*** DISCLAIMER AND FOREWORD :: (YES, THIS TOPIC IS CONTROVERSIAL AND YES, THIS ENTRY IS LONG) ***
- This topic has been heavy on my mind... especially after several articles, conversations and podcasts that have recently surfaced. That instigation paired with the honing of my personal perspective for the past 10 years or so has presented a pulling to share... I figure its time to put it out there... to talk about it. To that point, I have a belief that the 'designers' who have opposing views regarding the traditional path of practicing architecture are fearful to share their point of view based on the possibility that the criticism may result in a type of proverbial target or perceived flaw / shortcoming. I will say, that the opinions shared are mine, solely, and do not reflect any associates, contractors, connections, or office pets of any kind or whatsoever. I want to be clear - that I respect this profession deeply - and all the people entailed that are devoted to doing great things within the landscape of architecture and design. I have no ill will towards the individuals on their dedicated path - licensed, not licensed or otherwise. I guess I just feel like I have something to say and offer points of consideration in hopes of contributing some good - because I see opportunity in the 'problems'. I see progress in deliberating the 'issues'. The soul of academia conditioned us to think - progressively, independently, and greatly. Where others get stuck in the negativity - I see a great conversation - that, if followed by action, can be a pivotal factor in the advancement of the profession. My point is that I view this as a positive, powerful and vital visit. Instead of ignoring what is right in front of us - unarguably effecting the very essence of how we 'exist', we must have the hard conversation with the common ground of evolution and working towards something. That is the intention... that is the aim.
- This topic has been heavy on my mind... especially after several articles, conversations and podcasts that have recently surfaced. That instigation paired with the honing of my personal perspective for the past 10 years or so has presented a pulling to share... I figure its time to put it out there... to talk about it. To that point, I have a belief that the 'designers' who have opposing views regarding the traditional path of practicing architecture are fearful to share their point of view based on the possibility that the criticism may result in a type of proverbial target or perceived flaw / shortcoming. I will say, that the opinions shared are mine, solely, and do not reflect any associates, contractors, connections, or office pets of any kind or whatsoever. I want to be clear - that I respect this profession deeply - and all the people entailed that are devoted to doing great things within the landscape of architecture and design. I have no ill will towards the individuals on their dedicated path - licensed, not licensed or otherwise. I guess I just feel like I have something to say and offer points of consideration in hopes of contributing some good - because I see opportunity in the 'problems'. I see progress in deliberating the 'issues'. The soul of academia conditioned us to think - progressively, independently, and greatly. Where others get stuck in the negativity - I see a great conversation - that, if followed by action, can be a pivotal factor in the advancement of the profession. My point is that I view this as a positive, powerful and vital visit. Instead of ignoring what is right in front of us - unarguably effecting the very essence of how we 'exist', we must have the hard conversation with the common ground of evolution and working towards something. That is the intention... that is the aim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I N T R O D U C T I O N : :
*** THIS PORTION IS PROVIDED FOR THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ENTIRE LICENSURE PROCESS; IF FAMILIAR, FEEL FREE TO HOP ALONG TO THE NEXT EXCERPT ***
- The following are all the steps taken in order to obtain an architectural license and be christened 'Architect':
- The following also includes certain jurisdictions and organizations that have procedural oversight - merely for sake of understanding:
1. The individual must attend and graduate from a university with a NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board) accredited program. For more information visit :: http://www.naab.org/
>>> Full disclosure - the minimum of 5 years spent at architecture school is absolutely grueling. Ample amounts of late nights, exhaustive papers, perplexing cerebral conversations, loads of math, physics, and calculations, and critiques that will introduce a level of anxiety that was previously unbeknownst. All that being said - I wouldn't change my experience for a thing. It was the first time I have ever felt challenged on an intellectual + creative platform. Even though it empties you on certain levels... no matter how tired - I always felt 'full' - which was my knowing that I was in the right place, doing the right thing.
$$$ = Price tags vary - check with your targeted university for tuition and other costs. My receipt shows a ballpark of ~$75K.
2. The individual must register with NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) and complete the organizations AXP program (previously known as IDP). For more information please visit :: https://www.ncarb.org/gain-axp-experience
>>> This is what some might consider 'internship hours / experience' even though NCARB and the AIA did away with the term
intern; exhibit i; exhibit ii
>>> more on 'titles' later...
>>> you can register while in school and complete this hours while attending university. More on this later.
$$$ = Fees vary - $100 upfront; $85 annual renewal; more information here :: https://www.ncarb.org/fees
3. The individual must pass 6 divisions of the ARE (Architectural Registration Exam - version 5.0) - mandated by NCARB.
>>> Yes, you read that correct - six (6) separate tests (predated tests were as high as nine (9) parts!!!) . More on this later but for now here is the list as provided by NCARB ::
- The following also includes certain jurisdictions and organizations that have procedural oversight - merely for sake of understanding:
1. The individual must attend and graduate from a university with a NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board) accredited program. For more information visit :: http://www.naab.org/
>>> Full disclosure - the minimum of 5 years spent at architecture school is absolutely grueling. Ample amounts of late nights, exhaustive papers, perplexing cerebral conversations, loads of math, physics, and calculations, and critiques that will introduce a level of anxiety that was previously unbeknownst. All that being said - I wouldn't change my experience for a thing. It was the first time I have ever felt challenged on an intellectual + creative platform. Even though it empties you on certain levels... no matter how tired - I always felt 'full' - which was my knowing that I was in the right place, doing the right thing.
$$$ = Price tags vary - check with your targeted university for tuition and other costs. My receipt shows a ballpark of ~$75K.
2. The individual must register with NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards) and complete the organizations AXP program (previously known as IDP). For more information please visit :: https://www.ncarb.org/gain-axp-experience
>>> This is what some might consider 'internship hours / experience' even though NCARB and the AIA did away with the term
intern; exhibit i; exhibit ii
>>> more on 'titles' later...
>>> you can register while in school and complete this hours while attending university. More on this later.
$$$ = Fees vary - $100 upfront; $85 annual renewal; more information here :: https://www.ncarb.org/fees
3. The individual must pass 6 divisions of the ARE (Architectural Registration Exam - version 5.0) - mandated by NCARB.
>>> Yes, you read that correct - six (6) separate tests (predated tests were as high as nine (9) parts!!!) . More on this later but for now here is the list as provided by NCARB ::
$$$ = 210 per test and 210 per retake... a total minimum amount of $1,260. (note that in October 2018 fees will raise to $235).
4. The individual must seek and ultimately receive licensure in the state they are practicing. If said individual is practicing in 50 states... he/she must have licenses from all 50 states.
$$$ = yes, there are costs for this as well... refer to each state's / board's requirements for additional information.
! ! ! - This is an extremely basic / rudimentary 4 step process regarding the traditional path to getting licensed and practicing
architecture; for more detailed information please refer NCARB :: https://www.ncarb.org/become-architect/basics
! ! ! - This is an extremely basic / rudimentary 4 step process regarding the traditional path to getting licensed and practicing
architecture; for more detailed information please refer NCARB :: https://www.ncarb.org/become-architect/basics
A V E R A G E T I M E F R A M E = ~ 1 2 . 5 Y E A R S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Horace L.Arnold - "Modern Machine-Shop Economics." in Engineering Magazine 11. 1896
1 . H I S T O R Y ; A N A N E C D O T E
- Let's step back for a second and ponder, observationally and objectively, the situation at hand ::
+++ During an AIA convention in 1919 - A few good men - these being Architects, decidedly laid forth what is today understood as NCARB.
SEVERAL POINTS ::
- 15 individuals uniformly and single-handedly decided the entire profession's modus operandi nearly 100 years ago.
- Be conscious of the time when this structure was determined and the social mechanisms that were prevalent in that era. The industrial revolution and the tenants of that doctrine established an all-reaching underpinning in the function(s) of business and production. So, consider this... the mentality of civilization (as a generality) was shifting towards a dominantly capitalist economy, pushing a concept towards maximizing profit with 'standardization' being the throned solution. Understand that the core practice was anchored in standardized productivity with a highlighted interest respecting simplicity and efficiency. This encompassed all - and influenced life beyond what anyone could have imagined - a long term mentality that embedded itself into the psyche of mankind.
- To this point, the Assembly Line was invented in 1913 by the one, the only - Henry Ford... this of course a direct response to the foundational principles set forth by the Industrial Revolution... with a firm fixation on a systematic standardization and mass production.
WHAT I SEE ::
>>> There is a concept called 'dark matter' (a correlation to the physical cosmology of the universe) which proclaims that there are things we can't see all around us. In turn, we often neglect to consider these intangibles in our daily operations that have very real, first hand implications. Now - imagine the impact of something as ubiquitous as the industrial revolution - and what this type of mental shift introduces to potential adaptation among entities observing what might seem very lucrative and propitious. If something is all around us and it seems to be working. I think any good business person would explore it's possibilities. So... here is my point... 'How can we standardize and put into 'production' this profession.' I could very easily see this conversation playing out in an era that was blanketed by a push for order, uniformity, a type of harmony through a structured and physical codification. And the settled proposal was a test (the ARE) - one that not only materializes a formulaic expectation but one that also regulates, mandates and dictates the profession. Mission accomplished - quantitative standardization of a characteristically qualitative profession. Fairly genius really. And one that also can generate income to boot. Side note:: the MCAT was started in 1928 (a little different but not too much of a removal) and the National Conference of Bar Examiners NCBE (who created the BAR exam) was founded in 1931.... So, the expediency of such a strategy must have been apparent.
- Before intelligently discussing the subject - it is essential to first contemplate the influences at play and the resultant 'reason'. A certain type of mental training was being indoctrinated into civilization - either intentionally or merely as a by-product - well-intentioned or otherwise... regardless, it was there. It carried an immense amount of persuasion and allure - and still does to a large majority.
But I believe this pursuit is empty - and don't get me wrong, maybe it had a place - but not now - where we have an entirely new and vastly different set of obstacles. As Billie Beane (Brad Pitt) says in Moneyball -
+++ During an AIA convention in 1919 - A few good men - these being Architects, decidedly laid forth what is today understood as NCARB.
SEVERAL POINTS ::
- 15 individuals uniformly and single-handedly decided the entire profession's modus operandi nearly 100 years ago.
- Be conscious of the time when this structure was determined and the social mechanisms that were prevalent in that era. The industrial revolution and the tenants of that doctrine established an all-reaching underpinning in the function(s) of business and production. So, consider this... the mentality of civilization (as a generality) was shifting towards a dominantly capitalist economy, pushing a concept towards maximizing profit with 'standardization' being the throned solution. Understand that the core practice was anchored in standardized productivity with a highlighted interest respecting simplicity and efficiency. This encompassed all - and influenced life beyond what anyone could have imagined - a long term mentality that embedded itself into the psyche of mankind.
- To this point, the Assembly Line was invented in 1913 by the one, the only - Henry Ford... this of course a direct response to the foundational principles set forth by the Industrial Revolution... with a firm fixation on a systematic standardization and mass production.
WHAT I SEE ::
>>> There is a concept called 'dark matter' (a correlation to the physical cosmology of the universe) which proclaims that there are things we can't see all around us. In turn, we often neglect to consider these intangibles in our daily operations that have very real, first hand implications. Now - imagine the impact of something as ubiquitous as the industrial revolution - and what this type of mental shift introduces to potential adaptation among entities observing what might seem very lucrative and propitious. If something is all around us and it seems to be working. I think any good business person would explore it's possibilities. So... here is my point... 'How can we standardize and put into 'production' this profession.' I could very easily see this conversation playing out in an era that was blanketed by a push for order, uniformity, a type of harmony through a structured and physical codification. And the settled proposal was a test (the ARE) - one that not only materializes a formulaic expectation but one that also regulates, mandates and dictates the profession. Mission accomplished - quantitative standardization of a characteristically qualitative profession. Fairly genius really. And one that also can generate income to boot. Side note:: the MCAT was started in 1928 (a little different but not too much of a removal) and the National Conference of Bar Examiners NCBE (who created the BAR exam) was founded in 1931.... So, the expediency of such a strategy must have been apparent.
- Before intelligently discussing the subject - it is essential to first contemplate the influences at play and the resultant 'reason'. A certain type of mental training was being indoctrinated into civilization - either intentionally or merely as a by-product - well-intentioned or otherwise... regardless, it was there. It carried an immense amount of persuasion and allure - and still does to a large majority.
But I believe this pursuit is empty - and don't get me wrong, maybe it had a place - but not now - where we have an entirely new and vastly different set of obstacles. As Billie Beane (Brad Pitt) says in Moneyball -
"ADAPT OR DIE" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 . Y O U R E V A L U A T I O N ; C I R C A 1 9 9 7
Next topic... the ARE itself. I have so much to discuss on this subject specifically, So much - I think the most digestible approach is to snail mail you this portion of the entry. No, not really... but the analogy parallels the state of the ARE. I would strongly encourage everyone to listen to the most recent 'Young Architect' podcast episode (#039) with John Cary... around the 25:00 mark.
- The ARE transitioned to computerized testing in 1997 - and the same software has been utilized for the past 21 years!
- With the ever-present, incessantly rapid advancement of technology how is the test (the thing that is identifying who is capable and constituting how to practice) NOT advancing with the times? Mind boggling. Could you imagine if we were using the same software / technology to design / produce that was used back in 1997?
- Just for fun - and to reprieve ourselves from the somewhat daunting nature of this topic. Let's take a look at some cultural milestones / events / happenings from 1997.
>>> Gas was $1.22 / Gallon... (Are you kidding me?!)
>>> The Dow was clocking in at under 8,000 - (At the time of writing its at 24,741.19)
>>> Princess Diana dies in a car accident
>>> Hong Kong returns to Chinese rule (from UK rule)
>>> Madeleine Albright becomes the first woman secretary of state in United States history.
>>> The followers of the Heaven Gates Cult commit mass suicide in California
>>> Mother Teresa dies
>>> Mike Tyson bites off the ear of Evander Holyfield
>>> A civil jury finds O.J. Simpson 'guilty'.
>>> Tiger Woods becomes the youngest person to ever win the Masters (at the impressive age of 21!)
>>> Internet Explorer version 4.0 released. (Ha. this one made me chuckle.)
>>> Notorious B.I.G. shot and killed in a drive by shooting.
>>> J.K. Rowlings first book published as 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'... (later released in 1998 as what we know it as now.)
- The ARE transitioned to computerized testing in 1997 - and the same software has been utilized for the past 21 years!
- With the ever-present, incessantly rapid advancement of technology how is the test (the thing that is identifying who is capable and constituting how to practice) NOT advancing with the times? Mind boggling. Could you imagine if we were using the same software / technology to design / produce that was used back in 1997?
- Just for fun - and to reprieve ourselves from the somewhat daunting nature of this topic. Let's take a look at some cultural milestones / events / happenings from 1997.
>>> Gas was $1.22 / Gallon... (Are you kidding me?!)
>>> The Dow was clocking in at under 8,000 - (At the time of writing its at 24,741.19)
>>> Princess Diana dies in a car accident
>>> Hong Kong returns to Chinese rule (from UK rule)
>>> Madeleine Albright becomes the first woman secretary of state in United States history.
>>> The followers of the Heaven Gates Cult commit mass suicide in California
>>> Mother Teresa dies
>>> Mike Tyson bites off the ear of Evander Holyfield
>>> A civil jury finds O.J. Simpson 'guilty'.
>>> Tiger Woods becomes the youngest person to ever win the Masters (at the impressive age of 21!)
>>> Internet Explorer version 4.0 released. (Ha. this one made me chuckle.)
>>> Notorious B.I.G. shot and killed in a drive by shooting.
>>> J.K. Rowlings first book published as 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'... (later released in 1998 as what we know it as now.)
 |  |
WHAT I SEE ::
>>> The test hasn't changed because it hasn't had to. There isn't enough demand or incentive to revise the format or the substance. Until there is a direct recourse or drought - I'm not sure if we will ever witness such a restructure / adjustment. Don't get me wrong though - I don't believe that such an effort will address or resolve the true issues at hand - which is the avowed validity of the test, including the subject matter in and of itself.
>>> The test hasn't changed because it hasn't had to. There isn't enough demand or incentive to revise the format or the substance. Until there is a direct recourse or drought - I'm not sure if we will ever witness such a restructure / adjustment. Don't get me wrong though - I don't believe that such an effort will address or resolve the true issues at hand - which is the avowed validity of the test, including the subject matter in and of itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 . V A L I D I T Y
!!! From this point on I will be sharing my humble opinion - if not interested, understandable. Just wanted to be up front with the transition in format.
- The concept of commissioning a standardized test is both a half-baked philosophical gaff and a seemingly banal gesture towards doing a positive thing for the profession. However, I think it fails in the very nature that it was founded. I think it comes down to the fact that you can not test the art aspect of our profession. And more so - now than ever - that is what distinguishes value in architecture and design - otherwise, we would merely be yes men/women and developers play things... showcased and shown like baseball cards - in protective sleeves and only pulled when desired as a conversation piece. You just can't test certain aspects of the individual. Including the innate skill or ability to lead, create, inspire, a visionary-readied savant. We have sacrificed so much power, vitality and dynamism because we have been reduced to production - to a standard that is so un-laughably low and contagious with curtailed potential, adventure and viability - and the worse part is that the fault lies at our feet. It's self inflicted.
- This argument is matched in the highly scrutinized standardize testing that takes place in most public schools across America. With the criticism aimed at the core structure of education - that it has been altered to achieve certain scores - either for an increased allocation of government funding or merely for image sake or an attractive check box when relocating the family. We have allowed everything to become commoditized - including something as sacred as education. The neglect that is a result of this? Numerous inestimable attributes within kids become swallowed in this tactical and standardized approach. Of course, it should be mentioned the monumental legislative attention (i.e. the No Child Left Behind Act) that has come to fruition as a result. Now, all that being said I'm not saying one approach is more 'fitting' than the other and I hope that you take the time to research and decide for yourself (if such a thing interests you). What I am saying and stand by - there are incalculable consequences to decisions and I sincerely wish we took time to think, discuss, and ultimately seek and promote action. For more on this topic - google 'standardized testing debate'... make sure you have popcorn and ready to hunker in for days on end. There is an impressive amount of material on the endless vaccuum known as the intrawebs. Another good one to watch :: Sir Ken Robinson Ted Talk
WHAT I SEE ::
>>> There are abilities within human beings that aren't encapsulated within a myopic metric, rot with flaws and agenda. So, how can we embrace the beauty and spirit of the human element, the mind, the awe of creating - while also ensuring that we are maintaining a safe and progressive practice? To me, it comes down to intent - to passion, and dedication, and the ability to lead, to contribute in a positive manner, an innate talent, insatiable curiosity, character. It comes down to who that person is - the test material ain't coverin' that! Yes, of course there are some very basic understandings of the code, built-world, construction, tectonics, systems, business, and all the ins and outs of architecture and design - but to be frank - I'm not certain the test is a participle that guarantees competence or cognitive abilities that exceed those that aren't licensed - especially as it pertains to the execution of safe and sound spaces. I have seen, interacted, worked with/for, conversed with more licensed architects that scare the shit out of me (by their lack of knowledge) than unlicensed architects or designers. There are many individuals who use and abuse the process as a means to an end in order to make money or operate a machine. These folks don't hold a single ounce of care for the built environment or general public - it's more of an aristocratic semblance. So, with that understanding (yes, first hand experience) then the argument that is the mission statement doesn't hold a flame to the actuality. The test not only enslaves momentary memory - a mere regurgitation of transitory information but its builds a platform to complacency and (possibly) a general lack of care all together. It is a benchmark that chalks a finish line at an unacceptably marginalized level of 'success' or 'contribution'.
>>> Not only is it an exercise regarding recollection of the short term but architects often relinquish the exact areas they are so exhaustively learned to third party companies... I.e. Civil Engineers, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Engineers, Structural Engineers, Spec Writers, Code Consultants, Landscape Architects... the list goes on and on. My point is the entire process is geared to the 'temporary' attainment of information and not thought provocation or what I believe is the single most distinguishing factor that defines the person... the quality of the execution and the manner in which it is realized. It allows no wiggle room for what are, quite possibly, the most valuable and sustainable marks in remarkable designers / architects.
>>> Also, I want to take a moment to share my experience in an office environment. It is the young individuals - the designers, the emerging professionals, the recent grads (the team members who make up the large percentage of task force that are largely unlicensed) that are actually performing the bulk of the production / drawings. The Principals, Architects, Project Managers, Owners, etc etc... (let's say for sake of argument the ones who are licensed) are the ones out generating work / marketing. Which, by the way, mad respect to them because that is absolutely and undeniably the hardest part of the j.o.b. - OR - they are managing, overseeing, manhandling 300+ projects simultaneously. This means that oversight from licensed professionals is minimal at best. And - spoiler alert - the profession is operating at such a nauseatingly intense rate right now - that all we can do is show each other a little empathy and respect. So, with that in mind, 'condensed' deadlines are the new standard - and let's say drawings have to get to the City at an inopportune time - and let's also say the proprietor with the stamp isn't around. Yep - you see where this is going... someone just stamps it for them. The supervision / care in quality control is equal parts maddening and perplexing. This point is getting long - but what I'm trying to say - the young folk are doing the bulk of the work - and everyone is moving so fast right now as a reflection of the marketplace - mentorship / assistance is the first 'amenity' to be jettisoned out the window. Which - possibly - supports a stance that maybe the management/control isn't necessary - which then tests the relevance of 'license'.
- This argument is matched in the highly scrutinized standardize testing that takes place in most public schools across America. With the criticism aimed at the core structure of education - that it has been altered to achieve certain scores - either for an increased allocation of government funding or merely for image sake or an attractive check box when relocating the family. We have allowed everything to become commoditized - including something as sacred as education. The neglect that is a result of this? Numerous inestimable attributes within kids become swallowed in this tactical and standardized approach. Of course, it should be mentioned the monumental legislative attention (i.e. the No Child Left Behind Act) that has come to fruition as a result. Now, all that being said I'm not saying one approach is more 'fitting' than the other and I hope that you take the time to research and decide for yourself (if such a thing interests you). What I am saying and stand by - there are incalculable consequences to decisions and I sincerely wish we took time to think, discuss, and ultimately seek and promote action. For more on this topic - google 'standardized testing debate'... make sure you have popcorn and ready to hunker in for days on end. There is an impressive amount of material on the endless vaccuum known as the intrawebs. Another good one to watch :: Sir Ken Robinson Ted Talk
WHAT I SEE ::
>>> There are abilities within human beings that aren't encapsulated within a myopic metric, rot with flaws and agenda. So, how can we embrace the beauty and spirit of the human element, the mind, the awe of creating - while also ensuring that we are maintaining a safe and progressive practice? To me, it comes down to intent - to passion, and dedication, and the ability to lead, to contribute in a positive manner, an innate talent, insatiable curiosity, character. It comes down to who that person is - the test material ain't coverin' that! Yes, of course there are some very basic understandings of the code, built-world, construction, tectonics, systems, business, and all the ins and outs of architecture and design - but to be frank - I'm not certain the test is a participle that guarantees competence or cognitive abilities that exceed those that aren't licensed - especially as it pertains to the execution of safe and sound spaces. I have seen, interacted, worked with/for, conversed with more licensed architects that scare the shit out of me (by their lack of knowledge) than unlicensed architects or designers. There are many individuals who use and abuse the process as a means to an end in order to make money or operate a machine. These folks don't hold a single ounce of care for the built environment or general public - it's more of an aristocratic semblance. So, with that understanding (yes, first hand experience) then the argument that is the mission statement doesn't hold a flame to the actuality. The test not only enslaves momentary memory - a mere regurgitation of transitory information but its builds a platform to complacency and (possibly) a general lack of care all together. It is a benchmark that chalks a finish line at an unacceptably marginalized level of 'success' or 'contribution'.
>>> Not only is it an exercise regarding recollection of the short term but architects often relinquish the exact areas they are so exhaustively learned to third party companies... I.e. Civil Engineers, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing Engineers, Structural Engineers, Spec Writers, Code Consultants, Landscape Architects... the list goes on and on. My point is the entire process is geared to the 'temporary' attainment of information and not thought provocation or what I believe is the single most distinguishing factor that defines the person... the quality of the execution and the manner in which it is realized. It allows no wiggle room for what are, quite possibly, the most valuable and sustainable marks in remarkable designers / architects.
>>> Also, I want to take a moment to share my experience in an office environment. It is the young individuals - the designers, the emerging professionals, the recent grads (the team members who make up the large percentage of task force that are largely unlicensed) that are actually performing the bulk of the production / drawings. The Principals, Architects, Project Managers, Owners, etc etc... (let's say for sake of argument the ones who are licensed) are the ones out generating work / marketing. Which, by the way, mad respect to them because that is absolutely and undeniably the hardest part of the j.o.b. - OR - they are managing, overseeing, manhandling 300+ projects simultaneously. This means that oversight from licensed professionals is minimal at best. And - spoiler alert - the profession is operating at such a nauseatingly intense rate right now - that all we can do is show each other a little empathy and respect. So, with that in mind, 'condensed' deadlines are the new standard - and let's say drawings have to get to the City at an inopportune time - and let's also say the proprietor with the stamp isn't around. Yep - you see where this is going... someone just stamps it for them. The supervision / care in quality control is equal parts maddening and perplexing. This point is getting long - but what I'm trying to say - the young folk are doing the bulk of the work - and everyone is moving so fast right now as a reflection of the marketplace - mentorship / assistance is the first 'amenity' to be jettisoned out the window. Which - possibly - supports a stance that maybe the management/control isn't necessary - which then tests the relevance of 'license'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4 . T R U S T G O E S A L O N G W A Y
- So, this one might seem a little off - but it hits home with me. I simply don't trust it. And maybe trust is the wrong word but it seems harmonious with my stance. And why would I invest in something I guilelessly don't believe in? I feel like if they authentically lived true to their mission statement - NCARB (and the AIA for that matter) would consider the profession as a whole and not reduce it down to an obscure authoritarian check list. It is glaringly overt to me (and maybe it is the skeptic in me) that it's a cash game. Here is why I believe this... Why is the determinate 'license' process almost entirely centralized around a test. Why does it stop there? Why aren't they considering the actual factors of practicing. Its seems grotesquely lopsided by comparison. Listen, I am not saying anything other than - from an outsider perspective - as soon as the exams are passed and the licensed obtained... they go dark - outside of collecting membership renewals (see 'by the numbesr'). There is no oversight in the actual methods or techniques of the individual or firm. There is no interest in quality control of the operational usage of the things just studied. There is no assistance in the standard of design and the marginally depressive levels as set forth by the power players... (aka developers or fast food architecture). That's the damning evidence in my book that this is just a game... the 'interest in the well being of the profession' stops where fees come to a halt. Is this plausible? Maybe this is where I see the whole system as broken - and I find myself impassioned to speak out of turn and speak up because what I observe is an injustice - maybe that is misaligned but that's my purpose for this sharing. If the whole system is anchored around 'protecting the public safety' or what not - then why does it stop before any of the substantial, hard, physical work has started. I just don't understand it - I would rather dedicate my time, money, and advocacy towards the longevity and value (invaluable) of a profession that I have such a deep respect and admiration.
- I want to introduce you all to a program that NCARB introduced back in 2016 - IPAL - Integrated Path to Architectural. This is where I believe the proof is in the pudding. It is a program - that will create a 'streamlined process to licensure' by allowing students to test, and ultimately be a licensed architect straight out of school. That's right - and yes, I heard that laugh, scoff, and witnessed the eye rub. You might be asking, why the prickly and pointed commentary? All, I was a student once; and to think I could have been licensed straight out of the world of university is terrifying. I was young - I was egotistical, idealistic, naieve - all with a chip on my shoulder and something to prove. I was what my favorite fifth year professor expressed as 'talented yet impressively green and recklessly raw.' Ha... in retrospect I was beyond offended but now... I see that it was more true than I ever could have possibly had the stability to imagine. It's scary to think where I would be if I had the opportunity to be licensed in that stage of my life. I know, I know - I can't apply my circumstance and personal experiences to all... generalizations such as that are both ignorant and insubstantial. However, the knowledge, experience, practice that I have learned comes with TIME and exposure and a certain voracity to absorb anything and everything about this profession - which happens AFTER school. All that being said, it goes back full circle - a game. The faster they can get individuals licensed... the more entailed registration fees. See, in education - students (my past self included) are completely susceptible (to) and swept (by) the euphoria of the curriculum and creation aspect of the 'life', And they should be - its an invigorating time where you have the world at your fingertips. However, you learn all the tangible, real, guttural facets of the profession while serving several years in the trenches (whether I agree with the standard operations of the practice or not - its true). I am sitting here, now and just thinking about it. To be 23 and licensed... honestly, I'm happy that it wasn't an option back then... and I am not certain I should be happy it is an option now. More discussions on this here ... and here .
- The more time I spend here on this fine earth the more I find myself questioning processes that intend to enforce a type of linearity - or put things in a box - especially in a field that embodies creativity, boldness, and a keen artistic current. The lifeblood of design is that there is no absolute. It is definitely not a clean, singular model. We are disciplined to question everything, question often, and never accept the easy / obvious answer. Architecture wholeheartedly necessitates a type of symbiotic existence - not only pertinent to the originality of ideas and projects but also relationally - to real world applications and the interactions along the way. I realize that things are never as simple as they seem. This proves true in this tale as well.
- I want to introduce you all to a program that NCARB introduced back in 2016 - IPAL - Integrated Path to Architectural. This is where I believe the proof is in the pudding. It is a program - that will create a 'streamlined process to licensure' by allowing students to test, and ultimately be a licensed architect straight out of school. That's right - and yes, I heard that laugh, scoff, and witnessed the eye rub. You might be asking, why the prickly and pointed commentary? All, I was a student once; and to think I could have been licensed straight out of the world of university is terrifying. I was young - I was egotistical, idealistic, naieve - all with a chip on my shoulder and something to prove. I was what my favorite fifth year professor expressed as 'talented yet impressively green and recklessly raw.' Ha... in retrospect I was beyond offended but now... I see that it was more true than I ever could have possibly had the stability to imagine. It's scary to think where I would be if I had the opportunity to be licensed in that stage of my life. I know, I know - I can't apply my circumstance and personal experiences to all... generalizations such as that are both ignorant and insubstantial. However, the knowledge, experience, practice that I have learned comes with TIME and exposure and a certain voracity to absorb anything and everything about this profession - which happens AFTER school. All that being said, it goes back full circle - a game. The faster they can get individuals licensed... the more entailed registration fees. See, in education - students (my past self included) are completely susceptible (to) and swept (by) the euphoria of the curriculum and creation aspect of the 'life', And they should be - its an invigorating time where you have the world at your fingertips. However, you learn all the tangible, real, guttural facets of the profession while serving several years in the trenches (whether I agree with the standard operations of the practice or not - its true). I am sitting here, now and just thinking about it. To be 23 and licensed... honestly, I'm happy that it wasn't an option back then... and I am not certain I should be happy it is an option now. More discussions on this here ... and here .
- The more time I spend here on this fine earth the more I find myself questioning processes that intend to enforce a type of linearity - or put things in a box - especially in a field that embodies creativity, boldness, and a keen artistic current. The lifeblood of design is that there is no absolute. It is definitely not a clean, singular model. We are disciplined to question everything, question often, and never accept the easy / obvious answer. Architecture wholeheartedly necessitates a type of symbiotic existence - not only pertinent to the originality of ideas and projects but also relationally - to real world applications and the interactions along the way. I realize that things are never as simple as they seem. This proves true in this tale as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 . C H E C K S & B A L A N C E S
- There are many parties at play and many eyes on the ball - there is oversight from multiple third parties - with scrupulous and detailed specifications. I would get it if the entire process was held in the architects' palms... but it isn't. Every project has jurisdictions, regulations, restrictions from various organizations and municipalities. From the CODE (IBC, IRC or otherwise) or the CITY/COUNTY/STATE specifications. So, to be succinct - I would COMPLETELY understand the whole 'public welfare' argument if the 'architect' is the end all, be all, know all, see all. poof - done. But it's simply not the case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6 . B Y T H E N U M B E R $ . . .
ncarb ::
(A brief / elementary run down of money drawn from the NCARB in 2017) ::
< a > :: 41,423 [active licensure candidates] x 85 [annual renewal fee] = $3,520,955
< b > :: 42,384 [certificate holders] x 225 [annual renewal fee] = $9,536,400
< c > :: 54,164 [division tests administered] x 210 [cost per exam] = $11,374,440
< d > :: 17,450 [division test retakes] x 210 [cost per exam] = $3,664,500
______________________________________________________________________________
< x > :: sub total = $28,096,295 (annually!)
< a > :: 41,423 [active licensure candidates] x 85 [annual renewal fee] = $3,520,955
< b > :: 42,384 [certificate holders] x 225 [annual renewal fee] = $9,536,400
< c > :: 54,164 [division tests administered] x 210 [cost per exam] = $11,374,440
< d > :: 17,450 [division test retakes] x 210 [cost per exam] = $3,664,500
______________________________________________________________________________
< x > :: sub total = $28,096,295 (annually!)
!!! This is not including other miscellaneous fees such as transcripts, reactivation fees, rescheduling fees, processing fees, lapsed record fees, and more.
aia ::
(the AIA seems to be a touch more elusive with their 'dues' - therefore, this is a crude estimation) ::
< a > :: $500-700 [annually dependent upon location] x 90,000 [or so members]
_________________________________________________________________________________
< x > :: sub total approximately = $45,000,000 - $63,000,000 (annually!)
< a > :: $500-700 [annually dependent upon location] x 90,000 [or so members]
_________________________________________________________________________________
< x > :: sub total approximately = $45,000,000 - $63,000,000 (annually!)
!!! This is not including miscellaneous fees such as transcripts, reactivation fees, processing fees, lapsed record fees, etc.
??? References ::
Supporting documentation found here :: aia about; aiaNY
I had to turn to some atypical resources due to lack of discovery :: Archinect; reddit architecture
and for good measure a link to an article in the AIA's defense from a podcast I enjoy :: here
Supporting documentation found here :: aia about; aiaNY
I had to turn to some atypical resources due to lack of discovery :: Archinect; reddit architecture
and for good measure a link to an article in the AIA's defense from a podcast I enjoy :: here
WHAT I SEE ::
>>> I'm not really trying to say much - I would have to know more about the financial obligations of these organizations in order to form an opinion. I just thought it might be worth running some quick calculations regarding the amount of money at play. I can confidently say that those numbers are an impressive amount of income (~100M combined... annually).
- I can also safely say that if I was the head of an establishment with such resources I would do everything in my power to campaign for great design, intentional development, the future, the people. We must educate the general public (developers and the private sector alike) about good design and the role that architecture plays in the advancement of culture and the very fabric of cities, state, and nation. And I mean truly educate not just use it as a type of strategic marketing subset - and I could be way off base - but I see Architecture and Design in a state of attrition and we must invest our resources in re-establishing our esteem, our presence, our reverence, our spark, our mystique, our stature, our prestige, our swagger (yeah I said it).
>>> I'm not really trying to say much - I would have to know more about the financial obligations of these organizations in order to form an opinion. I just thought it might be worth running some quick calculations regarding the amount of money at play. I can confidently say that those numbers are an impressive amount of income (~100M combined... annually).
- I can also safely say that if I was the head of an establishment with such resources I would do everything in my power to campaign for great design, intentional development, the future, the people. We must educate the general public (developers and the private sector alike) about good design and the role that architecture plays in the advancement of culture and the very fabric of cities, state, and nation. And I mean truly educate not just use it as a type of strategic marketing subset - and I could be way off base - but I see Architecture and Design in a state of attrition and we must invest our resources in re-establishing our esteem, our presence, our reverence, our spark, our mystique, our stature, our prestige, our swagger (yeah I said it).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7 . W H A T ' S I N A N A M E ? ? ?
- I'll try to make this one brief. Many might be surprised (others, probably not) by the multitude of celebrated 'architects' that were/are not licensed... and this is a meaty list ::
| f r a n k l l o y d w r i g h t l o u i s s u l l i v a n p e t e r z u m t h o r | l u d w i g m i e s v a n d e r r o h e t a d a o a n d o r e n z o p i a n o | l e c o r b u s i e r c a r l o s c a r p a d a n i e l l i b e s k i n d |
amidst others... and some speculations reach as far as Rem Koolhaas and Bjarke Ingels lacking the prescriptive credentials as well - but I can't find anything formally corroborating one way or another... those gents seem to be enigmas wrapped inside a mystery. I'm not even mad, it's amazing.
- it goes without saying that this is where I tend to go cross-eyed in the foggy notion of 'titles' and 'namings' - what's allowed and what isn't. I remember some time ago, I got a slap on the wrist for using a certain title on my linked in profile... the position for which I was hired actually. This is the first time I was introduced to the legislative implications of 'misleading / misinforming' the public by using the word 'architect' - technically, I think it was 'design architect'. I was flabbergasted - not only by my ignorance but also that I had absolutely no intention of misinforming or misguiding anyone... ever... and quite frankly, the picture they painted was a stretch - almost out of touch with reality - what I saw as an apparent shaming tactic. As a matter of fact, I relived the exchange later that night and I categorized it as misguided. That day I saw it clearly - a game - my favorite as a kid... mouse trap. I mulled over the scene in its entirety - those around me with the legal fulfillment of the title (colleagues who had 'architect' tattooed on their identity - not all by the way) - I can't say I was impressed with any of it outside of the creation aspect - and therefore had no intention of making the name a highly sought after goal. And just for clarification, a little insider information, any body sitting behind a monitor in an 'architectural firm' is practicing architecture - no matter the obscurity of recent trends in how to represent yourself.... job captain, intern, project manager, emerging professional, architectural designer, hell - even principal, owner, founder and yes - worse yet - starchitect, design ninja, thought leader, concept maverick, culture guru - yikes. You see - the accountability is not in a 'word' or whats on your business card. It's what you are DOING and how you are DOING it - I have said it before and I will say it 1000 times over - it is in the quality of your contributions. It is in your abilities, your talent, your work ethic and self ethics - your qualities as a person, leader, creator, artist. If anything, I didn't want to be an architect... I still don't - and quite frankly I don't care what you call me... call me by my name - call me a four letter word... all I ask is that you just watch me work - because the work should be self-evident and your abilities should be a direct reflection of your commitment. Don't put me (or yourself for that matter) in a box with a pretty little bow.
- Are we so weak as a profession that we are hyper-focused on a term. Have we been whittled down to symptomatic classification and sticky semantics? I am halfway ashamed with myself for even engaging in the diatribe - because at the end of the day - no one organization or set of standards can define a person - especially an entity that holds a monopoly on conduct. It should not be so plastic, so homogeneous, so laden with inaccuracies, assumptions and obstructions. Where has our passion gone? Where has our vision and desire and care gone? Are we so empty that we have lowered ourselves to a type of metaphorical cannibalism that has run rampant in current events? Just another example of a polarized sector decrepit with split constituents on a fractured philosophy. We have to be better than this. We aren't even talking about the concept anymore - (architecture as a concept or idea). It has been diluted to a word, a shouting match, an impaired, predictable expose saturated by opinions and muscled by the threat of litigation. Are we so predictable - the great thinkers of this age? This is where we are? I challenge us to be better - as a collective whole.
- Are we so weak as a profession that we are hyper-focused on a term. Have we been whittled down to symptomatic classification and sticky semantics? I am halfway ashamed with myself for even engaging in the diatribe - because at the end of the day - no one organization or set of standards can define a person - especially an entity that holds a monopoly on conduct. It should not be so plastic, so homogeneous, so laden with inaccuracies, assumptions and obstructions. Where has our passion gone? Where has our vision and desire and care gone? Are we so empty that we have lowered ourselves to a type of metaphorical cannibalism that has run rampant in current events? Just another example of a polarized sector decrepit with split constituents on a fractured philosophy. We have to be better than this. We aren't even talking about the concept anymore - (architecture as a concept or idea). It has been diluted to a word, a shouting match, an impaired, predictable expose saturated by opinions and muscled by the threat of litigation. Are we so predictable - the great thinkers of this age? This is where we are? I challenge us to be better - as a collective whole.
*** I know, I know - I failed at keeping it brief...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8 . F I N D I N G A P L A C E .
- After reading through this all, again, for the 35th time... I still find myself asking what is the bottom line, the heart of the matter, the take away - what am I trying to convey? - maybe it's this... It's time for a revolution - and it sounds so embarrassingly juvenile when I say it but I am sincere. And not a type of misconstrued coup or overthrow... but a complete revitalization. Fresh, new, modern - far more applicable and exceedingly more relevant to the times of today and the advancement of tomorrow. Not only a monastic look into how we study, how we test, but also how we practice, implement and influence. Not reform... it's too late for that. We need to dramatically re-think and re-organize and re-direct. There has to be FAR more conversation - with consequential and dedicated action towards a common goal - to re-attain the heightened image of our profession - one that is earned. The test(s) and the type of conveyor belt mentality has visibly compromised our value as designers, architects, creatives. I see such great opportunity - immense potential. We have to identify the obstacles / challenges / gaps at hand and move forward. The business model of architecture is baked. Its inoculated with antiquity - and not pertaining to honorable historical casts but with quintessential old world thinking. We are watching the world pass us by and outside factors happening to us instead of us happening to the world - the built world. I believe it an incredibly auspicious time for transition. We are witnessing unparalleled advances in society, civilization, technology, and perspective.
- NCARB and the AIA have an unbelievable platform to be an intensely positive role in this process - if they so desire - because what I see is an incredibly weakened state. People are questioning - which means that people have ideas - I just hope the powers that be... listen. And I desperately hold on to hope and love and great expectations for this lifestyle we have all chosen. Judgement is a frame of mind that is absent in progress. The intention is not to judge and most certainly not to be victim to the current state of affairs - but to think, and present. To muster up the courage to speak respectfully and constructively about methods, ideas and philosophies and how these tie into the recognized reality of what an architect is and does - let alone the staying power, vim and vigor of the craft itself. Let's do great things and let's stop reducing ourselves to gossip, to semantics, to settling for a suffocating and restrictive configuration of what 'has to be'. It's up to you, It's up to me, It's up to us. All types, all titles.
- NCARB and the AIA have an unbelievable platform to be an intensely positive role in this process - if they so desire - because what I see is an incredibly weakened state. People are questioning - which means that people have ideas - I just hope the powers that be... listen. And I desperately hold on to hope and love and great expectations for this lifestyle we have all chosen. Judgement is a frame of mind that is absent in progress. The intention is not to judge and most certainly not to be victim to the current state of affairs - but to think, and present. To muster up the courage to speak respectfully and constructively about methods, ideas and philosophies and how these tie into the recognized reality of what an architect is and does - let alone the staying power, vim and vigor of the craft itself. Let's do great things and let's stop reducing ourselves to gossip, to semantics, to settling for a suffocating and restrictive configuration of what 'has to be'. It's up to you, It's up to me, It's up to us. All types, all titles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RESOURCES, REFERENCES + FURTHER ARTICLES / ASSERTIONS
1. WAR OF THE WORDS
2. FEUD BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND THEIR UNLICENSED COMPETITION CONTINUES
3. AIA RESPONDS TO STATES REDUCTION OF ARCHITECTURAL LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS
4. AIA: LICENSING PROTECTS THE PUBLIC
5. AIA SPEAKS OUT... AGAIN
6. TRUST ME, IM AN (UNLICENSED) ARCHITECT
7. TO BE OR NOT TO BE... LICENSED
8. THE INSANITY OF DOCTOR RE-CERTIFICATION (architecture isn't the only profession with pain points).
9. LICENSURE FOR ARCHITECTS: A WORTHY DEBATE?
10. CALLING YOURSELF AN ARCHITECT
2. FEUD BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND THEIR UNLICENSED COMPETITION CONTINUES
3. AIA RESPONDS TO STATES REDUCTION OF ARCHITECTURAL LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS
4. AIA: LICENSING PROTECTS THE PUBLIC
5. AIA SPEAKS OUT... AGAIN
6. TRUST ME, IM AN (UNLICENSED) ARCHITECT
7. TO BE OR NOT TO BE... LICENSED
8. THE INSANITY OF DOCTOR RE-CERTIFICATION (architecture isn't the only profession with pain points).
9. LICENSURE FOR ARCHITECTS: A WORTHY DEBATE?
10. CALLING YOURSELF AN ARCHITECT
!!! Make sure you check out the comments section - it will show the type of schism that exists within the profession
RSS Feed