Architects with practice and without practice

Here I was working for a remodel and addition a few years ago

I don´t know in other Universities, but in mine (Buenos Aires), there is some criticism to architects that are theorists and never built a single building, whatever it could be.

I think there is no need to build to be called ¨architect¨. Some say that for being a real architect, one needs a license, as a minimum requirement. Here, I disagree, because there are legal issues for practices outside the restriction of our licenses, but nothing removes the title of architect, if you acquired one.

Now, I´ve been working in construction companies, many years, and also have mine for 20 years, and I understand what Vitruvio says, you also need to know ¨the substance¨:

1. The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgement that all work done by the other arts is put to test. This knowledge is the child of practice and theory. Practice is the continuous and regular exercise of employment where manual work is done with any necessary material according to the design of a drawing. Theory, on the other hand, is the ability to demonstrate and explain the productions of dexterity on the principles of proportion.

2. It follows, therefore, that architects who have aimed at acquiring manual skill without scholarship have never been able to reach a position of authority to correspond to their pains, while those who relied only upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the shadow, not the substance. But those who have a thorough knowledge of both, like men armed at all points, have the sooner attained their object and carried authority with them.

From Ten Books on Architecture. Chapter I, The Education of the Architect

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20239/20239-h/29239-h.htm