Comment on: Fake architect fined following ARB probe
To all CIAT members. How does your qualification lead to that as an architect? IT DOESN'T, you would need to start from the start. it is the term 'Architectural Services' that is a loophole in the law. RIBA Part 1 students are more qualified than CIAT members in the role of architect, FACT, and they have at least three more years of study and training to go before becoming architects. After my Part 1 I could design buildings (in fact my pet cat can legally design buildings) but I was not an architect.
Being an Engineer, Surveyor or Technologist requires NO qualifications. THAT is where the law is wrong, in allowing unqualified people to practice in any business. In my experience the general public already believe it is a requirement in law to be qualified to design buildings, so not a big leap. The number of people who accuse my profession of being to blame for failings (tower blocks, John Poulson, Grenfell etc etc) when it was non-architects who were guilty is frightening.
As a Chartered Technologist you are qualified as such, nothing more. Which, until the name change, only needed an HND/HNC level of education to be an 'architectural' technologist, the course contents haven't changed as far as I can tell from the syllabuses. If being CIAT qualified you as an architect you would be able to register as one by taking the ARB/RIBA exams, so why don't you try?
To consider offering 'architectural' services as equal to that of being an architect is arrogant beyond belief.
For the offence of breaking the law the ARB (and Government) need to get the fine increased and upgraded to a mandatory prison sentence for fraud. I would have thought the Government would have learnt it's lesson when unqualified 'financial advisors' caused the crash a decade ago causing them to make it illegal for them to practice. Was Grenfell not enough?
If the 'Cor-ten' rusted through, was it Cor-ten? Did the manufacturer/supplier/contractor cheat the designers?
Michael Brawne was one of the two heads of the Bath University School of Architecture whilst I was there, the other as Ted Happold. Both are very influential in my career, but to limited success yet :-) An 'all-rounder' architect with a Science degree (NOT an Arts one) who understands and can work, and has worked, with structural engineers is, seemingly, still an unwanted commodity despite the pioneering(?) work at Bath 40 years ago.
I find the statement “Architects have this week raised fears that a loss of diversity will lead to ‘boring conversations and dull design’ after the ARB recorded a 42 per cent fall in registrations from non-British EU architects since the Brexit vote “ insulting. Have they even looked for British staff? We are the best trained in the World for our market :-)
Perhaps those U.K. architects who left the profession after the many recent recessions could be enticed back by salaries at a higher level than when they left. Unlikely. In the last decade architects can be more productive using BIM, perhaps salaries should reflect that fact. Importing cheaper labour from the EU etc. is not a long term policy and has already killed off a number of industries in the U.K. as those industries move abroad in pursuit of even cheaper labour. Paying good staff a decent salary, using the efficiencies of BIM to advantage, is the way forward
Comment on: Big drop in EU architects registering in the UK
Perhaps practices will have to invest in BIM more now so that fewer architects can do more work. One architect, using BIM, can handle projects of £10 million as a team of one. I know because I have done :-) A practice that is still using archaic 2D CAD requires teams of architects, technicians and technologists to work on large projects. BIM can do away with the need for technologists and technicians as all staff can be architects or Part I or Part II.