Many architects must feel somewhat annoyed. So much of the rhetoric surrounding the profession these days directs them to solve racial, gender, and economic inequality, while at the same time staving off the already-in-progress ecological disaster of global warming. Meanwhile, they find themselves on two hours of sleep, trying to complete a CD set so that, for once, they can get home and see their kids before bedtime. They may ask themselves, “Does the timely delivery of this window detail really have any relevance to social justice or the climate?” Well, no. But yes — sort of. It’s complicated.
Equally annoying is the assumption that all architects share the same values. As anyone lucky enough to have attended the 2018 TxA Conference and Design Expo in Fort Worth last November can attest, there are plenty in the profession who don’t think that all sexes and races deserve equal treatment and who are skeptical about human-generated climate change — if for no better reason than that if they did espouse such beliefs they might be labeled “Liberal,” which would be tantamount to career suicide in the milieu in which they live and work. These racist, misogynist, anti-science architects (or quislings, at the very least) must feel pretty nettled that the American Institute of Architects mandates inclusive practices and ecologically conscious designs in its 2018 Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, going so far as to make them Rules and thus grounds for disciplinary action.
Welcome to America in the early 21st century, where the writing is on the wall, but not everyone can agree on exactly what it says. Sad. Seeing a path clearly through these issues, whether specifically in architecture or in society at large, shouldn’t be so hard. Imagine you have the choice to walk through one of two doors: One says, “Evolve the Enlightenment Values Enshrined in The Declaration of Independence,” and the other says, “Reinforce the Legacy of Slavery and Oppression of Women.” Again, same scenario, but one says, “Engage in The Consensus of International Scientists,” and the other says, “Deny, Because Science Makes Me Feel Bad and May Affect My Take-Home Pay.” Which do you choose?
In his remarks during the conference’s second general session, incoming TxA President Michael Hellinghausen, AIA, made it clear enough where he stands. He started out by calling himself a “messenger” and went on to deliver his message: Texas architects must improve their diversity by reaching out and down and pulling “others up and into the profession.” He continued by outlining the scope of the current climate crisis, which not only poses risks through the increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters, but is also creating mass migrations of peoples and other species toward the north and south poles. “Whether we wish to see it or acknowledge it, this changed environment is causing disturbances that our profession will be called upon to deal with,” he said. “Let us not sit idly by as others step up to deal with, and design for, all of this.”
As Hellinghausen went on to point out, grappling with these issues is not just important ethically; it is essential to the continuing relevance of architecture. Whether we like it or not, our world is changing, environmentally and demographically. If architecture does not change with it, it stands a chance of losing touch with the people for whom it designs. It stands a chance, in fact, of not having any clientele at all.
11 Comments
Your arrogance of I am right and everyone else is “racist, misogynist and anti-science” is appalling and insulting. This black and white point of view is truly anti-science. I believe these topics should be discussed, but you shut down conversations and people that differ from your point of view. I’ll stand side by side with a liberal any day; you, sir are a leftist. You represented in your article you hold high the ideals in the Declaration of Independence but you have to realize the left is trying to trying to fundamentally transform this Declaration and our US Constitution and not for the better.
Yes, it is, now, political, and getting ugly. Listen to the increased leftist rhetoric rising up in the once “liberal” democratic Party.
I am ashamed of the increasing leftist views of the espoused by representatives of the AIA. Yes, I am a member of the AIA, for the time being.
Well done Aaron! Thank you for reminding us of our leader, Mr. Hellinghausen’s fine words suggesting that what we do professionally has a significant impact on the world we live in and the people and other living things that share it with us. I have long believed that failure to design projects that incorporate sustainable principles or thoughtlessly exploit the sites on which they are built are by extension malpractice by trained and licensed and professionals who are charged with responsibility for the public’s welfare and at bottom should know better. Further, providing opportunity to those who are part of our profession, no matter who they are is fundamental to what allows us to be leaders and examples to the rest of the world.
Aaron,
I applaud you for calling out growing social tensions and their impact on the profession. However, I suggest it is already past the point of binary choices, architecture as it currently is practiced, places all of us at the vanguard of change. When I look back to my early years or even earlier to my father’s first projects, it is heartening to see the many ways the practice has changed in response to expanded social and global awareness.
Back then, when we thought of stairs, or sidewalks, or entryways few of us considered people with mobility impairments. Our bathrooms had narrow doors and we designed minimal clearances between toilets and fixtures. Our details paid cursory attention to insulation and weather barriers. Single pane glass was the only window option. We specified light fixtures without thoughts of energy efficiency or color rendition unless we considered the choice between incandescent or fluorescent.
These are just the first items that come to mind. And while there are still many obstacles, the profession has greatly expanded gender and ethnic diversity. Compared to our recent past, there are so many ways the profession of architecture has impacted and continues to impact societal change.
Come to think of it, why shouldn’t it? Other professions may study, or promote, or debate one issue or another and certainly have influence on society. But our actions have a physical and lasting societal impact. Literally, people in the future will live with our solutions! The challenges we face in the years to come are real. It will continue to be our challenge as responsible professionals to grow, and change, and adapt as we implement even better solutions.
Is it about the politics? In some ways, yes, it has to be. But the way I see it, it’s not just gaining influence it’s delivering the goods. And that’s a lot better!
Mr. Seward might not remember a polar ice age was poised to envelope us not all that long ago, but when it never developed, another out-front narrative began. Similar to decades ago, we now are exposed to another diatribe but packaged a bit differently. In recent years, we see an approach composed of various “cards”, “race, gender, creed, orientation, diversity, etc.,” all utilized, when favorable to the cause, to convey the need for transformation to the masses who, for the most part have been conscientiously performing worthy efforts daily for years without mandates or ‘ethics’ threats by AIA.
Regarding the ‘political’ angle. Daily, we see politicians and/or their hacks mandating with flailing arms and shrill voices. These quislings ‘actors’ conceal their intentions but are inevitably are found out with the passing of time.
So, yes, we all get “annoyed” from time to time. Its only natural, not complicated. I have learned to exercise due caution when it comes to indentured service to every societal, political and environmental, etc., ‘treatise’ out there.
Architects often are called to simplify the complicated, usually not the reverse.
Aron, you must view yourself as the valiant social justice warrior manning the barricades in the great struggle for societal equality. Yet you lack the requisite talent to lead the troops into articulated battle to achieve your vision communal nirvana, and you resort to ad hominem and slander, directed at those whose political ideology fails to conform with yours. Thus, you fail to see yourself for what you truly are: a blindly dogmatic enthusiast for the latest edition of far left political orthodoxy; and thereby a fanatically intolerant “social” bigot incapable of reaching out and interacting with those with whom you disagree.
There is a third door you do not see that says, “Reserved for the Insular – Self-righteous Autocrat.” By the way, the environmental calamity you see coming down the pike has not been called global warming for quite some time now. Its correct name is climate change.
Louis, I applaud your comments and observations. Hopefully, one day we can meet, so I can shake your hand. I imagine you speak for the majority of those in our profession that don’t have the same podium that Aaron uses and abuses. If you don’t think exactly as he does, he stoops to name calling and accusations with no room for a dignified discussion (very childish). Like many other organizations in our country, it is clear that the all-knowing left has taken over TSA and is determined to have us all follow in lock step. I believe I will have to say good bye to my TSA membership.
Wow!
I’m not sure it is worth responding to your article. I am sure I will not affect your opinion as it is obviously lacks the experience and wisdom of one who who is trying to win over an audience rather than attack them and lacks the south of someone looking to have an influence on others.
I attended the Fort Worth convention and did not experience or witness any racism or misogynistic behaviors of the attendees. I felt the attendees with whom I spoke at the event were multicultural, worldly, progressive, and open to good ideas, whether the ideas themselves were left or right leaning politically.
Are you classifying a large group or one individual, as I hardly believe that any of the names you called the attendees were by any means representative or common at the event and I find it offensive that this is the slant you chose to take with your editorial. I find it ironic that you are offended that not everyone thinks the same. Isn’t diversity the goal? Brilliance can be achieved when embracing the concerns of all and providing positive solutions which benefit all.
Your quote of “As anyone lucky enough to have attended the 2018 TxA Conference and Design Expo in Fort Worth last November can attest, there are plenty in the profession who don’t think that all sexes and races deserve equal treatment and who are skeptical about human-generated climate change — if for no better reason than that if they did espouse such beliefs they might be labeled “Liberal,” which would be tantamount to career suicide in the milieu in which they live and work. These racist, misogynist, anti-science architects (or quislings, at the very least) must feel pretty nettled that the American Institute of Architects mandates inclusive practices and ecologically conscious designs in its 2018 Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, going so far as to make them Rules and thus grounds for disciplinary action.” should be used as an example of ignorance in our current society and a naive attempt to group all conservative, non-liberal attendees with a global statement of inaccurate name-calling and bullying.
I am fiscally a conservative, but I am open to some social liberal beliefs. I am an independent in life, but leaning Republican politically. But being a Republican does not equate that I fit any of your other labels. I am NOT racist. I am NOT misogynistic. I am Christian, but I am NOT anti-science. I am for protecting the environment, and am for using any facet of our profession to move this direction, but I am also in favor of growing as a country, a business, and as a person, I am open to listening to and discussing other ideas, even if they do not match my own beliefs in an effort to find common ground and understanding. I am all for equal opportunity for all of all sexes, races, religions and bias. But I also understand equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Each individual is responsible for seizing and taking advantage of their own personal opportunities or end up missing the boat.
That said, I am NOT open to reading in my professional magazine a random name-calling diatribe with no actual value. This is a professional forum and magazine and, in my opinion, it should not condone rants and random labeling of our architectural professionals, and I recommend any such future blabs be removed so that the true professionals of all races, religions, sexes, and creeds, might actually progress our profession in a positive manner.
Aaron , if disagreeing with your view makes me a “racist, misogynist, anti-science architect”, then I’m proud to be one ! If you want to run off half of this states membership, then keep it up, Keep promoting these ridiculous socialist ideas, like a “Green New Deal”. Keep calling everyone ignorant because they don’t except your views. I’m sure this will benefit the TA organization really well. If Texas is going to follow the same mindset as the National AIA organization, you can count me out ! Going down this road is a no win situation for the TA. TA can’t win or benefit from this kind of rhetoric !
You know I’ve been a fan of yours since you joined TxA Aaron but I can’t get behind you on this article. Respectful dialog about our differences is critical to our forward momentum. As the editor of one of our profession’s most important publications you are in the privileged place of helping to facilitate that dialog. What our climate, especially our political climate, really needs is a filter for toxic communication. That toxic communication includes Michael Mallone’s open expression of hatred for Trump, Cruz and anyone who voted for them at the TxA convention as well as some of the feedback you probably got from convention goers reacting to that kind of alienating speech. I regret that someone with your exceptional communication skills would forfeit your role as that filter and facilitator to indulge your own toxic vent. Our profession needs bright, articulate people like you willing to respectfully listen and engage with bright articulate people who see things from a radically different perspective. If you choked at the notion that bright, articulate people could look at the same evidence you have and come away with very different conclusions you can’t be surprised when your views are consistently rejected with equal disrespect.
I would encourage TXA (and AIA), to refrain from one sided politics, or risk losing a substantial part of their member base. This article shows how bad things are getting. TXA should stay in the business of promoting architecture, and work with the legislature to help protect our practice. One-sided political rants such as this article neither helps or elevates the profession.
Follow up to my comment above after connecting with Aaron privately. This type of communication is rare for him. I don’t recall ever being set back on my heels by anything else he’s written or said to me in person; quite the contrary actually, I’m usually enlightened and inspired by what he has to say. I appreciate his passion, dedication and talent and think Texas Architect Magazine got a lot better when he came on board. I’m confident that he will be an important part of a much better conversation on these important topics going forward and I hope the rest of us can elevate our communication with him as well. Thank you for all you do for architects in Texas Aaron, keep up the great work!