The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Buildin

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:18 pm

onq wrote:CK,

Your questions are velid, but you're asking the wrong guy.

All of archiseek already knows where I stand in relation to all of this.

Lord knows I've posted about it in depth and frequently here and elsewhere.

So I'll treat your querstions as rhetorical, but note that there is a big difference between seminars and seminaries.

You really need to bone up on your english if you're thinking of writigs another letter to the Times on this, for example.

ONQ.


My English is as "velid" as yours and my seminaries was typo and computer self-spell corrections.

In post 1069 I quote you saying: “It is hard to break away from the idea of qualitative assessment when it comes to design, for quality is precisely what defines good from poor or poor from bad.”

This was the reason for addressing my previous post to you. I sincerely think that your position is very ambiguous. Do you know the French expression “retourner sa veste”? It seems to me that your turned yours twice already.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:38 pm

onq wrote:I have to correct you on this point.

My understanding is that several people without formal qualifications became Members of the RIAI in the past and may still be Members now.
I'm fairly certain that when put to the question on this John Graby will confirm that such a category of person, assuming they still exist, have all been assessed by the RIAI according to their standards.

The constant demonizing of an enemy does little to move matters forward CK - it is highly likely that not all MRIAI's agree with the way this has been handled based on their public support.
While some MRIAI's have definitely rallied around the Registrar and written to TD's I understand that total figures are not the entire 2,850+ Members supposedly on the RIAI's books.
The policy instituted by the RIAI of offering CPD points to Members to undertake workshops in political lobbying may have left a sour tates in the mouths of Members and TD's alike.
Many older MRIAI's might look favourably towards the Grandfathers fate and may have the decencey to admit that in other circumstances, there but for the grace of God, go they.

It looks like the MRIAI(IRL) suffix is a form of containment by the Registrar in terms of what he perceives as the assurance "his" register gives to the rest of Europe in relation to the standard of those on it.
I'm not sure all MRIAI-Registered Architects will see the logic of having both the MRIAI and MRIAI(IRL) suffixes in the marketplace at the same time - it doesn't seem to give clarity, but perhaps I'm not seeing the strategy clearly enough.

But all this needs to be thrashed out in a wider contect than the RIAI/ARAE hivemind and in closed session of the RIAI council.
Assumptions have been made about how to handle this whole affair and "what the public want" based on secondary information.
I think some primary information is urgently needed beyond the last Red C poll on public perception of the title.
As a profession we need to know what the public want and what the public need.
I don't think it ends with the regulation of Registration, but of providing services.

ONQ.


Onq,

My problem and the problem of many others is that we want to be assessed honestly. The RIAI was representing qualified architects only, this is a verifiable fact. Now they are assessing established self-taught architects asking for monstrous fees and examinations that even their members would not want to pass.

I want to know why self-taught engineers are assessed for 5 % of the RIAI cost, why self-taught arch tech in the UK are assessed for only 3% of the RIAI cost? Why does the self-taught registration exam in The Netherlands only cost 28% of its Irish equivalent?

Why is the Irish exam for self-taught not suited for someone in full time employment, why isn't it based on a mature examination such as a doctorate (as per its Dutch equivalent) rather than school like classroom exercises?

Why does the Technical Assessment refuses success to those with experience in small residential work only? Specialization in architecture is acceptable, it is in fact recommended.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:37 pm

CK,

Read my post again and stop repeating your incorrect assertion - please!!!

There were some "unqualified successes" in the ranks of the RIAI.
Therefore they cannot "only represent" qualified architects.
Your "veriafiable fact" is not in fact verifiable - move on.

They also do not "represent" their members per se.
They exist to promote Architecture - Capital "A".

The issue of "honesty" does not arise.
It'll be a tough assessment for sure.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:07 pm

onq wrote:CK,

Read my post again and stop repeating your incorrect assertion - please!!!

There were some "unqualified successes" in the ranks of the RIAI.
Therefore they cannot "only represent" qualified architects.
Your "veriafiable fact" is not in fact verifiable - move on.

They also do not "represent" their members per se.
They exist to promote Architecture - Capital "A".

The issue of "honesty" does not arise.
It'll be a tough assessment for sure.

ONQ.


ONQ,

It seems that you are not aware of the previous RIAI slogan: "representing professionally qualified architects". It was everywhere on their advertising and on their website. Where were you 3 years ago ONQ?

What are you trying to achieve by pretending that the RIAI never done so?

The only reason for the RIAI to accept non qualified architects in their group was the minister's list which was surely one of the points imposed on the institute for being appointed as the Regulator for architects.

Your earlier remarks on the qualitative issue that I have highlighted in my previous post make me think that you are either hypocrite or incapable of understanding the problem related to the assessment of self-trained architects as well as other qualified professionals thought the ARAE and technical assessment.

Instead of contradicting yourself and bullying me into supporting the bill for after putting it down by supporting a qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative one, you should try to understand the problem in depth or focus on your own registration route instead.

I have tried to warn Architects' Alliance about your unreliability. I still cannot understand why Brian Montaut trusted you for representing the group during the JOC meeting.

I believe that you were only using the opportunity to represent yourself.

A very large majority of Architects' Alliance members would be delighted to be assessed for quality if it was not through a biased and unaffordable exam as set up by the RIAI to minimize the entry on the register.

I will not move on, but move forward. Architecture is not a privilege for the rich. We are not living anymore in the 19th century and I am not one of those interested to come back to those times. Accepting the aristocratic views that someone shall be wealthy to be architect is retrograde. If we accept that, so we shall accept the same for any profession, so we shall accept the same for the right to education.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:05 pm

There is so much wrong headed about your reply..

Unlike some people who just have to tell all in public, I have confidences to keep of experiences shared with members of the AAoI that I cannot just splatter all over a public forum, including matters about you CK, which I thought put to bed, but it seems not so.

Asked to support the AAoI submission to the JOC I very publicly gave it my best shot.
Asked to contribute to the development of the Amendment wording, I supported it to the best of my ability.
This was despite the fact that support for a Graduate Amendment was put on the back burner by others, certainly not by me.
So to recap - at all times when people have asked me to perform or assist them in relation to Registration I have done so without reserve.
Tt was not me who wanted to omit the requirement for AAoI Members to submit their work for assessment - I have been consistent in my calls for competent assessment.

This is just like last time we had an argument CK - about the Amendment and it was discovered after the fact that you hadn't even read the Amendment!
You have not done your research on who and what the RIAI promote, regulate and support.
The RIAI will tell you - if you both to do the most cursory Primary Research.
The RIAI DO NOT REPRESENT THEIR MEMBERS!

They exist as their website says for another set of reasons:
"Promoting, supporting, regulating - Architecture".

Not architects, CK - Architecture.
You can apologise in your own time.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:44 pm

ONQ the RIAI was representing qualified architects in Ireland. This was their slogans everywhere until 2008. I have a Golden pages edition proving it.

It was written everywhere on their website, why are you trying to deny that? This is a link to a SEI prospectus that uses the old RIAI slogan: http://www.passiefhuisplatform.be/content/seetool_media/pdf/overzicht_137_01.pdf

Your new position on a qualitative rather than quantitative examination for self-trained architects is just outrageous because you do not take into consideration that the problem is related to the RIAI being against the registration of self-trained architects. During over a century the institute represented only qualified architects, this cannot be denied. Today they use references to qualitative standards to deny registration to many of us. Some of these standards aren't even followed by some of the Institute members (ref. MRIAI RTE Star).

Today there is a conflict of interest because the institute that represented qualified architects only is now assessing self-trained architects using financial and technical means to limit their access to the register. Some of the RIAI documents in my possession stipulate that the RIAI defends the interests of architectural training and education. This explains very well why the fees for registering self-taught architects are about 20 times more expensive than for engineers.

The RIAI cannot defend the interests of architectural training and education and fairly assess self-taught architects. THere is a problem here that must be solved.

You should publicly APPOLOGISE for trying to mislead everyone on the RIAI. Not me. About 16 months ago one of the RIAI directors admitted to me on the phone that the Institute was opposed to the registration of self-trained architects. Less than 3 years ago the RIAI was still officially representing qualified architects only. Today it is still the same directors in charge and you want me to believe that the situation has changed. This is a non sense, there is an obvious conflict of interest here that must be expressed and exposed...

STOP LYING ON THIS ISSUE and be honest for a change.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:12 am

CK,

I am not lying.
I have spoken homestly on this issue from the start.

I pointed you in the direction of the RIAI website and the vision statement is there on the top right hand corner of the page as noted in my previous post.
"Promoting, supporting, regulating - Architecture".

In relation to what you think you read on the page you linked to, once again you seem to be be mistaken.

The first part of the blurb states as follows:

"The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), founded in
1839, is the representative body for professionally qualified architects
in Ireland".


A carefully worded statement, to be sure, but the next one clarifies the meaning.

"The objectives of the RIAI are the advancement of Architecture
and the associated Arts and Sciences, the promotion of high standards
of professional conduct and practice and the protection of
the interests of architectural training and education"


It is quite clear that the objectives as listed above do not include representing the individual members themselves.
The RIAI represents its Members en masses - as a body - and the term "professionally qualified" refers to their Part III assessment, not the Graduate Qualification.
Back when I qualified, Graduates like me with Part II's were only admitted as Associate Members and could not vote on matters of policy, so there is no way they could have represented me.

Separate from this it is my clear understanding from speaking with a competent person that while the RIAI may have described itself as "the representative body for professionally qualified architects", it does not represent individual members.
You may think this is hair-splitting, but the Objectives are clearly statecd on the page you linked to and they don't include representing individual members or defending their interests. The RIAI web page is aligned with this.
I have never known the RIAI to represent an individual member on any matter since I first came into awareness of the RIAI in Fourth Year, nearly 22 years ago.

As for my "new position" on qualitative as opposed to quantitative assessment, I'm not sure where you learnt my "old" position from.
My oft-stated position was that I did not have a problem with being registered, I just felt that with a prescribed qualification and 20 year behind me I should have been automatically registered.
However, when it came down to Grandfathers being Registered, and them not having a prescribed qualification I took the position that they should be assessed, and I supported the first draft of the Amendment which included this comment; -

"(iv) has presented a portfolio showing examples of his work for
quantitative analysis by the Registration Body and attended an
interview with the Board."


This wording is not in the current Building Control (Amendment) Act 2010.

It wasn't me -
  • who substituted "analysis" for "assessment" in the section above or
  • who required that "analysis" should be further limited to "quantitative" in the section above, or
  • who substituted "verfication purposes" for "analysis"in the Amendment, or
  • who removed the requirement to attend an interview from the Amendment.
Other people did those things.
So my position on this hasn't changed CK.
Grandfathers must show their work as evidence - evidence by its nature must be judged.
You appear have assumed things about me and jumped at conclusions - you say I have chenged my position, but that's not the situation.

I argued strongly for assessment and the showing of work in front of the massed ranks of the AAoI [you were there] and also on their Bulletin Board and in private e-mail.
Concerns have been expressed on this forum about Grandfathers apparently being unwilling to be assessed properly - I supported and still support the above wording to ally those concerns.
Without being seen to be willing to be assessed, Grandfathers cannot show the necessary bona fides to face down the Registrar and give adequate assurances to the public and the consumer.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:54 pm

ONQ,

I said in post 1077 that: “The RIAI was representing qualified architects only”

In post 1080 you wrote: “They exist as their website says for another set of reasons:
"Promoting, supporting, regulating - Architecture". Not architects….”"


I want you to google “RIAI”, top of the result page you will find a description stating: “Promoting and Supporting Professionally Qualified Irish Architects in Ireland”

This is probably dated from their old website and their web developer did not remove it. You will note that they do not even have the courtesy of representing and promoting foreign architects registered in Ireland but professionally qualified Irish architects only. I hope that they do not make such mistakes when designing buildings….
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:30 pm

ONQ,

you said in post 1069 that: “It is hard to break away from the idea of qualitative assessment when it comes to design, for quality is precisely what defines good from poor or poor from bad.”

In post 1082 you wrote: “when it came down to Grandfathers being Registered, and them not having a prescribed qualification I took the position that they should be assessed, and I supported the first draft of the Amendment which included this comment:

"(iv) has presented a portfolio showing examples of his work for
quantitative analysis by the Registration Body and attended an
interview with the Board.
"”

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself if I consider the 2 declarations above; but this is not my point.

I am bored to hear that the supporters of the bill refuse to be assessed. This is bull shit. I cannot talk for anyone than me, but my feeling is that many like me do not want to be assessed on subjective matters by an institute who have proved many times its biased attitude towards self-trained architects. An institute which has used the actual legislation to set up financial and administrative barriers to prevent most of the self-trained architects to register.

I, like most of Architects’ Alliance members, are not refusing to be assessed, but the RIAI is using the term “qualitative” to set up inappropriate assessments which are unaffordable. Assessments which are designed for discouraging and failing applicants. The ARAE and the Technical Assessment are not fair examinations…

I am paying £100 to be assessed for full Membership of CIAT, if necessary I would pay 10 times that to be fairly assessed for registration as an architect in Ireland. The problem is that the CIAT as IEI (Institute of Engineers) prepare fair assessment procedures for self-taught and that the RIAI does not.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby spoilsport » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:05 pm

aha! breaking news comrades,

Since no one else on this forum is willing to tell, I will indeed have that pleasure. My fifth columist sleepers have told me that yesterday ( i have tentacles everywhere) , the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party agreed to promote JOD's Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010. Those pesky parish pump politicos have thwarted us & done it again. Did they not believe our stories of doom and gloom, when we told them of the possible horrors of allowing the great unwashed into our rank & file???

Does this mean that my CPD points are going to be withdrawn, due to myself and my brethern not implementing our training and lobbying pack, to its full capacity ??? oh dear, I hope not, as I had a great catnap through the whole session.It looks like the carrot and stick approach did not work this time.

But be assured that by the time it gets to commitee stage, it will be pulled, prodded, dissected, and remapped, to more or less resemble the provisions that is already in place in the existing BCA, and the politicos will hold their hands up and say, "what more can we do". And if its isnt remapped, then rest assured the senate will do the job for us brethern,, and blow this amendment out of the sky!! ack ack guns at ready senators...

But on a more serious note, well done to the AA. Thay are chipping away at Merrion, and may well get some serious acceptable concessions yet ?. As I have previously stated before, absorb them into the hive, and assimilate them, and within 20 years time or so, when the economy should start showing signs of growth, most will have been retired, dead, or bankrupt, with most emphasis on bankrupt...


yours

spoilsport ( not the other greatly esteemed spoil_sport) in case he huffs again on me...
User avatar
spoilsport
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby wearnicehats » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:09 pm

spoilsport wrote:aha! breaking news comrades,

Since no one else on this forum is willing to tell, I will indeed have that pleasure. My fifth columist sleepers have told me that yesterday ( i have tentacles everywhere) , the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party agreed to promote JOD's Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010. Those pesky parish pump politicos have thwarted us & done it again. Did they not believe our stories of doom and gloom, when we told them of the possible horrors of allowing the great unwashed into our rank & file???

Does this mean that my CPD points are going to be withdrawn, due to myself and my brethern not implementing our training and lobbying pack, to its full capacity ??? oh dear, I hope not, as I had a great catnap through the whole session.It looks like the carrot and stick approach did not work this time.

But be assured that by the time it gets to commitee stage, it will be pulled, prodded, dissected, and remapped, to more or less resemble the provisions that is already in place in the existing BCA, and the politicos will hold their hands up and say, "what more can we do". And if its isnt remapped, then rest assured the senate will do the job for us brethern,, and blow this amendment out of the sky!! ack ack guns at ready senators...

But on a more serious note, well done to the AA. Thay are chipping away at Merrion, and may well get some serious acceptable concessions yet ?. As I have previously stated before, absorb them into the hive, and assimilate them, and within 20 years time or so, when the economy should start showing signs of growth, most will have been retired, dead, or bankrupt, with most emphasis on bankrupt...


yours

spoilsport ( not the other greatly esteemed spoil_sport) in case he huffs again on me...



perhaps this might be the time to analyse how registration works in Germany?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:33 pm

wearnicehats wrote:perhaps this might be the time to analyse how registration works in Germany?


I made some researches this way...I can give you tips on how the registration of professionals was implemented.

After the second world wars all records that were not destroyed by the Nazis were burnt during the allies’ pre-invasion bombing of towns and cities.

After the war most of the universities and colleges records of diplomas were lost or burnt. In the early 1960's the German government called for all qualified professionals to come forward for registration. A simple statutory declaration confirming qualification from the applicant was requested. The registration of architects was started in the early 70's or late 60's if I remember well. Those accepted on the register were supposed to be qualified in architecture, design and engineering if I remember well.

It must be noted that the profession of architect in Germany is much more orientated to industrial design and technologies than it is in the UK or Irelands where architects are mainly involve with clients' brief, planning design and contracts; frequently giving to technicians the task of construction design and compliance with Building Regulations.

It is obviously not Irish or UK architects who would detail a passive house. German architects do so...
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby wearnicehats » Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:35 pm

CK wrote:I made some researches this way...I can give you tips on how the registration of professionals was implemented.

After the second world wars all records that were not destroyed by the Nazis were burnt during the allies’ pre-invasion bombing of towns and cities.

After the war most of the universities and colleges records of diplomas were lost or burnt. In the early 1960's the German government called for all qualified professionals to come forward for registration. A simple statutory declaration confirming qualification from the applicant was requested. The registration of architects was started in the early 70's or late 60's if I remember well. Those accepted on the register were supposed to be qualified in architecture, design and engineering if I remember well.

It must be noted that the profession of architect in Germany is much more orientated to industrial design and technologies than it is in the UK or Irelands where architects are mainly involve with clients' brief, planning design and contracts; frequently giving to technicians the task of construction design and compliance with Building Regulations.

It is obviously not Irish or UK architects who would detail a passive house. German architects do so...


geez I hope I never get stuck in a lift with you
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:55 pm

CK wrote:ONQ,
(snip)
I want you to google “RIAI”, top of the result page you will find a description stating: “Promoting and Supporting Professionally Qualified Irish Architects in Ireland”


It doesn't use the word "representing" CK.

And your point is...?

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:58 pm

CK wrote:


[...point CK says he is not arguing about with me removed...]

[... "qualitative" = "unfair assessment" argument removed...]

I am paying £100 to be assessed for full Membership of CIAT, if necessary I would pay 10 times that to be fairly assessed for registration as an architect in Ireland. The problem is that the CIAT as IEI (Institute of Engineers) prepare fair assessment procedures for self-taught and that the RIAI does not.


I suspect you are paying £100 to be "assessed" by CIAT - it is not a foregone conclusion that you will be admitted to Membership.
I am fairly sure you have not previously been assessed by the CIAT, so you cannot know whether they are unfair or not.
This may all end in tears for you yet CK, but good luck with it.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:07 am

spoilsport wrote:aha! breaking news comrades,

Since no one else on this forum is willing to tell, I will indeed have that pleasure. My fifth columist sleepers have told me that yesterday ( i have tentacles everywhere) , the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party agreed to promote JOD's Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010. Those pesky parish pump politicos have thwarted us & done it again. Did they not believe our stories of doom and gloom, when we told them of the possible horrors of allowing the great unwashed into our rank & file???

Does this mean that my CPD points are going to be withdrawn, due to myself and my brethern not implementing our training and lobbying pack, to its full capacity ??? oh dear, I hope not, as I had a great catnap through the whole session.It looks like the carrot and stick approach did not work this time.

But be assured that by the time it gets to commitee stage, it will be pulled, prodded, dissected, and remapped, to more or less resemble the provisions that is already in place in the existing BCA, and the politicos will hold their hands up and say, "what more can we do". And if its isnt remapped, then rest assured the senate will do the job for us brethern,, and blow this amendment out of the sky!! ack ack guns at ready senators...

But on a more serious note, well done to the AA. Thay are chipping away at Merrion, and may well get some serious acceptable concessions yet ?. As I have previously stated before, absorb them into the hive, and assimilate them, and within 20 years time or so, when the economy should start showing signs of growth, most will have been retired, dead, or bankrupt, with most emphasis on bankrupt...


yours

spoilsport ( not the other greatly esteemed spoil_sport) in case he huffs again on me...



How nice for you to be the one to break the news Spoilsport.
It will be interesting to see how the ebb and flow of debate in the Seanad will change things.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:12 am

[deleted]
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:14 am

CK wrote:It is obviously not Irish or UK architects who would detail a passive house. German architects do so...


There is at least one [url=http://www.alaymont.com/Labour-Market-Activation-Fund.1656.0.html?&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=passive]course[/url]available to become accredited here.


ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:13 am

onq wrote:It doesn't use the word "representing" CK.

And your point is...?

ONQ.


Not on this one but it does on another that I provided in another post. The fact is that there is a strong conflict of interest if an institute promote and support professionally qualified architects while assessing self-taught. Especially if this same institute also promote and protect the interests of architectural education.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:32 am

onq wrote:
I suspect you are paying £100 to be "assessed" by CIAT - it is not a foregone conclusion that you will be admitted to Membership.
I am fairly sure you have not previously been assessed by the CIAT, so you cannot know whether they are unfair or not.
This may all end in tears for you yet CK, but good luck with it.

ONQ.


I have been in contact with the RIAI and the CIAT for the purpose of being assessed for membership.

I have already spent E2,000 for RIAI CPD seminaries which took me nowhere, I have spent something like £120 to become a profile member of the CIAT and I am now preparing full membership for an additional cost of £100. The CPDs that I followed were free of charge for members. I think that summaries quiet well the RIAI problem.

The CIAT assessment for self-trained is based on your experience and knowledge and it can be prepared the evening after work. There is no need of attending classrooms examinations during the week. It is like a thesis on a given subject with proof of experience attached to it.

Comparing the ARAE and the CIAT assessment as well as cost of the assessment and how the assessment is set up. I can tell that on one part the applicant needs to have a wealthy bank account while on the other it is affordable. On one end the applicant can continue his employment while being assessed when on the other end this would be very difficult if not impossible without the blessing of the employer. On one end the exam reflects the skills of an established practitioner on the other end it does not.

This in itself is a proof that one part has prepared a fair assessment for self-trained when the other did not. In fact the CIAT assessment for self-trained is the same than the Dutch registration exam for self-trained but at better value. On this ground I believe that the assessment procedure is fair. However, I have not been assessed yet, then you are right, I can only speak for the procedure not for the full assessment.

Another very important point is that there is no conflict of interests for the CIAT to assess self-taught, when there is an obvious one for the RIAI to do so.

If I am not successful the first time for becoming MCIAT, I will pass it again for another £100 well spent no need for tears. But I must admit that if I had to pay another E13,500 to pass a second time the ARAE, I would probably have suicidal thoughts.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:48 am

onq wrote:There is at least one [url=http://www.alaymont.com/Labour-Market-Activation-Fund.1656.0.html?&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=passive]course[/url]available to become accredited here.


ONQ.


ONQ,

it is not because a course is available that architects follow it. You will note that the course is also available to tradesmen, technicians and others, who are the most likely to attend it.

I am saying that in 17 years of experience I have never worked with a registered architect who was detailing the construction part of the project design. In all the practices that I worked with, this task was given to either technicians or other staff. All the registered architects that I worked with were much more interested in meeting clients and managing the practice.

I have not seen any construction design from Dermot MRIAI so far. Does he leave this part of the work to the contractors?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:07 pm

I cannot comment on others, but yes, I have worked with technicians, junior architects and CAD draughtspersons to develop and present details.
In my world I don't trade on the Capital A on my sleeve CK, I tend to play it down - and I work with technicians and draughtspersons and other design team members, engineers and QS to deliver the necessary technican information to enable a compliant building to be built.

I have physically drawn details on drawing boards when I started working for architects while in college and I continue this to date in the last built work I did which was an extension to a private house, integrating my details with the engineers structural work and the required insulation specification.
In the interim I have worked on details and fire certs for commercial and industrial buildings, retail warehousing and residential buildings.
Perhaps I should apply to the CIAT myself to have a second string to my bow. :)

All that having been said, I have not yet detailed a passive house to passive house standards.
I have read the literature available from Passive Haus UK website and would probably be able to make a good attempt at designing and detailing one, but I would not be accredited.
I hope to go on the Alymont course or one like it sometime next year, but I understand it is very intensive with a heavy dose of algebra at the end of it and an exam.

As I sad before, good look with the CIAT registration and yes, the price seems very reasonable.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:39 am

onq wrote:I cannot comment on others, but yes, I have worked with technicians, junior architects and CAD draughtspersons to develop and present details.
In my world I don't trade on the Capital A on my sleeve CK, I tend to play it down - and I work with technicians and draughtspersons and other design team members, engineers and QS to deliver the necessary technican information to enable a compliant building to be built.

I have physically drawn details on drawing boards when I started working for architects while in college and I continue this to date in the last built work I did which was an extension to a private house, integrating my details with the engineers structural work and the required insulation specification.
In the interim I have worked on details and fire certs for commercial and industrial buildings, retail warehousing and residential buildings.
Perhaps I should apply to the CIAT myself to have a second string to my bow. :)

All that having been said, I have not yet detailed a passive house to passive house standards.
I have read the literature available from Passive Haus UK website and would probably be able to make a good attempt at designing and detailing one, but I would not be accredited.
I hope to go on the Alymont course or one like it sometime next year, but I understand it is very intensive with a heavy dose of algebra at the end of it and an exam.

As I sad before, good look with the CIAT registration and yes, the price seems very reasonable.

ONQ.


I feel very annoyed to have to take this route. I should not have to seek membership of a foreign institute. I feel that I should be given a fair chance to demonstrate my skills and knowledge in my country of residence. The RIAI monopoly does not allow that. I am concerned with my future because if CIAT is doing a very good job for its members in the UK, I do not think that they will have the power to do the same in Ireland. The RIAI has too much influence here and the CIAT is an oversea organization that is not involved with the Irish government and not involved with new policies in Ireland. CIAT members who are in charge of representing CIAT in Ireland are also MRIAI and I am concerned that their double membership may not always swing on CIAT’ side.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby onq » Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:41 pm

CK,

I am reliably informed that the CIAT has a branch in Ireland.
I honestly don't know where your difficulty arises.

Even if they hadn't, what's the problem?
Either you buy into the idea of Europe-wide businesses and services providers or you don't.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby CK » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:24 pm

onq wrote:CK,

I am reliably informed that the CIAT has a branch in Ireland.
I honestly don't know where your difficulty arises.

Even if they hadn't, what's the problem?
Either you buy into the idea of Europe-wide businesses and services providers or you don't.

ONQ.


Hi ONQ,

I am not sure what you mean by branch. There are unpaid organisers/officers for Ireland who are also MRIAI, but there is no registered office in the ROI. CIAT is listed in the European Directive as the official body for representing Architectural Technologists. The qualification (MCIAT) is recognised in only 4 European countries: UK - ROI - Sweden - Denmark. However, this does not prevent restrictions to be imposed on CIAT members and I believe that the RIAI will not hesitate to work this way.

I will have to go to London to defend my work in front of assessors (when ready). The CIAT has many members in China too and I am not sure if they have offices there. I know that in China MCIAT are considered like architects, except in Hong Kong where there are restrictions.

My concerns are related to their ability to deal with RIAI pressures as well as pressures from other European Institutes for architects. Will the Law Society of Ireland accept their certificates of compliance in the future? Will financial institutions continue to do so? What about the Golden pages listing? People don't look for architectural Tech when they need services...
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland