Colorado talked about it back in the '80s, but it never went anywhere. As you say, it's just posturing by our "leaders".

The int des in my office are rather excited thinking they will be able to practice like architects now.

A modest aspiration if ever I heard one.

Geezer, it all depends on the scope of work they intend to protect for themselves. Granted they can’t reasonably expect to take away scope form architects, we do have an alternative path c/w building code examinations that grant them the freedom to “stamp” for permit within a prescribed size and occupancy. The problem is these exams far exceed the current int des process... and this is not even touching liability insurance.

I was just making a snarky observation that architecture is not exactly an economic model that is worth aspiring to very much. We have greater scope, but greater liability, and I wonder if we don't also wind up with less compensation at the end of the day.

Interior designers think they are going to get all the renovation work and fit-out work, basically stuff with no envelope or site work. Renovations and fit-outs are a substantial portion of the industry and that portion will only grow in market share. They also want to be project leads and have architects be one of their consultants. Where did they get that idea from but architects having structural consultants. I don't blame them because that could be very lucrative, to have that approach.

Tintt, one of the first real building projects I worked on many many years ago was given to us because the int des the client hired was so incompetent. We went from simple consultant to prime and tossed the int des out of their own project.

I know that happens but I also know several good competent interior designers.

Real estate agents are prime targets for unnecessary licensing. In Michigan a 40 hour class and exam is required, purely anti-competitive in my mind.

Indeed.

interior designer is not a recognized, or protected, title in Ontario (canada)... It's a private act, not a law, so no one is forced to recognize it like they do with architects or p.eng.

You're correct, engineering was on the table for de-regulation in Indiana. The logic was that they do so many calculations and are so highly educated in such a specific science that they will self-regulate, anyway.

Aka, the stuff you do will be replaced by ai’s anyway, so tighten those belts and sharpen those pencils.

The AIA statement is idiotic, hyperbolic, and really utter bullshit. They see any trend towards occupational licensing reform as a threat, and would rather see the groups they pretend to care about suffer from these abuses of power. Of course fake concern for the disenfranchised is the trend these days, and acknowledging govt overreach of any kind is a big no no.

In quasi liberal circles.

EA, basically, the AIA is pointing out states with occupational licensing reforming legislation on the books. Architecture is not necessarily being targeted. So far my state has deregulated a handful of professions including yoga instructors, citrus packers, geologists, horse massages (seriously), and hair braiders I believe. You still need a license to apply temporary make-up though, but you can freely tattoo permanent make-up without any license (to highlight how irrational some of these licensing laws are...)

States are reviewing each occupation and making boards present a case as to why that license is needed to protect hsw. This is a good thing, and unless you feel your hsw argument is bs and cannot be backed by evidence then you shouldn’t have any thing to worry about. If you are in a profession that finds itself worried that it will lose its sanctioned monopoly, then most likely it’s because that profession knows their hsw argument is bs.

So the AIA may not even be responding to threatened deregulation of architects, but rather threatened deregulation of licensed occupations in general?

Yeah. I know for a fact my state does not have anything on the books about deregulation of architecture specifically. They seem to see everything as a slippery slope towards not being able to exploit interns.

There is a service called statescape that tracks all new legislation across the country. You can narrow to certain topics and get emails when there a
re updates.

Way to justify this blatant bullshit.

You mean the project google is already working on

Google designs all their data centers like this in-house with programmers as project managers and a couple architects on the payroll for their stamp. It's interesting.

I was referring to their research in automated code compliance as a urbanism

Who cares, I'll be retired by then.

Volunteer -- you are correct that most states require CE for licensed architects, but -- to be fair -- most state requirements are lower than what AIA requires of its members.

For example, AIA requires 18 CE hours per year, while my state's requirement is only 12 CE hours.

This link shows what each state requires: https://www.architectstraining... (note: some state's have a biennial requirement)

Note: the link I provide immediately above may not be completely up to date -- here's another one for comparison purposes: https://www.ceacademyinc.com/requirements.html

Quizzical - To be fair, when was the last time any of those CE credits actually required an Architect to stay up-to-date. I'd say any program would need to require a minimum of 52+1 hours to get over the fact that lunch-n-learns are typically scheduled weekly, and consists of veiled sales pitches that rarely teach you anything, all counting towards your CE hours.

I think those sales pitches do a good job of explaining how's and why's for the product they're selling, they introduce you to people that can go into more technical details if you spec their product on your project, help you write specs for their product, introduce you to new product as well as trends, etc. If you were architecting in your mom's basement because license restrictions were relaxed, you would likely be far behind the rest of us.