"Stick with lighter colors as lighter colors will make your room appear much more open..." What if openness isn't your design intent? What if you want to create a warm, intimate environment using earth tones? This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that ID is bullshit.
Yeah for sure that's a fair comment BulgarBlogger, I guess it's just suggestive. Everyone's got different taste. There are plenty of other blogs which focus on creating a warmer, more intimate atmosphere.
If you use dark colors the inhabitant may commit suicide so it is essential that the state protects their safety and requires a license to practice ID. Being sarcastic...
By the way... The design cartel tried to protect the title ID and a few peps fought it in court. The judge ruled that Design is an act...not a title...and if you practice design it is your first amendment right to accurately describe your profession as such. This also applied to architectural design. Basically, you can describe what you do in the most appropriate way without censorship from the state.
How about interior designers stop implying that there is some form of underlying formula behind their specific colours and patterns. Just say you think purple is a nice colour. Any other string of adjectives added afterwards will hurt my eyes as I roll them into the back of my skull. But again... what else can you expect from 1 and a half semesters at a community college.
That was in Texas btw. Yeeehaa. Freedom! Another similar case was also struck down. Sandra Day Oconner ruled it unconstitutional under the same reasoning.
Non sequitur, I don't disagree that many IDs are thoughtless and stylistic decorators, but some of them are pretty good at transforming spaces. In a way Ray Eames was master at ID. What she did was on a different level than architecture but was still architectural ans was certainly design/art. Anyways, that's besides the point. People want the service and they have every right to pay for it. We do still live in a free country.
I don't disagree that there are good, even great, IDs out there. My issue is that the profession is buried under millions of layers of subjective dogmas that I cannot hold a straight face when I read/hear someone talk like the OP's article suggests. Add to that that a good deal of programs indoctrinate young ID to consider themselves by default above architects (in my area at least...) without making the slightest effort. Their "title" is carried like a fashion accessory, not a profession with equal weight.
That's not the issue, in my opinion. If you want to debate the merits and drawbacks of a free market economy, we can. Within the world as it is, an ID who can snag a client, complete a design, and get paid using a system like the one linked above is more successful than an architect who can't.
Yeah, I am always welcoming of diversity in any field. Competition is good despite what the design cartel says. I care more about the field of architecture than the profession. Diversity is healthy for any field. Diverse ecosystems are more resilient.
Most architecture sucks too. I mean think about it man. You drive down the street and see about 1 in a 1000 buildings that are actually worthy of being called "architecture." My point is that most stuff sucks in every profession. Sucking is easier because sucking sells. Sucking is cheap and profitable. And for designers (or any profession for that matter)...sucking is the path of least resistance.
No issue if the ID completes work under their own expertise, however narrow or wide that scope may be (or allowed). I've seen many projects go sour very fast because the ID got work by promoting themselves equal or above architectural offices with lower fees, obviously. I call that fraud or at the very least, professionally dishonest.
I am not trying to start an argument, but I think where you're going awry is when you hold companies you have no control over to personal standards that are not based in law or held in high esteem by the general public. I agree that there is a large portion of the built environment that is absolute shit. I also tend to find the taste of the general public to be absolute shit. But I believe that until more architects start playing the game, winning commissions, and figuring out how to do good design on a budget they stick to the vast majority of our buildings will be spec garbage.
An interesting (and pathetic, IMO) example is how there was an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" in the past for architects not to advertise. What a stupid thing to agree to. The day of getting the next client through reputation is passed. It's ruthless out there, and budgets are tight. I get frustrated when my colleagues sit around and mope while redesigning the entry 5 times at a level of detail nobody but they will notice. Is it a better building? Absolutely. Now go feed your family on the feeling of a job well done, because you don't have any fee left to buy food.
Non sequitur, Im really sick of the protectionist attitude coming out of this profession. You have no right to use legal protection to fatten your pockets. In fact, by doing so you are not only hurting your own profession, but are also violating the liberties of others (not the luxury or privilege but the guaranteed liberty.) If you cant out compete the competition than that is your problem. No industry has the legal right to limit competition or create a monopoly unless there is a real danger in not doing so. There are very few situations where regulation is truly necessary and when it is not it is an abuse of power and a violation of ones economic liberty and property rights. Most regulation is bullshit and is brought about through lobbying groups with a clear financial or political interest. Architects are simply not entitled to the luxury of a monopoly on non-life threatening or redundant practices. Also, other professions have every right to hold themselves in what ever esteem that they want.
The arch profession has failed to adapt itself to an ever changing society, and because of this a vacuum was created. Don't blame those who fill that void. They are just trying to make a living. Lets instead try to figure out why we are failing. My opinion is that the industry of architecture is suffering from the entrepreneurial crushing structure that it created/lobbied for. IDP and other bullshit regulations have stifled young entrepreneurs by creating a culture of conformity and a reality of indentured servitude and debt. With all the loans and the fees and liabilities (that we brought upon ourselves) the willingness and the ability to take risk is being greatly limited. We are operating in an ever changing free market society. The self imposed restrictions, the narrow path of practice, and the lack of diversity in backgrounds, has led to an inability to adapt to these changes. We are being crippled by our own creation. We cant mandate relevance or respect. These things must be earned through public and peer recognition. A title loses its worth the moment it fails to meet the expectations and the needs of the public. If you try to mandate your service you will naturally be viewed as nothing more than red-tape, and the people will be less willing to pay for it. The value of architecture must be "sold" as "talent and knowledge." These things add value! and people will pay for these things. Architects have a great potential to add great value. We should not need anything else to differentiate ourselves from the competition. We simply have to find ways of utilizing our talent and knowledge to offer a better product or service. This can only be done by reforming the profession from within, not by trying to tear others down. Its bad sportsmanship. The AIA and the other boys clubs do very little to improve the profession because they have a vested interest in protecting their pockets from inside and outside competition. When you remove your self from natural selection you become less fit. PERIOD! You stop evolving. The danger with this is that environment does not stop changing, and failing to adapt=extinction.
I hope the gentlemanly nature of the profession gets kicked in the balls too, jlax. I think if you have a professional degree in architecture you should just have to register with the state to practice. If you don't have a degree in architecture and want to practice architecture, then you have to do IDP and take the exams to get a license. Nobody will die because we still have building codes, licensed contractors, building permits and inspectors, the fire marshal, OHSA, the free market and common sense. Actually scratch that last one.
Also, lets look at what the title architect offers the client/public. Competence? Well, a good contractor can design a competent building. An engineer can design a competent building. A draftsman can design a competent building. A project manager or a construction manager can oversee the construction. The protection of the title architect suggests exclusive competence when in fact this is not true. Therefore, it is seen by the client/public as a redundant and often unnecessary service. The fact that the title is protected offers nothing to the client other than a seldom required stamp of approval. A contractor cannot make art. Only an artist can do this. A contractor cannot make architecture either. Architects must be competent, but this not the value of the profession it is just a given. My point is that we are trying to sell services and gain exclusive rights to services that are not unique to the practice of architecture. Rather, we should "sell" the one thing that only we can do. "Architecture!" This can only be done if the title is deregulated, because the public must see the profession as a choice and not a mandate. What about all the crappy architects that cannot do "architecture" and only rely on the title protection to establish their relevance? Well fuck em. If you cook fries your a fry cook not a chef. If you make great food, well then you are a chef. The public will pay for a great meal by a great chef. They do not complain that a chef charges too much because they willingly chose to eat at his/her establishment. The public does complain that architecture costs too much because they sometimes have no choice but to hire one even if all they want is a big plate of craft mac and cheese. Forced relevance "professional protectionism" destroys the perceived value of a service.
Now lets be realistic. The title protection will probably not go away. I do agree that there should be regulation of the building industry, but unlike doctors, our potential for harm is not immediate. We draw things that can be (and are) reviewed by many people before they have the chance to do harm. I have argued before that we should have 2 designations in the profession. Architects and Registered Architects....We should allow architects to design anything they are capable of designing, and should allow RA's the ability to review and stamp work or to act as the AOR for non-registrants. We should also regard any graduate of an arch program or any person that demonstrates the ability to do architecture the informal title Architect. In the mean time, we should increase the standards for the RA registration (10years exp). RA's could act more like a structural engineer would on a project. Review and stamp. There is no logical reason why this would endanger the public. It would allow larger established firms to take the liability off the hands off the smaller start up firms for a % fee. Of course, if you show the RA that you are incompetent he/she would not take your project for review and stamp. Really the only difference is that the title Architect would be open to a more diverse crowd from diverse backgrounds and that RA's could act as the stamp or the AOR for non-registrants. It would allow for many paths and would still ensure a competent result. It would promote entrepreneurship and would allow architects to compete for business in all states. It would also be a steady cash flow for RAs. Siimple and would eliminate NCARB and all the Bullshit.
we should have 2 designations in the profession. Architects and Registered Architects....
we do have 2 designations. intern and architect.
architects are registered and licensed with the state because they take responsibility for the design of a building. if they act outside what the state sets as a standard for professional behavior, the state can take the license away and they won't be an architect anymore. the other people who review the drawings, such as the plans reviewer or building inspector, do not have the responsibility or liability the architect of record has.
what you consider 'architecture' can be done by a contractor or a designer. what you consider 'architecture' might be different from what the state sees as 'architecture.' the state's job is to protect public health and safety. the architect has a responsibility, given to them by the state, to protect public health and safety. the designer does not have that responsibility, and neither does the intern. at least not to the same extent.
if you want to complain about how architects aren't designing what you think they should be designing, become a critic. they also have no responsibility.
Actually an intern is a person who is in school and works for credit and usually a small stipend. An architecture intern is not really an intern they are an employee.
I know that there are serious risks to the public with regard to building design but the state does not really give a shit about public protection. If they did they would ban GMO's and all the other unregulated things that kill people. Legislation is usually brought about by lobbies that have a financial interest and usually imposed on the weakest. Occupational licensing has no measurable benefit to public safety. Period! There have been many studies done that prove this. Also, there are many countries that do not have title protection laws. They are no safer or more dangerous. Same thing. There is also no reason plan stamping should be illegal. Anyone should be allowed to design projects and prepare docs as independent businesses. If the state trusts the RA with the HSW of the public than why not trust them to review and stamp plans? I can get an engineer to review and stamp plans. Like I said how is this any different than an AOR for a foreign architect? Or is it just that the laws bend around fame?
so they limit their liability by hiring an architect instead of an intern. the architect limits their liability by working hard to develop an education and experience that reduces the likelihood of screwing up.
the intern can still design a building. the architect is more likely to design a building that won't screw up and cost everyone tons more money.
How can an intern, working under the supervision of an experienced licensed architect, screw anything up? The situation, should it occur, says the licensed architect was miserable at being a tutor, supervisor, and architect. and there was no communication at all between them as the project was being developed. Simply unacceptable.
Unacceptable but quite common, especially in situations where the RAs have their heads so far up their own business end that they don't have time to mentor the LOWLY interns.
Yeah and IDP from my experience is often attained without much mentorship from the boss. I would personally like to see IDP gone. I think a traditional and informal/unregulated apprentice/mentor model would be much more productive. IDP creates a dependency and a sense of entitlement. This goes both ways. Interns feel a sense of entitlement towards the RA to pay them for training...It also turns the RA into a boss rather then a mentor/sensei....On the other end, Architects feel that they are entitled to dependent employees. I think getting rid of IDP would empower the architect into a more informal and respectful role of voluntary mentor with total control over training, and would turn the intern into an apprentice or voluntary student with the freedom to work independently if they choose to. Its been done this way for thousands of years...It would weed out the unworthy students and force them into "learning the hard way," which would either result in self learning (for a small minority) or failure for the majority...Personal responsibility. The architect would not license the student but rather endorse them which they could then use to define their "credentials." This endorsement would take years or months or decades depending on the students ability. We are not all equal and we do not all learn at the same pace. The system we have assumes that we are all blank slates with equal abilities. It is destructive to the relationship between the youth and the elders. This system is designed to create a minimum standard. I say we should strive higher and try to create a system tailored to the individual and one that promotes entrepreneurship and a sense of "family" between the generations. I hate the way the youth looks at the elders and the way the elders look at the youth it is in stark contrast to the way I was raised. It is not healthy. I personally have much respect for my elders (its my culture) and I hate the fact that I am put into a position where I and they are mandated into a system of dependency and entitlement. It destroys the relationships between the generations and the continuity of traditions and knowledge. While it may be possible to still maintain this relationship under the current system, it is rare...
you know what I think? I think that interns learn the most from their mistakes. I think that an intern should be given a lot of responsibility with a lot of guidance/checks from the RA. This way, the intern learns from his mistakes and applies a wide range of experience and knowledge to future projects. If the same mistakes happen over and over again, then that would be grounds for termination. I think that often, employers forget that recent graduates, although may not know a lot technically about code, filing, and whatever, they are after all, college graduates.
The idea is, that after 9 months of just drafting, the a drafter good at drafting is not any more experienced in managing a project. I am not saying to eliminate drafting from the experience, but to integrate more responsibilities into the tasks bosses ask of their intern architects rather than treat them as people just good for doing one thing, because at the end of the day here's what happens: at larger firms, the HR people hire the employee together with the project architect or project manager and although this might be good for one project, as work gets delegated throughout the firm, the employee will most likely have to work with other architects/project managers who will have to start from scratch in getting to know that same employee.
true... So here's my question....Why cant the system change? Why cant architects, universities, and graduates, design a better system? We are designers correct? Why do we allow the state to dictate to us how to run and operate the profession? We need a more progressive and more open organization that lobbies for positive change to the current law. I would like to see the AIA take part in such an effort but wont hold my breath. NCARB is imo a bullshit system that has been imposed. I do not know many architects or graduates that like the system or see it as a beneficial thing. I guess I am kind of a libertarian when it comes to this kind of stuff. I tend to think that the public is NOT retarded, and that they are perfectly capable of practicing due diligence when hiring someone. We do not need a state mandate or an arbitrary licensing board. We are not emergency room doctors and do not see patients that need immediate service. Arch clients are typically wealthy and business savy people. We can easily remove the burden of the current system and replace them with a more inclusive and a more productive system. I am not necessarily against licensure, but I am against the current narrow path that NCARB provides. I am against the way that this path weeds out those with less resources and with diverse non-conventional backgrounds. I am against the odd mixture of state mandates and private business. I am against the culture of dependency and entitlement created through IDP. I am against the way that IDP delays and discourages entrepreneurship. I am also against the idea in theory and practice that any profession has the right or the privilege to a monopoly or protectionism unless that monopoly is 100% necessary as it is with surgeons. As for the original topic, it is immoral and illegal to ban another profession from competing as long as that profession is not doing anything that endangers the public (not in theory or in hypothetical reason, but in proven documented reality.)
And, this seems to be the sentiment of the courts based upon recent and not so recent rullings as to the constitutionality of protectionism and individual economic liberty.
^ same reason the government didn't ask google to design The ObamaCare website... there would be a conflict of interest if architects design their own accreditation board.... there needs to be a certain level of neutrality
Dec 18, 13 2:18 pm ·
·
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.
interior design tips
Quick resource I came across which I thought I'd share. Quite helpful for interior design newbies - http://www.cheshireofficeinteriors.com/interior-design/
"Stick with lighter colors as lighter colors will make your room appear much more open..." What if openness isn't your design intent? What if you want to create a warm, intimate environment using earth tones? This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that ID is bullshit.
Yeah for sure that's a fair comment BulgarBlogger, I guess it's just suggestive. Everyone's got different taste. There are plenty of other blogs which focus on creating a warmer, more intimate atmosphere.
These prescriptive methods are not helpful... They just create a culture of regurgitation.
If you use dark colors the inhabitant may commit suicide so it is essential that the state protects their safety and requires a license to practice ID. Being sarcastic...
By the way... The design cartel tried to protect the title ID and a few peps fought it in court. The judge ruled that Design is an act...not a title...and if you practice design it is your first amendment right to accurately describe your profession as such. This also applied to architectural design. Basically, you can describe what you do in the most appropriate way without censorship from the state.
ID tip?
How about interior designers stop implying that there is some form of underlying formula behind their specific colours and patterns. Just say you think purple is a nice colour. Any other string of adjectives added afterwards will hurt my eyes as I roll them into the back of my skull. But again... what else can you expect from 1 and a half semesters at a community college.
That was in Texas btw. Yeeehaa. Freedom! Another similar case was also struck down. Sandra Day Oconner ruled it unconstitutional under the same reasoning.
Non sequitur, I don't disagree that many IDs are thoughtless and stylistic decorators, but some of them are pretty good at transforming spaces. In a way Ray Eames was master at ID. What she did was on a different level than architecture but was still architectural ans was certainly design/art. Anyways, that's besides the point. People want the service and they have every right to pay for it. We do still live in a free country.
And she certainly chose things for a reason. Not just willy nilly.
Jla-x
I don't disagree that there are good, even great, IDs out there. My issue is that the profession is buried under millions of layers of subjective dogmas that I cannot hold a straight face when I read/hear someone talk like the OP's article suggests. Add to that that a good deal of programs indoctrinate young ID to consider themselves by default above architects (in my area at least...) without making the slightest effort. Their "title" is carried like a fashion accessory, not a profession with equal weight.
I always chuckle when I see architects throwing stones at IDs from inside their glass houses.
THOSE AREN'T OPERABLE WINDOWS.
SneakyPete, your experience may differ but from where I stand, if you show me even a marginally competent ID, I'll show you millions in savings.
That's not the issue, in my opinion. If you want to debate the merits and drawbacks of a free market economy, we can. Within the world as it is, an ID who can snag a client, complete a design, and get paid using a system like the one linked above is more successful than an architect who can't.
Yeah, I am always welcoming of diversity in any field. Competition is good despite what the design cartel says. I care more about the field of architecture than the profession. Diversity is healthy for any field. Diverse ecosystems are more resilient.
Most architecture sucks too. I mean think about it man. You drive down the street and see about 1 in a 1000 buildings that are actually worthy of being called "architecture." My point is that most stuff sucks in every profession. Sucking is easier because sucking sells. Sucking is cheap and profitable. And for designers (or any profession for that matter)...sucking is the path of least resistance.
+++Sneaky Pete!
No issue if the ID completes work under their own expertise, however narrow or wide that scope may be (or allowed). I've seen many projects go sour very fast because the ID got work by promoting themselves equal or above architectural offices with lower fees, obviously. I call that fraud or at the very least, professionally dishonest.
I am not trying to start an argument, but I think where you're going awry is when you hold companies you have no control over to personal standards that are not based in law or held in high esteem by the general public. I agree that there is a large portion of the built environment that is absolute shit. I also tend to find the taste of the general public to be absolute shit. But I believe that until more architects start playing the game, winning commissions, and figuring out how to do good design on a budget they stick to the vast majority of our buildings will be spec garbage.
An interesting (and pathetic, IMO) example is how there was an unspoken "gentleman's agreement" in the past for architects not to advertise. What a stupid thing to agree to. The day of getting the next client through reputation is passed. It's ruthless out there, and budgets are tight. I get frustrated when my colleagues sit around and mope while redesigning the entry 5 times at a level of detail nobody but they will notice. Is it a better building? Absolutely. Now go feed your family on the feeling of a job well done, because you don't have any fee left to buy food.
Non sequitur, Im really sick of the protectionist attitude coming out of this profession. You have no right to use legal protection to fatten your pockets. In fact, by doing so you are not only hurting your own profession, but are also violating the liberties of others (not the luxury or privilege but the guaranteed liberty.) If you cant out compete the competition than that is your problem. No industry has the legal right to limit competition or create a monopoly unless there is a real danger in not doing so. There are very few situations where regulation is truly necessary and when it is not it is an abuse of power and a violation of ones economic liberty and property rights. Most regulation is bullshit and is brought about through lobbying groups with a clear financial or political interest. Architects are simply not entitled to the luxury of a monopoly on non-life threatening or redundant practices. Also, other professions have every right to hold themselves in what ever esteem that they want.
The arch profession has failed to adapt itself to an ever changing society, and because of this a vacuum was created. Don't blame those who fill that void. They are just trying to make a living. Lets instead try to figure out why we are failing. My opinion is that the industry of architecture is suffering from the entrepreneurial crushing structure that it created/lobbied for. IDP and other bullshit regulations have stifled young entrepreneurs by creating a culture of conformity and a reality of indentured servitude and debt. With all the loans and the fees and liabilities (that we brought upon ourselves) the willingness and the ability to take risk is being greatly limited. We are operating in an ever changing free market society. The self imposed restrictions, the narrow path of practice, and the lack of diversity in backgrounds, has led to an inability to adapt to these changes. We are being crippled by our own creation. We cant mandate relevance or respect. These things must be earned through public and peer recognition. A title loses its worth the moment it fails to meet the expectations and the needs of the public. If you try to mandate your service you will naturally be viewed as nothing more than red-tape, and the people will be less willing to pay for it. The value of architecture must be "sold" as "talent and knowledge." These things add value! and people will pay for these things. Architects have a great potential to add great value. We should not need anything else to differentiate ourselves from the competition. We simply have to find ways of utilizing our talent and knowledge to offer a better product or service. This can only be done by reforming the profession from within, not by trying to tear others down. Its bad sportsmanship. The AIA and the other boys clubs do very little to improve the profession because they have a vested interest in protecting their pockets from inside and outside competition. When you remove your self from natural selection you become less fit. PERIOD! You stop evolving. The danger with this is that environment does not stop changing, and failing to adapt=extinction.
I hope the gentlemanly nature of the profession gets kicked in the balls too, jlax. I think if you have a professional degree in architecture you should just have to register with the state to practice. If you don't have a degree in architecture and want to practice architecture, then you have to do IDP and take the exams to get a license. Nobody will die because we still have building codes, licensed contractors, building permits and inspectors, the fire marshal, OHSA, the free market and common sense. Actually scratch that last one.
jla
TLDNR
Simply because you can't complete required licensing does not mean it's broken.
I fail to see where jla said this was about his success or failure with regards to the requirements of architecture.
Also, lets look at what the title architect offers the client/public. Competence? Well, a good contractor can design a competent building. An engineer can design a competent building. A draftsman can design a competent building. A project manager or a construction manager can oversee the construction. The protection of the title architect suggests exclusive competence when in fact this is not true. Therefore, it is seen by the client/public as a redundant and often unnecessary service. The fact that the title is protected offers nothing to the client other than a seldom required stamp of approval. A contractor cannot make art. Only an artist can do this. A contractor cannot make architecture either. Architects must be competent, but this not the value of the profession it is just a given. My point is that we are trying to sell services and gain exclusive rights to services that are not unique to the practice of architecture. Rather, we should "sell" the one thing that only we can do. "Architecture!" This can only be done if the title is deregulated, because the public must see the profession as a choice and not a mandate. What about all the crappy architects that cannot do "architecture" and only rely on the title protection to establish their relevance? Well fuck em. If you cook fries your a fry cook not a chef. If you make great food, well then you are a chef. The public will pay for a great meal by a great chef. They do not complain that a chef charges too much because they willingly chose to eat at his/her establishment. The public does complain that architecture costs too much because they sometimes have no choice but to hire one even if all they want is a big plate of craft mac and cheese. Forced relevance "professional protectionism" destroys the perceived value of a service.
Now lets be realistic. The title protection will probably not go away. I do agree that there should be regulation of the building industry, but unlike doctors, our potential for harm is not immediate. We draw things that can be (and are) reviewed by many people before they have the chance to do harm. I have argued before that we should have 2 designations in the profession. Architects and Registered Architects....We should allow architects to design anything they are capable of designing, and should allow RA's the ability to review and stamp work or to act as the AOR for non-registrants. We should also regard any graduate of an arch program or any person that demonstrates the ability to do architecture the informal title Architect. In the mean time, we should increase the standards for the RA registration (10years exp). RA's could act more like a structural engineer would on a project. Review and stamp. There is no logical reason why this would endanger the public. It would allow larger established firms to take the liability off the hands off the smaller start up firms for a % fee. Of course, if you show the RA that you are incompetent he/she would not take your project for review and stamp. Really the only difference is that the title Architect would be open to a more diverse crowd from diverse backgrounds and that RA's could act as the stamp or the AOR for non-registrants. It would allow for many paths and would still ensure a competent result. It would promote entrepreneurship and would allow architects to compete for business in all states. It would also be a steady cash flow for RAs. Siimple and would eliminate NCARB and all the Bullshit.
I think you would have an imbalance where all of the folks who love the design portion would never bother taking any responsibility.
How is that any different than a foreign architect like Zumthor doing a project in LA with a CA registered RA?
we should have 2 designations in the profession. Architects and Registered Architects....
we do have 2 designations. intern and architect.
architects are registered and licensed with the state because they take responsibility for the design of a building. if they act outside what the state sets as a standard for professional behavior, the state can take the license away and they won't be an architect anymore. the other people who review the drawings, such as the plans reviewer or building inspector, do not have the responsibility or liability the architect of record has.
what you consider 'architecture' can be done by a contractor or a designer. what you consider 'architecture' might be different from what the state sees as 'architecture.' the state's job is to protect public health and safety. the architect has a responsibility, given to them by the state, to protect public health and safety. the designer does not have that responsibility, and neither does the intern. at least not to the same extent.
if you want to complain about how architects aren't designing what you think they should be designing, become a critic. they also have no responsibility.
Actually an intern is a person who is in school and works for credit and usually a small stipend. An architecture intern is not really an intern they are an employee.
I know that there are serious risks to the public with regard to building design but the state does not really give a shit about public protection. If they did they would ban GMO's and all the other unregulated things that kill people. Legislation is usually brought about by lobbies that have a financial interest and usually imposed on the weakest. Occupational licensing has no measurable benefit to public safety. Period! There have been many studies done that prove this. Also, there are many countries that do not have title protection laws. They are no safer or more dangerous. Same thing. There is also no reason plan stamping should be illegal. Anyone should be allowed to design projects and prepare docs as independent businesses. If the state trusts the RA with the HSW of the public than why not trust them to review and stamp plans? I can get an engineer to review and stamp plans. Like I said how is this any different than an AOR for a foreign architect? Or is it just that the laws bend around fame?
As for liability...anyone can sue anyone. If you claim to be qualified to do something then you are liable for it.
and any smart business person would want to limit their liability.
so they limit their liability by hiring an architect instead of an intern. the architect limits their liability by working hard to develop an education and experience that reduces the likelihood of screwing up.
the intern can still design a building. the architect is more likely to design a building that won't screw up and cost everyone tons more money.
How can an intern, working under the supervision of an experienced licensed architect, screw anything up? The situation, should it occur, says the licensed architect was miserable at being a tutor, supervisor, and architect. and there was no communication at all between them as the project was being developed. Simply unacceptable.
Unacceptable but quite common, especially in situations where the RAs have their heads so far up their own business end that they don't have time to mentor the LOWLY interns.
Yeah and IDP from my experience is often attained without much mentorship from the boss. I would personally like to see IDP gone. I think a traditional and informal/unregulated apprentice/mentor model would be much more productive. IDP creates a dependency and a sense of entitlement. This goes both ways. Interns feel a sense of entitlement towards the RA to pay them for training...It also turns the RA into a boss rather then a mentor/sensei....On the other end, Architects feel that they are entitled to dependent employees. I think getting rid of IDP would empower the architect into a more informal and respectful role of voluntary mentor with total control over training, and would turn the intern into an apprentice or voluntary student with the freedom to work independently if they choose to. Its been done this way for thousands of years...It would weed out the unworthy students and force them into "learning the hard way," which would either result in self learning (for a small minority) or failure for the majority...Personal responsibility. The architect would not license the student but rather endorse them which they could then use to define their "credentials." This endorsement would take years or months or decades depending on the students ability. We are not all equal and we do not all learn at the same pace. The system we have assumes that we are all blank slates with equal abilities. It is destructive to the relationship between the youth and the elders. This system is designed to create a minimum standard. I say we should strive higher and try to create a system tailored to the individual and one that promotes entrepreneurship and a sense of "family" between the generations. I hate the way the youth looks at the elders and the way the elders look at the youth it is in stark contrast to the way I was raised. It is not healthy. I personally have much respect for my elders (its my culture) and I hate the fact that I am put into a position where I and they are mandated into a system of dependency and entitlement. It destroys the relationships between the generations and the continuity of traditions and knowledge. While it may be possible to still maintain this relationship under the current system, it is rare...
you know what I think? I think that interns learn the most from their mistakes. I think that an intern should be given a lot of responsibility with a lot of guidance/checks from the RA. This way, the intern learns from his mistakes and applies a wide range of experience and knowledge to future projects. If the same mistakes happen over and over again, then that would be grounds for termination. I think that often, employers forget that recent graduates, although may not know a lot technically about code, filing, and whatever, they are after all, college graduates.
The idea is, that after 9 months of just drafting, the a drafter good at drafting is not any more experienced in managing a project. I am not saying to eliminate drafting from the experience, but to integrate more responsibilities into the tasks bosses ask of their intern architects rather than treat them as people just good for doing one thing, because at the end of the day here's what happens: at larger firms, the HR people hire the employee together with the project architect or project manager and although this might be good for one project, as work gets delegated throughout the firm, the employee will most likely have to work with other architects/project managers who will have to start from scratch in getting to know that same employee.
true... So here's my question....Why cant the system change? Why cant architects, universities, and graduates, design a better system? We are designers correct? Why do we allow the state to dictate to us how to run and operate the profession? We need a more progressive and more open organization that lobbies for positive change to the current law. I would like to see the AIA take part in such an effort but wont hold my breath. NCARB is imo a bullshit system that has been imposed. I do not know many architects or graduates that like the system or see it as a beneficial thing. I guess I am kind of a libertarian when it comes to this kind of stuff. I tend to think that the public is NOT retarded, and that they are perfectly capable of practicing due diligence when hiring someone. We do not need a state mandate or an arbitrary licensing board. We are not emergency room doctors and do not see patients that need immediate service. Arch clients are typically wealthy and business savy people. We can easily remove the burden of the current system and replace them with a more inclusive and a more productive system. I am not necessarily against licensure, but I am against the current narrow path that NCARB provides. I am against the way that this path weeds out those with less resources and with diverse non-conventional backgrounds. I am against the odd mixture of state mandates and private business. I am against the culture of dependency and entitlement created through IDP. I am against the way that IDP delays and discourages entrepreneurship. I am also against the idea in theory and practice that any profession has the right or the privilege to a monopoly or protectionism unless that monopoly is 100% necessary as it is with surgeons. As for the original topic, it is immoral and illegal to ban another profession from competing as long as that profession is not doing anything that endangers the public (not in theory or in hypothetical reason, but in proven documented reality.)
And, this seems to be the sentiment of the courts based upon recent and not so recent rullings as to the constitutionality of protectionism and individual economic liberty.
^ same reason the government didn't ask google to design The ObamaCare website... there would be a conflict of interest if architects design their own accreditation board.... there needs to be a certain level of neutrality
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.