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 31 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.
and when you get your license you get tired of these damn hoops and you literally start sounding like an old fart when dealing with building code people -
"well that's how you feel about it" - me,
"no sir, that's the code it says it right there." - stickler,
"depends how you read it, where do you want to start." - me,
"we found that people cheated using this reading." - supervisor,
"so you're allowed to make assumptions? I thought we were reading the code literally?" - me.
"you know what we mean" - stickler and superivor.
"No i don't, 2 years ago, this was legal, now it's not, but nowhere is there any bit of text explaining this, and you want me to take you serious?" - me,
"sir, you're going to have to reschedule." stickler,
"whatever, what do you want to see, I'll draw and note it that way?" - me.
"sir, it's the code, it's not what I want to see." - stickler,
"so show 5 lines or 2 and hatch, what makes you feel better?" - me
....I'm not even 50 yet and I already sound like an old fart architect - this is where you are certain you are surrounded by idiots and they usually work for the building department... I literally just mumble now when dealing with beauracrats and go "whatever, never will happen - IN THE REAL WORLD!"
so I totally get the pain of trying to draw something and get it built without a license, when 50 years ago your grandpa would of done it without helmet, OSHA shit, and just a hammer and spit. do you know how fucking undersized homes in this country were built up until like 10 years ago!
Excellent comment! Especially as the ‘bodies’ charged with enforcement of ‘professional standards’ consist of members of the same profession thereby opening up a conflict of interest.
^
Do you know why this article is...well, I was going to say dumb but let me hold myself to a higher level of intellect and say inaccurate. The state of California actually uses the titles "Architectural Designer" and "Architectural Associate" for unlicensed staff so if you are in the state of CA and CAB tries to fine you for using either title, call their bluff. The state will not fine you for doing something that the state does. Any attorney would take a case like this pro bono because they will win and the state will have to pay their fees.
Why would you consider this dumb? This article is directly referencing rules from California Architects Board, and verified by Idris Ahmed, Enforcement Analyst with the Enforcement Unit at the CAB.
Evidence for your claim would also be welcome, Janette.
I hold an architecture license in a foreign country, which entitles me to call myself an architect only there, while in the States I do not hold a license in yet, but I have been freelancing in the US as an architectural designer. architectural photographer , architectural drafter for over 10 years !!! Now I would like to understand the complexity of this - according to this law - I can not advertise my services with the word architectonic in front ? Can I at least change the spelling of the word and say I do "arquitectonic services" or "Arch-Photography" or "arkitectonic drafting" - after all is just a combination of letters that do not mean anything in English!!!!! - Would I be persecuted in the US if I advertise myself like that in my website?
Depends. There is no law-fairy. Someone would have to care. If someone decided to care then yes, you would probably be cited.
10 years is plenty of time to figure out the process...
I'm certain that the vast majority of commenters here are unlicensed, resentful, wish they were's who don't understand and/or failed the exams required to become an actual licensed design professional. There must also be a complete ignorance of what professional liability and responsibility means. The final part of this blindness is the fraud involved with misleading potential clients with a legal title that bears a responsibility to the public at large.
There are reasons that prohibit medical workers who are not certified as medical doctors from prescribing pharmaceuticals or performing surgical procedures. Why not let legal aides or your uncle Charlie hang a shingle on their garage calling himself a lawyer and let him handle your divorce or represent you in a criminal case.
Historically, the architect was the master builder. Unfortunately, many "architects" especially the yungins don't know how to build anything and are more CAD/computer operators that real architects. Even so, if they happen to be licensed (ie real and legal) they are held to higher level of responsibility/liability than most other professions.
So, if you want to drive a car, you need a license to do so. If you want to call yourself a Harvard Grad, go to Harvard and graduate. If you want to fly people in a plane, get an appropriate pilot's license even though one is not necessary to be a pilot light. If you want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge you can find an unlicensed real estate broker who will sell it to you.
If you want the privilege and excessive liability that comes with being a licensed architect, go to school, graduate, work in the field for at lease 3 years, get people to sponsor you, take and pass the exam, and earn the privilege of calling yourself an architect.
FYI, you better by professional insurance.
I'm fairly certain your head, is firmly buried up your ass. Quite a few people posting on this nearly three year old thread are architects, in multiple countries, and states. You'd think with all that prestige you carry, you'd be a better grammatician, or internet troll, but you do you, old-timer.
This situation is nonsense.
Please provide documentation of any guarantee or warranty for any architect that states work is free of any errors and omissions with the added comment "or your money back".
Providing floor plans, elevations, wall sections and maybe specifications are all that most, if not all, plan reviews require for almost all residential projects and many commercial projects. And let's keep in mind, regardless of title or license, if there is any, ANY, problem with a project the person who created the drawings will get sued.
Case in point: A decade ago a maintenance worker fell thru a smoke door opening at a university in West Virginia. The architectural firm and the engineering firm that did the project settled out of court.
There is nothing that says an architect is unquestionably above any error or omission. "I'm an architect, therefore I can't be wrong and you can't sue me." Someone needs to explain that just because you passed 7 tests, doesn't makes you bullet proof. Regardless of your title, you are open for a law suite if there is a problem. It doesn't matter in the least what you call yourself: Architect, architectural designer, architectural CAD guy, architectural drafter - it just doesn't matter what your title is. If you were responsible for producing the set of drawings that was used to get a building permit - you're on the hook. The public doesn't care what you call yourself - you will get sued if there is a problem. So what if you hold yourself out as an architect - do you think you won't get sued?
And let's understand:
Daniel Burnham, Louis Sullivan, Walter Gropius, Richard Waite, Thomas Walter, Richard Upjohn, Frank Furness, Louise Bethune, Frank Lloyd Wright and Tadao Ando - none of these architects ever completed any architectural degree or formal education and never took any test.
And to say that as an architect you protect the health, safety and welfare of the public is saying that you are above the possibility of any problem and by that you can't be sued - "it's not my fault" - I'm an Architect!
Get your head out of your a**.
1. This article was created in 2019. Why are you resurrecting this?
2. Regarding these architects: "Daniel Burnham, Louis Sullivan, Walter Gropius, Richard Waite, Thomas Walter, Richard Upjohn, Frank Furness, Louise Bethune, Frank Lloyd Wright and Tadao Ando", a number of them were licensed by grandfathering clauses in the architect act when the architect title & licensing laws were initially established. In many states, the initial licensing laws were "title acts" only. This meant it was easier to grandfather in those with so many years of experience practicing architecture to obtain license. This was because many states did not have an actual exam. Then they began setting forth the steps towards having an exam process and then the laws amended to become a "practice" act as well. Additionally, it took decades for all 50 states to adopt architect title and practice laws.However, by the 1960s, practically every state required a license to use the architect title and practice as an architect.
However, it should be noted that not all countries regulates the title or practice of architecture. Even in the U.S., there are states, and also there are a number of other countries that has architectural licensing laws, there have multiple paths to licensing.
As for Tadao Ando, are you sure he never took an exam to become an architect in Japan?
It is true that he might not have went through a formal academic degree program in architecture but to become a 建築士 (Kenchikushi), (note: There are three license classes: Class 1, Class 2, and Mokuzo (wood buildings) license tiers). Based on his work in Japan, he's probably a 1st class tier Kenchikushi. No one knows everything.
You misconceive the whole notion of licensing, professional certifications. Licensing and certification means you have be independently assessed to meet a MINIMUM level of knowledge, experience/skills, to be qualified to minimize risk to public health, safety, and welfare. There is at least a baseline for architects. Without any assessment, how can any non-qualified person assess you. You can argue that no one is. Then no building is allowed to be designed or built, then.
The biggest problem comes from those who self-claim but doesn't have a professional third-party assessment. If there is fault in the independent assessment standard, you can complain that it is insufficient or lacking and push for the assessors to raise the bar. If you expect people to be all-knowing, then everyone flunked because no one can live long enough to be all-knowing even if they were to live a trillion years.
Now you can get your head out of your own a**.
Why am I resurrecting this? Why not?
In nearly every state Residential projects are excluded from Licensure Law.
There are 121,603 licensed architects in the US. It's been said that 90% of all architecture is crap. That would suggest that 109,442 architects produce crap. That would suggest that 90% of all the NAAB programs are crap. Gee, leave it to an architect to call 90% of all architecture crap, insult 90% of all architects crap practitioners and 90% of all NAAB programs crap.
But I digress.
You didn't address that there is no guarantee for errors and omissions that provides money back. And while architects are supposed to protect the public's health, safety and welfare - 90% of the public will suffer from all the crap that is designed and built.
Call yourself a building designer or residential designer (note: Nevada, you will need a license). Refer to your services as home design or building design or like.
You can not 100% guarantee anything. One principle for requiring licensing for certain activities is so that a person who is licensed, if they screw up and is negligent, they can have license revoked. Types of projects that requires an licensed architect can be quite a bit more complex and involves a LOT more people as occupants. Mass egressing a stadium of 50,000 individuals out in say 10 minutes or less is a lot more demanding than a house where you may be evacuating only say.... 15 or less.
Evacuating a skyscraper and the whole fire spread management is going to be a lot more sophisticated and has to perform. Things a mere little ol' building designer like myself isn't typically have to address with the projects I get to work on.
"It's been said that 90% of all architecture is crap."
You are right, you said that. Just because someone says 90% of architecture is crap, does not mean it is true.
You threw another logical fallacy with this:
"That would suggest that 109,442 architects produce crap."
We know you are conflating 90% of architecture is crap thus 90% of architects produce crap. Not all architects work on the same volume of projects. Now, I can honestly say 100% of humans produce shit and that is true and factual. This doesn't mean 100% of what humans produce is shit. Yes, you digressed down a logical fallacy a bit. Protecting the public's health, safety, and welfare isn't always going to be beautiful.
The standards to meet and safeguard the public's HSW is a moving target. Architects as with building designers has this obligation (legal or moral, respectively). However, when I design a project, it is not possible for me to know every possible future use of a project. The projects I design today, may not meet some far future standard of living.
There are codes that set some of the legal minimum standards but sometimes I may need to make a decision to go above the minimum standard. However, if there is some future use of the building I design, beyond that which I designed for, there is work that needs to be done to adapt to a new use.
As a building designer, like my licensed architect colleagues, have real clients, with a real finite project budget, and we have a duty to develop a solution that meets our clients' needs, desires, and financial resources, as much as possible.
With an infinite budget, infinite human resources, and an infinite amount of time, perhaps we could in theory design homes that can survive a supernova without a scratch. However, l live in the real world. That is not going to happen. My clients are not going to pay for that. They just don't have the money. However, we can focus on a more real solution.
"Please provide documentation of any guarantee or warranty for any architect that states work is free of any errors and omissions with the added comment "or your money back". "
No one provides that kind of absolute guarantee. My legal counsel would be saying - HELL NO.... to that. Are you a licensed architect or an actual professional building designer. If you guaranteed that in such a warranty, you might as well work for free. There's also that nagging issue where you would end up having to pay for the F--- up to be corrected, make corrections at your own costs... not just refunding the fee. Sorry, what you are suggesting will be a sure way to go out of business. Even construction contractors would not make such a guarantee.
Can you guarantee your subcontractors and their workers will not make errors or omissions?
Can you guarantee your design will be perfect against all possible defects from today until the end of time?
Can you, really know what the code standards are going to be in 45,650 A.D. ? Can you really?
Think this through. Being a licensed architect or a certified professional building designer is NOT about being perfect. These licenses/certifications programs (respectively), sets a baseline of qualifications through an independent third-party evaluator of the persons' licensed or certified.
Clients making such an investment should be seeking a professional that is licensed or certified.... albeit there are some exceptions but it will be their portfolio of work and possibly interviewing those who had worked with those exceptional professionals who are not licensed or certified.
Liam, we don't really care for your ignorance. While it's inane to suggest that 90% of architecture is crap, it is a very safe assumption to say that 100% of your experience and knowledge is crap.
I'M not saying 90% of all architecture is crap you dolt.
Let me quote someone you may know -
“Let me tell you one thing. In this world we are living in, 98 percent
of everything that is built and designed today is pure shit."
So fucking what. It still doesn't make it a fact. It is an opinion based on a person's subjective criteria of what is and isn't crap.
In many States, The Licensure Boards exclude Residential projects from Licensure Law. There are few limitations as to the size of the home an unlicensed person may design. The design ( drawings ) go thru a Plans Review by a licensed Plans Examiner. When that Plans Examiner ( typically an architect ) signs off on the drawings, produced by the non-licensed person, that's interpreted by the public that the "designer" ( non-licensed person) must know what they are doing.
I'm of the opinion that the title of architect is a fair title for anyone to use. It simply doesn't matter what title is used. All drawings go thru a building permit process which a Plans Examiner reviews. The plans examiner, in most cases, doesn't care who prepared the drawings as long as the drawings meet code and structural conditions. Engineers produce a myriad of projects. Only a few are "Professional" engineers - PE's. So let's use the same logic - use the title "Professional" Architect - PA.
It just doesn't matter. The public doesn't care. If a non-licensed person charges $50 an hour and an architect charges $100 - all things being compared - the public will likely go with the $50 - they still get a building permit either way.
A lot of Plan Examiners are not architects. They can be but it is just as likely in a smaller city or a town, the plan examiner is not licensed. In every state in the U.S., the title "Architect" is regulated, and that you must be licensed in order to use the title in connection with projects in those states & offer architectural services. Yes, laws could be amended to regulate the titles: "Licensed Architect" and "Registered Architect". The word professional does not in itself indicate licensure/registration with the state. In many states, that is the whole title: LICENSED ARCHITECT or REGISTERED ARCHITECT.
However, given the last 100 years of regulating the title architect in connection with the activity of designing buildings... why on Earth would the laws in each U.S. state would be amended to limit the title regulation to strictly: LICENSED ARCHITECT or REGISTERED ARCHITECT. Why would the architects change that? If you design houses, why don't you just call yourself a home designer or residential designer or building designer?
Ricky, give it a rest. This wanker is a urban planner, not a designer and most definitively not an architect. Just another disgruntled wanker who knows nothing but yet wants everything.
Kind of catching up on posts but yes, you are right. I don't know how or where you figured that he's an urban designer but okay.
wanker used his real name in an earlier post.... then changed afterwards.
oops, I meant urban planner not urban designer.
Right N.S., he did use his real name (or appeared to have) but I am not sure how you determined he was an urban planner versus a myriad of other occupations because I can get search results for a lot of different persons named Liam Donald. There's a missing piece but the wanker isn't worth getting into full investigative research on.
I'm pretty confident that the wank is not an architect or building design professional, although I won't completely rule out him being a building / residential designer but probably not one.
"It just doesn't matter. The public doesn't care. If a non-licensed person charges $50 an hour and an architect charges $100 - all things being compared - the public will likely go with the $50 - they still get a building permit either way."
These are the words of someone who has 100% never gotten a building permit hahaha
Getting a permit is never a guarantee, regardless of who prepared the plans, be it a licensed architect or a building designer, or anyone else.
Yo, Frank, m!m buddy!
It just doesn't matter. The public doesn't care. If a non-licensed person charges $50 an hour and an architect charges $100 - all things being compared - the public will likely go with the $50 - they still get a building permit either way.
In response to the above, I am going to tell you that what you said there is mostly b.s. First, people investing a huge chunk of their income in mortgage payments for the next 30 years, they do care and do give a fuck. Sure, if you only look at the mathematics of $50 an hour is half that of the $100 an hour. However, there is something else to pay attention to. The person preparing the plans has to be competent.
At $50/hr billed hourly rate, you are looking at a community college graduate of architectural drafting providing what is basically drafting services. An Architect is going to be charging closer to $150/hr. - Billed Hourly Rate. There is a big difference in the quality of the services and what you bring to the service. Competent building designers are going to charge at a billed rate of $100/hour or more (or comparable fee amount).
A highly competent Certified Professional Building Designer is likely to charge comparable to that of an Architect although their scope of projects is more narrow than an architect as they will specialize in SFRs, small apartments, townhouses, small commercial projects. They are assessed by a third-party boards/certification organizations, and it would not be client relying just on the words of the designer/architect.
I know some CPBDs who work on some really expensive homes and those clients do care about things like who they contract to design it. It is not just going to look for the cheapest out there. They are going to look at things like "Are they licensed or certified?", and their portfolio of works, etc. Most will not go after some bozo on the street. They want people with a good rapport. A major factor is word of mouth and reputation among builders, the building departments, the social circles these clients are connected with. It all comes through this network.
Even not-quite-so-wealthy clients but those well-to-do, nonetheless, are going to be evaluating those they commission to do the work on more than just mere price.
I have been in this industry as a building designer for a good part of the past 15-20 years. I can tell you, you have a bit to learn based on your comments. You are not going to see the laws changed to the way you like them to be for some time. However, your tone in how you are projecting that 90% or 98% of that which is built is crap, is pretty inane.
Yes, a lot of homes are not as good as they could be. They may not be as efficient as they could be. That is what you get for pre-drawn house plans (stock house plans). They are not fully optimized for a particular site. They may be slightly optimized through modifications of those plans but not fully.
My projects are custom homes/building design and work that involves existing & historic buildings. With existing buildings, I may not be able to optimize to the same degree as if I designed from scratch but there are other factors to consider.
Kind of catching up on posts by others such as N.S.'s post:
Ricky, give it a rest. This wanker is a urban planner, not a designer and most definitively not an architect. Just another disgruntled wanker who knows nothing but yet wants everything.
"Wanker"
Now there's an educated term - good one boys.
Egotists like yourselves, or should I say architects, think that you are the only people that can provide architectural services. Your wrong. Your wrong because you were brainwashed to think you are the only people educated to perform services. Frankly, I don't care what anyone calls me or those of us who aren't "certified professional building designers" or architects, I get paid just the same.
You are duping the public to have them believe they are getting so much more because you have the title of architect or cpbd. I've worked in architecture for over 40 years. My office is less than 3 miles away from an architect who I once worked for. I did his drafting. I know what his product is. I know what he charged. I can compete with him and 11 other architects because I did their drafting and I know what they provide.
The title of architect is just a way to convince the public that paying more gets them more.
You don't know what you don't know. First thing you better get through your think skull. If you under charge or charge next to nothing if not charge nothing for your service, absolutely all clients would be happy to have you work 100s if not 1000s of hours for nothing. The reason we charge what we do is, we have a business to run and we need to charge sufficiently. We didn't go through years of college, massive loan debts to pay for the college tuition, books, supply, student housing, etc. just so we get paid effectively less than minimum wage.
Where I am, I can be sued for negligence, tort, etc. even without a license/registration or certification. The statute of repose is 10 YEARS. This means, as professionals, our clients rely on our professional judgment. A license or certification helps calm the client and concerns. It is true that it does not replace actual knowledge & skills but it's a third-party "accreditation". It serves a role.
What I charge reflects what I provide to the client and valuing of my time. I sure the hell didn't go through 7+ years (FTE | Full-Time Equivalent) of college education just to work for free or sub-minimum wage. It is not just the technical documents I provide. It also includes the time I spend going through iterations of the design from initial consultation through iterations before construction documents, all carried out in iterative steps with my clients, my consultation, etc. My licensed architect colleagues here, do likewise.
Again, you don't know what you don't know.
Sorry you've wasted so much of your adult life Liam. Now crawl back under your rock and stay there. You've contributed nothing of value here.
There is no doubt that there are many licensed professionals who aren't "real architects" in that they were able to pass an exam that resulted in a license. They are hacks who rubber stamp plans for GCs, interior desecrators, expediters, and even the unlicensed self aggrandized and self anointed experts of architecture and apparently taste. As I've stated in a prior post, we architects are licensed to be held responsible and liable for complying with building laws. Just as it is illegal to impersonate a lawyer, doctor, RN, and many other licensed professions it is illegal to hold oneself out as an architect.
Having the license doesn't guarantee excellence or warranty against errors or omissions, but it does guarantee that a minimum standard is met and that if the licensee is egregious in his/her practice the license can be suspended or revoked. A self proclaimed "somone1" can be sued because anyone can sue anyone else for any reason whatsoever. However, if someone1 gets sued other than a legal hassle & possible judgment he/she can just keep on duping the public in thinking that they're an architect just because they say they are.
Btw, I'm certain that if "someone1" who is an un-licensed person and practices architecture illegally were to be sued she/he would make sure that the attorney who defends him/her passed the appropriate State BAR exam and not just some shmuck who calls themselves a lawyer because of working in a law office for 40 years. Probably would also go to a licensed doctor to help with the ulcer that plagues him/her due to never taking or passing the ARE, being sued or for whatever else may ail them.
Actually, a court can impose a form of an injunction. Disobeying that can result in serious fine or jail time (or both). This is rare but may in the future be used as a measure. The architect title is regulated. As for designing "exempt" buildings, that can become a measure to prohibit said person from engaging in building design in an extreme and rare case but not impossible. On the other hand, unlawful practice of architecture can and likely result in a court order injunction barring said person from practicing architecture without a license. This is where "someone1" could go to jail if he were to do so in addition to negligence and tort. Even without a license to drive, a person can still be held to the standard of care of a licensed driver and failure to do so can result in the same liability. There is case precedence for this which can apply to practicing architecture without a license. So if I were to do likewise, I can still be civilly sued for negligence or tort and would be evaluated to the same standard of care.
Besides the title or practice violations, an unlicensed person could be sued for negligence / tort / malpractice as what a reasonable licensed architect would do in like or similar projects. Therefore, if you drive without a license, if you drive, you would be obligated to follow the same traffic laws, posted speed limits, traffic light signals, etc.... even if you were not licensed. It's not an excuse for driving without a license. An unlicensed driver shouldn't be driving but if they did, they still have to follow the traffic laws. A person not licensed as an architect, would still have to follow the same standard of care as a licensed architect designing such a building that requires a license in order to practice.
NOTE: This comment is not about employees of a firm working on projects for firm as typical of architectural firms.
I forgot to add that practicing architecture without a license by self proclamation and against the laws of the land is the very definition egotism gone wrong. By it's nature architecture and most other professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.) requires a strong ego in order to make decisions that can impact the lives of others. Weak and defensive egos avoid taking the required steps to attain certifications and then lash out with hollow statements against those that they're jealous or afraid of.
"There is no doubt that there are many licensed professionals who aren't
"real architects" in that they were able to pass an exam that resulted
in a license.",
"They are hacks",
"Having the license doesn't guarantee excellence or warranty against
errors or omissions, but it does guarantee that a minimum standard is
met",
So on one hand there are people who are licensed but are hacks BUT, having the license does guarantee that they meet a minimum standard.
Wait, which of you are hacks and which aren't? Let's make a list of all the licensed folks then put HACK next to the ones that suck so that the public knows not to go to those bas*ards. Doesn't that make sense? Then let's have the non-licensed folks and the licensed non-hacks put up websites where the public can go and do a side by side comparison of the drawings that each side produces with prices listed. That way, the public actually determines value and not some arrogant egotistical inflated ego-maniac.
There you go again, suggesting ego is an important character trait to be an architect. Jealousy and fear isn't why I make comments on the use of title. I'm simply saying that the title of architect isn't a big deal. The use of architectural combined with designer or drafter shouldn't be any kind of offense. When someone say that they are an architectural designer or architectural drafter shouldn't be any type of legal offense. Those people aren't electrical or structural or mechanical designers or drafters, they are in fact architectural drafters. If the drawings produced by those people meet all code requirements, plan reviews and building permit requirements,AND if the public is satisfied with the drawings produced and the outcome of the constructed building, be it residential or commercial, then what architect can wave a hand and call what is built to be crap?
The title of architect is great, good for you. But if I'm not an architect by license I should be able to use the word architectural combined with designer or drafter. If the drawings I produce are for residential or for commercial structures are code compliant, reviewed by plans examiners, then what you think doesn't matter.
And this glorified notion of "practicing" architecture is laughable. Architecture is by all accounts an art form. It's not a form of engineering. The few hundreds of people that an unlicensed designer or drafter produces drawings for are generally satisfied with the built structure. That architectural designer/drafter isn't "practicing" - they are doing that which is producing a finite solution with expected results. If some one is "practicing", then maybe they shouldn't be architects. Ok so you say well they passed the 7 tests. Well big woop. I've passed the 400 project mark with 20% new homes, 60% home additions, 8% new commercial and 12% commercial additions. Architecture is an art form that the public lives in. As long as codes are met, design is up for grabs.
Dude, just call yourself a draftsman or drafter. If you actually design, which means engaging your brain to design think and compose a variety of solutions for your client and actually provide a service for clients other than being a trained monkey using your hands, then yes, you can call yourself a building designer in most states. Clients hire a draftsman to take the client's design and draft it into technical drawings.
In that situation, the client is the designer and you are the draftsman assisting the designer as draftsman assists building designers/architects. Although most architects and building designers know how to draft technical drawings, or they should. Most clients don't.
An architect's or building designer's role is fundamentally different in scope. As a building designer, the client expects me to come up with design solutions... options, even those that the client did not think of. Yes, clients do have ideas and sometimes too many disjointed ideas. It's my job to kind of get into the mind of the client, figuring out what they want, needs, desires, and harmonize various ideas, kicking out ideas that are not harmonious with the whole composition like a music writer removing bad notes that are not harmonious. This is the art in designing. I may also supplant ideas with some of my own to improve the design.
Some clients may allow me more Carte Blanche in design within the confines of the budget. My licensed architect colleagues do this. Yes, there is also the technical side of our work addressing things like building codes, zoning, and other regulatory health, safety, and welfare stuff. As a building designer, I have greater legal exposure than merely drafting. My licensed architect colleagues understands this, too! They face this as well.
Merely drafting puts the onus more on the client regarding the design. In which case, you are more like a contracted employee to the client than an independent contractor. As an employee, the client literally is your boss and is supervising and in control. Things are a little different as an independent contractor if you truly operate like one. I don't mean licensed construction contractors although in Oregon, they are required to operate as an independent contractor in their business relationship with the client.
What do I do. This to be a fair start: https://aibd.org/what-is-a-building-designer/ - although not a complete list of what I provide as well as associated related services.
As allowed in my state and Washington and some other states, I work on residential and non-residential projects.
In some ways, you sounded like me to some degree but also a little more acerbic than I was unless some person pissed me off. However, your approach is not going to bode well. A point to make, most projects are not going to allow you to be as bold and fanciful as works of Frank Lloyd Wright, or John Yeon, or a number of others because it would exceed client's budget and financial resource so it would be rejected even if the client otherwise loves it. The reality check comes into play. Architects aren't going to lose their license if the design is bland. They would or could if they were seriously incompetent and negligent in the design. If you have only the budget for a can of beer, you aren't going to get a 1959 Dom Perignon. If client can only afford a basic minimum and modest level of professional service, they are not going to afford a more high end custom design service. We have to make a living and can't always get the high end clients.
I dare any architect to state to the public what their fee is on any website. Let's compare drawings produced for a sample residential project and the accompanying fee. A simple side by side comparison. Let's do a 2000 SF house with Plans, Elevations, and Typical Wall Section. Then let's put our fee next to each one. We'll each put $20 bucks in a pot and see which project gets chosen most often after the drawings go thru a plans examination with one round of comments from the plans examiner. LOL
Oh, Some_One here wishes to do some sort of competition comparison. You do know that you can simply call yourself a building designer, right?
You say 2000 sq.ft.house. Is that 2000 sq.ft. just the living space? Does it include garage in that sq.ft. count? What is the project program? What kind of soil? Where is it located? Latitude and various site conditions effects things like window aperture size as part of passive solar heating and cooling design? Orientation on the project site makes a difference. Is this to be a single-story design or multi-story?
You say typical wall section. Typical for what type of construction?
In Oregon, I'm not limited to just using light wood frame construction. I'm in a different state than some others and the cost of living may be less. My fees aren't just for the time to draft up technical drawings. I am a building DESIGNER. You are not designing if you are just drafting technical drawings of what you are told. When the client makes all the design decisions and comes up with all the design thoughts and you are just taking what they said and specified and draw it, you are a draftsman, not a designer. This is because you are just a pair of hands and you are not contributing to the design itself.
Building designers and architects are engaged in developing and coming up with the design. Sure, the client puts in some input but you need to develop not one design but at least 3 designs and proceed with iterative refinements and then the technical drawings. You need to present a variety of approaches to a design to a project program. Why 3 or more designs? It is because the purpose in early stages of design is to present alternatives and invoke the exploration of options that the client may not have even considered or thought of or was able to visualize. A key part of creative thinking is ideation. All of which you could be designing around a budget. If the budget is realistic at all, of course.
I dare any architect to state to the public what their fee is on any website.
There are reasons most don't go into that level of detail. Each project is a one-off design for a particular client, project site conditions, scope of work outlined in contract. In case of website, sometimes less "is more".
Some do in fact provide some idea of what they provide.
Additionally, they don't want the competition to know.
They may also not want to be accused of price fixing, although that is pretty low on their concerns with the above is more likely.
It is not the price but the quality of service. If a person can't afford an architect's or high quality building designer's fee, that is a red flag about probable inability to afford to construct the project.
As for your "design competition" goes. Let's have someone not going to be part of the competition set up the design program criteria as well as a panel of three 'judges' evaluate such submission. The judges will also not be submitting anything to said design competition. This would be fair. There would be a submission deadline to allow time to actually design such. There would need to be a evaluation criteria and rubric to grade objectively as much as possible. Even objective qualitative criterion. If there is a code to follow, model codes should be used, and zoning requirements supplied even if altered from reality or use it as is with the building codes and electrical code and other related codes based on the model code version of them versus local/state amended versions. I think submission deadline should be 6 to 12 months or so. We have our real life work to do.
Price fixing - C'mon Richard, do you really believe that price fixing isn't already happening?! Price fixing is a myth. I'd be willing to bet that if the public contacted the 100,000 or so architects out there it would be relatively easy to figure out what architects in every state and region charges as a fee. Everybody knows what gas costs. Everybody knows what a hamburger costs. Everybody knows what a 2x4 costs. Everybody knows what attorney fees are these day. Everybody knows what a knee replacement costs. Price fixing by architects is already happening. As an architect I once worked for said - "My fee is what the market will bear." He knew what the 7 other architects that lived and worked in his sphere charged. They all knew what each other charged. The deciding factor was availability. The public & builders, the two groups of consumers out there, went with the person who was available sooner. Quality played little in the grand scheme of things.
Quality of service?! Let's not forget, as has been so eloquently stated there are a lot of "hacks" - licensed people who aren't concerned with great design. Quality of service is a fallacy. To be able to differentiate quality one needs to be able to compare items. There isn't any real way to compare
Oh, wait, you're a "Building Designer". Like as if that makes you special. Oh, pardon me you're a CPBD - a Certified Professional Building Designer, pal, you too are a drafter. Regardless of what grandiose idea you want to believe, clients hold the final say of any design. Whether you are an architect or drafter, the client paying for the outcome is in charge. You are delusional if you think you have the final say.
Well, I'm done. You can have the last word. No one really cares.
Actually a building designer does the same scope of work architect does with regards to residential and light commercial projects that are exempt from requiring an architect. The title drafter is a gender neutral form of the word draftsman which historically was called draughtsman. The title was defined in dictionaries and the professional field since before architectural licensing laws. In a time when words actually have meaning and titles had defined roles and nature of responsibilities. Back then building designer was just another way of saying architect. A legal defining came to being once architect title and licensing laws came to be. If a person wants a house or any building designed, they hire an architect. A draughtsman is a subordinate (a servant... an appprentice) whose did not engage in contractual services to clients. Then came the day when a person who was a draughtsman who decided, I'll directly draft the design the client may already have. A draughtsman took the clients designs and sketches and instructions and specification then prepared a technical drawing conforming to drafting standards as they did when working for the Architect. Building Designers today are more than draughtsmen as are Architects. A draughtsman did not design or make design decisions. They did not decide the structural specification. They did not choose the size of the room or the height. They did not make the decisions on those things. The DESIGNER... be it the Architect, a building designer, or the Client themselves. If a draughtsman did that, they'd stop using the title draughtsman and called themselves Architects. In those days, the owner of an architectural firm or office was the Architect. Employees were draughtsmen and such. Generally, you have to be an owner of the business to enter into contract with another on behalf of the business. That is still largely true to that point. In the U.S., we changed the word from draughtsman to draftsman and later, drafter. British continued to use the older draughtsman for a bit longer and may still fashion to use it. It basically means an architectural draftsman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_drawing#Drafting
In most modern-day firm offices, we don't have pure draftsman so much considering architects tend to not hire drafters anymore. They hire students of architectural degrees and graduates of architecture school who are working on becoming licensed architects. So they may draft so-so but often don't have the finesse and artistry of the draughtsmen of old. While, part of my work is draughting the technical drawings and all but as a building designer, my role involves making the major design decisions and all. I'm mores than a draughtsman.
The word "hack" as used here is a subjective opinion. Sure there exists some price fixing that exist. Sure, the price of what others charge is known in a small community and shared, even indirectly. However, what may not be known exactly or entirely or even fixed is what is provided. There are things to compare. Effectiveness of the design to the project criteria and needs. There can be objective criteria with measurable benchmark. There are also qualitative things including customer/client service and relationship. There are a lot of things a design can be compared but comparing two different designs for two different projects are not apples to apples. However, there are ways to compare in the sense of effectiveness of addressing their respective program, although the project programs are different. Quality of service is taking into consideration of the scope of work in the package, and the quality of skills relating to working with clients, delivery of project, effectiveness of design solution, etc.
Of course, the client has the final say on whether to move forward with the plans and get permits but if it is an exempt project, the client either approves the plans to go forward for permits or it doesn't and they do not get the intellectual property license to use my designs to make any copies for any project at any location. If they go with someone else they start from scratch. You know, I can easily incorporate the copyright registration costs in the fee. If they use without the copyright license, I can sue their ass and the architect or designer or draftsman making a derivative like Nintendo. I do have a friend in the family that is a highly regarded corporate attorney and bring in big-time lawyers in IP law cases. I always retain the intellectual properties proprietorship so I control the IP licensing. Take that into consideration. Yes, they may have to go with someone else and start over. I deliver on the services rendered and paid for, there is no refund. If they do not proceed to construct, they don't get the license to utilize the IP to construct. Paying for my services is not the purchase price of transferring the title of the IP. Unless you start at $1 Quadrillion, it's definitely n.f.s. I own the IP, I set the price. On non-exempt projects under similar circumstances, they will have to procure another architect because the client can not prepare plans and submit them for permits for non-exempt projects under the architect licensing law. Secondly, they have to comply with the terms of the contract which may require them to start over, and not to make derivative work using another architect.
I'd be willing to bet that if the public contacted the 100,000 or so architects out there it would be relatively easy to figure out what architects in every state and region charges as a fee. Everybody knows what gas costs. Everybody knows what a hamburger costs. Everybody knows what a 2x4 costs. Everybody knows what attorney fees are these day.
You are comparing services to commodities. Hell, I don't know what a 2x4 WILL cost in 8-9 months from now? I can make a guess based on statisstical data but it's going to require frequently checking. Everybody knows what the cost of gas when they pull up to the gas station. Can't guess or predict what it will be 9 months out. Yes, I can know what an item costs after its been produced and a price is set by the manufactuer or seller. As to what I may charge for a service is based on what the work is. If you are a pain in the ass client, like you probably wood be, I'm going to estimate more time making iterations because you are fickle and indecisive and constantly calling and interrupting production. If you are that king of client, you are a high maintanance high liability risk.
You say everybody knows what the attorney fees are. Are you sure? Not all lawyers give their prices and depends on the case. Not all lawyers charge the same price. The pricing is a business decision defining a scope of work and a price. It's largely correlated. If you even used have a neuron to search me, you can find my current prices. Of course, you can agree or disagree with price and go for the slime ball clients that wants to pay nill and milk you for hundred of hours for peanuts like pressuring you to spend hundreds of hours for less than it cost for buying a stock pre-drawn house plans. That is fine and all if your plan set is reused multiple time by dozens if not hundreds of times with foundation options for multiple site conditions. Sure, I can sell a software application thousands of times to millions of times for $15-$29.99 or sell it once for what it cost to custom develop it for a singular client (custom software development) but the price would be significant because of the work that gone into developing the software application from initial contact with such client to delivered complete software application.
Stock house plans will not be able to meet the building codes in the not-too-distant future. You'd have to make a custom site plan for each customer. The energy codes and codes mandating sustainability, and minimal carbon footprint, efficient solar-based building design practices including passive solar building design, ground-source heating, and cooling (geothermal heating and cooling) are going to make stock house plans a pain and require modifications that can be become an impossibility if the client buys a stock house plan that is just not suitable for the site.
Regarding Some_One, I'm done with this nuisance, hopefully.
Richard,
I certainly hope that "Some_one" can learn from your generous offers of actual information and your attempt at enlightenment. I'm usually not that interested in continuing a discourage that has devolved to immature name calling by someone who is clearly insecure.
However, this issue of licensure is important on many levels and particularly because the diminishment of architecture as a profession and architects in general is partially an inside job. One can understand the issues that a GC may have when the architect's role is to oversee a project and hopefully to identify issues during construction before they became expensive litigable errors at the end of one. It is "Some-One" and others like him/her who hold themselves above all others and the law, arrogantly deciding that the rules don't apply to them who use the title without respecting it, that diminish it.. Why would a home owner or individual, who may not understand the licensing laws go to an architect's office with professional liabilities (rent, insurance, payroll, marketing, continued education, potential loss of licensure, etc) and higher fees when there are parties like "Some_one" who appoint themselves as experts and represent themselves and architects.
As I pointed out in a prior post, uninformed people will rarely seek out doctors or lawyers who aren't licensed in their jurisdictions for medical or legal help. Of the professions, architecture stand out as an exception. There are many reasons, perhaps fodder for a different discussion, but the misuse of the legal term by unlicensed parties who profess to be architects, be they interior designer, decorators, expediters, contractors, or drafters like "Some_one, further confuses an already confused public.
To be clear people like Ingels, Piano, and others of their stature do not need to call themselves architects because the world knows what the do and who they are. They identify themselves as a "Danish architect" and an "Italian architect" respectively as do the other starchitects. They also respect and comply with the laws of the jurisdictions in which their projects exist by either a joint venture or hiring licensed architects in that jurisdiction. They also do not boast about how proficient they are or denigrate other architects or others with claims about how much "crappy architecture" there is. They do as smaller less famous firms do. They let their work speak for them.
So, if these prominent, respected, and admired architects can respect the laws, why can't someone who isn't any where close to them. Nobody is keeping these disgruntled "somemones" of the world from becoming licensed design professions with the right to claim the title of "Architect" except themselves.
One final point about fees. Contrary to "Some_one's" opinion about price fixing, prior to licensing and other laws that regulate the practice of architecture, the profession published guidelines for determining fees that were utilized by the profession and the public. Architect's mostly came from and catered to the wealthy and business world. Buildings were built by contractors based on existing standards for appearance, construction practices, the economics of supply, location, and other factors. Often with disastrous impact. Earthquakes, fires, and large scale deaths were met with laws, codes and regulations for the construction industry including the licensing of architects to address them.
Does a license guarantee that a licensed professional's work will be perfect, safer, aesthetically pleasing to everyone (including "Some_one)? No it doesn't. The system, however, minimizes disasters by creating minimum standards. It's unfortunate that "Some_one" and others like him/her do not meet those minimum standards at this time.
My advice, if "Some_one" is even interested, is to take the freaking exam. It's so much easier to take and pass then it was in the 1970's.
To both "Some-one" and you Richard, it's been interesting.
Regards
Very well said and to the point.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?