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

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

Postby Meow » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:29 pm

Paul Clerkin wrote:Sums up the RIAI position....The Irish Times......the study found that 94 per cent believe that anyone wishing to call him or herself an architect should have appropriate educational or professional qualifications.
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.


1. If someone came to my door and said 'should someone be qualified to do there job' -I would say yes... Of course 94% said yes...Are you sure that article was in The Irish Times- cause it sounds more like something from The Sun...the thing is- I am qualified to do my job!! You just want to tell me and people like me that I have to work under a "Qualified" Architect. Why can't you see what I'm trying to say????!!!! I AM qualified. You are trying to say that Technical Architects are NOT qualified to do the job. This is the problem... You would like to FOOL the public into thinking that RIAI qualification is better than the rest- but it simply is not true- it's just different!!

2. Of course the "director of the RIAI" would say that this whole thing is not going to destroy competition as we know it. How could he admit such a thing? He's after the interests of his own people, the MRIAI, who shall get all the jobs, when this Bill is made into an Act...
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 10:21 pm

buddyboy wrote: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!!!!!!


I don't know about apples but there's a seriously big bunch of sour grapes in this thread. If you want to question someone's "smartness", perhaps you should take a look at your own spelling ability.

I work with a large number of qualified and talented technologists. Note the "with". Frankly I don't give a rat's fat ass what any of you are qualified to do. What I care about is the service that my company gives to its Clients. If we make mistakes then the Client has recourse. It's called P.I. Cover. This bill has been brought about by a bunch of shysters knocking up sub-standard shite with impunity. The RIAI can and will deal with rogue architects - who deals with the rest? Physician heal thyself.
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

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

Postby buddyboy » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:32 am

Hey hats.

All I was doing was trying to prove a point.

This dumbass was trying to make himkself look smart at my expense and tried as usual to use some smart ass crap to refute a statement of mine which he had no other defence against. A smart fella offering an opinion on something he knows absolutely nothing about. How dare he!!!

Thats the sort of attitude that gets up my nose.

My only problem with these sort of people is that he cant and wont even try to look at things from another point of view which might mean he may have to concede a point and leave himself at a disadvantage. Would you not concede the following :

a) The architectural technician / technologist is an integral part of any design team.
b) There are bad architects out there too propogating the countryside with crap.
c) Not all technologists deserve to be tarred with the broad brush strokes of bad design.
d) If the RIAI is to run this show then technologists should be afforded full membership, MRIAI, and no other designation if their professional competence was assured. Would you concede that although we have training in different fields and it takes much more than the sum of either your and my formal education to bring a building from green field site to fully finished. That comes with experience and learning.
e) Just as you would learn the more technical aspects of the building while working in the field is it too much for you to assume I havent picked up any design competence in 10 years???

Both our formal educations leave a great gap to what in my opinion goes to make a complete architect. Experience in my opinion is the only thing that can bring this about. Your gaining experience in the technical aspects of building and mine in the design aspects. Having gained a competent understanding in each case through experience are we not essentially then THE SAME!!!! Should I not then be granted use of the title Architect without reservation if my competence is proven??

Otherwise its as Meow says just creating a monopoly for RIAI members to sell their wares in a closed market. That is neither good for the public or the profession. Competition should not be feared. As for any polls carried out on behalf of the RIAI, they would have to be bogus. The public have no understanding of the issues at hand. How could they. If asked the difference between an Architect and Architectural Technologist could the answer the question??? No, and that is the nub of the matter which was conveniently left out of that survey.

And if I ever do decide to practice on my own of course I will have P.I. cover. Any technologists which I know practicing on their own have this cover. Why would I act otherwise. In this we have the consumers interest at heart. Is the gulf so vast that ye as Architects will always see us as underlings who merely finish your work.
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 Johnnycroc » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:15 pm

I am an Architectural Technologist, I've had my own practice for a number of years with full PI and have designed and built many buildings. I am not an Architect and do not claim to be although I am frequently referred to by clients as their architect, engineer, surveyor, draftsman due to their basic lack of understanding of the design side of the construction industry. Clients for the most part don't care what you are as long as you have a good reputation and can guide them through the tricky process of the planning and construction of their building and can deal with all of the complications that arise along the way.

If as some people seem to think on this forum the protection of the title Architect will restrict other people from designing buildings they are wrong. The vast majority of Clients are extremely cost conscious and will go to the other protected professions (engineers & surveyors) to design their buildings if they can't use technologists when they are quoted 10 to 13% fees for their project.

If the RIAI are to be the registration body they should 1) Increase the Technician representation on the council to be in proportion with the number of technician members to members and fellows, 2) Review their rules on certificates on compliance 3) Have professional competence examinations for technician members to ensure that standards are maintained equilivant to those for Architects.

I am of the opinion that the RIAI has completely neglected technicians for years and will unfortunately most likely continue to do so which will lead to a parting of the ways in the near future. Poor design is frequently blamed on unqualified "Architects" and technicians but I know a number of qualified engineers and surveyors who are more than capable of producing poor design and that’s before you take the role of the planners into account they can frequently inflict changes on a design which will reduce it to poor status very quickly. How many of them have any architectural qualifications of any sort and finally don't forget the Client is always right even when they're wrong it's up to all of us to coax them away from the house of their dreams (Plan No 30451 from Plan a Stately Pile or similar) give them something better, that meets their brief, that the planners don't want to change and that they'll be happy living in or using for years.
Johnnycroc
Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:38 am

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

Postby PVC King » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:18 pm

Has to be the RIAI as experience dictates that quangos sooner or later fall victim to becoming destroyed by excessive numbers of polically motivated appointees.

What is to stop a future ARB declaring all technicians architects and making every one off an 'architect designed masterpiece' leave control where it is safe i.e. those who have worked hard enough to attain the status of architect by going through the established channels.

Notwithstanding the above there are many very talented designers who are not qualified architects but like every other sector results speak for themselves and they gain commissions that normally would go to qualified members but I think it is fair to say thaty these gifted designers are the exception as opposed to the rule.
PVC King
 

Registration?

Postby Ian Salisbury » Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:13 pm

3 questions are asked in your current poll about ranking prefeerences for the future home of architectural registration. The uptake is desultry and I'm not surprised.

Having had almost 10 years of meddling and interference from the UK Architects Registration Board, those practising in Ireland might do well to pause before running headlong into state-sanctioned intereference with their professional practice. Have a look at http://www.aaruk.info and then ask the question: "Is registration nothing but a shield for the incompetent?"
Ian Salisbury
Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:42 pm

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

Postby batesarch » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:51 pm

Hi,

this is my first post so be gentle.
What is a technical architect? isnt the term a contradiction in itself? lets call a spade a spade. if you havent studied the appropriate courses, passed the exams, completed the relevant projects than you are not an Architect. period. no buts.
I have completed my part one and am always aware when someone asks what i do. im just a lowly architects assistant. so technicians stand up and be proud of what you are and do not profess to be that you are not.

thanks.
batesarch
Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:15 am

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

Postby JB » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:17 pm

The other titles available make even less sense ! Technician to me implies someone who fixes something .... where does that fit in, and Technologist sounds to like a made up term, just contrived to put another level in an already mixed up system. Neither describes the scope of work undertaken by 'Architectural Technicians' who have reached senior positions in their various places of work. Technical Architect is far from ideal in my view but it does lend some credibility to those Technicians who have done all the things you say AND completed the relevant projects by carrying out and supervising the TECHNICAL DESIGN of various buildings, so how is it a contradiction ? As an architect who has yet to complete their education you surely must have come across Technicians in your practice who are far more qualified and experienced technically, yet there is little recognition for what they do professionally. You wouldn't object to a LANDSCAPE Architect using their title, or to a NAVAL or MARINE Architect using theirs, so why object to TECHNICAL Architect - Is it a little to close to home ? Just a suggestion - no offence intended !!!!! Just to point out also, that not all Technicians favour the term Technical Architect, but it better describes the work that they do.
JB
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:14 pm

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

Postby PlanE » Wed May 16, 2007 1:47 pm

The abuse of the name 'architect' has always been the case - now they are making it official. Anyone with a little bluff-ability can pass the RPL exam, thus bypassing seven years of slog-awful study and all the experience necessary to go with that;
This is just another manifestation of the wholesale mistreatment of underpaid, undervalued and much-abused architects.
Granted, there are many who get through the official courses (who shouldn't get through), with a little help from daddy and a few repeat exams, but it is still an undermining of the well-earned title.
What would really be of value to architects would be if planning applications were to be made only by professionally-qualified architects, not by the local draughtsman, garda or woodwork teacher; as it is in Poland and elsewhere in the world, thus upholding quality (a word not in the vocabulary of the government, the competition authority, and unfortunately, the representatives of the RIAI, or so it would appear).

As for technicians, with respect I think more would be acheived if they were to develop ways of increasing their role and value in practice, rather than this prolonged negative navel-gazing.
PlanE
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:30 pm

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

Postby JB » Wed May 16, 2007 8:49 pm

'Bluff ability' won't get anyone registered as an Architect. The RIAI have been campaigning for registration for years, and will now be the registration body for Architects in this country. As for bypassing seven years of slog awful study, prospective candidates for Registration must have at least ten years experience providing services commensurate with that of an Architect, must meet a prescribed and stringent set of competencies, and must produce documentary evidence of this to an expert panel of not less than 3 Architects for their assessment, after which an opinion on the candidates' suitability for registration will be given to the Technical Assessment Board.Going forward, a Register Admission Examination will be open to those who can demonstrate 7 years working at the level of an Architect and are at least 35 years of age, so its no shortcut.
Your statement is a bit premature given that none of these mechanisms are in place as yet, as the Bill was only passed into Law in April, so how can anyone know what the contents of any exam will be, and, given that the RIAI, the representative body for Architects in Ireland will be the Regaistration Body, surely its up to them to maintain the standards set out in the Building Control Bill. What are you afraid of ? :confused:
I do agree about the local woodwork teacher, draughtsman or garda preparing planning applications, but do you seriously think it's ever going to be possible to have these made only by Architects ? Firstly, I know many Architects who wouldn't know where to start with a planning application, and who would have serious difficulty getting even the smallest application through the validation process, and secondly, how many Architects do you think are interested in that type of work ? Would you rather see the role of the Architectural Technican reduced to that of somone who simply prepares drawings under the supervision of an Architect rather than operating as an expert in a seperate, albeit related discipline. That suggestion surely contradicts your last statement about technicians increasing their role and value in practice, and sets back an entire profession by years if not decades. I don't how many Technicians you know, but certainly I, and many of my colleagues are not involved in any navel gazing, negative or otherwise, nor am I out to poach the work of the poor 'underpaid, undervalued and mistreated architects' you refer to, although I don't know of too many of those anyway.:D
JB
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:14 pm

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

Postby PlanE » Thu May 17, 2007 2:36 pm

JB wrote:'Bluff ability' won't get anyone registered as an Architect. The RIAI have been campaigning for registration for years, and will now be the registration body for Architects in this country. As for bypassing seven years of slog awful study, prospective candidates for Registration must have at least ten years experience providing services commensurate with that of an Architect, must meet a prescribed and stringent set of competencies, and must produce documentary evidence of this to an expert panel of not less than 3 Architects for their assessment, after which an opinion on the candidates' suitability for registration will be given to the Technical Assessment Board.Going forward, a Register Admission Examination will be open to those who can demonstrate 7 years working at the level of an Architect and are at least 35 years of age, so its no shortcut.
Your statement is a bit premature given that none of these mechanisms are in place as yet, as the Bill was only passed into Law in April, so how can anyone know what the contents of any exam will be, and, given that the RIAI, the representative body for Architects in Ireland will be the Regaistration Body, surely its up to them to maintain the standards set out in the Building Control Bill. What are you afraid of ? :confused:
I do agree about the local woodwork teacher, draughtsman or garda preparing planning applications, but do you seriously think it's ever going to be possible to have these made only by Architects ? Firstly, I know many Architects who wouldn't know where to start with a planning application, and who would have serious difficulty getting even the smallest application through the validation process, and secondly, how many Architects do you think are interested in that type of work ? Would you rather see the role of the Architectural Technican reduced to that of somone who simply prepares drawings under the supervision of an Architect rather than operating as an expert in a seperate, albeit related discipline. That suggestion surely contradicts your last statement about technicians increasing their role and value in practice, and sets back an entire profession by years if not decades. I don't how many Technicians you know, but certainly I, and many of my colleagues are not involved in any navel gazing, negative or otherwise, nor am I out to poach the work of the poor 'underpaid, undervalued and mistreated architects' you refer to, although I don't know of too many of those anyway.:D



To clarify: the Bill was passed, but these are proposals contained within the Bill and how it might be regulated.

If anyone has the ability to bypass formal training, I certainly don't begrudge that... even some of the best architects we know (eg. Tadao Ando or Mies), didn't have formal training in the strict sense. However, they did have special training nonetheless, and were exceptionallY gifted.
I seems bizarre that with a single interview and evidence of 10 years of unmonitored architectural work one can become an architect. this work could well have been done in collaboration with others, with only a minor role in the overall design aspects - or may not have been done by the candidate at all ... who's to know? the local judge? I would like to know more how a technical assessment board, most of whom are unqualified architects, will source the true inspiration of architectural work, spanning back years.

Granted there are architects who are unable to perform in many aspects, such as planning applications; but that isn't the aim of training. The Part 3 exam requires grounding in these areas.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, I have read here submissions from individuals who are performing in all areas of practice, bar the first few stages. That's all well and good. However, practice is only one aspect of architectural knowledge. Much of what is learnt in architectural education doesn't even figure in archectural practice, though it has a bearing. Therefore the idea of becoming an architect through practice alone is questionable.

Architects are adequately paid...? :confused: :o :mad: :D
PlanE
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:30 pm

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

Postby PlanE » Thu May 17, 2007 2:39 pm

PS. I was an experienced technician myself in a previous life (before doing the degree), so I am not speaking as one ignorant of the technicians role :p
PlanE
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:30 pm

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

Postby ctesiphon » Thu May 17, 2007 3:25 pm

PlanE wrote:What would really be of value to architects would be if planning applications were to be made only by professionally-qualified architects

Off topic perhaps, but surely it would be of more 'value' to architects if qualified planners made the applications and let architects get on with the job for which they studied?
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

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

Postby JB » Thu May 17, 2007 4:34 pm

eThe interview board, according to a recent RIAI document issued to their members, must satisfy itself that the works presented represent each year claimed as relevant by the candidate and that the work was actually carried out by the candidate. In addition, the work submitted must be equivalent to that of an Architect in terms of its scale and complexity and quality. (so no bungalows then) Also surely if the RIAI are to be the registration body, it will be their members who will sit on the board, not 'unqualified' architects.
I just think that surely it is better to have some form of regulation there rather than the current situation, which is none at all.
Surely anyone who decides to seek registration as an Architect and succeds will have had some formal Education first ? Maybe I'm wrong.If it is the case that anyone who picks up a pencil and decides to apply has a chance of being accepted, then I withdraw all comments. That is not a situation I would like to see.
JB
Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:14 pm

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

Postby Ian Salisbury » Wed May 23, 2007 6:37 pm

It's interesting that while many architects in the UK are becoming disenchanted with the whole idea of registration (aka officious regulation), so many other nations are running to achieve this anti-competitive and anti-consumer protectionism. Think about it: doesn't registration (see my posting here of about 2 years ago) provide a monopolistic shield for the incompetent? and whereas some may welcome the comfort blanket of protection of title, should it be of any concern to anyone who is recognised on merit? Is it too late to say no to the whole idea?

See essay "Architects Registration in the United Kindom" and general information at AARUK - Architects Registration in the United Kingdom (note: hyperlinks)
Ian Salisbury
Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:42 pm

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

Postby Ian Salisbury » Wed May 23, 2007 6:53 pm

I've just seen that nearly 60% have voted in favour of an Irish Architects Registration Board. :eek: FRIENDS : GET YOUR HEADS EXAMINED - YOU'LL REGRET IT! :eek:

At least so few have voted that the poll can be taken as a glorious vote of no confidence in the whole thing. :confused:
Ian Salisbury
Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:42 pm

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

Postby henno » Thu May 24, 2007 4:45 pm

My first post, so please go easy :)

As an Architectural Technician in full-time employment in a non-RIAI architectural firm since 1999, i have been performing the duties of an 'Architect' since my first day....

Our firm aims at mainly urban and rural residential projects, and i can say we would consider ourselves 'specialist' in this area, in all aspects of the construction process, from brief forming, planning and engineering consultation, design and project mamagement. This is our target market, as there are a myriad of RIAI firms locally that tie up the local commercial, industrial and public projects. My employer is not formally qualified as an architect, but has been working as an architect for over 30 years.....

I have been designing residential developments, urban housing and rural stand alone homes for the past 7 years. My work has been favourable critised by well respected local RIAI architects. My question is this...
How can the registration board deliberate on "the work submitted must be equivalent to that of an Architect in terms of its scale and complexity and quality" when the exact role of an architect in the construction process is so contraversial.??

reading the 'official journal of the european union' L 255 it states the training of an architect should lead to the acquisition of 11 skills....
on reading this list its clear to me that i am formally trained in 6 of them; i have experiential training in 3 others... i do not have training in only 2 of them....
however, the list describes skills that would be more pertenant to other professions than architects....
ie "understanding of structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with the building design"
or "adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in th eplanning process"
or "adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and of the function of buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of comfort and protection against teh climate"

these definations of the requist skills of an 'architect' would be more correctly used to describe an architectural technician, or services engineer, or structural engineer etc....
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

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

Postby henno » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:27 pm

hope its ok to bump this, in hope of any comments on my post.....
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

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

Postby Deville » Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:37 am

I am currently doing a degree in Interior Architecture in Griffith College, Dublin. Its a BA recognised by HETAC and internationally. What does this mean for me? Can I call myself an Interior Architect? :confused:
Deville
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Dublin

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

Postby trace » Thu Aug 27, 2009 6:02 pm

An interesting comment on the architectural profession by Paul Finch, the new chair of CABE, in response to a question by Will Alsop: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5207267.article
Do you think the role of the architect should be returned to the position it occupied before project managers were invented? Will Alsop
The role of architects was defined by architects themselves in the 1830s. From the expulsion of the measurers, the splitting off of planners and, more recently, the apparent abandonment of project management on major buildings, the message seems to be that many architects are content for others to carry out activities that are not fundamentally about ‘design’. Neither CABE nor anybody else can disband project management as a separate discipline, tempting though that may be to some.
trace
Member
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 1:00 am

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

Postby CK » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:52 pm

I have created my own practice in dublin 8 years ago. I have tryed to register with the RIAI but never could because my qualification is not listed in the EU directive which includes a list of cetain qualifications valable for registration.

I am waiting for the RIAI to set up the registration procedure as per the B.C.A. 2007 (Building Control Act 2007). Last year the RIAI was trying to prevent my practice being listed in the Golden Pages on the ground that I was not M.RIAI. I had to employ my solicitor to solve this conflict. The B.C.A. 2007 stipulates that anyone having applyed for registration can continue practicing as an architect until a decision on the application is reached by the board. The RIAI was acting in breach of the B.C.A. 2007 by trying to prevent my practice and others to be listed in the Golden Pages. My solicitor could never comvince the RIAI to change their way of doing, but the Golden Pages legal team decided that the RIAI's request to list only RIAI members was not justified because Registration as per the B.C.A. 2007 was not yet in place.

I have a master degree in Arts & Architecture issued by a State University from Paris. I have 14 years of experience working in France, UK, and Ireland. I am wondering what type of politic is following the RIAI by trying to prevent honest and competent architects like me to continue practicing.

I will be able to register as an architect after having past an examination but at the moment my practice is damaged by the economical climat and also by the RIAI which is claiming everywhere that registration started in May 2008, when in fact it is not started at all to this date.

The RIAI is using its position as the registration body to promote the services of its members, when it should in the contrary carry out the registration task without prejudice. When a member of the public call the RIAI to obtain information about my practice, the RIAI tells them that I am not a member and that there is no guarantee that I will be able to register. They recommend my potential client to use the services of a MRIAI architect. I know that I have already lost some potential clients this way and I am wondering if I could take legal action against the RIAI on this ground.

I am desapointed with the RIAI. They are looking at the registration process in a way that facilitate everything for their members, but they do not consider the interests of non members qualified for registration as per the B.C.A. 2007. I thing that there is obvioulsy a conflict of interest there.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby mulp » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:52 pm

I think there is a clear conflict of interest here too.
The Competition Authority submitted a recommendation when this legislation was being considered that the RIAI should not be the body responsible for registration.

"The Competition Authority is concerned, however, with the impact of the proposed new registration system for architects, as outlined in the Building Control Bill 2005. As currently proposed, the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), which represents the vast majority of architects in Ireland, would be given the responsibility for maintaining a register of architects in Ireland, including those who are not RIAI members. This creates the potential for conflicts of interest between the RIAI's role in representing its members and its statutory roles of protecting consumers and regulating all architects.

The Competition Authority makes a number of recommendations designed to ensure that the proposed registration system is as transparent, independent and accountable as possible. In particular, it proposes the creation of an Architects Council of Ireland - an independent and accountable body to register architects".

http://www.tca.ie/templates/index.aspx?pageid=930


The RIAI describes itself as a "representative body for professionally qualified architects" in Ireland. This single statement on the website sparks any number of areas where there is potential for conflict in its new second role as a registration body.
The UK system of separating out theses functions was devised for good reason:

ARB is the independent statutory regulator of all UK registered architects.
ARB has a dual mandate to protect the consumer and to safeguard the reputation of architects. To achieve this, we:
* keep an up to date Register of all architects
* promote good standards both in the education of architects and in professional practice
* provide consumers with an accessible service in cases of complaint
* investigate and prosecute unregistered individuals in business or practice who unlawfully call themselves an architect.

http://www.arb.org.uk/

If you are a RIBA Architect you can chose to disagree with your professional body, relinquish your membership, and retain your right to call yourself an Architect by virtue of your ARB accreditation. Professionals who have suitable qualifications and experience can register without having to become members of the RIBA.

(I wonder will RIAI membership fees be reduced to a suitable 'recession level' or even in line with deflation come renewal??)
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

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

Postby CK » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:16 pm

It seems that the competition Authority had anticipated the problem.
User avatar
CK
Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 1:00 am

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

Postby wearnicehats » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:52 pm

trace wrote:An interesting comment on the architectural profession by Paul Finch, the new chair of CABE, in response to a question by Will Alsop: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5207267.article
Do you think the role of the architect should be returned to the position it occupied before project managers were invented? Will Alsop
The role of architects was defined by architects themselves in the 1830s. From the expulsion of the measurers, the splitting off of planners and, more recently, the apparent abandonment of project management on major buildings, the message seems to be that many architects are content for others to carry out activities that are not fundamentally about ‘design’. Neither CABE nor anybody else can disband project management as a separate discipline, tempting though that may be to some.


your comment re the abandonement of PMs is relevant - happening all over as Clients realise PMs get money for jam as the northies say. The role is now ripe for architects to take back what - let's face it - they've all still been doing due to the fact that most PM's are failed QSs and are having rings run around them by Contract Managers. The banks have set them free and architect's should ensure they stay so.

Re an Irish version of the ARB - absolutely essential. The RIBA in the UK offers little but a "free" magazine. the ARB ensures regulation and is one hell of a lot cheaper
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

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

Postby mulp » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:07 pm

wearnicehats wrote:Re an Irish version of the ARB - absolutely essential. The RIBA in the UK offers little but a "free" magazine. the ARB ensures regulation and is one hell of a lot cheaper


Didn't the RIAI's submissions to government on the regulation argue for them taking on the registration role?
Anyway, like any good democracy it's up to us members to vote in the council we want next time. Don't think we can vote in a new director though?
Interesting to note that RIAI CPD courses have just become mandatory for members, some of which can be very pricey.
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron