Custom Residential Architects Network

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and CRAN Custom Residential Architects Network .
-------------------------------------------
We architects are known as free-thinkers, but where do we stand when it comes to supporting the "Occupy..." movements?  It would seem that few if any of us are in the 1%, but many more of us rely on business and corporate connections that link firmly into the 1%.  Are we remaining silent because we fear the reaction of our 1% clients?  If we are responsible for the aesthetic future of our culture, what are our thoughts about the trend of consolidation of wealth into a tiny portion of potential clients.  What aesthetic future does our culture have as the gap between haves and have-nots widens?

In the residential market, design projects are scarse.  My analysis?  For 40 years I've been drawing my clients from the top 10% of earners.  The 1% was always there, but I had another 9% of upper middle-class earners who were willing to invest in their homes because this was at least as good as an investment as any other, and if you hired a good architect and stayed in your home for a while, you could leverage your investment and make a reasonable profit.  This is no longer the case.  Home values have declined, banks are not lending and the job security of these potential clients is risky at best.  Does this spell the end of residential architecture as I have practiced it for a lifetime?

Personally, I do not support the consolidation of wealth and power, because I do not support the lifestyle and values of the wealthy and powerful.  Ours is becoming a culture led by fears rather than visions.  The 1%s percieved needs are not sustainable on a residential, business, corporate or governmental scale, and cannot be justified in terms of the distribution of resources for the future of the planet.  There is a lot of talk about "green" everything in our community, and at the core, the "Occupy..." movement is about as green as we can get, but nary a comment about political activitism on this forum. 

I'm supporting the occupiers and I've already closed my B of A accounts and transferred all my funds to a local credit union.  I haven't shopped in a big box store or a mall in years.  I live in a solar-powered Airstream trailer (off the grid) and have encouraged my residential clients to need and build less and enjoy life more.  The sector of "acceptible" silence is narrowing.  Are we going to be part of the solution, or remain a silent part of the problem?  

Your comments? 

-------------------------------------------
David Ludwig
Sausalito CA
-------------------------------------------

I have to disagree.  Architecture is not about wealth envy or social political change.  The Cathedrals, Castles, Palaces and High Rises were not commissioned by the commoners nor the peasant seeking to dethrone the social wealthy elites of their day.  Architecture is about good design and as architects that is where our focus must be.

If you wish to embroil yourself with the latest social political flavor of the month or "Occupy" mentality, that is your prerogative, but the AIA is not the forum to vet such passions.  Architecture must remain in the context of design lest it become irrelevant to the whims of trends.

As for being "Green", well that too is a social buzz word for political correctness.  Every architect that produces good design is producing the most "sustainable design" achievable for their day and age.  Your comment about ". . . at the core, the "Occupy..." movement is about as green as we can get. . ." too is misplaced.  For these folks have done more environmental damage in the brief time of their protest than could have been done by the polluters they protest in a year.  Just think for a moment how much fuel, pollution and energy has been and is being grossly wasted by protesters blocking off highly congested streets of idling cab trying to get people to work?  How many businesses and jobs are being lost due to lost patronage because of the protestors blocking their store fronts? 

These "Occupy..." protests reek of organized political theatrics and partisanship for incumbents with very low approval ratings in an election year.  Given the effectiveness of an earlier grassroots movement that rocked the current establishment, these "Occupy..." protests look much more like an orchestrated "lip syncs" of partisan politics trying to counter that previous movement than true activism for just reforms.

I don't anticipate the social unrest will end any time before January 8, 2013, when the new leadership (whoever they may be), will finally have to take action to quell the unrest, since the political contest will have been over.  One does not need to look far to see that the none of "Occupy..." folks have yet to raise a single banner in protest of the current President or his administration...who have enabled the "Wall Street" targets of their protest to make such gross profits...Solyndra anyone??

Frankly I am disgusted by the filth these protesters, their organizers and their enablers are producing and spreading into our environment.  Ultimately their methods will prove to be unsustainable and when they are done trashing our cities and country, it will be up to the adults of temperance to clean up their mess.  In the words of Billy Crystal AKA Miracle Max "...Have fun storming the castle.  Do you think it'll work.  It'll take a miracle..."

-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Ramos, you state "...the AIA is not the forum to vet such passions..." and then proceed to do just that in your thinly veiled pro-tea party, anti-dem rant. So which is it?


-------------------------------------------
Geoff Briggs Assoc. AIA
Seattle WA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-21-2011 01:01
From: Ricardo Ramos
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

I have to disagree.  Architecture is not about wealth envy or social political change.  The Cathedrals, Castles, Palaces and High Rises were not commissioned by the commoners nor the peasant seeking to dethrone the social wealthy elites of their day.  Architecture is about good design and as architects that is where our focus must be.

If you wish to embroil yourself with the latest social political flavor of the month or "Occupy" mentality, that is your prerogative, but the AIA is not the forum to vet such passions.  Architecture must remain in the context of design lest it become irrelevant to the whims of trends.

As for being "Green", well that too is a social buzz word for political correctness.  Every architect that produces good design is producing the most "sustainable design" achievable for their day and age.  Your comment about ". . . at the core, the "Occupy..." movement is about as green as we can get. . ." too is misplaced.  For these folks have done more environmental damage in the brief time of their protest than could have been done by the polluters they protest in a year.  Just think for a moment how much fuel, pollution and energy has been and is being grossly wasted by protesters blocking off highly congested streets of idling cab trying to get people to work?  How many businesses and jobs are being lost due to lost patronage because of the protestors blocking their store fronts? 

These "Occupy..." protests reek of organized political theatrics and partisanship for incumbents with very low approval ratings in an election year.  Given the effectiveness of an earlier grassroots movement that rocked the current establishment, these "Occupy..." protests look much more like an orchestrated "lip syncs" of partisan politics trying to counter that previous movement than true activism for just reforms.

I don't anticipate the social unrest will end any time before January 8, 2013, when the new leadership (whoever they may be), will finally have to take action to quell the unrest, since the political contest will have been over.  One does not need to look far to see that the none of "Occupy..." folks have yet to raise a single banner in protest of the current President or his administration...who have enabled the "Wall Street" targets of their protest to make such gross profits...Solyndra anyone??

Frankly I am disgusted by the filth these protesters, their organizers and their enablers are producing and spreading into our environment.  Ultimately their methods will prove to be unsustainable and when they are done trashing our cities and country, it will be up to the adults of temperance to clean up their mess.  In the words of Billy Crystal AKA Miracle Max "...Have fun storming the castle.  Do you think it'll work.  It'll take a miracle..."

-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------

My dear Mr. Briggs,
This is exactly the sort of distraction that this pre-election discourse devolves into.  In my statement, I simply responded to the claim that the "Occupy..." movement was in fact NOT a "Green" movement at its core and that its purpose has nothing to do with architecture.  I have promoted no political party, affiliation, movement or support for either, but stated the obvious consequences of currents event and their impact on our built environment. 

Those with a political tell tale heart will immediately PRESUME an allegiance to their contrary when their particular point of view is not supported, hence your statement "...and then proceed to do just that in your thinly veiled pro-tea party, anti-dem rant...".  One would have to be completely devoid of the capacity for critical thinking and observation not to question the timing and support of current "Occupy..." events as coinciding with reelection campaigns for incumbents with the absolute lowest approval ratings in the history of this country.  That is not a rant, but an observation of the obvious. 

Likewise the filth that the current movement has already produced has lead even the most liberal mayors to partially suspend some these activities, just to try and maintain some basic form of sanitation before these sites become public health hazards, just look at Oakland.

Architecture transcends the fluid fervor of politics and thus it is up to our profession to see that our discourse remains in design and not the political flavor of the day.  If you wish to delve into politics, that is entirely your prerogative, but this is not the forum of it.

-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-24-2011 12:03
From: Geoff Briggs
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

Mr. Ramos, you state "...the AIA is not the forum to vet such passions..." and then proceed to do just that in your thinly veiled pro-tea party, anti-dem rant. So which is it?


-------------------------------------------
Geoff Briggs Assoc. AIA
Seattle WA
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Ramos,

I am not sure how long you have been involved with the AIA.

The AIA (through its membership and lobbying) has been at the forefront of promoting socially responsible policies for decades.  From sustainable principles, public transportation, affordable housing, urban design, etc.

This is exactly the forum for discussing how those policies are promoted and enacted.

Some of that occurs at the local, state and national executive committee levels, however, that only occurs if the general membership encourages it.  Some of it occurs through general members participating in their local governments, city council meetings etc. and/or through rallies for those causes.  I only see a degree of difference between a rally at the state capital to encourage green schools and the OWS to encourage corporations and banks to act more responsible and within the law, especially when their failure to do this has led to everyone involved in the built environment finding credit extraordinarily difficult to obtain.  For a rarity, Architects and Builders/developers have found some common ground.

You mention a familiar conservative talking point in the failure of "Solyndra"  Solyndra was part of the DOE loan program to encourage renewable energy research/production, etc.  Although Solyndra is unfortunate, it is only a small part of the attempt by the current administration to shift the country from the previously subsidized fossil fuel industries.  I noticed LEED in your tag.  LEED is a direct result of over 25 years of hard fought gains in  sustainable architecture, largely through democratic administrations (sometimes bi-partisan) investing in national conservation programs, renewable energy research etc.

One of the Tea Party darlings, Ron Paul, has targeted the elimination of the Department of Energy, Department of Housing etc as a bedrock of his administration.  I hazard a guess that the direction that administration (and other similarly minded) would take would be disastrous to sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

So in closing, I have to disagree completely with your statement "Architecture transcends the fluid fervor of politics and thus it is up to our profession to see that our discourse remains in design and not the political flavor of the day."  And follow up with that it is exactly the opposite.  Take a look at the advocacy page.


-------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson AIA
Images Of
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Johnson,
I have been with the AIA for some time and am keenly aware of its advocacy efforts, however this forum is the CRAN Custom Residential Architects Network Discussion Forum and not the AIA Advocacy Forum.  I mention this because I have been on the forefront of many of the AIA's advocacy efforts, that is why I am a LEED® AP and CSI.

As such, over the years I have been beset by numerous disingenuous interests that have sought the endorsement and support of the AIA for their cause under the guise of mutual goals.  The legalities aside, the AIA has proven time and again prudent in its approach of filtering out such white wash and green delusions by adhering to a stricter code of conduct befitting the institution.

Let us be clear, you stated "...I only see a degree of difference between a rally at the state capital to encourage green schools and the OWS to encourage corporations and banks to act more responsible and within the law, especially when their failure to do this has led to everyone involved in the built environment finding credit extraordinarily difficult to obtain."  This degree of difference is absolutely tremendous.  We, the public, do not elect corporate CEO's, Corporate Boards or have a say in their corporate board room (unless we are majority shareholders).  We do however directly elect our public officials and have a definite say in all of the laws and policies  they enact.  It is up to said elected officials to enforce the laws that provide for a just economic system.  If the public strongly believes that a business is not acting within the Law, then it is up the our elected officials to investigate and prosecute for any wrong doing.  If the public does not believe a business is acting responsibly, they simply do not patronize it, its called a boycott.  OWS is not a boycott, it is a protest to provide political fodder for this election cycle.  Just look a little deeper and you will find that chief organizers of the OWS are nearly all ex-ACORN staffers.

I mention Solyndra because that was half a billion dollars of tax payer money unscrupulously lent out by a publicly elected official under the guise of advancing alternative energy sources.  This was not a private company like BofA making credit policy decisions for its customers based on its bottom line.  It was your elected official, that for the sake of politics, fast tracked an enormous amount of money to an otherwise completely unsound company that donated heavily to his campaign.  Solar power is a great investment and has been around for a very long time, but it has very real and definite short comings and limitations. The folks in the industry all know this, so for any elected official to publicly endorse a specific company and facilitate this outlandish amount of money in a period of economic decline is grossly irresponsible and IS the behavior that the OWS claims to be protesting against.  So why are they protesting the company's and not the elected officials that should have been regulating them?  This is where OWS protestors lose their credibility.  Corporations only have to answer to their shareholders, but our elected government officials must answer to us, the citizens.

The AIA PAC has a set of clearly defined goals and it does not endorse one political party over another.  It is obvious that you are a Democrat and despise any criticism of this President, his administration or even this Congress.  But you must understand that the Tea Party Movement was not a construct of the GOP or the DNC.  It has been an unwelcome guest by both parties.  The AIA PAC did not jump on the Tea Party bandwagon to pursue its goals, just as I believe it will not jump on this latest OWS bandwagon either.  If you wish to do so as a private citizen, that is your prerogative, but don't expect that the AIA or its PAC will do so lightly.

In closing your statement does not stand.  The AIA does not endorse political parties or candidates, it supports positions and platforms. As time is my witness, more damage has been done to the built environment by those with green delusions seeking to seize the political fervor of the day for their personal political gains, than by the masses that choose to live as stewards of their local community through their focus on sustainable design in architecture.

-----------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 10-26-2011 00:55
From: Elliot Johnson
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements


Mr. Ramos,

I am not sure how long you have been involved with the AIA.

The AIA (through its membership and lobbying) has been at the forefront of promoting socially responsible policies for decades.  From sustainable principles, public transportation, affordable housing, urban design, etc.

This is exactly the forum for discussing how those policies are promoted and enacted.

Some of that occurs at the local, state and national executive committee levels, however, that only occurs if the general membership encourages it.  Some of it occurs through general members participating in their local governments, city council meetings etc. and/or through rallies for those causes.  I only see a degree of difference between a rally at the state capital to encourage green schools and the OWS to encourage corporations and banks to act more responsible and within the law, especially when their failure to do this has led to everyone involved in the built environment finding credit extraordinarily difficult to obtain.  For a rarity, Architects and Builders/developers have found some common ground.

You mention a familiar conservative talking point in the failure of "Solyndra"  Solyndra was part of the DOE loan program to encourage renewable energy research/production, etc.  Although Solyndra is unfortunate, it is only a small part of the attempt by the current administration to shift the country from the previously subsidized fossil fuel industries.  I noticed LEED in your tag.  LEED is a direct result of over 25 years of hard fought gains in  sustainable architecture, largely through democratic administrations (sometimes bi-partisan) investing in national conservation programs, renewable energy research etc.

One of the Tea Party darlings, Ron Paul, has targeted the elimination of the Department of Energy, Department of Housing etc as a bedrock of his administration.  I hazard a guess that the direction that administration (and other similarly minded) would take would be disastrous to sustainable architecture and renewable energy.

So in closing, I have to disagree completely with your statement "Architecture transcends the fluid fervor of politics and thus it is up to our profession to see that our discourse remains in design and not the political flavor of the day."  And follow up with that it is exactly the opposite.  Take a look at the advocacy page.


-------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson AIA
Images Of
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Ramos,

You speak very elegantly.

I am not afraid to say I am a Democrat.  I also have no problem with criticism of this President or the Democratic party.   Criticism is critical.  I however, have a problem with hypocrisy.  In your last post you claimed  "I have promoted no political party, affiliation, movement or support for either"    It is clear where you stand, as again you try to exalt the Tea Party and lambast the OWS movement.  One being a Good Grassroots movement and the other being "Political Theater"   We could debate that i.e. your Acorn statement versus perhaps the billionaire Koch Brothers support of the Tea Party.  Which I think we can safely save for a different forum.

And yes you are correct the ArchiPAC and the AIA do not endorse one political party over another.  And you are quite correct the ArchiPAC will not jump on the OWS, that was not the original query of this Post, rather if Architects should support their local movement.  Which you quickly tried to Censor, by stating it did not belong on this forum.  You can choose to respond to a post on this discussion group or not, that's up to you.  But the content is up to all the members.

Yet, one would be foolish to think that Politics do not affect our business.   There is a difference between the AIA and Architecture, which was the thrust of your "Architecture transcends the fluid fervor of politics"  However, The ArchiPAC DOES support individual candidates both Democrat and Republican (i.e. Politics) that support the built environment http://archipac.org/candidate-support. 



-------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson AIA
Images Of
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Johnson,

I appreciate your kind words, but can you please show me in my statements an endorsement or value judgement where I exalt the Tea Party and state that it is a "good grassroots movement"?  Can you also show me where I censored architects from joining the OWS?  If we can please move beyond the vitriol that has permeated the OWS mentality, you will see that I have done neither. 

Every four years, we hear the same emotional tongue lashing from the mob mentality that is both the GOP and DNC.  Each side rousing their useful idiots to classify everyone into a camp as either friend or foe.  This bigoted mentality is truly the hypocrisy of our democracy, where one is lambasted for being an independent critical thinker that refuses to accept any political party line as being benevolent and factual.

I concur that politics does affect our business and that is why we have ArchiPAC, but that is not why people seek out Custom Residential Architects.  They seek us out because we are the authority, at least for now, when it comes to residential architecture.  They don't come to us for our political views.  They come to us because "Architecture transcends the fluid fervor of politics" and produces a construct of firmness and commodity in which they will delight for decades to come.

I have had both, liberal and conservative clients on opposite ends of the political spectrum, some were even married to each other.  They did not come to me for social responsibility lectures or political activism, they came because of my focus on good design.  When I showed them time tested empirical evidence of good design solutions to their desired program, they responded in a very positive manner.  However this has only been possible when members of the CRAN were not virulently distracted by the political flavor of the day, be it the Tea Party, Acorn, OWS, Presidential reelection campaigns, etc which consume the CRAN discussion forum.

If a member of the CRAN wishes to become an activist, join a movement or endorse a candidate, that is there prerogative as a free private citizen to do so.  But as you have kindly acknowledged, such activities are for another forum.


-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-27-2011 12:03
From: Elliot Johnson
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements


Mr. Ramos,

You speak very elegantly.

I am not afraid to say I am a Democrat.  I also have no problem with criticism of this President or the Democratic party.   Criticism is critical.  I however, have a problem with hypocrisy.  In your last post you claimed  "I have promoted no political party, affiliation, movement or support for either"    It is clear where you stand, as again you try to exalt the Tea Party and lambast the OWS movement.  One being a Good Grassroots movement and the other being "Political Theater"   We could debate that i.e. your Acorn statement versus perhaps the billionaire Koch Brothers support of the Tea Party.  Which I think we can safely save for a different forum.

And yes you are correct the ArchiPAC and the AIA do not endorse one political party over another.  And you are quite correct the ArchiPAC will not jump on the OWS, that was not the original query of this Post, rather if Architects should support their local movement.  Which you quickly tried to Censor, by stating it did not belong on this forum.  You can choose to respond to a post on this discussion group or not, that's up to you.  But the content is up to all the members.

Yet, one would be foolish to think that Politics do not affect our business.   There is a difference between the AIA and Architecture, which was the thrust of your "Architecture transcends the fluid fervor of politics"  However, The ArchiPAC DOES support individual candidates both Democrat and Republican (i.e. Politics) that support the built environment http://archipac.org/candidate-support. 



-------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson AIA
Images Of
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

Ricardo,

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  And let it go at that.

-------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson AIA
Images Of
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Johnson,
 What is it exactly that we are agreeing to disagree on?  It appeared we concurred that this was not the forum for politics.
Regards,

-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-28-2011 12:28
From: Elliot Johnson
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements


Ricardo,

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  And let it go at that.

-------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson AIA
Images Of
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

Of course architects should participate in the global OCCUPY MOVEMENT. Why not? We're problem solvers

are'nt  we?
Harold Baker AIA
Principal
Harold E. Baker III, AIA
Brazil IN
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 11-01-2011 00:29
From: Ricardo Ramos
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

Mr. Johnson,
 What is it exactly that we are agreeing to disagree on?  It appeared we concurred that this was not the forum for politics.
Regards,

-------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramos Assoc. AIA, LEED® AP, CSI
Alpha Analysis, Inc.
Arcadia CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-28-2011 12:28
From: Elliot Johnson
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements


Ricardo,

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.  And let it go at that.

-------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson AIA
Images Of
Austin TX
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Vincent Oles AIA
Owner/Architect
Vincent Oles Architect AIA, llc.
Salt Lake City UT
-------------------------------------------
David,
I agree with you on many points. I, too, have served many 10%'ers over the past 35 years yet never felt quite fulfilled from the experience. For the past 2 years I have been working with a local non-profit designing a 640 sq.ft. home using shipping containers. Despite not receiving compensation, this has been one of the highlights of my career. I'm hoping my certification in welding will hold the same rewards!

I wasn't aware that the Occupy movement had presented any solutions.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman UT
-------------------------------------------

Architecture is judged according to Vitruvius's Ultimate Synthesis, Commodity, Firmness, and Delight.  Are we are going to redefine Delight as to being art which is only affordable and accessible to all? The 99%?  For instance, is Norman Rockwells Saturday Evening Post Cover worth to more to society than the the original artwork, which I understand at some level...  even so, you still have to recognize that the artist needs to be supported to make and sell the painting first.  To me, this new architectural definition would seem to be something other than architecture because it is not inclusive to all, and frankly flies in the face of encouraging great art, but more importantly reduces the support of artists, artisans, and craftsmen in general. To me, this seems unacceptable to the essence of our architectural ethos.

The irony here is (and I preface this be saying I support a political compromise on all issues before we are all out of business) that when we elimante deductions, and tax the rich up and beyond the Bush year levels, that philanthropy at all levels will suffer, from children museums to art museums. This is the tragic unintended consequence to the current direction.

Peace!

Dave


-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------

"The irony here is that when we elimante deductions, and tax the rich up and beyond the Bush year levels, that philanthropy at all levels will suffer, from children museums to art museums. This is the tragic unintended consequence to the current direction."

If that is the foundation of your argument, I think its irrational. We should not have a fair distribution of wealth because it might undermine the arts? 

I think the open minded benefactors that reside in the 1% will continue to support the arts no matter. What is more worrisome is the Politicians supported by the 1% that continue to work against the NEA and NPR and other progressively minded institutions that were once largely supported by our federal government and had freedom to support artists even if contrary to conservative morals. 

If your 1% are so critical to the arts why haven't things gotten better for artists recently, as the imbalance of wealth increased they should have been doing much better? Why hasn't your 1% stepped up to fund the NEA, and expand it into even bigger and better programs?

We all want to see our clients have money to spend on us. Some architects work for the 1%. Some for the rest. I guarantee that if the rest had more money to spend on their homes and on building we would all be a lot busier than we are now. Except for maybe the few of us that have clients in the 1%. 

Sorry David - your argument just does not stand up.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Greg,

All I can comment is my own experiences.  My wife (particularly) and I have been committed to many many Rhode Island charities over the last 20 years. Over those years it becomes obvious that you have to contact the same people, year after year for the big donations, but then add that they are being contacted by every other charity in town. All the givers are leaving. (Perhaps your community, your reality is different. ) Some of these philanthropists are my clients and my close friends. Friends that like my for my good looks and personality, not my money, or lack thereof! :^) Subjects like this, and in our case RI's death tax, are huge issues that effect on where they give their money, and how much! This is fact. This IS the reality of the future RI giving as we see it. In my world, my argument does stand up.

Perhaps my experiences do not reflect the country as a whole.

I hope you are right and I am wrong.

Fondly

Dave



-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-25-2011 07:40
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

"The irony here is that when we elimante deductions, and tax the rich up and beyond the Bush year levels, that philanthropy at all levels will suffer, from children museums to art museums. This is the tragic unintended consequence to the current direction."

If that is the foundation of your argument, I think its irrational. We should not have a fair distribution of wealth because it might undermine the arts? 

I think the open minded benefactors that reside in the 1% will continue to support the arts no matter. What is more worrisome is the Politicians supported by the 1% that continue to work against the NEA and NPR and other progressively minded institutions that were once largely supported by our federal government and had freedom to support artists even if contrary to conservative morals. 

If your 1% are so critical to the arts why haven't things gotten better for artists recently, as the imbalance of wealth increased they should have been doing much better? Why hasn't your 1% stepped up to fund the NEA, and expand it into even bigger and better programs?

We all want to see our clients have money to spend on us. Some architects work for the 1%. Some for the rest. I guarantee that if the rest had more money to spend on their homes and on building we would all be a lot busier than we are now. Except for maybe the few of us that have clients in the 1%. 

Sorry David - your argument just does not stand up.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Unfortunately politics and the economy are very important to Architecture, although the art of design should always supersede the bickering. It's clear that a specific group of wealthy people were given unbelievable tax advantages along with already having all the buying power. Concentrating the wealth in fewer and fewer hands is not a good thing for our profession. Clinton was able to find the sweet spot when it comes to balancing taxes and budgets. The economy had never been stronger, the unemployment rate was at a record low 3.7% when he left office, and everyone was doing well. He balanced 6 budget years in a row (how about that T party?), while Eisenhower in 1957, was the last president of the other persuasion to balance a budget while taxing the rich 90%. History says it all, yet we refuse to repeat our behavior that actually created success.

What we're experiencing now is what happens when wealthy people hoard all the money that should be flowing through the economy. They siphoned all the gas from the economic engine. We don't have a rich people confidence problem, they're sitting on $3 trillion dollars of confidence stored in tax free, off shore accounts and we wonder why our banks are playing games with bad paper. One provision in the Bush Tax Plan allows outsourcers to keep as much money away from America as they want, tax free. What would you do? Pay taxes for the privilege to keep your money in an American bank -OR- put your money in any other bank in the world and not pay taxes? This one provision is the root cause of why our banks started playing casino games. Architects should be concerned about where the wealthiest Americans are hiding their money. Without American banks making loans, we don't exist.

What we have is a consumer spending problem because the Middle Class aka the Consumer Class has been cut in half while the wealthy doubled their wealth and can't possibly spend it fast enough to keep the GDP machine running properly. When 400 individual Americans own 30% of the wealth in a country with 300 million people, historically speaking, this is the type of income disparity that kills economies. The expansion of the Middle Class in the 50s is the reason why our economy became a global economic power. Millions of people can consume much more than the wealthiest 1%. I'm sorry, but this is all so painfully obvious, yet we have the power to rationalize things in order to support our political football team. 

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-25-2011 07:40
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

"The irony here is that when we elimante deductions, and tax the rich up and beyond the Bush year levels, that philanthropy at all levels will suffer, from children museums to art museums. This is the tragic unintended consequence to the current direction."

If that is the foundation of your argument, I think its irrational. We should not have a fair distribution of wealth because it might undermine the arts? 

I think the open minded benefactors that reside in the 1% will continue to support the arts no matter. What is more worrisome is the Politicians supported by the 1% that continue to work against the NEA and NPR and other progressively minded institutions that were once largely supported by our federal government and had freedom to support artists even if contrary to conservative morals. 

If your 1% are so critical to the arts why haven't things gotten better for artists recently, as the imbalance of wealth increased they should have been doing much better? Why hasn't your 1% stepped up to fund the NEA, and expand it into even bigger and better programs?

We all want to see our clients have money to spend on us. Some architects work for the 1%. Some for the rest. I guarantee that if the rest had more money to spend on their homes and on building we would all be a lot busier than we are now. Except for maybe the few of us that have clients in the 1%. 

Sorry David - your argument just does not stand up.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Eric,

It is so much more complicated than this... and there are two sides to it. 

We "the middle class" spend more money per dollar earned on disposable crap than we did in the 50's on fashion, toys, and disposable technology... we need to accept that. Think of the clothes in our parent's closet.

We watched people demand McMansions (they couldn't afford), and be granted them by the government (both parties) by loosening credit standards. 

Healthcare has improved beyond comprehension, but can we really afford the technology that has emerged around us, maybe we cant.  We cant all afford a Rolls Royce, maybe we cant all afford Rolls Royce medical technology. (What is important is that we all have access to some reasonable level of healthcare that doesn't exist now for everyone).

We drive safer cars today than the 50's, but filled with technological and safety enhancements demanded by safety regulation (big gov,) and frivolous technology (demanded by people.)  This all makes the car more expensive to buy, maintain, insure, and in some cases (the hummer world,) run. 

My point is that this is not black and white.  It needs to be corrected, or improved on BOTH sides.  To hear Michael Moore last night spew that this current problem is 100% the responsibility of the big companies, with no responsibility to the government regulation and consumer demand, is frankly disturbing. 

Lastly, don't get hung up on the 3 trillion on the sidelines... it is there for ONE reason, because the far right and the far left have not come up with a real solution to our long term deficit, Bowles Simpson like.Our future is uncertain!  This 1.7 trillion  that the super committee is wrangling over is a pittance (IF AGREED UPON) and still adds 10 trillion to our deficit in the next 8 years.  Why would any large company outlay money when the real possibility exists that we will over spend our selves into national bankruptcy... really.  Come up with a long term plan to protect out children's future (which will HURT for all sides), and the money will be invested because they will be confident again.  Then employment will rise and we will begin to work our way to a better place.

This needs to be fixed at all levels, but from the middle... and this architecture forum isn't the place. We should all continue this offline... over a glass of wine.

Peace.

-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-26-2011 07:36
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

Unfortunately politics and the economy are very important to Architecture, although the art of design should always supersede the bickering. It's clear that a specific group of wealthy people were given unbelievable tax advantages along with already having all the buying power. Concentrating the wealth in fewer and fewer hands is not a good thing for our profession. Clinton was able to find the sweet spot when it comes to balancing taxes and budgets. The economy had never been stronger, the unemployment rate was at a record low 3.7% when he left office, and everyone was doing well. He balanced 6 budget years in a row (how about that T party?), while Eisenhower in 1957, was the last president of the other persuasion to balance a budget while taxing the rich 90%. History says it all, yet we refuse to repeat our behavior that actually created success.

What we're experiencing now is what happens when wealthy people hoard all the money that should be flowing through the economy. They siphoned all the gas from the economic engine. We don't have a rich people confidence problem, they're sitting on $3 trillion dollars of confidence stored in tax free, off shore accounts and we wonder why our banks are playing games with bad paper. One provision in the Bush Tax Plan allows outsourcers to keep as much money away from America as they want, tax free. What would you do? Pay taxes for the privilege to keep your money in an American bank -OR- put your money in any other bank in the world and not pay taxes? This one provision is the root cause of why our banks started playing casino games. Architects should be concerned about where the wealthiest Americans are hiding their money. Without American banks making loans, we don't exist.

What we have is a consumer spending problem because the Middle Class aka the Consumer Class has been cut in half while the wealthy doubled their wealth and can't possibly spend it fast enough to keep the GDP machine running properly. When 400 individual Americans own 30% of the wealth in a country with 300 million people, historically speaking, this is the type of income disparity that kills economies. The expansion of the Middle Class in the 50s is the reason why our economy became a global economic power. Millions of people can consume much more than the wealthiest 1%. I'm sorry, but this is all so painfully obvious, yet we have the power to rationalize things in order to support our political football team. 

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-25-2011 07:40
From: Gregory La Vardera
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

"The irony here is that when we elimante deductions, and tax the rich up and beyond the Bush year levels, that philanthropy at all levels will suffer, from children museums to art museums. This is the tragic unintended consequence to the current direction."

If that is the foundation of your argument, I think its irrational. We should not have a fair distribution of wealth because it might undermine the arts? 

I think the open minded benefactors that reside in the 1% will continue to support the arts no matter. What is more worrisome is the Politicians supported by the 1% that continue to work against the NEA and NPR and other progressively minded institutions that were once largely supported by our federal government and had freedom to support artists even if contrary to conservative morals. 

If your 1% are so critical to the arts why haven't things gotten better for artists recently, as the imbalance of wealth increased they should have been doing much better? Why hasn't your 1% stepped up to fund the NEA, and expand it into even bigger and better programs?

We all want to see our clients have money to spend on us. Some architects work for the 1%. Some for the rest. I guarantee that if the rest had more money to spend on their homes and on building we would all be a lot busier than we are now. Except for maybe the few of us that have clients in the 1%. 

Sorry David - your argument just does not stand up.

-------------------------------------------
Gregory La Vardera
Architect
Gregory La Vardera Architect
Merchantville NJ
-------------------------------------------

Thank you, David. . . . Well put!

-------------------------------------------
John Lehman AIA
Lehman Associates, PC
Highland MD
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-26-2011 09:36
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

Eric,

It is so much more complicated than this... and there are two sides to it. 

We "the middle class" spend more money per dollar earned on disposable crap than we did in the 50's on fashion, toys, and disposable technology... we need to accept that. Think of the clothes in our parent's closet.

We watched people demand McMansions (they couldn't afford), and be granted them by the government (both parties) by loosening credit standards. 

Healthcare has improved beyond comprehension, but can we really afford the technology that has emerged around us, maybe we cant.  We cant all afford a Rolls Royce, maybe we cant all afford Rolls Royce medical technology. (What is important is that we all have access to some reasonable level of healthcare that doesn't exist now for everyone).

We drive safer cars today than the 50's, but filled with technological and safety enhancements demanded by safety regulation (big gov,) and frivolous technology (demanded by people.)  This all makes the car more expensive to buy, maintain, insure, and in some cases (the hummer world,) run. 

My point is that this is not black and white.  It needs to be corrected, or improved on BOTH sides.  To hear Michael Moore last night spew that this current problem is 100% the responsibility of the big companies, with no responsibility to the government regulation and consumer demand, is frankly disturbing. 

Lastly, don't get hung up on the 3 trillion on the sidelines... it is there for ONE reason, because the far right and the far left have not come up with a real solution to our long term deficit, Bowles Simpson like.Our future is uncertain!  This 1.7 trillion  that the super committee is wrangling over is a pittance (IF AGREED UPON) and still adds 10 trillion to our deficit in the next 8 years.  Why would any large company outlay money when the real possibility exists that we will over spend our selves into national bankruptcy... really.  Come up with a long term plan to protect out children's future (which will HURT for all sides), and the money will be invested because they will be confident again.  Then employment will rise and we will begin to work our way to a better place.

This needs to be fixed at all levels, but from the middle... and this architecture forum isn't the place. We should all continue this offline... over a glass of wine.

Peace.

-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-26-2011 07:36
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

Unfortunately politics and the economy are very important to Architecture, although the art of design should always supersede the bickering. It's clear that a specific group of wealthy people were given unbelievable tax advantages along with already having all the buying power. Concentrating the wealth in fewer and fewer hands is not a good thing for our profession. Clinton was able to find the sweet spot when it comes to balancing taxes and budgets. The economy had never been stronger, the unemployment rate was at a record low 3.7% when he left office, and everyone was doing well. He balanced 6 budget years in a row (how about that T party?), while Eisenhower in 1957, was the last president of the other persuasion to balance a budget while taxing the rich 90%. History says it all, yet we refuse to repeat our behavior that actually created success.

What we're experiencing now is what happens when wealthy people hoard all the money that should be flowing through the economy. They siphoned all the gas from the economic engine. We don't have a rich people confidence problem, they're sitting on $3 trillion dollars of confidence stored in tax free, off shore accounts and we wonder why our banks are playing games with bad paper. One provision in the Bush Tax Plan allows outsourcers to keep as much money away from America as they want, tax free. What would you do? Pay taxes for the privilege to keep your money in an American bank -OR- put your money in any other bank in the world and not pay taxes? This one provision is the root cause of why our banks started playing casino games. Architects should be concerned about where the wealthiest Americans are hiding their money. Without American banks making loans, we don't exist.

What we have is a consumer spending problem because the Middle Class aka the Consumer Class has been cut in half while the wealthy doubled their wealth and can't possibly spend it fast enough to keep the GDP machine running properly. When 400 individual Americans own 30% of the wealth in a country with 300 million people, historically speaking, this is the type of income disparity that kills economies. The expansion of the Middle Class in the 50s is the reason why our economy became a global economic power. Millions of people can consume much more than the wealthiest 1%. I'm sorry, but this is all so painfully obvious, yet we have the power to rationalize things in order to support our political football team. 

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

Why have all this garbage posted on our CRAN discussion forum?  We should be discussing professional and design issues that will allow us to better serve our clients.  Put your political comments on Facebook or elsewhere.  They don't belong here.

Throughout history the 1% or 10% have paid for the cathedrals, castles, universities, tall buildings, etc. that have paved the way for all of us to advance.  Check it out.

-------------------------------------------
Lewis Faulkner AIA
Richardson TX
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-24-2011 11:36
From: David Andreozzi
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

Architecture is judged according to Vitruvius's Ultimate Synthesis, Commodity, Firmness, and Delight.  Are we are going to redefine Delight as to being art which is only affordable and accessible to all? The 99%?  For instance, is Norman Rockwells Saturday Evening Post Cover worth to more to society than the the original artwork, which I understand at some level...  even so, you still have to recognize that the artist needs to be supported to make and sell the painting first.  To me, this new architectural definition would seem to be something other than architecture because it is not inclusive to all, and frankly flies in the face of encouraging great art, but more importantly reduces the support of artists, artisans, and craftsmen in general. To me, this seems unacceptable to the essence of our architectural ethos.

The irony here is (and I preface this be saying I support a political compromise on all issues before we are all out of business) that when we elimante deductions, and tax the rich up and beyond the Bush year levels, that philanthropy at all levels will suffer, from children museums to art museums. This is the tragic unintended consequence to the current direction.

Peace!

Dave


-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------

Technically this forum should be free of political arguments... I agree.  From that standpoint the whole "Occupy" theme could have easily been deleted from the get go.

The catch is that the concept of artistic funding has a massive potential impact in what we do, architecture. Unless the argument is to move to a purely utilitarian archetype free of decoration, to not recognize this reality is a mistake. Most of us are dependent on the philanthropy of others that are supporting artists at all levels.

Also, I am not being a a smart-ass, but would think that you might be able to "not follow" certain threads that you find offensive. Kathleen Simpson at AIA would know if this is possible

Peace.


-------------------------------------------
David Andreozzi AIA
Andreozzi Architects
Barrington RI
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 10-25-2011 08:43
From: Lewis Faulkner
Subject: Should architects support local "Occupy" movements

Why have all this garbage posted on our CRAN discussion forum?  We should be discussing professional and design issues that will allow us to better serve our clients.  Put your political comments on Facebook or elsewhere.  They don't belong here.

Throughout history the 1% or 10% have paid for the cathedrals, castles, universities, tall buildings, etc. that have paved the way for all of us to advance.  Check it out.

-------------------------------------------
Lewis Faulkner AIA
Richardson TX
-------------------------------------------