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

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Bui

Postby onq » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:16 pm

CK wrote:
I said that I do not need to prove my design abilities to the public because I already have my design qualification.


My qualification also certifies my design ability as well as theoretical knowledge. I tried registering using my qualification, but obviously it was useless, the RIAI admission staffs were really rigid and discouraging. They were obviously after my money…

The question of whether the RIAI were working this as a franchise was raised at the JOC meeting on May 18th 2010 by TD's who were Members of that Committee.
IIRC the RIAI answer was that the matter had been costed by the RIAI at a charge out rate of €60 an hour [possibly less than half the charge out rate for a senior architect in private practice] and was with the Minister so they couldn't comment any further.
The Committee resolved to ask the Minister to attend and answer questions, but my understanding is that they do not have the power to compel him to do so and they have no power to make him alter the arrangement for costs of registration.
The RIAI seem happy to plough along in the furrow left by the BCA 2007 and so the only way for the AAoI to improve their position is to change the terms of the Act by the 2010 Amendment Bill, a possible route to resolution that has not yet played out to its conclusion.
If there is to be a registration process, and the benefit to the state maintained that it should cost the state nothing, then I think the AAoI have to make a case for clemency on cost as well as reducing the nature of the test.
This of course will anger qualified MRIAI's whose Part III's cost them a significant amount of time and money to pursue and achieve.

You left the AAoI voluntarily, yet in this thread you posted that you have a copy of their latest Legal Opinion.
How is it that someone who contributed nothing to the Grandfather's Bill [you, CK] gets to see that Opinion, while someone who contributed to the development of the Grandfather's Bill itself [me] does not?


Maybe the answer to this, is that I have acknowledged the bilateral benefice in my relationship with the Alliance when in the contrary you claim that your relationship with the association was only one way.


Cart before the horse CK.
It was made clear to me that the relationship had worked out to be only one way before I left.
The people controlling the Alliance were happy to have people achieving something for nothing.
However none of the suggestions to improve the standing of Members in the public and show their stuff were bearing fruit.
Not all these suggestions were mine, and they ran the gamut of measures already put in place for their own members by the RIAI, including:
- tailored CPD courses to come ot grips with new regulations and practices
- general attendances at AAI lectures and events
- and exhibition of Members' work

I also wanted to know the other Members level of achievement - i.e. an assessment of Members qualifications and experience to be shared amongst the AAoI.
After all, having shown my bona fides b ysupporting them at the JOC Meeting, I needed to know exactly who I was supporting.
Some members were known to me at that stage and I had little concern about them at all.
Even you - my French antagoniste - were prepared to put your stuff on a website.
However others were far less forthcoming, including senior figures.
This caused me a not inconsiderable amount of concern.

Now it may be that all this will come out in the wash, but so far it hasn't.
When faced with allegations in the press of being "chancers" the AAoI should have held their exhibition - they didn't.
This lead to me becoming very uneasy at the reluctance of some AAoI members - the older ones it must be said, at showing their work.
However this has to be qualifid against the usual silent majority in any orgamisation who neither do nor say anything.
Nor is this limited to the AAoI - the RIAI Members silence speaks eloquently to those with ears to hear.

But the real bug bear for me was the insistence that any assessment by the RIAI was doomed to be prejudicial.
This is no secret, and was commented upon at the JOC Meeting by Brian Montaut primarily, but it cannot be supported.
At the very minimum, at least one AAoI Member should have been funded by the others and gone forward to learn about the process.
After that it would be fairly straightforward to denounce it if it was found to be biased.

But without having gone through it, the AAoI have no locus standi in the matter.
Comments in advance of taking the course can be dismissed as fear of failure.
Again, this doesn't loo kgood in the public eye.
An exhibition could have dealt with this.

But the call for an exhibiton was not embraced by the new AAoI Committee.
I couldn't stay associated with a group that seemed to think it should be granted recognition without being assessed or even mounting an exhibition of Members' work.
That went against all that I am - and if truth be told this goes against all that you are too CK - you have a lot of years behind you at third level.

Working along this train of thought to its conclusion, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, I realised that I would be cutting off my nose to spite my face if I didn't at least *try* to become registered through Option C.

I have already told you that I am still working the same way than the Alliance, but at side of the association rather than within. You do not seem to do that at all, in the contrary, then why would they share information with you? I have emailed you the legal opinion yesterday, haven’t I?


Thanks for the copy of the Opinion.
The reason the AAoI should have sent this to me is as a courtesy for my previous pro-bono work for them CK.
Simple as that, common courtesy - the fact that they didn't says that they are paranoid about people with qualifications CK.
This almost psycopathic hatred of the RIAI and persons with qualificatiosn resulted in some of them labelling me "an RIAI Plant".
I'm sure if John Graby reads this he'll fall of his well-padded office recliner laughing the thought of me acting covertly for the RIAI.

Ironically, the two people discussing this subject most vociferously online are you and me.
Neither you nor I are in the AAoI any more and you also hold a 3rd level qualification.
We are the ones arguing the case for recognition of prior learning, not the AAoI.

Again, that says a lot about the hard core of RIAI-hating people running the AAoI now.
Ungrateful, timorous, cowering wee beasties to paraphrase Robert Burns the poet.
They are hardly mice, never mind men and women of professional standing.

I've listed some of my work here publicly CK, which is more than any Member of the AAoI has done.
Indeed its more than you have done, but then again, I am happy for people to see my work.
BTW I didn't list ALL my work CK - I don't need to use a hammer to smash an egg.


All you have shown here is a 3d model carried out by others. It would not be considered as your design by the RIAI if you were self-taught passing the Technical Assessment. I do not see what good it could do to the Alliance members to show this type of works, as the institute would dismiss it straight away.

Hold on a second CK - this is my design work, nobody else's!
it has been presented in 3D by a third party office, that's true.
But that's no different than getting a professional photographer to show your built work to the best advantage.
Is one of the recommendations for any architect or practice starting out to assemble a portfolio to include samples their works like this.
Not everyone is adept at 3D presentations - or can afford the cost of the software for them, but these presentations do not alter the design of work, merely present it.
You will note that on the bottom of the work full credit is given to ModelWorks for performing the 3D work - that was part of the terms of my agreement with them for allowing me to use their work, so I haven't been guilty of misrepresenting it at any time.

The RIAI cannot reject out of hand 3D presentations of an archtiects designed work any more than they can reject professional photographs of their built work.
In accepting work for assessment the RIAI are obliged to follow the rules of court evidence - benefit of the doubt unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant/witness has misrepresented the work or perjured himself or herself in presenting it as their own.

You do not want to admit that the institute has created double standards.

I was posting about the inequities of the BCA 2007 long before I knew about you, Gary Solan or the AAoI, so don't throw that kind of comment in my face.
The AAoI invited me ot join them and represent them at the JOC Meeting on 18th May 2010 precisely because I had a track record in pointing out the inequities of the Act and how this benefited the RIAI.
The whole thrust of my very forceful presentation to the JOC was that such inequity existed and solely benefited the RIAI and its Members.
I also made it quite clear that despite John Graby's disavowal of the Act due to it being a "Goverment Act", it had come about at the result of intense lobbying by the RIAI over the past 20 years.

Unlike you CK, I was here for every one of those 20 years and more.
I know first hand about both the current inequity and the future disaster the current limited regulation will bring to the Architect's Profession in Ireland.

Read this thread to discover the reason behind your difficulties logging on.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8412
Stop making unfounded allegations against the site owner and apologise to him


Paul told me that he was “slammed”. I was not sure what to understand, but I think that external forces did not welcome this thread.

People are free to make any comment he please to Paul Clerkin within the law, although why they'd slam Paul is unclear.
Obviously joined-up thinking still hasn't kicked in amongst the conservative MRIAI's - I could have taken this to the papers at any time.
But don't confuse Paul suffering at the hands of others with the normal confusion that arises when a forum is being relocated to a new server.

It is clear that the issue of architects’ registration is taboo. It is composed of many irrational matters and non-sense, which are preventing competent architects to use the title. One of the biggest non-sense at EU level is that the competency must be obtained as part of one diploma and that someone who would have acquired similar knowledge through 2 diplomas is not recognised. Another nonsense is that apprenticeship is not considered.

CK, the RIAI and the Registrar have engaged in public debate at the highest level in the state - a JOC Meeting that was recorded and is still available for viewing - the discussion is not taboo.
The matter has also been raised in the Law Gazette by Brian Montaut and I believe your goodself and the Registrar - the matter is not seen as taboo.
Finally this matter is currently being addressed by the passage of a Bill through the Oireachtas - the matter cannot be made taboo!

There is obviously an academic and protectionist dictatorship on the profession.

Interst groups always seek to accrete power and its always in the best interest of someone - no surprises.
But even I - who have been called his nemesis in this forum - don't see John Graby as a dictator.
Echoing Sean O'Laoire's comment that he is like a "Cardinal Mazarin" is as far as I go.
He's actually a very reasonable guy to talk to - hasn't changed much in 22 years.
He has consistly promoted the MRIAI/Part III as the standard to aspire to.
Quite why Brian Montaut seems to hate the RIAI so much is beyond me.
It has been proved during history and more recently that academism does not necessary provide the best buildings and surely not the best designs.
Questions: “What is the most famous building in France? Was it designed by a qualified architect?”

Answers: Gustave Eiffel, he was a structural engineer

Questions: “who is the most famous American Architect of the 20th century? Was he a qualified architect?”

Answers: “Frank Lloyd Wright and he was self-taught”

Questions: “Who was the most famous Irish architect of the 20th century, was he a qualified architect”

I will not answer this one; I think that you got the answer… I have many more questions and answers like this one proving that the door should be left opened for self-taught to enter the register. The ARAE does not provide for such opening neither does the Technical Assessment.

You will bet no argument from me on this one CK - I have made the same or a similar case myself.
Michael Scott, who is the last referred to architect is reputed to have stated that he distrusted people with letters after their names.
While the RIAI are quick to point out that Scott took the Membership exam, they don't not that it was specially set for him and he took it reluctantly, and only after considerable pressure to do so from the RIAI - or so I have been told by those that claim to know.

My position, and one that led me to support Grandfathers and accept full membership of the AAoI in the first place, was that there is a risk or just such "mavericks" as Scott becoming disenfranchised in the present day because of the middle class barrier to education that the cost of a third level course places iun the path of most familes of limited means.

it is quite clear to anyone with half a brain and some life experience that there are professionals of all kinds - certainly not just archtiects - who should not be practising as professionals - the Michael Lynns of the world, for example.
Such creatures came in to the professions to use their standing and position of trust to prey on people and I am sure many still exist, undiscovered in all professions, whether it is women-hating symphisiotnomy-peforming medical consultants, bent solicitors or dodgy archtiects like David Grant.
But equally there are people who were unable for financial reasons to take the now established academic route to becoming and architect and there is no route to accreditation for such persons excape the ARAE.

In this regard I have some sympathy with the Registrar who sees his role as the giver of assurance to the general public in an era where the sometimes conflicting requirements set by building physics, the safety health and welfare at work legislation and the mandate of sustainability have conspired to bring about a matrix within which even a qualified, seasoned Part III-holding principal may lose his way.

How much more likely to fail then - in his eyes - is an unqualified architect practising without the benefit of the latest CPD updates and cutting edge software to assess and modulate the performance of the building envelope and structure while all the time minimsing the carbon footprint both in-use and cradle to cradle for components, fittings and furnishings?

Does the arduous process of ARAE Registration and the committment to engage in CPD have no attractions to the Grandfathers? I should think it would if in doing so they became full Members of the Institute. Certainly I have sympaty with Part III holder of formal qualification who decry Grahdfathers complaining about paying €13,500 for a years training.

The Bolton St course in the 80's cost around IR£800 to 1,000 per academic year in fees alone, with the trip abroad self funded to the tune of circa IR£300 or so and it was part of the course.
So that amounted to IR£ 1,100 to 1,300 per year over a minimum of five years, not counting repeats cost.
That amounted to IR£5,500 to 6,500 back in the Eighties - also a time of recession and massive unemployment - just to get to the Part II.
Add in at least two years working for a reduced salary and/or paying more fees out to UCD for 2 years to do the Part III Professional Exam - which does not in and of itself increase the level of your degree or diploma qualification, and you woul be talking at least another IR£2,000 in fees.

That's IR£8,500 which is not that far behind the €13,000 the ARAE costs.
IR£8,500 is actually €10,795 when you convert it to Euros using the 1.27 conversion factor.

And that was back in the eighties, when you could buy a three bedroom bungalow in Wicklow for £IR42,000.
Even today a reduced-to-sell bungalow in the same estate costs €280,000
http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=477258

So house prices are still a factor of six more than they were back then.
Even if they fall back to a factor of four, assuming a pro-rate cost of fees inflation puts the cost of that five year tuition at over €40,000.

I think AAoI Members should reflect on these things when they are complaining about the cost of doing the ARAE.

To those who qualified back then, listening to AAoI members bleating about having to pay €13,500 to obtain an equivalent, not to the Part II but to the Part III must sound like so much sour grapes.

Of course ,it s not like for like - you cannot be tested over the range of development of concepts in a year long course.
And its arguable a more difficult course because it isn't full time and it is more intensive.
Its possible that MRIAI's would be worried about the equivalance of course content.
To them, allowing someone become a Part III after the ARAE might be wrong.

But I have some recent experience of doing an intensive course of training and I can tell you it was much harder than I thought and demanded a lot of my time. Its not the attendance at the course per se, but the out of course work without the support system of a full time college course to assist the applicant/student that causes concern. For unqualified architects working long hours for less fees in a difficult economic trading situation, it could prove impossible, even in terms of just managing the personal stress level while keep


The issue of public safety is just a joke, a pretext. Building contractors’ work is much more concerned than architects’ work on the issue of public safety, but still building contractors do not need to register. This prove very well that public safety is not the real issue…

I agree, but lets add politicians and bankers into the mix when it comes to giving assurances to the public.
There is also this issue of letting non-registered professionals to provide architectural services… If the problem was really about public safety, then why to let those non-registered professionals practicing?

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no non-architects proving architectural services direct to the public.
Surveyors, engineers and draughtspeople should be barred based on their lack of design competence and training.
Part I or Part II architects providing services through these non-design based offices should also be structly controlled.
You only have to look some of the results in the Irish countryside today to see what people with neither design ability nor training have produced.

For the record:
Architectural technicians are a grey area, because their course introduce them to design of small buildings in third year.
In fact, some architectural technicians go on to become award winning architects, so the potential for design quality is there.
But if they are going to provide design services, especially in something so potentially complex as a private house - let them get accredited as architects.
That way they can be sued as Architects, and that means we'll all be playing on a level playing field, not getting undercut on fees by prople trading off a lesser qualification with less accountability in a court of law.


And if you think I'm incorrect on this "hiding being a qualification" comment allow me relate the tale of a court case taken against an engineer who had designed a stairs in a shopping centre which had been allegedly of poor design resulting in a fall.
When questioned about it, the person who had designed it slinked awy from the charge by asking the court to show what liability a Structural Engineer had for the design of the stairs apart from the structure - had it collapsed thus causing the fall?
So much for non-architects providing architectural services.


Is it that the RIAI is lying on this issue, and is doing its best to prevent them practicing?

I think only people who are trained or have shown they are competent to design should be allowed design and all such should be registered.
I think only such persons as have been assessed as being capable and competent should be providing services direct to the public.
You possess an Opinion on something to which I contributed, the Building Control Act 2007.
I expect that Opinion addresses the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010, just like the RIAI Opinion does.
Unlike the RIAI Opinion, I suspect that the AAoI Opinion states that there is no legal fault with the proposed Bill.
I don't need a Barrister's Opinion to tell me that the Bill as it stands is a competent piece of Draft legislation.
Barristers Opinions are of limited use CK - both sides to a case have plenty of them, but only one side wins.


You have the legal opinion now…

Yes indeed and much obliged CK.
A very interesting read to be sure, to be sure!
Its rewarding to learn one has helped produce a competent document.

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 Bui

Postby XArchitect » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:25 pm

Mr Anthony M Collins SC has provided the Alliance with his Opinion on whether there is any conflict between the provisions of the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010 and the law of the European Union.

Mr Collins has written "I conclude that there is no conflict between the provisions of the Bill and the law of the European Union, notably the Directive".

A copy of the full Opinion will be published on the Architects' Alliance website during next week (w/c 13 Dec 2010).
XArchitect
Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Bui

Postby onq » Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:01 pm

I was surfing the jobs market this morning and decided I'd give this addy a try in response to their opportunistic spamming of my e-mail.

http://www.txtajob.ie/categories/show/A ... 4woddEYR2A

The first page I went to looking for Architec/Designer jobs yielded this:

2010-12-03 15:10:18 Architect- Open Source Donegal
2010-11-30 09:24:11 Graphic Designer - Retail Dublin
2010-11-22 09:54:10 Packaging Design Engineer Cork
2010-11-18 14:42:27 Drafts-person/ Design Engineer Longford
2010-11-17 12:17:33 Graphic Designer Cavan
2010-11-12 12:03:50 Graphic Designer Dublin
2010-11-08 09:42:50 Cad Operator Dublin
2010-11-05 09:47:34 Graphic Designer Dublin
2010-11-04 10:53:38 Architect Donegal
2010-10-26 10:52:46 Energy Assessor/Surveyor Dublin

Dismissing the rest and spotting the first and second last one yielded these results - my bold.

http://www.txtajob.ie/jobs/Architect-+Open+Source

Architect- Open Source(12467)
Job Type : Permanent / Full-time

Purpose:Provide technical advice to the project team, including project managers, analysts and
engineers
Accountable for bringing together different aspects of IT design and applying it in a relevant manner to the design of a SITA product or service
Key Responsibilities:Understand client requirements at a detailed level in order to translate them into technical specifications; - Develop creative and innovative architectural designs for a complex module with minimal supervision; - Work with project managers and peers to understand and solve challenging technical problems; - Work with project managers and peers to produce effort estimates; - Assess requirements and make design recommendations; - Produce models (integrated function, process dependency or entity relationship) that form the foundation for further analysis;
Responsible for requirements analysis and detailed design of various technical aspects such as software and network on a project basis
For further information and a more detailed job description please contact Elizabeth Gillooly, Senior Consultant HR or email

========================================

http://www.txtajob.ie/jobs/Architect

Architect-

We Provide technical advice to the project team, including project managers, analysts and engineers. Responsible for requirements analysis and detailed design of various technical aspects such as software and network on a project basis. Accountable for bringing together different aspects of IT design and applying it in a relevant manner to the design of a SITA product or service. Key Responsibilities:Understand client requirements at a detailed level in order to translate them into technical specifications; - Develop creative and innovative architectural designs for a complex module with minimal supervision; - Work with project managers and peers to understand and solve challenging technical problems; - Work with project managers and peers to produce effort estimates; - Assess requirements and make design recommendations; - Produce models (integrated function, process dependency or entity relationship) that form the foundation for further analysis; No. of Jobs: 1 Contract type: Permanent / Full Time

Days per week: 5 Hours per week: 36.25 Daily Hours: 7.25 Start date: 01/12/2010 Requirements
Experience Required: Fully Experienced.
Minimum: 8 Years.

Education Requirements:
Educational Qualification(s) Description
1.) Third Level 8+ years experience in an IT environment.
Salary: 40,000 Euro
Other Benefits: Pension Scheme Quinn Healthcare 25 days annual leave Sports Club Membership
Location : Letterkenny

========================================

The gist of the RIAI and the DOEHLG position on the Building Control Act 2007 is that protecting the Title Architect gives surety to members of the public when they are engaging someone using that professional title.

Judging from just these two job descriptions above, nothing could be further from the truth.

The rot started with the acknowledgement of "prior" use in the BCA 2007 itself, where it became abundantly clear that other people had been legitimately using the title for the following professions.

Section 18 (4) refers; -

(4) The use by a person of the words—

(a) “landscape architect”,
(b) “naval architect”,
(c) “architectural technician”,
(d) “architectural technologist”,
(e) “interior design architect”, or
(f) such other words as may be prescribed,

to describe himself or herself does not, in and of itself, constitute a contravention of subsection (1).


If this is the game to be played, then I should start calling myself an Interior Architect and and Exterior Architect.
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 Bui

Postby onq » Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:20 pm

The gist of the RIAI and the DOEHLG position on the Building Control Act 2007 is that protecting the Title Architect gives surety to members of the public when they are engaging someone using that professional title.

At the same time, there is a huge lack of clarity surrounding the use of the title in English-Speaking Countries the world over at the moment, deriving from prior use and current advertising practice.

Even when drafting the BCA 2007 itself, that bastion of titular correctness, it must have soon become abundantly clear that other people had been legitimately using the title Architect to denote a level of excellence in the following professions for many years, some more recent, some for centuries, and had a recogised right to continue to do so.

Section 18 (4) of the Building Control Act 2007 refers; -

(4) The use by a person of the words—

(a) “landscape architect”,
(b) “naval architect”,
(c) “architectural technician”,
(d) “architectural technologist”,
(e) “interior design architect”, or
(f) such other words as may be prescribed,

to describe himself or herself does not, in and of itself, constitute a contravention of subsection (1).


It seems that if the logic of this exception is followed through then I could start calling myself a Planning Architect, an Urban Design Architect, an Interior Architect and an Exterior Architect and work away and sign certs on that basis.

More importantly, the three clear uses of the name at a, b, and e despite being clear infringments on the domain of the title "architect" when looked at from a laypersons point of view, are included - I would venture to suggest - because of existing prior use.

Indeed the wording of the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010 could have taken another turn entirely, and some suitable title such as - dare I say it - "Building Design Architect" could have been "snuck in" to Section 18 Above which might have satisfied Mr. Montaut's professional ambitions.

But the majority of AAoI Members that I had met required a meaty response to what they perceived as the perfidy of the RIAI in keeping the Title to their MRIAI's, many of them only still wet-behind-the-years two year old whippershappers against the mature decades in professional practice held by many of the Grandfathers.

------------------------------

The fact that the Act has had to recognise prior use in relation to certain sub-sections of the design world should have been part of any question or any future separate question asked of a Barrister when seeking an opinion by Members of the AAoI.

Any such query should take account of the overlapping roles of the disciplines noted above with those of those using the Title Architect proper.

There is no suggestion that a landscape architect should not be allowed to design and build follies or pavilions - which have to be suitable for at least temporary human habitation - as part of his overall landscaping design.

No one is suggesting that a Naval Architect - ships being something many architects play around with designing as well - is incompetent to design the complex minimlaist planning that a sea-going vessel requires.

Finally, no one is suggestng that an Interior Architect is incompetent to design the services integration, health and safety compliace or fire safety escape route compliance that a modern interior, particularly a large scale commercial interior such as an hotel or a district or regional shopping centre requires. The work of the Interior Architect may have a major influence on determining the final form of the building such that it can change the external expression as well as the internal access and escape routes.

The simple expedient of calling themselvs Irish Architect or Alliance Architect could be enough to settle the matter for AAoI Members, but as usual, they cannot seem to focus on the weaknesses of the Act itself, being constantly led down the blind alley of fighting to use the Title that the RIAI has induced them to walk down.

========================================
Notwithstanding the above comments, and to give some perspective on how blurred and undermined the usage of the Title Architect has become, no greater source of debased usage arises than in the current jobs market.

I was surfing the jobs market only this morning and decided I'd give this addy a try in response to their opportunistic spamming of my e-mail.

http://www.txtajob.ie/categories/show/A ... 4woddEYR2A

The first page I went to looking for Architec/Designer jobs yielded this:

2010-12-03 15:10:18 Architect- Open Source Donegal
2010-11-30 09:24:11 Graphic Designer - Retail Dublin
2010-11-22 09:54:10 Packaging Design Engineer Cork
2010-11-18 14:42:27 Drafts-person/ Design Engineer Longford
2010-11-17 12:17:33 Graphic Designer Cavan
2010-11-12 12:03:50 Graphic Designer Dublin
2010-11-08 09:42:50 Cad Operator Dublin
2010-11-05 09:47:34 Graphic Designer Dublin
2010-11-04 10:53:38 Architect Donegal
2010-10-26 10:52:46 Energy Assessor/Surveyor Dublin

Dismissing the rest and spotting the first and second last one yielded these results - my bold.

http://www.txtajob.ie/jobs/Architect-+Open+Source

Architect- Open Source(12467)
Job Type : Permanent / Full-time

Purpose:Provide technical advice to the project team, including project managers, analysts and
engineers
Accountable for bringing together different aspects of IT design and applying it in a relevant manner to the design of a SITA product or service
Key Responsibilities:Understand client requirements at a detailed level in order to translate them into technical specifications; - Develop creative and innovative architectural designs for a complex module with minimal supervision; - Work with project managers and peers to understand and solve challenging technical problems; - Work with project managers and peers to produce effort estimates; - Assess requirements and make design recommendations; - Produce models (integrated function, process dependency or entity relationship) that form the foundation for further analysis;
Responsible for requirements analysis and detailed design of various technical aspects such as software and network on a project basis
For further information and a more detailed job description please contact Elizabeth Gillooly, Senior Consultant HR or email

========================================

http://www.txtajob.ie/jobs/Architect

Architect-

We Provide technical advice to the project team, including project managers, analysts and engineers. Responsible for requirements analysis and detailed design of various technical aspects such as software and network on a project basis. Accountable for bringing together different aspects of IT design and applying it in a relevant manner to the design of a SITA product or service. Key Responsibilities:Understand client requirements at a detailed level in order to translate them into technical specifications; - Develop creative and innovative architectural designs for a complex module with minimal supervision; - Work with project managers and peers to understand and solve challenging technical problems; - Work with project managers and peers to produce effort estimates; - Assess requirements and make design recommendations; - Produce models (integrated function, process dependency or entity relationship) that form the foundation for further analysis; No. of Jobs: 1 Contract type: Permanent / Full Time

Days per week: 5 Hours per week: 36.25 Daily Hours: 7.25 Start date: 01/12/2010 Requirements
Experience Required: Fully Experienced.
Minimum: 8 Years.

Education Requirements:
Educational Qualification(s) Description
1.) Third Level 8+ years experience in an IT environment.
Salary: 40,000 Euro
Other Benefits: Pension Scheme Quinn Healthcare 25 days annual leave Sports Club Membership
Location : Letterkenny

========================================

The aim of the RIAI and the DOEHLG was that the use of the Title Architect should be clearly defined and settled in the public mind.

Judging from Section 18 of the BCA 2007 and just these two job descriptions above, nothing could be further from the truth.

Will the Registrar Act to correct these abuses of the Title Architect?

Or will the extension of the prior use formula that resulted in Landscape Architect, Naval Architect and Interior Architect being "excused" in Section 18 of the Act simply be extended to cover the newer Titles of "Software Architect", "Netware Architect", "PHP Architect", thus fudging the issue of clarity even further?

If these uses of the Title Architect are not restricted then the Title will become used almost as an adjective and the nett result will be the undermining the primary Title, Architect.

This throwns the entire debacle about Grandfathers, whose prior use of the Title Archtiect in some cases goes back before the invention of the Personal Computer I'm typing this post on into a totally different perspective.

We now learn that in addition to the fudged title of Graduate Architect [which denigrates persons with qualification of more than ten years standing] .

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 Bui

Postby onq » Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:17 pm

XArchitect wrote:Mr Anthony M Collins SC has provided the Alliance with his Opinion on whether there is any conflict between the provisions of the Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010 and the law of the European Union.

Mr Collins has written "I conclude that there is no conflict between the provisions of the Bill and the law of the European Union, notably the Directive".

A copy of the full Opinion will be published on the Architects' Alliance website during next week (w/c 13 Dec 2010).



An Opinion on wording to which I contributed significantly and I have to find out about it here.
Did this result come as a surprise to the AAoI, or did they think I hadn't checked the wording fully?
Once again, the RIAI are setting the Public and Legal Agenda and the AAoI are merely reacting to that.

The last time the AAoI siezed the initiative and brought their case to the RIAI was at the JOC Meeting on 18th May 2010.

The admission on Drive Time in the presence of John Graby that "Building Designer" was acceptable to the AAoI Spokeperson Brian Montaut undermined their Members efforts to tell their story - as architects!
The missed opportunity to promote John O'Donoghue's Bill on that programme fatally undermined a promotional strategy that had been running under Gary Solan since the previous spring - losing all its momentum.
The RIAI then conducted a summer lobbying campaign inducing Members to partake by offering CPD points to all and sundry - the AAoI could have made mincemeat out of this but failed to act either widely or incisively.
Finally we learnt that the RIAI had obtained a definitive Legal Opinion suggesting that the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010 may be unlawful, which I understand was circulated widely and was raised in discussion here.

No doubt the rank and file TDs who were faced with this Opinion were profoundly affected - given the year that is in it - and the allegation that John O'Donoghue had engaged in sponsoring an unlawful Bill would have been especially hard to stomach, for John himself, as much as others.
Without the necessary political feelers out to sense this strategy and devise countermeasures in a timely fashion, the AAoI, which started out on the offensive, was on the back foot, because there was no-one active in that organization capable of dealing with the politics of the situation.

At this late stage, having alienated the one Graduate who stood with them on their Grandfather Bill [me] and having sidelined the - dare I say it - "Architect of the Amendment", Gary Solan, the AAoI has finally started to see the light as to why it should concentrate on the Directives, the Qualifications and how and why these things might affect any resolution.

Now they might begin to see the light; -

The suffix MRIAI (IRL) - which is not called up in any Annex to DIR 2005/36/EC - has no standing in Europe whatsover.
The fact that most AAoI Members have no prescribed qualification means that they are not entitled to practice in Europe otherwise.
But there is a third route to recognition in Europe that anyone with half a brain cell should have been able to spot without breaking sweat.

One honorary Interweb Star to the first person who suggests this alternative resolution.
Hint: no its not the Architectural Technologist qualification so beloved by CK.

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 Bui

Postby DOC » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:22 pm

onq wrote:But there is a third route to recognition in Europe that anyone with half a brain cell should have been able to spot without breaking sweat.

One honorary Interweb Star to the first person who suggests this alternative resolution.
Hint: no its not the Architectural Technologist qualification so beloved by CK.


Com'on ONQ, tell us!
DOC
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:57 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Bui

Postby onq » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:39 pm

DOC wrote:
onq wrote:But there is a third route to recognition in Europe that anyone with half a brain cell should have been able to spot without breaking sweat.

One honorary Interweb Star to the first person who suggests this alternative resolution.
Hint: no its not the Architectural Technologist qualification so beloved by CK.


Com'on ONQ, tell us!


I will not!

You have to make an effort Doc. :)

I'll give you a hint - I was once one of these, for a year.

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 Bui

Postby DOC » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:54 pm

ARIAI

?
DOC
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:57 am
Location: Dublin

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Bui

Postby onq » Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:54 pm

(deleted)
Last edited by onq on Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Bui

Postby onq » Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:55 pm

DOC wrote:ARIAI

?


Most impressive Doc.

I hereby award you your Interweb Star )) * ((

You really are the sharpest clutch pencil in the drawer [that's going back a bit].

Yes the suffix ARIAI, which I gloried in having for one year, is STILL listed in the DIR 2005/36/EC as conferring Europe-wide recognition.

Of course, having an RIAI suffix which conferred equal European recognition to the MRIAI suffix would be an utter embarrassment to the RIAI, so having fought long and hard to get this recognition in the 1970's and 1980's, they have quietly abandoned it since May 2008 because Graduates are entitled to apply for this suffix.

Graduates were formerly able to become ARIAI's and if they could still do so they could then rely this as well as their prescribed qualification with which to trade throughout Europe, but can no longer do so since the new appellation, Graduate Architect, is not included in the current Directive, which basically just transposed the original four categories in the original Architect's Directive DIR 85/384/EEC into the new Mutual Recognition of QUalifications Directive DIR 2005/36/EC

ARIAI was very much a second class suffix in the RIAI hierarchy though since you couldn't vote on RIAI policy using it and, having found that my voice would not count in this less-than-democratic organization even though I had my Part II's and was an ARIAI, I left them at it.

In 1994 the ILS issued an advisory in broad confirmity with customary practice and the Directive at the time DIR 85/384/EEC, the Architect's Directive, which recognised Certificates issued by several categories of persons, including persons with 10 years or more providing professional services, and the holders of the UCD Degree and the Bolton Street Diploma.

Ironically the holders of MRIAI and ARIAI suffixes as well as others such as M.I. Arch. Soc were not recognised solely due to them having these suffixes. They needed AS WELL either the 10 years experience and/or a prescribed qualification in order to have their certificates accepted because it was known to the ILS that the several bodies had - wait for it - UNQUALIFIED members with less than 10 years experience and - HORRORS! - Technician Members as well!!!

My, my - how times have changed.

So from 1994-on my certs were accepted and I saved the membership fee and left then to their annual prize givings and got on with my work.

Its been fun opening discussions with them regarding Registration in the past 18 months and confirming that the first Plan Expo Building of the Year Award [2000] was issued for one of my designs.

Mind you ARIAI may not suit either the AAoI or the RIAI.

The AAoI might not like it because of the non-voting status and because it confers an "associate member status" - mind you Montaut is odd about that RIAI - the bit of distance might suit him.

The RIAI might not like it because it would be open to Graduates to avail of this title, cementing their claim through their qualification to use the Title Architect throughout Europe.

Ho hum - the pressures of being Registrar must be enormous...

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

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

Postby CK » Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:22 pm

I have just learned that Lecorbusier was a self-trained architect qualified in arts and decoration. This is probably one of the best kept secret in the history of French education.

If Lecorbusier was born today, he would probably be discouraged to practice in Ireland and prevented to practice in France, his country of glory.

Such a waste….
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby parka » Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:27 pm

CK wrote:If Lecorbusier was born today, he would probably be discouraged to practice in Ireland and prevented to practice in France, his country of glory.


But he wasn't born today, so get over it
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby CK » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:39 pm

parka wrote:
CK wrote:If Lecorbusier was born today, he would probably be discouraged to practice in Ireland and prevented to practice in France, his country of glory.


But he wasn't born today, so get over it


Some like him are still alive today: Tadao Ando for example. Some others will be born or arrive on the scene tomorrow...

The act of preventing self-taught architects to practice does not suit the interests of Architecture. It only suits the interests of those, without as much talent and skills, who are authorized to use the title...

I cannot get over it… How can someone love architecture and ignore such a discrimination ?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby DOC » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:12 pm

CK wrote:The act of preventing self-taught architects to practice does not suit the interests of Architecture. It only suits the interests of those, without as much talent and skills, who are authorized to use the title...


Honestly, this is just getting silly! A sentence involving the words clutching and straws comes to mind!
DOC
Member
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:57 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby Sybok » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:30 pm

That Le Corbusier was a gentleman architect is no secret. As was Frank Lloyd Wright, Marcel Breuer, Jean Prouve. The only 'waste' is the time you've wasted bringing this to our attention. Read a book.
Sybok
Member
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:27 pm
Location: Galway City

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby onq » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:06 am

From "Ove Arup - Master Builder of the Twentieth Century"

Ref: Chapter 7 - notes to pages 141-151

Note 6.

"6. OA, Diary, 15 Nov and 19 Dec 1950.There is a dispute over whether Fry invited le Corbusier to be Partners in the project or whether the invitation was the other way around.Le Corbusier, Perret and Freysinnet were the only 'unqualified' architects permitted to practise in France by the Vichy Government during the Nazi occupation: thus affiliation upset other CIAM Members."

CIAM = Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby Paul Clerkin » Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:34 am

Hmmmm maybe CK needs to collaborate with the current Irish regieme ;)
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby CK » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:02 pm

I read "Vers un architecture" in French about 16 years ago... I still go through it sometimes.

To insinuate that Le Corbusier had any spiritual links with the Nazi ideology is silly...

Have you compared Nazi architecture to Le Corbusier' s design? Have you compared Nazi'’ s art to Le Corbusier' Art work?

I guess that you guys are just making provocations to start a conversation here...

Le Corbusier had the choice to immigrate to the US like others, or to stay and obey the occupier's rules. I think that his creativity was in itself a form of resistance to the invader's ideology. I am just surprised that he was permitted to practice has his work was in total disagreement with the Hitler' Neoclassic style. I am not an expert in French history, but I guess that the Vichy government had to compromise for the sake of peace and that the Germans did not really mind about Le Corbusier as he was not Jewish or communist and not working in Germany.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby CK » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:17 pm

onq wrote:From "Ove Arup - Master Builder of the Twentieth Century"

Ref: Chapter 7 - notes to pages 141-151

Note 6.

"6. OA, Diary, 15 Nov and 19 Dec 1950.There is a dispute over whether Fry invited le Corbusier to be Partners in the project or whether the invitation was the other way around.Le Corbusier, Perret and Freysinnet were the only 'unqualified' architects permitted to practise in France by the Vichy Government during the Nazi occupation: thus affiliation upset other CIAM Members."

CIAM = Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne


To my understanding Freysinnet never worked as an architect. He was working as a structural engineer. I was not aware that there was a restriction for the practice of architecture under the Vichy government... To my knowledge the first restrictions arrived in France much later, in 1977.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby teak » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:29 pm

Just chipping in with another stark revelation :-


Walter Gropius could not draw.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby shadow » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:20 pm

oh god here we go again.....

The reason why there are so many (yes many) architects of Corbusier's generation were "unqualified" was because of the lack of schools of architecture. Working as an architect was a completely different thing a century ago, yes that long..... 100 years. Most apprenticed in offices before being elected (invited to join because you did not apply) to institutes (of gentlemen architects) [note to self Groucho Mark’s famous quote….], not too many women around either it appears. Qualification, training, experience are all an often murky past. Ando’s past is of particular interest since it appears to have been kept well hidden, that would be a terrific subject for an investigative biographer. Many supposed untrained unqualified architects are not what they seem often hiding their training or apprenticeship preferring the myth or illusion of the artist being born rather than being taught. This is the biggest fallacy around. Many have alternative artistic training and experience in associated or parallel areas. Practice, Practice, Practice, is the key...... there are no absolutes... leave Corbusier where he lies (in the past). By the way many gentlemen architects could through their means (money) employ talent to execute their ideas taking in turn all the credit, so no different than today. There are only a few architects about whom it can be proven execute their work from the inception (sketch) through details to execution, Aalto, Fehn, Utzon, Murcutt to name a few.
shadow
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 1:00 am

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby wearnicehats » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:36 pm

This train of thought is so utterly ridiculous it drives me, once again up the wall.

CK:

This is not 1908.

Do you think that, if regulation had been in place in 1908, that people like Josef Hoffman or Otto Wagner would be encouraging Corb to sit about and wait for his grandfather?

I hate to break it to you but all the “self-taught” architects that you constantly refer to have something which you – and 99.9% of the rest of us - do not have. REAL TALENT. You are not a talented architect CK, no matter what you think. I am not talented either. I am competent, however. But that’s my opinion. I expect you think you are competent. Again; your opinion. What to do – Oh I know – take a competency test.

That said let’s humour you (or me, really) for a while. Hmmm let’s see – If Le Corbusier was alive today.....

He’d give out to you for spelling his (self assumed) “name” wrong for a start

But most of all I suspect he’d tell you to go away, do your exams and stop trying to pretend to be something that you clearly are not. You’ve tried this one before CK and it’s laughable. It’s the same as someone saying – I did first year medicine so I’m obviously the same as Magdi Yacoub.

As the man himself said:

I prefer drawing to talking. Drawing is faster, and leaves less room for lies.
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby parka » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:59 pm

wearnicehats wrote: Hmmm let’s see – If Le Corbusier was alive today.....


He'd never get granted a D.A.C. for his ramp design :p
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: Lecorbusier was academically qualified in decorative Art

Postby CK » Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:46 pm

wearnicehats wrote:This train of thought is so utterly ridiculous it drives me, once again up the wall.

CK:

This is not 1908.

Do you think that, if regulation had been in place in 1908, that people like Josef Hoffman or Otto Wagner would be encouraging Corb to sit about and wait for his grandfather?

I hate to break it to you but all the “self-taught” architects that you constantly refer to have something which you – and 99.9% of the rest of us - do not have. REAL TALENT. You are not a talented architect CK, no matter what you think. I am not talented either. I am competent, however. But that’s my opinion. I expect you think you are competent. Again; your opinion. What to do – Oh I know – take a competency test.

That said let’s humour you (or me, really) for a while. Hmmm let’s see – If Le Corbusier was alive today.....

He’d give out to you for spelling his (self assumed) “name” wrong for a start

But most of all I suspect he’d tell you to go away, do your exams and stop trying to pretend to be something that you clearly are not. You’ve tried this one before CK and it’s laughable. It’s the same as someone saying – I did first year medicine so I’m obviously the same as Magdi Yacoub.

As the man himself said:

I prefer drawing to talking. Drawing is faster, and leaves less room for lies.


Well Wearnicehats,

I have practiced architecture for the last 17 years and I started to study arts & architecture about 23 years ago… If you pretend that I am not architect… Then what am I?

There are many self-taught architects who made it to the hall of fame… Many of them do not have the influence that Le Corbusier had, but they are still much more influential than most of the so-called qualified architects…

I am not a super-star and none of us is… But I never pretended to be one… I am just looking to continue practicing without being bothered, without having any problem to define myself in front of my clients, without having to call a MRIAI to certify my work, without the RIAI to misrepresent my skills in front of potential clients.

One of my point is that qualification does not guaranty quality and self-education does not mean incompetence. Those guys are proving my point: Le Corbusier, Gustave Eiffel, Mies, FLW, Prouvé, Gray or Scott and much more recently Ianis Xenakis (who died 6 or 8 years ago), Nail Cakirhan, Will Bruder, David Salmela, Harry Gesner, Wendell Burnette and many others…

If you prefer me to take the example of unknown self-taught architects to prove that many self-trained architects are skilled, I can provide pages of names…

This is not 1908… But open your eyes… Most of us are self-taught using computers. I learned by myself how to create a website, how to use photoshop and most of the softwares that I am using today….

Even If I had studied at DIT, I would not have learned about part M of the Building Regulations because when I left university in 1995, there was no building regulations in the Republic of Ireland. I would not have learned about government forms of contracts for public work because they did not exist. I would not have been taught to use Revit for the same reason… And so on…

We are all self-taught Wearnicehats. The problem is that some who spent time in university want to have privilege on the others… It is common sense that if academic studies are necessary to gain knowledge, apprenticeship and professional experience are much more appropriate… Any one who pretends the contrary must be a scholar or a degree holder misleading an audience to protect his own interests… Don’t forget that I studied too. You may create some doubts in the mind of a fully self-trained architect on this subject, but not in mine.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

Re: Le Corbusier + issue of the title "Architect" and the Bu

Postby CK » Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:03 pm

Will someone tell Paul that there is a mismatch between threads up here...
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland