The following article appeared in a bi-monthly publication of the Landscape Architecture Student Association (LASA) at the UCLA Extension, Los Angeles. Michael O’Brien, editor of “Progress Print,” printed an editorial regarding the opposing licensure of landscape architects. A response to this article was sent to O’Brien by Donald C. Axon, president of AIA. Neither the article nor its response are necessarily the viewpoints of Landscape Architect & Specifier News.

At its March 1985 meeting, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Board of Directors approved a policy which boils down to opposing licensure of landscape architects, “aimed at preventing erosion of the architects’ and engineers’ responsibility for life safety in the design process.” For those who follow the professional press, this is old news. But the following are a few observations that this writer has not yet seen in print.

But don’t Iynch your local architect! Not only did the AIA not inform ASLA that they were considering thisnew poiicy, the AIA did not inform their members either. The feeling I get when this subject comes up among the architects I know is one of acute embarrassment. The AlA’s basic premise is that architects and engineers have primary responsibility for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, in the construction industry. It is difficult to see where this arrogation of importance came from, since most states already license others in the construction industry. Presumably, there was some sort of revelation on a high mountain top. Or a momentary siege of mass hysteria. But nowhere does the AIA justify this premise with any data or argumentation. A clue may be found in the AlA’s release of April 26, 1985, announcing the policy. It appears that the AIA investigated licensing proposals for Interior Designers, and that this investigation resulted in the AlA’s opposition to all other professions’ being licensed.

?EUR??,,????'??Don't lynch your local architect! Not only did the AIA not inform ASLA that they were considering this new policy, the AIA did not inform their members either.?EUR??,,????'??

As mentioned, the AIA endorsed this new policy without first mentioning it to ASLA. As a political ploy, this may be effective. As a social technique, it is at best rude, if not downright insulting. The AIA should endorse a policy of common decency at their next board meeting.

The AIA s action also violate the rule of collegiality, which, simply stated, says that if you’re in the same lifeboat, you don’t shoot one of your rowers. We design professionals have a common interest, the promotion of good design. How can the general public have any faith in us as designers, if one is pitted against another?

And the third point – “the responsibility for the public health, safety and welfare demands the education and experience required for the licensing of architects and engineers.” Having had much experience in translating architectural and engineering documents into something useable by a landscape architect – the Base Sheet – I have had much experience in catching PHS&W design issues that fell through the cracks in various A&E revisions. But this is minor?EUR??,,????'??+someone did catch them, and computers will one day prevent us from making errors(?).

But the AIA refers to “education.” Only recently have architects been trained in grading, presenting us with the famous “architect’s slope”?EUR??,,????'??+the paving that doesn’t drain. Architects are still not trained in irrigation, which presents enormous PHS&W issues. Architects are not trained in the use of plant materials. And architects, having been “freed” by energy intensive technology, are not trained to base all their designs on climate and micro-climate, at the risk of their total failure. From these examples, we see that architectural education is deficient in several areas impeding on the public health, safety, and welfare. And this is as it should be – architecture is complicated enough, and there already exists a profession ready, willing, and trained to deal with these issues.

AXION:

Dear LASA,

I read Mike O’Brien’s editorial in PROGRESS PRINT (February ‘86) with a sense of humor, distain, and concern. Mike is obviously upset to find that the National AIA has condemned his to a “lesser profession.” I guess I’d be upset too! Mike and others have not read between the lines to find the root cause of his complaint.

Architects and engineers DO have primary responsibility for public health, safety and welfare for the Construction Industry. Together with the contractors, we bear the lion’s share of liability and responsibility for any construction projects that has our signature. Other disciplines do, in fact, bear their share based on their own professional responsibilities and, generally, based on their proportion of the total project fees. No one is demeaning anyone else’s role in the construction process.

Architects have assumed the role of “Masterbuilder” for hundreds of years and now seem to take on the role of “Super Conductor” (as in an orchestra) for work under their supervision. It is not unreasonable, nor unlikely that the architect must have a working knowledge as every craftsman for which they have designed work. Architects generally DO consult with their consultants, seeking confirmation or advice on particular aspects of each project.

And Mike is right as rain when he states that the current practice o f architecture is complicated enough without derisive efforts to leap to a position of power.

But the principal difference between architects and other design professionals is that only architects are trained to orchestrate the holistic process of construction, including, like it or not, landscape architects. True, not all architects have intensive courses in plant material, but most that I know understand the total effect that they wish to carry through the design and depend on other professionals to support and compliment the design.

I believe that the State of California is quite clear about engineers and architects having primary responsibility for public health, safety and welfare; so enough said on that subject.

Second, yes, we locals were, in fact, taken by surprise by National’s policy and the mention of several important disciplines stated therein. This Chapter is on record to both CCAIA and National objecting to the language used and to the content of the policy. To date I don’t know the exact position of the follow up discussions, but I am making myself aware whenever possible. But take heart, this was stated as “policy” only to reduce the incidence of “Tiered Registration” which is occurring in various parts of the country. “Tiered Registration” tends to confuse the public as to who the players really are and what responsibility they may assume. No attempt was stated as part of this policy to take away legitimate licensing now existing which is based on accredited academic curriculum. (Or for any other reason that I know.)

The issue of licensing goes beyond egotistic dreams of personal glory; it speaks to accredited education courses of some viable alternative as well as public health, safety, and welfare and a great number of variables, which affect the outcome.

However, to resolve the issue, particularly in California, demands not finger pointing at the difficulties of allied professionals, but sitting down and discussing the basic theme, “WHY LICENSING.” Such a discussion may help all of us to understand where we fit into to grand scheme of things. If this sounds like an invitation, try me.