Walter Wagner Forum 2006—Global Issues

At the Walter Wagner Forum in 2006, a panel of educators, practitioners, and policy experts explored the question of preparing emerging professionals for global practice. A progress report was presented on the development of international agreements, and the group discussed potential changes in curriculum and pedagogy that may be needed for global practice. Various perspectives were presented by Marilys R. Nepomechie, FAIA, Florida International University, Miami; Christopher L. Noble, Noble & Wickersham LLP, Boston; James A. Scheeler, FAIA, The American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C.; and Bea Sennewald, AIA, president AIA London/UK. Provided by the EPN and the AIA International Committee at the AIA National Convention in Los Angeles, this session was moderated by Ann Chaintreuil, FAIA, 2006 EPN chair and principal of Chaintreuil Jensen & Stark Architects in Rochester, N.Y. What follows is a compilation of observations written by the panelists.

From left to right: Christopher L. Noble; Ann Chaintreuil, FAIA, 2006 EPN chair; Bea Sennewald, AIA; Marilys R. Nepomechie, FAIA; James A. Scheeler, FAIA.

Those of us trained and experienced in project delivery in the United States carry with us an imaginary roadmap of how the job gets done. We understand the architect’s work in terms of schematic design, design development, construction documents, and field observation. We know that the architect is the leader of the design team and is responsible for coordinating all engineering. We know what a set of construction documents should look like and what should be in the specifications. We know it is the contractor’s job to bid and build the work. There is a sharp divide between architect and contractor.

Those of us who have ventured abroad know that the American way of doing things is not common in the rest of the world and, to make it more challenging, architecture practice also varies greatly from one country to the next.

There is a huge spectrum in the architect’s scope of responsibility. In France, the architect is responsible for the design concept but little else. French architects produce only sketchy building sections and elevations and no details at all. Once planning approval has been obtained, the design development and construction documents are usually done by a Bureau d’Etudes, which is staffed with architects and engineers but usually works for the contractor. The construction documents produced by the Bureau d’Etudes look more like our shop drawings. A French architect almost never visits the construction site.

In Spain (and most of Latin America), on the other hand, the architect’s role is similar to that of the medieval master builder. He or she is usually responsible for selecting the engineering team and evaluating and selecting the building contractors. The architect has the power to stop construction and is responsible to the owner for the successful completion of the project in a much more profound way than in the United States. On small projects, like houses, the owner looks entirely to the architect to manage the job and attend to any problems, down to changing lightbulbs.

In Scandinavia, typical project delivery looks like what we know as construction management (CM). A CM firm hires and manages the architect and other members of the design team who are all subordinate to the CM.

The amount of effort spent in the various project phases also differs greatly in other countries. In the United Kingdom where I practice, no building of any size can be built without planning consent. There is no such thing as a zoning ordinance that permits so many floors and so many square feet to be built on a piece of land “as of right.” Each project has to be presented to various planning bodies and committees and demonstrated to enhance the local environment. Today this involves 3D modeling of entire neighborhoods, making movies of the new building with different sun positions and traffic situations, creating physical models, and attending a host of meetings and presentations. I know of one firm that spent £7 million in fees (about $13 million) to get approval for a new high-rise building in London, and that included only schematic design. Other European capitals have similarly strict parameters for approving new buildings.

Another area of substantive difference between American and European architects: specialization is practically unknown in Europe. All architects are generalists and believe they are equally well suited to design an apartment block, an airport, and a hospital. This bias has led to Europeans having superb public buildings—theaters, museums, concert halls, and mixed-use projects—and generally inadequate hospitals, airports, sports facilities, and laboratories. American expertise is still highly valued in technical building types because many more architecture practices focus on specialized building types in the United States.

— Bea Sennewald


How to Prepare for Working Overseas

There is no magic formula to prepare for overseas employment; a good education in all the basics is as important in the rest of the world as it is in the United States. In Europe technical knowledge of green design is expected and valued; knowing how to do it is more important than understanding theory. This expertise requires good grounding in such areas as mechanical and electrical engineering, particularly natural ventilation and use of solar and wind power.

Knowledge of CAD systems is essential to be employable, both AutoCAD and MicroStation, with AutoCAD holding an edge in Europe.

Curiosity and openness to new ways of doing things are valuable attributes to cultivate. A “we know what’s best” attitude is not appreciated and considered counterproductive.

Your personal toolbox should include a fluency in one or two foreign languages. Even in countries where English is widely spoken, such as Scandinavia, you will not be befriended by the locals until you can go to the pub with them.

—Bea Sennewald

An architect needs the following skills to work successfully in other countries:

• Language skills, oral, and written
• Digital skills, including fluency in a range of graphic and rendering programs
• Basic professional skills
• Sensitivity to cultural differences
• Flexibility and adaptability

—Marilys Nepomechie


Working Globally: Legal and Business Issues

The challenges an architecture firm will confront when seeking to expand its practice overseas are similar to those faced by a firm expanding from a local to a national practice. The international challenges can, however, be more intense and more difficult to overcome.

These challenges include

• Expansion of relationships and networks. Professional service is a personal business, especially outside the United States. Architects must spend time talking, meeting, and communicating with potential clients and other market participants who can lead them to potential clients. They must also establish professional relationships with local consultants, local architects who can serve as architect of record and/or administer the construction process, and other participants in the local design and construction community.

• Expansion of knowledge base. Architects who work outside their own area must become knowledgeable about local physical and environmental conditions, as well as local social norms and practices, governmental regulation, and cultural and aesthetic influences. The differences that are encountered in these areas between various regions of the United States are amplified many times over when one is working overseas. It is, for instance, more difficult to communicate with people who speak a different language than with those who speak English with a different regional accent.

• Logistical problems. The farther away the client, the design team members, and/or the project is located, the harder it is to deal with travel, communication, and the production and delivery of documents, models, and other deliverables. Overcoming these challenges requires more than efficient electronic communication; it also requires time, money, and personal energy and stamina.

• Legal requirements. Individual professional licensing in the United States is regulated and administered by various state registration boards operating under their own state statutes and regulations. Interstate licensing is made substantially easier by the reciprocity system administered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). However, most states also have rules and restrictions relating to firm practice, and a firm operating in one state cannot always practice architecture in another state (which may, for instance, require that all of the firm’s owners be locally licensed architects). Unfortunately there is no international equivalent of the NCARB, and both individual and firm licensing (as well as other requirements like visas and work permits) can be daunting barriers to working in various foreign countries. An entirely new set of U.S. laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Export Administration Act, may also become applicable.

• Financial and business challenges. It is usually more expensive to seek and perform work for projects in other states, and the additional cost of international practice can increase exponentially. Substantial working capital is required, and local competition may be a limiting factor on the fees that can be obtained. Local taxes can drive up costs and drive down net profits, and it can be even more time consuming and expensive to collect fees owed by clients in other countries than it is to collect from clients who are located out of state. Finally, if a dispute arises in connection with the design or construction of an overseas project, the risk and expense of resolving it in international arbitration or in a foreign court can add significantly to the financial exposure of an architecture firm’s insurance company or to its own net worth.

—Chris Noble


Education

What are the opportunities and barriers for greater access to education internationally?

Opportunities for greater access to international education in architecture abound:

• Ease of transfer of admission credentials (usually high school or its equivalent). At the earliest stages of professional education, this flexibility allows foreign students to earn full professional credentials in a host/foreign country.|

• A proliferation of U.S. study abroad programs. These typically cover only a part of professional degree curricula. In recent years, they have expanded from their traditional Western European base locations to include Eastern Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, and Asia. Study abroad options range from programs directed by U.S. professional programs, to opportunities for students to enroll in existing and ongoing programs at international universities.

• Mobile and international provenance of university/program faculty members. This mobility introduces the possibility—and desirability—of foreign experiences and training to their students. Studio groups often travel internationally and contribute to international disciplinary events.

• Proliferation of professional media (digital, print). Media covers an increasingly global arena for professional practice that entices students to try their luck abroad.

• Exhibitions, lectures, symposia (such as architectural/design discipline biennales, but also exhibits such as the recent MoMA exhibit on new Spanish architecture). These offerings narrow the distance among international colleagues.

• International awards programs (Pritzker, Mies van der Rohe Prize, even Hon. FAIA designation).These programs narrow the distance among international colleagues.

• New archive centers for architectural work, e.g., Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAI). These centers narrow the distance among international colleagues.

Barriers to access to international education include

• Language skills. For students enrolling in foreign programs, architecture education remains closely tied to oral and written expression. As a result, language skills can be a significant barrier (although English remains the lingua franca for international practice).
• Transportability. Difficult transportability for professional academic credentials continues to pose a barrier to international education (and employment), since professional practice and/or academia remain the goal of many students.

Students from other countries come to study in the United States, then return to their home countries.

Alumni/emerging professionals often return to home bases in foreign countries or choose to exercise their profession with firms whose global reach involves them in projects around the world. This is increasingly the norm across the United States—and has long been the norm elsewhere around the globe.

An education in the United States is still understood to set a standard for excellence, and a U.S. degree continues to be a coveted credential throughout the world. This sterling reputation is somewhat ironic, considering that experimentation in design, construction, sustainability, and materials is substantially more difficult in the U.S. legal, regulatory, and financial climates than it is elsewhere.

Will it be easier to study abroad and then return to the United States to practice?

Currently, returning to the United States to practice while not automatic, is certainly possible. The somewhat onerous process for establishing degree equivalences is followed by the need to complete professional examinations and internship for licensure. However, many professions require similarly lengthy processes. Historical/political convulsions and immigration patterns of the 20th century have conspired to put many of these regulations and processes in place (Miami being a good example).

Travel is an important part of the international curriculum structure.

This is true in many fields, but especially so in architecture.

Central to education and practice are cross-cultural issues and digital technology.

Digital technologies are a practical means for disciplinary communication—the new Esperanto of our discipline. Digital technologies are used at one university, for example, as the basis for an international, Internet-based studio pedagogy.

Cultural issues, however, are perhaps more important. Increasingly, U.S. education in architecture has understood a need to frame issues in an interdisciplinary manner, with a focus on global priorities. Sustainability, broadly and narrowly defined; the changing nature of cities; the potential civic role of infrastructure; changing global climate; limited resources; universal accessibility (physical, cultural, and financial); and a global need for housing are among the many focal points of our collective work at schools of architecture. Curricular changes have centered on the growing and changing character of research in our disciplines and on the infrastructure/communication tools of both education and practice.

Why should the United States assume a leadership role in raising the quality of architecture education?

This question may not be the best way to think about this issue. The quality of an education in architecture is measured by its local as well as its global context and must address the readiness of graduates to operate effectively in both. Should the United States be a significant voice in this conversation? Absolutely, and it already is. Can it do better? Of course.

The relationship between classroom-based training and real-world practice is different in the United States and abroad. Internship requirements, professional examination, licensure, reciprocity—even among the states—all make preparation for practice a more onerous process in the United States than in many other countries. This places different pressures on education/professional curricula.

The role of the architect in leading national discussion about quality of life is very different here than it is elsewhere.

The forces that operate on the architect in the public and private realms vary widely across national boundaries and have a substantive effect on what architects do and on how they are educated.

—Marilys Nepomechie



Accreditation/Validation

What has been the response of the AIA and other professional societies to the expansion of international education and practice?

From its founding in 1857, the AIA has enjoyed a close working relationship with international professional societies through which it has exchanged examples of architecture and practice information. The issue of education policy was the focus of a report adopted at the 1867 AIA Convention and resulted in the launching of the first architecture schools at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1868), Cornell (1871), and Illinois (1873). Thus, interest in the international implications of practice and education are not new to the AIA.

Fast forward to the 1980s, and you find the beginning of the free trade era and the involvement of the AIA in trade negotiations with Canada that resulted in the Accord on Professionalism between the AIA and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. That was followed by similar accords with Japan, the USSR, Mexico, China, the European Union, and Australia.

The Union Internationale des Architectes (UIA), a federation of the professional societies of 112 countries, has developed a set of coordinated advisory policies and procedures for education, accreditation/validation, and practice of architecture. These advisory policies represent the international institutional response to the aspirations of the global profession.

The latest international efforts relate to establishing a protocol for substantial equivalency among the well-established accreditation/validation agencies to assure portability of academic credentials.

(See http://collaboration.aia.org/iav for documents related to this effort.)

—Jim Scheeler

Moderator/Speakers

Ann R. Chaintreuil, FAIA
Ann Chaintreuil is a practicing architect in Rochester, N.Y., and Boca Raton, Fla. Her firm, Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects, has a 30-year history with experience with theater, museum, and institutional design. She has been recognized with both regional and national design awards.

As the first woman president of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), she chaired the research group that initiated the computerization of the Architect Registration Exam. Ann traveled to China on behalf of NCARB and initiated discussions leading to the architectural inter-recognition agreement between our nations. She also served on the National Architectural Accrediting Board’s board of directors, cochaired the 2005 Internship Conference, and is the current chair of the AIA Educator/Practitioner Network. Her educational background includes an Intermediate RIBA from the Architectural Association in London, England, and BArch and MArch degrees from Syracuse University.

Marilys R. Nepomechie, FAIA
Marilys Nepomechie is an associate professor of architecture at the Florida International University (FIU) School of Architecture and an architect in private practice in Coconut Grove, Fla. Her design, research, and writing focus on cultural identity and architectural form. Her work has been honored with numerous design awards, national and international exhibitions, and wide publication. Her design, teaching, and research honors include the American Architecture Award from the Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Architecture and Design; Design/Research and Collaborative Practice Awards from the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture; multiple design awards from the Boston Society of Architects, AIA Florida/Caribbean, AIA Miami, and International Bienal Miami + Beach; the P/A Young Architects’ Award; and a Research/Creative Work Award from Florida International University. She was an invited curator/designer at the second International Biennale Rotterdam and has received teaching and research grants from the Graham Foundation, the AIA, and the Cuban Research Institute at FIU. Her designs are included in the archives of the National Building Museum, and her work has been solicited by national and international journals. Nepomechie received the MArch degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was inducted to the AIA College of Fellows.

Christopher L. Noble
Chris Noble has specialized in design and construction law for more than 30 years. He serves as general counsel for numerous architecture firms, for whom he has drafted and negotiated contracts for universities, hospitals, office towers, aquariums, and other major projects in more than 24 countries. Chris has taught courses in professional practice at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Boston Architectural Center. He is a founding fellow of the American College of Construction Lawyers, has served as chair of the Contract Documents Division of the American Bar Association Construction Industry Forum, and is an honorary member of the Boston Society of Architects. He has written and cowritten many articles and other publications, including “Friend of the Project: A New Paradigm for Construction Law Services in a ‘Partnered’ Construction Industry,” in The International Construction Law Review (1998), “The AIA General Conditions in the Digital Age: Does the Square ‘New Technology’ Peg Fit into the Round A201 Hole?” in Construction Contracts Law Report (2001), and “Don’t Leave Home Without It: A Strategy for Complying with Interstate Architectural Practice Rules,” in Under Construction (2001). Chris attended Banaras Hindu University in 1965 and graduated from Yale College in 1968 and from Yale Law School in 1973. He was with the Boston law firm of Hill & Barlow from 1973 until he and Jay Wickersham, Esq., FAIA, founded Noble & Wickersham LLP in 2003.

James A. Scheeler, FAIA
James A. Scheeler, FAIA, has been closely associated with the AIA since 1971 when he moved to Reston, Va., with his wife and three children from Champaign, Ill., to join the AIA staff. A native of Illinois, Jim received a bachelor of science degree in architecture with highest honors (1951) and a master of science degree in architecture (1952) from the University of Illinois. In 1953 he was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and the Francis J. Plym Fellowship in Architecture, which permitted him to travel extensively in Europe and undertake graduate study in civic design and town planning in England. Following work as a design architect for the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, he practiced architecture as a principal in Richardson, Severns, Scheeler & Associates in Champaign from 1959 until 1973. During that period Jim also served on both the undergraduate and graduate design faculty of the University of Illinois School of Architecture and was active in civic and professional affairs. Jim served the AIA in several senior executive positions, including executive vice president. He retired from the AIA staff in 1990 but continues to serve as a volunteer as a resident Fellow for International Relations. From its founding in 1994 until 2003 he served as codirector and secretary of the Union Internationale des Architectes (UIA) Professional Practice Commission. Jim has been a member of the UNESCO-UIA Validation Council for Architectural Education since its founding in 2000. The Validation Council seeks to promote international standards of accreditation/validation of degree-granting programs in architecture and establishment of accreditation/validation agency services in all UIA member section countries. He is also a member of the UIA Education Commission representing North America. In July 2005 he was elected a member of the UIA Council representing Region III, The Americas.

Bea Sennewald, AIA
Bea Sennewald is a senior vice president of HDR Architecture and HDR’s principal in London. Her work has focused on research, high technology, and industrial buildings. She has designed more than 6 million square feet of space for corporate, academic, and government research facilities, housing physical sciences, nanotechnology, communications, biology, materials science, microelectronics, and toxicology. She is an expert at various scientific requirements, including clean room technology, temperature and vibration control, and electromagnetic shielding. Bea was a contributing author for the Handbook of Laboratory Design, has published articles in Architecture, Architectural Technology, Specifications, and R&D. She is a regular speaker at conferences. She was also an advisor to the National Institutes of Health for laboratory design standards. She was the design director for the Advanced Measurement Laboratories for National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md., and Boulder, Colo., which received the 2005 Laboratory of the Year Award of R&D magazine. Her recent work includes projects in England, France, Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands. She currently serves as president of the London/UK component of the AIA. Bea received a MArch (magna cum laude) from the University of Oregon.