Barry, do you intend on stamping drawings? Is there something really difficult about finding an AOR? Or do you worry about an AIA "cease and desist" order?
I agree that NCARB sucks, IDP sucks. I also think its way to easy to become a licensed professional. But there does need to be some recognition for people in our industry who are architectural thinkers and tinkerers. I have no problem with letting anyone call themselves an architect. I do think there should be a stricter, more difficult testing/education process to be a licensed professional in place. I don't think that someone who stamps drawings has earned the label "architect" more that anyone else, because stamping drawings and looking at HSW issues is such a narrow scope of our field. There does need to be that level of "quality control" or "consumer protection" but not in the broad architectural sense.
Today, it's getting more and more difficult to be the traditional jack of all trades architect. There is no reason why having "Designers" and "Plan-stampers" as separate parts of a team is a bad thing. When I sit in a room with four architects on a large project, we all know what our strengths are. We know that it's easier to play to those strengths than be responsible for everything. It's beneficial to have 4 different members in the same room, rather than four of the same.
In the public eye, the architect isn't the licensed professional; the guy who is diligent and thorough; the HSW engineer. The architect is the genius creative, enshrouded in mystery. The functional sculptor with vision. I think the profession would do itself a lot of good tossing off the burden of "protecting" architects. It's a turf war that will never be won. Your colleagues already know what you're capable of, and the public is going to buy your work and your personality not your certification. People don't pick architects from a list. I mean you don't see AAA Architects so they can be first in the phone book. So, who cares. You're all architects.
I also thought it was an interesting point in the latest issue of Architect, that a couple of opinions were that the label architect actually came with some stigma or responsibility they didn't want, as if they would lose their design powers. Any other licensed architects feel pigeonholed?
Dont doctors from other countries who come to the US have to go through some type of residency at a hospital just like any graduate, ignoring any professional experience they had before coming to the US?
They do a 2 or 3 year residency, but this is part of their education, and the university gets them a residency, unlike us who are just thrown out into the cruel world of unemployment. Also many universities have university hospitals. As for Lawyers, they just take the Bar and they are Lawyers.
In the public eye, the architect isn't the licensed professional; the guy who is diligent and thorough; the HSW engineer. The architect is the genius creative, enshrouded in mystery. The functional sculptor with vision. I think the profession would do itself a lot of good tossing off the burden of "protecting" architects. It's a turf war that will never be won. Your colleagues already know what you're capable of, and the public is going to buy your work and your personality not your certification. People don't pick architects from a list. I mean you don't see AAA Architects so they can be first in the phone book. So, who cares. You're all architects
Thank you! I agree. Certify the actual project as being safe for the public, not the architect. The difference between architects, docs, lawyers, is that we design physical stuff that can be checked before it can do any harm. I am all for strick building regulations as long as they make sense and really do better society, the environment, etc. Have engineers and scientists ensure the saftey of the project and remove the liability burden off of us. Let us be weird and creative!
They do a 2 or 3 year residency, but this is part of their education, and the university gets them a residency, unlike us who are just thrown out into the cruel world of unemployment. Also many universities have university hospitals. As for Lawyers, they just take the Bar and they are Lawyers.
That is pretty much what I assumed. Ideally, a similar setup would work nicely for architects as if they are working, while also in school, it will give them a much more thorough knowledge base that you just can’t get if you only do your design studio and a couple other side classes.
Again though, how does a university help guarantee that amount of actual firm work? And how do they make sure its not just a lot of time stuck making copies? Are there going to be certain hours that are required to be filled before you can graduate to make sure, with that degree, that you have a representative of what an architect’s work entails? And who signs off on those hours?
Sounds an awful lot like a school would want you to work for a reasonable size firm to guarantee that there is work, and to work under a registered architect to make sure that 10 interns don’t just sit around a table for 8 hours a day with no actual guidance. Which sounds a lot like IDP
It’d probably be worse, because there are no university architectural firms to provide the residency opportunities
Hospitals are much more stable in terms of having work in the economy compared to architecture
It seems like this type of situation is if a med student were to go work for a while with a pharmaceutical company and then say that they are a doctor because they have been working in the industry for as long or longer than other residents do in their residency. They just didn’t work directly under an M.D. Is it possible for someone to actually get enough experience and knowledge that they could then be a doctor? Of course. Is it something that should be allowed? Probably not, because who is to say for sure
I do agree though, that it should happen at the university level. I just don’t see it ever actually happening because of how much this industry fluctuates in the economy
Though I do admit that at the university level, you can look at these more specialized, perhaps non-licensed architects as mentors for college students to help fill “IDP”-type required hours. A university could more easily monitor a mentorship than NCARB could, without having to jack up fees for everyone
I do agree though, that it should happen at the university level. I just don’t see it ever actually happening because of how much this industry fluctuates in the economy
We go down this route, how long before architects arent even needed at all?
Architects will always be needed. I think our value is more based on our creativity, problem solving, and vision than our professional license (as postal said.) I also think that it would allow the business to function better if we get rid of all that liability. There can be state licensed architects and/or engineers (that could act like the responsible adults) who check over and stamp the work, and then those who design it. It would also be more efficient because the stamp guy would be another non-biased check point on the project. The liability would shif to them, and they would be paid a fee.
Architects will always be needed. I think our value is more based on our creativity, problem solving, and vision than our professional license (as postal said.) I also think that it would allow the business to function better if we get rid of all that liability. There can be state licensed architects and/or engineers (that could act like the responsible adults) who check over and stamp the work, and then those who design it. It would also be more efficient because the stamp guy would be another non-biased check point on the project. The liability would shif to them, and they would be paid a fee.
I agree that architects’ value goes beyond the liability we take on with our stamp. But this will inherently lessen our fees, as our clients would then need to allocate money towards those who are taking on the liability.
And the state licensed architects and engineers you speak of essentially are the local county or state department that reviews and gives out building permits. I would imagine that in your scenario, they would just inherit the liability, since they are already involved? Or do you propose a 3rd party who is what, legislated by the state? Either way, quickly expect the architect’s fee to drop
Also, this system is already technically in place. It’s called you just hiring an architect of record, and you are the design architect. Or, if it were all in one firm, you have one “designer” and one licensed architect who assumes the liability, though if you wanted no liability for your firm, you just farm it out to an architect of record in a different firm.
And the state licensed architects and engineers you speak of essentially are the local county or state department that reviews and gives out building permits. I would imagine that in your scenario, they would just inherit the liability, since they are already involved? Or do you propose a 3rd party who is what, legislated by the state? Either way, quickly expect the architect’s fee to drop
I mean a third party an architect of record (state licensed) as you say would take liability, but the difference being that if you are not a licenced architect, you could still be able to practice as an architect and call yourself an architect. Just need an architect of record or an engineer to review and stamp thus taking on the liability and ensuring the safety of the project.
I mean a third party an architect of record (state licensed) as you say would take liability, but the difference being that if you are not a licenced architect, you could still be able to practice as an architect and call yourself an architect. Just need an architect of record or an engineer to review and stamp thus taking on the liability and ensuring the safety of the project.
I guess I just don’t follow how that is any different than you personally just hiring an Architect of Record?
Because then, if I am not mistaken, they have the liability, and you are just noted as the Design Architect, which doesn’t require a license
Yeah but you can't call yourself an architect or open an architecture firm without that license. i'm saying you should be able to be an architect without the license, the thing you design can be stamped by the state licensed architect. You should be able to call yourself an architect and practice as an architect with an M-arch, but if you chose to not get licensed you then must get the project stamped by someone who is.
so the difference is between opening an architecture firm and opening an architectural design firm? I am pretty sure you can open a firm right now if you wanted to, as long as you had clients and then just go get your project stamped by a licensed architect.
on the subject of calling yourself an architect, ok, I guess technically you cant. But really, anyone asks me what i do for a living right now, i tell them i am an architect. Not that I am almost an architect once i pass these last 3 exams.
Because you arent really changing anything with your system other than saying that everyone who has an architectural degree should be able to call themselves an architect. When you say you want to practice as an architect with just an M-Arch, you just mean you want to design without the liability.
My point is things would not really be that different, you can do what you want to beyond putting "architect" as your title. I am not sure that is really a reason for such massive changes to the system
It is very different, because it allows one to be an architect without having to automatically be the one who holds the liability of the license. It would be easier to open a small firm and would not need all the insurance. What I am saying is that the architect does not affect the health saftey and welfare of the public, the actual architecture does (which is different than a doctor or lawyer), so if it is checked by someone and stamped by someone who the state trusts to do so (whether it be an engineer or an architect with a state license), then why can't we practice as architects without the license? I think some firms especially small ones would prefer this, and architects who do chose to get a state issued license would make money from this nitch. Large firms who can afford to, can take the liability. If I could find work, and do it well enough for it to be approved by someone with the authority to do so, and pay for the review and stamp, then why not? The only legal duty we will then have will be a fiduciary duty to the client which can be taken care of with a mandatory standard contract protecting the client from getting ripped off.
If I could find work, and do it well enough for it to be approved by someone with the authority to do so, and pay for the review and stamp, then why not?
Ok i guess my only question is why cant you do this right now? I could be wrong, and have never actually looked into it myself, but I always thought you could open up your own design firm and then just hire someone else to stamp your drawings.
haha. well, i didn't mean to discount the value of the "HSW engineer." I meant to discount only the semantics. And though I dig "weird and creative", you can do that without a license. Also, my AOR fee will be double the "weird and creative" fee, you will become our sub. (Wow, as I type this, this is exactly what happened two years ago. Weird and creative guy ended up ok, but it wasn't pretty.) Anyway, I think I can say j.arleo, you can do everything you're talking about doing. NCARB, AIA is not preventing you from doing what you want to do. You are not a licensed professional, you don't have that liability, you can be weird and creative. In other words, you actually don't want to be what NCARB calls an architect. You want to be an anti-tect.
hmmm, so my determination is that either everyone can be an architect, and the licensed professionals are called something else (BAMF's). or, alternatively, we create a new industry wide accepted term with enough cache as "architect" I propose anti-tect. That sounds more mysterious and cool and I would imagine we can still wear black mock turtlenecks and dark rimmed glasses.
The conversation when introduced would go the same:
Hi, Jerry, what do you do?
I'm an anti-tect.
An anti-tect, what the hell is that?
It's like an architect, but cooler.
Ah, that does sound cooler.
And the beauty is, whoever you just met, is neither more or less informed about what you actually do whether you were labeled as an architect or not.
FWIW it is not legal to open an architectural office in Illinois without being licensed. I guess you could maybe call yourself a 'design firm'.
I suppose my question to your system would be why bother hiring some firm who can only do 'design' when chances are most firms will have in house 'liability architects' also and then you can get the whole shebang in one place? I think youd be hard pressed to find clients that want to deal with 2 sources for their architectural services as opposed to one. Let alone the fee you would burn correcting 'liability' comments and whatnot before you even get to permit comments from the city.
hahaha anti-tect, I love it, it does sound cooler. We should work at night only like ninjas and send our work to the "responsible architect" in the morning for approval.
I suppose my question to your system would be why bother hiring some firm who can only do 'design' when chances are most firms will have in house 'liability architects' also and then you can get the whole shebang in one place? I think youd be hard pressed to find clients that want to deal with 2 sources for their architectural services as opposed to one. Let alone the fee you would burn correcting 'liability' comments and whatnot before you even get to permit comments from the city.
Well, this goes back to the issue of the quality of architecture being damaged by there being more architects. This system would make it really hard to get work if you are a non-licensed firm, so you would have to be really good at what you do and at persuading clients. It would have a positive effect on the quality of architecture, as the allowance of food trucks would have a positive effect on the quality on the culinary scene of a city.(people are reluctent to eat from a truck unless it has a reputation of being really good.)
I like anti-tect. So I've been working on getting certifications in another profession and it is amazingly uncumbersome. The title I want to use is not regulated unless you want to be board-certified. If you are unlicensed you just register with the state so someone can file s complaimt if needed. Architecture licensing is way out of SCALE with the services provided. And architects are supposed to be good at scale! I'll believe it when I see it.
The bigger issue that this leads to is - Architectural education in US colleges. Why is someone who finishes a bachelors degree in Europe able to get a license as soon as they graduate, whereas one has to jump through all the hoops here to get a license? As long as we have teachers with no valid building experience as our students know how to create voronoi tessellations better than how to draw a building section, one cannot argue against IDP.
That said, the whole system is so antiquated and convoluted, it is keeping a lot of people from getting licensed.
As long as we have teachers with no valid building experience as our students know how to create voronoi tessellations better than how to draw a building section, one cannot argue against IDP.
I think this is a key reason why i have always felt IDP was a good thing. I think i had a pretty typical college education experience, and i was nowhere near ready to be licensed when i graduated
I would like to add to my note above on being an unlicensed practioner (in another field) that you must promise to not practice outside your area of expertise. When I think of having those conditions in architecture, I can picture it working well. It is misleading to the public to say that a licensed architect can architect any and all structures, yet that os how we practice.
It is up to the architect and their client to determine if they can or cannot "architect" a structure. How in the world would you regulate what types of buildings each particular architect is allowed to design? And how exactly do you get to be an "expert" then? My firm right now is trying to build our expertise in healthcare. We have done several smaller scale projects with particular hospital groups, and are building up our resume and experience to hopefully be considered for any large projects they might have. According to you, we shouldnt be allowed to do that because it was originally "outside our area of expertise"?
Thats ridiculous.
You essentially would be saying that any young architect cannot start their own firm because they are not experts in something yet
To get their license, they want you to have worked with a licensed architect. I dont really see anything unreasonable about that
And i am sorry, but if you have spent your career specializing in one specific thing, you shouldnt just be allowed to get your license, which is not a specialty license, it is a general license.
marmkid, I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't understand you either, on the one hand you suggest that your firm desires to specialize in something, and on the other hand you insist that architects aren't allowed to be specialized because the licensing requirements are general by their very nature.
I never said architects aren’t allowed to be specialized because of licensing requirements. I said that if all you have ever done in your career is one specific specialization, you shouldn’t just be allowed to gain a license that is broader than that particular specialization.
The argument has been made that just because someone has been working in some fashion for a number of years, that should just be good enough to fulfill any sort of requirements that IDP has. I think that is just some people trying to get around the system, which to be honest, is not that stringent to begin with.
My firm desires to build a resume and perhaps gain more work in one particular direction. We aren’t abandoning all the other areas we also do work in, we just see, especially in today’s economy, that healthcare is an area that has remained steady because of the necessity of it.
That has nothing at all to do with someone gaining their license. I was merely responding to your idea that architects should only practice in their “area of expertise”. My point was that I don’t see why anyone should stay away from a particular type of project just because they aren’t an “expert” in it, which I don’t think you could easily define anyway. I do agree that architects should not mislead their clients, and it will cost them money and reputation as well as future jobs if they do.
And i am sorry, but if you have spent your career specializing in one specific thing, you shouldnt just be allowed to get your license, which is not a specialty license, it is a general license.
to clarify this statement, which is where our misunderstanding came from
I mean that, if directly out of school, you only do one thing, like the OP mentions he did, and they dont fall into the categories of experience, I dont think that just because you happen to do that one specialization for a long enough time means it can suddenly now count for everything, and let you bypass the other requirements.
I think my 2 points got jumbled together and caused the confusion, sorry about that
I think its like, after you graduate, if you were only able to get a job as an electrical engineer draftsman, and you did that for several years, then decided, hey, I've been working for 5 years in the industry, I should be able to take my exams now and get my license.
Thanks for clearing that up. I think you make the point nicely that the license simply isn't for everyone. This is evident in reality by the 2/3 that do not get licensed as pointed out earlier.
I think that is where a lot of times people seem to get hung up on things. A license gets you certain things as an architect, and to get the license you need to do certain things. But especially in this day and the way the industry is not set up, it is not something that everyone needs to do by any means. There are many different paths an architect can take in his or her career. They dont all need a license.
What i keep getting hung up on is when people take those alternate career paths, then decide that they should just be handed a license anyway, when in reality, they just either didnt submit their hours appropriately or on time, or they dont qualify. It turns into whining, when in reality, those people either dont need the license to continue the career path they have chosen, or are just too lazy to do what little the license requires you to do to get it.
If we would all just take ownership of our own careers, we would be a lot better off. (thats a general statement, not directed at anyone in particular, especially here, since this is a productive conversation overall)
There are good and bad things about IDP. The good is that the computerized system has made it much faster/easier to fill out your hours and get them approved. Does anyone remember the paper forms and training units instead of hours? The worst. Now my biggest complaints are about the state offices that you have to deal with when you are getting licensed.
The bad is that they are really, really, really slow to move on things. There were/are common predatory practices during this recession like hiring someone for a project/deadline and then immediately laying them off (<3 months) or hiring someone as an independent contractor so they didn't have to take on the costs of them as an employee when in actuality they were an employee. It took NCARB more than a year into the recession before they decided it would probably be a good idea to shorten the period you had to work full time to be able to report it. And then when they did no one could retroactively count their hours. I found the whole thing even more frustrating and depressing in a climate where my job status was already very frustrating and depressing. I am not sure if NCARB has made a move on the IC situation. Is that one of the employment groups they are redefining in IDP 4.0? In my opinion, there should be a way that you could report offices that consistently do this (it is very common in NYC) and they are somehow penalized by NCARB or the AIA.
Oh, and don't get me started on the practice vignette software that only runs on antiquated operating systems...
Blah, I edited my comment and hit save, and it didn't do anything.
An abbreviated summary:
1) The states need to start bringing their paperwork systems out of the dark ages, like NCARB.
2) I think NCARB has two roles and it is failing at one of the them. The first role is to set up a system that creates a minimum standard for all licensed architects. That is IDP and NCARB. The second is to advocate for people who are trying to become licensed architects. Right now I don't think any organization does that.
it's not a matter of whining, but of being systemically blocked from further pursuit of licensure under the current IDP system without resorting to a $$$$ bribe to NCARB for consideration under the 'widely experienced architect' program, or to try competing with kids making 1/4th my hourly rate just to get the last few days of experience needed. Why was it possible for many generations of architects to get their license without either an architecture degree or IDP, when now we can't? It's not that buildings/technology are significantly more complex for the architects to deal with since the rampant specialization of consultants these days. As a professional, I take very seriously the charge to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public - so I'm going to do what it takes to make sure that things get done right if I'm building a project. Being licensed would mean for me at least, another option, at least I'm not relying on practice to earn my food and board.
Maybe we just abolish NCARB and let the E&O providers set minimum standards for practice. They do seem to have higher standards than NCARB does.
Out of curiosity, do we pseudo-architects in the "emerging areas" of the profession actually have some kind of committee, interest group, or other organization in the AIA? I may as well put my associate membership in this organization to good use...
AIA has 'knowledge communities' covering a range of practice topics and specialties. There is also the YAF to gripe about IDP. But nothing beyond COTE that focuses on an 'emerging area'
This is what I'd figured, although I wonder if any local chapters have committees that address this.
Thinking of my own local chapter (nb: I officially live in this town, but do education somewhere else, so my participation is sort of sporadic until I graduate), there are about three or four people I could name off the top of my head (besides myself) who are in non-traditional practice but also AIA members - at least one of them went the academic route. It's a middle-sized city, so I am not sure if most local chapters would be able to support such a committee.
For licensure, I think we mostly have YAF/the associate's committee, but most people at that stage of the profession are still in 'traditional practice' and haven't branched out into a specialty yet. Therefore, non-traditional practitioners are a bit underrepresented.
Regardless of what level it happens at, though, it seems like we should have a 'non traditional practice' committee or some such. I would give the following reasons:
- We need a forum for architecture-trained people who do things that aren't strictly 'architectural practice', per se - urban design, landscape architecture, digital fabrication, health care / other technical specializations (there are already a few health care specialty committees, but nothing like 'non traditional/emerging practice'), green building specialists, etc. This way, we can give each other support and advice as we work in our diverse fields.
- We also need a voice within the AIA for non-traditional practitioners, so that people are aware that architects do go these routes and may not have their needs met by an organization that is so focused on traditional practice. When I applied to the AIA, there was a checkbox for 'non-traditional practice', so I assume that people are at least aware that it exists! Difficulty with licensure would probably fall under this category.
- We should be able to provide guidance to the AIA for the ways in which the profession can expand. To point out how architecturally trained people can market their services as urban designers (or how they would need to adapt their practice to urban design), why not ask urban design specialists who are doing this already? The same goes for people who are designing with technical criteria, spec writing, etc. - the non-traditional practitioners are a very good voice for the organization as a whole as to how the practice can grow and change.
- Committee happy hours with fewer drunken discussions about AutoCAD and Revit idiosyncrasies. I'm not sure what would replace this discussion, however.
Great idea! I've been wanting to establish a multidisciplinary practitioners' forum. Seems that non-traditional practice would be a complementary group.
it's not a matter of whining, but of being systemically blocked from further pursuit of licensure under the current IDP system without resorting to a $$$$ bribe to NCARB for consideration under the 'widely experienced architect' program, or to try competing with kids making 1/4th my hourly rate just to get the last few days of experience needed.
How exactly are you blocked again? Is it just because you don’t have necessary hours in specific IDP categories?
What makes this a tricky subject is, why exactly should NCARB or whoever accept your word that your experience is comparable, just not under the supervision of a licensed architect? The path to get that set up isn’t really that cut and dry. Requiring the hours be signed off by a licensed architect may not seem like that much of a difference than being signed off by someone comparable with just as much if not much more experience. But it at least gives a baseline standard for which they can work off of. Not saying it is the best or only solution out there, but it makes sense to me if there is to be any type of experience requirement, which I personally think is a good idea. Otherwise, how can we govern who is or isn’t allowed to sign off on hours?
Why was it possible for many generations of architects to get their license without either an architecture degree or IDP, when now we can't? It's not that buildings/technology are significantly more complex for the architects to deal with since the rampant specialization of consultants these days.
They all went through an apprenticeship, which I imagine, was much more thorough and IDP. There were also significantly less architects than there are today, as well as nowhere near all the specializations that exist today. Governing them all is impossible, which is why, I’d guess, that they have kept it as general as possible.
As a professional, I take very seriously the charge to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public - so I'm going to do what it takes to make sure that things get done right if I'm building a project. Being licensed would mean for me at least, another option, at least I'm not relying on practice to earn my food and board.
I believe you mean that, but not everyone takes that as seriously unfortunately
So, how do we even go about forming a committee/forum, short of going the Archinect route and making an actual Internet forum? I think it would be pretty easy at the local level, except the committees would be relatively small. Nationally, however, this is probably harder. (Emerging and Multi-Disciplinary Practice Areas - EMDIPA - is a pronounceable acronym, sort of.)
Re: NCARB, it's important to have a baseline standard for what practitioners should know. However, this is as much legal as it is technical - I feel like it's as much learning about the vicissitudes of the design-bid-build process as much as it is about how buildings are put together. Even if we're not working strictly in buildings, or if we're working with only parts of buildings, these seem like good things to know.
OccupyNCARB!
Barry, do you intend on stamping drawings? Is there something really difficult about finding an AOR? Or do you worry about an AIA "cease and desist" order?
I agree that NCARB sucks, IDP sucks. I also think its way to easy to become a licensed professional. But there does need to be some recognition for people in our industry who are architectural thinkers and tinkerers. I have no problem with letting anyone call themselves an architect. I do think there should be a stricter, more difficult testing/education process to be a licensed professional in place. I don't think that someone who stamps drawings has earned the label "architect" more that anyone else, because stamping drawings and looking at HSW issues is such a narrow scope of our field. There does need to be that level of "quality control" or "consumer protection" but not in the broad architectural sense.
Today, it's getting more and more difficult to be the traditional jack of all trades architect. There is no reason why having "Designers" and "Plan-stampers" as separate parts of a team is a bad thing. When I sit in a room with four architects on a large project, we all know what our strengths are. We know that it's easier to play to those strengths than be responsible for everything. It's beneficial to have 4 different members in the same room, rather than four of the same.
In the public eye, the architect isn't the licensed professional; the guy who is diligent and thorough; the HSW engineer. The architect is the genius creative, enshrouded in mystery. The functional sculptor with vision. I think the profession would do itself a lot of good tossing off the burden of "protecting" architects. It's a turf war that will never be won. Your colleagues already know what you're capable of, and the public is going to buy your work and your personality not your certification. People don't pick architects from a list. I mean you don't see AAA Architects so they can be first in the phone book. So, who cares. You're all architects.
I also thought it was an interesting point in the latest issue of Architect, that a couple of opinions were that the label architect actually came with some stigma or responsibility they didn't want, as if they would lose their design powers. Any other licensed architects feel pigeonholed?
Dont doctors from other countries who come to the US have to go through some type of residency at a hospital just like any graduate, ignoring any professional experience they had before coming to the US?
They do a 2 or 3 year residency, but this is part of their education, and the university gets them a residency, unlike us who are just thrown out into the cruel world of unemployment. Also many universities have university hospitals. As for Lawyers, they just take the Bar and they are Lawyers.
In the public eye, the architect isn't the licensed professional; the guy who is diligent and thorough; the HSW engineer. The architect is the genius creative, enshrouded in mystery. The functional sculptor with vision. I think the profession would do itself a lot of good tossing off the burden of "protecting" architects. It's a turf war that will never be won. Your colleagues already know what you're capable of, and the public is going to buy your work and your personality not your certification. People don't pick architects from a list. I mean you don't see AAA Architects so they can be first in the phone book. So, who cares. You're all architects
Thank you! I agree. Certify the actual project as being safe for the public, not the architect. The difference between architects, docs, lawyers, is that we design physical stuff that can be checked before it can do any harm. I am all for strick building regulations as long as they make sense and really do better society, the environment, etc. Have engineers and scientists ensure the saftey of the project and remove the liability burden off of us. Let us be weird and creative!
They do a 2 or 3 year residency, but this is part of their education, and the university gets them a residency, unlike us who are just thrown out into the cruel world of unemployment. Also many universities have university hospitals. As for Lawyers, they just take the Bar and they are Lawyers.
That is pretty much what I assumed. Ideally, a similar setup would work nicely for architects as if they are working, while also in school, it will give them a much more thorough knowledge base that you just can’t get if you only do your design studio and a couple other side classes.
Again though, how does a university help guarantee that amount of actual firm work? And how do they make sure its not just a lot of time stuck making copies? Are there going to be certain hours that are required to be filled before you can graduate to make sure, with that degree, that you have a representative of what an architect’s work entails? And who signs off on those hours?
Sounds an awful lot like a school would want you to work for a reasonable size firm to guarantee that there is work, and to work under a registered architect to make sure that 10 interns don’t just sit around a table for 8 hours a day with no actual guidance. Which sounds a lot like IDP
It’d probably be worse, because there are no university architectural firms to provide the residency opportunities
Hospitals are much more stable in terms of having work in the economy compared to architecture
It seems like this type of situation is if a med student were to go work for a while with a pharmaceutical company and then say that they are a doctor because they have been working in the industry for as long or longer than other residents do in their residency. They just didn’t work directly under an M.D. Is it possible for someone to actually get enough experience and knowledge that they could then be a doctor? Of course. Is it something that should be allowed? Probably not, because who is to say for sure
I do agree though, that it should happen at the university level. I just don’t see it ever actually happening because of how much this industry fluctuates in the economy
Though I do admit that at the university level, you can look at these more specialized, perhaps non-licensed architects as mentors for college students to help fill “IDP”-type required hours. A university could more easily monitor a mentorship than NCARB could, without having to jack up fees for everyone
Have engineers and scientists ensure the saftey of the project and remove the liability burden off of us. Let us be weird and creative!
I agree in theory, but then arent we just going to get paid even less than we do now?
We go down this route, how long before architects arent even needed at all?
I do agree though, that it should happen at the university level. I just don’t see it ever actually happening because of how much this industry fluctuates in the economy
I agree!
We go down this route, how long before architects arent even needed at all?
Architects will always be needed. I think our value is more based on our creativity, problem solving, and vision than our professional license (as postal said.) I also think that it would allow the business to function better if we get rid of all that liability. There can be state licensed architects and/or engineers (that could act like the responsible adults) who check over and stamp the work, and then those who design it. It would also be more efficient because the stamp guy would be another non-biased check point on the project. The liability would shif to them, and they would be paid a fee.
Architects will always be needed. I think our value is more based on our creativity, problem solving, and vision than our professional license (as postal said.) I also think that it would allow the business to function better if we get rid of all that liability. There can be state licensed architects and/or engineers (that could act like the responsible adults) who check over and stamp the work, and then those who design it. It would also be more efficient because the stamp guy would be another non-biased check point on the project. The liability would shif to them, and they would be paid a fee.
I agree that architects’ value goes beyond the liability we take on with our stamp. But this will inherently lessen our fees, as our clients would then need to allocate money towards those who are taking on the liability.
And the state licensed architects and engineers you speak of essentially are the local county or state department that reviews and gives out building permits. I would imagine that in your scenario, they would just inherit the liability, since they are already involved? Or do you propose a 3rd party who is what, legislated by the state? Either way, quickly expect the architect’s fee to drop
Also, this system is already technically in place. It’s called you just hiring an architect of record, and you are the design architect. Or, if it were all in one firm, you have one “designer” and one licensed architect who assumes the liability, though if you wanted no liability for your firm, you just farm it out to an architect of record in a different firm.
And the state licensed architects and engineers you speak of essentially are the local county or state department that reviews and gives out building permits. I would imagine that in your scenario, they would just inherit the liability, since they are already involved? Or do you propose a 3rd party who is what, legislated by the state? Either way, quickly expect the architect’s fee to drop
I mean a third party an architect of record (state licensed) as you say would take liability, but the difference being that if you are not a licenced architect, you could still be able to practice as an architect and call yourself an architect. Just need an architect of record or an engineer to review and stamp thus taking on the liability and ensuring the safety of the project.
I mean a third party an architect of record (state licensed) as you say would take liability, but the difference being that if you are not a licenced architect, you could still be able to practice as an architect and call yourself an architect. Just need an architect of record or an engineer to review and stamp thus taking on the liability and ensuring the safety of the project.
I guess I just don’t follow how that is any different than you personally just hiring an Architect of Record?
Because then, if I am not mistaken, they have the liability, and you are just noted as the Design Architect, which doesn’t require a license
Yeah but you can't call yourself an architect or open an architecture firm without that license. i'm saying you should be able to be an architect without the license, the thing you design can be stamped by the state licensed architect. You should be able to call yourself an architect and practice as an architect with an M-arch, but if you chose to not get licensed you then must get the project stamped by someone who is.
so the difference is between opening an architecture firm and opening an architectural design firm? I am pretty sure you can open a firm right now if you wanted to, as long as you had clients and then just go get your project stamped by a licensed architect.
on the subject of calling yourself an architect, ok, I guess technically you cant. But really, anyone asks me what i do for a living right now, i tell them i am an architect. Not that I am almost an architect once i pass these last 3 exams.
Because you arent really changing anything with your system other than saying that everyone who has an architectural degree should be able to call themselves an architect. When you say you want to practice as an architect with just an M-Arch, you just mean you want to design without the liability.
My point is things would not really be that different, you can do what you want to beyond putting "architect" as your title. I am not sure that is really a reason for such massive changes to the system
so the difference is between opening an architecture firm and opening an architectural design firm?
Not sure that you can do this. I dont think it is legal, but may be wrong
It is very different, because it allows one to be an architect without having to automatically be the one who holds the liability of the license. It would be easier to open a small firm and would not need all the insurance. What I am saying is that the architect does not affect the health saftey and welfare of the public, the actual architecture does (which is different than a doctor or lawyer), so if it is checked by someone and stamped by someone who the state trusts to do so (whether it be an engineer or an architect with a state license), then why can't we practice as architects without the license? I think some firms especially small ones would prefer this, and architects who do chose to get a state issued license would make money from this nitch. Large firms who can afford to, can take the liability. If I could find work, and do it well enough for it to be approved by someone with the authority to do so, and pay for the review and stamp, then why not? The only legal duty we will then have will be a fiduciary duty to the client which can be taken care of with a mandatory standard contract protecting the client from getting ripped off.
If I could find work, and do it well enough for it to be approved by someone with the authority to do so, and pay for the review and stamp, then why not?
Ok i guess my only question is why cant you do this right now? I could be wrong, and have never actually looked into it myself, but I always thought you could open up your own design firm and then just hire someone else to stamp your drawings.
not sure if it is legal, but I will look into it!
good discussion!!!
haha. well, i didn't mean to discount the value of the "HSW engineer." I meant to discount only the semantics. And though I dig "weird and creative", you can do that without a license. Also, my AOR fee will be double the "weird and creative" fee, you will become our sub. (Wow, as I type this, this is exactly what happened two years ago. Weird and creative guy ended up ok, but it wasn't pretty.) Anyway, I think I can say j.arleo, you can do everything you're talking about doing. NCARB, AIA is not preventing you from doing what you want to do. You are not a licensed professional, you don't have that liability, you can be weird and creative. In other words, you actually don't want to be what NCARB calls an architect. You want to be an anti-tect.
hmmm, so my determination is that either everyone can be an architect, and the licensed professionals are called something else (BAMF's). or, alternatively, we create a new industry wide accepted term with enough cache as "architect" I propose anti-tect. That sounds more mysterious and cool and I would imagine we can still wear black mock turtlenecks and dark rimmed glasses.
The conversation when introduced would go the same:
Hi, Jerry, what do you do?
I'm an anti-tect.
An anti-tect, what the hell is that?
It's like an architect, but cooler.
Ah, that does sound cooler.
And the beauty is, whoever you just met, is neither more or less informed about what you actually do whether you were labeled as an architect or not.
not sure if it is legal, but I will look into it!
FWIW it is not legal to open an architectural office in Illinois without being licensed. I guess you could maybe call yourself a 'design firm'.
I suppose my question to your system would be why bother hiring some firm who can only do 'design' when chances are most firms will have in house 'liability architects' also and then you can get the whole shebang in one place? I think youd be hard pressed to find clients that want to deal with 2 sources for their architectural services as opposed to one. Let alone the fee you would burn correcting 'liability' comments and whatnot before you even get to permit comments from the city.
hahaha anti-tect, I love it, it does sound cooler. We should work at night only like ninjas and send our work to the "responsible architect" in the morning for approval.
I suppose my question to your system would be why bother hiring some firm who can only do 'design' when chances are most firms will have in house 'liability architects' also and then you can get the whole shebang in one place? I think youd be hard pressed to find clients that want to deal with 2 sources for their architectural services as opposed to one. Let alone the fee you would burn correcting 'liability' comments and whatnot before you even get to permit comments from the city.
Well, this goes back to the issue of the quality of architecture being damaged by there being more architects. This system would make it really hard to get work if you are a non-licensed firm, so you would have to be really good at what you do and at persuading clients. It would have a positive effect on the quality of architecture, as the allowance of food trucks would have a positive effect on the quality on the culinary scene of a city.(people are reluctent to eat from a truck unless it has a reputation of being really good.)
I like anti-tect. So I've been working on getting certifications in another profession and it is amazingly uncumbersome. The title I want to use is not regulated unless you want to be board-certified. If you are unlicensed you just register with the state so someone can file s complaimt if needed. Architecture licensing is way out of SCALE with the services provided. And architects are supposed to be good at scale! I'll believe it when I see it.
The bigger issue that this leads to is - Architectural education in US colleges. Why is someone who finishes a bachelors degree in Europe able to get a license as soon as they graduate, whereas one has to jump through all the hoops here to get a license? As long as we have teachers with no valid building experience as our students know how to create voronoi tessellations better than how to draw a building section, one cannot argue against IDP.
That said, the whole system is so antiquated and convoluted, it is keeping a lot of people from getting licensed.
As long as we have teachers with no valid building experience as our students know how to create voronoi tessellations better than how to draw a building section, one cannot argue against IDP.
I think this is a key reason why i have always felt IDP was a good thing. I think i had a pretty typical college education experience, and i was nowhere near ready to be licensed when i graduated
I would like to add to my note above on being an unlicensed practioner (in another field) that you must promise to not practice outside your area of expertise. When I think of having those conditions in architecture, I can picture it working well. It is misleading to the public to say that a licensed architect can architect any and all structures, yet that os how we practice.
It is up to the architect and their client to determine if they can or cannot "architect" a structure. How in the world would you regulate what types of buildings each particular architect is allowed to design? And how exactly do you get to be an "expert" then? My firm right now is trying to build our expertise in healthcare. We have done several smaller scale projects with particular hospital groups, and are building up our resume and experience to hopefully be considered for any large projects they might have. According to you, we shouldnt be allowed to do that because it was originally "outside our area of expertise"?
Thats ridiculous.
You essentially would be saying that any young architect cannot start their own firm because they are not experts in something yet
IDP boils down to:
Is it really that hard to overcome?
no, its really not
To get their license, they want you to have worked with a licensed architect. I dont really see anything unreasonable about that
And i am sorry, but if you have spent your career specializing in one specific thing, you shouldnt just be allowed to get your license, which is not a specialty license, it is a general license.
marmkid, I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't understand you either, on the one hand you suggest that your firm desires to specialize in something, and on the other hand you insist that architects aren't allowed to be specialized because the licensing requirements are general by their very nature.
I never said architects aren’t allowed to be specialized because of licensing requirements. I said that if all you have ever done in your career is one specific specialization, you shouldn’t just be allowed to gain a license that is broader than that particular specialization.
The argument has been made that just because someone has been working in some fashion for a number of years, that should just be good enough to fulfill any sort of requirements that IDP has. I think that is just some people trying to get around the system, which to be honest, is not that stringent to begin with.
My firm desires to build a resume and perhaps gain more work in one particular direction. We aren’t abandoning all the other areas we also do work in, we just see, especially in today’s economy, that healthcare is an area that has remained steady because of the necessity of it.
That has nothing at all to do with someone gaining their license. I was merely responding to your idea that architects should only practice in their “area of expertise”. My point was that I don’t see why anyone should stay away from a particular type of project just because they aren’t an “expert” in it, which I don’t think you could easily define anyway. I do agree that architects should not mislead their clients, and it will cost them money and reputation as well as future jobs if they do.
And i am sorry, but if you have spent your career specializing in one specific thing, you shouldnt just be allowed to get your license, which is not a specialty license, it is a general license.
to clarify this statement, which is where our misunderstanding came from
I mean that, if directly out of school, you only do one thing, like the OP mentions he did, and they dont fall into the categories of experience, I dont think that just because you happen to do that one specialization for a long enough time means it can suddenly now count for everything, and let you bypass the other requirements.
I think my 2 points got jumbled together and caused the confusion, sorry about that
I think its like, after you graduate, if you were only able to get a job as an electrical engineer draftsman, and you did that for several years, then decided, hey, I've been working for 5 years in the industry, I should be able to take my exams now and get my license.
That shouldnt be allowed
Thanks for clearing that up. I think you make the point nicely that the license simply isn't for everyone. This is evident in reality by the 2/3 that do not get licensed as pointed out earlier.
I think that is where a lot of times people seem to get hung up on things. A license gets you certain things as an architect, and to get the license you need to do certain things. But especially in this day and the way the industry is not set up, it is not something that everyone needs to do by any means. There are many different paths an architect can take in his or her career. They dont all need a license.
What i keep getting hung up on is when people take those alternate career paths, then decide that they should just be handed a license anyway, when in reality, they just either didnt submit their hours appropriately or on time, or they dont qualify. It turns into whining, when in reality, those people either dont need the license to continue the career path they have chosen, or are just too lazy to do what little the license requires you to do to get it.
If we would all just take ownership of our own careers, we would be a lot better off. (thats a general statement, not directed at anyone in particular, especially here, since this is a productive conversation overall)
There are good and bad things about IDP. The good is that the computerized system has made it much faster/easier to fill out your hours and get them approved. Does anyone remember the paper forms and training units instead of hours? The worst. Now my biggest complaints are about the state offices that you have to deal with when you are getting licensed.
The bad is that they are really, really, really slow to move on things. There were/are common predatory practices during this recession like hiring someone for a project/deadline and then immediately laying them off (<3 months) or hiring someone as an independent contractor so they didn't have to take on the costs of them as an employee when in actuality they were an employee. It took NCARB more than a year into the recession before they decided it would probably be a good idea to shorten the period you had to work full time to be able to report it. And then when they did no one could retroactively count their hours. I found the whole thing even more frustrating and depressing in a climate where my job status was already very frustrating and depressing. I am not sure if NCARB has made a move on the IC situation. Is that one of the employment groups they are redefining in IDP 4.0? In my opinion, there should be a way that you could report offices that consistently do this (it is very common in NYC) and they are somehow penalized by NCARB or the AIA.
Oh, and don't get me started on the practice vignette software that only runs on antiquated operating systems...
Blah, I edited my comment and hit save, and it didn't do anything.
An abbreviated summary:
1) The states need to start bringing their paperwork systems out of the dark ages, like NCARB.
2) I think NCARB has two roles and it is failing at one of the them. The first role is to set up a system that creates a minimum standard for all licensed architects. That is IDP and NCARB. The second is to advocate for people who are trying to become licensed architects. Right now I don't think any organization does that.
it's not a matter of whining, but of being systemically blocked from further pursuit of licensure under the current IDP system without resorting to a $$$$ bribe to NCARB for consideration under the 'widely experienced architect' program, or to try competing with kids making 1/4th my hourly rate just to get the last few days of experience needed. Why was it possible for many generations of architects to get their license without either an architecture degree or IDP, when now we can't? It's not that buildings/technology are significantly more complex for the architects to deal with since the rampant specialization of consultants these days. As a professional, I take very seriously the charge to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public - so I'm going to do what it takes to make sure that things get done right if I'm building a project. Being licensed would mean for me at least, another option, at least I'm not relying on practice to earn my food and board.
Maybe we just abolish NCARB and let the E&O providers set minimum standards for practice. They do seem to have higher standards than NCARB does.
Out of curiosity, do we pseudo-architects in the "emerging areas" of the profession actually have some kind of committee, interest group, or other organization in the AIA? I may as well put my associate membership in this organization to good use...
AIA has 'knowledge communities' covering a range of practice topics and specialties. There is also the YAF to gripe about IDP. But nothing beyond COTE that focuses on an 'emerging area'
This is what I'd figured, although I wonder if any local chapters have committees that address this.
Thinking of my own local chapter (nb: I officially live in this town, but do education somewhere else, so my participation is sort of sporadic until I graduate), there are about three or four people I could name off the top of my head (besides myself) who are in non-traditional practice but also AIA members - at least one of them went the academic route. It's a middle-sized city, so I am not sure if most local chapters would be able to support such a committee.
For licensure, I think we mostly have YAF/the associate's committee, but most people at that stage of the profession are still in 'traditional practice' and haven't branched out into a specialty yet. Therefore, non-traditional practitioners are a bit underrepresented.
Regardless of what level it happens at, though, it seems like we should have a 'non traditional practice' committee or some such. I would give the following reasons:
- We need a forum for architecture-trained people who do things that aren't strictly 'architectural practice', per se - urban design, landscape architecture, digital fabrication, health care / other technical specializations (there are already a few health care specialty committees, but nothing like 'non traditional/emerging practice'), green building specialists, etc. This way, we can give each other support and advice as we work in our diverse fields.
- We also need a voice within the AIA for non-traditional practitioners, so that people are aware that architects do go these routes and may not have their needs met by an organization that is so focused on traditional practice. When I applied to the AIA, there was a checkbox for 'non-traditional practice', so I assume that people are at least aware that it exists! Difficulty with licensure would probably fall under this category.
- We should be able to provide guidance to the AIA for the ways in which the profession can expand. To point out how architecturally trained people can market their services as urban designers (or how they would need to adapt their practice to urban design), why not ask urban design specialists who are doing this already? The same goes for people who are designing with technical criteria, spec writing, etc. - the non-traditional practitioners are a very good voice for the organization as a whole as to how the practice can grow and change.
- Committee happy hours with fewer drunken discussions about AutoCAD and Revit idiosyncrasies. I'm not sure what would replace this discussion, however.
Great idea! I've been wanting to establish a multidisciplinary practitioners' forum. Seems that non-traditional practice would be a complementary group.
it's not a matter of whining, but of being systemically blocked from further pursuit of licensure under the current IDP system without resorting to a $$$$ bribe to NCARB for consideration under the 'widely experienced architect' program, or to try competing with kids making 1/4th my hourly rate just to get the last few days of experience needed.
How exactly are you blocked again? Is it just because you don’t have necessary hours in specific IDP categories?
What makes this a tricky subject is, why exactly should NCARB or whoever accept your word that your experience is comparable, just not under the supervision of a licensed architect? The path to get that set up isn’t really that cut and dry. Requiring the hours be signed off by a licensed architect may not seem like that much of a difference than being signed off by someone comparable with just as much if not much more experience. But it at least gives a baseline standard for which they can work off of. Not saying it is the best or only solution out there, but it makes sense to me if there is to be any type of experience requirement, which I personally think is a good idea. Otherwise, how can we govern who is or isn’t allowed to sign off on hours?
Why was it possible for many generations of architects to get their license without either an architecture degree or IDP, when now we can't? It's not that buildings/technology are significantly more complex for the architects to deal with since the rampant specialization of consultants these days.
They all went through an apprenticeship, which I imagine, was much more thorough and IDP. There were also significantly less architects than there are today, as well as nowhere near all the specializations that exist today. Governing them all is impossible, which is why, I’d guess, that they have kept it as general as possible.
As a professional, I take very seriously the charge to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public - so I'm going to do what it takes to make sure that things get done right if I'm building a project. Being licensed would mean for me at least, another option, at least I'm not relying on practice to earn my food and board.
I believe you mean that, but not everyone takes that as seriously unfortunately
So, how do we even go about forming a committee/forum, short of going the Archinect route and making an actual Internet forum? I think it would be pretty easy at the local level, except the committees would be relatively small. Nationally, however, this is probably harder. (Emerging and Multi-Disciplinary Practice Areas - EMDIPA - is a pronounceable acronym, sort of.)
Re: NCARB, it's important to have a baseline standard for what practitioners should know. However, this is as much legal as it is technical - I feel like it's as much learning about the vicissitudes of the design-bid-build process as much as it is about how buildings are put together. Even if we're not working strictly in buildings, or if we're working with only parts of buildings, these seem like good things to know.
Re: NCARB, it's important to have a baseline standard for what practitioners should know. However, this is as much legal as it is technical -
I think its actually way more legal than technical, and probably should be
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.