According to the article the word architect seems to be getting more dissolved but I think if anything they should make it more legally restrictive.
There would be something eluding and deceptive for a person to call themselves an architect to a potential client, when in fact, they are not licensed.
The AIA *will never* dissolve the word architect to make it less legally restrictive unless they are forced to. And if you think you can force them, they will hire lawyers to help them spit on your sorry ass. @outthere Does you really think people should need a license to draw pictures of buildings?
I tend to agree with the article that the role of architects and the need for our traditional services is changing so quickly that in a few decades - probably not by 2025, but not much longer after that - the title architect won't be legally protected, or won't need to be. That said, I think people working in a significant way on the built environment will still have to be licensed in some way, but it might be a broader "habitation engineer" type designation.
I cant agree that broadening the field to include anyone who can draw a building or program a building or coordinate a building's many systems into a type of Habitat Planner is a good idea. We already have a muddled stew of experts that have eroded the the professional responsibilities of the Architect, we don't need more and certainly shouldn't be willingly giving away our protective title because it seems like a good trend. Maybe this post should be in the 4 year degree thread, but when Architects were trained in the 4 year programs of the 1950s and 1960s they where the go-to professional for planning, consulting and designing a building. Many prints I work off of have the Architect as Structural and Mechanical engineer. Imagine that, a time not so long ago Architects could perform all these tasks competently enough to charge respectable fees for themselves. Now? Architects stair at the wall socket and think if by magic power flows from it. If we continue to pump out 6 year grad students with little to offer but debt and a rabid disposition to defending their education and status quo, then yes theirs is no future for Architects. But there will be a future for people who draw what they're told to draw and habitat planners will listen. I have a licesnse and I am quite good at defining and solving mechanical problems, I have never backed down from sizing a beam, resolving a load path or sizing a duct. They dont frighten me. I find it offensive my profession doesn't see it the same way. I might actually be able to afford to stay in the profession if Architects were a little less focused on what some European avante-garde is doing and little more focused on what we need to be doing in our own offices and learning our own trade. We make buildings, and if we lose that, we wont be making anything in the future.
Interesting article, and I'm glad someone is talking about it. On a side note, I sat in a couple of meetings last week where talked about a system being "architected" and how we were "architecting" it. I literally winced every time the word was used that way.
According to the AIA, architects draw pictures. They make beautiful images, a religious and spiritual act. That's the primary professional activity, and the basis for giving out their highest awards. That's *their* definition; not my first definition or the reality most architects deal with, as you note. My comment was a response to Olaf's comment about the AIA.
There are issues of power, money and prestige involved, and this matters big-time for them. From what I've seen here in Los Angeles, the AIA will not give up without a knock-down, drag-out fight to the finish.
At the moment, I seem to be a convenient punching bag for them, basically for asserting a position that you and others seem to share.
Perhaps, the future of licensing should be evaluated in terms of what can and can't be done by category. The level of scrutiny within the field, especially as of late, around licensing is between the haves and have nots.It's very much a fruitless, combative and self-referential stance between student and master if the bigger picture is not observed.
If one looks towards architecture's nearest neighbor, we see a licensing system based on steps and specializations.Drywallers are licensed. Electricians are licensed. Plumbers are licensed. Carpenters are licensed. Even in some locales, carpet installers are licensed. And, of course, we have general contractors who can do all of the above.
In the field of architecture, there exists three, sometimes four, distinct licensed specializations-- Architects, Landscape Architects, Interior Architects and Interior Designers. How about we turn each section of the ARE into its own individual license with the end goal of becoming a master practitioner or generalist architect?
It may better suit the entire industry by adding legitimacy to all players in the field who have valuableskills rendered useless by an inflexible wall of illegitimacy. Does one really need a real architectural education for site planning? Does a draftsmen have to pass Programming, Planning & Practice?
In this argument-- akin to a drywall contractor or a plumber-- we could expand and legitimize many aspects of architecture by creating new but limited titles such as "Planning Architect," "Drafting Architect" and "Programmatic Architect." And each specific title could have its own stipulations regarding the necessary amount of internship, professional experience and education necessary to sit for the exam.
"In the field of architecture, there exists three, sometimes four,
distinct licensed specializations-- Architects, Landscape Architects,
Interior Architects and Interior Designers. How about we turn each
section of the ARE into its own individual license with the end goal of
becoming a master practitioner or generalist architects."
ah... nope sorry to burst your bubble dude but there is only one Architecture license, you know the guys that build and design buildings. not interior designers and not landscape architects sorry, whats an Interior Architect? is that in europe of something?
Why is there this need to legitimize or expand as the last poster said? you guys are losing it, get back to work.
As you say in your very excellent post, trendzetter, architects *used* to have all that specialized knowledge of beam sizes and mechanicals. As those areas have become more and more specialized (in larger scale projects, for sure, though not so much in residential), and as the damn insurance companies and lawyers have looked for their pieces of the pie, architects have had to back away from a lot of that responsibility. I wish it weren't so, but I'm not sure what the solution is. J.James' proposal that the licensing exams actually relate to practice and test relevant knowledge is a really intriguing possible solution.
eje, you hate the AIA, fine. But they have next to nothing to do with being an architect: the AIA is a club, you may join or not at your own whim. They DO NOT regulate practice, state's practice laws do that, and those laws do not - not a single one - define architect as a person who "draws pictures". You need to lose some of the bitterness and educate yourself, dear.
Oh wait...eje, you're the person who sued the AIA for not giving you an award, aren't you? Ignore my last post, please. I don't need to get into that argument today.
If we really examine the process between unlicensed building professionals to licensed architects, the only separation that exists, other than education, is 550 something multiple choice questions and 11 vignettes. While the cut score, as in the line between pass or fail, is a mystery, I'm going to assume it's probably around 70% with some significant weighting based on the vignettes.
The last three portions, structural systems, building systems and construction documentation, are probably the most critical and even I wouldn't recommend any flexibility on them with the exception of construction documentation.
If we make the assumption that on average for every licensed architect in a firm, there's approximately 4 other people on staff. Those 4 people are just as critical to the business as the architect is. The legal challenge we face here is that none of these 4 people should or can give any explicit architecture-related guidance to anyone unless under the direct supervision from the architect: the lines they draw, faxes they send out, phone calls answered and renderings provided are legally sound and liability-proof actions approved by the guidance of the licensed architect. Some don't and that's where errors and omissions really catch up.
But the picture here is that the majority of the office is not technically legally competent to do their own work even if that work is superficial, lame or non-critical to health and safety. If the people who interact with clients were able to act on their own accord, to do Programming, Planning and Practice or Site Planning and Design, that would surely give the real "Architects" far more time to focus on beam and lateral load calculations without worrying that the junior intern is about to tank their business.
First, I've been licensed as an architect for 20 years. I spent ten years in the construction trades before that and two years on a partial academic scholarship at a respected university before that. I worked my way through SCI-Arc when Thom Mayne taught there. I have a few buildings of my own design built. You may or may not find at least one interesting. I've also worked as an owner's representative on the client side of the triangle. You may disagree, but I think I'm qualified to express an opinion about 'what architects do' without being maligned and ridiculed as uninformed and uneducated?
Thank you.
As far as my lawsuit ... Suffice it to say that I brought it because the awards program is a legal model that involves issues of power, corruption and abuse of authority related to how architects and government authorities make aesthetic judgments.
That legal model affects 'what architects do' and it affects all property owners in the country.
All I know is that I AM NOT a licensed architect, and am designing more buildings (and getting some of them built as well), than most AIA Architects. And that's good enough for me.
The future of architecture?
Here is an interesting article on the future of architecture, love to hear some feedback . . .
http://www.architecture.com/NewsAndPress/News/RIBANews/News/2011/Willarchitectsexistin2025.aspx
At least the brits are starting to get it.
Still waiting for the AIA to dissolve and the word "architect" be less legally restricted
dissolved already!
why dissolve the word architect?
According to the article the word architect seems to be getting more dissolved but I think if anything they should make it more legally restrictive.
There would be something eluding and deceptive for a person to call themselves an architect to a potential client, when in fact, they are not licensed.
@olaf design ninja
The AIA *will never* dissolve the word architect to make it less legally restrictive unless they are forced to. And if you think you can force them, they will hire lawyers to help them spit on your sorry ass.
@outthere
Does you really think people should need a license to draw pictures of buildings?
Architects don't just "draw pictures of buildings", eje. I mean, maybe that's all *you* do, but not most of us.
I tend to agree with the article that the role of architects and the need for our traditional services is changing so quickly that in a few decades - probably not by 2025, but not much longer after that - the title architect won't be legally protected, or won't need to be. That said, I think people working in a significant way on the built environment will still have to be licensed in some way, but it might be a broader "habitation engineer" type designation.
And in many ways I think this is a good trend.
I cant agree that broadening the field to include anyone who can draw a building or program a building or coordinate a building's many systems into a type of Habitat Planner is a good idea. We already have a muddled stew of experts that have eroded the the professional responsibilities of the Architect, we don't need more and certainly shouldn't be willingly giving away our protective title because it seems like a good trend. Maybe this post should be in the 4 year degree thread, but when Architects were trained in the 4 year programs of the 1950s and 1960s they where the go-to professional for planning, consulting and designing a building. Many prints I work off of have the Architect as Structural and Mechanical engineer. Imagine that, a time not so long ago Architects could perform all these tasks competently enough to charge respectable fees for themselves. Now? Architects stair at the wall socket and think if by magic power flows from it. If we continue to pump out 6 year grad students with little to offer but debt and a rabid disposition to defending their education and status quo, then yes theirs is no future for Architects. But there will be a future for people who draw what they're told to draw and habitat planners will listen. I have a licesnse and I am quite good at defining and solving mechanical problems, I have never backed down from sizing a beam, resolving a load path or sizing a duct. They dont frighten me. I find it offensive my profession doesn't see it the same way. I might actually be able to afford to stay in the profession if Architects were a little less focused on what some European avante-garde is doing and little more focused on what we need to be doing in our own offices and learning our own trade. We make buildings, and if we lose that, we wont be making anything in the future.
Interesting article, and I'm glad someone is talking about it.
On a side note, I sat in a couple of meetings last week where talked about a system being "architected" and how we were "architecting" it. I literally winced every time the word was used that way.
@Donna
According to the AIA, architects draw pictures. They make beautiful images, a religious and spiritual act. That's the primary professional activity, and the basis for giving out their highest awards. That's *their* definition; not my first definition or the reality most architects deal with, as you note. My comment was a response to Olaf's comment about the AIA.
There are issues of power, money and prestige involved, and this matters big-time for them. From what I've seen here in Los Angeles, the AIA will not give up without a knock-down, drag-out fight to the finish.
At the moment, I seem to be a convenient punching bag for them, basically for asserting a position that you and others seem to share.
Eric Elerath
Perhaps, the future of licensing should be evaluated in terms of what can and can't be done by category. The level of scrutiny within the field, especially as of late, around licensing is between the haves and have nots. It's very much a fruitless, combative and self-referential stance between student and master if the bigger picture is not observed.
If one looks towards architecture's nearest neighbor, we see a licensing system based on steps and specializations. Drywallers are licensed. Electricians are licensed. Plumbers are licensed. Carpenters are licensed. Even in some locales, carpet installers are licensed. And, of course, we have general contractors who can do all of the above.
In the field of architecture, there exists three, sometimes four, distinct licensed specializations-- Architects, Landscape Architects, Interior Architects and Interior Designers. How about we turn each section of the ARE into its own individual license with the end goal of becoming a master practitioner or generalist architect?
It may better suit the entire industry by adding legitimacy to all players in the field who have valuable skills rendered useless by an inflexible wall of illegitimacy. Does one really need a real architectural education for site planning? Does a draftsmen have to pass Programming, Planning & Practice?
In this argument-- akin to a drywall contractor or a plumber-- we could expand and legitimize many aspects of architecture by creating new but limited titles such as "Planning Architect," "Drafting Architect" and "Programmatic Architect." And each specific title could have its own stipulations regarding the necessary amount of internship, professional experience and education necessary to sit for the exam.
die "Architect"! Long live "architect"!
"In the field of architecture, there exists three, sometimes four, distinct licensed specializations-- Architects, Landscape Architects, Interior Architects and Interior Designers. How about we turn each section of the ARE into its own individual license with the end goal of becoming a master practitioner or generalist architects."
ah... nope sorry to burst your bubble dude but there is only one Architecture license, you know the guys that build and design buildings. not interior designers and not landscape architects sorry, whats an Interior Architect? is that in europe of something?
Why is there this need to legitimize or expand as the last poster said? you guys are losing it, get back to work.
I like that idea, J. James.
As you say in your very excellent post, trendzetter, architects *used* to have all that specialized knowledge of beam sizes and mechanicals. As those areas have become more and more specialized (in larger scale projects, for sure, though not so much in residential), and as the damn insurance companies and lawyers have looked for their pieces of the pie, architects have had to back away from a lot of that responsibility. I wish it weren't so, but I'm not sure what the solution is. J.James' proposal that the licensing exams actually relate to practice and test relevant knowledge is a really intriguing possible solution.
eje, you hate the AIA, fine. But they have next to nothing to do with being an architect: the AIA is a club, you may join or not at your own whim. They DO NOT regulate practice, state's practice laws do that, and those laws do not - not a single one - define architect as a person who "draws pictures". You need to lose some of the bitterness and educate yourself, dear.
Oh wait...eje, you're the person who sued the AIA for not giving you an award, aren't you? Ignore my last post, please. I don't need to get into that argument today.
-eje
"Does you really think people should need a license to draw pictures of buildings?"
Im sorry eje if the AIA wont let you join there club. Maybe its because all you think we do is draw pictures of buildings.
Thank you, Donna.
If we really examine the process between unlicensed building professionals to licensed architects, the only separation that exists, other than education, is 550 something multiple choice questions and 11 vignettes. While the cut score, as in the line between pass or fail, is a mystery, I'm going to assume it's probably around 70% with some significant weighting based on the vignettes.
The last three portions, structural systems, building systems and construction documentation, are probably the most critical and even I wouldn't recommend any flexibility on them with the exception of construction documentation.
If we make the assumption that on average for every licensed architect in a firm, there's approximately 4 other people on staff. Those 4 people are just as critical to the business as the architect is. The legal challenge we face here is that none of these 4 people should or can give any explicit architecture-related guidance to anyone unless under the direct supervision from the architect: the lines they draw, faxes they send out, phone calls answered and renderings provided are legally sound and liability-proof actions approved by the guidance of the licensed architect. Some don't and that's where errors and omissions really catch up.
But the picture here is that the majority of the office is not technically legally competent to do their own work even if that work is superficial, lame or non-critical to health and safety. If the people who interact with clients were able to act on their own accord, to do Programming, Planning and Practice or Site Planning and Design, that would surely give the real "Architects" far more time to focus on beam and lateral load calculations without worrying that the junior intern is about to tank their business.
@Donna Sink
Have I been rude to you? My apologies if I have.
First, I've been licensed as an architect for 20 years. I spent ten years in the construction trades before that and two years on a partial academic scholarship at a respected university before that. I worked my way through SCI-Arc when Thom Mayne taught there. I have a few buildings of my own design built. You may or may not find at least one interesting. I've also worked as an owner's representative on the client side of the triangle. You may disagree, but I think I'm qualified to express an opinion about 'what architects do' without being maligned and ridiculed as uninformed and uneducated?
Thank you.
As far as my lawsuit ... Suffice it to say that I brought it because the awards program is a legal model that involves issues of power, corruption and abuse of authority related to how architects and government authorities make aesthetic judgments.
That legal model affects 'what architects do' and it affects all property owners in the country.
More later.
Eric Elerath
All I know is that I AM NOT a licensed architect, and am designing more buildings (and getting some of them built as well), than most AIA Architects. And that's good enough for me.
eje ..just because your qualified does not make it OK to insult and disrespect other professionals and the architecture profession as a whole
It make it THAT much worse that you are licensed ...you obviously should know that we do a lot more than "draw pretty pictures of buildings"
"draw pictures of buildings" ???
look into retirement grandpa,
you shouldnt shoot yourself in the foot and all of us while your at it
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.