Committee on Design

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

The gun argument seems to be sustained by two deceptively simple slogans: (1) "The right to bear arms", and (2) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

The term "bear arms" seems to rule out heavy weapons, but includes anything that can be carried. This was limited to edged and single shot weapons at the time it was written, but has somehow grown to include assault rifles and automatic pistols with extended magazines. So what is the definition of "bear arms"? Should we be allowed to carry RPG's? Do we wish to emulate Afghanistan and other third world countries? Are we heading toward armed groups of competing special interest?

I agree that people kill people, but should we improve the tools for those with no military purpose? The argument is that they may need to oppose a tyrannical government.

The argument that guns don't kill people is a very clever manipulation of logic. It's like saying a nuclear bomb doesn't kill people. The issue is who we trust to use these weapons, since we are all aware of the percentage that will use any weapon to kill as many as possible. Should we make it easier for them? The real issue is limiting the carnage, since we cannot eliminate the human problem with the medical knowledge available. We can, however, limit the tools available.

The right to bear arms in the United States to oppose a tyrannical government is a challenge to democracy. The entire concept of democracy is based on the peaceful resolution of conflicting ideas. If compromise becomes impossible, the structure of conflict resolution needs attention. Armed overthrow of the structure in the name of freedom is an excuse for tyranny without an answer.

I agree that this is an extraneous issue, but I don't believe architects must stick to architecture. I, for one, am thankful that Thomas Jefferson did not limit himself.

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

The gun argument seems to be sustained by two deceptively simple slogans: (1) "The right to bear arms", and (2) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

The term "bear arms" seems to rule out heavy weapons, but includes anything that can be carried. This was limited to edged and single shot weapons at the time it was written, but has somehow grown to include assault rifles and automatic pistols with extended magazines. So what is the definition of "bear arms"? Should we be allowed to carry RPG's? Do we wish to emulate Afghanistan and other third world countries? Are we heading toward armed groups of competing special interest?

I agree that people kill people, but should we improve the tools for those with no military purpose? The argument is that they may need to oppose a tyrannical government.

The argument that guns don't kill people is a very clever manipulation of logic. It's like saying a nuclear bomb doesn't kill people. The issue is who we trust to use these weapons, since we are all aware of the percentage that will use any weapon to kill as many as possible. Should we make it easier for them? The real issue is limiting the carnage, since we cannot eliminate the human problem with the medical knowledge available. We can, however, limit the tools available.

The right to bear arms in the United States to oppose a tyrannical government is a challenge to democracy. The entire concept of democracy is based on the peaceful resolution of conflicting ideas. If compromise becomes impossible, the structure of conflict resolution needs attention. Armed overthrow of the structure in the name of freedom is an excuse for tyranny without an answer.

I agree that this is an extraneous issue, but I don't believe architects must stick to architecture. I, for one, am thankful that Thomas Jefferson did not limit himself.

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

The gun argument seems to be sustained by two deceptively simple slogans: (1) "The right to bear arms", and (2) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

The term "bear arms" seems to rule out heavy weapons, but includes anything that can be carried. This was limited to edged and single shot weapons at the time it was written, but has somehow grown to include assault rifles and automatic pistols with extended magazines. So what is the definition of "bear arms"? Should we be allowed to carry RPG's? Do we wish to emulate Afghanistan and other third world countries? Are we heading toward armed groups of competing special interest?

I agree that people kill people, but should we improve the tools for those with no military purpose? The argument is that they may need to oppose a tyrannical government.

The argument that guns don't kill people is a very clever manipulation of logic. It's like saying a nuclear bomb doesn't kill people. The issue is who we trust to use these weapons, since we are all aware of the percentage that will use any weapon to kill as many as possible. Should we make it easier for them? The real issue is limiting the carnage, since we cannot eliminate the human problem with the medical knowledge available. We can, however, limit the tools available.

The right to bear arms in the United States to oppose a tyrannical government is a challenge to democracy. The entire concept of democracy is based on the peaceful resolution of conflicting ideas. If compromise becomes impossible, the structure of conflict resolution needs attention. Armed overthrow of the structure in the name of freedom is an excuse for tyranny without an answer.

I agree that this is an extraneous issue, but I don't believe architects must stick to architecture. I, for one, am thankful that Thomas Jefferson did not limit himself.

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

The gun argument seems to be sustained by two deceptively simple slogans: (1) "The right to bear arms", and (2) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

The term "bear arms" seems to rule out heavy weapons, but includes anything that can be carried. This was limited to edged and single shot weapons at the time it was written, but has somehow grown to include assault rifles and automatic pistols with extended magazines. So what is the definition of "bear arms"? Should we be allowed to carry RPG's? Do we wish to emulate Afghanistan and other third world countries? Are we heading toward armed groups of competing special interest?

I agree that people kill people, but should we improve the tools for those with no military purpose? The argument is that they may need to oppose a tyrannical government.

The argument that guns don't kill people is a very clever manipulation of logic. It's like saying a nuclear bomb doesn't kill people. The issue is who we trust to use these weapons, since we are all aware of the percentage that will use any weapon to kill as many as possible. Should we make it easier for them? The real issue is limiting the carnage, since we cannot eliminate the human problem with the medical knowledge available. We can, however, limit the tools available.

The right to bear arms in the United States to oppose a tyrannical government is a challenge to democracy. The entire concept of democracy is based on the peaceful resolution of conflicting ideas. If compromise becomes impossible, the structure of conflict resolution needs attention. Armed overthrow of the structure in the name of freedom is an excuse for tyranny without an answer.

I agree that this is an extraneous issue, but I don't believe architects must stick to architecture. I, for one, am thankful that Thomas Jefferson did not limit himself.

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"

"Dear Mickey, Robert, and Paul,

It is 9:18 AM on the West Coast and the President has just announced a program that is designed to discourage tragic events like that one that happened in Newtown a month ago.  The program speaks to quality of life in the United States and is something that the AIA should consider vocally supporting.

The lack of proper weapon safeguards for the public at large affects all of us in our day-to-day lives.  As architects, we are the stewards of the built environment.  As such, we are more familiar, than many, with how the need for increased security is making our cities, and the buildings in them, fortresses.  Just think of the number of different types of buildings we enter only to be confronted with a metal detector.  Beyond airports and government buildings, these include Museums, Hospitals, and Office Buildings to name a few.

When I was young and living in Baltimore, I had several occasions to visit the Capitol in Washington.  These were memorable visits because I was able experience the building in the way that the design had intended.  It could be entered through almost any door, after which I had free rein to wander its' halls.  A far cry from what it is today.  In fact the new Capitol Visitors Center was built, in part, in order to secure the Capitol itself by limiting its' access to.

I am reminded of a trip I made to the Philippines twenty years ago.  Armed guards holding assault rifles covered the entrances of all buildings used by the public.  This even included stores and shopping centers.  One office building I visited had the armed guard and had a sign in the lobby that read "To our friends and visitors, please leave your firearms at this desk".  Is this kind of thing going to happen in the US?

As architects, do we really care about our country's quality of life and built environment?  If so, we should consider using our lobbying clout to support the President's program.  In his own words, the President said, "This will not happen unless the American People demand it."  Let's demand it.

Sincerely,"