C. Douglas Barnes, Architects Associated, Tulare
I was in the AIA for a lot of years, but it got to the point where I didn’t have the money. A second reason is that I’m sixty miles from Fresno, in Tulare, where I’m one of two architects. There are ten or fifteen architects in Visalia, a few in Porterville. We’re at the end of the road down here.
We used to have a section, the Sequoia Section of AIA San Joaquin Valley. We had section officers—I was president of the Sequoia Section in 1992—and we put on programs ourselves. Once in awhile, those guys in Fresno would drive down for our seminars. We seemed to have more going on together with the Fresno group; there was a real effort to include both groups. Over the years, that’s gotten lost; we feel like the orphans. So the only AIA functions I could go to now are sixty miles away. Instead, I attend educational seminars put on here by the local Builder’s Exchange.
Since I’m no longer a member, I’m not up on what’s going on now. It may be my myopic view from here in Tulare, but my sense is that the AIA is not effective in legislative advocacy. One of the things we really dropped the ball on is this business with the continuing education requirements for disability access (which, by the way, I fulfilled through the Builder’s Exchange). Nobody locally has had any contact with anybody who is in a position to influence those things.
Olle Lundberg, Lundberg Design, San Francisco
The AIA does some things reasonably well. Its contracts, for example, are the industry standard, used by members and non-members, and I find them a good starting point even when dealing with more sophisticated clients who prepare their own contracts. On the other hand, the AIA is relatively ineffective in Washington, compared to other professional organizations, judging by the fact that design doesn’t have much of an agenda in politics. AIA’s awards programs are pretty good for generating attention among the public, but on some level you get the idea that it’s more about architects giving awards to one another. The AIA provides a peer structure, to hang out with other architects to learn from each other, but there are other venues for that. We go to seminars and so on. The fact that the AIA gives credit for them, who cares? You either learn it or you don’t.
But the thing that really bugs me about the AIA is the Supplemental Dues program. If you own a firm, you’re expected to pay dues for all of your employees. I’m unwilling to do that, because, for a firm of twelve people, the cost far outweighs the benefits. If you study what makes sense economically, very large firms do well and very small firms do well. Ten to fifteen people is a tough economic model, because you can’t afford layers of management. People have that size firm for various reasons; in my case, it’s big enough that we can do big projects but small enough that we don’t have to only do big projects. We don’t have to specialize. And it’s about as large as you can get as a sole principal, which is what I am and what I enjoy.
I know that many small firm principals who do join the AIA don’t tell the truth about the number of employees. But if I’m going to sign up, I want to do it on a straightforward basis.
I have spoken with people at all levels of the organization about this problem—local, state, and national. They kind of mutter and say, “Mmm, well, that’s the way it is.” Which is fine, but they’re not going to get me. They miss out on the small firms—which include many of the generalist practices. It’s the medium to large firms, on the one hand, and individuals, on the other, for whom the dues structure makes sense.
Ted Smith, Smith and Others, San Diego
The reason I am not in the AIA is as much a matter of habit as anything else. There were a certain number of events that sent me on that path. First, I fell behind on my dues during a recession, missed a few years, back in the days when you needed to pay your arrears to get back in. It became more and more impossible as the years went by, and even when friends invited me back without paying the arrears it felt wrong to do it, unfair to those who had stuck it out through the lean years while I had opted out. Besides, I very often entered the awards events, where I had a chance to pay some money for the privilege. So all felt OK. I always enjoyed the AIA for sponsoring the awards, where we all could get together and see what each other were doing. Good place to buy contracts, too.
So, that is at least the path to the state I find myself in. But certainly there is more to it. Perhaps it is also because my alternate practice doesn’t seem to match up with what at least years ago was considered ethical. Acting as a contractor or a developer, people used to talk about the conflict of interest in design-build, etc. I know that that logic has subsided, but there is still a certain stigma concerning the AIA and the roles expected. And, besides, “Smith and Others” with AIA at the end loses its odd ring.
Back in the ‘70s, while I was a member for a short while, times had already changed or were in the midst of change. Before then, AIA architects all happily agreed upon (fixed) our fee percentages, and only a non-AIA loser would compete for the dollar. What a beautiful time, but of course all that changed when ruled illegal. Competing about quality of service had been a real good reason to want to be in the AIA.
Not being a member, however, I always hated the perception that potential clients had, that somehow if you didn’t have the letters after your name, then you were not a real architect. I think the AIA played that misunderstanding up a bit, so I resented the conceit. Besides, I wanted to be a different kind of architect. I’m glad I got registered, though, so I could console my potential clients that I was at least legal. They still sort of weren’t sure. I probably lost some jobs. My only consolation was that those were probably just the clients I was glad never to have had.
Anyway, that’s about the gist of it. You see it is somewhat complicated; any one reason alone would leave the wrong impression. I really enjoy all my friends in the AIA, and I wouldn’t want them to put too much emphasis on any one thing.
Maxine Ward, Studio E Architects, San Diego
All the usual reasons; time, money, other priorities…
$568 a year is a lot for a young licensed architect with a mortgage and young family to devote to the cause. And can someone tell me who thought it was a good idea to structure membership with dues for national, state and local? What is this, taxes?
I have been an AIA member in the past— prior to being licensed—and I feel that I took full advantage of being a member, attending two of the national conventions. I understand the value of the AIA’s advocacy efforts on behalf of the profession, although they mostly go unnoticed, whether you are a member or not. This is good work that is not being sufficiently discussed, documented, or communicated to the members. I also participated locally, attending Continuing Education seminars, lectures, the annual design awards, and networking opportunities.
I now choose to devote my limited extra time and energy to a local cause in which I feel I can have the most impact. The AIA is going to continue to exist and serve the profession with or without my input. And it is an association devoted primarily to the profession, not to expanding knowledge about architecture and design among the general public. This is where my interest lies. With an informed citizenry, we can demand excellence in the design of our built environment.
That is why I got involved with the San Diego Architectural Foundation (SDAF), specifically as chair of their Orchids & Onions program. Once a popular awards program of the local AIA chapter from 1976 to 2003, it celebrates the good and bad of San Diego’s built environment. It received much criticism from the professional community, due to the frivolous presentation of the Onion awards without any further explanation. The SDAF’s reinvention of this program in a more educational format, although still sometimes controversial, is the most visible, popular, and effective vehicle for stimulating community awareness and response to San Diego’s built environment. To reach an even broader audience, we launched a website in 2008 to accept public nominations and commentary. We introduced a professional architectural commentator as an integral part of the awards event in order to provide context for the awards. I feel that I have had an impact on this program and the foundation by my involvement. Now the vice president of the SDAF, I want to continue to educate and promote outstanding architecture, planning, and urban design throughout the San Diego region.
I guess this is really where my heart lies: raising all boats, rather than the one boat in which my fellow architects and I are sailing. That being said, while we chart our own course as individual architects, the AIA helps to steer the profession in a common direction, and allows us to weather many storms.
Originally published 1st quarter 2011, in arcCA 11.1, “Valuing the AIA.”
