What is your reaction to this? Does it pose a serious threat to the profession?
I am not sure how much, if any, attention this has gotten outside of Texas, but this was published by TSA (Texas Society of Architects) in late July.
Following the TSA article is a link to the initial article by Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) and the response issued by TSA:
Engineering Board Stakes Architecture as Subset of Engineering - Jul 27, 2005
The Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) issued a formal opinion on June 10, 2005 (see pdf below entitled “TBPE Opinion”) announcing that building design is considered engineering and therefore may be performed exclusively by a licensed professional engineer with or without an architect. Their opinion appears to be based on: (1) a 1992 Attorney General opinion which they incorrectly interpret to mean that engineers can prepare architectural and engineering plans and specifications for public works projects, and (2) their overly broad interpretation of the Engineers Practice Act. In issuing this opinion, TBPE ignores the fact that another statute exists regulating the practice of building design i.e. the Architects Practice Act.
With the help of Representative Kino Flores (Chairman of House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee), TSA has responded accordingly. Rep. Flores has requested an opinion from the Attorney General on whether Texas law allows engineers to prepare both architectural and engineering plans and specifications for public works projects (see pdf below entitled “AG Request”). TSA has briefed this issue in response to Rep. Flores' Request for Opinion. If you would like to read the brief, please see the pdf below entitled “TSA Amicus Brief.”
We expect to be advised on this issue by the Attorney General's office sometime in November or December, but it could be as late as January, 2006. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Yvonne Castillo, General Counsel, at ycastillo@texasarchitect.org by phone at 512-478-7386.
if one reads the engineers' opinion it's a little more watered-down than the TSA indicates. they cite a legal opinion by the infamous ex-AG dan morales--whose new office is behind bars, but that's not for here--that basically suggests that engineers as well as architects can practice architecture. there's a lot of tiptoeing around architects in the opinion.
it's mostly a moot point anyway. many types of building in TX can be done without architects. but i don't know of a single architect (at least in austin) who designs his/her own slabwork and most tend to get cautious and have even simple wood structures engineered.
re6el9uy10, this was actually covered previously on archinect.
I missed the previous discussion, I was on vacation when it came up. The state of Rhode Island, I think, has also passed or proposed some legistlation that takes some areas of expertise out of the realm of architecture and into the realm of interior design, a separately licensed profession.
Both moves piss me off, but I can't come up with a logical response except to write to the AIA and tell them (us) how much it makes me angry, and in the meantime keep doing what I do, well.
if we can't compete with other qualified folk we have a problem that legislation isn't going to help.
no matter the laws neither engineer nor interior designer is going to be able to compete with me on the work i do. they simply can't, not as their jobs are defined today. now, if they get to the point where they CAN compete it basically just means that they are architects in all but name, so what is the problem? I compete with other architects for jobs on a regular basis and have no problem with it. i win on design often enough that it just isn't an issue to me what their background is...
i mean look at arup, they had huge input on half of the best building of the last decade and nobody cares about that...or do they?
As I write this post the Indiana legislature Employment Committe is debating whether to pass HB1063, which would "allow qualified interior designers to "register" with the Indiana Secretary of State and to stamp plans on commercial projects that involve non-structural, non-seismic and non-system related construction."
The AIA is fighting this bill, mainly because there is absolutely no structure in place to define what constitues a person to be a "qualified interior designer" other than telling the state that they are one! A person can register with the Secretary of State - not the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency, which regulates architects - calling him/herself an interior designer, and then stamp plans.
I wrote a letter to my state rep. Glad to hear Texas has sorted things out a bit - though the whole realm of professional licensing is still a messy topic for everyone.
there are many posts in this forum that blast AIA for perceived ineffectiveness ... this is a perfect example of the AIA working effectively to protect and advance the interests of ALL architects
my hat is off to the TSA -- and all of my friends out there who have labored so hard to make that component effective -- for their resounding success in defending our interests against the poachers and predators
there is no other organization that will stand up for the rights and professional interests of architects ... we all should be grateful to TSA and the AIA in general, for all that they do for us, whether we are members of AIA or not.
that's right quizzical -- at first i found it a bit ludicrous that the TSA was reacting to this, based on the actual wording of the TSPE opinion, but the more i considered it, the more i realized that this was a "trojan horse" that would lead to engineers' marketing themselves to clients as an alternative to architects. as if there WERE an alternative, but the moment the TSA did their job exceeding well here.
Jan 11, 06 6:51 pm ·
·
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.
Engineering Board Stakes Architecture as Subset of Engineering
What is your reaction to this? Does it pose a serious threat to the profession?
I am not sure how much, if any, attention this has gotten outside of Texas, but this was published by TSA (Texas Society of Architects) in late July.
Following the TSA article is a link to the initial article by Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) and the response issued by TSA:
Engineering Board Stakes Architecture as Subset of Engineering - Jul 27, 2005
The Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) issued a formal opinion on June 10, 2005 (see pdf below entitled “TBPE Opinion”) announcing that building design is considered engineering and therefore may be performed exclusively by a licensed professional engineer with or without an architect. Their opinion appears to be based on: (1) a 1992 Attorney General opinion which they incorrectly interpret to mean that engineers can prepare architectural and engineering plans and specifications for public works projects, and (2) their overly broad interpretation of the Engineers Practice Act. In issuing this opinion, TBPE ignores the fact that another statute exists regulating the practice of building design i.e. the Architects Practice Act.
With the help of Representative Kino Flores (Chairman of House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee), TSA has responded accordingly. Rep. Flores has requested an opinion from the Attorney General on whether Texas law allows engineers to prepare both architectural and engineering plans and specifications for public works projects (see pdf below entitled “AG Request”). TSA has briefed this issue in response to Rep. Flores' Request for Opinion. If you would like to read the brief, please see the pdf below entitled “TSA Amicus Brief.”
We expect to be advised on this issue by the Attorney General's office sometime in November or December, but it could be as late as January, 2006. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Yvonne Castillo, General Counsel, at ycastillo@texasarchitect.org by phone at 512-478-7386.
http://www.texasarchitect.org/news_detail.php?news_id=60&sess_id=48a1eb98ce9e516777a97034c93d22f6
Ha.
1. they are enginners (enough said)
2. they are Texans (no offence)
none taken.
if one reads the engineers' opinion it's a little more watered-down than the TSA indicates. they cite a legal opinion by the infamous ex-AG dan morales--whose new office is behind bars, but that's not for here--that basically suggests that engineers as well as architects can practice architecture. there's a lot of tiptoeing around architects in the opinion.
it's mostly a moot point anyway. many types of building in TX can be done without architects. but i don't know of a single architect (at least in austin) who designs his/her own slabwork and most tend to get cautious and have even simple wood structures engineered.
the profession erodes itself. it sometimes feels like feeding time on the title architect. I like to think you get out what you put in.
I've heard numbers are very important in enginering inputs
re6el9uy10, this was actually covered previously on archinect.
I missed the previous discussion, I was on vacation when it came up. The state of Rhode Island, I think, has also passed or proposed some legistlation that takes some areas of expertise out of the realm of architecture and into the realm of interior design, a separately licensed profession.
Both moves piss me off, but I can't come up with a logical response except to write to the AIA and tell them (us) how much it makes me angry, and in the meantime keep doing what I do, well.
if we can't compete with other qualified folk we have a problem that legislation isn't going to help.
no matter the laws neither engineer nor interior designer is going to be able to compete with me on the work i do. they simply can't, not as their jobs are defined today. now, if they get to the point where they CAN compete it basically just means that they are architects in all but name, so what is the problem? I compete with other architects for jobs on a regular basis and have no problem with it. i win on design often enough that it just isn't an issue to me what their background is...
i mean look at arup, they had huge input on half of the best building of the last decade and nobody cares about that...or do they?
formal resolution
http://texasarchitect.org/pdfs/news73_AttorneyGeneral.pdf
Thnaks for the update, ochona.
As I write this post the Indiana legislature Employment Committe is debating whether to pass HB1063, which would "allow qualified interior designers to "register" with the Indiana Secretary of State and to stamp plans on commercial projects that involve non-structural, non-seismic and non-system related construction."
The AIA is fighting this bill, mainly because there is absolutely no structure in place to define what constitues a person to be a "qualified interior designer" other than telling the state that they are one! A person can register with the Secretary of State - not the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency, which regulates architects - calling him/herself an interior designer, and then stamp plans.
I wrote a letter to my state rep. Glad to hear Texas has sorted things out a bit - though the whole realm of professional licensing is still a messy topic for everyone.
there are many posts in this forum that blast AIA for perceived ineffectiveness ... this is a perfect example of the AIA working effectively to protect and advance the interests of ALL architects
my hat is off to the TSA -- and all of my friends out there who have labored so hard to make that component effective -- for their resounding success in defending our interests against the poachers and predators
there is no other organization that will stand up for the rights and professional interests of architects ... we all should be grateful to TSA and the AIA in general, for all that they do for us, whether we are members of AIA or not.
that's right quizzical -- at first i found it a bit ludicrous that the TSA was reacting to this, based on the actual wording of the TSPE opinion, but the more i considered it, the more i realized that this was a "trojan horse" that would lead to engineers' marketing themselves to clients as an alternative to architects. as if there WERE an alternative, but the moment the TSA did their job exceeding well here.
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.