My former boss, a licensed architect, used to tell us all the time that the building department would catch anything that we didn't have right. I do think he was wrong, but that didn't stop him from doing it. It saved him a lot of work to not do code reviews and clients never caught on. He never bothered to look at plans before he stamped them either. Makes ya a little suspicious as an intern.
Tint, I have a project nearing completion where the city granted us an occupancy permit. As I walked the 20 or so floors looking for deficiencies, I noticed that one large warehouse/storage area on one basement level was missing all its Exit signs. Our lazy engineers missed it in their review and the city never bothered to check yet they signed off on it.
Our construction managers will tell us that the city said it was OK, but I'm not budging. If they need to send in a crew overnight on a Saturday, then that's what they need to do.
Tint, no client has moved offices into that part of the building yet, but I'm making sure this gets done before they do. I am also pressing for stainless steel exit signs in the public lobbies because shiny! but I digress.
But, the same city officials once tried to give me a hard time about joist spacing on a deck (they wanted doubled 10" joists 16" OC), so it's good to know they have top people looking at important things.
NS, as an intern architect, I used to coordinate between architectural, M & E sheets before jobs went to permiting. One thing I did was make sure the exit signs were all coordinated. What are your interns doing? They can do that, then you don't have to save the day in CA.
Tint, we did our own coordination in house in the CD phase as well. It's the p.eng site guys who did not verify that the electricians put up the signs during construction.
Obviously you are not an architect, as in you do not hold a license to practice architecture.
you wrote:
3. Don't get this one?
It was notion that just because you draw a square and call it a floor plan does not mean you are an architect. The cliche about "fool for client" speaks to the notion that being a lawyer is not just thinking you are one.
4. Architecture is an art and science that is practiced as a profession. Architecture is an adjective to describe a building or space.
Architecture can exist without an architect. Example: maya Lin (not an architect) vietnam memorial = work of architecture.
the memorial is not architecture as defined by being a product of an architect. But even when considered as architecture it does not qualify maya Lin as an architect. For example, if i perform CPR on someone, that does not make me a medical doctor.
Architect is a title
above you said it was an adjective, make up your mind.
architecture and architectural are not titles. Title protection protects titles not descriptive words. Medical doctor = title medical device = not a title. Jim says " I design medical devises therefore I am a medical devise designer"
You are wrong, check your local State laws. Medical device designer is not a regulated "title" whereas architect is...and likewise any action where one leads the public to believe they are an architect is also regulated.
5. No irony at all.
You may be right, perhaps it is just laughable.
6. Never said that. The state passing legislation for the financial protection of some guild is inappropriate.
True, but that is not the case with architects
7. That's just lol funny. First, No you are not a doctor or a pilot and your work is not even remotely as dangerous as the work of a nurse (which takes 2 years to get license invluding school) or even a chef (which is unregulated) for that matter. Food poisoning kills way way more people than architecture.
Actually one has to acquire a license and pass exams to operate a kitchen that provides food to the public. Routine inspections occur as well which either perpetuate or void that license. So, in this case the term "restaurant" is being regulated.
Architects design abstract plans and must meet certain codes. There are engineers, contractors, inspectors, etc. There are checks. The regulation of the title is necessary to an extent, but the time it takes is way way out of line when compared to other far more "dangerous" professions. Your threat is not immediate and you will not even get a very very small commission without much experience because architecture clients have no urgency to build. Medical clients can be senile and can be brought into the hospital at 3 am with no time to check references. This never ever happens in architecture.
This makes no sense. You obviously know very little about the profession. You also ignore the very dramatic and costly events where buildings, due to design, have killed people. (i.e. Hyatt in Kansas). That you think an architect simply "draws" further demeans your position on this argument. This is precisely the reason the profession is regulated, a certain level of knowledge and responsibility is attributed to its practice because of its direct impact on the public's health and safety. "There are checks" is a true statement, but you fail to recognize that the architect is one of these "checks" - and that is why the term is regulated....and so is contractor, etc..
Architecture is also practiced by "anyone" in many countries and nothing horrible happens.
Dumbest reasoning ever. " I drink and drive all the time, never been in a wreck, so surely it is ok"
Liability has nothing to do with licensure. Anyone can sue anyone.
Then try to get professional liability insurance for unlicensed practice of architecture.
And, as I said, one can practice architectural design without a license.
One can perform surgery without a license also...so what?
One cannot fly a plane without a license. If one could fly a plane without a license then they would be an unlicensed pilot. LOl
No, they would just be unlicensed to fly a plane. Licensed pilot is a redundant statement. The guy flying you on Delta does not introduce himself as a licensed pilot....but simply as pilot. Point being, regulated professions include architecture. And you can be punished for pretending to be an architect.
jlx - dude, charles eames was an architect first. he quit to make furniture. (maybe he's on to something there...)
Aug 27, 14 12:29 pm ·
·
curtkram,
"richard, part of your apparent belief in licenses not being required is that the building department will take responsibility for your work because they review your drawings. kevin welch mentioned this earlier, too. this is not true. whether they find errors or omission or not, your designs and your decisions are you responsibility. saying 'the building department will catch it' is all the more reason why you might not be ready to be an architect yet."
That's really a bit of an urban myth. The building department doesn't take responsibility for anything. In Oregon, for example, I'm still can be sued for negligence and tort. No exemption, there.
If you want to know something, there technically isn't anything in the court judicial law called "professional standard of care" or "professional standard of reasonable care". It is called "standard of reasonable care". This judicial code applies to everyone for what they do. The principle of this judicial code is everyone is treated equal as required and mandated by the U.S. Constitution under the given standards. So for the same facts of a case such as two equal project, an architect and a building designer does two identical projects (speaking hypothetically) or substantially identical, both practitioners doing the project would be held to the same standard of reasonable care by the nature of the facts of the case. When judging if the party in a reasonably entrusted role of responsibility, such as an architect or building designer whom contracts us for services.... we are in this entrusted role of responsibility. We both be held to the same standard. When judging if we should know better, the facts about ourselves will be considered such as education, experience, license or certification where if possessing such, "should you have known better?" when evaluating negligence or tort.
Exemption from requiring a license and not possessing a license is not an exemption from liability for the unlicensed.
In Oregon, we have a law that pretty much makes it clear:
Again, me knowing and performing CPR on someone, successfully saving their life does not qualify me as a medical doctor, no matter how many times i save them.
So, conversely, if you draft someone a house and it gets built and looks great! this does not entitle you to the title of architect to the general public.
Being a great draftsman and having great design intuition does not make you an architect, either from licensure position or in practice....sorry.
Then try to get professional liability insurance for unlicensed practice of architecture
Damn you really lack reading comp skills. Do they test for that on the ARE?
Who said anything about practicing "architecture" We are talking about practicing in areas related to architecture or doing work which is architectural by nature, or legally designing exempt projects. Its funny how you twist words and logic to fit your dull and narrow view.
The above projects are all done by unlicensed people. There are thousands upon thousands of other equally worthy examples. The designers range from artists, environmental designers, land artists, industrial designers, etc.....Your narrow view point is not so black and white. The above "designs" whether you like it or not are architecture and will be considered architecture well after all the cheap strip mall "architecture" crumbles down and gets forgotten. You are confusing the title "architect" with the adjective "architectural." While none of the above are designed by licensed architects, it is all architecture. The states definition is nothing more than legal jargon. A few hundred years ago blacks were not people according to the state. Does this mean that blacks were not people? The law is not always correct and it should not be accepted as the word of god.
Actually one has to acquire a license and pass exams to operate a kitchen that provides food to the public. Routine inspections occur as well which either perpetuate or void that license. So, in this case the term "restaurant" is being regulated.
Its quite simple and does not create a major barrier to entry as does architecture licensure. A food handlers license can be obtained in less than a month. The kitchen itself is regulated. Of course. That's fine. Regulate the game not the players. All for that.
Dumbest reasoning ever. " I drink and drive all the time, never been in a wreck, so surely it is ok"
Its not dumb reasoning and your analogy is very very weak. Other countries that have lower barriers to entry should show a higher incidence of death and injury via architecture if these barrier are supposed to lower death and injury via architecture. In comparable developed nations they do not. This implies that the high barriers to entry in this country are not as necessary as you and others claim them to be. I am not talking about the Congo either so please don't try to come back with some far stretch analogy. If you look at Northern European nations, Japan, etc...you will see my point.
One can perform surgery without a license also...so what?
Incorrect
One cannot fly a plane without a license. If one could fly a plane without a license then they would be an unlicensed pilot. LOl
No, they would just be unlicensed to fly a plane. Licensed pilot is a redundant statement. The guy flying you on Delta does not introduce himself as a licensed pilot....but simply as pilot. Point being, regulated professions include architecture. And you can be punished for pretending to be an architect.
Exactly. I think you just agreed with me inadvertently. Most people that practice architecture are not licensed to call themselves architects. Everyone who flys a plane is a pilot. So, either require the license to do the work (which would consequently force the industry to lower the barriers to entry,) or loosen the title restrictions to properly label the work and professionals.
but subgenius, someone who is not licensed to practice architecture can still design/create architecture. maya lin definitely makes architecture and james turrell probably wouldn't say he makes architecture but to me he does.
i don't know why i didn't do this earlier - the latest texas architectural board newsletter:
check the disciplinary actions, especially this one from page 6:
Mr. Tyler is not registered as an architect in Texas, nor is his firm. In
2012 Mr. Tyler’s firm, Bella Vista Company, represented via its Web
site, a business sign, and a magazine advertisement that it offered
architectural services. In 2009, the respondent received a warning
letter from TBAE addressing the same or similar conduct.
$2,500 fine. this is exactly what claire wants to do - advertise that she provides 'architectural plans' which all these state architectural boards understand to be offering architectural services. it doesn't matter if claire's designs are architecture, she risks getting fined (and damn, texas fines big! california's are usually $500-$1500 or so).
Aug 27, 14 12:51 pm ·
·
I just want to be clear that I was not implying at any instance that we would not do due diligence of code review before submitting codes. Most of us building designers with education & experience does do code review of plans before submission. It is just that, if we made a mistake, there is another pair of eyes increasing probability of detection of errors and correct them.
My point was the need for architectural licensing is less now than it was in late 1890s and early half of the 20th century due to building codes and enforcement program.
We can still regulate our activities as professionals.
richard, the point i was trying to make is that the architect is responsible, regardless of whether there is a city plans examiner or not.
in context, i was responding to your statement about building officials:
Remember, architectural licensing is no longer needed as much as it might have been in the earliest days of licensing laws. Reason: State wide adoption and enforcement of building codes with building officials and inspectors with at least one or two B.O.s and a number of plan reviewers, building inspectors, etc. in each county and incorporated municipality.
from what i got out of that statement, you seem to think the building officials have some responsibility in the design process. they don't. those plans reviewers don't typically have the education and licensing requirements an architect has, and they aren't responsible for making sure a building meets code. it's nice to have them as a way to double-check everything was caught, but the building officials do not reduce the responsibility of the architect, and therefore don't reduce the need for architectural licensing.
i think the link you provided is just to point out that building designers are also held to a reasonable standard of care? that's fine, but even in ohio, you need an architect to take responsibility for projects that require an architect right? so, as a building designer, you're held to the same standard of care, but if it's a non-exempt project that requires an architect, you need to bring in an architect to be held to that standard of care. that doesn't mean that architectural licensing isn't needed, it just means that you can design houses without bringing in someone with a license.
Aug 27, 14 1:01 pm ·
·
FYI:
You can get professional liability insurance if you are unlicensed. They prefer you be at least certified like NCBDC certified.
I can prove it to you if you want. They may charge more on premium if you have no certification or license based on risk.
Another FYI:
The statutory definition of the word: "Architect" and "practice of architect" and so forth is for the context of interpreting and enforcing state codified statutes. The definitions in the administrative rules are for defining the intended meaning of the words in the context of interpreting and enforcing the administrative rules.
They are not the begin all.... end all of definitions for the word 'Architect'.
Who said anything about practicing "architecture" We are talking about practicing in areas related to architecture or doing work which is architectural by nature, or legally designing exempt projects.
this is not what i'm talking about. i don't think very many people in this thread are talking about this.
we are talking about whether your advertising material can be written in such a way as to make people think you can submit plans that require an architect, when you can't submit plans that require an architect.
Its a debate about protecting the term architectural from being used to describe things that are architectural.
no - this is a debate about whether someone who is not licensed to practice architecture can advertise that they sell 'architectural plans'.
pretty much every state will fine you if you do this. it has nothing to do with whether something in the built environment is architecture or not.
do you understand? i can't make it any clearer.
Aug 27, 14 1:18 pm ·
·
jla-x:
Regarding Charles Eames, what state did he practice in and when did they have architectural licensing in that state?
Architectural licensing began in a given state when the laws were enacted. Before hand, anyone can call himself/herself an architect.
It also must be kept in mind how the particular states handled the issue of grandfathering clause of the licensing laws. Did they get a license or did they just somehow catalogged with whatever identification record they have such as some number like a tax identification number and that was used as proof of identity. Whatever mechanism they had at the time for that. We need to understand how they were running these laws.
we are talking about whether your advertising material can be written in such a way as to make people think you can submit plans that require an architect, when you can't submit plans that require an architect.
if they do require an architect then they cant get built and no harm is done. This is what Carrerra was saying. Are we trying to protect the hsw of the consumer or the time and aggravation of the consumer. just saying, its a waste of time because anyone doing this will quickly be out of business anyway or they will have to change their advertising, especially these days with internet reviews and all. this is not the job of the state. the state is there to protect the hsw of the public. this hsw argument is valid with regards to certain things like schools hospitals, etc...certain projects do present a public hsw risk, and some of these risks are beyond codes. Example: a hospital surgery room with poor proximity to radiology...etc...I get it. What I do not understand is why people like myself who have zero interest in doing work like that have to be hush hush about doing non-life threatening and legal architectural design work. there are grey zones, and these grey zones should be embraced rather than shunned, especially in a profession that is continuously losing areas of specialty to other professions. I don't understand this exclusive attitude. No one wants to take your work away. We just want to accurately describe ours with the most appropriate terms so to convey our services and our areas of specialty to potential clients be it "architectural rendering" "architectural energy modeling" "architectural art" "Residential Architectural design." These niche areas are growing and are of value to the overall health of the profession. I dislike this anti-inclusive anti-creative environment. Who/what has it served besides the egos of architects?
Aug 27, 14 1:33 pm ·
·
This topic wasn't about the moral of the licensing law. It is about informing the OP what he/she may be allowed to do in use of the word "architectural" in connection to activities of his/her business so as to keep him/her out of legal trouble.
If people do not have a clue to answer directly the question(s) and so forth should just STFU. It is noise. This person's very business success depends on it. The fines the TBAE may levy can take him/her out of business and lead to loss of possessions. It is a serious legal matter and if you can't talk coherent about the legal point, then shut up.
It isn't about should we have licensing or not. Lets get back to point.
The point is what is allowed under the laws as it is RIGHT now. Not what we might like the law to be. Okay.
Let's be fair for the OP.
The OP needs to understand what the law is and how the board is going to enforce things in order to make the best decisions so as to not be levied fines like $500,000. It's no joke, TBAE has a notorious history and they will fine to the maximum amount per day all the way back to statutes of limitations (if there is any) or to the very recorded day of use. They will hammer to max to make you a poster child. That's Texas Board of Architect Examiners.... sometimes a bit like a Kangaroo court at times.
no - this is a debate about whether someone who is not licensed to practice architecture can advertise that they sell 'architectural plans'.
pretty much every state will fine you if you do this. it has nothing to do with whether something in the built environment is architecture or not.
do you understand? i can't make it any clearer.
I have already addressed this! You are not getting the point.
I understand that it is illegal. What I am saying is that the law is not static. The law can be challenged and changed. This is the US and unlike some people I like liberty and minimal government intrusion. I am not a hard line libertarian because I do believe that the state should put money into schools, bridges, etc....so I consider my views more minimalist than absolute...That said, there are many laws that do not make sense. I am arguing over the logic of banning words like architectural. It makes no sense, protects no one, and it is possibly a violation of free speech and or a violation of economic liberty and property rights, which then means that It should/could be ignored and challenged. The state can regulate practice and title, but it cannot regulate the appropriate and accurate marketing material of unregulated and legal practice, because this infringes upon ones economic liberty without providing due process. It is illegal to tell designers, who legally design architecture, that they cannot call themselves architectural designers. This is why it is important to decide "whether something in the built environment is architecture or not." If it is, and the design of it is legal, then the designer designed architecture and is therefore an architectural designer. Get it?
Are we trying to protect the hsw of the consumer or the time and aggravation of the consumer.
if this is the case then why haven't we banned like every crappy product that breaks when you take it out the box, every lousy restaurant, the barbershop that shaved the hair to far above my right ear which resulted in me being the butt of many jokes lol.....ect
protections against bad business are not the job of the state unless fraud is commited. This is a reactionary power though not a preventative one.
This is why it is important to decide "whether something in the built environment is architecture or not." If it is, and the design of it is legal, then the designer designed architecture and is therefore an architectural designer. Get it?
so who decides what is 'architecture' and what is not? because that person or persons would then be the ones deciding if you could say you provide 'architectural plans'.
are you the decider? george w.? who?
and i have agreed several times in this thread that designers, artists, and even diy weekend warriors sometimes make architecture. i would also add architects often do not create architecture, even when they are required to stamp/sign plans (most strip malls, for example).
the law as you want it to be would be blindingly grey as opposed to the current law which is pretty damn straightforward and black-and-white.
FOR THE RECORD: Restorative justice: An article in the Aug. 18 A section on the design of spaces conducive to restorative justice referred to Deanna VanBuren as an architect. While VanBuren has practiced in the field for 15 years, she is required by the American Institute of Architects to define herself as a designer because she is not licensed. —
jla, i would also point out that this is not an 'exclusive' club. i'm pretty sure every architect in this thread and on this site would be perfectly happy to let you become an architect. it is your choice not to join this "exclusive club," none of us are trying to keep you out. it will require you to get real-life experience, and take a test, and pay fees to ncarb. that's just how it is.
That retraction was wrong: The AIA can't require anyone to do anything. California as a state requires people to meet specific criteria to use the term architect. It may have been the AIA who alerted the LATimes that the use of the term was incorrect, but the AIA doesn't have any ability to limit what a person calls him/herself.
Aug 27, 14 3:55 pm ·
·
jla-x:
Let me make it clear, how is this dialogue about what the laws should be helpful to the original poster. Everyone knows the law is not static and can be changed. That is politics and the due process of legislation.
The point is not to hijack the discussion. Create a thread dedicated to discussing what the laws should be. The original poster doesn't need to know what it should be but what it is, now. The original poster can address the changes as they happen but the law is a certain way and laws are changed at the will of the people for and against the changes. Too much friction to change and change doesn't happen. It's politics. You just need enough supporter to support change to overcome resistance.
Start your own thread discussion to discuss the logic of the licensing law and its rationale. However, that isn't the central point of this thread and topic. It's a tangent. The point isn't about stopping you from discussing such. Just move that tagent into its own thread where people will be more happy to discuss with you that end.
Donna:
AIA can not directly require anyone. However, AIA has influence because those in the licensing boards as architect members are almost all AIA members. However, that is the way it is.
jla-x, The way it is is is not what it can be but that's a different discussion.
Sorry for the continued tangent, but just wondering how do architectural engineers (whoever they are, IDK, but they exist, I met one once on a ski lift) and interior architects (something I've heard about people doing on archinect) get by with it? They are using the word.
Tint, it depends, I've not seen those two terms used in the real world and I am pretty sure that using any variant of architect in conjunction with a building industry profession is prohibited... at least I know it is where I practice since I've seen crack-downs on real-estate people who called themselves "mortgage architects" a few years ago due to possible confusion. I guess given it's scope, software architect is allowed?
I looked into it a bit, architectural engineers get P.E. licenses and their work is engineering geared towards buildings and the built environment (so includes dams, culverts, etc). In the U.S. they are not allowed to practice architecture, it is different in other countries. So in summary, they are clearly involved in the construction industry, they clearly don't get to stamp in lieu of an architect nor do they represent themselves as architects and yet they use the word and nobody throws them in the slammer.
i started out in an architecture engineering program. i believe the intent was that you could go on take the PE exam and start an NCARB record; you could be both an architect and an engineer at the same time. i did not pursue the engineering aspect. i've met people who are both architect and lawyer too.
i think it's hard to be both both an architect and engineer, because at certain times i believe you're required to yell at yourself and be angry with yourself for putting a thermostat in the wrong location or something like that.
interior architect is kind of like software architect. i don't think anyone takes them serious, do they? or, they're actual architects with a focus on interiors perhaps.
We founded this Nation on the principal that it was The People who gave the Government permission to do things and now it has turned completely around. While a Nation of Laws we have become more so a Nation of Regulations. No one likes this and we could discuss this forever but the one thing this country never does is turn around in its tracks.
As architects, licensed and unlicensed, our biggest problem is ourselves. We fight like cats-and-dogs over turf and projects - just killing each other instead of killing the problem. The problem is that we have never learned how to make ourselves indispensable….we are thought of as being unnecessary and as “necessary evils” by the public. A former, older partner of mine once said “if we had enough money there wouldn’t be any problems”. That states the case.
What we should be doing here is figuring out how to make more money and while there are a lot of ways….lets get back to regulation. Regulation is here to stay and is going to get worse not better. With little that can be done about it we should all look at it as a solution. It’s almost there in most places and I’m glad to finally see it my state…..tighten the screws so tight on the public that nobody can fart without an architect. It will create a ton more work especially for the unlicensed who can and should be licensed for things now exempt (with much more added).
Somebody here has to be the pied piper on making more money and while I can’t hear a pipe yet maybe I can play the tune.
Aug 27, 14 5:26 pm ·
·
tint,
Because it is an exception built into the exceptions of that state. In Oregon, you can't call yourself an architectural engineer even if you taken it via NCEES. After all it is simply the discipline of the engineering. However, the engineer's official title is "Professional Engineer".
As for Interior Architect, it is because it would be an exemption and that they established in the particular state through legislative action the same way for Landscape Architect. In Oregon, there is no "interior architect" license as of yet so they are called interior designer while there is landscape architect license.
How does naval architect be accepted because they are licensed by the engineering board but it's in the exemption since the adoption of the licensing law so they would not be affected by the licensing law.
Aug 27, 14 5:29 pm ·
·
curtham,
An architectural engineer is a multidisciplinary engineer. Theoretically, if I were to get licensed as an engineer from a building designer perspective and took the Principle of Engineering Exam in "Architectural Engineering" and also Structural, Civil, Mechanical and Electrical and so forth after taking the F.E. exam and the NCBDC certification, I could effective practice 'architecture' and although I may or may not be able to use the word architectural.... I could still use the building designer title and engineer title and be literally above and beyond any architect that only has an architect license.
I would be the proverbial worst nightmare for OBAE where I can design whatever I want to design and do the calculations and with construction contractor license..... build it.
That is an option that I am considering. Would I be an "Architect" from the licensing board perspective? No. Would I effectively be one from a larger common word... probably. Would I effectively practice architecture.... probably because of the grey area overlap that each discipline of engineering with the practice of engineering and that engineers can engage each discipline that they are competent in.
An architectural engineer specializes in MEP coordination with structure and environmental systems, by definition, and in practice.
A structural engineer designs the structures of buildings.
RB, I know you are a big fancy Associate of the AIA, but you should really limit your comments to things you have direct knowledge of.
Sure the NCEES exam has "Architectural Engineer" as a category, but I will shit you a nice fresh twinkie if any of the older guys here have ever heard their structural consultant referred to as "Architectural Engineer" unless they were coordinating MEP.
Aug 27, 14 10:29 pm ·
·
Archanonymous,
I aren't getting what I am getting at.
Taking the following exams:
NCBDC Certification
F.E. exam
and all the Principle of Engineering exams for the disciplines of:
Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing and Civil Engineering.
Take the combination of the exams and it would be more intense then the ARE. If I did that, I would be well within measure to defend the ability to design any building of any size without necessarily having an architect license. There is a reason to my point.
Richie Poo, Do you have any idea how irritating it is to see your ridiculous title every time you make a post? Please delete it or we will all be listing our titles and it won't be pretty.
You would think based on the responses to this and similar threads the biggest issue facing architecture today is who can call themselves an architect. I was game for a few arguments for arguments sake but this is nuts. We should be discussing how to find new revenue streams or diversify into different market areas not arguing over who is and isn't an architect. After the last 5 years I would think the people who survived and are still in the business would be focused on how to avoid it happening again or at least how to know when its coming. You may be an intern now but next time you could be in charge and its too late once you see the crash coming to do anything about it.
OK, here's a suggestion: have states enter into their own reciprocal practice agreements with neighboring states without any involvement or BS fees by the NCARB.
The Word "Architectural"?
My former boss, a licensed architect, used to tell us all the time that the building department would catch anything that we didn't have right. I do think he was wrong, but that didn't stop him from doing it. It saved him a lot of work to not do code reviews and clients never caught on. He never bothered to look at plans before he stamped them either. Makes ya a little suspicious as an intern.
Tint, I have a project nearing completion where the city granted us an occupancy permit. As I walked the 20 or so floors looking for deficiencies, I noticed that one large warehouse/storage area on one basement level was missing all its Exit signs. Our lazy engineers missed it in their review and the city never bothered to check yet they signed off on it.
Our construction managers will tell us that the city said it was OK, but I'm not budging. If they need to send in a crew overnight on a Saturday, then that's what they need to do.
NS, scary! I'm glad no one died.
Tint, no client has moved offices into that part of the building yet, but I'm making sure this gets done before they do. I am also pressing for stainless steel exit signs in the public lobbies because shiny! but I digress.
But, the same city officials once tried to give me a hard time about joist spacing on a deck (they wanted doubled 10" joists 16" OC), so it's good to know they have top people looking at important things.
NS, as an intern architect, I used to coordinate between architectural, M & E sheets before jobs went to permiting. One thing I did was make sure the exit signs were all coordinated. What are your interns doing? They can do that, then you don't have to save the day in CA.
Tint, we did our own coordination in house in the CD phase as well. It's the p.eng site guys who did not verify that the electricians put up the signs during construction.
JLA-X
Obviously you are not an architect, as in you do not hold a license to practice architecture.
you wrote:
3. Don't get this one?
It was notion that just because you draw a square and call it a floor plan does not mean you are an architect. The cliche about "fool for client" speaks to the notion that being a lawyer is not just thinking you are one.
4. Architecture is an art and science that is practiced as a profession. Architecture is an adjective to describe a building or space.
Actually it is a noun http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/architecture
Architecture can exist without an architect. Example: maya Lin (not an architect) vietnam memorial = work of architecture.
the memorial is not architecture as defined by being a product of an architect. But even when considered as architecture it does not qualify maya Lin as an architect. For example, if i perform CPR on someone, that does not make me a medical doctor.
Architect is a title
above you said it was an adjective, make up your mind.
architecture and architectural are not titles. Title protection protects titles not descriptive words. Medical doctor = title medical device = not a title. Jim says " I design medical devises therefore I am a medical devise designer"
You are wrong, check your local State laws. Medical device designer is not a regulated "title" whereas architect is...and likewise any action where one leads the public to believe they are an architect is also regulated.
5. No irony at all.
You may be right, perhaps it is just laughable.
6. Never said that. The state passing legislation for the financial protection of some guild is inappropriate.
True, but that is not the case with architects
7. That's just lol funny. First, No you are not a doctor or a pilot and your work is not even remotely as dangerous as the work of a nurse (which takes 2 years to get license invluding school) or even a chef (which is unregulated) for that matter. Food poisoning kills way way more people than architecture.
Actually one has to acquire a license and pass exams to operate a kitchen that provides food to the public. Routine inspections occur as well which either perpetuate or void that license. So, in this case the term "restaurant" is being regulated.
Architects design abstract plans and must meet certain codes. There are engineers, contractors, inspectors, etc. There are checks. The regulation of the title is necessary to an extent, but the time it takes is way way out of line when compared to other far more "dangerous" professions. Your threat is not immediate and you will not even get a very very small commission without much experience because architecture clients have no urgency to build. Medical clients can be senile and can be brought into the hospital at 3 am with no time to check references. This never ever happens in architecture.
This makes no sense. You obviously know very little about the profession. You also ignore the very dramatic and costly events where buildings, due to design, have killed people. (i.e. Hyatt in Kansas). That you think an architect simply "draws" further demeans your position on this argument. This is precisely the reason the profession is regulated, a certain level of knowledge and responsibility is attributed to its practice because of its direct impact on the public's health and safety. "There are checks" is a true statement, but you fail to recognize that the architect is one of these "checks" - and that is why the term is regulated....and so is contractor, etc..
Architecture is also practiced by "anyone" in many countries and nothing horrible happens.
Dumbest reasoning ever. " I drink and drive all the time, never been in a wreck, so surely it is ok"
Liability has nothing to do with licensure. Anyone can sue anyone.
Then try to get professional liability insurance for unlicensed practice of architecture.
And, as I said, one can practice architectural design without a license.
One can perform surgery without a license also...so what?
One cannot fly a plane without a license. If one could fly a plane without a license then they would be an unlicensed pilot. LOl
No, they would just be unlicensed to fly a plane. Licensed pilot is a redundant statement. The guy flying you on Delta does not introduce himself as a licensed pilot....but simply as pilot. Point being, regulated professions include architecture. And you can be punished for pretending to be an architect.
subsubsubgenius
Caution!!! This is not Architecture...This is not Architectural...
I know who we call to resolve this:
jlx - dude, charles eames was an architect first. he quit to make furniture. (maybe he's on to something there...)
curtkram,
"richard, part of your apparent belief in licenses not being required is that the building department will take responsibility for your work because they review your drawings. kevin welch mentioned this earlier, too. this is not true. whether they find errors or omission or not, your designs and your decisions are you responsibility. saying 'the building department will catch it' is all the more reason why you might not be ready to be an architect yet."
That's really a bit of an urban myth. The building department doesn't take responsibility for anything. In Oregon, for example, I'm still can be sued for negligence and tort. No exemption, there.
If you want to know something, there technically isn't anything in the court judicial law called "professional standard of care" or "professional standard of reasonable care". It is called "standard of reasonable care". This judicial code applies to everyone for what they do. The principle of this judicial code is everyone is treated equal as required and mandated by the U.S. Constitution under the given standards. So for the same facts of a case such as two equal project, an architect and a building designer does two identical projects (speaking hypothetically) or substantially identical, both practitioners doing the project would be held to the same standard of reasonable care by the nature of the facts of the case. When judging if the party in a reasonably entrusted role of responsibility, such as an architect or building designer whom contracts us for services.... we are in this entrusted role of responsibility. We both be held to the same standard. When judging if we should know better, the facts about ourselves will be considered such as education, experience, license or certification where if possessing such, "should you have known better?" when evaluating negligence or tort.
Exemption from requiring a license and not possessing a license is not an exemption from liability for the unlicensed.
In Oregon, we have a law that pretty much makes it clear:
ORS 12.135
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/12.135
JLX-A
obviously you are confused.
Again, me knowing and performing CPR on someone, successfully saving their life does not qualify me as a medical doctor, no matter how many times i save them.
So, conversely, if you draft someone a house and it gets built and looks great! this does not entitle you to the title of architect to the general public.
Being a great draftsman and having great design intuition does not make you an architect, either from licensure position or in practice....sorry.
Then try to get professional liability insurance for unlicensed practice of architecture
Damn you really lack reading comp skills. Do they test for that on the ARE?
Who said anything about practicing "architecture" We are talking about practicing in areas related to architecture or doing work which is architectural by nature, or legally designing exempt projects. Its funny how you twist words and logic to fit your dull and narrow view.
The above projects are all done by unlicensed people. There are thousands upon thousands of other equally worthy examples. The designers range from artists, environmental designers, land artists, industrial designers, etc.....Your narrow view point is not so black and white. The above "designs" whether you like it or not are architecture and will be considered architecture well after all the cheap strip mall "architecture" crumbles down and gets forgotten. You are confusing the title "architect" with the adjective "architectural." While none of the above are designed by licensed architects, it is all architecture. The states definition is nothing more than legal jargon. A few hundred years ago blacks were not people according to the state. Does this mean that blacks were not people? The law is not always correct and it should not be accepted as the word of god.
Actually one has to acquire a license and pass exams to operate a kitchen that provides food to the public. Routine inspections occur as well which either perpetuate or void that license. So, in this case the term "restaurant" is being regulated.
Its quite simple and does not create a major barrier to entry as does architecture licensure. A food handlers license can be obtained in less than a month. The kitchen itself is regulated. Of course. That's fine. Regulate the game not the players. All for that.
Dumbest reasoning ever. " I drink and drive all the time, never been in a wreck, so surely it is ok"
Its not dumb reasoning and your analogy is very very weak. Other countries that have lower barriers to entry should show a higher incidence of death and injury via architecture if these barrier are supposed to lower death and injury via architecture. In comparable developed nations they do not. This implies that the high barriers to entry in this country are not as necessary as you and others claim them to be. I am not talking about the Congo either so please don't try to come back with some far stretch analogy. If you look at Northern European nations, Japan, etc...you will see my point.
One can perform surgery without a license also...so what?
Incorrect
One cannot fly a plane without a license. If one could fly a plane without a license then they would be an unlicensed pilot. LOl
No, they would just be unlicensed to fly a plane. Licensed pilot is a redundant statement. The guy flying you on Delta does not introduce himself as a licensed pilot....but simply as pilot. Point being, regulated professions include architecture. And you can be punished for pretending to be an architect.
Exactly. I think you just agreed with me inadvertently. Most people that practice architecture are not licensed to call themselves architects. Everyone who flys a plane is a pilot. So, either require the license to do the work (which would consequently force the industry to lower the barriers to entry,) or loosen the title restrictions to properly label the work and professionals.
jlx - dude, charles eames was an architect first. he quit to make furniture. (maybe he's on to something there...)
he was never licensed. He never completed school either.
but subgenius, someone who is not licensed to practice architecture can still design/create architecture. maya lin definitely makes architecture and james turrell probably wouldn't say he makes architecture but to me he does.
i don't know why i didn't do this earlier - the latest texas architectural board newsletter:
http://www.tbae.state.tx.us/Content/documents/Publications/July_Newsletter_4.pdf
check the disciplinary actions, especially this one from page 6:
Mr. Tyler is not registered as an architect in Texas, nor is his firm. In
2012 Mr. Tyler’s firm, Bella Vista Company, represented via its Web
site, a business sign, and a magazine advertisement that it offered
architectural services. In 2009, the respondent received a warning
letter from TBAE addressing the same or similar conduct.
$2,500 fine. this is exactly what claire wants to do - advertise that she provides 'architectural plans' which all these state architectural boards understand to be offering architectural services. it doesn't matter if claire's designs are architecture, she risks getting fined (and damn, texas fines big! california's are usually $500-$1500 or so).
I just want to be clear that I was not implying at any instance that we would not do due diligence of code review before submitting codes. Most of us building designers with education & experience does do code review of plans before submission. It is just that, if we made a mistake, there is another pair of eyes increasing probability of detection of errors and correct them.
My point was the need for architectural licensing is less now than it was in late 1890s and early half of the 20th century due to building codes and enforcement program.
We can still regulate our activities as professionals.
richard, the point i was trying to make is that the architect is responsible, regardless of whether there is a city plans examiner or not.
in context, i was responding to your statement about building officials:
Remember, architectural licensing is no longer needed as much as it might have been in the earliest days of licensing laws. Reason: State wide adoption and enforcement of building codes with building officials and inspectors with at least one or two B.O.s and a number of plan reviewers, building inspectors, etc. in each county and incorporated municipality.
from what i got out of that statement, you seem to think the building officials have some responsibility in the design process. they don't. those plans reviewers don't typically have the education and licensing requirements an architect has, and they aren't responsible for making sure a building meets code. it's nice to have them as a way to double-check everything was caught, but the building officials do not reduce the responsibility of the architect, and therefore don't reduce the need for architectural licensing.
i think the link you provided is just to point out that building designers are also held to a reasonable standard of care? that's fine, but even in ohio, you need an architect to take responsibility for projects that require an architect right? so, as a building designer, you're held to the same standard of care, but if it's a non-exempt project that requires an architect, you need to bring in an architect to be held to that standard of care. that doesn't mean that architectural licensing isn't needed, it just means that you can design houses without bringing in someone with a license.
FYI:
You can get professional liability insurance if you are unlicensed. They prefer you be at least certified like NCBDC certified.
I can prove it to you if you want. They may charge more on premium if you have no certification or license based on risk.
Another FYI:
The statutory definition of the word: "Architect" and "practice of architect" and so forth is for the context of interpreting and enforcing state codified statutes. The definitions in the administrative rules are for defining the intended meaning of the words in the context of interpreting and enforcing the administrative rules.
They are not the begin all.... end all of definitions for the word 'Architect'.
BEWARE PUBLIC! NOT ARCHITECTURAL! NOT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL!
PROTECT KITTENS! DO NOT USE TERM ARCHITECTURAL!
8 OUT OF 10 KITTENS WILL DIE BECAUSE OF UNLICENSED DESIGNERS USING TERMS LIKE ARCHITECT. ONLY THE AIA AND NCARB CAN SAVE THESE PRECIOUS BABIES!
jla-x, do you even understand the discussion in this thread?
Who said anything about practicing "architecture" We are talking about practicing in areas related to architecture or doing work which is architectural by nature, or legally designing exempt projects.
this is not what i'm talking about. i don't think very many people in this thread are talking about this.
we are talking about whether your advertising material can be written in such a way as to make people think you can submit plans that require an architect, when you can't submit plans that require an architect.
Yes FRaC,
Its a debate about protecting the term architectural from being used to describe things that are architectural.
Its a debate about protecting the term architectural from being used to describe things that are architectural.
nope. that's a different thread.
Yes FRaC,
Its a debate about protecting the term architectural from being used to describe things that are architectural.
no - this is a debate about whether someone who is not licensed to practice architecture can advertise that they sell 'architectural plans'.
pretty much every state will fine you if you do this. it has nothing to do with whether something in the built environment is architecture or not.
do you understand? i can't make it any clearer.
jla-x:
Regarding Charles Eames, what state did he practice in and when did they have architectural licensing in that state?
Architectural licensing began in a given state when the laws were enacted. Before hand, anyone can call himself/herself an architect.
It also must be kept in mind how the particular states handled the issue of grandfathering clause of the licensing laws. Did they get a license or did they just somehow catalogged with whatever identification record they have such as some number like a tax identification number and that was used as proof of identity. Whatever mechanism they had at the time for that. We need to understand how they were running these laws.
charles eames practiced in st louis. missouri's first architecture regulations started in 1941.
1941 is also when charles left his first wife to marry ray and moved out to california, who's first architect regulations were in 1901.
glad i could help.
we are talking about whether your advertising material can be written in such a way as to make people think you can submit plans that require an architect, when you can't submit plans that require an architect.
if they do require an architect then they cant get built and no harm is done. This is what Carrerra was saying. Are we trying to protect the hsw of the consumer or the time and aggravation of the consumer. just saying, its a waste of time because anyone doing this will quickly be out of business anyway or they will have to change their advertising, especially these days with internet reviews and all. this is not the job of the state. the state is there to protect the hsw of the public. this hsw argument is valid with regards to certain things like schools hospitals, etc...certain projects do present a public hsw risk, and some of these risks are beyond codes. Example: a hospital surgery room with poor proximity to radiology...etc...I get it. What I do not understand is why people like myself who have zero interest in doing work like that have to be hush hush about doing non-life threatening and legal architectural design work. there are grey zones, and these grey zones should be embraced rather than shunned, especially in a profession that is continuously losing areas of specialty to other professions. I don't understand this exclusive attitude. No one wants to take your work away. We just want to accurately describe ours with the most appropriate terms so to convey our services and our areas of specialty to potential clients be it "architectural rendering" "architectural energy modeling" "architectural art" "Residential Architectural design." These niche areas are growing and are of value to the overall health of the profession. I dislike this anti-inclusive anti-creative environment. Who/what has it served besides the egos of architects?
This topic wasn't about the moral of the licensing law. It is about informing the OP what he/she may be allowed to do in use of the word "architectural" in connection to activities of his/her business so as to keep him/her out of legal trouble.
If people do not have a clue to answer directly the question(s) and so forth should just STFU. It is noise. This person's very business success depends on it. The fines the TBAE may levy can take him/her out of business and lead to loss of possessions. It is a serious legal matter and if you can't talk coherent about the legal point, then shut up.
It isn't about should we have licensing or not. Lets get back to point.
The point is what is allowed under the laws as it is RIGHT now. Not what we might like the law to be. Okay.
Let's be fair for the OP.
The OP needs to understand what the law is and how the board is going to enforce things in order to make the best decisions so as to not be levied fines like $500,000. It's no joke, TBAE has a notorious history and they will fine to the maximum amount per day all the way back to statutes of limitations (if there is any) or to the very recorded day of use. They will hammer to max to make you a poster child. That's Texas Board of Architect Examiners.... sometimes a bit like a Kangaroo court at times.
Here is the TBAE: (Joke)
Enjoy the humor.
no - this is a debate about whether someone who is not licensed to practice architecture can advertise that they sell 'architectural plans'.
pretty much every state will fine you if you do this. it has nothing to do with whether something in the built environment is architecture or not.
do you understand? i can't make it any clearer.
I have already addressed this! You are not getting the point.
I understand that it is illegal. What I am saying is that the law is not static. The law can be challenged and changed. This is the US and unlike some people I like liberty and minimal government intrusion. I am not a hard line libertarian because I do believe that the state should put money into schools, bridges, etc....so I consider my views more minimalist than absolute...That said, there are many laws that do not make sense. I am arguing over the logic of banning words like architectural. It makes no sense, protects no one, and it is possibly a violation of free speech and or a violation of economic liberty and property rights, which then means that It should/could be ignored and challenged. The state can regulate practice and title, but it cannot regulate the appropriate and accurate marketing material of unregulated and legal practice, because this infringes upon ones economic liberty without providing due process. It is illegal to tell designers, who legally design architecture, that they cannot call themselves architectural designers. This is why it is important to decide "whether something in the built environment is architecture or not." If it is, and the design of it is legal, then the designer designed architecture and is therefore an architectural designer. Get it?
and to add to my point....
Are we trying to protect the hsw of the consumer or the time and aggravation of the consumer.
if this is the case then why haven't we banned like every crappy product that breaks when you take it out the box, every lousy restaurant, the barbershop that shaved the hair to far above my right ear which resulted in me being the butt of many jokes lol.....ect
protections against bad business are not the job of the state unless fraud is commited. This is a reactionary power though not a preventative one.
This is why it is important to decide "whether something in the built environment is architecture or not." If it is, and the design of it is legal, then the designer designed architecture and is therefore an architectural designer. Get it?
so who decides what is 'architecture' and what is not? because that person or persons would then be the ones deciding if you could say you provide 'architectural plans'.
are you the decider? george w.? who?
and i have agreed several times in this thread that designers, artists, and even diy weekend warriors sometimes make architecture. i would also add architects often do not create architecture, even when they are required to stamp/sign plans (most strip malls, for example).
the law as you want it to be would be blindingly grey as opposed to the current law which is pretty damn straightforward and black-and-white.
I guess if you want a real world example this story in the LA Times and the accompanying retraction will do :
http://www.latimes.com/local/great-reads/la-me-c1-restorative-justice-design-20140818-story.html#page=1
Retraction:
FOR THE RECORD:
Restorative justice: An article in the Aug. 18 A section on the design of spaces conducive to restorative justice referred to Deanna VanBuren as an architect. While VanBuren has practiced in the field for 15 years, she is required by the American Institute of Architects to define herself as a designer because she is not licensed. —
jla, i would also point out that this is not an 'exclusive' club. i'm pretty sure every architect in this thread and on this site would be perfectly happy to let you become an architect. it is your choice not to join this "exclusive club," none of us are trying to keep you out. it will require you to get real-life experience, and take a test, and pay fees to ncarb. that's just how it is.
That retraction was wrong: The AIA can't require anyone to do anything. California as a state requires people to meet specific criteria to use the term architect. It may have been the AIA who alerted the LATimes that the use of the term was incorrect, but the AIA doesn't have any ability to limit what a person calls him/herself.
jla-x:
Let me make it clear, how is this dialogue about what the laws should be helpful to the original poster. Everyone knows the law is not static and can be changed. That is politics and the due process of legislation.
The point is not to hijack the discussion. Create a thread dedicated to discussing what the laws should be. The original poster doesn't need to know what it should be but what it is, now. The original poster can address the changes as they happen but the law is a certain way and laws are changed at the will of the people for and against the changes. Too much friction to change and change doesn't happen. It's politics. You just need enough supporter to support change to overcome resistance.
Start your own thread discussion to discuss the logic of the licensing law and its rationale. However, that isn't the central point of this thread and topic. It's a tangent. The point isn't about stopping you from discussing such. Just move that tagent into its own thread where people will be more happy to discuss with you that end.
Donna:
AIA can not directly require anyone. However, AIA has influence because those in the licensing boards as architect members are almost all AIA members. However, that is the way it is.
jla-x, The way it is is is not what it can be but that's a different discussion.
Sorry for the continued tangent, but just wondering how do architectural engineers (whoever they are, IDK, but they exist, I met one once on a ski lift) and interior architects (something I've heard about people doing on archinect) get by with it? They are using the word.
Tint, it depends, I've not seen those two terms used in the real world and I am pretty sure that using any variant of architect in conjunction with a building industry profession is prohibited... at least I know it is where I practice since I've seen crack-downs on real-estate people who called themselves "mortgage architects" a few years ago due to possible confusion. I guess given it's scope, software architect is allowed?
I looked into it a bit, architectural engineers get P.E. licenses and their work is engineering geared towards buildings and the built environment (so includes dams, culverts, etc). In the U.S. they are not allowed to practice architecture, it is different in other countries. So in summary, they are clearly involved in the construction industry, they clearly don't get to stamp in lieu of an architect nor do they represent themselves as architects and yet they use the word and nobody throws them in the slammer.
i started out in an architecture engineering program. i believe the intent was that you could go on take the PE exam and start an NCARB record; you could be both an architect and an engineer at the same time. i did not pursue the engineering aspect. i've met people who are both architect and lawyer too.
i think it's hard to be both both an architect and engineer, because at certain times i believe you're required to yell at yourself and be angry with yourself for putting a thermostat in the wrong location or something like that.
interior architect is kind of like software architect. i don't think anyone takes them serious, do they? or, they're actual architects with a focus on interiors perhaps.
We founded this Nation on the principal that it was The People who gave the Government permission to do things and now it has turned completely around. While a Nation of Laws we have become more so a Nation of Regulations. No one likes this and we could discuss this forever but the one thing this country never does is turn around in its tracks.
As architects, licensed and unlicensed, our biggest problem is ourselves. We fight like cats-and-dogs over turf and projects - just killing each other instead of killing the problem. The problem is that we have never learned how to make ourselves indispensable….we are thought of as being unnecessary and as “necessary evils” by the public. A former, older partner of mine once said “if we had enough money there wouldn’t be any problems”. That states the case.
What we should be doing here is figuring out how to make more money and while there are a lot of ways….lets get back to regulation. Regulation is here to stay and is going to get worse not better. With little that can be done about it we should all look at it as a solution. It’s almost there in most places and I’m glad to finally see it my state…..tighten the screws so tight on the public that nobody can fart without an architect. It will create a ton more work especially for the unlicensed who can and should be licensed for things now exempt (with much more added).
Somebody here has to be the pied piper on making more money and while I can’t hear a pipe yet maybe I can play the tune.
tint,
Because it is an exception built into the exceptions of that state. In Oregon, you can't call yourself an architectural engineer even if you taken it via NCEES. After all it is simply the discipline of the engineering. However, the engineer's official title is "Professional Engineer".
As for Interior Architect, it is because it would be an exemption and that they established in the particular state through legislative action the same way for Landscape Architect. In Oregon, there is no "interior architect" license as of yet so they are called interior designer while there is landscape architect license.
How does naval architect be accepted because they are licensed by the engineering board but it's in the exemption since the adoption of the licensing law so they would not be affected by the licensing law.
curtham,
An architectural engineer is a multidisciplinary engineer. Theoretically, if I were to get licensed as an engineer from a building designer perspective and took the Principle of Engineering Exam in "Architectural Engineering" and also Structural, Civil, Mechanical and Electrical and so forth after taking the F.E. exam and the NCBDC certification, I could effective practice 'architecture' and although I may or may not be able to use the word architectural.... I could still use the building designer title and engineer title and be literally above and beyond any architect that only has an architect license.
I would be the proverbial worst nightmare for OBAE where I can design whatever I want to design and do the calculations and with construction contractor license..... build it.
That is an option that I am considering. Would I be an "Architect" from the licensing board perspective? No. Would I effectively be one from a larger common word... probably. Would I effectively practice architecture.... probably because of the grey area overlap that each discipline of engineering with the practice of engineering and that engineers can engage each discipline that they are competent in.
It is not a road for the timid, either.
what? no.
An architectural engineer specializes in MEP coordination with structure and environmental systems, by definition, and in practice.
A structural engineer designs the structures of buildings.
RB, I know you are a big fancy Associate of the AIA, but you should really limit your comments to things you have direct knowledge of.
Sure the NCEES exam has "Architectural Engineer" as a category, but I will shit you a nice fresh twinkie if any of the older guys here have ever heard their structural consultant referred to as "Architectural Engineer" unless they were coordinating MEP.
Archanonymous,
I aren't getting what I am getting at.
Taking the following exams:
NCBDC Certification
F.E. exam
and all the Principle of Engineering exams for the disciplines of:
Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering, Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing and Civil Engineering.
Take the combination of the exams and it would be more intense then the ARE. If I did that, I would be well within measure to defend the ability to design any building of any size without necessarily having an architect license. There is a reason to my point.
Richie Poo, Do you have any idea how irritating it is to see your ridiculous title every time you make a post? Please delete it or we will all be listing our titles and it won't be pretty.
Considering his profile (unlike yours or mine) is not anonymous and is open to the public, I don't see what the problem is with including it....
You would think based on the responses to this and similar threads the biggest issue facing architecture today is who can call themselves an architect. I was game for a few arguments for arguments sake but this is nuts. We should be discussing how to find new revenue streams or diversify into different market areas not arguing over who is and isn't an architect. After the last 5 years I would think the people who survived and are still in the business would be focused on how to avoid it happening again or at least how to know when its coming. You may be an intern now but next time you could be in charge and its too late once you see the crash coming to do anything about it.
OK, here's a suggestion: have states enter into their own reciprocal practice agreements with neighboring states without any involvement or BS fees by the NCARB.
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.