The issue of overlapping professional practice between the two professions
has been with us since both architecture and civil engineering as formal
professions were established in the Philippines in the early 20th century, in
fact it is not an isolated problem and is prevalent in other countries as well,
but not as toxic as the Philippine situation. It has been a dividing issue
between both professions and had many reports of violent disagreements in some
cases. To find out why, we need to go back to the history of both professions
to understand what has transpired to this day and age.
During the Spanish era
(1521-1890s), the "maestro de obras" were (what many believe) the
equivalent of what architects are today but in-fact they were just the foremans
as I see it in today's equivalence, the real equivalent to architects today I
think were the church friars, who envisioned their churches according to their
home trends in medieval Spain of their times i.e. baroque, rococo style,
adopted by the maestro de obras to local building techniques and materials.
In the later part of that era,
the formal title and profession of architects already existed and were already institutionalized
in Europe and the United States of America. Then came the USA to buy/liberate
us from Spain's control and commissioned the great architects Daniel Burnham
and others to Plan for the new territories of the U.S. in the Philippines.
Burnham was one of the first official architects who practiced architecture in
the Philippines and because the architect at this time was viewed as the
Generals in everything that needs Masterplans of cities and buildings, they
don't need many or even to train new architects, instead they need an army of
engineers to carry out these few architect's visions and plans for the country,
hence the army of civil engineering was born to execute all infrastructure
developments.
During this time, the notion of
the title architect was high and mighty, almost as divine as gods, in fact this
is still a common notion today, that architects are control-freaks and
narcissistic as dictators come and as serving only the elites of the society.
This is where the distrust and stigma comes from while appealing to the
commoner's mentality to see architects as impractical professionals and are far
from being useful in everyday needs of the majority of people. The bygone era
didn't really passed away and has survived to hunt new era of architects to
this day, portrayed as impractical luxurious whims for the elite and wealthy.
Of course old habits die and
even harder when there are organized and highly motivated groups are trying to
keep it that way, hence this is exactly where we are right now despite of
current trends in the shifting role of the architects in the developed worlds
like U.S. and other leading countries e.g. of the G7. The problem is not merely
disinformation due to political and economical in nature but also rooted on
deep socio-cultural baggage of unruly image of what an architect is and its
role in our current society. With this in mind, we might want to start with
properly informing and educating the new generation into how we must redefine
what architects and engineers do in a clear and complimentary manners rather
than a divisive discussion in both classrooms and public discourse.
With United Architects of the
Philippines (U.A.P.) and Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (P.I.C.E.) in
diatribe position to the matter of who gets to practice architecture and
bagging the money from private projects, may it be residential or commercial
buildings, we are now in the position of asking, who really is the right
professional to undertake or hire in which project? Clients/Building owners’
ends up being caught on the crossfire of these professions and ends up
suffering as a consequence of unable to properly decide which one to hire, and
if he/she hires one of them to lead their project, did he/she make the right
decision in hiring either one.
"1. Evaluation
On Academic Training
The academic requirements of Civil Engineering degree vis a vis the Architectural degree demonstrate that Civil Engineers are NOT academically COMPETENT TO PRACTICE ARCHITECTURE, nor to prepare and certify architectural documents. A typical civil engineering course does not include a single unit of architectural design, planning or drafting.
On the other hand, a typical architecture course has ten (10) semesters of mainstream architecture that include design, planning, graphics, visual techniques, etc. and units in building technology, and engineering sciences similar to civil engineering.
A civil engineering curriculum does not have the same comprehensive design and planning subjects. It is worth noting that for a Civil Engineer to become an Architect, it will take full five year course to attain the degree. Whereas an Architect will only take two years to complete a civil engineering degree. This shows the competencies of each profession practicing the other.
2. On the issue of Disenfranchisement of the CEs by the passage of the architecture bills
The bill will not deprive Civil Engineers the right to practice their profession as it is a requirement for all buildings and structures that civil/structural design, plans and analysis are to be prepared by civil/structural engineers. All architects require the services of the civil engineers in the practice of their profession, and should be vise versa.
3. On the Use of the generic term “Building Plans”
The term “building plans” being advocated for by the Civil Engineers in the definition of plans should no longer be used as a generic term to cover both types of plans; architectural and engineering plans. A distinction thereof has to be made based on professional mandate and competencies.
The proposed bill is envisioned to raise the level of Philippine architecture in order to develop a built environment that is resilient, sustainable, well planned, conducive for the advancement of the Philippine culture, to help promote the country as a center for business, culture and tourist destination in Asia.
In this regard, the commission (P.R.C.) strongly supports the passage of HB 5127 (House Bill 5127 an act to strengthening the architecture profession)* so as to make the professionals involved in the building and construction industry aligned with international standards, to wit:
We (P.R.C.) believe that it is our mandate as the regulatory body of all professionals groups to protect and safeguard the exercise of all professions in the interest of public safety and welfare. We trust that we have made our position clear on this matter."
The C.E.'s contention is first that
architecture is easy for them to do because it is just drawing and there are
now easy computer software to do that or hire draftsmen who were trained by
architects and pay them for less and get the same quality outputs that
architects create. That having a magazine and the internet where to copy
plans/designs is enough that they can build them easily. Ok, it might seem to
make sense in an uneducated audience and this is how they justify their
"services" of design to be very easy and can be provided to clients
as "free", devaluing design and damaging the integrity of both
professions in the hopes of getting the construction money and profit from that
by doing cost cutting in mind and profit from that kind of business model.
The second contention is that C.E.s if they
are unable to continue "practicing architecture" or having
"prime client relationship/contract/agreement", the one who will get
the money and distribute to others or take everything home, they will lose
their privilege to get projects and they don't want to be doing structural
design only. By the way, engineers are not equivalent to state licensed
contractors.
And third, they want to equivocate the
term or phrase "building plans" that is present in their antiquated
law (R.A. 544) to mean the totality of all drawings needed for the building,
which means that they can prepare, sign and seal all architectural and
engineering drawings, they want to be the prime designers of everything that is
perceived as building or structure. I've seen comments of these mentality of
C.E. activists who advises aspiring architecture students on forums to rather take up
civil engineering because if you become a CE you can practice architecture
anyway, so you can take CE finish it 4-5 years and take the board examination
instead of taking the 5 year architecture course and spend 2 more years in
apprenticeship before taking your board, neat right. It's a very frustrating
and despicable way of concluding of how your profession is superior to someone
else and to the point of recommending architecture to be abolished in the list
of professions because CE is already that profession.
These extreme views are of course a
minority in the CE profession but a lot of CEs are being swayed and are either
a vocal fighter for these supposed rights or ideologies and many are closeted
and support it in secret. I believe that this can be simultaneously be
addressed by educating and crafting laws and regulations and let it mature in
the new generation of architects and engineers, I believe we have started and
we want to spin this debacle into a better working relationship into the future.
Let me know in the comment below what
you think about this very controversial issue, I believe that talking about it
openly with respect is the first step.
The C.E.'s contention is first that
architecture is easy for them to do because it is just drawing and there are
now easy computer software to do that or hire draftsmen who were trained by
architects and pay them for less and get the same quality outputs that
architects create. That having a magazine and the internet where to copy
plans/designs is enough that they can build them easily. Ok, it might seem to
make sense in an uneducated audience and this is how they justify their
"services" of design to be very easy and can be provided to clients
as "free", devaluing design and damaging the integrity of both
professions in the hopes of getting the construction money and profit from that
by doing cost cutting in mind and profit from that kind of business model.
The second contention is that C.E.s if they
are unable to continue "practicing architecture" or having
"prime client relationship/contract/agreement", the one who will get
the money and distribute to others or take everything home, they will lose
their privilege to get projects and they don't want to be doing structural
design only. By the way, engineers are not equivalent to state licensed
contractors.
And third, they want to equivocate the term or phrase "building plans" that is present in their antiquated law (R.A. 544) to mean the totality of all drawings needed for the building, which means that they can prepare, sign and seal all architectural and engineering drawings, they want to be the prime designers of everything that is perceived as building or structure. I've seen comments of these mentality of C.E. activists who advises aspiring architecture students on forums to rather take up civil engineering because if you become a CE you can practice architecture anyway, so you can take CE finish it 4-5 years and take the board examination instead of taking the 5 year architecture course and spend 2 more years in apprenticeship before taking your board, neat right. It's a very frustrating and despicable way of concluding of how your profession is superior to someone else and to the point of recommending architecture to be abolished in the list of professions because CE is already that profession.
These extreme views are of course a
minority in the CE profession but a lot of CEs are being swayed and are either
a vocal fighter for these supposed rights or ideologies and many are closeted
and support it in secret. I believe that this can be simultaneously be
addressed by educating and crafting laws and regulations and let it mature in
the new generation of architects and engineers, I believe we have started and
we want to spin this debacle into a better working relationship into the future.
Let me know in the comment below what you think about this very controversial issue, I believe that talking about it openly with respect is the first step.
Read other articles:
- The Project Planning Workshop
- Five most essential things to know before deciding to design and build
- Best Way to have Better Control and Fast-Tract Your Project
- How Much Does Hiring an Architect Cost
- Why contracts are essential when engaging in services
- The Architect's Basic Design Service
- 7 reasons why Architects are seen as expensive and an unnecessary cost in building projects
- How to create a Design Brief for your architect
- Architects and Architecture: Myths vs Reality
- The Project Planning Workshop
- Five most essential things to know before deciding to design and build
- Best Way to have Better Control and Fast-Tract Your Project
- How Much Does Hiring an Architect Cost
- Why contracts are essential when engaging in services
- The Architect's Basic Design Service
- 7 reasons why Architects are seen as expensive and an unnecessary cost in building projects
- How to create a Design Brief for your architect
- Architects and Architecture: Myths vs Reality
No comments:
Post a Comment