Dear Young Architects

@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.

@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.

@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.

@henno wrote:

😀

i think the appropriate expression is “OWNED!!”

🙂

And this is me being nice.

ONQ.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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…

@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.

@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