The statement by the head of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Robert Ivy, made immediately after the announcement of the results of the presidential elections in the United States, led to a wave of outrage from the architectural community. Ivy, on behalf of all 89,000 AIA members, pledged support to President-elect Donald Trump and expressed his willingness to work with his administration and the 115th Congress. Someone who disagrees with such an unambiguous expression of loyalty threatens to leave the organization, which is generally similar to the Russian Union of Architects, someone has already done this. Recall that the billionaire politician Trump received hostility from American voters for his scandalous statements about women, migrants, Muslims, for ridiculing a disabled journalist and skepticism about the problem of climate change. Now, in some cities in America, protests are being held against Donald Trump.
Architects, in turn, are plagued by doubts: is the new president capable of leading the country in accordance with the democratic principles professed by the AIA and Americans in general? Aaron Betsky, an architecture critic, curator of the Venice Biennale 2008, and dean of the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture, expressed his disagreement with Ivey's position and the anxiety associated with Trump's assumption of office. Its text was a response to candidates' campaign promises to restore America's infrastructure. In particular, Trump assured the electorate that $ 500 million would be allocated to modernize the infrastructure within five years. Betsky is sure that no major politician could effectively solve the infrastructure problem in ten years, especially Trump - without a clear investment plan and specific proposals for funding sources. “After these elections, I feel desperate for the future of my country. For many reasons, - writes Aaron Betsky in his address. Still, the threat of social disunity and the victory of the opponents of the theory of climate change are more serious problems than repairing bridges and railways. Most of us will survive the material decline of this country, but whether we - and the rest of the world - will be able to survive its ecological and social degradation is another matter entirely.”
No less famous theorist, architect, and critic Michael Sorkin took a sharper stance. He calls for confronting Trump until the latter proves that he has abandoned the vulgar judgments made during the campaign in favor of the principles of justice, equality and human dignity. It will be possible to assess whether the 45th President of the United States has coped with this task on five points: providing those in need with affordable housing, measures to save the environment, investing in infrastructure (without building border walls!), Investing in research and education, striving for equality. “We call on the AIA to stand up for more than a seat at the table where Trump's cannibalistic feast is celebrated! - calls on Michael Sorkin. "Let's not be complicit in the construction of the Trump Wall, but we will unite to destroy it!"
Tom Jacobs, member of the Architects Advocate for Action on Climate Change, a former board member of the Chicago branch of the AIA, was able to find a positive moment in the vote. “Perhaps this is the case when we architects finally realize that it is no longer possible to be apolitical,” explains Jacobs. At the same time, he emphasizes that it is not necessary to demonstrate your ardent sympathy for parties or politicians in order to be included in the political process.“We need to realize what urgent problems that affect all of us now exist, and effectively get involved in the work to eliminate them,” says the activist. He adds that architects, by example, must demonstrate real civic responsibility and adhere to the kind of behavior they want others to do.
Another Chicago-based architect, Laurie Day, comments on the Architectural Record website: “I thought the AIA should take into account the interests of all its members. But have you thought about the 16% women represent in this organization? I guarantee this number will quickly drop to 0% if you continue to support this person.” Laurie Day has already left the ranks of the AIA and does not intend to return.
Students at the Yale School of Architecture also criticized Robert Ivey, mentioning the historical roots of racial and gender discrimination, which, as they think, the head of the AIA completely overlooked. “Our profession has been involved in creating inequality and discrimination for too long and has tarnished itself. The AIA's immediate and unconditional indulgence in Trump is fraught with a continuation of our long-suffering past. It also demonstrates a willingness to continue the race for financial gain to the detriment of our values,”the students of Yale University are indignant. The colleagues were supported by representatives of the public platform Equity Alliance, which promotes the idea of openness and fairness in architectural practice. “You have reinforced the stereotype of our profession as a privilege for white men in word and deed,” 50 Equity Alliance members address Robert Ivey. (the profession of an architect remains the most unified in terms of gender and ethnicity: white men absolutely predominate there, while women, for example, are constantly being washed out of the profession: a few years ago there were 18% of them, while female students make up 50% of students in architecture universities - approx. Arkhi.ru).
Note that Robert Ivey later apologized for his words. Together with AIA National President Russ Davidson, they recorded a video message promising to prioritize issues of equality, cultural and national diversity, climate change, and more responsive peers at the AIA.
The history of the conflict between the leadership of the National Institute of Architects and its ordinary participants is similar to the situation with the Union of Architects of Russia, which occurred five years ago. Let us recall that the Union was among the organizations that had just been created at that time, the All-Russian People's Front; members of the SAR did not know about it. Then Yevgeny Ass, who accidentally discovered the SAR in the lists of the ONF, announced his possible withdrawal from the Union, if the organization deems it necessary to remain in this political coalition. “I believe that the fact of joining any political movement without my knowledge and consent is unacceptable. I consider in principle unacceptable the participation of a creative professional organization in political activities, since the members of this organization can adhere to a variety of political views and beliefs and no political obligations to the Union have. For example, I do not share the goals and objectives of the All-Russian People's Front, and under no circumstances would I voluntarily join this movement,”says a letter addressed to the Union of Architects. Later, as a result of a plenum, the organization announced that it refused to join the ranks of the Popular Front.
