AIArchitect

by RK Stewart< FAIA, 2007 AIA President

A few weeks back, Ed Mazria, AIA, had this spot to encourage us to participate in the live Webcast February 20: “The 2010 Imperative” Teach-in. Ed, founder of Architecture 2030, has been a leader and tremendous collaborator as we have worked together to alert architects and the public to the role buildings play in climate change. The AIA was proud to be a sponsor of this worldwide Teach-in. I was able to be in the studio audience in New York City for the Teach-in, watching Ed and fellow presenters, Dr. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a leading expert on global warming, and Chris Luebkeman, ARUP's Director of Foresight and Innovation Initiatives.

I encourage you to visit the 2010Imperative.org site right now and view the Webcast. From an engaging skit by the Blue Man Group at the beginning to the concluding acknowledgements, the program was only 3-1/2 hours. And yet, it was a transforming experience.

Moderator Susan Szenasy, editor of Metropolis, noted the program was intended to be a teach-in, reminiscent of the many “-in” events of the 1960s. That nostalgia had something of a bittersweet edge as we watched Ed’s slide show, which brought home the catastrophic potential of global warming of even 2 degrees Celsius. Have we, as a profession or as a society, actually lost the belief that we can change the world? If so, when did that happen? Can we get that belief back?

The answer I took away from the Teach-in is a resounding yes! If we commit to work together towards the goals expressed in AIA's Public Position on Sustainable Practice—not just because it saves energy and money (which it does) but because it is the right thing to do for the public this profession is obligated to protect. The built environment is responsible for 48 percent of our greenhouse-gas emissions, so it is our moral imperative to accept Ed’s challenge to us—a challenge the AIA has embraced —to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to zero in all new construction and major renovation by the year 2030.

A look back over the past 150 years of the AIA reveals an astounding number of challenges that have been met and turned into opportunity by our professional forebears. I hope to see you all in San Antonio May 3-5 for the AIA 2007 National Convention and Expo where we will be "Growing Beyond Green." Join your colleagues to draw inspiration from that legacy and plot a course for ourselves, our children, and their children, on into the next 150 years. But even if you can’t make it to Texas, I hope that you will be with us in spirit.

As we prepare to convene in San Antonio, I wonder what you are thinking. Has the profession lost its belief in our ability to change the world? Are we prepared to really take up the challenge a sustainable future offers us? I would love to hear your thoughts.

by Douglas E. Gordon, Hon. AIA
Executive Editor

Reading the Doer’s Profile on Daniel Ferrara got me to thinking about a presentation at the Grassroots Leadership and Legislative Conference here in Washington last month. The speaker, Sir Ken Robinson, was making the point that intelligence and creativity are inseparably linked. Although academics spend a lot of time endeavoring to measure and develop intelligence, there is not enough attention to developing creativity with the same zeal—and to meet the needs of an unknowable 50-year-out future, it should be, he argued.

To make a point, Sir Ken asked the audience of AIA members and chapter executives to rate themselves, by show of hands, counting down from 10 (most creative) to 1. He followed that up with a countdown for intelligence. In a room jammed with people undoubtedly at the top of the scale for both, most of the 800 or so attendees rated themselves a 6 or 7. The point Robinson was trying to make is that as we get older, we tend to lose confidence in our own abilities.

To further drive it in, he told the story of a five-year-old girl drawing in class. The teacher asks her what she’s drawing. “God,” the girl replies. “But nobody knows what God looks like,” says the teacher. The girl just smiles: “They will in a minute.”

To his credit, Daniel Ferrara apparently has a lot of confidence in his creativity and intelligence. Do you?

What do you think?

by Catherine A. McNeel, Assoc. AIA
AIAS Vice President

Along with the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the AIA and the 100th anniversary of the AIA Gold Medal, there has been a considerable amount of looking back and looking forward among AIA members. We at the American Institute of Architecture Students understand the pride you feel. In 2006, we celebrated 50 years of students of architecture joining together to make a difference in how the profession grows to meet the future.

The National Association of Students of Architecture (NASA) adopted its first constitution in 1956 with three fundamental goals:
• Assist with bringing about a deeper understanding between the professional architect and the architecture student
• Provide channels for the interchange of ideas among students, schools, and countries
• Attempt to bring about a better understanding of architecture and the profession by the potential architecture student and the general public.

There have been—and still are—many benefits to our close association with the AIA, as well as the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, National Architectural Accrediting Board, and the many other partners and sponsors we look to for inspiration and mentorship.

In fact, until 1984, we were a part of the AIA—the Association of Student Chapters of the AIA. That year, we incorporated as the independent organization we are today.

We still have a very close relationship with the AIA—including a seat on the AIA Board of Directors. Our members will continue to strive to live up to the professional standards set by those who came before, including many who are now AIA members.

In that spirit of continuity, if you would like to pause to think back on your time in school—perhaps your time as a NASA, ASC/AIA, or AIAS member yourself—we would love to hear your reminiscences.

What do you think?

by Gregory B. Hancks, Esq., AIA

Several years ago, Bill Gates caused a stir by deciding to call himself Microsoft’s chief software architect. Now, the company credentials “practicing architects” in information technology through the Microsoft Certified Architect Program. A Web search for architect jobs is likely to turn up many more positions for software designers than building designers.

The AIA General Counsel’s Office periodically receives questions about whether something can be done about such nontraditional uses of the term “architect.” Naturally, we have an interest in matters that affect AIA members and the architecture profession—plus, the AIA has established policy on use of the term (see item 13 here ). But the AIA does not control architectural licensing requirements. In the U.S., state and territorial governments set the laws covering the use of the term “architect.”

In Microsoft’s home state of Washington, Wash. Rev. Code § 18.08.310 provides:

“It is unlawful for any person … to use in connection with his or her name … the word ‘architect,’ ‘architecture,’ ‘architectural,’ or language tending to imply that he or she is an architect, unless the person is registered or authorized to practice in the state of Washington under this chapter. The provisions of this section shall not affect the use of the words ‘architect,’ ‘architecture,’ or ‘architectural’ where a person does not practice or offer to practice architecture.”

The statute further defines the “practice of architecture” as the “rendering of services in connection with the art and science of building design ….” (Wash. Rev. Code § 18.08.320). As a result, under Washington law, one could conclude that computer software designers may lawfully call themselves “software architects.”

The model licensing law the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) publishes for use by the state boards is not quite as explicit as the Washington statute but would produce the same result. Section I A of NCARB’s Legislative Guidelines states that:

“no person not registered should be permitted … to use the title ‘architect’ when offering to perform any of the services which the practice of architecture comprises or in circumstances which could lead a reasonable person to believe that such services were being offered.”

Nevertheless some states have statutes that appear to be more restrictive. A Texas statute, for example, provides that no one other than licensed architects or their firms may use “any form of the word ‘architect’ or ‘architecture’ in its name or to describe services it offers or performs in Texas” (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 1.123(c)). (This does not mean, however, that the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners actually enforces this restriction with respect to software designers.)

Knowing this won’t make it any easier to scroll through all of the software designer jobs when looking for architect positions. But perhaps some comfort can be had when traveling to San Antonio for the AIA’s convention this year knowing that we will be meeting in a state that hasn’t formally diluted the title of architect.

What do you think?

by Steven G. Shapiro, Esq.

There can be no doubt that the public gravitates to the grandeur of high design, and the media serve their audiences accordingly. The architecture critic, though, enjoys freedom of opinion and hindsight that we do not. Critics are unimpeded by withering issues of economic realities, market pressures, and the dictates of time and funding. By not being tempered with the realities of design and construction, I would argue these same critics do a disservice to everybody by perpetuating false expectations.

It is tempting to assume that a construction project is a pre-ordained and routine set of steps from initial concept to the design of the project and into construction and completion. We know, though, that the design and construction of a building is not a mystical process, and there are no guarantees of success. The process demands painstaking attention to detail, multiple schemes and designs, brute force on a dangerous work site, endless work hours, and a massive coordination of workers and tasks.

Case in point: Objecting to a proposed plan of expansion, the historic preservation community demands that the Phillips Collection of Art in the fabled Embassy Row area of Washington, D.C., preserve the façade of a decrepit apartment building; this alongside conflicting visions of design excellence, stalled selections, and a strict budget and completion date.

The construction is located on a tight urban job site containing a sliver of a staging area, and construction cannot disrupt the neighbors or damage the priceless collection in the existing building. There is also the litany of city officials, permits, and schedule inspections. Still, everything works out successfully. And yet the architecture critics issue their stark evaluations that the building does not excel to their artistic ideals.

I believe that we live at the intersection of grand concepts and bold visions that sometimes conflict with market realities and the unforgiving project budget and schedule, which makes design and construction interactive, interesting, and fun. Is it too much to ask that a complete media review of a complex project include both the critical review of the art and architecture plus appreciation of the realities of design and construction? Certainly, form and function of a building are critical topics for a review. But taken alone in a vacuum, aesthetics don’t do justice to the fullness of any project.

What do you think?