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

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

Postby PlanE » Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:29 pm

CK wrote:No Plan E, what you stated above is not the truth... Architects in the UK just have the choice... If they want to be registered with the 2 bodies, then they pay the 2 fees, otherwise one registration and then 1 fee is enough...


read it more closely... as I said, they have to pay two subscriptions for the same service as a single body like the RIAI is aiming to provide: "the same duty: the maintenance, control and promotion of a registrar for architects". So yes, it is the truth
PlanE
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:30 pm

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

Postby CK » Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:34 pm

BenK wrote:I honestly don't really see what your problem is CK. Go through the necessary RIAI procedures or don't. I think they have it laid out pretty clear as to what has to be done to become registered. You seem to be doing a lot of whinging.

They are acting in the line of those who have destroyed the world economy by lying to the public and focusing on their personal interests instead of the interests of the wider community

And frankly I think the above statement is ridiculously over the top. What exactly are they lying to the public about? How are they not focusing on the interests of the wider community? They are trying to ensure that people who call themselves architects are indeed what they say they are, i.e., therefore focusing on the interests of the wider community.


OK BenK,

Lets get into the subject in depth...

People who are looking after your teeth, to ensure that they stay in good condition, who heal them or remove them if necessary, are called dentist... None is permitted to sell this service without being a qualified dentist. The same apply to surgeons, pharmacists and so on...

Now compare the health system to the architectural system... Everyone is able to sell architectural services, but only some can call themselves architects... What is this? surely not protecting the public is it?

If you want to protect the public who is frequently looking for value, If you want to raise the standards and quality of the built environment, the protection of the title architect is not the answer because it protects only the interests of some qualified individuals..

If you want to protect the public and improve the quality of the built environment then the system must be changed. Building control must be enforced to higher standards, Compliance with Building Regulations must be ascertained by third parts which are not employed by the developper...

I carry out pre-purchase building surveys. Some of my clients shown me some certificates from chartered surveyors and registered architects which should never have been issued. In kildare a certificate of exemption from planning permission was delivered by a chartered surveyor regarding a rear extension which had a gable wall higher than the walls from the existing dwelling...

A new dwelling built on a corner site in Lucan had a registered architect certificate for compliance with Building Regulations when windows at first floor were not complying with TGD part K from the Building Regulations...

And BenK, believe me this is only the tip of the iceberg...
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 » Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:38 pm

PlanE wrote:read it more closely... as I said, they have to pay two subscriptions for the same service as a single body like the RIAI is aiming to provide: "the same duty: the maintenance, control and promotion of a registrar for architects". So yes, it is the truth


Plan E I have looked at it in details... All you need in the UK is the ARB registration to practice... All you need to pay is the ARB membership...
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 » Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:46 pm

henno wrote:good question.

The 'title' technical architect is specific the computer programming world and not the built environment.This insurance firm is looking for a programmer.

I dont know why CK is bring Architectural technicians into the mix because that is another matter altogether. the term architectural technician has been exempted from restriction under the building control bill.
The title 'Architectural Technologist' exists only to those who hold MCIAT status from CIAT. This membership level allows a member to practise in a self employed status.

I suppose the question as to 'what is an architect' is a lot clearer within the design team of a medium or large project. Its at domestic level that the explanation becomes blurred.

reading the 'official journal of the european union' L 255 it states the training of an architect should lead to the acquisition of 11 skills....
many of these 'skills' are more applicable to enginners and technicians than university educated Architects in todays education system.


Henno, my point is that protecting certain qualified architects will not help for the public not being abused...

I am trying to show the non sense of the registration by asking what is called someone practicing architecture? It used to be called an architect... If this person is not registered what is it called now?

I am trying to say that registered architects, chartered surveyors are not always the real deal. Some guys were qualified 20 or 30 years ago and they are struggling to keep in touch with the new technologies, regulations and building standards...
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 parka » Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:01 pm

CK wrote:Some guys were qualified 20 or 30 years ago and they are struggling to keep in touch with the new technologies, regulations and building standards...


Make that 15 years. In that time I've done two Masters and a post grad and I still feel that I'm missing something.
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

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

Postby parka » Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:02 pm

CK wrote:Plan E I have looked at it in details... All you need in the UK is the ARB registration to practice... All you need to pay is the ARB membership...


I know some UK architects that don't want to join RIBA as they fell they are just paying for free monthly magazine (which can be read on-line)


Oh wait...........:D
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

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

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:01 pm

CK wrote:OK BenK,

Lets get into the subject in depth...

People who are looking after your teeth, to ensure that they stay in good condition, who heal them or remove them if necessary, are called dentist... None is permitted to sell this service without being a qualified dentist. The same apply to surgeons, pharmacists and so on...

...


a great example. If you want to be a dentist you should be a qualified dentist as seen under the regulations of the country in which you practice

Similarly you should be a qualified architect under those rules

Just because you don't like those rules doesn't mean you can practice regardless

I'm tired of you CK - do your exams
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 gunter » Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:06 pm

henno wrote:The 'title' technical architect is specific to the computer programming world . . . .this insurance firm is looking for a programmer.


A nerd you say ;)

I suppose we have 'tree-surgeons' and 'piss-artists', so no point in getting too precious about professional titles getting hyphenated.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

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

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:15 pm

gunter wrote:A nerd you say ;)

I suppose we have 'tree-surgeons' and 'piss-artists', so no point in getting too precious about professional titles getting hyphenated.


although that's probably where "interior architect" came about, whatever the hell that "title" is supposed to mean
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 PlanE » Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:37 am

wearnicehats wrote:although that's probably where "interior architect" came about, whatever the hell that "title" is supposed to mean


It could be an architect who spends all his life indoors? :confused:
PlanE
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:30 pm

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

Postby RKQ » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:11 am

wearnicehats wrote:a great example.


A terrible example. Reputation of a Dentist is paramount... their are a lot of "Butchers" out there... just ask around, we all know of at least one!

I think people should read Part 3 and compare it to Part 4 & Part 5 - it is very interesting and reveals so much.
IMO Part 4 & 5 are inclusive and fair with strong safe guards in place. Possible interview might be required after you submitt your CV.

Whereas Part 3 is designed to look fair but is exclusive.
  • Definite interview, (It was quite aggressive on pilot scheme)
  • 4 months full time preparation,
  • Unfair interview panel without members of the public ( it is supposed to be for consumer protection)
  • Hugh cost of €6500 (for an in-house interview & assessment)
  • 50% fail rate on pilot scheme - after Appeal - this doesn't instill confidence. ( 4 out of 18 passed before appeal)
  • The onus of proof is on the applicant.
  • One chance only - no second chance to re-sit! (Imagine if this was applied to Driving Test!)


How many current members of RIAI would pass Tech Assessment?
How many current members of RIAI could afford to risk €6,500-00?

Remember that RIBA are reconsidering the registration of title! :D
RKQ
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:50 am

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

Postby Wild Bill » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:14 am

This issue can be parcelled and presented anyway you like, when it's stripped back to bear essentials, it is obvious to me at least that it is primarily an exercise in self preservation by the RIAI. If not instigated by them then certainly grasped in a strangle hold by them.

The fees involved here are at worst extortionate and at best prohibitive.
Wild Bill
Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:24 am

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

Postby teak » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:50 pm

Only an outsiders idea - professional harmony is in everyone's interest.:)
(I am assuming that all architectural technicians are equivalent to/readily upskillable to "architectural technologist" level. I don't know if this is valid.)

Here goes.

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


1. Building design may be done WHOLLY by architects or WHOLLY by architectural technologists according to a client's wishes.
The former profession perhaps for those with a preference for space/light considerations; the latter for those using less novel spatial design but more desire for aspects of detailing.

2. Both professions may describe their services as "architectural design services".

3. No other profession other than architects or architectural technicians may claim to offer "architectural design services".

4. Architects may employ architectural technologists and vice-versa.
Both will describe themselves either ONLY as "architects" or ONLY as "architectural technologists" according to the profession of the principals of that practice.
Where the principals of a practice consist of a roughly equal number of both architects and architectural technologists, then that firm may describe itself as joint architectural design practices, i.e. "Architects & Architectural Technologists".

5. Unless the practice is a joint architectural design practice, it will ONLY advertise under its own appropriate professional heading.
So, for example, there would be 2 separate sections in the Golden Pages for Architects and Architectural Technologists.
JADPs would be allowed advertise in both simultaneously.

6. People who choose to employ BOTH an architect AND an architectural technologist (i.e. one chosen by the client, not from the architect's employees or regular sub-contractors) for the same project may do so without any objection from either the architect or the architectural technologist. By this I mean that a person who wants an arch technologist to modify/improve the detailing of a building designed by an architect should not encounter objections/obstruction from the architect on grounds of design copyright or any other "professional integrity" type sulk. Neither may an architectural technologist doing an "faithful" extension to an existing building object if the client elects to reject aspects of his design and reverts to an architect for modification of those same aspects. ;)

7. Neither architect nor architectural technologist should interfere with a client's choice to engage other professions, e.g. interior designers, who may be involved in the final styling design of a building as long as such other professionals do not alter the major architectural objectives of the original design.


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


This system gives an objective equality of esteem to each profession.
It shows clearly in business directories which profession pertains to each practice.
It is then a subjective decision for an individual client as to which profession (or perhaps both) that she/he would engage to undertake design work on their building.

Over to you.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

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

Postby PlanE » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:05 pm

teak wrote:Only an outsiders idea - professional harmony is in everyone's interest.:)


It all probably comes down to self-respect and self-worth, and this usually shines through.
PlanE
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:30 pm

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

Postby RKQ » Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:49 am

teak wrote:2. Both professions may describe their services as "architectural design services".


Isn't the word "architectural" prohibited:confused: There is a list of "words" that RIAI can add too at any time!

"Architectural Consultant" is on the list. Architectural Designer might be on the list. I don't see why so many words are prohibited - the general public is not stupid.

Be careful what you say or write, Big Brother is watching. Legal actions will begin next year....Scary. (Or is it just petty & Sad?)

The public will continue to judge RIAI.

Those that retain RIAI Architects will expect something special from their RIAI member, on demand. It might be hard to live up to this superior mantle.
RKQ
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:50 am

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

Postby henno » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:20 pm

RKQ wrote:Isn't the word "architectural" prohibited:confused: There is a list of "words" that RIAI can add too at any time!


thats a new one on me.. is that correct??
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

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

Postby CK » Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:24 am

wearnicehats wrote:a great example. If you want to be a dentist you should be a qualified dentist as seen under the regulations of the country in which you practice

Similarly you should be a qualified architect under those rules

Just because you don't like those rules doesn't mean you can practice regardless

I'm tired of you CK - do your exams




You are obviously missing the point wearnicehats... I am trying to explain that none is permitted to sell dentist services unless registered as a dentist, when in contrary everybody can provide architectural services. Only the use of the title "architect" is protected... My question is: "how do you call professionals providing architectural services without being permitted to use the title architect?"

My point, as explained earlier, is that if you want to protect the public who is frequently looking for value, If you want to raise the standards and quality of the built environment, the protection of the title architect is not the answer because it protects only the interests of some qualified individuals... But you may be one of these persons, or maybe becoming one, and then you will never accept the fact...

However, it is common sense that If you want to protect the public and improve the quality of the built environment then the system must be changed. Building control must be enforced to higher standards; Compliance with Building Regulations must be ascertained by third parts which are not employed by the developer...

The fact is that RIAI will only regulate the registered architects. Who will regulate those providing architectural services without being registered?

If these questions are not of interest to you wearnicehats then do not get involve, but I am not the only one to think that these questions need an answer in the sake of architecture...
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 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:44 am

teak wrote:Only an outsiders idea - professional harmony is in everyone's interest.:)
(I am assuming that all architectural technicians are equivalent to/readily upskillable to "architectural technologist" level. I don't know if this is valid.)

Here goes.

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


1. Building design may be done WHOLLY by architects or WHOLLY by architectural technologists according to a client's wishes.
The former profession perhaps for those with a preference for space/light considerations; the latter for those using less novel spatial design but more desire for aspects of detailing.

2. Both professions may describe their services as "architectural design services".

3. No other profession other than architects or architectural technicians may claim to offer "architectural design services".

4. Architects may employ architectural technologists and vice-versa.
Both will describe themselves either ONLY as "architects" or ONLY as "architectural technologists" according to the profession of the principals of that practice.
Where the principals of a practice consist of a roughly equal number of both architects and architectural technologists, then that firm may describe itself as joint architectural design practices, i.e. "Architects & Architectural Technologists".

5. Unless the practice is a joint architectural design practice, it will ONLY advertise under its own appropriate professional heading.
So, for example, there would be 2 separate sections in the Golden Pages for Architects and Architectural Technologists.
JADPs would be allowed advertise in both simultaneously.

6. People who choose to employ BOTH an architect AND an architectural technologist (i.e. one chosen by the client, not from the architect's employees or regular sub-contractors) for the same project may do so without any objection from either the architect or the architectural technologist. By this I mean that a person who wants an arch technologist to modify/improve the detailing of a building designed by an architect should not encounter objections/obstruction from the architect on grounds of design copyright or any other "professional integrity" type sulk. Neither may an architectural technologist doing an "faithful" extension to an existing building object if the client elects to reject aspects of his design and reverts to an architect for modification of those same aspects. ;)

7. Neither architect nor architectural technologist should interfere with a client's choice to engage other professions, e.g. interior designers, who may be involved in the final styling design of a building as long as such other professionals do not alter the major architectural objectives of the original design.


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


This system gives an objective equality of esteem to each profession.
It shows clearly in business directories which profession pertains to each practice.
It is then a subjective decision for an individual client as to which profession (or perhaps both) that she/he would engage to undertake design work on their building.

Over to you.


Hi teak,

I think that your proposition makes sense, but you know like me that Arch tech are providing similar services than architects, the difference is only in the grade. You know also that the RIAI will continue to make pressure to prevent arch tech providing services without one of their architects...

I think that there is a lot of hypocrisy with the new registration in this country. For example in France, when the equivalent of the BCA 2007 was enforced, all practitioners registered as sole traders or companies were able to continue practicing as architects. In the UK and in France, 2 countries where I practiced, legislation includes a part considering experience at any time, without the need of an exam involving a ridiculous cost.

It is obvious that in the R.O.I. the interests of some practitioners were ignored to insure that the interests of others were improved...
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 BenK » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:51 am

I think it's interesting and about time that a proper debate was opened up on this and a lot of the posts have been interesting. l'll start off by saying that I am someone who has gone down the 'traditional' route to registration: 6 years in UCD, 3 years working and then professional exams. Of course it might be said that I'm therefore going to be biased aout the whole RIAI registration thing but I don't feel I am. Before going to college I decided that I wanted to become an architect. This was obviously before any of the issues on registration of the title came up. I enquired about what I needed to do and then set about doing it. I think it's been well known long before registration came up amongst people within the construction industry what constituted an architect (membership of the RIAI) and I feel registration is just formalising this. It is also, I feel, just clarifying this for the general public. I am far from the RIAI's biggest fan but I think this is right that this should be formalised (registration). I understand the arguments about whether or not it should be the RIAI administering this or some separate organisation but I genuinely cannot see how anyone can argue the title should not be protected. Similar to doctors, dentists etc., in my opionion the function should be protected too.

Now compare the health system to the architectural system... Everyone is able to sell architectural services, but only some can call themselves architects... What is this? surely not protecting the public is it?

But surely that's the whole point CK, everyone shouldn't be able to sell architectural services!

I carry out pre-purchase building surveys. Some of my clients shown me some certificates from chartered surveyors and registered architects which should never have been issued. In kildare a certificate of exemption from planning permission was delivered by a chartered surveyor regarding a rear extension which had a gable wall higher than the walls from the existing dwelling...

A new dwelling built on a corner site in Lucan had a registered architect certificate for compliance with Building Regulations when windows at first floor were not complying with TGD part K from the Building Regulations...


Look CK, I'm not trying to suggest every registered architect is the bees knees. Every profession has its share of dodgy practitioners and everybody has heard anecdotal stories like the ones above. I don't think the story about the chartered surveyor is even relevant; we're talking about registration of architects. However I certainly agree that enforcement in general is in need of an overhaul but that's a separate issue. My main point is that registration is the right thing to do and has been far too long in the pipe line. Perhaps it's not being introduced as well or efficiently or even as fairly as it could be, I'm not sure, but I don't understand the motives behind anyone arguing against it. I don't know everything about the procedures required to go through to become registered if you haven't gone through the traditional route so I'm not going to say too much on that but just that there is an avenue there and it's right that it should be pretty thorough.

This isn't meant to be a slight on architectural technicians, technologists or anything like that either. I know how crucial their roles are and by right their titles and functions hould be protected too.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

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

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:12 am

CK wrote:You are obviously missing the point wearnicehats... I am trying to explain that none is permitted to sell dentist services unless registered as a dentist, when in contrary everybody can provide architectural services. Only the use of the title "architect" is protected... My question is: "how do you call professionals providing architectural services without being permitted to use the title architect?"

My point, as explained earlier, is that if you want to protect the public who is frequently looking for value, If you want to raise the standards and quality of the built environment, the protection of the title architect is not the answer because it protects only the interests of some qualified individuals... But you may be one of these persons, or maybe becoming one, and then you will never accept the fact...

However, it is common sense that If you want to protect the public and improve the quality of the built environment then the system must be changed. Building control must be enforced to higher standards; Compliance with Building Regulations must be ascertained by third parts which are not employed by the developer...

The fact is that RIAI will only regulate the registered architects. Who will regulate those providing architectural services without being registered?

If these questions are not of interest to you wearnicehats then do not get involve, but I am not the only one to think that these questions need an answer in the sake of architecture...


I am interested and it is you who is missing the point.

My point was very clear - Unregistered persons should NOT be providing architectural services so there's no debate.

You seem to think that the world owes you something - it doesn't.
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 henno » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:42 am

wearnicehats wrote:My point was very clear - Unregistered persons should NOT be providing architectural services so there's no debate.
.


Are Architects the only building professionals that can offer Architectural services?
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

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

Postby CK » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:43 pm

wearnicehats wrote:I am interested and it is you who is missing the point.

My point was very clear - Unregistered persons should NOT be providing architectural services.
.


That is your point of view... But it does not reflect the BCA 2007
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 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:45 pm

wearnicehats wrote:
You seem to think that the world owes you something - it doesn't.


??
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 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:47 pm

.
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 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:53 pm

BenK wrote:I think it's interesting and about time that a proper debate was opened up on this and a lot of the posts have been interesting. l'll start off by saying that I am someone who has gone down the 'traditional' route to registration: 6 years in UCD, 3 years working and then professional exams. Of course it might be said that I'm therefore going to be biased aout the whole RIAI registration thing but I don't feel I am. Before going to college I decided that I wanted to become an architect. This was obviously before any of the issues on registration of the title came up. I enquired about what I needed to do and then set about doing it. I think it's been well known long before registration came up amongst people within the construction industry what constituted an architect (membership of the RIAI) and I feel registration is just formalising this. It is also, I feel, just clarifying this for the general public. I am far from the RIAI's biggest fan but I think this is right that this should be formalised (registration). I understand the arguments about whether or not it should be the RIAI administering this or some separate organisation but I genuinely cannot see how anyone can argue the title should not be protected. Similar to doctors, dentists etc., in my opionion the function should be protected too.

Now compare the health system to the architectural system... Everyone is able to sell architectural services, but only some can call themselves architects... What is this? surely not protecting the public is it?

But surely that's the whole point CK, everyone shouldn't be able to sell architectural services!

I carry out pre-purchase building surveys. Some of my clients shown me some certificates from chartered surveyors and registered architects which should never have been issued. In kildare a certificate of exemption from planning permission was delivered by a chartered surveyor regarding a rear extension which had a gable wall higher than the walls from the existing dwelling...

A new dwelling built on a corner site in Lucan had a registered architect certificate for compliance with Building Regulations when windows at first floor were not complying with TGD part K from the Building Regulations...


Look CK, I'm not trying to suggest every registered architect is the bees knees. Every profession has its share of dodgy practitioners and everybody has heard anecdotal stories like the ones above. I don't think the story about the chartered surveyor is even relevant; we're talking about registration of architects. However I certainly agree that enforcement in general is in need of an overhaul but that's a separate issue. My main point is that registration is the right thing to do and has been far too long in the pipe line. Perhaps it's not being introduced as well or efficiently or even as fairly as it could be, I'm not sure, but I don't understand the motives behind anyone arguing against it. I don't know everything about the procedures required to go through to become registered if you haven't gone through the traditional route so I'm not going to say too much on that but just that there is an avenue there and it's right that it should be pretty thorough.

This isn't meant to be a slight on architectural technicians, technologists or anything like that either. I know how crucial their roles are and by right their titles and functions hould be protected too.


Hi BenK,

It seems that it is possible to exchange points of view with you when it is more difficult with some other posters stock on their own...

I have a master in arts and architecture not listed in the EU directive, issued by a French University 15 years ago. My first experience in a practice was in 1993. I have worked in the UK between 1995 and 2000 and I created my practice in Dublin by the end of 2000, I have a 5 years degree and 16 years of experience but I cannot register through the Technical Assessment Board.

I was willing to pass the exam until I learned about the €13,300 fees. I have applied for registration as per route D2, or Section 16 of the BCA 2007, but no application form are available and the RIAI is looking at every aspect of my situation to block me rather than help me. I feel like an unwanted competition. I have given the last 25 years of my life practicing and studying architecture, and I think that I deserve more respect than that.

Honestly, I do not mind about the title "Architect". What I want is to be able continuing practicing architecture as I was before. But the RIAI has already tried to stop me being listed as an architect last year and it is only by employing my solicitor that the Golden pages legal team ruled that the RIAI request for trying to block me and others was illegal because the registration procedure was not yet in place. But what will happen tomorrow if my application for registration is turned down?

I am looking at the professional ethic here. The issues of certification for compliance with planning and building regulations do not make any sense. Architect opinions of compliance are requested for buildings, but these certificates are frequently issued with only a final inspection and they only ascertain compliance of the design and not compliance of the dwelling. Do you think that someone purchasing a house care about the design or do you think that this person is concerned about the built structure?

What is the point of a cert of compliance if it only covers the design and not the built structure? There are many other issues like this one which reflect a corrupted system where public interests are ignored for the interests of some professionals. I have certified my work since 2003 and my certs were the result of detailled inspections during construction.

I think that the same apply to the registration for reasons that I have already stated. To protect the public, all individuals providing architectural services should be regulated and registered with an Institute which is caring for architecture instead of caring for some architects. I have practiced in Ireland since 2000 but I could not use any of the RIAI contracts or other documents. Don't you think that the RIAI could have improved architecture in the country and protect the public by trying to regulate architects non members. Don't you think that they could have created a code of conduct and other helpful documents for non members to protect the public?

I do not know if my application for registration will be accepted of refused... But whatever the result, I think that more honesty is required about the goals to be achieved...
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland