wow! OK, I know this has been said, but why oh WHY isn't the AIA being an effective lobby against this kind of shit? This is horrible.

maybe because the AIA is a bunch of old farts .... and pussies as well

They wouldn't have lockers. Gets in the way of all the chase they need to put in that wall.

i'm convinced that texas is about the stupidest place on earth. who is responsible for letting those lone star idiots into the union anyways?

and yes i'm bitter about bush winning the presidency, texas beating my wolverines in the rose bowl and the spurs beating the pistons in the nba finals. it's been a shitty year and i'm sick of texas.

rationalist and sameolddoctor -

note that you only KNOW about this because of an AIA publication. it's not something that any other media would care about enough to cover.

also note that yvonne castillo, the chapter's general counsel and the author of the article, is certainly not one of the stereotypical gray-haired white males (i.e., 'old farts') you all seem to think make up our AIA chapters across the country.

why aren't 'they' being effective in combatting this kind of activity? maybe because the AIA is made up primarily of us - architects - not lobbyists. maybe because many of us architect-types find it more interesting to snipe about the AIA than participate, thereby marginalizing its effectiveness even WITHIN the profession. how do we expect those outside the profession to respect it/us?

you can bet that a good percentage of the texas board of professional engineers is standing behind their position...

Steven,
the only thing my local AIA chapter seems to pull-off with any passion is their white boy fraternity khaki pants polo shirt merlot golf tournament.

my general impression is that they're complicit assholes in sprawl regardless of their posturing, and sprawl is a huge issue here.

i don't feel better now but thanks for allowing me to vent. i think i've had too many latte's this morning...

we should lobby the American Mathematics Society to formally announce that engineering is simply a subset of mathematics and that any mathematician with above a masters should be legally empowered as an engineer in any field. just one up them.

Um, maybe I need another cup of coffee, but I think they already do this in CA and it doesn't seem to hurt anyone.

Having worked on a few PW projects, I would have to question as to why anyone wouldn't want to pawn it off on an engineer.

In most juresdictions you don't need an architect to do a building, but you do need an engineer. This case just sounds like a bunch of cry babys who wish they had their engineering license.

I've always thought the AIA to be a useless body, but then again, I've never understood why Architects need a license anyway. Afterall, I'm not going to calc. shit- lifes too short and thats what engineers are for.

Besides most engineers I know couldn't design their way out of a cardboard box. So why all the worry?

pomotrash has just made a good argument for all of those who feel architecture is merely a luxury and therefore unnecessary for most of the general public.

pomo- an architect needs to sign off on any project above a certain size. non-licensed people can do single family houses, and I think couple more things (like duplexes or something), but once it gets big enough, you need to be an architect. And yes, I do mean in California.

Architects need licenses so that some bum off the street can't decide to be an architect one day. Yes, if you have the education, the experience, the ability, then get licensed is secondary. But the difference between someone with an architect's license and someone without one is what keeps the profession from being populated with a bunch of people who think they'd make good architects because they've always had 'good taste.' Do you think that B&S is a pain to get through now? Try imagining how it would be if there was no licensing for architects- you'd walk in there with your cohesive set of plans, and have to wait for HOURS for the B&S guys to get done with every random-ass that walked in there thinking he could design his new house, resaraunt, store, whatever, because lack of licensure standards gives people the impression that anyone can design buildings. Licensure is a method of organization which may be a pain, and may not always be necessary for every designer, but is a good thing in the main.

Steven- I was under the impression that the AIA did employ a couple of lobbyists as part of the service to their members. Those lobbyists don't seem to be doing too well at their jobs, from what I've seen.

Whats interesting is that most people on this site would argue that you dont need a license to be an architect, and even some would argue that its a waste of time and you can be a better architect by not getting licensed.. and now. theyll have their wish because engineers are saying you dont need architects either.. or even designers..

yes, rationalist. they do employ some lobbyists. i'm not sure how much support these lobbyists are given or even (depending on where they are) for what they are supposed to lobby.

i glossed over this fact primarily because i think the more salient point in this discussion is that the aia is not supposed to be a 'they' that does things for 'us' architects. the aia is architects banding together to support each other and the profession. the organization will have successes and failings. participation is key if you want results. if you're not a participant, you have no standing from which to expect anything of the organization.

steven, always the voice of placid reason.

perhaps the underlying issue is one of the culture's view that architecture is something that is, as steven noted, the perception that architecture is a luxury rather than a necessity or intrinsic element in buildings.

architecture isn't merely erecting a building or structure, which is what (i believe) the engineers feel that architects ultimately do. we have to work to change that perception. They probably think that we don't do much more than make 4 walls and a roof the expensive way.

Here the contractor has a licence that is about equivalent to an architect's and there is NO distinction made between architect and engineer. Both professions take the same exam, and all architecture schools are sub-disciplines of the faculty of engineering. Very telling, that.

But no worries. Doesn't seem to bother Toyo Ito that Nikken Sekkei (a large super-contractor) is competing against him. If he beats them he will do it on merit, not on the basis of his membership in some group or other (well that's not entirely true cuz politics matters, but not the JIA which no one cares about...)

If engineers want to design i say all the power to them, but I don't think they are real competition. If they WERE real competition then they would be de facto architects and the question becomes moot.

ok.

its somewhat a question of the purpose of "architect" and licensure...

if the only point of it is to simply exclude those who dont have it from being competition, that i think thats a pretty lousy system and should be doen away with.

but its actually done because architectural design is more than just making pictures or makgin sure that columns stand up. and the public needs to have a way of knowing people that are capapble of that and those that arent, hence.. licensure.

this is a very important and good thing. those who are trained to be architects and then act like licensure is a bad thing simply because they dont want to take the time to do the exams are doing a disservice to all the education and hard work theyve put in to get to their ability.

architecutre is more than just engineering, and its more than someone just painting an elevation composition. and the public has no other way of knowing whos qualified and whose not excpet for licensing.

Honestly, I'd rather work on the projects that engineers are probably going after, nor would I like to work with a client who doesn't even understand the value of an architect.

The AIA would do a great service to the profession but not wasting time and resources fighting engineers, but rather promoting the value of good design to the public. If clients think engineers can do it better, the burden is on us to show them why we are valuable. Simply blocking an engineer's right to design might make clients wonder if we're really better or if we're just protecting our market.

great news.

i'm calling my structural engineer right now about this flashing question...

a center for ants,

sorry to deconstruct your logic, but engineering would not be a subset of mathematics, but a subset of physics, specifically material sciences and behaviors in which mathematics is just a tool for investigating physical properties and behaviors..

The comment above shows how little architects actually know about engineering....

But you can get all defensive and worry that the discipline of architecture is being threatened by engineers which is completely true. If you really want to get worried we best not bring up how much developers infringe on architecture...

Shit, architecture as a discipline is so confused right now it almost makes more sense to hire an engineer to design your project.. at least they know their position on design...cheap, functional, and safe..
Unlike most archtiects that design a bunch of eccentric crap...But i guess that is the value of design right???

"It's Pomo"

"What's Pomo"

"Wierd for the sake of being wierd"

"But the difference between someone with an architect's license and someone without one is what keeps the profession from being populated with a bunch of people who think they'd make good architects because they've always had 'good taste.'"

Uh, so why is their so much crap being made by architects? The profession is populated with mediocre talent, at best. Licensure does nothing to promote good design, if anything, it keeps those with ambitious design ideals looking elsewhere.
If anything, I'd rather people with 'good taste' be designing buildings.

One reason the AIA can't promote good design is that the majority of the architect's out there don't do it, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
Second reason is that no one can agree on what is 'good'.

If the engineer's get their way, then it will finally kill any need for getting licensed. That part I welcome, but the fact that architect's are losing to another profession is troublesome, imo.

Next, interior designers will finally get their licensing program and require architects to take their tests to do interiors! Fun.

This is not the first time, and Texas is not the first state. Florida, Nevada and Arizona have been toying with the idea.

If one thinks that answering a bunch of multiple choice questions is proof of architectural excelence, then probably you are for the ridiculous licensing process.
And please don't tell me that you do not know of at least one licensed architect that does not know what the building code is for.

Architects should do more to safeguard the profession of an Architect, and not the name. Currently the majority of new buildings are build without a licensed architect.

ok. lets put this in perspective.

1] w is from texas so he has no taste.
2] can anyone name more than one great building or perhaps 5 from texas?
3] and can we say sprawl? didnt they invent the word?

perhaps the engineers all along have been nugging the old archs along after all. my vote is to anex texas out of the union then perhaps we can kill 2 birds with one stone. let the engineers carry-on!

Ok, ya'll. This thread is getting polluted by ignorant anti-texans. the issue of engineers claiming authority to act as architects has NOTHING to do with whether Texas has good architects, taste or sprawl.

1) Bush was born in Connecticut

2) Here's your 5

The Kimball -Louis Kahn
De Menil Collection - Piano
UT School of Nursing - Lake Flato
Modern Art Museum - Tadao Ando
The Beer Can House - Houston

3) Actually, William Gibson was one of the first to popularize the term "sprawl" and he was referring to the entire east coast of the US.

:)

*I don't know. Our office seems to be saving thousands of dollars for the clients by catching coordination errors made by engineers. I think engineering is so specialized. I don't know of any in our area that want the headache of the overall project. Besides, doesn't that just consolidate liabilty?

*Licensing is about health, safety, and welfare, period. It is about responsibility, not design. Those are the rules of the game. Get with it or get over it.

*Why is density better? Do you like scheduling the sunshine between 10a and 3p? Going 30 blocks to the park to see grass and trees is your own little adventure? You think you don't use just as much energy?

*Most new construction is small scale residential. It's assembly line stuff, thus cheap. Most people don't care, thus the McMansion. Browbeating probably won't change their minds.

*If you annex us out (wtf?) we're taking TexMex, Barbecue, and Chili with us. Oh!, and Dr. Pepper, too!

<cartman> Screw you guys, I'm going home!</cartman>

"Only two things come from texas boy, steers and queers...and you dont look like a steer to me!" - drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket

this is funny..
i am sure engineers are just laughing away..

i do recall calling an architect up about the fact that his curbs on the site plan weren't 6 inches.. and his curves weren't tangent.. how are they going to build that!?!!!!

and i remember how one structural engineer quit because they wanted to move a column to make a room for a sofa..
i still laugh just thinking about that..

i've found it more likely that i'm calling up the engineers to correct discrepancies, deficiencies, or other mistakes on their drawings than they are calling me about curbs and the construction of my curves. as jitter12 indicated above, it seems that, while i hire them out of my fee, i also usually end up being my engineers' quality control. THEY'RE not checking the drawings.

Amen, Steven

our engineers in our office stamp anything that we have do michigan because we have no archi stamp for that fair state. they are quite thorough i might add.

in california, architects can stamp structural drawings.

on my latest project, i'm doing all the structural drawings and calculations and pocketing the portion of fee allocated for the engineer... right back at 'em!

TED oh TED, you've gone too far this time. I can name 5 great buildings just in Marfa.

i can't remember the name of the particular building in marfa, but the one with the 100 aluminum boxes is truly magical.

one of the perks of going to texas tech was being close enough to check it out. another perk is the bruno house just outside of Lubbock.

http://www.robertbruno.com/

It's the Chinati foundation. Donald Judd. It's an old amunitions depot used to house German pow's during WWII. Amazing place. Also check out the Thunderbird hotel in Marfa, just completed by Lake Flato.