Firstly, I am not trying to put this on anyone but I felt the need to talk about it. I just spent the last 3 days and nights in our provincial legislature building defending the profession of architecture alongside 200 of my colleagues, practioners and students.
It's a lengthy story, but as we are starting to figure out, was that we have been a sacraficial lamb for the provincial and municipal government. They are in the process of changing our act and reducing our scope of practice thus bailing them out for 15 years of illegally granting building permits on projects that required an architect but never had one. (Our professional body had earlier sued the city over this illegal practice and won the court case, instead of appealing the ruling, they went after our act)
All of our efforts were a waste and we now stand as a profession on the brink of a slow, painful erosion. Its as if we have been exiled by our own government and all of our words fall on deaf ears.
I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, a city of about 750,000, right smack dab in the middle of the country. I don't even want to call myself a resident of this place anymore, its utterly sickening whats happening here.
The strategy now is just to make as much noise as possible, in the government, in the media, etc. One positive note, is that it has united our entire profession to a feverish point. If any of you have any ideas on media promotion, angles, tactics, etc, please share them.
Thanks in advance, atleast I know my education and training is valued everywhere else but here.
I'm in BC and I haven't heard anything about this. Can't find any news about it either. I'm not an architect though. What kind of projects are in dispute?
This is just one of the proposed changes, it outlines the following:
1.2 ALTERATIONS:
Involved: - Draft table for Alterations (2.1.7) to be included in the Manitoba Building Code
Consequence:
Under the Draft Table, every single renovation/alteration project could be completed without the involvement of an architect. Projects that would not have required an architect based on this Draft Table include:
the renovation of the new Millenium Library
the entire second floor addition to Polo Park Shopping Centre;
the addition of a new cardiovascular wing to the St. Boniface Hospital;
the conversion of the entire Richardson Building into condominiums;
i'm just beginning studies in architecture, and i am not familiar with the act, so i can't guess at the implications of what the government is doing, but the word safety came to mind. appealing to everyone's desire for safety is a good way to raise awareness and support on behalf of the general public. not thinking sensationalist fear-mongering media tactics, but explaining the consequences as they appeal to the end users of architecture. if our buildings become less safe as a result, who in their right mind wouldn't care about what the government is doing. sadly, no one but architects will care about the impact of such changes on the profession.
our government seems to give us many many reasons to be sick to our stomach; this isn't surprising.
i went to u of m too, but moved to london and now tokyo so never really got into the manitoba architecture scene. it is both worse and better here as contractors who want to do anything bigger than a house have to get a licence, not much different from the architectural licence.
so we compete directly on all kinds of things, and now the government has gone in for private funding of public buildings it is impossible to get a government building without teaming up with a contractor to begin with. i don't mind too much but the definition of an architect is definitely changing.
as for safety issues i am doubtful this is an area that will be impinged. inspectors will still have to visit the sites and permits will still have to be issued and all the laws will still have to be obeyed. the only difference is that it won't be an architect doing the paperwork. and someone else will be liable.
my own view is that we just have to be better at it than the contractors. By chance i was in polo park a few weeks ago and gotta say we have nothing serious to worry about (unless that bit of work was in fact designed by an architect, in which case architects really can't pretend to be more capable than a contractor at all and we deserve to be sidelined)....;-)
jl ... that sucks, man ... sorry to hear about this development
over the years i have heard many, many architects lament the necessity to participate actively in the political process, maintaining that it is a dirty business and demeaning for "professionals"
situations like this reinforce the view that if we don't participate -- and participate actively -- we will not have the influence we need when important issues like this come up
we can be at the table or we can turn our back on the table ... it's better to be at the table
hope you guys get this thing reversed ... please let us know how it turns out
It's an unfortunate situation, but jump and file bring up good points.
As for the job situation in Vancouver, we're in the middle of a building boom, so there's lots of work to be had if you've got the right skills, from my understanding. Firms aren't desperate though.
Is it belittlement if folks can go to a contractor and get the same quality of work?
The same is true in the landscape architecture profession. We've got civil engineers, architects, contractors, and others stepping up to the plate and engaging in the practise of landscape architecture. This shouldn't be a threat in and of itself. And to those who fully engage in the high level of quality of participation and design that our profession should, it isn't. But it is generally, because these other professions are just as good as most landscape architects are at designing/building crap that merely conforms to the legally defensible criteria people want in a project with the minumum use of time, energy, man-power, and money.
I won't argue that this sort of situation doesn't erode the profession, but I think that this erosion first starts within the profession itself. No one's perfect, as they say, and our professions should be ready and willing to accept that and to learn to better engage our practices so that 'architect' and 'landscape architect' mean something to people.
In australia, we are - very slowly- moving in the opposite direction.
The NSW State Government has in recent years introduced legislation requiring an architect to be involved in all residential developments over three storeys. This is primarily a reaction to the increasing number of appallingly designed apartment buildings that have gone up over the last couple of years. So far it seems to have stemmed the flow of nastiness a little.
Other than that, anyone can design and house, office building, community centre if they like and they often do.
So, j lotus, keep fighting because it will take a couple of decades of poor architecture before the authorities realise their mistake...
I believe what is most shocking is the drastic nature in which it has happened. also, the proposed legislation is unprecedented in Canada, and we believe most of North America (ie. the overall proposed changes)
Our professional body is meeting again tomorrow night to discuss our new strategy. Our previous arguments did center around public safety, limitations of the building code, professional development and certification, liability, etc. What has hit home is the overwhelming numbers of students and young interns that came to speak and said that they would leave the province if said legislation went through.
The Minister of Labour (the final decision maker) has agreed to visit the school of architecture here and speak to the students...this should be interesting...I will keep you posted...
Slightly off topic, but I've spent quite a lot of time in vancouver in the last 6 months, and I was surprised to learn that it is possible to get an architect's license there (and I assume throughout the country) without going to architecture school. Through something called the RAIC syllabus program, someone working in an architect's office (technologist, etc.) can get their license by taking night classes. I met someone who is doing this, he told me that there are about 80 people in the province (British Columbia) who are currently doing this. I was surprised. Anyone else heard of this?
I know you can do the same in landscape architect. One of my favorite local designers started as secretary, I believe. I might be wrong, but this may have occured before licensure was as 'strict' as it is now. Doing it this way today without graduating from an acredited landscape architecture program takes something like 8 consecutive years of combined experience through work, exams, and classes. It's possible, but certainly not the most economic. I know that there's also a sort of 'secondary' position in registering that allows folks in related fields like horticulture or visual resource management to be a part of the professional world of landscap[e architects in BC. I think the bugs are still being worked out at the moment. I haven't been keeping up that much. Things do very between the provinces [and some states] in terms of how much time it takes to do things and whatnot.
It's an interesting issue though. Somewhat off topic again, but I'm just recalling the whole nasty mess between FOA and the structural designer for the ownership of the Yokohama Ferry Terminal design. I think the structural engineer worked out the design, but as the lead on the project, FOA got ownership of the design or something... Things swing both ways, I guess.
in many provinces and states this is possible but i believe it takes quite a long time....?
it is a good thing though. in japan the system is more open than NA, to qualify to take the exam you can either
work 7 years in an office
work 2 years after a bachelor of arch
or have no experience if you have a march
many of my classmates have their licences here and have never worked in an office, for better or worse. but they learn quickly enough. cool thing about the system is that it gives people like ando a chance to get a licence without going to school (though i am told he never bothered with the exam in the end). everyone thinks ando is amazing for teaching himself architecture but it is pretty normal here.
i suppose it is the same for our legal protection. the monopoly we enjoyed for so long is really quite artificial and i think as long as safety is not compromised there is no need for it. we simply are not the same as doctors or lawyers. our fiduciary responsibilities and our knowledge just aren't that special. are they?
yes, I know a guy going through the syllabus program aswell. its based strictly around internship, strict mentoring and something equivalent to the masters studios and thesis project. But I do believe you have to intern and log hours for about 10 years or something like that. Its mostly setup for people who started as technicians or came in from other related fields and began working in an office, then decided to become an architect.
I'm reviewing an online course dealing with professional legislative and legal aspects and found the follow quote from the Supreme Court of Canada to be interesting. It even stems from a Manitoba-based trial. [Maybe this is the case you first speak of.] The second paragraph deals most closely with your situation in Manitoba , I believe.
In 1991, in a case called Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted this quote:
"In the government of the professions, both public and professional authorities have important roles to play. When the legislature decrees, by statute, that only licensed practitioners may carry on certain functions, it create valuable rights. As the ultimate source of those rights, the legislature must remain ultimately responsible for the way in which they are conferred and exercised. Furthermore, the very decision to restrict the right to practice in a professional area implies that such a restriction is necessary to protect affected clients or third parties. The regulation of professional practice through the creation and the operation of a licensing system, then is a matter of public policy; it emanates from the legislature; it involves the creation of valuable right; and it is directed towards the protection of vulnerable interests.
On the other hand, where the legislature sees fit to delegate some of its authority in these matters of public policy to professional bodies themselves, it must respect the self-governing status to these bodies. Government ought not to prescribe in detail the structures, processes, and policies of professional bodies. The initiative in such matters must rest with the professions themselves recognizing their particular expertise and sensitivity to the conditions of practice. In brief, professional self-governing bodies must be ultimately accountable to the legislature; but they must have the authority to make, in the first place, the decisions for which they are to be accountable."
So, the question is, are they over-prescribing professional structure/policies by reducing your scope of work, or are they acting in the best interests of public policy?
No worries. I'm really digging this whole reviewing, thing actually.
I've found some more interesting tid-bits...
In an Alberta document this was said:
"The public interest is defined as:
-protection from incompetent or unethical provision of services;
-efficient and high quality provision of services
-a proper balance between the rights and responsibilities of practitioners, consumers and the public;
-the ability of consumers to exercise informed judgment and freedom of choice in their selection of professional services."
-And-
The Manitoba Law Reform Commission said:
"The purpose of occupational regulation should be to protect the public from harm resulting from the improper performance of an occupational service; it should not be used to benefit or reward practitioners."
So, if the legislature can prove that your professional act is doing either of the highlighted things, [i.e. your scope of work limits who the client--whether they're institutions, individuals, or whatever else--from being able to select the service they want] you may be up the creek without a paddle.
Another resource that may be helpful, though I can't imagine providing an entire provincial professional organization with more help, is this:
Regulating Professions and Occupations, Manitoba Law Reform Commission 1994 Ontario, Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights
(Report No. 1, Volume 3), Commissioner: James Chalmer McRuer (Toronto: Queen's Printer 1968 - 71)
Nov 29, 05 11:02 pm ·
·
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.
our professional act just got gutted
hello all,
Firstly, I am not trying to put this on anyone but I felt the need to talk about it. I just spent the last 3 days and nights in our provincial legislature building defending the profession of architecture alongside 200 of my colleagues, practioners and students.
It's a lengthy story, but as we are starting to figure out, was that we have been a sacraficial lamb for the provincial and municipal government. They are in the process of changing our act and reducing our scope of practice thus bailing them out for 15 years of illegally granting building permits on projects that required an architect but never had one. (Our professional body had earlier sued the city over this illegal practice and won the court case, instead of appealing the ruling, they went after our act)
All of our efforts were a waste and we now stand as a profession on the brink of a slow, painful erosion. Its as if we have been exiled by our own government and all of our words fall on deaf ears.
I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, a city of about 750,000, right smack dab in the middle of the country. I don't even want to call myself a resident of this place anymore, its utterly sickening whats happening here.
The strategy now is just to make as much noise as possible, in the government, in the media, etc. One positive note, is that it has united our entire profession to a feverish point. If any of you have any ideas on media promotion, angles, tactics, etc, please share them.
Thanks in advance, atleast I know my education and training is valued everywhere else but here.
I'm in BC and I haven't heard anything about this. Can't find any news about it either. I'm not an architect though. What kind of projects are in dispute?
This is just one of the proposed changes, it outlines the following:
1.2 ALTERATIONS:
Involved: - Draft table for Alterations (2.1.7) to be included in the Manitoba Building Code
Consequence:
Under the Draft Table, every single renovation/alteration project could be completed without the involvement of an architect. Projects that would not have required an architect based on this Draft Table include:
the renovation of the new Millenium Library
the entire second floor addition to Polo Park Shopping Centre;
the addition of a new cardiovascular wing to the St. Boniface Hospital;
the conversion of the entire Richardson Building into condominiums;
hey driftwood, how's the job scene in Vancouver? (i'm assuming you live there of course)
i'm just beginning studies in architecture, and i am not familiar with the act, so i can't guess at the implications of what the government is doing, but the word safety came to mind. appealing to everyone's desire for safety is a good way to raise awareness and support on behalf of the general public. not thinking sensationalist fear-mongering media tactics, but explaining the consequences as they appeal to the end users of architecture. if our buildings become less safe as a result, who in their right mind wouldn't care about what the government is doing. sadly, no one but architects will care about the impact of such changes on the profession.
our government seems to give us many many reasons to be sick to our stomach; this isn't surprising.
hey j.
i went to u of m too, but moved to london and now tokyo so never really got into the manitoba architecture scene. it is both worse and better here as contractors who want to do anything bigger than a house have to get a licence, not much different from the architectural licence.
so we compete directly on all kinds of things, and now the government has gone in for private funding of public buildings it is impossible to get a government building without teaming up with a contractor to begin with. i don't mind too much but the definition of an architect is definitely changing.
as for safety issues i am doubtful this is an area that will be impinged. inspectors will still have to visit the sites and permits will still have to be issued and all the laws will still have to be obeyed. the only difference is that it won't be an architect doing the paperwork. and someone else will be liable.
my own view is that we just have to be better at it than the contractors. By chance i was in polo park a few weeks ago and gotta say we have nothing serious to worry about (unless that bit of work was in fact designed by an architect, in which case architects really can't pretend to be more capable than a contractor at all and we deserve to be sidelined)....;-)
jl ... that sucks, man ... sorry to hear about this development
over the years i have heard many, many architects lament the necessity to participate actively in the political process, maintaining that it is a dirty business and demeaning for "professionals"
situations like this reinforce the view that if we don't participate -- and participate actively -- we will not have the influence we need when important issues like this come up
we can be at the table or we can turn our back on the table ... it's better to be at the table
hope you guys get this thing reversed ... please let us know how it turns out
In NZ, no project is required by law to involve an architect.
Also in NL you can build without an architect.
Okay, I see.
It's an unfortunate situation, but jump and file bring up good points.
As for the job situation in Vancouver, we're in the middle of a building boom, so there's lots of work to be had if you've got the right skills, from my understanding. Firms aren't desperate though.
This sort of belittlement of our profession is happening in more places than most of us care to think about..
[url=http://www.texasarchitect.org/news_detail.php?news_id=60&sess_id=f1f4dce515e79c7da019803518f8a433]link[url]
oops, thats
http://www.texasarchitect.org/news_detail.php?news_id=60&sess_id=f1f4dce515e79c7da019803518f8a433
Is it belittlement if folks can go to a contractor and get the same quality of work?
The same is true in the landscape architecture profession. We've got civil engineers, architects, contractors, and others stepping up to the plate and engaging in the practise of landscape architecture. This shouldn't be a threat in and of itself. And to those who fully engage in the high level of quality of participation and design that our profession should, it isn't. But it is generally, because these other professions are just as good as most landscape architects are at designing/building crap that merely conforms to the legally defensible criteria people want in a project with the minumum use of time, energy, man-power, and money.
I won't argue that this sort of situation doesn't erode the profession, but I think that this erosion first starts within the profession itself. No one's perfect, as they say, and our professions should be ready and willing to accept that and to learn to better engage our practices so that 'architect' and 'landscape architect' mean something to people.
In australia, we are - very slowly- moving in the opposite direction.
The NSW State Government has in recent years introduced legislation requiring an architect to be involved in all residential developments over three storeys. This is primarily a reaction to the increasing number of appallingly designed apartment buildings that have gone up over the last couple of years. So far it seems to have stemmed the flow of nastiness a little.
Other than that, anyone can design and house, office building, community centre if they like and they often do.
So, j lotus, keep fighting because it will take a couple of decades of poor architecture before the authorities realise their mistake...
I believe what is most shocking is the drastic nature in which it has happened. also, the proposed legislation is unprecedented in Canada, and we believe most of North America (ie. the overall proposed changes)
Our professional body is meeting again tomorrow night to discuss our new strategy. Our previous arguments did center around public safety, limitations of the building code, professional development and certification, liability, etc. What has hit home is the overwhelming numbers of students and young interns that came to speak and said that they would leave the province if said legislation went through.
The Minister of Labour (the final decision maker) has agreed to visit the school of architecture here and speak to the students...this should be interesting...I will keep you posted...
Slightly off topic, but I've spent quite a lot of time in vancouver in the last 6 months, and I was surprised to learn that it is possible to get an architect's license there (and I assume throughout the country) without going to architecture school. Through something called the RAIC syllabus program, someone working in an architect's office (technologist, etc.) can get their license by taking night classes. I met someone who is doing this, he told me that there are about 80 people in the province (British Columbia) who are currently doing this. I was surprised. Anyone else heard of this?
I know you can do the same in landscape architect. One of my favorite local designers started as secretary, I believe. I might be wrong, but this may have occured before licensure was as 'strict' as it is now. Doing it this way today without graduating from an acredited landscape architecture program takes something like 8 consecutive years of combined experience through work, exams, and classes. It's possible, but certainly not the most economic. I know that there's also a sort of 'secondary' position in registering that allows folks in related fields like horticulture or visual resource management to be a part of the professional world of landscap[e architects in BC. I think the bugs are still being worked out at the moment. I haven't been keeping up that much. Things do very between the provinces [and some states] in terms of how much time it takes to do things and whatnot.
It's an interesting issue though. Somewhat off topic again, but I'm just recalling the whole nasty mess between FOA and the structural designer for the ownership of the Yokohama Ferry Terminal design. I think the structural engineer worked out the design, but as the lead on the project, FOA got ownership of the design or something... Things swing both ways, I guess.
to the off topic...
in many provinces and states this is possible but i believe it takes quite a long time....?
it is a good thing though. in japan the system is more open than NA, to qualify to take the exam you can either
work 7 years in an office
work 2 years after a bachelor of arch
or have no experience if you have a march
many of my classmates have their licences here and have never worked in an office, for better or worse. but they learn quickly enough. cool thing about the system is that it gives people like ando a chance to get a licence without going to school (though i am told he never bothered with the exam in the end). everyone thinks ando is amazing for teaching himself architecture but it is pretty normal here.
i suppose it is the same for our legal protection. the monopoly we enjoyed for so long is really quite artificial and i think as long as safety is not compromised there is no need for it. we simply are not the same as doctors or lawyers. our fiduciary responsibilities and our knowledge just aren't that special. are they?
one point is related to Liability - A non professional can just disolve their company after doing crap work. While an architect is liable for life.
as for vancouver jobs:
http://www.aibc.ca/member_resources/classifieds/employment.html
But I think if you cold called a lot of places would take you in. Cause yes things are busy right now.
re: syllabus program
yes, I know a guy going through the syllabus program aswell. its based strictly around internship, strict mentoring and something equivalent to the masters studios and thesis project. But I do believe you have to intern and log hours for about 10 years or something like that. Its mostly setup for people who started as technicians or came in from other related fields and began working in an office, then decided to become an architect.
I'm reviewing an online course dealing with professional legislative and legal aspects and found the follow quote from the Supreme Court of Canada to be interesting. It even stems from a Manitoba-based trial. [Maybe this is the case you first speak of.] The second paragraph deals most closely with your situation in Manitoba , I believe.
In 1991, in a case called Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted this quote:"In the government of the professions, both public and professional authorities have important roles to play. When the legislature decrees, by statute, that only licensed practitioners may carry on certain functions, it create valuable rights. As the ultimate source of those rights, the legislature must remain ultimately responsible for the way in which they are conferred and exercised. Furthermore, the very decision to restrict the right to practice in a professional area implies that such a restriction is necessary to protect affected clients or third parties. The regulation of professional practice through the creation and the operation of a licensing system, then is a matter of public policy; it emanates from the legislature; it involves the creation of valuable right; and it is directed towards the protection of vulnerable interests.
On the other hand, where the legislature sees fit to delegate some of its authority in these matters of public policy to professional bodies themselves, it must respect the self-governing status to these bodies. Government ought not to prescribe in detail the structures, processes, and policies of professional bodies. The initiative in such matters must rest with the professions themselves recognizing their particular expertise and sensitivity to the conditions of practice. In brief, professional self-governing bodies must be ultimately accountable to the legislature; but they must have the authority to make, in the first place, the decisions for which they are to be accountable."
So, the question is, are they over-prescribing professional structure/policies by reducing your scope of work, or are they acting in the best interests of public policy?
nice work driftwood, i'll be sure to forward this on...every bit helps, especially if it is on public record...
No worries. I'm really digging this whole reviewing, thing actually.
In an Alberta document this was said:I've found some more interesting tid-bits...
"The public interest is defined as:
-protection from incompetent or unethical provision of services;
-efficient and high quality provision of services
-a proper balance between the rights and responsibilities of practitioners, consumers and the public;
-the ability of consumers to exercise informed judgment and freedom of choice in their selection of professional services."
-And-
The Manitoba Law Reform Commission said:
"The purpose of occupational regulation should be to protect the public from harm resulting from the improper performance of an occupational service; it should not be used to benefit or reward practitioners."
So, if the legislature can prove that your professional act is doing either of the highlighted things, [i.e. your scope of work limits who the client--whether they're institutions, individuals, or whatever else--from being able to select the service they want] you may be up the creek without a paddle.
Another resource that may be helpful, though I can't imagine providing an entire provincial professional organization with more help, is this:
Regulating Professions and Occupations, Manitoba Law Reform Commission 1994 Ontario, Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights (Report No. 1, Volume 3), Commissioner: James Chalmer McRuer (Toronto: Queen's Printer 1968 - 71)
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.