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

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

Postby CK » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:41 pm

onq wrote:
CK wrote:
Do you want me to point out some horrible buildings from register architects? Is it the purpose of your previous post?


Here is the question I asked:

"Do you claim to be able to design as well as an architect?

Where's the proof?"


Post proof of your assertion that you are an architect - simple as that.

ONQ.


I am architect in the common definition of the term, and I claim to design better than many MRIAI architects of my age, artistically and technologically speaking...

I am not the best; I never claimed to be. I am working mainly on small projects since I moved to Ireland 10 years ago. However, the quality of a design is neither about the scale nor about the budget.

I am just a small practice that the RIAI and other architectural institutes have prevented to evolve normally. Before I finished my master there was already pressures on me from the members of the French Institute, then in the UK from the RIBA and in Ireland from the RIAI. The fact is that many of these guys walked over me not because they have better skills than me, but because of a paper from their university, which gives them some rights over me. I was never employed as a project architect on a large project because of registration non-sense. However I have the skills to design a skyscraper or a wide project if necessary.

There is a form of protectionism in architecture. It does not serve the people but the interests of a minority. In Ireland this minority is represented by the RIAI, in France it is “l’ordre des architectes”.

I remember one of my professors, a registered architect, telling us that architects were and will always be part of the upper class… I found this declaration very inappropriate; imagine the doubts in the minds of the students with a working class background. I did zapped to another course the year after…. But this clarify very well all the hidden agenda behind registration…
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby onq » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:36 pm

CK wrote:I am architect in the common definition of the term, and I claim to design better than many MRIAI architects of my age, artistically and technologically speaking...

I am not the best; I never claimed to be. I am working mainly on small projects since I moved to Ireland 10 years ago. However, the quality of a design is neither about the scale nor about the budget.


CK, this doesn't ring true. You're saying you're not claiming to be the best, but you're claiming to be better than many of your contemporaries who are Institute Members.

I am just a small practice that the RIAI and other architectural institutes have prevented to evolve normally.


CK, this doesn't ring true. If I understand your extended history correctly, when you came to Ireland there was no restriction on who could call themselves an architect. Thus neither the "RIAI and other architectural institutes" could have prevented you practising, never mind set things up so that you couldn't "evolve normally", whatever that means

Before I finished my master there was already pressures on me from the members of the French Institute, then in the UK from the RIBA and in Ireland from the RIAI.


CK, this doesn't ring true. What pressures could they have brought to bear on you before you completed your masters? You were told to go and get some experience in order to become registered in France, if I recall correctly, and you decided to come here and work here as an architect instead after working in Britain for a while, and accordingly your experience here cannot be counted towards your French registration.

The fact is that many of these guys walked over me not because they have better skills than me, but because of a paper from their university, which gives them some rights over me.


CK, this is not right either - these guys completed their training, you did not, you have admitted that here yourself. There is now a move in Europe towards recognition of prior learning, but again it is tailored towards prescribed routes and means of accreditation, not towards pandering to individuals.
I was never employed as a project architect on a large project because of registration non-sense. However I have the skills to design a skyscraper or a wide project if necessary.

CK, I think this is just wishful thinking on your part. With all due respect, you might be able to draw up the design, but to get from there to a new building involves being experienced in running multi-disciplinary jobs in the multi-million Euro range and you have admitted you do not have this experience. TO function as a competent architect, you need the contractual, legal, medium-sized office, current building technology, historical review and BREEAM or LEED-based skillsets that a modern building requires. Judging by your lack of attendances at the functions I go to, you're not even keeping up with current trends towards Passive Haus detailing and design, or CPD seminars run by either the RIAI or the AAI. At the present moment, you're either keeping up with current practice or you're not. And it seems you may not be doing all you can to stay current.

There is a form of protectionism in architecture. It does not serve the people but the interests of a minority. In Ireland this minority is represented by the RIAI, in France it is “l’ordre des architectes”.

CK, this is unfair of you - there is a degree of protection in any profession, but this arises from having passed either a structured apprenticeship or a prescribed third level course. You either prove you are at the required level, or you'll be looking to registered persons to sign off on your work in a few years time - that's clearly the way things seem to be moving n'est-ce pas?
I remember one of my professors, a registered architect, telling us that architects were and will always be part of the upper class… I found this declaration very inappropriate; imagine the doubts in the minds of the students with a working class background. I did zapped to another course the year after…. But this clarify very well all the hidden agenda behind registration…

Architects as professionals arose from the lower classes historically, sometimes through engineers and sometimes through apprenticeship to craftsmen who studied designo often from a fine arts background, not nobility. Its only in the past few decades that we have seen the rise of millionaire architects and Starchitects. Personally I know very few who rise above the sensation of being the "hired help" or "trusty manservant" to the monied élite. Your professor sounds as if he was delusional.

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

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

Postby CK » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:11 am

onq wrote: CK, this doesn't ring true. You're saying you're not claiming to be the best, but you're claiming to be better than many of your contemporaries who are Institute Members.

Onq,
Many MRIAI got it very easy compared to me; most of them would already have given up architecture if they had been in my situation. I have spend as much time in university than MRIAI, and I have more experience then many of them. My studies were essentially based on design in the detriment of engineering. Since I have left university I have focus on engineering and technologies to compensate the lack of those in my education. My assertion that I design better than most MRIAI was a provocation, but if this is not true then why are they afraid to compete with me? Because I can deliver similar services at a better value I guess…
CK, this doesn't ring true. If I understand your extended history correctly, when you came to Ireland there was no restriction on who could call themselves an architect. Thus neither the "RIAI and other architectural institutes" could have prevented you practising, never mind set things up so that you couldn't "evolve normally", whatever that means

CK, this doesn't ring true. What pressures could they have brought to bear on you before you completed your masters? You were told to go and get some experience in order to become registered in France, if I recall correctly, and you decided to come here and work here as an architect instead after working in Britain for a while, and accordingly your experience here cannot be counted towards your French registration.

You are either very naïve or pretending to be onq. I never intended to create my own practice. In the UK I was working on short-term contracts, employed by established practices when their permanent team could not deal with the workload. They accepted to employ me as an architect temporally not permanently because I was not registered. I thank them for what they did anyway.

When I arrived in Ireland, I have looked for similar employment, but no company accepted to employ me as an architect despite the title not being protected, despite my master and despite my experience in the UK. I started to look for clients instead, and I was surprised when I got my first call from a small developer. If I had the opportunity to register, I could have found a permanent position in a practice and I could have evolved within a team and maybe start my own practice much later. Instead, in a new country of residence, I had to start a business by myself, without any saving. And still today, about 10 years later, the RIAI is trying to undermine my efforts, using any possible stratagem to put me down, because I represent unwanted competition. I have no chance to get work on public or semi-public projects because membership of the institute is compulsory. If potential clients call the RIAI about my practice, they will be convinced to use RIAI members instead… If you think that this does not prevent me to evolve normally, then what is?

CK, I think this is just wishful thinking on your part. With all due respect, you might be able to draw up the design, but to get from there to a new building involves being experienced in running multi-disciplinary jobs in the multi-million Euro range and you have admitted you do not have this experience. TO function as a competent architect, you need the contractual, legal, medium-sized office, current building technology, historical review and BREEAM or LEED-based skillsets that a modern building requires. Judging by your lack of attendances at the functions I go to, you're not even keeping up with current trends towards Passive Haus detailing and design, or CPD seminars run by either the RIAI or the AAI. At the present moment, you're either keeping up with current practice or you're not. And it seems you may not be doing all you can to stay current.

Onq, you do not know anything about my skills, or what I do to keep updated with the latest technologies, then do not judge; and do not try to lecture me with your non-sense. I have worked in large practices on large international projects. I know what it takes to be a project architect as I was working alongside many of them. You seem to say that those guys are dealing with technicalities such as sustainability, but there you prove your ignorance again. On large projects a team is specially appointed to deal with these matters. It is the same for contractual issues and building technologies. You obviously have a lack of understanding of what a project architect does. With reference to your assertion that because I was never employed as a project architect on a large development then I shall never do so, I would like you to let me know how one can access this position? Because everyone has to start one day.

CK, this is unfair of you - there is a degree of protection in any profession, but this arises from having passed either a structured apprenticeship or a prescribed third level course. You either prove you are at the required level, or you'll be looking to registered persons to sign off on your work in a few years time - that's clearly the way things seem to be moving n'est-ce pas?


onq, this is reality. Self-trained Engineers have only to spend few hundred euros to be registered, same for technologists and many other professions. Why was it impossible for self-trained architects to register with the institute before the Building Control Act 2007, do you have a good reason for that? Why does it cost E13,500 now? If this is not protectionism can you explain where the problem is? You pretend that self-taught are considered fairly. How could they be? When the institute supposed to assess them is promoting and defending the interests of architectural education. You are either blind or biased in your judgment. I guess it is the second. Do not pretend having defended the interests of self-trained because all you did is to use their work for defending your position in front of the government. Nothing less than opportunism… You were asking me for the Legal Opinion requested by Architects’ Alliance earlier this week. Have you paid for it? Or are you just willing to eat on the back of the Aliance once more?
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby onq » Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:39 pm

To deal with the last comment first, I was invited to first join as a Full Member, and then speak in support of the Alliance before a Government Committee.

This was done by the Spokesperson Brian Montaut, although I am pretty sure someone not too far away from this thread might have thought HE should have been chosen to speak on the day.

I am not now associated with the Alliance for professional reasons that should become clear as you read on below.

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

For the record, my association with the Alliance has not benefited my position either in my professional career or with the RIAI to any significant degree.

The only difference with the RIAI is that they now know that unlike many architects who pay lip service to being aware of the social and professional context in which they are in when writing their Self-Assessment Matrix, I am one of those who, WHEN INVITED to do something about a perceived injustice, did so.

I did not "use" the work of "self-trained" in my submission - how could I? The point of my comments above was that no self-trained architect has come forward to show his or her work to prove their competence.

I concentrated solely on the plight of qualified architects who have their Part II when I spoke before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment on May 18th 2010 - this is a matter or record on video and formal transcript.

This and my other endeavours on behalf of the Alliance has supported John O'Donoghue's Private Member's Bill - but not the Graduate's Bill.
As an unqualified architect with some experience, you may choose to avail of the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010 when it becomes law.

It is unlikely that I will be availaing of this route - I will attempt to Register using Option C.
So this has resulted in a benefit for you CK - but no benefit for me.

Your allegations about me using the work of the self trained or directly benefiting from that association just don't stand up to scrutiny.

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

Showing evidence of their work is the big bugbear of the Alliance and it just won't go away.
When I started supporting the Alliance, I assumed I would find a like-minded group of competent people, at least several of which would have qualifications similar to my own, whith whom I could make common cause.

While several of the people I met seemed competent, only a few actually showed their work to others in the Alliance.
Despite several calls from a focus group I participated in, none of the rest of the Alliance chose to support the holding of an exhibition of their work.

This has allowed some people to label all Members of the Alliance being "chancers".
This does a huge disservice to competent members of the Alliance, but this absence of proof leaves a doubt.
Real architects should not be afraid to exhibit their work, and this fear does the Alliance little or no credit.
The only way to dispel such rumours and unfounded allegations in the public eye is for all architects who wish to become registered to step forward and show their work.

Yet in the Alliance there seems to be a core of resistance to showing their work, particularly amongst older, long standing Members, which does the newer and younger members no real service and which cannot withstand public scrutiny for long.

For this and other reasons I felt I could not maintain my association with the Alliance and I formally resigned earlier this year, not without some soul-searching, because there seem to be some good people in the Alliance which will be a loss to the Architectural profession should they choose to continue on their present course.

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

What I find difficult to come to grips with in your comments above is the fact that no Irish practice would take you on.
This is despite your qualifications in design, and your wealth of experience - as an architect - in the UK.
This reluctance also occurred in the middle fo the Celtic Tiger at a time when many practices were in need of competent professionals.

It would be interesting to hear both sides of this - both in terms of the firms you applied to and their reasons for not hiring you.
If as you suggest, this was a closed shop approach, then I can understand your dislike of the RIAI, but there are many firms in Dublin alone who do not turn away people solely on the grounds of their qualification not being Part III.
How do you think all the Part II's get taken on to gain enough experience to sit the RIAI exam?

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

Actually I begin to see one possible reason why you weren't taken on.

In relation to your assertions about having worked on large projects abroad - you would have had to prove it.
You would have had to g back to these employers whom you say employed you as an architect and get letters of reference supporting your assertion.

I suspect you never did this - is this the case?

My strong advice is that you should, even at this late stage, get copies of the projects, both built and unbuilt, you say you worked on and show these as part of your portfolio.

Until you do, you will have difficulty convincing people of your professional history and competence.

Ironically, once you decide to become registered through whatever route the RIAI may be administering [and it could be via John O'Donoghue's ACT by then], the RIAI will weigh in on your side, supporting you if you are experiencing difficulty in getting former employers to supply details of your involvement with them.
I understand this to be the case in Ireland at least, and I am sure they will seek clarification from Registered Practices in the UK on your behalf.

In that regard it might be useful if you decided to stop viewing the RIAI as the enemy and more as a means to a shared aim - Registration.

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


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

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

Postby CK » Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:04 pm

For the record, my association with the Alliance has not benefited my position either in my professional career or with the RIAI to any significant degree.[…] Your allegations about me using the work of the self trained or directly benefiting from that association just don't stand up to scrutiny.


Architects’ Alliance gave you the opportunity to defend your cause in front of the government. Do you pretend that you could have created this opportunity by yourself? You pretend that you gain nothing from the Alliance but few days ago you were begging for me to send you the legal opinion that they recently obtained, as few weeks ago you asked me for the one requested by the RIAI. Maybe you refuse to acknowledge all what you got from the Alliance… Don’t you think?

Showing evidence of their work is the big bugbear of the Alliance and it just won't go away.


Of course it is… specially when it is to be judged by competitors. Judged by an institute, which has and still is firmly standing against self-taught architects.

Real architects should not be afraid to exhibit their work, and this fear does the Alliance little or no credit.


Members of Architects’ Alliance are showing their work individually. No one from the association refuses to do that. What Architects’ Alliance refuses, is to be assessed qualitatively by an institute, which has interests opposed to the interests of the association’ members. The RIAI promotes and defends the interests of architectural education, don’t you see the problem here. How can the RIAI in one hand assess fairly self-taught and in the other hand defend the interests of architectural education? There is an obvious conflict here… When I asked the ARAE director the reason for the cost being so high, she answered: “It is an examination equivalent to 5 years studies.” Meaning that the applicants have to compensate financially for all the studies that they did not pay for.

Yet in the Alliance there seems to be a core of resistance to showing their work, particularly amongst older, long standing Members, which does the newer and younger members no real service and which cannot withstand public scrutiny for long.


Don’t try your bullshit onq… I have worked with registered architects. When most of those guys are over 40 years old they do not design anymore, they do not write their letters, they do not sketch. They are just businessmen employing younger individuals to do the work. They find the clients and manage the practice. In large practice they do not even manage the project as they have project architects to do that. Why is the RIAI refusing this way of working to self-taught architects? As part of the Technical Assessment it seems that applicants must present some projects in which they have managed, designed, administrated and so on… This is not architecture. Architecture is team work.

What I find difficult to come to grips with in your comments above is the fact that no Irish practice would take you on.
This is despite your qualifications in design, and your wealth of experience - as an architect - in the UK.
This reluctance also occurred in the middle fo the Celtic Tiger at a time when many practices were in need of competent professionals.


I could have found some work as a technician, but I turned down these propositions. For me it would have been going backward. I would have accepted a position as a design architect with opportunities to evolve as a project architect.

It would be interesting to hear both sides of this - both in terms of the firms you applied to and their reasons for not hiring you.
If as you suggest, this was a closed shop approach, then I can understand your dislike of the RIAI, but there are many firms in Dublin alone who do not turn away people solely on the grounds of their qualification not being Part III.


I remember 2 meetings where I was turned down because unable to become a member of the RIAI. One with the PM Group in their Tallaght office, the other one with a company in Ballsbridge. I knew other foreign architects, one ARIAI, who could not find some employment at the time. You may forget that there was a kind of economical problem in 2000 – 2001… The dot com bubble I think and then 9/11…

In relation to your assertions about having worked on large projects abroad - you would have had to prove it.
You would have had to g back to these employers whom you say employed you as an architect and get letters of reference supporting your assertion.


When I try to apply for registration through section 16 of the Act, I contacted some of my employers in the UK. I got 4 letters confirming my position and employment. 3 of the practices did not exist anymore and the others never replied. However, I have kept some of the payslips… When I see what is requested for verification in the RIAI Technical Assessment, I think that they really are joking… However, I think that I should be able to obtain such verifications for 2 to 4,000 sterling, depending on economical circumstances.

In that regard it might be useful if you decided to stop viewing the RIAI as the enemy and more as a means to a shared aim - Registration.


I tried that first onq… I also paid E2,000 for a CPD that was supposed to help me for registration. When I was told that this would not be enough, then I decided not to trust them anymore, as they were clearly after my money... To give you only one example, my last CPD with CIAT was free of charge.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby onq » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:53 am

deleted
Last edited by onq on Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

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

Postby onq » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:55 am

CK wrote:
Architects’ Alliance gave you the opportunity to defend your cause in front of the government.


Since you seem to have missed the point CK - and appear to have it in reverse - I'll repeat it.

I didn't ask to represent the Alliance, they came to me and offered me an opportunity to speak because they thought - at that time - that having a disenfranchised graduate speaking at the same forum would support THEM!

Do you pretend that you could have created this opportunity by yourself?


I had two alternatives before the Alliance contacted me; -

- take a High Court case that would have discredited the RIAI, something I was unwilling to do.
- publicly continue to trade as an architect and force them to take me to the High Court.

Those options are still available to me, but I see them as retrograde steps - I will advance through Option C, money permitting.

You pretend that you gain nothing from the Alliance but few days ago you were begging for me to send you the legal opinion that they recently obtained, as few weeks ago you asked me for the one requested by the RIAI. Maybe you refuse to acknowledge all what you got from the Alliance… Don’t you think?


I cannot recall "begging" anything from you CK - I think you might be a little delusional at this point.
I offered to review and comment on the Opinion from the RIAI and I have done so.
I recently commented on the first Alliance Opinion.
If you want me to comment on what seems to be the second Alliance Opinion, forward it to me for review - or not, its your call.


(snip)

Members of Architects’ Alliance are showing their work individually. No one from the association refuses to do that.


Nonsense CK, there is no one in the Alliance showing their work at any public forum nor have they ever done so.
One member put some examples up on a website and one of the Committee was supposed to run with it - nothing happened.

Don’t try your bullshit onq… I have worked with registered architects. When most of those guys are over 40 years old they do not design anymore, they do not write their letters, they do not sketch. They are just businessmen employing younger individuals to do the work. They find the clients and manage the practice. In large practice they do not even manage the project as they have project architects to do that. Why is the RIAI refusing this way of working to self-taught architects? As part of the Technical Assessment it seems that applicants must present some projects in which they have managed, designed, administrated and so on… This is not architecture. Architecture is team work.

I see that asking for Alliance Members to show their work is a sore point with you CK.

As you already know, I do all my own work and I am no longer what some consider young.
You OTOH seem to be lacking in knowledge about MRIAI's because half of them are in small companies.
They do not have hordes of young designers working for them and many are like myself, sole traders who do everything.


I could have found some work as a technician, but I turned down these propositions. For me it would have been going backward. I would have accepted a position as a design architect with opportunities to evolve as a project architect.


I think you should have accepted the position offered and worked your way up - it couldn't have been much worse than where you are now, could it?

I remember 2 meetings where I was turned down because unable to become a member of the RIAI. One with the PM Group in their Tallaght office, the other one with a company in Ballsbridge. I knew other foreign architects, one ARIAI, who could not find some employment at the time. You may forget that there was a kind of economical problem in 2000 – 2001… The dot com bubble I think and then 9/11…


You could have been unfortunate in your timing in 2001-2002 alright, but there were opportunities since then.
(snip)

When I try to apply for registration through section 16 of the Act, I contacted some of my employers in the UK. I got 4 letters confirming my position and employment. 3 of the practices did not exist anymore and the others never replied. However, I have kept some of the payslips… When I see what is requested for verification in the RIAI Technical Assessment, I think that they really are joking… However, I think that I should be able to obtain such verifications for 2 to 4,000 sterling, depending on economical circumstances.

In that regard it might be useful if you decided to stop viewing the RIAI as the enemy and more as a means to a shared aim - Registration.


I tried that first onq… I also paid E2,000 for a CPD that was supposed to help me for registration. When I was told that this would not be enough, then I decided not to trust them anymore, as they were clearly after my money... To give you only one example, my last CPD with CIAT was free of charge.


Membership of the AAI costs €80 and all CPD and RIAI-rated lectures are free of charge once you're a member.
There are reduced rates for students and people who are unwaged/on jobseekers.

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

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

Postby CK » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:28 pm

I cannot recall "begging" anything from you CK - I think you might be a little delusional at this point.


This is not about begging… You asked twice for it haven’t you? The point that I was trying to make here, is that the alliance gave you information and opportunities that you deny today. You have been invited by the Alliance to talk in front of the government, why do you pretend that this benefited the Alliance only? Whatever you did with the Alliance, it seems that it did not benefit you but the others only. Strange isn’t it? You do not seem to be the type of guy easy to manipulate. Have you been outsmarted or something?

Nonsense CK, there is no one in the Alliance showing their work at any public forum nor have they ever done so.
One member put some examples up on a website and one of the Committee was supposed to run with it - nothing happened.


Architects’ Alliance members are showing their works on the web. Many of them advertise through Google. You know many of the members like I do, why are you lying on this issue? Brian Montaut, the spokesperson of the Alliance, was employed by a practice until made redundant, that is why he hasn’t got a website under his name, but I am sure that some of his works are published on his passed employer’s web site. Many of the organisers do not have the skills or the interest of creating a website, they are from Cork or limerick and they do not need such advertising. Adrian Turner does not have a web site, but you may want to see one of the hotels that he worked on: http://www.roscommonpeople.ie/pdf/RSP_3011_Ed1_039.pdf

I will not list the websites of members here, but you could do so yourself, then why do you pretend that michelle or Thomas or other younger members do not have their own websites with photos of their works. By the way your own website does not show much of your work neither….
As you already know, I do all my own work and I am no longer what some consider young.
You OTOH seem to be lacking in knowledge about MRIAI's because half of them are in small companies.
They do not have hordes of young designers working for them and many are like myself, sole traders who do everything.


Onq, except for a part time administrative assistant, I am also working by myself today until something important will come. But my point is that if you are working as a sole trader then generally you specialised in small developments. It is not sole traders who are involved with large projects. You know like me that the RIAI does not accept small residential development as the only source of experience for the Technical Assessment. You know like me that they want verified proof, that on all projects the applicant shall be the designer, the administrator, the manager and so on… If you know your job, you will know that it is not good practice to do everything yourself while working on a project which is more than an extension or a refurbishment.

You will be astonishing me by pretending the contrary. How can you be on site supervising the work, taking notes, talking to contractors and clients by yourself? Do you duplicate yourself? How can you be on CAD and Revit as well as reviewing the project on paper? If you do everything yourself then your clients are not the best served. Experience taught me that while I am on site with a client, it is better to have someone else drafting the minutes and someone in the office answering the phone. It is difficult to be on a screen drafting a project and on the paper reviewing another one. By experience I know that clients come by wave and that 3 months with nothing to do will hopefully lead to 3 months with too much for one man to deal with.

If one may work by himself on small domestic projects (that is why many sole traders are specialised in this area), it is impossible to do so when working for commercial or other projects. You cannot make a living by working on projects one by one (unless you charge a very high fee) and it is unpractical or impossible to deliver quality while doing everything by yourself on a project. A team does much better and much faster. This is one of the main ideas of architectural design, working as a team. Haven’t you been learning that in school?

Why isn’t the RIAI acknowledging this widely known principle when assessing self-taught architects for registration? Why do they spread the false and deceptive Hollywood inspired idea that one architect does all the work on one project?….

I think you should have accepted the position offered and worked your way up - it couldn't have been much worse than where you are now, could it?


If I had done so I would probably have been one of the first laid off during the downturn and on the doll today. In the contrary my business still allows me to survive after having laid off most of my staff…

You could have been unfortunate in your timing in 2001-2002 alright, but there were opportunities since then.


Clients kept coming in… I was not interested to work for someone else anymore. I just could not believe it. The problem came only later, when I tried to get involved with small public or semi-public projects. RIAI membership was mandatory and I got stock as there was no door opened for me to become MRIAI. I was planning to grow by getting involved with medium size developments, but that never happened… Or only exceptionally.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby onq » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:19 am

CK wrote:
This is not about begging… You asked twice for it haven’t you?

Yes I'm used to making repeat requests when dealing with you CK.
How many times did I have to ask you before you admitted you hadn't even read the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010?
How many times did I have to ask you before you eventually read the Bill and confirmed your support for it?
The point that I was trying to make here, is that the alliance gave you information and opportunities that you deny today.

I deny nothing - I pointed out that your interpretation of events was not how I perceived it.
You have been invited by the Alliance to talk in front of the government, why do you pretend that this benefited the Alliance only? Whatever you did with the Alliance, it seems that it did not benefit you but the others only. Strange isn’t it? You do not seem to be the type of guy easy to manipulate. Have you been outsmarted or something?

You've hit the nail on the head CK.
Who got their Amendment - Grandfathers or Graduates? Grandfathers.
Whose standing was increased by my participation - my own? Highly unlikely.
Architects’ Alliance members are showing their works on the web. Many of them advertise through Google. You know many of the members like I do, why are you lying on this issue? Brian Montaut, the spokesperson of the Alliance, was employed by a practice until made redundant, that is why he hasn’t got a website under his name, but I am sure that some of his works are published on his passed employer’s web site. Many of the organisers do not have the skills or the interest of creating a website, they are from Cork or limerick and they do not need such advertising. Adrian Turner does not have a web site, but you may want to see one of the hotels that he worked on: http://www.roscommonpeople.ie/pdf/RSP_3011_Ed1_039.pdf

The article you quoted does not even show a picture of the hotel. I notice you're economical with your words - saying Adrian Turner "worked on" the hotel as opposed to "designed" the hotel. These little slips of yours aren't being missed by me or readers of this forum, CK. I've found the hotel website and apart from one small picture of the front entrance, which is a simple pediment in glass with flanking stone screen walls, there isn't much to see. As I said, there has been no public exhibition of the Alliance Members' work. They all seem to be flying so far under the RADAR that they're subterranean. The Design Underground, perhaps?
I will not list the websites of members here, but you could do so yourself, then why do you pretend that michelle or Thomas or other younger members do not have their own websites with photos of their works. By the way your own website does not show much of your work neither….

Oddly enough CK, my work isn't at issue here - I've already got the qualification.
I also have several mid-range to large jobs behind me together with a wide variety of experience.
The issue here is the Alliance Members who won't show their work, Adrian Turner included.
I'm sure he'd be delighted to find out that you've named him and one of his projects BTW.

I've seen what appears to be some good work by several members of the Alliance.
None of them will come forward to claim the work as their own or publicly exhibit it.
That's just not good enough, when you're trying to assure the public that you're competent.
Onq, except for a part time administrative assistant, I am also working by myself today until something important will come. But my point is that if you are working as a sole trader then generally you specialised in small developments. It is not sole traders who are involved with large projects. You know like me that the RIAI does not accept small residential development as the only source of experience for the Technical Assessment. You know like me that they want verified proof, that on all projects the applicant shall be the designer, the administrator, the manager and so on… If you know your job, you will know that it is not good practice to do everything yourself while working on a project which is more than an extension or a refurbishment.

I suppose some people have what it takes, and some people don't CK.
My experience of working in a large practice was that while staff allocation could produce more drawings than you could alone and unaided, the quality was entirely dependent on your own proofreading and control of the design process. It was a rare joy when I found a good CAD technician to work with or a good junior architect to help with some of the design. But in the end the buck stopped with me. and much of the production of information did too, whether at design, planning, fire safety certificate, building regulation compliance, tender, working drawing, inspection, interim or certification stages.

Being able to work on e-mail, AutoCAD and Office myself meant I could leverage my design and administration ability five fold compared to working on the boards or with a typewriter, so I never felt the need for staff even on mid-range commercial work or housing estates from 120 to 170 dwellings. I certainly wasn't confined to small work or extensions.
You will be astonishing me by pretending the contrary.

I'm not pretending - consider yourself astonished.
How can you be on site supervising the work, taking notes, talking to contractors and clients by yourself? Do you duplicate yourself? How can you be on CAD and Revit as well as reviewing the project on paper?

I sequentially multi-task - I don't do everything at once - you seldom have to and if you do its simple to prioritise.
it sounds like you have time management problems and spend too much time talking to contractors instead of instructing them.
If you do everything yourself then your clients are not the best served.

Not at all CK - you learn to design as you draw, compose as you write and leverage both e-mail and phone calls to avoid needless meetings with time wasters and tyre kickers. In short, you manage your time better.
Experience taught me that while I am on site with a client, it is better to have someone else drafting the minutes and someone in the office answering the phone. It is difficult to be on a screen drafting a project and on the paper reviewing another one. By experience I know that clients come by wave and that 3 months with nothing to do will hopefully lead to 3 months with too much for one man to deal with.

I disagree - like I said its a matter of time management and self-control.
If one may work by himself on small domestic projects (that is why many sole traders are specialised in this area), it is impossible to do so when working for commercial or other projects. You cannot make a living by working on projects one by one (unless you charge a very high fee) and it is unpractical or impossible to deliver quality while doing everything by yourself on a project. A team does much better and much faster. This is one of the main ideas of architectural design, working as a team. Haven’t you been learning that in school?

Making back handed comments like that after admitting you cannot handle mid size projects as a sole trader does you little credit CK. If you need a team around you, well and good. I find I don't, apart from the other design team members, and the savings I make in terms of supervising and revising others' work allows me to work at 60-75% of my workrate with a team.
Why isn’t the RIAI acknowledging this widely known principle when assessing self-taught architects for registration? Why do they spread the false and deceptive Hollywood inspired idea that one architect does all the work on one project?….

Some of us are able to do this.
Unlike you, it would appear.
If I had done so I would probably have been one of the first laid off during the downturn and on the doll today. In the contrary my business still allows me to survive after having laid off most of my staff…

Fair point.
Clients kept coming in… I was not interested to work for someone else any more. I just could not believe it. The problem came only later, when I tried to get involved with small public or semi-public projects. RIAI membership was mandatory and I got stock as there was no door opened for me to become MRIAI. I was planning to grow by getting involved with medium size developments, but that never happened… Or only exceptionally.


Well, here you are faced with a tough choice CK.

This recent exchange may serve to draw more attention to your plight, but I'd say you have only a limited time frame in which to do something about it. I get the distinct feeling that the RIAI's year's grace for Grandfathers was up at the end of last month and sooner or later they may take a test case to see how the Courts will react to enforcing the legislation. For the record, no-one has stated this to me or even said things that would lead me to infer it, but taking a test case is the next logical step in asserting their authority - assuming your assessment of them is correct. And assuming John O'Donoghue's Bill doesn't become law any time soon.

But how likely is that?

Instead of being up and running over the summer, the Alliance were out-flanked by the RIAI and their lobbying campaign. Instead of putting the government and opposition under pressure to pass a relatively innocuous Bill in the autumn, we are now in the last days of this government and still the Bill has not passed into Law. The Alliance has spent money on an Opinion according to you - why? They were pursuing a political track - why waste money on a legal Opinion? The Alliance don't seem able to stay focussed and hew a straight furrow. But perhaps we'll see a Christmas Miracle from John O'Donoghue to match the one we saw last July. Perhaps by then the Alliance will learn how to thank a senior politician for doing something for them.


I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

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

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

Postby onq » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:09 pm

onq wrote:
batten wrote:I see no mention, or scope, for interpretation of Directives in the description you have provided :

"directives, which are addressed to national authorities, who must then take action to make them part of national law"

Directives must be made part of national law, the only discretion allowed is that of time - Regulations are binding once passed by the EU, Directives not so, which is why the EU want to fine Ireland on many fronts as we have delayed for too long in implementing some Directives.


So if a Directive says that someone with a prescribed qualification is entitled to use the title architect, any subsequent Irish law should respect that - is that what you're saying?

ONQ.



I see no answer from Batten to this simple assertion based on the sequecne of logic he has followed to extinction.

You see Batten, if the Directives say I am entitled to use the title and you admit that they - eventually - must be implemented by the Irish Government, then why did Ireland refuse to grant automatic recognition to Graduates to use the Title architect?

It seems to me that the RIAI - in the name of "market branding" - wished only part III's to use the Title, but the EU directive explicitly grants me a right to use the Title.

The counter from the RIAI is that this only applies to people wishing to work abroad, to transfer professional services from one country to another, but this is patent nonsense.
Refusal to recognise the title in the conutry of origin undermines it everywhere and goes against the letter and spirit of the Directives.
This position is further undermiend in terms fo precedent when it is realised that dgraduates like myself have been quite legally using the title since qualification.

[As an aside to CK, it was the is denial of my legitimate right to use the title that allowed ME to confer both legal as well as additional moral authority to the Alliance position during the presentation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment on May 18th 2010 - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!]

Where does this leave the RIAI's Opinion and its assertion that the Oireachtas is omnipotent?

Because DIR 84/384/EEC was writting into law by S.I. 15 of 1989 back in January 1989, translating the Architects Directive into Irish Law. DIR 2005/36/EC transposes this into the wider Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Directive as noted previously on this thread and elsewhere.

Yet the Oireachtas having confirmed the right of Graduates to use the title in two Statutory Instruments, the Building Control Act 2007 fails to recognise this right and places impediments in the way of me of other Part II Architects using the title.

Is it that the Oireachtas is omnipotent but confused, or, dare I say it - contradicting itself?
And if the Oireachtas has gone out of its way to deny rights to people who have been granted them by the EU, what provenance has their strategy of denying use of the Title to people in practise as archtiects for 30 years or more?

Given the parties' performance on the economy it should come as no surprise that such anomalies and high-handed dealing has crept into the Building Control acquis, but the knee-jerking response of shallwo thinkers liek you to a protest by people trying to protect their livelihood does you little credit.

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

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

Postby onq » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:25 pm

onq wrote:
batten wrote:I see no mention, or scope, for interpretation of Directives in the description you have provided :

"directives, which are addressed to national authorities, who must then take action to make them part of national law"

Directives must be made part of national law, the only discretion allowed is that of time - Regulations are binding once passed by the EU, Directives not so, which is why the EU want to fine Ireland on many fronts as we have delayed for too long in implementing some Directives.


So if a Directive says that someone with a prescribed qualification is entitled to use the title architect, any subsequent Irish law should respect that - is that what you're saying?

ONQ.



I see no answer from Batten to this simple assertion based on the sequence of logic he has followed to extinction.

You see Batten, if the Directives say I am entitled to use the title and you admit that they - eventually - must be implemented by the Irish Government, then why did Ireland refuse to grant automatic recognition to Graduates to use the Title architect?

It seems to me that the RIAI - in the name of "market branding" - wished only part III's to use the Title, but the EU directive explicitly grants me a right to use the Title.

The counter from the RIAI is that this only applies to people wishing to work abroad, to transfer professional services from one country to another, but this is patent nonsense.
Refusal to recognise the title in the country of origin undermines it everywhere and goes against the letter and spirit of the Directives.
This position is further undermined in terms of precedent when it is realised that graduates like myself have been quite legally using the title since qualification.

[As an aside to CK, it was the is denial of my legitimate right to use the title that allowed ME to confer both legal as well as additional moral authority to the Alliance position during the presentation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment on May 18th 2010 - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!]

Where does this leave the RIAI's Opinion and its assertion that the Oireachtas is omnipotent?

Because DIR 84/384/EEC was writting into law by S.I. 15 of 1989 back in January 1989, translating the Architects Directive into Irish Law. DIR 2005/36/EC transposes this into the wider Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Directive as noted previously on this thread and elsewhere.

Yet the Oireachtas having confirmed the right of Graduates to use the title in two Statutory Instruments, the Building Control Act 2007 fails to recognise this right and places impediments in the way of me of other Part II Architects using the title.

So is it that the Oireachtas is omnipotent but confused, or, dare I say it - contradicting itself?
And if the Oireachtas has gone out of its way to deny rights to people who have been granted them by the EU, what provenance has their strategy of denying use of the Title to people in practise as archtiects for 30 years or more?

Given the Government parties' performance on the economy it should come as no surprise that such anomalies and high-handed dealing has crept into the Building Control acquis, but the knee-jerking response of shallow thinkers like you to a protest by people trying to protect their livelihood does you little credit.

Instead off bleating that their education cost you "X" so why shouldn't the ARAE assessment cost "X" Archtiects should be asking why education costs so much. WHo benefits?

Instead of worrying about what might amount to 80 - 200 Grandfathers - many of whom are nearing retirement age, you should be more worried about the continuous stream of new Graduates that the schools are pumping into a half-dead profession at the rate of 300 a year or so.

This is not to mention the thousands of architectural technicians [15,000 +] and technologists [2,500 +] who are not trained in design as Archtiects are, but who are hoovering up all the small work that naturally used to feed small architectural practices.

And let's not forget engineers and surveyors, neither of whom are trained to desigend buildings, who are employing junior architects in environments in which their abilities will not get the necessary mentoring they need to develop their design abilities further.

New gradautes are thus squeezed from both ends, unable to call themselves by their acquired title [which they have paid so much for :)] whilst competion for small design work with people whose raison d'etre was to supply technical services to Archtiectural practices, most of whom have little design ability.

This removes new competition for established practices and hobbles new gradautes from learnng client liaison skills.
By removing young architects from the market for well-designed small works this results in the kind of bungalow bliss blight that has ruined the Irish countryside, for which technicians and engineers can be rightly blamed.

And who is overseeing this destruction of the Architectural profession?
Up until 2007, it was the fault of civil and public servants who had a predeliction for taking advice from draughtsperople, engineers and technicians instead of people who had been properly trained in urban and building design.

Now the baton has passed to the RIAI who seem more interested in waging a war against people nearing retirement than managing the profession for the greater good of the small practitioner or the public.

But hopefully this will change and our task become how best to manage this disaster that has befallen our profession in order to come out the other side, fitter, leaner, more competent and more knowledgable on all matters to do with urban and building design.

ONQ.
Last edited by onq on Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

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

Postby CK » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:27 pm

How many times did I have to ask you before you admitted you hadn't even read the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010?
How many times did I have to ask you before you eventually read the Bill and confirmed your support for it?


I did read the bill from the first time. I had reservations in my support because it is still in breach of EU law in relation to the national limitation for the requested experience. At the time I was in contact with the European Commission about the Building Control Act 2007 being in breach of the EC treaty because discriminating those who worked abroad. On one side the Bill suit my interests but on the other side it includes for restrictions similar to those that I am fighting against in the Act. I understand that the European Commission is in contact with the Irish government on this matter, and I hope that this problem will be solved. However, to my understanding the bill is in breach of EU law because discriminating against those who have gained some of their experience within other EU countries.

You've hit the nail on the head CK.
Who got their Amendment - Grandfathers or Graduates? Grandfathers.
Whose standing was increased by my participation - my own? Highly unlikely.


Ok onq, but how many graduates in your position are parts of Architects’ Alliance? The fact is that the Alliance does not represent graduates. You wanted the group to support your cause, but only yourself in the group would have had the benefice of it. I think that your mistake was to ask self-taught architects to support the interests of graduates. At the end you will benefit from the same than anyone else within the association if the bill is enacted, won’t you?

As I said, there has been no public exhibition of the Alliance Members' work. They all seem to be flying so far under the RADAR that they're subterranean. The Design Underground, perhaps?


Active members of Architects’ Alliance are already doing a lot of unpaid work for the association; some other members are doing nothing for the association. However, they all are employed, self-employed, or unfortunately unemployed due to the actual economical conjuncture. They all show their works through their companies’ portfolio or websites. I do not want to give the name and web address of some of Architects’ Alliance members here. I agree that the organisers have no websites, but you can call them and ask to see some of their works. I believe that politicians were invited to do so. I remember that Eamonn brought a portfolio of his work to show during the meeting with the government. I agree with you that it would be nice to have this portfolio of works from the Alliance’ members, but once again, they all have to make a living and are not paid like Graby and his acolytes to defend our position. They also have to make a living and to promote their own practices; the Alliance only comes second, except for Brian and a few others I guess.

Oddly enough CK, my work isn't at issue here - I've already got the qualification


This is part of the problem isn’t it? Why don’t you have to pass the same exam than us, like they do in the US. Maybe because you do not have what is requested… Maybe because what is asked to self-taught is not realisable.

I also have several mid-range to large jobs behind me together with a wide variety of experience.


Why don’t you show them?

I've seen what appears to be some good work by several members of the Alliance.
None of them will come forward to claim the work as their own or publicly exhibit it.
That's just not good enough, when you're trying to assure the public that you're competent.


I guess that the best proofs for quality are satisfied clients. A crap building can look good in a magazine if the photographer is skilled. I have seen many of those…

I suppose some people have what it takes, and some people don't CK.
My experience of working in a large practice was that while staff allocation could produce more drawings than you could alone and unaided, the quality was entirely dependent on your own proofreading and control of the design process. It was a rare joy when I found a good CAD technician to work with or a good junior architect to help with some of the design. But in the end the buck stopped with me. and much of the production of information did too, whether at design, planning, fire safety certificate, building regulation compliance, tender, working drawing, inspection, interim or certification stages.

Being able to work on e-mail, AutoCAD and Office myself meant I could leverage my design and administration ability five fold compared to working on the boards or with a typewriter, so I never felt the need for staff even on mid-range commercial work or housing estates from 120 to 170 dwellings. I certainly wasn't confined to small work or extensions.


Are you overseeing contractors’ work on site? How do you take notes on site while meeting the clients and contractors during construction? Personally I cannot sustain a conversation with the 2 or 4 of them and take notes in the same time. There is a problem of practicality there, but minutes of site meetings are important, aren’t they. I learned a lot taking notes of meeting for architects in the UK. It is much more interesting and educative than any course in a classroom, I can guaranty that.

I learned in university that team work is much more productive and creative. When given a design from a colleague at planning or post planning stage, I can contribute with many improvements because I bring another perspective, a critical position, another vision that can add value to the design, ad quality to the building. When producing a design from scratch and passing it over to someone else, weaknesses will be exposed and improvement proposed. While 2 persons are working on a design, the result is generally twice as satisfying, there is a conversation between 2 experts, critics, sometimes conflicts, and the design is always the winner. Of course the clients are involved and so is the planning department. But honestly onq, 2 designers are better than one in most circumstances.

I sequentially multi-task - I don't do everything at once - you seldom have to and if you do its simple to prioritise.
it sounds like you have time management problems and spend too much time talking to contractors instead of instructing them.


Do you have conversation with yourself too? I can criticise my own work, but I found that others do that much better than me. I can spot mistakes or weakness in my work, but a third part will do it better. I can improve your design in a way that you will never have thought about.

I am not saying that it is not possible to realise medium size development by yourself. I say that it is unpractical, that it does not make sense economically and that the design cannot be as rich as it would when a team of designers / architects is involved. You may have designed one house and repeated it 120 times. But maybe you should have employed another architect to help you and produced something more creative. I don’t blame you, the Celtic tiger always considered profit before creativity; some rare exceptions exists, I must admit.

Not at all CK - you learn to design as you draw, compose as you write and leverage both e-mail and phone calls to avoid needless meetings with time wasters and tyre kickers. In short, you manage your time better.


What do you mean by tyre kickers? Are you involved with the punch tyre on my care 2 months ago?

I think that a building find its place in the real world and that the design is virtual. Design that look good on the computer do not always produce buildings that look good in the real world, even if the builder did some good work.

You have your way of working, and I guess that you are not the only one to choose working this way. Personally I feel frustrated when I design by myself, but this is what I am doing these last years because my workload is not suitable for someone else to share. This is also how I started my business about 10 years ago.

However, I think that a team of 2 or 3 or 4 will do much better than a one man practice, and it is shameful that the RIAI technical assessment refuses to take this well known principle in consideration while registering self-taught architects. Why aren’t self-taught architects authorised to have participated in the produced service rather than realised it fully themselves? Team work is taught and initiated in university, it is a non-sense and completely inappropriate to refuse the validity of this form of work.

Making back handed comments like that after admitting you cannot handle mid size projects as a sole trader does you little credit CK. If you need a team around you, well and good. I find I don't, apart from the other design team members, and the savings I make in terms of supervising and revising others' work allows me to work at 60-75% of my workrate with a team.


You are the first architect that I know who prefers do so… All the others were aware that it is better not to.

You got it completely wrong on the work rate onq. A small team does not charge more, but the fees like the work, are shared instead of being kept by one person only.

The RIAI is clearly showing its incapability to assess self-taught while requesting that all design presented to the technical assessment shall be produced by the applicant only. I have designed by myself, but nothing prevents an architect to design within a team, on the contrary this is recommended for quality purposes. Why isn’t the RIAI allowing self-taught to do so? When many of their star architects are used to claim the glory of designs realised by their employees…

Well, here you are faced with a tough choice CK.

This recent exchange may serve to draw more attention to your plight, but I'd say you have only a limited time frame in which to do something about it. I get the distinct feeling that the RIAI's year's grace for Grandfathers was up at the end of last month and sooner or later they may take a test case to see how the Courts will react to enforcing the legislation.


I feel that I act within the law onq. However the actual legislation is illegally denigrating some of my rights and the RIAI has already been exposed in irregular situation.

They may take me in court an sue me for daring opposing them... Well, I have taken risks before... As you said... We will see...
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby CK » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:36 pm

Instead off bleating that their education cost you "X" so why shouldn't the ARAE assessment cost "X" Archtiects should be asking why education costs so much. WHo benefits?


good question...
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby batten » Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:24 pm

onq wrote:
onq wrote:
So if a Directive says that someone with a prescribed qualification is entitled to use the title architect, any subsequent Irish law should respect that - is that what you're saying?

ONQ.



I see no answer from Batten to this simple assertion based on the sequence of logic he has followed to extinction.
ONQ.


not what I'm saying - not even close.

no answer, the boredom threshold has been exceeded - if you feel so hard done by, why have you not complained to the EU Commission about the Irish legislation as it affects you ? If you have a case with regard to the implementation of the Directives, I'm sure they'd pursue it.
batten
Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:47 pm

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

Postby onq » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:27 pm

deleted
Last edited by onq on Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

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

Postby onq » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:28 pm

batten wrote:
onq wrote:
onq wrote:
So if a Directive says that someone with a prescribed qualification is entitled to use the title architect, any subsequent Irish law should respect that - is that what you're saying?

ONQ.



I see no answer from Batten to this simple assertion based on the sequence of logic he has followed to extinction.
ONQ.


not what I'm saying - not even close.

no answer, the boredom threshold has been exceeded - if you feel so hard done by, why have you not complained to the EU Commission about the Irish legislation as it affects you ? If you have a case with regard to the implementation of the Directives, I'm sure they'd pursue it.


You start off waving someone else's opinion over your head, follow through by suggesting EU Directives are sacrosanct, then run away at the mere suggestion that the Building Control Act 2007 might not be in accordance with EU law, because it doesn't echo what's in the DIrectives but seeks intead to undermine the right to use the title that the Directives guarantee - and seek cover by claiming that you're "bored"?!

Yeah. Right.

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

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

Postby onq » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:11 pm

CK wrote:
How many times did I have to ask you before you admitted you hadn't even read the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010?
How many times did I have to ask you before you eventually read the Bill and confirmed your support for it?


I did read the bill from the first time.

Not from the way this thread reads CK
I had reservations in my support because it is still in breach of EU law in relation to the national limitation for the requested experience. At the time I was in contact with the European Commission about the Building Control Act 2007 being in breach of the EC treaty because discriminating those who worked abroad. On one side the Bill suit my interests but on the other side it includes for restrictions similar to those that I am fighting against in the Act. I understand that the European Commission is in contact with the Irish government on this matter, and I hope that this problem will be solved. However, to my understanding the bill is in breach of EU law because discriminating against those who have gained some of their experience within other EU countries.

You've hit the nail on the head CK.
Who got their Amendment - Grandfathers or Graduates? Grandfathers.
Whose standing was increased by my participation - my own? Highly unlikely.


Ok onq, but how many graduates in your position are parts of Architects’ Alliance? The fact is that the Alliance does not represent graduates.


No argument there

You wanted the group to support your cause, but only yourself in the group would have had the benefice of it. I think that your mistake was to ask self-taught architects to support the interests of graduates. At the end you will benefit from the same than anyone else within the association if the bill is enacted, won’t you?


No, you seem to be incorrect, CK.
Firstly, I was invited to support the Alliance by Brian Montaut - I didn't ask them to support me.
The presentation to the JOC on 18th May 2010 raised the standing of the graduates cause, but that's all I'm afraid.
I assumed there were some part II graduates amongst the Alliance - statistically, there should have been - but there weren't.

Secondly, as for my route to registration, again you seem to be incorrect.
It is unlikely the Registrar will accept an application to Register by a graduate under the BCB 2010 if its passed.
He has stated quite categorically that it is every graduate's duty - in his opinion - to become registered under the existing BVA 2007.

That is to say, gradautes will have to submit inter alia; -

- a portfolio of their work
- a self assessment matrix
- a long CV detailing work done and
- sworn statements supporting the assertions they make from previous employers or their current representatives.

This will approximate to the Part III assessment and will result in the successful candidate becoming eligible to

And given the Ireland-only restriction that the MRIAI (IRL) suggests, I would not choose that route to registration while Option C remains open to me.
I would not want to limit my right to practice to Ireland alone, having previously enjoyed the right to practice legally in every EU country since 1990.

So no, CK, in short, unless there is a separate Graduate's Amendment BIll, I personally won't benefit.
I've explained this to you twice now at least, so please take this on board.


As I said, there has been no public exhibition of the Alliance Members' work. They all seem to be flying so far under the RADAR that they're subterranean. The Design Underground, perhaps?


(snip irrelevant comments)
They all show their works through their companies’ portfolio or websites. I do not want to give the name and web address of some of Architects’ Alliance members here. I agree that the organisers have no websites, but you can call them and ask to see some of their works. I believe that politicians were invited to do so. I remember that Eamonn brought a portfolio of his work to show during the meeting with the government. I agree with you that it would be nice to have this portfolio of works from the Alliance’ members, but once again, they all have to make a living and are not paid like Graby and his acolytes to defend our position. They also have to make a living and to promote their own practices; the Alliance only comes second, except for Brian and a few others I guess.


Stop making excuses and trying to hide behind the need to earn a living CK.
The ones on the dole have time on their hands, the others don't have to spend much.
It costs nothing to offer some cad drawings or PDF files or even Planning Register References


Oddly enough CK, my work isn't at issue here - I've already got the qualification


This is part of the problem isn’t it? Why don’t you have to pass the same exam than us, like they do in the US. Maybe because you do not have what is requested… Maybe because what is asked to self-taught is not realisable.


I can avail of Option C because I have a prescribed qualification and neither you not most of the Alliance possess one.
This means that my competence in design is already attested by my qualification, which is listed under the Directives.
If your qualification were similarly listed you could make a similar applciation, but it isn't and you cannot.
And its the French who chose what French qualifications should be included in the Directives.
So for once you cannot blame the RIAI...


I also have several mid-range to large jobs behind me together with a wide variety of experience.


Why don’t you show them?



A lot of my work is listed on my website http://www.oneillquigley.eu and some visuals are included, but to be honest, before the past 18 months or so we never had to advertise for work, so we didn't develop our website - that's whay there is so little work on it CK, not because it doesn't exist.

I will be showing my work formally to the RIAI, but as I'm no longer Member of the Alliance I have no need to bolster that organisation's standing - I won't be part of their exhibition, should they ever develop the balsl to hold one...

Just to satisfy your curiosity, here is a list of some of the work I've done:

Commercial:

- Stewart Hall Apartments and Retail Units, Ryders Row, Dublin 1.
- Offices at 1A Barrow Street Dublin 2.
- Apartments and Retail Units, 3 Temple Bar/33 Wellington Key.
- Retail Warehousing, Rosbrien Road, Limerick.

Housing estates:

- Newborough in Gorey, Co. Wexford
- Charlottes Grove in Gorey, Co. Wexford
- Fox Dene Wood in Ratoath, Co. Meath

Fit out work:

- Barristers Suite, Block B, Arran Square, Arran Quay.
- Marketing Suite, Park West Business Park, Dublin 12.

Statutory approvals [planning and fire certs etc.] that haven't been built yet:

- Retail Warehouse Unit 28 Spruce Avenue Stillorgan Industrial Estate.
- 3 Houses at Cherbury Mews, Knocklyon Road, Knkocklyon, Dublin 16.
- Mixed Use Development at Circular Road and Bridge Street, Navan, County Meath.

Designs that didn't even get to planning stage, some I only did preliminary work on:

- Brno Masterplan
- Tatra Masterplan
- 6-9 Ushers Quay Offices
- 6-9 Ushers Quay Apartments
- Custom Hall Own Door Offices, Gardiner Street.

Design Consultancy work:

The Meridien Hotel, Akwas Ibom, Nigeria.

The above does not detail any of the Private House, Extension, Appeal, Oral Hearing, Inspection, Remedial and Expert Witness work.
And of course I haven't listed the might-have-been schemes that didn't proceed beyond proposal stage.

I've been in practice since 1990 CK.
My earlier work was Urban Renewal, the later was Retail and Residential.
This is not an unusual mix and is the level and variety of work I'd expect to see from older Alliance Members.


I've seen what appears to be some good work by several members of the Alliance.
None of them will come forward to claim the work as their own or publicly exhibit it.
That's just not good enough, when you're trying to assure the public that you're competent.


I guess that the best proofs for quality are satisfied clients. A crap building can look good in a magazine if the photographer is skilled. I have seen many of those…


That's far too glib CK and no competent architect will be taken in by camera tricks - an interview weeds out the slackers.
As regards the Alliance Members, they have either assembled a body of work after 10 or twenty years or they haven't.
If they have a portfolio, they'll have prove it to offer some sort of assurance to the public.

(snip)

Do you have conversation with yourself too? I can criticise my own work, but I found that others do that much better than me. I can spot mistakes or weakness in my work, but a third part will do it better. I can improve your design in a way that you will never have thought about.

I have no doubt you could suggest changes CK - whether they would be improvements I am less sure...

I am not saying that it is not possible to realise medium size development by yourself.
I say that it is unpractical, that it does not make sense economically and that the design cannot be as rich as it would when a team of designers / architects is involved.

Instead of telling you that you're incorrect again I'll simply post this link from my website;
http://oneillquigley.eu/images/CircularRoadNavan.jpg
That looks rich enough for my taste, CK.
You may have designed one house and repeated it 120 times. But maybe you should have employed another architect to help you and produced something more creative. I don’t blame you, the Celtic tiger always considered profit before creativity; some rare exceptions exists, I must admit.

The days are long gone when "a one house type" estate was considered acceptable to the planning officers.
Most estates will have a minimum of 5-7 house types ranging from two bed townhouses to five bed detached.

Not at all CK - you learn to design as you draw, compose as you write and leverage both e-mail and phone calls to avoid needless meetings with time wasters and tyre kickers. In short, you manage your time better.


What do you mean by tyre kickers? Are you involved with the punch tyre on my care 2 months ago?


No CK, that was whoever drove your car over whatever punctured it.
Bilocation is not numbered amongst my gifts unfortunately.
I have never punctured anyone's tyre deliberately.

I think that a building find its place in the real world and that the design is virtual. Design that look good on the computer do not always produce buildings that look good in the real world, even if the builder did some good work.

You have your way of working, and I guess that you are not the only one to choose working this way. Personally I feel frustrated when I design by myself, but this is what I am doing these last years because my workload is not suitable for someone else to share. This is also how I started my business about 10 years ago.


We're all going back to our beginnings CK.
Except those guys in the IFSC in AIB who are getting a €17,000 bonus this Christmas.
That's a disgrace, and more than a single person gets on the dole.

However, I think that a team of 2 or 3 or 4 will do much better than a one man practice, and it is shameful that the RIAI technical assessment refuses to take this well known principle in consideration while registering self-taught architects. Why aren’t self-taught architects authorised to have participated in the produced service rather than realised it fully themselves? Team work is taught and initiated in university, it is a non-sense and completely inappropriate to refuse the validity of this form of work.

Look at the list of work I posted above CK.
On many of the Urban renewal mixed use projects I was part of a team.
However my roole in the team was the team leader, not a technician or junior architect.
Making back handed comments like that after admitting you cannot handle mid size projects as a sole trader does you little credit CK. If you need a team around you, well and good. I find I don't, apart from the other design team members, and the savings I make in terms of supervising and revising others' work allows me to work at 60-75% of my workrate with a team.


You are the first architect that I know who prefers do so… All the others were aware that it is better not to.


It is not "better not to" for me.
You got it completely wrong on the work rate onq. A small team does not charge more, but the fees like the work, are shared instead of being kept by one person only.

As I said CK, that's not my experience.
The RIAI is clearly showing its incapability to assess self-taught while requesting that all design presented to the technical assessment shall be produced by the applicant only. I have designed by myself, but nothing prevents an architect to design within a team, on the contrary this is recommended for quality purposes. Why isn’t the RIAI allowing self-taught to do so? When many of their star architects are used to claim the glory of designs realised by their employees…

Well, here you are faced with a tough choice CK.

This recent exchange may serve to draw more attention to your plight, but I'd say you have only a limited time frame in which to do something about it. I get the distinct feeling that the RIAI's year's grace for Grandfathers was up at the end of last month and sooner or later they may take a test case to see how the Courts will react to enforcing the legislation.


I feel that I act within the law onq. However the actual legislation is illegally denigrating some of my rights and the RIAI has already been exposed in irregular situation.

They may take me in court an sue me for daring opposing them... Well, I have taken risks before... As you said... We will see...


CK, you cannot approach the law by declaring it to be wrong like that.
If it is an offence to act in a certain way you have to act to attempt to comply with the law.
In your case, in the short term, you wmay get by by simlpy not calling yourself an architect when signing certs.
But eventually you may find that your certs will be rejected if you do this and if you sign as an architect they may still be rejected.
I think this route will be the one followed by the RIAI as opposed to taking people to court, because it leaves it in the hands of the solicitors and - heaven forbid! - the banks.

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

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

Postby CK » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:23 pm

No, you seem to be incorrect, CK.
Firstly, I was invited to support the Alliance by Brian Montaut


Brian invited you to create a unity between those opposing the registration system not to support the Alliance. Why do you refuse to admit the fact? 90% of your speech was about graduates not about self-trained. Have you thank the association for that? Ingratitude is it?

Secondly, as for my route to registration, again you seem to be incorrect.
It is unlikely the Registrar will accept an application to Register by a graduate under the BCB 2010 if its passed.


Why that onq? Where is it said in the proposed legislation? You are in another world here.

Stop making excuses and trying to hide behind the need to earn a living CK.
The ones on the dole have time on their hands, the others don't have to spend much.
It costs nothing to offer some cad drawings or PDF files or even Planning Register References


Well, you must be wealthy to talk like that. If I stop earning, I can’t pay my mortgage and other bills. I can’t pay my rent and feed my family. All my savings are going gradually, it is worrying. This is my main pre-occupation today, making a living. Registration comes second to that with the preparation of my MCIAT.

Also, as I already said. Many members of Architects’ Alliance have a website. The others have drawings in their offices. Politicians were invited to see. The problem is that the RIAI wants to judge self-taught design and work. How can they defend the interests of architectural education and in the mean time assess fairly those who did not pay for that? You know like me where the problem is…

I can avail of Option C because I have a prescribed qualification and neither you not most of the Alliance possess one.
This means that my competence in design is already attested by my qualification, which is listed under the Directives.
If your qualification were similarly listed you could make a similar applciation, but it isn't and you cannot.
And its the French who chose what French qualifications should be included in the Directives.
So for once you cannot blame the RIAI...


I blame the RIAI because they recommended that I apply fo registration as per Section 16 of the Act. This section concerns holders of EU qualifications which are not listed in the EU Directive. They asked me to follow a €2,000 CPD to complement my qualification and then told me that in fact it would not be enough as my qualification was missing courses such as engineering and building technology. This is bullshit because I learned about those through the design process. However, I did not mind to pass the ARAE, as I am confident of my skills. I was stunned by the cost and by the procedure. I think that the ARAE is fully inappropriate for someone of my age in practice since years and leading a business.

Regarding the Technical assessment the cost is also inappropriate, and the documents requested do not reflect the skills of architects but the skills of someone who pretends doing everything in a project and signs the works of others. As I already said, nothing in the directive requests that architects shall have acquired all the listed skills through four projects. Some applicants have already been dismissed at the Technical Assessment as they were told that the design were not their design. An architects is never supposed to work by himself, why is the RIAI asking so to self-taught?

A lot of my work is listed on my website http://www.oneillquigley.eu and some visuals are included, but to be honest, before the past 18 months or so we never had to advertise for work, so we didn't develop our website - that's whay there is so little work on it CK, not because it doesn't exist.


Get on with it. You reproach to the Alliance’ members not to show their work and you do not do it yourself. Typical isn’t it? It makes me think to those MRIAI who reproach the Alliance’ members not to accept an assessment that they would not accept themselves.

That's far too glib CK and no competent architect will be taken in by camera tricks - an interview weeds out the slackers.
As regards the Alliance Members, they have either assembled a body of work after 10 or twenty years or they haven't.
If they have a portfolio, they'll have prove it to offer some sort of assurance to the public.


They already do onq. Your turn now… Your website only shows one or 2 drawings of yours. Are they really yours by the way?

I have no doubt you could suggest changes CK - whether they would be improvements I am less sure...


Don’t be so proud. There is always a lot to learn from the others…

Instead of telling you that you're incorrect again I'll simply post this link from my website;
http://oneillquigley.eu/images/CircularRoadNavan.jpg
That looks rich enough for my taste, CK.


This is one… But not enough…

The problem being that the RIAI would not consider that this is your work if you were applying for registration through the Technical Assessment. I understand very well that one cannot deal with 3D render design / photomontage and with architectural design in the same time; but the RIAI does not seem to... That is were one of the main problem lies isn’t it? Self-taught are not fairly assessed, because a fair assessment would not comply with the interests of universities, the interests of architectural education, proudly defended by the RIAI…

Look at the list of work I posted above CK.
On many of the Urban renewal mixed use projects I was part of a team.
However my roole in the team was the team leader, not a technician or junior architect.


Then why do you pretend working by yourself? I have worked on a 350sq m office project as the team leader, on a 180 sq m tennis club house with lots of works for the tennis courts arrangement (8,000 sq m site), and on smaller projects I was also the team leader. However, I never claimed it as my own work; I call it our work. It is my practice and it is our work. You were proud to show earlier a 3D photomontage that was not yours. At least you had the decency to keep the name of the company that realised it, when many self-centred individuals would not. Do you know that 3D representation is one of the skills requested from architects in the EU Directive? Obviously, on this project you would not have fulfilled all what is required to demonstrate full competence as per the Technical Assessment, and you would have to pay another E4,000 to lodge an appeal and defend your position in front of the appeal board.

CK, you cannot approach the law by declaring it to be wrong like that.
If it is an offence to act in a certain way you have to act to attempt to comply with the law.
In your case, in the short term, you wmay get by by simlpy not calling yourself an architect when signing certs.
But eventually you may find that your certs will be rejected if you do this and if you sign as an architect they may still be rejected.
I think this route will be the one followed by the RIAI as opposed to taking people to court, because it leaves it in the hands of the solicitors and - heaven forbid! - the banks.


I know exactly what you mean onq, and for this reason I fight against what I perceive as an injustice and I also prepare my MCIAT. If I believe a pre-registration agreement between the RIAI and CIAT, members of CIAT will be allowed to certify in the ROI. It is just a shame that I have to register with a British Institute to do so. I am also determined to continue calling myself an architect and I will not stop fighting this way.

I know that it is now normal in the UK, that children from poor family cannot reach eduction in university. But the registration procedure in Ireland is going too far in protecting academic interests. I hope that the government will realise that and enact the bill.

I can achieve more not being a member of Architects’ Alliance that is why I fight to their side rather than in their side. If they evolve as a representation body, then I will become a member again.

I know that all members of Architects’ Alliance would agree to be assessed fairly. The problem being that the conflict between the RIAI interests cannot allow the institute to assess fairly self-taught architects. The ARAE and the Technical Assessment proved it so far.

Is it illegal to denunciate a flaw in the system? My letter was published in this month Law Society Gazette by the way, and Brian asked me to hold on the latest legal opinion. It will be made public as soon as the barrister will have been paid.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby onq » Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:38 pm

CK. I m not going to intersperse comment where you're simply not taking my point so I'll simply say this to you.
If these projects were done by your office where you led the design team, claim them as your projects.
As long as you acknowledge the contributions by others for their CV<s there is no guilt trip.
So just "man up" and claim your work as your own - that's your CV.

In relation to your financial situation, depending on how desperate things are, allow me to comment.
May I respectfully suggest you take to your local social welfare officer.
As long as you
- have less than €20,000 in savings
- don't own a second house and
- haven't bought a car on your mortgage recently,
... you may be eligible for Jobseeker's allowance and/or benefit.

Talk to your local social welfare officer at your local health centre .
Do this before you run through all your savings.
Do not allow pride to beggar you.

If you have a problem with going to the Social Welfare Officer, or you have some work on, talk to your local MABS representative.
Minutely go through your outgoings and compose a statement of means befoer going to them as this will help them help you.
They may be able to help you manage your finances to such a degree that you are no longer eating into your savings.
Also consider talking to your bank about re-scheduling your loans and your mortgage provider about interest-only.

I'm posting this here in case other architects are in this position.
You might recall I advised the AAoI of this in June this year.


The essence of the current crisis is to survive until the economy begins to recover.
As soon as our criminal banks start lending again I suspect this will happen quicker than you think.
There is a lot of pent up frustration in our society because people who were weaned on credit cannot get loans.
Even people whose businesses aer sound cannot get loans for such things as cars and in some cases houses - utterly stupid.

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

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

Postby onq » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:08 pm

CK wrote:
No, you seem to be incorrect, CK.
Firstly, I was invited to support the Alliance by Brian Montaut


Brian invited you to create a unity between those opposing the registration system not to support the Alliance. Why do you refuse to admit the fact? 90% of your speech was about graduates not about self-trained. Have you thank the association for that? Ingratitude is it?


I think you're splitting your ponytail CK.
By being presented as a Member and speaking alongside Montaut and Gary Solan I supported the Alliance.

Secondly, as for my route to registration, again you seem to be incorrect.
It is unlikely the Registrar will accept an application to Register by a graduate under the BCB 2010 if its passed.


Why that onq? Where is it said in the proposed legislation? You are in another world here.


I have been told thsi by the Registrar - its his call, so there you go.
I'm listening to someone with the ability to make the call.
Its you who seems to be delusional.

Stop making excuses and trying to hide behind the need to earn a living CK.
The ones on the dole have time on their hands, the others don't have to spend much.
It costs nothing to offer some cad drawings or PDF files or even Planning Register References


Well, you must be wealthy to talk like that. If I stop earning, I can’t pay my mortgage and other bills. I can’t pay my rent and feed my family. All my savings are going gradually, it is worrying. This is my main pre-occupation today, making a living. Registration comes second to that with the preparation of my MCIAT.


I've no problem with any of that - in fact it seemed important that I offer you some advice so I addressed this first in a separate post before addressing the rest of your comments.

In relation to mounting an exhibition of work CK, it would only be the cost of some prints for easy members and the shared cost of hiring display boards for a day in a suitable venue - perhaps the AAI would offer some advice or you could approach one of the colleges.

The point being that in addition to showing the public the work of AAoI members it might actually generate some interest and bring in some new clients.

Think of the positives CK.

(snip excuses and limited offer to politicians)…

I can avail of Option C because I have a prescribed qualification and neither you not most of the Alliance possess one.
This means that my competence in design is already attested by my qualification, which is listed under the Directives.
If your qualification were similarly listed you could make a similar application, but it isn't and you cannot.
And its the French who chose what French qualifications should be included in the Directives.
So for once you cannot blame the RIAI...


(snip more repeat comments)

A lot of my work is listed on my website http://www.oneillquigley.eu and some visuals are included, but to be honest, before the past 18 months or so we never had to advertise for work, so we didn't develop our website - that's why there is so little work on it CK, not because it doesn't exist.


Get on with it. You reproach to the Alliance’ members not to show their work and you do not do it yourself. Typical isn’t it? It makes me think to those MRIAI who reproach the Alliance’ members not to accept an assessment that they would not accept themselves.


You seem completely to miss the point CK.
I don't have to prove my design competence because I already have a prescribed qualification entitling me to use the title architect.
I don't have to show my work to the public to rebut comments made by the RIAI because they were directed at Grandfathers who don't hold a prescribed qualification.
I am a graduate who does hold a prescribed qualification.
Do you not see the difference CK?

That's far too glib CK and no competent architect will be taken in by camera tricks - an interview weeds out the slackers.
As regards the Alliance Members, they have either assembled a body of work after 10 or twenty years or they haven't.
If they have a portfolio, they'll have prove it to offer some sort of assurance to the public.


They already do onq. Your turn now… Your website only shows one or 2 drawings of yours. Are they really yours by the way?

I have no doubt you could suggest changes CK - whether they would be improvements I am less sure...


Don’t be so proud. There is always a lot to learn from the others…


I am happy to accept comments from anyone usually, qualified or not.
I doubt that your comments will improve my work to any degree.

I'm not saying its better or worse, just different.
I have seen your work on your website.



This is one… But not enough…

{/quote}

I posted a reasonable sampling of my work.
Why did you bother snipping it - was it embarrassing or intimidating?
Most Part III architects could show as good if not better on their CV's - mine is not unusual I'd say.
That is the kind of level and variety of work that most competent commercial architects would have in their portfolios.

{good grief - I'm starting to meander and repeat myself like CK!]


The problem being that the RIAI would not consider that this is your work if you were applying for registration through the Technical Assessment. I understand very well that one cannot deal with 3D render design / photomontage and with architectural design in the same time; but the RIAI does not seem to... That is were one of the main problem lies isn’t it? Self-taught are not fairly assessed, because a fair assessment would not comply with the interests of universities, the interests of architectural education, proudly defended by the RIAI…


{/quote}
CK, the render was not mine, it was ModelWorks.
I posted the link as an example of my work - there are full sets of planning and fire cert drawings backing that up.


Then why do you pretend working by yourself?


Allow me to make this clear to you.

If you've read our website, you should know I worked for Project Architects - some of the Urban Renewal work was done with them and was done as team leader.

The 3D study I posted above was done by a third party 3D specialist, but the building it described was designed and drawn up entirely by me and I obtained the statutory approvals - nobody else worked with me on this as part of my practice on a daily basis.
My wife water coloured two elevations as part of a presentation, and just having a partner in life is a support, but the day to day work was mine.
We were very fortunate in having a forward looking planning offer for a while who accepted a modernist design.
As well as some great precedents in design in and around Dublin for inspiration.
Nothing quite like mine though :-D

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

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

Postby CK » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:15 pm

Honestly onq,

I think that we are turning in circle here...

You do not need to prove your skills because of your qualification. Well many of Architects' Alliance have proved their skills in practice, and I think that makes much more sense...

If your qualification entitles you to use the title architect, why aren't you? Obviously because it does not...

I haven't seen more than 3 photos of your projects published on your website, including a 3D model carried out by others...

I think that this thread does not worse it anymore... Paul has obviously decided to have it removed from direct access... I cannot believe that Google robots suddenly did so by themselves... I will now spend my time on more valuable things.

Good luck to you.

CK
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby onq » Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:10 am

CK wrote:Honestly onq,

I think that we are turning in circle here...


Yes, I keep telling you things and then you either totally ignore them... or ... totally ignore them.

You do not need to prove your skills because of your qualification.


Read what I write CK.
I said that I do not need to prove my design abilities to the public because I already have my design qualification.
This qualification attests to my training as an architect and encompasses the range of competences needed to design.
My qualification complies fully with Article 46 of DIR 2005/35/EC and my course was a five year full time course.
The minimum is a four year full time or three year full time with three years practical afterwards [Germany].
My understanding is that the Dip. Arch. DIT qualification is to be re-graded to a FETAC Level 9 - a Masters.
In the eyes of the RIAI I still need to show them that I am professionally competent to Part III standard.

Well many of Architects' Alliance have proved their skills in practice, and I think that makes much more sense...

How do you know CK?
You must have hidden sources of knowledge.
Mind you that should come as no surprise to readers of this thread.

You left the AAoI voluntarily, yet in this thread you posted that you have a copy of their latest Legal Opinion.
How is it that someone who contributed nothing to the Grandfather's Bill [you, CK] gets to see that Opinion, while someone who contributed to the development of the Grandfather's Bill itself [me] does not?
It certainly raises some questions about the Committee of the AAoI and how they treat people who have supported their organization in public.


If your qualification entitles you to use the title architect, why aren't you? Obviously because it does not...


Your attempt at wit does you little credit CK.
As has been pointed out laboriously here, I abide by the law.
While I am still preparing to apply for registration I have refrained from using my title.
I have legitimately used the Title Architect from June 1990 when I qualified up until May 2008.
After that the BCA 2007 came into force, making it an offence for me to continue to use the Title under Irish law.

I haven't seen more than 3 photos of your projects published on your website, including a 3D model carried out by others...

I've listed some of my work here publicly CK, which is more than any Member of the AAoI has done.
Indeed its more than you have done, but then again, I am happy for people to see my work.
BTW I didn't list ALL my work CK - I don't need to use a hammer to smash an egg.
I think that this thread does not worse it anymore... Paul has obviously decided to have it removed from direct access... I cannot believe that Google robots suddenly did so by themselves... I will now spend my time on more valuable things.

Good luck to you.

CK


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

You possess an Opinion on something to which I contributed, the Building Control Act 2007.
I expect that Opinion addresses the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010, just like the RIAI Opinion does.
Unlike the RIAI Opinion, I suspect that the AAoI Opinion states that there is no legal fault with the proposed Bill.
I don't need a Barrister's Opinion to tell me that the Bill as it stands is a competent piece of Draft legislation.
Barristers Opinions are of limited use CK - both sides to a case have plenty of them, but only one side wins.

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

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

Postby onq » Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:39 pm

For some reason that link explaining the problems with the board didn't past properly.

I'll try again

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8406&p=112095#p112095

THis is a variant of the previous notice.

The site owner migrated the forums to a new host server and BBS software that minimised cost.

There was no conspiracy by anyone to stop referrals from previosu bookmarks.

You just need to upgrade your bookmarks in ther interim.

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

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

Postby CK » Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:57 pm

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

There is obviously an academic and protectionist dictatorship on the profession. It has been proved during history and more recently that academism does not necessary provide the best buildings and surely not the best designs.
Questions: “What is the most famous building in France? Was it designed by a qualified architect?”

Answers: Gustave Eiffel, he was a structural engineer

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

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

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

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

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

There is also this issue of letting non-registered professionals to provide architectural services… If the problem was really about public safety, then why to let those non-registered professionals practicing?

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

You possess an Opinion on something to which I contributed, the Building Control Act 2007.
I expect that Opinion addresses the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010, just like the RIAI Opinion does.
Unlike the RIAI Opinion, I suspect that the AAoI Opinion states that there is no legal fault with the proposed Bill.
I don't need a Barrister's Opinion to tell me that the Bill as it stands is a competent piece of Draft legislation.
Barristers Opinions are of limited use CK - both sides to a case have plenty of them, but only one side wins.


You have the legal opinion now…
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby onq » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:13 pm

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Answers: Gustave Eiffel, he was a structural engineer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

As fare as I'm concerned, there should be no non-architects proving architectural services direct to the public.
Surveyors, engineers and draughtspeople should be barred based on their lack of design competence and training.
Architectural technicians are a grey area, because their course introduce them to design of small buildings in third year.
In fact, some architectural technicians go on to become award winning architects, so the potential for design quality is there.

But you only have to look the results your see in the Irish countryside today to see what people with neither design ability nor training have produced.

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

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


You have the legal opinion now…

Yes indeed and much obliged CK.
A very interesting read and pleasant to be shown to have helped produce a competent document.

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

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland