This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Housing Knowledge Community and Custom Residential Architects Network .
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Perry Cofield AIA
Design Ways & Means Architects
Arlington VA
-------------------------------------------
Let me begin by explaining how our political system differs from democracy in Belguim: This country, the size of a US state, has at least seven valid political parties, who all must state their platforms in writing. The candidates are all on the ballot in an election, and EVERY PERSON OF VOTING AGE MUST VOTE, OR FACE A FINE. The relevance of this will follow.
Thanks to Ed, Eric, David, Greg and Rand for glimmers of concern beyond your own agendas in the discussion of November 2-8. Does the public care about all this "retribution without a cause"? We all know that unless the Architect or designer has a contract with a client, we are defacto sub to the builder. Many builders truly regard us as a sub. And Greg fully knows how unlicensed designers revel in their role as free agents- howsabout some spit in your eye, architect? In all of this, the public is shortchanged.
These disputes may go on until we perish as a species- because of nothing in sight to end the disputes. The loser in all this? The public. Why? Because no standard exists for training a house designer. SO LETS LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD ONCE AND FOR ALL WITH ONE SET OF RULES.
When I interviewed for the Director of Education post at NCARB several years ago, I suggested ideally Residential Architecture would be licensed as discipline separate from Architecture. This would be supported by a somewhat shorter collegiate curriculum focusing on the technics of residential structures of less than 5 stories, combined with master planning exercises for residential and mixed use areas. With my idea akin to leaving a large turd behind in a church pew, I did not get the job.
But NCARB is blind to the fact that in the US we have AIA, AIBD, cadfolk, designers, decorators, and of course homeowners at work in this field- our version of Belgium, but with few rules. Our rulers are nominally the code officials, who do not actually design buildings, but instead "chaperone" health, safety and welfare, and write the code. The result? Our homes have a modicum of safety, but so many of our recent environments are less life-enhancing than 19th century company towns.
In my scenario Architects would practice as always. But many talented individuals with no interest in large commercial commissions would now have state credentials. This idea DEMANDS our two leading organizations, AIA and NAHB, to come to terms with what a house designer/land planner should know to practice. Each guild would have to find some common ground. The discussion between Eric and Rand really highlights the need for uniform standards for all house plan submissions above say 500 sf. Note these standards were discussed between two architects, not designers-at-large- the real core of the problem. With a new license category for a Residential Architects, we could close down the larger anomalies that fuel this intercine bickering.
I fully realize our guilds, demi-guilds, and free agents may find this idea repellent- because it has some logic? Or is unwieldy? Much work? Where to start? Needs to be phased in? Ultimately a state issue, etc. But as someone said, WITHOUT STATING AN END GAME, THERE IS NO GOAL. We will default any autonomy we may have back to the code drafters, who are more than slightly driven by the material producers- our industry equal of Big Pharma. AIA and NCARB must realize that failing to fuse our interests will continue chaos for our industry, and foster bland environment in the long run. As we lose more control to the "package deal" folk in the financial sector, we all count for less.
As to the AIA, do not mourn the loss of a hegemony we never had. We may be loved more for consigning the closed loop of modernists and academics that manage ARCHITECTURAL OFFICIALDOM mostly to the commercial sector. The public, being composed of sentimental fools that mostly love houses that refer to their culture and locale, would be just as happy. And well-designed homes in a smart-growth setting WILL doubtless gain more popularity over time, especially in the crucially dense parts or the US.
ALL OF US THAT LOVE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME EDUCATION AND STANDARDS. ANY OF YOU THAT FIND THIS A WORTHY GOAL SHOULD START THINKING OF HOW WE COULD SLOWLY IMPLEMENT THE ONLY INTENTIONAL SOLUTION IN SIGHT. ANY OTHER SOLUTION LEADS TO MORE DISSOLUTION AND FRAGMENTATION OF INTERESTS. WITHIN 20 YEARS, RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTS WOULD COMPETE AMONG PEERS, IN A MARKET FREE OF BOTH THE MARGINALLY COMPETENT AND THE RENT-SEEKING.
WE MIGHT IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND HELP SAVE THE PLANET, TOO.