But Mr. Schiffman said he had no active role in those projects, a statement that raises questions about whether the buildings were approved for construction without the oversight and involvement of a registered architect — a requirement in New York State to ensure that buildings are properly designed and do not pose a safety risk. — The New York Times
The New York Times has obtained a document showing that the credentials of a retired architect in his mid-80s were used to fake his approval of building designs that he did not review. Warren L. Schiffman has been designated as the architect of record on an under-construction, 642-feet-tall hotel rising in Hudson Yards, along with a hotel near LaGuardia Airport and dual high-rise residences in Queens. Each of these projects fall under developer Marx Development Group.
The document shows a contract Schiffman signed upon his retirement from Marx Development Group in 2016 that details how the company’s design firm, DSM Design Group, could continue to use his seal of approval following his absence. Signed shortly before Marx Development Group embarked on the three aforementioned projects, the contract called for Schiffman to provide his architectural stamp and signature to DSM Design Group when requested. However, Schiffman claims he was never asked to review any building plans.
In addition, an addendum to the contract required Schiffman “to maintain his professional license in good standing for the foreseeable future,” with the developer agreeing to reimburse him for continuing the necessary education courses for renewing it. Schiffman surrendered his license in May, claiming it was done because of his age. He denies admitting to investigators from the state's Department of Education that he had practiced when he was not authorized to do so.
21 Comments
Nothing to see here…move along…
If he had actually reviewed the drawings, he would have realized that the building is all wiggly and out of plumb.
I know, right?!? Goodness, people, hire an architect if you don't want your building to be all janky!
perhaps one or more insurance companies might be concerned?
Stamp Tramp.
Built to last
Never fell on anyone
roof leaks though
Ahhhh
Time to sacrifice a few senile oldsters and a few of the less well liked at the DOB to the 'corruption' problem.
How about instead we stop corrupting the professional and building laws & codes to strip professionals of the ability, power, leverage and fees needed to uphold the morals they are required to. Not just uphold but be personally liable for, w/o assets protected by bankruptcy laws others use. The professionals who are the only ones legally required to have morals, of all the people involved in Real Estate, from brokers to attorneys to accountants to bankers - all earning in fees, points... far more than the A/E professionals receive, much less the owners and developers reaping millions per unit, billions per year.
Just an idea.
a bit more from my twitter thread this inspired
NYC lets non professionals provide endlessly increasing list of arch services for RE biz (THE biz that elects politicians). Such firms ignore code. When caught, go bankrupt. Form new firm. With no liability, risk, or $$$$ professionals on staff they undercut architects forcing them to do same or starve. You can't take away 1/2 an industries biz & income & expect them to still put protecting the public before paying staff, rent, exploding insurance. Ritually, every few yrs NYC DOB routinely lies saying a few 'bad' archs let RE firms use their 'stamp', maybe a few DOB staff looking other way. Reality is almost all will do so at some time of career, they'll certainly know of others doing it, and do nothing about that.
The REAL answer is SIMPLE
The professional of record has to retain (not just give permission for others hired by the 'owner'). ALL others providing professional services in lieu of themselves & will be responsible for all their work. INCLUDING during construction. Non professionals can continue with their biz's but as subs to professionals. A/E's can provide services in house or shop it out. Free market capitalism still allowed.
Owners of a biz fraudulently using professionals credentials gets mandatory prison BIG fine they and any family who got assets from them, are personally responsible for if biz goes bankrupt.
What are 'professional services'
Here's the short list from NYS
An architect licensed and registered in New York provides services related to the design and construction of buildings and the spaces around them, where the safeguarding of life, health, property, and public welfare is concerned. These design and construction services typically include the following:
I don’t want to be responsible for a builder’s fidelity to what I told them to build.
The insurance companies are the most efficient way to have companies and individuals responsible for the work. Insurers and their stock holders insure the risk and thus are more likely to insure a work that has the least risk. Governments assume no risk. They can set the conditions for litigation and frame the risks that insurance addresses.
The last thing we need is more reliance on insurance.
My thing with this is the unbelievable chutzpah of the developer (Marx Development Group) and the designer here, David Marx (DSM Design Group) , who creates an exaggeratedly attention-demanding building utilizing a stamp that he has "bought", not expecting that someone is going to look at it and say "damn, who's responsible for this thing"? In this case it was the NYTimes, whose 2-second investigation yielded the name of the firm and then the name on the stamp which led to the expose of the whole kerfuffle----with much hand-wringing over licensing and public safeties . That the episode then focuses around the shaming and "disbarment" of Schiffmann who, turning 80 (!!!) , signs up for a few years quarterly "pension" of literally a few thousand dollars ("he's owed me money for years", says Schiffmann---- all too believably) for the developer/designer's continued use of his license is frankly just pathetic for him individually and for the profession at large. And, in my opinion, also an indictment of the media (including maybe the report above) --- who could be looking more skeptically at the RE / Development industry overall, or, perhaps, the dreadful state of NYC architectural design---instead of stoking outrage over some poor zhlub "cashing in" on loose change.
Figured this would get a response, I'm told 8 but I can't find 8 so those I miss, sorry.
Best comment - unbelievable chutzpah...
Can't edit comments, so can't incorporate the valuable ideas others have replied with...
Chutzpah certainly defines gov't making believe people at the BOTTOM of income and power structures being the ones responsible for reigning in the rich and powerful, in private biz and politics. There is NOTHING that empowers or protects ANYONE to stop abuses such as this. Anyone who objects, complains or reports will find themselves out of the industry, be they in private biz or public agencies.
I saw some insurance comments - if you don't know, no matter who is responsible for what, architects are ALLWAYS sued. At best must lawyer up, to protect themselves from all parties, including their insurance co, take often as much or MORE time to dig up years old info, research codes and laws long superceded, etc. just to cast the blame where it belongs. Even with NO GUILT as the last man standing, due to the ability of EVERYONE else to just declare bankruptcy to escape all responsibility, Architects insurance cos and Architects personally can end up having to pony up. Given this, there seems little reason for architect to run from 'liability' issues, to run from 'insuring' others work. YOU ARE NOW. You just don't get to collect the fees that everyone mucking around with your work is getting directly from the owner. Nor do you get to exert control having the 'purse strings' gives you over everyone working on the project for the owner. How could that NOT save any firm money, You have 100% of the risk, a fraction of the money, and almost no control. How does that 'protect' architects 'professionally'.
I couldn't count the number of times GC's, Project Managers, Construction Managers, Code 'experts', Energy Consultants etc. convinced the owner to change the work, something went south, and the architect was left to pick up the pieces, for free, from threat of lawsuit for not 'protecting' the owner from their own greed.
Now, could most architectural firms reliably supervise the work of every specialist consultant, well NO. They would need to learn what subs are the best and use them. No biggie as every other firm in your size range will be doing the same. You remain competitive.
professional insurance and insurers kick in $. Lawyers profit.
Two issues:
Unlicensed people practicing architectural design and former architects getting lunch money to help them out, and
Private clients seeing the architectural profession as a superfluous luxury whose cost can be minimized.
In Miami, retired former architects will seal projects prepared by unlicensed (usually foreign school) graduates for a thousand bucks. Frankly, this sub is cheaper than professional liability insurance- let the old dude get sued- and what is the DBPR going to do, take their license away or push them off their rocking chair?
I hate to bring lawyers into the mess, but the only way I can think of to restrict professional piracy is to use Florida's "civil theft" statute in court. The penalty for "civil theft" is a fine of three times the value of what is stolen. Example: an A/E set for a project is $40,000, an unlicensed pirate gets caught pretending to be licensed, the fine is $120,000+ attorney fees. And guess who will testify if granted immunity: the guy from the rocking chair.
Needless to say, it's the person who coerced the crime- the property owner- who needs to be assessed the fine and not the starving fool who committed it. He just needs to get on the DO NOT LICENSE list by the NCARB.
Why do we need architects if the structural engineer will guarantee it will stand while its aesthetics come from a jenga game or crumpled paper? Memorizing the rudiments of life safety codes, statics, and a few building systems is unimportant considering clients rely on consultants anyway. There's always branding, which I guess is like having a cool avitar of an architect.
This is an excellent question. Knowing the answer is the difference between a legitimate architect and a dilettante.
or maybe it's simply knowing the definition of the word irony
By signing and sealing the construction documents, the architect is affirming that the documents were prepared under their direct supervision. If that is not the case, especially in such an egregious situation as this, and if something goes south during construction, the architect could have their license withdrawn by the state licensing board, and potentially be subject to prosecution.
the guy is 80 and no longer practicing; why not suggest the one who benefited from the fraud- Mr Marx- pay the piper?
This developer and the drafting monkey that drew the plans (DSM Design Group) need to be prosecuted for practice w/o a license. The retired architect that pimped out his seal and signature would probably testify against them to avoid going to jail at age 80 something. The other architect in the NY Times story about Operation Vandelay Industries did 2 years in prison for faking a seal and he only designed 2 story buildings in the country. These scammers did 50 story skyscraper!!
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.