There is always at least one person I know on this list. I suppose that comes from having gone to SCI-arc.........
David Cole, AIA
Oct 29, 15 2:19 pm
I ended up on the Ohio list a few years ago for listing "architectural designer" as my job description on my portfolio website. I was living in NYC when I created the site, and there was no issue with that title there, but then I moved to Ohio in 2010 and didn't realize how much stricter Ohio is about such titles. The situation was quickly and amicably resolved, but I'm still paranoid this will somehow trip up my registration as an architect.
chigurh
Oct 29, 15 2:24 pm
who cares.
I know very reputable architects that have been placed on that list for some nitpicky bullshit.
protecting the public by shaming some dude that didn't do a fucking ADA continuing ed credit... give me a break.
They should be focusing all their energy on taking down all the fucking phonies that call them selves architects in California...There are thousands of them, most from sciarc.
haruki
Oct 29, 15 2:32 pm
The state of California is so poorly run in every other capacity it surprises me that they manage to have people apparently scouring the internet to check up on people. On one of the citations they listed something like six different websites (including a you tube video!) where the guy called himself an architect.
Since I'm licensed in CA I'm more scared about getting audited and that they aren't going to accept the continuing education course I took. I think it was legit but it was online and was a lot less expensive than the one the AIA conducts.
haruki
Oct 29, 15 2:36 pm
@ Chigurh it is CRAZY how many people get away with calling themselves architects in California who aren't. I think the deal is that since they aren't licensed the licensing board doesn't really have much authority do do anything to them. That is probably why they are concentrating on slapping the hands of people who are licensed over the stupid continuing education requirement.
chigurh
Oct 29, 15 2:49 pm
No way, that is state law, you don't have to be registered with the licensing board to be subject to disciplinary action, that is the whole point. I just wish they took down all the phonies that make tons of money holding themselves out as architects. It is bad for the profession.
Non Sequitur
Oct 29, 15 3:14 pm
Moshe Safdie (c/w fantastic moustache) was once listed on my association's naughty list for failure to register cont-ed hours in time.
Oct 29, 15 3:23 pm
Dave cole,
I here ya. Wish you best outcome for you.
citizen
Oct 29, 15 3:35 pm
I sometimes fear I'll look on the list and find my name. And I don't recall if the list is exhaustive (every infractor) or selective (a few called out for the pillory).
Failure to execute a contract prior to commencing work is the one that worries me...
Donna Sink
Oct 29, 15 3:35 pm
Man, I mean, it's one thing to forget to file your HSW continuing education units for a year or two, but there are several citations on that list for people who made a fake stamp and stamped CD's with it. WTF? Who would do that?!
chigurh
Oct 29, 15 3:42 pm
welcome to California Donna!
haruki
Oct 29, 15 4:02 pm
Chigurh, this is what the California Architects Board says on their website re: their limited jurisdiction over unlicensed people:
"If you have evidence which indicates that an unlicensed person is participating in activities for which a license is required, you should report such activity to the Board. However, you should be aware that as a licensing agency, the Board has limited jurisdiction to take action against unlicensed individuals. The Board will investigate allegations of unlicensed practice and, if sufficient evidence is established, may forward this information to the local District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution, or the Board may issue an Administrative Citation"
I suspect all these people who pretend to be architects have figured out that in California the worst that can happen is a fine of a few thousand dollars and having your name show up on the list of shame.
citizen
Oct 29, 15 4:26 pm
Haruki, if you want a fun hour or so, go to "verify a license" and type in the last names of all your friends and colleagues and others you assume are licensed. Good reading.
haruki
Oct 29, 15 6:22 pm
Citizen, you are right. That was fun. One of my old classmates gave me a hard time a few years ago for "still not being licensed" when I had a couple of exams left and now I see that he STILL isn't licensed himself. He didn't outright tell me he was licensed but he definitely implied that he was. For all these years I thought he was!
Another laugh, I looked up the youtube video of one of the guys on today's list. Not only did he refer to himself as an architect but at around minute 5:40 he showed a very much not code compliant open guardrail at some open riser stairs and remarked about how lucky he was that the building inspector didn't call him on it!
That seems like a perfect illustration of why only people who are licensed to be architects should be able to represent to the public that they are.
no_form
Oct 29, 15 6:25 pm
The sad part is that there is no list of shame for all the unlicensed scheisters here in CA. Except word of mouth. Which is harder to undo than an annual list I suppose.
sameolddoctor
Oct 29, 15 7:57 pm
Speaking of California, fuck architects
geezertect
Oct 29, 15 8:09 pm
he showed a very much not code compliant open guardrail at some open riser stairs and remarked about how lucky he was that the building inspector didn't call him on it!
If anyone is ever injured and they find that clip in a Google search, the "architect" is going to be in a real pickle having admitted that he knowingly built a non-compliant stair. This line of work sure attracts some real geniuses.
Noah Walker
Oct 29, 15 8:23 pm
This guy seems very talented and since this was a video of what I understand to be his own house I say let it play. Have you seen seen Steven Ehrlich's personal stair? He's a brilliant architect and that one is even less compliant. It would be fun to make a list of all the code violations in Architect's own homes. We all want to live in glass houses...
x-jla
Oct 29, 15 9:46 pm
that list is evidence that an architects license does nothing to protect the public...
Janosh
Oct 30, 15 11:50 am
I'm not sure what is so hard about complying with five hours of ADA continuing education every two years - it's annoying, but there are abundant reminders from vendors. So here we have a list of unlicensed people calling themselves architects (illegal), people cited for faking stamps (illegal), and people lying on their renewal forms. I don't have a problem with any of this.
There are far too many unqualified licensed architects in California - from a life safety and economic standpoint, I am happy that there is anyone trying to keep unlicensed, unqualified folks out of practice. I am sympathetic with folks from out of state that get caught up in our inconsistent laws about terminology, but Simon Storey was here for a while and pretty brazen/unapologetic that he was "an architect" despite his lack of licensure. I think a $3000 fine in this case isn't a huge deal, though also probably not much of a deterrent.
As for Mr. Ehrich's stair - does anyone really care if an individual homeowner (particularly an architect) makes an informed judgement about the financial and personal risk that they are willing to assume for themselves and their family that might be in contradiction to a code intended to protect The Public?
Oct 30, 15 1:59 pm
As a building designer, I agree that unlicensed persons should not violate the laws by using the 'architect' title. I'm talking about intentional actions. We are suppose to be generally law-abiding.
Competent people are found on both sides of the licensure fence. They should legally practice their occupation. Competent unlicensed designers (building designers) should be allowed to practice 'building design' (not using the term 'architecture' but is essentially the same services in the given context) in the context of buildings exempt from architectural licensure requirement for the preparation of plans and specifications.
Janosh, the reason the code applies even to homes is the construction of homes is a public act. There are many more people that will be in that home other than the owner and their family. This includes emergency response personnel, guests (members of the public), and other public officials (law enforcement or building officials/inspectors, etc.) so houses do have public impact. Unless the home can be regulated that the only human being permitted in the house is the property owner and family members, it isn't entirely private. Houses are semi-public spaces in that they often do involve people going to the house that don't live there. Therefore, they may not be aware of the dangers because they were not informed.
There are reasons for codes even on homes as there are more than the homeowners that are stakeholders.
haruki
Oct 30, 15 2:32 pm
I think Richard W.C. Balkins, Professional Building Designer makes some good points.
Taking into consideration the safety of building users is of great importance even if it isn't the most glamourous part of our job.
In the case of the violations Simon Storey was bragging about getting away with it is my understanding that the 4" and 6" maximum opening sizes in stairs are meant to protect children from getting injured or killed.
I can't imagine a worse horror than designing a building that causes a child to be injured or loose their life.
I like to hope that licensure helps with keeping safety a priority and that if Simon Storey had gone through the licensing process when he designed the stairs in his house he would have been aware of the safety issues, but of course no system is ever 100% perfect and some people, even licensed architects, will skirt the rules as the Steven Erlich house illustrates.
Oct 30, 15 2:59 pm
Had he undergone anything to know the codes, he would have known. Some of us building designers especially those that undergoes CPBD certification undergoes some testing to include building codes. I don't think that will go away.
Everyday Intern
Oct 30, 15 5:35 pm
Had he undergone anything to know the codes, he would have known. Some of us building designers especially those that undergoes CPBD certification undergoes some testing to include building codes.
Ignorance to the code is not the issue here. The guy already knew the issues, he knew it wasn't code compliant, hence the comment in the video about how the inspector missed it and he "got lucky."
Relying on a license or certificate to establish some sort of minimum knowledge of the code, and expecting that to somehow magically ensure compliance is asinine (don't tell NCARB I said that until after I get my license). License or no license, certificate or no certificate, he probably would have designed the stair the same way.
Knowledge of the code does not equal compliance with the code. He just simply ignored design constraints to arrive at a solution rather than finding a creative solution within the given constraints. And that is simply bad design (period).
shellarchitect
Oct 30, 15 6:24 pm
At least the stair is an open and obvious condition. Makes one wonder what else he's doing that is hidden
Oct 30, 15 11:54 pm
Everyday Intern,
In which case, the person is an asshole. Don' t get confused with my other points below... I do agree with your assessment on the particular case. I think we need to assure public more that plans submitted at building departments are prepared by or under responsible supervision of competent design professionals - whether certified or licensed. While licensing laws makes exemptions/exception to requiring a licensed architect/engineer.... many of those projects should be prepared by or under supervision of a qualified certified design professional. We may need to enable that at the building codes level at the building departments. There are too many cases where the person who ignores the code requirements and does bad design claims ignorance to get out of tort or negligence cases. We need to address that for sake of justice.
A license or certification is never a 100% fool proof method. However, it is something where if a person downright does this kind of stuff that it can be grounds for licensure or certifying bodies to revoke such licensure/certification.
I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily prevent as no amount of laws prevents a criminal from breaking the law as a criminal doesn't give a f--- about laws. It is the enforcement of the laws including if necessary requiring more projects that are exempt from architectural licensure to require they be stamped/sealed and signed off by either a certified design professional or a licensed design professional.
The reason for this is that if something goes awry and they are licensed or certified, the fact they are tested is deemed prima facie evidence so mere ignorance of the laws/regulations/codes is not valid. In addition, there is these bodies that in their own right whether statutorily required or otherwise ethical obligation to the public. Yes, AIBD's NCBDC has a public obligation as well as to its own reputation (even more so as it pursues ANSI accreditation) to investigate and administer appropriate disciplinary action and where necessary, remand to the courts (the ultimately de facto authority over unlicensed persons) to levy injunctions while the AIBD/NCBDC can revoke certification... it doesn't bar the person from practicing. This is where courts with its authority can levy injunctions to stave and cease inappropriate behavior. However, with building codes and building departments be given authorization that plans be at least be prepared by or under the supervision of a certified building designers, architect, engineer, etc. (depending on the work) and duly stamped when it comes to exempt buildings.
(pause)
Oct 30, 15 11:54 pm
I do agree with your assessment in one particular case. I believe the reality is a little broader and more broadly disturbing and there are need for some stronger enforcement.
When it comes to exempt buildings, we need to strengthen some regulation on it but it doesn't need to necessarily require a licensed architect. Some projects should at least be prepared under supervision of a certified design professional as well licensed professionals. That should perhaps be a building code provision. It isn't necessarily about preventing asinine cases where people just wanton disregard the law. My suggestion is two prong: 1) To be a stronger deterrant and 2) By increasing regulation and requirement of some of the exempt building projects to be prepared by/under the supervision of at least a *qualified* certified design professional (with licensed design professional also accepted)... that is a *qualified* to mean someone who is tested on the building codes and other pertinent testing subjects for matters of HSW so that in tort or negligence cases, they can not just merely claim ignorance to get off the hook in addition to recourse options through certifying bodies (and licensing boards).
Although AIBD/NCBDC prefers self-regulating, I for one, do value some limited amount of regulation via adopted laws/codes that can nudge the building officials and building departments towards requiring more projects that are exempt under architect/engineering/etc. licensing laws towards architects/engineers & qualifying certified design professionals, etc. These certifying bodies needs not be necessarily be testing their members on specific state amended codes but understands what building codes are, how to research the code using ICC I-codes as the model code for the test and zoning codes and how to research the codes and apply them in design. I understand specific code language will vary from place to place. It is important that we know the design professionals being certified (or licensed) knows this or reasonably understand it. The process of certification or licensing SHOULD instill that understanding with all certified/licensed design professionals and even those well underway.
When someone who is licensed or certified does this kind of stuff, that person should be SHAMED and if necessary have their license or certification suspended or revoked. One thing AIBD/NCBDC and licensing boards are in 'business' for is assuring their 'members' (just bear with me) are competent to do what they are licensed/certified for and assuring public confidence in the domain of HSW matters when it comes to the built environment.
At the same time, we are not needing a gestoppel (at least I hope we don't).
If I was at the NCBDC council and the person was a CPBD member, I think it would be a serious matter that we would need to take serious action to what we would be able to under law. If this was a house and if he was an architect, in a lot of places, even revoking a license won't be able to stop the architect from designing houses... just without the architect title.
I do agree with you that knowledge of the code does not equal compliance with the code. Shaming the person perhaps the best we can---- an ADMONITION of sorts.
I agree with your assessment. I do believe there is some areas that needs strengthening enforcement.
I won't tell NCARB that you said that. You're a good fellow and you don't deserve being screwed around that way.
Oct 31, 15 12:54 am
TLDR?
Okay... what the hell. Basically skim for the essential points.
I agree... the person in the case with that bad (non-compliant) stair design... knew it wasn't compliant and did nothing to correct the matter. Licensed or Not... Certified or not, the person probably would have ignored the code and did it that way... anyway.
HOWEVER, far to often, if the person is neither licensed.... nor certified, would claim ignorance of building codes in a tort or negligence case to get off the hook. However, a licensed or certified (in case of NCBDC certification) would be prima facie evidence and the person would also be subject to losing such license or certification but for that to mean anything, they need to be effected by a lost of a license or certification in some way as an incentive to discontinue such practice. People, in general, tends to care less unless there is an incentive... like fire under their ass.
I propose as an option to build into code regulation to empower the building official some more and even require at the local level through the building departments to encourage the requirement of plans and other documentations submitted to the building departments to be prepared by or under the responsible supervision (and seal and/or signed) of a *qualified* certified design professional (which would include licensed design professionals but more broader category) for projects that do not require to be prepared by an architect or engineer under their respective licensing laws.
Demographically, those who are licensed or certified are more likely to prepare competent and compliant work. It is not fool proof but it makes certification/license more meaningful. I understand there are some provision to require certain drawings or documents to be prepared by an registered (licensed) design professional. However, those are meant to be used when projects are complicated. Perhaps it can mean amending that a little bit. Either way, I am not just talking about any ol' certification but a certification that includes building codes and other HSW subject matter. NCBDC certification would be a good candidate. Other uncertified designers maybe accepted at disceretion is one thing that I would propose.
Projects that DO require an architect or engineer is as normal. The goal is not to eliminate competent uncertified design professionals or architects or engineers.
haruki
Oct 31, 15 1:40 pm
It might also be that some of there are unlicensed people practicing out there who are intractable and with an uneducated consumer and a toothless enforcement agency not much is likely to change.
Simon Storey has a 77,000 s.f. housing development up on his site that looks like a legit project, not just a rendering:
The housing project especially looks pretty well developed so I can imagine he has been working on it for awhile. For many months going back for sure. I also imagine he must have put it up on his site after he was fined by the architects board in June otherwise they would have cited him for working on nonexempt buildings.
He is pretty ballsy, I've got to hand that to him.
x-jla
Oct 31, 15 2:52 pm
^Who cares?
haruki
Oct 31, 15 9:24 pm
^Yeah, I get what you are saying, and I feel kind of bad for pointing those projects out now. I suppose I don't really care all that much. It is more interesting to me as an onlooker than anything else. I am more of a play by rules kind of person so seeing someone so brazenly functioning outside of the rules is fascinating in the same way watching Tony Soprano is so fascinating. The same goes for those people who made fake stamps. Like Donna Sink said " Who would do that!" In the end the chances are slim that anyone will get hurt or killed by one of Simon Storey's buildings and he paid his debt to society with the $3,000 fine.
Oct 31, 15 10:16 pm
Yeah, $3000 fine is not much of a deterrent when one charges $30,000 for like 200 hours of work.
The latest California Architects Board Enforcement Actions List (aka List of Shame) just came out. I live in fear of ever being placed on this list.
It looks like a lot of people are getting snagged for not properly satisfying their ADA continuing education requirement:
http://www.cab.ca.gov/news/newsletters/2015-03/enforcement_actions.shtml
There is always at least one person I know on this list. I suppose that comes from having gone to SCI-arc.........
I ended up on the Ohio list a few years ago for listing "architectural designer" as my job description on my portfolio website. I was living in NYC when I created the site, and there was no issue with that title there, but then I moved to Ohio in 2010 and didn't realize how much stricter Ohio is about such titles. The situation was quickly and amicably resolved, but I'm still paranoid this will somehow trip up my registration as an architect.
who cares.
I know very reputable architects that have been placed on that list for some nitpicky bullshit.
protecting the public by shaming some dude that didn't do a fucking ADA continuing ed credit... give me a break.
They should be focusing all their energy on taking down all the fucking phonies that call them selves architects in California...There are thousands of them, most from sciarc.
The state of California is so poorly run in every other capacity it surprises me that they manage to have people apparently scouring the internet to check up on people. On one of the citations they listed something like six different websites (including a you tube video!) where the guy called himself an architect.
Since I'm licensed in CA I'm more scared about getting audited and that they aren't going to accept the continuing education course I took. I think it was legit but it was online and was a lot less expensive than the one the AIA conducts.
@ Chigurh it is CRAZY how many people get away with calling themselves architects in California who aren't. I think the deal is that since they aren't licensed the licensing board doesn't really have much authority do do anything to them. That is probably why they are concentrating on slapping the hands of people who are licensed over the stupid continuing education requirement.
No way, that is state law, you don't have to be registered with the licensing board to be subject to disciplinary action, that is the whole point. I just wish they took down all the phonies that make tons of money holding themselves out as architects. It is bad for the profession.
Moshe Safdie (c/w fantastic moustache) was once listed on my association's naughty list for failure to register cont-ed hours in time.
Dave cole,
I here ya. Wish you best outcome for you.
I sometimes fear I'll look on the list and find my name. And I don't recall if the list is exhaustive (every infractor) or selective (a few called out for the pillory).
Failure to execute a contract prior to commencing work is the one that worries me...
Man, I mean, it's one thing to forget to file your HSW continuing education units for a year or two, but there are several citations on that list for people who made a fake stamp and stamped CD's with it. WTF? Who would do that?!
welcome to California Donna!
Chigurh, this is what the California Architects Board says on their website re: their limited jurisdiction over unlicensed people:
"If you have evidence which indicates that an unlicensed person is participating in activities for which a license is required, you should report such activity to the Board. However, you should be aware that as a licensing agency, the Board has limited jurisdiction to take action against unlicensed individuals. The Board will investigate allegations of unlicensed practice and, if sufficient evidence is established, may forward this information to the local District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution, or the Board may issue an Administrative Citation"
I suspect all these people who pretend to be architects have figured out that in California the worst that can happen is a fine of a few thousand dollars and having your name show up on the list of shame.
Haruki, if you want a fun hour or so, go to "verify a license" and type in the last names of all your friends and colleagues and others you assume are licensed. Good reading.
Citizen, you are right. That was fun. One of my old classmates gave me a hard time a few years ago for "still not being licensed" when I had a couple of exams left and now I see that he STILL isn't licensed himself. He didn't outright tell me he was licensed but he definitely implied that he was. For all these years I thought he was!
Another laugh, I looked up the youtube video of one of the guys on today's list. Not only did he refer to himself as an architect but at around minute 5:40 he showed a very much not code compliant open guardrail at some open riser stairs and remarked about how lucky he was that the building inspector didn't call him on it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAOuUkQTqWE
That seems like a perfect illustration of why only people who are licensed to be architects should be able to represent to the public that they are.
The sad part is that there is no list of shame for all the unlicensed scheisters here in CA. Except word of mouth. Which is harder to undo than an annual list I suppose.
Speaking of California, fuck architects
he showed a very much not code compliant open guardrail at some open riser stairs and remarked about how lucky he was that the building inspector didn't call him on it!
If anyone is ever injured and they find that clip in a Google search, the "architect" is going to be in a real pickle having admitted that he knowingly built a non-compliant stair. This line of work sure attracts some real geniuses.
This guy seems very talented and since this was a video of what I understand to be his own house I say let it play. Have you seen seen Steven Ehrlich's personal stair? He's a brilliant architect and that one is even less compliant. It would be fun to make a list of all the code violations in Architect's own homes. We all want to live in glass houses...
that list is evidence that an architects license does nothing to protect the public...
I'm not sure what is so hard about complying with five hours of ADA continuing education every two years - it's annoying, but there are abundant reminders from vendors. So here we have a list of unlicensed people calling themselves architects (illegal), people cited for faking stamps (illegal), and people lying on their renewal forms. I don't have a problem with any of this.
There are far too many unqualified licensed architects in California - from a life safety and economic standpoint, I am happy that there is anyone trying to keep unlicensed, unqualified folks out of practice. I am sympathetic with folks from out of state that get caught up in our inconsistent laws about terminology, but Simon Storey was here for a while and pretty brazen/unapologetic that he was "an architect" despite his lack of licensure. I think a $3000 fine in this case isn't a huge deal, though also probably not much of a deterrent.
As for Mr. Ehrich's stair - does anyone really care if an individual homeowner (particularly an architect) makes an informed judgement about the financial and personal risk that they are willing to assume for themselves and their family that might be in contradiction to a code intended to protect The Public?
As a building designer, I agree that unlicensed persons should not violate the laws by using the 'architect' title. I'm talking about intentional actions. We are suppose to be generally law-abiding.
Competent people are found on both sides of the licensure fence. They should legally practice their occupation. Competent unlicensed designers (building designers) should be allowed to practice 'building design' (not using the term 'architecture' but is essentially the same services in the given context) in the context of buildings exempt from architectural licensure requirement for the preparation of plans and specifications.
Janosh, the reason the code applies even to homes is the construction of homes is a public act. There are many more people that will be in that home other than the owner and their family. This includes emergency response personnel, guests (members of the public), and other public officials (law enforcement or building officials/inspectors, etc.) so houses do have public impact. Unless the home can be regulated that the only human being permitted in the house is the property owner and family members, it isn't entirely private. Houses are semi-public spaces in that they often do involve people going to the house that don't live there. Therefore, they may not be aware of the dangers because they were not informed.
There are reasons for codes even on homes as there are more than the homeowners that are stakeholders.
I think Richard W.C. Balkins, Professional Building Designer makes some good points.
Taking into consideration the safety of building users is of great importance even if it isn't the most glamourous part of our job.
In the case of the violations Simon Storey was bragging about getting away with it is my understanding that the 4" and 6" maximum opening sizes in stairs are meant to protect children from getting injured or killed.
I can't imagine a worse horror than designing a building that causes a child to be injured or loose their life.
I like to hope that licensure helps with keeping safety a priority and that if Simon Storey had gone through the licensing process when he designed the stairs in his house he would have been aware of the safety issues, but of course no system is ever 100% perfect and some people, even licensed architects, will skirt the rules as the Steven Erlich house illustrates.
Had he undergone anything to know the codes, he would have known. Some of us building designers especially those that undergoes CPBD certification undergoes some testing to include building codes. I don't think that will go away.
Had he undergone anything to know the codes, he would have known. Some of us building designers especially those that undergoes CPBD certification undergoes some testing to include building codes.
Ignorance to the code is not the issue here. The guy already knew the issues, he knew it wasn't code compliant, hence the comment in the video about how the inspector missed it and he "got lucky."
Relying on a license or certificate to establish some sort of minimum knowledge of the code, and expecting that to somehow magically ensure compliance is asinine (don't tell NCARB I said that until after I get my license). License or no license, certificate or no certificate, he probably would have designed the stair the same way.
Knowledge of the code does not equal compliance with the code. He just simply ignored design constraints to arrive at a solution rather than finding a creative solution within the given constraints. And that is simply bad design (period).
At least the stair is an open and obvious condition. Makes one wonder what else he's doing that is hidden
Everyday Intern,
In which case, the person is an asshole. Don' t get confused with my other points below... I do agree with your assessment on the particular case. I think we need to assure public more that plans submitted at building departments are prepared by or under responsible supervision of competent design professionals - whether certified or licensed. While licensing laws makes exemptions/exception to requiring a licensed architect/engineer.... many of those projects should be prepared by or under supervision of a qualified certified design professional. We may need to enable that at the building codes level at the building departments. There are too many cases where the person who ignores the code requirements and does bad design claims ignorance to get out of tort or negligence cases. We need to address that for sake of justice.
A license or certification is never a 100% fool proof method. However, it is something where if a person downright does this kind of stuff that it can be grounds for licensure or certifying bodies to revoke such licensure/certification.
I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily prevent as no amount of laws prevents a criminal from breaking the law as a criminal doesn't give a f--- about laws. It is the enforcement of the laws including if necessary requiring more projects that are exempt from architectural licensure to require they be stamped/sealed and signed off by either a certified design professional or a licensed design professional.
The reason for this is that if something goes awry and they are licensed or certified, the fact they are tested is deemed prima facie evidence so mere ignorance of the laws/regulations/codes is not valid. In addition, there is these bodies that in their own right whether statutorily required or otherwise ethical obligation to the public. Yes, AIBD's NCBDC has a public obligation as well as to its own reputation (even more so as it pursues ANSI accreditation) to investigate and administer appropriate disciplinary action and where necessary, remand to the courts (the ultimately de facto authority over unlicensed persons) to levy injunctions while the AIBD/NCBDC can revoke certification... it doesn't bar the person from practicing. This is where courts with its authority can levy injunctions to stave and cease inappropriate behavior. However, with building codes and building departments be given authorization that plans be at least be prepared by or under the supervision of a certified building designers, architect, engineer, etc. (depending on the work) and duly stamped when it comes to exempt buildings.
(pause)
I do agree with your assessment in one particular case. I believe the reality is a little broader and more broadly disturbing and there are need for some stronger enforcement.
When it comes to exempt buildings, we need to strengthen some regulation on it but it doesn't need to necessarily require a licensed architect. Some projects should at least be prepared under supervision of a certified design professional as well licensed professionals. That should perhaps be a building code provision. It isn't necessarily about preventing asinine cases where people just wanton disregard the law. My suggestion is two prong: 1) To be a stronger deterrant and 2) By increasing regulation and requirement of some of the exempt building projects to be prepared by/under the supervision of at least a *qualified* certified design professional (with licensed design professional also accepted)... that is a *qualified* to mean someone who is tested on the building codes and other pertinent testing subjects for matters of HSW so that in tort or negligence cases, they can not just merely claim ignorance to get off the hook in addition to recourse options through certifying bodies (and licensing boards).
Although AIBD/NCBDC prefers self-regulating, I for one, do value some limited amount of regulation via adopted laws/codes that can nudge the building officials and building departments towards requiring more projects that are exempt under architect/engineering/etc. licensing laws towards architects/engineers & qualifying certified design professionals, etc. These certifying bodies needs not be necessarily be testing their members on specific state amended codes but understands what building codes are, how to research the code using ICC I-codes as the model code for the test and zoning codes and how to research the codes and apply them in design. I understand specific code language will vary from place to place. It is important that we know the design professionals being certified (or licensed) knows this or reasonably understand it. The process of certification or licensing SHOULD instill that understanding with all certified/licensed design professionals and even those well underway.
When someone who is licensed or certified does this kind of stuff, that person should be SHAMED and if necessary have their license or certification suspended or revoked. One thing AIBD/NCBDC and licensing boards are in 'business' for is assuring their 'members' (just bear with me) are competent to do what they are licensed/certified for and assuring public confidence in the domain of HSW matters when it comes to the built environment.
At the same time, we are not needing a gestoppel (at least I hope we don't).
If I was at the NCBDC council and the person was a CPBD member, I think it would be a serious matter that we would need to take serious action to what we would be able to under law. If this was a house and if he was an architect, in a lot of places, even revoking a license won't be able to stop the architect from designing houses... just without the architect title.
I do agree with you that knowledge of the code does not equal compliance with the code. Shaming the person perhaps the best we can---- an ADMONITION of sorts.
I agree with your assessment. I do believe there is some areas that needs strengthening enforcement.
I won't tell NCARB that you said that. You're a good fellow and you don't deserve being screwed around that way.
TLDR?
Okay... what the hell. Basically skim for the essential points.
I agree... the person in the case with that bad (non-compliant) stair design... knew it wasn't compliant and did nothing to correct the matter. Licensed or Not... Certified or not, the person probably would have ignored the code and did it that way... anyway.
HOWEVER, far to often, if the person is neither licensed.... nor certified, would claim ignorance of building codes in a tort or negligence case to get off the hook. However, a licensed or certified (in case of NCBDC certification) would be prima facie evidence and the person would also be subject to losing such license or certification but for that to mean anything, they need to be effected by a lost of a license or certification in some way as an incentive to discontinue such practice. People, in general, tends to care less unless there is an incentive... like fire under their ass.
I propose as an option to build into code regulation to empower the building official some more and even require at the local level through the building departments to encourage the requirement of plans and other documentations submitted to the building departments to be prepared by or under the responsible supervision (and seal and/or signed) of a *qualified* certified design professional (which would include licensed design professionals but more broader category) for projects that do not require to be prepared by an architect or engineer under their respective licensing laws.
Demographically, those who are licensed or certified are more likely to prepare competent and compliant work. It is not fool proof but it makes certification/license more meaningful. I understand there are some provision to require certain drawings or documents to be prepared by an registered (licensed) design professional. However, those are meant to be used when projects are complicated. Perhaps it can mean amending that a little bit. Either way, I am not just talking about any ol' certification but a certification that includes building codes and other HSW subject matter. NCBDC certification would be a good candidate. Other uncertified designers maybe accepted at disceretion is one thing that I would propose.
Projects that DO require an architect or engineer is as normal. The goal is not to eliminate competent uncertified design professionals or architects or engineers.
It might also be that some of there are unlicensed people practicing out there who are intractable and with an uneducated consumer and a toothless enforcement agency not much is likely to change.
Simon Storey has a 77,000 s.f. housing development up on his site that looks like a legit project, not just a rendering:
http://anonymousarchitects.com/ArchProjects/project_eaglerock.htm
and a 59,500 multilevel office building:
http://anonymousarchitects.com/ArchProjects/project_officepark.htm
The housing project especially looks pretty well developed so I can imagine he has been working on it for awhile. For many months going back for sure. I also imagine he must have put it up on his site after he was fined by the architects board in June otherwise they would have cited him for working on nonexempt buildings.
He is pretty ballsy, I've got to hand that to him.
^Who cares?
^Yeah, I get what you are saying, and I feel kind of bad for pointing those projects out now. I suppose I don't really care all that much. It is more interesting to me as an onlooker than anything else. I am more of a play by rules kind of person so seeing someone so brazenly functioning outside of the rules is fascinating in the same way watching Tony Soprano is so fascinating. The same goes for those people who made fake stamps. Like Donna Sink said " Who would do that!" In the end the chances are slim that anyone will get hurt or killed by one of Simon Storey's buildings and he paid his debt to society with the $3,000 fine.
Yeah, $3000 fine is not much of a deterrent when one charges $30,000 for like 200 hours of work.