Archinect
anchor

Was Lebbeus Woods an 'Architect'? (According to NCARB and His State Board)

Shaw

Lebbeus Woods. What a rich life and legacy. A man ahead of his time, a true visionary, designer, illustrator, and leader in academia, the profession - a true anthropologist. Most of all, a great Architect.

Was he an Architect, though, by the standards of NCARB, the Registration Law, and the State Board where he practiced? 

He insisted that he was an Architect, and in my view, he certainly was and should always be known as one. 

I would like to ask the question of those who are more 'in the know' - Was he a registered Architect in the state of his residency and practice, and if he was not licensed, did the state board take action against him for claiming to be licensed when he was not? Probably Steven Holl knows the answers to these questions, but I would genuinely like to know Wood's status. As a preview of a next thread, I might inquire about Daniel Libeskind - having registration status in America. But first, I would like to ask about Lebbeus, a man I tremendously admire, and I'm sure most of you may share my feeling. Many thanks to everyone who posts! You have greatly informed me on matters I was naive and ignorant about - Archinect is a tremendous exchange.    

 
Jun 28, 18 9:46 am

1 Featured Comment

All 23 Comments

Arch_grad2.0

simple answer, no

Jun 28, 18 10:12 am
Shaw

That's what I thought, especially when he told a lecture audience that he insisted that he was an architect. Thanks Arch_grad2.0

Arch_grad2.0

If he was an “architect”, then so is Richard Balkins

mjjjj

If he was an “architect”, then so was I when I was 10.

JLC-1

Oh, dear.....

Jun 28, 18 10:55 am
Non Sequitur
Was Vitruvius an architect by NCARB standards?
Jun 28, 18 11:15 am
JLC-1

I always wonder if AIA or NCARB officials get all freaked out when traveling to europe, all those code violations must be a nightmare to live with.

Shaw

Great Caesar's Ghost - No He wasn't!

Shaw

JLC-1, the Continent and the Isles must not be as litigious as the USA.....possibly?

JLC-1

true, lawyers is the worst class of vermin produced in the US.

Featured Comment
kjdt

If you're really asking the questions without guile:  no, he wasn't licensed anywhere.  And no, I wouldn't consider him an architect - he was an artist, sculptor, and teacher.  But, he considered himself to be an architect. 

Self-identification in and of itself isn't a reason for a state board to pounce on anyone. The only occupiable structures he ever worked on were in other countries, and were collaborations with architects.  He didn't advertise architectural services or form an architecture firm. The state boards don't just sit around waiting to catch people who are called "architect" by a newspaper reporter or art critic, and they pretty much don't care what titles universities let their faculty use, within academic confines. 

Jun 28, 18 11:28 am
Shaw

I think I see what the problem is - my state is THE WORST about how they handle this issue. It sounds like other states deal with this issue more sensibly, and permit running room for non-registrants to be informally known as 'architects' - like Lebbius. I'm trying to get the best picture I can of how this is played out across the nation....I don't want to name my state - yet.

kjdt

Well there are lots of states with very active enforcement - some usual suspects are New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey - all of them have the resources to put full time staff on this sort of thing, and they collect a lot of revenue from the fines. But even in those, there needs to be a complainant. The boards themselves and their enforcement officers don't tend to make it their job to scan the media for examples of people illegally referring to themselves as architects. And, when someone does get reported because a third party (newspaper reporter, etc.) erroneously calls them an architect, they don't generally wind up being fined or sanctioned - though it can be a time suck for them to have to sort this out.

If you're a regular on this site you can start to think that people are getting fined right and left, on a regular basis - but it's mostly because there are a one or two enforcement zealots on this site, enamored with rules of all sorts, who make it their hobby to report everyone from random students in Australia to architects with inadvertently expired licenses. If you just don't call yourself an architect here, and don't make yourself architect business cards, website, title blocks, etc. you shouldn't really end up being anybody's target.

bowling_ball

My province still tries to go after people who are named as architects in the media (ie newspapers etc) even though the designers in question never call themselves architects. It's hilarious to watch them get so upset.

eeayeeayo

Is the province doing that on their own, or is it because people are reporting them to the province?

randomised

Architecture is more than "putting together buildings, dealing with budget & construction constraints and negotiate with clients, city inspectors, or contractors." Good indicator might be people who call him Lebbeus consider him an architect :)

Jun 28, 18 1:01 pm
Non Sequitur

hey there... you're taking my response to another thread a little out of context here.

randomised

I know, therefore I didn't sign your name under it when giving it a more suitable context here. But I also didn't want to pretend I wrote it, hence the italics and quotation marks. Taking things out of context or putting things in a different context is what architects do for a living ;)

They don't borrow, they steal.

Non Sequitur

^yeah. Trying to train our new and most junior staff at the moment. Typical question is: "where can I get this detail" as opposed to, how does X component fit with Y.

It’s a struggle

Xenakis

in Ca. they are pretty strict about that - The AIA here posts a list of everyone they catch calling themselves architect - I'm a designer until when and iff I ever become licensed -

Jun 28, 18 4:55 pm
Shaw

Xenakis, your post shows how varied each state is on this issue, or rather, how there are groups of states that are strict, others less so, and so on - like a sliding scale. And out of sync with NCARB, too, on some things?

AIA is a club

Shaw

Yes, in many ways. You know it when you see it, but as with anything else, there are good people suffering through it, too.

Janosh

Are you confusing the California Architects Board (a state licensing entity) and the AIA? They are different you know.

77LightTemple

Put BIG on the list ....Bjarke Ingels .
No license to practice in US and still calls himself and architect and has a US firm .
Why doesn’t AIA investigate this matter issue?

Jun 28, 18 5:28 pm

BI "is a Danish architect" it's ok if you put a country name in front?

It's not the AIA's job to censure someone for operating without a license - the AIA has no regulatory power. The NY State licensing Board holds the regulatory power, or any other state in which BIG operates without a license. News flash: BIG is operating within the rules - they are a big enough firm to understand them and do it right.

Shaw

That's what I have been wondering about - if I got a letter from the board (when I was not in violation in the first place) - how do Ingels, Rogers, Libeskind, and others get a pass, even Lebbeus, great man that he was. As my uncle once said, "Life isn't fair" - and he was right. But it's not wrong to fight for what is yours, or what you believe is yours.

Shaw

Inconsistencies abound - it's a real muddle, even concerning Bjarke and BIG, I believe. I wonder if it might be because of a pluralistic aspect of the makeup of the profession itself, and trying to be all things to all people.......re: BIG - in my state, there is a ratio where licensed architects must be a certain percentage of the make-up of the owners/managing principals - a tight percentage. Bjarke wouldn't make it here if they applied the rule to everyone, like they do to 'the little people'.

Shaw

Donna, I so respect you and your views! You are tremendous role model for others in the profession!

JLC-1

you said it SHAW, it's not just inconsistencies, it's the little people, as in everything, that pays for the sins of the big fish.

Shaw

That's what I have observed, JLC-1, for the whole of my life. I believe it is the case here in this issue. Case in point: there is a large firm in my state which is titled by the names of engineers (all), yet, they have a huge architectural division within. None of the engineers are/were/have been architects. They were never affected, though some complained..... ????

kjdt

Again this is a thing that varies from state to state. Some states do not require that any members of a firm providing architecture services be architects. Laws regarding naming of firms also vary widely from state to state - in some there are old firms that are named after people who were never licensed in the first place and have been dead for 100 years. In others that would not be allowed.  In some any names in the firm's name must be owner's of the firm. In others the firm can be legally named after your best friend's cousin's dog's favorite squeaky toy.

It is specifically because of these variations that some firms choose their locations, to advantage their particular circumstances. And it's another irony of these threads that invariably contain entreaties to "fix NCARB" that NCARB encourages adoption of their model laws, which when adopted unamended, standardize all these issues from place to place. States choose whether to adopt or not adopt NCARB's model laws, and when they choose not to then the result is these types of inconsistencies.

Steeplechase

Have you not heard of hiring an architect of record? That is a common way for someone like an international starchitect to work on a project without being licensed in that jurisdiction.

Shaw

kjdt and steeplechase - what a revelation. Indeed, our state adopted the model law - and is super-enforcement minded to the jot and tittle. I think our state is one of the strictest. And yes, the inconsistencies are absolutely maddening......

JLC-1

architect of record, AOR, yes; I have one, he's my boss.

JLC-1

We do AOR in residential third homes, sometimes it's nauseating how much "the artists" don't know about building, let alone building at 8000' with 4 months of snow.

chigurh

Woods was an amazing creative artist with an affinity for architectural investigation, but he was not an architect.  

I use that title (not getting into any legal or state board definitions) for those that have the wherewithal and drive to take a design from conceptual blank page to completion in building form, while dealing with all of the constraints of client, budget, consultants, builders, subs contractors, attorneys, etc....and still manage to create a beautiful and tactile space to inhabit.  

Jun 28, 18 6:15 pm
tintt

Did he pass the test about AIA docs?

Jun 28, 18 8:50 pm
tintt

I can't believe I said that.

tintt

I missed you guys.

RickB-Astoria

By looking briefly on Wikipedia about him, so he's the guy responsible for licensing boards becoming title nazis. (Joking)

It's funny how he's credited as an Architect. Architectural theorist would be okay but...... oh well.... when I'm dead.... I might be called Architect and they (licensing boards) can send their fines to my corpse and wait a very long time before they ever see a penny. 

Seriously, it is kind of intriguing but this isn't unique.


Jun 29, 18 1:46 pm
randomised

Don't worry Rick no one will ever call you an architect, don't have to worry about any fines or something...

77LightTemple
Yes , NY state licensing board has the following info “
chitecture

Advisory Notice:

Titles for non-licensed individuals in Architecture

In December 2016, the AIA approved a policy statement that supports the title of “Architectural Associate” or “Design Professional” for licensure candidates meeting certain pre-licensure criteria. Use of these titles for non-licensed individuals is not permissible in New York. NYS Education Law Section 7302 limits use of the title “architect” to those who are licensed or otherwise authorized in New York as architects. The term “Architectural Associate” suggests that an individual is an architect through its use of the adjective “Architectural” and the implication that professional services are offered. Use of derivatives or combined terms of the word “architect”, as in “Architectural Designer” and “Project Architect” are similarly misleading to the public and not permissible in New York.

The second title, “Design Professional” is defined in the New York State Business Corporation Law as someone who is licensed in New York as an architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or geologist and who may be the licensee shareholder of a design professional service corporation (DPC). As such, the conveyance of that title upon a non-licensee is not permitted.
An architect licensed and registered in New York provides services related to the design and construction of buildings and the spaces around them, where the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned. These design and construction services typically include the following:A professional architect working.

consultation
evaluation
planning
preliminary studies
designs
construction documents and management
administration of construction contracts
You might retain an architect to:

evaluate a house's structural integrity and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.
design a new home or to design an addition to an existing home.
design the water and sewerage systems, storm drainage facility, and/or layout for a housing development or other tract of land.
assist in the development of a property.
Architects design all types of buildings - the actual structure, the interiors, and the land around them.
Jun 29, 18 2:55 pm
77LightTemple
Basically you cannot call yourself an architect if you are not licensed even if you just consultant or just design - you cannot confuse the public with architectural services
That’s why I find BIG misleading the public
Jun 29, 18 2:58 pm
eeayeeayo

BIG is incorporated in NY as a foreign organization. Per NY's regulations, in a foreign professional service organization "only individual providing service must be licensed in NY, however each shareholder, officer and director must be licensed in some jurisdiction** **Requirement that definition of "some jurisdiction" = jurisdiction PC was originally formed in".  I don't think they're misleading - Bjarke Ingels has been very forthcoming about his attempts to get licensed in New York and his current unlicensed status. The state rejected his education and told him to pursue the experience route. There are several NY-licensed partners to provide the architectural services in the NY branch, so they meet the requirements I quoted above.

randomised

"The state rejected his education and told him to pursue the experience route."

The state has a sense of humour...

RickB-Astoria

Because it isn't NAAB accredited. Cute!

eeayeeayo

No. New York does not require NAAB accredited degrees. His degree was rejected because New York's Office of Comparative Education evaluated it and determined it did not meet New York's education requirements to be considered equivalent to an architecture degree. So he'd need a lot of documented internship experiences meeting NY's rules, to offset the degree limitations.

RickB-Astoria

What are they comparing the education to? What's the criteria?

randomised

"So he'd need a lot of documented internship experiences meeting NY's rules, to offset the degree limitations."

He could foam some models or do some door schedules at BIG, ha!

eeayeeayo

The criteria are the same as the New York college and university compliance criteria (the criteria that are used to assess degree programs from NY-accredited institutions). It's not architecture-specific - the NY bureau of comparative education assesses this for many professions - everything from nursing to accountants. It's got nothing to do with NAAB, and they don't accept EESA evaluations either - it's a process unique to New York.

77LightTemple
Sounds good but still He cannot call himself an architect or state he is an architect or serving in the role as an architect in ny state
Jun 29, 18 6:43 pm
RickB-Astoria

With regard to calling yourself an architect on a website that can be viewed anywhere on planet earth, I posed that very question to the state. They never responded.  I wanted to know when do they decide they have jurisdiction over something that is essentially international beyond state and national lines - the internet.  At what point is calling yourself an architect on a website illegal.  I'm assuming a physical address. but think about it in our global internet society -

NOTICE: THIS IS A LONG RESPONSE. THERE ARE MANY FACTORS AND HYPOTHETICAL CASE POINTS AS WELL AS NUANCES THAT CAN FACTOR INTO ANY KIND OF DETERMINATION.

Thanks for attempting to do that. I have been dancing that road and talked to licensing boards in Oregon and Washington and their investigator. Among the conversations I have had with them is along this line. In response, over the phone, they indicated that they look into things like where you are located but also where the services are offered. For example, if you are explicit in where you offer services like in the case of Bjarke which is in a similar boat as I am from a legal point of view. He's unlicensed in the state of New York as I am in Oregon. If I offer architectural services for projects in Oregon (under the title Architect or architectural services), I'd could be in some hot water as he would be unless his company has someone licensed in New York functioning as a designated architect as I could with Washington which is about 4.5 miles from me. If I offer architecture in Sweden where licensing isn't required, as long as I'm clear about the geographic location of architectural services, it's a non-issue with Oregon or Washington because they no longer have jurisdiction.

It falls into legal jurisdiction.

Now, if I called myself web architect or something that is not involving the designing real buildings or something like that, they also have no particular jurisdiction over let alone they fall into numerous issues. 

In the future, I'll be testing the law somewhat but it is something I'd be interested in hearing about feedback. Being listed on the web as an architect isn't the problem. It is when you imply or explicitly indicate you are licensed to practice architecture in a state (where a license is legally required) may get you into trouble. When you are a software architect, IT architect, web architect, or some other title used in a manner where it is clear that you are not offering to design buildings in the physical world. A title like Video Game Architect or something like that, it probably clear that the services are not involving designing real buildings. Such as a person who might design fictional buildings in a video game. In those cases, who cares. You aren't providing those design services for designing structures that would be constructed or any part or stage of a project that would be reasonably understood to be leading to an eventual project involving real world construction of buildings or alterations to, or additions to. 

To be clear, it comes down to what is written on the website. Licensing boards can care less about titles like software architect or web architect or services outside the realm of the physically built environment. What they are looking at protecting the public health, safety, and welfare from people without a licensing designing buildings that was legally required to have a person duly licensed to design such buildings. 

They are concerned about the "built environment" (as in physical buildings and structures being built in the physical reality) within the geographical borders of their jurisdiction. The web itself isn't a physical geographical territory. It's akin to a global phone book. What they are looking to is whether the public in their jurisdiction would think the unlicensed (from their jurisdiction's point of view) person offering architectural services are authorized to do so. They are concerned about unlicensed persons misrepresenting the public that they are authorized to practice architecture in their state, country, province, territory, etc. 

There are some gray areas of the law and where there are functional limitations without clear statutory language. The internet can be subject to certain provisions of "the long arm of the law". However, even then, there are limitations. They can't stop a person from offering architectural services in places where they are legally entitled to by virtue of licensure or by virtue of no licensing regulation hence a basic public right.



Jun 29, 18 8:39 pm
RickB-Astoria

A note that I also want to make is that I didn't converse with every board but I have seen some similar takes from multiple boards in cases.

museumpeace

In the sense that he "insisted" to being an architect, Lebbeus Woods was a (relatively rare) architect of otherness. He was definitely not one of the (many, many) architects of mediocrity.

Interestingly, there is only one result from a google search of the phrase "architect of otherness," and that occurrence of the phrase doesn't ever refer to architecture. So, perhaps, this very post here is the first occurrence of the phrase "architect of otherness" related to architecture itself.

Jun 30, 18 12:43 pm
Shaw

https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/architecture-and-resistance/ This essay, quondam, is heart and soul of Lebbeus' work manifesto, and has meant much to so many. Steven Holl quoted from this in a lecture. I may not agree with a number of Wood's points, but it is a challenging, thought-provoking classic.

museumpeace

Shaw, I was a regular reader of Wood's blog, but I have no real recollection of having already read the essay you link to above. Thanks for refreshing my interest in Wood's words and deeds. I too do not agree with a number of Wood's points, and I want now to figure out why it is that I resist them, or at least figure out why I subsequently also think otherwise.

Shaw

Welcome quondam, anytime. On some points, maybe a number of them, I get the feeling that he is not intending them as 'absolutes', but rather, 'directional'?

museumpeace

To resist or not resist? That is the direction?!? ;-)

Shaw

For instance, when he says, 'resist the idea that you need clients in order to do architecture' (my paraphrase), he is presenting a new idea, indeed, direction to follow in order to explore and present your architectural manifesto - not as an absolute direction, but more like a 'thinking out of the box' idea, to help one grow and develop. Does that make sense?

jla-x

Architects design spaces that are constructed, physically and mentally in my opinion.  If we narrow the definition to only utilitarian oriented built spaces we aren’t really thinking about/preparing for the future.  We experience architecture in the mind all of the time.  I have many favorite places and spaces that I’ve never actually visited.  What’s the difference between experiencing a space that I’ve never been to but that exists vs experiencing a space that doesn’t physically exist anymore or anywhere.  Not to mention being influenced by.  The architecture in film for instance can be experienced.  


I just got a psvr headset.  It’s fucking unbelievable how amazing some of these virtual environments feel.  The line between the physical and the virtual will be getting thinner and thinner over the coming years.  Call it what you want, art, design, architecture...it’s relevance doesn’t rely on its categorization, but instead its effect. 

Jun 30, 18 2:11 pm
jla-x

Let the historians do the sorting.

RickB-Astoria

Yep, it's not that far in the future.

museumpeace

jla-x, I don't think that "The line between the physical and the virtual will be getting thinner and thinner over the coming years." is the right way to put it. For over twenty years now I've been a strong believer that it's best for the real and the virtual not to be the same thing, indeed, the true virtue of the virtual is that it is and can be something other than the real. So, instead of saying that line between the real and virtual is getting thinner and thinner, it's more a matter of the virtual now gaining more and more 'gravitas,' the virtual becoming more and more experiential, more and more something other than the real, more and more entertaining, and (ultimately?) more and more influential. The future I see is one of the real and the virtual in coexistence, a coexistence of the real and the other. But who knows for sure.

RickB-Astoria

I think it will be a bit of both. Currently, we experience an abstract form of the virtual in the internet but we can through emerging VR/AR/3D technology that will be able to bring possibly architectural form and language and human experience to the internet as we understand it. I'm working on a software technology towards these lines. While there is some things we would be doing in our coexisting physical and virtual world life.

museumpeace

RickB-Astoria, currently more than "an abstract form." As much as I hate to admit it, the line between the real and the virtual is already very thin indeed when it comes to Russian interference/influence of the 2016 US Presidential election via bots delivering malicious propaganda/"fake news" throughout social media channels. So far it seems that a thin line between the real and the virtual very easily manifests evil, and that's just another reason that I think the real and the virtual not being the same thing is a good thing.

RickB-Astoria

I hate to admit it but use of telecommunication technology to influence elections and political change has been going on since the 1980s. "Social media" isn't really a new concept. It existed since multiple people can communicate and share.... basically since gossiping existed. Personal computers have been used as a platform of sharing 'news' (true or false news) since the says of Compuserve, PlayNET / QuantumLink, Compunet, dial-up Bulletin Boards and dial-up BBS networks when BBSs would share posts in their "forums" and "electronic mail" usually at night so the BBS can dial-up to a central BBS node which then a little later retrieve. While it wasn't as fast as say the modern internet or have the graphics but it was a functional system for this. The truth is, Russia, U.S., and other nation actors and various rogue actors have been involved in using telecommunication to influence elections, political changes, etc. Commodore 64 computers and other inexpensive home computers were instrumental in the grassroot movement leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany. This isn't as much news as it is put out to be. That's a fact with so much proof that is is amazing.I think it is becoming a bigger issue or factor of life with so much in America and other developed nations being connected to the "digital world". We are so connected via computer telecommunication technology that we get our news. 

Don't get me wrong, I may downplay the hysteria because the hysterical reaction and portrayal is out of line with the reality of the issue. Any concern for cyberspace vulnerability via hacking of election systems and reporting of it is important to be addressed so a calm look at the vulnerability is important. I don't think Russia had as much impact as Comey did. I do agree that if Trump has had any kind of treasonous activities between him, the Russians, and others in his campaign and administration then I would think that is more important because then we have a President who is compromised to a foreign agent (Putin et al). Now, that is more a concern then anything because we basically have a President with a metaphorical "gun to his head". That would be a serious national security concern.

77LightTemple
I think you have the legal answer vs the moral question
LW was an architect , visionary teacher and social commentator
Legally not an architect just like he was not legally a senator, lawyer or doctor
You can call yourself anything In The world but in the business world you have laws to protect the citizens - bottom line
Jun 30, 18 3:57 pm
77LightTemple
I think you have the legal answer vs the moral question
LW was an architect , visionary teacher and social commentator
Legally not an architect just like he was not legally a senator, lawyer or doctor
You can call yourself anything In The world but in the business world you have laws to protect the citizens - bottom line
Jun 30, 18 3:57 pm
museumpeace

It was Zaha Hadid who, sometime in the 1980s, introduced Leb to the AA in London, having met him through their mutual friend, Steven Holl. Indeed, it was Leb’s issue of Holl’s Pamphlet Architecture that exposed him—an already mature but unknown visionary—to the architectural world. Somehow, he had come to New York from the Midwest, had worked as an architect on Roche-Dinkeloo’s Ford Foundation building, and later found a living making perspective renderings for Kohn Pedersen Fox. --https://archpaper.com/2012/11/lebbeus-woods-1940-2012/

Shaw

quondam, thanks for sharing this insight and link! There are not enough hours or days in our lives to know as much as we desire; it's so great when others can inform us. This is critical information to learn/know about Lebbeus. I think I read somewhere that he worked for Eero Saarinen also in the 60's. Again, many thanks.

RickB-Astoria

He probably worked with Eero but I know an architect who once worked for Eliel and Eero Saarinen from mid-1940s (as far as I can recall to mid-50s) but Lebbeus would have only had a year and 8 to 9 months with Eero Saarinen at the most if he started January of 1960 but after that, I think the surviving members of the firm kept if officially 'alive' until 1965 for completion of projects already begun construction. Then reorganized by 1966. I'd be unclear what Lebbeus's role with Eero Saarinen & Associates. He couldn't have worked for or with Eero Saarinen if he started after Eero's death in 1961. I'm curious what his role was.

5839

Lebbeus Woods worked at the firm of Eero Saarinen and Associates and its subsequent iterations, for about 6 years, starting in 1964, well after Saarinen's death. The firm eventually morphed into Roche Dinkeloo, which still exists, but the Eero Saarinen and Associates name was used in conjunction with some projects well into the 70s at least, if not beyond.

RickB-Astoria

Hmmm.... interesting they were using the old firm name that far after. How legal was that? Never mind to think about it.

eeayeeayo

It may have been perfectly legal. It just depends on how the firm was registered, and what was legal at the time, in the affected states. In some states the same firm can have multiple registered names. In others it can't. In some it can have the names of dead people in the firm name. In others it can't.

I currently work for a firm that uses different firm names on different projects, depending on the state or country, because of those issues. The firm still has its original name in its original state, despite the person it's named after being dead for many years, but it cannot use that name in some other states, hence we use different title blocks and stationery for different projects.

At least with Saarinen & Associates, the people who continued the firm were people who had worked there.  Sometimes name-brand firms are bought out by people having little or no association with the original firm, thus continuing for generations, but with no connection to the original.

randomised

How legal that was? Looking to explore more loopholes ;)

eeayeeayo

Yeah, I should've just let Balkins report them to the state for using the wrong firm name 50 years ago. But wait... they relocated to Connecticut... to which state should he report this?? Discuss.

randomised

Don't think Rick is out to report anyone.

kjdt

You don't? I sure wouldn't put that past him. He reported a student who posted some renderings here to a board in Australia, and he reported the "5 Cent Architecture" guy, and he reported some architect whose license was inadvertently expired, and he reported the state of Oregon - to itself!...

randomised

Haha, oops, didn't know that, thought he was more into finding ways not to need to take exams to be a "real" architect.

RickB-Astoria

The issue of using the Eero Saarinen & Associates business name by the remaining associates of the firm that many years after is still a non-issue at present. They don't seem to be an active violation of law. As for the Australian student, he was calling himself an architect which was not compliant with the laws in Australia. As for the architect who's licensed was expired, it was expired for like 2 or more years and he was still practicing as an Architect without a valid license. Yeah. The 5 Cent Architecture guy didn't have an architect present or recorded designated architect. He wasn't licensed. If I would be held to the laws everyone is to be held to the laws. It is a Constitutional right for everyone to be equal held to the laws with equal treatment. Equal protection implies also being equally held. If I set up an Architect 10-cent booth.... I'd be slapped with a $5,000 fine. Just because you have an architecture degree doesn't mean you are a licensed architect. You have to meet all the requirements of licensure and apply for the license if the jurisdiction requires a license to practice or use a particular title in the particular context of the licensing laws and it's legislative intent. I'm not out to report anyone. I wouldn't put it pass any licensed architect to report a violation. They all would if they felt like filling out the complaint form or whatever.

RickB-Astoria

I'll make this clear, I'm not out to report people for violating the laws. I'd rather not have to but I reserve the right to. Unless the architect title is deregulated or the protected scope of the title is narrowed to "Registered Architect" or "Licensed Architect", it is a protected title and it is the law in the United States. This is similarly true in many countries throughout the world.

archinine
If people spent more time focusing on their own careers rather than narcing/nitpicking on others’ successful careers, over regulatory trifles, out of some weird misplaced jealously, we’d probably be a lot better off as a community.
Jul 1, 18 12:33 pm

There was a mild row in the UK over someone saying Renzo Piano should not be called an architect in the UK, cuz he doesnt have a license there. Makes about as much sense as rejecting Bjarke's education. Clearly he learned something at one point.

On the other end of the scale Rafael Vinoly is apparently licensed here in Japan somehow. I guess he doesnt speak Japanese so I dont how he did that, but really why not? Unless you hate The Tokyo Forum it seems like it all worked out in the end.

Jul 2, 18 4:18 am

Related to the level of active enforcement some state boards pursue, see


via @Latent_Design

Jul 11, 18 9:53 pm
kjdt

So 9000+ architects in Illinois and they fined only one architect, over a period of 3 months  (plus the two others for unlicensed practice of architecture.)  Agreed, that's some pretty limited enforcement.

And those are about unlicensed practice, and failure to renew a license. None are about misuse of the title, in an academic setting, by somebody not actually practicing at all within the US, which was the issue with Lebbeus Woods.  There are definitely university faculty in Illinois who fit that category, though the board doesn't seem to want to address that issue.


RickB-Astoria

Actually, the only disciplinary action to an architect wasn't a failure to renew. It was a suspension because of failing to file/or pay state income tax. Wow....

Related, you may have seen this from last year? Even suspended for delinquent student loans.

wynne1architect@gmail.com

As a licensed Architect, I would grant this creative man the title of Architect, as if it makes any difference once your dead.


Jul 19, 18 7:45 pm
Volunteer

RIBA has gone to great pains to ensure John Pawson is not described as an architect. Don't know if any of the RIBA architects had anything to do with the Grenfell fire or not. The most experienced fire expert in the UK who was a licensed architect but who held an industry position that did not require him to stamp drawings and as such had not sent in the annual vigorish to RIBA was booted off the fire investigation team as being unlicensed. The fire investigation is sure to start any day now. Really.

Jul 21, 18 11:25 am

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: