• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Building Designer (Unlicensed) - "forum"

"As a designer you must be a liaison between the client and what they want, you must be a swifter that takes in the clients program and swift out a end product that will awe and amaze the client. You should be able to give 3d visuals of the design with animations that will shock and awe a client into falling in love with what he/she and the designer himself have worked so hard to create.".

Sounds like the TV show 'Property Brothers'. LOL
 
By checklist are you talking about the construction notes that are physically on the plans or a checklist that is used internally for the design process only?
 
tmurray, there are a lot of different checklists that people use for different things. One architecture offices' list may be different from another's and serve different purposes. The list that I am referring to is a plan review check list that goes over what codes would be on a set of working drawings in order for it to pass review from the building department instead of relining on the engineer to do all the work, I want to have a level of professionalism that will greatly benefit my clients and my peers who work with me and around me. One note is: CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS (CMU) SHALL BE HOLLOW UNIT MASONRY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C-90 AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM F;M OF 1500 P.S.I. This is a typical note on a set of working drawing for a masonry wall. Note came from the
FBC 2014
SECTION 2103 MASONRY CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

2103.1 Concrete masonry units.
My check list will make sure that I do not miss a note like this, which could make me seem like I don't know what the hell I'm doing.
 
Much as it pains me, there is always room and possible success for those with talent, ambition, business sense and communication skills. You may be that person or not.
Two of my former students are getting buy and putting out a professional appearing product. Have you considered aligning yourself with a design/build contractor?
With the right GC it could be mutually lucrative and you might gain E&O protection.
 
I found out quite a few things sense the last time I have been on this forum especially when it comes to the codes. I have been thinking about working with builders a lot lately and I feel confident. Thanks for you response.
 
Also I am having a code of ethics problem for what ever engineer winds up stamping my working drawings "plan stamping". I am working on a solution to this problem and it seems like I made have found a solution:

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers 2c-

Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.

So, in order to protect my engineer and to protect myself I will complete the plans and specifications which is not illegal to be done by someone who is not an architect, and from there I will have an engineer review and make redlines on what needs to be changed and created a set of engineering drawings, which will be signed and sealed by the professional who will then be able to assume responsibility for coordination of the entire project, but only seal what he created and assume responsibility of the entire project. Only one problem do all the plans have to be sealed in order for them to receive permit?
 
There continues to be much work for draftsman/designers doing small to medium sized homeowner projects.
You indicate you have a degree (what subject ?)
What CAD programs are you using: Sketchup, REVIT, ?
Might also align yourself with a decorator, kitchen designer, etc. Contact local ASID chapters and put the word out.
My 2 former students don't seem to have a problem getting work.
I take it you are under 30? You have a big mountain to climb playing catchup as to code and product knowledge.
Are you offerring: permitable, biddable or buildable drawings? Each requires more time and a higher level detail.
Have you developed a standard services contract, based on what?
Join CSI and take their CDT (Certified Document Tech) 10 week course, it will explain a lot.
Become an AIA Associate member of your local chapter. Members are always looking for staff temps.

Good Luck
 
This is a great forum idea, it's a shame it isn't used more. There must not be many designers who visit this forum unfortunately.

There is a great market for talented residential designers in 2021, if your state allows it. Particularly for those who are familiar with prescriptive design as engineering firms get more backlogged (those I work with are usually 8-10 weeks out now) and 9 out of 10 clients are in a balls out hurry to permit.

Vive la Non Licensed Designer forum!
 
"This is a great forum idea, it's a shame it isn't used more. There must not be many designers who visit this forum unfortunately."

I think there are many on the entire forum, they just do not post in this area.
 
fatboy said:
"This is a great forum idea, it's a shame it isn't used more. There must not be many designers who visit this forum unfortunately."

I think there are many on the entire forum, they just do not post in this area.
Click to expand...
If it was used more and not as contentious, I would create another section for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDS
MyDream said:
I plan on only working on single family residences and I have not done one on my own. I have done many in an architects office, again I am working on an addition for my parent and it is going smoothly except for that fact that I only work on it for an hour or so Mon-Fri because I study so much on so many things my time is limited, lately I have been spilt a days work into two days. Getting clients is going to be a very difficult thing, but I am going to start by creating a free wix website that will be only kitchen and bath designing I will design 3 options of 12 different kitchen styles and bath styles. After I get that up I will buy some business cards and use word of mouth and here's a secrete, Craig's list to market until I can get projects in kitchen and bath. When I feel comfortable I will start offering design services and I am confident that a SFR project will come along with patience, it can't be any worse than post my resume over and over until something comes up, I will get a home project I JUST KNOW IT 1 ;)

I plan on charging 5% of construction cost I will pay for the SE (I will not charge a client for structural engineering I want to work with the engineer closely) because I want the client to have a pleasurable one stop shop and I will also bid the project. It is almost impossible to tell everything I know but I know I can go thru schematic design, design development, construction documents, procurement and I will provide contract administration.
Click to expand...
Have you considered linking up with a contractor to do design/build? Maybe start with ADUs.
Getting paid can be an issue to consider.
What software are you using?
How good a salesman are you?
Do plans for interior and kitchen designers?
 
The internet makes it so damned easy to be an unlicensed designer now days...everything is online...GIS, county records, building codes, local adoptions and design criteria...and clients!

Engineering is done completely online as well...I simply email my cad files to them and they email me back a digitally stamped set of plans that attach to my plans for plan review. Even plan reviews are going online in some jurisdictions with pdf plan submissions.

3d modeling in home design has really made working with clients a fun experience...the ability to model a space in 3d and take a picture and show client has been a game changer. Clients love it and it saves massive amounts of drafting and meeting time!

The improvements to the IRC and wall bracing in particular has benefitted unlicensed designers in making it easier to follow code and get plans approvedr.

It's late and I'm rambling...
 
Seek work as a designer with a Design/Build contactor first and see if you can handle it.
Do you see yourself as responsible for expediting permits, you can lose your shirt if working on a fixed fee basis.
 
I am a building designer. First, it is not easy and involves a lot of knowledge and skills. While there isn't any "licensing" requirements to be a building designer, it does not mean it is lawful for you to offer to design buildings for clients without possessing the knowledge and skills. That would fall into 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation'. There is a set of knowledge and skills you need to have that is separate from construction trades & skills. Construction trades & skills is not the same as designing. Just because you can build doesn't mean you can design and vice versa. Professionally, it would be good to have some knowledge and skills in construction when designing.

There is a building designer certification program and a title (which you can not legally use unless you have the certification). While 'anyone' can call themselves a building designer, only those certified by the NCBDC council of the American Institute of Building Design, to use the title "Certified Professional Building Designer" and the acronym (CPBD) when used as abbreviation for the full title. This is protected under some federal laws (trademark) so this legal protections is effectively equivalent to a title law. Regardless of the certification itself, there was a "job tasks analysis" done that involved input from hundred of designers around the nation and that input becomes part of the listed knowledge areas and so forth.

CPBD Candidate Handbook: https://cpbd.info/chb.pdf

As an FYI: A building designer needs to be professionally competent in knowledge and associated skills in these following areas (drawn from the CPBD candidate handbook - pages 39-43 ):

Business Administration:
A. Ethics
- AIBD (and other professional standards regarding ethics) Code of Ethics
- Copyright registration (to protect your intellectual property rights)
- Federal copyright law (to protect your intellectual property rights and respect the intellectual property rights of others)
B. Licensure
- State business licensing or registration
- County business license/tax
- Municipal business license/tax
- Architectural/Professional business licensing
C. Insurance
- General liability
- Workers compensation
- Health Benefits
- Errors & Omission (professional liability) insurance and related legal issues.
D. Employment Laws
- Federal employment laws and compliances
- State/Provincial & regional employment laws and compliance
- Copyright issues relating to "Work for Hire" (employment) and subcontractors/consultants.
E. Accounting
- General accounting principles (eg. book keeping, profits & loss statements, balance sheet, income statements)
- Federal tax requirements
- State/Province tax requirements
- Local tax requirements
F. Marketing
- Marketing plan creation (would relate with business plan)
- Social media (we're in the 21st century, after all)
- Networking (not IT networking but marketing network and establishing of professional networking)
- Advertising

Business Practices
A. Project Management
- Quality Standards
- Quality Control
- Project design budgeting (ie. direct design costs and expenses)
B. Programming and Due Diligence (Project program.... scope of work, criteria, etc. NOT software programming)
- Scheduling
- Communications (eg. RFIs, change orders)
C. Contracts
- Clients (Design Professional -- Client contracts)
- Employees (employment contracts from traditional to special contracted employment contracts)
- Sub-contractors & consultants (the people you subcontract with such as consultants [engineers, historic preservation consultants, architects, etc.]
- Lien rights

Design Process
A. Concept Development
- Criteria Development (relating to programming)
- Conceptual plans
- Preliminary design(s)
- Concept modification (design development)
B. Construction Document Development
- Working Drawings (part of the technical submittals and all)
- Support documents/specifications
C. Contract Completion
- Publishing/Release for Constructions
- Design Fee (methods of pricing and how to price your services)

Building Design
A. Building Planning
- Code scope (building codes, energy codes, etc.), administration, and definitions
- Wind loading design and criteria (designing for wind conditions and performance criteria meeting codes, standards, etc.)
- Snow loading design and criteria (designing for the weight of snow in the locale of project and performance criteria)
- Seismic category design & criteria (as in seismic designing per criteria of seismic category and performance criteria)
- weathering design / criteria
- Room dimensions, egress requirements, clearances, minimum room sizes, and ceiling height | occupant load
- life safety criteria (e.g. glazing, guards, and fall protection)
- light, ventilation, heating, and sanitation
- flood & termite protection
- designing of garages, carports, and storm shelters and associated performance criteria & codes and standards requirements
- Elevators & lifts
- Accessibility
- consistent drafting standards (e.g. ANSI drafting standards, Architectural Graphics Standards, etc.)
B. Site Design
- Zoning compliance
- Curb cuts public access
- driveways and off street public access
- public utilities (ie. available services, accessibility)
- On-site Utilities
- Site orientation (e.g. viewscapes, solar, ventilation)
- Soil characteristics and bearing capacity
- Cut/Fill/Balance grading
- Erosion control
- stormwater management
- hardscape landscaping / design
- greenscape landscapeing / design
C. Foundations, Concrete, Structural Masonry
- Concrete characteristics and structural performance
- mortar characteristics and structural performance
- footing type, sizes, and applications
- wall and pier applications
- Flatwork applications (floors, driveways, patios, etc.)
- Subgrade drainage and associated solutions
- Radon mitigation and associated solutions
- waterproofing and associated solutions
- anchorage and associated solutions
- material expansion/contraction and associated solutions
- reinforcement and associated solutions
- moisture control and associated solutions (eg. capillart breaks, vapor barriers, etc.)
- backfill and associated solutions (eg. membranes, french drains, gravel, etc.)
D. Framing Systems (knowing types of framing systems, how to design, and apply them in practice on a professional level)
- dimensional lumber characteristics and structural performance (especially know how to size and use of load/span tables)
- engineered lumber characteristics and structural performance
- structural panels characteristics and structural performance
- trusses characteristics and structural performance
- connectors characteristics and structural performance
- applied solutions characteristics (e.g. fundamental structural design, basic load calculations, load-path tracing, etc.)
- braced wall systems structural design
- seismic structural concepts
- continuous load paths tracing
- advanced framing design
- floor systems
- wall types and application
- ceiling types and application
- roof styles, types, and systems
E. Thermal & Moisture Protection
- lightweight all cladding
- stucco (and EIFS) wall cladding
- masonry veneer wall cladding
- shingles roofing
- metal roofing
- tile roofing
- membrane roofing
- gutters and downspouts
- roofing underlayment
- vapor barriers and retarders
- flashing
- drainage planes
- insulation materials
- insulation properties
- doors and egress
- windows, fenestration and egresss
- skylights, fenestration and egress
- air distribution & mechanical systems
- hydronic distribution & mechanical systems (eg. geothermal heating, radiant slab)
- ventilation systems (e.g., kitchen/bath ventilations, whole house heat exchange)
- Fireplaces and wood stoves mechanical systems
- natural ventilation systems (e.g. skylights, cross ventilation, clerestory)
F. Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing
- Interior water distribution plumbing systems
- water heating plumbing systems
- drain, waste, and vent plumbing systems
- sewer connection or septic plumbing systems
- fixtures plumbing systems
- electrical service entrances
- electrical grounding
- schematical electrical layout (e.g. device & fixture locations)
- electrical circuit control, arc, and ground fault control
- electrical branch wiring
- electrical devices
- electrical fixtures
- conduction heat flow
- convection heat flow
- radiant heat flow
- vapor drive/vapor flow
- vapor accumulation and condensation
G. Building Science, and Sustainability
- air tightness (e.g., air barrier, envelope integrity, blower door testing)
- indoor air quality
- life cycle analysis resource efficiency
- waste mitigation-recycling resource efficiency
- local sourcing resource efficiency
- material certification and content analysis resource efficiency
- LEED-H green building programs, criteria, standards, design
- NAHB green building programs, criteria, standards, design
- local green building programs, criteria, standards, design
- Passive based solar design and Passive House programs, criteria, standards, and design (I argue passive & active solar design
principles, standards, performance characteristics, criteria, etc.)
- Energy star green building program
H. Domestic Architecture
- Climate, technology, and traditions (My added point: also including historic preservation, restorations, rehabilitation, adaptive re-use standards, architectural styles, and proper methods of treatment of historic buildings, the context of climate, and technology)

There is other areas not listed that may be appropriate for a building design professional to have knowledge and skills in regards to local needs. The building designer would need to develop knowledge and skills in most of those areas over the course of working for others, self-study, and/or experience. Forget what HGTV may make it seem like it's magic like a little snap the fingers and it suddenly happens.

There is overlap with construction but you got to look at it from the view point of 'designing' versus building.
 
SDS, its not easy. Internet may alleviate the old fashion sneaker network, some of the driving, and so forth. It's not really easier but may make some minor tasks easier. The real work is not necessarily easier but it can make collaboration work more efficient with efficient usage of the internet and tools that exists now. It's still a mountain of work we do.
 
I hear the attempts by "building designers" to promote their business model but we need to be careful not to cross the line and provide services that requires a licensed architect or engineer. My sense is that building designers often act very close to this line.

The list of skills that a building designer claims to have, exceeds that which licensed engineers and architects claim to have. Licensed engineers and architects have more in depth knowledge and recognize the limits of their expertise. A little humility would go a long way.
 
Mark K said:
I hear the attempts by "building designers" to promote their business model but we need to be careful not to cross the line and provide services that requires a licensed architect or engineer. My sense is that building designers often act very close to this line.

The list of skills that a building designer claims to have, exceeds that which licensed engineers and architects claim to have. Licensed engineers and architects have more in depth knowledge and recognize the limits of their expertise. A little humility would go a long way.
Click to expand...

Building designers do what architect do but their limits are generally on project types or size. Work that requires a license is what is not exempt. Yes, the exemptions can be amended through legislation for what building designers who are certified can do (yet still limited in scope). I can reason for that in some states. In others, I can reason, narrowing the exemption for those without any certification like the CPBD certification. Even if the exemptions in architect law is amended doesn't necessarily mean the exemption is amended under the engineers law. I think sensible amendments on the exemptions are okay but that's really beyond the scope of discussions here. Those would just be state by state legislative matters. As for what uncertified building designer (or any other unlicensed person) can do, and what a CPBD is allowed to do can be rationally determine. When will you require them to have a licensed engineer may be slightly different but there is stuff you would or should see stamped with an engineer's stamp and stuff that doesn't. The difference between a CPBD and a typical DIYer home owner is like night and day. I think you can agree to at in a typical case.

I don't think in any case, a CPBD replaces an engineer. Likewise, a CPBD is not a substitute for an architect on some projects but that's what the architect licensing law and exemptions within, outlines. Of course, that's a negotiable mark because laws are matters of legislation and subject to legislative acts. However, you enforce the law as it is or as amended when it is. CPBDs being recognized as someone more qualified than say the property owner, is not an unreasonable expectation but it comes down to reasonable recognitions and reasonable limits because even a CPBD will use engineers. CPBDs would not be adequately trained to do all the kinds of projects architects do. Architects are usually trained with a more commercial orientation along with the ARE exam and the schooling. CPBDs would be ideally trained for residential and light commercial projects and would be comparable to each other. Those things in the codes that generally required to be stamped by an RDP and done in accordance with engineering standards would be stuff CPBDs and Architects would have engineers as consultants doing those portions of the drawings.

In Oregon, I can accept an amendment in ORS 671.030 where Residential General Contractors & Commercial General Contractors licensed according to ORS 701, that is also certified as a CPBD in good standings can design buildings listed as SFRs, duplexes, townhouses 3 stories or less, and "small commercial buildings" as defined under ORS 701.005 (17)(a) ("(a) A nonresidential structure that has a ground area of 10,000 square feet or less, including exterior walls, and a height of not more than 20 feet from the top surface of the lowest flooring to the highest interior overhead finish of the structure;") but ORS 672.060 remains unchanged in that engineering services would be required for engineering work (not otherwise exempted under engineers law) for small commercial buildings over 4000 sq.ft. ground area. I can support it even if they weren't licensed as a contractor but have a CPBD certification. However, an amendment to the laws would be needed before anything like that can happen. That's my personal stance. I think when we go significantly beyond 10,000 sq.ft. I can even support slight differences where the height is limited to two or three occupiable stories (including basements) where floor to floor height doesn't exceed 15-ft. but the floor the overhead interior finish of top floor not to exceed 25 ft. Of course, at this stage, engineers would be involved in the structural systems design, and so forth. I think other states can adopt amendments to allow something along this line without compromising HSW especially when the building official can still require certain drawings prepared by an engineer. There are some types of work that may require an architect/engineer under other parts of ORS like 455 which would be triggered and unchanged. I think similar provision can or would/should be implemented to safeguard public HSW.

I wouldn't recommend allowing contractors without the certification as a CPBD to have such an expanded exemption under architect law. The contractor exam alone doesn't test enough but the combination of the contractor exam and CPBD exam would give a little more testing along this front.

Having said where I stand on this, I think it's still prudent that they don't design projects that requires an architect. Some dialog on that and where the line is set may be needed but it should be sensible and reasonable protection of HSW is attained. Oregon's exemption goes back to 1935 before there was any sort of building designer certification and it was a first amendment when making the architect law a title and practice law and not just a title law because from 1919 to 1935, anyone can design any building but unless they are licensed as an architect, they can not use the architect title. We may need to reassess the line for certain persons not licensed as an architect or engineer but maybe licensed as a contractor (RGC or CGC in Oregon or equivalent in other states), but has the CPBD certification in active good standing. Alternatives to CPBD certification could be accepted *if* another equivalent is existent. Contractors aren't peer assessed in their exams for designing buildings. This is why the CPBD certification (or a qualifiable alternative). I wouldn't want to strictly limit such certification to CPBD but it's a baseline. Licensure as an Architect would already have the scope of license of an Architect. Someone passing the ARE but hasn't got their license yet, the ARE exam could be accepted as an alternative if they have 6 years of documentable experience working for an architect, engineer, or building design where 3 years can be credited to degrees in architecture and related education.

I don't believe a CPBD should be designing high rises, stadiums, etc. This is where it's architects/engineers, obviously.

Non-certified building designers should not do projects beyond the current exemptions in Oregon/Washington or similar (give or take some) scope within reason. CPBD seal shall not be used in lieu of an architect or engineer's stamp when either is required. This is my position and where I stand on it. I don't believe public HSW would be endangered. One reason requiring them to be a licensed contractor (where there is a contractor licensing program) and having a CPBD certification is loss of either would mean they can not design commercial buildings over 4000 sq.ft. ground area (in Oregon) and their scope would be limited down to what any other unlicensed person. They would have to regain what is lapsed and two avenues for clients with complaints can pursue to address incompetent/negligent work aside from court action.

If there are HSW concerns regarding that, I would be happy to hear your thoughts.
 
Mark K, since you are an engineer, you are probably quite familiar with engineers working as consultants to architects and are likewise consultants to building designers. As a designer, I rather have engineers as consultants than architects because engineers are more willing to work as a consultant to me as they would with an architect and *we* work collaboratively to meet the client/project owner's needs and obviously HSW needs. I may do some calcs work myself within reason like I should be able to size footings and simple beams and joists but not necessarily require an engineer for that. Yet, there is time when we need to or should. Competent knowledge is necessary. Any designer that is certified as a CPBD should have competent knowledge and skills. It actually makes life more easier for the engineers than it would be for not having that knowledge. Even Architects needs to know the fundamentals of structural design and some engineering principles.
 
A registered engineer or architect who works with a building designer needs to be very careful to make sure that he does not inadvertently becomes responsible for some aspects of the building designers work.

A building department should treat any work done by a building designer as if it was produced by the owner of the building.

I believe that for most clients likely to hire building designers the client does not understand the differences between a licensed architect and an unlicensed building designers. I am concerned that building designers do not disclose this difference to their clients.

Years ago when they started licensing of Architects in California rather than grandfathering every body who had been designing buildings as Architects they classified those that could not meet certain criteria as building designers . These individuals were allowed to design certain types of small projects. But the state did not have a provision to allow other individuals, other than those initially grandfathered , to become building designers. Because individuals retire or die I do not believe that there are currently any "building designers" licensed in California
 
Mark K said:
A registered engineer or architect who works with a building designer needs to be very careful to make sure that he does not inadvertently becomes responsible for some aspects of the building designers work.

A building department should treat any work done by a building designer as if it was produced by the owner of the building.

I believe that for most clients likely to hire building designers the client does not understand the differences between a licensed architect and an unlicensed building designers. I am concerned that building designers do not disclose this difference to their clients.

Years ago when they started licensing of Architects in California rather than grandfathering every body who had been designing buildings as Architects they classified those that could not meet certain criteria as building designers . These individuals were allowed to design certain types of small projects. But the state did not have a provision to allow other individuals, other than those initially grandfathered , to become building designers. Because individuals retire or die I do not believe that there are currently any "building designers" licensed in California
Click to expand...

California had what was called a "registered building designer". Those that were "registered building designers" who were in practice for a certain number of years were transitioned into an "architect" license as part of some sort of sunsetting provision. Otherwise, those designers were no longer "registered building designer" because their status expired at the end of the registration term. They still had to renew every year or whatever it was and when the program ended, there was no longer an option to renew. The title "registered building designer" is a protected title. The Certified Professional Building Designer is a professional certification mark of the American Institute of Building Design that is protected by the trademark laws of the United States effectively making it equivalent to a "title law".... which actually states made up 'title law' system because individual states do not have the Constitutional authority over registering trademarks and regulatory authority over it because of federal law making trademarks an exclusive legal jurisdiction of the United States federal government (aside from other countries).

Does a building designer really need to make themselves as if they are just some dipsh-t that bought a $20 piece of software for home design and they decide to then open up a business designing homes? Not necessarily. Certainly anyone that would have the years of experience as a CPBD or is certified as one is unlikely to be incompetent. At some point, that designer's knowledge and skills will be right up there with an architect. Many went to architecture school and went through years of working with an architect and have years of building design experience but never got licensed as an architect. Architects are not engineers and won't even have the depth of any engineering discipline as an engineer would. They would have a broad general understanding of engineering principles. That is also what you would be tested on with regards to CPBD certification. This is why a 'building designer' that is certified as a CPBD should be looked at... at least somewhere between an architect and a contractor in the sense that a contractor is expected to understand codes AND certified building designers would know both codes and designing of houses and light commercial buildings. Of course, they have to follow the laws of the state where the project is located. I can design buildings that are non-exempt in Oregon if the project is located in another state where it is exempt in that state.

Yes, they are not licensed as "Architects" but often architects are not trained well in dealing with residential and small commercial structures and the clientele for those type of projects. Some architects do because they took upon themselves to direct career around residential. There is a point where competent building designers (like those that are certified) are going to compare equally to an architect.

Up in Oregon, a designer is subject to lawsuits of tort, negligence, etc. and not being licensed does not exempt the person from professional liability. (Reference: ORS 12.135).

No one architect is entirely alike, either. Not all architects are equal. Building designers will often, over time... like anyone else, develop competency in the type of work that they do. The difference is just the piece of paper not necessarily a big difference in knowledge and skills. It's why some building designers are annoyed when some building official with practically no experience in designing buildings at all insults the building designer's intelligence by treating the building designer as if they know nothing and talk down to them like they are 6 year old kids even when they been designing homes for 40 years. There is a thing in this world called 'professional courtesy'. In no way am I suggesting building departments allow 'building designers' to do work that requires a stamp/license. The laws as they are at that moment in time needs to be enforced as they are. They laws can be amended in the future which is part of what I talked about as 'ideas' and 'thoughts' on the matter.

Engineers are not architects, either.

As a building designer with over 15 years in building design, I would not dwell on what I am not. I would inform them that I am not licensed to design ________ types of building or simply... I don't design that type of building. The focus is what I can provide to the client in terms of services. If you are running off a list of what you can't do for a client, they will walk. Does architects or engineers run off a list of what they are not allowed to do? You know, you're still required to design projects that are within your area of competence so you need to now what you is in your area of competence, and what is not. Therefore, do you run off a list of what is not in your area of competence? Especially during initial consultation? You are trying to procure work and clients. It is a business after all and you may have employees (well.... some of your engineering colleagues do).

What is your incentive or agenda behind expecting building designers to disclose their differences? or what are you suggesting in disclosing differences? There are architects that knows how to design school buildings but are not good at designing houses. There are engineers that may know how to design buildings but then there are engineers that don't. You're engineering background is most likely structural engineering being an area of engineering discipline you are familiar with so it's part of understanding structural design but even some structural engineers don't know or are trained in coordinating multiple disciplines of engineering as a whole. That is core knowledge and skill requirement of building design that building designers and architects needs to know. There is a set of knowledge areas and skills you had to pick up beyond what was necessarily taught in engineering school and you may have got that from an engineer you worked with where they may had worked for an Architect/Engineering firm and worked with an architect and picked that up along the way. Architects and designers are looking at the spatial-function relationship and the relationship of form with that of function. Form would be the structural elements but not only that but the infrastructural systems that will all effect the 'form' when you got to look beyond skin deep. We have to coordinate the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. This doesn't mean we design those systems but need to make sure we are observant of conflict of systems so we don't have a structural beam cutting off the mechanical duct or the plumbing pipe... right? At least, competent building design is done that way.

I can support building department having a 'soft' recognition of certified building designers in the sense of professional tone and expectations and can understand that if the building designer doesn't have any certification and the building department doesn't know them then I can understand them initially treating them like the property owner until proven otherwise. The plans will still need to be professionally reviewed. I'm not proposing they don't.
 
Continuation:

In some local jurisdictions where all plans must bear a stamp or seal, but under state law, houses and some types of other structures are exempt, plans for a house, prepared by a CPBD should be considered an acceptable alternative to an architect or engineer, in those jurisdictions when their state laws don't require an architect or engineer to design the homes. This would be a matter of local jurisdiction and addressing intent of those ordinances which are drafted so as to require plans submitted to be prepared by competent individuals. In those situations, I think CPBD certification and seal would be an acceptable alternative (within limits of course). Even in those jurisdiction, a CPBD should be allowed as an alternative to an architect for designing homes but even then some elements of a home may require certain drawings prepared by an engineer. Of course, a house would not necessarily require an architect and that's the case in most of the states of the U.S. so a CPBD seal would be something that can have a 'limited' recognition for those local ordinance issues as it would not be an architectural licensing or engineering law violation issue unless it is in regards to 'non-exempt' buildings that is required to be designed by an architect and/or engineering work on building engineered by a Professional Engineer qualified to perform that area of engineering discipline.

I wouldn't have issues with that. I think local ordinances can be such that the plans be prepared by architects and engineers and with limitations.... other certified designers to reduce cost and waste with shoddy submittals that are not competently and professionally prepared.
 
"A registered engineer or architect who works with a building designer needs to be very careful to make sure that he does not inadvertently becomes responsible for some aspects of the building designers work."

I agree with you. It would actually be both ways. We don't want to inadvertently become responsible for aspects of the others work. In short, you are responsible for your work and I would be responsible for my work. Sometimes, poorly written laws and poorly rules legal cases complicates life. It's about how we manage those things. Contractual language may help in that area so it's mutually in best interest with all parties. I don't think engineers should be responsible the architect or designers work and vice versa. Likewise, the designer should not be responsible for the architect's work or vice versa. Given that the work of architects and building designers and their role with clients are substantively the same, you will usually not have an architect as consultant to a building designer and a project where an architect is required under architect law, the building designer shouldn't even be involved unless working as a draftsman providing drafting service for the architect. However, there is situations where a building designer designing a house, engineers may be needed to prepare certain drawings. The role would be similar to that of an engineer as a consultant to an architect on the same type of project. As an architect would be liable for their own work, so should the building designer be reliable for the work they do and the engineer be responsible for the specific engineering work and services.

Architects role and service is too alike that of a building designer to make as a good consultant to the building designer and then there is the architect's ego. Architects would be too eager to get the client to kick the building designer off the project because it would be really too redundant. Clients generally, only need one or the other but not both an architect and a building designer. On the other hand, engineers often work as consultants so the business model of engineers makes them better as a team player with a building designer than an architect would be to a building designer. No disrespect intended against architects.

I agree that liability management is something that needs to be carefully address so no unintended situation occurs.
 
Here in Washington state, I can only design residential structures, and I cannot use any form of the word 'architect' in the operation of my business. I'm not big on titles personally, but 'residential building designer" is something simple that a client understands and is in keeping with the law.

Mark K said:
A registered engineer or architect who works with a building designer needs to be very careful to make sure that he does not inadvertently becomes responsible for some aspects of the building designers work.

I believe that for most clients likely to hire building designers the client does not understand the differences between a licensed architect and an unlicensed building designers. I am concerned that building designers do not disclose this difference to their clients.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it is not uncommon to have to explain to a client that I am not an architect or an engineer when I sense that they are under the impression I am. They rarely understand the distinctions. However, this is always during that initial contact and I don't feel like doing so has ever changed anyone's mind about working with me.

I've always taken the approach that if I cannot design the structure prescriptively, then the engineer is to design everything, rather than trying to mix up the two methods. So my engineer knows that when I send them a set of plans they are responsible for all the structural aspects of the design.

As a business, I don't make money correcting plans, getting stuck in plan review, or dealing with 3rd parties having trouble using my plans. I make money by making satisfied clients, building officials and contractors. I work online, almost exclusively, I rarely meet clients anymore...who are invariably referred to me by someone else. None of them can see the certificates, diplomas and degrees I don't have hanging on my wall. They only want to know whether I can do the job properly. How I learned how to do that job is never a concern.

I am always overbooked...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top