In light of the recent Democratic debates, many candidates have shared their goals and intentions towards sustainability, housing, and infrastructure plans. Last year presidential candidate hopefuls like Andrew Yang shared his sustainability plan back in August 2019. Candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders shared their plans for affordable housing and their responses to the Green New Deal during the summer of 2019. With the list of candidates gradually withdrawing from the races, American voters are looking to those left in the race to provide plans and policies they can stand behind.
Recently, Democratic presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, announced his national "Vision Zero" plan. According to his site, the infrastructure plan aims to achieve: "Opportunity, equity, and empowerment [...] My administration will invest over $1 trillion in working with states, cities, and other local governments to build the sustainable infrastructure of the 21st century."
Buttigieg provides a breakdown of how each policy will address employment, clean water usage, and public transportation, to name a few. However, after reading through the plan with its laundry list of hopeful goals, many questions come to mind.
Kea Wilson, senior editor at StreetblogUSA, provides an insightful review of Buttigieg's Vision Plus plan and highlights areas of the proposal that claim to be "good," "bad," and "vague."
Again- analysis should be the role of AIA (along with ASLA and APA). Instead of just waiting for things to happen. While the professional organization may not speak for everyone- and some may not even consider them to be professional organization, or relevant- people pay dues for them to be present and support some big umbrella goals.
Let the professional organizations parse through all this mess, and then we can yell at them.
All 6 Comments
nobody is ever specific about their plans — it’s all a bunch of generic mumbo jumbo, even the green new deal (which itself was a series of specific investments like the TVA dams only retroactively branded). All democrats do is tell you how much they want to spend on some hazy “vision zero” nonsense.
At least The Wall, as ludicrous as it is, is a specific thing. How about a transcontinental high speed rail? Simple, easy to understand.
Oh, right. We should endorse terrible ideas on the basis that at least they're SPECIFIC. It's ironic as hell when you complain about mumbo jumbo when your real agenda is obscured behind disingenuous criticisms.
I agree with Chemex on this one: The wall is unfeasible and racist and doesn't even solve the problem it claims to solve, but the reason anyone at all supports it is because it's an easily understood and tangible plan. What we need is an easily understood and tangible plan but for something that's going to improve our transportation network.
"Since taking office in 1933, Roosevelt hadn’t only rescued the country from the Great Depression. He had made sure that the country knew he had rescued it. His projects were big, tangible and unmistakably the work of the federal government. The projects changed how Americans thought about government.
In recent decades, Democrats have too often forgotten this lesson. They have created technocratically elegant policies that quietly improve people’s lives, like tax credits or insurance subsidies. The problem with this approach is that it does little to build popular support for government action."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/opinion/fdr-warren-2020.html
I refuse to agree with Chemex's point because it validates the disingenuous way Chemex communicates.
Plus, the wall, isn't a wall; it's fence, not very tangible.
This is archinect. If Dems used architecture values we’d be in a much better place. Nothing disingenuous about that. Read about FDR, he knew what he was doing
Also notice how Trump never talks about how much the Wall will cost, neither did FDR talk about how much dams in then TVA would cost.
Robert Moses understood the value of shovels in the ground.
Again- analysis should be the role of AIA (along with ASLA and APA). Instead of just waiting for things to happen. While the professional organization may not speak for everyone- and some may not even consider them to be professional organization, or relevant- people pay dues for them to be present and support some big umbrella goals.
Let the professional organizations parse through all this mess, and then we can yell at them.
Unfortunately the AIA will parse what is best for the AIA short term, not what is best for the future of architecture which in turn helps the AIA,
Until the AIA is a lobbying organization as powerful as the Military Complex, Big Oil, Agribusiness, Health Insurance Complex, etc., it will remain as toothless as the overwhelming majority of the US population.
Were the AIA to become a big powerful organization it would be as self-serving as all the others. This is the nature of money and power.
Very true, but thus isn’t a matter of asking the aia (and others) to represent, it’s a matter of asking them to synthesize and ideate wrt poli
cy and the profession(s).
And Buttigieg is one of the CIA's candidates.
lol
worst name ever for a plan
I think Zero Vision is a perfect name this kind of bullshit eyewash.
No. Pete won't win.
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.