Is it really now time to consider restriction of service??

spoilsport,

This is a reflection of my own experience and I have defended the position of asking for a fair fee for reasoanble work on the basis that if you’re a professional and work as an architect for a living, then you need the small work too – especially if you’re a small office – and each job has to pay.

I’ve experienced what you have over the past two years – competing against incompetent draughtsman, engineers with no design ability and technicians who aren’t much better.

Recently I’ve fought the architect’s corner over on askaboutmoney.com where some guy had factored in €500 to design and lodge a new house and another poster called RIAD_BSC was cheerleading.

Planning Costs
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149146

When I pointed out that this amounted to below cost selling he responded with the free market mantra, which argument extended over two threads.

This one, which I started; –

Architects Fees – a Race to the bottom on Price and Quality.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149255

And this one, started by RIAD_BSC which is still ongoing as you can see; –

Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149271

You have to be careful when you explain the world of professionals with academic qualifications to some people.
They don’t have a clue how pensions, total gross earning, family life all are negatively effected by spending your twenties in college and learning your professional practice.
Its convenient for them not to acknowledge the economic redress professionals feel entitled to.
And of course they don’t accept that a higher standard of design and knowledge should be adequately rewarded.
They’re just interested in screwing the profession at the moment with no thought for how this might rebound on them and others.

I have a report to write for Thursday so I doubt I will reply to RIAD_BSC, but I throw it open here if any competent professional designers would like to drop in and have a go – read the posting rules and keep it polite but firm, never abusive.

---

To answer your question, this has been covered in the Other Thread about the Building Control Act 2007 and the Sensitive Issue of the Title Architect.

I have given a lot of though to this off-line and there appears to be a very straightforward solution:
– let each profession stick to what its competent at.

This goes back to the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the attendant regulations.
If someone wants to lodge permissions that’s one thing, but to design the house they better be trained as an architect.
We’re the ones who do five years of design training, not engineers, technicians or draughtspeople.
There is still room for those who have achieved excellence in the design of their work without specific design training.
Let them stand up and apply to be registered as architects.
Otherwise, head off into the sunset and don’t come back.

The issue is design competence, not whether you can fill out a form and organise six copies of plans and red outlinline an OS Map with the position of a site notice on it and showing your land holdings coloured blue and ROW’s coloured yellow.

The issue is the design of the built environment, whether a private house or a multi-storey office block – is the person competent to design them.

Nixer-merchant draughtspeople, engineers and most technicians haven’t a design bone in their bodies.
Those that do need to study as architects, qualify and get registered or get assessed through the ARAE or perhaps the new BCB 2010 if it becomes law.

---

Two other criteria – and the long term technie and Granfather will love these, are:

(i) are they 10 years in business providing services commensurate with those of an architect – show proof
(ii) are they fully covered by PI cover and if so – as what?
(iii) are they paying V.A.T.T and tax – report them!

That should batten down the hatches – but you’re totally right spoilsport – feck these part time nixer merchants!

I believe the RIAI question is – is a schoolteacher who lodges one house application a year an architect?
These are the gits who are taking away out livelihood, not to make ends meet, as we are, but to line their pockets.

ONQ.

Is the teachers union to blame?

I think we need an architect’s union.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

I think we need an architect’s union.

ONQ.

Ireland does not have any standards for indigenous architecture how can you expect an architects union?
Irish architects/teks seem to be lost in banksitekure and eurmodernism.

The solution is simple a building/architecture bank all transactions/contracts must go though the bank for works over 100,000.
Irish architects do not have there own currency, bank,laws, tax system…

If you think anything will change your kidding yourself…
Architects serve teachers then clients.
Architects are rarely allowed to set the curriculum for society they just groom it.

@spoilsport wrote:

How does one upload an avatar???

ucp.php?i=profile&mode=avatar

I’m not really wanting to get into the argument of RIAI v Grandfathers, Engineers, Surveyors, Arch Techies. That topic has been flogged to death on the ” BCA title” topic, and has been going around in circles for a long time now.

My main point is not to disenfranchise established “Architectural Services” firms, but to push the nixer merchant from competing with legitimate tax / wage paying firms. I agree with ONQ on some points, but if one tried to restrict service, to RIAI / Architect Grads, only we will only find a much larger & bona fide resistance lobby group, from the IEI, SCS/RICS, CIOB, and professional bodies representing members whom all would have members which run “Architectural Services / Design Consultancy” firms or otherwise. It would tie up any attempt for change into knots for years, if not collapse it all together ..

The Black market is now severely affecting my livelihood, because were are all now chasing the same small works, because that is all that is on the table at the moment.

I’m looking for valid, reasonable common sense suggestions, of how such a scenario could be properly implemented, because when the politician begin their campaign trail soon, I will be pitching this scenario to them. It needs to simple, because otherwise the politicians will not grasp the nettle. Unless the nixers set up a nixer union, and lobby for them to retain the supplying of tax free /cash paid services, I do not think there will be any resistance to the concept, providing that restriction of service is available to all business registered / tax paying PI carrying firms.

Our firm carries out site assessments, in which we are on a number of local authority lists, which will only accept assessments, from those firms/persons on the list, and ensure we all have carried out the fetac/fas course (irrespective of any existing qualifications) and carry €1 mill.. of PI cover . Before that everyman and his pet dog were doing such assessments. If local Authorities were to only accept planning applications, from only tax registered and PI covered firms, it would cut the nixers out of the equation would it not ? , but of course that all needs legislation to enact such changes.

As profusely mentioned before I would certainly not advocate restricting service to RIAI only, as to try to do would end up in certain defeat. All we need at this stage is to ensure that we are all starting off on equal footing, in a business sense
(the qualifications argument is not relevant at this point) because if one is a serious legitimate business, our overheads are / should be similar on many points.

I would like to see this concept teased out to see if it is worth a pitch at all the eager political hounds that will be surely baying at our doors for our votai, within the next few months if not sooner.

spoilsport

Follow the course (online or however)of the applications and schemes that you were cut out of.
I bet it will happen in most planning applications that the piss-artist will overplay his hand and
get slapped back by the planners.
Planners don’t like amateur/DIY applications either and usually go looking for faults in them.
Those that do go through planning will often run into actual building hitches.
All this costs the cheap-minded clients that very money they tried to save.
And also costs the nixer-boy the fame he’d dreamed of.

When the next bargain-hunting client comes to you explain the pitfalls of going cheap on design
or planning application submission.
For now you just have to be philosophical about this.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Spoilsport.

Very dis-heartening when you find out you’ve lost out on a very small domestic job (> E100K) to an architect (and it was an architect – most likely the back-bedroom/unemployed type) charging 2.5% for full architectural service from start to finish including planning! Either the architect is not really going to provide a full service or they are working for minimum wage.

In one way I am lucky to be in practice since 2001 so I have a catalogue of work behind me and word of mouth is the only way I am getting jobs.

I have heard of one instance where an insurance company withdrew PI insurance from an architectural firm as they got wind of the fee they were charging for a particular project and felt the fee being charged was simply insufficient to provide a reasonable level of service/detailing/site inspection.

Now, theres an idea. There are a limited number of insurers. Legit architects make up a substantial number of their clients. Maybe representatives of groups of those clients, for example RIAI members in the case of RIAI Insurance Services, (only a broker I think, but still influential) should say that we as clients charging reasonable fees are not happy if they insure those who are charging ridiculously low fees. It would have to carefully thought out so as not to offend the Competetition Authority, but we may be, after all, taking the financial hit through increased premiums for those whose mistakes are caused by insufficient time spent on a project and whose fees are consequently lower. Through our insurance premiums we are subsidisng some of those guys already.

All this assumes that the people who spend very little time on a project are producing an inferior product, but as we know from Ryanair that is not necessarily the case. The insurance companies would have a very good idea from the fees/building value ratios declared on proposal forms

umm, there’s nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren’t allowed to do private work is there?

@goneill wrote:

Maybe representatives of groups of those clients, for example RIAI members in the case of RIAI Insurance Services, (only a broker I think, but still influential) should say that we as clients charging reasonable fees are not happy if they insure those who are charging ridiculously low fees.

The real problem here is that those that undercut to such an extent that they can’t resource the instruction are often those who don’t have insurance at all or such cheap insurance that the exclusions are so wide that sustaining a claim is near impossible.

There is no question that the ‘Grandfather Act’ is a complete dogs dinner; the sooner a workable system is enacted to ensure that the various levels from F to A are recognised and that it is required to gain and maintain membership of a body that checks essential items like insurance, CPD and client accounts the better.

To go from near zero regulation to an exclusive regime but letting a number of people through the gate with little or no checks was farcical and has clearly annoyed everyone from those with graduate qualifications through to those who completed their training through RIAI; I really hope this issue can be put back on the agenda into the next Dail.

there’s nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren’t allowed to do private work is there

Have to agree with PVC King on that suggestion – the problem being that many do not have PI.

The nub of the issue is essentially too many architects – too little work. Simple as. Hopefully at some stage a better balance (of work to architects) will be reached.

At an RIAI conference (the year before last I think), in talking about the current recession and future opportunities for architects, the RIAI presented a table of architects per 1000 of population for the EU. Ireland was still way down on the list (despite there now being 5 schools of architecture lashing out graduates). As spoilsport alludes to, maybe the public need to be better educated/informed as why they should use a registered architect/practice rather than the cheap option?

I could also suggest a cull of all architects under the age of 38 should help matters. 🙂

Technicians, by their own estimate on boards.ie [correct me if I’m wrong Doc] 25% of them are interested in becoming architects.
In terms of design perhaps ten per cent of them have the ability in my experience.

I don’t agree with this hands off attitude to engineers, surveyors or technicians muscling in on our design work.
If they want to design buildings they should go off and attend a full time course that imports the requisite skills and knowledge.
Past time to stop pussy-footing around.

As for Architectural Technologists – what design content is in that extra year that confers on Technicians the ability to design like Architects with a five year full time course behind them?

Finally, the figures you refer to for Ireland’s architects fail to take account of the fact that people other than architects are taking the work away from us – the figures are apples and oranges, so its not a level playing field.
Is a school teacher competent to design a building, or a draughtsman, or a structural engineer?
Where have they learnt this competence?

Suggesting non-archtiects can supply architectural services is a nonsense for the convenience of those who have been taking the work out of our mouths for years.
In clearing the underbrush of competitors the RIAI have chosen soft targets and they didn’t even do that well.]
There needs to be a lot of changes in this state in relation to the provision of architectural services.

ONQ.

@PVC King wrote:

@goneill wrote:

Maybe representatives of groups of those clients, for example RIAI members in the case of RIAI Insurance Services, (only a broker I think, but still influential) should say that we as clients charging reasonable fees are not happy if they insure those who are charging ridiculously low fees.

The real problem here is that those that undercut to such an extent that they can’t resource the instruction are often those who don’t have insurance at all or such cheap insurance that the exclusions are so wide that sustaining a claim is near impossible.

There is no question that the ‘Grandfather Act’ is a complete dogs dinner; the sooner a workable system is enacted to ensure that the various levels from F to A are recognised and that it is required to gain and maintain membership of a body that checks essential items like insurance, CPD and client accounts the better.

To go from near zero regulation to an exclusive regime but letting a number of people through the gate with little or no checks was farcical and has clearly annoyed everyone from those with graduate qualifications through to those who completed their training through RIAI; I really hope this issue can be put back on the agenda into the next Dail.

there’s nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren’t allowed to do private work is there

Not half as much as becoming disenfranchised by the RIAI annoyed me.
As for the Bill – its due to come before the Cabinet next month I believe.
Your characterisation of it as a dog’s dinner is short sighted as shown below.
All Grandfathers have to do is refrain from using the Title and carry on regardless.
Once they are registered however, they will be subject to the PPC and the rigours of the Code.

I’m surprised someone like you missed this obvious benefit to the public.
Now they are unregulated – after registration they won’t be…

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

umm, there’s nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren’t allowed to do private work is there?

No there isn’t .

This will allow below cost selling and predatory pricing.
There was evidence of this sort of practice going on in 2009 and 2010
Offices with a line of credit available or accumulated profits were offering to do work for zero fees.

I’m not sure that’s legal in the EU.
It certainly doesn’t support the standards in the profession.
It fails to ensure an adequate level of funding to competently process a design from inception to completion.

ONQ.

@missarchi wrote:

@onq wrote:

I think we need an architect’s union.

ONQ.

Ireland does not have any standards for indigenous architecture how can you expect an architects union?
Irish architects/teks seem to be lost in banksitekure and eurmodernism.

The solution is simple a building/architecture bank all transactions/contracts must go though the bank for works over 100,000.
Irish architects do not have there own currency, bank,laws, tax system…

If you think anything will change your kidding yourself…
Architects serve teachers then clients.
Architects are rarely allowed to set the curriculum for society they just groom it.

Something about this post isn’t scanning properly .
Are you posting while tired and emotional or just plain tired?

ONQ.

I’m a bit confused by exactly who these undercutters are and why you seem so powerless with them.

Are they just cowboys ?
If so, then “quality” of their work will find them out whatever about insurance.

Are they real (but officially unemployed) architects/arch techs who are ghost-writing designs and planning applications for clients who pay them in cash ?
If so, then the discussions with the client’s discussions with the planners will show that the man presenting the application is not the man who really designed it — he simply will not be au fait with the design detail jargon, planning regulations, etc. . Smart planners would see through this and give the client a hard time with his application. The additional work and time redoing the application & design will make it unworthwhile to the moonlighter if he’s on a fixed fee; and on the client if he’s on a pay per hour of work done basis.

Are they double jobbers who work for a private firm of architects by day and themselves by night ?
Surely there must be a “restraint of competition” clause on the employer firm’s contract of employment with the moonlighting architect. If you know the culprit, then report him to his boss.

Are they double jobbers who (à la Philip Sheedy) have a public sector architect job by day and work for themselves in the evenings & weekends ?
Here there may be no “restraint of competition” clause as the types of work undertaken in the public sector job and the nixers are not in the same class.
All I can say about this case is that if one of the cheap moonlighter’s professional colleagues finds out about him, he /she ought do the right thing and contact the council/corporation/govt agency straight off and demand that they insist on their own prerogative on his publicly-funded facilities and energies. If they demur, threaten to leak it to the Irish tabloid press. Let the cheapy be the one to moan off to the RIAI if he wants. . .

@onq wrote:

@wearnicehats wrote:

umm, there’s nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren’t allowed to do private work is there?

No there isn’t .

This will allow below cost selling and predatory pricing.
There was evidence of this sort of practice going on in 2009 and 2010
Offices with a line of credit available or accumulated profits were offering to do work for zero fees.

I’m not sure that’s legal in the EU.
It certainly doesn’t support the standards in the profession.
It fails to ensure an adequate level of funding to competently process a design from inception to completion.

ONQ.

I think I’m missing something here

Despite a long standing adamancy that a nixer would never pass my threshold I have recently done 2 or 3 for one reason or another. I did 2 pro bono because I needed their own particular professional expertise in return but I did charge for the 3rd. Now the fee is irrelevant save to say that they got a good product at a fair price (as did the others for that matter). And I believe I got a fair service in return

Now that’s not predatory pricing or below cost selling. It’s not illegal. It’s no different to the word of mouth mentioned previously. It was done in my own time outside of my own office. Letters of appointment were signed as were fee agreements as were reciprocal agreements in kind. PI was and remains in place. Everyone got a good and full service and we all walked away happy. And all of it on my own personal drawing sheets with my own RIAI number at the bottom. Certainly nothing illegal or substandard. There actually is a lot to be said for the professional barter system if done properly.

I am concerned that the tone of this thread is such that small scale work should be limited to small scale practices or that extensions are the pre-requisite of the sole practitioner. They really aren’t. there is no easy solution here – it’s the registration issue again – are you all channelling CK?

@DOC wrote:

Have to agree with PVC King on that suggestion – the problem being that many do not have PI.

I’ve spoken to a few Architects who still have no PI, even after hearing a few horror stories they don’t really seem to care.

@DOC wrote:

I could also suggest a cull of all architects under the age of 38 should help matters. 🙂

Most of those are in Australia ; )

In my personal circumstances, in regard to the last 4 small contracts, in which I was outquoted, the circumstances were as follows :

1] One off urban dwelling €150-200k max – it was won out by a former council draughtsman, whom has been retired off from the council for health reasons over the last 20 years, and has been on the social sick benefit since AFAIK, but not sick enough to restrict his offering of architectural services since his untimely retirement. He just does the planning for clients, cash only at all times, carries no PI, but has cut a deal with a local Engineer to sign off on mortgage stage payments and issue final cert of compliance. This particular chap, must have still friends in the planning office, because his name rarely is shown when checking the agents list online, when inspecting his planning applications. Quite handy if revenue was doing a quick flit through eh!!

2] Retention application : this was won by a local college lecturer, (all cash only deal) , in some construction related subject, and carries no PI but most importantly he just happens to be the brother of one the most senior executive planners in his own local authority. enough said..

3] DAC application – This was won by an unemployed architectural technician – cad monkey, whom continuously advertises his wares through a local dealer mag.

4] 2 bedroom – ensuite extension to existing townhouse – this was won by a fully fledged part 2 brethren architect, made unemployed around 9-10months ago by a large practice that has went from 19 staff to the 3 principle directors.. again cash job, no PI cover, planning drawings only, no tender docs. Word of mouth referral. Hit and run .. thank you

Now this gives a good list , of the characters I, and all other legit firms are competing against. All the clients care about is the bottom line in costs. i have explained to them in detail the cons of such routes, and I have received the sympathy vote, but in the end most if not all these clients go with the considerably cheaper option. Can I really blame them.. No I cant !! we have all been in the position where we have gone and purchased the really cheap option, and regretted it later, whether it was a car, tv, clothes or otherwise, with the very odd experience that the product ended up actually good value for money, but in the end most of the time it turned out to absolute crap!! but you cannot instil this to clients, whom are usually using their own funds on the project because the banks are not lending. Human nature being what it is , will tend on average to take the cheaper option, especially in these troubled times. I always think of that scene in the film Armageddon, where they are in the shuttle flying towards the comet, when one of the characters quips, about sitting there, upon thousands of gallons of liquid oxygen, on a rocket built for NASA, by the lowest bidder.

Again if my firm was in the open market, and tendering for contracts, against only legit architectural firms, including grandfathers / engineers / surveyors as long as they are tax/vat PI covered firms( ONQ – Im not going down that route of advocating only RIAI / grads – that dog has been well kicked around the block at this stage & Im bored with it at this stage) I know I could compete. The market would then find a balance. Can a workable formulae be put forward and lobbied to the politicians when they come knocking.?? If nothing else it might bring some of the black marketers, into our world, of paying their dues to society, and then we will see if they could hack in, by working legit..

spoilsport

Excellent intelligence data.
I see you’ve retained your good humour at any rate.

Case 1.
This guy is on the sick since 1990 and still capable of “winning” €150k – €200k jobs ?
That means his fees are substantial. And his celtic tiger savings even more so.
You have to gather your guts and report him. No warning.

Case 2.
A prickly thistle.
Monitor his jobs.

Case 3.
A small job and maybe not worth the hassle of defence measures.

Case 4.
This guy is actually your biggest threat.
Has the design skill by training. And rock bottom prices.
He’s liable to take everything you’d otherwise get.
Rather than attack this individual, it might make an interesting case-study
if you propose going looking for official sanction against such people.
His behaviour shows the real horror of the building boom induced cannibalisation
now prevalent.

Buona fortuna.

I would see the guy who advertises his services as the bigger threat.

Seen and heard it all before.

@teak wrote:

A small job and maybe not worth the hassle of defence measures.

Case 4.
This guy is actually your biggest threat.
Has the design skill by training. And rock bottom prices.
He’s liable to take everything you’d otherwise get.
Rather than attack this individual, it might make an interesting case-study
if you propose going looking for official sanction against such people.
His behaviour shows the real horror of the building boom induced cannibalisation
now prevalent.

.

assuming this person is registered, what exactly do you see them as having done wrong?

Not paying tax – obviously.

And this is the way to deal with all of these smart arses.

Report the lot of them to the Revenue Commissions and report the one in the Council to the County Manager.

Stop pussy footing around with these clowns.

Time to act.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Time to act.

All well and good but you are ignoring the people who really created this situation that all hardly ever pay too much tax.
People benefit from crashing economies…
You seem to be going after the lowest common denominator that is probably on social welfare has a mortgage to pay and kids to feed.
There all so seems to be a way around it all a company structure that makes a loss to another company…
The ship sets sail…

surprise surprise…

You ignore the fundamental issues…

No right for affordable housing with debt free ownership the moment you turn 18.
No guaranteed job.

This would create a stable market but who wants that?

I’m not 100% certain what you are on about.
A couple of years ago now, I took over a house from a guy who had charged his clients a small fortune to obtain permission.
I’m talking in excess of 10 grand IIRC, and the house was a fairly straightforward design.

He’d managed to issue drawings for planning which showed the wrong size toilet.
He had shown no level approach – in contravention with Pat M of the regulations.
He had failed to include any allowance for insulation within his preferred 215mm hollow block rendered external walls.
With over 2.5 M to spare, he had left the house with a 3.1M wide ground floor living room.
He had also showed the draiange running in the wrong direction and to the wrong location.

Disastrous stuff.

Spent two weeks chasing him to hand over the drawings on CD-ROM which he failed to do, giving me a print of the drawings.
It was child’s play to draw up the house but the point was he had miseld me on this.
After a while looking at the prints I could see they had been very well drafted, but it was by hand, not on CAD.

Then I checked his name and found he wasn’t an architect,
Yet he had a history of charging high fees and producing occassional results at planning stage.

Is this what you mean by people at the lower end of the game?
You couldn’t be more wrong – he was blinged to the hilt and had been very well paid by my clients over the years.

As for how others view us, herewith a thread over in Askaboutmoney where a poster decides to have a go at Architects fees.

“Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living.”
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149271

Enjoy.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Not paying tax – obviously.

And this is the way to deal with all of these smart arses.

Report the lot of them to the Revenue Commissions and report the one in the Council to the County Manager.

Stop pussy footing around with these clowns.

Time to act.

ONQ.

I agree totally (the question was aimed at Teak really) but let’s not assume that the person in question isn’t registered as self employed and pays their tax.

Another option open to Parka is to write a polite letter to the client in question pointing out his concerns re the quality of service, in particular the PI issue (I wouldn’t mention the cash issue). it won’t change the situation but, if the client does see the negative issues they might be less likley to recommend the other person to someone else.

some architects outline at lot of these potential issues on the websites as a kind of client guide.

@onq wrote:

I’m not 100% certain what you are on about.
A couple of years ago now, I took over a house from a guy who had charged his clients a small fortune to obtain permission.
I’m talking in excess of 10 grand IIRC, and the house was a fairly straightforward design.

He’d managed to issue drawings for planning which showed the wrong size toilet.
He had shown no level approach – in contravention with Pat M of the regulations.
He had failed to include any allowance for insulation within his preferred 215mm hollow block rendered external walls.
With over 2.5 M to spare, he had left the house with a 3.1M wide ground floor living room.
He had also showed the draiange running in the wrong direction and to the wrong location.

Disastrous stuff.

Spent two weeks chasing him to hand over the drawings on CD-ROM which he failed to do, giving me a print of the drawings.
It was child’s play to draw up the house but the point was he had miseld me on this.
After a while looking at the prints I could see they had been very well drafted, but it was by hand, not on CAD.

Then I checked his name and found he wasn’t an architect,
Yet he had a history of charging high fees and producing occassional results at planning stage.

Is this what you mean by people at the lower end of the game?
You couldn’t be more wrong – he was blinged to the hilt and had been very well paid by my clients over the years.

As for how others view us, herewith a thread over in Askaboutmoney where a poster decides to have a go at Architects fees.

“Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living.”
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149271

Enjoy.

ONQ.

What are you on about here? Planning drawings are not construction or building regulation drawings- the only issue I can see here is the drainage.
You’ve developed a fierce indignation worthy of the most upstanding venerable Member or Fellow of the Institute. “Unemployed” architects doing a kitchen extension? Holy God it’s outrageous!! String ’em up and hang ’em high!! Show these clowns!!
How do you know if they’re unemployed or not? How do you know if they’re paying tax or not?
The indignation you display is in sharp contrast to the empathy demanded in the endless posts concerning the oooohhh….”sensitive” issue of unregistered “architects”.
I wonder if the complainants here apoplectic after losing out in kitchen extension jobs are registered architects providing achitect’s services in accordance with the law and have not provided such services over the last couple of years illegally?
Of course that would be a different matter entirely.” Show these clowns” howareye.

“Dangerous” architects doing kitchen extensions at low prices. Jesus Christ. Get your priorities right.

@wearnicehats wrote:

@onq wrote:

@wearnicehats wrote:

umm, there’s nothing to say that otherwise employed RIAI registered architects aren’t allowed to do private work is there?

Despite a long standing adamancy that a nixer would never pass my threshold I have recently done 2 or 3 for one reason or another. I did 2 pro bono because I needed their own particular professional expertise in return but I did charge for the 3rd. Now the fee is irrelevant save to say that they got a good product at a fair price (as did the others for that matter). And I believe I got a fair service in return

Now that’s not predatory pricing or below cost selling. It’s not illegal. It’s no different to the word of mouth mentioned previously. It was done in my own time outside of my own office. Letters of appointment were signed as were fee agreements as were reciprocal agreements in kind. PI was and remains in place. Everyone got a good and full service and we all walked away happy. And all of it on my own personal drawing sheets with my own RIAI number at the bottom. Certainly nothing illegal or substandard. There actually is a lot to be said for the professional barter system if done properly.

I am concerned that the tone of this thread is such that small scale work should be limited to small scale practices or that extensions are the pre-requisite of the sole practitioner. They really aren’t. there is no easy solution here – it’s the registration issue again – are you all channelling CK?

Only one problem here the taxman/woman did not get his/her cut. A barter system such as you have mentioned is legal provided the tax is paid by all parties on the value of the benefit received. Otherwise it is a system that can work quite well. Like many I run a very small practice that carries all the necessary insurances as well as the expensive of an office. I also have to compete with nixer merchants who are not only not insured, not paying tax but often also using illegal copies of drafting software to produce the work. I appreciate drafting software can be very expensive but there is a very viable alternative for only a few hundred euros that does 99.999% of the industry leaders software so there is no excuse.

Like many of you I am often beaten to work by being undercut and I can assure you the quality of the drawing work done is often terrible I would never let it out of my office. I have had a few come back to me to fix up the F??? up’s made by the cheaper individuals and because I need the work I normally solve the problems.

The provision of Architectural Services should be restricted to those who are trained and or have proved themselves capable to provide them. I do not subscribe to being a member of the RIAI in order to provide services. I do believe every provider should be registered and that there should be a minimum standard of service that a member of the public going to a registered provider can expect to receive. I also do not support the present BCA and I do support the reinstatement of graduate Architects to use the title and I support the proposed BC amendment bill 2010.

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

I agree totally (the question was aimed at Teak really) but let’s not assume that the person in question isn’t registered as self employed and pays their tax.

Wearnicehats,

This whole thread is predicated on Spoilsport’s trading rivals being non-compliant in some form or other.
Focussing on the recently-made unemployed architect whom you believe MAY be actually just properly self-employed, properly registered, tax compliant, paying his CAD license & all other office obligations and paying his dues for adequate PI insurance:
Were your scenario true, then that architect’s only commercial advantage would be that he works from his home while Spoiler works from his office with 1 part-time technician, assumedly called in according to demand.
My clear impression from Spolier’s first post is that he was totally undercut by this rival — i.e by a margin far greater than that due to the additional costs of renting an office and allowing so much extra for his p/t technician. (I’m assuming that Spoiler got back to the client after getting no response after the quote, or maybe the client called him with the bad news as a courtesy) Had it only been a few hundred of a difference, I’d say that Spoiler would have worked something out with the client on that.

On your general point, there is NOTHING wrong with a guy who having lost his own salaried job with a firm starts out on his own legitimate & above board business with the leanest possible overheads, e.g. working from home.

But I don’t think that that is the situation that Spoilsport is actually complaining about here.
He probably knows his local rivals well, he knows what it takes to put in a quote substantially below what he put in and has made a reasonable judgement on what is going on with the architect in Job No. 4.

Not being an aggressive profession (by and large) I’d suppose that most architects are reluctant to make individual complaints about unfair competition by other members of their profession. And they know the current situation that is driving their rivals to act as they do.
But Spoilsport would have his own personal & family situation and his own obligations as well.
I would read his initial post as an attempt to maintain some decency & dignity within the profession in the existing savage trading climate.
And this may only be maintained via consensus with colleagues.

The consensus is for architects, technicians, engineers, draughtsmen, the registered, the unregistered, the good, the bad and the ugly, is that the business of architecture is absolutely appalling these days. For everyone trying to keep the wolf from the door and the mortgage paid up and the kids fed and clothed, good luck to you.
In these circumstances, I would guess that having 5 or 6 potential jobs, no matter how small, to quote for on the table in early January, is not the worst position to be in.
In these circumstances, it’s completely over the top to start throwing about terms such as “dangerous” and “hit-and-run” in relation to an architect’s kitchen extension planning application.
(I mistakenly attributed these terms to the invariably helpful ONQ).
Perhaps a Union might help or an enforceable set of fixed rates for domestic work but this type of thing would take years to implement.

Some small-medium sized USA firms have got themselves a piece of the action in the Chinese residential market, for what it’s worth, replicating West-Coast mansions without even leaving the office: “Architects Find Their Dream Client, in China”-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/business/16build.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

Multi-million dollar private residences being developed in China and here we in Ireland with our dangerous hit-and run kitchen extensions.

@Tayto wrote:

@onq wrote:

I’m not 100% certain what you are on about.
A couple of years ago now, I took over a house from a guy who had charged his clients a small fortune to obtain permission.
I’m talking in excess of 10 grand IIRC, and the house was a fairly straightforward design.

He’d managed to issue drawings for planning which showed the wrong size toilet.
He had shown no level approach – in contravention with Pat M of the regulations.
He had failed to include any allowance for insulation within his preferred 215mm hollow block rendered external walls.
With over 2.5 M to spare, he had left the house with a 3.1M wide ground floor living room.
He had also showed the draiange running in the wrong direction and to the wrong location.

Disastrous stuff.

Spent two weeks chasing him to hand over the drawings on CD-ROM which he failed to do, giving me a print of the drawings.
It was child’s play to draw up the house but the point was he had miseld me on this.
After a while looking at the prints I could see they had been very well drafted, but it was by hand, not on CAD.

Then I checked his name and found he wasn’t an architect,
Yet he had a history of charging high fees and producing occassional results at planning stage.

Is this what you mean by people at the lower end of the game?
You couldn’t be more wrong – he was blinged to the hilt and had been very well paid by my clients over the years.

As for how others view us, herewith a thread over in Askaboutmoney where a poster decides to have a go at Architects fees.

“Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living.”
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=149271

Enjoy.

ONQ.

What are you on about here? Planning drawings are not construction or building regulation drawings- the only issue I can see here is the drainage.

Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that’s what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these “new-fangled” ideas…

Thus, last time I checked, the design of the building was supposed to be completed at planning stage.

While you could claim certain things are allowed under the exempted development schedule, widening the house by circa 300-400mm is not one of them, nor is relocating nuderground services [although the “sure who’ll know?” brigade do this all the time] and installing a second set of foundations to one side was beyond my clients means.

The point being that this genius hadn’t ALLOWED for an adequately wide living room [3.3M min to 3.6M pref] for a small house, hadn’t ALLOWED for 80-100mm insulation, still had LEFT OVER in excess of 2.5m of site and had designed the wrong size WC.

Excusing his incomptence at planning stage is not acceptable and you have just destroyed your own credibility by doing so.

You’ve developed a fierce indignation worthy of the most upstanding venerable Member or Fellow of the Institute.

Really?

“Plus royaliste qu le Roi” or, dare I suggest, “Plus royaliste qu le RIAI.”

I’m sure that will reassure John Graby – a kindred soul.

“Unemployed” architects doing a kitchen extension? Holy God it’s outrageous!! String ’em up and hang ’em high!! Show these clowns!!
How do you know if they’re unemployed or not? How do you know if they’re paying tax or not?
The indignation you display is in sharp contrast to the empathy demanded in the endless posts concerning the oooohhh….”sensitive” issue of unregistered “architects”.
I wonder if the complainants here apoplectic after losing out in kitchen extension jobs are registered architects providing achitect’s services in accordance with the law and have not provided such services over the last couple of years illegally?
Of course that would be a different matter entirely.” Show these clowns” howareye.

“Dangerous” architects doing kitchen extensions at low prices. Jesus Christ. Get your priorities right.

You’re confusing my post with someone else’s, aren’t you?

RTFP, there’s a good lad – back to the drawing board.

ONQ.

@Solo wrote:

@wearnicehats wrote:

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

[my bold]

Am I the only one that finds it utterly hilarious that the public good is still being placed in the hands of bank managers.

We seem to have gone nowhere since 2008 with the task of putting manners on the banks!

I support Solo’s position regarding registereing everyone providing services but I go further and say that only those trained and competent to provide certain services should be allowed provide those services.

And in response to a separate comment made above, architects don’t report people in my experience because they are afraid to do so due to their own perceived lack of competence in their built work.
This arises in part from students passing a five year full time course with little site experience,or being exposed only to lffice work during their part III training and finding site work is not to their liking or arguing their corner with bolshie clients or aggressive builders – its not everyone’s cup of tea.

The end result can be poor quality of the built work, and potential claims, so they tend to “look the other way” when some fools does non-compliant work.

I, and one or two others I know, have made money out of assessing and remedying non-compliant work.
I would have no problem making referrals to the Revenue Commissioners, the planning authority or the Registrar.

We’ll see.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that’s what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these “new-fangled” ideas…

Thus, last time I checked, the design of the building was supposed to be completed at planning stage.

If you’re willing to oversee builders building off your planning application drawings well good luck to you, because you’ll need it.
Undoubtedly you’ve informed your P.I. insurer.

@onq wrote:

..While you could claim certain things are allowed under the exempted development schedule, widening the house by circa 300-400mm is not one of them, nor is relocating nuderground services [although the “sure who’ll know?” brigade do this all the time] and installing a second set of foundations to one side was beyond my clients means.

The point being that this genius hadn’t ALLOWED for an adequately wide living room [3.3M min to 3.6M pref] for a small house, hadn’t ALLOWED for 80-100mm insulation, still had LEFT OVER in excess of 2.5m of site and had designed the wrong size WC.

Excusing his incomptence at planning stage is not acceptable and you have just destroyed your own credibility by doing so.

You’re waffling and scrambling here and you know it.
In a planning application the size of the jacks, as indicated in the plan, will not inform the decision.
A non-compliant internal layout is bad design but insisting that the internal layout in the planning drawing is the complete and finished design is absolutely wrong. The internal layout, such as an alteration in the toilet size, can be done post-planning.
Where have I excused incompetence? RTFP, old stock.

@onq wrote:

@Solo wrote:

@wearnicehats wrote:

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

[my bold]

Am I the only one that finds it utterly hilarious that the public good is still being placed in the hands of bank managers.

We seem to have gone nowhere since 2008 with the task of putting manners on the banks!

I support Solo’s position regarding registereing everyone providing services but I go further and say that only those trained and competent to provide certain services should be allowed provide those services.

And in response to a separate comment made above, architects don’t report people in my experience because they are afraid to do so due to their own perceived lack of competence in their built work.
This arises in part from students passing a five year full time course with little site experience,or being exposed only to lffice work during their part III training and finding site work is not to their liking or arguing their corner with bolshie clients or aggressive builders – its not everyone’s cup of tea.

The end result can be poor quality of the built work, and potential claims, so they tend to “look the other way” when some fools does non-compliant work.

I, and one or two others I know, have made money out of assessing and remedying non-compliant work.
I would have no problem making referrals to the Revenue Commissioners, the planning authority or the Registrar.

We’ll see.

ONQ.

what’s with that text clip – I didn’t writ ethat

@onq wrote:

Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that’s what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these “new-fangled” ideas…
.

Given the clear caveats on the title sheets re “not for construction” and the contents of the letter of appointment re copyright and use any builder or previous client who goes on site with a set of our planning drawings is on their own

@Tayto wrote:

@onq wrote:

Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that’s what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these “new-fangled” ideas…

Thus, last time I checked, the design of the building was supposed to be completed at planning stage.

If you’re willing to oversee builders building off your planning application drawings well good luck to you, because you’ll need it.
Undoubtedly you’ve informed your P.I. insurer.

I suppose your only exercise these days is jumping at conclusions Tayto, but that’s not what I posted. 🙂
As you might have inferred, or simply accepted, since I stated it explicitly – I took over the job.

Your clever comment presupposes insufficient information for setting out on planning drawings.
Since dimensions to site boundaries became mandatory in March 2002, this is not the case.
Builders setting out according to planning drawings can be assured of good accuracy.
Assuming the architect has correctly detailed the house internally there is no change.

In this case, the deed was done, and in planning terms it was in compliance.
As for taking over another’s questionable design, you need competence, experience and ability.
Luck didn’t play a huge part, and no, this is no worse than MRIAI work I have taken over and remedied.

@onq wrote:

..While you could claim certain things are allowed under the exempted development schedule, widening the house by circa 300-400mm is not one of them, nor is relocating nuderground services [although the “sure who’ll know?” brigade do this all the time] and installing a second set of foundations to one side was beyond my clients means.

The point being that this genius hadn’t ALLOWED for an adequately wide living room [3.3M min to 3.6M pref] for a small house, hadn’t ALLOWED for 80-100mm insulation, still had LEFT OVER in excess of 2.5m of site and had designed the wrong size WC.

Excusing his incomptence at planning stage is not acceptable and you have just destroyed your own credibility by doing so.

You’re waffling and scrambling here and you know it.

The ad hominem attack is the lame ducks first port of call – you’re better than that Tayto.

In a planning application the size of the jacks, as indicated in the plan, will not inform the decision.

Straw man argument – I didn’t say it did.

A non-compliant internal layout is bad design but insisting that the internal layout in the planning drawing is the complete and finished design is absolutely wrong. The internal layout, such as an alteration in the toilet size, can be done post-planning.
Where have I excused incompetence? RTFP, old stock.

You’re excusing this guy’s shoddy work.
You have just done so again.
Its pretty obvious.

The design process refines the design of the dwelling to suit the intended occupants.
In a circa 50sqm Gd Floor Plan, there is no excuse for putting in an undersized toilet at planning stage.

The Architect’s role to take this completed design to site, having reviewed it for compliance with the building regulations.
Not to throw his hands up once he’s been paid his fees and gotten to sit, sayinge – “Oh, we’ll have to change everything the toilet is wrong!”
That is incompetence, pure and simple – and don’t forget they had gone to site on this person’s drawings, services were in, pipe outlets positioned.

If you haven’t included building regulation compliance elements that affect the design at planning stage you are behaving incompetently.
At the worst you may have an unbuildable permission, at best significant changes that will cost the client extra money.
In the middle range, you will probably require revised P.P. for the amended dwelling.
None of this is excusable if you are offering a professional service.

So why are you defending this guys working method and undermining my position?

My due diligence review of plans highlighted the error, and I had issued revised drawings to site remedying the plans and attended and agreed drainage revisions one morning, ot the great upset of the contractor.
That afternoon a Council representative from Building Control hot0footed it to site with the intention of stopping the work if the wrong size toilet had been installed.

(Originaly Imcumbent) Incompetent Design Competent Design (Me)

Its fairly eary to understand isn’t it?

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

what’s with that text clip – I didn’t writ ethat

Dunno where that crept in so – apologies for any confusion arising.

I’m finding the nested attributions more difficult to edit on this new site.

It can be done, it just takes a bit more time and a lot more checking but I like the colours 🙂

ONQ.

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

Can you tell us more about this one, WNH ?

Tayto’s positive exit from our crisis is all right for USA architects — they happen to be au fait with the very style of homes that these nouveaux riches in China see on their TV — but it is not, I think, an area that small Irish firms could plausibly aspire to.
Are you trying this avenue yourself, Tayto ?

Maybe a better idea would be for recently laid-off staff from the bigger international firms (MOLA, DW, etc) to form a sort of “virtual company” (personal compatibilities allowing) so as to be able to tender for the big foreign design jobs.

Closer to home, if architects have a will to master High German (hup-ow-that!) there is something going on over there.

I wish some dog-idle architect would design a definitive set of nationwide signposts that are
1. Clear at a range 40m by all people, colourblind or not.
2. Non-twistable about the upright or about the base.
3. Suitably placed.
4. Contiguous through every village, town and city for every sighted visitor with no local knowledge whatever.
5. Made of durable materials and using durable/renewable finshes. (No aluminium as it’ll be stolen.)

@teak wrote:

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

Can you tell us more about this one, WNH ?

Tayto’s positive exit from our crisis is all right for USA architects — they happen to be au fait with the very style of homes that these nouveaux riches in China see on their TV — but it is not, I think, an area that small Irish firms could plausibly aspire to.
Are you trying this avenue yourself, Tayto ?

Maybe a better idea would be for recently laid-off staff from the bigger international firms (MOLA, DW, etc) to form a sort of “virtual company” (personal compatibilities allowing) so as to be able to tender for the big foreign design jobs.

Closer to home, if architects have a will to master High German (hup-ow-that!) there is something going on over there.

I wish some dog-idle architect would design a definitive set of nationwide signposts that are
1. Clear at a range 40m by all people, colourblind or not.
2. Non-twistable about the upright or about the base.
3. Suitably placed.
4. Contiguous through every village, town and city for every sighted visitor with no local knowledge whatever.
5. Made of durable materials and using durable/renewable finshes. (No aluminium as it’ll be stolen.)

no I can’t because. if you read the posts, I didn’t write it

was there any need to include the words “dog-idle”? I’d love to be paid to design a sign – who should I talk to Teak?

I’d love to be paid to design a sign

Wouldn’t everyone.

Who should I talk to Teak?

No one for the time being.
Pat Kenny verbally sponsored the idea years back but lately he has just despaired of even raising the subject.
Maybe with so many young people leaving school with no jobs this will be one of those useful public works type tasks that will be given to them that they do not despair, rebel or turn to crime.

My suggestion was that some unemployed architect might look at it over the odd idle hours.
But they clearly cannot be doing this while the house bills mount up.

As you know, those clowns Rennicks have a stranglehold on the councils’ appropriations for signs.
I wish someone would pay me to investigate this oh-so-intimate relationship . . . .

@Solo wrote:

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

This I would bring to the attention of the bank`s regional manager and a journalist

If you’re waiting to get paid you’ll do nothing.
Set yourself a task – then just do it.
It needn’t cost you a lot.

It takes very little time to write an e-mail to all your local councillors asking why Rennicks have the signs.
It may be as simple as there being no competition.

ONQ.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

@Solo wrote:

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

This I would bring to the attention of the bank`s regional manager and a journalist

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

@Solo wrote:

I recently did the very difficult planning on a site for a client who then went to his bank to get funds and the bank manager would only issue those funds if a named Architect chosen by the bank manager was used otherwise no money. it’ a dog eat dog situation at the moment.

This I would bring to the attention of the bank`s regional manager and a journalist

The incorporated law society also issue “notes” about whose certs may be acceptable.
Their current position denies graduates in favour of registered architects.
They are hewing the BCA 2007 Line.

If architects are going to be brow beaten like this into Registering then three things need to happen:

1. A fair registration process – one that is seen to be fair, as opposed to pandering to the RIAI.
2. A fair assessment and reassessment process – one that regularly assesses MRIAIs as well.
3. Restriction of the provision of architectural services to Architects and their tied agents.

Instead we’ve seen; –

1. The MRIAI-only registration process.
2. Graduates [5 years in academia] and those with ten years in practice, whose certs were previously accepted being unfairly discriminated against, allowing Architectural Technicians [3 years in academia] to continue to use their title and certify freely.
3. A free-for-all, where the nonsense protection of the Title only, fails miserably to protect the livelihoods of people who have spent up to ten years of more of their lives as students qualifying or as low paid graduates working for MRIAI’s.
4. Persons in other professions employing architectural graduates and architectural technicians to provide architectural services

Thsi is a total bastardisation of the profession.
Something’s got to give.

ONQ.

Can I just say that a longer time for editing posts would REALLY be appreciated, by me if by nobody else.
As well as a removal of the glitch that can occur when you’re posting and the preview box comes up.
You can end up with two posts, thinking that first had gone to preview when it had been posted.

ONQ.

double post

@onq wrote:

Restriction of the provision of architectural services to Architects and their tied agents.

Persons in other professions employing architectural graduates and architectural technicians to provide architectural services

Thsi is a total bastardisation of the profession.
Something’s got to give.

ONQ.

well well well, are we now seeing circling of the wagons that the BCA has always threatened??

im not going to turn this into a yet another techie v arch discussion, but the above post (while selectively quoted, retains ethos) is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that draws a huge wedge in the architectural profession. Like it or not, technicians are architectural professionals, and as such deserve as much chance to provide “architectural services” as architects. If persons in ‘other professions’ (assuming QS, Engs etc here) are engaging architectural graduates and technicians to provide “architectural services” then shouldnt they be allowed to provide the service they had been qualified to do????

Like it or not, at the formal education level ARCHITECTURE as a profession and an art form is being split into a “design orientated” syllabus and a “technology” orientated syllabus…. two sides of the one profession. Older established architects may not understand, accept or agree with this as they have trained and practised in both aspects…

On the actual topic….. (putting on my devils advocate mask!!)…

1. restriction DOES exist in that the practise of nixers is ILLEGAL
2. restriction on one profession is narrow sighted…. if restriction existing in the architectural profession, will it also exist in the mechanic profession?? cabinet making?? carpet laying ??? etc etc ad nauseum…….. what is so special about the architectural profession that it deserves special legislation to restrict???? if a dodgy mechanic fecks up servicing a car, a person could pay with his/her life…. would that profession deserve to be regulated ahead of a profession that doesnt kill people (only careers)….

oh and ONQ, what exactly is an Architects “tied agent”?

–

@henno wrote:

@onq wrote:

Restriction of the provision of architectural services to Architects and their tied agents.

Persons in other professions employing architectural graduates and architectural technicians to provide architectural services

Thsi is a total bastardisation of the profession.
Something’s got to give.

ONQ.

well well well, are we now seeing circling of the wagons that the BCA has always threatened??

im not going to turn this into a yet another techie v arch discussion, but the above post (while selectively quoted, retains ethos) is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that draws a huge wedge in the architectural profession. Like it or not, technicians are architectural professionals, and as such deserve as much chance to provide “architectural services” as architects. If persons in ‘other professions’ (assuming QS, Engs etc here) are engaging architectural graduates and technicians to provide “architectural services” then shouldnt they be allowed to provide the service they had been qualified to do????

The services they have been qualified to do is to provide technician information to architects after three years of a technically focussed course – there is very little design content in their course.
This doesn’t make them competent to design buildings, just to detail the designs of others – this is the chip on their shoulders they all seem to have.
The only ones who seem to get beyond thsi are the ones who go on to become architects.

Like it or not, at the formal education level ARCHITECTURE as a profession and an art form is being split into a “design orientated” syllabus and a “technology” orientated syllabus…. two sides of the one profession. Older established architects may not understand, accept or agree with this as they have trained and practised in both aspects…

I qualified in 1990 and I understand this very well.
Technicians are trained to think about components and building physics [tom some degree] not about developing a design to both planning stage and on-site to the completion stage.
Another year of professional practice studies or M&E 101 makes them better at answering technical questions, it doesn’t make them architects or even architects-lite

On the actual topic….. (putting on my devils advocate mask!!)…

1. restriction DOES exist in that the practise of nixers is ILLEGAL

Nonsense in relation to restriction – services are not restricted.
Technicians who are operating as architects are already beginning to feel the heat as untrained persons and draughtsmen on the dole and working from home are taking the business from them too.
Nixers are not illegal as long as you declare them for tax purposes and they do not breach your contract of employment.
However under the Health and Safety regulations the Designer carries special responsibility and like everyone must be competent to carry out his/her task.
Technicians are not trained as designers – ergo.

2. restriction on one profession is narrow sighted….

One definition of a profession is a group composed of highly trained people providing competent specialised services to the public and the state.
Its neither narrow minded or short sighted to restrict access to competent persons or to assess those persons – it is good practice.

if restriction existing in the architectural profession, will it also exist in the mechanic profession??

The Mechanic is a tradesman, but yes, that trade in particular should be restricted.
I don’t want an idiot fettling a ton of metal that could kill someone if the brakes failed.
Building trades are effectively restricted by the Safety Health and Welfare at Work legislation requiring all persons to be competent to carry out their assigned tasks.

cabinet making??

Cabinet Making is a craft I think, but restricting it is fine by me, not that many would be competent enough to do attempt cabinet making – the hierarchy in woodworking in terms of growing skill level runs Carpenter, Joiner, Cabinet Maker.

carpet laying ???

Neither a trade nor a profession.

etc etc ad nauseum…….. what is so special about the architectural profession that it deserves special legislation to restrict????

If someone is at that stage in their life where buildings are merely used to support bodily function the importance of the built environment may be lost, but for the rest of us it is vitally important.
Even for people with little cerebral appreciation of buildings, they are aware of the support they bring to human activity.

We spend half our lives awake in homes or workplaces with another quarter in activities in recreational pursuits that are normally supported by buildings in some way, while the last quarter is spent sleeping – again usually in some sort of building.

Better built environments and buildings offer significantly increased life expectancy and quality of life – this is a given.
They do this all the time, 24/7/365 – I shouldn’t ahve to explain this – you should know.

if a dodgy mechanic fecks up servicing a car, a person could pay with his/her life…. would that profession deserve to be regulated ahead of a profession that doesnt kill people (only careers)….

I have already confirmed that the trade of mechanic should be regulated.
In case you weren’t aware [ where have you been for the last thirty years] badly designed buildings *do* kill people.
The quality of design here in Ireland tends to mitigate against such disasters but laypersons shouldn’t go around assuming they know much about buildings any more than they should assume they are competent to carry out operations or prescribe medicine [Pharmacists take note].

Building Collapses:
The Hyatt Hotel Walkway collapse is probably the most famous collapse in America not attributed to a terrorist attack
http://mecholsky.mse.ufl.edu/EMA4913-14/Hyatt%20Walkway%20Collapse%20J%20article.pdf
In developed countries, where the technical expertise and knowledge is available, unscrupulous developers can put people’s lives at risk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse
Buildings in many third world countries still do not meet international building code standards.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/113471/delhi-building-collapse-death-toll.html
Deaths in Mombasa as building collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNeHmxiygFc

Health Risks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_building_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mold_health_issues

Fire Risks:
http://www.stardustsupport.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=37

At least do some cursory reading up on the subject before commenting.

oh and ONQ, what exactly is an Architects “tied agent”?

They provide services to them, not to the public.

ONQ.

Lawyers operate a particularly Byzantine form of protection, whereby bar associations are limited to geographical locations, and an attorney in one region may be prohibited from practicing in another. what does that sound like?

The operation of closed professions, which include architects, civil engineers, hairdressers, opticians, real estate agents, speech therapists and bakers, has been described by IOBE

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0121/1224288006860.html

Interesting article, but again, its apples and oranges.

I’m not talking about restricting access to the profession from other countries affecting the free movement of goods and services.
I’m talking about the provision of professional services by people without a prescribed qualification or even a technicians qualification.

Greece seems to be operating a “guild” system where similarly qualified persons from other countries cannot get a look in.
Mind you I noted the reference to graduates with interest, they still have it good.
€530/mth seems a lot more when you’re on the dole.

ONQ.

ONce again, recruitment sites assail my inbox.

Once again, I am depressed from reading their offerings.

http://www.jobrapido.ie/?w=architect&l=&p=19

Not one “real” architect amongst them – the Title has become an Adjective.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

The services they have been qualified to do is to provide technician information to architects after three years of a technically focussed course – .

my apologies onq… i am probably confusing you when i refer to the professional technician, i am doing so because it has become the vernacular… many persons in the built environment do not understand the difference between a technician and a technologist. It is the ‘technologist’ that i am referring to, and i suppose i should have clarified that in my previous post.
The technologist also holds a level 8 qualification in the field or architecture.

The Architectural Technologist a level of technical professionalism above the “architects technician” stage…..

Technologists are qualified to receive the architects design and to analyse, synthesise and evaluate those design factors to produce a communication to the contractor to deliver the project. After the design stage, the technologist is most qualified to deliver this project due to their indepth knowledge of building science, associated specialities, legal requirements and project goals. The architect is to be considered part of the design team to input their specific skills in the design field. In many cases a technologist is the design team leader.

@onq wrote:

Technicians are trained to think about components and building physics [tom some degree] not about developing a design to both planning stage and on-site to the completion stage.

I would challange you on this. I think you need to do some investigating into architectural technology courses. Technicians are SPECIFICALLY educated to develop a design through planning through to before site workings to on-site supervision to completion stage. Who do you think is more qualified to check the compliance with fire regulations on site??? the architect or the person who design the method of compliance??

I graduated from your old alma mater in 1999. I can confirm to you that both Contract administration and law were part of my syllabus.

I specifically took issue with you stating that “architectural services” should be restricted to architects. I never challenged your point that technicians are not formally educated in design studies (although some AT courses DO provide a contextualisation design program). I agree and accept that point. However, if you had asserted that “architectural design services” should be restricted then obviously i would have a different opinion to my previous post. Can you please clarify if thats what you actually meant?

As a member of CIAT and striving towards MCIAT status, i can assure you that should a restriction of “architectural services” be purported by whomever, technicians and technologists will be considered inclusive in who is qualified to offer these services.

@onq wrote:

Building Collapses:
The Hyatt Hotel Walkway collapse is probably the most famous collapse in America not attributed to a terrorist attack
http://mecholsky.mse.ufl.edu/EMA4913-14/Hyatt%20Walkway%20Collapse%20J%20article.pdf
In developed countries, where the technical expertise and knowledge is available, unscrupulous developers can put people’s lives at risk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse
Buildings in many third world countries still do not meet international building code standards.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/113471/delhi-building-collapse-death-toll.html
Deaths in Mombasa as building collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNeHmxiygFc

Health Risks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_building_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mold_health_issues

Fire Risks:
http://www.stardustsupport.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=37

At least do some cursory reading up on the subject before commenting.

ONQ.

thanks for reinforcing my point that professional building scientists are required as part of the provision of architectural services to the public.

Henno,

There is a huge amount to what you have said and I agree with a lot of it, but equally I am aghast with the apparent underming of the standing of the profession by what looks like a glorified technican class.

I’ll think on this a bit before replying if you don’t mind, because I think you’re heading for a lowest common denominator – minus the design training and adding bits of the engineering and mechanical and electrical engineering professions.

ONQ.

What about frank? was he allwright?

@onq wrote:

Henno,

There is a huge amount to what you have said and I agree with a lot of it, but equally I am aghast with the apparent underming of the standing of the profession by what looks like a glorified technican class.

I’ll think on this a bit before replying if you don’t mind, because I think you’re heading for a lowest common denominator – minus the design training and adding bits of the engineering and mechanical and electrical engineering professions.

ONQ.

hi ONQ,

without seeming to be brown-nosing here, buy you know that i also agree with a lot of your opinions when it comes to issues such as the BCA etc.

However i must strongly argue that your view of “the profession” seems to be very narrowly focused.

Yes, on the majority of smaller scale projects the architect should be competent enough to be be able to do most of the duties od the technician, in that the architects construction and regulatory knowledge should be adequate enough to be able to makes on going technological decisions.

However, as the scale of projects grow, the gulf between this “adequate technological knowledge” and the “artistic prowess” of the architect is widened to such a degree that one of both of these competencies will be affected. as i hav esaid vefore, there is a conscious and deliberate divergence of these competencies at the educational stage of the architectural profession. The ‘architect’ is as firmly focused on the ‘design and concept’ of archietcture as the technician / technologist is on the ‘analysis and synthesis’ of architecture.

Looking back on this I see you’re using quotation marks for two phrases in your comments, which I cannot seem to find

“adequate technological knowledge”

“artistic prowess”

You might clarify the reference Henno when you get a minute.

I agree with your assessment that there is a form of streaming going on in the profession.
During my education the technician was there to amplify the technical productivity of and office.
I consider this separate and equal streaming to be totally improper and a disaster on the cards for architects.

I have come across designs apparently certified or approved for certification by the technician job runner – who had no clue.
Technicians don’t design my methods of compliance for Part B or anything else – I design my own, vetting and approving all matters arising.
This included shelling our hundreds of pounds for overpriced British Standards for reference – which I then have to let the Fire Office read because his office doesn’t have a current copy!!!

Surfacing this week from completing a Business Development Course and reading your follow up, it comes as something of the shock to read your comment above which suggests that architects are now so grossly incompetent technically, technicians must do their work.
That is a disgraceful state of affairs, only benefiting lazy prima donnas with aspirations to Star Status – by God this profession needs a good kick in the behind to get it back on track – I can see that things have slipped disastrously under the tutelage of the RIAI.

And I was talking with a colleague only yesterday about the Regulation of the Building Industry.

Not just Regulation of the Title(s) used by the designers/professionals but their services

Not just Regulation of the Provision of Architectural Services, but all Services

Not just Regulation of the Professions as a group but also including:

• Architectural Technicians
• so-called CAD Technicians
• CAD Draughtsmen

and the like.

But most importantly Regulation of those who claim to be Main Contractors and their better less experienced cousins, the phalanx of Self Builders – its way past time we put the whole Building Industry on a professional footing.

Suffice to say that the Building Control Amendment Bill 2010 was only an essay – a tidying up exercise.
I suspect it will be amended in due course to reflect public concern that Grandfathers must show their work.
But the great work, that lies ahead – will be the imposition of a formal structure on the way we design and build.
This work will address the current situation where the person with responsibility for the built work has no qualification.

Architects and Design Consultants are responsible for the design of the building or elements of the building.
Half formed creatures like BER consultants and Passive House consultants are not designers at all and should be tied agents.
But allowing the current state of affairs to continue, where people with absolutely no experience can call themselves main contractors?

That is a total joke and it reflects the nod-and-a-wink Gombeenism that has led this country to the brink of destruction via the building industry.

ONQ.

One thing I’m curious about.

An architect , fully EU directive qualified and ARB registered in London, does work in Dublin using his London address on title blocks etc.

Doing anything wrong?

It seems to depend on whether he’s originally from Ireland and also whether or not he qualified here AND whenter he did his Part III here or not.

If you have a London Part III and ARB accreditation you have some fun ahead of you.

If you have an Irish Part II and no Part III you have even mroe fun ahead of you with the Registration Process – feel free to confer on this.

AFAIK – AND DESPITE ALL APPEARANCES TO THE CONTRARY I’M NOT THE EXPERT ON THIS :lolno: – Irish-qualified Architects practising in Ireland need to be Registered here.

An Irish Architect needs to be accerdited here to work here – I think there was an article in Hot Press last year about someone in a similar plight – and yer man was qualified out the wazoo – James MacAree I think his name was.

Yep, here’s the reference – you’ll need a subscription to view it.

http://hotpress.com/archive/6768196.html

“A bizarre new law places huge obstacles in front of Irish architects who have qualified in the UK and who wish to practice in Ireland – even though non-Irish citizens face nothing like the same level of difficulty.”

I didn’t read the original article, but I corresponded with James and advised him in relation to his position.

I understand that the country you qualified in must accredit you through the competent authority, which in Irelands case is the RIAI.

You might look at this and revert with a comment as to how it affects you/ the person in question if its not your goodself.

ONQ.

sorry – probably wasn’t clear as usual. the person in question ain’t Irish and ain’t me. The question here is whether, by virtue of the qualification and the origin of the design, if you like, in terms of the titleblocks, is this legal? ie what stops uk based fully eu qualified architects working here “from home”

Okay wearnicehats

I don’t know what you mean by “eu qualified” – issues arise in terms of where the primary degree was obtained, the nationality and country of origin of the person and where the person is practising.
The legalities of lodging planning applications and practising in one country while based in another seem to be another agenda altogether.
That is to say, Registration is one thing, practising another.

I’m assuming the person is EU but not Irish or English and got their primary qualification in the EU country, whatever about being accredited through the ARB.
My gut feeling on this is that if your work is on site here, you are effectively working here regardless of your place of abode or work.
Therefore you need to be Registered/Licensed to do so – so there is an accreditation process through the RIAI required.

Couple of clarifications on this.
The RIAI are currently the Competent Authority in relation to Architecture in Ireland.
I feel this should have been limited to “the competent body in relation to Registration of Architects in Ireland”, but that’s the way it is for now.
The person to whom this question needs to be addressed with full information is he admissions Director of the RIAI who will clarify the correct approach for you.

The reason I take this view point is the degree of jumping through hoops for the Registration Process that James MacAree had to undertake to get recognised here.
Common sense seemed in short supply when this framework was being drafted, but there is a feeling that equally, if we have to jump through hoops, so should everyone else.
I’d be VERY interested in finding our where and how this concludes wearnicehats so please consider posting and update when you know how it terms – or is turning – out for your friend.

In the meantime, here is a link you could pass on and some extracts which may be relevant to your friend’s position –

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

http://www.riai.ie/admissions/architects/

Registration: Route D1

To qualify for this route you must:

* be a national of an EU/EEA Member State
* have a recognised qualification in Architecture from an EU/EEA Member State and
* meet the requirements of Directive 2005/36/EC on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications

Download the ROUTE D1 application package

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

Registration: Route D2

To qualify for this route you must be:

* A national of an EU Member State, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland and
* have a Qualification in Architecture from an EU/EAA Member State other than Ireland which does not meet the requirements of Chapter III Article 46 of Directive 2005/36/EC on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications

This route relates to the ‘General System’ under Title III Chapter I of Directive 2005/36/EC. If successful you may be required to undertake compensation measures to meet the criteria set out in the Building Control Act 2007.

Please contact the Admissions Director

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

Registration: Route D3
To qualify for this route you must be:

* A national of an EU or EEA Member State, and
* Legally established as an architect in a Member State

This route relates to those seeking to register for the purpose of providing architectural services in the Irish State on a temporary and occasional basis.

Download the Route D3 Package

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

So as you can see its all hugely bound up in red tape and assessment criteria, despite your person having an “eu qualification”.

ONQ.

bloody hell – pictionary must be fun with you. It’s a purely hypothetical situation but, for argument’s sake let’s say the person is english, went to a nice school in england followed by RIBA parts 1 and 2 at university (despite middling grades) in england. RIBA Part 3 taken and passed at said university in england. Spending some time in Dublin, decides to do a bit of work for someone as a favour – no fee, no tax issues. Does it all through on paperwork through a company registered in london. Legal?

How does it work, for instance, if an non-irish firm wins a competiton here (pause for laughter) – must they tie in with a local firm?

I’m not aware of any legislation that stops someone based overseas lodging a planning application here, for instance. Is there any?

Not yet, but wait until next year …

For now, you must be registered to practise as an architect here.
It doesn’t matter whether its lodging an application or certifying a building.
I think its the same in England were if the situation were reversed you’d need a temporary license.

I’ll try and post a copy of James MacAree’s Hot Press article later on.

ONQ.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61060971@N03/5561213391/sizes/l/in/photostream/

The amount of hassle I had posting this on Facebook I just went to Flickr instead.

ONQ.

James Mac Arees Hot Press Report in detail seems to suggest that his plight may have little enough to do with your friend’s situation Missarchi.

The issue is which route would be required for him to proceed and for a definitive on his right to practice here, he has to contact the RIAI.

I think you’ve zeroed in on a poorly defined area – although the RIAI may have fully considered it in their prognositcations.

Are you practicing “here” by supplying a service or drawings/documents seeking permission or for construction.

I think that if you are engaged here and the site is here and the LA is here, you are working “here“.

If you are using the Title “Architect” then you need to be Registered in Ireland to do this.

I think the ARB have some kind of “temporary” Registration facility – not sure of that.

If your friend practices here – as an architect – unregistered – he may be in breach.

Call the RIAI and have a chat.

:angel:

Or contact the AAOI.

:problem:

ONQ.

Surprise this even got any press coverage…
The coverage of Irish architecture/design in the press is very skewed.
So much so you may as well be vegetarian.
I would like to see the RIAI take on all international media outlets for using the word architect for banking systems IT and jail them all for a year ect…
( but I don’t see it happening )

Promoting and Supporting Professionally Qualified Irish Architects in Ireland.

from????

Promoting and Supporting Irish Architecture.

I’m well aware Irish architects have gone underground for good reason but this does not mean you always are supporting the best design or outcome.
Professionally Qualified Irish Architects in Ireland can still specify ********* granite over connemara.
Professionally Qualified Irish Architects in Ireland can still outsource work.
Professionally Qualified Irish Architects still have a minimum wage?
Other developed countries have standards of wages that must be paid for different stages of your career does Ireland?
There is not one Irish indigenous architect/designer building product that I have seen on the market.
There is no funding for Irish indigenous architecture just modernity. (discrimination?)
The RIAI does not have an Indigenous Irish architecture award.
More work can be done…
In the end Scarpa did not even accept the paper…

Missarchi,

Its hard to understand what you are posting about now, but I’ll make an attempt to reply to your comments
The Indo, the Times and the Sunday Business Post have all commented upon the subject of Registration.
This above issue got hot press coverage because one person stood up to the RIAI who beign unfair.

My read on this is that it arose partly through the relative inexperience of those adminstering a myriad of new regulations.
Trying to do the right thing, they got caught up in the myriad definitions and requirements they themselves lobbied for.

I don’t see this as suggesting any vindictive streak on their part.
Bureaucrats will tend to say “no” rather than “yes”.

There is NO objective coverage in the press per se.
There are the views of the Registrar and the Architect’s Alliance.
Montaut and Graby have been the ones exchanging views in the press.

I have stayed out of this because it ignores several issues, some of which I have posted about here.
I am more inclusive than Graby in terms of allowing competent people to practise as architects if they can show this.
I am far less forgiving than Graby because I think that only architects should provide architectural services to the public.
I include Architectural Technologists in this only so long as the law says they are to be held equally liable to architects – otherwise – no!

Draftsmen – no! These guys are the bane of all building professionals trying to make a living at the moment!
Technicians of any sort – No! Not unless they submit their work AS ARCHITECTS and show they are competent at this level
Engineers – NO!!! Bugger this nonsense – I don’t design structures or services for a living – although I have done both – stay off my turf.
Surveyors – NO!!!!! They survey things, they’re not even trained as designers FFS!!!

If its about designing buildings for humans it should be done by architects, simple as that!

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

Re your other points.

No Irish architects are underground.
Unqualified successes are still using the title architect.
Graduates are still practising from Mammy’s back room and calling themselves architects

Specifying Granite?
Outsourcing Work?
Minimum Wage?

As for your last comments about recommened rates, indigenous products, architects and Scarpa?
Are you drunk in charge of a keyboard?
What are you on about?

ONQ.

Architects know a lot about very little.

Drunk? no that comes naturally…
But it might invoke a response.

Anyway on the wage issue what is the minimum you can pay a:

a) a pre-grad of architecture
b) grad of archi
c) 3 year grad
d) registered
e) 10 years rego

There is no legally applicable rate AFAIK, so its the Minimum Wage.

ONQ.

What job will an architect do in 2025?

So what is the incentive to go through all that pain?
Clearly it seems there is no award wage or structure is that because there is no architects union?
You must have serious doubts about the profession now? and who it serves?

riba or riai?

What have Brad Pitt, Justin Bieber and Mattel’s new Barbie doll got to do with this?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bydesign/stories/2011/3171139.htm

@missarchi wrote:

What job will an architect do in 2025?

So what is the incentive to go through all that pain?
Clearly it seems there is no award wage or structure is that because there is no architects union?
You must have serious doubts about the profession now? and who it serves?

riba or riai?

What have Brad Pitt, Justin Bieber and Mattel’s new Barbie doll got to do with this?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bydesign/stories/2011/3171139.htm

They got the design of the Architect Barbie so wrong

I understand where you’re coming from regarding wages etc.
Looking at the RIAI website jobs are being advertised without pay and there’s free advice clinics coming up, the future doesn’t look good at all.

Architects are competent to comment on all matters in relation to buildings.
Contrary to your assertion Missarchi, they know a lot about a lot of things.

The outlook looks bleak for those students leaving the courses this year.
Design ability doesn’t put money in the account or food on the table.

Its time the schools started thinking about the numbers emerging.
Its clear they’re run to a profit-taking agenda, not sustainability.

A little bit of professionalism managing all markets is needed.
The bullshit idea that a chaotic market regulates itself?

That’s like saying criminals will run to confess crimes.
Just a load of utter bollox promulgated by the Yanks.

As for the incentive – you wouldn’t understand.
Its a career, its a vocation, its a profession.

You either are an architect, or you aren’t.

ONQ.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=110216182335329

UK based organisation – Architects Against low Pay. Some interested stuff

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/riba-pledges-to-kick-out-wage-abuse-firms/5015962.article

All good and well, but Angela spoke a few months ago about how upbeat Irish architects were about the downturn

@onq wrote:

You either are an architect, or you aren’t.ONQ.

from the bdonline post by an architect?

It is important that young would-be architects have the opportunity to escape the profession while they are still young enough to restart in a decent career. Many of these young people are intelligent, hardworking and competent, and deserve a reasonably secure and hopeful future.

Read more: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/5015962.article#ixzz1IJmCpaER
BDonline.co.uk

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

onq do you support architects as the people or movement or the idea that an architects design is always superior?
do you serve your clients more than you serve architects?
Who comes first your client or your design ideals?

Onq can you show me how the pay structure for architects factors in the cycles of recessions?

@missarchi wrote:

@onq wrote:

You either are an architect, or you aren’t.ONQ.

from the bdonline post by an architect?

It is important that young would-be architects have the opportunity to escape the profession while they are still young enough to restart in a decent career. Many of these young people are intelligent, hardworking and competent, and deserve a reasonably secure and hopeful future.

Read more: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/5015962.article#ixzz1IJmCpaER
BDonline.co.uk

Nonsense – no one is trapped in a profession – they can walk away and re-train at any time.

(heads off to bdonline to see what this is all about)

LOL! That was posted by Alex Ford on 1 April 2011 @ 11:27 am

Note the date.

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

onq do you support architects as the people or movement or the idea that an architects design is always superior?

I take each on their merits.

do you serve your clients more than you serve architects?

There is no “serve architects” – is this a ten year old writing these questions?

Who comes first your client or your design ideals?

Same question?

Okay – there is no “first”.
For me design is a battle between –

• what I want
• what the client wants
• what the planners want
• what the statutory approvals require
• what the building regulations require
• what the building itself seems to want

[/quote]

Onq can you show me how the pay structure for architects factors in the cycles of recessions?

No I can’t – I answered this before didn’t I – why do you ask?
More importantly, why do you keep asking me?

I’m not a pundit on the economy or a representative of the Competent Authority here, the RIAI.

The RIAI’s response is to offer architects on the unemployment the “opportunity” to gain experience working for free in architects offices.

Indentured servitude.

ONQ.