tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post1564733087209768478..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: “Architects are happy…”Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-69343649796745004322010-09-23T22:57:26.527+12:002010-09-23T22:57:26.527+12:00I was lead to believe by someone, Peter(?), that a...I was lead to believe by someone, Peter(?), that architects no longer manage the erection of buildings as their insurers won't cover them... Is this true?Kasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13506677798171650699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38660082399538640762010-09-18T16:53:37.312+12:002010-09-18T16:53:37.312+12:00This definitely is blatant protectionism isn't...This definitely is blatant protectionism isn't it. Shocking. Section 2-7-2 of the Registered Architects Act 2005 states: "No person who designs buildings, prepares plans and specifications for buildings, or supervises the construction of buildings may use the title “architect” unless he or she is a registered architect." So ... what about using the title "Unregistered-architect" or "Architectural Designer"? (The Act only forbids the unauthorised use of the title "Registered Architect" (or anything that may imply registration as an architect) and the use of the explicit title "architect".Terrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-39603648576350266592010-09-18T06:33:43.648+12:002010-09-18T06:33:43.648+12:00I agree completely. An architect should have the s...I agree completely. An architect should have the same broad meaning that 'engineer' has. An engineer can be someone that fabricates steel components with their own hands, or it can be someone that designs ingenious systems for protecting buildings from earthquakes. For those like myself who have a bachelors degree I can simply call myself a 'qualified engineer'. Those who have taken the additional step of becoming registered are 'registered engineers'. Why should it be any different for architects?<br /><br />There is a certain house in Christchurch currently in for consent that hasn't been touched by a registere architect, but in reality is more 'architectutally designed' than what typically comes from members of the Institute. :-)MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-44093375158214344182010-09-17T10:57:14.516+12:002010-09-17T10:57:14.516+12:00Yes Peter, they did lobby very vigorously indeed! ...Yes Peter, they did lobby very vigorously indeed! I flew to Wellington especially to put my similar argument directly to the Select Committee, which was able to understand the difference between protecting the English language word "architect" and the term "registered architect" since that committee unanimously agreed that on the basis of the submissions put before them that only the term "registered architect" should be protected under the Architects Act 2003. sadly the powerful lobby group swayed the vote in the House otherwiseFred Stevensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-56906701668514314992010-09-17T10:47:09.568+12:002010-09-17T10:47:09.568+12:00Let them have their word.
"The building had...Let them have their word. <br /><br />"The building had been designed by a highly experienced designer"<br /><br />I always took "Architecturally designed" as an excuse to charge a premium over and above the real worth of a property. Never bothered to even look at such properties.<br /><br />(I am finally reading fountainhead so this is a timely post)Dintherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09444894238003853527noreply@blogger.com