to the phrase “steal the mic”. Seems ridiculous since it was obviously unintentional. Now if someone says something overtly racist...then go off on them...put them in their place...but picking through language like that is counterproductive...
randomised, I'm glad you didn't have a negative associations with the phrasing. My issue *on this thread* isn't so much with people having or not having that connotation as with people belittling the fact that others *do* have it, or even worse digging in and defending themselves for why the other person's point of view is wrong. If someone says "You hurt me" the knee-jerk reaction shouldn't be to make fun of that person, but to listen openly and actual hear why the concern might exist. Thayer initially made a joke, then pulled back and thought about it further when I mentioned it.
Yes Pete. Originally from NY. I agree, NYers have a much more abrasive way of communication...especially in the 80’s and 90’s in the working class areas. When I came out west I was culture shocked. I wasn’t used to being around so many white people for one, and also not used to the careful polite speaking. It was really hard to get used to. I don’t know how many times in college I was like “just say why you mean man!” As someone who probably understands the scope of the cosmos more than the average bear, I see racism as the dumbest thing imaginable. We exist on this little blue speck together here and now. In this particular time and space...the chances that you, me, anyone can actually share such a small specific place...and then people are talking about different skin tones. Mind blowingly dumb. So yeah, ridiculous how racism still is so embedded in our culture in the US in a time when we are privy to images of our closeness via Hubble...
I liked the Brooklyn straight talk of the 80's. I also like manners, which conservatives call being politically correct.
"My anti-hypersensitivity statement comes from good intentions...from a genuine desire to see people succeed in life. Donna says it’s not acceptable for me to make that statement. Who decides what is and is not acceptable? " I fully concur. If you have kids, do you remind them of the beauty in this world or do you tell them to be afraid. In other words, what will make them most resilient. You need to do both of course, but hypersensitivity just suffocates the real conversations needed to make actual progress. Mitch thought archinect had a bad intention making an association of blacks as thieves with that title, yet there isn't a racist bone in the whole editorial board. Who get's to say what when? I thought it was out of many, one? 'Classical liberal' - Someone who likes classicism, but doesn't believe in classes of people.
I believe in the individual...who also happens to be the ultimate minority. Improve the individual spirit, mind, and autonomy and everything else in society will improve. Society is just the amalgam of individuals. talking about individuality has become taboo in academia lately. Now everyone is being pushed into a political or racial group...being defined by the content of their association rather than character. Dangerous trend.
1. You can't claim "white" is a "broad" category, and not define the category of whiteness, that makes it so broad.
2. You can't claim my second post contradicts my first, without citing the contradiction.
3. White people are the ones with racism problem, they are the ones that need to work it out. Black people are done with the burden of teaching us, asking us, and pleading for empathy.
4. If I've heard it once, I'll have heard it a million times; I've lived in a 90% black community, so I know "x". It smacks of something, I just can't quite finger it.
5...
1. German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Etc. I shouldn’t have to explain this. It’s basic history 101. Many “white” people came here in the early 20th century, some refugees, lived in poverty, got maimed in war, worked in sweatshops, and were discriminated against heavily as well. You are distilling everyone into an imaginary bad guy good guy paradox. Funny how the left keeps dividing “non-white” groups further and further...70 genders and counting...but does the opposite with “white” people...White is a very culturally, economically, geographically, and socially diverse category. For fucks sake some white people put ketchup on spaghetti. An Italian has more in common with a penguin than a person who would do that. Again, my problem with group identity being made to be more important than individual identity. I agree with judging based on “content of character”.
2. The contradiction is that you say we need to talk about race, which I agree, but then support “authoritarian” imposed constraints on language, safe spaces, etc. You can’t have an honest conversation unless both parties are willing to be offensive and be offended. A “white” person will most likely avoid a conversation with someone who seems hypersensitive because they don’t want to accidentally say something that makes them seem racist...walking on thin ice is not a way to have dialogue. You point this out in the second paragraph yourself hence the “contradiction.”
3. Racism is not just a “white” problem. That’s ridiculous and completely false. Evidence-genocide, slavery has been and still is prevalent throughout the world...unfortunately. A “racist needs power, and in US whites have power” will be your response, but define power? A white person with a black boss, Id say the black boss would have power to that individual at least...in some cases the micro/local power structures can be far more important to an individual than macro structures. So “power” is a very nuanced thing.
4. Just highlighting that my personal life experience does not fit the “white” wasp stereotype...as many peoples don’t...yet I’m being lumped into this general category and supposed to adopt the general ills of the category as a part of my identity. I don’t want to. I’m an individual. I want to be judged as one. I have Zero loyalty to any racial group. I’m a racial anarchist. I don’t care if the next president is a gay black dwarf. I just care about the preservation of individual rights and liberties so that all people can decide how to live their lives as they see fit. What bothers me most, is this dangerous trend of group identity trumping individual identity. Sure people are partially molded by their culture, but that culture/race, should not define you. People are being divided and used by politicians. They used to divide the classes, but now that everyone is broke They have moved back to race, sex, and religion.
Jlaxative, at it again.
White person with some black boss. GTFO.
White people, namely white men, in America, are by the very fact that the US Constitution was written by them for them. #
BTFT
Next thing I'll read is that black people you hung with allowed you to say "my n__."
White people are racists.
As for your moronic assertion, that we need to offend one another racially, to have a dialog with one another about race. You, need to step out of the closet, and into the light. Because your brand of stupid, needs a disinfectant. Or, I challenge you to lead this, and say what you mean.
^ you already demonstrated what I mean. I gave a respectful honest opinion and you jumped down my throat with hyperbolic bullshit. I offended your simplistic idea about race, “white”, and your hypersensitivity prevented a nuanced debate.
Here is why over sensitivity prevents dialogue. Thanks for providing my point. Don’t know why you are trying to turn me into the villain
of your imagination....I’m not...actually an ally as we are both against racism and bigotry ...gotta love regressives.
#nothingrespectfullaboutyourcomments you are a grossly overrated tool.
Love you too.
You didn't offend me around your simplistic comments about many types of white people, you can't. When I say all white people are racist, your response is that there are many different nationalities. Duuuuuuumb. Lastly, and this is the last time I'm going to respond to the level of stupid, that masks as intelligent conversation, that you have in the shower; I'll continue to offend the stupid, but real conversation around race doesn't occur, anywhere, ever, by telling black people, hey lighten up bro. Racism is a problem in this country, and it was brought here by European descendents. Whitey McNationalist. #micdropbyatch
“All white people are racist” white=bad, black=good. Got it. Great dialogue starter. Lol
"all white people are racist"? That statement speaks volumes. No one is immune from racism because racism is just an expression of insecurity and fear, something we will never out grow as a species. Then there are those who say the n-word and degrade women all day long as something cool, yet we continue to pretend that is somehow not absolutely bat shit crazy. Who knows!
Sjws don’t adhere to logic. It’s a religion.
Written like a true white nationalist.
I grow weary trying to explain to you so-called humans who wrote the Constitution, and for whom it was written for. Our system was set-up for the benefit of white people, and the exclusion of black and brown people. Go read your Howard Zinn, and get back to me when your done.
You are so mind blowingly stupid.
I know infinitely more about this topic than you, nationalist turd.
The constitution is what keeps trump from being president for life, and protects your right to be a moron. What specific constitutional amendment would you like to get rid of? And why are you bringing up the constitution?
Dumb,
thy name is jlaxative.
Are you aware that the Constitution was written by white men, for white men? To benefit, and protect white men? Are you aware that justice system was established for the protection of white, male property owners? Are you aware that the electoral college was established to give greater power to white men? Which Amendment was written specifically to the benefit of black people?
You are so edgy. Social justice is your style. It’s that shallow. You are exploiting issues for your own personal identity crisis. Sad
The constitution protects individual liberty. All amendments apply.
Complete, a-historical pablum.
I hope this isn't what they're teaching in the Ivy Leagues today.
oh, they are Thayer. Its irresponsible imo for adults to be spreading this victim mentality bs to
*kids
To Donna and Mitch, I apologize for any offense I may have caused. My mother was an afro-latina, so I'm very empathetic about racism etc. It never occurred to me that "Steal the mic" was anything but a cool way to spread the love, which I commend. The editors at archinect thought the same thing. I thought you where one of them too Donna, so why didn't you communicate your apprehensions?
My issue is with the over-politicization of architecture at the expense of its humanization. For someone who went to school at Pratt during the late 80's when DJ Red Alert and Mr. Magic owned the radio waves, steal the mic has more of a hip hop vibe to me, but turning to actual politics...
I am 110% on Mitch's side about MAGA et al, so please carry on. But architecture isn't all political for everybody. Some of us just like to spread the love with beauty, like Sir Mix-a-lot (eclecticism), knowing the public doesn't read all the theoretical stuff when the light dances on a beautiful facade. That doesn't make the political tract invalid, but like they say, "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing."
Btw, in the latest AIA magazine, they have an interesting article on how to make architecture more appetizing to young students. Here's my idea, bring back the swing, the funk, the love, the beauty. The cerebral approach is good for some kids, but you're not going to attract the ones who got into it to make people smile with a beautiful design. It's in all of our shared human DNA.
"The editors at archinect thought the same thing. I thought you where one of them too Donna, so why didn't you communicate your apprehensions?" -Yeah I totally botched my response to this - I imagined that I was imagining a need for concern. I need to follow my intuition better next time.
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.