|
The Oklahoma Architectural Act is the statute that governs,
among other things, when an architect is required by law to
be used to design buildings.
The current Act has not been updated in many
years, and is not current with those in other states. In particular,
one paragraph has not been changed since 1947. That paragraph
is the one that defines when an architect is required.
One of the architects who works for me, Mark
Courtney, and another architect, Allan Hewitt, along with other
architects in the state, have been working for several years
to get the Architectural Act updated. But repeatedly, other
groups have lobbied against the changes, spreading dis-information
that leads legislators to believe that the new bill would cost
the public more money.
In reality, the old laws are actually costing
the public more money, when the proposed law will save the public
money by reducing the number of cases where architects must
be involved in a project.
For example, if a school is making structural
repairs that exceed $40,000, state law requires that an architect
be hired. In 1947, $40,000 was a lot of money and represented
a large project. In today’s construction costs, $40,000 is a
very small project. The new law would raise the limit to $100,000.
The other part of the statute that needs to
be dealt with has to do with health, safety and welfare. The
people of Oklahoma and visitors to Oklahoma need to know that
the buildings in this state are safe. It would surprise most
people to hear that many building types in Oklahoma don’t require
the use of an architect, buildings that the average person would
assume an architect would be required.
The current law does not require an architect
to be used for homes, duplex homes, 1 or 2-story structures
including apartment projects, warehouses, hotels, lodges, fraternal
buildings, industrial buildings, commercial buildings or farm
buildings. For example, under the current law, a shopping mall
the size of Woodland Hills would not require an architect.
The current law does require that an architect
be used for armories, auditoriums, assembly halls, convention
halls, churches, educational buildings, convents, dormitories,
gymnasiums, hospitals, libraries, bonded warehouses, passenger
stations, power houses, municipal, county, state or federal
buildings, radio or televisions stations, stadiums or theaters,
when any of the above exceeds $40,000 in cost.
The proposed changes to the Architectural Act
seeks to categorize the projects that require architects in
a way that has to do with public safety. Projects that would
require architects under the proposed statute include 1) high-hazard
buildings (such as buildings that store extremely flammable
chemicals), institutional buildings (nursing homes, children’s
dayschools, etc.); 2) businesses that are more than 2-stories
high and have an occupancy of more than 100 people; 3) assembly
buildings and educational buildings that are more than 2 stories
high and have an occupancy of more than 50 people; 4) factories,
industrial buildings, mercantile buildings, hotels, motels,
and storage buildings that are more than 2 stories high and
have an occupancy of more than 30 people; 5) buildings that
are over two stories high that include utility buildings; apartments
and dormitories that contain more than 16 units; homes and duplexes;
public buildings over $100,000 in cost; and agricultural buildings.
In case you did not read the previous paragraph
carefully, you could be fooled by the lobbyists just as some
of our legislators were. Much of the dis-information that was
spread by the lobbyists were that homes would require an architect.
Not so. Only homes that are over two stories.
In a nutshell, the new law covers structures
where the likelihood of death or injury increases in the case
of a fire, especially in those that include large groups of
people.
It is important to note that just because a
building does not require an architect, virtually all of them
have to conform to code.
It is the desire of those of us in the architectural
community that the public hire us, not because a law forces
them to do so, but because they want their buildings to be safe,
and because they will save money in the long run by avoiding
costly code-compliance corrections. Unfortunately, history has
shown us that there are too many people who would risk the lives
of their building’s occupants to save the cost of the architect’s
fees, and that is why the laws are necessary to protect the
public.
The proposed changes to the Architectural Act
are ones that our legislators can get behind, if they will simply
take the time to study the reasons and intent behind them. They
are not designed to drum up business for architects; they are
designed to protect the public. |
