Begin thread:

Any 'defense' of architecture that relies on protectionism through professional credentials is a long-term failure. It demeans architecture and forces clients / contractors to use an architect on projects that don't warrant it. #architecture #AIA #architects

This leads to a negative impression of architects because there's no value to be added in these projects, only design fee cost.

It's a form of rent-seeking. As a profession we shouldn't accept this. It demeans the work architects should be doing. It adds unnecessary cost to a project.

Which project types can do without a licensed architect / design professional? For starters:
Decks
One story residential additions
Tenant fit-outs
Anything with prescriptive structural details and little impact on life safety

But imo, any project that an owner doesn't want to hire an architect on should be eligible for a different plan review track (potentially that costs more if ahj's determine it takes more time to review).

Architects can be free to focus on projects where value through design can actually be added. Would the construction industry employ less architects? Probably. Would the projects be more worth doing as architects? Yes.

I'm happy to hear counterpoints.

I won't listen to an aesthetic argument though. I find enough architect-designed buildings to be just as aesthetically challenged as non architect-designed buildings, so any aesthetic argument holds no water with me.

End thread