Throughout the Archinect In-Depth: Licensure series, our explorations into U.S. architectural licensure have included a variety of views beyond our editorial team, including ten views on licensure from Archinect readers shared at the midpoint of our series.
Beyond reader insights, our series has heard from individuals who, whether through their research, experiences, or roles in relevant organizations, have developed strong views on how U.S. licensure stands today and how it could evolve in the future.
Below, we set out six such viewpoints from voices already featured in our series, painting a variety of possible futures for architectural licensure that range from strategic evolution through radical reframing and reorganization.
NCARB CEO Mike Armstrong’s voice was featured in three articles within our series: on the limits of the ‘architect’ title protection, on California’s move to abolish architectural licensure in the 1970s, and on the demographic inequalities within architectural licensure. For Armstrong, the importance of architectural licensure has evolved beyond its roots in public health and safety and now includes considerations of mental health, wellness, environmental impact, and addressing systemic issues such as racism and discrimination through building design.
Requiring everyone to follow the same exact path is going to end up filtering and eliminating individuals who might be able to demonstrate competency if other paths were available to them. — Mike Armstrong
Looking to the future of licensure, Armstrong sees promise in NCARB’s new Pathways to Practice initiative, which is focused on promoting different ways of demonstrating competency for licensure beyond accredited university degrees. Such avenues could include community college education, pre-professional four-year degrees, evidence of significant work experience, and other paths.
“There are different ways to get to the point of licensure based on one's individual strengths, skills and capabilities,” Armstrong told us. “Requiring everyone to follow the same exact path is going to end up filtering and eliminating individuals who might be able to demonstrate competency if other paths were available to them.”
Archinect spoke with NOMA President Pascale Sablan for our feature article on demographic inequalities within the licensure process and in the wider profession. For Sablan, to address inequalities in licensure is to focus on creating more flexible and adaptable pathways through the process. Rather than acting as a rigid “pipeline” with one route for all candidates, Sablan imagines a “highway of on and off-ramps with rest stops along the way,” with multiple lanes and avenues depending on the candidate’s needs and circumstances.
“The point is to make sure that our profession is so diverse that communities who are often overlooked now have somebody representing them that can speak to them,” Sablan also told us. “We are right now reconciling how the built environment, urban planning, redlining, and gentrification have perpetuated harm to marginalized groups. Having that conversation and trying to convince greater society to engage with us, as well as potentially see us as a career path, is also part of that challenge.”
If I'm able to work on my licensure while I'm in school and I'm able to do my community college degree, that also tightens up the timeline and makes the path more equitable. — Pascale Sablan
Sablan points to several initiatives as examples of how the licensure process can evolve in a flexible, adaptable manner. Among these was the recent elimination of the rolling clock requirement, removing the five-year expiration date on passed ARE divisions. Meanwhile, Sablan sees promise in the Integrated Path to Architectural Licensure (IPAL) initiative, which allows students in the process of earning a degree from an NAAB-accredited program to complete the AXP and ARE concurrently.
“We're creating more opportunity for diverse individuals who are not affluent to study architecture and design without going into a six-figure debt as part of it,” Sablan noted. “If I'm able to work on my licensure while I'm in school and I'm able to do my community college degree, that also tightens up the timeline and makes the path more equitable.”
Melvin L. Mitchell’s voice was featured in our piece on demographic inequalities within licensure, building on Mitchell’s previous op-eds for Archinect on the topic. In our recent conversation, Mitchell told us that addressing inequalities in architectural licensure means revisiting and reinventing HBCU architecture programs. For Mitchell, such programs were once focused on producing licensed Black architects and entrepreneurial firm owners but, over time, have shifted away from that mission in favor of producing graduates who pursue other career paths besides architecture.
Mitchell argues that the HBCU programs need to either be restructured and repurposed, or new HBCU-based programs need to be created to focus once again on producing licensed Black architects and firm owners. Mitchell sees this as crucial, as the percentage of Black architects has remained stagnant at around 2% for decades, while the percentages of Black doctors and lawyers have grown much faster in the same period.
Insofar as increasing the numbers, role, and relevance of Black architects, you can’t get there without going back and looking again at the HBCUs. — Melvin L. Mitchell
“One move I am really keen on is that HBCU programs limit admission to people with degrees in something else, and preferably not architecture,” Mitchell added, cautious of what he sees as the disproportionately negative impact of a “mythical” studio culture on young Black students. “Insofar as increasing the numbers, role, and relevance of Black architects, you can’t get there without going back and looking again at the HBCUs.”
Among these reforms, Mitchell believes the architecture profession needs to return to the “Hilyard Robinson agenda” of using architecture to address the needs of the Black community, rather than just the “Paul R. Williams approach” of trying to integrate into the mainstream profession.
“We have been in a four-decade hiatus, and it's time to get back to the business of what Hilyard Robinson was talking about,” Mitchell noted. “That's not to say that there can't continue to be the Paul R. Williams method in which you're trying to prove yourself in the larger society. But right now, the imbalance is just so totally out of whack.”
Archinect spoke with John Parman as part of our feature on California’s failed attempt to abolish architectural licensure in the 1970s; an effort Parman was involved in fighting. On architectural licensure today, Parman believes the system is too focused on the sole practitioner model, which does not align with the reality of modern architectural practice, where most architects are employees rather than independent practitioners. For inspiration on the future, Parman points to the Swedish model, also explored in our series, where architectural practice is more loosely defined and allows for a wider range of specializations.
“The whole premise of the [U.S.] profession is sort of exclusionary,” Parman told us. “Architects Sweden takes the opposite point of view. They say an architect is possibly a planner, an interior designer, a landscape architect, etc. They acknowledge that at the very beginning. It has a big membership of students who do two years of practice in any field they find compatible. That’s intelligent in terms of the way architecture really happens.”
AI could totally change the picture of how architects operate. — John Parman
Parman also believes that the future of licensure will be informed by major trends within the professions only beginning to emerge in the 21st century, notably unionization and artificial intelligence. “The unionization efforts here are the result of employees encountering tropes of practice in firms from previous generations,” Parman noted. “Younger architects are not having it. They are looking around for firms that are more compatible and adept.”
“AI could totally change the picture of how architects operate and if it actually lives up to some of its potential, it could shift the gears for the whole building community, because it can offer checks and balances that don't currently exist,” Parman added.
George B. Johnston’s voice was featured in our article, which explored the history of architectural licensure in the U.S. For Johnston, the responsibilities and functions of architects have become more specialized and disaggregated over time, with many aspects of traditional architectural work now handled by building codes, zoning laws, and other governmental regulations. This raises questions about what specific functions need to be regulated under the licensure system.
“Tools have also changed radically over a century and a half,” Johnston noted. “A focus on tools, and the particularities of the functions that architects perform, could be a way of thinking through the issue of licensure.”
For the most complicated buildings, one begins to wonder if the public interest wouldn’t be served if rather than focusing on the licensure of individuals, it is focused on the accreditation of firms. — George B. Johnston
Johnston sees several avenues of reform. Rather than focusing on licensing individual architects, there may be an opportunity to explore accrediting architectural firms or practices based on their organization, expertise, and ability to handle complex projects in the public interest. Architectural education and training could also be re-examined, potentially moving away from a university-centric system and finding new ways to bring people into the profession and build relevant skills.
“For the most complicated buildings, one begins to wonder if the public interest wouldn’t be served if rather than focusing on the licensure of individuals, it is focused on the accreditation of firms,” Johnston explained. “We already accredit schools of architecture. For commissions over a certain scale, you could say that the firm must be accredited to demonstrate how they are organizing themselves to deal with complex structural issues; considerations that likely exceed the capacity of building officials who in turn depend on the certification of a structural engineer. The question comes: Is the firm organized in such a way that the public can be assured that it is performing in a responsible and competent manner?”
Archinect spoke with Peggy Deamer as part of our article on what the U.S. licensure system can learn from other countries. On the future of U.S. licensure and the wider domestic profession, Deamer is skeptical about the ability of the licensure system itself to transform perceptions about the public role of architecture. Instead, she believes that professional organizations hold more potential to shape cultural perceptions and the ethical responsibilities of the profession.
Rather than focusing solely on licensure, Deamer believes that a more impactful approach in the U.S. profession would be to integrate the professional organizations, accreditation, and licensure requirements into a more unified system that gives architects a stronger voice in governance. For Deamer, this could help elevate the social and ethical responsibilities of the profession.
National organizations can do more about perceptions, cultural imagery, and public response. — Peggy Deamer
“NCARB could be in a position to really say that it's putting forth a social role that would make us look like we are not just pencils to the capitalist class,” Deamer noted. “National organizations can do more about perceptions, cultural imagery, and public response. It is similar to lawyers doing pro bono work or doctors taking care of a patient whether they can pay or not. If the world knew through our professional organization ethics that we will guarantee safety in the public realm, we might be looked at differently.”
Fundamentally, Deamer believes that abolishing title protection, as seen in the Swedish model, is a key part of her advocacy for “deprofessionalization,” which would help shift the public perception away from architects as an elite, expensive class. This will not be easy, Deamer warns, because of the strong cultural reverence the U.S. holds for licensed professions. Nonetheless, Deamer points to an observation from Architects Sweden that despite the country enforcing no protection of title, Swedish architects are among the highest paid in Europe. “The securer the tile, the lower the fee,” the organization told Deamer.
What is your vision for the future of architectural licensure? Let us know in the comments section below.
Niall Patrick Walsh is an architect and journalist, living in Belfast, Ireland. He writes feature articles for Archinect and leads the Archinect In-Depth series. He is also a licensed architect in the UK and Ireland, having previously worked at BDP, one of the largest design + ...
No Comments
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.