Signed up for the Oral
As the title says, I have finally signed up. I missed the last one by a day, but this time I think I might be the first one on the list.
When I was studying in January, I found this book that sounded useful:
Practical Law for Architecture, Engineering, and Geoscience. I requested it from the public library back then, and lo and behold, five months later it was my turn and I picked it up. I
highly recommend it for a no-nonsense, current overview of practical legal issues for professionals - it is the best resource I have come across for myself on the various legal topics. At $85 on
Amazon.ca, it is a deal for the information in it, and I will absolutely buy it for reference. There is also a companion website with resources and self-study questions:
http://www.pearsoned.ca/samuelssandersThere are 15 currently in line to borrow this book from VPL - so if you want your hands on it by Christmas then you'll need to request it now!
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.
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.
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.
"Grandfathers"
Just finished some morning studying.
So if the AIBC can sets educational requirements on interns and foreign-registered / broadly experienced architects - i.e. the certification of non-accredited architectural degrees, the completion of NCARB exams, the Oral Review - applying to become an architect,
coming from a standpoint of protecting the public interest, on what basis can existing MAIBCs, who have not completed these current standards of entry into the profession, remain practising architects? On what basis can a self-governing and self-regulating professional organization progressively restrict basic entry requirements - i.e. raise the standard - on prospective applicants which were never completed, nor are required to be completed, by current members?
Experience?
If the test of competency / negligence means that all architects are deemed to provide a professional standard of care, and therefore there are no 'classes' of architects, how do architects with certified educational credentials compare with broadly-experienced architects with built projects under their belt?
It is a privilege to become, and remain, a member. The mandate of the AIBC is to actively regulate the practice of architecture in order to actively maintain public trust and confidence in the role of the architect, providing rights and imposing obligations on its members in return for the right of exclusive practice.
Rattenbury
If I'm going to study for the Oral, I might as well start with the beginning. So I'm reading, again, Don Luxton's article "Taming the West: The Thirty-Year Struggle to Regulate the Profession in British Columbia", in Architecture Canada, Vol. 23 (4), 1998 - this blog is based on my second re-reading.
And I can see that the beginning has not ended.
Starchitects like Sir Norman Foster, Zaha Hadid, Tadao Ando would not be able to practice architecture independently here in BC, even if they were the best living architects in the world. Just checked up on Arthur Erickson. He is listed as an honourary architect; honourary membership does not confer rights of architectural practice.
British Columbia, in its early days, was a power struggle of two prime cultures - British and American. Each culture had its way of producing an architect: the British had its apprenticeship system; the American favoured the educational - many of its leading architects were educated at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris.
While architects with formal architectural training had been pushing since 1891 for legislation to limit entry into the profession, the government was not into creating such a monopoly, limiting as it were the potential of the "self-made man". A sense of freedom and opportunity was part and parcel to the attraction and development of this wild west.
Perhaps because the legislative assembly at the time was sitting in the glorious halls designed by an uncredentialed 'architect' was why it was reluctant to introduce restrictive legislation? Twenty-five year old (!) Francis Rattenbury of Leeds, England, an architect by apprenticeship, won the competition for the design of the Parliamentary Buildings in 1892. He also designed the Empress Hotel in Victoria and the Court House (now Art Gallery) in Vancouver. He was the president of another 'architectural association', one which was in competition with the AIBC to be the 'one' BC architectural association. It registered members as architects without educational credentials.
Perhaps many in this now obsolete 'rogue' club were more accurately builders. Perhaps a few in fact experienced master builders or apprenticed architects.
Perhaps we do not allow the over-qualified (foreign starchitects), nor under-qualified (anyone), to instantly practice architecture here today - all need to have the precise pieces of paper in hand, pay the yearly fees, take the CES courses. But will the AIBC ever recognize and, indeed, celebrate Rattenbury as a legitimate architect, by virtue of his "portfolio" of works and pioneering contribution to public architecture in BC?
Or would such a recognition mean that the AIBC acknowledges the legitimacy of other roads to successful and outstanding architectural practice in BC - and therefore the Institute simply cannot by virtue of its Act, the foundation of its being?
Every year at the AIBC AGM, there are moving descriptions of the lives of architects who had passed away that year. All in attendance at the meeting stand for a minute of silent remembrance and respect. However, Rattenbury, murdered in 1935, for years rested in an unmarked grave in Bournemouth, Dorset, England. It was only just one a year ago that a gravestone was put up, funded by a family friend. (Source:
Telegraph 19 Nov 2007).
More Alphabet Soup: CERB, OR, ExAC, CHOP
Minorly good news for Canadian architectural graduates applying for internship: no more degree certification fees! See news at
CACB which they just posted 4 days ago. Still boggles my mind why a degree from an accredited architecture school needs to be 'certified', being itself a certificate. Do they run it through a counterfeit machine?
---------------
A friend of mine got registered last fall, and got the stamp / professional seal in the mail. I can't remember what was said, but the new Architect.aibc said that it was quite a deflating moment to see the stamp in the package it came. For so long, you jump over all these obstacles for basic entry into the profession - more than any other in BC (ie, law, medical, engineering) - and this thing comes in a package that looks like it came out of a dollar store.
Sigh. The quality of pictures are often enhanced by their frames, as are objects and their boxes.
It's a good thing to not puff up an architect's ego, but this really is the one very personal and highly symbolic moment of achievement that is worth providing a package that speaks of professional honour, respect and dignity. We should welcome and give all new architects a good start this way.
---------------
I could hardly believe it myself but after 3 years since my last submission I finally completed my hours, gave it to my boss to review, and saw my mentor on Friday. Did he remember what I looked like? A co-worker suggested that I wear a "Hello, My Name is... " badge just in case.
I'm still missing construction hours but if this one project continues that I should be fine. Intern needs in a recession are hardly a priority for any architect-employer out there now - everyone just wants to keep their business afloat period and I should be glad I'm still on the payroll. But through thick and thin, would not actively assisting the registration process for the next generation, in ways only they and no others can, be considered professional negligence?
The Oral Review (Feb. 18th and 19th), and paying my dues, is now the focus for the next bit. Doing the same thing, studying at the coffee shop on weekend mornings. My mentor's offered to grill me a week before so that should keep me on my toes.
After my meeting I got to hang out with his office for Friday drinks. Spoke to a few interns there - they seemed to be very 'representative' of our group. One from the so-called 'Winnipeg West group', another who I knew from UBC, and one from the UK who is digging through all his past coursework as part of the $1300 degree certification (
ouch! are they charging foreign-qualified more to cover the Canadians who don't need to pay anymore?), and translating it all from UK English to Canadian English (
kidding). We talked about the Canadian ExAC. Essentially if you want to be an architect quick and work only in Canada, go to any other province, do the ExAC and come back via the national reciprocity agreements. However, to do the NCARB route opens the door to working in the US; NCARB also talks to other jurisdications beyond North America.
My view is that if one set of requirements - whether ExAC or NCARBs - give an intern a chance toward global reciprocity as future architect then that set is worthwhile doing in this age of globalization. It's a survival tool, until someone figures out how to re-engineer this boom and bust economy that our industry is so strapped to. And the last thing you want to do is put a practicing, successful Canadian architect (i.e. ExAC graduate) through another set of exams (i.e. NCARBs) in his or her mid 50's in order to do a community centre in Fargo.
Dream world: 75% of interns in North America become fully qualified architects by the time they reach 30 and enjoy global reciprocity. They spend the next half of their working lives as the amazing people they are trained to be. There is one Canadian registration organization - existing in the full power and potential of cyberspace - that architectural graduates, interns and architects turn to and is the negotiating voice with the other registration boards in the world.
---------------
Meanwhile, I have to get my hands on a CHOP - will probably pick one up ($300) at the AIBC tomorrow. My office doesn't have one, and has managed without one for 3 decades. The Northwest Territories Association of Architects
overview of the IAP, they require that all employers with interns "must have a copy of the Canadian Handbook of Practice for Architects (CHOP) available to the Intern Architect". Good idea.
Time for CERB
Haven't been blogging over the summer, but now I'm back.
Basic news is that I took my last exam Building Technology. Had a bit of a dazed celebration that evening with 10 interns and some bubbly. Found out a month or so later that I passed it, so yay! No more AREs for me!
The Orals are coming up in October so now I am currently racing against a mental and a real clock to get my hours in.
I'm going over the CERB , typing it all in and, hey,
whoa .... 560 hours in Construction Administration?! Potentially equivalent to 200 hour-long meetings, 200 hour-long site visits, enough bidding and contract negotiation for 16 projects at 10 hours each? Do I have the right form here? Is there an updated one I'm missing out on?
I'm apparently not the first one to catch on to this hook:
"I have now been working on IDP for 46 months at 3 different architecture firms. I have had trouble completing the Construction Administration portions of the requirements ..." (posting on
ARE Forum by "juko101", posted 2:30pm, 23 Dec 2007)
"This is one of the harder areas in which to get experience as an intern, but it is a critical one, so persist in asking if you find your office prefers to give such work to more senior employees."
(page 86,
Practical Experience: An Architecture Student's Guide to Internship and The Year Out, 2004, By Igor Marjanovic, Katerina Ruedi Ray, Katerina Rüedi, Jane Tankard) - good book to get, no?
What gives? Why the magic number, equivalent to 10% of our total hours? And can anyone tell me: on what basis can an intern can reasonably be expected to attain 560 hours of construction administration within, say, the first 3 years of employment?
Anyways, I just notice that I have already completed half my hours and am eligible for the Orals. As long as I'm not in a rush to get registered I'm fine.
Let BT Begin
Passed Building Planning - got it in the mail last Wednesday.
And as of yesterday I've cracked open the Norm Dorf book and am onto Building Technology which in 2 weeks is my last duck lined up. Hm! This exam might actually take the full 6 hours and I am thinking that I really should have started earlier...
So far I've just read through the book to get my feet wet. There are six 45-60 minute vignettes so I'm banking on a vignette per evening (or so). Will have to remember to not put HVAC units in front of windows. That "Move/Adjust" moves a beam in elevation and "Move Group" moves a beam in section. That all roofs shall slope in the direction of a gutter.
Simple!
Was going to log my hours and do the Oral in June, but I really don't think that's going to happen now ... one thing at a time as they say.
