I heard the groundwork being laid for this 2 years ago in a video taped message from the then AIA National president. He was making the argument that for the profession of architecture to advance we need to adopt a different approach to professional credentials, recognition and licensing. The parallel that was drawn was to the medical profession where specialization defines your practice and career path - surgeon, pediatrician, anesthesiologist...
Today I received a survey from AIA National in my email asking me my opinion about this matter.
I'm interested to hear what others in the Archinect community think about this.
My feelings run very contrary to what AIA National has obviously set as their agenda. I oppose a system for defining specialization within the practice of architecture. I don't like thinking that I won't be able to design a bookstore or a dentist's office or a private residence because the AIA has made the public feel they should hire a specialist. I also don't like thinking that to be able to design all those things in the future I will need to follow some AIA defined course of learning and have even more letters after my name. I do feel that it will marginalize creativity and we will all suffer from even more of the clone effect as “specialists” spit out cookie cutter iterations of their last job.
I agree... it worries me a lot. The AIA is already an expensive waste of time and money, in my opinion. Somehow they have convinced the public that AIA after your name means you are licensed. If they go ahead with certification they may manage to convince the public you need to be a "residential specialist", "access specialist" etc. and pay them for the benefit of using the initials. We don't get paid enough as it is to have to spend thousands of dollars a year on professional associations, and frankly I think we can handle different kinds of jobs on our own without needing "training". This is my initial reaction anyway, and I've only been licensed for a few months, but I imagine the people who will support this have a lot more experience and probably work for large firms that will cover the costs anyway.
yeah, but this goes back to the AIA running commercials where they suggest that in order to get quality design, you need to hire an AIA member. I just can't stand them as an organization. Try being an intern and look for information on fair hiring practices on their website, its impossible to find data relating to federal laws. They obstruct any meaningful dialogue with moving internship and IDP in a positive direction. Their fiscal mismanagement is laughable. Now these guys want us be categorized like physicians? Someone needs to reel in these assholes.
next to the growth of the cm, i think firms, even the smallest practice identifying 'market sectors' is probably the worst thing that can happen particularly if you are a young, energetic graduate looking to learn as much as possilbe then sign up with a firm and realize you signed up for a long term committement doing lets say, senior communities, or such. if you show any energy in what you do, you just get deeper in a bottomless whole, never to see the light of day. i personally believe, for firms that feel they must have these 'market specialties' architects with less than 7 years experience never specialize until they have done the full circuit of markets within a firm. keep the experts to those by choice and the most experience.
so many projects won through some rfq/rfp process utilize some form of qualifications based criteria for architect selection. a standard '255' form asks you how many courthouse buildings in the range of $25mil or so has you and your firm done or sim questions. quantity or quality is the question here. you get shortlisted if you did a great number of similar buildings of similar budgets etc. what a bull shit way to select an architect. thats in some ways why some competitions are interesting in selecting architects. when you look at how those archs get invited though, they are often based upon the how many, or star status.
the aia is just recognizing the so called 'industry' and telling its membership to get on the stick - many clients select you if you have some expertise in the project type. i must say, i have won many commissions in a competitve selection process with no previous experience in that building type. its a secret i keep under my hat.
IMHO this is just a money grab by the AIA. They've been watching other certification/accrediting authorities (along with structural engineers, builders, etc.) take bits of their "marketshare" and they're worried. Architects are being marginalized, and they know this will affect their own income.
So their response, rather than improving architectural education etc., is simply to tack on another certification requirement and make sure the money goes to them rather than USGBC etc.
I agree that typecasting all architects into an arena isn't a good idea but I disagree that an architect who has taken it upon him/herself to specialize is no different than the architect trying to do his first building of that type. Maybe the overall shell of the design could be designed by anyone but years of experience make for good programs, good internal layout, function of spaces and overall effectiveness of a building. Something as simple as a dentists office might make little or no difference but something as complex as a high school does make a huge difference. All the case studies in the world cannot match decades of experience.
I worked in an office where almost all we did was schools, specifically modernization. The office had been doing only that for at least 10 years, maybe 15, and they had NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE DOING. It was a mess. I just don't trust the AIA to help on this. I suppose I'd have to know exactly what they were talking about to make a determination about whether I thought it was a good idea, but frankly I don't feel credentials mean a whole lot in this field. In order to become a specialist in medecine, for example, you need years of intensive training in your area. And then you make a LOT of money. People are willing to trade the potential tedium of doing the same thing forever for the cash. They are also dealing directly with lives, and somehow I think the intensive training and specialization is necessary. I would never say having a lot of experience in something won't help, but imagine if our choices as architects were limited to specific building types or tasks (even more than they already are). Why not let the client decide based on the firms experience?
I got the same survey in my email. I had just started reading the first post when I saw it. I have to agree with MrBabboon to some extent about the money grab. The way the survey was worded was very interesting:
"Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: 'Architects pursuing and attaining specialty certification or similar credentials would be likely to acquire enhanced skills and knowledge in that area of specialization.'"
Is this a trick question? Of couse the answer is yes. And on the same page:
"In your opinion, what organization, if any, is best positioned to take the lead role in determining if specialized architectural knowledge should be recognized?"
AIA is at the top of the list screaming "pick me" followed by NCARB, NAAB, ACSA and Individual AIA Components.
I have to admit I'm a little on the fence on this topic. RA's comments about the firm who didn't know their specialty is very valid. We've taken on projects in our office that we had no business doing. We got the job done but could have produced a better product with more experience or training in that field. You could argue that's why we hire consultants, then you could argue, why hire a consultant if you can save the money and learn it yourself.
I'm guilty of pursuing specialization myself. I'm a few weeks away from taking ICC certification tests and am thinking about also doing LEED. My ICC studies have made me much more aware of codes which makes me a better architect. I don't think these are quite the specializations AIA has in mind though.
I sure don't want to see AIA grabbing a piece of this. The survey is definitely their way of testing the market. That much was obvious.
I’m in the AIA, I enjoy the social aspect of the AIA, I’m active in my chapter and I feel that to some degree the AIA is what we make of it.
However, at a national level it requires financial backing to be elected to the board and typically the board members come from large firms that can afford to continue to pay salary while the person is away for a year running AIA National.
I feel this puts a serious slant towards larger firms that (according to AIA statistics) do not make up the majority of the membership – most of us work at small firms or in solo practice.
This latest shift in agenda will benefit larger firms that can afford to have in-house specialty teams (think HOK Sport…) to address market niches. Small and medium sized firms don’t have this ability and will see their work throttled down as they will be unable to compete in more diverse markets.
I don’t feel that this is a “money grab†by the AIA. I think they are truly trying to move in a direction that they see as positive for architects and that will help to increase public awareness of what we do and subsequently increase our value (and paychecks). But, this line of thinking does not help the majority of AIA members and architects in general, only large firms.
I also don’t feel that specialization as a career path is a bad thing but we should not be forced into it – it should be by choice.
The survey I took referenced the current movement with LEED certification and they seem to be testing the waters to hinge part of their argument on saying niche specialization will essentially be the same thing as LEED certification. I don’t see it that way. Designing for and choosing products and systems that are beneficial to the environment to me is a very broad stroke spanning residential (although not required, yet), commercial and institutional markets. Design specialization has the opposite relation to markets and will only benefit large firms with the ability to support specialization teams making it difficult to impossible for smaller firms to compete.
not being an accredited architect yet, and not having received this survey...i don't know at my ability to fully comment on this, but to create a devil's advocate position:
is the current spectrum of talents and skills represented by all firms a form of specialization. maybe the question of this is not, "is a firm specialized enough for this", but instead "this firm is not specialized in this, maybe we should include a consultant with this expertise in the process". in my view this sort of specialization would not be about building types (a somewhat ridiculous corporate tendency), but technology, advanced materials, curtainwall detailing, campus masterplanning. in essence its something that occurs during most projects anyway, but in this instance would begin to legitimate offices which take the initiative to create that level of expertise in house. Essentially wrestling more of the fees from consultants into the "architectural profession". i can't help but think about an office like SHOP being called in for CAD/CAM consultancy or Toshiko Mori for materials.
it could be seen as a benefit for small, upstart offices.....
just a position, is it valid....i'm not sure
architects are usually specialized already within their own practice.
aia wanting to further specialize architects, would have disasterous effects on the profession as to limit creativity, fresh ideas and so forth. enough is enough. there so many rules already, it only benefits aia by the way of additional fees.
the other day somebody asked me if i can design an illegal garage use with an impossible permit approval, and had a nerve to ask me if i had a licence.
i would only beg to differ that one experience in any building type should not be the reason to be 'qualified' to design and build it. i think taking on the challenge of a new project, you will look in many other corners than those who have done it over and over. i have been selected on projects where clients did not want the same old same old and when a big firm comes to the table with a portfolio of 10-20 projects of that building type speaking that they know exactly how to design their clients project based on this experience of work, clients get turned off - they think their project will just be one similar to the previous work shown. in a clients view their project needs to be the most special important project an architect has ever done, how many memorials or even built projects did maya lin do before the viet nam memorial? she would never have made the cut if considered on qualifitions alone. energy in design ability needs somehow to be as important as the grey-haired experience one brings to the table. smart clients know the difference.
I don't know, given the AIA's track record I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Some building types require a certain level of specialization due to their complexity. You can't just decide one day to start designing hospitals for instance, there's just too much to step into cold. But to say that you have to become "certified" by the AIA to do it? If anyone, I'd say NCARB would be the body to institute something like this. Regardless, I don't think it's neccessary.
If they want to improve the quality of our cities, I think a much more effective measure would be some type of "certification" or license for developers. I know the real estate portion requires a license, but that does not address the design aspect of the job.
But I don't think their goal is better projects, it's protecting revenue streams, both architects and their own. It's the difference between advocating the business of architecture and advocating the profession. AIA is mostly about the business.
just another way for someone to collect some money -- agree!!. while i would never do a hospital [because i have no interest to] i have no problem doing a courthouse school theater or any more complex building. i have done these types with no past experience and they turned out great.
in chicago if i choose to pay the city $2500 i can take a bad 3 day course going over the building code and become so called self certified to have my clients get there permits faster because the city isnt doing there job and it take some 3 month to a year to get a building permit here.
well, as an architect, should i already know the code inside and out? so i pay my $2500, sit 3 days in a stuffy room with someone telling me what page the fire ratings are on in the code, and then i become certified, 'a specialist' and take on a much greater risk with regard to code compliance responsibility [if you dont think this is a risk talk to a code officials about all the law suits the are subject to].
On the one hand, specialized consultants, let's face it, can bring in the big dough. If you really truly know some niche, say, religious multi-media installation (you know, the video projection and all assocaitesd with the newish big box churches), you are in high demand and can be trusted to "get it right", so the liability isn't as much of a danger.
On the other hand, specialization will definitely only benefit the big firms who are already sought after by conservative clients - like hospitals or sports arena developers - who don't want to try a fresh face and only want to know that they are getting a building that will maximize their profits.
My own experience in a smallish and non-specialized firm is that we produce a good building for the client regardless of whether we've ever done a similar one before. Each project is designed on its own merits and context, and if we have to do some research to learn more about the client's area - say, a horse saddle museum - all the better - we learn more and the client benefits from our excitement and energy over our new knowledge.
Frit, I'm intrigued by your proposal that developers be "certified". They have an enormous impact on the built physical environment, yet any joe schmo with a few million bucks can be one. Hmmm....
TED, I'm assuming you're opposed to expedited plans review? Where I am, one county accepts certification tests, which are about $160 and free training and orientation sessions.
Most architects don't know the code. At least not as well as they think. There are online courses at ICCcampus.org that are very good. About $50 per course. Shell out the money and take the building plans examiner course and I guarantee you'll learn things you never knew. Lots of bang for your buck.
in chi town its really becomes a class thing. rich developers can pay a higher expediting fee, jump the que to get there building permits creating a class structure for the permit process. i have taken the boca courses and energy code seminars with ibc and ashrea and these guys structure the course well. the city classes are really not conceptual at all and are really 'page 6 shows fire ratings'. certifcation here under this situation gives no more knowledge. and your certification is very limited to interior alterations and 2nd submission of prototype buildings like spec housing. if its a bit complication in any 'code' way, like a beauty salon, has to go the conventional route.
in chicago, they write there own code and the code officials have no decrition in agreing to anything else. i know the code very well, have been on re-write committees and know when to meet with the fire dept on anything unusual or submit it to committee for review. what was happening is that because permits take so long, clients wanted [and some archs agreed] to submit incomplete drawings to get the process started early. its partly the poor drawings of the archs and poor staffing of the city causing the problem.
the city can no longer support maintaining its own building permit - but the fire department holds on. this training and support given with other model building codes does not exist in chicago and the code officials themselfs have no on going training to better there conceptual knowledge.
I should qualify my statements above by saying I'm in Atlanta, where developers are almost above the law. They operate here with almost no restrictions, so I might have an above average distaste for them.
As I see it, the only way the AIA can justify segregating the profession is if it could demonstrate that the 'specialists' would make substantially more money, as per their analogy to the medical profession. MDs don't specialize because it's fun!
Personally, I like the idea of designing, and that's anything. New problems, new solutions, and it simply furthers the potentail of each designer. Leave it to the developers to have 'specialists'.
I just got an email today from the AIA, maybe in response to the survey, maybe not (full disclosure, I AM a member because my dad insisted once i got my license - he paid).
For the benefit of those who didn't get it, here's the text. Notice that it is a "competance based assessment process" - no training or test, you just pay the AIA money to give you a certificate...
"Ask yourself these questions:
Do I have the tools to respond to the expanding needs of my clients?
Do my firm's products and services meet and exceed our client's needs and expectations?
Can I expand my role as an architect in the building process?
Whether you need to validate your firm's current portfolio of services or increase your skills to develop this business sector, the AIACC would like to invite you to participate in the program for Certified Development Strategists(sm).
What is a Certified Development Strategist?
A Certified Development Strategist (CDS) understand the "architecture of business." They guide the owner/client in the development of facility options- from funding to real estate to design, construction and occupancy. The role the CDS serves is one of a trusted client advisor, involved through the entire development process. Specifically a CDS:
Responds to the expanding needs of owners and clients
Brings a more global view of the development process and complete understanding of possible solutions to any client problem
Understands every project may not have a built solution
Assists in the creation of strategic vision and program development
Manages communications and the assembly of a project team
Directs the process of site identification and acquisition, financial models, budgets and proforma analyses
Expands the definition of architectural practice
[http://www.aiacc.org/images/developmentstrategist/ChongLine.jpg]
Why is this Certification Program Necessary?
The AIACC Certified Development Strategist Program was envisioned as a response to a changing marketplace and is a great opportunity for architects to gain a competitive advantage over non-licensed individuals.
This program certifies, in essence "an expanded definition of architectural practice" responding directly to owner requested services. The program will allow qualified AIA architects the opportunity to obtain certification in related professional skills and competencies and to offer clients a comprehensive list of new professional services beyond the traditional design services of the Architects' Practice Act.
How Do I Become Certified?
The CDS program is a competency-based assessment process. Based on your skills and experience, you are evaluated in terms of your proficiency in a number of specific areas. It allows you to present your portfolio and participate in an oral interview and does not require additional coursework or study. There are several phases to this program and each have separate fees, ranging from $100-$375.
[http://www.aiacc.org/images/various/web/CDS-Diagram01-s.jpg]
Click on the diagram for a larger view
In order to qualify for the CDS program, which is available to any AIA architect, architects must have at least five years of experience as a registered architect and three years of experience relevant to the CDS role. Once this has been established, the architect participates in a competency-based assessment process that allows the candidate to demonstrate his or her experience and proficiency in over 50 specific skill areas. If you have any questions about the CDS program, contact Nicki Dennis Stephens at [email protected] or 916-448-9082.
So the first step to proving competency is paying your dues on time.
The AIA has no business presenting itself as a licensing body. It's just a certification, but to the average person it sounds like a license. It would just serve to confuse potential clients and cast those who choose not to join their club in a negative light.
I'm going to start my own "competency-based assessment" program. CCA. Certified Cynical Architect.
{Yes, I want to be the first Gynecological Architecture Inspector. First, I may have to found the Gynecological Architecture Inspectors Association. GAIA}
AIA and ASLA are orgs for members of already (relatively) scattered specialties. I wonder what other orgs are comparable? Maybe similar orgs can learn from each others' modi operandorum.
Aug 22, 04 12:59 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.
Should Architect’s Specialize? The AIA National agenda.
I heard the groundwork being laid for this 2 years ago in a video taped message from the then AIA National president. He was making the argument that for the profession of architecture to advance we need to adopt a different approach to professional credentials, recognition and licensing. The parallel that was drawn was to the medical profession where specialization defines your practice and career path - surgeon, pediatrician, anesthesiologist...
Today I received a survey from AIA National in my email asking me my opinion about this matter.
I'm interested to hear what others in the Archinect community think about this.
My feelings run very contrary to what AIA National has obviously set as their agenda. I oppose a system for defining specialization within the practice of architecture. I don't like thinking that I won't be able to design a bookstore or a dentist's office or a private residence because the AIA has made the public feel they should hire a specialist. I also don't like thinking that to be able to design all those things in the future I will need to follow some AIA defined course of learning and have even more letters after my name. I do feel that it will marginalize creativity and we will all suffer from even more of the clone effect as “specialists” spit out cookie cutter iterations of their last job.
I agree... it worries me a lot. The AIA is already an expensive waste of time and money, in my opinion. Somehow they have convinced the public that AIA after your name means you are licensed. If they go ahead with certification they may manage to convince the public you need to be a "residential specialist", "access specialist" etc. and pay them for the benefit of using the initials. We don't get paid enough as it is to have to spend thousands of dollars a year on professional associations, and frankly I think we can handle different kinds of jobs on our own without needing "training". This is my initial reaction anyway, and I've only been licensed for a few months, but I imagine the people who will support this have a lot more experience and probably work for large firms that will cover the costs anyway.
yeah, but this goes back to the AIA running commercials where they suggest that in order to get quality design, you need to hire an AIA member. I just can't stand them as an organization. Try being an intern and look for information on fair hiring practices on their website, its impossible to find data relating to federal laws. They obstruct any meaningful dialogue with moving internship and IDP in a positive direction. Their fiscal mismanagement is laughable. Now these guys want us be categorized like physicians? Someone needs to reel in these assholes.
hasn't the building and construction industry gotten specialized enough as it is?
AIA SUCKS
next to the growth of the cm, i think firms, even the smallest practice identifying 'market sectors' is probably the worst thing that can happen particularly if you are a young, energetic graduate looking to learn as much as possilbe then sign up with a firm and realize you signed up for a long term committement doing lets say, senior communities, or such. if you show any energy in what you do, you just get deeper in a bottomless whole, never to see the light of day. i personally believe, for firms that feel they must have these 'market specialties' architects with less than 7 years experience never specialize until they have done the full circuit of markets within a firm. keep the experts to those by choice and the most experience.
so many projects won through some rfq/rfp process utilize some form of qualifications based criteria for architect selection. a standard '255' form asks you how many courthouse buildings in the range of $25mil or so has you and your firm done or sim questions. quantity or quality is the question here. you get shortlisted if you did a great number of similar buildings of similar budgets etc. what a bull shit way to select an architect. thats in some ways why some competitions are interesting in selecting architects. when you look at how those archs get invited though, they are often based upon the how many, or star status.
the aia is just recognizing the so called 'industry' and telling its membership to get on the stick - many clients select you if you have some expertise in the project type. i must say, i have won many commissions in a competitve selection process with no previous experience in that building type. its a secret i keep under my hat.
IMHO this is just a money grab by the AIA. They've been watching other certification/accrediting authorities (along with structural engineers, builders, etc.) take bits of their "marketshare" and they're worried. Architects are being marginalized, and they know this will affect their own income.
So their response, rather than improving architectural education etc., is simply to tack on another certification requirement and make sure the money goes to them rather than USGBC etc.
I agree that typecasting all architects into an arena isn't a good idea but I disagree that an architect who has taken it upon him/herself to specialize is no different than the architect trying to do his first building of that type. Maybe the overall shell of the design could be designed by anyone but years of experience make for good programs, good internal layout, function of spaces and overall effectiveness of a building. Something as simple as a dentists office might make little or no difference but something as complex as a high school does make a huge difference. All the case studies in the world cannot match decades of experience.
I worked in an office where almost all we did was schools, specifically modernization. The office had been doing only that for at least 10 years, maybe 15, and they had NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE DOING. It was a mess. I just don't trust the AIA to help on this. I suppose I'd have to know exactly what they were talking about to make a determination about whether I thought it was a good idea, but frankly I don't feel credentials mean a whole lot in this field. In order to become a specialist in medecine, for example, you need years of intensive training in your area. And then you make a LOT of money. People are willing to trade the potential tedium of doing the same thing forever for the cash. They are also dealing directly with lives, and somehow I think the intensive training and specialization is necessary. I would never say having a lot of experience in something won't help, but imagine if our choices as architects were limited to specific building types or tasks (even more than they already are). Why not let the client decide based on the firms experience?
I got the same survey in my email. I had just started reading the first post when I saw it. I have to agree with MrBabboon to some extent about the money grab. The way the survey was worded was very interesting:
"Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: 'Architects pursuing and attaining specialty certification or similar credentials would be likely to acquire enhanced skills and knowledge in that area of specialization.'"
Is this a trick question? Of couse the answer is yes. And on the same page:
"In your opinion, what organization, if any, is best positioned to take the lead role in determining if specialized architectural knowledge should be recognized?"
AIA is at the top of the list screaming "pick me" followed by NCARB, NAAB, ACSA and Individual AIA Components.
I have to admit I'm a little on the fence on this topic. RA's comments about the firm who didn't know their specialty is very valid. We've taken on projects in our office that we had no business doing. We got the job done but could have produced a better product with more experience or training in that field. You could argue that's why we hire consultants, then you could argue, why hire a consultant if you can save the money and learn it yourself.
I'm guilty of pursuing specialization myself. I'm a few weeks away from taking ICC certification tests and am thinking about also doing LEED. My ICC studies have made me much more aware of codes which makes me a better architect. I don't think these are quite the specializations AIA has in mind though.
I sure don't want to see AIA grabbing a piece of this. The survey is definitely their way of testing the market. That much was obvious.
I’m in the AIA, I enjoy the social aspect of the AIA, I’m active in my chapter and I feel that to some degree the AIA is what we make of it.
However, at a national level it requires financial backing to be elected to the board and typically the board members come from large firms that can afford to continue to pay salary while the person is away for a year running AIA National.
I feel this puts a serious slant towards larger firms that (according to AIA statistics) do not make up the majority of the membership – most of us work at small firms or in solo practice.
This latest shift in agenda will benefit larger firms that can afford to have in-house specialty teams (think HOK Sport…) to address market niches. Small and medium sized firms don’t have this ability and will see their work throttled down as they will be unable to compete in more diverse markets.
I don’t feel that this is a “money grab†by the AIA. I think they are truly trying to move in a direction that they see as positive for architects and that will help to increase public awareness of what we do and subsequently increase our value (and paychecks). But, this line of thinking does not help the majority of AIA members and architects in general, only large firms.
I also don’t feel that specialization as a career path is a bad thing but we should not be forced into it – it should be by choice.
The survey I took referenced the current movement with LEED certification and they seem to be testing the waters to hinge part of their argument on saying niche specialization will essentially be the same thing as LEED certification. I don’t see it that way. Designing for and choosing products and systems that are beneficial to the environment to me is a very broad stroke spanning residential (although not required, yet), commercial and institutional markets. Design specialization has the opposite relation to markets and will only benefit large firms with the ability to support specialization teams making it difficult to impossible for smaller firms to compete.
not being an accredited architect yet, and not having received this survey...i don't know at my ability to fully comment on this, but to create a devil's advocate position:
is the current spectrum of talents and skills represented by all firms a form of specialization. maybe the question of this is not, "is a firm specialized enough for this", but instead "this firm is not specialized in this, maybe we should include a consultant with this expertise in the process". in my view this sort of specialization would not be about building types (a somewhat ridiculous corporate tendency), but technology, advanced materials, curtainwall detailing, campus masterplanning. in essence its something that occurs during most projects anyway, but in this instance would begin to legitimate offices which take the initiative to create that level of expertise in house. Essentially wrestling more of the fees from consultants into the "architectural profession". i can't help but think about an office like SHOP being called in for CAD/CAM consultancy or Toshiko Mori for materials.
it could be seen as a benefit for small, upstart offices.....
just a position, is it valid....i'm not sure
architects are usually specialized already within their own practice.
aia wanting to further specialize architects, would have disasterous effects on the profession as to limit creativity, fresh ideas and so forth. enough is enough. there so many rules already, it only benefits aia by the way of additional fees.
the other day somebody asked me if i can design an illegal garage use with an impossible permit approval, and had a nerve to ask me if i had a licence.
i would only beg to differ that one experience in any building type should not be the reason to be 'qualified' to design and build it. i think taking on the challenge of a new project, you will look in many other corners than those who have done it over and over. i have been selected on projects where clients did not want the same old same old and when a big firm comes to the table with a portfolio of 10-20 projects of that building type speaking that they know exactly how to design their clients project based on this experience of work, clients get turned off - they think their project will just be one similar to the previous work shown. in a clients view their project needs to be the most special important project an architect has ever done, how many memorials or even built projects did maya lin do before the viet nam memorial? she would never have made the cut if considered on qualifitions alone. energy in design ability needs somehow to be as important as the grey-haired experience one brings to the table. smart clients know the difference.
I don't know, given the AIA's track record I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Some building types require a certain level of specialization due to their complexity. You can't just decide one day to start designing hospitals for instance, there's just too much to step into cold. But to say that you have to become "certified" by the AIA to do it? If anyone, I'd say NCARB would be the body to institute something like this. Regardless, I don't think it's neccessary.
If they want to improve the quality of our cities, I think a much more effective measure would be some type of "certification" or license for developers. I know the real estate portion requires a license, but that does not address the design aspect of the job.
But I don't think their goal is better projects, it's protecting revenue streams, both architects and their own. It's the difference between advocating the business of architecture and advocating the profession. AIA is mostly about the business.
just another way for someone to collect some money -- agree!!. while i would never do a hospital [because i have no interest to] i have no problem doing a courthouse school theater or any more complex building. i have done these types with no past experience and they turned out great.
in chicago if i choose to pay the city $2500 i can take a bad 3 day course going over the building code and become so called self certified to have my clients get there permits faster because the city isnt doing there job and it take some 3 month to a year to get a building permit here.
well, as an architect, should i already know the code inside and out? so i pay my $2500, sit 3 days in a stuffy room with someone telling me what page the fire ratings are on in the code, and then i become certified, 'a specialist' and take on a much greater risk with regard to code compliance responsibility [if you dont think this is a risk talk to a code officials about all the law suits the are subject to].
Tough topic.
On the one hand, specialized consultants, let's face it, can bring in the big dough. If you really truly know some niche, say, religious multi-media installation (you know, the video projection and all assocaitesd with the newish big box churches), you are in high demand and can be trusted to "get it right", so the liability isn't as much of a danger.
On the other hand, specialization will definitely only benefit the big firms who are already sought after by conservative clients - like hospitals or sports arena developers - who don't want to try a fresh face and only want to know that they are getting a building that will maximize their profits.
My own experience in a smallish and non-specialized firm is that we produce a good building for the client regardless of whether we've ever done a similar one before. Each project is designed on its own merits and context, and if we have to do some research to learn more about the client's area - say, a horse saddle museum - all the better - we learn more and the client benefits from our excitement and energy over our new knowledge.
Frit, I'm intrigued by your proposal that developers be "certified". They have an enormous impact on the built physical environment, yet any joe schmo with a few million bucks can be one. Hmmm....
TED, I'm assuming you're opposed to expedited plans review? Where I am, one county accepts certification tests, which are about $160 and free training and orientation sessions.
Most architects don't know the code. At least not as well as they think. There are online courses at ICCcampus.org that are very good. About $50 per course. Shell out the money and take the building plans examiner course and I guarantee you'll learn things you never knew. Lots of bang for your buck.
Lots of bangin for your buck?
in chi town its really becomes a class thing. rich developers can pay a higher expediting fee, jump the que to get there building permits creating a class structure for the permit process. i have taken the boca courses and energy code seminars with ibc and ashrea and these guys structure the course well. the city classes are really not conceptual at all and are really 'page 6 shows fire ratings'. certifcation here under this situation gives no more knowledge. and your certification is very limited to interior alterations and 2nd submission of prototype buildings like spec housing. if its a bit complication in any 'code' way, like a beauty salon, has to go the conventional route.
in chicago, they write there own code and the code officials have no decrition in agreing to anything else. i know the code very well, have been on re-write committees and know when to meet with the fire dept on anything unusual or submit it to committee for review. what was happening is that because permits take so long, clients wanted [and some archs agreed] to submit incomplete drawings to get the process started early. its partly the poor drawings of the archs and poor staffing of the city causing the problem.
the city can no longer support maintaining its own building permit - but the fire department holds on. this training and support given with other model building codes does not exist in chicago and the code officials themselfs have no on going training to better there conceptual knowledge.
I should qualify my statements above by saying I'm in Atlanta, where developers are almost above the law. They operate here with almost no restrictions, so I might have an above average distaste for them.
TED, sounds like a mess.
As I see it, the only way the AIA can justify segregating the profession is if it could demonstrate that the 'specialists' would make substantially more money, as per their analogy to the medical profession. MDs don't specialize because it's fun!
Personally, I like the idea of designing, and that's anything. New problems, new solutions, and it simply furthers the potentail of each designer. Leave it to the developers to have 'specialists'.
ok, I partially take that back ;-)
Some developers do hire architects and do care about good design, and those ones are just dandy!
I just got an email today from the AIA, maybe in response to the survey, maybe not (full disclosure, I AM a member because my dad insisted once i got my license - he paid).
For the benefit of those who didn't get it, here's the text. Notice that it is a "competance based assessment process" - no training or test, you just pay the AIA money to give you a certificate...
"Ask yourself these questions:
Do I have the tools to respond to the expanding needs of my clients?
Do my firm's products and services meet and exceed our client's needs and expectations?
Can I expand my role as an architect in the building process?
Whether you need to validate your firm's current portfolio of services or increase your skills to develop this business sector, the AIACC would like to invite you to participate in the program for Certified Development Strategists(sm).
What is a Certified Development Strategist?
A Certified Development Strategist (CDS) understand the "architecture of business." They guide the owner/client in the development of facility options- from funding to real estate to design, construction and occupancy. The role the CDS serves is one of a trusted client advisor, involved through the entire development process. Specifically a CDS:
Responds to the expanding needs of owners and clients
Brings a more global view of the development process and complete understanding of possible solutions to any client problem
Understands every project may not have a built solution
Assists in the creation of strategic vision and program development
Manages communications and the assembly of a project team
Directs the process of site identification and acquisition, financial models, budgets and proforma analyses
Expands the definition of architectural practice
[http://www.aiacc.org/images/developmentstrategist/ChongLine.jpg]
Why is this Certification Program Necessary?
The AIACC Certified Development Strategist Program was envisioned as a response to a changing marketplace and is a great opportunity for architects to gain a competitive advantage over non-licensed individuals.
This program certifies, in essence "an expanded definition of architectural practice" responding directly to owner requested services. The program will allow qualified AIA architects the opportunity to obtain certification in related professional skills and competencies and to offer clients a comprehensive list of new professional services beyond the traditional design services of the Architects' Practice Act.
How Do I Become Certified?
The CDS program is a competency-based assessment process. Based on your skills and experience, you are evaluated in terms of your proficiency in a number of specific areas. It allows you to present your portfolio and participate in an oral interview and does not require additional coursework or study. There are several phases to this program and each have separate fees, ranging from $100-$375.
[http://www.aiacc.org/images/various/web/CDS-Diagram01-s.jpg]
Click on the diagram for a larger view
In order to qualify for the CDS program, which is available to any AIA architect, architects must have at least five years of experience as a registered architect and three years of experience relevant to the CDS role. Once this has been established, the architect participates in a competency-based assessment process that allows the candidate to demonstrate his or her experience and proficiency in over 50 specific skill areas. If you have any questions about the CDS program, contact Nicki Dennis Stephens at [email protected] or 916-448-9082.
email: [email protected]
phone: 916/448-9082
web: http://www.aiacc.org Click here for an application, instructions and program brochure.
"available to any AIA architect"
So the first step to proving competency is paying your dues on time.
The AIA has no business presenting itself as a licensing body. It's just a certification, but to the average person it sounds like a license. It would just serve to confuse potential clients and cast those who choose not to join their club in a negative light.
I'm going to start my own "competency-based assessment" program. CCA. Certified Cynical Architect.
Most of you will be grandfathered in.
I would argue that this is the whole point.
{Yes, I want to be the first Gynecological Architecture Inspector. First, I may have to found the Gynecological Architecture Inspectors Association. GAIA}
AIA and ASLA are orgs for members of already (relatively) scattered specialties. I wonder what other orgs are comparable? Maybe similar orgs can learn from each others' modi operandorum.
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.