Aspiring architects beware: The rules dictating how you communicate your professional aspirations and expertise are more strict than you may think. With constant state-level enforcement of architectural licensure standards a fact of life for designers, it may be wise to review a few of the laws of the land as they relate to terminology for unlicensed designers.
A case in point: Did you know that if you are unlicensed and refer to yourself as an “architectural designer” online or in print, you could be in violation of the law in some states? That could be the case, for example, in California, where § 5536 of Article 3, Chapter 3, Division 3 of the California Business and Professions Code, Architects Practice Act reads:
It is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both fine and imprisonment to advertise or put out any sign, card, or other device that might indicate to the public that he or she is an architect, that he or she is qualified to engage in the practice of architecture, or that he or she is an architectural designer.”
That’s not all, however. Idris Ahmed, an Enforcement Analyst with the Enforcement Unit at the California Architects Board (CAB) tells Archinect, “§5536 prohibits an unlicensed person from using ‘architectural designer’ or even ‘architecture student’ or ‘architectural intern.’” Ahmed continues, “Further it would also prohibit indicating under areas of specialty that a person specializes in ‘architecture’ or any variation of the word ‘architect.’”
Ahmed added further, “An unlicensed person is free to say that he or she has a degree in architecture if that is a factual statement.”
For those of you thinking that American Institute of Architects-approved terms like “architectural associate” or “design professional” are fine to use, be warned: They almost certainly are not. Ahmed explains, “California law defines a ‘design professional’ as someone that is a registered professional engineer, or licensed as a land surveyor or architect.”
“The only title that an unlicensed individual could use would be ‘designer,’” according to Ahmed.
(See this article from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards for a deeper dive into the debate over titles and terminologies for unlicensed workers)
CAB is an entity that sets policy for “21,000 licensed architects and approximately 10,000 candidates who are in the process of meeting examination and licensure requirements” in the state, according to the CAB website.
The entity also regularly patrols cyberspace for unlicensed individuals and companies offering (or appearing as if they might offer) architectural services illegally, along with some of the other extensive enforcement efforts it undertakes. Enforcement measures include checking professional profiles, social media, websites, and other forms of business communications, including business cards and stationary, to ensure that there is no question who is and who is not licensed to practice architecture in the state.
As architects are tasked with ensuring that their buildings preserve the life and safety of the inhabitants that use them, it's a matter entities like CAB take extremely seriously. “California is one of the more restrictive states in how it protects the use of the term ‘architect,’” Ahmed writes.
In addition to sussing out these unsanctioned practitioners, according to CAB, the entity is “responsible for receiving and screening complaints against licensees” from the public, as well as “performing some of the investigation into these complaints,” according to the CAB website.
CAB does not publish statistics on how many low-level enforcement measures are taken each year, but it does publish an “Enforcement Actions” list meant to share with the public the names of individuals it has formally sanctioned or barred from practice in the state (The National Architecture Accreditation Board keeps its own “Disciplinary Actions” list, as well).
CAB is constantly enforcing its mandate, so we suggest taking a moment to review your Archinect profile (and all of your other public facing professional communications) to ensure that how you present your skill sets matches up with what is allowed in your state. Based on advice from Ahmed, a few tips include:
It is not uncommon to have fines or other professional and legal repercussions take shape as a result of violating state licensure standards. To avoid this possibility look into your state's rules describing how you can and cannot describe your skills and working abilities. NCARB maintains a handy state-by-state directory of local architecture boards that can help lead you to the appropriate resources.
when i was a student i started a company doing architectural illustrations and model making with 2 friends. We got a letter from a lawyer almost immediately saying we had to take out the architecture reference. It was a weird wake up call for all of us.
As a legal apparatus I understand the point of view, more or less. Still, it becomes really odd when people are complaining that Renzo Piano should not be called an architect except in his home jurisdiction (happened in the UK not that long ago). What a strange thing. What do we call him? Designer seems a bit silly. He architected the heck out of the Shard and a few other buildings around the world. Designer sounds like he is going to come up with a cool poster or something...
...and isn't Bjarke also not allowed to call himself an architect or something like that? So strange.
All 11 Comments
Perhaps they should apply this same scrutiny to all of the so-called software "architects", IT "architects", etc. The use of the term "architect" and "architecture" is freely used, abused, and associated with IT and software development. It is highly inappropriate and devalues the real meaning of "Architect".
So now you can't legally be an architecture student in CA? LOL
It's worse than that in California, I can't hold myself out as an architect, or visit sites officially as an architect, even if I am licensed in other states.
My gender pronoun is architect prove me wrong.
+++ lmao
hey, at least you can shit on the sidewalk.
Okay, it seems that the term "design professional" has been co-opted to apply only to the practice of architecture here. The practice of design can apply to many different fields of endeavour: graphic, industrial, engineering, exhibit, fashion, packaging, etc. Nor is it limited to visual or physical things; one can design an educational syllabus or political campaign.
In the words of the late Victor Papenek, "Design is the conscious effort to impose a meaningful order.
This is getting unbelievably messy. Especially given the fact they allow other industries to co-opt the term architect with no legal consequence. I've settled on building and design consultant for work I pursue independently that does not require a license... But who knows if that's even adequate for some states anymore. Meanwhile, you have expeditors in LA - many of whom have no formal education in architecture - running around all the city agencies to sign off on projects. : /
when i was a student i started a company doing architectural illustrations and model making with 2 friends. We got a letter from a lawyer almost immediately saying we had to take out the architecture reference. It was a weird wake up call for all of us.
As a legal apparatus I understand the point of view, more or less. Still, it becomes really odd when people are complaining that Renzo Piano should not be called an architect except in his home jurisdiction (happened in the UK not that long ago). What a strange thing. What do we call him? Designer seems a bit silly. He architected the heck out of the Shard and a few other buildings around the world. Designer sounds like he is going to come up with a cool poster or something...
...and isn't Bjarke also not allowed to call himself an architect or something like that? So strange.
preston scott cohen isn't a licensed architect and he ran a fucking architecture department for nigh unto a decade. i suspect that these legal nastygrams are reserved exclusively for young professionals with little social / financial capital, hoping they'll comply without realizing that the lawyers demand has no teeth.
This might make sense if the education was useful and you were accredited the title upon completion. But to deny anyone working in architecture - or even studying it - the use of the term is absurd.
There are many unlicensed people with lifetimes of experience who are the foundation of architectural firms. And on the other side there are waaaay too many licensed incompetent hacks out there doing absolute shit work. The establishment doesn’t care as long as you have the correct piece of paper and pay the dues on time, which in the end is what this is all about. Especially as municipalities specifically charged with oversight are completely exempt from responsibility.
Someone needs to explain to me how the policing of architecture licensing has benefited the built world. It seems there was more / higher quality of design before the AIA and its minions NCARB and all these niche organizations imposed faux-elitism to drive out diversity of ideas and talent. Not to mention diversity all together. But they do make a lot of money for the gatekeepers.
If you have any degree in architecture, that should be good enough to be an architect. This kind of nonsense should be challenged by the courts.
Because arch education is nowhere near good enough to pump out reasonable architects. 90% of the architect's useful education is in the workplace, not in studio. You don't get a license because you slaved away 80hr/week rendering pretty models.
Now, what other dead horse shall we beat today?
i find it interesting that you are proud of your country's socialist bent, and in general seem progressive, but when it comes to the issue of architectural education and professionalization, your stance is quite conservative (by that i mean you tend to favor top down structures in practice aka dumb students know nothing + it's only those in management and licensing bodies who have authority and knowledge)
Yes, Non Sequitur-- if that's your real fake name-- explain yourself!
Square, why can one not have a stance on an issue independent from other issues? Just because I may lean one way on a topic does not mean I can't have a different opinion on another. Besides that, the giving away of licenses upon not flunking out of arch school is a moot discussion.
you can, it's just an observation. and i don't think it's a moot discussion, i actually find it really important, and chemex brings up some good points. i also think there's a connection between the lack of diversity in leadership in architecture and all of the legal hoops and restrictions one has to jump through to get to licensure. maybe we can achieve a better balance.
^
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?