There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that humans (at least in the U.S.) spend 85%-90% of their time indoors¹  While this is old news to many and numerous environmental/behavioral scientists,  design scholars, IAQ advocates and professional organizations have referenced this fact, I was reminded of the importance of the “design” of interior space after […]


So my point here folks is there are many of us who believe that the term/title “Interior Design” no longer applies. It is a liability. It fails to describe us. Okay I do not disagree. But if we are going to keep our collective head in the proverbial professional sand while this title shift occurs organically, or by happenstance, we may be surprised by what we see when we do pull our heads out.

Makes it a bit of challenge to demand the public’s respect if we do not know what to call ourselves.


This past legislative season was somewhat uneventful for Regulated Interior Designers but two events should be acknowledged…small victories but wins none the less.

Massachusetts was able to enact legislation that allows qualified Interior Designers to be the prime design professional on State of Massachusetts interior projects that do not involve load bearing elements. Previously only architects could be listed as the prime contractor for such work. The right to work/expansion of opportunities for qualified ID’ers seems to have been the right approach


PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER will be watching how this opportunity for regulated ID’ers will be interpreted by Massachusetts building and code officials. While the limits as far as load-bearing work seem clear,

“Interior Designer”, an individual, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, joint stock company, joint venture or other entity engaged in the practice of interior design, who may serve as the prime consultant for projects that primarily involve construction or other work relating to the nonstructural interior elements of a building or structure and who provides services that do not require a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer; provided, however, that an interior designer shall demonstrate competence by completion of a nationally-recognized certification.
“Nonstructural”, interior elements or components that are not load-bearing and do not require design computations for a building’s structure, including, but not limited to, ceiling and partition systems and excluding the structural frame supporting a building

the issue of egress and fire ratings is unclear. This may be a win for ID’ers space planning and specifying furniture but does it allow them to also sign and seal permit documents where local codes require that to occur. PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER is glad to see that qualified ID’ers can be the prime contracted design professional but who gets to own the permit documents? Unclear at this point.

And from the country of California it appears that the AIA’s effort to monopolize the permit review process there has been defeated for now….


California CID’s will be able to sign and seal permit drawings and submit them to their local code officials without fear of a Registered Architect being able to review them.

Baby steps…..


Seems the California Council of the AIA (or a related chapter) is trying to corner the market on the permit review process in California under the guise of assisting over worked/over burdened and under staffed building permit departments. California Assembly Bill 2192, ( http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2192 )which is currently in committee, proposes a limited pilot program that will allow permit documents to be reviewed for approval by other architects…….That is, where local codes require that permit drawings be stamped and sealed by an architect that another architect, on behalf of the local jurisdiction, can review and approve those documents to be permitted…..It is unclear to me how a set of non-seismic/non-structural permit drawings signed and sealed by a Certified Interior Designer will be considered under such a scheme….but I can imagine that the since the fox will have the key to the hen house door that the cost of entry might go way up.

Yes this is only a limited proposal and the bill may never move out of committee but to an anti-government/less government mindset this appears to be a brilliant proposal. Many building/permit departments already employ architects as plan reviewers and building officials. If successful the quasi-privatization of local building departments could become a trend…..a stretch maybe but hey this is California….anything can happen and if it catches on Katie bar the hen house door.

BUT……………..besides the potential issues of bias and favoritism..not that that would ever happen amongst fellow professionals….it just seems that the AIA is using this to idea to monopolize the building permit process which cannot be positive for California’s already sketchy CID permitting process.


UPDATED 4/22/2014 There are several irrefutable facts, based on my opinion, regarding our professional identity crisis that requires us (okay…me) to reconsider our current professional paradigm. 1. Interior Decoration and Interior Design will forever be entwined.  The general public will always think of us as interior decorators (not that there is anything wrong with interior […]



Found this interesting policy statement from the American Institute of Architects:


PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER does not proclaim to be an attorney but this appears to be a crack in the courtroom door regarding the use of the term “architects” and its variations such as “Interior Architect” or “Interior Architecture”. That said PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGN is well aware of the ethical issues that this issue stirs up. I digress.

I am fairly certain that state licensing boards will still protect the right of their rightfully licensed/registered architects to legally own the term so don’t go changing your business cards yet. If anybody knows, or has an opinion as to, what this AIA missive really means I welcome your comments.


Many of my previous posts have addressed the ongoing professional struggles between architects (represented in this corner by the AIA) and professional interior designers (represented in this corner by an assortment of interior design legislative coalitions and hiding behind the curtain-ASID).

But is there really a struggle? Well yeah but…………

When it comes to the relationship between qualified interior design professionals and architects I firmly believe that respect and mutually rewarding collaborations are commonplace. I have no data other than my 25+ years of commercial interior design/architecture experience in which I have worked for, or with architects. Of course some unfortunate stereotypes persist but once an IDer proves his or her mettle within the code regulated building design environment the relationships generally turn synergistic. If an interior design professional can walk the walk and actually contribute to the success of a design effort any licensed design professional with an ounce of common sense will respect that ability.

However try as we might interior designers still struggle with overt biases that have built up over the years. For instance we have the proverbial, “we are only qualified to select furniture and finishes” misperception not to mention the more covert/unspoken prejudices such as sexism and even homophobia. Yes many of these biases and prejudices are a result of larger and more complex societal intolerance but to say that they are not endemic in the much smaller cadre of building design professions is simply delusion. These prejudices generally start in school and little is done to tamp these misunderstandings and biases out until one professional has an interaction with another professional that forces him, or her, to reconsider their assumptions. This is a hard way for our professions to move forward with any amount of mutual respect and benefit.

I have always maintained that we need architects and more importantly they need us. Much like doctors need nurses……or maybe much like Zubin Mehta needs Vladimir Horowitz….or does he…I digress.

But when it comes to those devout independent ID’ers who are gung ho regulationists I am in the minority on this belief…..add in the gender issue and I maybe alone on my middle age hetero male interior designer island. For it is the issue of regulation and licensure, or right to practice, that severs our professional domains like a serrated knife. This is an unfortunate circumstance for both professions and is the crux of the aforementioned “struggle”.

Ultimately when the debate turns to which professional domain is best suited to own code regulated interior design work the gloves come off. The well entrenched AIA continues to lobby against all legislation pursued by various interior design coalitions (vis-a-vis ASID). The AIA oft kicks sand in the our collective professional faces. I understand the turf protection aspect of this issue as I have been on all sides of this fence.

Ultimately the AIA wants to protect the income producing potential interior projects provide for its sole/small practice members and the pro-regulation interior design contingent claims that they have earned the right to practice in certain conditional code regulated interior environments without the oversight of an architect. That’s the “struggle” in a nutshell folks. Correct me if I am wrong.

So over the past few years, as the profession of interior design has slowly made strides in advancing its worth to society and its place in the design of code regulated interior design environments, there have been lot’s of suggestions as to how regulation minded interior designers should, or could, create a valid professional path that avoids both practice conflicts with licensed architects and, at the other end of the spectrum, the vitriolic push-back of disenfranchised interior decorators and residential designers. By default we have unfortunately modeled our professional path after architects and our similarities are also our biggest roadblock. Should we continue this potentially incestuous path to professional status or should we create a new and unique paradigm that is uniquely our own?

The one alternative model for ID professional advancement getting the most traction (IMO) is the nursing model….er….um the
The Medical Profession Model


Of course this is not a new analogy. Both sides of the interior designer/architect equation have pondered its validity and viability for some time now. The Interior Design Coalition of Arizona has adopted the nursing analogy in its legislation justification material;

“Other states have concluded that establishing this category of registered professional in the field of architecture and design is similar to the prior emergence of the physician’s assistant and nurse practitioner in the medical field.” http://www.idca.info/uploads/2/9/0/7/2907520/idca_fact_sheet.pdf

Most recently the medical model was promoted as a way for ID to move forward in this March 2013 article in Design Intelligence Magazine.


In it John Weigand posits a very reasoned and eloquent case for ID to follow the nursing model, particularly its education pathways, to move ID out of its professional stasis.

He is correct in this observation;

“Nurses, technicians and others are important contributors in the medical system, but they are credentialed at levels appropriate to the work. There is flexibility in the system.”

And there are numerous comparisons one can make between the two occupations. Decorators and Medical Assistants , Interior Designers (non-NCIDQ certified) and LPN/LVN’s, and Certified Interior Designers and RN’s or Nurse Practitioners.

He is also correct in stating that the ID education model has many of the academic prerequisites in place but getting buy-in from the architect side of the equation would require a quantum leap in cross profession collaboration

“This model could be developed jointly by NAAB and CIDA and might need to exist for some period of time in test mode, not replacing but paralleling current standards.”

Well yes and when all 8 planets, Pluto and the Sun align these discussions MIGHT be possible. Call me a skeptic.

There are also some parallels with the examination and licensure of nurses…they protect the health, safety and welfare of the public and so do we…..or at least that is how we try to frame our right to be regulated. But let’s face it- justifying nurses responsibilities in that regard is a no brainer. Interior designers ability and obligation to protect the HS&W of the public…well that is a very hard sell….even if you are shopping for ID services.

And to address the 800 pound white male gorilla in this discussion. What about the issue of gender subservience? Articles on the subject abound; http://www.nursingtimes.net/home/clinical-zones/leadership/nursing-has-still-not-escaped-its-subservient-past/5061426.article


So what is the difference between being subservient to male dominated profession of architecture? Well nothing- no improvement here.

It also appears that at the highest level of the medical profession that Nurse Practitioners and Medical Doctors are vying for control of the patients health… http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/the-gulf-between-doctors-and-nurse-practitioners/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Sound familiar?

And let’s be honest the profession of architecture as we know it is evolving and reinventing itself. The days of the black caped walking stick wielding master of the built domain are long gone. Given the quantum leap in construction and design technology, coupled with the great economic resetting of the past decade (resulting in up to 45% unemployment in the profession at the peak of the downturn), architects, vis-a-vis the AIA, are scrambling to redefine their position in the design of the built environment. So maybe architects need to retool their image and approach as to how they validate their value to society as well.

Given the UNDERLYING issues of subservience, turf (or in this case patient) protection and gender bias inherent in the nursing model PROFESSIONALINTERIORDESIGNER would like to think outside the box a little bit…….okay maybe a lot.

I would like to be so bold as to propose a new model for ID professional advancement….oh and this applies to the architects as well.
The Musical Profession Model


Cutting to the chase. Let’s imagine that the role of the conductor is played by the architect and the interior designer is first chair violinist or if you’re so inclined…the pianist. Obviously in the design and execution of a large multi-discipline building somebody needs to make sure everybody is in tune, on time and contributing their individual effort to the betterment of the whole composition. For me the analogy between architect and conductor is much more palatable than architect and doctor. Another nuance of this analogy that should appeal to ID’ers is that when an orchestra is not necessary, as in a violin solo, or simple string quartet recital, there is no need for a conductor. If an interior designer/violinist wishes to go solo…they are welcome to do so and can even make a living performing solo. Arguing with myself here- YES Nurse Practitioners can also treat patients to a certain extent without the oversight of an MD…..but then remember all of the other legal, political and territorial baggage that comes with that. No thanks.

Now obviously the professional musician analogy looses some validity when you drill down to the issue of regulation and licensure. But if we believe that ID leaders and architect leaders can get together to even consider the possibility of some sort of mutually beneficial education/examination/practice pathways then what the hell….let’s take full advantage of this fantasy and create something that benefits both of our professions. Just some food for thought folks.

Cue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj9bXn4jr6M

Fade out and fade in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFt-Y4gUySU

Fade to black.

Roll the credits

Cut. Print. THAT’S A WRAP!




There have been some interesting movements recently by professional and regulatory entities to clarify the “profession” of Interior Design and how it is, or should be, perceived by the general public.

First and most significant is this missive from the current president of IIDA, Felice Silverman;

“IIDA exists to provide relevant and meaningful support to Commercial Interior Design professionals and their clients. IIDA promotes the value of Interior Design to business decision makers and to the general public. IIDA stands at the intersection of passion and strategy where Designers create the exceptional environments that encompass every aspect of the human experience.

IIDA is the preeminent association for the Commercial Interior Design profession.” (from IIDA membership email)

Note the use of “commercial” interior design in the title. This semantic shift, while not surprising, is further evidence that ASID and IIDA are not planning on a merge any time soon…within this millenium…..as long as humanity exists….till the end of time. This is clearly IIDA’s solution to the age old identity crisis that the terms “interior design” and “interior designer” have struggled with. Don’t do “commercial” interior design?- Then join ASID or IDS. Seems easy enough.

Unfortunately there are far deeper implications for such a semantic cleaving of the professional domain.

Second and on a state level the This is excerpt from a letter to all Tennessee ID schools from the Tennessee Board of Architectural & Engineering Examiners:

December 26, 2013

Dear Interior Design Program Administrators/Educators:

Re: Use of term “interior architecture”

At its planning session arid meeting on October 9-11, 2013, the Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners discussed the issue of use ot the term “Interior architecture” by interior design programs. Although the vast majority of programs accredited by the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) employ the term “interior design,” a growing number of interior design programs are describing themselves as “interior architecture” programs.
Following discussion of this issue, the Board voted to oppose use of the term “interior architecture” by interior design programs, and instructed that a letter be sent to Tennessee colleges and universities with architecture and interior design programs advising them of the Board’s position. “Interior architecture” is not legally recognized as a profession in Tennessee, and a national exam does not exist for this profession. In the context of the design and construction of buildings intended for human occupancy, the appellation “architect” should be reserved for licensed architects in order to avoid misleading the general public.

While on a state level issue the precendent set here by the TBAEE is interesting. It will be interesting to see if other regulatory boards issue a similar edict to their academic programs.