Those attuned to the perpetual phenomena of black cultural media will recognize the implications of the impending mega-hit movie ‘Black Panther’. This movie is objectively “For The Culture” and like it’s 2017 FTC predecessor ‘Get Out’, Black Panther is likely to outpace all expectations. Just for reference, Get Out, an independent movie, made over $252 million in the box office on just under 2,800 screens. That’s good enough to be the 17th highest ranked superhero movie of all time on 1,400 fewer screens according to Box Office Mojo. Black Panther is currently sitting at $139 million in advance ticket sales, is barreling towards 200 million opening weekend, and has all the screens.

We Lit AF, as it were.

In addition to the sheer math of it all, there is a groundswell of beautiful blackness primed and ready to show up to the movie theatre multiple times in full Black Panther regalia. In some cities, there are post movie afterparties, in others, community dialogues. Needless to say, the excitement is palpable and whatever you’re expectations are, you should probably up your bet.

The underestimation of black cultural media isn’t a particularly a new phenomenon, given its history. In the late 80s, the Cosby show saved NBC from imminent doom and shattered sitcom rating records, lifting the network on its back along with the black community. In years following, we saw the golden era of black television shape the agenda of new networks such as Fox, UPN, and the WB, with shows like In Living Color, Martin, living single, Sister Sister, New York Undercover, The Wayans Brothers, the Jamie Foxx show and the Fresh Prince. These shows were often rooted in the slightly hyperbolic normalcy of black life and it’s various manifestations. They represented black and brown families as wealthy and poor, serious and funny, joyful and grieving all in the context of contemporary black spaces. Ratings and rankings aside, The normalization of blackness in 90s television allowed for a generation to see themselves outside of the long-perpetuated stereotypes of previous eras.

Like most efforts to normalize blackness within our society, all of the television stations that used black media to build a base, eventually dismantled that effort piece by piece and replaced it with lighter, whiter, fair. If the process seems familiar, it’s because encroaching on and ultimately colonizing or gentrifying black spaces is ingrained in western ideology.

What television gained in representation during the 90s, it lacked in a truly radical vision of what uninhibited blackness might look like in the built environment. It lacked the representation and unabashed imagination that extends beyond the individual and into whole communities, neighborhoods, and cities. It is this vision that is most fascinating about the prospect of the Black Panther movie. The mainstreaming of an Afro-futurist people, kingdom, world, untouched by colonialization and able to harness the resources of the land. A world in which the value of blackness is not subject to the fears of whiteness and the grounds to which cities were built upon are not littered with the bones of those forced to build them. Now, Africa exists with 54 countries and is as culturally rich and different as you’d expect, but this world of Wakanda, this city of Birnin Zana, even as science fiction, represents that unabashed, uninhibited space.

Science fiction/fantasy movies, like all movies since the dawn of the industry, have a hard time disabusing themselves of the narratives of black inferiority or black struggle and often project the failures of present society in their portrayal of vigilante (mostly white) saviors. They show us a world in which the majority culture assumes both the position of nobility and the struggle of the marginalized, leaving truly disinherited communities out of the “representative” picture altogether.

Black Panther offers a change in script, so to speak, giving us an opportunity to consider how a futuristic (technologically advanced) world, when built through a black cultural lens, can continually strengthen communities and rival nations. In some manner, the visuals of the movie represent the furthest conceptual depiction of place as defined by the civil rights group bearing the same name, ‘the Black Panther Party’. In essence, the world created as a means to frame the plotline of a superhero movie also serves as a revolutionary model of futuristic black space. Black space, defined in this instance, as the physical world, the built environment in amplification of the habitual cultural tendencies of a self-determined black people from across the world.

Given that the Western world was built upon and is almost entirely dependent on the subjugation of black and brown people, a self-determined futuristic black city like Birnin Zana, Wakanda is as hard to conceive of as it might have been to imagine this movie being made, but alas, both are eminently viable. The psychological hurdles to conceive of such a city requires a historical knowledge of events that have been dedicated to separating black bodies from black land over centuries. It requires the creative ability to envision an alternative to those moments in pursuit of something entirely different.

This movie is inherently bigger than itself and it will be an epic adventure for so many reasons, though not a panacea, it is a step towards envisioning a world where a radical black future has an opportunity to become as normalized as Will Smith lounging in a mansion in Bel Air. If only for a brief moment in time, the Black Panther movie will make Wakanda, Birnin Zana, Black Twitter, and every local movie theatre in the world, the blackest place on earth. That in itself is worth a Wakanda dap, Drake clap, a Kendrick rap . #WakandaToday #WakandaForever

Ben Carson is not a dumb man. Let them tell it, he is the most brilliant black man walking this earth. No matter how aggressively he attempts to disabuse us of that notion, he is in fact, an accomplished surgeon and an acclaimed author. It is continually astounding how one man can firmly stand in both the appearance of intelligence and sheer incompetence so very very awkwardly. But alas, Ben “trapped in the sunken place” Carson has reached the heights of awkward incompetence. The pinnacle of overt delusion. The zenith of conservative coonery.

Ben “single tear drop with a smile” Carson, never one for missing the opportunity to say something wholly ignorant of context or fact, refused to do so once again on Monday. While giving an extremely quiet speech introducing himself for a role he is unequivocally unqualified for, Mr. Carson extolled the courage and strength of ‘immigrants’ who unwillingly set off in search of safe passage and a new life of bondage in America. You know? those abducted from Africa, forced into chattel servitude, beaten, raped, murdered, and dehumanized for centuries…those ‘immigrants’ whose families were split, forced to breed, auctioned at will, worked for “less than fair wages” and kept their spirit though it all.

Sooooo enslaved people.

The most obvious distinction between slavery and immigration, among the many, is the distinction of free will.It is utterly reprehensible for a grown human American person, let alone a department secretary, to neglect the brutal and lasting residual impact of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, or the prison industrial complex. All of which were/are distinguished exclusively by negating the free will of enslaved people and subsequently all people of color. The notion that the slaves primary concern was one of fair wages or some yearning for prosperity rather than survival is stupid and dangerous. It seems silly to have to proclaim that slaves were not immigrants, but this is the world we live in. To be clear Immigration implies a willful act on the part of the person(s) migrating, regardless of the dire plight that might cause such migration, it is still a choice.

Ben Carson stood on stage and made a comment that reflects a world view forwarding a dangerous false narrative of choice and opportunity where neither existed. Ben “hat to hide your lobotomy scars” Carson takes his racist narratives with him into a powerful department as the nations head planner.

Planners and designers are charged with a great amount of responsibility to shape the physical environments we live in. When done in the service of equity and justice planners and designers can be a tremendous force for good in the world, but when done with lack of technical and cultural competency the profession can have disastrous impacts that reverberate through generations. Mr. Carson has consistently and willfully ignored the impact of structural racism for people of color and subsequently every other persecuted group in America.

Here are just a few of the things described within the new HUD budget that actively go against a mission of equity and justice. Spoiler it’s potentially $6 billion in cuts according to the Washington Post.

1. Public housing assistance cuts
2. Destruction of housing authorities >leading to a continued reduction of. affordable housing
3. Elimination of poverty reduction programs
4. Elimination of community block grants and and neighborhood development programs.

It is the duty of the nations head planner to consider the disproportionate impacts of the systemic inequity prescribed directly from the very office he is now charged with leading. As of Monday March 5th, Ben “open handshake to fist bump” Carson has officially become the most dangerous planner in America.

There’s been a lot of professional reflection happening in the wake of this recent election. Which makes sense, Architecture, planning, and landscape architecture, are the result of our policies and procedures expressed in physical form. It is the reflection of our values and ideals made to last in perpetuity. As such, it inherently holds our biases within its design. This acknowledgment, to a large segment of the profession, is why the AIA’s response to the election was met with such blistering critique. Moving forward the design profession will have to critically question how the policies and procedures of the new administration will impact the ethical obligations of our work. We will have to account for an objectively uncompromisingly unqualified cabinet as we attempt to do the most good for the most people through our work.

As advocates of the built environment we will continue to seek Design Justice. It is never been more necessary for us to work collaboratively and across disciplines to affirm the apolitical standard of ethics for our profession. Over the past few weeks a group of motivated designers from across the country came together to build a Design Justice website with the expressed intention of developing our collective principles and to instigate action on behalf of the injustices we are facing.

The DESIGN JUSTICE PLATFORM (DJP) is a living document developed to establish an apolitical, socially and environmentally just code of ethics for operating as designers of the built environment. Through this platform we acknowledge our role in creating spaces of racial, cultural, and class equity. Through this platform we will organize, advocate, develop, and act on a principled movement for a socially just profession.

Please add your voice to the conversation!

https://designjusticeplatform.com

Post election, I’ve found myself referring to a specific quote by novelist/activist James Baldwin far more often then I would like to believe necessary in 2016. Unfortunately, it is all too apropos given the ask of The American Institute of Architects membership this past week.

“We can disagree and still [work together] as long as your disagreement is not rooted in my oppression, the denial of my humanity or my right to exist.”

It is with this quote in mind that we are struggling to reconcile with the AIA’s letter to the President-Elect. The profession of architecture has suffered from a crisis of internal and public confidence for a while and is currently going through a bit of a revolt after Robert Ivy’s ill-advised, unwarranted, and unnecessary letter of support for the President-Elect. Mr. Ivy’s letter and follow up clarification on behalf of the AIA membership suffered from three fundamentally flawed assumptions. First, and probably most obvious, is that it was wholly irresponsible to conscribe all 89,000 members of the AIA into a commitment to work with this objectively bigoted administration, when in fact, you will likely see a large number of architects firmly planted on the side of the resistance for the next 4 years and beyond. The second assumption was believing that the AIA membership had any interest in its leadership broadly speaking to our collective politics without the consent of the general body. You better be sure to speak WITH the people, if you intend to speak FOR the people. Third, and potentially most critical, there’s an assumption that this conversation is primarily political in nature. IT IS NOT. It is a moral and ethical protest to the AIA agreeing to aid and abet an administration that premised itself on the idea of creating unsafe spaces for people of color, Women, LGBTQ communities, and people of the Muslim faith.

The initial letter was an act of carelessness deserving of contrition. That contrition came in the form of a vague post uproar memo to the editor of Architecture Newspaper. The follow up letter calls for us to unite in the best interest of our country under the “eloquent” words of President Obama, and while I am certain it wasn’t meant to be, it rings of condescension. Never has the best interest of a country came in the form of an army of demagogues, nor has it been defined by creating walls that divide us (metaphorically or literally).

The de facto professional oath of the American Institute of Architects obliges us to be considerate of all aspects of architecture and design directly related to the health, safety and welfare of the constituents we serve. I often refer to the third, and possibly most atrophied principle, which calls on us to design spaces that engender a positive emotional and physical response and enable the access of equitable space for everyone. I would argue that there is nothing demonstrably positive about the spatial implications of increased stop and frisk policies, continued housing discrimination, building a wall at the Mexican border, religious profiling, eliminating the affordable care act and planned parenthood clinics, increased spending for federal and state prisons, and defunding sanctuary cities. I would argue that this all has the potential to create negative emotional and physical responses in the built environment and further detach the profession of architecture from the public at large.

Nearly 50 years after the AIA was admonished by the National Urban League’s Whitney M. Young for lacking the courage to speak out on issues of injustice, we find ourselves in the same position of indifference to the most oppressive struggles of many Americans. He noted:

“You are not a profession that has distinguished itself by your social and civic contributions to the cause of civil rights, and I am sure this has not come to you as any shock. You are most distinguished by your thunderous silence and your complete irrelevance.”

It is still not a shock, and I would say even more egregious, to side with those opposing the civil rights of others. I believe we owe it to ourselves to be a better profession. One that stands on the side of the people who interface with the spaces we create. We must seek to be thunderously loud and completely relevant towards the cause of civil rights as much and as often as it has implications in our work.

We have fallen short and Mr. Ivy, in this instance, does nothing to belie the concerns of the membership. It is all too easy for us to be cynical and skeptical at times like these, when the more precise tool (and one we are built for) is to be critical and creative. The AIA made a mistake and has apologized both publicly and privately, but apologies mean nothing without action. Now is the time to press the Institute to act. Act as an apolitical (not bipartisan) force for social good in the built environment. I wholeheartedly believe that to protest is to have an unyielding faith in the potential for a just society. As a member of the AIA, I am not removing myself from the conversation. Instead I will continue to stand and I will continue to protest, when necessary, in hopes of a better profession.

To that end, and after much discussion with colleagues and friends in the profession, we encourage those within the field to acknowledge the cultural implications of our work and become forceful advocates for true equity and design justice. I am calling on the AIA to reject its historically passive stance on issues of social importance and take an active position on the social issues that have direct implications in the built environment. Moving forward the AIA should elevate investment of resources into the research and initiatives focusing on equity and justice. Additionally, the AIA in partnership with The National Organization of Minority Architects, Arquitectos, the American Indian Council of Architects and Engineers and other cultural architecture organizations should develop a multipoint platform for Design Justice that outlines the ideals of a just city and a just profession.

In all of this, we must always remember that Architecture has the power to speak the language of the people it serves, but we have to be willing to serve the people without power.

#AIAforDesignJustice