贊助商連結
archiz 寫:國外執業環境好，可你永遠是外勞。
沒錯~
我這個有牌有留過學也剛回來的人,就是這麼想~
阿,不準,因為我有牌,也被叫建築師,但大多時候,都自己覺得不想被叫建築師,因為自認能力還沒到那個位子.
architect就不能翻譯成>>從事建築的人嗎?
I'm an architect.中文就不能翻成"我是從事建築的人?
恕刪
十分認同 其實大家都是從事建築的人
加入建築人討論區粉絲團
王俊雄--建築師與沒有名字的人
由 Pedro Hsieh » 2009 7月 17 (週五) 7:22 pm
chenkuo 寫:出過國的都說國外好，那為什麼堅持回台灣?
這個問題是要看從什麼出發點來講。對我而言這是兩個問題和兩個答案：
1.國外好→這是事實，我們學得的系統性知識都是外來的，所以國外好的地方值得我們認同與學習。
2.堅持回台灣→台灣是自己的土地；就像誠品紙袋上寫的；自己的文化自己耕耘。另一個是相對來說，在國外是當外國人，雖然在白人社會種族歧視是一種不道德的行為，但是內心裡面，我們永遠是外族，要比他們自己人加倍努力、加倍聰明與加倍有錢才能得到當地人的敬重。國際化是一種專業知識，並不是會講英語、考試用英語就是國際化，舉例而言；馬來西亞、印度、菲律賓、的官方語言都是英語(當然考試也是英語)，那代表這些國家的企業國際化做得非常成功嗎？
附帶一個經驗分享，在西班牙文化的中南美洲，告訴當地人我畢業於建築系，他們就直接叫我"建築師"了。
- Pedro Hsieh
- 文章: 1203
- 註冊時間: 2007 11月 10 (週六) 10:23 pm
- 來自: 台灣中部草地
由 michaelhsu » 2009 7月 18 (週六) 7:16 am
最近在臺灣很熱門的話題、紐西蘭的建築工會也有相關討論、貼上來與大家分享。
以下有一些有趣的例子給大家參考
1. GJ Gardiner Home 這裡講到一個建設公司在電視、平面廣告裡與社會大眾說他們的產品是經由建築師所設計的。有很多建築師向工會反應、經過工會的調查後、建設公司以把“建築師“改為設計師。
2. Trading Name 提到有關設計公司假裝成建築事務所
3. Graduate Architect 在鈕西蘭所有大學畢業後、註冊建築師前 都叫 Architectural Graduate, 而不是Graduate Architect, 為甚麼呢？因為 architect 這個名稱是被工會註冊過、及法律保護的。 所以有很多時候、有一些工作十幾年的還是叫 architectural graduate.
個人看法：
對我來說、名稱的重要性是在於個人。
但工會與建築人有義務來經營這個名稱、教育社會大眾如何分別。
這樣專業性才會顯現出來。
Regards,
Michael
17July 2009
NZRAB Newsletter 3/2009
Special Report: Protection of Title
Hello again from the New Zealand Registered Architects Board.
This is a special newsletter, covering one topic only. One of the tasks of the NZRAB is title protection. This means enforcing section 7(2) of the Registered Architects Act 2005 which says that no person can offer building design services and use the title “architect” unless he or she is a Registered Architect. So this is about defending the brand “architect”.
There’s a lot happening with this work at the moment, so this is a good time to report back to you.
GJ Gardiner Homes
Recently you may have seen television advertisements from a building franchise GJ Gardner Homes. Many architects have been riled up about one of these advertisements denigrating architects and the NZIA has correctly taken that up with GJ Gardner Homes.
However, separately, NZRAB has been concerned that these advertisements create the impression that the designs on offer from GJ Gardner Homes are the work of architects when this might not be the case. Also, the GJ Gardner Homes website talked about “our architects” when discussing various designs. In the NZRAB data base no New Zealand architects have cited GJ Gardner Homes as their place of work.
I recently contacted GJ Gardner Homes and they have responded positively. The GJ Gardner Homes website now refers to “our designers”. GJ Gardner Homes has also agreed to review its television advertising and other marketing materials. GJ Gardner Homes makes the point that in many cases their designs have had input from architects. Their CEO writes: “Our franchise network do engage the services of registered architects on a contract basis to design homes for clients, or a special project they are endeavouring to win or, as I have recently experienced, a specific concept of a new offer/product they wish to explore as a niche market opportunity.”
Complaints
Our biggest title protection problem is real estate agents advertising a house as designed by a named architect when in fact the person named is not an architect. Presumably, some people think buyers will pay more for a house that way.
We have written repeatedly to real estate agents and the newspapers that print the advertisements or “advertorials”. The answer is usually “Oh sorry, we didn’t realise.”
More recently, we laid complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority. Each complaint has cited the Advertising Code of Ethics which states: “No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer.”
The Authority has found in our favour repeatedly and admonished the advertisers. However, more “false” advertisements continue to appear. More recently, the Authority has asked me to stop laying complaints as they say they can’t do anything more, but the problem remains.
The next step we’ve taken is two complaints made to the Commerce Commission saying that two recent property supplements – Sunday Star Times and the New Zealand Herald – have breached the Fair Trading Act. The Commission says that under the Fair Trading Act "Any claims a business makes about qualifications or skills its employees possess must be truthful and accurate." We have argued that the same should apply when claims are made about a the qualifications of a contractor involved in creating an advertised product. I expect to hear whether the Commission will get involved within the next week or two.
Finding former architects
Some months back the Christchurch Press rang to ask if a person who had designed a house they were advertising was an architect. We told the Press “Check our online register”. The writer replied “We’ve done that, but how do we know if the designer was an architect when the house was designed but isn’t now – then the “architect” wouldn’t show on the register?”
We thought about that and concluded that the point was valid. So now there is a second list on the NZRAB website – www.nzrab.org.nz - which includes the names of all former architects going back to 1964 when the Architects Education and Registration Board first got started. There’s no excuse now for the media and real estate agents not checking.
Morning Report and the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand
Our press statement announcing the new “Find a former architect” facility aroused media interest, including Morning Report coverage. Also, the Real Estate Institute in its July 2009 RE Journal published an article in which members were told how to find out, via the NZRAB website, if a person is an architect. The report quoted the REINZ president congratulating the NZRAB on its initiative, as well as extolling the value in engaging the services of an architect on his own home. The report also noted that one expects people who say they are dentists to be dentists! Both reports can be accessed on the news page in “About Us” at www.nzrab.org.nz.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the real estate industry educating its members. We intend to undertake further liaison with the Real Estate Institute. Also real estate agents are about to have a new registration regime very similar to architects. False advertising will become a basis for complaints to their new registration agency I suspect.
Trading names
Another issue is design firms with trading names that suggest that architects are involved when in fact they are not. These are firms with trading names like “Bill Smith Architecture”, “Bill Smith Architectural” and then like, when Bill Smith is not an architect. The law in New Zealand is weak. For example, in most Australian states architectural firms as well as individual architects have to be registered. In Singapore, the agency that registers architects can veto the trading name of any company that wants to register as a company offering building design services. Thus in Singapore unless Bill Smith is an architect he cannot register a company with the words “Architecture” or “Architectural” in its name. We raised this issue with the Minister for Building and Construction recently. Though he was interested, change won’t come anytime soon, but the issue won’t go away either.
A prosecution?
It’s the Board’s policy that if we detect a case where a person is deliberately pretending to be an architect for gain we will prosecute. This depends on us getting reliable information, such as a business card or invoice or a photograph of signage, showing a person falsely pretending to be an architect for gain. We ask all architects to be our eyes and ears.
Graduate Architects – no such beast
Some practices refer to some of their junior staff as “Graduate Architects”. There is no such thing. The term undermines the brand value of “Registered Architect” and should not be used. Technically a person who offers building design services, uses the title “Graduate Architect” and is not registered is breaking the law. A grad can be called an “Architectural Graduate”, but not a Graduate Architect, anymore than a person with a law degree can be called a graduate lawyer or a person with a degree in medicine can be called a graduate doctor.
That’s where we are at the moment. I hope you found this informative. If you have any concerns do get in touch.
以下有一些有趣的例子給大家參考
1. GJ Gardiner Home 這裡講到一個建設公司在電視、平面廣告裡與社會大眾說他們的產品是經由建築師所設計的。有很多建築師向工會反應、經過工會的調查後、建設公司以把“建築師“改為設計師。
2. Trading Name 提到有關設計公司假裝成建築事務所
3. Graduate Architect 在鈕西蘭所有大學畢業後、註冊建築師前 都叫 Architectural Graduate, 而不是Graduate Architect, 為甚麼呢？因為 architect 這個名稱是被工會註冊過、及法律保護的。 所以有很多時候、有一些工作十幾年的還是叫 architectural graduate.
個人看法：
對我來說、名稱的重要性是在於個人。
但工會與建築人有義務來經營這個名稱、教育社會大眾如何分別。
這樣專業性才會顯現出來。
Regards,
Michael
17July 2009
NZRAB Newsletter 3/2009
Special Report: Protection of Title
Hello again from the New Zealand Registered Architects Board.
This is a special newsletter, covering one topic only. One of the tasks of the NZRAB is title protection. This means enforcing section 7(2) of the Registered Architects Act 2005 which says that no person can offer building design services and use the title “architect” unless he or she is a Registered Architect. So this is about defending the brand “architect”.
There’s a lot happening with this work at the moment, so this is a good time to report back to you.
GJ Gardiner Homes
Recently you may have seen television advertisements from a building franchise GJ Gardner Homes. Many architects have been riled up about one of these advertisements denigrating architects and the NZIA has correctly taken that up with GJ Gardner Homes.
However, separately, NZRAB has been concerned that these advertisements create the impression that the designs on offer from GJ Gardner Homes are the work of architects when this might not be the case. Also, the GJ Gardner Homes website talked about “our architects” when discussing various designs. In the NZRAB data base no New Zealand architects have cited GJ Gardner Homes as their place of work.
I recently contacted GJ Gardner Homes and they have responded positively. The GJ Gardner Homes website now refers to “our designers”. GJ Gardner Homes has also agreed to review its television advertising and other marketing materials. GJ Gardner Homes makes the point that in many cases their designs have had input from architects. Their CEO writes: “Our franchise network do engage the services of registered architects on a contract basis to design homes for clients, or a special project they are endeavouring to win or, as I have recently experienced, a specific concept of a new offer/product they wish to explore as a niche market opportunity.”
Complaints
Our biggest title protection problem is real estate agents advertising a house as designed by a named architect when in fact the person named is not an architect. Presumably, some people think buyers will pay more for a house that way.
We have written repeatedly to real estate agents and the newspapers that print the advertisements or “advertorials”. The answer is usually “Oh sorry, we didn’t realise.”
More recently, we laid complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority. Each complaint has cited the Advertising Code of Ethics which states: “No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer.”
The Authority has found in our favour repeatedly and admonished the advertisers. However, more “false” advertisements continue to appear. More recently, the Authority has asked me to stop laying complaints as they say they can’t do anything more, but the problem remains.
The next step we’ve taken is two complaints made to the Commerce Commission saying that two recent property supplements – Sunday Star Times and the New Zealand Herald – have breached the Fair Trading Act. The Commission says that under the Fair Trading Act "Any claims a business makes about qualifications or skills its employees possess must be truthful and accurate." We have argued that the same should apply when claims are made about a the qualifications of a contractor involved in creating an advertised product. I expect to hear whether the Commission will get involved within the next week or two.
Finding former architects
Some months back the Christchurch Press rang to ask if a person who had designed a house they were advertising was an architect. We told the Press “Check our online register”. The writer replied “We’ve done that, but how do we know if the designer was an architect when the house was designed but isn’t now – then the “architect” wouldn’t show on the register?”
We thought about that and concluded that the point was valid. So now there is a second list on the NZRAB website – www.nzrab.org.nz - which includes the names of all former architects going back to 1964 when the Architects Education and Registration Board first got started. There’s no excuse now for the media and real estate agents not checking.
Morning Report and the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand
Our press statement announcing the new “Find a former architect” facility aroused media interest, including Morning Report coverage. Also, the Real Estate Institute in its July 2009 RE Journal published an article in which members were told how to find out, via the NZRAB website, if a person is an architect. The report quoted the REINZ president congratulating the NZRAB on its initiative, as well as extolling the value in engaging the services of an architect on his own home. The report also noted that one expects people who say they are dentists to be dentists! Both reports can be accessed on the news page in “About Us” at www.nzrab.org.nz.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the real estate industry educating its members. We intend to undertake further liaison with the Real Estate Institute. Also real estate agents are about to have a new registration regime very similar to architects. False advertising will become a basis for complaints to their new registration agency I suspect.
Trading names
Another issue is design firms with trading names that suggest that architects are involved when in fact they are not. These are firms with trading names like “Bill Smith Architecture”, “Bill Smith Architectural” and then like, when Bill Smith is not an architect. The law in New Zealand is weak. For example, in most Australian states architectural firms as well as individual architects have to be registered. In Singapore, the agency that registers architects can veto the trading name of any company that wants to register as a company offering building design services. Thus in Singapore unless Bill Smith is an architect he cannot register a company with the words “Architecture” or “Architectural” in its name. We raised this issue with the Minister for Building and Construction recently. Though he was interested, change won’t come anytime soon, but the issue won’t go away either.
A prosecution?
It’s the Board’s policy that if we detect a case where a person is deliberately pretending to be an architect for gain we will prosecute. This depends on us getting reliable information, such as a business card or invoice or a photograph of signage, showing a person falsely pretending to be an architect for gain. We ask all architects to be our eyes and ears.
Graduate Architects – no such beast
Some practices refer to some of their junior staff as “Graduate Architects”. There is no such thing. The term undermines the brand value of “Registered Architect” and should not be used. Technically a person who offers building design services, uses the title “Graduate Architect” and is not registered is breaking the law. A grad can be called an “Architectural Graduate”, but not a Graduate Architect, anymore than a person with a law degree can be called a graduate lawyer or a person with a degree in medicine can be called a graduate doctor.
That’s where we are at the moment. I hope you found this informative. If you have any concerns do get in touch.
- michaelhsu
- 文章: 3
- 註冊時間: 2009 7月 18 (週六) 7:12 am
由 pliotb » 2009 7月 19 (週日) 10:56 am
這個名稱問題是個有趣的話題，應該是每個剛出社會的建築人都會遇到的一個課題。
當然不見得會對每個人造成困擾，只是環境使然，讓我們對於名稱有些徬徨。
記得退伍後到某間事務所工作(當時尚未通過資格考試)，每次會議上廠商或是業主總是禮貌性的稱呼小弟建築師 ，當時是有點良心不安，因此在幾次會議後私下轉達(尚未通過資格考試)還是稱呼小弟為設計師，小弟比較能適應，不過在幾次溝通後仍然未改變稱呼，也就不了了之(畢竟每個人都有認知差異性，重要的是自我認定)。
其他親戚與朋友不是從事本行，也不一定全然了解(考試一事)，因此也是有不同說明狀況，通常我不大花時間去解釋這樣的細節，因為認知這一件事是要時間去說明，除非說明的對象是好朋友或者說已經有一定程度的了解，否則小弟我是多一事不如少一事。
幾年後，發現自己對於名稱比之前更為低調，因為社會與環境對建築師(設計師)這樣的身分與名字頗有誤解，這樣的加持對小弟來說有些負擔，小弟本人亦不想因為身分而束縛(食衣住行從簡)，所以通常不熟的朋友我通常以建築相關服務業或者是建築工程師帶過，減少彼此認知上誤解。記得宜蘭的某建築師常常衣著短褲與拖鞋出現在會議場合，當旁人發現其身分(建築師)時，他不慌忙的說起: 建築師也是人，也是得吃飯...。可見社會誤解之深。
對於小弟來說建築師的工作只是勞務作業，光鮮的一面或者是稱呼只是為了更容易取信於他人(業務员)，就看自己對於自己期望的角色為何。
至於對於王老師(或者學校部份老師)來說，稱呼為建築師亦不為過，某些老師在學校不只扮演指導未來建築師的角色，在政府機關(都市與建築)的角色上也實質的在主導建築師的規劃方向。
只是稱呼的問題如果會困擾到自己或者影響到其他人(權利?)，那就因人而異的說明吧。畢竟，社會上什麼樣的人都有(歹年出瘋子)，還是得變通應付不同狀況，減少認知上的社會成本。
當然不見得會對每個人造成困擾，只是環境使然，讓我們對於名稱有些徬徨。
記得退伍後到某間事務所工作(當時尚未通過資格考試)，每次會議上廠商或是業主總是禮貌性的稱呼小弟建築師 ，當時是有點良心不安，因此在幾次會議後私下轉達(尚未通過資格考試)還是稱呼小弟為設計師，小弟比較能適應，不過在幾次溝通後仍然未改變稱呼，也就不了了之(畢竟每個人都有認知差異性，重要的是自我認定)。
其他親戚與朋友不是從事本行，也不一定全然了解(考試一事)，因此也是有不同說明狀況，通常我不大花時間去解釋這樣的細節，因為認知這一件事是要時間去說明，除非說明的對象是好朋友或者說已經有一定程度的了解，否則小弟我是多一事不如少一事。
幾年後，發現自己對於名稱比之前更為低調，因為社會與環境對建築師(設計師)這樣的身分與名字頗有誤解，這樣的加持對小弟來說有些負擔，小弟本人亦不想因為身分而束縛(食衣住行從簡)，所以通常不熟的朋友我通常以建築相關服務業或者是建築工程師帶過，減少彼此認知上誤解。記得宜蘭的某建築師常常衣著短褲與拖鞋出現在會議場合，當旁人發現其身分(建築師)時，他不慌忙的說起: 建築師也是人，也是得吃飯...。可見社會誤解之深。
對於小弟來說建築師的工作只是勞務作業，光鮮的一面或者是稱呼只是為了更容易取信於他人(業務员)，就看自己對於自己期望的角色為何。
至於對於王老師(或者學校部份老師)來說，稱呼為建築師亦不為過，某些老師在學校不只扮演指導未來建築師的角色，在政府機關(都市與建築)的角色上也實質的在主導建築師的規劃方向。
只是稱呼的問題如果會困擾到自己或者影響到其他人(權利?)，那就因人而異的說明吧。畢竟，社會上什麼樣的人都有(歹年出瘋子)，還是得變通應付不同狀況，減少認知上的社會成本。
- pliotb
- 文章: 63
- 註冊時間: 2007 12月 10 (週一) 9:33 pm
由 L-archi » 2009 7月 20 (週一) 6:02 pm
轉貼準建裡arhuang 兄相關的意見與想法，還有被媒體稱為「辣妹建築師」的美女也發表看法～～～
http://www.forgemind.net/phpbb/viewtopi ... 815#p88815
http://www.forgemind.net/phpbb/viewtopi ... 815#p88815
- L-archi
- 文章: 3134
- 註冊時間: 2007 11月 10 (週六) 10:59 am
- 來自: 台灣
溫室裡的花朵vs井底 之蛙
由 edon » 2009 8月 18 (週二) 9:37 pm
溫室裡的花朵vs井底 之蛙
溫室裡的花朵
從小就過著優渥生活，不愁吃穿，讀書讀最好私立國小，一直到國外頂尖研究所...博士班
考不到建築師，是建築師考試問題？
井底之蛙
從小就過著貧窮的生活，半工半讀，暑假還沒開始，就煩惱下學期學費，在沒助學貸款時代....
考到建築師。
是制度問題，還是自己的問題，為人師表的你，我想答案很清楚
溫室裡的花朵
從小就過著優渥生活，不愁吃穿，讀書讀最好私立國小，一直到國外頂尖研究所...博士班
考不到建築師，是建築師考試問題？
井底之蛙
從小就過著貧窮的生活，半工半讀，暑假還沒開始，就煩惱下學期學費，在沒助學貸款時代....
考到建築師。
是制度問題，還是自己的問題，為人師表的你，我想答案很清楚
- edon
- 文章: 1
- 註冊時間: 2007 11月 24 (週六) 2:42 pm
了誰在線上
正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者：沒有註冊會員 和 1 位訪客