Unlicensed architect, DuPage County Illinois

Discuss all kinds of home design and building, residential remodeling, and related topics.

Unlicensed architect, DuPage County Illinois

Postby Mark Mc » Fri May 01, 2009 1:59 am

Thought some of you architect would enjoy this:

http://www.eyeonlombard.com
Mark Mc
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:55 am

Postby hungryarchitect » Sun May 03, 2009 9:59 am

It was so hard for me to believe that it was actually illegal for an unlicensed person to design a home in Illinois that I read their rules. Seems pretty heavy handed to me - and I am licensed (in Washington).

To the guy who went to all the effort to develop and maintain the website - Get a life, do something positive. Which is what I'm going to do now.
User avatar
hungryarchitect
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:48 pm
Location: Edmonds, WA

Postby Mark Mc » Sun May 03, 2009 10:49 am

hungryarchitect wrote:It was so hard for me to believe that it was actually illegal for an unlicensed person to design a home in Illinois that I read their rules. Seems pretty heavy handed to me - and I am licensed (in Washington).

To the guy who went to all the effort to develop and maintain the website - Get a life, do something positive. Which is what I'm going to do now.


That's funny, because all the architects out this way, that I have spoken with, see it quite differently than you. I don't know what the requirements to become an architect in Washington are but out here they are quite stringent. We don't want anymore porch collapses like the one that killed 13 in Chicago or the one that happened on one the unlicensed guy's projects. The law is the law, if you don't like it' change it.

Illinois doesn't require a license for single family residential homes, it is only when the local municipality requires one that the Illinois Architecture Act applies. The town where this is going on has such a law. They should change that law if they want to allow unlicensed "architects" to build homes in their town. It's about a lot more than this guy designing homes without a license, this guy has also designed commercial buildings as well.

Let me ask you, would you allow someone to use your architects seal to seal plans for commercial builds? Because that's what's going on here, we call it plan stamping and it's illegal out here. Not only is the guy not licensed, he is not qualified.

If you were at the website you saw pictures of the porches on some of his structures, would you want him to build your house?

"Get a life, do something positive"

To me, you sound like a very arrogant man.
Mark Mc
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:55 am

Postby hungryarchitect » Sun May 03, 2009 12:32 pm

By on large, the stuff identified on the website as proof of the designer's incompetence isn't sufficient for the claim. If the incorrect hangers were used or if galvanized fasteners weren't used where required by code it's hardly the designer's fault.

Were that to have happened on a home I designed I'd have blamed the failure on the builder and not myself. A competent builder uses the appropriate connector and fasteners, especially in something as simple as a porch. Now if the guy drew a detail that specified the wrong connectors and fasteners then you might be able to prove the point. The fact that it was subsequently built in accordance with that detail calls the competence of the builder into question as well.

In defense of Washington State's regulatory environment, it seems to me like we pretty much follow NCARB, we may be a little more egalitarian, we might let unlicensed persons perform building design in more areas. It is illegal in this state for a licensed architect to place their seal and signature on documents that were not prepared under their direct supervision and are not under their immediate control. Although a willingness to "stamp" someone elses' work is a fault primarily of the licensed professional involved.

You're probably right, I am a little arrogant. I am an architect after all, which pretty much requires it.
User avatar
hungryarchitect
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:48 pm
Location: Edmonds, WA

Postby Mark Mc » Sun May 03, 2009 2:33 pm

hungryarchitect wrote:By on large, the stuff identified on the website as proof of the designer's incompetence isn't sufficient for the claim. If the incorrect hangers were used or if galvanized fasteners weren't used where required by code it's hardly the designer's fault.

Were that to have happened on a home I designed I'd have blamed the failure on the builder and not myself.


I'd blame the builder as well, since the "architect" and builder are one in the same, we can both agree the unlicensed guy is to blame as well, especially since they had inexperienced kids working on the porches (the owners kid).

Lets deal with repair, the builder wanted to do it as cheap as possible, safety or code was not a concern. The front 16 inches of the porch on one side is a cantilever and that is supporting the piece of 4x4 that is holding up two of the stair stringers. Now the lag screws are 1/2" and need to be exactly in the center of the load bearing 2x4 stud (NDS). The repair design itself is crap.

Now look at this picture, and tell me what might have happened:

http://www.mickeyco.com/eyeonlombard588 ... inal01.jpg

Is it possible or even likely they split the stud and there is nothing besides a few nails holding up the ledger.

I'm not sure if you noticed or not, these are on multi-family, separate lot homes, I don't know anywhere that will allow an unlicensed person design those.

It might also be one of those "you had to be there" situations, I was, I met with the "architect", I can assure you he's not qualified, I wouldn't allow him to build a dog house for my dog.
Mark Mc
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:55 am

Postby phansford » Sun May 03, 2009 4:14 pm

Mark -

I have to assume you are the webmaster of the linked site. And you are obviously upset about a number of things.... and with good right.

However, I want to caution you on a few things.....

Mark Mc wrote:That's funny, because all the architects out this way, that I have spoken with, see it quite differently than you. I don't know what the requirements to become an architect in Washington are but out here they are quite stringent.


First of all, there is a centralized organization called NCARB - National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. All 50 states are members. NCARB is just what it sounds like; it is an organization made up of all of the Architectural Registration Boards in the US. The intent is to create a standard for the education and registration of architects across the country.

My point being is that Illinois has the same "stringent" requirements to become an architect as any other state. I don't want to disappoint you but Illinois is not special. There use to be additional requirements in several states or locations, such as NYC and California. I can't confirm without visiting the websites of those states if additional examination is still required. But the standard ARE (Architect Registration Exam) has pretty much killed special state requirements.

Let's look at the licensing law issue you have pointed out
Per the State of Illinois website -

" The involvement of a licensed architect is not required for the following:

(A) The building, remodeling or repairing of any building or other structure outside of the corporate limits of any city or village, where such building or structure is to be, or is used for farm purposes, or for the purposes of outbuildings or auxiliary buildings in connection with such farm premises.

(B) The construction, remodeling or repairing of a detached single family residence on a single lot.

(C) The construction, remodeling or repairing of a two‑family residence of wood frame construction on a single lot, not more than two stories and basement in height.

(D) Interior design services for buildings which do not involve life safety or structural changes.

However, when an ordinance of a unit of local government requires the involvement of a licensed architect for any buildings included in the preceding paragraphs (A) through (D), the requirements of this Act shall apply." (Illinois (225 ILCS 305/3) (from Ch. 111, par. 1303 - Sec. 3)

Now the issue is whether Lombard requires a licensed architect for building permits. Unfortunately, its not as clear as you would indicate. The Lombard ordinance adopts the International Residential Building Code (Section 150.035 of the Lombard Code). It is typical for modifications to an adopted code to be made within the same section as the adoption by reference. Unfortunately this is not the case with Lombard's City Code.... the section you reference is under some other section with no real reference.

I don't want to discourage you, but you may need to post the question very bluntly to City Council at an open meeting as to get their "legal" interpretation of the ordinance and how it is to be applied. While I am not an attorney (I too am a Registered Architect - four states with NCARB certification), I have read enough of these types of codes and find this one confusing to the matter. IMHO.

You may want to have your own attorney provide a legal opinion.

The Chicago Deck incident

Mark Mc wrote:We don't want anymore porch collapses like the one that killed 13 in Chicago or the one that happened on one the unlicensed guy's projects. The law is the law, if you don't like it' change it.


I have actually written a published piece on the Chicago deck collapse. I just want to clarify something here..... the issue with the Chicago collapse was not about an unlicensed designer. In fact - there was no designer... only the carpenter - More importantly a building permit was never procured. Hence, a city building inspector was never able to review the situation. (The floor joist were undersized and the capacity crowd of the party overloaded the structure)

Your situation is actually more disturbing. If I understand correctly - drawings were provided (hence a design) and a permit was procured. Therefore, as the other architect stated, the issue lays not only with the designer, but the builder and possible the inspector. (Which I think you are claiming is part of the issue).

As an aside - The International Residential Building Code is VERY prescriptive. The idea being that a designer may not be involved. Therefore the code tells you the size and spacing of structural members. It also addresses fasteners. Again - making your situation - licensed architect or not - more disturbing.

Construction Details

One last thing.... you show a number of "details" about how something should be constructed.... such as the ledger being lag bolted into a stud wall. I am not sure where you are getting some of your construction advice or detailing, but I find it suspect. This is not how this detail is actually accomplished. The ledger board is typically placed at or near the floor level. It might be slightly below (1 or 2") the interior floor level - the dimension being based on local practice. The ledger is actually bolted into the rim joist which is below the stud wall and part of the floor system. If - as you claim - the ledger is bolted to studs - you would have to step up to get to your deck/porch. I recommend you purchase a copy of Graphic Guide to Frame Construction It might help you in your cause.

My point being the detail you photographed is probably okay and the staggered lag bolts should be attached to a rim joist (typically a 2 x 10 or similar sized member). Staggering the bolts is actually recommended as not to create a stress point in the framing member with the bolts.

last comment on unlicensed people

Don't get me wrong - I would like the state board of examiners to be much more aggressive about unlicensed quacks. But they seem more intent on chasing those of us legally practicing for minor offenses - such as placing an ad in the newspaper looking for an "Intern Architect"..... we aren't allowed to use the word architect since an intern is not licensed. :roll: Yet - you have real issues with someone flaunting the law and I can guarantee the Illinois State Board does not care about you :evil:
phansford
millennium club
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:47 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Postby hungryarchitect » Sun May 03, 2009 6:01 pm

Wow, excellent post. Put's my flippant one to shame.
User avatar
hungryarchitect
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:48 pm
Location: Edmonds, WA

Postby Mark Mc » Mon May 04, 2009 11:10 am

phansford wrote:First of all, there is a centralized organization called NCARB - National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. All 50 states are members. NCARB is just what it sounds like; it is an organization made up of all of the Architectural Registration Boards in the US. The intent is to create a standard for the education and registration of architects across the country.



My point being is that Illinois has the same "stringent" requirements to become an architect as any other state. I don't want to disappoint you but Illinois is not special. There use to be additional requirements in several states or locations, such as NYC and California. I can't confirm without visiting the websites of those states if additional examination is still required. But the standard ARE (Architect Registration Exam) has pretty much killed special state requirements.


Actually the nearest state, Wisconsin, has completely different requirements.



phansford wrote: Let's look at the licensing law issue you have pointed out
Per the State of Illinois website -

" The involvement of a licensed architect is not required for the following:

(A) The building, remodeling or repairing of any building or other structure outside of the corporate limits of any city or village, where such building or structure is to be, or is used for farm purposes, or for the purposes of outbuildings or auxiliary buildings in connection with such farm premises.

(B) The construction, remodeling or repairing of a detached single family residence on a single lot.

(C) The construction, remodeling or repairing of a two‑family residence of wood frame construction on a single lot, not more than two stories and basement in height.

(D) Interior design services for buildings which do not involve life safety or structural changes.

However, when an ordinance of a unit of local government requires the involvement of a licensed architect for any buildings included in the preceding paragraphs (A) through (D), the requirements of this Act shall apply." (Illinois (225 ILCS 305/3) (from Ch. 111, par. 1303 - Sec. 3)


Without even considering Lombard's requirements, the homes where the porch collapsed are duplexes (multi family, two-family), on separate lots, not a single lot, Illinois law requires the use of an Illinois licensed architect. Several of the other houses covered in the "permit" section are built on two lots, again requiring an Illinois licensed architect without reference to Lombard's ordinance.


phansford wrote:Now the issue is whether Lombard requires a licensed architect for building permits. Unfortunately, its not as clear as you would indicate. The Lombard ordinance adopts the International Residential Building Code (Section 150.035 of the Lombard Code). It is typical for modifications to an adopted code to be made within the same section as the adoption by reference. Unfortunately this is not the case with Lombard's City Code.... the section you reference is under some other section with no real reference.


It's exactly that clear, Lombard requires the use of an Illinois licensed architect or structural engineer on projects over $10,000.00, except for an exemption given to a couple of local builder buddies that built their (Village officials) large homes at what would be considered a great deal, a really great deal.

phansford wrote:I don't want to discourage you, but you may need to post the question very bluntly to City Council at an open meeting as to get their "legal" interpretation of the ordinance and how it is to be applied. While I am not an attorney (I too am a Registered Architect - four states with NCARB certification), I have read enough of these types of codes and find this one confusing to the matter. IMHO.



Don't worry I'm not discouraged. But as far as bringing the issue up at a City Council meeting, won't happen, they won't answer and will have you removed. This is Illinois, the politicians answer to nobody, except the Feds after they're caught.



phansford wrote: The Chicago Deck incident

Mark Mc wrote:We don't want anymore porch collapses like the one that killed 13 in Chicago or the one that happened on one the unlicensed guy's projects. The law is the law, if you don't like it' change it.


I have actually written a published piece on the Chicago deck collapse. I just want to clarify something here..... the issue with the Chicago collapse was not about an unlicensed designer. In fact - there was no designer... only the carpenter - More importantly a building permit was never procured. Hence, a city building inspector was never able to review the situation. (The floor joist were undersized and the capacity crowd of the party overloaded the structure)


I am intimately familiar with the Chicago porch collapse, it was not an issue of overloading at all, if you do the math the porch should have held up just fine (number of people, porch size at 40 pounds per square foot). The problem was that the porch was not built to code. The reason for the collapse was the ledger board connections failed. I suppose if it had been designed by a licensed professional it might not have failed. Calling the person that built the porch a carpenter might be a stretch, there are quite a lot of porch builders out here that have no business building anything. An inspection by a Chicago inspector isn't much better than not having it inspected at all. Just have a look at the pictures of what the inspector passed on these porches, a post supported by a piece of 2x directly on the dirt.

The picture below are all taken after final inspection and approval:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

phansford wrote:Your situation is actually more disturbing. If I understand correctly - drawings were provided (hence a design) and a permit was procured. Therefore, as the other architect stated, the issue lays not only with the designer, but the builder and possible the inspector. (Which I think you are claiming is part of the issue).


The designer is the builder, I agree that it is disturbing, and the inspector aside from being incompetent is buddies with the builder/designer.

phansford wrote:As an aside - The International Residential Building Code is VERY prescriptive. The idea being that a designer may not be involved. Therefore the code tells you the size and spacing of structural members. It also addresses fasteners. Again - making your situation - licensed architect or not - more disturbing.


The IRC isn't to prescriptive when it comes to ledger attachment.

phansford wrote: Construction Details

One last thing.... you show a number of "details" about how something should be constructed.... such as the ledger being lag bolted into a stud wall. I am not sure where you are getting some of your construction advice or detailing, but I find it suspect. This is not how this detail is actually accomplished. The ledger board is typically placed at or near the floor level. It might be slightly below (1 or 2") the interior floor level - the dimension being based on local practice. The ledger is actually bolted into the rim joist which is below the stud wall and part of the floor system. If - as you claim - the ledger is bolted to studs - you would have to step up to get to your deck/porch. I recommend you purchase a copy of Graphic Guide to Frame Construction It might help you in your cause.

My point being the detail you photographed is probably okay and the staggered lag bolts should be attached to a rim joist (typically a 2 x 10 or similar sized member). Staggering the bolts is actually recommended as not to create a stress point in the framing member with the bolts.


I get my construction "advice" from years of schooling and many years working in the field. Either I did a poor job of explaining/illustrating the details or you didn't see all the pictures. I'll try to explaining the structure to you a little better. The porch deck is 60 inches off the sidewalk in front of it, it's about 9 feet off the ground on the side. There are two ledger boards and one 6x6 post that supports the porch and the roof above. One ledger board is attached to the side of the house where the entrance door is, the joists in the house run perpendicular to the ledger board on that side, I don't know if there is a band board or if it's just blocking between the joists. The other ledger board is attached to the garage wall, it's a load bearing 2x4 stud wall. The ledger is attached 60 inches up the wall into the studs (or is supposed to be) using 1/2" lag screws. To use 1/2" lag screws in a load bearing 2x4 it would have to be exactly in the center of the stud, a better choice would have been Ledgerlok screws. I'm getting my information from the NDS (National Design Specification for Wood Construction).

The pictures below illustrate the the attachment, those two 1/2" lag screw should both be into the center of the load bearing stud behind the ledger, obviously that is not the case, I would speculate that they split the load bearing stud.


Image
Image


phansford wrote: last comment on unlicensed people

Don't get me wrong - I would like the state board of examiners to be much more aggressive about unlicensed quacks. But they seem more intent on chasing those of us legally practicing for minor offenses - such as placing an ad in the newspaper looking for an "Intern Architect"..... we aren't allowed to use the word architect since an intern is not licensed. :roll: Yet - you have real issues with someone flaunting the law and I can guarantee the Illinois State Board does not care about you :evil:



We agree on that one, they are plenty quick to fine licensed individuals for minor infractions, but if you do a search for a news article titled "The case of the busy, deceased architect." (if you can't find it I can post it later, I have it somewhere on my computer). you will see an example of what the guy out here is doing, and how the IDPR handled it. They fined him over a hundred thousand dollars, and the guy out here makes him look like saint.




hungryarchitect,

I visited your blog, that's some nice work, I like the West Seattle "slope" house. I'm not normally a fan of contemporary (there's a few), but there's something catchy with that one.
Mark Mc
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:55 am

Postby Mark Mc » Mon May 04, 2009 1:24 pm

I won't address Wisconsin even though the laws are quite different because they and all other state laws are irrelevant to what happens in Illinois.


phansford wrote:Your comments about buildings on separate lots and so on gets into the realm of property law. You need to understand that some jurisdictions consider a condo a single family home, no matter the number of attached units. And Illinois licensing law does not address it as clearly as you want to believe. Sorry - 26 years of experience tells me otherwise.


It's very clear here in Illinois if there are two or more Property Identification Numbers they are separate lots, and they are separate lots.

phansford wrote:If you don't feel the project repairs on your house meet code, you have the right to appeal the approval. Typically, you can also file a complaint with the State Building Standards Board (or whoever certifies local building departments) and Lombard could have their department decertified by the state.


I don't own any of the involved homes, the one owned by a person I know replaced the entire porch. There are no State certifications for municipal inspectors in Illinois, you don't even need a license to build a home in Illinois.




phansford wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah..... Illinois is super corrupt .... blah, blah, blah. No offense.... so move if its really an issue for you.


I don't run, I fight.

phansford wrote:I am not sure the value of you posting all of your issues here. Several of us have tried to patiently review and addressed your concerns.... and you don't seem receptive to comments counter to your position. Instead of documenting everything here.... hire an attorney and pursue resolution through the legal system.

Yep... there are alot of issues you photographed that I would not approve.... so what else would you like us to say or do.


I'm not looking for advice or anything, I was just sharing a link that I though some might find interesting (and plenty have), and you are free to comment on it as you like.


phansford wrote:BTW - If I understand correctly.... original builder/designer does a horrible job... porch falls down... people get hurt. Your insurance company or someone's insurance company is involved..... And you have same said incompetent person provide the repairs? WTF? Why couldn't/wouldn't you just ask for the cash value and have it repaired yourself by someone you trust OR have it repaired and sue for the cost of repairs.


The Village brought out the original builder without the homeowners knowledge or permission and then bullied them into accepting the "repairs". As you can see from the letter, the Village's building Inspector tells the homeowners that the repairs "met all codes", obviously they don't. Keep in mind most homeowners don't know what an up to code porch should look like, hell, half the builders I've run across don't either.



phansford wrote:There are a lot issues that just don't make sense. Doesn't matter if the project passed inspection..... you still have a right to note the deficiencies and have them corrected properly. The inspector has very little here. Call YOUR insurance agent and attorney and get it resolved. If this was my house and the safety of my family was at stake.... I wouldn't be photographing the issues and creating a website..... I would be getting the construction corrected.... even if it meant paying for it out of my own pocket.

Good luck.... you need it.


You're right, there are a lot of issues that just don't make sense, but that's what happens when you have an unlicensed individual building homes and corrupt Village officials and building inspectors.

If you look at the letters you will see that the building inspector makes reference to an "architect", he is referring to the unlicensed individual. I was present when he was escorted onto the property by the building inspector. The unlicensed individual introduced himself to me as the architect that designed the homes. He has represented himself as an architect to may people he designed homes for. Just like in your state it is illegal to represent yourself as an architect if you are not licensed.
Mark Mc
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:55 am

Postby phansford » Mon May 04, 2009 1:59 pm

Mark -

Again... good luck. I don't know your role, but it seems like you are trying to help the homeowner's and I think that is HIGHLY commendable.

If there are enough people (I think 25 people - again... I am not an attorney nor do I portray one on television) to band together and file a lawsuit, I think it could be a class action suit. Legal representation is what is really needed here.

Unfortunately - this stuff happens all over the place. Even here in Ohio..... but Ohio will pursue someone introducing themselves as an architect. Copies of the drawings and the ordinance should be mailed to the Board of Examiners and a cover letter signed by all affected homeowners. That might get some action - plus some Illinois architects to also write letters or report the issue to the Board of Examiners (which is run by architects and who have a vested interest in protecting the profession)

Have fun :wink:
phansford
millennium club
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:47 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Postby csintexas » Tue May 05, 2009 9:55 am

I think I have seen this started more than a year ago. For some reason the city must not be too concerned if the guy is still designing. If you think it is so important why not sue?

For me it is a Lombard issue. I am certainly not interested in what they do and the chances of any interested party stumbling across this post are pretty low.

Lord knows there are plenty of marginal builders (and worse) in this world. This is probably not actually a design related problem since most structures of that type do not require extensive detailing and specifications whether designed by an architect or not.

(but an unlicensed person practicing where a license is required is a separate matter)

If a plan does require a stamp does the architect actually go out and make regular inspections to verify work is being done properly or do they rely on the same building inspectors who you accuse of not doing their job properly in this case?

We can certainly find examples of structures designed by professionals which have failed so I don't think licensing in itself will cure the worlds problems.
csintexas
millennium club
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:12 pm
Location: USA

Postby phansford » Tue May 05, 2009 10:57 am

csintexas wrote:If a plan does require a stamp does the architect actually go out and make regular inspections to verify work is being done properly or do they rely on the same building inspectors who you accuse of not doing their job properly in this case?


Construction Administration (or field reviews) is a separate service and nearly all home owners will not contract you to provide the necessary service. Hence some of the language we put on our drawings relating to contacting us for clarification and so on. The best protection I can accomplish is to direct the owner to contractors we are familiar with AND trust.

I think one of the problems is programs on HGTV or This Old House. TV is good at - one - discounting the role of the architect. Two - discounting the role of the contractor's project management skills (they focus on the mechanic in the field). Three - propagate the notion that the contractor is all-knowing and has the best interest of the homeowner in mind , and Four - that anyone can be a general contractor.

People watch these shows and get a false sense that they can not only review and approve construction, but can manage the project.
phansford
millennium club
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:47 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Postby Checkpoint43 » Wed May 06, 2009 6:47 pm

Here's an interesting article about the requirements needed to be an artist:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_requirements_do_you_have_to_have_to_become_an_artist

Along comes someone who doesn't have the certification listed in this article, and they have the nerve to become successful selling paintings!

We must call in the painters and artists commission at once!

Why? Because I've seen their work, and - um - someone hung it crooked. Yeah - that's the ticket!
Let's rally together and ban the unlicensed painter for calling himself an artist!
User avatar
Checkpoint43
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:28 pm
Location: Lexington, VA

Postby djswan » Wed May 06, 2009 10:16 pm

You rang. I'm a certified official member of an artist commission type of organization.

What's the problem here? Maybe I can help? I come bonafide. :D
djswan
millennium club
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: Montana, USA

Postby djswan » Thu May 07, 2009 12:29 am

phansford wrote: In fact - there was no designer... only the carpenter


Bingo. I found the problem. In fact - there was no carpenter ... only a designer.

Next please.
djswan
millennium club
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: Montana, USA

Next

Return to Residential Design and Building Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

User Control Panel

Login

Who is online

In this forum zone there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 508 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:21 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.