Dear Young Architects

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:11 am

BenK wrote:So I'm parroting some line because I don't agree with all you write... Leave the condescension out will you. There's a good chap.


I did leave it out.

I usually censor my own posts.

But you need to refresh the page to see it.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:15 am

onq wrote:This will give them the sense of being "out there" - of being liable and responsible to their client, of not being able to hide when the shit hits the fan, of having to account for themselves and represent their office..


There is the flaw in your thinking; being a member of the relevant professional body gives a further 2 layers of risk to manage.

1. Practice
2. Individual
3. Practice membership
4. Individual membership

The financial consequences upon PI cover renewal of having your and or the firms membership removed for misdeeds or incompetence would be significant. Please do not try to bluff that the public are better off with any individual personal guarantees than having the sceptre of their or their practice's membership removed.

In terms of your story above I would outline the latest professional thinking in the UK in a related profession; in dealing with defects professionals are allowed to act as advocates and not experts until such time as the matter reaches service of the schedule of defects for the purposes of a legal versus a negotiated outcome. If you were that sure of the outcome why not call the other parties bluff; the other party after all if the had a finding of exageration beyond the negotiation stage against them could be sanctioned by their professional body.

Regulation = Risk Management
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:50 am

I think there's a fundamental flaw in your thinking ONQ. To my mind the legislation was deficient when you qualified. Even when you qualified there was a further route to go down to cover issues in professional practice (the Part 3) but you chose, for whatever reasons, not to complete this. I could be wrong but even back in 1990, the Part 1,2 and 3 system was in place. And even back when that legislation was in place, out of that list of 4 persons that were eligible to call themselves architects, the MRIAIs had a level of training above that of just the college qualifications. The vast majority of MRIAIs have your qualification and their Part 3 on top of it. You can knock all you want but in effect you're only knocking yourself because a large part of the training that MRIAIs have gone through (the academic degree), you yourself have also done. The difference is MRIAIs have done that little bit more also. Something you seem reluctant to do.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:00 am

I agree; the RIBA system of three levels of architect seems bang on the money

1. Student Architect i.e. Pre graduation
2. Associate Architect i.e. post graduation but pre Part 3
3. Chartered Architect i.e. have passed Part 3

In that system everyone is considered to be some form of an architect but on the two lower levels it is clear the level that has been attained.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:50 am

PVC King wrote:There is the flaw in your thinking; being a member of the relevant professional body gives a further 2 layers of risk to manage.

1. Practice
2. Individual
3. Practice membership
4. Individual membership

This isn't my thinking at all, this is your thinking - another red herring that has nothing to do with the legal standing of my qualification.
The financial consequences upon PI cover renewal of having your and or the firms membership removed for misdeeds or incompetence would be significant.

No.
You have it backwards - and not for the first time.
The misdeed or incompetence that someone [not me so far thank God] might seek redress over might have serious consquences for my PI Cover renewal quotation.
A corollary to this might be having my Membership of any body revoked.
The former is more likely than the latter, going on past performance.
Please do not try to bluff that the public are better off with any individual personal guarantees than having the sceptre of their or their practice's membership removed.

I'm getting a little tired of you assuming qualified architects are incompetent or your scurrilous inferences that I am engaged in underhanded activities like bluffing the public.

As each of your points is comprehensively rebutted you have to resort to more and more estreme and irrelevant positions.

Withdraw your above comments now, please.

You have never stated your professional qualification, you claim to be outside the profession and you have repeatedly argued that mere acceptance of someone's Membership of a professional body satisfies your due diligence requirements.

The building in the link I posted was certified by a Member of the Institute, a Member Practice as I understand it, yet it foudn found to be grossly non-compliant.

This shows that your assumption of competence based merely on Membership of a Professional Body does not have a firm foundation, yet here you are again, assuming in favour of the professional body when you've seen one worked example of an agregious failure of that system.

I don't have to post more, do I?
Canada House, anyone?

All you seem interested in is behaving like a lazy beaurocrat and assuming desk assessments are satisfied because of Membership of something.

Nonsense and mere laziness on your part.
You have to not only look at past performance but recent performance and interview the person actually dealing with the work in that office to see that its being looked after by somebody competent to do the work.

After all, where do you think all those nassty sssstupid hobbitsesss with the qualifications are working? Eh?

Beginning to see through the tissue now are you?

In terms of your story above I would outline the latest professional thinking in the UK in a related profession; in dealing with defects professionals are allowed to act as advocates and not experts until such time as the matter reaches service of the schedule of defects for the purposes of a legal versus a negotiated outcome. If you were that sure of the outcome why not call the other parties bluff; the other party after all if the had a finding of exageration beyond the negotiation stage against them could be sanctioned by their professional body.

Regulation = Risk Management


You seem to be on another planet here PVC King.
The faults were admitted by our client - there was no contesting them.
This was the reason I advised him to engage with the Building Control Officer.
I promoted an alternative and cost effective method of dealing with the substantive issue.
This avoided huge fees to the professionals on the other side and resulted in a compliant house.

What is wrong with you?

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:04 pm

BenK wrote:I think there's a fundamental flaw in your thinking ONQ. To my mind the legislation was deficient when you qualified.

The legislation at the time was the only formal recognition for both qualified architects and Members of the Institute.
The Institute referred to DIR 85/384/EEC on all their certificates because it was the only legitimate authority they had.

Now they have chosen to ignore it because it suits them and you are dissing it because you realise you've been conned and cannot handle it.
Even when you qualified there was a further route to go down to cover issues in professional practice (the Part 3) but you chose, for whatever reasons, not to complete this.

Are you suggesting the reasons I have given on two separate occassions are invalid?
Which of my reasons are you implying you don't believe are true or fair accounts of the position at the time?
I could be wrong but even back in 1990, the Part 1,2 and 3 system was in place. And even back when that legislation was in place, out of that list of 4 persons that were eligible to call themselves architects, the MRIAIs had a level of training above that of just the college qualifications.

I haven't argued this point, because their formal design training ended when they left college - there is nothing in the Part III's covering design.
There is not a lot that's specific to architecture there - running an office, knowing the legal framework within which you operate, understanding contracts you're administering.
Any director of any company in Ireland requires to develop such skills.
This is part of the problem of defining "architectural services".

The vast majority of MRIAIs have your qualification and their Part 3 on top of it.

Well, to be fair, many also come through UCD, but again, no argument.
Most of their abilities as designers comes from their qualification, not their Part III.
And your point is?

You can knock all you want

Have you been infected by PVC King or what?
I am not knocking anybody!!!
I have stated facts about my entitlement to call myself an architect.
I have given uncontested evidence in the form of a link that shows MRIAI's have feet of clay.
Live with it!

but in effect you're only knocking yourself because a large part of the training that MRIAIs have gone through (the academic degree), you yourself have also done. The difference is MRIAIs have done that little bit more also. Something you seem reluctant to do.


Something I have already done, having served under Members of the Institute for almost eight years continuously post-graduation.
You must not know about the 7-year route to obtaining your Part III's.
Was that something else the RIAI failed to inform you about?

Don't you find it informative that a body that seeks to protect the public engages in negative advertising and being economical with the truth?

You should be careful who you associate with in this life.
I've had to learn that the hard way.
I pass it on for free.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:08 pm

PVC King wrote:I agree; the RIBA system of three levels of architect seems bang on the money

1. Student Architect i.e. Pre graduation
2. Associate Architect i.e. post graduation but pre Part 3
3. Chartered Architect i.e. have passed Part 3

In that system everyone is considered to be some form of an architect but on the two lower levels it is clear the level that has been attained.


Now oddly enough PVC King, this may be a way forward for the RIAI out of the dilemma that's about to happen to it.

The term Associate Arcthitect may work well.
This would give a client some comfort that he was dealing with competent people of this level, albeit not a chartered architect.
I think that there would need to be a lifting of the RIAI restriction on non-Members to allow Associats to sign Certs, but that's about all.

There might be a turnover or gross cost of project restriction put in place to ensure that Associates operated within their level of competence.
The cost restriction might now apply in certain relatively simply planned buildings like schools to allow them get a foot in the door of Public Contracts.
Similarly it might not apply in relation to significant high value buildings with low impact on members of the public like private houses.
It might not apply to large aggregates of smaller units like apartment schemes and provate houses, where the individual risk is low.

This would protect the public from a relatively inexperienced person taking on - for example - a hospital, or a football stadium, but allow them to do a mansion or a housing estate.
This would allow some lucrative as well as and some bread and butter work to be spread around and not hogged by the chartered architect or bigger offices.
The reason for this is that otherwise Associates would be trading at a disadvantage to Technicians and Self-Taught people whose certs are accepted.
Addressing that inequity offers an opportunity to bring all people under the umbrella, not by negative advertising but by offering a viable alternative.
Take CK for example - he mostly does private houses - I wouldn't have a problem with him working in Ireland as an Associate as defined above.

But you cannot offer a workable level of Associate Architect and prevent them from signing Certs or Opinions or administering Contracts at that level.
It would be unwise and inequitable to allow such a situation to occur - but it wouldn't be the first such situation coming from Merrion Square.

Of course not every Associate Architect working in a larger firm would want to sign any Certs, certainly not if his senior explained all the pitfalls.
So the issue of Associate Architects in offices signing Certs might be a very rare occurrence but one which could defuse the situation.

On the other hand you could have some people electing to remain at Asociate level and running sole traderships for the duration.
Worked on like this, the gradations in the profession would facilitate range of competences and price points to the market.
This will improve consumer choice and price ranges as well as affording assurances and protection to the public.

The RIAI could certainly suggest it and many people might support it.
However this isn't what's in the Building Control Act 2007.
So the Act will need to be amended regardless.

And unless the Act also gets its Grandfather Clause, there will be a Holy War with the AA.
Probably at a Goldmine near you and just in time for the next general election.
Unless the Unqualifieds were offered an Associate Architect Status.
And allowed to sign Certs.
That could work.
Possibly.

But by then I may have
a) died of depression,
b) been forced to sell my house and rent, or - wonder of wonders -
c) actually submitted my work to the RIAI and become Registered.

Thereby removing a thorn in their side of long standing.

Oh, Frabjous Day!

:)

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:16 pm

Waffle all you want but having the professional membership does matter; to those having the big house refurb done in D4 and having the RIAI crest on the team board to a banker signing off funding; people like the finished article who is accountable to their membership association; it reassures them.

Your mud slinging has not changed anyone's opinion in the least; a degree and a Part 3 are entirely different levels. I suggest you acquire same instead of mud-slinging.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby gunter » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:49 pm

onq wrote:But by then I may have
a) died of depression,
b) been forced to sell my house and rent, or - wonder of wonders -
c) actually submitted my work to the RIAI and become Registered.

Thereby removing a thorn in their side of long standing.

Oh, Frabjous Day!

:)
ONQ.


Woh . . . . not so fast . . . . go back to that bit about pensioners taking out a fatwa on Alcoholics Anonymous

onq wrote:And unless the Act also gets its Grandfather Clause, there will be a Holy War with the AA
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:51 pm

PVC King wrote:Waffle all you want but having the professional membership does matter; to those having the big house refurb done in D4 and having the RIAI crest on the team board to a banker signing off funding; people like the finished article who is accountable to their membership association; it reassures them.

The simple minded accept paper assurances all the time.
Sometimes you don't even need to offer them paper assurances, just smile.
Like that time Charlie McCreevy got a 110% mortgage approved without getting formal approval.
Your mud slinging has not changed anyone's opinion in the least; a degree and a Part 3 are entirely different levels. I suggest you acquire same instead of mud-slinging.


I can't speak for "anyone" of course - I cannot claim to be that well-connected.
But I have to ask - what sort of "mud slinging" am I supposed to have done?

  • Agreed with you about the use of the Grades you suggested above?
  • Posted independent reports from the 4th estate?
  • Rebutted your arguments?
  • Stated facts?

You seem a little confused if you think that constitutes mud-slinging.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose - eh, mon petit choux?

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:54 pm

gunter wrote:Woh . . . . not so fast . . . . go back to that bit about pensioners taking out a fatwa on Alcoholics Anonymous


Haven't you been avidly reading CK's post in the "Sensitive Issue" thread?
It looks like they're all going to go down to Merrion Square wearing semtex underwear on Saturday.
I don't know if they're after the dodgy paintings or No. 8, probably a bit of both, and that pyramid timeship as well.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:57 pm

ONQ, in reply:

The legislation at the time was the only formal recognition for both qualified architects and Members of the Institute.
The Institute referred to DIR 85/384/EEC on all their certificates because it was the only legitimate authority they had.

Now they have chosen to ignore it because it suits them and you are dissing it because you realise you've been conned and cannot handle it.


I haven't been conned. I've only qualified recently and thankfully this hasn't been an issue for me. I'm dissing it because it didn't promote architects possessing their part 3 and thereby completing their academic and practical training.

I haven't argued this point, because their formal design training ended when they left college - there is nothing in the Part III's covering design.
There is not a lot that's specific to architecture there - running an office, knowing the legal framework within which you operate, understanding contracts you're administering.
Any director of any company in Ireland requires to develop such skills.
This is part of the problem of defining "architectural services".


I think that this is particularly disingenuous. How can exams on contracts and consruction legislation, the submission of an extensive case study that your were directly involved with from inception to completion, a formal interview where you are grilled on the aforementioned exams and case study be 'not a lot that's specific to architecture'!? Any director of any company in Ireland is not required to develop such skills.


Well, to be fair, many also come through UCD, but again, no argument.
Most of their abilities as designers comes from their qualification, not their Part III.
And your point is?

I've never disputed anything on issues of design. For my point see above.

Have you been infected by PVC King or what?
I am not knocking anybody!!!
I have stated facts about my entitlement to call myself an architect.
I have given uncontested evidence in the form of a link that shows MRIAI's have feet of clay.
Live with it!


I would say referencing stories solely about MRIAI's inadequacy is knocking somebody. An MRIAI did something wrong, therefore all MRIAI bad is particularly blinkered thinking. I didn't realise that all 'unqualified successes' and postgraduates like yourself had yet to make any mistakes... Who was this person that claimed MRIAIs are all seeing, all powerful supermen? As I've stated before you will find negligence in every profession.

Something I have already done, having served under Members of the Institute for almost eight years continuously post-graduation.
You must not know about the 7-year route to obtaining your Part III's.
Was that something else the RIAI failed to inform you about?


I am vaguely aware of the 7-year route to obtaining the Part 3. So why don't you have your part 3? Why aren't you registered if you have completed this route satisfactorily? I have no issues with that route to qualification whatsoever.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:10 pm

onq wrote: The simple minded accept paper assurances all the time.
Sometimes you don't even need to offer them paper assurances, just smile.
Like that time Charlie McCreevy got a 110% mortgage approved without getting formal approval..


When the funder has the CEO signing off the loan I doubt the valuer was instructed to be objective; for all we know there wasn't even a valuation and if there was one; I would be very surprised if the valuer was MSCS. The definition of value includes the phrase 'acting knoweldgeably, prudently and without compulsion'; very little INBS did in the noughties was particularly prudent and you can be sure that the valuer was guided to get to a range of values with more than a degree of compulsion; that said the same valuer acted professionally and refused to inflate the value; hence the LTV ratio being in excess of 100%.


onq wrote: I can't speak for "anyone" of course - I cannot claim to be that well-connected.
What sort of "mud slinging" am I supposed to have done?

  • Agreed with you about the use of the Grades you suggested above?
  • Posted independent reports from the 4th estate?
  • Rebutted your arguments?
  • Stated facts?
.


If you call lengthy rambling arguments rebuttal that is your perogative; what I see is a vitriolic stream directed at RIAI and a poor defence based on a degree that is 20 years old and an unwillingness to follow common wisdom and get Part 3 from the relevant body.

onq wrote: You seem a little confused if you think that constitutes mud-slinging.
BTW, the last banker to whom I signed off on funding accepted my cert for over €600,000 - for a house Castleknock, as it happens, not Dublin 4.
I'm not sure what fantasy world you're living in PVC King, but there are self-taught architects out there certifying amounts vastly in excess of this every day.

ONQ.
A banker signed a cert; I would imagine it would be a lot easier to get development funding for a new project if the architect had Part 3 qualification. A lot of lessons are being learned post tiger; the days of a €100m loan being given on foot of a 2 line e-mail are gone (albeit that the borrower at that time had 9 figure net worth); more professional certification is now required. Why should architecture be any different?
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby Tayto » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:20 pm

PVC King wrote:.......a poor defence based on a degree that is 20 years old ...


[Translation: Yes, those old-fashioned 20-year old degrees are way past their sell-by date. What you want is one of our latest state-of-the-art models. It's nice and shiny, see? AND it provides a much better defence!]

Wow, I didn't know that..thanks! You learn something new EVERY day!.
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:23 pm

BenK wrote:ONQ, in reply:

I haven't been conned. I've only qualified recently and thankfully this hasn't been an issue for me. I'm dissing it because it didn't promote architects possessing their part 3 and thereby completing their academic and practical training.

Well, perhaps conned was too strong a term.
We were taught to check everything, to see for ourselves, to read the Act, if you will, not what someone writes about it.
The failure to automatically register you as an architect after completing a full five years design course [if it was from Bolton St or UCD] keeps you at the level of the man in the street.
That is clearly not your level.
Suggesting your are not complete is disingenuous propaganda put out by the RIAI.
You are complete at the level of a qualified architect and your right to use the title architect is protected by EU and Irish law.
You may not yet have achieved your Part III's - that doesn't mean you're not an architect.
I think that this is particularly disingenuous. How can exams on contracts and construction legislation, the submission of an extensive case study that your were directly involved with from inception to completion, a formal interview where you are grilled on the aforementioned exams and case study be 'not a lot that's specific to architecture'!? Any director of any company in Ireland is not required to develop such skills.

I don't mean to be disingenuous.
I mean to point out that much of the skillset you require is about managing a project.
Granted in this case its a building project, but there are aspects of designing the programme. scheduling the workforce, researching the tasks, allocating the work, monitoring and checking the work, etc that are common to all professional endeavours.
i.e. it may be specific to A job you did, but the principles of the work apply across the board to several different disciplines.
I've never disputed anything on issues of design. For my point see above.

Conceded
I would say referencing stories solely about MRIAI's inadequacy is knocking somebody. An MRIAI did something wrong, therefore all MRIAI bad is particularly blinkered thinking. I didn't realise that all 'unqualified successes' and postgraduates like yourself had yet to make any mistakes... Who was this person that claimed MRIAIs are all seeing, all powerful supermen? As I've stated before you will find negligence in every profession.

I don't consider it "knocking" someone.
The debate here is about the level of assurance and protection afforded to members of the public by using an MRIAI as opposed to an post-graduate or self-taught architect.

In the original article I posted a link about David Grant to which you didn't object.
This was about the risk to occupants from fire in one of his apartment blocks.
Presumably you didn't object because this supported your self-image and RIAI world view that unqualified practitioners are not to be trusted [I'm paraphrasing here from the advertisement that got censured]

At the end of the post I included a link to a prime time exposé which alluded to an MRIAI.
This was about an actual outbreak of fire - as opposed to a risk - which endangered members of the public.
Several posters have objected to this, presumably because it challenges their self image and world view that MRIAI's are beyond reproach.

I was presenting a balanced post, showing egregious defects in buildings/situations, one ascribed to an unqualified person presenting himself as an architect, the other referring to an MRIAI, who was then head of a large practice.

I don't call that knocking, I call your reaction to it most revealing, because your attempted defence of the indefensible by making a personal attack on me - calling me a knocker - shows the extent to which you've been conditioned.

Think for yourself - you've nothing to lose but your peace of mind.
I am vaguely aware of the 7-year route to obtaining the Part 3. So why don't you have your part 3? Why aren't you registered if you have completed this route satisfactorily? I have no issues with that route to qualification whatsoever.


Let's just say I became very disillusioned with the RIAI.
I reported a serious breach of compliance to them a good while back.
It was also a fire safety matter, quite serious, and nothing was done about it.
It involved an MRIAI - after that I became convinced I was looking at an old boys club.
I had to make a formal referral to the building control officer and City fire prevention section.

I hadn't sprung it on the firm or the RIAI - I spoke to the Secretary and he got copied with the file.
I spoke to the person concerned and asked him to make the building compliant.
I checked my understanding with the assistant chief fire officer beforehand.

Then I gave them a deadline by which the building had to be put right.
I spelt out every issue that needed doing and invited them to rebut.
They didn't and they were reported - so much for RIAI regulation.

After that I met the other guy on the house I described above to PVC King.
More pandering to clients, unrealistic suggestions of compensation.
No focus on dealing with the substantive issue or resolution.

In the intervening 20 years since I graduated I've met a lot of other MRIAI's.
Many were kind, intelligent, helpful, so I know not all are unprofessional.
But the way they have approached the BCA 2007, denying me my rights.
That just makes me see red - unfair, unprofessional, self-serving.
All the worst traits in those I have met bubbling to the surface.

Not good enough, not for people touting themselves as protectors of the public good.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:33 pm

PVC King wrote:When the funder has the CEO signing off the loan I doubt the valuer was instructed to be objective; for all we know there wasn't even a valuation and if there was one; I would be very surprised if the valuer was MSCS. The definition of value includes the phrase 'acting knoweldgeably, prudently and without compulsion'; very little INBS did in the noughties was particularly prudent and you can be sure that the valuer was guided to get to a range of values with more than a degree of compulsion; that said the same valuer acted professionally and refused to inflate the value; hence the LTV ratio being in excess of 100%.

I'm condensing down your "lengthy rambling argument" into a "Yes, you're right" on that one.
If you call lengthy rambling arguments rebuttal that is your perogative; what I see is a vitriolic stream directed at RIAI

Please stop rambling and post one quotation where you can support the statement that I attacked the RIAI in a vitriolic manner, as opposed to publishing facts.
and a poor defence based on a degree that is 20 years old and an unwillingness to follow common wisdom and get Part 3 from the relevant body.

Most judges got their basic degrees more than 30 years ago.
Are you suggesting they are all incompetent?

Before you try to rebut that utterly brilliant riposte, I say again. I am not defending or attacking here.
You're the one with the bee in your bonnet about attaining the Part III's, not me.

I am asking for my legal right to call myself an architect to be recognised.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
A banker signed a cert; I would imagine it would be a lot easier to get development funding for a new project if the architect had Part 3 qualification.

You can imagine all you want - your point was blown out of the water.
You have now shot yourself in the foot by suggesting that anyone would take an architect's estimate of costs seriously LOL!
There's a reason why we have Quantity Surveyors in the Building Industry!
"Stick to what you're good at" is the motto.
A lot of lessons are being learned post tiger; the days of a €100m loan being given on foot of a 2 line e-mail are gone (albeit that the borrower at that time had 9 figure net worth); more professional certification is now required. Why should architecture be any different?

What are you blathering about? Bankers aren't even properly qualified to Bank!!!!!!

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:34 pm

Tayto wrote:[Translation: Yes, those old-fashioned 20-year old degrees are way past their sell-by date. What you want is one of our latest state-of-the-art models. It's nice and shiny, see? AND it provides a much better defence!]

Wow, I didn't know that..thanks! You learn something new EVERY day!.


A 20 year old degree is perfectly fine; if the holder has received ongoing professional development from the relevant professional body. But you have to admit there is a difference between someone with the degree and someone who completes part 3 and abides by the rules of the relevant professional membership associaion thereafter.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:46 pm

PVC King wrote:A 20 year old degree is perfectly fine; if the holder has received ongoing professional development from the relevant professional body. But you have to admit there is a difference between someone with the degree and someone who completes part 3 and abides by the rules of the relevant professional membership associaion thereafter.


Yep.

One is an independent thinker who pursues his own CPD competently down the years.
The other is someone who likes his information served up for him, possibly as part of a large office CPD programme.
Both are valid enough choices, but I know which one I'd like working for me on a high pressure project dealing with new technology with limited resources.

What did you say your qualification was again?
Oh that's right, you didn't.

Funny that for a guy who's such a stickler on qualifications.
I'm beginning to sense an Achilles' Heel here.
The ones without them most promote them.
Think they offer a defence - hah!

Qualifications mark you out as a target for the compo merchants.
Back competence and a good research team over paper qualifications any day.

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:58 pm

onq wrote: I'm condensing down your "lengthy rambling argument" into a "Yes, you're right" on that one.

Please stop rambling and post one quotation where you can support the statement that I attacked the RIAI in a vitriolic manner, as opposed to publishing facts.

Most judges got their basic degrees more than 30 years ago.
Are you suggesting they are all incompetent? .


To become a judge you must first become a Barrister; which means you have to join the Bar Council; see link below

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/barristers_profession/qualifyingasab.asp&CatID=5&m=n


onq wrote:Before you try to rebut that utterly brilliant riposte, I say again. I am not defending or attacking here.
You're the one with the bee in your bonnet about attaining the Part III's, not me.

I am asking for my legal right to call myself an architect to be recognised.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum .


You are asking for your right as a degree holder to be considered an architect; a request which is out of step with every other profession and one which you admit many of your peers have taken the trouble to get Part 3 qualification.

onq wrote:You can imagine all you want - your point was blown out of the water.
You have now shot yourself in the foot by suggesting that anyone would take an architect's estimate of costs seriously LOL!
There's a reason why we have Quantity Surveyors in the Building Industry!
"Stick to what you're good at" is the motto..


If you read what I said it was it would be easier to get funding if the architect had Part 3; extend this to also easier if the planner had MRTPI, QS had MSCS, Valuer had MSCS and engineer was a member of MIEI etc. Site security could have war crimes from UN Den Haag.

onq wrote:What are you blathering about? Bankers aren't even properly qualified to Bank!!!!!!

ONQ.


What are the courses in the link below then?

http://www.instbank.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=6

Amazing that all professionals seem to use the phrase CPD even Barristers and bankers which are clearly outside the Built Environment field.
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby BenK » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 pm

I think I've pretty much said what I have to say but in reply to some of the issues you raised ONQ:

The failure to automatically register you as an architect after completing a full five years design course [if it was from Bolton St or UCD] keeps you at the level of the man in the street.
That is clearly not your level.
Suggesting your are not complete is disingenuous propaganda put out by the RIAI.
You are complete at the level of a qualified architect and your right to use the title archtiect is protected by EU and Irish law.
You may not yet have achieved your Part III's - that doesn't mean you're not an architect.


I guess where we differ is you think it's appropriate to say you're an architect after coming out of college. I think it should have some sort of qualification: graduate architect or similar. I obviously don't think that you should be kept at the level of the man in the street. I know when I first qualified after coming into an office full-time it was an eye opener and on a practical level I knew next to nothing. I concede that now I know a little more than nothing!

I don't consider it "knocking" someone.
The debate here is about the level of assurance and protection afforded to members of the public by using an MRIAI as opposed to an post-graduate or self-taught architect.

In the original arcticle I posted a link about David Grant to which you didn't object.
This was about the risk to occupants from fire in one of his apartment blocks.
Presumably you didn't object because this supported your self-image and RIAI world view that unqualified practitioners are not to be trusted [I'm praphrasing here from the advertisement that got censured]

At the end of the post I included a link to a prime time exposé which alluded to an MRIAI.
This was about an actual outbreak of fire - as opposed to a risk - which endangered members of the public.
Several posters have objected to this, presumably because it challenges their self image and world view that MRIAI's are beyond reproach.

I was presenting a balanced post, showing egregious defects in buildings/situations, one ascribed to an unqualified person presenting himself as an architect, the other referring to an MRIAI, who was then head of a large practice.

I don't call that knocking, I call your reaction to it most revealing, because your attemtped defense of the indefensible by making a personal attack on me - calling me a knocker - shows the estent to which you've been conditioned.

Think for yourself - you've nothing to lose but your peace of mind.


Please don't put words in my mouth. Granted (no pun intended...) I admit I did forget about your reference to Mr. David Grant, sorry about that, but I'm not defending the indefensible, MRIAIs or anyone else. I was more getting at what I felt was a lack of balance to your posts. And again I've clearly stated that I don't think MRIAIs or anyone else are above reproach. As I've stated before, in terms of protecting the consumer/public and so on a MRIAI has an added qualification (Part 3) that a graduate hasn't. To me it's obvious that this helps protect everyone in the majority of cases (anecdotal stories withstanding). Perhaps that's naive on my apart. As for the suggestion that I personally attacked you I think that's a little over the top. And I'm well able to think for myself. Thanks for the heads up though.

Let's just say I became very disillusioned with the RIAI.
I reported a serious breach of compliance to them a good while back.
It was also a fire safety matter, quite serious, and nothing was done about it.
It involved an MRIAI - after that I became convinced I was looking at an old boys club.

I had to make a formal referral to the building control officer and fire prevention section.
I hadn't sprung it on them - I spoke to the Secretary and he got copied with the file.
I spoke to the person concerned and asked him to make the building compliant.
I checked my understanding with the assistant chief fire officer beforehand.
Then I gave them a deadline by which the building had to be put right.
I spelt out every issue that needed doing and invited them to rebut.
They didn't and they were reported.
So much for RIAI regulation.

After that I met the other guy on the house I described above to PVC King.
More pandering to clients, unrealistic suggestions of compensation.
No focus on dealing with the substantive issue or resolution.

In the intervening 20 years since I graduated I've met a lot of other MRIAI's.
Many were kind, intelligent, helpful, so I know not all are unprofessional.
But the way they have approached the BCA 2007, denying me my rights.
That just makes me see red - unfair, unprofessional, self-serving.
All the worst traits in those I have met bubbling to the surface.

Not good enough, not for people touting themselves as protectors of the public good.


That's fair enough, I can understand you feel your rights have been denied. I still feel though the Part 3 is a necessity and I just wanted to understand why, in your position, you chose not to complete it. If you're in the position to do it, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Not to join the RIAI, old boys' club if you will, but to allow yourself to join the register as an architect.
BenK
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:59 am

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby onq » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:16 pm

PVC King wrote:To become a judge you must first become a Barrister; which means you have to join the Bar Council; see link below

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/barristers_profession/qualifyingasab.asp&CatID=5&m=n

As a qualified architect, I've already done two years of law - what's your point?
You are asking for your right as a degree holder to be considered an architect;

No.
I'm pointing out that two Directives and a Statutory Instrument confers on me the right to call myself an architect, because of my qualification
a request which is out of step with every other profession and one which you admit many of your peers have taken the trouble to get Part 3 qualification.

Stupid boy.
Its not a request.
Its a statement of fact based on law.
You're the one trying to get the world to fit his world view, not me.
If you read what I said it was it would be easier to get funding if the architect had Part 3; extend this to also easier if the planner had MRTPI, QS had MSCS, Valuer had MSCS and engineer was a member of MIEI etc. Site security could have war crimes from UN Den Haag.

Don't ever accuse me of rambling again.


Let's see now.

"From 2009|2010 all Institute of Bankers in Ireland’s educational programmes will be offered through The Institute of Bankers School of Professional Finance (a recognised school of University College Dublin, affiliated with the UCD College of Business and Law). Hence, those who successfully complete a School of Professional Finance programme from 2009|2010 will receive their educational award from UCD."

  • An attempt to guild the lily.
  • Attempts to close the stable door after all the horses have bolted.
  • Desperately seeking respectability by association for the most badly regulated. profession in the world.
  • All of the above, and then some.
Like I said, watch the fervour of the ones without the paper qualifications as they tout them or seek them or demand that others to seek them.

Its a sure sign of an inferiority complex.

Or a cover up, for the number of unqualified successes there were in the Bank.

Amazing that all professionals seem to use the phrase CPD even Barristers and bankers which are clearly outside the Built Environment field.


Only you would find this amazing.

Some attempt at humout though, touting bankers as paragons of CPD.

Banks and Insurances offices .

(chuckle)

You know, when I was in secondary they were where all the thickos were sent by their influential daddies because they had two chances of ever completing a university education.

I think the current financial debacle is the result of letting stupid people work in a critical market sector without any external regulation or supervision - and paying the biggest, stupidest eejits among them €1M a year or more.

Perhaps things will change.

So PVC King - givvus some information on you, since you know a lot about me.

With all this talk of "risk aversion" and you being "satisfied your due diligence was complete" when you saw the RIAI badge, you must be either in insurance, or banking.

Which is it?

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

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:27 pm

onq wrote:As a qualified architect, I've already done two years of law - what's your point?

No.
I'm pointing out that two Directives and a Statutory Instrument confers on me the right to call myself an architect, because of my qualification

Stupid boy.
Its not a request.
Its a statement of fact based on law.
You're the one trying to get the world to fit his world view, not me.

Don't ever accuse me of rambling again.


Let's see now.

"From 2009|2010 all Institute of Bankers in Ireland’s educational programmes will be offered through The Institute of Bankers School of Professional Finance (a recognised school of University College Dublin, affiliated with the UCD College of Business and Law). Hence, those who successfully complete a School of Professional Finance programme from 2009|2010 will receive their educational award from UCD."

  • An attempt to guild the lily.
  • Attempts to close the stable door after all the horses have bolted.
  • Desperately seeking respectability by association for the most badly regulated. profession in the world.
  • All of the above, and then some.
Like I said, watch the fervour of the ones without the paper qualifications as they tout them or seek them or demand that others to seek them.

Its a sure sign of an inferiority complex.

Or a cover up, for the number of unqualified successes there were in the Bank.



Only you would find this amazing.

Some attempt at humout though, touting bankers as paragons of CPD.

Bankers and Insurances offices - when I was in secondary they were where all the thickos were sent by their influential daddies because they had two chances of ever completing a university education.

With all this talk of "risk aversion" and you being "satisfied your due diligence was complete" when you saw the RIAI badge, you must be either in insurance, or banking.

Which is it?

ONQ.


How many shoulders do you have?
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby Tayto » Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:27 pm

PVC King wrote:A 20 year old degree is perfectly fine; if the holder has received ongoing professional development from the relevant professional body. But you have to admit there is a difference between someone with the degree and someone who completes part 3 and abides by the rules of the relevant professional membership associaion thereafter.


Yes, one has a right to have more letters after their name than the other. Which is nice.:)

So, with all the CPD training (by the professional association of course) and rule-abiding, does anyone actually do any work?

You're not on the board of a golf club, by any chance?
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby PVC King » Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:39 pm

My golf career lasted 2 hours such was my natural aptitude for whacking a tiny piece of plastic around a field :o so the only boards I get sport from are message boards ;)

CPD can't be that onerous in Architecture; I did about 40 hours a year over the past couple of years of which 25 hours would be internal; 5 hours with clients solicitors which is usually accompanied by decent wine and 10 hours through the industry body. Throw in the industry monthly magazines and it keeps you up to speed not to mention giving you the perspectives of some exceptional professionals who clearly do CPD to either give something back (you'd hope) or exercise their egos (more likely).
PVC King
 

Re: Dear Young Architects

Postby Tayto » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:23 pm

I didn't get where I am today by exercising my ego, I tell you!
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron