So how is this mass deportation thing going to work exactly?

After Trump is elected president, his Supreme Court nominee (more likely several nominees) are approved, new restrictions are placed on the press, and an electrified fence is under construction along our southern border (since a literal wall will be less effective and more costly, and the fence has been a Republican goal for years), how will the Federal government begin the difficult process of deporting 12 million people?

First, it’s important to point out that anyone who assumes that there will not be an expectation and an attempt to carry this promise through is horribly naive, and is actively enabling Trump to look more moderate than he actually is. These people probably do not mean to do that; they may truly believe that the ludicrous and arduous task of deportation will be too cruel and un-American for even Trump to undertake. But if he has won the GOP nomination, and won the presidency, he will have already accomplished much more than they ever thought remotely possible. If and when Trump is sitting in the Oval Office in January of 2017, that is all the encouragement and endorsement he will need before implementing any of the campaign promises he thinks will build his power. And nothing builds power like fear.

Also, don’t forget that there is plenty of American precedent for a program like this. Not just the quarantine and imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, but also the actual mass eviction undertaken by President Jackson, the Trail Of Tears. We Americans may like to think we’re more enlightened today, more compassionate that those of a century and a half ago, but we’re seeing plenty of evidence this is not the case. A Trump presidency would be solid proof of it.

A modern deportation event of over 3.5% of our population would probably not be a forced march on foot. This much we can probably expect. More likely, what we will see is a collection of people from their homes or workplaces, where they are arrested by locally-based officials and taken to a series of new or repurposed local jails, and then their relocation to a holding center near a mass transportation hub for processing and eventual deportation. Our current ICE facilities will have nowhere near the capacity for this new program. Some people will certainly flee the country before arrest, but even with those accounted for, the number of those being held will be staggering.

This process would result in a reign of terror for all immigrants. Since about one of every three to four immigrants in the United States is undocumented, the likelihood of documented residents and citizens being kidnapped in raids of workplaces without their families’ knowledge or awareness is tremendous. We should expect this to create a very unsafe situation for immigrant communities. This is not only in the danger of being deported, but due to the confusion of mass arrests immigrants will be easier prey for actual criminals. Disappearances will be so high, and communities in such disarray, that violence will be difficult to track.

After their arrest, these people will need to be transported to the regional centers, and will then be ultimately transported to another country. Highway, rail and air transport will probably all be used for this.

Although the fringes of the internet have been reporting for years (notably during the so-called “Jade Helm Invasion”) that UN prisoner transport railcars exist in the United States, they are usually referring to photos of solid-walled vehicle transports designed for shipping new cars and trucks to dealers. Those railcars have shackles built into them to attach to the vehicles being shipped, which has unfortunately contributed to these shocking theories.

It’s unlikely that we will see people moved by rail car, primarily because the US is currently designed more for highway travel, but also because of the obvious visual reference to Nazism. We’re more likely to see transport by bus, from local holding centers to camps. There are already prison buses in use, and it’s likely they will be used here. (On the other hand, rails are less visible to the public, but still, the historical parallels may be too much even for Trump and his Redcaps.)

These holding centers will have a major impact on the landscape of their locations. Before the prisoners are shipped to other countries, they must be held and processed. Some of course will simply be held indefinitely, as there will undoubtedly be difficult relations with their home countries due in part to this program but in all probability due to actions of the Trump Administration. The denial of Constitutional rights to non-citizens, which began in earnest under the Bush Administration, will continue to be publicly supported, further exacerbating international problems.

The centers must be located somewhere. Let’s start with the information that there are about 150 international airports in the US. Deduct the ones that fly only to Canada (even though we can be sure some deportations will go in that direction as well), and add in train and trucking hubs, and that can lead to an assumption of about 150-200 regional deportation centers. For simplicity, let’s go with 200, or an average of four per state. That means about 60,000 people eventually passing through each center.

According to international building standards for refugees, camps are not recommended to be larger than about 10,000 people, because they become much too difficult to manage above that size. We will use less, only 2,400 as our number for a typical camp population, because prisons over that size tend to be notorious for bad conditions. After we add in local variations, and profit-taking and lack of standards from privatization, because these will be built and run through private contracts, we will expect major differences in the size, quality and living conditions at every facility.

For this exercise, we will also assume that only 3% of all undocumented immigrants will be held at any one time. This leads us to expect a minimum of 200 US detention camps, each sized somewhat similarly to the largest US prisons, where we would expect to see the construction of a complement of storage facilities, parking, truck staging, perhaps new rail connections, buildings for federal offices and hearings, facilities for housing those assisting with appeals, buffer zones, etc. That suggests that each of these camps would occupy about 1,000 acres apiece, depending upon location, and may even be coupled with its own deportation center airport or station. Each will, by its size, have a distinct presence in the landscape that will be an appropriate reminder of our increasingly militarized society. We would anticipate that every camp will become a lot like a small heavily-militarized independent city, or may even take planning cues from an overseas military base in addition to prison camps.

These camps will exist for a very long time, and should be expected to remain permanently. The legal proceedings regarding deportations will not happen overnight, by any stretch, and today’s Justice Department is nowhere near being staffed in a way to manage this dramatic shift in caseload. After the initial buildup of dedicated staff, it is unlikely that the department in charge will be properly funded or be able to move cases quickly. There will be pressure to privatize at much greater cost in order to streamline the cases, but that has proven to be no more efficient (and usually less so, such as in prisons) in other areas of government.

Repatriating people at this scale is new for us, and the loaded planes of immigrants being shipped out of the US will require re-settling and processing by their home countries. Simply getting a plane into the air for this purpose isn’t a simple commercial flight. While individuals could be placed on a commercial plane, the scale of this endeavor probably precludes that. We are talking about 12 million people—that’s about 80,000 full flights over an extended period of time. Each of these flights will come with a complement of new security procedures, perhaps even its own airport terminals.

What we’re looking at is an entirely new industry, one that includes building, servicing, and transporting, as well as supplemental industries to all of those. It will become a new economic engine in some places, and a permanent part of the fabric of the entire nation.

That new fabric fits us, of course, because if these are the policies we as a democracy vote to support, this is the type of nation we clearly want to become.

(all images are of US ICE Detention Centers)

Extracurricular

How many of your architecture classmates were (or are) athletes, or participated in team activities? Were sports and other activities forbidden to architecture majors at your college?

In talking with some recent graduates, I’m getting the impression that the banning of other activities has become the norm at their schools, even where such banning is counter to school policy.

Here’s a heads up: if your professors or critics are telling you that unlike students of other professions, you are to have no time for extracurricular activities, then they are attempting to establish a life-long pattern for you, and if you let them they will.

In my own college days, centuries ago it seems, students were discouraged from the fraternity/sorority system if in architecture. I thought, and still think, that this had more to do with a dislike of that system (and a lack of need for it with studio camaraderie) than actual workloads, but it was true that many of those with a rented hangout tended to learn and contribute less in the studio itself.

It wasn't for me, but some made it work extremely well, developing friendships in both places and truly getting benefits from both.

The required studio time of an architecture degree makes sports difficult. But that’s little different than the required studio time of an architecture job. And it is not so different than the required lab time of some other degrees.

An adjunct (or the college itself) enforcing their own arbitrary requirement on a student’s entire college career is not only inappropriate, it is stifling and it sends the wrong message. As a student, if you take on too much it is your responsibility to determine what to cut in order to pass, not your professor’s. It's true for later in life as well.

One of my favorite professors was an SEC quarterback. Our football star when I was in college had a double engineering major and a 4.0. I couldn't have handled the extra work of it, but some can and do. It should not be the purview of a college or its associate professors to forbid it.

Aim low in the diversity of your life and you will not have a diverse life. Professors requiring you to do so may be teaching you how to slave for others, but are setting you up to be a boring professional.

Whether a culture of all-nighters or of professional isolation, the patterns set in college often persist for the rest of our lives.

Design competitions are a warning sign

Architectural competitions have a long and illustrious history, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think every little project deserves one. Most are a tremendous waste of time.

Centuries ago, France’s best architects competed for the most important commissions in the nation. Of course, this meant that some of their most highly trained professionals only built one or two buildings in their lifetime, but we have beautiful watercolors of alternate versions of realities that could have been in addition to the influential structures built. Those paintings and drawings are still a rich source of study for Eurocentric architects and historians.

Today, architects are invited to come up with their boldest and most innovative thoughts to apply to major projects all over the world. These buildings are so important that, on occasion, the architects might even be paid a stipend for their efforts. However, in most cases the architects are expected to be flattered to associate with such wonderful potential clients, no matter the long odds (or even entry fees) linked to the project.

Open competitions fuel the dreams of upstart firms everywhere. The big break, the recognition for radical and new ideas, is a tempting prospect, and one that occasionally does lead to immense recognition. This happens most often on smaller projects such as memorials, but there is a very real chance that these can kickstart a new designer’s career.

Most of the time, however, competitions are simply a way for clients to put a positive spin on having no idea what they want to do. In fact, if a client sends out an RFP that asks for a rendered design concept on a fairly standard building type, odds are about 10:1 that they are new to the industry and don’t even have a clear program in mind to test the project’s financial viability. They’re looking for a free consultation to jumpstart their work. Last week I even saw an open competition posted for a “global company’s” office reception desk.

Some are invited and paid affairs, which obviously make more sense to enter, but the deliverable expectations are much higher, and can tie up essential staff for weeks or even months. The monetary calculations design firms make tend to reflect their odds of winning. For a fee payment of $30,000, the firm may spend over $100,000 in pursuit of a very large commission with a 3:1 chance of winning. One win will pay for the other pursuits in this case, but no wins will severely strain a firm’s finances. A win also may guarantee a free revision of the concept, since there is no way it can effectively meet the owner’s needs without good dialog.

Still, architects are all too willing to leap at the chance to give away their ideas, especially if they have unpaid student labor willing to produce the work. Never mind the fact that they usually aren't even good ideas, because a truly innovative building design doesn't come fully formed from the head of a dissociated architect. Good work takes collaboration and input from all of a project’s stakeholders.

Extremely high-profile state commissions and memorials stand apart from this criticism if handled well. An expert client that requires a custom design to fit their unique market position or function generally does not exist for these sorts of projects, and when they do a heavy client involvement with all teams will take the process to fruitful territory. The competition allows them to move forward in a brash (or sometimes thoughtful) new way.

However, by the nature of their speed and the lack of client dialogue on the process, the designs provided via the competition are often recycled from the last one, or from other work. Repackaging old ideas into new forms is generally the most effective way to approach a design contest. In almost every case, there simply isn’t time for a full thesis—based on in-depth research and truly innovative thinking—to be formed, and the design team is faced with compiling their own preferences and existing work into a package that can be rendered.

That sort of thinking and research required for most projects, including basically all commercial ones, needs the special input that the client must bring to the table. The idea that a design firm will develop a concept without that input, without fully understanding the necessary branding, the specific target audience, the timeline of user experience that the owner bases their business model around, makes no sense and suggests that the owner most likely doesn’t have the vision–or money–required to complete such a project.

The past several years of a struggling economy have meant that dreamers, whether small town councils or unfunded developers, have relied upon idle design teams to help generate enthusiasm for new work. Reaching out with a request for proposal from an architect is essentially free, and adding a requirement for a concept design can generate artist’s renderings and new ideas at no cost to the owner.

Recent economic improvements have shifted that behavior slightly. Today design firms are busier and clients limit the RFP to three or four firms that have been pre-approved. But the net result for the design team is the same: a lot of free work for a project that is unlikely to be built, because the client does not know what they want or what will work. If they knew, and could afford it, they would do their homework and hire a firm outright, and get to work. The competition is simply a delay tactic for undercooked project ideas.

Architects and designers are not giving up on competitions anytime soon; they’re too ingrained in the culture. Still, we all need to look hard at anyone who proposes holding one today. Competitions are a warning sign, one that says to look closely at the competence and capabilities of the client.

Architectural staff, software and media

The empowerment of new hires (and existing staff) is strongly affected by two different causes: software and media.

These two causes often get mixed together because of younger generations’ familiarity with both, but they are distinct issues that need to be treated as such, even though they can feed into each other.

If not taken seriously, they can pull a successful traditional firm down by a lack of enthusiasm or engagement, and by a loss of ambitious people. If handled properly, they can engage and invigorate an entire company, and build a strong and respected company team. In the broader scheme of architectural design, these are key factors that are going to widen the gap between architects hired for great design, and those hired for production or necessity.

1: Software

Tools change constantly. People are proud of their skill sets with software, and if a firm’s are old or not working well with their hardware, employees will think they are falling behind their peers in computer technology. If a company’s principals don’t take advantage of new technology, not only will they lose to competitors in terms of productivity and speed, they will lose their most ambitious workers. This has been the case in the past with building technology and professional development, but the tools architects use have never before changed as fast as they are now. Continued training on how to draw and build models was rarely needed before the past decade.

Designers and architects will find temporary fixes for deadlines, but constantly being behind on the technology curve sends a stronger negative message to employees than even to clients. If an architect’s skills drop, then they will have fewer potential employers, and ultimately will need to be replaced even in the same company. New employees know this even subconsciously.

A lack of focus on production technology, even if solely for firm competitiveness, is in fact a lack of focus on employee development. Architects and designers who aren’t supported by good software will inevitably see their companies as uninterested in their professional growth.

2: Media

Today's most talented new interns are motivated designers that want to stay part of the national and global conversation on design. This isn’t new, but the opportunities to be a part of that are more apparent today, and waiting to be much more seasoned for this engagement is no longer the norm. Online and social media have changed where engaged design enthusiasts go for information, and have (obviously) opened up tremendous new outlets for public expression.

When I started out as an architect, my peers and I were looking to be guided and trained by mentors, and to be given responsibility. We didn’t expect to be authoring papers or representing our company. We did not demand empowerment, because it wasn't realistic. In retrospect that’s difficult to imagine.

Today we're seeing a broader and more diverse group of younger people representing companies globally, learning and demonstrating new technologies and processes, as well as in social media. What that has meant for many seasoned architects is that they must make additional efforts in media and outreach in order to catch up with new interns and young architects in terms of writing and sharing. We can no longer build our reputations by virtue of our experience, but must demonstrate the gathering of that experience to the world.

The research-supporting-teaching model of academia has, thanks to the internet and social media, come to the architecture and design profession in a small way. Research can be simply gathered with experience as in the past, but in order for it to enhance a design reputation, to build on the practice, that research must be demonstrated and shared as it becomes available. If an architect intends to be seen as an expert in their field, they must actively show their expertise to the public, not just to their clients.

Leading architects are doing this very consciously with external initiatives, either through teaching, internal research, hosting industry panels, publishing, TED talks and other options. Without it, an architect can still be hired for their portfolio and production capability, but they will be trusted much less on their abilities and creativity, and will miss out on the top commissions. This has long been the case, but the need is more urgent today due to the relatively recent changes in sharing and reporting. Barriers to publishing are lowered and confident firms do not hesitate.

Fifteen years ago an architectural firm wouldn't be looking to an intern or unlicensed architect to lead an initiative or contribute publicly, but now many companies must in order to retain those people. This isn’t because the younger generation simply feels entitled to more promotional experience, but because technology has changed to a point where they can be and have been more globally focused, and they don’t want to enter a creative company to suddenly be stifled. Instead they want to be empowered. Further, savvy clients expect it, and expect to see more experts representing a firm’s initiatives than before.

Many of those empowering initiatives are in the creative use of new software, thus bringing these two items together, but that does not mean we should confuse them.

It’s important to remember what empowerment really means. Empowerment is not simply responsibility, but responsibility with trust and support. Without that trust and support, responsibility becomes a burden, and not a reward. Without being encouraged by management to speak out, make decisions and pursue new avenues of knowledge, fear of failure becomes the primary motivator, stifling creativity. In that case, the intelligence or talent of the new designer is no longer even useful, since they know they must be second-guessed and will soon step back from making recommendations at all.

There is already a gap between respected design architects and the rest, but those positions are still fluid. The positions may remain so for smaller companies, even as the gap continues to widen. But for larger architectural firms, ignoring the changing needs of junior architects will either cement a status as hacks or will lead them out of business. Giving them the tools to contribute to the firm as well as to the design profession can allow these companies to thrive.

Job opening for an architect, but not that kind of architect

From Ernst & Young:

Job Summary 

The Global Enterprise Program Architect is an architecture resource that translates business vision and strategy into an effective enterprise program by creating, communicating and refining architecture insights (requirements, principles, models) that define program/portfolio architectures into enterprise implementation. The goals of the Program Architect are to implement architecture efficiency and consistency into the enterprise via the large transformational programs. They are responsible for delivering architecture views aligned to the business needs at the program level.
...

Essential Functions

• Be an active participant in a team of senior and highly experienced global enterprise architects

• Work with the EA leadership team to develop the vision for the area of specialization and effectively and consistently communicate this to key stakeholders

• Gathers feedback that helps EA improve and evolve the quality and type of EA services provided

• Create and maintain artifacts describing program architecture and implementation strategy

• Provide clear vision for architecture requirements that show models of future state, with roadmaps that steer the implementation of program initiatives

• Accountability for delivery of architectural description (AD) for program elements (AD of strategy, AD of information, AD of systems, AD of processes, etc), from Conceptual to Logical Architectures, based on relevant Contextual / Business Architectures

• Accountability to ensure that architecturally relevant (long term) program decisions are made, documented, signed off, and then adhered to through effective governance

• Responsible for supporting the Program Manager with scoping the program, defining the required architectural skills / roles, estimating the architectural resource levels / profiles required, and the management and quality of program architecture deliverables, including third party and non-EA deliverables as appropriate

• Ensuring that the final solution is maintainable and supportable within the target operating model

• Implementing Program (and supporting relevant non-Program) governance bodies

• Accountable for implementation of enterprise-level roadmaps (multi-year) at the program level

• Support portfolio strategic planning responsibilities

• Collaborate with architects across the enterprise to identify strategic opportunities and in the rationalization of cross segment dependencies

• Influence segment specific roadmaps and program strategies in alignment with enterprise initiatives

...

In case you were wondering, despite the fact that architects (the kind who design buildings) establish space programs for enterprise implementation, often based on supporting the client's target operating models, and seeks to assist clients with transformational projects and programs, this is not in fact an architecture job, nor is it related to the building industry in any way. Not yet, at least.

Frankly, this description points out how far architects' roles have gotten from other areas of expertise and management thinking. While on the one hand, it is exactly this job description that has led the enterprise architect to adopt the term "architect," the enterprise or program architect has far surpassed architects themselves in the mind of management and consulting firms as a resource or profession that relates to profitability.

Architects can and should fill most of the roles listed above to coordinate a business owner's strategy for their physical and spatial presence. To do so, architects must engage with an owner's business goals directly, and not be looked upon as a required expense or necessary evil.

If they do not, then they will further marginalize the architectural profession and can expect to be managed by enterprise architects or strategic design thinkers in the very near future.