Andrew Stunell, the minister responsible for the Architects’ Act, flatly rejected a request from The Association of Part Two Architects (Tapta) to consider a two-tier system.
Tapta argues this would be the best way of ending the “discrimination” against UK-trained part IIs who are barred from Arb’s register. Tapta’s complaint is that the Arb is required by a European directive to admit similarly qualified people from elsewhere in Europe because they are recognised as architects in their own countries.
Allowing UK part IIs to call themselves “certified architects”, while part IIIs retained the title “registered architect, would end this injustice, said Paul McGrath, who founded the lobby group last month.
-------------------------------------------------
Okay, I know nothing about the British system for licensing architects. However, I thought the idea [is] was a brilliant idea for a model that could be used Stateside.
We all know there are certain projects a high school drop out can do that would more-than-likely meet the health and well-being clauses that make licensure -- whether it be contractor, architect or engineer-- important.
There are, however, certain projects that should only be carried out by "fully" licensed professionals-- anything to do with drainage, stairs, fire and structural concerns are awfully important in my opinion.
We all know there's exemptions to the licensing rule whether they be height, square footage, use et cetera.
I'm posing this question to youse [licensed architects, associated professionals et cetera]...
How would you feel about a half-license?
What do you think a person should have to qualify for a half-license?
What parts or portions of the ARE would apply to a half-license?
What presumed role would a half-license have in relation to your own practice?
I think a half-license could work out well in one important aspect: agents.
Real estate agents know what can and can't be done legally, they defer to those who can when they can't and they are a staple in the management of already existing properties.
However, what would make an architectural agent different is that they know what they can and cannot do, defer to those who can and would be a staple in things that currently do not exist.
For instance, an architectural agent maybe able to meet with a client, discuss a specific site and tell them what can and can't be done within the contexts of a selected site. The architectural agent can then prepare the basis of a site plan, some flashy renders and some notes. Using that, it can bid the project out to competing local firms.
In short, the half-licensed architectural salesperson does the legwork and is relatively detached from the process.
There's also the issue that some projects may actually be too small for an full-service architecture or engineering firm-- does one really need to full power of a firm to install a brick patio, pour a small foundation or rehabilitate a small structure?
That would completely destroy the protection racket in the US. Who wants that? It's important to stay the course of screaming bloody murder at other professionals for chipping away at our services while shying away from construction risk ourselves.
I find the UK system the most confusing registration system out there. In part, it is also a protectionist thing. I have friends who left UK out of frustration for not being able to have their north american degrees certified properly. The fact that mainland Euro Architects have an easier time getting registered in the UK than the UK part II's is very, very ironic. Eat it bitches.
Part II architects: dead before they were born?
Andrew Stunell, the minister responsible for the Architects’ Act, flatly rejected a request from The Association of Part Two Architects (Tapta) to consider a two-tier system.
Tapta argues this would be the best way of ending the “discrimination” against UK-trained part IIs who are barred from Arb’s register. Tapta’s complaint is that the Arb is required by a European directive to admit similarly qualified people from elsewhere in Europe because they are recognised as architects in their own countries.
Allowing UK part IIs to call themselves “certified architects”, while part IIIs retained the title “registered architect, would end this injustice, said Paul McGrath, who founded the lobby group last month.
-------------------------------------------------
Okay, I know nothing about the British system for licensing architects. However, I thought the idea [is] was a brilliant idea for a model that could be used Stateside.
We all know there are certain projects a high school drop out can do that would more-than-likely meet the health and well-being clauses that make licensure -- whether it be contractor, architect or engineer-- important.
There are, however, certain projects that should only be carried out by "fully" licensed professionals-- anything to do with drainage, stairs, fire and structural concerns are awfully important in my opinion.
We all know there's exemptions to the licensing rule whether they be height, square footage, use et cetera.
I'm posing this question to youse [licensed architects, associated professionals et cetera]...
How would you feel about a half-license?
What do you think a person should have to qualify for a half-license?
What parts or portions of the ARE would apply to a half-license?
What presumed role would a half-license have in relation to your own practice?
I'll answer:
I think a half-license could work out well in one important aspect: agents.
Real estate agents know what can and can't be done legally, they defer to those who can when they can't and they are a staple in the management of already existing properties.
However, what would make an architectural agent different is that they know what they can and cannot do, defer to those who can and would be a staple in things that currently do not exist.
For instance, an architectural agent maybe able to meet with a client, discuss a specific site and tell them what can and can't be done within the contexts of a selected site. The architectural agent can then prepare the basis of a site plan, some flashy renders and some notes. Using that, it can bid the project out to competing local firms.
In short, the half-licensed architectural salesperson does the legwork and is relatively detached from the process.
There's also the issue that some projects may actually be too small for an full-service architecture or engineering firm-- does one really need to full power of a firm to install a brick patio, pour a small foundation or rehabilitate a small structure?
That would completely destroy the protection racket in the US. Who wants that? It's important to stay the course of screaming bloody murder at other professionals for chipping away at our services while shying away from construction risk ourselves.
I find the UK system the most confusing registration system out there. In part, it is also a protectionist thing. I have friends who left UK out of frustration for not being able to have their north american degrees certified properly. The fact that mainland Euro Architects have an easier time getting registered in the UK than the UK part II's is very, very ironic. Eat it bitches.
In most of these cases you don't need to be licensed.
Also, you lost me an architecture-agent.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.