I am reminded of the Buddist saying, "The name that's the name is not
the name." I am, also, reminded of a place in the world where architects
and architecture successfully exist by successfully DOING architecture.
So, who are these people called, "architects"? What, now, is the meaning
of the name? The whole thing seems a pretty small minded ego trip to me.
Oh right! We have the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
state to be concerned about. So are the best architects taking this respon-
sibility upon themselves ONLY because of the law; or are they going to
it ANYWAY?
How about some discussion? Howard
- - The original note follows - -
From: GLangdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Geoff M Langdon)
Subject: Illegal Architecture
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 06:04:08 GMT
A quick look through the Boston Globe today had some 15 job openings for
architects. Upon closer look though, all but 3 or 4 were actually for
software programmers that havenothing at all to do with the actual
practice of architecture and certainly were not "Architects".
Being a person who has completeted all 12 parts of the Architectural
Registration Exam over the past 5 years and still striving but not able
yet to use the title "architect" myself, (or practice "architecture" or
offer "architectural services") I am keenly aware of the law in this case.
Apparently, the public at large, and in this case particularly, computer
systems people, are not aware that the terms "architect", and
"architecture" are legally reserved terms, and cannot be used in any way
other than by Registered Licenced Architects (of buildings, obviously)
who are licenced in each state. Any other use is strictly illegal.
Software programmers recently have gotton onto the term Software
Architect, because it sounds classier. This is a natural development of
them calling themselves Software Designers in the past instead of
programmers, again because it sounds classier. This is akin to the
garbagemen calling themselves Sanitation Engineers. However, when they
use the term with architect, though, the public does not seem to realize
there are legal ramifications.
Now there are people who would say that Computer Architecture has been a
term in use for years, refering to the hardware design (though, in the
past I never saw them call themselves Architects), or that, as long as
there is no confusion with people who build houses that it's ok.
Both these ideas are WRONG. Just because there are not enough people to
police it, enforce it, or because those responsible for looking for
instances of illegal practice of architecture were not technologically
saavy enough to even know about this before, or the passing of time, does
not make the practice of using the term legal.
Also, there are numerous areas of confusion. I have many colleagues who
are involved in Architecture, as CADD consultants, draftsmen, designers,
AutoLisp programmers for architectural software, etc. who would LOVE to
call themselves ARCHITECTS, it this back door were legal, and it could
hopelessly confuse the public. Remember, Architects (real Registered
ones) are legally liable for life, for any of the work they do. Also, if
someone hires an individual for freelance work on the design of a
building, and they also work for an architectural design firm, the design
firm also (even if they did not know about the work) can be held liable
by implied association (which is why many firms do not allow moonlighting).
In a recent issue of the New York AIA newsletter they set up a phone
number to report illegal uses of the title "architect".
NYS Office of Professional Discipline 800-442-8106
The AIA has a similar number.
Anyway, the problem we have is that the AIA, and NCARB, etc. were not
ready for this onslaught of usage by computer people, and can be bogged
down by trying to stop this usage of the reserved terms "architect" and
"architecture" (allong with "architectural services". It is up to us,
the computer literate members of the AIA and other architects, to inform
the public. Make everyone you hear, or see, use the terms illegally,
aware that it IS illegal. (In fact, as of the new rules of Ethics
adopted in 6/92 the rules state that you are required to report illegal
uses of the term or risk loosing your OWN licence to practice.)
Call the computer magazines and newsletters and tell them not to accept
adds for "Software Architects". They can change it to Software Designers
if they like.
Call Bill Gates, if you know him, and get him to stop calling himself a
Software Architect.
Post notices on any computer network or BBS you have access to and inform
the people that the practice of using the term is illegal and the Sysops
are liable for legal action if they keep sections entitled "architects"
or architecture referring to software design.
Most of all, report any instances of this to your local state board and
AIA local chapter, so that they can help us stop this too.
the name." I am, also, reminded of a place in the world where architects
and architecture successfully exist by successfully DOING architecture.
So, who are these people called, "architects"? What, now, is the meaning
of the name? The whole thing seems a pretty small minded ego trip to me.
Oh right! We have the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
state to be concerned about. So are the best architects taking this respon-
sibility upon themselves ONLY because of the law; or are they going to
it ANYWAY?
How about some discussion? Howard
- - The original note follows - -
From: GLangdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Geoff M Langdon)
Subject: Illegal Architecture
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 06:04:08 GMT
A quick look through the Boston Globe today had some 15 job openings for
architects. Upon closer look though, all but 3 or 4 were actually for
software programmers that havenothing at all to do with the actual
practice of architecture and certainly were not "Architects".
Being a person who has completeted all 12 parts of the Architectural
Registration Exam over the past 5 years and still striving but not able
yet to use the title "architect" myself, (or practice "architecture" or
offer "architectural services") I am keenly aware of the law in this case.
Apparently, the public at large, and in this case particularly, computer
systems people, are not aware that the terms "architect", and
"architecture" are legally reserved terms, and cannot be used in any way
other than by Registered Licenced Architects (of buildings, obviously)
who are licenced in each state. Any other use is strictly illegal.
Software programmers recently have gotton onto the term Software
Architect, because it sounds classier. This is a natural development of
them calling themselves Software Designers in the past instead of
programmers, again because it sounds classier. This is akin to the
garbagemen calling themselves Sanitation Engineers. However, when they
use the term with architect, though, the public does not seem to realize
there are legal ramifications.
Now there are people who would say that Computer Architecture has been a
term in use for years, refering to the hardware design (though, in the
past I never saw them call themselves Architects), or that, as long as
there is no confusion with people who build houses that it's ok.
Both these ideas are WRONG. Just because there are not enough people to
police it, enforce it, or because those responsible for looking for
instances of illegal practice of architecture were not technologically
saavy enough to even know about this before, or the passing of time, does
not make the practice of using the term legal.
Also, there are numerous areas of confusion. I have many colleagues who
are involved in Architecture, as CADD consultants, draftsmen, designers,
AutoLisp programmers for architectural software, etc. who would LOVE to
call themselves ARCHITECTS, it this back door were legal, and it could
hopelessly confuse the public. Remember, Architects (real Registered
ones) are legally liable for life, for any of the work they do. Also, if
someone hires an individual for freelance work on the design of a
building, and they also work for an architectural design firm, the design
firm also (even if they did not know about the work) can be held liable
by implied association (which is why many firms do not allow moonlighting).
In a recent issue of the New York AIA newsletter they set up a phone
number to report illegal uses of the title "architect".
NYS Office of Professional Discipline 800-442-8106
The AIA has a similar number.
Anyway, the problem we have is that the AIA, and NCARB, etc. were not
ready for this onslaught of usage by computer people, and can be bogged
down by trying to stop this usage of the reserved terms "architect" and
"architecture" (allong with "architectural services". It is up to us,
the computer literate members of the AIA and other architects, to inform
the public. Make everyone you hear, or see, use the terms illegally,
aware that it IS illegal. (In fact, as of the new rules of Ethics
adopted in 6/92 the rules state that you are required to report illegal
uses of the term or risk loosing your OWN licence to practice.)
Call the computer magazines and newsletters and tell them not to accept
adds for "Software Architects". They can change it to Software Designers
if they like.
Call Bill Gates, if you know him, and get him to stop calling himself a
Software Architect.
Post notices on any computer network or BBS you have access to and inform
the people that the practice of using the term is illegal and the Sysops
are liable for legal action if they keep sections entitled "architects"
or architecture referring to software design.
Most of all, report any instances of this to your local state board and
AIA local chapter, so that they can help us stop this too.