Dear Young Architects

you forgot about the €90 per head of architectural staff that offices must pay on top of individual architects paying for their registration.

So for an office of 2 Directors and 3 Staff that’s €490 per architect to register as an architect, €90 for each person in the office (God knows how this fee is justified or even calculated) €46.19 per stamp – say one each for the directors, €70 for a branch office and €1000 each for CPDs during the year (bearing in mind that free online tutorials and magazine reading counts as acceptable hours) coming to a grand total of approx €8000 each year per office of a similar size goes to the RIAI.

You know what’s really funny, in a sick kind of way?
If you’re an unwaged/unemployed architect, the RIAI will graciously and sympathetically accept a membership fee of 60 euro. But the catch is, they won’t let you have a membership stamp.
So if you’ve been recently made unemployed or are “unwaged”, you won’t be stamping any certs for any of those projects you used to work on, or you won’t be taking on any other cert-stamping work either- you’re unemployed, and by God you’ll stay that way!
(That is, of course, unless you decide to part with your social welfare and fork-out the 490euro + 50 extra for the precious stamp to the RIAI.
Some RIAI “committee” or other made this decision before Christmas.

It’s a Wonderful Life.

To their credit they have allow for a reduced fee of €245 for persons who can prove financial hardship, and you can get your stamp with this for the usual additional fee.

I might be wrong but I think that you automatically qualify for this reduced fee if you are a Fellow of the Institute, which I consider odd.

@NK111 wrote:

Dear Young Architects,

The institution protects the establishment! As the RIAI does not have an internet forum for members to contribute and perhaps express dissent I post here.

As recently as 2007 changes to the Building Control Act brought with them the protection of the title Architect, allowing the public to be certain that someone calling themselves such was indeed qualified. This of course is a positive intervention.
However, unlike many international models and contrary to advice given by the competitions authority, a new registration board was not formed; instead the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland an existing representative organisation of some architects was given the power to administer the registration of all Architects. I suppose this saved on Government expenditure, though as we all inhabit buildings the cost will inevitably find its way down to the public.

Now it gets really interesting, as no sooner has the RIAI gained power, but it introduces “compulsory” CPDs for its members. You must have 20 “structured” i.e. approved CDP hours together with 20 “non-structured” hours. Now from looking at the CPD’s available on the RIAI site, it seems to cost about €100 – €150 per hour, so let’s say €2000 a year, now let’s add the €450 annual fees and the €50 for the stamp, so now it costs every architect €2,500 a year to practice in Ireland. (Not each firm, each architect!!!) The average part 3 salary is €35K, so given the recession it stands to reason that this act of mandatory CPDs will cost the jobs of 1 in 14 architects.

Over 40% of Architects are currently unemployed yet only one space per “structured” CPD is subsidised, where, to use the RIAI term, a lottery” system is used to qualify!

What are these CPDs? Well having been to a few I can tell you that most are glorified sales presentations, a one hour power-point presentation on a product or service. Often the most challenging aspect is to keep eyelids from succumbing to shear boredom. For most computer literate architects the information imparted, if of any value, could be downloaded in an instant through Google. And even in matters of legislation, where the Architect is already duty bound to be knowledgeable – take Health and Safety, if you want to know your responsibilities as a designer under H&S regulations, the HSE have a website with a 4 page doc. outlining such, and a further longer document with the detail. It’s written in plain English to the credit of the HSE. I recall dealing with more complex matters for my Intercert.

So why all this added costly regulation within the RIAI which will inevitably fall upon the consumer to support? Who benefits?

Well first we need to look at the composition of the RIAI board and its relationship to its members. Most board members if not all, are directors of medium sized companies. I a PAYE earner like 50% of RIAI architects, who incidentally don’t get to write off CPD and annual fees against tax, receive a document once a year where a few names and associated photos have magically appeared to be voted into certain board positions. There seems to be a Masonic structure involved, a level 1 “templar” seems to be able to become a board member, and a board member can become a president. Who compiles these lists, like who qualifies the CPD courses as suitable, remains a mystery? It is also interesting that in recent years most RIAI general meetings open to members occur in foreign countries during the working week.

Should I be cynical and describe the “set-up” as a scheme to force employees to pay for their own “further education and training” on their own time?

That it allows the established firms to tick the box re. competency, and perhaps relax standards?

Should I express my belief that the 40% of young unemployed architects will soon no longer be permitted to use the term architect having failed to accomplish their €2000 a year bookish CPD “obligations” despite having trained for at least 7.5 years and having worked in the field dealing with real issues? Would we throw away experienced surgeons with such abandon?

Of those of the younger generation of architects, still with jobs, will we soon see them leaving in their droves, bonuses lost, pay cut, mortgaged to the hilt and now another months income pillaged by an institute with the audacity to state that it represents them!

Should I add that all together this will of course reduce the number of architects in our country and so the consumer, competition and of course diversity in the built environment will obviously suffer?

Has Architecture become a closed shop?

Is this the intended purpose of Registration and CPD obligations?

Regards,

Mr. Young RIAI Architect (sorry, I lack the courage to jeopardise my home and family by submitting my name)

oh god not another one of these threads

Do you have to be young to agree with many of these sentiments?

@wearnicehats wrote:

oh god not another one of these threads

I’ve seen you disparage people’s concerns several times instead of addressing them where you could.
Do you consider you’re promoting architecture by cerrying on in this manner?
Because let me underline this for you – YOU AREN’T!
If you have something to contribute – do so.
And learn to snip, dammit!

ONQ.

@NK111 wrote:

(snip)

Of those of the younger generation of architects, still with jobs, will we soon see them leaving in their droves, bonuses lost, pay cut, mortgaged to the hilt and now another months income pillaged by an institute with the audacity to state that it represents them!

Should I add that all together this will of course reduce the number of architects in our country and so the consumer, competition and of course diversity in the built environment will obviously suffer?

Has Architecture become a closed shop?

Is this the intended purpose of Registration and CPD obligations?

Regards,

Mr. Young RIAI Architect (sorry, I lack the courage to jeopardise my home and family by submitting my name)

Hi NK111,

CPD is a means of upskilling and keeping current to maintain competence.

It is not a means of forcing people to go to RIAI lectures – on the contrary, it is your choice where you source CPD activities and only some require to be structured.

Can I respectfully suggest that if like me you are of limited means, you join the Architects Association of Ireland – Full Membership costs €80.

http://architecturalassociation.ie/index.php/organisation

Their lectures and events are CPD-rated and I have found them friendly, willing to talk and their lectures are excellent.

They offer student rates and reduced rates for the unemployed that are well within the scope of even those drawing assistance.

In this current DISASTER for the industry, I have found they help keep me going, facing each day a sit comes.

There is a site visit on tomorrow in Trinity – the Long Room Hub

There was a lecture last evening the the FreshLatino series.

http://www.architecturalassociation.ie/events/

Having said all that…

---

I am not sure the RIAI have yet to fuly realise the devastation about to hit the profession.

I’m not talking about the attrition to date in both junior and experiecned staff that were let go.

I’m talking about founding partners leaving the profession, faced with four bleak years before anything like normal activity recurs.

This utterly FUBAR period will be the organisation’s greatest test and how well they serve their members or otherwise will be their legacy and testament.

For the record, there is still a market in place and being on the Register does not mean being a Member of the RIAI.

You do not need a stamp to certify anything.

You do not need to be a Member to provide architectural services.

Whether in the public eye you can trade as an equal with MRIAI’s remains to be seen.

Read the Building Control Act 2007 and DIR 2005/36/EC and the previous DIR 85/384/EEC and get up to speed on the legislation as it affects you.

Please don’t let your dissatisfaction with the RIAI prevent you from getting Registered undertaking your own CPD and continuing to offer architectural services to the market.

We don’t need to see young architects leaving the profession in hordes and turning what should be an orderly retreat into a panicked rout.

And no, I don’t have much work on either, so I’m not being cocky about this.

Join the AAI if that’s affordable and keep going.

http://www.architecturalassociation.ie/membership/

Membership

As a voluntary non-profit organisation our dependency on the support of our members is paramount. It is only through the continued involvement of our membership that the AAI can fulfil its charter ‘to provide a medium of friendly communication between members and others interested in the progress of architecture’. To this end we look forward to seeing you at AAI events.

The membership fee structure is as follows:
Member (other than below) €80
Member (retired or unemployed) €20
Member (student over 2nd year) €20
Member (student 1st and 2nd year) Free
Member (honorary) Free
Associate Member (other approved organisations*) €20
Associate Member (single event – non student) €10
Associate Member (single event – student) €10
*members of ICS, SSI and IEI

The membership term runs from 1st January to 31st December

Important Notice Regarding All AAI Events:
The AAI insurance Policy covers only Paid-up members of the AAI, for instance children are NOT covered. Entrance to sites will be refused to non-AAI members. It is also requested that AAI-members visiting sites provide their own safety equipment (minimum safety boots and hard-hat). Entrance to site will be refused for lack of safety equipment.

http://architecturalassociation.ie/pdf/AAI_MEMBERSHIP_FORM_2010.pdf

---

The cost of RIAI membership and CPD is something I have been monitoring for the past few months as someone who is preparing for registration.

I cannot say your post comforts me to any degree nor do I want to disparage course content, although I accept what you say is posted in good faith and you have direct experience of it that I don’t.

Disregard the attitude of wearnicehats, and take heart in the fact that sole practitioners constitute a significant, and rising proportion of the Membership and that senior members of the RIAI are affected as are we all.

My own practice cannot afford to attend any of the CPD lectures even were we a Member.
We have a policy over the years of continuous professional development regardless.
We didn”t need the spur provided by the RIAI and we will continue to read freely available information as well as benefit from our association with fellow professionals and competent contractors to keep current – as should all architects.

If you feel you are not getting value for money from the RIAI – and its something I have heard echoed elsewhere – make yourself heard!

Use this and other forums as a means of garnering public opinion on the matter and submit your findings to the RIAI.

DO something about it! That’s democracy for you!

---

FWIW

ONQ.

@goneill wrote:

Do you have to be young to agree with many of these sentiments?

Nope, but you may lose some credibility if its later found you’ve made millions from the profession and are posting from your villa in the Costa Del Sol.

🙂

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

I’ve seen you disparage people’s concerns several times instead of addressing them where you could.
Do you consider you’re promoting architecture by cerrying on in this manner?
Because let me underline this for you – YOU AREN’T!
If you have something to contribute – do so.
And learn to snip, dammit!

ONQ.

roger

Are the AAI lectures available to members online? if not why not, there always seems to be someone recording these things. I would love to join and attend but as a parent the hours the lectures are at don’t suit, so essentially CPDs should be during office hours methinks.

Thanks ONQ for your helpful advice, I suspect though in reality that it is not possible to accumulate the 20 hours without it costing at least €1000. But thank you, you may have saved me the other €1000.

Yesterday there was a lunchtime CPD in our office, but I was unable to attend being on site. The job I’m currently working on (medical) demands about 55-60 hours a week minimum, and as the project architect I cannot very well abscond at will, to for example spend three days at a CPD. But obviously, I’m learning nothing as I carry out this work as far as the RIAI are concerned. (You cannot use research carried out for a project that you are working on as part of your CPD obligations, if this isn’t blatant fee-generating antics, what is?)

I also note bitasean’s point, and it’s a grave point that really does need to be considered by the RIAI. I wonder does the inclusion of out of hours structured CPDs effect equality legislation, does it discriminate against parents? Are they to lose their professional standing because of their parental obligations?

I think it can be accepted that most practicing architects work extremely long and anti-social hours already, of course this culture seems to stem from the “its a vocation” attitude fostered in our colleges, demeaning effort and time, and this modus operandi is then nurtured by relatively poor industry salary levels, compounded by established fee levels that seem to have left most firms on life-support drip-fed on a job by job basis? Fair enough we cut our cloth to fit, but what irks me is when an institute that I support (financially), rather than it supporting me in any way (over the years it has simply been an expense to me), adds to the pressure with ill-considered, time-impacting, window dressing procedures.

This has got me thinking, the ARB fee in the UK is less than £90 to my knowledge (I’m not referring to the RIBA fees, which are unnecessary). To my belief, and here I could be in error, the RIAI must register persons as per EU Directive, once they qualify, I think this costs in the region of €250. My point being, maybe it is possible to register under ARB using my RIAI membership as a qualification, then next year with the renewed ARB membership, apply to be registered for Ireland by the RIAI and not join them, and save a fortune? The CPDs are an RIAI members obligation, and not a registration prerequisite. Would I be correct here?

Sorry goneill, I apologise, I addressed young architects, as from a UCD class that qualified in the early 2000s I am the only one still in full-time employment. I am currently witnessing two of my old classmates about to lose their homes and be left in one case over €200k in debt. I agree that this is probably happening to older architects also. The institute really needs to wake up!

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.” Oscar Wilde as he sat there on Merrion Square looking across the street at the RIAI

I was unimpressed when I started getting calls from banks and people claiming to be based in IFSC.. Then I had people close to me suggesting to buy a place… and that interview…

Musical chairs is the only way to describe it…
The actors will change but the game will remain the same…

The bank of architecture is what we need…

@NK111 wrote:

Thanks ONQ for your helpful advice, I suspect though in reality that it is not possible to accumulate the 20 hours without it costing at least €1000. But thank you, you may have saved me the other €1000.

You’re very welcome.
I think I have saved you a lot more than a grand. 🙂
Many of the AAI Events and Lectures and Site Visits are CPD rated – I visited McCullogh Mulvin’s Long Hall Hub in Trinity on Saturday and attended at the Instituto Cervantes FreshLatino Lecture in Lincoln Place on Thursday evening.
Once you’ve paid your €80 for the year that’s it – attendance at the lectures is usually free for members and your site visits are covered by insurance.

Yesterday there was a lunchtime CPD in our office, but I was unable to attend being on site.

That is something you need to address with your employers and for a hard working devil like yourself they should be more accommodating if they can but let’s face it, how can they unless they provide after hours lectures – you can get these with the AAI!
I’m not a founding father of the AAI BTW I just think they offer a good deal.

The job I’m currently working on (medical) demands about 55-60 hours a week minimum, and as the project architect I cannot very well abscond at will, to for example spend three days at a CPD. But obviously, I’m learning nothing as I carry out this work as far as the RIAI are concerned. (You cannot use research carried out for a project that you are working on as part of your CPD obligations, if this isn’t blatant fee-generating antics, what is?)

I have an issue with this and intend to raise it with the RIAI after I apply for registration.
It seems patently obvious to me that research/CPD should be required for every project you attempt and that it should be part of the project brief and that it should count towards your years points.
It seems utterly odd that CPD should be carried out or undertaken in some abstract way or in a way remote from the project work you are currently undertaking.

That’s not to suggest that the CPD should ONLY relate to project work either.
You need a balance between work related CPD and CPD which helps you re-focus your design training and open your mind to new intellectual stimuli as well as refresh your memory of academic studies from years ago.
Nor is it to suggest that you should get away with pretending you’re learning the same planning or building regulation amendment for twenty projects!
There are 500-odd Directives issued by the EU each year and if you spent only half a day reading and researching each one you’d have almost no time for working on fee-generating activities.
Admittedly not all are relevant to archtiects, but it gives you an idea of the volume of bureaucratic chatter that’s emanating from Brussels.

I also note bitasean’s point, and it’s a grave point that really does need to be considered by the RIAI. I wonder does the inclusion of out of hours structured CPDs effect equality legislation, does it discriminate against parents? Are they to lose their professional standing because of their parental obligations?

Let’s not panic about this one – again there are workarounds.
Like posting competent advice to Archiseek.com at 4 o’clock in the morning!
I prefer the AAI in part because the price is right and in part because the timing is perfect for me – Thursday nights starting at around 7-730 pm and Saturday mornings starting at around 9.30-10.30 am.
The AAI is staffed by volunteers AFAIK and they have jobs to keep down too, so its no wonder the hours are suited to people who work and/or have kids.

I think it can be accepted that most practicing architects work extremely long and anti-social hours already, of course this culture seems to stem from the “its a vocation” attitude fostered in our colleges, demeaning effort and time, and this modus operandi is then nurtured by relatively poor industry salary levels, compounded by established fee levels that seem to have left most firms on life-support drip-fed on a job by job basis? Fair enough we cut our cloth to fit, but what irks me is when an institute that I support (financially), rather than it supporting me in any way (over the years it has simply been an expense to me), adds to the pressure with ill-considered, time-impacting, window dressing procedures.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
Gather support, hold meetings, produce recommendations and submit them to Council and FOLLOW UP at the AGM by proposing motions and ensuring you have support there on the night – that’s democracy in action.

This has got me thinking, the ARB fee in the UK is less than £90 to my knowledge (I’m not referring to the RIBA fees, which are unnecessary). To my belief, and here I could be in error, the RIAI must register persons as per EU Directive, once they qualify, I think this costs in the region of €250. My point being, maybe it is possible to register under ARB using my RIAI membership as a qualification, then next year with the renewed ARB membership, apply to be registered for Ireland by the RIAI and not join them, and save a fortune? The CPDs are an RIAI members obligation, and not a registration prerequisite. Would I be correct here?

According to the way the Building Control Act 2007 is worded, only Members of the Institute are entitled to automatic Registration.
The ARB do not accept RIAI Membership as qualifying for British registration AFAIK.
You don’t have to join or be a Member of the RIAI to be a Registered Architect.
You have to be assessed as being competent and the de facto standard is that of MRIAI.
Registration is a separate process.
However representation of the profession to other groups like Government and in other forums is something every architect should consider and the RIAI certainly seem to have a lot of of the heavy hitters on their books and their intellectual capital cannot be undervalued when dealing with John Gormley’s office, for example…

Sorry goneill, I apologise, I addressed young architects, as from a UCD class that qualified in the early 2000s I am the only one still in full-time employment. I am currently witnessing two of my old classmates about to lose their homes and be left in one case over €200k in debt. I agree that this is probably happening to older architects also. The institute really needs to wake up!

I am so sorry to hear bout your friends plight.
I agree that it appears as though there is some detachment from the figures on the ground.
I watched some of the new president’s inaugural address online [wouldn’t fully load, dammit] and he spoke of “over 50% of architects” being out of work.

I know of three firms who are down to 10% of their staff levels of two years ago.
That’s right – down to 10% and not down by 10%; –

150+ –> 11
21 –> 2
17 –> 2

The best result that I know of is this one; –

125..> 20

And most of the staff there are working a three-day week.

As for shocks, well, they’re there too – Traynor O’Toole (Dublin) just disappeared two weeks ago.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/anglo-irish-hq-architects-traynor-otoole-to-wind-up-dublin-business-2038543.html
http://www.insolvencyjournal.ie/more_details/10-02-10/Appointment_of_liquidator_Traynor_O%E2%80%99Toole_Architects_Limited.aspx

All the above practices are/were run by MRIAIs.
These facts should be available to the president and I doubt these are unrepresentative.
I don’t know where Paul Keogh is getting his “over 50%” reference from as anecdotally it seems like “over 80%” of staff are gone in larger practices,. with sole traderships hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Perhaps he means that over 50% of MRIAI’s are gone.
If that is so he should include a reference to Graduate Architects in the figures.
However I don’t think that is the case – I think the numbers are being maintained by sole traders.
These are the people who cannot bid for Government Contract work because their turnover is less than €250K annually.
With no chance of getting gainful employment from the state, sole traders are reduced to niche markets and working outside the profession or going abroad on contract to make ends meet.

“The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.” Oscar Wilde as he sat there on Merrion Square looking across the street at the RIAI

Oh I don’t know, you’ll get the type of intellectual tyranny that foists literary quotations on you at the drop of a hat as well. LOL!

Here, catch:

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

FWIW

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

However representation of the profession to other groups like Government and in other forums is something every architect should consider and the RIAI certainly seem to have a lot of of the heavy hitters on their books and their intellectual capital cannot be undervalued when dealing with John Gormley’s office, for example…

ONQ.

Just a point on this (sorry for butting in); when the RIAI first suggested a system of co-regulation to the governement the Competition Authority had some serious objections to them taking over registration.

As part of a compromise the RIAI have made an undertaking to the Competition Authority not to lobby governemental or third party official bodies on behalf of architects. Therefore it would beg the question why have a professional body that is precluded from representing it’s members in any meaningful way?

@OrderArch wrote:

Just a point on this (sorry for butting in); when the RIAI first suggested a system of co-regulation to the governement the Competition Authority had some serious objections to them taking over registration.

As part of a compromise the RIAI have made an undertaking to the Competition Authority not to lobby governemental or third party official bodies on behalf of architects. Therefore it would beg the question why have a professional body that is precluded from representing it’s members in any meaningful way?

Its an open forum so don’t be sorry and thanks for the correction.

I was aware of the representations to government of the RIAI and concerns of the Competition Authority.
I wasn’t aware of the deal done to ensure that co-regulation went through.

If you look carefully at the make up of the advisors contributing to the Governments position paper on Archtitecture you’ll see a lot of RIAI heavyweights on there.

But to take up your point, I have a problem with this and especially the fact there doesn’t appear to be an archtiect on the Law Reform Comission panel.

You can correct me again if I’m wrong but I think Construction Law comes next after Contract Law in terms of disputes before the Courts.

Architects and their unlimited liability is something I’ve wanted to see addressed for a long time.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

If you look carefully at the make up of the advisors contributing to the Governments position paper on Archtitecture you’ll see a lot of RIAI heavyweights on there.

But to take up your point, I have a problem with this and especially the fact there doesn’t appear to be an archtiect on the Law Reform Comission panel.

You can correct me again if I’m wrong but I think Construction Law comes next after Contract Law in terms of disputes before the Courts.

Architects and their unlimited liability is something I’ve wanted to see addressed for a long time.

ONQ.

Well this is the thing- from my point of view there should be input from architects on any legislative issues that concern the profession. For me that would include, but not be limited to, design, planning,building regulations, competition standards, banking as it relates to development and anything within the law that comes under that banner from land reg to contracts.

Maybe the issue is redundant though- before the agreement was made with the competition authority they failed to push through any changes to the GCCC (new government contracts) despite the total reshaping of contract law that that document represents and its apparent weaknesses.

In the circumstances, and outside the issue of registration, I am unclear as to what the continuing function of the RIAI is.

OrderArch: You’re right about the competition authority’s initial views but they backed off after examining the evidence. Do please cite your source for an undertaking, if you can. You’re all wrong. No deal, no compromise, no backing off by RIAI in representing architects. Submissions on legislation, etc, are regularly made. I’m no friend of theirs but I admire how they fight the profession’s corner – fairly and very well.

@trace wrote:

OrderArch: You’re right about the competition authority’s initial views but they backed off after examining the evidence. Do please cite your source for an undertaking, if you can. You’re all wrong. No deal, no compromise, no backing off by RIAI in representing architects. Submissions on legislation, etc, are regularly made. I’m no friend of theirs but I admire how they fight the profession’s corner – fairly and very well.

My source is the Professional Practice lectures given this year in UCD Sept to Dec 2009- the Building Act was the first question on the exam paper.

To contribute further to this debate:

Yesterday I received a pamphlet in the door from Forbo, it reads:

“Did you know…The RIAI now mandates that each member must accumulate a total of 40 hours of CPD activity annually” and offers to provide one, structured I presume?
We are told that this seminar involved a presentation of approx 45minutes, over lunchtime where a buffet lunch will be provided at Forbo’s expense. Fair enough!
The seminar is to comprise of:
• “Developing linoleum product knowledge and understanding suitable applications” ( a sales pitch)
• “Increase awareness of product properties and performance characteristics” (So anti-slip properties based on a resistance scale derived from European, German or British Standards, dependant on your buildings function and user group, you can’t rely on a manufacturer to give you his recommendation verbally unless you enjoy the aesthetics of a court room, as an architect you should be aware that such performance specs are required and know where to source such information, i.e. which regs apply, and confirm that the suppliers product is certified to meet these standards, Other than that well you might need to know that Vinyl should be used in wet areas not linoleum and that they both are fine re. microbiology concerns, There may be times where colour and its relevance to Part M and the enabling environment may come into play, again dependant on the buildings function and intended user group. So there you have it, it probably took you 3 seconds not 45 minutes to read what I’ve just written and if you’re an architect, you should know all you need to about what to ask and what to spec re. such flooring systems.
• “Increase awareness of colour and design potential.” (Maybe this might touch on new Part M, but they won’t be certifying the building so personally I wouldn’t base my design on their information, but to be honest it seems to sound again be a sales pitch re. scope of their colour palette? Is it really essential for an RIAI architect to know Forbo’s product range to carry out his/her duties???)
• “Provide an overview of strengths and weaknesses of different contract flooring types” (isn’t this again related to performance spec? As in point 2, or is it where they champion their product over others, i.e. marketing?)
• “Provide an overview of the latest technological advances in Linoleum and impact on performance” ( again performance characteristics and a sales pitch)
• “Develop an understanding of the environmental credentials” (I remember a zero-carbon concrete CPD I once attended where the carbon costs were offset by planting trees in Brazil, I won’t get into the whole green facade often painted on products and how false they often are, but what kills me is when I have to listen to how companies have worked around regulations to appear sustainable, again more marketing, and if a client is so interested this information could be imparted when necessary via a quick email as I guess much of the above could.
• “Develop an understanding of the whole life costs” (Our product is more expensive initially but you save in the long term, i.e. marketing, more suitable for a pre-tender meeting to assess the exact range of products that may be suitable, rather than an overview at what passes for an architectural CPD. Just now I have had such a meeting with a supplier of metal louvers, I have shown him the relevant drawings, explained the condition, he has already been to site, and we have agreed on a solution, but this won’t from part of my CPD obligations, see he didn’t get to play the 45 minute power point advertisement!!!)

I don’t mean to pick on Forbo here, they just happen to have posted what many would consider junk mail to my house yesterday, they are no different from any others providing these CPDs, in fairness to them they are a business and have of course jumped on the chance to heighten awareness of their products, look how well its working, now they’re mentioned in a CPD related web debate. No my problem isn’t with Forbo, or their presentation, it’s with the RIAI, someone there has passed this and many other sale pitches as CPDs necessary for the professional development of an architect. Is this what architecture is to the RIAI, picking pretty colours? this calls into question all their CPDs re. quality and relevance, especially seen as some cost a small fortune. And again why are such overview presentations held as structured CPDs when in depth analysis of performances required is carried out by architects during their duties while working on “real” projects and that such is not considered continued professional development. It stands to reason that products and regulations evolve, and that those of us engaged with such are constantly developing our knowledge.

Am I wrong?

@NK111 wrote:

(Snip “I love the smell of linoleum in the morning”)

I don’t mean to pick on Forbo here, they just happen to have posted what many would consider junk mail to my house yesterday, they are no different from any others providing these CPDs, in fairness to them they are a business and have of course jumped on the chance to heighten awareness of their products, look how well its working, now they’re mentioned in a CPD related web debate. No my problem isn’t with Forbo, or their presentation, it’s with the RIAI, someone there has passed this and many other sale pitches as CPDs necessary for the professional development of an architect. Is this what architecture is to the RIAI, picking pretty colours? this calls into question all their CPDs re. quality and relevance, especially seen as some cost a small fortune. And again why are such overview presentations held as structured CPDs when in depth analysis of performances required is carried out by architects during their duties while working on “real” projects and that such is not considered continued professional development. It stands to reason that products and regulations evolve, and that those of us engaged with such are constantly developing our knowledge.

Am I wrong?

Hi NK111

The exclusion of the research done as part of any new job is in my opinion a fatal error on the part of the RIAI.

I have no problem with awarding CPD points for assessingnew products or going to lectures on design, but I won’t get sued if I don’t have the latest flooring spec or know who the sexiest designer is this year.

My duty is to build compliantly and the research I do and DOCUMENTING THIS RESEARCH should be on of the main focal points of CPD.

Conducting this IN-HOUSE RESEARCH is vitally important to continuous professional development and is clearly a factor in providing competent professional architectural services to clients and protecting mambers of the public.

In not allowing CPD points for this [and correct me if the RIAI’s position has changed on this recently] while allowing them for an remotely entered online CPD record, I fear the RIAI may have erred egregiously.

By not rewarding such research with CPD points front and centre, it could be argued that the RIAI are failing to promote an essential part of good professional practice and CPD amongst their Members and architects at large AND THEREBY have failed in their primary mission to protect members of ther public.

Nor would this significantly detract from their revenue streams if a serious of lectures on a wide range of topics was being run on a year round basis.

There are a minimum number of structured CPD points to be attained and MRIAI’scould be required to obtain a proportion of these through the RIAI lectures.

The JOB RESEARCH could form part of the unstructured CPD points, once its been documented to a reasonable standard.

I think if I was a client I would be more assured to see my architect carrying out targeted research directly associated with my project rather than swanning off to attend the RIAI Annual Dinner for two and a half days down the country somewhere and picking up double-digit CPD points for it.

=========================================

But the pricing and attendance figures of the RIAI CPD lectures need to be radically overhauled in my opinion.

That having been said, I think the RIAI’s role in dissemination of information by people like Joe Little Architects in terms of research on building physics is to be admired.

This year however, the primary AND FREE lecture on this matter was given at Plan Expo by Joe Little himself and more powere to him.

A few months later there was a CPD seminar – effectively on BER assessments IIRC, with extremely limited numbers and simply outrageous attendance fees, €400 for non-members and – get this – €300 for Members!!!

Where do the RIAI think this places them even in their Members eyes?

This information needs to be dessiminated freely far and wide to improve the understanding of architects in relation to building physics.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the RIAI asking attendees to pay for lectures – but for the RIAI to try to do this by reaching 80 people a time at a minimum €300 a head with several thousand Members on the Dole Queue?

This just isn’t the way to do it.

=========================================

ONQ

@trace wrote:

OrderArch: You’re right about the competition authority’s initial views but they backed off after examining the evidence. Do please cite your source for an undertaking, if you can. You’re all wrong. No deal, no compromise, no backing off by RIAI in representing architects. Submissions on legislation, etc, are regularly made. I’m no friend of theirs but I admire how they fight the profession’s corner – fairly and very well.

Hi trace,

In rebutting OrderArch, you’ve made the same error he did, asserting something without citing a source.

On this forum, to raise the tone of the proceedings, I’d ask for online references, even if they’re only in the 4th estate.

I can see Order Archs’ point quite clearly – there was little if any change – so either the RIAI backed off or they failed to be effective, a family form argument which paints them as cowards or incompetents.

But to be fair to the RIAI, the pressure from Brussels to not look like a gravy train for builders is huge, and one way to do this is rein in the designers to fix the design before proceeding to site.

It means front-loading the design and detailing and ensuring that public servants are on top of the brief to allow this to happen.

The architect is naturally reluctant to do this unless its a very simple programme, because getting decisions out of public servants is a tedious exercise in itself.

Coming back to the GCCC contract, the CIF had intensive discussions in relation to this with the department over several years and you can still hunt out several of their submitted documents online.

And since I’d hate to end up hoist by my own petard [or is it yours], here. catch;

http://www.cif.ie/uploads/2275.pdf

I believe I and OrderArch are making a similar comment – the RIAI should be in there doing similar things for Architects, both on the Law Commission forum and elsewhere.

Whether this reflects a lack of ability in the RIAI since David Keane’s much lamented recent passing or its something more systemic I don’t know, but it needs addressing.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Hi trace,

I believe I and OrderArch are making a similar comment – the RIAI should be in there doing similar things for Architects, both on the Law Commission forum and elsewhere.

ONQ.

ONQ I’m not sure we are in agreement. While critical of the RIAI you seem to believe them necessary while I, at some point, have started to question whether we in fact need them at all.

The function of maintaining a professional standard can be fulfilled by an (objective) Registration Board.

The function of providing a forum for professional architects to share knowledge and experience can be provided by the AAI.

The function of communicating with the public can be provided the Architecture Foundation.

The only item left to the RIAI is representing architects legislatively and as we have noted they are not fulfilling this function in any way. More worryingly the focus of the Institute is decidedly on maintaining economic independance to the detriment of its members.

@OrderArch wrote:

ONQ I’m not sure we are in agreement. While critical of the RIAI you seem to believe them necessary while I, at some point, have started to question whether we in fact need them at all.

The function of maintaining a professional standard can be fulfilled by an (objective) Registration Board.

I am unhappy with the principle of non-architects regulating architects.
I have no problem with an independent person deciding on the censure.
I would like someone who knows our limitations deciding on the case itself.
I think we have had quite enough legal eagles setting outrageous precedents.
You might have missed the jump there – who do you think would “lord” it over us?

The function of providing a forum for professional architects to share knowledge and experience can be provided by the AAI.

(nods)
I’m a Member of the AAI – affordable Membership and high quality CPD Lectures.

The function of communicating with the public can be provided the Architecture Foundation.

Really?

IAF Board of Directors

* James Pike, Chairman
* John Graby, Secretary
* Tim Bouchier-Hayes
* Laura Magahy
* Declan McGonagle
* Shelley McNamara
* Gary Mongey
* Antoinette O’Neill
* Colum O’Riordan
* Victoria Thornton
* Klaus Unger
* Rónán Whelan

Which part of this does not like like the RIAI to you OrderArch?
I’m something of a purist on this: work with the RIAI to effect change.
Occam’s razor suggests “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”

The only item left to the RIAI is representing architects legislatively and as we have noted they are not fulfilling this function in any way. More worryingly the focus of the Institute is decidedly on maintaining economic independance to the detriment of its members.

Well, I’m not sure, but I think the balance is about right.
But to be honest, you don’t see the discussions here geting any air time.
We’re little people, serfs, deluding ourselves that our opinion matters, in the political and financially motivated world of Irish Architecture today.
Certainly this thread and “The sensitive issue of architect’s registration …” thread isn’t front and center on the “new look” homepage – although other threads are highlighted.
Perhaps its the site owners way of keeping CK safe from the Overmaster’s all-seeing eyes…

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

You might have missed the jump there – who do you think would “lord” it over us?

ONQ.

I’m not sure what you mean? I’m simply suggesting an independant body similar to the ARB. I think it’s actually a seperate arguement as to whether that body would be staffed and run by architects. Professional self regulation does not have a very edifying history in Ireland so I presume a third party registration system would actually be enriched by the involvement of non archs.

@onq wrote:

IAF Board of Directors

* James Pike, Chairman
* John Graby, Secretary
* Tim Bouchier-Hayes
* Laura Magahy
* Declan McGonagle
* Shelley McNamara
* Gary Mongey
* Antoinette O’Neill
* Colum O’Riordan
* Victoria Thornton
* Klaus Unger
* Rónán Whelan

Which part of this does not like like the RIAI to you OrderArch?
I’m something of a purist on this: work with the RIAI to effect change.
Occam’s razor suggests “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”

ONQ.

I take your point- we’re dealing with a very small industry and having people like Laura Magahy in this kind of body is fairly suspect. However I was referring to their own stated remit rather that their current formation.

@onq wrote:

Well, I’m not sure, but I think the balance is about right.
But to be honest, you don’t see the discussions here geting any air time.
We’re little people, serfs, deluding ourselves that our opinion matters, in the political and financially motivated world of Irish Architecture today.

ONQ.

I think the level of disquiet in the profession at the moment would suggest that the balance is decidedly off. The question becomes can the issues be rectified within the current systems and frameworks. My personal feeling is, given the size and nature of the industry in Ireland, it cannot. I think the problems with the RIAI are pretty fundemental and far from being brought about by the economic crash they have simply been staved off by the boom.

I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to yourself and CK.

@OrderArch wrote:

Maybe the issue is redundant though- before the agreement was made with the competition authority they failed to push through any changes to the GCCC (new government contracts) despite the total reshaping of contract law that that document represents and its apparent weaknesses.

You do know what happened there? There were meetings in the RIAI headquarters who were given draft forms of the GCCC contracts – with the guys who drafted the contracts and the various DoF people who controlled them.
The DoF people listened and nodded very carefully to what was said, promised to keep it in mind, then completely ignored anything said when they.

What more do you expect the RIAI to have done? Or the CIF? Or IEI? etc.

Also it is not a “total reshaping of contract law”…

It is a reshaping my ex directors where shocked

@OrderArch wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean? I’m simply suggesting an independant body similar to the ARB. I think it’s actually a seperate arguement as to whether that body would be staffed and run by architects. Professional self regulation does not have a very edifying history in Ireland so I presume a third party registration system would actually be enriched by the involvement of non archs.

I take your point and surprisingly I find myself agreeing with it in principle.
The Competition Authority’s main concern was that architects should not have to become members of the Institute in order to qualify, but the assessments require this, more or less.
Considering the standards of the Members I meet in Court, on Appeals, on Observations, on Inspections, none of them should be placed ahead of anyone else practising competently.

I take your point (snip)

(Bows)

I think the level of disquiet in the profession at the moment would suggest that the balance is decidedly off. The question becomes can the issues be rectified within the current systems and frameworks. My personal feeling is, given the size and nature of the industry in Ireland, it cannot. I think the problems with the RIAI are pretty fundemental and far from being brought about by the economic crash they have simply been staved off by the boom.

Well, there is a lot to what you say, but I would prefer to work from within the existing framework to expose wrongdoing and incompetence.
We do not need yet another body – like the IAF – pretending its new and squeaky clean and getting the benefit of the doubt from the Ministers and Public and Press, when in reality its the same ol’ same ol’ stuff from the same ol’, same ol’ people.
You cannot help feeling that the really, really good people are teaching or out there doing it or both, leaving some kind of self-serving beaurocracy to run the RIAI.

Oh wait.
“…self-serving beaurocracy…”

That’s a tautology, isn’t it.
And staffing it by people who are unqualified and who may feel insecure because they think they don’t have the professional competence or experience to make judgement calls on qualified and competent designers may not be the best way to raise standards.

That will just mean we’ll get conservative and possibly dogmatic decisions on cases for regulation, for example, particularly if these “laypeople” are from the legal profession, where they arrive thinking they know about everything, but in fact are entering an arena of debate and decision with a very steep learning curve.
.
In reality it deosn’t really matter who is the beaurocracy – its be crap and suck up huge resources and delivery zero in improvements – unless their decisions are held to account rigorously by Members and the public and the Press alike for high standards to be maintained.

With the Members in Post-Financial-Crisis-Stress-Management, a 4th Estate with neither objectivity or competence and that prostituted itself to developers during the boom, and the general public on their knees trying to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, I think that having a layperson-controlled Registration Board as opposed to Co-regulation Board would not work to the benefit of any stakeholders.

I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to yourself and CK.

Its not a conspiracy theory when the automatic registration is written into law.

That is known as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of a conspiracy.

Did you know that one of the lines in a DRAFT version the CODE means you cannot criticize another architect’s work?

Obviously written by the same clown who used thing that advertising shouldn’t be allowed or that we should all keep to a scale of fees or have a minimum [and outrageously high] level of P.I.

That all seems to benefit larger offices that produce poor quality commercial designs, as does the current €250K threshold on turnover before you can enter the e-tender Thunderdome – it seems to be a form of price-fixing.

---

I suspect that the RIAI canard that their standards are higher than other practitioners will be coming home to bite them on the ass in the coming months.

I suspect that any Member crossing path of anyone in CK’s AA [see the “sensitive” thread for CK’s outing of himself as their webmaster] who fails to live up to their standards will be named and shamed, both in the relevant forum in which any dispute may occur and elsewhere.

I don’t see that this will do the profession any good, but the RIAI seem to have thrown the first rocks with the Ad that got censured by the BCA and the Golden Pages debacle.

Already its clear their assumed vice-grip on the profession isn’t absolute, because the ILS will still accpet Certs from persons practising in the profession for more than ten years.

That’s because most of the ILS are Solicitors who understand the law and they have a good idea what the result of the first Court challenge to the BCA 2007 may be and they don’t want to be up for a defamation suit.

With the stink from mishandling the advertisement still in the air, its making me relucant to engage with the RIAI at all.

---

So in the end you may be right OrderArch, but not for the reasons you suggest.
In principle I prefer co-regulation as the next logical step in regulating the profession, but the lay persons should be advising more strongly on the body of knowledge in which they may be competent.

Such as how you have to hold the reins of power LIGHTLY or else you’ll see them slip out of your hands.

Such as how NOT to word a radio advertisement.
Such as how to price for small works.
Such as how to be humble.

ONQ.

@missarchi wrote:

It is a reshaping my ex directors where shocked

Yep, transferral of nearly all the risk without a commensurate rise in profit will end up putting many middle range building companies out of business.

Luckily there is a huge body or international law that holds clients to account for forwarding incomplete or incorrect survey information, despite denials in any contract and the Courts will analyse the contract thoroughly on the first test case.

The unworkability of it in principle will mean that civil servants, who cannot make a decision to save their lives, will load up the brief with “goodies” at brief time to allow there to be enough budget allocation for them to vary the contract to get things they might really want byt haven’t yet formally agreed on.

In the meantime the architect gets screwed on both ends, the requirements of the contract and the lack of variation meaning they effectively have to go to tender with working drawings for which they get paid late – and which will have to be changed later for very little money.

ONQ.

@Bob Dole wrote:

You do know what happened there? There were meetings in the RIAI headquarters who were given draft forms of the GCCC contracts – with the guys who drafted the contracts and the various DoF people who controlled them.
The DoF people listened and nodded very carefully to what was said, promised to keep it in mind, then completely ignored anything said when they.

What more do you expect the RIAI to have done? Or the CIF? Or IEI? etc.

Also it is not a “total reshaping of contract law”…

Any decision by beaurocrats requires review, particularly in the building industry and associated professions – give this a few years and you’ll see this shake out.

This originally started out as an executive desire to not allow Europe and the Government to become gravy trains for outrageous profits – it remains to be seen if the pendulum as swung too far in one direction.

In the meantime professionals should schedule their fees to reflect their work and put a cap on the work they will do for the fees paid – otherwise they will bankrupt themselves.

ONQ.

Following a post to ArchiSeek.com on 18 February 2010, the RIAI wishes to respond to the comments made:

Dear Mr Young Architect

We have read your letter published on Archiseek on the 18th of February 2010. It includes some statements that are correct – the RIAI is the Registration Body and CPD is mandatory – but it also includes a long list of statements that are not. So here goes:

Registration
The RIAI is the Registration Body, but the standards it applies are set down in the Building Control Act (Irish Legislation) and the Professional Qualifications Directive (Professional Standard) and its procedures are overseen by independent boards with Government nominees. And you are right – because it is self-funding it does not cost the Government or the taxpayer anything.

CPD
CPD is mandatory, for two reasons:

a. to protect clients, users and public and,
b. because the Professional Qualifications Directive requires it.

The RIAI is not obliged to provide CPD but has developed courses to deal with legislative changes and specific architectural matters.

– CPD does not have to be provided by the RIAI and it does not have to cost anything. CPD delivered by any competent provider is acceptable.

– Unwaged members can fulfill their entire 40 hour obligation with free ‘Unstructured’ CPD.

– RIAI CPD Engage provides opportunities for free ‘Structured’ CPD.

– With 40% of architects unemployed, we do provide a limited number of free places on the RIAI’s own CPD events. Between January and March 2010, the RIAI provided approximately €9,000 to fund 30 places for members experiencing hardship for RIAI approved CPD.

– RIAI CPD Network events are free to all members.

Annual Fees
The RIAI is well aware of the financial hardships that members face, so:

•The annual charge for an unwaged architect member is €60
•The annual charge for an architect member experiencing financial hardship is €290
•The annual charge for all other architects has been reduced from €600 to €490 = to 2003 charge.
•The cost of a Membership Stamp is €46 – correct. It is not obligatory to purchase a membership stamp.
•Because being on the Register is a legal requirement, annual fees are deductable for all architect members against their personal tax.
•So for a working architect the annual cost of practice ranges from €290 to €490, less tax, and NOT €2,500.

Representation
Representation on RIAI Committees, Task Groups and Council is open to all members regardless of age or position. Members with dedication, and with expertise or an interest in particular areas, rise to the challenge and volunteer to work for the benefit of their colleagues.

RIAI Council
Any three RIAI Members can nominate a person to stand for election to Council; after that it is up to the candidate to make his/or her case. As with any election it tends to be the most widely known candidates who get the most votes.

A Registered/MRIAI Architect has invested many years and a lot of money in getting there. Registration protects their title and CPD protects their skills. The RIAI supports them in both.

All of this information is available either on the RIAI website or in documents freely available to every RIAI member, but we are happy to meet to talk if you like.

Yours sincerely,
The RIAI.

@NK111 wrote:

Dear Young Architects,

The institution protects the establishment! As the RIAI does not have an internet forum for members to contribute and perhaps express dissent I post here.

As recently as 2007 changes to the Building Control Act brought with them the protection of the title Architect, allowing the public to be certain that someone calling themselves such was indeed qualified. This of course is a positive intervention.
However, unlike many international models and contrary to advice given by the competitions authority, a new registration board was not formed; instead the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland an existing representative organisation of some architects was given the power to administer the registration of all Architects. I suppose this saved on Government expenditure, though as we all inhabit buildings the cost will inevitably find its way down to the public.

Now it gets really interesting, as no sooner has the RIAI gained power, but it introduces “compulsory” CPDs for its members. You must have 20 “structured” i.e. approved CDP hours together with 20 “non-structured” hours. Now from looking at the CPD’s available on the RIAI site, it seems to cost about €100 – €150 per hour, so let’s say €2000 a year, now let’s add the €450 annual fees and the €50 for the stamp, so now it costs every architect €2,500 a year to practice in Ireland. (Not each firm, each architect!!!) The average part 3 salary is €35K, so given the recession it stands to reason that this act of mandatory CPDs will cost the jobs of 1 in 14 architects.

Over 40% of Architects are currently unemployed yet only one space per “structured” CPD is subsidised, where, to use the RIAI term, a lottery” system is used to qualify!

What are these CPDs? Well having been to a few I can tell you that most are glorified sales presentations, a one hour power-point presentation on a product or service. Often the most challenging aspect is to keep eyelids from succumbing to shear boredom. For most computer literate architects the information imparted, if of any value, could be downloaded in an instant through Google. And even in matters of legislation, where the Architect is already duty bound to be knowledgeable – take Health and Safety, if you want to know your responsibilities as a designer under H&S regulations, the HSE have a website with a 4 page doc. outlining such, and a further longer document with the detail. It’s written in plain English to the credit of the HSE. I recall dealing with more complex matters for my Intercert.

So why all this added costly regulation within the RIAI which will inevitably fall upon the consumer to support? Who benefits?

Well first we need to look at the composition of the RIAI board and its relationship to its members. Most board members if not all, are directors of medium sized companies. I a PAYE earner like 50% of RIAI architects, who incidentally don’t get to write off CPD and annual fees against tax, receive a document once a year where a few names and associated photos have magically appeared to be voted into certain board positions. There seems to be a Masonic structure involved, a level 1 “templar” seems to be able to become a board member, and a board member can become a president. Who compiles these lists, like who qualifies the CPD courses as suitable, remains a mystery? It is also interesting that in recent years most RIAI general meetings open to members occur in foreign countries during the working week.

Should I be cynical and describe the “set-up” as a scheme to force employees to pay for their own “further education and training” on their own time?

That it allows the established firms to tick the box re. competency, and perhaps relax standards?

Should I express my belief that the 40% of young unemployed architects will soon no longer be permitted to use the term architect having failed to accomplish their €2000 a year bookish CPD “obligations” despite having trained for at least 7.5 years and having worked in the field dealing with real issues? Would we throw away experienced surgeons with such abandon?

Of those of the younger generation of architects, still with jobs, will we soon see them leaving in their droves, bonuses lost, pay cut, mortgaged to the hilt and now another months income pillaged by an institute with the audacity to state that it represents them!

Should I add that all together this will of course reduce the number of architects in our country and so the consumer, competition and of course diversity in the built environment will obviously suffer?

Has Architecture become a closed shop?

Is this the intended purpose of Registration and CPD obligations?

Regards,

Mr. Young RIAI Architect (sorry, I lack the courage to jeopardise my home and family by submitting my name)

Dear RIAI,

Please explain how ensuring that your Members are automatically registered, whilst people holding the Degree from UCD and the Diploma of Degree Standard from Bolton Street are not entitled to be automatically registered, protects the use of the title “Architect”.

DIR 85/384/EEC conferred on me the entitlement to use the title “architect” throughout the EEC as it then was.
Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 1989 wrote it into Irish law and I practised legally AS AN ARCHITECT for almost twenty years prior to 1st May 2008.

Please explain how the Building Control Act 2007, by failing to respect this provision of the law, does anything other than promote existing RIAI Members whilst failing to recognise statutory rights of persons holding the qualifications referred to above but who are not MRIAI’s.

Thanks in advance.

ONQ.

Very helpful posting ONQ, thanks. It sounds as though everyone on this thread is based in Dublin. Spare a thought for those who aren’t 🙂

@C Flower wrote:

Very helpful posting ONQ, thanks. It sounds as though everyone on this thread is based in Dublin. Spare a thought for those who aren’t 🙂

C Flower,

I am posting on a point of law, not excluing the other schools of architecture 🙂

If you read the Directives and the Statutory Instrument to which I referred, the legislation specifically mentions the qualifications from Bolton Street and UCD, and ONLY those qualifications.

This is because the Archtect’s Directive was written into EU Law in 1985 or thereabouts, when there were only two schools of architecture in the country.

The only other Irish Faculty at the time, Queens University, is in Northern Ireland, not the Republic.

---

ARIAI and MRIAI are termed “affixes” in the Directives, and as such are not qualifications, but it confers on them the same standing of EU recognition.

Around that period [1985-1995] these affixes [called “Certificates of Membership” by the ILS] along with the Memberships of several other organizations including

The Irish Architects Society
The Irish Branch of the Architect’s and Surveyor’s Institute
The Irish Branch of the Incorporated Association of Archtiects and Surveyors

were not accepted in and of themselves as entitling persons who held them to have their certificates accepted by the Incorporated Law Society, [ILS] because of concerns raised in relation to the fact that there were technician and student members in some of the named organisations and confusion migh arise.

This was defined in the Practice Note to Members dated 26th October 1994 Published in the October 1994 edition of the Law Society News.
The full list inter alia included persons of 10 years or more providing architectural services in Ireland, but excluded the ARIAI and MRIAI affix-bearers.

This was held to be a great endorsement of the schools at the time and enhanced the standing of their qualifications throughout Europe.

---

Compare this with today, when the RIAI have deemed persons with the qualifiction but not the affix to be merely “Graduate Architects” and unable to sign certs.

That results in; –

(i) a form of indentured servitude to Members of the Institutes by Graduates in order to get “approved work” leading to the Part III’s
(ii) undermines originality in design available to the public, since large practices seldom take risks in design leading to greater things.
(iii) limits the choice of architects available to the public during a recession, when small office/ sole traders can undercut large practices.

Are we seeing a pattern of protectionism here for RIAI Members and in particular larger offices, whether by design or default [sic], which are – co-incidentally – also full of fee- paying MRIAI’s, in the name of protecting the public?

I didn’t achieve my qualification twenty years ago – and work competently, diligently and honourably in the profession since then – to be told by a Legislature, whose only accountability is at the polls, and a Registrar, who seems to be accountable to nobody, that contrary to EU Directive and Irish Statute; –
(i) I’m no longer able to call myself an architect and
(ii) that I have no automatic right to be Registered

---

Post-graduates of both UCD and Bolton Street should ask the question of their respective Alma Maters:

“Why have you allowed the standing of my qualification be undermined; –
(i) so I can no longer call myself an architect BY RIGHT and/or
(ii) so I am not automatically entered in the Register of Architects BY RIGHT?”

The present situation seems to be have totally re-written the law in relation to the legal rights formerly enjoyed by post-graduates of both courses.

---

The utterances by the RIAI in their recent advertisement are now thrown into sharp relief:
“Would you trust someone who gained power andauthority over you via an Act that failed to respect your statutory rights?”
That’s a question that both this current minister and the registrat have yet to be asked in public – I ask it in this informal forum first.
Its something they must answer convincingly or be damned in the eyes of the public and the profession as mere usurpers of others rights.

---

On the matter of the other architectural colleges:
If they were in the legislation I would have mentioned them, but they don’t appear to be.

The other schools should be pressing for equal standing with the Minister of the Day, Bolton Street, UCD and the RIAI as Competent Bodies under Irish Law and should be seeking formal EU Recognition of their qualifications.

The EU Directive has been updated over the years as more countries have joined the EU and existing countries have added new titles/qualifications to the list, but you have to lobby and seek representation for this.

For the record, I was at the AAI awards last Friday night and there was a great showing from the other schools in the 2nd Year Competition – in fact, I think a young lad from Limerick won it.

Fair dues to him.

ONQ.

onq

I very much doubt that the RIAI will debate these issues with you in an online forum. I think you miss the point of the EU directive which was to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race; i.e. if a suitably qualified professional crosses from say Spain to Luxembourg and has both the relevant degree and post graduate qualification then they are eligible for membership of the organisation in their chosen new country or to rely on their professional membership to use the title. Clearly the directive was concerned with the movement of free labour and not the regulation of specific professions for all residents of individual member states.

Getting a degree although very worthy is only half the story; in my profession I can say with all certainty that the department administrator with no degree knew a lot more about the workings of the profession than I did for the first few months. The structured training offered by most professions really does provide really valuable developmental skills which ensure that professionals reach and if they attend CPD maintain the necessary skills, knowledge and understanding to deliver a professional service and if necesary defend negligence claims.

If the RIAI impose strict memebership standards then I applaud them; for too long many people used designers using the title ‘architect’ who inflicted illegible constructions on the built environment which once they are are up you are stuck with for a long time.

@RIAI wrote:

– With 40% of architects unemployed, we do provide a limited number of free places on the RIAI’s own CPD events. Between January and March 2010, the RIAI provided approximately €9,000 to fund 30 places for members experiencing hardship for RIAI approved CPD.

this is the thing that makes my blood boil. This equates to €300 per place. WHY????. For example – let’s say some person rips the arse out of it and charges €300/hour for a day’s course. That’s 7 hours – €2,200. If this is attended by 50 poor downtrodden architects the profit for the day would be a staggering €12,800 (minus costs to hire venues etc). Where does that go??????????

In these times RIAI CPD events should be break-even ie €44 per head. More would attend, more would benefit. Personally I don’t even look at RIAI structured CPD options because i simply can’t afford it. And if I’m missing something and there’s no profit I’d dearly love to know where it goes

@PVC King wrote:

onq
I very much doubt that the RIAI will debate these issues with you in an online forum.

They have set out their stall in Irish Law – I don’t have the Ministers ear.
I have written directly to the RIAI and the Minister in private correspondence.
The RIAI answers didn’t satisfy me and the Minister has yet to respond in any meaningful way apart from a standard acknowledgement.
Ergo I have fairly and openly stated my legitimate concerns here – they may choose to reply or not as it suits them.

I think you miss the point of the EU directive which was to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race;(snip)

Race?!

i.e. if a suitably qualified professional crosses from say Spain to Luxembourg and has both the relevant degree and post graduate qualification then they are eligible for membership of the organisation in their chosen new country or to rely on their professional membership to use the title.

Okay, that’s the Spanish Race and the Luxembourgian Race – I see…

I think you need to read the Lex Europa [or whatever its called now] website to see the number of actions the EU has taken where member countries tried to stop these alleged “Race Invaders” from practising – the cases were taken precisely because of the countries seeking to impose additional requirements like the ones the RIAI requres.

By extension this appears to mean that people from – say – Latvia with a “suitable qualification”
(which may or may not require the same level of training as Dipl.Arch.DIT or B.Arch.NUI)
can come over here and practise as Architects – BY RIGHT – while our own post-graduates cannot use the Title.

That’s a travesty of both EU and Irish Law.

Getting a degree although very worthy is only half the story; (snip)

More waffle.
Read the Directives and the Statutory Instrument – it – is – the – law.
A law which this Government, has failed to recognise and support with the Building Control Act 2007.

Just think about that for a minute – this Government, the authors of the worst economic disaster in the history of Ireland – have brought in the Building Control Act 2007- a law that fails to support existing statutory rights of graduates.

That is some pedigree in terms of protecting the public, isn’t it?

From 1994, only certain other classes of persons had their certificates accepted by the ILS, but having the RIAI letters after your name did not – in and of itself – entitle your certs to be accepted as recommend in principle.

The RIAI may wish it were otherwise, but that’s all it is – wishful thinking on their part.

I’m not dissing the Part III requirements per se.
Running through the past papers is a useful exercise.
Much if it is good stuff, designed to give an excellent overview.
A lot of it is how to run an office, administer a contract, advise clients on legals, etc.

But none of these are exclusively the preserve of architects.
Some of this only touches on specialist areas of law better left to the legal profession.
I would be worried that an architect bearing the “badge” might think himself invulnerable and start instructing solicitors who advise on – say – contract law or conveyancing law for a living.
Never was the motto of the building industry more in my mind when I was reading some of the questions on the past papers;

“Stick to what you’re good at”.

A commercial client will present the architect with the specific contract he requires.

In relation to being in practice, given the recent closures, we see that Part III competence cannot guarantee a living.
In addition, many Part III issues seem to have little bearing on how to design competently or develop compliant detailing.
The principle task of the architect in terms of discharging his duties, compliant and competent certification, is only lightly touched on and something many MRIAI’s seem weak on.

Ergo, achieving the equivalent to the Part III’s [effectively a requirement of becoming an RIAI, something the Competition Authority specifically required should NOT be forced on pratcitioners] does not define you as an Architect, by any stretch of the imagination.
It might define you as capable of running an office, or reading/administering a Contract, but it dosn’t make you a better designer – in and of itself.
It certainly doesn’t make you a more honourable or trustworthy person, and that’s been my experience of MRIAIs – variable in this regard.
Look at the case [sic] of the highly qualified Michael Lynn Solicitor if you don’t believe me.

I have no problem BTW with the RIAI requiring people to achieve the Part III’s to become Members of the Institute or with them charging and annual fee to Members.

Whatever about Regulation, which needs a Registrar, there shouldn’t only be one body representing Architects in Ireland – this leads to a monlothic and anti-competitive and yes -arrogant- attiitude – that’s human nature.

This should expose the over-charging for Members and CPD courses for what it is and I have already posted information on the alternative of the Architectural Association of Ireland, where the annual Membership is only €80 for those who are employed, and there are Unwaged and Student and Associate Rates also – Free €20 and €10 per annum.

http://www.architecturalassociation.ie/membership/

So, in summary, under the Directive and S.I. 15 of 1989, apart from asking my Alma Mater to confirm my qualification, I shouldn’t have to do anything other than apply to the Registrar and pay the €145 Registration Fee to become a Registered Architect, .

ONQ.

Put simply if you want to call yourself a qualified architect the RIAI sets the bar, if you want to state that you have an architecture degree you are free to do so. As a consumer I have purchased the services of someone with a qualification but who was not accredited; would I do that with someone elses money? No I’d need to know that they had completed the structured training and had ongoing monitoring of their CPD so that I could confirm that I had completed the necessary checks that they were appropriate to do the job to a designated standard. As good as any university is; all any institution can ever do is state that an individual passed or received honours in a course at a particular point in time.

Also the EU commission would if a complaint were made alleging that a valid accreditation were not accepted in another member state investigate; clearly no one has made any valid complaint to date. How you could think the most over zealous politically correct institution on earth would seek to be racist is beyond me.

Would the public be any safer in the case of debarred solicitor if all the solicitor needed was a degree versus a practicing certificate renewed annually? How many universities withdraw degrees unless specific wrongdoing is found during the examination process?

lads – there’s a thread already set up for all this registration stuff. CK wouldn’ like it if you talk behind his back

@PVC King wrote:

Put simply if you want to call yourself a qualified architect the RIAI sets the bar, if you want to state that you have an architecture degree you are free to do so.

I was a qualified architect from June 1990 until May 2008 and the school of architecture from which I qualified set the bar.
The RIAI had no function in setting the bar then, and I fail to see where its competence derives from now.
That is the problem.

As a consumer I have purchased the services of someone with a qualification but who was not accredited; would I do that with someone elses money?

Are you suggesting you’re stupid with your own money but not other people’s?
Are you being dismissive of someone who was qualified but unregistered because of incompetence on his part, or because that’s the RIAI party line?
Did he not in fact give you a good service, making your below comments about “assurances” illogical?
That is about as logical as your comments which appear to confuse Nationality with Race.

No I’d need to know that they had completed the structured training and had ongoing monitoring of their CPD so that I could confirm that I had completed the necessary checks that they were appropriate to do the job to a designated standard.

That is defined as making an assumption based on an assurance
Hardly the definitive route to corporate governance you appear to be suggesting is your preferred route.
Are you not aware that with so many indians and so few chiefs in the bigger firms, post-graduates who couldn’t get positions of seniority were reduced to looking over the shoulders of MRIAI’s to watch – the architect as voyeur?
Monitoring the project, I believe it was called.

You can call it what you want to, but I’d prefer someone with 10 years experience actually working on jobs as opposed to watching other people do it.
And in relation to the assurances of their work, there is a tried and tested method whereby you can have all the relevant assurances you want.

Can you guess what it is?
Not dependant on any “list” on the RIAI website.
Available to all for the price of a phonecall, usually reliable.
Gives a warts and all account of the professional you want to find out about.
Hint: its independent of any CPD course or “structured training” and is very relvant to the consumer.

As good as any university is; all any institution can ever do is state that an individual passed or received honours in a course at a particular point in time.

(Round of Applause)

This is precisely what defined every MRIAI in practice before May 2008.
There was no structured CPD course in place via the Instutute before that date – and guess what?
The profession didn’t collapse under the weight of its own ignorance because archtiects in general are quick studies.
This comment applies to post graduates, self taught practitioners and yes, even some MRIAI’s I’ve met – though some trade on the badge and fail to keep up.

Perhaps you’re suggesting all MRIAI’s have been scrambling to attend CPD courses to catch up on the last 20 years of “progress” in the building industry?
The class sizes run by the RIAI and tell a different tale.

Oh no, wait, you must be thinking of the online CPD course.
The online CPD course is largely self assessment, with no independent regular assessment of those “attending”.

When I see every MRIAI sitting annual externally reviewed examinations to assess his/her fitness to practice, then I’ll accept your comments above about the assurances you claim to be offered by the MRIAI affix.

Until then MRIAI’s are no different from me or any unqualified success who take their own steps to stay “current” in terms of the legislation, which is fine by me.
This involves reading the new legislation and practices, discussing them with colleagues and public servants and research on every project.
Some offices will attend courses on how to do new things like Disability Access Certs – some will work it out for themselves.

Every competent practice has to do this and MRIAI’s are no different than anyone else in their success rates.
Why do you think there were 60% failure rates for planning applications returned as invalid in 2002.
MRIAI’s have feet of clay just like anyone else and the much vaunted CPD won’t change that.

In other words, CPD is yet more window dressing.
Very expensive too, if you buy at the RIAI shop.

Also the EU commission would if a complaint were made alleging that a valid accreditation were not accepted in another member state investigate; clearly no one has made any valid complaint to date. How you could think the most over zealous politically correct institution on earth would seek to be racist is beyond me.

Your sentence doesn’t parse – I presume you meant to say:

“Also the EU commission would investigate if a complaint were made alleging that a valid accreditation were not accepted in another member state; clearly no one has made any valid complaint to date”

They have done so on numerous occassions.
I specifically stated AS FACT that the EU have already taken actions against Member states who imposed restrictive practices against citizens from othe rmember states.

Would the public be any safer in the case of debarred solicitor if all the solicitor needed was a degree versus a practicing certificate renewed annually? How many universities withdraw degrees unless specific wrongdoing is found during the examination process?

Apples and Oranges.
A disbarred solicitor is still a qualified solicitor.
His disbarment arises solely from criminal wrongdoing, behaviour likely to bring his profession into disrepute, or non-payment of his annual registration fee.

I have no problem paying an annual registration fee as long as its not extortionate and doesn’t oblige me to join the RIAI.
I am not guilty of criminal wrongdoing or behaviour likely to lead to discrediting the profession.
I am seeking recognition of my rights under the law – a commendable pursuit.

But to turm your own question back to you –
Would the public be safer if a private organization got every qualified Architect barred from practising because their qualification wasn’t gained through them?

In the case of the disbarred solicitor, there must be evidence he committed some wrong.

In the case of qualified architects no wrongdoing is assumed, and their right to call themselves “architect” is supported by an Irish Statute and two EU Directives.

This should translate to an automatic right to be registered unless there were interference in the process to benefit a private organization.

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

lads – there’s a thread already set up for all this registration stuff. CK wouldn’ like it if you talk behind his back

We’re talking here to avoid talking over his head as opposed to behind his back.

Tough call.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

I was a qualified architect from June 1990 until May 2008 and the school of architecture from which I qualified set the bar.
Are you suggesting you’re stupid with your own money but not other people’s?
Are you being dismissive of someone who was qualified but unregistered because of incompetence on his part, or because that’s the RIAI party line?
But to turm your own question back to you –
Would the public be safer if a private organization got every qualified Architect barred from practising because their qualification wasn’t gained through them?

In the case of the disbarred solicitor, there must be evidence he committed some wrong.
In the case of qualified architects no wringdoing is assumed, and the right to call themselves “architect” is supported by an Irish Statute and two EU Directives.

ONQ.

.

I have no idea how you can claim to be qualified from 1990 on when there was no legal requirement to be qualified until 2008; prior to that point in time you could buy an online degree and claim to be an architect. Your claim to be qualified is based on what exactly?

No-one is barred from practicing under the current regime they simply cannot advertise being qualified to practice as an architect unless they are accredited; this I believe to be correct as it enables risk adverse individuals to be sure of what they are getting.

In terms of my own purchase decision I knew the individual for many years; who was a qualified engineer and had completed 4 of the 5 years of the DIT degree; I knew that he would secure the objectives I required and ultimately it was my cash on the line. Could I advise a client to use a non-accredited architect and defend a negligence claim if it went wrong; I doubt it. Even if the law changed on advertising I still have my doubts as to defensibility of the claim as by advising a client to hire outside the RIAI you are advising to hire someone who you cannot state with any certainty has been monitored by an independent competant body as having to that point in time followed the professional rules of the profession; in so doing you are not in a position to ensure that the practitioner has had the most relevant and up to date and ongoing professional development through CPD training .

I admire the RIAI as beyond personal interpretation of design style of particular buildings I have yet to see work that I would regard as poor work from their membership.

I’d also say that only for the excellent work of the ILS that there would be a lot more disreputable solicitors practicing; as the high standards required to enter the profession screens many who though clearly are not dishonest may not have the skills knowledge or understanding to practice competently and may try to cover their inability in a pressured manner to prevent destruction of personal finances.

You clearly have an axe to grind but may find using the EU directive to your advantage by going to another member state gaining membership there and then forcing the RIAI to recognise your qualification by virtue of a well intentioned but dubious directive a lot more productive than grinding on a discussion forum.

@PVC King wrote:

.
I have no idea how you can claim to be qualified from 1990 on when there was no legal requirement to be qualified until 2008; prior to that point in time you could buy an online degree and claim to be an architect. Your claim to be qualified is based on what exactly?

Normally I’m happy to intersperse comments on a complex issue, but I want this comment from you and my reply to stand alone for everyone to see.

You’re correct in part, there was no legal requirement to be qualified in order to practise architecture in Ireland in 1990.
However there is still no legal requirement to be qualified per se, merely to be Registered and I am not disputing this requirement.
Even with the RIAI and the Government pulling out all the stops to protect the title, it seems that some people don’t understand the position.

For the record; –

I claim to be qualified by virtue of having completed the prescribed five year full time course from an accredited and recignised School of Architecture.
I claim authority in the matter of signing certificates and the right to call myself an architect by virtue of my Diploma of Degree Standard Dipl. Arc. DIT, issued by Bolton Street DIT, which is recognised by both the Architect’s Directive DIR 84/384/EEC and the Directive on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications, DIR 2005/36/EC.
DIR 85/384/EEC was written into Irish Law by Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 1989 on the 25th January 1989.

You appear to have confused
(i) being qualified as an architect, which I was and am, with
(ii) being registered as an architect, which I am not – yet.

Race and Nationality, Qualification and Registration – confusion and distraction.
I’d say your clients might have a lot more to worry about than whether or not you recommend an architect from the RIAI stable.

ONQ.

Who issued your qualification?

Dear RIAI,

Thank you for responding directly on this forum, I applaud your entry into this live debate. I appreciate your response; it certainly helps to clarify some areas. I am uncertain as to some of your reply, and hope that I have understood correctly?

– CPD does not have to be provided by the RIAI and it does not have to cost anything. CPD delivered by any competent provider is acceptable.

– Unwaged members can fulfil their entire 40 hour obligation with free ‘Unstructured’ CPD.

But for those of us who are full members and waged, albeit it heavily burdened with boom time mortgages and debts, and now on recession salaries, we must still fulfil 20 hours “structured” RIAI CPDs? As a poster pointed out, calculating the amount the RIAI has subsidized for the unwaged places, this amounts to approx €300/hour, so 20 structured hours would then average €6,000, unless one can manage to attend the cheapest on offer? I would like to continue to support the RIAI via my annual membership fees, but €6k is way out of my league. (Perhaps the RIAI should consider the effect on its membership fee income, should many of its members simply opt for the 51% controlling factor qualification, i.e. where 51% + of the partners / shareholders of a practice are MRIAI and no one else is. I believe that currently over 50% of your members are employees? Or have you managed to secure funding / patronage from the larger practices to compensate, again perhaps risky in current times?)

•The annual charge for an unwaged architect member is €60
•The annual charge for an architect member experiencing financial hardship is €290
•The annual charge for all other architects has been reduced from €600 to €490 = to 2003 charge.
•The cost of a Membership Stamp is €46 – correct. It is not obligatory to purchase a membership stamp.
•Because being on the Register is a legal requirement, annual fees are deductable for all architect members against their personal tax.
•So for a working architect the annual cost of practice ranges from €290 to €490, less tax, and NOT €2,500.

This is news to me, so can I an employee, a PAYE architect write off my membership fee and CPD costs against my tax? I had thought this something limited to company expenses and tax? My family would certainly welcome such a development. I used to spend my Xmas bonus on RIAI membership fees, but as the bonus has obviously been resigned to history, knowing that I would effectively be paying tax up front for my membership would help soothe the pain somewhat.

A Registered/MRIAI Architect has invested many years and a lot of money in getting there.

I know, hopefully we won’t now be priced out of the game?
Once again thank you for the detailed contribution, and I look forward to any further clarity you can offer.

Regards,
Mr. Young Architect

@PVC King wrote:

.

(snip comments on qualification dealt with separately)

No-one is barred from practicing under the current regime they simply cannot advertise being qualified to practice as an architect unless they are accredited;

Everyone who is not registered is barred from practising as an architect.

Accreditation is what happens when they qualify from a 3rd level course.
Registration is what happens when the Registrar admits them to the Register, whether they have a third level qualification or not.

Please learn the law before you make any more waffly comments you’ll regret later.

this I believe to be correct as it enables risk adverse individuals to be sure of what they are getting.

As the above corrections to your comments should make clear, you seem virtually clueless about what you claim to be knowlegable about.

In terms of my own purchase decision I knew the individual for many years; who was a qualified engineer and had completed 4 of the 5 years of the DIT degree;

So he was qualifed as an engineer which is a four year couse to completion, but not as an architect, which is a five year course to completion.

I knew that he would secure the objectives I required and ultimately it was my cash on the line.

Really?
No formal qualification as an architect.
No formal accreditation from the RIAI.
Yet you just “knew” he would deliver the service you require.
You were happy to trade on assumptions and personal knowledge of the man – just like any client who uses a self-taught architect he trusts.
Okay…

Could I advise a client to use a non-accredited architect and defend a negligence claim if it went wrong; I doubt it. Even if the law changed on advertising I still have my doubts as to defensibility of the claim as by advising a client to hire outside the RIAI you are advising to hire someone who you cannot state with any certainty has been monitored by an independent competant body as having to that point in time followed the professional rules of the profession; in so doing you are not in a position to ensure that the practitioner has had the most relevant and up to date and ongoing professional development through CPD training .

Propaganda.
There is no monitoring once they’ve got through the exam.
Exams can be crammed for as any self-respecting student will confirm.
You have no assurance what will stay in their heads afterwards except by personal experience of the professional in question, just like your architect/engineer friend.

I admire the RIAI as beyond personal interpretation of design style of particular buildings I have yet to see work that I would regard as poor work from their membership.

So some of its crap you don’t like – join the club and stop crawling will you.

I’d also say that only for the excellent work of the ILS that there would be a lot more disreputable solicitors practicing; as the high standards required to enter the profession screens many who though clearly are not dishonest may not have the skills knowledge or understanding to practice competently and may try to cover their inability in a pressured manner to prevent destruction of personal finances.

Five years full time in Bolton Street weeds out the stragglers and most of the incompetents too.

You clearly have an axe to grind but may find using the EU directive to your advantage by going to another member state gaining membership there and then forcing the RIAI to recognise your qualification by virtue of a well intentioned but dubious directive a lot more productive than grinding on a discussion forum.

Thank you for pointing out the inequity of the Building Control Act 2007 as currently applied to Irish post-graduates.
Nope, I’ll fight my corner here, whether against this discredited government, the current interpretation of my qualification by the RIAI, the instransgence of the Registrar or RIAI promoters like your goodself.

As for your comments that the legislation was based on a “well intentioned but dubious directive” allow me to point out that the RIAI traded on the authority conferred on them by this directive for nearly twenty years – its cited at the end of every Opinion of Compliance.

This is what gave them their only legitimacy in Ireland from Janary 25th 1989 until May 1st 2009.
Its disrespetful for an RIAI shill to start dissing the very Directive the RIAI traded under.
Thanks for pointing out the fickleness of some people.

ONQ.

You still haven’t answered where your qualification is from

@PVC King wrote:

Who issued your qualification?

What do you mean – “Who”?

Kevin O’Sullivan and Michael O’Donnell were two of the signatories.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

You still haven’t answered where your qualification is from

I’ve already posted where its from – read the post again.

Bolton Street College of Technology, the Diploma of Degree Standard, Dipl. Arch. DIT

Are you having trouble reading my posts?

ONQ.

You haven’t replied to my last two posts responding to you.

Thats Post # 43 and Post # 46 in this thread, just so that you’re clear.

ONQ.

You have an IT / university qualification and at some point had an employer sign off that you were competent. Those are historical milestones in your career

How does anyone know that you are

1. Still competent to industry standards
2. Carry out continued professional development
3. That there is a recognised complaints handling procedure to a third party
4. That you subscribe to industry standard risk management procedures such as manditory PI cover and client money handling regulations

I am not an architect but if I am placing a third parties money on the line those are the types of question that I would consider answered by membership of the relevant professional body for any professional service. For that reason I don’t need to read legislation specific to another discipline merely to see that issue has been looked by the government and that a particular membership affiliation will if used constitute due diligence if I check that the membership is valid. I’d happily use someone with a RIBA membership as I know that they also ensure the risk management that is required.

Is a system that excludes people with online degrees and where the previous system even allowed people like David Grant to claim to be architects a problem? Absolutely not.

@PVC King wrote:

You have an IT / university qualification and at some point had an employer sign off that you were competent. Those are historical milestones in your career

PVC King,
You seem to be out of your depth here.
And I have to admit, these are pretty shallow waters.
I do not have an IT/University qualification – whatever that is.

I qualified from a five year full-time accredited professional course.
The course I completed and passed is a recognised course under Irish and Eu law.
The institution I attended is recognised as being competent to issue accreditation under Irish and EU law.

Former employers don’t enter into this arena.

How does anyone know that you are

1. Still competent to industry standards
2. Carry out continued professional development
3. That there is a recognised complaints handling procedure to a third party
4. That you subscribe to industry standard risk management procedures such as manditory PI cover and client money handling regulations

That’s easy and its not brain science.

Normally they meet me and ask, and I tell them.
I show them work I’ve done, I show them my PI Cover.
I explain my strategy to them for the project going forward.
I discuss the ramifications of the several applicable branches of law with them.
I offer to introduce them to clients or let them make independent approaches on their own behalf.
More importantly after half an hour’s meeting with me they realise I know my stuff backwards, as you’ve found out today.

Alternatively, following the RIAI standard practice,I show them that I know where to go to find out.
Even MRIAI’s aren’t expected to know everything off the top of their head and its unprofessional to advise like that.
No professional is required to operate at such a level, even in terms of a Court of law where they might be giving evidence.
Professionals are expected to operate at a level higher than that of ” the man on the top of the Clapham Omnibus” but no higher than that of an average competent member of their profession exercising his skills and knowledge diligently.
Advice in meetings should be offered only based on recearch or recent certain knowledge, or in a very limited and qualified manner, and followed up with due diligence research and comment almost immediately – otherwise you may advise your client incorrectly and be sued.

Oh, and unlike some solicitors, who seem to make money out of short term deposit, high interest client accounts, I don’t handle client monies.
The most I would normally have in my physical possession is the statutory approval application fee cheque and I give them the local authority receipt for that.
This can be quite sizable, but I make sure they are always crossed and made out to the relevant authority.
They never get cashed into my account.

I am not an architect but if I am placing a third parties money on the line those are the types of question that I would consider answered by membership of the relevant professional body for any professional service. For that reason I don’t need to read legislation specific to another discipline merely to see that issue has been looked by the government and that a particular membership affiliation will if used constitute due diligence if I check that the membership is valid.

In other words, you won’t look further than the badge and you’d rely on a representative organization policing its members diligently.
That’s not you being diligent – that’s just you being too lazy to undertake proper checking procedures.
Policing its Members is something the RIAI have failed to do in the past where I have been involved in a referral.
Although I’m prepared to give the Registrar the benefit of the doubt – for now.

I’d happily use someone with a RIBA membership as I know that they also ensure the risk management that is required.

Again, you’re trading on the badge.
And you might be very unwise to do so unless they have experience of working and detailing buildings in our climate.
Ireland is a far wetter, colder and damper climate than the south of England where most of the RIBA Members operate.
Buildings need to be detailed differently to weather well here and/or to avoid interstial condensation.

Is a system that excludes people with online degrees and where the previous system even allowed people like David Grant to claim to be architects a problem? Absolutely not.

(rolls eyes)
I don’t have an online degree.
I have a degree from attending a full time course for five years.
As in physically being present in studios, for lectures, for exams, crits, and my thesis.

I lost one client to David Grant.
He came back and was well satisfied with our services.
The reason he left us was that David Grant promised him something he couldn’t deliver.
We had told him we couldn’t deliver unless he bought a strip of land.
He learnt his lesson well and gave us repeat work.

David Grant attracted clients because he only charged €3,500 nett for a planning application.
David Grant lost clients because he attracted a failure rate of 70% or more.
But he frightened the life out of the RIAI – almost €1M in fees one year.

Would the BCA 2007 have been so draconian without him?
If he didn’t exist the RIAI would have had to invent him.
He’s the Architectural Bogeyman.
So much for David Grant.

ONQ.

You qualified from an institute of learning; the system at that time did not require you to be a member of any professional body to use the title architect.

The UK system makes a lot of sense in that there are three levels of membership

Student i.e. pre-graduation
Associate i.e. post graduation but pre acheivement of part 3
Chartered i.e. has acheived part 3

http://www.architecture.com/JoinTheRIBA/Individuals/Individuals.aspx

To be fully qualified in the sense of the word you need to have acheived part 3 and be chartered; that was why I assumed you had something further from your employers either past or present. From what it sounds like you are an associate on the RIBA scale; if you paid a subscription that is.

@PVC King wrote:

You qualified from an institute of learning; the system at that time did not require you to be a member of any professional body to use the title architect.
(RIBA support act snipped)

Correct.

DIT is an Institute of Higher Learning as recognised by the EU and defined as a competent body under S.I. 15 : 1989.
I have used the title architect based on formal recogniation of my qualificationunder both EU and Irish Law.

The ARB accreditation procedure has its fair share of detractors in the UK and elsewhere.
Citing it here instead of answering the points I made shows you’ve nothing much to say.

Thank you for revealing the depth of RIAI propaganda to me in your posts.
I won’t count this as a wasted day.

ONQ.

I think you two need to sort this out at home but, if I may be allowed to put my head above the parapet:

The more I read these debates the more I realise just how far from resolution this whole thing is. The Architect’s registration Board issue – on a weekly basis – reports on disciplinary action that has been taken in the UK against people who misuse the term “architect”.

HOWEVER

Just as many determinations are issued with regard to action taken over misconduct by those who are “entitled” to the title.- all based around the ARB’s strict professional competency standards. These judgements are issued to all members of the ARB and name every individual concerned. I received one 2 weeks ago regarding someone being “erased” from the Register for unacceptable professional conduct. The good thing about the ARB is that I can register for €95 without having to join the RIBA

There’s an individual on another thread who is very excitable about the whole thing and I’d like to use him as an example. Personally I see the role of Registration as one where this individual should not be allowed to use the term “architect” due to the fact that, in my opinion, he does not have anywhere near an acceptable level of competency in design (as opposed to construction).

BUT

This discriminates against those who are able to show a competency in design but do not hold a requisite qualification. (there is nothing new here by the way – the ARB uses the same EU directive as the RIAI when deciding registration)

BUT

What if this individual did carry an acceptable qualification and legitimately joined the register. Would the RIAI have recourse with regard to poor design? Would the RIAI take this individual to task over sub-standard aesthetics? It would be almost impossible to do so.

SO

The word that appears time and time again is “qualification”. I’m lucky enough to have one that’s recognised but I also know that 66% of my colleagues in final year were failed. It’s no accident that all those people who should not have passed third year made it to the end – to fail people early means loss of 3 years fees you see. The consequence, however, of allowing substandard designers to progress as far as final year is that they will carry on into the workplace instead of finding another vocation. This allowing substandard candidates to complete a high standard course is just as bad as allowing graduates of a sub-standard course into the workplace

There is no magic solution here but I wanted to ask ONQ who has a much better knowledge of these things – is there any machination by which a course, not currently recognised by Directive 2005/36/EC, can be put forward for recognition? It would seem to me that this petitioning of Brussels should be included in the RIAI mandate in order to assist registration rather than blocking it.

@wearnicehats wrote:

The word that appears time and time again is “qualification”. I’m lucky enough to have one that’s recognised but I also know that 66% of my colleagues in final year were failed. It’s no accident that all those people who should not have passed third year made it to the end – to fail people early means loss of 3 years fees you see. The consequence, however, of allowing substandard designers to progress as far as final year is that they will carry on into the workplace instead of finding another vocation. This allowing substandard candidates to complete a high standard course is just as bad as allowing graduates of a sub-standard course into the workplace

So am I correct in understanding that you’re saying that the problem with the old system was that the institutes of higher education were producing too many substandard graduates, and this new architects register will weed out unworthy practitioners?

The overwhelming majority of staff members at the various schools of architecture in this country are MRIAI, right? Therefore, one would assume that the standards they use to assess their students are pretty much in line with the standards of the RIAI, right? So, at what stage does an education from MRIAI become insufficient for a qualification from the RIAI?

It is new that one European country implemented registration without insuring that established professionals were protected and that registration would not damage existing practices. I have made some researches in UK law, French law, Spanish Law, Belgium Law,… I did not find one European country which did not protect its self-taught architects or those with alternative qualifications when starting the registration procedure.

Registration is not compulsory in the EU. It is not the EU requested that self-taught architects in Ireland shall be discriminated. This is a pure Irish phenomenon.

Why is it happening in Ireland? Why are we treated like criminals? I cannot imagine anyone else than the RIAI and some schools of architecture to have organized such a plot? These people should be ashamed to represent Irish architecture and consider their own interests instead of the public interests as they claim and pretend loudly.

@onq wrote:

Correct.

DIT is an Institute of Higher Learning as recognised by the EU and defined as a competent body under S.I. 15 : 1989.
I have used the title architect based on formal recogniation of my qualificationunder both EU and Irish Law.

The ARB accreditation procedure has its fair share of detractors in the UK and elsewhere.
Citing it here instead of answering the points I made shows you’ve nothing much to say.

Thank you for revealing the depth of RIAI propaganda to me in your posts.
I won’t count this as a wasted day.

ONQ.

I have a very favourable impression of DIT as a seat of learning; I just don’t feel that in the absence of time in the workplace with learning specific to the profession as opposed to academic learning is enough to consider people qualified. Look at accountants, solicitors, surveyors etc all require further study from their base degree.

I am all in favour of people currently at DIT being called student architects and those with the degree but pending a part 3 equivelent being called associate architects albeit that they participate in ongoing CPD to retain that status; but for the qualification to stand up on a par with other professions something along the lines of a part 3 qualification is required to be fully ready to practice as a sole practitioner in my view.

I am not saying that someone of associate status would automatically do an inferior job on a specific task but the differentiation between associate and chartered allows the market participants to make an informed choice based on a clear line of demarcation.

Given the free for all that went before I support the RIAI system as something is clearly better than nothing. What I don’t understand is why you didn’t pursue RIAI membership if you have such a great qualification; is there an issue of it only being recognised by the institute for a period of time or requiring further training to convert the underlying degree to their vision of fully qualified?

A lot of people would view your situation as getting through a tough under-graduate course but not making the effort to do whatever was necessary to secure membership of the national professional body. A lot of people would only care about the design vision but banks may want a bit more than a degree if the project involved secured lending.

Studying is a privilege…

Many academics believe that they know better than those who learned by themselves.

They should look at the history of architecture more attentively and they will find that many of the great architects learned by themselves. Self-taught architects are passionate about their art, they did not study to gain a title, they study everyday to create.

Academics claim to protect the public by preventing self-trained to practice… But in reality they are only protecting themselves…

@PVC King wrote:

I have a very favourable impression of DIT as a seat of learning; I just don’t feel that in the absence of time in the workplace with learning specific to the profession as opposed to academic learning is enough to consider people qualified.
(waffle about PVC Kings re-writing of the law snipped)

PVC King,

You seem to be someone who puts badges before people and that’s a sure road to disaster.
Are you one of those whose ISO 9002 QA file is filled, but things don’t get done around?
Things get done around me, clients happy, certificates issued, photo record taken.

What part of “I practised legally as an architect from June 1990 until May 2008” don’t you understand?

I had no need of the RIAI.
My certs were accepted from before 1994.
I had my designs built while I was still studying.

I was one of two named officers of the company I worked for under its P.I. cover deemed competent to inspect and signed certificates.
I supported the company’s and my own CPD programmes, and since leaving them I found I frequently had to instruct MRIAI’s on their lack of knowledge during disputes.

I realise there are some lame ducks out there who absolutely need to belong to an old boys club, whether for social reasons or whatever – but that’s not me.

---

As for the RIBA, isn’t this the same old boys club that Quinlan Terry belongs to?
Wasn’t he fined a wadge recently for allowing a builder to demolish a listed building?
How di his badge and his “Chartered status” in any way serve the public interest in this?

Answer: it didn’t – mere Propaganda to suit ass covering pen pushers who like to answer yes when someone asks –

“Is Quinlan in the RIBA?”
“Why, yes he is Quentin.”
“Pity about the Listed Building though…”
“Indeed Quentin, but he’s one of us you know – a decent sort.”

Pandering to the British way of doing things doesn’t sit well with me.
I’m not a rabid Republican, but I don’t see their stuff is head and shoulders over the rest of the world.
Despite all their money in the City, what have the Brits done with it to benefit the general public or even London?

Monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia
Dodgy post-modernism on the Thames.
The inside-out Lloyds Building [yeah, THAT started a fashion]
That Penis/Gherkin joke
A stupid tent
A stupid wheel –

I mean, I ask you!

---

ONQ.

Self-taught architects are passionate about their art, they did not study to gain a title, they study everyday to create.

But you can have the best of both Worlds; most professions do; you study for a number of years and then work and are examined on the quality of your work. I have no doubt David Grant thought he was a genius….. I am clearly not saying that anyone here is a David Grant but that a system less than one which requires that the academic knowledge be applied and then examined is clearly superior to academic knowledge alone which allows many people to get the qualification and regard themselves as knowing the business; which many clearly will not due to a lack of practical experience. In no other profession I am aware of would a discussion on full qualification being acheived at a university or IT; take place, the necessity of CPD cannot be understated to keep the body professional up to speed with changes in the industry.

@onq wrote:

PVC King,

What part of “I practised legally as an architect from June 1990 until May 2008” don’t you understand?

I had no need of the RIAI.

My certs were accepted from before 1994.

I had designs built while I was still studying.

I was one of two named officers of the company I worked for under its P.I. cover deemed competent to inspect and signed certificates.

I supported the company’s and my own CPD programmes, and since leaving them I found I frequently had to instruct MRIAI’s on their lack of knowledge during disputes.

I realise there are some lame ducks out there who absolutely need to belong to an old boys club, whether for social reasons or whatever – but that’s not me.

---

Pandering to the British way of doing things doesn’t sit well with me either.

I’m not a rabid Republican, but I don’t see their stuff is head and shoulders over the rest of the world.

Despite all their money in the City, what have the Brits done with it?

The monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia, some dodgy post-modernism on the Thames, the inside-out Lloyds [yeah, THAT started fashion] and the Penis/Gherkin yoke, a stupid tent and a stupid wheel – I mean, I ask you!

---

ONQ.

You had a legally recognised degree in a country where anyone could call themselves an architect; the RIAI have brought in a regulated system which was enshrined in law because the public were getting conned. You try to explain the Grant sitaution by saying you sorted the client out; base line Grant should never have been able to exploit the complete absence of any meaningful regulation.

As I have said I am all in favour of people with the appropriate degree going on to become registered architects; when they can display that they have completed the necessary experience and have acheived a proper technical standard. Until that point I think the associate membership route is entirely appropriate to indicate at least academic knowledge but not full chartered status.

The RIAI was founded in 1839; I just don’t understand why anyone that aspires to the pinacle of their profession would choose not to join. Did you apply to join on graduation or just decide it was a membership fee and your money had better uses?

I’m not going to comment on UK architecture but would say that when the majority of planning permissions are going to applicants who have engaged engineers and cad designers and even interenet plan shops such as Irish House designs; then slagging neighbouring juristictions is rather limp.

@onq wrote:

Monolithic crap in Canary Wharf reminiscent of something from Communist Russia
Dodgy post-modernism on the Thames.
The inside-out Lloyds Building [yeah, THAT started a fashion]
That Penis/Gherkin joke
A stupid tent
A stupid wheel –

I mean, I ask you!

That’s good . . . very good

. . . . just let it all out

@PVC King wrote:

You had a legally recognised degree in a country where anyone could call themselves an architect;

Nope
I had and still have a legally recognised degree that formally entitled me to call myself an architect, both in Ireland and throughout the EU.

the RIAI have brought in a regulated system which was enshrined in law because the public were getting conned.

Last I checked it was the Attorney Generals office that wrote the law which was voted on by the Oireachtas and signed into law by the president.
But you’re claiming the RIAI did it.
You must be one of those “insiders” we read about in the scandal sheets.
How is it that a non-archtiect like you claime ot be is so well-connected and knows so much about the RIAI?

As for your nonsense repeat of RIAI propaganda; –
I have seen no great outcry from the public about being conned, nor any great evidence of wrongdoing on the part of

1. self-taught architects
2. persons with legally recognsied qualifications that entitled them to call themselves architects
3. or EVEN MRIAI’s

– although the most serious issues of incompetence and fraudulent certification I have dealt with to date were from MRIAIs.

I realise I get to deal with the dregs, and that most MRIAI’s I know are quite competent, but still, it gives your argument a good kick in the goolies.

You try to explain the Grant sitaution by saying you sorted the client out;

I’m beginning to think you’re terminally stupid.

You brought up David Grant, not me, as a red herring.

I didn’t “explain the Grant situation” by reference to my client.
I recounted the sad tale of my client’s experiecne with him separately.

I explained Grant’s success which in my understanding was down to his price point, not his competence.
I explained his downfall, which I understood was down to his lack of competence not price point.

base line Grant should never have been able to exploit the complete absence of any meaningful regulation.

Let me explain this in simple terms I hope you can grasp.

David Grant was supported by the market in the absence of regulation.
David Grant was brought down by the market in the absence of regulation.
The RIAI played no part in his downfall except the usual bleating about regulation.

The market dealt with Grant.

But let’s take your point at face value.
The ARB has attempted to regulate the British profession for years.
But David Grant has operated for years in Britain where they have regulation.

As an architect.

David Grant has been taken to court on at least two occassions by the ARB

Still operating as an architect.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5202781.article
I have no doubt that he will continue to operate for as long as he likes, get taken to court and pay the fines.
http://www.cityultima.com/London/BusinessPage:Inspired_Design

As an architect

He is a con man who makes so much money from the profession he can afford to laugh off the fines.
And this is continuing to occur in a jurisdiction where regulation has operated for years.
It is quite clear that regulation has not deterred David Grant and does not protect the public.

You have no point.

As I have said I am all in favour of people with the appropriate degree going on to become registered architects; when they can display that they have completed the necessary experience and have acheived a proper technical standard. Until that point I think the associate membership route is entirely appropriate to indicate at least academic knowledge but not full chartered status.

I’ll endeavour to keep the title I have.
EU and Irish law says I am an architect.
I won’t be playing second fiddle to MRIAI’s.

The RIAI was founded in 1839; I just don’t understand why anyone that aspires to the pinacle of their profession would choose not to join. Did you apply to join on graduation or just decide it was a membership fee and your money had better uses?

I do not “aspire” to anything – I’ve practised as an architect for almost 20 years.
I became an architect legally in Ireland and throughout the EU on the date of my qualification from Bolton Street in 1990.
I had no need to join a repressive organization that at the time forbade advertising, promoted price fixing and forbade non-Members from using the RIAI Contracts at the same time as they promoted them as an industry standard.

I’m not going to comment on UK architecture but would say that when the majority of planning permissions are going to applicants who have engaged engineers and cad designers and even interenet plan shops such as Irish House designs; then slagging neighbouring juristictions is rather limp.

So you’d agree that the RIAI has been doing a poor job of selling “DESIGN” to the proletariat since 1839, despite being at the “pinnacle” of the profession?

No argument there.

And guess what?

Protecting the title won’t change that.

ONQ.

@gunter wrote:

That’s good . . . very good

. . . . just let it all out

😀

Oh come on!!!

They have to go all the way to the Sud de France to build a decent bridge!!!

LOL!!!

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

I think you two need to sort this out at home but, if I may be allowed to put my head above the parapet:

Of course didums – now you’ve seen how the big boys play you can join in.:)

The more I read these debates the more I realise just how far from resolution this whole thing is. The Architect’s registration Board issue – on a weekly basis – reports on disciplinary action that has been taken in the UK against people who misuse the term “architect”.

HOWEVER

Just as many determinations are issued with regard to action taken over misconduct by those who are “entitled” to the title.- all based around the ARB’s strict professional competency standards. These judgements are issued to all members of the ARB and name every individual concerned. I received one 2 weeks ago regarding someone being “erased” from the Register for unacceptable professional conduct.

Priceless isn’t it?
John Graby is on record as admitting that 20% of complaints relate to Members of the RIAI.
Imagine what that figure would rise to if there were an Architectural Ombudsman – a totally independent office, say a Surveyor.

The good thing about the ARB is that I can register for €95 without having to join the RIBA

You mean someone not an archtiect can register?
What does that make you – a Technician or a Technologist?

There’s an individual on another thread who is very excitable about the whole thing and I’d like to use him as an example. Personally I see the role of Registration as one where this individual should not be allowed to use the term “architect” due to the fact that, in my opinion, he does not have anywhere near an acceptable level of competency in design (as opposed to construction).

Bitchy, bitchy bitchy… LOL!

BUT

This discriminates against those who are able to show a competency in design but do not hold a requisite qualification. (there is nothing new here by the way – the ARB uses the same EU directive as the RIAI when deciding registration)

BUT

What if this individual did carry an acceptable qualification and legitimately joined the register. Would the RIAI have recourse with regard to poor design? Would the RIAI take this individual to task over sub-standard aesthetics? It would be almost impossible to do so.

SO

The word that appears time and time again is “qualification”. I’m lucky enough to have one that’s recognised but I also know that 66% of my colleagues in final year were failed. It’s no accident that all those people who should not have passed third year made it to the end – to fail people early means loss of 3 years fees you see. The consequence, however, of allowing substandard designers to progress as far as final year is that they will carry on into the workplace instead of finding another vocation. This allowing substandard candidates to complete a high standard course is just as bad as allowing graduates of a sub-standard course into the workplace

Didn’t happen in Bolton Street.
There were two watersheds.
Most people passed 1st year.
A lot of people who hadn’t done science subjects didn’t pass second year.
A lot of people whose work didn’t reach the desired standard of design didn’t pass third year.
Those who did generally got through fourth year, a year on which you generally had to show that you had it all together enough to attempt a thesis.
Thesis year most passed.
Some didn’t get through thesis year.
Some because their theses weren’t good enough in terms of complexity or subject matter.
Some because they attempted something so amazing and that worked out as being just beyond their abilities to manage.
There were very few design “duds” by fifth year.

There is no magic solution here but I wanted to ask ONQ who has a much better knowledge of these things – is there any machination by which a course, not currently recognised by Directive 2005/36/EC, can be put forward for recognition? It would seem to me that this petitioning of Brussels should be included in the RIAI mandate in order to assist registration rather than blocking it.

I have little knowledge of such things, wearnicehats.
There are Europe wide organizations now in terms of Higher Education and they all talk to each other.
I think the RIAI as Registrar is assessing the other schools fo architecture, but they’ll never agree to offer those students the position we enjoyed as architects.

That might bring some competition into the market place.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

….
David Grant was supported by the market in the absence of regulation.
David Grant was brought down by the market in the absence of regulation.
The RIAI played no part in his downfall except the usual bleating about regulation.

The market dealt with Grant.
.

😀

i think the appropriate expression is “OWNED!!”

@henno wrote:

😀

i think the appropriate expression is “OWNED!!”

🙂

And this is me being nice.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

But you can have the best of both Worlds; most professions do; you study for a number of years and then work and are examined on the quality of your work. I have no doubt David Grant thought he was a genius….. I am clearly not saying that anyone here is a David Grant but that a system less than one which requires that the academic knowledge be applied and then examined is clearly superior to academic knowledge alone which allows many people to get the qualification and regard themselves as knowing the business; which many clearly will not due to a lack of practical experience. In no other profession I am aware of would a discussion on full qualification being acheived at a university or IT; take place, the necessity of CPD cannot be understated to keep the body professional up to speed with changes in the industry.

First, it must be clear that registration will not prevent con men to practice, then your reference to David Grant does not make sense. There are lists of registrered architects, medical doctors, solicitors, who have been in court for misconduct.

Second, I do not understand why you think that someone cannot obtain skills to practice outside univesity. Have you tried?

Third, the world of architects would be sad if we had to remove from the list names such as Mies, Frank Loyd Wright, Ando, Xenakis, and so many more.

Fourth, why is it only in Ireland that established self-trained architects are discrimninated? Why are registered architects in this country so afraid to compete with us?

@onq wrote:

Nope
I had and still have a legally recognised degree that formally entitled me to call myself an architect, both in Ireland and throughout the EU.

Last I checked it was the Attorney Generals office that wrote the law which was voted on by the Oireachtas and signed into law by the president.
But you’re claiming the RIAI did it.
You must be one of those “insiders” we read about in the scandal sheets.
How is it that a non-archtiect like you claime ot be is so well-connected and knows so much about the RIAI?

As for your nonsense repeat of RIAI propaganda; –
I have seen no great outcry from the public about being conned, nor any great evidence of wrongdoing on the part of

1. self-taught architects
2. persons with legally recognsied qualifications that entitled them to call themselves architects
3. or EVEN MRIAI’s

– although the most serious issues of incompetence and fraudulent certification I have dealt with to date were from MRIAIs.

I realise I get to deal with the dregs, and that most MRIAI’s I know are quite competent, but still, it gives your argument a good kick in the goolies.

I’m beginning to think you’re terminally stupid.

You brought up David Grant, not me, as a red herring.

I didn’t “explain the Grant situation” by reference to my client.
I recounted the sad tale of my client’s experiecne with him separately.

I explained Grant’s success which in my understanding was down to his price point, not his competence.
I explained his downfall, which I understood was down to his lack of competence not price point.

Let me explain this in simple terms I hope you can grasp.

David Grant was supported by the market in the absence of regulation.
David Grant was brought down by the market in the absence of regulation.
The RIAI played no part in his downfall except the usual bleating about regulation.

The market dealt with Grant.

But let’s take your point at face value.
The ARB has attempted to regulate the British profession for years.
But David Grant has operated for years in Britain where they have regulation.

As an architect.

David Grant has been taken to court on at least two occassions by the ARB

Still operating as an architect.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5202781.article
I have no doubt that he will continue to operate for as long as he likes, get taken to court and pay the fines.
http://www.cityultima.com/London/BusinessPage:Inspired_Design

As an architect

He is a con man who makes so much money from the profession he can afford to laugh off the fines.
And this is continuing to occur in a jurisdiction where regulation has operated for years.
It is quite clear that regulation has not deterred David Grant and does not protect the public.

You have no point.

I’ll endeavour to keep the title I have.
EU and Irish law says I am an architect.
I won’t be playing second fiddle to MRIAI’s.

I do not “aspire” to anything – I’ve practised as an architect for almost 20 years.
I became an architect legally in Ireland and throughout the EU on the date of my qualification from Bolton Street in 1990.
I had no need to join a repressive organization that at the time forbade advertising, promoted price fixing and forbade non-Members from using the RIAI Contracts at the same time as they promoted them as an industry standard.

So you’d agree that the RIAI has been doing a poor job of selling “DESIGN” to the proletariat since 1839, despite being at the “pinnacle” of the profession?

No argument there.

And guess what?

Protecting the title won’t change that.

ONQ.

I am going to resist the temptation to do multiple quotes on this; you went to college and a deficient legal framework allowed you to call yourself a qualified architect even though you had not worked in the profession for a significant period of monitored employment and structured training; the phrase may have been qualified but clearly the emphasis needed to be on educationally qualified and not professionally qualified. Name one other profession where that was the case then or is now.

David Grant was not brought down by the market he was brought down by a prime time expose; the complete absence from the requirement to be vetted by a professional body of practicing peers was patently obvious as the major cause behind chancers like Grant getting away with it. David Grant had a degree but no professional membership; solicitors, auditors and most other professions have for decades insisted on professional membership to claim the title. A Trinity Law degree gets you the right to sit a further exam and thats it.

Your answer as to why you didn’t join the RIAI is quite telling; you clearly didn’t feel that you needed to join the main professional membership organisation in the sector; legally then you didn’t but the law changed; to state that any graduate is fully professionally developed is niave at best or a polemical stance to suit a retrospective position looks more credible.

I congratulate the architecture profession in providing the same coherence as other professions; as the saying goes better late than never. I’m sure the RIAI would discuss a vetting procedure for you that reflects that you have a degree; as you have kept up with CPD then you would have no issues sitting some form of test to clarify that you have the relevant skills; although I must confess to being a touch confused as to how you would know the appropriate balance unless you have followed the ongoing guidance of the RIAI on that subject from a distance.

To someone outside the profession; I have never ceased to be amazed at how much of the market share was taken by people who had no design training at all; excluding operating cad packages that is. I further cannot understand how after 5 years in what in fairness is reputed to be a tough degree to acheive that one would feel that membership of the relevant professional body was not the appropriate manner in which to develop one’s career further. Clearly that decision has had an opportunity cost in some cases.

@CK wrote:

First, it must be clear that registration will not prevent con men to practice, then your reference to David Grant does not make sense. There are lists of registrered architects, medical doctors, solicitors, who have been in court for misconduct.

Second, I do not understand why you think that someone cannot obtain skills to practice outside univesity. Have you tried?

Third, the world of architects would be sad if we had to remove from the list names such as Mies, Frank Loyd Wright, Ando, Xenakis, and so many more.

Fourth, why is it only in Ireland that established self-trained architects are discrimninated? Why are registered architects in this country so afraid to compete with us?

There is a large difference between misconduct and claiming to be something you are not; sadly the internet has opened many opportunities for conpersons to buy qualifications of no merit and masquerade as architects doectors etc; membership of a professional association enables prospective clients to check that the membership is valid and that the qualifications have been vetted by professionals who know the sector including the good from the bad feeder educational routes.

Most CPD is peer driven i.e. practitioners versus full time academics; much of it can be internal if the firm has the resources. What membership organisations do is that they provide the platform for smaller practices to create the numbers to ensure that events arte viable.

A talented designer will always get work; they simply need to be honest as to what their professional qualifications are; safe to say Mies is from a different era he was ahead of his time; unlike proper regulation which is decades late.

You state there is discrimination against professionally unqualified architects; beyond not calling themselves architects where is the discrimination; if you went to a hospital and it were busy and the complaint not to complex would you object to the nurse treating you? Would he object to not being called a doctor? But if the problem is complex would you not want a professionally qualified architect?

@PVC King wrote:

To someone outside the profession; I have never ceased to be amazed at how much of the market share was taken by people who had no design training at all; excluding operating cad packages that is. I further cannot understand how after 5 years in what in fairness is reputed to be a tough degree to acheive that one would feel that membership of the relevant professional body was not the appropriate manner in which to develop one’s career further. Clearly that decision has had an opportunity cost in some cases.

I have practiced during 16 years, I have BA and a master in Arts & Architecture… But I was never in a position to register… However I have been practicing as an employee and on my on account. I have a long list of employers and clients delighted with my services… I made mistakes and anyone does…

If it is thought that registration must be, I do not agree but that is fine with me, I do not want to impose my views. However, I would like to know why Ireland does not recognize the rights of self-trained architects to continue practicing, when so far as I know, all other European countries have automatically registered established self-trained architects when introducing the legislation for registration.

Such discrimination is unnecessary for the good of the public; it is only serving the interests of architects with academic qualification.

@PVC King wrote:

There is a large difference between misconduct and claiming to be something you are not; sadly the internet has opened many opportunities for conpersons to buy qualifications of no merit and masquerade as architects doectors etc; membership of a professional association enables prospective clients to check that the membership is valid and that the qualifications have been vetted by professionals who know the sector including the good from the bad feeder educational routes.

Most CPD is peer driven i.e. practitioners versus full time academics; much of it can be internal if the firm has the resources. What membership organisations do is that they provide the platform for smaller practices to create the numbers to ensure that events arte viable.

A talented designer will always get work; they simply need to be honest as to what their professional qualifications are; safe to say Mies is from a different era he was ahead of his time; unlike proper regulation which is decades late.

You state there is discrimination against professionally unqualified architects; beyond not calling themselves architects where is the discrimination; if you went to a hospital and it were busy and the complaint not to complex would you object to the nurse treating you? Would he object to not being called a doctor? But if the problem is complex would you not want a professionally qualified architect?

Many MRIAI have no qualification, they never been to university. They were given membership because they were on the Minister list.

Why shall someone be doing the work of an architect without being permited to call himself / herself an architect? Don’t you think that this is a non-sense?

The term “Architect” first defines a profession, isn’t it?

There is nothing stopping experienced persons working within the industry to get the necessary further training to get into the position to become professionally qualified. I’ve never heard of an experienced but unqualified doctor; the legal profession had for many years a structured route to grant a individuals who had not gone down the usual university onto law society examinations route practicing certificate after 7 years of work experience. The critical requirements were that your employer who was qualified and granted you student membership and that you attended structured training; not dis-similar to CPD.

I have never said that those without professional qualification don’t design well in some cases; I have used someone in those circumstances very beneficially. However buildings last for generations and it is one professional area which needs to be monitored as a result. The public have the right to associate the title architect in the same way they look at doctor, solicitor or auditor all of which require a formal membership affiliation to use the title.

My first post so I’ll try not to embarrass myself too much…

If you qualify from Bolton Street and work in the U.K. for 2 years min. under an A.R.B. registered Architect’s instruction, you can be A.R.B. registered with no need to sit the Part III. Then come back to Ireland and you can’t be on the register here.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just odd.

@PVC King wrote:

There is nothing stopping experienced persons working within the industry to get the necessary further training to get into the position to become professionally qualified. I’ve never heard of an experienced but unqualified doctor; the legal profession had for many years a structured route to grant a individuals who had not gone down the usual university onto law society examinations route practicing certificate after 7 years of work experience. The critical requirements were that your employer who was qualified and granted you student membership and that you attended structured training; not dis-similar to CPD.

I have never said that those without professional qualification don’t design well in some cases; I have used someone in those circumstances very beneficially. However buildings last for generations and it is one professional area which needs to be monitored as a result. The public have the right to associate the title architect in the same way they look at doctor, solicitor or auditor all of which require a formal membership affiliation to use the title.

This is not my point.

You pretend that education in university has more value than experience in a practice. But I have studied in university too, and I know that this is not completely the truth. Whatever, I do not question the fact that academic qualification shall become compulsory.

I am asking why other EU countries have taken into consideration the interests of established self-trained architects by enabling them to register when the legislation in Ireland does not?

Why do you compare self-trained architects to designers? They are no more or no less designers than qualified architects. I follow 50% of my projects from start to finish. I mean from the first sketch to completion.

I am just asking for some honesty here. The legislation as it stands does not protect the public against David Grant, but it discriminates all self-trained architects, even the good ones…

@CK wrote:

I am just asking for some honesty here. The legislation as it stands does not protect the public against David Grant, but it discriminates all self-trained architects, even the good ones…

Clearly wasting my time here; there is a difference between being self-trained and being professionally qualified. Authorised, approved, qualified; none of which guarantee talent; however they signify indications of reaching a recognised specification. How in god’s name is a planner not familiar with a party making an application or a prospective client supposed to know who are the good or the bad ‘self trained’

No-one is stopping anyone from working; it is simply ensuring that those claiming to be architects have met a defined pathway to be able to use the title.

On the education v experience route; it is not either or; both are equally important; it is however easier for someone working in the industry to gain an educational qualification by distance learning or part time study than it is for your average under-graduate to battle with the temptations of growing up and studying simultaneously. Both are to my mind equally important and both are equally necessary to convert either industry experience to professional membership or an academic qualification to become a professional member.

@PVC King wrote:

I am going to resist the temptation to do multiple quotes on this;

(nods)
Its not as if you’ve shown any ability at dealing with any of the issues raised by me so far.
Why underline the point by selectively quoting only to furiously ignore that points I raise anyway.
I’ll just keep rebutting you, point by point.

you went to college and a deficient legal framework allowed you to call yourself a qualified architect even though you had not worked in the profession for a significant period of monitored employment and structured training; the phrase may have been qualified but clearly the emphasis needed to be on educationally qualified and not professionally qualified. Name one other profession where that was the case then or is now.

I’ll repeat myself for the sake of clarity, since its obvious that you have the retention of a goldfish and the arguments I am using involve multi-syllabic words and complex sub-clauses:

I didn’t call myself anything.
My qualification entitled me to use the title “architect” from the day I qualified.
I qualified from a full time five year course, passing my thesis following a review by external examiners, from an accredited school of architecture.

The recognition of that qualification and the school itself was based on the most advanced legal framework yet devised in Europe, the European Community, which at the time involved peer review of every law by each Member State.
Part of this framework was the Architect’s Directive DIR 85/384/EC

Before I graduated, I had worked with two Members of the Institute and an international firm of engineers, and had done pro-bono work on years out of college for two charitable institutions in the state.
It was customary practice in Bolton Street to take at least one year out to round out academic experience by professional experience gained working in an office.

There is only academically qualified, – the terms “educationally qualified” and “professionally qualified” are red herrings invented by you to bootstrap your illogical and unsupportable attempt at rebuttal of the provisions of two Directives and a Statutory Instrument.

To suggest that these pieces of legislation were “defective” as you have done shows your gross ignorance of the facts of the matter and your apparent total inability to understand my posts.
These pieces of legislation were the most progressive pieces of legislation in their day.
Why else would the RIAI cite them as conferring authority on their members to sign certificates and Opinions of Compliance.
Don’t duck this issue this time – respond to it in an intelligent way or I will brand you on this forum as a mindless parrot, an RIAI shill, peddling red herrings and unsupported propaganda on their behalf.

David Grant was not brought down by the market he was brought down by a prime time expose; the complete absence from the requirement to be vetted by a professional body of practicing peers was patently obvious as the major cause behind chancers like Grant getting away with it. David Grant had a degree but no professional membership; solicitors, auditors and most other professions have for decades insisted on professional membership to claim the title. A Trinity Law degree gets you the right to sit a further exam and thats it.

You’re only ranting on about this red herring Grant.
Well you should since you were ranting about him back then on thsi forum:
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3842
He deserves to be ranted about, but back then you had nothing to say about registration, just honest anger that his firetrap hostel wasn’t closed down by the Fire Officer and he wasn’t thrown in jail for putting people at risk.
I was the one who reported this article to the RIAI, posted by Paul Clerkin.
ThePost.ie
Architect ordered to pay €663,000 on repossessed house
31 January 2010 By Kieron Wood

Your answer as to why you didn’t join the RIAI is quite telling; you clearly didn’t feel that you needed to join the main professional membership organisation in the sector; legally then you didn’t but the law changed; to state that any graduate is fully professionally developed is niave at best or a polemical stance to suit a retrospective position looks more credible.

Stupid piled on stupid – its worse than pulling teeth.
Even the RIAI don’t dare claim that you have to join them.
The legal obligation is for people who wish to use the title “architect” to become registered.
There is no legal obligation for people to be qualified in order to use the title “architect”.

And here you are trotting out yet another red herring to bolster your flailing arguments.
I never stated that a graduate is “fully professionally developed” nor have you asked me my opinion on this matter.
Its just as well, because the phrase “fully professionally developed” has no standing in law in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar.

My position is simple and straightforward.
My Diploma of Degree standard entitles me to use the title “architect” anywhere in the EU.

I congratulate the architecture profession in providing the same coherence as other professions; as the saying goes better late than never. I’m sure the RIAI would discuss a vetting procedure for you that reflects that you have a degree; as you have kept up with CPD then you would have no issues sitting some form of test to clarify that you have the relevant skills; although I must confess to being a touch confused as to how you would know the appropriate balance unless you have followed the ongoing guidance of the RIAI on that subject from a distance.

The profession has no coherence.
The preferential treatment shown to RIAI Members is tearing it apart.
There are several factions within it each asserting their right to use the title “architect”.
The RIAI have made a transparent grab for power and influence as a regulatory body based on no supporting evidence that they are competent at regulation.

The RIAI can discuss what they like.
I will make my application to register in due course and then we will see where this goes.
At the moment its not looking very good for them as far as respecting the standing of my diploma under Irish and EU law goes.

The relevant skills of an architect are obvious to anyone who has practised as an architect for any length of time.
To an layperson the skillset may seem complex but it naturally flows from the various work stages on a project from inception to completion.
Accordingly only the utterly gormless would need “guidance of the RIAI” on the matter to know what skills need to be developed.
I accept that you are a touch confused.

To someone outside the profession; I have never ceased to be amazed at how much of the market share was taken by people who had no design training at all; excluding operating cad packages that is. I further cannot understand how after 5 years in what in fairness is reputed to be a tough degree to acheive that one would feel that membership of the relevant professional body was not the appropriate manner in which to develop one’s career further. Clearly that decision has had an opportunity cost in some cases.

Nope.
At the time I qualified I had little time for the RIAI or its Members for several reasons, some of which I have already summarised and which you have once again ignored.

You seem to ask a lot of questions without responding.

I’ll ask you two:

1. What is your professional qualification, if any?
2. What is your connection with the RIAI?

ONQ.

I have no connection whatsoever with the RIAI or any professional architects organisation; however looking at much of what was built by non-members over the past 20 years many of whom claimed to be architects I can clearly see the need for a defined industry standard.

My desire to see a proper professional membership system stems largely from the need for those assessing larger scale projects to see the RIAI stamp on the design team before granting funding. It is about creating a standardised meaning to the claim of a being a member of a relevant profession; in this case architect; which in many places requires both a recognised degree which you have but from what I can see you have never completed an annual CPD programme put together by an independent third party body or faced a post graduate examination to assess your competance to practice and knowledge of the membership regulations that would form the test of reasonableness in any negligence action.

Laws change and membership of the relevant professional body is the best way to keep up not just with those that affect how you advertise but also many others that are dealt with in the ongoing CPD programmes to keep the profession on the right side of negligence claims. These is nothing new in this tried and tested professional practice framework it is simply new to the architecture industry.

@CK wrote:

but it discriminates all self-trained architects, even the good ones…

Can you make your mind up are you self trained or suitably qualified?

Maybe you spent years in college studying the wrong courses

@PVC King wrote:

Clearly wasting my time here; there is a difference between being self-trained and being professionally qualified. Authorised, approved, qualified; none of which guarantee talent; however they signify indications of reaching a recognised specification. How in god’s name is a planner not familiar with a party making an application or a prospective client supposed to know who are the good or the bad ‘self trained’

No-one is stopping anyone from working; it is simply ensuring that those claiming to be architects have met a defined pathway to be able to use the title.

On the education v experience route; it is not either or; both are equally important; it is however easier for someone working in the industry to gain an educational qualification by distance learning or part time study than it is for your average under-graduate to battle with the temptations of growing up and studying simultaneously. Both are to my mind equally important and both are equally necessary to convert either industry experience to professional membership or an academic qualification to become a professional member.

I don’t know if you are loosing your time, but I know that you are obviously not aware that many members of the RIAI are not qualified and never been to university at all and that other have qualifications not listed in the EU directive.

I have studied in university for 8 years and I then worked for another 16 years. Isn’t that enough?

Why would someone with half of my experience be more qualified than me to practice as an architect?

You refuse to see the discrimination which has been implemented because you fit the profile for registration. However, if you were watching the procedure on another angle, you would then realise that about 1,000 of professionals practicing in Ireland are discriminated without any good reason.

The term “architect” defined a profession, now that a legislation transformed it into a title, there are many architects by profession who experience difficulties to continue practicing. You are not interested with this matter because it does not concern your own interests, but it is not a reason to pretend as you do, that the problem does not exist.

Some foreign architects from other EU countries who never read the Irish Building Regulations or the Building Acts or the planning Acts, will be permitted to practice in Ireland using the title Architect when we are not.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the problem? These guys are not as competent as us to practice in Ireland.

In contrary to what you pretend, the RIAI is trying to prevent us practicing and the legislation put us in such situation that it is difficult for us to continue practicing.

Put your interests behind, consider the problem attentively and you will understand why all other European countries have accepted to register established professionals when starting to implement registration.

@parka wrote:

Can you make your mind up are you self trained or suitably qualified?

Maybe you spent years in college studying the wrong courses

I am qualifed with a BA and a Master in Arts & Architecture. It is a recognised qualification but not listed in the EU Directive.

It is not about the good and wrong courses. If you learn the Building Regualtions today, it will not apply in 5 years. It is similar for the planning regualtions and so on.

This will be my last thread for tonight. I’ll catch up tomorrow morning… Good night..

@PVC King wrote:

I have no connection whatsoever with the RIAI or any professional architects organisation;

I find that difficult to believe.

however looking at much of what was built by non-members over the past 20 years many of whom claimed to be architects I can clearly see the need for a defined industry standard.

Name one building you know is by a non-member, as opposed to a generic class of buildings that you assume are by non-members.
Define the buildings you disapprove of on terms of why you disapprove of them.
Exclude those with no involvement by any architect – Member, Qualified or Self-taught.

If you’re talking design, that’s what the qualification says architects do – Registration doesn’t affect that.
If you’re talking detailing, that’s what the qualification says architects do – Registration doesn’t affect that either.
All you’ve talked about so far in this thread is professional practice and since I am aware of at least five buildings that have been improperly certified by different Member of the Institute, guess what – Registration doesn’t seem to affect that too much.

My desire to see a proper professional membership system stems largely from the need for those assessing larger scale projects to see the RIAI stamp on the design team before granting funding.

And where did this need arise?
From propaganda put out by the RIAI, or a detailed assessment of the competence of prospective candidates?
Oh wait – this is just a paper-shuffling exercise for you, isn’t it – you told us before: once you can point to the RIAI stamp you’re happy, thinking you’ve done your due diligence.
You couldn’t be further from the truth.

It is about creating a standardised meaning to the claim of a being a member of a relevant profession; in this case architect;

As CK has already pointed out there is no such standard meaning, that’s a fantasy – the requirements for professional competence changes as technology changes, as building standards change, as court decisions on contract and liability change, as they way people live change, as density standards in development plans change.

which in many places requires both a recognised degree which you have but from what I can see you have never completed an annual CPD programme put together by an independent third party body or faced a post graduate examination to assess your competance to practice and knowledge of the membership regulations

You seem to think there is an annual CPD programme in a standard form or a specified syllabus – there is no such thing.
Different architects practices take on different kinds of work and so will require difference competences in detail.
Some have never done public sector work – some specialise in it.
Some never do expert witness work – some specialise in it.

---

There is no independent third party body in architecture.
The Registrar is mired in vested interest because it is also a representative body.
There are however many third parties against which my competence has been tested over the years – local authorities, District Courts, High Courts, offices of MRIAI’s, Arbitrators, to a far greater degree than any set of exams set by the RIAI.
So far I have not failed the test, but you’re only as good as your last job, something badge-wearers seem to forget regularly.

---

As for knowledge of the Membership regulations, how would i know about them since I’m not a Member?
If you mean the Code of Practice – its a simple enough code and relates more to personal integrity and service to your client than any overweening body of knowledge.
We learnt it as part of the full time five year course – you remember that one, don’t you?
Its the one that entitles me to call myself an architect.

that would form the test of reasonableness in any negligence action.

You seem pretty clueless about how the law works and how liability is assessed by a court of law.
You sound like you’re spouting something from a desk study that was run up over a long weekend by someone holding an MBA.

The test for negligence is not “reasonableness”, which sounds like another one of your red herrings.
The test for negligence is whether something that occurred was “reasonably foreseeable” by a member of a profession exercising the normal amount of skill and diligence for.an average practitioner and whether adequate steps were taken to modify the design to prevent its occurrence.

Each action for negligence is different and particular to the specific case.
Many cases do not rest on common sense but on what is convenient for the Courts or the politics of the day.
My pet hate is the case where an architect was passing by a site in his car on the way to a meeting, spotted something amiss, stopped and informed a workman.
Despite the fact that the workman carried his own responsibility to his employer under the Health and Safety legislation, he failed to pass on the message and a notifiable event occurred.
The architect was sued successfully for not brining the matter to the attention of some one in authority.
I have no doubt that he was a Member of a Professional Body, but that didn’t prepare him for that claim or save him from being scapegoated by the Court as having been negligent.
Your lack of awareness of case law in matters when you tout the RIAI as the be-all and end-all fails to impress.

Laws change and membership of the relevant professional body is the best way to keep up not just with those that affect how you advertise but also many others that are dealt with in the ongoing CPD programmes to keep the profession on the right side of negligence claims. These is nothing new in this tried and tested professional practice framework it is simply new to the architecture industry.

I agree that laws change and it can be difficult to keep up.
I agree that a structured CPD course can assist professionals to maintain current knowledge.
I have no problem agreeing these points when you post something that’s logical and true.

But I don’t agree – nor will I ever agree – that I am not entitled to practise as an architect because I have not passed a Part III examination.
My entitlement to do so arises from my qualification, recognised by EU and Irish Law, and there it rests.

You’ve answered my second question, now answer my first question, there’s a good lad.

“What is your professional qualification, if any?”

ONQ.

You make a number of long winded arguments but cannot get away from the facts that the RIAI are independent i.e. that it is not controlled by a private business or that no other profession considers a university qualification as being sufficient to warrant ongoing use of the title professional e.g. solicitor, auditor etc.

I’d ask you to look at the vast bulk of the Liam Carroll output over the past two decades; that is why we need professionally qualified architects. As far as I am concerned a professional can only be considered to be fully qualified when they have a qualification from the industry body and are subject to ongoing monitoring by that body.

The involvement of the RIAI is no accident; they are the most reputable industry body in the country. Self regulation clearly failed and that is the system that you clearly favour; i.e. send people out in their early to mid twenties and let the market regulate them.

@foremanjoe wrote:

So am I correct in understanding that you’re saying that the problem with the old system was that the institutes of higher education were producing too many substandard graduates, and this new architects register will weed out unworthy practitioners?

The overwhelming majority of staff members at the various schools of architecture in this country are MRIAI, right? Therefore, one would assume that the standards they use to assess their students are pretty much in line with the standards of the RIAI, right? So, at what stage does an education from MRIAI become insufficient for a qualification from the RIAI?

no – that’s patently not what I’m saying if you read it – I could take 5 of my former college peers and post 5 different buildings they’ve done that range from the sublime to the ridiculous. but CK has found us so I can’t be arsed to continue on this thread.

@onq wrote:

.

You mean someone not an archtiect can register?
What does that make you – a Technician or a Technologist?

ONQ.

actually – I will just clear this up before it’s all lost in a fog of psychobabble

not sure what you mean but, as someone who has passed all the RIBA exams (CK note) after completing an accredited course (CK note) over a 10 year period (CK note) for a not insubstantial financial outlay (CK note) I am entitled to register as an architect in the UK through the ARB – it is important to note that I would still need to use that ARB qualification to become an MRIAI in order to use the title in Ireland – and pay for the privilege (CK note). The RIBA is divorced from registration – it is useful really only as a recognisable architectural qualification where clients are concerned but, in reality, it’s a very expensive monthly magazine

It raises the question however – if there was an ARBI in Ireland would we be having all this talk of “clubs” and “closed shops”? an ARBI would probably still use the same qualification criteria

@wearnicehats wrote:

actually – I will just clear this up before it’s all lost in a fog of psychobabble

not sure what you mean but, as someone who has passed all the RIBA exams (CK note) after completing an accredited course (CK note) over a 10 year period (CK note) for a not insubstantial financial outlay (CK note) I am entitled to register as an architect in the UK through the ARB – it is important to note that I would still need to use that ARB qualification to become an MRIAI in order to use the title in Ireland – and pay for the privilege (CK note). The RIBA is divorced from registration – it is useful really only as a recognisable architectural qualification where clients are concerned but, in reality, it’s a very expensive monthly magazine

It raises the question however – if there was an ARBI in Ireland would we be having all this talk of “clubs” and “closed shops”? an ARBI would probably still use the same qualification criteria

An ARBI would surely match the registration procedure in other EU countries, and have a grand-father clause permitting all professionals like me to register. It would also not mislead the public when advertising.

@CK wrote:

An ARBI would surely match the registration procedure in other EU countries, and have a grand-father clause permitting all professionals like me to register. It would also not mislead the public when advertising.

long sigh, expletive omitted

@PVC King wrote:

You make a number of long winded arguments…

Here comes another dodge of the issues I raised – I can tell at this stage.
(Geez, its just like talking with a Member of the RIAI about the inequity of them being automatialy Registered…)

My arguments are structured and logical and not intended for consumption by persons with the attention span of a goldfish.

While the quality of your rebuttals are – oh, wait…
You haven’t addressed any of my points, have you?

“Attack, propagandize, attack, question, attack…”
Another graduate from the Literary and Historical Debating Society.

…but cannot get away from the facts that the RIAI are independent i.e. that it is not controlled by a private business

The RIAI – in and of itself – is a private business.
Did you think it was a charity or something?

Moreover it represents a large group of vested interests in establishd practices.
It cannot, be definition, be a representative body AND be independent.

The Technical Assessment is being conducted by a separate private business, but its effectively controlled by the RIAI AFAIK – happy to be corrected on this.
[but probably not by you, since you seem to know very little about these matters and never answer my points].

For someone who professes not to have a connection, you’re doing a lot of propagandising on the RIAI’s behalf.
That’s mainly aspirational propagandising [and I’m being polite here] , as opposed to posting factual information about the RIAI or about the law.

And of course you still haven’t answered my question:

“What’s your professional qualification, if any?”

or that no other profession considers a university qualification as being sufficient to warrant ongoing use of the title professional e.g. solicitor, auditor etc.

Given that this profession operates in the EU and that several other countries don’t require registration, countries in which some good architecture can still be found, I’d say you are mistaken on a point of principle – no surprises there.

I’m always a bit wary of professional bodies – they seem to be used to give a sense of assurance to members of the public, without which their Members couldn’t charge high fees, or in the case of the medical profession, simply couldn’t function.
Its known as Badge Engineering in the Car Trade, and we alrady know you love your badges! LOL!
Its designed to get punters paying way over the odds for a product even though its less reliable, more unconfortable and often badly built – ask any Alfa owner.

CK has already told you of how registration worked in other countries, included the much lauded UK, your paragon of regulation for David Grant [splutter!], France, etc.
In those cases recognition was afforded to persons practising architecture for a number of years prior to the introduction of the regulation.

My position rests on the law as it stands and has stood for twenty years and more, and my established and acquired rights under the law as an architect.
What people do in other professions and in other jurisdictions may be relevant in other matters, matters which I would support, but not on this specific point.

I’d ask you to look at the vast bulk of the Liam Carroll output over the past two decades; that is why we need professionally qualified architects. As far as I am concerned a professional can only be considered to be fully qualified when they have a qualification from the industry body and are subject to ongoing monitoring by that body.

Liam Carroll had a known aversion to architects, that is true.
In his later years, however he is known to have used a few of them.
Are you suggesting that Sean O’Laoire and Jim Pike were second stringers, of something?
They were MRIAI’s at the top of their game, whereas you are an RIAI shill that won’t even bother to put the terms “Liam Carrol + architect” into a search engine before spouting your nonsense.

But please continue – I’m comforting myself in this disastrous crisis for the architectural profession with the mental image of sets of MRIAI’s cringing reading your posts, supposedly supporting the RIAI’s position, but in reality associating them with yet an presumptive, badly researched voice, that doesn’t seem to know the law or its consequences.

Stick to the facts, address the issue I’ve raised and you may stop the leaching away of your credibility with each and every post you make.
Continue as you’re going and don’t be surprised if some Member of the RIAI here sends you a PM telling you you’re in a hole and please to stop digging.

The involvement of the RIAI is no accident; they are the most reputable industry body in the country. Self regulation clearly failed and that is the system that you clearly favour; i.e. send people out in their early to mid twenties and let the market regulate them.

As proved above on the matter of Liam Carroll, you appear to have a very limited knowledge of the subject.
I fail to see why, since the internet allows even the least knowledgeable to attain the position of a well-informed overview – Google is your friend.

Previously there was no enforced regulation of the profession – a no-regulation system except by consent and desire of people to abide by a code.
The best amongst us adhered to that code regardless of the fact we are not Members of the RIAI – its the way professionals work and how we regard our clients best interests.
And that is the summa of Part III’s – acting professionally and honourably and discharging your duties impartially towards everyone.

During the previous period of unregulation, people were delighted to have someone who was competent looking after their interests.
Architects and the RIAI were seen as steps up the overpriced and arrogant ladder, with an emphasis on imposing their views on the client as opposed to developing their brief with them ot their specification.
I’m not certain if this was a fair assessment of either qualified persons or MRIAI’s.
Some were certainly both overpriced and arrogant, but in many cases I think it was more an issue of perception, and there were several unqualified success who were overpriced and relatively incompetent.

Many people of limited means or in rural areas preferred to work with draughtsmen or technicians or [Shock! Horror!] engineers, and this continues to this day.
Several times on being introduced as an architect [as opposed to an engineer or draughtsman, never mind an RIAI] to a new client I noticed a reaction, a facial tic in some cases 🙂 only allayed after several months working with them and proving my competence and willingness to assimilate client instruction in the design process.

In that former free market system, the RIAI failed to attract into its ranks a significant number of architects, for whatever reasons – some without qualifications, some with – many of whom felt alienated by the culture or attitude of RIAI Members.
In a regulated market, in less than a year since compulsory registration began, they have managed to alienate far more.

The reputation of the RIAI rests in part on the fact that there are some excellentarchitects amongst them, but also on the fact that nobody having yet conducted an independent root and branch investigation into the activities and competences of their Members.
This is badge engineering at its worst, as enshrined in the automatic registration of all RIAI members without any vetting of their competence or whether good practice principles are followed in their offices.

The RIAI may argue that automatic registration of their Members was only fair, or that there would have been an insurmountable workload involved, to which I answer, “it was only fair to your Members, RIAI, not to others”.

Your argument, which rests on registration, badges and assurances unsupported by independent assessment was once used by other organizations – the Catholic Church for example.
That’s a species of logic we need to do without going forward.

ONQ.

You can waffle on until the cows come home; but your arguments don’t stack up as you have not proposed any system of regulation other than putting people in their 20’s out as fully qualified without any manditory industry based supervision and letting the market regulate them for the next 40 years of their careers. In these straightened times the only advice you can give any graduate is join the industry body as you may need the reciprocation recognition if you seek work in another juristication. Self regulation failed; get over it and accept your advertising limitation or regularise your position.

Sorry this is out of the topic, but I have 3 computers… 1 at home, 2 in the office… I have accessed this forum from 2 of them and it seems to be related to a malware. Have you experienced any trouble. My AVG anti-virus identified the threat but cannot deal with it.

Has anyone experienced any similar problem? I talked to my IT who recommended that I stop using this forum until a new AVG version to come out in July. The problem also seems to be specific to Internet Explorer rather than FireFox and Google explorers.

@wearnicehats wrote:

actually – I will just clear this up before it’s all lost in a fog of psychobabble

not sure what you mean but, as someone who has passed all the RIBA exams (CK note) after completing an accredited course (CK note) over a 10 year period (CK note) for a not insubstantial financial outlay (CK note) I am entitled to register as an architect in the UK through the ARB – it is important to note that I would still need to use that ARB qualification to become an MRIAI in order to use the title in Ireland – and pay for the privilege (CK note). The RIBA is divorced from registration – it is useful really only as a recognisable architectural qualification where clients are concerned but, in reality, it’s a very expensive monthly magazine

Thanks for sharing.
You seem knowledgeable enough, but your description of made your professional status unclear.
I’m not one to trade on the badge as you know, so this was just a point of information, not a one-upmanship exercise.

It raises the question however – if there was an ARBI in Ireland would we be having all this talk of “clubs” and “closed shops”? an ARBI would probably still use the same qualification criteria

It would probably recieve worse criticism here than it does in the UK, where AARUK flourishes http://www.aaruk.info/

http://www.aaruk.info/AARU%20Title.htm

“The fine for contravening section 20 is currently set at a maximum of £2,500. In 2004/5, the ARB claims that it has processed approximately 500 “alleged title abuse enquiries”. However, of those 500, it says it has successfully prosecuted only 5 cases.”

The best means of protecting the public interest is education and information, not ham-fisted negative advertising such as recently engaged in by the RIAI.

Of course educating the public will mean the architects job is that much harder, and its not a source of potential revenue for a private organization charged with overseeing registration and which runs both technical assessment courses and continuous professional development courses.

Finally, of course, there is the irrelevance of it all.

As noted in a separate post to PVC King, many Irish people CHOOSE an engineer, technician or drauhtsperson to design their buildings.

Only when the attitude based on arrogance of architects changes will you see a large take up of the skills they offer to the general public.

The RIAI and the government may think they are boxing clever by introducing non-core disciplines into the building industry with each new piece of legislation.

The empirical evidence to date suggests that all they are doing is creating more specialist niche markets that tend to be dominated by one or two competent firms in the end.

We’ve seen this trend in relation to:

• Fire Safety
• Health and Safety
• BER Assessment
• Project Management

We’ll see it again in relation to the Disability Acces Cert too.
Fee payments in Ireland for such specialist services, unless a separate company is involved, are seldom sustainable for architects.
We seem to be doing more for less and taking on far more liability for little or nothing relatively speaking.
Certainly our fees for doing housing estates haven’t gone up since 1998.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

I talked to my IT who recommended that I stop using this forum until a new AVG version to come out in July. .

sound advice

@CK wrote:

Sorry this is out of the topic, but I have 3 computers… 1 at home, 2 in the office… I have accessed this forum from 2 of them and it seems to be related to a malware. Have you experienced any trouble. My AVG anti-virus identified the threat but cannot deal with it.

Has anyone experienced any similar problem? I talked to my IT who recommended that I stop using this forum until a new AVG version to come out in July. The problem also seems to be specific to Internet Explorer rather than FireFox and Google explorers.

Yep, there’s an issue with something called “clearadssite.com/in.cgi?2” being blocked by the antivirus program (not just AVG).
The site webmaster needs to sort it out.

It seems that the new Facebook Twitter bar within the lower part of the screen could be related to the damage… AM I the only one to be subject to this malware? 2 of my computers, Am I mistaking to believe that it is related to this forum?…

Or is it “cleardeshite.com/in.cgi?2”?
This is caused by the “clearshite” virus, which is triggered when an inordinate amount of shite appears in the system.

@PVC King wrote:

You can waffle on until the cows come home; but your arguments don’t stack up as you have not proposed any system of regulation other than putting people in their 20’s out as fully qualified without any manditory industry based supervision and letting the market regulate them for the next 40 years of their careers.

A pithy reply that fails to address the points I raised.

An incompetent reply, since the Registration process supports self-assessment by those Registered, not independent Regulation.

If you followed my posts over on the other thread, you’d know that:

(i) I support the principle of Registration
(ii) I support the principle of CPD training
(iii) I support the principle of co-regulation of the profession in terms of Registration.
(iv) I do not contest the right of the RIAI to require applicants for Membership to sit a Part III test.

None of these issues have been raised by me in relation to my core principle.

Let me state it again.

“I am qualified to practise as an architect and provide architectural services throughout the EU by virtue of my professional qualification Dipl. Arch. DIT which was awarded following my attending and passing a five year full time course in an approved school of architecture which qualification and school are given official status in two EU Directives and a Statutory Instrument, which should entitle me to automatic registration as an architect.”

Here are some facts for you to digest.

• There will be no industry based supervision under Registration as it stands.
• CPD is self-administered and is not limited to courses or activities provided by the RIAI
• There will be no restriction of unregistered persons to provide architectural services to the public.

As usual, you seem to be either totally either misinformed, or intending to misinform others deliberately.

In these straightened times the only advice you can give any graduate is join the industry body as you may need the reciprocation recognition if you seek work in another juristication. Self regulation failed; get over it and accept your advertising limitation or regularise your position.

There is nothing wrong with a newly qualified architect attempting small works, or even medium sized works.
For your argument to succeed you’d have to show a plethora of failures of design and the built work stemming from your allegations of incompetence against recent post graduates.

You have made no attempt to show such failures.
You have smeared every post graduate with your unfounded allegations of incompetence.
What do you think they were doing for five years in a full time course?

LEARNING TO DO THE BLACKBERRY STITCH???!!!

No, they were learning how to be architects.

---

The last thing a newly qualified architect should do is be brainwashed into joining anything. Architecture, first and foremost, is about learning to think, something we;re not taught in secondary school, and learning to think for yourself, to foresee events before they occur and prepare for them.

The first thing an newly qualified architect needs to learn is to distrust people or rather, to trust but verify.
That way they won’t be taken by surprise by liars and manipulators who will seek to advance their own and their cronies’ interests at their expense.
But even where, like me, they had learnt to trust the smiling face and the glad hand, if they learnt first of all to think, they will find a way to recover their position or at the very least deal with their detractors in the manner they deserve.

---

Trusting, newly qualified architects who did as you suggest, and ended up as desk fodder in large offices are now on the dole, without the rounding of skills they would have developed had they gone into private practice on day one.

Everyone in the RIAI is so sympathetic to their plight, even dropping the fees [still a multiple of AAI fees] but none of that matters a damn when you haven’t developed your core office skills suffiicnent to run your own practice.

---

In Bolton Street full time study was a compreheisive experience that involved outdoor survey work, measured drawings and attendancs at the school of trades andan understand that after snd of third year you would take a year out to gain experience working in an office.

This was no viewed as optional, but was not strictly mandatory: it was a wise move.

Here is some of the list of subject I studied over five years.

• Mathematics and Statistics
• Mechanics
• Technical Drawing
• Building Materials
• Physics
• Chemistry
• Building Construction
• Urban Studies
• Professional Practice
• Structural Engineering
• Costings and Economics
• Civilisation Studies
• Law
• Studio Work
• Surveying
• School of Trades
• Site Visits
• Art and Design

Some were for the full five, like Civilisation Studies, some were for four, like Structural Engineering, some were for two, like Law, some were for one, like Mathematics and Statistics or Mechanics. The latter were to ensure a basic level of competence in these subjects for people who had chosen arts and humanities subjects in secondary school.

During my attendance I also went on away trips to:

• Moscow and Leningrad
• Amsterdam
• Florence, Pisa, Siena

The above list isn’t exhaustive.

You have consistently tried to twist my assertion of my legal right to call myself an architect into some sort of attack on the RIAI’s desire to set standards for its Members, or a denial on my part of the requirement to Register, when nothing could be further from the truth, and you have presented no evidence to support your position.

You have failed to take on board my statement that many students gain experience of office work and site work during their study years.
I did, and told you so, and you ignored it.

Your whole position is based on setting standards for people other than yourself, while you blithely ignore any facts when they are presented.

What professional qualification did you say you held?

Oh, that’s right, you didn’t.

Is it one of those weekend MBA’s we read about?

How to point the finger and make unsupported accusations to get other people to work?

Because that’s all you’ve brought to this thread.

• Not one argument answered.
• Poor understanding of the law.
• Not one supporting fact presented.
• No understanding of the principle of Registration.
• No understanding that Registration does not mean Regulation.

That’s a pretty poor record for an online exchange.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

Sorry this is out of the topic, but I have 3 computers… 1 at home, 2 in the office… I have accessed this forum from 2 of them and it seems to be related to a malware. Have you experienced any trouble. My AVG anti-virus identified the threat but cannot deal with it.

Has anyone experienced any similar problem? I talked to my IT who recommended that I stop using this forum until a new AVG version to come out in July. The problem also seems to be specific to Internet Explorer rather than FireFox and Google explorers.

There is some funny little twitter bar on the bottom of my screen.
I assumed it was part of the site advertising banners, which are everywhere at the moment.

ONQ.

ONQ

You really do like the sound of your own voice; as I have stated I am not an architect so my background is not relevant but I do have the gold standard degree for my sector; do have professional association membership and value the CPD programme and membership updates I receive very highly.

The idea that the system should allow people to get a degree and then remain un-regulated for the remainder of their careers is lazy, cheap and has had led to Ireland having sub-standard architecture for too long; granted there are some exceptional Irish architects but the standard of much of what is built is generally a lot weaker than elsewhere.

You are clearly stuck in the past if think St Petersburg is still called Leningrad; are you proposing a proletariat commune of self-regulation. Those capitalists in Merrion Square spending too much money on awards ceremonies?

@Tayto wrote:

Or is it “cleardeshite.com/in.cgi?2”?
This is caused by the “clearshite” virus, which is triggered when an inordinate amount of shite appears in the system.

Are you trying to improve the content with such declarations?

onq, I may be mistaking but my home computer and office were subject to the same malware at different time of the day when connected on the forum. I thought that it was related.

I will stop posting for while anyway. There are thinks happening that I need to deal with.

@PVC King wrote:

Clearly wasting my time here;

No argument there.

there is a difference between being self-trained and being professionally qualified.

(Stunned silence)
You CAN assimilate facts…

Authorised, approved, qualified; none of which guarantee talent;

Well, THAT didn’t last long.
(sigh)
Actually nothing guarantees talent.
The most talented can fail, even after years in practice – its the Big Fear.
But a qualification from a design course gives an assrances that the person is competent to design buildings.
Oddly enough Part III’s do not – they centre on professional practice: running an office, contract administration, interpretation of contract law – that sort of thing.

however they signify indications of reaching a recognised specification. How in god’s name is a planner not familiar with a party making an application or a prospective client supposed to know who are the good or the bad ‘self trained’

Planners like architects have the ability to form an opinion of people whose work they are assessing.
Its not rocket science.

No-one is stopping anyone from working; it is simply ensuring that those claiming to be architects have met a defined pathway to be able to use the title.

I totally agree.
My LEGALLY DEFINED “pathway” was to attain a qualification which is recognised in EU and Irish law as entitine me to practise – AS AN ARCHITECT – throughout the EU.

On the education v experience route; it is not either or; both are equally important; it is however easier for someone working in the industry to gain an educational qualification by distance learning or part time study than it is for your average under-graduate to battle with the temptations of growing up and studying simultaneously. Both are to my mind equally important and both are equally necessary to convert either industry experience to professional membership or an academic qualification to become a professional member.

You urgently need to flesh out your understanding of the profession of architecture.

I recommend “The Architect, Chapters in the History of the Profession”, by Spiro Kostof.

You will see that learning by apprenticeship was superseded only in the last few centuries by book learning, itself a mere substitute for actually visiting the built work, the onlyreal way to appreciate architecture.

Similarly, academic learning, while a good preparation, cannot replace experience of working in the profession.

This is the basis of the sel-taught archtiects’ claims to competence and there is some merit to them.

ONQ.

Again you fail to state the manner of regulation that you propose; no other profession grants a life long right to practice based on an educational qualification. Until you do so, your arguments lack any credibility.

@CK wrote:

Are you trying to improve the content with such declarations?

Things are improving already- my modest comment has been upgraded to a “declaration”.
Whey-hey! 😎

@PVC King wrote:

Again you fail to state the manner of regulation that you propose; no other profession grants a life long right to practice based on an educational qualification. Until you do so, your arguments lack any credibility.

You seem to be stuck in this rut.
I am not talking about regulation of the profession at all.
That is a matter for the RIAI a Regulatory Body and the Registrar.
And for the record I am not really making any strong arguments in my own case.
I am stating AS FACT that EU Law and Irish Law grants me the right to practise AS AN ARCHITECT.

How the Registrar deals with that is up to him.

---

In November of 2005, this was written by Tony Reddy, past President of the RIAI.

From: http://www.anthonyreddy.com/media/pres_column/pres_nov05.htm

Registration
Registration of architects was given a new impetus as a an issue of wider public concern following the RTE Prime Time programme broadcast in April, which focussed on the activities of an unqualified individual providing architectural services.

In response to the public outcry following the programme, Dick Roche, the Minister, at the DOEHLG, gave a personal undertaking to the RIAI to introduce a Registration Bill this year. This had led to a series of confidential bilateral contacts between the Department and the RIAI in relation to the Bill.

While the final content of the Bill will depend on the outcome of drafting by the Department and decisions by the Government, I am hopeful, subject to the specific concerns which we have raised in relation to the draft being addressed, that the RIAI will be in a position to welcome the Bill when it is published.

The Department has indicated that it plans to publish the Building Control Bill, which will make provision for registration of architects, by the end of 2005. When it is finally published and enacted by the Dail, it will represent the culmination of an inordinately long campaign, commenced by the Institute in 1888 and pursued by it with successive Governments from the foundation of the Irish State in 1922.

The new role as the registration body for architects will create a series of challenges and responsibilities for RIAI. However, it has been the view of successive Councils over the past decade that, on balance, the benefits to both architects and the public of having a registration act outweigh the difficulties it would undoubtedly create. I wish future Presidents and Councils every success in leading the RIAI in this

---

The sentence in bold is telling.
It described David Grant as “an unqualified person providing architectural services”.
That was the RIAI’s main concern at the time – the fact that Grant was “unqualified”.

Where as I am a “qualfied person providing architectural services whose qualification entitles him unde EU law to call himself an architect”.

But that’s not good enough for you – you’re still getting your knickers in a bunch over Regulation.
I wonder what architect screwed you over on fees way back when and if he was a Member of the Institute.
Because all this peripheral knowledge and vitriol comes from somewhere and your lack of confirmation of your professional qualification suggests it might have come from a bad experience with a professional that you haven’t yet told us about.

Go on, you know you want to.

---

But while everyone was pointing the finger at Mr. Grant as a dastardly disregarder of human life, Prime Time undertook another exposé in relation to Fire Safety.
This centred on more modern buildings built by current developers and certified by qualified architects.
Prime Time just being even-handed no doubt and sparing no-one from their camera lens.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

For anyone interested in Fire Safety and the diligence of our Fire Service in exposing professional mis-certification, its a must-see.

But for you, PVC King, with your assertion of how being an MRIAI and Registered will confer benefits to the public, this should be especially poignant.

ONQ.

There is no vitriol; I just can’t believe the arrogance of anyone who proposes a system based on getting a qualification in their 20’s and feeling they are above regulation for the rest of their lives.

the benefits to both architects and the public of having a registration act outweigh the difficulties it would undoubtedly create

I fully agree with the RIAI on this; you clearly don’t; no other profession has people outside a professional industry body which regulates the membership alloes people to claim that they are qualified in that profession.

For reasons you won’t go into you simply decided not to join the industry body; that decision has finally caught up with you. I would welcome arrangements for assessment of non-members but assessment is required as a risk management to protect the public from people who have deteriorated professionally speaking from graduation which in some cases was decades ago.

@PVC King wrote:

There is no vitriol; I just can’t believe the arrogance of anyone who proposes a system based on getting a qualification in their 20’s and feeling they are above regulation for the rest of their lives.

I haven’t proposed anything, never mind “a system based on getting a qualification in their 20’s” – whatever that is supposed to be.

As for regulatio, as an architect, I have been regulated by the laws of the land since I undertook my first Real World design project.
This was before I qualified, because if you hold yourself out to be an architect, or someone who might be expected to exercise a particular level of skill and care, you will be judged at the standard you hold yourself to be, whatever you actually are.
It is this principle of law which has deterred unqualified people from setting up as architects over the years, and which continues to protect members of the public when such people make mistakes.
Just to nail your worship of regulation in a box, whether or not such persons are entitled to use the title is irrelevant – they will be judged and sentenced if found to have committed wrongdoing as if they were architects, if they claimed they were architects in the first place.

---

Can’t you see a way forward where the Registrar’s denial of people’s right to the title architect might concievably be used by them as a defence to cop a lesser plea and thereby avoid the full rigour of the law?
What price protection of the public when the perpetrator – who previously traded as an architect – escapes the full penalty because he was prevented fron using the title.
Its on such nicities of law as this that legal careers are made or founder.

---

For the record, I have pointed out that my qualification entitles to cal myself and archtiect throughout the EU and I have backed this up by citing both Directives and the relevant Statutory Instrument.
What have you done?
Falsely accused me of proposign something I didn’t propose!

I fully agree with the RIAI on this; you clearly don’t;

I have stated that I agree with Registration in this thread.
You’ve just accused me of beign disingenuous about this, never a good idea.
Long before this thread started I have posted my support for it on another thread on this forum.
Retract or support your comment.

no other profession has people outside a professional industry body which regulates the membership alloes people to claim that they are qualified in that profession.

You keep saying that I am claiming I am qualified.
The qualification is a given and was achieved nearly twenty years ago.
There is no doubt under heaven but that I am qualifed as an architect, in fact and in law.
Ergo, I am claiming nothing.

You mis-state my position – another not-so-good idea.

For reasons you won’t go into you simply decided not to join the industry body;

Again, you mis-state my position.

I gave specific reasons why I didnt join the RIAI at the time and your short term memory problem is becoming terminal.
I stated these reasons only yesterday.

that decision has finally caught up with you.

My, my, what a judgemental piece of work you are.
Twenty years providing a competent service to clients and somethings “caught up with me”.
Not a court case though, for I have never been sued, nor has any company or person I worked for been sued because of my work.
So I must be doing something right, in my own muddling, meandering, unregistered way.

I would welcome arrangements for assessment of non-members but assessment is required as a risk management to protect the public from people who have deteriorated professionally speaking from graduation which in some cases was decades ago.

You would welcome them, would you?
Who might you be, to welcome them at all.
You’ve continually dodged my question about your qualification.

You assume the worst of post-graduates, but you fail to see how this assumption might impinge on Members of the RIAI.

CPD only came in in recently – Practice notes were in long before that, and courses for those wealthy enough to be able to afford them.
There are thousands of MRIAI’s, according to the RIAI.
Did thousands of people attend the courses over the last twenty years?
Unless you know thsi for a fact, you are once more on making assumptions.

Architects of all kinds throughout this country have undertaken their own skills updates for dacades, despite what you might assume.
They weren’t waiting on the RIAI to set up extortionately priced courses to learn how to make a planning application or do a fire safety certificate.
I attended courses in Fire Safety and the Building Regulations all during the summer of 1992 and halped prepare one of the first Fire Certs lodged in Ireland later that year.
I’ve never been afraid to learn new things nor is any architect who has passed through a five year full time course.

Bet you still haven’t looked at that link, have you?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

(chuckle)

You don’t know what you’re missing!

ONQ.

scarp a would disagree even in death

ONQ

You claim to be fully qualified when you graduated; you claim not to have joined the main professional body; you are answerable to no-one from what I can make out; how can it be construed that you are doing anything other than proposing self regulation?

Who should a member of the public go to complain to if they feel that someone in your position is guilty of malpractice?

@missarchi wrote:

scarp a would disagree even in death

seems like you’ve too much tippex on your PC screen….

or thinner up her nostrils

@PVC King wrote:

ONQ
You claim to be fully qualified when you graduated;

No.
The term “fully” is a weasel word you have brought into the debate.
It implies, but does not define why or by how much, that some people are “more” than others – a principle the RIAI have traded on for years.

you claim not to have joined the main professional body;

No.
I stated I was an associate member at one point – you must have missed this [quelle surprise] – but I didn’t seek to have my Part III’s ratified.
For the record, back in the nineties, working with Members of the Institute for 7 years or more entitled you to claim you had your Part III’s by default.
Please don’t bother to diss this without at least checking what I’ve just posted with somebody competent – it was an accepted form of apprenticeship.
Its included as one of the acceptable measures of competence leading to Registration by David Keane in Building and the Law.

you are answerable to no-one from what I can make out;

No.
Lets face it, PVC King, you’ve shown time and again on this thread that your perceptive abilities are limited.
I don’t hold myself out to be “answerable to no-one” nor have I stated that I felt that to be my position.
This is another one of your unfounded red herring assertions that have littered this thread.

…how can it be construed that you are doing anything other than proposing self regulation?

No.
I didn’t propose self-regulation – its a fact of life, although as part of the current round of propaganda its being called Co-Regulation.
Even when every architect in the country is Registered, John Graby isn’t going to wander around the practices with a Big Stick.
The adherence to CPD and the Code of Practice will depend on architect’s willingness to abide by them – self regulation.
The code and CPD may become mandatory, but they’ll be impossible to police or enforce in a top-down manner.

Only external regulation and regular assesment of practices will be effective – guess who blocked that?
And yes, every profession in the state has and is actively resisting external independent regulation.
From the legal profession on down – in the name of independence of the Judiciary from Executive.

Who should a member of the public go to complain to if they feel that someone in your position is guilty of malpractice?

A solicitor, the same person they could always talk to on matters of malpractice involving professionals.
All the regulatory body will do if the complaint is upheld is censure the Member, fine them or strike them off.
Its a form of deterrent for potential wrongdoers and won’t deter nasty pieces of work from continuing to rip people off.

It will usually take a civil action for goodly damages in the High Court to redress a serious breach of any code of practice.
Not can this be a minor or trivial matter – “de minimis non curat lex”.
(was that a trick question?)

While I cannot speak for other people, if it was me, up to 1st May 2008, they could also have called John Graby and asked him to have a word.
John’s door had always been open to me over the years and I have found him a good conversationalist with a good head on his shoulders.
A nice guy, whose thoughts and actions are utterly consistent and who has put huge amounts of personal time into promoting the RIAI.
It would have been ignorant of me not to listen to any concerns he might have about how I conducted my practice over the years.

Since 1st May 2008, I cannot legally call myself an architect before being Registered, but I’d still take a call from John Graby.

ONQ.

PS

Pssst! Didja lookit that link yet, didja; huh? Huh?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

Go on, go on. Its a killer.

Your answer on a solicitor being the appropriate person to contact is very telling; in most juristictions the first point of complaint is the professional practice; who are regulated by the industry professional body along a set complaints handling procedure. Failure to deal with the complaint in line with the procedure can have the member or firm struck off.

Instead your ‘I got a degree 20 years ago’ arrogance expects members of the public to incur legal costs to be able to get complaints adequately addressed.

To get qualified in the 1990’s you needed to spend 7 years in a member firm; you would at that time have needed to stay within a regime for that period and a judgement by members would have been made as to an individuals suitability.

RIAI is a long way from self-regulated; I have no doubt if you were explaining a complaint that issues like CPD would be looked at; the manner in which the matter was conducted would be looked at. That is regulation by professional body, a body you chose to leave at some point.

Fully qualified implies having both the academic and industry body qualifications to practice; it is no red herring; ask any solicitor, auditor, surveyor or actuary.

All I see from you are excuses in an effort to disguise that you made a massive error in allowing your membership to lapse in an era when regulation was not a legal requirement.

The public deserves a professional regulation regime that lays out clear rules of conduct for members and has a non-legal system of sanction; you can advertise that you got a degree in 1990 in Architecture.

@PVC King wrote:

Your answer on a solicitor being the appropriate person to contact is very telling; in most juristictions the first point of complaint is the professional practice; who are regulated by the industry professional body along a set complaints handling procedure. Failure to deal with the complaint in line with the procedure can have the member or firm struck off.

How do you know what occurs in most jurisdictions?
You’re just talking off the top of your head again aren’t you?

Instead your ‘I got a degree 20 years ago’ arrogance expects members of the public to incur legal costs to be able to get complaints adequately addressed.

I advised that a person could take well trodden a course of action that will enable a victime of negligence to sue for damages if any are due to the injured party.
The course you advocate will result at most in (i) a slap on the wrist, (ii) a fine, of (iii) a striking off, but won’t compensate the victim.
Which course of action actually delivers the goods for the member of the public who has suffered?

Yeah. Right.

And I see you’ve once again totally ignored yet another but related reply, that even when there was no regulation, qualified archtiects like myself kept up cordial and respectful relations with the RIAI Secretary John Graby.
You just don’t understand how professional and collegiate relationships within the professions work, do you?
Perhaps you WISH you did, which may be what has made you so “plus royaliste que le roi”.

On the matter of qualification, I merely stated a fact, a fact you are in denial over, a fact you simply cannot handle.
What did you say your professional qualification was again?
Oh, that’s right, you didn’t.

You’re the one telling the RIAI how it should be regulating the profession, when in fact its not doing that in the terms you describe.
Yet, you cannot distinguish between; –

• regulation and Registration
• being formally qualified and being Registered.
• achieving 40 CPD points per annum and being allowed so through a self-directed course of study, with both structured and unstructured elements

(the term “structured” refers to activities approved by the RIAI, not to a structured course of study per se – the architect chooses what activities he attends)

You spray unfounded allegations and suggestions of incompetence on the part of post-graduates without any supporting evidence whatsoever!
Nothing! Nothing in support of your wild, illogocal, unfounded allegations! Nothingat all! No points answered, just another line of attack and smear!

Beleive me, PVC King, I’m not the one straddling the credibility gap in this thread.

To get qualified in the 1990’s you needed to spend 7 years in a member firm; you would at that time have needed to stay within a regime for that period and a judgement by members would have been made as to an individuals suitability.

Eh, nope.
You are the most stupid person I have ever come across on an Irish forum.
I was qualified as an architect when I graduated from Bolton Street DIT in June 1990.
This is the fact you just cannot seem to get your head around.
The 7 year process was a form of apprenticeship, undertaken by many architects at the time, which ensured a measured exposure to a lot of different situations and building types and contractual situations over time.
It didn’t rely on the artficially truncated 2-year run up to the Part III exam that’s currently in vogue or prevent architects working as architects to benefit older Members and large practices.
You seem to be utterly clueless about any of this.

RIAI is a long way from self-regulated;

The RIAI has for years been trying to balance representing its Members against its role as a self-regulated body and in an effort to avoid external regulation has adopted the current process known as co-regulation.
Learn your facts.

I have no doubt if you were explaining a complaint that issues like CPD would be looked at; the manner in which the matter was conducted would be looked at. That is regulation by professional body, a body you chose to leave at some point.

CPD is intended to inform the practitioner.
It cannot defend him from a claim.
It may help prevent one.

Fully qualified implies having both the academic and industry body qualifications to practice; it is no red herring; ask any solicitor, auditor, surveyor or actuary.

On the contrary, you are drawing a comparison between professions which have been subject to various levels of registration and self-regulation.
Even under the Building Control Act 2007, the term fully qualified doesn’t arise and even the term Part III’s isn’t used.
You are either Registered, or not.

All I see from you are excuses in an effort to disguise that you made a massive error in allowing your membership to lapse in an era when regulation was not a legal requirement.

The only error I made was in thinking I lived in a state in Europe whose legislators would respect my existing legal and acquired rights to practise as an archtiect.

The public deserves a professional regulation regime that lays out clear rules of conduct for members and has a non-legal system of sanction;

I never said it didn’t, on the contrary I said I support Registration.
What’s your point?

you can advertise that you got a degree in 1990 in Architecture.

I know – again, what’s your point?

(what I actually advertise is the fact that I have been in practise for nearly twenty years – it seems to give people a lot of comfort knowing they’re in safe hands)

I’d suggest you look at the link I posted above and see who was involved in what seems to have been a serious breach of duty.

I’ve no doubt other readers have looked at this link within the timestamps I specified and they will be either astonished or chuckling at your continuing to promote the RIAI as a paragon of professional virtue.

All your assertions of how good it will be to have RIAI CPD and RIAI Registration and RIAI Regulation and Members looking after the public regarding complaints will be blown away by just this one worked example.

Just one.

Enjoy.

---

Imagine how many such examples we might uncover if we had an Independent Ombudsman for the Architectural Profession?
In all your time propagandizing for the RIAI here, did you never stop for a moment and wonder why such a position wasn’t created?
Co-regulation is effectively self-regulation and that’s just the way the Registrar of the Architectural Profession wants it.
Along with the Incorporated Law Society and the Society of Chartered Surveyors.
Self-regulation of the professiona is here to stay.

Oh wait

(shakes head, laughing)

I’ve just realised why you’re so dogged about “self-regulation”.

You’re confusing it with “self-certification” aren’t you – and you haven’t a clue what either means!

😀 😀 😀

ONQ.

The only error I made was in thinking I lived in a state in Europe whose legislators would respect my existing legal and acquired rights to practise as an archtiect.

One line says it all; you graduated the public were safe.

Name one other profession where that is the case. Lets talk about 1980’s regulation of off shore bank accounts; the bloke who went into NIB in Carrick on Shannon and opened the account with the address 1 Main Street London. Quality eh?

@PVC King wrote:

One line says it all; you graduated the public were safe.

Why are you seeking to defame me by suggesting they were unsafe?
I’d start backpedaling now if I were you, because I’ve ignored this gross slander for long enough.

Name one other profession where that is the case. Lets talk about 1980’s regulation of off shore bank accounts; the bloke who went into NIB in Carrick on Shannon and opened the account with the address 1 Main Street London. Quality eh?

I wasn’t going to be drawn on how other professions operated because it would have been so easy to shut you down, but now that you’ve opened the Banking can of worms, what’s your point?

---

And I say again;

Did you look at the link I posted?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office

The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.

So much for assurances to the public based on automatic registration of MRIAI’s.

ONQ.

Hi onq,

I’ve been an interested spectator of this the last couple of days… I’m genuinely wondering, why didn’t you complete the Part 3 back in the day to become a full member of the RIAI? Hasn’t the part 3 not been around since a long time before the BCA? And wasn’t it always an indication that you had become a fully qualified architect even before the BCA (I know there was no registration of the title before this but it’s been in the pipeline for a long time as far as I’m aware… And like it or lump it MRIAI has always been a ‘badge’ indicating that someone was fully qualified). & finally why don’t you complete your Part 3 now?

@BenK wrote:

Hi onq,

I’ve been an interested spectator of this the last couple of days… I’m genuinely wondering, why didn’t you complete the Part 3 back in the day to become a full member of the RIAI? Hasn’t the part 3 not been around since a long time before the BCA? And wasn’t it always an indication that you had become a fully qualified architect even before the BCA (I know there was no registration of the title before this but it’s been in the pipeline for a long time as far as I’m aware… And like it or lump it MRIAI has always been a ‘badge’ indicating that someone was fully qualified). & finally why don’t you complete your Part 3 now?

I had experiences with Members that didn’t endear me to the RIAI.
Foolish perhaps, but its on such personal relationships we build our lives.
After qualification I was entitled to practise throughout the EU as an Architect.
My Opinions and Certificates were accepted by the solicitors and banks that I dealt with.
I was working with an office where I was one of two officers specified on the P.I. to issue Opinions.
I was diligent and professional in all matters of keeping the office current and was called back to advise on their court cases.
In terms of professional competence, without being unduly arrogant, I felt I had achived my Part III’s after the seven years and performed at that level.

Put it like this, the RIAI once issued a good practice note advising its Members that under the transitional arrangements under the Building Control Act 1990 and the Building Control Regulations 1991 all building works prior to 1st June 1992 were deemed to have achieved bye law approval.

This note bore the imprimatur of David Keane.

What would you have done?

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Why are you seeking to defame me by suggesting they were unsafe?
I’d start backpedaling now if I were you, because I’ve ignored this gross slander for long enough..

You are in an internet forum using psuedo-id; not like a membership number is attached. I have no confidence that people without part 3 are fully competent without carrying out a time consuming due diligence procedure. Proper regulation in the form of needing to be a full member to be considered a fully qualified architect removes the requirement for due diligence.

@onq wrote:

I wasn’t going to be drawn on how other professions operated because it would have been so easy to shut you down, but now that you’ve opened the Banking can of worms, what’s your point? .

Regulation in Ireland in most fields was non-existent at the time your right to be considered qualified was enacted. Other professions recognised this and self-regulated. They certainly never regarded graduates as qualified.

---

@onq wrote:

And I say again;

Did you look at the link I posted?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office

The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.

@onq wrote:

So much for assurances to the public based on automatic registration of MRIAI’s.

ONQ.

You should make a complaint to the RIAI if one hasn’t already been made. At least there is a membership body to complain to and if you drafted the complaint yourself you wouldn’t incur the legal fees you recommend others to.

@PVC King wrote:

You are in an internet forum using psuedo-id; not like a membership number is attached. I have no confidence that people without part 3 are fully competent without carrying out a time consuming due diligence procedure. Proper regulation in the form of needing to be a full member to be considered a fully qualified architect removes the requirement for due diligence.

You remind me of an MRIAI I was against in a matter dealing with building defects.
He was absolutely convinced it would go to the High Court, that we’d be having a swearing match against each other in front of a judge and that he had a 12 page list of defects.
I warned him that we were referring the matter to the Building Control Officer and he laughed, stating he was powerless to interfer in a matter of self-certification between architects.
I quoted him chapter and verse from the Building Control Act [the sort of information that a Part III architect would be expected to know, but a post-graduate probably wouldn’t] and he still denied the BCO’s authority.
I think he continued to deny it right until the state solicitor served his client with a summons to appear in the District Court – a summons issued on behalf of the BCO.

The action was costly and embarrassing for his client, yet he was an MRIAI and I was not.
He qualified before me too, so he had both his part III’s and more years post qualification on his side.

On the face of it, you would have said he was the better bet to represent the client.
But the years and the Part III’s count for little when you’re dealing with building disputes – attitude matters.
In reality he saw the building as a pension plan for fees, and failed to adopt a reasonable approach to the case and the defects.

In the end the BCO issued a Building Defects Sheet – which I had agreed with him over the course of a week – him calling the shots, me seeking to minmise work and costs, sufficient to achieve compliance but not to do extravagant rebuilding works, a position with which the BCO was in full agreement.

The developer/builder for whom we acted completed the work for a figure that was a fraction of the the Quantity Surveyprs costs based on the MRIAI’s 12 page summation.
The substantive issue was dealt with, the MRIAI got reasonable fees, but not his pension out of it, the owner received a settlement for his trouble and we got paid.
There was no winner doing it my way, but the building was remedied, we issued a full battery of Opinions, including Engineers both structural and mechanical and electrical, and our client wasn’t burnt badly.

Recently I heard that on another property, where the same MRIAI had sucessfully avoided the BCO by using a good Senior Counsel and the matter was indeed heading for the High Court, the builder went bust, the house is still defective, and everyone is owed money.
The motto is – in building matters, winning the battle doesn’t mean you win the war, and in some cases a defeat on good terms is better than playing for ultimate advantage.
I’m not suggesting that all post-graduates would deal with the matter like I did, but I did and it benefited everybody concerned.

Regulation in Ireland in most fields was non-existent at the time your right to be considered qualified was enacted. Other professions recognised this and self-regulated. They certainly never regarded graduates as qualified.

None of what you posted reflects the evolution of regulation in the professions in Ireland.
The two professions which most affect us, Banking and the Law are regulated at the highest levels, the former by an appointed regulator [and we saw where that led us] the latter by its own Members, and we have one of the best Judiciaries in the EU in my opinion.
The point being that and exernal regulator failed the public in the most egregious act of light touch regulation Ireland has known, whilst peer review in the Courts keeps all the legals on the straight and narrow.
My progress through the architectural profession reflects the years in practice that Barristers must put in to develop from Junior Counsel to Senior Counsel.
Its not too shabby a way to learn the ropes, I’ve found.

---

@onq wrote:

And I say again;

Did you look at the link I posted?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0522/primetime.html

The subject is fire safety or the lack of it.
Look at the section on Shangan Hall Apartment Block
This is an apartment block adjoining the Ballymun Civic Office

The section starts at 38:46
The pass the parcel starts at 44:14
Developer, MRIAI, Fire Safety Consultant.

You should make a complaint to the RIAI if one hasn’t already been made. At least there is a membership body to complain to and if you drafted the complaint yourself you wouldn’t incur the legal fees you recommend others to.

Thank you for looking at the link.

I didn’t make a complaint nor is that my intent.
I just wanted to plant a seed of doubt in your mind.
I wanted you to see the side of the RIAI I know about.

I had a previous experience of a complaint being ignored.
That is to say, there was no visible censure, no loss of face or title.

Nor did I complain about the MRIAI in the worked example I wrote of above.
Perhaps his clients who followed his strategy may, but I’d say he’ll hide behind the solicitor and get away with it.

That’s the reality PVC King –
Its not about MRIAI’s giving service to the client or the public.
Its about MRIAI’s knowing enough so that the shit doesn’t stick to their fur.
I’m not singling MRIAI’s out BTW; this is a survival trait all architects must have.

Now you may understand my annoyance at them for attaining their pre-eminence.
They have feet of clay like the rest of us and competence in disputes is a relative thing.
And at you for promoting a group, the actions of some of some Members of which are questionable.

The reason I haven’t made more of this is because I genuninely support Registration.
I don’t appreciate the undermining of post-graduates’ legal rights to call themselves architects.
But I’m not going to go out of my way to tear down an institution like the RIAI for no good reason.

So, to endorse my previous comments, it would be best for them and the public for post graduates to practice in a small office for a year or two, to get full exposure to all the basic skills, with a further five years in a larger office.

From the first day they would be practising as architects, not merely as “graduate architects” which is a grossly insulting term ro apply tio someone who has completed a five year full time course in design.

The would work at a certain level of project, certainly, but they would engaged in providing the full gamut of services – signing the certs, conducting the inspections, issuing the opinions, administering the contracts, all under the watchful eye of a competent practitioner, an MRIAI if you will.

This will give them the sense of being “out there” – of being liable and responsible to their client, of not being able to hide when the shit hits the fan, of having to account for themselves and represent their office..

More importantly it will give them the full range of experience requried by an architect – forecasting the workload, sheduling the work, preparing for meetings, researching the design proper, managing draftspeople and arranging access to the technicians, ensuring correspondence gets answered, file management and retrieval, client and staff relationships, agreeign fees with teh client, budgeting of fees, scheduling billing points, issuing and following up invoices – all at a scale that can be assimilated.

Because that kind of full-on experience is what teaches you about service to the client, about not being arrogant, about seeking ways forward for the good of all, not just your own personal gain.

You’re unlikely to get that outlook by achieving a badge after two years cramming for the Part III exam – an unrealistically short timeframe in which to experience a wide range of professional situations.

🙂

FWIW

ONQ.

ONQ,

From your last post it would appear that you don’t think the current training that it takes to become an architect (MRIAI for all intents and purposes) is sufficient, i.e., 5/6 years in college, min. 2 years post college working under the guidance of a registered architect, followed by professional practice exams, case study submission and finally an interview. All taking approx 8-9 years min. overall.

So are you seriously suggesting that to become an architect somebody would need to be in college for the aforementioned 5-6 years followed by another 7 years practical experience to be suitably qualified? Should they have to sit professional practice exams after this 7 years or at all? I just don’t know how it would work in practice and be sufficiently well monitored. It seems a little too wishy washy for me. Maybe I’m just picking you up wrong though.

As an aside I feel your comments about MRIAIs are a bit of a red herring (they’ve been everywhere the last few days…). I don’t think anybody has ever been promoting them as ‘paragons of virtue’. Highlighting an anecdotal instance of negligent practice by an MRIAI doesn’t prove anything. There are stories of negligence in every profession, why would you or anybody else, expect architects to be any different? I do think being a registered architect/MRIAI does help minimise the chances of this happening however (CPD, professional practice exams etc. etc.) Also, for me, it’s obvious that in the majority of instances I would rather go with an MRIAI than a post-graduate with experience. I’m not disputing your ability but I feel that without your part 3 it’s difficult for anybody or any registration body to accurately gauge your level of professional competence (design-ability withstanding) in relation to agreed standards.

BenK

I find the current arrangement where aspirant Part III’s were allowed “look over the shoulder” of other architects as disastrous for learning.
I find the current exam-base for the Part III’s using extreme exam question scenarios will be of limited use in the real world.
Finally I think the undermining of the professional standing of post-graduates to be wrong in law, in fact and in principle.
But all of these things are in the RIAI’s gift and the reductions in standards they will bring will be dealt with by them.
Personally I would prefer a natural progression to achieving Part III standing over a period of seven years.
This could be by attestation/ continuous assessment by an MRIAI, case study, interview or exam.

But for the RIAI to suggest that you can deal with a large jobs in two years but weren’t an architect when you qualified is a complete load of codswallop.
It is also a complete barrier to being able to command the necessary respect from trades and clients as you are earning your Part III’s.
Its unworkable, protectionist nonsense, and undermines the rights of UCD and Bolton Street post-graduates to be called Architects.

Not good enough.

BenK, I know a lot of MRIAI’s.
Many are competent professionals.
A significant number of them are not.

You say:

“Highlighting an anecdotal instance of negligent practice by an MRIAI doesn’t prove anything”

I say you’re very wrong there.
The story I posted above shows mere greed at work,
The link I posted to the Prime Time exposé shows something far worse.

As I posted elsewhere, I tend to come into contact with the dregs – but there seem to be a lot of dregs these days.
Plus, they have been given unfair advantage over others with the right to use the title architect by being allowed automatic Registration.

So the gloves are coming off – its really that simple.
We’ll see if MRIAI’s achieve their standards.
So far this year they haven’t.

ONQ.

How is it unfair that MRIAIs have been automatically registered and thus permitted to use the title architect? MRIAIs/registered architects, they are one and the same thing. I didn’t complete my Part 3 to become MRIAI, I did it to become a qualified architect.

Going back to my last post ONQ, what do you think is sufficient training for an architect?

@BenK wrote:

How is it unfair that MRIAIs have been automatically registered and thus permitted to use the title architect? MRIAIs/registered architects, they are one and the same thing. I didn’t complete my Part 3 to become MRIAI, I did it to become a qualified architect.

Going back to my last post ONQ, what do you think is sufficient training for an architect?

I’ve finished editing my above post so you can read it at your leisure.
I didn’t mean to suggest this was unfair in and of itself – a standalone cannot be unfair.
No, it is unfair because other persons with a legal entitlement to use the title architect were not also automatically registered.
If you qualified from Bolton Street or UCD you were entitled to call yourself an architect on the day you graduated as attested to by the following documents:

• DIR 85/384/EEC The Architect’s Directive
• Statutory Instrument 15 of 1989 transposing the Directive into Irish law.
• DIR 2005/36/EC The Directive on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications

Please read these documetns in full.
You will see that four persons were entitled to provide architectural services and call themselves architects as of right in Ireland.

Holders of Qualifications

Bearers of the Affixes

If you didn’t know this about your qualification, assuming it is one of the above, you do now.
If this was denied to you in the past, you appear to have been misled.
Don’t take my word for it, that’s the badge engineering approach.
Investigate this matter yourself and read these documents
Then ask yourself who benefits from denying this to you.

To paraphrase your comment above:
I didn’t compete a five year full time course to become a graduate architect – I did it to become an architect.

ONQ.

So I’m parroting some line because I don’t agree with all you write… Leave the condescension out will you. There’s a good chap.

@BenK wrote:

So I’m parroting some line because I don’t agree with all you write… Leave the condescension out will you. There’s a good chap.

I did leave it out.

I usually censor my own posts.

But you need to refresh the page to see it.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

This will give them the sense of being “out there” – of being liable and responsible to their client, of not being able to hide when the shit hits the fan, of having to account for themselves and represent their office..

There is the flaw in your thinking; being a member of the relevant professional body gives a further 2 layers of risk to manage.

1. Practice
2. Individual
3. Practice membership
4. Individual membership

The financial consequences upon PI cover renewal of having your and or the firms membership removed for misdeeds or incompetence would be significant. Please do not try to bluff that the public are better off with any individual personal guarantees than having the sceptre of their or their practice’s membership removed.

In terms of your story above I would outline the latest professional thinking in the UK in a related profession; in dealing with defects professionals are allowed to act as advocates and not experts until such time as the matter reaches service of the schedule of defects for the purposes of a legal versus a negotiated outcome. If you were that sure of the outcome why not call the other parties bluff; the other party after all if the had a finding of exageration beyond the negotiation stage against them could be sanctioned by their professional body.

Regulation = Risk Management

I think there’s a fundamental flaw in your thinking ONQ. To my mind the legislation was deficient when you qualified. Even when you qualified there was a further route to go down to cover issues in professional practice (the Part 3) but you chose, for whatever reasons, not to complete this. I could be wrong but even back in 1990, the Part 1,2 and 3 system was in place. And even back when that legislation was in place, out of that list of 4 persons that were eligible to call themselves architects, the MRIAIs had a level of training above that of just the college qualifications. The vast majority of MRIAIs have your qualification and their Part 3 on top of it. You can knock all you want but in effect you’re only knocking yourself because a large part of the training that MRIAIs have gone through (the academic degree), you yourself have also done. The difference is MRIAIs have done that little bit more also. Something you seem reluctant to do.

I agree; the RIBA system of three levels of architect seems bang on the money

1. Student Architect i.e. Pre graduation
2. Associate Architect i.e. post graduation but pre Part 3
3. Chartered Architect i.e. have passed Part 3

In that system everyone is considered to be some form of an architect but on the two lower levels it is clear the level that has been attained.

@PVC King wrote:

There is the flaw in your thinking; being a member of the relevant professional body gives a further 2 layers of risk to manage.

1. Practice
2. Individual
3. Practice membership
4. Individual membership

This isn’t my thinking at all, this is your thinking – another red herring that has nothing to do with the legal standing of my qualification.

The financial consequences upon PI cover renewal of having your and or the firms membership removed for misdeeds or incompetence would be significant.

No.
You have it backwards – and not for the first time.
The misdeed or incompetence that someone [not me so far thank God] might seek redress over might have serious consquences for my PI Cover renewal quotation.
A corollary to this might be having my Membership of any body revoked.
The former is more likely than the latter, going on past performance.

Please do not try to bluff that the public are better off with any individual personal guarantees than having the sceptre of their or their practice’s membership removed.

I’m getting a little tired of you assuming qualified architects are incompetent or your scurrilous inferences that I am engaged in underhanded activities like bluffing the public.

As each of your points is comprehensively rebutted you have to resort to more and more estreme and irrelevant positions.

Withdraw your above comments now, please.

You have never stated your professional qualification, you claim to be outside the profession and you have repeatedly argued that mere acceptance of someone’s Membership of a professional body satisfies your due diligence requirements.

The building in the link I posted was certified by a Member of the Institute, a Member Practice as I understand it, yet it foudn found to be grossly non-compliant.

This shows that your assumption of competence based merely on Membership of a Professional Body does not have a firm foundation, yet here you are again, assuming in favour of the professional body when you’ve seen one worked example of an agregious failure of that system.

I don’t have to post more, do I?
Canada House, anyone?

All you seem interested in is behaving like a lazy beaurocrat and assuming desk assessments are satisfied because of Membership of something.

Nonsense and mere laziness on your part.
You have to not only look at past performance but recent performance and interview the person actually dealing with the work in that office to see that its being looked after by somebody competent to do the work.

After all, where do you think all those nassty sssstupid hobbitsesss with the qualifications are working? Eh?

Beginning to see through the tissue now are you?

In terms of your story above I would outline the latest professional thinking in the UK in a related profession; in dealing with defects professionals are allowed to act as advocates and not experts until such time as the matter reaches service of the schedule of defects for the purposes of a legal versus a negotiated outcome. If you were that sure of the outcome why not call the other parties bluff; the other party after all if the had a finding of exageration beyond the negotiation stage against them could be sanctioned by their professional body.

Regulation = Risk Management

You seem to be on another planet here PVC King.
The faults were admitted by our client – there was no contesting them.
This was the reason I advised him to engage with the Building Control Officer.
I promoted an alternative and cost effective method of dealing with the substantive issue.
This avoided huge fees to the professionals on the other side and resulted in a compliant house.

What is wrong with you?

ONQ.

@BenK wrote:

I think there’s a fundamental flaw in your thinking ONQ. To my mind the legislation was deficient when you qualified.

The legislation at the time was the only formal recognition for both qualified architects and Members of the Institute.
The Institute referred to DIR 85/384/EEC on all their certificates because it was the only legitimate authority they had.

Now they have chosen to ignore it because it suits them and you are dissing it because you realise you’ve been conned and cannot handle it.

Even when you qualified there was a further route to go down to cover issues in professional practice (the Part 3) but you chose, for whatever reasons, not to complete this.

Are you suggesting the reasons I have given on two separate occassions are invalid?
Which of my reasons are you implying you don’t believe are true or fair accounts of the position at the time?

I could be wrong but even back in 1990, the Part 1,2 and 3 system was in place. And even back when that legislation was in place, out of that list of 4 persons that were eligible to call themselves architects, the MRIAIs had a level of training above that of just the college qualifications.

I haven’t argued this point, because their formal design training ended when they left college – there is nothing in the Part III’s covering design.
There is not a lot that’s specific to architecture there – running an office, knowing the legal framework within which you operate, understanding contracts you’re administering.
Any director of any company in Ireland requires to develop such skills.
This is part of the problem of defining “architectural services”.

The vast majority of MRIAIs have your qualification and their Part 3 on top of it.

Well, to be fair, many also come through UCD, but again, no argument.
Most of their abilities as designers comes from their qualification, not their Part III.
And your point is?

You can knock all you want

Have you been infected by PVC King or what?
I am not knocking anybody!!!
I have stated facts about my entitlement to call myself an architect.
I have given uncontested evidence in the form of a link that shows MRIAI’s have feet of clay.
Live with it!

but in effect you’re only knocking yourself because a large part of the training that MRIAIs have gone through (the academic degree), you yourself have also done. The difference is MRIAIs have done that little bit more also. Something you seem reluctant to do.

Something I have already done, having served under Members of the Institute for almost eight years continuously post-graduation.
You must not know about the 7-year route to obtaining your Part III’s.
Was that something else the RIAI failed to inform you about?

Don’t you find it informative that a body that seeks to protect the public engages in negative advertising and being economical with the truth?

You should be careful who you associate with in this life.
I’ve had to learn that the hard way.
I pass it on for free.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

I agree; the RIBA system of three levels of architect seems bang on the money

1. Student Architect i.e. Pre graduation
2. Associate Architect i.e. post graduation but pre Part 3
3. Chartered Architect i.e. have passed Part 3

In that system everyone is considered to be some form of an architect but on the two lower levels it is clear the level that has been attained.

Now oddly enough PVC King, this may be a way forward for the RIAI out of the dilemma that’s about to happen to it.

The term Associate Arcthitect may work well.
This would give a client some comfort that he was dealing with competent people of this level, albeit not a chartered architect.
I think that there would need to be a lifting of the RIAI restriction on non-Members to allow Associats to sign Certs, but that’s about all.

There might be a turnover or gross cost of project restriction put in place to ensure that Associates operated within their level of competence.
The cost restriction might now apply in certain relatively simply planned buildings like schools to allow them get a foot in the door of Public Contracts.
Similarly it might not apply in relation to significant high value buildings with low impact on members of the public like private houses.
It might not apply to large aggregates of smaller units like apartment schemes and provate houses, where the individual risk is low.

This would protect the public from a relatively inexperienced person taking on – for example – a hospital, or a football stadium, but allow them to do a mansion or a housing estate.
This would allow some lucrative as well as and some bread and butter work to be spread around and not hogged by the chartered architect or bigger offices.
The reason for this is that otherwise Associates would be trading at a disadvantage to Technicians and Self-Taught people whose certs are accepted.
Addressing that inequity offers an opportunity to bring all people under the umbrella, not by negative advertising but by offering a viable alternative.
Take CK for example – he mostly does private houses – I wouldn’t have a problem with him working in Ireland as an Associate as defined above.

But you cannot offer a workable level of Associate Architect and prevent them from signing Certs or Opinions or administering Contracts at that level.
It would be unwise and inequitable to allow such a situation to occur – but it wouldn’t be the first such situation coming from Merrion Square.

Of course not every Associate Architect working in a larger firm would want to sign any Certs, certainly not if his senior explained all the pitfalls.
So the issue of Associate Architects in offices signing Certs might be a very rare occurrence but one which could defuse the situation.

On the other hand you could have some people electing to remain at Asociate level and running sole traderships for the duration.
Worked on like this, the gradations in the profession would facilitate range of competences and price points to the market.
This will improve consumer choice and price ranges as well as affording assurances and protection to the public.

The RIAI could certainly suggest it and many people might support it.
However this isn’t what’s in the Building Control Act 2007.
So the Act will need to be amended regardless.

And unless the Act also gets its Grandfather Clause, there will be a Holy War with the AA.
Probably at a Goldmine near you and just in time for the next general election.
Unless the Unqualifieds were offered an Associate Architect Status.
And allowed to sign Certs.
That could work.
Possibly.

But by then I may have
a) died of depression,
b) been forced to sell my house and rent, or – wonder of wonders –
c) actually submitted my work to the RIAI and become Registered.

Thereby removing a thorn in their side of long standing.

Oh, Frabjous Day!

🙂

ONQ.

Waffle all you want but having the professional membership does matter; to those having the big house refurb done in D4 and having the RIAI crest on the team board to a banker signing off funding; people like the finished article who is accountable to their membership association; it reassures them.

Your mud slinging has not changed anyone’s opinion in the least; a degree and a Part 3 are entirely different levels. I suggest you acquire same instead of mud-slinging.

@onq wrote:

But by then I may have
a) died of depression,
b) been forced to sell my house and rent, or – wonder of wonders –
c) actually submitted my work to the RIAI and become Registered.

Thereby removing a thorn in their side of long standing.

Oh, Frabjous Day!

🙂
ONQ.

Woh . . . . not so fast . . . . go back to that bit about pensioners taking out a fatwa on Alcoholics Anonymous

@onq wrote:

And unless the Act also gets its Grandfather Clause, there will be a Holy War with the AA

@PVC King wrote:

Waffle all you want but having the professional membership does matter; to those having the big house refurb done in D4 and having the RIAI crest on the team board to a banker signing off funding; people like the finished article who is accountable to their membership association; it reassures them.

The simple minded accept paper assurances all the time.
Sometimes you don’t even need to offer them paper assurances, just smile.
Like that time Charlie McCreevy got a 110% mortgage approved without getting formal approval.

Your mud slinging has not changed anyone’s opinion in the least; a degree and a Part 3 are entirely different levels. I suggest you acquire same instead of mud-slinging.

I can’t speak for “anyone” of course – I cannot claim to be that well-connected.
But I have to ask – what sort of “mud slinging” am I supposed to have done?

• Agreed with you about the use of the Grades you suggested above?
• Posted independent reports from the 4th estate?
• Rebutted your arguments?
• Stated facts?

You seem a little confused if you think that constitutes mud-slinging.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose – eh, mon petit choux?

ONQ.

@gunter wrote:

Woh . . . . not so fast . . . . go back to that bit about pensioners taking out a fatwa on Alcoholics Anonymous

Haven’t you been avidly reading CK’s post in the “Sensitive Issue” thread?
It looks like they’re all going to go down to Merrion Square wearing semtex underwear on Saturday.
I don’t know if they’re after the dodgy paintings or No. 8, probably a bit of both, and that pyramid timeship as well.

ONQ.

ONQ, in reply:

The legislation at the time was the only formal recognition for both qualified architects and Members of the Institute.
The Institute referred to DIR 85/384/EEC on all their certificates because it was the only legitimate authority they had.

Now they have chosen to ignore it because it suits them and you are dissing it because you realise you’ve been conned and cannot handle it.

I haven’t been conned. I’ve only qualified recently and thankfully this hasn’t been an issue for me. I’m dissing it because it didn’t promote architects possessing their part 3 and thereby completing their academic and practical training.

I haven’t argued this point, because their formal design training ended when they left college – there is nothing in the Part III’s covering design.
There is not a lot that’s specific to architecture there – running an office, knowing the legal framework within which you operate, understanding contracts you’re administering.
Any director of any company in Ireland requires to develop such skills.
This is part of the problem of defining “architectural services”.

I think that this is particularly disingenuous. How can exams on contracts and consruction legislation, the submission of an extensive case study that your were directly involved with from inception to completion, a formal interview where you are grilled on the aforementioned exams and case study be ‘not a lot that’s specific to architecture’!? Any director of any company in Ireland is not required to develop such skills.

Well, to be fair, many also come through UCD, but again, no argument.
Most of their abilities as designers comes from their qualification, not their Part III.
And your point is?

I’ve never disputed anything on issues of design. For my point see above.

Have you been infected by PVC King or what?
I am not knocking anybody!!!
I have stated facts about my entitlement to call myself an architect.
I have given uncontested evidence in the form of a link that shows MRIAI’s have feet of clay.
Live with it!

I would say referencing stories solely about MRIAI’s inadequacy is knocking somebody. An MRIAI did something wrong, therefore all MRIAI bad is particularly blinkered thinking. I didn’t realise that all ‘unqualified successes’ and postgraduates like yourself had yet to make any mistakes… Who was this person that claimed MRIAIs are all seeing, all powerful supermen? As I’ve stated before you will find negligence in every profession.

Something I have already done, having served under Members of the Institute for almost eight years continuously post-graduation.
You must not know about the 7-year route to obtaining your Part III’s.
Was that something else the RIAI failed to inform you about?

I am vaguely aware of the 7-year route to obtaining the Part 3. So why don’t you have your part 3? Why aren’t you registered if you have completed this route satisfactorily? I have no issues with that route to qualification whatsoever.

@onq wrote:

The simple minded accept paper assurances all the time.
Sometimes you don’t even need to offer them paper assurances, just smile.
Like that time Charlie McCreevy got a 110% mortgage approved without getting formal approval..

When the funder has the CEO signing off the loan I doubt the valuer was instructed to be objective; for all we know there wasn’t even a valuation and if there was one; I would be very surprised if the valuer was MSCS. The definition of value includes the phrase ‘acting knoweldgeably, prudently and without compulsion’; very little INBS did in the noughties was particularly prudent and you can be sure that the valuer was guided to get to a range of values with more than a degree of compulsion; that said the same valuer acted professionally and refused to inflate the value; hence the LTV ratio being in excess of 100%.

@onq wrote:

I can’t speak for “anyone” of course – I cannot claim to be that well-connected.
What sort of “mud slinging” am I supposed to have done?

• Agreed with you about the use of the Grades you suggested above?
• Posted independent reports from the 4th estate?
• Rebutted your arguments?
• Stated facts?

.

If you call lengthy rambling arguments rebuttal that is your perogative; what I see is a vitriolic stream directed at RIAI and a poor defence based on a degree that is 20 years old and an unwillingness to follow common wisdom and get Part 3 from the relevant body.

@onq wrote:

You seem a little confused if you think that constitutes mud-slinging.
BTW, the last banker to whom I signed off on funding accepted my cert for over €600,000 – for a house Castleknock, as it happens, not Dublin 4.
I’m not sure what fantasy world you’re living in PVC King, but there are self-taught architects out there certifying amounts vastly in excess of this every day.

ONQ.

A banker signed a cert; I would imagine it would be a lot easier to get development funding for a new project if the architect had Part 3 qualification. A lot of lessons are being learned post tiger; the days of a €100m loan being given on foot of a 2 line e-mail are gone (albeit that the borrower at that time had 9 figure net worth); more professional certification is now required. Why should architecture be any different?

@PVC King wrote:

…….a poor defence based on a degree that is 20 years old …

[Translation: Yes, those old-fashioned 20-year old degrees are way past their sell-by date. What you want is one of our latest state-of-the-art models. It’s nice and shiny, see? AND it provides a much better defence!]

Wow, I didn’t know that..thanks! You learn something new EVERY day!.

@BenK wrote:

ONQ, in reply:

I haven’t been conned. I’ve only qualified recently and thankfully this hasn’t been an issue for me. I’m dissing it because it didn’t promote architects possessing their part 3 and thereby completing their academic and practical training.

Well, perhaps conned was too strong a term.
We were taught to check everything, to see for ourselves, to read the Act, if you will, not what someone writes about it.
The failure to automatically register you as an architect after completing a full five years design course [if it was from Bolton St or UCD] keeps you at the level of the man in the street.
That is clearly not your level.
Suggesting your are not complete is disingenuous propaganda put out by the RIAI.
You are complete at the level of a qualified architect and your right to use the title architect is protected by EU and Irish law.
You may not yet have achieved your Part III’s – that doesn’t mean you’re not an architect.

I think that this is particularly disingenuous. How can exams on contracts and construction legislation, the submission of an extensive case study that your were directly involved with from inception to completion, a formal interview where you are grilled on the aforementioned exams and case study be ‘not a lot that’s specific to architecture’!? Any director of any company in Ireland is not required to develop such skills.

I don’t mean to be disingenuous.
I mean to point out that much of the skillset you require is about managing a project.
Granted in this case its a building project, but there are aspects of designing the programme. scheduling the workforce, researching the tasks, allocating the work, monitoring and checking the work, etc that are common to all professional endeavours.
i.e. it may be specific to A job you did, but the principles of the work apply across the board to several different disciplines.

I’ve never disputed anything on issues of design. For my point see above.

Conceded

I would say referencing stories solely about MRIAI’s inadequacy is knocking somebody. An MRIAI did something wrong, therefore all MRIAI bad is particularly blinkered thinking. I didn’t realise that all ‘unqualified successes’ and postgraduates like yourself had yet to make any mistakes… Who was this person that claimed MRIAIs are all seeing, all powerful supermen? As I’ve stated before you will find negligence in every profession.

I don’t consider it “knocking” someone.
The debate here is about the level of assurance and protection afforded to members of the public by using an MRIAI as opposed to an post-graduate or self-taught architect.

In the original article I posted a link about David Grant to which you didn’t object.
This was about the risk to occupants from fire in one of his apartment blocks.
Presumably you didn’t object because this supported your self-image and RIAI world view that unqualified practitioners are not to be trusted [I’m paraphrasing here from the advertisement that got censured]

At the end of the post I included a link to a prime time exposé which alluded to an MRIAI.
This was about an actual outbreak of fire – as opposed to a risk – which endangered members of the public.
Several posters have objected to this, presumably because it challenges their self image and world view that MRIAI’s are beyond reproach.

I was presenting a balanced post, showing egregious defects in buildings/situations, one ascribed to an unqualified person presenting himself as an architect, the other referring to an MRIAI, who was then head of a large practice.

I don’t call that knocking, I call your reaction to it most revealing, because your attempted defence of the indefensible by making a personal attack on me – calling me a knocker – shows the extent to which you’ve been conditioned.

Think for yourself – you’ve nothing to lose but your peace of mind.

I am vaguely aware of the 7-year route to obtaining the Part 3. So why don’t you have your part 3? Why aren’t you registered if you have completed this route satisfactorily? I have no issues with that route to qualification whatsoever.

Let’s just say I became very disillusioned with the RIAI.
I reported a serious breach of compliance to them a good while back.
It was also a fire safety matter, quite serious, and nothing was done about it.
It involved an MRIAI – after that I became convinced I was looking at an old boys club.
I had to make a formal referral to the building control officer and City fire prevention section.

I hadn’t sprung it on the firm or the RIAI – I spoke to the Secretary and he got copied with the file.
I spoke to the person concerned and asked him to make the building compliant.
I checked my understanding with the assistant chief fire officer beforehand.

Then I gave them a deadline by which the building had to be put right.
I spelt out every issue that needed doing and invited them to rebut.
They didn’t and they were reported – so much for RIAI regulation.

After that I met the other guy on the house I described above to PVC King.
More pandering to clients, unrealistic suggestions of compensation.
No focus on dealing with the substantive issue or resolution.

In the intervening 20 years since I graduated I’ve met a lot of other MRIAI’s.
Many were kind, intelligent, helpful, so I know not all are unprofessional.
But the way they have approached the BCA 2007, denying me my rights.
That just makes me see red – unfair, unprofessional, self-serving.
All the worst traits in those I have met bubbling to the surface.

Not good enough, not for people touting themselves as protectors of the public good.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

When the funder has the CEO signing off the loan I doubt the valuer was instructed to be objective; for all we know there wasn’t even a valuation and if there was one; I would be very surprised if the valuer was MSCS. The definition of value includes the phrase ‘acting knoweldgeably, prudently and without compulsion’; very little INBS did in the noughties was particularly prudent and you can be sure that the valuer was guided to get to a range of values with more than a degree of compulsion; that said the same valuer acted professionally and refused to inflate the value; hence the LTV ratio being in excess of 100%.

I’m condensing down your “lengthy rambling argument” into a “Yes, you’re right” on that one.

If you call lengthy rambling arguments rebuttal that is your perogative; what I see is a vitriolic stream directed at RIAI

Please stop rambling and post one quotation where you can support the statement that I attacked the RIAI in a vitriolic manner, as opposed to publishing facts.

and a poor defence based on a degree that is 20 years old and an unwillingness to follow common wisdom and get Part 3 from the relevant body.

Most judges got their basic degrees more than 30 years ago.
Are you suggesting they are all incompetent?

Before you try to rebut that utterly brilliant riposte, I say again. I am not defending or attacking here.
You’re the one with the bee in your bonnet about attaining the Part III’s, not me.

I am asking for my legal right to call myself an architect to be recognised.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum

A banker signed a cert; I would imagine it would be a lot easier to get development funding for a new project if the architect had Part 3 qualification.

You can imagine all you want – your point was blown out of the water.
You have now shot yourself in the foot by suggesting that anyone would take an architect’s estimate of costs seriously LOL!
There’s a reason why we have Quantity Surveyors in the Building Industry!
“Stick to what you’re good at” is the motto.

A lot of lessons are being learned post tiger; the days of a €100m loan being given on foot of a 2 line e-mail are gone (albeit that the borrower at that time had 9 figure net worth); more professional certification is now required. Why should architecture be any different?

What are you blathering about? Bankers aren’t even properly qualified to Bank!!!!!!

ONQ.

@Tayto wrote:

[Translation: Yes, those old-fashioned 20-year old degrees are way past their sell-by date. What you want is one of our latest state-of-the-art models. It’s nice and shiny, see? AND it provides a much better defence!]

Wow, I didn’t know that..thanks! You learn something new EVERY day!.

A 20 year old degree is perfectly fine; if the holder has received ongoing professional development from the relevant professional body. But you have to admit there is a difference between someone with the degree and someone who completes part 3 and abides by the rules of the relevant professional membership associaion thereafter.

@PVC King wrote:

A 20 year old degree is perfectly fine; if the holder has received ongoing professional development from the relevant professional body. But you have to admit there is a difference between someone with the degree and someone who completes part 3 and abides by the rules of the relevant professional membership associaion thereafter.

Yep.

One is an independent thinker who pursues his own CPD competently down the years.
The other is someone who likes his information served up for him, possibly as part of a large office CPD programme.
Both are valid enough choices, but I know which one I’d like working for me on a high pressure project dealing with new technology with limited resources.

What did you say your qualification was again?
Oh that’s right, you didn’t.

Funny that for a guy who’s such a stickler on qualifications.
I’m beginning to sense an Achilles’ Heel here.
The ones without them most promote them.
Think they offer a defence – hah!

Qualifications mark you out as a target for the compo merchants.
Back competence and a good research team over paper qualifications any day.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

I’m condensing down your “lengthy rambling argument” into a “Yes, you’re right” on that one.

Please stop rambling and post one quotation where you can support the statement that I attacked the RIAI in a vitriolic manner, as opposed to publishing facts.

Most judges got their basic degrees more than 30 years ago.
Are you suggesting they are all incompetent? .

To become a judge you must first become a Barrister; which means you have to join the Bar Council; see link below

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/barristers_profession/qualifyingasab.asp&CatID=5&m=n

@onq wrote:

Before you try to rebut that utterly brilliant riposte, I say again. I am not defending or attacking here.
You’re the one with the bee in your bonnet about attaining the Part III’s, not me.

I am asking for my legal right to call myself an architect to be recognised.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum .

You are asking for your right as a degree holder to be considered an architect; a request which is out of step with every other profession and one which you admit many of your peers have taken the trouble to get Part 3 qualification.

@onq wrote:

You can imagine all you want – your point was blown out of the water.
You have now shot yourself in the foot by suggesting that anyone would take an architect’s estimate of costs seriously LOL!
There’s a reason why we have Quantity Surveyors in the Building Industry!
“Stick to what you’re good at” is the motto..

If you read what I said it was it would be easier to get funding if the architect had Part 3; extend this to also easier if the planner had MRTPI, QS had MSCS, Valuer had MSCS and engineer was a member of MIEI etc. Site security could have war crimes from UN Den Haag.

@onq wrote:

What are you blathering about? Bankers aren’t even properly qualified to Bank!!!!!!

ONQ.

What are the courses in the link below then?

http://www.instbank.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=6

Amazing that all professionals seem to use the phrase CPD even Barristers and bankers which are clearly outside the Built Environment field.

I think I’ve pretty much said what I have to say but in reply to some of the issues you raised ONQ:

The failure to automatically register you as an architect after completing a full five years design course [if it was from Bolton St or UCD] keeps you at the level of the man in the street.
That is clearly not your level.
Suggesting your are not complete is disingenuous propaganda put out by the RIAI.
You are complete at the level of a qualified architect and your right to use the title archtiect is protected by EU and Irish law.
You may not yet have achieved your Part III’s – that doesn’t mean you’re not an architect.

I guess where we differ is you think it’s appropriate to say you’re an architect after coming out of college. I think it should have some sort of qualification: graduate architect or similar. I obviously don’t think that you should be kept at the level of the man in the street. I know when I first qualified after coming into an office full-time it was an eye opener and on a practical level I knew next to nothing. I concede that now I know a little more than nothing!

I don’t consider it “knocking” someone.
The debate here is about the level of assurance and protection afforded to members of the public by using an MRIAI as opposed to an post-graduate or self-taught architect.

In the original arcticle I posted a link about David Grant to which you didn’t object.
This was about the risk to occupants from fire in one of his apartment blocks.
Presumably you didn’t object because this supported your self-image and RIAI world view that unqualified practitioners are not to be trusted [I’m praphrasing here from the advertisement that got censured]

At the end of the post I included a link to a prime time exposé which alluded to an MRIAI.
This was about an actual outbreak of fire – as opposed to a risk – which endangered members of the public.
Several posters have objected to this, presumably because it challenges their self image and world view that MRIAI’s are beyond reproach.

I was presenting a balanced post, showing egregious defects in buildings/situations, one ascribed to an unqualified person presenting himself as an architect, the other referring to an MRIAI, who was then head of a large practice.

I don’t call that knocking, I call your reaction to it most revealing, because your attemtped defense of the indefensible by making a personal attack on me – calling me a knocker – shows the estent to which you’ve been conditioned.

Think for yourself – you’ve nothing to lose but your peace of mind.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Granted (no pun intended…) I admit I did forget about your reference to Mr. David Grant, sorry about that, but I’m not defending the indefensible, MRIAIs or anyone else. I was more getting at what I felt was a lack of balance to your posts. And again I’ve clearly stated that I don’t think MRIAIs or anyone else are above reproach. As I’ve stated before, in terms of protecting the consumer/public and so on a MRIAI has an added qualification (Part 3) that a graduate hasn’t. To me it’s obvious that this helps protect everyone in the majority of cases (anecdotal stories withstanding). Perhaps that’s naive on my apart. As for the suggestion that I personally attacked you I think that’s a little over the top. And I’m well able to think for myself. Thanks for the heads up though.

Let’s just say I became very disillusioned with the RIAI.
I reported a serious breach of compliance to them a good while back.
It was also a fire safety matter, quite serious, and nothing was done about it.
It involved an MRIAI – after that I became convinced I was looking at an old boys club.

I had to make a formal referral to the building control officer and fire prevention section.
I hadn’t sprung it on them – I spoke to the Secretary and he got copied with the file.
I spoke to the person concerned and asked him to make the building compliant.
I checked my understanding with the assistant chief fire officer beforehand.
Then I gave them a deadline by which the building had to be put right.
I spelt out every issue that needed doing and invited them to rebut.
They didn’t and they were reported.
So much for RIAI regulation.

After that I met the other guy on the house I described above to PVC King.
More pandering to clients, unrealistic suggestions of compensation.
No focus on dealing with the substantive issue or resolution.

In the intervening 20 years since I graduated I’ve met a lot of other MRIAI’s.
Many were kind, intelligent, helpful, so I know not all are unprofessional.
But the way they have approached the BCA 2007, denying me my rights.
That just makes me see red – unfair, unprofessional, self-serving.
All the worst traits in those I have met bubbling to the surface.

Not good enough, not for people touting themselves as protectors of the public good.

That’s fair enough, I can understand you feel your rights have been denied. I still feel though the Part 3 is a necessity and I just wanted to understand why, in your position, you chose not to complete it. If you’re in the position to do it, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Not to join the RIAI, old boys’ club if you will, but to allow yourself to join the register as an architect.

@PVC King wrote:

To become a judge you must first become a Barrister; which means you have to join the Bar Council; see link below

http://www.lawlibrary.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/barristers_profession/qualifyingasab.asp&CatID=5&m=n

As a qualified architect, I’ve already done two years of law – what’s your point?

You are asking for your right as a degree holder to be considered an architect;

No.
I’m pointing out that two Directives and a Statutory Instrument confers on me the right to call myself an architect, because of my qualification

a request which is out of step with every other profession and one which you admit many of your peers have taken the trouble to get Part 3 qualification.

Stupid boy.
Its not a request.
Its a statement of fact based on law.
You’re the one trying to get the world to fit his world view, not me.

If you read what I said it was it would be easier to get funding if the architect had Part 3; extend this to also easier if the planner had MRTPI, QS had MSCS, Valuer had MSCS and engineer was a member of MIEI etc. Site security could have war crimes from UN Den Haag.

Don’t ever accuse me of rambling again.

What are the courses in the link below then?
http://www.instbank.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=6

Let’s see now.

“From 2009|2010 all Institute of Bankers in Ireland’s educational programmes will be offered through The Institute of Bankers School of Professional Finance (a recognised school of University College Dublin, affiliated with the UCD College of Business and Law). Hence, those who successfully complete a School of Professional Finance programme from 2009|2010 will receive their educational award from UCD.”

• An attempt to guild the lily.
• Attempts to close the stable door after all the horses have bolted.
• Desperately seeking respectability by association for the most badly regulated. profession in the world.
• All of the above, and then some.

Like I said, watch the fervour of the ones without the paper qualifications as they tout them or seek them or demand that others to seek them.

Its a sure sign of an inferiority complex.

Or a cover up, for the number of unqualified successes there were in the Bank.

Amazing that all professionals seem to use the phrase CPD even Barristers and bankers which are clearly outside the Built Environment field.

Only you would find this amazing.

Some attempt at humout though, touting bankers as paragons of CPD.

Banks and Insurances offices .

(chuckle)

You know, when I was in secondary they were where all the thickos were sent by their influential daddies because they had two chances of ever completing a university education.

I think the current financial debacle is the result of letting stupid people work in a critical market sector without any external regulation or supervision – and paying the biggest, stupidest eejits among them €1M a year or more.

Perhaps things will change.

So PVC King – givvus some information on you, since you know a lot about me.

With all this talk of “risk aversion” and you being “satisfied your due diligence was complete” when you saw the RIAI badge, you must be either in insurance, or banking.

Which is it?

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

As a qualified architect, I’ve already done two years of law – what’s your point?

No.
I’m pointing out that two Directives and a Statutory Instrument confers on me the right to call myself an architect, because of my qualification

Stupid boy.
Its not a request.
Its a statement of fact based on law.
You’re the one trying to get the world to fit his world view, not me.

Don’t ever accuse me of rambling again.

Let’s see now.

“From 2009|2010 all Institute of Bankers in Ireland’s educational programmes will be offered through The Institute of Bankers School of Professional Finance (a recognised school of University College Dublin, affiliated with the UCD College of Business and Law). Hence, those who successfully complete a School of Professional Finance programme from 2009|2010 will receive their educational award from UCD.”

• An attempt to guild the lily.
• Attempts to close the stable door after all the horses have bolted.
• Desperately seeking respectability by association for the most badly regulated. profession in the world.
• All of the above, and then some.

Like I said, watch the fervour of the ones without the paper qualifications as they tout them or seek them or demand that others to seek them.

Its a sure sign of an inferiority complex.

Or a cover up, for the number of unqualified successes there were in the Bank.

Only you would find this amazing.

Some attempt at humout though, touting bankers as paragons of CPD.

Bankers and Insurances offices – when I was in secondary they were where all the thickos were sent by their influential daddies because they had two chances of ever completing a university education.

With all this talk of “risk aversion” and you being “satisfied your due diligence was complete” when you saw the RIAI badge, you must be either in insurance, or banking.

Which is it?

ONQ.

How many shoulders do you have?

@PVC King wrote:

A 20 year old degree is perfectly fine; if the holder has received ongoing professional development from the relevant professional body. But you have to admit there is a difference between someone with the degree and someone who completes part 3 and abides by the rules of the relevant professional membership associaion thereafter.

Yes, one has a right to have more letters after their name than the other. Which is nice.:)

So, with all the CPD training (by the professional association of course) and rule-abiding, does anyone actually do any work?

You’re not on the board of a golf club, by any chance?

My golf career lasted 2 hours such was my natural aptitude for whacking a tiny piece of plastic around a field 😮 so the only boards I get sport from are message boards 😉

CPD can’t be that onerous in Architecture; I did about 40 hours a year over the past couple of years of which 25 hours would be internal; 5 hours with clients solicitors which is usually accompanied by decent wine and 10 hours through the industry body. Throw in the industry monthly magazines and it keeps you up to speed not to mention giving you the perspectives of some exceptional professionals who clearly do CPD to either give something back (you’d hope) or exercise their egos (more likely).

I didn’t get where I am today by exercising my ego, I tell you!

@PVC King wrote:

How many shoulders do you have?

Plenty.

How many degrees do you have?

ONQ.

@Tayto wrote:

I didn’t get where I am today by exercising my ego, I tell you!

I’m afraid its the only exercise I get these days.

Apart from attending my AAI CPD evenings 😀

ABK lecture tonight on the Edmund Burke.

Well attended.

ONQ.

@BenK wrote:

I think I’ve pretty much said what I have to say but in reply to some of the issues you raised ONQ:

I guess where we differ is you think it’s appropriate to say you’re an architect after coming out of college. I think it should have some sort of qualification: graduate architect or similar. I obviously don’t think that you should be kept at the level of the man in the street. I know when I first qualified after coming into an office full-time it was an eye opener and on a practical level I knew next to nothing. I concede that now I know a little more than nothing!

I don’t “think it’s appropriate to say you’re an architect after coming out of college”
What part of “its written into Irish and EU law” don’t you get BenK?

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Granted (no pun intended…) I admit I did forget about your reference to Mr. David Grant, sorry about that, but I’m not defending the indefensible, MRIAIs or anyone else. I was more getting at what I felt was a lack of balance to your posts. And again I’ve clearly stated that I don’t think MRIAIs or anyone else are above reproach. As I’ve stated before, in terms of protecting the consumer/public and so on a MRIAI has an added qualification (Part 3) that a graduate hasn’t. To me it’s obvious that this helps protect everyone in the majority of cases (anecdotal stories withstanding).

But that’s the point, BenK.
Its bad enough hearing anecdotal stories about a lack of action.
When you’ve seen enough bad apples you begin to wonder “what’s the point?”

I accept that the people involved are all adults and can’t be “chastised”.
I accept that up until the BCA 2007 the RIAI had no real “clout” with its Members.
I accept that as a professional courtesy and to avoid economic consequences for an office the RIAI might want to keep any censure quiet.
But when you see the guy you reported rise through the ranks afterwards you can be fairly certain nothing, absolutely nothing, was done about him.

Perhaps that’s naive on my apart. As for the suggestion that I personally attacked you I think that’s a little over the top. And I’m well able to think for myself. Thanks for the heads up though.

The point I was trying to make was that you went after the man, not the argument – ad hominems never impress.

That’s fair enough, I can understand you feel your rights have been denied. I still feel though the Part 3 is a necessity and I just wanted to understand why, in your position, you chose not to complete it. If you’re in the position to do it, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Not to join the RIAI, old boys’ club if you will, but to allow yourself to join the register as an architect.

I probably will do that and despite the fact that PVC King thinks I’m dissing the RIAI when I’m merely attesting to my legal rights under the law – as they have existed since 1990 – I actually think that the online CPD and practice notes are two very good reasons to join the RIAI.

In the meantime I think there is a middle way for people who are self-taught as shown in post no. 132 above.
This is likely to be put to government and the RIAI in the next few days as a means of defusing the stupid situation that’s brewing.
Mind you I’ve just been to an AAI lecture and discovered that Koralek won the competition for the Trinity Library when he was only 28.
The only other modern building in Dublin at the time was Busárus, he had never been in Ireland before and he was allowed build the campus centrepiece.

How undermined is this profession now when people with the qualification are prevented from calling themselves architects.
And you and your supporting voices here don’t even seem to realise the injustice that’s been done to you!
Will you at least go and read the current Directive like an independent thinker?

DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:255:0022:0142:en:PDF

In particular read Article 46 which the RIAI refers to on its web page, but it seems not to understand Section 2 which says you can’t raise the bar.
Also read Article 52 Section 2 2nd paragraph which confirms this.
Admittedly these are only my interpretations.
But I’ve been told I’m good at this.

ONQ.

I have read the latest posts here between the lines. On one side we find those who support registration of architects blindly because the legislation and its implementation are in line with their interests. On the other we find those for whom registration is against their interests because the fees requested are too high and / or because the assessment is set up as to minimize their chance of success and / or because they have problems dealing with the Royals.

The first group defends blindly registration and its procedure which is in line with their own interests. The second group, in the contrary, started to question the Act and its implementation.

Taking one or two, maybe three steps back, I am trying to put my personal interests aside and to think logically as well as impartially. Of course I am questioning the Act and the procedure, but shall not everybody with sense be questioning a system before using it?

I went to the RIAI (Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland) website and read: “Promoting, Supporting, Regulating Architecture”, then I was wondering does the RIAI do what they claim doing? I think that by letting some professionals practicing architecture without code of conduct or supervision, The RIAI is falling short of what it claims to do. It is only fair to say that the RIAI slogan should be changed to: “Promoting, Supporting, Regulating Architects”.

I looked at the argument behind Registration. It has been openly advertised on TV, Radio and other media as an action protecting the public. Trying to understand what has been created to protect this public, I realized that the only change is related to the term “Architect”, which first defined a profession, and now defines a title. Some professionals are able to continue using the title (group one as described earlier) some others are not (group two also detailed earlier). From now on, if a consumer wants to hire the services of a professional using the title architect, he or she has to choose within the RIAI registered practitioners only. The consumer also has the choice to hire the services of a professional who cannot use the title.

Is the public really protected now? Isn’t there an issue related to the fact that consumers can only use RIAI registered professionals if they want to hire the services of a company or an individual permitted to use the title? Wouldn’t the consumer be protected more efficiently if he or she had the choice between 2 groups regulating the title?

Continuing deeper in the subject, I am wondering, what is the reason for professionals who cannot register to continue practicing without being regulated or supervised? If part 3 the Building Control Act 2007 really intended to protect the public, surely this issue would have been addressed, but it hasn’t. Would it be that the RIAI will deal with these individuals in the future by definitely removing their rights to practice? If these professionals have to be regulated or removed from the scene, then why not doing it now?

Some may think that my demonstration is not impartial, but doing my best to ignore my own interests, it is still evident, that the only persons protected by the registration of architects as implemented in Ireland, are those professionals who are now listed on the register of architects.

Considering this, I want to be on the register too. But to do so, despite my 16 years of experience and 8 years in university learning about sciences of Arts & Architecture, I am not permitted to pass an examination for professionals with more than 10 years of experience, because I had only 8 years of experience working in the State on May 2008 date of the enforcement of the Act. Some architects with some qualifications gained abroad can register in Ireland without any experience working in the state, without any knowledge of the Irish planning system, without any knowledge of Irish building standards. Consumers are not protected from those individuals. Why is the legislation discriminating me against these foreign practitioners?

Whatever, I am not lazy; I have been a hard worker since I was in university financing my studies by working part time. Then I decided to pass the ARAE which is an examination for those without qualification and over 7 years of experience. But you may imagine my surprise when I was requested E13,300 to pass this examination, a sum that I cannot afford in these difficult times. Another issue is related to the content of the examination, which is very academic, in line with the knowledge of a newly qualified architect, but not with the skills of an experienced individual. The examination, as detailed on the ARAE website would require that I switch from the work that I carry out in my practice to study subjects that are completely foreign to my usual work. I am just willing to continue practicing in my specialty as many architects members of the RIAI do. I have learned to design industrial buildings about 16 years ago in France, I have participated to the design of some industrial buildings in the UK about 12 years ago, but I have not and do not intend to design some in the future. Then why should I be assessed on this ground? The industrial building is one example, but the issue is similar in relation to other sectors. I am not intending to work on large developments, why should my skills to practice be assessed in relation to large developments? The fact is that young qualified architects have experience of nothing, but they have a wide superficial knowledge of everything. The ARAE is suitable for these young qualified architects, but not for experienced professionals who have already made their choices and specialized within the profession.

My conclusion on the registration of architects is first that the public has been misled because consumers are not protected by the new legislation, and second that people in my situation have been discriminated using financial means, as well as administrative and legal tools. I cannot fully prove who orchestrated the deception that surrounds the registration procedure and its legislation, but my only suspect is the RIAI. I have compared fees and procedure in many other European countries, and I do not understand why Ireland decided to protects architects instead of regulating architectural services.

This is my first and it will be my last post on archiseek for today 30th April 2010.

I got the same impression…
Proffesions are like colours theres no gold at the end of the rainbow…

ANd around and around it goes…

I don’t “think it’s appropriate to say you’re an architect after coming out of college”
What part of “its written into Irish and EU law” don’t you get BenK?

I get the written into Irish Law bit ONQ. I’m simply saying, which I think is pretty obvious, that I feel it’s deficient for all the reasons I’ve already stated. You clearly think it isn’t. Fair enough we disagree.

But that’s the point, BenK.
Its bad enough hearing anecdotal stories about a lack of action.
When you’ve seen enough bad apples you begin to wonder “what’s the point?”

I accept that the people involved are all adults and can’t be “chastised”.
I accept that up until the BCA 2007 the RIAI had no real “clout” with its Members.
I accept that as a professional courtesy and to avoid economic consequences for an office the RIAI might want to keep any censure quiet.
But when you see the guy you reported rise through the ranks afterwards you can be fairly certain nothing, absolutely nothing, was done about him.

I can understand you you’ve had some issues down through the years with individual members of the RIAI. I’m not trying to defend any one of them. But I feel that that is a bit of a smokescreen to what I feel is the nub of the issue. Is Part 3 required or not for an architect to be fully qualified? You had intimated in previous posts that it wasn’t. I feel it is. This is where we disagree, again fair enough.

The point I was trying to make was that you went after the man, not the argument – ad hominems never impress.

That just isn’t true. I consistantly went after your arguments, your irrational knocking of MRIAIs aside.

I probably will do that and despite the fact that PVC King thinks I’m dissing the RIAI when I’m merely attesting to my legal rights under the law – as they have existed since 1990 – I actually think that the online CPD and practice notes are two very good reasons to join the RIAI.

Good I think this is the best thing to do. Not to join the RIAI but to practice the most competently as an architect.

How undermined is this profession now when people with the qualification are prevented from calling themselves architects.
And you and your supporting voices here don’t even seem to realise the injustice that’s been done to you!
Will you at least go and read the current Directive like an independent thinker?

I don’t feel there’s any injustice being done to me at all. I am a graduate architect when I finish college. I am a registered/chartered architect when I finish my Part 3. As I’ve said before, you think it’s an injustice, not me. That is me independently and logically looking at the issue.

@BenK wrote:

ANd around and around it goes…

Not for much longer.

I get the written into Irish Law bit ONQ.

No, I don’t think you do.

I’m simply saying, which I think is pretty obvious, that I feel it’s deficient for all the reasons I’ve already stated. You clearly think it isn’t. Fair enough we disagree.

You’re merely repeating yourself.
You have made no comment on my suggestio in Post # 132, which picked up on comments passed by PVC King.
As you can see, unlike you, I don’t have a mentality that depends on defending entrenched positions.

If I see that proposal as a way forward that will improve the situation for all concerned I will AT LEAST investigate it.

You didn’t even acknowledge the step forward that this might represent.
That’s a sign of readily adopting an entrenched position.
A two-edged sword in design terms.
Wth no fallback position.

I can understand you you’ve had some issues down through the years with individual members of the RIAI. I’m not trying to defend any one of them.

You cannot seriously advance that argument BenK.
When you’ve seen enough transgressions and sharp practice and mis-certification you begin to realise that amongst the good guys, there is a significant number who behave as if they look down on their clients.

The prelude to the story about the architect opposite me on the house defects job is that the architect who had certified the houses, another MRIAI, when presented with the horrible vista of an entire estate of houses with defects allegedly ran out of the house saying “you’re not pinning this one on me”.

The “alleged” comment is inserted because I was not personally present at that meeting on site, but two persons separately confirmed this to me on twoseparate occassions giving the exact same descriptions of the event – good journos only seek two confirmations.

His was an unprofessional response to an admittedly difficult situation.
To make matters worse, it was a situation he inherited, he hadn’t designed the houses originally.
But his response is one you’ll have heard echoes of in the “I wasn’t directly involved in that” reply in relation to Shangan House fiasco, if you played the Prime Time video link I posted.

When you see consistency like this where MRIAIs are faced with serious problems involving compliance you begin to realise that maybe you SHOULD join the RIAI, and seek a seat on the Council or the Professional Practice Committee, because something might need to be done about this kind of behaviour or risk brining the profession into disrepute.

Let me underline this position for you.

I took over the inspection, remediation and re-certification of dwellings that an MRIAI ran away from, and that another MRIAI refused to help resolve in a manner with benefits for all.

Having acquired the Part III “qualification” certainly didn’t seem inform the behaviour of the people I’ve written about.

In case you STILL don’tget it BenK, this is about ACTING PROFESSIONALLY, something you can do while you’re still in 3rd level education.

I think the time for sweeping these things under the carpet is well and truly over.
Lord knows I treaded softly for years around such people for fear of brinign the profession into disrepute.
I see now that I was wrong to do that and have paid the price.
They have used my support to gain enough traction to take over tte profession.
People need to “out” architects publicly if they fail to act in a manner befitting professionals.

Chapter and verse – or in my case, a sworn affidavit.

But I feel that that is a bit of a smokescreen to what I feel is the nub of the issue. Is Part 3 required or not for an architect to be fully qualified? You had intimated in previous posts that it wasn’t. I feel it is. This is where we disagree, again fair enough.

You are incorrect.
Sor someone approaching your Part III’s you have a shocking disregard for the law, but one I have seen reflected in many Members of the Institute, as noted above.
When I say I am qualified as an architect and entitled to use the title – BY LAW – you dismiss it because it doesn’t fit with your conditioning to date.

This is PRECISELY the attitude that is ruining the profession!
Badge Mentality – “I’m better than you so I’ll do what I think is best.”

What other laws will you decide are “deficient” when you’ve attained your Part III’s and are in practice?

• The building regulations?
• Certification of houses with serious defects?
• Certification of works not complete or commissioned?
• Certification of monies for goods never delivered to site?
• Leaving a practice without notice and taking files without permission?

Because I’ve seen it all done by MRIAIs and I have the files to prove it.

That just isn’t true. I consistantly went after your arguments, your irrational knocking of MRIAIs aside.

Hello?
Once again, you have just called my evidence of wrong-doing on the part of MRIAI’s “knocking“, and not for the first time.

That is an ad-hominem attack on me, not a rebuttal of the points I raised.
I have already explained this self-evident fact to you once before.

We can add “unwillingness to accept facts or the views of others” to the list.
You’ll make a fine MRIAI when you pass your Part III’s.

Good I think this is the best thing to do. Not to join the RIAI but to practice the most competently as an architect.

WHAT?
I said that these were good reasons to join the RIAI and you say yes and then go oon about doing them independently?
What do you think I’ve been doing competently for the past 20 years?
Geez! Read the post before replying!

I don’t feel there’s any injustice being done to me at all. I am a graduate architect when I finish college. I am a registered/chartered architect when I finish my Part 3. As I’ve said before, you think it’s an injustice, not me. That is me independently and logically looking at the issue.

You were asked to read the Directive and assess the legal position for yourself as it affects your primary qualification

Did you do so?

ONQ.

You have a degree; a poorly drafted piece of legislation transposing an equally flawed directive allowed you to use a title for many years.

When asked to comment on other professions you knock them but can’t admit that the piece of legislation is completely out of step with all other professions. I’m not saying that people with degrees and experience shouldn’t be able to regularise their position via taking further examination or an interview conducted by their peers to assess their competence. However the concept of graduating and then facing no further rules as updated from time to time by their peers is ludicrous.

@PVC King wrote:

You have a degree; a poorly drafted piece of legislation transposing an equally flawed directive allowed you to use a title for many years.

The original Directive came out in 1985.
It was reviewed by every EU country and revised in 2005.
You seem ot be sugesting that the entire EU beaurocracy, which included input from the heads of the schools of architecture, MISSED SOMETHING that you have spotted.
Hubris anyone?

When asked to comment on other professions you knock them

I pointed out that independent regulation and paper qualifications did NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC in the case of the so called “Banking Profession”.
Again, you attack me by labelling this “knocking”, but you have made no rebuttal.

but can’t admit that the piece of legislation is completely out of step with all other professions.

Please my post # 132 in this thread and comment on what I say there.

I’m not saying that people with degrees and experience shouldn’t be able to regularise their position via taking further examination or an interview conducted by their peers to assess their competence.

Nor am I, in fact I have stated in this thread that I support both Registration and CPD.
You OTOH have repeatedly smeared qualified architects by denying the law that entitles them to bear the title and strongly implied that they are not competent to act as architects.
Given some of the responses to this thread you may be right, but the law entitles them to call themselves architects.

However the concept of graduating and then facing no further rules as updated from time to time by their peers is ludicrous.

Thats not a concept I have put forward.
That’s you either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting my position, which I have set out at several points in this thread and which you have failed to either acknowledge or take on board.
Please read these posts setting out my position and acknowledge them before replying.
Oh and read 2005/36/EC as well – you might learn something about the law as it pertains to architects.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

The original Directive came out in 1985.
It was reviewed by every EU country and revised in 2005.
You seem ot be sugesting that the entire EU beaurocracy, which included input from the heads of the schools of architecture, MISSED SOMETHING that you have spotted.
Hubris anyone?

Off to Strasbourg with you then, but you would need a solicitor and a barrister both of which would need to be members of their professional associations to practice.

@onq wrote:

I pointed out that independent regulation and paper qualifications did NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC in the case of the so called “Banking Profession”.
Again, you attack me by labelling this “knocking”, but you have made no rebuttal.

The vast majority of bankers are fine and disciplined individuals; certain institutions got overawed by a boomtime view that there was a new paradigm centered on real estate development. Those individuals can be sanctioned by the IBI.

@onq wrote:

Please my post # 132 in this thread and comment on what I say there.

Nor am I, in fact I have stated in this thread that I support both Registration and CPD.
You OTOH have repeatedly smeared qualified architects by denying the law that entitles them to bear the title and strongly implied that they are not competent to act as architects.

Given some of the responses to this thread you may be right, but the law entitles them to call themselves architects.

So who designs the course material for CPD? Who updates the registration crtieria? Who handles the disciplinary criteria? These are not governmental functions they are those that are best managed by the professional industry body and in all other professions are run by the relevant membership organisation.

@onq wrote:

Thats not a concept I have put forward.
That’s you either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting my position, which I have set out at several points in this thread and which you have failed to either acknowledge or take on board.
Please read these posts setting out my position and acknowledge them before replying.
Oh and read 2005/36/EC as well – you might learn something about the law as it pertains to architects.

ONQ.

Banker bashing, RIAI bashing, other poster bashing, you simply will not look at what other professions have done and simply want to pick and choose which elements of a comprehensive professional regulation regime suit you.

ONQ,

Honestly I’m not sure about your proposal in post 132. I’d have to think about it a bit more. I think in practice it might cause difficulties and be pretty confusing for all involved with the overlap of responsibilities and liabilities amongst the different grades and the lack of clear demarcation. But that’s just a first reaction. I have to say though aswell that it seems if someone gives an opinion to you and you don’t agree with it that that person has become ‘entrenched’. I give an opinion that I feel a piece of legislation is deficient and I’m showing a ‘shocking disregard for the law’. By this logic unless you wholeheartedly agree with every law out there you have a shocking disregard for the law. & I certainly don’t think I’m better than you. Your comment about the building regs and certification is more that a little dramatic. I’ll respect and work to the law, it’s a different thing entirely not agreeing with it (you do encourage me to think independently don’t you…) This opinion has nothing to do with my conditioning by the Institute. It is MY opinion. My position, entrenched as you may feel it is, is that a qualified architect with their part 3 will in the MAJORITY of cases be more likely to be more competent than an architect who hasn’t completed their part 3. This to me is obvious and this is why I think the piece of legislation you refer to is deficient for the profession and for the public. I’m not disputing your individual competence as an architect, you might just very well be the most competent architect in the world. The point is I don’t really know what it is but, as a graduate until it is properly assessed, I feel it is difficult to really comment on it. Of course the Part 3 doesn’t guarantee competence but then again nothing can.

@PVC King wrote:

Off to Strasbourg with you then, but you would need a solicitor and a barrister both of which would need to be members of their professional associations to practice.

Eh nope, PVC King.
I’m the one saying the law is fine.
You’re the one saying its defective and badly written.
You’re the one who needs to go to Strasbourg, not me.
Oddly enough I don’t need to be chaperoned to to anywhere in Europe.

The vast majority of bankers are fine and disciplined individuals; certain institutions got overawed by a boomtime view that there was a new paradigm centered on real estate development. Those individuals can be sanctioned by the IBI.

These fine and disciplined individuals went from

• lending money to selling money
• meting it out professionally to thrusting it at people
• overseeing an unregulated floor of credit to a drip feed
• supplying finance to our economy to hoarding reserves
• being the oil in the maching to a bag of dirty ball bearings.

All these facts are known, so don’t bother telling me what these smug bastards are with their million Euro pension top ups.
They are a disgrace, second only to the pedophile priests in terms of lack of public trust at the moment and second to none in the professions regarding the level of damage they have helped do to this country.
In the context of this debate, they are anothe red herring introduced by you – as usual.

So who designs the course material for CPD? Who updates the registration crtieria? Who handles the disciplinary criteria? These are not governmental functions they are those that are best managed by the professional industry body and in all other professions are run by the relevant membership organisation.

I have already stated as fact that I support Registration, and that the online CPD and Practice Notes are two good reasons for joining the RIAI.

What part of that didn’t you comprehend?
This was only a couple of posts ago.
Memory of a goldfish.

[/QUOTE]
Banker bashing, RIAI bashing, other poster bashing, you simply will not look at what other professions have done and simply want to pick and choose which elements of a comprehensive professional regulation regime suit you.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary

• bashing is too good for bankers
• I’m fed up covering up for the RIAI
• you have yet to acknowledge or rebut my points
• I have already supported the process of Registration
• I have already supported the mechanism of Co- Regulation

The only point I have repeatedly made, and the only point you still refuse to concede, is my automatic right to call myself an archtiect that is granted to me by EU and Irish law.

This is the baseline qualification.
If MRIAI’s want to call themselves chartered architects and reserve working on larger schemes for themselves I have no problem with that.
Just don’t deny me my right to call myself and architect and work on schemes I have proved my competence to carry out over the years.
Self-taught architects have a similar position based on experience.

Now, I’m through pussy footing around with you.
You have been posting here and telling me how I should behave as a professional.
What competence do you have to do that, apart from being Mr. Angry at Graduate Architects, a role that seems to be as self-appointed as anything you’ve accused me of.
Except that I’m not levelling that charge at you in a vacuum, I can point to the last four days of posting you’ve done.
Ranting on and on about how Graduates have no right to call themselves archtiects but never once reading the legislation.

What is your professional competence?
Put up or shut up.

ONQ.

@BenK wrote:

ONQ,

Honestly I’m not sure about your proposal in post 132. I’d have to think about it a bit more. I think in practice it might cause difficulties and be pretty confusing for all involved with the overlap of responsibilities and liabilities amongst the different grades and the lack of clear demarcation. But that’s just a first reaction. I have to say though aswell that it seems if someone gives an opinion to you and you don’t agree with it that that person has become ‘entrenched’. I give an opinion that I feel a piece of legislation is deficient and I’m showing a ‘shocking disregard for the law’. By this logic unless you wholeheartedly agree with every law out there you have a shocking disregard for the law. & I certainly don’t think I’m better than you. Your comment about the building regs and certification is more that a little dramatic. I’ll respect and work to the law, it’s a different thing entirely not agreeing with it (you do encourage me to think independently don’t you…) This opinion has nothing to do with my conditioning by the Institute. It is MY opinion. My position, entrenched as you may feel it is, is that a qualified architect with their part 3 will in the MAJORITY of cases be more likely to be more competent than an architect who hasn’t completed their part 3. This to me is obvious and this is why I think the piece of legislation you refer to is deficient for the profession and for the public. I’m not disputing your individual competence as an architect, you might just very well be the most competent architect in the world. The point is I don’t really know what it is but, as a graduate until it is properly assessed, I feel it is difficult to really comment on it. Of course the Part 3 doesn’t guarantee competence but then again nothing can.

Thanks BenK.

Your last comment says it all.

My “knocking” of the RIAI boils down to jsut that.

To suggest that the Part III guarantees competence is to overstate.
To suggest that being self-taught automatically implies incompetence is to defame.

This is the substance of the Broadcasting Complaints Authority’s decision against the recent disingenuous RIAI advertisement.

Now please use the benefit of your five years in a full time course and two years of law and read the Directives and Statutory Instrument.
Because as matters stand now, despite the Building Control Act forbidding your use of the title, you ARE an architect under the law and will be judged as such if you err.

By the RIAI not underlining this fact to Graduates, they are unaware of their responsibilities in legal terms.
This is not in my opinion an equitable or useful way to manage a profession or manage the risk associated with being in practice.

If my interpretation of the law is correct – and no-one has legally rebutted it so far despite my comments to the RIAI, the Oireachtas and the President of Ireland – then Graduates should be taking steps to cover themselves to the same degree as Architects / MRIAIs and with great urgency.

I already know and accept my liability under the law – you seem to be labouring under a serious misapprehension.
I had hoped you would be able to see through to this consequence for yourself.
NOW do you see why I’m taking the time to talk to you BenK?
Read the Directives and the Statutory Instrument.
It dosn’t matter what you think of the law.
You must understand it and abide by it.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Ranting on and on about how Graduates have no right to call themselves archtiects but never once reading the legislation.

ONQ.

This thread took direction from you feeling aggreived that you couldn’t call yourself an architect anymore. It is merely pointed out to you that all other professions require membership of the relevant professional body to call themselves solicitors, bankers, auditors, planners etc.

You seem to feel that because the law at a point in time granted a right that is totally at odds with all other professions that you have been somehow hard done by.

A consistent position has now been applied to the architectural profession; that is the extent of my argument and a very welcome piece of reforming legislation that very few people I know would disagree with.

A graduate degree is just that; every other profession requires both a degree and a regulatory regime imposed by the relevant industry body. You have failed to make a special case for the architecture profession to deviate in such a fundamental way.

That said you can conveyance your house with a product sold by Tesco or sell your house through daft.

@PVC King wrote:

This thread took direction from you feeling aggreived that you couldn’t call yourself an architect anymore. It is merely pointed out to you that all other professions require membership of the relevant professional body to call themselves solicitors, bankers, auditors, planners etc.

Translation: no, I haven’t read the relevant legislation and I have no clue what I’m talking about.

You seem to feel that because the law at a point in time granted a right that is totally at odds with all other professions that you have been somehow hard done by.

Translation: no, I won’t pretend to understand that your point relates solely to the right to use the title conferred by DIR 85/384/EEC and DIR 2005/36/EC

A consistent position has now been applied to the architectural profession; that is the extent of my argument and a very welcome piece of reforming legislation that very few people I know would disagree with.

Translation: I’ll keep battering away at a position you haven’t claimed and haven’t defended just to see my name in print – again.

A graduate degree is just that; every other profession requires both a degree and a regulatory regime imposed by the relevant industry body. You have failed to make a special case for the architecture profession to deviate in such a fundamental way.

Translation: no, I still won’t read or otherwise inform myself about the contents of DIR 85/384/EEC and DIR 2005/36/EC or their implications.

That said you can conveyance your house with a product sold by Tesco or sell your house through daft.

Translation: when I get tired of throwing in red herrings I’ll happily resort to irrelevant non sequiturs just to prove I’m a witty fellow.

(absence of requested confirmation of professional qualification noted)

(absence of requested comment on the proposed resolution in Post # 132 noted)

ONQ.

ONQ, that’s a fair enough point in relation to the law and graduates understanding their liabilities under it. I’ve absolutely no problem with that and it is crucially important, as you say, graduates are aware of them. I’ll add that I haven’t been labouring under any misapprehension either. I understand your point about the law and respect your right to call yourself an architect under it. However, my opinion on the matter is, and I think always has been really (apologies for repeating myself…), that for an architect to be fully qualified his/her competence should have to be formally assessed both academically and professionally. The Part 3 does that. Simple as.

@BenK wrote:

ONQ, that’s a fair enough point in relation to the law and graduates understanding their liabilities under it. I’ve absolutely no problem with that and it is crucially important, as you say, graduates are aware of them. I’ll add that I haven’t been labouring under any misapprehension either. I understand your point about the law and respect your right to call yourself an architect under it. However, my opinion on the matter is, and I think always has been really (apologies for repeating myself…), that for an architect to be fully qualified his/her competence should have to be formally assessed both academically and professionally. The Part 3 does that. Simple as.

Thank you for taking that point.
No need to apologise for repetition of a sound point, one I agree with, as it happens – see below.

As you say it is crucially important, expecially in relation to an office obtaining adequate PI Cover.
How can an office explain its position currently, where people who may be taken to courts as architects cannot call themselves by that title, despite entitlement to do so under Irish and EU law?
I believe it cannot, and the post-graduate acting as an architect [providing architectural services] who may be singled out and under an “individually and severally” case in the High Court could find himself or herself without protection.

This is not far-fetched scare mongering – most senior architects are out winning the work, not running the jobs, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that where a post-graduate has been signing all the letters and the drawings he will be held to account.

On the matter of the Part III’s part from the fact that I believe that practising for 7 years under the guidance of MRIAI’s confers a similar level of ability, we are as one.
In terms of evidence of my current abilities, have you seen anyone else teasing out the consequence for post-Graduates we’ve discussed above?
Nope, and most likely you won’t – as I noted in a previous post, I’m told I’m good at this.

And modest. 🙂

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

DIR 2005/36/EC

In the case of the professions covered by the general system for the recognition of qualifications, hereinafter referred to as ‘the general system’, Member States should retain the right to lay down the minimum level of qualification required to ensure the quality of the services provided on their territory. However, pursuant to Articles 10, 39 and 43 of the Treaty, they should not require a national of a Member State to obtain qualifications,
which they generally lay down only in terms of the diplomas awarded under their national educational system, where the person concerned has already obtained all or part of those qualifications in another Member State. As a result, it should be laid down that any host Member State in which a profession is regulated must take account of the qualifications obtained in another Member State and assess whether they correspond to those which it requires.

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest. Rules of this kind relate, for example, to organisation of the profession, professional standards, including those concerning ethics, and supervision and liability. Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

Where does the directive prevent the government from regulating as it sees fit?

@PVC King wrote:

Where does the directive prevent the government from regulating as it sees fit?

Firstly, well done for reading the Directive.

I refer to this part of the text you quote:

Member States should retain the right to lay down the minimum level of qualification required to ensure the quality of the services provided on their territory.

I refer to S.I. 15 which wrote the Architect’s Directive into law:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/si/0015.html

I refer to the following sections of the Qualifications Directive, 2005/36/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:255:0022:0142:en:PDF

---

Section 8

Architect

Article 46

Training of architects

1. Training as an architect shall comprise a total of at least
four years of full-time study or six years of study, at least
three years of which on a full-time basis, at a university or
comparable teaching institution. The training must lead to
successful completion of a university-level examination.
That training, which must be of university level, and of which
architecture is the principal component, must maintain a
balance between theoretical and practical aspects of architectural
training and guarantee the acquisition of the following
knowledge and skills:

---

Article 49

Acquired rights specific to architects

1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications
as an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by
the other Member States, and attesting a course of training
which began no later than the reference academic year referred
to in that Annex, even if they do not satisfy the minimum
requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for the
purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities
of an architect, give such evidence the same effect on its territory
as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which
it itself issues.

---

And, from L 255/131:

V. 7. ARCHITECT

5.7.1. Evidence of formal qualifications of architects recognised pursuant to Article 46

Country: Ireland

Evidence of formal qualifications:

2. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture
(B.Arch.)
(Previously, until 2002 – Degree
standard diploma in architecture
(Dip. Arch))

Body awarding the evidence of
qualifications:

2. Dublin Institute of Technology,
Bolton Street, Dublin
(College of Technology, Bolton Street,
Dublin)

Reference academic year:

1988/89

---

The table is difficult to represent here in html but the other three named persons are listed.

1. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture
(B.Arch. NUI)

3. Certificate of associateship (ARIAI)

4. Certificate of membership (MRIAI)

---

Nothing in the Directive allows the Member State to take away a Graduates right to call themselves an Architect [Article 49 above is specific to me].

They can add additional requirements until the cows come home – for example, Registration, which I support and CPD, which I have been engaged in since I qualified – but they cannot unmake a graduate so that he enjoys the same standing as the man in the street.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some proposals to put to the Oireactas based on Post # 132 above in order to try and defuse and – dare I say it – Regulate (!) the impending war with the Architects Alliance.

ONQ.

Article 46
Training of architects
1. Training as an architect shall comprise a total of at least four years of full-time study or six years of study, at least three years of which on a full-time basis, at a university or
comparable teaching institution. The training must lead to successful completion of a university-level examination. That training, which must be of university level, and of which
architecture is the principal component, must maintain a balance between theoretical and practical aspects of architectural training and guarantee the acquisition of the following
knowledge and skills:
(a) ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements; 30.9.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 255/47
(b) adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture and the related arts, technologies and human sciences;
(c) knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design;
(d) adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in the planning process;
(e) understanding of the relationship between people and buildings, and between buildings and their environment, and of the need to relate buildings and the spaces between
them to human needs and scale;
(f) understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the architect in society, in particular in preparing briefs that take account of social factors; (g) understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a design project;
(h) understanding of the structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with building design;
(i) 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 the climate;
(j) the necessary design skills to meet building users’ requirements within the constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations; (k) adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations and procedures involved in translating design
concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall planning.

2. The knowledge and skills listed in paragraph 1 may be amended in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 58(2) with a view to adapting them to scientific and technical progress. Such updates must not entail, for any Member State, any amendment of existing legislative principles relating to the structure of professions as regards training and the conditions of access by natural persons.

Article 46 merely sets out the components of the course in clause 1 and in clause 2 clarifies that this article is not to be construed as having any relationship with regulation of the structure, training and access of and to the profession.

1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications as an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by the other Member States, and attesting a course of training which began no later than the reference academic year referred to in that Annex, even if they do not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of an architectgive such evidence the same effect on its territory as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which it itself issues.,

The qualification gets you in the door providing access to and pursuit of professional activities in the same manner as if you had an equivelent qualification from the host member state. However all if this is caveated by both Article 48 below and the preamble that clearly permits member states to regulate their own regimes as they see fit.

Article 48

Pursuit of the professional activities of architects

1. For the purposes of this Directive, the professional activities of an architect are the activities regularly carried out under the professional title of ‘architect’.

2. Nationals of a Member State who are authorised to use that title pursuant to a law which gives the competent authority of a Member State the power to award that title to Member States nationals who are especially distinguished by the quality of their work in the field of architecture shall be deemed to satisfy the conditions required for the pursuit of the activities of an architect, under the professional title of ‘architect’. The architectural nature of the activities of the persons concerned shall be attested by a certificate awarded by their home Member State.

Do you now understand the difference between qualified and professional?

onq,

I think that you mistake in relation to the EU legislation.

The EU legislation is only about architects traveling and working in Europe. The EU did not impose registration. The EU Directive is a non sense in itself as regulations, legislations, climates and other factors require a vernacular knowledge and if one has the skills to design a building in Norway, he may not have the skills to design one in Portugal.

The registration of the title is a globalization tool. It is not related to consumers’ protection, it is about what I call a global technocracy.

I am fighting with Architects Alliance for being able to register without paying more than the others and being subject to a fair examination and not an elitist non sense as it is now. We are lobbying and denunciating how the RIAI is discriminating me and many others in a very similar situation.

However, we are not fighting registration because even if we do not agree with it, it is a lost cause to fight against it. I am not sure what you are trying to prove when arguing that you can continue using the title without being registered, because anyway you are mistaking on this subject. I know that you were told by the RIAI admission Director that you could continue calling yourself a qualified architect, but as I already told you, do not believe all what the RIAI says, specially on the phone and even less on radio or other media.

Registration is about protecting a group of people. If you are not part of the group you have to fight to get in. I have not stopped fighting and I will not. But you must be careful not to fight a lost cause.

@CK wrote:

I am fighting with Architects Alliance for being able to register without paying more than the others and being subject to a fair examination and not an elitist non sense as it is now.

I don’t think anyone can argue with that, most professions have entry routes to formal membership for those who get the experience first and then apply for an examination on the same terms as those who entered the industry on the basis of gaining an academic qualification. In so doing one is acknowledging the need for regulation and is saying that they are willing to abide by the same rules as those already qualified members of the professional association.

Those being the rules that are there to protect the public which is the purpose of all regulation in the first instance.

@PVC King wrote:

Article 46 merely sets out the components of the course in clause 1 and in clause 2 clarifies that this article is not to be construed as having any relationship with regulation of the structure, training and access of and to the profession.

No.
They’re not just the “components of the course”.
They are the core competences an architect must master.

Clause 2 confirms the core competences can be updated to reflect scientific and technical advances, in accordance with Article 58 (2.
This in turn refers to 1999/468/EC which sets out how the bureaucracy should work:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:184:0023:0023:EN:PDF
but it limits any such updates:

“Such updates must not entail, for any Member State, any
amendment of existing legislative principles relating to the
structure of professions as regards training and the conditions
of access by natural persons.”

This paves the way for required CPD but forbids Member States from restricting persons with the required qualification from practising as an Architect.

Introductory paragraph 34 confirms this:

“(34) Administering the various systems of recognition set up
by the sectoral directives and the general system has
proved cumbersome and complex. There is therefore a
need to simplify the administration and updating of this
Directive to take account of scientific and technical
progress, in particular where the minimum conditions of
training are coordinated with a view to automatic recognition
of qualifications. A single committee for the
recognition of professional qualifications should be set
up for this purpose, and suitable involvement of representatives
of the professional organisations, also at European
level, should be ensured.”

Read before you post (1)

The qualification gets you in the door providing access to and pursuit of professional activities in the same manner as if you had an equivelent qualification from the host member state. However all if this is caveated by both Article 48 below and the preamble that clearly permits member states to regulate their own regimes as they see fit.

No.
The formal qualifications listed in the Annex noted above entitle holders to provide architectural services and practice as an Architect.
Section 48 appears to be written to allow people WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS but who are “especially distinguished by the quality of their work in the field of architecture” to be recognised as architects throughout the EU providing their home member state issues them with a certificate.

In other words, these guys don’t necessarily have any paper qualifications, just experience and talent as proven by their buildings.
All this bullshit about Part III’s falls by the wayside – you see the proof of any architect’s competence in their built work.

That’s the thing with architecture that paper-pusher’s just don’t get PVC King – building sites are the last wild frontier.
Creating something out of all that chaos is an experience that drawings on paper or exams cannot encompass.

That’s why the work of people without formal qualifications litter our great cities like jewels.
You’ve heard of Le Corbusier, haven’t you – In this day and age he’d be unemployable.

Read before you post (2)

Do you now understand the difference between qualified and professional?

Do you now understand how irrelevant this is to anyone with talent?
Do you understand its about bureaucrats and control freaks?
Talent, properly applied, achieves miracles of design.
See- this Directive doesn’t refer to Part III’s at all.
How shocking is that PVC King?

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

I don’t think anyone can argue with that, most professions have entry routes to formal membership for those who get the experience first and then apply for an examination on the same terms as those who entered the industry on the basis of gaining an academic qualification. In so doing one is acknowledging the need for regulation and is saying that they are willing to abide by the same rules as those already qualified members of the professional association.

You should come with me to talk to Graby and O’Flanagan about it… First we will ask them to remove from the register all those who entered the club through the minister’s list. Then we will ask them to remove those who have entered through an engineering background… And for the finaly we will propose fairly that all of us, including MRIAI, pass an exam to be listed on the register…

After all why shall MRIAI of my age, who qualified 15 years ago, not be subject to an exam like me? Their qualification does not reflect the skills required to run a practice today.

@onq wrote:

“Such updates must not entail, for any Member State, any
amendment of existing legislative principles relating to the
structure of professions as regards training and the conditions
of access by natural persons.”

This paves the way for required CPD but forbids Member States from restricting persons with the required qualification from practising as an Architect. .

If you are qualified on graduation what relevance has CPD? Clearly the intention was to seperate course content and regulation; which you claim to be exempt from.

@onq wrote:

Introductory paragraph 34 confirms this:

“(34) Administering the various systems of recognition set up
by the sectoral directives and the general system has
proved cumbersome and complex. There is therefore a
need to simplify the administration and updating of this
Directive to take account of scientific and technical
progress, in particular where the minimum conditions of
training are coordinated with a view to automatic recognition
of qualifications. A single committee for the
recognition of professional qualifications should be set
up for this purpose, and suitable involvement of representatives
of the professional organisations, also at European
level, should be ensured.”

Read before you post (1).

That link does not mention the word architect in it; it does mention the common fisheries and agricultural policies. In any event it is a 1999 document so would be superceded by the 2005 directive. You have been on a fishing trip from the off on this; all of these directives relate to the free movement of labour across borders.

@onq wrote:

No.
The formal qualifications listed in the Annex noted above entitle holders to provide architectural services and practice as an Architect.
Section 48 appears to be written to allow people WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS but who are “especially distinguished by the quality of their work in the field of architecture” to be recognised as architects throughout the EU providing their home member state issues them with a certificate. .

No those without educational qualification are dealt with under Article 47 which is titled
Derogations from the conditions for the training of architects

@onq wrote:

This Directive doesn’t refer to Part III’s at all.
How shocking is that PVC King?
ONQ.

They don’t have to

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest. Rules of this kind relate, for example, to organisation of the profession, professional standards, including those concerning ethics, and supervision and liability. Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

What Article 49 actually does is make your position worse; read the clause again

1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications as an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by the other Member States, and attesting a course of training which began no later than the reference academic year referred to in that Annex, even if they do not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of an architect, give such evidence the same effect on its territory as evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which it itself issues.

If you travel the rights in your own juristion can be applied in all other member states; what it does not do is grant rights in the country of qualification that do not otherwise exist. If the Irish system requires registration someone from abroad with a qualifying degree still needs to register; if an Irish architect travels to another member state they are bound by the same rules as the local practitioners.

@CK wrote:

You should come with me to talk to Graby and O’Flanagan about it… First we will ask them to remove from the register all those who entered the club through the minister’s list. Then we will ask them to remove those who have entered through an engineering background… And for the finaly we will propose fairly that all of us, including MRIAI, pass an exam to be listed on the register…

After all why shall MRIAI of my age, who qualified 15 years ago, not be subject to an exam like me? Their qualification does not reflect the skills required to run a practice today.

The problem is that the person that qualified 15 years ago took time out of their lives to get qualified. I sense however that if you have 15 years of experience that you’d not have a problem getting qualified once the route was open through the proper channels. The biggest challenge to the industry has always come from non-architects i.e. engineers, cad-designers etc undercutting costs to get work; te RIAI should ensure that those that have a set number of years of experience and are prepared to go through the qualification process are allowed to and be assessed on the same basis as those that entered the industry by the graduate route.

Its the desire to play by the rules that is most important in my opinion; the public need to have a profession working to a consistent set of rules. The benefits of the larger membership organisations include arranging PI cover in block policies for groups of sole practitioners; an ombudsman scheme etc. The way that the legal profession remove bad solicitors has always ensured that the profession has held the trust of the people in as far as people will ever trust lawyers anywhere!!

@PVC King wrote:

The problem is that the person that qualified 15 years ago took time out of their lives to get qualified. I sense however that if you have 15 years of experience that you’d not have a problem getting qualified once the route was open through the proper channels. The biggest challenge to the industry has always come from non-architects i.e. engineers, cad-designers etc undercutting costs to get work; te RIAI should ensure that those that have a set number of years of experience and are prepared to go through the qualification process are allowed to and be assessed on the same basis as those that entered the industry by the graduate route.

You are skipping the point PVC,

I have spent 8 years in university and I have to pass an exam because my qualification is not listed in the EU directive. Then please do not bring on these poor RIAI who had the opportunity and the privilege to study.

I want the RIAI members of my age to pass the same exam than me because I believe that most of them would not be successful to it. The exam as explained in the ARAE prospectus is set up for academical knowledge and not to assess skills required as to work in a practice.

I understand that the technical assessment (for those who have 10 years experience in the ROI) do not consider applicants with experience in residential projects only. I know many RIAI who do not do anything else than residential, why is it forbidden to self-trained architects to do the same?

This is only the tip of the iceberg… WE WANT A FAIR PROCEDURE…

@PVC King wrote:

Its the desire to play by the rules that is most important in my opinion; the public need to have a profession working to a consistent set of rules.

??? The public needs quality and value that is all… It is you requesting the rules, specialy the rules that suit your interests…

Rules that see foreign architects practicing in the country without any knowledge of the Irish legislation… Rules that see people in my situation robbed of their profession.

@PVC King wrote:

The benefits of the larger membership organisations include arranging PI cover in block policies for groups of sole practitioners; an ombudsman scheme etc. The way that the legal profession remove bad solicitors has always ensured that the profession has held the trust of the people in as far as people will ever trust lawyers anywhere!!

I agree with the above… But I disagree when you think that I should pay E13,300 (non refundable) to be the subject of an exam that even an MRAI of my age could fail… In the US self-taught and qualified architects all pass the same exam…

CK you are starting to sound like a broken record, since I qualified 20 years ago I have furthered my knowledge by undertaking two Masters and two post grads, don’t think I would be capable of passing the exam?

As for the cost of you becoming an Architect, one of my masters cost nearly 20,000

@parka wrote:

CK you are starting to sound like a broken record, since I qualified 20 years ago I have furthered my knowledge by undertaking two Masters and two post grads, don’t think I would be capable of passing the exam?

As for the cost of you becoming an Architect, one of my masters cost nearly 20,000

Hi Parka,

I repeat things over and over because I want them to change… Because there are hundreds of people in my situation who are asking for change.

I have 2 children and a mortgage to pay.

My wife is helping in my practice. I have only one casual employee when I used to have 2 part times and 1 full time.

I do not know how you financed your studies, but personally I think about my children, and so far we do not have any savings to finance their studies… The eldest will hopefully reach university in the next 8 years and the youngest in the next 12 years.

The fact is that the ARAE or the Technical assessment are not studies. In the US the cost is $1,200 instead of E13, 300 in Ireland… I think that the comparison is more appropriate than the one you made.

The first stage of the Technical Assessment cost around E2,500 instead of E50 charged for the same assessment by the Institute of Engineers from Ireland.

I know that I have already said that… But you were probably not listening…

Does your eight years of study include a degree in architecture?

My partner made a second career change to become a solicitor, she had four qualifications prior including an MBA but still had to study for a year (full time but she could have done it part time over 2/3 years) to get her LPC; then two years to qualify under supervision.

I do however agree that €13,300 sounds excessive unless there is a comprehensive course underpinning it that costs no more than €50-€100 per hour for the tuition. If there is tuition in this it would sound fairer to have an exam fee and allow the educational institutes compete on the tuition element by running Saturday or evening courses. Also are the exam costs tax deductable?

@CK wrote:

onq,

I think that you mistake in relation to the EU legislation.

The EU legislation is only about architects traveling and working in Europe. The EU did not impose registration. The EU Directive is a non sense in itself as regulations, legislations, climates and other factors require a vernacular knowledge and if one has the skills to design a building in Norway, he may not have the skills to design one in Portugal.

The registration of the title is a globalization tool. It is not related to consumers’ protection, it is about what I call a global technocracy.

I am fighting with Architects Alliance for being able to register without paying more than the others and being subject to a fair examination and not an elitist non sense as it is now. We are lobbying and denunciating how the RIAI is discriminating me and many others in a very similar situation.

However, we are not fighting registration because even if we do not agree with it, it is a lost cause to fight against it. I am not sure what you are trying to prove when arguing that you can continue using the title without being registered, because anyway you are mistaking on this subject. I know that you were told by the RIAI admission Director that you could continue calling yourself a qualified architect, but as I already told you, do not believe all what the RIAI says, specially on the phone and even less on radio or other media.

Registration is about protecting a group of people. If you are not part of the group you have to fight to get in. I have not stopped fighting and I will not. But you must be careful not to fight a lost cause.

For the nth time, I support Registration, Co-Regulation and compulsory CPD.

I have engaged in CPD for my entire career.

My point, my sole point, is that I am entitled by EU and Irish law to use the title and I would appreciate being afforded the courtesy of automatic Registration.

Did you get it that time?

Re-read my posts and you’ll see this is a consistent thread.

The rest is mere supporting argument or dealing with queries raised.

ONQ.

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest. Rules of this kind relate, for example, to organisation of the profession, professional standards, including those concerning ethics, and supervision and liability. Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

What part of the word evading do you not understand?

@PVC King wrote:

If you are qualified on graduation what relevance has CPD? Clearly the intention was to seperate course content and regulation; which you claim to be exempt from.

No.
CPD is relevant to every person who qualified before today’s date.
The baseline qualification entitles me to call myself an architect under law.
My engagement with CPD keeps my skillsets current enough to competently perform.

Last May for example, a new standard for Fire Detection and Alarm systems came in.
I included it in a revised FSC Further Information submission dealing mainly with a requirement for my client to show a Right of Way.
The Fire Office knew about the impending change but hadn’t known it was in yet.
That’s a worked example of me operating as an architect based on my 20 year old qualification, while keeping my skillset and knowledge of the statutory framework in which I work up to date.

That link does not mention the word architect in it; it does mention the common fisheries and agricultural policies. In any event it is a 1999 document so would be superceded by the 2005 directive. You have been on a fishing trip from the off on this; all of these directives relate to the free movement of labour across borders.

The date of the original Architect’s directive is 1985 – it was superseded by the later Qualifications Directive of 2005. References within the documents to qualifications are the same. References to other documents within them are to current documents and its understood that references refer to later documents where these have been superseded.

No those without educational qualification are dealt with under Article 47 which is titled
Derogations from the conditions for the training of architects

You couldn’t be more wrong PVC King.
This section relates to two specific means of attaining recognition which at first glance do not satisfy the minimum requirements for training referred to at the beginning already referred to above:

1. “Fachhochschulen”, which is only 3 years full time but has 4 years practical

and

2. “training as part of social betterment schemes or part-time university studies”, which is not full time education.

They don’t have to

Are you sure?

What Article 49 actually does is make your position worse; read the clause again

Make your point.

If you travel the rights in your own juristion can be applied in all other member states; what it does not do is grant rights in the country of qualification that do not otherwise exist. If the Irish system requires registration someone from abroad with a qualifying degree still needs to register; if an Irish architect travels to another member state they are bound by the same rules as the local practitioners.

You seem to have missed the significance of this line:

“even if they do not satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46”

I have no problem with Registration, as I have repeatedly stated on numerous occasions
I have a problem with not being entitled to automatically register, since my qualification entitles me to use the title “architect”.

Now tell me where you get to be such an authority on professional qualifications.
While you’ve shown you can read, you don’t seem to understand.
Your comments about Article 47 are a worked example of that.

Come clean.
What’s your qualification?
What’s your competence to comment on qualifications?

ONQ.

I have only one point a degree is a degree and that regulation by state is entirely reasonable and clearly sanctioned by the same directive that you base your arguments upon; I would not like to see anyone misled by your misinterpretation of the rules.

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest. Rules of this kind relate, for example, to organisation of the profession, professional standards, including those concerning ethics, and supervision and liability. Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

@parka wrote:

CK you are starting to sound like a broken record, since I qualified 20 years ago I have furthered my knowledge by undertaking two Masters and two post grads, don’t think I would be capable of passing the exam?

As for the cost of you becoming an Architect, one of my masters cost nearly 20,000

I’m always impressed to see people furthering their education, but TWO masters?.

The figures you quote seem a huge investment for someone with a house and children.

What’s your situation and what was the reason for all this investment in your education?

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

I have only one point a degree is a degree and that regulation by state is entirely reasonable and clearly sanctioned by the same directive that you base your arguments upon; I would not like to see anyone misled by your misinterpretation of the rules.

We actually agree on this PVC King.
What you are missing is the time element.
When I qualified there was no Building Control Act 2007.
The state regulated DIR 85/384/EEC into Irish law with S.I. 15 of 1989 on 25th January 1989.
My qualification was issued on the 27th of June 1990 so it comes under the jurisdiction of this Instrument.
FInally, the Building Control Act 2007 did not repeal – could not repeal – both Directives that recognise my qualification.

So yes indeed, “a degree is a degree” – as you have just stated.
And mine, which is already regulated under Irish law and two EU Directives, entitles me to provide architectural services and use the title “architect”.

These are all incontrovertible facts and the proof of argument has been traversed here many times with links to the actual documents.
I simply want the Registrar to respect this legal right and automatically register me.

Now if you’ll excuse me I have to use my weekend to go and drum up some work.

ONQ.

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest.

Enjoy your day….

@PVC King wrote:

What part of the word evading do you not understand?

I’m not trying to troll you into making outrageous statements like the above – you have overstepped the mark yet again.

Unfounded allegations of criminal wrongdoing may be construed as a defamation under Irish law, so be very careful of your next post.

Post proof that I have attempted to trade as an architect in RL – as opposed to making a principled case here – or that I have in any way ever evaded the law.

If you cannot post proof, then withdraw the comment immediately.

For the record, when the matter was brought to my attention by a colleague in the RIAI I stopped using the term “architect”, even though this is allowed by the RIAI for persons preparing to register.

The reason I stopped is that the Act does not seem to permit this derogation.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

Enjoy your day….

The above quotation is bound by the previous discussed reference which forbids any Member State from restricting access to natural persons to the profession who possess the required qualification.

As I said, I have no problem with Registration, as long as my statutory right to use the title is recognised by allowing me Automatic Registration.

I have spent the last hour showing you don’t seem to understand what you read – I am content.

ONQ.

Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

I did not accuse you of evading personally; but wish to highlight the stated puspose of the Directive to protect individual member states right to regulate as laid down below:

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest.

Using the qualification to evade national application of professional rules as authorised above is clearly prevented. As this directive also replaces all prior directives it is binding.

@PVC King wrote:

Does your eight years of study include a degree in architecture?

My partner made a second career change to become a solicitor, she had four qualifications prior including an MBA but still had to study for a year (full time but she could have done it part time over 2/3 years) to get her LPC; then two years to qualify under supervision.

I do however agree that €13,300 sounds excessive unless there is a comprehensive course underpinning it that costs no more than €50-€100 per hour for the tuition. If there is tuition in this it would sound fairer to have an exam fee and allow the educational institutes compete on the tuition element by running Saturday or evening courses. Also are the exam costs tax deductable?

I see.

So your partner is qualified, more than once, many times in fact.
Is that what makes you such an expert on “qualifications”?
A spectator, rather than a player, perhaps?
Who has become an expert on the game.

And she’s a solicitor too.
Hmm.

Why don’t you ask your partner to cast a glance over this thread and offer a comment.
Unless she’s one of those professionals who don’t engage in pro-bono work as well as doing their CPD.
Get her to check your posts before you make any more unfounded allegations about “evading” matters of law.

ONQ.

Your last post is not deserving of an answer; indeed only for your prose style I’d have stayed a long way from this thread.

Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

I did not accuse you of evading personally; but wish to highlight the stated puspose of the Directive to protect individual member states right to regulate as laid down below:

The general system for recognition, however, does not prevent a Member State from making any person pursuing a profession on its territory subject to specific requirements due to the application of professional rules justified by the general public interest.

Using the qualification to evade national application of professional rules as authorised above is clearly prevented. As this directive also replaces all prior directives it is binding so you like everyone else is subject to the rules brought in by the government.

@PVC King wrote:

Your last post is not deserving of an answer; indeed only for your prose style I’d have stayed a long way from this thread.

You only see my “prose style” – well that explains why you can’t see my arguments.
No surprises, there, you haven’t directly answered most of my posts.
Afraid you partner will say you’re wrong?

I did not accuse you of evading personally; but wish to highlight the stated puspose of the Directive to protect individual member states right to regulate as laid down below:

I’ll accept that.

Using the qualification to evade national application of professional rules as authorised above is clearly prevented. As this directive also replaces all prior directives it is binding so you like everyone else is subject to the rules brought in by the government.

No.
It doesn’t say that.
You cannot prevent someone from doing the impossible.
It is impossible to “evade” a “national application of professional rules” using a qualification.
If I was unqualified and/or trading as an architect without being registered, you might have a point.

In fact looking back on the thread, I see that one explanation of your vitriol is that you assumed I was.
Of course, you were jumping at assumptions all over the place and making unfounded accusations and allegations.

However, as I am not trading as an architect in RL and I support Registration, I fail to see how this comment applies to me.
So its yet another unfounded allegation because you don’t apply professional rigour and do research or ask a relevant question.

And you’re bleating about you as Joe Public can be sure that I’m doing relevant CPD?

CPD is about asking relevant questions of your self and your environment – legal, physical and social – to allow you behave competently.
Jumping at conclusions and making unfounded allegations is not competent behaviour, neither is a quick flick over a Directive before posting.
As I said before, you can form an opinion about someone’s competence from talking to them for an hour, then you go and see their built work.

In the meantime, Go on.
Ask your partner to look at this thread.
Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.Go on.

And tell us your qualification or your competence to comment on qualifications.
Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.Tell us.

You know you want to.

ONQ.

If you have not registered then until you register you can’t use the title of architect as that is what is laid down in Irish law.

Lastly, this Directive is not intended to interfere with Member States’ legitimate interest in preventing any of their citizens from evading enforcement of the national law relating to professions.

It is that simple.

@PVC King wrote:

If you have not registered then until you register you can’t use the title of architect as that is what is laid down in Irish law.

It is that simple.

Its bad enough you repeat what other people say.

You don’t have to go around repeating me and pretending to make a point out of it.

Post # 193 above refers, made half an hour before you did your last parrot impression.

Sheesh!

ONQ.

So you have dropped the I have a degree and are therefore an architect line then.

@PVC King wrote:

So you have dropped the I have a degree and are therefore an architect line then.

I don’t have “a line” – I have a qualification and 20 years experience.

I won’t wilfully break the law as written in the Building Control Act.
One cannot claim legitimacy from one law but disrespect another.

The Registrar will be given an opportunity to behave competently and equitably.
The Government will be given an opportunity to amend the legislation.

One or other the other may occur – either will satisfy my concerns.
Should neither occur, I’m sure I’ll think of something.

After all, solving problems is what I do. 🙂

ONQ.

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=8138

Reposted below

ONQ

---

Irish Architecture Graduates Association: Expressions of Interest

My name is Paul Lee. I am a graduate of Bolton Street (1996) with a Diploma in Architecture and a Bachelor of Architectural Science from Trinity. As a graduate with 10+ years of experience working as an architect, I have no legal status, and am having difficulty with obtaining Registration. I wish to obtain expressions of interest in the formation of an irish Architecture Graduates Association to establish rights for Irish Graduates and Students of Architecture. If you are interested in being involved or finding out more, please read the following link and/ or fill out this (very short) form.

Link to Aims of the Association: http://bit.ly/irishaga

Survey: http://bit.ly/irishaga_surv

You can contact me at: paul@aspirearchitecture.com

---

How many of us are in the same position of allowing the schools sit idly by while our qualification is degraded until our standing matches the man in the street?

Post and make your voices heard.

ONQ.

Thanks for the bump up ONQ.

I know two people who are eligible for Registration, one who no longer subscribes to the RIAI, and the other who refuses to pay the exorbitant money required for Membership. I know several current Members who think the organisation is miles out of touch with reality. How many more are there?

Here is a hypothetical conversation with a Potential Client:

Potential Client: “Are you an architect?”
Me: “Well not exactly. I’m not registered so I’m not supposed to call myself an architect.”
Potential Client: “So you’re not an architect. What are you then?”
Me: “I’m……… eh I don’t know what I am actually….. I’m not a technician, I’m not an engineer, I’m not a draughtsperson…… I’m someone with all the abilities, knowledge and experience of an architect, but its illegal for me to call myself an architect.”
Potential Client: “Architect is simpler. Lets go with that then shall we?”
Me: “OK so. If you insist….”

@Paul Lee wrote:

Thanks for the bump up ONQ.

Thank XArchitect over on the “other” thread:

“The sensitive issue of the title “Architect” and the Building Control Bill”

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=5379

He highlighted your 8th April 2010 post to which I failed to respond.

I know two people who are eligible for Registration, one who no longer subscribes to the RIAI, and the other who refuses to pay the exorbitant money required for Membership. I know several current Members who think the organisation is miles out of touch with reality. How many more are there?

Here is a hypothetical conversation with a Potential Client:

Potential Client: “Are you an architect?”
Me: “Well not exactly. I’m not registered so I’m not supposed to call myself an architect.”
Potential Client: “So you’re not an architect. What are you then?”
Me: “I’m……… eh I don’t know what I am actually….. I’m not a technician, I’m not an engineer, I’m not a draughtsperson…… I’m someone with all the abilities, knowledge and experience of an architect, but its illegal for me to call myself an architect.”
Potential Client: “Architect is simpler. Lets go with that then shall we?”
Me: “OK so. If you insist….”

(chuckle)

At the risk of sounding like its one upmanship, two instances of same last year.

1. Swearing an Affidavitt wherein I scrupulously defined my existence in terms set out by the Registrar only to have the entire introductory paragraph struck through and replaced with the term “architect” by the drafting solicitor.

2. Giving evidence before a Judge in the High Court who waved away the qualifying terminology away once I said the words “qualified in 1990 from Bolton Street DIT” and said “So you’re an architect, fine.”

It seems everyone but this government and the RIAI want to acknowledge my standing and right to use the title.

And the year isn’t over yet.

I’ll be very interested to see how a case goes by someone with 10 years experience but who is self-taught, in the light of the Competition Authority’s input that architects should not have to become Members of the Instutute to be registered.

Because the ILS recognise persons with 10 years experience as being acceptable for signing certs.

ONQ.