Housing and Community Development

We have had a very lengthy, and sometimes heated debate on the topic of regulating residential design at the "Residential Architect" magazine LinkedIn group.

There seem to be three GENERAL positions on this topic:

1. Architects who feel that all houses should only be designed by licensed architects.  These people typically fail to realize the reality of most state architecture practice acts that do not require this.

2. Designers who feel residential design should not be regulated.  They claim their many years of education is vastly superior to an architectural education.  they claim they are more competent than many architects (and in some cases they are) .  They use the tired old argument that Frank Load Wright would not be able to get a license if he were to apply for one today.  They site the mediocre big box buildings designed by licenesed architects as proof that licensure does not guarantee good design.  When asked how to ensure a base level of competency without any type of regulation, they fail to respond.  Many also site excuses as to why they couldn't attend architecture school which actually hurts their argument.

3.  The least popular position (that I subscribe to) is that there should be some type of licensure for residential designers.  This position recognizes that residential design systems and codes are very different than commercial.  Within this position are two camps:  Those who feel there should be a separate license tier for residential designers (which would include architects) and those who feel NCARB should diminish its standard and not require an NAAB degree or IDP to sit for the exam.  I subscribe to the former.

I too felt  upset and insulted when I first found out about the AIBD.  (As a note here:  Their certification is optional and is not a license, but a competency test (based on a fairly rigorous two-day exam) to distinguish those who take residential design seriously from others.)  I couldn't believe these people could have the audacity to think that, by virtue of purchasing a CAD program, they could qualify themselves to design homes.  But, as an architect practicing in the Chicago suburbs, it didn't bother me that much as most of the suburbs require an architect's seal to do anything that involves structural issues - new homes, additions, and the like.


After being out of work for four months last year, I decided to get back into teaching.  I took a job at a community college in Iowa.  Moving from Chicago to Iowa was a bit of a professional culture shock.  Here, almost all the builders have a CAD program and someone who dabbles in it.  Many lumber yards off free drafting services (Oh, yes they probably mark up their lumber to cover costs) to those who purchase their lumber.  The quality of the documents and the designs would make any 2nd year architecture student lose his lunch.  It's beyond sub-standard.  Yet when I tell people that I'm an architect who specializes in single family homes and remodelings, people get uncomfortable and think I am too extravagant.

Iowa has a small AIBD chapter with a nice website.  In my opinion, the AIBD national website would be far more attractive to many home owners that anything I have seen the AIA put forth.  AIA used to publish a brochure for home owners wishing to build homes.  I think it was called "Working with an Architect".  It was a beautiful publication, but I often felt embarrassed handing it to a potential client as all of the feature projects were Euro-Boxes located on pristine, remote sites.   

Last fall I happened to meet one of the AIBD members at a Frank Lloyd Wright conference (yes we have these in Iowa!) While at the event, I noticed him sketching.  He had an excellent hand (better than mine and a lot of architects I know).  After the event we began to talk and he showed me some reduced plans he had in his brief case.  He designs sustaiable homes that are very innovative.  He also did the drawing to an addition to an FLW home, which he also constructed.  He knew more about residential architecture than many architects I know.  He is very seasoned and has an excellent portfolio.  He has NCBDC certification and is very proud of that achievement.  He know he is not an architect and, like a lot of residential designers, does not want to be one.  He just wants to design homes.

Our friendship has flourished and he asked me to host the quarterly meeting for the Iowa AIBD in February.  I was very impressed by the caliber of the members and the degree of seriousness they take residential design.  Most of them would agree that a license of some type would weed out the bottom feeders, such as the contractor's wife who's learning CAd and producing drawings while the kids are at school and the lumberyards I mentioned.

I have also heard that from a high ranking, national AIA officer, that any efforts from the AIA to regulate single family design will be fought by the NAHB, which has deeper pockets than the AIA.  I don't think the NAHB has anything to worry about as that, despite knowledge groups like this, the AIA has little real interest in anything residential.  If they had, things would have looked different a long time ago.

I know my position on a second tier of licensure is not popular, but I think it would be the most realistic given current regulations and the fact that there are competent RD's out there at the same time there are incompetent architects our there.

I think residential design should be a specialty.  I think residential architects should work together with the AIBD to come to a middle ground.  I feel there should be a separate professional organization for residential architects as well.





Edward Shannon AIA
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------

Edward,

With all due respect, it's not a matter of failing to realize the reality of state laws. I understand the "reality" very well, and choose not to adopt so fatalistic an attitude to the means of my livelihood. I'd rather take an active role in determining the shape of my own profession.

It's about wishing to be aspirational in our goals and not simply accepting the status quo because it may be a tough battle to attempt to enact meaningful and necessary changes in state licensing laws. If that were the case, we'd have given up on the Interior Designer issue long ago, and just let a few legislators who have received sizable campaign contributions dictate the limits of our profession for us.

And I also disagree with the idea of having a separate license for residential architects. We are fractured enough as it is. And leaving enforcement of a single-tiered law in the hands of local code officials or zoning officers doesn't quite cut it, so adding another tier would open the door to all kinds of further exemptions for quasi-professionals or unregulated practitioners to step in and ask to be grandfathered in on the new system.

As to allowing unlicensed practitioners to design homes, I've made my point very clear. They'll have to pry that one from my dead dying hands if they tried to take that one away from us here in NJ.

The AIA should hold true to its policy on architect's designing all buildings meant for human habitation, and remove any reference to accepting NCARB's unfortunate position that they need to accept the exemptions enacted in each state. They may have to, but the AIA does not.

We should assist each jursidiciton in lobbying to comply with our own current policy, not blindly accept the way things are simply because that's the way things are.

-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 05-05-2011 13:35
From: Edward Shannon
Subject: Residential


We have had a very lengthy, and sometimes heated debate on the topic of regulating residential design at the "Residential Architect" magazine LinkedIn group.

There seem to be three GENERAL positions on this topic:

1. Architects who feel that all houses should only be designed by licensed architects.  These people typically fail to realize the reality of most state architecture practice acts that do not require this.

2. Designers who feel residential design should not be regulated.  They claim their many years of education is vastly superior to an architectural education.  they claim they are more competent than many architects (and in some cases they are) .  They use the tired old argument that Frank Load Wright would not be able to get a license if he were to apply for one today.  They site the mediocre big box buildings designed by licenesed architects as proof that licensure does not guarantee good design.  When asked how to ensure a base level of competency without any type of regulation, they fail to respond.  Many also site excuses as to why they couldn't attend architecture school which actually hurts their argument.

3.  The least popular position (that I subscribe to) is that there should be some type of licensure for residential designers.  This position recognizes that residential design systems and codes are very different than commercial.  Within this position are two camps:  Those who feel there should be a separate license tier for residential designers (which would include architects) and those who feel NCARB should diminish its standard and not require an NAAB degree or IDP to sit for the exam.  I subscribe to the former.

I too felt  upset and insulted when I first found out about the AIBD.  (As a note here:  Their certification is optional and is not a license, but a competency test (based on a fairly rigorous two-day exam) to distinguish those who take residential design seriously from others.)  I couldn't believe these people could have the audacity to think that, by virtue of purchasing a CAD program, they could qualify themselves to design homes.  But, as an architect practicing in the Chicago suburbs, it didn't bother me that much as most of the suburbs require an architect's seal to do anything that involves structural issues - new homes, additions, and the like.


After being out of work for four months last year, I decided to get back into teaching.  I took a job at a community college in Iowa.  Moving from Chicago to Iowa was a bit of a professional culture shock.  Here, almost all the builders have a CAD program and someone who dabbles in it.  Many lumber yards off free drafting services (Oh, yes they probably mark up their lumber to cover costs) to those who purchase their lumber.  The quality of the documents and the designs would make any 2nd year architecture student lose his lunch.  It's beyond sub-standard.  Yet when I tell people that I'm an architect who specializes in single family homes and remodelings, people get uncomfortable and think I am too extravagant.

Iowa has a small AIBD chapter with a nice website.  In my opinion, the AIBD national website would be far more attractive to many home owners that anything I have seen the AIA put forth.  AIA used to publish a brochure for home owners wishing to build homes.  I think it was called "Working with an Architect".  It was a beautiful publication, but I often felt embarrassed handing it to a potential client as all of the feature projects were Euro-Boxes located on pristine, remote sites.   

Last fall I happened to meet one of the AIBD members at a Frank Lloyd Wright conference (yes we have these in Iowa!) While at the event, I noticed him sketching.  He had an excellent hand (better than mine and a lot of architects I know).  After the event we began to talk and he showed me some reduced plans he had in his brief case.  He designs sustaiable homes that are very innovative.  He also did the drawing to an addition to an FLW home, which he also constructed.  He knew more about residential architecture than many architects I know.  He is very seasoned and has an excellent portfolio.  He has NCBDC certification and is very proud of that achievement.  He know he is not an architect and, like a lot of residential designers, does not want to be one.  He just wants to design homes.

Our friendship has flourished and he asked me to host the quarterly meeting for the Iowa AIBD in February.  I was very impressed by the caliber of the members and the degree of seriousness they take residential design.  Most of them would agree that a license of some type would weed out the bottom feeders, such as the contractor's wife who's learning CAd and producing drawings while the kids are at school and the lumberyards I mentioned.

I have also heard that from a high ranking, national AIA officer, that any efforts from the AIA to regulate single family design will be fought by the NAHB, which has deeper pockets than the AIA.  I don't think the NAHB has anything to worry about as that, despite knowledge groups like this, the AIA has little real interest in anything residential.  If they had, things would have looked different a long time ago.

I know my position on a second tier of licensure is not popular, but I think it would be the most realistic given current regulations and the fact that there are competent RD's out there at the same time there are incompetent architects our there.

I think residential design should be a specialty.  I think residential architects should work together with the AIBD to come to a middle ground.  I feel there should be a separate professional organization for residential architects as well.





Edward Shannon AIA
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------