henno wrote:the fact that architects cannot market themselves is a very significant hindrance to understanding and regard that gunter is referring to.
If architects were allowed to market themselves they would have to seriously consider a vital aspect of any business. The restrictions in marketing are viewed by many as a thin veil of cartel-ship.
I was contemplating this question in another vein today, as in how can you possibly convince (sell) to the average layperson concepts that take years to develop? Is it a lost cause from the outset? Has this question ever been satisfactorily answered? Or is it always going to be compromise for one or the other party? The marketing question is a good one. However, if architects had real
power, would marketing be necessary?
And there's no restrictions on architects marketing themselves - there used to be restrictions on advertising but they've been lifted long ago. The only constraint is that you cannot bring the profession or a colleague into disrepute.
That's news to me? I don't think that's correct. The answer to Teak is that there is a law preventing marketing, or at least a Code of Conduct. Advertisement of RIAI services is still not allowed, else we might be ending up with the crass slogans customary of all solicitors' offices as of recent years.
zelemon wrote:Architects maybe respected 'honorable' members of society but do we hold much power when serious issues arise? Yes we have managed to protect our 'title' but recent developments in the socio political arena would suggest that we do not have a voice or are simply not powerful enough for politiicans to bother with us.
1.2006 The GCC contracts were developed with relatively little input from the Archtiectural proffession, the result is a contract that is unworkable or unresonable for most to adminster.
2. May 2009 Tanaiste criticises us for having excessive fees etc.
3. 2008-2009- The developement of NAMA.
4. Nov 2009-State demands steep cut in fees from architects on new Childrens’ Hospital in Dublin
Sorry, I didn't see this thread before I posted a new one about the "Romans" and the RIAI.
They are quite similar, but I hope the detail will define them differently.
I'm not sure this thread has adequately responded to the whole of your question yet. In Europe it is my understanding that architects are still valued citizens with a high degree of clout in their own province (quite rightly). In Poland for example, the Planning committee will ask the advice of the applicant architect before making a decision! And I have heard of other Planning Councils in Europe that are well-represented by architects. Again, quite rightly.
I would like to see rules placed at planning (or at inspected
building control level), that the designer or trusted delegate should be responsible or consulted on all matters relating to physical impacts on the building, be it signage, decoration, security cams, fascia boards and what have you - even through the building's life-cycle. Something like an Operations+Maintenance manual, only better.
As for the meeting scenario depicted by Keating, I think that in certain large and complex projects architects are possibly getting marginalised, when specialisation and delegation is a necessity. In my experience, before the bust, I can only judge from similar meetings that the architect was the one who was always asked to supply all (or at least the majority) of the answers.
And most of all, the architect's role is not and should not be defined by others. For me, as always, design = author
ship = author
ity. As long as there is design, there is authority - I only wish our collective representatives could ensure that!
However, I do appreciate the question. It is possibly one that will always be hanging in there. What is a vision if it doesn't have things in the way? But today it seems more pertinent than ever.