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

The Architecture Thread - Page 224

post #3346 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

You are making the mistake of conflating the US and the UK. The US legal profession is well-known worldwide for being artificially exclusionary to preserve high salaries. It doesn't work that way in the UK for the legal or architectural professions.

No, I'm not. We won our independence from you wankers over two centuries ago, and I'm mindful of the many differences.
I have no idea how it does or doesn't work in the UK. My point was that being "part of the apparatus of the judiciary and the state" doesn't preclude any of what people are complaining about.
post #3347 of 3595
Wow, you're a chauvinistic one, aren't you? I'm not even British, but nonetheless your "us and them" mentality should have been left behind in the 19th century.

Your point is misguided because you fail to understand how statist the UK is relative to neoliberal America. Regulatory capture simply isn't a problem in the UK legal and architectural professions (although it is a serious problem in journalism and financial services). I am very familiar with the influence and control that private interest groups, including professional associations, have in the USA. The US is really uniquely bad in that regard -- perhaps why we have so many Americans here displaying such antipathy towards regulators. That would make sense.

Your point would be relevant if the UK and US systems were more similar, but they are not. That's why I accused you of conflating the system. You admit yourself to knowing nothing about how the UK system works.
post #3348 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

Wow, you're a chauvinistic one, aren't you? I'm not even British, but nonetheless your "us and them" mentality should have been left behind in the 19th century.

Your point is misguided because you fail to understand how statist the UK is relative to neoliberal America. Regulatory capture simply isn't a problem in the UK legal and architectural professions (although it is a serious problem in journalism and financial services). I am very familiar with the influence and control that private interest groups, including professional associations, have in the USA. The US is really uniquely bad in that regard -- perhaps why we have so many Americans here displaying such antipathy towards regulators. That would make sense.

Your point would be relevant if the UK and US systems were more similar, but they are not. That's why I accused you of conflating the system. You admit yourself to knowing nothing about how the UK system works.

Chauvinistic and dead serious.
post #3349 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post


And also, your claim that the ARB and similar regulatory authorities have the capacity to control which architectural styles are acceptable or popular is complete fucking bullshit.

This is demonstrably false, as many with a thorough understanding of the building code realize, which more-or-less prohibits many traditional forms of construction, and thus styles. The process involves the endorsement of the architects' unions and construction materials industries in the building codes writing process, which are lobbied with using licensing and retention fees.. In short, architects and material suppliers have a vast financial interest in making it as difficult as possible for design services to be completed by anybody outside the official trade organization, so the codes are written in a very burdensome way that requires onerous specialization for compliance. The goal is to consolidate work with large corporate architecture and planning offices, because they can afford the staff literate in the complexity of codes. This basically killed forms of construction like rammed earth, solid-mass masonry brick walls with pointed lime mortar, etc. in the middle of the 20th century. Show me a building the pre-dates architect licensing and I'll show you a building that couldn't be built today.
post #3350 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

. If your radical localism or liberalism or idealism, or whatever it is that motivates your outlook, were implemented it would be extremely damaging to the quality of architecture.

Are we looking at the same contemporary architecture? Because the quality of architecture right now could hardly be lower. 95% of the buildings here in New York that pre-date WWII are of better architectural quality than than nearly all buildings since. Come join me for a site visit. I spend about six hours a week walking around and just looking at this shit.

And no, this has nothing to do with me not being licensed. As mentioned, it's only necessary these days as a bludgeon of authority, so certain architects find themselves needing one. Others couldn't care less, as seen in these example. I'll probably end up becoming licensed because I'm interested in a scale that makes it more advantageous, but it's not on the radar, and if I could get by without it out of principle, I would.
post #3351 of 3595
You are making the same mistake as lawyerday, Stephen. The ARB is not a trade union or professional association with licensing fees like the AIA. The ARB is literally a public agency, under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It can't lobby the government because that would be lobbying itself. It doesn't have a role in creating planning regulations, all it does is keep a registry of all qualified architects which you can check to make sure your architect is not a fraud. If you feel you've been cheated by a qualified architect, you can also take it up with the ARB and they will tell you your rights, etcetera.

Planning laws are formulated by a completely different set of agencies, the Building Regulations Advisory Commission and the Planning Inspectorate, and most planning laws are only implemented at the discretion of local governments.

I agree completely with you that planning systems can create horse-shit architecture. But that is not the same discussion about the ARB regulating the word "architect". You could dissolve the ARB tomorrow and it would have zero impact on planning regulations or the influence of private corporate interests on architecture.
post #3352 of 3595
I have to assume the ARB refers to their naming standard as "The Costanza Act."

post #3353 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

You are making the same mistake as lawyerday, Stephen. The ARB is not a trade union or professional association with licensing fees like the AIA. The ARB is literally a public agency, under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It can't lobby the government because that would be lobbying itself. It doesn't have a role in creating planning regulations, all it does is keep a registry of all qualified architects which you can check to make sure your architect is not a fraud. If you feel you've been cheated by a qualified architect, you can also take it up with the ARB and they will tell you your rights, etcetera.

Planning laws are formulated by a completely different set of agencies, the Building Regulations Advisory Commission and the Planning Inspectorate, and most planning laws are only implemented at the discretion of local governments.

I agree completely with you that planning systems can create horse-shit architecture. But that is not the same discussion about the ARB regulating the word "architect". You could dissolve the ARB tomorrow and it would have zero impact on planning regulations or the influence of private corporate interests on architecture.

 

Not knowing the British system; is there then another body that does function as the legal licensing body? Or is this it and there is a separate society of Architects?

post #3354 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

You are making the same mistake as lawyerday, Stephen. The ARB is not a trade union or professional association with licensing fees like the AIA. The ARB is literally a public agency, under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It can't lobby the government because that would be lobbying itself. It doesn't have a role in creating planning regulations, all it does is keep a registry of all qualified architects which you can check to make sure your architect is not a fraud. If you feel you've been cheated by a qualified architect, you can also take it up with the ARB and they will tell you your rights, etcetera.

Planning laws are formulated by a completely different set of agencies, the Building Regulations Advisory Commission and the Planning Inspectorate, and most planning laws are only implemented at the discretion of local governments.

I agree completely with you that planning systems can create horse-shit architecture. But that is not the same discussion about the ARB regulating the word "architect". You could dissolve the ARB tomorrow and it would have zero impact on planning regulations or the influence of private corporate interests on architecture.

I think this could be easily resolved by saying "ARB-licensed architect" instead of regulating use of a common word.
post #3355 of 3595
+1


And just watched a show on tv about a Dane living in London and the new developments in east london inlove.gif
post #3356 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I think this could be easily resolved by saying "ARB-licensed architect" instead of regulating use of a common word.

Nailed it. Architects have fiduciary responsibility in their works up to and including life safety issues, so it's logical that there be licensing. It sounds here however like they're treating the word "architect" as some sort of trade or service mark, which it shouldn't be.
post #3357 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I think this could be easily resolved by saying "ARB-licensed architect" instead of regulating use of a common word.

I really can't understand how you think that would be a suitable resolution. The whole point is that all architects are fully qualified so that the consumer can't be screwed over by any fraud or quack.

It's no different to other "common words" like general practitioner, surgeon, optometrist, ophthalmologist, surveyor, accountant, engineer, etcetera. All of those professions are regulated in the same way. I just think people have a romanticised vision of architects as artists, that's why they have a problem with it.
post #3358 of 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

You are making the same mistake as lawyerday, Stephen. The ARB is not a trade union or professional association with licensing fees like the AIA. The ARB is literally a public agency, under the remit of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It can't lobby the government because that would be lobbying itself. It doesn't have a role in creating planning regulations, all it does is keep a registry of all qualified architects which you can check to make sure your architect is not a fraud. If you feel you've been cheated by a qualified architect, you can also take it up with the ARB and they will tell you your rights, etcetera.

Planning laws are formulated by a completely different set of agencies, the Building Regulations Advisory Commission and the Planning Inspectorate, and most planning laws are only implemented at the discretion of local governments.

I agree completely with you that planning systems can create horse-shit architecture. But that is not the same discussion about the ARB regulating the word "architect". You could dissolve the ARB tomorrow and it would have zero impact on planning regulations or the influence of private corporate interests on architecture.

I'm convinced that all these efforts in bueracrasy and diplomacy over the trade are significant obstacles to the accessibility of good design. It may not be the ARB's authority to dictate the built environment, but there is a reason that forms of soft power and media relations are a tool in their best interest. It's because it's effective. There's significant weight and authority to forms of establishment due to the perception of their exclusiveness, and nipping around the edges over seemingly pedantic issues like this is meant to retain exclusivity so that when somebody drops tens of millions of a new project, their instincts are trained to seek out the safety and authority of trade organizations. Anything that dilutes and decentralizes authority in design is going to work against the financial interests of trade organizations. It's no different from regulating the designation of "champagne" to protect established vineyards from the threat of meritocracy in grape growing.
post #3359 of 3595
It's fine to accept licensing in the abstract, but as seen in the case of the AMA, what more effective obstacle is there to reducing accessible healthcare than a medical trade organization that purposely restricts the number of doctors through onerous certification standards in order to secure a greater stranglehold on healthcare delivery? If it takes 8 years and $200k in student loans to find the authority to diagnose diabetes, who could expect access to quality to expand? You're just driving ordinary folks out of better living standards, and I don't think it's a coincidence that middle class Americans overwhelmingly live in ineffective, cheaply-made, homogenous homes financially dominated by corporate material suppliers and developers with greater power to influence standards to their favor.
post #3360 of 3595
The problem in the USA is regulatory capture. That's a form of government failure. It doesn't mean regulation is bad per se. Regulation is supposed to protect people, and intelligent and uncorrupted regulation does just that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › The Architecture Thread