well, obviously, if you're that cynical about the organization, you're going to have to drive change. otherwise you're just part of the problem.

look around at other chapters that are doing things you can admire - they're out there, i bet. aia is a multi-headed organization, with each chapter doing its own thing. some local chapters are more progressive than others and each has its own agenda. figure out what you're interested in pushing, see who else has made efforts in the same direction, and learn from them. call 'em up and talk to them, even.

despite the bad rap aia gets, it's an organization about us working together to better the profession wherever/however we can. chapter leadership, i've found, is usually pretty generous with their time and ideas. be generous with yours, too.

you might have to have a little bit more of a positive m.o., though. moaning about all of the things that are wrong about the profession - whether or not the aia had or even could have had any impact on them - isn't going to get you anywhere.

Please tell us a bit more, if you don't mind.

I infer from your post that you find yourself President of a local component ... or, is it your State organization? How many years have you served previously as a volunteer leader at lower levels of the component?

How much time are you willing, or able, to devote to this situation. How strong do you feel your Board to be? Are they as commited as you are? Do they have sufficient time to participate at a high level?

How large is the chapter you lead? Does your component have paid staff? How engaged are your members?

These all are relevant considerations when contemplating your options and potential for making a real contribution to the profession in this role.

At all levels, the AIA is one of the most resource constrained organizations around. Boards and volunteer leaders at every level have dreams and ambitions that vastly exceed their capacity to deliver.

I think it vital to match your aspirations to a realistic assessment of the available resources and real capacity to achieve.

thanks for the response quiz and steve. this is not my first rodeo. over the last thirty years or so i've been involved with AIA in some form or the other not to mention leadership positions on three occasions. with today's apathy ruling atmosphere in our industry i can only see AIA leading by example. this week AIA National will be holding their "leadership" conference in DC its named: "grassroots". we are supposed to get the "tools" to bring back to our component and apply them to our programs. we'll see about that. what i'm attempting here is to explore what other architects are truly seeing as walls around the profession that either limit our standing amongst the public or limit their practice and its potential. the component i'm involved with is small - we have about 105 members in an area that supports 250. these are all licensed design professionals by definition as listed with the state. i am not so concerned with the numbers, but rather , with the active participation of the members. how do i get their juices flowing toward AIA and the programs in place for the member benefit these include design, design awards, professional practice, etc.....i don't need to list our entire program/committee here but,rather contextually, i am seeking response to lift the spirit of a rather apathetic crowd.
also, my position can put me in a place where i can ask the state education department how did you let the USGBC/LEED program usurp the licensed design professional's standing with the public at large to a point where some municipalities are considering only LEED certified projects for permitting. how does the state education department stand with this cottage industry lobby and what can AIA now do about it. National AIA seems to be "in bed" with USGBC, but i am not sure if that is what the general architect population is supporting. your thoughts?

randy1:

i think the general consensus of recent graduates, at least in my experience, is that both LEED and the AIA are just some "thing". I must also mention that the AIAS chapter at my school was shit; too much talking and less doing, so that may have been a turnoff for future opportunities. LEED was cool for a short bit in school but as we matured we realized how ridiculous it was because the same people that were bitching about the american lifestyle are the same ones building large ugly buildings and justifying it with solar panels.

also, recent graduates and young architects have been heavily exposed to the atavistic culture of non-believers that have no choice but to grow up and pay back student loans with little income and blah blah blah. the last thing they want is another political entity taking money to go to boring CE classes or lifeless events with other glass-chewing nerds. other than large creative cities, no research is worth exhibiting or presenting to a larger group of people. i think the aia should look into creating a real criticism from non-architects and the people who use our products rather than inbreeding ideas and springing them into thin air.

i in no way intend on offending you as i respect your concern for positive growth and commitment. and truly it may not even be anything specific but rather a sign of the times. best of luck to you in the near future.

Personally, I think the AIA should impose one question on every idea they have before they implement it:

"Does this idea make it easier or more difficult to practice?"

Virtually every decision I encounter or read about makes it just one notch harder to run a successful business. Practicing architecture is difficult enough as it is and the AIA should be pursuing avenues that lead to freeing up the architect to do what they do best, not bog them down in bureaucracy. With every decision comes added responsibility, time-constraints & fees with no added compensation to an already ever-financially-struggling profession. I believe that is why with every decision the AIA makes, you see a flood of complaints from architects, or else total apathy as they try to ignore any attempts at added responsibility. You can only get squeezed so far before you pop.

I believe the AIA has tried to help the profession of architecture. But like most others, I don't believe the AIA has "protected" its practitioners anywhere near adequately. Neither do I believe they are even remotely powerful enough to do so or significantly affect/alter the building field in general. They are only powerful enough to affect those under their thumb, and that's the architects getting squashed.

So, Randy1 - what'd you learn at Grassroots and do you have some ideas about how you're going to move forward?

yes quiz i do have ideas about how to move forward, but first let me tell you that this term is not my first rodeo as i stated in a previous post.

we have eleven committees. some are more productive than others. as of now and last year we have had a very active design awards committee and event, we have held very successful golf outings in the past that support our scholarship program, our planning committee is preparing a program to include some municipal, county, and local leaders in wastewater/septic management - this program has a tremendous opportunity to be a valuable asset to the region we cover, our codes committee is in action regarding the revisions to our state code - an update program scheduled for march - as well as looking into IGCC and AIA National's link with it, and our members are in action with a local historical society and will be giving lectures on two occasions this spring.

i guess i am trying to convey that we as a chapter are in fair to good health, but with a lot of room for improvement - one of these areas is Nationals Strategic Plan.

what did i learn from Grassroots - simple - communication is the key to action which leads to successful operations/programs/membership.

if you have any thoughts - please feel free.

I like beekay's question very much.

Also, this: ...where some municipalities are considering only LEED certified projects for permitting

Is this for real? It reminds me of Steven's oft-made and accurate point about home design: consumers want a checklist of amenities (great room, granite counters, 3-car garage) and as long as the checklist is met they don't give one damn about the actual design of the house. Whaich may be because we architects haven't shown them that design matters.

Ugh, I hadn't visited this thread and now I wish I hadn't because it's so, so frustrating!

randy1, thank you for asking these questions, and good luck. You asked this: National AIA seems to be "in bed" with USGBC, but i am not sure if that is what the general architect population is supporting. I met for the first time and spoke with another AIA architect a week ago. Because we didn't know each other, we very delicately raised the question of "Do you agree with LEED?" and as soon as we both realized the other was skeptical we both enthusiastically criticized it and the AIA's and building industry's acceptance of it. Builders have grabbed it as another selling point, another checklist item, and it seems to me USGBC will do everything they can to make sure no other green approaches are accepted. This other architect and myself agreed that we're not going to get LEED certified because while we agree with the principles of green design we don't see LEED representing those principles, and we both agreed that the AIA is frankly too expensive to see any real benefit this year. AIA is in a poor situation right now, it seems.

USGBC is similar to Autodesk 20 years ago, right? They got municipalities to require drawing submittals to be in Autocad, and that's how they cornered the market.

I'm for small entities. Large institutionalized systems aren't of interest to me lately. I won't be joining AIA this year, because after being involved in it for several years I'm seeing other less formal approaches being more valuable, both for me and for design consciousness in general. And since the AIA still - still! - can't seem to help my sole proprietorship find affordable E&O or health insurance, what good are they to me?

donna - sole proprietorship as far as e&o/health ins., - i'm in the same boat as ALL of us are, and, the barrier with AIA National is : they go where the money goes. the large firms in the past has put the National organization in the place where they are now. the small firm forum is supposed to address these issues - but one needs to travel to their roundtable discussions for more of the "dog and pony" show. lobby your local chapter, talk to the president of the chapter about this, if you are in a small town it could be easier, but if your in a large chapter/component, then the battle will be tougher...eh?

with this LEED/USGBC thing - National has done something about it! they partnered up with IGCC (international green code council) and have done some advocacy work behind the scenes for the last couple of years. AIA National has the "AIA Board of Advocacy Committee" and the "AIA Codes and Standards Committee". "so what": you say! okay - AIA's participation in the development of the IGCC has revealed two important areas for evaluation and action. the first covers the tech content of the code and how it affects green building design; the second area involves how we architects practice. the workshop i attended in DC ten days ago addressed both areas. i am calmer now than before i went to Grassroots. lookit donna, we as sole practitioners have a lot at stake here. municipalities the like the one we have here in my neck of the woods are considering adopting LEED as a standard for building. BUT IT IS NOT A CODE. this is the real issue. codes - we can work with a code. but a rating system designed to line the pockets of a business - is not a code. AIA NAtional saw this and did what they should do. municipalities cannot discriminate against those landowners who choose not to be "green" by adopting a rating system that only lines the pockets of USGBG/LEED, but, is not a code. we as Architects understand CODE.

the IGCC ,at least, codifies our green work and puts our "standard of care" in the forefront. what i'm saying is: this path of action by AIA National seems more protective of our standing, whereas, USGBC/LEED only expands our liability into a nonsense area of e&o (with its the third party commissioning) that is at the crux of the discussion...AIA National saw this and has taken action to protect our liability - finally.

i think i've covered your concern?

the folks in AIA-COTE is pretty skeptical about the USGBC/LEED too - and these are the folks leading the fight for greening the profession. so don't give up on the AIA yet...

Thanks for the update, randy, and for reiterating it, Barry! And glad your trip to Grassroots was uplifting - that we can speak openly about the AIA here on Archinect is another reason this website is so valuable - since I'm not getting the AIA newsletters any longer, this is the best way for me to stay aware of what is happening with them.

I think I'll contact my local AIA-COTE members and see how the issues looks in my state.

maybe they've been reading archinect?

California has adopted CalGreen - it is the first Code in place utilizing both the IGCC and USGBC as their resource - but CalGreen is for non-residential commercial structures. you can google it. The IGCC is designed to be regionally adjusted/tweeked to fit each climate zones specific attributes - hence CalGreen.

My state code uses the IECC as its energy standard and this year it has been up dated with more strict performance standards. so, next month our chapter will be having a half day codes seminar that is designed to help architects understand these new standards.

but, typically for the projects all we do in our area we either use "REScheck or COMMcheck" by the DOE's Building Energy Program for building department filing purposes.

My experience on the ground is that USGBC isn't 'going' anywhere, but that there is some definite backlash in the institutional sector, especially when budgets are as tight as they are right now. Just about every project we see is 'to LEED standards' but isn't actually getting certification. Some are, to be fair, but not all. Ironically, it's the office buildings that got certification that seem to be touting it the most. Georgia also passed their own Peach Points energy efficiency 'rating' system, which is now mandatory for all projects. Most agencies are using it in lieu of formal LEED, especially on smaller projects.

To the points about the AIA - one main reason it's always served larger firms (much to the detriment of smaller practitioners) is exactly that they could hit up 50 firms for support and funding much easier than 50,000. Smaller firms simply don't show the cash, ergo, even though sole practitioners make up 50% of the profession, you really don't see much support proportionally. Probably chicken - egg as to why more small firms don't join.

Donna's take is very similar to my own- we backed out simply because the raw ineptitude from the national level responding to the current crises was borderline appalling. (our local chapters weren't doing any better - spending 2 years bickering between the largest local component and the state component over who should control more money and staff time. Insane. Rearranging the deck chairs on a grand scale). I could list 100 things which could have been done to help serve the profession - my guess is that the CME era won't go down as the AIA's finest.

Look, I very proudly served on the national advisory board for YAF for 3+ years (and not that long ago), was on my local board, and have been a very active member for nearly 10 years. But I'm finally at the point where it's getting to be a very expensive magazine subscription. I mean, just as one example: after national gutted the KC structure, what avenues did the rank and file have to participate outside their own chapters? Not many. Did the KC's spend some serious money? Of course. Was all of it wisely spent? Of course not -some of the regional conferences weren't the best thought out nor appealing enough to attract the numbers to make them self-sufficient. So why not just jettison them instead of the whole structure?

Bob Ivy's got his hands full - if I could get a few minutes with him, I'd encourage him to work his arse off trying to get the smaller firms back - dedicate a much larger staff to working with the small firm roundtable to develop resources that will help them be better, more professional businesses; trim the board of directors to no more than 12 (I mean, geez, Apple seems to be doing just fine with 7, including Steve). Invest a whole lot more in the YAF and/or Associates than you've dared dream to - if you don't you'll lose an entire generation of members. Either play to win in the contracts arena or get out altogether. Cut the staff at national by a third and see what happens. Do so and history will remember you as someone who helped restore a great organization...