-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-13-2012 12:35
From: Thomas Streicher
Subject: Guildhood, free agents, and the public interest
I just skimmed this post so forgive me if I am repeating someone. I have a comment on one of Perry's ideas. He says "I suggested ideally Residential Architecture would be licensed as discipline separate from Architecture. This would be supported by a somewhat shorter collegiate curriculum focusing on the technics of residential structures of less than 5 stories, combined with master planning exercises for residential and mixed use areas".
An architectural license indicates one has the mandated required minimum understanding to practice architecture. It does not say the individual has a mastery of architecture and as such doesn't have a mastery of one building type. It is up to the license holder to further devolve their skills and most windup developing an expertise in one, two or perhaps three types of projects. If one of those types of projects a person becomes an expert on is residential then so be it. I don't think it does anyone any good to grant a residential design license separate from an architecture license. If you want to be licensed to design "only" houses then become an architect.
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Streicher AIA
Thomas Streicher, Architect
Monroe NY
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-13-2012 08:33
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Guildhood, free agents, and the public interest
I think our biggest problem isn't about how we market ourselves. It's our refusal to insert ourselves in to everyday Joe's life. We're running scared over liability, professionalism, lack of being respected, and being bested by an amateur. Many Architects I know are apprehensive to design a project in their own neighborhood out of fear of having to face the neighbors if they do a bad job. An agoraphobic person talks themselves out of walking across the threshold of their front door because of all these irrational fears like being hit by a car, having to engage in a conversation with a stranger, being mugged, being hit by lightning, or what ever their hang up is. I feel we have become agoraphobic and are afraid to cross the threshold of our own front doors. For the life of me I really don't understand all the push back I get when suggesting we can lower our fees by reducing some services. Many seem to feel that the real Architecture isn't about the superiority of the design solution itself, but in the numbers of drawings, specs, and schedules we can create that sets us apart from designers and plan books.
We have made our professional requirements more difficult than it's worth considering pay scale. Our numbers have not been increasing, yet the population has. The jig is up, the myth that Architects are wealthy people has been exposed. The plan book has dominated the market for the most numerous buildings in America and these designs are fairly simple, the number of drawings minimal, the availability abundant, and the price is affordable. This is a job killer! This is why we have so few boots on the ground. We need a grass roots effort of each and everyone of us reaching out to folks in our neighborhoods and offering them services they can afford without lowering our worth. We can design simple renovations for people at low cost by giving them the broad brush strokes. A good idea and a permit is all they need, yet we convince ourselves that the Architecture Police will arrest us if we don't load them up on unnecessary fluff that we think is there for our protection. What are we really protecting ourselves from, getting work?
There are plenty of good builders out there that want to offer something better than the same old cookie cutter. We need to team up with spec builders and help them compete on a different level. We can't beat them, so we should join them and change them. There will always be low end design and construction, but it all doesn't have to be. When you get into a rhythm working with a builder, you learn each other's strengths and weaknesses, which streamlines the process, lowers your time spent per project, and ultimately you can create many unique houses with a builder who would have just built one...over and over and over again. An individual Architect can easily design 30-40 houses a year like this and each one gets better and better as you and your builder learn to trust one another. We have a simple trust issue here, which is a lot like dating. You can't expect to fall in love and get married on the first date, nor is it likely that you'll be hitting home runs the first time every time. A good healthy relationship can offer a fulfilling lifetime of wonderful experiences.
The underlying theme that I keep reading into in this and other similar threads is that we feel disrespected and how do we force people to respect us. We have to earn our respect one client at a time. If we choose to ignore regular people, then they simply won't respect us and they will find someone else to date. The simple answer to our problem is to get out there and figure out how to offer our services to anyone. This week I'm working on a new 3000sf home for a physician that is well versed in sustainability and very enthusiastic about green building AND I'm volunteering to design 3 wheelchair ramps for poor, elderly folks that can barely afford their healthcare for our annual Martin Luther King community service project. I'm working for 1%ers from both sides of the spectrum in the same week. EVERYONE in my neighborhood knows me as the Architect because I figure out a way into EVERYONE's lives. My work speaks for itself and that's why designers have a hard time competing with me on my turf. My spec builders are doing fine competing with the cookie cutter competition, as we have created the alternative to the cookie cutter house in my area. It turns out that not everyone wants to live in the same house as their neighbor and we can prove this with our sales results. How do you prove such a wild claim in a country like this? You have to provide the options! You can't demand change, you have to get out there and make change happen! It' not the AIA's job to do this. They have limited resources and tools, like this blog, that help us exchange ideas. This is probably the best thing the AIA has done in decades! The AIA is only as strong as we are and we all know where we stand right now, so let's dust ourselves off and fight our way to the top! This crisis has provided the Building Industry with a wonderful opportunity for us to reinvent how it works. Clearly the last model didn't work, so why return to that insanity? If many someones don't step up, we're heading right back into the same old same old.
-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-12-2012 09:12
From: Edward Shannon
Subject: Guildhood, free agents, and the public interest
Residential Architects have a huge identity problem.
Friday I was in Des Moines and had lunch with an old friend from college. He had told me about their experience in building their home some ten years ago. They ended up using a stock plan service from an AIBD designer owned company in Cedar Rapids (not a bad option, in my opinion - and their house seems to have been competently designed). He told me that before he and his wife went that route, they had worked with an "architect". When I asked the name of the architect he told me it was Alvin S. - whom I have met (at AIBD functions) and happen to know is not a licensed architect, but an AIBD designer - a very successful one at that.
When I tried to explain to my friend, Rick, that Alvin was not a licensed architect. He said, "Well, we thought he was one". I know Alvin, and I doubt he would hold himself out to be an architect. Yet, in the public's eye he IS an architect. And while I can speculate that he didn't tell my friends he was an architect, he might not have told them he wasn't! In other words, let them think he is an architect as it's too hard to explain to clients that he's not - and might kill a project.
This is the problem I face and, in realty, our own dilemma. It is that anyone with a CAD program is perceived by the public as an architect. John & Judy Sixpack aren't going to check state credentials when getting their home designed. In fact, they could probably care less. In their eyes, their guy at the lumberyard is just as much of an "architect" as anyone on this forum.
When I do come up against someone who knows that architect's need to have credentials, i.e. NAHB builders, I am thought of as an unnecessary expense - and (Now this is important) someone who is going to mess with "their" design
The AIA has done a very poor job in previous efforts at marketing residential architects. Indeed, they have done a disservice to the majority of residential architects in using case studies that are typically highly custom, avant-garde, object homes. Just look at Residential Architects Mag's latest design awards! Flat roofed Euro-boxes that are in remote sites (so much for sustainability)! As a residential architect who is not among the culturally elite, I can no longer trust the AIA to work in my best interest!
-------------------------------------------
Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-11-2012 12:01
From: Perry Cofield
Subject: Guildhood, free agents, and the public interest
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Housing Knowledge Community and Custom Residential Architects Network .
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Perry Cofield AIA
Design Ways & Means Architects
Arlington VA
-------------------------------------------
Let me begin by explaining how our political system differs from democracy in Belguim: This country, the size of a US state, has at least seven valid political parties, who all must state their platforms in writing. The candidates are all on the ballot in an election, and EVERY PERSON OF VOTING AGE MUST VOTE, OR FACE A FINE. The relevance of this will follow.
Thanks to Ed, Eric, David, Greg and Rand for glimmers of concern beyond your own agendas in the discussion of November 2-8. Does the public care about all this "retribution without a cause"? We all know that unless the Architect or designer has a contract with a client, we are defacto sub to the builder. Many builders truly regard us as a sub. And Greg fully knows how unlicensed designers revel in their role as free agents- howsabout some spit in your eye, architect? In all of this, the public is shortchanged.
These disputes may go on until we perish as a species- because of nothing in sight to end the disputes. The loser in all this? The public. Why? Because no standard exists for training a house designer. SO LETS LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD ONCE AND FOR ALL WITH ONE SET OF RULES.
When I interviewed for the Director of Education post at NCARB several years ago, I suggested ideally Residential Architecture would be licensed as discipline separate from Architecture. This would be supported by a somewhat shorter collegiate curriculum focusing on the technics of residential structures of less than 5 stories, combined with master planning exercises for residential and mixed use areas. With my idea akin to leaving a large turd behind in a church pew, I did not get the job.
But NCARB is blind to the fact that in the US we have AIA, AIBD, cadfolk, designers, decorators, and of course homeowners at work in this field- our version of Belgium, but with few rules. Our rulers are nominally the code officials, who do not actually design buildings, but instead "chaperone" health, safety and welfare, and write the code. The result? Our homes have a modicum of safety, but so many of our recent environments are less life-enhancing than 19th century company towns.
In my scenario Architects would practice as always. But many talented individuals with no interest in large commercial commissions would now have state credentials. This idea DEMANDS our two leading organizations, AIA and NAHB, to come to terms with what a house designer/land planner should know to practice. Each guild would have to find some common ground. The discussion between Eric and Rand really highlights the need for uniform standards for all house plan submissions above say 500 sf. Note these standards were discussed between two architects, not designers-at-large- the real core of the problem. With a new license category for a Residential Architects, we could close down the larger anomalies that fuel this intercine bickering.
I fully realize our guilds, demi-guilds, and free agents may find this idea repellent- because it has some logic? Or is unwieldy? Much work? Where to start? Needs to be phased in? Ultimately a state issue, etc. But as someone said, WITHOUT STATING AN END GAME, THERE IS NO GOAL. We will default any autonomy we may have back to the code drafters, who are more than slightly driven by the material producers- our industry equal of Big Pharma. AIA and NCARB must realize that failing to fuse our interests will continue chaos for our industry, and foster bland environment in the long run. As we lose more control to the "package deal" folk in the financial sector, we all count for less.
As to the AIA, do not mourn the loss of a hegemony we never had. We may be loved more for consigning the closed loop of modernists and academics that manage ARCHITECTURAL OFFICIALDOM mostly to the commercial sector. The public, being composed of sentimental fools that mostly love houses that refer to their culture and locale, would be just as happy. And well-designed homes in a smart-growth setting WILL doubtless gain more popularity over time, especially in the crucially dense parts or the US.
ALL OF US THAT LOVE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME EDUCATION AND STANDARDS. ANY OF YOU THAT FIND THIS A WORTHY GOAL SHOULD START THINKING OF HOW WE COULD SLOWLY IMPLEMENT THE ONLY INTENTIONAL SOLUTION IN SIGHT. ANY OTHER SOLUTION LEADS TO MORE DISSOLUTION AND FRAGMENTATION OF INTERESTS. WITHIN 20 YEARS, RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTS WOULD COMPETE AMONG PEERS, IN A MARKET FREE OF BOTH THE MARGINALLY COMPETENT AND THE RENT-SEEKING.
WE MIGHT IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND HELP SAVE THE PLANET, TOO.