Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
Hi y'all, i have a question regarding using the word "Architectural" when describing what I do and what i sell. I do custom residential design and sell plans to clients and also sell Architectural Stone and construct as well. I am not a licensed architect, went as far as B.Arch about a two years ago and started a business in selling architectural veneers and construction as well as doing custom house plans and selling stock plans. Now, i have always wondered, here in the great state of Texas, I have always wanted to place on my advertisements that i sell Architectural Stone, Architectural Plans, and that i provide services in construction in Architectural stone finishes for clients.
Any help would be appreciated.
Woops, forgot to type, at the end, "Is it illegal?"
Your title is BUILDING DESIGNER and there is nothing lowly about being a building designer. In reality, with historic context in mind, was another word for architect.
However, you may use the word architectural when it is not describing your "service" or "title" or something that would reasonably be construde by a reasonable person with a reasonable college-ready level comprehension level as would be expected of everyone who has completed high school level education. In short, architectural stone work can be acceptable if you are mindful in the clarity of context. Don't use the words "architectural plans", uses the words 'building plans', 'construction documents', 'submittal documents' or otherwise instead.
Just be mindful of explicit clarity. There are instances where you can not use alternate words instead of the words 'architectural' and sometimes, you can win a rationale with a board if you have a coherent defense where it makes sense. Sometimes, you need to use the word 'architectural' in communication to describe something clearly where an alternate wordage is not able to quickly be understood but care should be taken not to call yourself an architect or represent yourself as one and you need to keep sufficient clarity.
In advertising, say - "I provide Building Design services, construction services and Architectural veneer and stonework, and other services" or someting to the effect.
Really, you should avoid being s pre-drawn 'stock plans' service and provide design services for each client not be a plan book catalog. Otherwise, you could say you offer pre-drawn building plans (or home plans).
Ideal would be not to use the word architect, architecture or architectural in advertisements, offering of services / products and contract but reasonable exceptions to the rule of the law takes into place to not be excessive overbearing to the point it unreasonable places undue restrictions and abridgement of your 1st Amendment right. The key is the licensing law isn't to restrict constitutional freedom as it would be blatantly illegal and there has to be a reasonable justification of the law, rule, policy and case ruling by the licensing board to justify to the protection of health, safety and welfare such as is there reasonable probability of misrepresentation.
So legally I cannot say Architectural Plans, but i can say Architectural Veneer and Stonework?
I'm not saying Architect Plans or Architect Designs either.
So let me get this straight, I'm not giving myself the title of Architect (never have), but i'm selling goods like Architectural Stone Veneer, and Architectural Plans. People have asked me if i'm a Architect and i tell them i'm only a Residential Designer that does construction in Architectural Stone, and that i sell Architectural Plans.
Texas is very strict. Don't say architectural plans unless you want to end up on the Texas boards wall of shame and fined.
You cannot use the term Architect or architectural in relation to services that would be provided by a licensed architect. This is a common legislation in all States. Selling a product that is termed "architectural" could also be subject to this restriction if it is not a proprietary term (i.e. Rug Doctor). Point being, if the TBAE finds out that you are marketing yourself or your services, as they relate to the construction industry, with the term architect, architectural, architect-like, etc...you will be subject to being fined and other legal action (like business license suspension).
You are not an architect in the state of Texas and so you cannot be afforded the privilege of using a regulated term. This is because architecture is a regulated profession and has serious implication towards the health and safety of the public that may or may not know the subtle concept differences between a licensed architect and a draftsman.
Point being, what you are doing is fraudulent at worst, misleading at best.
(FYI, architectural stone is really a demeaning term, both to the stone and the architect).
So architects have the legal use of the term but not the educated public use of the word and refuse to face that reality, preferring to dwell in the dark corners of legal mumbo jumbo and ensuring their continued obscurity. It's all for the children and the public don't you see? Never mind that many famous architect's buildings start leaking and failing before they cut the opening ribbon.
i am not a lawyer, but if i were, this is probably what i might say
avoid saying something that might confuse someone into thinking you have a license.
if you say 'i sell architectural stone,' you're referring to the stone product and not the ability to stamp plans for municipal approval
if you say 'i produce architectural plans' i think you might be in a gray area where someone might assume you can you submit those plans with an architect's stamp for municipal approval. if someone needed a set of CDs with civil, architectural, and MEP plans, they might think you were advertising the ability to produce the architectural portion.
It is as simple as how the word architecural is used. Using it in the form of a noun to describe something or an object…label a thing is perfectly okay, but using it as a verb to describe an action or service is not, in your case.
I may get some disagreement but to describe your work product (plans/drawings/sheets of paper) as architectural drawings is okay because you’re using it as a noun to describe what it is as a thing. On the other hand if you say “I offer architectual drawings” the “I offer” makes it into a verb. It’s the action that is illegal not the thing. Things/objects are not licensed people are.
Aside from starting this thread, you may want to begin with asking yourself why you want to use the words "architectural" or "architecture" to describe your services/products.
It would be in your best interests to understand the state law where you are doing business. Note that most, if not all, states will not even allow a licensed architect from another state promote themselves as an "architect" without licensure in their state.
just browse the records here
"(Riverside) - The Board issued a two-count administrative citation that included a $1,000 civil penalty to Benjamin B. Aguilar, an unlicensed individual, dba Aguilar Design Group, for alleged violations of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Aguilar executed a written agreement to provide professional “Architectural Design” services for two office buildings. The projects are not buildings described in BPC section 5537(a) as exempt buildings. The citation became final on September 8, 2009."
Curt, but that's where you are mistaken. Residential buildings are exempt and you can submit CDs for a house, landscape, and for some small commercial projects without a stamp for approval. In fact most, not some, Most plans that are submitted for residential projects are not Stamped. The state dictates when an engineers stamp is needed, but an architects stamp is rarely used for residential. There are a few firms in my neck that do "architecture" and do not have a license. They do so legally. They have been the recipients of many aia awards, had pics in all the fancy mags, etc. the work that they do is "good architecture" and they produce this work within the law. Since their work is legal and their work is "architectural" , and since others call their work "architecture" in publications and in awards, then...it's architecture being produced by non licensed architectural designers whether you can say it or not, and its perfectly legal in most places. .I should also add that these "not architects" probably have more experience not doing architecture than most of us combined. By denying the right to accurately, and honestly describe ones work is a huge burden. If it is legal to do then it should be legal to describe. If its not legal to describe a legal service, it seems to violate ones free speech and economic liberty. Like Carrera said, I understand that the title can be protected, but to protect all derivatives of the title especially adjective forms is a huge stretch of the law even if its written that way. Just because the law says its the law doesn't mean it's constitutionally legal. There are laws that say you can't bath your goat on Wednesdays. Sure it's the law but it probably wouldn't hold up in the higher courts.
Also, to employ someone as an architect and them to deny them the title that is appropriate to describe their duties is an offense that one can probably sue for. Work is property and employers that hire architects and call them designers or interns are violating ones property claim. This is why in medicine you can't do the job of a doctor unless you are a doctor. Same in law. In architecture you can essentially act and practice as an architect but just can't say it or explain it to others. There is something very illegal and wrong in that. The solution IMO would be to form an interns and architect employees union. Refuse to do work that is not congruent with your title. You will see the laws change real quick after that since licensed architects make up a pretty small part of the industries labor force.
No thank you, I would stop practising if it degenerated that far.
Sheesh! 15 posts in just as many hours over a word….haven’t the time but wonder how many posts in Archinect history over this word and the word architect? It’s not good for business for our profession to jostle over these words, adding prefixes and suffixes to them, trying to control them. The public doesn’t care. The protection is in the seal-laws now, you’ve either got one or you don’t and that is what is legal or not, really, today - not words.
obviously State legislation considers this "word" important enough, as it relates to the public's health and safety. To diminish the title of architect to some sort of semantic "jostle" is precisely the problem and encourages people like clairev to hijack the profession -at the cost of public health and safety, for which you would presumable accept responsibility and liability for as a duly licensed architect.
Try to pull the same act off with being a "contractor".
Indeed subgenius, that is why about 95% of all disciplinary action is against people using some variation of the word architect on drawings or instruments of service without having a license.
I think the biggest problem is how many unrelated professions jack the title. Note: if you are computer programmer, you are not a "computer architect" or "data architect". You might think it sounds cool, but you are not a character in the matrix, nerds.
Subgenius, After graduation we all should be called architects and the ones with a state license/seal are the only ones that can construct-protect the public. The protection is in place through seal-laws. I still don’t understand the word protection….is it marketing? I’m curious what could happen if some unlicensed person just opened a storefront with a sign that said “Architect” what could possibly happen without a seal? I live in a state that has strong seal-laws so maybe its different elsewhere.
Carrera, all state boards and the AIA disagree with your opinion.
The protection about preventing some yahoo from opening up a storefront and endangering people by practicing architecture without a license and proper training to do so.
If you have every dickhead that fancies themselves a designer calling themselves an "architect", it makes the whole profession look like a circus and devalues us even more than we already are.
jla, if you define "architect" as anyone who designs a house, or anyone who designs a building, or anyone who designs a building you like, then you're argument might carry some weight. i don't think that works though. you're title includes contractors, engineers, and little kids making lego houses. nothing wrong with any of those occupations, but what it means to be an 'architect' is different.
"architect" is the person who stamps the drawings and takes responsibility for them. "architectural plans" without an architect who can seal drawings is a misnomer. that counts for houses that don't require a stamp.
the problem with saying you're an architect when you aren't is that it misleads people. you don't really have the freedom of speech to lie to people for your own personal gain. that's actually not entirely true, as the supreme court has said you can lie, but that mostly applies to politicians. you don't have the right to lie about your professional credentials.
this, as a side note, is ridiculous:
Work is property and employers that hire architects and call them designers or interns are violating ones property claim.
employees don't have property rights, or copyright, or much of any kind of rights. even if they do have a stamp.
all an architect is, is someone with a stamp, and you want to make a title that is that meaningless, and make it even more meaningless.
Back to topic, okay, it seems really iffy and wish washy for the word "Architectural", I cannot see how disabling someone's 1st amendment right is even lawful. While I'm not saying I'm a Architect, seal plans etc, I will say this, I sell Architectural Veneers, I construct as well based on those Architectural Veneers, I also sell Architectural plans all within the same business that I do. I understand Architect, I don't understand Architectural when describing what you sell. This whole discussion has opened my eyes on the profession of Architects, I've never held a Architects work to a low standard, but a high standard, and then you read all of this, and it just goes to show how Architects can be so full of themselves especially the ones being negative and portraying themselves as a Architects. I understand you want to protect your wording, that's why you have a Seal.
I wonder if I do decide to use Architectural in my advertisements what would happen, and not sure how I will react with a threat of a lawsuit just on the use of Architectural, would I countersue for first amendment rights violation? I would in a heartbeat, and to the general public in a trial and jury, I'm more than confident I would win against any allegations. I've fought for my second amendment rights before, twice, I've won before twice along with a nice amount of money per violation. I'm sure I can again if it were to ever come to that point.
Someone give me a straight answer to my question, It seems to me I can, just not portray myself as a Architect when someone calls me up. Which I don't to begin with. This is the first time on this website so it's good to see opinions and reactions.
it's pretty simple. you cannot use the term 'architect' or any grammatical derivation thereof in connection with pro-offering services or products that imply the you are an 'architect'. period. the stone is fine. if you are selling plans stamped by an architect licensed in texas (another individual) and you're advertising just that - plans by an architect (not you), that would be ok.
whether or how you might have legal action brought against you would be up to either the state's dept. of criminal justice or the DA in whatever county you operate out of.
btw - creating confusion over the proper titling of oneself is not protected free speech. i cannot call myself an MD or a lawyer (or claim to sell "Legal Opinions") without possessing the credentials the state has established to protect the public from potential fraud. deliberately misleading the public invalidates your "right" to say whatever you like, damn the consequences.
Gregory walker, let me say this again, I'm not portraying myself as a Architect or wanting too. I went to truthfully describe what I sell. And when I do custom designs, it's named just that. I'm not someone that's seeking to use the word illegally in terms of "Architect". I want to describe what I sell and use Architectural as exactly that, Not Architect, Not Claire is a Architect, Not I seal plans, Not I design like Achitects, or anything involving Architect. Just to use the word Architectural. Nothing more.
Besides my custom design work is far better than many Architects out there that I've seen in my area it's really odd now that I think about it, but it's neat they can design 100 story buildings and such.
Someone give me a straight answer to my question
really, it's between you and your lawyers. in my opinion, you can say architectural veneer but not architectural plans. it sounds in your last post like you want to create advertisements designed to mislead people into thinking you can produce plans created by an architect, and then tell them on the phone that you're not an architect if they ask. the first amendment will not protect you for fraudulently claiming a professional credential you don't have. ultimately the judge or jury would have to decide if 'architectural plans' implies 'plans produced by an architect,' and thus your fraudulent actions in advertising a service you can't provide. by the way, the right wing radio constitution isn't the real constitution. this isn't a question of free speech, it's a question of whether you're lying about the services you can provide.
aside from that, you can put up whatever sign you want. tell them you can do dentistry if you want. it's a free country. kind of sounds like you like being litigious, so go ahead and get sued if that's what floats your boat.
this is free advice. good advise costs money, and lawyers charge more than architects.
edited to add, i typed this before gregory's posts, so that might confuse things....
"Besides my custom design work is far better than many Architects out there that I've seen in my area it's really odd now that I think about it, but it's neat they can design 100 story buildings and such."
Clairev, if I took a sip of scotch for every time I hear or read about a designer (of any flavour) claiming that they are better than most... I tell you, the tax payers would get their monies' worth of my court-appointed AA meetings.
BTW, architectural veneer is just a fancy-smancy term for any ol' veneer.
I have been working in the architecture profession for over 15 years. This issue has always frustrated me as well. Early in my career I was titled as an "Architectural Draftsman" this made sense to anyone who saw my title, as they knew that I was not an "Architect" nor did having this title indicate that I held myself out to be one. It did however immediately allow any person exposed to my then title to understand the profession and capacity in which I worked. When this title was been banned, as some how using the term "architectural" is some unforgivable sin, I was titled draftsman. After that people had to ask what kind of draftsman I was. So I had to tell them I worked in the architecture profession and that I drafted architectural work.
Fast forward 15 years later I am a Design Director for an architecture firm. I am not a licensed Architect nor do I really want to be licensed at this time. However, I do everything an architect does with the exception of carrying the liability or the profit share, which is bestowed upon the licensed Architects whom I work for and who supervise my work. So what am I?
The mass majority of people working in the architecture profession who design and create buildings every day of their lives are not licensed. What is the difference between a person who has worked in the architecture profession for 15+ years designing buildings, creating construction documents, meeting with clients, coordinating with consultants, finding solutions to very technical and complicated problems, and ensuring that the buildings they design and document meet the criterion required to be safe and habitable spaces for the public verses a person who just graduated from college and just passed their exams and received a license to practice architecture but has yet to actually design or document or build a real building on their own. If it were me I would see the prior as being more competent that the latter. The only difference is the prior has worked their butt off for years while the latter paid money to a bureaucracy so that they can hold themselves higher than someone who actually does the real work and actually knows from the years of experience what they are doing yet are not allowed by law to be called architectural in their title job. in my opinion its kinda like a big nasty spit in the face.
Recent college grads and new licensees are not of significant value to a firm. Their lack of experience beyond IDP and ARE testing does nothing to benefit a project with the exception that they are a body that can be trained to do the real work. Nor are they typically able to keep up with the experienced and seasoned non-licensed professionals who have to teach them like the little children they are how to be architects. So who is the real architect? The one who teaches the newly licensed person how to be an architect or the newly licensed person who is legally allowed by a bureaucracy to call themselves an architect? Granted there are exceptions to this and in an effort to stereotyping I have to acknowledge the fact that this is not always the case.
Even if someone calls themselves an architect, solicits business while holding themselves out to be an architect, or even engages in designing buildings without the supervision of a licensed architect, the buck stops at the building department because if you are not licensed you don't have a stamp and without a stamp you can't submit architectural drawings to the building department. Thus nor harm could ever come to the public in the first place unless someone willfully counterfeits a stamp and knowing defrauds. What this argument is really about is a social one. Having a bureaucracy that does not recognize experience earned from years of hard work but rather recognizes lengthy mostly useless academia, and exceeding hefty fees paid to them that lets a very small select few to have the privilege of calling themselves an "Architect" without actually having the knowledge and experience that those without this license have in order to place themselves above other people. It's social class issue within the profession, not one intended to protect the public.
Now if someone calls themselves an architect and somehow has created a counterfeit stamp to put on drawings for submission to a building department, that is plain and simple fraud and thus should be punished accordingly.
If I were to call myself an architect, somehow because I am not licensed I have committed an unforgivable sin that is punishable by law. But if I tell some one that I work in all facets of the architecture profession where I "pre-design, program, plan, provide designs, drawings, specifications and other technical submissions, the administration of construction contracts, and the coordination of any elements of technical submissions prepared by others" that's ok but again if I call myself an "Architect" that's somehow so much different because what I do is different because... Wait I am not sure whats different as that is exactly what NCARB defines as the "practice of architecture". And the term "architect" is defined as "Any person who engages in the practice of architecture". So back to the question why the heck can't I be considered an architect if I do everything an architect does? Whats the point of even creating the title "Registered Architect" if the term "Architect" means the same thing with the except that one uses the term "registered" and one is not? The distinction between the two is unclear.
Thank you for allowing me to rant my opinions here and if you read my rant this far thank you for doing that. regardless if you agree or disagree, the one thing we both can agree on is our love of architecture and respect for the profession and its professionals. For the record I do not call myself an Architect, but I play like one in real life.
It's just an ego thing. There is no other reason why derivative terms are restricted. The public hsw argument is used to justify just about every protectionist law for occupational licenses. These laws come into effect through lobbying efforts. It's all abou money and ego. I'll bet you 100$ I could get a law passed to require grocery store employees to have a license. I'll just drill the point that poorly stacked cans can potentially harm babies and ill donate some money to the campaign.
Real hsw issues are never addressed. Fracking, yoga mat shit in bread, rat poison in cigarettes...pills that make your penis bleed? sure why not...architectural stone...no way!
lol. This country is a joke. When did we all become such a bunch of wimps...
It's also highly dependent on who's using the term "illegally"
these jack asses are always barking about this stuff...then some international star comes to town and they basically get on their knees. "Im an architect bitch" "Yes mister architect yes". Lol.
As the late great George Carlin said..."it's all bullshit and its bad for you"
I have been working in the architecture profession for over 15 years. This issue has always frustrated me as well.
then get your license - it feels great!
Fast forward 15 years later I am a Design Director for an architecture firm. I am not a licensed Architect ... So what am I?
you are the Design Director for an architecture firm.
Even if someone calls themselves an architect, solicits business while holding themselves out to be an architect, or even engages in designing buildings without the supervision of a licensed architect, the buck stops at the building department because if you are not licensed you don't have a stamp and without a stamp you can't submit architectural drawings to the building department. Thus nor harm could ever come to the public in the first place unless someone willfully counterfeits a stamp and knowing defrauds.
i would say all that time and fees paid by the Owner who then finds out the plans can't be submitted because the designer misled them into thinking the designer is an architect would be the '... harm (that has) come to the public'.
Having a bureaucracy that does not recognize experience earned from years of hard work but rather recognizes lengthy mostly useless academia, and exceeding hefty fees paid to them that lets a very small select few to have the privilege of calling themselves an "Architect" without actually having the knowledge and experience that those without this license have in order to place themselves above other people.
you seem to think most architects just got out of school and rushed through all the exams. i think the average time it takes after graduating to become licensed is something like 10-12 years so your take is just flat out wrong. you have 15 years experience - it is never to late to get your license. come on, compete with yourself!
What if you have a masters of architecture? Can you use M-arch on business website ? You bet your ass you can. No one can tell you that the degree that you earned and paid for cannot be displayed or used to describe part of your credentials. The degree is signed by the governor.
is zumthor the architect of the lacma? Everyone keeps calling him it. We should demand that zumthor not use term architect or architecture or architectural this way we can show everyone what a bunch of stupid assholes we are.
Frac, then if the owner finds plans are useless there are legal course he/she can take and the designer would be held liable and likely have to return funds if was acting fraudulent or misleading. No biggie. No one dies.
12years? You think that's a good thing? Compare that to time for licensure in professions that really pose a hsw danger... like 2 for nursing, 3 for physicians asst. pilot..
We should demand that zumthor not use term architect or architecture or architectural this way we can show everyone what a bunch of stupid assholes we are.
hey none of the architects here are being 'stupid assholes'. the original post asked about using the term 'architectural' and it is very clear that you cannot say you provide 'architectural plans' unless you are a licensed architect. you can't confuse the public in any way because they don't know who is an architect and who is not (and this has absolutely nothing to do with how good of a designer you are or if what you design is Architecture with a capital 'A').
zumthor is an architect but i will guarantee his contract to design lacma does not say architect anywhere. there was that architect from the pacific northwest who signed a contract to provide architectural services for a project in california and he got busted since he wasn't licensed in california - something like a $500 or $1000 fine.
12years? You think that's a good thing?
i don't care either way. some people can wrap it up in 3-4 years, others take 20+ years. i was just countering kev's position where he seems to think everyone licensed has so little experience compared to him. actually the average new licensee has about the same years of experience as he does. maybe they aren't awesome like him but anyone who finally gets their license has worked hard - they don't just pay a bunch of fees and magically get an architect's license.
Why not send your advertising materials straight to the Texas board and ask what they think? Or, send straight to me and I'll do it for you?
Clairev, please do not take all that you have read negatively, or think we are elitists, it’s your first time here and we argue about this stuff all the time, its getting to be past-time. We shouldn’t be using your thread to argue these points, especially in your public view - although you are allied. I gave you the answer now move-on and name your stuff; nobody is going to go-after-you selling things, even house plans.
As for the others, I respect the points to and fro; I especially respect Kevin’s perspective….he sounds content and how disrespectful not to be able to call himself “Architect” when he’s carrying the mantel for the firm. I was at it this for 40 years as an owner and if I had it to do all over again I would have called people like Kevin ‘Architect”, out of respect and to elevate the leg-holding by my clients….damn the resistance.
I didn’t come here to win the argument, just to lodge my point-of-view, after all these years I remain thinking that we architects make our profession too complicated to understand by the public and anything we can do to simplify things - the better off we’ll be.
Now let’s go elsewhere, it’s sure that this debate will resurface and we’ll meet there to continue.
Carrera, i never knew Architects were like this. I'm learning alot from these forums, looking up war of words and such when it comes to Architects and the term Architect.
I was thinking in continuing to persue my M.Arch degree, test, and get my license, but all this and having a conversation with a local Architect just discouraged me completely. I didn't know Architects hire draftsmen and what they call designers to do the work I firmly believe they are supposed to do. I had NO CLUE Architects just review and seal! In reality, the person(s) that created the plans for the Architect are the ones that know how to Design. This particular Architect doesn't know how to use any rendering software other than Archi-cad and doesn't even do anything other than hire designers to design it for him, people that know the profession. Not only that, This particular Architect and apparently the majority of them hire Engineers to finish off the building design in detailing and such.
I just figured out what i want to continue my studies on and get a P.E., a Architectural Engineer.
I would rather call myself a Architectural Engineer than a Architect.
If you're that thin-skinned and easily offended, you sir have made the correct decision.
good fucking riddance!
p.s. don't call yourself a p.e. until you pass the required exam(s). until then s.t.f.u.!!!
FRaC, you prove my point and many others point. It's not Sir. It's Ma'am. Thank you.
bull shit - you're trolling
you asked if you could say you sold 'architectural plans'. we architects said no, that is misleading the public no matter how awesome or 'architectural' your work is. This is not up for debate - it's as clear cut and black-and-white an issue there is.
ma'am, do you understand that 'no' means 'no'?
if not SHUT THE FUCK UP and go study for your engineering exam. oh, the entitled youth of today! Everyone's a winner! You're all architects yay!
As far as getting a license goes, I just am not interested in the financial liability that goes along with it. I prefer to stay focused as a creative thinker and not be burdened with the responsibility that goes with operating my own firm. From my experience the only reason to have a license is to have the ability to stamp your own drawings and if your are employed by a firm and do not having any vested interest in it (i.e ownership or a portion of it) then even if you were licensed you would never actually use your stamp. Thus you are wasting money on a title. If you did use your own stamp then you are taking on the liability yourself as an individual and your firm has no liability. Why risk something like that if you do not see the financial benefits gained from being an owner.
I am not advocating to be able to be called an "architect" without the credentials to back it up. I should have better defined what I was advocating for and that would be for unlicensed professionals to have the ability to use the term "architectural" in their title. It seems a bit harsh to not allow this distinction of industry specifics.
My use of the word "harm" was improper. I should have said Health Safety and Welfare. regardless I do agree with your point but the potential harm incurred would be one that would have substantive legal recourse for the client.
As far as what I seemed to think about most architects being fresh off the boat goes; it is true that I employed an argument from ignorance and presented an false dichotomy as in my argument/rant I did not include other situations for other professionals whom acquired licenses in differing time frames. I suppose I inadvertently made emphasis on this matter as it has been prevalent in my own personal and professional circles thus driving me to unintentionally employ this fallacy to support my opinion that the term "Architect" or the use of the term "Architectural" as a prefix to a title is not a black and white area as it is a grey area. I personally know and include myself with a vast group of professionals who do know a lot about being an architect and in many cases more than newly licensed architects but some how we are always thrown under the bus and excluded from this select group because of semantics.
I do thank you for engaging with me on this topic. I hope to engage with you in the future.
Kevin Welch, you can't reason with people like FRaC, he may be a licensed professional but sure doesn't hold to professional standards as far as his character goes and his behavior.
Let a fool act like a fool and he will show how much of a fool he is.
Frac, what service is zumthor providing? Is he the interior designer? He clearly designed the building and the building is "architecture" so he was clearly acting as the "architectural designer". Hes not the AOR but his service was architectural and everyone ifentifies him as an architect whether he says the forbidden word or not. Its like writing F--k. Who care if You dont write the full word, our mind fills in the blanks anyway. Lol. Foreign architects do as they please and so long as they have a big name no one cares. Why is this relevant? Because a law that does not get evenly enforced gets no respect and carries little weight. All I'm saying is you can't pick and choose who has to obey the law and who is above it. What an elitist system it is. Lets start with the big boys that provide architectural services in other states like FG. He has been called the architect numerous times for that awful memorial. If you design architecture you are an architectural designer by definition. This protectionist garbage does nothing to protect the public it's all about protecting pockets.
Carrera is 100% correct. This hurts the profession and makes architects look petty. IMO nothing cheapens the title more than a bunch of architects barking about using derivative words to accurately describe work.
Clairev, just call yourself "master of all built objects and environments" this is perfectly legal and will not misguide the public.
Or...just make a long description in like pt.5 font explaining why this stone is NOT "architectural stone"
Laws that are selectively enforced is how we do things in modern America! You bratty kids better get lost now! There is one way to do things and one way only, and you don't fit in! Perhaps you should try to be famous then we will let you use the word! But you aren't going to get famous selling fake stone, better get on it!
^ actually its mandatory that state and federal laws are not selectively enforced. This is often used as a defense. With regard to regulations, one of the requirements is that they must not be selectively enforced. Regulations are limits on liberty and they cannot be used for any other purpose than to protect public hsw. They must not be redundant, overly burdensome, and must not be selectively enforced. Look it up.
I just wanted to see what it felt like to be a curmudgeon, I was role playing.
Lol. I figured that tint. You are usually on the side of reason and good sense. :)
Don't mess around, tint. You're edging in on my territory.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?