Dear Young Architects

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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

@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 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?

@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.