Gridlocked architecture.

 De Carlo's "Architecture's Public" posits that archictecture and the role of architect has become ambiguous for various reasons. The assumptions that we make as we interact with the design of the built environment have created huge divides in the general public, the construction industry and the discipline of architecture itself on what "good" design is. Everyone has an opinion, sure, but in architecture, multiply by 1000 for a conservative estimate. architectures divisiveness presently is challenging, however, I think it is better than the elitist serving, heavy-handed design of yesteryear (not that doesn't still happen en masse). 

Nevertheless, to allow a more democratic approach to architecture to flourish, its intense and trying process must be undertaken. we groan at the prospect of a wave of endless meetings, submittals, and debate over any single design. However, I firmly believe in the same sentiments of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on gridlock:

“I hear Americans nowadays ... talk about dysfunctional government because there’s disagreement,” he said. If they understood the Constitution, he continued, they can “learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love gridlock, which the framers believed would be the main protection of minorities.”

Gridlock in architecture and politics are equally gruesome to constanly work through, but is that a bad thing for the built environment, and the people who inhabit it?