architects leglistation

I think this is true – the govt however are going to start to officially accredit those qualified to a certain standard soon. It seems to me that they will let the RIAI control this which is the easy way out for them – there should be an official state body overseeing this.

On the other hand – when you perform a function that is covered by legislation, standard contract or insurance, a lot of privaate institutions will ask for professional accreditation. ie certs of complience – building societies will look for your qualifiaction as well as your insurance status.

This is just from my experience – never did my part 3 so I stand to be corrected..

as far as i know any gdla contract (government department local something or other) can only be made with a member of the riai. i think this is only fair seeing as membership isnt overly difficult to achieve for a competent architect, and major projects for national bodies should be excecuted to a high degree of excellence because in most cases trhe buildings can be large, on important sites, and can affect the lives of people more so than little suburban buildings.

also on that point, i dont think its correct that any old joe can design and certify a building with little or no relevant experience or qualifications. i had the misfortune to get a job with an “architect” who was qualified as a corporate surveyor and sfa else. as you can imagine there wasnt a lot of discussion on conceptual development or detailed analysis of the brief when a job came in. god help me.

i think in a lot of countries its illegal to advertise as an architect without the proper accreditation, like you said. shady on details here but as a general principal i think its only right. compare it to the medical profession, where a job must be done right by the correct personnel or the implications are serious. you cant have a nurses station full of people calling themselves doctor cause they feel like it and can demand higher fees.

These are your opinions SW fair enough, but don’t you think that there should be a government appointed accrediting body and not just the RIAI? A bit of diversity in the proffesional practice methods would be seriously welcome.

but the riai could be a government appointed accrediting body surely? royal charter. self sustained and progressive, unlike most institutions. there for the good of its members. i dont think handing over the reins to a bertie appointed committee would be a good idea. for a country with fewer than 100 new architects qualifying per annum and a decent level of education among them, i dont see why we cant be a self governening profession.

i’m not clear exactly what sort of structure you’re talking about. diversity may just lead to a fall in standards and a breakup of the profession. some ppl see fit to stick to riai, some decide to go to the newly appointed GBFTAWTD (government boys for telling architects what to do). gdla contracts become limited to one membership. ppl kick up stink. standards vary and diminish. i’m open to any ideas to make the practice methods and certification of architects in this country more uniform and consistent, but i’m not sure the riai are doing such a bad job. and i do think think its a shame their members dont enjoy more exclusivity and recognition

The RIAI represents professionals and accredits Educational institutions – it has set standards for good practice and has been very good in doing all this – i just think it would be a shame to entrust them with regulating all architects in this country in the long run. How many times have people asked for outside bodies to regulate previously self policing bodies.
Don’t forget, the RIAI is primarily a proffesional organisation representing its members as the main priority. People who commision architects and the general public are secondary.
Don’t get me wrong.. i think they have extremely high standards and have been a huge positive influence on the proffesion in this country… but it would be good to clarify lines and duties so that regulation becomes a broader ground that encompasses people who can’t work within the RIAI view of the proffesion as it is.

i’m not arguing with that. there should be input and some controlling power from people in law, construction, insurance, etc, just to give them some input. but these are pretty self-contained areas themselves. if there was to be a controlling body it would be criminal to not appoint established architects as well as ppl outside the profession to its new positions. inevitably these ppl would be riai affiliated, and would serve only to spread the base of power and weaken the positions of authority already in place for architects. the riai’s charter is quite clear and defined. clarification might just be refining the actions of the body in disputes and awarding etc., for example more stringent reviews of college courses which are the generators of good architects, and the first point at whcih standards can be policed, which i would welcome. they make no bones about their protection of architects, an inevitably clients, contractors etcetera will come in second to that.

who are these ppl who cant work within the riai view as it is? i dont mean to demean anyones position but there are clearly established structures as to how one can progress in architecture in ireland. if there are fundamental flaws in the degree or part three procedures then these should be revised of course. but if its just a matter of not liking the riai because it doesnt suit you i’m not sure thats a falid arguement.

i welcome the discussion though

OK I think you put your finger on what the bee in my bonnet is – The RIAI is a professional organisation – and has specific ideas on how one works as a professional. This works fine in most cases – but why should it have a say for instance in how college courses are run? Surley an architectural degree could be used for many different applications within, and associated with architecture.
This is a hobbyhorse of mine so please excuse the rant… I think education should remove itself slightly more from the demands of the professions and employers.. as they are so railroaded into a specific way of working. This disencourages any change coming from the bottom. I’m speaking in general now and have gone off course slightly but I think it is relevant…. we are looking to the professional bodies for guidance as there is no one else to take up the challenge.

i attend bolton street and the riai quintennial review is ther only reason any effort is made by senior staff to improve the standard even slightly. massive classes, poor lecturing, lack of facilities, entrenched permanent staff with no ability to relate to modern architecture and young people, coupled with the fact that its a job for life where one is completely unaccountable. d.i.t is like c.i.e in that it needs a good kick up the hole and some money.

god bless the riai in that respect because they threatened to withdraw approval of the course if things didnt improve.this was too much for eddie and jim and god bless em they pulled the finger out, for about five minutes. incapable leadership and institutionalisation has degraded the course far below its esteemed position of times past.

sorry, hobbyhorse of mine because i’m affected by it.

the riai do a job well, clearly defining there boundaries and governing their small domain in this country. like i said, its a hundred people a year out of two colleges and the riai are doing ok.

i agree that a degree in architecture has so much potential. personally, i have aspirations to law after my degree. lawyerkiteck i will be. and i can walk into any course in the land with my degree if i choose. this degree will merely be a stepping stone to wherever i want to go. the riai provide one choice, facilitation to progress and be examined and awarded with their approval. if i choose to become an abstract sculptor of steel at a massive scale like i wanted to do in school, thats open to me aswell.

given that architecture is such a wide subject with so many varied fields i dont think its fair to blame the riai for pigeon-holing people.

the challenge of improving architects in ireland is going to be left to the riai for a while as far as i can see. the colleges dont seem interested, handing it to the government seems like a terrifying option, and the riai has been doing it for 164 years, why stop now?

The days of the RIAI ‘approving’ courses in DIT and NUI are ending. . . Maybe they ended already, in 1985, when the EU Architects’ Directive came into force. The Directive makes a distinction between academic qualification (ie Part 2) and professional training (ie Part 3). Both are necessary parts of the formation of an architect.

The Directive lists those qualifications that are recognised across Europe as meeting ‘Part 2’ (irrespective of whether standards rise or fall, so long as the content and duration of the 1985 academic course does not change) and names Bolton Street’s Dipl Arch and UCD’s B Arch under this heading.

That should – legally – for better or worse (I have no doubt, like sw101, for worse), have cut the RIAI out of the Part 2 validation process. They may (and, I am sure, do) have legitimate concerns, both on behalf of their existing members and the wider public, about the standard achieved by graduates, but, legally, there is little they can do about it. Under the Architects’ Directive, they can like it or lump it.

Anyway, is the problem with dropping academic standards ALL to do with the colleges? No excuses – BUT – has the economy, which pumped up the price of digs and flats, forcing students to work unconscionable extra hours – AS WELL AS STUDY – not had a significant part to play as well? You know what they say about all work and no play . . .

europe eh? didnt realise that . wasnt very old back then. the riai did definitely threaten to remove accreditaation. maybe just meaning they wouldnt accept a dip arch from dit as a valid part 2, which would be terrible.

dunno whether you’ve been in bolton street recently but study isnt a huge part of anyones life in the years preceeding thesis year. subjects like the defunct civilisation studies and urbanism are a joke. no benefit to anyone except the full time lecture who can spout the same shit and get paid.

thing like design technology and sustainable design are beginning to be integrated to studio proper, giving a more well rounded finish to the students academic experience