From the CDC (Mightyaa completely misinterpreted one of the stats so I'm reposting it):
From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day.
Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools. Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects). Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes
Barriers, such as pool fencing, prevent young children from gaining access to the pool area without caregivers’ awareness. A four-sided isolation fence (separating the pool area from the house and yard) reduces a child’s risk of drowning 83% compared to three-sided property-line fencing....Also, consider additional barriers such as automatic door locks and alarms to prevent access or alert you if someone enters the pool area.
It seems totally reasonable to me to have laws that save children's lives. Maybe a couple of you have pools and your kids didn't drown, but that's anecdotal. And, what if they had?
Kids don't die as much as they would in pools, or choking between the bars of cribs because we have decided that a little extra expense, and maybe even a headache for designers, is worth it if that means that people are made safer. It's not nanny-statism, it's just prudent.
Agree.
Feb 25, 16 3:59 pm ·
·
On the fence wrote:
"The pool is a much larger danger than the roads actually. Statistics prove this. Besides, people leave back doors open and you just push the screen door, then find your child at the bottom of the pool. The front door is usually much more solid, is usually or more often closed, and typically has a dead bolt on it. Yes, sure a two year old child could possibly reach up high enough to twist the dead bolt and maybe apply enough force to get that front door open, and maybe get to the front porch, out onto the grass, and if that far probably sits down. If any further, drivers see the child before rolling over them. So the front door argument is kind of pointless.
Windows actually have a code section for them as well in the 2006 IRC section 613 exception #2 which a guard complying with ASTM F 2006 or F 2090 This is usually a sash limiter device made of plastic which pops out from the side and keeps the window from opening more than 4 inches.
If architects such as the ones here would spend some time getting their continuing education requirements for Health, Safety and Wellfare, instead of for touring Frank LLoyd Wright homes, matching color fabric swatches and plumbing fixtures to suit tile patterns, I would be out of a job as a Plans examiner.
Also, there are other options for you besides the cheap UL2017 alarm for the door.
Read a code book once in a while."
I do read the code book. By the way, continuing education with regards to health, safety and welfare *IS* a requirement of architects for license renewal.
However, no amount of building codes supplants responsibility of the parents, legal guardian and other persons charged with the responsibility of children.
Lazy incompetence and negligence is lazy incompetence and negligence. Period.
As design professionals, regardless of being licensed or unlicensed, has a responsibility to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of their design as would be reasonably expected standard of responsible care on the course of the work. We all have a duty of care in our role.
The role of an unlicensed building designer designing a house is no different for all that matters as the role of an architect designing a house. The responsibility is the same. So shall the basic standard of responsible care in the work.
I guess being a licensed plan checker makes you even more of an egotistical asshole?
like I said before - your license is useless because you gave up on the craft.
Sit in your cube and shit on those trying to execute....remember there are millions of dollars and jobs associated with building projects and permits...oh wait, you are the guy that checks 2 lvl's on a garage header..so not so much in your case...keep climbing that ladder jr.
Re "By the way, continuing education with regards to health, safety and welfare *IS* a requirement of architects for license renewal" - that's not true in several states. Some require no HSW at all, and some others indiscriminately accept AIA LUs or HSWs (meaning all of one's state-required continuing ed might be earned by doing software or graphic design tutorials.)
^ Safety is an important consideration, but it is not the ONLY consideration. Cost, convenience and personal preference also deserve consideration. If I owned that house, didn't have any children around, and was hosting a pool party, I would be irritated as hell at having to listen to an alarm go off every time somebody went in and out of the house. Don't my wishes count when it is my own house?
If the only consideration is preventing swimming pool drownings, the answer is simple: Just ban swimming pools. Why not?
If preventing traffic deaths were the only consideration, just ban left turns, which probably account for the bulk of serious accidents. Or better yet, just ban cars entirely and make people walk. Or maybe even better, make them crawl since they would be less likely to trip and fall on something.
Calling your mother every week is also a good idea. Maybe we need a regulation for that, too.
Al De Vido - Chris, correct me if I'm wrong - lost his ass because of a death due to a basement door swinging in over a stairwell.
The municipality that approved the plans - for code compliance and healthy, safety and welfare - stamped the approved drawing (with the violation clearly drawn) with a big red stamp 'not liable for omissions and errors'. Maybe if one of those idiot plan inspectors had done his job - or known HOW to do his job - a life would have been saved.
I believe it's called 'belt AND suspenders', and in that instance both failed, but only one was liable.
Feb 25, 16 4:46 pm ·
·
Which, if any of you on this thread, are licensed architects?
Show of hands please
On the Fence,
What does licensed or being a licensed architect have anything to do with anything? Basically, in Oregon, I (a building designer.... ie. unlicensed designer) have the same liability and responsibility as an architect when it comes to exempt buildings. Exemption from licensure is not an exemption from responsibility.
come on chiguhr, 'egotistical asshole' isn't someone trying to earn a living at an honest job. it's good that he has something of a passion for what he does. you can have fun with your craft without tearing down other people.
Feb 25, 16 4:50 pm ·
·
"Re "By the way, continuing education with regards to health, safety and welfare *IS* a requirement of architects for license renewal" - that's not true in several states. Some require no HSW at all, and some others indiscriminately accept AIA LUs or HSWs (meaning all of one's state-required continuing ed might be earned by doing software or graphic design tutorials.)"
Then those states shouldn't be holding architectural licensing at all otherwise the licensing becomes ineffective. Not my problem... but thanks for clarifying that. It definitely raises concerns in those states about the competency over HSW matters. I thought it was a normal requirement for continuing education matters.
Geezer, you don't have to listen to the alarm, you just press the bypass button. Hardly the same as banning swimming pools. A tinyinconvenience to you is a small price to pay for a toddler not drowning.
But yeah, require reasonable precautions and the next thing you know the nanny state is going to force you crawl to Sunday dinner at your mom's. Get real.
Feb 25, 16 4:53 pm ·
·
"^ Safety is an important consideration, but it is not the ONLY consideration. Cost, convenience and personal preference also deserve consideration."
Geezer, you don't have to listen to the alarm, you just press the bypass button.
just to be clear, it's already been stated that the devices are removed after the final inspection... no button to push if you're sterile and have no children in your neighborhood and all that. as long as they design the devices to be easily removed without leaving a mess due to demolition, everyone wins.
i don't have experience with residential and i don't have a swimming pool, so i can't speak much to the specific code section this is referring to. however, if the code needs to be changed, that should be done through the ICC, not through the plans examiner. the architect has a responsibility to design to code whether they agree with it or not.
Feb 25, 16 4:57 pm ·
·
Actually,
it should be done through the STATE department/agency/etc. responsible for the building codes adoption and amendment in the state.
ICC only produces a model code. It is up to the state to adopt and amend the code as they see fit.
And, to follow up on what curt said, those of us on this forum who are actually working in architecture have a profession responsibility to the health and welfare of our clients and the public. Code isn't perfect, the legalese can be hard to wade through, but we're talking about regulations that help us do our jobs. We should consider them the baseline, not an impediment.
Yes, there can be problems dealing with planning staff, but I think that where I'm working at least, they're trying to do the right thing for the public. Think about trying to convince cheapskate developers to implement ADA, or trying to explain why they need fire rated walls that add to their costs if there wasn't a legal requirement - like it or not, regulations help us meet our professional responsibilities.
I once had to use a specific code (more of a local zoning thing) for a rich cottage area. It was not HLS heavy since that was determined by the real building code, but it dictated size, use and finishes of residential construction specific to the look of the surrounding properties... all nestled away in the forest.
One clause I remember well was where they specifically dictate that no primary residence or auxiliary building could be in the shape of an animal or fruit. No mention of vegetable shaped houses so I guess that's an option.
Discourse is all well and good, but this tete-a-tete got started when someone missed an opportunity for discussion and decided this was somehow the mature way to continue:
"If architects such as the ones here would spend some time getting their continuing education requirements for Health, Safety and Wellfare, instead of for touring Frank LLoyd Wright homes, matching color fabric swatches and plumbing fixtures to suit tile patterns, I would be out of a job as a Plans examiner.
Also, there are other options for you besides the cheap UL2017 alarm for the door.
Read a code book once in a while."
So I feel pretty secure in saying, once again, fuck off little code examiner.
as long as they design the devices to be easily removed without leaving a mess due to demolition, everyone wins.
Everyone doesn't win. The owner has been forced to buy a system that he fully intends to disable, and nobody ends up being safer. Money is wasted for nothing. It's just a silly game because some code writers don't know when to put down their pens.
Nobody is opposed to reasonable safety regulations, but we disagree on what is reasonable.
I don't have a problem with the intent. But there needs to be a bypass swtich; it's reasonable. Basically, I do own a pool and like a regular person, have bbq's and pool parties where the door is left open and a lot of people are coming in and out. But there would be times I'd leave it enabled. When you'd want it or not is often circumstantial.
Should also note that the window of time a child doesn't have a healthy respect for water (based on coughing up said water after a dunking by siblings) and knowing how to get themselves to an edge is really such a short period of their lives. Mine are all teenagers now... So the new pool fear is a drunken party and the proximity of the roof to the pool might be a temptation. That switch they long ago would have figured out (which if a child can figure out how to use a doorknob, they'll figure out to hit the switch too so Mom doesn't hear what they are doing).
"So I feel pretty secure in saying, once again, fuck off little code examiner."
I didnt realize i was that insulting. I apologize sincerely. But only God knows why an intern took that so much to heart. It really wasnt meant to troll the students on this board, and it did bring about some good debate. Who knows, maybe a few people will benefit from this tête-à-tête as you put it.
We shouldn't blame the plans checkers, who are just enforcing regulations written by others. My beef is with the people who come up with these regulations without considering the real world context. They are the ones at fault.
In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools. Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects). Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes
...Despite pool alarms
On the Fence,
What does licensed or being a licensed architect have anything to do with anything? Basically, in Oregon, I (a building designer.... ie. unlicensed designer) have the same liability and responsibility as an architect when it comes to exempt buildings. Exemption from licensure is not an exemption from responsibility.
There's no fault. Human institutions aren't ever going to be perfect. Yeah, absolutely things can get a little silly sometimes. But think about how many people would have burned to death or been trapped under rubble, or have been excluded from jobs or public participation because of disabilities without modern building codes.
We can always do better. And architects should have a voice in making code smarter. But bitching about the nanny state makes ya'll sound like a bunch of paranoid militia nutjobs.
The intent of this thread, to laugh about the inane things that happen in when bureaucracies make rules is totally legitimate. But if you really believe that we're being infantilized by laws made in a democratic society meant to keep people from dying unnecessarily, you're selfish and delusional.
licensed in 2, about to be 3.......a small township just decided all walls need to be R-19 regardless of what can be shown in Rescheck and math, mainly because one half the building dept., one inspector, told the GC he could have R-13 if the Architect proved it true in Rescheck (i did, 2x4 can be r-19 with spray cellular yada but that is cost prohibitive) the other half of the building dept., the other inspector - decided after all was installed it should all be ripped out and R-19. The GC confronted the DOB on this - racket or shit show - new policy - R-19...........the 110%, well my buddy whose second language is English who doesnt realize the difference btw building code and the zoning ordinance gets paid better than anyone with same experience and is a city benefit bu tbinking is hard (they are coached that way).....so a good reason to become a plan examinern, be dumb and paid well. there are a few smart ones but most prefer language "cause its to code" over legalise..........
Where's the part of the process where practicing architects provide feedback about actual problems they have with the code?
At what point is an architect more than a person who wrestles the code?
Feb 25, 16 7:05 pm ·
·
SneakyPete,
ICC itself has Code Development Cycles. You may want to look into that for updates and amendment to the model code.
There is also the state code development cycle. This is usually connected with a division or agency or department of the state. Each state does this differently. In some states, it maybe a municipal or county level doing this. You have to look at how the code is amended and adopted in your state and local level.
In Oregon, we have a Building Code Division. They are responsible for adopting the building codes and making amendments to the codes. Another state will likely handle things their own way.
I can likely help figure the stuff out in Oregon and possibly Washington but other states, will require more work. In my state, an architect or whoever may participate in the committee in charge of building code division.
Architects are in fact on code committees, so are firemen, insurance lawyers, manufacturers, etc etc. they have meetings all the time regarding code changes and updates. People are encouraged to attend.
Some codes are exaggerated, but all in all we are much safer with them...I personally feel like there is less of a burden on me as a designer having a basic safety guideline to follow...licensure on the other hand is unnecessary regulation imo.
jla, if one logically analyzes the legal requirements for a licensed architect and then runs the process to get the license up against it, it doesn't hold muster.
Im generally not here to flame people so anybody that wants to have a dialogue on any subject with me will usually get a straight answer. I hope for the same back.
Architects are in fact on code committees, so are firemen, insurance lawyers, manufacturers, etc etc. they have meetings all the time regarding code changes and updates. People are encouraged to attend.
Depends on jurisdiction. My local does ask for our opinions and has focus groups. Thing is, it is by invite only. The newish CBO in my area is one of those who believes 'technical aspects' aren't associated with architecture (we just make things pretty). It's filled with engineers and contractors; "those that make it work".
So instead of training their inspectors to examine and understand flashing and watershed, they just pass a code amendment that forces everyone to cover the whole roof with ice & water because it's harder to screw that up and easy to inspect on a driveby. But oops... they also don't inspect attic ventilation and are generally clueless how condensation forms... So the very rot they were supposedly fixing continues to be an issue. But I just make it pretty... what do I know?
Oh.. same deal with crawlspace ventilation. Instead of training, require a licensed mechanical engineer to stamp the design.... Brilliant!
Team On the fence. Thanks for being so patient with these jerks, Otf.
There are a lot of nasty, useless, self-serving comments on this thread but this one by chigurh takes the cake:
your license is useless because you gave up on the craft.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshitbullshit! I've been saying for years that once you get the damn license you are then free to do whatever the hell you want with that knowledge and experience. Architecture is so much more than making pretty buildings while scoffing at anyone who disagrees with you because they simply don't understand your craft.
Whenever I picture you from now on chigurh this is what I'm going to see:
I am pretty certain that here in CA, the door just has to self close and self latch to be exempt of the alarm requirement. Dunno about your jurisdictions.
On the fence- More power to you and what you do. For good or bad, the Code is the one thing that levels the playing field for all actors that want to contribute to our built environment. It counters the entitlement felt by crusty old GCs with out of date notions of what is acceptable construction as much as the noobs who do not understand the code's utility in creating a safe and usable building. With the pool issue, I don't see it as a nanny state issue as much as protecting the public from an attractive nuisance, even if on private property, because who even owns a pool skimmer that won't buckle under the weight of an 80 pound child?
"Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist" Pablo Picasso
Feb 25, 16 9:20 pm ·
·
Donna,
If one wanted to do these things like being a plan reviewer or building official or any of these other occupations that doesn't require an architect license then why get the architect license. You don't need to be a licensed architect to be a plan reviewer.
This is why an architect license has so little use outside of designing NON-EXEMPT BUILDINGS. You don't need it because the license is ONLY for granting the use of the title and to design buildings not exempt from licensure. If you aren't doing that, there is no need to undergo architect licensure.
The ONLY reason to have the architect license is to design non-exempt buildings (and exempt buildings) while using the title Architect at the same time. Besides that, what's the point.
The ONLY reason to have the architect license is to design non-exempt buildings (and exempt buildings) while using the title Architect at the same time. Besides that, what's the point.
LOLWUT? I can think of a number of reasons one would get licensed outside of designing non-exempt buildings. If your imagination is so constrained as to not allow you to imagine any occupation where a license and the associated knowledge would not provide a tangible benefit, well- I'd love to see some of you work- PDFs y'know?
Feb 25, 16 9:47 pm ·
·
arch76,
SHOW ME! Aside from wiping your ass with it.
I don't believe anyone will want or care for one fucking second about your architect license if it isn't even going to be needed.
No one needs an architect license to be a project manager. No one needs an architect license to do CGI work for TV, movies or video games. No one needs such a license for any occupation that isn't regulated by some kind of occupational licensure program.
How does having an architectural license itself benefit any of any employer in which the work isn't under the regulation of the architectural licensing law?
My pet peeve (this week) - 42" residential guardrails. They are too high for residential buildings, they look out of proportion at a residential scale, and you can no longer align them with window sills at a normal height.
When I started designing houses, the height for guardrails in the code was 30". Then it went up to 36". A few years back it went to 42". Pretty soon it will be 60", and the code will also require that we wrap all human beings in bubble wrap when they get out of bed in the morning.
Feb 25, 16 10:16 pm ·
·
Soon enough, this is what American homes will look like:
1. lawyer that specializes in construction related disputes, like Schiff Hardin
2. owner's rep/ PM/ developer for a any company that builds any sort of brick and mortar buildings, nationwide, like Wells Fargo or Toll Bros
3. Curtain wall engineer/ designer for Kawneer or someone similar
Residential PM and GCI for video games merely scratches the surface at the knowledge an architect should possess. The options above may not require a license, but the knowledge you might gleen from getting the license will only help you in those careers.
I shouldn't expect anything else from the internet, but it surprises me often enough that I keep coming back for more.
Feb 25, 16 11:15 pm ·
·
1. You need a law degree and the attorney license. An architect license is not required. If I pursued a law career, I could conceivably do that. Having experience in architecture field would be helpful but being licensed as an architect is irrelevant.
2. PM/owner's rep doesn't necessarily require a license. If you are not designing, a license isn't required.
3. You might need to be a PE but being licensed as an architect doesn't necessarily mean anything. Somewhere along the line, the work may simply require a person to have just experience in either engineering or architecture but a license may or may not be required.
Doing CGI for video games is not the same as what you are educated and trained in as an architect. Often, you are using the wrong software that is geared for a completely different rendering process. Add to that, CGI work may require scripting and programming work. What you need to know to do CGI in video game development also requires a whole assortment of knowledge and skills and portfolio of work that architecture field and education alone does not encompass. That is why there is different degree programs at universities.
It requires a different set of knowledge & skills. While some of it is shared... some of it is not and you just can't walk in and expect a job just because you have an architect license.
You don't even have to pursue the license and gleen knowledge that can or maybe useful in such a career. You didn't prove a license is needed.
You don't have to work for an architect on a pursuit to be licensed or ever get the license.
Yes, there is transferable knowledge that can be and is applicable. Those soft skills and universal knowledge/skills are applicable but that was not what I was arguing against ever in the first place.
You didn't prove an architect license itself is useful. Your experience... maybe but the license is just a bureaucratic process to allow you to design non-exempt buildings and use the architect title.
Aside from that, it is irrelevant.
Just having universal skills don't get you the jobs.... not in the 21st century. We live in an age of specialization and you need to have specialized skills because we live in a time where there is so many more people looking for jobs than there are jobs. This is the era we live in. I'm not just talking about architecture field.
Retarded Codes
From the CDC (Mightyaa completely misinterpreted one of the stats so I'm reposting it):
From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day.
Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools. Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects). Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes
Barriers, such as pool fencing, prevent young children from gaining access to the pool area without caregivers’ awareness. A four-sided isolation fence (separating the pool area from the house and yard) reduces a child’s risk of drowning 83% compared to three-sided property-line fencing....Also, consider additional barriers such as automatic door locks and alarms to prevent access or alert you if someone enters the pool area.
It seems totally reasonable to me to have laws that save children's lives. Maybe a couple of you have pools and your kids didn't drown, but that's anecdotal. And, what if they had?
Kids don't die as much as they would in pools, or choking between the bars of cribs because we have decided that a little extra expense, and maybe even a headache for designers, is worth it if that means that people are made safer. It's not nanny-statism, it's just prudent.
Agree.
On the fence wrote:
"The pool is a much larger danger than the roads actually. Statistics prove this. Besides, people leave back doors open and you just push the screen door, then find your child at the bottom of the pool. The front door is usually much more solid, is usually or more often closed, and typically has a dead bolt on it. Yes, sure a two year old child could possibly reach up high enough to twist the dead bolt and maybe apply enough force to get that front door open, and maybe get to the front porch, out onto the grass, and if that far probably sits down. If any further, drivers see the child before rolling over them. So the front door argument is kind of pointless.
Windows actually have a code section for them as well in the 2006 IRC section 613 exception #2 which a guard complying with ASTM F 2006 or F 2090 This is usually a sash limiter device made of plastic which pops out from the side and keeps the window from opening more than 4 inches.
If architects such as the ones here would spend some time getting their continuing education requirements for Health, Safety and Wellfare, instead of for touring Frank LLoyd Wright homes, matching color fabric swatches and plumbing fixtures to suit tile patterns, I would be out of a job as a Plans examiner.
Also, there are other options for you besides the cheap UL2017 alarm for the door.
Read a code book once in a while."
I do read the code book. By the way, continuing education with regards to health, safety and welfare *IS* a requirement of architects for license renewal.
However, no amount of building codes supplants responsibility of the parents, legal guardian and other persons charged with the responsibility of children.
Lazy incompetence and negligence is lazy incompetence and negligence. Period.
As design professionals, regardless of being licensed or unlicensed, has a responsibility to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of their design as would be reasonably expected standard of responsible care on the course of the work. We all have a duty of care in our role.
The role of an unlicensed building designer designing a house is no different for all that matters as the role of an architect designing a house. The responsibility is the same. So shall the basic standard of responsible care in the work.
I guess being a licensed plan checker makes you even more of an egotistical asshole?
like I said before - your license is useless because you gave up on the craft.
Sit in your cube and shit on those trying to execute....remember there are millions of dollars and jobs associated with building projects and permits...oh wait, you are the guy that checks 2 lvl's on a garage header..so not so much in your case...keep climbing that ladder jr.
Re "By the way, continuing education with regards to health, safety and welfare *IS* a requirement of architects for license renewal" - that's not true in several states. Some require no HSW at all, and some others indiscriminately accept AIA LUs or HSWs (meaning all of one's state-required continuing ed might be earned by doing software or graphic design tutorials.)
^ Safety is an important consideration, but it is not the ONLY consideration. Cost, convenience and personal preference also deserve consideration. If I owned that house, didn't have any children around, and was hosting a pool party, I would be irritated as hell at having to listen to an alarm go off every time somebody went in and out of the house. Don't my wishes count when it is my own house?
If the only consideration is preventing swimming pool drownings, the answer is simple: Just ban swimming pools. Why not?
If preventing traffic deaths were the only consideration, just ban left turns, which probably account for the bulk of serious accidents. Or better yet, just ban cars entirely and make people walk. Or maybe even better, make them crawl since they would be less likely to trip and fall on something.
Calling your mother every week is also a good idea. Maybe we need a regulation for that, too.
Where does it end?
Al De Vido - Chris, correct me if I'm wrong - lost his ass because of a death due to a basement door swinging in over a stairwell.
The municipality that approved the plans - for code compliance and healthy, safety and welfare - stamped the approved drawing (with the violation clearly drawn) with a big red stamp 'not liable for omissions and errors'. Maybe if one of those idiot plan inspectors had done his job - or known HOW to do his job - a life would have been saved.
I believe it's called 'belt AND suspenders', and in that instance both failed, but only one was liable.
Which, if any of you on this thread, are licensed architects?
Show of hands please
On the Fence,
What does licensed or being a licensed architect have anything to do with anything? Basically, in Oregon, I (a building designer.... ie. unlicensed designer) have the same liability and responsibility as an architect when it comes to exempt buildings. Exemption from licensure is not an exemption from responsibility.
I'm with geezer on this one.
come on chiguhr, 'egotistical asshole' isn't someone trying to earn a living at an honest job. it's good that he has something of a passion for what he does. you can have fun with your craft without tearing down other people.
"Re "By the way, continuing education with regards to health, safety and welfare *IS* a requirement of architects for license renewal" - that's not true in several states. Some require no HSW at all, and some others indiscriminately accept AIA LUs or HSWs (meaning all of one's state-required continuing ed might be earned by doing software or graphic design tutorials.)"
Then those states shouldn't be holding architectural licensing at all otherwise the licensing becomes ineffective. Not my problem... but thanks for clarifying that. It definitely raises concerns in those states about the competency over HSW matters. I thought it was a normal requirement for continuing education matters.
Geezer, you don't have to listen to the alarm, you just press the bypass button. Hardly the same as banning swimming pools. A tiny inconvenience to you is a small price to pay for a toddler not drowning.
But yeah, require reasonable precautions and the next thing you know the nanny state is going to force you crawl to Sunday dinner at your mom's. Get real.
"^ Safety is an important consideration, but it is not the ONLY consideration. Cost, convenience and personal preference also deserve consideration."
geezertect,
I agree with you.
It's a balance.
I'm having a hard time figuring out if chigurh is the resident troll or just a troll-bot. Is this guy for real here?
Look, when you have something of substance to post, please post away. I mean otherwise, to me, you are like water off a ducks back.
Geezer, you don't have to listen to the alarm, you just press the bypass button.
just to be clear, it's already been stated that the devices are removed after the final inspection... no button to push if you're sterile and have no children in your neighborhood and all that. as long as they design the devices to be easily removed without leaving a mess due to demolition, everyone wins.
i don't have experience with residential and i don't have a swimming pool, so i can't speak much to the specific code section this is referring to. however, if the code needs to be changed, that should be done through the ICC, not through the plans examiner. the architect has a responsibility to design to code whether they agree with it or not.
Actually,
it should be done through the STATE department/agency/etc. responsible for the building codes adoption and amendment in the state.
ICC only produces a model code. It is up to the state to adopt and amend the code as they see fit.
And, to follow up on what curt said, those of us on this forum who are actually working in architecture have a profession responsibility to the health and welfare of our clients and the public. Code isn't perfect, the legalese can be hard to wade through, but we're talking about regulations that help us do our jobs. We should consider them the baseline, not an impediment.
Yes, there can be problems dealing with planning staff, but I think that where I'm working at least, they're trying to do the right thing for the public. Think about trying to convince cheapskate developers to implement ADA, or trying to explain why they need fire rated walls that add to their costs if there wasn't a legal requirement - like it or not, regulations help us meet our professional responsibilities.
you want bad codes? Come work in Chicago.
I once had to use a specific code (more of a local zoning thing) for a rich cottage area. It was not HLS heavy since that was determined by the real building code, but it dictated size, use and finishes of residential construction specific to the look of the surrounding properties... all nestled away in the forest.
One clause I remember well was where they specifically dictate that no primary residence or auxiliary building could be in the shape of an animal or fruit. No mention of vegetable shaped houses so I guess that's an option.
Discourse is all well and good, but this tete-a-tete got started when someone missed an opportunity for discussion and decided this was somehow the mature way to continue:
"If architects such as the ones here would spend some time getting their continuing education requirements for Health, Safety and Wellfare, instead of for touring Frank LLoyd Wright homes, matching color fabric swatches and plumbing fixtures to suit tile patterns, I would be out of a job as a Plans examiner.
Also, there are other options for you besides the cheap UL2017 alarm for the door.
Read a code book once in a while."
So I feel pretty secure in saying, once again, fuck off little code examiner.
as long as they design the devices to be easily removed without leaving a mess due to demolition, everyone wins.
Everyone doesn't win. The owner has been forced to buy a system that he fully intends to disable, and nobody ends up being safer. Money is wasted for nothing. It's just a silly game because some code writers don't know when to put down their pens.
Nobody is opposed to reasonable safety regulations, but we disagree on what is reasonable.
I don't have a problem with the intent. But there needs to be a bypass swtich; it's reasonable. Basically, I do own a pool and like a regular person, have bbq's and pool parties where the door is left open and a lot of people are coming in and out. But there would be times I'd leave it enabled. When you'd want it or not is often circumstantial.
Should also note that the window of time a child doesn't have a healthy respect for water (based on coughing up said water after a dunking by siblings) and knowing how to get themselves to an edge is really such a short period of their lives. Mine are all teenagers now... So the new pool fear is a drunken party and the proximity of the roof to the pool might be a temptation. That switch they long ago would have figured out (which if a child can figure out how to use a doorknob, they'll figure out to hit the switch too so Mom doesn't hear what they are doing).
Sneakypete,
"So I feel pretty secure in saying, once again, fuck off little code examiner."
I didnt realize i was that insulting. I apologize sincerely. But only God knows why an intern took that so much to heart. It really wasnt meant to troll the students on this board, and it did bring about some good debate. Who knows, maybe a few people will benefit from this tête-à-tête as you put it.
Good luck on your next million dollar project.
We shouldn't blame the plans checkers, who are just enforcing regulations written by others. My beef is with the people who come up with these regulations without considering the real world context. They are the ones at fault.
Intern, huh?
Your passive aggression fits with your chosen job.
Sneaky,
I was wondering that, myself.
In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools. Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects). Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes
...Despite pool alarms
On the Fence,
What does licensed or being a licensed architect have anything to do with anything? Basically, in Oregon, I (a building designer.... ie. unlicensed designer) have the same liability and responsibility as an architect when it comes to exempt buildings. Exemption from licensure is not an exemption from responsibility.
...not this again...
JeromeS,
Just a point. It is said and done. Move on.
Sneakypete, you know you have picked the right fight when RickB-OR has your back.
Yawn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
They are the ones at fault.
There's no fault. Human institutions aren't ever going to be perfect. Yeah, absolutely things can get a little silly sometimes. But think about how many people would have burned to death or been trapped under rubble, or have been excluded from jobs or public participation because of disabilities without modern building codes.
We can always do better. And architects should have a voice in making code smarter. But bitching about the nanny state makes ya'll sound like a bunch of paranoid militia nutjobs.
The intent of this thread, to laugh about the inane things that happen in when bureaucracies make rules is totally legitimate. But if you really believe that we're being infantilized by laws made in a democratic society meant to keep people from dying unnecessarily, you're selfish and delusional.
licensed in 2, about to be 3.......a small township just decided all walls need to be R-19 regardless of what can be shown in Rescheck and math, mainly because one half the building dept., one inspector, told the GC he could have R-13 if the Architect proved it true in Rescheck (i did, 2x4 can be r-19 with spray cellular yada but that is cost prohibitive) the other half of the building dept., the other inspector - decided after all was installed it should all be ripped out and R-19. The GC confronted the DOB on this - racket or shit show - new policy - R-19...........the 110%, well my buddy whose second language is English who doesnt realize the difference btw building code and the zoning ordinance gets paid better than anyone with same experience and is a city benefit bu tbinking is hard (they are coached that way).....so a good reason to become a plan examinern, be dumb and paid well. there are a few smart ones but most prefer language "cause its to code" over legalise..........
Where's the part of the process where practicing architects provide feedback about actual problems they have with the code?
At what point is an architect more than a person who wrestles the code?
SneakyPete,
ICC itself has Code Development Cycles. You may want to look into that for updates and amendment to the model code.
There is also the state code development cycle. This is usually connected with a division or agency or department of the state. Each state does this differently. In some states, it maybe a municipal or county level doing this. You have to look at how the code is amended and adopted in your state and local level.
In Oregon, we have a Building Code Division. They are responsible for adopting the building codes and making amendments to the codes. Another state will likely handle things their own way.
I can likely help figure the stuff out in Oregon and possibly Washington but other states, will require more work. In my state, an architect or whoever may participate in the committee in charge of building code division.
Architects are in fact on code committees, so are firemen, insurance lawyers, manufacturers, etc etc. they have meetings all the time regarding code changes and updates. People are encouraged to attend.
Feel free to get involved.
It was a bit of a rhetorical question asked with a sigh.
OTF, I am interested in your experiences, and I would like to bury the hatchet, if I may.
Some codes are exaggerated, but all in all we are much safer with them...I personally feel like there is less of a burden on me as a designer having a basic safety guideline to follow...licensure on the other hand is unnecessary regulation imo.
jla, if one logically analyzes the legal requirements for a licensed architect and then runs the process to get the license up against it, it doesn't hold muster.
Im generally not here to flame people so anybody that wants to have a dialogue on any subject with me will usually get a straight answer. I hope for the same back.
Architects are in fact on code committees, so are firemen, insurance lawyers, manufacturers, etc etc. they have meetings all the time regarding code changes and updates. People are encouraged to attend.
Depends on jurisdiction. My local does ask for our opinions and has focus groups. Thing is, it is by invite only. The newish CBO in my area is one of those who believes 'technical aspects' aren't associated with architecture (we just make things pretty). It's filled with engineers and contractors; "those that make it work".
So instead of training their inspectors to examine and understand flashing and watershed, they just pass a code amendment that forces everyone to cover the whole roof with ice & water because it's harder to screw that up and easy to inspect on a driveby. But oops... they also don't inspect attic ventilation and are generally clueless how condensation forms... So the very rot they were supposedly fixing continues to be an issue. But I just make it pretty... what do I know?
Oh.. same deal with crawlspace ventilation. Instead of training, require a licensed mechanical engineer to stamp the design.... Brilliant!
Team On the fence. Thanks for being so patient with these jerks, Otf.
There are a lot of nasty, useless, self-serving comments on this thread but this one by chigurh takes the cake:
your license is useless because you gave up on the craft.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit! I've been saying for years that once you get the damn license you are then free to do whatever the hell you want with that knowledge and experience. Architecture is so much more than making pretty buildings while scoffing at anyone who disagrees with you because they simply don't understand your craft.
Whenever I picture you from now on chigurh this is what I'm going to see:
I am pretty certain that here in CA, the door just has to self close and self latch to be exempt of the alarm requirement. Dunno about your jurisdictions.
On the fence- More power to you and what you do. For good or bad, the Code is the one thing that levels the playing field for all actors that want to contribute to our built environment. It counters the entitlement felt by crusty old GCs with out of date notions of what is acceptable construction as much as the noobs who do not understand the code's utility in creating a safe and usable building. With the pool issue, I don't see it as a nanny state issue as much as protecting the public from an attractive nuisance, even if on private property, because who even owns a pool skimmer that won't buckle under the weight of an 80 pound child?
"Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist" Pablo Picasso
Donna,
If one wanted to do these things like being a plan reviewer or building official or any of these other occupations that doesn't require an architect license then why get the architect license. You don't need to be a licensed architect to be a plan reviewer.
This is why an architect license has so little use outside of designing NON-EXEMPT BUILDINGS. You don't need it because the license is ONLY for granting the use of the title and to design buildings not exempt from licensure. If you aren't doing that, there is no need to undergo architect licensure.
The ONLY reason to have the architect license is to design non-exempt buildings (and exempt buildings) while using the title Architect at the same time. Besides that, what's the point.
The ONLY reason to have the architect license is to design non-exempt buildings (and exempt buildings) while using the title Architect at the same time. Besides that, what's the point.
LOLWUT? I can think of a number of reasons one would get licensed outside of designing non-exempt buildings. If your imagination is so constrained as to not allow you to imagine any occupation where a license and the associated knowledge would not provide a tangible benefit, well- I'd love to see some of you work- PDFs y'know?
arch76,
SHOW ME! Aside from wiping your ass with it.
I don't believe anyone will want or care for one fucking second about your architect license if it isn't even going to be needed.
No one needs an architect license to be a project manager. No one needs an architect license to do CGI work for TV, movies or video games. No one needs such a license for any occupation that isn't regulated by some kind of occupational licensure program.
How does having an architectural license itself benefit any of any employer in which the work isn't under the regulation of the architectural licensing law?
My pet peeve (this week) - 42" residential guardrails. They are too high for residential buildings, they look out of proportion at a residential scale, and you can no longer align them with window sills at a normal height.
When I started designing houses, the height for guardrails in the code was 30". Then it went up to 36". A few years back it went to 42". Pretty soon it will be 60", and the code will also require that we wrap all human beings in bubble wrap when they get out of bed in the morning.
Soon enough, this is what American homes will look like:
....
Rick-B
1. lawyer that specializes in construction related disputes, like Schiff Hardin
2. owner's rep/ PM/ developer for a any company that builds any sort of brick and mortar buildings, nationwide, like Wells Fargo or Toll Bros
3. Curtain wall engineer/ designer for Kawneer or someone similar
Residential PM and GCI for video games merely scratches the surface at the knowledge an architect should possess. The options above may not require a license, but the knowledge you might gleen from getting the license will only help you in those careers.
Great, another thread that devolves into this...
I shouldn't expect anything else from the internet, but it surprises me often enough that I keep coming back for more.
1. You need a law degree and the attorney license. An architect license is not required. If I pursued a law career, I could conceivably do that. Having experience in architecture field would be helpful but being licensed as an architect is irrelevant.
2. PM/owner's rep doesn't necessarily require a license. If you are not designing, a license isn't required.
3. You might need to be a PE but being licensed as an architect doesn't necessarily mean anything. Somewhere along the line, the work may simply require a person to have just experience in either engineering or architecture but a license may or may not be required.
Doing CGI for video games is not the same as what you are educated and trained in as an architect. Often, you are using the wrong software that is geared for a completely different rendering process. Add to that, CGI work may require scripting and programming work. What you need to know to do CGI in video game development also requires a whole assortment of knowledge and skills and portfolio of work that architecture field and education alone does not encompass. That is why there is different degree programs at universities.
It requires a different set of knowledge & skills. While some of it is shared... some of it is not and you just can't walk in and expect a job just because you have an architect license.
You don't even have to pursue the license and gleen knowledge that can or maybe useful in such a career. You didn't prove a license is needed.
You don't have to work for an architect on a pursuit to be licensed or ever get the license.
Yes, there is transferable knowledge that can be and is applicable. Those soft skills and universal knowledge/skills are applicable but that was not what I was arguing against ever in the first place.
You didn't prove an architect license itself is useful. Your experience... maybe but the license is just a bureaucratic process to allow you to design non-exempt buildings and use the architect title.
Aside from that, it is irrelevant.
Just having universal skills don't get you the jobs.... not in the 21st century. We live in an age of specialization and you need to have specialized skills because we live in a time where there is so many more people looking for jobs than there are jobs. This is the era we live in. I'm not just talking about architecture field.
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.