In response to Mssrs. Morrison & Pealer's posts in particular- What intrigues me most is the interrelationship among these issues. That is, should licensure be required for all residential permits, should we have specialty licenses for residential architects, does it make sense to have only one license category for all architects, etc?
As has been noted, requirements vary greatly by locality so the issue of licensing requirements should, ideally, be decided locally. Here in CA, state law allows all jurisdictions to impose additional code restrictions to the State requirements that exempt one and two family homes from architects or engineers stamps. San Francisco allows unlicensed designers to design one & two family homes only if they don't exceed two stories and they comply with IBC Section 2308 (Conventional Light-Frame Construction).
This would be a reasonable approach for rural areas, I think but in the Bay Area the requirements just for submittal of a permit application for the smallest addition are so complex that even a seasoned architect (like me) has a difficult time just keeping current with the changes in the Planning Code, the Building Code, the Energy Code and now, this year, the Green Building Standards. And then, in addition, we have homeowners assoc. CC&R's, the Environmental Quality Act, the Ca. Coastal Act, the Bay Air Quality Management District and the San Francisco Building Code amendments. Neglect of any of these sets of regulations can kill a project. How can the public feel confident that their designer is competent to navigate all these obstacles without wasting enormous amounts of time even if he or she is working on a fixed sum contract and is willing to redesign without additional compensation?
I was a carpenter and builder of custom homes for 20 years before I started my architecture practice specializing in custom residential design. I don't think residential design is any more or less complicated or difficult than any other building type- just different. It has always seemed extremely delusional to me for the Architects Board to think that one exam could demonstrate competence in all building types.
Doctors, Engineers, Building Contractors,even school teachers all have specialty licenses, why don't we?
It would seem perfectly reasonable to me to have one common test for all Architects and then supplement exams for each building type. Then we would only have one additional exam to take for each building type we wished to add to our title.
It's extremely difficult to get government legislatures to change the law- there are so many special interest groups that will fight you every step of the way. I floated an idea on this site last month but didn't get much response, so I'll restate it.
I think the simplest and most effective way to effect change is to do it ourselves. If we initiated our own non-profit, professional organization we could set our own rules and then sell it to the public.
This is how the ICBO got started, the USGBC, Build-it-Green, etc. There are now a number of Realty Co.'s out there specializing in "Green Buildings". They could also be our clients. We could also sell our imprimatur to local HOA's and, eventually, local building depts. We don't need to wait for the AIA or the government to act. We can do this all by ourselves and we can start now. All we need is a mission statement that we can come together on. Any takers?
-------------------------------------------
A. Atkinson
A. Gordon Atkinson, Architect
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------