Housing and Community Development

-------------------------------------------
Perry Cofield AIA
Design Ways & Means Architects
Arlington VA
-------------------------------------------

Any discussion about public image needs to start by recognizing the AIA is broadly two constituencies.  The first is a large number of architects employed by a small number of old, established firms with institutional knowledge, connections, and some ballast, who compete for public and corporate work.  The second is all the smaller firms subject to the whims and vicissitudes of the private sector.  If you are the second type of firm striving to become like the first, the AIA can help you.  If you service the residential and light construction sector with no desire to expand into other markets, your dues simply subsidize the first group.  The AIA has never really gotten beyond its origins.  To reposition, the AIA must do so.

Ignoring the residential sector is the biggest mistake we've made as a professional group. Designing a small handful of residences for only millionaires and billionaires isn't a way to get across to the people. Our public perception is rather lousy because we don't work for the average person. The homebuilder provides the aesthetic for 99% of the country and we wonder why everyone is just too tacky to understand sophisticated Architecture. It's our fault that we allowed suburbia and cookie cutter construction to become the norm. It's our fault that regular people seek out a builder first and not an Architect. We walked away from residential work in the 50s and now design has no value. Builders think green design means recycling floor plans. In housing, design has nothing to do with the Architecture, it's all about "skinning" the same floor plan in different ways. Interior design is the focus. The people are sick of the lack of choice when it comes to housing, but where can they turn? The people are craving something new, but where are we? We're all trying to get on the cover of a magazine, thinking a snazzy picture of a multimillion dollar residence is somehow going to resonate with the average guy who will never afford such a building. You know what inspires regular people? Snazzy pictures of something they have a chance to afford!

If we're always concerned about cover stories that we forget to provide great products for everyone, then how are we to expect to grow or survive? People making $50K a year are not going to pay half their salary for a set of drawings, a theory. Houses for regular folks don't need a commercial grade set of drawings. How can a profession sustain itself when it focuses on the sector with the least amount of jobs, the least amount of money, and the least amount of marketing potential? Don't be fooled by the price tag on a commercial building and forget about the shear numbers of residences being built even today. All the money is in housing. At the top of the boom housing made 200% more than commercial. Housing has always outperformed commercial, yet most of us flock to the sector making the least amount of money, making the least amount of buildings, creating the least amount of influence over the people. We spend most of our lives in our houses. Houses are the only buildings people view in such a personal way. No one cares about the bank or grocery store. Many of the famous buildings we admire are houses. It's the only building a person really falls in love with, yet we wonder why they won't fall in love with us?

The best PR campaign we could ever wage as a profession is to help unemployed Architects set up residential practices and connect them with homebuilders. It's a low overhead venture. All you need is a lap top and CAD program and you're ready to go. The coffee shop is your low rent office. The AIA could be working with NHBA and other organizations to connect builders and Architects. I haven't had a commercial project in well over a year and I'm doing great. It's amazing how much work can come your way when you learn not to over draw and reduce your fee, not your worth. Builders only need so much info to build a spec house and if you can provide only what they and the local reviewer need, then you'll fit in the builder's business model and they bring you the work. I live in a city that's 60% underwater and there is work. It may be hard to find, but it's out there. I've convinced several builders that unique spec houses always outsell the cookie cutter houses because there is no urgency to buy a copy. There's a copy down the street and by noon, two more will pop up over there, but this house is one of a kind and will never be built again. You can own the only one. If you love this one, you better act now! Mass production is required to make profits with low quality buildings, but the banks aren't interested in funding too many projects at once. Design has become an avenue for competition and we need to seize this moment while it's here. I'm trying to make design valuable in terms of dollars to builders and agents and it seems to be getting some traction. If we make them believe our efforts are worth something, then the value of our profession goes up. We need the average agents to quit talking in terms of the home for sale being a "Joe the Builder" home and start saying this is Joe the Architect's Design. When we make the brand, that's when we become valuable. 


-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

I hear you Eric but why will these same people pay a 6 to 7% commission of both house and land to a broker to simply sell it? Why hasn't the government come down on realtor associations for priice fixing just like it did to the AIA?

Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-17-2012 07:02
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: What do we do, anyway?

Ignoring the residential sector is the biggest mistake we've made as a professional group. Designing a small handful of residences for only millionaires and billionaires isn't a way to get across to the people. Our public perception is rather lousy because we don't work for the average person. The homebuilder provides the aesthetic for 99% of the country and we wonder why everyone is just too tacky to understand sophisticated Architecture. It's our fault that we allowed suburbia and cookie cutter construction to become the norm. It's our fault that regular people seek out a builder first and not an Architect. We walked away from residential work in the 50s and now design has no value. Builders think green design means recycling floor plans. In housing, design has nothing to do with the Architecture, it's all about "skinning" the same floor plan in different ways. Interior design is the focus. The people are sick of the lack of choice when it comes to housing, but where can they turn? The people are craving something new, but where are we? We're all trying to get on the cover of a magazine, thinking a snazzy picture of a multimillion dollar residence is somehow going to resonate with the average guy who will never afford such a building. You know what inspires regular people? Snazzy pictures of something they have a chance to afford!

If we're always concerned about cover stories that we forget to provide great products for everyone, then how are we to expect to grow or survive? People making $50K a year are not going to pay half their salary for a set of drawings, a theory. Houses for regular folks don't need a commercial grade set of drawings. How can a profession sustain itself when it focuses on the sector with the least amount of jobs, the least amount of money, and the least amount of marketing potential? Don't be fooled by the price tag on a commercial building and forget about the shear numbers of residences being built even today. All the money is in housing. At the top of the boom housing made 200% more than commercial. Housing has always outperformed commercial, yet most of us flock to the sector making the least amount of money, making the least amount of buildings, creating the least amount of influence over the people. We spend most of our lives in our houses. Houses are the only buildings people view in such a personal way. No one cares about the bank or grocery store. Many of the famous buildings we admire are houses. It's the only building a person really falls in love with, yet we wonder why they won't fall in love with us?

The best PR campaign we could ever wage as a profession is to help unemployed Architects set up residential practices and connect them with homebuilders. It's a low overhead venture. All you need is a lap top and CAD program and you're ready to go. The coffee shop is your low rent office. The AIA could be working with NHBA and other organizations to connect builders and Architects. I haven't had a commercial project in well over a year and I'm doing great. It's amazing how much work can come your way when you learn not to over draw and reduce your fee, not your worth. Builders only need so much info to build a spec house and if you can provide only what they and the local reviewer need, then you'll fit in the builder's business model and they bring you the work. I live in a city that's 60% underwater and there is work. It may be hard to find, but it's out there. I've convinced several builders that unique spec houses always outsell the cookie cutter houses because there is no urgency to buy a copy. There's a copy down the street and by noon, two more will pop up over there, but this house is one of a kind and will never be built again. You can own the only one. If you love this one, you better act now! Mass production is required to make profits with low quality buildings, but the banks aren't interested in funding too many projects at once. Design has become an avenue for competition and we need to seize this moment while it's here. I'm trying to make design valuable in terms of dollars to builders and agents and it seems to be getting some traction. If we make them believe our efforts are worth something, then the value of our profession goes up. We need the average agents to quit talking in terms of the home for sale being a "Joe the Builder" home and start saying this is Joe the Architect's Design. When we make the brand, that's when we become valuable. 


-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Perry Cofield AIA
Design Ways & Means Architects
Arlington VA
-------------------------------------------
Thad, the presumed reason for the Justice Dept going after AIA was its intimate relationship to federal contracts.  That was the reason AIA's founding- and to get a leg up on contractors. Origins can remain imprinted on an association forever unless there is push for change internally. Why Realtors remain somewhat off the hook is a good question- a vastly more powerful lobby?  Someone wants to move this discussion to the Reposition discussion- a great idea. Must admit I  lacked the computer skillset to do this when starting this discussion a few days ago. 






Original Message:
Sent: 04-18-2012 08:53
From: Thad Broom
Subject: What do we do, anyway?


I hear you Eric but why will these same people pay a 6 to 7% commission of both house and land to a broker to simply sell it? Why hasn't the government come down on realtor associations for priice fixing just like it did to the AIA?

Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------

I cannot speak to why the government hasn't hit the Realtors for price fixing.  But I think that the issue with why people are willing to pay the commission is that it is buried in the final price.  Whether it is a Realtor or a contractor, if a person buys or builds a house they see themselves getting that house for the price they are paying.  The issue that I have had time and again is that for my fees the person is getting "only paper."

To put it another way, if someone pays $100K to buy a house and $6K of that is the 6% commission to the Realtor, the person doesn't think twice about it because they have a $100K house.  If they pay $100K to build a house, they figure they are paying $100K for the labor and materials to build that house - they aren't seeing the $15K of profit the contractor has put in there.  But if I charge even $1K for a set of plans for that house - pretty much just my hourly rate for having sat down and worked with them over the course of days, weeks, or months to come up with a design for their $100K house - suddenly that is a $101K house and what I've charged is "extra" beyond the value of the house.  They still have to go out and pay $100K to have it built.

I'm certainly not saying that this is right, but this is the "logic" that I've found myself running into.

-------------------------------------------
Thomas Bank AIA
Owner/Architect
Simply Stated Architecture, P.C.
Lemoyne PA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-18-2012 08:53
From: Thad Broom
Subject: What do we do, anyway?


I hear you Eric but why will these same people pay a 6 to 7% commission of both house and land to a broker to simply sell it? Why hasn't the government come down on realtor associations for priice fixing just like it did to the AIA?

Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------

I hear this complaint all the time. Ask yourself this, "What service are agents providing that's more valuable?" Agents find properties for builders and special clients before they're advertised. This alone makes them a valuable resource in real dollars and cents. They know everything going on in the community. They're like the beauty shop. One stop shopping for all the gossip about who is doing what next. This is valuable. What are we really providing everyday people that isn't being provided by someone else?

Design is all we got and it has no value until it creates desire that compels people to pay more than the standard price. Appraisals do not reflect how desirable an individual builder or Architect's products are. They are only concerned with the "Area" or "Location". Everything within these locations is the same to them and this is why value is based on the average sales, not the individual company's efforts. Until we can track how much people are willing to pay for our houses as individual products unattached from the price of the Lot through real sales, then no one will know if we're responsible or if the Location is responsible for the desirability of the houses we design that sell well. That unsolvable Location argument is the number one reason for people to continue thinking design doesn't matter.

Separate the Lot price from the House price and we'll see what people are really paying for. Lots in the same Location should be about the same price depending on size. Everyone in the industry knows what lots go for in the areas where the practice. Lots in my neighborhood are about $200K. The tax assessor already values the lot separate from the house, appraisers in areas with no sales history do this. It's really no a radical concept to isolate the value of "Location" and we could then compare houses in different areas and not penalize a wonderful house because it is one of a kind for the area. When builders, agents, and clients can see that your houses sell for more, you will begin to create a brand with inherent value. How do you create a brand when your value is determined by averaging your sales results with your competitor's just because you built houses in the same area? Houses are the only commodities that are not valued based on individual company performance at market and thus we have created a race to the bottom as the product of averaging the efforts of a Community of Competitors only penalizes the successful and rewards the weak.

I've seen my best sale (neighborhood's best sale) on everyone's appraisal in my neighborhood for two years. All of these builders are using my one sales result to justify a value for themselves that their products could never create on their own. We must force everyone to accept the value they create for themselves using their sales history and no one else's. Meanwhile my appraisals never come in close to my sales results because I'm being averaged with lousy competitors with lousy sales numbers. This makes me look bad for spending more money and them look good for spending less since we all get the same average value for doing vastly different jobs. What economic system does that sound like? Everyone is paid the same no matter how hard they work. Who came up with our appraisal system? Stalin, Marx? This is exactly where the lousy perception comes from concerning our involvement in housing. They say we make everything too expensive and our designs will never get enough value to justify the cost. Since when did we give the gold medal to the guy who crossed the finish line last? That's exactly what the appraisers are doing. It's a brilliant scheme that favors the big box neighborhood builder and crushes us. Who do you think has the crony lobbyists in place to keep things the way they is? No wonder Housing hasn't evolved in 100 years.


-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-18-2012 08:53
From: Thad Broom
Subject: What do we do, anyway?


I hear you Eric but why will these same people pay a 6 to 7% commission of both house and land to a broker to simply sell it? Why hasn't the government come down on realtor associations for priice fixing just like it did to the AIA?

Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------

My take on the housing issue is that the profession of architecture has never done the bulk of buildings on the planet, ever. The architecture of the twentieth century was the first that ever engaged the idea of designing middle income housing. The post WW1 architectural cohort was the first that conceptualized the idea of the profession of architecture taking on the responsibility of thinking about the entire built environment. We are following on that path, and working down the income ladder. I see no reason to beat ourselves up about "losing a market" that we never had.

Let us just see the undesigned parts of the built environment and our sense of responsibility for it as a new mission for architecture. It wasn't achieved in 100 years, probably won't be completed in the next hundred. But we do acknowledge it as a mission, now. Let's continue to figure out how to bring design down the income ladder. Codes are helping with that, but the aesthetic aspect is only the concern of the profession. Aesthetics are of passionate concern to us, but of minimal importance to citizens whose more pressing needs are food, health and education. To move down the income ladder is to balance the building of valuable buildings that protect health, safety and welfare
with building an image that speaks to our time, climate and civilization.
-------------------------------------------
Ernesto Maldonado AIA
Principal
Glassman Shoemake Maldonado Architects, Inc.
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-17-2012 07:02
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: What do we do, anyway?

Ignoring the residential sector is the biggest mistake we've made as a professional group. Designing a small handful of residences for only millionaires and billionaires isn't a way to get across to the people. Our public perception is rather lousy because we don't work for the average person. The homebuilder provides the aesthetic for 99% of the country and we wonder why everyone is just too tacky to understand sophisticated Architecture. It's our fault that we allowed suburbia and cookie cutter construction to become the norm. It's our fault that regular people seek out a builder first and not an Architect. We walked away from residential work in the 50s and now design has no value. Builders think green design means recycling floor plans. In housing, design has nothing to do with the Architecture, it's all about "skinning" the same floor plan in different ways. Interior design is the focus. The people are sick of the lack of choice when it comes to housing, but where can they turn? The people are craving something new, but where are we? We're all trying to get on the cover of a magazine, thinking a snazzy picture of a multimillion dollar residence is somehow going to resonate with the average guy who will never afford such a building. You know what inspires regular people? Snazzy pictures of something they have a chance to afford!

If we're always concerned about cover stories that we forget to provide great products for everyone, then how are we to expect to grow or survive? People making $50K a year are not going to pay half their salary for a set of drawings, a theory. Houses for regular folks don't need a commercial grade set of drawings. How can a profession sustain itself when it focuses on the sector with the least amount of jobs, the least amount of money, and the least amount of marketing potential? Don't be fooled by the price tag on a commercial building and forget about the shear numbers of residences being built even today. All the money is in housing. At the top of the boom housing made 200% more than commercial. Housing has always outperformed commercial, yet most of us flock to the sector making the least amount of money, making the least amount of buildings, creating the least amount of influence over the people. We spend most of our lives in our houses. Houses are the only buildings people view in such a personal way. No one cares about the bank or grocery store. Many of the famous buildings we admire are houses. It's the only building a person really falls in love with, yet we wonder why they won't fall in love with us?

The best PR campaign we could ever wage as a profession is to help unemployed Architects set up residential practices and connect them with homebuilders. It's a low overhead venture. All you need is a lap top and CAD program and you're ready to go. The coffee shop is your low rent office. The AIA could be working with NHBA and other organizations to connect builders and Architects. I haven't had a commercial project in well over a year and I'm doing great. It's amazing how much work can come your way when you learn not to over draw and reduce your fee, not your worth. Builders only need so much info to build a spec house and if you can provide only what they and the local reviewer need, then you'll fit in the builder's business model and they bring you the work. I live in a city that's 60% underwater and there is work. It may be hard to find, but it's out there. I've convinced several builders that unique spec houses always outsell the cookie cutter houses because there is no urgency to buy a copy. There's a copy down the street and by noon, two more will pop up over there, but this house is one of a kind and will never be built again. You can own the only one. If you love this one, you better act now! Mass production is required to make profits with low quality buildings, but the banks aren't interested in funding too many projects at once. Design has become an avenue for competition and we need to seize this moment while it's here. I'm trying to make design valuable in terms of dollars to builders and agents and it seems to be getting some traction. If we make them believe our efforts are worth something, then the value of our profession goes up. We need the average agents to quit talking in terms of the home for sale being a "Joe the Builder" home and start saying this is Joe the Architect's Design. When we make the brand, that's when we become valuable. 


-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

Excellent post Eric. I agree completely, but would like to add that in addition to nurturing relationships with builders, that more architects encourage working directly with the home owner.  I started my residential business working with spec developers who, like your builder clients, saw the value in something different, but gradually the majority of our work switched to working directly with home owners. We tailor our limited services to exactly what they need and mention the limitations, but also the benefits which are in both time and costs. Often the time savings is more important. I also use the analogy of a realtor in terms of fees and services and tell our clients that in building a new home, you do not have the realtor, but instead you have the architect and other possible professionals such as surveyors, engineers, home energy raters, etc. and that they should budget accordingly. 

So, yes, I would love to see AIA promote residential architecture more through relationships with NAHB and consumer organizations or web sites. They could make posts that reference back to AIA. I just typed in "residential architects" in Google and although www.aia.org/CRAN did show up on the first page, that is not for consumers, but perhaps there could be a link the top to the http://architectfinder.aia.org/ for consumers. Other websites that showed up on page one of the search like www.residentialarchitect.us had some companies listed that I know are not architects. That is a shame.

Secondly, perhaps those of us who do have successful residential businesses should be telling other architects more about it. We need more people like Eric who are passionate about what they do and are willing to share information. I think that Sarah Susanka does a good job of promoting the value of residential architecture also. Just as everyone needs to visit a doctor sometime, I would love to see the general public turned to an architect for their house needs, actually for any design need when I look at the metal building industry in the commercial sector.

And finally, what I hear from clients that I work with who have first started with another architect is that  the process took too long (they did not need all the services offered), cost too much (again they did not need all the extra service), that the estimated construction costs were too high (although another time I will share stories about client responsibility with this) and that they did not feel that the architect was really listening to what they wanted, but instead was trying to create something a bit too grand. To me this says that AIA could perhaps create a seminar on limited service design options.  Sounds like you could present that Eric!

-------------------------------------------
Debra Rucker Coleman, AIA
Architect
Sun Plans Inc.
Mobile, AL

-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-17-2012 07:02
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: What do we do, anyway?

Ignoring the residential sector is the biggest mistake we've made as a professional group. Designing a small handful of residences for only millionaires and billionaires isn't a way to get across to the people. Our public perception is rather lousy because we don't work for the average person. The homebuilder provides the aesthetic for 99% of the country and we wonder why everyone is just too tacky to understand sophisticated Architecture. It's our fault that we allowed suburbia and cookie cutter construction to become the norm. It's our fault that regular people seek out a builder first and not an Architect. We walked away from residential work in the 50s and now design has no value. Builders think green design means recycling floor plans. In housing, design has nothing to do with the Architecture, it's all about "skinning" the same floor plan in different ways. Interior design is the focus. The people are sick of the lack of choice when it comes to housing, but where can they turn? The people are craving something new, but where are we? We're all trying to get on the cover of a magazine, thinking a snazzy picture of a multimillion dollar residence is somehow going to resonate with the average guy who will never afford such a building. You know what inspires regular people? Snazzy pictures of something they have a chance to afford!

If we're always concerned about cover stories that we forget to provide great products for everyone, then how are we to expect to grow or survive? People making $50K a year are not going to pay half their salary for a set of drawings, a theory. Houses for regular folks don't need a commercial grade set of drawings. How can a profession sustain itself when it focuses on the sector with the least amount of jobs, the least amount of money, and the least amount of marketing potential? Don't be fooled by the price tag on a commercial building and forget about the shear numbers of residences being built even today. All the money is in housing. At the top of the boom housing made 200% more than commercial. Housing has always outperformed commercial, yet most of us flock to the sector making the least amount of money, making the least amount of buildings, creating the least amount of influence over the people. We spend most of our lives in our houses. Houses are the only buildings people view in such a personal way. No one cares about the bank or grocery store. Many of the famous buildings we admire are houses. It's the only building a person really falls in love with, yet we wonder why they won't fall in love with us?

The best PR campaign we could ever wage as a profession is to help unemployed Architects set up residential practices and connect them with homebuilders. It's a low overhead venture. All you need is a lap top and CAD program and you're ready to go. The coffee shop is your low rent office. The AIA could be working with NHBA and other organizations to connect builders and Architects. I haven't had a commercial project in well over a year and I'm doing great. It's amazing how much work can come your way when you learn not to over draw and reduce your fee, not your worth. Builders only need so much info to build a spec house and if you can provide only what they and the local reviewer need, then you'll fit in the builder's business model and they bring you the work. I live in a city that's 60% underwater and there is work. It may be hard to find, but it's out there. I've convinced several builders that unique spec houses always outsell the cookie cutter houses because there is no urgency to buy a copy. There's a copy down the street and by noon, two more will pop up over there, but this house is one of a kind and will never be built again. You can own the only one. If you love this one, you better act now! Mass production is required to make profits with low quality buildings, but the banks aren't interested in funding too many projects at once. Design has become an avenue for competition and we need to seize this moment while it's here. I'm trying to make design valuable in terms of dollars to builders and agents and it seems to be getting some traction. If we make them believe our efforts are worth something, then the value of our profession goes up. We need the average agents to quit talking in terms of the home for sale being a "Joe the Builder" home and start saying this is Joe the Architect's Design. When we make the brand, that's when we become valuable. 


-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

I have to agree with Eric Rawlings, that if AIA gets it wrong, it's about residential architecture, and as Perry points out, the smal firms are ignored as well. Both true, and a lot of small firms are doing residential, some exclusively, all of this is no coincidence.

But, looking for Mr and Mrs Right Client for their next mansion is not a model upon which to base a business, in my opinion. The AIA has a library of exceptional award winning houses for them, which arguably offer little to the unexceptional, the 99% part of the market. The importance of the uneceptional market?  It is one of the largest economic generators. 

Eric has it correct, it's about getting on the homebuilding team. Homebuilders have relied on architects mainly to provide permit documents, with design delivered by the corporate marketing departments. The builders are now in a tizzy, if not a downward spiral. This is in part due to the economy, we all heard that a million times!.

But they have to be looking for ideas, becasue the demise of the industry is due, in part,  to the product that was delivered. The product was designed to sell based on the value of curb appeal, but designed to fail by inattention to sustainable values. There is an opportunity now to rethink the product, and all its trappings. It may also be time to start creating a new market for the product. It will be complicated, because the land development and subdivision practices are old school as well, and there are a million lots out there waiting for the next round of homebuilding. The builders still want to succeed at selling houses, and success will be market driven. And architects can thrive in small practices, designing small buildings, or maybe, move into a corporate office with the builders, by defining the new market.

To recover, what will they build? And what role could architects have in shaping that product? Can we create a new market by redefining residential architecture? Can the AIA step up here and say finally, hey, we really do have a stake in this product?


-------------------------------------------
Allen Neyman AIA
Principal
StovallSmithNeyman and Associates Architects
Germantown MD
-------------------------------------------

Perry,

Your observations about the AIA are quite correct. 

Unfortunately, the AIA is a bit like the Titanic.  Full speed ahead while ignoring some of the faults is the standard operating model for the corporate approach and image of the AIA.

Having been a loyal card-carrying and promoting member of the AIA for 35 years, it has never ceased to amaze me how difficult it is for the AIA to change.  The AIA has been extremely slow in responding to the need to promote involvement in the profession by women, minorities, students, and "interns".  Fortunately change in all of those areas has actually happened in the past 47 years, but way too slowly.  Change in the AIA can only come from the bottom up.  If we wait for change to come from the top down, we will only see slow changes, or changes that harm what the corporate higher-ups at AIA consider to be the insignificant corners of the membership profile.

In spite of two exceedingly difficult years I continued to maintain my membership in the AIA and continued to pour many hours of volunteer time into my local and state chapters.  Under the existing Bylaws, I will be eligible for Emeritus membership status in the AIA in September of this year.  That change in membership classification would also relieve me of the financial burden to pay future AIA membership dues.  Even as an Emeritus member, I could and would happily continue to participate in local and state chapter affairs as a member and volunteer.

BUT - for some "only the money matters" logic echoing from AIA National, the Board has decided to place an Emeritus Membership By-laws change on the ballot at the 2012 National Convention in May.  As I understand the proposed By-laws change, the qualifications to receive Emeritus Membership status will drastically change.  The eligible age will change from 65 to 70 and the Emeritus Member will no longer be allowed to practice architecture, i.e. "forced retirement", if they wish to be granted Emeritus Member status.

National and the big chapters are in an absolute panic because of the economy-driven loss of members and a decline in the number of new recruits. 

Rather than creating a sustainable financial structure for the organization, the Board became blinded by the go-go economy and the mistaken belief that AIA income and membership roles would continue to increase on an always-up line on the graph.  Because of that flawed attitude and image of the future, AIA National plowed ahead and managed to tear the hull open just below the waterline. 

Instead of taking major steps to cut the operating expenses, the Board has made the decision to cut revenue loss by nibbling around the edges.  One of the edges that the Board has unwisely decided to attack in their search for revenue, are the By-laws related to Emeritus Membership status.

I believe the Board has made a serious miscalculation in their decision to alter the Emeritus Membership By-laws.  They seem to be of the belief that longtime members of the AIA, who would have been eligible for Emeritus membership classification under the current rules, will simply roll over quietly and continue to pay membership dues.  The Board seems to have forgotten that folks of my generation are the ones who managed to change the AIA from the bottom up and to do away with the elite old-guard approach that mandated from the top down.  We still do act on our convictions!

Should the proposed By-laws change be approved by the "membership" in May, the effect will be that AIA will loose not only my future dues, but also the volunteer services of a longtime member and promoter of the AIA.

I urge each of you to contact your local chapter Board and ask them to vote NO on the proposed By-laws change related to Emeritus Membership.

Richard Bryant, AIA       

-------------------------------------------
Richard Bryant AIA
Principal
Alta Vista Design Architecture & Planning LLC
Corvallis OR
-------------------------------------------

Perry , this is a great dialogue you have started.  Eric, I think you comments are spot on!  I am wondering if it would be more effective to have this dialogue on the "Repositioning the Architect" forum set up by the AIA officers?

-------------------------------------------
Edward Shannon
Waterloo IA
-------------------------------------------