anarchitect2b - as marmkid notes, you can design anything you want, you just need someone else to sign off on it, which is not hard or expensive to do (damn cheap, really).
you will want to check with individual state, county, city regulations...
not sure how it is in other states but in illinois we have the Illinois Architecture Practice Act of 1989
as an outsider it sounds like protectionism from the states. I qualified in England and can practice any where in the UK - Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Island. Scotland is a bit of an odd one as it has more of an individual identity with specific Law and construction regulations. Not much difference though.
marmkid:
I knew we could design anything we wanted, and then pay someone to sign it off for permit. But I meant to ask what we could do without having a registered architect on board.
postal:
thanks a lot! The chart was very helpful :-) It was the kind of information I was looking for!
I know it's always better to be licensed if you have the option, but honestly here at our office only the owner signs the drawings - even though there are 2 other licensed architects, including a 60+ year old. I guess this is for liability purposes... but working at an office 40+ hours/week is definitely something I do NOT want for me - I want to see the construction/renovation happening before my eyes, rather than spend days (and nights) stuck in front of a computer screen and making very little money. I'm too tired of listening to (licensed) architects complaining about how much they work for little money.
So for all these reasons (and others) I do not want to follow the traditional path of architecture and therefore I don't see a big necessity of getting licensed yet. If one day I change my mind, I can always get licensed - I'm only 27 now. :-)
And it seems I'm not the only one thinking this way. A friend of mine is getting her masters and plans to NOT get licensed. She would rather work as a Real Estate investor. She seems pretty confident and excited about it - and I am too!
Does anybody know exactly what someone WITHOUT an arch. license can design?
You can design anything you damn well please. There are many big name designers that aren't registered architects. I've worked very closely with "designers" employed by large corps - retail and other, that do nothing but schematic design and pass it off to a real Architect to do all the dirty work.
What a license/registration gets you is not the freedom to design, but the freedom to be a full service Architect. Anybody in this field will tell you that design is a mere fraction of what we do. Yes, being a registered Architect means you can take on liability and sign construction drawings, but it also is a supposed to be an indication that you have well rounded knowledge of not only design, but materials & methods, code, contracts, etc.
Because a registered Architect is still looked upon (rightfully so) as someone with a diverse skill set I would still reccomend anyone that can, should take the ARE even if they never plan on signing a drawing in their life. From my experience the "designers" out there that are registered architects are more respected than those that are not.
Maybe in the particular office, or small circles, but the 'real' world doesn't know the difference and doesn't care.
People care about the quality of the design (materials and space), that's what is noticed.
I still believe there will be continued separation and segregation within this field. More people will opt to focus on design, others will focus on construction, others on business. There is just too much to be efficient at everything.
That's a good thing, as long as schools start offering that kind of diversity and specialization in school. If you want to be licensed, then you should come out prepped for that, design focused, then come out with more focus on creative/computers/communication, etc., etc.
To Those Not Getting Licensed
anarchitect2b - as marmkid notes, you can design anything you want, you just need someone else to sign off on it, which is not hard or expensive to do (damn cheap, really).
you will want to check with individual state, county, city regulations...
not sure how it is in other states but in illinois we have the Illinois Architecture Practice Act of 1989
as an outsider it sounds like protectionism from the states. I qualified in England and can practice any where in the UK - Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Island. Scotland is a bit of an odd one as it has more of an individual identity with specific Law and construction regulations. Not much difference though.
marmkid:
I knew we could design anything we wanted, and then pay someone to sign it off for permit. But I meant to ask what we could do without having a registered architect on board.
postal:
thanks a lot! The chart was very helpful :-) It was the kind of information I was looking for!
I know it's always better to be licensed if you have the option, but honestly here at our office only the owner signs the drawings - even though there are 2 other licensed architects, including a 60+ year old. I guess this is for liability purposes... but working at an office 40+ hours/week is definitely something I do NOT want for me - I want to see the construction/renovation happening before my eyes, rather than spend days (and nights) stuck in front of a computer screen and making very little money. I'm too tired of listening to (licensed) architects complaining about how much they work for little money.
So for all these reasons (and others) I do not want to follow the traditional path of architecture and therefore I don't see a big necessity of getting licensed yet. If one day I change my mind, I can always get licensed - I'm only 27 now. :-)
And it seems I'm not the only one thinking this way. A friend of mine is getting her masters and plans to NOT get licensed. She would rather work as a Real Estate investor. She seems pretty confident and excited about it - and I am too!
You can design anything you damn well please. There are many big name designers that aren't registered architects. I've worked very closely with "designers" employed by large corps - retail and other, that do nothing but schematic design and pass it off to a real Architect to do all the dirty work.
What a license/registration gets you is not the freedom to design, but the freedom to be a full service Architect. Anybody in this field will tell you that design is a mere fraction of what we do. Yes, being a registered Architect means you can take on liability and sign construction drawings, but it also is a supposed to be an indication that you have well rounded knowledge of not only design, but materials & methods, code, contracts, etc.
Because a registered Architect is still looked upon (rightfully so) as someone with a diverse skill set I would still reccomend anyone that can, should take the ARE even if they never plan on signing a drawing in their life. From my experience the "designers" out there that are registered architects are more respected than those that are not.
Maybe in the particular office, or small circles, but the 'real' world doesn't know the difference and doesn't care.
People care about the quality of the design (materials and space), that's what is noticed.
I still believe there will be continued separation and segregation within this field. More people will opt to focus on design, others will focus on construction, others on business. There is just too much to be efficient at everything.
That's a good thing, as long as schools start offering that kind of diversity and specialization in school. If you want to be licensed, then you should come out prepped for that, design focused, then come out with more focus on creative/computers/communication, etc., etc.
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.