AIArchitect

Hello, i am not used to passing comments on discussions, but i am quite impressed by this site, so i will certainly visit again

Given that we have more architects than we have market place for them to practice, it makes sense to me to raise the bar and require licensed architects on every building constructed. Why shortchange the design intelligence where the qualified professional is at hand in significant over supply?

We should appraise well constructed buildings that are designed reviewed by design professionals as well as building departments at a higher value because they are commensurately lower risk investments to lenders. Unlicensed persons have limited or no liability.

We need to shore up the system from homeowners perspective, lender and insurance industries. Design intelligence is the best defense against construction defect and foreshortened building life. Design intelligence is the cheapest brand of insurance, and mitigation of risk and uncertainty.

We need to examine the equity shortfall associated with increased life cycle costs driven by choosing to have the majority of our residential built environment designed by non professionals.

I started an architectural carreer in the the mid 1970's....and the job market
was substantially worse than any other period in the last 35 years. Back then sustainability wasn't the buzzword by environmental design was and many experiments took place in the area of passive and active solar design.....natural ventilation and daylight in architecture. Sustainable design isn't very different except for a bit more analysis as to the chemistry and life cycle of building materials. As far as residential design is concerned, the process of individual custom design is too time consuming ie too expensive for the average homeowner. This is actually true for the construction process which is extremely labor intensive and also too expensive. A solution may lie in the field of mass customization...where the process of design and construction may be streamlined with prefabricated environmentally friendy materials and systems and yet be able to be individually customized in the design phase with interchangeable components and various interior and exterior finishes. The variations in design and final house product could be quite complex and by all measures be customized to each site and individual needs. Valuation of such a home also would a more exact science. Reduction of energy consumption could be quite significant.

Anonymous,
Did you read all five of Mr. Adams' posts? I find it discouraging that so many of us are so pessimistic that we doubt the skills of our fellow professionals to the point of suggesting builders are doing a fine, if not better, job and we should keep our hands off a large sector of work that could greatly improve our perception in the eyes of the average person.

I believe the AIA and USGBC have defined "sustainability" as it pertains to Architecture just fine and this back and forth bickering about personal definitions, specifics, and minutia seems to be most unproductive and irritating. Arguing just to argue. How about we get something done instead of redefining our egos?

I knew a few of the lousiest students that could still design better houses than the majority of what we see being built today. Personally, I don't know any builders that are designing better houses than any of the licensed Architects I know. Maybe it's a geographical thing, but even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while.

Giving additional appraisal value to homes designed by licensed professionals so that home owners and builders could get the loan numbers to work while including our fees is not a broad brush stroke. It's a specific solution, but almost too simple. It would improve the housing stock greatly if Architects started designing a much greater percentage of residences, not to mention the addition of a large volume of work we're currently missing out on. I hope it's not your suggestion that we encourage builders and homeowners to keep excluding us from residential work.

"Do you own oil stocks? Do you enjoy clubbing baby seals? What is your problem? "

- Getting a bit defensive are we? I don't think Mr. Adams was arguing just to argue, but rather he was asking a question that it seems you are ill-equipped to answer (judging from your dramatic reaction to his query).

Back to the original point of your open letter, I don't think that architects necessarily hold the exclusive spot at the top of the heap when it comes to "good design", "sustainability", and "value". 50-100 years ago, yes. Now? Not so much. The current system of educating architects and those who would presume to be architects has been stripped down to useless theory, feel-good sustainability classes (a more involved effort must be made to educate design professionals about sustainable systems and methods), with the occasional token class that actually deals with the nuts and bolts of how to put a good, efficient building together. That said, I know some of the people I graduated from architecture school with who could not design their way out of a wet paper bag. Conversely, I have dealt with contractors who design and build efficient, cost-effective houses without the need for paying an architect a fee. At any rate, your intentions seem to be well-meaning but you paint in very broad strokes (we're all guilty of that, from time to time) and that, my friend, clouds your message.

Michael
This is the last response on this issue as you seem to want to argue just to argue. Why are you so obsessed with an absolute definition for sustainability? Questions like, "Is LEED doing things that are sustainable?" and, "what news?" tells me that you simply have no idea what you're talking about. I'm more inclined to think you're not even an Architect and at best some disgruntled student that just doesn't get it.

Reducing energy consumption, waste, and environmental impact. Simply undoing most of the stupid things our society has been doing.

The AIA and USGBC have defined these basic concepts as they apply to Architecture. What's not to get? If you need point by point details, then maybe you should look at a LEED score card. Maybe you don't see it because you don't have the capacity to understand. Why is sustainability such a problem for you? Are you not creative enough to make a beautiful building that's functional? Do you own oil stocks? Do you enjoy clubbing baby seals? What is your problem?

Sustainability is an opportunity for the profession to enhance it's necessity in society. People like yourself that have to question everything just to hear yourself speak are the very reason our profession suffers today. We give away everything because we're too busy arguing over minutia. If you don't like it, just go to your 2 lunch & learns, get your free food, and listen to a spiel about recycled content in countertops. Then you can go and design irresponsible buildings all you want. That is IF you're even an Architect.

Eric,

What news? Is LEED (aka USGBC?) doing things that are sustainable? Defining sustainability is not minutia. Without a clear idea of what is being discussed, there is no picture . . . big or small . . . just blahblahblah.

Get back to me when you can answer the question and provide a definition.

Michael,
You must not watch the news much. A better question is, "Aside from LEED, what IS our society doing that's sustainable?"

Our profession is full of negativity and pessimism. We can't get anything done when we constantly bicker and second guess the minutia while missing the big picture.

No bait . . . just a straightforward (and very important) question. If sustainability has no definition, indeed the converstaion will be "to nowhere" and those who pursue "sustainability" will be going nowhere.

What I understand from your response is that sustainability equates with building better buildings, simply doing a better job, and leaving something for our kids that we aren't ashamed of.

I suspect there are lot's of folks who have been doing (and continue to do) one or more of these things for some time - long before someone attempted to label them.

Wow, so you think "our entire way of life is unsustainable." Have any hard data on that?

BTW, it appears that "sustainability" remains undefined. Wonder how the AIA will formulate CE requirements around your suggestions.

This question sounds like bait for a philosophical conversation to nowhere. Our entire way of life is unsustainable. It's not just about energy, resources, trash, or pollution. It's about your way of life, national security, and health of your economy. The way Wall St has been run, unsustainable. Easter Island is a classic example of unsustainability. All the Meso-American great cities that were all the sudden abandoned, unsustainable. Living 30 miles from work is typical in Atlanta and we just got a taste of how unsustainable that is. People really panic when gas pumps run out. I still ride the train to work for $12/week, now that's sustainable! Other people I hear talking about spending an unsustainable $75-100/week for gas. Building better structures is just one small part of a collective solution to simply do a better job, so we can leave something for our kids that we aren't ashamed of.

Eric,

The word "sustainability" gets thrown about a good bit but is rarely (or never) defined. The AIA has yet to define it although it believes "sustainability" should be included in CE requirements. Care to give it a try? Please avoid dragging out the old Brundtland chestnut.

Homebuyer,
Our designs and the quality of construction are covered under the liability of two different entities. Architects are typically commissioned to check the construction for compliance with the design at key moments during construction, but we cannot be held liable for the workmanship (means and methods of construction) provided by the contractor, nor be at the site 24/7. This is the contractor's responsibility. If something fails due to design error and not faulty construction, then it is our liability and we carry insurance for this. We also can help protect you from fraudulent change orders as we can review those requests before you pay for them. Many residential builders will give you a low bid to get the job, but then they tack on change orders for everything in their imagination to make up their profits. You don't get either the construction administration nor the design liability with a plan book house.

Most Americans are forced to settle for cookie cutter homes and therefore don't understand the value of a custom design. No on wants to be a number, a clone. We all make our homes uniquely ours, but mainly on the inside. Energy is becoming a major concern even as it pertains to National Security. Architects understand sustainability (green design) and can help make a more efficient building that costs less for you to run and it doesn't have to look like a science project. In 30 years your energy bills may rival your mortgage payment and you'll wish you had been living in a green home. If your property was worth more and cost less to run because you had it professionally designed, then all of what I just said wouldn't cost you a dime out of pocket AND your home would be worth more. I see it as a win win for the client!

I'm not an architect, nor do I know the ins and outs of the profession, but I am a homeowner who bought a cookie-cutter plan built house (built in the 70s, and rock solid, by the way).

Here's my idea. If you want Joe average homeowner to fork over some serious dough for an architect, give them something they can value over those poorly built developer designed houses. I'm not talking aesthetics, I'm not talking space utilization. What I'm talking about is providing a design and then standing behind the final product. Instead of just providing a floor plan, work with contractors/construction crews to ensure the house gets built to your specifications/plans. THEN, provide, as part of your fee a structural warranty on the home, say for 30 years (life of typical mortgage). Then, as a joe average homebuyer I can see adding 10% or more to the cost of a home. Certainly an appraiser would know the value of such a warranty.

With due respect to Mr.Greusel point of view and I somewhat see the point he is making, but the truth is that the bulk of the built environment is in the hands of the uneducated, unqualified, and unlicensed. The system of housing delivery, by the way, is in failure. That is no coincidence.

There are problems with the delivery system because the wrong attributes are being valued. This is driving low expectations by buyers, serious construction defects, with serious, life cycle costs, litigation and insurance costs that effect the entire financial structure associated with housing and impacts of a serious nature on the national economy.

Being able to buy a house is slip sliding away because wages can not keep pace with the cost of home ownership.

Appraisers do not capture appropriately the value of design quality.

Currently for the bulk of the housing being built the only serious review of the proposed structure is by a beurocrat at the building department. Change to this failing system is imperative to meet the challenges of our times.

Let's face it, any licensed Architect can design a much better house than the average builder box being built today. This is no time for self-defeatism! Every residential project comes to a potential road block when the dealings with the bank begins. The cost of the land and the cost of construction must usually be 80% of the value an appraiser assigns before construction. This is where the potential client realizes that the addition of the Architect's fee doesn't fit in the 80% loan to value ratio. Bring out the plan book. This must STOP!

By giving people an incentive to hire a design professional, we can hopefully put an end to the embarrassment of the disposable builder box and make design valuable in Architecture just like it is in areas like fashion. Whether you like it or not the label does matter to our society and we should take advantage of that mentality. A designer label like Gucci does represent a certain quality standard. Should a BMW be appraised the same as a Honda? The name alone demands more respect. Imagine being desired by the masses for a change?

There is no guarantee in real estate period, but I have a consistent track record of around 20 unique spec houses in just my neighborhood outselling everything else. This is no coincidence, this is statistical data. Comps. Every real estate agent in my neighborhood wants to sell my houses because they sell themselves and they ALL say curb appeal is 90% of that sale. Most have sold during construction and none are empty. I know I'm not the only Architect that can put up data like that.

"What I do propose is that we demand that homes designed by licensed professionals be given additional appraisal value to offset the impact of our fees."
This demand, which I take to be the central point of this essay, makes no sense. It is akin to the "demand" that we pay teachers what they're really worth, or farmers a "fair price" for a bushel of corn. Appraisers are professionals, just like architects, and they use professional judgment as well as comps and checklists to guage the value of a piece of property. I'm sure that looks factor into it, but I can assure you that "architect-designed" is no guarantee of higher resale value. In some cases, "architect-designed" is code for "weird looking, idiosyncratic, and poor fit with the neighborhood." If our profession desires to make a thoughtful response to the subprime mortgage crisis, I'm all for it, but I'm afraid this essay isn't it.

By: Terry L. Walker, AIA

Familiar story: This will read as strangely derivative as that is my intention.

When I finished the course work at the University in 1982, interest rates were at almost 20% under the Carter administration and construction was at an all time low. I too wondered what to do and I too had no idea what I was going to do with my useless degree. Just like Mr. Rawlings experience, we were at the tail end of a real-estate meltdown, caused by a systemic error that generated an economic “malaise” or moribund market. Who would invest if you had money, you were better off with it in the bank, if you wanted to borrow money the interest was so high that construction loans were out of the question, purchasing a home required deep pockets, big depositors reaped wealth, contractors and architects closed the doors. There was a dysfunction of the savings and loan structure and matching scandal, but eventually our job market finally started to open up. I was grateful to be able to find a job at low wages, of course like many others I also was making less than a starting education graduate at the time hire to teach in a public school.

This boom and bust cycle has been going on now for a very long time.
________________________________________
There are profound problems revealed in those strange cyclical similarities between previous times and now. Our livelihood relies on the health of the general economy as well as the real-estate economy. To protect the underlying values, no loan should be issued for construction without the stamp of an architect or other licensed design professional examined by the state. We must assert ourselves today as professionals in what should be the redefinition of the lending practices, particularly in the residential real-estate market. The lack of design intelligence eventually hurts all aspects of our society, the lending industry, the insurance industry and burdens us with the enduring sub-optimal city and its never ending costs.
The recent problem with the lending industry may have been caused by the competition paradigm, responding to new politically motivated changes in lending regulation. This generated shady lending practices resulting ultimately in massive numbers of foreclosures. It created the environment where the overbuilding of low-quality speculative houses was perceived as good business, even though in reality there were not enough qualified buyers in the market place to take enduring ownership of them. There were plenty of folks who wanted to own homes. There still are. The underlying problem is that the working class wage structure no longer supports reasonable access to home ownership; it takes two incomes minimum, sometimes more, to buy a house. Because the housing supply exceeded the capacity to sell, among other causes, too many houses were not selling. The sitting inventory of market oriented housing is a serious financial burden.

No one has ever really wanted to drive farther to work, location has always been a price driver, but now that gas prices are hitting that threshold of pain there is greater pressure to reduce commuting distance.
Bad design creates bad products and bad buildings. Good design requires design intelligence and responsible design and construction that safeguards value, achieving this requires accountability so education, examination and licensing is a core capacity of government. Contractors building and selling on speculation want the up from cost to be aggressively competitive and therefore shortchange design quality in favor of reduced front end investment. Design quality is not a component of appraisal or sales in a seller’s market. People have never wanted ugly, poorly designed, houses but will settle for what they can get. Market oriented housing is significantly price driven
Failure to serve the public welfare:
Because of the huge black market of uneducated, unqualified and unlicensed design practices, a general failure has been manufactured by government tolerance. Single-family residences are the most numerous of all building types, and a very small percentage are being designed by architects. Most Americans, make price driven rather than quality driven decisions and believe they cannot afford a house designed by an architect. Most Americans remodel or renovate their home at least once in their lifetimes, but the average person rarely engages the services of a licensed architect. Because very few Americans get involved in the design of a commercial building, architects have become almost non-existent to the general public. Architectural licensing legislation and the associated Architectural boards across the United States, still allow non-licensed persons to design buildings with-in a system of constraints that includes market oriented housing. So the bulk of the built environment by both number of buildings and volume of enclosed space is designed by the uneducated, unqualified and unlicensed design practices.

Architects cannot connect with the average American if they can’t afford our fees, and we will never get paid what we’re worth when the value we add is not supported by the competitive paradigm as it manifests in the commercial, custom home and market oriented housing sectors of our market place. Where only price drives decisions, superior design delivery will not be appropriately valued. Architects must aggressively push for legislatively mandated licensed design professionals nationwide at the federal level, on every building.

The bank’s appraiser is poorly equipped to find value in design quality. Value is reduced to accounting and value is perceived as the aggregate of land qualities and location, views, fixtures and things like granite countertops, floor area, more beds and baths, hot tubs and other things in the building. This mentality is the cause of the Energy Monster or McMansion’s evolution. I do have a client who received extra value for their photovoltaic solar electric system. Design qualities however such as, scale, proportion, accessibility, day-lighting and active lighting design, passive solar/ passive cooling and holistic systems design that reduces the environmental and carbon footprint gets assigned no value by the appraiser.
Design quality and design intelligence results in sales at higher prices, but more significantly delivers enduring value to owners, city and our living world. It should not be just about the economic value in the present market environment, rather, a more robust capture of both net present market value and life cycle cost. Typically Professional Architect’s design market oriented housing that sells better, faster and delivers more value per dollar.

This is quantifiable. In a buyer’s market, design quality rules, but only where the buyers have sufficient income to buy. The worst part of the mortgage crisis, is the fact that the underlying cause is the increasing destruction of the American dream of home ownership. The politically inspired solution was to make it easier for workers to borrow money and builders to sell houses rather than preserve actual buying power with wage structures compatible with the actualization of worker owned housing.
We must support the idea of additional appraisal value.

We must also insist on serving the public interest and protecting the investment. The best way to do that is by sustaining design quality and construction standards. I am proposing that all houses be reviewed and stamped by a professional architect to provide two levels of protection to the public; the licensed professional first and followed by the building department.
Both private sector and public sector must be involved to best serve the public interest and investment in built environment. Most licensing laws are written to serve that purpose, but unfortunately most are also opting out, for the bulk of the market oriented housing sector of our built environment. They are thereby creating cities filled with badly designed, lawsuit prone, buildings with high construction defect levels. It seems to me to be quite the same stupidity and just as ridiculous as creating exploding loans that destroy the national economy.

I also support the idea that homes designed by licensed professionals be given additional appraisal value to offset the impact of our fees. To quote Mr. Rawlings; “Giving appraisal value to a superior design by a state-qualified professional would allow people to roll our fees into the price of their homes. Then they could actually afford us. This also would give the real-estate industry a means to allocate more value to new and renovated homes. And a “designer label” could improve clients’ perception of us.” Brilliant idea!
The AIA should pounce on the opportunity to foreclose on bad design quality by insisting that the congress mandate two layers of review to protect the public interest. “The government is redefining lending practices as we speak and there has never been a better time than now to stand up for ourselves and gain some much needed respect and worth in this country!” Architect designed buildings should be clearly denoted and it will be necessary to have stamps on the documentation to empower both building official and appraiser.

In this context design for Sustainability is a critical core capacity, and therefore an essential factor for us to quantify as energy becomes scarcer. The U.S. Green Building Council certainly can assist regarding the dollar value of energy efficiency and other life cycle cost impacts. We need to ask the government to force the building industry, lending industry, and the insurance industry to require that a licensed architect review and stamp the construction documents of every building that is constructed.
“We architects need to lobby for our worth! We need average people to understand the value of design, and therefore more of us need to engage in residential design projects. This is not to say that residential work is for everyone, but many of us would if we could—and it would open up a large job market for our profession.”

I suggest that the AIA immediately draft proposed legislation language to be added as the government is currently redefining lending practices. I propose that every AIA member write congress today. I agree with Mr. Rawlings that there has never been a better time than now to stand up for ourselves and gain some much needed respect and worth in this country!
Proposed language for a letter to congress: (authority to cut and paste the paragraphs below for your use is hereby granted without limit by author, Terry L. Walker, AIA).

To your representatives and senators.

“New legislation to revise lending practices is currently in the hands of the nations congress. It is imperative that the American dream of homeownership be preserved and empowered. To limit the cost burden associated with construction defects litigation and the nations insurance burdens, we urge the congress to require that all technical submissions for building permits be reviewed and stamped by licensed professionals.”

To protect the value of the design quality of our built environment, to promote design for a more sustainable built environment, reduce the environmental footprint of our residential infrastructure and the net lifecycle cost and energy use related impacts of built environment, we urge the congress to change the appraisal laws of the United States to give proportionate value to those buildings designed by licensed professional architects. We urge the congress to act responsibly to both protect the public interest and promote housing of enduring sustainable quality and value, as being necessary to properly secure the dollars invested in it.

Eric,

I think I understand your intention. Ultimately, however, appraisers do not determine value. [Nowadays, without comps, one wonders how they attempt to divine CMA except with a ouija board.] The market (buyers) determines value. Savvy buyers are not duped by "curb appeal." I question the 90% of the sale statistic . . . perhaps curb appeal would be important in attracting attention . . . but not the sale. As professionals, we would do well to fight this silly notion with more substantial criteria. Call the "gadgets" "green," "sustainable," or whatever, if the market does not value these "gadgets," they will not pay for them.

BTW, the surgical procedure analogy doesn't work. Perhaps you would like to rethink that one.

Michael,
Actually, appraisers find new items to give value to all the time. Most recently, they've been giving value to green gadgets. Why not the services of a State qualified professional? Our handiwork CAN be quantified as being more valuable, so why not? Real estate agents will tell you 90% of the sale is curb appeal and the sustainability aspects we bring can also be quantified as real value. We need reasons to allocate more value to the already sagging property values and at the same time we could be greening up a huge sector of buildings at a much quicker rate!

If you want to do something immediately, today is the last day that the AIA Gov. Advocacy group will be taking member suggestions before returning to DC. Email them at govaffs@aia.org. Talk to local and national AIA directors. I found that appraisers only follow the rules and with the lending industry turned upside down, they're not going to be helpful or creative. This needs attention at the top levels of the lending industry, so our AIA lobbyists are the best bet for now. Good luck!

If the market does not value the services of a professional, tampering with the appraisal process won't make any difference . . . except perhaps to make the present situation even worse.

I think you make incredibly valid points Eric. I know that as AIA members, a portion of our dues go toward lobbying for various items at national levels... I know I will be sending a letter to my local, state and national AIA contacts to ask them to make this an item of priority.

I think you make incredibly valid points Chris. I know that as AIA members, a portion of our dues go toward lobbying for various items at national levels... I know I will be sending a letter to my local, state and national AIA contacts to ask them to make this an item of priority.

Hooray to you Chris!
What a great Idea!
I am not only a licensed architect but a contractor as well. I am definitly feeling the crises crunch from both ends of the construction industry. Not to mention the challenges I face competing against spec home builders. I would love to be able to use a vehicle such as this to take a potential client to some of the banks and mortgage companies we refer our clients to. Definitely could use an edge.

I think this is a fantastic idea and a great start in a direction I feel our profession needs to move. As a recent graduate myself, I understand exactly what you were going through, as I am feeling much of the same right now. Call me naive, but I've never understood how a licensed architect isn't required to design just about anything that gets built. I've been racking my brain trying to figure out any solution to this problem that we as the architectural collective could approach, appraisal value never even occurred to me. So my next question is how do we go about implementing? Where do I sign up? What can I, as a young graduate with no authority, do? What can those that do have some authority do?

Gordon,
The appraisers I've talked to say things like, "why do you think your designs are any better than a plan book's?" My typical reaction is, "I guess you'd be OK with the nurse performing your heart surgery rather than the licensed professional?" They may sense a conflict of interest in the fact that they lend to the builder who keeps selling her houses for more than their appraisals and more than the other houses in the area. I think they assume I'm trying to get more money for her, but don't they lose in the end if they aren't making more interest on a more valuable loan? The added value makes us more attractive to both builders and home owners, so I think this could open some doors for us in a sector that connects us to regular people.

Eric, it sounds to me like an issue with how appraisals are done. I know that appraisals are often more art than science, is there an appraiser in that neighborhood who would be willing to have a discussion with you?