Mamdani’s Stellar Transition Team is Missing One Key Stakeholder

We shouldn’t be surprised that architects were left out, but we should be concerned.

Construction site in Manhattan

Zohran Mamdani’s improbable mayoral campaign has quickly begun the work of transitioning to the new administration, a process that feels excruciatingly long given the current one. Last week his team announced a robust transition cohort that included a stacked roster of progressive heavyweights, technocratic stalwarts, and renowned community activists.

We should be enthusiastic that players such as Lina Kahn made the list, indicating that the administration will be aggressive towards capital reforms. Political activists like Waleed Shahid bring both progressive ideology and experience with past campaigns for AOC and Bernie, while the likes of Maria Torres-Springer give reassurance to those who have concerns about Mamdani’s experience. A transgender Rabbi also made the list, underscoring the diverse coalition that made the future administration possible.

While we can feel encouraged by the list above, one key group was left off the list: architects. Central to Mamdani’s platform was a rent freeze and robust housing program; one would think architects might have something useful to say about the future of the built environment. Examining the list more closely, however, we see a list of stakeholders who largely determine what the city looks like, while those designers who have concerns that are equally, if not more, important to housing are missing.

Among those on the Committee on Housing, we see: professors, preachers, non-profit leaders, community activists, lawyers, real estate agents, and least surprisingly, developers. In this regard the list perfectly reflects the needs of capital (law, policy, and money) while giving some needed space to grassroots movements who will see change within their neighborhoods.

On the one hand, the list is a perfectly reasonable one from Mamdani’s team, with some important amendments from past administrations; thankfully we see more progressive advocates and leaders, fewer hucksters and future criminals. On the other hand, it is a list that still lives in the past, with the direction of the physical city being determined by the struggle between capital, technocrats, and community members. While these stakeholders don’t always sort neatly on one side of the “YIMBY vs NIMBY” argument, they do comprise the full picture of a neoliberal housing development strategy. This usually falls into a typical pattern: the city will issue RFPs (Request for Proposal), developers might pair with a nonprofit in response (especially when it comes to affordable housing), and community organizations will line-up in favor or opposition to the plan. Should there be enough resistance from a group, lawyers will dutifully step in to gum up the process and make no one happy, while enriching themselves. The result is some “affordable” housing and many more market-rate units.

What I’m describing is a well-worn pattern we have become all too accustomed to. However, in a moment of optimism, we can still believe that Mamdani has a plan to work within this system while lowering some of the barriers to deliver a record number of affordable housing through increased supply. Given the result of the successful propositions that were also on the ballot, which will largely speed up the development of housing, this seems at least plausible.

So why should we be concerned? Missing in this traditional neoliberal framework is the role of design. Of course all of the future housing built during the Mamdani administration will include architects and other design consultants, as it is required by law. But there’s a difference between simply being involved and directly shaping the process.

When the general public sees new buildings in the city that they are not especially happy with, a common response is to blame the architect; just look at any comments on a typical new building press release. But if you’re familiar with the arcane process of developing and building a building in New York City, you know that many of these decisions are entirely out of the hand of the architect.

While there are a small number of architects that pursue out of touch designs, most start with simple but noble aspirations, such as ample amenities, sustainable materials, elegant massing, and so on. But through a Kafkaesque process called “value engineering,” the design is slowly chiseled away until it only loosely resembles the original ambition of the architect. This process is nothing more than another manifestation of the valuing of capital above all else; in order to make a profit, things that “don’t matter” like aesthetics, quality materials, and sustainable design are quickly eliminated, with only bare-bone technical requirements remaining. City regulations and guidelines buffer some of this, but this is yet another arena the architect plays a minimal part in shaping. When we look around the city, this is the reality we should reflect on.

As I wrote in a recent article, now is the moment for architects to take stock of the Mamdani moment and decide whether they want part of it. Currently, they are on the outside looking in; maybe more work will come their way, but it will largely be determined by developers, government officials, and activists before even an invitation for work is sent their way. This means that architects will be responding primarily to the desires of the groups above, while forgoing many aesthetic or quality of life concerns. It is these concepts that, while difficult to put a dollar amount on, benefit those who will use the space the most.

For example, many architects might prefer one or two fewer units of housing per floor to make the rest more liveable, or a generous outdoor space to give families a reprieve from the chaos of the city. The need for profit always takes precedence, however, and the incentive for developers is to squeeze as many units as possible into a building. While we need more raw units of housing, we also need more quality housing, and pursuing profit only increases supply. Mamdani has also stressed the importance of affordable childcare, but what good is it if families can’t find adequate space to live in? This is only one example of how capital wins over other more human concerns.

Architects certainly deserve more than their share of the blame for being in this position. Instead of embracing the growing but small unionization effort, many continue to follow tired patterns of navel gazing, hosting irrelevant panels, meaningless award shows, and unpaid competitions. Ineffective groups like the AIA (American Institute of Architects) only represent the narrow interests of owners, neglecting the importance of democratic workplaces in shaping the profession. Our current building process reflects this inward facing, pro-owner mentality.

What architects have not yet grasped is that in order to have a seat at the table, it is necessary to have political influence, which only comes through organizing for power. That’s why developers and community activist groups are included, and notably, one of the most union-dense sectors in the city, the construction industry. Carlina Rivera, former City Council Member and current President of New York State Affiliation for Inexpensive Housing, represents a trade-based coalition of over 350 developers and builders. Her inclusion on the Housing Committee is a prime example of the power of organizing.

If architects took organizing more seriously, they would have a far better chance in not only shaping a Committee on Housing, but grasping levers of power throughout the entire building process. Time and time again we see groups who are highly organized see their interests reflected in the political process, and there’s no reason architects couldn’t achieve the same. Currently, however, they are content to embrace a passive form of client service disguised as misunderstood artistry, with decision making within each practice centered in owners and principals. It’s time to move on from this identity and build a more potent one based on the democratic organization of workers through unions. With such a democratic movement, architects could not only organize better for their interests, but do so in a way that reflects the values of collectivism, not individualism.

Architects might have missed the window on the transition committee, but there are potentially eight years of housing development coming. We need not only a city we can afford, but a city we can admire, and thrive in. Will architects meet the moment?

---