Dear Young Architects

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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

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?…

@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 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.

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.

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.

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?