Yesterday, the co-founders of ArchVoices were fortunate to give a presentation at the AIA Austin annual meeting. In appreciation for AIA Austin welcoming us to share their stage, we are giving their members an opportunity to share some thoughts with our readers.

Today’s issue consists of comments written during yesterday’s event in response to the purposefully broad question above, asking whether the profession should be larger or smaller. As one would expect from a diverse and thoughtful group of professionals, the responses to the question vary, as does the reasoning behind those responses. We’ve included them in no particular order.

After reading the comments below, feel free to share your thoughts at editors@archvoices.org.

“Fewer. I think just as we expect students and interns to meet certain criteria, we should expect architects to maintain a certain level of accountability for keeping up with current technologies and methods. Possibly even to the point of being re-tested periodically.”

***

“I think there should be more architects, definitely. Our profession’s impact seems to be steadily eroding, and more architects would/could help us to shore up our presence and contribution to the built environment. I wouldn’t suggest broadening the definition of ‘architect’ or lowering the bar for licensure, however. Rather, I believe that the road to licensure should be facilitated so as to maximize the number of architects out there. As far as fear of competition and lowered fees with an increased number of architects, I find this to be an invalid concern. More architects will enable us to do more work. More fees/work will benefit the profession as a whole.”

***

“I don’t understand what is really the point of being licensed unless you a) want to be the architect of record on commercial projects, or b) want the title. I’m a fresh intern, and plan to get my license ASAP because I frankly want the title. This whole thing is a joke. It should not take so much to be registered because all that translates into is a sea of very experienced ‘non-architects’ who don’t get the respect they deserve.”

***

“More. As a recent architect (registered 2002) and principal of a woman-owned firm, more architects are bringing newer methods, discussions, and practices to the profession, and as perceived by the general public. On a daily basis, the perception, first response, is that I am an interior designer (which I am also licensed to practice), but the perception by the public–my banker, my insurance agent, suppliers, etc.–is not one of the image of an architect. However, I’m disappointed that the question you chose to address is one of such vagueness. In such a gathering, and with your excellent ‘Michael Mooresque’ presentation, a question that would elicit more controversy and discussion was what I was expecting. Keep up the great work, though; there are architects with you.”

***

“My question is: What keeps people from getting licensed? We may have enough architecture graduates, but they’re either not staying in the field or not getting licensed or both. And yet, I do think architectural education is uniquely valuable to create a sophisticated citizenry.”

***

“More, for more diversity. For instance, as mentioned: at an attorney’s conference, one-third of the attorneys were from the public sector, one-third from the private sector, and one-third from non-profits.”

***

“It doesn’t hurt to have more architects. The real issue–and you discussed this in your presentation–is the culture of denial in the architecture profession. For example, the biggest dedication within the TBAE newsletter is ‘enforcement’–the public listing of architects that have been admonished for various mistakes made, fines levied, etc. Why are we so protective of our titles? Why do we want to deny and discourage more licensure? It is a shame.”

***

“Yes, it is necessary. Architecture will slowly become more like lawyers and doctors.”

***

“More. Competition is better in any profession.”

***

“I believe that there should be more licensed architects. In Texas specifically, the laws and registration guidelines need to be changed so that architects are more ‘necessary.’ That would also mean less registered engineers! P.R. from our professional organization to put architects in a more positive light with the general population is necessary. We do not represent ourselves well individually.”

***

“More architects would be a better alternative to fewer architects. There are a myriad of projects, clients, and issues. There should be at least an equal amount of architects and firms to deal with those various issues, projects and clients. You can better fill a crack with lots of sand than a few rocks. There is not only one right answer.”

***

“There should be more architects, and they should be in more professions (i.e., when someone chooses an ‘alternative’ path, they still want to get their license).”

***

“Definitely more. The problem of too much competition has more to do with the de-valuing of architectural services than with too many licensed architects. I think architects should get involved with non-profits and government organizations. Unfortunately, private practices alone cannot solve the many design problems of the world, because the ultimate goal of a private practice must be to make money.”

***

“More, but the test should be more difficult, with education and firms training toward the requirements of the test. With licensure comes responsibility. Far too many interns have difficulty with the full scope of responsibility that being an architect requires. Youth can be difficult to overcome.”

***

“I encourage many people to obtain an architectural education because of its broad value based on critical thinking. Unless an individual wants to practice architecture in the traditional manner, I do not think they need to become licensed.”

***

“More and less. For the amount of construction going on in the U.S., aren’t there too many architects already? (As evidenced through intense competition with pro bono services just to get a foot in the door for a job.) However, if the schools were more rigorous in weeding out people (and educating more about the reality of the profession), then the people who do graduate should be getting licenses sooner and easier. So, less of an initial pool of potential architects in general, and a higher percentage of licenses per potential architects.”

***

“I think the market will dictate how many licensed architects our industry can support as traditional practitioners. The key to the successful growth physically and from an image standpoint centers around architects branching into peripheral fields such as politics and how well the foundation of our profession assists in those leaps to other branches. A direct answer to the question is yes, because it would lend to greater credibility of those involved from the public’s view.”

***

“It’s not a question of more or less, it’s the quality and social awareness of the interns that concerns me. I was fortunate to be a second-generation architect, whose father was recognized with the national AIA Whitney Young Award, so I had social awareness instilled in me. I like what you guys represent and I wish more of the young people had the same dedication and awareness of social issues.”

***

“No. I do not think there should be more or fewer. The question presumes that increasing or decreasing the number would result in something better, but I don’t think the number of architects is the problem or the solution.”

***

“I think there should be more licensed architects, as they provide a standard for the profession. Would you go to an ‘almost-a-doctor’ when you have an illness? No, you go to someone who a licensing board says knows what they are doing. Licensed architects provide a high value to designs.”

***

“I think licensure should be market driven. The architecture community should increase the market through: innovation, by offering a unique service; marketing/public education; lobbying and government participation. Internally: I see interns have little motivation to spend time/money to become licensed. Principals stamp; interns produce.”

***

“Absolutely. There should be more licensed architects to maintain a level of competency, responsibility, etc.”

***

“More. For more diversity.”

***

“I am comfortable allowing the market to drive the number of licensed architects. Our practice focuses on finding top-notch individuals, more so than licensed individuals, which only measures minimum competence. An architectural education prepares typically bright individuals for a comprehensive, interdisciplinary career, which, in some cases, translates very well to other careers. In other cases students are drawn toward specializations that don’t fulfill registration requirements.”

***

“Why is it that architects are some of the most respected professionals, and we spend so much of our time negotiating fair fees and struggling to prove ourselves? Quantity is not as important as the quality of the profession.”

***

“More. Competition is healthy and fosters advancements in creativity and practice. Also, more architects means that architects will have to find more alternate ways to practice architecture and more diversity.”

***

“More. When we go to see a dentist, we expect somebody who is registered to do the job. Architecture is the same.”

***

“More, but it still boils down to the licensure process itself. Until the maze of licensure gets worked out, it doesn’t matter how many people are getting to the end of the maze. Getting rid of the maze is the goal.”

***

“More. But I don’t think that means making the test easier. I think that we need to find a way to inspire interns to hurdle this obstacle and show them why it’s an important credential.”

***

“More. And the changes that have been made in the last 20 years with IDP haven’t helped–they’ve made it worse. At least with the older system, we all took the exam together–we all studied and prepared together–and the one time of year at least brought some sense of community to the process. Now everyone seems to be really isolated. IDP also seems really problematic. Also, a clear idea of the value of being licensed is missing and needs to become clear and tangible.”

***

“There are enough architects now for the system we have. If more architects were required by the construction industry, then more architects would be needed. Supply and demand.”

***

“More architects could compete with an equal voice to those with a legal training for equal pay, if more were licensed.”

***

“More licensed architects are needed, not just for those going into ‘traditional’ firms, but for people going into new or varied areas outside of firms. Being a licensed architect changes and requires you to approach and think about the built environment from a position of responsibility. More licensed architects also raises the public awareness of design, buildings, our personal and collective influence on the world around us.”

***

“We need more well-qualified architects, hand-in-hand with increasing the amount of public construction that is required to have architectural oversight.”

***

“More licensed architects, but reflective of the community they’re building for, including increased diversity.”

***

“Without question, there should be more licensed architects. As an architect and facilities manager, I represent an owner. Unfortunately, with the AIA, too often those of us who did not choose to practice in a traditional firm can feel ‘left out.’ Too many people go through their architectural education, pursue other careers for a variety of reasons, yet they are often ‘shut out’ of the architectural profession. If the AIA, NAAB, NCARB, etc., were to take the broader view of what being an architect means, society would benefit from the talents and abilities of the architect–but in a variety of venues.”

***

“Yes, more people who practice architecture should be registered. We should simplify the steps to registration and encourage it. Firms need to support registration by recognizing the abilities of their registered professionals. I hope that our profession recognizes the contributions of their young professionals and focuses on their ability to design and think, rather than to merely press buttons and make computer drawings. Get registered before you need to be registered. Things change–your work demands will change so get registered early.”

***

“More architects.
Why?
More clout.
More diversity.
More architects as legislators.
More architects as school teachers.
More architects as civic leaders.
More architects as inventors.
More architects as entrepreneurs.
More architects as journalists.
More architects as bureaucrats.
More architects as traffic planners.
More architects as volunteers.”

As always, we welcome your thoughts by email at editors@archvoices.org.