Founders

Charles Starck, AIA
Principal, C. F. Starck & Associates, LLC

See all Charles’s activity

Stop following Follow Charles
David - I've read the revised Call to Action (can't bring myself to use the word "manifesto") and offer the following comments, hopefully constructive and not meant as derogatory in anyway, just the view of one architect who is in the trenches everyday:

1) Agree in principle that all habitable dwellings should require an architect. I think that there should still be exceptions for homeowner remodels, detached storage, barns and garages, etc. The right of the homeowner to make cosmetic changes, renovations, etc. to his own property should be maintained. Obviously if it a HSW issue, a professional should become involved but those laws are already on the books.

2) Exactly what “alternative forms of practice”? If you mean areas of specialization within an architectural practice, we have that now through the knowledge groups at AIA. Active participation in these groups should be encouraged.

3) If these institutions are the only ones to administer the continuing education requirements, it is almost guaranteed to result in increased costs and little benefit to the individual architect at a time when we can least afford it. We should continue to encourage those in industry to provide lunch and learn opportunities, online courses, etc. I don't know about others but I can't afford to to spend hundreds of dollars on continuing education at this time. NCARB is the last group to rely on for equitable administration of anything (but that is another thread).

A mandate to require pro bono service is not the answer either. It should be up to the individual firm/architect as to whether or not to participate in free services and to what organization/cause will be the beneficiary of these services. I suggest that rather than an arbitrary mandate that we work to create the environment in the profession that would conducive to us wanting to provide these services. Perhaps a continuing education credit but certainly not a mandated requirement (there are enough of these in our society and profession now).

4) I would point out that as licensed professionals; WE hold the legal status here and not LEED. LEED is voluntary at this point and one would hope, remain so. It is also not the ultimate solution to becoming environmentally aware or sustainable design. As a tool its getting better and has raised awareness of the public in general, a good thing no doubt. I'm not sure, though, exactly what we would gain here that we should (should being the operative word) already have other than reinforcement of the perception of architects as experts in sustainability.

5) I think that one year of working with a general contractor would be of far more benefit to newly minted graduates. Repeatedly over the years I have seen new graduates of our esteemed schools who have no idea how to build a structure or what the process entails. What the heck are they teaching these days? This has contributed to the overall decline of the profession as the leaders in the process (another thread on its own).

6) Agree in principle. However, if any of these suggestions are to become reality, it must start at the local level. Change from the bottom up, not from the top down. To that end, you and your group of CORA volunteers is exactly what we as a profession need to be doing and I applaud you for it. As Phil indicated in his comments above, the responsibility for change is ours. To ask the very institutions that have failed us to solve the problems is not realistic. Doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result (see our current political condition) solves nothing and results in the status quo. I agree with you that the status quo is not sustainable.

7) I think that this recognition is already there. What may be lacking is an emphasis on residential architecture at the national level. Again, the change that you seek must come from the bottom up through groups such as yours within the profession.

8) I’m not even sure what this means.

Bill Hirsch
Post subject: Re: Position Paper - 2nd draft
New postPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:59 am
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:44 pm
Posts: 264
Location: Cary, NC
Greg - Thanks for responding to my trial balloon. I agree with what you say. It's pretty hard to write something that promotes architects for house design without sounding like you are discounting the role of non-architects.

What I would really like to say, somehow, is that we (architects and the AIA) need to make ourselves so desireable to the public that people want to hire us and are not compelled to hire us. If that means they hire fewer residential designers, than that would simply be the effect of competition. My guess is the RD's in this forum, who do a good job with their work, would not find our improvements to be at all threatening.

So I agree with you that we need to make this something that improves archtiects, our services, and the public's perception of our services without regulating out anyone else. I'm open to re-writes and suggestions.

_________________
Bill Hirsch AIA
www.designingyourperfecthouse.com

Greg La Vardera
Post subject: Re: Position Paper - 2nd draft
New postPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:49 am
Offline
CORA Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:41 am
Posts: 1714
Location: merchantville, nj
I agree with Bills rewriting - except I think the way it is discussing RDs will be seen in a negative light, and not as outreach for unity. Bill, I think you and your gentle manner have done very well, but put yourself in the RDs shoes and read it again. How can you reword it so it instead comes across as an appeal to be on the same team.

And again - little indication of any outreach to other stake holders. Builders? Developers? Put yourself in their role. What does this change mean to you? What could the architects suggest that would make you buy in? You remember the estimate - only 3 percent of houses are designed by architects? Well this is a sure fire way to turn 97 percent of the industry into our opposition - and thats a fight we'll never win. In fact we would be so hopelessly opposed I find it hard to not consider it a sad joke to propose it this way.

Look - here is another stakeholder. Building code officials and permitting entities. Most plan examiners I know would be glad to have all house plans they see coming from architects. It would eliminate the lame builder sketches, and kitchen table drawings. But how about the vast majority of the country that does not even issue building permits? Are you saying that they are going to have to put administration in place now to handle all these new permits and inspections? I don't think you are, but you don't say. And I'm sure anybody eager to build opposition will tell everybody that is exactly what you want.

_________________
Greg
modern house plans: http://www.lamidesign.com/plans

Bill Hirsch
Post subject: Re: Position Paper - 2nd draft
New postPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:24 am http://www.coragroups.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1071&p=10165#p10165
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:44 pm
Posts: 263
Location: Cary, NC
I'll offer up a revision for #1 and open it up for comments and critique:

1) That the AIA, NCARB, and/or NAAB promote the value of architects in residential design by:

A. Recognizing and celebrating the importance of residential design as the backbone and foundation of all architecture.

B. Improving and promoting the expertise of architects in residential design through focused continuing education, specialty designations, and project delivery training.

C. Working with accredited architectural schools to improve and expand the traditional architectural education to better educate students in residential design.

D. Encouraging all jurisdictions to streamline the regulatory process for construction projects designed by registered architects and improving oversight of construction projects designed by non-architects.

E. Encouraging all jurisdictions to regulate residential design by either requiring registered architects or by establishing a certification of minimal professional expertise and training for licensed residential designers.

F. Establishing, and encouraging the adoption of, a model licensing process for the licensure of residential designers that could lead to full architectural registration.

Elsewhere in the position paper, I would suggest rewording many phrases to remove the haughty, elitist language and make this much more plain-spoken. I'm referring to phrases like "exposure of social relevance and innovative engagement," "beacons and mirrors," "exclusive orthodoxy," "contextual influences," "holistic," and words and phrases like that. This is a document that should not be over-written.

My other objections are that placing continuing education in the hands of the architectural schools is a terrible idea. Those are precisely the people who are failing in thier job of properly educating and training future architects. They are so out of touch with the real world, it's scary. If they handle continuing education, we will become even more irrelevant and marginalized than we already are. And the cost of CE will go up dramatically.

I also think the required pro bono work is a bad idea. Most of us barely have time for our families, let alone doing free work. Let's fix the profession and then we'll all have the time to do the pro bono work that we would all like to do anyway.

_________________
Bill Hirsch AIA
www.designingyourperfecthouse.com

Greg La Vardera
Post subject: Re: Position Paper - 2nd draft
http://coragroups.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1071
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:05 pm
CORA Moderator
Location: merchantville, nj
My brain is too spent right now to actually write somethign. The idea is this:
- we want houses to be designed by architects
- we need to make a reasonable path for qualified RDs to become architects
- we need to give builders/developers some assurance that they will be able to continue to acquire design without destroying their business model
- and we need to anticipate other stakeholders that are likely to oppose this change, and think about how we can reach an agreeable path forward.

And I don't, nobody has the answer to these yet, but that #1 has to acknowledge that they exist and express an intention to reach mutually beneficial solutions for each of them.

_________________
Greg
modern house plans: http://www.lamidesign.com/plans

David Andreozzi
Post subject: Re: Position Paper - 2nd draft
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:56 pm
http://coragroups.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1071
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Barrington, RI
Greg, #1 needs work... seriously, write an improved version...

Greg La Vardera
Post subject: Position Paper - 2nd draft
http://coragroups.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1071
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:26 pm
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:41 am
Location: merchantville, nj
The second draft of the Position Paper is out. And the predictable result is the RDs have their fur up and I can't blame them really. It certainly does not read like there was a response to their concerns.

It just seems so plain to me that this will not go anywhere if we think we can do it without reaching out to other concerned parties. If the intention is to do so, but not right now, some acknowledgment has to be made, otherwise we are certainly going to brew our own opposition.

I've stated this before elsewhere and I feel like its not taken seriously. Its discouraging.

_________________
Greg

Through out this discussion we have been open about the direction of allowing RD's to become involved with the architects and possibly creating an avenue for us to become Residential Architects. Some of us would not be able to go back to school to do this for the reason of our age or having an established business. NCARB could (would have to) adjust their requirements for the new category.

Who we have not heard from would be Duo and the other persons that have created the manifesto. Their opinion would be appreciated on the thread that has been going on.

I have to agree with David P that if we were to sign the manifesto along with you that we may as well start looking for another career.

We need to work together to make sure that the Residential Profession is first. Most of RD's do not do commercial work and strive to design the best residences in the prescribed method that we can.

When ICA and AIBD developed a program for Classical Architecture, almost 100 of us signed on for the 14 month, seven city design classes that took place. We had instructors from Robert Sterns office, Carson Looney and other noted architects listed on the manifesto teaching us. I would hope that this meant they believed in the program and were not doing this just for the money.

Greg and David- Help us out and lets see if we can convince them to reword the manifesto to show a bonding between the two organizations.

Sam Liberti
Posted by Sam Liberti,AIBD, CGP

The “Call to action” is right on. I can recall in previous recessions when the AIA sent out invitations for seminars to “How to survive the recession”, registration fee $450.00, etc., etc. They knew how to survive the recession!!! The situation with LEED is also totally accurate. LEED just creates another layer of fees to do what Architects have always had the responsibility to do.

Best wishes,

Chuck Kibler

Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:38 PM

Dear Duo,

I am in complete agreement, and equally frustrated. Please feel free to use my name and know that I will support the cause. I find myself defending the value that I can bring to a project daily now. And I fear the lack of vision and support that seems to have slowly pervaded the construction market, in both residential and commercial scale projects, and the AIA. The government’s use of contractors to define project scopes, budgets, and make critical decisions on historic properties is unheralded and quite frankly detrimental to those structures that serve as our cultural records. The slow whittling down of the services of architects in construction projects seems to allow owners to step over the architect and leaves the public seeing architects as another costly add to a project. I had hoped the AIA would step up in that lobbying department.

I hope that we will be able to make the acquaintance of one another in Miami in June.

Kind regards,
Catherine Smith, Architect
NCARB, AIA

Catherine Smith Architect, LLC
PO Box 8579
Greenville, South Carolina 29604
864 504 5170

Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:11 PM

Hi Duo,

I’m a residential architect in the Bay Area. Please add me to your endorsement list as I find the position paper to be right on target.

Thanks,

Randy Grange AIA LEED AP
Principal
TRG Architects Inc.
205 Park Road, Suite 203
Burlingame, California 94010

Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:37 PM
Mr. Dickinson,

For some reason this version of the PP made it all crystal clear, and I agree with it 100%. So it is without hesitation that I endorse your message and will be willing to help in any way possible. I will forward it on to my Architect friends, associates and colleagues.

Regards,

Robert J. Lemmen AIA, NCARB
LPA Architects, LLP
21 Greeley Ave.
Sayville, NY 11782
631-589-2914 P
631-589-6935 F
rlemmen@lpa-plans.com
www.lpa-plans.com

Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:16 PM

Duo, Please add my name to your list of endorsements of this vital position paper. I agree whole heartedly. Thank you for your time and effort on this.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Krausse Architect A.I.A.
LEED AP
2798 Alta Vista Drive
Bakersfield, California 93305
(661) 327-1311

Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:01 AM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: RE: Position Paper REVISED - Please Read and Respond
Your letter truly reflects the reason "the rest of us" have to speak up - now. Yes. I'm just pleased to find out how many "the rest of us" is proving to be! Thanks for your willingness to spearhead the issue. Many such worthwhile causes die for lack of meaningful leadership. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and support - and I hope you can take the lead where you are to go to the local architecture school, AIA chapter and every architect you know to multiply the numbers of those who sign on. The position paper is getting forwarded around through a couple of professional groups I belong to, and I'll do everything I can to spread the word. It would be great to see the profession reclaimed . . . more likely saved from extinction.

Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:11 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: Position Paper

Duo,

Thank you for elucidating many of my thoughts regarding the modern practice of architecture. I am a sole practitioner and most of my work is residential; new construction, historic rehabilitation and remodels. I also do have the occasional small commercial job. The state of architecture as a practice and as a business has become less about high standards in design, function and beauty and much more about what the City or County will approve and how many hoops one has to jump through in order to have a project approved.

Recently California, where I live and practice, instated the first continuing education requirement for continued licensure: five hours every two years in the area of accessibility. As I understand it a trial lawyer’s association is the body that was able to get this requirement approved. There are several things about this that baffle me; the first is why do trial lawyers hold any sway over the State Architect’s Board? The second is the randomness of the subject chosen for continuing education. I have read that, in California, approximately 80% of all licensed architects never work on a commercial project; obviously the great majority of work is in the residential sector. The residential sector has no mandated accessibility requirements making the continuing education requirement irrelevant for the great majority of architects.

My brother, a licensed CPA and college professor, has an 80 hour requirement for biannual renewal of his license. This is an onerous amount of time to be devoted simply to continuing education, but if that time was able to be divided over pro bono practice, relevant continuing education, mentoring, and activities related to the betterment of the profession (and society, such as volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, etc.) I would whole-heartedly endorse a plan.

You can add my name to the list of endorsers.
Patrick Slayter, Architect
P a t r I c k S l a y t e r Architect
Sebastopol, California
707 . 829 . 9090
ps@slayterarchitect.com

Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:36 AM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: CORA position paper.

I completely agree!

Bill Denny
William W. Denny
Denny & Svetlik Architects, PLLC
P 206.352.0511 F 206.352.0514
wwd@dsarc.com

Mr. Dickinson -

When I first read the CORA position paper, I spent a good half hour
struggling with what to say, and finally dropped my efforts at a
response in the hope of coming up with something more cogent at a later date.
This paper sounds like the discussions I've been having with
contractors, code officials, clients, and fellow architects since I
was far enough along in school to have an opinion on the matter. It's
such a relief to see it in print!

I have worked for almost 20 years now as a sole proprietor,
specializing in residential design. I've looked at AIA membership
repeatedly, only to come back to the conclusion again and again that
they didn't offer enough benefit to me to justify the huge expense.
Moreover, they promoted a model of architectural practice that I didn't see as healthy or sustainable.

I've watched with frustration as the local (and well-regarded) school
continues to teach architecture as being about "signature" architects
who design for acclaim from other architects, but not for their
clients, their budgets, or the environment that surrounds them.

I've worked hard to take on projects and learning opportunities that
expand my knowledge and increased my ability to serve my clients and
community long before it was required for continuing education, only
to see the formalization of continuing education fail to recognize the
validity of a great number of the sources of my best learning.

I've watched my profession become more and more burdened with
regulation, education requirements, and meaningless professional
credentials, while facing ever-reducing opportunities for practice. As
often as not, these burdens are imposed by well-meaning but misguided
bodies within the profession intending to increase the prestige and
integrity of the profession.

There's so much more I could say about why this position paper
resonates with my own beliefs. Suffice it to say I'm happy to sign on
in support of it.

Best Regards,

Alice M. Emmons, Architect
The Boyer Guild of Women in Architecture LEED AP Homes
4395 Haight Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45223
(513) 541-2319

Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Cheryl Alison
Cc: Duo Dickinson
Subject: Re: The Next Wave - CORA's Position Paper

Cheryl, Duo,
I will send this to my colleagues at Wentworth in Boston.

Please add "RA" after my name.

Thanks,
Thomas M. Lesko, RA
Thomas M. Lesko Associates
Architecture • Planning • Interiors
37 Eldridge Ct.
Hingham, MA 02043

Thursday, March 4, 2010, 9:47 AM
Duo,

Thank you for the hard work you are doing to bring forward issues that are important to us.
We have a long way to go, but we need to start somewhere. If we could educate the average
Home owner and residential contractor about the value of our services, I think, we would have won half the battle. I am not so sure that the AIA will provide us with the total solution. Perhaps half? Maybe!!

Please keep up the good work.

Regards
Manny Tavares

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:24 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: Re: yes to manifesto

Duo, wondering why the AIA has not lobbied to mandate licensing of single family residential.
I have always thought this a similar loophole to people buying across the counter medicine.
But primarily that here in the U.S. a family has a right to build with as few middlemen as possible.
Unfortunately this includes architects but also builders.
Hmmm.

John C. Henry

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:45 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: CORA Position Paper

Dear Duo:

Please add my name to the most recently updated CORA position paper.

Thank you.

Mark R. LePage, AIA, LEED AP
F I V E C A T S T U D I O (SM)
The Art and Craft of Fine Living
Mark R. LePage, AIA, LEED AP
McCarthy LePage Architects, P.C.
48 Wheeler Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pleasantville, New York
mlepage@fivecat.com

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:36 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: RE: Position Paper REVISED - Please Read and Respond

The act of licensure itself has become a test of perseverance rather than reflective of excellence.

As one who is nearing the completion of my testing, this is completely true. The transition from 3.1 to 4.0 has affected the majority of test takers who also have more than full time jobs and families. It is now offered to those directly out of school, but we had to wait three years at which time some of us got married and moved on with life. To see Interns not have to earn the right to take the exam like we did is disappointing.

The entire ARE needs a complete overhaul. I myself am a proponent of the old tests where we could spend the weekend completing the entire exam. The new exams are tough to schedule and require you to get in the mind of the test writer. I have failed one exam and NCARB offers no opportunity at all to dispute the results, or gain an understanding of the deficient areas. As a result of many problems with the exams, I have completely lost the motivation to complete them. I am doing so now out of pure necessity and to fulfill my professional goal of becoming an Architect. I am extremely talented, and above average intelligence and the NCARB exams are a joke.

1) That all states recognize licensed architects as critical to the regulatory approvals of any construction requiring a building permit, including houses. Agree, but builders lobby groups and the AIBD will never let this happen.

2) That alternative forms of practice across related professions be encouraged by academia and institutions that support our profession, such as the AIA. Agree

4) That all licensed architects be conferred legal status equivalent to LEED certification as part of their licensure, with NCARB, NAAB, and the AIA working together to promote and provide equivalent sustainability standards in all present legal, policy and regulatory recognitions of LEED certification. Agree, as long as the ARE isn’t affected in regards to more tests required. However with the new categories of LEED certification and the “double” test now required, this could become a difficult item to integrate into the ARE.

5) That the NAAB include a base curriculum requirement for school accreditation that requires mentoring, internship and building experience of students with licensed architects in the tradition of apprenticeship before a professional degree is conferred. Agree

6) That the AIA re-allocate its national budget to facilitate regional gatherings, versus national, by streamlining its headquarters staff and downsizing its national committee structure. Agree.

8) That diversity of stylistic focus be prioritized in academic curricula as outlined by the NAAB, journalistic publication criteria as evidenced in calls for projects and editorial policy, and by all AIA competitions. Agree

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:28 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: Re: Position Paper REVISED - Please Read and Respond

Duo,

You have my support. I imagine it's tough to rally people behind any initiative that includes the AIA. The yearly fee of over $600 makes it a tough pill for many struggling practitioners- especially the small ones, who often do much of the residential work.

Timothy L. Clites, AIA, LEED AP

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:36 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: Re: Position Paper REVISED - Response

This aging pro (hopefully not too sagged yet) empathizes with and supports your group's position. I apologize for not responding sooner. On the point of requiring a seal on a private residence, here is what I understand happens in Nevada where it is required: House designers can still design the house, but must have an RA sign the CD's. This makes the architect more like an engineer as he/she presently plies the trade essentially of constuctabilty. So this is no magic bullet, nor is it likely to gain all that much traction. After all, the castle theory was transmitted by our ancestors.

Fortunately some fairly specialized education work to fall back in our current bust keeps me afloat-for now. I hope to write a book about how architects are not the cause of sprawl- and if our educational and practice specialties were totally revamped, one could arrive at planning solutions to our urban problems rather than our current ad hoc mess. And if the AIA would quit blathering about how we are the be-all and end-all. In some quarters you are right: Respect has become almost derision. Architecture is dead. Building science is king! Long live architecture!

Thank you,
Perry Cofield AIA
Design Ways and Means
Arlington VA

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:18 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: position paper

Hi Duo:

Consider this email my endorsement of the position paper.

Glenn Williams
Architect, NCARB

Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:32 PM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: Questions

Hi Duo Dickinson,

Thank you for your work on this position paper. The new draft seems clearer in purpose and content but it still is a bit convoluted. Here are specific questions that come up for me:

1. Does this mean that licensed architects should be involved in all construction and stamp the drawings? I am not clear on that. I have done permit and architectural work for the past 15 years without being a licensed architect. I finally did complete my exams but only because I hated not being able to call myself an architect (2 master degrees in architecture- with a total of 10 years of architectural studies plus a degree in cabinet making, plus experience as construction manager on several jobs. I think I was very able to do permits without this exam.

We have the thread the needle in a national address of this issue - in certain contexts (rural/remote) licensure is a tough burden - so we have asked for a clear endorsement of licensed architects in principle by the AIA for all buildings - something they only do occasionally and obliquely

2. What do you mean by "alternative practice"?

Any combination of skills, untraditional methods, fusion of fee structures, collaboration of trades, etc. that allow the practice to respond to new ways of designing, producing documents and building

3. I am just newly licensed as Architect so not aware of the problems associated with continuing education, so it might be helpful if the issues were spelled out more clearly.

It has devolved into a meaningless money sucking incoherent array of cottage industries all geared to giving you credits for cash, most learn little, pay much, waste time and prove nothing

4. Not sure what you mean. Should we all be taking a leed exam?

Right now NCARD and the AIA have ceded all recognition of expertise in sustainable design to LEED - this is not reflective of the fact that most architects are already versed in the practices and have lead thre effort without certification - we, the licensed architects, need the recognition equivalent to LEED certification to be eligible for competition with those (architects and non-architects) who pay-their-money-and-get-their-LEED

5.I thought it was this way already- nice cheap labor but valuable experience as well.

We have to open this profession up to those who need our services the most, and open your practices up to the need to maximize the efficacy of what we offer

6. I do agree with that. I am not traveling to an AIA conference in Chicago.

Thanks

7. Don't they? I think they do in Seattle.

Individual schools emphasize internships, but many ignore working in the field as part of their training ethos

8.So what you are saying here is that not only modern shed roof design should be featured and promoted? I would agree with that, but let's be clear.

Inclusiveness, that's what has been missing -

We do need more respect for the critical role we play in good construction. You are so right about that. I am just not sure we have found out quite why we don't get it.

This letter is a first step to reforming what I think has eroded our credulity and usefulness

Thanks for responding
Sincerely,

Liselotte Kragh, RA (not a member of the AIA )

Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:07 AM
To: Dickinson Duo
Cc: Shawn Glen Pierson
Subject: Duo, my two cents' regarding your Manifesto...with an emphasis on employing architects where they can do the most good and lessen the greatest harm...thanks

I have long felt that architects have largely, not just through the inaction or ineffectiveness of the AIA but through our own bias, evolution, insecurity and general ignorance of business issues, brought about our own demise. We allowed, for example, our profession to be pirated by "Construction Managers" without raising any objection whatsoever. In my mind, he who controls the information, controls the process, and the dollars. And we've mostly willingly given away the responsibility (and therefore the authority) for the specifications, the codes, the management, and, importantly, the client interface, to others. So, to me, to the extend we do this, we deserve the consequences. And in order to reverse the trend, we have to earn our authority back. Some ideas below, in response to and following your own...

The majority of architects in America have been ~~ill-~~ less than fully served by the institutions that support and regulate our profession. The American Institute of Architects often promotes membership over service, self-recognition over relevance and words over action. In academia and journalism, style and image are too often valued over substance and use. Government and the profession itself have eroded the recognition of our profession’s authority and its ~~unique~~ singular role in management of the preservation, ~~the~~ safety, efficiency and beauty of construction.

The continuing loss of credibility that has accelerated over the last generation ~~and has~~ imperils our practice, as particularly evidenced by with ~~disastrous~~ unprecedented consequences within the current economic crisis.

This collective abrogation ~~has~~ threatens the historic role of architects as the voice of reason and insight in construction and compromises our worth to the common culture.

The act of licensure itself has become a test of perseverance rather than reflective of excellence. The wide disparity among state requirements, especially with regard to continuing education, trivializes the legal recognition of our status as society’s agents of safety, utility, beauty and management in and of building design and use. Many now see licensure is ~~now~~ as conditioned on continuing professional education that primarily serves as a profit center for the institutions that sanction them, often providing programs of dubious value.

The dissipation of our credibility ~~has been~~ may be exacerbated by ~~the~~ parallel systems of professional accreditation such as LEED certification. Architects have always been ~~the~~ leaders in enacting, promoting and innovating sustainable design principals, and licensure can serve to ~~should~~ reflect that.

As architects have become increasingly marginalized in influence and worth to our culture, neither academia nor journalism has supported the historic role of the profession as a consistent voice of value in construction. Rather than provide exposure of social relevance and innovative engagement, these beacons and mirrors of our profession remain focused on a cult of personalities and abstract formal expression. Promoting an exclusive orthodoxy, ~~these previously~~ institutions that could serve as objective platforms for diversity, contextual influences and craft instead position the profession of architecture as an elitist endeavor and therefore conspire to create a disastrous image, even in a times of economic distress.

Not surprisingly, all levels of government have responded to society’s increasing perception of our profession’s irrelevancy by creating an ever-tightening web of regulatory oversight. The perceived incapacity of architects to provide holistic, relevant building design has allowed government to sanction alternatives to the use of licensed architects.

There are concrete positions that can re-establish our credibility in a time when our society has questioned the value of all goods and services. We propose the following reforms and reinventions be enacted by the institutions cited:

1) That all states recognize licensed architects as critical to the regulatory approvals of any construction requiring a building permit, including houses.

2) That alternative forms of practice across related professions, including ???, be encouraged by academia and institutions, such as the AIA, that support our profession~~, such as the AIA~~.

4) That all licensed architects be conferred legal status equivalent to LEED certification as part of their licensure, in accordance with NCARB, NAAB, and ~~the~~ AIA ~~working together to promote and provide~~ equivalent sustainability standards in all present legal, policy and regulatory recognitions of LEED certification. [Duo, I cannot support this as stated, and its the only Action Call that I take real exception to, since it is to me stated backwards and as such extremely biased. I'm not sure that you are aware that in some states, as a parallel example, a licensed architect is automatically (by definition) also a licensed landscape architect: a determination that I also do not agree with. I don't like at all the "free legal status conferred" with zero demonstration of competency]. Also, this statement, as what seems to me simply as a statement against LEED, does not recognize that at some point in the near future, the CODE will likely determine what "sustainability" means, and that will be decided with or without architects...most likely without. Instead, I suggest:

4) That the AIA, ICC, NAAB and NCARB together promote and provide for sustainability standards equivalent to, superior or more inclusive than those provided by LEED certification, as a requirement for new and continued architectural licensure, and that these standards be applied to continued licensure through Continuing Education (see Action Call No. 3).

6) That the AIA re-allocate its national budget to facilitate regional gatherings, versus national, by streamlining its headquarters staff and downsizing its national committee structure.

8) That diversity of stylistic, economic and cultural focus be prioritized in academic curricula as outlined by the NAAB, journalistic publication criteria as evidenced in calls for projects and editorial policy, and by all AIA competitions.

9) That a minimum commitment of pro bono professional practice, teaching of architecture in primary, secondary and higher education schools, or mentoring of individuals pursuing a course toward architectural education or licensure be required for continued licensure. [Bravo! I think this ought to stand alone]

10) That the AIA or CORA introduce and strongly lobby, through their appropriate chapters, for national, state, county and local legislation to require that panels comprised of licensed architects be utilized to review and propose revisions to all local zoning codes on a regular basis, such that no zoning code may continue to be or to become obsolete, anachronistic, socially prejudicial or against the best practice of architecture.

11) That the AIA, CORA and all institutions that support the profession of architecture create and enforce the standard that all published photographic or graphic images of works of architecture, and all written descriptions of works of architecture, include or caption reference to the architect and date of completion of the work. [I've never understood or accepted that in a magazine or newspaper, the photographer of the architectural work gets his name under the photograph, but the originator of the subject photograph is ignored: this is a disservice to the profession and ensures irrelevance. Architects should be encouraged to write letters to the editor to correct this oversight in each instance, and local AIA and CORA chapters could lead in this effort]

12) That the AIA or CORA introduce and strongly lobby, through their appropriate chapters, for national, state, county and local legislation to require that a licensed architect be substantially employed in any business advertising substantially similar services to those provided by licensed architects, including "Design Build", Construction Management, construction and development companies offering building design services or building plans, and that the licensed architect seal all drawings produced for sale by such enterprises.

13) That the AIA or CORA introduce and strongly lobby, through their appropriate chapters, for national, state, county and local legislation to require that all towns, counties or other local jurisdictions and states that (and in order to) issue building permits, employ a local Architect, Town Architect, County Architect, or State Architect to create and administer standards for review of public buildings, and of building permit applications requiring public presentation and review, within their jurisdiction, and that the Architect sit on any panel having authority over such proceedings and approvals.

14) That the AIA or CORA introduce and strongly lobby, through their appropriate chapters, for national, state, county and local legislation toward the goal that requires that all primary and secondary schools have grade-appropriate primary mandatory and secondary elective educational classes and programs in Architecture, including Advanced Placement courses leading to acceptance by accredited collegiate Schools of Architecture, and that components of such legislation be that licensed architects be employed in a minimum capacity of half time of course coverage, and that licensed architects administer or provide their professional certification of all such programs and courses of study.

15) That the AIA, ICC, NAAB and NCARB together promote and provide for standards equivalent or superior to than those provided by the highest local or state Home Inspector certification, as a requirement for new and continued architectural licensure, and that these organizations promote the utilization of licensed architects for such services.

16) That the AIA and CORA introduce the Architect as an idea, ideal, concept and figure of respect in popular culture and in the social consciousness through their support of the Architect in works of the visual and performing arts in all media and for all audiences. [example: commission a children's book (I've an idea!) or short subject film]

17) That the AIA or CORA introduce and strongly lobby, through their appropriate chapters, for national, state, county and local legislation to require that published Specifications for products, processes and services intended for use in buildings or structures be reviewed and sealed or certified by licensed architects.

18) That the AIA or CORA introduce and strongly lobby, through their appropriate chapters, for national, state, county and local legislation to prohibit the use of the term "Architect" in reference to any person or business seeking compensation for products or services that is not a licensed Architect, including (notably) those in the software industry referencing themselves as "architects", "enterprise architects" or as producing or providing a kind of "architecture".

Of course, the number of issues stated above requiring legislative efforts may be grouped together under one Action Call (unfortunately, being from Washington DC, I have always looked at AIA Headquarters, two blocks from the White House, and thought it was misplaced...it might actually help the profession if it were instead a neighbor to Congress).

By the way, why name oneself "Congress" unless willing to be a legislative body?

"congress |ˈkä ng grəs; ˈkän-|noun1 the national legislative body of a country.• ( Congress) the national legislative body of the U.S., meeting at the Capitol in Washington, DC. It was established by the Constitution of 1787 and is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives : changes in taxation required the approval of Congress.• a particular session of the U.S. Congress : the 104th Congress.2 a formal meeting or series of meetings for discussion between delegates, esp. thosefrom a political party or trade union or from within a particular discipline : an international congress of mathematicians.3 a society or organization, esp. a political one : the National Congress of American Indians.4 the action of coming together : sexual congress.DERIVATIVEScongressional |kənˈgre sh ənl| adjectiveORIGIN late Middle English (denoting an encounter during battle): from Latincongressus, from congredi ‘meet,’ from con- ‘together’ + gradi ‘walk.'"

Lastly, the notion that the term "Architect" has largely lost its relevance is unfortunately a real and a powerful one. As my suggestions above indicate, I believe this issue requires a significant, vigorous, multilateral, cross-venue, brave approach including interventions in law, education and culture. As much as the Crisis of Credibility and Action Calls seem dismissive of LEED, one has to admit: the USGBC has come a long way in a short time, has attained tremendous authority, and for better or worse, indeed requires and almost demands a response. That's more than I can say for the AIA. Or, just as the NAR has copyrighted the term "Realtor", the AIA or CORA may introduce the idea of "ownership" of the term "Architect" or might better create another like term to embody what this Manifesto seeks to recapture, or otherwise might capture. RArchitect? (Note for example my company name, and what it means to me..."more than...")

Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:21 AM
To: duo.dickinson@snet.net
Subject: Re: Position Paper REVISED - Please Read and Respond

Mr. Dickinson -

When I first read the CORA position paper, I spent a good half hour struggling with what to say, and finally dropped my efforts at a response in the hope of coming up with something more cogent at a later date.

This paper sounds like the discussions I've been having with contractors, code officials, clients, and fellow architects since I was far enough along in school to have an opinion on the matter. It's such a relief to see it in print!

I have worked for almost 20 years now as a sole proprietor, specializing in residential design. I've looked at AIA membership repeatedly, only to come back to the conclusion again and again that they didn't offer enough benefit to me to justify the huge expense. Moreover, they promoted a model of architectural practice that I didn't see as healthy or sustainable.

I've watched with frustration as the local (and well-regarded) school continues to teach architecture as being about "signature" architects who design for acclaim from other architects, but not for their clients, their budgets, or the environment that surrounds them.

I've worked hard to take on projects and learning opportunities that expand my knowledge and increased my ability to serve my clients and community long before it was required for continuing education, only to see the formalization of continuing education fail to recognize the validity of a great number of the sources of my best learning.

I've watched my profession become more and more burdened with regulation, education requirements, and meaningless professional credentials, while facing ever-reducing opportunities for practice. As often as not, these burdens are imposed by well-meaning but misguided bodies within the profession intending to increase the prestige and integrity of the profession.

There's so much more I could say about why this position paper resonates with my own beliefs. Suffice it to say I'm happy to sign on in support of it.

Alice M. Emmons, Architect
The Boyer Guild of Women in Architecture LEED AP Homes
4395 Haight Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45223
(513) 541-2319

coragroups.org/forum/
John Henry AIA NCARB
Post subject: Re: A Call to all Architects | Join for Change!
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:23 am
CORA Moderator
Location: Orlando

I commend CORA heads for creating this new manifesto. I also wish they had posted some of their thoughts here -- but understandably not necessary to avoid overblown commentary. Many of us have wondered why they have not posted anything here period. One thought that has brewed in my head for years.

I was appalled at the licensing exam due to its near absence on testing the aesthetic aspect of our 'training'. The evidence of this absence of qualification has disturbed me for years but I feel it was one that was overthrown by those who overran the Beaux Arts system established until the 20-30's and replaced it with the Bauhaus mentality we have today.

The results of this abrogation to the unpronounceable word 'art' - or proportions, etc. and the resulting PC prohibition to train/teach/test for this most vital ingredient in the basest of definitions of architecture in academia has littered our built environment for decades. The notion that perfectly achieved/derived function resulted in any kind of acceptable aesthetic has been proved in most part by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary to be patent bullshit.

But awards programs by the Euro enlightened AIA and other affiliated publications run by the same so called Modernists were quick to fill in this void with slick photos of their newly minted approach to the design of the world.

However, I think there should be an ultimate agency/board/review able to confer a higher designation/approval/commendation/ratification for project design than any of those currently in place. Higher than any 'institute', association, awards program, lifetime achievement designation, etc.

This could be another abbreviated suffix that whenever awarded for a single project, would be allowed in perpetuity after our names and would be more prestigious/honored/awarded/celebrated than any in the system now. This would be a sort of seal or approval that any designer of buildings could hold out as proof that he/she had been ultimately qualified.

An additional wish despite the logistic problem: this group would act almost like a supreme court to judge projects of any size or scope and be asked to review either designs in progress or finished work submitted at least in the public realm (commissioned by municipalities).

Of course its membership would be a point of high debate.

+++++++++

No, I am not happy at all with the AIA but like political parties, this is all we have. Major reform is good and if the manifesto does not get the message through that at least the residential practitioner is disgusted with the lack of emphasis we deserve, then yes, a total restructure and possibly new association should be created.

_________________
" less is a bore..."

John Henry AIA NCARB
http://www.dreamhomedesignusa.com
http://www.FloridArchitect.com

1) That all states require a licensed architect to sanction the design of any construction requiring a building permit, including houses. I’ve been practicing as a licensed architect for over 35 years. I am not aware of any state, county, city, or town in the United States that requires a licensed architect to sanction the design of any structure. What I am aware of is that fact that all of these entities employ unlicensed “plan reviewers” and “building inspectors”. These are the people who actually sanction designs. According the Maryland Attorney General’s office, all of these people are practicing architecture without a license. They can and should be sanctioned and/or fined. However, the system is an old one and nobody wants to challenge it. No other profession is monitored daily by unlicensed people. What would happen, for example, if a surgeon had to get the written approval of a person who had not been to medical school before he could proceed with an emergency heart operation? What if that person told the surgeon that the plan for the operation did not seem correct to him. No explanation. Just “correct and resubmit”. Assuming the operation went ahead somehow, how would the surgeon react when told that he had to wait a few days until the inspector came around to check the work done so far before the incision could be closed?

2) That alternative forms of practice across related professions be encouraged by academia and institutions that support our profession, such as the AIA. It is not clear to me what “alternative forms of practice” might be. You need to clarify that. You also need to correct the assumption that the AIA supports our profession. The AIA pretends to do so, but they have never succeeded. As a member for 40 years, I have absolutely no doubt that our profession would be better off without the AIA. I’m a member only because a few people thought ( I was a registered nurse when I originally had “RA” after my name.

3) That Continuing Education or Professional Practice Certification requirements be administered only by institutions accredited to confer professional degrees in architecture or by NCARB with consistent national standards applicable across all states, and that a minimum commitment of pro bono professional practice, teaching, or mentoring be required for continued licensure. Great idea. I personally enjoy continuing my education every month in a variety of ways. To meet AIA and State requirements, I take the tests available from hundreds of product suppliers. Did you know that you can take these tests over the internet without taking any courses? Most non-architects can achieve the required 70% pass rate without knowing anything about the product. The system is awful.

4) That all licensed architects be LEED certified as part of their licensure, updated by required Continued Education or Professional Practice Certification cited above. Alternatively, that the AIA promote consistent sustainability standards nationwide on the model of the California Green Building Standards Code. I have emphasized sustainability, passive solar design, and whatever else you want to call proper practice since I became an architect in 1974. Without LEED, without Federal or State regulations, without AIA requirements, and without anyone prodding me, I have simply created over $500 million dollars worth of green architecture because that’s what architects are supposed to do. I assume that all other architects think the same way I always have. I find it offensive that some company can come along with an eagle insignia and the initials of the United States to trick people into thinking that they are a Federal agency. The USGBC is a private company that was started by an entrepreneur with a shady past. An insurance salesman who got smart. He saw a way to make a lot of money and he went for it.

Again, go back to the heart surgeon. How would he feel if he had to prove that he knew enough about sterile conditions and that he did his best to assure that they occurred during surgery? This is a given, just like architects being morally responsible to act correctly. No need for LEED. Why give them huge amounts of money?

5) That architectural education include a base curriculum that requires mentoring, internship and building experience of students with licensed architects in the tradition of apprenticeship before a professional degree is conferred. Apprenticeships are ostensibly a part of most states’ licensing requirements already. So, once you get that useless degree you do get some amount of exposure to the profession.

6) That the AIA dedicate an appropriate portion of its budget to grass roots gatherings promoting regional integration of architects and their user groups, and provide for that re-allocation by streamlining its headquarters staff and downsizing its national committee structure. See my comments about the AIA above. They already have some kind of “grass roots” thing which, like most of their programs, is virtually useless. You are correct about their national staff being topheavy. I can attest to this from personal experience.

7) That all institutions that support our profession, including the AIA and its local chapters, recognize residential architecture as a unique discipline and dedicate an appropriate portion of their budget to that effort. Residential architecture should not be singled out as unique. Architects solve problems, large and small. I’ve done $50,000 projects and $50 million dollar projects. I see no difference in my approach. Frankly, the smaller jobs are normally more difficult. If residential design is to be improved, then builders must see value in hiring architects.

8) That all institutions, schools or media be encouraged to promote the true value of architecture to the public at large devoid of stylistic preferences. Good idea. I sincerely believe that most people think of architects as (1) Necessary evils – needed to get a permit; (2) Spendthrifts; (3) Those men in movies that always have affairs – like Richard Gere; (4) A talking horse.

Bruce A. Rich Associates, Architects
2275 Research Boulevard, Suite 500
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Phone: 301-670-2822 Fax: 301-984-0536

Feb 16, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Matthew Arnold <mda@rwmaia.com> wrote:

I wish I could subscribe to your manifesto.
However, LEED is utter bullshit.

Matthew Arnold, Architect
stairwaytoarchitecture.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 10:45 PM, mark martinek <mxmartinek@yahoo.com> wrote:

frank lloyd light, tadao ando, dilbeck - all "architects" without license.
what makes architects irrelevant is that most are all academic and no practical build experience. it should be a requirement that before an architect is licensed, that person should have significant experience producing in the built environment. i am a better architect than 90% of what is coming out of school these days, and i can't use the term because it was co-opted in the '40's to protect and industry. what a crock of shit.

Mark Martinek
Green Advantage®

Feb 16, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Robert Medan <robert@medanarch.com> wrote:

Duo:
This will help our profession tremendously and show the AIA that its members cannot be taken for granted.
Thanks for spearheading this initiative.
Regards,
Robert Medan
R O B E R T M E D A N , A I A
1 9 3 6 L O S A LT O S D R I V E
S A N M A T E O , C A 9 4 4 0 2
T 6 5 0 . 5 7 7 . 8 4 7 7
F 6 5 0 . 5 7 7 . 8 3 1 3
r o b e r t @ m e d a n a r c h . c o m

Feb 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Gretchen Ann Meili <gamarchitect@optonline.net> wrote:
Dear Duo,

I am thrilled with your Position Paper. I have had the same concerns and have drawn similar conclusions. Until now, I have only shared them with my family and special colleagues.

It is with my gratitude and support that I encourage your efforts.

Sincerely,

Gretchen Ann Meili Architect

Duo,
In case my prior email was unclear – certainly add my name to “the list”. I heartily endorse your efforts, but suspect that it is no exhaustive enough. Be prepared , too, that many others feel that other things need doing maybe even sooner than those currently on the list of 8 you have enumerated.
--
Michael M. Simpson, RA, PP, LEED AP
Principal

S.O.M.E. Architects, P.C.
144 Drs. James Parker Blvd.
Red Bank, NJ 07701

mmsimpson@somearchitects.com <mailto:mmsimpson@somearchitects.com>
732-842-3132
732-842-0047 Fax

Duo,
In case my prior email was unclear – certainly add my name to “the list”. I heartily endorse your efforts, but suspect that it is no exhaustive enough. Be prepared , too, that many others feel that other things need doing maybe even sooner than those currently on the list of 8 you have enumerated.
--
Michael M. Simpson, RA, PP, LEED AP
Principal

S.O.M.E. Architects, P.C.
144 Drs. James Parker Blvd.
Red Bank, NJ 07701

mmsimpson@somearchitects.com
732-842-3132
732-842-0047 Fax

Feb 16, 2010, at 4:16 PM, "John Harrison Jones" <john@johnjonesarchitect.com> wrote:
Dear Duo Dickinson.

My name is John H. Jones AIA – (past president Memphis AIA). My practice is primarily residential architecture.

I am all over this.. I have been raging and ranting about this for years now.. LEED has become a symbol of hypocritical refuge for non registrants to hide behind. Also, just to water it down even further, it seems like every window and floor covering salesman that comes through my door is greener than the last one..

I am especially puzzled with the low registration rates among recent architectural graduates. Around here it seems most of them are LEED certified and are putting themselves out on the street as such in a veiled effort to obtain credibility without becoming legitimate architects.

Anyway, you have my support. I will even donate money in this time of scarce funds. I am also interested in promoting CORA here in Memphis and becoming a “member”..

Please let me know how I can help. Please visit my website.. www.johnjonesarchitect.com

John

Feb 16, 2010, at 3:39 PM, "Cline R. Terry" <terry@dwellright.com> wrote:
Hi Duo,

You may not remember me, but I met you and Jeremiah at a Boston CORA conference, or maybe it
was a Build Boston event, a few years ago.

I totally agree with your point of view.

My current thinking and business focus, an outgrowth of my 'recessionary sponsored sabbatical'
over these past two years, is that architecture need not be elitist and should be available for
everyone (birthing centers, homes, schools, businesses, correctional facilities, elderly housing, and
hospices).

While two legs (the technical and aesthetics) of the design stool may not be available and affordable
to everyone, the third leg (the psycho/social) can be. All it takes is for the architectural community
of so called 'professionals' to include in the 'sustainable LEEDS design' functional target what I call
the first step in sustainability; that, without, all other sustainable efforts are fruitless.

The first step, beyond mere shelter, is the sustenance of the users of our 'works or art', by creating
spaces that do no harm, that regardless of technical or aesthetic proficiency, or the lack thereof,
truly support the end users desired behavior patterns. It's not surprising that many award winning
projects, not too mention all those 'lesser' projects, reap 'not user friendly' comments from the end
users.

This third leg, whether using card board boxes or high end furnishings, can be available to everyone
and often with no-to-low cost,, a modest consulting fee often all that's needed,, thus preserving and
re-using what is, before consuming more non-renewables,, or, FTM, even renewables.

~~~~

Pertinent to CORA's current efforts is my understanding that AIA documents regarding the architect's
responsibilities mentions nothing about the architect informing the client of design parameters that
make for ethical architecture, that being architecture beyond sticks and stones. Ethical Architecture
depends not only upon technically sound, aesthetically pleasing, regenerative and beautiful designs,
but it also requires a deeper look at how humanity interacts with and is informed by space.
Implementing this ‘humane’ value added psycho/social approach to design, allows for the possibility
that anybody living or working indoors can ‘dwell right’ — that is live more peacefully, more productively,
and in better harmony with one’s self, each other, and the earth.

Please keep me in the loop as I'd love to be more involved in CORA's efforts. Your email has sparked
my interest and reason to become a more active member.

Kind Regards,

Terry Cline, ME Reg. Architect
President & CEO
DwellRight Studios
681 East Hill Road
Oakham, MA 01068
New England & Beyond
terry@dwellright.com
www.dwellright.com

508-579-8233 c.
508-882-3643 h./o.

Duo--

Kudos to you four! The position paper is right on the mark. It is probably one of the best papers that I have read relative to the state of the profession at this time. Not only does it address the issues that need to be corrected, it instructs and encourages creative ways to rectify the problems (or to at least become a basis for discussion). You have the entire support of our office.

Cordially,

David MacLean, Principal
David R. MacLean & Associates Architecture
78 Scraggy Neck Road
Catuamet, MA 02534-0680

508.564.4656

www.davidrmaclean.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 4:13 PM, "GREG GREW - GREW DESIGN" <MGGrew@GrewDesign.com> wrote:
I agree with and endorse the CORA Position Paper.

GREW DESIGN INCORPORATED
Architecture - Construction Management
241 Main St South
Woodbury, Connecticut 06798-3440
Tel 203.263.0292 Fax 203.263.7231
www.GrewDesign.com
===============================
Milton Gregory Grew, AIA
Architect & CEO

Feb 16, 2010, at 4:32 PM, "Michael M. Simpson" <mmsimpson@somearchitects.com> wrote:
Duo,
In case my prior email was unclear – certainly add my name to “the list”. I heartily endorse your efforts, but suspect that it is no exhaustive enough. Be prepared , too, that many others feel that other things need doing maybe even sooner than those currently on the list of 8 you have enumerated.
--
Michael M. Simpson, RA, PP, LEED AP
Principal

S.O.M.E. Architects, P.C.
144 Drs. James Parker Blvd.
Red Bank, NJ 07701

Feb 16, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Jerome Morley Larson Sr EAIA <architect.larson@verizon.net> wrote:
Your goal is scarcely better than AIA's - the roof is blowing off and you're worried about the morter holding the basement bricks together - You want every architect to be LEED certified? - they give platinum awards to office buildings - in use 40 out of the 168 hours in a week! How the hell is that sustainable? Count me out - I'm an architect - I'm so far above that crap, I can hardly make it out! You, like the AIA just don't get it!
Consider:
* in the last 25 years, the world has gone from 20% developed (wealthy) population to 50% mostly in China India Brazil etc. - meaning we have doubled every building road and thing - mostly due to the end of the Cold War and the productive increases of the internet.
* with common markets, nationhood is quaint.
* modern medicine is hinting at 1000 year life spans and close to conquering all disease - meaning the by 2120 there will be 100 billion people on earth!
* our political boundaries are badly designed - by politicians instead of designers.
* the entire way of doing business is already changing - office buildings are obsolete; most shopping is done on the internet - you can get a university degree on the internet - better learning than at a university.
* culture is changing - people from all over the world are intermarrying - gender regardless. - societies of disparate groups are forming - a wonderful breed of helpful people is generated.
* global warming may wipe out whole cities.
* WE HAVE A HUGE DESIGN PROBLEM!!!
* and only architects are trained in design

Our goal is SAVE OUR PLANET!!
Set your sights a little higher!

Jerome Morley Larson Sr EAIA
E A R T H A R C H I T E C T
732 996 8121

Feb 16, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Markitect <markitect@silvastudios.com> wrote:
This is excellent! I have never been prouder than I am right now to be a long time member of CORA.

Only suggestion; change to "receive LEED certification as a part of licensure."

Well done, and thank you!

Markitect

Feb 16, 2010, at 2:58 PM, steven petitpas <aiarchitecture@erols.com> wrote:
Dear Sirs,

The reasons you have stated in your email is the exact reasons why I am not a member of the AIA.
Unfortunately the attitudes that you talk about is not born by the organizations of architecture but are born by the vast majority of individual architects and that the organizations are a reflection of the individuals within and who are in charge.

I run a small 1 man firm (by design) servicing the bottom 80% of consumers and not the top 20% serviced by most architects. even though, I produce the same amount of work as a 3-5 man firm.

I have found it impossible to get through to my piers that we are providing a valuable service to all consumers and not a specialty product to only a few - everyone wants to be Frank Lloyd Wright.

This profession attracts or creates people who need to fee important and special - more important and special than they are, or, than they think they should be treated.

Until individual architects get their heads out of their asses and understand that we are in an artful service industry - whose most important reason for existing is to keep the public safe and navigate the regulatory systems for them - we will not change how architects are perceived or treated.

You are in a struggle with an entrenched group of people who are more interested in hearing themselves talk and use the AIA as a podium of self importances than assist the profession.

If you really want to make a difference in the status and lives or architects and consumers....START A NEW NATIONAL ORGANIZATION, where the foundation can be laid properly for our benefit and the benefit of the general public and let the AIA be as irrelevant as they are now.

I am an NCARB member because that organization actually provides benefits in registration and education for little cost unlike the AIA that only takes from it's members provides little benefit. I've asked my piers, all of whom are AIA members, what are the benefits of being a member other than having 3 letters after your name. Here is there answer.........................................................................................................................

So I have five letters after my name instead - big deal.

Just one opinion from one architect

Feb 16, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Bruce Monighan <Bruce@monighan.com> wrote:
Your Position Paper was forwarded to me as Vice President/President Elect of the AIA Central Valley Chapter for review. Personally I have a lot of similar feelings as to the state of the profession but more specifically to the defacto controllers of our profession; AIA National, NCARB and the Green Building Council through LEED. The Board is currently reading your paper and I suspect that we will meet soon to discuss the implications and opportunities. I cannot speak for the Board or membership at this time but I can tell you I share the same frustrations and thank you for stepping forward. Having just come back from Grassroots it is apparent to me that things have not changed at National to any great degree since I went the first time in 1987. National is a top down organization and that does not necessarily serve the profession or membership well.

Bruce Monighan AIA

monighandesign
710 12th Street
Sacramento, Ca 95814
(916) 448 1901

bruce@monighan.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Alfredo De Vido <adevido@devido-architects.com> wrote:
Duo

I endorse the call to action of the CORA Position Paper in its entirety.

Alfredo De Vido FAIA/CORA

Feb 16, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Mollie Ackner <Mollie@SoliDeoDesignStudio.com> wrote:
YES, I support every point in your letter, and urge the AIA to support it as well. As a recently licensed architect and newly minted AIA member who has run a small residential design firm for six years PRIOR to attaining licensure, I have lived and breathed these points. They are rational, clear-sighted, and true.
Thank you for spear-heading this effort.
Best,
Mollie Ackner

Bravo!

Items #1 and #7 from your "Call to Action" strike me as most important. I've never been a member of the AIA, primarily because I don't feel that the AIA advocates for residential architects.

Can you elaborate on item #2 with examples or further explanation? Regarding item #4, since I'm a registered architect but not yet LEED AP certified, how would item #4 effect folks like myself?

Also, I wasn't able to print out your document in full. The page identified as page 2 in your Constant Contact email doesn't seemed to be printing. Maybe it's just my printer. Any chance you could release your "Call to Action" as a PDF?

Thanks for the thoughtful work on your CORA Position Paper.

Katie Hutchison
__________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Architect, Design Writer & Photographer
Katie Hutchison Studio
125 Derby Street, Unit C, Salem, MA 01970
tel: 978.741.0932 fax: 978.336.5662 www.katiehutchison.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Mollie Ackner <Mollie@SoliDeoDesignStudio.com> wrote:
YES, I support every point in your letter, and urge the AIA to support it as well. As a recently licensed architect and newly minted AIA member who has run a small residential design firm for six years PRIOR to attaining licensure, I have lived and breathed these points. They are rational, clear-sighted, and true.
Thank you for spear-heading this effort.
Best,
Mollie Ackner

Feb 16, 2010, at 1:20 PM, "Dominick Ranieri" <dranieri@drany.com> wrote:

Duo,

I applaud this effort and have often had this conversation with many associates and Architects. One of my biggest frustrations with the AIA is that they do not make a strong enough effort to protect the profession of Architecture from the ever growing attitude of both the private sector and more recently the government agencies that; “Architects are a luxury” and or a “necessary evil” in the design and construction process. This is an opinion promoted and spread by contractors to help them control the industry, the construction process and the client opinions. Obviously this is good business for them since they can also control the profit margins and the general perception of value that they suggest they bring to the table. I have heard many contractors tell clients (government and private) that the Architect has little understanding of costs and efficiencies of construction. They further depict us as typically egocentric and out of touch with “VALUE ENGINEERING” aspects of the design process. This attitude is being spread in many ways and as you have noted here in your call to action the governing agencies are not protecting our profession and the real value that we bring to the built solutions therefore we must. I further agree and have suggested to the AIA that they push for national building codes to require an Architect’s involvement in ANY and ALL Building projects. This concept is not going to be easy to promote and will most definitely get a strong push back from the construction industries. We need to provide a concise list of values and benefits that Architects bring to the process, which will clearly show the public and private sectors why an Architect should be involved. To protect and improve the social, environmental, esthetic, and safety concerns of the public are just a few of the major points of value that good architecture and architects bring to the process. We need to work on a marketing and or grass roots internet promotions plan to educate the general public so that they are better informed and subsequently demand that Architects be involved. The erroneous perception promoted by builders that we add unnecessary costs and our fees are not worth the involvement has to be directly contradicted. We are the only ones that can make the arguments, since the majority of the built environment in the US is designed and constructed with little or no architect’s involved. We need to also STOP the common practice of plan shops and builders that use civil, mechanical or structural engineers to stamp their in house designs. The “Design Build” and “Construction Management” industries have grown in leaps and bounds over the last 15 years. The builders have seized the lion’s share of these industries when the Architects are much better suited to provide them. We have let the builders hire us to work under them versus Architects controlling the process and hiring a contractor to work under them. The contractors are often only hiring an Architect to have someone with Liability insurance and then use every opportunity to “PUSH LIABILTY” to the architects…..the building departments in many communities have also started this trend by demanding Architects inspections throughout the construction process with signed and sealed letters that the buildings are built to meet all codes. This is dangerous for all architects since the clients most often are not willing to pay for this added liability and the time it would take to properly inspect a project to make these assertions. If we are being positioned by the builders and the town officials as the primary professional responsible for the construction process then we should be the sole professionals legally mandated to provide the design services. If we do not act together as a profession to push for proper legislation and requirements for our mandated involvement as well as work on better public relations and opinions through education, we are destined to continue to be “marginalized in influence and worth to our culture”

I endorse this message from “CORArchitecture” by Duo Dickenson.
Sincerely,
Dominick J. Ranieri
Dominick Ranieri Architect, PC
10 New Karner Road
Suite 101
Guilderland, NY 12084
Tele: 518-869-5650
Fax: 518-869-5680
Cell: 518-376-6381

Feb 16, 2010, at 1:10 PM, David Foster <david@davidfosterarchitects.com> wrote:
David Foster
David Foster Architects
3445 California Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116
206-726-9558
www.davidfosterarchitects.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Markitect <markitect@silvastudios.com> wrote:

This is excellent! I have never been prouder than I am right now to be a long time member of CORA.

Only suggestion; change to "receive LEED certification as a part of licensure."

Well done, and thank you!

Markitect
From iPhone

Feb 16, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Mike La Fon <malafon@gmail.com> wrote:

I endorse wholeheartedly the CORA position paper. Please add my name to the list of registered architects who support these concerns and hope for a re-invigoration of our profession.

Michael La Fon

p.s.: Duo, I have one comment, related to item 7: I wonder if singling out residential architecture in this position paper dilutes the holistic nature of our conerns for the profession and introduces a certain perception of bias or "self-serving"-ness. Reading through the entire paper, item 7 seems to stick out as the sort of balkanization we are arguing against. How can we argue for all architects to be LEED certified, as opposed to the current subset, and then propose a new subset of residential architects? I guess I lean toward the less formal specialization of the legal profession to the extra training and certification required for specialization in the medical profession. Ultimately, however, I don't want this debate to detract from the larger goals outlined in your excellent paper. Please feel free to snip this postscript from my message, if your intent is to add messages to your list instead of just names.

Thanks!

Mike

Feb 16, 2010, at 1:00 PM, "Bruce Donnally" <bruce@donnallyarchitects.com> wrote:

I support your efforts to shift the profession’s focus and public image. We have a strong chapter out here in Seattle.
Good luck at the convention. It seems to me that the AIA, as in politics, is overly influenced by the voices of money and power, which in this case reside with the large firms. Their personal connections to the people in power reinforce a professional focus on big work despite the fact that most architects work in small offices.

Bruce Donnally

DONNALLYARCHITECTS PLLC
(206) 283-4699
www.DonnallyArchitects.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 12:52 PM, "David Maclean" <d_maclean@verizon.net> wrote:

Duo--

Kudos to you four! The position paper is right on the mark. It is probably one of the best papers that I have read relative to the state of the profession at this time. Not only does it address the issues that need to be corrected, it instructs and encourages creative ways to rectify the problems (or to at least become a basis for discussion). You have the entire support of our office.

Cordially,

David MacLean, Principal
David R. MacLean & Associates Architecture
78 Scraggy Neck Road
Catuamet, MA 02534-0680

sven alstrom aia

architecture + interior architecture including: commercial, residential, historic & environmentally conscious design

See all sven’s activity »

Stop following Follow sven
Thanks David,

The 800 pound gorilla of LEED is one of the topics most certainly. Natural Conditioning or Whole Building Design, wherein the building thermal mass, solar orientation and shading etc. is a large component of the design does not seem to be well applied in corporate practice, as a general statement.

Regional variations in residential architecture should be seen as adaptations to the micro-climate which lend a lot of validity to how to 'fine tune' a building skin or the tectonics as they say of the project.

I believe that the CORA manifesto still needs work regarding statutory definitions which make it more obvious to the general public that things like wind load and seismic design requirements are included in our licensing.

an example would be a major seismic fault that runs through Charleston S.C.,
the public after Haiti/Chile may be more receptive to the importance of
our role. Katrina brough some awareness of the Gulf Coast as a region
that needs wind load design (not just Florida). Perhaps we can build upon these recent events.

However, I still feel that Design/Build wherein local markets are overrun by
contractor led competition are a very important issue. States like Missouri essentially allow the contractors to throw our profession under the bus and
simply 'buy' stamps.

Linked in residential architect
David Andreozzi
David Andreozzi you

Architect, CORA, CRAN AIA

See all David’s activity »
Please take a look at the modifications to the manifesto, many, thanks to all of you at http://www.coragroups.org/manifesto/

Its definitely a work in progress, thanks so much for your support, both positive and negative. As a co-volunteer, we are debating constructive tweaks by the week.

As Duo just send in his recent email "This position paper has and will respond to input, and we welcome yours, but our profession's status quo is, to steal a word, unsustainable - and it's time to convey that reality to the organizations and institutions that have, to date, been inadequate in their reactions to our present threatened state. Without a ground swell of hundreds of responses, I doubt that we will have much impact, and it is truly up to us to show a level of response that can begin to reflect the extraordinary situation of so many of us."

It is our hope, that we all might meet one day soon, in Miami perhaps, or at the next Reinvention and really flush through these items for continued clarification.

Linked in residential architect
sven alstrom aia

architecture + interior architecture including: commercial, residential, historic & environmentally conscious design

See all sven’s activity »

Stop following Follow sven
While I agree in general, with the causes of the general situation of our profession - there are also many matters not addressed in this mission statement. Also, the tone is far too strident and off-putting to a degree that
I would suggest is not in our best interest, it seems mostly to blame everyone else.

The signatories and entire list of supporters should read William Sullivan's book,
"Work & Integrity", and then re-write this mission statement afterwards.

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/work-and-integrity-crisis-and-promise-professionalism-america-2nd-edition

Linked in residential architect
David Andreozzi you

Architect, CORA, CRAN AIA

See all David’s activity »
David,

I appreciate your input. I think we are more in agreement than not,

Here is the thing, if you are content, fine. If not, join us and help to change the status quo.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

David

Linked in residential architect
David Kirch

President at NTS Architects & Planners Inc.

See all David’s activity »

Stop following Follow David
My comments on A Call to Action as requested
1) Attempting to make Architecture an exclusive club by passing laws that prohibit others from participating is unrealistic and just foolish. I practice mainly in Texas and as a right to work state it will not allow this to happen. It also assumes that just because you are a registered Architect that you are more esthetically able than someone without a slip of paper to prove that you are someone. I know a lot of Architects that are technically competent, but lack design skills.
2) No problem here for me.
3) States will not give up the right to govern themselves as they see fit. PERIOD. I understand that there are a lot of marginally valuable courses available that pass the requirements, but the states will have to fix that situation with someone’s help. This is valuable “a minimum commitment of pro bono professional practice, teaching, or mentoring be required for continued licensure. “
4) As soon as we have a real national green standard it should be included on the registration exam so there is never a question as to the qualifications of the Architect. LEEDS is not that standard. It is a marketing program for the companies that donated to create it. The ICC program will arrive soon and there are two other better programs from other parts of the world.
5) If you recall, all that our degrees really did for us was to expose us to as broad a base of our profession as possible. We learn what we really need to know thru experience on the job. That experience is varied by the different firms that employ us over out formative years and the personalities of the people there. If anything we need to have more work experience before we take the test. We need the 12 hour design exam back because it was the only test of character that we had before becoming registered. I wish that the schools could teach things like the building and fire codes, but they seem to overwhelm most who are under 25.
6) The AIA has always been an organization with the intent of protecting its members from something. Unfortunately it seem that they are wearing blinders and will not look at the real world and realize that Architects come in all shapes and sizes and that no part of what we do is better than any other part. If you don’t like the AIA’s attitude then join the NAHB because they have not changed in the thirty years I have been in this profession.
7) The only way that anyone will ever understand what we do is to do it for a while. Too many Architects are too busy looking down their noses to find out that what we do is more difficult than what they do.
8) Naïve statement that is nothing more than an attempt to get someone to help market work.
I know that I seem to be swimming upstream, but when RA was new the opening of my firm was of enough interest to be included in an article on starting a firm.

Linked in residential architect
David Andreozzi you

Architect, CORA, CRAN AIA

See all David’s activity »
This is pretty exciting, it is all starting to go viral. Over 100 people have signed on at http://www.coragroups.org/manifesto/ Names are coming in by the hour!

There has been some confusion about whether expressing support for this manifesto means that you advocate every aspect of what we are proposing. This is not true. To clarify: the essential reality is that we are acknowledging the huge disconnect between the predominant organizations that were created to promote our profession of architecture and how they have performed, and declaring that it is time to do something about that disconnect. "The Call to Action" points are elements that we throw on the table. We think they are the best directions to take. The truth is that nothing even vaguely approaching this level of rethinking is being proposed by anyone, anywhere - it is past time to change this slide.

Debate is good. We don't pretend to hold the key, only to light the fuse. This is meant to be a first draft, not a final position. We are collecting all commentary, both good and constructive. I promise you that no comments are being dismissed. The reactions are 10-1 positive, and we are truly giving equal respect to the 1.

This stage is about starting a movement; the next stage is about meeting in a sort of open public congress to begin to solve the problem together… perhaps in Miami during the AIA conference? Or perhaps at Reinvention, where this has been born by CORA and nurtured through the years.

The points discussed on LEED are fair. We attempted to address a problem in that anyone can take a two part exam and put a title on your name that proves nothing more than you are an accountant of green concepts, a green bean counter. As an architect, we found it insulting that the concept of green building is part of the NAAB education model today and part of the exams... yet after 5 years of school, a 3 year internship, and 4 day long exam (in my case), an architect needs to somehow prove to public that they are really green by taking an additional quiz. Like forcing the doctor to take a separate exam before they can apply band-aids. Our answer was to insist that architect licensing be regarded for what it is, expertise beyond the minimum, and that registered architects became LEED certified automatically. In hindsight, I appreciate unnecessary tie to LEED and the apparent contradiction in our solution. I agree with you, but that only makes me want to find a new better solution. Join us and lets refine it.

The time for standing pat is over.

The profession has lost fully one-third of the paid positions nationally, due in part to the micro economics of the era but, in reality, also due to the bitter harvest of a generation of neglect of our collective mission - as it says in the position paper, "our profession's authority and its unique role in preserving the safety, efficiency and beauty of construction".

If you agree with the gist of our paper but have problems with any of the eight points of our "Call for Action", we'd ask you to still lend your name in support of this effort. Without the largest level of support we can get, the message that the profession is broken will lose impact, so PLEASE send an indication of your support to duo.dickinson@snet.net and forward the Position Paper to every architect you know.

PS: Hey David, Thanks for the constructive comments. You state that its self serving drivel, then stand on your soap box and wax poet in rambling pentameter, but never really tell us which points could be improved upon.

Linked in residential architect
Dave Jochum

Jochum Architects

See all Dave’s activity »

Stop following Follow Dave
I was impressed and encouraged reading the introduction and identification of the concerns. Then my head started spinning reading the suggested fixes. They rip LEEDS (my sentiments exactly) and then suggest that all licensed architects be LEEDS certified. They condemn the government for over-regulating the industry (again, I'm with them) but want more hoops for architects to jump through as a condition for licensure. They call for a shrinking of the AIA's national structure to focus on operating on a local level while calling for a national regulation of our profession. Hello?!?

I left the AIA two decades ago because I saw them not as a supporting organization but as a political lobby with neither architects nor the public being well served. This sounds mostly as more of the same--on steroids.

Linked in residential architect
David Kirch

President at NTS Architects & Planners Inc.

See all David’s activity »

Stop following Follow David
What a preposterous and completely worthless piece of self serving drivel! The only thing that I can agree with is the need for some stronger form of mentoring, but we can do that ourselves if we all get started and dedicate ourselves to it. Didn't you have someone that mentored you and taught you to pass it down to the next generation? Don't you believe that the process is never finished?

The AIA is beyond redemption. Continuing education will always be offered by too many people with a large part of it being absolutely worthless, but still acceptable to states. All of the individual states will never adopt a common set of regulations for anything. LEEDS will be dead in a few years as people get accustomed to the new green building documents coming out of the ICC.

If this is the best that an organization can come up with I am glad that I am not associated with them.

Linked in residential architect
James Edwin (Jim) Johnson

sole proprietor at James Edwin Johnson, Architect

See all James Edwin (Jim)’s activity »

Stop following Follow James Edwin (Jim)
I just read the position paper and have to say that the 3 sponsors listed are all people whose work and ethics I have admired for years, making me pre-disposed to agree with them. However, I must admit that Mark's comments are right on with regard to the disparity between first noting the issues/problems with the LEED program and then following that up with making LEED certification mandatory. Given that the certification process essentially tests whether one knows how to navigate the point structure, and does not test for actual knowledge of "sustainable" design practices, a cynic might well see some strong marketing overtones for the promoters who benefit financially from the testing and continuing education process.
I can whole heartedly agree with the remainder of the paper, but the call for LEED certification for everyone ignores the other organizations that also exist to provide alternate methods of measuring "green" design and would serve to further that "exclusivity" of LEED certification over the other programs.

Linked in residential architect
Arnold Gilpin

Architect at Arnold Gilpin Associates Ltd

See all Arnold’s activity »

Stop following Follow Arnold
I agree. It is the same in the UK. The RIBA has done nothing to protect our competency. Little by little it has been chipped away at by the government.

I design low to zero energy houses and I now have to get an approved expert (some idiot who has paid a lot of money to a government agency to get a certificate then pay the agency to use their software) to certify my designs as energy efficient.

I can not now certify the electric system because I am not competent even though the "competent electrician" has never seen a PV Panel let alone an inverter.

I cant certify plumbing even though it is now done by unskilled labour and when covered up is certified by a "competent plumber"

Only a very small proportion of planning applications involve a qualified architect.

It is almost as if the Government is trying to do away with Architects but they have underestimated our creative abilities to get around their stupid regulations.

Linked in residential architect
Philip Lembo

Principal at Philip Lembo ARCHITECT

See all Philip’s activity »

Stop following Follow Philip
Mark

I agree with you regarding the LEED requirement. It only adds another layer of bureaucracy that we don't really need. I read the CORA position paper and can go along with most of it except for Article 4 regarding LEED certification. In this regard, I will mention a recent seminar I attended where the Architect next to me was obviously of my era and as we listened to the lecturer we had to elbow jab the other in the side and say "Didn't we learn this in some of our architectural courses in the 50's?"

Linked in residential architect
Mark Siemieniec
Mark Siemieniec

at MS-ARCHITECTURE

See all Mark’s activity »

Stop following Follow Mark
I agree that something needs to be done for the professional design industry. We design professionals are marginalized, compartmentalized and carved into ever smaller architectural specialties. My opinion has been that the AIA has not done enough to preserve the integrity of the profession. There was a time when the word "Architect" was legally reserved only for the licensed practitioner. Now there are any number of various definitions of the word that have nothing to do with the profession of building and planning. We architects are slowly evaporating into the soup of diversity and no longer recognized for the years of study, training and practical experience that we offer to the community at large. The AIA has failed to recognize these changes in the professional climate and appear only to serve as a vehicle to promote and benefit financially from the continuing education market. As a result it has been increasingly difficult every year to justify the expense for membership. In this economic climate such lack of justification is quickly approaching this professional’s tipping point.
As far as the manifesto is concerned, I agree with the comments regarding the elitism of the LEED certification system but am at a loss, why then make it a part of the licensure requirements for the design professional. Are we not by virtue of our training practicing sustainability? Are we not providing our clients the best designs, most efficient use of materials, leading to the lowest cost not only to build but also to maintain? Adding another regulatory check list to our already complicated practice seems draconian. On top of that adding one more testing requirement for another credential, only serves the secondary continuing educational and testing market and appears to do nothing for the profession and society.
For the most part I am in agreement with the majority of the manifesto but will have to think long and hard whether I will sign it in its present form.

Feb 16, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Steve Falk <sfalk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Hi Duo

You have come up with a compendium of issues that I totally agree with.
An additional point is that most states don't allow non architects to use that title, so why then, do we read about "Hitler, the architect of fascism" and so on? Can that be stopped?
My reason for being an A.I.A. member is due , 95%, to not have to explain that I am a licensed architect. A.I.A. is another bureaucracy like all their neighbors in D.C., feeding their own needs to survive and prosper. I wonder how much staff they could let go, and then rent out the vacant space. With income way down, I am hard pressed to justify sernding them $ 800.00 every year. My state, and others, support Local, STATE and National. Certainly State chapters could be eliminated. The foregoing is letting off steam. Keep up the good work.
Am I a member of CORA? I see no chapter in California. Is there one? If not, what does it take to start one?

Steve Falk, A.I.A.

On Feb 16, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Fred Johnson <fred@sullivanconard.com> wrote:

____________________________
Fred Johnson | Project Manager
SULLIVAN CONARD ARCHITECTS
1305 East Jefferson Street
Seattle, WA 98122
P | 206.329.4227 x 105
F | 206.324.2584

Feb 16, 2010, at 10:04 AM, Jeffrey Roberts <jroberts@nwdp-usa.com> wrote:

Mr. Dickinson,

I couldn't agree more. As of this year I am discontinuing my AIA membership. It is the worst value that our firm spends money on.

Jeffrey S. Roberts LEED AP, past AIA
Principal
NEW WORLD DESIGN LTD
ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
307 N. Michigan Avenue
Suite 1802
Chicago, IL 60601
www.nwdarchitects.com
T 312-853-3188
F 866-735-0117

Feb 16, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Michael Mauch <mmauch@rwaarchitects.com> wrote:

Hi Duo,

I am sitting here in Cincinnati waiting for the snow to melt and reading your e-mail. I have not studied it thoroughly yet so I can not say if I am in support or not, quite yet. However, there is one point that I would like you to consider presenting in your "call to action". I would like you to ask rather forcefully that AIA National complete a detailed survey of the number of Residential Architects in the United States and the number of Residential Architects in the AIA. They do not have this information. I have discussed this with George Miller at a recent AIA Regional convention held here in the Cincinnati area, who seemed to not even understand what I was getting at. I am not quite as eloquent as you all are so maybe my message was not heard clearly enough. Basically, the AIA has no data on how many of its members are practicing almost exclusively Residential Architecture. CORA could help define the questions on the survey with the AIA. It seems to me that as long as no one has the "numbers" and in turn, the percentage of Architects and the percentage of Architects in the AIA who are practicing primarily (and that term "primarily" needs to be defined first) Residential Architecture, then we will continue to be marginalized by the AIA no matter how loud we get.
By the way, the last few AIA Cincinnati CORA meetings have been the most well attended meetings that our chapter has provided for some time. We are getting 30-40 plus at these monthly meetings. The only other type of meeting that draws that many out of all the other AIA Committee meetings is when it has to do with Sustainability.
Okay. enough for now. I must get back to waiting for the phone to ring!
Sincerely,

Mike

Michael R. Mauch, AIA, LEED A.P.
RWA Architects, Inc.
2771 Observatory Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
Phone: 513.321.9506
Fax: 513.321.9507
e-mail: mmauch@rwaarchitects.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 9:43 AM, "John Connell" <connell@madriver.com> wrote:
Hey Duo,
Great to see you and the boys rousting the troops. I will be in Miami only a scant overnight to bump my gums about factory-built delivery of affordable green architecture. Keep me in the loop with regard to whatever is going down. I'd love to lend my support, feeble as it sometimes is.
And, more importantly, thanks for the cool article and dim photo of brilliance, past and future. So much good to help balance out the not-so-good.

Build we must!
Connell

2morrow Studio
leed aia cora
connell @ madriver . com
www . 2morrowstudio . com
P.O. Box 313 Warren VT 05674
802-496-5546

Linkedin CORA
Bill Pollack

Project Manager at Mitchell Studio

See all Bill’s activity »

Stop following Follow Bill
An interesting thought brought about by an earlier comment regarding Frank Lloyd Wright and the respect afforded architects in earlier generations.....it seems that the level of respect for the profession may have been greater prior to the institutionalization/standardization of the credentialing process?

Linkedin CORA
Bill Pollack

Project Manager at Mitchell Studio

See all Bill’s activity »

Stop following Follow Bill
I find this thread to be very fascinating to read as the arguments run through my head often.

I came to the profession of architecture from another career as a dentist where the process of obtaining a license was, and is, more reasonable and, in a word simple. Dental school curricula prepared us to pass the licensing exam and after four years of education we were prepared to take the test which we did right away...in fact before graduation. As professionals we admitted to the "club". I always scratch my head when I consider that it was easier to get a license to practice dentistry than as an architect when, on a daily basis, I had a significantly greater chance to cause injury to someone.

I guess my point is only to raise the point (by someone not licensed) that perhaps more people would be licensed if the process was simpler....not less rigorous...but the process is fraught with expense, bureaucratic bumbling and fixing other's mistakes. But alas that is not the main point of this it?

The initial premise that essentially the AIA has abandoned the segment of the profession by those represented here is one of the things that has caused me to really question the process and I struggle with the issue. I see plenty of work by licensed architects that is crap, not visually (though that is certainly true as well) that cannot hold out water, that starts to fall apart after only a few years.....what kind of reflection does that make on our profession?

With regards to LEEDS credentials.....I have taken LEEDS classes and it all seems like common sense.....why wouldn't you design a house with these concepts in mind....why shouldn't this be part of one's basic training and academic experience....why a separate layer of bureaucracy?

I applaud your efforts and endorse them...though perhaps I don't necessarily agree with the prescriptive nature of the process. Isn't the very idea of a profession that it counts on one's judgment to do the right thing?

Sorry to ramble....I really enjoyed thinking about this and this discussion.

Linkedin CORA
David Pillsbury AIBD|CPBD|CGP

Senior Designer at Keesee and Associates

See all David’s activity »

Stop following Follow David
Awesome! I read yours' and Michael Simpson's posts anticipating something turning ugly any second...but it didn't. I have to say that I've read both posts a couple of times thinking that I missed something but, I agree with both. And wonder "Why shouldn't there be some establishment of a Residential Architect status with a different set of credentials than that of a parking garage/high-rise/historic preservation Architect?" To quote Michael directly. Thank you.

I have absolutely no interest in parking garages and hospitals other than hoping they are there for me if the need arises. I have dedicated my entire life towards what I do every single day. My first job was a drafting job in 1982 and I've never looked back. My education is self motivated out of pure passion for the residence, including hundreds of hours of classical training. I also find it very difficult to have these discussions without citing my resume, which I don't pretend represents more than my share of the industry. So I won't.

So...here's something I think it is funny as it relates to this whole thing. It seems, after reading so many posts that, my reasons for being a part of the AIBD are not that different than the reasons that a lot of you are not part of the AIA. (with all due respect to those that worship the AIA) I new I needed to be a part of something that was bigger than I was, if I was going to make a difference in residential design. And, as I understand things so far, there are a lot of architects with smaller firms that may have an appreciation for experience, architect or not. I think I may have said this before but, let's just move forward, whatever that is.

I'm not cautiously optimistic. I'm positive that things can change. And, nothing is ever going to change if we sit back and hope it will.

Cheers!

-David Pillsbury

Linkedin CORA
David Andreozzi
David Andreozzi you

Architect, CORA, CRAN AIA

See all David’s activity »
David,

These are the facts that I know... in my little world:

I have been a member of the AIA since 1986 or so, been to 10 National Conventions or so, paid 10's & 10's of thousands of dollars of dues or so, and, as a residential architect, got NOTHING in return, other than a discount on my AIA docs. Squat, diddly, nothing! I am active at a national level with CRAN/AIA (the Custom Residential Architectural Network,) and still, only I see the tragic disconnect more clearly. I blame much of this on the AIA's six decades of celebrating one style of architecture as good "modern" (which I happen to like), and the press and colleges for following suit.

I want an institution that will represent my needs and propagate the value of my service. Again, I am a small practitioner specializing in a Neo-New England Vernacular. My dues is simply passed from my wallet to a commercial hospitality organization that serves large commercial architecture firms.

Some of my enemies, that I hold close as friends, argue that this is simply a market that is changing in desire and need, and that we are buggy whip manufactures. To that I say POPPYCOCK! If we stopped educating people on the dangers of smoking and cancer, society would forget and move backwards over time. We have stopped educating the public on the importance of investing in good residential architect. Frankly, 95 % of the people I meet have no idea that an architect goes to an accredited college for 6 years, goes through a 3 years internship, and passes 4 days of exams. When is the last time a residential client asked of you had liability insurance? Is this right? Do you confuse your heart surgeon with your proctologist, or your nurses aid?

The fact IS that small firms represent a massive proportion of the AIA's dues, and until we stand up with a unified voice, and a closed checkbook, NOTHING will be done.

Peace.

David

Linkedin CORA
Michael Simpson

Owner, S.O.M.E. Architects, P.C.

See all Michael’s activity »

Stop following Follow Michael
The following is an excerpt from my response to Duo's email, which I thought would be good to add here:
"A call for action is certainly needed, and I hope this gets traction (I’ve forwarded to 10 others both in and out of the AIA), but my own perspective is that we may be preaching to the wrong choir. The public at large, while enamored with the Hollywood notion of “Architect”, seems to have lost all sense of a value of our profession beyond that script placeholder. My opinion is that the AIA has pandered to this as much as they have to the concept of their organization representing the ideal of our profession. They sometimes do, but just as likely don’t. They’ve capitulated to regulators (the infamous Chicago/Justice Department debacle 20+ years ago). They’ve promoted the star/celebrity system and ignored the average practice under 15 people for way too long. They’ve allowed the public to associate their initials to the very grueling process of becoming a licensed professional in the field. How many times have I heard: Can you put your AIA on this document?. All of this clearly indicated in your “call to action”. But the amount of action this will generate? I’m skeptical. I don’t see the AIA taking this mantle on. They deserve a solid finger in the eye, but don’t have much confidence in their doing anything other than wiping away a tear. Maybe there will be sufficiently disaffected souls that will receive this AND act in opposition to the standard bearer’s position of the AIA. I genuinely hope so, and applaud the effort of CORA to get this dialogue going.

Meanwhile, I struggle to keep my small practice alive while fighting the regulatory process everyday that requires that I have a license while a community college/adult evening class graduate becomes a code official in a matter of months making a mockery of the legal premise of that license. I take a test to achieve a “certification” that the public at large will see as meaningful, meanwhile all the principles that it embraces I have held in my practice since it’s inception – without those LEED initials trailing my name. It’s a sham and a marketing tool at the same time. If I have those letters it must mean something (wait, doesn’t Ed Begley think LEED is good?) but the public has NO idea what it actually means any more than they know what AIA represents (or doesn’t). These are the most troubling years I have ever experienced in the profession. I have stopped recommending that young people enter the field. What a tragedy."

The debate needs to be a raging fire at this point. I have staff that are not licensed that are significantly more responsible and capable than licensed practitioners with deep years of experience that I have known. The license, in and of itself, does not confer competency - but some measure of competency whether established by individual states or NCARB seems in order. That has to be coupled with enforcement - if the practitioner puts the public in jeopardy they should not be practicing. There is a reason, not just for protecting one's business turf, for licensure - protection of the public. This should not be overlooked.
If other professions - e.g.: medicine, law, engineering - can have specialization, regulation, business accountability, and protection of the public, why can't Architects. Why shouldn't there be some establishment of a Residential Architect status with a different set of credentials than that of a parking garage/high-rise/historic preservation Architect? There's plenty of precedent for such a treatment of licensed professionals. I have met more than one architect that has designed famous Corporate buildings, that had no business doing a residence - AND - vice versa. If you want to practice in that field - become qualified in it. Why, oh why - must one size (license) fit all for this profession?

Linkedin CORA
David Pillsbury AIBD|CPBD|CGP

Senior Designer at Keesee and Associates

See all David’s activity »

Stop following Follow David
How objective of you David. : )

-David Pillsbury

Linkedin CORA
David Andreozzi
David Andreozzi you

Architect, CORA, CRAN AIA

See all David’s activity »
...debate is good.

We don't pretend to hold the key, only to light the fuse.

David

Linkedin CORA
Greg La Vardera
Greg La Vardera

Owner at Gregory La Vardera Architect

See all Greg’s activity »

Stop following Follow Greg
There may have been discussions along this line before, but more likely coming from the other end - architects certified to do high-rises, long spans, and other situations where life-safety issues are clearly at issue. But the general consensus has always been a single title, with self regulating specialization within. Liability from working in an area where you are incompetent is a stronger force, and simpler than multiple tiers. I think the same can work for houses.

As far as how a tier would be established? Again its state by state. Local architects from each state sit on the respective state boards and would like have to endorse such a structure, and likely modified by passing a bill through state government. As I said architects are not likely to entertain this, and so it would be very difficult to establish - witness the efforts by interior designers along similar proposals. This why forming a consensus in the profession that can be taken to all the states in unison is the only way this could be likely to happen. There has to be evidence of a sea change in the field and a desire to modify our structure universally.

Linkedin CORA
Sam Liberti,AIBD, CGP

President at Low Tide Designs

See all Sam’s activity »

Stop following Follow Sam
Greg
Thanks for sending me the thread.

It would be nice to see the "Reform" to include qualified RD's and create the path. The hard part will be the States, but also alot of oppostion from non-comfomists on both sides.

I am aware of some of the commercial conceptual ideas and we do need to know other materials besides studs. Broadens our gray matter somewhat.

I apologize for the error on AIA, I should have said NCARB on the testing.

Focusing on residential design and separating ourselves from the ones that won't try to do a better job will always be a problem. It is our duty to help those who want to learn and further both professions. I look for the day that both parties can come to a common ground and agree on what is best for the public and work together.

Thank you for having an open mind and as David Pillsbury mentioned a reasonable voice.

Sam Liberti

David Pillsbury AIBD|CPBD|CGP
David Pillsbury AIBD|CPBD|CGP

Senior Designer at Keesee and Associates

See all David’s activity »

Stop following Follow David
Greg. Has it ever been inquired that there be a possible tier of architects whereas an RA, Residential Architect could be limited to the same ideas that a "B" Class Building Contractor is? (three story's, etc) Maybe even residential only.

-David Pillsbury

Linkedin CORA
Greg La Vardera

Owner at Gregory La Vardera Architect

See all Greg’s activity »

Stop following Follow Greg
David - I wish I was an insider on this, but as you can see from the list of names on the document I was not involved in its writing.

I am trying my best to make my position clear. I do not mean it as a knock on the qualifications and experience that any RD has built. My fear is that all of those qualifications count for little before an uninformed public when anybody can appropriate the title of Residential Designer. No qualification, no test will prevent opportunists from attempting to enter the field with bold claims and little experience.

There may be many possible solutions, but the most obvious one is to extend the laws that already govern building in the country to encompass homes. It is direct, it involves no new titles, the infrastructure and rules are already in place, it has the smallest administrative overhead. It just needs to be fair, and it needs to be realistic. I see this a move to simplicity - less titles, less organizations, a simpler future.

My appeal is to RDs is to meet this with a counter "Call" to be inclusive of qualified RDs, and to work together to establish what this means. This is a chance to be "bigger" and more reasonable (than the tone of the letter!). If that meets with a cold shoulder I can assure you this will not be difficult to oppose. If it is met with the welcom

Linkedin CORA
Greg La Vardera

Owner at Gregory La Vardera Architect

See all Greg’s activity »

Stop following Follow Greg
The discussion was here:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=834987&discussionID=8321761&sik=1266439298685&trk=ug_qa_q&goback=%2Eana_834987_1266439298685_3_1

I think the idea is that "Reform" has to include a structured and reasonable path for competent RDs to become architects, and it would have to be something that all states agree to. I realize that sounds presumptuous, but the idea that all houses be designed by architects is presumptuous as well. So don't struggle with the detail yet, just as there is little detail in this "Call". I think it goes without saying that hand in hand with this has to be a reasonable path for RDs, otherwise you are taking away people's livelihood with no options offered - that's not right.

As far as knowledge of commercial - well first, the test is not the AIAs. The test is created and maintained by NCARB. AIA has little hand in licensing despite what they might like people to believe. Ok, so the content of the test is highly conceptual - can you apply the principles to a range of construction situations. So would you need to conduct some study of codes and commercial building detail - yes you would. But I would argue it would serve you very well as a designer of houses. Remember - there is nothing in the code that says a house is made of sticks. Any house should have a broader knowledge than stud construction.

And personally I don't find the prospect of residential vs commercial licensing advantageous to the profession. Some may disagree, but that's where my opinion falls. One title, Architect. Many specialties, but an agreed standard of general knowledge.

Linkedin CORA
Sam Liberti,AIBD, CGP

President at Low Tide Designs

See all Sam’s activity »

Stop following Follow Sam
Greg
Thanks for the comment-

I slightly remember the previous thread of those who can go back to school or to find a state the RD's would be able to sit and take the exam. What would be the route for those who cannot do the above. South Carolina and Georgia do not offer the exam to those who have not gone to an Architectural accredited college and then with the internship for the IDP. For the States that do allow you to sit the exam, there is no reciprosity from NCARB to practice in the other states.

I for one really don't wish to do commercial and most of the AIA test I know of refer back to the commercial field, not residential. Since Cora focuses so much on residential, along with AIBD, would you not think that a separate direction on Residential would be appropriate to clean up that side? Allowing RD's and Architects to seek a separate license under qualifications and not that of NCARB? Go back to the grandfathering clause before 1988 and work
off of experience?
Just thoughts
Thanks
Sam Liberti

David Pillsbury AIBD|CPBD|CGP
David Pillsbury AIBD|CPBD|CGP

Senior Designer at Keesee and Associates

See all David’s activity »

Stop following Follow David
Greg. Thank you for a reasonable voice. You and I have had dialogue the last time this topic was addressed, and I remember that we left off understanding a little more about the positions held between architects and "Certified" residential designers. I'm certainly not here to argue for the unqualified. I think we all agree. Or did.

But, why is it that every time this comes up, the topic is shot out of a cannon? The sky is falling! Then come the attacks on truly qualified professional.

I share Sam's point of view. In fact we also share/ Co-Chair a council specifically dedicated to advancing the professionalism and qualification of the best of the best residential designers. An enormous amount of focus is aimed at education and council. The project is in it's infancy but, I assure you that, no unqualified drafter will survive the criteria or for the matter the interview process.

Sustainability and green may be something one can choose at the moment but, that is most likely to change. And, not that far off. Watch what the building and energy codes do over the next few years and you'll see what I mean.

Now. There simply has to be a way that we can communicate. Those of us that are qualified, have already proved so much, and have taken certification exams including a structural component. If I were permitted to sit for the architectural exams, I would.

Thank you Lee, for mentioning the AIBD and the CPBD, Certified Professional Building Designer.

-David Pillsbury AIBD | CPBD | CGP
President, Florida Society AIBD

Linkedin CORA
Greg La Vardera

Owner at Gregory La Vardera Architect

See all Greg’s activity »

Stop following Follow Greg
I'll just add the comment that it would behoove this call to adopt some advocacy for the movement I described in another discussion here to facilitate the movement of all qualified RDs to become architects - hand in hand with the call to limit permitting of houses to architects. You really can not do one without the other - the end result is to shed those that are not qualified. Period.

Remember - this is all in the context of the fact that the majority of places in the country do not even require building permits. I don't believe the suggestion is to institute building permits everywhere - so there still remains the majority of the country where anybody calling themselves a designer could design a house.

I hope framing it in that context makes it appear a lot less threatening.

Posted 14 days ago | Reply Privately

Linkedin CORA
Sam Liberti,AIBD, CGP

President at Low Tide Designs

See all Sam’s activity »

Stop following Follow Sam
Gentlemen- alot of great comments on the position of Cora and Leeds.

As being a Certified Professional Member of AIBD, I have to agree with Craig that not all Architects can design residential projects when their disciplines normally have them doing commercial work and there are some designers that cannot design either.

With the affiliation of Cora and AIBD, there is alot of work together the two groups can and have done in the past to promote good architecture. I do not think that by trying to change the licensing aspect at the State levels that it will make anyone a better Designer or Architect. I do think that if all parties had to turn in acceptable plans to the building municipalites that met plan standards, code requirements and required continuing education that it would make a difference.

Learning how to and when to apply the correct styles in Architecture would be a great achievement also.

By excuding the persons that can design a Residential Project, just because of a license, will and would cause a decline in the Residential Design market.

Thanks
Sam Liberti, AIBD

Linkedin CORA
Craig Headrick
Partner at HLP Architects, LLC

See all Craig’s activity »

Stop following Follow Craig
Here, here! I totally agree that the LEED certification process is a farce. My partner spent a whole lot of hours and his own funds to study for and take the "exam" while an associate here practically glanced off of the study guides and aced the test (my partner barely escaped with his life). It seems to me that sustainable is just too much a catch phrase today and, as you have noted, Lee, clients will not pay for the privilege.

I too am concerned about the overall aspect of this document we are discussing as to whether it is a draft or a work in progress. There seems to be quite a lot of items within the body of the work that is admirable but quite too egalitarian for my blood. I'm very tired of hopey, changey these days. I would like to see some sort of open discussion, perhaps an open chat room format, where we can all enter into a reasonable investigation of all of the topics.

Posted 15 days ago | Reply Privately

Linkedin CORA
Craig Headrick

Partner at HLP Architects, LLC

See all Craig’s activity »

Stop following Follow Craig
Reasonable. However, as a non-registered individual (read residential architectural designer), I have to disagree with the promotion that ALL buildings, including houses be designed and constructed under the supervision of a licensed architect. The impact of that clause alone would be quite a detrimental impediment to residential architecture by limiting those "qualified" to design residential architecture through a narrowly focused lens of the same elitism that this manifesto claims to be against.

Perhaps some of the most exquisite residences, both in aesthetics and function, in technology and craft, have been designed by non-registered innovators from Frank Lloyd Wright to some of the best of the "plan-book" specialists. Many, including myself, have had Professional Bachelor of Architecture degrees preferred upon them through some of the most prestigious architectural schools in the nation. And while that honor is just that, it does not impede our ability to function as qualified artisans of our craft when we are not licensed by the States. In fact, many of us are certainly just as capable of providing all the phases normally included within a design contract, from schematic to contract administration, site planning through conflict resolution, as our registered colleagues. A title and a stamp number is not a prerequisite to quality or competence.

The majority of homes in the United States are not architect designed homes because of the association with the idea of elitism such a residence projects. Some of the most ill conceived and poorly planned residences I have seen over the last twenty-five years of working as, first a drafter, then a designer, followed by a "Project Architect" or job captain and presently as the co-owner of a, primarily, residential firm, have been by licensed "professionals".

I have the same level of education and, perhaps, more practical experience that most of my contemporaries in my local area and I am well qualified to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are registered architects. I do not begrudge them the title and the respect of that title for structures I have no knowledge of or have no business working on due to lack of expertise or other reasons. I just wish that some respect was diverted in our direction-to those who have truly worked in the trenches, gotten their hands dirty over years of exposure to their craft and have sacrificed and worked as hard or even harder, than some of those who are hardly as qualified but call themselves...architects.

Posted 15 days ago | Reply Privately

Lee Chapin

Principal Architect, Pikes Peak Design & Consulting Co.

See all Lee’s activity »

Stop following Follow Lee
Craig,
I have been on both sides of the fence in respect to design. In Ohio I was a residential designer, who, like you, had seen and fixed numerous errors created by registered design professionals (engineers included). As I took a non-traditional route- I began pounding nails for contractors through high school and college (which I did not finish), to working under a licensed Architect for 12 years (who, like me, had actually built things) and eventually got licensed in Colorado, where they recognize academics AND experience, I can speak to both sides of that particular issue. I have also seen ALOT of cad jockeys hanging out a shingle, charging very little and it is scary that some of that crap got built as well. "What do you mean by a load path?" I do not say that is your case!

An alternative may be a test for residential designers for certification similar to the AIBD (CPBD, I think).

David- as to the proposal. I agree with much of it, though requiring LEED certification is, to me, a farce. Especially if the only alternative is from California- yikes! As residential Architects, it seems that the CGP designation from the NAHB is a better alternative.

I agree that generally our profession does attempt to be "green" though I personally promote stewardship. Our mission statement reads "Pikes Peak Design strives to be a good steward of the resources, finances and talents of the Owner, Builder and Architect. This concept leads to a collaborative design which balances efficiency, comfort and aesthetics." It is partly because I don't agree with much of the premise of LEED but also because many people are automatically put off by it.

As to the CEU portion I would not recommend having NCARB oversee anything though having consistency is a good idea.

While I am a huge proponent of pro-bono work (often to the detriment of my business) forcing someone to do something like that seems a bit over the top to me.

If this is a work in progress and can be amended I will support it in concept. However, if this is a draft to be voted on and implemented, I cannot do so. I think the heart of it addresses the reason I don't belong to the AIA- they don't represent their constituents nearly well enough.

Thanks for this and the work you (and the others) have put into it.

Lee Chapin

Feb 16, 2010, at 9:20 AM, "Jack K. Rogers" <jack.rogers@mchsi.com> wrote:

Hello Duo,

I agree with the eight points listed. Thanks for the article.

Jack K. Rogers AIA

On Feb 16, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Mark McInturff <mmcinturff@mcinturffarchitects.com> wrote:

I am in full support of this.

Mark McInturff FAIA
McInturff Architects
4220 Leeward Place
Bethesda, Maryland 20816
301 229 3705
fax 229 6380
mmcinturff@mcinturffarchitects.com

Feb 16, 2010, at 10:34 AM, "12/12 Architects" <cinda@1212architects.com> wrote:

Duo - sign me up! This letter is getting huge circulation at AIA Northeast Illinois and Chicago Chapters - I've received it 3 times already this morning. We need a CORA group here!

Thank you.

--cinda

Cinda K. Lester, AIA, AICP
12/12 Architects & Planners
644 67th Street
Downers Grove, Illinois 60516
p: 630.346.1620
f: 630.493.1817
w: 1212architects.com
e: cinda@1212architects.com

On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:03 AM, "Bud Dietrich, AIA" <bud@hfdarchitects.com> wrote:

I whole heartily endorse the below call for action and lend my support to CORA in its attempt to bring about the positive actions noted.

Bud Dietrich, AIA ALA NCARB
Harold Forrest Dietrich Architects LLC
Transforming Houses Into Homes sm
1411 Berkley Court
Deerfield, IL 60015
847 945 0921

don duffy
Post subject: Re: Rethink, Reform, Renew | By Architects for Architects
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:05 am
Offline
CORA Architect

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:55 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Charlotte
3) All licensed architects be LEED certified as part of their licensure, updated by required Continued Education or Professional Practice Certification cited abov

I am not sure LEED is the way to go. LEED is another architect ivory tower. And what LEED area of expertise? LEED NC or LEED for Home. And one can be a LEED expert and not an Architect. Just study the facts, take the test and you can be a LEED consultant.
I think the NHBA is going to win the battle for GREEN $$$. There are other programs that should be considered to go after RA or AIA on ones business card.

I do think LEED principles should be worked into the general architectural education. I don't think we need to require a LEED certificate to maintain a license.

I do think continuing education is important and should be required, Some credits should be required for sustainability as with life safety.
Architects 12 hours, AIA architects 18 hours. Maybe AIA,LEED 24hours.

What about Home Designers. Would this not put RA, AIA at a educational disadvantage in the market place. Should CORA require LEED as requirement of membership? If we CORA are to raise the level of housing, designers should be required to think as we do. This brings me back to the ivory tower and its a small room. I think we need to be working on a stadium so more of the public can join us.

Maybe we need MBA after RA, AIA. Teaching architects to prosper in a free market economy of supply and demand might be a good addition to the manifesto.

Architects shall endeavor to provide a service that has value to the customer as defined by the customer.

don duffy
Post subject: Re: Rethink, Reform, Renew | By Architects for Architects
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:01 am
Offline
CORA Architect

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:55 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Charlotte
From my chair, Architects are viewed as having good taste and many architects don't have good taste. Nor would I want their "opinion" on taste. Lets just say modern vs classical training. NC State vs Notre Dame.

I think the AIA has spent its life trying to legislate our value rather than the profession creating value on its own. Having all plans reviewed by an architect is one such idea. I don't think bigger government is the answer.

I think architects have a unique talent and training at problem solving. But to use the client to our end is what has got us in this less than desirable situation.

I think architects should focus on being a public or private servant. A good servant is hard to find and when one is found they are valuable and are kept.

As for life safety rules. These rules can be taught and most people who can read can accomplish this simple gaol. Having some technical education might bode well for our reputation. Firmness and commodity will go further with the general public than delight. Delight is great until one has to spend large amounts of money shortly after the owner moves in because the house is not preforming well.

The market place is leaving the profession behind. the public has many choices available to achieve a home design.The bottom line for me is to have my clients saying I Architect met and exceeded their needs. Not, I was bullied into a design I did not want or ask for, or the architect kept referring to the home as his/hers, or designing a modern interpretation of a Georgian house when all the client wanted was 5, 4 and door box they could live a life in.

We need to be taught in school to follow instructions and lead the process to the clients success. Thats how we will become relevant.
When a young architectural student leaves school they should leave all the BS and head games there as well. Schools could go along way at teaching a little bedside manor.

www.coragroups.org/forum/
Greg La Vardera
Post subject: Re: Rethink, Reform, Renew | By Architects for Architects
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:59 pm
Offline
CORA Moderator

Fundamentally at some level what you are making an appeal for is for architects to be more active, or dominant, in the kind of construction work that serves the much broader demographic of people. I just think it would behoove you to be brainstorming and conceptualizing with at least a few architects that actually live, work, and negotiate the broader demographic on a daily basis. If you don't, then really, its the same folly that brought us here.

I appreciate your sentiment that States should limit houses to architects - that is what you are saying after all, when you strip away the obfuscation as Thomas put it. You know I agree with you - but this is a terrible way to number 1 state this goal. The true intent is so obvious its insulting. And number 2 its a terrible way to go about achieving this goal. My own appeal for a movement to bring other designers into being architects is the much better way, and a positive way to pursue this goal. You guys are all very intelligent, so I hope you can see that without me having to hit you over the head with it.

Which brings me to my point: What exactly do you think will happen once we have every state requiring every house to be designed by architects? The answer to this, or rather the lack of an answer, is why it will never happen. I'm all for grand ideas, but if you can't advance a plan that has a chance of happening then WTF good is it?

So after we magically convince every state to say, hey yeah, all those houses ought to be designed by architects, then how the heck is that going to happen? Do you think that every developer, small builder, hack contractor, modular factory, and every other consumer of cheap bad design is suddenly going to line up for a one site at a time, architecture over all, design commission? Of course that is over the top - but seriously even if they did, who is going to pay for it? You know, because its going to cost a hell of a lot more than where the bad design comes from today. And where are we suddenly going to get the man-power to deliver the design of every house in every state? What happens to the legions of uncredentialed designers, now out of work and where do they go - are you sure that part of the plan should not be having them killed? How does this improve our standing? How does this improve design? Please! Tell me WTF you guys are thinking?

What I've been saying is that we need to be thinking about new business models that allow us to deliver good design to the market at a price competitive with bad design. That is how we make ourselves relevant, and that is how we improve our status. It would be nice if there was a smidgen of this idea in your manifesto.

www.coragroups.org/forum/
Greg La Vardera
Post subject: Re: Rethink, Reform, Renew | By Architects for Architects
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:59 pm
Offline
CORA Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:41 am
Posts: 1710
Location: merchantville, nj
I think the whole second section needs to be re-written in plain language. I'm one for academic texts and letting the language go where it wants to in order to support the ideas, but I think you are ignoring a big part of your target audience here with overly complicated language. Ironically its a microcosm of what has made us irrelevant.

Just as an example:
Quote:
The creation of a parallel licensing body, LEEDs certification, has further compromised the primacy of registered architects as the central arbiters of built form. In the assertion of its own value, LEEDs certification promotes an agenda of fabricated exclusivity, putting its organization’s interests above relevant utility. What has resulted is a de facto code of aesthetic ethics called “sustainable design” which aspires to redefine and appropriate what architects have always valued, advocated and practiced.

I'd say:
The popularity of LEED and the misrepresentation of LEED as a building design credential has undermined the central role of registered architects in the construction process. While LEED has undoubted value as an expert credential it is only a small subset of the wider ranging expertise of an architect. Yet its popularity has allowed many with only LEED credentials to take over the mind space of the public as the defacto leaders of the building process. The profession had a great role in the establishment of LEED and its within our realm to clarify what it represents. LEEDs role in the larger construction picture must be revised, with its administrators consent, or the Profession must resolve to regard it as an adversary.

I could rewrite the entire thing like this, but I don't want to ruffle any feathers. You have to say in plain words what you are thinking. Its way too cryptic.

_________________
Greg
modern house plans: http://www.lamidesign.com/plans

www.coragroups.org/forum/
Thomas Potts
Post subject: Re: Rethink, Reform, Renew | By Architects for Architects
PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm
Offline
CORA Designer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:05 pm
Posts: 388
Location: Allentown, Pa.
Somehow you lost the hook that got me in the opening paragraphs. I don't remember what it was exactly, but the idea that government intervention has come about because of the erosion in the profession was presented much more clearly.

As an outsider looking at it, your first position about all plans being stamped seems the height of immediate self-interest. I'd at least move that further down the list. I sincerely think you guys need to look at this more closely. Its a chicken and egg thing. You make it sound as if non-architects drawing plans has caused the slippage in the profession. I submit its the other way around. The slippage in the profession has caused the consumer to look elsewhere for something that more closely reflects their notion of value. I'm not suggesting this be debated here, just that I wouldn't put it at the top of your list. It seems to me to be the end result of a lot of work within the industry to regain the lost relevance. You have to earn it, not get it at the start.

www.coragroups.org/forum/
Thomas Potts
Post subject: Re: Rethink, Reform, Renew | By Architects for Architects
PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:29 pm
CORA Designer
Location: Allentown, Pa.

I was pleased with what I read in the first part of this, especially the understanding of how the profession's misdirection opened the door for government interference which then threatens to make it extinct. Very thought provoking stuff.

Quote:
There are concrete positions that can re-establish our credibility in a society that has questioned the value of all goods and services.

What was less inspiring to me was the list of concrete positions. It comes off as a list of oft-voiced gripes. I don't see immediately how the list works to "re-establish credibility". You get credibility in the eyes of the public by walking the walk. Not by government mandate. I'm not sure that state required plan stamping automatically creates "value of goods and services".

If pro-bono work increases credibility in the public's eyes, that should be made clearer. Maybe develop the list as a point-counterpoint, i.e. to the charge that the profession is seen as elitist, we now require a certain percentage of pro-bono work.

I'm not sure I understand the point about residential architecture being separate from housing and small practice. Clearly you have something in mind here, but I don't see what it is.

But all in all, I applaud this effort even if I don't agree with each point.