Should Architects be the only ones allowed to make Planning Applications?

Some of the most beautiful cities in England were destroyed by architects during the 20th century, so let’s not be one-sided about it.

Well said PlanE, won’t happen tho’

@PlanE wrote:

The last Building Control Bill (and the Eurocratic system responsible for it), has not gone far enough. Protection of title should have been extended to include protection of services, and thereby protection of the ‘common good’, the fundamental aim of good planning.

Sounds quite Fundamentalist alright.
Many RIAI members can hold their heads in shame as they were also highly involved in all aspects of construction over the last 40 years.

Quite a frightening post, shame on you.:eek:

@PlanE wrote:

Only doctors, vets and dentists can write prescriptions, only judges can give sentences, priests give absolution, teachers mark exams, licensed bus drivers drive buses, the list goes on. Why shouldn’t it be the same for architects? We have it bad enough, God knows.

Lets face it, good planning requires good design.

The countryside (in particular), and towns have undeniably been ruined over the last 40 years, mainly through unqualified cowboys and developers allowed to run rampant, providing for individual interests, all in the name of ‘competition’.

The last Building Control Bill (and the Eurocratic system responsible for it), has not gone far enough. Protection of title should have been extended to include protection of services, and thereby protection of the ‘common good’, the fundamental aim of good planning.

Absolutely not.

the basis to equate good planning to good design SHOULD be on the basis that bad design gets refused!!! Thats where this argument should be focused.

Is Mrs Murphy from no 49 supposed to engage Mr HRH RIAI to ‘design’ her disabled extension? There are many ‘architects’ coming straight from college that couldnt tell you what TGD disabled assess is covered by. And is she then bound to pay ‘suggested’ riai rates?? Get Serious.

The consumer must be protected from cartels that this proposal would create. To restrict a service to one select group is so far at odds with good consumer protect practise that it simply couldnt happen… could it?? Whos to say this isnt the end-game of the BCA??

@PlanE wrote:

The last Building Control Bill (and the Eurocratic system responsible for it), has not gone far enough. Protection of title should have been extended to include protection of services, and thereby protection of the ‘common good’, the fundamental aim of good planning.

…and world domination, after all it’s for their own good !

As far as I know, in Germany only architects can submit planning applications. If it’s good enough for them……:rolleyes:

Is it just me or is there a very strong whiff of self-preservationism about archiseek these days, and the profession in general?

It’s survival of the fittest lads, deal with it.

@PlanE wrote:

Only doctors, vets and dentists can write prescriptions, only judges can give sentences, priests give absolution, teachers mark exams, licensed bus drivers drive buses, the list goes on. Why shouldn’t it be the same for architects? We have it bad enough, God knows.

Lets face it, good planning requires good design.

The countryside (in particular), and towns have undeniably been ruined over the last 40 years, mainly through unqualified cowboys and developers allowed to run rampant, providing for individual interests, all in the name of ‘competition’.

The last Building Control Bill (and the Eurocratic system responsible for it), has not gone far enough. Protection of title should have been extended to include protection of services, and thereby protection of the ‘common good’, the fundamental aim of good planning.

Is this the RIAI’s way of keeping there members in employment 😀

Its a bit overkill really for extensions and the like

Architects are a reflection of society and all the differences it entails…

An Architect does not guarantee good design and never will…
Design in architecture practices is not benchmarked internally or externally you only see the good stuff… Plan E you should draw up an architecture rating from make like the BER from…
I think there would be many serious mistakes in planning applications if just architects where involved… Some practices have internal crits but it’s the exception rather than the rule… Quality control = planning = government not tech vs tect

architect = client (maybe you should focus on this)

Most of the more senior architects have forgotten how to draw as well…

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Some of the most beautiful cities in England were destroyed by architects during the 20th century, so let’s not be one-sided about it.

such as? York, Lancaster, Cambridge, Oxford, all still beautiful cities
@markstephens wrote:

Well said PlanE

knew I could count on good sense from my Mayo comrades 😉
@henno wrote:

Absolutely not.

the basis to equate good planning to good design SHOULD be on the basis that bad design gets refused!!! Thats where this argument should be focused.

and who decides good design? not the planners, surely !! I would have thought that the appropriate forum for inculcating good design is the colleges of architecture.
@henno wrote:

Is Mrs Murphy from no 49 supposed to engage Mr HRH RIAI to ‘design’ her disabled extension? There are many ‘architects’ coming straight from college that couldnt tell you what TGD disabled assess is covered by. And is she then bound to pay ‘suggested’ riai rates??

after doing the Part 3 (ie. not straight from college), they are expected to know the regulations. And a good technician in support can provide help here, too
@henno wrote:

… that it simply couldnt happen… could it?? Whos to say this isnt the end-game of the BCA??

perhaps it is….
@Wild Bill wrote:

…and world domination !

I never thought of that ! good idea ! 😀
@missarchi wrote:

Architects are a reflection of society and all the differences it entails…

An Architect does not guarantee good design and never will…
Design in architecture practices is not benchmarked internally or externally you only see the good stuff… Plan E you should draw up an architecture rating from make like the BER from…
I think there would be many serious mistakes in planning applications if just architects where involved… Some practices have internal crits but it’s the exception rather than the rule… Quality control = planning = government not tech vs tect

architect = client (maybe you should focus on this)

Most of the more senior architects have forgotten how to draw as well…

Your comments are just capitulation.

As I said above, if 5-7 years of training doesn’t produce good designers, nothing can, but at least we should aspire to good design; I am well aware of architects producing dross, but I don’t think it’s the norm, and may well be a result of outside pressures such as commercial interests or client wishes. However, it is the norm that non-architect produced work is dire, and I make no apologies for saying that – I have first-hand knowledge of much that goes on regionally.

An architect does not = client. He or she should provide the best possible advice to the client. A client’s interests are generally self-oriented, while a proper planning regime would ensure that the client must pay heed to common interests, such as history and context, all in the common good. And I repeat, if an architect can’t draw (or detail or even know his regulations), then he should have and most likely will have good support in architects + technologists + technicians.

The aim must be an improved built and lived environment.

As DOC says, if it works for Germany…

@PlanE wrote:

As DOC says, if it works for Germany…

There would be no tado…
There would be no scarpa…
Michael reynolds…
ect ect…

@PlanE wrote:

I never thought of that ! good idea ! :…

Every business should have an expansion plan….:D

Personally I think that only planners should make planning applications. As a lot of you obviously dont get…there is more to the planning process than design.

@StephenC wrote:

Personally I think that only planners should make planning applications. As a lot of you obviously dont get…there is more to the planning process than design.

Ridiculous suggestion. Design is not one of your strong points, as a lot of you planners don’t get….

Obviously what this thread has shown, as most of us understand, is that there is much more to a planning application than a “design”…. so i hope the initial proposal has been shown to be illogical.

@henno wrote:

Obviously what this thread has shown, as most of us understand, is that there is much more to a planning application than a “design”…. so i hope the initial proposal has been shown to be illogical.

is that why you said this ? (below)

@henno wrote:

the basis to equate good planning to good design SHOULD be on the basis that bad design gets refused!!! Thats where this argument should be focused.

@PlanE wrote:

Ridiculous suggestion. Design is not one of your strong points, as a lot of you planners don’t get….

Granted (pardon the pun). Thats why there are architects. But my point remains: making planning applications and properly planning developments is about more than simply design. For that reason planners, working with architects and engineers, should prepare planning applications.

@StephenC wrote:

Granted (pardon the pun). Thats why there are architects. But my point remains: making planning applications and properly planning developments is about more than simply design. For that reason planners, working with architects and engineers, should prepare planning applications.

Well, first of all, planners DO work with the above in preparing applications. I have worked with several planning consultants in private practice, in preparing applications and local area plans, etc.

Secondly, your original statement said only planners should make planning applications. But accepting your later qualification, I’m not sure it’s even a good idea taking on planning consultants, at least in many cases. It can give an unfair weighting to a bad design or wrongful development when planners ‘peddle’ planners. It’s a bit like County Councils, the OPW or Bord na Mona making a planning application – was the result ever in any doubt?

@irishguy wrote:

Its a bit overkill really for extensions and the like

I had this discussion with a friend of mine today, who made a similar comment. Its not overkill. For the same extension a plumber can’t be avoided nor an electrician nor a roofer. Yet many people think they can bypass the architect, and thereby bypass architecture. This is wrong. And it stems from the ‘anything goes’ attitude towards planning and development.

That said, ‘negligible’ extensions under 40 sq.m., porches, and so on (with certain provisos) don’t require planning anyway. However, developments deemed to make an impact should be carefully considered in design terms, for this reason alone. And I can think of several minor extensions by ODOS, Boyd Cody and others that have offered an awful lot more real value than might otherwise have been expected. The argument remains.

@PlanE wrote:

is that why you said this ? (below)

they are not exclusive…

:confused:

@StephenC wrote:

Granted (pardon the pun). Thats why there are architects. But my point remains: making planning applications and properly planning developments is about more than simply design. For that reason planners, working with architects and engineers, should prepare planning applications.

If this logic is to be continued through the planning process then the design element of the planning application should be accessed by an architect and not a planner, assuming that the planner is not a architect. Each profession should have their imput into the planning decision process. In many local authorities this doesn’t happen, I know of Local Authorthoies who don’t even have an architect employed!

The poor planning we have experienced can’t be solely attributed to design. Local Authorities are very much to blame as they are meant to be the guardians,however many have dismissed Regional Planning Guildelines and other guidelines for their own gain, one only has to look at places like Carlow, Athy Abbeyleix, Portlaoise, Gorey,Cavan and their surrounding villages etc which were allowed develop as part of the greater Dublin Area commuter area. Flood Plains and potential flood plains, were zoned by local authorities (often I admit against the advice of the local authority professionals) yet what did these professional do about it….

At the end of the day a designer needs to earn a wage to put food on the table like everyone else (local authority officials included) and unfortunately have to take on board their clients requirements, if they wish to get paid.

If architects believe they are the best designers, then they should not fear competition.

@henno wrote:

they are not exclusive…

:confused:

I’m not going to quibble over trifles, but in one statement you said (good) planning equates – equals – design, in the other you said they don’t equal as one is about more than the other. Anyway, your ‘argument’ is all over the place. Architects are undisputably qualified to make planning applications, others are not.

@jackscout wrote:

If architects believe they are the best designers, then they should not fear competition.

I agree with everything you said up till this end point. Unfortunately much development gets done by people who either couldn’t care less or want it done their own way. Apart from the fact this is not good policy, it sadly shows that the common view is that the ‘best design’ is unnecessary and obstructive – so it’s not always about competition.

If you dont understand my argument, fine, thats more a reflection on you than me.

@PlanE wrote:

Architects are undisputably qualified to make planning applications, others are not.
.

I beg your pardon, but that is laughable!
The scale of egotism on this forum is so vast it borders on the vulgar.

@henno wrote:

The scale of egotism on this forum is so vast it borders on the vulgar.

You only say that ‘cos you’re jealous…

no MIES…
no corb…

I’ve found a domain you can buy…

http://www.badirisharchitecture.ie

it’s all yours…

@PlanE wrote:

Unfortunately much development gets done by people who either couldn’t care less or want it done their own way.

I think thats called Democracy!
Germany has a poor record on democracy, so I don’t agree with “Whats good for Germany is good for us”.

A talented Achitect with excellent design & business skills, excellent reputation and strong ethics has nothing to fear in a recession. Such Architects do not need or seek the protection of function.

Only the weak & the meek seek protection, they want a monopoly to protect their lack of talent or skill. Why try when you can get the Government to hand it to you on a plate.

Being a member of the Golf club does not mean you are a skilled Golfer.

@missarchi wrote:

no MIES…
no corb…

CORB … HAD formal training
Mies did an apprenticeship plus a lot of study

anyway you are referring to a time when architecture had only just been formalised in terms of training, and these were artist-geniuses from visually-literate societies – the comparison is sadly lacking …

@RKQ wrote:

I think thats called Democracy!
Germany has a poor record on democracy, so I don’t agree with “Whats good for Germany is good for us”.

Actually, no, it’s called Capitulation. Democracy is political, nothing to do with building. I’m having to repeat myself here but this again is ‘anything goes’ building. And unfortunately the lowest-common-denominator in society will always look out for the Quack / Chancer.

@RKQ wrote:

A talented Achitect with excellent design & business skills, excellent reputation and strong ethics has nothing to fear in a recession. Such Architects do not need or seek the protection of function.

So you presume to speak for architects now as well?

@RKQ wrote:

Only the weak & the meek seek protection, they want a monopoly to protect their lack of talent or skill. Why try when you can get the Government to hand it to you on a plate.

I am sick and tired of this ‘survival of the fittest’ BS. I hear similar from acquaintances in the well-heeled Civil Service telling us how we are all going to have to make do.

@RKQ wrote:

Being a member of the Golf club does not mean you are a skilled Golfer.

And being a skilled golfer requires training. So forget this fixation on membership, etc. ‘Membership’ is only the result of doing 7 years-plus of long hard slog. Something conveniently forgotten by all the wannabes and begrudgers.

One should check one’s history…. when was the RIBA formed? It was the first formal Architects body in the world. Well before certain world famous Architects were born.

I wonder what Taodo Ando would make of PlanE’s comments?

In a Democracy, any member of the public is entitled to represent themselves in Court.
Naturally one should seek the advice & representation of a good Solicitor or Barrister but this is not a requirement by Law.

In a Democracy any member of the public is entitled to make their own Tax return. Naturally a Self employed individual should retain a good Accountant or Book-keeper, to make a Tax retun on their behalf. But again this is not a requirement of Law.

At least we can agree “And being a skilled golfer requires training”. Training, qualifications & experience are required. BUT not all members of a Golf Club are “skilled”. Membership is no guarentee of skill.

In a Democracy I am happy to listen to your point of view, each individual is entitled to an opinion. Likewise, I am entitled to my opinion. I can give my opinion in an adult manner without name calling or swearing, in a mature debate.:)

Remember that Walter Gropius & Mies had to leave Germany.

PlanE take no notice of these idiots on here… as you can tell there’s very few professionals amongst them. You should be ashamed of yourself for coming on here and thinking of getting a reasonable response. By the way, you can add Spain and France to the list of countries who agree with you too.

I’ve seen planning applications done by “non architects” that are infinitely better designed, more considered, well presented and realistically buildable than some I’ve seen from so-called professionals. Judgements of architectural quality should be based on the work, not on what letters are after someones name. Unfortunately our profession is riddled with arrogance and delusions of superiority. It’s no wonder “Joe Public” prefers to deal with the draftsmen and engineers in many cases…

@RKQ wrote:

Remember that Walter Gropius & Mies had to leave Germany.

Saarinen came back for more maybe we should join him! 😀

Architects adaptable to clients change…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQF6b_WnWRU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AYE3w5TWHs

the righter in you

http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/2009/12/06/call-for-papers-ordnance-war-architecture-and-space/

@BTH wrote:

It’s no wonder “Joe Public” prefers to deal with the draftsmen and engineers in many cases…

In reality most members of the public can’t tell the difference between one or the other.

I feel the biggest problem is the number of disciplines in the construction industry all fighting for some recognition. 15 years ago you could simply identify each discipline. Today……………maybe it is the survival of the biggest blagger.

BTH, are you an application spotter? by saying ‘our profession’ i presume your an architect. weird past time reviewing planning applications by others..

anyway, back to the original question, and idea of what PlanE is suggesting…

What does everyone here against PlanE’s idea, think of the Spanish system were only architects can submit plans to build anything to the local college of architects, where other architects check these applications against a very strict and detailed development plan. These development plans are drawn up to huge detail by urban designers and architects. Planners, in the irish sense of the word, play virtually no role in the system.

Aside from who’s doing what, the advantage of this system is that each site has height, colour, window percentage etc restrictions, so the owner knows exactly what he or she can do from the outset… there’s to much grey area in Ireland and Britain, good design gets diluted by external objections / factors etc. the spanish system has its problems too, obviously, but i think it make much more sense than the irish or english system.

I do not believe that architects should be the only people allowed to make planning applications. In some cases they are not the most qualified people to make the application (I am thinking mainly of infrastructural projects which probably require a part 8 application but it amounts to more or less the same thing). However, I think I am correct in saying that the system in France means that any building above 200m2 needs to be signed off by a registered architect before it can be lodged for planning. In effect, small houses etc can be lodged by anyone but bigger buildings require a qualified designer (however some architects in France will put their name to someones else’s design for a fee thus circumnavigating the system).

Again, this is not a perfect solution but I do think that there is some merit to it. It seems that 200m2 is an arbitrary enough figure and would probably result in a shed load of badly designed 199m2 houses. I am not too interested in self preservation, I just think that the public has a right to well designed towns and street scrapes and maybe there should be tighter control on certain types of buildings.

@RKQ wrote:

One should check one’s history…. when was the RIBA formed? It was the first formal Architects body in the world. Well before certain world famous Architects were born.

I was referring to when the architecture schools, properly speaking, were formalised in the manner we know them today. Of course there were academies and institutes prior to this, but the training relative to today’s training was a lot less formal.
@RKQ wrote:

In a Democracy, any member of the public is entitled to represent themselves in Court.
Naturally one should seek the advice & representation of a good Solicitor or Barrister but this is not a requirement by Law.

In a Democracy any member of the public is entitled to make their own Tax return. Naturally a Self employed individual should retain a good Accountant or Book-keeper, to make a Tax retun on their behalf. But again this is not a requirement of Law.

Good examples. However, in these cases, you as an individual will be held directly Accountable. In the current free-for-all planning system however, no accountability other than the silly unenforced, unchecked ‘compliance’ certification exists, and only the public suffers from the results – permanently.
@RKQ wrote:

Remember that Walter Gropius & Mies had to leave Germany.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to be referring back to the time of the Third Reich, as you have done twice. Germany is now an extremely efficient and well-run democracy, something that can be questioned regarding the reality of this country. However, this is going off track. I refer back to the efficiency only.
@arch77 wrote:

BTH, are you an application spotter? by saying ‘our profession’ i presume your an architect. weird past time reviewing planning applications by others..

anyway, back to the original question, and idea of what PlanE is suggesting…

What does everyone here against PlanE’s idea, think of the Spanish system were only architects can submit plans to build anything to the local college of architects, where other architects check these applications against a very strict and detailed development plan. These development plans are drawn up to huge detail by urban designers and architects. Planners, in the irish sense of the word, play virtually no role in the system.

Aside from who’s doing what, the advantage of this system is that each site has height, colour, window percentage etc restrictions, so the owner knows exactly what he or she can do from the outset… there’s to much grey area in Ireland and Britain, good design gets diluted by external objections / factors etc. the spanish system has its problems too, obviously, but i think it make much more sense than the irish or english system.

Very good comments Arch77, and I’m very interested to know more of how these countries operate. Though the Spanish system sounds like it has a high degree of control, I think this is preferable to the uncontrolled sprawl and poc-marked development that has occurred here.
@modular man wrote:

I do not believe that architects should be the only people allowed to make planning applications. In some cases they are not the most qualified people to make the application (I am thinking mainly of infrastructural projects which probably require a part 8 application but it amounts to more or less the same thing). However, I think I am correct in saying that the system in France means that any building above 200m2 needs to be signed off by a registered architect before it can be lodged for planning. In effect, small houses etc can be lodged by anyone but bigger buildings require a qualified designer (however some architects in France will put their name to someones else’s design for a fee thus circumnavigating the system).

Again, this is not a perfect solution but I do think that there is some merit to it. It seems that 200m2 is an arbitrary enough figure and would probably result in a shed load of badly designed 199m2 houses. I am not too interested in self preservation, I just think that the public has a right to well designed towns and street scrapes and maybe there should be tighter control on certain types of buildings.

Local Authorities make Part 8 applications, which include roads, so it’s already outside the province of the private practice. However, I think many Part 8 applications require full architectural involvement. Similarly, taking your argument further, of course there are specialisms outside the architect’s province, such as Environmental Impact, however, for the sake of control and jurisprudence the architect should be the chief applicant.
At this point, let me say – some have tried to accuse me of selfish commercial interests – this is not the case. My argument from the beginning has been about better planning and development, something the non-architects here (and even some architects) simply do not get.

@PlanE wrote:

My argument from the beginning has been about better planning and development, something the non-architects here (and even some architects) simply do not get.

In order to get better “planning and development” perhaps the argument should be focused on those bodies who CONTROL “planning and development” and not those who propose it.

Restriction only leads to protectionism. Consumers loose out due to restricted choice of point of service and cartel fee structuring. It also leads to stagnation and laziness in the marketplace.

As i said above, bad design should equate to refusal (whether planning refusal or request for re-design). There needs to be the ability and confidence in the planning system to accurately and fairly criticise design.

South Africa also has similar development control systems which give strict parameters in which the design can exist. factors such as wall to fenestration ratio, plot ratio, colour schemes, space separation etc are all intelligently “fleshed out” and written up as specific design guides for specific projects and areas.

Like anything in this country, the planning system requires complete overhaul. Architects should be central to the argument as to what is good and bad conceptual design. But I certainly do not believe that they should be, or even consider themselves to be, the sole purveyors of “design”.

I think that this thread is bullshit.
As an experienced architect himself, the proposer must have thought about and discussed this many years before — not least in his student days.
But now — all of a sudden — it’s a new issue again.
I wonder why so is that now . . . .

How about the proposition:

That all planning officers that review the build and landscaping aspects of a development proposal have a primary qualification in architecture.
And then have had already taken additional postgraduate studies in planning prior to applying for suitable vacancies in planning offices.

That’s a really useful way of both improving the built environment and deploying slack skilled labour within the architectural profession.

@henno wrote:

Restriction only leads to protectionism. Consumers loose out due to restricted choice of point of service and cartel fee structuring. It also leads to stagnation and laziness in the marketplace.

Well said Henno. I’d have to agree with you.

A talented Architect with excellent design & business skills, excellent reputation and strong ethics has nothing to fear in a recession. Such Architects do not need or seek the protection of function.

This is nonsense.
High minded professionals are always among the first to lose out in a slack work situation.

Seeking protection of function as a goal in itself may well be a sociopolitical vice.
But obtaining a reasonable protection of livelihood as a result of maintenance of good professional standards is simply fair accrual to people who do their job right.

@teak wrote:

A talented Architect with excellent design & business skills, excellent reputation and strong ethics has nothing to fear in a recession. Such Architects do not need or seek the protection of function.

This is nonsense.
High minded professionals are always among the first to lose out in a slack work situation.

Seeking protection of function as a goal in itself may well be a sociopolitical vice.
But obtaining a reasonable protection of livelihood as a result of maintenance of good professional standards is simply fair accrual to people who do their job right.

I would agree with you

@teak wrote:

I think that this thread is bullshit.
As an experienced architect himself, the proposer must have thought about and discussed this many years before — not least in his student days.
But now — all of a sudden — it’s a new issue again.
I wonder why so is that now . . . .

How about the proposition:

That all planning officers that review the build and landscaping aspects of a development proposal have a primary qualification in architecture.
And then have had already taken additional postgraduate studies in planning prior to applying for suitable vacancies in planning offices.

That’s a really useful way of both improving the built environment and deploying slack skilled labour within the architectural profession.

Good man Teak, so you are saying that all architects are qualified to review the landscaping aspects of a development proposal too…… Back to my original point that the majority of architects think they can do everything….. and architects wonder why they get stick for being elitest…..

Oh and why should planners get a primary qualification in Architecture? There are already 4 year Planning degree courses out there e.g DIT Spatial Planning Course that has core design and building modules amongst other disciplines interwoven through the years……..

Supply and demand now is the time to be a teacher and make more students;)

Oh and why should planners get a primary qualification in Architecture? There are already 4 year Planning degree courses out there e.g DIT Spatial Planning Course that has core design and building modules amongst other disciplines interwoven through the years……..

That may well be how it is with the present recruits to planner jobs.

But the people I’ve met in the last 6 years have just a B. Eng. (Civ) to their name.
And these fellows are still the bullying “Senior Planners” over any properly qualified new ones . . .

Naturally, my recommendations on minimum qualifications for planner jobs (B.Sc. from planning courses fine if it’s all you suggest it is vis-à-vis building design, landscaping design) would have to be applied retrospectively.:)

@teak wrote:

That all planning officers that review the build and landscaping aspects of a development proposal have a primary qualification in architecture.
And then have had already taken additional postgraduate studies in planning prior to applying for suitable vacancies in planning offices..

Nail, head, hit, well said.
If this were the case a lot of the existing dross would be cleared from the list of Agents on any present Local Authority list.

I also seem to remember a foster getting people to sign off his works…

@PlanE wrote:

I don’t think it’s a good idea to be referring back to the time of the Third Reich, as you have done twice. Germany is now an extremely efficient and well-run democracy, something that can be questioned regarding the reality of this country. However, this is going off track. I refer back to the efficiency only.[/I]

Maybe the title of this thread and your wish to force the public to use Architects only, reminds me of the single party politics of Germany in 1939?

I do feel it is a pity that well educated, experienced professionals are depending on “Protectionism” and the dream of an “Monopoly” to survive. Shame on those with elitest feelings that are oboviously not believed by the public.:)

A talented Architect with excellent design & business skills, excellent reputation and strong ethics has nothing to fear in a recession. These Professionals always survive & prosper. Only the meek complain and beg for protection.

Maybe the title of this thread should be Why are Architects not retained by the General Public to apply for Planning Permission?

@RKQ wrote:

Maybe the title of this thread and your wish to force the public to use Architects only, reminds me of the single party politics of Germany in 1939?

The analagy is a tad extreme perhaps, but I think we realised what you meant when you posted it first.

@RKQ wrote:

I do feel it is a pity that well educated, experienced professionals are depending on “Protectionism” and the dream of an “Monopoly” to survive. Shame on those with elitest feelings that are oboviously not believed by the public.:)

I’m sure the idea of the protection of a body such as the RIAI is a very comforting prospect before fees are taken into account. If I were paying those fees I would expect to have my chosen career and workload protected too. What is wrong is the monopoly aspect, when it comes to the RIAI, monopoly is no longer a game!

@RKQ wrote:

A talented Architect with excellent design & business skills, excellent reputation and strong ethics has nothing to fear in a recession. These Professionals always survive & prosper. Only the meek complain and beg for protection.

Spoken like a young sprite full of vim and vinegar ready to take on the world comfortable in the knowledge you are the best at what you do and the world loves you. Two or three decades in the job, with the memories of a few recessions in your diaries and the keblar turns back to cotton.

I find your posting interesting, but I’m afraid I find it too salty for my palate. I have no wish to wage war on my fellow workmen (figuratively speaking ladies) but I would like to make the policy makers aware of my extreme distaste at the ease with which their signatory hand can be readily directed and manipulated by a select few, for the benefit of a select few. This I am doing in my own way.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63534652&postcount=4

one reason alone why RIAI registered architects SHOULD NOT be the only ones allowed to submit planning applications!!!

@henno wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63534652&postcount=4

one reason alone why RIAI registered architects SHOULD NOT be the only ones allowed to submit planning applications!!!

Trying to save a week has cost a likely 8 weeks. Well done mr architect.

Are people really that stuck for work that they feel the need to squabble over planning and design.

A good track record, and satisfied clients should be all that is required to keep the head above water

thats fair enough henno, there’s a$$holes and chancers everywhere… but id wager that this instance only occurs 10% of the time [10% to much] with architects, but perhaps 60-70% with non architects…

80% of planning applications for residential work are submitted by non architects or people pretending to be architects.. [a figure confirmed by the RIAI, not made up by me]. look at the state of the place… its only 20% our fault.

there’s also the possibility he’s not an architect, was his name verified by the RIAI… ?? i don’t know. that’s the purpose of registration.

@arch77 wrote:

thats fair enough henno, there’s a$$holes and chancers everywhere… but id wager that this instance only occurs 10% of the time [10% to much] with architects, but perhaps 60-70% with non architects…
.

i would seriously question the logic behind this.

RIAI listing provides this practitioner with a fall back. The next client to enter that persons office will be told in no uncertain terms that “I am RIAI registered” and be filled with all the usual sales sphel that goe swith that statement.

Non-architects (as you call them) generally have only their reputation as a method of measuring their service. They know that if a client is unhappy with their service they cannot fall back and say “but i am RIAI registered”…. To suggest that this kind of unprofessional work occurs in 60-70% of ‘non-architects’ (who could be technicians, enginners, QS etc) is grossly miscalculated. I myself would wager it would be equatable to the 10% you suggest occurs for architects. As a profession, architectural technicians should be considered to actually have the most professional capacity to prepare correct planning applications.

@arch77 wrote:

80% of planning applications for residential work are submitted by non architects or people pretending to be architects.. [a figure confirmed by the RIAI, not made up by me]. look at the state of the place… its only 20% our fault.
.

I have no issue with that statement, other than it being an indictment against the body in charge of “the state of the place”. Bad design should not be allowed, whether architect or non-architect designed.

@arch77 wrote:

there’s also the possibility he’s not an architect, was his name verified by the RIAI… ?? i don’t know. that’s the purpose of registration.

thats a possibility… but judging on the fees charged…..

@henno wrote:

i would seriously question the logic behind this.

RIAI listing provides this practitioner with a fall back. The next client to enter that persons office will be told in no uncertain terms that “I am RIAI registered” and be filled with all the usual sales sphel that goe swith that statement.

Non-architects (as you call them) generally have only their reputation as a method of measuring their service. They know that if a client is unhappy with their service they cannot fall back and say “but i am RIAI registered”…. To suggest that this kind of unprofessional work occurs in 60-70% of ‘non-architects’ (who could be technicians, enginners, QS etc) is grossly miscalculated. I myself would wager it would be equatable to the 10% you suggest occurs for architects. As a profession, architectural technicians should be considered to actually have the most professional capacity to prepare correct planning applications.

I have no issue with that statement, other than it being an indictment against the body in charge of “the state of the place”. Bad design should not be allowed, whether architect or non-architect designed.

thats a possibility… but judging on the fees charged…..

Again, you’re just presuming, its conjecture.

i agree re bad design. the planning approval system is also flawed. saying your RIAI registered is not a cushion to fall back on, any client who has had a bad experience with an architect and receives this as an excuse should laugh in there face.

your also talking about being qualified re: preparing planning applications, i think the point is buildings should be designed by architects. not, they should draw the red line around a site plan.

why can’t we all just get along and do our Jobs.

@arch77 wrote:

Again, you’re just presuming, its conjecture.

yes, and so are you..

@arch77 wrote:

your also talking about being qualified re: preparing planning applications, i think the point is buildings should be designed by architects. not, they should draw the red line around a site plan..

thats not what was going on in the post i linked to.. which you commented on and lead to this exchange 🙂

@arch77 wrote:

why can’t we all just get along and do our Jobs.

i absolutely agree….
but did you read the title to this thread??? 😉

@henno wrote:

As a profession, architectural technicians should be considered to actually have the most professional capacity to prepare correct planning applications.

I disagree, the CAD monkeys are the best choice.

@parka wrote:

I disagree, the CAD monkeys are the best choice.

Agreed parka, and they’ll work for peanuts too.

It’s also legal and justified to beat them if they make any errors.

CAD Monkey
(Carrot+Stick) =Legitimate Planning Application.

Problem Solved.

@henno wrote:

yes, and so are you..

thats not what was going on in the post i linked to.. which you commented on and lead to this exchange 🙂

i absolutely agree….
but did you read the title to this thread??? 😉

an architects job is to design, leave it to them.

@arch77 wrote:

thats fair enough henno, there’s a$$holes and chancers everywhere… but id wager that this instance only occurs 10% of the time [10% to much] with architects, but perhaps 60-70% with non architects…

first of all, I have a bit of a problem with the way you group everybody into Architects, and non-architects. It smacks of us against the world, and reality isn’t black and white.

I agree that there are many people posing as architects submitting plans, and this is wrong.
There are many people offering a planning service (without posing as architects) who do not have the formal training to do so, this is wrong.

There are many people who have formal training, and are qualified to prepare plans, who you are grouping with the above non-architects, this is wrong

That is the main problem I have with your argument, you are being totally condescending towards trained professionals by considering them on par with laymen and cowboys. Maybe you didn’t mean to or realise you did it, if if you did then its plain old superiority complex, get over yourself.

there’s also the possibility he’s not an architect, was his name verified by the RIAI… ?? i don’t know. that’s the purpose of registration.

the OP said he was an RIAI architect. I have no reason to doubt that. He obviously check it out.

the experience but not the qualification? what does that mean…;) nothing… even though you have been validated…

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/architect-jobseeker-fears-her-generation-will-be-left-behind-1978730.html

Should a full service be a condition of planning applications?

@missarchi wrote:

Should a full service be a condition of planning applications?

No, of course not. Many planning apps are for minor work, often without the need of a full service, why force this extra cost on to people

Who are architects really working for?

This thought coincides with a report on last week’s RIBA Council meeting, which included the news that 50% of architects now work for contractors. It is not reported whether this announcement was greeted with a rousing cheer or the passing round of garlic and crucifixes, but it is another mark of an irreversible shift in the balance of power between the professions and contractors.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3155366&channel=783&c=2&encCode=0000000001a9bf22

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3155323&channel=783&c=2&encCode=0000000001a9bf3a

@Bren88 wrote:

There are many people who have formal training, and are qualified to prepare plans, who you are grouping with the above non-architects, this is wrong

Well said Bren88, I agree. Things are rarely Black & White.

Some Urban Planners courses do not give urban design training – it seems weird that they are responsible for assessing urban design in government? Would architects really want to assess planning applications? Dreary plus plus but very very important. Yeah for planners who have a design focus – just need more of them

@PlanE wrote:

Only doctors, vets and dentists can write prescriptions, only judges can give sentences, priests give absolution, teachers mark exams, licensed bus drivers drive buses, the list goes on. Why shouldn’t it be the same for architects?

Lets face it, good planning requires good design.

Sorry obviously coming in late to this thread. Good design and or bad design is not always down to the architect. Clients often have very good ideas too.

In designing for development It has been my experience that many planners get too involved in the building design and instruct a lessening of design or reduction of original content and regularly suggest keeping in with the traditional or vernacular existing developments. I have had many a battle for my clients to move away from much of the Bungalow Bliss if I may use such an expression and not offend anyone responsible for them, I am sure looking at the amount of these littering our countryside the sales of these books and pre-prepared plans must have made someone very wealthy.

The fact remains however that our planners or certainly many of them have become smitten by these wonders of modern design and often insist of them being copied. So bad design is in my opinion not soley the responsibility of the humble architect who gets caught between trying to improve the built environment and obtaining the permission he/she is being paid to seek.

We have bills to pay as well as everyone else and if we do not moderate our design standards to the whim of the planners a refusal issues and there goes the project and no recommendation for further work.

Look at the work stages of the RIAI or RIBA and you’ll see the level of fees specifically allocated to statutory approvals – this is retarded thinking, because in my experience unless you are a skilled negotiator you will not get what you and your client want or what the building needs to be to function and make a profit.

The outrageously low plot rations imposed around rural towns are responsible for the bungalow bliss blight on the landscape, and planners without much in the way of building design skills were guided by what was there and what their poorly educated councillor bosses thought looked right, or at least thought didn’t look better than the one they were living in – and there’s the rub.

Fear of censure by others on the pecking order ladder and a desire for pre-eminence has resulted in coinservative decisions and unsustainable low density, not the extension of the urban form required for the growth of a town.

ONQ.

@PlanE wrote:

Only doctors, vets and dentists can write prescriptions, only judges can give sentences, priests give absolution, teachers mark exams, licensed bus drivers drive buses, the list goes on. Why shouldn’t it be the same for architects? We have it bad enough, God knows.

Lets face it, good planning requires good design.

The countryside (in particular), and towns have undeniably been ruined over the last 40 years, mainly through unqualified cowboys and developers allowed to run rampant, providing for individual interests, all in the name of ‘competition’.

The last Building Control Bill (and the Eurocratic system responsible for it), has not gone far enough. Protection of title should have been extended to include protection of services, and thereby protection of the ‘common good’, the fundamental aim of good planning.

When I look at your post I cannot help but to think that you are in fact John Graby as you post is something very dear to his heart.

Plan E is only saying what CK and I ahve both agreed, although he has put a different spin on it.

Protection of title does nothing, in and of itself.

Making is a legal requirement that people who design building for financial reward should be competent to do the kind of design they do is only common sense, and yet to be implemented.

The issue for CK is how this competence is assessed.
The issue for me is how existing qualifications are recognised.
Neither is incompatibal with the idea of registration, given an equitable mindset.
The trouble is that the RIAI doesn’t seem to be operating from an equitable mindset.

This is going to bite them in the ass if they ever take anyone to Court.
High-handed administration of authority may not sit well with a judge, in the face of precedent supporting rights established over ten years.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

………
Making is a legal requirement that people who design building for financial reward should be competent to do the kind of design they do is only common sense, and yet to be implemented.

The issue for CK is how this competence is assessed.
…………….

the assessment standard of the ‘competence’ is completely obvious……

bad design (incompetence) should result in planning refusal.

good design (competence) should result in grants.

This should be the yard stick by which competence should be measured, not some ‘registered list’ in which the public would be forced to choose a practitioner and forced to pay prescribed rates from a ‘cartel’ market system.

History has shown in many cases that the public are not protected by registration.

Unfortunately, Henno, there are few Locals Authority [LA] architects involved in assessing planning permissions.

It is an utterly retrograde situation when you think about it, given the results to date.

Planners, Engineers and Conservation Officers advise on permsisions.

Are they competent to do so – what do the results suggest?

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Unfortunately, Henno, there are few Locals Authority [LA] architects involved in assessing planning permissions.

It is an utterly retrograde situation when you think about it, given the results to date.

Planners, Engineers and Conservation Officers advise on permsisions.

Are they competent to do so – what do the results suggest?

ONQ.

i completely agree with you ONQ…

But isnt that a prime example of “dont hate the player, hate the game”..??

If the system is set up to work the way it is supposed to, then the question of the suitability of the agent wouldnt come into question at all.

People equating architectural designing to doctors, vets etc is completely nonsensical. Design is completely subjective. Anatomical diagnosing is an absolute matter of life and death. Ive heard of some architects having an inflated sense of themselves, but that comparison takes the biscuit.

Is there a restriction on fashion design?? furniture design?? is there a restriction on who can create a work of art??… .answer.. NO!!

success and failure in the world of design is based on competence, not on whether the artist name is on a list!!

My concern is that people’s taste in fashion and art is like their taster in buildings – different strokes for different folks.

You can forget that horrible dress you saw yesterday and you’ll never want to see your friends provate collection of dastardly artwork again, but a building affects members of the public 24/7/365/100 – forever, effectively – or until its pulled down or “facelifted”.

Personally I don’t like a lot of Rem Koolhaus’s work.

He went from “dumb boxes” to “ugly shapes” a long time ago.

I know the guy gets plaudits worldwide and some of his stuff isn’t offensive to me.

But every day on this forum I’m reminded he won that Canadian competition and has stuck a scaleless cantilvered glass and steel concoction beside a beautifully proportioned church building.

(shakes head)

I could accept Foster’s reflective and anonymous glass box [itself now a listed building] because it wrapped cutting edge modernity in a reflective glass shell – a very clever solution, but these beetling oversails and cantilevers that look like they’re about to fall on people – what’s that about?

An engineering tour-de-force, or a premonition of the next world war with buildings falling on our heads?

I find it terribly oppressive architecture-for-effect, without the mediation of scale and resolution of forces that say, a collonade gives, or even the light touch that a skeletal canopy or brise-soleil brings to soften a dumb box facade/form.

Now we have dumb boxes in garish colours removed from the human concourse sailing over our heads – what’s the intended subtext there?

So you see, I differ from the OMA school of design.

Maybe I’m just a crappy boring designer.

Too “safe” to be as balls-out as OMA.

Others will differ from me.

Who decides?

Are the planners best fitted to make these decisions, as representatives of “everyman”?

Who is doing the complaining apart from architects on the make, ministers looking for re-election and pseudo-intellectuals with too much time on their hands.

Is there an objective reason for complaint, apart from the fact that one would like the 3,500 sqft Bungaloid on two acres and the mercs in front of it for oneself?

Are our complaints mere bregrugery dressing in the clothes of academic appreciation and artistic criticism?

If we criticize others, we must first be brutally honest about our need to criticize.

ONQ.

@henno wrote:

i completely agree with you ONQ…

Is there a restriction on fashion design?? furniture design?? is there a restriction on who can create a work of art??… .answer.. NO!!

Well now you see that’s an equally flawed comparison. Artists of any description can be as avant-garde or as safe as they want but they cannot influence the taste and choice of the consumer. As a consumer I can choose to buy a shirt, a chair, a painting. The chair and painting inflict my choices (and, by association, the choices of the designers) upon me, visitors to my house and nosey passer-bys. My shirt might delight or offend another for a fleeting second. It might do so even less if I am wearing a coat or a jumper. I am unlikely to wear a noticeable shirt often and even less likely to pass the same people whilst wearing it.

Built form is a completely different matter. It’s there. In your face. 24/7. It affects a huge number of people in many ways. If you like it you can choose to stop and admire. If it offends all you can do is choose not to look at it or take a route to avoid it. Whilst it is subjective there are basics in terms of form, function, proportion, relevance, technique etc etc that will form the basis of a pleasing building just as there are recipes for disaster. Public art and sculpture is different but, that said, very few councils approve a large sculpture because it was designed by someone’s elderly relative and given to them for Christmas

@wearnicehats wrote:

Artists of any description can be as avant-garde or as safe as they want but they cannot influence the taste and choice of the consumer.

:confused:

of course they can, they do every day…. what do you think fashion magazines… IKEA etc are all based around?? of course they influence the tastes and choice of consumers.

many architects can also be ‘avant guarde’ or ‘safe’, its a basic premise that defines difference practices…

architectural fashion can be as fleeting as any other type of art, which leaves us with dated buildings in our face 24/7, regardless of whether the designer is on a ‘list’ or not… the recent love affair with “the fold” will quickly become dated and gauche, in my opinion, and we will be left with these “signature” specimen buildings for years after they loose their immediacy.

@henno wrote:

:confused:

of course they can, they do every day…. what do you think fashion magazines… IKEA etc are all based around?? of course they influence the tastes and choice of consumers.

.

Those things do not move me in any shape or form – they can inform my decision as to what is out there but they cannot make me buy what I don’t want. IKEA kitchens look good but if you want a kitchen that lasts longer than a wet weekend you’ll pay for Rationel. I have to ooh and ahh at every daubing that my kid does but I don’t frame it and put it on my wall. George Clooney might look good in a pair of crocs but I personally look like a dick in them.

If I don’t like a building I can object to it but, ultimately, the form of the buildings I have to look at every day is not mine. I rely on the informed decisions and the ability of others. I don’t personally care for the ODOS box but it’s a damn site better on the eye than some stick on pastiche that came out of a houseplan book.

@Solo wrote:

When I look at your post I cannot help but to think that you are in fact John Graby as you post is something very dear to his heart.

I’m not John Graby. And I disagree that this is something he would care for… from my knowledge of the man, he goes in the opposite direction: he seems to have done everything to get rid of the myth that the RIAI is a ‘closed shop’, and clearly has done very little at a political level for the cause of architects overall – most notably during this whole recession. And certainly in the area of overhauling the laughable planning system. Or maybe he is just ineffective…:confused:

@PlanE wrote:

I’m not John Graby. And I disagree that this is something he would care for… from my knowledge of the man, he goes in the opposite direction: he seems to have done everything to get rid of the myth that the RIAI is a ‘closed shop’, and clearly has done very little at a political level for the cause of architects overall – most notably during this whole recession. And certainly in the area of overhauling the laughable planning system. Or maybe he is just ineffective…:confused:

(chuckle)

If I read you correctly PlanE, you are saying that he has made the ” RIAI is a closed shop” Myth into stark reality!

Perhaps you ARE Grabby, and this is how you declare your victory!!!!11!11!11

(maniacal laughter trailing off into the distance…)

If you look at the machinations of the RIAI and Government both, there appears to be a distinct stragtegy pandering towards “big spenders” in both the qualification levels for pre-regristration for GCCC contracts and the attandances at CPD lectures.

We seem to be going from academic qualification to enforced RIAI registration to pay for your CPD or be de-registered.

Not happy about this.

ONQ.