Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Job losses in Architectural offices
Options
Comments
-
Are you suggesting ALL technicians are that competent?
I've worked with some that are and some that aren't.
I think that the abilities overlap more with the years as technicians become more competent in design and architects become more technically competent.
I don't think this is a matter resting solely with architects or architectural technicians BTW.
Fuzzing at the edges of qualifications isn't confined to archs/arc-techs.
There are interior architects vying with interior designers.
Chartered surveyors are now getting involved in macro-planning, stepping on the toes of urban planners and planning consultants.
Most technicians I have worked with were certainly better organized and more disciplined in their time management on projects than newly qualified architects.
Their technical competence meant that any design work they did wasn't restricted by fear of not detailing it properly.
Technicians who wanted to take on more design responsibility in the office or on a project or perhaps wanted to become architects tended in my experience to be limited in their progress or studies by; -- their level of innate design ability [as are architectural students],
- their professional focus on detailing which, if you will, leaves some of them missing the forest for the trees and
- their age and relative maturity, which can get in the way of accepting design critiques [just as can an architectural student's arrogance]
- their sometime unwillingness to investigate alternatives for the sake of it, if they arrive at one design that works okay relatively early in a project.
I've had the privilege of working with two technicians who did the RIAI architects course as well as a slew of technicians from the Longford Terrace course.
The top 10% from Longford Terrace were accepted into Bolton Street DIT and a significant number of them [75%? Uncertain, but certainly all bar one that I knew] passed out as qualified architects.
But technical and design competence are only two aspects of an architect's performance envelope.
Judgement calls are where its at.
Judgements made in the presence of unknowns.
Being an Architect carries the weight of responsibility.
I don't mean the laughable level of "responsibility" that company directors carry or that shouldered so easily by our elected representatives.
Architects can be sued, sued even after they've died, and their successors in title can bear the loss of them being successfully sued unto their estate.
The law is an ass, and its the architect who's the target, not the architectural technician - when did you ever hear of an architectural technician getting sued?
"The flat roof was flat and well constructed, but the kid playing ball on it fell off and broke his back" - sue the technician who detailed the roof?
No, sue the architect who designed it!
Its yet another dark side of architecture, one they don't dwell on too much. We skim over two years of law covering the basics.
Do you want to enter that arena?
Architects live there every day.
You're welcome to join in.
Get the qualification.
No going back.
ONQ.
Most of the competencies that you mention are in my opinion personal abilities and cannot be learned. That is my opinion. You either have these abilities or you don't [you cannot learn them]. I agree there are many poor Technicians out there, as there are poor Architects. There are also many Technicians in private practice who can be sued for negligence and this is not something that is unique to Architects.
I have always encouraged competition as i believe that if i do not provide a quality service i should not be providing one!!!!! I feel that protectionist strategies to protect one because you have a certain title is wrong.
I feel that Technicians that find themselves unfortunately unemployed should have the confidence [without restriction] to provide for themselves and have the opportunity to set up in private practice.0 -
-
ONQ, I'd just like to remind you that this forum is for Architectural Technicians/Technologists so to come in here and post about the level of competency will be met with some pretty strong rebuttals.
I'm probably a little unusual in that I see a downward spiral beginning back when the master builder split into architect and builder, not just the later split of architect and technician.
But we're talking apples and oranges. I'm not arguing that architects are better technicians than technicians are. I'm saying they're architects. I'm saying some technicians have the capability to be architects and they have been afforded formal routes to achieve this [Bolton St. and RIAI] in the past that weren't that well populated.
Bolton St and the RIAI both provided courses that allowed technicians to become architects. As far as I know, and my time in Bolton Street spanned many years, huge numbers of technicians didn't appear clamouring to be let in to the design course and getting refused. Most of them just took the piss out of us archs before swanning off after three years to earn good money.
LOL!
But to be serious for a moment; -
One strand of the technician's argument seems to be that they want to be allowed practice as architects without first obtaining the qualification. A three year technician course becomes the equivalent of the five year diploma course at a stroke? I don't think that's going to happen. What kind of message would that send for standards in the profession?
[see the comment on Part 1 Architects below]
[I think there is a technical assessment board being set up now, so again, there may be another path to tread here. But you need to research that yourself.]
The other strand of the technician's argument seems to be that as they are competent to do the bulk of the duties that architects do, they are already effectively architects. While there is some merit to this, again, its practising without the qualification. The design element may be but 10% of what an architect does day to day, but its the defining 10%.
And just to put forward a similar argument from yet another perspective, a good third year architect [and I was that soldier once] could make an even better argument than a technician, having already done a three year design course [commonly referred to as the Part 1's] and being similarly able to do most of the things an architect can do in an office.
I hope this sheds a little light on this issue. Mine would be one of the less arrogant / extreme views on this. I think architecture is in danger of disappearing up its own behind unless sound design is grounded in competent technical ability and good project management. But I think everyone will benefit from properly administered registration.
What I think you may find when you read the act is that there is no protection of the architectural technician qualification and that should demand your attention. See Section 18. I think there is a strong argument for an architectural technicians representative body, operating either within, or affiliated to, the RIAI.
Otherwise you may find draftsmen with downloaded specimen plans, details and specifications on their hard drives suggesting that just because they can do most of the things technicians can, they should be technicians. Let's hope not.
FWIW
ONQ0 -
So - what do you put the Tanaistes remarks down to ?
Total and utter cluelessness. What else? John Graby put it very well. She didn't research the topic on which she spoke. At a time when the profession is showing exactly how well it cannot protect its investment in its young architects and technicians, which it has built up over the past decade, comments like hers deserve to be exposed for the nonsense that they are. Lord help the woman if I ever share space with her after this.Just a small point, and perhaps I'm totally misreading this, but should that not have read;
Its the lack of demand that has resulted in the numbers of unemployed.
Oho! I thought I was pointing out an error in the original writing, which I assumed you had cut-and-pasted. I didn't think you had ruined the sense of the sentence yourself. As for my posts, you'll see plenty of typos, but it'll be better for your credibility if you ignore them, rather than getting the name of being a spell-lamer.
ONQ0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
There have been devastating job losses in all of the professions relating to construction
Architects , technicians , engineers , quantity surveyors , building services engineers have all been affected . And are considered by the Tainaste to have yet to feel the affects of the recession
Brendan Behan once remarked ( and I paraphrase ) that often the 1st item on the agenda of Irishmen meeting in to face an adversarial situation was "the split" . Lets not go there . Or if you prefer think of the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the catch phrase went something like " We are the Peoples Front of Judea - we hate The Judean Peoples Front"
If we don't stop point scoring against each other ( I will confess to being baited - my apologies for that ) and letting those who should know better - to know better - then the forces of govt and their policies will hurt us further
And to anyone reading not belonging to any of these professions - ask yourself this . If the govt. can publicly show how little our economic activities are devastated - how much attention do you think they are paying to understand about yours ?
Well I apologise too, especially for drifting so far off topic, but as I noted on one of my posts, specialising of the industry since the design and build elements split was the start of the rot. I agree that we should present a "United Building Industry Front"!
But let's face it guys, serious replies like Graby's are exactly what gives the Táiniste's comments credit. "Ohh look, I'm being taken seriously!"
Someone needs to "seriously" take the piss and the wind out her.
BTW, we're a soft target here. The real target is the legal profession, just in case you thought the IRLGOV were after us as such. We're target practice.
And there are plenty of "ins" for counter arguments by tech and others if only they are recognised as such.
Hint: who built the Parthenon?
What school did he qualify in?
ONQ0 -
I've got a job interview on Tuesday, unfortunately it couldn't be any less arch tech related. It's with paypal, initially was going to go for a Dutch market position but after a bit of talking to the HR manager decided to go for a Uk market position.
Off to Peru next year for 6 months next year. All going well this should be good for saving. Job is 4 days a week, 2 weekdays and a weekend day. I was told the office I worked a bit for would be flexible with me if I went to college, hopefully there will the opportunity of the odd day here and there with them to.
That is offcourse all depending on what happens Tuesday. Little sad it isn't architecture related but glad to know I might be able to save for those things I've been wanting
0 -
I've got a job interview on Tuesday, unfortunately it couldn't be any less arch tech related. It's with paypal, initially was going to go for a Dutch market position but after a bit of talking to the HR manager decided to go for a Uk market position.
Off to Peru next year for 6 months next year. All going well this should be good for saving. Job is 4 days a week, 2 weekdays and a weekend day. I was told the office I worked a bit for would be flexible with me if I went to college, hopefully there will the opportunity of the odd day here and there with them to.
That is offcourse all depending on what happens Tuesday. Little sad it isn't architecture related but glad to know I might be able to save for those things I've been wanting
Best of luck. I hope it all goes well for you!;)0 -
Advertisement
-
Best of luck BrenI've got a job interview on Tuesday, unfortunately it couldn't be any less arch tech related. It's with paypal, initially was going to go for a Dutch market position but after a bit of talking to the HR manager decided to go for a Uk market position.
Off to Peru next year for 6 months next year. All going well this should be good for saving. Job is 4 days a week, 2 weekdays and a weekend day. I was told the office I worked a bit for would be flexible with me if I went to college, hopefully there will the opportunity of the odd day here and there with them to.
That is offcourse all depending on what happens Tuesday. Little sad it isn't architecture related but glad to know I might be able to save for those things I've been wanting0 -
-
-
-
-
I don't know where you get this information from but its wrong.
In relation to the Longford House transfer option, I'm referring to the eighties in Bolton Street, which is the period during which I attended and qualified. I met several of the best technicians from Longford House - only the top 10% were considered eligible to join the Diploma in Architecture course. Some were pretty good. Most qualified as I recall. One or two were particularly fine designers.
Nor did I say it was. Bolton St. was tough enough, but more importantly, the RIAI route wasn't deluged with people looking to do it. It was perceived as a harder route to pass IIRC and it certainly wasn't in a position to offer the level of tuition that Bolton Street did. No campus, no studios, no lecturing staff - very hands off as I understood it.Firstly the formal route has a limited number of places. It isn't that many.
My experience with people doing the RIAI course was in the nineties when I worked for an office in which there were three Technicians at different times who were doing the course. Hard to get through. Difficult to get projects approved.Until recently, all places were taken. A great number stepped accross, the last few years however, only a few took the step.
Well, this is the point. We live in a society where appearance seems to be getting a lot of airplay over competence and more technicians becoming architects will bring strength in depth to the profession.To be honest I agree with this as everyone going across makes Techs look less professional.also, the formal route is a merely skipping first year.
Here we disagree. It is choosing a point where a technicians average level of design will cope with the demands placed on it be a design course. Some of the top 10% from Longford House can design, some can learn to design, some are so good at completing a set of working drawings that they find it difficult to explore design options and learn to develop a design response to a brief. For the latter the 2nd year entry is difficult enough, because having matured in their thinking early, they found it difficult to re-arrange the furniture to learn to design with it, so to speak.
This is a loaded question and deserves a qualified answer, since we're talking apples and oranges here. My comments are based on the Diplama Course as it was taught in the 1980's so things may have changed since then.Do you consider a qualified tech on par with a first year architect
Because the formal route in bolton street does
The entry to Second Year for technicians is apt because of the level of design most technicians arrive into the course with. I have never seen any technician "breeze" through 2nd year. They all found it challenging.
This is not about a technician being "on a par" with someone who's finished the 1st yeat of a full time design course. The comparison doesn't arise. Its like suggesting that two athletes from different sports are "on a par". Perhaps in some sense of fitness they may be, but an international level cyclist can't [in general] get off his bike and start playing in a national hurling squad.
[actuallu hurling is a nasty example to chose, because all the people I've spoken to about it say that unless you start them as soon as they can hold a hurley they won't develop the necessary co-ordination to play the game at a competitive level nationally. Now let's look at 1st year]
But to continue the example, the cyclist would need at least a year of training to become proficient at hurling. Wholly different ways of using muslces, different energy outputs, and a vastly different skill set is needed to be a good hurler than a good cyclist.
People who have done the 1st year have come from a wide veriety of backgrounds and have just spent an entire year at full time education, 9:00 am to 10:00pm five days a week if they were committed, but certainly 9:00 am to 10:00pm three days a week, just to get project research done in the library and meet interim Critique deadlines.
Half of this time is spent immersed in design in studio, i.e. learning by doing. Not everyone has the mental furniture to complete 1st year. There are always one or two whole fail. The fact that its not more [or wasn't in my day] suggests the interview course method works at least as far as aptitude goes. Losing focus, getting distracted by student life, some finding their first real romance - all intervene.
In this regard, the Technicians, some of who are already married or engaged by this time, are more mature and focussed on their studies than most of the younger 1st year graduates and far, far better at time management, something which tends to plague architects who weren't qualified as technicians first for the rest of their career.
The other half of 1st year is spent studying a broad range of subjects including civilisation studies, materials, working drawings/details, chemistry, physics, etc. This is to bring those people who were "streamed" into more arts-based subjects the chance to even out there education into the science subjects. Several people scrape through 1st year on subjects, some having to repeat in the autumn, only to fail 2nd year on subjects - some are good designers, or potentially good designers, but them's the rules. You need a good knowledge of materials to be a practising architect. Look at Canada House for example, and the firm there was and is a good firm.
2nd year is an important formative year in design terms before you "mature" into 3rd Year material. After 3rd year you are supposed to be able to design as a junior architect and contribute to design work in the office, not just draughting, which is what many 1st and 2nd years end up doing. As I said, not technician I shared a year with found 2nd year "easy". Imagine what would happen if the landed in 3rd year? The second year "House" project is the make or break project for that year and if you fail it you're a goner.
IN my opinion, very few technicians I have met could have handled the design demands of 3rd year without the second year preparation. Possibly two, out of perhaps 17 I have met personally, could have done that. Catering for 12% of an entrant population isn't a good way to run a course.
You're talking about a later period than I am familiar with. However the gist of your argument seems to be saying more places are needed. I wouldn't argue with that if there are more numbers looking to do the course. In my day there weren't, is what I said.As I said, VERY limited number of places. Quite a few took it. Including some of the current staff.
FWIW
M.0 -
I didnt read all the posts so this maybe irellevant, or not.
I heard from a lecturer that Cormac was angry that certain AT students scored less in the interview than some fresh out of school kids.
In some cases this might be true but if ever there was anyone in my class who should have done architexture it was this guy who scorred less than some students. He was pretty much top of the class for the 3 years, very good presentation skill and definatly a flair for architecture. He'll prob tell you him self he should have done architecture initially. Recently heard from one of his friends he's flying allong better than ever. He's used to the work load we had doing AT and has apparently been told to slow down and read a book or something by his arch lecturers.
All prob quite irrelevat to the above, and seriously offtopic
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
holy crap
Knew it was bad going by all the consultancies I know, but that is unreal. It'd be interesting to know where the 16pc who didn't let any staff go are! 0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement