John Kellett's Comments
I think I can give Flora a few pointers for/on/to her concerns about the future of the profession and architectural education: 1] As I understand it ARB only require foreign architects to possess the BSc/BA and Masters level of education to enter the profession. Only in the UK is there a requirement for Part 3, a professional level of examination in business and contractual matters. It is achieving the Part 3 level of education that makes British architects useful! Any old 'artist' can design a building, it usually takes an architect to make it one that satisfies Firmness, Commodity and Delight in equal measure. 2] The reason Mr + Mrs Public don't use architects is because non-architects tell them we are expensive and then charge them the earth and take them to the cleaners! 3] When Mr + Mrs Public employ a 'plan drawer' who calls himself an architect, provides them with a badly designed home / extension and rips them off, it is architects who get the blame and the bad press. John Poulson being a prime example! The ARB really ought to be doing the job it was created for, preventing such charlatans from mis-leading the public! 4] If it was a requirement that buildings were designed by competent and qualified persons (in say the Canadian way) there would be plenty of employment opportunities for architects and technologists. 5] As an employer I would hope that an ability to design buildings with an understanding of structural engineering and building services, besides presenting well, is a base level expectation from a Part 1 student. I would expect any post part 3 architectural graduate to be able to read drawings, understand construction methods and detailing. I would also expect them to have a knowledge of briefing, procurement, contract law and business management. If that sounds optimistic it shouldn't, that was the extent of the education I and many others received at Bath. 6] An architectural education is one that gives the graduate very broad and transferable skills. It is employers outside the profession that are slow in accepting that fact! As a profession we need to wake up to the fact that we can regain a professional standing within the community by being architects with a holistic view of creating good architectural design. To continue in a desire to be specialists in only the 'Delight' of the tree Vitruvian principles is a serious error.
EH and, increasingly, many other clients are now requiring 'accreditation' in conservation architecture; even for unlisted buildings outside Conservation Areas. RIAS members can gain accreditation through the RIAS. RIAI members can gain accreditation through the RIAI and RICS members can gain accreditation through the RICS. It is therefore reasonable, as an RIBA member to expect to be able to gain accreditation through he RIBA. Now that, after 3 years of discussion, the AABC has failed to reach an agreement with the RIBA it is only right that the RIBA form a Register for members (and others) who prefer to be accredited through the professional body rather than through a private company. The RIBA is governed by elected members (RIBA Council) and therefore the RIBA register will be accountable to the profession as a whole. The concept of accreditation may be regrettable but is a fact of life. I myself find it bizarre that no qualifications at all are required in law to design a hospital (perhaps the most complex building type) yet to work with listed buildings (often very simple in design and construction) one is being required to be a qualified architect with exhaustive experience. It is knowledge, skills and ability that are important, not experience. Experience is only one way of demonstrating that one has the relevant knowledge, skills and ability.
And I thought it was just me with that experience (in the past)! Perhaps the future will be better, with 'quality-over-quantity' being shown to be the more sustainable way forward. Mind you, as one of the new recession born practices, I'm still waiting :-)
Comment on: RIBA launch 'independent' review of ARB
The phrase "all architects must be registered" is not ridiculous. It is a statement of fact resulting from the Architects Act. What is ridiculous is a situation where unqualified people are allowed to design buildings, it's no different to allowing hospital porters (with years of medical experience) carry out the functions of a doctor. Architectural technologists are qualified to deal with some of the technical aspects of designing buildings (as are structural engineers and services engineers, etc) and to continue the medical theme nurses are permitted to carry out some medical tasks. Protecting the public from unqualified providers of 'architectural services' can only be done by restricting function to members of the appropriate professional body (RIBA or CIAT or RICS or ICE or CIBSE etc) as is the case in many other fields of human activity and parts of the world.
I would love to design only 'low carbon' buildings but.... Most architects are commissioned to design buildings for clients and to that client's brief. If the client doesn't want a 'sustainable' / 'low carbon' building then we have no way of forcing them to. We can only 'suggest' and 'advise'. I am in no position to turn down work that is not sustainable in the current climate, and I suspect many practices are in the same situation.
Comment on: Vaizey: We will keep CABE but ARB must go
The RIAI 'regulates' architects in Ireland, why not the RIBA / RIAS in the UK? The important thing is to require, under legislation, that designers of buildings are appropriately qualified and registered (RIBA or CIAT? or RICS?). Only then will the public and businesses be protected against cowboy 'architectural consultants' and technicians / surveyors with no design qualifications.
Comment on: Prince Charles' RIBA speech: Full text
You could have at least used a spell-checker before releasing the text. I don't recall Prince Charles having an american accent!