Jeffrey Heller, FAIA, President of the California Architects Board, pens this letter to the editor of a local Colorado newspaper, posing a few additional questions to Aspen City Councilman Jack Johnson on his use of the term architect. Aspen Times
Way to go Jeff!
You just proved that the ability to READ and research an issue is not a prerequisite to being a licensed architect. Had you read any of the pertinent articles you would have learned that:
A: Johnson said he had an architectural degree, with the caveat that he was not a licensed architect in a public forum, something most of us unlicensed folk do on a daily basis,
B: He works in a cabinetry shop, and interned for architecture firms for 4 YEARS
C: He intends to use his background and education in architecture and design to inform his actions as a councilman. Placing him on par with about 50% of architectural degree holders in this country without a license.
D: The dude wants to be a politician, probably because they get more respect than architect that overreact without researching the facts.
"Will he use his "architectural" experience to unduly influence other council members to his point of view on professional matters?"
-Jeff
Is this really an issue? Who is to say that a licensed architect working as a politician is any better? Shouldn't we be happy that someone from 'our side' is working with us as opposed to against us? Don't we always bitch that more people should have some fundamental understanding of architecture?
I dunno... I don't see how he would be any less effective if he were to call himself an urbanist, which isn't confusingly similar to a regulated professional title.
From everything that I've read that he is trying to capitalize on the titular advantages of the term Architect, without being held to any of the responsibilities.
Right: he wouldn't be any less effective as an "urbanist" (i.e., what's the benefit he's getting as an "architect"?), nor would he be any less of a threat to public health and safety. This is why he should be able to use the description that he feels is most accurate and direct (he went to architecture school, not urbanism school).
What's funny is that none of the discussion about this guy centers around the content of anything he has to say about public policy and design. He can call himself an angel of the lord, and if he's promoting good design, I'm all for it.
I'd decided a while back that I wasn't going to respond to any of these comments. I thought I'd just sit back and let it unfold and I'd follow it from afar.
But now that "scratches" has given me the freedom to call myself an "angel of the Lord," I simply can't resist.
Thank you! I've been called lots of things lately (esp. since I encouraged and created a couple of moratoriums on growth and change in use in Aspen this year, and called myself an architect throughout--most esp. this week when we were deciding on how best to preserve an historic interior, how do you like that Mr. Heller-sue me)
BUT I've not yet been encouraged to call myself an "angel of the Lord" and frankly, can't wait to do so. I'm most appreciative!
The most interesting thing to me throughout the whole affair is how willfully ignorant people can be about the substantive issues in my case. And how willing some are to subvert my rights and their own simply to protect a title that they've misconstrued and wrongly appropriated all along. Or at least for years.
The old boys club of architecture has been perverting the simple meaning of the word and going after others for far too long. I've long said I supported boards going after those who are illegally practicing architecture. But it ends there and should.
I suppose those like Mr. Heller have the most to lose in this battle. I made my case, they've yet to make theirs.
I'm thankful the sensible members of the community have rallied around me and it seems as though AIA may be taking this issue seriously. It's a most welcome change of heart in my opinion.
if i were heller, there is no way i'd be taking credit for those abortions. i'd get one of my underlings to sign off on it - "oh wait, none of them are licensed architects (is it because i don't pay them enough?!?). damn, guess i have to sign off on this project, too."
people like mr. heller get their panties in a wad because they never realized there were other ways to "make it", rather than doing everything "by the book" and feel everyone should have to do the same way they did or else it isn't fair.
there also might be a bit of prof. jealousy in that jack johnson, being elected, will have more of a voice (as an architect) than the president of the california arch. board does. (whoa! that hurts)
big whoop.
go get 'em jack.
by the way... great beach music.
Dec 16, 06 2:01 am ·
·
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.
7 Comments
Way to go Jeff!
You just proved that the ability to READ and research an issue is not a prerequisite to being a licensed architect. Had you read any of the pertinent articles you would have learned that:
A: Johnson said he had an architectural degree, with the caveat that he was not a licensed architect in a public forum, something most of us unlicensed folk do on a daily basis,
B: He works in a cabinetry shop, and interned for architecture firms for 4 YEARS
C: He intends to use his background and education in architecture and design to inform his actions as a councilman. Placing him on par with about 50% of architectural degree holders in this country without a license.
D: The dude wants to be a politician, probably because they get more respect than architect that overreact without researching the facts.
Take a pill Jeff and go fine and threaten some more Intern...whatchamacallits with jail time.
j
And to add more fuel to the fire:
http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek06/1208/1208rc_face.cfm
"Will he use his "architectural" experience to unduly influence other council members to his point of view on professional matters?"
-Jeff
Is this really an issue? Who is to say that a licensed architect working as a politician is any better? Shouldn't we be happy that someone from 'our side' is working with us as opposed to against us? Don't we always bitch that more people should have some fundamental understanding of architecture?
my thoughts exactly.
I dunno... I don't see how he would be any less effective if he were to call himself an urbanist, which isn't confusingly similar to a regulated professional title.
From everything that I've read that he is trying to capitalize on the titular advantages of the term Architect, without being held to any of the responsibilities.
Right: he wouldn't be any less effective as an "urbanist" (i.e., what's the benefit he's getting as an "architect"?), nor would he be any less of a threat to public health and safety. This is why he should be able to use the description that he feels is most accurate and direct (he went to architecture school, not urbanism school).
What's funny is that none of the discussion about this guy centers around the content of anything he has to say about public policy and design. He can call himself an angel of the lord, and if he's promoting good design, I'm all for it.
I'd decided a while back that I wasn't going to respond to any of these comments. I thought I'd just sit back and let it unfold and I'd follow it from afar.
But now that "scratches" has given me the freedom to call myself an "angel of the Lord," I simply can't resist.
Thank you! I've been called lots of things lately (esp. since I encouraged and created a couple of moratoriums on growth and change in use in Aspen this year, and called myself an architect throughout--most esp. this week when we were deciding on how best to preserve an historic interior, how do you like that Mr. Heller-sue me)
BUT I've not yet been encouraged to call myself an "angel of the Lord" and frankly, can't wait to do so. I'm most appreciative!
The most interesting thing to me throughout the whole affair is how willfully ignorant people can be about the substantive issues in my case. And how willing some are to subvert my rights and their own simply to protect a title that they've misconstrued and wrongly appropriated all along. Or at least for years.
The old boys club of architecture has been perverting the simple meaning of the word and going after others for far too long. I've long said I supported boards going after those who are illegally practicing architecture. But it ends there and should.
I suppose those like Mr. Heller have the most to lose in this battle. I made my case, they've yet to make theirs.
I'm thankful the sensible members of the community have rallied around me and it seems as though AIA may be taking this issue seriously. It's a most welcome change of heart in my opinion.
not to mention, have you looked at heller's work?
if i were heller, there is no way i'd be taking credit for those abortions. i'd get one of my underlings to sign off on it - "oh wait, none of them are licensed architects (is it because i don't pay them enough?!?). damn, guess i have to sign off on this project, too."
people like mr. heller get their panties in a wad because they never realized there were other ways to "make it", rather than doing everything "by the book" and feel everyone should have to do the same way they did or else it isn't fair.
there also might be a bit of prof. jealousy in that jack johnson, being elected, will have more of a voice (as an architect) than the president of the california arch. board does. (whoa! that hurts)
big whoop.
go get 'em jack.
by the way... great beach music.
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.