Are all professional architectural designers in the South African built environment landscape now finding it exceedingly difficult to get plans approved in the formal domestic sector? And hence are now finding it very, very difficult to earn a living. I have been walking plans and designing homes for over 20 years now. – I now find with all the new legislation and regulations being created by our regulatory body and the constant changing and fiddling of a system that worked – we are now left having to push a very over weighted , red tape animal up a very impossible hill. Regrettably this unchecked red tape hill is getting much steeper as the days progress. My main concern through all this regulatory body micro management is we now have 2 South African domestic built environment landscapes that have emerged. Running in exact opposite and contrasting directions and looking to never ever meet on any level in the future what so ever. creating 2 very different south african mindsets.
1) The over regulated domestic formal sector – which has now become a very financially viably, micro policed and regulated formal built environment.
2) And the absolutely under regulated or absolutely no council regulations at all, informal settlement built environment. our very own, unique south african, big city, frontier towns.
It is absolutely imperative that both the above built environment arenas should be policed and regulated with equal attention and measure. SA’s informal settlement frontier towns are growing at an alarming rate, right alongside our domestic formal cities. The families that live within these under regulated communities are suffering immensely, whilst the regulatory bodies focus all attention on ways to create financial opportunity through regulation of the formal domestic built environment. It appears our regulatory body is letting the public down massively, in both sectors. Extracting large volumes of cash from a formal home owner awaiting and wanting to build. Holding up plans approval and costing the SA home owner millions of rands, whilst appearing to not even bother creating built environment boundaries or regulations within the informal settlement sector.
I implore reasonable minds to help stop this machine – to insist regulatory bodies regulate with good sense – and let not the easy gain of money, be the reason to grind working South African systems to a complete and utter standstill. Applying first world legislation being hugely funded by ist world countries, within an African system only forces 2 streams to emerge – this is not the way to regulate SA. We need reasonable minds to prevail, we need good sense to come to the fore. we need people who are passionate about people and living conditions to regulate – money should not talk to the detriment of an existing professional platform.
vivaladraught – An absolutely exasperated and extremely desperate architectural professional.
SATAM – south african totalitarian architectural machine
vivaladraughts little cousin Vinny, a 3 year old pre-schooler is regulating the tuckshop line at his pre-school. he is creating his own regulating / protection body and making sure he is teaching the other pre-schoolers these protection tactics. for this he charges a fee, as well as fees for the important lessons he is teaching. vinny believes that by protecting the public from pre-schoolers and regulating the tuckshop line – he is building the future of his pre-school.
Merchandise from the worlds latest revolutionary character – Vivaladraught.
As architectural draughting is becoming a financially challenging occupation in this current economic climate, due to bureaucratic means and global financial meltdown. In order to still survive in these really interesting times – Vivaladraught merchandise is now available. T-shirts, masks, stickers can be ordered – however you will have to figure out where to place your order yourself . – details will then follow once trust is established.
T-shirts – R250
Stickers – R80
Masks – R60
When regulatory, academic and bureaucratic systems are being created or set up. It is prudent to remember that the systems created to commit red tape side hips will always backfire later. To oppress the portfolio that is seen to be the lowest on any systems rung, through possible subterfuge and possible means most foul, will be setting a precedent for later.
It is only a matter of time before the architecture of this created system is picked up by a more powerful force. That will crush the very creators of the system that they carefully put in place. To their minds most noble or to others ignoble intent.
Protect the least among us on the lowest rung and the system stays and will remain fair. It has been to this virtue and this virtue alone vivaladraught has championed the plight of the currently self employed architectural draughtsperson, on the South African employment landscape. So on the 11th hour of the 11th day of 2011 , Vivaladraught will end this campaign with the above sentiments. And what will be, will be.
However the warning is very clear and the shot over the bow is obvious , If the current architectural curators of this architectural system get it right to eliminate so easily the ability of the architectural draughting professional to earn a living. A living that they have been earning for 40 years. It will get it right to re-look at each registered member and demote those holding positions on higher rungs just as easily. Example – senior tech to architectural draughtsperson is not unlikely when a system is set up to red tape side hip.
a possible cpd solution – mentorship
one amicable possible idea of taking care of this sensitive issue going forward is possibly to put architects and the current architectural draughtspersons in the same space using the framework of cpd. an architectural draughtsperson registered before 2011 can spend a few hours with a registered sacap architect and both can benefit. design knowledge in exchange for cpd credits. this can be an important way architectural projects can improve without taking the jobs away from the draughtsperson. this means the existing set of registered sacap architectural draughtspersons can still work with a framework similar to the 500M2 rule framework with agreed adjustments.
it does need to be said that most architectural draughtspersons tend to be stronger on the technical aspects of draughting and in some cases less focused on the architectural aesthetics. that is why its imperative to set up a mentoring process which needs to be created to address shortfalls between architect and architectural draughtsperson. This allows a possibility for architects to get valuable cpd credits, for looking over certain sensitive proposals put forth by the current up to 2011 set of architectural draughtspersons. this architectural draughtsperson and architect liaison can be asked for on architectural jobs falling outside of the current idow bill but falling within the 500m2 rule. its an additional step for the architectural draughtsperson to get plans approved for which the architect gets cpd points and the draughtsperson does not need to give up the architectural client and job. however getting advise and mentorship from an architect design expert, the project and client wins. Our systems need to foster and encourage a sense of working together, not this suspicion of method and anger which is currently spewing forth from the current architectural curators of our system.
Yours sincerely – your architectural systems conscience – vivaladraught
Because things are now moving at an incredible pace, on board notice 153 (2011) coupled with the fact that no one Vivaladraught knows has had any detailed response at all from SACAP as yet to queries, concerns and objections to board notice 153 (2011) gazetted on the 4th – back dated to the 1st and sent to registered members on the 11th by SACAP. Vivaladraught would be most grateful if you could please forward this blog post to all and sundry as an absolute urgency. or at the very least comment. please just take the vote – send this blog to the damn press if it resonates. Or just do nothing and read on to the end to understand the ramifications for us all – architect, technologist and draughty alike. Vivaladraught has several questions that need very urgent attention and responses from CBE , competitions board , the public , industry and all and sundry. (Yes that’s right even your aunt in poffadder needs to comment) before a conclusive decision can be fairly made regarding board notice 153 (2011.) Vivaladraught is challenging SACAP’s legality in publishing an interim policy document in the government gazette. The exact dates and backdates and the timing of the board notice being brought to the attention and communicated by SACAP to its registered members. This timing and obvious tardiness does not inspire confidence in the legality of publishing such a sensitive document. Which effects thousands of current working architectural draughting professionals. Vivaladraughts questions which need extremely urgent attention by the CBE and SACAP are 1) Was this process and timing of the gazette board notice 153 (2011) conducted in a fair and legal fashion? 2) Was the publishing of board notice 153 (2011) approved by the CBE before it was published. 3) Communication to members by SACAP of the publishing of board notice 153 (2011) was many days after it was published – it needs to be determined if this was a simple mistake or a tactic to allow a very sensitive document to pass under the radar. 4) To vivaladraughts knowledge, at no stage with the publication of board notice 153 (2011) did SACAP ask or want public comment and participation. Without doing this has SACAP council met with point 26 (1) b) any person, c) any body and d) any industry. Of the architectural profession act no 44 of 2000? 5) On publication of this board notice it immediately rendered many architectural draughtspersons – illegal, the implications of this are massive. 5.1) what is SACAP going to do in terms of notifying the registered persons and the public who are now engaged in illegal work in terms of this board notice 153 (2011)? 5.2) what is SACAP going to communicate to the registered persons who now find themselves alienated from the very jobs they have been doing very competently for many years. ? 6) The board notice 153 (2011) completely favors one minority VA under SACAP – that fact could cause doubt as to the fairness of the creation of such a document, when the CBE looks at the fact that architectural draughtspersons are not fairly represented on SACAPS council and committees. Architectural draughtspersons have been an integral part of the built environment landscape for 40 years. To suddenly render these professionals powerless to do the work they have been doing competently for all these years is a complete tragedy, that will have ramifications for years to come. Regulatory Councils need to give proper respect to current practicing professionals. And concentrate more on the education and framework of changing future generations of architectural professionals. Without trying to side hip currently self employed architectural draughtspersons in an already depleted South African workforce off the table. This climate of professional xenophobia needs to be addressed with the absolute respect and sensitivity it deserves. It needs to be SAID Vivaladraught is not wanting to become an architect – that would be way to complicated and really needs to be kept to the domain of the 6 year degree chaps. It also needs to be SAID that it was only a few short years ago that technologists and draughtspersons griped the same gripe about the mighty architect as we sat cheek by chowel in the professional trenches. Now the technologist has developed the same mighty opinion and seeks to kick the already economically down trodden draughty in the stomach. (Kicking in the head is still reserved for the chaps at the top.) its only a few short years now to the inevitable birth of the architectural design elite clergy class, which will give rise to an animal that will populate our cities with giant femdomes. When architect and technologists alike will be doing the same work and getting the pay the draughty now gets. –
so lets remember , remember this letter on the 5th 0f November 2011 – it effects you joe public – you never know whats next if regulatory bodies get this right, it might possibly be a law linked to architectural fee structures – its a guide now but you just never know whats around the next corner .
the latest million page form to roll out of the council machine is causing absolute mayhem amongst the architectural professionals. if its not enough we are in a massive recession in south africa. with earning potential right down. we now have council induced stress at an all time high. council scrutiny fees – up , sacap fees – up , cpd activity fees – up. the other item down on the list it seems, is council taking responsibility and scrutiny workload. im all for stand behind your drawing – but surely this additional stake to the heart the red tape machine has conjured up is killing us further.
i have heard mutterings that this form has been designed to disguise councils ability to approve plans timeously. just a muttering whilst in the council complaints line the other day.
cartoon vivaladraught
SACAP has achieved great results in regulating the architectural community. we are now all aligned and the architectural portfolio’s are working and looking in the same direction, this has been a monumental achievement and for those who steered this success during 2008 – 2010, a huge WELLDONE.
going into 2011 we now face a huge SACAP fee increase and the dropping of the VA rebate – This is set to cause heated debate – SACAP has not aligned this fee increase with inflation and with current economic events. as mentioned coupled to the huge increase in fees is the fact that SACAP want to drop the rebate VA members have enjoyed up until now. this further adds salt to the wound and the questions that need to asked are -
1) now that there is no rebate within the SACAP fee structure for belonging to a VA – will the VA’s enjoy the support and membership they have currently. one must remember that if it where not for the VA’s – SACAP would have found it very difficult to exist as they do now.
2) now that the fees can be put up by SACAP at their own discretion – have we not created and allowed a regulatory body to exist that can now milk and fleece its members at will?
the increase of fees is unrealistic in this current work starved and tight economic environment. as draughtspersons have we aligned ourselves with an animal that we will eventually work for and not with in the future. it is vivaladraughts mindset that we should institute and be able to control a proper 10 year SACAP fee structure increase. this fee structure should be linked to current inflation figures and current economic downturns and upturns. it is very dangerous to have in place a regulatory body that can at the drop of the hat institute radical changes as we see here.
Click on the image to enlarge
SACAP has done an immense amount of hard work and good work to incorporate the South African draughtsperson into the architectural framework. it is important to note that most draughtspersons I have communicated with are fully behind SACAP’s regulation of the architectural industry and the VA’s that have been put in place. i write this blog as an independent draughting professional representing my own thoughts on draughting and the profession. This blog will be trying to ask the correct questions about architectural draughting in South Africa. I do feel by scrapping the 1970′s 500m2 rule we are losing our way and paving the way for a design exclusive elite class – an architectural design class that will charge heavily for architectural services to the detriment of the public.
One of the purposes of this blog is to find out if doing away with the 500m2 rule will serve as the death knell for architectural draughtspersons running own practices in south africa. (remember it was the draughtspersons themselves who set this ruling in place). at the moment draughting professionals can design and draught up projects up to 500m2, if this benchmark 1970′s architectural ruling is scrapped for the identification of works bill. architectural draughtspersons will find the architectural pie all but eaten and only few worthless crumbs left to fight over. the meat will be taken away from the draughtsperson and replaced by bare bones and scraps not worth draughting.
Will the draughtsperson be set back considerably by this new set of architectural rulings?
i feel the 500m2 rule is a fair benchmark and if this ruling is changed the draughtsperson should benefit more not considerably less. to deny a professional draughtsperson access to clients he has worked with for years is a tragedy for both professional and client.. the draughtsperson will hve to hand over all his clients to this design elite class who are will be allowed exclusive access to the public.
Will professional fees still be the same cross the architectural framework – will design elite professionals pay the same as draughtspersons for the privilege to gorge themselves of the best pieces of the architectural work pie?
Is it not very very dangerous to create an architectural design exclusive elite class?
in some South African estates an elite architectural design panel charge exorbitant fees to the public – a dangerous form of canned architecture. in these estates clients chose to only use these exclusive designers and they agree to adhere to these perimeters – and that is fine if the public chose this . however i firmly believe that to apply that principle to the greater South Africa will be setting up the public to a huge greed machine. the exclusive elite design class will mop up the most lucrative clients and will possibly not really apply their considerable skill to the bottom end of South Africa’s housing dilemma. (why would they have to – if they have access to the top end architectural jobs) we really need all hands on deck to build the future in this country and to create a system that side hips a considerable architectural draughting workforce off the table – is scandalous. not allowing draughtspersons access to work they have been doing for years, will definitely sound the death knell for architectural draughtspersons running own practices in South Africa.
In the battle of the some between July and Nov 1916 – 1.5 million men lost their lives for mm’s of ground. 60 thousand British troops alone on the first day of the battle. the ground draughtspersons are losing is km’s if this bill goes through. 1970 was the benchmark ruling for draughting professionals in South Africa. we need to air the draughtsperson’s concern vehemently. otherwise the rot is going to climb up the ladder giving rise to the nightmare animal - design elite professional Rex. a dangerous fanatical clergy design class who will keep design away from the common man. the coffers of this animal will greedily overflow to the detriment of the public. design will be the domain only of this design elite professional and mortal man will await the soothsayers design ideas to drop from the table top at an immense price . – so if it means leaving the safety of my trench and running into the Mauser and machine gun fire up ahead – so be it. ripped asunder for a good cause – to the battle field i go for the draughtsperson and the right to design freely within the existing 500M2 rule framework. as draughtspersons we need to champion the 1970′s architectural ruling and stay within the confines of the already established 500m2 rule.
It is very important to note that FLW through choice never earned a degree in architecture -( great buildings of the world – published by time books 2004) so FLW would of also been restricted by the identification of works bill. a very , very sad day indeed. like Gaspard Monge before him every draughtspersons hero.
