I think that everybody realizes that: a) that single family residential projects do not require the services of an architect in many jurisdictions; b) there is a population of un-licensed designers providing drawings for these projects; and c) some of those people might be good designers, but just never followed thru on the steps required to become a professional.
If you fall into that population of un-licensed designers, you should be aware that architects in general have a low tolerance for reminders that houses generally don't need (by law) an architect. We understand that. We get that somebody needs to design projects that cannot financially sustain an architect's professional services, or where the particular client does not appreciate the different quality gradients of design services.
Keep your reminders and justifications to yourself. In the end, they just make you sound shrill, myopic, and second class. Be content with your lot in life. Pounding out 5 sheet drawing sets in a week after spending 6 months at Devry (or equivalent) is not really all that bad.
What is an un-licensed designer? Is there such a thing as a licensed designer?
5 page sets? New SFR?
What are you designing, 1000 sq. ft. ranches?
I don't know where you work or what code you are under, but basically just about anything over 2000 sq. ft. will at some point require a licensed dp (architect or engineer) to sign off on some portion of that plan.
What code are you usually working under for permit?
Are you far out in the boonies? Close to a large city? In a large city? I'd just like to know for reference.
The Architecture profession would benefit greatly if the AIA were to be as concerned about Architects being licensed in academia and professional practice as they are about "diversity" and "global warming".
I dare say that the profession wouldn't be facing 60-80% unemployment and facing an all but likely future of complete and utter irrelevance in the marketplace.
It is in the public's best interest to have every outhouse, barn, house, school, explosives factory, and airport signed off on by a Licensed Architect.
Unless we are too distracted by the glitter and glitz of the fad of such thing as the latest "Gehry porn" centerfold in Record, "diversity" and "green codes" to actually think about BUILDING any longer.
In that case, of course the public isn't going to give a damn what an architect signs off on or doesn't sign, or whether they are licensed or not for that matter. The Architect as starving artist/ interior decorator/ graphic designer/ software CAD jockey is completely a waste of time to the marketplace. The marketplace already has starving artists, interior decorators, graphic designers and CAD operators to do their bidding for the lowest price.
It is time for Licensed Architects to throw the AIA and its concept of the architect as "unlicensed designer", and social engineer overboard and defend the rightful, noble role of the Licensed Architect as Master Builder.
on the fence, it depends on where you are. i worked on an 8000sf house outside of jackson hole, wy and the building department their simply said they prefer a licensed architect. for the record, we had one.
i actually don't think it's in the general public's best interest to have every out house, barn, and house designed by a licensed architect. that would just be another annoying bit of red tape for both the owners and the architects themselves. there isn't any reason why joe schmoe the rancher shouldn't be able to just build a barn in his own backyard, or an addition to his house, and take responsibility for it. schools, explosives factories, and airports are something entirely different.
in my state the law allows anyone to design and submit documents for permit on any structure of any occupancy under 4000 s.f.
however per the IBC/IRC, it is at the building departments discretion.
like le bossman, i don't see a reason why your average homeowner should have to hire registered professionals to do a simple addition/remodeling to thier home, add a barn, etc.
In some ways I think the average devry graduate is more qualified for such projects than your average architecture school graduate.
I think Druf is bitter, and loking for a scapegoat. Perhaps if he spent as much time trying to understand his clients needs as say pondering the "quality gradients of design services", he may be in a better place.
Not only is the health safety and welfare of people in danger but when a home owner or average joe submits a set of drawings you can bet after copious amount of review time by plans examiners that the inspectors, if they are required to show up, will be holding a lot of hands during construction. You may as well just hire them outright instead of wasting their time.
Per ibc and irc, thare are many sections that require dp's. Once you use engineered lumber, trusses, steel, or point loads over headers the prescriptive path has been left.
In Illinois, only PE's or licensed plumbers are allowed to design plumbing systems. Of course, villages tend to accept architects designs as more of a guideline where the inspector knows in the field he will be talking to the plumber.
i don't know. i've worked with licensed and unlicensed designers, and with a lot of builders, and in my experience especially with wood frame construction, the instances that require someone who is deeply knowledgable of the code are more the exception than the rule. any good builder has enough experience and common sense to understand the code. an upfront meeting with the building department covering the work to be done is usually all that is needed to clear up any confusion. of course, the bigger the city you live in, the more layers of rules there are to break, and the requirements for professional oversight can be much more stringent. as an architect of course i would always recommend to someone i know that they should hire a good architect, more for aesthetic reasons than anything else. but to require by law a stamped set of drawings to add a master's suite to the ranch house seems like overkill to me. there will always have to be a licensed someone or other working on it. i just don't think that person always has to be an architect. just like when i'm designing an addition to my house, depending on the scope i probably wouldn't hire a licensed structural engineer, unless i lived in a municipality where it was required. especially for smaller projects, you don't always need a licensed professional from every discipline to safely complete every scope.
Ask Haiti how it works out for them to have "unlicensed designers" designing buildings and not having Licensed Professionals signing off on permits.
Oh wait...we can't ask them...they are all dead.
But that Presidential Palace sure looked sexy thanks to all those fancy interior designers and "qualified home builders" before it killed everybody inside.
Obiwan,
You are clearly an idiot. Le Bossman's post was the perfect response to this thread. Intelligent, to the point...I was satisfied.
Then we have your overgeneralisation and half-assed shock campaign muddling up a perfectly good discussion. Are photos of earthquake stricken areas really even relevant to this specific discussion on licensure and unlicensed designers.
Cant you just appreciate when some one makes a valid well thought out point and..then take a deep breathe..and resist the urge to post something that is an obvious ploy for people will pay attention to you. without any real thought on the matter.
I'm with bossman - the average homeowner shouldn't be required to use an architect to add to/renovate their home. For me it's part of the American dream, really - cliched as that may be - that you are king/queen of your own land.
Also: if anyone besides me was wondering what "dp" means - it's "design professional". Advice: don't google it at work.
Trolls and the internet go hand in hand, you might as well wish that it not rain. Hell, I'm usually considered a troll, so meh.
Honestly, I can't understand whether druf is for or against designers. I'm daft that way. If you want to look into the troubles that not having a licensing requirement gets you look no further than the yapping back & forth on threads regarding Interior Designers vs. Decorators here and elsewhere.
Anyway, the way to distinguish yourself as a good designer is to do good design. The way to distinguish yourself as an architect is to pass a series of exams and have a certain amount of practice under an existing architect under your belt. notice that those things aren't the same - there's not even any overlap.
Anyhow, if you don't want to raise the ire of architects for your designs, make sure your designs don't suck. That's pretty much all you need to do. Tadao Ando & all that jazz. Some of us will point out to the people with talent and we like that they should shut their pie-holes and just take the damn exams already, pain in the ass though they are. Some of us are nicer about it and more encouraging than others.
Being an Architect means that you take on a certain legal responsibility above and beyond any designer. There's the reason for those pesky exams. Not an architect, not the same level of responsibility. To most clients (and some designers and architects), this is a complete mystery and perhaps a good area for public education campaign by everyone's favorite much maligned advocacy organization (AIA, cough cough) to let people in on the difference. Certain jurisdictions have ruled that certain types of projects do not cross the threshold of requiring that level of responsibility - and hence, do not need a licensed professional. But the more likely what happens on one person's property affects their neighbor or the public, the greater chance that the need for a professional level of responsibility is required. That's what separates the grown-ups from the kids. You grow up when you have responsibility for your decisions, and that's not always true for kids or designers. I've met a lot of creative, brilliant kids - but they were still children. They did not have the same responsibilities as adults, nor should they.
Don't like the analogy, take the exams and put your entire reputation and all the effort that you've put into earning it in that little 1.5" circle and put it on a stack of paper that will be above someone's head and then tell me everything was the same before you got your stamp.
@ donna, there's this song for the longest time I swore said "some of the girls want dp." Even though it's not the lyrics, i will continue to think otherwise.
Also, the Haitian National Palace was designed by Georges Baussan who graduated from Ecole d'Architecture in Paris (also known as the French Academy). Considering he graduates from the leading school of architecture at the time and architectural licensing became an issue in the 1880s, he was more than likely licensed or at least sanctioned by the french government of being an architect of a competent level.
Lastly, the National Palace I believe is made out of cast in place concrete making it one of the most technically complex pieces of architecture of the time.
I'm basically ambivalent about people who don't hold an architect's license designing certain kinds of buildings. I think we all realize that bringing an architect on to design a tool shed or a banal home is a waste of time, education, and talent.
I'm just tired of the nany-nany-boo-boo attitude of those guys. Like they think they are getting over on someone by taking our leavings...
These people will be the same architects that I write copious amounts of review comments for their project. And then the same exact comments on their next project. And their next. They just feel they are there to pick out color swatches, space plan and determine the correct angle for the building in conjunctionwith the suns trajectory and lets not forget that they are now able to determine how many Leed points they will get by rusing some old quary tile located within 150 miles of the site.
I don't want to get you guys all crazed with talk of health safety and wellfare at this point in your careers, gents nor talk too much about code requirements.
lebossman says it best here. "and in my experience especially with wood frame construction, the instances that require someone who is deeply knowledgable of the code are more the exception than the rule"
Again, I wouldn't want the code to get in anybodys way in designing or building a SFR.
Really ObiWanKenobi ? Haiti compared to US? The factors that led to the thousands upon thousands dead is more a socioeconomic problem rather than licensed vs. non-licensed issue. Not a fair comparison and a bit tasteless if you ask me.
The basics in Haiti as hard to come by. Building shelter for the average citizen is profound struggle. I doubt the average Haitian citizen is concerned about having a properly permitted structure constructed when they are simply struggling to survive. No need to bandstand on the bodies of the dead. Not a well thought out comparison.
Well, considering that the United States pretty much played a major hand in destroying Haiti's economy and recommended the policies that completely stripped the land of any agricultural value... I would say that's a pretty big start to understanding Haiti's socioeconomic problem.
On top of that, many countries (not just the United States) proceeded to use Haiti as a personal landfill in the 1960s through the 1990s.
I'm not saying the people of Haiti are completely innocent... but it is not exactly easy to make a living in a country that was primarily dependent on agriculture and tourism when your land is completely worthless due to aggressive deforestation tactics combined with the Western Hemisphere treating it as a garbage dump.
Who wants to vacation in a place that doesn't have cocktail fruit and has garbage piled 60 feet high!??
Combine that with the fact that very few people in the Western world knew to what extent the place was an actual shithole. After the earthquake, I cannot believe how many people said "I had no idea it was really that bad in that country," or "I can't believe such levels of poverty existed in the new world."
Besides, you say they are simply struggling to survive yet, isn't it self-defeating to "struggle to survive" and not build buildings per 21st century scientific knowledge thereby stacking billions of tons of building materials in haphazard fashions only to risk the opposite of survival with one major seismic or wind event?
Is it not true that the death toll in Haiti of 250,000 might have been about a dozen or so if the this "struggle to survive" yo speak of had included 21st century codes and permits and licensed design professions involved in determining structural integrity for seismic and wind events?
So why exactly aren't other countries like Japan and the U.S. generally prepared for major quakes and third world countries are not?
Finally please explain exactly why is Haiti not a well thought out comparison if my point is that first world countries should vigorously maintain their licensing and permitting procedures when it is obvious from the sad experiences of third world countries that death and destruction inevitably results from the lack of such code, permits, and licensing procdures, and esp. non existent code/ licensing standards that are not even available to enforce in the first place?
THank you for attempting to answer my question. Interesting response.
"Combine that with the fact that very few people in the Western world knew to what extent the place was an actual shithole. After the earthquake, I cannot believe how many people said "I had no idea it was really that bad in that country," or "I can't believe such levels of poverty existed in the new world."
I've visited almost every major urban center in the U.S..
Things are getting nasty enough in many of these areas that the situations are comparable/ rival Haiti. I don't need to visit Haiti to know what it is like...I just have to get in the car and drive in either direction for an hour or two and there is even one place within 15 minutes that is downright fourth worth world.
If my children ever start to listen to rap music or start adopteing the ways of MTV and the thrid world, I am going to drive them to one of these ghettos and ask them if that is what they REALLY want in their future...
the point on the fence is not that i'm not interested in the code, or would rather pick out color swatches than maintain a sense of technical competance. it is simply that in the case of small, wood framed residential projects the assemblies, spans, connections, and space planning issues are pretty standard and for the most part all meet the code anyway, and these really are the types of projects that i'm talking about. it's pretty hard to create a dangerous structural situation when your working with doug fir unless you are winging the design of some deck that's supposed to hold a thousand people. code issues also seem to rarely be an issue with space planning as well, unless you are talking about the design of stairs. most of it is common sense, and often the minimum requirements of the code aren't enough for people to live comfortably anyway. no one wants to take a shit with only 15" of clearance on each side of the toilet. it's just common sense: sleeping areas have to have an escape, plastic foam has to be protected, no operable windows at floor level on the second floor, etc etc etc. if you are designing for a disabled person, obviously that is different. of course there are exceptions to every rule, but i find that the only people creative enough to create these exceptions are pretty much just the architects themselves anyway.
I haven't read that seciton in any code reference manual about common sense. Could you site the specific passage for me.
No, sfr's, do not meet minimum code (min. health safety welfare) levels, instead they are designed to meet those levels. As one code official said, "you are one code infraction away from non-compliance." And lets face it, if you "design or build to code", you've just built the most basically safe structure you could. Sad really.
Leave it up to the next guy to know how to build the safe building, instead of you or another to design one, seems to be your approach here. Based soley on what I have read so far from you, I doubt very much you understand how to design a safe building. It may be well laid out, the colors all go well together and is pleasing tothe eye, but doubtful that it is safe.
You said "it is simply that in the case of small, wood framed residential projects the assemblies, spans, connections, and space planning issues are pretty standard and for the most part all meet the code anyway," this leads me to think you believe the safety factor is inherent in the growth rings of the tree and not in the development of the design. Are those same factors the same for any type 4 or 5 building? Do I need to hire an architect for a type 5B structure used as a starbucks, 7/11, small office, medical building? Wouldn't the safety factor still be built in?
Remember this. Home Depot will sell you floor joists that are 2x6 by 18 feet long. Hopefully, because you didn't specify the correct 2x12's, the GC won't buy the cheaper 2x6's or 2x8's
Good luck, your clients and anyone who comes in contact with your built environment are going to need it.
crowbert,
" Anyway, the way to distinguish yourself as a good designer is to do good design. The way to distinguish yourself as an architect is to pass a series of exams and have a certain amount of practice under an existing architect under your belt. notice that those things aren't the same - there's not even any overlap. "
You are right on target with this statment. Anybody could be a good designer without having to go to school or take any exams. The exams we take to become licensed however are not there to test our ability to make a building appealing. We were tested on how well we were going to be able to protect the people who interact with our buildings. We pass a series of exams and the state says, yes he is at a level where we will will put some trust in him to not kill people. That is what the exams are for. Not, "does he know how to place the furniture in the conference room or even layout the conference room within a building nor should the building be built of stone, brick or stucco." Any designer can do that.
on the fence, I think bossman is saying that typical home builders/carpenters know how to build those little residential wood framed projects without threatening the life-safety of their homeowners and without the need of a design professional. The carpenters I work with certainly do.
And yeah - I once spec'd a too-narrow egress window in a sleeping room, and it was my framer who caught it.
"on the fence, I think bossman is saying that typical home builders/carpenters know how to build those little residential wood framed projects without threatening the life-safety of their homeowners and without the need of a design professional. The carpenters I work with certainly do."
The typical man with hammer has no idea why he does what he does. He reads the plans and builds it to plan. That of course would be the best case scenario. A lot, and it isn't like I do this for a living, but a lot of what I see on inspections are GC/carpenter changes in the field FROM approved plans, designed by an Architect, reviewed by the plans examiner. Yet for some reason, they change it, we inspect it, fail it, and have modifications submitted by the architect of record, rip out the GC changes and correct in the field.
Now, if you are of the opinion that we can trust all GC/carpenters based on your experience, God help us.
Do we need architects for sheds? Maybe.
Do we need an architect for decks? Probably could use one but not required. ANd yet I correct more on deck submittals that you can imagine.
Do we always need an architect? No. But usually when I tell people no, they provide me with some home depot submittal of a deck or shed that does not meet min. code/safety compliance. Then when I tell them what they need, they tell me the guy behind the counter said it meets code.
I've had contractors ask me why they need to do x, y or z and I give a detailed description of the situation. Then they say they've been doing it this way for ten or twenty years in many different villages/cities. To which I tell them, they have been doing it wrong for ten to twenty years in many different villages.
It is amazing what I get to see now on a daily basis. Maybe you personally have the greatest GC out there, but the rest of this country has average Joe/Jose/Pavel and they need direction.
"no operable windows at floor level on the second floor, etc etc etc"
Although this is a great piece of common sense, it is not what the code says nor allows.
We could be on the first floor and not allow an operable window located within the first 24" vert. if grade below is 72" or more below top of first floor level. Then again we could add protection of the opening and still allow it on the 1st or 2nd floor so as to not allow the passage of a 4" dia. sphere. We could be on the 2nd floor and the window opens out onto a deck or balcony, and allow that window operability.
So while I agree that as common sense it is great to not allow an operable window on the 2nd floor, that is not what the code says nor the reality of the situation.
Do you think the GC understands this or john the carpenter or bill the homeowner? Somehow I doubt most of them know your general rule and common sense approach to not put an operable window on the 2nd floor at floor level. Maybe they do. Honestly I have actually never had to correct this.
my impression is that most gcs and their subs have a general sense of the code, but unless the gc has a very good project engineer, they rarely take the time to look up the specifics of the code. this goes for all contractors from those working on highrises to those doing your basic home reno. if a dp is not required because of the building type, it just puts greater onus on the authority having jurisdiction to ensure that the project meets code. it's a responsibility they have undertaken in the writing of the code.
I hear you, on the fence, and I'm sure that has been your experience and is probably more common than mine. I've certainly run across many hammer swingers who didn't know what the hell they were doing, and many, many contractors who would change things from my drawings on their own whim. I guess I've been lucky the last few years to be working with really good, knowledgeable craftsmen, so I've forgotten what it's like in the code enforcement trenches.
As Jerry Seinfeld said "Have you been to the DMV (code office) lately? It's a leper colony out there!"
All that said: I still think there are certain sizes/complexities of built work, most home renovation included, that don't need a design professional's involvement. And as a corollary, I think if we architects start stamping our feet and demanding to be involved in every little project, it's going to hurt our reputation, not help it.
on the fence, you are splitting hairs. yes, i know there is a dimension set to that rule, just like there is to every rule. are you saying that it wouldn't be common sense to screw the bottom sash of a double hung window in place at the first floor of a building that was more than three feet of the ground? what is your point that the emperor has no clothes because there is a dimension set to that rule? as liberty bell says, builders catch mistakes in my drawings sometimes, so do engineers, and i catch their mistakes. you will never change my mind in this matter. i've worked on too many sfr's. besides, you and i both know that millions and millions of homes are standing in this country that haven't been designed by licensed architects. are you saying that we are facing some sort of impending doom, some kind of mass die-off in the future because of this? that one day, these things will all burn down with children falling out of windows that are too close to the floor or in rooms that don't have windows? regardless of the fact that there isn't a provision for common sense in the code, my common sense tells me that our current system works just fine. even though licensure for architects is supposed to protect the general health and safety of the public, it is exceptionally rare that deaths or injuries occur as the result of an unlicensed designer working on a building. in my mind, the purpose of licensure is only to make sure architects know what they are doing, not to imply to the public that architects are the only ones who know what they are doing. obviously, you and i are going to have to agree to disagree. personally as a residential architect i don't want to work on shacks or ranch house, i want to work for the three or four percent of people in this world who actually care about and want good design, and i can vouch for the fact that all of these people live in code-compliant homes.
I don't doubt that a non architect can design a home, safely. I am not really advocating that all homes be designed by architects. But there should be some level of aptitude out there for non architects (traditional avenue) to perform this function. I say provide a licensing program for these people. I base my opinion on what I see come into the office here. Sure you and your contractors know what they are doing. Doesn't mean the average designer does and to be honest, I have the proof of it.
Does a bath remodel require an architect? Most likely not. Does a first floor 200 sq. ft. addition require an architect? Most likely not. But it could.
Did I just tell an architect, that the sunroom he designed with cathedral ceilings, about 16 feet by 16 feet, requires that the single 2x12 ridge board supplied on the drawing be designed as a beam? Yes I did. Did he then call me and ask what I was thinking? Yes sure did and he wasn't happy. Did he then inform me that he'd been doing single 2x12 ridge boards for these cathedral spaces for 20 years? He certainly did. Does he agree with me? Nope. Did I point him to the exact location in the code for reference? You bet. Did he call me back afterwards to complain? No, he resubmitted a ridge beam using (2) 1.75x11.25 ML beam with bearing at both ends. (which with most codes probably REQUIRES a licensed design professional.) Did any of his other cathedral structures fail? I have no idea and I hope they did not. Was this common sense? I can't find common sense in the codes, just compliance, and it is to the codes that we build, not common sense.
What is common sense or common knowledge to you may differ from that of other people. Hopefully with a license we get people UP to a certain min. level to protect people.
So we aren't really splitting hairs here. We just disagree to what level we both want to be at while living in our built environment as well as our expectancy level with our fellow man.
what is your job again, OTF? Are you a building inspector?
I imagine there are a lot of situations like the one you described that come up a lot when people try to redo their homes, and they dont necessarily realize everything involved
"I can't find common sense in the codes, just compliance, and it is to the codes that we build, not common sense."
And this a problem. I have a collection of 19th century Carpentry journals, published for the skilled carpenter - beautiful leather bound publications from new england made for mail order accross the country. They are part pattern book, part style guide and mostly engineering guide based on proportions of framing members - including meticulously detailed 3-d axons with all members labeled and then a set of proportional algebraic statements underneath like a=2b+c where c is 3x floor depth ( made that up but these books are loaded with formula) It is incredible the amount of engineering knowledge found in these books, everything from how to engineer and build a steeple to wood trusses with monitor windows and iron rods to counter the deflection of the tension member bottom chords.
I guess in short what Im saying is the more we " to the code we build" the dumber we become as individuals.
The load bearing ridge beam is more about poor carpentry skills than actual engineering necessity, and in case the roof planes fail then the ridge will take over. If you dont believe me, go in your attic with a skill saw and cut your ridge beam - you wont feel the slightest bit of compression on the saw blade - because its not taking the load. I see 100 year old gables with ridge beam all the time and the rafter cuts are perfectly fit and then I see rafters with 1/4" gaps at the ridge beam nowdays. Just saying, a certain art of craft has been lost in our modern world replaced by reliance on mass comodification of hangers, codes and framing techniques.
And yes soon you will need to be licensed to be a babysitter or dogwalker. Im surprised the City of Chicago hasnt already done this to be honest.
If you go into your attic and cut the ridge board you are correct. You should not feel any compression on the saw blade. The two ends of the roof rafters are pressing against the ridge board in opposite directions and the roof loads are then being transferred out to the connection at the ceiling joists, top plate and rafter ends where they all connect. Hopefull, if done correctly, the roof will not cave in. Not so with cathedral ceilings. Please do not cut the ridge beam. The beam makes the two opposite roof planes act independantly of each other removing horizontal thrust at the exterior walls.
You are correct. The more to code we build the dumber we become. The code is a minimum. Architects should not be building to minimums.
marmkid, I am a licensed architect and a plans examiner. How about you?
I'm really not trying to turn this into a code minimum issue.
But if I can't get plans submitted by licensed architects with 4-8 years of education, 2-10 years of internship and several more years of licensed experience, to code minimums or minimal safety levels, what are my chances that unlicensed designers will?
From what I see these days, jmho and observation, designers want to be architects while architects like the title but want to be designers.
i understand what you are saying, but perhaps my aversion is that i tend to work in areas that have never adopted any code. i have occasionally worked on designs which included elements that violated the irc, but were still very well thought out, and don't carry any real liability for us or put the users in any potentially unsafe situations, and the owners were made aware of what the elements were and why they were there, and occasionally requested them to be there. to a point, you have to use your thoughtfulness as an architect to consider the way people use things, the way the materials work, etc. yes, i agree with most of your last statement and that the code is just a minimum. for the record, i work for a licensed architect and am working on obtaining my own license.
2step: that craft has been lost in building construction is an interesting observation. in renovating old homes i've often noticed that, for example, the rafters are all undersized. around my office there's a saying that, "they don't build them like they used to, which is great because they had no idea what they were doing." i wonder though if the fact that the quality of construction was to such a better level that it made up for the fact.
Look, all the code reviewers around the country got rounded up and given a free lunch at the Ramada down by the interstate, sponsored by Simpson and now every dam city in the country requires Rafter strap anchors - as if the dam roof is going to blow off in anything other than a tornado or severe microburst. It happens, but you know I go into attics all the time where the rafters are 2x4 and 2 nails into the top plate criss crossing each other, in Illinois where we get plenty of strong thunderstorms / twisters / wind storms, 100 years old - haven't blown off yet.
I think the problem may be more to do with sloppy nailing with the nail gun and coated nails than improper uplift design. Or Simpson is really good at muscling into the code books.
i am a licensed design professional in nys. i, not unlike many of my peers, went through the process years ago. i passed the exam to test my minimum knowledge of the profession. the codes we work hard to comply with: are a minimum standard to build to. i find its up to the client, budget, and program to lead me to a place of excellence (better than code). in nys a residence under 1500 s.f does not require the design professionals seal and signature. however, a local municipalities code or regulation can be more strict and require all projects be signed off by a licensed design professional.
let's face it, anyone may design whatever their hearts desire. and i am sure that architects don't have all the answers to a clients needs. and i am sure there are designers that can be "better" designers than architects. but, depending upon the municipality, clients need to follow the standards, rules and regulations set for that municipality/state.
so, that being said, i recently had an experience on a commercial project with un-licensed designers - on track to passing the ARE. the person i worked with was two or three parts from passing the test. In their reality they are working as interior designers (not licensed) "on track" to being architects. however, the situation became unacceptable when the client refused to recognize the difference between my service and the designers service. what made the matter worse - with the clients blessing - the young design firm (person) was eager to proceed with performing work that clearly overlapped my work. it is my fault for letting this situation get to an unacceptable position in the first place, however, the building department understands the position that i am in and has stopped the work at my request so the differences in the submitted documents for which the permit to build was issued under and what has been built can be re-submitted.
please don't fall into the same trap that i did. be very aware of what a client tries to pull off in their selection of outside consultants to perform work that ultimately - you the licensed design professional - are responsible for. make sure all parties know their boundaries honestly and in a businesslike manner.
Un-liscensed designers
I think that everybody realizes that: a) that single family residential projects do not require the services of an architect in many jurisdictions; b) there is a population of un-licensed designers providing drawings for these projects; and c) some of those people might be good designers, but just never followed thru on the steps required to become a professional.
If you fall into that population of un-licensed designers, you should be aware that architects in general have a low tolerance for reminders that houses generally don't need (by law) an architect. We understand that. We get that somebody needs to design projects that cannot financially sustain an architect's professional services, or where the particular client does not appreciate the different quality gradients of design services.
Keep your reminders and justifications to yourself. In the end, they just make you sound shrill, myopic, and second class. Be content with your lot in life. Pounding out 5 sheet drawing sets in a week after spending 6 months at Devry (or equivalent) is not really all that bad.
Are you content with your "lot in life"? You sound bitter.
What is an un-licensed designer? Is there such a thing as a licensed designer?
5 page sets? New SFR?
What are you designing, 1000 sq. ft. ranches?
I don't know where you work or what code you are under, but basically just about anything over 2000 sq. ft. will at some point require a licensed dp (architect or engineer) to sign off on some portion of that plan.
What code are you usually working under for permit?
Are you far out in the boonies? Close to a large city? In a large city? I'd just like to know for reference.
The Architecture profession would benefit greatly if the AIA were to be as concerned about Architects being licensed in academia and professional practice as they are about "diversity" and "global warming".
I dare say that the profession wouldn't be facing 60-80% unemployment and facing an all but likely future of complete and utter irrelevance in the marketplace.
It is in the public's best interest to have every outhouse, barn, house, school, explosives factory, and airport signed off on by a Licensed Architect.
Unless we are too distracted by the glitter and glitz of the fad of such thing as the latest "Gehry porn" centerfold in Record, "diversity" and "green codes" to actually think about BUILDING any longer.
In that case, of course the public isn't going to give a damn what an architect signs off on or doesn't sign, or whether they are licensed or not for that matter. The Architect as starving artist/ interior decorator/ graphic designer/ software CAD jockey is completely a waste of time to the marketplace. The marketplace already has starving artists, interior decorators, graphic designers and CAD operators to do their bidding for the lowest price.
It is time for Licensed Architects to throw the AIA and its concept of the architect as "unlicensed designer", and social engineer overboard and defend the rightful, noble role of the Licensed Architect as Master Builder.
deja vu
on the fence, it depends on where you are. i worked on an 8000sf house outside of jackson hole, wy and the building department their simply said they prefer a licensed architect. for the record, we had one.
i actually don't think it's in the general public's best interest to have every out house, barn, and house designed by a licensed architect. that would just be another annoying bit of red tape for both the owners and the architects themselves. there isn't any reason why joe schmoe the rancher shouldn't be able to just build a barn in his own backyard, or an addition to his house, and take responsibility for it. schools, explosives factories, and airports are something entirely different.
in my state the law allows anyone to design and submit documents for permit on any structure of any occupancy under 4000 s.f.
however per the IBC/IRC, it is at the building departments discretion.
like le bossman, i don't see a reason why your average homeowner should have to hire registered professionals to do a simple addition/remodeling to thier home, add a barn, etc.
In some ways I think the average devry graduate is more qualified for such projects than your average architecture school graduate.
I think Druf is bitter, and loking for a scapegoat. Perhaps if he spent as much time trying to understand his clients needs as say pondering the "quality gradients of design services", he may be in a better place.
The reasons are simple.
Not only is the health safety and welfare of people in danger but when a home owner or average joe submits a set of drawings you can bet after copious amount of review time by plans examiners that the inspectors, if they are required to show up, will be holding a lot of hands during construction. You may as well just hire them outright instead of wasting their time.
Per ibc and irc, thare are many sections that require dp's. Once you use engineered lumber, trusses, steel, or point loads over headers the prescriptive path has been left.
In Illinois, only PE's or licensed plumbers are allowed to design plumbing systems. Of course, villages tend to accept architects designs as more of a guideline where the inspector knows in the field he will be talking to the plumber.
i don't know. i've worked with licensed and unlicensed designers, and with a lot of builders, and in my experience especially with wood frame construction, the instances that require someone who is deeply knowledgable of the code are more the exception than the rule. any good builder has enough experience and common sense to understand the code. an upfront meeting with the building department covering the work to be done is usually all that is needed to clear up any confusion. of course, the bigger the city you live in, the more layers of rules there are to break, and the requirements for professional oversight can be much more stringent. as an architect of course i would always recommend to someone i know that they should hire a good architect, more for aesthetic reasons than anything else. but to require by law a stamped set of drawings to add a master's suite to the ranch house seems like overkill to me. there will always have to be a licensed someone or other working on it. i just don't think that person always has to be an architect. just like when i'm designing an addition to my house, depending on the scope i probably wouldn't hire a licensed structural engineer, unless i lived in a municipality where it was required. especially for smaller projects, you don't always need a licensed professional from every discipline to safely complete every scope.
Ask Haiti how it works out for them to have "unlicensed designers" designing buildings and not having Licensed Professionals signing off on permits.
Oh wait...we can't ask them...they are all dead.
But that Presidential Palace sure looked sexy thanks to all those fancy interior designers and "qualified home builders" before it killed everybody inside.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8455774.stm
Here are some of the scores Haitian "residences" that didn't require a Licensed Design Professional or a building permit:
Obiwan,
You are clearly an idiot. Le Bossman's post was the perfect response to this thread. Intelligent, to the point...I was satisfied.
Then we have your overgeneralisation and half-assed shock campaign muddling up a perfectly good discussion. Are photos of earthquake stricken areas really even relevant to this specific discussion on licensure and unlicensed designers.
Cant you just appreciate when some one makes a valid well thought out point and..then take a deep breathe..and resist the urge to post something that is an obvious ploy for people will pay attention to you. without any real thought on the matter.
(Fucking trolls messing up the forum again.)
I'm with bossman - the average homeowner shouldn't be required to use an architect to add to/renovate their home. For me it's part of the American dream, really - cliched as that may be - that you are king/queen of your own land.
Also: if anyone besides me was wondering what "dp" means - it's "design professional". Advice: don't google it at work.
Trolls and the internet go hand in hand, you might as well wish that it not rain. Hell, I'm usually considered a troll, so meh.
Honestly, I can't understand whether druf is for or against designers. I'm daft that way. If you want to look into the troubles that not having a licensing requirement gets you look no further than the yapping back & forth on threads regarding Interior Designers vs. Decorators here and elsewhere.
Anyway, the way to distinguish yourself as a good designer is to do good design. The way to distinguish yourself as an architect is to pass a series of exams and have a certain amount of practice under an existing architect under your belt. notice that those things aren't the same - there's not even any overlap.
Anyhow, if you don't want to raise the ire of architects for your designs, make sure your designs don't suck. That's pretty much all you need to do. Tadao Ando & all that jazz. Some of us will point out to the people with talent and we like that they should shut their pie-holes and just take the damn exams already, pain in the ass though they are. Some of us are nicer about it and more encouraging than others.
Being an Architect means that you take on a certain legal responsibility above and beyond any designer. There's the reason for those pesky exams. Not an architect, not the same level of responsibility. To most clients (and some designers and architects), this is a complete mystery and perhaps a good area for public education campaign by everyone's favorite much maligned advocacy organization (AIA, cough cough) to let people in on the difference. Certain jurisdictions have ruled that certain types of projects do not cross the threshold of requiring that level of responsibility - and hence, do not need a licensed professional. But the more likely what happens on one person's property affects their neighbor or the public, the greater chance that the need for a professional level of responsibility is required. That's what separates the grown-ups from the kids. You grow up when you have responsibility for your decisions, and that's not always true for kids or designers. I've met a lot of creative, brilliant kids - but they were still children. They did not have the same responsibilities as adults, nor should they.
Don't like the analogy, take the exams and put your entire reputation and all the effort that you've put into earning it in that little 1.5" circle and put it on a stack of paper that will be above someone's head and then tell me everything was the same before you got your stamp.
@ donna, there's this song for the longest time I swore said "some of the girls want dp." Even though it's not the lyrics, i will continue to think otherwise.
Also, the Haitian National Palace was designed by Georges Baussan who graduated from Ecole d'Architecture in Paris (also known as the French Academy). Considering he graduates from the leading school of architecture at the time and architectural licensing became an issue in the 1880s, he was more than likely licensed or at least sanctioned by the french government of being an architect of a competent level.
Lastly, the National Palace I believe is made out of cast in place concrete making it one of the most technically complex pieces of architecture of the time.
I'm basically ambivalent about people who don't hold an architect's license designing certain kinds of buildings. I think we all realize that bringing an architect on to design a tool shed or a banal home is a waste of time, education, and talent.
I'm just tired of the nany-nany-boo-boo attitude of those guys. Like they think they are getting over on someone by taking our leavings...
These people will be the same architects that I write copious amounts of review comments for their project. And then the same exact comments on their next project. And their next. They just feel they are there to pick out color swatches, space plan and determine the correct angle for the building in conjunctionwith the suns trajectory and lets not forget that they are now able to determine how many Leed points they will get by rusing some old quary tile located within 150 miles of the site.
I don't want to get you guys all crazed with talk of health safety and wellfare at this point in your careers, gents nor talk too much about code requirements.
lebossman says it best here. "and in my experience especially with wood frame construction, the instances that require someone who is deeply knowledgable of the code are more the exception than the rule"
Again, I wouldn't want the code to get in anybodys way in designing or building a SFR.
Really ObiWanKenobi ? Haiti compared to US? The factors that led to the thousands upon thousands dead is more a socioeconomic problem rather than licensed vs. non-licensed issue. Not a fair comparison and a bit tasteless if you ask me.
so why the socioeconomic problem?
The basics in Haiti as hard to come by. Building shelter for the average citizen is profound struggle. I doubt the average Haitian citizen is concerned about having a properly permitted structure constructed when they are simply struggling to survive. No need to bandstand on the bodies of the dead. Not a well thought out comparison.
Well, considering that the United States pretty much played a major hand in destroying Haiti's economy and recommended the policies that completely stripped the land of any agricultural value... I would say that's a pretty big start to understanding Haiti's socioeconomic problem.
On top of that, many countries (not just the United States) proceeded to use Haiti as a personal landfill in the 1960s through the 1990s.
I'm not saying the people of Haiti are completely innocent... but it is not exactly easy to make a living in a country that was primarily dependent on agriculture and tourism when your land is completely worthless due to aggressive deforestation tactics combined with the Western Hemisphere treating it as a garbage dump.
Who wants to vacation in a place that doesn't have cocktail fruit and has garbage piled 60 feet high!??
Combine that with the fact that very few people in the Western world knew to what extent the place was an actual shithole. After the earthquake, I cannot believe how many people said "I had no idea it was really that bad in that country," or "I can't believe such levels of poverty existed in the new world."
Why are they "struggling to survive"?
Besides, you say they are simply struggling to survive yet, isn't it self-defeating to "struggle to survive" and not build buildings per 21st century scientific knowledge thereby stacking billions of tons of building materials in haphazard fashions only to risk the opposite of survival with one major seismic or wind event?
Is it not true that the death toll in Haiti of 250,000 might have been about a dozen or so if the this "struggle to survive" yo speak of had included 21st century codes and permits and licensed design professions involved in determining structural integrity for seismic and wind events?
So why exactly aren't other countries like Japan and the U.S. generally prepared for major quakes and third world countries are not?
Finally please explain exactly why is Haiti not a well thought out comparison if my point is that first world countries should vigorously maintain their licensing and permitting procedures when it is obvious from the sad experiences of third world countries that death and destruction inevitably results from the lack of such code, permits, and licensing procdures, and esp. non existent code/ licensing standards that are not even available to enforce in the first place?
my last post is directed, but not exlusively, to urbanlandscape
THank you for attempting to answer my question. Interesting response.
"Combine that with the fact that very few people in the Western world knew to what extent the place was an actual shithole. After the earthquake, I cannot believe how many people said "I had no idea it was really that bad in that country," or "I can't believe such levels of poverty existed in the new world."
I've visited almost every major urban center in the U.S..
Things are getting nasty enough in many of these areas that the situations are comparable/ rival Haiti. I don't need to visit Haiti to know what it is like...I just have to get in the car and drive in either direction for an hour or two and there is even one place within 15 minutes that is downright fourth worth world.
If my children ever start to listen to rap music or start adopteing the ways of MTV and the thrid world, I am going to drive them to one of these ghettos and ask them if that is what they REALLY want in their future...
obiwan...your ignorance is so astounding that I'm completely speechless in an effort to respond.
the point on the fence is not that i'm not interested in the code, or would rather pick out color swatches than maintain a sense of technical competance. it is simply that in the case of small, wood framed residential projects the assemblies, spans, connections, and space planning issues are pretty standard and for the most part all meet the code anyway, and these really are the types of projects that i'm talking about. it's pretty hard to create a dangerous structural situation when your working with doug fir unless you are winging the design of some deck that's supposed to hold a thousand people. code issues also seem to rarely be an issue with space planning as well, unless you are talking about the design of stairs. most of it is common sense, and often the minimum requirements of the code aren't enough for people to live comfortably anyway. no one wants to take a shit with only 15" of clearance on each side of the toilet. it's just common sense: sleeping areas have to have an escape, plastic foam has to be protected, no operable windows at floor level on the second floor, etc etc etc. if you are designing for a disabled person, obviously that is different. of course there are exceptions to every rule, but i find that the only people creative enough to create these exceptions are pretty much just the architects themselves anyway.
bossman, you clearly have never watched an episode of "holmes on homes." ;)
I haven't read that seciton in any code reference manual about common sense. Could you site the specific passage for me.
No, sfr's, do not meet minimum code (min. health safety welfare) levels, instead they are designed to meet those levels. As one code official said, "you are one code infraction away from non-compliance." And lets face it, if you "design or build to code", you've just built the most basically safe structure you could. Sad really.
Leave it up to the next guy to know how to build the safe building, instead of you or another to design one, seems to be your approach here. Based soley on what I have read so far from you, I doubt very much you understand how to design a safe building. It may be well laid out, the colors all go well together and is pleasing tothe eye, but doubtful that it is safe.
You said "it is simply that in the case of small, wood framed residential projects the assemblies, spans, connections, and space planning issues are pretty standard and for the most part all meet the code anyway," this leads me to think you believe the safety factor is inherent in the growth rings of the tree and not in the development of the design. Are those same factors the same for any type 4 or 5 building? Do I need to hire an architect for a type 5B structure used as a starbucks, 7/11, small office, medical building? Wouldn't the safety factor still be built in?
Remember this. Home Depot will sell you floor joists that are 2x6 by 18 feet long. Hopefully, because you didn't specify the correct 2x12's, the GC won't buy the cheaper 2x6's or 2x8's
Good luck, your clients and anyone who comes in contact with your built environment are going to need it.
crowbert,
" Anyway, the way to distinguish yourself as a good designer is to do good design. The way to distinguish yourself as an architect is to pass a series of exams and have a certain amount of practice under an existing architect under your belt. notice that those things aren't the same - there's not even any overlap. "
You are right on target with this statment. Anybody could be a good designer without having to go to school or take any exams. The exams we take to become licensed however are not there to test our ability to make a building appealing. We were tested on how well we were going to be able to protect the people who interact with our buildings. We pass a series of exams and the state says, yes he is at a level where we will will put some trust in him to not kill people. That is what the exams are for. Not, "does he know how to place the furniture in the conference room or even layout the conference room within a building nor should the building be built of stone, brick or stucco." Any designer can do that.
on the fence, I think bossman is saying that typical home builders/carpenters know how to build those little residential wood framed projects without threatening the life-safety of their homeowners and without the need of a design professional. The carpenters I work with certainly do.
And yeah - I once spec'd a too-narrow egress window in a sleeping room, and it was my framer who caught it.
Donna Smith are you licensed?
If so, you shouldn't be. That "little residence" where you spec'd an egress window that was too small could have killed someone.
That is no small mistake.
"on the fence, I think bossman is saying that typical home builders/carpenters know how to build those little residential wood framed projects without threatening the life-safety of their homeowners and without the need of a design professional. The carpenters I work with certainly do."
The typical man with hammer has no idea why he does what he does. He reads the plans and builds it to plan. That of course would be the best case scenario. A lot, and it isn't like I do this for a living, but a lot of what I see on inspections are GC/carpenter changes in the field FROM approved plans, designed by an Architect, reviewed by the plans examiner. Yet for some reason, they change it, we inspect it, fail it, and have modifications submitted by the architect of record, rip out the GC changes and correct in the field.
Now, if you are of the opinion that we can trust all GC/carpenters based on your experience, God help us.
Do we need architects for sheds? Maybe.
Do we need an architect for decks? Probably could use one but not required. ANd yet I correct more on deck submittals that you can imagine.
Do we always need an architect? No. But usually when I tell people no, they provide me with some home depot submittal of a deck or shed that does not meet min. code/safety compliance. Then when I tell them what they need, they tell me the guy behind the counter said it meets code.
I've had contractors ask me why they need to do x, y or z and I give a detailed description of the situation. Then they say they've been doing it this way for ten or twenty years in many different villages/cities. To which I tell them, they have been doing it wrong for ten to twenty years in many different villages.
It is amazing what I get to see now on a daily basis. Maybe you personally have the greatest GC out there, but the rest of this country has average Joe/Jose/Pavel and they need direction.
I thought aquillathenun got bounced off this board.
bossman,
"no operable windows at floor level on the second floor, etc etc etc"
Although this is a great piece of common sense, it is not what the code says nor allows.
We could be on the first floor and not allow an operable window located within the first 24" vert. if grade below is 72" or more below top of first floor level. Then again we could add protection of the opening and still allow it on the 1st or 2nd floor so as to not allow the passage of a 4" dia. sphere. We could be on the 2nd floor and the window opens out onto a deck or balcony, and allow that window operability.
So while I agree that as common sense it is great to not allow an operable window on the 2nd floor, that is not what the code says nor the reality of the situation.
Do you think the GC understands this or john the carpenter or bill the homeowner? Somehow I doubt most of them know your general rule and common sense approach to not put an operable window on the 2nd floor at floor level. Maybe they do. Honestly I have actually never had to correct this.
my impression is that most gcs and their subs have a general sense of the code, but unless the gc has a very good project engineer, they rarely take the time to look up the specifics of the code. this goes for all contractors from those working on highrises to those doing your basic home reno. if a dp is not required because of the building type, it just puts greater onus on the authority having jurisdiction to ensure that the project meets code. it's a responsibility they have undertaken in the writing of the code.
I know I always have an existential crisis whenever I pick up a hammer.
I hear you, on the fence, and I'm sure that has been your experience and is probably more common than mine. I've certainly run across many hammer swingers who didn't know what the hell they were doing, and many, many contractors who would change things from my drawings on their own whim. I guess I've been lucky the last few years to be working with really good, knowledgeable craftsmen, so I've forgotten what it's like in the code enforcement trenches.
As Jerry Seinfeld said "Have you been to the DMV (code office) lately? It's a leper colony out there!"
All that said: I still think there are certain sizes/complexities of built work, most home renovation included, that don't need a design professional's involvement. And as a corollary, I think if we architects start stamping our feet and demanding to be involved in every little project, it's going to hurt our reputation, not help it.
on the fence, you are splitting hairs. yes, i know there is a dimension set to that rule, just like there is to every rule. are you saying that it wouldn't be common sense to screw the bottom sash of a double hung window in place at the first floor of a building that was more than three feet of the ground? what is your point that the emperor has no clothes because there is a dimension set to that rule? as liberty bell says, builders catch mistakes in my drawings sometimes, so do engineers, and i catch their mistakes. you will never change my mind in this matter. i've worked on too many sfr's. besides, you and i both know that millions and millions of homes are standing in this country that haven't been designed by licensed architects. are you saying that we are facing some sort of impending doom, some kind of mass die-off in the future because of this? that one day, these things will all burn down with children falling out of windows that are too close to the floor or in rooms that don't have windows? regardless of the fact that there isn't a provision for common sense in the code, my common sense tells me that our current system works just fine. even though licensure for architects is supposed to protect the general health and safety of the public, it is exceptionally rare that deaths or injuries occur as the result of an unlicensed designer working on a building. in my mind, the purpose of licensure is only to make sure architects know what they are doing, not to imply to the public that architects are the only ones who know what they are doing. obviously, you and i are going to have to agree to disagree. personally as a residential architect i don't want to work on shacks or ranch house, i want to work for the three or four percent of people in this world who actually care about and want good design, and i can vouch for the fact that all of these people live in code-compliant homes.
I don't doubt that a non architect can design a home, safely. I am not really advocating that all homes be designed by architects. But there should be some level of aptitude out there for non architects (traditional avenue) to perform this function. I say provide a licensing program for these people. I base my opinion on what I see come into the office here. Sure you and your contractors know what they are doing. Doesn't mean the average designer does and to be honest, I have the proof of it.
Does a bath remodel require an architect? Most likely not. Does a first floor 200 sq. ft. addition require an architect? Most likely not. But it could.
Did I just tell an architect, that the sunroom he designed with cathedral ceilings, about 16 feet by 16 feet, requires that the single 2x12 ridge board supplied on the drawing be designed as a beam? Yes I did. Did he then call me and ask what I was thinking? Yes sure did and he wasn't happy. Did he then inform me that he'd been doing single 2x12 ridge boards for these cathedral spaces for 20 years? He certainly did. Does he agree with me? Nope. Did I point him to the exact location in the code for reference? You bet. Did he call me back afterwards to complain? No, he resubmitted a ridge beam using (2) 1.75x11.25 ML beam with bearing at both ends. (which with most codes probably REQUIRES a licensed design professional.) Did any of his other cathedral structures fail? I have no idea and I hope they did not. Was this common sense? I can't find common sense in the codes, just compliance, and it is to the codes that we build, not common sense.
What is common sense or common knowledge to you may differ from that of other people. Hopefully with a license we get people UP to a certain min. level to protect people.
So we aren't really splitting hairs here. We just disagree to what level we both want to be at while living in our built environment as well as our expectancy level with our fellow man.
excellent response
I'm not sure who we got on this topic from the original post. Are unlicensed designers making a lot of "noise?"
Do we really need to license everything? Pretty soon we'll be licensing baby sitters, dog walkers, and cleaning ladies.
what is your job again, OTF? Are you a building inspector?
I imagine there are a lot of situations like the one you described that come up a lot when people try to redo their homes, and they dont necessarily realize everything involved
I dont want to get sucked into this but alas....
"I can't find common sense in the codes, just compliance, and it is to the codes that we build, not common sense."
And this a problem. I have a collection of 19th century Carpentry journals, published for the skilled carpenter - beautiful leather bound publications from new england made for mail order accross the country. They are part pattern book, part style guide and mostly engineering guide based on proportions of framing members - including meticulously detailed 3-d axons with all members labeled and then a set of proportional algebraic statements underneath like a=2b+c where c is 3x floor depth ( made that up but these books are loaded with formula) It is incredible the amount of engineering knowledge found in these books, everything from how to engineer and build a steeple to wood trusses with monitor windows and iron rods to counter the deflection of the tension member bottom chords.
I guess in short what Im saying is the more we " to the code we build" the dumber we become as individuals.
The load bearing ridge beam is more about poor carpentry skills than actual engineering necessity, and in case the roof planes fail then the ridge will take over. If you dont believe me, go in your attic with a skill saw and cut your ridge beam - you wont feel the slightest bit of compression on the saw blade - because its not taking the load. I see 100 year old gables with ridge beam all the time and the rafter cuts are perfectly fit and then I see rafters with 1/4" gaps at the ridge beam nowdays. Just saying, a certain art of craft has been lost in our modern world replaced by reliance on mass comodification of hangers, codes and framing techniques.
And yes soon you will need to be licensed to be a babysitter or dogwalker. Im surprised the City of Chicago hasnt already done this to be honest.
2step,
If you go into your attic and cut the ridge board you are correct. You should not feel any compression on the saw blade. The two ends of the roof rafters are pressing against the ridge board in opposite directions and the roof loads are then being transferred out to the connection at the ceiling joists, top plate and rafter ends where they all connect. Hopefull, if done correctly, the roof will not cave in. Not so with cathedral ceilings. Please do not cut the ridge beam. The beam makes the two opposite roof planes act independantly of each other removing horizontal thrust at the exterior walls.
You are correct. The more to code we build the dumber we become. The code is a minimum. Architects should not be building to minimums.
marmkid, I am a licensed architect and a plans examiner. How about you?
oh right, plans examiner. I knew it was something like that, but i couldnt remember what exactly
i am an un-licensed architect, half way through my exams
I'm really not trying to turn this into a code minimum issue.
But if I can't get plans submitted by licensed architects with 4-8 years of education, 2-10 years of internship and several more years of licensed experience, to code minimums or minimal safety levels, what are my chances that unlicensed designers will?
From what I see these days, jmho and observation, designers want to be architects while architects like the title but want to be designers.
i understand what you are saying, but perhaps my aversion is that i tend to work in areas that have never adopted any code. i have occasionally worked on designs which included elements that violated the irc, but were still very well thought out, and don't carry any real liability for us or put the users in any potentially unsafe situations, and the owners were made aware of what the elements were and why they were there, and occasionally requested them to be there. to a point, you have to use your thoughtfulness as an architect to consider the way people use things, the way the materials work, etc. yes, i agree with most of your last statement and that the code is just a minimum. for the record, i work for a licensed architect and am working on obtaining my own license.
2step: that craft has been lost in building construction is an interesting observation. in renovating old homes i've often noticed that, for example, the rafters are all undersized. around my office there's a saying that, "they don't build them like they used to, which is great because they had no idea what they were doing." i wonder though if the fact that the quality of construction was to such a better level that it made up for the fact.
Look, all the code reviewers around the country got rounded up and given a free lunch at the Ramada down by the interstate, sponsored by Simpson and now every dam city in the country requires Rafter strap anchors - as if the dam roof is going to blow off in anything other than a tornado or severe microburst. It happens, but you know I go into attics all the time where the rafters are 2x4 and 2 nails into the top plate criss crossing each other, in Illinois where we get plenty of strong thunderstorms / twisters / wind storms, 100 years old - haven't blown off yet.
I think the problem may be more to do with sloppy nailing with the nail gun and coated nails than improper uplift design. Or Simpson is really good at muscling into the code books.
i am a licensed design professional in nys. i, not unlike many of my peers, went through the process years ago. i passed the exam to test my minimum knowledge of the profession. the codes we work hard to comply with: are a minimum standard to build to. i find its up to the client, budget, and program to lead me to a place of excellence (better than code). in nys a residence under 1500 s.f does not require the design professionals seal and signature. however, a local municipalities code or regulation can be more strict and require all projects be signed off by a licensed design professional.
let's face it, anyone may design whatever their hearts desire. and i am sure that architects don't have all the answers to a clients needs. and i am sure there are designers that can be "better" designers than architects. but, depending upon the municipality, clients need to follow the standards, rules and regulations set for that municipality/state.
so, that being said, i recently had an experience on a commercial project with un-licensed designers - on track to passing the ARE. the person i worked with was two or three parts from passing the test. In their reality they are working as interior designers (not licensed) "on track" to being architects. however, the situation became unacceptable when the client refused to recognize the difference between my service and the designers service. what made the matter worse - with the clients blessing - the young design firm (person) was eager to proceed with performing work that clearly overlapped my work. it is my fault for letting this situation get to an unacceptable position in the first place, however, the building department understands the position that i am in and has stopped the work at my request so the differences in the submitted documents for which the permit to build was issued under and what has been built can be re-submitted.
please don't fall into the same trap that i did. be very aware of what a client tries to pull off in their selection of outside consultants to perform work that ultimately - you the licensed design professional - are responsible for. make sure all parties know their boundaries honestly and in a businesslike manner.
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.