We need to make sure we strike the proper balance between public safety and burdensome regulatory practices so that Indiana's economy can flourish and citizens can prosper - Nicholas Rhoad
Rhoad is executive director of the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency, an umbrella agency for 38 state boards, commissions and committees that oversee more than 240 types of licenses, permits and certifications between them.
— Indianapolis Business Journal Online
Last week Indiana began reviewing each of the State's more than 70 types of licenses to consider and then make recommendations which might be able to be eliminated. The (ironically-named?) Job Creation Committee is moving alphabetically through all professions, so last week they met with accountants and next week will meet with architects.
There seems to be a strong libertarian energy in this process, as the committee members ask, perhaps rhetorically, whether each profession could be self-regulated rather than regulated by the State using public dollars.
Having become very interested in licensure paths lately, I'll keep updating on this topic as it progresses.
What say you, 'necters: should architects just license ourselves? And what happens if one state decides to do so, would NCARB have anything to say?
Related:
IPLA Job Creation Committee webpage
NCARB Licensure Upon Graduation
AIA Raises Idea of National Licensure at Emerging Professional's Summit.
52 Comments
It sounds like your state may solve a big problem for many Archinectors, Donna....
LOL that's a positive spin, citizen!
Designers and architects should self regulate and to be a self regulator you should actually have experience getting buildings built, unlike the typical knuckle heads at the building department who passed their exams but rarely if ever saw a project through and only know how to make comments about paperwork and check boxes you missed...
Self-regulation is called certification because if it isn't state or government issued, it is not a license but a certification.
States still need to regulate but not necessarily regulate via a license but regulate by conduct/ethics/etc. regulations.
Donna,
NCARB may say what they want but NCARB doesn't rule the states because ultimately each state can do as it sees fit.
Yes, Richard, every state is ultimately in charge of its own registration processes. But I wonder how/if NCARB would use its weight to influence whether or not states go rogue.
Not to derail the topic, but: complaints against NCARB and AIA are legion, but when real issues come up - which this one might be, or it might just be political theater - the national organizations *do* have the ability to influence policies. In my opinion, it would be a shame if they had to spend resources dealing with political theater rather than working on the interesting initiatives that are currently underway at those organizations.
if certification is what they will call self-regulations, then I'll trade my licenses in to be a bonafied Certified Architect. The state can step in when it gets nasty, like a 3rd party consultant.
The city I do most my work in has a Self-Certification process (Professional Certification) with the option of also doing a Professional Sign-off. In short you can file and sign-off the job without ever involving the Department of Buildings, other than them keeping the records. This is reasonable for small jobs like interior renovations, repairs, etc...You are typically not advised to do both (certified and signed off), since that usually kicks you straight to Audit. In an Audit instead of a knucklehead examiner who is wet behind the ears you get a seasoned veteran, and if you were trying to pull a fast one - watch out.
What of course happened during the boom times, Architects in this city were professionally certifying and sometimes signing off new building construction that took advantage of unclear areas of the zoning ordinance and building codes. The architects were not necessarily wrong but had the city reviewed their drawings they would have interpreted the code to NOT allow what was proposed.
Once the recession hit and the city caught up, the city took oversight to incredible new levels and frankly often stifling objectionist behavior. They cleaned up the unclear areas of the zoning and code and added more paperwork to the whole process. (My recent favorite, even if you check NOT in FEMA flood zone, if you do not put a statement noting as such on the drawings you have to submit the FEMA MAPS (stamp them, which is odd) and even provide a survey if in a flood zone - nevermind the job is on the 15th floor).
A Spanish colleague told me in Spain the AIA equivalent reviews the drawings, but your basically good to go for approvals simply by being the architect. Kind of like a soft peer review.
In this city, which I'm sure you have an idea where it is now, the economic factors in all projects are so powerful, the unethical abuse of self-certification is quite common place.
So I might suggest, everyone who studied architecture becomes a certified Architect, the state does oversight of those who are certified, you know like check random projects occasionally and allow the local municipalities to operate as they always have.
I tend to agree with the notion of self-certification for the profession (I am licensed BTW).
The truth is architects have only a fairly indirect influence on public safety - and this is already covered by building codes. The license is just a document certifying that we really promise to adhere to standards which are already part of the law (building / zoning codes). And the licensing process itself doesn't test knowledge of those, since they vary widely.
I often see architects compared as professionals to lawyers and doctors - but really its different. Those professions deal essentially with urgent matters - a bad doctor leaves you dead; a bad lawyer steals your money or gets you imprisoned. Our obligation to the public is largely duplicated by building codes and zoning. The procedures for producing a building already include a very large amount of oversight; and in the worst case a non-compliant building can be remedied without causing personal harm to anyone (but at great expense to the owner).
The licensing argument is often conflated into a notion of protecting ourselves from competition - which to be blunt is a direct contradiction of public interest and contrary to the purpose of regulations. But I don't actually see removal of licensing as something which would impact architects fees except for marginal cases. Most of us work in firms which are hired for their expertise on a given project type, and the capability of the design team to provide a design that improves occupant experience. For the most part, clients pay for this based on the value they believe we provide. A firm that had the reputation for designing buildings that don't meet code wouldn't last long - and the partners would remain subject to civil liability for the cost of repairing non-compliant buildings.
Ultimately I think this is recognition that the practice of architecture no longer encompasses structural engineering in any meaningful way. Structural engineering remains a technical specialty that really ought to remain licensed, and does have clear responsibility for the life-safety of the public.
A layperson (with plenty free time and a good mind for legalese) could review a building's architectural plans and determine whether it complied with codes. But neither the layperson - nor most architects - can review the engineer's calculations to determine whether they comply.
You make good points, midlander, but for me the main issue they point to is still this one: architects have a hard time defining what we actually do.
I'm reminded of the story - covered here on Archinect - of the California firefighter who was killed because the ceiling collapsed in a house that was designed by a non-licensed person who presented himself as an architect. The ceiling collapse wasn't strictly a structural failure; the room had a gas fireplace that was incorrectly vented and a sprinkler system went off that then caused the collapse, if I recall correctly.
Architects are charged not *just* with keeping buildings standing, but with ensuring that all aspects of HSW are met - structure, air quality, fire code, accessibility, egress, and more. No other professional or code official has responsibilities as broad as we do - we're responsible for for coordinating the work of all those other professionals, and our own, too.
As an anecdote - I've been working in China a while now. Chinese regulations require not only owners but a certain percentage of all employees at architecture firms to be licensed. The firms are classified by the ratio and nature of the licenses which vary based (I think) on construction class and usage that the designer may stamp.
The thing is, it's hard for firms to accumulate so many licensed individuals working as mid-level employees. There is a black market for architecture licenses which firms lease from the licensed individuals and hold on file. The pay to lease out a high-level license is often as high as the pay for being an employee so some architects here work for one firm but lease out their license to another office that's short on licensed staff, effectively getting paid twice!
I consider it good that our US licensing system doesn't make licenses so valuable as to encourage this kind of workaround.
Donna, I'll agree it's tough to define what we do. I'm looking at it that we are basically responsible for providing design services in compliance with relevant codes and regulations. Unlike any of the engineering disciplines (I didn't mean to limit that to only structural) we don't really have a body of knowledge that's incomprehensible to a layperson - meaning any ordinary person should be able to verify whether our work complies with building codes. We do have an obligation to coordinate the work - but again, I don't see many situations where this depends on specialized knowledge that ought to be "proved" by a license.
I remember reading about that sad case in LA, here's a link. And another with more background. The facts on this are quite interesting, and don't persuade me that licensing improves public safety - though I'm open to discussion.
Essentially, a designer who seems to have been licensed as an architect in Germany made post-inspection modifications to a house he was building for himself in LA. These illegal modifications included an unsafe fireplace assembly. It sounds like the home was exempt, as there is no note that it required a licensed architect, and it was approved by a building inspector based on the original design without any fireplace. That un-approved fireplace set the home on fire and a firefighter died in the effort to extinguish this. Mr. Becker himself escaped unharmed, and seems to have made a small fortune selling the remains of this house before fleeing to Europe. But in a twist of justice he was later arrested at the airport and charged with manslaughter.
The installation was in flagrant violation of the manufacturer's recommendation, and the designer was well aware what he was doing was illegal. He went so far as to lie to the building inspector about his intention, and installed the fireplace himself after the inspection was complete.
In this case I don't see what a license could have done. The building was exempt, and the designer was clearly aware what he was doing was both unsafe and illegal. If he had a license (he didn't) it would be suspended, but that wouldn't prevent him from doing this again. Licenses protect against professional incompetence, not criminal neglect.
Reading the follow up on this just makes me angry - it looks like Becker got out after 6 months and went back to Europe with his $7,000,000. The judge noted at sentencing that the building inspector should have been more thorough in following up!
It seems to be uncountably rich is to be unaccountably rich.
You make some interesting points midlander. I've often wondered about the multiple levels of oversight involved in erecting a building and how necessary licensure was. I think some kind of license should be required, but the amount of detail and performance standards required to be memorized seems like a waste of time. Builders can do our job at a residential level because they immerse themselves in the standard methods of construction. The only place I've found my expertise valuable is in designing buildings that integrate the practical, experiential and compositional aspects of architecture, coordinating them into a rational and harmonious whole. That's no small feat considering it's those aspects of buildings that we tend to appreciate, I'm just not sure I need a liscence to do that job well. If there where no permit process, then I could see licensure being a bulwark against shoddy work, but isn't that what the permit and inspection process are about? The licence I contemplate being useful might be similar to a builder's credentials, because it's the construction of architecture when life safety comes into play. Everything else is the art of building, which as we've seen can take a variety of styles.
Licenses protect against professional incompetence, not criminal neglect.
There are plenty of utterly incompetent fully licensed architects out there. Licenses protect an "official" hierarchy and status quo including insurance companies and an utterly broken "professional" education system.
And then the guy who wanted to insulate the bottom of the footing popped up ...
That's certainly incompetent, licensed or not.
there are some potential disadvantages to licensure too. This article seems to imply California could hold architects responsible for design changes done in contradiction to the architect's recommendation. It extends the duty of care to all future users of a building, not only to the owners who establish the original criteria for the design. And it looks like architects rather than developers are given responsibility for enforcing that.
What should the architect do - stamp his feet and resign when owners insist on an unsuitable change? There isn't a very reasonable process for holding to standards such as occupant comfort that fall outside of building codes.
Great - the developers will be finally successful in abolishng licensure/making it super easy, so that there are many more licensed professionals, hence not having to pay more fees.
In insurance-driven liability-mad society licensure is no protection and may actually be a liability. The minute there is a claim most insurers will be calculating how to cut their losses, which typically means throwing you under the bus.
In the CA case insurers are just looking to broaden the pool of people they can go after in a claim. The strategy is sue *everyone* then sit back and let all your adversaries duke it out. Don't ask me how I know.
UPS made deliveries during construction? Name the as a fifth party. What about they guy with the coffee truck?
One dosen't need a licence to prove your worth to developers unless it's part of the requirements to build. But if you focus on the actual design of buildings merging the practical with aesthetics, and why people react the way they do around them, you will be invaluble to smart developers, licence or not. If you are out to prove to the world how smart you are or how they should see the world from a particular perspective, you'll need all the help you can get.
The license is nothing more than a form of professional protectionism. Out of the licensed and unlicensed architects that I know there is absolutely no difference in ability or competence. Competence and skill are highly individualized.
"We need to make sure we strike the proper balance between public safety and burdensome regulatory practices so that Indiana's economy can flourish and citizens can prosper" - Nicholas Rhoad
Who will take on the task then of "certifying" architects, so they become Architects? The AIA? NCARB? How will the state force these entities to accept that burden? Why would any Architect stay in Indiana, to compete with what, any schmo with a leroy lettering set, and some banged up single sided mylar? Really?
Say what you will about licensure, but the question remains, and no one's asked it; Who, or what, will benefit from this idiotic decision?
Since no building code official is held liable for any error and omission currently, will this absurd decision then force building departments to get some additional insurance, because we all know it's not rocket science to become a code official, and many architects can run laps around local yokels.
Would you walk into a public building, if you knew that the person designed it received a degree from the University of Phoenix, the code official was framing sub three weeks before, and the state institutes tort reform, which prevents you from suing anyone because some asshat from Germany thinks he knows better than a licensed architect?
Go fuck yourselves, damned teapublicans.
Wrong question^
the question is...who benefits from licensure?
If a measurable significant benefit doesn't exist then why should the license?
Also, the public buildings in most parts of the world are not designed by ncarb licensed architects. Scary places like the Norway...
The whole liability argument is hilarious too. Why would you take pride in being a liability sink? Just another bad business move by the arch profession. No other business on earth intentionally tries to acquire/maintain liability unless they have nothing else of value to offer.
Damn fascists!
Also, if a university of Phoenix grad gets a public building commission 3 weeks upon graduating like you say could happen I will personally blow them. That's less likely then justin beiber calling me in the next 5 minutes to invite me on a unicorn hunting expedition.
A person of such little experience would have a hard time getting a bathroom remodel.
These hypothetical scare tactics are straight up bullshit. "If we don't license architects the terrorists win"
Face it j-laxitive, you're a whiny intern-type, and can't pass the ARE's.
Who benefits? I benefit, the public benefits, architecture benefits. Why even go to architecture school? Why spend 5 years getting a BArch, or 4+2, or 3, getting a MArch? Why not just let anyone walking into a cocktail party a license, you know the ones, the ones that tell me all the time; I always wanted to be a architect, I took a drafting class in HS. Maybe that's it, you're the person type at the cocktail party?
I don't take pride in being a liability sink, I take pride in knowing more than most, and I also take comfort in knowing that virtually all public buildings I've traversed have been designed by architects, architects that have demonstrated some basic understanding of HSW, and some "idea" of public accommodation.
Doctors have and maintain liability, lawyers have liability, companies that produce things have liability.
As for your screed against NCARB, again, your slip is showing. NCARB is the body by which exams are organized and distributed, and data is collected. They are a member organization, by which over 50 jurisdictions are members, and your complaints, as seemingly valid as they are to a person who believes ebola is going to savaged North Dakota, are weak, yawn worthy pablum. The rantings of someone, that as soon as they get a license, will shut the fuck up and do jack. You have no solutions, none, to help interns along their path to becoming architects.
One last point. I think what floors most people about you is this; how does someone decide to spend 5 years in architecture school, with the full knowledge of IDP, NCARB and ARE, and still manage to make that choice and come out complaining about the process?
You sound like a idiot masochist complaining about a dominatrix that slaps your ass to hard, and that the spit in your face isn't thick enough.
b3tadine, it's obviously easier to complain than make an effort.
Donna, perhaps you could take a look at your neighbour up north's professional licensing. Canadian architects are self-govern and self-financed in each of the provinces. IDP and exam requirements are still the same as the USA although Canadian tests have been modified to suit their own codes and (modern) units.
b3tadine, your rant about the importance of schooling would make sense if one actually learned to build rather than talk like an architect. Infact, I think there's some validity to the idea of merging the architectural profession with the building profession. There would be more accountability for things that went wrong, and I dare say architects might actually deserve to be on the same plane as doctors and lawyers, as some assume us to be. I would be curious to see the evolution of architecture from that perspective rather than the stratified paradigm we currently have. Might look more like the slower evolution of architecture rather than looking for the next 'ism'.
Thayer-D, we have that model, it currently exists; design build. Architects are always being sued, high profile too, so are you suggesting we should be responsible for means and methods? People try to hold us accountable for that as well.
But it's good to know that schooling isn't important. While I may not have learned a tremendous amount about construction in school, I did learn how to think abstractly, and learn the questions to ask. I'm continuing to become a better architect, my education never ceases, unlike many I know, and I can't think that without that education I'd be as curious about I'm doing now.
I learned a lot in M-arch (graduated summa cum laude), learned little to nothing during internship, and a ton upon starting own design business. I make 3x the amount of money that my fellow grads make (most who are still interns 5 years out) and I actually spend 60-80% of my time designing...small albeit but interesting and fulfilling work. B3, there are many others like me. You have a narrow view of architecture. Other than avoiding the long annoying explanation of why I'm not an "architect" at dinner parties the license really serves me no purpose. My work speaks for itself. Does yours?
Your work speaks for you, as an intern.
^anyway not gonna resort to personal attacks. Anonymous feather fluffing is pretty damn petty.
My basic position is that licensure stifles architecture from reaching its full potential. I don't have the time to restate the many reasons.
An interesting side to this is the difference in points of view between those who are licensed and those who are not.
"While I may not have learned a tremendous amount about construction in school, I did learn how to think abstractly, and learn the questions to ask. I'm continuing to become a better architect, my education never ceases, unlike many I know, and I can't think that without that education I'd be as curious about I'm doing now. "
Sorry b3tadine, I meant merging architecture with building in school. Schooling is very important, which is why why I'm so critical of the current state of affairs where so little understanding of actual building. Just the idea that architecture should be merged with building is a joke because not too long ago they where one and the same.
As for learning to think abstractly, that happens as a teenager, according to neurologists and psychologists. The abstraction you're talking about is of questionable worth, not becasue one dosen't get it, but becasue there's no time spent actually understanding the litteral first, unlike our own development into adulthood.
down here, architects can't regulate themselves unless there is state oversight. otherwise it falls under anti-trust regulations.
the constitutionality of licensing boards is being debated in the supreme court, at least as far as it relates to teeth whitening.
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/14/356177201/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-teeth-whitening-case
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-analysis-court-wary-of-immunity-for-licensing-boards-but-what-about-doctors/
Yes curt, and as I've stated before professional protectionism is a violation of our constitutional rights. To not be considered "protectionist," the regulations in question must be proven necessary and non-redundant. This is not possible in the case of architecture licensing. Research will show that hsw differences between nations has everything to do with codes and nothing to do with architecture licensing. I'm also certain that far fetched hypothetical scenarios like b3 mentioned will not hold up in a court of law.
What strikes me odd is the complete hypocracy from the "rules are rules" crowd. They conveniently accept the self-serving licensure laws as if god personally delivered them via unicorn drawn chariot, yet they neglect to accept the "rules are rules" mantra when talking about the higher more scrutinized and established laws set by the constitution.
The dismal shitscape of cheap disposable "architecture" is clearly not improving post licensure laws. What's the benefit? Realistically?
i don't think any of that was in the discussion that the actual supreme court justices were having. i understand you're hung up on the unfortunate fact that it is too hard for you to get a license to practice architecture, but i really don't think you understand what the problem is.
licensing and registration laws for architects are not what's causing what you consider a dismal shitscape. not even close. i can't fathom how you think letting any idiot design the dismal shitscape we live in will somehow improve the current environment instead of only some people who have proven minimal competence designing this dismal shitscape.
if we get rid of licensing and registration, people aren't going to all of a sudden hire you to design commercial buildings because you have a strong opinion. it's not hard to have an opinion. perhaps people will hire you because they think they can take advantage of your obvious lack of experience in commercial construction, but you're going to be competing against a lot of other people who have not proven minimum competence and have minimal experience in commercial construction.
if you're goal is to fix the dismal shitscape, then pay to build the world in your likeness. letting inexperienced people screw around under the guise of 'design' isn't going to improve anything. and i'm not saying you can't design a better taco bell, i'm saying you have no idea how to design a taco bell. just stick with sketchup if that's what you like doing.
I can't fathom how you think letting any idiot design the dismal shitscape we live in will somehow improve the current environment instead of only some people who have proven minimal competence designing this dismal shitscape.
I love this, and totally agree.
^ And we wonder why the profession is in the shitter.
Who says "its too hard for me to become an architect"? You said that not me. Just don't see the need to work for peanuts, face financial insecurity, and give up a much more rewarding, educational, and stable gig for a license that I don't really need.
Curt just out of curiosity, how much experience do you have? Don't forget to subtract the 10 hours a day you spend trolling around archinect.
That arrow was meant for curt, not you Donna.
To address that point... It will not make a difference at all. Actually the shitscape will look exactly the same which is my point.
Reading the original article it doesn't look like there is any specific focus on architects' licenses, nor does it seem this commission is anything more than rhetoric.
Still, it makes me wonder how this would affect practice for architects in Indiana if the state eliminated licensing. As I've noted (and J-LAX, Thayer-D) the license isn't what good clients pay for; they pay for reputation and skill. I don't think established practices would see much effect.
Ironically, eliminating licensing could reduce the appeal of practice in Indiana for many young intern-architects. Who would choose to work in Indiana right out of school if they wouldn't be able to get a license in the state eventually? Indiana is not such a big market - and without a license these designers would be unable to get reciprocity in the other 49 states.
Unless NCARB worked out some procedure to apply Indiana work hours towards out-of-state licenses, I think young architecture graduates would be disinclined to work in Indiana. There might be a small influx of experienced non-architects looking to open a small firm; but established firms could struggle to recruit architecture staff who didn't plan to stay in Indiana forever.
The shitscape is largely the result of a corrupt value system and has less to do with architectural competence than it does with the program of those who hire them. Although seeing the shit produced by many (especially the headline starchitects that 'lead' the profession) makes it clear that we bear responsibility, too.
Thank you, jla-x for clarifying.
midlander, anecdotally, I know of a few projects that have gone to registered architects because the client specifically wanted to work with a registered architect not a designer, even though the designers in question are very, very talented. The license does matter to some people.
The hearing for architects is tomorrow! I'll keep everyone updated.
According to a tweet by our ED, the Job Creation Committee asked the question: Should AIA Indiana handle a lot of licensing issues for the state?
LOL this is like an invitation to a food fight, but what do ya'll think? Should each state's AIA oversee licensing?
Donna,
In GA, we don't "oversee" the licensing, but we do help them fill their at-large professional board member vacancies.
What we saw here a couple of years ago was a similar vein of logic - the Sec. of State's office wanted to scrap the existing, external licensing requirements for all professions (and abolish a few, though more along the lines of a hairdresser or something like that). In practice, this would have made IDP/NCARB irrelevant since the state would have created their own 'standard'.
AIA Georgia immediately (along with the doctors/nurses and engineers) figured out that this would be the worst of all worlds - you have a separate, completely arbitrary set of guidelines that would make it vastly more difficult for people getting their first license here from ever being able to obtain professional reciprocity elsewhere. We took our concerns to the SOS, worked together with his office to help really understand the core of the problem (which was funding to administer all the licenses, something that may be driving your situation there at its root) and we pledged to work with him to craft legislation that could help streamline the process but not abolish the existing standards. They agreed, pulled their bill, and we've developed a much better relationship with his office ever since.
The problem I could see with an AIA chapter taking it over fully is: who gets paid to do it? Is AIA doing it for "free" or is the state contracting with them? Here, at least, it's almost one person's full time job around renewal time. Automation could work, as could extending the time between renewals (something else we've worked with them on).
That's literally like putting the wolfs in charge of watching the sheep.
Actually the saying goes...The wolf watching the hen house.... Lol. I knew that sounded weird
Should each state's AIA oversee licensing?
LOL, put the good old boys in charge of who can get into their club.
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.