In connection with the proposed amendments to the amendment and the petition Defend Architectural Privileges, we are asking questions of people associated with architectural institutions.
In the #ZawódArchitekt series, the following have spoken on our portal so far:
- Piotr Średniawa - President of the Silesian Branch of the IARP
- Marek Kaszyński - president of the Cracow SARP
- Hubert Wąsek - president of Częstochowa SARP
Mariusz Scisło answers the questions
- architect and SARP attorney for legislation.
1. is the extension of powers to civil engineers and graduates of construction technicians a threat to architects?
The old maxim "watch the cobbler's hoof" has already been cited many times in this context.
With such a shortage of civil engineers and construction technicians in the implementation of construction, extending their competence to architectural activities, for which they have no professional preparation (6 years of study at architecture departments!) is a big misunderstanding. So is, perhaps to a lesser extent, allowing architects to perform technical and construction supervision of construction implementation. The number of technicians and engineers who are engaged in construction design, in relation to their number who have construction licenses (including a negligible number - architectural) is a few percent, and the market all the time lacks people with good construction preparation to conduct construction and structural design.
A significant number of "designed" houses and buildings by engineers and technicians in the field of architecture - are primitive "copy-paste" adapted designs, often in violation of copyright, without understanding the function and aesthetic-spatial relations of buildings, with marginalization of the importance of functional comfort.
This will certainly not serve the quality of architecture and the shaping of space, already judged highly critical of small-scale developments under construction, including single-family housing.
The argument that this will bring the "design services market" closer to the client is just camouflage.
2 What should be the focus of the discussion on reforming the architectural profession?
The significant increase in the number of universities training future architects, does not translate into the standard of preparation for the profession and the knowledge of graduates. In the review of candidates for employment in our company, the distance between a few universities that have been recognized for years and the rest is noticeable.
What do we require from graduates who apply to work in our company; besides talent, which is supposedly a gift from..., is knowledge, design culture, spatial imagination and proficiency with modern design tools, including the now indispensable BIM.
I have the impression that there are too few academics who have practice and experience in design and significant realizations, and in universities, teaching staff are required; publications, obtaining degrees, research work (on architecture?) For me as a practitioner - architecture is a creative process and any creative design can be and material for a doctorate, as well as for publication.
What is lacking in most of our architecture graduates - practice in work in design offices and on construction sites. There they learn the profession. In most good universities in the world, combining practice with studies is standard.