Legal and Regulatory Issues about the Practice of Architecture - Article Example

When one sees any breathtaking building or structure, he will immediately praise the architect or engineer behind its construction. While engineers are responsible for the practical application of the plan and blueprint of the structure to be built, it is the architect who plots this plan, blueprint and also the image that they expect to see after finishing their project. Technically speaking, an architect is responsible for the planning, designing and overseeing the construction of a building. They are the ones who translate the "user's needs into the builder's requirements (Architecture)." Based from the discipline's description above, architecture is a discipline that requires both art and science to be considered effective. Architects should mix artistic designs in their work and scientific rationale and calculations to make their creations both attractive and functional. Any shortcomings between the two would cause major flaws in their profession as a whole and independent practice in particular. Because of the complicated nature of their profession, governments all over the world are regulating the architectural profession. Since any miscalculation and malpractice of architects may cause loss of lives and properties, legal codes should be implemented by the government for the regulation of the performance of their profession. Particularly in Canada, the national government has created an agency, such as the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Code, in overseeing and regulating this delicate profession. Regulation is a legal restriction implemented by government agencies by way of legislation. It attempts to "produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur (Regulation)." Based from the definition above, we can say that regulation aims to promote positive outcomes and/or prevent negative outcomes of the concerned organization or the specific group. Given this definition of regulation in the profession of architecture, I can say that the regulatory system in Ontario aims to protect the architectural profession more than the public. This does not mean, however, that the public is not addressed in the regulation policy or the rights of clients or the public is disregarded. Actually, the tone of the written policy is to protect architects, particularly the members of Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) [in Canada, every province has its own regulatory system regarding the architectural profession], from engaging into activities or situations where the image of architects will be tarnished. For example, the Provincial Government of Ontario has provided a law that will safeguard the rights of the architectural firm if the client prefers to backs out from the project. The government, under the Architects Act, require that the architect who accepts the project to write a registered letter to the architect that terminated stating that he has been engaged on the same building project for the same purpose by the same client (When a Client Changes Architects - Regulations Under the Architects Act)." This "courtesy turnover" letter actually aims to establish a professional relationship between the previous architect and the succeeding architect so that there will be a clear turnover of responsibility. As I see it, it is still the client and the public who will benefit from the regulatory system because there is a clear and unclogged communication line between the previous and the succeeding architects. Protecting the image of architects requires numerous and great responsibilities. These numerous responsibilities that architects should follow for their own protection seems to make architects in Ontario feel excessively regulated. In a news article from Ontario Building Officials Association, the Ontario Court of Justice will hear a matter concerning the arguments presented by the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) and the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) that will assert the "exclusive jurisdiction in a regulatory area" of PEO that has already been bestowed by the Ontario Legislature. OAA advocated PEO's stand on maintaining its power to self-regulate the professional engineering profession in terms of giving professional licensure examination that was being amended by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. At times when there is a threat from the government to excessively regulate the architectural profession, an association of architects can collectively appeal to the government to preserve its self-regulatory status. Especially in Canada where the practice of self-regulation of professionals is envied by different countries, this power of self-regulation should be preserved whenever possible. There could be logical reasons why the Ontario government amended this practice of self-regulation. There could be certain problems that had been experienced by the public concerning architects that had smudged the reputation of the profession. This could have been the cause of the legislation for excessive regulation of Ontario government. According to Regulating Better in order for regulations to be effective it should pass five principles, namely: necessity of regulation, effectiveness, proportionality, transparency, accountability and consistency (p. 6). If a group of people and organization pass the standard of being effective, transparent, consistent, accountable for mistakes and flaws, and there is no clear evidence of necessity for regulation, there is no logical reason for the Ontario government to impose regulation on the architectural profession. Hence for architects in Ontario to claim their right for self-regulate and to loosen up the restriction that regulations give them, they should give evidence that they should not be regulated. They should not give the Ontario government reason to suppress their freedom. And the best way to do this is to discipline themselves to self-regulate. Architects should display ethical standards to gather confidence, respect and trust from their clients and from the public in general. For example, they should display qualities of integrity in discharging his duties to his clients, the general public, fellow architects and members of other professions. They should be competent enough to deliver quality service. They should be candid and truthful enough to their clients so that his advices will be considered. They should also act impartially to their clients and should not entertain conflict of interest in their profession (Architects Act 1980 Code of Ethics). These and other ethical standards should be seen in them to be inspiring enough to convince others that their profession is considered to be self-regulated. The architects' fear to be liable in crimes because of regulatory laws can lessen their creative powers in designing their creations. Because of unnecessary regulations changes in the way architects practice their professions they may become unproductive in their craft. The artistic part of their profession may greatly suffer because of illogical demands of regulatory policies. They might be preoccupied with the regulatory laws and principles that they might leave behind the things that matter more in their professions, that of designing magnificent structures that serves the desires and dreams of their clients. As the French architect Paul Chemetov said in his interview: The architect should respond to "what society demands of him (Raynal, F.). " If there are excessive regulations architects might focus not on their job at hand but more cautious in their of being liable in the eyes of the law. What is more dangerous in having excessive regulations is the effect that it may bring to those who are "neither ignorant nor greedy." Because of the capacity of regulations to prevent future mistakes and pitfalls it also hinders the improvement of those who are doing well in their architectural profession and are willing to serve the needs and wants of their clients and the public. Being in the defensive position restricts architects from further exploring the possibilities that should have been tapped and explored for the benefit of the future generation of their people that will take up their profession. Works Cited "About Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes" 01 Jul 2006. National Research Council Canada. 29 Oct. 2006. Ahern, B. Regulating Better, Dublin: The Stationery Office, 2004. "Architect." Wikipedia. 29 Oct. 2006. Ben-Joseph, E. "Land Use and Design Innovations in Private Communities" Land Lines Oct. 2004. Volume 16. No. 4. 29 Oct. 2006 "Canada's Construction System." National Research Council Canada. 29 Oct. 2006. "PEO/Government dispute on Self-regulation to be heard this week at Osgoode Hall." Oct. 2006. Ontario Building Officials Association. 29 Oct. 2006. Raynal, F. "Interview with Paul Chemetov: For a "responsible architecture." Label France. French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 29 Oct. 2006. "Regulation" Wikipedia. 29 Oct. 2006. "What is Practice of Architecture." 2005. Royal Architecture Institute of Canada. 29 Oct. 2006. "When a Client Changes Architects - Regulations Under the Architects Act." 28 Jun. 2005. Ontario Association of Architects. 29 Oct. 2006. Read More