Is there any particular value in choosing an Architect over an 'Architectural Designer?'

The Architects Registration Board (ARB) hold the list of registered architects practicing in the UK, and protects the title of 'Architect'. The benefit of hiring a registered architect is that they are regulated by the ARB and you can be assured that their competence and training is of a high professional standard. However, many architectural designers have not followed this traditional route in their professional training, and this does not mean that they are any less competent or talented.

For any design professional it's important that they hold Professional Indemnity Insurance.

Have more questions? Submit a request

69 Comments

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Most architectural designers have no architectural training, or very little, and are not a member of the architect's profession.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Ariella Stone

    John Kellet you are 100% correct although Chartered Architectural Technologists do undertake architectural training and can also provide a valid architectural solution. They have to undertake extensive training as well as the traditional architect. Please do not confuse Chartered Architectural Technologist with architectural designers with little or no training.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Ariella Stone

    John Kellet you are 100% correct although Chartered Architectural Technologists do undertake architectural training and can also provide a valid architectural solution. They have to undertake extensive training as well as the traditional architect. Please do not confuse Chartered Architectural Technologist with architectural designers with little or no training. If you would like to read up more about them please go to http://www.ciat.org.uk/en/the_institute/index.cfm

  • -1
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Arielle,

    Let me put you straight on a few facts. 'Architectural' technologist's degree courses are not recognised by ARB or the EU as containing sufficient merit to meet the ARB Part 1 aspect of an architect's training, let alone Parts 2 and Part 3. A CIAT member's training is a degree plus some work in an office but in a different profession to that of architect. An architectural technology degree is not a degree in architecture. After an architect's training (degree + min.1 year in an office + masters degree + min. 1 year in an office + day long professional exam = average 9 years) we have covered most, if not all, of a technologist's training but the reverse is most certainly not true.

    To use the medical analogy both nurses and doctors have medical careers but they are not equal in length, depth or direction, they are different professions. The same is true of technologists, they have very little architectural training otherwise their courses would be recognised by ARB and the EU. Some chartered technologists may think of themselves as being architects but without the independently verified proof of gaining ARB recognition and actually becoming architects they cannot in anyway demonstrate that.

    Qualified 'architectural' technicians and technologists are actually trained in constructional matters not architectural ones. CIAT, unfortunately, is in many ways misleading the public by using the term 'architectural' in the title. The 'architectural' content of their courses is, of necessity, less than that of a Part 1 architecture student. A CIAT member working for an architect is indeed working in an architectural context. CIAT members operating independently of architects are not, they are operating in the context of their own professional sector of building design, as are chartered structural and building services engineers. Architect and technologist are not interchangeable job functions and never are they likely to be.

    I am certain chartered technologists are good at their job, but that job is not that of architect. They are no more an architect than many of the unqualified charlatan 'architectural designers' and 'architectural consultants'.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    Ariella Stone

    You make a great point & think these links will reinforce your views, whilst removing the common myths & disrespectful inaccuracies (often raised by John above) surrounding the profession(s):

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/arb-routes-registration-title-architect-glen-smith

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/of40h299osu9qt7/AAAVpXbUt_mvdt7EmzuHTQ2xa?dl=0  (courtesy of Jim Kingston)

     

     

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Glen, do you have a chip on your shoulder? 'Architectural' designers in the U.K. are not required by Government (national or local) to have any qualifications and yet planning authorities, building control departments and many others deem them 'competent' without having the ability to judge competency in architecture. 'Architectural' in English implies a link to 'architecture' that unfortately does not exist. Architecture and 'architectural' technology are different professions. The profession of architect requires study equivalent to at least 7 years University backed training NOT 'architectural' technology. In my opinion an AT degree is the equivalent in time to ARB/RIBA Part 1 as are the levels of study to be Chartered Engineers or Chartered Building Surveyors. All three are different professions with, perhaps unfortunately, little cross recognition. Completing and passing ARB/RIBA Part 3 is a completely different 'ball game'. There IS an RIBA 'apprenticeship' route to qualification and has been used very occasionally as a route to qualification recognised by ARB. The ARB would not recommended it to someone considered incapable of completing that course as it is very long.
    Following Brexit the ARB will have no duty to recognise EU architects who have undertaken a shorter course. As a profession we are far more likely to seek 'equivalence' to the architect profession in Australasia and North America where the minimum time to complete registration is 7 years.
    In summary: if you need an architect, employ one. There is no equivalent. The word 'architectural' is a good guide that knowledge of architecture as a building designer is at very best minimal.

    Edited by John Kellett
  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. I apparently have a chip on both shoulders, but that just makes me well balanced. ;-)))

    But, seriously, I doubt an impartial Barrister has any such kind of chip on their shoulder, who feels, that in his opinion, the ARB are acting unlawfully & in essence, against most of what you believe & imply. It's all there John, but you already know this, yet choose not to accept any of it.

    As for duration of training, research shows (a LinkedIn discussion was dedicated to this matter), that on average it takes 11.5 years to qualify as a MCIAT Chartered Architectural Technologist (when holding a CIAT accredited degree) & 12.5 years (where not holding a CIAT accredited degree), which, by your own admission above is between 2.5 & 3.5 years, on average, more than that of becoming an ARB Registered Architect. Data compiled includes that of the shortest entry into CIAT Chartered Membership, so figures are in no way biased.

    Let's not forget, that unlike a Doctorate (which for some reason you believe all architects hold?), both Honours & Masters Degrees can be measured against experience.

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Glen,

    I have NEVER stated that Architects require a Doctorate to practice. The MINIMUM in the UK is a undergraduate degree (plus one year = Part 1) AND a postgraduate masters degree (Part 2) AND the professional examination (Part 3). I wrote that the MINIMUM time to qualify as an Architect is 7 years (5 full time University plus 2 in practice is the usual) and the MINIMUM to qualify as a Chartered Technologist is apparently 4 years (3 full time University plus 1 in practice). Both professions can, obviously, take longer to qualify for. The post is about ARCHITECTS (must be qualified and have proved competence as such) and ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS (NO qualifications or competence required). CABE members, CIOB members, CIAT members, RICS members and Chartered Engineers etc are DIFFERENT building / construction professionals, they are not architects. To move from one profession to another usually requires starting the course again. 'Architectural Services' are just a very small part of the services of an architect, hence the different and longer minimum training.

    There IS an RIBA 'apprenticeship' route to qualification and has been used very occasionally as a route to qualification recognised by both the ARB and RIBA. The ARB would not recommended it to someone considered incapable of completing that course as it is very long.

    Edited by John Kellett
  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. You are very much misguided, about most of what you believe?

    MCIAT Training 4 years - NO (although EU minimum training to become a Registered Architect was, up until recently 4 years, now 5 years (since 2015?))

    Starting CABE/CIOB training from scratch - NO (I know, as I'm a Chartered Member of both).

    The ARB, are apparently (unlawfully according to a Barrister?) restricting someone with experience &/or alternative qualifications from entering the Register. Turning a blind eye to this apparent unlawful process (since 1997) is a disgrace & you should be ashamed, to ignore it!

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    I was on RIBA Council (post 1997) when a person was approved for membership of the RIBA having attained ARB registration following 'alternative' qualifications. There will be more as there IS a formal apprenticeship route to qualification that has been, or is about to be, launched.

    THIS POST WAS ABOUT ARCHITECTS (must be qualified with proven competence) and ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNERS (no requirement for qualifications or proof of competence required). You as usual have diverted the post off on your own to somewhere else. There are no professions equal to, or equivalent to, that of Architect in the UK. There are other building design professionals, such as your good self, but NONE of you are Architects by qualification, training, experience, skills or job title.

    NO training or registration is required to carry on a business as an 'architectural' designer. In fact an architectural designer may be an architect who has been 'struck off' the register of architects. Not many probably but it would be perfectly legal for them to do so. BUYER BEWARE!

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. With a discussion title of "Is there any particular value in choosing an Architect over an 'Architectural Designer?", I think all members of the profession(s) are welcome (Chartered Architectural Technologists are also Architectural Designers), even if you don't like it.

    Applications would still have been coming through from the former ARCUK, no doubt, before the new (unlawful?) ARB registration regime, was implemented. Not anymore, for the time being at least. Even then, 20+ years for the ARB to comply with the Architect's Act, is pretty poor, to be honest.

    As for other building design professionals, such as myself, I'm currently wearing my 'Landscape Architect' hat, putting together another landscaping scheme. Something I've undertaken since being a Junior Architectural Technician.

    Any discord was sown, long before I entered the discussion.

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Breaking the law again Glen. Unless you passed all the exams you are using the title landscape architect' illegally. And I know you would know that if you had read the Architects Act.
    In two years time the EU Architects Directive will not apply in the UK. Your comment about only 5 years needed to qualify does not apply in most countries in Europe. The EU went for the lowest national requirement. Many Countries in Europe and both in North America do not allow architectural designers to design anything bigger than, at most, one dwelling without becoming an architect. In Australasia a scheme is being introduced to require all building designers to be registered and licenced to practice (at various levels). For this Country to allow unqualified architectural designers to be in practice at all is wrong. The ARB was set up to prevent the the unsuitably qualified from being architects. A role it carries out to prevent fake architects from practicing as architects. Glen you are a Chartered Architectural Technologist. Be content with that role and profession. Stop pretending to be qualified in architecture as an architect. The ARB cannot register you as an architect as your qualifications are not suitable (under the currently valid EU rules). To return to the question posed by the post, ONLY Architects are architects in the U.K. You can use who you like, but no qualifications are required of an architectural designer.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. The title 'Landscape Architect' is not protected by the Architect's Act. Didn't you see Keith Sibthorpe MCIAT Landscape Architect's LinkedIn discussion comments on the matter? Please retract/remove your statement in respect of breaking the law (again?), as this is libellous & without doubt contrary to the ARB/RIBA Code of Conduct, not to mention the law itself.

    The EU Rules still apply, so the 5 year (increased in 2015 from 4 years) rules to registration of title Architect in the UK (when trained within the EU) also apply & will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

    On your subject of Architect's being 'Struck-Off', I see the ARB are looking at listing Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) actions taken against such Architects, in the interests of protecting the Public. A good move, in my opinion.

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Glen, calling yourself a landscape architect without being one is immoral at the very least (not that that would worry you). I am currently checking with the Landscape Institute about the legality of it. If you are a landscape architect you can use the title under the Architects Act as is the same for the titles 'naval architect' and 'golf-course architect'.

    Why does CIAT appear to be on a mission to pretend to be architects? Or is it just you? It does you no credit. Stick to what you're good at, the role of assisting architects in their role. Very similar to the medical analogy: medical nurses are professionals with a degree (a similar level of qualification to that of a CIAT member) who assist, not replace, medical doctors (who have a similar level of training and qualification as architects) in their role as doctors. Nurses also act independently of Doctors in medical roles, but as nurses NOT as doctors. The same is true of your profession Glen, you can act independently as technologists but not as architects. Unqualified architectural designers are the equivalent of 'hospital porters' or 'nursing auxiliaries' at best. If a home owner wishes to employ a non-architect to design their extension or new home they are free to do so, but that does not make the person they have chosen an architect.

    The ARB do not have any powers to prevent architects they have 'struck off' the register from continuing in practice as architectural designers. There are no qualifications required to be an architectural designer so how could they? The ARB have no powers to protect the public from architectural designers or CIAT members either.

    What would be a good move would be introducing a scheme like the one that is/was being introduced in Australia requiring ALL building designers to be registered and licensed as qualified and competent to operate at various levels. The highest, in terms of 'architectural', being architect from which all other professions are excluded.

    The RIBA is changing the route to membership but it remains at 7 years as a MINIMUM as do the architect's professional bodies in most EU Countries. Even if CIAT gains ARB registration for its members (and that is a very big 'IF" since none of the courses are recognised as meeting ARB/RIBA Part 3 or EU requirements) they could not join the RIBA, the chartered professional body!

    The advice to any homeowner therefore remains 'if you need an architect, employ one'. There is no equivalent.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. Calling yourself a Historic Buildings Advisor, Technologist, Project Manager, Planning Consultant, Building Surveyor, Urban Designer, Interior Designer, etc, without being one, must also be immoral, if that's the way you see it.

    So why do so on your website?

    As you say, above, aren't they all different professions, to that of the architect!!!!

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    No Glen,

    None of the roles I list on my website are actually professions and none of them requires an entry level of qualification. However I am qualified, as an architect, in each of those subjects. They form part of the long course and qualifications to qualify as an architect along with design theory, town-planning, contract law, management, mathematics, building and land surveying, physics, architectural history, structural engineering, building services engineering and material science etc. I also have, as it happens, a postgraduate qualification in architectural conservation as well. No immorality involved. We also studied, as part of the course, landscape design. I can, but do not want to, design landscapes.

    Chartered Planning Consultant, Chartered Building Surveyor, Chartered Architectural Technologist are professions only by virtue of the word 'chartered' stuck in front. 'Architect' along with the military, church, law and prostitution are true professions that do not need a Royal Charter. To be an architect requires full qualification and registration with the Architects Registration Board, entry requirements for the others are various :-)

    Getting paid to carry out a job (kicking a ball around a field springs to mind) DOES NOT make anyone a professional, there are other requirements.

    Glen, THE ORIGINAL POST MADE NO MENTION OF YOUR PROFESSION (Chartered Architectural Technologist). 'Architectural designer' is not even a profession, it is a job for which no qualifications are required. Why are you complaining about, and attempting to belittle, my profession? Are you just jealous (of the fact you cannot be an architect)? I can think of no other reason.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. One of your opening discussion comments (among many related to CIAT), before I joined the discussion, stated:

    "CIAT, unfortunately, is in many ways misleading the public by using the term 'architectural' in the title."

    Any perceived animosity is all of your own doing!!!

    I know you were historically employed by a CIAT (BIAT) Chartered Architectural Technologist, who may well have referred to you as his assistant, but I think you need to move on.

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    For **** sake Glen. I was employed as an architect, obviously. Why would I accept a job as an assistant to a CIAT member? Employee or Director/Partner, yes. Assistant, no don't be daft. The CIAT member referred to himself illegally as an architect to a client and I left. Now stop creating and spreading lies/untruths to belittle me and my profession.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. So you were a 'Technologist's Architect' then, similar in many ways to an 'Architect's Technician', just the other way around, obviously?

    To use your own analogy (from above), he was the Doctor & you were the Nurse?

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    No of course not. It was his business I did the architecture and technical stuff on my projects, he did the technical stuff on other projects. At no point was I his assistant, I was an employee of the business. I had control of the architecture on all projects I worked on, obviously. I left because the CIAT member committed a criminal act.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. As it was his business, they were all his projects & ultimately he had control over all your work, regardless of what you believe.

    Anyway. Time for me to be getting on with my own Architecture & Landscape Architecture.

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. Just out of interest, do you actually have any real evidence to back up your (criminal act) claims that your former MCIAT Employer was using the title Architect, whilst not on the ARB Register, or is it yet another case of taking 'your word' on the matter?

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • 0
    Avatar
    Ariella Stone

     

    I am sure you are aware that Architectural Technology is a fairly new profession. It was born in 1965 - at the request of RIBA to form an associated body for those that wished to specialise in the technical aspects of building design. After taking fledgling steps from being a 'Society' to an 'Institute' it has now evolved to be in possession of a Royal Charter. Nowadays, the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT) has, in fact, emerged into a highly respected profession.

    It is fair to admit that most Architects are aware of the title as well as the profession albeit many work side-by-side within the industry.  However, there is a major caveat - The fundamental problem exists in this 'superior race' mentality, particularly amongst 'old school' architects who still consider 'technicians' as drawing board slaves, there to carry out the whims of the Architect.

    Having attained the title Chartered Architectural Technologist, I have essentially reached the top of the tree. This status was not freely given: my first class honours degree in Architectural Technology was studied part time whilst I was working for  a main building contractor. On graduation, I had ten years of construction experience under my belt by which time I had been successfully running a building company alongside  two other business partners. During university, I had shared the majority of academic lectures with undergraduate surveyors, civil engineers and construction managers. A different approach to the Architect's degree of 90% design, ours was 60% design and 40% technology and we were instilled with the overarching notion that we were an essential cog in making the design work.

    After a few further years in the industry, I was later employed by two Architects and a structural engineer. I then decided to return to university to undertake my Masters in Urban Planning Design. By this time I had 12 years of both theory and work experience amassed, I decided to work for my Chartership, My portfolio of work was collated and eventually scrutinised by two independent Chartered members and once I had passed the first hurdle. I was then called in for an arduous six panel interview whereby I had to prove my level of competence.

    I have never studied as an Architect, but I have worked with many; I have been  employed by a few as well as having one as an equal business partner. In most instances, they are quite human although as previously mentioned some still retain the old school aspirations that they are generally above everyone else. I was fortunate as my Architect business partner knew my worth.

    Unfortunately, some Architects are now desperately clinging to the past. I must admit I was spitting feathers when I read of your misplaced analogy associating the difference to the two professions to that of nurses to doctors. Fortunately for our profession, fledgling Architects coming out of the ‘Architects’ conveyor belt are already inseminated with an acknowledgement of their limitations and seem happy to defer to those more experienced Chartered Architectural Technologists  who ironically now run many architectural design firms.

    There are similarities as well as differences between the two professions. We are consummate  on how to put together a building constituent piece by constituent piece, and we can take it apart again and rebuild it to achieve a better result. The Architect has a more holistic approach, one more in tune with the philosophy of design as opposed to the Chartered Technologist's  technical and science base dealing largely in structural physics and mechanical engineering to make the design work. Indeed in most instances, Architects and Chartered Architectural Technologists drift towards the middle of the art and technical extremes; thus conflating design with at least one leg in each camp.

    As it currently stands, the rules of CIAT allows that a full Chartered Member may carry out in full the role historically attributed to an Architect. I can fully understand why an Architect feels so resentful as we are allowed to design, govern, oversee, sign-off and certify a building project in a manner that is fully recognised and endorsed by the whole industry. Therefore as full Chartered Members we are able to carry out the role of an Architect, but we are not allowed to used the name 'Architect'; as it is protected by law but hey-ho so is 'Chartered Architectural Technologist' protected by law - it is a hallmark of quality and excellence. We have earned the status; and most have trained academically on comparable subjects,  on par with an Architect together with knowledge gained through experience.

    I am not partaking in Architect bashing here unlike the Architect who decided to ungraciously devalue the title of a Chartered Architectural Technologist.  This piece serves as to underscore the fact that Chartered Architectural Technologists undertake a similar job but often from a different angle and starting point and also in quite a different way. It is paramount to recognise that at present, the two professions  are two heavy steadfast pillars: Primarily, as long as we profess to be able to carry out the role of an Architect, they will continue to wage war against us and secondly, the layperson will continue to remain blissfully unaware of the difference between the two professions - as long as some capable and very experienced professional is able to resolve a multitude of design issues as well as a solution to construction problems - I do not think they (the public) are bothered.

    Some Architects consider that anyone working on a building project who is not an Architect is somehow inferior. However both Architects and Chartered Architectural Technologists are both distinct professionals with qualifications in their own right. They both have skills  which balances well and are both important to the built environment and this should be harnessed and embraced. It is extremely egregious to discredit another profession and surely it would be best if both professional practitioners collaborate and this should be fostered.  Indeed, RIBA together with CIAT do collaborate frequently and have formed a technical task force to address technical issues. They also jointly respond to government consultations and issue good practice guidance. I personally am aware of this as I volunteer on the London Regional Committee at CIAT. As the two professions have evolved together they should at least value and respect each other's unique skills and differences.

    I am proud to say that I am a Chartered Architectural Technologist, I have shed blood, sweat and tears for the title. I long for the day when an Architect can also acknowledge the same and nods in approval of my title.

    To the Architect who was so disrespectful - I have three words for you "Get over Yourself!".

     

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Glen, I was stood next to him at the meeting. That good enough for you? I did not seek prosecution as he was my employer and there was, obviously, nothing written down and it was a very long time ago now. Perhaps you should prove he didn't claim to be an architect instead :-) This issue has nothing to do with the post. The matter is closed.

  • 1
    Avatar
    Ariella Stone

    I would like to add that my message is solely addressed to John Kellett

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Ariella,
    Most CIAT members are fine but you are wrong. I am not under-valuing the merits of your profession, no qualifications are required to carry out 'architectural services' which is why CIAT list them. The study of Architecture is both an art and a science and cannot be gained during just an AT degree to the level required to meet the internationally set standards in the EU and North America of 'architect'. I would have no issue with an AT degree being considered equivalent to an Architecture degree as both take the same time at University at a similar academic level. The other building design professions are also set at that sort of academic level. That of architect isn't, it is set at a higher level, which is why CIAT members are not architects. CIAT is a fine profession but it is not that of architect. Why pretend to be an architect, you have your own profession. I hope Glen Smith is not a typical example of your profession, he is giving it a bad name by claiming to be able to offer the same level of service as an architect without having the training, skills, qualifications and experience required of one. If he did perhaps ARB would have agreed to register him. I too have worked with members of CIAT, who as technologists have been fine additions to building design teams. The medical analogy is quite valid in terms of level of ability, there have been CIAT members who have gone on to be architects. Many ARB/RIBA Part 1 students think they know it all and do not require Parts 2 and 3 too. Both only discover what they didn't know by completing their qualifications, experience and training as architects. The same is true of the amateur 'architectural designers', they have no concept of the knowledge they do not know. That is not demeaning the profession of architectural technology, just pointing out that there is a very low level of knowledge of architecture required to be a member. A high technical ability is however required of architects as we are expected to, and do, detail the construction of the buildings we design. Any 'architect' who is just an artist has failed, and a reason why many such students stop at Part 1 or Part 2. The Roman engineer/architect was right in his distillation of architecture down to an equal balance of 'firmness', 'commodity' and 'delight'. Builders deal mainly with the first, chartered technologists and chartered building surveyors mainly with the first and second, architects are equally skilled at all three. Artists are only bothered with the third and are not architects either.
    The profession most closely aligned with that of architectural technologist is that of the building surveyor.

  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    The RIBA did not set up BIAT as a competitor to our profession in the 1960s. It was set up as a collaborative body to assist architects, not replace them. It is individual CIAT members who are making an erroneous claim of equivalence! NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL POST. Time for CIAT members to stop knocking the architect's profession and get on with their own. Architects and chartered technologists are different professions and I need to get on with being an architect to the internationally agreed standard of the architectural profession that no other profession meets.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. There is no internationally agreed 'standard' to title 'Architect'. There's an EU 'standard', if that's what you mean, based around 5 years training (recently increased from 4 years).

    So, that's a NO then, in respect of your former MCIATechnologist Employer, which means we have to take your word for it, again.

    Ariella. Some good points you make.

     

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • 0
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Glen, of course there is an internationally agreed standard. It has been agreed across North America and Australasia for a start and accords with the requirements to enter the profession in most Countries around the World including most of Europe. Which is a MINIMUM of 5 years of University study plus 2 years professional training in Practice. To allow persons with only the equivalent of Part 1 or Part 2 to call themselves an architect is a lowering of the standard and will be resisted.

    Membership of CIAT is not considered equal to that of an architect in any of those Countries and certainly does not meet that of the EU. What silly little point are you trying to make against my profession?

    I would hope that an AT undergraduate degree could be considered equal to an Architecture undergraduate degree. There is one AT course that is, but none of the others yet are as they lack architectural content, hence my point about the A in CIAT :-)

    It takes a lot more than an undergraduate degree in architecture to be registered as an architect in the UK.

    THE ORIGINAL POST DID NOT MENTION CIAT OR TECHNOLOGISTS. What is your input to the post? None? I thought not. No 'architectural designer' is qualified to practice as an architect, they are not allowed to use the title by law, so cheat by using the word 'architectural'.

    They are free to practice as 'architectural designer' as is anybody therefore anyone employing one should be aware that they will have to carry out the checks of ability and competence themselves.

     It is the UK that is unusual in allowing non-architects and other unqualified persons to carry out all building design roles whether as engineer, surveyor or technologist. To be certain those persons have a building design competency and ability the home-owner needs to ensure that the person is chartered. With regards to the profession of architecture, a person is only an architect if registered with the Architects Registration Board. Any architect may, additionally, be a chartered member of the RIBA which requires the full seven years as a minimum entry requirement, whether from the EU or not. Chartered technologists fall into the non-architect but able and competent building designers along with RICS etc.

    Allowing unqualified building designers (in all the various disciplines) to design buildings in the UK is a danger to the public and they need to be aware of the fact that an 'architectural designer' probably has no architectural qualifications and may be a student, a failed student or an architect who has been 'struck off' the register. CAVEAT EMPTOR.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. There is no international standard to registration of title 'architect'?

    YOUR second comment of the discussion, attacked (unprovoked) CIAT & Chartered Architectural Technologists. That was before I entered the discussion.

    Come on, don't be silly, please.

Please sign in to leave a comment.