Many top designers whom the general public may believe to be architects are, in technical terms, not allowed to use the terminology. And this isn’t raising ire just in America. A British architecture publication was instructed last year to stop calling Renzo Piano and Daniel Libeskind architects since they aren't officially registered as such in that country. — fastcodesign.com
22 Comments
This is actually a well-reasoned article, which the title maybe doesn't imply. But two things:
First I'll grant that architecture is different from medicine. But please let me know when the public stops caring whether an herbalist naturopath can call him/herself Doctor with all of the knowledge implied by that title.
From the article's credits: (author) Stephen Hopkins, AIA, is a recovering architect. Another person who has left the profession and is staring back in telling us all how much we should be ashamed of ourselves. Thanks, Bro.
Why can't anyone but our own criticise us?
And to follow up on my first comment: An herbalist naturopath without a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree can call themselves Doctor if they have a PhD of other doctorate level degree. So common practice is that medical doctors call themselves Dr. Name, MD. In architecture we have tended to say Ms. Architect, AIA, as a signifier of registration - which is a tradition I can't stand, but I do use for convention's sake.
Personally I think it would be great if RA took on more significance and use in our profession.
Then I would be "Donna Sink, Architect, RA", and that would define me as having a different status and responsibility than "Sally Intern, Architect" or even software designer "Joe Blow, Architect". In other words, it's fine by me if the word architect is used more commonly if there is also a distinguishing term that applies to those of us who are registered.
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges"
...or titles.
Donna, my impression is that "RA" does exactly what you hope it would (in the US). When I see RA after somebody's name I know exactly what it means. When I see a faculty list without many RA's, for instance, I start to judge that school based on it.
I agree the article is better than the title! But his comparison to industrial designers is silly -- they have no state-mandated liability, right? The better comparison is to engineers. Can anyone with a structural engineering degree call him or herself a structural engineer?
Closing the barn door.....
Anyone can call themselves an architect simply by putting any word they like in front of it, the poster child for this is "software architect". We need to concentrate on RA, as doctors do on MD.
99% of people don't even know what RA or AIA means, because, we aren't a vitally necessary profession. I know a state where anyone can build anything up to 5,000 sf, well, a licensed GC, who has no personal liability or monitored education / training (that's why we all have to go to accredited colleges, so that we are taught due diligence, not just free hand drawing).
What we need to add weight to the word, title, Architect, RA, AIA, etc. are laws REQUIRING architects when building.
I'd suggest any building or construction over 1.000 sf, and any building or construction in which people live in, or work in, are required to have an AOR and EOR. Any building or construction for use by people, less than 1,000 could have an AOR or EOR. Short of a dog house, I can't think of any structure that a sleazy or incompetent contractor / developer couldn't build so badly that it wouldn't be a hazard to those in it, and thus worthy of the due diligence professionals provide.
We need this at the Federal level, and yes that is legal, and easily done as the Feds do whenever they want to force something down states throats. If you accept Federal money, you enact ........ . It is how every state got an energy code, you wanted recovery money, you promised to enact at least the model code cited. Anyone at the AIA listening? Scrape together a couple of million, bribe, I mean lobby the right congress / senate members. Make it happen.
As far as I'm concerned, a builder who designs his own McMansions is an architect, casue that's what architects do. Like if your doing brain surgery your a brain surgen or a cook who cooks. Unfortunaty, this fuss over labels is what starts us down the "that's not architecture" road where we start looking down our nose to whomever isn't doing what we deem good, further pushing ourselves away from the public.
That being said, there is some merit to identifying a professional for liability purposes.
What is so interesting and also aggravating about this issue is that it represents a much larger general problem with our society.
Over the years people have put more and more importance on title and status. Titles have become the primary goal for many people...."I want to heal sick people" has been replaced with "I want to become a doctor." There is a huge distinction between those two statements. People who see titles as the end goal are often more concerned with the fruits of labor than with the labor itself. They may be competent at what they do, they may meet all the requirements set by the state, but overall, they are typically not the Jonas Salk type or the Lou Kahn type. These people make up the majority of all professions. For every lawyer who is truly passionate about the work, there are 100 who see the work as a way to pay for the big house and the new car.
A title is a huge accomplishment, but Id be more worried about fighting the guy who keeps his black belt neatly tucked away in his closet than the guy that wears it to the grocery store....As Mr. Miagi said, belt is for holding up your pants!
I understand why the state needs to ensure a basic level of competence, but the downside to that is that we get exactly what we design for, a basic level of competence. A mediocre majority that fights to keep competition down rather than keep quality up.
There is one profession that has escaped this obsession with title regulation while increasing the perceived value of the title, Chefs! The title of chef is loosely and informally bestowed upon hard working and dedicated people who can cook exceptionally. Regardless of what school you went to or not, a chef is a title gained only if you can make great food. If you make average food you are a cook. Real chefs don't care if the fry guy at Burger king calls himself a fry chef. There are great chefs that went to great culinary schools and those who learned in more informal ways. No on cares. All people care about is the quality of the food. And lets talk about "protecting the public".....many more people die from food born illness than from faulty building design. I look at architecture in a similar way. We will probably all agree that not all buildings are architecture. If you make average buildings you are building designer just like if you make average food you are a cook. If you make great buildings you are an architect just like if you make great food you are a chef.
Regardless of what the state or the AIA or NCARB says!
Maya Lin is an architect!
Turrell...yeah an architect!
Piano is an architect in Italy, Kenya, NY, and everywhere else. period. He designed architecture in SF but cannot call himself an architect there? Just plain weird
Zumthor is an architect in NY, Cali, Japan, in you mothers backyard, the moon.....whatever
If Tadao Ando was caught smoking meth and soliciting prostitutes in the great state of Florida, and the state deported him back to Japan and banned him from Florida for life, but then he snuck back in a year later to party in southbeach.....he would still be an architect in florida!
that's a great image to end the week on.
lol
A title is no substitute for competence.
Chefs can remain unregulated because one or more government inspectors regularly comes to the eatery and inspects it for conditions that might harm the public. We don't "regulate" chefs because we provide for many gov't employees, inspectors, clerks, scientists, doctors, lawyers, layers and layers of managers, all at generous salaries, benefits and pensions, to provide the due diligence necesary to protect people from harm and abuse.
To do the same with architects, to let anyone "be an architect" gov't agencies would need to take on the responsibility and liability for due diligence, checking both plans and specs for all the soils, structural, MEP, ADA, ECC, Asbestos, DOB life safety issues, Lead paint, PCB's, VOC's, site safety etc. issues. The days and weeks this could take on each buiilding, along with weekly inspections would require huge DOB agencies to provide, instead of developer / client paid for professionals, gov't professionals with their generous salaries, benfits, pensions, etc. that few private firms come near providing / charging for. DOB fees huge enough to pay for this would stiffle development.
I don't see people chasing titles as much as wanting titles without responsibility. People make up titles and the organizations to legitimize them and I LOVE LEED all all it accomplishes, but it's the poster child for "let's make up a title for something someone else does (architects and engineers specialized in ECC, Alt Energy, and Healthy Buildings for 20 yrs prior to LEED), but we won't need to spend 6 years or more being educated, many more years of training, finally being tested for days, and then take responsibility if we fail to deliver. I could say essentially the same for cost estimators, spec writers, client reps, planners, construction managers, and many others.
By responsibility I mean the kind our society and laws have determined ensures public safety. Not someone who incorporated under their dogs name, and can just go bankrupt to escape responsibility , reincorporating under their cats name, but the unlimited personal liability of a licensed professional that stretches on for decades - or for life.
I thought I was in the profession that valued what we do with our "title" then the title itself? There are hundreds of people in my home state of hawaii that call themselves licensed architect (probably the same case in your home state). I have no idea what architecture those acronym dropping nobody (AIA, LEED, and so on) build or built.
Like it or not, Renzo Piano and Libeskind produces architecture that gets us think about architecture in a broader and more critical precept.
On the other hand, I think I am couple of more CAD drawings of bathroom interior away from earning that magical title (and 2 more multiple choice pass or fail exams, yeah!)
I said I think because I could care less about being license if I have to be amongst the company of a nobody who wrote the above article.
MIes is not an architect, according to that guy.
mies was registered in the usa. no problem. it was easier back then to get the title, but then again he knew his shit.
its all rubbish, this stuff. the folks that said renzo piano shouldn't be called an architect in the UK were laughed at. we should laugh at this nonsense as well. it's better written than the starbucks blog thing, but not by much.
Nice post, saRAoRAH. I enjoyed reading it.
I am sensing Renzo Piano or Daniel Libeskind can’t care less what Americans or Brits call them
So I am “--------“who’s been such for 30 years in country other than US (sorry for quotes I am not allowed to say it loud)
I came in US 10 years ago and since then all I am doing is architecture, have my designs built, some times I am fixing rejected projects screwed up by licensed architects, so they can get approved. Obviously my designs are either stamped by Engineers in Residential field or I am a consultant for other Architect in Commercial work.
I am not allowed to call myself “------“ that word even so I am licensed in country where I worked for 30 years and I am willing to get license here if I get through all this bureaucracy nonsense and come up with fee $10 000.
Just if anyone can explain why Americans call this book “International Building Codes” and I will pay all this money and deal with crazy paperwork, and even pass exams no problem there.
I am just wondering if any American Architect worked in other countries, what did they called themselves and what codes they comply with when they designed for those countries, did they followed local building standards or they still used American, sorry International Building Codes?
Don’t get me wrong I do agree that person who takes responsibility on design has to be licensed, no one can argue that, but not being able to call yourself something you study for years and practiced makes no sense to me. And I agree with some of you here that there should be another definition for those who are licensed instead of just simply calling an “Architect”.
Yours truly Non-Architect
So when The President of the United States goes to visit a foreign country he doesn't deserve the respect of being addressed as Mr. President, simply because he's crossed a border? This is a false premise for an argument and bad interpretation of the laws that intend to protect consumers from fraud, i.e. people going around trying to sell their services as an architect, when they are in fact not.
We, aspiring architects, paid a lot for money for our education, suffer through internship, suffer and pay more for exams, memberships and finally that piece of paper. I GET IT! And no I don't want some schmuck going around saying they are an Architect when they have not had to partake int he same approval process as me. By the same token I would appreciate the recognition of my title by others, including foreign newspapers when talking about me (Should I have the fortune of ever being that famous).
So I guess I feel like if you have earned the title somewhere and are recognized somewhere as an Architect then the rest of the world owes you the respect of that title, even when some stuffy title miser has a plug up his tight asshole and decides to take the title reference of of context. So draw on Architect Libeskind and Architect Piano!
To the point about laws requiring architects for buildings: legislating relevance won't save a profession.
agree^
also, there are about 500,000 homes built per year in the US and about 100,000 architects so do the math. Either people will have to start living in 900 ft.2 homes or architects will need to get busy. Also, unless you are going to lower your fees, the price of homes will have to go up about 10%. That will not go over too well with builders and investors that are competing with comps in the area.
Its a stupid idea that regulation is in place to help your pockets or the value of your title. You have very little understanding of the law. That is pure protectionist bullshit and it would violate the property rights of residential designers, design build firms, etc....They have a right to pursue their profession because it was built around the existing law. Since it is the way they make their living, the right to design exempt structures is their property! It would violate the 14th amendment unless you can prove a real public danger.
You would also have to prove that states such as Arizona have a higher fatality rate due to faulty building design than states such as California where there are such limits in place.
If a structural engineer ok's a design and it meets all code requirements then why shouldn't it be ok? Makes no sense.
As for the title thing. Im cool with the RA distinction. I don't think that anyone should be able to stamp a skyscraper plan. There needs to be some limits, but no reason why a non-licensed person cannot design it and pay an AOR to review it and stamp it. You may say that RA's could just run stamping mills, but if they are not trusted to act responsibly then what the hell is the point of the the title to begin with. I thought we were supposed to trust these people. I thought the state trusted them. Let them stamp drawings and let anyone design. Its what happens in offices anyway. The term architect is not a title it is a commonly and universally used word. It is a person who designs space.
We were just talking about this at work the other day, I think the "R.A." is a great idea since the AIA doesn't seem to care that people are starting to use the term so loosely..
It could also be some sort of level system where level 1 allows you to do small projects and at level 5 you can do a skyscraper or something
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.