oh good golly, thank God i'm licensed ;)

Did you mean to write what you did, or "unlicensed and competent"?

No. I've met plenty of people, friends of mine, who aren't licensed and are more than competent. What I mean is that unlicensed and incompetent is a sure fire easy to get a jail sentence and a lot of legal problems.

i'm in the first bucket...

Would that be Dunning Krueger Associates, AIA* ? 

*Arizona Interscholastic Assocation

good TED talk.

Licensed architect is a tautology.

It's probably the cape.

​In most US states, you simply pass along the person's name and whatever evidence you have (like a photo of a job sign or link to a website where an unlicensed person identifies themself as an architect) to the state board via phone call or email. The board staff then conducts an investigation and takes action if they determine a violation has occurred.

You don't have to prove it. You just need to make a complaint to your local licensing board. As really said the board will look into it. Just make sure you don't embellish ANYTHING in your complaint. If you've been found to have lied about the complaint most licensing boards will punish you worse than than if you were practicing without a license.

And you would have been a butthead if you accepted! :) lol

No. Client hired me to be the architect but hired him to be the contractor. Client gave the contractor low 5 figure deposit way too soon. Contractor went out of business and the client lost their $. Killed the project.

I do. It's fraud. Would you say the same thing about an engineer, doctor, or lawyer?

I would if the person had functionally performed the same service without errors, yeah.

You seem to be promoting that for professionals who are responsible for the lives of others to only be regulated by fining them if they mess up. That seems like a very bad idea.

That piece of paper is the bare minimum. Have some fucking pride and name shame the wankers who fake it.

Y'all seem very protective of your titles. Am I going to take my coworker to court who's been doing the job of an architect longer than I've been alive, simply because he doesn't have the license to call himself that? I just don't think that it's useful to punish people for using a title, assuming they haven't actually designed anything wrong.

Hear! Hear!

“Punish people for the wrongs they do” …. Falsely representing yourself as an architect in a business context where you are legally required to be an architect is a crime

No one is saying you can’t do the job of an architect without a license, no one is saying you can’t casually call yourself an architect if you work in the field… Just, don’t commit crimes, that’s the point of the conversation.

Jovan you're getting things mixed up. Someone working at a firm with 30 years of experience and working under an architect (in reality getting asked a ton of questions because the person knows a lot) is not doing anything illegal. Someone not licensed doing it on their own and doing something more than a single-family residence in most places is doing something illegal.

Jovan - is your co worker lying to people and saying they are an architect. Is your co worker stamping drawings? If not then it's all fine. There is nothing wrong with doing the job of an architect when you're not one. Regardless of how much experience you have there is something very wrong with saying you're an architect when you're not.

How about this.  Jovan, would you let your license expire and continue to practice architecture while calling yourself and architect?  

For every one person without a license rocking it in this field there are 20 also without a license doing it terribly. Not a good example.

Architects are licensed to protect the welfare of the general public. Licensure provides a metric of minimum competence. It is not some arbitrary gate keeping device.

@Chad: I don't think that's a fair question to ask. Everyone knows that it's illegal to represent yourself as an architect without a license. I'm not arguing that. But ethically speaking, I don't see anything at all wrong with the idea of someone letting their license lapse (like due to not completing CEUs), and still continuing to practice exactly as they were.

And that's my point. It's fine if you disagree. I just personally don't think the government permission slip is what makes someone competent or not. As far as I can tell, the only reason architects defend their title so ferociously is because of pay and relevance. Those are both valid. I agree that those are both real issues. 

But in my (apparently wrong) opinion, the title and license itself is far less important than the work they do (like someone else said, HSW).

CEU is bare minimum to keep license. Standards are important and those who can't meet that low bar don't get to skip the line. I guess I should just go fly some planes now that licenses are irrelevant.

Jovan wrote: 

"But in my (apparently wrong) opinion, the title and license itself is far less important than the work they do (like someone else said, HSW)."

The work we do is important - it can kill people if done incorrectly. Hence why a license is required. The license shows that you have bare minimum knowledge to keep people from dying.

If you're knowledgeable and experienced enough to become licensed but aren't - tough.  You should of taken your exams and been licensed.  

"Engineer" is a broadly used term and I can't recall ever hearing a licensed engineer bellyache about non-licensed people using the term. They are the field most similar to architecture.

An architect's license has nothing to do with design.

Eamez - 

Architectural licensure is ONLY because of life safety. Getting your license means you' possess the minimum knowledge of how to design a building that won't kill people. 

That's what you pay engineers for.

Without design as a central value, architecture is just a redundant, cost inflating menace to society. 

Design is the who, what, why, where, when while engineering is the how. 

How's the koolaid tasting Eamez?

This Eamez person can't be serious.  They have to be trolling.  

Just in case they're not trolling:

Eamez - as an architect you need to figure out how things go together as well. It's part of designing. You're also responsible for making sure that the building complies with all relevant codes.

Again - the only reason architects are licensed is because of life safety. 

the keyword is ALL relevant codes (building, plumbing, mechanical, structural, fire, accessibility, etc.) Contractually, all of the above are part of the Architect's basic services as well.. sure you can have CONSULTANTS, but the Architect is ultimately responsible...

Yup. Again, I'm surprised that Eamez thinks' that architects only design and have engineers figure out the how of everything.

Right, architects should assume all the responsibility, liability and most of the work while capturing little of the profit and value of design quality.

The corrupt deal bargained by the so-called architecture profession.

^no way you're this thick...

Eamez - how much experience do you have in the profession? I ask because you seem to have no actual understanding of the profession. 

 A bit of background on fees so - a typical commercial design fee is around 7.0% - 8.5% of the construction cost.   Of that fee approximately 25% - 30% of it goes to the consultants - civil, landscape architects, structural, MEP.  All of these consultants work for the architect.  As such the architect directs them what to do.  As you can see the architect in is control of the design, does the majority of work and is paid the majority of the fee.

This ends my architectural practice for dummies.  Good luck.    

Adding to above, the architect includes the engineering work in their set, not the other way around. Architects are trained and tested in all of the relevant engineering disciplines and may perform any and all of them. Consultants are a convenience, not a necessity.

I don't know about you, but our firm relies on our consultants. We know enough to not make careless structural or mechanical errors in our designs, but we don't expect to do the reinforcing details or calculations in our set of drawings.

Design fees vary dramatically depending on firm, city, client, project. But consultants like me are taking more and more of the pie dwindling pie. IMO architects lost when they started outsourcing every skilled trade to others who take 40-50% and then contractors who end up really running the project.

You can’t deny that architects get no return on design quality, now it’s worse than ever with the collapse of architecture criticism and popular media. People mostly hate modern architecture anyway and are happy to live in some contractor hellscape.

Whooooosssse. that's the sound of reason flying over your dumb head.

So, in conclusion, architects don’t really make any design decisions (the contractors, clients and money does) they are glorified project managers who lose more $$ to consultants who know the details. Meanwhile macro urban design quality continues to decline with disposable McUrbanism

If you don’t know what architects do, you can call the state that licenses them. They will be happy to tell you.

Eamez - What type of consultant are you?

Eamez wrote:

“Design fees vary dramatically depending on firm, city, client, project.“ 

Not really. Maybe by 0.5 - 2% but if you're on huge projects that could be a lot of money.  

 “But consultants like me are taking more and more of the pie dwindling pie. IMO architects lost when they started outsourcing every skilled trade to others who take 40-50% and then contractors who end up really running the project.” 

No consultant takes 50% of the fee. MEP take the largest part of the fee and it’s typically 15% if it’s complex job like a hospital. 

 “You can’t deny that architects get no return on design quality, now it’s worse than ever with the collapse of architecture criticism and popular media.” 

 You must of worked with or at some really bad firms. This hasn’t happened to me during my 20-year career. 

 “People mostly hate modern architecture anyway and are happy to live in some contractor hellscape.” 

Sounds like you’re a failed wannabe architect. Good luck with that.  Now excuse me.  My files are finished publishing  and I'm off to go mountain biking.  Have fun.  

Eamez, when you call the state you can also ask them why engineers aren’t qualified to be the lead on projects where human habitation is the principal purpose.

I said consultants together take 50% of the design fee. Contractors meanwhile take much more than 50% of the project. I realized long ago that getting rich first means you get to tell the architects like Chad Miller what to do. Power is where the real desin is. But probably not him, he probably project manages strip malls in North Dakota and thinks he’s the next Rem Koolhaas.

^kookoo kookoo.

In what world do contractors take 50% of the project cost??? Here in the real world, I've seen average of 15-20%.

As a residential designer with an unusually broad skill set, I have done it all, from interior design and cabinet shop drawings to site and landscape plans to structural engineering (including on some pretty complicated homes), mechanical design and electrical and lighting plans. I've even done my own surveying on a few occasions.

I used to avoid consultants because I was trying to save my clients money. What I've found since I've been using consultants more often is that they know their niches better than I do, they're faster and better at it, and their insurance and licenses provide some assurance. I still know enough to check their work and challenge them when necessary, and on very small or simple projects I still do most of it alone. But I make more money, not less money, when consultants are involved; I learn more because I ask questions; my clients get a better design. With my time saved I'm better at doing the things I'm best at and I can do more projects.

Eamez - I've never seen consultant fees go over 29% of the total A&E fees. Even when a consultants fee is higher (say MEP for a complex medical project) the architects fees also go up proportionally. 

 On a side note: I find it telling that Eamez took the time to try an cyber stalk me. I think he has some jealousy issues. Just an FYI Eamez - I've never practiced in ND nor have I ever worked on a strip mall. I'm no great architect but I've done some good work, mostly in schools and public works maxing out in the $150 million range.  I'm sure you've done much more prestigious work.  Why don't you show us some of it.  

I love when people bring up how the engineer are the ones who really design buildings. Like, structural engineers don’t even design columns themselves, what are you talking about.

I love it when someone with no actual experience in architecture makes comments about who designs buildings and how much they're paid. ;)

If architects (outside of a few New York big wigs) designs buildings why does every development look exactly the same? Every multifam looks the same, every house looms the same, every school, etc. Even wealthy clients (university and medical, always) pump out the same schlock. Why? Because most architects are project managers, copy/pasting the same McModern they know the ignorant client and codes will accept. Then managing consultants who make all the decisions.

The amount of ignorance in Eamez's posts can't be real. He must be a disgruntled troll. Good luck with that Eamez. Still waiting to see some of your work and hear about what type of consulting you do.

Eamez... most houses don't even have architects. 

Chad, Agreed. This person crosses me as a Arch School drop out who got confused and disenchanted with the profession before they even started (which is fair though) but then chose to stick around and talk shit they don't know anything about. 

Ask the developers why every Multifamily looks the same. If developers had even more say, these buildings wouldn’t have windows, elevators, or plumbing so be thankful for that. School design largely comes from the government standards that govern school design.

Eamez, you might be surprised to know that one of the biggest limitations on our work is the countless contractors who say ‘it can’t be done’ and convince innocent clients it’s true when it’s not. What they mean to say is that they can’t do it. Or don’t want to do it. Or that there’s easier things to do so they are going to do that instead. The skill level of contractors is at an all-time low. Getting them to do much of anything without messing up, taking the money, and running a huge part of the battle that as a consultant you are probably not aware of.

I got an email yesterday with some renderings of a proposed addition to my former high school. I knew the architect right away, he was a guy in my arch school program who barely graduated because he was so lazy. The problem here is that no one looking at these renderings has any clue what they are looking at and why they are bad.

I think the biggest limitation in our work is the project budget and schedule. Those two things drive every single design decision that it made on any project.

natematt wrote:

"Eamez... most houses don't even have architects. 

Chad, Agreed. This person crosses me as a Arch School drop out who got confused and disenchanted with the profession before they even started (which is fair though) but then chose to stick around and talk shit they don't know anything about."

If I recall correctly he Eamez has a BS in Architecture and 'left for a related field that pays much better'.  I'm still waiting to hear what that field is. 

So what do architect’s get for pushing design quality on contractors and the public that don’t compensate for it? Nothing.

That’s why I’m working on fixing the deeper problems in architecture and the building industry, which is lack of compensation for design quality, not being a Don Quixote in a world that doesn’t care about design.

Eamez - 

What are you doing to fix the deeper problems in architecture?

I have no idea where you've worked but I've always been compensated quite well for providing my design skills. 

What type of consulting work do you do that pays you so much and gives you such design freedom?

Eamez, how do you do that? :)

I don't think so.

There was a user here to gave a bogus report to my current licensing board saying that exaggerated my experience level by saying I was an architect in my LinkedIn work history when I wasn't.  The board looked into it. said it was bogus (I used the term architectural associate for a firm I worked at ten years ago) and informed me that even if I did say I used the term architect it wasn't something they go after.  

I think it’s pretty well established that the only time people ever really get disciplined is if they are doing something more explicitly illegal, such pretending to be licensed to get business or stamping drawings. Architecture boards will occasionally publicly shame these people and discipline them.

Seems like there is at least a minor effort with large companies to correct title structures around what is “technically” legal for the use of the term architect. But despite it technically being illegal to call yourself an architect or use derivatives of the term, it’s typical these days for unlicensed people to call themselves “architectural designer”, and clearly the regulating bodies don’t care. Honestly, they should just change what is officially acceptable. There are plenty of conversations around that on this website though.

It's also a bit confusing since AIA and various states have different views on what you can be called.

When software people started calling themselves "architects", the state licensing boards basically gave up trying to police use of the title except in very narrow circumstances where somebody who doesn't have a license is specifically selling architectural services as if they were.

That's what I've encountered. Basically if you're involved in the AE industry and use the term architect when you're not, you're in trouble.