RKQ wrote:One should check one's history.... when was the RIBA formed? It was the first formal Architects body in the world. Well before certain world famous Architects were born.
I was referring to when the architecture schools, properly speaking, were formalised in the manner we know them today. Of course there were academies and institutes prior to this, but the training relative to today's training was a lot less formal.
RKQ wrote:In a Democracy, any member of the public is entitled to represent themselves in Court.
Naturally one should seek the advice & representation of a good Solicitor or Barrister but this is not a requirement by Law.
In a Democracy any member of the public is entitled to make their own Tax return. Naturally a Self employed individual should retain a good Accountant or Book-keeper, to make a Tax retun on their behalf. But again this is not a requirement of Law.
Good examples. However, in these cases, you as an individual will be held directly Accountable. In the current free-for-all planning system however, no accountability other than the silly unenforced, unchecked 'compliance' certification exists, and only the public suffers from the results - permanently.
RKQ wrote:Remember that Walter Gropius & Mies had to leave Germany.
I don't think it's a good idea to be referring back to the time of the Third Reich, as you have done twice. Germany is now an extremely efficient and well-run democracy, something that can be questioned regarding the reality of this country. However, this is going off track. I refer back to the efficiency only.
arch77 wrote:BTH, are you an application spotter? by saying 'our profession' i presume your an architect. weird past time reviewing planning applications by others..
anyway, back to the original question, and idea of what PlanE is suggesting...
What does everyone here against PlanE's idea, think of the Spanish system were only architects can submit plans to build anything to the local college of architects, where other architects check these applications against a very strict and detailed development plan. These development plans are drawn up to huge detail by urban designers and architects. Planners, in the irish sense of the word, play virtually no role in the system.
Aside from who's doing what, the advantage of this system is that each site has height, colour, window percentage etc restrictions, so the owner knows exactly what he or she can do from the outset... there's to much grey area in Ireland and Britain, good design gets diluted by external objections / factors etc. the spanish system has its problems too, obviously, but i think it make much more sense than the irish or english system.
Very good comments Arch77, and I'm very interested to know more of how these countries operate. Though the Spanish system sounds like it has a high degree of control, I think this is preferable to the uncontrolled sprawl and poc-marked development that has occurred here.
modular man wrote:I do not believe that architects should be the only people allowed to make planning applications. In some cases they are not the most qualified people to make the application (I am thinking mainly of infrastructural projects which probably require a part 8 application but it amounts to more or less the same thing). However, I think I am correct in saying that the system in France means that any building above 200m2 needs to be signed off by a registered architect before it can be lodged for planning. In effect, small houses etc can be lodged by anyone but bigger buildings require a qualified designer (however some architects in France will put their name to someones else's design for a fee thus circumnavigating the system).
Again, this is not a perfect solution but I do think that there is some merit to it. It seems that 200m2 is an arbitrary enough figure and would probably result in a shed load of badly designed 199m2 houses. I am not too interested in self preservation, I just think that the public has a right to well designed towns and street scrapes and maybe there should be tighter control on certain types of buildings.
Local Authorities make Part 8 applications, which include roads, so it's already outside the province of the private practice. However, I think many Part 8 applications require full architectural involvement. Similarly, taking your argument further, of course there are specialisms outside the architect's province, such as Environmental Impact, however, for the sake of control and jurisprudence the architect should be the chief applicant.
At this point, let me say - some have tried to accuse me of selfish commercial interests - this is not the case. My argument from the beginning has been about better planning and development, something the non-architects here (and even some architects) simply do not get.