David Koren

Art and Populism on Governors Island

In Friday’s Weekend section of The New York Times, Edward Rothstein wrote a fairly evenhanded story about Governors Island as “A Playground for the Arts." As a follow-up, Ken Johnson contributed a dismissive and offensive post on the Times blog, the thrust of which is that good art requires money, the and if we want serious art people to take the art on Governors Island seriously, the best way for that to happen is to raise a few million dollars and throw an international art exhibition. Because, he writes, “Art just isn’t the kind of thing that lends itself to no-budget, laissez-faire populism.” He goes on to dismiss the work of No Longer Empty, FIGMENT, the Sculptor’s Guild, and even 4Heads, before their exhibition has even opened.

In his critique, Johnson manages to miss the point entirely. The art on Governors Island isn’t for him. And it’s not for the elite tastemakers who have decided who lives and dies in the art world for centuries. No, this is art for the rest of us. For everybody… for families, for communities, for every-day citizens who yearn for inspiration, for artists trying new things, and for connecting all of these pieces to each other in an accessible, fun, and interactive environment that encourages experimentation instead of censure.

Because Governors Island, unlike New York’s museums and galleries, is our place. It belongs to all of us. So the art that succeeds there is, by definition, populist (as you can see in videos of FIGMENT's projects). And, in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, when foundations, individuals, and governments are stretched to their limits, that means low budget... reflecting the hardship in the lives of the people creating and enjoying that art.

And if this means that, to the elite sensibility, the FIGMENT minigolf course and interactive sculpture garden—enjoyed by tens of thousands of children and adults through summer at no cost (unlike MoMA, the Met, etc.)—is “an ugly mess.” Well, so be it. Better to be loved to death by the people of New York City than admired by an elite echelon of the art establishment.

We believe that public art is art created by and for the public. And Governors Island, as a place for all of us to share equally, is the ideal place for public art. And yes, this is a populist idea, and the point that Johnson misses entirely.

And, after all, as jaded as Johnson is about art that doesn't "thrill" him, what if something really important and innovative were actually going on here? How could Johnson tell? He is clearly so disinterested in populist forms that, if he had been writing at the time, he would have dismissed impressionism, dadaism, naturalism, abstract expressionism, pop art, performance art, and every other arts movement that came from the people, as opposed to those innovations, such as they are, that come from the establishment.

We believe in participation, the idea that we can all collaborate to create great art together that none of us could have created in isolation. FIGMENT has grown rapidly over the last four years on this simple idea, creating better and better participatory and interactive art each year. It's true that we're not in competition with the Venice Biennale, but that isn't really the goal. The fact that we're having this conversation in the blog of The New York Times is evidence that we're making tremendous progress in our goal to develop the island into an international arts destination focused on participation.

Mr. Johnson, we invite you to reconsider your position on what makes art important to society, and to learn more about FIGMENT and the other arts groups working on the island. We would love for you to join us and to be a participant in what we're building.

David Koren
Executive Producer
FIGMENT

 

 

The FIGMENT Update

When our group got together to start FIGMENT in 2007, we never had any idea that it could ever grow this much, this fast. In 2010, our three-day NYC event had nearly 25,000 participants, and our Boston event, just in its first year, had something like 10,000 participants. It's really amazing to see how quickly the community around FIGMENT has grown, and it's exciting to see where it can go next.

Welcome to FIGMENT! (Image (c) 2010 NY_Man)

FIGMENT began in New York in 2007 as a way to bring three important resources together: first, Governors Island, a former Army and then Coast Guard base in New York Harbor that had just been turned over to New York City; second, the creative energy of artists in New York, often creating work without ample resources, often desperately in need of space; and third, the ethos that many of the founders of FIGMENT had learned from Burning Man, expressed in the ten principles—basically, teaching us how to work collaboratively together to make great things happen in a way that is participatory, generous, and free from commoditization.

The idea took off immediately, and, while we expected 500 people or so at our first one-day event, we had over 2,600 people, with thousands more turned away at the ferries. We haven't stopped since. The New York event has grown exponentially each year, increasing how much art we cram onto the island's 172 acres, growing in participation as art projects become more ambitious, growing in duration as we add increasingly successful summer-long projects every year, and growing in stability as we build a team that believes in this event and can keep it going.

The Temple of Wonder by Jen Upchurch, Bryan Cates, and Douglas Hart, on Governors Island until October 3, 2010 (Image (c) 2010 Limelike)

So what is FIGMENT, anyway? FIGMENT is a free, large-scale, public participatory art explosion, in which absolutely everyone is encouraged to participate in any way they see fit. We select projects for FIGMENT via open calls for art, and apply a very basic criteria to submitted projects: Is the project participatory or interactive in some way? Is the project appropriate for the general public? Can it be cleaned up easily?

There are a lot of things that have surprised us along the way as FIGMENT has grown… One is the kids. We really didn't expect FIGMENT to become such an amazing event for children and young families. When we began to plan the first FIGMENT, none of the organizers had kids (now I have a two-year old daughter). But we quickly found, in our first year, just how much kids love what FIGMENT has to offer: art that you can play with, 200 ways to get messy, hula hoops, rave music, rose petal and glitter pools, minigolf! At FIGMENT, you often see kids leading their parents around, and kids and their parents playing together, in a way that is fun for everybody.

Another thing we really didn't expect was that a daytime-only, alcohol-free event could feel like such a fantastic party. Since Governors Island is only open during the day, FIGMENT was forced to begin as a daytime-only event, despite the hopes of some of the organizers that FIGMENT could grow to include a nighttime element, or even become a 24-hour event at some point. But, surprisingly, the focus on daytime, and on maintaining a public face that is appropriate for everyone, has meant that the event is actually completely inclusive. Also surprising is that big parties have not really become part of FIGMENT—there aren't huge afterparties or related nighttime events. People go to FIGMENT, and then go home to sleep so they can get up early and do it again!

One of 11 minigolf holes for 2010 in the FIGMENT Minigolf Course: Just Dreaming Is Not Enough by WUKAG (Wichita State University Kinetic Art Group) – Jeswin Joseph Chankaramangalam, Wai Seong Choy, John Harrison, MohamdAli Ishaque Kazi, Christian Kindel, Ivy Lanning, Alan Whitaker (Image (c) 2010 Jason Eppink)

Given the fact that Governors Island is an uninhabited island that is open to the public for about 18 weekends in the summer, the idea occurred to us very quickly to try to create art that could be up for a longer period of time. In 2008, FIGMENT expanded to include two longer-term exhibitions, both of which were funded in part by Black Rock Arts Foundation: Emergence, an interactive installation in a 100-year old officer's residence created by 30 artists or collectives, and the FIGMENT Minigolf Course, which was actually originally suggested by Leslie Koch, the President of Governors Island. The FIGMENT Minigolf Course has become a staple of summer in New York City, spurring a new trend in artist-designed minigolf courses in the New York area. Now in its third year, the FIGMENT Minigolf Course remains completely free and funded by donations, enabling children and adults of all backgrounds to engage in a participatory art experience, providing a summer-long cultural experience for many people who do not go to museums, or galleries, or professional theatres. In 2009, we also added a summer-long sculpture garden, which has grown again in 2010. In 2010, we created our first architectural design competition to create a pavilion as a performance and gathering space on the island. The winning design, the Living Pavilion, opened on June 11 at FIGMENT, and has received rave reviews for its innovative use of milk crates and plantings that have been turned upside down.

Another way in which FIGMENT is growing is geographically. In my first post on the Burning Man Blog, I talked about what it was like not to go to Burning Man in 2009 for the first time in a number of years. A first-time burner from Boston, Jason Turgeon, saw that post after he got back from the playa, noticed my reference to FIGMENT, and contacted me, inspired to figure out how to recreate the spirit he experienced at Burning Man in his local community. We met, and started talking. Jason started to build a core group that could make FIGMENT happen in Boston, including Peter Durand, one of the Burning Man Regional Contacts for Boston. In cooperation with the Cambridge Arts Council, FIGMENT Boston took place on June 5, on a closed stretch of Memorial Drive along the Charles River in Cambridge. Since the event was located right next to the Cambridge River Festival, a more conventional arts festival involving food vending, artists selling their work, and paid performers, visitors kept wandering across the road into FIGMENT, and asking, "So what is this? And why is everyone smiling over here?" While I was initially a little nervous about having FIGMENT be right next to a conventional arts festival, ultimately the juxtaposition served to highlight how FIGMENT is different, and what makes it special. This feeling was helping along by the fact that Cler, a wonderful Boston volunteer, created beautiful hand-painted signs that explained the Ten Principles.

The Self-Reliance principle, illustrated beautifully for the general public by Cler (Image (c) 2010 Yacht Boy)

So what's next for FIGMENT? Well, it's certainly possible that we could see more geographic expansion, with other events popping up in other cities following the FIGMENT model. One thing that we're really interested in exploring is the idea of learning as a formal part of FIGMENT. I've realized that one of the things that is appealing to me about FIGMENT is just how much I learn every year by working to make this event happen… I've learned so much about leadership, management, planning, community, creativity, collaboration… And, as I look around, I realize everyone else is learning too… The team members, the artists, the kids who are in glitter up to their waists… How do we take that process of informal learning through creativity and make it some more established part of what we do, without crushing it completely into an "educational curriculum" or something like that? I'd love to hear your ideas… Feel free to email me.

More Texting, Less Driving

When I was at the ARC-Interiors conference in late September in Miami, speaking on "A Sense of Purpose: The New Reality for Architecture Firms and How Principals will Need to Adapt" I had lunch at the conference after I spoke at a table with a bunch of nice conference attendees and exhibitors. Before long, the conversation turned to current events, and we touched on the controversy over texting while driving.

Without really thinking, in the middle of the conversation, I interjected, "The problem isn't texting... It's driving." I went with it: "I mean, texting doesn't kill people, driving does. The problem is that we drive too much, and driving is just too easy. We need to drive less, and when we do, it needs to be more difficult."

One of the others at the table asked, "Yeah, I need somebody to pick me up at my house and drive me to work."

I threw out, "We have that already. It's called a train."

Suddenly, I realized that I was in a group of people from all around the US, none of which lived in New York or one of the few other cities in the US where you can live a full and complete life without owning a car.

"Maybe we should spend less public money on roads, and more on trains. If the roads were more dangerous, you couldn't text while driving because you'd hit a pothole. Part of the problem here is that driving is too easy because our roads are too well-maintained. People have too much free time when they drive."

The entire controversy, and this conversation, points out to me that our dependence on the automobile, and all the evils that go with it (foreign oil, pollution, suburban sprawl, shopping malls, road rage, alienation, long commutes of wasted time) is a choice, a choice we can reverse. It doesn't have to be this way. And it shouldn't be this way.

I'm reminded of the James Howard Kunstler quote, that the suburbs "represent the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." The current controversy over texting while driving should be another wake-up call. The problem isn't texting, it's driving. Driving kills. We should be driving less, and texting more. People, get on the train. Get off the road. You're wasting resources, you're wasting time, and you're running the risk of killing somebody, or yourself. Why live this way?

Business Development in a Nutshell

I was talking to some of the marketing staff and business developers in one of our offices recently, and I thought of a gross simplification for the whole business development process, in terms of what the steps are, that I thought might be helpful, especially in this economy. Here it goes…

FIRST, YOU HAVE TO FIND OPPORTUNITIES. So, where do opportunities come from? Well, they can come from anywhere, but the best opportunities come from existing relationships that you have, because those are the ones you are most likely to close. Aside from that, they can come from referrals, or from public listings, or in the mail. Or you can even find opportunities by making a list of the 50 organizations you’d like to work for, and calling them all on the phone. But that not only is much less fun than emptying the cat’s litterbox, it’s also highly unlikely to be productive, in terms of finding opportunities. Calling on the phone is great for finding out information, and really bad for generating business. To generate business effectively, you really need a relationship.

SECOND, YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH OPPORTUNITIES TO PURSUE. One of my favorite business articles ever is David Maister’s “Strategy Means Saying No.” The idea being, if you don’t say “no” to something, you don’t have a strategy, you’re totally adrift in a turbulent sea. Which invokes the famous Yogi Berra quote, “If you don’t know where you’re trying to go, you’ll probably end up someplace else.” Too many firms believe that all business is good business, and it simply isn’t true. You need to focus your efforts predominantly on work that you can win and that you want to do, and that you can do (and make money doing) if you win. It’s ok to throw a Hail Mary pass every so often, and to pursue something you have no business pursuing because you REALLY want it, but you can’t base a career, or run a firm, on this strategy.

THIRD, WHEN YOU’VE DECIDED TO GO, YOU HAVE TO NAIL IT TO THE WALL. Ok, so you want the project, you think you can win the project, and if you get it, you can do it (and make money doing it). So, why are you pursuing the project in a half-assed way? Give it everything you have! Pull out all the stops! Have early meetings! Stay up late! Convince the client how much you want to work with him or her, and how important the challenge they’re facing is to you. Show your passion. Be bold. And check your work.

Yes, it’s grossly simplistic, but having a list of three things you have to do to succeed is even better than having a list of ten things you have to do to succeed!

How Do You Describe Social Media Tools to People Who Haven't Used Them?

I was at a design industry cocktail party a few days ago, and I was talking to someone who is roughly my age who doesn’t understand Social Media. She’s on Linked-in. She’s on Facebook. She hasn’t used Twitter (yet). As I am (like everybody else) trying to figure out how to use these tools in a way that is productive and useful and helpful to others but not a tremendously wasteful time-suck, I offered her what I’ve been thinking lately about these tools:

“Linked-in is your address book. It’s your network.”

“Facebook is like a neverending cocktail party with all your friends.”

“Twitter is the future of the newspaper.”

She was quite surprised at how I described Twitter, “Really???”

Yes, really. She, like a lot of people (and like me until my wife Sasha sat me down a few weeks ago and said, THIS is how you use Twitter) sees Twitter as a tremendous time-suck, just like Facebook. It all depends on how you use it. If you think of it as a billion-channel broadcast system that allows you to access all (or nearly all) of the up-to-the-minute information and perspective you do now, in one place, it’s invaluable, or on its way to becoming invaluable. And, besides that, you get to be a channel, or several channels, and tell the people who follow you what you’re doing, or what you think.

With print media evaporating at a rapid pace (Have you seen Newsweek lately?), increasingly Twitter is how the information we need is going to come to us. I just hope it can ramp up fast enough, and that we can all figure out how to make using it part of our daily routine.

The "Expert Traveler" Lane: Do you pick the blue pill or the red pill?

I’m writing this post on a plane from Chicago Midway to LaGuardia. At Midway I found something I haven’t seen before in an airport: a multiple-choice question that allows you to self-select which category of traveler you are, and the answer to your question determines which line you wait in as you go through security. There are three lines (and I’m paraphrasing the categories, because I’m on a plane without wifi!): “Family/Fluids,” for those of us traveling with kids or who have fluids of some kind with us, or some other item that’s going to raise eyebrows as it goes into the scanner, “Casual Traveler,” for those of us getting on a plane to go on vacation, or who don’t travel that much, and “Expert Traveler,” for those of us who travel all the time and have our whole ritual worked out… pull out computer, put in plastic tub, take off shoes, put in another plastic tub, put jacket over shoes, etc.

I kind of resented the segregation at first… I mean, am I really an “expert traveler”? Do I want to describe or label myself that way? So I got into the “Casual Traveler” line and got to the ID checkpoint. Then the lines continued toward the scanners. Overwhelmed by curiosity, I switched to the “Expert Traveler” line, and immediately felt my posture change. Now I had to perform. Through my choice, I had told everyone that I knew what I was doing. This was not the time to leave my Blackberry in my pocket, set off the beep, and have to go back through. This was a test, and I needed to nail it.

When I got to the scanners, I was surprised to see that the line really wasn’t moving any faster than the other lines. You would think that these “expert travelers” would be flying through the line! But, while not quite moving in a blur, we were remarkably efficient and well-behaved. It was a test for all of us. No one wanted to be the “expert traveler” to set off an alarm, or forget that we had a bottle of water or a letter opener in our bag.

This is the real benefit of this segregation: the choice we make changes the way that we define ourselves, which changes the way we behave. We have taken the blue pill (or was it the red pill?) and we are now on a journey that we have helped to create, and we are to some extent responsible for the results. This is actually a key lesson for participatory culture in general: it is important to make people partners in the experiences we create by giving them a choice. Once people pick the red pill or the blue pill, they become a partner in the journey, transformed from a spectator into a participant.

One of the (many) reasons that I believe Governors Island is a truly special (occasionally magical) place in New York City is that you have to choose to go there. You can’t just take a stroll into it, like you can with Central Park or Prospect Park. You have to get on a boat. Your journey is intentional. From the second you step onto the boat, you are a participant in the story, you are counted, you are a citizen of the island. You are no longer a spectator. And this influences the way people behave on the island, and the kinds of experiences that are open to them to have there.

Your Mission Is Your Competitive Advantage

Why are you in business anyway? To deliver shareholder value? Do you think that’s really enough?

Businesses, by definition, exist to engage in activities that deliver profits to their owners and shareholders. Other purposes or goals are secondary. For example, no matter how much a CEO believes that sustainability is important, unless the business case for investment in sustainable technologies can be made in terms of shareholder value, it likely can’t be justified.

But there is a fundamental shift underway in the way that our economy works, and the role of business in our society. It is becoming apparent that when we come out of this recession, the environment in which companies operate may be very different from the business environment we enjoyed when the recession began.

One of the big lessons from the unraveling of the financial products, unwise investments, and scandals that led us into recession was that it’s important to look at the whole system to understand what’s going on. From securitized mortgage products to Bernie Madoff’s fraud, many people chose to turn a blind eye to what happened behind closed doors they didn’t want to open.

At the same time, the general public is recognizing that climate change is an important issue, and that we simply cannot continue to pollute the planet. So it becomes important, to an increasing percentage of the population, to consider where products come from and where they go after we’re done with them.

As customers begin to recognize that with every purchase they make they are endorsing an ethical framework, both in terms of how the products they buy were manufactured, and in terms of how they can be reused, all businesses will be increasingly accountable not only for delivering shareholder returns, and for serving their customers, but also for serving the greater good.

In a world of increasing transparency, dramatically accelerated by the explosion of self-publishing and social media on the Internet, any organization will much have a much harder time playing anything “close to the breast.” If you aren’t walking your own talk, your customers will know.

Companies that have a clearly articulated mission to guide their decisions and actions will have an advantage over companies that operate by the same old rules of offering a good product or service to meet a client need at a fair price. A sense of purpose gives a company a way to inspire their employees and connect with their clients and other audiences. A good mission statement brings passion to business, creating a connection that is tough to match.

In this new model, profits are not the singular goal for an enterprise to exist; they are the result of the enterprise relentlessly pursuing its mission in service to humanity.

Two examples that come to mind of companies that seem to have a mission that guides them, even to the exclusion of profits (although both have been incredibly profitable) are Google and Apple. Google didn’t initially set out to be a technology juggernaut… they just wanted to make information as accessible as possible to everyone, and had an algorithm that could help facilitate that better than any that had existed previously. The profits came later, as Google figured out how to monetize the value that they were bringing to us all. Apple, in its latest incarnation, seems to have, as its highest purpose, the utilization of design to make our lives easier, simpler, and more reliable. BP also seems to be pursuing a mission (“Beyond Petroleum”) to be the clean energy leader, and to provide the cleanest power possible for all of our needs, but I’m not sure to what extent this is just marketing spin, and to what extent this vision actually guides the company. I’ll need to do more research on that.

There are a few companies out there that have been very good at times, and done a lot of good things for their employees and customers, but who do these things as a secondary priority after profits. Examples that come to mind are Starbucks and Ben & Jerry’s. Both companies grew from a desire to provide a food product to customers in a new way, and as both took off and soared into profitability, they looked for ways to use their profits to do good for their employees and in the world. But I believe the profitability in both cases comes first, and that we will see Starbucks shrink its philanthropic programs and generous employee benefits as conditions become more difficult, and that, if Ben and Jerry’s was following a higher purpose, they never would have sold to Unilever.

In the current recession, so many factors that companies have used in the past to differentiate themselves have just become part of the cost of doing business. Think about sustainability (who isn’t?) or fair prices or the use of technology to serve the customer or helpful customer service. If you don’t have all these things (and more) you’re probably not doing well.

So, in the next economic cycle, in order to pull away from the pack, companies need to find something else to make them special. Nothing is more special than what is in your heart, the reason that you do what you do. Discover it, connect it to helping the world and your customers, and talk about it. We want to know why you do what you do!

(I’m working on this topic for a series of talks I’m giving this fall in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Houston… So let me know if you have thoughts or ideas!)

Facebook: On the Internet, Everybody Knows You're a Dog

I just joined Facebook today. I've been holding off for a really long time (Has it been years? It certainly feels like it...) because Facebook has made me nervous from beginning. First, it came up from the kids... It was originally designed and first used by high school and college kids to gossip. That made me not entirely trust Facebook. How could I find a use for the social networking tool of teens? Then there's the fact that you can really only have one Facebook identity with any depth at all unless you truly have a multiple personality disorder. This effectively brings an end to the "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog" era, and into a new era of transparency. On Facebook, your user name is not "MissSexyPants801." It's your real God-given (well, Mom- and Dad-given) name. And anyone, whether it's the government, a stalker, a loan shark, or a malevolent space alien, can find you, find out who your friends are, find out what you're into, when your birthday is, what events you're going to, etc.

So there's transparency on Facebook and there's (necessarily) a level of trust that emerges. I trust my friends, and I trust their friends. And my friends trust their friends' friends. And so on. I think this is, for the most part, a positive thing. But it roots us in who we are and our history. And I think it changes the way we grow up and evolve. A few times in my life, I have sort of rolled the dice, picked up and moved, or started fresh with a whole new group of friends and a whole new identity, to some extent. I can think of a few examples: Moving at the age of 8 to Pottstown from Phoenixville, moving to New York to go to NYU, moving to Ireland, going to Burning Man. That's four, I think. But Facebook crosses the beams. You are who you are who you are. Or, perhaps more accurately, you are who your friends are. If character used to be destiny, in 2009 your network is your destiny. Or something like that.

There is no dipping your toe in Facebook. This is a paradigm shift, and you can't just sort of be there. If you're there, you're there. By diving in, you make a commitment to put your name and face and friends and facts out there for anyone else who puts themselves out there to search and see and comment on. So now I'm in it, and what does it look like, 10 hours later and with 100 friends? Well, it's virtual reality, for real, with perhaps less sex. Who needs to go out and have events? All I need is an event invite. Who needs real friends? I've got Facebook friends. I write on your wall, you write on my wall, and we while away the hours. It reminds me of the last Matrix movie, when you get to the heart, meet the architect, see the man behind the curtain, and it all just looks like pure white light. Or Wim Wenders' Until the End of the World, when we can see our own dreams, what's inside our heads refined into images, and it's irrepressively addictive.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a fundamental shift, and it requires a commitment from every participant, a commitment to participate. And I can see that this is the future. This is incredibly efficient, and equalizing. Hierarchy fades away, and I can friend anyone in an instant and they can friend me, and we reduce the entire world to one flat level playing field. It's amazing, it's liberating, and it's addictive. This is how we will organize ourselves in the future. This is how our government should work. And probably will.

But this all requires a level of optimism about people and our future that I find truly encouraging. The movement to Facebook, even in the face of continuing economic collapse shows that people will always find places where energy is abundant, and look to explore that. Our social and economic system is in the process of transforming itself completely. It is, and will continue to be, painful. But I think Facebook is part of what comes next, what society looks like after we've burned off all of our sins and excesses of the last 50 or so years.

Why Are Red States Red, and Blue States Blue?

As I sit here, along with most of the country and world, and watch states turn color to red or blue as the vote comes in and precincts report, I wonder why red places are generally red, and blue places are generally blue. Why is it, exactly, that more people in urban areas tend to vote for Democratic candidates, and more people in rural areas tend to vote for Republican candidates? What is it exactly? Is it economic? Is it somehow about pace of life? Or the result of immigration? Are the red voters, as McCain would have us believe "the real Americans" and the blue voters are, by implication, somehow less American, or even un-American?

Let's imagine for a moment that everyone is equally self-interested. That is, that everyone is voting based on their own personal belief of what will improve their own lives, rather than from a sense of duty to the good of the nation or other altruistic impulse. Red voters, I believe, generally have a sense that the Republican candidate will make their lives better, by focusing on defense, deregulating the markets, lowering taxes, etc. At the same time, blue voters generally believe that the Democratic candidate will improve their lives, by focusing on education, health care, and social issues. So why is the urban/rural divide so important in this? What's different about people who live in cities?

Here's an idea. One difference, again very generally, between people who live in or near cities, as opposed to those who don't, is that they have to deal with a lot more people on a daily basis than people who live way out in the "real America." I think it makes sense that having to deal with a lot of other people might lead to empathy, or at least a sense of being somehow connected, or in it together. The more "in it" we are together, the more it becomes apparent that education, generally, benefits all of us, even if we don't have kids. And health care, even if we aren't sick, is something that might improve the overall quality of life in the areas in which we live. Living in a city, I think I'd much rather have a leader who advocates the idea that we all need to get along and work together, rather than a leader who is a cowboy, a maverick. Living in the city, we understand that it's important to all of our happiness that all of us are relatively happy. And it certainly seems that this is closer to the Democratic message and purpose (focusing on education, health care, etc.), than it is to the Republican agenda of restricting social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) while liberating markets (tax cuts, deregulation, etc.).

So, can Obama's success in this election be to some extent attributed to the gradual growth in U.S. population, and our gradual urbanization? A higher percentage of us live in cities than ever before. And, over time, it seems likely that more and more of us will live in cities. What happens to the Republican coalition of big business, the religious right, gun owners, and other social conservatives in an urban America? Can we imagine an urban Republican America? Is that even possible?

Webinar on "Strategies and Tactics for Architects in an Economic Downturn"

I was part of a webinar last week hosted by the AIA on "Strategies and Tactics for Architects in an Economic Downturn." I was one panelist of 4 who spoke on the program; I covered "10 Steps to Marketing in a Slowdown," and spoke for 15-20 minutes towards the end of the formal part of the program, right before Q&A. The webinar was free to AIA members to tune in, and we very quickly received registrations for the 1,200 sites that we were able to accommodate. So, it was the most people I've ever spoken to at one time (except for that one time I was on the radio in high school, but that was pre-recorded!). To see and hear the webinar, click here:

"Strategies and Tactics for Architects in an Economic Downturn"