WHY ARE THERE
Why do we need a permit to build? Why is there a seperate plan check process for every project constructed? Doctors don't apply for permits before performing each operation. Lawyers don't need a permit to file a lawsuit or begin a trial. Even manufactured housing factories don't need individual permits before fabricating each house.
Architects are licensed by their state to enforce the building codes and protect the public. They should assume this responsibility and be permitted to authorize building construction, subject to the same types of audits and controls of similar professions. Building departments should continue their current roles of inspecting buildings while under construction, ruling on exceptions and interpreting ambiguities in the building code. They should replace their routine verification of every set of architect and engineer prepared plans with periodic rights to “audit” the architect's documents for accuracy and completeness, either before or after construction has occurred. Building departments everywhere can take lessons from the IRS and police that the remote threat of a thorough audit at anytime is many times more dissuasive to misbehavior than the regular verification of documents at one predictable instance.
The reasons for our enduring system of building permits stem from a long tradition of building being designed and executed by contractors and other trades people, and by a the nostalgic desire to perpetuate the herioic myth of “one man, one brick” and limit professional dominion over this activity. Because the person designing a house or simple structure may or may not be professionally trained and licensed, a huge and unsustainable infrastructure has grown around checking every project including hospitals at the level of the lowest common denominator.
As a perverse result of our current system, well-trained professionals have little interest in defending the public welfare as they are sworn to do, and can become dependent on the building plan checker to “catch” code deficiencies in their documents. There is no incentive to be better than a trades person, and they consequently enter into an adversarial relationship with the building authority by representing solely their client's parochial interests under the quasi-religious rationalization of providing “client service.” The ideal of a professional representing the community or even the health and welfare of society is in conflict with the current practice and payment of architecture.
The concept that architecture should be considered a profession began in late 18th century Europe and it was seen as a fitting preoccupation for gentlemen. Founded in 1791, The Architect’s Club was one of England’s first architectural societies, and it admitted only members of the Royal Academy or other fine arts academies. Professional organizations began in the early 19th century in Europe and the mid 19th century in US with the creation of the American Institution of Architects in December, 1836 by Thomas U. Walter and a handful of Northeastern architects.
Architects are licensed by their state to enforce the building codes and protect the public. They should assume this responsibility and be permitted to authorize building construction, subject to the same types of audits and controls of similar professions. Building departments should continue their current roles of inspecting buildings while under construction, ruling on exceptions and interpreting ambiguities in the building code. They should replace their routine verification of every set of architect and engineer prepared plans with periodic rights to “audit” the architect's documents for accuracy and completeness, either before or after construction has occurred. Building departments everywhere can take lessons from the IRS and police that the remote threat of a thorough audit at anytime is many times more dissuasive to misbehavior than the regular verification of documents at one predictable instance.
The reasons for our enduring system of building permits stem from a long tradition of building being designed and executed by contractors and other trades people, and by a the nostalgic desire to perpetuate the herioic myth of “one man, one brick” and limit professional dominion over this activity. Because the person designing a house or simple structure may or may not be professionally trained and licensed, a huge and unsustainable infrastructure has grown around checking every project including hospitals at the level of the lowest common denominator.
As a perverse result of our current system, well-trained professionals have little interest in defending the public welfare as they are sworn to do, and can become dependent on the building plan checker to “catch” code deficiencies in their documents. There is no incentive to be better than a trades person, and they consequently enter into an adversarial relationship with the building authority by representing solely their client's parochial interests under the quasi-religious rationalization of providing “client service.” The ideal of a professional representing the community or even the health and welfare of society is in conflict with the current practice and payment of architecture.
The concept that architecture should be considered a profession began in late 18th century Europe and it was seen as a fitting preoccupation for gentlemen. Founded in 1791, The Architect’s Club was one of England’s first architectural societies, and it admitted only members of the Royal Academy or other fine arts academies. Professional organizations began in the early 19th century in Europe and the mid 19th century in US with the creation of the American Institution of Architects in December, 1836 by Thomas U. Walter and a handful of Northeastern architects.
DNM ARCHITECT - 161 Natoma St. - San Francisco, CA - 94105
REV: 11/27/08
© 2008 David Marlatt