Architectural Technicians do not exist in France and many other countries

Chris Arch

I am qualified from France and I have worked between the UK and Ireland during the last 14 years...

I feel very disturbed by the term "architectural technician"... Are people calling themselves this way because they are ignorant of all artistic matters? Ignorant of non technical matters?

I may shock many posters in this forum, but I feel this new proffession very reductive. In my country of birth and many others, employed younger architects are doing the technical work, and directors or older architects are doing the work that a so called architect does in Ireland and the UK...

What I find interesting in architecture is the variety of industries, technologies, arts, sciences and philosophies which are part of the proffession...

How strange that, when looking for proffessional experience, many companies wanted to use my skills as a technician, despite the fact that I was studing in Arts & Architecture... I think that this reflect very well the non-sense...

I find the term architect assistant more realistic and appropriate. I have accepted work as an assistant when I always refused work as a technician... An Architect Assistant may become Architect, when a technician will stay a technician...

Any way I will not change the world... I just wanted to express my opinion on this subject... I had so many pressures on me to confine myself into the architectural technician proffession, and so many pressures to prevent me practicing as an architects that it left some scares...

Mellor

First of all, Technicians exist in many other countires, under different names. "Constructeur" is one I believe.

Secondly, the notion that an architectural assistant is a better position that a AT is laughable. For those that are not aware, the assistant is basically a part 1 architect (3 years of study).

Also, I've came accross many architects who claimed to be able to act in the same role as a technician. And to be honest, they almostg always can't. Some can with plenty of good expierence, but being able to use cad isn't enough

archtech

Chris Arch wrote: »

I am qualified from France and I have worked between the UK and Ireland during the last 14 years...

I feel very disturbed by the term "architectural technician"... Are people calling themselves this way because they are ignorant of all artistic matters? Ignorant of non technical matters?

I may shock many posters in this forum, but I feel this new proffession very reductive. In my country of birth and many others, employed younger architects are doing the technical work, and directors or older architects are doing the work that a so called architect does in Ireland and the UK...

This is not France, and like it or not things are done differently here. It may or may not be better than the French system, but when your in a foreign land, you should respect its ways and cultures. Architectural technicians/technologists don't claim to be architects, we are a separate profession. We (ATs) are educated to sort out the technical elements of design. The education of architect here and even more in the UK is design focused not on working out technical solutions of the design. Furthermore the profession isn't new its been around for well over 40 years .. ok I suppose compared to architects is fair to say that its a young profession.

Chris Arch wrote: »

An Architect Assistant may become Architect, when a technician will stay a technician..

That's a bit of a generalisation there, a technician if s/he wishes can go on to become an architect, same way as anyone can decide what direction they take in a profession.

sinnerboy

archtech wrote: »

That's a bit of a generalisation there, a technician if s/he wishes can go on to become an architect, same way as anyone can decide what direction they take in a profession.

Never , never , never for me .

AT - and PROUD

sydthebeat

Chris.. i suppose a bit of history to this thread would be part of this???

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055500559

correct me if i am wrong... for the sake of laziness, ill simply copy and paste some of my posts in that thread....




my issue with the building control bill is...

How can the registration board deliberate on "the work submitted must be equivalent to that of an Architect in terms of its scale and complexity and quality" when the exact role of an architect in the construction process is so controversial.??

reading the 'DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL' of 7 September 2005
on the recognition of professional qualifications

....it states the training of an architect should lead to the acquisition of 11 skills....

see article 46 here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...22:0142:EN:PDF


on reading this list its clear to me that I, as an architectural technician, am formally trained in 6 of them; i have experiential training in 3 others... i do not have training in only 2 of them....

From what i understand, many of these skill sets are actually more applicable to other professions that Architects themselves.

namely,
(d) describes a planning professional such as a planning consultant / urban planner.
(h) describes structural / mechanical engineers
(i) describes the role of Architectural technician
(j) describes arch technicians and quantity surveyors
(k) definitely describes architectural technicians

the list describes skills that would be more pertinent to other professions than architects....
ie "understanding of structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with the building design"
or "adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in the planning process"
or "adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and of the function of buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of comfort and protection against the climate"

therefore, if these definitions of the requisite skills of an 'architect' would be more correctly used to describe an architectural technician, or services engineer, or structural engineer etc....

what exactly is an architect to be defined as??

because architects qualifying from various educational facilities today are seriously short of some of these 'fundamental' architectural skills.







The technological and regulatory function of the Architect is taught incidentally in the 'Architecture' course because it is formally taught in depth in the 'Technician' course. As an example, DIT have both a Department of Architecture and Urban Design, and a Department of Architectural Technology.

The profession of Architectural Technician has become a stand-alone profession, rather than the percieved 'architects assistant' or 'architect-lite' that the industry may have.

In a move i fully agree with, graduate architects are focused, through their education, on the design, philosophy and theory of architecture, and professional practise, with a lesser focus on the realationship between design and construction.








I feel this dissociation allows both professions specialise further and expand deeper into their specific fields.... i feel the profession of architecture is being disseminated into 'Design Architects' and 'Technical Architects'... but of course, technicians cannot call themselves such because of the Building Control Act

I think the aim is to allow graduate architects design with a lot more freedom, and the practical construction side is seen as a buffer or restriction on design. In many practises its the job of the technician to make the architects design 'work'.

as for your query "why does the architect certify the construction work, if it is the architect technician to focus on the relationship between design and construction?" well, thats the million dollar question....

It has always been a bone of contention to Technicians, because the design the technical side of the projects to ensure compliance with statutory legislation and regulation, yet they cannot put their names to the certificate.
It is common practise for technicians to carry out the on-site inspections to ensure compliance, only to bring the completed certificate to the architects desk for his/her signature.



In my experience, domestic architecture on the cutting edge of progression is pushed more by technicians, mechanical engineers and structural engineers than architects... for whatever reason that may be.

The first passive house in ireland was designed by a landscape architect.

many clients looking to build low energy houses have been disillusioned after consultation with some 'architects' because of the so-call professionals lack of knowledge in this area. Have a read in the construction and planning forum for many examples of this. Its the technicians and MEs who are pushing the boundaries (and also keeping some technologies in check) when it comes to ecological or low energy building.

Poor Uncle Tom

An AT can go on to become an architect...........so what.....a doctor, a mechanic, a vet, etc., can also change profession and go on to become an architect.

Chris Arch wrote: »

I may shock many posters in this forum,

I think the word you're looking for isn't shock it's insult.

sydthebeat

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

An AT can go on to become an architect...........so what.....a doctor, a mechanic, a vet, etc., can also change profession and go on to become an architect.


I think the word you're looking for isn't shock it's insult.

lads to be fair, i really think chris hasnt come on here to insult....

i suggested to him to look up this forum....

i think he is looking more for our descriptions and explainations of how the professions of architect and technician work here, and in other countries....

Retro-Fit

Chris Arch wrote: »

An Architect Assistant may become Architect, when a technician will stay a technician......

What Chris is saying isn't an insult, its a dose of reality.

Technicians have evolved a role which due the increased regulation has become almost a discipline in its own right. Unfortunately the scope for technicians is very restricted and much of this is due to limitations in educational opportunities post Level 7. Despite this many technicians have rode on the back of the unprecedented building boom to positions of authority in the once prestigious architecture practices. This is now somewhat of a mute point as technicians have been laid of in proportionally higher figures than our Architect friends.

Lets not kid ourselves in terms of parity of esteem with Architects, We are still regarded as 'the architects technician' I know this is a controversial point and it is not said to diminish the technician qualification,of which I am rightly a proud graduate. The point is made to stimulate debate so we might develop our core skills into a useful sustainable profession for the changed world ahead.

When I studied AT in the 90's the most students had near or over 400 points. The contact hours for the course were over 30 per week, and a further 10 -20 hours had to be put in to complete projects to a satisfactory level. Apply that to any other career path and you would have an honours degree and would be a member of a profession. That would allow individuals or firms the back up to build strong compeditive business instead of feeding off the scraps that fall from the architects table.

Its time to get real, with code for sustainable homes type benchmarks immenent, an EU directive on the way for Passive standard buildings, there is a need for a technical scientific designer role, unhindered by the baggage of strict adherence the design rules imposed by school of architecture philosopies.

Stop whinging about how technicians deserve to be treated as architects, Notwithstanding Sydthebeats excellent post. We do, but imagine if they let most technicians practice as architects who would want to study architecture. Instead let us build a profession which is more technically adept and literate than Architects. Building physicists or Sustainibility Consultants are much needed.

How is Cormac Allen and the ATI coming along with those top up courses we so urgently needed 5 years ago?

pseudo-tech

Retro-Fit wrote: »

Technicians have evolved a role which due the increased regulation has become almost a discipline in its own right.

Has it not always been a discipline in its own right? Maybe, the scope of works have changed and responsibilities expanded.

Retro-Fit wrote: »

Unfortunately the scope for technicians is very restricted and much of this is due to limitations in educational opportunities post Level 7.

I don't think that this is the case. I feel however, that a number of Technician's have felt subservient for too many years and have not pushed for further education.

Retro-Fit wrote: »

Lets not kid ourselves in terms of parity of esteem with Architects, We are still regarded as 'the architects technician' I know this is a controversial point and it is not said to diminish the technician qualification,of which I am rightly a proud graduate. The point is made to stimulate debate so we might develop our core skills into a useful sustainable profession for the changed world ahead.

Why can Technician's not have 'parity of esteem with Architects'? In England they do through the CIAT. The restrictions that Technician's feel here in Ireland is not shared with Technician's in England. I feel that the lack of professional representation here in Ireland has held the asperations of many a Technician back reinforcing that already lack of self-confidence.

Retro-Fit wrote: »

When I studied AT in the 90's the most students had near or over 400 points. The contact hours for the course were over 30 per week, and a further 10 -20 hours had to be put in to complete projects to a satisfactory level. Apply that to any other career path and you would have an honours degree and would be a member of a profession. That would allow individuals or firms the back up to build strong compeditive business instead of feeding off the scraps that fall from the architects table.

I agree with you in full. The level 8 degree courses of today are nearly the same 3 year course spread out over 4 years.

Retro-Fit wrote: »

Its time to get real, with code for sustainable homes type benchmarks immenent, an EU directive on the way for Passive standard buildings, there is a need for a technical scientific designer role, unhindered by the baggage of strict adherence the design rules imposed by school of architecture philosopies.

I agree with you again. If Technician's in Ireland were afforded the same recognition as Technician's in England, I don't think we would be looking at your idea as a radical idea but the norm.

Retro-Fit wrote: »

Stop whinging about how technicians deserve to be treated as architects, Notwithstanding Sydthebeats excellent post. We do, but imagine if they let most technicians practice as architects who would want to study architecture. Instead let us build a profession which is more technically adept and literate than Architects. Building physicists or Sustainibility Consultants are much needed.

Why do we need to build a profession? Is this not already there albeit, in a fragmented form. That is why we need all Technician's to join a professional body and let our voices be heard.

Retro-Fit wrote: »

How is Cormac Allen and the ATI coming along with those top up courses we so urgently needed 5 years ago?

What is Cormac Allen proposing to do? For that matter what is the ATI proposing to do in relation to top up courses??????

muffler

Keep it on topic lads.

No6

Well getting back to the op I know of one guy I was in College with who has lived and worked in France (Paris I believe) for a long number of years at least 10 working as an architectural technoligist and they can't get enough of him so maybe just because they dont have us in France chris dosn't mean we're not needed!!!

Chris Arch

sydthebeat wrote: »

Chris.. i suppose a bit of history to this thread would be part of this???

what exactly is an architect to be defined as??

because architects qualifying from various educational facilities today are seriously short of some of these 'fundamental' architectural skills.

The technological and regulatory function of the Architect is taught incidentally in the 'Architecture' course because it is formally taught in depth in the 'Technician' course. As an example, DIT have both a Department of Architecture and Urban Design, and a Department of Architectural Technology.

The profession of Architectural Technician has become a stand-alone profession, rather than the percieved 'architects assistant' or 'architect-lite' that the industry may have.

In a move i fully agree with, graduate architects are focused, through their education, on the design, philosophy and theory of architecture, and professional practise, with a lesser focus on the realationship between design and construction.

I feel this dissociation allows both professions specialise further and expand deeper into their specific fields.... i feel the profession of architecture is being disseminated into 'Design Architects' and 'Technical Architects'... but of course, technicians cannot call themselves such because of the Building Control Act

Good morning Sydthebeat,

I think the dissociation is a nonsense because it is about separating technic or technology from architecture... This is not possible, as it is not possible to separate art from architecture...

I understand that we need, for large projects to organise the work by allocating specialised tasks... But I do not understand why the creation of a specisalised profession such as "architectural technician" is necessary...

On a large projects many specialised tasks are required:

- Project Architects
- Design Architects
- CAD Architects
- Technician Architects
- Site Architects

The list could be longer...

Can Someone also explain me why, during my first years practicing in the UK, I had so much pressures to be employed as a technician, when my qualification was in Arts & Architecture? I was carrying out tasks such has design for planning and tender stages, and I was helping with the draft of specifications... I was at the time not in contact with clients or contractors... After a while I could manage to be employed as a "CAD Architect" or "Design Architect", but I had to start as an assistant. I thought that the term was reflecting my skills in a better way...

I do not want to offend any of the technicians on this board... I am just trying to understand the logic of the sytem... And if we need specialisation in architecture, I do not think that this should be implemented by a simplistic dissociation between technical and non technical activities...

I know that Ireland is not my country of origin as someone pointed out... But, practicing in Ireland, I can and need to be critical on some issues like this one...

In France we do not have architect technicians, the task is carried out by archtiects, the term "Constructeur" means "Builder", but we generaly use the term "Entrepreneur". In france and Germany, builders/entrepreneur generaly have an enginering qualification such as "ingenieur de chantier" meaning "Site engineer". these engineers are generaly appointed/employed by the contractor. The contractor is appointed by the client...

I do not say that one sytem is better tan the other, and there are many points that I could criticise in the French system such as the award of public projects for exemple... But I am now in Ireland focusing on issues within the country...

Chris Arch

Retro-Fit wrote: »

What Chris is saying isn't an insult, its a dose of reality.

Technicians have evolved a role which due the increased regulation has become almost a discipline in its own right. Unfortunately the scope for technicians is very restricted and much of this is due to limitations in educational opportunities post Level 7. Despite this many technicians have rode on the back of the unprecedented building boom to positions of authority in the once prestigious architecture practices. This is now somewhat of a mute point as technicians have been laid of in proportionally higher figures than our Architect friends.

Lets not kid ourselves in terms of parity of esteem with Architects, We are still regarded as 'the architects technician' I know this is a controversial point and it is not said to diminish the technician qualification,of which I am rightly a proud graduate. The point is made to stimulate debate so we might develop our core skills into a useful sustainable profession for the changed world ahead.

When I studied AT in the 90's the most students had near or over 400 points. The contact hours for the course were over 30 per week, and a further 10 -20 hours had to be put in to complete projects to a satisfactory level. Apply that to any other career path and you would have an honours degree and would be a member of a profession. That would allow individuals or firms the back up to build strong compeditive business instead of feeding off the scraps that fall from the architects table.

Its time to get real, with code for sustainable homes type benchmarks immenent, an EU directive on the way for Passive standard buildings, there is a need for a technical scientific designer role, unhindered by the baggage of strict adherence the design rules imposed by school of architecture philosopies.

Stop whinging about how technicians deserve to be treated as architects, Notwithstanding Sydthebeats excellent post. We do, but imagine if they let most technicians practice as architects who would want to study architecture. Instead let us build a profession which is more technically adept and literate than Architects. Building physicists or Sustainibility Consultants are much needed.

How is Cormac Allen and the ATI coming along with those top up courses we so urgently needed 5 years ago?

What I am trying to say Retro-fit, is that it is a mistake to dissociate architecture and technology/technic... I understand and agree with the term "Building Technology" but "architectural technology" is not realy definable. Technics of architecture are related to arts, Design, structure, urbanism, organistation of space and light, environment, construction, and many other desciplines...

From what I have read on this forum, you guys are interested with Building Technology...

muffler

Chris Arch wrote: »

- Project Architects
- Design Architects
- CAD Architects
- Technician Architects
- Site Architects

Dress them up whatever you wish but at the end of the day an architect is an architect. I dont understand where you got all of the above from.

Chris Arch wrote: »

Can Someone also explain me why, during my first years practicing in the UK, I had so much pressures to be employed as a technician, when my qualification was in Arts & Architecture?

Cant answer that. maybe you could enlighten us yourself.

Chris Arch wrote: »

After a while I could manage to be employed as a "CAD Architect" or "Design Architect", but I had to start as an assistant.

You are either qualified as an architect or not. I never seen this description before.

Chris Arch wrote: »

I know that Ireland is not my country of origin as someone pointed out... But, practicing in Ireland, I can and need to be critical on some issues like this one...

I dont think you are going to change the established courses, qualifications, standards etc just because you seem to think you are an architect of some sort. As stated above you either are or aren't.

Chris Arch wrote: »

In France we do not have architect technicians

In Ireland we do.

Chris Arch wrote: »

But I am now in Ireland focusing on issues within the country...

When in Rome do as the Romans do

sydthebeat

Chris Arch wrote: »

But I do not understand why the creation of a specisalised profession such as "architectural technician" is necessary...

I suppose the above is the crux of your point....

In order to offer an answer, it must be understood what the role of the architect is...

An architect is an artist, a technician, a manager, a business person.

Like any profession it progresses and diverges in many roles.
For a very similar example, look at how the profession of accountant has progressed over the years. Accountants developed writing, were instrumental in helping develop towns cities countries etc. The progressed from being municipal book-keepers to personal ones, then specialised into many different aspects... including personal accountants, , auditors, CPAs, actuary's, CFOs, CMAs, CIAs, financial advisors, tax advisors, etc etc

Obviously there are some accountants that encompase many of these services and skills, but there are very few that do all. This i sdue to the nature of any profession. Regulation, legislation, new technologies etc all stretch the skillsets of any profession, thus the need to specialise.

the same thing is happening in Architecture, and something that Ireland and the UK seem to be ahead in. Increased government regulation, ever developing technologies etc are always stretching an architects professional development. Yes there are some architects out there who will be able to stay up to speed with this, but increasingly with time, regulation and project size, they are not.

technicians are trained to be the technicial architects. Its their job to be versed in material science, building service science, regulation, legislation, environmental and conservation science etc. Obviously the larger the project the mor eobvious the technicians role is.

The profession began in order for there to be a buffer between the architect and the builder. as i explained elsewhere, the ideology is that the architect can design free of the burdens of regulation guideline and legislation. The technician is the persons who intreprets the design and creates the 'instruction manual' to make the design work. As the architects designs become more free, the greater the need for an intermediary betwen the architect and builder. That is the technician.

Chris Arch

sydthebeat wrote: »

I suppose the above is the crux of your point....

In order to offer an answer, it must be understood what the role of the architect is...

An architect is an artist, a technician, a manager, a business person.

Like any profession it progresses and diverges in many roles.
For a very similar example, look at how the profession of accountant has progressed over the years. Accountants developed writing, were instrumental in helping develop towns cities countries etc. The progressed from being municipal book-keepers to personal ones, then specialised into many different aspects... including personal accountants, , auditors, CPAs, actuary's, CFOs, CMAs, CIAs, financial advisors, tax advisors, etc etc

Obviously there are some accountants that encompase many of these services and skills, but there are very few that do all. This i sdue to the nature of any profession. Regulation, legislation, new technologies etc all stretch the skillsets of any profession, thus the need to specialise.

the same thing is happening in Architecture, and something that Ireland and the UK seem to be ahead in. Increased government regulation, ever developing technologies etc are always stretching an architects professional development. Yes there are some architects out there who will be able to stay up to speed with this, but increasingly with time, regulation and project size, they are not.

Sydthebeat,

I think your exemple within the accountant proffession illustrates very well what I am trying to say... Is there Accountant Technicians? No. There are instead different tasks carried out by different job positions... But nothing like the simplistic binary dissociation that was created in architecture...

We do not need a dissociation between architecture and technology. But a specialisation of tasks... Do these tasks require diferent qualifications or can we group them under one qualification, I am not sure... But I am certain that "Architectural Technology" is a task nearly as large as architecture itself if you do not restrict the definition of the term to building tenchnologies...

Chris Arch

muffler wrote: »

In Ireland we do.


When in Rome do as the Romans do

Well muffler,

You obvioulsy feel attacked by my views... Instead you should try to understand my point...

I am just High lighting what I see as a non sense... If you had worked or look for work in the UK and US, you would have find job titles as those that I described earlier. Such as: Project Architect, CAD Architect, Disign Architect, Site Architect, Architect Technician...

I have not looked for employement in Ireland as I have now set up my own practice, but I thought that these positions existed here also.

ben bedlam

The Architectural Technologist is the dregs of the architecture world- not quite the artistry, not quite the technics- it is purgatory. Its a laughable, 'profession'- after 4 years of college out of a class of 26 only 3 people including myself are working full time at this tripe. The others merely do it as a hobby.

sydthebeat

Chris Arch wrote: »

I think your exemple within the accountant proffession illustrates very well what I am trying to say... Is there Accountant Technicians?

sorry chris, you still seem to view technicians as some kind of architect assistant... they are not.
In the same way a CPA is dissociate to an auditor, a technician is dissociate to an architect. Just because both a CPA and auditor deal with book-keeping does not mean one is superior to the other, similarly with Technicians and Architects, both deal with building projects, but both have a specialist area.

Chris Arch wrote: »

We do not need a dissociation between architecture and technology. But a specialisation of tasks... Do these tasks require diferent qualifications or can we group them under one qualification, I am not sure...

In my opinion it does require different qualifications.

The dissociation does not exist in the way you view it. There is a separation in education, and a partnership in reality.

I dont expect the framer to butcher my meat. Both are in the meat production industry, but the farmer has different responsibilities and skills.

Chris Arch wrote: »

. But I am certain that "Architectural Technology" is a task nearly as large as architecture itself if you do not restrict the definition of the term to building tenchnologies...

In this you are correct. Its important to note that there is no specific definition of the profession of architectural technology other than that afforded by the CIAT.
"The Chartered Architectural Technologist (MCIAT) will be able to analyse, synthesise and evaluate design factors in order to produce design solutions, which will satisfy performance, production and procurement criteria. This will be achieved through the design, selection and specification of material, components and assembly and the management, coordination, communication, presentation and monitoring of solutions which perform to the agreed brief and standards in terms of time, cost and quality."

sydthebeat

ben bedlam wrote: »

The Architectural Technologist is the dregs of the architecture world- not quite the artistry, not quite the technics- it is purgatory. Its a laughable, 'profession'- after 4 years of college out of a class of 26 only 3 people including myself are working full time at this tripe. The others merely do it as a hobby.

If you dont like your job, why do you do it?

topcatcbr

ben bedlam wrote: »

The Architectural Technologist is the dregs of the architecture world- not quite the artistry, not quite the technics- it is purgatory. Its a laughable, 'profession'- after 4 years of college out of a class of 26 only 3 people including myself are working full time at this tripe. The others merely do it as a hobby.

You sound like a dissapointed architect. Go back and do Architecture if this is what you want.

pseudo-tech

Chris Arch wrote: »

I have not looked for employement in Ireland as I have now set up my own practice, but I thought that these positions existed here also.

Is this the reason behind your misunderstanding? Maybe, if their was less Technician's in private practice, there would be more work for Architect's.

Poor Uncle Tom

So are you saying that in the smaller, one off, jobs that there is such an overlap of abilities that the roles are blurred, Architect/Technician whatever?

Chris Arch

sydthebeat wrote: »

I dont expect the framer to butcher my meat. Both are in the meat production industry, but the farmer has different responsibilities and skills.

Butchers do not farm and farmers do not sell dead meet... I think your are loosing the plot there...

I think that there is misunderstanding because definitions do not match reality... I aggree that some proffession badly need technicians, specially in the engineering sector... But I see big contradications in architecture...

---

An architect is trained and licenced in planning and designing buildings, and participates in supervising the construction of a building.

A technologist is a specialist that is trained to perform work in a field of technology. In some countries there is a clear distinction defined in law and only individuals who have graduated from an accredited curriculum in technology, and have a significant amount of work experience in their field may become registered technologists. Depending on the country, a technologist's recognition may be in the form of a certification or a professional registration. Canada has Certified Technologists and the United Kingdom has a professional registration for engineering technologists, known as Incorporated Engineers. The Sydney Accord and the Engineering Technologist Mobility Forum (ETMF) are two international efforts to improve cross border recognition for technologists.

Technology is a broad concept that deals with an animal species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects an animal species' ability to control and adapt to its environment.

As a process, architecture is the activity of designing and constructing buildings and other physical structures by a person or a computer, primarily to provide shelter. A wider definition often includes the design of the total built environment, from the macro level of how a building integrates with its surrounding landscape (see town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture) to the micro level of architectural or construction details and, sometimes, furniture. Wider still, architecture is the activity of designing any kind of system.

---

When specialisation is necessary in architecture... Separating technology from architecture does not seem to help much... Is there Building technologists? No, there are specialised technicians for different specialised sectors of construction...

topcatcbr

Well done you have answered your own post.

Read your original question then read your last post and "voila" (French i think) you have your answer

Architect designs the building and the tech designs the technology to be used in building the architects building. Whether there is a need for two specialisms the market will and is dictating this.

muffler

Chris Arch wrote: »

Well muffler,

You obvioulsy feel attacked by my views... Instead you should try to understand my point...

No, I dont feel "attacked" or otherwise as I fail to see what your point is. I am responding in my capacity as moderator of this forum and I think that your comments are a it wide of the mark. You come across as someone who has a problem with the work environment in this country but if that is the case then this forum is not the place to vent your resentment of a profession that you appear to have little or no knowledge of and a profession that you obviously hold in contempt.

Chris Arch wrote: »

I am just High lighting what I see as a non sense... If you had worked or look for work in the UK and US, you would have find job titles as those that I described earlier. Such as: Project Architect, CAD Architect, Disign Architect, Site Architect, Architect Technician

As I said before an architect is an architect at the end of the day. We had a similar problem before where a certain poster persisted with referencing to regulations, materials and methods used in foreign countries but which were irrelevant to Ireland. Id prefer if you keep your comments focused on matters pertinent to this country as we really have our own recognised professions here and do things differently from other countries like driving on the opposite side of the road.

Chris Arch wrote: »

I have not looked for employement in Ireland as I have now set up my own practice, but I thought that these positions existed here also.

As explained these positions aren't available here and at the crux of this, and maybe its a misunderstanding on your part, is that you seem to have forgot that you are in Ireland now - not France.

Finally can you just tell us all here what exactly is your profession based on Irish accreditation.

No6

Chris what exactly is the point of this thread? you've obviously spent time looking up definations but there is to my mind no point in getting bogged down in semantics, you dont understand or see the need for Technicians, fair enough, set up your practice and don't employ any and let us know how you get on.

sydthebeat

Chris,

so its simply the use of the term 'technician' that you have an issue with??

as i also said above, i would call myself a technical architect, but that is not allowed under the building control act.

Technology and the artistic side of architecture have been separated whether you like it or not, this is apparent in most projects, even on basic dwellings.

I do not expect Architects to know what a Glaser diagram is, what it is in relation to, and what it has to do with building construction, and what it has been updated to. I would expect a technician to know.

I wouldnt expect an architect to know how to show compliance with SI 259 2008... i would expect a technician to know.

Whatever you want to call us, we are:
1. a very valuable part of any construction project
2. a stand alone profession
3. a growing profession
4. the first port of call in any queries related to building science.

Chris Arch

muffler wrote: »

No, I dont feel "attacked" or otherwise as I fail to see what your point is. I am responding in my capacity as moderator of this forum and I think that your comments are a it wide of the mark. You come across as someone who has a problem with the work environment in this country but if that is the case then this forum is not the place to vent your resentment of a profession that you appear to have little or no knowledge of and a profession that you obviously hold in contempt.


As I said before an architect is an architect at the end of the day. We had a similar problem before where a certain poster persisted with referencing to regulations, materials and methods used in foreign countries but which were irrelevant to Ireland. Id prefer if you keep your comments focused on matters pertinent to this country as we really have our own recognised professions here and do things differently from other countries like driving on the opposite side of the road.


As explained these positions aren't available here and at the crux of this, and maybe its a misunderstanding on your part, is that you seem to have forgot that you are in Ireland now - not France.

Finally can you just tell us all here what exactly is your profession based on Irish accreditation.

I have a five years qualification in Arts and Architecture, the equivalent to a master. You seem to be very attached to the fact that I am not Irish... Why that?

Architecture is a creative profession, it is reductive to limit its extend for educative, political or administrative reasons... The definition of the term Architect was transformed in France while I was still a student. First defining a proffession, it now defines a title... The same happened when I emmigrated to work in the UK, and it is happening now in Ireland where I am living and working...

During the last 20 years, I had plenty of time to think about what Architecture is... What an architect is... I am entitled to register in these countries, but this does not mean that I agree with this type of protectionism...

I am not forgetting that I am in Ireland... Do not forget that Ireland economy has been running on immigration these last 10 years...

Mellor

ben bedlam wrote:

The Architectural Technologist is the dregs of the architecture world- not quite the artistry, not quite the technics- it is purgatory. Its a laughable, 'profession'- after 4 years of college out of a class of 26 only 3 people including myself are working full time at this tripe. The others merely do it as a hobby.

topcatcbr wrote:

You sound like a dissapointed architect. Go back and do Architecture if this is what you want

To be honest he is just annoyed that his class was the first to graduate into the recession.

Ben Bedlam, I know its annoying, but the trouble you have finding work is not a flaw of the AT course or the profession. Its accross the board.

archtech

Chris Arch wrote: »

I have a five years qualification in Arts and Architecture, the equivalent to a master.

so then why aren't you an Architect, if your qualifications are the equivalent to a masters