A German architect accused of improperly installing a fireplace in his Hollywood Hills mansion, leading to a firefighter’s death in February 2011, is expected to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter Friday. — LA Times
Architect, Gerhard Becker, is accused of involuntary manslaughter in Los Angeles in the death of a firefighter in February 2011. He is expected to plead "no contest" and serve a 6 month long sentence.
Becker was accused of constructing fireplaces in a 12,000 square foot residence in the Hollywood Hills despite having filed drawing that showed otherwise. Prosecutors allege that he did so after final inspections in November 2010.
Investigators determined that the fire was a result of several gas exterior fire pits that were installed inside. A fire broke out and several responding firefighter were pinned when the ceiling collapsed, resulting in one death.
31 Comments
No CA license under that name, FWIW.
I think this charge would've been brought even if he was a dentist or an accountant, though the gravity is harsher because of his architecture training.
Previously.
Previously.
And another previously.
All this, not to be confused with charges of "illegal flashing." Something else entirely.
It's a really complex case as it relates to registered architects, building code knowledge, and firefighter involvement in a hazardous job.
The guy is *not* a registered architect. Even if he's an architect in Germany, that in no way entitles him to calling himself an architect in California. For legal purposes he is not an architect (and possibly, though the various articles aren't clear, not a licensed contractor either but acting as one? A whole 'nother can of worms.).
If he was registered, and built something that didn't meet code, he'd bear more culpability for the firefighter's death than if he wasn't registered at all and was just a regular Joe.
If he wasn't registered, but built something intentionally against codes and deceitful of the building inspectors etc, then he's very definitely culpable, criminally, and maybe even moreso than if he's registered but accidentally builds something wrong.
Lots of commenters on the article are asking if this means accidentally causing a grease fire while cooking in your kitchen that leads to the death of a firefighter means you are also culpable for involuntary manslaughter. it certainly seems not, as there was no intent and you don't need to be a registered professional - meaning you have specialized knowledge - to cook at home.
But I do wonder if he's more culpable as one who *should* have specialized knowledge in protecting health, safety, welfare (as an architect) or for committing the criminal act of deceiving the code officials/inspectors.
Really a curious situation. But very sad in the death of a firefighter, in any case.
Where it could impact architectural registration: if he's built lots of homes, even without registration and/or licensing as a contractor, the judge/jury could decide that based on that "real-life experience" he should have known better than to install an exterior frieplace inside. As registered architects we're held to a higher standard of knowledge than non-registered designers. I wonder if, in a situation like this, a judge/jury would find that in light of someone's Broadly Based Experience (NCARB's term) they should also be held to a higher standard, even if not registered? Hmmmmm.
I find this whole situation fascinating. Sad, too, of course.
I think most 8 year olds would know that outdoor fireplaces don't go indoors. It does not require any special knowledge. It's common sense. He was clearly negligent. I can't see title ,or lack of,affecting this case in any way. Even if he was the homeowner who decided to make a camp fire in his living room he would be found criminally negligent. The guy is a moron.
OMG I'm reading through the court docs (here) now and it's fascinating. Short response: the guy is an opportunist and pretty much a scumbag (to use a technical legal term lol). He built the house himself, the code official said he engaged in shoddy practices like stripping foundation formwork before the cure time was up, consistently went over the head of the inspector to get things approved by claiming "In Germany the architect is in charge and decides when things are signed off" (inspector's words, not Becker's).
I mean, if that's true, then he is claiming he DOES have specialized knowledge of how things are built, which means he's super culpable. The gas burners were installed under a drywall surround, without proper clearance. Hoo boy.
Also this, direct quoted from the emails seized on his computer, in response to the fireplace manufacturer specifically telling him the fireplaces he ordered are not intended for indoor use: I am aware. I just don't see the difference. I(t) is a pit with a pipe...if the pits don't have that (a UL number) than(sic) I have to put them in after the inspection
Oh man!! Criminal intent, yes?!
Remember, everyone: we are charged with protecting health, safety, and welfare. Take it seriously.
jla-x, this isn't about a philosophical discussion of what being an architect entails (which is a valuable discussion in itself). As per current law, if you are registered, you are held to a higher standard, period. The fact that this guy wasn't registered makes it more complex.
But this act is so blatantly negligent that any reasonable person would know right from wrong. If it was a less obvious thing that was beyond the knowledge of an average person then the title would weigh against the person at flaw, but even then ignorance is not a defense. Any one who does something is responsible for doing it responsibly and reasonably. A licensed architect may get less leniency in sentencing because the judge could use discretion. There are cases where hoarders have been charged for fires.
In other words, an architect would not be charged any differently, but they would be most likely treated with less leniency. A police officer may be treated harsher if he left a loaded gun on the coffee table and a kid picked it up and shot someone, but even if a regular joe did this he too would be charged in the same way because when you own that gun regardless of you IQ level or experience you are expected to act responsibly.
I'm actually curious if one would be charged differently or not. The standard of care is higher, but you're correct that the charge may be the same. In which case registration would only lead one to additional liability in the form of losing your license, being kicked out of the AIA, damage to your reputation, etc. Which would all seem to bolster your desire to not get licensed, yes, jla-x? Because the additional responsibility of a license would lead to, well, additional responsibility.
I guess a comparable situation is whether a registered doctor is charged differently for, say, a crappy surgery than an unregistered quack who performs the same act? I'm guessing there are actually additional charges that could be filed in either case, and would be similar for an architect.
It also may work the other way. The court may find that a person was negligent for attempting something that they had no ability to do in the first place. They were reckless for not acquiring the help/advice of an expert. In this case though, like I said, it seems like common knowledge and he clearly demonstrates that he understood the risk and chose to take it.
As for my disdain for licensure....that has little to do with issues of liability or responsibility. I am bound by my own consiouns to act in a responsible way. Anything I do I take 100% responsibility for. Don't matter to me if I have to by mandate or not. I just would never do anything that would put someone in harms way period. I would not be able to live with myself If I don't know something I find out. I'm OCD x 3. I turned down a few projects (that I was legally allowed to do) because I was not 110% comfortable with it, and knew that someone with more experience could do that particular thing quicker and better....
The criminal justice system in the US definitely takes into account the state of mind of the offender. In this case, it took into account the degree to which Becker understood what he was doing, his understanding of the law, and how he clearly intended to violate the law. His culpability is differently established because he is a professional in the field. It would have been probably even evaluated differently had he been registered in this country and/or CA state.
That varying culpability is the underlying principle in increased sentencing for repeat offenders, differentiation in degrees of murder, and how murder is differentiated from manslaughter.
The outcome, the death of the firefighter, is no different, but the culpability of the offender is brought into question, and in this case I think it's pretty clear he was highly culpable. The Criminal Lawyer's Illustrated guide has a great segment on this. He didn't intentionally kill the firefighter, but he was well aware that bad things could happen from his actions.
Hammurabi wouldn't have let him off so easily.
On the other hand, our society is now so fucked up that NYC police have charged a mentally disturbed man with felony assault on the two innocent bystanders shot by police, who iseed the unarmed man.
Personally, I dislike the overall idea of the license because I regard architecture as an art and I don't think that the state has the right or authority to regulate the artist. It can and should instead more strictly regulate the buildings themselves. This would make the knowledge itself a necessary and marketable thing. People can and do find ways around using an architects stamp, but if the codes themselves mandated a higher quality building with regard to performance, the role of the architect would be elevated beyond that of a stamp. We are not surgeons. The professional complex is a huge limitation and it undermines the true value of the art/science of architecture. It reduces architecture to a beurocratic utility and reduces design to a novelty/fetish for the elite. In other words, don't burden the player burden the game. If the hsw was truly the concern the industry would be fighting to mandate things like a max footprint, a max off gassing, proper solar orientation, a longer lifespan of built environment, and fighting to make the profession as inclusive as possible to include anyone from various backgrounds and experiences who could help to meet and exceed these requirements. We don't do surgery we design things that can be reviewed and tested before they can do any harm.
This jerk intentionally deceived the inspector so no amount of regulation could ever eliminate that kind of behavior.
i like the spirit/intention of your 7:09 post, jla-x, but it misses the fact that there are circumstances where what an architect is doing is beyond the clear boundaries of the code and enters gray area. at that point, acknowledged/certified expertise carries the day.
there are circumstances where a code reviewer acknowledges the reviewer's own lack of knowledge and lets the architect's stamp (and, by implication, expertise) stand proxy for the reviewer's lack. the stamp elicits trust. it doesn't happen often, but i've been made aware on several occasions that this was how certain aspects of some of our projects have been accepted.
would we want the limits of a reviewer's expertise to be the limit of what we could do? because that's what regulating the building would mean: approval of any project would be subject to the knowledge/understanding of the underpaid/overburdened administrator assigned to be its arbiter.
mr becker's particular situation does trigger fascinating topics for our rumination, but few of them are actually applicable to the specifics of the case. the guy had no authority, acted irresponsibly, and - apparently - with intention. i guess at least it's notable that he had the self-awareness to plead no contest.
Great post, Steven.
This is the worst part:
"Prosecutors allege that he did so after final inspections in November 2010."
Think its time for Europe to instill actual Architecture Licensing a la Ncarb, and perhaps integrate King Hammurabi's code, into their building codes.
It seems this is one of those gotcha articles, retweeted by design people to bash/equate architects with scummy lawyers or doctors. The truth is I've never worked on a project that wasn't reviewed by engineers and developers, both of whom bear just as much responsibility. Architecture SHOULD be an art of building, "firmness, commodity, delight." Engineers check it over.
Even so, even with high building standards, things are going to break and fall every once in a while; but I guess we need a good public shaming to keep everyone honest.
Also, there are licensed doctors that do illegal unethical work. It happens quite often. You cant 100% safeguard the public, and you certainly cannot eliminate the scumbag factor from any profession because it is possible to be both smart/clever and unethical...Unethical people will pledge to a code of professional ethics just as unfaithful people will pledge to a code of marriage...
Steven, I see and respect your point, and I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think that such a creative profession filled with so many creative people can easily find a way to address those issues that you raise. I am certain that most people here on archinect, and in the architecture profession in general share a similar goal - Making a more fulfilling, safe, and healthy built environment, and protecting the natural environment. I don't see licensure as the enemy, but I do see it as an impediment towards that shared goal.
Thanks to Dbags like this that fireplaces have to be permitted completely separately by independent fireplace contractors in a lot of jurisdictions.
I don't see licensure as the enemy, but I do see it as an impediment towards that shared goal.
The problem with licensure is that it's veiwed as an "all or nothing" proposition that actaully makes it similar to the tenure ship that professors receive. A license should be nothing more than a perfunctry procedure of bureacracy.
And there's no reason it couldn't be a graduated license. Even a drvier's license begins with a temporary permit, restricted conditions and probationary period. Why can't archtiectt license be similar?
That is, why can't a graduate of a professional arch program get a license to allow themselves to set up shop as an architect but working (at last initally) only on small houses & renovations? Likewise, a builder too could be eligible for such a license if that is all they are interrested in building.
At some point over 10 years or so you'd have to acquire the prof degree, finish IDP, and pass the ARE in order to achieve a fully tenure architect's professional license which would allow you to build anythign from outhoue to skyscraper.
Cash Money, that would make too much sense. Since one could start a design firm anyway and do small projects and residential it doesn't seem to be a matter of hsw. It is nothing more than professional protectionism. The architects feel that prestige comes from titles exclusivity when in reality it is quite the opposite in the minds of the public. The public sees exclusivity as a form of elitism. the public generally has a distrust of the elitist and they assume that the elite are too expensive. Because Of this, they turn to other professionals that seem less elite like Interior designers, builders, etc. Of course the architects are generally not elite with regards to income, so the real elitists use them and treat them like whores. The architect falls into a strange in between where he/she is too expensive/elite for the 99% (but since reality does not match perception) too serf like to be treated as an equal by the financial elite clients. The 99% is the market that must be tapped inorder to adress the problems of the 21st century. A random library with a green roof will not be nearly enough. The environmental, social, and cultural degradation of our society is the real hsw threat. It kills slower than fire or structural failure, but it is much more pervasive and deadly.
To gain control of these markets we need to change 3 things IMO.
1.perception 2. Control 3. Mission
Title regulation is an impediment to all three...
let me explain my position more clearly...
1. perception: We need to make architecture more accessible by taking it off the glossy magazine pages and into the streets. Not too long ago, the idea of eating the food cooked by a world class chef seemed far fetched for most people. Recently, the explosion of food trucks owned and operated by talented young chefs has changed this. I am fascinated by the food truck culture. It has challenged the fast food industry in a truly significant way. It has brought culinary art to the everyday person. Most importantly, it has made the title chef less elitist, and in turn, has spawned a pop-fascination with the culinary industry. This movement was not started by elitist seasoned chefs, but rather by young passionate new comers. Despite the attempts to curb such businesses under the guise of hsw, they have taken off with great success and have posed no threat to public health. By taking a small risk with regard to fast death like botulism, they have reduced the more pervasive risk of the slow death being sold in the form of fast processed foods. Now imagine if the title chef was regulated in a similar way to the title architect. Would the young "chef interns" be discouraged to take the plunge into business? Would they feel obligated to go work for some Michelin star restaurant to gain the title that they already invested much time and money into? If they did, would they be so willing to start a street business after 10 years of internship and the financial obligations that come with mid-life? Would the passionate new comers who believe in their vision abandon the title all together and create a new one? Would the chef then have a new rival- the "culinary artist"? Would this push the chef further away from the everyday? Would society be better off? The architecture profession is no different and in fact it poses a far less serious threat to the hsw than serving food that can carry all kinds of infectious diseases...We need a grass roots everyday equivalent to the food truck. This would change the public perception of the architect from "artist for the elite" to artist for the people. They will be more open to "tasting new things" if we could show them that these things can be for everyone, and that you don't need to be from the otherside of the tracks to appreciate and enjoy thoughtful design. Licensure is a huge factor because it creates other filler industries that are being operated by less qualified people. The small everyday projects are being done by people who do not carry the title architect. These small projects could help reduce the skepticism and overall distrust of the architect if they were done by people who could call themselves architect. The work will get done regardless, so its just a matter of who is getting credit and who is gaining influence over the public. This influence and trust is the basis of the second point....Control
2.Control: We need to gain control of the vast energy sucking landscape that occupies 99% of the built world. We cannot rely on the greedy elite. We will never schmooze them into developing a sustainable world, and if we do on occasion, it will be far and few between. By nature they are the takers. We need to get into the development game, and out compete the competitors. We need a balance of quality and profit rather. We need as many people as possible on the "architect" team, because as long as we make the profession more exclusive, we are consequently creating rivals and competitors. It will be much harder to persuade a rival who views you as an elitist than a fellow professional. We need to gain control over the built environment by getting the public to understand and appreciate the importance of good design and sustainability. We cannot gain a public pulpit without the publics support. If we remain elite, we will always be screaming at the crowd with a bullhorn rather than speaking to and engaging them from a position of leadership. And what are we trying to promote? That brings me to the third point: mission
3. We need to promote a better built world. We need to focus more heavily imo on place making, sustainability, localization, community, etc... "Better" is not completely subjective. We need to focus on the objective things...such as proper solar orientation, daylighting, etc...This should be the basis of the mission. We can let "style" find its own way.
I'm not sure I agree with the statements about public perceptions of elites/non-elites. And I've experience hearing a number of people refering to interior designers or builders as architects some I'm inclined to believe that most outside of the profession are confused by the on-going semantic tussle.
But I do agree that the current license structure (in the US especiallly) is foolishly protectionist. It's befuddling that there is a whole class of people who are (for most intents and purposes ) architects but are not allowed to actually call themselves architects lest they risk a lawsuit from the aia. Given the relentless complaining about the marginalisation of the profession, it would really be beneficail to try to expand the ranks.
And it's not just the quantity of architects that sufer from this protectionism but also the quality of architects as young professionals are discouraged from pursuing anything but the most proscriptive of career paths and where competitioun is whitlled not on merit but rather bureaucratic idiosyncracy.
First of all, Gerhard Becker is not a licensed architect in the State of California and may not be called as one. His previous work and education in Germany has not legal standing in the U.S.A. The L.A.D.B.S. permit file shows him as "Owner/Builder" and there are no architect or contractor licenses listed. So, we got a speculative developer with limited knowledge of codes and regulations but with a big ego. Pretty pathetic picture if you ask me, but why should architects take a hit for his irresponsible actions?
We need to promote a better built world. We need to focus more heavily imo on place making, sustainability, localization, community, etc... "Better" is not completely subjective. We need to focus on the objective things...such as proper solar orientation, daylighting, etc...This should be the basis of the mission. We can let "style" find its own way.
Nicely put.
I wonder if the point is his attorney has managed to get a plea bargain for him in exchange for his admission of guilt. Otherwise, maybe Mr Becker would have been subjected to a harsher charge of third degree murder, ex: In the operation of your motor vehicle you run over and kill someone, as a motor vehicle operator you know the machine you are operating can kill someone if not operated carefully, ergo why we are required to have a drivers license. Remember having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right. The fact he is not a registered architect in CA may be what saved him from that harsher charge. However, because his attorney has agreed, on behalf of Mr Becker, to not fight the charge of Manslaughter, he is subjected to a lesser degree of penalty, that penalty still has a range of severity available to the judge, which was lightened due to saving the courts time and CA tax payers money be eliminating a trial. So I guess what I'm saying is: this guy is lucky! Fucking scumbag.
P.S.- Is Will Farrel his attorney?
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.