// Add the new slick-theme.css if you want the default styling
In
Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Oregon Board of Architect Examiners,
361 Or. 507, 395 P.3d 574 (Or. 2017), the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled that
the “practice of architecture” includes the preparation of master plans drawn
to scale for the development of a project, even if construction drawings or
specifications are not ultimately produced.
Twist
Architecture & Design, Inc. was hired by Gramor Development to provide
services described as “concept master planning design services” for three
different projects in Oregon. Twist was
not a licensed architect in Oregon at that time. Twist provided Gramor with technical drawings
of the property, entitled “schemes,” which showed site and building renderings,
locations of parking, surrounding streets and included various levels of detail
on the buildings. Twist did not produce
construction drawings or specifications and two of the three projects were
never constructed at all. The third
project was constructed, but was not based on the schemes developed by Twist.
The
Oregon Board of Architect Examiners determined Twist had unlawfully engaged in
the practice of architecture, unlawfully represented its principals as
architects and unlawfully used the term “architecture” in the firm’s logo on
the master plans. In making its
determination, the Board discussed the role that master plans play in the development
of commercial projects. The Board determined
that because Twist had created master plans, including renderings of buildings
and detailed data, they had engaged in planning and designing in contemplation
of the construction of those projects.
Twist
appealed and argued master plans, which they referred to as “feasibility
studies,” were never intended to be used as a basis for construction. The Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s
decision, finding feasibility studies did not constitute “the practice of
architecture.” The Board appealed to the
Supreme Court of Oregon, which reversed the Court of Appeals.
The
Oregon Supreme Court began its review by analyzing the Oregon legislature’s
intended meaning of the “practice of architecture,” as defined in ORS
671.010(6). The Court observed that it necessarily requires planning, design,
or supervision of a structure that the parties actually contemplate
building. However, the Court noted that
practice of architecture does not depend on whether buildings are built.
Ultimately,
relying on specific requirements that an architect must meet when preparing
“drawings and specifications,” the Court concluded the the level of “planning”
required for Twist to develop the master plans rose to the level contemplated
by legislature when creating the statutory definition of “the practice of
architecture.” Without a valid license
in Oregon, the Court found Twist unlawfully participated in the practice of
architecture.
The
Court’s ruling that the “practice of architecture” includes master planning,
even if the plans do not ultimately lead to construction drawings, should be
considered any time feasibility studies are conducted. Architects should be careful to verify
licensing requirements prior to conducting such studies or they run the risk of
disciplinary action.