RB, what is the net effect of stamping a drawing with this CPBD stamp? It seems that being able to use the stamp on any project not requiring an Architect or Engineer's stamp means that it is in lieu of a contractor's license? ( here, a licensed contractor with a B license can put most drawings through permitting if a residential single-family structure.) Or it is just to make the client feel warm and fuzzy?
Aug 9, 14 10:11 am ·
·
archanonymous,
It can get you through some of the politics of places where they might be a little bit hesitant of accepting something from someone who isn't licensed or certified. The certification is essentially prima facie evidence. Some federal housing projects requires someone to be a licensed architect or NCBDC certified.
With more competent unlicensed designers certified and members of AIBD... the more we can leverage the regulation for more net effect due to recognition. I wouldn't exactly say in lieu of a contractor license but generally a contractor license means nothing because a contractor licensure requirement does not involve training or testing in design matters.
NCBDC certification program is also in the process of becoming ANSI accredited which will also enable and strengthen its recognition and validity.
There literally is no other building design certification like it outside of the ARE/architecture licensing exams. Nothing else comes close to it.
The net effect is hard to pin down. However, if it makes the client feel warm & fuzzy... you know it just might mean you get the commission over someone else and therefore have work, getting paid and making money which in turn will have paid for itself.
As for employers in architecture, its more leverage to get the job especially if you don't have a degree so they can consider you because you have some leve of verified knowledge and skills.
RB, I could definitely see it being widely implemented if the Federal Government made it a requirement that all design professionals not otherwise licensed who want to work on their projects have this.
As to the issue with contractors: no, they do not receive any training in design, but they sure as shit can submit, pass and permit drawings for construction here, and in many states. This includes new construction and renovations, residential and limited commercial.
It would be a hell of a lot better for architects if we or the AIA or anyone really, lobbied to have this changed so that you do have to be a design professional with credentials to have any sort of project permitted. As it is, adding yet another group or sub-group to the list of people who are not licensed architects yet can design and permit projects is a step in the wrong direction.
Aug 10, 14 1:24 am ·
·
Actually, it can just be something required in the building codes.
This would be where we recognize and amend the building codes to have both "registered design professional" and "design professional". "certified design professional" meaning registered design professionals and certified designers (eg. NCBDC certified building designers and NCIDQ certified interior designers not otherwise licensed).
Then requiring more design work to be sealed by a certified design professional and only some things requiring a registered design professional as required by licensing laws. By recognizing at the building code level certified designers and their qualifications and that can go a long ways to improving the quality of submitted work to be permitted.
Less that can be permitted without a license or certified design professional preparing the submittal documents.
Competent design-builders should have little problem becoming certified.
Getting ICC to incorporate this in the model code and subsequently approved by the state building codes is a good step. archanonymous, just so you know... already building designers (certified or not) not licensed already can submit for projects to get permits.
Make the movement at the building codes perhaps at part in the state statutes as maybe needed.
This is something that is possible with a little bit of transition.
I think this is something that AIA and AIBD should be able to work together with ICC and the various building officials organizations to move at implementing this.
If we can move towards that by 2020, that would be great. Design/Builders contractor license is for construction but an architect/engineer/licensed interior designer/landscape architect/etc. or a certifications as a certified building designer or interior designer / etc. would be for credentialling the design background.
A small price to pay for A) reducing riff raff, B) better built environment, C) increase in perceived value, D) better pay per project over time. Essentially, tightening up on how much exemptions of the licensing laws can be exploited by the incompetent without at least some credential without being too harsh on non-licensed design professionals that are competent. After all, whatever the cost for certification and continuing ed should be more than adequately pay itself in projects and the money from it.
Leaving the policy open enough to recognize or accept other certifications approved by the state building code division/department/agency in charge of adopting the building codes in the state as comparable to NCBDC certification for building design and NCIDQ for interior design specific work as demonstrating basic knowledge and skills to reasonably deduce as competent for the scope of work.
Even then, the B.O. / Authority having jurisdiction may still require certain drawings and specifications to be prepared by a registered design professional qualified to prepare those certain drawings and specifications.
Adding another license and more beurocratic nonsense is a fantastic idea. Protectionism woohoo. You guys really don't see the big picture do you? If you want such a certification than I have no problem at all with that. If the certification gives you an edge by creating a warm feeling for clients than that's great, but once you start trying to mandate this upon others for the sole purpose of increasing your work flow, well then you are being immoral. Regulation is not there to help you and your buddies make a buck its only justification is public hsw. If you cannot prove that the public is in danger and needs this then you are promoting protectionist nonsense that is immoral and illegal (constitutionally speaking). You are creating corruption in a sense.
I hate this lazy faire economics. Stop the lazy bullshit and make yourself relevant without trying to eliminate other competition. Stop trying to vontrol supply and start increasing demand by doing good work. Geez.
Lol lol go take a look at Nevada...the building designer title is protected there. All houses must be designed by a licensed building designer in Nevada. Looks just like anywhere else. Not any safer at all. Net zero effect.
I would call the building industry's involvement with politics corruption - especially the large homebuilders which - Surprise! - are in cahoots with mortgage lenders and banks, and in turn have the politicians and policy-makers in their pockets.
I won't be happy until ALL new construction requires an architect and engineer's stamp. There is empirical evidence and emerging studies that the quality of a design affects people's well-being. How is this any different from the safety of a building affecting their well-being (life-safety)?
Go try to practice medicine or law or hell, engineering, without a professional certification and license and see what happens - the full weight of the law will come down on you, just as it should on those responsible for continuing to pump out poorly designed, engineered and built tract homes that comprise well over 70% of new housing starts in the US.
Aug 10, 14 6:38 pm ·
·
jla-x,
How the hell to do increase demand?
Doing good work doesn't do it. It hasn't and there is nothing in my personal power to do it without burning down a city to create demand for design services.
What's funny, if you REALLY REALLY knew the history of architectural licensing laws and its purpose, you'd realize they enacted the laws for the purpose of eliminating competition and help the supporters make a buck. As for justification of the public hsw. All it takes is a convenient disaster and a good exaggerated horror story. It did for the founders of architectural licensure. The reality is the founders of architectural licensing didn't create it for some noble cause of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. It was plan exploitation of the public culture of the time.
Doing good work doesn't necessarily equate to increasing demand.
I support doing good work over not doing good work any day.
However, the fact is it doesn't influence enough people to increase demand. The reason is residential projects don't get publicity and these clients are rarely repeat clients because they generally don't need our services more than once in decades. In can be 10, 20 or more years before we have a possible repeat. One people personally invest in a home design project, it is usually a once in a life-time.
That is why things are different with residential compared to commercial and institutional.
Aug 10, 14 7:03 pm ·
·
archanonymous,
Lets remember that architectural licensing law context of protecting public health, safety and welfare in ONLY authorzed for the public's PHYSICAL HEALTH, PHYSICAL SAFETY and PHYSICAL WELFARE. It has to be a matter of physical life and limb or physical health.
That was the basis for its implementation. It is also empirical study proven that being in the same environment day after day leads to boredom and depression even if the place is colorful and pretty.
I personally do not hold these studies as empirical or otherwise proven. We are dealing with a metaphysical subject matter which I doubt anyone really knows what the heck they are talking about when it comes to that.
GraduatedLicensure: Your jokes about feminism are not funny. If they *are* jokes then they're not well-written. If they aren't jokes, then you have no place here, meaning in this century.
If you want to have a serious discussion about feminism, bring it.
Otherwise, stop with these lame comments, please. If you don't, I'm flagging every one of your posts and asking Archinect for you to be banned. In over ten years of being on Archinect I've *never* asked for anyone to be banned, even some of the most frustrating posters, but I will do this for you.
Aug 10, 14 8:38 pm ·
·
I'm with Donna on the jokes about feminism. I am perfectly fine with competing with women and men in architecture/building design.
Those jokes are inappropriate and unprofessional.
If necessary, learn to jointly share the responsibilities of both taking are of domestic needs and bringing home the money.
Be a man and quit being a pussy about doing domestic work.
Aug 10, 14 10:20 pm ·
·
GraduatedLicensure,
I'm perfectly fine with dealing with the status quo while working to make it better. As for being licensed, I wouldn't say someone has to be grey-haired or old. They have to be competent. However, they also have to be of age of competency (for one) and also reached a certain level of maturity but to be frankly honesy, today's 18 year olds have the maturity of a 13 year old back in the 19th century and early 20th century. This is due to lack of parental authority and discipline. When you are licensed, you are licensed to practice independently and run a business and treat the work as your career and business instead of like it's a party / DJ gig.
RB - I think mental health is just as important as physical health. I agree that this aspect (melding architecture and neuroscience/ neurobiology) is a new field, but the more we fall back to "oh that can't be studied" or "too metaphysical" the longer we will go without accurately quantifying the qualitative aspects of architecture.
Aug 10, 14 11:45 pm ·
·
We need more study and research before we play psychologist because we can't possibly be able to cover the nebulous nuances of metaphysical nature of neuroscience and neurobiology) We are still in the infancy of these studies. The reason things are so complicated in this regard is that each person's psychology and reaction to things are different. Human emotional response in interwined with the person's experiences and memories and how the web of association is made up in each person.... which is different for each of us. This is why each of us are unique.
If someone with doctorates degrees in this study and 10-20 or more years has difficulties and that 95% of the science in this is theory with continual research.... how do you expect us to be adequately competet in the studies. The reason we stick to physical safety of buildings is that it is tied in with engineering which most architects had a basic knowledge of and did themselves in the days the licensing laws were enacted.
Mental health is an evolving science and I have to ask.... how are we going to do this as professionals. Are you going to suggest we have to have an entire team of physcologists, neuroscience and neurobiology researchers as consultants just to design a accessory garage or a small house. If we get into this realm and among others that every damn one of us thinks is mandatory for us to be competent... we be dead and well decayed skeletons by the time we get licensed.
That is why I caution scope creep of our responsibility. If I were to take a psychological take, I think the reason architects and emerging architecture professionals are looking to all this scope creep to take architecture into is they aren't satisfied with being an architect designing buildings. They want to find some niche and because 90% of them won't ever find a job or commission to design a building for a client, they are trying to find some place to redefine the word architect. Architect is defined already. Be creative and find a new title. Now this very well may relate to the principle of "paraprofessions" or "allied professions".
I am not sure that there is yet a empirical or prescriptive standard of choosing colors and textures of finishes and how people will emotionally react. Not theory but scientifically proven.
For me, when it comes to client's hapiness, it is a bit of an art in my application. Such as to manify to experience of ordinary experiences such as the entry experience. Then it is a little artistic then hardline science because I know of no clear empirically proven science. All we have is our empathy and 'poetry' of architectural form.
How a future occupant going to feel about the paint and react scientifically is beyond my ability because I don't know what the future beholds. All I can do is use social culture studies and draw to the experience is whatever means is easiest to communicate to people including future clients like a timeless music or timeless piece of art the invokes expression or impression. Maybe we would be a little play on stereotypes of culturally engrained cliche but it communicates an idea or feel visually. That is the best we can do but that isn't a safety matter but a role to place making.
I do believe that is our role as design professionals.
That I can do. I don't try to dwell too much in the metaphysical science. I'd just take it as an art in that end. I fulfill the science through the building science and constructable design. I have real world budgets to work with when it comes to clients.
Aug 11, 14 12:44 am ·
·
After all, I have only maybe 200-300 work hours to design an average size modest budget home if I am even going to remotely make a profit. Getting into the neuroscience and neurobiology and that will balloon the work hours well over 3000 hours. Considering that my billed hourly rate (and fees in other formats) is generally between 2.5 to 5 times the direct labor rate since this is a business. Not only would there be money set aside for runnning the business, paying the bills, paying the taxes as a whole and so forth. Lets be honest.
Clients aren't going to pay me for all this extra labor because they'll terminate the contract with me very quickly and find someone else. In addition, I don't have 5-10 years to design their home. Usually, it needs to be done between a few months to maybe a year or two. They won't take all my work hours dedicated to them. Usually I take on or work on more than 2-3 projects at the same time or week. I usually keep it to about 2 client (home design/building design) projects. If there is something really small then I might be able to fit it in and get it done.
It isn't that I can't do more but I have several things to do in different phases as well as other tasks. I can't realistically do by myself much more than that without it becoming exhaustively over doing it.
Just got back, seems the subject title architectural paraprofessionals has gotten lost. Looks by those posting that there is a thing on practicing without a license.
I can really feel for individuals trying to survive independently without an architectural license. There are many circumstances that can lead to that; it’s a hell of a thing. Seems the licensed guys feel they solved this by cutting off a pinky-toe casting off some housing and other things to feed these guys. The dichotomy is that the unlicensed guys get opportunities to reach beyond and keep reaching…what are the licensed guys supposed to do? Keep cutting off toes until somebody burps?
If you are doing work without a license that’s fine, just read the licensure laws in your state and go do it. As evidenced by other posts there is a lot of skirting involved, but that’s the nature-of-the-beast.
I detect thoughts of a trend to expand unlicensed work through some sort of para-sealing by independent unlicensed guys, but that is not going to happen. These states mentioned sound like they are trying to find ways of sealing exempted work. I don’t think the trend is loosening its tightening. In my state you can do up to and including a 4-family and that’s it. They are now even requiring that MEP stuff be sealed on strip-mall build-outs. The trend toward tightening is coming from state building regulatory boards which are run/controlled by licensed architects.
If you can scroll far enough back you’ll see that I advocate para-sealing and para-licencing within licensed firms for reasons I stated. To do otherwise makes toes-curl.
Disclosure - The words “Skirting” and “Guys” used herein are not used as synonyms but as slang without inference to any particular gender.
Archanonymous, there are roughly 500k homes in the us built every year...there are 100k architects. Do the math. I know several architects that do absolute shit work. I know a studio that is not licensed that does fantastic residential work...if something is unconventional an engineer stamps it. Big deal. Licensure is not a measure of quality and the state is not there to help architects cut out competition. Your argument that architects will make nice homes is retarded at best. Architects ate required for commercial...do they make nice commercial buildings? Most commercial architecture is about as dismal and soul sucking as it gets. What about the 10% fee? This would eat up all the homes equity...unrealistic nonsense. Protectionism is for the lazy and the mediocre. If you want to affect the residential market become a design developer.
why don't you see medical or law licensing as protectionism? or would you prefer to have the option to have a surgery performed by a "licensed body maintenance professional"?
Medicine and law are completely different. There is an immediate life and death risk from a doctor. Architects design buildings that under go checks and balances before they have the chance of doing harm. There is no immediate risk of practicing architecture. Doctors practicing without licenses often create literal houses of horrors...architects often create horrible houses at the worst case. There is no reactionary reason to create such a regulation because there is no immediate danger or any measurable hsw benefit. There are many other professions that are already established that can build and do build competent houses that meet the basic hsw requirements set by society. This is not the case with mds or with lawyers. Building a house is not brain surgery. Building a great house is probably as difficult but great houses are not really safer than competent houses. The state is not there to regulate the artistic quality of houses. The state is not there to make sure your meal gets 4 michelin stars...just to make sure the guy cooking it washes hands after shitting. There are no shades of grey with medicine. You either get treated or you don't and in some cases you either live or die.
Doctors have their own crisises, one of which is taking the art (ya know, healing and care) out of their profession. There are many other professions: nurse practitioners, chiropractors, acupuncturists, alternative medicine to gladly (& legally) fill that gap... I think public is better off for it.
jla-x. I can see that distinction and appreciate it.
Perhaps I should have used lawyers as an example, but the truth is, anyone can be their own lawyer in court, at least in the USA.
What of the emerging science of measuring well-being in response to the spaces we inhabit? Do you think that design should be controlled to the point of proscribing aesthetics once we have figured out what spatial configurations make people happy (future hypothetical here)?
BTW, nothing would tickle me more than to find out in 20 years that suburban tract houses make people measurably happier than a custom-built home.
Anyways, It seems if this was the case, we could get rid of all paraprofessionals... and architects for that matter.
There could be an advanced AI that designs buildings based on user satisfaction, quality of life, and efficient use of materials and finishes. I suspect it would resemble the bastard child of Lebbeus Woods and Richard Rogers' Centre Pompidou.
There are many codes that are suppose to protect the public and its our job to make sure these are implemented. But there are always things that if done incorrectly, detailed wrong or not thought through could have deadly results. It doesn't take a lot of research to find examples of walkways collapsing, buildings collapsing people dying in a fire because they couldn't get out.. I have personally seen things if not identified and corrected during construction could have easily led to someone being killed. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that could have killed children. (I primarily work on schools). This isn't rocket science but you have a responsibility to the users to build a safe building above all else. It might be ugly and function for shit but it must be safe. This responsibility and the liability that goes with it is what licensing ensures. You need to be proficient enough to recognize things aren't correct and know why. Small mistakes/errors in construction can lead to nasty results and I promise you most of the guys installing what you draw aren't brain surgeons.
the person doing the checks and balances, that should be the architect. If you counting on the city reviewer and inspectors to keep your clients safe you're an idiot
There are many other professions: nurse practitioners, chiropractors, acupuncturists, alternative medicine to gladly (& legally) fill that gap... I think public is better off for it.
Yes^ but my argument is not anti regulation. I actually would like to see more regulation with regard to codes. I just don't see the benefit of regulating the players when the game is already regulated. We can regulate the game in architecture we cannot in medicine and in law because they work in real time. Architects create plans. If we are to increase the value of the profession we should do so by making the codes more difficult to meet, by mandating certain criteria that will make buildings safer and reduce public health issues such as off gasing, footprint, etc. make the required knowledge more difficult and the demand for this knowledge will increase as will the prestige of possessing it. Contractors will not be able to fill the shoes of an architect or architecturally trained designer to create a design that meets a certain min. Passive heating and cooling requirement. These are real things that can have a real effect and can possibly create real specialists within the field that possess real and scarce and high demand knowledge. Make the knowledge indispensable...forget about the title bs. Scientists do not have special licenses...if you can do you can do...if you cant you are not a scientist. The problem is that the minimum codes are pretty easily achievable and their effects are pretty minimum and basic and fail to address many real problems like carbon emissions, land degradation, etc. the profession should be rallying to make architecture harder not to make the path to gain the right to practice harder. It's a bit backwards. I would like to see certain amendments to the code that require proper solar orientation, daylighting, min. Footprint, etc...main problem is that the knowledge/skill that we possess is often reduced to icing on the cake. There is certain knowledge unique to architects that is not being required...building things that don't fall down is not unique to architects. Engineers and contractors can do this. If they can do it for cheaper well then...do the math....
By my measuring stick, american doctors are not doing all that well. Even the AMA itself reported that healthcare is the third leading cause of death in the US. From JAMA. And they aren't talking about dokter Jenny McCarthy.
Robbmc, Idp does not keep us safe. I know a few newly minted architects that couldn't design a table capable of supporting a plate of meatballs. The licensure laws do not guarantee safety. The system of checks and balances does.
Fact is that occupational licensing has no effect on public hsw. Its all just a racket. Medicine and law are different because they deal with life and liberty issues and they work in emergency situations where people do not have the time and ability to shop around. They tend to desperate vulnerable clients. Architects design for savy millionaires who spend years planning projects. Comparing apples and oranges.
^ Yes but you need to be found if something goes wrong though, and things do, and so a license or at least a registrar is a good idea. You can't just skip town and go practice somewhere else if you mess up. People deserve protection on such a complicated product.
I can post a picture of a horrible plastic surgery done by a quake fake plastic surgeon out of some shady basement and that would pretty much sum up the practice of medicine without a license...then I can post a dozen pics of architecture half being done by non licensed designers and half by RAs...and you couldn't tell the difference. Ando, most European architects are not licensed by our standards...maya lin not licensed but the guy that built the Taco Bell is... etc etc..
Tint, anyone can be found or sued or held criminally liable. No one is gonna try to get rich quick doing architecture without experiance. It would be the least lucrative criminal plot of all time.
Jla-X, I know a few people/companies in my area who are practising without experience or adequate credentials. Their offices also suddenly bust into flames on the very same day their names hit the papers...
With the discussion shifting slightly to architects as necessity jla-x is on to something describing a trend that is on the move today. It started back in the Jimmy Carter’s Energy Crisis days with codes mandating energy calculation submissions….moving today to Sustainability. I see Sustainability in the forefront of creating the necessity jla-x is describing. Engineers have never had a necessity crisis because of applied mathematics’.
I don't see how anyone could pull off an architecture scam. It's a long process and a lot of work for pretty low fees. They would be in the class of criminals that rob stores with the "we only have 20$ in the register" sign.
Worlds dumbest criminals- thinks he an get rich from setting up fake architecture office ends up working 80 hours a week for 6 months and the client never pays.
I'm not sure anyone intended to compare architecture and medicine on the actual work we do but more on the idea of layers of professionals working together with the architect at the lead/top. Which is how it currently is but their is an entire group of people in a grey area (interns).
IDP as I understand it is to have a licensed professional sign off that you have the experience necessary to be an architect. Most people don't handle it this way but I think that is the intention. Like all bureaucracies they eventually take on a life of their own and go crazy, probably need a common sense restart but I've waded through it and have no intention of worrying about it anymore, it did get a lot easier when it went digital.
The idea of layering on more codes sounds terrible. Many cities have started having green requirements. Its a hassle but makes it much easier to get some green options and trees into a job that wouldn't have any if left to the client. Some of the things you talk about like solar orientation leave out the real world where sometimes it just not possible. Its unfortunate but most clients don't care enough, don't have the money, or don't want to spend it to go all in on green design. The life cycle cost makes since on paper but it just doesn't sale in my experience.
I design for the public (schools) not millionaires and even if you design for millionaires unless its their home it will be used by the public. Licensing gives the profession a way to enforce hsw or at the very least remove the license of someone who is negligent. I'm not sure why their is such animosity toward licensure it assures the client you have at least the basic knowledge necessary to preform the professional services you are attempting to sale them.
Another guy I've seen would only act as the middle man where he would offer up consulting services on his own then get the grunts under him at his other office to do the work while only he collects the fee. You see enough shady business deals in the construction world that some are bound to leap into the architecture offices.
tint, the study you linked to says that US healthcare is not ranked highest in the world. That certainly seems to be true, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether homeopathy works - which it absolutely does not
My focus in the medical detour here is that "alternative" medicine is meaningless, unscientific, snake-oil salesmanship that *relies* on a scientifically illiterate population. I don't want our society to move further in the direction of the dumb.
It's not really a direct parallel to architecture, or if it is I just don't feel like making that case right now. I just wanted to note to anyone reading your post that alternative medicine for the most part is complete and utter bullshit.
donna, I never brought up homeopathy, which I agree is b.s. The AMA DOES say that iatrogenic illness is the 3rd leading cause of death, read the whole article or just google it, there are many easier to read articles, they all reference the same investigation done by an MD at the AMA. Someone else said the same thing, some other medical institution I can't recall. The doctors I know don't refute it, they are concerned, as they should be. But I agree, we don't need to talk about medicine anymore. Except I should like to clarify that by alternative medicine I guess I mean alternatives TO medicine. Does that make sense? Massage therapy is an alternative to medicine.
from jla-x, " If we are to increase the value of the profession we should do so by making the codes more difficult to meet, by mandating certain criteria that will make buildings safer and reduce public health issues such as off gasing, footprint, etc. make the required knowledge more difficult and the demand for this knowledge will increase as will the prestige of possessing it."
I am all for this. I recently took out permits to help my father-in-law do a carport addition to their late-60's modernist house and the building department literally had worksheets with pre-defined details that you could circle and add to a sketched out floor-plan, and they would permit that.
If, instead of regulating the professional certification, we could require a higher minimum level of detailing and design in plans for permitting, coupled with a review process that considers solar and site orientation, aesthetics, usability, as well as life-safety, well, that would make me quite happy.
I guess the good news is that when you receive treatment that may kill you, at least it is covered by insurance. Prices are the same whether you live or die.
when you talk about what it takes to work on single family residential, especially renovations to single family residential, what you're doing is typically different than what most architects do. you typically don't need to have an architect involved in those projects. the building codes and permit requirements for those projects are not the same the codes and ordinances faced by projects that do require an architect's involvement.
we need to get over the notion that an architect's sole role in construction is to make stuff pretty. if you still don't understand the difference between a taco bell and flipping a HUD house, i don't think you're prepared to really discuss the benefits of licensure.
curtkram - I certainly didn't mean to imply that one should be licensed to do a simple carport addition, but that perhaps the level of planning demanded to receive a permit could be a bit higher, in keeping with jla-x's theme. Just using it as an example from personal experience.
I can't really speak to the permitting process on commercial work (at least from experience) , because, like most architects, there is a specific person who handles that for our office.
Paraprofessionals in Architecture
RB, what is the net effect of stamping a drawing with this CPBD stamp? It seems that being able to use the stamp on any project not requiring an Architect or Engineer's stamp means that it is in lieu of a contractor's license? ( here, a licensed contractor with a B license can put most drawings through permitting if a residential single-family structure.) Or it is just to make the client feel warm and fuzzy?
archanonymous,
It can get you through some of the politics of places where they might be a little bit hesitant of accepting something from someone who isn't licensed or certified. The certification is essentially prima facie evidence. Some federal housing projects requires someone to be a licensed architect or NCBDC certified.
With more competent unlicensed designers certified and members of AIBD... the more we can leverage the regulation for more net effect due to recognition. I wouldn't exactly say in lieu of a contractor license but generally a contractor license means nothing because a contractor licensure requirement does not involve training or testing in design matters.
NCBDC certification program is also in the process of becoming ANSI accredited which will also enable and strengthen its recognition and validity.
There literally is no other building design certification like it outside of the ARE/architecture licensing exams. Nothing else comes close to it.
The net effect is hard to pin down. However, if it makes the client feel warm & fuzzy... you know it just might mean you get the commission over someone else and therefore have work, getting paid and making money which in turn will have paid for itself.
As for employers in architecture, its more leverage to get the job especially if you don't have a degree so they can consider you because you have some leve of verified knowledge and skills.
RB, I could definitely see it being widely implemented if the Federal Government made it a requirement that all design professionals not otherwise licensed who want to work on their projects have this.
As to the issue with contractors: no, they do not receive any training in design, but they sure as shit can submit, pass and permit drawings for construction here, and in many states. This includes new construction and renovations, residential and limited commercial.
It would be a hell of a lot better for architects if we or the AIA or anyone really, lobbied to have this changed so that you do have to be a design professional with credentials to have any sort of project permitted. As it is, adding yet another group or sub-group to the list of people who are not licensed architects yet can design and permit projects is a step in the wrong direction.
Actually, it can just be something required in the building codes.
This would be where we recognize and amend the building codes to have both "registered design professional" and "design professional". "certified design professional" meaning registered design professionals and certified designers (eg. NCBDC certified building designers and NCIDQ certified interior designers not otherwise licensed).
Then requiring more design work to be sealed by a certified design professional and only some things requiring a registered design professional as required by licensing laws. By recognizing at the building code level certified designers and their qualifications and that can go a long ways to improving the quality of submitted work to be permitted.
Less that can be permitted without a license or certified design professional preparing the submittal documents.
Competent design-builders should have little problem becoming certified.
Getting ICC to incorporate this in the model code and subsequently approved by the state building codes is a good step. archanonymous, just so you know... already building designers (certified or not) not licensed already can submit for projects to get permits.
Make the movement at the building codes perhaps at part in the state statutes as maybe needed.
This is something that is possible with a little bit of transition.
I think this is something that AIA and AIBD should be able to work together with ICC and the various building officials organizations to move at implementing this.
If we can move towards that by 2020, that would be great. Design/Builders contractor license is for construction but an architect/engineer/licensed interior designer/landscape architect/etc. or a certifications as a certified building designer or interior designer / etc. would be for credentialling the design background.
A small price to pay for A) reducing riff raff, B) better built environment, C) increase in perceived value, D) better pay per project over time. Essentially, tightening up on how much exemptions of the licensing laws can be exploited by the incompetent without at least some credential without being too harsh on non-licensed design professionals that are competent. After all, whatever the cost for certification and continuing ed should be more than adequately pay itself in projects and the money from it.
Leaving the policy open enough to recognize or accept other certifications approved by the state building code division/department/agency in charge of adopting the building codes in the state as comparable to NCBDC certification for building design and NCIDQ for interior design specific work as demonstrating basic knowledge and skills to reasonably deduce as competent for the scope of work.
Even then, the B.O. / Authority having jurisdiction may still require certain drawings and specifications to be prepared by a registered design professional qualified to prepare those certain drawings and specifications.
Adding another license and more beurocratic nonsense is a fantastic idea. Protectionism woohoo. You guys really don't see the big picture do you? If you want such a certification than I have no problem at all with that. If the certification gives you an edge by creating a warm feeling for clients than that's great, but once you start trying to mandate this upon others for the sole purpose of increasing your work flow, well then you are being immoral. Regulation is not there to help you and your buddies make a buck its only justification is public hsw. If you cannot prove that the public is in danger and needs this then you are promoting protectionist nonsense that is immoral and illegal (constitutionally speaking). You are creating corruption in a sense.
I hate this lazy faire economics. Stop the lazy bullshit and make yourself relevant without trying to eliminate other competition. Stop trying to vontrol supply and start increasing demand by doing good work. Geez.
Lol lol go take a look at Nevada...the building designer title is protected there. All houses must be designed by a licensed building designer in Nevada. Looks just like anywhere else. Not any safer at all. Net zero effect.
jla-x,
I would call the building industry's involvement with politics corruption - especially the large homebuilders which - Surprise! - are in cahoots with mortgage lenders and banks, and in turn have the politicians and policy-makers in their pockets.
I won't be happy until ALL new construction requires an architect and engineer's stamp. There is empirical evidence and emerging studies that the quality of a design affects people's well-being. How is this any different from the safety of a building affecting their well-being (life-safety)?
Go try to practice medicine or law or hell, engineering, without a professional certification and license and see what happens - the full weight of the law will come down on you, just as it should on those responsible for continuing to pump out poorly designed, engineered and built tract homes that comprise well over 70% of new housing starts in the US.
jla-x,
How the hell to do increase demand?
Doing good work doesn't do it. It hasn't and there is nothing in my personal power to do it without burning down a city to create demand for design services.
What's funny, if you REALLY REALLY knew the history of architectural licensing laws and its purpose, you'd realize they enacted the laws for the purpose of eliminating competition and help the supporters make a buck. As for justification of the public hsw. All it takes is a convenient disaster and a good exaggerated horror story. It did for the founders of architectural licensure. The reality is the founders of architectural licensing didn't create it for some noble cause of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. It was plan exploitation of the public culture of the time.
Doing good work doesn't necessarily equate to increasing demand.
I support doing good work over not doing good work any day.
However, the fact is it doesn't influence enough people to increase demand. The reason is residential projects don't get publicity and these clients are rarely repeat clients because they generally don't need our services more than once in decades. In can be 10, 20 or more years before we have a possible repeat. One people personally invest in a home design project, it is usually a once in a life-time.
That is why things are different with residential compared to commercial and institutional.
archanonymous,
Lets remember that architectural licensing law context of protecting public health, safety and welfare in ONLY authorzed for the public's PHYSICAL HEALTH, PHYSICAL SAFETY and PHYSICAL WELFARE. It has to be a matter of physical life and limb or physical health.
That was the basis for its implementation. It is also empirical study proven that being in the same environment day after day leads to boredom and depression even if the place is colorful and pretty.
I personally do not hold these studies as empirical or otherwise proven. We are dealing with a metaphysical subject matter which I doubt anyone really knows what the heck they are talking about when it comes to that.
graduate, you can fix the problem. learn to be a homemaker. fill in where you're needed, so we don't all end up hunting cats and dogs.
besides, even if we do end up hunting cats and dogs, who's going to cook them?
you are. that's who. now hike up your skirt a bit.
GraduatedLicensure: Your jokes about feminism are not funny. If they *are* jokes then they're not well-written. If they aren't jokes, then you have no place here, meaning in this century.
If you want to have a serious discussion about feminism, bring it.
Otherwise, stop with these lame comments, please. If you don't, I'm flagging every one of your posts and asking Archinect for you to be banned. In over ten years of being on Archinect I've *never* asked for anyone to be banned, even some of the most frustrating posters, but I will do this for you.
I'm with Donna on the jokes about feminism. I am perfectly fine with competing with women and men in architecture/building design.
Those jokes are inappropriate and unprofessional.
If necessary, learn to jointly share the responsibilities of both taking are of domestic needs and bringing home the money.
Be a man and quit being a pussy about doing domestic work.
GraduatedLicensure,
I'm perfectly fine with dealing with the status quo while working to make it better. As for being licensed, I wouldn't say someone has to be grey-haired or old. They have to be competent. However, they also have to be of age of competency (for one) and also reached a certain level of maturity but to be frankly honesy, today's 18 year olds have the maturity of a 13 year old back in the 19th century and early 20th century. This is due to lack of parental authority and discipline. When you are licensed, you are licensed to practice independently and run a business and treat the work as your career and business instead of like it's a party / DJ gig.
RB - I think mental health is just as important as physical health. I agree that this aspect (melding architecture and neuroscience/ neurobiology) is a new field, but the more we fall back to "oh that can't be studied" or "too metaphysical" the longer we will go without accurately quantifying the qualitative aspects of architecture.
We need more study and research before we play psychologist because we can't possibly be able to cover the nebulous nuances of metaphysical nature of neuroscience and neurobiology) We are still in the infancy of these studies. The reason things are so complicated in this regard is that each person's psychology and reaction to things are different. Human emotional response in interwined with the person's experiences and memories and how the web of association is made up in each person.... which is different for each of us. This is why each of us are unique.
If someone with doctorates degrees in this study and 10-20 or more years has difficulties and that 95% of the science in this is theory with continual research.... how do you expect us to be adequately competet in the studies. The reason we stick to physical safety of buildings is that it is tied in with engineering which most architects had a basic knowledge of and did themselves in the days the licensing laws were enacted.
Mental health is an evolving science and I have to ask.... how are we going to do this as professionals. Are you going to suggest we have to have an entire team of physcologists, neuroscience and neurobiology researchers as consultants just to design a accessory garage or a small house. If we get into this realm and among others that every damn one of us thinks is mandatory for us to be competent... we be dead and well decayed skeletons by the time we get licensed.
That is why I caution scope creep of our responsibility. If I were to take a psychological take, I think the reason architects and emerging architecture professionals are looking to all this scope creep to take architecture into is they aren't satisfied with being an architect designing buildings. They want to find some niche and because 90% of them won't ever find a job or commission to design a building for a client, they are trying to find some place to redefine the word architect. Architect is defined already. Be creative and find a new title. Now this very well may relate to the principle of "paraprofessions" or "allied professions".
I am not sure that there is yet a empirical or prescriptive standard of choosing colors and textures of finishes and how people will emotionally react. Not theory but scientifically proven.
For me, when it comes to client's hapiness, it is a bit of an art in my application. Such as to manify to experience of ordinary experiences such as the entry experience. Then it is a little artistic then hardline science because I know of no clear empirically proven science. All we have is our empathy and 'poetry' of architectural form.
How a future occupant going to feel about the paint and react scientifically is beyond my ability because I don't know what the future beholds. All I can do is use social culture studies and draw to the experience is whatever means is easiest to communicate to people including future clients like a timeless music or timeless piece of art the invokes expression or impression. Maybe we would be a little play on stereotypes of culturally engrained cliche but it communicates an idea or feel visually. That is the best we can do but that isn't a safety matter but a role to place making.
I do believe that is our role as design professionals.
That I can do. I don't try to dwell too much in the metaphysical science. I'd just take it as an art in that end. I fulfill the science through the building science and constructable design. I have real world budgets to work with when it comes to clients.
After all, I have only maybe 200-300 work hours to design an average size modest budget home if I am even going to remotely make a profit. Getting into the neuroscience and neurobiology and that will balloon the work hours well over 3000 hours. Considering that my billed hourly rate (and fees in other formats) is generally between 2.5 to 5 times the direct labor rate since this is a business. Not only would there be money set aside for runnning the business, paying the bills, paying the taxes as a whole and so forth. Lets be honest.
Clients aren't going to pay me for all this extra labor because they'll terminate the contract with me very quickly and find someone else. In addition, I don't have 5-10 years to design their home. Usually, it needs to be done between a few months to maybe a year or two. They won't take all my work hours dedicated to them. Usually I take on or work on more than 2-3 projects at the same time or week. I usually keep it to about 2 client (home design/building design) projects. If there is something really small then I might be able to fit it in and get it done.
It isn't that I can't do more but I have several things to do in different phases as well as other tasks. I can't realistically do by myself much more than that without it becoming exhaustively over doing it.
Just got back, seems the subject title architectural paraprofessionals has gotten lost. Looks by those posting that there is a thing on practicing without a license.
I can really feel for individuals trying to survive independently without an architectural license. There are many circumstances that can lead to that; it’s a hell of a thing. Seems the licensed guys feel they solved this by cutting off a pinky-toe casting off some housing and other things to feed these guys. The dichotomy is that the unlicensed guys get opportunities to reach beyond and keep reaching…what are the licensed guys supposed to do? Keep cutting off toes until somebody burps?
If you are doing work without a license that’s fine, just read the licensure laws in your state and go do it. As evidenced by other posts there is a lot of skirting involved, but that’s the nature-of-the-beast.
I detect thoughts of a trend to expand unlicensed work through some sort of para-sealing by independent unlicensed guys, but that is not going to happen. These states mentioned sound like they are trying to find ways of sealing exempted work. I don’t think the trend is loosening its tightening. In my state you can do up to and including a 4-family and that’s it. They are now even requiring that MEP stuff be sealed on strip-mall build-outs. The trend toward tightening is coming from state building regulatory boards which are run/controlled by licensed architects.
If you can scroll far enough back you’ll see that I advocate para-sealing and para-licencing within licensed firms for reasons I stated. To do otherwise makes toes-curl.
Disclosure - The words “Skirting” and “Guys” used herein are not used as synonyms but as slang without inference to any particular gender.
Carerra,
What state are you in?
Archanonymous, there are roughly 500k homes in the us built every year...there are 100k architects. Do the math. I know several architects that do absolute shit work. I know a studio that is not licensed that does fantastic residential work...if something is unconventional an engineer stamps it. Big deal. Licensure is not a measure of quality and the state is not there to help architects cut out competition. Your argument that architects will make nice homes is retarded at best. Architects ate required for commercial...do they make nice commercial buildings? Most commercial architecture is about as dismal and soul sucking as it gets. What about the 10% fee? This would eat up all the homes equity...unrealistic nonsense. Protectionism is for the lazy and the mediocre. If you want to affect the residential market become a design developer.
Demand is down...make em buy it! Lol. And you guys wonder why...
Richard, I now live in Ohio.
Oh... okay.
I had skimmed through the laws of Ohio. Okay, got the context of that state's laws.
Richard, went from memory, guess what? Just checked with The Ohio Architects Board, its now just 1, 2 & 3 family only….”click” goes the ratchet.
jla-x,
why don't you see medical or law licensing as protectionism? or would you prefer to have the option to have a surgery performed by a "licensed body maintenance professional"?
Medicine and law are completely different. There is an immediate life and death risk from a doctor. Architects design buildings that under go checks and balances before they have the chance of doing harm. There is no immediate risk of practicing architecture. Doctors practicing without licenses often create literal houses of horrors...architects often create horrible houses at the worst case. There is no reactionary reason to create such a regulation because there is no immediate danger or any measurable hsw benefit. There are many other professions that are already established that can build and do build competent houses that meet the basic hsw requirements set by society. This is not the case with mds or with lawyers. Building a house is not brain surgery. Building a great house is probably as difficult but great houses are not really safer than competent houses. The state is not there to regulate the artistic quality of houses. The state is not there to make sure your meal gets 4 michelin stars...just to make sure the guy cooking it washes hands after shitting. There are no shades of grey with medicine. You either get treated or you don't and in some cases you either live or die.
Doctors have their own crisises, one of which is taking the art (ya know, healing and care) out of their profession. There are many other professions: nurse practitioners, chiropractors, acupuncturists, alternative medicine to gladly (& legally) fill that gap... I think public is better off for it.
jla-x. I can see that distinction and appreciate it.
Perhaps I should have used lawyers as an example, but the truth is, anyone can be their own lawyer in court, at least in the USA.
What of the emerging science of measuring well-being in response to the spaces we inhabit? Do you think that design should be controlled to the point of proscribing aesthetics once we have figured out what spatial configurations make people happy (future hypothetical here)?
BTW, nothing would tickle me more than to find out in 20 years that suburban tract houses make people measurably happier than a custom-built home.
Anyways, It seems if this was the case, we could get rid of all paraprofessionals... and architects for that matter.
There could be an advanced AI that designs buildings based on user satisfaction, quality of life, and efficient use of materials and finishes. I suspect it would resemble the bastard child of Lebbeus Woods and Richard Rogers' Centre Pompidou.
There are many codes that are suppose to protect the public and its our job to make sure these are implemented. But there are always things that if done incorrectly, detailed wrong or not thought through could have deadly results. It doesn't take a lot of research to find examples of walkways collapsing, buildings collapsing people dying in a fire because they couldn't get out.. I have personally seen things if not identified and corrected during construction could have easily led to someone being killed. I can think of 3 off the top of my head that could have killed children. (I primarily work on schools). This isn't rocket science but you have a responsibility to the users to build a safe building above all else. It might be ugly and function for shit but it must be safe. This responsibility and the liability that goes with it is what licensing ensures. You need to be proficient enough to recognize things aren't correct and know why. Small mistakes/errors in construction can lead to nasty results and I promise you most of the guys installing what you draw aren't brain surgeons.
jla-x
the person doing the checks and balances, that should be the architect. If you counting on the city reviewer and inspectors to keep your clients safe you're an idiot
(in case the above is a little wordy)
There are many other professions: nurse practitioners, chiropractors, acupuncturists, alternative medicine to gladly (& legally) fill that gap... I think public is better off for it.
<sarcasm> Oh yes. The public is *much* better off with practitioners who claim vaccines cause autism and that homeopathy can cure ebola! </sarcasm>
Yes^ but my argument is not anti regulation. I actually would like to see more regulation with regard to codes. I just don't see the benefit of regulating the players when the game is already regulated. We can regulate the game in architecture we cannot in medicine and in law because they work in real time. Architects create plans. If we are to increase the value of the profession we should do so by making the codes more difficult to meet, by mandating certain criteria that will make buildings safer and reduce public health issues such as off gasing, footprint, etc. make the required knowledge more difficult and the demand for this knowledge will increase as will the prestige of possessing it. Contractors will not be able to fill the shoes of an architect or architecturally trained designer to create a design that meets a certain min. Passive heating and cooling requirement. These are real things that can have a real effect and can possibly create real specialists within the field that possess real and scarce and high demand knowledge. Make the knowledge indispensable...forget about the title bs. Scientists do not have special licenses...if you can do you can do...if you cant you are not a scientist. The problem is that the minimum codes are pretty easily achievable and their effects are pretty minimum and basic and fail to address many real problems like carbon emissions, land degradation, etc. the profession should be rallying to make architecture harder not to make the path to gain the right to practice harder. It's a bit backwards. I would like to see certain amendments to the code that require proper solar orientation, daylighting, min. Footprint, etc...main problem is that the knowledge/skill that we possess is often reduced to icing on the cake. There is certain knowledge unique to architects that is not being required...building things that don't fall down is not unique to architects. Engineers and contractors can do this. If they can do it for cheaper well then...do the math....
By my measuring stick, american doctors are not doing all that well. Even the AMA itself reported that healthcare is the third leading cause of death in the US. From JAMA. And they aren't talking about dokter Jenny McCarthy.
Robbmc, Idp does not keep us safe. I know a few newly minted architects that couldn't design a table capable of supporting a plate of meatballs. The licensure laws do not guarantee safety. The system of checks and balances does.
you beat me to it Donna. if only Doctors were aggressively vocal about their title being abused by Chiros and all the other CAM quacks...
Fact is that occupational licensing has no effect on public hsw. Its all just a racket. Medicine and law are different because they deal with life and liberty issues and they work in emergency situations where people do not have the time and ability to shop around. They tend to desperate vulnerable clients. Architects design for savy millionaires who spend years planning projects. Comparing apples and oranges.
^ Yes but you need to be found if something goes wrong though, and things do, and so a license or at least a registrar is a good idea. You can't just skip town and go practice somewhere else if you mess up. People deserve protection on such a complicated product.
I can post a picture of a horrible plastic surgery done by a quake fake plastic surgeon out of some shady basement and that would pretty much sum up the practice of medicine without a license...then I can post a dozen pics of architecture half being done by non licensed designers and half by RAs...and you couldn't tell the difference. Ando, most European architects are not licensed by our standards...maya lin not licensed but the guy that built the Taco Bell is... etc etc..
Tint, anyone can be found or sued or held criminally liable. No one is gonna try to get rich quick doing architecture without experiance. It would be the least lucrative criminal plot of all time.
Scam artists want to make money. Architecture is the least likely place for that. Lol
Jla-X, I know a few people/companies in my area who are practising without experience or adequate credentials. Their offices also suddenly bust into flames on the very same day their names hit the papers...
With the discussion shifting slightly to architects as necessity jla-x is on to something describing a trend that is on the move today. It started back in the Jimmy Carter’s Energy Crisis days with codes mandating energy calculation submissions….moving today to Sustainability. I see Sustainability in the forefront of creating the necessity jla-x is describing. Engineers have never had a necessity crisis because of applied mathematics’.
I don't see how anyone could pull off an architecture scam. It's a long process and a lot of work for pretty low fees. They would be in the class of criminals that rob stores with the "we only have 20$ in the register" sign.
Worlds dumbest criminals- thinks he an get rich from setting up fake architecture office ends up working 80 hours a week for 6 months and the client never pays.
I'm not sure anyone intended to compare architecture and medicine on the actual work we do but more on the idea of layers of professionals working together with the architect at the lead/top. Which is how it currently is but their is an entire group of people in a grey area (interns).
IDP as I understand it is to have a licensed professional sign off that you have the experience necessary to be an architect. Most people don't handle it this way but I think that is the intention. Like all bureaucracies they eventually take on a life of their own and go crazy, probably need a common sense restart but I've waded through it and have no intention of worrying about it anymore, it did get a lot easier when it went digital.
The idea of layering on more codes sounds terrible. Many cities have started having green requirements. Its a hassle but makes it much easier to get some green options and trees into a job that wouldn't have any if left to the client. Some of the things you talk about like solar orientation leave out the real world where sometimes it just not possible. Its unfortunate but most clients don't care enough, don't have the money, or don't want to spend it to go all in on green design. The life cycle cost makes since on paper but it just doesn't sale in my experience.
I design for the public (schools) not millionaires and even if you design for millionaires unless its their home it will be used by the public. Licensing gives the profession a way to enforce hsw or at the very least remove the license of someone who is negligent. I'm not sure why their is such animosity toward licensure it assures the client you have at least the basic knowledge necessary to preform the professional services you are attempting to sale them.
Jla-x,
Another guy I've seen would only act as the middle man where he would offer up consulting services on his own then get the grunts under him at his other office to do the work while only he collects the fee. You see enough shady business deals in the construction world that some are bound to leap into the architecture offices.
tint, the study you linked to says that US healthcare is not ranked highest in the world. That certainly seems to be true, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether homeopathy works - which it absolutely does not
My focus in the medical detour here is that "alternative" medicine is meaningless, unscientific, snake-oil salesmanship that *relies* on a scientifically illiterate population. I don't want our society to move further in the direction of the dumb.
It's not really a direct parallel to architecture, or if it is I just don't feel like making that case right now. I just wanted to note to anyone reading your post that alternative medicine for the most part is complete and utter bullshit.
donna, I never brought up homeopathy, which I agree is b.s. The AMA DOES say that iatrogenic illness is the 3rd leading cause of death, read the whole article or just google it, there are many easier to read articles, they all reference the same investigation done by an MD at the AMA. Someone else said the same thing, some other medical institution I can't recall. The doctors I know don't refute it, they are concerned, as they should be. But I agree, we don't need to talk about medicine anymore. Except I should like to clarify that by alternative medicine I guess I mean alternatives TO medicine. Does that make sense? Massage therapy is an alternative to medicine.
from jla-x, " If we are to increase the value of the profession we should do so by making the codes more difficult to meet, by mandating certain criteria that will make buildings safer and reduce public health issues such as off gasing, footprint, etc. make the required knowledge more difficult and the demand for this knowledge will increase as will the prestige of possessing it."
I am all for this. I recently took out permits to help my father-in-law do a carport addition to their late-60's modernist house and the building department literally had worksheets with pre-defined details that you could circle and add to a sketched out floor-plan, and they would permit that.
If, instead of regulating the professional certification, we could require a higher minimum level of detailing and design in plans for permitting, coupled with a review process that considers solar and site orientation, aesthetics, usability, as well as life-safety, well, that would make me quite happy.
I guess the good news is that when you receive treatment that may kill you, at least it is covered by insurance. Prices are the same whether you live or die.
when you talk about what it takes to work on single family residential, especially renovations to single family residential, what you're doing is typically different than what most architects do. you typically don't need to have an architect involved in those projects. the building codes and permit requirements for those projects are not the same the codes and ordinances faced by projects that do require an architect's involvement.
we need to get over the notion that an architect's sole role in construction is to make stuff pretty. if you still don't understand the difference between a taco bell and flipping a HUD house, i don't think you're prepared to really discuss the benefits of licensure.
curtkram - I certainly didn't mean to imply that one should be licensed to do a simple carport addition, but that perhaps the level of planning demanded to receive a permit could be a bit higher, in keeping with jla-x's theme. Just using it as an example from personal experience.
I can't really speak to the permitting process on commercial work (at least from experience) , because, like most architects, there is a specific person who handles that for our office.
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.