If anything, having the license will give you credibility to your clients.
Technically, only the principal (assuming they are the only ones stamping) needs to be licensed.
Depends on the state you are practicing in and the size of the residential work you want to do. In CA you can do single-family residential up to 2 stories with basement & multiple units up to 4 units. Being recently licensed, I think it does help with the credibility with clients, esp. because we look young. Also, even though you are not licensed you still have the same liability if you are offering your services as a design professional, at least according to the attorneys I have spoken to, and you cannot get errors & omissions insurance if you are not licensed. However, if you incorporate that should protect you to a certain extent.
One disadvantage that we have recently discovered is that our general liability insurance (we do design/build) will be extremely expensive because we are a new company and I am licensed. Apparently insurance companies don't like to cover contractors with an in-house design professional. The insurance is looking like it will be $20,000 per year, and we have to have it to do the bigger jobs...
some jurisdictions will require a license for any scale project, some will require a license for any project above a certain size, some you can do whatever you want and don't even do a plan review.
It's probably up to your local gov't. For example, my state will let me do a residential bldg of two aboveground floors plus a basement, without a license. However, my city/county requires a license for the same bldg, and they trump the state, although I can get around that by paying a structural engineer to review the plan docs and approve 'em.
Usually the size limitation for residential is 4,000sf
I have seen some interesting "Street of Dreams" developments with McMansions ranging from 3,500sf to 3,950sf....Imagine that.
It could be a paradigm shift in residential development if that size limitation was lowered to 2,500sf or 3,000sf...I think we would see a lot less of the big box mcmansion projects because the developers would be forced to hire an architect.
JAG, almost all the mcmans are designed by architects, including bob stern.
they are everywhere including europe,asia and in your city.
good try though.
In Atlanta, there is no need for a license to do residential.
doesnt that make you mad?
I guess the idea is that the city wants to promote development and make it as easy as posible for the resident.
We have a couple of designers in Atlanta who have become millionares designing mansions in the upperclass hood of Atl.
You would think that they would just go get licensed just for the novelty of it
Suposedly less than 5% of all residential architecture in the US involves an architect. It does not make me mad - though I try to educate my friends and relatives as to why they might want to hire an architect rather than plunk down their money on a developer house with Palladian windows in the laundry room.
Regulations vary from state to state. The 3000 square foot thing, for instance, is a number used in a bunch of states, but this varies tremendously from state to state. In my state an architect is not required for ANY single-family residential project, nor for many types of commercial and multi-family projects up to 15,000 square feet. There are other states in which it is very difficult to build anything beyond the simplest home without an architect or engineer's stamp.
But, just because the state's regulations say you don't need a stamp doesn't always mean that a fledgling designer can get a house built without one.
This is because the local officials are given a great deal of power in deciding how to enforce the regulations. For instance if the local inspector says that your drawing set is not complete enough, or that you need an architect or engineer for your particular project, there's pretty much no getting around it.
Often a young, unlicensed designer is treated much differently by these local code enforcers than an experienced developer would be.
As for the McMansions: many architects have designed one or more of them, but the vast majority do not involve an architect.
"If anything, having the license will give you credibility to your clients.
"
I don't see how, unless you go saying 'I've got my license and he doesn't'. How would they know? Most people assume that we are licensed upon leaving school.
Most homes do not involve an architect, so what does that tell us?
"almost all the mcmans are designed by architects, including bob stern. they are everywhere including europe,asia and in your city.
good try though."
Where are you getting your information?
What is your definition of a McMansion?
Bob Stern? Regardless of the architectural merit of his work, I think you are missing the point of the term McMansion...
I'm talking about large developer tracts of dozens of monsterous houses...You will find that these houses are sized just below the maximum allowed without a stamp by the local jurisdiction, and are designed by either a staff working directly for the developer, or "architetural design" firms, staffed with CAD monkeys and designers, who may, or may not have a license.
Thats not to say that Architects are not guilty of designing these monstrosities, but to say they are all designed by architects is ridiculous...
It's been clear for several decades that single family housing developers can not be trusted to self regulate design quality, and local jurisdictions. The point I'm trying to make, is that it would be a different landscape if the size allowances for houses was limited to 2,000 square feet, as more architects would be responsible for the design of single family homes.
mbr, it does make a difference to be able to have on your cv "licensed architect" rather than just listing your education and design experience. For our firm, since we publicly announced we have the license we've gotten a couple much bigger jobs. Could be coincidence, but I think it helps. I can tell you that a couple people have actually said to us "oh, we didn't expect you to be so young" at our first meeting - but when we give them our cv which lists our license #s (for both construction and arch) as well as all the rest they seem to relax. Just one person's experience...
i was not about the define in detail, whodunit and what size. you've seen under 2000 mc-juniors. they are even more wide spread. both sizes are very popular.
the issue is in between who is the marketer and who is the marketee.
also, it would be impossible to legistlate your proposal of 2000 sq/ft limitation, as it simply undermines the constitution.
however, such a change is possible through co marketing. i do not know what the avarage national age is, but, it is always a big factor in change of consumer aestechics and needs.
without getting too spread out, i want to say, i also like to see a smarter replacements for all the mc's coming from whoever (hopefully from architects), and the useless excess cut out.
biggest merit i have for bob stern, is for taking the subway to work when he was at colombia.
"The point I'm trying to make, is that it would be a different landscape if the size allowances for houses was limited to 2,000 square feet, as more architects would be responsible for the design of single family homes."
...you're on drugs if you think that would ever pass. The developers are about a million times more organized than we are, they've got more political friends than we do, and they've got more money. Sure, it would make the license more valuable -- but it's not gonna happen, and for lots of reasons.
Jul 24, 04 4:37 am ·
·
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.
License for Residential?
For someone with a professional degree in arch, who decides they only want to design residential, is there any advantage in getting licensed?
Any disadvantages?
Just curious.
If anything, having the license will give you credibility to your clients.
Technically, only the principal (assuming they are the only ones stamping) needs to be licensed.
Depends on the state you are practicing in and the size of the residential work you want to do. In CA you can do single-family residential up to 2 stories with basement & multiple units up to 4 units. Being recently licensed, I think it does help with the credibility with clients, esp. because we look young. Also, even though you are not licensed you still have the same liability if you are offering your services as a design professional, at least according to the attorneys I have spoken to, and you cannot get errors & omissions insurance if you are not licensed. However, if you incorporate that should protect you to a certain extent.
One disadvantage that we have recently discovered is that our general liability insurance (we do design/build) will be extremely expensive because we are a new company and I am licensed. Apparently insurance companies don't like to cover contractors with an in-house design professional. The insurance is looking like it will be $20,000 per year, and we have to have it to do the bigger jobs...
some jurisdictions will require a license for any scale project, some will require a license for any project above a certain size, some you can do whatever you want and don't even do a plan review.
It's probably up to your local gov't. For example, my state will let me do a residential bldg of two aboveground floors plus a basement, without a license. However, my city/county requires a license for the same bldg, and they trump the state, although I can get around that by paying a structural engineer to review the plan docs and approve 'em.
...so be sure you check ALL of the gov't layers.
Usually the size limitation for residential is 4,000sf
I have seen some interesting "Street of Dreams" developments with McMansions ranging from 3,500sf to 3,950sf....Imagine that.
It could be a paradigm shift in residential development if that size limitation was lowered to 2,500sf or 3,000sf...I think we would see a lot less of the big box mcmansion projects because the developers would be forced to hire an architect.
JAG, almost all the mcmans are designed by architects, including bob stern.
they are everywhere including europe,asia and in your city.
good try though.
In Atlanta, there is no need for a license to do residential.
doesnt that make you mad?
I guess the idea is that the city wants to promote development and make it as easy as posible for the resident.
We have a couple of designers in Atlanta who have become millionares designing mansions in the upperclass hood of Atl.
You would think that they would just go get licensed just for the novelty of it
Suposedly less than 5% of all residential architecture in the US involves an architect. It does not make me mad - though I try to educate my friends and relatives as to why they might want to hire an architect rather than plunk down their money on a developer house with Palladian windows in the laundry room.
Regulations vary from state to state. The 3000 square foot thing, for instance, is a number used in a bunch of states, but this varies tremendously from state to state. In my state an architect is not required for ANY single-family residential project, nor for many types of commercial and multi-family projects up to 15,000 square feet. There are other states in which it is very difficult to build anything beyond the simplest home without an architect or engineer's stamp.
But, just because the state's regulations say you don't need a stamp doesn't always mean that a fledgling designer can get a house built without one.
This is because the local officials are given a great deal of power in deciding how to enforce the regulations. For instance if the local inspector says that your drawing set is not complete enough, or that you need an architect or engineer for your particular project, there's pretty much no getting around it.
Often a young, unlicensed designer is treated much differently by these local code enforcers than an experienced developer would be.
As for the McMansions: many architects have designed one or more of them, but the vast majority do not involve an architect.
"If anything, having the license will give you credibility to your clients.
"
I don't see how, unless you go saying 'I've got my license and he doesn't'. How would they know? Most people assume that we are licensed upon leaving school.
Most homes do not involve an architect, so what does that tell us?
OA
"almost all the mcmans are designed by architects, including bob stern. they are everywhere including europe,asia and in your city.
good try though."
Where are you getting your information?
What is your definition of a McMansion?
Bob Stern? Regardless of the architectural merit of his work, I think you are missing the point of the term McMansion...
I'm talking about large developer tracts of dozens of monsterous houses...You will find that these houses are sized just below the maximum allowed without a stamp by the local jurisdiction, and are designed by either a staff working directly for the developer, or "architetural design" firms, staffed with CAD monkeys and designers, who may, or may not have a license.
Thats not to say that Architects are not guilty of designing these monstrosities, but to say they are all designed by architects is ridiculous...
It's been clear for several decades that single family housing developers can not be trusted to self regulate design quality, and local jurisdictions. The point I'm trying to make, is that it would be a different landscape if the size allowances for houses was limited to 2,000 square feet, as more architects would be responsible for the design of single family homes.
mbr, it does make a difference to be able to have on your cv "licensed architect" rather than just listing your education and design experience. For our firm, since we publicly announced we have the license we've gotten a couple much bigger jobs. Could be coincidence, but I think it helps. I can tell you that a couple people have actually said to us "oh, we didn't expect you to be so young" at our first meeting - but when we give them our cv which lists our license #s (for both construction and arch) as well as all the rest they seem to relax. Just one person's experience...
i was not about the define in detail, whodunit and what size. you've seen under 2000 mc-juniors. they are even more wide spread. both sizes are very popular.
the issue is in between who is the marketer and who is the marketee.
also, it would be impossible to legistlate your proposal of 2000 sq/ft limitation, as it simply undermines the constitution.
however, such a change is possible through co marketing. i do not know what the avarage national age is, but, it is always a big factor in change of consumer aestechics and needs.
without getting too spread out, i want to say, i also like to see a smarter replacements for all the mc's coming from whoever (hopefully from architects), and the useless excess cut out.
biggest merit i have for bob stern, is for taking the subway to work when he was at colombia.
"The point I'm trying to make, is that it would be a different landscape if the size allowances for houses was limited to 2,000 square feet, as more architects would be responsible for the design of single family homes."
...you're on drugs if you think that would ever pass. The developers are about a million times more organized than we are, they've got more political friends than we do, and they've got more money. Sure, it would make the license more valuable -- but it's not gonna happen, and for lots of reasons.
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.