AIArchitect

I would love to see all states ban the use of the word "architect" except to those licensed to practice architecture. However, that is not reality in the 21st Century. The media and non-architects don't understand that the word "architect" is or should be restricted to those licensed to practice architecture. Therefore, enforcement against those incorrectly using the term would be nearly impossible so it is probably time to stop fighting for it.

The ironic twist is that the majority of AIA members attending this year's convention would not be legally allowed to call themselves "architects" during the convention because they are not licensed to practice architecture in that state.

Is the AIA going to take any action to ban the use of Practicing Software Architects name by Microsoft or any other one, who is not a registered architect?.

There is enough confusion and misunderstanding about the profession of architecture already. I am all for ending the bastardized use of the word Architect to describe IT specialist and software designers. For those of us in this industry, the distinction may seem clear. But to the layman, this is not the case. Maybe this is an oversimplification, but let me give you two examples.

I was asked to describe my profession to a group of 5th graders last week. It was not until the word blueprints came up that they understood an architect's role in the construction process. Even still, many of the children began saying that their parents might be architects because they use blueprints in their jobs. I knew many of the parents they were referring to, and these parents were either subcontractors, electricians or plumbers.

On a more adult level, a friend of mine works in an architectural firm but is not an architect. His friends often ask him to "do a set of drawings for them", but then they don't understand when he tells them he can't sign and seal the drawings. People seem to believe that all it takes to be an Architect is to "hang your shingle" and start drawing.

With the continuing misapplication of the word "architect", I'm finding my professional title being substituted for everything from software design to political anarchist! Not sure why terms such as "designer", "coordinator", "director" etc. can't be substituted for the word "architect" in these cases, but it seems as though everyone wants to be the "architect" of something these days.

There is of course only one "real" application for the word "architect", and as we know it relates to the art and science of creating buildings and spaces. Perhaps the AIA and the NCARB should go public with campaigns to jog the collective memory of the general public as to what an "architect" really is, before the understanding of the uniqueness and significance of our profession is further diluted or, worse, lost forever.

The question of the appropriate use of the name
" architect" is both very serious and full of contradictions. On one hand one could question the right of any institution, be it the AIA or the Board of Education have the right to appropriate a name, grammatically and semantically speaking and thus not allow its use in a metaphorical way.
On the other hand I have experienced , first hand,situations where we have had to present projects for approval before a town (Southampton, NY, in one specific case)
" Architecture Review Board" in which there wasn't one single architect. This case is very serious since it affects directly the practice of architecture, allowing lay people who have no architectural qualifications to assume an " architectural expertise" and pass judgments and approvals on professional work.
I have thought of reporting this case to the AIA more than once.

At the time of the original "software architect" brouhaha, I wrote in Architecture Minnesota magazine that it was certainly clever of Gates to start styling himself as an architect when he could finally afford it.

In my experience, architects misunderstand and misuse the word "architect" more than any other group. The word "architect" has a variety of meanings and can be used in a variety of contexts (context is as important to language as it is to architecture). This is true of every other licensed profession as well. "Doctor," "attorney," and "engineer" are all used in circumstances having nothing to do with the modern profession by the same name, and all are legally and commonly used by knowledgeable speakers of the English language to refer to individuals who are not formally licensed to practice those professions.

The public already believes that licensed architects are control-freaks. Please do not reinforce that perception by launching a laughable public campaign to control all uses of this grand and complex word.

To put this thing to rest, one needs to have Webster remove definition #2 under "ARCHITECT"...(easier said than done)which states "any designer or planner". With that, Bill Gates, who is the head designer and planner of Microsoft softer, has every right.

I feel this is a serious issue in our profession today. It is not an easy acheivement becoming a a licensed "Architect". I feel it is taken for granted more and more inside and outside the profession. I can not tell you how many times I have met draftspersons, designers, architectural interns and even on occassion builders who introduce themselves (prior to them knowing I am an Architect) as an Architect. When I question the introduction by asking when they received the registration, I always get the reply "well we do the same thing", or something to that effect.

As with the many of the previous post, I feel the term has been diluted to a common household term, used metaphorically or not, that is more often than not an insult to those of us practicing today. You can not call yourself a doctor without a phd. or a lawyer without a law degree, why should you be able to call yourself an Architect without having completed the requirements to have an architectural license? To be fair it is defined from Mariam-Websters Dictionary with two meanings: 1 : a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction
2 : a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking
-both could clearly define the roll of an architect, however the second is a bit open ended to any want to be entreprenuer.

I agree strongly with the suggestion of David Barger above, the AIA should launch a campaign in an attempt to enlighten the general public on what it is architects actually do. Architecture is one of the oldest professions in history, and is often taken for granted in todays society of tract homes and pop-up retail centers. A large portion of societies only experience with what they think is an architect is the "custom-home" they beleive they bought. Only to find out the only thing custom about the home was they were allowed to choose wether the door went on the right or left and the color finish out in the kitchen and bathrooms. The architect they thought they were dealing with was really a builder who bought a set of stock plans from a drafting service in India.

These are serious issues that I know a lot of older architects do not see as a problem and will not probably effect them as they get closer to retirment. For the younger architects, this can have a great effect on our positions and our careers. I would hate to see the credibility diluted to a state of non-existance. In this day and age when we are having to debate and defend our profession over the rights of licensed engineers to be granted the right to stamp and design buildings. This opens up a whole other can of worms so I will stop with only this, many dont beleive in titles and their importance, but without titles and clear cut definitions of our individual roles in society, we would only have anarchy.

Architect is a word with a specific definition; the word is defined as "a person who designs buildings and supervises their construction" but is also defined as "any builder or planner" in Websters new world dictionary.

For Mr. Gates to use the word to describe himself and his role at Microsoft is appropriate use of the English language. It is generally the intent of the law however that regulates the practice of Architecture in the US to reserve the word "Architect" for the use of individuals who practice Architecture, defined as "the art or science and profession or "trade" of designing & constructing buildings".

The real issue is not with Mr. Gates but rather with the large number of unqualified, unlicensed and unexamined persons in the US that earn their living through "the art, science and profession of designing & constructing buildings". Such parishioners are bad for the profession of architecture and our built environment.

Such common design activity by the unqualified, unexamined and unlicensed "building designer" is openly supported in this nation by the construction industry, and such practice is very serious since it affects directly the practice of architecture, allowing lay people who have no architectural qualifications, to masquerade as persons with “architectural expertise".

Our building departments must stop permitting projects by such persons. Our cities are smothered with the enduring consequences of permitting this particular "fraud" to come to form.

The unqualified, unexamined and unlicensed certainly have no business passing judgments and approvals on professional work, or designing, or permitting, or constructing buildings without a licensed professional appropriately involved in the role to protect the public welfare. That is after all the purpose that license law for architects was created.

The AIA should communicate a clear position on this matter & take serious action regarding such practice and related persons, the AIA should communicate its concerns and interests to the state licensing boards and through them to the building departments. We should stop such practice of slipping around the intent of the law. We should require an Architects stamp on all technical submissions nation wide on every building permitted and constructed.

Bill Gates and software designers aside, I hope to see the day when diplomats, military generals, policy makers, bureaucrats, etc. are no longer the "architects" of anything related to their careers and their work. Most often the term is added in reference to activities that could not be further out of sync from what we as architects aspire to in terms of advancing civilization.

I can take a lot of crap re "architect" but just threw up when Carl Roves took up that name.

I think architects should get a life. People have been using the word architect generically to describe those who build, organize or design something besides buildings since the word was invented. Washington was the architect of the American Revolution, long before there was an AIA or Registered Architects.

I don't understand. The title "architect" hasn't been diluted by other uses. These other uses far predated the existence of architectural licensure.

It seems to me that the architecture profession has done what most professions do, which is to minimize competition. This is fine and good, but it is the profession that seeks to limit the use of the word, not the public seeking to "dilute" it. All the griping here (and elsewhere) is simply evidence that we haven't succeeded in minimizing the word "architect."

I have another take on the issue. I call it "Architect-Envy". It is everywhere and has been for years.

Dictionary definitions, even Webster's, do not over-ride statutes; and the words can be poorly defined, or lazily defined, as in definition #2. The post by Mr. Walker, reminds us that being Examined to be licensed is essential to being an Architect. 30 years ago those working toward licensure were ususally called Apprentices. The term Intern was chosen to depart from that trade-craft implication, and is like the term used by medical school graduates in their second 4+ years of Internship. We get that portion of our training and eductaion in the office and not the hospital. Our Interns seem more and more obsessed with being called Architects, a form of Architect-Envy. They need to complete their education and training and pass their examination to be Archtitects.

If so many others are driven to identify what they do as some form of architecture, our profession of Architecture could begin a campaign to inform them and the public where the term started and continues in the art and science of buildings. This happened long, long before there were software designers, business planners, military strategist, or a list that could be lengthy.

Let's be proud to be Envied! Let's take an unprecedented opportunity to let the world know where the roots of the process of programming, planning and designing began. Architects gave birth to programming before there was software. Architects created the design process that has become a model for much of our business and culture today.

I was shocked this week to find a recently published book titled "THE ARCHITECT": Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power.

How does anyone in politics deserve the right to be called an Architect of anything?

Another pet peeve of mine, is several years ago, when Sean Hannity, the conservative talk show host, kept referring to Saddamm Hussein's cheif architect of his nerve gas weapons.

As a profession, we and the AIA should start imposing judicial injunctions against these people for improper (and usually, not very flattering) uses of the word ARCHITECT!!!

Did any of you read the original article above?

The AIA's counsel says that these other uses are 1) consistent with NCARB's Model Law, 2) perfectly legal in at least some states, and 3) only "appear to be" more restricted in other states.

Also, I just checked Wikipedia and it turns out that the planet does not revolve around us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

I don't think we'll ever get rid of everyday media usages like "Saddam Hussein's chief architect of nerve gas" or Karl Rove as the "architect" of President Bush's policies. I am much less concerned about these colorful descriptions, which honor architects in a way, than I am about people like Bill Gates who have the word "Architect" on their business cards when they are clearly not licensed architects. My next door neighbor is a "Senior Systems Architect" for a major telecom company, and he is no more an architect than is Bill Gates. While AIA may choose to pass the buck to the various state boards who govern the use of the term, the fact is that the "voice of the profession" should be speaking loudly to restrict the business use of the term "architect" to those licensed to practice architecture. I'm afraid that our collective inaction on this topic has already done great damage to our profession.

Perhaps we could take a lesson from one or two other professions. My father retired as the Assistant Controller for Finance at a major multi-national defense contractor. He was an accountant, by right of his degree and training. He never took the exam that would have allowed him to call himself a Certified Public Account (CPA), because he didn't need to, but that didn't make him less of an accountant. Perhaps the answer is to distinguish ourselves by using the term "Registered Architect", which is what it says on my wall certificate and my seal.

To some of my business major friends in college, taking our exam and "getting our AIA" was equivalent to what they would achieve when they took their exam and "got their CPA." If that isn' the kind of "brand awareness" that we have been trying to build for ourselves, then I don't know what is.

To take another approach, the capitalized word "Realtor" enjoys trademark protection. Maybe that is the way we should go.

..and I'll close with the fourth of my disjointed thoughts...The story we used to tell was that, if, as noted in another comment, Washington was the "architect of the revolution" or Jefferson was the "architect of the Constitution" (well, that's interesting...), then "architect" is obviously a term of respect. No one wanted to be found with "doctored books", and lawyers...what more do we need to say?

If I fix up an old building can I call myself a building "doctor"?

Yes. Just ask Jeff Radke, Building Doctor.

www.buildingdoctor.biz

I'm not sure why we as a profession are so intent on completely limiting the use of the word "Architect". Do doctors feel threatened by the guy behind the bar posting a diploma as a Doctor of Mixology? Do they even feel threatened by the BuildingDoctor? I think not, but I know they vigorously pursue people who practice medicine without a licence. Have you ever read the newsletters from the state registration boards? There are many more fines to real architects who forgot to send in their renewal on time than there are for the hoards out there providing professional design services without a license (probably because it is easier to catch the late payers). We need to worry about the designers, decorators, builders, contractors, drafters, etc who are daily taking away our livelyhood and judge us from the seats they unjustly fill on architecture review boards. Then there are the incursions from interior designers and engineers who challenge our area of expertise. Nobody thinks Bill Gates or Karl Rove can design their building for them. However, they likely have no concerns when their contractor says he will draw up their plans and that's where the problem lies.

Hoorah Washington state!!!

Hoorah Texas!!!!

David Porter
Bob Smith
David Barger
Diana Agrest
William Beyer
Sean J. Studzinski
Terry L. Walker
Kieth Johnson
John Williams
Perry Seeberger
David Altenhofen

Boooo:

South Hampton, N.Y.
Casius Pealer
Rick Brouse
Neil P. Hoffmann
Chhris McKenty
Jennifer Alpha

Pending:

Casius Pealer
Gavid Greusel
Stevern Rieck
Paul Tiajoloff
Melbuourne, FL

Living in Boston, surrounded by tech firms, it always annoyed me that software designers appropriated the title architect, given the rocky road we all travel to gain the right to call ourselves architects. I have often wondered how doctors and lawyers (to say nothing of their PACs and lobbyists)would react if technical writers started calling themselves lawyers or if technicians started calling themselves doctors and put ads for these positions in their local papers' "Help Wanted" sections.

I do, think, however, it's a case of technical people having professional envy - sort of like when George Costanza complained after Jerry Seinfeld had lied to a woman, telling her that George was a marine biologist so she would be interested in her. George's classic remark was, "Jerry - how could you tell her I was a marine biologist??? You KNOW I always wanted to pretend that I was an architect!"

I get so *%@#^>!! angry every time I open any written publication that spouts something about a "software architect" or an "IT architect" that I want to hunt them down and beat them with a roll of construction documents! The term "architect" should be reserved for those of us licensed to practice this profession, not some ne'er-do-well computer geek who thinks it's cool to call themselves an architect. This includes Bill Gates!

I stand behind this noble profession and am extremely proud to have passed the rigors of education and then the examination process that allows me to call myself an "ARCHITECT". Further, I accept the standards of ethical care and the liability that goes with everything I do to protect the public health, safety and welfare!

It's about time the AIA and NCARB enforced our profession and credentials. The last time I looked at the Forbes list of billionaires, I did not notice an architect among them!

I complained about this issue to the California State Board back in the early 90’s. They did nothing and wrote me a letter telling me to basically mind my own business.

The word architect is exclusive no matter what point in history or context one is in. Everyone wants to be an “architect” as the one who is the Master designer or organizer no matter what field they are in; the word is very glamorous among non-architects outside of our profession. To give the right to software engineers to use the word architect is flat wrong. The one’s going thru the programs like those being offered by MS would not certify me as a “software architect” in their field even though I might be 100 times more knowledgeable about their field as they are compared to me about “building architecture”.

I tell you what, if Bill Gates sets up at program that requires an accredited 5 year degree, +/- 36 hours of rigorous written testing, an oral examination and 3 years of working experience under a software IDP, then and only then should he be allowed to award credentials to individuals called “practicing architects”. I very much doubt if they would get very many applicants to pay the high price and years of commitment, dedication and fortitude that we have all endured.

In a time of PC terms, I am thankful that I am not a sanitation ENGINEER (garbage man) or a sanitation ENGINEER (janitor). An Architect suits me fine. If someone unlicensed wants to use the term, fine, so long as they don't engage in the practice of architecture.

I think this originates from a dying breed of architects who are unable to cope with the idea that those with masters far exceeding the formal training and they dont have a problem with this. The term architect is not just a professional term, its origin and definition define that it more of a creator/designer of a building structure. Its like argueing a programmer is only for computer based professions and nothing else. A title is just that and a license is another thing, the important thing to some. But to say your CAD drafters are not architectural staff is ridiculous and ignorant on the part of the AIA and the problem this organization has in the first place.

Funny how comments against the point made are not posted all the time, aparentely those stuck with their heads up their you know where, are unopen to the title as a word rather than just a profession. If the view is taken in this context, then how can we call architecture art and ourselves as artist is we do not have a license in art and formal education in art past a few history classes. ignorance is bliss and this shows much ignorance

All of this is f****d up. We should be able to call ourselves architects without being able to stamp.

This letter addresses two issues arising from the article “The word architect: A question of title” appearing in the November 2006 publication of Architectural Record at page 46. While in this article Architectural Record states that the “confusion may be resolved” as to what architectural interns may call themselves, I respectfully disagree.

I write as one who devoted and sacrificed countless hours preparing for and taking the architectural licensing exam (when, in addition to the other eight tests, it included a 12-hour long endurance test of hand-drafting and design), and once passed, continuously strove to maintain the ethical, legal, and practical foundations of the professional practice of architecture.

What the process taught me, and, what I think it was intended to teach, is (i) a healthy respect for the privilege of being an Architect – enjoying its benefits as well as satisfying its burdens; (ii) pride in being privileged to call myself an Architect; and, perhaps most importantly (iii) the awareness that being licensed is a privilege and not a right.

While I currently do not practice as an Architect (I practice as an Attorney, and, yes, I am admitted to the Bar in the jurisdictions that I do practice in), I still maintain my Architect licenses because I sometimes like to refer to myself as an Architect. If I were to allow my Architect registrations to expire I hope that I would immediately cease referring to myself as an Architect, and certainly would not identify myself as an ‘unregistered Architect’, or a ‘licensed-but-unregistered Architect’, or a ‘soon-to-be registered Architect (once I graduate from an accredited architectural school, complete my architectural internship, and pass the licensing exam)’, or ‘The Architect Previously Registered as Townsend’, or whatever obfuscation my creativity could muster. However, in Colorado at least, all these terms may be perfectly acceptable.

Apparently, the reasons underlying the tremendous fuss in Colorado were not to preserve the ‘sanctity’ of the privilege of being (and calling oneself) an Architect, but were directed toward base and vile political advantage. In that respect I sympathize with the architectural intern referred to in the above-referenced article. However, outside of the ensuing flurry of accusations, claims, lawsuits, and allegations I see two foundational issues arising: (a) whether unlicensed Colorado architectural interns are within the statutory definition of the term “architect” (and thus can truthfully call themselves architects), and, if not (b) whether Colorado can restrict or proscribe the use of the word “architect” to those duly licensed as Architects in the jurisdiction.

I think that the answer to issue (a) above is “no.” The admirably written and well-researched letter prepared by the architectural intern dated June 10, 2005 (available at ) uses the terms “architect” and “licensed architect” as if there was a distinction between the two terms (essentially, the architectural intern states that he is an architect, but not a licensed architect). However, Section 12-25-302(1) of the Colorado Revised Statutes (2006 - section numbers in the 2005 version are slightly different) clearly states that the term “’Architect’ means a person licensed under [this Section of the Statute] and entitled thereby to conduct a practice of architecture in the state of Colorado.” Since the Statute does not include a definition for the term “licensed Architect”, I interpret that the Statute intends the terms “Architect” and “licensed Architect” mean the same (and that the term “Architect” is interchangeable with the term “licensed Architect”). Further, Section 12-35-314(2)(a) states that, in addition to the required education and experience, an “applicant” for licensure “shall pass an examination or examinations developed or adopted by the [Colorado Board of Examiners of Architects].” Thus, to be an Architect in Colorado, one must be licensed by the Board, and to be licensed by the Board, one must meet minimum qualifications, among which is passing an examination or examinations developed or adopted by the Board. It follows that if one has not passed such examination, one is not licensed, and if one is not licensed, one is not an Architect in Colorado. Therefore, if one refers to herself as an ‘Architect’ without being licensed in Colorado, regardless of whether or not she actually practices architecture (the second step of the process), she is uttering a falsehood because she is not legally an Architect. Further, to state one is an “unlicensed Architect” is uttering a nonsensical term for the word “unlicensed” would tend to cancel the word “Architect.”

The answer to issue (b) above is, at least within the context of political speech, that Colorado cannot restrict use of the term “architect” to Architects, but must allow this title to be used by architectural interns, and every butcher, baker, and candlestick maker who desires to use the term during such speech. Clearly, the Statute’s intent is to prohibit and punish unlicensed practice of architecture (thereby protecting the public), and not to merely keep people honest when using the term ‘Architect’ during a campaign speech. Essentially, the analysis depends on whether the speech at issue is ‘commercial’ or ‘political’, since each classification requires a different level of judicial ‘scrutiny’. Certainly if the term comprises or is intertwined with ‘political speech’ (as the Order, which is available on the above-referenced website, implies that it does), using the strict scrutiny test established by the United States Supreme Court, Colorado probably would not have the ‘compelling interest’ to restrict the term’s utterance to those who truly are Architects in Colorado unless Colorado could prove that honesty in a political speech was a compelling interest and restricting the use of the term ‘Architect’ to only those possessing a Colorado architect license was the least restrictive means to accomplish it. If, however, the speech ‘proposes a commercial transaction’ and is not ‘inexorably intertwined’ with protected or political speech, it might be classified as commercial speech having a lower standard of judicial scrutiny. In the architectural intern’s situation, he apparently was campaigning for City Council (political speech) and, during such campaign speech, uttered the falsehood that he is an Architect (inexorably intertwined with political speech). Thus, Colorado could not constitutionally restrict the architectural intern from calling himself an ‘architect’ because, at the very least, ‘architect’ was inexorably intertwined with the ‘protected speech’ of his campaign. Of course, if the architectural intern uttered the falsehood in the context of attempting to obtain architectural work, this now ‘commercial speech’ probably could have been proscribed and punished by Colorado.

While it may seem inherently unfair to in some instances allow an architectural intern to use the same term as those who have endured through the trials and tribulations of becoming an Architect, this is the price that our constitutional jurisprudence demands. In keeping with Justice Holmes’ “marketplace of ideas” concept, people are free to make their own decisions about the veracity of the content of political speech and the State has no right to interfere. Thus, to paraphrase another jurist, Justice Potter Stewart, ‘we should know an Architect when we see one.’

However, without passing through the entire experience of becoming licensed, I wonder how hollow the word ‘architect’ would become, and whether we might somehow cheat ourselves by using it prematurely without completing the process. Curiously, in the architectural intern’s letter to the Colorado Board of Examiners of Architects, he refers to himself twice as an ‘architectural intern’ when describing himself while he was working in the architectural field, yet, after he has decided to forego his architectural career, during his campaign speech he refers to himself as an ‘architect.’ How was the quantum leap from ‘architectural intern’ to ‘architect’ accomplished? Architectural Record’s article appears to infer that this is irrelevant – that so long as we can classify our interns as architects, and thereby eliminate this ‘confusion’, all is right with the world. It’s certainly something for architectural interns to carefully think about before they begin to call themselves ‘architects’ – in Colorado or anywhere else.

Leonard O. Townsend, Esq.; AIA
(Proudly) Admitted and Licensed in New York and Florida
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Miami. Florida
Past Co- Chairperson, AIA Miami Professional Practice Committee
Director, AIA Miami Board of Directors