My attitude is not anti-licensure (I do think the process is bogus though) but rather pro-inclusion. Architecture is a diverse field and would benefit from diverse people. Architects need to focus more on design imo. This is the main value that we contribute to clients and society. Not always in a fluffy way, but designing well thought out solutions that add value to the project and to the community overall. Imagine if we could focus 100% on design, detail, etc... and have other experts work along side us doing what they do best. That would be a far more efficient model and it would result in a much better end result imo. I think we often spread ourselves too thin. Why try to be a jack of all trades. Sure everyone needs to know enough about everything to be able to work together, but not everyone needs to actually be an expert in everything, and not everyone needs the same degree and title.
I agree with jla-x, diversity is extremely important for any field. Personally, I am not going for my license right now because I work as a PM for a construction company and enjoy my job very much. I have a B. Arch but I like the construction side much more than the design side right now. I would like to see the IDP somehow incorporate much more construction field experience into the program. I have worked with many architects that are unable to draw or even understand how construction details go together and we always have to hash out the details in the field. When you are able to be on site everyday, the learning curve is tremendous, much faster than any architecture office that I have worked in.
In my experience, the best firms -- and by "best" I mean firms that deliver quality design, provide outstanding client service, meet budgetary and schedule constraints, make a meaningful contribution to the construction process, and consistently operate profitably -- take advantage of the skills available, regardless of title.
What we do is highly complex and - to achieve solid results - it almost always requires a congenial and effective collaboration among those professionals who are design oriented, those professionals who are technically oriented, and those professionals who offer effective managerial skills. Firms that strive for, and achieve, excellence seem to understand and embrace the important nature of that 3-legged stool, both in the way they organize their firms and the way they staff projects.
Nevertheless, the most effective collaborations exist when design, technical and managerial personnel all have a working knowledge of, and respect for, what the other two parties bring to the table.
Also, we now have some people focusing more so on the environmental/building science side of things. I know a couple people who do energy modeling. These experts can help to inform design decisions. There is no way that I or most architects know how to do what they do. They are experts...most architects know the basics but are not experts. They have no reason to become licensed. If we fail to acknowledge their contribution and refuse to respect them because they lack a license then we lose. The field is becoming more diverse and more specialized. The firms that embrace this will be better because of it.
A license does not make one a professional. There is no license to be a zoologist or an anthropologist or even a astro physicist...Are they professionals...of course. This professional license complex that is being propagated by many in this field is damaging imo. Its some silly dick measuring contest with other professions like engineers, doctors, lawyers....
3 name firms, list them... Job getter, Manager, technician, that has been a successful strategy. Miles I think you misunderstood my sentence, so another way to put it is - If you are liable then the decision is more complex then a decision based on efficiency..................jla-x its a legal thing in the end and asking a 22 year old to be liable is a bit crazy. In my opinion if you practice design of buildings you can call yourself an architect but you obviously can not file or in other words take on this liability. I am sure our industry loses tons of talent because of this hurdle...they go and think outside the box and invent or get tons of business and guess what hire licensed architects, but these people are designers....its just a title, a word that means less and less as we desperately hold on to its over exaggerated social value that is for the most part artificial and a delusional projection of ourselves.
olaf- when I decide to open up my own firm, wanna be my bitch? ...thought so- but then again, without a license you'll be someone else's bitch... possibly for the rest of your life.
you'll still be working for someone else. you will always work for someone else, until you become independently wealthy and no longer need people to pay you.
even if you own your own firm, you still have to drag your ass out of bed every morning and go to work, and you will have a lot of people to answer to.
Even when you are not directly working for someone else, like running a business making products and selling them, ultimately, you are still indirectly working for others. Because even the product must be answering the needs or desires of others and you still have to target a market of potential customers and their collective needs and desires and when they buy your product, to keep them buying your products, you still need to answer to them. Civilization and Economy is about serving in order to be served. It's a relationship.... frequently imperfect and sometimes rife with shortcomings and such.
Bulgar - I think you have it backwards. Anyone can hire a licensed architect to work at their firm or start a partnership with a licensed architect(s). There is no requirement that you be licensed to own an architecture firm, and from a business perspective, there are plenty of reasons you would not want a licensed architect as owner.
The owner/ founding partner should be the one out there getting jobs, having meetings and playing golf. Without jobs in the door, there is no firm - no need for a license.
Americans as a whole are extremely fixated on titles and validation. In the UK and most of the rest of the world, most in the building industry could care less as long as you are a skilled professional.
Regulations, building, and safety codes are all a positive thing, but they work with or without licensed architects - if you don't have the skills and knowledge, your plans simply are not approved.
Not to mention the structural P.E. is the one responsible for the building standing up, and any P.E. can stamp and seal drawings and have a structure or building built with no input from an architect.
May 17, 14 4:32 pm ·
·
rcz1001
I'll state that the above is inaccurate in some states and other jurisdictions around the world. It depends. Some places do have strict requirements that firms be owned by someone licensed be it architect or engineer or maybe even strictly owned by architects if we talk beyond U.S. / North America.
Regarding engineers stamping drawings of buildings. That isn't an absolute. Some states in the U.S. does not allow engineers to engage in practice of architecture (no exception).
Have you looked at any filing documents? A PE and RA can file the same documents...structural and mep...in nyc anyway that is why they are called consultants. Also to own a PC or PLLC a licensed professional has to own a min of 75% of the company..a chef and an owner cannot survive without each other. So I think you have it backwards my friend...
You know, I've never felt like any project manager's bitch. I've always felt like an integral part of the team and been treated as such. Sure I've had some crappy tasks to do at one point or another but they needed to be done to move the project forward.
I'm assuming with the title of this thread and your answers here, you are probably stuck near entry level due to attitude.
I tend to sign and seal all trades up to a limit. Foundation work I would never touch solely on my own, but if I feel my consultant did his job I sign and seal...I'm not doing multi-story million dollar projects...I like to know everything though, that's old school and I ain't that old...
NY I believe is revising this Business killing 75%, NJ is 50% I think, PA may be 25% and places like FL and TX I think only one person needs a license...etc...
3 name firms - SOM, KPF, HOK....list goes on.
BulgarBlogger - in your terms "you will always be someone's bitch" even if you were the developer and building department rolled into one.
Looking back at the start of this thread and the posters follow up remarks I think this is more about the people in year 1-3 who feel like the older management side is treating them like employees and not an equal. There is a few reasons for this, first your not equal your useful if you do what your told and don't go getting creative on basic shit. We don't need you flexing your design muscle on simple tasks and it's frustrating when you do it. If you are on simple tasks it's because it needs to get done and that's how you learn. Second the person running the project is busy and often doesn't have time to chit chat whith the help. This comes off as being an asshole but really the person is probably just thinking about something bigger than what you are concerned with. Thirdly we are in different parts of our lives and what you and your 1-3 year pals discuss often sounds stupid to someone with kids and a family (we may be jealous a little but still stupid). Then again some people are just assholes live with it or move on. We all felt this way in the beginning with experiance you realize it would have been foolish if someone would have given you more responsibility before you were ready.
maybe they did, i was serving as a pm on very small projects after 3 years. PM'ing a bus shelter project is not nearly the same as managing a $20 mil. building design.
I think often the title PM is given because the alternative, intern architect, looks bad on a business card.
The majority of the "architects" we studied in college weren't licensed. One of the best "architects" I have ever worked with wasn't licensed. The smartest man I know who oversaw multi-million dollar engineering projects for a large company never received a college degree. Titles are purchased these days and those who buy them really want people to know it.
Dec 15, 21 2:23 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
And people who repeat this jive don’t know jack shit.
It's a necro'd thread and there was some inaccurate statements made that I believe those who made them have since learned that they were inaccurate. Now, I didn't necro this thread.
Dec 15, 21 6:22 pm ·
·
rcz1001
PS: Responding to this thread (although necro'd) was funner and more interesting than responding to x-jla's more recent political blathering. Anyway, it's at least architecture-related.
I was an unlicensed PM before I got my license. I actually worked with one PM who had had his license but let it expire because he never planned on stamping drawings.
Dec 15, 21 6:47 pm ·
·
rcz1001
I agree. It makes no sense in keeping a license if you are not doing something that needs a license. It doesn't have to make 'sense' to keep a license if you intend to do something with in the future so you don't have to risk going back through the process of licensure again and having to possibly redo the exams and potentially also the experience especially if the requirements substantially changes in such a way that the old experience training no longer is acceptable. This was an issue for some during the pre-IDP to IDP era when internship became required and experience not done under IDP was no longer accepted even if it was under an architect. This was a problem for some and some of them became those PMs as well when they got that unfortunate situation.
BB's original tone was probably a bit too harsh but that was some years ago but still, I think it really kind of depends on a lot of factors and how the title "project manager" is used in an architecture firm as far as job titles go. If the role involves making decisions on designs for architectural projects (that which constitutes Practice of Architecture) then yeah.... a license should be required to even be in that position in the firm. If design decisions are made, then yes. If design suggestions are made, then No. Why? What do you think interns fresh out of college or still in college and so forth are doing or even some more experiences design staff are doing? Someone doing "management" isn't necessarily making design decisions. It depends on the details of the role. There isn't a consistent definition for "project manager" in the architectural firm setting. We know it's obviously different for a client's PM or a contractor's PM. The architectural firm's PM is different and what that role does differs from firm to firm.
Attn. Project Managers: Get a License or SHUT UP!
My attitude is not anti-licensure (I do think the process is bogus though) but rather pro-inclusion. Architecture is a diverse field and would benefit from diverse people. Architects need to focus more on design imo. This is the main value that we contribute to clients and society. Not always in a fluffy way, but designing well thought out solutions that add value to the project and to the community overall. Imagine if we could focus 100% on design, detail, etc... and have other experts work along side us doing what they do best. That would be a far more efficient model and it would result in a much better end result imo. I think we often spread ourselves too thin. Why try to be a jack of all trades. Sure everyone needs to know enough about everything to be able to work together, but not everyone needs to actually be an expert in everything, and not everyone needs the same degree and title.
I agree with jla-x, diversity is extremely important for any field. Personally, I am not going for my license right now because I work as a PM for a construction company and enjoy my job very much. I have a B. Arch but I like the construction side much more than the design side right now. I would like to see the IDP somehow incorporate much more construction field experience into the program. I have worked with many architects that are unable to draw or even understand how construction details go together and we always have to hash out the details in the field. When you are able to be on site everyday, the learning curve is tremendous, much faster than any architecture office that I have worked in.
In my experience, the best firms -- and by "best" I mean firms that deliver quality design, provide outstanding client service, meet budgetary and schedule constraints, make a meaningful contribution to the construction process, and consistently operate profitably -- take advantage of the skills available, regardless of title.
What we do is highly complex and - to achieve solid results - it almost always requires a congenial and effective collaboration among those professionals who are design oriented, those professionals who are technically oriented, and those professionals who offer effective managerial skills. Firms that strive for, and achieve, excellence seem to understand and embrace the important nature of that 3-legged stool, both in the way they organize their firms and the way they staff projects.
Nevertheless, the most effective collaborations exist when design, technical and managerial personnel all have a working knowledge of, and respect for, what the other two parties bring to the table.
++ quizzical
well said quizzical.
Also, we now have some people focusing more so on the environmental/building science side of things. I know a couple people who do energy modeling. These experts can help to inform design decisions. There is no way that I or most architects know how to do what they do. They are experts...most architects know the basics but are not experts. They have no reason to become licensed. If we fail to acknowledge their contribution and refuse to respect them because they lack a license then we lose. The field is becoming more diverse and more specialized. The firms that embrace this will be better because of it.
A license does not make one a professional. There is no license to be a zoologist or an anthropologist or even a astro physicist...Are they professionals...of course. This professional license complex that is being propagated by many in this field is damaging imo. Its some silly dick measuring contest with other professions like engineers, doctors, lawyers....
3 name firms, list them... Job getter, Manager, technician, that has been a successful strategy. Miles I think you misunderstood my sentence, so another way to put it is - If you are liable then the decision is more complex then a decision based on efficiency..................jla-x its a legal thing in the end and asking a 22 year old to be liable is a bit crazy. In my opinion if you practice design of buildings you can call yourself an architect but you obviously can not file or in other words take on this liability. I am sure our industry loses tons of talent because of this hurdle...they go and think outside the box and invent or get tons of business and guess what hire licensed architects, but these people are designers....its just a title, a word that means less and less as we desperately hold on to its over exaggerated social value that is for the most part artificial and a delusional projection of ourselves.
Those who can do... those who can't... FILL IN THE BLANK!
Designers- psh... that's a title for those who can't.
Liability is attached to everything you do, with or without a license.
it's not the same Miles (socially), you can be accountable to yourself beyond the gold standard of course.
BulgarBlogger - Titles Titles Titles...psh...
which came first the manager or the professional?
olaf- when I decide to open up my own firm, wanna be my bitch? ...thought so- but then again, without a license you'll be someone else's bitch... possibly for the rest of your life.
I have license(s), you should read better, what are you a project manager?
The point being that without a license you will always be working for someone else...
you'll still be working for someone else. you will always work for someone else, until you become independently wealthy and no longer need people to pay you.
even if you own your own firm, you still have to drag your ass out of bed every morning and go to work, and you will have a lot of people to answer to.
Even when you are not directly working for someone else, like running a business making products and selling them, ultimately, you are still indirectly working for others. Because even the product must be answering the needs or desires of others and you still have to target a market of potential customers and their collective needs and desires and when they buy your product, to keep them buying your products, you still need to answer to them. Civilization and Economy is about serving in order to be served. It's a relationship.... frequently imperfect and sometimes rife with shortcomings and such.
Bulgar, with that attitude I'm sure your firm will be a miserable place to work. This bulgar blogger dude sums up the problem with Idp perfectly.
Bulgar - I think you have it backwards. Anyone can hire a licensed architect to work at their firm or start a partnership with a licensed architect(s). There is no requirement that you be licensed to own an architecture firm, and from a business perspective, there are plenty of reasons you would not want a licensed architect as owner.
The owner/ founding partner should be the one out there getting jobs, having meetings and playing golf. Without jobs in the door, there is no firm - no need for a license.
Americans as a whole are extremely fixated on titles and validation. In the UK and most of the rest of the world, most in the building industry could care less as long as you are a skilled professional.
Regulations, building, and safety codes are all a positive thing, but they work with or without licensed architects - if you don't have the skills and knowledge, your plans simply are not approved.
Not to mention the structural P.E. is the one responsible for the building standing up, and any P.E. can stamp and seal drawings and have a structure or building built with no input from an architect.
I'll state that the above is inaccurate in some states and other jurisdictions around the world. It depends. Some places do have strict requirements that firms be owned by someone licensed be it architect or engineer or maybe even strictly owned by architects if we talk beyond U.S. / North America.
Regarding engineers stamping drawings of buildings. That isn't an absolute. Some states in the U.S. does not allow engineers to engage in practice of architecture (no exception).
Have you looked at any filing documents? A PE and RA can file the same documents...structural and mep...in nyc anyway that is why they are called consultants. Also to own a PC or PLLC a licensed professional has to own a min of 75% of the company..a chef and an owner cannot survive without each other. So I think you have it backwards my friend...
I'm assuming with the title of this thread and your answers here, you are probably stuck near entry level due to attitude.
archanonymous +++
I tend to sign and seal all trades up to a limit. Foundation work I would never touch solely on my own, but if I feel my consultant did his job I sign and seal...I'm not doing multi-story million dollar projects...I like to know everything though, that's old school and I ain't that old...
NY I believe is revising this Business killing 75%, NJ is 50% I think, PA may be 25% and places like FL and TX I think only one person needs a license...etc...
3 name firms - SOM, KPF, HOK....list goes on.
BulgarBlogger - in your terms "you will always be someone's bitch" even if you were the developer and building department rolled into one.
Looking back at the start of this thread and the posters follow up remarks I think this is more about the people in year 1-3 who feel like the older management side is treating them like employees and not an equal. There is a few reasons for this, first your not equal your useful if you do what your told and don't go getting creative on basic shit. We don't need you flexing your design muscle on simple tasks and it's frustrating when you do it. If you are on simple tasks it's because it needs to get done and that's how you learn. Second the person running the project is busy and often doesn't have time to chit chat whith the help. This comes off as being an asshole but really the person is probably just thinking about something bigger than what you are concerned with. Thirdly we are in different parts of our lives and what you and your 1-3 year pals discuss often sounds stupid to someone with kids and a family (we may be jealous a little but still stupid). Then again some people are just assholes live with it or move on. We all felt this way in the beginning with experiance you realize it would have been foolish if someone would have given you more responsibility before you were ready.
It has nothing to do with responsibility or what year you are in your career...Someone said they became a PM two years after graduation.
maybe they did, i was serving as a pm on very small projects after 3 years. PM'ing a bus shelter project is not nearly the same as managing a $20 mil. building design.
I think often the title PM is given because the alternative, intern architect, looks bad on a business card.
The majority of the "architects" we studied in college weren't licensed. One of the best "architects" I have ever worked with wasn't licensed. The smartest man I know who oversaw multi-million dollar engineering projects for a large company never received a college degree. Titles are purchased these days and those who buy them really want people to know it.
And people who repeat this jive don’t know jack shit.
Way to necro a seven year old thread. Did you really need to do this to show that you've studied architectural history? We're not impressed.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ro...
I've never worked with an unlicensed PM. Maybe this is more common in other jurisdictions? In certain types of firms?
in nyc i have, plenty of times. there is some truth to this recent post.. not sure why there's such a defensive response.
^necro thread.
It's a necro'd thread and there was some inaccurate statements made that I believe those who made them have since learned that they were inaccurate. Now, I didn't necro this thread.
PS: Responding to this thread (although necro'd) was funner and more interesting than responding to x-jla's more recent political blathering. Anyway, it's at least architecture-related.
I was an unlicensed PM before I got my license. I actually worked with one PM who had had his license but let it expire because he never planned on stamping drawings.
I agree. It makes no sense in keeping a license if you are not doing something that needs a license. It doesn't have to make 'sense' to keep a license if you intend to do something with in the future so you don't have to risk going back through the process of licensure again and having to possibly redo the exams and potentially also the experience especially if the requirements substantially changes in such a way that the old experience training no longer is acceptable. This was an issue for some during the pre-IDP to IDP era when internship became required and experience not done under IDP was no longer accepted even if it was under an architect. This was a problem for some and some of them became those PMs as well when they got that unfortunate situation.
square - my response was because Ronald made an account to make a 'no shit sherlock' comment on a 7 year old thread.
Also I'm tired any a consultant of mine isn't doing their job.
BB's original tone was probably a bit too harsh but that was some years ago but still, I think it really kind of depends on a lot of factors and how the title "project manager" is used in an architecture firm as far as job titles go. If the role involves making decisions on designs for architectural projects (that which constitutes Practice of Architecture) then yeah.... a license should be required to even be in that position in the firm. If design decisions are made, then yes. If design suggestions are made, then No. Why? What do you think interns fresh out of college or still in college and so forth are doing or even some more experiences design staff are doing? Someone doing "management" isn't necessarily making design decisions. It depends on the details of the role. There isn't a consistent definition for "project manager" in the architectural firm setting. We know it's obviously different for a client's PM or a contractor's PM. The architectural firm's PM is different and what that role does differs from firm to firm.
guess it's a zombie thread now
lol... yeah. Like a lot of threads are zombified.
Zombie?! ::racks shotgun::
Careful Chad I think December is Zombie bow season.
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.