canadiancontractor
Architectural technologists and technicians are underrated, reader says
Would contractors who can't stand working with architects find that architectural technologists speak their language better?
Two weeks ago we asked the question: Why do so many contractors really dislike working with architects, and vice versa…
Lyle McGill, an architectural technologist, wrote a nice post on his own experiences. Here it is…
“I just want to take a moment to comment on your article regarding the contractor-architect relationship. I am educated as an Architectural Technologist and used to work for architects in the Toronto area until the recession of the 1990’s when you could not buy a job and thus had to come home and work in the mechanical and electrical trades with my father. It was an environment that I was used to and one in which I had worked since I was 9 years old. I also had a good background in carpentry and drafting as a result of my high school technical education. This experience coupled with my architectural experience gave me the presence of mind to work as a troubleshooter in my many different jobs working for architects.
There are many good architects out in the industry. There is also the other end of the scale – as there is with many things. At the time when I was working in this field, new architects were only taught one semester of producing working drawing documents. We architectural technologists and technicians, on the other hand, study this field for three years and two years respectively. (In the USA, technologists are referred to architectural engineers which I think is a more fitting title to our education and experience.)
An architect’s education is very good in the concepts of design that deal with form, harmony and aesthetics, as well as the history of architecture. But it does, in my experience, lack something in the area of building science and construction-related documents. The answer to this situation is the architectural technologists or technician that performs this task. My point is that you do not need a architect to do house drawings, although today you must have other accreditations due to liabilities of the design work and the structural conditions of the design. Many technologists and technicians are employed by architects for this very purpose. Further, many technologists work independently on their own or perhaps as a separate contractor to an architect because they have a better understanding of building components and their interaction in a structure.
When this relationship is able to work then you have the ultimate RESPECT that is needed in the industry to promote a good relationship. Rather than just referring to these key personnel as “staffers” I think you need to do some research on the educational background of architectural technologists and technicians. Perhaps visit some colleges and see the extent of their training.”
Advertisement
Print this page
Hi,
I find your article very interesting.
Here’s my opinion regarding this article:
First and for most, I have to say not all architecture graduate lacks the knowledge of building science and construction document-related. For sure, these graduates were taught in school regarding these items.
I am an architecture graduate from other country. During my 5 year course in Architecture, for first 4 years in school, we were taught about building science (building envelope), engineering (Structural, civil, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire protection), environmental studies, basic accounting, Contracts, Estimates, Planning, Design and composition of working drawings including drafting (which we spend 30 hours a week in the studio). On the 5th Year, all students have to incorporated these knowledge on a thesis and defend before a panel of judges. Thus, it is bias to generalize that all architecture graduate lacks the knowledge in building envelope and construction drawings. However, I agree that some Architects are more focused on the Design and aesthetic of the building and put the detailing and composition of the system to the Intern Architects or Architectural Technologist.
I am an Intern Architect and currently, self-employed here in Toronto due personal reason. I understand where you are coming from but I must disagree on some of your points. From my standpoint, where I am not a licensed architect yet and not an architectural technologist in education, I must say that all Architecture graduates starts like Architectural Technicians also but advance to design and aesthetics as we progress in our field of interest in architecture. Thus, an Architecture graduate does not have the liberty to choose design after graduating from their course. It takes awhile before some were given a break to do the design part of the project.
I would like to clarify, to be fair, both parties have good understanding of the building envelope, its application on the structure and our knowledge grew as we practice our professions. I believe Architects and Architectural Technologist does work hand in hand. The difference between the two are quite identifiable. Architects are given more responsibility, liability and complex projects than an Architectural Technologist. Architectural Technologist can take a project like an Architect but limited to 600 sq. m. max. floor area, not more than 3 Storeys high, and cannot undertake some projects with high life and safety concerns.
As to the RESPECT of the Architectural Technologist education, I believe this is given to all graduates of ANY courses. This is not an issue about Architects has higher education than the others thus the Architects are much better than the other or the other way around. This is more of a mentality issue on raising awareness, dealing and educating to all Trades.