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.
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 €280,000http://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.