This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Small Firm Round Table and Residential Knowledge Community .
-------------------------------------------
I don't see what logical argument anyone can make for not requiring homes to be designed by an architect without opening the door to a whole host of other exemptions. Indeed, many states that allow homes to be designed by unregulated designers already allow small commercial buildings to be designed without the benefit of protection of health, safety and welfare afforded by practice regulations.
AIA National has public policies that state that we believe it is in the best interests of the public to require all buildings whose primary purpose is human habitation be designed by architects. And but for a single paragraph in another AIA policy that says we support the definition of "architectural practice" as developed by the NCARB, which accepts the fact that states may have exemptions for certain professionals and for certain building types (essentially taking out of the practice definition a large part of what most small firm practitioners do on a daily basis) we would necessarily be actively supporting our local components to lobby their statehouses to require ALL buildings be designed by architects, without exception.
I don't fault the NCARB for taking the stance they do. They are a separate organization with completely different goals and objectives than the AIA. The AIA has the luxury (and the mandate by its policies) to be more aspiration in our goals, while NCARB has to react to current legislation and what has sadly become customary practice over the years due to bad legislation that does not protect all consumers of building design services equally.
Our policies should be amended to remove any reference to standards developed by other organizations, we ought to define the practice of architecture on our own terms, and the AIA should actively support changing the regulations in every state to afford home owners the same protection of health safety and welfare that is afforded occupants of larger buildings.
Most regulations were written when homes were simpler. Advances in building materials and technologies, and our understanding of energy efficiency and the thoughtful use of limited natural resources has changed. Building security and fire safety issues have changed. And while the layout an aesthetic design of our homes has not changed significantly in the same period of time, the way we use our homes and the way we expect them to perform, has changed dramatically.
I've heard some members say things like, "We will never get those exemptions removed from our regulations here is my state." And to that I'd quote Thomas Jefferson who said, "It is wonderful how much can be done
if we are always
doing." I take that to mean that the best way to move toward a goal is to become actively and persistently engaged in attaining that goal, rather than passively accepting what others may determine is an appropriate role for us. Nobody can better define what the term "architectural practice" means than architects. And as the only credible voice speaking for the profession, that means the AIA.
Architecture is about so much more than complying with the base requirements of building codes. I design a variety of different types of projects, but there is one common theme to my practice. Most of my projects fall outside the practice definition of most state regulatory boards, based on size or use exemptions. Frankly, if I lived in a neighboring state, across a river to the east or the one to my west, I would have no practical or justifiable business reason to even hold an architectural license based on the majority of the work I do. Luckily I live in a state that understands the importance of having all buildings designed to at least the minimum standards of licensure (with only one exemption, for owner-occupied, single family homes designed and built by the occupants).
We don't have these regulations, by the way, to protect the profession or the professional, but rather we have regulations and regulatory boards to protect the consumer. For most people (i.e., the consumer), their home represents the single largest investment they will ever make in their entire lifetime. And so, I respectfully disagree with those who say that residential design (and small commercial design for that matter) need not be regulated, or that no regulated professional need be held accountable and legally responsible for the design of small projects.
While I agree that prospects who call me because the local code official told them that state law requires them to use an architect do not fit my "ideal client profile", I am often able to convince my clients of the value of my services by treating their project with the same respect that I would a 50,000 sq. ft. office interior renovation, a new day care center, a renovated store in a shopping center, a restaurant, or a church, while offering them solutions that only a licensed professional can provide.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------