THIS Is Why We Do DRAWINGS!

January 9, 2012 by Liz O'Sullivan

I can’t even count how many times people have told me about construction projects gone wrong. Most of the projects I hear about are small commercial or residential projects that involved finishes only, and didn’t need permits, so didn’t have good construction documents.

Every time the storyteller is finished, I say, “THIS is why we do DRAWINGS” or “THIS is why we write SPECS!”

It’s good to hear these stories; it’s always efficient to learn from others’ mistakes. But I hate seeing the frustration on people’s faces, and hearing the anger in their voices, especially since most of these situations could have been prevented by issuing better construction documents.

The other day, while on vacation in a warm place, I sat by a pool supervising my 6-year-old. I overheard a woman telling 2 of her friends about a project in her home – a tile job that the installer had botched. The 3 types of tile that the homeowner had supplied were intended to be installed in horizontal bands – a band of one color at the bottom of the wall, with a band of the second color above that, capped by a band of the third color.

The homeowner left home for a while after the installer began work, and she came back to find the project nearly completed, and totally wrong. The tile had been installed in vertical stripes instead of horizontal bands.

She was so indignant as she told her story. I was marveling about how an installer could have screwed up so badly; I was thinking that he must have completely ignored the drawings. One of her friends said, “Well, maybe you didn’t get it in writing.” She assured them that she HAD gotten it in writing… and it slowly dawned on me that the intended tile pattern was described in WRITING, and not shown in a DRAWING. The situation was totally different than I’d initially assumed; the homeowner had communicated the design intent to the installer in a completely inappropriate way. And I started feeling really sorry for the installer who was the victim of a totally preventable miscommunication, and as a result, probably lost money on the job.

The written word can be interpreted in so many ways when it comes to things like tile patterns! THIS is why we do DRAWINGS.

Properly-annotated construction drawings have been proven to be the most effective way to communicate the desired results for the appearance of visually important components of a construction project. Written descriptions alone, or worse, verbal descriptions alone, of the desired results for a project (no matter how small) are ineffective. Drawings alone, without proper notes, are not as effective as they could be.

People interpret different types of communication in different ways. For the purpose of construction, verbal communications leave WAY TOO MUCH room for many different interpretations. Written communications alone leave too much open to different people’s interpretations. Drawings and other images are pretty good at communicating the desired results. But a combination of properly-annotated drawings, project specifications, and project procurement and contracting requirements, is the best way to demonstrate the expectations for construction.

So how do you, as a design professional, know what properly-annotated drawings or good project specifications for your project are?

As you gain more insight into the different ways your documents may be interpreted by the people bidding, estimating, or constructing your project, you will gain a better understanding of how to properly prepare these documents.

There’s SO MUCH to learn – all of us in the construction industry are constantly learning (or should be). Much of this knowledge can ONLY be gained through experience, but not all of it has to be. A really good way to learn about how your documents may be interpreted by the users is to prepare for a CSI certification exam, starting with the CDT (Construction Documents Technologist) exam.

The more you know, the more you can learn; once you have built up a good foundation of knowledge and understanding, you will find that you can learn FASTER and you can learn MORE than you could before. If you have a little bit of experience working in an architecture firm, you can study for and pass the CDT exam. Preparing for and passing the CDT exam can be a shortcut in building this foundation of knowledge and understanding. You may already have a good foundation, built up from your years of experience. Take the CDT exam and supplement your experience; at the very least, it’ll be a good review, and there’s a chance that you may find out you have some gaps in your knowledge base.

When I took the CDT exam, I discovered gaps in my knowledge base – and filled them in! I also realized that not all those lessons learned the painful way, through experience, had to be learned that way… I wish I’d taken the CDT exam earlier than I did.

If you’re already a CDT, take an Advanced Certification exam (Certified Construction Contract Administrator, Certified Construction Specifier, or Certified Construction Product Representative). It’ll be a good review at the very least. Or, it could turn out to be a refresher for you; you may have been doing things a certain way for years, and maybe some things have changed in the way people are interpreting your documents!

Even when documents for a project are good, I still hear construction-gone-wrong stories. No construction project is perfect, but when the documents are clear, concise, correct, and complete, all members of the project team (Owner, Design Team, Contractor) have the opportunity to determine what’s expected, and therefore, an opportunity to do their best work. CSI’s certification exams can help you be a part of the group working on IMPROVING construction communications, and reducing the number of those silly construction-gone-bad stories people are always telling me.

General CSI Certification Information: www.csinet.org/certification

Registration link: https://webportal.csinet.org/Conference/RegistrationProcessOverview.aspx?id=80

Exams will be offered April 2 – April 28, 2012, in the U.S. & Canada.
Early registration deadline: February 2, 2012
Final registration deadline: March 2, 2012

CDT Information

General information about the CDT exam: www.csinet.org/cdt

Cost Before Feb. 2: $235 (member) $370 (non-member)
Cost after Feb. 2: $295 (member) $430 (non-member)
Cost for qualified students: $105

The CDT exam is now based on the CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide: www.csinet.org/pdpg

Advanced Exam Information

Cost of an advanced exam:

Before Feb. 2: $275 (member) $410 (non-member)
After Feb. 2: $340 (member) $475 (non-member)

CCS information: www.csinet.org/ccs

Now based on the Construction Specifications Practice Guide (www.csinet.org/cspg)

CCCA information: www.csinet.org/ccca

Now based on the Construction Contract Administration Practice Guide (www.csinet.org/ccapg)

CCPR information: www.csinet.org/ccpr

This is the last year this exam will be based on the Project Resource Manual (www.csinet.org/prm)

You don’t have to be a CSI member to register for an exam – I wasn’t! – but if you join first, you get the member discount! www.csinet.org/joincsi

Stop Designing! …before the Construction Documents phase begins

December 6, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Design needs to stop before the Construction Documents phase begins. New scope¹ shouldn’t be added by Owners after Schematic Design. Changes to building systems² shouldn’t be made by Architects after Design Development. The only “designing” that should happen during the Construction Documents phase is the refinement of things already decided upon.

But don’t stop designing until all those decisions have been made! Until all major building systems have been selected, the Design Development phase shouldn’t be over.

As an outside specifications consultant, at the end of Design Development, I ought to be able to take my 100% Design Development Outline Spec, review it side-by-side with the Architect’s 100% Design Development Drawings, discuss any conflicts and gaps and unknowns with the Architect, produce a final Table of Contents for the Project Manual, and run with the Construction Documents specifications, asking a few questions along the way. I shouldn’t have to be adding or deleting spec sections in the middle of CD’s, or worse, in an Addendum.

These thoughts are from my point of view, the specification consultant’s point of view, but I am not just thinking of myself. If everyone on the Project Team (Owner, Contractor if there’s a Contractor on board before bidding, Architect, Consultants) subscribes to this idea, and helps to enforce it in his own company, and holds the other members of the team to it, we’ll have much better Construction Documents, much smoother construction phases, and fewer unknown costs for everyone involved.

Implementing this requires some careful communication among the Project Team. Architects need to take the lead on this, and need to explicitly explain to Owners their expectations about timelines for Owners’ decision-making. Architects need to explain up-front that they will require extensions of schedules and additional architectural fees if Owners make changes to scope or changes to systems after the appropriate time for scope changes or systems modifications. (If these untimely changes happen, Architects then need to insist that the schedule extension and fee addition requirements be followed-through on.) Architects need to realize that since it makes sense to charge the Owner more money for this sort of untimely decision-making, it makes sense to ban this sort of ill-timed design from their own practices. (This is often a company culture thing – attitudes about this come from the top. So, principals, if you want your projects to be profitable, you need to communicate your expectations that your project managers will not make design changes during the Construction Documents phase. You also need to keep yourself from making design changes during the Construction Documents phase!)

This post is adapted from the comment I posted on David Stutzman’s “Architectural Design Phases” post on the Conspectus blog, http://www.conspectusinc.com/blog/2011/12/architectural-design-phases.html . David’s post, and some comments on the post, also provided me with some additional ideas.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes:

“Scope” is “scope of work,” which defines the extent of the project.
“Building systems” are the assemblies that make up the building. Window systems include storefront, curtainwall, etc. Exterior wall systems include brick veneer with steel stud backup, metal panel rainscreen, single wythe CMU, etc. Roof systems include single-ply membrane roofing, asphalt shingles, metal roofing panels, etc.

Company Culture and Architects’ Contractual Obligations

December 5, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Architecture firm principals, managing partners, anyone who signs Contracts or Agreements: Always give a copy of your Owner-Architect Agreement to your project architects, project managers and job captains at the beginning of the Schematic Design Phase. If your construction contract administration team is made up of different people, give that team copies of your Owner-Architect Agreement at the beginning of the Construction Phase, at the very latest. Give your team copies of your Architect-Consultant Agreements, too. (If your firm keeps fee info confidential from employees, obscure those numbers. But give them the documents!)

When you give them the documents, tell them to read them! Tell the construction contract administration team to read the Owner-Contractor Agreement, and the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, as well as the Owner-Architect Agreement and Architect-Consultant Agreements.

All of these documents spell out some of the Architect’s obligations. Many emerging professionals are not familiar with all of the Architect’s typical obligations. Those who haven’t yet begun the process of studying for their architectural registration exams may have no idea what’s contained in an Owner-Architect Agreement or in the General Conditions of the Contract. But when these Agreements get executed, the Architect becomes legally responsible for performing the activities required by these Agreements. If you have unlicensed people managing projects, you have to be especially explicit about the requirement that project managers are familiar with these documents, because they may have no way of knowing, except through your guidance. (Remember, they’re interns, working under your direct supervision, learning how to be the architects of the future.)

If you don’t demonstrate to your employees the importance of these documents, some of them may never understand that they are contractually obligated to perform the exercises required by these documents!

Attitudes about the importance of following through on contractual obligations come from the top. The attitudes of the principals shape the company culture of the firm. Do you want your firm to be known for following through on obligations? Or do you want your firm to be known for having employees who aren’t sure what the firm’s obligations actually are?

Value Engineering? Not After Docs Are in for Permit!

December 3, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Many of us in the construction industry refer to any exercise that reduces the costs of construction as “value engineering.” But, as Dave Metzger pointed out in a discussion forum today, actual value engineering begins in the early design phases of Schematic Design and Design Development. We are misusing the term “value engineering” when we use it to describe just any cost-cutting exercises, especially those that don’t begin until after bids have been received and construction documents are in for permit review!

Actual value engineering takes into account the life cycle costs, as well as the initial costs, of the building. The earlier in the schedule the value engineering exercises begin, the more value they provide to the project.

The Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences, has a good piece about value engineering: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/value_engineering.php

Here’s an excerpt from the Whole Building Design Guide:

“Value Engineering (VE) is not a design/peer review or a cost-cutting exercise. VE is a creative, organized effort, which analyzes the requirements of a project for the purpose of achieving the essential functions at the lowest total costs (capital, staffing, energy, maintenance) over the life of the project.” – The Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences

The more we call things what they truly are, the better our industry will be. We shouldn’t be using euphemisms in construction, especially when the substituted word actually has a related meaning! Beginning the process of trimming the construction budget after the bids are in isn’t value engineering, it’s plain old cost-cutting.

Thanks, Dave Metzger, for the reminder.

There’s a Place for That!

December 1, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I’ve been so busy, I’m weeks late with following up on a post my colleague and I put together and published on the blog of the firm she works for! Busy is good, but work can be SO distracting.

Morayma Salas, a client, personal friend, former coworker, and fellow Denver Chapter CSI member, came up with the idea for this article and did most of the surveying of construction professionals, and then I wrote it.

Here’s the ending of our article: “Architects are often extremely creative people who like to do things their own way. However, following the rules about placement of information doesn’t take creativity away from the design process. Following the rules actually frees up more time to be creative with the things that should be part of the design process. So don’t waste your time getting creative with naming parts of your specs or placement of information! Follow CSI’s standards for locating information and apply the time you save to the design your projects.”

Here’s a link to the whole post, “Architects, There’s a Place for That: SectionFormat & PageFormat,” on the Hutton Architecture Studio Blog: http://huttonarch.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/architects-there%e2%80%99s-a-place-for-that-sectionformat-pageformat/

Architects, Let’s Get on the Same Page

November 11, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Tara Imani’s excellent, passionately-written blog post, “Architecture – A Profession at War with Itself,” inspired me to comment, and then to take my comment and turn it into this blog post.

Tara asks “Do you think it is important for Architects to be on the same page in order to take our profession to the next level? If so, why? And, on which issues must we find consensus?” The post then goes on to identify a number of areas where architects disagree. http://www.indigoarchitect.com/2011/11/10/architecture-a-profession-at-war-with-itself

Disagreement is a wonderful thing, which can test and temper individuals’ own arguments, and then shape a group’s stronger argument. When a few members of a group disagree and argue and write and rant, the failings and weaknesses in the individual members’ arguments get exposed and culled out, and the main points get sharpened, and the group can bring a stronger argument to the table.

Ultimately, architects do need to be on the same page about many things, so that our profession can be strengthened instead of being fragmented.

I feel the same sense of urgency to help strengthen our profession that Tara feels, and I know that many, many other architects do, too. But not enough architects realize that we have a problem in the profession.

Tara included a fantastic “Starter List” of issues that architects disagree about. The following is the area that I, personally, feel called to act on:

“Learning how buildings go together” vs “Continuing to be the brunt of behind-your-back jokes as you leave the construction site or hang up the phone after a CM calls you for clarification of a detail.”

This is the one issue that I feel that architects really, really need to be all on the same page about – we need to dedicate ourselves to learning how buildings go together, and we need to dedicate ourselves to teaching emerging professionals how buildings go together. We shouldn’t need to argue among ourselves about this particular issue to get on the same page. I think that the disagreements, or the different placement of priorities, about this issue (understanding construction technology), stem from a place of ignorance, rather than strong opinions.

I come to this strong feeling (my unbending opinion that architects all need to agree that architects need to understand construction technology) from a place of not having known how buildings go together, and recognizing that as a weakness in myself. I had this weakness not just before architecture school, not just after architecture school, but even after a number of years of working in architecture. I had a lot of questions, and didn’t know where to go to find the answers. I knew there were things I didn’t even know enough about to know what my questions were. Now I write project specifications as a consultant to other architects, and I know way more about how buildings go together than I used to, and I know how to go about finding the answers to the questions I have.

What many, many architects don’t seem to fully recognize is that architects are part of the construction industry. The construction of buildings is the execution of our designs. Our job, the job that we’re licensed to do as architects, is to prepare Construction Documents and to Administer the Contract for Construction. Yes, we design, also. And that’s the first step. And it’s a very, very important step. But the biggest portions of our fees on typical projects come from the Construction Documents phase and the Construction Contract Administration phase. Schematic Design and Design Development are practically all we learn about in architecture school, and some people think that’s all that architects do… even some architects think that.

I am answering this call to action. I will continue to strive to educate other architects about the importance of understanding construction technology, and the importance of the huge part of our job as architects that requires us to document our design intent through technical construction details in the Construction Documents phase. I will also continue to strive to encourage other architects to pass on the message of the importance of this understanding to emerging professionals.

Substitutions: Often a Quagmire, but CSI Can Help

November 8, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I think there’s a big problem with the way substitutions are often handled, at least here in Colorado.

CSI has some great solutions – for example, 2 different substitution request forms, one for use during bidding, and one for use during construction. Arcom’s MasterSpec has what I consider to be fairly decent language regarding substitutions, in Division 01. But these solutions are often not implemented.

I think that “what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate” on several levels:

G.C.’s often fail to forward Division 01 on to bidding subs, so subs don’t know the requirements for substitution request submittals. (They don’t even know that there ARE requirements for substitution request submittals.)
Then the G.C’s try to push substitution requests through to the architects without the required information, since they didn’t receive that info from their subs.
Project architects often fail to enforce the specifications’ requirements about the information that is to be submitted with a substitution request. Sometimes, that’s because they aren’t familiar with the requirements in their own project specifications.
So the architects waste their precious bid-period time trying to verify that the proposed substitution is comparable to the specified system or item, doing the work that the sub ought to have done.
Owners seem to not understand that substitutions can’t appropriately be made in the blink of an eye, since the designed system took weeks to design and took everything related into account.
Back to the G.C.’s – during construction, they submit on non-specified items, or they just install them, because that’s what their subs gave their bids on, even though they weren’t acceptable products. This happens when the G.C. didn’t verify that the subs’ bids were in compliance with the construction documents during bidding, and the sub didn’t know the proper procedure for getting a substitution request approved.

As a specifier, I sometimes add some language to the “acceptable products” list in each spec section that refers to the Division 00 section “Procurement Substitution Procedures” and/or Division 01 section “Substitution Procedures,” or if I have a Basis-of-Design product by one manufacturer listed, and a list of comparable manufacturers after that, I sometimes add language in each spec section that indicates that the contractor should “Comply with the requirements of Division 01 Section ‘Product Requirements’ for comparable product requests.”

But as with everything else, the project architect still has to know what’s in the specs (and then enforce the specs), the G.C. still has to comply with the requirements of the construction documents (and make sure his subs do too), and the Owner still has to understand that proposed substitutions have to be very carefully evaluated since everything was designed around the specified product.

I think this is where our work as CSI members lies – we should try to educate the rest of our industry about the roles that all parts of a project team play in this substitution process.

This post is a reprise of a comment I made on the Denver CSI website, in response to our Chapter President’s November post. Check it out, and join the discussion! http://www.denvercsi.org/journal/2011/10/17/november-2011-presidents-message.html

A Note on “C.A.” – Administration of the Contract

November 3, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

We architects throw around the acronym C.A. pretty casually. We all know it means the work that we do during construction of the building we designed. But some of us think it means “Construction Administration.” I used to think that, until I started paying better attention to contracts.

AIA A201-2007 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, refers to these services as “Administration of the Contract.” The services architects provide during construction constitute “Construction Contract Administration.” So, really, C.A. stands for “Contract Administration,” NOT “Construction Administration.” As Ron Geren pointed out in an excellent blog post a few months ago, http://specsandcodes.typepad.com/specsandcodes/2011/06/construction-administrationor-is-it.html the term “Construction Administration” really could be interpreted as meaning something more like “Construction Management” than “Administration of the Contract.”

Melissa Brumback’s post this morning prompted me to respond. Except for the use of the term “Construction Administration,” her article is good, and has good advice for architects. Check it out: http://constructionlawnc.com/2011/11/03/construction-administration/

City’s History Should Trump Developer’s Economic Feasibility

October 31, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Yesterday’s Denver Post featured an article written by Tina Griego about the old Cathedral High School buildings at 1840 Grant, in Denver. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_19225279

Sagebrush Capital, a developer who is under contract with the Archdiocese of Denver to buy the property, intends to demolish all the buildings and build an apartment complex on the site. Sagebrush’s application for a certificate of non-historic designation from the city (a precursor to an application for a demolition permit) prompted city planners to open up a time period to allow people to apply for the building to be designated as a Landmark Structure.

According to the article, city planning staff describes some of the complex as representing “an exemplary example of Spanish Renaissance Revival style by a noted architect.”

A representative of Sagebrush Capital says that “it’s not materially, structurally or economically feasible to redevelop these buildings.” It’s often not economically feasible for for-profit companies to redevelop historic structures. However, the question of material and structural feasibility should be answered by a different party.

In order to preserve the character of a city, the qualities that create a sense of place and set one city apart from another city, city planners need to think beyond short-term economic growth. Retaining the features that make up the unique feel of a city has to be a priority over other things such as economic development. (Imagine if planners all over the country were to approve every proposed demolition and development in every city. In a matter of decades, Denver, Atlanta, Dallas and Charlotte could be virtually indistinguishable from each other.)

The law of our city actually states that the preservation of such exemplary buildings is a public necessity. Denver’s Code of Ordinances contains a chapter on Landmark Preservation, in which it states that:

“It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures and districts of historical, architectural or geographic significance, located within the city or its mountain parks, is a public necessity, and is required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people.” – Denver, Colorado, Code of Ordinances, Title II – Revised Municipal Code, Chapter 30 – Landmark Preservation, Article I. – In General, Paragraph 1.

Some of these buildings at the Cathedral High School complex are irreplaceable. Buildings such as these contribute to the character of our city in a way that cannot be duplicated with new construction. Historic buildings often act as a cornerstone for neighborhoods, and are a source of local pride for good reason – they’re unique and memorable. What makes Denver the city it is? What happens when that historic character is “all used up”? At that point, why would anyone want to live in (or build in) Denver, if similar nondescript opportunities for living (or building) are more economically feasible elsewhere?

I will be extremely disappointed if Landmark Preservation Commission does not recommend to City Council that the exemplary buildings be designated as Landmark Structures. I will be extremely disappointed if City Council does not vote to designate the exemplary buildings as Landmark Structures.

The long-term benefits of preserving the special things about Denver, including historic buildings that contribute to the character of our neighborhoods, need to be a higher priority than any short-term economic benefit.

Architecture’s Identity Problem? Nope. (More on the Importance of Licensure)

October 29, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

There’s an article out there that keeps popping up on my radar screen (ok, on my Twitter feed). It’s about “Architecture’s Identity Problem.” The article is by John Cary, and is published by GOOD.¹

John Cary says that “the profession and the public are measurably worse off because of “the fact that “more than half of architecture school graduates don’t enter the profession” and “fewer still get licensed.” I disagree. In fact, I think that the profession and the public are bad off enough because of how many people are out there designing and working in architecture firms without demonstrating, through examination, that they’re qualified enough to be licensed architects.²

John Cary seems to suggest that people who graduate from architecture school should be able to be architects without having to endure an internship or the Architect Registration Examination. As part of his protest against the long internships and examination requirements that architects have to undergo before being able to call themselves architects, the article compares architectural internships to medical residencies. This is not a good comparison.

The article points out that medical school graduates are legitimately called doctors before completing their residencies. That’s true. Medical students graduate from medical schools as M.D.’s, medical doctors. However, first they graduate from undergrad. They they apply to, and have to be admitted to, med school. They take their first round of national board exams after their second year of medical school, then during the last 2 years of their 4 year medical school programs, their training is all clinical, in hospitals, under the direct supervision of doctors. Then they take their second round of national board exams. Then they graduate. Then they do their internships (the first year of their residencies) and take their third round of national board exams. Then, finally, they’re allowed to practice without having to be supervised by other doctors. And then they go on to finish their residencies. And take more board exams. Then many do fellowships, again learning from other doctors. So it’s not as if medical students just go to school, sit in classrooms for 4 years, and graduate as medical doctors. They are thoroughly tested, by national exams, 2 different times before graduation, and they also have 2 years of practical experience before they graduate from medical school. (And then most continue their training.)

But the biggest difference between medical school and architecture school is that med students are taught by doctors – licensed doctors. And the students are practicing clinical medical work, in hospitals, during the last half of med school. They are observing and helping doctors treat patients, before they graduate as M.D.’s. And when they go on to practice medicine unsupervised, they are regulated and licensed by the states they practice in. NOT EVEN HALF of the professors teaching in accredited architecture schools are LICENSED anywhere in the U.S. In a 2009 study by the NAAB, only 34% of faculty at NAAB-accredited schools of architecture were licensed architects.³

Therefore, architecture students are barely being taught by actual architects. And, very little of what is actually taught to these students is information about “making sure buildings don’t fall down.” School curricula are very heavy on theory and design and very light on building technology – the stuff architects need to know to make sure their designs don’t fall down.

Another important thing to consider is that many architecture students never work in architecture offices before they graduate from architecture school.

These are very good reasons for the fact that, as John Cary says “Earning a diploma from architecture school isn’t enough to be awarded the title of ‘architect.'” The heavy focus on theory and design in school is the reason the architectural profession has the requirement for an internship (apprenticeship) period. In some states, you can still sit for your exams and get licensed after a certain number of years of practice under the direct supervision of a licensed architect, even if you don’t have a degree of any type.⁴ This demonstrates the importance that regulatory agencies place on experience and demonstration through examination over schooling. I personally believe that, more than a degree in architecture, the combination of practical experience and successful completion of the examinations is a better indicator of a person’s being properly qualified to design buildings that will not fall down.

Not everyone makes it through all those steps that medical students have to undergo, and not everyone makes it through all the steps that architectural interns have to undergo. These applications, exams, and grueling hours weed some people out. Think about it – do you want the guy who didn’t pass those national exams, and who doesn’t have malpractice insurance, operating on YOU? No, you want the guy who had the intelligence and the perseverance to get through all these barriers to being a doctor.

Do you want the person who didn’t feel like taking the Architect Registration Examination designing your office building? You shouldn’t – and your lender, your insurer and your attorney don’t – because that designer doesn’t have professional liability insurance because he doesn’t have a license to practice architecture.⁵

John Cary wrote, “It’s a long, arduous road that many in the field are either unable or simply unwilling to travel.” It is. But why would you want those without the ability or the willingness to travel this road taking the professional responsibility for preparing the construction documents for YOUR buildings?

We need more architectural interns pursuing licensure. In these very troubled times for our profession, we need to be pushing to raise the bar of professionalism, not to lower it. As John Cary says, many people do “have a romantic view of the architecture world.” That’s fine, but it’s not reality. And it’s time for those of us IN the architecture world to WAKE UP to reality, and push for more quality, not less, in our profession.

_________________________________________________________

1. Here’s the link to the article: http://www.good.is/post/why-architecture-s-identity-problem-should-matter-to-the-rest-of-us/

2. With such high unemployment levels among architects right now, how could the profession and the public possibly be better served if everyone who wants to be an architect is legally allowed to just say that he is an architect? We have too many unemployed licensed architects, who, generally, are more qualified to practice architecture than all the unemployed unlicensed architectural designers.

3. This 34% figure includes professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. Only 31% of actual professors are licensed. Here’s a link to the website NAAB: http://www.naab.org/news/view.aspx?newsID=52 where you can get the report.

4. In Colorado, that period is 10 years.

5. In Colorado, you can’t get errors and omissions insurance if you aren’t licensed in the state. Sophisticated clients will not hire an architect who doesn’t have this professional liability insurance.

Comments From a Spec Writer

Liz O'Sullivan's Blog

Author Archives: Liz O'Sullivan