AIArchitect

The Acting Architect of the Capitol would be a good person for the Architect's position if he would stop letting his Superintendents (HOB,SOB & LOC) and HR staff get away with so much dirt. If you are from Indian Head military base or a friend you can move up in pay grade very quickly. If you are not from Indian Head you are ignored not over looked for positions just ignored. Indian Head people working for the Architect of the Capitol can retire with a nice retirement package and within days return as a contractor with even a better paying position. There are no promotions within the agency for staffers not from Indian. Someone needs to check to see why the mafia from Indian Head can control the Architect of the Capitol. Look in the Senate and see all of the positions that are under the Superintendent and investigate how they are associated with the Superintendent. President Obama please conduct an investigation before you make your selection of the next Architect of the Capitol. God bless you and God bless America

What's the latest on the AOC selection??

How about the "Father of Architecture" Frank L. Wright was never licensed!!! some of the masters in architecture are not licensed..........

Architect of the Capital:

Rarely do I voice an opinion in a forum such as this about public affairs but I felt compelled to offer another point of view concerning the position of the architect of the capital. It is my understanding that the title, Architect, does require an architectural license however, the title, Associate AIA established by the AIA designates an individual who has completed an acreditted architectural degree program while in active pursuit of the professional requirements prior to licensure. Many of our distinguished representatives of the AIA maintain the title, Assoc. AIA and work very effectively on our behalf in not only Washington, DC but in our firms throughout the nation.

Having been a resident of Georgetown for many years as well as having worked in the Postal Square Building that houses the Architect of the Capital, it is my observation that the most critical components of the position are to have a keen sense of history of the capital complex, sensativity of preservation, and the ability to blend current trends and technology into those national treasures while administering effective management and budget measures. Although I agree that it is desirable to have a licensed architect in the position of the architect of the capital, I might suggest that an Associate possesses the skills to maintain the Capital complex. Does the office of the Architect of the Capital and its staff produce construction documents, landscape plans, civil drawings or any other drawings requiring stamps for building purposes? That, I am not sure but my sense is that projects are sent out to the private sector for bids similar to other government contracts in which a licensed professional would be required from those individuals.

I am not in anyway minimizing the importance and respect of the architectural license but rather reminding us of the working parameters under which the arcitectural license affords. If the office of the architect of the capital does not produce stamped drawings from which one builds then perhaps the license becomes an added credential rather than a requirement of the position.

The title "Architect of the Capitol," today, is really a misnomer. Today's AOC leads and manages the operations of the Capitol complex through a 2,000 person, multi-disciplined organization. This, in no way, equates to the normal responsibilities of today's mainstream licensed architect.

Today's AOC is akin to the traditional "owner/manager"role. The owner/manager logically obtains the services of a professional architect when needed. For example, the AOC recently hired an architectural firm to design the Capitol Visitor Center. It was not an in-house design.

On the other hand, the title "Architect of the Capitol" has a rich historical basis. In the good old days, the AOC really did design the Capitol building. For example, in the late 1700s, architect Benjamin Latrobe adapted Dr. William Thorton's winning concept into a real design and oversaw real construction of a real structure, most of which remains today. In the mid-1800s, Thomas Walter, a prominent architect of his day, designed the major Capitol expansion and new Dome. Surely we want to keep the AOC title as our link to the birth of today's Capitol. And if we keep the AOC title, we should fill the position with a QUALIFIED architect.

My bottom line: Somewhere out there is a real, licensed architect that has the skills and leadership experience necessary to succeed in today's AOC position. Mr. President, find that person and nominate him or her, soon! AIA, help the President be successful.

Why does the Architect of the Capital have to be an AIA member? There are many architects working for the Federal Government (GSA, COE, NAVFAC, and etc.) that have the experience, talent and political skills to fill this position. Unfortunately, most federal architects are not AIA members and will never be nominated by the AIA. Maybe the nation would be better served if the Architect of the Capital was a non-political competitive civil service position.

Why does the Architect of the Capital have to be an AIA member? There are many architects working for the Federal Government (GSA, COE, NAVFAC, and etc.) that have the experience, talent and political skills to fill this position. Unfortunately, most federal architects are not AIA members and will never be nominated by the AIA. Maybe the nation would be better served if the Architect of the Capital was a non-political competitive civil service position.

This is ridiculous. Licensure is necessary. The ARE and license are the measures of an intern's ability to understand, design, reason, educate the public, and to become an Architect. Sure there are people, (interns) out there that, (in their own minds), believe they posses the ability to perform all technical tasks, but, testing and subsequent certification encompass all training over the years and forces the candidate to remain current on buiding codes, new technologies, construction methods and techniques not only locally, but, globally.
It would be a shame to select someone who has not fully complied with the necessary requirements. In recent days, we have seen structural bridges collapse and people killed. It is the Architects and Engineers responsibility to ensure public safety and education. To - All the Slackers, "Get A Life", If you are so smart and so talented, then, stop being a panzy - Get in the IDP program, Take the Test, Get your license. There are no free rides in this profession.

Why is everyone so focused on the liscense and so little on the knowledge and experience? A liscense is a technicality, not a predeterminant of your knowledge. Did any of the great architects from the past have the AIA to call them an architect? No...They had knowledge and experience. Quit being lazy, wanting an easy way to say someone is qualified, and just focus on the individual's knowledge, experience, and vision. You may be overlooking someone that really loves what they do, and isn't in the field of architecture becasue of the title...You know they're out there.

To be consistent with law the person with the title of Architect of the Capitol should be licensed to practice architecture. However, the duties of the AOC are not those traditionally performed by architects. In my experience Facility Managers at the executive level which is how I view the AOC need much broader and deeper knowledge, skills and abilities than the architectural profession aspires to, encourages, provides or requires.

It is increasingly clear that logic must dwell somewhere in Washington D.C. and perhaps with a little direction and coaching from the AIA national headquarters our good congressmen could find their way to it.

It is often difficult to find the right person to fill any number of important jobs in Washington. Working issues like this out is call democracy. If you don't like the sound of democracy in action, don't listen.

Seems like the AIA is whining here about Congress saying that architects are not relevant to the top facilities position at the Capitol. If architects are so good and talented, then it shouldn't be a problem to identify a bunch that are up to the task of "Architect of the Capitol."

Let's consider what it might be like if someone supposed the Attorney General did not need to be an attorney or that the surgeon General did not need to be a licensed medical professional.
This is common sense.
It is alos common sense that there are quite a few slackers out there who often say that licensure, or architectural education for that matter, is not relevant. To those, I say
"stop whining and play by the rules. If your not up to the challenge, don't discredit those who have succeeded in becoming architects. "Stop whining and get yourself in an architecture program. Then take the licensing exam. If your're so good and talented, this shouldn't be a problem."

It's not too late to send messages to the Capitol Commission. I paid a visit to Congressman Boehner's Ohio office during the congressional break and received a very positive reception from his Chief of Staff. We have to remember that these leaders have a lot on their schedules so our issues are not always first on their agenda. It's our job to make sure they understand WHY the oversight of our national treasures by an architect is so important. Don't just send a form letter. Write and/or speak respectfully from your brain and your heart. Your voice does make a difference.

Terry Welker, AIA
AIA Ohio President-Elect

Architects and the AIA have much more political power than they fathom. I trust that AIA leadership is everpresent at the doors of every Congressperson & Senator on the Architect of the Capitol Commission. A little bit of reasoned/heartfelt advocacy can work wonders---while promoting the Architect's expanding role in a world of sustainable/ environmental quality.

If you're not a licensed Architect, you're not an Architect. Anyone else would be "Building Designer for the Capitol".

On one hand I'm amazed (and saddened) that there is even discussion on the subject that the Architect of the Capital should actually be an architect. On the other hand, given the fact that politics are involved, I'm certainly not surprised.

AOC is responsible for the operation, maintenance, renovation, and new construction of the buildings and grounds of the Capitol Hill complex. Organizationally, AOC consists of nine separate jurisdictions responsible for the day-to-day operations of the U.S. Capitol Building, Capitol Grounds, Senate Office Buildings, House Office Buildings, Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds, Supreme Court Buildings and Grounds, CPP, Botanic Garden, and Security Programs. AOC also has centralized staff that perform administrative and project management functions. AOC has managed major projects throughout the Capitol Hill complex and is currently managing the construction of the Congressional Visitors Center. The historic nature and high profile of many of these buildings create a complex environment for AOC to carry out its mission; AOC must balance the diverse and sometimes divergent needs of congressional leaders, committees, members, and staffs as well as the visiting public.

It's funny that no one here sees the need to consult an actual attorney before making definitive statements about what the law says relative to perhaps the most exceptional and esoteric areas in the country. Is it possible that we don't know everything?

Also, it seems likely that the actual job description of the Architect is more like a facilities manager. So would we all really feel better if Congress just eliminated any position with thwe word "Architect" in it? Would that truly better protect our fragile profession (or our fragile egos)?

They should give the job to somebody in India

Actually, we have come to a sad state of affairs when citizens have to plead for their government to muster enough common sense to appoint an architect to be the Capitol's Architect.

Why is this even a question in any place other than the Twilight Zone?

Who else could they possibly rationalize appointing (another Michael Brown)?

If the Attorney General is required to be an attorney, then the Architect of the Capitol must be an architect.

There is very little doubt about the right and wrong of this issue. The law is clear. That is simply what is so.

Congress naming an unlicensed person as the "Architect of the Capitol" is simply wrong. The deeper tradgedy revealed here, anonomously, is the apparent acceptance of the idea by some that the congress has the right to abandon the common standards of right and wrong and also the law.

Congress is a body of men who serve at the will of the body politic at large, they serve as our representatives and no member of congress is above the law either by himself or herself nor collectively. The test of law abides where any such breach of law may take form, whether in the streets of our cities or the aisles of the congress of the United States. We are a nation of laws, and a nation with a commitment to justice, fairness and simple right and wrong.

It is time for architects to speak out in the streets and in the aisles of the congress of the United States. The unqualified and unlicensed are not lawful or acceptable substitutes for architects. Our cities suffer from the lack of design quality. Those exceptions in the practical application of license law that permit non-licensed persons to design buildings are barriers that limit the effectiveness of architects to meet the challenges of the energy & global warming crisis. There are REAL problems with our built environment facing the american people. We need a better standard of design quality.

The AIA must assert it's influence and it's leadership to constrain or eliminate all unlicensed building design in this nation. They must have assistance from the congress to accomplish this. It is imperative to make the voice of the AIA heard from coast to coast, in every state. The inability for the AIA to make the decision to do something about unlicensed practice in this nation is the same as a decision to do nothing.

The failure to confront and prevail in the small issues precludes the possibility of meeting the big challenges with any hope of success. That is simply what is so.

Congress does not have to abide by the laws of the District of Columbia. Just think how powerful DC would be if that were the case. Congress dictates what DC will do, not the other way around.

Several comments allude to licensing requirements in the States, and though many have similar requirements, I did not know the requirements in the District of Columbia. It turns out that an "Architect" is defined in D.C. Law 9-184 as a person who practices architecture in accordance with the Law; the law requires Licensing. Although nothing is ever this simple in DC, the US Government would be breaking the "Law" if it appointed an unlicensed "Architect" as the "Architect of the Capitol."

Should a licensed Architect be the next Surgeon General ?

"Does the commission mean to say that out of all these possible candidates, they had to look outside the field of architecture to find a suitable nominee?" That is stretching it. There are many people that have the architectural training (degrees) that are not licensed/registered.BTW: Making registration harder all the time, you are increasing those numbers.

This is part of a larger war on the professions and professionalism in America. Professions have ethics and historical commitments to social responsibility. These things can sometimes get in the way of the profit motive. Washington is run largely by lobbyists. Lobbyists are not professionals in the sense that they have no formal ethical code or commitment to the larger social good. The wealthiest professionals, lawyers and doctors, can spread cash around Washington and thus wield some power. The rest of us professionals really have an uphill battle being heard. Do you think anyone would dare suggest replacing the Surgeon General with someone who wasn't a physician?

Why is everyone acting so suprised about this? Should not the Capitol Architect be the next best snake oil salesman (sorry, person) to come along with an appropriate design build package? This is just one more example of "the way it is". We need to get over it and get on with the next issue, which very well may be; which Architect should be appointed to replace the snake oil sales person(s) who will undoudtedly do such a poor job, due to lack of knowlege and education, that the owner will need to fire their butts and ultimately engage the proper party to not only clean up the huge pile of poop left behind by the first party, but ultimately do such a fine job that the title of Architect is raised above the ashes of disaster and praised for what it should be; the best and most qualified person to do the
job, what a concept, huh?

Essentially Congress was unhappy with how Alan Hantman ran the office, so they've decided to fire the entire profession.

Why is everybody so surprised, the Bush administration has just endorsed another friend of the party.

Here is the Architect of the Capitol website: http://www.aoc.gov/

Count how many times they use the word "architect."

"Congress has no power to violate the law."

What law are you talking about?

Although there exists a broad range of knowlege, skills, abilities and talents among potential candidates for "Architect of the Capitol", who are not licensed Architects, only the licensed architects under consideration are in fact and under law actually architects.

Should the bicameral, bipertisan seletion commission select candidates that are not architects to be named "The architect of the Capitol" they are granting a title that may be chalenged both politically and in the courts. I do not know of any state where such a title would be lawful or politically justifiable.

Congress has no power to violate the law. Congress can not name the unqualified and unexamined as "Architect of the Capitol" or architect of any other "building" without the prerequisite qualification and examination required by the law. The fact is simply that only an architect is qualified to hold the position even where other candidates may be otherwise qualified.

If Congrss makes a candidate who lacks lawful credentials, "Architect of the Capitol" the AIA should seek action politically, in the press and in the courts to challenge such a decision.

tbd,

I think the US Congress is its own jurisdiction.

I have to call myself a "project manager" rather than a "project architect" (even though my job description is the same) because of the threat of legal action by the licensing board. (I am scheduled to take the California Supplemental Exam this fall.) So if they appoint someone unlicensed, can all the state architecture boards in the US file a class action suit against this person for impersonating an architect? I certainly hope so.

It's like when I called the AIA and found out there aren't any architects that work in there. WTF?

Go figure.

This is just a reflection of what's happening accross the nation as building owners, developers and government agencies hire "project managers" quite frankly because architects have not historically performed this service very well. Calling them an architect would be cause for legal action in multiple states so perhaps they should call it what it is " project manager of the capital"

There is a reason the position is titled" Architect of the Capitol" and not Facilities Manager or Contractor of the Capitol. The training and skill sets we hold require years of education, training and licensing. While it maybe argued that other professionals in the field hold similar subsets of the requirements posted above, only architects have the ability to tie it all together with aesthetics or design of the building as an important element of buildings. I know it sounds arrogant but it's why we became architects and not facility managers or contractors or construction managers. The Architect of the Capitol has the ability to direct how the face of government edifices will look like directly or indirectly which has far reaching consequences for future generations.
It is our job as architects to educate the public as to the need to have architects, let alone the Architect of the Capitol. If we fail in this, we have only ourselves to blame for the erosion of value our profession holds in the eyes of the public.
Maybe it's time for AIA grassroots to send out another petition to members, encouraging us to send letters to our representatives regarding this issues. It would be a shame to see this key position assigned to a non architect. In this latest newsletter issued by the AIA, there is an article stating that NCARB's survey indicates there are 112,650 architects in the country. Does the commission mean to say that out of all these possible candidates, they had to look outside the field of architecture to find a suitable nominee? That is ludicrous.

I think we are trying to apply too much logic to the situation (a consequence of our education, maybe). Next thing you know we will want to require all law makers to be licensed lawyers.

It isn't in the hands of the White House yet. There is Congressional commission deciding which names to pass on to Bush. The President chooses from among candidates nominated by the commission.

Only one person? Wouldn't appointing a design team be a better choice? I also believe that the design team that would be chosen to hold the honorable position of "Architects for the Capitol" should be selected by a congressional vote, every 4 years.

The problem is that Pat Robertson's Regent University does not have an architectural program; consequently, the administration cannot fill that position with a secular licensed architect.

Sorry- I became too excited and responded without noticing we are talking about the U.S. Capital position not a state position.

To me it seems obvious, that an 'Architect', should actually be a licensed Archtiect. There are regulations in place that say if you are going to call yourself an Architect, you have to be a licensed professional in the field of Architecture. I have worked hard to earn my title and license. Appointing someone in the position of Architect of the Capitol that is not a licensed Architect (in the state of Illinois), would be a slap in the face of the AIA and every licensed professional.