Congress is currently in the process of selecting candidates to be the next Architect of the Capitol. By law, a Congressional Selection Commission is charged with sending at least three names to the President, one of whom the President will nominate as the new Architect of the Capitol. Recent intelligence suggests the leading candidate to be the next Architect of the Capitol is NOT an architect.
The AIA strongly advocates that the next Architect of the Capitol MUST be a licensed professional architect. Thus we need your help to communicate this message to your members of Congress. The Architect of the Capitol is the steward of the U.S. Capitol and is responsible for the safety, security and health of all occupants of the Capitol complex. It would not be in the interest of Congress or the general public to entrust this responsibility to someone without the formal education, on-the-job training and professional experience of a licensed professional architect.
Members of Congress need to hear from you today, that architects are the only professionals with the qualifications to manage the design, construction and maintenance of the Capitol complex.
Please help us tell Congress that they must recommend a licensed professional architect be the next Architect of the Capitol.
There are a number of things you can do today that will help ensure that your message is received by Congress:
* First connect with the AIA Advocacy Center to contact your members of Congress about making sure that only licensed professional architects are considered for the position of AoC. Connect to the AIA Advocacy Center by clicking on “Contact my members of Congress” button on the left.
* Send a fax or call a member of the AoC Selection Commission.
you can find out more information, including ways to send letters for which they have already given you a lot of the necessary information, at the AIA website.
my understanding is that there is a very large renovation and new construction (underground, includes visitor's center, etc) project going on at the capitol and that the last 'aoc' has resigned, not being able to handle the size and complexity of the project.
the committee assigned to identifying a candidate for the president to nominate has considered that maybe the person needs to simply be a very experience administrator, not an architect at all.
WhatToDo, you ask a very relevant question in this case. I've always wondered why the architecture profession is underrepresented in politics and other bureaucratic postions and come to the conclusion that most of us would rather starve are asses off watching some blob render on a computer screen all night instead of doing something to make a difference in society.
steven...what you are describing sounds like will need the stamp of a licensed architect...or is the AOC more like a Client Representative?
who knows, morphosis has been working closely with the government lately, maybe we'll have a thom mayne capitol...
lastly, and sorry to take this into a tangent, but this shows the lack of lobbying power by the AIA...i really think the AIA should concentrate its efforts outwardly (towards the community, and government - local, state, federal); and if perhaps more architects would become member (or more professionals become registered) they'd start collecting enough fundings to start carrying some lobbying weight.
It's rumored that they are looking for someone with boring/tunneling experience, in order to construct a vast network of subterranean caverns that will serve as the actual administrative center of the country. The government buildings will remain open to tourists and will include House and Senate "sessions" for the public to observe.
Likely whoever is selected is some construction superhero with a resume (and ability) which precludes him from any AIA title...I must acquiesce on this one. They are not going to give any slouch the job. That he/she isn't licensed is a mystery.
simples, the question is more of a principled one than a technical one, i think. there can be architects in the Architect's office, so stamping isn't so much the issue. but an architect Architect could have administrative people just as well as a non-architect Architect could have architecture people, right?
the primary focus for me is that they need to hire an architect OR change the title to something like 'administrator of capitol capital projects'. as long as thousands of people across the country actually TRAINED as architects but short a couple of exam sections can't call themselves architects, there shouldn't be an Architect that's not an architect. ; )
and i don't see how this shows ANYTHING about the aia's lobbying power yet. this is a lobbying effort on their part. if it works, their lobbying is working. if it doesn't, well, not all lobbying does work. this isn't the only issue they lobby, by the way, and they're certainly involved in lots of community-oriented efforts. this just happens to be the aia issue that I posted this afternoon.
hmmm. what if is not a pre emptive strike by AIA to secure an AIA architect gets the job not just a registered architect.
i am suspicious all the way and they are not even stating where, when and by whom this 'intelligence' is generated.
if it is true, which i doubt it is credible, it shows an emberessingly small minded and distrustful and dirty AIA.
...they need to hire an architect OR change the title to something like 'administrator of capitol capital projects' /// i agree completely.
re. the AIA: i admit that i swiftly associate my frustrations with our profession to the AIA, whether they deserve it or not. Your comments regarding the aia in this and other threads has helped me somewhat re-evaluate my thoughts on the institute...
Perhaps, if they do choose a non-architect as the Architect of the Capitol, the AIA can send a cease-and-desist order to the AOC, just like they are rumored to do to students who call their side
3d-renderings "architectural renderings"
but any way, i changed my mind after seeing they stated clearly 'licenced professional architect.' in the petition page.
now i think, it has a backfiring possibility.
of course it should be designed by an architect or a licensed professional like planner, urbanist and landscape architect and team of engineers. if the gov. selects the design thru american idol, then they should abolish all licensing laws.
With all due respect, when I see licensed Architects with a mere three years of working experience, the AIA has no argument. A job like this one takes a certain kind of Construction bulldog, and simply being licensed is not a pre-qualification. I'm licensed, and worked hard to get it and I have 20 years of construction experience...yet I am often humbled by a construction manager who is simply more experienced / has a higher aptitude for executing a contract....there's more to this headline than on what's the surface.
who has any pictures of what scooter has built in the last few years?
poczatek is right it takes something bigger a person with lots of money say a corrupt world backer who played a part in PNAC how about Wolfowitz? I think he still needs a job.
poczatek - i have seen those same guys and i agree with you that this needs to be somebody of exceptional construction experience
...BUT...
this position has some architectural, not just construction, implications. this person maybe has been bechtel's or turner's top dog for the last 20 years, but that doesn't mean that person should be arbiter of preservation issues or design decisions in such a sensitive context. unless the construction manager somehow picked it up along the way (doubtful) this role needs to be filled by an architect. and not just a staff architect under the Architect of the Capitol, but the one with discretionary authority - the one making decisions.
i know some architects that have been head of school district facilities for years or design head for fortune 500 companies that would be better suited than a construction manager. they're out there.
jonas might be too close to the mark...
orhan, what conspiracy theory were you cookin' up? i'll say for the umpteenth time: the aia is us.
Jul 30, 07 8:28 pm ·
·
[The more things change the more they become reenactment?]
On January 25, 1805, Congress appropriated $110,000 a special victory for the architect, for Thornton on New Year's Day had had a printed letter issued to all the members of Congress virulently attacking Latrobe, refuting in a somewhat casuistic way Latrobe's statement to the committee that none of Thornton's drawings could be found, and violently supporting his own plan for the south wing. This had all been fodder for Federalist criticism in general, but it had failed to affect the action of Congress.
The same winter, however, brought Latrobe a disappointment. Justice Chase of the Supreme Court was to be impeached, and because of the importance of the case the first impeachment of a high-placed government official Vice-President Burr wished the surroundings of the trial to be as dignified as possible and asked Latrobe for a plan. Having left Washington on December 13 after a short stay, the architect immediately set to work to design the fitments and rearrangements of the Senate chamber the trial would require. He sent off his drawings to Burr on the seventeenth surely not an excessive time for the job. But mail was slow and Burr impatient; before receiving the Latrobe drawings he awarded the commission to Samuel Blodgett (the Massachusetts archi- tect of the First Bank of the United States in Philadelphia), and all Latrobe's work went for nothing. Blodgett's design, Latrobe felt, was both more expensive and less convenient than his own.
Meanwhile he had taken time to search for proper stoves for the Capitol and for Monticello, to look for possible American sources for window glass, and to study new ways of making the roof of the President's House tight since it, like the roof of the north wing of the Capitol, had become a veritable sieve.
none. it just sounds a little dubious to sign a petition based on the information coming from a 'suggestive recent intelligence'. actually at that level it is quite comical.
Gantman emphasizes the position's “major management role,” which besides actual architecture includes overseeing nearly all functionary aspects of the Capitol complex, from food service to garbage collection.
The person chosen will have a full plate: “The restaurants are losing a million dollars a year,” Gantman explains.
It seems like the overuse of Capital Letters (pun also intended) is confusing the issue here. 'The Architect of the Capitol' sounds too much like Poet Laureate or something equally useless and ceremonial. If this person is just going to be a building manager then drop the honorific.
As a dedicated professional whose passion is focused on enhancing our natural and built environment, I am deeply disturbed by the reports that an unqualified political appointee may be nominated for the challenges of being the Architect of the Capitol. The health, safety and welfare of our Congress and their staff is too important to have an non-professional architect, landscape architect or engineer directing the preservation and restoration of the halls of Congress.
As an intern architect and intern landscape architect, I strongly believes that only a licensed professional like an architect or landscape architect possesses the skills required to be a successful Architect of the Capitol. My professions are responsible for the safety and health of the people within the built environments that they design, construct and oversee. This responsibility is not taken lightly. Someone without professional licensure, who has not passed the rigorous exams and fulfilled the necessary experience and education requirements, is not just not qualified for the post of Architect of the Capitol. Architects have received comprehensive education, on-the-job training, and professional experience in integrating critical design, structural and technology elements into structures in order to assure their usefulness for their particular purpose while assuring the security and safety of the occupants.
The Architect of the Capitol manages nearly 15 million square feet, including your office. In addition, the Architect of the Capitol will be overseeing major renovations to existing historic structures while assuring that the Congressional activities in these buildings are not disrupted by the necessary work that will go into these endeavors.
The Capitol is your Congressional home and the symbol of democracy - don't you want the best qualified person administrating it?
While the Architect of the Capitol is a political/administrative position, so is the Surgeon General, the Solicitor General, and other positions which are representative of their professions. The office of Surgeon General might better be served by having a public health policy executive serve, but it's an MD who gets the position.
It would fundamentally attack the role of architects in this country if the government supported the installation of a non-architect as the Architect of the Capitol. It sends a message to the public that architects are irrelevant to construction, just like putting an insurance company executive in the position of Surgeon General would indicate to the public that health care should be directed by insurance companies rather than by doctors.
There are many, many positions in government leadership where the people filling those roles are not necessarily the best qualified, however you might choose to define the term (and I'll ask you to steer clear of the cheap and easy "elective representative" jokes just as I have done).
The Surgeon General is not the best trained or best qualified person for the job. It's a political and bureaucratic responsibility, not the pinnacle of medical practice. But the Surgeon General is a position that is held by a medical doctor because it deals with medicine. The same holds true of the position of Architect of the Capitol.
The AIA is a trade association. While it does not represent ALL the profession it does have the strongest voice for a majority of the profession, at the moment. Also given that they are a DC group and Congress is on their doorstep then it is really their fight.
I'd rather they fought for more funding for community based work and for things like National Building Museum or increased funds for the NEA.
Side note : AIA = 80,000 licensed architects, emerging professionals, and allied partners However, only 48,000 are licensed.
I think that the name should not be changed and they should fight for it to remain within the architectural community. The AIA is right to fight for it, although in all reality seems like the GSA's Office of the Chief Architect is more important.
"together, we are together.
united, we are united.
architects, we are the mighty architects."
this after volunteering at an AIA subcommittee for the advancement of the AIA leadership in the communitee at large.
Did you know that Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni was a member of the IRIA (Italian Rennaissance Institue of Architects). Ya, seriously folks. Not only that, but he was a Fellow (FIRIA).
Thanks G#d for the affirmation!
Paul Mendelsohn, Vice President, Government and Community Relations
Robin Stevenson, Executive Assistant to Paul Mendelsohn
Hannah Wesolowski, coordinator, Government Advocacy
Federal Affairs
Andrew Goldberg, Assoc. AIA, manager, Federal Regulatory Activities
Anne-Marie Taylor, JD, manager, Political Action Committee
Tom Bergan, program manager, Federal Legislative Affairs
State & Local Affairs
Libby Dannenberg, director, State and Local Affairs
Biljana Kaumaya, manager, State and Local Issues and Programs
Brooks Rainwater, manager, State and Local Issues and Programs
Grassroots & Political Mobilization
Adam Melis, manager, Grassroots Advocacy
/only one has an education in architecture (Andrew) and he isn't licensed. Shouldn't we have at least one licensed architect in the team advocating for a licensed architect for Architect of the Capital.
It should be noted that, based on the history of the position listed on the official website for the Architect of the Capitol, not all of the people in that position have been licensed architects.
I do agree that it should be an architect, but it seems to be a rather boring job that, as others have pointed out, includes many responsibilities that are much more banal than typical architectural work. Last year when working in DC I went on a construction tour of the new Capitol Visitors Center. Hantman gave a brief intro to us before the tour, and it was evident that he was exhausted with the job.
treekiller
That's why we make crap business people and get treated like cad monkeys. Less than 15% of an architects job is design. the rest is management....
/trust me AIA staff make more than most architects.
Everyone who hates the AIA: I hear (and feel) your pain, but this is not an AIA issue. This is an issue for all of us who are (or aim to be) registered professionals. The AIA is championing this effort because there is no one else stepping up to do so, and as our lobbying group it is appropriate for them (us) to do it.
The Architect of the Capitol needs to be a registered professional.
Whatever your thoughts on the AIA, if you are or aspire to be registered you should be supporting this effort.
if the person who eventually gets the nod as "Architect of the Capitol" is not a licensed architect, they should immediately get nailed by the appropriate licensing board for unlicensed practice of architecture...
i remember reading a few years ago about an event (maybe the AIA national conference) where they did a sort of skit... there was a seasoned professional who had been practicing architecture for many years, but was never licensed, that was presenting some of his projects... then the police came in and arrested him for unlicensed practice of architecture because in the presentation he referred to himself as an architect... they made a whole scene to illustrate the whole inanity of architectural intern naming thing...
I would prefer to not have to jump on the "cease and desist misrepresenting oneself as a licensed professional" bandwagon, but if need be I'll do it. I've already both signed the petition and sent a letter.
One has to struggle through many years of school for a professional degree and then seemingly repeat the struggle again to sit for the exam. This completion of these struggles is a public entitlement, an Architects proven ability to provide outstanding design and leadership to both corporate firm and community at large.
The AIA provides a very needed professional service to Architect and justifiably so by membership. The AIA has also proven itself a culling force to extinguish errant ways of old and provide a much brighter future for the field of architecture and for the public that uses and enjoys the Architects' valued designs. The AIA is directly responsible for the respect the American people have for the state of American Architectural Design.
I was really surprised that this point wasn't being made by the AIA or included in their talking points. I keep hearing about how architects are professionals, and how we wish to be viewed on par with lawyers and doctors. Here, I think it's the crux of the matter.
If the AIA was hollering because one of the nominees wasn't an AIA member, I would greet the matter with a big yawn. That would simply amount to infighting in the profession. But that's not the issue.
As with all things political, the facts are of little relevance in this matter. It's not a question of "If it's not an architect, a building is going to fall down," because it won't. And, by the same token, someone other than an MD could be Surgeon General. In both cases, there's a lot more administration and policy work to the job, rather than actual practice.
Politically, showing that the government accepts having an architect's work done by a non-architect is a very damaging step.
Ed Feiner is a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture by the AIA in 1996. He lectures at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and has spoken at many schools of architecture and design. He earned his bachelor’s degree in architecture at the Cooper Union and his master’s degree in architecture at the Catholic University of America. He is a licensed architect in Virginia and certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.
Next Architect of the Capitol NOT an Architect?!
received this email this afternoon:
Next Architect of the Capitol NOT an Architect???
Congress is currently in the process of selecting candidates to be the next Architect of the Capitol. By law, a Congressional Selection Commission is charged with sending at least three names to the President, one of whom the President will nominate as the new Architect of the Capitol. Recent intelligence suggests the leading candidate to be the next Architect of the Capitol is NOT an architect.
The AIA strongly advocates that the next Architect of the Capitol MUST be a licensed professional architect. Thus we need your help to communicate this message to your members of Congress. The Architect of the Capitol is the steward of the U.S. Capitol and is responsible for the safety, security and health of all occupants of the Capitol complex. It would not be in the interest of Congress or the general public to entrust this responsibility to someone without the formal education, on-the-job training and professional experience of a licensed professional architect.
Members of Congress need to hear from you today, that architects are the only professionals with the qualifications to manage the design, construction and maintenance of the Capitol complex.
Please help us tell Congress that they must recommend a licensed professional architect be the next Architect of the Capitol.
There are a number of things you can do today that will help ensure that your message is received by Congress:
* First connect with the AIA Advocacy Center to contact your members of Congress about making sure that only licensed professional architects are considered for the position of AoC. Connect to the AIA Advocacy Center by clicking on “Contact my members of Congress” button on the left.
* Send a fax or call a member of the AoC Selection Commission.
* Sign the AIA’s petition at www.aia.org/aoc .
you can find out more information, including ways to send letters for which they have already given you a lot of the necessary information, at the AIA website.
i sent mine!
It looks like Brad Pitt landed his first "design gig"
why do we need a new capitol?
my understanding is that there is a very large renovation and new construction (underground, includes visitor's center, etc) project going on at the capitol and that the last 'aoc' has resigned, not being able to handle the size and complexity of the project.
the committee assigned to identifying a candidate for the president to nominate has considered that maybe the person needs to simply be a very experience administrator, not an architect at all.
question, how many of you would want that job?
question, how much does it pay?
WhatToDo, you ask a very relevant question in this case. I've always wondered why the architecture profession is underrepresented in politics and other bureaucratic postions and come to the conclusion that most of us would rather starve are asses off watching some blob render on a computer screen all night instead of doing something to make a difference in society.
steven...what you are describing sounds like will need the stamp of a licensed architect...or is the AOC more like a Client Representative?
who knows, morphosis has been working closely with the government lately, maybe we'll have a thom mayne capitol...
lastly, and sorry to take this into a tangent, but this shows the lack of lobbying power by the AIA...i really think the AIA should concentrate its efforts outwardly (towards the community, and government - local, state, federal); and if perhaps more architects would become member (or more professionals become registered) they'd start collecting enough fundings to start carrying some lobbying weight.
It's rumored that they are looking for someone with boring/tunneling experience, in order to construct a vast network of subterranean caverns that will serve as the actual administrative center of the country. The government buildings will remain open to tourists and will include House and Senate "sessions" for the public to observe.
Apply here: http://www.halliburton.com/careers/
Likely whoever is selected is some construction superhero with a resume (and ability) which precludes him from any AIA title...I must acquiesce on this one. They are not going to give any slouch the job. That he/she isn't licensed is a mystery.
simples, the question is more of a principled one than a technical one, i think. there can be architects in the Architect's office, so stamping isn't so much the issue. but an architect Architect could have administrative people just as well as a non-architect Architect could have architecture people, right?
the primary focus for me is that they need to hire an architect OR change the title to something like 'administrator of capitol capital projects'. as long as thousands of people across the country actually TRAINED as architects but short a couple of exam sections can't call themselves architects, there shouldn't be an Architect that's not an architect. ; )
and i don't see how this shows ANYTHING about the aia's lobbying power yet. this is a lobbying effort on their part. if it works, their lobbying is working. if it doesn't, well, not all lobbying does work. this isn't the only issue they lobby, by the way, and they're certainly involved in lots of community-oriented efforts. this just happens to be the aia issue that I posted this afternoon.
Who are the 'architects' on the list, Steven?
hmmm. what if is not a pre emptive strike by AIA to secure an AIA architect gets the job not just a registered architect.
i am suspicious all the way and they are not even stating where, when and by whom this 'intelligence' is generated.
if it is true, which i doubt it is credible, it shows an emberessingly small minded and distrustful and dirty AIA.
...they need to hire an architect OR change the title to something like 'administrator of capitol capital projects' /// i agree completely.
re. the AIA: i admit that i swiftly associate my frustrations with our profession to the AIA, whether they deserve it or not. Your comments regarding the aia in this and other threads has helped me somewhat re-evaluate my thoughts on the institute...
Perhaps, if they do choose a non-architect as the Architect of the Capitol, the AIA can send a cease-and-desist order to the AOC, just like they are rumored to do to students who call their side
3d-renderings "architectural renderings"
corr.'what if it is a pre emptive strike'
but any way, i changed my mind after seeing they stated clearly 'licenced professional architect.' in the petition page.
now i think, it has a backfiring possibility.
of course it should be designed by an architect or a licensed professional like planner, urbanist and landscape architect and team of engineers. if the gov. selects the design thru american idol, then they should abolish all licensing laws.
who is it going to be a crony, a business partner or family member of Bush?
i second Jonas77's question
i heard that its going to be scooter libby.
With all due respect, when I see licensed Architects with a mere three years of working experience, the AIA has no argument. A job like this one takes a certain kind of Construction bulldog, and simply being licensed is not a pre-qualification. I'm licensed, and worked hard to get it and I have 20 years of construction experience...yet I am often humbled by a construction manager who is simply more experienced / has a higher aptitude for executing a contract....there's more to this headline than on what's the surface.
who has any pictures of what scooter has built in the last few years?
poczatek is right it takes something bigger a person with lots of money say a corrupt world backer who played a part in PNAC how about Wolfowitz? I think he still needs a job.
poczatek - i have seen those same guys and i agree with you that this needs to be somebody of exceptional construction experience
...BUT...
this position has some architectural, not just construction, implications. this person maybe has been bechtel's or turner's top dog for the last 20 years, but that doesn't mean that person should be arbiter of preservation issues or design decisions in such a sensitive context. unless the construction manager somehow picked it up along the way (doubtful) this role needs to be filled by an architect. and not just a staff architect under the Architect of the Capitol, but the one with discretionary authority - the one making decisions.
i know some architects that have been head of school district facilities for years or design head for fortune 500 companies that would be better suited than a construction manager. they're out there.
jonas might be too close to the mark...
orhan, what conspiracy theory were you cookin' up? i'll say for the umpteenth time: the aia is us.
[The more things change the more they become reenactment?]
On January 25, 1805, Congress appropriated $110,000 a special victory for the architect, for Thornton on New Year's Day had had a printed letter issued to all the members of Congress virulently attacking Latrobe, refuting in a somewhat casuistic way Latrobe's statement to the committee that none of Thornton's drawings could be found, and violently supporting his own plan for the south wing. This had all been fodder for Federalist criticism in general, but it had failed to affect the action of Congress.
The same winter, however, brought Latrobe a disappointment. Justice Chase of the Supreme Court was to be impeached, and because of the importance of the case the first impeachment of a high-placed government official Vice-President Burr wished the surroundings of the trial to be as dignified as possible and asked Latrobe for a plan. Having left Washington on December 13 after a short stay, the architect immediately set to work to design the fitments and rearrangements of the Senate chamber the trial would require. He sent off his drawings to Burr on the seventeenth surely not an excessive time for the job. But mail was slow and Burr impatient; before receiving the Latrobe drawings he awarded the commission to Samuel Blodgett (the Massachusetts archi- tect of the First Bank of the United States in Philadelphia), and all Latrobe's work went for nothing. Blodgett's design, Latrobe felt, was both more expensive and less convenient than his own.
Meanwhile he had taken time to search for proper stoves for the Capitol and for Monticello, to look for possible American sources for window glass, and to study new ways of making the roof of the President's House tight since it, like the roof of the north wing of the Capitol, had become a veritable sieve.
none. it just sounds a little dubious to sign a petition based on the information coming from a 'suggestive recent intelligence'. actually at that level it is quite comical.
reasons to just change the name from architect to something else?:
http://www.architectmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1006&articleID=531324
Gantman emphasizes the position's “major management role,” which besides actual architecture includes overseeing nearly all functionary aspects of the Capitol complex, from food service to garbage collection.
The person chosen will have a full plate: “The restaurants are losing a million dollars a year,” Gantman explains.
and a good discussion (comments section):
http://blog.aia.org/aiarchitect/2007/05/shouldnt_the_architect_of_the.html
Just change the name to Latrobe of the Capitol.
"If the shoe fits, the foot is forgotten."
i'll stop now...
It seems like the overuse of Capital Letters (pun also intended) is confusing the issue here. 'The Architect of the Capitol' sounds too much like Poet Laureate or something equally useless and ceremonial. If this person is just going to be a building manager then drop the honorific.
I nominate vado for Architect of the Capitol.
"There's no such thing as a free lunch."
"Recent intelligence"...
which one of you is the AIAs' deep throat... I want names people, NAMES!
/and what were on those 18 minutes of missing minutes from the AIAs' last board meeting?
//tinfoil hat adjusted... nothing to see here, move along people, move along..
Dear Corrupt and Jaded Member of Congress -
As a dedicated professional whose passion is focused on enhancing our natural and built environment, I am deeply disturbed by the reports that an unqualified political appointee may be nominated for the challenges of being the Architect of the Capitol. The health, safety and welfare of our Congress and their staff is too important to have an non-professional architect, landscape architect or engineer directing the preservation and restoration of the halls of Congress.
As an intern architect and intern landscape architect, I strongly believes that only a licensed professional like an architect or landscape architect possesses the skills required to be a successful Architect of the Capitol. My professions are responsible for the safety and health of the people within the built environments that they design, construct and oversee. This responsibility is not taken lightly. Someone without professional licensure, who has not passed the rigorous exams and fulfilled the necessary experience and education requirements, is not just not qualified for the post of Architect of the Capitol. Architects have received comprehensive education, on-the-job training, and professional experience in integrating critical design, structural and technology elements into structures in order to assure their usefulness for their particular purpose while assuring the security and safety of the occupants.
The Architect of the Capitol manages nearly 15 million square feet, including your office. In addition, the Architect of the Capitol will be overseeing major renovations to existing historic structures while assuring that the Congressional activities in these buildings are not disrupted by the necessary work that will go into these endeavors.
The Capitol is your Congressional home and the symbol of democracy - don't you want the best qualified person administrating it?
Sincerely,
Treekiller
the AIA is us. well said steven
While the Architect of the Capitol is a political/administrative position, so is the Surgeon General, the Solicitor General, and other positions which are representative of their professions. The office of Surgeon General might better be served by having a public health policy executive serve, but it's an MD who gets the position.
It would fundamentally attack the role of architects in this country if the government supported the installation of a non-architect as the Architect of the Capitol. It sends a message to the public that architects are irrelevant to construction, just like putting an insurance company executive in the position of Surgeon General would indicate to the public that health care should be directed by insurance companies rather than by doctors.
There are many, many positions in government leadership where the people filling those roles are not necessarily the best qualified, however you might choose to define the term (and I'll ask you to steer clear of the cheap and easy "elective representative" jokes just as I have done).
The Surgeon General is not the best trained or best qualified person for the job. It's a political and bureaucratic responsibility, not the pinnacle of medical practice. But the Surgeon General is a position that is held by a medical doctor because it deals with medicine. The same holds true of the position of Architect of the Capitol.
The AIA is a trade association. While it does not represent ALL the profession it does have the strongest voice for a majority of the profession, at the moment. Also given that they are a DC group and Congress is on their doorstep then it is really their fight.
I'd rather they fought for more funding for community based work and for things like National Building Museum or increased funds for the NEA.
Side note : AIA = 80,000 licensed architects, emerging professionals, and allied partners However, only 48,000 are licensed.
i have seen many title blocks said;
BLA BLA, AIA, assoc
and, usually those small print associate members are the most militant ones spewing rightious stuff against non-member professional minority.
I think that the name should not be changed and they should fight for it to remain within the architectural community. The AIA is right to fight for it, although in all reality seems like the GSA's Office of the Chief Architect is more important.
New Chief Architect
Chief Architect Website
Architect of the Capitol history, etc...
Who are they planning to design it, a chiropractor?
mmmmmm.... I need a chiropractor right about now...
We have a song we sing at my local AIA Temple:
"together, we are together.
united, we are united.
architects, we are the mighty architects."
this after volunteering at an AIA subcommittee for the advancement of the AIA leadership in the communitee at large.
Did you know that Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni was a member of the IRIA (Italian Rennaissance Institue of Architects). Ya, seriously folks. Not only that, but he was a Fellow (FIRIA).
Thanks G#d for the affirmation!
Paul Mendelsohn, Vice President, Government and Community Relations
Robin Stevenson, Executive Assistant to Paul Mendelsohn
Hannah Wesolowski, coordinator, Government Advocacy
Federal Affairs
Andrew Goldberg, Assoc. AIA, manager, Federal Regulatory Activities
Anne-Marie Taylor, JD, manager, Political Action Committee
Tom Bergan, program manager, Federal Legislative Affairs
State & Local Affairs
Libby Dannenberg, director, State and Local Affairs
Biljana Kaumaya, manager, State and Local Issues and Programs
Brooks Rainwater, manager, State and Local Issues and Programs
Grassroots & Political Mobilization
Adam Melis, manager, Grassroots Advocacy
Contact:
(202) 626-7403 Phone | govaffs@aia.org
/only one has an education in architecture (Andrew) and he isn't licensed. Shouldn't we have at least one licensed architect in the team advocating for a licensed architect for Architect of the Capital.
c- good point, but most architects aren't educated in administration or really want to be administrators (and the AIA would have to pay them more).
It should be noted that, based on the history of the position listed on the official website for the Architect of the Capitol, not all of the people in that position have been licensed architects.
I do agree that it should be an architect, but it seems to be a rather boring job that, as others have pointed out, includes many responsibilities that are much more banal than typical architectural work. Last year when working in DC I went on a construction tour of the new Capitol Visitors Center. Hantman gave a brief intro to us before the tour, and it was evident that he was exhausted with the job.
treekiller
That's why we make crap business people and get treated like cad monkeys. Less than 15% of an architects job is design. the rest is management....
/trust me AIA staff make more than most architects.
FYI:
AIA Lobbying in 2006
$400,000K
AIA Lobbying in 2004
$326,000K
($560,000 in 2000)
Construction Industry 'giving' to Congress
2006
$54,420,901
Dems - 29%
Repub - 70%
2004
$72,013,481
Dems - 28%
Repub - 72%
Other groups in our sphere in lobbying
Manufactured Housing Institute
$278,029
National Assn of Home Builders
$2,820,000
American Council of Engineering Companies
$866,118
American Society of Civil Engineers
$420,000
Associated Builders & Contractors
$1,020,000
Fluor Corp
$505,391
National Roofing Contractors Assn
$600,000
Owens Corning
$2,321,566
Caterpillar Inc
$2,320,000
Portland Cement Assn
$1,400,000
/in Congress - money talks, bs walks..
cornellbox, excellent post.
Everyone who hates the AIA: I hear (and feel) your pain, but this is not an AIA issue. This is an issue for all of us who are (or aim to be) registered professionals. The AIA is championing this effort because there is no one else stepping up to do so, and as our lobbying group it is appropriate for them (us) to do it.
The Architect of the Capitol needs to be a registered professional.
Whatever your thoughts on the AIA, if you are or aspire to be registered you should be supporting this effort.
if the person who eventually gets the nod as "Architect of the Capitol" is not a licensed architect, they should immediately get nailed by the appropriate licensing board for unlicensed practice of architecture...
i remember reading a few years ago about an event (maybe the AIA national conference) where they did a sort of skit... there was a seasoned professional who had been practicing architecture for many years, but was never licensed, that was presenting some of his projects... then the police came in and arrested him for unlicensed practice of architecture because in the presentation he referred to himself as an architect... they made a whole scene to illustrate the whole inanity of architectural intern naming thing...
I would prefer to not have to jump on the "cease and desist misrepresenting oneself as a licensed professional" bandwagon, but if need be I'll do it. I've already both signed the petition and sent a letter.
I agree completely, libby:
One has to struggle through many years of school for a professional degree and then seemingly repeat the struggle again to sit for the exam. This completion of these struggles is a public entitlement, an Architects proven ability to provide outstanding design and leadership to both corporate firm and community at large.
The AIA provides a very needed professional service to Architect and justifiably so by membership. The AIA has also proven itself a culling force to extinguish errant ways of old and provide a much brighter future for the field of architecture and for the public that uses and enjoys the Architects' valued designs. The AIA is directly responsible for the respect the American people have for the state of American Architectural Design.
Thanks, lb
I was really surprised that this point wasn't being made by the AIA or included in their talking points. I keep hearing about how architects are professionals, and how we wish to be viewed on par with lawyers and doctors. Here, I think it's the crux of the matter.
If the AIA was hollering because one of the nominees wasn't an AIA member, I would greet the matter with a big yawn. That would simply amount to infighting in the profession. But that's not the issue.
As with all things political, the facts are of little relevance in this matter. It's not a question of "If it's not an architect, a building is going to fall down," because it won't. And, by the same token, someone other than an MD could be Surgeon General. In both cases, there's a lot more administration and policy work to the job, rather than actual practice.
Politically, showing that the government accepts having an architect's work done by a non-architect is a very damaging step.
I agree with cornellbox. I'd like to see a list of the candidates before supporting this initiative.
Here would be nominee - Ed Feiner
Ed Feiner is a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and was awarded the Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture by the AIA in 1996. He lectures at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and has spoken at many schools of architecture and design. He earned his bachelor’s degree in architecture at the Cooper Union and his master’s degree in architecture at the Catholic University of America. He is a licensed architect in Virginia and certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.
oh yeah he is FAIA....
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.