Can I practice architecture in the UK and Europe if I was educated and gained licensure in the USA? How does one become somewhat of an "international architect", able to practice virtually anywhere? I have a very dubious knowledge of acquiring a license in any country. Im a junior in high school, I am both alien to the USA and UK, but they are the two places I would like to practice (along with Europe). Can someone explain?
Jun 26, 15 6:11 pm
You can not practice a profession that requires a license unless you get a license from the licensing board that has legal jurisdiction.
A license in the U.S. doesn't mean shit. You can't practice architecture where a license is required in any place outside the U.S. without first getting licensed there. They may recognize or accept your education but there is no such thing as automatic right to practice.
Never does and never will. The people in power will never let that happen that way.
Given you're in highschool, you don't have the required education in either place. Legally, you probably can't practice anywhere and possibly not even of legal age to contract.
trecaines
Jun 26, 15 6:21 pm
Ok, thanks for the reply.
trecaines
Jun 26, 15 6:30 pm
And sorry I didn't make clear, I meant after high school.
SneakyPete
Jun 26, 15 7:11 pm
"Never does and never will."
The first state licensure law was enacted in 1897 and the final state to adopt one was in 1955. Prior to that you didn't need one.
awaiting_deletion
Jun 26, 15 7:32 pm
richard is full of incorrect information today........you can always translate ypur education between countries and apend the extra time to get a licensure in wither country if you went to achool first in another, etc
...
I never said the education doesn't translate. Read what I actually wrote not what you think I wrote.
SneakyPete.... Never does and never will when the laws requires a license. The only country in the entire world that doesn't or didn't require a license to practice architecture is Haiti. I think that changed since the big earthquake there. But any place requiring a license never automatically allow a foreigner to practice in the state and never will. The reason is the purpose of licensing law is to be a gatekeeper of who is allowed to practice and who isn't. The reason for the licensure is for government to have jurisdiction over you.
No one is automatically allowed to practice architecture. You have to undergo licensure.
I never said a person can not become license. Yes, once upon a time ago there was no licensure requirement. The point I made is contextual. I never said that there never was the requirement. Again READ what I wrote not what you think I wrote.
"Never does" implies a present tense. I didn't say, "Never Did".
AGAIN.... READ what I wrote not what you think I wrote. Poor reading comprehension skills. After all, how do you think you pass the ARE without attention to detail of what was written.
No licensing authority automatically lets people who are foreigners to practice. If they did, the licensing board would have little to no effective measure of stopping an incompetent foreigner from practicing. Without licensing, there is no license to revoke.
Regarding the person's education, the person doesn't have a degree or qualifying experience. Certainly, not sufficient enough experience and the person is in high school. No diploma.
No licensing authority for architecture anywhere in the world would find that enough.
awaiting_deletion
Jun 26, 15 10:58 pm
no Richard read what you said and see that you were corrected on by SneakyPete.
Knowledge is not a Google search.
Jun 27, 15 12:39 am
He misread "Never Does. Never will." as "Never did. Never will." You can only rationally base SneakyPete's statements, "The first state licensure law was enacted in 1897 and the final state to adopt one was in 1955. Prior to that you didn't need one. " - as him misreading what I wrote "Never does. Never will." as "Never did". Never will". It is indicative in him trying to tell me about prior to licensure which I already know. Yet he fails to take my statement in context and therefore went on a tangent which doesn't matter because those days are long and gone and you will be lucky to ever find a place that doesn't require architectural licensing at all. You wouldn't even want to work in such a place. You wouldn't make any money.
"Never does. Never Will" and "Never did. Never will" are TWO completely different statements. He misread what I said. Hence forth, read what the fuck I said not what you think I said.
In addition, it was ENTIRELY in a context of a paragraph and established context.
When you can't read entire sentences in context of entire paragraphs especially when I already established the context starting with this sentence:
"You can not practice a profession that requires a license unless you get a license from the licensing board that has legal jurisdiction. "
then this sentence:
"You can't practice architecture where a license is required in any place outside the U.S. without first getting licensed there." which clarifies my point of the preceding sentence: "A license in the U.S. doesn't mean shit". Which of course is pointing to the fact that to be licensed in any place, you must meet each place's requirement for licensure.
Then there is this sentence that followed: "They may recognize or accept your education but there is no such thing as automatic right to practice." and then "Never does and never will. The people in power will never let that happen that way." Think real hard. They wouldn't be a licensing board if they allowed automatic right to practice of architecture. If they did, the licensing board would have no presence in the legal realities of this world. The existence of architectural licensing means to deny automatic right to practice architecture and to require a process of approval and that is what licensing is. It doesn't matter about the days before architectural licensure because no jurisdiction in the European Union, UK or United States or any of the main-land continental North America or South America that allows allows automatic right to practice architecture. You have to file for registration, pay a fee and document that you qualify and pass exams as maybe required before you can receive your license.
Pay attention... "Never does" is a present tense statement. "Never will" is a future tense.
I carefully chosen my words that your deficiency in reading comprehension has so far appear to have failed to grasp or understand.
The people in power will never let "automatic right to practice architecture" happen because it means the licensing board no longer has a place and purpose of existence and it means the end of their golden goose. It means they end the justification of their existence in the legal system.
Licensing boards very existence predicates on there not being an automatic right to practice architecture.
Think really hard about it.
awaiting_deletion
Jun 27, 15 12:56 am
bitch please.
Jun 27, 15 1:03 am
Thanks for confirming your inferiority.
awaiting_deletion
Jun 27, 15 1:18 am
oh come on little Richie, you know you said absolutely nothing, and more importantly you've merely compiled a Google research program into one long winded useless ramble,..a bot could do better.
I mean, are you a bot, with intent on dis-information?
Jun 27, 15 1:32 am
Fine: Go out, practice architecture without a license, thumping your chess and screaming out loud about your "automatic right to practice architecture" and report back to us how that went for ya.
awaiting_deletion
Jun 27, 15 5:42 am
richard what was our OP's question again?
Jun 27, 15 6:14 am
Original post questions:
"Can I practice architecture in the UK and Europe if I was educated and gained licensure in the USA? How does one become somewhat of an "international architect", able to practice virtually anywhere?"
My answer is valid to the question. You have to understand that any place requiring a license requires you meet their requirements for licensure. By virtue of being educated in U.S. doesn't mean you can practice in another country without going through licensure/registration process.
Just as you can't practice in states in the U.S. where you are not license, you can't practice in other countries that requires licensure until you are duly licensed. There is no exception to that rule in Europe, UK or U.S. or Canada or Mexico. There is hardly an exception to that rule in any country in the world except some really poor below third-world country like Haiti.
International practice requires undergoing licensure in those countries. Just as there are education evaluation of degrees attained in foreign countries, you maybe able to have your education evaluated and approved in another country based on your license status in the U.S. and get approved for licensure but you have to undergo the processes required.
My initial reply is valid and answered the OP's original question. How does someone become an "international architect" ?
Get licensed in other countries by meeting their requirements for licensure.
Much like you do to become an "interstate architect".... where you practice in multiple states. However, practicing in other countries can be more restrictive about beginning any work on projects prior to licensure. Some countries requires residency or using a resident architect of that country... ie. no licensing of foreigners.
I already said what needs to be done.
License in another country is just that. Yes, some countries will accept and approve registration of a U.S. registered architect in good standing. The reason isn't about being licensed. What ultimately matters is meeting their requirements. They can generally give a sh-t less about you being licensed in the U.S. They care that you meet the requirements and follow the rules, demonstrated good moral character by maintaining good standing where you are. It is because they (licensing boards of UK, Europe, US, etc.) don't want some foreigner architect that gets in trouble in his/her own country going into their own respective countries. They don't want riffraff trouble makers. Aside from that, it basically doesn't mean sh-t.
My point ultimately stands on the whole post.
trecaines
Jun 27, 15 9:26 am
Thank you Richard, you've explained perfectly. I have a better understanding now.
bowling_ball
Jun 27, 15 5:32 pm
I'm not reading all of Richard's long-winded google search aggregate.
Reciprocity agreements between countries do exist. For example, USA and Canada have such an agreement. You may have to prove licensure and experience, but that's about it (local jurisdiction exceptions notwithstanding).
kjdt
Jun 27, 15 7:52 pm
Yes, it's common to use an architect of record to get around licensing regs. But they do get sanctioned when they call themselves "design architect". Example from a board stipulation and consent order:
"Structural and design plans were prepared,submitted,and sealed by [name of licensed architect] a licensed architect employed by [name of firm]. The plans identified [name of firm] as "Architect of Record", [name of 2nd legally operating firm] as "Associate Architect", and [name of unlicensed starchitect Respondent] as "Design Architect". Charges: By negligently allowing the filing of plans in which Respondent was identified as "Architect" when Respondent was not properly licensed by the State, Respondent has violated the state's regulations."
They can call themselves "designer", "design consultant", etc., but nothing with "architect" in it.
kjdt
Jun 27, 15 8:27 pm
The state boards enforce it - 1. because the fines are a source of revenue, 2. because "architect" is a protected title in every US state.
I see "design architect" all the time in magazine articles and such - but then if somebody pursues it the designers just blame the writers for misunderstanding their title or role. But if they're putting it on drawing they're just asking to be fined - what I posted above is pasted straight from a state board's disciplinary actions list.
Sometimes a starchitect can be unlicensed in a state but still have a limited permit to be the architect on a particular project, and then they can use that title. Certain states (NY is one) have that option - it's based on endorsement of a license elsewhere, and is specific to the one project named on the application, not transferable to any other work.
Jun 27, 15 9:01 pm
Koz,
The title "Architect" is a legal, protected title. A person may only use the title "Architect" in any official, business-related, or in public in any form UNLESS the person is licensed as an Architect in that jurisdiction. Things get convoluted when it comes to internet and from a legal perspective, it can get ugly even for the licensing board but that gets into another situation best discussed with attorneys on a separate thread.
Nonetheless, board will look at whether or not such use is within the borders of the state, territory, or country where the licensing board has legal authority.
bowling_ball:
Reciprocity is not an "automatic right to practice architecture". Sometimes it isn't much of a hurdle and other times, it is a bit more complicated.
Koz again,
If you are not licensed and working under the direct responsible supervision & control of a licensed architect, you are not practicing architecture from a legal perspective because you are not legally defined as engaging in the "practice of architecture" as you are not making design decisions without approval, direction, of a licensed architect.
In addition, in many jurisdictions, an unlicensed person may not legally perform or prepare all portions of a project that requires a licensed architect. Some portion of the work must be directly prepared by the licensed architect and not just applying the stamp and signature or title block. It doesn't define in law exactly what parts but it comes through discernment of the licensing board members as to whether sufficient supervision and whether responsible control and exercise of restraining power (ie. not authorizing or allowing certain things to not be prepared by an unlicensed person and directly performing some parts or have prepared by another such as another licensed architect on the team). Otherwise, it would not be responsible supervision and control. This gets into situations of "UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE".
kjdt
Jun 27, 15 9:20 pm
So Richard, when you did your laundromat-to-theater conversion, how did that not get you into trouble with your state board? That's a change of occupancy group (Business to Assembly), and you've stated that you did structural work for the stage, exterior lintels, etc. - that's a project that should have required the stamp of a licensed architect.
Jun 27, 15 10:56 pm
It was under 4000 sq.ft. when measured. The measurements of the building measured out on outside dimensions to being under 4000 sq.ft. The other part was that the height to interior finish was under 20-ft. to peak of roof on the inside dimensions.
The work did not involve structural additions on my plans.
Correct measurements indicated it was under the 4000 sq.ft. rule.
In Oregon law and rule, based on the particular exemption rule that you are referring to, applies when the building is a non-exempt building over 4000 sq.ft. or 20-ft, height (from top surface of lowest floor to highest overhead interior finish).
Because it was under the size rule, I can apply change of occupancy, do structural design work and other work under ORS 671.030 (2)(c) vs. (2)(d).
Jun 27, 15 11:08 pm
I field measured it 3 times after discovery of a mis-measurement. There was initially a mis-measurement so I re-did the measurements and it calculated out to being under 4000 sq.ft.
Until I re-measured it, I had a temporary commission of an engineer. I field measured before I went into structural designing of the stage.
kjdt
Jun 27, 15 11:18 pm
The interior height is 20'-9" according to the city's records, and the current architect's and structural engineer's drawings for the bathroom renovations.
JeromeS
Jun 27, 15 11:25 pm
So let me see if I read this right: the State took the word of an unlicensed designer, who certified that his own work was exempt, despite the fact that it took the field measurmts to shoe horn the building under the limit?
Jun 27, 15 11:34 pm
The bathroom renovations are separate and are not part of my work. That is an addition being done now. At the time I was working on the project, the interior height of the theater section was just under 20'-0" by a few inches with a straight line measuring tape from peak on the inside where the roof sheathing above the truss and purlins join the top of the ridge board. down to the concrete slab floor.
The ridge board wasn't 12+ inches. I know what I measured with a measuring tape that would run that distance. I can go back there sometime with a laser but 20'-10" to the top of the roof, sure. But be sure what you are measuring. The top of the roof itself can be over 20-ft. and meet the rule.
I'm assuming you are looking at the plans by Jay Raskin.
I don't know about the bathroom renovation but its more an addition than a renovation.
kjdt
Jun 27, 15 11:41 pm
I have no idea who Jay Raskin is.
Both Nathan Good Architects and Stricker Engineering show the interior floor to highest surface of the existing building as approximately 20'-9". Seems like somebody from the city should have come with a Hilti to make sure it really did not need a stamp.
Pretty unbelievable they were allowed to open a dinner theater with NO BATHROOMS.
Jun 27, 15 11:42 pm
I'm assuming you are in the Astoria area. Lets meet. I don't know the measurements for bathroom renovation-addition that Jay Raskin is working on.
I've heard plans for two stories on that addition at one point or another for that.
kjdt
Jun 27, 15 11:45 pm
I'm not in Oregon.
Jun 27, 15 11:58 pm
But Washington perhaps.
But still, the city records for plans are not generally available from a website. You have to go to the City Hall in Astoria to get these documents. You aren't getting these from the city website. You had to come to Astoria to pick this stuff up.
Why on earth would you come to Astoria, Oregon just to grab these plans?
kjdt
Jun 28, 15 12:06 am
I'm thousands of miles away, and I didn't go to Astoria to get the plans. Just because you can't find things doesn't mean they're not out there.
I'm just floored that Oregon will let an appliance store, or laundromat or whatever it was, with a maximum occupancy of 20 or 30 people, be turned into a dinner theater with seating for 150+, and a huge cast with no stamp. Also no sprinklers, no bathrooms, a raised stage for a large number of performers with no structural drawings and no ADA access, and so on. It's just astounding. Especially when it only seems to squeak in under the dimensional limitations by your own measurements while others' contradict that. Your state and city should revisit that.
Jun 28, 15 1:50 am
kjdt,
I think they got the measurements from the mechanical engineer's original drawings without a final field measurement and somehow they did not get the correct measurements for that.
I remember this popped up in the measurements of the mechanical engineers drawings which got the incorrect measurements from the contractor that was correctly resolved in when the sprinkler's were installed. I'll be willing to back through this and resolve this. When we measured it, we used a measuring tape measuring from the concrete floor straight up to the side of the "ridge beam" of the gable.
If I can get back in there sometime, I would do a field measurement check with a laser meter to see what the issue is. I seem to recall it was around 19'-10". I think they got the 20'-9" when the contractor measured the roof height after removing a chimney and went to the outside. So they might have got that part wrong by measuring to the top of the roof vs. to the inside of the roof line.
Measuring the roof was somewhat a challenge. What you probably weren't aware of is there was a chimney next to roof so they probably read measurement to the top of the roof not taking into account that the roof is in fact is a tad thicker because it had purlins, then rafters then sheathing. I remember seeing the opening when the chimney was removed and it was several inches thick. It wasn't just the thickness of a plywood sheet. It is like there was a sheeting down then a common rafter overlayed and then sheeting and rolled roofing.
The backstage area has a bathroom. The other bathrooms would be added via a future addition while the solution in the meantime would be portable potties. I wasn't going to make an addition to the building.
Jun 28, 15 2:55 am
I recall a few incorrect measurements resurfaced later in the project. Luckily, it didn't really caused any major issues for the sprinkler systems but there were some issues that was resolved.
I recall the truss is running at about 6:12 pitch with a maximum inside nominal dimension of 38'-8" of the building and the bottom of the bottom chord was like 10' and ridge beam is more of a "V" where two adjoining purlins comes together and we are scratching the edge of the numbers here.
I think the 20'-9" came from an improper measuring of inside dimensions by going from the top of the roof ridge on the outside, down the opening of the roof after the chimney was removed to the floor causing an additional of about 10-11" somehow.
I would measure again if that will make you happy when I can make a trip inside at some time but I'm not on active commission with ASOC at this time.
Jun 28, 15 3:46 am
The building when it was a laundromat was divided into multiple sections. The laundromat section was divided into 4 sections aside from the section that was in the 1980s era addition in the back. There was the laundromat section, a section for the laundry machine repair that also was used the 1980s era addition. Then there was two areas in the front that would be rented out. The one area was used by the college for small vocational courses. The other was just another area largely unused. The laundromat section at one time encompassed basically half the CMU portion of the building and about a third of it was rented out at one time. At a period of time, it was all of the laundromat and laundry machine repair.
Before that, it was several commercial uses including its original use as a plumbing shop.
- There has been sprinklers installed
- There was bathroom installed in the backstage
- There was new electrical installed
- The stage design and specifications was indicated. It was a simple design.
4 stem walls with double top plates. They were I believe 2x4 studs, sill plate and double top plate with 2x8 joists on top at 16" o.c. It has been a number of years but as I think about it, it was ~ 4'-10" o.c. stem walls. Do a load calc of less than 5-ft. span for Douglas Fir #2 or better grade. I think my specifications is a tad overkill. There was additional bracing added to secure and stabilize the stem walls on the tranverse in addition to the 2x8 joists. 5/8" OSB structural grade 'edge gold' sheathing. The sill was shimmed as needed and anchored into the concrete slab floor.
It's pretty much overbuilt.
- ADA access throughout the main audience area was established. Accessible means of egress path were over 4-ft. wide on both sides of the seating area. Where 90 degree turns were made, there were 5-ft. turn radius at entry and other spots. Although the side door would be replaced with a 36" wide ADA door or with an addition would simply be a passage way. I already had thought about an addition without drawing it for licensing laws reason. They also didn't have the budget which I had to work a bit without clarity of budget because there wasn't really one.
It wasn't like I had 9 months to design the project.
kjdt
Jun 28, 15 1:01 pm
Minimum 23/32" thick Edge Gold panels are required for a theater stage. Also the stage needs ADA accessibility.
Insufficient time and budget aren't valid excuses for substandard design - they're a reason to turn down the project.
Jun 28, 15 4:32 pm
Actually, to think of it, it was actually 23/32" OSB. In fact, I think I actually specified 3/4" OSB. This was on 2006 OSSC. So yes.
ADA accessibility to the stage is via the back stage. There is just not ADA accessibility from the stage to the audience seating area.
You realize the back stage is about ~24" higher than the floor area of the audience seating area.
I'm going by memory alone. My notes, specifications and drawings were stored away a number of years ago so. In fact, I specified whatever 2006 OSSC required when it came to the sheathing. I think I might have actually specified 3/4" OSB thinking about it.
BTW: This is an existing building and no more than I think it was 20% of the project costs can be spent on ADA accessibility. There is that disproportionate rule. The stage height was designed to line up with the 'back stage" area so as to line up.
There is another rule in ADA about maximum extent feasible. There is basic wheelchair accessibility (ADA) to the backstage by virtue of doors in the back. In addition, there is wheelchair accessibility to the seating area. There is accessibility in those two zones.
Jun 28, 15 5:25 pm
Oh, if I remember correctly, there was two layers of wood sheathing panel boards.
OSB was the underlayment with a finished wood panel floor. The top surface panels had smooth finish and was painted or something.
Jun 28, 15 5:40 pm
Lets move on. I'm not involved with this next phase. I was doing what I can do with the limits at hand which was a headache. In fact, I was trying to get an architect on-board but they weren't wanting to get involved and move the project forward. Funny thing, that Jay is working on the project now, AFTER I called him to try to get him involved earlier.
Anyway, lets move on. No one is falling through a structural plywood and OSB. We can always put full blocking every 12" along the length (except where piping is) or cross-bracing and to what point.
kjdt
Jun 28, 15 5:49 pm
Who is Jay? The current architect is Nathan Good Architects.
The drawings of the existing building don't show any existing sprinklering under the stage, there are inadequate door clearances, and so on. They city should be ashamed of signing off on this.
bowling_ball
Jun 28, 15 5:57 pm
Get a room, you two.
Jun 28, 15 6:11 pm
Jay Raskin is the architect of record for the next phase. Jay Raskin is working for Nathan Good Architects.
I wanted more to be done including replacing the one existing door on the east side. There should be but I wasn't preparing the fire-sprinklers. They did get a mechanical engineer for that. I don't recall any electrical service running under the stage so there is nothing really there underneath the stage (which is more per code.... a Platform vs. "Stage"). and it's not used for storage.
Technically, my original specification called for two doors right at the front but late in the project a deviation from that to one door. Well, there is only a need for two means of egress from the audience area out of the building.
I do absolutely know they have sprinklers installed in the roof. You can see the orange pipes and the sprinklers when the lights are on.
Jun 28, 15 6:25 pm
Can you provide me a copy of those plans you have so I can check with you and see what you are looking at?
kjdt
Jun 28, 15 6:26 pm
The permit drawings are stamped by Nathan Good - no mention of Jay Raskin in the project team on the cover, or anywhere in the set.
It doesn't matter if it's a platform or stage, or whether there is storage or electrical under it - it's deeper than 18" so it needs to be sprinklered.
Jun 28, 15 6:32 pm
Yeah, it was under my understanding it was. Can you provide me what you have?
Hmmm... the only reason the firm be hired for the project is probably because Jay was initially involved and carried the project over when he joined their firm. Just before ASOC talked to Jay which I got the info from ASOC itself, they talked to Tom Potter. Both names of Architects that I suggested to ASOC.
Jun 28, 15 6:37 pm
When were the plans from Nathan Good prepared? If between 2013 and January 2015, Jay probably had something to do with the project being brought to Nathan Good Architects.
and to think the kids was just asking about how to work in two different countries after studying in one and possibly practicing in another...
Jun 28, 15 7:18 pm
He got his answer he needed to know. Sorry about the tangent. We (me and kjdt) got into this side tangent. Anyway, it doesn't matter any more or any further.
As for myself, I'll just decide whether or not to pursue licensure or not. If I do, I may look into partnering with architects. That way, I get my IDP training hours and experience requirements for licensure resolved.
Just the architects should be licensed at least in Oregon and Washington. I don't think we have to be all in one office but able to meet in person. An LLC or Corporation business type and be at least 6 architects/engineers (4 architects minimum) aside from myself. Not all architect members have to be licensed in Oregon or Washington. At least one in each state or two with license in both states preferable. The rest can be licensed in other states like Idaho or California. My goal in that would be that we meet the requirements of architectural firm registration.
I work on exempt buildings, services not requiring a license and assisting preparation of plans and specifications under the supervision and control of a licensed architect and at some point I get the initial license.
Bloopox
Jun 28, 15 7:45 pm
Mr. Balkins, since you say that it's a possible goal to eventually get licensed, you should probably think about a bit more discretion and anonymity on this and other forums. You seem to know a lot about your state's licensing laws, I'm sure you know that even being the subject of a board investigation before you apply for a license can delay your license application. Being found at fault for anything ranging from fudging the facts in your NCARB record to practicing architecture without a license can result in a 3-year delay in license eligibility, and sometimes even permanent barring by the state. The information you've provided in this thread is enough to cause some problems.
Jun 28, 15 8:23 pm
Bloopox,
Ok. You have a good point though. Too much headache.
Can I practice architecture in the UK and Europe if I was educated and gained licensure in the USA? How does one become somewhat of an "international architect", able to practice virtually anywhere? I have a very dubious knowledge of acquiring a license in any country. Im a junior in high school, I am both alien to the USA and UK, but they are the two places I would like to practice (along with Europe). Can someone explain?
You can not practice a profession that requires a license unless you get a license from the licensing board that has legal jurisdiction.
A license in the U.S. doesn't mean shit. You can't practice architecture where a license is required in any place outside the U.S. without first getting licensed there. They may recognize or accept your education but there is no such thing as automatic right to practice.
Never does and never will. The people in power will never let that happen that way.
Given you're in highschool, you don't have the required education in either place. Legally, you probably can't practice anywhere and possibly not even of legal age to contract.
Ok, thanks for the reply.
And sorry I didn't make clear, I meant after high school.
"Never does and never will."
The first state licensure law was enacted in 1897 and the final state to adopt one was in 1955. Prior to that you didn't need one.
richard is full of incorrect information today........you can always translate ypur education between countries and apend the extra time to get a licensure in wither country if you went to achool first in another, etc ...
http://www.ncarb.org/Certification-and-Reciprocity/Alternate-Paths-to-Certification/Broadly-Experienced-Foreign-Architect-Program/BEFA-Process-Overview.aspx
Thanks guys :)
Olaf,
I never said the education doesn't translate. Read what I actually wrote not what you think I wrote.
SneakyPete.... Never does and never will when the laws requires a license. The only country in the entire world that doesn't or didn't require a license to practice architecture is Haiti. I think that changed since the big earthquake there. But any place requiring a license never automatically allow a foreigner to practice in the state and never will. The reason is the purpose of licensing law is to be a gatekeeper of who is allowed to practice and who isn't. The reason for the licensure is for government to have jurisdiction over you.
No one is automatically allowed to practice architecture. You have to undergo licensure.
I never said a person can not become license. Yes, once upon a time ago there was no licensure requirement. The point I made is contextual. I never said that there never was the requirement. Again READ what I wrote not what you think I wrote.
"Never does" implies a present tense. I didn't say, "Never Did".
AGAIN.... READ what I wrote not what you think I wrote. Poor reading comprehension skills. After all, how do you think you pass the ARE without attention to detail of what was written.
No licensing authority automatically lets people who are foreigners to practice. If they did, the licensing board would have little to no effective measure of stopping an incompetent foreigner from practicing. Without licensing, there is no license to revoke.
Regarding the person's education, the person doesn't have a degree or qualifying experience. Certainly, not sufficient enough experience and the person is in high school. No diploma.
No licensing authority for architecture anywhere in the world would find that enough.
no Richard read what you said and see that you were corrected on by SneakyPete.
Knowledge is not a Google search.
He misread "Never Does. Never will." as "Never did. Never will." You can only rationally base SneakyPete's statements, "The first state licensure law was enacted in 1897 and the final state to adopt one was in 1955. Prior to that you didn't need one. " - as him misreading what I wrote "Never does. Never will." as "Never did". Never will". It is indicative in him trying to tell me about prior to licensure which I already know. Yet he fails to take my statement in context and therefore went on a tangent which doesn't matter because those days are long and gone and you will be lucky to ever find a place that doesn't require architectural licensing at all. You wouldn't even want to work in such a place. You wouldn't make any money.
"Never does. Never Will" and "Never did. Never will" are TWO completely different statements. He misread what I said. Hence forth, read what the fuck I said not what you think I said.
In addition, it was ENTIRELY in a context of a paragraph and established context.
When you can't read entire sentences in context of entire paragraphs especially when I already established the context starting with this sentence:
"You can not practice a profession that requires a license unless you get a license from the licensing board that has legal jurisdiction. "
then this sentence:
"You can't practice architecture where a license is required in any place outside the U.S. without first getting licensed there." which clarifies my point of the preceding sentence: "A license in the U.S. doesn't mean shit". Which of course is pointing to the fact that to be licensed in any place, you must meet each place's requirement for licensure.
Then there is this sentence that followed: "They may recognize or accept your education but there is no such thing as automatic right to practice." and then "Never does and never will. The people in power will never let that happen that way." Think real hard. They wouldn't be a licensing board if they allowed automatic right to practice of architecture. If they did, the licensing board would have no presence in the legal realities of this world. The existence of architectural licensing means to deny automatic right to practice architecture and to require a process of approval and that is what licensing is. It doesn't matter about the days before architectural licensure because no jurisdiction in the European Union, UK or United States or any of the main-land continental North America or South America that allows allows automatic right to practice architecture. You have to file for registration, pay a fee and document that you qualify and pass exams as maybe required before you can receive your license.
Pay attention... "Never does" is a present tense statement. "Never will" is a future tense.
I carefully chosen my words that your deficiency in reading comprehension has so far appear to have failed to grasp or understand.
The people in power will never let "automatic right to practice architecture" happen because it means the licensing board no longer has a place and purpose of existence and it means the end of their golden goose. It means they end the justification of their existence in the legal system.
Licensing boards very existence predicates on there not being an automatic right to practice architecture.
Think really hard about it.
bitch please.
Thanks for confirming your inferiority.
oh come on little Richie, you know you said absolutely nothing, and more importantly you've merely compiled a Google research program into one long winded useless ramble,..a bot could do better.
I mean, are you a bot, with intent on dis-information?
Fine: Go out, practice architecture without a license, thumping your chess and screaming out loud about your "automatic right to practice architecture" and report back to us how that went for ya.
richard what was our OP's question again?
Original post questions:
"Can I practice architecture in the UK and Europe if I was educated and gained licensure in the USA? How does one become somewhat of an "international architect", able to practice virtually anywhere?"
My answer is valid to the question. You have to understand that any place requiring a license requires you meet their requirements for licensure. By virtue of being educated in U.S. doesn't mean you can practice in another country without going through licensure/registration process.
Just as you can't practice in states in the U.S. where you are not license, you can't practice in other countries that requires licensure until you are duly licensed. There is no exception to that rule in Europe, UK or U.S. or Canada or Mexico. There is hardly an exception to that rule in any country in the world except some really poor below third-world country like Haiti.
International practice requires undergoing licensure in those countries. Just as there are education evaluation of degrees attained in foreign countries, you maybe able to have your education evaluated and approved in another country based on your license status in the U.S. and get approved for licensure but you have to undergo the processes required.
My initial reply is valid and answered the OP's original question. How does someone become an "international architect" ?
Get licensed in other countries by meeting their requirements for licensure.
Much like you do to become an "interstate architect".... where you practice in multiple states. However, practicing in other countries can be more restrictive about beginning any work on projects prior to licensure. Some countries requires residency or using a resident architect of that country... ie. no licensing of foreigners.
I already said what needs to be done.
License in another country is just that. Yes, some countries will accept and approve registration of a U.S. registered architect in good standing. The reason isn't about being licensed. What ultimately matters is meeting their requirements. They can generally give a sh-t less about you being licensed in the U.S. They care that you meet the requirements and follow the rules, demonstrated good moral character by maintaining good standing where you are. It is because they (licensing boards of UK, Europe, US, etc.) don't want some foreigner architect that gets in trouble in his/her own country going into their own respective countries. They don't want riffraff trouble makers. Aside from that, it basically doesn't mean sh-t.
My point ultimately stands on the whole post.
Thank you Richard, you've explained perfectly. I have a better understanding now.
I'm not reading all of Richard's long-winded google search aggregate.
Reciprocity agreements between countries do exist. For example, USA and Canada have such an agreement. You may have to prove licensure and experience, but that's about it (local jurisdiction exceptions notwithstanding).
Yes, it's common to use an architect of record to get around licensing regs. But they do get sanctioned when they call themselves "design architect". Example from a board stipulation and consent order:
"Structural and design plans were prepared,submitted,and sealed by [name of licensed architect] a licensed architect employed by [name of firm]. The plans identified [name of firm] as "Architect of Record", [name of 2nd legally operating firm] as "Associate Architect", and [name of unlicensed starchitect Respondent] as "Design Architect". Charges: By negligently allowing the filing of plans in which Respondent was identified as "Architect" when Respondent was not properly licensed by the State, Respondent has violated the state's regulations."
They can call themselves "designer", "design consultant", etc., but nothing with "architect" in it.
The state boards enforce it - 1. because the fines are a source of revenue, 2. because "architect" is a protected title in every US state.
I see "design architect" all the time in magazine articles and such - but then if somebody pursues it the designers just blame the writers for misunderstanding their title or role. But if they're putting it on drawing they're just asking to be fined - what I posted above is pasted straight from a state board's disciplinary actions list.
Sometimes a starchitect can be unlicensed in a state but still have a limited permit to be the architect on a particular project, and then they can use that title. Certain states (NY is one) have that option - it's based on endorsement of a license elsewhere, and is specific to the one project named on the application, not transferable to any other work.
Koz,
The title "Architect" is a legal, protected title. A person may only use the title "Architect" in any official, business-related, or in public in any form UNLESS the person is licensed as an Architect in that jurisdiction. Things get convoluted when it comes to internet and from a legal perspective, it can get ugly even for the licensing board but that gets into another situation best discussed with attorneys on a separate thread.
Nonetheless, board will look at whether or not such use is within the borders of the state, territory, or country where the licensing board has legal authority.
bowling_ball:
Reciprocity is not an "automatic right to practice architecture". Sometimes it isn't much of a hurdle and other times, it is a bit more complicated.
Koz again,
If you are not licensed and working under the direct responsible supervision & control of a licensed architect, you are not practicing architecture from a legal perspective because you are not legally defined as engaging in the "practice of architecture" as you are not making design decisions without approval, direction, of a licensed architect.
In addition, in many jurisdictions, an unlicensed person may not legally perform or prepare all portions of a project that requires a licensed architect. Some portion of the work must be directly prepared by the licensed architect and not just applying the stamp and signature or title block. It doesn't define in law exactly what parts but it comes through discernment of the licensing board members as to whether sufficient supervision and whether responsible control and exercise of restraining power (ie. not authorizing or allowing certain things to not be prepared by an unlicensed person and directly performing some parts or have prepared by another such as another licensed architect on the team). Otherwise, it would not be responsible supervision and control. This gets into situations of "UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE".
So Richard, when you did your laundromat-to-theater conversion, how did that not get you into trouble with your state board? That's a change of occupancy group (Business to Assembly), and you've stated that you did structural work for the stage, exterior lintels, etc. - that's a project that should have required the stamp of a licensed architect.
It was under 4000 sq.ft. when measured. The measurements of the building measured out on outside dimensions to being under 4000 sq.ft. The other part was that the height to interior finish was under 20-ft. to peak of roof on the inside dimensions.
The work did not involve structural additions on my plans.
Correct measurements indicated it was under the 4000 sq.ft. rule.
In Oregon law and rule, based on the particular exemption rule that you are referring to, applies when the building is a non-exempt building over 4000 sq.ft. or 20-ft, height (from top surface of lowest floor to highest overhead interior finish).
Because it was under the size rule, I can apply change of occupancy, do structural design work and other work under ORS 671.030 (2)(c) vs. (2)(d).
I field measured it 3 times after discovery of a mis-measurement. There was initially a mis-measurement so I re-did the measurements and it calculated out to being under 4000 sq.ft.
Until I re-measured it, I had a temporary commission of an engineer. I field measured before I went into structural designing of the stage.
The interior height is 20'-9" according to the city's records, and the current architect's and structural engineer's drawings for the bathroom renovations.
So let me see if I read this right: the State took the word of an unlicensed designer, who certified that his own work was exempt, despite the fact that it took the field measurmts to shoe horn the building under the limit?
The bathroom renovations are separate and are not part of my work. That is an addition being done now. At the time I was working on the project, the interior height of the theater section was just under 20'-0" by a few inches with a straight line measuring tape from peak on the inside where the roof sheathing above the truss and purlins join the top of the ridge board. down to the concrete slab floor.
The ridge board wasn't 12+ inches. I know what I measured with a measuring tape that would run that distance. I can go back there sometime with a laser but 20'-10" to the top of the roof, sure. But be sure what you are measuring. The top of the roof itself can be over 20-ft. and meet the rule.
I'm assuming you are looking at the plans by Jay Raskin.
I don't know about the bathroom renovation but its more an addition than a renovation.
I have no idea who Jay Raskin is.
Both Nathan Good Architects and Stricker Engineering show the interior floor to highest surface of the existing building as approximately 20'-9". Seems like somebody from the city should have come with a Hilti to make sure it really did not need a stamp.
Pretty unbelievable they were allowed to open a dinner theater with NO BATHROOMS.
I'm assuming you are in the Astoria area. Lets meet. I don't know the measurements for bathroom renovation-addition that Jay Raskin is working on.
I've heard plans for two stories on that addition at one point or another for that.
I'm not in Oregon.
But Washington perhaps.
But still, the city records for plans are not generally available from a website. You have to go to the City Hall in Astoria to get these documents. You aren't getting these from the city website. You had to come to Astoria to pick this stuff up.
Why on earth would you come to Astoria, Oregon just to grab these plans?
I'm thousands of miles away, and I didn't go to Astoria to get the plans. Just because you can't find things doesn't mean they're not out there.
I'm just floored that Oregon will let an appliance store, or laundromat or whatever it was, with a maximum occupancy of 20 or 30 people, be turned into a dinner theater with seating for 150+, and a huge cast with no stamp. Also no sprinklers, no bathrooms, a raised stage for a large number of performers with no structural drawings and no ADA access, and so on. It's just astounding. Especially when it only seems to squeak in under the dimensional limitations by your own measurements while others' contradict that. Your state and city should revisit that.
kjdt,
I think they got the measurements from the mechanical engineer's original drawings without a final field measurement and somehow they did not get the correct measurements for that.
I remember this popped up in the measurements of the mechanical engineers drawings which got the incorrect measurements from the contractor that was correctly resolved in when the sprinkler's were installed. I'll be willing to back through this and resolve this. When we measured it, we used a measuring tape measuring from the concrete floor straight up to the side of the "ridge beam" of the gable.
If I can get back in there sometime, I would do a field measurement check with a laser meter to see what the issue is. I seem to recall it was around 19'-10". I think they got the 20'-9" when the contractor measured the roof height after removing a chimney and went to the outside. So they might have got that part wrong by measuring to the top of the roof vs. to the inside of the roof line.
Measuring the roof was somewhat a challenge. What you probably weren't aware of is there was a chimney next to roof so they probably read measurement to the top of the roof not taking into account that the roof is in fact is a tad thicker because it had purlins, then rafters then sheathing. I remember seeing the opening when the chimney was removed and it was several inches thick. It wasn't just the thickness of a plywood sheet. It is like there was a sheeting down then a common rafter overlayed and then sheeting and rolled roofing.
The backstage area has a bathroom. The other bathrooms would be added via a future addition while the solution in the meantime would be portable potties. I wasn't going to make an addition to the building.
I recall a few incorrect measurements resurfaced later in the project. Luckily, it didn't really caused any major issues for the sprinkler systems but there were some issues that was resolved.
I recall the truss is running at about 6:12 pitch with a maximum inside nominal dimension of 38'-8" of the building and the bottom of the bottom chord was like 10' and ridge beam is more of a "V" where two adjoining purlins comes together and we are scratching the edge of the numbers here.
I think the 20'-9" came from an improper measuring of inside dimensions by going from the top of the roof ridge on the outside, down the opening of the roof after the chimney was removed to the floor causing an additional of about 10-11" somehow.
I would measure again if that will make you happy when I can make a trip inside at some time but I'm not on active commission with ASOC at this time.
The building when it was a laundromat was divided into multiple sections. The laundromat section was divided into 4 sections aside from the section that was in the 1980s era addition in the back. There was the laundromat section, a section for the laundry machine repair that also was used the 1980s era addition. Then there was two areas in the front that would be rented out. The one area was used by the college for small vocational courses. The other was just another area largely unused. The laundromat section at one time encompassed basically half the CMU portion of the building and about a third of it was rented out at one time. At a period of time, it was all of the laundromat and laundry machine repair.
Before that, it was several commercial uses including its original use as a plumbing shop.
- There has been sprinklers installed
- There was bathroom installed in the backstage
- There was new electrical installed
- The stage design and specifications was indicated. It was a simple design.
4 stem walls with double top plates. They were I believe 2x4 studs, sill plate and double top plate with 2x8 joists on top at 16" o.c. It has been a number of years but as I think about it, it was ~ 4'-10" o.c. stem walls. Do a load calc of less than 5-ft. span for Douglas Fir #2 or better grade. I think my specifications is a tad overkill. There was additional bracing added to secure and stabilize the stem walls on the tranverse in addition to the 2x8 joists. 5/8" OSB structural grade 'edge gold' sheathing. The sill was shimmed as needed and anchored into the concrete slab floor.
It's pretty much overbuilt.
- ADA access throughout the main audience area was established. Accessible means of egress path were over 4-ft. wide on both sides of the seating area. Where 90 degree turns were made, there were 5-ft. turn radius at entry and other spots. Although the side door would be replaced with a 36" wide ADA door or with an addition would simply be a passage way. I already had thought about an addition without drawing it for licensing laws reason. They also didn't have the budget which I had to work a bit without clarity of budget because there wasn't really one.
It wasn't like I had 9 months to design the project.
Minimum 23/32" thick Edge Gold panels are required for a theater stage. Also the stage needs ADA accessibility.
Insufficient time and budget aren't valid excuses for substandard design - they're a reason to turn down the project.
Actually, to think of it, it was actually 23/32" OSB. In fact, I think I actually specified 3/4" OSB. This was on 2006 OSSC. So yes.
ADA accessibility to the stage is via the back stage. There is just not ADA accessibility from the stage to the audience seating area.
You realize the back stage is about ~24" higher than the floor area of the audience seating area.
I'm going by memory alone. My notes, specifications and drawings were stored away a number of years ago so. In fact, I specified whatever 2006 OSSC required when it came to the sheathing. I think I might have actually specified 3/4" OSB thinking about it.
BTW: This is an existing building and no more than I think it was 20% of the project costs can be spent on ADA accessibility. There is that disproportionate rule. The stage height was designed to line up with the 'back stage" area so as to line up.
There is another rule in ADA about maximum extent feasible. There is basic wheelchair accessibility (ADA) to the backstage by virtue of doors in the back. In addition, there is wheelchair accessibility to the seating area. There is accessibility in those two zones.
Oh, if I remember correctly, there was two layers of wood sheathing panel boards.
OSB was the underlayment with a finished wood panel floor. The top surface panels had smooth finish and was painted or something.
Lets move on. I'm not involved with this next phase. I was doing what I can do with the limits at hand which was a headache. In fact, I was trying to get an architect on-board but they weren't wanting to get involved and move the project forward. Funny thing, that Jay is working on the project now, AFTER I called him to try to get him involved earlier.
Anyway, lets move on. No one is falling through a structural plywood and OSB. We can always put full blocking every 12" along the length (except where piping is) or cross-bracing and to what point.
Who is Jay? The current architect is Nathan Good Architects.
The drawings of the existing building don't show any existing sprinklering under the stage, there are inadequate door clearances, and so on. They city should be ashamed of signing off on this.
Get a room, you two.
Jay Raskin is the architect of record for the next phase. Jay Raskin is working for Nathan Good Architects.
I wanted more to be done including replacing the one existing door on the east side. There should be but I wasn't preparing the fire-sprinklers. They did get a mechanical engineer for that. I don't recall any electrical service running under the stage so there is nothing really there underneath the stage (which is more per code.... a Platform vs. "Stage"). and it's not used for storage.
Technically, my original specification called for two doors right at the front but late in the project a deviation from that to one door. Well, there is only a need for two means of egress from the audience area out of the building.
I do absolutely know they have sprinklers installed in the roof. You can see the orange pipes and the sprinklers when the lights are on.
Can you provide me a copy of those plans you have so I can check with you and see what you are looking at?
The permit drawings are stamped by Nathan Good - no mention of Jay Raskin in the project team on the cover, or anywhere in the set.
It doesn't matter if it's a platform or stage, or whether there is storage or electrical under it - it's deeper than 18" so it needs to be sprinklered.
Yeah, it was under my understanding it was. Can you provide me what you have?
Hmmm... the only reason the firm be hired for the project is probably because Jay was initially involved and carried the project over when he joined their firm. Just before ASOC talked to Jay which I got the info from ASOC itself, they talked to Tom Potter. Both names of Architects that I suggested to ASOC.
When were the plans from Nathan Good prepared? If between 2013 and January 2015, Jay probably had something to do with the project being brought to Nathan Good Architects.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jay-raskin/3/85/34a
and to think the kids was just asking about how to work in two different countries after studying in one and possibly practicing in another...
He got his answer he needed to know. Sorry about the tangent. We (me and kjdt) got into this side tangent. Anyway, it doesn't matter any more or any further.
As for myself, I'll just decide whether or not to pursue licensure or not. If I do, I may look into partnering with architects. That way, I get my IDP training hours and experience requirements for licensure resolved.
Just the architects should be licensed at least in Oregon and Washington. I don't think we have to be all in one office but able to meet in person. An LLC or Corporation business type and be at least 6 architects/engineers (4 architects minimum) aside from myself. Not all architect members have to be licensed in Oregon or Washington. At least one in each state or two with license in both states preferable. The rest can be licensed in other states like Idaho or California. My goal in that would be that we meet the requirements of architectural firm registration.
I work on exempt buildings, services not requiring a license and assisting preparation of plans and specifications under the supervision and control of a licensed architect and at some point I get the initial license.
Mr. Balkins, since you say that it's a possible goal to eventually get licensed, you should probably think about a bit more discretion and anonymity on this and other forums. You seem to know a lot about your state's licensing laws, I'm sure you know that even being the subject of a board investigation before you apply for a license can delay your license application. Being found at fault for anything ranging from fudging the facts in your NCARB record to practicing architecture without a license can result in a 3-year delay in license eligibility, and sometimes even permanent barring by the state. The information you've provided in this thread is enough to cause some problems.
Bloopox,
Ok. You have a good point though. Too much headache.