Summary: Four good letters this week on four different stories. The first takes us to task on the presentation of last week’s Brooklyn Poly Prep story, while in the second, a longtime practitioner reveals how he’s “guilty” from his IDP days. Patrick Quinn, FAIA, provides the third letter, in which he responds to Lord Aeck and Sargent’s response to him about the Columbia Theological Seminary. The one-sentence-long fourth letter makes it quite clear what the reader thinks about having volunteer speakers at the AIA national convention. Come play!

Re: Brooklyn Poly Prep Lower School Earns LEED Silver

Please consider the content of your articles before printing. The article on Brooklyn Prep Lower School did not include enough information to be worth reading—very unusual for your publication. I understand many projects are earning a LEED® rating these days, but the article did not suggest much in the way of content to the reason the project should be featured “at the top of the fold.” The article sounded more like an advertisement for the LEED rating system or an article in another industry publication that only concerns itself with LEED (name withheld). I expect more from you all since your typical fare is quite worth reading.

—Steve Kismohr, AIA, LEED-AP
Greenworks Studio, a partner company of Harley Ellis Devereaux
Chicago

—The editors respond: We truly appreciate your candid feedback and your vote of confidence for most of what we do. The Brooklyn Prep article is part of a non-scientific experiment we are running by publishing the occasional short “snapshot” type article rather than in-depth coverage.

Obviously, you didn’t find this format worthwhile or enjoyable. What do other readers think? E-mail Managing Editor Stephanie Stubbs and let us know.

Re: Vote for Accuracy not Arbitrary Timetables; Vote No on 2008-07

I am guilty. I failed to report my IDP experience regularly. Under these new rules, I might still be trying to get approval to take the exam, but back in 1980 my state board looked at my experience—not my methods—and said I could take the test. That was in the days when exams were on paper and given once a year. I was just over two and one-half years out of architecture school, and, with some additional study courses, was able to achieve the total hours needed. I passed the exam on my first try and have practiced architecture since January1981. The experience I received before taking that exam was invaluable and continues to guide me today.

It seems to me if cheating is suspected among IDP participants, the issue isn’t the timetable for reporting, but a matter of ethics. I’ve been very lucky in my 27 years of practice because I haven’t had to appear before a judge in the execution of services to my clients (knock on veneer). But I have time and again had to face a client with a problem due to my shortcomings, in hopes of working something out. It is hard and no fun for sure. But when faced with hard issues, professionals will do the right thing regardless of how it makes them feel.

These lessons need to be learned by interns (and perhaps some sponsors and advisors). Doing the right thing on a report form is just a start. It will be required many times over if one practices architecture. Otherwise it ceases to be a profession and is more akin to horse trading.

If I were to support the 6-Month Rule, it would imply I am not qualified to practice architecture because I somehow cheated to get registered. I didn’t cheat, but am guilty.

—Calvin Sibley, AIA
Dale and Associates Architects PA
Jackson, Miss.

Be a Speaker at the AIA 2009 National Convention and Design Exposition in San Francisco, April 30–May 2

The best way to mess up the Convention. Some may be great, but many just want to hear themselves.

—John Freeman Hayes Sr., FAIA
Philadelphia

WE’RE TAKIN’ IT TO THE BLOG
Re: Spirituality Meets Sustainability

Ed. Note: Patrick Quinn, FAIA, has responded to the response from Lord Aeck and Sargent’s Tony Aeck, FAIA, and Joe Greco, AIA, about his original letter questioning “Why would any seminary today want its building to look as if it were designed in the late 19th century?"

Rather than print the entire response here, we have moved the entire string to the AIArchitect blog, in hopes that readers can follow the string of correspondence more easily (and perhaps be inspired to join in).

Here is the beginning of Quinn’s letter:

I was pleased to find Mr. Aeck's courteous and elegantly phrased response to my question about why a 21st-century seminary needs to look as if it were designed in the 19th.

His justification, however, seems to stem from an academic rather than a historical perspective, and citing Panowsky does not really address the issue. Historicism, under any guise, be it design or preservation, restoration or conservation, is a convenient escape from some real design problems.

…continued on the AIArchitect blog