Is it really now time to consider restriction of service??

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby missarchi » Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:23 pm

onq wrote:Time to act.


All well and good but you are ignoring the people who really created this situation that all hardly ever pay too much tax.
People benefit from crashing economies...
You seem to be going after the lowest common denominator that is probably on social welfare has a mortgage to pay and kids to feed.
There all so seems to be a way around it all a company structure that makes a loss to another company...
The ship sets sail...

surprise surprise...

You ignore the fundamental issues...

No right for affordable housing with debt free ownership the moment you turn 18.
No guaranteed job.

This would create a stable market but who wants that?
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:14 am

I'm not 100% certain what you are on about.
A couple of years ago now, I took over a house from a guy who had charged his clients a small fortune to obtain permission.
I'm talking in excess of 10 grand IIRC, and the house was a fairly straightforward design.

He'd managed to issue drawings for planning which showed the wrong size toilet.
He had shown no level approach - in contravention with Pat M of the regulations.
He had failed to include any allowance for insulation within his preferred 215mm hollow block rendered external walls.
With over 2.5 M to spare, he had left the house with a 3.1M wide ground floor living room.
He had also showed the draiange running in the wrong direction and to the wrong location.

Disastrous stuff.

Spent two weeks chasing him to hand over the drawings on CD-ROM which he failed to do, giving me a print of the drawings.
It was child's play to draw up the house but the point was he had miseld me on this.
After a while looking at the prints I could see they had been very well drafted, but it was by hand, not on CAD.

Then I checked his name and found he wasn't an architect,
Yet he had a history of charging high fees and producing occassional results at planning stage.

Is this what you mean by people at the lower end of the game?
You couldn't be more wrong - he was blinged to the hilt and had been very well paid by my clients over the years.

As for how others view us, herewith a thread over in Askaboutmoney where a poster decides to have a go at Architects fees.

"Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living."

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149271

Enjoy.

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

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby wearnicehats » Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:38 am

onq wrote:Not paying tax - obviously.

And this is the way to deal with all of these smart arses.

Report the lot of them to the Revenue Commissions and report the one in the Council to the County Manager.

Stop pussy footing around with these clowns.

Time to act.


ONQ.


I agree totally (the question was aimed at Teak really) but let's not assume that the person in question isn't registered as self employed and pays their tax.

Another option open to Parka is to write a polite letter to the client in question pointing out his concerns re the quality of service, in particular the PI issue (I wouldn't mention the cash issue). it won't change the situation but, if the client does see the negative issues they might be less likley to recommend the other person to someone else.

some architects outline at lot of these potential issues on the websites as a kind of client guide.
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby Tayto » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:20 pm

onq wrote:I'm not 100% certain what you are on about.
A couple of years ago now, I took over a house from a guy who had charged his clients a small fortune to obtain permission.
I'm talking in excess of 10 grand IIRC, and the house was a fairly straightforward design.

He'd managed to issue drawings for planning which showed the wrong size toilet.
He had shown no level approach - in contravention with Pat M of the regulations.
He had failed to include any allowance for insulation within his preferred 215mm hollow block rendered external walls.
With over 2.5 M to spare, he had left the house with a 3.1M wide ground floor living room.
He had also showed the draiange running in the wrong direction and to the wrong location.

Disastrous stuff.

Spent two weeks chasing him to hand over the drawings on CD-ROM which he failed to do, giving me a print of the drawings.
It was child's play to draw up the house but the point was he had miseld me on this.
After a while looking at the prints I could see they had been very well drafted, but it was by hand, not on CAD.

Then I checked his name and found he wasn't an architect,
Yet he had a history of charging high fees and producing occassional results at planning stage.

Is this what you mean by people at the lower end of the game?
You couldn't be more wrong - he was blinged to the hilt and had been very well paid by my clients over the years.

As for how others view us, herewith a thread over in Askaboutmoney where a poster decides to have a go at Architects fees.

"Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living."

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149271

Enjoy.

ONQ.


What are you on about here? Planning drawings are not construction or building regulation drawings- the only issue I can see here is the drainage.
You've developed a fierce indignation worthy of the most upstanding venerable Member or Fellow of the Institute. "Unemployed" architects doing a kitchen extension? Holy God it's outrageous!! String 'em up and hang 'em high!! Show these clowns!!
How do you know if they're unemployed or not? How do you know if they're paying tax or not?
The indignation you display is in sharp contrast to the empathy demanded in the endless posts concerning the oooohhh...."sensitive" issue of unregistered "architects".
I wonder if the complainants here apoplectic after losing out in kitchen extension jobs are registered architects providing achitect's services in accordance with the law and have not provided such services over the last couple of years illegally?
Of course that would be a different matter entirely." Show these clowns" howareye.

"Dangerous" architects doing kitchen extensions at low prices. Jesus Christ. Get your priorities right.
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby Solo » Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:02 pm

wearnicehats wrote:
onq wrote:
wearnicehats wrote:umm, there's nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren't allowed to do private work is there?


Despite a long standing adamancy that a nixer would never pass my threshold I have recently done 2 or 3 for one reason or another. I did 2 pro bono because I needed their own particular professional expertise in return but I did charge for the 3rd. Now the fee is irrelevant save to say that they got a good product at a fair price (as did the others for that matter). And I believe I got a fair service in return

Now that's not predatory pricing or below cost selling. It's not illegal. It's no different to the word of mouth mentioned previously. It was done in my own time outside of my own office. Letters of appointment were signed as were fee agreements as were reciprocal agreements in kind. PI was and remains in place. Everyone got a good and full service and we all walked away happy. And all of it on my own personal drawing sheets with my own RIAI number at the bottom. Certainly nothing illegal or substandard. There actually is a lot to be said for the professional barter system if done properly.

I am concerned that the tone of this thread is such that small scale work should be limited to small scale practices or that extensions are the pre-requisite of the sole practitioner. They really aren't. there is no easy solution here - it's the registration issue again - are you all channelling CK?


Only one problem here the taxman/woman did not get his/her cut. A barter system such as you have mentioned is legal provided the tax is paid by all parties on the value of the benefit received. Otherwise it is a system that can work quite well. Like many I run a very small practice that carries all the necessary insurances as well as the expensive of an office. I also have to compete with nixer merchants who are not only not insured, not paying tax but often also using illegal copies of drafting software to produce the work. I appreciate drafting software can be very expensive but there is a very viable alternative for only a few hundred euros that does 99.999% of the industry leaders software so there is no excuse.

Like many of you I am often beaten to work by being undercut and I can assure you the quality of the drawing work done is often terrible I would never let it out of my office. I have had a few come back to me to fix up the F??? up's made by the cheaper individuals and because I need the work I normally solve the problems.

The provision of Architectural Services should be restricted to those who are trained and or have proved themselves capable to provide them. I do not subscribe to being a member of the RIAI in order to provide services. I do believe every provider should be registered and that there should be a minimum standard of service that a member of the public going to a registered provider can expect to receive. I also do not support the present BCA and I do support the reinstatement of graduate Architects to use the title and I support the proposed BC amendment bill 2010.

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.
Solo
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby teak » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:27 am

I agree totally (the question was aimed at Teak really) but let's not assume that the person in question isn't registered as self employed and pays their tax.

Wearnicehats,

This whole thread is predicated on Spoilsport's trading rivals being non-compliant in some form or other.
Focussing on the recently-made unemployed architect whom you believe MAY be actually just properly self-employed, properly registered, tax compliant, paying his CAD license & all other office obligations and paying his dues for adequate PI insurance:
Were your scenario true, then that architect's only commercial advantage would be that he works from his home while Spoiler works from his office with 1 part-time technician, assumedly called in according to demand.
My clear impression from Spolier's first post is that he was totally undercut by this rival -- i.e by a margin far greater than that due to the additional costs of renting an office and allowing so much extra for his p/t technician. (I'm assuming that Spoiler got back to the client after getting no response after the quote, or maybe the client called him with the bad news as a courtesy) Had it only been a few hundred of a difference, I'd say that Spoiler would have worked something out with the client on that.

On your general point, there is NOTHING wrong with a guy who having lost his own salaried job with a firm starts out on his own legitimate & above board business with the leanest possible overheads, e.g. working from home.

But I don't think that that is the situation that Spoilsport is actually complaining about here.
He probably knows his local rivals well, he knows what it takes to put in a quote substantially below what he put in and has made a reasonable judgement on what is going on with the architect in Job No. 4.

Not being an aggressive profession (by and large) I'd suppose that most architects are reluctant to make individual complaints about unfair competition by other members of their profession. And they know the current situation that is driving their rivals to act as they do.
But Spoilsport would have his own personal & family situation and his own obligations as well.
I would read his initial post as an attempt to maintain some decency & dignity within the profession in the existing savage trading climate.
And this may only be maintained via consensus with colleagues.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby Tayto » Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:56 pm

The consensus is for architects, technicians, engineers, draughtsmen, the registered, the unregistered, the good, the bad and the ugly, is that the business of architecture is absolutely appalling these days. For everyone trying to keep the wolf from the door and the mortgage paid up and the kids fed and clothed, good luck to you.
In these circumstances, I would guess that having 5 or 6 potential jobs, no matter how small, to quote for on the table in early January, is not the worst position to be in.
In these circumstances, it's completely over the top to start throwing about terms such as "dangerous" and "hit-and-run" in relation to an architect's kitchen extension planning application.
(I mistakenly attributed these terms to the invariably helpful ONQ).
Perhaps a Union might help or an enforceable set of fixed rates for domestic work but this type of thing would take years to implement.

Some small-medium sized USA firms have got themselves a piece of the action in the Chinese residential market, for what it's worth, replicating West-Coast mansions without even leaving the office: "Architects Find Their Dream Client, in China"-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/busin ... ef=general

Multi-million dollar private residences being developed in China and here we in Ireland with our dangerous hit-and run kitchen extensions.
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:42 pm

Tayto wrote:
onq wrote:I'm not 100% certain what you are on about.
A couple of years ago now, I took over a house from a guy who had charged his clients a small fortune to obtain permission.
I'm talking in excess of 10 grand IIRC, and the house was a fairly straightforward design.

He'd managed to issue drawings for planning which showed the wrong size toilet.
He had shown no level approach - in contravention with Pat M of the regulations.
He had failed to include any allowance for insulation within his preferred 215mm hollow block rendered external walls.
With over 2.5 M to spare, he had left the house with a 3.1M wide ground floor living room.
He had also showed the draiange running in the wrong direction and to the wrong location.

Disastrous stuff.

Spent two weeks chasing him to hand over the drawings on CD-ROM which he failed to do, giving me a print of the drawings.
It was child's play to draw up the house but the point was he had miseld me on this.
After a while looking at the prints I could see they had been very well drafted, but it was by hand, not on CAD.

Then I checked his name and found he wasn't an architect,
Yet he had a history of charging high fees and producing occassional results at planning stage.

Is this what you mean by people at the lower end of the game?
You couldn't be more wrong - he was blinged to the hilt and had been very well paid by my clients over the years.

As for how others view us, herewith a thread over in Askaboutmoney where a poster decides to have a go at Architects fees.

"Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living."

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149271

Enjoy.

ONQ.


What are you on about here? Planning drawings are not construction or building regulation drawings- the only issue I can see here is the drainage.



Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that's what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these "new-fangled" ideas...

Thus, last time I checked, the design of the building was supposed to be completed at planning stage.

While you could claim certain things are allowed under the exempted development schedule, widening the house by circa 300-400mm is not one of them, nor is relocating nuderground services [although the "sure who'll know?" brigade do this all the time] and installing a second set of foundations to one side was beyond my clients means.

The point being that this genius hadn't ALLOWED for an adequately wide living room [3.3M min to 3.6M pref] for a small house, hadn't ALLOWED for 80-100mm insulation, still had LEFT OVER in excess of 2.5m of site and had designed the wrong size WC.

Excusing his incomptence at planning stage is not acceptable and you have just destroyed your own credibility by doing so.


You've developed a fierce indignation worthy of the most upstanding venerable Member or Fellow of the Institute.



Really?

"Plus royaliste qu le Roi" or, dare I suggest, "Plus royaliste qu le RIAI."

I'm sure that will reassure John Graby - a kindred soul.


"Unemployed" architects doing a kitchen extension? Holy God it's outrageous!! String 'em up and hang 'em high!! Show these clowns!!
How do you know if they're unemployed or not? How do you know if they're paying tax or not?
The indignation you display is in sharp contrast to the empathy demanded in the endless posts concerning the oooohhh...."sensitive" issue of unregistered "architects".
I wonder if the complainants here apoplectic after losing out in kitchen extension jobs are registered architects providing achitect's services in accordance with the law and have not provided such services over the last couple of years illegally?
Of course that would be a different matter entirely." Show these clowns" howareye.

"Dangerous" architects doing kitchen extensions at low prices. Jesus Christ. Get your priorities right.


You're confusing my post with someone else's, aren't you?

RTFP, there's a good lad - back to the drawing board.

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

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:00 pm

Solo wrote:
wearnicehats wrote:I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.


[my bold]

Am I the only one that finds it utterly hilarious that the public good is still being placed in the hands of bank managers.

We seem to have gone nowhere since 2008 with the task of putting manners on the banks!

I support Solo's position regarding registereing everyone providing services but I go further and say that only those trained and competent to provide certain services should be allowed provide those services.

And in response to a separate comment made above, architects don't report people in my experience because they are afraid to do so due to their own perceived lack of competence in their built work.
This arises in part from students passing a five year full time course with little site experience,or being exposed only to lffice work during their part III training and finding site work is not to their liking or arguing their corner with bolshie clients or aggressive builders - its not everyone's cup of tea.

The end result can be poor quality of the built work, and potential claims, so they tend to "look the other way" when some fools does non-compliant work.

I, and one or two others I know, have made money out of assessing and remedying non-compliant work.
I would have no problem making referrals to the Revenue Commissioners, the planning authority or the Registrar.

We'll see.

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

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby Tayto » Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:55 pm

onq wrote:Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that's what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these "new-fangled" ideas...

Thus, last time I checked, the design of the building was supposed to be completed at planning stage.


If you're willing to oversee builders building off your planning application drawings well good luck to you, because you'll need it.
Undoubtedly you've informed your P.I. insurer.

onq wrote:..While you could claim certain things are allowed under the exempted development schedule, widening the house by circa 300-400mm is not one of them, nor is relocating nuderground services [although the "sure who'll know?" brigade do this all the time] and installing a second set of foundations to one side was beyond my clients means.

The point being that this genius hadn't ALLOWED for an adequately wide living room [3.3M min to 3.6M pref] for a small house, hadn't ALLOWED for 80-100mm insulation, still had LEFT OVER in excess of 2.5m of site and had designed the wrong size WC.

Excusing his incomptence at planning stage is not acceptable and you have just destroyed your own credibility by doing so.


You're waffling and scrambling here and you know it.
In a planning application the size of the jacks, as indicated in the plan, will not inform the decision.
A non-compliant internal layout is bad design but insisting that the internal layout in the planning drawing is the complete and finished design is absolutely wrong. The internal layout, such as an alteration in the toilet size, can be done post-planning.
Where have I excused incompetence? RTFP, old stock.
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby wearnicehats » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:46 pm

onq wrote:
Solo wrote:
wearnicehats wrote:I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.


[my bold]

Am I the only one that finds it utterly hilarious that the public good is still being placed in the hands of bank managers.

We seem to have gone nowhere since 2008 with the task of putting manners on the banks!

I support Solo's position regarding registereing everyone providing services but I go further and say that only those trained and competent to provide certain services should be allowed provide those services.

And in response to a separate comment made above, architects don't report people in my experience because they are afraid to do so due to their own perceived lack of competence in their built work.
This arises in part from students passing a five year full time course with little site experience,or being exposed only to lffice work during their part III training and finding site work is not to their liking or arguing their corner with bolshie clients or aggressive builders - its not everyone's cup of tea.

The end result can be poor quality of the built work, and potential claims, so they tend to "look the other way" when some fools does non-compliant work.

I, and one or two others I know, have made money out of assessing and remedying non-compliant work.
I would have no problem making referrals to the Revenue Commissioners, the planning authority or the Registrar.

We'll see.

ONQ.



what's with that text clip - I didn't writ ethat
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:20 am

onq wrote:Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that's what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these "new-fangled" ideas...
.


Given the clear caveats on the title sheets re "not for construction" and the contents of the letter of appointment re copyright and use any builder or previous client who goes on site with a set of our planning drawings is on their own
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:08 pm

Tayto wrote:
onq wrote:Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that's what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these "new-fangled" ideas...

Thus, last time I checked, the design of the building was supposed to be completed at planning stage.


If you're willing to oversee builders building off your planning application drawings well good luck to you, because you'll need it.
Undoubtedly you've informed your P.I. insurer.


I suppose your only exercise these days is jumping at conclusions Tayto, but that's not what I posted. :)
As you might have inferred, or simply accepted, since I stated it explicitly - I took over the job.

Your clever comment presupposes insufficient information for setting out on planning drawings.
Since dimensions to site boundaries became mandatory in March 2002, this is not the case.
Builders setting out according to planning drawings can be assured of good accuracy.
Assuming the architect has correctly detailed the house internally there is no change.

In this case, the deed was done, and in planning terms it was in compliance.
As for taking over another's questionable design, you need competence, experience and ability.
Luck didn't play a huge part, and no, this is no worse than MRIAI work I have taken over and remedied.
onq wrote:..While you could claim certain things are allowed under the exempted development schedule, widening the house by circa 300-400mm is not one of them, nor is relocating nuderground services [although the "sure who'll know?" brigade do this all the time] and installing a second set of foundations to one side was beyond my clients means.

The point being that this genius hadn't ALLOWED for an adequately wide living room [3.3M min to 3.6M pref] for a small house, hadn't ALLOWED for 80-100mm insulation, still had LEFT OVER in excess of 2.5m of site and had designed the wrong size WC.

Excusing his incomptence at planning stage is not acceptable and you have just destroyed your own credibility by doing so.


You're waffling and scrambling here and you know it.

The ad hominem attack is the lame ducks first port of call - you're better than that Tayto.
In a planning application the size of the jacks, as indicated in the plan, will not inform the decision.

Straw man argument - I didn't say it did.
A non-compliant internal layout is bad design but insisting that the internal layout in the planning drawing is the complete and finished design is absolutely wrong. The internal layout, such as an alteration in the toilet size, can be done post-planning.
Where have I excused incompetence? RTFP, old stock.


You're excusing this guy's shoddy work.
You have just done so again.
Its pretty obvious.

The design process refines the design of the dwelling to suit the intended occupants.
In a circa 50sqm Gd Floor Plan, there is no excuse for putting in an undersized toilet at planning stage.

The Architect's role to take this completed design to site, having reviewed it for compliance with the building regulations.
Not to throw his hands up once he's been paid his fees and gotten to sit, sayinge - "Oh, we'll have to change everything the toilet is wrong!"
That is incompetence, pure and simple - and don't forget they had gone to site on this person's drawings, services were in, pipe outlets positioned.

If you haven't included building regulation compliance elements that affect the design at planning stage you are behaving incompetently.
At the worst you may have an unbuildable permission, at best significant changes that will cost the client extra money.
In the middle range, you will probably require revised P.P. for the amended dwelling.
None of this is excusable if you are offering a professional service.

So why are you defending this guys working method and undermining my position?

My due diligence review of plans highlighted the error, and I had issued revised drawings to site remedying the plans and attended and agreed drainage revisions one morning, ot the great upset of the contractor.
That afternoon a Council representative from Building Control hot0footed it to site with the intention of stopping the work if the wrong size toilet had been installed.

(Originaly Imcumbent) Incompetent Design <=========> Competent Design (Me)

Its fairly eary to understand isn't it?

ONQ.
Last edited by onq on Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:21 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: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:19 pm

wearnicehats wrote:
what's with that text clip - I didn't writ ethat


Dunno where that crept in so - apologies for any confusion arising.

I'm finding the nested attributions more difficult to edit on this new site.

It can be done, it just takes a bit more time and a lot more checking but I like the colours :)

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

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby teak » Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:54 pm

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

Can you tell us more about this one, WNH ?

Tayto's positive exit from our crisis is all right for USA architects -- they happen to be au fait with the very style of homes that these nouveaux riches in China see on their TV -- but it is not, I think, an area that small Irish firms could plausibly aspire to.
Are you trying this avenue yourself, Tayto ?

Maybe a better idea would be for recently laid-off staff from the bigger international firms (MOLA, DW, etc) to form a sort of "virtual company" (personal compatibilities allowing) so as to be able to tender for the big foreign design jobs.

Closer to home, if architects have a will to master High German (hup-ow-that!) there is something going on over there.

I wish some dog-idle architect would design a definitive set of nationwide signposts that are
1. Clear at a range 40m by all people, colourblind or not.
2. Non-twistable about the upright or about the base.
3. Suitably placed.
4. Contiguous through every village, town and city for every sighted visitor with no local knowledge whatever.
5. Made of durable materials and using durable/renewable finshes. (No aluminium as it'll be stolen.)
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:08 pm

teak wrote:I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

Can you tell us more about this one, WNH ?

Tayto's positive exit from our crisis is all right for USA architects -- they happen to be au fait with the very style of homes that these nouveaux riches in China see on their TV -- but it is not, I think, an area that small Irish firms could plausibly aspire to.
Are you trying this avenue yourself, Tayto ?

Maybe a better idea would be for recently laid-off staff from the bigger international firms (MOLA, DW, etc) to form a sort of "virtual company" (personal compatibilities allowing) so as to be able to tender for the big foreign design jobs.

Closer to home, if architects have a will to master High German (hup-ow-that!) there is something going on over there.

I wish some dog-idle architect would design a definitive set of nationwide signposts that are
1. Clear at a range 40m by all people, colourblind or not.
2. Non-twistable about the upright or about the base.
3. Suitably placed.
4. Contiguous through every village, town and city for every sighted visitor with no local knowledge whatever.
5. Made of durable materials and using durable/renewable finshes. (No aluminium as it'll be stolen.)


no I can't because. if you read the posts, I didn't write it

was there any need to include the words "dog-idle"? I'd love to be paid to design a sign - who should I talk to Teak?
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby teak » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:29 pm

I'd love to be paid to design a sign

Wouldn't everyone.

Who should I talk to Teak?

No one for the time being.
Pat Kenny verbally sponsored the idea years back but lately he has just despaired of even raising the subject.
Maybe with so many young people leaving school with no jobs this will be one of those useful public works type tasks that will be given to them that they do not despair, rebel or turn to crime.

My suggestion was that some unemployed architect might look at it over the odd idle hours.
But they clearly cannot be doing this while the house bills mount up.

As you know, those clowns Rennicks have a stranglehold on the councils' appropriations for signs.
I wish someone would pay me to investigate this oh-so-intimate relationship . . . .
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby Paul Clerkin » Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:50 pm

Solo wrote:I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.


This I would bring to the attention of the bank`s regional manager and a journalist
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:27 pm

If you're waiting to get paid you'll do nothing.
Set yourself a task - then just do it.
It needn't cost you a lot.

It takes very little time to write an e-mail to all your local councillors asking why Rennicks have the signs.
It may be as simple as there being no competition.

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

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:47 pm

Paul Clerkin wrote:
Solo wrote:I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.


This I would bring to the attention of the bank`s regional manager and a journalist
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:51 pm

Paul Clerkin wrote:
Solo wrote:I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it' a dog eat dog situation at the moment.


This I would bring to the attention of the bank`s regional manager and a journalist


The incorporated law society also issue "notes" about whose certs may be acceptable.
Their current position denies graduates in favour of registered architects.
They are hewing the BCA 2007 Line.

If architects are going to be brow beaten like this into Registering then three things need to happen:

1. A fair registration process - one that is seen to be fair, as opposed to pandering to the RIAI.
2. A fair assessment and reassessment process - one that regularly assesses MRIAIs as well.
3. Restriction of the provision of architectural services to Architects and their tied agents.

Instead we've seen; -

1. The MRIAI-only registration process.
2. Graduates [5 years in academia] and those with ten years in practice, whose certs were previously accepted being unfairly discriminated against, allowing Architectural Technicians [3 years in academia] to continue to use their title and certify freely.
3. A free-for-all, where the nonsense protection of the Title only, fails miserably to protect the livelihoods of people who have spent up to ten years of more of their lives as students qualifying or as low paid graduates working for MRIAI's.
4. Persons in other professions employing architectural graduates and architectural technicians to provide architectural services

Thsi is a total bastardisation of the profession.
Something's got to give.

ONQ.
Last edited by onq on Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:56 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: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:56 pm

Can I just say that a longer time for editing posts would REALLY be appreciated, by me if by nobody else.
As well as a removal of the glitch that can occur when you're posting and the preview box comes up.
You can end up with two posts, thinking that first had gone to preview when it had been posted.

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

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby henno » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:12 pm

double post
Last edited by henno on Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby henno » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:13 pm

onq wrote:Restriction of the provision of architectural services to Architects and their tied agents.

Persons in other professions employing architectural graduates and architectural technicians to provide architectural services

Thsi is a total bastardisation of the profession.
Something's got to give.

ONQ.


well well well, are we now seeing circling of the wagons that the BCA has always threatened??

im not going to turn this into a yet another techie v arch discussion, but the above post (while selectively quoted, retains ethos) is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that draws a huge wedge in the architectural profession. Like it or not, technicians are architectural professionals, and as such deserve as much chance to provide "architectural services" as architects. If persons in 'other professions' (assuming QS, Engs etc here) are engaging architectural graduates and technicians to provide "architectural services" then shouldnt they be allowed to provide the service they had been qualified to do????

Like it or not, at the formal education level ARCHITECTURE as a profession and an art form is being split into a "design orientated" syllabus and a "technology" orientated syllabus.... two sides of the one profession. Older established architects may not understand, accept or agree with this as they have trained and practised in both aspects...

On the actual topic..... (putting on my devils advocate mask!!)...

1. restriction DOES exist in that the practise of nixers is ILLEGAL
2. restriction on one profession is narrow sighted.... if restriction existing in the architectural profession, will it also exist in the mechanic profession?? cabinet making?? carpet laying ??? etc etc ad nauseum........ what is so special about the architectural profession that it deserves special legislation to restrict???? if a dodgy mechanic fecks up servicing a car, a person could pay with his/her life.... would that profession deserve to be regulated ahead of a profession that doesnt kill people (only careers)....

oh and ONQ, what exactly is an Architects "tied agent"?
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Is it really now time to consider restriction of service

Postby onq » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:26 am

-
Last edited by Paul Clerkin on Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Really off-topic and targetting another poster in a personal manner.... apology is needed
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland