Lebbeus Woods. What a rich life and legacy. A man ahead of his time, a true visionary, designer, illustrator, and leader in academia, the profession - a true anthropologist. Most of all, a great Architect.
Was he an Architect, though, by the standards of NCARB, the Registration Law, and the State Board where he practiced?
He insisted that he was an Architect, and in my view, he certainly was and should always be known as one.
I would like to ask the question of those who are more 'in the know' - Was he a registered Architect in the state of his residency and practice, and if he was not licensed, did the state board take action against him for claiming to be licensed when he was not? Probably Steven Holl knows the answers to these questions, but I would genuinely like to know Wood's status. As a preview of a next thread, I might inquire about Daniel Libeskind - having registration status in America. But first, I would like to ask about Lebbeus, a man I tremendously admire, and I'm sure most of you may share my feeling. Many thanks to everyone who posts! You have greatly informed me on matters I was naive and ignorant about - Archinect is a tremendous exchange.
Anon_grad2.0
Jun 28, 18 10:12 am
simple answer, no
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 10:16 am
That's what I thought, especially when he told a lecture audience that he insisted that he was an architect. Thanks Arch_grad2.0
Anon_grad2.0
Jun 28, 18 10:18 am
If he was an “architect”, then so is Richard Balkins
mjjjj
Jun 28, 18 10:29 am
If he was an “architect”, then so was I when I was 10.
JLC-1
Jun 28, 18 10:55 am
Oh, dear.....
Non Sequitur
Jun 28, 18 11:15 am
Was Vitruvius an architect by NCARB standards?
JLC-1
Jun 28, 18 11:26 am
I always wonder if AIA or NCARB officials get all freaked out when traveling to europe, all those code violations must be a nightmare to live with.
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 5:55 pm
Great Caesar's Ghost - No He wasn't!
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 5:57 pm
JLC-1, the Continent and the Isles must not be as litigious as the USA.....possibly?
JLC-1
Jun 28, 18 6:28 pm
true, lawyers is the worst class of vermin produced in the US.
kjdt
Jun 28, 18 11:28 am
If you're really asking the questions without guile: no, he wasn't licensed anywhere. And no, I wouldn't consider him an architect - he was an artist, sculptor, and teacher. But, he considered himself to be an architect.
Self-identification in and of itself isn't a reason for a state board to pounce on anyone. The only occupiable structures he ever worked on were in other countries, and were collaborations with architects. He didn't advertise architectural services or form an architecture firm. The state boards don't just sit around waiting to catch people who are called "architect" by a newspaper reporter or art critic, and they pretty much don't care what titles universities let their faculty use, within academic confines.
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 11:52 am
I think I see what the problem is - my state is THE WORST about how they handle this issue. It sounds like other states deal with this issue more sensibly, and permit running room for non-registrants to be informally known as 'architects' - like Lebbius. I'm trying to get the best picture I can of how this is played out across the nation....I don't want to name my state - yet.
kjdt
Jun 28, 18 12:42 pm
Well there are lots of states with very active enforcement - some usual suspects are New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey - all of them have the resources to put full time staff on this sort of thing, and they collect a lot of revenue from the fines. But even in those, there needs to be a complainant. The boards themselves and their enforcement officers don't tend to make it their job to scan the media for examples of people illegally referring to themselves as architects. And, when someone does get reported because a third party (newspaper reporter, etc.) erroneously calls them an architect, they don't generally wind up being fined or sanctioned - though it can be a time suck for them to have to sort this out.
If you're a regular on this site you can start to think that people are getting fined right and left, on a regular basis - but it's mostly because there are a one or two enforcement zealots on this site, enamored with rules of all sorts, who make it their hobby to report everyone from random students in Australia to architects with inadvertently expired licenses. If you just don't call yourself an architect here, and don't make yourself architect business cards, website, title blocks, etc. you shouldn't really end up being anybody's target.
bowling_ball
Jun 29, 18 4:21 pm
My province still tries to go after people who are named as architects in the media (ie newspapers etc) even though the designers in question never call themselves architects. It's hilarious to watch them get so upset.
eeayeeayo
Jun 29, 18 4:36 pm
Is the province doing that on their own, or is it because people are reporting them to the province?
randomised
Jun 28, 18 1:01 pm
Architecture is more than "putting together buildings, dealing with budget & construction constraints and negotiate with clients, city inspectors, or contractors." Good indicator might be people who call him Lebbeus consider him an architect :)
Non Sequitur
Jun 28, 18 1:06 pm
hey there... you're taking my response to another thread a little out of context here.
randomised
Jun 28, 18 3:05 pm
I know, therefore I didn't sign your name under it when giving it a more suitable context here. But I also didn't want to pretend I wrote it, hence the italics and quotation marks. Taking things out of context or putting things in a different context is what architects do for a living ;)
Marc Miller
Jun 28, 18 3:23 pm
They don't borrow, they steal.
Non Sequitur
Jun 28, 18 4:58 pm
^yeah. Trying to train our new and most junior staff at the moment. Typical question is: "where can I get this detail" as opposed to, how does X component fit with Y.
Marc Miller
Jun 28, 18 5:32 pm
It’s a struggle
zonker
Jun 28, 18 4:55 pm
in Ca. they are pretty strict about that - The AIA here posts a list of everyone they catch calling themselves architect - I'm a designer until when and iff I ever become licensed -
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 5:43 pm
Xenakis, your post shows how varied each state is on this issue, or rather, how there are groups of states that are strict, others less so, and so on - like a sliding scale. And out of sync with NCARB, too, on some things?
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 8:29 pm
Yes, in many ways. You know it when you see it, but as with anything else, there are good people
suffering through it, too.
Janosh
Jun 29, 18 4:50 pm
Are you confusing the California Architects Board (a state licensing entity) and the AIA? They are different you know.
77LightTemple
Jun 28, 18 5:28 pm
Put BIG on the list ....Bjarke Ingels .
No license to practice in US and still calls himself and architect and has a US firm .
Why doesn’t AIA investigate this matter issue?
Donna Sink
Jun 28, 18 5:45 pm
It's not the AIA's job to censure someone for operating without a license - the AIA has no regulatory power. The NY State licensing Board holds the regulatory power, or any other state in which BIG operates without a license. News flash: BIG is operating within the rules - they are a big enough firm to understand them and do it right.
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 5:48 pm
That's what I have been wondering about - if I got a letter from the board (when I was not in violation in the first place) - how do Ingels, Rogers, Libeskind, and others get a pass, even Lebbeus, great man that he was. As my uncle once said, "Life isn't fair" - and he was right. But it's not wrong to fight for what is yours, or what you believe is yours.
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 6:07 pm
Inconsistencies abound - it's a real muddle, even concerning Bjarke and BIG, I believe. I wonder if it might be because of a pluralistic aspect of the makeup of the profession itself, and trying to be all things to all people.......re: BIG - in
my state, there is a ratio where licensed architects must be a certain percentage of the make-up of the owners/managing principals - a tight percentage. Bjarke wouldn't make it here if they applied the rule to everyone, like they do to 'the little people'.
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 6:18 pm
Donna, I so respect you and your views! You are tremendous role model for others in the profession!
JLC-1
Jun 28, 18 6:31 pm
you said it SHAW, it's not just inconsistencies, it's the little people, as in everything, that pays for the sins of the big fish.
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 6:41 pm
That's what I have observed, JLC-1, for the whole of my life. I believe it is the case here in this issue. Case in point: there is a large firm in my state which is titled by the names of engineers (all), yet, they have a huge architectural division within. None of the engineers are/were/have been architects. They were never affected, though some complained.....
????
kjdt
Jun 28, 18 6:56 pm
Again this is a thing that varies from state to state. Some states do not require that any members of a firm providing architecture services be architects. Laws regarding naming of firms also vary widely from state to state - in some there are old firms that are named after people who were never licensed in the first place and have been dead for 100 years. In others that would not be allowed. In some any names in the firm's name must be owner's of the firm. In others the firm can be legally named after your best friend's cousin's dog's favorite squeaky toy.
It is specifically because of these variations that some firms choose their locations, to advantage their particular circumstances. And it's another irony of these threads that invariably contain entreaties to "fix NCARB" that NCARB encourages adoption of their model laws, which when adopted unamended, standardize all these issues from place to place. States choose whether to adopt or not adopt NCARB's model laws, and when they choose not to then the result is these types of inconsistencies.
Steeplechase
Jun 28, 18 9:25 pm
Have you not heard of hiring an architect of record? That is a common way for someone like an international starchitect to work on a project without being licensed in that jurisdiction.
Shaw
Jun 28, 18 10:05 pm
kjdt and steeplechase - what a revelation. Indeed, our state adopted the model law - and is super-enforcement minded to the jot and tittle. I think our state is one of the strictest. And yes, the inconsistencies are absolutely maddening......
JLC-1
Jun 29, 18 10:33 am
architect of record, AOR, yes; I have one, he's my boss.
JLC-1
Jun 29, 18 10:49 am
We do AOR in residential third homes, sometimes it's nauseating how much "the artists" don't know about building, let alone building at 8000' with 4 months of snow.
chigurh
Jun 28, 18 6:15 pm
Woods was an amazing creative artist with an affinity for architectural investigation, but he was not an architect.
I use that title (not getting into any legal or state board definitions) for those that have the wherewithal and drive to take a design from conceptual blank page to completion in building form, while dealing with all of the constraints of client, budget, consultants, builders, subs contractors, attorneys, etc....and still manage to create a beautiful and tactile space to inhabit.
Wilma Buttfit
Jun 28, 18 8:50 pm
Did he pass the test about AIA docs?
Wilma Buttfit
Jun 28, 18 9:03 pm
I can't believe I said that.
Wilma Buttfit
Jun 28, 18 10:19 pm
I missed you guys.
77LightTemple
Jun 29, 18 2:55 pm
Yes , NY state licensing board has the following info “
chitecture
Advisory Notice:
Titles for non-licensed individuals in Architecture
In December 2016, the AIA approved a policy statement that supports the title of “Architectural Associate” or “Design Professional” for licensure candidates meeting certain pre-licensure criteria. Use of these titles for non-licensed individuals is not permissible in New York. NYS Education Law Section 7302 limits use of the title “architect” to those who are licensed or otherwise authorized in New York as architects. The term “Architectural Associate” suggests that an individual is an architect through its use of the adjective “Architectural” and the implication that professional services are offered. Use of derivatives or combined terms of the word “architect”, as in “Architectural Designer” and “Project Architect” are similarly misleading to the public and not permissible in New York.
The second title, “Design Professional” is defined in the New York State Business Corporation Law as someone who is licensed in New York as an architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or geologist and who may be the licensee shareholder of a design professional service corporation (DPC). As such, the conveyance of that title upon a non-licensee is not permitted.
An architect licensed and registered in New York provides services related to the design and construction of buildings and the spaces around them, where the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned. These design and construction services typically include the following:A professional architect working.
consultation
evaluation
planning
preliminary studies
designs
construction documents and management
administration of construction contracts
You might retain an architect to:
evaluate a house's structural integrity and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.
design a new home or to design an addition to an existing home.
design the water and sewerage systems, storm drainage facility, and/or layout for a housing development or other tract of land.
assist in the development of a property.
Architects design all types of buildings - the actual structure, the interiors, and the land around them.
77LightTemple
Jun 29, 18 2:58 pm
Basically you cannot call yourself an architect if you are not licensed even if you just consultant or just design - you cannot confuse the public with architectural services
That’s why I find BIG misleading the public
eeayeeayo
Jun 29, 18 4:15 pm
BIG is incorporated in NY as a foreign organization. Per NY's regulations, in a foreign professional service organization "only individual providing service must be licensed in NY, however each shareholder, officer and director must be licensed in some jurisdiction** **Requirement that definition of "some jurisdiction" = jurisdiction PC was originally formed in". I don't think they're misleading - Bjarke Ingels has been very forthcoming about his attempts to get licensed in New York and his current unlicensed status. The state rejected his education and told him to pursue the experience route. There are several NY-licensed partners to provide the architectural services in the NY branch, so they meet the requirements I quoted above.
randomised
Jun 30, 18 3:29 am
"The state rejected his education and told him to pursue the experience route."
The state has a sense of humour...
eeayeeayo
Jun 30, 18 9:09 pm
No. New York does not require NAAB accredited degrees. His degree was rejected because New York's Office of Comparative Education evaluated it and determined it did not meet New York's education requirements to be considered equivalent to an architecture degree. So he'd need a lot of documented internship experiences meeting NY's rules, to offset the degree limitations.
randomised
Jul 1, 18 3:38 am
"So he'd need a lot of documented internship experiences meeting NY's rules, to offset the degree limitations."
He could foam some models or do some door schedules at BIG, ha!
eeayeeayo
Jul 1, 18 11:35 am
The criteria are the same as the New York college and university compliance criteria (the criteria that are used to assess degree programs from NY-accredited institutions). It's not architecture-specific - the NY bureau of comparative education assesses this for many professions - everything from nursing to accountants. It's got nothing to do with NAAB, and they don't accept EESA evaluations either - it's a process unique to New York.
77LightTemple
Jun 29, 18 6:43 pm
Sounds good but still He cannot call himself an architect or state he is an architect or serving in the role as an architect in ny state
x-jla
Jun 30, 18 2:11 pm
Architects design spaces that are constructed, physically and mentally in my opinion. If we narrow the definition to only utilitarian oriented built spaces we aren’t really thinking about/preparing for the future. We experience architecture in the mind all of the time. I have many favorite places and spaces that I’ve never actually visited. What’s the difference between experiencing a space that I’ve never been to but that exists vs experiencing a space that doesn’t physically exist anymore or anywhere. Not to mention being influenced by. The architecture in film for instance can be experienced.
I just got a psvr headset. It’s fucking unbelievable how amazing some of these virtual environments feel. The line between the physical and the virtual will be getting thinner and thinner over the coming years. Call it what you want, art, design, architecture...it’s relevance doesn’t rely on its categorization, but instead its effect.
x-jla
Jun 30, 18 2:12 pm
Let the historians do the sorting.
77LightTemple
Jun 30, 18 3:57 pm
I think you have the legal answer vs the moral question
LW was an architect , visionary teacher and social commentator
Legally not an architect just like he was not legally a senator, lawyer or doctor
You can call yourself anything In The world but in the business world you have laws to protect the citizens - bottom line
77LightTemple
Jun 30, 18 3:57 pm
I think you have the legal answer vs the moral question
LW was an architect , visionary teacher and social commentator
Legally not an architect just like he was not legally a senator, lawyer or doctor
You can call yourself anything In The world but in the business world you have laws to protect the citizens - bottom line
Shaw
Jun 30, 18 8:08 pm
quondam, thanks for sharing this insight and link! There are not enough hours or days in our lives to know as much as we desire; it's so great when others can inform us. This is critical information to learn/know about Lebbeus. I think I read somewhere that he worked for Eero Saarinen also in the 60's. Again, many thanks.
Flatfish
Jul 1, 18 11:05 pm
Lebbeus Woods worked at the firm of Eero Saarinen and Associates and its subsequent iterations, for about 6 years, starting in 1964, well after Saarinen's death. The firm eventually morphed into Roche Dinkeloo, which still exists, but the Eero Saarinen and Associates name was used in conjunction with some projects well into the 70s at least, if not beyond.
eeayeeayo
Jul 2, 18 9:44 am
It may have been perfectly legal. It just depends on how the firm was registered, and what was legal at the time, in the affected states. In some states the same firm can have multiple registered names. In others it can't. In some it can have the names of dead people in the firm name. In others it can't.
I currently work for a firm that uses different firm names on different projects, depending on the state or country, because of those issues. The firm still has its original name in its original state, despite the person it's named after being dead for many years, but it cannot use that name in some other states, hence we use different title blocks and stationery for different projects.
At least with Saarinen & Associates, the people who continued the firm were people who had worked there. Sometimes name-brand firms are bought out by people having little or no association with the original firm, thus continuing for generations, but with no connection to the original.
randomised
Jul 2, 18 9:54 am
How legal that was? Looking to explore more loopholes ;)
eeayeeayo
Jul 2, 18 10:03 am
Yeah, I should've just let Balkins report them to the state for using the wrong firm name 50 years ago. But wait... they relocated to Connecticut... to which state should he report this?? Discuss.
randomised
Jul 2, 18 10:41 am
Don't think Rick is out to report anyone.
kjdt
Jul 2, 18 10:56 am
You don't? I sure wouldn't put that past him. He reported a student who posted some renderings here to a board in Australia, and he reported the "5 Cent Architecture" guy, and he reported some architect whose license was inadvertently expired, and he reported the state of Oregon - to itself!...
randomised
Jul 2, 18 11:25 am
Haha, oops, didn't know that, thought he was more into finding ways not to need to take exams to be a "real" architect.
archinine
Jul 1, 18 12:33 pm
If people spent more time focusing on their own careers rather than narcing/nitpicking on others’ successful careers, over regulatory trifles, out of some weird misplaced jealously, we’d probably be a lot better off as a community.
will galloway
Jul 2, 18 4:18 am
There was a mild row in the UK over someone saying Renzo Piano should not be called an architect in the UK, cuz he doesnt have a license there. Makes about as much sense as rejecting Bjarke's education. Clearly he learned something at one point.
On the other end of the scale Rafael Vinoly is apparently licensed here in Japan somehow. I guess he doesnt speak Japanese so I dont how he did that, but really why not? Unless you hate The Tokyo Forum it seems like it all worked out in the end.
SneakyPete
Jan 2, 19 12:00 pm
I love the Tokyo Forum, but I despise the work his firm has been putting out recently. Garbage layer cakes.
Nam Henderson
Jul 11, 18 9:53 pm
Related to the level of active enforcement some state boards pursue, see
So 9000+ architects in Illinois and they fined only one architect, over a period of 3 months (plus the two others for unlicensed practice of architecture.) Agreed, that's some pretty limited enforcement.
And those are about unlicensed practice, and failure to renew a license. None are about misuse of the title, in an academic setting, by somebody not actually practicing at all within the US, which was the issue with Lebbeus Woods. There are definitely university faculty in Illinois who fit that category, though the board doesn't seem to want to address that issue.
Nam Henderson
Jul 18, 18 11:26 pm
Related, you may have seen this
from last year? Even suspended for delinquent student loans.
As a licensed Architect, I would grant this creative man the title of Architect, as if it makes any difference once your dead.
Volunteer
Jul 21, 18 11:25 am
RIBA has gone to great pains to ensure John Pawson is not described as an architect. Don't know if any of the RIBA architects had anything to do with the Grenfell fire or not. The most experienced fire expert in the UK who was a licensed architect but who held an industry position that did not require him to stamp drawings and as such had not sent in the annual vigorish to RIBA was booted off the fire investigation team as being unlicensed. The fire investigation is sure to start any day now. Really.
BehoovingMoving
Dec 31, 18 5:14 pm
Put yourself in Woods's shoes. In what jurisdiction would he seek registration when his ideas and projects were spread all over the world? With no log book, internship or exam, he could have registered in any of the dozens of countries where "architect" is not a protected title—Norway, for instance—and show the whole idea to be nonsense in two seconds.
x-jla
Jan 2, 19 5:18 pm
It’s a question that needs more nuance. Since we don’t build in real-time , but rather create abstract information that results in a building, How far removed from the built result can the “architect” be before they are no longer considered an architect? Careful, that has implications for most. What percentage of traits have to be transferred from the idea to the built to be considered “the architect”? I’d say any influence, direct or indirect, that an abstract work has on an eventual built work, is some degree of architect. I think we would all agree that his abstract work in part has inspired and then materialized into built works by others, over and over again through the years. Is it better to be 100% the inspiration of 1 built work, or 1% of the inspiration of 100 built works?
Lebbeus Woods. What a rich life and legacy. A man ahead of his time, a true visionary, designer, illustrator, and leader in academia, the profession - a true anthropologist. Most of all, a great Architect.
Was he an Architect, though, by the standards of NCARB, the Registration Law, and the State Board where he practiced?
He insisted that he was an Architect, and in my view, he certainly was and should always be known as one.
I would like to ask the question of those who are more 'in the know' - Was he a registered Architect in the state of his residency and practice, and if he was not licensed, did the state board take action against him for claiming to be licensed when he was not? Probably Steven Holl knows the answers to these questions, but I would genuinely like to know Wood's status. As a preview of a next thread, I might inquire about Daniel Libeskind - having registration status in America. But first, I would like to ask about Lebbeus, a man I tremendously admire, and I'm sure most of you may share my feeling. Many thanks to everyone who posts! You have greatly informed me on matters I was naive and ignorant about - Archinect is a tremendous exchange.
simple answer, no
That's what I thought, especially when he told a lecture audience that he insisted that he was an architect. Thanks Arch_grad2.0
If he was an “architect”, then so is Richard Balkins
If he was an “architect”, then so was I when I was 10.
Oh, dear.....
Was Vitruvius an architect by NCARB standards?
I always wonder if AIA or NCARB officials get all freaked out when traveling to europe, all those code violations must be a nightmare to live with.
Great Caesar's Ghost - No He wasn't!
JLC-1, the Continent and the Isles must not be as litigious as the USA.....possibly?
true, lawyers is the worst class of vermin produced in the US.
If you're really asking the questions without guile: no, he wasn't licensed anywhere. And no, I wouldn't consider him an architect - he was an artist, sculptor, and teacher. But, he considered himself to be an architect.
Self-identification in and of itself isn't a reason for a state board to pounce on anyone. The only occupiable structures he ever worked on were in other countries, and were collaborations with architects. He didn't advertise architectural services or form an architecture firm. The state boards don't just sit around waiting to catch people who are called "architect" by a newspaper reporter or art critic, and they pretty much don't care what titles universities let their faculty use, within academic confines.
I think I see what the problem is - my state is THE WORST about how they handle this issue. It sounds like other states deal with this issue more sensibly, and permit running room for non-registrants to be informally known as 'architects' - like Lebbius. I'm trying to get the best picture I can of how this is played out across the nation....I don't want to name my state - yet.
Well there are lots of states with very active enforcement - some usual suspects are New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey - all of them have the resources to put full time staff on this sort of thing, and they collect a lot of revenue from the fines. But even in those, there needs to be a complainant. The boards themselves and their enforcement officers don't tend to make it their job to scan the media for examples of people illegally referring to themselves as architects. And, when someone does get reported because a third party (newspaper reporter, etc.) erroneously calls them an architect, they don't generally wind up being fined or sanctioned - though it can be a time suck for them to have to sort this out.
If you're a regular on this site you can start to think that people are getting fined right and left, on a regular basis - but it's mostly because there are a one or two enforcement zealots on this site, enamored with rules of all sorts, who make it their hobby to report everyone from random students in Australia to architects with inadvertently expired licenses. If you just don't call yourself an architect here, and don't make yourself architect business cards, website, title blocks, etc. you shouldn't really end up being anybody's target.
My province still tries to go after people who are named as architects in the media (ie newspapers etc) even though the designers in question never call themselves architects. It's hilarious to watch them get so upset.
Is the province doing that on their own, or is it because people are reporting them to the province?
Architecture is more than "putting together buildings, dealing with budget & construction constraints and negotiate with clients, city inspectors, or contractors." Good indicator might be people who call him Lebbeus consider him an architect :)
hey there... you're taking my response to another thread a little out of context here.
I know, therefore I didn't sign your name under it when giving it a more suitable context here. But I also didn't want to pretend I wrote it, hence the italics and quotation marks. Taking things out of context or putting things in a different context is what architects do for a living ;)
They don't borrow, they steal.
^yeah. Trying to train our new and most junior staff at the moment. Typical question is: "where can I get this detail" as opposed to, how does X component fit with Y.
It’s a struggle
in Ca. they are pretty strict about that - The AIA here posts a list of everyone they catch calling themselves architect - I'm a designer until when and iff I ever become licensed -
Xenakis, your post shows how varied each state is on this issue, or rather, how there are groups of states that are strict, others less so, and so on - like a sliding scale. And out of sync with NCARB, too, on some things?
Yes, in many ways. You know it when you see it, but as with anything else, there are good people suffering through it, too.
Are you confusing the California Architects Board (a state licensing entity) and the AIA? They are different you know.
Put BIG on the list ....Bjarke Ingels .
No license to practice in US and still calls himself and architect and has a US firm .
Why doesn’t AIA investigate this matter issue?
It's not the AIA's job to censure someone for operating without a license - the AIA has no regulatory power. The NY State licensing Board holds the regulatory power, or any other state in which BIG operates without a license. News flash: BIG is operating within the rules - they are a big enough firm to understand them and do it right.
That's what I have been wondering about - if I got a letter from the board (when I was not in violation in the first place) - how do Ingels, Rogers, Libeskind, and others get a pass, even Lebbeus, great man that he was. As my uncle once said, "Life isn't fair" - and he was right. But it's not wrong to fight for what is yours, or what you believe is yours.
Inconsistencies abound - it's a real muddle, even concerning Bjarke and BIG, I believe. I wonder if it might be because of a pluralistic aspect of the makeup of the profession itself, and trying to be all things to all people.......re: BIG - in my state, there is a ratio where licensed architects must be a certain percentage of the make-up of the owners/managing principals - a tight percentage. Bjarke wouldn't make it here if they applied the rule to everyone, like they do to 'the little people'.
Donna, I so respect you and your views! You are tremendous role model for others in the profession!
you said it SHAW, it's not just inconsistencies, it's the little people, as in everything, that pays for the sins of the big fish.
That's what I have observed, JLC-1, for the whole of my life. I believe it is the case here in this issue. Case in point: there is a large firm in my state which is titled by the names of engineers (all), yet, they have a huge architectural division within. None of the engineers are/were/have been architects. They were never affected, though some complained..... ????
Again this is a thing that varies from state to state. Some states do not require that any members of a firm providing architecture services be architects. Laws regarding naming of firms also vary widely from state to state - in some there are old firms that are named after people who were never licensed in the first place and have been dead for 100 years. In others that would not be allowed. In some any names in the firm's name must be owner's of the firm. In others the firm can be legally named after your best friend's cousin's dog's favorite squeaky toy.
It is specifically because of these variations that some firms choose their locations, to advantage their particular circumstances. And it's another irony of these threads that invariably contain entreaties to "fix NCARB" that NCARB encourages adoption of their model laws, which when adopted unamended, standardize all these issues from place to place. States choose whether to adopt or not adopt NCARB's model laws, and when they choose not to then the result is these types of inconsistencies.
Have you not heard of hiring an architect of record? That is a common way for someone like an international starchitect to work on a project without being licensed in that jurisdiction.
kjdt and steeplechase - what a revelation. Indeed, our state adopted the model law - and is super-enforcement minded to the jot and tittle. I think our state is one of the strictest. And yes, the inconsistencies are absolutely maddening......
architect of record, AOR, yes; I have one, he's my boss.
We do AOR in residential third homes, sometimes it's nauseating how much "the artists" don't know about building, let alone building at 8000' with 4 months of snow.
Woods was an amazing creative artist with an affinity for architectural investigation, but he was not an architect.
I use that title (not getting into any legal or state board definitions) for those that have the wherewithal and drive to take a design from conceptual blank page to completion in building form, while dealing with all of the constraints of client, budget, consultants, builders, subs contractors, attorneys, etc....and still manage to create a beautiful and tactile space to inhabit.
Did he pass the test about AIA docs?
I can't believe I said that.
I missed you guys.
Yes , NY state licensing board has the following info “
chitecture
Advisory Notice:
Titles for non-licensed individuals in Architecture
In December 2016, the AIA approved a policy statement that supports the title of “Architectural Associate” or “Design Professional” for licensure candidates meeting certain pre-licensure criteria. Use of these titles for non-licensed individuals is not permissible in New York. NYS Education Law Section 7302 limits use of the title “architect” to those who are licensed or otherwise authorized in New York as architects. The term “Architectural Associate” suggests that an individual is an architect through its use of the adjective “Architectural” and the implication that professional services are offered. Use of derivatives or combined terms of the word “architect”, as in “Architectural Designer” and “Project Architect” are similarly misleading to the public and not permissible in New York.
The second title, “Design Professional” is defined in the New York State Business Corporation Law as someone who is licensed in New York as an architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or geologist and who may be the licensee shareholder of a design professional service corporation (DPC). As such, the conveyance of that title upon a non-licensee is not permitted.
An architect licensed and registered in New York provides services related to the design and construction of buildings and the spaces around them, where the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned. These design and construction services typically include the following:A professional architect working.
consultation
evaluation
planning
preliminary studies
designs
construction documents and management
administration of construction contracts
You might retain an architect to:
evaluate a house's structural integrity and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.
design a new home or to design an addition to an existing home.
design the water and sewerage systems, storm drainage facility, and/or layout for a housing development or other tract of land.
assist in the development of a property.
Architects design all types of buildings - the actual structure, the interiors, and the land around them.
Basically you cannot call yourself an architect if you are not licensed even if you just consultant or just design - you cannot confuse the public with architectural services
That’s why I find BIG misleading the public
BIG is incorporated in NY as a foreign organization. Per NY's regulations, in a foreign professional service organization "only individual providing service must be licensed in NY, however each shareholder, officer and director must be licensed in some jurisdiction** **Requirement that definition of "some jurisdiction" = jurisdiction PC was originally formed in". I don't think they're misleading - Bjarke Ingels has been very forthcoming about his attempts to get licensed in New York and his current unlicensed status. The state rejected his education and told him to pursue the experience route. There are several NY-licensed partners to provide the architectural services in the NY branch, so they meet the requirements I quoted above.
"The state rejected his education and told him to pursue the experience route."
The state has a sense of humour...
No. New York does not require NAAB accredited degrees. His degree was rejected because New York's Office of Comparative Education evaluated it and determined it did not meet New York's education requirements to be considered equivalent to an architecture degree. So he'd need a lot of documented internship experiences meeting NY's rules, to offset the degree limitations.
"So he'd need a lot of documented internship experiences meeting NY's rules, to offset the degree limitations."
He could foam some models or do some door schedules at BIG, ha!
The criteria are the same as the New York college and university compliance criteria (the criteria that are used to assess degree programs from NY-accredited institutions). It's not architecture-specific - the NY bureau of comparative education assesses this for many professions - everything from nursing to accountants. It's got nothing to do with NAAB, and they don't accept EESA evaluations either - it's a process unique to New York.
Sounds good but still He cannot call himself an architect or state he is an architect or serving in the role as an architect in ny state
Architects design spaces that are constructed, physically and mentally in my opinion. If we narrow the definition to only utilitarian oriented built spaces we aren’t really thinking about/preparing for the future. We experience architecture in the mind all of the time. I have many favorite places and spaces that I’ve never actually visited. What’s the difference between experiencing a space that I’ve never been to but that exists vs experiencing a space that doesn’t physically exist anymore or anywhere. Not to mention being influenced by. The architecture in film for instance can be experienced.
I just got a psvr headset. It’s fucking unbelievable how amazing some of these virtual environments feel. The line between the physical and the virtual will be getting thinner and thinner over the coming years. Call it what you want, art, design, architecture...it’s relevance doesn’t rely on its categorization, but instead its effect.
Let the historians do the sorting.
I think you have the legal answer vs the moral question
LW was an architect , visionary teacher and social commentator
Legally not an architect just like he was not legally a senator, lawyer or doctor
You can call yourself anything In The world but in the business world you have laws to protect the citizens - bottom line
I think you have the legal answer vs the moral question
LW was an architect , visionary teacher and social commentator
Legally not an architect just like he was not legally a senator, lawyer or doctor
You can call yourself anything In The world but in the business world you have laws to protect the citizens - bottom line
quondam, thanks for sharing this insight and link! There are not enough hours or days in our lives to know as much as we desire; it's so great when others can inform us. This is critical information to learn/know about Lebbeus. I think I read somewhere that he worked for Eero Saarinen also in the 60's. Again, many thanks.
Lebbeus Woods worked at the firm of Eero Saarinen and Associates and its subsequent iterations, for about 6 years, starting in 1964, well after Saarinen's death. The firm eventually morphed into Roche Dinkeloo, which still exists, but the Eero Saarinen and Associates name was used in conjunction with some projects well into the 70s at least, if not beyond.
It may have been perfectly legal. It just depends on how the firm was registered, and what was legal at the time, in the affected states. In some states the same firm can have multiple registered names. In others it can't. In some it can have the names of dead people in the firm name. In others it can't.
I currently work for a firm that uses different firm names on different projects, depending on the state or country, because of those issues. The firm still has its original name in its original state, despite the person it's named after being dead for many years, but it cannot use that name in some other states, hence we use different title blocks and stationery for different projects.
At least with Saarinen & Associates, the people who continued the firm were people who had worked there. Sometimes name-brand firms are bought out by people having little or no association with the original firm, thus continuing for generations, but with no connection to the original.
How legal that was? Looking to explore more loopholes ;)
Yeah, I should've just let Balkins report them to the state for using the wrong firm name 50 years ago. But wait... they relocated to Connecticut... to which state should he report this?? Discuss.
Don't think Rick is out to report anyone.
You don't? I sure wouldn't put that past him. He reported a student who posted some renderings here to a board in Australia, and he reported the "5 Cent Architecture" guy, and he reported some architect whose license was inadvertently expired, and he reported the state of Oregon - to itself!...
Haha, oops, didn't know that, thought he was more into finding ways not to need to take exams to be a "real" architect.
If people spent more time focusing on their own careers rather than narcing/nitpicking on others’ successful careers, over regulatory trifles, out of some weird misplaced jealously, we’d probably be a lot better off as a community.
There was a mild row in the UK over someone saying Renzo Piano should not be called an architect in the UK, cuz he doesnt have a license there. Makes about as much sense as rejecting Bjarke's education. Clearly he learned something at one point.
On the other end of the scale Rafael Vinoly is apparently licensed here in Japan somehow. I guess he doesnt speak Japanese so I dont how he did that, but really why not? Unless you hate The Tokyo Forum it seems like it all worked out in the end.
I love the Tokyo Forum, but I despise the work his firm has been putting out recently. Garbage layer cakes.
Related to the level of active enforcement some state boards pursue, see
via @Latent_Design
So 9000+ architects in Illinois and they fined only one architect, over a period of 3 months (plus the two others for unlicensed practice of architecture.) Agreed, that's some pretty limited enforcement.
And those are about unlicensed practice, and failure to renew a license. None are about misuse of the title, in an academic setting, by somebody not actually practicing at all within the US, which was the issue with Lebbeus Woods. There are definitely university faculty in Illinois who fit that category, though the board doesn't seem to want to address that issue.
Related, you may have seen this from last year? Even suspended for delinquent student loans.
As a licensed Architect, I would grant this creative man the title of Architect, as if it makes any difference once your dead.
RIBA has gone to great pains to ensure John Pawson is not described as an architect. Don't know if any of the RIBA architects had anything to do with the Grenfell fire or not. The most experienced fire expert in the UK who was a licensed architect but who held an industry position that did not require him to stamp drawings and as such had not sent in the annual vigorish to RIBA was booted off the fire investigation team as being unlicensed. The fire investigation is sure to start any day now. Really.
Put yourself in Woods's shoes. In what jurisdiction would he seek registration when his ideas and projects were spread all over the world? With no log book, internship or exam, he could have registered in any of the dozens of countries where "architect" is not a protected title—Norway, for instance—and show the whole idea to be nonsense in two seconds.
It’s a question that needs more nuance. Since we don’t build in real-time , but rather create abstract information that results in a building, How far removed from the built result can the “architect” be before they are no longer considered an architect? Careful, that has implications for most. What percentage of traits have to be transferred from the idea to the built to be considered “the architect”? I’d say any influence, direct or indirect, that an abstract work has on an eventual built work, is some degree of architect. I think we would all agree that his abstract work in part has inspired and then materialized into built works by others, over and over again through the years. Is it better to be 100% the inspiration of 1 built work, or 1% of the inspiration of 100 built works?