08/26/2026
THE ARCHITECT WROTE THE PRESCRIPTION. WHY DOES SOMEONE ELSE HAVE TO APPROVE IT?
Here’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time. As architects, we are licensed professionals. We go through years of education, thousands of hours of experience, examinations, continuing education, and professional licensing requirements before we are legally permitted to sign and seal construction documents.
When I put my seal on a set of drawings, I am taking professional responsibility for that work. Yet before our client can build what we designed, those drawings must first be submitted to the local municipality for review. And very rarely are they approved on the first pass.
Instead, we receive pages of comments and questions from plan reviewers. Some are absolutely legitimate and important. Others ask for information that is already clearly indicated somewhere within a 30, 40, or 50-page set of construction documents.
It got me thinking, imagine going to your doctor because you’re sick. Your doctor examines you, diagnoses the problem and writes you a prescription. But you can’t take that prescription to the pharmacy yet. First, it has to be submitted to your local municipality.
A reviewer then examines the prescription, sends questions back to your doctor, asks for clarification about information already contained in your medical records, and perhaps requests that the doctor revise and resubmit it. Meanwhile, you’re waiting.
Sounds ridiculous, right? So why do we accept essentially the same process in architecture?
I’m not suggesting that building departments don’t serve an important purpose. They absolutely do. Inspections, zoning compliance, life safety and enforcement are critical components of protecting the public.
But there is a larger question worth asking, at what point should the signature and seal of a licensed architect carry greater authority?
If the state has determined that an architect is qualified to design buildings, interpret building codes, protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, and accept professional liability for that work, should every project require the same level of redundant municipal review.
Perhaps there should be a better system, one where licensed professionals are held accountable for their work, municipalities maintain appropriate oversight, and compliant projects aren’t unnecessarily delayed by repetitive review cycles.
Because every additional round of comments costs something. Time, money, schedules, financing, and ultimately, the client pays for all of it.
We trust licensed professionals with the responsibility, maybe it’s time we had a conversation about trusting the license.
Curious what other architects, engineers, contractors, developers and building officials think. Is the current plan review process protecting the public, or has it become unnecessarily redundant?
It’s all in the details…!!
