So, according to those not legally able to call themselves architects or their work architectural -
1. Upon graduation from medical school one should be able to call themselves a doctor to the the general public.
2. If one diagnoses illness, recommends treatments, and sells "medical" equipment one should be able to call themselves a doctor to the the general public
3. The guy that represents himself in a court of law does not have a fool for a client.
4. Architecture is not a profession but a trade.
5. There is no irony in those not qualified to be an architect demeaning the term architect down to a level where they can deem it appropriate for themselves.
6. The State passing legislation for the safety and health of the public is inappropriate.
and lastly
7. Lawyers do not have enough work, so let us increase the construction litigation by allowing anyone who claims they are competent to practice whatever they want...doctor, lawyer, airline pilot, truck driver, police officer.....
2 you are not allowed to diagnose illness unless you are a doctor, you are allowed to design architecture. Major difference. If you sell or design medical equipment you can call yourself a medical equipment designer or salesman. If you work in research without a md you can call yourself a medical researcher.
3. Don't get this one?
4. Architecture is an art and science that is practiced as a profession. Architecture is an adjective to describe a building or space. Architecture can exist without an architect. Example: maya Lin (not an architect) vietnam memorial = work of architecture. Architect is a title architecture and architectural are not titles. Title protection protects titles not descriptive words. Medical doctor = title medical device = not a title. Jim says " I design medical devises therefore I am a medical devise designer"
I have seen architectural used when describing what kind of design one does. If you just say designer most people will not understand what that means. Some may ask, even in the profession, if one does electrical; structural; or mechanical.
The word architectural is an adjective that describes what the function is.
6. Never said that. The state passing legislation for the financial protection of some guild is inappropriate.
7. That's just lol funny. First, No you are not a doctor or a pilot and your work is not even remotely as dangerous as the work of a nurse (which takes 2 years to get license invluding school) or even a chef (which is unregulated) for that matter. Food poisoning kills way way more people than architecture. Architects design abstract plans and must meet certain codes. There are engineers, contractors, inspectors, etc. There are checks. The regulation of the title is necessary to an extent, but the time it takes is way way out of line when compared to other far more "dangerous" professions. Your threat is not immediate and you will not even get a very very small commission without much experience because architecture clients have no urgency to build. Medical clients can be senile and can be brought into the hospital at 3 am with no time to check references. This never ever happens in architecture. Architecture is also practiced by "anyone" in many countries and nothing horrible happens.
Liability has nothing to do with licensure. Anyone can sue anyone.
And, as I said, one can practice architectural design without a license. One cannot fly a plane without a license. If one could fly a plane without a license then they would be an unlicensed pilot. LOl
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.
Woops, forgot to type, at the end, "Is it illegal?"
^ that was the end of the original post
and i answered planet claire's question immediately - yes (it is illegal)
I think the public would like to know what architects think they do to protect their Health, Safety, and Welfare and I hope they are reading this. The public probably should know that architects aren't required to take ANY coursework in: law, finance, real estate, construction/engineering, social sciences or real estate. What do architects have coursework in? Drawing and modeling. In conclusion, architects don't really care enough about your budget, liability, market, construction, mental health, etc enough to educate themselves in any of it unless they do it outside of architecture school. If they cared, they would have coursework in it. The HSW component to the architect's license is mostly about three things: egress, occupancy, and accessibility. Not a big picture HSW, but a little one.
Pls correct me if I'm wrong but I think that when you have plans of a house (or other exempt building) the plans are called Architectural no matter who you are. Often they are labeled A-1, A-2, etc, as opposed to Electrical for instance, which are labeled E-1, E-2 etc. Remember guys, the OP isn't stamping anything nor calling herself an architect, she understands that is not something she can do and is OK with it. I personally wouldn't use the word architectural because of that whole selective enforcement of the law thing but I think she should be able to. Just my opinion, not legal advice.
The public probably should know that architects aren't required to take ANY coursework in: law, finance, real estate, construction/engineering, social sciences or real estate.
real estate: so important to protecting the public's health, safety, and welfare that it's mentioned twice!
and i took a lot of courses in construction and engineering (required) and a few social sciences (electives). what accredited degree does not require construction and engineering classes?
imho, egress/occupancy/accessibility are a significant enough component of hsw to be considered. of course it would be better if we knew about other stuff too.
one can practice architectural design without a license.
this depends on how you define 'practice architectural design.' if you define it to mean 'draw pictures,' or even 'design houses that do not require an architect's stamp,' then you're right. on the other hand, if you take 'practice architectural design' to mean 'submit drawings with an architect's stamp,' then you can't. to tint's point, if you're submitting architectural plans for a house without an architect's stamp, then it would make sense to say and architect is not required to be involved in the practice of architectural design. i did a quick search of my local building department's requirements for permit submittals, and they say "architectural work" when an architect's stamp is required, and "floor plan" or "site plan" on residential applications when an architect's stamp is not required. that was not a very detailed look though, so there could certainly be something else in there that does indicate an architect is not required for architectural drawings.
the OP's question wasn't really about whether they can 'practice architectural design,' but rather whether they can advertise 'architectural design' as a service. i know you want to call yourself an architect jla, but that has nothing to do with the question at hand. the OP isn't asking what you want the rules changed to, she's asking what the rule is. if 'the public' were to be confused by the advertisement that says 'architectural design,' then that advertisement would be false. if 'the public' were to intuitively understand that 'architectural design' does not include an architect, then it would be fine. the fact is, it's not up to you or suri to decide what 'the public' will think 'architectural design' means. the final decision would be up to a judge, after you get sued, and the selective enforcement of the law will be dependent upon them and the lawyers. i don't think semantic games involving zumthor will have any bearing on the outcome, ever.
My BArch had coursework in construction and engineering - 5 or 6 semesters of it, in fact - and the two-semester Professional Practice course covered all the other things on your list.
Actually upon graduation from medical school the graduate is called doctor and puts MD after his name (Dr. Joe Smith MD) even before he has entered the first day of residency and isn't qualified to treat anyone on his own. Doesn't seem to have affected the esteem doctors have in the public eye or adversely impacted their income.
a bachelor's of architecture is a bachelor's degree
a masters in architecture is a masters degree
a doctorate of medicine is a doctorate degree
a doctorate of philosophy is a doctorate degree
as an architect, you too can call yourself 'doctor' as soon as you finish school if you get a phd. quite a few schools offer this as a degree option. the architect would put the degree "Ph.D." after their name instead of "M.D." to reflect the degree they earned.
And an architect is someone who designs buildings. A PhD for architecture, a trade that in fifteen states does not require the first college course? What a farce. The medicos do not care in the least if you call yourself "doctor", there are probably Doctors of Lesbianism Studies PhDs by now, they don't care if you call your self a "medical" this or that as long as you don't refer to yourself as a "medical doctor". That they care about. If anyone in this profession had two brain cells they would opt for protecting the term "Registered Architect" and forget trying to hold back the tide. It's not working.
in the jurisdiction i operate in, an architect is a professional registered with the state. it could be different where you are, but i'm pretty sure texas laws are similar to the ones i operate under.
i don't disagree that a Ph.D. in architecture is a farce, but if you like titles, it's an option open to you. no real-life experience is required either.
when you say 'an architect is someone who designs buildings,' are you suggesting, in the context of this post, that the title of 'architect' is not regulated in the area where the OP is operating their business, and therefore it's ok for them to advertise any architectural services they want? that could be the case. i don't work in texas, so things could be different their, and i always appreciate learning new things.
To me the OP was referring to offering design that relates to the architectural aspect of a building. It would be silly for someone to assume they may offer electrical design with their stone.
What I am saying is that the regulation of the term "architect" in all 50 states is an epic fail. If some educated couple stops at a beautiful home nearing completion and asks the contractor who the architect is do you think the contractor is going to sit down and go through thirty minutes of bull shit to explain to the couple that although the person who designed the home has a BS in Architecture and decades of designing homes he is not an architect and that they should not use the term? Are you really that dense?
I think we should have checkpoints at all airports and roads crossing state borders and make architects empty out their business cards into a trash bin as they cross state lines because as soon as you cross that state line you are are breaking the law and the health, safety and welfare of the people is at risk. Or do we not want that enforced? I get confused.
that's fine volunteer, i think you're opinion on that matter is as valid as anyone's, including my own, even though our opinions may sometimes be different. there have been many threads discussing how we want things to work, but i'm pretty sure this thread was intended to discuss how things actually work in the current system. fail or not, someone who isn't an architect isn't an architect.
graad, you are absolutely correct. My main source of income is selling bricks, stone, pavers, cmu, sand, mixes, aggregates, rebar, etc. etc. I own a small store with everything masonry. I also design specific elevations relating to the clients wishes with stone, so they can envision their home, vray'd and presentable. I also have laborers that put up the stone. I do also design custom homes and sell stock plans, but that's it. FRaC seems to believe differently that i want to call myself a Architect, which isn't the case at all, or anything near. I just want to describe what i sell. Simple. To the point. All this just seems ridiculous to me on the protection of a word when it's actually what is being sold from my store describing exactly what i sell. I'm venturing to begin selling Architectural Mouldings and Millwork as well. You see that? "Architectural" Mouldings and Millwork. I will design their kitchens too and put them on paper, measurements and all.
I think we should have checkpoints at all airports and roads crossing state borders and make architects empty out their business cards into a trash bin as they cross state lines because as soon as you cross that state line you are are breaking the law and the health, safety and welfare of the people is at risk. Or do we not want that enforced? I get confused.
yes i know, you confuse easily. so here it is:
i am an architect, and i am licensed to practice architecture in california.
if i was visiting another state and someone asked me what i do, i'd say i was an architect.
if they asked me to design their house in tennessee or wherever, i'd say i may be able to do that although i am not licensed to practice in tennessee. some buildings that are exempt under the code still require an architect's stamp - for example a lot of homeowner's associations require a licensed architect. it doesn't take half an hour to explain, it takes 2 sentences. it also has nothing to do with what you create being 'architecture' or not.
and if i was designing a house in a state i wasn't licensed in, i would not have 'architect', 'architectural', or anything else like that on plans, specs, contracts, building department forms, etc.
FRaC seems to believe differently that i want to call myself a Architect, which isn't the case at all, or anything near.
i'm just explaining whether you are allowed to advertise that you sell 'architectural plans' or not. you know, the legal question you asked.
hey you can do what you want, i've just seen people get fined all the time for the exact thing you want to do. chances are you won't get caught i'm just being nice by explaining things and warning you.
just say you sell 'custom house plans' or 'custom home designs'. no chance of getting fined and most people not in the architecture field get very excited saying to their friends their home was a 'custom design'.
if you have an up-to-date ncarb file, you could probably get licensed in tennessee fairly easily through reciprocity!
yeah i let my ncarb certification lapse a few years ago when they jacked up the annual fee during the recession. i'll probably start it up again at some point, though ...
But FRAC, the implication is that you are offering services by carrying the card, designed for carrying out soliciting work, with that word on it. It is clearly a gray area. To answer what you do for a living is ok.
Volunteer, forget it. There's no way to break through their thick skulls. They just don't get it.
Frac, if you believe that not being able to seek work across state lines protects the public and is good for business then you are really confused. First, why is a California architect not capable of designing a house in arizona? Second, Why would you want to not be able to seek work in all 50 states.? Another brilliant business move by American architects.
discussions about how you think things should work are different than discussions about how things work. jla, you're talking about how you think they should work. i bumped a thread for you where that is the topic.
First, why is a California architect not capable of designing a house in arizona?
the answer to this is really obvious and very clear. it's because he is not an architect in arizona. you're trying to debate why you disagree with the regulations, which is pointless and certainly isn't what the OP was asking. you do understand that this is how it works right, even if you think it's stupid?
i never said a california architect can't design a house in arizona. here's what i wrote:
and if i was designing a house in a state i wasn't licensed in, i would not have 'architect', 'architectural', or anything else like that on plans, specs, contracts, building department forms, etc.
you can seek work in any state you want - you just have to check the rules of that state's architectural licensing board to see what can and cannot be done.
and architects do work all the time in states they aren't licensed in - like your Zumthor example. but those architects and non-architects are following the rules, which is all i'm trying to explain (look, i didn't set up this system).
I understand the rules. I never break them either. You are correct for pointing out that the op cannot use these terms. The overall idea of it however is IMO incorrect and bad for business.
I like "custom home design/designer". It is accurate, understandable, and within the law. You won't get SEO on your website for people that don't know any better and search for an architect though. Edit: But if you have a degree in architecture, you can use that word for SEO.
see, at the risk of wading back into a stupid argument for the 700th time:
the laws are mostly cut and dried. the practice of architecture is regulated profession in all 50 states. each state has their own regulations. if you meet the qualifications and choose to become a licensed professional in that state, so be it. because it's a regulated profession, there are limits as to how one can present themselves, commercially, relative to that title.
you can, of course, use 'architect' to refer to your occupation at a cocktail party (even if not registered). just don't hold yourself out to be a licensed architect if you're discussing a potential project or signing a contract. similarly, you cannot use the word 'architect' or any derivation thereof if you're not a licensed professional in that state.
if you've trained at an architecture school and think you "practice" architecture but don't want to/can't/won't get licensed... just don't use the term. you've got no moral high ground to stand on, just a bunch of whining and bitching about how it's all unfair. quit making excuses and get the license. or creatively figure out how to get around it. either way, quit whining.
as to what we'll call people on a licensure track but who aren't done - that's a whole other topic for a wholly different thread.
so: claire - if you think being an engineer will best suit you, great. if you're turned off from being an architect because of one experience in an online thread forum... i can't help you. good luck either way.
Aug 26, 14 5:25 pm ·
·
I'll be clear, architectural licensing boards..... every single one of them has fined unlicensed persons for using the word "architectural plans". Architectural plans as the licensing boards are concerns are plans that constitutes practice of architecture. However, architectural stonework refers to a construction craft product or service. Architectural stone generally means stone that has been cut and dressed for architectural use not raw rock.
For what it is worth, just use building plans or house plans or home plans or residential plans or residential building plans.
The reason the words "architectural plans" is prohibited from being used in advertising, contractual, offering of services or any form of professional and/or commercial venture use by an unlicensed designer (building/residential designer in the context of this topic) is because the licensing board may feel that you may cause misrepresentation of qualifying to offer services constituting the "practice of architecture" as defined by the law.
While architectural stone like architectural stonework is clear that you are offering an artistan craft of making stones for architectural usages.
Trust me it is a word game and every licensing board and every single architect that ever served on the licensing boards wants to fine you because most of the type of architects that wants to serve on a regulatory board is on a mission to shut down unlicensed designers every way they can because they hate what you are. They hate the idea that you compete for projects. However, they have to watch themselves from getting carried away too far. Remember your role.
Architects and unlicensed designers have had contention among the contituents for over 100 years when licensing laws were enacted.
This began with academically trained architects vs. th architect-builder who was trained in the field all the way back to the early 19th century. There were some academic architecture programs. Most of it being the French Ecoles Beau Arts where a number of the architects went to school and came back to the U.S.
The ivory tower trained vs. the apprenticeship trained architect (in the pre-licensing law era). This was where this begun.
There are certain art of word use to keep yourself out of the fire of the licensing board. There are too many in this profession that hates what unlicensed designers represent.
There was once an architect that literally called us building designers criminal and compared us to organized crime like the mafia. He felt every one of us are criminal scum bags that deserved being sent to prison for life. This guy was seriously off his rockers but he was literally vehemently hating of us even those of us that follows the 'rules' and not use the word architecture or architectural in an unlawful manner that could reasonably misrepresent.
If you can even avoid using the word architectural in "architectural stone work" or "architectural veneer" because you can , you should. Say building stonework or building veneer. If you can avoid using it unless it is proper architectural nomenclature then just don't use the word "architecture" or "architectural". Limit the use of "architect" to only refer to an "architect" such as this phrase: "Some services may require the services of a registered architect or engineer". To refer to yourself or anything associated to yourself with words consisting of "architecture", "architect" or "architectural" if possible.
This would limit your exposure to a level that licensing boards would likely not bother you.
Aug 26, 14 8:38 pm ·
·
subgenius,
Remember, architectural licensing is no longer needed as much as it might have been in the earliest days of licensing laws. Reason: State wide adoption and enforcement of building codes with building officials and inspectors with at least one or two B.O.s and a number of plan reviewers, building inspectors, etc. in each county and incorporated municipality. This is how it is in most states. Buildings don't get built without permits unless owner/DIYer blatantly violates the law.
So, if an error occurs in our work, permits are not issued. Nobody dies from drawings on paper. People die or lose their limbs from the built structure. Therefore, as long as permits are not issued until the design passes building codes, no one is going to lose their life or limb.
It is literally that simple by allowing the buiding department whatever amount of time required to perform thorough plan review of every single set submitted no matter how simple or complex a project is.
With the medical field, if you screw up, it literally may mean the life or limb of the perso with no option for second chances. That is a big difference.
However, I am not proposing we change anything right now.
The licensing law needs only remain as long as there is a real and valid reason of public physical safety, physical health and physical welfare as that was what was only authorized by the people of the state government to protect. That is another matter to be debated at another time.
If anything, I am responding to a point you made above.
It is best that you don't make blanket reference of any professional group be it architect or unlicensed building designers.
Aug 26, 14 8:58 pm ·
·
insurance isn't law, tint.
I don't recall any state architectural licensing board requiring architects to carry insurance as a condition of licensure and renewal.
What would happen if you do something that a particular insurance carrier doesn't like, they cease to cover you or raise the premium that you have to pay.
If you want to change the law, there is a due process of writing a bill and then getting it passed and signed into law through the state legislative process.
It is pointless to discuss what things should be. It is a sad state of affairs that we had to resort to architectural licensing. It says something about the moral and ethical compass of people.
What I started is a direct response about how things are not what they should be to be clear to point for the OP so the OP can get on with his/her practice and business.
I'm a building designer, not a licensed architect. So to me, I rather things be left alone because in my experience, everytime things get messed with, it is always towards restricting freedom then you might as well burn the U.S. Constitution and your wave your freedoms good bye.
We always lose it in the guise of "protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public".
Until laws are changed, JUST follow the laws and rules whether you agree or not.
The official title of architects is "Registered Architect" or "Licensed Architect".
Aug 26, 14 9:34 pm ·
·
Chigurh,
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.
Historic research goes and there wasn't these problems of dickheads making a circus of the profession before licensing laws. It just took people being honest and forthright.
The licensing laws weren't adopted solely on the notion of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. They had their agenda to reduce competition.
I'll just refer to myself as an architect at social gatherings, got my MArch and it's much easier than saying I have my master of architecture degree, work at an architecture office, but I'm not an architect. These days people will probably think I'm some kind of software designer / IT guy anyway...
I don't think I have even seen another profession that takes such glee in demeaning itself, it's members, and in throughly confusing members of the public, many of whom have advanced degrees in their own fields but are throughly baffled by the "who is an architect and who isn't" nonsense. Do you seriously wonder why the profession is circling the drain?
Wow! a sure way to get 100 replies to a thread: cry about students and intern's perceived entitlement.
Volunteer, the profession is not circling the "drain" as you claim. The only ones claiming this are those unable/unwilling to complete the process and earn their license. The act of simply not flunking in a glorified art program is not sufficient and having every chap who left design school calling themselves architect demeans my title. Perhaps the public, as you say, is confused because too many designers try hard to twist the professional title as their own "look how smart I am" podium.
Well we certainly would not want to demean your title. I have learned a lot from this thread, for example, there is no such thing as an "unlicensed architect", as architect implicitly implies a license, the adjective "unlicensed" would interact with the "licensed" component of the word "architect" and the poor fellow would go 'poof' in a puff of smoke. Also is is quite OK to refer to an "architectural intern" as the word 'architectural' is an adjective that modifies intern. It is not OK to refer to architectural plans because the word 'architectural' is an adjective that modifies plans.
you know, i didn't need liability insurance to get an architect's license, but i need insurance to get a notary stamp, and i would need insurance to get a contractor's license.
richard, part of your apparent belief in licenses not being required is that the building department will take responsibility for your work because they review your drawings. kevin welch mentioned this earlier, too. this is not true. whether they find errors or omission or not, your designs and your decisions are you responsibility. saying 'the building department will catch it' is all the more reason why you might not be ready to be an architect yet.
The local building dept. stamps every page of plans with a big red rubber stamp that says
"NOT LIABLE FOR OMISSIONS OR OVERSIGHTS"
which makes one wonder exactly wtf are they there for (aside from squeezing out application fees). Health and safety my ass, most of the people there can't even read a plan.
The Word "Architectural"?
So, according to those not legally able to call themselves architects or their work architectural -
1. Upon graduation from medical school one should be able to call themselves a doctor to the the general public.
2. If one diagnoses illness, recommends treatments, and sells "medical" equipment one should be able to call themselves a doctor to the the general public
3. The guy that represents himself in a court of law does not have a fool for a client.
4. Architecture is not a profession but a trade.
5. There is no irony in those not qualified to be an architect demeaning the term architect down to a level where they can deem it appropriate for themselves.
6. The State passing legislation for the safety and health of the public is inappropriate.
and lastly
7. Lawyers do not have enough work, so let us increase the construction litigation by allowing anyone who claims they are competent to practice whatever they want...doctor, lawyer, airline pilot, truck driver, police officer.....
wow
yeah that's about right ...
gold star for everyone!
Subgenus
1. They are allowed
2 you are not allowed to diagnose illness unless you are a doctor, you are allowed to design architecture. Major difference. If you sell or design medical equipment you can call yourself a medical equipment designer or salesman. If you work in research without a md you can call yourself a medical researcher.
3. Don't get this one?
4. Architecture is an art and science that is practiced as a profession. Architecture is an adjective to describe a building or space. Architecture can exist without an architect. Example: maya Lin (not an architect) vietnam memorial = work of architecture. Architect is a title architecture and architectural are not titles. Title protection protects titles not descriptive words. Medical doctor = title medical device = not a title. Jim says " I design medical devises therefore I am a medical devise designer"
5. No irony at all.
I have seen architectural used when describing what kind of design one does. If you just say designer most people will not understand what that means. Some may ask, even in the profession, if one does electrical; structural; or mechanical.
The word architectural is an adjective that describes what the function is.
I have no problem with the term "architectural designer" as an alternative to the dreaded "intern" office label.
6. Never said that. The state passing legislation for the financial protection of some guild is inappropriate.
7. That's just lol funny. First, No you are not a doctor or a pilot and your work is not even remotely as dangerous as the work of a nurse (which takes 2 years to get license invluding school) or even a chef (which is unregulated) for that matter. Food poisoning kills way way more people than architecture. Architects design abstract plans and must meet certain codes. There are engineers, contractors, inspectors, etc. There are checks. The regulation of the title is necessary to an extent, but the time it takes is way way out of line when compared to other far more "dangerous" professions. Your threat is not immediate and you will not even get a very very small commission without much experience because architecture clients have no urgency to build. Medical clients can be senile and can be brought into the hospital at 3 am with no time to check references. This never ever happens in architecture. Architecture is also practiced by "anyone" in many countries and nothing horrible happens.
Liability has nothing to do with licensure. Anyone can sue anyone.
And, as I said, one can practice architectural design without a license. One cannot fly a plane without a license. If one could fly a plane without a license then they would be an unlicensed pilot. LOl
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.
Woops, forgot to type, at the end, "Is it illegal?"
^ that was the end of the original post
and i answered planet claire's question immediately - yes (it is illegal)
all this other shit is just trolling
I think the public would like to know what architects think they do to protect their Health, Safety, and Welfare and I hope they are reading this. The public probably should know that architects aren't required to take ANY coursework in: law, finance, real estate, construction/engineering, social sciences or real estate. What do architects have coursework in? Drawing and modeling. In conclusion, architects don't really care enough about your budget, liability, market, construction, mental health, etc enough to educate themselves in any of it unless they do it outside of architecture school. If they cared, they would have coursework in it. The HSW component to the architect's license is mostly about three things: egress, occupancy, and accessibility. Not a big picture HSW, but a little one.
Pls correct me if I'm wrong but I think that when you have plans of a house (or other exempt building) the plans are called Architectural no matter who you are. Often they are labeled A-1, A-2, etc, as opposed to Electrical for instance, which are labeled E-1, E-2 etc. Remember guys, the OP isn't stamping anything nor calling herself an architect, she understands that is not something she can do and is OK with it. I personally wouldn't use the word architectural because of that whole selective enforcement of the law thing but I think she should be able to. Just my opinion, not legal advice.
The public probably should know that architects aren't required to take ANY coursework in: law, finance, real estate, construction/engineering, social sciences or real estate.
real estate: so important to protecting the public's health, safety, and welfare that it's mentioned twice!
and i took a lot of courses in construction and engineering (required) and a few social sciences (electives). what accredited degree does not require construction and engineering classes?
imho, egress/occupancy/accessibility are a significant enough component of hsw to be considered. of course it would be better if we knew about other stuff too.
one can practice architectural design without a license.
this depends on how you define 'practice architectural design.' if you define it to mean 'draw pictures,' or even 'design houses that do not require an architect's stamp,' then you're right. on the other hand, if you take 'practice architectural design' to mean 'submit drawings with an architect's stamp,' then you can't. to tint's point, if you're submitting architectural plans for a house without an architect's stamp, then it would make sense to say and architect is not required to be involved in the practice of architectural design. i did a quick search of my local building department's requirements for permit submittals, and they say "architectural work" when an architect's stamp is required, and "floor plan" or "site plan" on residential applications when an architect's stamp is not required. that was not a very detailed look though, so there could certainly be something else in there that does indicate an architect is not required for architectural drawings.
the OP's question wasn't really about whether they can 'practice architectural design,' but rather whether they can advertise 'architectural design' as a service. i know you want to call yourself an architect jla, but that has nothing to do with the question at hand. the OP isn't asking what you want the rules changed to, she's asking what the rule is. if 'the public' were to be confused by the advertisement that says 'architectural design,' then that advertisement would be false. if 'the public' were to intuitively understand that 'architectural design' does not include an architect, then it would be fine. the fact is, it's not up to you or suri to decide what 'the public' will think 'architectural design' means. the final decision would be up to a judge, after you get sued, and the selective enforcement of the law will be dependent upon them and the lawyers. i don't think semantic games involving zumthor will have any bearing on the outcome, ever.
tint where did you go to school?
My BArch had coursework in construction and engineering - 5 or 6 semesters of it, in fact - and the two-semester Professional Practice course covered all the other things on your list.
Actually upon graduation from medical school the graduate is called doctor and puts MD after his name (Dr. Joe Smith MD) even before he has entered the first day of residency and isn't qualified to treat anyone on his own. Doesn't seem to have affected the esteem doctors have in the public eye or adversely impacted their income.
I guess I had some dumbed down classes in engineering. And a class with a component in AIA law. You guys busted me.
Remember, insurance dictates a lot of what ANY professional can do anyways.
a bachelor's of architecture is a bachelor's degree
a masters in architecture is a masters degree
a doctorate of medicine is a doctorate degree
a doctorate of philosophy is a doctorate degree
as an architect, you too can call yourself 'doctor' as soon as you finish school if you get a phd. quite a few schools offer this as a degree option. the architect would put the degree "Ph.D." after their name instead of "M.D." to reflect the degree they earned.
And an architect is someone who designs buildings. A PhD for architecture, a trade that in fifteen states does not require the first college course? What a farce. The medicos do not care in the least if you call yourself "doctor", there are probably Doctors of Lesbianism Studies PhDs by now, they don't care if you call your self a "medical" this or that as long as you don't refer to yourself as a "medical doctor". That they care about. If anyone in this profession had two brain cells they would opt for protecting the term "Registered Architect" and forget trying to hold back the tide. It's not working.
in the jurisdiction i operate in, an architect is a professional registered with the state. it could be different where you are, but i'm pretty sure texas laws are similar to the ones i operate under.
i don't disagree that a Ph.D. in architecture is a farce, but if you like titles, it's an option open to you. no real-life experience is required either.
when you say 'an architect is someone who designs buildings,' are you suggesting, in the context of this post, that the title of 'architect' is not regulated in the area where the OP is operating their business, and therefore it's ok for them to advertise any architectural services they want? that could be the case. i don't work in texas, so things could be different their, and i always appreciate learning new things.
To me the OP was referring to offering design that relates to the architectural aspect of a building. It would be silly for someone to assume they may offer electrical design with their stone.
but it would not be silly for someone to assume the OP was an architect since they want to advertise they provide 'architectural plans'
What I am saying is that the regulation of the term "architect" in all 50 states is an epic fail. If some educated couple stops at a beautiful home nearing completion and asks the contractor who the architect is do you think the contractor is going to sit down and go through thirty minutes of bull shit to explain to the couple that although the person who designed the home has a BS in Architecture and decades of designing homes he is not an architect and that they should not use the term? Are you really that dense?
I think we should have checkpoints at all airports and roads crossing state borders and make architects empty out their business cards into a trash bin as they cross state lines because as soon as you cross that state line you are are breaking the law and the health, safety and welfare of the people is at risk. Or do we not want that enforced? I get confused.
that's fine volunteer, i think you're opinion on that matter is as valid as anyone's, including my own, even though our opinions may sometimes be different. there have been many threads discussing how we want things to work, but i'm pretty sure this thread was intended to discuss how things actually work in the current system. fail or not, someone who isn't an architect isn't an architect.
graad, you are absolutely correct. My main source of income is selling bricks, stone, pavers, cmu, sand, mixes, aggregates, rebar, etc. etc. I own a small store with everything masonry. I also design specific elevations relating to the clients wishes with stone, so they can envision their home, vray'd and presentable. I also have laborers that put up the stone. I do also design custom homes and sell stock plans, but that's it. FRaC seems to believe differently that i want to call myself a Architect, which isn't the case at all, or anything near. I just want to describe what i sell. Simple. To the point. All this just seems ridiculous to me on the protection of a word when it's actually what is being sold from my store describing exactly what i sell. I'm venturing to begin selling Architectural Mouldings and Millwork as well. You see that? "Architectural" Mouldings and Millwork. I will design their kitchens too and put them on paper, measurements and all.
I think we should have checkpoints at all airports and roads crossing state borders and make architects empty out their business cards into a trash bin as they cross state lines because as soon as you cross that state line you are are breaking the law and the health, safety and welfare of the people is at risk. Or do we not want that enforced? I get confused.
yes i know, you confuse easily. so here it is:
i am an architect, and i am licensed to practice architecture in california.
if i was visiting another state and someone asked me what i do, i'd say i was an architect.
if they asked me to design their house in tennessee or wherever, i'd say i may be able to do that although i am not licensed to practice in tennessee. some buildings that are exempt under the code still require an architect's stamp - for example a lot of homeowner's associations require a licensed architect. it doesn't take half an hour to explain, it takes 2 sentences. it also has nothing to do with what you create being 'architecture' or not.
and if i was designing a house in a state i wasn't licensed in, i would not have 'architect', 'architectural', or anything else like that on plans, specs, contracts, building department forms, etc.
here's that story i was thinking of where the pacific northwest architect was fined in california: http://archinect.com/forum/thread/72159/james-cutler-got-fined
we all know what the rules are, it's not that hard to understand
if you have an up-to-date ncarb file, you could probably get licensed in tennessee fairly easily through reciprocity!
FRaC seems to believe differently that i want to call myself a Architect, which isn't the case at all, or anything near.
i'm just explaining whether you are allowed to advertise that you sell 'architectural plans' or not. you know, the legal question you asked.
hey you can do what you want, i've just seen people get fined all the time for the exact thing you want to do. chances are you won't get caught i'm just being nice by explaining things and warning you.
just say you sell 'custom house plans' or 'custom home designs'. no chance of getting fined and most people not in the architecture field get very excited saying to their friends their home was a 'custom design'.
if you have an up-to-date ncarb file, you could probably get licensed in tennessee fairly easily through reciprocity!
yeah i let my ncarb certification lapse a few years ago when they jacked up the annual fee during the recession. i'll probably start it up again at some point, though ...
But FRAC, the implication is that you are offering services by carrying the card, designed for carrying out soliciting work, with that word on it. It is clearly a gray area. To answer what you do for a living is ok.
Volunteer, forget it. There's no way to break through their thick skulls. They just don't get it.
Frac, if you believe that not being able to seek work across state lines protects the public and is good for business then you are really confused. First, why is a California architect not capable of designing a house in arizona? Second, Why would you want to not be able to seek work in all 50 states.? Another brilliant business move by American architects.
discussions about how you think things should work are different than discussions about how things work. jla, you're talking about how you think they should work. i bumped a thread for you where that is the topic.
First, why is a California architect not capable of designing a house in arizona?
the answer to this is really obvious and very clear. it's because he is not an architect in arizona. you're trying to debate why you disagree with the regulations, which is pointless and certainly isn't what the OP was asking. you do understand that this is how it works right, even if you think it's stupid?
i never said a california architect can't design a house in arizona. here's what i wrote:
and if i was designing a house in a state i wasn't licensed in, i would not have 'architect', 'architectural', or anything else like that on plans, specs, contracts, building department forms, etc.
you can seek work in any state you want - you just have to check the rules of that state's architectural licensing board to see what can and cannot be done.
and architects do work all the time in states they aren't licensed in - like your Zumthor example. but those architects and non-architects are following the rules, which is all i'm trying to explain (look, i didn't set up this system).
I understand the rules. I never break them either. You are correct for pointing out that the op cannot use these terms. The overall idea of it however is IMO incorrect and bad for business.
I like "custom home design/designer". It is accurate, understandable, and within the law. You won't get SEO on your website for people that don't know any better and search for an architect though. Edit: But if you have a degree in architecture, you can use that word for SEO.
OMG finally!
[/thread]
i bet you can use 'architect' in the metadata. people don't see that, but search engines should.
see, at the risk of wading back into a stupid argument for the 700th time:
the laws are mostly cut and dried. the practice of architecture is regulated profession in all 50 states. each state has their own regulations. if you meet the qualifications and choose to become a licensed professional in that state, so be it. because it's a regulated profession, there are limits as to how one can present themselves, commercially, relative to that title.
you can, of course, use 'architect' to refer to your occupation at a cocktail party (even if not registered). just don't hold yourself out to be a licensed architect if you're discussing a potential project or signing a contract. similarly, you cannot use the word 'architect' or any derivation thereof if you're not a licensed professional in that state.
if you've trained at an architecture school and think you "practice" architecture but don't want to/can't/won't get licensed... just don't use the term. you've got no moral high ground to stand on, just a bunch of whining and bitching about how it's all unfair. quit making excuses and get the license. or creatively figure out how to get around it. either way, quit whining.
as to what we'll call people on a licensure track but who aren't done - that's a whole other topic for a wholly different thread.
so: claire - if you think being an engineer will best suit you, great. if you're turned off from being an architect because of one experience in an online thread forum... i can't help you. good luck either way.
I'll be clear, architectural licensing boards..... every single one of them has fined unlicensed persons for using the word "architectural plans". Architectural plans as the licensing boards are concerns are plans that constitutes practice of architecture. However, architectural stonework refers to a construction craft product or service. Architectural stone generally means stone that has been cut and dressed for architectural use not raw rock.
For what it is worth, just use building plans or house plans or home plans or residential plans or residential building plans.
The reason the words "architectural plans" is prohibited from being used in advertising, contractual, offering of services or any form of professional and/or commercial venture use by an unlicensed designer (building/residential designer in the context of this topic) is because the licensing board may feel that you may cause misrepresentation of qualifying to offer services constituting the "practice of architecture" as defined by the law.
While architectural stone like architectural stonework is clear that you are offering an artistan craft of making stones for architectural usages.
Trust me it is a word game and every licensing board and every single architect that ever served on the licensing boards wants to fine you because most of the type of architects that wants to serve on a regulatory board is on a mission to shut down unlicensed designers every way they can because they hate what you are. They hate the idea that you compete for projects. However, they have to watch themselves from getting carried away too far. Remember your role.
Architects and unlicensed designers have had contention among the contituents for over 100 years when licensing laws were enacted.
This began with academically trained architects vs. th architect-builder who was trained in the field all the way back to the early 19th century. There were some academic architecture programs. Most of it being the French Ecoles Beau Arts where a number of the architects went to school and came back to the U.S.
The ivory tower trained vs. the apprenticeship trained architect (in the pre-licensing law era). This was where this begun.
There are certain art of word use to keep yourself out of the fire of the licensing board. There are too many in this profession that hates what unlicensed designers represent.
There was once an architect that literally called us building designers criminal and compared us to organized crime like the mafia. He felt every one of us are criminal scum bags that deserved being sent to prison for life. This guy was seriously off his rockers but he was literally vehemently hating of us even those of us that follows the 'rules' and not use the word architecture or architectural in an unlawful manner that could reasonably misrepresent.
If you can even avoid using the word architectural in "architectural stone work" or "architectural veneer" because you can , you should. Say building stonework or building veneer. If you can avoid using it unless it is proper architectural nomenclature then just don't use the word "architecture" or "architectural". Limit the use of "architect" to only refer to an "architect" such as this phrase: "Some services may require the services of a registered architect or engineer". To refer to yourself or anything associated to yourself with words consisting of "architecture", "architect" or "architectural" if possible.
This would limit your exposure to a level that licensing boards would likely not bother you.
subgenius,
Remember, architectural licensing is no longer needed as much as it might have been in the earliest days of licensing laws. Reason: State wide adoption and enforcement of building codes with building officials and inspectors with at least one or two B.O.s and a number of plan reviewers, building inspectors, etc. in each county and incorporated municipality. This is how it is in most states. Buildings don't get built without permits unless owner/DIYer blatantly violates the law.
So, if an error occurs in our work, permits are not issued. Nobody dies from drawings on paper. People die or lose their limbs from the built structure. Therefore, as long as permits are not issued until the design passes building codes, no one is going to lose their life or limb.
It is literally that simple by allowing the buiding department whatever amount of time required to perform thorough plan review of every single set submitted no matter how simple or complex a project is.
With the medical field, if you screw up, it literally may mean the life or limb of the perso with no option for second chances. That is a big difference.
However, I am not proposing we change anything right now.
The licensing law needs only remain as long as there is a real and valid reason of public physical safety, physical health and physical welfare as that was what was only authorized by the people of the state government to protect. That is another matter to be debated at another time.
If anything, I am responding to a point you made above.
It is best that you don't make blanket reference of any professional group be it architect or unlicensed building designers.
insurance isn't law, tint.
I don't recall any state architectural licensing board requiring architects to carry insurance as a condition of licensure and renewal.
What would happen if you do something that a particular insurance carrier doesn't like, they cease to cover you or raise the premium that you have to pay.
Richard, nice post.
If you want to change the law, there is a due process of writing a bill and then getting it passed and signed into law through the state legislative process.
It is pointless to discuss what things should be. It is a sad state of affairs that we had to resort to architectural licensing. It says something about the moral and ethical compass of people.
What I started is a direct response about how things are not what they should be to be clear to point for the OP so the OP can get on with his/her practice and business.
I'm a building designer, not a licensed architect. So to me, I rather things be left alone because in my experience, everytime things get messed with, it is always towards restricting freedom then you might as well burn the U.S. Constitution and your wave your freedoms good bye.
We always lose it in the guise of "protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public".
Until laws are changed, JUST follow the laws and rules whether you agree or not.
The official title of architects is "Registered Architect" or "Licensed Architect".
Chigurh,
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.
Historic research goes and there wasn't these problems of dickheads making a circus of the profession before licensing laws. It just took people being honest and forthright.
The licensing laws weren't adopted solely on the notion of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. They had their agenda to reduce competition.
I'll just refer to myself as an architect at social gatherings, got my MArch and it's much easier than saying I have my master of architecture degree, work at an architecture office, but I'm not an architect. These days people will probably think I'm some kind of software designer / IT guy anyway...
Maya Lin is the coolest and she's "not an architect".
I don't think I have even seen another profession that takes such glee in demeaning itself, it's members, and in throughly confusing members of the public, many of whom have advanced degrees in their own fields but are throughly baffled by the "who is an architect and who isn't" nonsense. Do you seriously wonder why the profession is circling the drain?
Richard, I didn't know that about insurance, I thought it was required for the license. Good to know.
Volunteer, I think our era is defined by psychological abuse. It is everywhere.
Wow! a sure way to get 100 replies to a thread: cry about students and intern's perceived entitlement.
Volunteer, the profession is not circling the "drain" as you claim. The only ones claiming this are those unable/unwilling to complete the process and earn their license. The act of simply not flunking in a glorified art program is not sufficient and having every chap who left design school calling themselves architect demeans my title. Perhaps the public, as you say, is confused because too many designers try hard to twist the professional title as their own "look how smart I am" podium.
Well we certainly would not want to demean your title. I have learned a lot from this thread, for example, there is no such thing as an "unlicensed architect", as architect implicitly implies a license, the adjective "unlicensed" would interact with the "licensed" component of the word "architect" and the poor fellow would go 'poof' in a puff of smoke. Also is is quite OK to refer to an "architectural intern" as the word 'architectural' is an adjective that modifies intern. It is not OK to refer to architectural plans because the word 'architectural' is an adjective that modifies plans.
you know, i didn't need liability insurance to get an architect's license, but i need insurance to get a notary stamp, and i would need insurance to get a contractor's license.
richard, part of your apparent belief in licenses not being required is that the building department will take responsibility for your work because they review your drawings. kevin welch mentioned this earlier, too. this is not true. whether they find errors or omission or not, your designs and your decisions are you responsibility. saying 'the building department will catch it' is all the more reason why you might not be ready to be an architect yet.
The local building dept. stamps every page of plans with a big red rubber stamp that says
"NOT LIABLE FOR OMISSIONS OR OVERSIGHTS"
which makes one wonder exactly wtf are they there for (aside from squeezing out application fees). Health and safety my ass, most of the people there can't even read a plan.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.