1.The expense.
2.NCARB prefers thinning the herd. over promoting excellence.
3.Most firms( though they may state otherwise) run on a class system and really don't want an entire office of licensed "professionals" running around. Very Very messy.
4.They rarely see the benifit ( and I don't blame them) of putting them self through the ringer when they can do so well withought it.
I don't buy the global conspiracy against more architects arguement, but in any case:
However harrowing people think the licensure process is, there is no doubt that it is easier and cheaper to get licensed than to get a professional degree.
the licensure process in the US is somewhat of a joke
that being said, american architects are really limiting themselves if they don't get licensed. for every greg lynn there are 100 semi-low-paid lifers who think $60K a year and "input" into "design" is enough for them
Not everyone gets to be a chief. After running my own practice (minus license) and building several projects I felt that not having a license was holding me back. I started in on the exam a year ago and am slowly plowing through each division, with mixed degrees of sucess.
I go between being resentful (having designed, supervised, and built my own projects I think that I've earned the right to a license) and understanding of NCARBS goal for the test. I do think the test is poorly written and stresses information that really is not of any use unless one is designing a highrise, or shopping mall on their own (someone tell me when this has ever happened). I think that the exam does not test real world knowledge and shows how out of touch the people at the top of the profession are with what is actually going on.
The big joke is that here in CA we have the dreaded 9th section- the oral which is a complete farce and obviously geared towards creating a frat hazing type of environment.
In any case, as dehumanizing as it is, it makes one realize that not everyone needs to be licensed and that having too many chefs in the kitchen makes for a bad soup. I'd love to have that 60 k gig with less responsibility and more free time, but I figured out a long time ago that I don't quite fit into that mold.
I have been at this for a while and for a long time I thought that everyone that would come in to this profession was interested in changing the world and or shaking it drastically.
Only to learn that there are far more people interested in working 9- 5 and going home to the house with the picket fence and the 2.5 kids.
I think for the profession or any business to survive it has to provide a venue for both types to succeed, to be there best. An environment that rewards substantially one over the other is a corrosive one and will be problematic.
I would encourage everyone thinling about possibly taking the tests to start the process as soon as possible because it is looooooong, arduous, archaic. Then at least you have yourself positioned to decide who youwant to be.
the test (for us in the u.s.) doesn't have anything to do with your aspirations. it's a minimum competency test based on life safety and problem-solving.
it's simply a landmark, a line to cross between non-architect and architect. good design isn't relevant.
you just have to pass it. no excuses.
i know. i was a procrastinator. it took me years to decide to get it done.
There are many incredibly competent people who have not passed the test and I am certain you know as many that have who are clowns.
Does that mean everyone should not take the test?
Of course not.
I disagree with the essence of your argument for the same reason why some people should seek higher education and some not. It is about how you define yourself. What you want to give to the profession, and what you expect from it.
Is there a minimum competency for being a valued member of society?
Sounds ridiculous……. I think it is no different in the architectural profession.
To survive it needs all comers and they should be heralded for their roles.
If it is simply about minimum competency, then what role does the Licensure play in every day practice when it is often accepted that it has little to do with the profession as it is practiced on a daily basis. Why should someone take the test if it does not?
1. Help them get where they want to be professionally.
2. Prepare them for what they are doing on a daily basis.
3. Define a level of competency which they will be judged by to get a job
It is not for everyone and in the end it is about who you want to be.
I don't mind taking the test, it is IDP that I can't stand.
What good does it do to write down every little thing and turn it in to someone at Wash DC to look over to make sure you are getting the experience you need. I goofed bigtime when it comes to IDP. I wrote down all my hours by hand in little notes, intending to record them to NCARB when they finally decided to get around to establishing my record. Meanwhile, I was relegated to CD's and standard details and really boring stuff my first year in the office. After building up a level of frustration, I went to the boss and asked if there was a problem with my work, why I wasn't getting new experiences and learning the things I needed to become an architect. The response was simple, because I hadn't told them I needed that experience, that I needed to write a letter the principal architects every week stating what I needed according to IDP. And here I thought advancement was merit based and I was wondering what was wrong with me, I thought I was doing everything to the best of my abilities and yet still not getting growth opportunities. Silly me, I thought IDP was a record of what I had done, and that I needed to EARN those responsibilities from my firm in order to record them in IDP. Rather they were expecting me to TELL them that I still needed site visits and programming experience. What? I told them I thought it was a little obvious that my experience was a little one sided. I also told them that I thought it was because they thought I was severly incompetent and I couldn't figure out why, they didn't think that of course. They honestly said they thought I was content to be a CAD monkey. This would lead you to believe that I didn't ask for experience at all, this is not true, apparently I just didn't ask with the IDP info in hand!
I WISH all I had to do was pass an exam that actually has a farily high passing rate and shouldn't be too tough. Instead I am stuck in the middle of this huge IDP mess. I have a recent graduate I know who I am begging to start IDP correctly, he isn't doing it because he doesn't understand it and is starting down the road I did. How many others does this happen to?
'kay, montu. do you have a driver's license? why did you bother? because it is a measurable way to establish minimal competency and to legally call yourself a driver.
sure, you can drive on your own land without one. you can even drive around a private parking lot, maybe even a track. you can be among the best racing drivers! but you can't drive on public roads without it.
is the driver test a measure of whether you're a good driver? not really.
do a lot of clowns pass it? obviously.
do you use the things on which you were tested on a daily basis? i don't.
if you want to be an architect, you have to take the test. true, it's not for everyone. but those who decide against, even the best designers among us, don't get to be called architects in this country.
i can't say that i agree with this. maybe non-registered people ought to be able to call themselves architects. but then there would be another title, maybe registered architect, which would establish that a level of tested competency had been reached.
montu: are you suggesting above in your 9:47 post that you think a person who declines to pursue licensure and also wants to just work a 9-5 existence should be entitled to the same rewards as an ambitious, energetic person who aggressively pursues licensure and puts in 55-60 hours of really productive work each week ?
license = architect
no license = not an architect, but a designer, intern, technician, etc.
The driver's licencse analogy is perfect here: you can do something (drive, call yourself an architect) without a license, for years, for ever. Get caught, and the state will have its way with you.
Love it, hate it, but that's how it is until someone changes it.
or for that matter, I can call my self an architectural technician, architect of technology, database architect, etc.
but with 7 years of education I can't call myself anything?
So why does someone with a 5 year degree have the same credentials as somoone with two degrees? Just tossing things out there.
I can build and design without licensure, I just can't call myself an architect.
Sorry, I just don't see the logic there. If someone want's to make a title like 'registered architect', as Steven suggested, I am all for that.
But the way it is now I believe it's splitting the profession. Those that don't follow the IDP path, such as myself, are alienated and annoyed. With 70% of grads not taking the exam, I think someone needs to wake up and take a better look at the flaws in the system.
I do think IDP is the problem. Look at law - why can't we take a 1 day test anytime? Or, if you wanted to not take the test, why can't you get licensure after working for a certain amount of time?
Seems like a big scam to me - they got everyone locked in, without choice, and the ball keeps rolling - they keep making money and 'relegating' our profession, all the while not doing a damn good for the bigger picture.
Oh, one last thing. You can't put up a building with 0 knowledge. Licensure being a minimum competency requirement sounds good, but doens't make much sense to me.
You can drive a car with 0 knowledge, so there has to be a standard for drivers, to limit those on the road in the name of safety.
With buildings, you can't put them up without knowledge of the structure, materials, etc. Then we go to the fact that anyone can put up a house without a license and when we get to large buildings, the true safety issues are passed onto experts.
It's not all black and white, but if they keep things the way they are people that aren't in the IDP program the minute they graduate will never be part of it, which is a growing number.
Just one more thing that is eroding the profession, imho.
funny i just got an e-mail from a classmate back in canada who is racing through his NCARB's, one a month. He had years of experiene under his belt working in an office before he finished MARCH and that might makes things different for him, but he tells me the exams are stupid easy, requiring little effort or study. he has finished 7 of the 9, so must know somehting of what he speaks.
as for the valueof the damn thing he seemed to be of two minds on the topic. he was doing the tests but wasn't sure of the entire point of the deal. isn't likely to get a better position from it and even if he did it would be more of the same job he has already design-wise (that is, the licence ain't gonna help him get into a design-led firm of any stature)...
i'd like to ask those of you who hold degress in architecture but don't seem interested in registration ... why did you bother to finish your last semester of college ... why did you take your degree ... ?
it seems to me this is essentially the same question ... most people take a degree so others will have some basic understanding of their education ... most architects of my generation took the ARE for the same basic reason ... it's a rite of passage ... a badge of honor ... a symbol of accomplishment and professionalism
i'd feel cheated if i put in all the work and paid all the tuition for a degree in architecture but never actually received the degree (i'd possess the same amount of knowledge either way) ... i'm certain i'd feel the same if i had never obtained my license ...
our firm produces great work, we have great clients and we win our fair share of design awards ... but, i've never stamped a drawing in my 33 years of practice ... you could say that i've never really needed my license, but i'm damn glad i've got it and i'm damn proud to call myself an Architect (note the big "A") ...
the test, yes, it has little or nothing to do with the real world. if you have to take a special prep class (or, rather, if I had to take a special prep class) in order to pass the graphic divisions because you have to actually unlearn good design in order to pass some of them...well, then, the test doesn't mean much.
but i think people misconstrue the importance of the internship. idp, with all its flaws, is an improvement over the old system where people could draft bathrooms for three years, study real hard, pass the exam, and then be licensed to practice. which is what more than a few people did. and i think i've worked for a few people who did that...
which begs the question, what value licensure? it's a certification of MINIMUM competency, i agree. engineers do not argue over whether or not they should get licenses -- nor do CPAs or lawyers. the license is not the point at which you ARRIVE, it's the point at which you start. otherwise i wouldn't have had a driver's license until i was 20.
Why are people against licensure? I guess the main reason that people state is that the process of getting a licesne is too hard. That seems really wierd to me. Why are people so lazy?
And why do people get upset that the exam doesnt judge design talent? Why would you want it to.. the exam is to make sure that you can solve simple problems of space organization, and also understand common construction details and legalities... to me that seems to make sense.. why wouldnt we have something like that.. IDP prob is too complicated, but i would say that internships are SUPER important. How much more did you learn about architecture in the first few years out of school working.. quite a bit.. maybe not so much about how to make things pretty, but I certainly learned a lot about how to put drawings sets together. document projects, go through construction, etc....
Why wouldnt you want an internship period?... for those that complain that the europe system is better where they get their license upon graduating.. keep in mind they also have to spend 1-2 years of school IN an internship.. not school studios.. internships are part of their education.. and then they have to take a series of exams in their final year that are the same are our ARE...
so they have the same system.. just all at once instead of after...
someone made a point that not everyone needs to be a star and have aspirations. which is why not everyone needs to be licensed.. which is true.. but then those unlicensed people should have the same expectations or demands from their career as tom mayne would....
of course having a license doesnt immediately mean youre amazing.. but it does provide clients with the comfort of knowing youve passed nationwide standards....of course a licensed architect whose 60 knows more than one whose 28.. but why would that ever be an arguement against licensure...
I already stated I am OK with licensure, this is a rant on IDP: I had a unique advantage of having a non-traditional internship where I worked as an architectural intern for a structural engineer. This structural engineer built so many more buildings (and even worked on the Hoover Dam during his internship) than any architect I know. The quality of internship was incredible and he didn't know anything about IDP! Surprise, surprise, he did it because he knew I didn't know anything and needed to learn. IDP does not equal quality internship, it equals stupid paperwork and it is a weeding out tool.
When did the architecture profession decide it didn't owe anything to anybody, including mentoring younger members? I find it ironic that architecture is a profession where experience and knowledge is key, that learning the ropes is how you get somewhere. And IDP is how we do that?
The structural engineer saw it as his DUTY to take me to job sites, to put me in situations where I learned really fast, showed me the things you really have to consider to do a take-off instead of pointing to the cost data book. He told me it was his duty and he felt the calling as a senior member to help young people progress in the field. He also had a young woman engineer 'intern' whom he ignored, he singled me out as the bright, motivated one thank god.
He also begged me not to become an architect because they are arrogant worthless jackasses that don't know how buildings go together but hink they do. He knew how to run a business too, he didn't expect me to bill 99% of my time making most of his profits off of me, more like 50% time. The rest of the time we talked about architecture, buildings, mistakes and how to avoid them, it was a two way conversation! We ate pie and ice cream old-skool apprentice like while he quizzed me on the weight of concrete, the proper way to flash a joint. Looking back it was a dream come true, I learned more from him in two summers than I learned at the architecture firm for several years, granted I didn't learn how a set went together with the engineer.
That to me, folks, is messed up. That architects relegate their talented youth to bathroom details. It is so... republican if I may say so. To be so selfish and not consider the greater good. Isn't what is good for the whole also good for the individuals? Rocket science here. Problem is that most architects aren't in good enough financial standing to teach interns, so they must just sorta pick it as they go. And so they introduce this program where an intern can be assertive and go to the boss and say, "look, IDP says you need to let me work on cost estimates." And then... what happens, the architect says OK hot stuff, do an estimate then. And it takes 4 days because I have to figure out everything on my own, asking a max of 4 questions a day to which I get weak, flustered answers. Meanwhile the client pays the price.
Granted this engineer was a rare jewel, an elderly man with a sucessful company, but I have now had internships of two types, and one could learn a lot from the other.
haven't we had this conversation before? there is no sense in arguing this point any longer.....we just need to face facts that there are two types of people out there: those for licensure, and those who feel that a putting in just a little effort toward what is admittedly a flawed, but necessary, process is just a waste their time.
come on people.....would you go to doctor who isn't an MD, even though they have 'practicing' for years? i personally like the analogy above by quizzical regarding the diploma...
in fact, i believe that all architectural work should require a licensed architect....even that little detached garage or storage shed should need an Architect's approval. licensure is not about what you may or may not know, it's proof that you consider yourself, and are considered by others, as a professional in a field that you have gone through hell to become a part of.
Alas, I am not the only one, fordified! I have detailed handwritten notes and my old time sheets. It takes me a day to enter 18 weeks of work which isn't actually as bad as I thought it would be. Can only blame ourselves though, you are right...
hotsie,
not all european countries require internships, and if you are a resident there you can take your degree earned in North America and get a licence lickity split. a few of my ex-pat friends have done this no hassel and are, presto, licenced in the EU, no exam, no internship, nada. not even an extra course. The system in much of Europe is simply not equivalent to US, though maybe the UK is closer as you have to do a real project and take courses for your part III. This is the kind of licence that Liebeskind had until recently. Didn't hurt him any that he didn't have to intern for some dumb-ass office for 3 years before even starting the exams.
The licence is a good thing. the process is one that seriously impedes thinking though, and that is what most are talkin about. As Strawbeary said the learning is haphazard and the respect uneven. And exams are an extension of this old system of guild-li-ness. seems to me the guild aspect would be better removed from the deal altogether, most of all the hazing kind of thing some of you think was fortifying. getting your licence should be challenging, but not because of your office environment. It should only be as difficult as the content (which is, lets face it, not rocket science).
I don't think you can compare an architect to a doctor (they are enormously more educated than any architect and their daily practice requires complete trust that simply doesn't happen with architects) But, since you bring it up, as I understand it when a doctor graduates from university s/he is called a doctor, even though they are interns, and they are treated as such. That they are still learning is not forgotten by anybody and education proceeds apace. Architects? hm, cadmonkey for a year or two, main worker to place all the crap on, if you are lucky you get a decent mentor, if not you learn to stop liking architecture and wonder why you went to school all those years.
I was lucky cuz i did my three year internship in Japan where the hierarchy isn't so rigid (ironic isn't it?) and they expect you to come with zero knowledge out of school and ask an enormous amount of questions. In my first year I did everything form engineering drawings to code checking, to the design and development of three bigg-ish projects, then went on site to learn how the damn things were really built. of course I also did boring stuff like interior elevations for other architects in the office, but then again the senior architects often enough did cd sets for me, so never felt like i was the bottom man. After three years i was running 15 million dollar jobs (under supervision) cuz the office believed in giving their staff the experience they would need to pass the exam.
You know the reason many of the happening offices today are world class is cuz they give ALL the staff a chance to design the projects. As work progresses experienced folk take over to do CD's and run the show, but the inspiration comes from everybody/anybody. yeah they work stupid hours but they get to do REAL work from the getgo.
I can't think of a better way to train future architects.
Quizzical's point is a good one: if licensure is to be pooh-poohed, why are people so anxious to go to grad school? Isn't a master's degree a similar "waste of time"? People practice without advanced degrees all the time. Why bother?
I've posted on this topic before, but I can't find that thread.
I have a hard time coming up with any reason to NOT get licensed that doesn't ultimately relate to laziness.
Yes it's expensive, if you're barely making rent it's hard to find $1,000 to pay for it - I put it all on credit cards and paid off what the firm didn't reimburse with bonus money at the end of the year.
And design ability or public perception or insurance liabilities or whatever else be damned: the sense of accomplishment and closure is literally priceless.
citizen - no, most people go to grad school to 'learn' to design. That's why I went and the people I know.
This 'laziness' scenario is bs. Some of us don't want a traditional career, but I want to be able to call myself an architect. I am designing and building, and I've got a better education than most, so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call myself an architect (and indeed, in to anyone but another architect, I call myself an architect as does every single person I know with an architecture degree that is not licensed).
trace ... call yourself what you will, if you call yourself an architect and render architectural services in a manner inconsistent with the laws of your state, the day will come when you will find yourself standing before your state board of architectural registration (or a judge) making the same arguments ... you probably will lose ... compared to the effort and cost associated with obtaining your license, that day will be much more costly and invasive.
"some of us don't want a traditional career" is bs. you're trying to say that you're above the fray, that those of us who conform by seeking recognition of our professional capacities by our state boards are cogs in the wheel.
some of us might be. but nothing about licensure requires that you conform to your own idea of what's traditional practice and what's not. if you look around at the profession today, there is a huge diversity to what activities can take place under the umbrella of architecture.
the fact remains that you're not really an architect until your state board says you are.
trace, what does taking an exam to become an architect in athe full legal and professional sense have to do with having a traditional career or not?
you can have whatever kind of career you want... you already have more of a traditional career than most i would imagine.. you seem like you went to a school to learn/study architectutre..then you interned for someone and now your designing homes or interiors for clients and building them.. how much more fucking traditional do you really think there is?
trace, i didnt mean to swear at the end.. but hopefully you can see my frustrtion.. its a pretty boilerplate responde to say you dont want a traditional career, when really you do, you just dont want to have to take a standardized license exam.
Ward-
I have a drivers License because I wanted to drive.
You take the test because you want to be an architect and assume the legal responsibilities that it entails.
If you are caught driving with out a license you could go to jail.
If you PRACTICE and more importantly assume the liability of an architect and things go awry, you could go to jail.
Some people would rather take a bus and or a train.
Some people would rather let others assume the responsibility and subsequently the liability both financially and legally and enjoy thier lives.
Different goals and priorities.
By your analogy (since most firms are only 1/4 licensed) most offices are driving illegally.
On another point… How many people after 6 year of school and massive debt can see clearly enough to understand IDP and licensures role in their life.
Many a young ambitous enegetic Licensed architect has been put out on the street in lieu of a guy or gal 9- 6ing and pumping the cad.
These are the people the industry is run on.
Smart People- Ambitious people but with a different priority.
I simply feel that they deserve respect and should be valued.
You need a basic understanding of CAD for that.
In times of trouble most firms don't give a damn about your enery and ambition they want you to shut up and draw, and draw quickly.
For my firm I will higher people that are both. People who are consistent even (SAFE) and can draw like the wind and those who are
"enegetic and ambitious"
Practicing without a license doesnt absolve you from any legal liability over the project, plus youll have the issue of misrepresentation to deal with due to your claim of being an architect, while not actually being one.
And true, not everyone needs a license, and not everyong in an office or working on drawings needs one.. i think this conversation is for those who want to have their own practice and have projects that they can claim are theirs, not just parts of projects or people who work as part of team..its a big world for lots of different types of people in architecture..when these discussions about licensing comeup, its assumed that the people who argue against getting a license still have the same ambitions of running their own show...
I am not suggesting practicing without a license.
responsibility for the drawing ulitmately is with the professional who stamps the drawing.
An ARCHITECT
If any of you ( in the thread) thought that you could were assuming a percentage of your empoyers liability what would you do?
in some states, even those who worked on project can be liable in civil cases, so there is no hard and fast rule on getting out of responsibility; regardless of licensure, stamping, or firm ownership.
montu ... your 10/12/05 7:16 post includes the phrase "the market place has no morals" ... like all generalizations, that one probably is false ... such attitudes depend, i suppose, on where you work and what you've experienced ... that is not my general view of practice in my community (a southeastern city with a population exceeding 3 million)
i can speak only for my own firm and other firms that i know well ... however, i believe that most principals of most good firms a) do care about the people they employ, and b) work hard to provide good, stable working environments for their staff
nevertheless, the business climate does get difficult at times ... our firm was severly impacted by 9/11 and we eventually had no choice but to reduce staff ... but, we did not terminate people lightly and the wounds i carry from those decisions are painful still ...
we worked hard to place the employees we needed to shed and we were successful in finding work for about half the people we were forced to let go ... subsequently, we were able to call back about 1/3 of those who were 'downsized'
for several months before letting anybody go, all of our firm's partners took huge paycuts ... those paycuts lasted 18 months ... we asked only our most senior staff to share in those paycuts and their percentage reduction was only about 1/4 of our own ... the remainder of the staff never experienced any paycuts and all continued to receive raises at review time ... the principals still haven't received full reimbursement for lost salary
i realize this isn't the right thread for this soapbox speech ... however, i simply could not let your statement go by without reply ... our firm was not the only firm approaching the post-9/11 downturn in this manner ...
it pains me that you hold such a low view of our profession's moral fibre
jabber -- i know this is a thread you started, but can we all get back to the main subject -- the case for and against pursuing a professional license ?
what bothers me is that all the old coots who are on the top of the profession didn't have to jump through the same hoops we have to.
my boss has only an undergrad in architecture, not a professional degree, yet he is licensed. He took the old exam, but didn't have to do any internship or 'broadly experienced architect' crap.
the other day he was laughing about how young architects don't learn anything in graduate school. i had to bitch slap him. we don't get a choice. his generation made the rules to suit themselves.
we don't need those old assholes. they don't know how to use the computer, much less CAD. we see the future, they only see the past. why do they get the money, when they need us to do the work? they would be screwed without us.
yet we have to work until we are old and worn out until we are allowed to be architects.
the system is designed to keep the young down. it promotes an antique system that has only produced bad architecture and bad cities. the profession will eat itself. the best and brightest will go elsewhere. that's it.
gruen ... what a load of crap ... that last time i looked, the work experience requirement for licensure is on the order of 3-years in most jurisdictions ... in our firm, all of the principals are in their mid-50s, all hold professional degrees and 75% hold masters degrees ... our senior personnel run rings around the junior staff when it comes to technology usage (plus, we know how to spell and use proper grammar) ... our principals routinely -- across the board -- put in significantly more hours than the people we employ ... we get the money because WE FIND THE CLIENT and WE DO THE WORK and WE SHOULDER THE RISK ... you couldn't begin to keep up with us "old coots"
'his generation made the rules to suit themselves.'
his generation's LAWYERS and INSURANCE COs made the rules. it's a new world; live in it. generational flame wars are not the answer.
not getting your license is a sympton of either procrastination, fear of not being exceptional, failure to pass, poverty, inability to prioritize money flow (mmm. leather jacket or exam fee?), or simply sour grapes - but cannot really be a matter of principle. if you get your license and STILL think it's b.s., then it's a matter of principle and i'll stand behind you in fighting the system....though now that i'm on the other side, fighting seems ludicrous.
"we don't need those old assholes. they don't know how to use the computer, much less CAD. we see the future, they only see the past. why do they get the money, when they need us to do the work? they would be screwed without us."
this is a ridiculous statement. those assholes have much more knowledge than you about how to put buildings together, solve design problems, secure jobs, and keep the client happy. sure, they may not all know cad, but there is a lot that you don't know either. it takes a team of people with diverse skills and experiences to get a project built and built well.
Licensure ... the case for / the case against
I'm really interested in learning why so many graduate architects seem disinclined to pursue licensure ... what's your take ?
1.The expense.
2.NCARB prefers thinning the herd. over promoting excellence.
3.Most firms( though they may state otherwise) run on a class system and really don't want an entire office of licensed "professionals" running around. Very Very messy.
4.They rarely see the benifit ( and I don't blame them) of putting them self through the ringer when they can do so well withought it.
I don't buy the global conspiracy against more architects arguement, but in any case:
However harrowing people think the licensure process is, there is no doubt that it is easier and cheaper to get licensed than to get a professional degree.
the licensure process in the US is somewhat of a joke
that being said, american architects are really limiting themselves if they don't get licensed. for every greg lynn there are 100 semi-low-paid lifers who think $60K a year and "input" into "design" is enough for them
Not a conspiracy theory but business sense.
It is a brutal economic reality.
Don't condem the lifer ...Love him or her.
This world is run on the backs of lifers.
Not everyone gets to be a chief. After running my own practice (minus license) and building several projects I felt that not having a license was holding me back. I started in on the exam a year ago and am slowly plowing through each division, with mixed degrees of sucess.
I go between being resentful (having designed, supervised, and built my own projects I think that I've earned the right to a license) and understanding of NCARBS goal for the test. I do think the test is poorly written and stresses information that really is not of any use unless one is designing a highrise, or shopping mall on their own (someone tell me when this has ever happened). I think that the exam does not test real world knowledge and shows how out of touch the people at the top of the profession are with what is actually going on.
The big joke is that here in CA we have the dreaded 9th section- the oral which is a complete farce and obviously geared towards creating a frat hazing type of environment.
In any case, as dehumanizing as it is, it makes one realize that not everyone needs to be licensed and that having too many chefs in the kitchen makes for a bad soup. I'd love to have that 60 k gig with less responsibility and more free time, but I figured out a long time ago that I don't quite fit into that mold.
pomo ..exactly
off topic?
I have been at this for a while and for a long time I thought that everyone that would come in to this profession was interested in changing the world and or shaking it drastically.
Only to learn that there are far more people interested in working 9- 5 and going home to the house with the picket fence and the 2.5 kids.
I think for the profession or any business to survive it has to provide a venue for both types to succeed, to be there best. An environment that rewards substantially one over the other is a corrosive one and will be problematic.
I would encourage everyone thinling about possibly taking the tests to start the process as soon as possible because it is looooooong, arduous, archaic. Then at least you have yourself positioned to decide who youwant to be.
the test (for us in the u.s.) doesn't have anything to do with your aspirations. it's a minimum competency test based on life safety and problem-solving.
it's simply a landmark, a line to cross between non-architect and architect. good design isn't relevant.
you just have to pass it. no excuses.
i know. i was a procrastinator. it took me years to decide to get it done.
Steven-
Steven-
There are many incredibly competent people who have not passed the test and I am certain you know as many that have who are clowns.
Does that mean everyone should not take the test?
Of course not.
I disagree with the essence of your argument for the same reason why some people should seek higher education and some not. It is about how you define yourself. What you want to give to the profession, and what you expect from it.
Is there a minimum competency for being a valued member of society?
Sounds ridiculous……. I think it is no different in the architectural profession.
To survive it needs all comers and they should be heralded for their roles.
If it is simply about minimum competency, then what role does the Licensure play in every day practice when it is often accepted that it has little to do with the profession as it is practiced on a daily basis. Why should someone take the test if it does not?
1. Help them get where they want to be professionally.
2. Prepare them for what they are doing on a daily basis.
3. Define a level of competency which they will be judged by to get a job
It is not for everyone and in the end it is about who you want to be.
I don't mind taking the test, it is IDP that I can't stand.
What good does it do to write down every little thing and turn it in to someone at Wash DC to look over to make sure you are getting the experience you need. I goofed bigtime when it comes to IDP. I wrote down all my hours by hand in little notes, intending to record them to NCARB when they finally decided to get around to establishing my record. Meanwhile, I was relegated to CD's and standard details and really boring stuff my first year in the office. After building up a level of frustration, I went to the boss and asked if there was a problem with my work, why I wasn't getting new experiences and learning the things I needed to become an architect. The response was simple, because I hadn't told them I needed that experience, that I needed to write a letter the principal architects every week stating what I needed according to IDP. And here I thought advancement was merit based and I was wondering what was wrong with me, I thought I was doing everything to the best of my abilities and yet still not getting growth opportunities. Silly me, I thought IDP was a record of what I had done, and that I needed to EARN those responsibilities from my firm in order to record them in IDP. Rather they were expecting me to TELL them that I still needed site visits and programming experience. What? I told them I thought it was a little obvious that my experience was a little one sided. I also told them that I thought it was because they thought I was severly incompetent and I couldn't figure out why, they didn't think that of course. They honestly said they thought I was content to be a CAD monkey. This would lead you to believe that I didn't ask for experience at all, this is not true, apparently I just didn't ask with the IDP info in hand!
I WISH all I had to do was pass an exam that actually has a farily high passing rate and shouldn't be too tough. Instead I am stuck in the middle of this huge IDP mess. I have a recent graduate I know who I am begging to start IDP correctly, he isn't doing it because he doesn't understand it and is starting down the road I did. How many others does this happen to?
'kay, montu. do you have a driver's license? why did you bother? because it is a measurable way to establish minimal competency and to legally call yourself a driver.
sure, you can drive on your own land without one. you can even drive around a private parking lot, maybe even a track. you can be among the best racing drivers! but you can't drive on public roads without it.
is the driver test a measure of whether you're a good driver? not really.
do a lot of clowns pass it? obviously.
do you use the things on which you were tested on a daily basis? i don't.
if you want to be an architect, you have to take the test. true, it's not for everyone. but those who decide against, even the best designers among us, don't get to be called architects in this country.
i can't say that i agree with this. maybe non-registered people ought to be able to call themselves architects. but then there would be another title, maybe registered architect, which would establish that a level of tested competency had been reached.
montu: are you suggesting above in your 9:47 post that you think a person who declines to pursue licensure and also wants to just work a 9-5 existence should be entitled to the same rewards as an ambitious, energetic person who aggressively pursues licensure and puts in 55-60 hours of really productive work each week ?
55-60 hours?
very short work week. I am def living in the wrong country
In California, at least...
license = architect
no license = not an architect, but a designer, intern, technician, etc.
The driver's licencse analogy is perfect here: you can do something (drive, call yourself an architect) without a license, for years, for ever. Get caught, and the state will have its way with you.
Love it, hate it, but that's how it is until someone changes it.
but I can call myself a driver, right?
or for that matter, I can call my self an architectural technician, architect of technology, database architect, etc.
but with 7 years of education I can't call myself anything?
So why does someone with a 5 year degree have the same credentials as somoone with two degrees? Just tossing things out there.
I can build and design without licensure, I just can't call myself an architect.
Sorry, I just don't see the logic there. If someone want's to make a title like 'registered architect', as Steven suggested, I am all for that.
But the way it is now I believe it's splitting the profession. Those that don't follow the IDP path, such as myself, are alienated and annoyed. With 70% of grads not taking the exam, I think someone needs to wake up and take a better look at the flaws in the system.
I do think IDP is the problem. Look at law - why can't we take a 1 day test anytime? Or, if you wanted to not take the test, why can't you get licensure after working for a certain amount of time?
Seems like a big scam to me - they got everyone locked in, without choice, and the ball keeps rolling - they keep making money and 'relegating' our profession, all the while not doing a damn good for the bigger picture.
Oh, one last thing. You can't put up a building with 0 knowledge. Licensure being a minimum competency requirement sounds good, but doens't make much sense to me.
You can drive a car with 0 knowledge, so there has to be a standard for drivers, to limit those on the road in the name of safety.
With buildings, you can't put them up without knowledge of the structure, materials, etc. Then we go to the fact that anyone can put up a house without a license and when we get to large buildings, the true safety issues are passed onto experts.
It's not all black and white, but if they keep things the way they are people that aren't in the IDP program the minute they graduate will never be part of it, which is a growing number.
Just one more thing that is eroding the profession, imho.
funny i just got an e-mail from a classmate back in canada who is racing through his NCARB's, one a month. He had years of experiene under his belt working in an office before he finished MARCH and that might makes things different for him, but he tells me the exams are stupid easy, requiring little effort or study. he has finished 7 of the 9, so must know somehting of what he speaks.
as for the valueof the damn thing he seemed to be of two minds on the topic. he was doing the tests but wasn't sure of the entire point of the deal. isn't likely to get a better position from it and even if he did it would be more of the same job he has already design-wise (that is, the licence ain't gonna help him get into a design-led firm of any stature)...
i'd like to ask those of you who hold degress in architecture but don't seem interested in registration ... why did you bother to finish your last semester of college ... why did you take your degree ... ?
it seems to me this is essentially the same question ... most people take a degree so others will have some basic understanding of their education ... most architects of my generation took the ARE for the same basic reason ... it's a rite of passage ... a badge of honor ... a symbol of accomplishment and professionalism
i'd feel cheated if i put in all the work and paid all the tuition for a degree in architecture but never actually received the degree (i'd possess the same amount of knowledge either way) ... i'm certain i'd feel the same if i had never obtained my license ...
our firm produces great work, we have great clients and we win our fair share of design awards ... but, i've never stamped a drawing in my 33 years of practice ... you could say that i've never really needed my license, but i'm damn glad i've got it and i'm damn proud to call myself an Architect (note the big "A") ...
the test, yes, it has little or nothing to do with the real world. if you have to take a special prep class (or, rather, if I had to take a special prep class) in order to pass the graphic divisions because you have to actually unlearn good design in order to pass some of them...well, then, the test doesn't mean much.
but i think people misconstrue the importance of the internship. idp, with all its flaws, is an improvement over the old system where people could draft bathrooms for three years, study real hard, pass the exam, and then be licensed to practice. which is what more than a few people did. and i think i've worked for a few people who did that...
which begs the question, what value licensure? it's a certification of MINIMUM competency, i agree. engineers do not argue over whether or not they should get licenses -- nor do CPAs or lawyers. the license is not the point at which you ARRIVE, it's the point at which you start. otherwise i wouldn't have had a driver's license until i was 20.
Why are people against licensure? I guess the main reason that people state is that the process of getting a licesne is too hard. That seems really wierd to me. Why are people so lazy?
And why do people get upset that the exam doesnt judge design talent? Why would you want it to.. the exam is to make sure that you can solve simple problems of space organization, and also understand common construction details and legalities... to me that seems to make sense.. why wouldnt we have something like that.. IDP prob is too complicated, but i would say that internships are SUPER important. How much more did you learn about architecture in the first few years out of school working.. quite a bit.. maybe not so much about how to make things pretty, but I certainly learned a lot about how to put drawings sets together. document projects, go through construction, etc....
Why wouldnt you want an internship period?... for those that complain that the europe system is better where they get their license upon graduating.. keep in mind they also have to spend 1-2 years of school IN an internship.. not school studios.. internships are part of their education.. and then they have to take a series of exams in their final year that are the same are our ARE...
so they have the same system.. just all at once instead of after...
someone made a point that not everyone needs to be a star and have aspirations. which is why not everyone needs to be licensed.. which is true.. but then those unlicensed people should have the same expectations or demands from their career as tom mayne would....
of course having a license doesnt immediately mean youre amazing.. but it does provide clients with the comfort of knowing youve passed nationwide standards....of course a licensed architect whose 60 knows more than one whose 28.. but why would that ever be an arguement against licensure...
I already stated I am OK with licensure, this is a rant on IDP: I had a unique advantage of having a non-traditional internship where I worked as an architectural intern for a structural engineer. This structural engineer built so many more buildings (and even worked on the Hoover Dam during his internship) than any architect I know. The quality of internship was incredible and he didn't know anything about IDP! Surprise, surprise, he did it because he knew I didn't know anything and needed to learn. IDP does not equal quality internship, it equals stupid paperwork and it is a weeding out tool.
When did the architecture profession decide it didn't owe anything to anybody, including mentoring younger members? I find it ironic that architecture is a profession where experience and knowledge is key, that learning the ropes is how you get somewhere. And IDP is how we do that?
The structural engineer saw it as his DUTY to take me to job sites, to put me in situations where I learned really fast, showed me the things you really have to consider to do a take-off instead of pointing to the cost data book. He told me it was his duty and he felt the calling as a senior member to help young people progress in the field. He also had a young woman engineer 'intern' whom he ignored, he singled me out as the bright, motivated one thank god.
He also begged me not to become an architect because they are arrogant worthless jackasses that don't know how buildings go together but hink they do. He knew how to run a business too, he didn't expect me to bill 99% of my time making most of his profits off of me, more like 50% time. The rest of the time we talked about architecture, buildings, mistakes and how to avoid them, it was a two way conversation! We ate pie and ice cream old-skool apprentice like while he quizzed me on the weight of concrete, the proper way to flash a joint. Looking back it was a dream come true, I learned more from him in two summers than I learned at the architecture firm for several years, granted I didn't learn how a set went together with the engineer.
That to me, folks, is messed up. That architects relegate their talented youth to bathroom details. It is so... republican if I may say so. To be so selfish and not consider the greater good. Isn't what is good for the whole also good for the individuals? Rocket science here. Problem is that most architects aren't in good enough financial standing to teach interns, so they must just sorta pick it as they go. And so they introduce this program where an intern can be assertive and go to the boss and say, "look, IDP says you need to let me work on cost estimates." And then... what happens, the architect says OK hot stuff, do an estimate then. And it takes 4 days because I have to figure out everything on my own, asking a max of 4 questions a day to which I get weak, flustered answers. Meanwhile the client pays the price.
Granted this engineer was a rare jewel, an elderly man with a sucessful company, but I have now had internships of two types, and one could learn a lot from the other.
haven't we had this conversation before? there is no sense in arguing this point any longer.....we just need to face facts that there are two types of people out there: those for licensure, and those who feel that a putting in just a little effort toward what is admittedly a flawed, but necessary, process is just a waste their time.
come on people.....would you go to doctor who isn't an MD, even though they have 'practicing' for years? i personally like the analogy above by quizzical regarding the diploma...
in fact, i believe that all architectural work should require a licensed architect....even that little detached garage or storage shed should need an Architect's approval. licensure is not about what you may or may not know, it's proof that you consider yourself, and are considered by others, as a professional in a field that you have gone through hell to become a part of.
every archinect thread must be repeated every 14.8 days. doesn't everybody know that by now?
Strawbeary - Amen. I'll take any test you want.
I just can't until I finish reconstructing years upon years of work (my fault I know...)
Alas, I am not the only one, fordified! I have detailed handwritten notes and my old time sheets. It takes me a day to enter 18 weeks of work which isn't actually as bad as I thought it would be. Can only blame ourselves though, you are right...
Dear thereasonI'mnotlicensedyet,
Love, fordified
hotsie,
not all european countries require internships, and if you are a resident there you can take your degree earned in North America and get a licence lickity split. a few of my ex-pat friends have done this no hassel and are, presto, licenced in the EU, no exam, no internship, nada. not even an extra course. The system in much of Europe is simply not equivalent to US, though maybe the UK is closer as you have to do a real project and take courses for your part III. This is the kind of licence that Liebeskind had until recently. Didn't hurt him any that he didn't have to intern for some dumb-ass office for 3 years before even starting the exams.
The licence is a good thing. the process is one that seriously impedes thinking though, and that is what most are talkin about. As Strawbeary said the learning is haphazard and the respect uneven. And exams are an extension of this old system of guild-li-ness. seems to me the guild aspect would be better removed from the deal altogether, most of all the hazing kind of thing some of you think was fortifying. getting your licence should be challenging, but not because of your office environment. It should only be as difficult as the content (which is, lets face it, not rocket science).
I don't think you can compare an architect to a doctor (they are enormously more educated than any architect and their daily practice requires complete trust that simply doesn't happen with architects) But, since you bring it up, as I understand it when a doctor graduates from university s/he is called a doctor, even though they are interns, and they are treated as such. That they are still learning is not forgotten by anybody and education proceeds apace. Architects? hm, cadmonkey for a year or two, main worker to place all the crap on, if you are lucky you get a decent mentor, if not you learn to stop liking architecture and wonder why you went to school all those years.
I was lucky cuz i did my three year internship in Japan where the hierarchy isn't so rigid (ironic isn't it?) and they expect you to come with zero knowledge out of school and ask an enormous amount of questions. In my first year I did everything form engineering drawings to code checking, to the design and development of three bigg-ish projects, then went on site to learn how the damn things were really built. of course I also did boring stuff like interior elevations for other architects in the office, but then again the senior architects often enough did cd sets for me, so never felt like i was the bottom man. After three years i was running 15 million dollar jobs (under supervision) cuz the office believed in giving their staff the experience they would need to pass the exam.
You know the reason many of the happening offices today are world class is cuz they give ALL the staff a chance to design the projects. As work progresses experienced folk take over to do CD's and run the show, but the inspiration comes from everybody/anybody. yeah they work stupid hours but they get to do REAL work from the getgo.
I can't think of a better way to train future architects.
Quizzical's point is a good one: if licensure is to be pooh-poohed, why are people so anxious to go to grad school? Isn't a master's degree a similar "waste of time"? People practice without advanced degrees all the time. Why bother?
I've posted on this topic before, but I can't find that thread.
I have a hard time coming up with any reason to NOT get licensed that doesn't ultimately relate to laziness.
Yes it's expensive, if you're barely making rent it's hard to find $1,000 to pay for it - I put it all on credit cards and paid off what the firm didn't reimburse with bonus money at the end of the year.
And design ability or public perception or insurance liabilities or whatever else be damned: the sense of accomplishment and closure is literally priceless.
yup
citizen - no, most people go to grad school to 'learn' to design. That's why I went and the people I know.
This 'laziness' scenario is bs. Some of us don't want a traditional career, but I want to be able to call myself an architect. I am designing and building, and I've got a better education than most, so I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to call myself an architect (and indeed, in to anyone but another architect, I call myself an architect as does every single person I know with an architecture degree that is not licensed).
trace ... call yourself what you will, if you call yourself an architect and render architectural services in a manner inconsistent with the laws of your state, the day will come when you will find yourself standing before your state board of architectural registration (or a judge) making the same arguments ... you probably will lose ... compared to the effort and cost associated with obtaining your license, that day will be much more costly and invasive.
"some of us don't want a traditional career" is bs. you're trying to say that you're above the fray, that those of us who conform by seeking recognition of our professional capacities by our state boards are cogs in the wheel.
some of us might be. but nothing about licensure requires that you conform to your own idea of what's traditional practice and what's not. if you look around at the profession today, there is a huge diversity to what activities can take place under the umbrella of architecture.
the fact remains that you're not really an architect until your state board says you are.
trace, what does taking an exam to become an architect in athe full legal and professional sense have to do with having a traditional career or not?
you can have whatever kind of career you want... you already have more of a traditional career than most i would imagine.. you seem like you went to a school to learn/study architectutre..then you interned for someone and now your designing homes or interiors for clients and building them.. how much more fucking traditional do you really think there is?
trace, i didnt mean to swear at the end.. but hopefully you can see my frustrtion.. its a pretty boilerplate responde to say you dont want a traditional career, when really you do, you just dont want to have to take a standardized license exam.
Ward-
I have a drivers License because I wanted to drive.
You take the test because you want to be an architect and assume the legal responsibilities that it entails.
If you are caught driving with out a license you could go to jail.
If you PRACTICE and more importantly assume the liability of an architect and things go awry, you could go to jail.
Some people would rather take a bus and or a train.
Some people would rather let others assume the responsibility and subsequently the liability both financially and legally and enjoy thier lives.
Different goals and priorities.
By your analogy (since most firms are only 1/4 licensed) most offices are driving illegally.
On another point… How many people after 6 year of school and massive debt can see clearly enough to understand IDP and licensures role in their life.
jabber- The market place has no morals.
Many a young ambitous enegetic Licensed architect has been put out on the street in lieu of a guy or gal 9- 6ing and pumping the cad.
These are the people the industry is run on.
Smart People- Ambitious people but with a different priority.
I simply feel that they deserve respect and should be valued.
You need a basic understanding of CAD for that.
In times of trouble most firms don't give a damn about your enery and ambition they want you to shut up and draw, and draw quickly.
For my firm I will higher people that are both. People who are consistent even (SAFE) and can draw like the wind and those who are
"enegetic and ambitious"
ochona -
My problem with the test specifically the graphic portions is the unlearning that is required to pass them.
You hit on something interesting. I found myself taking classes on taking the test. Not on competancy.
I don't know what they can do about that it is such a broad diverse profession.
THE multiple choice however is great and I would reccomend certainly the books as a good reference material.
as I understand it, someone has to stamp the CDs / assume responsibility.
Montu,
Practicing without a license doesnt absolve you from any legal liability over the project, plus youll have the issue of misrepresentation to deal with due to your claim of being an architect, while not actually being one.
And true, not everyone needs a license, and not everyong in an office or working on drawings needs one.. i think this conversation is for those who want to have their own practice and have projects that they can claim are theirs, not just parts of projects or people who work as part of team..its a big world for lots of different types of people in architecture..when these discussions about licensing comeup, its assumed that the people who argue against getting a license still have the same ambitions of running their own show...
Hotsies,
I am not suggesting practicing without a license.
responsibility for the drawing ulitmately is with the professional who stamps the drawing.
An ARCHITECT
If any of you ( in the thread) thought that you could were assuming a percentage of your empoyers liability what would you do?
in some states, even those who worked on project can be liable in civil cases, so there is no hard and fast rule on getting out of responsibility; regardless of licensure, stamping, or firm ownership.
But:
The standard of professional care that must be demonstrated (and thus liability) is much higher in all cases for licensed professionals.
montu ... your 10/12/05 7:16 post includes the phrase "the market place has no morals" ... like all generalizations, that one probably is false ... such attitudes depend, i suppose, on where you work and what you've experienced ... that is not my general view of practice in my community (a southeastern city with a population exceeding 3 million)
i can speak only for my own firm and other firms that i know well ... however, i believe that most principals of most good firms a) do care about the people they employ, and b) work hard to provide good, stable working environments for their staff
nevertheless, the business climate does get difficult at times ... our firm was severly impacted by 9/11 and we eventually had no choice but to reduce staff ... but, we did not terminate people lightly and the wounds i carry from those decisions are painful still ...
we worked hard to place the employees we needed to shed and we were successful in finding work for about half the people we were forced to let go ... subsequently, we were able to call back about 1/3 of those who were 'downsized'
for several months before letting anybody go, all of our firm's partners took huge paycuts ... those paycuts lasted 18 months ... we asked only our most senior staff to share in those paycuts and their percentage reduction was only about 1/4 of our own ... the remainder of the staff never experienced any paycuts and all continued to receive raises at review time ... the principals still haven't received full reimbursement for lost salary
i realize this isn't the right thread for this soapbox speech ... however, i simply could not let your statement go by without reply ... our firm was not the only firm approaching the post-9/11 downturn in this manner ...
it pains me that you hold such a low view of our profession's moral fibre
jabber -- i know this is a thread you started, but can we all get back to the main subject -- the case for and against pursuing a professional license ?
inquiring minds want to know !
what bothers me is that all the old coots who are on the top of the profession didn't have to jump through the same hoops we have to.
my boss has only an undergrad in architecture, not a professional degree, yet he is licensed. He took the old exam, but didn't have to do any internship or 'broadly experienced architect' crap.
the other day he was laughing about how young architects don't learn anything in graduate school. i had to bitch slap him. we don't get a choice. his generation made the rules to suit themselves.
we don't need those old assholes. they don't know how to use the computer, much less CAD. we see the future, they only see the past. why do they get the money, when they need us to do the work? they would be screwed without us.
yet we have to work until we are old and worn out until we are allowed to be architects.
the system is designed to keep the young down. it promotes an antique system that has only produced bad architecture and bad cities. the profession will eat itself. the best and brightest will go elsewhere. that's it.
gruen ... what a load of crap ... that last time i looked, the work experience requirement for licensure is on the order of 3-years in most jurisdictions ... in our firm, all of the principals are in their mid-50s, all hold professional degrees and 75% hold masters degrees ... our senior personnel run rings around the junior staff when it comes to technology usage (plus, we know how to spell and use proper grammar) ... our principals routinely -- across the board -- put in significantly more hours than the people we employ ... we get the money because WE FIND THE CLIENT and WE DO THE WORK and WE SHOULDER THE RISK ... you couldn't begin to keep up with us "old coots"
get your head out of your ass ...
***flame suit on***
I'm sure your employees are rolling their eyes by now.
***flame suit on***
i'm sure your employers roll their eyes every time you come into view
I imagine they do.
'his generation made the rules to suit themselves.'
his generation's LAWYERS and INSURANCE COs made the rules. it's a new world; live in it. generational flame wars are not the answer.
not getting your license is a sympton of either procrastination, fear of not being exceptional, failure to pass, poverty, inability to prioritize money flow (mmm. leather jacket or exam fee?), or simply sour grapes - but cannot really be a matter of principle. if you get your license and STILL think it's b.s., then it's a matter of principle and i'll stand behind you in fighting the system....though now that i'm on the other side, fighting seems ludicrous.
"we don't need those old assholes. they don't know how to use the computer, much less CAD. we see the future, they only see the past. why do they get the money, when they need us to do the work? they would be screwed without us."
this is a ridiculous statement. those assholes have much more knowledge than you about how to put buildings together, solve design problems, secure jobs, and keep the client happy. sure, they may not all know cad, but there is a lot that you don't know either. it takes a team of people with diverse skills and experiences to get a project built and built well.
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.