Should Architects be the only ones allowed to make Planning Applications?
- This topic has 76 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
@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…
@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 studyanyway 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=4AYE3w5TWHsthe 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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
