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

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

Postby Meow » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:41 pm

For those who don't know- There is a Building Control Bill (2005), which is to be enforced soon which makes it illegal for Architect-type-people to call themselves "Architects" unless they are "qualified" by certain strict means.

This is a sensitive issue.... and I am sorry for bringing it up here, like this, but it needs to be discussed...

Only people who are qualified RIAI Architects (and some others) will be allowed to use the title. Others cannot mislead the public by calling themselves "architects".
This is supposed to protect customers. Don't get me wrong - I always believe the customer should be protected

BUT

I don't think that all "Architects" who ARE "qualified" are competent. I don't think that all "Architects" are fantastic designers and I don't think that all "Architects" are better than- what should I call them- "????", those other people who do a very good job at designing buildings, applying for planning permission, preparing fire certs, preparing tender and construction drawings, managing projects on site etc. etc.

While we're at it why don't we protect the title "Artist", so that only those who have completed a course in NCAD can use the title. That'll stop the ones who have been selling paintings for years and years from calling it "Art". They'll have to think up a new name for themselves....

Surely, guys, this doesn't protect the customers... I really think it does the opposite... I think it confuses them... Who are these other people if they aren't "Architects". Because in essence, that IS what they are.

What I really think is, that if "qualified architects" wanted to protect a title, they should have come up with a new one which isn't so broad.:eek:
Meow
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: Wexford

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby Praxiteles » Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:50 pm

How would the dreaded Act deal with an expression like "Architect nuncupatus"?
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby sw101 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:39 am

you quote "qualified architects" as if they are an elite and self-preserving group only intent on protecting their interests and keeping the lesser beings out of the design business.

would you be happy to go to see a doctor tomorrow with "dr. doo daa's medical practise" written on the door, only to find out after he chopped off your leg that he was only having a laugh with the title and in fact came from a background of butchering and sure isn't it all only blood and guts anyway?

the title "architect" and the affixing of MRIAI (or RIBA or AIA) to a name provides some indication of training, accountability, guidelines for there professionals to work within and some redress when it is discovered that they aren't working to the required standards. nobody is saying that people without a degree or institutional recognition can't design a good building and create good architecture, only that they should not be allowed to misrepresent themselves as being trained in ways that they have not.
sw101
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby Praxiteles » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:45 am

And what about those people who have been trained as architects and are responsible for vandalism that has been practised in practically every church up and down the country?
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby sw101 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:57 am

what about them?
sw101
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby Meow » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:09 am

Please, please Mr. Architect:cool: , don't compare yourself to a doctor, dentist, lawyer or a brain surgeon!! :rolleyes: It is not the same and it never will be.
You are correct that I would not trust a non-surgeon to carry out surgery, but we are in an entirely different game here, my friend.
The fact is, that there are people who have been designing buildings, making planning applications and managing projects for years and years who are completely competent to do so. It is not brain-surgery.
Meow
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: Wexford

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby sw101 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:16 am

playing down the role of the architect in the design and construction industry to further your own cause isn't useful.

to cite your own examples, people with experience and partial training in law will only be allowed to call themselves a "lawyer" with the appropriate qualifications. people looking for legal services will understand exactly what they are getting when they pass a door saying "mr. doo daa, lawyer" and all that this entails. why should it be any different for architecture?
sw101
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby Meow » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:36 am

The bill hasn't been enforced yet? I wonder why it took so long? Is it because anyone can be a designer if they have a bit of flair? I'm sorry that I'm playing it down. I have compared "Architect" to "Artist" not lawyer- I said don't compare Architects to lawyers. I heard in a documentary that Architects designed the Pyramids. They weren't RIAI and the pyramids are still standing....
Meow
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: Wexford

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby wearnicehats » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:45 am

Meow wrote:Please, please Mr. Architect:cool: , don't compare yourself to a doctor, dentist, lawyer or a brain surgeon!! :rolleyes: It is not the same and it never will be.
You are correct that I would not trust a non-surgeon to carry out surgery, but we are in an entirely different game here, my friend.
The fact is, that there are people who have been designing buildings, making planning applications and managing projects for years and years who are completely competent to do so. It is not brain-surgery.



I'm afraid it is in that Architecture is a "vocational" course just as a doctor, dentist or lawyer. I'm a qualified architect and I worked damn hard to become one. I earned the title and all that comes with it ie responsibility PI cover, 25 year record keeping, There is no different game here "my friend" - it's called accountability and responsibility.

For every qualified architect there is someone else who ekes a trade by banging out mediocre run of the mill, floor plans out of a book, one-off houses in ballygobackwards; charging some poor sap over the odds for a rehash of some other poor sap's house, a slap dash planning and 2 site visits a week thanks very much cheerio and another blot appears on the landscape.

Of course there are equally similar examples of poor architecture by qualified architects. But if a qualified architect does something wrong, something that the new litigious Ireland can get their teeth into, then the consumer has recourse.

Methinks you do protest too much......post some examples of "unqualified success"
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby sw101 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:49 am

Meow wrote:The bill hasn't been enforced yet? I wonder why it took so long? Is it because anyone can be a designer if they have a bit of flair? I'm sorry that I'm playing it down. I have compared "Architect" to "Artist" not lawyer- I said don't compare Architects to lawyers. I heard in a documentary that Architects designed the Pyramids. They weren't RIAI and the pyramids are still standing....


you have used law, medicine, dentistry and neurology as examples of professions more worthy than architecture. in each of these areas there are different levels of qualification and varying titles depending on the level at which an individual can practise within the bounds of their experience, codes of conduct and qualifications.

"being a designer" isn't the issue. a child can design. that doesn't mean a child should be entitled to design and build something that is to be occupied by people. there are facilities in place for anyone with the experience and expertise in relevant areas to join the RIAI. it's illuminating to see that on the one hand you can denounce the people who seek to protect this title, while at the same time make folk heroes of the people who aspire to the profession.

this act isn't in place to protect the architects. it's to inform the customer and ensure that services being provided are represented in an honest and transparent manner.
sw101
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby KerryBog2 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:12 am

[quote="wearnicehats"]
For every qualified architect there is someone else who ekes a trade by banging out mediocre run of the mill, floor plans out of a book, one-off houses in ballygobackwards]

Hits the proverbial nail...........problem is that frequently these also are qualified architects. But in fairness, 2 site visits a week might be overdoing it!
KB
KerryBog2
Member
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:56 pm
Location: trilocated and often lost

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby buddyboy » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:16 pm

Right on Meow. Set the CAT among the pigeons.

The question of protecting the name Architect for the sole use of ye who hold the title is all fair and good. Then maybe we as technologists should perhaps forbid you from quoting Building Regulations, which you have not been thought in college, sorry University. Forbid you from scrawling a detail of a window jamb on a piece of paper for a builder who’s in a hurry because you are simply not qualified to do so. Forbid you from holding a staff in a field while some poor underling technician operates the level because god forbid you were never shown how to hold that staff in the correct upright position so as to obtain a correct reading. Maybe we should lobby to eliminate all but design from your proffession because it suits us to do so. It all smacks of elitist bullshit guys and whats more ye know it.

Since when did actual terms mean the competence of the person performing the act. It was a Swiss patent clerk by the name Einstein who turned the scientific world upside down with his theories of special and general relativity. Yet he never had any formal education in the area of physics. Yet this lowly patent clerk managed to refute the gospel according to Newton, and totally re-write the way science perceives the universe. Without Einstein no theory of relativity, no String or M theory, No closer to understanding the Universe. Actually science would be going in the completely wrong direction. Compelling eh. Yet would any of you dare to call Einstien Unqualified????
buddyboy
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:07 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby D Fitzpatrick » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:54 pm

Just to put this issue in perspective, Ireland is unusual in the absence of registration of the title Architect. Most countries at least regulate the title Architect but some go further, as far as I am aware in many states in America not only is the title regulated but also the work done. Only people with the title architect are entitled to do the work of an architect. In fact there are very few countries with neither statutory control of the title architect or restrictions of some sort on the type of work that people can do. As far as I know within the EU Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway and Sweden are the only countries who do not currently regulate the profession, essentially as long as the buildings accord with building regulations, they don't really care who designs them. So all that will change under the building control bill is that it wil restrict the use of the title of Architect, stopping unqualified people passing themselves off to householders and others as qualified architects.
D Fitzpatrick
Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby buddyboy » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:55 pm

I think protecting the term Architect in the new legislation is rediculous. Primarily because the term comprises a large umbrella of qualifications which each would have a legitamate claim to the term. Alone in the Architecture qualification you have various diplomas, degrees, and Hons degrees, notwithstanding the various Architectural Technician / Technologist qualifications.

Can any Architect here with complete honesty state that they when they left UCD or DIT with their Architecture Degree is now more qualified than myself who qualified out of the lowly RTC in Cork from their Architectural Technology course in 1996 and has nearly 10 years experience in this game. Could they state that they know everything about this proffession from concept, design, Planning Application, construction detailing, tender preparation, fire cert preparation, on site inspection and project oversight and final certification. They have a grounding in the first 2 stages at most, concept and design and probably as little information that you could fit it on the back of a postcard on any other stage. Yet you want to hold the sole entitlement to this term. And from there what happens, a push for the whole gammot of protection for as D Fitzpatrick said it is a protected entitlement in many states in the US that "Only people with the title architect are entitled to do the work of an architect."

You have to realise that it takes much more than your Architectural degree to bring a building from a green field site to fully up and standing. It takes an amalgamation of skills at least half of which you have no in depth fomal education in to make that happen. The lobbying for the sole right to the term smacks of trying to eliminate any competition because its unhealthy for your business. I think the competition authority would have a thing or two to say about that.

And guys dont for one second think I'm some crap head who couldnt get into architecture in DIT or UCD, I had points to spare from the leaving cert for either of those. I was always mechanically and analytically minded and the technology course was always my number one choice. Intelligence it does not take to get into the Architecture courses and I can assure you all us technicians are not failed Architecture course wannabes. Ye have no moral or intellectual right to a term which is ancient because you did a 5 year stint in University in Dublin or elsewhere.
buddyboy
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:07 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby Meow » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:32 pm

Well said Buddy Boy. ;)

If the RIAI want to create a monopoly with the title "Architect" it is not within the interests of the people.
Meow
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: Wexford

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby jackscout » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:43 pm

I don't have an issue with the term architect been "reserved" for use by those with suitable qualifications. As an architectural technician I hate been referred to as an architect. I also hate people with no qualification at all calling themselves architects.
I do think there should be some sort of formal recognition given to those who are qualified/experinced (technicains draughtsmen etc) in the industry that are capable of and provide a service within the industry.

Unfortuately as stated earlier, qualified architects at times are responsible for some very poor design in this country. I know of countless housing estates which were architect designed and no thought was put into the layout of the estate or the dwellings. I will say that non architects have done the same, but what gets my back up is, its those same architets, that are first to put down everyone else on poor design yet fail to admit their own failings.
jackscout
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:56 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby Paul Clerkin » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:12 pm

I think the term should be protected but I do not believe the RIAI should be in charge of this. We need an Architects Registration Body - just being a member of the RIAI will not qualify you by right and you will not have to be a member of the RIAI to be accredited.
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby jackscout » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:21 pm

Paul Clerkin wrote:I think the term should be protected but I do not believe the RIAI should be in charge of this. We need an Architects Registration Body - just being a member of the RIAI will not qualify you by right and you will not have to be a member of the RIAI to be accredited.


I would agree with you on the above
jackscout
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:56 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby Bren88 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:39 pm

buddyboy wrote:
It was a Swiss patent clerk by the name Einstein who turned the scientific world upside down with his theories of special and general relativity. Yet he never had any formal education in the area of physics.


I think he was German not Swiss, and he studied at the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich. He would of covered science including physics there. Just to clear it up a little.


Meow wrote:The bill hasn't been enforced yet? I wonder why it took so long? Is it because anyone can be a designer if they have a bit of flair? I'm sorry that I'm playing it down. I have compared "Architect" to "Artist" not lawyer- I said don't compare Architects to lawyers. I heard in a documentary that Architects designed the Pyramids. They weren't RIAI and the pyramids are still standing....


Yes. Architects designed the pyramids. Not some joes who were calling them selves architects. They weren't in the RIAI but were still quailifed. But range of study is still different tofday of course.
I think you are mixing up being quailified and being in the RIAI. You can be a quailified architect but not a member of the RIAI. You may chose another organisation, or none at all.

Meow wrote:The fact is, that there are people who have been designing buildings, making planning applications and managing projects for years and years who are completely competent to do so. It is not brain-surgery.


This is probably the weakest point you made. Because the people who have been designing buildings for years, and can show to be competant at it, can become members of the various organisations. They can become quailifed through profession al expierence. This is how it was done for years, by becoming an apprentice and studying under an architect. Today it is a subject learned through college and to start as an architect a degree is needed.
The bill isn't here to stop people without degrees (but are quailifed through professional exp) from practicing. Its to stop people who have no degree and no expierence from calling themselves architects and from using a house plan book to con people.
Bren88
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:47 am

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby buddyboy » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:57 pm

I would agree in principal with that Paul. It seems ludicrous that a newly frocked Architecture graduate or anybody else holding an architecture degree would be simply able to waltz around with sole protected rights to use the term when a large population of those working in the profession who do not hold these qualifications yet for years have operated with impecable reputations would not enjoy the same right.

Experience and competence should be the sole benchmark for the use and appreciation of the title which would uphold the customers / consumers protection which the bill claims to wish to safeguard. In no way then would a qualification which could have been obtained by scraping through the course with the minimum grade average required be seen as granting automatic use of the term.

And I agree that the RIAI should not run this. They represent only one small portion of those practicing out there. It would be simply unfair to have to comply with criteria they would set out as you could be sure it would be loaded towards their end of the work spectrum. A displayed competence gained through experience in all areas, (both design and construction detailing) would have to be the underlying factor for permission to utilise the term Architect.

Then maybe all would be on an equal footing and the public consumer truely potected. And maybe then Architects may gain a bit of respect for what we as technicians have to go through during our years spent studying and the years of experience we gain in the field. Its not all playing tiddly winks and drinking down the pub ya know.
buddyboy
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:07 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill 2005

Postby buddyboy » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:22 pm

Dear Bren 88.

One question for ya? Do ya like apples?????

Yes Einstein was German, he worked in the Swiss patent office, making him a Swiss patent Clerk. It would have seemed stupid and a bit misleading to me to discribe him as a German Swiss patent Clerk. Yer little brain might not have been able to handle it.

And yes he studied at the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich. To be an electrical engineer. Any idiot with the internet and a little site called wikipedia could seem quite smart and knowledgeable on pointing out that score. So dont pat yerself on the back just yet.

But I have a rather keen interest in physics and to say that the education that a spark might receive today would have anything to do with quantum physics, newtonian motion, and the myriad of other theoretical studies which were being carried out at the end of the 19th century such as partical field theory, electromagnetics etc which all went into the postulation of Special Relativity and later General Relativity seems just plain stupid to me. If their teaching that to electricians these days then sign me up, I'd love it!!!!!

So dont try to seem smart when ya aint.

How do ya like them apples!!!!!!
buddyboy
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:07 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby Meow » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:05 pm

It seems that some of my arguements have been removed from this thread. I might have guessed, seeing as this is an RIAI website. I am very annoyed that my arguements have been removed, turning this debate into a one-sided joke.
I agree that the RIAI should not have control over who can be included under the title "Architect". They will be acting in their own interests only.
It would be quite like letting McDonalds take control over who is qualified to make burgers.:rolleyes:
Meow
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: Wexford

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby sw101 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:47 pm

the only RIAI website i know of is http://www.riai.ie. this is an independently owned and run online publication and discussion forum.

the RIAI is going to be regulating the title in the absence of an alternative. if there was an independent ARB put in place i'd be perfectly happy with it.
sw101
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby Meow » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:50 pm

Bren88 wrote:Yes. Architects designed the pyramids. Not some joes who were calling them selves architects...
...the people who have been designing buildings for years, and can show to be competant at it, can become members of the various organisations. They can become quailifed through profession al expierence....Today it is a subject learned through college and to start as an architect a degree is needed.
The bill isn't here to stop people without degrees (but are quailifed through professional exp) from practicing. Its to stop people who have no degree and no expierence from calling themselves architects and from using a house plan book to con people.


Bren88- What if the qualifications and experience required will be all controlled by the RIAI. Can you honestly say that it is fair? It truly is monopoly. A monopoly is bad for business, bad for this country and bad for the customer.

Now let's get something straight...I don't want to call myself an Architect. I'm not an architect. But if I was to open a business I am qualified to offer "Architectural Services"... for I am an Architectural Technologist/ Technician whichever title you would like to use. It IS Architectural. The Bill forbids the use of "Architect" used with other words or letters... i.e. Architectural Services, unless qualified by this so far very foggy means, which I reckon will be thrown upon us if something is not done now...

This also means that such offices will not be allowed to list themselves in the Golden Pages under Architects. Bad for businesses... Creating a monopoly.... Very Very bad for customers. So pretend all you like, till you are blue in the face, that this Act will protect customers because this is what I feel will happen:

1- The word "Architect" can't be used by the technical offices. (Not the worst- it's not the title "Architect" that I'm worried about- it's the "Architectural Services")
2- Marketing and advertising becomes very difficult for the rest of us. (Yippee- I hear the Architects say- More business for us! Less competition!)
3- Non-"Architects" become invisible.
4- Naturally, this will lead to (Like has happened in the States) a banning of Technical Architects from practising.
5- Therefore, obviously, Architects will be able to charge what they like. There will be a very scary scale of fees indeed.
6- All the Architectural Technicians will have to go to Uni and get the fancy schmancy qualifications, which are now needed to do this job, which we're doing quite well without!!
7- Then- there will only be Architects in Ireland. There will still be bad designers and good designers. It's the same people, different name...
8- Any pure technical staff will get paid very poorly. As there won't be a choice to open up a practice, they will have to be employed by Architects. Therefore- Nobody will follow this essential line of work anymore.
9- Everyone will be an architect. Now the RIAI will have to make up a new grading system. To be the best Gold star Architect you will have to study full-time for 14 years... and miss out on 10 years in practice. But don't worry- the ego will be saved!!!
10- The Irish government will say "Oh No- we've done it again....the sale of the airline had been a foolish, reckless decision but this beats all !!!":(
Meow
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: Wexford

Re: The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Building Control Bill

Postby Paul Clerkin » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:07 pm

Sums up the RIAI position:

Support for law to register architects
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2005 / November 1

The Irish Times

Nearly 90 per cent of Irish people say they want the Government to bring in legislation requiring architects to be professionally qualified, according to a survey carried out on behalf of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI). The survey by TNS mrbi found that 89 per cent favour such a law being enacted before the next general election. The study also found that 94 per cent believe that anyone wishing to call him or herself an architect should have appropriate educational or professional qualifications.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1101/3735596637HM7QUALIFIED.html



Institute says Authority’s criticism of Building Control Bill misguided
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2006 / March 7

The Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland (RIAI) has given a broad welcome to the Competition Authority’s report on the architecture profession which was published on 7 March. Commenting on the report, RIAI Director, John Graby, welcomed the fact that the Competition Authority recognised that there were few barriers to competition in the profession. "Architecture is a client focused profession. RIAI members always strive to provide their clients with the most professional service available. This ethos includes competitiveness and the Competition Authority report recognises this fact," John Graby said.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2006/000059.html
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Next

Return to Ireland



cron