The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Buildin

How would the dreaded Act deal with an expression like “Architect nuncupatus”?

you quote “qualified architects” as if they are an elite and self-preserving group only intent on protecting their interests and keeping the lesser beings out of the design business.

would you be happy to go to see a doctor tomorrow with “dr. doo daa’s medical practise” written on the door, only to find out after he chopped off your leg that he was only having a laugh with the title and in fact came from a background of butchering and sure isn’t it all only blood and guts anyway?

the title “architect” and the affixing of MRIAI (or RIBA or AIA) to a name provides some indication of training, accountability, guidelines for there professionals to work within and some redress when it is discovered that they aren’t working to the required standards. nobody is saying that people without a degree or institutional recognition can’t design a good building and create good architecture, only that they should not be allowed to misrepresent themselves as being trained in ways that they have not.

And what about those people who have been trained as architects and are responsible for vandalism that has been practised in practically every church up and down the country?

what about them?

Please, please Mr. Architect:cool: , don’t compare yourself to a doctor, dentist, lawyer or a brain surgeon!! :rolleyes: It is not the same and it never will be.
You are correct that I would not trust a non-surgeon to carry out surgery, but we are in an entirely different game here, my friend.
The fact is, that there are people who have been designing buildings, making planning applications and managing projects for years and years who are completely competent to do so. It is not brain-surgery.

playing down the role of the architect in the design and construction industry to further your own cause isn’t useful.

to cite your own examples, people with experience and partial training in law will only be allowed to call themselves a “lawyer” with the appropriate qualifications. people looking for legal services will understand exactly what they are getting when they pass a door saying “mr. doo daa, lawyer” and all that this entails. why should it be any different for architecture?

The bill hasn’t been enforced yet? I wonder why it took so long? Is it because anyone can be a designer if they have a bit of flair? I’m sorry that I’m playing it down. I have compared “Architect” to “Artist” not lawyer- I said don’t compare Architects to lawyers. I heard in a documentary that Architects designed the Pyramids. They weren’t RIAI and the pyramids are still standing….

@Meow wrote:

Please, please Mr. Architect:cool: , don’t compare yourself to a doctor, dentist, lawyer or a brain surgeon!! :rolleyes: It is not the same and it never will be.
You are correct that I would not trust a non-surgeon to carry out surgery, but we are in an entirely different game here, my friend.
The fact is, that there are people who have been designing buildings, making planning applications and managing projects for years and years who are completely competent to do so. It is not brain-surgery.

I’m afraid it is in that Architecture is a “vocational” course just as a doctor, dentist or lawyer. I’m a qualified architect and I worked damn hard to become one. I earned the title and all that comes with it ie responsibility PI cover, 25 year record keeping, There is no different game here “my friend” – it’s called accountability and responsibility.

For every qualified architect there is someone else who ekes a trade by banging out mediocre run of the mill, floor plans out of a book, one-off houses in ballygobackwards; charging some poor sap over the odds for a rehash of some other poor sap’s house, a slap dash planning and 2 site visits a week thanks very much cheerio and another blot appears on the landscape.

Of course there are equally similar examples of poor architecture by qualified architects. But if a qualified architect does something wrong, something that the new litigious Ireland can get their teeth into, then the consumer has recourse.

Methinks you do protest too much……post some examples of “unqualified success”

@Meow wrote:

The bill hasn’t been enforced yet? I wonder why it took so long? Is it because anyone can be a designer if they have a bit of flair? I’m sorry that I’m playing it down. I have compared “Architect” to “Artist” not lawyer- I said don’t compare Architects to lawyers. I heard in a documentary that Architects designed the Pyramids. They weren’t RIAI and the pyramids are still standing….

you have used law, medicine, dentistry and neurology as examples of professions more worthy than architecture. in each of these areas there are different levels of qualification and varying titles depending on the level at which an individual can practise within the bounds of their experience, codes of conduct and qualifications.

“being a designer” isn’t the issue. a child can design. that doesn’t mean a child should be entitled to design and build something that is to be occupied by people. there are facilities in place for anyone with the experience and expertise in relevant areas to join the RIAI. it’s illuminating to see that on the one hand you can denounce the people who seek to protect this title, while at the same time make folk heroes of the people who aspire to the profession.

this act isn’t in place to protect the architects. it’s to inform the customer and ensure that services being provided are represented in an honest and transparent manner.

Right on Meow. Set the CAT among the pigeons.

The question of protecting the name Architect for the sole use of ye who hold the title is all fair and good. Then maybe we as technologists should perhaps forbid you from quoting Building Regulations, which you have not been thought in college, sorry University. Forbid you from scrawling a detail of a window jamb on a piece of paper for a builder who’s in a hurry because you are simply not qualified to do so. Forbid you from holding a staff in a field while some poor underling technician operates the level because god forbid you were never shown how to hold that staff in the correct upright position so as to obtain a correct reading. Maybe we should lobby to eliminate all but design from your proffession because it suits us to do so. It all smacks of elitist bullshit guys and whats more ye know it.

Since when did actual terms mean the competence of the person performing the act. It was a Swiss patent clerk by the name Einstein who turned the scientific world upside down with his theories of special and general relativity. Yet he never had any formal education in the area of physics. Yet this lowly patent clerk managed to refute the gospel according to Newton, and totally re-write the way science perceives the universe. Without Einstein no theory of relativity, no String or M theory, No closer to understanding the Universe. Actually science would be going in the completely wrong direction. Compelling eh. Yet would any of you dare to call Einstien Unqualified????

Just to put this issue in perspective, Ireland is unusual in the absence of registration of the title Architect. Most countries at least regulate the title Architect but some go further, as far as I am aware in many states in America not only is the title regulated but also the work done. Only people with the title architect are entitled to do the work of an architect. In fact there are very few countries with neither statutory control of the title architect or restrictions of some sort on the type of work that people can do. As far as I know within the EU Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway and Sweden are the only countries who do not currently regulate the profession, essentially as long as the buildings accord with building regulations, they don’t really care who designs them. So all that will change under the building control bill is that it wil restrict the use of the title of Architect, stopping unqualified people passing themselves off to householders and others as qualified architects.

I think protecting the term Architect in the new legislation is rediculous. Primarily because the term comprises a large umbrella of qualifications which each would have a legitamate claim to the term. Alone in the Architecture qualification you have various diplomas, degrees, and Hons degrees, notwithstanding the various Architectural Technician / Technologist qualifications.

Can any Architect here with complete honesty state that they when they left UCD or DIT with their Architecture Degree is now more qualified than myself who qualified out of the lowly RTC in Cork from their Architectural Technology course in 1996 and has nearly 10 years experience in this game. Could they state that they know everything about this proffession from concept, design, Planning Application, construction detailing, tender preparation, fire cert preparation, on site inspection and project oversight and final certification. They have a grounding in the first 2 stages at most, concept and design and probably as little information that you could fit it on the back of a postcard on any other stage. Yet you want to hold the sole entitlement to this term. And from there what happens, a push for the whole gammot of protection for as D Fitzpatrick said it is a protected entitlement in many states in the US that “Only people with the title architect are entitled to do the work of an architect.”

You have to realise that it takes much more than your Architectural degree to bring a building from a green field site to fully up and standing. It takes an amalgamation of skills at least half of which you have no in depth fomal education in to make that happen. The lobbying for the sole right to the term smacks of trying to eliminate any competition because its unhealthy for your business. I think the competition authority would have a thing or two to say about that.

And guys dont for one second think I’m some crap head who couldnt get into architecture in DIT or UCD, I had points to spare from the leaving cert for either of those. I was always mechanically and analytically minded and the technology course was always my number one choice. Intelligence it does not take to get into the Architecture courses and I can assure you all us technicians are not failed Architecture course wannabes. Ye have no moral or intellectual right to a term which is ancient because you did a 5 year stint in University in Dublin or elsewhere.

Well said Buddy Boy. 😉

If the RIAI want to create a monopoly with the title “Architect” it is not within the interests of the people.

I don’t have an issue with the term architect been “reserved” for use by those with suitable qualifications. As an architectural technician I hate been referred to as an architect. I also hate people with no qualification at all calling themselves architects.
I do think there should be some sort of formal recognition given to those who are qualified/experinced (technicains draughtsmen etc) in the industry that are capable of and provide a service within the industry.

Unfortuately as stated earlier, qualified architects at times are responsible for some very poor design in this country. I know of countless housing estates which were architect designed and no thought was put into the layout of the estate or the dwellings. I will say that non architects have done the same, but what gets my back up is, its those same architets, that are first to put down everyone else on poor design yet fail to admit their own failings.

I think the term should be protected but I do not believe the RIAI should be in charge of this. We need an Architects Registration Body – just being a member of the RIAI will not qualify you by right and you will not have to be a member of the RIAI to be accredited.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I think the term should be protected but I do not believe the RIAI should be in charge of this. We need an Architects Registration Body – just being a member of the RIAI will not qualify you by right and you will not have to be a member of the RIAI to be accredited.

I would agree with you on the above

@buddyboy wrote:

It was a Swiss patent clerk by the name Einstein who turned the scientific world upside down with his theories of special and general relativity. Yet he never had any formal education in the area of physics.

I think he was German not Swiss, and he studied at the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich. He would of covered science including physics there. Just to clear it up a little.

@Meow wrote:

The bill hasn’t been enforced yet? I wonder why it took so long? Is it because anyone can be a designer if they have a bit of flair? I’m sorry that I’m playing it down. I have compared “Architect” to “Artist” not lawyer- I said don’t compare Architects to lawyers. I heard in a documentary that Architects designed the Pyramids. They weren’t RIAI and the pyramids are still standing….

Yes. Architects designed the pyramids. Not some joes who were calling them selves architects. They weren’t in the RIAI but were still quailifed. But range of study is still different tofday of course.
I think you are mixing up being quailified and being in the RIAI. You can be a quailified architect but not a member of the RIAI. You may chose another organisation, or none at all.

@Meow wrote:

The fact is, that there are people who have been designing buildings, making planning applications and managing projects for years and years who are completely competent to do so. It is not brain-surgery.

This is probably the weakest point you made. Because the people who have been designing buildings for years, and can show to be competant at it, can become members of the various organisations. They can become quailifed through profession al expierence. This is how it was done for years, by becoming an apprentice and studying under an architect. Today it is a subject learned through college and to start as an architect a degree is needed.
The bill isn’t here to stop people without degrees (but are quailifed through professional exp) from practicing. Its to stop people who have no degree and no expierence from calling themselves architects and from using a house plan book to con people.

I would agree in principal with that Paul. It seems ludicrous that a newly frocked Architecture graduate or anybody else holding an architecture degree would be simply able to waltz around with sole protected rights to use the term when a large population of those working in the profession who do not hold these qualifications yet for years have operated with impecable reputations would not enjoy the same right.

Experience and competence should be the sole benchmark for the use and appreciation of the title which would uphold the customers / consumers protection which the bill claims to wish to safeguard. In no way then would a qualification which could have been obtained by scraping through the course with the minimum grade average required be seen as granting automatic use of the term.

And I agree that the RIAI should not run this. They represent only one small portion of those practicing out there. It would be simply unfair to have to comply with criteria they would set out as you could be sure it would be loaded towards their end of the work spectrum. A displayed competence gained through experience in all areas, (both design and construction detailing) would have to be the underlying factor for permission to utilise the term Architect.

Then maybe all would be on an equal footing and the public consumer truely potected. And maybe then Architects may gain a bit of respect for what we as technicians have to go through during our years spent studying and the years of experience we gain in the field. Its not all playing tiddly winks and drinking down the pub ya know.

Dear Bren 88.

One question for ya? Do ya like apples?????

Yes Einstein was German, he worked in the Swiss patent office, making him a Swiss patent Clerk. It would have seemed stupid and a bit misleading to me to discribe him as a German Swiss patent Clerk. Yer little brain might not have been able to handle it.

And yes he studied at the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich. To be an electrical engineer. Any idiot with the internet and a little site called wikipedia could seem quite smart and knowledgeable on pointing out that score. So dont pat yerself on the back just yet.

But I have a rather keen interest in physics and to say that the education that a spark might receive today would have anything to do with quantum physics, newtonian motion, and the myriad of other theoretical studies which were being carried out at the end of the 19th century such as partical field theory, electromagnetics etc which all went into the postulation of Special Relativity and later General Relativity seems just plain stupid to me. If their teaching that to electricians these days then sign me up, I’d love it!!!!!

So dont try to seem smart when ya aint.

How do ya like them apples!!!!!!

It seems that some of my arguements have been removed from this thread. I might have guessed, seeing as this is an RIAI website. I am very annoyed that my arguements have been removed, turning this debate into a one-sided joke.
I agree that the RIAI should not have control over who can be included under the title “Architect”. They will be acting in their own interests only.
It would be quite like letting McDonalds take control over who is qualified to make burgers.:rolleyes:

the only RIAI website i know of is http://www.riai.ie. this is an independently owned and run online publication and discussion forum.

the RIAI is going to be regulating the title in the absence of an alternative. if there was an independent ARB put in place i’d be perfectly happy with it.

@Bren88 wrote:

Yes. Architects designed the pyramids. Not some joes who were calling them selves architects…
…the people who have been designing buildings for years, and can show to be competant at it, can become members of the various organisations. They can become quailifed through profession al expierence….Today it is a subject learned through college and to start as an architect a degree is needed.
The bill isn’t here to stop people without degrees (but are quailifed through professional exp) from practicing. Its to stop people who have no degree and no expierence from calling themselves architects and from using a house plan book to con people.

Bren88- What if the qualifications and experience required will be all controlled by the RIAI. Can you honestly say that it is fair? It truly is monopoly. A monopoly is bad for business, bad for this country and bad for the customer.

Now let’s get something straight…I don’t want to call myself an Architect. I’m not an architect. But if I was to open a business I am qualified to offer “Architectural Services”… for I am an Architectural Technologist/ Technician whichever title you would like to use. It IS Architectural. The Bill forbids the use of “Architect” used with other words or letters… i.e. Architectural Services, unless qualified by this so far very foggy means, which I reckon will be thrown upon us if something is not done now…

This also means that such offices will not be allowed to list themselves in the Golden Pages under Architects. Bad for businesses… Creating a monopoly…. Very Very bad for customers. So pretend all you like, till you are blue in the face, that this Act will protect customers because this is what I feel will happen:

1- The word “Architect” can’t be used by the technical offices. (Not the worst- it’s not the title “Architect” that I’m worried about- it’s the “Architectural Services”)
2- Marketing and advertising becomes very difficult for the rest of us. (Yippee- I hear the Architects say- More business for us! Less competition!)
3- Non-“Architects” become invisible.
4- Naturally, this will lead to (Like has happened in the States) a banning of Technical Architects from practising.
5- Therefore, obviously, Architects will be able to charge what they like. There will be a very scary scale of fees indeed.
6- All the Architectural Technicians will have to go to Uni and get the fancy schmancy qualifications, which are now needed to do this job, which we’re doing quite well without!!
7- Then- there will only be Architects in Ireland. There will still be bad designers and good designers. It’s the same people, different name…
8- Any pure technical staff will get paid very poorly. As there won’t be a choice to open up a practice, they will have to be employed by Architects. Therefore- Nobody will follow this essential line of work anymore.
9- Everyone will be an architect. Now the RIAI will have to make up a new grading system. To be the best Gold star Architect you will have to study full-time for 14 years… and miss out on 10 years in practice. But don’t worry- the ego will be saved!!!
10- The Irish government will say “Oh No- we’ve done it again….the sale of the airline had been a foolish, reckless decision but this beats all !!!”:(

Sums up the RIAI position:

Support for law to register architects
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2005 / November 1

The Irish Times

Nearly 90 per cent of Irish people say they want the Government to bring in legislation requiring architects to be professionally qualified, according to a survey carried out on behalf of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI). The survey by TNS mrbi found that 89 per cent favour such a law being enacted before the next general election. The study also found that 94 per cent believe that anyone wishing to call him or herself an architect should have appropriate educational or professional qualifications.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1101/3735596637HM7QUALIFIED.html

Institute says Authority’s criticism of Building Control Bill misguided
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2006 / March 7

The Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland (RIAI) has given a broad welcome to the Competition Authority’s report on the architecture profession which was published on 7 March. Commenting on the report, RIAI Director, John Graby, welcomed the fact that the Competition Authority recognised that there were few barriers to competition in the profession. “Architecture is a client focused profession. RIAI members always strive to provide their clients with the most professional service available. This ethos includes competitiveness and the Competition Authority report recognises this fact,” John Graby said.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2006/000059.html

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Sums up the RIAI position….The Irish Times……the study found that 94 per cent believe that anyone wishing to call him or herself an architect should have appropriate educational or professional qualifications.
The Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland (RIAI) has given a broad welcome to the Competition Authority’s report on the architecture profession which was published on 7 March. Commenting on the report, RIAI Director, John Graby, welcomed the fact that the Competition Authority recognised that there were few barriers to competition in the profession. “Architecture is a client focused profession. RIAI members always strive to provide their clients with the most professional service available. This ethos includes competitiveness and the Competition Authority report recognises this fact,” John Graby said.

1. If someone came to my door and said ‘should someone be qualified to do there job’ -I would say yes… Of course 94% said yes…Are you sure that article was in The Irish Times- cause it sounds more like something from The Sun…the thing is- I am qualified to do my job!! You just want to tell me and people like me that I have to work under a “Qualified” Architect. Why can’t you see what I’m trying to say????!!!! I AM qualified. You are trying to say that Technical Architects are NOT qualified to do the job. This is the problem… You would like to FOOL the public into thinking that RIAI qualification is better than the rest- but it simply is not true- it’s just different!!

2. Of course the “director of the RIAI” would say that this whole thing is not going to destroy competition as we know it. How could he admit such a thing? He’s after the interests of his own people, the MRIAI, who shall get all the jobs, when this Bill is made into an Act…

@buddyboy wrote:

Dear Bren 88.

One question for ya? Do ya like apples?????

Yes Einstein was German, he worked in the Swiss patent office, making him a Swiss patent Clerk. It would have seemed stupid and a bit misleading to me to discribe him as a German Swiss patent Clerk. Yer little brain might not have been able to handle it.

And yes he studied at the Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich. To be an electrical engineer. Any idiot with the internet and a little site called wikipedia could seem quite smart and knowledgeable on pointing out that score. So dont pat yerself on the back just yet.

But I have a rather keen interest in physics and to say that the education that a spark might receive today would have anything to do with quantum physics, newtonian motion, and the myriad of other theoretical studies which were being carried out at the end of the 19th century such as partical field theory, electromagnetics etc which all went into the postulation of Special Relativity and later General Relativity seems just plain stupid to me. If their teaching that to electricians these days then sign me up, I’d love it!!!!!

So dont try to seem smart when ya aint.

How do ya like them apples!!!!!!

I don’t know about apples but there’s a seriously big bunch of sour grapes in this thread. If you want to question someone’s “smartness”, perhaps you should take a look at your own spelling ability.

I work with a large number of qualified and talented technologists. Note the “with”. Frankly I don’t give a rat’s fat ass what any of you are qualified to do. What I care about is the service that my company gives to its Clients. If we make mistakes then the Client has recourse. It’s called P.I. Cover. This bill has been brought about by a bunch of shysters knocking up sub-standard shite with impunity. The RIAI can and will deal with rogue architects – who deals with the rest? Physician heal thyself.

Hey hats.

All I was doing was trying to prove a point.

This dumbass was trying to make himkself look smart at my expense and tried as usual to use some smart ass crap to refute a statement of mine which he had no other defence against. A smart fella offering an opinion on something he knows absolutely nothing about. How dare he!!!

Thats the sort of attitude that gets up my nose.

My only problem with these sort of people is that he cant and wont even try to look at things from another point of view which might mean he may have to concede a point and leave himself at a disadvantage. Would you not concede the following :

a) The architectural technician / technologist is an integral part of any design team.
b) There are bad architects out there too propogating the countryside with crap.
c) Not all technologists deserve to be tarred with the broad brush strokes of bad design.
d) If the RIAI is to run this show then technologists should be afforded full membership, MRIAI, and no other designation if their professional competence was assured. Would you concede that although we have training in different fields and it takes much more than the sum of either your and my formal education to bring a building from green field site to fully finished. That comes with experience and learning.
e) Just as you would learn the more technical aspects of the building while working in the field is it too much for you to assume I havent picked up any design competence in 10 years???

Both our formal educations leave a great gap to what in my opinion goes to make a complete architect. Experience in my opinion is the only thing that can bring this about. Your gaining experience in the technical aspects of building and mine in the design aspects. Having gained a competent understanding in each case through experience are we not essentially then THE SAME!!!! Should I not then be granted use of the title Architect without reservation if my competence is proven??

Otherwise its as Meow says just creating a monopoly for RIAI members to sell their wares in a closed market. That is neither good for the public or the profession. Competition should not be feared. As for any polls carried out on behalf of the RIAI, they would have to be bogus. The public have no understanding of the issues at hand. How could they. If asked the difference between an Architect and Architectural Technologist could the answer the question??? No, and that is the nub of the matter which was conveniently left out of that survey.

And if I ever do decide to practice on my own of course I will have P.I. cover. Any technologists which I know practicing on their own have this cover. Why would I act otherwise. In this we have the consumers interest at heart. Is the gulf so vast that ye as Architects will always see us as underlings who merely finish your work.

I am an Architectural Technologist, I’ve had my own practice for a number of years with full PI and have designed and built many buildings. I am not an Architect and do not claim to be although I am frequently referred to by clients as their architect, engineer, surveyor, draftsman due to their basic lack of understanding of the design side of the construction industry. Clients for the most part don’t care what you are as long as you have a good reputation and can guide them through the tricky process of the planning and construction of their building and can deal with all of the complications that arise along the way.

If as some people seem to think on this forum the protection of the title Architect will restrict other people from designing buildings they are wrong. The vast majority of Clients are extremely cost conscious and will go to the other protected professions (engineers & surveyors) to design their buildings if they can’t use technologists when they are quoted 10 to 13% fees for their project.

If the RIAI are to be the registration body they should 1) Increase the Technician representation on the council to be in proportion with the number of technician members to members and fellows, 2) Review their rules on certificates on compliance 3) Have professional competence examinations for technician members to ensure that standards are maintained equilivant to those for Architects.

I am of the opinion that the RIAI has completely neglected technicians for years and will unfortunately most likely continue to do so which will lead to a parting of the ways in the near future. Poor design is frequently blamed on unqualified “Architects” and technicians but I know a number of qualified engineers and surveyors who are more than capable of producing poor design and that’s before you take the role of the planners into account they can frequently inflict changes on a design which will reduce it to poor status very quickly. How many of them have any architectural qualifications of any sort and finally don’t forget the Client is always right even when they’re wrong it’s up to all of us to coax them away from the house of their dreams (Plan No 30451 from Plan a Stately Pile or similar) give them something better, that meets their brief, that the planners don’t want to change and that they’ll be happy living in or using for years.

Has to be the RIAI as experience dictates that quangos sooner or later fall victim to becoming destroyed by excessive numbers of polically motivated appointees.

What is to stop a future ARB declaring all technicians architects and making every one off an ‘architect designed masterpiece‘ leave control where it is safe i.e. those who have worked hard enough to attain the status of architect by going through the established channels.

Notwithstanding the above there are many very talented designers who are not qualified architects but like every other sector results speak for themselves and they gain commissions that normally would go to qualified members but I think it is fair to say thaty these gifted designers are the exception as opposed to the rule.

3 questions are asked in your current poll about ranking prefeerences for the future home of architectural registration. The uptake is desultry and I’m not surprised.

Having had almost 10 years of meddling and interference from the UK Architects Registration Board, those practising in Ireland might do well to pause before running headlong into state-sanctioned intereference with their professional practice. Have a look at http://www.aaruk.info and then ask the question: “Is registration nothing but a shield for the incompetent?”

Hi,

this is my first post so be gentle.
What is a technical architect? isnt the term a contradiction in itself? lets call a spade a spade. if you havent studied the appropriate courses, passed the exams, completed the relevant projects than you are not an Architect. period. no buts.
I have completed my part one and am always aware when someone asks what i do. im just a lowly architects assistant. so technicians stand up and be proud of what you are and do not profess to be that you are not.

thanks.

The other titles available make even less sense ! Technician to me implies someone who fixes something …. where does that fit in, and Technologist sounds to like a made up term, just contrived to put another level in an already mixed up system. Neither describes the scope of work undertaken by ‘Architectural Technicians’ who have reached senior positions in their various places of work. Technical Architect is far from ideal in my view but it does lend some credibility to those Technicians who have done all the things you say AND completed the relevant projects by carrying out and supervising the TECHNICAL DESIGN of various buildings, so how is it a contradiction ? As an architect who has yet to complete their education you surely must have come across Technicians in your practice who are far more qualified and experienced technically, yet there is little recognition for what they do professionally. You wouldn’t object to a LANDSCAPE Architect using their title, or to a NAVAL or MARINE Architect using theirs, so why object to TECHNICAL Architect – Is it a little to close to home ? Just a suggestion – no offence intended !!!!! Just to point out also, that not all Technicians favour the term Technical Architect, but it better describes the work that they do.

The abuse of the name ‘architect’ has always been the case – now they are making it official. Anyone with a little bluff-ability can pass the RPL exam, thus bypassing seven years of slog-awful study and all the experience necessary to go with that;
This is just another manifestation of the wholesale mistreatment of underpaid, undervalued and much-abused architects.
Granted, there are many who get through the official courses (who shouldn’t get through), with a little help from daddy and a few repeat exams, but it is still an undermining of the well-earned title.
What would really be of value to architects would be if planning applications were to be made only by professionally-qualified architects, not by the local draughtsman, garda or woodwork teacher; as it is in Poland and elsewhere in the world, thus upholding quality (a word not in the vocabulary of the government, the competition authority, and unfortunately, the representatives of the RIAI, or so it would appear).

As for technicians, with respect I think more would be acheived if they were to develop ways of increasing their role and value in practice, rather than this prolonged negative navel-gazing.

‘Bluff ability’ won’t get anyone registered as an Architect. The RIAI have been campaigning for registration for years, and will now be the registration body for Architects in this country. As for bypassing seven years of slog awful study, prospective candidates for Registration must have at least ten years experience providing services commensurate with that of an Architect, must meet a prescribed and stringent set of competencies, and must produce documentary evidence of this to an expert panel of not less than 3 Architects for their assessment, after which an opinion on the candidates’ suitability for registration will be given to the Technical Assessment Board.Going forward, a Register Admission Examination will be open to those who can demonstrate 7 years working at the level of an Architect and are at least 35 years of age, so its no shortcut.
Your statement is a bit premature given that none of these mechanisms are in place as yet, as the Bill was only passed into Law in April, so how can anyone know what the contents of any exam will be, and, given that the RIAI, the representative body for Architects in Ireland will be the Regaistration Body, surely its up to them to maintain the standards set out in the Building Control Bill. What are you afraid of ? :confused:
I do agree about the local woodwork teacher, draughtsman or garda preparing planning applications, but do you seriously think it’s ever going to be possible to have these made only by Architects ? Firstly, I know many Architects who wouldn’t know where to start with a planning application, and who would have serious difficulty getting even the smallest application through the validation process, and secondly, how many Architects do you think are interested in that type of work ? Would you rather see the role of the Architectural Technican reduced to that of somone who simply prepares drawings under the supervision of an Architect rather than operating as an expert in a seperate, albeit related discipline. That suggestion surely contradicts your last statement about technicians increasing their role and value in practice, and sets back an entire profession by years if not decades. I don’t how many Technicians you know, but certainly I, and many of my colleagues are not involved in any navel gazing, negative or otherwise, nor am I out to poach the work of the poor ‘underpaid, undervalued and mistreated architects’ you refer to, although I don’t know of too many of those anyway.:D

@JB wrote:

‘Bluff ability’ won’t get anyone registered as an Architect. The RIAI have been campaigning for registration for years, and will now be the registration body for Architects in this country. As for bypassing seven years of slog awful study, prospective candidates for Registration must have at least ten years experience providing services commensurate with that of an Architect, must meet a prescribed and stringent set of competencies, and must produce documentary evidence of this to an expert panel of not less than 3 Architects for their assessment, after which an opinion on the candidates’ suitability for registration will be given to the Technical Assessment Board.Going forward, a Register Admission Examination will be open to those who can demonstrate 7 years working at the level of an Architect and are at least 35 years of age, so its no shortcut.
Your statement is a bit premature given that none of these mechanisms are in place as yet, as the Bill was only passed into Law in April, so how can anyone know what the contents of any exam will be, and, given that the RIAI, the representative body for Architects in Ireland will be the Regaistration Body, surely its up to them to maintain the standards set out in the Building Control Bill. What are you afraid of ? :confused:
I do agree about the local woodwork teacher, draughtsman or garda preparing planning applications, but do you seriously think it’s ever going to be possible to have these made only by Architects ? Firstly, I know many Architects who wouldn’t know where to start with a planning application, and who would have serious difficulty getting even the smallest application through the validation process, and secondly, how many Architects do you think are interested in that type of work ? Would you rather see the role of the Architectural Technican reduced to that of somone who simply prepares drawings under the supervision of an Architect rather than operating as an expert in a seperate, albeit related discipline. That suggestion surely contradicts your last statement about technicians increasing their role and value in practice, and sets back an entire profession by years if not decades. I don’t how many Technicians you know, but certainly I, and many of my colleagues are not involved in any navel gazing, negative or otherwise, nor am I out to poach the work of the poor ‘underpaid, undervalued and mistreated architects’ you refer to, although I don’t know of too many of those anyway.:D

To clarify: the Bill was passed, but these are proposals contained within the Bill and how it might be regulated.

If anyone has the ability to bypass formal training, I certainly don’t begrudge that… even some of the best architects we know (eg. Tadao Ando or Mies), didn’t have formal training in the strict sense. However, they did have special training nonetheless, and were exceptionallY gifted.
I seems bizarre that with a single interview and evidence of 10 years of unmonitored architectural work one can become an architect. this work could well have been done in collaboration with others, with only a minor role in the overall design aspects – or may not have been done by the candidate at all … who’s to know? the local judge? I would like to know more how a technical assessment board, most of whom are unqualified architects, will source the true inspiration of architectural work, spanning back years.

Granted there are architects who are unable to perform in many aspects, such as planning applications; but that isn’t the aim of training. The Part 3 exam requires grounding in these areas.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, I have read here submissions from individuals who are performing in all areas of practice, bar the first few stages. That’s all well and good. However, practice is only one aspect of architectural knowledge. Much of what is learnt in architectural education doesn’t even figure in archectural practice, though it has a bearing. Therefore the idea of becoming an architect through practice alone is questionable.

Architects are adequately paid…? :confused: 😮 😡 😀

PS. I was an experienced technician myself in a previous life (before doing the degree), so I am not speaking as one ignorant of the technicians role :p

@PlanE wrote:

What would really be of value to architects would be if planning applications were to be made only by professionally-qualified architects

Off topic perhaps, but surely it would be of more ‘value’ to architects if qualified planners made the applications and let architects get on with the job for which they studied?

eThe interview board, according to a recent RIAI document issued to their members, must satisfy itself that the works presented represent each year claimed as relevant by the candidate and that the work was actually carried out by the candidate. In addition, the work submitted must be equivalent to that of an Architect in terms of its scale and complexity and quality. (so no bungalows then) Also surely if the RIAI are to be the registration body, it will be their members who will sit on the board, not ‘unqualified’ architects.
I just think that surely it is better to have some form of regulation there rather than the current situation, which is none at all.
Surely anyone who decides to seek registration as an Architect and succeds will have had some formal Education first ? Maybe I’m wrong.If it is the case that anyone who picks up a pencil and decides to apply has a chance of being accepted, then I withdraw all comments. That is not a situation I would like to see.

It’s interesting that while many architects in the UK are becoming disenchanted with the whole idea of registration (aka officious regulation), so many other nations are running to achieve this anti-competitive and anti-consumer protectionism. Think about it: doesn’t registration (see my posting here of about 2 years ago) provide a monopolistic shield for the incompetent? and whereas some may welcome the comfort blanket of protection of title, should it be of any concern to anyone who is recognised on merit? Is it too late to say no to the whole idea?

See essay “Architects Registration in the United Kindom” and general information at AARUK – Architects Registration in the United Kingdom (note: hyperlinks)

I’ve just seen that nearly 60% have voted in favour of an Irish Architects Registration Board. 😮 FRIENDS : GET YOUR HEADS EXAMINED – YOU’LL REGRET IT! 😮

At least so few have voted that the poll can be taken as a glorious vote of no confidence in the whole thing. :confused:

My first post, so please go easy 🙂

As an Architectural Technician in full-time employment in a non-RIAI architectural firm since 1999, i have been performing the duties of an ‘Architect’ since my first day….

Our firm aims at mainly urban and rural residential projects, and i can say we would consider ourselves ‘specialist’ in this area, in all aspects of the construction process, from brief forming, planning and engineering consultation, design and project mamagement. This is our target market, as there are a myriad of RIAI firms locally that tie up the local commercial, industrial and public projects. My employer is not formally qualified as an architect, but has been working as an architect for over 30 years…..

I have been designing residential developments, urban housing and rural stand alone homes for the past 7 years. My work has been favourable critised by well respected local RIAI architects. My question is this…
How can the registration board deliberate on “the work submitted must be equivalent to that of an Architect in terms of its scale and complexity and quality” when the exact role of an architect in the construction process is so contraversial.??

reading the ‘official journal of the european union’ L 255 it states the training of an architect should lead to the acquisition of 11 skills….
on reading this list its clear to me that i am formally trained in 6 of them; i have experiential training in 3 others… i do not have training in only 2 of them….
however, the list describes skills that would be more pertenant to other professions than architects….
ie “understanding of structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with the building design”
or “adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in th eplanning process”
or “adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and of the function of buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of comfort and protection against teh climate”

these definations of the requist skills of an ‘architect’ would be more correctly used to describe an architectural technician, or services engineer, or structural engineer etc….

hope its ok to bump this, in hope of any comments on my post…..

I am currently doing a degree in Interior Architecture in Griffith College, Dublin. Its a BA recognised by HETAC and internationally. What does this mean for me? Can I call myself an Interior Architect? :confused:

An interesting comment on the architectural profession by Paul Finch, the new chair of CABE, in response to a question by Will Alsop: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5207267.article
Do you think the role of the architect should be returned to the position it occupied before project managers were invented? Will Alsop
The role of architects was defined by architects themselves in the 1830s. From the expulsion of the measurers, the splitting off of planners and, more recently, the apparent abandonment of project management on major buildings, the message seems to be that many architects are content for others to carry out activities that are not fundamentally about ‘design’. Neither CABE nor anybody else can disband project management as a separate discipline, tempting though that may be to some.

I have created my own practice in dublin 8 years ago. I have tryed to register with the RIAI but never could because my qualification is not listed in the EU directive which includes a list of cetain qualifications valable for registration.

I am waiting for the RIAI to set up the registration procedure as per the B.C.A. 2007 (Building Control Act 2007). Last year the RIAI was trying to prevent my practice being listed in the Golden Pages on the ground that I was not M.RIAI. I had to employ my solicitor to solve this conflict. The B.C.A. 2007 stipulates that anyone having applyed for registration can continue practicing as an architect until a decision on the application is reached by the board. The RIAI was acting in breach of the B.C.A. 2007 by trying to prevent my practice and others to be listed in the Golden Pages. My solicitor could never comvince the RIAI to change their way of doing, but the Golden Pages legal team decided that the RIAI’s request to list only RIAI members was not justified because Registration as per the B.C.A. 2007 was not yet in place.

I have a master degree in Arts & Architecture issued by a State University from Paris. I have 14 years of experience working in France, UK, and Ireland. I am wondering what type of politic is following the RIAI by trying to prevent honest and competent architects like me to continue practicing.

I will be able to register as an architect after having past an examination but at the moment my practice is damaged by the economical climat and also by the RIAI which is claiming everywhere that registration started in May 2008, when in fact it is not started at all to this date.

The RIAI is using its position as the registration body to promote the services of its members, when it should in the contrary carry out the registration task without prejudice. When a member of the public call the RIAI to obtain information about my practice, the RIAI tells them that I am not a member and that there is no guarantee that I will be able to register. They recommend my potential client to use the services of a MRIAI architect. I know that I have already lost some potential clients this way and I am wondering if I could take legal action against the RIAI on this ground.

I am desapointed with the RIAI. They are looking at the registration process in a way that facilitate everything for their members, but they do not consider the interests of non members qualified for registration as per the B.C.A. 2007. I thing that there is obvioulsy a conflict of interest there.

I think there is a clear conflict of interest here too.
The Competition Authority submitted a recommendation when this legislation was being considered that the RIAI should not be the body responsible for registration.

“The Competition Authority is concerned, however, with the impact of the proposed new registration system for architects, as outlined in the Building Control Bill 2005. As currently proposed, the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), which represents the vast majority of architects in Ireland, would be given the responsibility for maintaining a register of architects in Ireland, including those who are not RIAI members. This creates the potential for conflicts of interest between the RIAI’s role in representing its members and its statutory roles of protecting consumers and regulating all architects.

The Competition Authority makes a number of recommendations designed to ensure that the proposed registration system is as transparent, independent and accountable as possible. In particular, it proposes the creation of an Architects Council of Ireland – an independent and accountable body to register architects”.
http://www.tca.ie/templates/index.aspx?pageid=930

The RIAI describes itself as a “representative body for professionally qualified architects” in Ireland. This single statement on the website sparks any number of areas where there is potential for conflict in its new second role as a registration body.
The UK system of separating out theses functions was devised for good reason:

ARB is the independent statutory regulator of all UK registered architects.
ARB has a dual mandate to protect the consumer and to safeguard the reputation of architects. To achieve this, we:
* keep an up to date Register of all architects
* promote good standards both in the education of architects and in professional practice
* provide consumers with an accessible service in cases of complaint
* investigate and prosecute unregistered individuals in business or practice who unlawfully call themselves an architect.
http://www.arb.org.uk/

If you are a RIBA Architect you can chose to disagree with your professional body, relinquish your membership, and retain your right to call yourself an Architect by virtue of your ARB accreditation. Professionals who have suitable qualifications and experience can register without having to become members of the RIBA.

(I wonder will RIAI membership fees be reduced to a suitable ‘recession level’ or even in line with deflation come renewal??)

It seems that the competition Authority had anticipated the problem.

@trace wrote:

An interesting comment on the architectural profession by Paul Finch, the new chair of CABE, in response to a question by Will Alsop: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5207267.article
Do you think the role of the architect should be returned to the position it occupied before project managers were invented? Will Alsop
The role of architects was defined by architects themselves in the 1830s. From the expulsion of the measurers, the splitting off of planners and, more recently, the apparent abandonment of project management on major buildings, the message seems to be that many architects are content for others to carry out activities that are not fundamentally about ‘design’. Neither CABE nor anybody else can disband project management as a separate discipline, tempting though that may be to some.

your comment re the abandonement of PMs is relevant – happening all over as Clients realise PMs get money for jam as the northies say. The role is now ripe for architects to take back what – let’s face it – they’ve all still been doing due to the fact that most PM’s are failed QSs and are having rings run around them by Contract Managers. The banks have set them free and architect’s should ensure they stay so.

Re an Irish version of the ARB – absolutely essential. The RIBA in the UK offers little but a “free” magazine. the ARB ensures regulation and is one hell of a lot cheaper

@wearnicehats wrote:

Re an Irish version of the ARB – absolutely essential. The RIBA in the UK offers little but a “free” magazine. the ARB ensures regulation and is one hell of a lot cheaper

Didn’t the RIAI’s submissions to government on the regulation argue for them taking on the registration role?
Anyway, like any good democracy it’s up to us members to vote in the council we want next time. Don’t think we can vote in a new director though?
Interesting to note that RIAI CPD courses have just become mandatory for members, some of which can be very pricey.

“RIAI CPD courses have just become mandatory for members, some of which can be very pricey”
Thats a nice way to ensure funds during a recession!

An independent Registration body is essential – just like the UK. The current proposal is a joke and will reflect badly on the Profession.

The registration of architects was officially started in May 2008 last year… And I am still waiting for the procedure to be in place to regularize my situation.

The fact is that the RIAI has tried to prevent my practice being listed in the Golden Pages last year, and I am wondering what will happen this year. The RIAI continues to promote and defend its members but as the registration body, the RIAI has done nothing for practicing architects non members of the Institute.

As a practicing architect I know that delays can happen during the design, the construction process, and it is understandable that delays can also happen during procedures such as the registration of professionals. However, I think that the RIAI has no excuse for not changing its structure and politic towards non members. 16 months after May 2008, nothing positive has been done for architectural practices non member of the RIAI.

Why? I would have thought that the Registration Body has also a duty of care toward non members of the institute…

@CK wrote:

The registration of architects was officially started in May 2008 last year… And I am still waiting for the procedure to be in place to regularize my situation.

The fact is that the RIAI has tried to prevent my practice being listed in the Golden Pages last year, and I am wondering what will happen this year. The RIAI continues to promote and defend its members but as the registration body, the RIAI has done nothing for practicing architects non members of the Institute.

As a practicing architect I know that delays can happen during the design, the construction process, and it is understandable that delays can also happen during procedures such as the registration of professionals. However, I think that the RIAI has no excuse for not changing its structure and politic towards non members. 16 months after May 2008, nothing positive has been done for architectural practices non member of the RIAI.

Why? I would have thought that the Registration Body has also a duty of care toward non members of the institute…

it is not in the RIAIs members interest to accept registration of new architects due to an ever shrinking market.

The RIAIs primary raison d’etre is to serve its members to the best of its ability….

two plus two equals four…

there are many ways to become a member of the RIAI – many more ways, incidentally, than in many other countries

Either take one of those routes and follow the procedures in place or don’t. It’s really quite simple and all the crying in the world isn’t going to help

@henno wrote:

it is not in the RIAIs members interest to accept registration of new architects due to an ever shrinking market.

The RIAIs primary raison d’etre is to serve its members to the best of its ability….

two plus two equals four…

I am afraid that 2+2 equal 3 in this particular situation. If I believe the Building Control Act 2007, the RIAI is supposed to deal with registration without discrimination. But it seems that they are not able or willing to do so…

As the Registration Body, the RIAI should be developing a department to deal with non members. A department to inform, advise, and prepare the ground for post-registration matters. I want to register but I am not willing to become MRIAI.

The RIAI is not fulfilling its function as the Registration Body.

@wearnicehats wrote:

there are many ways to become a member of the RIAI – many more ways, incidentally, than in many other countries

Either take one of those routes and follow the procedures in place or don’t. It’s really quite simple and all the crying in the world isn’t going to help

wearnicehats, I think that you do not realy know what you are talking about…

In the UK for example, experience and knowledge lead to registration. The RIAI has a very academic approach to registration. I have 5 years qualification not listed in the EU directive, and on this ground they have refused my candidature as a MRIAI.

They would like me to apply for registration through a route where I would need to work for a MRIAI architect to register as a full member. I have my own practice since 2001, I have children and I am not willing to go back to work for another architect. For this reason I want to register as per the Building Control Act 2007 (BCA 2007) without applying for RIAI membership. It is my legal right to do so…

The RIAI is the Registration Body and it should help with registration as per the BCA 2007, but instead it is only considering MRIAI applications and this is in breach with the BCA 2007.

I am not crying, I am just defending my rights…

@CK wrote:

wearnicehats, I think that you do not realy know what you are talking about…

In the UK for example, experience and knowledge lead to registration. The RIAI has a very academic approach to registration. I have 5 years qualification not listed in the EU directive, and on this ground they have refused my candidature as a MRIAI.

They would like me to apply for registration through a route where I would need to work for a MRIAI architect to register as a full member. I have my own practice since 2001, I have children and I am not willing to go back to work for another architect. For this reason I want to register as per the Building Control Act 2007 (BCA 2007) without applying for RIAI membership. It is my legal right to do so…

The RIAI is the Registration Body and it should help with registration as per the BCA 2007, but instead it is only considering MRIAI applications and this is in breach with the BCA 2007.

I am not crying, I am just defending my rights…

can you really register with the ARB in the UK without doing an exam?

is working for a MRIAI architect part of the D2 Route?

@wearnicehats wrote:

can you really register with the ARB in the UK without doing an exam?

is working for a MRIAI architect part of the D2 Route?

An examination is necessary to register with the ARB in the UK. However, anyone with the knowledge, skills and experience of an architect would be successful.

To become MRIAI, an examination is requested, including work experience within a MRIAI practice.

@CK wrote:

An examination is necessary to register with the ARB in the UK. However, anyone with the knowledge, skills and experience of an architect would be successful.

To become MRIAI, an examination is requested, including work experience within a MRIAI practice.

how do you currently sign payment and/or compliance certs

@wearnicehats wrote:

how do you currently sign payment and/or compliance certs

Sorry wearnicehats, my solicitor advised me on this matter, but is is a sensible issue that I do not want to discuss in public or with someone that I do not realy know. There are many guys making illegal certifications out there, and I do not want to help anyone this way…

@CK wrote:

Sorry wearnicehats, my solicitor advised me on this matter, but is is a sensible issue that I do not want to discuss in public or with someone that I do not realy know. There are many guys making illegal certifications out there, and I do not want to help anyone this way…

and you wonder why the RIAI wants to keep a tight rein on registration:rolleyes:

@wearnicehats wrote:

and you wonder why the RIAI wants to keep a tight rein on registration:rolleyes:

No… I wonder why nothing has yet been done? 17 months after having declared the registration procedure started. They should either have delaid the official start of the registration procedure, or be ready…

The situation today is: “Registration was started in May 2008, but it is not ready yet”… Do you understand the problem?

@CK wrote:

No… I wonder why nothing has yet been done? 17 months after having declared the registration procedure started. They should either have delaid the official start of the registration procedure, or be ready…

The situation today is: “Registration was started in May 2008, but it is not ready yet”… Do you understand the problem?

Very well said CK. I have to agree fully with the points you have raised.

Details of Technical Assessment will be issued on Monday 16th Nov.
I wonder if the fee will be similar to ARAE $11.5K?

Its should be interesting.

@RKQ wrote:

Very well said CK. I have to agree fully with the points you have raised.

Details of Technical Assessment will be issued on Monday 16th Nov.
I wonder if the fee will be similar to ARAE $11.5K?

Its should be interesting.

RKQ,

You forget that the €11.500 required for the examination do not include for the €1,800 lectures that will describe and explain the third part of the exam.

The total cost of the examination will be €13.300.

@CK wrote:

RKQ,

You forget that the €11.500 required for the examination do not include for the €1,800 lectures that will describe and explain the third part of the exam.

The total cost of the examination will be €13.300.

what’s the point? if you can’t get a job…

Seems this is just PR by all concerned.

The non-architects are still in the new Golden Pages.
They’ll will be in next year’s directory.
And, as far as the procedures of ‘appeal’ to be included in this register allow, will remain there.

John & Mary Greenhorn will still be paying thousands to draughtsmen for donkey houses.
And still more money when the planners come back with their usual bluff rebuffs and the “architect” hasn’t the knowledge to calmly argue their case for them.

I doubt if people going to build a modest house will go to the RIAI site first looking for the famous register.
And then again this register has all sorts of old fogeys in it.
A share of men who are really retired for some years.
And the odd Ruairí Quinn.
Retaining these types will not generate much confidence amongst those who are looking for a modern professional architect who is fully clued-in with the latest trends in building design, currents costs, present local authority regulations on wastewater/radon gas/heating/insulating/landscaping/etc.

For sure there is a question as to the division of building design work between architects, architectural techs, engineers, landscapers, etc.
All have a role.
The Dept of Env should act to define the role of each of these professions for different types of building project, I think.
The present state of things is not fair on the ordinary punter.

I think I’ve found a way to circumvent this whole title procedure.
Simply give yourself the title ‘The Dude’.

All you have to do is show up and say to a client “Hi, I’m The Dude and I’m going to design your house for you.”
“So, you’re the architect?”
“I’m The Dude.”
“Ok.”

The only possible flaw that I could think of is that the Coen brothers may have copyrighted the title.

@teak wrote:

Seems this is just PR by all concerned.

The non-architects are still in the new Golden Pages.
They’ll will be in next year’s directory.
And, as far as the procedures of ‘appeal’ to be included in this register allow, will remain there.

Non-architects provide a service to the majority of the public. Sometimes Clients have a very clear ideal what “they” want and what “they” can afford. The removal or cull of non-architects, if thats the intention, would be totally unjust. A monopoly is never a good thing.
Even applying for Planning Permission has become quite technical, sometimes getting an application validated is an achievement in itself.:) A strict validation process has resulted in the removal of many unqualified people.

IMO RIAI registered Architects have nothing to fear from anyone, IF they are good Designers with a good reputation. Scaring the public is in nobody’s interest.

@teak wrote:

John & Mary Greenhorn will still be paying thousands to draughtsmen for donkey houses.
And still more money when the planners come back with their usual bluff rebuffs and the “architect” hasn’t the knowledge to calmly argue their case for them.

John & Mary might like that donkey house! To them it might be their dream home. When it comes to house design, the general public have conservative tastes. They tend to look back to the past rather than to the future.

@teak wrote:

I doubt if people going to build a modest house will go to the RIAI site first looking for the famous register.

I agree fully. People tend to ask around before they retain a professional. Reputation and word of mouth is so important. Too much scare mongering could have a very negatitive backlash on RIAI members.

@RKQ wrote:

An independent Registration body is essential – just like the UK.

In the UK architects have to pay both bodies a subscription for what is in effect the same duty: the maintenance, control and promotion of a registrar for architects. I’d be more than happy to limit my expenses right now, and I really don’t see the need for dividing up the duty.

@PlanE wrote:

In the UK architects have to pay both bodies a subscription for what is in effect the same duty: the maintenance, control and promotion of a registrar for architects. I’d be more than happy to limit my expenses right now, and I really don’t see the need for dividing up the duty.

No Plan E, what you stated above is not the truth… Architects in the UK just have the choice… If they want to be registered with the 2 bodies, then they pay the 2 fees, otherwise one registration and then 1 fee is enough…

I though the title ‘Architect’ was supposed to be registered now :confused:

This is from an ad. placed by an insurance outfit called ‘RenaissanceRe’, in the appointments section of today’s Irish Times.

Has anyone any idea what these people are talking about?

?
Ok, I see they’ve press-ganged the word architect into use as a verb in one of the sentences, which I suppose is a clue, but some of the other sentences don’t seem to have any verbs at all.

Btw, in what world are the qualities of ” passion for rapid innovation, creativity and a strong belief in the entrepreneurial culture . . . ” got anything to do with becoming an insurance man?

O god… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_architecture

Horrible stuff! My brain melted after the first sentence. “Tarchitecture”!! ha.

@reddy wrote:

O god… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_architecture

Horrible stuff! My brain melted after the first sentence. “Tarchitecture”!! ha.

No worries, all this non sense is in the line with the registration of architects today… One may practice architecture on a full time basis, without being permitted to call himself an architect…

The term “Architect” which was defining a person practicing a profession is now defining a title. The question now is “How do we now call the professionals practicing architecture but not having this title?”

Some propose to call them architectural technicians… But, following descent logic, architectural technicians should be practicing architectural technology… Is preparing a planning application architectural technology? Is sketching the first lines of a project architectural technology? Meeting clients? Understanding a brief? Composing forms and space? Choosing colors?

I think that architecture is a mix of technology and art and that the 2 cannot be dissociated. I think also that the people who pretend protecting the public and who are very fast to protect their own interests instead by changing the term “architect” into a title should be ashamed of their unethical behavior. They are acting in the line of those who have destroyed the world economy by lying to the public and focusing on their personal interests instead of the interests of the wider community.

Some people may think that my statement is aggressive, but none can deny that it is also true. To protect the public would be to protect the practice of architecture and not to protect the interests of some qualified individuals.
…

I honestly don’t really see what your problem is CK. Go through the necessary RIAI procedures or don’t. I think they have it laid out pretty clear as to what has to be done to become registered. You seem to be doing a lot of whinging.

They are acting in the line of those who have destroyed the world economy by lying to the public and focusing on their personal interests instead of the interests of the wider community

And frankly I think the above statement is ridiculously over the top. What exactly are they lying to the public about? How are they not focusing on the interests of the wider community? They are trying to ensure that people who call themselves architects are indeed what they say they are, i.e., therefore focusing on the interests of the wider community.

@gunter wrote:

I though the title ‘Architect’ was supposed to be registered now :confused:

This is from an ad. placed by an insurance outfit called ‘RenaissanceRe’, in the appointments section of today’s Irish Times.

Has anyone any idea what these people are talking about?

‘LEAD TECHNICAL ARCHITECT’

”We are looking to a recruit a lead technical architect to join our development department. The purpose of the role is to ensure that long-term architectural requirements for the company’s applications are provided for in common design tooling and technical run-time frameworks and platforms. The successful candidate will architect the tooling and platforms such that applications can be built rapidly, with minimal understanding of the underlying technology concerns. They will also provide input to the best practice. Usage of our platforms and assist in tecnology governance across the company”.

?
Ok, I see they’ve press-ganged the word architect into use as a verb in one of the sentences, which I suppose is a clue, but some of the other sentences don’t seem to have any verbs at all.

Btw, in what world are the qualities of ” passion for rapid innovation, creativity and a strong belief in the entrepreneurial culture . . . ” got anything to do with becoming an insurance man?

good question.

The ‘title’ technical architect is specific the computer programming world and not the built environment.This insurance firm is looking for a programmer.

I dont know why CK is bring Architectural technicians into the mix because that is another matter altogether. the term architectural technician has been exempted from restriction under the building control bill.
The title ‘Architectural Technologist’ exists only to those who hold MCIAT status from CIAT. This membership level allows a member to practise in a self employed status.

I suppose the question as to ‘what is an architect’ is a lot clearer within the design team of a medium or large project. Its at domestic level that the explanation becomes blurred.

reading the ‘official journal of the european union’ L 255 it states the training of an architect should lead to the acquisition of 11 skills….
many of these ‘skills’ are more applicable to enginners and technicians than university educated Architects in todays education system.

@CK wrote:

No Plan E, what you stated above is not the truth… Architects in the UK just have the choice… If they want to be registered with the 2 bodies, then they pay the 2 fees, otherwise one registration and then 1 fee is enough…

read it more closely… as I said, they have to pay two subscriptions for the same service as a single body like the RIAI is aiming to provide: “the same duty: the maintenance, control and promotion of a registrar for architects”. So yes, it is the truth

@BenK wrote:

I honestly don’t really see what your problem is CK. Go through the necessary RIAI procedures or don’t. I think they have it laid out pretty clear as to what has to be done to become registered. You seem to be doing a lot of whinging.

They are acting in the line of those who have destroyed the world economy by lying to the public and focusing on their personal interests instead of the interests of the wider community

And frankly I think the above statement is ridiculously over the top. What exactly are they lying to the public about? How are they not focusing on the interests of the wider community? They are trying to ensure that people who call themselves architects are indeed what they say they are, i.e., therefore focusing on the interests of the wider community.

OK BenK,

Lets get into the subject in depth…

People who are looking after your teeth, to ensure that they stay in good condition, who heal them or remove them if necessary, are called dentist… None is permitted to sell this service without being a qualified dentist. The same apply to surgeons, pharmacists and so on…

Now compare the health system to the architectural system… Everyone is able to sell architectural services, but only some can call themselves architects… What is this? surely not protecting the public is it?

If you want to protect the public who is frequently looking for value, If you want to raise the standards and quality of the built environment, the protection of the title architect is not the answer because it protects only the interests of some qualified individuals..

If you want to protect the public and improve the quality of the built environment then the system must be changed. Building control must be enforced to higher standards, Compliance with Building Regulations must be ascertained by third parts which are not employed by the developper…

I carry out pre-purchase building surveys. Some of my clients shown me some certificates from chartered surveyors and registered architects which should never have been issued. In kildare a certificate of exemption from planning permission was delivered by a chartered surveyor regarding a rear extension which had a gable wall higher than the walls from the existing dwelling…

A new dwelling built on a corner site in Lucan had a registered architect certificate for compliance with Building Regulations when windows at first floor were not complying with TGD part K from the Building Regulations…

And BenK, believe me this is only the tip of the iceberg…

@PlanE wrote:

read it more closely… as I said, they have to pay two subscriptions for the same service as a single body like the RIAI is aiming to provide: “the same duty: the maintenance, control and promotion of a registrar for architects”. So yes, it is the truth

Plan E I have looked at it in details… All you need in the UK is the ARB registration to practice… All you need to pay is the ARB membership…

@henno wrote:

good question.

The ‘title’ technical architect is specific the computer programming world and not the built environment.This insurance firm is looking for a programmer.

I dont know why CK is bring Architectural technicians into the mix because that is another matter altogether. the term architectural technician has been exempted from restriction under the building control bill.
The title ‘Architectural Technologist’ exists only to those who hold MCIAT status from CIAT. This membership level allows a member to practise in a self employed status.

I suppose the question as to ‘what is an architect’ is a lot clearer within the design team of a medium or large project. Its at domestic level that the explanation becomes blurred.

reading the ‘official journal of the european union’ L 255 it states the training of an architect should lead to the acquisition of 11 skills….
many of these ‘skills’ are more applicable to enginners and technicians than university educated Architects in todays education system.

Henno, my point is that protecting certain qualified architects will not help for the public not being abused…

I am trying to show the non sense of the registration by asking what is called someone practicing architecture? It used to be called an architect… If this person is not registered what is it called now?

I am trying to say that registered architects, chartered surveyors are not always the real deal. Some guys were qualified 20 or 30 years ago and they are struggling to keep in touch with the new technologies, regulations and building standards…

@CK wrote:

Some guys were qualified 20 or 30 years ago and they are struggling to keep in touch with the new technologies, regulations and building standards…

Make that 15 years. In that time I’ve done two Masters and a post grad and I still feel that I’m missing something.

@CK wrote:

Plan E I have looked at it in details… All you need in the UK is the ARB registration to practice… All you need to pay is the ARB membership…

I know some UK architects that don’t want to join RIBA as they fell they are just paying for free monthly magazine (which can be read on-line)

Oh wait………..:D

@CK wrote:

OK BenK,

Lets get into the subject in depth…

People who are looking after your teeth, to ensure that they stay in good condition, who heal them or remove them if necessary, are called dentist… None is permitted to sell this service without being a qualified dentist. The same apply to surgeons, pharmacists and so on…

…

a great example. If you want to be a dentist you should be a qualified dentist as seen under the regulations of the country in which you practice

Similarly you should be a qualified architect under those rules

Just because you don’t like those rules doesn’t mean you can practice regardless

I’m tired of you CK – do your exams

@henno wrote:

The ‘title’ technical architect is specific to the computer programming world . . . .this insurance firm is looking for a programmer.

A nerd you say 😉

I suppose we have ‘tree-surgeons’ and ‘piss-artists’, so no point in getting too precious about professional titles getting hyphenated.

@gunter wrote:

A nerd you say 😉

I suppose we have ‘tree-surgeons’ and ‘piss-artists’, so no point in getting too precious about professional titles getting hyphenated.

although that’s probably where “interior architect” came about, whatever the hell that “title” is supposed to mean

@wearnicehats wrote:

although that’s probably where “interior architect” came about, whatever the hell that “title” is supposed to mean

It could be an architect who spends all his life indoors? :confused:

@wearnicehats wrote:

a great example.

A terrible example. Reputation of a Dentist is paramount… their are a lot of “Butchers” out there… just ask around, we all know of at least one!

I think people should read Part 3 and compare it to Part 4 & Part 5 – it is very interesting and reveals so much.
IMO Part 4 & 5 are inclusive and fair with strong safe guards in place. Possible interview might be required after you submitt your CV.

Whereas Part 3 is designed to look fair but is exclusive.

• Definite interview, (It was quite aggressive on pilot scheme)
• 4 months full time preparation,
• Unfair interview panel without members of the public ( it is supposed to be for consumer protection)
• Hugh cost of €6500 (for an in-house interview & assessment)
• 50% fail rate on pilot scheme – after Appeal – this doesn’t instill confidence. ( 4 out of 18 passed before appeal)
• The onus of proof is on the applicant.
• One chance only – no second chance to re-sit! (Imagine if this was applied to Driving Test!)

How many current members of RIAI would pass Tech Assessment?
How many current members of RIAI could afford to risk €6,500-00?

Remember that RIBA are reconsidering the registration of title! 😀

This issue can be parcelled and presented anyway you like, when it’s stripped back to bear essentials, it is obvious to me at least that it is primarily an exercise in self preservation by the RIAI. If not instigated by them then certainly grasped in a strangle hold by them.

The fees involved here are at worst extortionate and at best prohibitive.

Only an outsiders idea – professional harmony is in everyone’s interest.:)
(I am assuming that all architectural technicians are equivalent to/readily upskillable to “architectural technologist” level. I don’t know if this is valid.)

Here goes.

1. Building design may be done WHOLLY by architects or WHOLLY by architectural technologists according to a client’s wishes.
The former profession perhaps for those with a preference for space/light considerations; the latter for those using less novel spatial design but more desire for aspects of detailing.

2. Both professions may describe their services as “architectural design services”.

3. No other profession other than architects or architectural technicians may claim to offer “architectural design services”.

4. Architects may employ architectural technologists and vice-versa.
Both will describe themselves either ONLY as “architects” or ONLY as “architectural technologists” according to the profession of the principals of that practice.
Where the principals of a practice consist of a roughly equal number of both architects and architectural technologists, then that firm may describe itself as joint architectural design practices, i.e. “Architects & Architectural Technologists”.

5. Unless the practice is a joint architectural design practice, it will ONLY advertise under its own appropriate professional heading.
So, for example, there would be 2 separate sections in the Golden Pages for Architects and Architectural Technologists.
JADPs would be allowed advertise in both simultaneously.

6. People who choose to employ BOTH an architect AND an architectural technologist (i.e. one chosen by the client, not from the architect’s employees or regular sub-contractors) for the same project may do so without any objection from either the architect or the architectural technologist. By this I mean that a person who wants an arch technologist to modify/improve the detailing of a building designed by an architect should not encounter objections/obstruction from the architect on grounds of design copyright or any other “professional integrity” type sulk. Neither may an architectural technologist doing an “faithful” extension to an existing building object if the client elects to reject aspects of his design and reverts to an architect for modification of those same aspects. 😉

7. Neither architect nor architectural technologist should interfere with a client’s choice to engage other professions, e.g. interior designers, who may be involved in the final styling design of a building as long as such other professionals do not alter the major architectural objectives of the original design.

This system gives an objective equality of esteem to each profession.
It shows clearly in business directories which profession pertains to each practice.
It is then a subjective decision for an individual client as to which profession (or perhaps both) that she/he would engage to undertake design work on their building.

Over to you.

@teak wrote:

Only an outsiders idea – professional harmony is in everyone’s interest.:)

It all probably comes down to self-respect and self-worth, and this usually shines through.

@teak wrote:

2. Both professions may describe their services as “architectural design services”.

Isn’t the word “architectural” prohibited:confused: There is a list of “words” that RIAI can add too at any time!

“Architectural Consultant” is on the list. Architectural Designer might be on the list. I don’t see why so many words are prohibited – the general public is not stupid.

Be careful what you say or write, Big Brother is watching. Legal actions will begin next year….Scary. (Or is it just petty & Sad?)

The public will continue to judge RIAI.

Those that retain RIAI Architects will expect something special from their RIAI member, on demand. It might be hard to live up to this superior mantle.

@RKQ wrote:

Isn’t the word “architectural” prohibited:confused: There is a list of “words” that RIAI can add too at any time!

thats a new one on me.. is that correct??

@wearnicehats wrote:

a great example. If you want to be a dentist you should be a qualified dentist as seen under the regulations of the country in which you practice

Similarly you should be a qualified architect under those rules

Just because you don’t like those rules doesn’t mean you can practice regardless

I’m tired of you CK – do your exams

You are obviously missing the point wearnicehats… I am trying to explain that none is permitted to sell dentist services unless registered as a dentist, when in contrary everybody can provide architectural services. Only the use of the title “architect” is protected… My question is: “how do you call professionals providing architectural services without being permitted to use the title architect?”

My point, as explained earlier, is that if you want to protect the public who is frequently looking for value, If you want to raise the standards and quality of the built environment, the protection of the title architect is not the answer because it protects only the interests of some qualified individuals… But you may be one of these persons, or maybe becoming one, and then you will never accept the fact…

However, it is common sense that If you want to protect the public and improve the quality of the built environment then the system must be changed. Building control must be enforced to higher standards; Compliance with Building Regulations must be ascertained by third parts which are not employed by the developer…

The fact is that RIAI will only regulate the registered architects. Who will regulate those providing architectural services without being registered?

If these questions are not of interest to you wearnicehats then do not get involve, but I am not the only one to think that these questions need an answer in the sake of architecture…

@teak wrote:

Only an outsiders idea – professional harmony is in everyone’s interest.:)
(I am assuming that all architectural technicians are equivalent to/readily upskillable to “architectural technologist” level. I don’t know if this is valid.)

Here goes.

---

1. Building design may be done WHOLLY by architects or WHOLLY by architectural technologists according to a client’s wishes.
The former profession perhaps for those with a preference for space/light considerations; the latter for those using less novel spatial design but more desire for aspects of detailing.

2. Both professions may describe their services as “architectural design services”.

3. No other profession other than architects or architectural technicians may claim to offer “architectural design services”.

4. Architects may employ architectural technologists and vice-versa.
Both will describe themselves either ONLY as “architects” or ONLY as “architectural technologists” according to the profession of the principals of that practice.
Where the principals of a practice consist of a roughly equal number of both architects and architectural technologists, then that firm may describe itself as joint architectural design practices, i.e. “Architects & Architectural Technologists”.

5. Unless the practice is a joint architectural design practice, it will ONLY advertise under its own appropriate professional heading.
So, for example, there would be 2 separate sections in the Golden Pages for Architects and Architectural Technologists.
JADPs would be allowed advertise in both simultaneously.

6. People who choose to employ BOTH an architect AND an architectural technologist (i.e. one chosen by the client, not from the architect’s employees or regular sub-contractors) for the same project may do so without any objection from either the architect or the architectural technologist. By this I mean that a person who wants an arch technologist to modify/improve the detailing of a building designed by an architect should not encounter objections/obstruction from the architect on grounds of design copyright or any other “professional integrity” type sulk. Neither may an architectural technologist doing an “faithful” extension to an existing building object if the client elects to reject aspects of his design and reverts to an architect for modification of those same aspects. 😉

7. Neither architect nor architectural technologist should interfere with a client’s choice to engage other professions, e.g. interior designers, who may be involved in the final styling design of a building as long as such other professionals do not alter the major architectural objectives of the original design.

---

This system gives an objective equality of esteem to each profession.
It shows clearly in business directories which profession pertains to each practice.
It is then a subjective decision for an individual client as to which profession (or perhaps both) that she/he would engage to undertake design work on their building.

Over to you.

Hi teak,

I think that your proposition makes sense, but you know like me that Arch tech are providing similar services than architects, the difference is only in the grade. You know also that the RIAI will continue to make pressure to prevent arch tech providing services without one of their architects…

I think that there is a lot of hypocrisy with the new registration in this country. For example in France, when the equivalent of the BCA 2007 was enforced, all practitioners registered as sole traders or companies were able to continue practicing as architects. In the UK and in France, 2 countries where I practiced, legislation includes a part considering experience at any time, without the need of an exam involving a ridiculous cost.

It is obvious that in the R.O.I. the interests of some practitioners were ignored to insure that the interests of others were improved…

I think it’s interesting and about time that a proper debate was opened up on this and a lot of the posts have been interesting. l’ll start off by saying that I am someone who has gone down the ‘traditional’ route to registration: 6 years in UCD, 3 years working and then professional exams. Of course it might be said that I’m therefore going to be biased aout the whole RIAI registration thing but I don’t feel I am. Before going to college I decided that I wanted to become an architect. This was obviously before any of the issues on registration of the title came up. I enquired about what I needed to do and then set about doing it. I think it’s been well known long before registration came up amongst people within the construction industry what constituted an architect (membership of the RIAI) and I feel registration is just formalising this. It is also, I feel, just clarifying this for the general public. I am far from the RIAI’s biggest fan but I think this is right that this should be formalised (registration). I understand the arguments about whether or not it should be the RIAI administering this or some separate organisation but I genuinely cannot see how anyone can argue the title should not be protected. Similar to doctors, dentists etc., in my opionion the function should be protected too.

Now compare the health system to the architectural system… Everyone is able to sell architectural services, but only some can call themselves architects… What is this? surely not protecting the public is it?

But surely that’s the whole point CK, everyone shouldn’t be able to sell architectural services!

I carry out pre-purchase building surveys. Some of my clients shown me some certificates from chartered surveyors and registered architects which should never have been issued. In kildare a certificate of exemption from planning permission was delivered by a chartered surveyor regarding a rear extension which had a gable wall higher than the walls from the existing dwelling…

A new dwelling built on a corner site in Lucan had a registered architect certificate for compliance with Building Regulations when windows at first floor were not complying with TGD part K from the Building Regulations…

Look CK, I’m not trying to suggest every registered architect is the bees knees. Every profession has its share of dodgy practitioners and everybody has heard anecdotal stories like the ones above. I don’t think the story about the chartered surveyor is even relevant; we’re talking about registration of architects. However I certainly agree that enforcement in general is in need of an overhaul but that’s a separate issue. My main point is that registration is the right thing to do and has been far too long in the pipe line. Perhaps it’s not being introduced as well or efficiently or even as fairly as it could be, I’m not sure, but I don’t understand the motives behind anyone arguing against it. I don’t know everything about the procedures required to go through to become registered if you haven’t gone through the traditional route so I’m not going to say too much on that but just that there is an avenue there and it’s right that it should be pretty thorough.

This isn’t meant to be a slight on architectural technicians, technologists or anything like that either. I know how crucial their roles are and by right their titles and functions hould be protected too.

@CK wrote:

You are obviously missing the point wearnicehats… I am trying to explain that none is permitted to sell dentist services unless registered as a dentist, when in contrary everybody can provide architectural services. Only the use of the title “architect” is protected… My question is: “how do you call professionals providing architectural services without being permitted to use the title architect?”

My point, as explained earlier, is that if you want to protect the public who is frequently looking for value, If you want to raise the standards and quality of the built environment, the protection of the title architect is not the answer because it protects only the interests of some qualified individuals… But you may be one of these persons, or maybe becoming one, and then you will never accept the fact…

However, it is common sense that If you want to protect the public and improve the quality of the built environment then the system must be changed. Building control must be enforced to higher standards; Compliance with Building Regulations must be ascertained by third parts which are not employed by the developer…

The fact is that RIAI will only regulate the registered architects. Who will regulate those providing architectural services without being registered?

If these questions are not of interest to you wearnicehats then do not get involve, but I am not the only one to think that these questions need an answer in the sake of architecture…

I am interested and it is you who is missing the point.

My point was very clear – Unregistered persons should NOT be providing architectural services so there’s no debate.

You seem to think that the world owes you something – it doesn’t.

@wearnicehats wrote:

My point was very clear – Unregistered persons should NOT be providing architectural services so there’s no debate.
.

Are Architects the only building professionals that can offer Architectural services?

@wearnicehats wrote:

I am interested and it is you who is missing the point.

My point was very clear – Unregistered persons should NOT be providing architectural services.
.

That is your point of view… But it does not reflect the BCA 2007

@wearnicehats wrote:

You seem to think that the world owes you something – it doesn’t.

??

.

@BenK wrote:

I think it’s interesting and about time that a proper debate was opened up on this and a lot of the posts have been interesting. l’ll start off by saying that I am someone who has gone down the ‘traditional’ route to registration: 6 years in UCD, 3 years working and then professional exams. Of course it might be said that I’m therefore going to be biased aout the whole RIAI registration thing but I don’t feel I am. Before going to college I decided that I wanted to become an architect. This was obviously before any of the issues on registration of the title came up. I enquired about what I needed to do and then set about doing it. I think it’s been well known long before registration came up amongst people within the construction industry what constituted an architect (membership of the RIAI) and I feel registration is just formalising this. It is also, I feel, just clarifying this for the general public. I am far from the RIAI’s biggest fan but I think this is right that this should be formalised (registration). I understand the arguments about whether or not it should be the RIAI administering this or some separate organisation but I genuinely cannot see how anyone can argue the title should not be protected. Similar to doctors, dentists etc., in my opionion the function should be protected too.

Now compare the health system to the architectural system… Everyone is able to sell architectural services, but only some can call themselves architects… What is this? surely not protecting the public is it?

But surely that’s the whole point CK, everyone shouldn’t be able to sell architectural services!

I carry out pre-purchase building surveys. Some of my clients shown me some certificates from chartered surveyors and registered architects which should never have been issued. In kildare a certificate of exemption from planning permission was delivered by a chartered surveyor regarding a rear extension which had a gable wall higher than the walls from the existing dwelling…

A new dwelling built on a corner site in Lucan had a registered architect certificate for compliance with Building Regulations when windows at first floor were not complying with TGD part K from the Building Regulations…

Look CK, I’m not trying to suggest every registered architect is the bees knees. Every profession has its share of dodgy practitioners and everybody has heard anecdotal stories like the ones above. I don’t think the story about the chartered surveyor is even relevant; we’re talking about registration of architects. However I certainly agree that enforcement in general is in need of an overhaul but that’s a separate issue. My main point is that registration is the right thing to do and has been far too long in the pipe line. Perhaps it’s not being introduced as well or efficiently or even as fairly as it could be, I’m not sure, but I don’t understand the motives behind anyone arguing against it. I don’t know everything about the procedures required to go through to become registered if you haven’t gone through the traditional route so I’m not going to say too much on that but just that there is an avenue there and it’s right that it should be pretty thorough.

This isn’t meant to be a slight on architectural technicians, technologists or anything like that either. I know how crucial their roles are and by right their titles and functions hould be protected too.

Hi BenK,

It seems that it is possible to exchange points of view with you when it is more difficult with some other posters stock on their own…

I have a master in arts and architecture not listed in the EU directive, issued by a French University 15 years ago. My first experience in a practice was in 1993. I have worked in the UK between 1995 and 2000 and I created my practice in Dublin by the end of 2000, I have a 5 years degree and 16 years of experience but I cannot register through the Technical Assessment Board.

I was willing to pass the exam until I learned about the €13,300 fees. I have applied for registration as per route D2, or Section 16 of the BCA 2007, but no application form are available and the RIAI is looking at every aspect of my situation to block me rather than help me. I feel like an unwanted competition. I have given the last 25 years of my life practicing and studying architecture, and I think that I deserve more respect than that.

Honestly, I do not mind about the title “Architect”. What I want is to be able continuing practicing architecture as I was before. But the RIAI has already tried to stop me being listed as an architect last year and it is only by employing my solicitor that the Golden pages legal team ruled that the RIAI request for trying to block me and others was illegal because the registration procedure was not yet in place. But what will happen tomorrow if my application for registration is turned down?

I am looking at the professional ethic here. The issues of certification for compliance with planning and building regulations do not make any sense. Architect opinions of compliance are requested for buildings, but these certificates are frequently issued with only a final inspection and they only ascertain compliance of the design and not compliance of the dwelling. Do you think that someone purchasing a house care about the design or do you think that this person is concerned about the built structure?

What is the point of a cert of compliance if it only covers the design and not the built structure? There are many other issues like this one which reflect a corrupted system where public interests are ignored for the interests of some professionals. I have certified my work since 2003 and my certs were the result of detailled inspections during construction.

I think that the same apply to the registration for reasons that I have already stated. To protect the public, all individuals providing architectural services should be regulated and registered with an Institute which is caring for architecture instead of caring for some architects. I have practiced in Ireland since 2000 but I could not use any of the RIAI contracts or other documents. Don’t you think that the RIAI could have improved architecture in the country and protect the public by trying to regulate architects non members. Don’t you think that they could have created a code of conduct and other helpful documents for non members to protect the public?

I do not know if my application for registration will be accepted of refused… But whatever the result, I think that more honesty is required about the goals to be achieved…

I must admit to not having read the registration legislation, so excuse my ignorance on the following. As far as I am aware registered architects from other European countries are entitled to practice in Ireland without doing anything. But to call themselves architect here must they first register with the RIAI? If so, must the RIAI automatically recognise their equivalent registration elsewhere or will it subject them to the same obstacle course as it does to (for example) American licensed architects?

The reason I ask is that it might be possible for CK to register in France or somewhere, and then swap that registration for an Irish one, as many people do with their driving licenses.

I have always felt that this whole scheme was completely unecessary, will result in huge administative costs which will be passed on (plus profits) to the consumer, will eventually lead to non-architect control of the profession and its standards, will do nothing to curtail the lucrative practice of the mythical woodwork teachers who were really doing the profession and public not much harm anyway, and will culminate inthe RIAI being an irrelevant private members club, much as the RIBA is. But I accept this viewpoint is almost unique among memebrs of the RIAI.

@CK wrote:

I have a master in arts and architecture not listed in the EU directive, issued by a French University 15 years ago. My first experience in a practice was in 1993. I have worked in the UK between 1995 and 2000 and I created my practice in Dublin by the end of 2000, I have a 5 years degree and 16 years of experience but I cannot register through the Technical Assessment Board.

I was willing to pass the exam until I learned about the €13,300 fees. I have applied for registration as per route D2, or Section 16 of the BCA 2007, but no application form are available and the RIAI is looking at every aspect of my situation to block me rather than help me. I feel like an unwanted competition. I have given the last 25 years of my life practicing and studying architecture, and I think that I deserve more respect than that.

Honestly, I do not mind about the title “Architect”. What I want is to be able continuing practicing architecture as I was before. But the RIAI has already tried to stop me being listed as an architect last year and it is only by employing my solicitor that the Golden pages legal team ruled that the RIAI request for trying to block me and others was illegal because the registration procedure was not yet in place. But what will happen tomorrow if my application for registration is turned down?

I am looking at the professional ethic here. The issues of certification for compliance with planning and building regulations do not make any sense. Architect opinions of compliance are requested for buildings, but these certificates are frequently issued with only a final inspection and they only ascertain compliance of the design and not compliance of the dwelling. Do you think that someone purchasing a house care about the design or do you think that this person is concerned about the built structure?

What is the point of a cert of compliance if it only covers the design and not the built structure? There are many other issues like this one which reflect a corrupted system where public interests are ignored for the interests of some professionals. I have certified my work since 2003 and my certs were the result of detailled inspections during construction.

I think that the same apply to the registration for reasons that I have already stated. To protect the public, all individuals providing architectural services should be regulated and registered with an Institute which is caring for architecture instead of caring for some architects. I have practiced in Ireland since 2000 but I could not use any of the RIAI contracts or other documents. Don’t you think that the RIAI could have improved architecture in the country and protect the public by trying to regulate architects non members. Don’t you think that they could have created a code of conduct and other helpful documents for non members to protect the public?

I do not know if my application for registration will be accepted of refused… But whatever the result, I think that more honesty is required about the goals to be achieved…

you see I find this whole thing completely bizarre. The country in which you ply your trade has passed legislation, legislation that doesn’t suit you – but where do you get off thinking that you can ignore it? In the next two weeks I will most likley end up paying more tax than I did last year – perhaps I can refuse to pay on the basis that I didn’t pay this much last year or the year before that??

you query my assertion that you think the the world owes you something then state that you “have given the last 25 years of my life practicing and studying architecture, and I think that I deserve more respect than that” – even though you don’t meet the criteria no matter how unfair you may think it to be

you state that you left college with an unrecognised degree 15 years ago and seem outraged that, in order to become registered, it will cost you money. I graduated 18 years with a recognised degree. 16 years ago I became a registered architect – at my own cost – and, for the past 16 years I have paid a not insubstantial yearly sum to remain so in 2 different countries. I am not a member of the RIBA because I don’t need to be – the ARB is suffcient. I am a member of the RIAI because I do need to be as that is the legislative system in this country. Your concern is money and yet you are probably paying more in solicitors fees than it would cost you to enter into a simple partnership with a suitably qualified peer

You can search about all you want for a sympathetic shoulder and demean those who don’t agree with you but ultimately you are only deluding yourself

dubaiublin

(language warning)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkvWR1e0xPI&feature=dir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPtFXo_WWgQ

@wearnicehats wrote:

you see I find this whole thing completely bizarre. The country in which you ply your trade has passed legislation, legislation that doesn’t suit you – but where do you get off thinking that you can ignore it? In the next two weeks I will most likley end up paying more tax than I did last year – perhaps I can refuse to pay on the basis that I didn’t pay this much last year or the year before that??

you query my assertion that you think the the world owes you something then state that you “have given the last 25 years of my life practicing and studying architecture, and I think that I deserve more respect than that” – even though you don’t meet the criteria no matter how unfair you may think it to be

you state that you left college with an unrecognised degree 15 years ago and seem outraged that, in order to become registered, it will cost you money. I graduated 18 years with a recognised degree. 16 years ago I became a registered architect – at my own cost – and, for the past 16 years I have paid a not insubstantial yearly sum to remain so in 2 different countries. I am not a member of the RIBA because I don’t need to be – the ARB is suffcient. I am a member of the RIAI because I do need to be as that is the legislative system in this country. Your concern is money and yet you are probably paying more in solicitors fees than it would cost you to enter into a simple partnership with a suitably qualified peer

You can search about all you want for a sympathetic shoulder and demean those who don’t agree with you but ultimately you are only deluding yourself

Well wearnicehats,

You are missing the point again… I have always followed the legislation and I will continue this way…

Please focus on the subject of this thread which is about the registration of architects.

You may think that I do not deserve respect, but personally I think that everyone does… This is probably the difference between you and me…

As an architect you should focus on the system that rules your profession. I am resident and practicing in this country, I pay taxes to the Irish government and that allow me to be critical about it, whatever you like it or not.

With regard to my solicitor’s fees, he is a good friend of mine and I must admit that it just cost me a diner… With regard to your attitude, it just confirms where the problem lies… It is not my skills which are the problem for my registration but people like you eager to protect their own interests whatever the cost, the public interests come only second.

Maybe you should focus on helping for the creation of a better architectural system in this country instead of letting others doing it for you… If architects had been more involved this way, like I always been, we would not have roof coming off apartments blocks in Dublin and newly built estates flooded in Kildare during the last week…

I think people are missing the point.
Registration is not the problem in itself.
However if you actually read the Bill and compare Part 3 to Part 4 or Part 5 you will see that Part 3 is more comprehensive, restrictive & difficult that Part 4 or Part 5.

Hence its seems to be more difficult to register as an Architect than it is to register as a Quantity Surveyor or Building Surveyor. Can anyone explain or justify this?

Why does a proposed “Assessment” procedure, held “in-house” at Merrior Square cost €6,500-00?

I’ve no problem with registration as long as it is open process with a fair fee. The 50% fair rate on the pilot scheme is a concern.

Remember that Architecture is a long course. Many great designers with 1st class Honours degrees in Architecture (RIBA Part 1) work in the industry. These individuals may have stayed on working, for numerous reasons, rather that finish Part 2 or Part 3. These Architectural Assistants are highly trained and talented qualified people. They may have internationally recognised qualifications.

ARAE does not give exemptions – ie it does not recognise RIBA Part 1 or Part 2?
This is very strange and quite short sighted.
ARAE feels it can “train” anyone with 7 years work experience & 12K into an Architect, in just 12 months!

@CK wrote:

Well wearnicehats,

You are missing the point again… I have always followed the legislation and I will continue this way…

Please focus on the subject of this thread which is about the registration of architects.

You may think that I do not deserve respect, but personally I think that everyone does… This is probably the difference between you and me…

As an architect you should focus on the system that rules your profession. I am resident and practicing in this country, I pay taxes to the Irish government and that allow me to be critical about it, whatever you like it or not.

With regard to my solicitor’s fees, he is a good friend of mine and I must admit that it just cost me a diner… With regard to your attitude, it just confirms where the problem lies… It is not my skills which are the problem for my registration but people like you eager to protect their own interests whatever the cost, the public interests come only second.

Maybe you should focus on helping for the creation of a better architectural system in this country instead of letting others doing it for you… If architects had been more involved this way, like I always been, we would not have roof coming off apartments blocks in Dublin and newly built estates flooded in Kildare during the last week…

dude if you are the CK of http://www.ckarchitect.ie the biggest step forward in creating better architecture is for the riai to shut you down immediately

http://www.ckarchitect.ie/web%20ck%20architect&associates_Dublin%209%20Extension.html
That’s the best one?

@wearnicehats wrote:

dude if you are the CK of http://www.ckarchitect.ie the biggest step forward in creating better architecture is for the riai to shut you down immediately

Where can I find some or your works wearnicehats? At least I am not hiding behind a pseudo… I am not afraid of my opinion… Considering the way you express yourself and the level of your argument, I think that you are not what you pretend to be… Are you courageous enough to show your real identity?

the moment of truth wearnicehats… will the hat come off? number 4 meet number 2 or 4 meet 5?

but you can’t see what i’m typing? anything I type normally gets deleted…

It’s getting very manly in here missarchi runs for the door…:p

Lads, why don’t ye just measure them, put them back in your trousers and lets get on with the discussion.

@wearnicehats wrote:

…is for the riai to shut you down…

Is this what all the massive fees are for, for the RIAI to become judge and executioner as well as being the genial face for representation of those who can afford it.

Putting architects and architectural technologists/technicians into the same professional category seems to me to be the wrong way to go about the control of build standard.

It’s clear to even an outsider like me that, while some of the architectural technologists/technicians may pass the design part of their exams/assessments, many will not.
Because they simply do not have the aptitude for this type of work.
Their talents lie elsewhere : be it detailing, assuring specifications, regulation adherence, etc, etc.

It’s equally clear to me that many good architects – despite their wonderful gift for conceiving solutions for complex problems of space and light – have a limited eye for the details of construction.
Details analysis of an initial design is not so stimulating for the architect; besides it’s harder to see the flaws in one’s own work.
And doing thorough on-site inspection is a wasteful use of an architect’s time.
Hence the many defects visible in final building quality in nicely designed (on paper) apartment blocks & offices.

It is clear that some sort of accommodation is needed between the 2 disciplines here.
Sure a small practice architect doing a small job (e.g. a house or a work unit) cannot share fees with an arch tech practice.
But with bigger jobs – and greater consequences with flaws – an architect may find it cost-effective to subcontract some detailing/supervisory to an arch technologist.

All this points to a need for the architectural technologists to create their own professional body – a need that must be felt both from their own point of view as well as from that of the general public.
But this will never be so if they are both herded into the same “RIAI Architect” pen.

@CK wrote:

Where can I find some or your works wearnicehats? At least I am not hiding behind a pseudo… I am not afraid of my opinion… Considering the way you express yourself and the level of your argument, I think that you are not what you pretend to be… Are you courageous enough to show your real identity?

for those old enough to remember saturday afternoon wrestling in the early 1970s

Seems like no one cares what happens to the architectural technicians/technologists who do not have the design skills to make it aboard the RIAI wagon.

No wonder they’re putting up such a fight behind the scenes.

@teak wrote:

Seems like no one cares what happens to the architectural technicians/technologists who do not have the design skills to make it aboard the RIAI wagon.

No wonder they’re putting up such a fight behind the scenes.

Teak,

The problem is that nobody cares… The RIAI is asking €6500 for registration through the Technical assessment board, €13,500 for the register examination and only a 2 or €300 for their members…

The BCA 2007 clearly states that all applicants should be charged the same fees for registration. In the UK or France or even in the US, the fees for registration are always below €2,000 or dollards.

They are obviously trying to dissuade through financial means.

I am not sure if I am at the right place to talk of such an important subject. People like wearnicehats seem to be more into jokes rather that serious conversation…

It is one of the problems that I experience… I do not have any institute to back me up… I am not part of any group to denunciate the irregularities that are carried out…

It is not normal that someone like me and others in my situation may found themselves in the impossibility to practice, because unable to call themselves architects and unable to certify their work, despite having a sound knowledge of architectural services…

If it was only about protecting the public, then we would not be requested to pay €13,500 for an exam when everybody knows that professionals and trades from the construction industry are struggling to make a living…

I am now trying to apply through another route… But other arguments are presented… I feel that after 9 years working in the country, and despite clients delighted with my services, I may have to close my business and apply for unemployment benefits because some people pretend that I am not qualified to continue working… Some people who are obviously willing to take over the clients from my practice…

Is there anyone on this board aware of a group of architects in Ireland being created to defend their rights for continuing practicing and certifying their works despite not being registered? I am aware of CIAT, but they are not based in Ireland and if their system is well adapted to the UK, I don’t think that it is very useful for the R.O.I.

The problem is that if nobody defends the rights of all architects or persons delivering architectural services non member of the RIAI… These persons, these architects are said to be permitted to practice, but the reality is that they will soon be wiped off… Many of you are probably young, and it will be easy for you to adapt to a new profession… But for me, at 41 years old it would be difficult… I have given the last 22 years of my life to architecture, and I don’t know what else I could do…

@CK wrote:

But for me, at 41 years old it would be difficult… I have given the last 22 years of my life to architecture, and I don’t know what else I could do…

In this current climate, there are a lot of qualified Architects asking themselves the same question

@CK wrote:

Many of you are probably young, and it will be easy for you to adapt to a new profession… But for me, at 41 years old it would be difficult… I have given the last 22 years of my life to architecture, and I don’t know what else I could do…

The young architects will have no choice in this matter.
7 schools will produce architecture graduates next year; UL, Cork, Waterford, DIT, UCD, UU and Queen’s.
What possible chance have these graduates got?
Where can they attain their part 3 qualification?
How can they afford to pay the registration fee?
If each school produces an average of 30 graduates that means there will be over 200 young architects trying to enter the profession next year. Even if half those people leave the country I cannot envision more than 20% of the remainder gaining employment in the field.

The recent budget was devised to drive young unemployed and unemployable people out of the country by reducing their job seekers allowance. A massive proportion of the people affected by this move are newly-qualified or apprentice tradesmen and they have now been left with little other option than to leave Ireland altogether.
This architects register will have the same effect on newly graduated architects; it will serve to snuff out their last bit of hope that they can make it in spite of the current climate.

The register is designed to protect the status of the RIAI and its members; the idea of the protection of the consumer is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise this fact.
The current crop of successful architects will be ring-fenced and an ‘Establishment’ will be formed and reinforced. These architects will propogate themselves and architecture in Ireland will stagnate. There is some evidence to suggest that this has already happened, and I don’t mean simply the demise of the building boom.

John Wayne would say it’s time to circle the wagons boys, but I have no doubt that Sean O’Laoire has an Irish translation for this expression.
He’s good at that kind of thing.

@CK wrote:

Is there anyone on this board aware of a group of architects in Ireland being created to defend their rights for continuing practicing and certifying their works despite not being registered? I am aware of CIAT, but they are not based in Ireland and if their system is well adapted to the UK, I don’t think that it is very useful for the R.O.I.
…

CIAT is a representative group for Architectural Technologists, not Architects.

@CK wrote:

The problem is that if nobody defends the rights of all architects or persons delivering architectural services non member of the RIAI… These persons, these architects are said to be permitted to practice, but the reality is that they will soon be wiped off.
…

This is already happening.

Currently in order to be able to be considered for engagement under the school capital works scheme:

Is a consultant architect / engineer / chartered building surveyor required?

Yes. The school authority must employ a suitably qualified consultant architect , engineer or chartered building surveyor [member of Royal Instiutute of Architects (RIAI), Institute of engineers of Ireland (IEI), Society of Chartered Surveyors or equivalent]

so only RIAI architects can tender for DOE work….
protectionism already exists….

@CK wrote:

Teak,

The problem is that nobody cares… The RIAI is asking €6500 for registration through the Technical assessment board, €13,500 for the register examination and only a 2 or €300 for their members…

The BCA 2007 clearly states that all applicants should be charged the same fees for registration. In the UK or France or even in the US, the fees for registration are always below €2,000 or dollards.

They are obviously trying to dissuade through financial means.

I am not sure if I am at the right place to talk of such an important subject. People like wearnicehats seem to be more into jokes rather that serious conversation…

It is one of the problems that I experience… I do not have any institute to back me up… I am not part of any group to denunciate the irregularities that are carried out…

It is not normal that someone like me and others in my situation may found themselves in the impossibility to practice, because unable to call themselves architects and unable to certify their work, despite having a sound knowledge of architectural services…

If it was only about protecting the public, then we would not be requested to pay €13,500 for an exam when everybody knows that professionals and trades from the construction industry are struggling to make a living…

I am now trying to apply through another route… But other arguments are presented… I feel that after 9 years working in the country, and despite clients delighted with my services, I may have to close my business and apply for unemployment benefits because some people pretend that I am not qualified to continue working… Some people who are obviously willing to take over the clients from my practice…

why don’t you place an ad along the following lines:

unemployed RIAI qualified architect required to enter into silent partnership. Commission based remuneration to be agreed.

If I was making jokes I’d have added “poor eyesight essential” but I didn’t. Seriously, there’s a mutual benefit to be had here. you scratch my back I’ll sign your certs

I really don’t want to get involved in this, having nearly dropped off the register myself through not having the €600-odd annual subscription, and I feel for CK’s predicament, but I do also feel that there is a distinction to be made between someone who has gone through the torment of architecture school and come out the other end still standing and someone who has found a less arduous route.

Every year that I was in Bolton Street, there were people in the course who tried very hard, but didn’t get through. Some were forced to repeat the year, some dropped out completely, it wasn’t easy. I recall sitting through wretched repeat exam myself and I recall making desperate pacts with Christ to be good and true on more than one occassion.

@CK wrote:

The problem is that if nobody defends the rights of all architects or persons delivering architectural services non member of the RIAI… These persons, these architects are said to be permitted to practice, but the reality is that they will soon be wiped off . . . .

They’ve been talking about registration for twenty years, this didn’t exactly come out of the blue. You seem to be a very competent building technologist, but is that the same as architecture?

There is this whole deeper dimension to architecture, or there’s suppoed to be. One of the things we’re meant to learn is that there is this public realm aspect to architecture that superceeds just the satisfying of the requirements of the client, so that when he comes to you and says he wants a dormer bungalow, you have to find a way of showing him how you can satisfy all of his requirements and design him a comfortable family home . . . with architectural integrity, you’re not supposed to just give him a dormer bungalow.

Nobody wants to get into a slagging match about who can and can’t design, but in the past I have worked with two guys who were not qualified architects, but who practiced as architects. Both were exceptional business men, good organizers, good with clients, but to be honest about it, neither one of them cared too deeply about design, and I’m pretty certain neither one of them ever lost a night’s sleep agonizing over the architecture of a project that just wasn’t coming together.

Most qualified architects on the other hand, even the ones with the arrogant outer shell, do care deeply about design and pay for this concern with constant insecurities and uncertainties . . . deep down. Probably, if it wasn’t for the constant rounds of awards and citations many of the most dedicated architects would have crumpled by now under the weight of creative doubts, or so you’d hope.

@foremanjoe wrote:

The register is designed to protect the status of the RIAI and its members; the idea of the protection of the consumer is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise this fact.
The current crop of successful architects will be ring-fenced and an ‘Establishment’ will be formed and reinforced.

I suspect that there’s an awful lot of work to do to make sure that that impression doesn’t take hold. Whether the RIAI has any intention of undertaking that work is another question.

@foremanjoe wrote:

John Wayne would say it’s time to circle the wagons boys, but I have no doubt that Sean O’Laoire has an Irish translation for this expression.
He’s good at that kind of thing.

I think Sean O’Laoire’s term is up, it’s Paul Keogh now, as far as I know.

More Jimmy Stewart than John Wayne, I think.

@gunter wrote:

There is this whole deeper dimension to architecture, or there’s suppoed to be. One of the things we’re meant to learn is that there is this public realm aspect to architecture that superceeds just the satisfying of the requirements of the client, so that when he comes to you and says he wants a dormer bungalow, you have to find a way of showing him how you can satisfy all of his requirements and design him a comfortable family home . . . with architectural integrity, you’re not supposed to just give him a dormer bungalow.
.

This is pretty much the crux of the matter.

There is a wide market out there for clients who do not want “architecturally designed” dwellings, believe it or not. I have seen clients leave RIAI architects exasperated that the architect “was not giving them what they want” or unable to satisfy planning requirements, so they turn to ‘others’ to “draw up the plans” which sail through planning due to their monotony and blandness.

The question is whether these ‘others’ actually are performing the duties commensurate to those of an architect.

So we are left with two questions, one which is being energetically debated on the “should architects be the only ones allowed submit planning application” thread…. the other question being “is it acceptable to build dwellings not designed by formally educated persons”. Without dragging this thread off track i wont offer an opinion on this.

A major problem, as i see it, is the lack of recognition of the profession of Architectural Technology in the building project hierarchy. There are many of the ‘others’ that may be better described as ‘architectural technicians’ than ‘architects’. CIAT describe MCIAT members as being fit to:

Chartered Architectural Technologists are recognised as being qualified to negotiate and manage the development of a construction project

* Assessing the needs of clients and users and agreeing the project brief
* Recognising the significance of the design stage and how it underpins the construction project
* Evaluating and advising upon environmental and regulatory legal requirements affecting the project and obtaining initial approvals
* Producing and evaluating feasibility studies
* Evaluating resources and assessing environmental impact
* Assessing and managing survey requirements and producing surveys
* Developing project briefs and design programmes
* Advising clients on methods of project procurement and forms of contract
* Managing health and safety
* Preparing and presenting design proposals using CAD techniques and traditional methods
* Leading the detailed design process and co-ordinating detailed design information
* Managing and co-ordinating the design team and associated professional consultants
* Developing the project design, researching problems and producing, developing and advising upon innovative solutions
* Producing, analysing and advising upon specification, materials selection and detailed design solutions in relation to performance and production criteria
* Liaising with and producing documentation for statutory approval authorities
* Producing, managing, controlling and integrating design and production information
* Carrying out design stage risk assessments
* Managing or co-ordinating associated professionals
* Obtaining and evaluating tenders and agreeing contracts
* Ensuring continual compliance with design, legal, statutory and professional requirements
* Programming schedules and undertaking stage inspections
* Administering contracts and project certification
* Managing project handover
* Gaining feedback from and de-briefing client and user
* Appraisal of building performance in use and producing, developing and maintaining maintenance management information systems
* Evaluating and advising upon refurbishment, repair, reuse, recycling and deconstruction of buildings
* Providing professional guidance and decision making to clients, users and design/construction teams
* Weighing up issues and making balanced judgements
* If providing services directly to a client, obtaining and maintaining adequate mandatory Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII)
* Undertaking structured Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

As can be seen above many of the professional competencies of MCIAT Architectural Technologists are commensurate to those of architects, APART from the conceptual design aspect or architects and perhaps the detailed design solution aspect of technologists.
Therefore we have this wide ranging overlay of similar skills, yet the BCA appears to be a gateway towards the restriction of the engagement of these services to Architects only. As i mentioned in the other thread, the dept of education capital school works restricts engagement to RIAI members, IEI engineers or SCS surveyors. No mention of MCIAT there!! No recognition of a governmental department as to the skill sets of a chartered technologist. Im putting the majority of blame for this onto technician professionals as they consistently havent been able to organise themselves into a noteworthy lobby group. Perhaps in part due to the lack of a legally defined title such as the BCA affords Architects. Bit of a catch 22 really.

@henno wrote:

CIAT is a representative group for Architectural Technologists, not Architects.

Hi Henno,

Both of them are producing architecture… Can you explain the difference between an architect designed building and an architectural tech designed building?

@foremanjoe wrote:

.

The register is designed to protect the status of the RIAI and its members; the idea of the protection of the consumer is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise this fact.
The current crop of successful architects will be ring-fenced and an ‘Establishment’ will be formed and reinforced. These architects will propogate themselves and architecture in Ireland will stagnate. There is some evidence to suggest that this has already happened, and I don’t mean simply the demise of the building boom.
.

Something must be done to denonciate this problem… The competition authority has already highlighted the conflict of interests with relation to the RAI being appointed has the registration body…

It is completely inadequate that some practitioners unable to register with the RIAI will find themselves without code of practice and without any institute to represent them.

The RIAI is protecting architects, but what about the public looking for value and quality?

@gunter wrote:

They’ve been talking about registration for twenty years, this didn’t exactly come out of the blue. You seem to be a very competent building technologist, but is that the same as architecture?

There is this whole deeper dimension to architecture, or there’s suppoed to be. One of the things we’re meant to learn is that there is this public realm aspect to architecture that superceeds just the satisfying of the requirements of the client, so that when he comes to you and says he wants a dormer bungalow, you have to find a way of showing him how you can satisfy all of his requirements and design him a comfortable family home . . . with architectural integrity, you’re not supposed to just give him a dormer bungalow.

Nobody wants to get into a slagging match about who can and can’t design, but in the past I have worked with two guys who were not qualified architects, but who practiced as architects. Both were exceptional business men, good organizers, good with clients, but to be honest about it, neither one of them cared too deeply about design, and I’m pretty certain neither one of them ever lost a night’s sleep agonizing over the architecture of a project that just wasn’t coming together.

Hi Gunter,

I know that they were talking about registration for the last 20 years. The fact is that 23 years ago, I was entering university believing that once qualified, I would be able to practice architecture, unaware of all the troubles to come…

You are mistaking about me. I have a Master in Arts and Architecture, and my qualification is missing courses related to building technologies, services and structural engineering to comply with section 46 of the EU directive for the recognition of professional qualifications. However, within my university I was taught technology and engineering through the design process, but not through a special course with a heading. The fact is that it works in practice and that I learned how to design a structure using relevant data. I learned about technologies by designing projects which of course were never built. Masonry works, carpentry, curtain walls, insulation, foundations, etc… I studied engineering and technologies as part of design courses… How can someone fully design a building without technological knowledge?

My studies were centered on the practice of architecture as an Art rather than a Technology. For this reason I feel very surprised when the RIAI propose me to register as a technologist. This does not make any sense.

I have designed dormer bungalows for my clients. In some circumstances, planning restrictions do not permit 2 storeys dwellings and a dormer is the best answer. A dormer bungalow can be a nice dwelling. A dwelling does not have to look preety to be interesting. Arts and architecture can be simple and match their environment. You seem to think that a building needs to be standing out to be considered as an architectural creation. I completely disagree with you on this point.

An architectural creation is an agreeable building. It does not have to be different and to visualy stand out…

@CK wrote:

Hi Henno,

Both of them are producing architecture… Can you explain the difference between an architect designed building and an architectural tech designed building?

I dont understand why you would consider ‘Architectural Technicians’ as being able to ‘design’ to standard comparable with formally educated ‘Architects’. There may be some who can, but the majority are focused on the science and building physics of construction.

I dont consider technicians comparable to architects in conceptual design in the same way that i dont consider architects comparable to technicians in the detailed design solutions of construction problems.

I am a technician, ACIAT status, and cant join RIAI as a tech member because i dont work in (for!) an RIAI reg office (architect). I am much more interested in having my own professional capabilities recognised legally in order to be able to practise without dealing with the ignorance which exists in the industry ie solicitors and financial institutions.

My fear is that the BCA will enforce these ignorances and lead to ‘architect only’ led construction projects, similar to what currently exists in the dept of education.

@henno wrote:

I dont understand why you would consider ‘Architectural Technicians’ as being able to ‘design’ to standard comparable with formally educated ‘Architects’. There may be some who can, but the majority are focused on the science and building physics of construction.

I dont consider technicians comparable to architects in conceptual design in the same way that i dont consider architects comparable to technicians in the detailed design solutions of construction problems.

I am a technician, ACIAT status, and cant join RIAI as a tech member because i dont work in (for!) an RIAI reg office (architect). I am much more interested in having my own professional capabilities recognised legally in order to be able to practise without dealing with the ignorance which exists in the industry ie solicitors and financial institutions.

My fear is that the BCA will enforce these ignorances and lead to ‘architect only’ led construction projects, similar to what currently exists in the dept of education.

But do you design buildings? And if so, can you explain the difference between a building designed by an architect and another one designed by an arch tech?

Or do you only carry out construction design?

@CK wrote:

But do you design buildings? And if so, can you explain the difference between a building designed by an architect and another one designed by an arch tech?

Or do you only carry out construction design?

I design buildings, I do not claim to be an Architect. I am proud to correct clients and tell them i am an Architectural Technician.

I believe the difference in buildings designed by architects compared to technicians is very much down to the individuals.

i believe architects are better able to explain or “sell” their designs to clients than technicians and thus the more contemporary or non-standard building forms tend to be designed by architects. Technicians tend to design on the safe side, which actually seems to be preferable to rural planners.

@CK wrote:

You are mistaking about me. I have a Master in Arts and Architecture, and my qualification is missing courses related to building technologies, services and structural engineering to comply with section 46 of the EU directive for the recognition of professional qualifications.

My studies were centered on the practice of architecture as an Art rather than a Technology. For this reason I feel very surprised when the RIAI propose me to register as a technologist. This does not make any sense.

Sorry CK, I did read that earlier, but then managed to forget it.

@CK wrote:

I have designed dormer bungalows for my clients. In some circumstances, planning restrictions do not permit 2 storeys dwellings and a dormer is the best answer. A dormer bungalow can be a nice dwelling. A dwelling does not have to look preety to be interesting. Arts and architecture can be simple and match their environment. You seem to think that a building needs to be standing out to be considered as an architectural creation. I completely disagree with you on this point.

An architectural creation is an agreeable building. It does not have to be different and to visualy stand out…

Haven’t time to fully answer this, but no I don’t believe that buildings have to stand out and I’m all for low-key, but still good-quality building that wouldn’t normally make it into the architecture magazines.

The ‘Dorner Bungalow’ is really an analogy for any soft option that by-passes the need to invest architectural integrity into the design process.

This the real stumbling block,
. . . . we all have different skill levels and different abilities, but the architect is supposed to know that there is a difference between choozing the soft option and choosing integrity.

If your course didn’t get this message across, then maybe that’s the reason it isn’t recognised.

@gunter wrote:

. . . . we all have different skill levels and different abilities, but the architect is supposed to know that there is a difference between choozing the soft option and choosing integrity.

If your course didn’t get this message across, then maybe that’s the reason it isn’t recognised.

Could you explain what you understand ‘integrity’ to mean in relation to architectural practice gunter?

@gunter wrote:

Sorry CK, I did read that earlier, but then managed to forget it.

. . . . we all have different skill levels and different abilities, but the architect is supposed to know that there is a difference between choozing the soft option and choosing integrity.

If your course didn’t get this message across, then maybe that’s the reason it isn’t recognised.

I agree with foremanjoe there… Integrity is a moral or ethycal quality which is not related to knowledge or study… It is not related to skills or qualification…

@CK wrote:

I agree with foremanjoe there… Integrity is a moral or ethycal quality which is not related to knowledge or study… It is not related to skills or qualification…

Woah, woah, woah!

Don’t assume that you know what I’m getting at with my previous question, it was not a statement on my position, it was an appeal for gunter to clarify his.

Don’t go offering gunter a route out of it CK, I want a relatively direct answer to my relatively direct question.

@foremanjoe wrote:

Woah, woah, woah!

Don’t assume that you know what I’m getting at with my previous question, it was not a statement on my position, it was an appeal for gunter to clarify his.

Don’t go offering gunter a route out of it CK, I want a relatively direct answer to my relatively direct question.

Sorry,

I did not mean to interfer… But the fact is that the term “integrity” does not seem to make sense in the context used by Gunter… Unless he pretends that integrity is a quality that would be taught in university… But if it is what he means, then I strongly desagree… Many professional act unethicaly and architects are not an exception. Integrity is a moral issue, it is not related to professional knowledge or skills.

my definition would be knowing the difference between:

lashing up any old shite to satisfy a parsimonious client who doesn’t care

actually trying to erect something of worth to the built environment and those who inhabit it

that CK purports to know the difference is irony in the extreme

@wearnicehats wrote:

my definition would be knowing the difference between:

lashing up any old shite to satisfy a parsimonious client who doesn’t care

actually trying to erect something of worth to the built environment and those who inhabit it

that CK purports to know the difference is irony in the extreme

Well… What is your problem? You are obviously not positively contributing to this thread… You pretend being an architect, but you are far to have the comunication skills required…

@CK wrote:

Well… What is your problem? You are obviously not positively contributing to this thread… You pretend being an architect, but you are far to have the comunication skills required…

but you are far to have the comunication skills required – the irony continues

I keep answering your questions and giving you solutions but you are so wrapped up in your own assertion that you are above the system that you can’t see it

Do you carry PI insurance by the way?

@wearnicehats wrote:

but you are far to have the comunication skills required – the irony continues

I keep answering your questions and giving you solutions but you are so wrapped up in your own assertion that you are above the system that you can’t see it

Do you carry PI insurance by the way?

Yes Wearnicehats I do… But I do not pretend to be above the system… I just say that there is a problem with regard to the registration as carried out by the RIAI.

The monstruous fees requested to pass the exam represent a financial selection that is unjustified. I took contact with institutes around the world and also institutes of other professions. None are asking for such fees to apply for membership through experience.

Nobody is realy checking how is the RIAI implementing the registration procedure and that is a problem… I think that this is not only my opinion…

You try and get some work done for a couple of hours . . .

@foremanjoe wrote:

Could you explain what you understand ‘integrity’ to mean in relation to architectural practice, gunter?

@CK wrote:

Integrity is a moral or ethycal quality which is not related to knowledge or study… It is not related to skills or qualification…

@foremanjoe wrote:

Don’t go offering gunter a route out of it CK, I want a relatively direct answer to my relatively direct question.

First off, that was a quick reply, didn’t have time to reflect on it, was late for a meeting. Secondly I probably should have used the phrase ‘architectural integrity’, not just ‘integrity’.

That’s all the excuses I’m going to make. If I’m going to have to start explaining what integrity is, there’s probably no point in even having this conversation.

For what it’s worth, I see everything in a historical perspective, I’ve tried looking into the future and it doesn’t work for me, all the pages are blank, I’m not getting any clues.

Taking this approach, if you look at architecture in a historical perspective, it can be quite easy to see the path of progress in any given phase. Even in quite short time segments, we can see how one architect developed what he observed another architect do, or what he had done himself in an earlier project. It reads as a kind of collective will to make incremental advances, raise the bar, and cliches to that effect. Sometimes the architect has gone back in order to go forwards and inevtably there are periods of confusion, even regression, but usually we can still read in the record the desire to do better.

To me that’s architectural integrity, just knowing enough to know we share some common purpose, that we’re trying to represent our era to the best of our ability and that we’re trying to lead our clients through a process in which we have far more expertise than they do.

Coming back to the ‘dormer bungalow’ analogy, this is where it’s just not good enough to give some guy a dormer bungalow even if that’s what he’s asking for and even if you know the planning office will cheerfully wave it through. You only have to look at the Irish countryside to know that it doesn’t have architectural integrity, it neither responds to the vernacular building traditions, nor reflects contemporary strands in architectural development.

This is getting long-winded, we let wearnicehats to chuck in a few insults and we’ll continue this later

Gunter, I think you were trying to avoid my question but you then seem to have stumbled right back into it.

Your previous argument suggested that what separates ‘good’ architects from ‘bad’ or non-architects is the presence or absence of integrity.
For this, say 10 Hail Mary’s and an Our Father, for you have sinned against your fellow man.
You may be excused from this penance if you can come up with a legitimate method for measuring or examining integrity that the RIAI can then use to decide which architects it may register and which ones it will kick to the kirb.

Secondly, when you were caught up on this position you tried to worm your way out of it by suggesting that you meant ‘architectural’ integrity, as opposed to integrity itself which is a quality or condition that can be objectively defined, unlike your proposed ‘architectural integrity’ which, due to its subjective nature, can be moulded and manipulated to fit in with whichever narrow, personal viewpoint on architecture one wishes to adhere to, as you subsequently demonstrated by elaborating on your own narrow, personal viewpoint on what architectural integrity is.

One definition of integrity is a ‘steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code’.
However, gunter, seeing as you appear incapable of even steadfastly adhering to your own position(s) in this discussion I cannot see how it might be possible for you to stick to an even more rigid moral or ethical code, let alone recognise and define one.

Good day sir.

. . . can someone help me out here, I don’t seem to be explaining this properly

@gunter wrote:

. . . can someone help me out here, I don’t seem to be explaining this properly

you’re trying to be nice to people who are just looking for a fight. And one they don’t have to pay for either.

Since people are using the internet to define “integrity” you might like to know that Rousseau said that “insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong” Regardless, I think my definition is the correct one

And, more to the point, I wouldn’t want anyone to confuse me with someone who gives a fuck.

@wearnicehats wrote:

you’re trying to be nice to people who are just looking for a fight.

“insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong”

fuck.

Is this an example of Insults being employed as arguments?

Why so aggressive?
Why use foul language? .

Are certain contributers suffering from the “I’m a legend in my own lunchbox“.

It would be nice if we could debate in a mature fashion without personal insults or foul language.

you’re right. I’m sorry. earthy language has no place here. I’ll leave this thread alone now to wallow in its own self pity. has anyone seen my cilice?

Meantime, in his last column as RIAI president, architect Sean O’Laoire says that the registration of architects “will not immediately transform lives or enhance prospects of a decent living”.

Neither will the new government policy on architecture, now with statutory effect yield dividends.

However, taken together, Mr O’Laoire believes that “a new epoch-defining convergence” offers hope to members whose livelihoods have been blighted by the current recession.

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/tax-to-improve-plans-2038400.html

let’s see if anything can be done 911? narrow water

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Meantime, in his last column as RIAI president, architect Sean O’Laoire says that the registration of architects “will not immediately transform lives or enhance prospects of a decent living”.

Neither will the new government policy on architecture, now with statutory effect yield dividends.

However, taken together, Mr O’Laoire believes that “a new epoch-defining convergence” offers hope to members whose livelihoods have been blighted by the current recession.

It would be time for the R.I.A.I. to start acting for architecture and the public instead of considering the interests of their members first…

So much hypocrisy from their part about the registration of the title “Architect”. They are misleading consumers all the way… The declaration from their president as quoted above is another proof of their agenda…

another drop out…

“I went to university but soon realised it wasn’t doing me any good and dropped out.”

Read more: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=430&storycode=3157158&channel=783&c=2#ixzz0eNEemZeU

invites only:p

@foremanjoe wrote:

Your previous argument suggested that what separates ‘good’ architects from ‘bad’ or non-architects is the presence or absence of integrity.
.

This is a nonsense argument.

Gunter’s previous definition of integrity is correct in relation to being a professional architect.

“Integrity” attaches to the “professional” part.

“Architectural integrity” attaches to the “architect” part.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

It would be time for the R.I.A.I. to start acting for architecture and the public instead of considering the interests of their members first…

So much hypocrisy from their part about the registration of the title “Architect”. They are misleading consumers all the way… The declaration from their president as quoted above is another proof of their agenda…

There seems to be a move towards an increasing duty of care to third parties – Members of the public certainly – but also users of buildings beyond the client or the beneficiary of a collateral warranty.

The protection of the title relates to persons eligible to be registered / become RIAI Members.

The implication is that Architects are deemed to be persons who follow the RIAI code, i.e. by discharging duties honourably and competently.

By the process of vetting their Members before admission the RIAI provides a screening function which the public can rely on when retaining the services of someone calling themselves an architect. This is why RIAI members were admitted automatically to the Register. Similar screening processes are available for (i) Graduate Architects, (ii) persons of long standing without qualification providing Architectural Services and (iii) Architectural/Building Technicians providing Architectural Services.

That’s the theory as I understand it anyway and I’m happy to be corrected on this.

To return to your stated concerns CK – and let’s say I accept your disparaging remarks about the RIAI for a moment – the fact that the RIAI is now operating in the public eye like the ILS and has statutory powers to revoke a registration means that the public WILL benefit, rogue archtiects WILL be restricted and the RIAI, whatever state is may or may not be in, can only improve its game over time, given an active policy of vetting its decisions by the general public.

In my opinion, this can only be a good thing, however it is arrived at.

And if the application process self assessment matrix exposes a few flaws in learning or experience that need to be corrected before presentation for the Registration process, the applicant will be the better for it, even if its only to learn a little humility at the hands of his/her peers… a little humility is something we can all benefit from now and again…

ONQ,

@onq wrote:

. . . . and the RIAI, whatever state is may or may not be in, can only improve its game over time, given an active policy of vetting its decisions by the general public.

ONQ,

What are you getting at there, onq? . . . . has sobybody started a ‘rate my architect’ site?

@onq wrote:

There seems to be a move towards an increasing duty of care to third parties – Members of the public certainly – but also users of buildings beyond the client or the beneficiary of a collateral warranty.

The protection of the title relates to persons eligible to be registered / become RIAI Members.

The implication is that Architects are deemed to be persons who follow the RIAI code, i.e. by discharging duties honourably and competently.

By the process of vetting their Members before admission the RIAI provides a screening function which the public can rely on when retaining the services of someone calling themselves an architect. This is why RIAI members were admitted automatically to the Register. Similar screening processes are available for (i) Graduate Architects, (ii) persons of long standing without qualification providing Architectural Services and (iii) Architectural/Building Technicians providing Architectural Services.

That’s the theory as I understand it anyway and I’m happy to be corrected on this.

To return to your stated concerns CK – and let’s say I accept your disparaging remarks about the RIAI for a moment – the fact that the RIAI is now operating in the public eye like the ILS and has statutory powers to revoke a registration means that the public WILL benefit, rogue archtiects WILL be restricted and the RIAI, whatever state is may or may not be in, can only improve its game over time, given an active policy of vetting its decisions by the general public.

In my opinion, this can only be a good thing, however it is arrived at.

And if the application process self assessment matrix exposes a few flaws in learning or experience that need to be corrected before presentation for the Registration process, the applicant will be the better for it, even if its only to learn a little humility at the hands of his/her peers… a little humility is something we can all benefit from now and again…

ONQ,

Hi ONQ,

My personal experience about the registration procedure is that the RIAI is trying to limit as much as possible the numbers of architects to be registered. It is not related to the skills and the knowledge as it should be to protect the public.

For the purpose of comparing fees, I have contacted, the A.R.B. (UK), the C.I.A.T. (Technicians UK), l’ Ordre des Architectes (Architects France) and I.E.I (Irish Engineers). I found that these institutes request only a small fraction of the sum charged by the A.R.A.E. for a professional examination based on experience. The A.R.A.E. claims that fees charged for the examination only cover their cost €11,500 (exam) + €1,800 (lectures), so how can other institutes charge only a small fraction of these sums for an exam of similar level? The fees of €6,500 requested by the R.I.A.I. Technical assessment board are also very expensive compared to other institutes…

R.I.A.I. members were always privileged with the procedure. M.R.I.A.I. have paid the lowest fees for registration and they were the first on the register list. The R.I.A.I. were already informing the public about the necessity for an architect to be registered when the registration was in place for their members only and not for other applicants. The R.I.A.I. has used its position as the registration body to promote its members.

Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I., is not equitable for architects with more than 7 years of experience working in the state who are requested to pass a prescribed register examination. This examination as described by the R.I.A.I. and the A.R.A.E (appointed by the R.I.A.I. to prepare the register examination) requests the knowledge and skills of a newly qualified architect, it is not appropriate for experienced architects. Many experienced MRIAI architects would fail the exam, because it does not suit experienced professionals who specialized in a field of architecture. Architects, as many other professionals are specializing within small, medium or large practices, delivering services for small, medium or large projects. The specialization is also related to the type of projects, such as residential, commercial, industrial and so on. It can also be related to the practice of architecture itself, planning, design, project management, technology, theory, etc… The A.R.A.E. examination is focusing on every aspects of architecture in general, and this approach does not reflect the skills of experienced architects, but the academic skills of newly qualified and inexperienced professionals who have not yet found their way within the professional world.

RIAI: €490 membership =€50 stamp + €2000+ for Structured CPDs cost (20 points required, some free, most €200+ for a single point, i.e. you can get 4 points for some courses that cost €750.
This of course can be written off against tax i.e. free, if you own the business, the rates are also cheaper, but if you’re PAYE you take it where the sun don’t shine and be thankful you have a job!!!
Wonder how many “young” RIAI members there will be next year? Nice idea for some though, get your staff to pay for their training on their time, on their money!

To compare:

In South Africa registration with the South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP) is R1168.50 (110EUR) for professionals and R655.50 (62EUR) for candidates and then annual fees are R1710.00 (160EUR) and R627.00 (59EUR) respectively

in the Republic of Texas, (each state in the U.S. sets its own fees) the fees are $305.00 per year for renewing an active registration

ARB in UK £86 a year (not 100% on this one)

Anyway, as you can see they’re not protecting their members, just certain members. Why else has nothing REAL been done about tender pre-quals? you can’t even design an office now without 200 years of experience and financial records!!!

Hi,

Only new to this forum and very surprised by this thread. There are a number of Architects presently working in Ireland who although they may not have had the luxury of a University Education they have nevertheless put in many many hours into learning their craft and do a fine job.

Least the elite among us should forget, you only have to look back at your early European Architecture where some of the most celebrated Architects were originally Artists or Stone Masons. How soon we forget our humble beginnings. The R.I.A.I is after all only a club for university qualified Architects they should not be allowed to control the profession.

This new act will do nothing for Irish Architecture or the general public. It will restrict access to the profession, distort the market and by present policy could very well lead to anti-competitive practice. We need to tread carefully and we like it or not need to take on board those who have established their credentials and have been operating successfully for many years.

@Solo wrote:

Hi,

Only new to this forum and very surprised by this thread. There are a number of Architects presently working in Ireland who although they may not have had the luxury of a University Education they have nevertheless put in many many hours into learning their craft and do a fine job.

Least the elite among us should forget, you only have to look back at your early European Architecture where some of the most celebrated Architects were originally Artists or Stone Masons. How soon we forget our humble beginnings. The R.I.A.I is after all only a club for university qualified Architects they should not be allowed to control the profession.

This new act will do nothing for Irish Architecture or the general public. It will restrict access to the profession, distort the market and by present policy could very well lead to anti-competitive practice. We need to tread carefully and we like it or not need to take on board those who have established their credentials and have been operating successfully for many years.

The Act isn’t something aspirational, its already in force since May 2008 and the Registration Boards is set up since November 2009. There is a separate body for processing registrations called the Technical Assessment Board and a route through which people who haven’t passed any third level five year courses can apply. CPD is largely self administered and self assessed and you can acquire CPD points through many means. The AAI for example run lectures, events and site visits many of which are CPD rated and it only costs €80 for a years membership running from January in the year.

Whether the Act will perform the service its hoped for will be down to the regulation to be undertaken by the Architects Registration Board. The RIAI are providing courses and information for upskilling in relation to several key disciplines, including BER integration with design, Conservation, Health and Safety etc. I’m not saying their prices points are perfect, but its a start and once the market sees needs like this, private suppliers will arise and satisfy that need, probably for a lot less money.

In relation to the Act, it protects the professional title of architect. It doesn’t stop persons providing architectural services, including Graduate Architects. I have no doubt there will be some upsets ahead for this apple cart, as persons who have been practising as unqualified architects for years try to defend their position, but the Technical Assessment route to Registration is a lot cheaper than taking a Court Case, for which the first requirement will be locus standi.

As long as the Registration Board requires only the level of skill and knowledge of a competent practitioner – the usual legal definition – from people applying, I suspect a goodly number should attain this level and the rest will see its within reach and will work towards it. Thsi level will become the norm in the profession and this will have implications for existing RIAI members if they are not up to scratch. I see the registration process as potentially a good thing in terms of setting/raising standards generally.

Like any process of registration, it cannot guarantee integrity and we see from the medical, legal and accounting professions that thsi applies across the board. A lack of integrity or similar serious transgression against a code of conduct can result in the offender being struck off the Register, which means he cannot practice as an architect in Ireland and b implication throughout the EU. That should soften a few coughs.

FWIW

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

Hi ONQ,

My personal experience about the registration procedure is that the RIAI is trying to limit as much as possible the numbers of architects to be registered. It is not related to the skills and the knowledge as it should be to protect the public.

For the purpose of comparing fees, I have contacted, the A.R.B. (UK), the C.I.A.T. (Technicians UK), l’ Ordre des Architectes (Architects France) and I.E.I (Irish Engineers). I found that these institutes request only a small fraction of the sum charged by the A.R.A.E. for a professional examination based on experience. The A.R.A.E. claims that fees charged for the examination only cover their cost €11,500 (exam) + €1,800 (lectures), so how can other institutes charge only a small fraction of these sums for an exam of similar level? The fees of €6,500 requested by the R.I.A.I. Technical assessment board are also very expensive compared to other institutes…

R.I.A.I. members were always privileged with the procedure. M.R.I.A.I. have paid the lowest fees for registration and they were the first on the register list. The R.I.A.I. were already informing the public about the necessity for an architect to be registered when the registration was in place for their members only and not for other applicants. The R.I.A.I. has used its position as the registration body to promote its members.

Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I., is not equitable for architects with more than 7 years of experience working in the state who are requested to pass a prescribed register examination. This examination as described by the R.I.A.I. and the A.R.A.E (appointed by the R.I.A.I. to prepare the register examination) requests the knowledge and skills of a newly qualified architect, it is not appropriate for experienced architects. Many experienced MRIAI architects would fail the exam, because it does not suit experienced professionals who specialized in a field of architecture. Architects, as many other professionals are specializing within small, medium or large practices, delivering services for small, medium or large projects. The specialization is also related to the type of projects, such as residential, commercial, industrial and so on. It can also be related to the practice of architecture itself, planning, design, project management, technology, theory, etc… The A.R.A.E. examination is focusing on every aspects of architecture in general, and this approach does not reflect the skills of experienced architects, but the academic skills of newly qualified and inexperienced professionals who have not yet found their way within the professional world.

Can I say that you’re pushing an open door here and I am currently helping advise a colleague who will be taking the Technical Assessment Route so I know what he’s going to have to face. In relation to the RIAI Members being given favoured treatment I think we should wait and see. The Registration Board isn’t only about admission to the Register, its also about regulation of members and striking off members if required.

In relation to the free pass offered to existing Members, what else could the RIAI do? The standard for registration is the same standard their Members have already established, so its stands to reason they were eligible to be registered automatically. Graduate Architects who have not applied for their Part III’s will have several routes to Registration, and all involve the submission of 4 no. case studies, a detailed self-assessment matrix [6,000 words IIRC] and a reputedly gruelling interview covering all aspect of the profession – an oral examination, if you will.

For Graduate Architects looking at the Technical Assessment entrants, they might feel hard done by. Graduates of the schools have already done five years full time college education, whereas most technician qualifications require only three. The course for Technical Assessment is run over a year, thus bringing up the total study time to four years, not five, the bare minimum required by the criteria set down for full time education in architecture by DIR 2005/36/EC the current standard for recognition of professional qualifications.

As for the standards set, I’m not sure what you mean. Everybody practising architecture has to update themselves on legislation the services they offer: planning, building control, environmental,, waste management, energy conservation, conservation of buildings, you name it you have to have a handle on it of you;re doing it. Whatever about BER ratings and Conservation, every architect should know about the laws governing planning, building regulation, health and safety, contract administration and certification. This needs constant updating as new legislation is published. You don’t need to rattle them off verbatim, but you need a good working knowledge of the current legislation and how it may apply.

Whether or not you run a large practice or are a sole trader, you need to know how to run a practice competently, because that is one of the things an architect is expected to be able to do. People without qualifications or the necessary depth of experience really do need to cop themselves on and get it together and register if they want to call themselves “architect”. As for unqualified success who have shown they have what it takes to be architects by the quality of their built work, the Registration Board has the power to consider them also and if found adequate to the task, to admit them.

Its a complex thing that is being attempted, but there are significant benefit accruing and an opportunity to weed out the slackers in the ranks. Painful, disruptive, costly – yes, but its also essential I believe to the survival of our profession in the face of very low cost competition from the former eastern bloc countries and Spain.

FWIW

ONQ.

@NK111 wrote:

Anyway, as you can see they’re not protecting their members, just certain members. Why else has nothing REAL been done about tender pre-quals? you can’t even design an office now without 200 years of experience and financial records!!!

I understand that the OPW at least are looking at dropping or scrapping the annual turnover limit for practise seeking to do public works to allow small offices to enter the lists.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Can I say that you’re pushing an open door here and I am currently helping advise a colleague who will be taking the Technical Assessment Route so I know what he’s going to have to face. In relation to the RIAI Members being given favoured treatment I think we should wait and see. The Registration Board isn’t only about admission to the Register, its also about regulation of members and striking off members if required.

FWIW

ONQ.

Your are turning a blind eye on the institute from which you probably have membership. If you were an architect non member of the RIAI you would admit that they have already listed all their members on the registration list, but non of the others… They are already advertising the fact that non registered architects are commiting an offence, but only their members had the oppotunity to register at this stage… The R.I.A.I., appointed by the government to carry out registration of architects, has to this date, registered noone except its members…

If that is not anti-competitive… Then what is?

@onq wrote:

As for the standards set, I’m not sure what you mean. Everybody practising architecture has to update themselves on legislation the services they offer: planning, building control, environmental,, waste management, energy conservation, conservation of buildings, you name it you have to have a handle on it of you;re doing it. Whatever about BER ratings and Conservation, every architect should know about the laws governing planning, building regulation, health and safety, contract administration and certification. This needs constant updating as new legislation is published. You don’t need to rattle them off verbatim, but you need a good working knowledge of the current legislation and how it may apply.

ONQ.

You must be kidding… I have worked with registered architects in the UK. France and the R.O.I… Many of them use technicians for compliance with the Building Regulations, because aged 50 or around, they are completely out of touch with the new regulations. They would not even be able to prepare drawings for a planning application because they are not familiar with the 2001 planning regulations. The fact is that these architects are running a business, they are directors, employers, their employees are doing the practical work, the directors are in contact with the clients… These guys are doing the first sketches only… And they put their name on the project…

The majority of MRIAI over 45 years of age would fail the A.R.A.E. register examination, because this examination is designed for the knowledge and the skills of an inexperienced newly qualified academic… It is common knowledge that the skills gained within a university are not well adapted to the the one requested on the ground…

The fact is that a newly qualified architect never seen any of his/her design being built… What is architecture? Designing building that will never be built? or designing building that are built…

The very academic and unfounded belief that a qualified and inexperienced architect has more aptitude than a self-trained and experienced architect is a joke… A self-trained architect should not be subject to an academic examination but he / she should be assessed on his / her work on which he / she gained skills and experience… For this reason the A.R.A.E. examination is inadequate…

The problem is that the RIAI is interested first by titles, graduation, degrees and academism… Knowledge and skills only come second… The RIAI and some other institutes within the construction industry are the roots of a technocracy which goal is to protect the interests of some of their members first, quality, value for money and satisfied clients come only second on their list…

The reality is that the government and developpers always been blamed for problems occuring on projects such as the Dublin tunnel, floods in newly built estates or the crash in the property market… However, if the planning institute, the architects institute, the engineers institues and others injected the adequate professional influence at the time, then most of these problems could have been anticipated… But the fact is that these institutes have not fullfilled their role, instead they were part of the problem by supporting higher fees, protecting their members instead of the public, contributing to the evolution of an unsustainable growth rather than using their influence positively….

onq… You have to be M.R.I.A.I. or ignorant to pretend not being aware of that…

hi all,

I have been reading all the posts in regard to the above subject matter, some of which is very informative and thought provoking, and some quite immature handbags. but nevertheless i would feel that the RIAI when all the hot air and bluff has been blown away, is not primarily looking to promote better design / architecture in this instance , but rather trying its upmost to promote one group of persons over the expense of others. I would agree better regulation needs to take place in regard whom can carry out architectural services, and im not interested in mooting points of view as to the lack of architects technical knowledge of regs, and detail, in lieu of better design conceptualisation , yada yada yada over engineers and technicians etc..

The RIAI is in my humble opinion not the right body to be involved in the registration process, and has clear and biased vested interests as a whole. The competition authority outlined these concerns early on in the process, and was ignored.

Competition Law – Abuse of Dominance
If a business has a dominant position in any market then it must not abuse that dominant position. Competition law places a special responsibility on anyone who has a dominant position in the market.(RIAI) However, it is not a breach of law merely to hold a dominant position, it is the abuse of the dominant position which is the breach of the law.(radio bias advertising registered over non registered – peddled under auspice of only being informative)

It is possible to have a dominant position in a relatively narrow market and many companies are surprised to find that they are dominant. If there is any doubt then legal advice ought to be obtained as to the compatibility of conduct with competition law.

Abuse of dominance consists in such activities as predatory pricing, abusive acquisitions by dominant businesses, unjustifiable refusals to supply, fidelity rebates, unjustified discounts, “exclusionary tactics or similar unfair conduct.”
It is not possible to obtain an exemption or a licence in respect of an abuse of dominance. Therefore all abuses of dominance are breaches of competition law.
The European Commission and the Irish courts will punish abuses of dominance more severely than anti-competitive arrangements. Abuses of dominance attract the highest fines. :confused:

Listening to recent radio advertising and such like, certainly gives the impression to joe public that all non registered architects are cowboys, shysters, and con men trying to rip off their clients. The fact stands that the fees for TA & ARAE are a total rip off, compared to similar activities in other countries, and cannot be justified in this current economic climate , which these fees could be construed as exclusionary tactics, also that the panels for both avenues have still not been finalised, over 2 months since the premature launch of the registration, there is still no mechanism for non registered architects to begin the process toward registration, and thus are in a limbo till this is implemented.

The registration process should have been set up similar scenario as in the case of ARB in the UK, and not the RIAI as the competent body. The UK are also considering dropping the registration process, because no advantage has been gained by the process of registration to architects as a whole, rather it has been a hindrance, to new qualified architectural graduates.

The Building Regs, Building Control Act, PI cover, and Irish and EU consumer protection Legislation, already exists to protect the public against both rogue and incompetent registered and non registered practices. This title protection will not stop the so called woodwork teachers and moonlighters drawing the bungalow bliss house , which will be welcomed by planners. Are we not chasing down the wrong avenues here, we should be pressurising local authorities to ensure compliance with vernacular designs as laid out in their guidelines and dev plans, and ensure building control officers carry out inspections as they do in the uk. Self certification of buildings is essentially the crux of the matter, when it comes to unethical and economic driven decisions made by architectural firms. The designing firm should not be the one issuing compliance certs as well. If building certification was taken over by the building control depts, as in the north and uk, then scope for unqualified certification would be taken away.

I agree in most part for certification of practices , but the registration of title will not alleviate the problem, without protecting function as well. If a firm is a registered business, carries PI cover, pays it taxes and VAT, and is 10 or more years in business, as outlined by the law society guidelines and carries out architectural services at whatever degree, then it should be entitled to be registered without this undue, expense and deliberate bias as shown by the RIAI. The BCA pt 3 has set the bar so high, especially when compared to pt 4 & 5 of the Act. I could guarantee that a large majority of RIAI members if forced to sit it to gain registration, would fail in high numbers. Lets call a a spade a spade, and shite – shite. An Irish ARB is the only fair and equitable way to move forward with this issue, and I do no believe the RIAI, could, or will be unbiased against in any shape or form in the process of registration

peace out:D

@CK wrote:

Your are turning a blind eye on the institute from which you probably have membership. If you were an architect non member of the RIAI you would admit that they have already listed all their members on the registration list, but non of the others… They are already advertising the fact that non registered architects are commiting an offence, but only their members had the oppotunity to register at this stage… The R.I.A.I., appointed by the government to carry out registration of architects, has to this date, registered noone except its members…

If that is not anti-competitive… Then what is?

You seem like an active sort CK, always jumping at conclusions 🙂

You logic, however, leaves something to be desired. Re-read my posts and you won’t find somebody putting the RIAI on a pedestal. My RL record doesn’t reflect that either, and you might be surprised to know that there are differences of opinion between Members too. I’m just not knocking the RIAI while they are attempting something very ambitious. The RIAI have set out to do a job. There is a chance they will succeed, plus they have the backing of the Minister. I’m saying let’s see where this goes. If they set reasonable standards, don’t operate a policy of exclusion or adopt unrealistically high standards for Registration, then the profession as a whole will benefit.

Your assertion that only MRIAIs had the opportunity to register is incorrect. Only MRIAIs were entitled to automatic Registration because they have already achieved the Part III’s Professional Practice standard which the Registration Board are now setting for everyone else. Anyone eligible to be considered under one of the several Options [A through to AFAICR] can apply to become Registered since November 2009 as I stated above. Nothing is preventing anyone from Registering. There are many different routes to cater for all situations. A lot of work seems to have gone into this to accommodate non Members and I will be surprised if this is shown to be just a cover for a policy of exclusion.

As regards what you have assumed as the RIAI’s role, what you’re suggesting is a logical impossibility. The reason the RIAI have registered only its own Members is simple – they have no right to Register anyone else! How did you miss that – it stands to reason doesn’t it? Non-Members have to send in their own application to Register.

Can I respectfully suggest you stop making assumptions about the RIAI and me, because you lessen your own credibility when they are shown to be unfounded. Prior to the coming into operation of certain sections of the 2007 Building Control Act in May 2008 I actually was an “architect non member of the RIAI” to use your definition, entitled to provide architectural services and to practice quite legally as an architect throughout Europe because of DIR 85/384/EEC, recently superseded in October 2007 by DIR 2005/33/EC. The only change to my situation is the current restriction on calling myself an architect. For the record I am not a Member of the RIAI or Registered yet. I am a Graduate Architect currently preparing to apply for Registration and for Membership. Its not easy finding decades-old files in other people’s offices. 🙁

FWIW

ONQ.

spoilsport? Who the hell is this cheap imposter? I’m not a happy spoil_sport

@CK wrote:

You must be kidding… I have worked with registered architects in the UK. France and the R.O.I… Many of them use technicians for compliance with the Building Regulations, because aged 50 or around, they are completely out of touch with the new regulations. They would not even be able to prepare drawings for a planning application because they are not familiar with the 2001 planning regulations. The fact is that these architects are running a business, they are directors, employers, their employees are doing the practical work, the directors are in contact with the clients… These guys are doing the first sketches only… And they put their name on the project…

So the fact that I’m 48, run a sole tradership, and perform all my own work on planning applications, fire cert applications, tender documents, construction details, survey drawings, feasibility studies, master plans, compliance inspections, etc. and have taught myself most of what I know about computers, CAD, word-processing, website creation, company formation, employment law, Health and Safety legislation and the Companies Act makes me something of a sport does it? I don’t think so. Many architects are all rounders. Many are sole traders. We have to sink or swim.

The majority of MRIAI over 45 years of age would fail the A.R.A.E. register examination, because this examination is designed for the knowledge and the skills of an inexperienced newly qualified academic… It is common knowledge that the skills gained within a university are not well adapted to the the one requested on the ground…

Graduates of a five-year course don’t approach Registration through that route AFAIK. That’s the technical Assessment Route for persons without Part II. You are quite wrong about the A.R.A.E. route from my reading of it. It seems quite an arduous process for someone not used to being challenged in design. My years in Bolton Street were demanding of me and I have five in which to develop my design ability. The A.R.A.E. route allows one year for such assessments, but its structured to allow repeats IIRC.

The fact is that a newly qualified architect never seen any of his/her design being built… What is architecture? Designing building that will never be built? or designing building that are built…

That’s simplistic and trite – and wrong.
My first design work built was interior fit out work – the then new An Post public counters 3rd year working for an MRIAI. My next work was the revamp of Crowes in Ballsbridge, interiors and elevation. 4th year summer working for an MRIAI and with a fellow student. My next work was Arran Court, Arran Quay, 5th year during thesis year working for an MRIAI. I had several designs built before I qualified. Many competent architectural student get that chance. There’s even a nasty switchback bend going into Riyadh in Saudi Arabia with my name on it. Working for an engineering firm in London after finishing 2nd year.

The very academic and unfounded belief that a qualified and inexperienced architect has more aptitude than a self-trained and experienced architect is a joke… A self-trained architect should not be subject to an academic examination but he / she should be assessed on his / her work on which he / she gained skills and experience… For this reason the A.R.A.E. examination is inadequate…

I cannot comment in detail on the A.R.A.E. route because its not my route, but I know from advising a colleague that he has to put forward completed work as well as sit the exam and be assessed on design work. It most definitely isn’t geared towards newly qualified architects. OTC its designed to accommodate, assess and develop people who aren’t graduates of a full time design course but who have provided professional architectural services for a considerable period.

The problem is that the RIAI is interested first by titles, graduation, degrees and academism… Knowledge and skills only come second… The RIAI and some other institutes within the construction industry are the roots of a technocracy which goal is to protect the interests of some of their members first, quality, value for money and satisfied clients come only second on their list…

What!? As soon as I saw the word “technocracy” I dozed off – sorry. Unfounded opinionated waffle affects me like that…

(irrelevance snipped)
onq… You have to be M.R.I.A.I. or ignorant to pretend not being aware of that…

My other reply to your previous post showing how you have made two totally wrong assumptions should have embarrassed you enough so that I don’t need to comment on this, CK… 😀

FWIW

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

So the fact that I’m 48, run a sole tradership, and perform all my own work on planning applications, fire cert applications, tender documents, construction details, survey drawings, feasibility studies, master plans, compliance inspections, etc. and have taught myself most of what I know about computers, CAD, word-processing, website creation, company formation, employment law, Health and Safety legislation and the Companies Act makes me something of a sport does it? I don’t think so. Many architects are all rounders. Many are sole traders. We have to sink or swim.

ONQ.

You then have specialized with small projects, otherwise you could not do all that by yourself… However, if you had to pass the ARAE exam, then they would also ask you to demonstrate skill for large projects as well…

@onq wrote:

Graduates of a five-year course don’t approach Registration through that route AFAIK. That’s the technical Assessment Route for persons without Part II. You are quite wrong about the A.R.A.E. route from my reading of it. It seems quite an arduous process for someone not used to being challenged in design. My years in Bolton Street were demanding of me and I have five in which to develop my design ability. The A.R.A.E. route allows one year for such assessments, but its structured to allow repeats IIRC.

ONQ.

Could you please give attention… I never said that the ARAE route was an easy one… I said that: “Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I., is not equitable for architects with more than 7 years of experience working in the state and who are requested to pass a prescribed register examination. This examination as set up by the R.I.A.I. and the A.R.A.E (appointed by the R.I.A.I. to prepare the register examination) requests the knowledge and skills of a newly qualified architect, it is not appropriate for experienced architects. Many experienced MRIAI architects would fail the exam, because it does not suit experienced professionals who specialized in a field of architecture. Architects, as many other professionals are specializing within small, medium or large practices, delivering services for small, medium or large projects. The specialization is also related to the type of projects, such as residential, commercial, industrial and so on. It can also be related to the practice of architecture itself, planning, design, project management, technology, theory, etc… The A.R.A.E. examination is focusing on every aspects of architecture in general, and this approach does not reflect the skills of experienced architects, but the academic skills of newly qualified and inexperienced professionals who have not yet found their way within the professional world.”

@onq wrote:

That’s simplistic and trite – and wrong.
My first design work built was interior fit out work – the then new An Post public counters 3rd year working for an MRIAI. My next work was the revamp of Crowes in Ballsbridge, interiors and elevation. 4th year summer working for an MRIAI and with a fellow student. My next work was Arran Court, Arran Quay, 5th year during thesis year working for an MRIAI. I had several designs built before I qualified. Many competent architectural student get that chance. There’s even a nasty switchback bend going into Riyadh in Saudi Arabia with my name on it. Working for an engineering firm in London after finishing 2nd year.
ONQ.

Why is it that you take eveything personaly? I was not talking about you when I said : “The fact is that a newly qualified architect never seen any of his/her design being built… What is architecture? Designing building that will never be built? or designing building that are built…” And the reality is that your built design were part of your work outside the university… Not part of your University studies… You are just confirming what I stated…

@onq wrote:

I cannot comment in detail on the A.R.A.E. route because its not my route, but I know from advising a colleague that he has to put forward completed work as well as sit the exam and be assessed on design work. It most definitely isn’t geared towards newly qualified architects. OTC its designed to accommodate, assess and develop people who aren’t graduates of a full time design course but who have provided professional architectural services for a considerable period.

ONQ.

Well I have looked toward this route… The fact is that they are asking knowledge and skills for any type of projects (Industrial, commercial, Public, Private), any size (Large, small, medium), all skills (design, conracts, Health & Safety, Project Management,…)

You know like me that only academic have this type of knowledge… They know superficialy everytihng but they have an approfondite experience of nothing… THe fact is that an experience architect is specialised. I have personaly never worked on public sector projects in the ROI, but I have done so in the UK…

A part of the ARAE assessment will be very academic, it will include an exam with questions to be answered by heart on subjects such as health and safety, contracts, and so on…

When I deal with a new type of project… I make some research before meeting the client and starting the design, because it is what an architect should do… Now part of the ARAE exam will ask me to answer by heart on any type of contracts available in the ROI… They will ask me to answer by heart on any planning or technical issue… These are not the necessary skills for an architect… These are the skills of an academic…

@onq wrote:

What!? As soon as I saw the word “technocracy” I dozed off – sorry. Unfounded opinionated waffle affects me like that…

ONQ.

You are entitled to your opinion… But how do you call this type of protectionism, if not “Technocracy”?

What do you have to say about RIAI misleading advertising and other anti-competitive actions…

@onq wrote:

My other reply to your previous post showing how you have made two totally wrong assumptions should have embarrassed you enough so that I don’t need to comment on this, CK… 😀

ONQ.

You may not be RIAI, but you wish you were…

You may not be ignorant, but you choose to ignore important matters with tregard to the subject…

Then I was not that wrong after all…

@CK wrote:

You then have specialized with small projects, otherwise you could not do all that by yourself… However, if you had to pass the ARAE exam, then they would also ask you to demonstrate skill for large projects as well…

“Small Projects”? Most people in a hole stop digging CK, but you keep showering yourself with dirt. You couldn’t be more wrong.

I worked in a large office as a one-man team, occasionally partnering with up to three people for the larger projects. That’s the benefit of being a competent all-rounder. You don’t need endless workstations of draughtspeople backing you up. You don’t need fleets of secretarial staff and you only need to confer with engineers and technicians on points of principle, as opposed to relying on them to “do your drawings”.

I suppose 40,000 sqft of an office building already mentioned is a small project in a global sense nowadays, but in Ireland in 1990 it wasn’t. Nor was Enterprise Zoning development in West Dublin for 1,000,000 sq ft for which the office I worked for won a Plan Expo/RIAI Award in 2000 for best building – for part of it. And the house we completed in South County Dublin in 2003 was circa 15,500 sq ft and remains one of the largest private dwellings in Dublin.

You don’t pick up professional abilities and competence off the street y’know, or “teaching yourself” as you seem to think. The five year course merely grounds you in law and design and technical ability and history of the profession. You learn how to provide a professional service to your client from the best, try to improve on what they teach you and take long hours to upskill and practice your abilities with computers, draughting and word processing. That doesn’t mean I don’t have my weak points but the balance of my abilities allows me to operate as a competent member of the profession, with specialities in obtaining difficult permissions and carrying out remedial works.

For the record, I won’t be sitting the AREA exam, a process on which you seem to be so fixated, for some reason, because Option “C” will be the appropriate route for me: I’m over 35, a graduate from a five year full time course, with more than ten years practising as an architect at all levels and more than seven years working under the guidance of Members of the RIAI. I am by no means cocky I can pass that test first time, because you can always be thrown by presenting in an unfamiliar environment or be caught by a question about a wrinkle in the law you don’t know yet.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

You seem like an active sort CK, always jumping at conclusions 🙂

You seem like an active sort CK, always jumping at conclusions

You logic, however, leaves something to be desired.[…]Your assertion that only MRIAIs had the opportunity to register is incorrect.

ONQ.

I am not an activist onq, or not in your definition of the term… I am not involved with any party or any political cause… I am just trying to defend my interests which are shared with others with regard to registration… Obviously we have different interests on this matter…

The position that you defend is anti-competitive and it is also socialy and academicaly selective…

You criticise my logic with unfounded arguments… You pretend that some non MRIAI have had the opportunity to Register… Can you tell me who else had the opportunity to be registered to this date since registration started in November 2009?

The answer is no one… Then why do you question my logic on this ground?

@onq wrote:

“Small Projects”? Most people in a hole stop digging CK, but you keep showering yourself with dirt. You couldn’t be more wrong.

I worked in a large office as a one-man team, occasionally partnering with up to three people for the larger projects. That’s the benefit of being a competent all-rounder. You don’t need endless workstations of draughtspeople backing you up. You don’t need fleets of secretarial staff and you only need to confer with engineers and technicians on points of principle, as opposed to relying on them to “do your drawings”.

I suppose 40,000 sqft of an office building already mentioned is a small project in a global sense nowadays, but in Ireland in 1990 it wasn’t. Nor was Enterprise Zoning development in West Dublin for 1,000,000 sq ft for which the office I worked for won a Plan Expo/RIAI Award in 2000 for best building – for part of it. And the house we completed in South County Dublin in 2003 was circa 15,500 sq ft and remains one of the largest private dwellings in Dublin.

You don’t pick up professional abilities and competence off the street y’know, or “teaching yourself” as you seem to think. The five year course merely grounds you in law and design and technical ability and history of the profession. You learn how to provide a professional service to your client from the best, try to improve on what they teach you and take long hours to upskill and practice your abilities with computers, draughting and word processing. That doesn’t mean I don’t have my weak points but the balance of my abilities allows me to operate as a competent member of the profession, with specialities in obtaining difficult permissions and carrying out remedial works.

For the record, I won’t be sitting the AREA exam, a process on which you seem to be so fixated, for some reason, because Option “C” will be the appropriate route for me: I’m over 35, a graduate from a five year full time course, with more than ten years practising as an architect at all levels and more than seven years working under the guidance of Members of the RIAI. I am by no means cocky I can pass that test first time, because you can always be thrown by presenting in an unfamiliar environment or be caught by a question about a wrinkle in the law you don’t know yet.

ONQ.

I will not go this way ONQ… You can pretend whatever… Stop your ego… I could talk about myself too… I am qualified too you know… But this thread is not about you or me… you are loosing the point…

I have to go for today… If you wish to continue talking about the thread subject, I will continue the conversation on Monday… I f you prefer talking about yourself, then find someone else to talk to…

Have a good weekend…

@CK wrote:

Well I have looked toward this route… The fact is that they are asking knowledge and skills for any type of projects (Industrial, commercial, Public, Private), any size (Large, small, medium), all skills (design, conracts, Health & Safety, Project Management,…)

I understand they expect you to show competence in how you have dealt with the projects you have carried out, the way you have approached it, your correspondence, the finished product, any follow up, etc. I don’t believe – although I may stand corrected on this – that they can require you to actually have done all the range of project work you list above. Certainly this isn’t expected of 2 year graduates – it is sufficient they have been exposed to these projects and seen others work on them and monitored the process. This is stated in the RIAI documentation on what the “normal” Part III applicant is required to present as part of their own project experience. It may be difficult for the RIAI to adopt a different stance when dealing with AREA applicants in this facet of the assessment, because Ireland is a small country with only a limited number of larger projects available in any one year for graduates to be exposed to.

You know like me that only academic have this type of knowledge… They know superficialy everytihng but they have an approfondite experience of nothing… THe fact is that an experience architect is specialised. I have personaly never worked on public sector projects in the ROI, but I have done so in the UK…

I don’t think that not doing any Public Sector work will define your competence. I think you will be expected to have a working knowledge of the GCCC contracts, the public procurement process, the pre-qualification process for designers and contractors, and so on. Academic learning as you might say, but the point of academic learning is to show you are competent in that field of knowledge.

A part of the ARAE assessment will be very academic, it will include an exam with questions to be answered by heart on subjects such as health and safety, contracts, and so on…

I have no comfort to offer here. Normally I have the luxury of having the references to hand when I approach a project and like you I perform my checks in the relevant fields of legislation and current practice at inception. I too expect a gruelling examination on ALL relevant legislation and intend to include this in my self-assessment matrix. If you’re not familiar with this process, you should download all the available literature and explanatory documentation from the RIAI website – its free. Start reading, because it will explain in some detail the standards required for Graduates, and also read all the literature required for the ARAE assessment, It IS a mountain of work, and it certainly “gets in” on you, but I find one way to deal with the inevitable insecurity that comes with preparing for any formal exam submission or assessment is to set yourself higher standards [or what you THINK are higher standards] and work to those. Assuming you don’t burn yourself out or go bankrupt because of the amount of time you’re diverting from your business you may surprise yourself by developing a certain confidence in your new-found academic abilities.

When I deal with a new type of project… I make some research before meeting the client and starting the design, because it is what an architect should do… Now part of the ARAE exam will ask me to answer by heart on any type of contracts available in the ROI… They will ask me to answer by heart on any planning or technical issue… These are not the necessary skills for an architect… These are the skills of an academic…

Sorry, CK, on this we disagree. As a bare minimum you need a working knowledge of the Law as it applies to Architects and the RIAI contracts. You should download the RIAI reading list for the Part III Exam and make a start on that.

Two books that are essential are “Building and the Law” and “The RIAI Contracts” both by David Keane recently deceased, both out of print. You should be able to read these in any third level library offering an architectural qualification. i recall reading that poster to archiseek offered to e-mail these to those studying for the RIAI exam. However you may read them, they are both superseded by recent development in law. you might augment these by studying current works on contract, of which much may be irrelevant but building contract disputes are useful, even in other jurisdictions. I have found “150 Contractual Problems and their Solutions” very useful in grounding me in the broad principles in this branch of law.

You need a working knowledge of the Building Control Act and attendant regulations, the Health Safety and Welfare at Work Act and attendant regulations and the Planning and Development Act and attendant regulations – all these are available for free from either the Irish Statute Book Online or the Department of the Environment Website http://www.environ.ie/en/. But don’t limit yourself just to reading these works because other issues such as competence in land law, declarations of identity, marking up planning and lease maps. and building in urban environments will require a more detailed knowledge of worked examples including the requirements for E.I.S. and how a local authority works to make development plans. again, guidelines no all this is free to download.

Why am I taking this time with a guy who’s made so many false assumptions about me and had ring-fenced his mind into a no-win situation? Because I don’t want to see ANY talent lost to the profession, whatever academic level they have achieved, whatever professional experience they have found. Including you 🙂

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

You may not be RIAI, but you wish you were…

You may not be ignorant, but you choose to ignore important matters with tregard to the subject…

Then I was not that wrong after all…

There is no doubt here CK. – I am NOT an MRIAI.
I have stated that as fact, there is no “may” about it.

I am not ignorant of the process leading up to the Building Control Act 2007 – I have a detailed knowledge of it and the submission to government about it from interested parties.
I am certainly not ignorant of the implications of all of this for me and my practice.
And I am not ignorant of the mountain I have to climb merely to gather documentation in support of my claims of competence, much of which is over twelve years old and may be shredded.

None of that will stop me making my application for Registration.

As for “wishing” I was an MRIAI, that’s a very loaded statement. I wish to be Registered. I wish for my competence and professional abilities to be recognised by the body competent to do this under Irish law. This happens to be the RIAI. To become Registered I must prove my level of competence to the standard of RIAI Part III. If I do this, this entitles me to become a Member. I think this will be a wise course of action.

Yes, I could “just” become a registered architect and not a Member of the RIAI. I could save myself €600-odd Euro a year and work alone for the rest of my career. But the professional environment we work in is changing. As one small example, some new laws require legal interpretation to establish how best to comply with their requirements – professionally, but economically. I have some ability in this area but I would prefer Counsels’ Opinion. This will cost a lot of money going forward, particularly with European Directives and Irish Building Standards moving to Carbon Neutral of all building by 2018 and our own Green Minister looking to achieve this for all new dwellings by 2013.

The RIAI today are not the same organization as twenty years ago. They have grown and matured into a body of international stature providing useful – if very costly 🙁 – lectures and publications to support their Member’s CPD and a well thought out means of Continuous Professional Development assessment online. Their BER Course and Health and Safety assessment information alone is worth the price of admission.

I want to avail of the facilities and backup and heads-up notifications of changes in the profession that this body can give me. Because with more of my time being devoted to marketing in the current crisis, my job as a professional is to remain competent, and I’ll rise to whatever standards I must to offer a competent service to my clients. That’s the object of the exercise – get with the programme or fall behind. It’ll be harder to survive as well as keep current if I do it alone. Plus there may be opportunities to contribute to, and best support, how the profession develops here.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

I will not go this way ONQ… You can pretend whatever… Stop your ego… I could talk about myself too… I am qualified too you know… But this thread is not about you or me… you are loosing the point…

I have to go for today… If you wish to continue talking about the thread subject, I will continue the conversation on Monday… I f you prefer talking about yourself, then find someone else to talk to…

Have a good weekend…

CK,

You were the one who assumed I had only worked on small jobs and hereby developed my abilities. I clarified my position. You have a view of the profession based partly on your own experience. I have tried to broaden the discussion by outlining my experience.

This discussion is on topic for this thread since it encapsulates the two opposing viewpoints of two people who went down different professional routes faced with Registration. I haven’t taken the time to write this for your benefit alone. I hope it can help others facing Registration

As for your being qualified, I haven’t raised this issue in discussion, you just did. If you look back on our conversation my references to my qualification and my work arose partly as rebuttals and corrections to assumptions you made.

For the record, I consider trading on a qualification in discussion to be rude with fellow professionals and intimidatory with clients. The few professionals I’ve met who have done this didn’t impress me. I’ve never traded on my being qualified in my career except when naming myself as an Architect on legal documents like Declarations of Identity, Opinions of Compliance and the like. People soon form an opinion of your competence or otherwise, particularly members of the legal profession.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

I am not an activist onq, or not in your definition of the term… I am not involved with any party or any political cause… I am just trying to defend my interests which are shared with others with regard to registration… Obviously we have different interests on this matter…

You seem to be wound a little tight CK – referring to “jumping at conclusions” as exercise was a J-O-K-E. Geddit?

The position that you defend is anti-competitive and it is also socialy and academicaly selective…

Don’t assume because I’m not singing harmonies with you that I am defending any position, much less that of the RIAI. They are well able to defend their own position. I am trying to get you to face reality, which is turning out to be a bigger problem than getting Registered at this point. The fact is that he Building Control Act 2007 is LAW! The time for talking and complaining is over. Either apply to be Registered, succed in thise and continue to use the title architect. Or if you are unsuccessful you could Appeal the result. If this also fails you could take the matter into Court and challenge the law.

If you’re not Registered, haven’t applied to be Registered and you don’t stop calling yourself an architect you may be subject to legal action. We are in a transition period at the moment where the Registration Board are likely to tread lightly until they find their feet, but this won’t last forever.

You criticise my logic with unfounded arguments… You pretend that some non MRIAI have had the opportunity to Register… Can you tell me who else had the opportunity to be registered to this date since registration started in November 2009?

The answer is no one… Then why do you question my logic on this ground?

Are you trying to make the point that you cannot automatically register now?

We have already traversed this ground. Only Members of the RIAI can do that because only they have reached the standard required, namely the RIAI Part III Professional Practice standard. Everyone else will probably have to work hard to reach this standard without the support of a third level institution or MRIAI Mentor giving them guidance and assistance. I know I have worked hard on revision, trying to bring all that I know to a stage where I can recall it on demand – a process that isn’t completed yet.

If that isn’t your point then I have this to say to you.

Since November 2009 everyone who was eligible to apply to be Registered could have applied. Before that they could not have applied because the Registration Board was not sitting, having only had its chairperson appointed in June 2009.

I have the opportunity to apply to be registered now, as does every graduate architect. I could probably sit the oral now with a 50% chance of passing it, but that’s only part of the application assessment process. I haven’t yet done so because of the difficulty so far in retrieving supporting documentation for my case studies. This documentation has to be assessed, compiled, referred back to matters of compliance covered in the self-assessment matrix copied, bound and presented. No small task and I can only start this when I see what documentation is available and its held on file by another office. Even if I still worked with them, this would be a slow process, because the extant files are more than 12 years old and archived – the rest are probably shredded. We’ll see.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

We have already traversed this ground. Only Members of the RIAI can do that because only they have reached the standard required, namely the RIAI Part III Professional Practice standard. Everyone else will probably have to work hard to reach this standard without the support of a third level institution or MRIAI Mentor giving them guidance and assistance. I know I have worked hard on revision, trying to bring all that I know to a stage where I can recall it on demand – a process that isn’t completed yet.

If that isn’t your point then I have this to say to you.

Since November 2009 everyone who was eligible to apply to be Registered could have applied. Before that they could not have applied because the Registration Board was not sitting, having only had its chairperson appointed in June 2009.

ONQ.

This is not True onq… for exemple the application form for the ARAE exam route was not available before January 2010…

Also, we were talking about being registered not applying for registration… Noone from the technical assessment nor the ARAE exam had a chance to be registerd yet, because the procedure is not ready…

Why was the register list created when the registration body was not in a position to register every one… The equitable procedure would have been to assess first everyone elligible and then to create the register… Can you realise the damage that they are doing to practices like mine and 500 other practices in a similar situation in the R.O.I?

In November 2008, the RIAI tryed to prevent non MRIAI to be listed in the Golden Pages, when in fact the registration procedure was far to be ready…

There were other exemples of anti-competitive actions from the RIAI carried out in discrimination of non MRIAI… Why do you refuse to admit the facts?

Onq,

I have practiced during 6 years in the UK before starting my own practice in Dublin back in 2001. I have also worked during 2 years in France before that and I obtained a Master in Arts & Architecture which is not listed in the EU DIrective for the recognition of proffessional qualification. My degree in valable for registration as per section 16 of the BCA, but I can not obtain an attestation of competance from the French Registration Body because I would need to register with them first. I can not register with the French Registration Body because I would need to pass a register exam and as I am not practicing in France, not even resident in France, I cannot pass it…

The matter of the fact is that like many others, my only option is the ARAE exam… However, like many others, I cannot afford €11,500 for the exam plus the €1,800 for the lectures… But even if I could, can you explain the point for me or others learning by heart some contracts that we will never use? In what way will that improve our services…

When working for one dwelling I am proposing to my clients the contract from the Law society of Ireland or the RIAI (white contract)… MRIAI do not even give this type of choice to their clients… I know these 2 contracts because they are the ones that I use for my projects. I have also drafted with my solicitor a contract for domestic extension and another one for small commercial projects…

Why should I learn about contract for public works if I do not intend to carry out public design? I understand that it is important for an academic who has not yet found his way to know any type of contracts because the person needs to keep all doors open…

But please explain why it is necessary for me or other architects who have already specialised otherwise to learn about public contracts when we do not intend using them?

Same scenario with health and Safety… I am keeping updated with the latest Health & Safety procedures related to the type of projects that I am involved with… But the ARAE exam will question me on health & safety with relation to any type of projects… Why shall I be aware of procedure related to high rise buildings if I do not work on these types of buildings and do not intend to do so? Once again, I understand that it is important for an academic who has not yet found his way within the profession to know a beat of everything about health & Safety because the person needs to keep all doors open… But not an experienced architect who has already made his choices…

The reality is that on large projects staff are specialised… A specialised team, generally not architects, will be appointed to deal with Health & Safety. Within large company a member of the staff is specialised with contracts, but not all the architects within the practice have this knowledge…

The ARAE Exam asks me to come back where I was 16 years ago when I was interested in architecture, but not yet specialised in one field… They are not willing to judge my skills on the work that I am producing…

In these difficult economical times during which I am struggling to make a living because sole traders do not have any help such as unemployment allowance or social welfare allowance. The RIAI is trying to prevent me practicing as an architect, it is also asking me to pay a total of €13,300 to follow lectures and pass an exam. And most of all, when I am struggling to feed my family, the RIAI would like me to disconnect from the preoccupations of my practice and learn about contracts, health and safety and other issues that do not concern the type of work that I produce… Issues that will not benefit my practice or my clients…

I cannot afford to go back to school learning matters that will not help my practice… My turn over is far to low to compete on public work… Why should I have to bother about issues related to public work? Why can’t I continue practicing as an architect as I have done before… My clients are satisfied… I never designed estates that were flooded a few month after completion… None of the roof of my buildings been blown away by the wind… The large majority of my projects are delivered on time, within budget… I found my way, and all I want is continue forward…

If you do not admit that registration involves a selection that is not related to my skills as an architect, but related to my financial situation, then you are obviously biased on this subject… Even if I could afford the fees for the exam, the fact is that I have no more staff to help me in the office, and that I need to focus on my practice and not on an exam which will take me away from it…

@CK wrote:

This is not True onq… for exemple the application form for the ARAE exam route was not available before January 2010…

I did say I wasn’t that familiar with the ARAE route. My advice to my colleague was to advise him on what’s needed, in terms of documentation, just as I have tried to do here. I accept I might have in error on the earliest date ARAE candidates could apply – I just assumed that once the Registration Board sat, anyone could apply to Register including AREA candidates, thus kicking the ball off on their course of studies. If you say that’s not the case, fine, I accept that, but there’s nothing stopping ARAE candidates applying now is there? Except for the numbers they are accepting for the course each year, which I believe are somewhat limited…

Also, we were talking about being registered not applying for registration… Noone from the technical assessment nor the ARAE exam had a chance to be registerd yet, because the procedure is not ready…

Well, no, I thought we were talking about applying for Registration. I made that clear in the post abvove. That’s where the confusion has arisen.

Why was the register list created when the registration body was not in a position to register every one… The equitable procedure would have been to assess first everyone elligible and then to create the register… Can you realise the damage that they are doing to practices like mine and 500 other practices in a similar situation in the R.O.I?

I think your first sentence is poorly worded. Did you mean to ask:

“Why was the Register created when the A.R.A.E. application process cannot process everyone?”

If that is what you meant I have no answer for you. As I posted above, I am not here to defend the RIAI, the Registration Board or teh Minister, or to justify the way they are doing things. I was not privy to the discussions with the Government setting up this process.I heard recently they were looking for competent persons to become assessors. I cannot confirm this, not being an MRIAI.

In November 2008, the RIAI tryed to prevent non MRIAI to be listed in the Golden Pages, when in fact the registration procedure was far to be ready…

This is a reference to teh notice in the Golden Pages radvising that only registered archtiects could advertise there as archtiects? Yes, I read it, but don’t give the RIAI credit for this – their reach isn’t that long. I expect the Golden Pages were just covering themselves legally in case someone paid for an advert in the Archtitect’s Section who wasn’t registered. Nothing more sinister than that.

There were other exemples of anti-competitive actions from the RIAI carried out in discrimination of non MRIAI…

Well if you know of any, post them – add to the discussion here. Don’t keep them to yourself.

But the Golden Pages example above doesn’t wash – the Golden Pages aren’t controlled by the RIAI or the Registration Board – they were just being seen to be compliant with the provisions of the BUilding Control Act 2007.

Why do you refuse to admit the facts?

I have no problem agreeing with someone posting facts. I have already admitted to the correction you pointed out above and I think we are on the same page now about Registration as opposed to Applying for Registration.

However for matters to fall out as you suggest, the test for Registration cannot be the Part III MRIAI standard, but something less. Is there any other standard that all would agree on. Would an MRIAI agree to sharing status with someone who hadn’t a good workign knowledge of planning, building control or health and safety legislation? I doubt it.

As for the whole Registratino process being anti-competitive, I don’t think its anti-competitive to set a high standard. I think I know what you mean though and I have to say I’m not sure I would have gone about this the same way myself if I were in the Minister’s position and the only intention was to protect the general public from rogue archtiects.

You cannot insure good service merely by protecting a title. You have to inspect all complaints and take action where the people concerned are clearly incompetent. An Architectural Ombudsman with a staff of twenty would have been able to do the job, together with more pro-active Building Control Officers, and a uniform standard of inspections. The inspection rates across the country are all over the place.

But I think that isn’t the only intention here. Read the vision document put out by the Minister’s office regarding the role of architecture in Ireland. They are looking for standards of excellence in design to be implemented, not merely for compliance with regulations and laws. This takes it out of the realm of people who can provide a competent service and into the realm of pure design. I think this is where its all going. I could be wrong.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

Onq,
I have practiced during 6 years in the UK before starting my own practice in Dublin back in 2001. I have also worked during 2 years in France before that and I obtained a Master in Arts & Architecture which is not listed in the EU DIrective for the recognition of proffessional qualification. My degree in valable for registration as per section 16 of the BCA, but I can not obtain an attestation of competance from the French Registration Body because I would need to register with them first. I can not register with the French Registration Body because I would need to pass a register exam and as I am not practicing in France, not even resident in France, I cannot pass it… (snip)

Do I understand you correctly? You obtained a Masters Degree in Arts and Architecture?

My understanding of qualifications is that you don’t just “”get a Masters. First you have to obtain a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science or a Diploma of Degree standard. Then you proceed to study for your Masters. Was that not the case with you?

What primary course did you do and what duration was it? If it was a full time five year course followed by a two year full time Masters degree, you may be eligible for Registration through a route different to ARAE. I’m not well versed in this Masters application route any more than the ARAE process, but I seem to remember reading something about this option. I don’t want to give you false hope of their being an easier or less costly route available to you, but I think you should check into this further.

My recollection is that Degrees at the level of Masters and above are recognised in DIR 2005/36/EC and I thought Masters level degrees were accepted by the Registration body as evidence of competence at Part III level. I think you need to review the entrance requirements again and perhaps approach the RIAI and ask for a definitive on your position. Even if you’re not automatically eligible you may only need to do the presentation and the interview and you can ask for a direction from the RIAI on this. As I say I’m not a Member so this isn’t definitive advice and things may have changed since I last read about this issue – but I think you should check this out anyway.

FWIW

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

But the Golden Pages example above doesn’t wash – the Golden Pages aren’t controlled by the RIAI or the Registration Board – they were just being seen to be compliant with the provisions of the BUilding Control Act 2007.
ONQ.

I know… But however the RIAI tryed to prevent non members to be listed in the Golden Pages… THe RIAI were trying to implement this request, but follwing protests from non members, it was agreed that the registration procedure not being fully in place, the protection of the title could not yet be implemented…

The RIAI is now waiting for the technical assessment to be completed before renewing their request. I have wrote to the Golden Pages to explain that:

“The new law related to architects registration (Building Control Act 2007) was drafted to protect consumer’s interests, but we believe that such dissociation would not protect the public, in the contrary. The reality is that, the large majority of consumers are searching for value first. Only a small percentage of the public is interested with the services of registered architects.

If the Golden Pages dissociates registered architects from other professionals proposing identical services, we think that the public will be misled. In fact many consumers are not aware that non-registered architects such as technicians, engineers, self-trained architects and other professionals can deliver quality architectural services. It is the wrongly founded belief of many, that only architects can deliver architectural services.

If the dissociation between “Architectural Services” and “Architects” is created within the Golden Pages, all registered architects will be listed first. We consider this situation as anti-competitive. Golden Pages users will not be fully aware of a listing called: “Architectural Services” and will not be aware that practices in this listing could act as their architect and deliver the exact same service.

We believe that one section grouping registered and non-registered architects should be created under the title: “Architects and Architectural Services”. This would prevent the consumers to be misled about the service that they are looking for, and it would create fair competition between registered and non-registered architects.”

I am waiting for their answer…

@onq wrote:

You cannot insure good service merely by protecting a title. You have to inspect all complaints and take action where the people concerned are clearly incompetent. An Architectural Ombudsman with a staff of twenty would have been able to do the job, together with more pro-active Building Control Officers, and a uniform standard of inspections. The inspection rates across the country are all over the place.

ONQ.

At least we agree on something…

@onq wrote:

Do I understand you correctly? You obtained a Masters Degree in Arts and Architecture?

My understanding of qualifications is that you don’t just “”get a Masters. First you have to obtain a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science or a Diploma of Degree standard. Then you proceed to study for your Masters. Was that not the case with you?

What primary course did you do and what duration was it? If it was a full time five year course followed by a two year full time Masters degree, you may be eligible for Registration through a route different to ARAE. I’m not well versed in this Masters application route any more than the ARAE process, but I seem to remember reading something about this option. I don’t want to give you false hope of their being an easier or less costly route available to you, but I think you should check into this further.

My recollection is that Degrees at the level of Masters and above are recognised in DIR 2005/36/EC and I thought Masters level degrees were accepted by the Registration body as evidence of competence at Part III level. I think you need to review the entrance requirements again and perhaps approach the RIAI and ask for a definitive on your position. Even if you’re not automatically eligible you may only need to do the presentation and the interview and you can ask for a direction from the RIAI on this. As I say I’m not a Member so this isn’t definitive advice and things may have changed since I last read about this issue – but I think you should check this out anyway.

FWIW

ONQ.

I have followed 8 years universty courses to obtain a 5 years qualification (I was working part time to pay my studies)… My qualification is in Arts with a specialisation in Architecture… I have the french equivalent to a Bachelor degree and a Master degree…

The fact is that my qualification is accepted as a qualification in Architecture, but the RIAI wants me to produce an attestation of competence… This attestation must be deliver, they said, by the Fench Registration Body… The French registration body is not interested with me because I am not resident in France, not Registered in France either…

To be registered in France I would need to be resident and practicing in France, or to have done so before leaving France… I did not register before leaving France because my qualification being in Arts and Archtiecture, and not purely in Architecture, the French Registration body requested that I gain 10 years of experience prior to my registration… Now that I have 16 years of experience (only 9 in the R.O.I.), I could go back and register in France but I am kind of stock in Ireland with a mortgage, 2 children and a practice…

The RIAI never orientated me in anyway… In the contrary their only attitude has been to try stopping me to register through any route…

This is a never ending story for me… I always acted professionaly, but it is not enough… It seems that it is not about my skills but about a very administrative procedure refusing to admit that there are some people out there who deserve more attention and deserve a chance to be assessed adequately….

Instead we are considered as unwanted competition… It is not about protecting the public anymore…

A- Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its content, is not equitable for professionals who are proposing architectural services. These professionals are technicians, technologists, engineers, surveyors and others. The public is not aware that many professionals can deliver architectural services, to deny these competent professionals the right of calling themselves “Architects” is very damaging for their businesses.

B- Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its content, is not equitable for self-trained architects who have less than 7 years of experience working in the Republic of Ireland. The fact is that many have worked in the UK, US, Australia and came back recently to work in the R.O.I. These self-trained architects have as much knowledge and skills than the others, but as per the Act they are not able to register. There is an obvious discrimination there.

C- Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I., is not equitable for architects with over 10 years of experience working in the state and specialized in residential developments. The R.I.A.I. Technical Assessment board does not recognize experience within the residential sector only as sufficient for registration. However, some self-trained architects have specialized in this field during the last 10 years. It must also be noted that many M.R.I.A.I. architects have specialized in the residential sector too and that specialization is a natural progression for an architect.

D- Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I., is not equitable for architects with more than 7 years of experience working in the state and who are requested to pass a prescribed register examination. This examination as set up by the R.I.A.I. and the A.R.A.E (appointed by the R.I.A.I. to prepare the register examination) requests the knowledge and skills of a newly qualified architect, it is not appropriate for experienced architects. Many experienced MRIAI architects would fail the exam, because it does not suit experienced professionals who specialized in a field of architecture. Architects, as many other professionals are specializing within small, medium or large practices, delivering services for small, medium or large projects. The specialization is also related to the type of projects, such as residential, commercial, industrial and so on. It can also be related to the practice of architecture itself, planning, design, project management, technology, theory, etc… The A.R.A.E. examination is focusing on every aspects of architecture in general, and this approach does not reflect the skills of experienced architects, but the academic skills of newly qualified and inexperienced professionals who have not yet found their way within the professional world.

E- Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I. and the A.R.A.E, is not equitable for self trained architects who have to pay disproportionate fees. For the purpose of comparing fees, I have contacted, the A.R.B. (UK), the C.I.A.T. (Technicians UK), l’ Ordre des Architectes (Architects France) and I.E.I (Irish Engineers). I found that these institutes request only a small fraction of the sum charged by the A.R.A.E. for a professional examination based on experience. The A.R.A.E. claims that fees charged for the examination only cover their cost €11,500 (exam) + €1,800 (lectures), so how can other institutes charge only a small fraction of these sums for an exam of similar level? The fees of €6,500 requested by the R.I.A.I. Technical assessment board are also very expensive compared to other institutes…

F- Part 3 of the BCA 2007, in its application for registration by the R.I.A.I. demonstrated that R.I.A.I. members were always privileged with the procedure. M.R.I.A.I. have paid the lowest fees for registration and they were the first on the register list. The R.I.A.I. were already informing the public about the necessity for an architect to be registered when the registration was in place for their members only and not for other applicants. The R.I.A.I. has used its position as the registration body to promote its members.

CK,

I am not going to challenge or respond to your every word. You have obviously thought very deeply about these issues as they affect your own position and to some degree you have adopted an entrenched position.

As I have already confirmed, I am not a Member of the RIAI or Registered – yet!
I am preparing for Registration. In the interim I have stopped advertising my sole tradership as that of an “architect”, out of respect for the law, namely the recent Building Control Act 2007.

However, there is one thing you really need to get your head around – and fast.

Any client has the right to expect their architect to be up to speed on the law as it affects the practice of architecture. You cannot have this knowledge as a layman may have it – “the man on the Clapham omnibus” – nor are you required by law to be an expert in your profession. You are required to operate at the level an ordinary competent practitioner of the profession of architecture. To do this, you need to know at least the following areas of law and practice:

You will require a good working knowledge of the planning, building regulation, health and safety, contract administration and conveyancing laws as they relate to an architect. You must have the commensurate experience to deal with problems at the level of a competent architect, not as a draughtsman, or even a newly qualified technician or graduate architect.

You will need to be familiar with the technical aspects of construction that satisfy the requirements of current regulations, and building practices that support them, not those that were current when you obtained your qualification.

You will need to familiar with the Health and Safety Regulations, not only as a Designer under the Health Safety and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, but also under the general regulations, to prepare you for dealing with the range of briefs uses and building types an architect practising in Ireland may reasonably be expected to encounter.

With respect to every architect who has pursued a career in residential design, only doing private houses may not be enough to satisfy this requirement. You will probably need to show competence in relation to a commercial development, although several large apartment blocks or a complex or small to medium office buildings may be deemed sufficient, given the limited palette of work available here.

With particular regard to your recent posts CK, pointing the finger at Members of the RIAI and saying the older ones aren’t up to scratch is a fallacious argument in terms of establishing your competence. Merely saying “I’m not as bad as him” doesn’t mean you yourself have reached the required standard. You will be expected to prove you have reached the required standard before the Registration Board or a Court of Law should you be taken there as a consequence of continuing to practise as an architect without being Registered.

The issue you most clearly fail to win on is the issue of Continuous Professional Development, which must be followed by every professional, precisely to keep up to date with current requirements. Go to the RIAI website this evening or whenever and take a look at the various CPD courses they are currently running for Members.

Here are the documents that govern the recognition of qualifications under EU law:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/vocational_training/qualifications_recognition/l23022_en.htm
85/384/EEC
http://www.eaae.be/eaae2/documents/docs/ad.pdf

Amending Acts:
2001/19/EC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:206:0001:0050:EN:PDF
2005/36/EC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:255:0022:0142:EN:PDF

If you can find an accommodation to your situation under these DIRectives, I suggest you pursue it. If not, you should take legal advice on the risks you will run if you intend to name yourself as an architect and practise in Ireland. My best advice is to embrace the requirements needed to reach the standard of a competent practitioner. That way, if you continue to practice and you are prosecuted, you will at least be able to show you have a current competent skillset, whatever about the necessary accreditation which apparently has been denied you through an unusual combination of circumstances.

Legislators in Ireland are said to be good at dealing with offences. Judges are said to be good ad dealing with offenders. If your Catch-22 situation results in your coming before a judge, you will need to be up to standard in your practice in order to ask the Court for any kind of acquittal of the offence.

HTH

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

(snip) It is the wrongly founded belief of many, that only architects can deliver architectural services.

CK,

You need to be careful here and read the links I posted to the various Directives. Only a subset of professionals are entitled to provide architectural services under either the Directives or the Building Control Act 2007. Acquired rights are only established by doing particular things for a particular length of time. It is not a free-for-all. The perception that used to be prevalent in Ireland that “anyone can be an architect” is one of the factors that prompted the current level of regulation.

ONQ.

CK

This links to an old seminar, but you should look at the range of headings to get a feel for the depth and range of knowledge that the RIAI expects of its Members:

http://www.riai.ie/public/downloads/PAI_BkForm2005.pdf

ONQ.

There are alternatives to bending over and taking it from the Minister and the RIAI on this thorney issue of Registration of Architects.

I here on the grapevine that some group are handing out flyers at the RIAI meetings offering non-RIAI members an alternative.

If anyone knows anything about them perhaps you could share with us because I do not believe that the Minister and the RIAI possess the necessary skills to properly implement this Act in the manner that is necessary to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

The new Registration of the Title Architect will not in itself give any additional protection to the public. The competition authority also had a similar view. They also believed that the registration body should be independent of all existing associations due to the obvious conflicts that could arise.

The Department of Trade and Enterprise will accept complaints from aggrieved persons. Also aggrieved persons can lobby their public representatives. Although that route would have to have a real obvious political gain before anyone is likley to run with it.

The European agencies that govern competition would be very interested in any allegations of restrictive practice or any organisations that operate anti competitive practice. So if you chaps really do have a genuine grievance why are you not exploring the avenues open to you.

A blind person could see that the Act itself and it’s giving statutory powers to the RIAI was going to lead to dominance and anti competitive restrictive practice.

In addition to this the RIAI have also embarked upon predatory practice by if my information is correct (and I will stand corrected by subsequent posts) that they have attempted to prevent the Golden Pages from taking advertising from non registered Architects. It has I understand also paid for and run radio advertising advising the public that they should not be using non registered Architects and if I hear correctly issued a health warning to those contemplating using non registered Architects when they have no process in place for any other than their own members to be registered.

As I said in a previous post this is ringside seat time positively riveting stuff and I am sure that the legal Vultures (not eagles) are already circling. I personally can’t wait to be shelling out as a taxpayer for another ill conceived (e voting) type scenario which will see the taxpayer yet again cleaning up for obvious difficulties easily foreseen. We will not need hindsight with this one just read the posts, there are, if the posts are true many many grounds for legal actions. As I said before it’s going to be a hoot. When will we actually get Ministers who, actually know what they are doing and having sought advice listen to it and accept it rather than the usual I know best attitude.

What is it they say “You get the Government you deserve and you deserve the Government you get”

Reserve me a seat,

@onq wrote:

CK,

I am not going to challenge or respond to your every word. You have obviously thought very deeply about these issues as they affect your own position and to some degree you have adopted an entrenched position.

ONQ.

And so have you…

@onq wrote:

CK,

Any client has the right to expect their architect to be up to speed on the law as it affects the practice of architecture. You cannot have this knowledge as a layman may have it – “the man on the Clapham omnibus” – nor are you required by law to be an expert in your profession. You are required to operate at the level an ordinary competent practitioner of the profession of architecture. To do this, you need to know at least the following areas of law and practice:

You will require a good working knowledge of the planning, building regulation, health and safety, contract administration and conveyancing laws as they relate to an architect. You must have the commensurate experience to deal with problems at the level of a competent architect, not as a draughtsman, or even a newly qualified technician or graduate architect.

You will need to be familiar with the technical aspects of construction that satisfy the requirements of current regulations, and building practices that support them, not those that were current when you obtained your qualification.

You will need to familiar with the Health and Safety Regulations, not only as a Designer under the Health Safety and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, but also under the general regulations, to prepare you for dealing with the range of briefs uses and building types an architect practising in Ireland may reasonably be expected to encounter.

With respect to every architect who has pursued a career in residential design, only doing private houses may not be enough to satisfy this requirement. You will probably need to show competence in relation to a commercial development, although several large apartment blocks or a complex or small to medium office buildings may be deemed sufficient, given the limited palette of work available here.

With particular regard to your recent posts CK, pointing the finger at Members of the RIAI and saying the older ones aren’t up to scratch is a fallacious argument in terms of establishing your competence. Merely saying “I’m not as bad as him” doesn’t mean you yourself have reached the required standard. You will be expected to prove you have reached the required standard before the Registration Board or a Court of Law should you be taken there as a consequence of continuing to practise as an architect without being Registered.

The issue you most clearly fail to win on is the issue of Continuous Professional Development, which must be followed by every professional, precisely to keep up to date with current requirements. Go to the RIAI website this evening or whenever and take a look at the various CPD courses they are currently running for Members.

ONQ.

What makes you believe that I do not? I have a long list of MRIAI design work in breach of the Building Regulations… I enjoy checking and correcting their work as it comfort me in my belief that my skills are as good as theirs (let stay modest)… I have many exemples, such as 10 houses in Lucan, Co. Dublin, which do not comply with part K of the Building Regulations… An extension in Co. Meath which was issued with an opinion for exemption from planning permssion when it should not… I have a long list you know… How is it that you do not?…

There is this RIAI protectionism pretending that their members are the only one competents… But this is not the truth…

Whatever you pretend I am producing quality services… As I already said, I believe that my clients have more options with my services than with the services of a MRIAI… I am also producing design work that suit them first… Many MRIAI see the glory of their design before the wishes of their clients… How many people told me about some MRIAI, who were completely out of touch with their brief… Young Architects who are willing to create an exceptional building that will be talked about when the clients just wanted a conventional extension in harmony with the existing dwelling…

You want me to believe that because some MRIAI passed an exam 20 years ago they are still today up to the task of the new regulations and professional standards?

Why do you question my skills? Why shouldn’t I be allowed to specialize in residential development like many MRIAI do?

90% of my projects are residential… Some of my projects are small creches, small offices and small commercial buildings… Can you tell why would my clients be more satisfied if I learn by heart public contracts that I will never use? Why would they be safer if I am aware of Health & Safety Regulations for high rise buildings?

If I have a client willing to use my services for the creation of a small stadium tomorrow, I will gather all the relevant documentation for planning, fire safety, building regs and so on… But I never design a stadium before, and I admit that I would need to work days and nights for the challenge… However, I know where to find the relevant documents and I have been successful with similar challeges before…

The fact is that I keep up to date with regulations and standards relevant to the work that I produce… I wish that all MRIAI would do the same…

@onq wrote:

CK,

The issue you most clearly fail to win on is the issue of Continuous Professional Development, which must be followed by every professional, precisely to keep up to date with current requirements. Go to the RIAI website this evening or whenever and take a look at the various CPD courses they are currently running for Members.

ONQ.

Please do not make me laugh… Despite not being a member, in 2008 I was invited by the RIAI to some of their CPD (it cost me 2,000 Euros by the way)… I was amazed by the content of the lecture… I learn much more reading appropritate litterature and it cost me much less…

Those CPD do not even include an exam… The tea and the biscuits are good so…

@CK wrote:

The monstruous fees requested to pass the exam represent a financial selection that is unjustified. I took contact with institutes around the world and also institutes of other professions. None are asking for such fees to apply for membership through experience.

Nobody is realy checking how is the RIAI implementing the registration procedure and that is a problem… I think that this is not only my opinion…

I can only speak of the UK procedure, they do not offer the same technical assessment based on experience as Ireland now does. The only exception is if you are a distinguished overseas ‘architect’.

I think €10,000 is pretty cheap considering the amount of non paid education it takes to qualify.

Mark Stephens RIBA MRIAI

@markstephens wrote:

I can only speak of the UK procedure, they do not offer the same technical assessment based on experience as Ireland now does. The only exception is if you are a distinguished overseas ‘architect’.

I think €10,000 is pretty cheap considering the amount of non paid education it takes to qualify.

Mark Stephens RIBA MRIAI

Hi Mark,

The Institute of Engineers in Ireland are charging 50 euro to assess the applicant eligibility for the examination… The ARAE charges 2,000 Euro…

I contacted the ARB in Ireland… I chalanged their procedure for registration because no application form was available for registration through experience as stated in Section 4)1)b) of the Architects Act 1997…

I was told that the procedure for registration was not fully completed and that for this reason the route for registration as per Section 4)1)b) of the Architects Act 1997 was not yet published on the ARB website… I knew that Institues are sometimes slow to react, but this was last year, about 12 years after the enforcement of the Act…

I was then asked to prepare a portfolio and an essai to defend my position… I have not done so because I am resident in Ireland working only localy within the Leinster area…

With regard to your position about 10,000 euro being cheap for an exam compared to university fees… First the total amount (non including lectures) is 11,500 euro not 10,000 euro… Second I think that education should be free and not in anyway related to your financial situation…

@CK wrote:

The monstruous fees requested to pass the exam represent a financial selection that is unjustified. I took contact with institutes around the world and also institutes of other professions. None are asking for such fees to apply for membership through experience.

…

Hi – here’s my two penneth worth:

The UK does not have a ‘membership through experience’ technical assessment. You would need to have exemption from Part 1 and 2 (education in a predominantly architectural course) before you would be allowed to take the Part 3 exam. This would then allow you to register (after passing the part 3 exam) with the ARB. The only exceptions to this would be overseas ‘distinguished’ ‘architects’.

The fee the RIAI charges for the technical assessment is fair and if anything too cheap bearing in mind the loss of wages that being in 3rd level education for 5 years would entail.

Mark Stephens RIBA MRIAI

@markstephens wrote:

Hi – here’s my two penneth worth:

The fee the RIAI charges for the technical assessment is fair and if anything too cheap bearing in mind the loss of wages that being in 3rd level education for 5 years would entail.

Mark Stephens RIBA MRIAI

Hi Mark,

Not everyone has the opportunity of attending full time education. Lets not delve into the particular circumstances but can we agree that there are some who for a variety of reasons cannot, so why is there no part time course. So it will take 9 years not 5 and if they are working in the field as well is that not the best of both worlds.

Architecture and the Architectural profession of which I class myself a member are an elitist group of individuals generally, although there are a few exceptions. Like Solicitors and Barristers, Architects have no difficulty justifying huge fees for often mediocre work.

So I am not surprised to see you attempt to justify the extortionate fee being charged by your club for non-members to become registered Architects. The R.I.A.I. should never have been made the statutory body, this was a mistake of gargantuan proportions and may yet be the undoing of the R.I.A.I. the law suits that will surely flow from this decision will embroil your club in costly litigation as well as the Minister who made the decision.

I have long known that the R.I.A.I. have wanted to have complete control of the Architectural Profession and regardless of what you say the actions of your club clearly show that they consider only their members as competent. I know a number of their members who not only could they not design a dog house they could not see it build either but as long as their fee was paid they would issue the cert of compliance.

Naughty naughty.

@CK wrote:

And so have you…

I am in a similar enough position to yours in that I too am required to Register and I will have a difficulty in assembling the information to do so because of the combination of the length of time I have been practising post-graduate [20 years next June] and the practices people have adopted in destroying documents.

These have arisen due to (i) the onerous data retrieval requirements of Data Protection Act (ii) the 6-year statute of limitations general offences and (iii) the 12 year limitation of liability in work certified under seal. If its more than 12 years old, you’ll be lucky to find anything outside your own file records.

I am taking a pro-active attitude towards the problems I face because there is nothing to gain by complaining. My wife will find that particularly ironic 🙂

ONQ.

@Solo wrote:

(smip)
I know a number of their members who not only could they not design a dog house they could not see it build either but as long as their fee was paid they would issue the cert of compliance.

Solo,

I know of MRIAI’s like that too, but any inference that they are representative of the profession isn’t a fair one. If you specialise in dealing with compliance work you will run into more of the dregs, just as if you become a policeman you will meet a lot of criminals. Perpetrators only make up about 10% of any population.

If you really want to see rogue architects, MRIAI’s or otherwise, being held to account then you should support the Registration process fully. A real threat of becoming de-registered and/or prosecuted is the only thing likely to motivate them to improve their game. After all the promises of consumer protection the RIAI have made there will be no bolt-holes available for transgressors whether they are RIAI Members or not.

This can only lead to an improvement of the profession over time. And we can all improve.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

What makes you believe that I do not?

I didn’t say I believed you do not.
I suggested you should be up to speed because you were suggesting older archtiects might not be and we were commenting on the assessment process.

I have a long list of MRIAI design work in breach of the Building Regulations…
I enjoy checking and correcting their work as it comfort me in my belief that my skills are as good as theirs (let stay modest)… I have many exemples, such as 10 houses in Lucan, Co. Dublin, which do not comply with part K of the Building Regulations… An extension in Co. Meath which was issued with an opinion for exemption from planning permssion when it should not… I have a long list you know… How is it that you do not?…

I do. But if the assessment is about me, merely pointing the finger at Members of RIAI who don’t match my level of competence doesn’t make my level of competence any better.

There is this RIAI protectionism pretending that their members are the only one competents… But this is not the truth…

There is a thing you have to remember about people with existing positions – you have to honour them.

Whatever you pretend

I’m not pretending anything – I have been as frank with you asanyone else I have exchanged views with online.

I am producing quality services… As I already said, I believe that my clients have more options with my services than with the services of a MRIAI… I am also producing design work that suit them first… Many MRIAI see the glory of their design before the wishes of their clients… How many people told me about some MRIAI, who were completely out of touch with their brief… Young Architects who are willing to create an exceptional building that will be talked about when the clients just wanted a conventional extension in harmony with the existing dwelling…

Must be something to do with this weird notion that archtiects can design… 😀
Look, CK, some projects you have a chance to realise something amazing and you are inspired to go for it, others put food on the table. Its human nature. Often its the planners that are the greatest restriction but that’s changing thankfully. And most clients on whom I have put a bit of pressure on to do something different have been delighted in the end.

You want me to believe that because some MRIAI passed an exam 20 years ago they are still today up to the task of the new regulations and professional standards?

Here you go again with this old canard. I graduated in June 1990 and I am up to date – well as of last week anyway – the legislature might have stuck something in over the weekend. Case in point. I did a Fire Cert last summer and the F.O. rang me to discuss a standard I had include that he wasn’t familiar with – it had been updated three weeks previously. He had known it was being reviewed but hadn’t known it was in yet…

Why do you question my skills? Why shouldn’t I be allowed to specialize in residential development like many MRIAI do?

Two different questions CK. Anyone can question anyone else’s skills. I’m saying that you need a good overview of issues that a competent professional may have to deal with but you keep shooting yourself in the footwith comments like:
“Why should I learn about contract for public works if I do not intend to carry out public design? I understand that it is important for an academic who has not yet found his way to know any type of contracts because the person needs to keep all doors open…”
That’s not specialization, CK. Specialization is knowing enough about the GCCC contracts to advise your client on their use, but using the RIAI Forms for most of your work.

90% of my projects are residential… Some of my projects are small creches, small offices and small commercial buildings… Can you tell why would my clients be more satisfied if I learn by heart public contracts that I will never use? Why would they be safer if I am aware of Health & Safety Regulations for high rise buildings?

You’re making excuses for your lack of knowledge on something a competent architect should know just as previously he should have been familiar with the GDLA Form even if he never got to use it. You should also know enough about design build contracts to comment on them too, as well as other forms of contract. And if you want to be taken seriously in Britain, you better know the Joint Contract’s Tribunal Forms well.

If I have a client willing to use my services for the creation of a small stadium tomorrow, I will gather all the relevant documentation for planning, fire safety, building regs and so on… But I never design a stadium before, and I admit that I would need to work days and nights for the challenge… However, I know where to find the relevant documents and I have been successful with similar challeges before…

I accept your comment in principle and indeed I watched a competent MRIAI do just as you described when dealing with the Neilstown Stadium back in the 1990’s, but you’re not asked to know specialist building types such as hospitals. You’re asked to have experience of complex, multi-disciplinary projects. This is why, even within an RIAI-registered practice you may not get all the experience you need to pass the Part III exam unless you ask to monitor projects AND they have such large projects on.

The fact is that I keep up to date with regulations and standards relevant to the work that I produce… I wish that all MRIAI would do the same…

You need to push your envelope and gain a wider range of experience. This won’t be the last time you hear this CK – here or elsewhere, I’m afraid.

🙁

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Solo,

If you really want to see rogue architects, MRIAI’s or otherwise, being held to account then you should support the Registration process fully. A real threat of becoming de-registered and/or prosecuted is the only thing likely to motivate them to improve their game. After all the promises of consumer protection the RIAI have made there will be no bolt-holes available for transgressors whether they are RIAI Members or not.

ONQ.

Hi,
Thank you for your comment. I accept your position but unfortunately find that I do not agree with it. Pre-registration there were a number of existing checks and balances in place. The competition authority were in the main happy with the architectural profession and how it was run.. They did however express reservations with regard to the registration process and they believed as do I that the RIAI should not be the statutory body but a completely independent body (self funding) set up.

The RIAI have started to operate the register at a time when they do not have any facilities in place to register all who qualify for registration. They also embarked upon a campaign of advertising to make the public aware of the new register knowing full well that only their own members could be registered.

Is this the face of our new unbiased administrative body. Wake up and smell the coffee. The RIAI have and only ever had the interests of their own members at heart. They believe that only qualifications accepted by them ie 5 years full time education as acceptable. What is wrong with a 9 year part time course which incidentally does not exist in Ireland.

I have never had a desire to join their (RIAI) ranks and still do not. Registration if it will improve the quality of practitioner and give greater assurances to the public may yet prove to be a good thing. I cannot accept that the RIAI are to be the statutory body the obvious conflicts of interest are just too great to be overcome properly.

There are I accept avenues for Architects not presently accepted by the RIAI to be accepted however; the practicalities of administering the Technical Assessment Process will eventually lead to a High Court challenge and then I believe the baby will end up being thrown out with the bathwater.

As some of my previous post may have indicated I have an interest in the law and how it works. It never ceases to amaze me just how our government and their army of advisers and legions of civil servants can cock up the drafting of legislation. They remind me of some of my developer clients who just always had to complicate a simple situation.

The drafting of this Act in regard to the registration of Title is a wreck waiting to happen and if our illustrious Minister and the Mandarins at the RIAI took a step back and look at the actual situation unfolding and with an ounce of backbone they would step up and correct this situation before it gets out of hand, because it will.

The really sad thing is that reflects on us all and we will all look bad, the RIAI in particular. I am not for registering yet, the register and all those on it will very soon be tainted by the actions of the RIAI and it’s membership. I do not wish to be associated with that I have standards to keep up.

sorry hit post button twice.

@onq wrote:

Solo,

If you really want to see rogue architects, MRIAI’s or otherwise, being held to account then you should support the Registration process fully. A real threat of becoming de-registered and/or prosecuted is the only thing likely to motivate them to improve their game. After all the promises of consumer protection the RIAI have made there will be no bolt-holes available for transgressors whether they are RIAI Members or not.

ONQ.

onq,

It is probably your will to register that is motivating your argument…

however your opinion above is realy biased… 2 registration bodies would have been much more efficient to insure fair competition and better standards…

The RIAI claims that most of the complaints that they receive from the public are against non-registered… But I had a few complaints against some of their members; one was about a breach of employment contract and another one about a certificate of exemption from planning permission that should not have been delivered… In both cases the RIAI failled to take action against their members, in the contrary it seems that they were protecting them…

@onq wrote:

–

Here you go again with this old canard. I graduated in June 1990 and I am up to date – well as of last week anyway – the legislature might have stuck something in over the weekend. Case in point. I did a Fire Cert last summer and the F.O. rang me to discuss a standard I had include that he wasn’t familiar with – it had been updated three weeks previously. He had known it was being reviewed but hadn’t known it was in yet…

ONQ.

onq, the fact is that the RIAI pretends that only registered architects have the skills… They advertise this way, they influence the public this way… I am just saying that it is not true… That many of their members are not up to the task… Some of their staff are…

Hey CK , theres another arrogant Frenchman out there who believes he is above the rules but somehow has gotten away with it thus far ( a well known ‘footballer’ ) …maybe you two can get together sometime over a croissant and a cafe au lait and complain that its all so unfair

@onq wrote:

Two different questions CK. Anyone can question anyone else’s skills. I’m saying that you need a good overview of issues that a competent professional may have to deal with but you keep shooting yourself in the footwith comments like:
“Why should I learn about contract for public works if I do not intend to carry out public design? I understand that it is important for an academic who has not yet found his way to know any type of contracts because the person needs to keep all doors open…”
That’s not specialization, CK. Specialization is knowing enough about the GCCC contracts to advise your client on their use, but using the RIAI Forms for most of your work.

onq,

ONQ.

My first experience in an architectural practice was in Paris, rue du Chevaleret, next to the building of “L’armee du Salut”, Design by Lecorbusier…

At the time this was a small practice with 6 staffs and myself as a trainee… This practice specialised with hospital buildings… They have now 3 offices in France, one in Belgium and one in Poland, they have design projects worldwide… This practice was never involved with anything else than hospital new built, extensions and refurbishment… This is a practice of architects, but they could not advise any of their clients on how to obtain planning permission for a country house in CO. Kerry…

If I have the opportunity to be involved with a public projects, I will work days and nights on public contracts, but most of all, I will employ a staff with experience in this area… My clients today are not from the public sector…

@onq wrote:

You’re making excuses for your lack of knowledge on something a competent architect should know just as previously he should have been familiar with the GDLA Form even if he never got to use it. You should also know enough about design build contracts to comment on them too, as well as other forms of contract. And if you want to be taken seriously in Britain, you better know the Joint Contract’s Tribunal Forms well.

You need to push your envelope and gain a wider range of experience. This won’t be the last time you hear this CK – here or elsewhere, I’m afraid.

🙁

ONQ.

I am not making excuses for my lack of knowledge… I believe in specialisation… The reson for me to have specialised within small residential projects and others is related to the fact that I have not been in a position to register…

I was involved on large projects as an employee between 1993 and 2000. I have experience on large and medium size projects in France and the UK, such as schools, hospitals, appartments, warehouse, offices… However, on these types of projects the team are structured with directors, projects architects, design architects, technicians and CAD architects… It is not small practices which are involved with large projects… I never had the position of a project architect because this level was restricted to registered architects… I was even in breach of the British Architects Act 1997 when employed as per my pay slip as a design or CAD architect…

It is very hypocrite from you to pretend that if I had learnd by heart GDLA contractual doc, it would have changed my future…

It is also very strange that you defend the misconceived idea, that architecture is related to the size of a project… Why should the word architect be restricted to professional involved with medium or large size development… I thought that architecture was a matter of quality not a matter of size…

@Rourke wrote:

Hey CK , theres another arrogant Frenchman out there who believes he is above the rules but somehow has gotten away with it thus far ( a well known ‘footballer’ ) …maybe you two can get together sometime over a croissant and a cafe au lait and complain that its all so unfair

Wrong Forum

@CK wrote:

onq,

It is probably your will to register that is motivating your argument…

That’s a shallow ad hominem and not worthy of a professional. For all I know I may have to shut up shop and emigrate like so many of my colleagues. A terrible end result for a career spanning twenty years here.

however your opinion above is realy biased… 2 registration bodies would have been much more efficient to insure fair competition and better standards…

Doubling beaurocracy as a means to efficiency? Is this a French idea? We can’t even get a definitive on who controls the level fo water in the Shannon and you want TWO REGISTRATION BODIES??!! Get real CK…

The RIAI claims that most of the complaints that they receive from the public are against non-registered… But I had a few complaints against some of their members; one was about a breach of employment contract and another one about a certificate of exemption from planning permission that should not have been delivered… In both cases the RIAI failled to take action against their members, in the contrary it seems that they were protecting them…

I cannot comment on the RIAI complaints procedure as I have never formally referred an MRIAI on a complain, but John Graby was up-front about the numbers they receive annually. 80% non Members implying 20% Members. I don’t know what the demographic is in terms of age of office size and I possess no details on the complaints.

I understand that one of the consequences of the RIAI coming into the public domain so prominently is that they are no longer a private organization acting on behalf of their Members – both in terms of representation and regulation. As someone who’s served on a residents association for several years I know the kind of balancing act that involves and its not goign to be easy.

They RIAI must now assess and regulate the entire profession – a huge task at the best of times and these times are the worst the profession has faced in Ireland for a long time, certainly since the fifties and perhaps since the foundation fo teh State.

The Registrar will face a lot of hard decisions against people he has personal relations with and I wouldn’t want to have his job for love nor money.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

I am not making excuses for my lack of knowledge… I believe in specialisation…

What you describe is not “specialisation” – its called “learning the bare minimum” – live with it and stop trying to put the gloss on it that you’re tailoring your knowledge to your client base.

The reson for me to have specialised within small residential projects and others is related to the fact that I have not been in a position to register…

Is it not the other way around? Not having been exposed – as a recognised architectural graduate – to projects of appropriate levels of complexity and difficulty – is this not what has limited you to residential work?

I was involved on large projects as an employee between 1993 and 2000. I have experience on large and medium size projects in France and the UK, such as schools, hospitals, appartments, warehouse, offices… However, on these types of projects the team are structured with directors, projects architects, design architects, technicians and CAD architects… It is not small practices which are involved with large projects… I never had the position of a project architect because this level was restricted to registered architects… I was even in breach of the British Architects Act 1997 when employed as per my pay slip as a design or CAD architect…

CK, you may have just buried yourself on this forum. If you weren’t a graduate architect or equivalent when working in these offices on the projects on which you claim to have had experience then it won’t count. Period.

It is very hypocrite from you to pretend that if I had learnd by heart GDLA contractual doc, it would have changed my future…

If what you’ve just admitted about the level you were engaged at is true, even the ability to recite the GDLA backwars from cover to cove while standing on your head juggling wouldn’t cut the mustard. A CAD architect isn’t necessarily an architect by formal qualification – you need to have graduated from a four or five year full time course in most EC conutries for that – and you should check the payslip again.

The usual term in Ireland is CAD Draughtsman or CAD Technician for more experienced persons. And no, the latter isn’t necessartily at the same level the same as a qualified Architectural Technician who can draw up details using AutoCAD. Regardless, working at a CAD station all day in a larger practice doesn’t expose you to anywhere near the level of experience and interaction you need to develop your professional competence to Part III level, certainly not within a two year period.

It is also very strange that you defend the misconceived idea, that architecture is related to the size of a project… Why should the word architect be restricted to professional involved with medium or large size development… I thought that architecture was a matter of quality not a matter of size…

Size matters because complexity matters and the level of responsibility is relevant to your ability to run a significant project, co-ordinating the production, checking, harmonization and dissemination of information to all concerned.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

(snip name-dropping, trainee experience and history of another practice)
If I have the opportunity to be involved with a public projects, I will work days and nights on public contracts, but most of all, I will employ a staff with experience in this area… My clients today are not from the public sector…

CK, saying you’re considering hiring an MRIAI may be the first intelligent thing you’ve posted today, but you need to stop making excuses for your lack of knowledge and get up to speed. Any competent draughtsperson can produce and lodge sufficient information to make a valid planning application. Exposing yourself to working with an MRIAI you will see the difference.

Offhand, I have worked with – either directly responsible to or alongside – around a dozen Members of RIAI and three highly competent Archtiectural Technicians who later became MRIAI’s having passed the gruelling RIAI Technician-to-Architect 2-year course. It is invaluable experience and a huge resource you can fall back on when the chips are down or you’re under pressure with work.

So whether its contract administration, knoweldge of contract law, health and safeyt regulations, building regualtions, experience of legal cases and arbitration, statutory approvals above the level of house applications or acting as team leader of a group of professionals on a complex project, you probably need to improve your game from where you are now but your comments here suggest you’re not hugely interested. That’s a pity.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

What you describe is not “specialisation” – its called “learning the bare minimum” – live with it and stop trying to put the gloss on it that you’re tailoring your knowledge to your client base.

ONQ.

Sorry onq but there you are just being nasty… I am still learning today but in relation with the work that I do in my practice… If I had an opportunity to work on public projects then I would learn about it… Every time I am involve with something new I do learn… I have no chance to be involved with public work, then I do not learn about it… This is as simple as that…

DO you also think that the French practice involved only with hospital buildings are learning the strict minimum?

@Rourke wrote:

Hey CK , theres another arrogant Frenchman out there who believes he is above the rules but somehow has gotten away with it thus far ( a well known ‘footballer’ ) …maybe you two can get together sometime over a croissant and a cafe au lait and complain that its all so unfair

This reference to Association Football is actually quite appropriate Rourke.

After all, haven’t FIFA been known to ‘adjust’ the rules to encourage a favourable outcome for their more ‘valued’ members?

Perhaps the RIAI should start seeding their members too, just in case any ‘smaller nations’ sneak onto the apple cart.

@onq wrote:

Is it not the other way around? Not having been exposed – as a recognised architectural graduate – to projects of appropriate levels of complexity and difficulty – is this not what has limited you to residential work?

CK, you may have just buried yourself on this forum. If you weren’t a graduate architect or equivalent when working in these offices on the projects on which you claim to have had experience then it won’t count. Period.

ONQ.

In France as in many other countries, we do not have parts I or II or III… There are formations, some listed in the EU Directive. Once you have the university degree there is one exam to be listed on the register… And that is it…

My master being a recongnised qualification but not listed in the EU directive, I needed to gain 10 years of experience to register with the French Institute…

I have 16 years post graduate experience…

@onq wrote:

If what you’ve just admitted about the level you were engaged at is true, even the ability to recite the GDLA backwars from cover to cove while standing on your head juggling wouldn’t cut the mustard. A CAD architect isn’t necessarily an architect by formal qualification – you need to have graduated from a four or five year full time course in most EC conutries for that – and you should check the payslip again.

The usual term in Ireland is CAD Draughtsman or CAD Technician for more experienced persons. And no, the latter isn’t necessartily at the same level the same as a qualified Architectural Technician who can draw up details using AutoCAD. Regardless, working at a CAD station all day in a larger practice doesn’t expose you to anywhere near the level of experience and interaction you need to develop your professional competence to Part III level, certainly not within a two year period.

ONQ.

onq,

I am trying to say that I do not have the experience of a project architect on large developments because I was never offered a position as such… However, in the UK, if you have been working there during the Blair government, there was some positions available with titles such as: “Projects architects”, “Design architects” “Site architects” and “CAD architects”…

The difference between the CAD architects and the CAD technician, is that one does only architectural work and hold a qualification in architecture… I have also been employed as an architect in the UK, working on residential projects… The fact is that my employers knew that I was not registered. They were themselves registered architects, with PI insurances, and it did not seem to bother them at the time that I was not registered…

Some of them, were deliberatly helping me to gain experience, and I thank them for that… Other were looking for good value as well as quality staff…

@onq wrote:

CK, saying you’re considering hiring an MRIAI may be the first intelligent thing you’ve posted today, but you need to stop making excuses for your lack of knowledge and get up to speed. Any competent draughtsperson can produce and lodge sufficient information to make a valid planning application. Exposing yourself to working with an MRIAI you will see the difference.

ONQ.

Stop your propaganda onq,

I have worked with DPLG, RIBA, RIAI, DESA, …. Architects from America, Australia, France, Ireland, England, Scottland, Wales, Germany, South Africa, and I may forgot some other nationalities…

What do you know about my skills for judging them?

In my university, the approach of architecture was regarded as a sensible one rather than a technological one… The idea is that architecture is first an Art, and like other arts it is involved with technologies of its time.

Architecture was regarded as a human science… some of the theoretical courses included psychological studies of space. We studied the notion of space related to architecture: “Urban Space, Rural Space, Living Space, Social Space, Public Space, Private Space,…” and so on….

Some other theoretical courses included, “history of architecture and design, relations between architecture and the industy, urbanisme (french for planning), environmental studies, …” and so on.

Some of the “Ateliers” French for Workshop I think, included technical drawings, 3d model making, CAD, and fine arts…

The project courses involved design work from sketches to construction drawings… Following a brief we had to go through all design procedures… As part of these courses we were also taught about health & saftey, contracts, insurances and issues such as tendering or working abroad…

The fact is that structural engineering and services were only taught as part of the project courses, and that none of the courses had a title: “Structural engineering” or “Buidling Services”. For this reason it was not listed in the EU directive. The architecture branch of the university is now closed….

I have more than a draughtsman qualification… You are just being nasty by pretending otherwise without any information…

@onq wrote:

So whether its contract administration, knoweldge of contract law, health and safeyt regulations, building regualtions, experience of legal cases and arbitration, statutory approvals above the level of house applications or acting as team leader of a group of professionals on a complex project, you probably need to improve your game from where you are now but your comments here suggest you’re not hugely interested. That’s a pity.

ONQ.

onq,

I did read the contracts for public works and I have copies in my PC… However, I am not interested to get into the details of these contracts because it will be useless to me and my clients….

Please try to understand that I am trying high-light the inconsistent requirements of the ARAE exam which requests that people in my situation pay 13,300 Euro and learn about issues which are completely irrelevant to my practice and my clients…

The fact is that many experienced architects registered abroad, can register and practice in Ireland without any exam, and without any knowledge of the Irish planning system, Irish contracts, Irish Building Regualtions and so on…. And that only because they have a certain qualification which is not even appropriate to work in the state… How can you support anything like that… Isn’t it obviously inequitable?

Registration as per the BCA 2007 does not make sense for protecting the public… Like Mark Stephens RIBA MRIA explained earlier… It is about protecting the interests of certain qualified individuals who have paid money and time to obtain a university degree…

Now do not get me wrong, I value education… But I think that it should be accessible to everyone and that univeristy degrees should not be used as a tool for social descrimination…

Hi, first post from me.

After reading through the discussion, I was about to bring up the subject of Architecture as an Art and the fact that no matter how many planning applications someone submits or hospitals they draw up or technical details they prepare there is the crucial difference of having studied toward creating ‘meaningful spaces’.

But you did mention CK that your studies have covered some of these more abstract areas of design and space. I don’t know the details of your case but I imagine it would be very frustrating to have your qualifications ignored on the basis of falling between two camps.

However, I can only speak of my experience with the RIBA rather than RIAI but there are routes by which someone with excellent technical knowledge, design skills aquired through personal study and demonstrable experience of working and designing in the field of architecture can become a member of RIBA by way of individual assessment.

I don’t see a problem with this. Having reached the professional level you mentioned someone in your position should contact the RIAI and pass their standards.

Otherwise with no regulatory body we have an unregulated system whereby the consumer can be taken for a ride by any cowboy with a computer. Even someone who has worked in an architectural practice for years, knows the building regs, can do fire certs and how to submit planning applications might think, “sure I’m an architect in all but name”. They are wrong.

I had to study for 3 years to get a grounding in the field. Take a year out to work in an office to gain experience. Then do a 2 year masters degree. Finally a year in an office whilst in the evenings preparing a case study project and also learning,

Business Management in Principle and Practice Bye-laws
Contract Documents, specialist consultants, and professional studies subjects
Contractual Law & Practice
Financial Management
Project Control
The Architectural Profession – ethics, standards and responsibility

– all in preparation for 6hrs of examinations.

After this I was only finally allowed to register as an Architect when I had passed an interview. If you had taken this almost 7 1/2 year route (the quickest possible by the way) would you not appreciate some distinction between yourself and a CAD technician?

I don’t know the details of your case but anyone who says “oh i’ve been in the office for year, I should be called Architect” in 90% of cases could not handle it if they were judged as an Architect and are actually unaware of the large gaps in their knowledge and that’s before we even touch design ability. It’s not a question of intelligence but that through 7years of study you are exposed to so much (yes a lot you will never need but you are familiar with it if it ever comes up) that you are in a much better position to serve your clients.

I’m also not here to defend the RIBA but it is not as some perceive it, an old boys club protecting its members. There are also non architect lay members to keep an even balance. In the UK membership of the ARB is required to use the title Architect. This body has a majority of lay members on the board (8 out of 15) to ensure fair representation.

The perceived problem of Architects ‘hogging’ the name eventually led to the Chartered Architect status to be introduced, similar to that of accountancy. The trouble is where do you stop. Is every guy with a calculator an Accountant and every girl with a computer an Architect?

Foreman Joe, If you want to be an Architect and Practice , then do the same as the rest of us as follows

Required points + Aptitude test + Interview with portfolio to indicate some kind of early promise

5 yrs Degree (min – many need 6 or 7 yrs or dont make it out at all and give up)

Practical post grad experience in an RIAI registered practice or foreign equivalent

Sit exam or undertake relevant self assessment route ( both are difficult , time consuming and costly with no guarantee of passing despite having spent 7-10 yrs plus to reach that that stage )

I’m proud of my qualification – attained through nearly 15yrs of consistent and often gruelling hard work , financial outlay and considerable sacrifice and im not happy with the idea that people with wishy washy qualifications and a few years doing 30m2 kitchen extensions or planning applications for dormer window additions think they can leap frog 5 or ten years and 50,000 quid ahead of me to undercut me and take bread from my table.

@Rourke wrote:

Foreman Joe, If you want to be an Architect and Practice , then do the same as the rest of us as follows

Required points + Aptitude test + Interview with portfolio to indicate some kind of early promise

5 yrs Degree (min – many need 6 or 7 yrs or dont make it out at all and give up)

Practical post grad experience in an RIAI registered practice or foreign equivalent

Sit exam or undertake relevant self assessment route ( both are difficult , time consuming and costly with no guarantee of passing despite having spent 7-10 yrs plus to reach that that stage )

I’m proud of my qualification – attained through nearly 15yrs of consistent and often gruelling hard work , financial outlay and considerable sacrifice and im not happy with the idea that people with wishy washy qualifications and a few years doing 30m2 kitchen extensions or planning applications for dormer window additions think they can leap frog 5 or ten years and 50,000 quid ahead of me to undercut me and take bread from my table.

Hear, hear! I think you speak for many of us on this forum sick of listening to the incessant ramblings on this topic.

@NevilleNeville wrote:

Hear, hear! I think you speak for many of us on this forum sick of listening to the incessant ramblings on this topic.

Good job no one has you in a headlock making you read post after post so…

ONQ.

@Rourke wrote:

(snip classical route)

(snip Part III Options)

I’m proud of my qualification – attained through nearly 15yrs of consistent and often gruelling hard work , financial outlay and considerable sacrifice and im not happy with the idea that people with wishy washy qualifications and a few years doing 30m2 kitchen extensions or planning applications for dormer window additions think they can leap frog 5 or ten years and 50,000 quid ahead of me to undercut me and take bread from my table.

Its happening all the time.

Worse, given the fact that 30-50% of fees can be charged to planning stage, and there are no restrictions on who can prepare and lodge a planning application [even lay people – shock, horror!] this looks set to continue

You also don’t have to be an architect to administrate a contract, manage a practice, staff an office, certify monies or certify completed works – so other sources of revenue has been tapped.

In fact there seems to be no specific service that architects provide that a competent person cannot provide – so long as they do not call themselves “architect” while they’re doing it.

Why then am I continuing to prepare for my Part III’s/Registration?

Its what I do.

ONQ.

But clients create meaningful spaces with architects…
Not just architects unless they bank rolling things…
Architects create average places too…

Anyway…

One tech can beat all the tects in the world for one project and together they can create mother nature…

lets see about that…

I have subconsciously elaborated my architecture on honesty and truth… I like design that reflect what they are instead of pretending… I like how the moderns’ minimalist forms tell the truth… But I also love the honesty of Venturi who clearly explain is figurative / decorative tendency…

However, regarding the architects registration I found only hypocrisy and deception… Part 3 of the BCA 2007 was supposely created to protect the public… The conversation on this board clearly demonstrate that in fact it is only implemented to protect the interests of some qualified individuals… I think that the architects who design the Ballymun Towers were registered… Obviously this was not enough…

Can someone explain why many architects registered abroad, can register and practice in Ireland without any exam, and without any knowledge of the Irish planning system, Irish contracts, Irish Building Regulations and so on…. And that only because they have a certain qualification which is not even appropriate to work in the state… How can someone with sense support anything like that?

@onq wrote:

Worse, given the fact that 30-50% of fees can be charged to planning stage, and there are no restrictions on who can prepare and lodge a planning application [even lay people – shock, horror!] this looks set to continue
.

I think this is being debated on another thread. My opinion is that there should be no restriction on who prepares a planning application as not every application requires “an educated designer”. The restriction, when it comes to architectural design, should be at the decision stage of the planning process. good design should be rewarded, bad design should be refused. The problem being that we have a planing system that cannot formulate the difference between good and bad design, mainly due to the lack of input from a professional with architectural background.

@onq wrote:

You also don’t have to be an architect to administrate a contract, manage a practice, staff an office, certify monies or certify completed works – so other sources of revenue has been tapped.
.

Should you have to be?
Are architects the sole purveyors of the ability to manage a contract? manage a practise?
staff and office? I think not. There are a myriad of different professions nowadays that all have the ability to do this ie project managers, construction managers, engineers, technologists etc
“Certify monies and certify completed works”. There are many who would purport that architects are not actually the best professionals to carry out these duties, quantity surveyors and architectural technologists being better qualified.

If your view above is that architects should be the only profession to carry out these duties then its hard not to argue against the “protectionism” argument being put forward by others.

personally i have no interest in becoming an Architect because i am quite happy with the work i am engaged to do. i am an architectural technologist and i am confident in my abilities to perform the duties required by my profession.

I do however have a huge issue if those in power decide that it is only registered architects that can perform duties commensurate to mine. Thats my biggest fear. Its not the BCA itself as it affects me minimally, but its the fall out from it and its interpretation by powers ignorant to its background. This exists currently in the dept of educations pre qualification rules for public works. It doesnt matter as to what the nature of the work is, and the degree of ‘design’ it requires. An RIAI registered architect or equivalent engineer must act as design team leader… even if the works proposed is the replacement of a roof!!

Time will tell as to the fallout.

Henno,

In responding to Rourke I was pointing out that despite all the educational grief he went through [which I have also gone through] there was no “lock” on the provision of architectural services, which might conceivably justify the time and money spent gaining the necessary education and experience.

I wasn’t making the point that ONLY architects SHOULD provide these services – that’s an argument for another day and another thread.

My very point was that other people could do things covered by the Part III’s quite legally, under other professional appelations – project managers, personnel managers, financial comptrollers, and the like.

I agree with you that standards of design should be set at planning stage. This is precisely the kind of external industry imposed requirement that solicitors have provided over the years in improving the level and quality of certification. Where do you think collateral warranties first arose?

However in relation to certification or monies or works, there is a hierarchy that good practice suggests should be followed.

The people certifying the design or built work comprising of certain elements of the building must be competent to certify those elements by virtue of their training.

For example I can do structural calculations and can specify beam sizes and wall thicknesses up ot a point, but I make a point of requesting the client to retain a structural and civil engineering consultant in relation to structural elements and drainage.

Engineers talk to engineers more easily I have found and I am happy to step aside and let them perform wel lfor the client. There are overlaps as you can see and on developments up to a certain size, I am sure a competent architectural technician or technologist can supply a competent service depending on his or her experience.

However in this country so far they may not have been afforded work on larger projects, or if they do get this kind of exposure, the tasks they carry out may be limited in scope. This is not me talking down to you – graduate architects seldom take the meetings senior level architects do, but they are brought along to “learn the ropes” of how to comport themselves with clients and fellow professionals and fit to the needs of the project.

You can also get demanding clients whose range of subject matter on design in incidental discussions would strain the best read and educated architect and discussing art or architecture is part of what they want from their professional and here, with the greatest respect, the technician gets swamped with input which he has not been trained to deliver.

In some regards its about a comfort zone for clients who want to feel that they have gotten the best their money can buy for a particular project. This is difficult to accept for smaller architects who might feel that the larger commercial firm has compromised its design principles or their professionalism to curry favour with their clients, but this is part of the range of services on offer in the industry.

You’ll note I’m not making judgement in what I said to Rourke or what I’m saying to you – this is just the way things are in my experience and it seems they’ll say this way.

In some ways therefore the arising of the architectural professional came about because of the demands of clients [the market] for someone more than a competent builder to discuss projects with.

They didn’t want to know about the best way to hold up the roof or even about which slimmest structural member could do this. They wanted to discuss the benefits of including something they’d seen on their grande tour of Europe with someone who understood design principles well enough to offer meaningful comment back.

This is where the 20th century exposion of styles and “isms” with all their various pre-fixes and suffixes have distanced clients from architects – sometimes its hard for clients to find an architect who designs in the way they like and it can be difficult for archtiects to work with clients whose range of experiecne of design is limited. Woe betide clients if they get in with a designer who isn’t on their wavelength.

And so the horror stories of arrogant architects and unimaginative clients get fostered and fester while a saner approach by a competent tachnician /technologist or architect who places service to the client ahead of making his mark in design offers hope to the person who’s paying for the whole thing.

BTW Henno, when you say you’re a technologist, do you mean as in the Chartered Technician sense over in England?

ONQ.

@missarchi wrote:

But clients create meaningful spaces with architects…
Not just architects unless they bank rolling things…
Architects create average places too…

Anyway…

One tech can beat all the tects in the world for one project and together they can create mother nature…

lets see about that…

I have been online in one form or another for 12 years and I have no clue what you just said.

Help.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

I have subconsciously elaborated my architecture on honesty and truth… I like design that reflect what they are instead of pretending… I like how the moderns’ minimalist forms tell the truth… But I also love the honesty of Venturi who clearly explain is figurative / decorative tendency…

G’wanourradah! Drop a few more names CK. Impress me.

However, regarding the architects registration I found only hypocrisy and deception… Part 3 of the BCA 2007 was supposely created to protect the public… The conversation on this board clearly demonstrate that in fact it is only implemented to protect the interests of some qualified individuals… I think that the architects who design the Ballymun Towers were registered… Obviously this was not enough…

YOUR conversation on this board purports to show this view. Mine says exactly the opposite and clarifies why only some individuals were automatically registered.

Can someone explain why many architects registered abroad, can register and practice in Ireland without any exam, and without any knowledge of the Irish planning system, Irish contracts, Irish Building Regulations and so on…. And that only because they have a certain qualification which is not even appropriate to work in the state… How can someone with sense support anything like that?

According to my correspondence with the RIAI this may not be the case. Foreign nationals coming here to provide archtiectural services may be required to work with an established firm for two years to become familar with the legislative and contractual framework within which they are supposed to operate in Ireland. I understand this is current practice in Australia. I also understand that in the United States, because of different statutes from one state to another, architects holding a license to practise in one state cannot set up a practice in another state.

FWIW

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

According to my correspondence with the RIAI this may not be the case. Foreign nationals coming here to provide archtiectural services may be required to work with an established firm for two years to become familar with the legislative and contractual framework within which they are supposed to operate in Ireland. I understand this is current practice in Australia. I also understand that in the United States, because of different statutes from one state to another, architects holding a license to practise in one state cannot set up a practice in another state.

FWIW

ONQ.

Well… Do not believe all what the RIAI tells you onq… Read Section 15 of the BCA 2007… Nothing request foreign registered architects to practice during 2 years in the state prior to their registration in Ireland… It is more or less the same all over Europe… Here is the relevant part:

(2) The entry of a person’s name in the register pursuant to
subsection (1) (other than paragraph (f) thereof) may be subject to
the Admissions Board being satisfied that the person applying for
registration pursuant to that subsection has a knowledge of language
necessary for practising architecture in the State.
(3) In relation to an application for registration pursuant to
subsection (1) (other than paragraph (f) thereof), the Admissions
Board may seek verification of documents furnished to it in
accordance with Article 50 of the Directive.
(4) A person who is registered pursuant to subsection (1) (other
than paragraph (f) thereof) or section 16 shall use the professional
title — “architect”.
(5) The Admissions Board shall make a decision on whether or
not to register an applicant pursuant to subsection (1) (other than
paragraph (f) thereof) as quickly as possible and, in any event, within
3 months after the date of submission of the completed
documentation by the applicant to the Board.

@onq wrote:

G’wanourradah! Drop a few more names CK. Impress me.

YOUR conversation on this board purports to show this view. Mine says exactly the opposite and clarifies why only some individuals were automatically registered.

However, regarding the architects registration I found only hypocrisy and deception… Part 3 of the BCA 2007 was supposely created to protect the public… The conversation on this board clearly demonstrate that in fact it is only implemented to protect the interests of some qualified individuals… I think that the architects who design the Ballymun Towers were registered… Obviously this was not enough…

FWIW

ONQ.

onq,

if you were honest on this subject, you would admit that the public / consumers have not been protected at all by the registration of architects… And that the only one who gained from Part 3 of the Act, are those who could register….

@Rourke wrote:

Foreman Joe, If you want to be an Architect and Practice , then do the same as the rest of us as follows

Required points + Aptitude test + Interview with portfolio to indicate some kind of early promise

5 yrs Degree (min – many need 6 or 7 yrs or dont make it out at all and give up)

Practical post grad experience in an RIAI registered practice or foreign equivalent

Sit exam or undertake relevant self assessment route ( both are difficult , time consuming and costly with no guarantee of passing despite having spent 7-10 yrs plus to reach that that stage )

I’m proud of my qualification – attained through nearly 15yrs of consistent and often gruelling hard work , financial outlay and considerable sacrifice and im not happy with the idea that people with wishy washy qualifications and a few years doing 30m2 kitchen extensions or planning applications for dormer window additions think they can leap frog 5 or ten years and 50,000 quid ahead of me to undercut me and take bread from my table.

Rourke, this is exactly the attitude that proves my point about the registration board being set up solely to protect the RIAI and its members.
When the going was good and there was plenty of work to go around nobody gave a toss about ‘regulating’ the system.
Then, as things began to slow down, it suddenly became a critical issue.
Coincidence? Unlikely.

Also, I’m sick of hearing architects justify themselves by relaying the education they had to ‘endure’ to become qualified practitioners.
If you decide to buy into a certain system of qualification, one that more closely resembles a fraternity initiation test than a 3rd level education, then that’s your own problem. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

@onq wrote:

Henno,

In responding to Rourke I was pointing out that despite all the educational grief he went through [which I have also gone through] there was no “lock” on the provision of architectural services, which might conceivably justify the time and money spent gaining the necessary education and experience.

I wasn’t making the point that ONLY architects SHOULD provide these services – that’s an argument for another day and another thread.

.

my bad… unfortunately i fear and foresee this coming down the line as a result of the BCA… the conspiracist in me views this as the endgame.

@onq wrote:

The people certifying the design or built work comprising of certain elements of the building must be competent to certify those elements by virtue of their training.

.

agreed.

@onq wrote:

In some ways therefore the arising of the architectural professional came about because of the demands of clients [the market] for someone more than a competent builder to discuss projects with.
.

we all know the history of the profession and how how it progressed(or regressed to some) from the status of master builder to the lay interpretation of architect, some see the dichotomy of design and technical as unnecessary and retrograde. i would differ in that view.

@onq wrote:

BTW Henno, when you say you’re a technologist, do you mean as in the Chartered Technician sense over in England?
.

yes, currently an associate status ACIAT pending completion of my POP record.

Why should a Registration Board for Architects protect those who are not Architects? The RIAI stands for Royal Institute of Architects not the ‘Royal Institute of Anything goes’. Ive made my point , can’t be bothered making it again. believe what you want .

@Rourke wrote:

Why should a Registration Board for Architects protect those who are not Architects? The RIAI stands for Royal Institute of Architects not the ‘Royal Institute of Anything goes’. Ive made my point , can’t be bothered making it again. believe what you want .

You haven’t made a point, you’ve missed it altogether.

The registration board isn’t supposed to be about protecting architects or non-architects, it’s supposed to be about protecting the consumer. That’s why I don’t believe the RIAI should be the regulator, it is not an unbiased organisation.

@Rourke wrote:

Why should a Registration Board for Architects protect those who are not Architects? The RIAI stands for Royal Institute of Architects not the ‘Royal Institute of Anything goes’. Ive made my point , can’t be bothered making it again. believe what you want .

The leitmotiv of registration was to protect the public… But in your post above, you agree that it is not implemented this way… Protection of architects interests is considered first…

In the context of my previous post “those who are not Architects” means those who want the benefits of Architectural Registration and the subsequent ability to practice without completing the required degree in Architecture, the supervised post grad training and the professional examination. CK – I wasnt referring to the general public you dumbass. Im not surprised you misinterpreted my post given your rather dubious command of the english language.

Your argument is weak so you play the “We who didnt have the privilidge of a University education care more about the poor downtrodden consumer than those elite professionals” card.

@Rourke wrote:

In the context of my previous post “those who are not Architects” means those who want the benefits of Architectural Registration and the subsequent ability to practice without completing the required degree in Architecture, the supervised post grad training and the professional examination. CK – I wasnt referring to the general public you dumbass. Im not surprised you misinterpreted my post given your rather dubious command of the english language.

Your argument is weak so you play the “We who didnt have the privilidge of a University education care more about the poor downtrodden consumer than those elite professionals” card.

Mind your language O’Rourke… Or leave the subject to polite and articulated contributors… You cannot talk about architecture as you talk about football…

Whatever, despite saying what you did not mean… The RIAI is defending architects interests before consumers interests… You were right without knowing it…

@Rourke wrote:

Your argument is weak so you play the “We who didnt have the privilidge of a University education care more about the poor downtrodden consumer than those elite professionals” card.

Do you not agree that the consumer should be protected?
After all, it is the consumer that puts the bread on your table in the first place.

And if your own argument was not so weak you would not have to resort to the ‘name-calling’ card. Dumbass.

@CK wrote:

onq,

if you were honest on this subject, you would admit that the public / consumers have not been protected at all by the registration of architects… And that the only one who gained from Part 3 of the Act, are those who could register….

In your previous post you managed to insert your own comments in the quotation box containing the extract for my previous post.

Then, in your post above you suggest that I am being dishonest in relation to the possibly benefits accruing ot the public from the registration of architects and that I think consumers are protected by the Building Control Act 2007.

I have not stated any such thing as this extract below from my post #177 in this thread shows;

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

I have no problem agreeing with someone posting facts. I have already admitted to the correction you pointed out above and I think we are on the same page now about Registration as opposed to Applying for Registration.

However for matters to fall out as you suggest, the test for Registration cannot be the Part III MRIAI standard, but something less. Is there any other standard that all would agree on. Would an MRIAI agree to sharing status with someone who hadn’t a good workign knowledge of planning, building control or health and safety legislation? I doubt it.

As for the whole Registratino process being anti-competitive, I don’t think its anti-competitive to set a high standard. I think I know what you mean though and I have to say I’m not sure I would have gone about this the same way myself if I were in the Minister’s position and the only intention was to protect the general public from rogue archtiects.

You cannot insure good service merely by protecting a title. You have to inspect all complaints and take action where the people concerned are clearly incompetent. An Architectural Ombudsman with a staff of twenty would have been able to do the job, together with more pro-active Building Control Officers, and a uniform standard of inspections. The inspection rates across the country are all over the place.

But I think that isn’t the only intention here. Read the vision document put out by the Minister’s office regarding the role of architecture in Ireland. They are looking for standards of excellence in design to be implemented, not merely for compliance with regulations and laws. This takes it out of the realm of people who can provide a competent service and into the realm of pure design. I think this is where its all going. I could be wrong.

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

If you’re going to launch ad hominems in my direction, at least base them on facts CK.

All you’ve done with your unfounded allegations is discredit yourself.

ONQ.

@Rourke wrote:

In the context of my previous post “those who are not Architects” means those who want the benefits of Architectural Registration and the subsequent ability to practice without completing the required degree in Architecture, the supervised post grad training and the professional examination.

Rourke,

The law prior to the Building Control Act 2007 defended the public interest very well in relation to rogue architects. The problem was there were few enough actual offences to act on that weren’t centred on the letter of appointment and the building contract, both adequately dealt with under Irish law.

Let’s all agree that people who styled themselves architects but weren’t and couldn’t provide a service to the public soon found themselves relegated to the land of one off tigeens and house extensions, with the blessing of planning officers and country managers who set no standards in this regard, because of course that wasn’t part of their job description. They couldn’t and didn’t create a menace to society in general evne though some of their more eye-watering offerings were capable of mass distraction of drivers who were unforutnate to have to pass them.

This low level of design involved, together with the proliferation of these one-off houses, arose because successive Ministers of the Environment before John Gormley simply had no agenda in relation to the very necessary requirement for good urban design at all levels from residential to office to industrial estates, from once off housing to public building. I suppose to the public eye that all began to change in terms of public works with one or tow excellent school projects and perhaps with some of the better designs for the new Garda stations that appeared up and down the country.

Since most of the people in the houses were okay with them, the complaints came mainly from middle income do-gooders and An Taisce members who disliked looking at anything other than sheep and rolling green hills on their runs from picking up Conor and Dervela from their private schools en route to their palatial reconstituted stone hives in Ballymoney. Most of the population didn’t suffer from looking at this work and certainly didn’t need to be protected from it.

Good design of more important commissions wasn’t sought after by the powers that be. Sometimes it seemed they didn’t understand good design, and guess what – that is a fact. The one factor that could have addressed this at source which has never, even now been properly implemented in my opinion, is choosing good people for the office of County Architect and County Building Control Officer. Apart from Jim Barrat in Limerick we saw little interest in the office and little clout in terms of designing Ireland Incorporated. Instead we ended up with estates and towns that were designed by roads engineers and infill urban developments that were designed by planning officers with only a passing relationnship to anything approaching individual building design in either discipline.

To lay all these disasters at the feet of rogue architects that the Building Control Act 2007 will protect us from is to miss totally the multiple causes of the problem and the complex interplay of power politics in local authorities that sees engineers regularly raised to become County Managers – invariably bull-headed males with little time for design in their agenda of Council power politics and cost management. The Building Control Act 2007 won’t protect us from the antics of these fools and its hugely disengenuous to suggest that it will improve the status of either archtiects or the buildings they design in their eyes.

It may over time raise up the standards of all archtiects, including those MRIAIs who need it, but this alone isn’t certain, and if Gormley is out in the next election, expect to see some backsliding as the well connected faux architects out there pull some strings with their back-slapping pals to get the definition of those entitled to automatically register expanded to include them. Not the technicians though, only the ones styling themselves architects who didn’t qualify. After all, who do you think they get to design their work? Too afraid to hire qualified architects in case their egos get damaged by contact with competent designers, they suck competent architectural technicians into their organization and trade on their skillls. Except that a good 25% of technicians are capable of goig on to become architects themselves, so the marriage is statistically uneasy at best, and the competent Archtiecural Technologist is making his presence felt in this country as well as in Britain.

Whether its the burgeoning numbers of Chartered Technicians, or the ring-fenced Registered Architects, the days of the unqualified success are drawing to a close unless their pals in the next government support their position. Watch this space.

ONQ.

@Rourke wrote:

Why should a Registration Board for Architects protect those who are not Architects? The RIAI stands for Royal Institute of Architects not the ‘Royal Institute of Anything goes’. Ive made my point , can’t be bothered making it again. believe what you want .

Rourke,

You have the right of it, but the Act has drawn fire from the way it grants automatic registration to Members of the RIAI, regardless of their current standard of competence.

It is being suggested that the Act unfairly fails to recognise the rights to practice accruing to persons who are not Members of the RIAI, that in effect it represents a weeding out process that existing RIAI Members are not being subjected to.

In that sense, to some, perhaps many, the body should be The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, representing everyone in the profession, with everyone providing architectural services being represented having a status and a voice in the way the profession is run and regulated.

To some, perhaps many, the perception is that it should NOT the The Royal Institute of the RIAI Members of Ireland.

There is a perception expressed by many people on this and other boards that the RIAI is only interested in – or fit to represent – its own Members and is not therefore fit to judge others. Personally I do not share this view – someone has to do the judging – but neither do I agree with bland dismissals like yours above. You are too quick to dismiss the rights of others Rourke, displaying an arrogance that seems endemic to some in the professions, architecture amongst them. I would be very worried if views like your were shared by anybody on the assessment board.

A brief example follows.

Dublin is dotted with plenty of poor or questionable designs by Members and non-Members alike. Suggesting protection for members of the public solely by protecting a title seems disingenuous and I don’t think this is what’s being suggested. I think what is suggested is that persons holding a protected title face censure from an independent review body and standards are raised throughout the profession and all boats rise. The Registration Board, with architects advising on standards and practice joined by lay persons representing the public interest seems both informed and independent enough to do this.

However even well balanced solutions may raise significant issues.

Prior to the Building Control Act 2007, persons who had provided architectural services for 10 years were deemed to have established certain rights and this was recognised by the legal profession who accepted their certificates. Acquired rights such as these are recognised under EU law. I’m not convinced that merely “allowing” such persons to apply to be vetted in a process set to MRIAI standards, and which may deny them their right to practice at the end of it, sufficiently recognises those rights.

A person might also need to have stayed long enough in one jurisdiction to establish rights under the 10-year rule – as opposed to simply working within the EU. Persons practising unqualified since May 2008 and possibly for up to 10 years previously may not have established such rights. They might also need to show that that they ahd provided such services independently to acquire an established right to practise independently. In other words, I’m not certain that someone working for another architect could establish such rights. I think he or she would have to have acted as the principal in a firm.

I don’t believe the Act should be (ab)used to steamroll over those who may have established rights in these terms from May 1998. For the Registration Body to fail to acknowledge these rights when they are placed before it in a formal submission would seem to depart from best practice and could be used by an applicant to make them appear monstrous and self-serving in a court of law.

This could tarnish the reputation of the fledging Registration Body in the eyes of the public and bring disrepute on the profession as a whole. Nobody would want this. Any politician associated with such a debacle might run a mile. Or not get re-elected in the next election. Or fail to see a design-led agenda be embraced as fully as it should be. The existing rules for the Public Procurement process already seem both draconian and weighed heavily on the side of larger firms so the availability of sufficient competition to drive down prices and ensure value is already limited in terms of costs. Parallels may be drawn with the registration process.

The difficult task facing the registration body is to make a determination regarding persons with such a history which reflects both their established rights and protects the public interest, should it need to be protected. Some of these practitioners may have achieved a certain level of competence, others may be chancers requiring immediate censure and a bar on practising in teh profession at all, never mind as architects. Achieving a balanced response to this will be no easy task, and with some of these perosn having considerable financial clout behind them, failing to get the balance right could prove to be costly for teh RIAI in financial terms as well as in terms of the credibility of the Registration process.

To those who are in thsi situation and thinking the Act is a blunt instrument, with only MRIAI’s or those of an equivalent standard deemed fit to call themselves Archtiects, there is some comfort in that the provision of architectural services is not limited to those using this title. So far, as Henno might say…

ONQ.

ONQ,

Registration did not change a thing with regard to one off houses… The only change is that some are able to do the job and call themselves architects when the others cannot use the title “architect”…

You are expert in turning the subject around… In what way is the public protected by registration? Only wealthy clients will be able to use registered architects and pay there large fees, but that was already the case before registration, wealthy clients were using MRIAI… Then nothing has changed on this level…

The fact is that you were not even aware that foreign registered architects from European countries are permitted to register in Ireland without examination despite the fact that building and planning legislation are very different from one European country to the other…

With part 3 of the BCA 2007 , non qualified and some qualified professionals with experience and knowledge of the Irish system cannot call themselves architect, but foreign professional with certain qualifications can do so despite Irish building and planning legislation not being part of their studies…

You were criticizing my use of the term “Technocracy” earlier in this thread… But still you defend blindly the RIAI and the Act without being able to explain why some professionals with years of experience in Ireland need to pass an exam on subjects that do not cover the scope of their services, when some other professionals without experience working in the State, without any knowledge of Irish building and planning legislation do not have to?

It seems that we really have to deal with a title here… In fact in some countries the title “architect” can be bought as you buy the title: “Baron”. I have worked with a Nigerian qualified architect who was registered with the RIAI for a while… He obtained his qualification in Ukraine. His country was doing some exchanges oil versus technology with Ukraine at the time. He obtained his master without any knowledge of the Russian or Ukraine language. It was exchange oil versus academic degrees…

I worked with this architect in Dublin as he migrated here with his family, I taught him about working here, but at 50 years old he was obviously out of touch with Irish standards… The fact is that in his country, buildings are not insulated; only Urban Buildings require planning permission, and bribes are making the rules… He is a nice person, and I done my best to help him, the problem was not related to him personally…

I think that as MRIAI you are denigrating experience in favor of academic qualifications… I recognize the merits of university education but I hate when academics are trying to gain rights that they do not deserve… I must admit that it is common in politic to lie and cheat… But for the sake of the profession we should stop protecting architects and instead start protecting good practice and honesty in architecture…

@CK wrote:

But still you defend blindly the RIAI and the Act without being able to explain why some professionals with years of experience in Ireland need to pass an exam on subjects that do not cover the scope of their services,

… But for the sake of the profession we should stop protecting architects and instead start protecting good practice and honesty in architecture…

CK,

i think you are contradicting yourself here.

The questions as to what an architect is is answered by ‘official journal of the european union’ L 255. This lists 11 skills expected by an architect. Any technical assessment will expect the applicant to show relevant skills.

Its not good enough to say that this technical assessment board will not look favourably on applicants who have ‘specialised’ into areas where all these skills are not applicable or necessary. That is not what architecture is. ‘Good practise and honesty in architecture is not forwarded by restricting your duties. Also, its not good enough to say your duties are restricted because of the work available to you.

I dont agree that the RIAI is not the appropriate registration body. I am happy that the Technical assessment board is made up of 8 members 5 being non-architects and 3 being architects.

i do agree that the fees are a ridiculous deterrent. Prospective applicants will, in general, have as much time, effort and money gone into the pursuit of their current career as graduate architects. Its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

@henno wrote:

CK,

i think you are contradicting yourself here.

The questions as to what an architect is is answered by ‘official journal of the european union’ L 255. This lists 11 skills expected by an architect. Any technical assessment will expect the applicant to show relevant skills.

Its not good enough to say that this technical assessment board will not look favourably on applicants who have ‘specialised’ into areas where all these skills are not applicable or necessary. That is not what architecture is. ‘Good practise and honesty in architecture is not forwarded by restricting your duties. Also, its not good enough to say your duties are restricted because of the work available to you.

I dont agree that the RIAI is not the appropriate registration body. I am happy that the Technical assessment board is made up of 8 members 5 being non-architects and 3 being architects.

i do agree that the fees are a ridiculous deterrent. Prospective applicants will, in general, have as much time, effort and money gone into the pursuit of their current career as graduate architects. Its disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

30.9.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 255/47 – These are the skills required:

(b) adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture
and the related arts, technologies and human sciences;

(c) knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of
architectural design;

(d) adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the
skills involved in the planning process;

(e) understanding of the relationship between people and
buildings, and between buildings and their environment,
and of the need to relate buildings and the spaces between
them to human needs and scale;

(f) understanding of the profession of architecture and the role
of the architect in society, in particular in preparing briefs
that take account of social factors;

(g) understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation
of the brief for a design project;

(h) understanding of the structural design, constructional and
engineering problems associated with building design;

(i) adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies
and of the function of buildings so as to provide them with
internal conditions of comfort and protection against the
climate;

(j) the necessary design skills to meet building users’ requirements
within the constraints imposed by cost factors and
building regulations;

(k) adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations
and procedures involved in translating design
concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall
planning.

Nothing stipulates in the list above that one cannot specialized in an apsect of architecture such as design or construction technologies. Nothing stipulate that one cannot specialize in one type of buildings such as private or public…

The object of the EU directive is the recognition of professional qualifications… There are paragraphs about alternative routes which are opened to interpretation… However, as the parts are interpreted by MRIAI in this country and similar bodies in other countries, self-trained architects or people like me who have a qualification which is not listed in the directive, have to climb mountains of administrative non-sense and sometimes horrible fees to obtain a chance to register…

Please do not think that I am defending the politicians from my country of origin, but at least in France, when they implemented registration, back in 1985, every established practitioner were permitted to continue practicing as before; it is only the creation of new practices that was regulated… It was a clever way to protect existing business, rewarding those who were not working on the black market, and in the same time protecting the practice of architecture, because “architect” in France is not a title. It is the practice of architecture which is legislated.

The problem with the EU directive is that it allows architects educated and registered in Spain to practice in Norway and vis versa… As if a registered architect from Spain would have more skills than a self-trained architects from Norway to design a building in Northern Europe…

@CK wrote:

ONQ,

Registration did not change a thing with regard to one off houses… The only change is that some are able to do the job and call themselves architects when the others cannot use the title “architect”…

And your point is…?

You are expert in turning the subject around… In what way is the public protected by registration? Only wealthy clients will be able to use registered architects and pay there large fees, but that was already the case before registration, wealthy clients were using MRIAI… Then nothing has changed on this level…

Are you implying you work for nothing?

The fact is that you were not even aware that foreign registered architects from European countries are permitted to register in Ireland without examination despite the fact that building and planning legislation are very different from one European country to the other…

The fact is CK I was engaged formally with the RIAI and the Commissioner on this issue six months ago.

With part 3 of the BCA 2007 , non qualified and some qualified professionals with experience and knowledge of the Irish system cannot call themselves architect, but foreign professional with certain qualifications can do so despite Irish building and planning legislation not being part of their studies…

As I have posted previously, I understand they will require to practise here under the supervision of a registered architect for a period.

You were criticizing my use of the term “Technocracy” earlier in this thread… But still you defend blindly the RIAI and the Act without being able to explain why some professionals with years of experience in Ireland need to pass an exam on subjects that do not cover the scope of their services, when some other professionals without experience working in the State, without any knowledge of Irish building and planning legislation do not have to?

Normally I stay away from ad hominems, but your level of English comprehension must be low if that is what you understand from my posts in this thread to date. I am on record as not being here to defend the RIAI. and if you’re going to refer back to earlier posts please cite the number. I cannot recall offhand criticising you for using the word “technocracy”.

It seems that we really have to deal with a title here… In fact in some countries the title “architect” can be bought as you buy the title: “Baron”. I have worked with a Nigerian qualified architect who was registered with the RIAI for a while… He obtained his qualification in Ukraine. His country was doing some exchanges oil versus technology with Ukraine at the time. He obtained his master without any knowledge of the Russian or Ukraine language. It was exchange oil versus academic degrees…

Architects working here must have independently forwarded evidence of their qualification from the school they graduated in to the Registration body .

I worked with this architect in Dublin as he migrated here with his family, I taught him about working here, but at 50 years old he was obviously out of touch with Irish standards… The fact is that in his country, buildings are not insulated; only Urban Buildings require planning permission, and bribes are making the rules… He is a nice person, and I done my best to help him, the problem was not related to him personally…

You’re saying you helped someone with a bought degree practise architecture here, is that it? Again, your point is what exactly?

I think that as MRIAI you are denigrating experience in favor of academic qualifications… I recognize the merits of university education but I hate when academics are trying to gain rights that they do not deserve… I must admit that it is common in politic to lie and cheat… But for the sake of the profession we should stop protecting architects and instead start protecting good practice and honesty in architecture…

I think you’ve got more than a comprehension problem CK. I have stated several times that I’m not an MRIAI. I have BOTH the required academic qualification AND almost 20 years experience post graduation and am currently PREPARING for registration. I am NOT lying about any of this. I have earned my qualification from a recognised five year full time course that is accepted in both DIR 85/384/EEC and DIR 2005/36/EC.

The definition of an Architect is someone who PROMOTES good practice and honesty in architecture.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

And your point is…?

I think that I already made my point here… You just do not want to admit the facts… Registration has not protected the public, but only some architects who are able to register…

@onq wrote:

Are you implying you work for nothing?

Where did I imply that? I am using contracts drafted with my solicitor and some issued by the law society of Irleand. This enable to offer more flexibility regarding the scope of my services. I do not charge a percentage of the fees but I offer services per hours. My clients decide what they want from me… I tell them their statutory rights and obligations and they take their decision on how to deal with it… Of course RIAI contracts do not give them such freedom because they are drafted considering the architects’ interests first… Many members of the public are aware of that. I have many clients who are baristers and solicitors, estate agents and tradesmen… They are interested by quality but not by certain non-sense as part of the RIAI contracts… However, I always give a choice to my clients, they can use the RIAI forms of contract if they wish too… The diference when using my services, is that they have the choice…
@onq wrote:

The fact is CK I was engaged formally with the RIAI and the Commissioner on this issue six months ago.

As I have posted previously, I understand they will require to practise here under the supervision of a registered architect for a period.

If this is true then the Act needs to be ammended… But I think that you were misled on this issue… The fact is that to become a member of the RIAI the architect will need working for a period of 2 years with a MRIAI, but not to practice as an architect… As soon as an application will be lodged for registration, the applicant will be by law authorised to use the title “architect”… This is true for every applicants…

@onq wrote:

Architects working here must have independently forwarded evidence of their qualification from the school they graduated in to the Registration body .

You’re saying you helped someone with a bought degree practise architecture here, is that it? Again, your point is what exactly?

I have help someone who was a member of the RIAI… It is working during 2 years with him that I became aware of his past… Anyway the problem was not related to him, but to the fact that in Ukraine, some schools of architecture have been giving away some degrees in exchange of oil… This is what I am aware of, and probably only the tip of the iceberg… The fact is also that many foreign architects who were qualified abroad do not have the skills to work in Ireland until they learn about Irish legislation… The automatic recognition of professional qualification as per the EU Directive 2005, is a non-sense… But still some architects who have worked here for years and know what they are doing, aren’t able anymore to use the title… This is call academic protectionism…

@onq wrote:

The definition of an Architect is someone who PROMOTES good practice and honesty in architecture.

ONQ.

Well I completely agree with your definition above onq. I wish all dictionaries would give the same…

@CK wrote:

I think that I already made my point here… You just do not want to admit the facts… Registration has not protected the public, but only some architects who are able to register…

Yeah, I can see all the protected architects on the street out side my house on the way to the dole office at the moment – they’re looking VERY protected, MRIAI’s, qualified non-Members, unqualified successes – in a happy place – NOT!!!

60% of the profession is nuked and the rest are chasing the fag ends of jobs which might see them into 2011 if they’re lucky, but after that there are 4 bleak years ahead for this sector. There will be fer fewer practices in Ireland at the end of that period, MRIAI or otherwise.

Where did I imply that? I am using contracts drafted with my solicitor and some issued by the law society of Irleand. This enable to offer more flexibility regarding the scope of my services. I do not charge a percentage of the fees but I offer services per hours. My clients decide what they want from me… I tell them their statutory rights and obligations and they take their decision on how to deal with it… Of course RIAI contracts do not give them such freedom because they are drafted considering the architects’ interests first… Many members of the public are aware of that. I have many clients who are baristers and solicitors, estate agents and tradesmen… They are interested by quality but not by certain non-sense as part of the RIAI contracts… However, I always give a choice to my clients, they can use the RIAI forms of contract if they wish too… The diference when using my services, is that they have the choice…

Your contract doesn’t protect them and the RIAI contract doesn’t protect its members per se. This is simply untrue. Contracts confer a benefit to both parties or else the validity of the contract can be questioned. Many firms request the RIAI contracts because they are tried, tested and comprehensive. Shorter forms have actually less flexibility, in fact offer less choice as to what you can do once underway, so the phantasm of “choice” you’re promoting solely refers to “choice of contract”.

But you’re forgetting that in addition to the Blue and Yellow forms, without and with quantities respectively, there are also the Pink and Short forms of contract available. Suggesting they don’t provide an appropriate level of choice seems to be without foundation.

All competent professionals offer their clients choice and advise them not only for their benefit but also on relation to their rights and obligations under the law. For example Health and Safety issues are a source of concern at the moment and most lay persons either don’t seem to know or don’t want to know – certainly they don’t seem to want to pay additional fees.

If this is true then the Act needs to be ammended… But I think that you were misled on this issue… The fact is that to become a member of the RIAI the architect will need working for a period of 2 years with a MRIAI, but not to practice as an architect… As soon as an application will be lodged for registration, the applicant will be by law authorised to use the title “architect”… This is true for every applicants…

You’re incorrect again CK and fudging the issue. We were talking about foreign nationals workign here and you were saying that they could do so – I was the one saying they would have to work under an MRIAI for two years under a Code. You’re inverting the logic of this.

The provision of archtiectural services is not limited, cannot in fact be limited by the Act as it stands. In fact by definition, Graduate Architects must be able to supply architectural services and this right isn’t restricted. How could it be? Ths issue is who can call themselves “Architect”.

I have help someone who was a member of the RIAI… It is working during 2 years with him that I became aware of his past… Anyway the problem was not related to him, but to the fact that in Ukraine, some schools of architecture have been giving away some degrees in exchange of oil… This is what I am aware of, and probably only the tip of the iceberg… The fact is also that many foreign architects who were qualified abroad do not have the skills to work in Ireland until they learn about Irish legislation… The automatic recognition of professional qualification as per the EU Directive 2005, is a non-sense… But still some architects who have worked here for years and know what they are doing, aren’t able anymore to use the title… This is call academic protectionism…

Sounds to me like you may be backpedaling about your “friend” who I understood from your previous post may have been masquerading here as an architect with a “bought” degree. If I understand this correctly then I have to ask 2 questions; –

1. Did you have a role in promoting him and allowing him to take jobs away from qualified and competent professionals?

2. If you did, how does helping someone of limited competence or with a bought degree work here protect the consumer or promote the profession?

3. If this scenario is correct, do you know how did this person become a member of the RIAI if he had a “bought” degree – was there no vetting process or did he get a free “pass”?

Now perhaps you wish to deny all these matters are relevant, so be it. But I would be VERY annoyed to find out that someone from an oil-rich country was working here as a Member of the RIAI when he hadn’t a qualification from a 4/5 year full time course.

Well I completely agree with your definition above onq. I wish all dictionaries would give the same…

Unless you clarify with some clear answers CK you’re assisting this guy seems to imply you’re not helping consumers or promoting the profession of architecture.

Over to you.

ONQ.

ONG,

Regarding the foreign architect… He obtained a valid qualification in Ukraine. However, I tryed to explained that at the time the dgrees were given away to foreign students as part of an exchange oil / technological knowledge… He was registered with the RIAI before I met him… He is 54 years old and was qualified about 25 years ago… It is working together that we became more familiar, friends… I do not want to give him troubles, because at least he was honest about his past. He now prepares a doctorate in sustainable energy within the building industry.

This particular exchange has probably stop now… However, more recently in South France, the head of a university of business was found guilty of selling degrees to chinese students… ANd there are probably many other monkey business of this type going on… I am trying to highlight the weakness of academical recognition…

With regard to to the registration of foreign architects… The Act stipulates that they can register in the State if they are resident in Ireland and also registered abroad in a country part of the World Trade Organisation… These architects would need experience working with a MRIAI if they wanted to become a member of the RIAI but not for registering as architects. Read the BCA2007 and the EU DIrective for professional qualification it is clearly stated in these documents.

Also, as per the EU directive for the recognition of professional qualification, a foreign European registered architect can apply for practicing in an other E.U. country on a temporary basis…

@CK wrote:

ONG,

Regarding the foreign architect… He obtained a valid qualification in Ukraine. However, I tryed to explained that at the time the dgrees were given away to foreign students as part of an exchange oil / technological knowledge… He was registered with the RIAI before I met him… He is 54 years old and was qualified about 25 years ago… It is working together that we became more familiar, friends… I do not want to give him troubles, because at least he was honest about his past. He now prepares a doctorate in sustainable energy within the building industry.

What are you actually saying here CK?

Did he get a valid degree?

OR

Did he get one of the degrees that “were given away to foreign students as part of an exchange oil / technological knowledge”

It has to be one or the other – which is it?

This particular exchange has probably stop now… However, more recently in South France, the head of a university of business was found guilty of selling degrees to chinese students… ANd there are probably many other monkey business of this type going on… I am trying to highlight the weakness of academical recognition…

Well good luck with that. because all you seem to be pointing out is your own complicity in assisting someone with a “bought” degree whom you say is a member of the RIAI.

I am trying to establish the facts here so I can lay a matter I am becoming more and more annoyed about before the Registration Board and have him struck off.

I am not going to compete in the market against unqualified successes who may have obtained their MRIAI status under false pretences.

I’m calling on you to stop waffling with this “he is- he is not” nonsense and state his situation clearly!

With regard to to the registration of foreign architects… The Act stipulates that they can register in the State if they are resident in Ireland and also registered abroad in a country part of the World Trade Organisation… These architects would need experience working with a MRIAI if they wanted to become a member of the RIAI but not for registering as architects. Read the BCA2007 and the EU DIrective for professional qualification it is clearly stated in these documents.

They will not be allowed register as Architects here until they have worked for two years with an MRIAI – that is my clear understanding from discussions with the RIAI. I’d be delighted if an RIAI member could comment on this as a matter of fact, and not conjecture or hearsay.

Also, as per the EU directive for the recognition of professional qualification, a foreign European registered architect can apply for practicing in an other E.U. country on a temporary basis…

I understand that he can provide architectural services, but cannot register and practiceindependently as an architect, but on this point alone I am not certain.

I am also uncertain what celebrity status brings to the table in terms of safeguarding the publci interest where foreign celebrity architects may be allowed to practice here.

Especially if they, like you went through a course which isn’t recognised in DIR 85/384/EEC or 2005/36/EC

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

They will not be allowed register as Architects here until they have worked for two years with an MRIAI – that is my clear understanding from discussions with the RIAI. I’d be delighted if an RIAI member could comment on this as a matter of fact, and not conjecture or hearsay.

ONQ.

The RIAI has to follow the BCA 2007 and the EU Directive… And as per these 2 legal documents, there is no need of 2 years experience in the state for an architect registered in another EU country to practice in Ireland. The only restriction is linguistic… The applicant must have a good understanding of the language of the country where he/she is seeking to practice…

This is the same in England, France, Germany and so on…

Now onq, you are not a member of the RIAI, you are seeking to register as an architect as per part 3 of the BCA 2007… I found it very unprofessional from you, not to have been through the BCA 2007 and the EU Directive in details…

Instead of learming documents that are useless for your practice and for yourself, you should consider reading in details more appropriate literature… This is common sense I think…

@onq wrote:

Well good luck with that. because all you seem to be pointing out is your own complicity in assisting someone with a “bought” degree whom you say is a member of the RIAI.
ONQ.

As I have already stated onq,

I became a friend of this person while working with him and I learnd about his past academical experience only when we started to have more trust in each others…

THis person was a member of the RIAI when I first worked with him… Why should I have challanged his qualification then? He has stopped practicing as an architect last year, because at his age, after 3 years of efforts, he admited that he could not adapt to Irish standards. He is now back to university…

You must understand that he is not an isolated case… He is a very honest person (can we say the same about you?)… He has behaved in line with the law… It is the Ukrainian governement, and the Ukainian school who have not….

How can you be so naive about these type of practices? All over the world these things are happening and I would be surprised that it is not happening in Ireland too; if not in the field of architecture, in other fields…

@CK wrote:

The RIAI has to follow the BCA 2007 and the EU Directive… And as per these 2 legal documents, there is no need of 2 years experience in the state for an architect registered in another EU country to practice in Ireland. The only restriction is linguistic… The applicant must have a good understanding of the language of the country where he/she is seeking to practice…

This is the same in England, France, Germany and so on…

Ehrm, nope. You’re wrong again.

Britain has the Architect’s Registration Board and requires persons practising there to have passed their Part III examination.

You cannot just wander into Britain and set up shop.

They’ve stopped recognising the MRIAI affix as equivalent to the RIBA affix.

Now onq, you are not a member of the RIAI, you are seeking to register as an architect as per part 3 of the BCA 2007… I found it very unprofessional from you, not to have been through the BCA 2007 and the EU Directive in details…

I have been through all the relevant documents – not just those two – and have read them in detail and have written to the RIAI, the Minister for the Environment as well as the EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy on these matters.

I have engaged with the relevant authorities at National and EU level.

Instead of learming documents that are useless for your practice and for yourself, you should consider reading in details more appropriate literature… This is common sense I think…

The law isn’t run on common sense CK and you’d at least need to do your research before you post on this subject again.

Talk to the RIAI

Talk to the Minister

Talk to the Commissioner

Then by all means come back and say your piece.

Until then, you’re the one who should “consider reading in details more appropriate literature”, CK.

I already have.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

As I have already stated onq,

I became a friend of this person while working with him and I learnd about his past academical experience only when we started to have more trust in each others…

THis person was a member of the RIAI when I first worked with him… Why should I have challanged his qualification then?

You’re admitting that someone with a “bought” degree had been accepted by the RIAI as a Member?

That’s unbelievable! How long ago was this CK???!!!

He has stopped practicing as an architect last year, because at his age, after 3 years of efforts, he admited that he could not adapt to Irish standards. He is now back to university…

You’re now saying this guy who had a bought degree realised he wasn’t up to practising here and STOPPED after being ACCEPTED by the RIAI???!!!

Do you have any idea how damaging an allegation like that could be to the Registration Body???!!!

You must understand that he is not an isolated case…

WHAT???!! You mean there’s MORE of these faux Architects running around Ireland with BOUGHT degrees who have MRIAI Stamps signing certs and certifying buildings and nobody knows but you??!!

He is a very honest person (can we say the same about you?)… He has behaved in line with the law… It is the Ukrainian governement, and the Ukainian school who have not….

You’re saying he came here with a false degree and PRETENDED to be an Architect and conned the RIAI and you say he’s HONEST!!!!

Give me strength!

How many more of these people are out there that you know?

(why am I not surprised that you know them…)

How can you be so naive about these type of practices? All over the world these things are happening and I would be surprised that it is not happening in Ireland too; if not in the field of architecture, in other fields…

Because I’m not some conman wandering around Ireland masquerading as an architect, you’re labelling me NAIVE?!!!

As for honesty, you’ve been so sucked in by this guy that you haven’t even reported him for fraud yet!

No wonder John Graby the Registrar was so hot on setting standards for the Profession.

The horse has well and truly bolted – all we can do now is fit shiny new locks…

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Ehrm, nope. You’re wrong again.

Britain has the Architect’s Registration Board and requires persons practising there to have passed their Part III examination.

You cannot just wander into Britain and set up shop.

They’ve stopped recognising the MRIAI affix as equivalent to the RIBA affix.

I have been through all the relevant documents – not just those two – and have read them in detail and have written to the RIAI, the Minister for the Environment as well as the EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy on these matters.

I have engaged with the relevant authorities at National and EU level.

The law isn’t run on common sense CK and you’d at least need to do your research before you post on this subject again.

Talk to the RIAI

Talk to the Minister

Talk to the Commissioner

Then by all means come back and say your piece.

Until then, you’re the one who should “consider reading in details more appropriate literature”, CK.

I already have.

ONQ.

onq,

You are trying to loose the subject because you know that you are wrong. My claim is that all architects registered as such in the EU can move within the EU without any exam and register by law either as visiting architects or residents. They may have learnd nothing about the countries planning and building regulations or other legislations, but still they are able to register without exam. On this ground, why are experienced professionals from Ireland required to learn by heart some documents that they never use such as public contracts, when architects from abroad are by law authorised to work in the atate without any knowledge of these documents?

The document below proves that you are completely unaware of the situation and that you pretend having some knowledge that you do not have… You maybe in contact with EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, but please keep in mind that as demonstrated by Michael Moore in the US, EU commisioners are voting on some laws that they did not read… They just do not have time to read all the laws that they are voting for…

Here is the document that proves you competely wrong with regard to the registration of architects in the UK… And this apply for all EU countries:

•You must be a national of an EEA country,or a ‘Directive Rights National’ (DRN) someone with an enforceable Community right (such as a spouse of an EEA national)

By means of example only, an EEA national who is exercising his/her Treaty rights to move is entitled to bring their spouse to the country they are moving to as well, and the spouse acquires rights to practise their profession in the new country also. The spouse would have to demonstrate the Community right on which they were relying. So, they might provide copies of both parties’ passports or national identity cards, together with a copy of the marriage certificate and a letter from the EEA national, confirming that he or she is moving from another EEA state to the UK and that their spouse is joining him or her. If you have any queries about whether or not you have an enforceable Community right, you should seek your own independent legal advice.
•You hold a qualification (together with any relevant secondary certificates) which is specifically listed in the Directive and,
•You are eligible to practise, or are lawfully established, as an architect in your home state.
Provided that you meet these conditions, you will generally be eligible to be included in “Part 1” of the Register of Architects (the main Register.) “Part 2” of the Register is reserved for visiting EEA architects who may provide temporary and occasional services only in the UK whilst registered in Part 2.

To apply to become registered in reliance on the rights given by Directive 2005/36 you will need to provide the following documents and evidence to ARB:

i.Form K

This must be completed at all relevant sections using block letters in blue or black ink. Please ensure that your writing is clearly legible and that your personal details are in the correct sections. You will normally hear about your registration in the first instance by email, so please provide an email address where requested – if available – and carefully list all letters and characters of the address so we can contact you about your application as promptly as possible.

ii.Registration fee

Please enclose a cheque or bankers draft for the fee, in pounds sterling and drawn on a UK bank, payable to the Architects Registration Board. If your cheque or draft is from a company account, please endorse the rear of the cheque with your full name. Alternatively, you may complete the remittance advice section of the application form with relevant credit or debit card details.

iii.Evidence of nationality.

Please enclose a copy of your EEA passport/national identity card, or evidence of the enforceable Community right on which you rely.

iv.Evidence of qualification.

Please supply copies of your academic degree or diploma certificates. Where your country has listed secondary certificates as requirements under the Directive (for instance, membership or authorisation certificates) you must also supply copies of those documents.

v.Confirmation of status of qualification

Please supply a certificate issued by the competent authority (a list of all competent authorities is included as part of these application documents) to confirm that your qualifications are covered by the Directive. If you are unsure about the document that you need to obtain, please contact the office as we may have a sample statements that we can supply on request.

vi.Home state establishment or eligibility to practise*.

The Board requires that applicants for registration are either-

◦Lawfully established as architects in the state in which their evidence of qualifications was awarded or,
◦Eligible to practise in that state.

Please supply a statement from your competent authority to confirm establishment or eligibility.

*Special provisions apply for Swiss nationals under earlier arrangements – please contact the office directly for further details

vii.Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII): statement of compliance

Complete the relevant sections of the statement included with these application documents, including date and signature and return it together with the application documents

Further requirements

If the name under which you apply for registration is different from the name on your degree/diploma certificate, please provide evidence of the change of name, for example, your marriage certificate, deed poll or other official evidence of the change.

Translations are required of all documents submitted in a language other than English: these will need to be made by a licensed or otherwise authorised translator or bureau in the UK or another EEA state.

Please note that the fee payable covers the application and admission process. On 1st January immediately following your registration and annually thereafter, you will be required to pay an Annual Retention Fee in order to maintain your registration as an architect in the United Kingdom.

NOTE: In the United Kingdom the title ‘architect’ is protected by statute. Under the terms of the Architects Act 1997, a person shall not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word ‘architect’ unless they are duly registered with this Board. You must not make use of that description in the United Kingdom until such a time as you are registered.

We hope that our information and documentation are of assistance, although if you have any queries or would like further information, please do let us know.

Yours sincerely

Registration Department

onq,

I will not extend on the individual MRIAI who was qualified as part of an exchange for oil against technical knowledge between his country and Ukraine… The problem is not about him but about this type of business.

Here are some articles about this type of problems all over the world:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1919339,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

http://www.jamaica-star.com/thestar/20100201/news/news1.html

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=200609&sectioncode=26

http://diverseeducation.com/article/11107/

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30632

I stop the list here otherwise you will have some reading until the end of the year…

By the way, what about Bono vho was given a phd in law, when he never followed any course in this field?

I think that when I said that you are naive, I was not wrong…. Personnely I have earned my degrees in a lawfull way, and I am very distressed when an institute such as the RIAI disregard all what I learned in university and through experience… The fact is that their assessment is too academical, meaning that they give too much importance to titles and not enough to kwoledge and skills… In fact considering the RIAI implementation of the BCA2007, to register through experience, applicants will need a much higher level then the ones registering through a recognized degree… As I already stated many MRIAI would fail hte Register Examination because the skills required are not the ones of an experienced architect but the ones of a newly qualified student…

@CK wrote:

onq,
You maybe in contact with EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, but please keep in mind that as demonstrated by Michael Moore in the US, EU commisioners are voting on some laws that they did not read… They just do not have time to read all the laws that they are voting for…

Okay CK, prove me wrong.

You obviously know all the answers.

You go and get registered anywhere in Europe.

Then come back and practice here as a registered architect.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

onq,

I will not extend on the individual MRIAI who was qualified as part of an exchange for oil against technical knowledge between his country and Ukraine… The problem is not about him but about this type of business.

The phrase “…qualified as part of an exchange for oil against technical knowledge between his country and Ukraine…” doesn’t make sense no matter what language you say it in.

He has a BOUGHT DEGREE!!!

[snip articles showing that this is widespread in other countries and in other professions]

By the way, what about Bono vho was given a phd in law, when he never followed any course in this field?

This is a non argument that sullies Bono’s achievements.
http://www.select-online-degree.com/honorary_law_degree.html
Universities give HONORARY Degrees to people to acknowledge their contribution to society.
The people so honoured do NOT go off and practise under this degree.
That is the difference between them and your faux “architect”.

I think that when I said that you are naive, I was not wrong…. Personnely I have earned my degrees in a lawfull way, and I am very distressed when an institute such as the RIAI disregard all what I learned in university and through experience… The fact is that their assessment is too academical, meaning that they give too much importance to titles and not enough to kwoledge and skills… In fact considering the RIAI implementation of the BCA2007, to register through experience, applicants will need a much higher level then the ones registering through a recognized degree… As I already stated many MRIAI would fail hte Register Examination because the skills required are not the ones of an experienced architect but the ones of a newly qualified student…

CK, you attack everything and everyone around you but tout the legitimacy of your degree.
The fact is France didn’t put forward your degree as commensurate with other Architectural Degress in either DIR 85/384/EEC or DIR 2005/36/EC – live with it.

You talk nonsense about the RIAI assessment suggesting it leans towards newly qualified academics and disregards experience – this is utter, utter nonsense!

The RIAI Part III test is specifically NOT ABOUT the skills a newly qualified Graduate Student possesses. If you are a Graduate Archtiect it is assumed you have learnt how to design so the test is centred on those skills necessary to run a practice and operate as an architect in society.

The Technical Assessment is partly about professional competence and partly about design ability and it runs for an extended period to assess the skills of the individual.

But all this is irrelevant CK.

The relevant fact are as follows:

1. You are not qualified as an architect by French or Irish standards of academic achievement.
2. You do not have 7 years practising under a Member of the RIAI in Ireland.
3. You do not have 10 years in Ireland or France providing services commensurate with those of an architect.
4. You have not made a significant mark in architecture in Ireland in terms of a competition win or work on a listed building or a Plan Expo/RIAI Award.
5. You have not made a significant contribution to architecture anywhere else in the world.

The last two are assumptions based on the fact you haven’t asserted such achievements and you seem like a guy who would if you could.

Given that you may only have ever worked as a CAD technician before you went out on your own here, and given that you may not have worked on any large projects, and finally given that you may or may not know current legislation and practices, I’d say there may be concerns about your competence.

In the face of this CK, the RIAI as the competent registration body may deny you the right to call yourself an architect.
However it recognises your work and offers you an opportunity to prove your competence.
Take the technical assessment course and register.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

By the way, what about Bono who was given a phd in law, when he never followed any course in this field?

Are you serious? You actualy thought that honorary degrees genuine degrees???
These are quite common, it’s laughable that you thought Bono could actually go and practice law. And pretty much undermines and points you make on education or qualification status.

onq,

The fact is that I have studied architecture during 8 years working part time to finance my studies and that I obtained a Master and a BA… Now you seem to say that with 16 years of practice after my studies, it is normal that I shall be stopped practicing, because it is what the RIAI is trying to do….

What is relevant and that you deny for a reson which is obiously due to your biased opinion, is that I am a honest person who is struggling to survive during these difficult times and that the RIAI ask me 13,300 euros to pass an exam.

I am not talking non sense, I am just stating the facts… I worked with many registered architects and I know that many of them are not fully aware of all the latest regulations because they specialised in one field such as residential buildings, industrial buildings, hospital buildings and so on… They have specialised with large or small developments, and the works are very different, so are the skills required… Only newly qualified student have not yet sepcialised, even if some have already specialised before even being qualified… The ARAE Exam is not set up for experienced professionals because it does not take in consideration that an experienced architect will have specialised in one field. This is what they teach in schools anyway… Professors explain to their students that they will have to specialised, then why is the AREA not taking this fact in consideration? Have you asked a structural engineer in his fourties to make calculations for the design of a reinforced concrete beam without any software, as he was doing in school? Well, I have recently, and he smilled at me, saying that what he learnd in school was not much relevant to what he is doing today…

You may not have specialised yourself, and it means that you undertake works such as large supermarkets and small domestic extensions as well as one of a house and industrial units… I never worked in a practice where there was so much diversity, and I have worked within 19 different practices during my career. The ARAE register exam should take this in consideration but it does not.

You seem to be one of those believeing that an architect shall know any regualtion and any legal document in detail as requested by the ARAE… But this is a myth, and if you were honest you would admit it. I have 16 years of experience and 8 years part time university courses behind me, and I know that architecture is not about knowing regulations by heart, but about knowing where to find the documents relevant to your project to insure that the regulations relevant to your project will be complyed with…

Regulations and other legal documents are changing every year… If you design a building today, it will surely not comly with regualtions in 5 years time… The important is to design in compliance with the Planning and Buidling Regualtions, to be familiar with the form of contracts used for your project and any other matter related to the projects that you are currnetly working on… Howver the AREA exam his looking at skills and knowledge in a very different way, no relation with the projects that I am working on, no relation with my personal work but all centered around an academical knowledge detached from the real world…

@onq wrote:

Okay CK, prove me wrong.

You obviously know all the answers.

You go and get registered anywhere in Europe.

Then come back and practice here as a registered architect.

ONQ.

onq,

Can you please focus on this important subject:

I have produced all the relevant documents prooving that registered architects in Europe can register in another European country and use the title architect without having gained experience within the country that they are travelling to… You wrongly say that they are not…

I have produced evidences from the EU DIrective 2005 on the recognition of professional qualification, I have produced evidences from the BCA 2007, and even from the ARB website to defend my argument, you have produced nothing to defend yours so far….

All these information prove that any architect registered abroad within the EU can come and register in Ireland or in the UK without any knowledge of the Irish and British Regulations… You say that they need 2 years working in the state prior to register… Prove it… Or be courageous enough to admit that you made a mistake… Everybody make mistakes sometimes onq… Or maybe you are just a stubborn time waster…

This is an important subject because professionals in my situation with 16 years of experience are requested to learn about contracts and regulations that they do not use, and to pay an exam that cost 13,300euros, when these guys who do not have any knowledge about working in Ireland can do so for a few hundred euros…

Let see now what you have… Please bring details of the relevant official documents to support your position, as any serious professional should do… And as I have done earlier in this thread…

Adverts for architects’ register ‘misleading’
The Irish Times

An advertising campaign promoting a new register of architects has been deemed misleading after the broadcasting watchdog found it implied that “unqualified” architects could not be trusted.

The register was launched last November by the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland (RIAI) and the Department of the Environment. Since then, only people who are on the register are entitled to use the title “architect”.

The RIAI ran radio advertisements promoting the register, which asked listeners whether they would trust an unqualified surgeon or dentist, adding: “So why trust an unqualified architect?”

The advertisements prompted complaints to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) by the Architects’ Alliance, representing people who have been providing architectural services but who do not have formal qualifications in architecture. It claimed the ads created a false link between being qualified and being on the register. Another complainant, Tom O’Grady, said he had lost two clients because of the “misleading” content in the advertisements.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0225/1224265143259.html

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Adverts for architects’ register ‘misleading’
The Irish Times

An advertising campaign promoting a new register of architects has been deemed misleading after the broadcasting watchdog found it implied that “unqualified” architects could not be trusted.

The register was launched last November by the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland (RIAI) and the Department of the Environment. Since then, only people who are on the register are entitled to use the title “architect”.

The RIAI ran radio advertisements promoting the register, which asked listeners whether they would trust an unqualified surgeon or dentist, adding: “So why trust an unqualified architect?”

The advertisements prompted complaints to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) by the Architects’ Alliance, representing people who have been providing architectural services but who do not have formal qualifications in architecture. It claimed the ads created a false link between being qualified and being on the register. Another complainant, Tom O’Grady, said he had lost two clients because of the “misleading” content in the advertisements.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0225/1224265143259.html

Thanks for your post Paul,

I have not made any complaint to the BAI myself, and it is interesting to see that other individuals are fighting the anti-competitive and misleading actions of the RIAI…

It is very dificult to defend ourselves against the RIAI because it is a very organised institute with thousands of members.

This misleading advertising is only a small detail of the anti-competitive actions carried out by the RIAI. Fees requested for the register exam and the technical assessment are another issue…. There is also the Golden Pages issue, the RIAI is asking that all registered architects shall be listed before a section named “Architectural services”. There is the type of assessment requested for self-trained architects which is based on academic knowledge rather than skills learned in practice.

Even the BCA 2007 appears very unequitable for self-trained architects. If we compare with the French procedure for the launch of architects registration. The level requested in Ireland is much higher. The French system was much more equitable for self trained architects in practice. When the French protected existing businesses, it seems that the Irish system is trying to eliminate some of the existing businesses. I think that the problem is due to the government giving to much power to the RIAI. It would have been easy to protect all existing businesses when implementing registration. The French have done it, why not the Irish?

hmm who har…

I pay 30 euro to register every year all I need is experience and PI then bob is your uncle…
But they have there own justice system just like RIAI…

I admire the RIAI but sometimes architecture can also come first…
Is that not the motto?

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Adverts for architects’ register ‘misleading’
The Irish Times

An advertising campaign promoting a new register of architects has been deemed misleading after the broadcasting watchdog found it implied that “unqualified” architects could not be trusted.

The register was launched last November by the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland (RIAI) and the Department of the Environment. Since then, only people who are on the register are entitled to use the title “architect”.

The RIAI ran radio advertisements promoting the register, which asked listeners whether they would trust an unqualified surgeon or dentist, adding: “So why trust an unqualified architect?”

The advertisements prompted complaints to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) by the Architects’ Alliance, representing people who have been providing architectural services but who do not have formal qualifications in architecture. It claimed the ads created a false link between being qualified and being on the register. Another complainant, Tom O’Grady, said he had lost two clients because of the “misleading” content in the advertisements.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0225/1224265143259.html

Thanks for the link, Paul.

I don’t listen to the radio very much and so didn’t hear the ad wording so I’m just going on the report above.

The public can be sure that someone with a formal qualification has been exposed to a wide range of subjects and has had his design work subject to stringent peer review for a minimum of five years in Ireland, whereas they cannot be sure of the same in relation to an unqualified person.

For someone to be Registered they have to show they have acquired the experience – usually a minimum of two years approved under the guidance of an MRIAI – necessary to practise architecture in this country.

This includes not only a knowledge of laws and regulations pertinent to the contruction industry, but also how to competently manage a practice as well as how to administrate a building contract, certify works and monies, et cetera.

But by mentioning the issue of trust the RIAI may be unwisely opening the Institute up to criticism from people whose competence in providing a limited range of services for more than ten years has been shown to be adequate.

After all, acquired rights are recognised in DIR 2005/36/EC.

However, according to the Building Control Act 2007, persons who are unregistered should not be calling themselves “Architects”.

This applies whether they are qualified from a recognised five-year course or not.

It might be useful if future advertisements were to clearly explain the additional assurance given to members of the public who employ Registered architects.

FWIW

ONQ.

@missarchi wrote:

hmm who har…
I pay 30 euro to register every year all I need is experience and PI then bob is your uncle…
But they have there own justice system just like RIAI…
(snip)

Where and what are you? 🙂

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

onq,

The fact is that I have studied architecture during 8 years working part time to finance my studies and that I obtained a Master and a BA… Now you seem to say that with 16 years of practice after my studies, it is normal that I shall be stopped practicing, because it is what the RIAI is trying to do….

(compendium of previous posts snipped)

CK,

No one is trying to stop you practising.

The Building Control Act prevents you calling yourself and Architect unless you’re registered.

It doesn’t AFAIK, stop you providing architectural services.

DIR 2005/36/EC recognises acquired rights.

Take competent legal advice on where you stand.

Once you’ve found out, post the good news here – I’m sure many would welcome it.

🙂

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

onq,

Can you please focus on this important subject:

I have produced all the relevant documents prooving that registered architects in Europe can register in another European country and use the title architect without having gained experience within the country that they are travelling to… You wrongly say that they are not…

I have produced evidences from the EU DIrective 2005 on the recognition of professional qualification, I have produced evidences from the BCA 2007, and even from the ARB website to defend my argument, you have produced nothing to defend yours so far….

All these information prove that any architect registered abroad within the EU can come and register in Ireland or in the UK without any knowledge of the Irish and British Regulations… You say that they need 2 years working in the state prior to register… Prove it… Or be courageous enough to admit that you made a mistake… Everybody make mistakes sometimes onq… Or maybe you are just a stubborn time waster…

This is an important subject because professionals in my situation with 16 years of experience are requested to learn about contracts and regulations that they do not use, and to pay an exam that cost 13,300euros, when these guys who do not have any knowledge about working in Ireland can do so for a few hundred euros…

Let see now what you have… Please bring details of the relevant official documents to support your position, as any serious professional should do… And as I have done earlier in this thread…

I don’t have to prove anything CK.

I reported here what the RIAI has told me about foreign nationals registering here.

I would previously have taken a position in line with your assessment of the situation but was told I was incorrect in my assumptions.

I suppose its not too late for you to use some of your Gallic design ability to win an important international competition and apply to Register using that as evidence of your competence.

Apart from that, mon petit choux, you seem to fall between several stools as noted previously and I have no words of comfort apart from what I have already written.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

I don’t have to prove anything CK.

I reported here what the RIAI has told me about foreign nationals registering here.

I would previously have taken a position in line with your assessment of the situation but was told I was incorrect in my assumptions.

I suppose its not too late for you to use some of your Gallic design ability to win an important international competition and apply to Register using that as evidence of your competence.

Apart from that, mon petit choux, you seem to fall between several stools as noted previously and I have no words of comfort apart from what I have already written.

ONQ.

onq,

I am saying that what the RIAI verbaly told you is wrong… And I proved it…

I was telling you that the RIAI is acting in an anti-competitive way and the article in the Irish Time proved that the Broadcasting Authority has agreed on that.

There are many other issues similar to this advertising, where the implementation of the registration procedure was anti-competitive.

Anyone without interest in supporting the inequitable actions of the RIAI would realise that…

@onq wrote:

CK,

No one is trying to stop you practising.

The Building Control Act prevents you calling yourself and Architect unless you’re registered.

It doesn’t AFAIK, stop you providing architectural services.

DIR 2005/36/EC recognises acquired rights.

Take competent legal advice on where you stand.

Once you’ve found out, post the good news here – I’m sure many would welcome it.

🙂

ONQ.

Tell me onq,

If I cannot certify my work, then how can I practice? If the RIAI is successfull to remove my business and others from the Golden Pages, how will I find my clients? Which institute will guide me?

I have already lost some potential clients because of the RIAI note in the Golden Pages. Potential clients calling the RIAI are told that the best is to use RIAI members… Another act of anti-competitivity… If the RIAI wanted to protect the public rather than to attract the public to its members; then it would regulate the practice of architecture instead of protecting the title “Architect”… But obviously this is not their agenda…

@onq wrote:

CK,

Take competent legal advice on where you stand.

🙂

ONQ.

Well I have recently joined a group of professionals in a similar situation than mine… I am not sure if I shall yet give the name of the group on this board… However, this group could afford to pay a barrister for his opinion on the Buidling Control Act 2007 and the registration procedure with regard to non qualified architects…

In short, the barrister’s opinion is that it was a mistake to have appointed the RIAI as the registration body and that there is maybe a ground for a juridical review.

Did your Barrister buy his degree in the Ukraine along with your other ‘professional’ friend that you assisted ?

@Rourke wrote:

Did your Barrister buy his degree in the Ukraine along with your other ‘professional’ friend that you assisted ?

Is there a university handing out complimentary qualifications somewhere?

Sign me up…

@Rourke wrote:

Did your Barrister buy his degree in the Ukraine along with your other ‘professional’ friend that you assisted ?

The barrister’s opinion reflects the opinion of people voting on this thread… Look up at the top of the page… It also fully reflects the opinion of the Competition authority… It is obvioulsy not an isolated point of view…

@CK wrote:

Tell me onq,

If I cannot certify my work, then how can I practice? If the RIAI is successfull to remove my business and others from the Golden Pages, how will I find my clients? Which institute will guide me?

CK,
I hate to destroy yet another strand of self pity, but the RIAI and the Building Control Act 2007 together cannot stop you certifying.
So long as the solicitor you are dealing with accepts your certs, you have no problem.
Many people apart from architects issue certificates for many different things.
For example, it would be a very unwise person indeed who would suggest that a competent architectural technician would not be competent enough to issue a certificate stating a building or works complied with the building regulations.
So its down to whether your certs are accepted CK, not anything else.

I have already lost some potential clients because of the RIAI note in the Golden Pages. Potential clients calling the RIAI are told that the best is to use RIAI members… Another act of anti-competitivity… If the RIAI wanted to protect the public rather than to attract the public to its members; then it would regulate the practice of architecture instead of protecting the title “Architect”… But obviously this is not their agenda…

I think that after a while dealing with MRIAI’s the public will form their own opinion as to the protection and value for money they are getting.

In the meantime CK its up to you to prove to your clients and potential clients that you can offer a comparable, competent and competitive alternative.

ONQ.

@foremanjoe wrote:

Is there a university handing out complimentary qualifications somewhere?

Sign me up…

No… no… you’ll feel terrible about yourself in the morning…

@CK wrote:

Well I have recently joined a group of professionals in a similar situation than mine… I am not sure if I shall yet give the name of the group on this board… However, this group could afford to pay a barrister for his opinion on the Buidling Control Act 2007 and the registration procedure with regard to non qualified architects…

In short, the barrister’s opinion is that it was a mistake to have appointed the RIAI as the registration body and that there is maybe a ground for a juridical review.

An opinion costs around €1,000-1,500.

A judicial review of WHAT?

The relevance of it?

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

onq,

I am saying that what the RIAI verbaly told you is wrong… And I proved it…

I was telling you that the RIAI is acting in an anti-competitive way and the article in the Irish Time proved that the Broadcasting Authority has agreed on that.

There are many other issues similar to this advertising, where the implementation of the registration procedure was anti-competitive.

Anyone without interest in supporting the inequitable actions of the RIAI would realise that…

I’ve told you time and time again CK, I’m neither an apologist for, nor a Member of, the RIAI.
You just have no room in your world view for someone who supports registration.

It doesn’t matter to me who controls it as long as it takes place.
I’m that not worried about who gets on the register, either.

Unqualified success or MRIAI, they’ll all get reviewed.
And if found to be incompetent, they’ll be struck off.

That’s the benefit to members of the public. 🙂

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

An opinion costs around €1,000-1,500.

A judicial review of WHAT?

The relevance of it?

ONQ.

Yea I meant a Judicial review of the Act… I presume that it means an amendment… Somenting to be changed in the Act…

It would help businesses such as mine to continue practicing without discrimination. The Broadcasting Authority has alreay recognised that the RIAI is abusing its position through an advertising. It also abuses its position by setting registration fees for self-trained and others to a level that only a few can afford. There is a list of RIAI misconduct that I have enumerated already earlier in this Thread…

@onq wrote:

CK,
I hate to destroy yet another strand of self pity, but the RIAI and the Building Control Act 2007 together cannot stop you certifying.
So long as the solicitor you are dealing with accepts your certs, you have no problem.
Many people apart from architects issue certificates for many different things.
For example, it would be a very unwise person indeed who would suggest that a competent architectural technician would not be competent enough to issue a certificate stating a building or works complied with the building regulations.
So its down to whether your certs are accepted CK, not anything else.

ONQ.

onq,

If it was only the RIAI decision, noone else than MRIAI would be in a position to certify.

For 2010 the Law Society of Ireland has kept its 10 years experience rule for certification, but what will it be next year?

The Law Society of Ireland does not recognise Architectural Tech certification unless it complies with the 10 years experience rule as stated above.

Registered Enginers, Architects and surveyors only are recognised for certification as per the Law Society of Ireland. Architectural Tech are not listed. Not this year anyway…

@onq wrote:

CK,

I think that after a while dealing with MRIAI’s the public will form their own opinion as to the protection and value for money they are getting.

In the meantime CK its up to you to prove to your clients and potential clients that you can offer a comparable, competent and competitive alternative.

ONQ.

onq,

To be fair you must admit that the RIAI is not helping me and non registered architects to provide quality services, in the contrary…

You also must admit that using advertising such as the one that the Broadcasting Authority has forbiden, and using other methods such as the Golden Pages, they are trying to convince everyone that I am not competent…

I am fighting back to prove the contrary and also to prove that they their argument is unfounded, that their only goal is to promote their members, quality in architectural services coming only second on their list…

@onq wrote:

I’ve told you time and time again CK, I’m neither an apologist for, nor a Member of, the RIAI.
You just have no room in your world view for someone who supports registration.

It doesn’t matter to me who controls it as long as it takes place.
I’m that not worried about who gets on the register, either.

Unqualified success or MRIAI, they’ll all get reviewed.
And if found to be incompetent, they’ll be struck off.

That’s the benefit to members of the public. 🙂

ONQ.

I support the protection of quality in architectural services… But the RIAI Agenda, as per part 3 of the BCA2007, is not only about that… It is also about eliminating unwanted competition…

For exemple the RIAI president proposed that I register as a tech member… I have studied Arts & Architecture, my qualification is much more in relation to Architects’ work than Architectural Technicians’ work.

The fact is that he was willing to register me at a level that would not permit me to compete with MRIAI… One must be blind not to realise the RIAI Agenda…

I think that the Governement drafted the Act in good faith, unaware that it would become a deadly tool in the hands of an unscrupulous Institute.

@CK wrote:

I support the protection of quality in architectural services… But the RIAI Agenda, as per part 3 of the BCA2007, is not only about that… It is also about eliminating unwanted competition…

For “unwanted” read “incompetent”.

For exemple the RIAI president proposed that I register as a tech member… I have studied Arts & Architecture, my qualification is much more in relation to Architects’ work than Architectural Technicians’ work.

I doubt that Paul Keogh or the previous President proposed that you do anything.
Its open to you to choose which route your taking to Registration based on which route suits your experience and qualification.
To the great credit of the RIAI, they have come up with a multitude of routes to registration to allow people will differing backgrounds, qualifications and abilities to find a workable route.
I think when qualified persons – who have first qualified from a five year course and then done their Part III’s – review the Technical Assessment Course they may be a bit miffed, since its effectively a one year course to equal standing with them.
Looked at from your position this may means little or nothing, but I can assure that for people who have spent a lot of money [not just the money for fees and course costs but including Class Trips and living in Dublin or wherever for five years in digs costs money] while earning relatively little this is significant.
To people who have completed the full time course, applicants taking teh technical assessment course, who are unqualified are looking like they are getting in with just a year’s intensive training whereas they have done five years of a design course with very little income.
[and I accept Architectural Technicians have some academic training and that you have had some formal academic training so you are excluded from this comment]
So you cannot please everyone CK.

The fact is that he was willing to register me at a level that would not permit me to compete with MRIAI… One must be blind not to realise the RIAI Agenda…

Its the job of the Registrar to register you, its not the job of the President of the RIAI.
The upside of all of this for people without any of without adequate or without recognised formal qualifications is that once they REgister, that’s it – they are on equal standing with Members of the RIAI.
There is no Two-Tier Register – all Registered Architects are equal.
Don’t tell me you didn’t know this!!!

I think that the Governement drafted the Act in good faith, unaware that it would become a deadly tool in the hands of an unscrupulous Institute.

The Government is run by politicians, Q.E.D. and very little goes on without their knowledge and/or approval.

Off you go and apply to be registered and don’t be bandying any more allegations around about the RIAI’s “deadly tool”…(splutter!)

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

onq,

To be fair you must admit that the RIAI is not helping me and non registered architects to provide quality services, in the contrary…

You also must admit that using advertising such as the one that the Broadcasting Authority has forbiden, and using other methods such as the Golden Pages, they are trying to convince everyone that I am not competent…

I am fighting back to prove the contrary and also to prove that they their argument is unfounded, that their only goal is to promote their members, quality in architectural services coming only second on their list…

1. Its not the RIAI’s job to help you – its your job to help you.
2. This is about registering or ceasing to call yourself and architect – choose!
3. Put all that energy you claim you’re putting into fighting, do some upskilling instead and Register.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

1. Its not the RIAI’s job to help you – its your job to help you.

ONQ.

onq,

There again you are fully out of touch with what is going on… RIAI members benefits from drafted contracts, reduced price PI Insurance, Standrads forms for certifications, and so on…

Why are professionals in my stituation deprived from such advantages? If a coherent system was set up to improve quality of architectural services and also to improve consumer protection, then professionals in my situation would be regulated by a code of practice and we would benefit from similar advantages than RIAI members…

It is not about calling myself “Architect” onq, it is about being coherent and honest.

Professionals practicing architecture and not being able to call themselves “Architect” this is competely incoherent and hypocrite..

Pretending promoting quality in the provision of architectural services and doing nothing to regualte architectural services delivered by non registered practices, this is even more riduculous. And it demonstrates very well the real agenda behind registration, which is about protecting the interests of certain professionals first, the consumers is only second.

@onq wrote:

1.
2. This is about registering or ceasing to call yourself and architect – choose!

ONQ.

Is there any place for critics? Or is it forbidden to demonstrate the incoherence of the proposed choice?

Next on the list, some will be autorised to talk about architecture, but forbidden to high light the inconsitency of the system regulating it…

@onq wrote:

1.
3. Put all that energy you claim you’re putting into fighting, do some upskilling instead and Register.

ONQ.

If it was only about the skills I would already be preparing the register examination… It is the 13,300euros that are preventing me to take this route. I am also concerned about the the fairness of the process, and I am not willing to gamble this type of money….

The RIAI pretends that the fees were agreed with the minister, the minister pretends the contrary… Who is telling the truth… I am not sure yet…

At the moment the best route is to fight this inequitable procedure, that is the route I will follow until the system becomes more coherent…

@onq wrote:

For “unwanted” read “incompetent”.

To the great credit of the RIAI, they have come up with a multitude of routes to registration to allow people will differing backgrounds, qualifications and abilities to find a workable route.
ONQ.

You must be joking, or is it just propaganda?

You forget to speak about the 13,300 euros fees? The skills are not enough… And the fees could rise for someone failling to answer a few questions.

You also forget to talk about professionals that do not have any route for registration because of their specialisation… It is natural for an architect to specialise, but in sometimes the RIAI refuses this right to self-trained architects.

@onq wrote:

For “unwanted” read “incompetent”.

I doubt that Paul Keogh or the previous President proposed that you do anything.
Its open to you to choose which route your taking to Registration based on which route suits your experience and qualification.
To the great credit of the RIAI, they have come up with a multitude of routes to registration.

ONQ.

It was not the president but the director, “Graby” who proposed such alternative… Then I understood that the RIAI considers technicians as second class architects…

@CK wrote:

onq,

There again you are fully out of touch with what is going on… RIAI members benefits from drafted contracts, reduced price PI Insurance, Standrads forms for certifications, and so on…

Why are professionals in my stituation deprived from such advantages? If a coherent system was set up to improve quality of architectural services and also to improve consumer protection, then professionals in my situation would be regulated by a code of practice and we would benefit from similar advantages than RIAI members…

It is not about calling myself “Architect” onq, it is about being coherent and honest.

Professionals practicing architecture and not being able to call themselves “Architect” this is competely incoherent and hypocrite..

Pretending promoting quality in the provision of architectural services and doing nothing to regualte architectural services delivered by non registered practices, this is even more riduculous. And it demonstrates very well the real agenda behind registration, which is about protecting the interests of certain professionals first, the consumers is only second.

CK,

I’m not the one out of touch here.

If you want to get the benefit of membership of any clud or body you have to meet their entrance requirements before you join.

There are a lot of senior architects who have invested time and money in their large commercial practices who have huge overheads and are seeing all the bread and butter schemes going to people without any formal qualifications.

For them its about people “practising architecture” incompetently and yet charging fees for this to clients.

This is bound to rankle, they’re only human.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

Is there any place for critics? Or is it forbidden to demonstrate the incoherence of the proposed choice?

Next on the list, some will be autorised to talk about architecture, but forbidden to high light the inconsitency of the system regulating it…

You can do what you like, but in this country the days of putting up a nameplate and calling yourself an architect are over – pure and simple.

For someone to come along on the basis of an unrecognised qualification and inadequate exposure to many differing building types and scales of projects, well, the least they will do is ask you to show your competence.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

If it was only about the skills I would already be preparing the register examination… It is the 13,300euros that are preventing me to take this route. I am also concerned about the the fairness of the process, and I am not willing to gamble this type of money….

The RIAI pretends that the fees were agreed with the minister, the minister pretends the contrary… Who is telling the truth… I am not sure yet…

At the moment the best route is to fight this inequitable procedure, that is the route I will follow until the system becomes more coherent…

Fees

I don’t know who set the fees and it certainly seems steep for a one year course, as I understand the ARAE session amounts to – I am not expert on this, as I have already noted.

However my review total of the fees came to €11,250, not €13,300.

What you seem to be forgetting is the fact that you haven’t done five years of full time design training at all levels of building complexity culminating in a thesis.

Studying full time for five years doesn’t just cost the money to attend the course and purchase materials and go on trips, al lof which I have mentioned above and which you seem to have ignored.

Studying full time means your earning career is truncated by a minimum of five years and possibly several more to obtain the professional qualification.

I know many people who graduated who are going to be wuite narked whent it sinks in that the Archtiectural Technicians, who were able to attend Bolton Street with significant incomes from nixers from their “night” jobs, had cars, houses, the means to live well after three years study, and have built on their success during the celtic tiger years are now able to becoem fully qualified after only one year part time work.

€11,250 doesn’t even cover one years earnings for a Part I architect, so anyon who’se done the full course might be feeling particularly annoyed at your bleating about money, CK. I know I am.

Then there’s your design experience, or the lack of it.

I’m not a particularly experienced architect, but in my first eight years post-grad I was fortunate to have worked on:

Hotels
Clinics
Townhouses
University Sports Halls
One Off Private Housing
Mixed Use Office and Retail
Mixed Use Apartment and Retail
Warehousing, Industrial, Retail Warehousing
Listed Properties
Regional Shopping Centres
Enterprise Zone Masterplanning
Inspections, Certification, Contract Administration.

I was fortunate to have worked in a practice that encouraged people to take on resposibility.
Many people who are CAD or Technician based worked on the same schemes, but with nowhere near the overview.
The ones who worked with me got a reasonable overview of what I was doing and the practice was supportive of at least three Technicians who went on to become RIAI Members.

This isn’t to boast about my abilities or achievements CK, but to give you and example of what an average architect might be reasonably expected to have come into contact with, even in a commercial practice.

Other architects may have specialised in more complex buildings in sensitive contexts or complex urban environments like Great House restorations hospitals, libraries, university campuses, or may have done a lot of competition work or worked on very tall multi-storey buildings or even designed cities, so don’t think I’m touting myself as a high standard.

Applicants to the Technical Assessment Course may have done large buildings.
Many may have dealt with more complex buildings but only in a very limited way, drafting or detailing.

These may lack sufficient complexity ot test their design mettle and that’s part of what the Technical Assessment Course is designed to sort out – are you good enough to be an architect from inception to completion in terms of complex, multi-layered design, relatiing to social and urban contexts and statutory requirements?

Good Advice

I’d start your studies to bring you up to speed on all aspects of bring an architect now, CK.
There may be some challenges but I think that the principle of Registration for Architects is here to stay.
Your admitted lack of

• a recognised qualification
• the requisite number of years in any one jurisdiction
• a broad range of complex building types
• the experience of working on large projects

Are all likely to come against you were you try to practice elswhere.
In Ireland, at this time, under this Act, under the ARAE Technical Assessment Course, you have a chance to attain a recognition of your competence.

People with a history and qualification profile like yours should be arranging the bank loan and thanking the heavens you have a way out of the catch-22 you’re in.
The RIAI isn’t obliged to help you and the powers-that-be could have just as easily drawn a line in the sand.

Remember, you have to help yourself.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

CK,

I’m not the one out of touch here.

If you want to get the benefit of membership of any clud or body you have to meet their entrance requirements before you join.

There are a lot of senior architects who have invested time and money in their large commercial practices who have huge overheads and are seeing all the bread and butter schemes going to people without any formal qualifications.

For them its about people “practising architecture” incompetently and yet charging fees for this to clients.

This is bound to rankle, they’re only human.

ONQ.

onq,

All I want is to continue practicing as I did during the last 16 years… I have a long list of clients happy with my services and I do not remember one of them unhappy of my work at completion…

I am competent, I studied architecture and obtained a BA and a Master.

If, as well as satisfying a client, being competent means meeting regulations, standards and all other legal requirements when providing architectural services, then I am competent.

You are attacking the quality of my works without any knowledge of it… I have already told you that I have some proof of uncompetency from some MRIAI, but you do not want to remember…

Why shall it cost me 13,300 euros to prove my ability?

@onq wrote:

Fees

I don’t know who set the fees and it certainly seems steep for a one year course, as I understand the ARAE session amounts to – I am not expert on this, as I have already noted.

However my review total of the fees came to €11,250, not €13,300.

ONQ.

onq,

you realy have unreliable information.

The following is the official cost for the exam:

A non-refundable fee is payable with your application. This fee covers processing your application and verifying your eligibility at Stage 1. The Application Fee for 2010 was €2,250.

‘The Examination Fee is due in February. The Examination Fee for 2010 was €9,250. This fee covers assessments at Stages 2 and 3 as well as Information and Advice Sessions, monthly ARAE e-bulletins, ‘Archinfo’ membership at UCD Richview Library, Library Orientation and an Exam Skills and Preparation Workshop.

And let’s not forget the cost of the lectures: €1,800

€1,800 + €9,250 + €2,250 = €13,300

To give you an idea and compare with another professional body, for a similar exam IEI (Institute of engineers in Ireland) charges only €50 for assessing the eligibility of each candidates instead of €2,250 required by the ARAE.

This express very well the scale of the problem… And this type of issues are not only related to the cost but exists at nearly every aspects of the registration procedure…

@onq wrote:

Fees

People with a history and qualification profile like yours should be arranging the bank loan and thanking the heavens you have a way out of the catch-22 you’re in.
The RIAI isn’t obliged to help you and the powers-that-be could have just as easily drawn a line in the sand.

Remember, you have to help yourself.

ONQ.

onq,

I am not willing to feed the fat cats who are blackmailling my practice. In Naples, people are afraid of Camorra and nobody dare challenging the injustice of this group, but I am not yet afraid as to give up the fight against the hypocrisy and anti-competitive activities behind the architects’ Registration matters…

This fight does not only benefit some of my colleagues and I, but also the large percentage of consumers seeking architectural services… This thread contains enough material to prove the wrong doing of the RIAI and its incapacity to act without descrimination…

I would not consider that an exam fee over €3,000 is acceptable. It is not only about finding the money, but also about disconnecting from my work during the year of the exam…

By the way I need to go back to my work for now… I need to earn my bread and when the RIAI directors and their staffs are paid big numbers to deal with the registration procedure, I have to denonciate their wrong doing for free… Nobody is paid for this part of the work….

I’ll be talking to you tomorrow…

Last thing before I go….

What is your qualification onq? Not listed in the EU directive if I remember your previous post about it….

I have 16 years of post qualification experience… I was working in the UK when Ireland was using UK buidling regulations with a very similar planning system… Can you explain why my UK experience is not recognised? Why my French experience is not recognised? Another administrative way to deal with unwanted competition I presume… Or do you believe that the level of architectural services in the UK is not good enough for Ireland?

My BA and Master are recognised all over the world but not listed in the EU directive… The Leitmotiv of my university is the skills and knowledge gained during the studies rather than the title obtained at the end… It is obvioulsy in contradiction with what the RIAI believe…

AlI I asked is the right to practice without being bothered by certain members of the proffession who are interested with my clients… Give the consumers the right to choose and many will choose me… Honesty, quality and skills versus titles, admisnistrative non-sense and very high fees…

Your critic of my services is unfunded… Can you explain your motivation in defending blindly the registration procedure despite being informed of all the inequitable and anti-competitve issues surrounding it?

The RIAI over-stepped the mark big time with that radio ad that implied only a registered architect was competent.

I don’t know what this has all cost, but the guy reading the competition authority judgement on it was on the air for quite a while there at lunch time. I wouldn’t like to be paying for that.

Somebody needs to get their act together.

@onq wrote:

Fees

Experience and Ability

Then there’s your design experience, or the lack of it.

I’m not a particularly experienced architect, but in my first eight years post-grad I was fortunate to have worked on:

Hotels
Clinics
Townhouses
University Sports Halls
One Off Private Housing
Mixed Use Office and Retail
Mixed Use Apartment and Retail
Warehousing, Industrial, Retail Warehousing
Listed Properties
Regional Shopping Centres
Enterprise Zone Masterplanning
Inspections, Certification, Contract Administration.

ONQ.

Hi ONQ,

I have been reading your posts. Some good some bad. Not all self trained Architects are incompetent just as not all R.I.A.I. members are competent.

I am self trained and I have your list of experience and to these you can add master planning of new towns, master planning extensions to existing towns, theme parks, cinemas, and I have been called to give expert testimony in Court cases at all but supreme court level often with R.I.A.I. members on the opposite side in regard to boundary disputes, enforcement actions, and general planning related or building standards actions.

In 20 years I have only been on the losing side once and on that occasion the other side could not believe they had won and admitted the Judge got the decision wrong. I and the legal team had obviously failed to explain the situation in a manner that the Judge could understand and in her confusion she took the easy option and sided with the Authority. In doing so unknown to her she was rewriting planning law and the case history of higher courts.

I am not a cowboy, I am not incompetent and I am very careful and very particular about the certification I am prepared to sign. The same cannot be said for some R.I.A.I. members.

I like you believe registration is here to stay and may yet prove to be a good thing. I do not believe that it was necessary. I do not believe that the R.I.A.I. are the correct body to administer the register. I do not agree with the R.I.A.I. actions and advertisements thus far. For some I believe that the Technical Assessment Process is not and should not be a requirement. For others without the required number of years it keeps a door ajar.

Membership of an organisation should not be necessary and I believe that a system similar to the UK system where registration and the Royal Institute are separated should have been brought in.

As to your suggestions about good advice to CK. Ck may or may not have the necessary experience but I know I have and like CK I think the R.I.A.I. Technical Assessment Process is biased and skewed to failure. At a time when there are around 50% of R.I.A.I. members out of work I just cannot accept that they will allow as many as possibly 900 to 1200 new members.

The conflict of interest was always there but now much more so. The RIAI has been a very effective lobby for it’s members and their implementation thus far of Part 3 of the Act is and has been in the interests of their members and not in the interest of the general Profession or the Public. This act was never about protecting the Public as they were already well protected. For anyone to say that our Government thought they were doing the right thing well perhaps that is so. But there were plenty or reports warning them of the difficulties of taking a particular route and as usual our Government chose to ignore their own reports and advice. That I am think smacks of interest group lobbying.

The RIAI has always wanted to control the Profession since inception and has worked closely with our educators to that end. I do not believe that they will be capable of the kind of change that will be needed to be the competent authority and the registrar and the club they have always been.

There should be an amnesty for established practitioners as there was in our European neighbours when they brought in registration. We have precedent for this the Ministers list. Thereafter all registered practices should be held to the highest standards and if they fail to meet those standards they should be re-trained to assist them and if this does not work struck off the register. I say this because at the moment there are RIAI members not fit to fold one of my drawings on the register and they did not have to undergo any assessment other than the exams which for some may have been a while ago. Level the playing field or scrap the game. I accept that education costs money and time but do not think that self trained Architects did not put in a vast amount of time and money to gain their knowledge because I did. I am still learning and trying to improve my skills and knowledge.

All self trained Architects are not free loaders and cowboys some of us have very high standards and do our utmost for our clients at all times. As for the bread and butter jobs I recall many mainstream Practices not accepting smaller jobs or putting large fees on them because they were so busy. I never turned one of these away regardless of how busy I was and I never hiked up the fees either. My clients are with me so long I have now started to do their children’s projects.

I didn’t get that loyalty by screwing my clients or not giving them a good professional service. Sure I have had a few disappointed client’s over the years that is bound to happen but I have never been sued for a building failure, incorrectly issued cert, poor advice, or negligence. So why can I not be accepted on my record and why should I have to go through the farce of TA process. As for the RIAI contention that only Title is restricted not function well that’s a load of Bull because as we all know well much of the function goes with the Title.

@Solo wrote:

Hi ONQ,

Hi Solo,

I have been reading your posts. Some good some bad. Not all self trained Architects are incompetent just as not all R.I.A.I. members are competent.

I hope you meant to say that you agreed with some of what I say whilst not agreeing with all of it. 🙂

I never stated – nor do I hold – that all self-trained architects are incompetent.
They may or may not be competent, its just that they are now called to prove their competence.

I do not suggest that all R.I.A.I. Members are competent – there are rotten apples in every barrel

(resumé snipped for brevity)
I like you believe registration is here to stay and may yet prove to be a good thing. I do not believe that it was necessary.

It was undoubtedly necessary.
No-one, not even unqualified successes like yourself, is seriously doubting the necessity or the long-term benefits.
You are merely objecting to the entrance requirements.

I do not believe that the R.I.A.I. are the correct body to administer the register. I do not agree with the R.I.A.I. actions and advertisements thus far. For some I believe that the Technical Assessment Process is not and should not be a requirement. For others without the required number of years it keeps a door ajar.

The boards of assessment are comprised of a majority of laypersons.
It would be really useful if posters to this thread were to familiarise themselves with their make-up before suggesting that this is an RIAI-run show.
Its not called Co-Regulation for nothing.

Membership of an organisation should not be necessary and I believe that a system similar to the UK system where registration and the Royal Institute are separated should have been brought in.

You’ve forgotten the first rule of professionalism – check your facts.
You can be registered without being a Member of the RIAI.
No-one I know either in the RIAI or outside it thinks the ARB and the way British Architecture is being run at the moment is a GOOD THING.
The AARUK website deals extensively with people who have serious concerns about it.
http://www.aaruk.info/

As to your suggestions about good advice to CK. Ck may or may not have the necessary experience but I know I have and like CK I think the R.I.A.I. Technical Assessment Process is biased and skewed to failure.

You’ve forgotten the second rule of professionalism – don’t jump to conclusions.
Neither you nor CK have any experience of this process and assuming its “biased and skewed to failure” is mere prejudice on your part.

At a time when there are around 50% of R.I.A.I. members out of work I just cannot accept that they will allow as many as possibly 900 to 1200 new members.

I think you’ll find that there is potential for quite a bottleneck building up here, where less than 100 persons per year can be processed.
If you’re keen to show any inadequacy in the system, surely the best thing to do is apply and expose the weaknesses in it.
And its over 50% as far as I can see.

The conflict of interest was always there but now much more so.

Surely bringing in a majority of laypersons has made it less so?

The RIAI has been a very effective lobby for it’s members and their implementation thus far of Part 3 of the Act is and has been in the interests of their members and not in the interest of the general Profession or the Public.

You’re making a strong argument for becoming a Member

This act was never about protecting the Public as they were already well protected. For anyone to say that our Government thought they were doing the right thing well perhaps that is so. But there were plenty or reports warning them of the difficulties of taking a particular route and as usual our Government chose to ignore their own reports and advice. That I am think smacks of interest group lobbying.

I’m not sure what planet you’ve been practising on for the past 20 years but believe me, every important regulatory change reflects interest groups lobbying.
Having read the minutes of the meetings with Government Committees, the case seems fairly put, as noted above, the need for regulation is accepted by most if not all and we’re arguing in this thread about how its been done or is being done as opposed to whether is should be done or not.
Anything else is after the fact, because with all the MRIAI’s registered last Novermber 2009, there is now a working Architect’s Register in this country – its is already achieved.

The RIAI has always wanted to control the Profession since inception and has worked closely with our educators to that end. I do not believe that they will be capable of the kind of change that will be needed to be the competent authority and the registrar and the club they have always been.

As I’ve pointed out to CK and recently to you, the Registration assessment boards are staffed by a majority of lay persons.

There should be an amnesty for established practitioners as there was in our European neighbours when they brought in registration.

You can make a case for thjis certainly – what criterion would you use to determin who eas an established practitioner – 10 years in pratice providing services commensurate with those provided by an architect? How would you assess the quality of service of each practice – one a case by case basis.
Would each practitioner be asked to bear the cost of such investigations?
Are you out of your freakin’ mind??!!!

We have precedent for this the Ministers list. Thereafter all registered practices should be held to the highest standards and if they fail to meet those standards they should be re-trained to assist them and if this does not work struck off the register.

I find your assertion of unqualified successes relying on the Minister’s List quite ironic, coming so shortly after your commentabove that the Registration Process “smacks of interest group lobbying”.
Whereas yours smacks of Ministerial croneyism – a major step forward – NOT!

I say this because at the moment there are RIAI members not fit to fold one of my drawings on the register and they did not have to undergo any assessment other than the exams which for some may have been a while ago.

What do you mean, “other than the exams”?
Are you competent to answer such exam questions?
Are you suggesting they had no primary qualification?
Are you suggesting they had no body of work to be assessed?

Level the playing field or scrap the game.

If you want to play the game – learn the rules.
Lead by example – prove you’re good enough to get registered.
Games are played in public in full view, not seeking to curry favour with Ministers behind the scenes.

I accept that education costs money and time but do not think that self trained Architects did not put in a vast amount of time and money to gain their knowledge because I did.

I doubt that.
Don’t confuse the money it tales to run a business with the money it takes to spend five years in full-time education.

I am still learning and trying to improve my skills and knowledge.

And don’t pretend you weren’t profitably employed while you were “learning and trying to improve …skills and knowledge” because you were and are.
Full time students don’t have this luxury and 11 grand is a paltry sum to pay for the opportunity you’ve been given.
That’s less than the cost of a three year old Golf.

All self trained Architects are not free loaders and cowboys some of us have very high standards and do our utmost for our clients at all times.

A good beside manner doesn’t make you a doctor.

As for the bread and butter jobs I recall many mainstream Practices not accepting smaller jobs or putting large fees on them because they were so busy. I never turned one of these away regardless of how busy I was and I never hiked up the fees either. My clients are with me so long I have now started to do their children’s projects.

Good service might make you a good sales assistant, it doesn’t make you an architect.

I didn’t get that loyalty by screwing my clients or not giving them a good professional service. Sure I have had a few disappointed client’s over the years that is bound to happen but I have never been sued for a building failure, incorrectly issued cert, poor advice, or negligence.

A good businessman might say the same thing – it doesn’t entitle him to call himself an “architect”.

So why can I not be accepted on my record and why should I have to go through the farce of TA process.

Your record will be taken into account whatever route to registration you choose.
The real question is why so many supposedly talented but unqualified successes
did not attend the five year course to become architects, but merely put up a nameplate?

The answer is – because before May 2008 they could get away with it.
Perhaps only draughtsmen with an acquired ability to make planning permissions, they went and called themselves architects.
People can’t do that any more.

As for the RIAI contention that only Title is restricted not function well that’s a load of Bull because as we all know well much of the function goes with the Title.

No, provision of architectural services is not affected by the Act and in Britain the term Architectural Technologist sits alongside Architect as someone who can take a building from inception through to completion.

You might also want to consider the fact that if you DO succeed in getting registered you will be equal to an MRIAI – wouldn’t that make your day?

😀

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

Last thing before I go….

What is your qualification onq? Not listed in the EU directive if I remember your previous post about it….

I hold the qualification Dipl. Arch. (D.I.T.) which is listed under “Ireland” in both 85/384/EEC and 2005/36/EC

(snip usual carefuly worded CV)

Unless you were working as a graduate architect it doesn’t count.

My BA and Master are recognised all over the world but not listed in the EU directive…

“All over the world…”

Since they were NOT recognised in Europe and NOT even recognised in France, where you claimed to have achieved them, you must have meant to say
– “all over the world except Europe”.

Even MRIAI’s can’t just waltz into a job in America or Australia or New Zealand.

The Leitmotiv of my university is the skills and knowledge gained during the studies rather than the title obtained at the end… It is obvioulsy in contradiction with what the RIAI believe…

“Obvioulsy…”

The suggestion that universities concentrate more on experience than on qualifications is utter nonsense.
What does that mean?
That at the end of a course you end up with credits but no qualification?
Utter fantasy – no-one puts time into earning credits without a qualification in sight at the end of it.

AlI I asked is the right to practice without being bothered by certain members of the proffession who are interested with my clients… Give the consumers the right to choose and many will choose me… Honesty, quality and skills versus titles, admisnistrative non-sense and very high fees…

One this is clear – you’re good at self-promotion, just like your pal, the Nigerian MRIAI, but when it comes down to proving yourself, you’ll do anything but bite that bullet.

You want to promote yourself as an architect without either the minimum qualification or years of experience in this jurisdiction.

You fall between too many stools to do that easily – your only option is registration.

Your critic of my services is unfunded…

Your spelling is poor and certainly one thing you need to improve before you sit an exam.
Normaly I abhor spell-lames, but its the one thing that’s made me think twice about practicing in France, a country I love to spend time in – I don’t have good business French.

Can you explain your motivation in defending blindly the registration procedure despite being informed of all the inequitable and anti-competitve issues surrounding it?

I haven’t defended it without reservation, and I understand your concerns about how it applies to you, but I do think Registration is a good thing.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

“All over the world…”

Since they were NOT recognised in Europe and NOT even recognised in France, where you claimed to have achieved them, you must have meant to say
– “all over the world except Europe”.

ONQ.

onq,

Many degrees in Architecture are not listed in the EU directive… But still they are recognised and valable degrees as any others…

My degrees were issued by one of the eldest university in the world: “La Sorbonne”.

@onq wrote:

Your spelling is poor and certainly one thing you need to improve before you sit an exam.

ONQ.

You see onq, I have a family to feed… And I do not have always the time to check my spelling when talking on this board. But be ensured that my clients’ letters and official documents are corrected by my computer and administrative assistant, who, I must admit, will not be able to help me during the register exam, if I can afford this route in the future…

This is another non-sense isn’t it? Architects do not work by themselves, why should they pass an exam by themselves? The quality of their work depends also on their assistants; why not test the team rather than one individual who is only fulfilling a part of the work? Because whatever you may think, architecture is first of all, a team work.

I am sure that you are not interested with such down to earth issues… Registration is about the title not about the quality of the work. Isn’t it?

And by the way, I could underline some of your typing mistakes too… But I prefer to focus on the misleading content of your posts…

@onq wrote:

I

I haven’t defended it without reservation, and I understand your concerns about how it applies to you, but I do think Registration is a good thing.

ONQ.

If you have not defended the registration procedure without reservation, then please tell us what are your reservations about it, because so far you did not express any of them…

@Solo wrote:

Hi ONQ,

I have been reading your posts. Some good some bad. Not all self trained Architects are incompetent just as not all R.I.A.I. members are competent.

I am self trained and I have your list of experience and to these you can add master planning of new towns, master planning extensions to existing towns, theme parks, cinemas, and I have been called to give expert testimony in Court cases at all but supreme court level often with R.I.A.I. members on the opposite side in regard to boundary disputes, enforcement actions, and general planning related or building standards actions.

In 20 years I have only been on the losing side once and on that occasion the other side could not believe they had won and admitted the Judge got the decision wrong. I and the legal team had obviously failed to explain the situation in a manner that the Judge could understand and in her confusion she took the easy option and sided with the Authority. In doing so unknown to her she was rewriting planning law and the case history of higher courts.

I am not a cowboy, I am not incompetent and I am very careful and very particular about the certification I am prepared to sign. The same cannot be said for some R.I.A.I. members.

I like you believe registration is here to stay and may yet prove to be a good thing. I do not believe that it was necessary. I do not believe that the R.I.A.I. are the correct body to administer the register. I do not agree with the R.I.A.I. actions and advertisements thus far. For some I believe that the Technical Assessment Process is not and should not be a requirement. For others without the required number of years it keeps a door ajar.

Membership of an organisation should not be necessary and I believe that a system similar to the UK system where registration and the Royal Institute are separated should have been brought in.

As to your suggestions about good advice to CK. Ck may or may not have the necessary experience but I know I have and like CK I think the R.I.A.I. Technical Assessment Process is biased and skewed to failure. At a time when there are around 50% of R.I.A.I. members out of work I just cannot accept that they will allow as many as possibly 900 to 1200 new members.

The conflict of interest was always there but now much more so. The RIAI has been a very effective lobby for it’s members and their implementation thus far of Part 3 of the Act is and has been in the interests of their members and not in the interest of the general Profession or the Public. This act was never about protecting the Public as they were already well protected. For anyone to say that our Government thought they were doing the right thing well perhaps that is so. But there were plenty or reports warning them of the difficulties of taking a particular route and as usual our Government chose to ignore their own reports and advice. That I am think smacks of interest group lobbying.

The RIAI has always wanted to control the Profession since inception and has worked closely with our educators to that end. I do not believe that they will be capable of the kind of change that will be needed to be the competent authority and the registrar and the club they have always been.

There should be an amnesty for established practitioners as there was in our European neighbours when they brought in registration. We have precedent for this the Ministers list. Thereafter all registered practices should be held to the highest standards and if they fail to meet those standards they should be re-trained to assist them and if this does not work struck off the register. I say this because at the moment there are RIAI members not fit to fold one of my drawings on the register and they did not have to undergo any assessment other than the exams which for some may have been a while ago. Level the playing field or scrap the game. I accept that education costs money and time but do not think that self trained Architects did not put in a vast amount of time and money to gain their knowledge because I did. I am still learning and trying to improve my skills and knowledge.

All self trained Architects are not free loaders and cowboys some of us have very high standards and do our utmost for our clients at all times. As for the bread and butter jobs I recall many mainstream Practices not accepting smaller jobs or putting large fees on them because they were so busy. I never turned one of these away regardless of how busy I was and I never hiked up the fees either. My clients are with me so long I have now started to do their children’s projects.

I didn’t get that loyalty by screwing my clients or not giving them a good professional service. Sure I have had a few disappointed client’s over the years that is bound to happen but I have never been sued for a building failure, incorrectly issued cert, poor advice, or negligence. So why can I not be accepted on my record and why should I have to go through the farce of TA process. As for the RIAI contention that only Title is restricted not function well that’s a load of Bull because as we all know well much of the function goes with the Title.

Hi Solo,

Thank you for your interesting contribution. I agree in general with your point of view…

If the registration of architects was implemented in an equitable way, I would just comply with the procedure, even if it did not suit my interests…

I also think that registration will stay… However, I have decided with others to fight its inequitable and anti-competitive implementation. If nobody contested the misleading advertising broadcasted on radio, it would still be on today. If nobody contested the illegal request from the RIAI to remove non register architects from the Golden Pages, we would not be listed today. If nobody complains about the inapropriate exam and technical assessment, it will go on as set up by the RIAI… If nobody complains about the ridiculous fees charged for the registration of self-trained architects, the fees will stay unchanged if they do not rise…

If we do not react, the RIAI will soon prevent anyone to provide architectural services without being register with their Institute… Removal from the Golden pages and misleading advertising will discredite our practices first, then they will prevent us to certify our design and charge ridiculous fees to do it on our behalf, even if our knowledge of the Planning and/or Building legislations is much better than their own…

When the Law Society of Ireland asked if solicitors shall accept certificates from Architectural Technicians, the RIAI answer was that technicians do not have adequate knowledge of the planning system as RIAI architects have… This was a very hypocrite answer, if we consider that Planners, as per their training, have a better understanding of the planning legisaltions than Architects and that, despite of their qualification, they cannot certify a building themselves. The RIAI answer was even more ridiculous if we consider that, as per their training, Architectural Tecnicians have a better understanding of Buidling Regulations than Architects and that certification is generaly about Planning and Building Regulations.

An incoherent regulating system is as damaging as the absence of system. A poor architectural design, is nearly the same than the absence of design…

Those who realy believe in quality within the built environment will admit that it is not the professionals who need to be protected but the provision of services which needs to be regulated.

Bribes, brown envelopes, corrupted professionals and institutions… These are the real problems…

@CK wrote:

onq,

Many degrees in Architecture are not listed in the EU directive… But still they are recognised and valable degrees as any others…

My degrees were issued by one of the eldest university in the world: “La Sorbonne”.

CK this doesn’t seem right.

If these were degrees suitable for equivalance across the EU surely they would have been included in the Directives, one or both of them?

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

You see onq, I have a family to feed… And I do not have always the time to check my spelling when talking on this board. But be ensured that my clients’ letters and official documents are corrected by my computer and administrative assistant, who, I must admit, will not be able to help me during the register exam, if I can afford this route in the future…

If you’re promoting quantity over quality here CK, you’re missing the point.

This is another non-sense isn’t it? Architects do not work by themselves, why should they pass an exam by themselves? The quality of their work depends also on their assistants; why not test the team rather than one individual who is only fulfilling a part of the work? Because whatever you may think, architecture is first of all, a team work.

CK, I’m beginning to wonder how you ever got a degree with this attitude towards exams.

I am sure that you are not interested with such down to earth issues… Registration is about the title not about the quality of the work. Isn’t it?

Registration is about what its about CK, and in your case its the only route to becoming Registered as an Architect.

And by the way, I could underline some of your typing mistakes too… But I prefer to focus on the misleading content of your posts…

Keep trying… 🙂

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

If you have not defended the registration procedure without reservation, then please tell us what are your reservations about it, because so far you did not express any of them…

Read posts 171 to 174 and you will see my concerns as they affect me.
I don’t share your concerns CK because mine are different from yours.

Most of yours seem to arise based on your own shortcomings.
Mine are arise due to the lack of evidence of my strengths.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

CK, I’m beginning to wonder how you ever got a degree with this attitude towards exams.

ONQ.

onq I obtained my master when I was 24 years old, without children or morgage… Do not compare what is not comparable… And stop pretending that it is fair for someone with 16 years of experience and 41 years of age to pass an exam suitable for a newly qualified student.

I know that you are not concerned with the Exam, but If you were you would agree with me… I am not the only one to know that many MRIAI of my age would fail this exam… And I would not blame them for that, because it is natural not to have a student knowledge when you are experienced… And vis versa…

@onq wrote:

Registration is about what its about CK, and in your case its the only route to becoming Registered as an Architect.

ONQ.

Registration is about what its about CK

How long have you studied to make such declarations?

As already stated onq, all I want is to continue practicing architecture without being bothered by some MRIAI seeking work and interested by my clients…

I cannot afford to disconnect from my practice and pay 13,300euros to pass an exam which has a doubtfull procedure.

@onq wrote:

CK this doesn’t seem right.

If these were degrees suitable for equivalance across the EU surely they would have been included in the Directives, one or both of them?

ONQ.

That is where you are mistaking onq, there are many people in my situation who have studied and obtained degrees in architecture but they are unable to register.

My degrees did not include structural engineering as a course… We were taught structural engineering trough the design process… Same for Services… However we were requested to study and make researches by ourselves about these issues and others…

As no courses with description such as “structural engineering” or “building services” form our qualification. The qualification was not listed in the EU directive. However, it is a recognised qualification in Arts & Architecture…

You seem to be very aware of the influence of lobying on new legislations such as the registration of architects… The problem of my universtity, is that architecture was considered as an art without descriminations to the other Arts… We did not have an administration to defend the interests of students in architecture, but one administration dealing with all the Arts…

@CK wrote:

Registration is about what its about CK

How long have you studied to make such declarations?

As already stated onq, all I want is to continue practicing architecture without being bothered by some MRIAI seeking work and interested by my clients…

I cannot afford to disconnect from my practice and pay 13,300euros to pass an exam which has a doubtfull procedure.

you can, however, afford the time and energy to continuously post the same thing time and time again – ad nauseum – with a blind refusal to look reality in the face.

Here’s a derivation of a french word for you – impasse.

Onq and the rest of you – for the love of god stop feeding this troll and let’s see some other more interesting thread at the top of the thread list for a while

@wearnicehats wrote:

you can, however, afford the time and energy to continuously post the same thing time and time again

This is free of charge and cost only my time… I wish it was the same for registration…

Part 3 of the BCA2007 and the biased registration procedure have been exposed in the thread. It is important to have such communication tools to discuss this issue…

But you are right, it is a loss of time to post again and again the same information to someone who refuse to consider them properly…

I think that I made a mistake by thinking that onq would try to look at the issue putting his own interests behind…

Wearnicehats – please stop speaking to people like Dermot Bannon does.
CK has his situation and his point of view like everyone.
Your expressing irritation on his concerns for his livelihood are simply making him more emotional.
(Just yesterday Mr O’Grady got a broadcast apology on the wireless for a related matter.)

CK and ONQ – why not arrange to meet up some evening and thresh out everything ?
It may well be the unexpressed points that are really at issue here, rather than the RIAI regulations . . .

@teak wrote:

Wearnicehats – please stop speaking to people like Dermot Bannon does.
. . .

who?

http://media.tribune.ie/site_media/photologue/photos/2008/Oct/11/cache/Dermot_Bannon_06004312_display.jpg

Him.
Mr 30% Overbudget.

@CK wrote:

onq I obtained my master when I was 24 years old, without children or morgage… Do not compare what is not comparable… And stop pretending that it is fair for someone with 16 years of experience and 41 years of age to pass an exam suitable for a newly qualified student.

CK, this is beginning to sound more like a mid-life crisis than worries about passing an exam.

I know that you are not concerned with the Exam, but If you were you would agree with me… I am not the only one to know that many MRIAI of my age would fail this exam… And I would not blame them for that, because it is natural not to have a student knowledge when you are experienced… And vis versa…

CK, Option C requires you to write a dissertation showing your competences, without any hard and fast guidelines as to how you should approach it [I’d be very happy if someone could prove me wrong on this one and point me to a guide], then sit a gruelling face-to-face interview with a panel of examiners.
This amounts to an Oral Examination, not a Written Exam, with detailed questions suitable for a Part III Architect’s knowledge.
I will be examined on current knowledge, not knowledge from the time I qualified.
Stop pretending you have it worse than me or anyone else!

ONQ.

@wearnicehats wrote:

you can, however, afford the time and energy to continuously post the same thing time and time again – ad nauseum – with a blind refusal to look reality in the face.

Here’s a derivation of a french word for you – impasse.

Onq and the rest of you – for the love of god stop feeding this troll and let’s see some other more interesting thread at the top of the thread list for a while

From my last post directed at you
Post #7 in the Dear Young Architects Thread
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=104664

“I’ve seen you disparage people’s concerns several times instead of addressing them where you could.
Do you consider you’re promoting architecture by cerrying on in this manner?
Because let me underline this for you – YOU AREN’T!
If you have something to contribute – do so.
And learn to snip, dammit!”

Lets see:

• flat learning curve
• comes to Archiseek looking for baby food to suck on
• gets stressed at seeing two people with personalities arguing from strongly held entrenched positions
• apparently unable to deal with real world issues as they affect people practising architecture

I hope you’re not an example of the MRIAIs CK is disparaging or I might have to agree with him.
This is real life stuff, not some thread dealing with theoretical appreciation of design.

After jobs, this matter is the most important issue facing architects today.
Disrupt this thread and I will report you for TROLLING.
Others seem interested enough to read it.
There are 20,715 views and counting
Contribute or please ignore it.

HAND

ONQ.

@teak wrote:

http://media.tribune.ie/site_media/photologue/photos/2008/Oct/11/cache/Dermot_Bannon_06004312_display.jpg

Him.
Mr 30% Overbudget.

Nasty, nasty, nasty – but true.

And its “Mr.ONLY 30% Overbudget” to you sonny… 🙂

ONQ.

@teak wrote:

CK and ONQ – why not arrange to meet up some evening and thresh out everything ?
It may well be the unexpressed points that are really at issue here, rather than the RIAI regulations . . .

Having tried and failed to reason with him here and having seen him ignore factual posting, twist my words and generally behave in an almost Walter Mitty type fashion about his qualifications, I’m not sure we’d either of us be safe in the same room together.

Plus we might put some people at risk – some of those undergoing massive withdrawal and psychosis from Head Shop closures might not get better if they were to inadvertently overhear our conversation.

Best to keep him at a distance and try to reason with him quietly – I’m sure the venting he’s doing and the attention I’m paying him is most therapeutic.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled debate.

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

This is free of charge and cost only my time… I wish it was the same for registration…

Part 3 of the BCA2007 and the biased registration procedure have been exposed in the thread. It is important to have such communication tools to discuss this issue…

But you are right, it is a loss of time to post again and again the same information to someone who refuse to consider them properly…

I think that I made a mistake by thinking that onq would try to look at the issue putting his own interests behind…

Putting my own interests behind what?!

ONQ.

@CK wrote:

That is where you are mistaking onq, there are many people in my situation who have studied and obtained degrees in architecture but they are unable to register.

My degrees did not include structural engineering as a course… We were taught structural engineering trough the design process… Same for Services… However we were requested to study and make researches by ourselves about these issues and others…

As no courses with description such as “structural engineering” or “building services” form our qualification. The qualification was not listed in the EU directive. However, it is a recognised qualification in Arts & Architecture…

You seem to be very aware of the influence of lobying on new legislations such as the registration of architects… The problem of my universtity, is that architecture was considered as an art without descriminations to the other Arts… We did not have an administration to defend the interests of students in architecture, but one administration dealing with all the Arts…

Look CK,

Would you ever do me a favour and post the Sorbonne’s course appellation, syllabus, reference number, years to qualification, full name of qualification and abbreviation.

That way I can double check the Directives for its listing, assess it against the recommendation submitted by Jim Horan of Bolton Street to the EU Commission when considering what constituted a qualification.

Not in bits and pieces, the whole of the requested information, because then at least I can see what you’re supposed to know and review them against the competences and course duration of the qualifications that ARE accepted in the EU.

Because at the moment you are ducking and weaving when your qualification is mentioned an no-one knows what you are.

Note that I DO NOT want your name as I am NOT going to ring up the Sorbonne to check you out – I merely want to assess the course you said you did.

Also a summary of the positions you held and the kind work you did in England and be specific as to whether you were allowed work as an architect or observer on jobs and whether you notified your employer you were seeking this experience to prepare for your own registration.

Because I’m confused by all the part-histories you’ve posted so perhaps a timeline would be useful too.

Please DO NOT post private information about yourself or the companies you worked for and don’t name the projects, merely a generic description, the time you worked on them and the approximate cost.

Now if you think this is still too intrusive or you don’t want to share this info that’s quite understandable and I won’t think bad of you if you want to remain private.

DO NOT PM me private information – we’re discussing a course or qualification, not you personally.

ONQ.

@teak wrote:

http://media.tribune.ie/site_media/photologue/photos/2008/Oct/11/cache/Dermot_Bannon_06004312_display.jpg

Him.
Mr 30% Overbudget.

haven’t seen it – don’t do reality television. i’ve heard he’s the architectural equivalent of that Liverpudlian guy on ready steady cook

@onq wrote:

Lets see:

ONQ.

i’m sorry you felt the need to edit this. I was looking foward to discussing your “warning”. me old mate Devin perhaps.

@onq wrote:

Disrupt this thread and I will report you for TROLLING.

.

If you don’t care for another’s opinion on a public forum then just add me to your ignore list – that’s how we learnt to cope with Missarchi. I’m not stressed by impasse – I just don’t see the benefit of it

@onq wrote:

Hi Solo,

😀

ONQ.

Hi ONQ

@onq wrote:

I hope you meant to say that you agreed with some of what I say whilst not agreeing with all of it. 🙂
I never stated – nor do I hold – that all self-trained architects are incompetent.
They may or may not be competent, its just that they are now called to prove their competence.
I do not suggest that all R.I.A.I. Members are competent – there are rotten apples in every barrel
ONQ.

Sorry I should have realised you would dissect my every word. In short yes I can understand your point of view and some of your points have merit but whilst I can and do understand your point of view and your right to have and express that point of view I do not share it.

I do not believe that I said you stated self trained architects are incompetent. Unlike you I do not nor did I suggest that there are rotten apples in the RIAI barrel just that some RIAI members are in my opinion incompetent.

@onq wrote:

It was undoubtedly necessary.
No-one, not even unqualified successes like yourself, is seriously doubting the necessity or the long-term benefits. You are merely objecting to the entrance requirements.

The boards of assessment are comprised of a majority of laypersons.
It would be really useful if posters to this thread were to familiarise themselves with their make-up before suggesting that this is an RIAI-run show. Its not called Co-Regulation for nothing.
ONQ.