 It's interesting in our work with public architecture we have, we're interacting with an array of funders, an array of people that have never dealt with architecture and design before and they think of shelter as a basic human need but the concept of architecture and design as a basic human need like probably never crosses their mind. There are far far more basic things, health, education, housing and so on but the thing that we try to communicate and the challenge that us as a design community is up against is that we need to better articulate how design can improve those truly basic human needs. It's still a secondary thing whether we like it or not. Well I'm not sure that profession has failed unless you go back to the very beginning. I mean architecture was set up from the moment that became a licensed profession. It was set up to be elite. It was set up to be privileged and it was always about serving a client as opposed to serving the public and there's some purists who want to preserve that. I think it's to the detriment of the profession. I think that there is the capacity to do both but for the most part our professions never attempted to do the other thing. There's tiny little examples of that and our practice is humbling among those examples and there's a few other ones but for the most part this is a professional service industry and it is focused on people that come to us for help rather than architects being proactive and identifying problems and seeking to solve those problems and yet again we do see some growing examples of that. We have a long history that we need to try to recraft and I don't think that there's any need to apologize for that history at this point. I think that there's a lot we can learn from that history and there's some things we've done very very well as a profession but overall if we want this profession to have meaning in this new economy in this new world it needs to really change the typical designer-client relationship and really reconceive what the client is and I believe that the broader client of the public really has value increasing value. Well there's precedence for that with the WPA and other initiatives of that sort the list is pretty short but government clearly values design it just might be at a different standard than the rest of us would like you know clearly there's the Obama administration their campaign website even the new White House website value design I think that there's that there's an opportunity for that. The National Endowment for the Arts has a big role to play when it comes to advancing art and design as part of our our national identity but and there are also precedents for fields entire fields like public health and even the private medical profession receiving government funding because they've demonstrated the value of their services and the legal profession as well there's there are multiple legal service providers that are funded in the same way that our community design centers across this country very well could be funded if we could construct a case and if we could get that case heard. Now some of that funding is obviously shifting but but there's certainly government needs that architects architecture firms or private architecture firms as well as these community design centers have the ability to fill it's just a matter of again making that case and having that case heard. There's obviously the perception that architects design houses that they work with blueprints that they draw with a t-square that kind of thing there's we've limited as a profession we've limited ourselves to a very narrow piece of the building lifecycle and so architects aren't typically thought of in terms of the very early design strategy or the the master planning they're also not thought about you know the post-occupancy of a building and I think that there's there's tons of potential there for design to make a difference for a dollar to be made for any number of things that could really be of value both internal to the profession and external you know as the public sees us. It's interesting when people begin to talk about the changes that they want to see in the profession they start with the schools I think that's largely because there's a quantifiable number of those schools and those schools are actually regulated to some extent there are tens of thousands of firms and there's very very little regulation of those firms for better or worse and yet we rely on those firms to educate recent graduates toward licensure to do that kind of training and you know there are real limits when it comes to the the post-graduate training of architects and that's how we see so few relatively speaking getting licensed these days and I think that you know the profession as it's currently defined by the AIA and the other regulatory groups is is small and shrinking and that's a real problem because it's not as matters. Well I think there's a great deal to look forward to there's always going to be something to be proud of relative to a profession or any any community of the sort you know until the recent market crash there was a great deal to celebrate about what architects had done with the relative excess that was afforded to them in terms of capital for projects new you know capital actual physical buildings that that were conceived during this time period but now we're going to have a chance to see what the design community can do with less and what we can do with this added capacity that we have to potentially take on projects that were otherwise ignored by developers by public policy and so on and so some of them might remain just ideas conceptual designs but some will inevitably be advanced to construction and make significant contributions where they're least expected and the the biggest challenge that we're going to have is to really reconceive what architecture and design is or what they are all about and you know I think that we're up to the challenge.