Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › The Architecture Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Architecture Thread - Page 222

post #3316 of 4538

Another travertine house, I like this one better.













post #3317 of 4538
Looks like somebody with a lot of money really wanted a tract house.
post #3318 of 4538
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post

Are you referring to the same travertine we are? Because the one we're referring to is the one that the Colosseum, Pantheon, St. Peter's, and about half of Italy are faced with. You must be thinking of a different one.

Regardless, your opinion is retarded. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.


Obviously a concept or material with that type of pedigree is terrific no matter the application.




post #3319 of 4538
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

A few of these boys would break up the visual monotony and make it feel much more homey.

needs a beer and/ or lots of wine ...

post #3320 of 4538
Has bookshelves, but also bookstack. confused.gif
post #3321 of 4538
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Has bookshelves, but also bookstack. confused.gif

post #3322 of 4538
Some of the recent commentary in this thread makes me want to reach for a seppuku knife.
post #3323 of 4538
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Has bookshelves, but also bookstack. confused.gif

I guess you can't satisfy everyone, even when you try.

Meanwhile, here is another bad travertine house.

Here on the other hand is a good travertine house. Unfortunately it no longer exists:

I guess travertine is a really controversial material to make the exterior surfaces of the house from. Who knew?
post #3324 of 4538
Originally Posted by binge View Post

Stricken from the record / and deemed inadmissible?
Originally Posted by lefty View Post

Hardly seems deletable.


Shoot dope rhymes first and ask questions later! bounce2.gif
post #3325 of 4538
I read an interview with Bunshaft recently, it was interesting that he did not seem to consider himself creative or even very good. In fact he seemed rather disappointed with one of the more interesting libraries in the Northeast, Beinecke library, since he was never capable of finding enough translucent onyx. The shortage was due to unrest in the area that supplied it, and he had to use marble instead.
post #3326 of 4538
Rose Etherington: Why is it that we can't refer to John Pawson as an architect?

Sarah Loukes: It's because we work in accordance with the Architects' Act 1997 and within that act - it's actually section 20 of that act - it specifically protects the title “architect” and so in order for a person to use that title they need to be registered with us at the ARB.

So it's protected by law, but the act as I think I mentioned in my letter is very specific and it does only protect “architect/architects” whereas the derivatives “architecture” and “architectural” are not protected under the act so we don't have jurisdiction over those.

Rose Etherington: How should we refer to John Pawson in that case?

Sarah Loukes: I would suggest an “architectural consultant”. As long as it doesn't specifically refer to “architect” then that's fine - there's nothing illegal there.

Rose Etherington: Is his practice registered, or is the problem with him as an individual?

Sarah Loukes: We register the individual so as far as I'm aware, I don't think his practice is registered… Can I just get my files out if that's all right? One moment.

I've had a look and I've just searched. As I say it's generally the individuals who register under the act so I've just done a search generally for the practice and the name of John Pawson and it does bring up a Mr Benjamin Collins so actually you are right in the sense of the practice can be called architects because there is a registered individual.

[The issue] would be specifically related to [John Pawson] being called an architect or referred to as an architect.

Rose Etherington: The practice itself is called John Pawson - so we could say “architects John Pawson have completed a church” but we couldn't say “architect John Pawson has completed a church”?

Sarah Loukes: That's it. If that makes sense. It's quite specific in what we can allow and can't allow. But as I say, because I've located this Mr Benjamin Collins who is registered at the practice, in that sense reference can be made to “architects” as the practice and not as Mr John Pawson being an architect individually.

Rose Etherington: So we could say "architects John Pawson" even though there's only one registered architect there?

Sarah Loukes: Yeah.

Rose Etherington: Does it matter if the person who's a registered architect worked on the project we're referring to?

Sarah Loukes: Not essentially, no. He's essentially the architect at the practice so it allows him to use this title and the practice be called architects.

That would be okay because there isn’t any specific regulation over the plural or anything like that with regards to “architect/architects”. And yes, that would be fine in that context.

Rose Etherington: I've had a careful look at the PDF guidance you sent over, but in this case it's not John Pawson calling himself an architect, it's us as a media organisation.

Sarah Loukes: Quite right and that's why essentially I've gone direct to you because it's not him actively doing it himself but it is still an inaccurate way of describing him because he isn’t registered with us and he's not an architect. So in that sense that's why I've gone directly to yourselves and not to him individually.

Rose Etherington: So is it him that's responsible for the way in which he's talked about?

Sarah Loukes: Not essentially when it comes to on your website or on a publication because he's not actively holding himself out as an architect himself. it's slightly different if you see what I mean. But it's still our responsibility to contact the publication or writer to advise you that that description is inaccurate.

Rose Etherington: Is there any chance that because of what we've written John Pawson will be in any trouble?

Sarah Loukes: No, hence why I've contacted you directly but we wouldn’t contact him.

Rose Etherington: If we didn’t amend the article, what would then happen?

Sarah Loukes: Well we're quite limited by what we can do to be honest. It's not like we're going to take you to court or anything like that. But we would like to say that in the public interest it would be better to describe him as an alternative. Because in the way that it is, it's kind of misleading because he's not an architect.

Rose Etherington: When you say it’s not in the public interest, what do you mean by that?

Sarah Loukes: Because he's not registered with us, he doesn’t fall under our jurisdiction and as we're the regulator and, you know, architects are held to account and have to adhere to our code of conduct and regulations and guidance that we set out.

So when a person isn’t an architect they don't fall under our jurisdiction and there's not that protection there for the public.

Rose Etherington: So if John Pawson was going around calling himself an architect you could prosecute him but you don’t actually have the power to do that to publication?

Sarah Loukes: No, it couldn't be dealt with in the same way.

Rose Etherington: Would it make a difference it we weren't based in the UK?

Sarah Loukes: I think it does. The fact that if you’re based in the UK then there is that onus that if it is a UK-based business or publication it should adhere to the regulations of the act, whereas if it was outside of the UK it wouldn’t fall under our jurisdiction and legality.

Rose Etherington: But there's not any legal reason why we need to comply anyway?

Sarah Loukes: No it's very difficult for me to say you have to do this. But it’s our job to inform publications and websites of the correct way of describing the individual because it's a protected title.

So we try and do our best to ensure that the individuals are described in as accurate a way as possible. Hence why we contact you directly if something like this is brought to our attention.

Rose Etherington: How would someone qualify to be called an architect under your regulations?

Sarah Loukes: They have to go through a process of registration with us. I couldn’t give you all the details myself because it actually falls under my registration team's criteria but it is roughly around seven years of education and training to actually become eligible to register with us at the ARB.

As far at I'm aware there's Part I, II, III and the final part is an exam here in order for the individual to pass and to enable them to register.

Rose Etherington: Is there a fee?

Sarah Loukes: The fee itself I'm not 100% sure. When we said about the examination, I know it’s over £1000 but when the individual is eligible to register with us there is an annual retention fee. This year it's £98.50 so that's what's required for them to stay on the register.

Rose Etherington: Can people leave and come back?

Sarah Loukes: Yes you can come off the register and come back on at any point but there is a difference if you come back on within two years they don't have to provide evidence of continuous professional envelopment, whereas if it's over that two year period they have to show evidence of that.

Rose Etherington: Has John Pawson ever been registered with the ARB?

Sarah Loukes: It doesn't look like he has. There are three individuals by the name of Pawson and I would be able to see if there was someone previously registered.
post #3327 of 4538
Those people are the fucking worst. This same issue happened with Renzo Piano recently when he was getting an award for the Shard in London and the ARB was emailing people not to call him an architect in publication. It's ridiculous to not formally consider Pawson an architect, but Renzo Piano is more of an architect in any capacity than anybody on the planet. I just don't understand how anybody could make such a request with a straight face. these and other efforts in regulatory collusion and institutional bureaucracy within groups like the AIA are really large problems, because they do quite a bit to consolidate power and business into the hands of fewer design firms. They create these perceived levels of architectural qualification based on membership and rank in trade organizations and licensing credential groups, and consumers feel burdened to follow them with their business. I think it's probably time they claim the term 'licensed architect' instead of simply 'architect.' By the current definition, Frank Lloyd Wright, Tadao Ando, Carlo Scarpa and many others aren't even qualified for the term, since none were licensed.
The Architects Registration Board this week asked that Renzo Piano and Daniel Libeskind must no longer be referred to as architects.

In an email sent to BD, Arb cited three articles published on bdonline, including one referring to Piano as architect of the Shard and another about a new project by Libeskind in Hong Kong.

The email said: “All three articles make reference to either Mr Renzo Piano or Mr Daniel Libskind [sic] as ‘architects’, however, as they are not registered with the Arb they are not entitled to be described as such.

“In the light of BD’s readership I would ask that you avoid referring to Mr Piano and Mr Libskind as ‘architect’s [sic] in any future publications.”

Simon Howard, Arb’s professional standards manager, said the matter had been brought to the body’s attention by a UK architect, prompting it to take action.

“He [Piano] has not committed an offence because he hasn’t referred to himself as an architect. He certainly couldn’t use that word to describe himself here,” Howard told BD.

He added that it was “OK to call Piano an Italian architect” and that the Arb is asking “BD to be careful with the use of the word”.

BD editor in chief Amanda Baillieu responded: “We note Arb’s request but we won’t be complying with it. As far as BD is concerned Renzo Piano is an architect and that is how we will continue to refer to him.”
post #3328 of 4538
These people really need something better to use their time on.
post #3329 of 4538
Actually I think the ARB is absolutely in the right. Although Pawson/Piano/Liebskind are obviously architects, what the ARB are doing is using high profile examples in making sure the law is being seen to be done.

The UK has extremely strenuous criteria for being an architect, and it's one of the reasons the quality of architecture in the UK has been so high in recent years, and why there are so many Pritzker prize winners in such a small country.

Tough regulation on the qualification and title are important in maintaining that quality. If they did not regulate the title then no one would bother qualifying (since it costs about £100,000 over at least 8 years)

Surely you're not opposed to very similar regulation of titles like solicitor, barrister, accountant, doctor, etcetera? No reason architect should be different.
post #3330 of 4538
If you have graduated from uni with an education in architecture, why would anyone argue that you are not an architect.

Having a trade union is fine, but requiring members to pay, if the numbers you mention are correct, a ridiculous amount of money, to do their job, is flat out wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › The Architecture Thread