Wall Street Isn't Enough (Edward L. Glaeser, City Journal)

"New York City has become too dependent on the financial industry. In 2008, 44 perecent of Manhattan wages were earned by workers in finance and insurance; the following year, even after the financial crisis and economic downturn had battered the industry, that share stood at a still-enormous 37 percent. And the track record of one-industry towns isn't good..."

Rahm's First Year (Greg Hines, Crain's)


"So far, there's been an encouraging stream of creative ideas—managed competition, infrastructure banks and anti-gang racketeering laws chief among them—and more are coming. But implementation of those ideas, especially the more complex ones, will be the ultimate test. On that, the jury is still decidedly out."

6 Simultaneous Lightning Strikes in Lake Michigan

Chicago Tech Scene Gaining Momentum

The growth of Chicago's tech start-up scene is old news for some, but it's worth noting again.

Chicago More Viable for Tech Startups (NBC Chicago)

A Start-Up Ecosystem Forms in Chicago (Wall Street Journal)

Groupon could give rise to "Silicon Prairie" in Chicago (Marketplace.org)

Built in Chicago (Community of Tech oriented entrepreneurs)

The dramatic expansion of Groupon has obviously dominated the city's tech news recently, but Chicago has been churning out notable start-ups for years. CareerBuilder, Orbitz, Redbox, Cars.com, PeaPod, Threadless T-shirts, The Onion, GrubHub, MetroMix and Pitchfork are all centered here. Google has maintained one of its largest offices in River North since 2001. Facebook's sales office is also in Chicago. 1871, a much talked about incubator, opens soon in the old Merchandise Mart. According to Crain's the tech hub already has a number of important, long-term tenants.

After years of relative disconnection and lack of awareness, the city finally appears to be building a strong community of resources, venture capital and entrepreneurs. In many cases entrepreneurs that left Chicago for the Valley are now returning to take advantage of the city's relatively cheap space and growing talent base. Previously "lack of talent," i.e. computer science / engineering talent has been a complaint against Chicago. This, quite frankly, is ridiculous. The founders of Groupon, not to mention Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, are all University of Michigan alumni (Go Blue). The University of Illinois has long maintained one of the top computer science programs in the world. Chicago draws not only from Northwestern and the University of Chicago (two of the top universities in the world - easily comparable if not superior to Stanford and Berkeley), but also Notre Dame and some of the best public universities in the world (Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue). The vast majority of the best educational institutions in the North America are located between Chicago and Boston. Chicago, and the Midwest in general, has never had a problem producing talent - it's had a problem keeping it.

Of course every city wants to think of itself as the next hot spot or "Silicon Valley," especially in a sluggish economy. Silicon Valley itself still dismisses growing scenes like Chicago as drops in the bucket compared to their dominance in the tech industry, but there's truly nothing to stop web-based / digital technology companies from spreading and/or relocating in the same footloose fashion as any other industry.

Chicago's tech scene is particularly interesting because most of the companies that start here are consumer/service oriented. Perhaps this represents a moment when "Tech" ceases to be its own industry and becomes more integrated into every day business practice. Aren't we already at the point where it's becoming difficult to distinguish between a tech company and an every-day business. Most of these start-ups are more oriented toward the average person than the technology itself. "Tech" (i.e. digital communication) is normal now. Many of these start-ups are simply figuring out ways to to utilize a tool for relatively standard business and consumer needs. The beauty of accessing Yelp, or GrubHub or Facebook on your iphone is the fact that the technology itself disappears. You're focused on what the device delivers, not how it works. It's not about technology, it about people.

Besieged: The West Humbolt Park Drug Market (Chicago Reader)

A decent article. It'll be interesting to see how the new policing strategy works. It almost reads like an episode from "The Wire." The hyper-concentration of the vast majority of Chicago's crime and drug trade in a handful of neighborhoods on the far west and south sides (see the map below) is both remarkable and deeply tragic. I hope to address this in much greater detail soon. 

For now let me simply make another supplemental observation to the Reader artical. West Side drug trade is a little different than the South Side in that it cators much more heavily to a suburban cliental. Madison, Chicago, and especially North Avenue and Roosevelt Road are all fast-moving arteries between downtown and the more affluent west and northwestern suburbs.

A Short History of Chicago's Beautiful, Decrepit Guyon Hotel (Chicago Mag)

A Frost on Global Markets (The Midwesterner, Richard Longworth)

The Plant, Chicago

More press for the Bridgeport / Back of Yards farm: Former meatpacking plant becomes a self-sustaining vertical farm (Good Design)

Losing Faith in Civil Society (How Americans lost Trust in Our Greatest Institutions - The Atlantic)


It might sound a bit dramatic, but I'd like to suggest that we're not just confronting a low-point in public opinion about traditional institutions - we're losing our faith in the social contract - we're losing our faith in everything that defines modern, complex democratic civilization.

Rousseau argued that man experiences his fullest freedom by living in a civil society where he is free from the unregulated (unlawful) exploitation of other individuals who, quite simply, have greater physical and (in our case) fiscal strength. In a "state of nature" we might think of ourselves as independent, but without the institutions of civil society we become enslaved by the anxieties of our day-to-day survival because we are easily exploited by those who are stronger than us.

Today most Americans are extremely anxious about their future. They don't believe that we can collectively solve our problems. We live in a time of dysfunction and diminishing returns. The institutions and ideals that we once considered foundational have lost their authority.

Civil society only works if the average person believes that all the headaches of living together are worth the collective physical and social security that we receive. If we lose security - our faith in our institutions, our democratic ideals and our hope in the future - we have nothing left to defend.

Politically the extreme Right and Left have in-common a complete lack of faith and will in continuing the project of civilization. Both sub-cultures are engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy of the apocalypse. The rest of us have become a deeply cynical nation. We've lost our ability to get behind a big idea that doesn't involve getting rich or escaping our present condition.

This cynicism isn't anything new. It's been brewing since the late 1960's. It is the final legacy of our parent's generation. While the left escapes to therapeutic lifestyles the reactionary right continues to aggressively promote a religion of untempered market capitalism cloaked in christian morality while deflecting the social destruction (externalities) of the "market" to a series of scapegoats and conspiracy theories (the liberal-minority-socialist-urban-international-elite). The GOP, more than ever, capitalizes on our cynicism, alienation and dysfunction. Their policy is intentional dysfunction. If they look bad, the entire institution of government looks bad. It is pure anti-enlightenment, post-modern genius.

Capitalism, itself, has no moral or ethical purpose. The market is not divine or a force of nature. It is simply a tool and a system of organization that we've invented. It's extremely effective at exploiting value and making profits. It works wonderfully to produce the goods and commodities of a consumer culture. It fails miserably at solving long-term societal problems or conserving common resources. Left unregulated - to its own devices and motives - it dramatically undermines the stability and security of civil society.

Cynicism - which can quickly lead to violent revolution - is what happens when you push exploitation and inequality of opportunity to an extreme. People begin to realize that the game is rigged. They begin to sense that - despite all of the reality TV show / lottery culture - they don't have much of a chance. They don't have much agency or control over their situation. Their lives are being shaped by forces that they can't see or participate in - much less control. Those forces aren't some kind of liberal-minority-socialist-international-climate change plot, they are the consequences of unregulated market capitalism, globalization, and technological advancement. It's not a conspiracy... just an unchecked profit motive.

After the Meltdown: Where Does Architecture Go from Here
(Vanessa Quirk, Arch Daily)

"Architecture Schools have created curriculums based on a profession that, by and large, doesn’t exist. They espouse the principles of architectural design, the history and the theory, and prepare its hopeful alumni to create the next Seagram Building or Guggenheim."

The Distinctive City (Urban Land Institute)

"Cities are seeking the recipe for economic success in a rapidly changing global marketplace and, in the process, often overlook a critical asset: community distinctiveness. Special places, characteristics and customs have value, and they can increase a city’s competitive edge."

The Third & The Seventh

A short animated film by Alex Roman


The Third & The Seventh from Alex Roman on Vimeo.

Architecture School 1990 - 2012

The Future that is Now: Stan Allen, (Design Observer)

"What is required to comprehend globalism today are not tired generalizations, but close study of specific places, cities and cultures. It is worth remembering that architecture remains rooted to place"

I've been meaning to post this with extended commentary for some time. Unfortunately I don't have the time to address all of my thoughts on the state and future of architectural education right now (this will have to come piecemeal over time). I will say that Stan Allen has done a nice job of summarizing changes in the discipline over the last 20 years.

Absent from this essay, however, is any real acknowledgment of what I'm not alone in perceiving to be a genuine crisis in both the academic and professional aspects of the discipline. Enrollment in Architecture programs continues to rise even as employment and licensure declines. In effort to become more "inter-disciplinary" architectural education has attempted to fold aspects of countless other disciplines into its spectrum (linguistics, film, performance art, digital media, computer science, naval and automobile design techniques, biomimcry, geology, ecological patterns and systems, etc.).

The result has been not an understanding of architecture's relationship to other fields, concerns or movements, but a diluting and disorientation of the discipline's strengths, opportunities and weaknesses. Countless young architects conceive their projects as emerging from or embodying fluid processes instead of letting the architecture relate honestly to phenomenon that are far too ephemeral and fast-paced to mimic in built or even "paper" form. In a crisis of insecurity that's been all to obvious since the 1970's, architects have continuously attempted to steal attention away from more timely aspects of global, consumer-based culture (commodities and contemporary digital communication). All that is solid melts into air. And, in an attempt to embody all aspects of our visual/consumer/digital culture, too many of us seem to have forgotten that architecture is not the performance - it is the environment or the stage where these performances take place.

Beautiful Time-Lapse of Downtown Chicago

Highland Park Ford Plant (Photo: Edward Burtynsky)

 The Last Pedestrians, Jerry Herron (Design Observer)

"The story of the automobile — like the story of the city of Detroit — is a tale of unwitting eternal returns. At every turn the inventors of modern life — of its machines, its aspirations — seemed unable or unwilling to grasp the meaning of what they were in the process of creating and unleashing, and what they were thus undoing and destroying."

Is Facebook Making Us Lonely? (The Atlantic)

Life in the old Packard Plant, Detroit

Architects as Economic Catalysts or Luxury Hobbyists?

The Center for an Urban Future, a New York City think tank, recently released a report on the importance of Architecture and Design Schools to the City's economic future. The think tank argues that New York's design schools have become "critical catalysts for innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth" by citing the fact that New York issues more than twice as many Architecture and Design degrees as the second and third largest cities (Los Angeles and Chicago). Of course New York is more than twice the size of both L.A. and Chicago, but never mind that for now.

The Atlantic Cities and The Architect's Newspaper have both picked up the topic: NYC's Design Future (Atlantic Cities), Will the City Ever Learn (The Architect's Newspaper).

On the surface the thesis of a design culture as economic catalyst is very attractive - particularly if you've bought into Richard Florida's "Creative Class" meme or dropped a $100,000 on a degree in architecture. It's reasonable to assume that creative people are essential to economic and cultural innovation - which is itself a primary driver of capitalism and our conception of "progress." Many young architects have creative talent and representation skills that are applicable to a number of disciplines outside of their traditional role of designing buildings. Indeed, a significant number of graduates pursue careers in fields like graphic design, interior design, film, animation and even fashion. But does that make Architecture graduates an economic catalyst in New York?

Economic Base Analysis divides activities into two categories, basic and non-basic. Basic industries are defined as those that export a product or service from a city or region and thus bring wealth into that region. Non-basic industries are considered part of a service sector that supports basic industries. "Basic" or exporting industries are identified by comparing a city's employment make-up to national averages. This tool is far from perfect, but it's a useful example of how one might begin to understand the difference between a business that is dependent on the local economy and a business that brings outside money into that economy.

So the question, really, is what percentage of New York's design industry is "Basic" (i.e. exporting design services and bringing money into the economy) vs. "Non-Basic"(i.e. supporting a local market). It's common knowledge that New York dominates the finance, media and publishing industries in the United States. New York is also home to the largest concentration of corporate headquarters in the country. These industries are almost certainly catalysts, but what about architecture?

Established firms that design buildings around the world seem to fall into the category of an exporter of services, or a basic industry, but not all architecture firms are the same.

Contemporary New York is a special case. For every firm that does work around the world or even operates as typical business there are a handful of boutique firms that are perpetually supported by independent wealth or academic salaries. These small firms may do intriguing work that inspires other architects. They may innovate fabrication or representation techniques. Occasionally they may grow to become legitimately successful firms and even leaders in the profession (DS+R & SHoP come to mind). But the vast majority of the small New York boutique firms do not produce a great deal of income. It's hard to argue that someone is an entrepreneur when their firm relies on external funding sources to survive.

Such "boutique" firms are, in many ways, extensions of architecture's academic culture. They occupy a small luxury niche. Much of New York's architecture and design scene is a result of income that the City has accumulated through other means. In this case architecture is not the catalyst, it is what has been catalyzed.

The Center for an Urban Future's report not only has their argument backwards, they're essentially conflating the role of architecture with that of tech start-ups and other cultural and media industries. Architects struggle to make a profit from their efforts precisely because architecture doesn't work very well as a commodity. Architects do not create a product that is easily consumed or even valued in the same way as a smart phone, web-site, novel, magazine or  television show. Apple, for example, became the most valued company in the world by creating an extremely well designed device that millions of people can afford to use every day. Like any economically lucrative commodity, the iPhone abides by a pattern of obsolescence - within a short period of time it becomes out-dated and needs to be up-graded or replaced. Every time you replace the product Apple makes money.

Architecture has far less liquidity than relatively pure commodities like cars and smart phones. Architecture adds value to specific places over long periods of time by encouraging social and economic investment. The High-Line in New York or Millennium Park in Chicago are recent examples of projects that have inspired investment in specific neighborhoods. One could certainly argue that the increasing attractiveness of urban living has everything to do with the value that traditional urbanism, architecture and planning create. Under these circumstances, architecture can be understood as a long term stimulus - but it's always more of a community asset or an element of infrastructure than a market commodity.

The fallacy of conceiving Architecture as a pure commodity (like cars and phones) is a tragic virus that has spread throughout both the discipline and the general public since the birth of "post-modernism." Our efforts to treat the built environment as a commodity - as something that we consume and disregard rather than cultivate - has brought both our country and our profession to a point of crisis and extreme anxiety.

Federal Housing Policy, "American Dreams" and Wall Street speculation collectively transformed the places that most of us live from homes and communities into housing commodities that were valued more in exchange than in use. Meanwhile, since the early 1970's the world of "high" design and architecture has increasingly retreated to a hermetic realm of iconographic "trophy" buildings, boutique installations and speculative projects. In its academic isolation architectural novelty has become confused with technological innovation.

Today, at a time when our society desperately needs to reconsider how it relates to its physical environment, architecture is perceived by most people as an exotic and elitist profession rather than something essential to every day life. People know that they need doctors. They understand the necessity of lawyers. But most people don't even think about architecture because they live in consumable spaces instead of valued places of investment and experience. They don't care about architecture because they don't see it as part of their lives.

It's incredibly ironic that an argument about the "catalyzing" economic effects of architecture schools was released only two months after another study found that recent graduates of architecture programs have the highest unemployment rate of all professions (higher than art majors). Architects that are employed are chronically underpaid and over-worked. A starting architect's salary in New York is about 50k a year (the equivalent of about 25k in the rest of the country). Starting attorney's make an average of 120 - 150k a year (3 times as much). Many of the most well respected "starchitects" and boutique firms pay the lowest wages. Unfortunately too many recent graduates are so intoxicated by prestigious names that they'll tolerate poverty-level incomes after spending $100,000 on their education. These conditions, which are worse in New York than anywhere else, have only served to marginalize architecture as a career that only the independently wealthy can afford to pursue. In this context architecture and design may be less of an economic catalyst than an extremely time-consuming and expensive hobby.

The Creative Allure of Grit (Rustwire)

"electralize" Amy Casey, 2008

Gated Communities: A False Sense of Security in the Privatization of Community Space (Washington Post)