California’s Architects vs. the US

A few weeks ago I wrote a quick analysis of my thoughts about California’s Architecture Exam requirements.  I’m happy to report that I passed the exam, and in a few short weeks will be a licensed architect.  Notice the extra delay in the process – another 6-8 weeks is required to get everything else in order.  In case you’re counting, these are the steps I’ve taken:

• 4 years at UC Berkeley, majoring in Architecture (The non-professional degree).
• Completion of the Intern Development Program, where I documented about 3 years of work experience at various firms.
• California IDP, nearly the same thing as above.
• Completion of 9 ARE exams, in theory covering the entire scope of architecture.
• Waiting until the years of experience were finally logged correctly at NCARB, and then forwarded to the California Architects Board.
• After acknowledging my experience, waiting until an open exam date.  Passing the California Supplemental Exam, waiting for the results, paying another $200, then waiting 6-8 weeks for confirmation.

There has to be some time in there that we can shave a little time off.  Granted, I’m about as young as you can be to actually qualify, and I have California’s rules to thank for that.  CA doesn’t require the professional degree, as most other states do.  Instead of spending another 2 years in graduate school, I was able to work in many different facets.  In my view, this experience was much more helpful than any amount of schooling would ever be.

California is unique in this sense.  We require less schooling, but have a much more difficult exam process (and the CIDP, which is at least well-intentioned).  I am now eligible for reciprocity with other states, and I got to skip some of their more burdensome requirements.  Each state has exceptions for designers with many years of experience, but is this “no-school” loophole a good thing or not?

As I mentioned before, I’ve learned much more through working that through school.  Of course my education opened doors for me, but in terms of real live architecture and workplace skills, there is no comparison.  Maybe I’ve just been lucky in my circuitous employment.  I have worked for contractors as a framer, for purely development driven clients, and for engineering firms.  But I still think I passed the last exam only because of a summer internship during college, where I learned all about the bidding process in public buildings.  It’s the things you pick up along the way, with your first-hand knowledge that really shine when you need it.

California’s method of skipping an extra year or two of schooling may result in less design-y buildings, we will be guaranteed to have smarter architects.

Ballot Measures / Compromises

Vote Nov. 3rd! (via lhecht.wordpress.com)

I finally figured out my positions on San Francisco’s upcoming ballot measures.  While no life or death issues are included this year, I realized something about my own position about the legislative process as it exists in our fair state.  It’s the minutiae that make elections interesting.

Prop A is a so-called ‘good government’ measure.  The plan is to account for two years at a time with each budget to help overcome the variations in funding that the city faces.  But few other requirements are installed, such as mandatory penalties or taxation to maintain basic services.  It all seems well intentioned, but without any particular teeth to make it effective.  (Please pardon the summaries, as I am no legislative analyst).  It doesn’t go far enough, but I plan to vote for this, because it seems like a good idea.

Prop D also seems like a good idea, and also doesn’t go far enough.  It would create more funds for the Mid-Market Community Business District – ideally to help create a more vibrant area.  Again, this is where the specifics are quite lacking.  Each new billboard might be offensive in its design or content, and there is no way to take it down afterwards.  Not to mention that the CBD is a private entity asking for an exemption from a city-wide sign ban, and there are no controls for the spending of the money.

Both measures do seem well intentioned.  Both lack enforcement measures if they were to be enacted.  The problem is that A’s lack of enforcement would mean the status quo, while D could lead to many unexpected changes.  Not to mention the fact that I generally do trust the government’s transparency propositions more than one from a private property owner who stands to make fistfuls of money.

Modal Bias

Just a quick note today, spurred on by a dangerous column by CW Nevius in the Chronicle.  He basically rants that pedestrians in San Francisco get in the way of cars too often, and end up causing accidents.  The problem is, that is a perfectly normal point of view.  Not to say that it’s accurate, inaccurate, or inbetween, just that it’s to be expected.  Because he’s writing from the perspective of a driver.

This is problem that is all too common, when you don’t understand the perspective of other people.  But it’s more than that.  Whatever method of travel you’re engaging in tends to be the one you’re intent on enforcing at that moment.  It’s called Modal Bias.  Bikers feel like they own the road.  Pedestrians dominate crosswalks.  Automobiles want to be everywhere.  Unless you’re one of the other two.

I feel this myself, on the rare occasions that I get behind the wheel of a car, and I get upset that I have to slow down for a pedestrian, or go around a bike.  I generally adjust pretty quickly, but the instincts from growing up in suburbia don’t go away that fast.  When my brain actually kicks in, I realize that I should give bikes the lane, and walkers get to use crosswalks.  But that’s with much experience biking and walking in San Francisco, so I partially know what to expect.  The problem lies in inexperience from the driver’s point of view- part of the above average driver thinking, “What’s wrong with that guy?”

I’m also an above average cyclist, and an amazingly diligent pedestrian.  Until I’m not.  The problem is that the big guy always wins, regardless of any legal precedent.  Rock beats scissors : car beats pedestrian.  In a city that features such huge numbers of pedestrians, transit users, cyclists, and whatever else – the burden lies on those that have the ability to kill people to be on the lookout.

Brainstorming Temporary Solutions

If one spends much time reading through the achievements of local planning and transportation activists recently, one word keeps cropping up.  This is the result of many complex systems, but “temporary” is the newest kid in on the block.

• Pedestrian Plazas: Castro (at 17th St) and Guerrero (at San Jose).
• Studies for permanent closure: Mason St in North Beach.
• Stair steps for traffic calming: Market St past 8th and various Presidio thoroughfares.

These studies have much in common, which is what I’d like to focus on.  Besides all be temporary, the thing these all have in common is that they close areas off to private cars, while all remaining open to transit, bikes and pedestrians.  This by itself should be complimented as a forward thinking breakthrough.  While areas around the country are using their new stimulus money to create new highways (or an unnecessary 4th bore), San Francisco uses its resources to seek more open space and pedestrian environments.

The funny thing is that many of these seem to be done purely to avoid any environmental analysis.  CEQA exempts temporary installations from the lengthy EIR and notification process.  Basically, as long as the city departments all agree with each other, it’s a done deal.  This is exactly the reason the Bike Plan has taken so long to get off the ground – something that was seen as undoubtedly good for the environment was thought to be OK skipping the EIR.  Not to short-change anyone, because I’m sure many groups had a lot of planning to do behind the scenes, but it all just seems to be *so easy* to temporarily fix the problem.  The beauty is that this overcomes humankind’s great tendency to resist change.

Inertia is a great thing.  It keeps the earth rotating the sun.  It also makes shopkeepers incorrectly think that most people drive to their stores.  Instead of having endless hearings and studies about the effect of road closures, San Francisco has decided to simply close the roads, and do the study in real life.  The thing is, once the earth doesn’t stop rotating, and the sky doesn’t fall, people should actually come to appreciate the fact that you can get down Market on a bus or a bike just as easily.  Not to mention, we will have real life data for the EIR, should it ever come to that.

I’ve tended to present this is exploiting a loophole in CEQA, but that’s not entirely true.  Yes, the environment needs to be taken into account, but I’m just excited to see something actually being attempted.  I assume the furious partisans will picket a plaza if they are determined to drive on every single street in San Francisco.  Lawsuits and hearings will happen, and we should prepare to defend them for the betterment of our town.  But hey, at least we should applaud the city for trying.

California’s View of Architects

After a few weeks reflection on my latest exam, I’ve come to some conclusions on the state of architects in California.  On September 15th I took the California Supplemental Exam, the 10th test in my quest to become a licensed architect.  Naturally I’m still waiting for the results, but that’s given me time to think about what I was supposed to study, and what actually will become of all that knowledge.

First a quick discussion on the rigors that licensed architects must go through: Minimum 4 years of school, preferably in architecture.  Graduate school is a plus, but not required.  While accumulating an additional 4.5 years of work experience, you must document your hours in through the Intern Development Program, as well as the California IDP.  Midway through this, you may begin to take the 9 Architecture Registration Exams required nationwide.  Yet, after all this, California still insists on an extra test.  And not any quiz, this CSE will be a 1.5 hour oral exam on the legal and technical side of architecture.

The reason I mention all of this is that design is never questioned.  It is never tested.  Nowhere in the process is a candidate actually required to *make* anything.  And then the public wonders why many of the buildings we see everyday look so cookie-cutter.  Granted, much of this has been taken up by Planning Departments, and Design Commissions, but the architect’s historical role is constantly being diminished.

At one point, the Architect was the go-to person for a building’s location and design, relations to the client and city, and coordinating the construction process.  Now because of legal liability, the architect is relegated to merely getting the building approved by government agencies, and then stepping back into the shadows.  Very few Howard Roark type projects will ever get approved by committees, and design intent frequently gets altered in construction anyways.  The architect is forced to hide behind legal contracts, and keep silent.

This is what has created the need for so many consultants in today’s construction climate.  Siting, Design, Planning, Permit Approval, Construction Administration, Construction Management, and many more – all created by lawyers.  I would like to bring the profession back to the days when we could take pride in designing and creating buildings, and being able to shuffle them through the full process.  Maybe it’s time for California to realize that the process is stopping good design in its tracks.