They knew exactly what they were doing. In fact, most tradesmen then probably knew a lot more about building a building than most architects today. That said, in structural framing at least, they had the advantage of superior E in their lumber. We have GA fast growing pine.
Really the last 150 years has been the movement from mass based to component based design. Even steel is used more efficiently today rather than heavy sections we design lightweight sections. All in all our structures will probably last longer, even if worse built, but only as long the components of the exterior keep up or are kept up.
I also think that this discussion has gone beyond the subject matter and his antagonists are twisting his words. So stop it. simple structure = simple to provide health & safety. Of course I also understand how a sfr's "simplicity" can be deceptive.
DSink also has a point in how increasing the protocol for sfr, or other small structure, does not necessarily advance our profession.
Where I live, you would be run out of town for suggesting an additional tier of approval required for small projects done by unlicensed designers. Outside of city limits here it's truly the wild west, some places not even requiring a permit review on the structure, depending on size & use, only a permit for electrical and septic. I know it's hard for urbanites to grasp, but the majority of surface area of our country probably operates this way.
Randy's situation brings to light another issue with licensure and responsibility. What happens when someone oversteps their role or boundary - and I think that there is ample evidence to show that that boundary is not clear and varies significantly based on jurisdiction and state.
If you decide to build something based on a design not reviewed and stamped by a licensed design professional (architect or engineer) and you build it wrong, you are basically responsible for it yourself. In the city of Chicago you can be your own General Contractor for your house, but you still need licensed architects and engineers to sign off on everything for the reason that you need to have code-compliant plans and specifications - if you chose to vary from the legal documents you got and the house collapses on you, its your own damn fault. But if you give a contractor faulty plans is he supposed to build it wrong, but what he agreed to (he did bid on the project and sign o a cost of construction, right?) or build should he build it the right way, and who is to account (read pay) for the difference? This question is starting to look like the proverbial loose string on a sweater.
Please note that a building department takes no responsibility for insuring a set. If you read the beginning of every code book it states that the municipality takes no liability on certifying that anything they review meets code. If the Inspector sees something that doesn't meet code in the field and the homeowner has to change it out of his own pocket. Approval does not insure compliance. You unlicensed people read that again.
Is Mr. Homeowner going to be smart enough about construction practices to know when the GC pulls a substitution because Home Depot was having a sale on item "A" that week - and whether or not that substitution is critical or insignificant? You are putting a lot of faith in the homeowner to understand something that a lot of professionals literally spend decades coming to grasp with.
What's also bad about Randy's situation is that its because communication and roles were not clear, which its obvious Randy is taking it as a learning experience, but its unknown if the designer or homeowner will. Its experiences like this (and Randy, I am not blaming you, I am sure it was a difficult decision and calling the reviewers was probably used as a last resort) that sour people on architects, up until the point at which it dawns on a homeowner just how much stuff goes into building an efficient, well built home.
And lastly, the reason that municipalities have a threshold below which a licensed professional is not required is because they lack density requiring it. In other words no matter how badly you build your house, it will not burn down, send raw sewage into or otherwise damage your neighbor's property. As density increases, so does the likelihood of such an incidence occurring. All it takes to get a strict new solar-access code in an otherwise lasse-faire environment is a neighbor's new addition blocking the mayor's rose garden.
I personally think too much importance is placed on a graduate degree. A professional license should be honored to anyone with the requisite experience in the real world, and having passed the same exam. Most grad students I've met (with three years of Architecture-Ralated schooling) don't know shit from shinola.
i think there is a lot of value in a graduate degree myself, but i do think anyone with a bachelor's degree and enough experience should be able to get a license. there isn't anything about a master's degree in architecture that applies to licensure in my mind.
@jafidler: give me a friggin' break. Always looking for shinola / victimhood.
The term 'Shit from Shinola' is as American as apple pie, or as american as architects without graduate degrees. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
there are plenty of architects with graduate degrees who dont know what they are doing just like they are plenty of architects without graduate degrees who dont know what they are doing
it doesnt matter what your degree is, it matters what you do with it and in your career
Un-liscensed designers
le boss man -
They knew exactly what they were doing. In fact, most tradesmen then probably knew a lot more about building a building than most architects today. That said, in structural framing at least, they had the advantage of superior E in their lumber. We have GA fast growing pine.
Really the last 150 years has been the movement from mass based to component based design. Even steel is used more efficiently today rather than heavy sections we design lightweight sections. All in all our structures will probably last longer, even if worse built, but only as long the components of the exterior keep up or are kept up.
here's one where I agree with lebossman.
I also think that this discussion has gone beyond the subject matter and his antagonists are twisting his words. So stop it. simple structure = simple to provide health & safety. Of course I also understand how a sfr's "simplicity" can be deceptive.
DSink also has a point in how increasing the protocol for sfr, or other small structure, does not necessarily advance our profession.
Where I live, you would be run out of town for suggesting an additional tier of approval required for small projects done by unlicensed designers. Outside of city limits here it's truly the wild west, some places not even requiring a permit review on the structure, depending on size & use, only a permit for electrical and septic. I know it's hard for urbanites to grasp, but the majority of surface area of our country probably operates this way.
That may be true, where you measure your yard in square miles.
Randy's situation brings to light another issue with licensure and responsibility. What happens when someone oversteps their role or boundary - and I think that there is ample evidence to show that that boundary is not clear and varies significantly based on jurisdiction and state.
If you decide to build something based on a design not reviewed and stamped by a licensed design professional (architect or engineer) and you build it wrong, you are basically responsible for it yourself. In the city of Chicago you can be your own General Contractor for your house, but you still need licensed architects and engineers to sign off on everything for the reason that you need to have code-compliant plans and specifications - if you chose to vary from the legal documents you got and the house collapses on you, its your own damn fault. But if you give a contractor faulty plans is he supposed to build it wrong, but what he agreed to (he did bid on the project and sign o a cost of construction, right?) or build should he build it the right way, and who is to account (read pay) for the difference? This question is starting to look like the proverbial loose string on a sweater.
Please note that a building department takes no responsibility for insuring a set. If you read the beginning of every code book it states that the municipality takes no liability on certifying that anything they review meets code. If the Inspector sees something that doesn't meet code in the field and the homeowner has to change it out of his own pocket. Approval does not insure compliance. You unlicensed people read that again.
Is Mr. Homeowner going to be smart enough about construction practices to know when the GC pulls a substitution because Home Depot was having a sale on item "A" that week - and whether or not that substitution is critical or insignificant? You are putting a lot of faith in the homeowner to understand something that a lot of professionals literally spend decades coming to grasp with.
What's also bad about Randy's situation is that its because communication and roles were not clear, which its obvious Randy is taking it as a learning experience, but its unknown if the designer or homeowner will. Its experiences like this (and Randy, I am not blaming you, I am sure it was a difficult decision and calling the reviewers was probably used as a last resort) that sour people on architects, up until the point at which it dawns on a homeowner just how much stuff goes into building an efficient, well built home.
And lastly, the reason that municipalities have a threshold below which a licensed professional is not required is because they lack density requiring it. In other words no matter how badly you build your house, it will not burn down, send raw sewage into or otherwise damage your neighbor's property. As density increases, so does the likelihood of such an incidence occurring. All it takes to get a strict new solar-access code in an otherwise lasse-faire environment is a neighbor's new addition blocking the mayor's rose garden.
I personally think too much importance is placed on a graduate degree. A professional license should be honored to anyone with the requisite experience in the real world, and having passed the same exam. Most grad students I've met (with three years of Architecture-Ralated schooling) don't know shit from shinola.
i think there is a lot of value in a graduate degree myself, but i do think anyone with a bachelor's degree and enough experience should be able to get a license. there isn't anything about a master's degree in architecture that applies to licensure in my mind.
My MArch made me a better designer, definitely, but I was perfectly well-prepared to be an architect with my BArch and internship.
And usually, I can tell shit form shinola, but not always. ;-)
what does a graduate degree have to do with anything that preceded that comment? i think you're trying to stir up some shinola.
@jafidler: give me a friggin' break. Always looking for shinola / victimhood.
The term 'Shit from Shinola' is as American as apple pie, or as american as architects without graduate degrees.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114000.html
there are plenty of architects with graduate degrees who dont know what they are doing just like they are plenty of architects without graduate degrees who dont know what they are doing
it doesnt matter what your degree is, it matters what you do with it and in your career
as american as phrases.org.uk ;) don't take it personally, geer, i was just looking for an excuse to get in on all the shinola fun.
Ah...gotcha! It IS a funny phrase, when you think about [sh]it.
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.