Dear Young Architects

@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.

@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.

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.

@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?

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).

@PVC King wrote:

How many shoulders do you have?

Plenty.

How many degrees do you have?

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 got the same impression…
Proffesions are like colours theres no gold at the end of the rainbow…

@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.

@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.