In putting together this documentation, one of the first (and good) questions was: where should it end? While AIGA NY did not continue to pursue grant-supported projects after the East New York project came to a close, the organization actively continues to promote dialogue and action towards positive change in both the city and profession. The blurriness of this line reflected many of the questions that came up during the time that we have focused on here. Do designers impact cities? Aren't designers part of these cities, and these neighborhoods? In so many of these projects, what was the history of the divide between the "designers" and the "community" in the first place?

The last of the projects documented here also ended early in the summer of 2016. In November 2016, Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. The election and the years following produced a decided sense of urgency in the design culture of the city as it sought to respond to Trump's presidency and the rhetoric that accompanied it. While the new regime took up almost all of the news and touched on almost every conversation, the conditions of design practice continued to morph in less predictable and sometimes even less visible ways. As the cost of living kept rising higher, designers who previously worked independently continued to stream into startups, tech companies, and consultancies. But this time the moves were made more quietly. Companies like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, and Google, once seen as somewhat neutral ushers of the future, were seen in a new, less flattering light after the election. Discussions about form and content that were more relevant in a studio-driven environment felt passé. They were largely replaced by programming that addressed the conditions of (mostly corporate, mostly in-house) work itself, whether about diversity, mental health, career paths, or professional development.

This context is relevant here because so much of the structure of the projects contained here privilege designers who have autonomy, and limit the participation of those who are all in at a company. This was always the case, but the divide grew wider as we neared the end of this decade. Following from this, it makes sense to turn away from these kinds of engagements and work instead on making the corporate environment more diverse and less punishing. In addition, many of these projects were breathed into existence from positions of greater power, whether that meant a large foundation, a business improvement district, a city agency, or a real estate developer. It makes sense, too, to turn instead towards asking designers themselves for ideas on how to improve their communities as they imagine them.

Still, the only guarantee is change. This administration will end, and the economics of the city will shift. Designers in the city will ask again how they can make meaningful impact, and it is our hope that with the narratives and documents here, they will not have to begin from zero, but could build from what was learned in this time. It is for this reason that we've included so many of the original documents, such as budgets and contracts.

Even if they do not stand as blueprints, the Making the City projects will always stand as a model for how designers can engage with communities and with each other, and with lasting effects. They also advance the idea that graphic design is not limited to selling things, to the "art of persuasion." Each of these projects does its part to create and strengthen places and communities from the inside. Finally, each project is an example of AIGA NY's mission is to demonstrate design's impact and cultivate the future of design in New York City.