The Congress of Residential Architecture

Boy, that would suck when I know how to do that without the NAAB degree. I wholeheartedly agree, there needs to be point of getting the schools on track of the important things so they are really ready to be in an office. This should not be meant to be a generality of all the schools but the ones that are out of touch.

Hi Anna,

WELCOME! And, in the spirit of full disclosure, ;^) could you introduce yourself and edit you name since this is a real names forum. It is fantastic to have someone from Dennis's office on board.

FWIW, we have all commuted offline, (Dennis, CORA, & CRAN) and everything is good. Dennis and you are totally valid in your interpretation of our vial, almost rabid tone. On the content, we need to debate some items. It is why we reached to everyone for help, and still do. This is a moving and malleable manifesto. We are actually working on another "softer kinder gentler" version that will be submitted to the AIA on Thursday so it can be presented formally to the AIA as a resolution in Miami. We look forward to you future participation.

Thanks again for joining us,

David Andreozzi

Hi David,

I'm sorry - I don't know how to edit my user name! But I added a signature...hopefully that worked!

To clarify, I graduated from UPenn as an undergraduate with a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Architecture. Penn does not offer a Bachelor of Architecture - although I'm not sure why.

The graduate program at Penn's School of Design does encompass those classes that you outlined, Rick - but as I have not attended any of them, I cannot speak to their effectiveness or success.

Even though I understand there is a difference between a BA and a BArch and hence the focus of my program may have been tilted towards a liberal arts education - my classmates and I took 6-semester long intensive studios, one focusing on landscape architecture, and a required 4 art history classes on the history of architecture. We were required to take Physics and calculus as well (although I haven't found myself using too much calculus in my everyday work). Additionally, the majority of my class went on to work in architecture related fields. I feel we would have been served with a little less lovey-dovey, self understanding mumbo-jumbo and a little more focus on practice in the real world. Or at least it should have been an optional class for those of us interested in it.

As I spent 90% of my school time in studio working on these intensive projects, presented my material before a panel of architects every semester, learned to draw technically, worked with the Philadelphia Housing Authority on projects for low-income families, worked on the landscape design of the new Riverwalk project along the Schuylkill, and much more - I feel a little cheated by all the time I spent and can't even start my IDP in most states.

But - such is life. Guess I can't argue for better educated architects and then be angry that I'm not allowed to start internship without an accredited degree!

Anna, I think you might have misinterpreted my statement a little bit. It was suggested areas that every graduate of a architecture program should attain through the school. You can attain it via self-study or in some work places or such but that is fine. You already gone through it. I wouldn't expect you to take another couple years of studies to attain it. It is suggestion for future and I would expect some knowledge of it, currently but would be the point of having preparation into any work setting. It is something students should be prepared if they are coming in with 5-6 years of education they should be equivalent to what a person would have attained in 5-6 years of work and self-study (with guidance on what needs to be learned which can be attained through numerous ways). An Architect should be able to perform design service for any building, any project with minimum work of refreshing or learning of specific construction systems.

The tone of the letter regarding the AIA is necessary because of its long standing indifference to the residential component of its membership. This goes back well over the 25 years or so since I got out of school. Fundamental reform and reorganization is what is required in order to get it to begin working for the members in the residential realm. And that is why the letter is so volatile towards AIA.

I don't see much surprise or disagreement about this with most residential architects I know. They are either not members any longer, or roll their eyes when it comes up.

Anna - it sounds like you went through Penn's Design of the Enviroment program. For the benefit of others, this a 4 yr non-accredited undergraduate design program. Many of the graduates from this program go on to 2 or 3 yr Graduate programs and earn a MArch. I've had many friends in Philadelphia go through this program, and its outstanding for teaching design fundamentals - the kind of stuff that many of us architects on this board lament that RD do not have a foundation in.

Never the less, there is not the full technical content of an accredited program. This is essentially a liberal arts degree with a focus on design. I think the criticisms of architectural education stand, but they really can not be directed at this particular program. It is not meant to be a professional degree. It is not a program waiting for NAAB certification, at least it was not the last time I checked. That is just not its purpose. This is the way it has been for a long time - at least the 20 years I've known it, probably much much longer. It is a design ciriculum, and it is not seeking to be a professional program.

Anna - I don't know what kind of advice you received prior to going there, and perhaps this was not explained well to you. That would be a shame, if that was the case because after investing in many years in school nobody wants to learn that the program did not take you where you expected to go.

Again the crit of archiecture schools is valid - perhaps not this one - but largely they are. Accredited programs lack a balance between design education and practice education.

Actually a boycott and mass resignation would get their attention. Letters. No matter how strongly worded, are just paper. We could vote with our feet.

When I was at UVA, if you showed any interest in the actual business of architecture or were interested in the technical aspects of the buildings you designed, you were branded a "non-designer" and your grades would suffer. There was an attitude that you could not be interested in such mundane stuff and still be a great designer from an aesthetic or theoretical viewpoint. And I don't think that has changed a bit since then. What a shame.

And the non-accredited degree scam Penn and other schools (UVA included) pulled on their students like Anna is criminal. Most student did not realize the dead end they were on until too late. What a shame.

When you see these travesties in the "system," it's hard to fault anyone for becoming a non-registered residential designer and being resentful towards the system.

You know, I have always heard stories about schools like this ever since I graduated. And I could tell stories about the graduates I encountered in Philadelphia after moving to the region. I feel very fortunate to have gone to RPI when I did. We all received a strong technical education as well as a mind challenging design education. In fact for my final project in my 5th year I designed a suburban subdivision, and associated commercial district including a range of house floor plans that were specific to the town planning. In no way was I treated as if this was a mundane subject, or a topic not worthy of a "designer". They saw it as a serious and relevant design question. In fact I shared the final project prize that year with a friend that designed a performing arts center for a private school - the highest honor they gave for final projects. There was very little pretense, and in some ways I see it as a being a model for what is needed today. Of course a school is as liquid as a tide, and as teachers and administrators change so does the nature of the school.

Greg, while the program is no longer referred to as Design of the Environment - simply the undergraduate program in architecture - it holds many of the same principles as the older program. And if fact, it really should be referred to as the DOE, as it is unclear to students what the focus of the program is.

Yes, you are correct - as the major is within the college of arts and sciences, it is meant to be a liberal arts degree, not an accredited architectural degree.

As a student, I was unfortuanately not given any sound advice towards practicing professional architecture or what the aims of this program were meant to be. I have been an advisor to many freshman interested in the program (while in school and after graduation) and have had to explain this to them as well - much to their surprise. It is not portrayed as simply a liberal arts degree while you're in the program and no one ever clearly explained to us the difference.

Sadly, I didn't know much or anything about IDP while I was a student. It was never discussed. I didn't do enough research into my own future profession - so I have no one to blame but myself in that regard. Of course, my only options after realizing this would have been to transfer or suck it up. As I was not prepared to transfer - I went with the latter option.

My complaints still hold for the program, however. While I fully understand that the program is not meant to be an accredited degree program, we certainly worked like it was one. And the fact is that the majority of my class has gone on to practice in architecture firms or are currently in graduate school for an MArch.

Unfortunately - I never had someone spell it out as plainly as you did in your post while I was in school! It's not hard to tell - I'm still holding a grudge

But - all this isn't really relevant to the original post in this thread...

Both experience and the classroom have value. In the final say it will always come down to the individual. I took a college algebra coarse a few years ago to see if I still could, funny I have not used a lick of algebra since then -well that might have been $375 down the drain.

I think that it is unfortunate that more quality learning opportunities are not available for continuing education. I suspect that we will continue to see improvement in that area -particularly now that the internet is starting to mature. Maybe if Bill will ever offer a class I will take it.

I have a theory that the good people will always be good and the not so good people will always not be so good. I think licensing is good to the extent that people are a part of a structured organization potentially placing them with their peers. Unfortunately what it most often results in is the sort of protectionist fraternity mentality.

-I did it this way and only those people who did it my way are allowed to compete with me.

Architect over at DC says:


Pure and simple: I am better than everyone else and I should be paid more.

Of coarse on many building types there is no "unqualified" competition -so what is holding him back? By his own theory the elimination of unqualified persons should result in high paying jobs for all of those with high qualifications.

oops, is commercial architecture still competitive? Now let's drive out those unqualified residential designers -that ought to fix things, by the way, let's also tell everyone exactly what kind of house they should buy and how much they should pay for design services -that will fix things for sure.

The whole licensing thing is a never ending game of exclusivity. -Too many architecture programs? Now we need NAAB certification -Too many graduates? now we need IDP -Too many architects? let's make the ARE longer. How about requiring a PHD and twenty years of practical experience before letting anyone design a house? That ought to do it.

Greg, there are many ways to learn and establish the foundation ofattainb design fundamentals that a person can attain without obtaining an NAAB degree.

Many of them are the same people who makes the road more difficult for the next person. Why? Purely an attempt to stifle competition by making is a financial and patience test and if they are able to push it - they'll require 50 years of internship and 25 years of college and 100 - 8 hour exams. Wow, nice way to stifle competition but they can't do it all at once. They have to incrementally nudge it.

Blame the unlicensed person who never has anything to do with the non-exempt market. Most firms wouldn't even bother with buildings under 10,000 sq.ft. unless it is associated with a larger project like a whole campus. How many unlicensed designers attempt to design a 10,000+ sq.ft. school building. None that I know of in Oregon. Every case I know of in 10-20 years have been usually about borderline issues and interpretation issues or a title misunderstanding or cases where unlicensed person uses the term "residential architecture" and get into trouble because the word architecture is used.

Many of those drumming along are big firm AIA architects which are not even involved in the market area of unlicensed designers and never been involved. There problems are with freshly licensed but not very good architects but the unlicensed designers are the smoke screen. Instead of dealing directly with the problem, they blame the person that has not done them any wrong just because cases periodically appear with misunderstanding of the law and are mostly interpretation issues. I find that as a big line of b.s. when it happens. Yet they make the path to licensure more difficult. What is the reasoning for that?

I don't disagree with that. But this is aside from issues that prep you for the ARE. The ARE does not test you on this kind of knowledge and skill. Its subjective and never been a part of the testing and licensing process. The DOE program in question at Penn is not an NAAB certified program, so I am saying precisely the same thing you are. Design skills can be obtained outside of an NAAB certified program.

That said it takes a great deal of self discipline and self study to recreate what is learned in a full time design studio setting, NAAB or otherwise. I've not seen many RDs that have mustered that independently. Its like comparing somebody with a rare natural gift, as opposed to another who gained skills through a training in a time tested curriculum. The first is rare, the second can be produced rather reliably.