Well, I agree with you. You should not be able to do architecture. Work for an architect? Design or help in the design of architecture? Sure. But practice as in get a permit and build something? No.
well let's get involved with the governmental agencies that define what can be built. it's pretty black and white - just change it to: any structure designed for occupancy, of any size and type of construction, must be stamped by a licensed architect.
This is germane, from the latest Nevada Architecture board newsletter:
Enforcement Actions
Holding Oneself Out and Unlicensed Practice: NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c)
Case No. 07-015N
The allegations against Lars Kruckeberg and Graft, LLC were that they held themselves out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of architecture and registered interior design, and practiced as architects and registered interior designers, without having a certificate of registration issued by the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating an administrative penalty of $18,000 and investigative costs of $2,500.
The real problem with that FRaC is that this would then preclude any unlicensed architect form moonlighting and doing home renovations - one of the major ways we learn how to deal with the client-architect part of contract negotiations.
were does that money go, I wonder? Towards more pursuits of litigation?
So if you cannot market 'architectural services', how does a builder market 'building a home'? Isn't that just silly semantics? Or is a home not architecture?
Laws on the books protecting public safety need to be enforced, why not spend the money on that?
Trace, if you can do a zoning study, design the building and satisfy the program, do the egress calcs, detail the exterior wall and roof systems, engage and coordinate all the consultants, permit the project, advise your client on the bidding process and conduct contract administration during construction, just get on with it and get licensed. Figuring out how to do IDP in a non-traditional setting and sitting through some insultingly easy exams is nothing for someone who survived grad school.*
But if you don't want to do all those things, you don't want to be an architect. What's so wrong with being a designer? Some great work is done by designers, and they shouldn't need to apologize for a title that accurately conveys their qualifications.
*Incidentally, creating exceptional aesthetic and cultural experiences is not required - some of us do that as well because we care and think it distinguishes us from people that just extrude floor plans.
I agree that as architects, we should be working to EXPAND our profession rather then defent it against others (interiors, design/build firms) who are constantly working to take on more of our profession.
Why don't we lobby our states to have EVERY building stamped by an architect?
Trace, I think you nailed it on the head. An architect's stamp has nothing to do with design and has everything to do with public safety and liability. I knew there was a reason why I didn't want my license. I, as well, can do everything Janosh has mentioned, and provide a detailed, accurate cost estimate on top of that. Plus I teach Architectural Graphics at the university level. I think I've stated many times on this site that I will not waste a single moment more on obtaining a license. I do not plan to ever work in an architect's office again and I don't care if I have a stamp on the drawings. I will hire someone else to do that, so when my roof leaks, they can pay for it.
The ability to design and build really does not need to be the bureaucratic pursuit that it is. If a "Licensed" architect does mainly residential homes, by law, they could design a 500,000sf. hospital. Reality is they never will because of the experience needed to complete such a task. A system based on experience is already in place that is not regulated by any governent.
As soon as I find some time to waste I'll be heading up a new association called the AIIA or the American Institute of Illegal Architects. Thank you Jonathan Hill and Greg Lynn.
For the record, I have no problem not being called an Architect. I have a problem with not controlling the design, which is why I left architecture in the first place. So if that means I can never get published in Record 'cause I ain't a fuckin' member. BFD.
"The ability to design and build really does not need to be the bureaucratic pursuit that it is. If a "Licensed" architect does mainly residential homes, by law, they could design a 500,000sf. hospital."
Actually, I think this is a falsehood. To your point, yes, a licensed individual who has previously only designed single family homes does meet the MINIMUM threashold necessary to be able to design a hospital.
But, and this is a big BUT......If a licensed individual who is inexperienced with hospital design solicited themselves as capable of designing a 500,000sf hospital, they would most likely be in violation of their states practice act.
"Enforcement Actions
Holding Oneself Out and Unlicensed Practice: NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c)
Case No. 07-015N
The allegations against Lars Kruckeberg and Graft, LLC were that they held themselves out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of architecture and registered interior design, and practiced as architects and registered interior designers, without having a certificate of registration issued by the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating an administrative penalty of $18,000 and investigative costs of $2,500."
This seems more like a witch hunt than anything else.
the ability to provide "Architecture" can include drafting or modeling
or designing or detailing or researching,
and might mean that this 'Architecture' is in conjunction with
other registered architects
or looking to be hired by other registered architects
or to be design for private clients or public exhibitions;
or even as a personal statement.
you can say whatever you want,
penalties makes sense if it's fraud,
as in a phoney doctor or police officer,
but architecture,
especially today is a much more abstract concept.
it's only when money and competitors and jealousy and airs of
entitlement come into play that
designers get sought after for penalties.
(notice how these penalties are always money and not
additional training or support)
main concern: safety comes first.
if you promote your self as being able to provide architectural services
that dosent mean you're saying,
'I am an architect as defined by the state',
the process of verification
comes later and is a matter of paperwork
and not true to the nature of what architecture is.
"comes later and is a matter of paperwork
and not true to the nature of what architecture is. "
Your whole statement is entrenched in your own lack of empathy. Sure, the bureaucracy of the whole things is a pain in the ass but thank god for it because architecture AND Architecture are world-based participatory endeavors and that should carry some gravitas in regards to liability.
Sure, its pathetic but not at all unprecedented that all kinds of bureaucracies intervene in that liability/credibility play to make money.
The stamp confers liability which requires credibility. Both of which involve a world-based participatory action which can be, at worst, fatal. (not "architecture" as opposed to 'Architecture' - architecture is NOT a bastard child).
Go try to secure errors and ommissions insurance for projects you design. See where you get with the insurance companies. You will learn you have a very limited practice.
-we all agree that a building should be studied for safety.
that engineers and registered architects should analyze the design to this end and be liable for these designs.-
but it is the feeling of personal GRAVITAS
from both sides
which has really enthused the passions,
for and against, those who deem:
who may, and may not,
refer to what they do as ARCHITECTURE
For the record (as I've said here before): a building does not need to be designed by a licensed individual to be granted the holy-grail status of Architecture with a capital A. A good design is a good design, no matter who does it. Capital-A architecture is not quantifiable but we all "know it when we see it", right?
A license has nothing to do with talent, as I, and others, have also said here many, many times. By noting that someone is not legally an architect, I'm not in any way criticizing their design ability. That someone would infer this from my comment says more about how they view themselves than how I view them.
1d2d3d4d, you used the term "air of entitlement" above: it's not entitlement unless someone just gifted me something that I think I deserve; my license is not a gift, it's an earned asset. An asset you, too, can earn!
Name : KOOLHAAS REM
Address : ROTTERDAM NETHERLANDS
Profession : ARCHITECTURE
License No: 031643
Date of Licensure : 01/23/07
Additional Qualification : Not applicable in this profession
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 12/09
Aye, Lib - the issue is should it be earned? Christ I wish this was all in a book to big-picture our education/profession/industry etc. If anyone has a title, please throw it out.
Should you be a legal (ie, licensed professional with academic credibility and professional credibility (experience)) Architect to have a design quality as 'Architecture' ?
It really is a super complex issue because it frames the industry as a whole with a whole individual and then says: at a scale of 1:almost unmeasurable, measure.
Conceptual Architect - will not and cannot bear credible responsibility for the compliant and non-harmful standards within final design documents.
(Currently cannot call one-self an Architect, legally)
Licensed Architect - actively assumes credible responsibility for the compliant and non-harmful standards within final design documents.
(Currently can call one-self an Architect, legally)
That legal dimension is more credibility by the accrediting boards AND the government, which are (though it arguable and another topic altogether) elected by the people - therefore, the people have said:
You are an Architect if you complete the process we have in place to ensure that you will act in your highest conscience professionally.
In my opinion, Architecture and architecture BOTH require credible evidence of conscience. If you are unlicensed you may contribute to the production of both, but you are not practicing either to your fullest credible level - even if you are contributing 125% to the design.
Name : CALATRAVA VALLS SANTIAGO
Address : ZURICH SWITZERLAND
Profession : ARCHITECTURE
License No: 029846
Date of Licensure : 11/21/03
Additional Qualification : Not applicable in this profession
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 06/09
I double checked this as I was suprised his office is in Zurich. His web site has his office listed as in Zurich. I presume this is him.
So, even though I'm licensed in NY I would never place my work in the same catagory as either Rem or Calatrava.
So, what do all 3 of us have in common? The State of NY has determined that the 3 of us are all reasonably competitent enough to design buildings that will not be a detriment to those who occupy it or the surrounding community.
Name : CALATRAVA VALLS SANTIAGO
Address : ZURICH SWITZERLAND
Profession : ARCHITECTURE
License No: 029846
Date of Licensure : 11/21/03
Additional Qualification : Not applicable in this profession
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 06/09
I double checked this as I was suprised his office is in Zurich. His web site has his office listed as in Zurich. I presume this is him.
So, even though I'm licensed in NY I would never place my work in the same catagory as either Rem or Calatrava.
So, what do all 3 of us have in common? The State of NY has determined that the 3 of us are all reasonably competitent enough to design buildings that will not be a detriment to those who occupy it or the surrounding community.
a comon theme in the architectural world,
being the 'chosen people' or 'holier-than-thou'
im sure everyone has experienced this at some point in time,
sometimes seen as
the "presitige of the profession". often, borrowed to make movie characters seem succesful or to sell fed-ex services to the young business.
the myth of the frank llyod wright in us.
this personality trait seems to seep into the
architect vs. designer debate and who is has the right to
call themselves architect,
On the fence: Just a little information for you..there are 200,979 Marines and there are 2,450 Navy Seals. I don't think any seal would want to call himself a marine. The Navy Seals are a very elite group of individuals.
Just for the record, I would be surprised if the specific MOS/job function I had, had more than 2,450 Marines within it. I don't know if that does anything for you but......I'm just saying.
Of course I think your 2,450 Navy Seals number is high.
Navy Seals:Marines :: Architects:Interior Designers
And I'm not just saying that to start a flame session! In one of the states in which I'm licensed, a professional offering interior design services must be a licensed interior designer unless that person is a licensed architect.
Did anyone look at those dates of licensure for Rem and Calatrava? Not long ago. All the books I have by both, 90% of the publications, etc., apparently had no problems calling them architects prior to these dates. I'd put money on these being token licenses.
Interior designers are apparently winning the long struggle to require licensing, eh? That's bs, imho, and only has to do with control (not quality control, mind you, but with licensing comes accreditation, tests, and fees).
Licensing starting the 19th century as a means to protect the health, safety and welfare, but also as a means to remove women and non-white people form the profession. This is the same for doctors and lawyers.
Today its not used to limit architects by race of gender, but it is used to limits the total number of people who can call themselves licensed architects. This is an artificial method of controlling salaries and preserving a balance of supply and demand in the marketplace.
Licensing starting the 19th century as a means to protect the health, safety and welfare, but also as a means to remove women and non-white people form the profession. This is the same for doctors and lawyers.
Today its not used to limit architects by race of gender, but it is used to limits the total number of people who can call themselves licensed architects. This is an artificial method of controlling salaries and preserving a balance of supply and demand in the marketplace.
on the fence: I think you will find my numbers accurate as both numbers are reflected in their web sites. You might also want to check out the training a marine goes thru compared to a Navy Seal.
If you randomly pulled 10 marines out of their Unit and 10 Navy Seals out of their Unit. I would beg to differ if they are of the same capability over a full military perspective. The Navy Seals are a select few while the Marines are a arm of our Military Forces. Now go pull you head out of the sand.
s.selophane, there is no licensing bogeyman controlling all our actions. If you want a license, no one/no thing is stopping you, though if you enjoy feeling like you're being oppressed you'll find many who will join you in crying in their beers about the unfairness of it all.
I'm not saying that there is some vast conspiracy to keep the interns down. What I'm trying to say is that it serves as a pressure valve to prevent a glut og the marketplace, just like architecture school prevents a glut of graduates.
BlueGoose: Architecture schools on average have a 4:1 ratio of first years to graduates, if not worse. Here is a pdf showing applicants:accepted:gardautes. If the education wasn't as demanding, you could bet there would be more people making it from first year to graduation and then into the workforce.
While this is not by any means the reason for education it does play a significant role in regulating the number of professionals seeking employment.
snookdude, however you want to skin this cat, I can guarantee you that you are neither a Marine or Navy Seal nor merit having a discussion with me about the ability of either group any which way. Fortunately for me I have trained with both and have great respect for both. For some, armchair flamebaiting, seems to be the equivelant of having an actual valid opinion.
ss ... yes, I was familiar with those figures before you posted them here. that's not my point. attrition rates among those entering the academy are not my interest
the schools are pumping out graduates at a rate not previously seen. this production of graduate architects is not market driven -- the schools have no sense whatsoever about what the market either needs or wants or can sustain over time.
the schools stand to gain by having large numbers pass through their programs ... not by having graduates a) who can find viable work, or b) who offer capabilities on the date of graduation that the profession can put to immediate and effective use. the schools argue "well, if they don't find work in architecture, they'll make a strong contribution elsewhere in the economy...that's good for architecture"
IMHO, the so called "labor shortage" of the past few years is an abberation that does not represent the future of the profession. having fewer graduate architects would not severely impact the profession -- the profession would simply transfer the work being done by graduate architects either overseas or to trained drafters. It's not at all clear to me that would have a serious negative impact on either the profession or the quality of work being produced by the firm ... in fact, from a purely technical standpoint, it might actually improve quality.
: you guys want to take your pissing match outside. nobody here's really interested in your argument about the military and it's adding nothing of value to this thread.
Unlicensed, but practicing architecture
Well, I agree with you. You should not be able to do architecture. Work for an architect? Design or help in the design of architecture? Sure. But practice as in get a permit and build something? No.
Now what?
well let's get involved with the governmental agencies that define what can be built. it's pretty black and white - just change it to: any structure designed for occupancy, of any size and type of construction, must be stamped by a licensed architect.
i'm all for it!
This is germane, from the latest Nevada Architecture board newsletter:
Enforcement Actions
Holding Oneself Out and Unlicensed Practice: NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c)
Case No. 07-015N
The allegations against Lars Kruckeberg and Graft, LLC were that they held themselves out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of architecture and registered interior design, and practiced as architects and registered interior designers, without having a certificate of registration issued by the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating an administrative penalty of $18,000 and investigative costs of $2,500.
http://www.magnetmail.net/Actions/email_web_version.cfm?publish=newsletter&user_id=NSBAD&message_id=672810
The real problem with that FRaC is that this would then preclude any unlicensed architect form moonlighting and doing home renovations - one of the major ways we learn how to deal with the client-architect part of contract negotiations.
were does that money go, I wonder? Towards more pursuits of litigation?
So if you cannot market 'architectural services', how does a builder market 'building a home'? Isn't that just silly semantics? Or is a home not architecture?
Laws on the books protecting public safety need to be enforced, why not spend the money on that?
Trace, if you can do a zoning study, design the building and satisfy the program, do the egress calcs, detail the exterior wall and roof systems, engage and coordinate all the consultants, permit the project, advise your client on the bidding process and conduct contract administration during construction, just get on with it and get licensed. Figuring out how to do IDP in a non-traditional setting and sitting through some insultingly easy exams is nothing for someone who survived grad school.*
But if you don't want to do all those things, you don't want to be an architect. What's so wrong with being a designer? Some great work is done by designers, and they shouldn't need to apologize for a title that accurately conveys their qualifications.
*Incidentally, creating exceptional aesthetic and cultural experiences is not required - some of us do that as well because we care and think it distinguishes us from people that just extrude floor plans.
Wow, parumph, that's kind of shocking - over $20K in penalties? I've only read cases where the fine was a couple-few thousand.
Yup, I suppose to me architecture is about design.
Maybe I'll just go with stararchitect. That should be a fun one. Any objections?
I'm going back to the unlicensed architect vs. architect titles.
Simplifies it.
I agree that as architects, we should be working to EXPAND our profession rather then defent it against others (interiors, design/build firms) who are constantly working to take on more of our profession.
Why don't we lobby our states to have EVERY building stamped by an architect?
Trace, I think you nailed it on the head. An architect's stamp has nothing to do with design and has everything to do with public safety and liability. I knew there was a reason why I didn't want my license. I, as well, can do everything Janosh has mentioned, and provide a detailed, accurate cost estimate on top of that. Plus I teach Architectural Graphics at the university level. I think I've stated many times on this site that I will not waste a single moment more on obtaining a license. I do not plan to ever work in an architect's office again and I don't care if I have a stamp on the drawings. I will hire someone else to do that, so when my roof leaks, they can pay for it.
The ability to design and build really does not need to be the bureaucratic pursuit that it is. If a "Licensed" architect does mainly residential homes, by law, they could design a 500,000sf. hospital. Reality is they never will because of the experience needed to complete such a task. A system based on experience is already in place that is not regulated by any governent.
As soon as I find some time to waste I'll be heading up a new association called the AIIA or the American Institute of Illegal Architects. Thank you Jonathan Hill and Greg Lynn.
For the record, I have no problem not being called an Architect. I have a problem with not controlling the design, which is why I left architecture in the first place. So if that means I can never get published in Record 'cause I ain't a fuckin' member. BFD.
"The ability to design and build really does not need to be the bureaucratic pursuit that it is. If a "Licensed" architect does mainly residential homes, by law, they could design a 500,000sf. hospital."
Actually, I think this is a falsehood. To your point, yes, a licensed individual who has previously only designed single family homes does meet the MINIMUM threashold necessary to be able to design a hospital.
But, and this is a big BUT......If a licensed individual who is inexperienced with hospital design solicited themselves as capable of designing a 500,000sf hospital, they would most likely be in violation of their states practice act.
Got a question for everyone:
If I design the building, I can say "Architecture by trace"
and then the 'architect' could only say '"drawings by blahblah" or, perhaps, "architect of record"
take it from Humpty Hump, "Do what you like"
"Enforcement Actions
Holding Oneself Out and Unlicensed Practice: NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c)
Case No. 07-015N
The allegations against Lars Kruckeberg and Graft, LLC were that they held themselves out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of architecture and registered interior design, and practiced as architects and registered interior designers, without having a certificate of registration issued by the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating an administrative penalty of $18,000 and investigative costs of $2,500."
This seems more like a witch hunt than anything else.
the ability to provide "Architecture" can include drafting or modeling
or designing or detailing or researching,
and might mean that this 'Architecture' is in conjunction with
other registered architects
or looking to be hired by other registered architects
or to be design for private clients or public exhibitions;
or even as a personal statement.
you can say whatever you want,
penalties makes sense if it's fraud,
as in a phoney doctor or police officer,
but architecture,
especially today is a much more abstract concept.
it's only when money and competitors and jealousy and airs of
entitlement come into play that
designers get sought after for penalties.
(notice how these penalties are always money and not
additional training or support)
main concern: safety comes first.
if you promote your self as being able to provide architectural services
that dosent mean you're saying,
'I am an architect as defined by the state',
the process of verification
comes later and is a matter of paperwork
and not true to the nature of what architecture is.
Is Rem Koolhass an Architect?
Is Santiago Calatrava an Architect?
Exactly.
"comes later and is a matter of paperwork
and not true to the nature of what architecture is. "
Your whole statement is entrenched in your own lack of empathy. Sure, the bureaucracy of the whole things is a pain in the ass but thank god for it because architecture AND Architecture are world-based participatory endeavors and that should carry some gravitas in regards to liability.
Sure, its pathetic but not at all unprecedented that all kinds of bureaucracies intervene in that liability/credibility play to make money.
The stamp confers liability which requires credibility. Both of which involve a world-based participatory action which can be, at worst, fatal. (not "architecture" as opposed to 'Architecture' - architecture is NOT a bastard child).
Trace,
Go try to secure errors and ommissions insurance for projects you design. See where you get with the insurance companies. You will learn you have a very limited practice.
"that should carry some gravitas"
and that is the meat of this debate
GRAVITAS
-we all agree that a building should be studied for safety.
that engineers and registered architects should analyze the design to this end and be liable for these designs.-
but it is the feeling of personal GRAVITAS
from both sides
which has really enthused the passions,
for and against, those who deem:
who may, and may not,
refer to what they do as ARCHITECTURE
snook - I don't have any intention of ever stamping drawings, just not worth it for a tiny amount I can get others to do it.
peridot, your 8:48 post above is excellent.
For the record (as I've said here before): a building does not need to be designed by a licensed individual to be granted the holy-grail status of Architecture with a capital A. A good design is a good design, no matter who does it. Capital-A architecture is not quantifiable but we all "know it when we see it", right?
A license has nothing to do with talent, as I, and others, have also said here many, many times. By noting that someone is not legally an architect, I'm not in any way criticizing their design ability. That someone would infer this from my comment says more about how they view themselves than how I view them.
1d2d3d4d, you used the term "air of entitlement" above: it's not entitlement unless someone just gifted me something that I think I deserve; my license is not a gift, it's an earned asset. An asset you, too, can earn!
'should be studied for safety.'
...UM? They are and they are put into action as such.
quadD you've continued being passionate but have ceased anything relevant to the work of architectural practice.
Practice is riskier than theory and is riskier than 'passion' and therefore, is worth more discussion.
"Is Rem Koolhass an Architect?"
Actually, Yes He Is an Architect:
New York:
Name : KOOLHAAS REM
Address : ROTTERDAM NETHERLANDS
Profession : ARCHITECTURE
License No: 031643
Date of Licensure : 01/23/07
Additional Qualification : Not applicable in this profession
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 12/09
Netherlands:
http://www.architectenregister.nl
1.930917.001 - R.L. Koolhaas - Rotterdam
Aye, Lib - the issue is should it be earned? Christ I wish this was all in a book to big-picture our education/profession/industry etc. If anyone has a title, please throw it out.
Should you be a legal (ie, licensed professional with academic credibility and professional credibility (experience)) Architect to have a design quality as 'Architecture' ?
It really is a super complex issue because it frames the industry as a whole with a whole individual and then says: at a scale of 1:almost unmeasurable, measure.
Conceptual Architect - will not and cannot bear credible responsibility for the compliant and non-harmful standards within final design documents.
(Currently cannot call one-self an Architect, legally)
Licensed Architect - actively assumes credible responsibility for the compliant and non-harmful standards within final design documents.
(Currently can call one-self an Architect, legally)
That legal dimension is more credibility by the accrediting boards AND the government, which are (though it arguable and another topic altogether) elected by the people - therefore, the people have said:
You are an Architect if you complete the process we have in place to ensure that you will act in your highest conscience professionally.
In my opinion, Architecture and architecture BOTH require credible evidence of conscience. If you are unlicensed you may contribute to the production of both, but you are not practicing either to your fullest credible level - even if you are contributing 125% to the design.
"Is Santiago Calatrava an Architect"
Actually, yes he is.
Name : CALATRAVA VALLS SANTIAGO
Address : ZURICH SWITZERLAND
Profession : ARCHITECTURE
License No: 029846
Date of Licensure : 11/21/03
Additional Qualification : Not applicable in this profession
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 06/09
I double checked this as I was suprised his office is in Zurich. His web site has his office listed as in Zurich. I presume this is him.
So, even though I'm licensed in NY I would never place my work in the same catagory as either Rem or Calatrava.
So, what do all 3 of us have in common? The State of NY has determined that the 3 of us are all reasonably competitent enough to design buildings that will not be a detriment to those who occupy it or the surrounding community.
"Is Santiago Calatrava an Architect"
Actually, yes he is.
Name : CALATRAVA VALLS SANTIAGO
Address : ZURICH SWITZERLAND
Profession : ARCHITECTURE
License No: 029846
Date of Licensure : 11/21/03
Additional Qualification : Not applicable in this profession
Status : REGISTERED
Registered through last day of : 06/09
I double checked this as I was suprised his office is in Zurich. His web site has his office listed as in Zurich. I presume this is him.
So, even though I'm licensed in NY I would never place my work in the same catagory as either Rem or Calatrava.
So, what do all 3 of us have in common? The State of NY has determined that the 3 of us are all reasonably competitent enough to design buildings that will not be a detriment to those who occupy it or the surrounding community.
Excellent post and points made, marlowe!
"air of entitlement"
a comon theme in the architectural world,
being the 'chosen people' or 'holier-than-thou'
im sure everyone has experienced this at some point in time,
sometimes seen as
the "presitige of the profession". often, borrowed to make movie characters seem succesful or to sell fed-ex services to the young business.
the myth of the frank llyod wright in us.
this personality trait seems to seep into the
architect vs. designer debate and who is has the right to
call themselves architect,
of course the licensed architect does
but the debate is open
the "GRAVITAS" of the work we do
working on the raised ranch or the skyscraper
On the fence: Just a little information for you..there are 200,979 Marines and there are 2,450 Navy Seals. I don't think any seal would want to call himself a marine. The Navy Seals are a very elite group of individuals.
"architect vs. designer debate and who is has the right to
call themselves architect"
It's not a debate. Its a matter of individuals not acknowleding the professional practice laws in their state!
Also, FLW was licensed in Arizona.
WRIGHT, FRANK LLOYD
2713 NA
FILE MICROFILMED ARCHIVES
NA, NA 00000 DC ARCHITECT
[?] - 1/1/1956
snook dude, less doesn't equate to better. Never has. Never will. Just means there are less of them.
But not the point. Sorry you missed it. Bet you could feel the breeze going right over your head though.
Just for the record, I would be surprised if the specific MOS/job function I had, had more than 2,450 Marines within it. I don't know if that does anything for you but......I'm just saying.
Of course I think your 2,450 Navy Seals number is high.
well, it's an active debate because there are different people
on here with different viewpoints
and the debate is not about obeying or disobeying laws
its about whether or not 'Soldiering' includes both Marines and Navy Seals
does not (if seperated) architecture (as a concept) include both 'designing' and 'designing for building'?
Navy Seals:Marines :: Architects:Interior Designers
And I'm not just saying that to start a flame session! In one of the states in which I'm licensed, a professional offering interior design services must be a licensed interior designer unless that person is a licensed architect.
Did anyone look at those dates of licensure for Rem and Calatrava? Not long ago. All the books I have by both, 90% of the publications, etc., apparently had no problems calling them architects prior to these dates. I'd put money on these being token licenses.
Interior designers are apparently winning the long struggle to require licensing, eh? That's bs, imho, and only has to do with control (not quality control, mind you, but with licensing comes accreditation, tests, and fees).
Licensing starting the 19th century as a means to protect the health, safety and welfare, but also as a means to remove women and non-white people form the profession. This is the same for doctors and lawyers.
Today its not used to limit architects by race of gender, but it is used to limits the total number of people who can call themselves licensed architects. This is an artificial method of controlling salaries and preserving a balance of supply and demand in the marketplace.
Licensing starting the 19th century as a means to protect the health, safety and welfare, but also as a means to remove women and non-white people form the profession. This is the same for doctors and lawyers.
Today its not used to limit architects by race of gender, but it is used to limits the total number of people who can call themselves licensed architects. This is an artificial method of controlling salaries and preserving a balance of supply and demand in the marketplace.
controlling salaries? well, damn, then it totally makes sense! what a success!!
on the fence: I think you will find my numbers accurate as both numbers are reflected in their web sites. You might also want to check out the training a marine goes thru compared to a Navy Seal.
If you randomly pulled 10 marines out of their Unit and 10 Navy Seals out of their Unit. I would beg to differ if they are of the same capability over a full military perspective. The Navy Seals are a select few while the Marines are a arm of our Military Forces. Now go pull you head out of the sand.
s.selophane, there is no licensing bogeyman controlling all our actions. If you want a license, no one/no thing is stopping you, though if you enjoy feeling like you're being oppressed you'll find many who will join you in crying in their beers about the unfairness of it all.
Sheesh!
I'm not saying that there is some vast conspiracy to keep the interns down. What I'm trying to say is that it serves as a pressure valve to prevent a glut og the marketplace, just like architecture school prevents a glut of graduates.
... say what?
On what planet do you live?
It is also a big business, with tons of people making money. So while not a conspiracy per se, it is certainly in their best interest to regulate.
Kinda like the SAT's and such. Big business that controls everything, for better or worse.
BlueGoose: Architecture schools on average have a 4:1 ratio of first years to graduates, if not worse. Here is a pdf showing applicants:accepted:gardautes. If the education wasn't as demanding, you could bet there would be more people making it from first year to graduation and then into the workforce.
While this is not by any means the reason for education it does play a significant role in regulating the number of professionals seeking employment.
snookdude, however you want to skin this cat, I can guarantee you that you are neither a Marine or Navy Seal nor merit having a discussion with me about the ability of either group any which way. Fortunately for me I have trained with both and have great respect for both. For some, armchair flamebaiting, seems to be the equivelant of having an actual valid opinion.
Good luck.
ss ... yes, I was familiar with those figures before you posted them here. that's not my point. attrition rates among those entering the academy are not my interest
the schools are pumping out graduates at a rate not previously seen. this production of graduate architects is not market driven -- the schools have no sense whatsoever about what the market either needs or wants or can sustain over time.
the schools stand to gain by having large numbers pass through their programs ... not by having graduates a) who can find viable work, or b) who offer capabilities on the date of graduation that the profession can put to immediate and effective use. the schools argue "well, if they don't find work in architecture, they'll make a strong contribution elsewhere in the economy...that's good for architecture"
IMHO, the so called "labor shortage" of the past few years is an abberation that does not represent the future of the profession. having fewer graduate architects would not severely impact the profession -- the profession would simply transfer the work being done by graduate architects either overseas or to trained drafters. It's not at all clear to me that would have a serious negative impact on either the profession or the quality of work being produced by the firm ... in fact, from a purely technical standpoint, it might actually improve quality.
otf...your original remark was way off point and your last even farther off point. Like I said go pull your head out of the sand.
: you guys want to take your pissing match outside. nobody here's really interested in your argument about the military and it's adding nothing of value to this thread.
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.