In order to have happy and successful adults who are positive contributors to our society (and in this case building and creating policies that are equitable), we need a holistic educational model. Are academics enough? Developing values, understand the world from multiple identity points and critical thinking is as important as skill development. 

Architecture and urban planning work as intertwined disciplines to create more equitable communities through policies and the build environment in partnership. 

Architecture is moving beyond its previous singular definitions of shelter, maturing into a medium of contrasts between disparity and resilience, and therefore must act responsibly as an equitable threshold between the two.

Try to find a new interpretation of what architecture should be. What is the future version of Vitruv’s Firmitas, Utilitas et Venustas? Firmitas: the sustainable and efficient use of space and material by using architects creative and interdisciplinary approach? Utilitas: To create useful architecture and objects by using and improving  new technologies and creating testable prototypes rather then producing fashionable installations? Venustas: The esthetics should never be neglected and separates us from other disciplines. It forms the balance to the Firmitas and Utilitas.

After all, traditional values of architecture like creativity, interdisciplinary, organization and representation should not be sacrificed for fashionable trends or current desperate external conditions.

How do we faculty cooperate to break down the silos among the excellent schools at U of Mi to solve the world’s housing, affordability, and Urban issues? Start with engaging the marketplace and alums in our classrooms. Use  Arbor and Detroit as two of the best labs on the planet to push the envelope in place based, mixed use, transit oriented walkable urbanity. 

With virtual and augmented reality pressing ever closer to seamless interfaces (not to mention middle class market accessibility), our expertise – as architects capable of simultaneously solving technical problems, venturing cultural possibilities, and accounting for political consequences – is completely lacking from the conversation. As the ongoing political train wreck comprised of twitter and facebook (among others) show, when socially disruptive technology is developed by a tech industry that views disruption as its own virtue, catastrophic results can and will ensue. 

It is clear that the ethical and political acumen of our fields must begin to both influence and adjust to a paradigm under which social structures are even further mediated by digital interfaces—interfaces which must be designed.

Jan 20^th will be exactly 25 years since Bill Clinton’s inauguration. Reading his 1993 address, much of it easily applies to 2018, just as the urban life depicted in Mrs. Doubtfire etc. still closely resembles our own. Perhaps this is a reminder to discuss Taubman’s future role in terms of timeless principles as well as quasi-utopian/dystopian possibilities? If Americans in 2043 still commute, buy groceries, struggle with childcare, face injustice etc., then what sort of qualities do we want future alumni to possess? Besides technical expertise and digital fluency, how do we ensure they have the broader ethical and moral confidence to defend things like justice and beauty as they relate to the built environment?

Local food, local energy, and there is even a theory about local politics. Region remains the scale of economies, ecologies, and sometimes cultural identities. Unless indeed against that, how can the architecture discipline spend more time admiring and enhancing the difference between one place and another? How does love of place not only counter the current climate of toxic nationalism, but also push back against the tyranny of commercial wayshowing platforms (Google, Yelp, TripAdvisor)? How can designers contribute to other, more locally curated overlays and augmentations...

Technology progress continues to raise the return to capital, while reduce the demand for labor. It seems that the rising income inequality and the shrinking of the middle-class in much of the developed world will only get worse in the foreseeable future. Even in the rapidly developing countries, these changes also post great challenges.  What do these changes mean for the disciplines of architecture and urban planning? How can our research and teaching inform strategies to proactively address these structural forces, rather than just managing to survive? Would it be possible for the outside world to look to our disciplines for some of the solutions?  

The most important expertise becomes the ability to disconnect when necessary from perpetual interactivity (and perpetual marketing). The greatest danger to the university is the belief that everything should be documented, shared, and promoted. At least some thought and work requires privacy, presence, so-called deep work, and perhaps even occasional idleness. Beware the digital drowning cell...