The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the title "Architect"

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby JB » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:25 pm

ONQ, I would suggest that your numbers are dramatically inaccurate. Where do you get your figure of 15,000 ? The best figures available between 2006 and 2008 suggested that there were approximately 3,000 Architectural Technologists working in the industry (as AT's) That was before the crash, where many of these people emigrated.

RIAI and CIAT have about 650 to 700 Architectural Technologist members between them in Ireland.

CIAT claim to to represent just 7,500 AT's worldwide. Could you clarify your figures / source ?

And secondly what exactly are your fears for the progression of these people from Technician to Technologist - a notional promotion at best ?
JB
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:43 pm

JB,

First let's define our terms.

An architectural technician is someone who has progressed from one of the approved courses in DIT or elsewhere and has trained to provide support services to an architect.
This is in theory how it works for larger practices anyway.
In the real world many technicians operate independently of architects.
In Ireland, many architectural technicians carry P.I. Cover and are in direct competition with Sole Traders

An architectural technologist is part of a growing body of technocrats who assert their ability to take a building from inception to completion. This ability has been formally recognised in Britain where the bottom has fallen out of the profession, with Part II architects subsisting below the minimum wage and where RIBA accredited Part III's are working as presentation drones in larger practices.
Architectural Technologists compete directly with architects.

I am not disputing your claims for the numbers of Architectural Technologists.
It is sobering enough that the number of registered architects has been equalled by persons with arguably a different qualification claiming to deliver the same service, but who ultimately may not be held to the same professional standards in a court of law.
I await the test case.

The figure of 15,000 architectural technicians is confirmed by a colleague who has been in discussions with the architectural technicians lobby groups over the past year and claims to know their numbers.
There may be some confusion in this if the numbers actually include building technicians as well as architectural technicians.
Even if half are wrongly counted, this plus the 3,000 Architectural Technologists is nearly four time the number of architects.

It is foreseeable that many of these architectural technicians who are also in independent practice as architects will - if put to the pin of their collar by the RIAI in relation to registration - take the shorter route of becoming Architectural Technologists rather than attempting to enter and complete the five year full time courses on offer here and in the UK with or without the First Year accreditation.

Your assertion that some technicians may have left for foreign climes may or may not be true - it doesn't really matter.
Add to this the 200+ Graduate Architects progressing this year and you have a crisis.
Those kind of numbers will swamp the profession.
Most will be out of work by year's end.

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby JB » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:02 am

Thanks for the reply ONQ.
With regard to the numbers, your colleague is most definitely wrongly informed. I don't know what lobby groups he or she has been talking to, but the numbers quoted are grossly exaggerated even if building technicians etc. are included. Even if the 15,000 were to include the woodwork teachers, retired planners, engineers and various others who are providing Architectural Services, that would lead to an average of c 465 such people providing services in each of the 32 counties - this doesn't add up even a cursory glance at the phone book would support this fact.

The trend for graduating Technologists for the past 2 to 3 years has been towards emigration. The numbers here amount to say 40 graduates per course (max) from each of 8 courses - another 320 at most, with at least 60% of these leaving the country for greener pastures, and the majority of the remainder working outside of the industry.

A number of years ago a drive to promote membership of professional organizations among Architectural Technologists yielded what was believed to be a reasonable result, with numbers in CIAT and RIAI swelling by probably 100 members each at best.

As I understand it, CIAT's Technologist membership in Ireland is currently somewhere around the 300 mark, RIAI's Technologists number somewhere around 400. The only other lobby groups I am aware of are the IATGN (now all but defunct) which had some 1600 registered members of various levels, many of whom were also members of CIAT or RIAI, and then whatever cohort of Technologists are included in the AAoI. The latter could arguably be discounted in terms of the Technologist in the true sense of the word, as they appear to represent those who have already been practicing as Architects for 10 years or more, and indeed many will also have prior membership of one or both of the organisations mentioned previously.

The average time taken to complete the CIAT POP Record is normally 2 years, with only a small number having completed this task in the past number of years, albeit with more in the system. Given that the POP Record requires evidence to be presented of Projects which have successfully been completed on site, many who are in the process of completing this will find themselves in the same boat as Graduate Architects with no real world projects to submit, so no threat of inundation there. In any case the situation you describe in Britain is not reflected over here – there is no automatic recognition of the ability of an Architectural Technologist to provide services similar to those of an architect – quite the opposite actually.
With regard to the RIAI Technologist membership, no defined role exists as yet for the Technologist within the Institute, although last year did see the publication of the RIAI's Technologist competences. These, while they raise the bar for what is expected of a Technologist seeking membership of the RIAI, certainly do not establish any right or ability to practice as an Architect, or even to stray into such territory – again no possibility of the flood you expect. While agree that there are technologists competing directly with Architects, there is nowhere even close to the numbers your colleague cites, nor will there ever be.

I hope this allays some of your concerns, and gives a truer picture of the situation as it actually stands. Too often the Architectural Technologist is portrayed as the bogey boy, when in actual fact, many others might more accurately be conferred with that title.
JB
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:20 am

Hi JB,

I hear what you're saying and on the face of it this looks good.
However the source I quoted is usually reliable, particularly when he makes claims which I would otherwise discount.
This has been proven time and again during my association with him and I have no reason to believe otherwise at the moment.
I will bring your rebuttal to his attention and ask him for a comment, although when I spoke to him yesterday about it, he confirmed the numbers I posted.

Now it *could* be that some people are feeding him false numbers, perhaps to bolster their cause for some obscure reason, and this will come out in the wash.
Equally, as your post seems to suggest at one point, these could be unqualified successes - those not using the title architect - who are calling themselves technicians.

Off the top of my head and without checking with him again on this, my understanding is that the figure for "nixer" merchants is far higher again, and I don't want to be held to account on this one because my recollection is vague, but non AT's providing architectural services could reach into the 35,000 range - a frightening figure.
This is a less well defined group, but excludes AT's of all flavours, Graduate Architects, Architects etc.
It may include every draughtsman in the country, engineering technicians, engineers, technical drawing teachers, woodwork teachers, art teachers - all of whom may occassionally make a planning application.

As for my concerns JB, I'm not particularly concerned that AT's are going to *become* architects.
I am concerned that by acting independently they are taking the work from architects in the market place.
A cursory glance over at the Construction Forum on Boards.ie shows that this is indeed the case on an ongoing basis.

To summarise:

15,000 AT's hoovering up all the small work in a recession and certifying independently.
Graduates unable to certify using their title despite DIR 2005/36/EC's entitlement.
Equal numbers of Architectural Technologists vying with Part III Architects.
Up to 35,000 nixer merchants offering up their services per year.
Next to no work around.

That looks like a Profession in Meltdown to me.
And as the recession bites deeper, even those AT's who stayed will feel the bite of trying to compete against people using pirated software, paying no rates, working from their bedroom, perhaps back with their folks, who are undertaking work that is beyond them for drinking money, while competent professionals with offices and families to support go to the wall.

And just in case the RIAI are thinking I've forgotten about them - this mismanagement has gone on under their imprimatur.
By them ignoring the regulation of the provision of services in favour of the regulation of the use of the title, the benefit to the consumer in terms of the delivery of services is minimal in the face of what I describe above.
Meanwhile, even with the powers of the BCA 2007 to control use of the title "Architect", the greatest joke of the century continues over on Jobs Rapido with the use of the title relegated to that of an adjective in every software "profession" you can imagine.

http://www.jobrapido.ie/?w=architect&l=&r=auto

FWIW

ONQ.

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby JB » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:51 am

Thanks again for the response ONQ.

Maybe you'd keep us posted as to how the enquiries pan out in light of what I've outlined above. To be honest I just don't see the huge numbers, but I am open to correction. The 35,000 strikes me as way off also, but it would be interesting to see how your colleague breaks it down. If those numbers bear scrutiny, then maybe the ferry or the plane beckons for more of us.
JB
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby Solo » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:05 pm

Hi smallscreen,

I have just looked over the posts as you suggested and on first glance the logic in the numbers being put forward by JB appear to be well thought out. I will double check the figures being given to me because as you say these could have been inflated to suit some agenda or other. Ordinarily I believe that I am well informed and I think you might agree I have relayed some information which at first appears to be far fetched however; proves to be correct.

I am aware of a number of technician types if I may make such a reference. Construction Technicians, Architectural Technicians, Engineering Technicians, Steelwork Detailers and Architectural Technologists and finally the dreaded Cad Technician. There are also drafts persons with no formal education part of full time.

So if we look at the formal colleges turning out 40 to 60 technicians in construction (3,500 or 175 per year) and architectural (4,000 or 200 per year) per college per year over twenty years you get a figure of around 8,5000. Add to this the technologists around 3,000, now add the no formal training around 1,000 (50 per year) and then add in the cad technicians churned out by every Fas outlet around 5,500 (275 per year) now add in the engineering technicians around 3,000 (150 per year) giving a total of around 21,000( around 1050 entrants into the industry from the various fields and courses). Allow for a margin of error in people leaving the country and or dying\retiring changing professions, poor initial figures or exaggerated of 33% still leaves 14,000 (reduces the figure to around 700 entrants per year).

All of the above are offering in some form or other planning and design services and in my many years in the industry I have personally come across many from a variety of training streams with dare I say it the Cad technicians (and I hate that description) being the most dangerous. Some of the above it has to be said offering a competent service however; many leave a lot to be desired. Many carrying no insurance paying no tax and working for cash in hand and that was in the boom times while holding down in some cases very well paid jobs. I know because I was often approached to sign off their certs as they could not. Just because the associations do not have members to suggest these figures this does not mean they do not exist. In the boom years membership of an association was unimportant and it is only since the recession and registration that such an issue has become more important as individuals attempt to improve their appeal to clients.

The figure I was being given was to cover all of these categories and bundles them all in as technicians and that figure was around 15,000. It is true to say that there are considerable less now due to the recession as these are often contract positions and the persons highly mobile. Having worked the circuits myself for a number of the agencies Hayes Montrose, Tech staff, Parc Workforce and then as an employer taking people from these agencies and others. They all have considerable databases.

I myself possess a database in excess of 180,000 cad users in Ireland and the UK alone so there are big numbers out there and the RIAI just haven't got a clue. As you are aware I have had direct talks with all of the political parties and none and the RIAI. I can safely say that there is no real understanding of the problems that exist in this field or of the numbers that may be involved in the field.
Solo
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:30 am

Thanks for following up my call Dual Screen.

Let's set aside the figure for the liquorice allsort technicians, which we may assume is in the 7,000-10,000 range
There are several other disciplines who design buildings who weren't originally trained to do this.

Surveyors are one notable crowd, who have jumped from analysing buildings to designing them.
This seems like a critic trying to write an award winning play - not going to happen.
Then there are the engineers of several flavours who also turn out buildings.

That's two whole professions muscling in on the Architect's Act.
One assesses buildings, the other designs structures.
Neither are trained to design buildings for people.

The house extension two doors down from me was designed by an engineer.
He drove a coach and four through the local planning department.
Perhaps architects should start designing structures/services!

Even a cursory consideration of the situation presented above shows that architects are being shafterd in the marketplace.

RE the RIAI; -

The proportion of the 180,000 that applies to Ireland should inform the RIAI why there are so many unemployed architects.
If the ratio of Ireland's population to the UK is 1:14 that equates to nearly 13,000 users, but in fact I suspect its a higher proportion.
Even allowing for wastage due to the recession and retirement, I suspect double that may be taking the bread out of our mouths doing nixers.

The only way to protect the public and administer the profession properly is to regulate services.
That includes making sure that architects remain independent of other professions.
It requires in addition that technicians supply their services to architects offices.

This shows up the restriction of use of the title for what it is.
A means of getting a leg up for members of the RIAI.
But it does not properly promote architecture.
Or protect members of the public.

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby parka » Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:48 pm

In the past two months, I have come across civil engineers submitting planning applications for one-off houses. (More Turrets needed :wtf: )

I've even come across someone with no background in construction or design giving consultancy advice.

It's turning into a minefield, but I can't see anything changing in a longtime.
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:31 am

parka wrote:In the past two months, I have come across civil engineers submitting planning applications for one-off houses. (More Turrets needed :wtf: )

I've even come across someone with no background in construction or design giving consultancy advice.

It's turning into a minefield, but I can't see anything changing in a longtime.


We need to compse - dare I say it - a "register" of these people muscling in on work they are neither trained nor competent to do.

Then we need to expose them for what they are - some I dare say will have anough talent, experience or ability to make a good showing.

Most will not.

All the Building Control Act 2007 did was wipe the RIAI's hands of these fools - "If only you'd used one of our members..."

The public is no more protected now that it was before the BCA 2007, the RIAI have just ring fenced the right of a private members club to use the title architect.

But here's the deal - there is no exam to be taken to be a contractor. None. Zero. Oh, they have to be up to speed on Health and Safety, and legally they are obliged to comply with the building regulations, but the Technical Guidance Documents are just that - for guidance, they aren't legally binding.

The Regulations themselves are the "cúpla focail" at the start of each booklet.

So never mind the Grandfather Amendment, that allows the status quo to continue, it doesn't make things worse than went before and only affects circa 200 people according to the AAoI's spokesperson.

What the consumer really needs is protecting legislation which expands on the "Goods and Services act" taking into account the provisions already in the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

We need a "Provision of Competent Services Act" which takes the wrongs committed by professionals, builders and tradesmens alike out of both the civil law [hard to prove] and the contract law and [limited redress, usually without consequential damages] and into the criminal law, which will allow for prosecutions for willful negligence, fraud and theft being undertaken by people with a duty of car to clients and employers [as in contractor-employer relationships in building work].

This will deter

-"professionals" who act beyond their competence or their qualification and restrict the provision of services to those competent and registered to carry them out.
- "builders" who think they can blythely wind up company after company from committing tort and negligent acts to screw their employers.
- "sub-contractor" and "trademen" who have not served their time, and/or have no skills training at all and/or do not have the necessary safety ticket.

I've been thinking about this for a long time since commenting here about the RIAI's hubris and I started looking at what was going on in the profession generally.

I think after that we need to start looking at thsi whole Globalisation phenomenon and the mini-globalisation that's going on in Europe at the moment with the movement of services;
People from countries with a per capita income and cost of living and standard of living way below ours competing directly with those of us who only sixty years ago pulled ourselves out of the tenements to climb towards First World Standards.
We have to ask who benefits from this and who benefits from the flooding of the professions with graduates in the middle of a recession.
Certainly not the professionals who are obliged to maintain certain standards to work and cannot get paid.

I was asked over on AAM recently what the €10K fee an architect might charge to planning for a listed building needing a full survey, 1:10 design details and an experienced conservation architect.

I dunno. Pin money? I ask you!

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:50 am

Placing third or second world countries indirectly competition with first world countres will drive down costs, but if the services are not being provided by people workign in teh same country it will tend to beggar those providing that service or profession.

You notice that those who mose advocate Globalisation are those least affected by it.
When did you last see a businessman, banker or politician suffer from being undercut by markets flooded with cheaper competitors?
When did you see a businessmen, banker or politician have to sit an exam before beign let ply his trade - its an old boys club networking situation.

This is the real crime against all classes except the élite and its being perpetrated on a daily basis.
Geez I'm starting to sound liek Brendan Doris!

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby batten » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:47 am

From Sunday Business Post 20th Feb :-

"Proposed legislation to amend the rules governing the registration of architects would place Ireland in breach of EU law, according to the Attorney General.

Paul Gallagher SC gave his legal opinion to the government shortly after the Private Members Bill, proposed by former Ceann Comhairle John O’Donoghue, had received the support of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party.

The Building Control (Amendment) Bill proposed to allow for a so-called ‘‘grandfathering’’ clause, aimed at allowing people with several years experience practicing as an architect - but without a formal college qualification - to be admitted to the official register of architects.

It was supported by a group called the Architects Alliance, which says it represents 170 businesses made up of ‘‘self-trained’’ and other workers in the architecture sector who argue that the existing registration process does not accommodate them.

The bill was opposed by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI), which argued that, if the legislation were enacted, it ‘‘would cause a broad range of problems’’ in terms of compliance with EU law.

This view was endorsed by legal opinion conducted by Gerard Hogan for the RIAI last September, before Hogan was elevated to the position of High Court judge.

A separate legal opinion by Anthony M Collins SC, conducted for the Architects Alliance, found that O’Donoghue’s bill did not contravene EU law.

Some confusion arose over what position Gallagher had taken on the issue, following a recent exchange on Twitter involving Green Party TD Ciaran Cuffe.

The politician’s comments led some supporters of the grandfathering clause to believe that the AG had actually given O’Donoghue’s proposed legislation a clean bill of health.

Under existing legislation, anyone who uses the title of ‘‘architect’’, but who has failed to join the register, which is administered by the RIAI, is committing an offence under the Building Control Act 2007.

The AG’s opinion follows the revelation that an RIAI review of the sector found that as many as 300 people were illegally using the title of architect.

The RIAI said that it would be writing to each of the 300 individuals and inviting them to apply for registration.

It went on to say that if the individuals failed to do so, or were ineligible but continued to use the title architect, they would be prosecuted. There are 2,600 architects on the official register."
batten
Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby Dreamstate » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:56 pm

The following is an extract of an email sent from Mr. Michael Finneran, Minister for Housing
& Local Services to Ms Maire Hoctor T.D. on 22 February 2011 and forwarded to an RIAI
Member by Ms Hoctor.

“Ms. Maire Hoctor T.D. 30th Dail
Dear Maire, A Chara,
I refer to your ongoing queries regarding the Building Control Amendment) Bill.
AS you know, this Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 30th Dáil, however it was
my Department's considered view, following legal advice,that such a Bill would
not have been compatible with EU law, specifically the Professional Qualifications
Directive, and could not have been proceeded with as such.
I trust this clarifies the matter.
Your Sincerely,
Mr. Michael Finneran
Minister for Housing & Local Services”



Attorney General’s response to the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010 was published in
Sunday business post on 20/02/2011.
can find the article at: http://www.thepost.ie/news/ag-counsels- architectregistration-54638.html.
In short, the Attorney general AG found that the Bill would breach EU law, as did the Opinion
provided to the RIAI by Gerard Hogan S.C. (at that time).
Dreamstate
Member
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:00 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:45 pm

*mheheh*

Thanks for that Dreamstate.

Its wishful thinking on someone's part that the Bill has lapsed.

I feel it in my bones that there is a huge amount of stuff going on behind the scenes that I cannot ferret out because I'm completing a course.
Although John O'Donoghue is no longer a Teachta Dála, the Bill he proposed lives on and continues to exercise the minds of the powers that be.

One thing is for certain, the debate about the Building Control Act on Archiseek spilled over into RL on many occassions and will continue to.
The only thing lacking in the debate here is the absence of comment by those movers and shakers who started the whole thing off, the RIAI.

It should be remembered during the forthcoming cull of unregistered architects that the RIAI chose the newspapers as their forum.
Battle lines have been drawn (or so I understand it) Legal Opinions have been procured - pistols at dawn to follow.

Michael Finneran's mail and the SBP piece referred to an AG's opinion but failed to publish that opinion.
AFAICS, nothing in the Bill is repugnant to the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Directive.

Europe went "hands off" when the Irish government restricted use of the title.
AFAIK, that's the way its staying - its our problem to deal with now.

Expect more lobbying from the impartial "competent authority".

The problems with the RIAI's position inter alia are these, IMO -

  • Allowing Grandfathers to continue using the title merely continues the status quo - which for twenty years has not been mentioned by Europe - how then can there be a difficulty in compliance - would Europe not have noticed before now?
  • There is no empirical evidence on offer from the RIAI that Grandfathers have designed buildings that statistically cause more problems than MRIAI-designed buildings.
  • The RIAI numbers appear to be falling - down from 2,850 to the 2,600 claimed in the SBP piece - this could only be the start of things.
  • The RIAI have been nobbled again by the AAOI - thsi time for not declaring themselves to be a private limited company or showing their directorships on their publications.
  • The Registrar is no longer listed as one of these directors - which must have been like taking a limpet from a rock - a huge but unnoticed sea change.

But the problem for the public is that by allowing the Bill to remain without amendation, people who previously called themselves architects - who stop doing so because of the bill - are not answerable under the law as architects if they stop calling themselves architects.

To my mind this is a retrograde step - they can still provide architectural services, because the provision of services is not restricted, but they will not beanswerable as architects.

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:07 pm

Should all that sem to imply that I am against registration, this is not so.

I am FOR REGISTRATION.

I am FOR REGULATION OF THE PROVISION OF SERVICES.

This has been the bridge too far for the RIAI, perhaps because of toes they might be stepping on, but it holds no fear for me.
The issue for me is not the Title, but Registration which confirms you can provide Archtitectural Services with Comptence and Integrity.

The Title is only the start of this, and Grandfathers who think they will get a free pass to Registration without showing their work is competent need to think again.

The public will have some sympathy with them over the cost, but at the end of two decades where the police, priests, bankers, solicitors and politicians have been dragged through the dirt, the least the public will want to see is evidence of competence on the part of all members of the building professions.

And who could blame them?

Do you want your house designed by a school teacher in between marking exam papers?
This nonsense needs to be stopped, and we look to the government to legislate to bring this about.

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:37 pm

You know, the really funny thing is that anyone who knows the law, and the greater duty of care required of professionals and in particular architects, would realise that only a lunatic would CALL himself and architect if he wasn't one.

For years, despite all the waffle spewn by the RIAI, this was the reason why few enough did, despite obviously offering archtiectural services - if you hold yourself out to be an architect you will be held accountable as an archtiect if matters ever proceed to a court of law.

Did not one ever stop to think why there were so few people using the title in the first place outside of those who held the qualification? Even now we here of a measly 300 - to go by the RIAI's own figures - that's 300 as opposed to 2,700 people.

I mean, if it was that rewarding a profession in Ireland why weren't there 20,000 persons without qualification calling themselves archtiects?

My own researches and contacts with the AAOI suggest that many of those are well over 35 and significant numbers are over 50 - one is over 70!

And these are people the RIAI need to be prevented from practising in order to safeguard the public!!!

I don't see any great public debate over this.
Muc was made of demonising David Grant, and that's about it.

Perhaps there are more of these eejits around trying to blag money from the unsuspecting.

But apart from stuffing people in a building in Haddington Road Grant's primary pimple on the RIAI backside was that he hoovered up the residential market to the tune of nearly a million Euro in one year!

Yes, Grant appears to have acted unprofessionally in terms of explaining the risks to clients of getting or not getting permissions, but no more so than some RIAI members I have come across, and in the latter case it was simply good marketing spiel, not any intended deception.

There are many people out there now who are neither qualified nor calling themselves architects who may slip between the cracks should they ever be sued, and that is not in the public interest - such persons need to be held accountable.

So instead of the exclusion approach which allows people to continue to supply archtiectural services on a nod and a wink basis - with the appratne blesing of the RIAI , who have not moved to stamp this out - we need to control not only the use of the title, but also the provision of services.

Only persons competent and properly trained to do so should be providing archtiecrurla services, and when they do - to allow proper redress under the law for the public - they should do so as Architects.

The rest should divide up into CAD technicians, Archtiectural Technicians or draughtsmen and work for an architect but they should not be supplying services direct to the public, and more than interns operate as GPs or technician accounts certify year-end accounts.

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 Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby parka » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:03 pm

onq wrote:So instead of the exclusion approach which allows people to continue to supply archtiectural services on a nod and a wink basis - with the appratne blesing of the RIAI , who have not moved to stamp this out - we need to control not only the use of the title, but also the provision of services.

Only persons competent and properly trained to do so should be providing archtiecrurla services, and when they do - to allow proper redress under the law for the public - they should do so as Architects.

The rest should divide up into CAD technicians, Archtiectural Technicians or draughtsmen and work for an architect but they should not be supplying services direct to the public, and more than interns operate as GPs or technician accounts certify year-end accounts.

ONQ.


Interestingly, I came across a horticulturist offering architects services recently.

It does seem to be free for all out there and very little seems to be happening to prevent it.
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the Grandfather Clause and the ti

Postby onq » Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:09 pm

Thanks Parka, but ... give me strength!!!

This is exactly what I'm talking about, a profession on its needs and unqualified incompetents taking the bread out of our mouths.

Perhaps I should start wandering in to secondary schools and teaching.
Or designingstructures.
Or "landscaping".

Then we'll see how these geniuses like it.
I mean, how hard can it be?

I got straight "B"'s [70% +] in my engineering exams in Bolton Street doing architecture.
I should be able to specify a few beams, columns and pad sizes and get paid for it.
Perhaps that would make engineers stick to what they are trained to do.

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

Previous

Return to Ireland