in California. i know some other states allow less than 4000 sf, less than 20ft in height, you can build a building without a registered architect's stamp. is california any differeint?
It's a little more complicated than that - the California Architectural Practice Act dictates what an unlicensed person may design, which includes wood framed homes of less than four units and two stories in height (this is off the top of my head so you best check it).
Despite this, individual jurisdictions in California have been known to require an Architects stamp even where State law wouldn't mandate it. The best way to find out for sure is to call your local building department.
The fact that you can build anything without the stamp of a licensed architect just goes to show you how useless the AIA is, and how your dues are pissed away! A contractor should not be allowed to hammer in a nail without the ok of an architect. Does the State allow anyone to due a tonsillectomy because it's a minor operation?
"Does the State allow anyone to do a tonsillectomy because it's a minor operation?"
I bet there will be someone at this point that will say something about how we always come back to the comparison between doctors and architects and how inappropriate it is. This is probably one of the cases that I think is justified. I don't think as a profession, we have protected our domain as well as others; and not just for the sake protecting it, but what we believe is better for the general good (public safety, culture, quality of built environment, etc).
The horse is waaay out of the barn on the topic of "single family homes." In America in particular there is a feeling that everyone has the right to build their own "castle." Stores like Home Depot don't help as they promote the whole idea of you can do it, we can help. And when it comes to someones private home, everyone thinks they are a design professional.
What gets me is that if the hippocratic oath of architects is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people, how are the people in 4+ unit housing any different than the people in a smaller housing unit? This is especially true in a state like CA where there is the risk of earthquake. A good design with experienced Architect oversight can literally mean the difference between life and death in a disaster.
Unfortunately mega-builder spec homes are cheap (design and construction) and what people can afford. Requiring a stamp and strict Architect involvement will cost money and add to the price of a home. Most people would balk at that and the AIA would have an impossible uphill battle to get anything near that enforced. Even if such legislation were passed it doesn't stop the whores in the business from stamping anything that crosses their desk for a small fee (bribe). It's just one of those things we as Architects need to accept.
I'm not a registered architect yet. But here is my question:
There are buildings that can be designed by non architects - small structures, houses below a certain size, etc.
But can't a non architect design a skyscraper or a museum or whatever if the final drawings are then stamped by a registered architect? Can"t I just call myself a designer and have a firm that designs buildings and then get a larger firm or engineer - Gensler, Arup etc. - do the construction documents and stamp the drawings?
aquapura - the difference in your example is that people in multi-fam housing are placing their trust entirely in others whereas the presumption of SFR is that the owner is living there, and they can choose to endanger themselves in their own home if they wish.
talkitect - anyone can 'design' anything. if you want it built though, you better know what you're doing. a license is the presumption of knowing what you're doing.
I was under the impression that california was all strict about who can design certain things...Didn't James Cutler get fined for designing a house in California without a california license?
It seems to me it should be one way or the other...ALL buildings should need to be designed and stamped by a registered architect or anyone should be able to design anything as long as a structural engineer will stamp it. Maybe this is a naive point of view.
cutler got fined because he used a contract that listed him as the 'architect'.
and yes your 'all or nothing' outlook is naive - there are some projects that require an architect and some that don't. it's not confusing and as mentioned above it is clearly stated in the architect's practice act.
note that single family residences do require framing plans and calcs stamped by an engineer so aqua's worry about 'literally ... life and death in a disaster' is a little over the top. architects rarely design the structural system to withstand lateral (earthquake) forces.
cutler was busted for executing an aia agreement without a CA license and thus holding himself out as an architect.
in effect, those simple wood-framed SFR projects are 'stamped' in the sense that the building code is entirely prescriptive for those structures. if you deviate from the prescriptions, the building official may indeed (and they often do) require an arch or engineer to review & stamp it.
A lot of the "mega-builder spec homes" are actually designed by licensed architects. Problem is that the architect just does the boilerplate design and doesn't have to stamp for each instance of its use.
Why does everyone think it comes down to a structural issue? Yes, the building has to stand and withstand some seismic and other natural events, but there are other issues. That is the problem with allowing a structural engineer sign off on drawings for habitable spaces. Fire protection, life safety, soundness of building envelope (leaks can lead to mold which of course can cause problems in health), etc, etc.
And of course this is assuming we're doing the absolute minimum to avoid some disaster such as collapse, fire, leaks, etc. It is also the architect's responsibility to use structures as a positive change to our built environment. We're not just providing usable square footage that fulfills minimum requirements for public safety.
i don't think it helps our cause much to be the go-to people for leak prevention and to remind people to make a one-hour wall between the garage and habitable space.
once again, i the realm of SFR, the code is prescriptive for wood framing and typical weather envelopes, as it is for the common mechanical and plumbing systems, as it is for fire & life safety.
if there's a gc, they're on the hook with their license, and there are inspectors who check the major issues.
my experience is that even owner-builders (not licensed gc's) will experience a helpful but thorough inspection of their work by code officials.
el jeffe and Orhan - Thats what I was getting to when I was saying that "it is also the architect's responsibility to use structures as a positive change to our built environment"
That doesn't mean we should write off all the other things like quality of building envelope, structural, as simply consultant's work that is added to our services. The Architect can have input on the seismic bracing - maybe it defines the exterior perimeter without being a solid wall or is integrated with the window wall (working on this as we speak). I don't like the idea that the engineers do their work and we simply "drape" our work over theirs. Isn't it integrated? Isn't that the point?
I guess my comments got away from single family homes... so some if not most of my comments do not apply to this thread. I just kind of snapped at that structural thing, because I hear that way too many times from structural engineers. Sometimes they think if a building stands, what else is there for the architect to do other than make it look good? Its not helped by the hands-off approach of architects. The same architects that are so afraid of stepping on the engineers' toes are the same ones sending them a new scheme a day before its due.
Anyone can design anything, anywhere. Unless Ca changed things, you can do that there too. I designed (with a team) a 750,000 sq. ft. office complex right out of school.
Just as an answer to some question way up there...I'll skip this discussion on licensure and building homes.
i the realm of SFR, the code is prescriptive for wood framing and typical weather envelopes, as it is for the common mechanical and plumbing systems, as it is for fire & life safety
In recent "boom" years I've been through several spec homes while under construction and I would argue the code is either NOT prescriptive enough and/or enforcement is lax, especially in fast growing suburbs with small staffed Building Departments.
SFR in my opinion is of very very poor quality in the mid to lower price points. I'm not completely on board with the idea it would be made better by requiring an architect's stamp, but the cheap materials mass production of homes during the boom was not top quality construction by any means.
Trace...You full of it....you might have been a participate on the team but most likely the design was really controled by someone who was licensed. This is one of the things which pisses me off about people.....claiming things they just haven't done. Trace go take the fricking exam or go sell real estate and tell people your and architect..
sd - like I said, I was part of team. You can make conclusions as you wish, if that makes you feel better.
lb - sometimes I wish there was a logical reason for pursuing a license, just so our little 'discussion' could come to a pleasant conclusion. However, it just makes no sense for me, professionally (at least for the foreseeable future)
Well, but see, trace, there's nothing at all logical about how joyful I would feel being able to say to you "Congratulations, you did it!". It's purely emotional.
Jul 15, 09 11:13 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.
what is the sqft maximum when you build a house without a licensed architect?
in California. i know some other states allow less than 4000 sf, less than 20ft in height, you can build a building without a registered architect's stamp. is california any differeint?
It's a little more complicated than that - the California Architectural Practice Act dictates what an unlicensed person may design, which includes wood framed homes of less than four units and two stories in height (this is off the top of my head so you best check it).
Despite this, individual jurisdictions in California have been known to require an Architects stamp even where State law wouldn't mandate it. The best way to find out for sure is to call your local building department.
Furthermore, sometimes they will also accept a structural engineer's stamp.
But make sure that you are wearing drafting shoes when you "make the blueprints."
The fact that you can build anything without the stamp of a licensed architect just goes to show you how useless the AIA is, and how your dues are pissed away! A contractor should not be allowed to hammer in a nail without the ok of an architect. Does the State allow anyone to due a tonsillectomy because it's a minor operation?
"Does the State allow anyone to do a tonsillectomy because it's a minor operation?"
I bet there will be someone at this point that will say something about how we always come back to the comparison between doctors and architects and how inappropriate it is. This is probably one of the cases that I think is justified. I don't think as a profession, we have protected our domain as well as others; and not just for the sake protecting it, but what we believe is better for the general good (public safety, culture, quality of built environment, etc).
The horse is waaay out of the barn on the topic of "single family homes." In America in particular there is a feeling that everyone has the right to build their own "castle." Stores like Home Depot don't help as they promote the whole idea of you can do it, we can help. And when it comes to someones private home, everyone thinks they are a design professional.
What gets me is that if the hippocratic oath of architects is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people, how are the people in 4+ unit housing any different than the people in a smaller housing unit? This is especially true in a state like CA where there is the risk of earthquake. A good design with experienced Architect oversight can literally mean the difference between life and death in a disaster.
Unfortunately mega-builder spec homes are cheap (design and construction) and what people can afford. Requiring a stamp and strict Architect involvement will cost money and add to the price of a home. Most people would balk at that and the AIA would have an impossible uphill battle to get anything near that enforced. Even if such legislation were passed it doesn't stop the whores in the business from stamping anything that crosses their desk for a small fee (bribe). It's just one of those things we as Architects need to accept.
So sgs23, you're a member of the AIA and are working to change it from within, right? Rather than just complaining about what "they" do/don't do?
I'm not a registered architect yet. But here is my question:
There are buildings that can be designed by non architects - small structures, houses below a certain size, etc.
But can't a non architect design a skyscraper or a museum or whatever if the final drawings are then stamped by a registered architect? Can"t I just call myself a designer and have a firm that designs buildings and then get a larger firm or engineer - Gensler, Arup etc. - do the construction documents and stamp the drawings?
aquapura - the difference in your example is that people in multi-fam housing are placing their trust entirely in others whereas the presumption of SFR is that the owner is living there, and they can choose to endanger themselves in their own home if they wish.
talkitect - anyone can 'design' anything. if you want it built though, you better know what you're doing. a license is the presumption of knowing what you're doing.
I was under the impression that california was all strict about who can design certain things...Didn't James Cutler get fined for designing a house in California without a california license?
It seems to me it should be one way or the other...ALL buildings should need to be designed and stamped by a registered architect or anyone should be able to design anything as long as a structural engineer will stamp it. Maybe this is a naive point of view.
cutler got fined because he used a contract that listed him as the 'architect'.
and yes your 'all or nothing' outlook is naive - there are some projects that require an architect and some that don't. it's not confusing and as mentioned above it is clearly stated in the architect's practice act.
note that single family residences do require framing plans and calcs stamped by an engineer so aqua's worry about 'literally ... life and death in a disaster' is a little over the top. architects rarely design the structural system to withstand lateral (earthquake) forces.
cutler was busted for executing an aia agreement without a CA license and thus holding himself out as an architect.
in effect, those simple wood-framed SFR projects are 'stamped' in the sense that the building code is entirely prescriptive for those structures. if you deviate from the prescriptions, the building official may indeed (and they often do) require an arch or engineer to review & stamp it.
stepped on your post FRaC, sorry.
A lot of the "mega-builder spec homes" are actually designed by licensed architects. Problem is that the architect just does the boilerplate design and doesn't have to stamp for each instance of its use.
Why does everyone think it comes down to a structural issue? Yes, the building has to stand and withstand some seismic and other natural events, but there are other issues. That is the problem with allowing a structural engineer sign off on drawings for habitable spaces. Fire protection, life safety, soundness of building envelope (leaks can lead to mold which of course can cause problems in health), etc, etc.
And of course this is assuming we're doing the absolute minimum to avoid some disaster such as collapse, fire, leaks, etc. It is also the architect's responsibility to use structures as a positive change to our built environment. We're not just providing usable square footage that fulfills minimum requirements for public safety.
i don't think it helps our cause much to be the go-to people for leak prevention and to remind people to make a one-hour wall between the garage and habitable space.
once again, i the realm of SFR, the code is prescriptive for wood framing and typical weather envelopes, as it is for the common mechanical and plumbing systems, as it is for fire & life safety.
if there's a gc, they're on the hook with their license, and there are inspectors who check the major issues.
my experience is that even owner-builders (not licensed gc's) will experience a helpful but thorough inspection of their work by code officials.
jeffe is right. i think architects are better off by putting a better value on their other offerings.
el jeffe and Orhan - Thats what I was getting to when I was saying that "it is also the architect's responsibility to use structures as a positive change to our built environment"
That doesn't mean we should write off all the other things like quality of building envelope, structural, as simply consultant's work that is added to our services. The Architect can have input on the seismic bracing - maybe it defines the exterior perimeter without being a solid wall or is integrated with the window wall (working on this as we speak). I don't like the idea that the engineers do their work and we simply "drape" our work over theirs. Isn't it integrated? Isn't that the point?
"I don't like the idea that the engineers do their work and we simply "drape" our work over theirs. Isn't it integrated? Isn't that the point?"
to
"A contractor should not be allowed to hammer in a nail without the ok of an architect."
Architectural practice is somewhere in there...
I guess my comments got away from single family homes... so some if not most of my comments do not apply to this thread. I just kind of snapped at that structural thing, because I hear that way too many times from structural engineers. Sometimes they think if a building stands, what else is there for the architect to do other than make it look good? Its not helped by the hands-off approach of architects. The same architects that are so afraid of stepping on the engineers' toes are the same ones sending them a new scheme a day before its due.
"I don't like the idea that the engineers do their work and we simply "drape" our work over theirs. Isn't it integrated? Isn't that the point?"
Actually, Slartibart -- I completely agree with this quote from you, and with your last post..
Architect's don't just drap, you also get to chose the colour!
Anyone can design anything, anywhere. Unless Ca changed things, you can do that there too. I designed (with a team) a 750,000 sq. ft. office complex right out of school.
Just as an answer to some question way up there...I'll skip this discussion on licensure and building homes.
In recent "boom" years I've been through several spec homes while under construction and I would argue the code is either NOT prescriptive enough and/or enforcement is lax, especially in fast growing suburbs with small staffed Building Departments.
SFR in my opinion is of very very poor quality in the mid to lower price points. I'm not completely on board with the idea it would be made better by requiring an architect's stamp, but the cheap materials mass production of homes during the boom was not top quality construction by any means.
unless built with STRATA SABS
have you used sabs anti?
07/13/09 0:58
A contractor should not be allowed to hammer in a nail without the ok of an architect.
It's BS like this that causes architects to be dismissed throughout the construction industry as arrogant pricks.
Trace...You full of it....you might have been a participate on the team but most likely the design was really controled by someone who was licensed. This is one of the things which pisses me off about people.....claiming things they just haven't done. Trace go take the fricking exam or go sell real estate and tell people your and architect..
Architects don't typically know how to hammer in a nail, or what type of hammer or nail to use. Or when or where something requires hammers and nails.
Actually, trace, I've said it many times and much more politely, but snook is right: you really, really should take the exam and be done with it!
sd - like I said, I was part of team. You can make conclusions as you wish, if that makes you feel better.
lb - sometimes I wish there was a logical reason for pursuing a license, just so our little 'discussion' could come to a pleasant conclusion. However, it just makes no sense for me, professionally (at least for the foreseeable future)
Well, but see, trace, there's nothing at all logical about how joyful I would feel being able to say to you "Congratulations, you did it!". It's purely emotional.
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.