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

  • -1
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Read the words again. I said it was an AT degree. You stated it was a CIAT accredited AT degree and informed me of that fact, which I how I found it. If you lied to me then it you that should be apologising to me. The fact that an AT degree has been approved as part of ARB/RIBA Part 1 is good news. It is you that is trying to backtrack if that course is not CIAT acreditted, I don't care what courses CIAT do or don't approve of. CIAT approval has nothing to do with ability or competence in architecture. CIAT is a DIFFERENT building design profession to that of Architect. I repeat it was a CIAT member claiming to have training in architecture by using the term 'architectural designer'.
    Apologies to any prospective clients reading this but if you want a building designer there are a number of Chartered Professionals with their own specialisms. If you need an Architect, your only option is to employ one. There are a few talented unqualified individuals and amateurs who might be suitable but you are not likely to get independent written evidence of that ability or competence.

  • 1
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    OK John. So now you are saying that you know of an ARB accredited Architectural Technology (AT) Degree, that isn't accredited by CIAT? Interesting. Where?

  • -1
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Glen, you told me VERY strongly that it existed, go find it yourself. CIAT membership does not make you any more an Architect than RICS, CIOB or CABE membership does etc. Membership of CIAT is just another building design profession. Even if CIAT membership was an automatic equivalence of Part 1 (not a bad thing as they are both degree entry), which you are now insistent that it isn't, there would still be Parts 2 and 3 to pass before the standard required of an architect could be achieved. Give up, there is NO equivalence between the two professions. Your profession has a closer similarity with that of an RICS Building Surveyor than that of Architect, why not go pick a fight with them instead :-)

  • 1
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. I have never said anything of the sort. Yet more fabrication in your own mind!

    You're obviously trying to dig yourself out of another hole. I would offer you a shovel, but I think you still have it from our other (LinkedIn) discussions.

    If you had read my (ARB Routes to Registration) article, you would appreciate the problem with the ARB Part 3 requirement (which is why it's not required by EU Architects registering (automatically) with the ARB) & probably why the ARB are culling it.

    As for a Masters Degree level qualification (Part 2). This can be mapped against experience (unlike a Doctorate). CIAT's own accredited Master's Degree in Technical ARCHITECTURE, does not provide automatic CIAT Chartered Membership, but it does offer exemption from one of the four key competences towards MCIAT.

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • -1
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    Glenn, if what you say is true, contrary to your spouting against my profession elsewhere on LinkedIn there are NO elements of CIAT membership that are recognised as forming part of the training of an architect. NONE, ZERO, ZILTCH. Not here in the UK, the EU, North America or Australasia etc. What is your problem with reality?
    CIAT Membership is of a building design profession. It no more makes you an architect than being a Chartered Engineer or Chartered Surveyor. Certainly not an architectural designer, a job for which there is no minimum entry level, as the ARB do not recognise any AT course as being equal to either Part 2 or Part 3.
    Not one element of all your words in response to the FAQ in any way answer the post or my initial answer that architectural designers are not architects. The fact that an architect is an architectural designer seems to have confused you! It is very simple mathematical set theory. Architects are the only architectural designers with sufficient knowledge of architecture to be architects.

  • -1
    Avatar
    John Kellett

    NOTHING you have written alters the fact that CIAT members are not architects in any sense whatsoever, legally or otherwise which was the FAQ. If there is an AT degree accredited by ARB as meeting Part 1 of the requirements of the 3 needed to be an architect that would be a good thing. If you are now claiming that the course, you insisted existed, is not accredited by CIAT then that further reinforces my case doesn't it!
    That is the end of the matter, unless you say anything libellous against my profession in which case expect prosecution. No, that is a threat, it is a promise :-)
    I repeat CIAT members are NOT architects, they have insufficient training, knowledge, skills, education, qualifications or experience to use the title whether we are are in the EU or not.

  • 1
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. You need to do a Buck's Fizz & make your mind up. Is there an AT degree accredited by the ARB or not. Earlier in the discussion you confirmed there was & now you're saying there isn't, which is utterly nonsensical.

    You also confirmed, within this discussion, that CIAT provides 2 parts of the Vitruvian Triad. The other part is by default present by means of the use of the descriptor Architectural (pertaining to architecture, as YOU also confirmed within this discussion) within the CIAT legally protected title being Chartered Architectural Technologist. A title originating from the RIBA.

    If you consider that in conjunction with my article & in particular the Barrister's (& Michael Highton's) Opinion, there is no reason why Architectural Designers (any) should not be offered the opportunity to register with the ARB, for use of the title 'Architect'.

    Not sure why you would want to deny others from being given that opportunity, especially when you consider that the current process is (unlawfully?) restricting entry.

    Why do you act on the side of a restrictive & potentially unlawful system?

     

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • 1
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. There is nothing contained within this discussion that I have not raised within my published article, or on the LinkedIn forum & discussion groups. My own, & the opinions of others, are based around FACT, with available evidence.

    To save your legal team a bit of time (if you choose to follow up on your threats & promises), here's a link to both:

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

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/of40h299osu9qt7/AAAVpXbUt_mvdt7EmzuHTQ2xa?dl=0

    Edited by Glen Smith
  • 1
    Avatar
    Glen Smith

    John. Earlier in the discussion, you stated this: "John Kellett February 22, 2017 14:46

    Breaking the law again (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."

    End

    Having contacted the UK ARB myself, in respect of your comment, I have now received a response from the Architects Registration Board. Here's what their Investigations Manager confirmed in writing, to me, today:

    "I can confirm that using the title “landscape architect” is not in breach of the Act. The Act explicitly states that this is not a protected title and I have copied the relevant part below for ease of reference.

    (2) Subsection (1) does not prevent any use of the designation "naval architect", "landscape architect" or "golf-course architect"

    End

    I notice that you have not yet removed your libellous claim (of many) from the discussion, even though I politely requested you do so, at the time. So, I will ask you once again, to please remove your comment, now you have been proved (as a matter of fact) wrong.

     

     
     
    Edited by Glen Smith
Please sign in to leave a comment.