Last one as you are probably all getting tired of me!
Great point, James. Saying "no" without discovery and discussion is just as bad as saying "yes" without the same care.
Michael, you have not squandered any good will at all. The discussion has informed me and pushed me to try to separate politics from what I see as a core principle of architecture, to inform the project for greater success. Thank you.
I see what you are saying about "critical thinking" not being a defining characteristic, but I restate that it must be a characteristic!
I need to stop talking about the wall – this was the topic that launched the thought I was trying to make, but the wall is just one example of one project that must be informed or perhaps even denied, based on design aspects such as cost, environmental degradations, and potential effects on community.
Think of a house project instead, intended to be within allowable flood areas, with all the bells and whistles of resiliency including some protections and some wet-flood proofing (recovery) measures. This may be legally fine, but if I was aware of a science-based study that provided additional information calling for a higher level of caution or even indicating that building in this location was foolhardy, I would expand my design inputs to suggest moving uphill, reducing the investment, building with a radical pontoon-based system, or even abandoning the project. If I knew that building on that site would create resiliency issues for the community or the neighbor slightly downstream, I would speak up. I guess that it what I am trying to portray as the valuable "critical thinking" skill we need to apply.
I have been told that architects should design what the owner says they want. But I know our value comes in helping the owners identify not only what they want, but what they need, what safety allows, what the environment can handle, and what is possible.
This may still sound theoretical or visionary, yet I cannot bring myself to accept that architects are mere suppliers.
------------------------------
Jodi Smits Anderson AIA
Director Sustainability Programs
DASNY
Albany NY
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-11-2017 17:52
From: James Carr
Subject: The Wall vs AIA
This is an interesting discussion. As I understand it, the issue is whether or not architects have an ethical or professional responsibility to refuse to work on certain kinds of projects that are deemed (by those putting forth the argument) to be morally objectionable.
That topic has been hashed out before, many times, I am sure. In recent history, there was/is a similar argument and an architect-activist movement, the Prison Design Boycott. I looked at their website and I thought that they did a nice job of encapsulating the positive trajectory of this type of effort in the following sentence (no pun intended!): "Originally launched in 2004 as the Prison Design Boycott, ADPSR's Prison Alternatives Initiative calls on architects, other design professionals, and the public to support community-based alternatives to incarceration."
To my mind, that is the key. Move beyond the theoretical, wordy and ideological arguments and actively engage with the subject at hand. Even when the topic is a morally-repugnant "wall" it is exciting to see how engaged designers can turn the problem on its head and provide an idea that points in a new direction. See The Otra Nation collective of Mexican and American engineers, builders and planners proposal to turn the border "wall" into a shared co-nation (as written up in the Guardian article of April 10th).
As for the AIA, they are doing their bit by providing the forum for the discussion. They could possibly do more by promoting more public visibility for the engaged critical thinking of their members (and non-member architects/planners).
------------------------------
James Carr AIA
James Carr, AIA architecture & design
Cambridge MA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-09-2017 19:23
From: Michael Poloukhine
Subject: The Wall vs AIA
Jodi,
At risk of accidentally squandering the goodwill I've managed to engender from you I'd have to say I agree with you while disagreeing.
1) I personally don't think we need to re-define what an Architect is on the grand scale, but don't disagree that we certainly should be open to looking at it regularly to assure its current definitions (state licensing ones, AIA's) are relevant to a rapidly changing world. However, two points to make here, nb on "critical thinking.":
a) "Critical thinking" cannot be a defining characteristic of what it means to be an Architect. It is a prerequisite, but it is not unique to Architects. Most intellectual fields involve a high level of critical thought and if we define Architects first as "critical thinkers" we essentially define our profession out of existence.
b) Many of the problems with our profession is an excess of thinking, under the guise of being critical. The bulk of the profession is literally grounded in reality. An Architect's ability to bridge the worlds of real and theoretical in the building field are what make us stand out. Without rationality, reason, tradition and logic/science to ground it "critical thinking" becomes no more useful to a building construction or design than poetry.
2) Again, two points:
a) There is nothing innate about a wall that "demands moral considerations" any more than any other construction project. There are moral implications to a guillotine, or a concentration camp. But to a mere wall? Do we fret over the moral implications of a picket fence around a property? Or of a front door? Or the lock upon it? Or the security system inside? That political partisans have done so with this project does not obligate us (as Architects) to accept their artificial attribution. If anything, I'd argue that a commitment to critical thinking obligates us to instead if anything, question the validity of such an arbitrary attribution.
b) If we are critical thinkers, we ought to apply it with a fairly consistent rigor. Notably, concluding "we cannot build any form of this proposed wall without adversely affecting the community, environment AND budget" without any serious study of that issue seems like, rather, the failure to think critically. It is a political conclusion, not a critical one. Critically thinking about the wall would be to think more along the lines of "It seems it has a lot of negatives. Let's study them to sort that out. Let's parse the idea wall building into sub-categories and see where opportunities exist to mitigate the negatives. If we still see some, let's try deconstructing the very notion of "wall" and then re-apply that to the stated programmatic need and see if there's a solution that avoids the remaining negatives.
Anything else, is, in my opinion, not Architecture, let alone something to do with the profession of practicing that the AIA is ostensibly (and handsomely) paid by us to do.
PS: Thanks for engaging thoughtfully on this! Refreshing! :-)
------------------------------
Michael Poloukhine AIA
Owner
ReSquare Architecture + Construction
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2017 14:36
From: Jodi Smits Anderson
Subject: The Wall vs AIA
Michael,
Thank you for grounding me. I do mean that and not with tongue in cheek. I understand the AIA has defined what architect means, and perhaps we need to discuss two aspects of this issue in the continued feed.
1) What is an architect? - as the AIA was founded in 1857 I suggest that the current age (anthropocene era) demands that one aspect of the practice of architects be critical thinking, and that the profession cannot continue in any relevancy without a serious engagement in triple bottom line goal setting and way finding. It is time for us and the AIA to update the definition. In short we need our own "do no harm" principle, and preferably a "fix this mess" mentality..
Is the role of architect valuable? In short term, it is valuable as it is. If we are to continue as a profession long-term then we must embrace the responsibility of critical thinker, facilitator, charrette leader, team player, community advocate, and environmental advocate, in every project, along with meeting the owner's established goals.
Perhaps engaging in the project work an architect who has the skills of critical thinking, very early, can lead the involved parties to see that futility and forgo the project, wen indeed that is the case. I would applaud the AIA promoting the profession in an advisory role as well as in a building science and design/construction methodology position. This would require a separate level of contract along with the value proposition, and would be of tremendous benefit to the world and to our profession.
2) Discussion of the wall and other similar projects that demand moral discussion along with an understanding of the value architects can bring to the discourse and end product.
I hear you that the AIA should promote the business of architecture, and our engagement in the work is a benefit to the profession and to the project. However, I certainly do struggle with knowing that SOME projects should not be undertaken because there is no way to ensure that the benefits outweigh the burdens when factoring in all affected entities. Even if you feel this to be "moralizing" and rife with "platitudes" the writing on the wall of which we speak is that we cannot build any form of this proposed wall without adversely affecting the community, environment AND budget. Having those three elements all in the negative means the project is too short sighted and dangerous to undertake.
.
------------------------------
Jodi Smits Anderson AIA
Director Sustainability Programs
DASNY
Albany NY
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-03-2017 19:24
From: Michael Poloukhine
Subject: The Wall vs AIA
Jodi,
If you understood my point, you'd recognize that the core issue you describe is irrelevant to it.
You say "Defending the profession is the role of the AIA. In order to do that, we first need to define what an "architect" is.
No. *We* don't. The AIA and every state already have: "The AIA supports protecting the public by reserving the use of the term 'architect' and its derivative forms to those individuals licensed as architects." Those licensed professions are specifically defined around key practice roles. "Critical thinking" is not one of them. Defining "architect" specifically around professional activity does not by default define it as "a profession limited to creation of prettiness without soul and without functional worth." But redefining "architect" to mean everything *is* to make it mean nothing.
Moralizing based on platitudes and reactionary opposition to something that hasn't even been designed yet is best left to political parties. If that is the bar for practicing "architecture" our profession would be reduced to advising every client not to build anything lest we damage the environment or offend a neighbor with their immoral imposition on the natural environment.
Let me try putting this a more positive way.
The AIA would better serve the entire national Architectural community (and the nation) by lobbying politically to *involve* Architects in this project if our nation's political leaders chose to move forward with it. Such a move would offer an opportunity to extol the virtues of Architects beyond pretty homes, flashy office buildings or ridiculously unrealistic "visionary" proposals. Architects would be shown as vital to that engineering process, for all the wonderful attributes you eloquently identify and support. They could, with their experience, add a critical thinking dimension to the whole process that would otherwise be missing. They may even find that certain sections of wall could be made into a positive thing, or that they could convince the closed-minded that a wall in certain areas may be less effective than some other equally effective barrier that enhances the environment. And it would set an example for countless other such grand engineering projects across the nation from which we as a profession are generally excluded.
THAT would be the AIA appropriately supporting the profession as it pertains to a border wall.
------------------------------
Michael Poloukhine AIA
Owner
ReSquare Architecture + Construction
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-01-2017 09:06
From: Jodi Smits Anderson
Subject: The Wall vs AIA
Michael,
I understand what you are saying, yet you are not understanding the core issue.
Defending the profession is the role of the AIA. In order to do that, we first need to define what an "architect" is.
My position is that architects are trained critical thinkers who not only serve (yes, serve) as fascilitators in communication between clients and the building industry, but more properly as representatives for all parties to achieve excellent buildings and spacial experiences. "All parties" includes the environment, as we all share resources, the building users, the communIt's that is affected, as well as whomever is footing the bill for the design and construction.
We have the right and more so the responsibility to be advocates for all of these parties, lest we become a profession limited to creation of prettiness without soul and without functional worth.
The AIA must defend and support architects - the full meaning of this calling, not just the convenient professional designation that limits itself to limited, tunnel-vision approaches, and total lack of innovative interdependence. In defending the comprehensive vocation of architect (be all you can be) the AIA must use its voice to remind people that architects are professionals with expertise, insights and values that will be applied to the work. The wall is an example of an immoral plan with lack of value, in fact with exceptional detriments.
Thank you, AIA, for communicating and amplifying the value of the profession of Architect.
Jodi Smits Anderson
DASNY
P:518-257-3486