@765: ++: I agree that there's nothing they're not taking on that hasn't been taken on elsewhere, likely in the 60s. The thing is, many IA practitioners (including many of the field's prolific bloggers) don't have a *clue* about it. They like architecture because it sounds sexy.
I'm keen to see architects -- not just the field of HCI (human computer interaction) and computer science -- begin to approach responsiveness in buildings and cities. That's where things will really get interesting. But the possibilities for physical computing are only just beginning to creep into architectural education, at least in the US. (It's a little easier if you're in Italy or the UK, given the proximity to the Arduino scene -- an easy-to-learn environment for physical computing).
Re: money: the further you get from tangible design, the more money you'll make. I have a theory about this: margins in construction are fixed and low. It is difficult to make manifest the value of design in a way that can garner more money for the service. But when you're dealing with something completely digital, it still isn't completely commodified -- even now. So by this metric, print designers tend operate on a lower pay scale than digital designers; industrial designers tend to earn less than digital interaction designers. It's not fair, it's not good, but it seems to be the way the pay scales work.
Re: licensing: This seems to be a business decision as much as anything else. Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the difficulties Philip Johnson had getting licensed in Florida in the mid-70s. The reason behind it was to keep architecture commissions from going to out-of-state, non-Florida architects. When I was reviewing Cedric Price's archive for his Generator project, I found he'd collected a series of newspaper articles on Johnson's troubles with licensure -- and that's why he was talking to William Cannady about being the signing architect on the project. Price was a RIBA member but not licensed in the US, let alone Florida.
So the restriction of the title of "architect" is a move to not dilute the profession, sure, but in some cases, it almost seems like an anti-competitive move (like the ones I just mentioned).
"im fine with being an intern, it's part of the process and I'm over halfway towards getting my license. I'm just tired of people asking me what I do for money when I say I'm an intern architect. So architectural designer I am.
Yeah, that's pretty good. It begs the question, though, aren't we all monkeys? Idea Monkey. Marketing Monkey. Revit Monkey. Graphics Monkey. Management Monkey.
An old professor of mine used to talk about the difference between monkeys and jockeys: monkeys know what buttons to push, but they don't know why, jockeys can ride, but isn't it the horse that really wins the race in the end?
'architect' hardly = stamp monkey. since being registered i've used my stamp MAYBE three times and those were for projects i did on my own - not projects in the office. because of liability insurance, most small and mid-sized firms are set up so that only the principals stamp anything.
....and this is as it should be, because remember, in many states if you stamp the drawing you can be held personally liable for problems with the project - there are no corporate protections for the professional who lays his/her stamp on the project. So don't let your bosses talk you into stamping the drawings for them.
meta, are you certain about not getting credit for working under a licensed professional, even if that person and you are both employees in a non-traditional firm (eg, not an architcture firm, but something like a developer)?
not to scare the sh*t out of you guys, but the AIA in California apparently has a real stick up its butt regarding the "architect" term...
not only are you not allowed to call yourself an architect, apparently any use of the words "architect" (as in "unlicensed architect") or "architectural" (as in "architectural drafter" or "architectural designer") are enough to get you in trouble.
Check out this website from the California Architecture Board which lists all the "enforcement actions" including those against unlicensed individuals who "practice without a license":
Here are a couple of the cases listed there:
"DAVID CHARLES BREWER (Santa Ana) - The Board issued an administrative citationthat included a $500 civil penalty to DavidCharles Brewer, an unlicensed individual, foralleged violations of BPC section 5536(a)(Practice Without License or Holding Self Outas Architect). The action alleged that Brewer’sWeb site, www.creative-groups.com, statedthat he specializes in “Architectural Design.”In addition, Brewer’s title block on plans for aproject stated “Architecture & CivilEngineering.” The citation became effective on April 9, 2007."
LUIS M. CARRILLO (Pico Rivera) -The Board issued an administrative citation that included a $500 civil penalty to Luis M. Carrillo, an unlicensed individual, for an alleged violation of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Carrillo submitted plans to the City of San Bernardino Building Department with a title block that stated “Carrillo Architectural Design.” The citation became effective on September 12, 2006.
RAUL MAYORGA (Van Nuys) -The Board issued an administrative citation that included a $500 civil penalty to Raul Mayorga, an unlicensed individual, for an alleged violation of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Mayorga executed a written contract to provide “Architectural Drafting” work for the remodel of a residence. The contract stated that “architectural drawings” will be prepared and described the “Architectural work” that would be provided. The citation became effective on June 27, 2006.
I have always been aware of limitations regarding the use of the word "architect" and when I started my drafting business in Oregon, I looked around up there and it seemed okay to call it Final Draft Architectural Drafting and Design. I have never represented myself as an architect, and took pains to correct people who called me one. In fact, my contract even states that I am not a registered architect and do not represet myself to be one. But when I moved to California, a registered architect threw a hissy fit at the person behind the counter at the local print shop (which had my business card posted on their message board) because of my use of "architectural drafting" on my card. He threatened to call the Architects' Board and said they would fine me and keep me from ever getting a license.
I understand the wish of architects to keep that title from being diluted. However, there are many of us for whom "intern" is not accurate. I have no plans to get licensed since it is not necessary for the residential work I do, so I am not "interning" toward anything. Likewise, several people here use "residential designer", but that is not accurate for those of us who also provide contract drafting services on commercial projects to registered architects.
For a while, I tried just putting "drafter" on my card, but I got calls from civil engineers, structural, mechanical. I also got calls from a couple people looking for production drafting services for $12/hour, the kind of thing people get CAD monkeys with an AA in drafting to do. I may not be licensed, but I have an architecture degree and five years of experience, and I consider myself to be a professional. I don't think I should have to waste my time fielding calls from people looking for cabinet takeoffs and electrical drawings.
"Architectural" is the type of drafting I do. It is perfectly legal for me to do it, so I don't see why it should be illegal to say what I do. Yes, the title "architect" should be reserved for those with the license, but titles such as architectural drafter or unlicensed architect should be perfectly acceptable for those of us who are, in fact, architectural drafters or unlicensed architects.
When people talk about regulator's wasting participant's/member's/citizen's money, this is it.
Good ol' " we are going to fuck you because that's all we can do, certainly nothing productive or outside of the box, nope, we are going to screw over struggling folk that are trying to survive". Thankfully, I am not part of any membership, so I don't feel overly compelled to write letters expressing my sorrow and disgust for such a blatant degradation of architecture, as a profession.
This is a losing and pathetic battle and will continue to drive down architecture into an irrelevant and meaningless term. Eventually, there will be more people that counter sue, a few good precedent cases, and then, perhaps, there can be some focus on something that is actually productive.
Terminology Legit: (unlicensed [information/interior] ARCHITECT{ural} interns)
A few roundup mini-posts.
@765: ++: I agree that there's nothing they're not taking on that hasn't been taken on elsewhere, likely in the 60s. The thing is, many IA practitioners (including many of the field's prolific bloggers) don't have a *clue* about it. They like architecture because it sounds sexy.
I'm keen to see architects -- not just the field of HCI (human computer interaction) and computer science -- begin to approach responsiveness in buildings and cities. That's where things will really get interesting. But the possibilities for physical computing are only just beginning to creep into architectural education, at least in the US. (It's a little easier if you're in Italy or the UK, given the proximity to the Arduino scene -- an easy-to-learn environment for physical computing).
Re: money: the further you get from tangible design, the more money you'll make. I have a theory about this: margins in construction are fixed and low. It is difficult to make manifest the value of design in a way that can garner more money for the service. But when you're dealing with something completely digital, it still isn't completely commodified -- even now. So by this metric, print designers tend operate on a lower pay scale than digital designers; industrial designers tend to earn less than digital interaction designers. It's not fair, it's not good, but it seems to be the way the pay scales work.
Re: licensing: This seems to be a business decision as much as anything else. Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the difficulties Philip Johnson had getting licensed in Florida in the mid-70s. The reason behind it was to keep architecture commissions from going to out-of-state, non-Florida architects. When I was reviewing Cedric Price's archive for his Generator project, I found he'd collected a series of newspaper articles on Johnson's troubles with licensure -- and that's why he was talking to William Cannady about being the signing architect on the project. Price was a RIBA member but not licensed in the US, let alone Florida.
So the restriction of the title of "architect" is a move to not dilute the profession, sure, but in some cases, it almost seems like an anti-competitive move (like the ones I just mentioned).
"im fine with being an intern, it's part of the process and I'm over halfway towards getting my license. I'm just tired of people asking me what I do for money when I say I'm an intern architect. So architectural designer I am.
Yeah, that's pretty good. It begs the question, though, aren't we all monkeys? Idea Monkey. Marketing Monkey. Revit Monkey. Graphics Monkey. Management Monkey.
An old professor of mine used to talk about the difference between monkeys and jockeys: monkeys know what buttons to push, but they don't know why, jockeys can ride, but isn't it the horse that really wins the race in the end?
'architect' hardly = stamp monkey. since being registered i've used my stamp MAYBE three times and those were for projects i did on my own - not projects in the office. because of liability insurance, most small and mid-sized firms are set up so that only the principals stamp anything.
....and this is as it should be, because remember, in many states if you stamp the drawing you can be held personally liable for problems with the project - there are no corporate protections for the professional who lays his/her stamp on the project. So don't let your bosses talk you into stamping the drawings for them.
meta, are you certain about not getting credit for working under a licensed professional, even if that person and you are both employees in a non-traditional firm (eg, not an architcture firm, but something like a developer)?
my memory of this is that you just need to be working under the supervision of a licensed architect. the status/structure of the firm is irrelevant.
not to scare the sh*t out of you guys, but the AIA in California apparently has a real stick up its butt regarding the "architect" term...
not only are you not allowed to call yourself an architect, apparently any use of the words "architect" (as in "unlicensed architect") or "architectural" (as in "architectural drafter" or "architectural designer") are enough to get you in trouble.
Check out this website from the California Architecture Board which lists all the "enforcement actions" including those against unlicensed individuals who "practice without a license":
http://www.cab.ca.gov/enf_actions.htm
Here are a couple of the cases listed there:
"DAVID CHARLES BREWER (Santa Ana) - The Board issued an administrative citationthat included a $500 civil penalty to DavidCharles Brewer, an unlicensed individual, foralleged violations of BPC section 5536(a)(Practice Without License or Holding Self Outas Architect). The action alleged that Brewer’sWeb site, www.creative-groups.com, statedthat he specializes in “Architectural Design.”In addition, Brewer’s title block on plans for aproject stated “Architecture & CivilEngineering.” The citation became effective on April 9, 2007."
LUIS M. CARRILLO (Pico Rivera) -The Board issued an administrative citation that included a $500 civil penalty to Luis M. Carrillo, an unlicensed individual, for an alleged violation of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Carrillo submitted plans to the City of San Bernardino Building Department with a title block that stated “Carrillo Architectural Design.” The citation became effective on September 12, 2006.
RAUL MAYORGA (Van Nuys) -The Board issued an administrative citation that included a $500 civil penalty to Raul Mayorga, an unlicensed individual, for an alleged violation of BPC section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that Mayorga executed a written contract to provide “Architectural Drafting” work for the remodel of a residence. The contract stated that “architectural drawings” will be prepared and described the “Architectural work” that would be provided. The citation became effective on June 27, 2006.
I have always been aware of limitations regarding the use of the word "architect" and when I started my drafting business in Oregon, I looked around up there and it seemed okay to call it Final Draft Architectural Drafting and Design. I have never represented myself as an architect, and took pains to correct people who called me one. In fact, my contract even states that I am not a registered architect and do not represet myself to be one. But when I moved to California, a registered architect threw a hissy fit at the person behind the counter at the local print shop (which had my business card posted on their message board) because of my use of "architectural drafting" on my card. He threatened to call the Architects' Board and said they would fine me and keep me from ever getting a license.
I understand the wish of architects to keep that title from being diluted. However, there are many of us for whom "intern" is not accurate. I have no plans to get licensed since it is not necessary for the residential work I do, so I am not "interning" toward anything. Likewise, several people here use "residential designer", but that is not accurate for those of us who also provide contract drafting services on commercial projects to registered architects.
For a while, I tried just putting "drafter" on my card, but I got calls from civil engineers, structural, mechanical. I also got calls from a couple people looking for production drafting services for $12/hour, the kind of thing people get CAD monkeys with an AA in drafting to do. I may not be licensed, but I have an architecture degree and five years of experience, and I consider myself to be a professional. I don't think I should have to waste my time fielding calls from people looking for cabinet takeoffs and electrical drawings.
"Architectural" is the type of drafting I do. It is perfectly legal for me to do it, so I don't see why it should be illegal to say what I do. Yes, the title "architect" should be reserved for those with the license, but titles such as architectural drafter or unlicensed architect should be perfectly acceptable for those of us who are, in fact, architectural drafters or unlicensed architects.
just wanted to resurect this thread.
Seriously?
Why?
When people talk about regulator's wasting participant's/member's/citizen's money, this is it.
Good ol' " we are going to fuck you because that's all we can do, certainly nothing productive or outside of the box, nope, we are going to screw over struggling folk that are trying to survive". Thankfully, I am not part of any membership, so I don't feel overly compelled to write letters expressing my sorrow and disgust for such a blatant degradation of architecture, as a profession.
This is a losing and pathetic battle and will continue to drive down architecture into an irrelevant and meaningless term. Eventually, there will be more people that counter sue, a few good precedent cases, and then, perhaps, there can be some focus on something that is actually productive.
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.