Architectural licensure should be required to practice architecture

Architectural licensure should be required to practice architecture
9/1/2004 by Richard Hamming



The article by Victoria Beach titled A Case for Unprofessional Architecture from July 2003 raises interesting points. Although I can understand where she is coming from in her various topics, I do not think it would be wise to eliminate the requirement for professional licensure in the architecture field.
Education and training of architects are certainly important to the process of becoming licensed. The education requirements in most of the United States have become increasingly more demanding over the past decades. Most states currently require a professional degree in architecture: either a five-year bachelor’s or a master’s degree. I think that this lengthy college program should not be a requirement. I feel that an undergraduate degree in architecture should be required, but the option to obtain more actual work experience should be acceptable. Continuing education requirements of architects is also important. It is important that as new technologies emerge, that those licensed architects be held responsible to maintain up to date knowledge.
The public certainly expects someone with the title of “architect” to be able to perform at a specific level and deliver a professional product. Simply using a builder or purchasing an out-of-the-box kit is never considered architecture. The public should expect an architect to add that artistic side to the engineering and technical side of building. Requiring architects, or any profession to be able to prove that they have at least the minimum required knowledge to perform their job functions properly and safely should never eliminated.
A key factor in maintaining the licensure requirement is the issue of safety. You wouldn’t expect just anyone who has worked in a hospital for 20 years to perform a triple by-pass operation on you; likewise, you shouldn’t expect someone who has worked in the construction industry for 20 years to design a skyscraper for 10,000 people to live and work in. A doctor and an architect have legal responsibilities that impact many people. Developing specific training requirements and programs for professions such as these affect the health, safety and welfare of those they serve. Structural considerations are an important part of the safety issue in the architecture profession as well. Architects are responsible for the structural integrity of the building that they design, and thus, need to show a certain level of knowledge of structural systems in order to become licensed. Although most architects utilize structural engineering consultants, the architect is ultimately the responsible party if structural failure were to occur.
The non-technical aspects of architectural training are more difficult to determine with standard licensing examinations. Beach mentions elegance, suitability and intrigue in her article. Subjective terms such as these are important for differentiating architecture from mere building. The art in architecture is critical to the profession. The subjectiveness of this art form does not mean that this profession should not be licensed. Providing a wide variety of design style among architects more adequately provides for the differing tastes of the clients they provide service for.
Codes and regulations enforced by various agencies and departments are put into place to protect the safety of the public. The architect is expected to become knowledgeable of the relevant codes for each project and incorporate them into his/her design. The existence of codes for the technical aspects of architecture does not need to interfere with the non-technical aspects mentioned previously.
And finally, I don’t feel that it is necessary to split the profession into two: architects and building engineers. The architect should always be required to have the knowledge of the technical aspects of a building. Building engineers already exist as sub-groups of engineers: electrical, mechanical, structural, etc. Architects are responsible for providing a professional product that will be safe for its occupants and users. To split apart these two sections of the profession would not be a logical solution to the problems that Victoria Beach discussed in her article.