AIA Executive Vice President and CEO Robert Ivy released a statement to signal support on behalf of its membership, stating that the organization and its 89,000 members are “committed to working with President-elect Trump to address the issues our country faces,” not least of them the country’s faltering infrastructure.

But many AIA members are angry with the show of support, arguing that because Trump has made his living in real estate, and because of the nature of his proposals (such as building a border wall), the architecture community is uniquely aware of the threat he could pose.

In a statement titled “Architecture Against Trump,”AIA member Michael Sorkin wrote, “We are dismayed at the temperate, agreeable, indeed feckless, statement that the director of the AIA has issued on behalf of — although clearly without any consultation with — its membership on the election of Donald Trump.”

“Trump’s well-documented history of racial discrimination, tenant harassment, stiffing creditors (including architects), evasive bankruptcies, predilection for projects of low social value — such as casinos — and his calculated evasion of the taxes that might support our common realm are of a piece with his larger nativist, sexist and racist political project,” he continued.

The letter outlines five areas in which the architecture community should be prepared to hold the president-elect accountable: climate change, infrastructure investment, research and education, equitable distribution of resources and affordable housing for all.

Sorkin takes aim in particular at the idea that supporting Trump on infrastructure investment is a neutral position. Ivy’s statement pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to spend at least $500 billion on infrastructure over the next five years, expressing hope that “investments in schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure [will] continue to be a major priority.”

But given Trump’s positions on climate change, and his choice of a climate-denier to lead his EPA transition team, Sorkin worries all that money could be poured into projects based on systems that are already obsolete. “We certainly need to repair lots of roadways and bridges and, especially, to repair crumbling sewer and water systems. But is [this] the best we can do?” he asks.