There is no intent
to belittle or denigrate anyone or anything in this review. One feels like John
Soane here:
And if in the
endeavour to discharge the duties of my situation, as pointed out by
the laws of this Institution, I shall be occasionally compelled to
refer to the works of living artists, I beg to assure them that,
whatever observation I may consider necessary to make, they will
arise out of absolute necessity, and not from any disposition or
intention on my part merely to point out what I may think defects in
their compositions. For no man can have a higher opinion of the
talents and integrity of the architects of the present time than
myself, nor be more anxious on all occasions to do justice to their
merits and fair pretensions to fame.
Sir John Soane
The Royal Academy Lectures edited by David Watkin Cambridge
University Press 2000 p.29
Indeed, the matter
that is of importance here is the substance and quality of CPD
offerings, nothing more or less. The Board of Architects of
Queensland has declared that, to have any registration renewed, an
architect has to accrue a minimum of ten formal CPD points, and ten
informal CPD points per annum. Just what might be involved in this situation is explained in the Board's guide, Information Sheet 1 - see: http://www.boaq.qld.gov.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/ContinuingProfessionalDevelopment/Qld_Info_Sheet_1_-_Practising_Architects_and_CPD.pdf The Board offers nothing
further; neither does it supervise offerings, nor accredit any
provider of educational sessions that claim to be of sufficient quality to allow an attendee to add a specified number of particular points to the annual count. The issue seems to be that the new CPD
rules are generating what might be seen as just 'business
opportunities.' The problem that is sought to be highlighted here is
that of quality. If the CPD point system is not going to fall into
the farcical situation where architects turn up to anything that
might claim to be point-worthy, that could be a most mundane and
irrelevant presentation but still count, then the Board surely has to
question its modus operandi and establish rigorous rules and
manage circumstances so that the profession might be able to truly benefit from the CPD requirements and the associated events.
Currently one sees
situations promoted that, in earlier CPD-free times, were merely
manufacturers' promotional days that encouraged attendance with
lunches; perhaps an after-hours beer. Now the tables have turned.
Manufacturers are now being begged to participate to provide
opportunities for CPD points. When this observation was jokingly made to a
representative of a large company who was due to speak at a recent
CPD session, the speaker shrugged and said that no one had asked the
company to provide lunch! One guesses that it might have been happy
to do so. Ah! Those were the days. One can recall long, happy
Christmas lunches provided by manufacturers as a 'thank you' for
using and specifying their products throughout the year. The potential moral 'outrage' or
the sense of 'bribery' in this situation was never questioned or
raised: it really was a simple, honest and welcome “Thank You.”
Today there would be many questions about this, maybe a Royal
Commission, such is our supercilious political correctness.
The tables have been
reversed. Now we pay to listen to promotional propaganda just because
the Board has established this new regime – well, has now started
enforcing the Act, but, it has to be emphasised, only in part: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/who-or-what-is-architect.html
Why? So it was of interest to receive the E-mail from the Australian
Green Development Forum, specifically the Green Speed Learning Forum
– CPD Events, that told of a talk, the GSLF Feb 10, 2016:
Sustainability Master Planning, Mixed Use City Scape. Does one
have to point out to the author of this promotional piece spruiking educational benefits, that 'mixed-use' is hyphenated, and that 'cityscape' is one word? This is the beginning of the problem
that lies at the heart of the concern: one is expected to pay to
attend a one-hour talk to gather formal points, a talk that starts
with a problem and might possibly continue likewise. Why should one bother with
wasting time and money when one starts correcting the
expression/understanding from the very beginning? Why pretend that
one has learnt anything? It seems that just by completing the
worksheets provided that one can get the extra couple of points added
to the chart that one is asked to keep. This is where the farce starts. One begins by correcting the promotion, and one is likely to continue to remain critical and to do likewise throughout the whole
involvement with the event.
This particular talk
is one by a Mr. John Tuxworth, the Managing Director of BE
Collective: see - http://becollective.net/About/PeopleJohnTuxworth.aspx Now one has to say that this commentary has nothing
personal to do with Mr. Tuxworth. The promotion is being used as a
typical example only. The matter is CPD quality. In amongst
all of the impressive information that the promo chooses to present
on Mr. Tuxworth, including dropping the names of Erskine, Foster and
Rogers, the AGDF fails to inform the recipient of the E-mail that Mr.
Tuxworth is on the Board of Directors of the AGDF: see - https://au.linkedin.com/in/john-tuxworth-4151a014
This fact only came
out of a further search on the speaker, to learn more about this
individual. Why was this omitted? Other material that came out of
more searches included information on his company: see - http://becollective.net/Projects.aspx One looked into
this to see if the talk might be worth going to. Everything sounded
more than impressive. Even the worksheets appeared to suggest an
exuberant brilliance with phrases like: 'a very professional project
proposal; architectural experience and knowledge gained about multi
use, high density inner city developments; communication, cooperation
and professionalism; international ratings tools, high level
presentations examples.' If one overlooked the lack of the hyphens in 'high-density,' 'high-level' and 'inner-city,' one might be impressed and even consider attending the talk.
The company site was
opened: what was this? One saw an 'engineered' page with a mixture of
different projects designed by various architectural firms
that had asked BE Collective to participate in these works. To be fair,
one could say that the projects were not astonishing. Indeed, nor
should they have to be; but we had been primed to expect the
unexpected in the CPD talk promo - 'high level': (yes, the hyphen is again missing). There was disappointment. What
was extremely 'very professional' here that might stun, amaze with its 'international' quality? What examples
of 'high level presentations' were there to be observed and learned
from here? What unique example of 'professionalism' might there be in the BE Collective web site that might stimulate one to do likewise? What special 'architectural
experience and knowledge' was there from which one might glean 'new knowledge'? Surely one might expect
something spectacular after the CPD hype?
One does not have to
further analyse the subject. The
link is http://becollective.net/Projects.aspx
Just have a look. The whole
is a sad disappointment after such an introduction. There is little transformative or special
here. There does not have to be, but the CPD promo suggested
otherwise. Indeed, the site seemed to try just too hard to impress. One project was illustrated with drainage pipes; another a fairly
ordinary Gold Coast development; yet another showed a coloured, 3D structural diagram; and so on. It is all a little puzzling. The point
being made here is not a singular criticism of BE Collective; it is
to highlight the apparent exaggeration of the AGDF promo; the strangely named
'Green Speed Learning Forum' that appears specifically set up to
offer 'CPD Events' – sessions that allow architects to
tick boxes to accumulate required CPD points: the 'business' side of the group.
While the ADGF might
like to make the promoted one-hour lunchtime talk sound amazing so as to
attract attention, one has to note that there could be some self-interest
here that does not appear to be a special search for quality. Mr. Tuxworth is on the Board of Directors of the ADGF; the event has a price of $27.12 for non-members – why exactly $27.12?; and the hype seems to lack any supporting evidence: the web site of BE Collective does not really appear
to support the enthusiastic descriptions, (with or without hyphens), in the flyer. In spite of all of this, the event will accrue
two formal CPD points for attendees. One assumes this to be so: the promo
never really specifies the point rating or count, but it must be so: why else
attend as a paying non-member and complete a worksheet? Does the Board care that the CPD process might have become a charade?
In spite of all of
this, the 'learning experience' is boldly promised in a naive, questionable expression, minus the hyphens:
Learning Outcome:
Participants
shall:
-
Obtain new knowledge and able to understand how to contribute towards and develop a very professional project proposal
-
Share architectural experience and knowledge of multi use, high density inner city developments
-
Contribute to a better understanding (improved) skills of communication, cooperation and professionalism
-
Improved skills through a better understanding of international ratings tools, high level presentations
Is this really likely? Who will gauge the relevance of this experience?
How can such an outcome be predicted when neither the title of the talk nor the worksheet and learning experiences can be
presented correctly? One has to remain cynical with such a state of affairs.
The whole situation
is very embarrassing. Even overlooking the quality of expression and poor spelling, one feels as though architects are being
treated as school children might be, with a set of simplistic tasks
identified on formal work sheets to be completed during the talk to confirm the 'learning experience.' It
is as if one has to prove that one did
indeed attend the session; that one was not asleep; and that one did fully comprehend the issues being
presented on 'High Density Mixed Use City Scape.' It all gets very close to being insulting.
Surely the profession deserves better than this in every way?
If the Board is
truly interested in quality CPD outcomes, then it has to take action
itself to set the example, and to supervise the presentations and
outcomes. Allowing 'Speed Learning' promos to seemingly hype up ordinary
situations with wrong spelling looks to be a situation that will
only add to the questioning pessimism that is growing throughout the
profession. A colleague recently told me of an experience at a CPD
Green Speed Learning talk: the friend sitting next to him was
diligently completing his worksheet before to the speaker had started the
talk. The colleague looked on puzzled, and asked naively, “How do
you know what to write when he has not yet begun?”
“Oh,” said the
friend, “You take all of this CPD stuff just too seriously!”
If this is what CPD
point collection has come to, then one has to ask: why is such
silliness perpetuated? If the Board is happy with this meaningless
game, then it can keep doing what it is doing. If it is seeking
something truly substantive, then the provision of CPD opportunities has to change. One can recall an
era of free monthly talks for the profession that were given by invited guests
and international architects who might be travelling in Australia.
These stunning evenings were presented and attended by many just for
the love of and interest in architecture. Now that the CPD rules are
insisted upon and policed by the Board in a strict, legalistic,
schoolteacher-like manner, many talks and presentations are attended only in
order to achieve the cheapest and easiest points possible. It is a
truly sad state of affairs that can really only be overcome by the
Board itself that should begin its own quality presentations
throughout the state. Gosh, it really is just not good enough for the
Board to boldly threaten and reprimand architects with brash statements of demand that repeatedly remind that the declaration of points is a legal requirement, with any false statement being punishable at law; and that distance is no excuse.
Really, the Board
has to know that there is no excuse for hyped-up presentations to be
pushed as point-winning periods just to add to the count. This
silliness merely perpetuates the nonsense of the point chaser, who is
determined to tick boxes as simply and ineffectively as possible.
Meaning and quality have no role in this farce that is interested in quantity only. Surely the whole ambition of
the CPD philosophy is that the architectural profession will learn,
will grow in meaning, strength and understanding, and respect, with a
specific, well-managed, caring CPD regime. If the search for value and understanding is
being turned into a cynical, legalistic farce, as it appears to be, then things
need to change – NOW: or am I taking things just too seriously?
THE TALK
|
|||||||
WORKSHEET
GSLF Feb 10, 2016 CPD
Workshop Worksheet
How do you contribute
towards and develop a very professional project proposal?
Detail some architectural
experience and knowledge gained about multi use, high density inner
city developments.
What is your understanding
of communication, cooperation and professionalism?
What are some international
ratings tools, high level presentations examples?
REGISTER
$27.12GET
TICKETS
-
SHARE
-
SAVE THIS EVENT
GSLF - Sustainability Master
Planning, Mixed Use City Scape
Wed, 10/02/2016 at 12:30
PM - Brisbane CBD, QLD
$27.12GET
TICKETS
Event Information
Event Description
Overview:
The presentation will
explore John's recent experience as a consultant for the
Buchan group on a massive development proposal in Bangkok. It will
focus on John's contributions towards the environmentally sustainable
development of this mixed use high density inner city
development.
Learning Outcome:
Participants shall:
-
Obtain new knowledge and able to understand how to contribute towards and develop a very professional project proposal
-
Share architectural experience and knowledge of multi use, high density inner city developments
-
Contribute to a better understanding (improved) skills of communication, cooperation and professionalism
-
Improved skills through a better understanding of international ratings tools, high level presentations
Presentation
and Interactive Workshop
Presenter: John Tuxworth - BE Collective
Academic Qualifications: B Eng GCertMan MIEAust MIStructE RPEQ NPER GSAP
Technical: John contributes technically across structural, civil, hydraulic & ESD disciplines. John’s tertiary education started at QUT’s school of Civil Engineering where he completed his Bachelor of Civil Engineering. Following this John spent several years abroad working for Maunsell (Aecom) in Indonesia, Waterman Partnership in London, and Michael Punch and Partners in Dublin. Whilst in London John became one of the youngest Chartered Structural Engineers by passing the exclusive Institute of Structural Engineers Part 3 Exam. In 1999 this exam was 7.5 hours long with a 64% failure rate.
Presenter: John Tuxworth - BE Collective
Academic Qualifications: B Eng GCertMan MIEAust MIStructE RPEQ NPER GSAP
Technical: John contributes technically across structural, civil, hydraulic & ESD disciplines. John’s tertiary education started at QUT’s school of Civil Engineering where he completed his Bachelor of Civil Engineering. Following this John spent several years abroad working for Maunsell (Aecom) in Indonesia, Waterman Partnership in London, and Michael Punch and Partners in Dublin. Whilst in London John became one of the youngest Chartered Structural Engineers by passing the exclusive Institute of Structural Engineers Part 3 Exam. In 1999 this exam was 7.5 hours long with a 64% failure rate.
Practical
Expertise:
John’s interest in
becoming a multi-discipline building professional saw him complete a
year of architectural studies at the University of Westminster in
London. He has also undertaken MBA studies through Latrobe
University. John’s first involvement with ESD in the
built environment was whilst working on the Greenwich Millennium
Village Project in 1998, with renowned architect, Ralph Erskine. His
formidable time whilst in the UK also saw John also working on
projects by Norman Foster (University of East London, Docklands
Campus), and Richard Rogers (Montevetro high-rise at Battersea). John
is one of the few structural/civil engineers to be accredited as a
Green Star Professional.
Competency Unit: Design
WHEN
Wednesday,
10 February 2016 from 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM (AEST) - Add
to Calendar
WHERE
Theatrette
Room - Brisbane Square Library. 266 George St. Brisbane CBD, QLD 4000
AU -View
Map
TAGS
SHARE WITH FRIENDS
-
Facebook
-
Facebook Messenger
-
LinkedIn
-
Twitter
-
email
SEE WHO'S GOING
CONNECT TO FACEBOOK
AGDF
Organiser of GSLF -
Sustainability Master Planning, Mixed Use City Scape
The Australian Green
Development Forum is a balanced, non-profit coalition of members
from development industries, government organisations and community
groups. It is endorsed by industry and environmental bodies, and is
aligned to community sectors that also have an interest in fostering
positive development and resilient building.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.