If you live in Idaho, you have probably seen buildings by Tim Scharff. You might even live or work in one. As a teenager he read --- and understood the profound importance of --- Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. He worked in construction, ran a house-painting business, became an emergency medical technician, a fireman, and a licensed pilot --- all before the age of twenty. Now fifty, he has over the past three decades produced the plans for hundreds of buildings --- homes, office buildings, stores, medical facilities and entire business parks. His essay "The Roots of Economic Analysis", written in college, was later published in the Objectivist philosophy journal Atlantis.

How did you first become interested in architecture?
It started when I was a kid. I liked to mow the lawn to make it look nice, then rake the grass clippings into "rooms" and leave openings for "doors". I would create full-size floor plans in the yard.

What have been some of your most interesting projects?
I've designed buildings for doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs! Physicians and dentists are usually great clients because they are intelligent and appreciate good design. Lawyers are easy --- just give them big offices and an elegant conference room and they're happy. I did a pre- school on an Indian reservation and worked with everyone from the chief to the 4-year-old children. That was a neat experience. I've done an obstetrical center and a mortuary --- buildings from cradle to grave. Early in my career I worked for a firm helping with plans for a nuclear power facility and a geothermal power plant. And I assisted with the foundation drawings for the Space Shuttle's vehicle assembly building. Most of the projects that I've done have been small and medium-sized buildings with modest budgets. The buildings consequently are simple and straightforward, but in their own way fit the clients beautifully. I've seldom had a client with an extravagant budget, and I can relate with people who have to use their money carefully. But whether the project is large or small, expensive or modest, designing buildings is great fun and a great career. When someone asked Frank Lloyd Wright which of his buildings was his favorite, he said, "The next one. Always the next one!"

How does objective philosophy apply to architecture?
In order to shape our surroundings we have to obey the laws of science, the foremost being the law of gravity. If a building isn't designed rationally, it can collapse and kill its occupants. This is a common event in under-developed countries where walls are built of dirt and rubble that collapses in rainstorms and earthquakes. If a building isn't designed rationally, it can trap and kill its occupants in fire. There was a tragic case in an under-developed country where an elementary school with a thatch roof caught on fire and the children couldn't escape because the exit doors swung inward, rather than outward as exit doors should.

What other common mistakes are made in buildings?
When you see a building with a flat roof that leaks, insufficient windows for daylighting, sealed windows that won't open for ventilation, or noisy rooms --- that is a building that to some extent is the product of subjectivist, irrational thinking. Such buildings are unhealthy to the occupants.

What are some other objective principles of good architecture?
Here's a short list of the fundamentals:

• Generous windows to admit daylight.
• Windows that open for fresh air.
• Connections to the outdoors --- such as patios, trellises, breezeways, and skylights.
• Generous landscaping and integration between the building and the site.
• Roofs that slope to shed water reliably.
• Rooms that are quiet so that people can think without interruptions.
• Materials that last and age gracefully.
• And artistic integrity. Ayn Rand wrote that a building can have integrity just like a man and just as seldom.

How do you manage to design buildings without an architectural degree or license?
Although I don't have an architectural degree, I do have a great education --- seven years of college and thirty years of experience, which is more than most licensed architects. I have a Bachelor of Business Administration degree with a major in Economics and did about three years of graduate study in Architecture and Art. But under Idaho's absurd occupational licensing laws, I'm not allowed to take the licensing exam without an architectural degree, even though I could easily pass the exam. A lot of very talented people, including Frank Lloyd Wright and John Lautner, have been similarly prevented from calling themselves architects by a profession that --- under the guise of "protecting the public" --- likes to exclude new people in order to limit competition and drive up prices. In my work in Economics, I specialized in restraint-of-trade issues, and vowed not to participate in the architects' cartel. Those who want to learn more about this might want to read David Young's excellent book, The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America and Robert Unger's The Architecture of Exclusion. As a matter of complying with the law, I work with an architect and have him sign off on my work. But this hasn't slowed me down and instead has been a useful quality control check. After working intensely on a plan, I find it useful to stand back and discuss it with engineer and architect colleagues. We check each other's work and correct technical mistakes that we might otherwise miss. Each of us maintains ultimate responsibility for his own work.

How could architects --- or barbers and brain surgeons, for that matter --- be evaluated if not by occupational licensing laws?
By education. By experience. And by reputation. Frank Lloyd Wright said that the best way to evaluate what a person will do in the future is to look at what he has accomplished in the past. There are legitimate needs for independent assessments of professional competence. But occupational licensing by the government is not an ethical solution since it hinges on offensive force to deny entry to the professions. In a free society, professional competence could be certified by insurance companies as a matter of contract law. It's interesting that in most fields licensing is granted at different levels. Pilots, for example, are licensed as students, private, commercial, airline, military, etc. But architects are foolishly licensed as all or nothing. A multi-level of certification of architects by insurance companies would protect the public and should replace the current occupational licensing laws --- which are inherently unethical.

We hear a lot about "master planning". What does that really mean?
The fundamental questions are planning by whom and for what purpose. In my work, I fight for two principles: the first is the virtue of decentralized planning, "micro" planning, planning by and for rational individuals --- as opposed to "master planning" --- which is not really planning at all, but instead a variant of fascism. Fascism is the political movement that advocates social regimentation, autocratic government, and forced suppression of individual choice. Fascism is the opposite of good planning --- and the enemy of humanity.

Is fascism still prevalent?
The fascist nations were militarily defeated in World War II, but as Leonard Peikoff explains brilliantly in The Ominous Parallels, fascism as a political movement has continued through the Cold War, continued through the fall of the Berlin Wall, and continued to the present in many forms, particularly in Islamic countries. Fortunately, on the federal and state level in the U.S., constitutional rights are still fairly well respected, and the checks and balances of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government work fairly well to minimize abuses of power. But unfortunately one of the most dangerous manifestations of the present-day fascist mentality is in local politics--where city officials think they are a law unto themselves. This is especially evident in "master planning" by city governments.

But isn't master planning essential?
No. Just the opposite. Master planning inevitably damages individuals, cities and society as a whole.

How so?
Master planning assumes that the planners: (1) have all the relevant knowledge and (2) are acting in the public's best interest. But as the famous economist Fredrich Hayek showed, knowledge is inherently decentralized. Each of us has valuable knowledge that no amount of "master planning" could possibly gather. And our individual knowledge base is continuously enlarging as we live each day. Master planners are both naive and arrogant in thinking that they know best. Their arrogance leads them to seek political power over others and to suppress individual choice --- the essence of fascism. For proving this point, Hayek won the Nobel Prize in Economics. And of course Ayn Rand proved it even more eloquently in Atlas Shrugged.

So how do we create buildings, cities, societies, and civilizations if not by master planning?
We do it individually, one project at a time, acting with respect for one another, and never with the threat of offensive force. It's important to note that behind every government-enforced master plan stands a thug with a gun. It's no coincidence that the 20th century's biggest advocates of central planning were Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler. The Bauhaus school of architecture in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's, for example, openly advocated the subjugation of the individual to the collective. And Hitler's chief architect and city planner, Albert Speer, went on to become Germany's minister of armaments in World War II and was afterwards convicted of war crimes and imprisoned for his role in the Holocaust. Fascists can't gain voluntary support of free people, so they inevitably resort to force. Another infamous Nazi architect was Mies van der Rohe, who --- when he couldn't get commissions from Hitler --- came to the U.S. to spread his poison and taught his brand of architecture at major universities for years, damaging the minds of thousands of young architectural students.

Do you still see this in modern times?
Unfortunately, Bauhaus architectural dogma is still taught in most architectural schools, including the University of Idaho. A young student in architecture will probably have at least one, and maybe several, professors who are second- or third- generation Bauhaus descendants. Such professors try to turn aspiring architects into technocrats who do "public service", "serve the public interest", "serve the city or state" --- anything but respect the individual. For example, the bad habit that most architects have of using fixed windows that won't open comes directly from the German Bauhaus: Don't give people fresh air; don't give them a choice of opening a window; seal them in a tight building that doesn't breathe. And in the design of buildings we face a constant onslaught of arbitrary and capricious city policies that harm individual property rights, harm the building's occupants, and harm the general public. The "Design Review" process in city governments, for example, is notorious for abuses.

Can you give some examples?
In Idaho, one of the most blatant abuses of individual rights is the City of Eagle's "Design Standards" book which decrees that certain "historical" styles be followed. "Design Standards" is an oxymoron. Good design is inherently creative, imaginative and inventive --- the opposite of standardization. And no decent architect willingly engages in pretentious historical mannerism. Further, the City of Eagle's book does not include in its approved styles many very valid elements: Spanish architecture is conspicuously not an approved style in Eagle. Japanese architecture --- one of the most serene and beautiful forms of building --- is not included in Eagle's book of approved styles. The unwritten message is clear: white-Anglo-Saxon buildings are welcome in Eagle --- but if you like Spanish or Japanese forms, keep out. Such city "design standards" are a thinly-veiled act of racial discrimination and, although adopted into city ordinance, are a snobbish insult to human rights. If a private area, such as a subdivision, wants to set design criteria, the ethical way is through covenants that run with the property as a matter of contract law which protects people who voluntarily enter into an agreement. Contract law protects people from fraud and offensive force. City "design standards", however, inflict the threat of offensive force --- and that is unethical.

You mentioned when we began that you fight for two principles: the first being planning by and for rational individuals. What's the second principle?
Rational design. Design based on facts. Design based on an objective criteria: the biological needs of the human body. There is a dangerous notion prevalent in our culture that values --- and thus art and architecture --- are all subjective; that there is no basis for determining bad or good, wrong or right, ugly or beautiful. That all value judgments only matters of opinion, inherently subjective. For example, when I was a college student, a psychology professor taught that, "You can't be certain of anything", a philosophy professor debated whether he existed or not, and a business professor taught that, "There is no truth". These professors each contradicted themselves, and contradictions ultimately self-destruct. These professors got their ideas from the 18th and 19th century German writers Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx. The lies in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Marx's The Communist Manifesto continue to poison people's minds to this day. It's not surprising that many buildings are ugly and dangerous when you realize that those buildings are the brain-child of religious mysticism, Kantian altruism and irrationalism, and Marxist collectivism. But in history there have been some brave and brilliant philosophers such as Aristotle, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Andrew Bernstein. These great minds have upheld reason, individualism and capitalism.

Which contemporary architects do you admire?
Although I can't recommend anyone without reservation, there are many architects and designers that I admire and respect. Arthur Dyson does beautifully imaginative work. Helene Arahuete continues the practice of John Lautner with stunning designs. Fred Stitt, founder of the San Francisco Institute of Architecture, has written many great books on the practice of architecture, and I think I've learned more from Fred than from any other architectural educator. He taught me about the Fibonacci series and the Golden Mean --- mathematical principles that I use daily to determine building proportions. And the Taliesin Fellowship continues the wonderful organic architecture of Wright while educating new generations. In the field of art and sculpture, which of course are both strongly connected to architecture, I love the Romantic Realism at cordair.com. One of the high points of my life was meeting Leonard and Amy Peikoff at the Cordair gallery. I especially admire the sculpture by Danielle Anjou and the paintings by Bryan Larson. His work "Heroes" and "A New Height" I have hanging in my office for inspiration.

What advice do you have for young people interested in architecture?
If I was eighteen again and choosing a school, I would major in liberal arts at a good university, work on construction sites during summer vacations, and then get my masters at the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture in Arizona and Wisconsin. They have a good graduate program with NCARB accreditation. The last is important if you want to qualify to take the licensing exam in some states. (It's O.K. to get the license as long as you oppose the unethical concept of occupational licensing. That seeming contradiction is resolved in Ayn Rand's essay, "The Question of Scholarships". As she said, "it is ultimately a test of your own integrity. Act accordingly.") Be careful when you go to college. Many smart, creative young people go into traditional architectural schools only to emerge with less intelligence and less creativity than when they entered. A lot of architectural professors are foolish and mean. They will intentionally harm students. Many of the thesis projects that I've seen by graduate students are appallingly bad and worse than what the same "untrained" student could have done as a freshman. So be careful to protect yourself from bad professors and bad ideas. This is important in any field of study.

So how can an architectural student best learn?
Here are some ideas that will help:

• By all means go to college. Take plenty of art courses. Draw something every day to improve not only your drawing skills but also your ability to see. Take a class in figure drawing with a live model to understand and appreciate curves and so that you can quickly sketch the human form within an architectural context. Learn to use form, texture and color. These are the building blocks of architecture.
• Buy the architectural rendering book Architectural Studies by Richard Koplar. Practice the drawing and coloring techniques in his book. CAD programs are great, but they are no substitute for knowing how to draw with your hand. Post your drawings on your walls.
• When you look at a building, take photos, and ask yourself what works well and what doesn't --- and ask yourself why.
• Get construction jobs on your summer vacations. Don't work in someone's office --- you will have the rest of your life to do that. Instead, work outside on real construction projects. Buy your own tools and learn from and respect the craftsmen. Do some foundation work, some framing, some plumbing and wiring, some drywall, some finish carpentry, some painting, some landscaping and any other construction activity that you can find. That experience will be incredibly valuable when you design buildings. For example, I still think carefully about floor joists under toilets after watching a plumber (my father) sweating to cut through joists that interfered with pipes. Hearing him talk on job sites, I thought "goddamnarchitect" was all one word!
• Buy the International Building Code and dig into it. For better or worse, you will have that book on your desk throughout your architectural career.
• Read everything by and about Frank Lloyd Wright, Bruce Goff, John Lautner, and Arthur Dyson. Visit their buildings if you possibly can.
• Look at this website titled: John Lautner, Architect: www.speicher.com/lautnerb.htm
• Read the book Mies van der Rohe and the Third Reich to learn how not to conduct an architectural career.
• Be skeptical of "green" architecture and "New Urbanism". There are some good ideas there, but some of the leaders of these movements are frauds. Compare their ideas with Rand's The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.
• Read Grow Up America by Objectivist psychologist Michael Hurd.
• Read "Fine Homebuilding" magazine and the articles and books by Sarah Suzanka, author of The Not So Big House.
• Read Beauty and Being Just by Elaine Scarry. She does a brilliant job of showing the connections between aesthetics and ethics.
• Read everything by and about Ayn Rand, starting with her novels Anthem and The Fountainhead and continuing with Atlas Shrugged and all of her non-fiction works. Except for the health issues, Rand got it right.
• Don't drink and don't smoke. Science now confirms that both are toxic to your body's cells. Take good care of your body --- you're going to need it for a long, happy life.

When you take architecture classes, be skeptical of what you hear, but don't be cynical. And don't be too hard on yourself if your early work is disappointing. Keep at it and you will steadily improve your skills. I'm fifty and think that my best work is still ahead of me. Here's another good reason to take care of your health: Architecture tends to be a late-maturing profession. Many architects have done their best work in their sixties, seventies, and eighties. Great architecture is rare, but it is possible.