My 2 cents on That Act
Well, this coming AGM is going to be a feisty one!
My 2 cents says that anything vaguely controversial between architects and the AIBC in the past 10+ years stems from the leaky condo crisis.
My 2 cents says that anything vaguely controversial between architects and the AIBC in the past 10+ years stems from the leaky condo crisis.
I might be wrong, and I don't think anyone's said it outright ... but it's applicable to the liability insurance issue, and I think this too.
The Barrett Commission http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/condo/c2_v.htm in particular wants to 'get at' those who just work under the scope of the architect (i.e. 4 units multi-family) who were responsible for leaky condos.
"Recommendation #26: That the requirement for appropriate professional services on residential buildings, as constituted in the Architect's Act, be enforced."
AIBC is mandated with enforcing the Act. The Act is the only provincial Act governing any building profession, despite the many different associations out there that have building profession members. A 'global' way of enforcement is by bringing Residential Designers, Building Designers, Architectural Technologists, Interior Designers, etc into the AIBC, have them read and understand that what their scope of work is (i.e. 4 units and less) in the Act, and abide by a code of ethics, bylaws, code of conduct.
I think the province is putting on the heat onto the AIBC to 'do something', otherwise it will repeal the Act because architects can't regulate the building profession themselves. The imagined long-term consequence is that the province licenses architects and other building professions, just like in the states. I would say that bringing in new building professions to the AIBC is not the only way to enforce the Architect's Act, but I think it is an efficient and passive method because it puts most of the effort on the certified professionals to self-regulate, rather than the AIBC to hunt down who is infringing the Act. They never hunt down as a matter of practice, and require a complaint.
As an aside, I recall some talk that this is also supposed to help regulate building work out in the boonies - ie jurisdictions that do not have any authority. With the new Act, anything larger than a Part 9 single-family house, and smaller than an architect-required building, is regulated and will require a 'certified' person.
As an aside, I recall some talk that this is also supposed to help regulate building work out in the boonies - ie jurisdictions that do not have any authority. With the new Act, anything larger than a Part 9 single-family house, and smaller than an architect-required building, is regulated and will require a 'certified' person.
The AIBC always says that the Act is granted by the province, and not the architects' Act (despite that it 'sounds' like it does). The Act originally came about via a private member's bill (Benevolent Society or something like that), so not true, it was applied for by architects, and was reluctantly granted by the province (who originally did not want to regulate at a time of building and expansion). I agree that architects should be able to dispute 'their' proposed new Act if they can demonstrate that something in it is neither in the interests of the public or of member architects. Perception is at least as important as reality, and I can see that, to take one aspect as an example, better designations could help clarify current confusion, i.e. the difference between architects and architectural professions is probably too confusing for anyone.
My humble recommendation, if I understand what is going on, is that the architects have their own Act, and that the others - RD's, BD's, AT's, ID's etc - get together separately as Building Design Professionals and have and enforce their own Building Design Professionals Act. The two Acts would be compatible in terms of determining the allowable scope of work.
My humble recommendation, if I understand what is going on, is that the architects have their own Act, and that the others - RD's, BD's, AT's, ID's etc - get together separately as Building Design Professionals and have and enforce their own Building Design Professionals Act. The two Acts would be compatible in terms of determining the allowable scope of work.
posted by Lisa @ 12:13 PM
1 Comments:
The whole AIBC association is a freaking scam. They are not supportive to the architectural community within the city and its own members including licensed and intern architects. Really think about it, what did they benefit you so far except asking you for money for memberships and fees related to the AIBC association. BC Architects should get together and act up, I am looking forwards to the coming AGM.
Post a Comment
<< Home