Only new to this forum and very surprised by this thread. There are a number of Architects presently working in Ireland who although they may not have had the luxury of a University Education they have nevertheless put in many many hours into learning their craft and do a fine job.
Least the elite among us should forget, you only have to look back at your early European Architecture where some of the most celebrated Architects were originally Artists or Stone Masons. How soon we forget our humble beginnings. The R.I.A.I is after all only a club for university qualified Architects they should not be allowed to control the profession.
This new act will do nothing for Irish Architecture or the general public. It will restrict access to the profession, distort the market and by present policy could very well lead to anti-competitive practice. We need to tread carefully and we like it or not need to take on board those who have established their credentials and have been operating successfully for many years.
CK wrote:Hi ONQ,
My personal experience about the registration procedure is that the RIAI is trying to limit as much as possible the numbers of architects to be registered. It is not related to the skills and the knowledge as it should be to protect the public.
For the purpose of comparing fees, I have contacted, the A.R.B. (UK), the C.I.A.T. (Technicians UK), lâ€™ Ordre des Architectes (Architects France) and I.E.I (Irish Engineers). I found that these institutes request only a small fraction of the sum charged by the A.R.A.E. for a professional examination based on experience. The A.R.A.E. claims that fees charged for the examination only cover their cost â‚¬11,500 (exam) + â‚¬1,800 (lectures), so how can other institutes charge only a small fraction of these sums for an exam of similar level? The fees of â‚¬6,500 requested by the R.I.A.I. Technical assessment board are also very expensive compared to other institutesâ€¦
R.I.A.I. members were always privileged with the procedure. M.R.I.A.I. have paid the lowest fees for registration and they were the first on the register list. The R.I.A.I. were already informing the public about the necessity for an architect to be registered when the registration was in place for their members only and not for other applicants. The R.I.A.I. has used its position as the registration body to promote its members.
Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I., is not equitable for architects with more than 7 years of experience working in the state who are requested to pass a prescribed register examination. This examination as described by the R.I.A.I. and the A.R.A.E (appointed by the R.I.A.I. to prepare the register examination) requests the knowledge and skills of a newly qualified architect, it is not appropriate for experienced architects. Many experienced MRIAI architects would fail the exam, because it does not suit experienced professionals who specialized in a field of architecture. Architects, as many other professionals are specializing within small, medium or large practices, delivering services for small, medium or large projects. The specialization is also related to the type of projects, such as residential, commercial, industrial and so on. It can also be related to the practice of architecture itself, planning, design, project management, technology, theory, etcâ€¦ The A.R.A.E. examination is focusing on every aspects of architecture in general, and this approach does not reflect the skills of experienced architects, but the academic skills of newly qualified and inexperienced professionals who have not yet found their way within the professional world.
NK111 wrote:<snip interesting cost comparison>
Anyway, as you can see they're not protecting their members, just certain members. Why else has nothing REAL been done about tender pre-quals? you can't even design an office now without 200 years of experience and financial records!!!
onq wrote:Can I say that you're pushing an open door here and I am currently helping advise a colleague who will be taking the Technical Assessment Route so I know what he's going to have to face. In relation to the RIAI Members being given favoured treatment I think we should wait and see. The Registration Board isn't only about admission to the Register, its also about regulation of members and striking off members if required.
As for the standards set, I'm not sure what you mean. Everybody practising architecture has to update themselves on legislation the services they offer: planning, building control, environmental,, waste management, energy conservation, conservation of buildings, you name it you have to have a handle on it of you;re doing it. Whatever about BER ratings and Conservation, every architect should know about the laws governing planning, building regulation, health and safety, contract administration and certification. This needs constant updating as new legislation is published. You don't need to rattle them off verbatim, but you need a good working knowledge of the current legislation and how it may apply.
CK wrote:Your are turning a blind eye on the institute from which you probably have membership. If you were an architect non member of the RIAI you would admit that they have already listed all their members on the registration list, but non of the others... They are already advertising the fact that non registered architects are commiting an offence, but only their members had the oppotunity to register at this stage... The R.I.A.I., appointed by the government to carry out registration of architects, has to this date, registered noone except its members...
If that is not anti-competitive... Then what is?
CK wrote:You must be kidding... I have worked with registered architects in the UK. France and the R.O.I... Many of them use technicians for compliance with the Building Regulations, because aged 50 or around, they are completely out of touch with the new regulations. They would not even be able to prepare drawings for a planning application because they are not familiar with the 2001 planning regulations. The fact is that these architects are running a business, they are directors, employers, their employees are doing the practical work, the directors are in contact with the clients... These guys are doing the first sketches only... And they put their name on the project...
The majority of MRIAI over 45 years of age would fail the A.R.A.E. register examination, because this examination is designed for the knowledge and the skills of an inexperienced newly qualified academic... It is common knowledge that the skills gained within a university are not well adapted to the the one requested on the ground...
The fact is that a newly qualified architect never seen any of his/her design being built... What is architecture? Designing building that will never be built? or designing building that are built...
The very academic and unfounded belief that a qualified and inexperienced architect has more aptitude than a self-trained and experienced architect is a joke... A self-trained architect should not be subject to an academic examination but he / she should be assessed on his / her work on which he / she gained skills and experience... For this reason the A.R.A.E. examination is inadequate...
The problem is that the RIAI is interested first by titles, graduation, degrees and academism... Knowledge and skills only come second... The RIAI and some other institutes within the construction industry are the roots of a technocracy which goal is to protect the interests of some of their members first, quality, value for money and satisfied clients come only second on their list...
onq... You have to be M.R.I.A.I. or ignorant to pretend not being aware of that...
onq wrote:So the fact that I'm 48, run a sole tradership, and perform all my own work on planning applications, fire cert applications, tender documents, construction details, survey drawings, feasibility studies, master plans, compliance inspections, etc. and have taught myself most of what I know about computers, CAD, word-processing, website creation, company formation, employment law, Health and Safety legislation and the Companies Act makes me something of a sport does it? I don't think so. Many architects are all rounders. Many are sole traders. We have to sink or swim.
Graduates of a five-year course don't approach Registration through that route AFAIK. That's the technical Assessment Route for persons without Part II. You are quite wrong about the A.R.A.E. route from my reading of it. It seems quite an arduous process for someone not used to being challenged in design. My years in Bolton Street were demanding of me and I have five in which to develop my design ability. The A.R.A.E. route allows one year for such assessments, but its structured to allow repeats IIRC.
onq wrote:That's simplistic and trite - and wrong.
My first design work built was interior fit out work - the then new An Post public counters 3rd year working for an MRIAI. My next work was the revamp of Crowes in Ballsbridge, interiors and elevation. 4th year summer working for an MRIAI and with a fellow student. My next work was Arran Court, Arran Quay, 5th year during thesis year working for an MRIAI. I had several designs built before I qualified. Many competent architectural student get that chance. There's even a nasty switchback bend going into Riyadh in Saudi Arabia with my name on it. Working for an engineering firm in London after finishing 2nd year.
I cannot comment in detail on the A.R.A.E. route because its not my route, but I know from advising a colleague that he has to put forward completed work as well as sit the exam and be assessed on design work. It most definitely isn't geared towards newly qualified architects. OTC its designed to accommodate, assess and develop people who aren't graduates of a full time design course but who have provided professional architectural services for a considerable period.
What!? As soon as I saw the word "technocracy" I dozed off - sorry. Unfounded opinionated waffle affects me like that...
onq wrote:My other reply to your previous post showing how you have made two totally wrong assumptions should have embarrassed you enough so that I don't need to comment on this, CK...
CK wrote:You then have specialized with small projects, otherwise you could not do all that by yourself... However, if you had to pass the ARAE exam, then they would also ask you to demonstrate skill for large projects as well...
onq wrote:You seem like an active sort CK, always jumping at conclusions
You seem like an active sort CK, always jumping at conclusions
You logic, however, leaves something to be desired.[...]Your assertion that only MRIAIs had the opportunity to register is incorrect.
onq wrote:"Small Projects"? Most people in a hole stop digging CK, but you keep showering yourself with dirt. You couldn't be more wrong.
I worked in a large office as a one-man team, occasionally partnering with up to three people for the larger projects. That's the benefit of being a competent all-rounder. You don't need endless workstations of draughtspeople backing you up. You don't need fleets of secretarial staff and you only need to confer with engineers and technicians on points of principle, as opposed to relying on them to "do your drawings".
I suppose 40,000 sqft of an office building already mentioned is a small project in a global sense nowadays, but in Ireland in 1990 it wasn't. Nor was Enterprise Zoning development in West Dublin for 1,000,000 sq ft for which the office I worked for won a Plan Expo/RIAI Award in 2000 for best building - for part of it. And the house we completed in South County Dublin in 2003 was circa 15,500 sq ft and remains one of the largest private dwellings in Dublin.
You don't pick up professional abilities and competence off the street y'know, or "teaching yourself" as you seem to think. The five year course merely grounds you in law and design and technical ability and history of the profession. You learn how to provide a professional service to your client from the best, try to improve on what they teach you and take long hours to upskill and practice your abilities with computers, draughting and word processing. That doesn't mean I don't have my weak points but the balance of my abilities allows me to operate as a competent member of the profession, with specialities in obtaining difficult permissions and carrying out remedial works.
For the record, I won't be sitting the AREA exam, a process on which you seem to be so fixated, for some reason, because Option "C" will be the appropriate route for me: I'm over 35, a graduate from a five year full time course, with more than ten years practising as an architect at all levels and more than seven years working under the guidance of Members of the RIAI. I am by no means cocky I can pass that test first time, because you can always be thrown by presenting in an unfamiliar environment or be caught by a question about a wrinkle in the law you don't know yet.
CK wrote:Well I have looked toward this route... The fact is that they are asking knowledge and skills for any type of projects (Industrial, commercial, Public, Private), any size (Large, small, medium), all skills (design, conracts, Health & Safety, Project Management,...)
You know like me that only academic have this type of knowledge... They know superficialy everytihng but they have an approfondite experience of nothing... THe fact is that an experience architect is specialised. I have personaly never worked on public sector projects in the ROI, but I have done so in the UK...
A part of the ARAE assessment will be very academic, it will include an exam with questions to be answered by heart on subjects such as health and safety, contracts, and so on...
When I deal with a new type of project... I make some research before meeting the client and starting the design, because it is what an architect should do... Now part of the ARAE exam will ask me to answer by heart on any type of contracts available in the ROI... They will ask me to answer by heart on any planning or technical issue... These are not the necessary skills for an architect... These are the skills of an academic...
CK wrote:You may not be RIAI, but you wish you were...
You may not be ignorant, but you choose to ignore important matters with tregard to the subject...
Then I was not that wrong after all...
CK wrote:I will not go this way ONQ... You can pretend whatever... Stop your ego... I could talk about myself too... I am qualified too you know... But this thread is not about you or me... you are loosing the point...
I have to go for today... If you wish to continue talking about the thread subject, I will continue the conversation on Monday... I f you prefer talking about yourself, then find someone else to talk to...
Have a good weekend...
CK wrote:I am not an activist onq, or not in your definition of the term... I am not involved with any party or any political cause... I am just trying to defend my interests which are shared with others with regard to registration... Obviously we have different interests on this matter...
The position that you defend is anti-competitive and it is also socialy and academicaly selective...
You criticise my logic with unfounded arguments... You pretend that some non MRIAI have had the opportunity to Register... Can you tell me who else had the opportunity to be registered to this date since registration started in November 2009?
The answer is no one... Then why do you question my logic on this ground?
onq wrote:We have already traversed this ground. Only Members of the RIAI can do that because only they have reached the standard required, namely the RIAI Part III Professional Practice standard. Everyone else will probably have to work hard to reach this standard without the support of a third level institution or MRIAI Mentor giving them guidance and assistance. I know I have worked hard on revision, trying to bring all that I know to a stage where I can recall it on demand - a process that isn't completed yet.
If that isn't your point then I have this to say to you.
Since November 2009 everyone who was eligible to apply to be Registered could have applied. Before that they could not have applied because the Registration Board was not sitting, having only had its chairperson appointed in June 2009.