Take a minute to read the AIASF's statement for restructuring the AIA, rather than just "repositioning" it like AIA National has discussed. By changing, dues could be lowered, services could become more useful, membership could become more relevant to more people, and the list goes on. Then if you agree with us that the current organization is in many ways outdated and ineffective, **sign the petition** to bring these issues to AIA National's attention. If we don't speak up, nothing will change! Thanks for reading, ladies & gents!
i once worked with a guy in a planning department in a city in the middle of nowhere who was "assoc aia." i assume this is because he did not have an architects license, and possibly did not have an architecture education. i would not have been surprised to find out he dropped out of high school in 10th grade. this guy, who managed to get his cushy government rubber stamper job and his assoc aia credential, spent weeks lecturing me and the rest of the design team, contractor, owner, etc., and delaying their project and their ability to open their store/make money, about '4-sided' architecture and how we should design our building, often in conflict with regulations for roof access, drainage, or the need to sometimes throw things in the trash.
i am not currently a member of the aia. is this proposed change intended to give that guy more perceived authority over design than me, or just to make him feel better about himself? because i don't think i like that. his opinion on where to put an EIFS reveal is really inconsequential to me and pretty much everyone else that was involved in the project, and his insistence on adding costly delays is really quite inconvenient. maybe some sort of minimum barrier to entry can be useful? picking colors and drawings eifs lines is an important part of architecture, but there's a lot more to it than that.
there is a jurisdiction i sometime work in with a proposed new zoning oridance that literally has "menu items." you select what sort of environment you're in, like commercial or industrial, then there are requirements based on that zone for things like "facade expression," and you can pick from a list of 3 or 4 'menu items' for how to achieve the required articulation (such as putting awnings over windows). i don't know who wrote this plan, but for some reason i picture a person that lives with a lot of cats. i don't think the people who developed these regulations should have greater representation or authority.
just saying, i would like to see an organization that reprimands those people rather than encouraging them, even though i know they do care about design.
Right ... let's reduce "taxes", focus more on local autonomy, dramatically reduce the staff at AIA National, make participation in AIA National optional and still expect the organization to provide a high level of service and support to the profession.
Methinks the Tea Party has infiltrated AIA SF ?
I particularly scratch my head at the proposal to vastly expand the size of the Board of Directors (in the guise of "fully representing the interests of the membership"). Historically, the Board has been an extraordinarily expensive, cumbersome and ineffective governing body. Won't this proposal make the Board even more expensive, cumbersome and ineffective (kinda like the Congress) ?
curkram - in a word, no. to your question. the push by AIASF, relative to the AIA+D is to broaden our sphere of influence beyond the narrow band of "architecture" as it's commonly perceived and practiced.
theirs is an organizational change (or push for change), with the hope that the organizational restructuring will correspond to a re-alignment of the AIA's core mission. they are, in sum, trying to shape a conversation that's already been started within the AIA, to encourage pushing further with the changes. it's worth noting (and not without some truth in the statement) that this is a large, local component, for whom the restructuring would radically favor. it would radically reduce the national component, mostly preserve the state component's role (full disclosure, i am the AIA Georgia President-Elect, so there's my bias to consider), and try to consolidate the local component's into fewer but more effective groups.
i'll ignore the national and state components for the sake of brevity. if you were to implement their size suggestion in georgia, for example, that would mean 1 single "local" chapter (AIA Atlanta). the problem with that, in practice, is the state is big enough geographically that the 30-40% who don't live within 40 miles of downtown would rarely if ever come to events there. the ability to plan, host, and pull off events for a city like columbus (which is 2hrs away and only has 50 members or so) would probably be sacrificed to the point where those members would have to wonder why they're paying dues (and very high local dues) to an organization where they don't see much return. quadruple that argument for our smallest chapter - golden isles - who currently has one of the lowest local dues in the country. they'd quit before "joining" atlanta. so, does AIA just let them go?
so, there's a lot behind the petition. i personally like the ambition of it but i'm not sure it's quite there yet. it strikes me as a large, local, vibrant chapter's view of the organization. not sure how it plays in peoria...
i don't think peoria has an aia. they would be part of central illinois, right? surely that would be swallowed up by chicago. also, if that was an obscure futurama reference, bravo!
i wouldn't mind aia growing to include people who make things better, like perhaps a facade designer or jla-x. i just don't want them promoting or advocating for the people that make things unnecessarily difficult.
I'm interested in seeing where the ongoing - and deeply considered - re:positioning process takes us. This new proposal seems to be muddying the waters.
...which is typical of any conversation when a bunch of architects try to work on something together.
Thanks for all of the thoughtful feedback! To clarify: Gregory is largely correct. AIASF intends to bring up the subject of radical change within the AIA in general. National's proposal to "reduce" the voting board while in reality increasing the number of advisors (as babs points out) is just the sort of irrelevant and/or detrimental change that needs to be responded to. The organizational change in Colorado is absolutely relevant, and highlights the possibility that things can change with the right support.
Through gathering support for the AIASF statement, the goal is to make it clear that San Francisco is not the only AIA chapter that sees the importance of making true change to make the organization more relevant and useful for more people on a day-to-day basis. What exactly that change looks like is certainly up for discussion; we just want to see that the discussion takes place.
I would be glad to hear more responses and opinions regarding the matter.
amelie - i think we're all looking at colorado and hoping that it works out. there's a more relevant blueprint in there for states like mine (at least).
the board restructuring is... yeah. basically, all it does is decentralize the power the actual board has. does it let them "function" a little more easily? yes. does it radically rethink how decisions/positions/etc. are developed? nope.
Jun 25, 14 6:19 pm ·
·
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.
Make a difference! Sign the AIASF petition to restructure the AIA!!
Take a minute to read the AIASF's statement for restructuring the AIA, rather than just "repositioning" it like AIA National has discussed. By changing, dues could be lowered, services could become more useful, membership could become more relevant to more people, and the list goes on.
Then if you agree with us that the current organization is in many ways outdated and ineffective, **sign the petition** to bring these issues to AIA National's attention. If we don't speak up, nothing will change! Thanks for reading, ladies & gents!
http://www.aiasf.org/membership/aiasf-restructuring-statement/
Sounds good to me.
"Eliminate NCARB"
ok, i'm curious about the AIA+D thing
i once worked with a guy in a planning department in a city in the middle of nowhere who was "assoc aia." i assume this is because he did not have an architects license, and possibly did not have an architecture education. i would not have been surprised to find out he dropped out of high school in 10th grade. this guy, who managed to get his cushy government rubber stamper job and his assoc aia credential, spent weeks lecturing me and the rest of the design team, contractor, owner, etc., and delaying their project and their ability to open their store/make money, about '4-sided' architecture and how we should design our building, often in conflict with regulations for roof access, drainage, or the need to sometimes throw things in the trash.
i am not currently a member of the aia. is this proposed change intended to give that guy more perceived authority over design than me, or just to make him feel better about himself? because i don't think i like that. his opinion on where to put an EIFS reveal is really inconsequential to me and pretty much everyone else that was involved in the project, and his insistence on adding costly delays is really quite inconvenient. maybe some sort of minimum barrier to entry can be useful? picking colors and drawings eifs lines is an important part of architecture, but there's a lot more to it than that.
there is a jurisdiction i sometime work in with a proposed new zoning oridance that literally has "menu items." you select what sort of environment you're in, like commercial or industrial, then there are requirements based on that zone for things like "facade expression," and you can pick from a list of 3 or 4 'menu items' for how to achieve the required articulation (such as putting awnings over windows). i don't know who wrote this plan, but for some reason i picture a person that lives with a lot of cats. i don't think the people who developed these regulations should have greater representation or authority.
just saying, i would like to see an organization that reprimands those people rather than encouraging them, even though i know they do care about design.
Right ... let's reduce "taxes", focus more on local autonomy, dramatically reduce the staff at AIA National, make participation in AIA National optional and still expect the organization to provide a high level of service and support to the profession.
Methinks the Tea Party has infiltrated AIA SF ?
I particularly scratch my head at the proposal to vastly expand the size of the Board of Directors (in the guise of "fully representing the interests of the membership"). Historically, the Board has been an extraordinarily expensive, cumbersome and ineffective governing body. Won't this proposal make the Board even more expensive, cumbersome and ineffective (kinda like the Congress) ?
curkram - in a word, no. to your question. the push by AIASF, relative to the AIA+D is to broaden our sphere of influence beyond the narrow band of "architecture" as it's commonly perceived and practiced.
theirs is an organizational change (or push for change), with the hope that the organizational restructuring will correspond to a re-alignment of the AIA's core mission. they are, in sum, trying to shape a conversation that's already been started within the AIA, to encourage pushing further with the changes. it's worth noting (and not without some truth in the statement) that this is a large, local component, for whom the restructuring would radically favor. it would radically reduce the national component, mostly preserve the state component's role (full disclosure, i am the AIA Georgia President-Elect, so there's my bias to consider), and try to consolidate the local component's into fewer but more effective groups.
i'll ignore the national and state components for the sake of brevity. if you were to implement their size suggestion in georgia, for example, that would mean 1 single "local" chapter (AIA Atlanta). the problem with that, in practice, is the state is big enough geographically that the 30-40% who don't live within 40 miles of downtown would rarely if ever come to events there. the ability to plan, host, and pull off events for a city like columbus (which is 2hrs away and only has 50 members or so) would probably be sacrificed to the point where those members would have to wonder why they're paying dues (and very high local dues) to an organization where they don't see much return. quadruple that argument for our smallest chapter - golden isles - who currently has one of the lowest local dues in the country. they'd quit before "joining" atlanta. so, does AIA just let them go?
so, there's a lot behind the petition. i personally like the ambition of it but i'm not sure it's quite there yet. it strikes me as a large, local, vibrant chapter's view of the organization. not sure how it plays in peoria...
i don't think peoria has an aia. they would be part of central illinois, right? surely that would be swallowed up by chicago. also, if that was an obscure futurama reference, bravo!
i wouldn't mind aia growing to include people who make things better, like perhaps a facade designer or jla-x. i just don't want them promoting or advocating for the people that make things unnecessarily difficult.
curtkram - it's a nod to the popular saying, yes...
I'm interested in seeing where the ongoing - and deeply considered - re:positioning process takes us. This new proposal seems to be muddying the waters.
...which is typical of any conversation when a bunch of architects try to work on something together.
^ How do you spell EGO?
Thanks for all of the thoughtful feedback! To clarify: Gregory is largely correct. AIASF intends to bring up the subject of radical change within the AIA in general. National's proposal to "reduce" the voting board while in reality increasing the number of advisors (as babs points out) is just the sort of irrelevant and/or detrimental change that needs to be responded to. The organizational change in Colorado is absolutely relevant, and highlights the possibility that things can change with the right support.
Through gathering support for the AIASF statement, the goal is to make it clear that San Francisco is not the only AIA chapter that sees the importance of making true change to make the organization more relevant and useful for more people on a day-to-day basis. What exactly that change looks like is certainly up for discussion; we just want to see that the discussion takes place.
I would be glad to hear more responses and opinions regarding the matter.
amelie - i think we're all looking at colorado and hoping that it works out. there's a more relevant blueprint in there for states like mine (at least).
the board restructuring is... yeah. basically, all it does is decentralize the power the actual board has. does it let them "function" a little more easily? yes. does it radically rethink how decisions/positions/etc. are developed? nope.
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.