The Dualities of the Profession

The following extract is taken from Chapter One of The Architecture of the Profession, a thesis project submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture as part of the MA Architecture and Urbanism course 2010-2011. For information about how to purchase a copy of the research please follow this link.

Contradictions of Practice

One of the most enduring questions that architects have faced throughout their history is whether what they practise should be defined as an art or a profession. The two are treated as incompatible opposites. We are told that this practice is a blend of fine and applied arts, of sciences and humanities but the exact mix of these is never agreed upon. The contested nature of architectural practice can be extended to the make up of architects themselves; they are the site of contested values that provoke heated debate.

Dialectical Tension Diagram based on the work of Dana Cuff.

The architect, and thus by extension the architectural profession, can be defined by a series of “dialectical dualities” (1) that are in a constant state of tension but, more often than not, one of these ‘poles’ will be favoured more heavily than the other. In this model the two positions are pictured as being at the opposite ends of a spectrum and if one extremity is favoured over the other it can only be to the detriment of the opposite. The internal dualities can even be extended to the meaning of the word “architecture”, as it refers to both the practice of a professional activity and also to the outputs of that activity. (2) Attempts to examine architecture as either an art or a science, or an art or a profession have been labelled as “inadequate” methods with which to judge such a complex entity. (3) Moving towards a model that accepts the tension between these dialectics enables the complexities of the profession to be properly considered whilst it also offers an opportunity to rebalance these tensions and find a state of equilibrium that is beneficial to all concerned in the built environment.

In her explanation of these dialectics Dana Cuff identifies four sets of dualities that embody the contradictions within the profession; in many cases “practitioners recognise the inescapable links” between the extremities but ”it is by no means a happy marriage.” (4) First, is the contrast between the autonomous artist and the collective team of professionals required to bring a project to completion. Second, is the separation of design and art from business and management concerns. Third, is design as decision marking versus design as making sense of a situation, this includes the way in which architectural problems are constructed. Finally, is the image of the architect as a generalist countered by a movement towards specialisation within the built environment industry. (5)

The modern incarnation of these contradictions can be traced back to the origins of a profession that was attempting to distinguish itself amongst a maelstrom of change. Positions taken two hundred years ago are still defining the British architectural profession today and to better understand the origin of these dualities further discussion is required.

The Rise of the Professional

In the 19th century the profession of architecture was formalised and consolidated, bringing to an end a period of patronage that that had persisted for hundreds of years. In an act of self-protection groups of architects banded together, in the face of new competitors and vociferous criticism from a rapidly changing construction industry, (6) to present a unified approach and be identified with a service of quality. Claiming to present a “uniquely impartial and independent service”  these groups hoped that by having professional status their services would be differentiated from builders, surveyors (who also professionalised in the 19th century), (8) and other specialists that were emerging. Although “a long process recognizable in outline but blurred in detail” (9) the route to professionalisation can be traced back to two primary factors: the transition from medieval to modern processes of thought that gave rise to the “inter-disciplinary character of the modern architectural designer”; and the industrial revolution (which shifted society from agrarian to a capitalist-based model) and resulted in the “professional organization through which [the architect] fulfils an increasingly specialist role.” (10) These two factors were a source of major conflict for the embryonic architectural profession and remain so today.



The origins of professionalism in Britain begin in the 18th century as the informal relationship between patrons, their advisers and craftsmen was formalised in the wake of economic growth and the emergence of both new building typologies and larger buildings. The aristocratic patrons of the previous era were being replaced with building committees of “middle-class laymen” that in turn forced architects into more clearly defined roles, selling their ideas and designs in direct competition with their peers. (11) Furthermore, the skills required to erect these buildings were “too diverse and technical for the old habits to deal with” so new specialists began to emerge alongside a new breed of general contractors and professional builders. (12) At the forefront of the specialisation in building were figures like Sir William Chambers and Sir John Soane (13) whilst professional builders like Thomas Cubitt offered early versions of ‘design and build’ services. (14) It was not just builders who laid claim to areas previously under the architects sphere of influence but also engineers, surveyors, cabinet makers (who in some cases developed into fledgling interior designers) and house agents.

Sir John Soane, painting by Thomas Lawrence
(Image: Sir John Soane's Museum)

From 1750 onwards a number of groups brought together architects (and artists), one of the earliest being the 1761 The Society of Artists, which included Sir William Chambers as one of its directors. (15) This first group was followed by the Royal Academy of Arts, after quarrelling between Chambers and James Paine, and was founded by 34 individuals (four of whom were architects, including Chambers) who “were determined to achieve professional standing for British art and architecture.” (16) The role of architects in the Royal Academy though was nominal (with the exception of Chambers who acted as Treasurer) and of far greater significance for the future of architects was the Architects’ Club established in 1791. This was a highly exclusive group, with membership restricted to Royal Academicians, holders of the Academy’s Gold Medal, and members of distinguished foreign institutions, and various topics were discussed at the dining table over the Club’s thirty year existence, including professional qualifications, fire-proof construction, and professional fees. (17)

It was, however, the formation of the Institute of British Architects in 1834 that was the “first major act of exclusion and prime move towards professional solidarity”. The institute, awarded its Royal Charter in 1837 (but not formally bestowed until 1866 to become the Royal Institute of British Architects – RIBA), was “founded for facilitating the acquirement of architectural knowledge, for the promotion of the different branches of science connected with it, and for establishing an uniformity and respectability of practice in the profession.” (18) It is worth here observing that in the title of the Institute the “A” stands for “Architects” and not “Architecture” yet the charter sets forth the advancement of architecture. Jeremy Till states that this has created a curious instance of circular logic where “the knowledge as to what constitutes architecture is defined by architects, who in turn are therefore deemed to be the only people capable of delivering that self-defined architecture.” (19) Although all professions are established on the basis of self protection he is highly critical that “under the worthy cloak of the charter…there is a barefaced cheek in hiding the expediency of private gain behind the mask of public good”. (20)

The early Victorian profession had a preoccupation with business ethics, formulating rules for fees, practice and conduct. This new codified profession was also highly concerned with the architects’ status. Members were classified as either fellows, associates or honorary fellows, this third type, crucially, were to be gentleman “unconnected with any branch of building as a trade or business” and served to underline the tension between architects and the rapidly expanding building industry. (21) In the formation of the RIBA the long association between architects and artists was also ruptured, where they were once considered the same, being part of the same organisations, architects now positioned themselves separately. However despite this self imposed professional isolationism architects still wanted to be considered artists and clung to the autonomy that patronage had brought them since the Renaissance.

In the first half of the 19th century the profession could not be kept afloat on design work alone, there were too few large buildings and projects, so they continued with a range of other laborious activities such as arranging leases, assessing rents, measuring property or taking out quantities, to ensure a guaranteed income in an otherwise highly competitive field. However, as populations boomed, there was an “unparalleled expansion of professional functions” (22) and new building typologies, so that “as fast as they could afford to do so, architects shed their less congenial tasks” (23) in favour of the highly esteemed, literate, skill of design.

During this period of change, Architects at the ‘top of the tree’ found security in “the idea of art in building as the special province of the architect” and this would trickle down though the ranks of the profession. (24) However as the muddied water of professional responsibilities cleared in the second half of the 19th century, and architects found it easier to make a living, the importance of art or learned design skills persisted, to the point that architects could trade solely on their skills as an ‘artist’. As Andrew Saint observes “this widening rift between ‘art’ and ‘professionalism’ was a feature in some degree peculiar to Britain, and it had large consequences for British architecture.”  (25) This question of ‘art’ remains a “red herring” in architectural politics to this day. (26)

The Royal Institute of British Architects Headquarters
in Portland Place, London (Image: Luke Butcher)

Attempts to legislate the architectural profession began in the late 1880s and early 1890s with registration seen as a way to create a closed and more regulated profession. A group of young architects, suspecting the RIBA of dragging its heals on the issue, formed the Society of Architects in 1884 and introduced the first registration bills to Parliament in the 1880s. Although unsuccessful the RIBA was forced to adopt registration as its official policy in 1890. (27) It would take until 1931 though for the title of ‘Registered Architect’ to be granted legal protection and a ‘Register of Architects’ drawn up to be handled by a statutory body, the Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK). The subsequent Architects Registration Act of 1938 changed the protected title to simply ‘Architect’ and it wasn’t until 1997 that there were any serious changes in the regulation of the architects’ profession in the UK, such as ARCUK being replaced by the Architect’s Registration Board (ARB). (28)

That it took over forty years for the first Act to be passed was in part due to “a reluctance to legislate over the ability to design” (29) as well as groups who opposed registration on “eccentric grounds that art and professionalism were incompatible”. (30) These opposition groups included Thomas Graham Jackson and Norman Shaw, who authored ‘Architecture, A Profession or an Art’ in 1892 and those who feared that registration would lead to further fragmentation of the building industry. Opponents like Shaw were not members of the RIBA and by the end of the 19th century RIBA membership accounted for only ten percent of the profession. These figures increased to roughly one quarter in 1911 and by the 1920s an organization that had previously been dismissed as nothing more than “a highly respectable trades union”, by The Times in 1870 accounted for half of all architects in Britain. (31) Once the RIBA could be seen to represent the majority of architects it “took up cudgels in earnest” and legal registration soon followed with little opposition. (32)

Having achieved protection of title, architects would appear to have successfully demarcated the area of architectural knowledge for themselves and thus the practice and end product of architecture. However in Britain protection of title is just that, a title, there is no legal protection afforded to an architect’s function or the services they offer. The ARB is simply charged with protecting the consumer (the public) by recognising the qualifications needed to become an architect and ensuring that those on the register meet a set of prescribed standards for conduct and practice. (33) In many ways this leaves the profession just as weak and vulnerable to intrusion from other disciplines as it was in the 19th century; there is nothing in the statutory regulations to stop an individual (or indeed profession) offering the services of an architect, as long as that individual does not call themselves an architect.

Professions are built on the basis of practising expert knowledge and architects are not alone in trying to self perpetuate their own knowledge base however, unlike doctors or lawyers, architects have no control of that knowledge base. This weak position has come about in part because architects have attempted to tie themselves to architecture through a system that “conflates architect (as expert) with architecture (as profession) with architecture (as practice) with architecture (as product).”  (34) The final link in this sequence, the buildings or products of architecture, is too complex to come under the control of architects because it is dependent upon other external forces, from society to politics, including other professions who also established their own areas of expertise in the 19th century. In the end this results in a conflicted profession and a professional organisation, the RIBA, that is forced to wear so many hats at the same time it doesn’t know what or who to represent; is it a body responsible “for the direction and maintenance of the national character for taste” (35) or a learned body to promote the knowledge of its experts or is it a trades union? A professional body should be a representation of its members; the RIBA’s conflicts are certainly representative of those architects face daily.

The Educated Architect

Closely tied with the rise of professionalism is how future architects are trained and educated. Formalising education allows the profession to ensure levels of competence within its’ rank and file and also, by dictating what is taught, what tasks those professionals are trained to carry out and thus the tasks the profession is skilled at doing.


One of the earliest forms of formal architectural education was Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s Académie de L’Archtiecture in 1671 (extended to an adjunct in Rome in 1720). The atelier system at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, established by J.F. Blondel in 1743, later augmented this style of education. (36) Until its closure in 1968, the Ecole was the oldest school of art and architecture north of the Alps and “maintained a remarkable continuity of style and teaching methods throughout the years of its existence.” (37) A centralised, government-supported school, it had a well-organised curriculum where students progressed from the entry examination to becoming diplômé par le gouvernement by winning design competitions worked out in the atelier or studio, which was led by practising architects, before a period of practical experience. “Beaux-Arts” itself means fine art and the school is associated with architects “who firmly believed that architecture was an Art”. (38) By advocating that any intelligent person could be systematically taught a series of universal principles that underlined architecture it attracted attention from those outside of France, principally students from the United States who exported the methods back there, widening its influence as a teaching style.

In Britain, however, the emerging practice of articled pupilage in an architect’s office was the only formal training available to aspiring architects, a form of apprenticeship, it was originally introduced by Sir Robert Taylor. (39) Although there was some formal architectural training offered through the inception of the Royal Academy Schools in 1768, the irregular standards of articled pupilage, augmented by lectures at the Royal Academy and travel abroad (principally the Grand Tour), continued well into the 19th century as the mainstay of British architectural education. (40) Pupilage traditionally started at fifteen or sixteen, with pupils “expected to have a background in languages and some knowledge of mathematics, geometry and drawing,” it would last between three and seven years although five to six years were most common. All pupils were expected to be trained in measuring, site work and the general running of the office and the articles “merely stated that the pupil was to learn the ‘art of profession of an architect’.” (41) However, because it was unregulated the pupilage system was prone to exploitation, which led to fictional accounts of particularly bad pupilage such as those experienced by the character Pecksniff in Charles Dicken’s Martin Chuzzlewit (1844). By the time that the RIBA issued a model form for articles in 1890 new formalised methods of institutional education were emerging.

The first serious attempt to provide specialised instruction took place in the 1840s at King’s College and University College, London. In 1841, T. L. Donaldson, first Secretary of the RIBA, was appointed Professor of Architecture at University College and gave two courses of lectures for part-time students – “Architecture as a Science” and “Architecture as an Art”. (42) However, on the whole the leaders of the Victorian profession were indifferent to the need for educational reform, so it was the students themselves who championed this reform. Pressure came in the form of the Association of Architectural Draftsmen in 1842 (becoming the Architectural Association – the AA – in 1847), a group of junior architects excluded from the RIBA for not having been in practice for the requisite number of years, who campaigned for an equivalent of the French Diplôme d’Architecte. Eventually the RIBA was persuaded to hold the first voluntary examination for entry to its Associate Membership in 1863, with the AA setting up a “Voluntary Examination Class” that established for the first time “the modern concept of systematic study test by examination as the basis of the architect’s education” in Britain. (43) The RIBA systemised its examination into three parts—Preliminary, Intermediate, and Final—by 1887, with the last being obligatory for Associateship, with a full-time three year course in architecture starting at King’s College, London five years later in 1892. Liverpool was the first provincial school, opening in 1895, and it offered a BA Honours course from 1900 that exempted students from the RIBA Intermediate examination, followed by a five-year course in 1920 that gave full exemption from the RIBA examinations. (44) In between the two World Wars numerous other schools were established and by this point a considerable proportion of entrants into the profession were receiving training in a full-time, formal environment.

Architectural education in Britain has not been stagnant since then; it has obviously changed and adapted to suit the needs of the situation it finds itself in, much like the wider architectural profession. Notable forums on architectural education in Britain looked at changing aspects of it, including the 1924 Congress on Architectural Education, noting that “the pupilage system has practically passed in most of the larger centres of population” and placing an emphasis on full-time training in schools, and the 1958 Oxford Conference on Architectural Education that set forth a number of recommendations to maintain the relevance of that education. (45) In 2008 a second Oxford Conference aimed to ‘reset the agenda’ for architectural education that had been established over fifty years previously. (46) Debates about architectural education also included those of British Government when, in the early 1990s, they considered cutting funding for architectural education to a maximum of four years, although this ultimately didn’t take place. (47)

Despite these changes there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not the academic environment is the correct one in which to educate future architects. The current climate of budget cuts to higher education spending and rises in tuition fees have heightened this debate at present, with students and architects alike calling into question the value of spending five years in full time education, particularly when salary levels are so low. Some practitioners want ‘oven ready chickens’, trained in the latest piece of computer software, whilst the educationalists see the academic environment as a place to foster creativity and ‘design thinking’ – there is a tension between education as training and education as academic learning. One of the main issues is that in its current guise the design studio is treated as a replica of an architectural office when in fact “there is little in common between them not least because [one is] in the business of learning, and not earning”. (48) The relationship between the profession and education is more complex than one simply being equivalent to the other, despite how much either side might like it to otherwise because “the actions of the academy do not directly influence the profession and the profession does not directly control education.” (49)

Desks at the Yale Art and Architecture Building
(Image: Creative Commons / Ragesoss, 29th Sept. 2008).

If architecture is a quasi-vocational subject to be taught as a mixture of arts, sciences and humanities further questions are raised when you consider how architectural schools fit into the academic structure. An analysis of architectural schools across  reveals a wide range of different faculties and departments in which architecture is placed. The majority of UK institutions have an 'Architecture School/Department' with a number of these operating as independent faculties in their own right. However, there are also a number of institutions with no architecture department and instead it sits, as a subject, within a wider faculty, for example 'Art, Architecture and Design'. Further divergence is also revealed in the degrees offered by institutions, either a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science for undergraduate level, and although architecture is not unique in lacking a unified and sole degree classification, the range of degrees on offer to students is another sign of the difficulties in defining architectural education academically in the UK. As Necdet Teymur, in his series of papers on architectural education in 1992, observes "the desire to identify architecture as, say, technology and/or craft and/or science and/or art throughout the centuries betrays the very paradox of the idea of architecture both as a multi-disciplinary, multi-skilled, multi-dimensional and multi-media practice and a self-sufficient profession that behaves as if it already possess all the knowledge that it needs." (50)

Unhelpful Oppositions

The contradictions that exist within architectural practice are something that modern day practitioners have to learn to deal with daily but whilst they are perceived to favour one extreme over another they can never hope to deal with these tensions. The unhelpful 19th century oppositions that persist to this day have come to define architectural practice or at least how it is perceived. Like the self serving circular logic of ‘expert equals profession equals practice equals product it is perceptions of the architect as an autonomous individual that perpetuates this in the educational setting, which encourages this autonomy when those students enter into the profession, unprepared for the collective actions required to shape the built environment. Education and the profession may not directly influence one another but one can see how the profession can inform education which in turn informs the profession.

The duality of the individual versus the collective can be seen in the move to cordon off the architectural profession from the rest of the building industry in 1834. Architects though were also all too willing to shake off tasks in favour of ‘specialising’ in design but then why do many people still consider them to be generalists? Or why in education is the individual championed when in practice architects, particularly on larger, more complex projects, work in teams. Generalising that the root of all the architectural professions problems lies in the 19th century and the initial formation of the ‘modern profession’ of course fails to fully comprehend the complex nature of architecture. What it does do, however, is highlight that the issues facing architectural practice today are not new and in fact are all a wide set of shared experiences. These issues have been tackled for two hundred years, and whilst some progress has been made no resolution appears to be imminent. The first step though must surely be for architects, the wider profession, the academy, and the public to acknowledge that architecture can not simply be one or the other but it can oscillate between both positions quite comfortably. There are surely plenty of architects out there who would happily call themselves artists and businessmen, so why must we always be forced to perceive architects as one or the other, why can’t they be both? What has not yet been considered though is why anyone would want to enter into such a conflicted profession in the first place.

Notes

The above extract is taken from Chapter One of The Architecture of the Profession, a thesis project submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture as part of the MA Architecture and Urbanism course 2010-2011. For information about how to purchase a copy of the research please follow this link.

1. Dana Cuff, Architecture: The Story of Practice, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992), p. 11.

2. The Oxford English dictionary gives the following definitions of architecture: i. The art or practice of designing and constructing buildings; ii. The style in which a building is designed and constructed, especially with regard to a specific period, place, or culture. Oxford English Dictionary Online, architecture, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/architecture.
3. Gary Stevens, The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), p. 82. cited in Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 156.
4. Cuff, loc. cit.
5. Ibid., pp. 11, 250.
6. “Allegations of deficient or fraudulent practice were often vociferously expressed by the emerging new species of client industrialists, entrepreneurs, corporations and boards of guardians, some of them less than scrupulous.” Sarah Lupton (ed.), RIBA Handbook of Practice Management, (London: RIBA Publishing, 7th edition, 2001), p. 235.
7. Ibid.
8. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, founded in 1868 and granted it’s Royal Charter in 1881, now claims that it is “the mark of property professionalism worldwide.” Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Home Page, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.rics.org. The RIBA by contrast has this to say about itself “The Royal Institute of British Architects champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members.” Royal Institute of British Architects, About Us, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/AbouttheRIBA.aspx.
9. Andrew Saint, The Image of the Architect, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 57.
10. John Wilton-Ely, The Rise of the Professional Architect in England, in Spiro Kostof (ed.) The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, 2nd ed. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), p. 180.
11. Ibid., p. 195.
12. Saint, loc. cit.
13. “They stand at the head of a vast diversification and fragmentation in building organization which has gathered pace from that day to this.” Ibid.
14. Osborne House, built directly for Victoria and Albert in 1845-50 by Thomas Cubitt, is one example which used these ‘design and build’ services without an independent architect. Other professional builders included William Cubitt and Company, C.J. Freake and William Willett. They ran “capable” architectural offices within their businesses. Ibid, p. 60.
15. The Society of Artists held a series of public exhibitions of work carried out by living painters, sculptors, architects and other artists, similar to the long established Paris salons. The exhibition included a charitable endeavour to support artists whose “age and infirmities, or other lawful hindrances, prevent them from being any longer candidates for fame.” W. Chambers is listed as one it’s directors and it is assumed that this was in fact William Chambers. Algernon Graves, The Society of Artists of Great Britain, 1760-1791; the Free Society of Artists, 1761-1783: a Complete Dictionary of Contributors and their Work from the Foundation of the Societies to 1791, (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1907), pp. 303-5.
16. Royal Academy of Arts, About the Royal Academy of Arts, 2011, [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://royalacademy.org.uk/about.
17. The Architects Club was established by George Dance, James Wyatt, Henry Holland, and S.P. Cockerell, later joined by Chambers, Robert Adam, and others. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 192.
18. Ibid. The RIBA’s website states that it was founded for “…the general advancement of Civil Architecture, and for promoting and facilitating the acquirement of the knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith…” Royal Institute of British Architects, Our History, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/Ourhistory.aspx.
19. Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), pp. 153-4.
20. Ibid.
21. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 193.
22. Ibid., p. 197.
23. Saint, op. cit., p. 58.
24. Ibid., p. 66.
25. Ibid., pp. 63, 66.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 66.
28. The Architects Act 1997, (London: HMSO).
29. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 203.
30. Saint, loc. cit.
31. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., pp. 202-4.
32. Saint, The Image of the Architect, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 66.
33. Architects Registration Board, About Us, 2011 [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.arb.org.uk/about_us/ .
34. Till, op. cit., pp. 154-5. This sequence can even be found in the RIBA’s domain name—www.architecture.com—if you want to find an architect you need to find architecture first.
35. Royal British Institute of Architects, Transactions of the RIBA, vol. I/I (London: John Weale, 1836), p. vii cited in Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 154.
36. The return of the term atelier or studio has once again become increasingly popular among architects as opposed to office. Cuff, op. cit, p. 28.
37. Joan Draper, The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and the architectural Profession in the United States: The Case of John Galen Howard, in Spiro Kostof (ed.) The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, 2nd ed. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2000), p. 209.
38. Ibid., p. 210.
39. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 191.
40. Ibid., p. 197.
41. Mark Crinson and Jules Lubbock, Architecture—art or profession?: Three hundred years of architectural education in Britain, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), p. 45.
42. Wilton-Ely, op. cit., p. 198.
43. Ibid., pp. 198-9.
44. Ibid., p. 204.
45. Leslie Martin, RIBA Conference on Architectural Education: Report by the Chairman, Oxford, April 11th-13th 1958. Available at http://www.oxfordconference2008.co.uk/1958conference.pdf [retrieved 10th August 2011].
46. The Oxford Conference 2008 was held on the 22nd-23rd July 2008. Oxford Conference 2008, Home Page, 2008, [retrieved 10th August 2011], http://www.oxfordconference2008.co.uk.
47. Francis Duffy and Les Hutton, Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession (London: Spon, 1998), pp. 190-3.
48. Necdet Teymur, Architectural Education: Issues in educational practice and policy, (London: ?uestion Press, 1992), p. 35.
49. Till, op. cit., p. 17.
50. Ibid.

The Architecture of the Profession

At some point during the third year of my architectural education I was confronted with a difficult question: “Do we need architects?” Initially my response had been “yes” but given time to ruminate upon this troubling statement I was less confident and I began to consider my own personal experiences with architects or lack there of. In truth, outside of the academic setting, my encounters with architects, at that point, had been limited to sixth months shadowing a solo practitioner, for one afternoon a week, and a further two months, between the second and third year of my undergraduate studies, in an office belonging to an international practice with a reputation for being commercially-driven. I had grown up surrounded by the various trades involved in the physical construction of buildings and my education in the built environment industry had started young, with small-scale residential projects, little of which were designed by architects, working with my father who is a carpenter by trade. From what I could see it didn't seem to matter that there were no architects involved but I was unsure if the products of this process constituted architecture. I was unwittingly distinguishing between works of architecture and building, arguments that I am now more conscious of, however I was increasingly aware of huge swathes of the built environment that were not designed by architects but were still considered architecture. It seemed too simplistic to state that architecture was solely the work of architects or that in the absence of architects it would be impossible to create works of architecture. I had found myself facing the two of the oldest dilemmas of professional architectural practice; what exactly are architects for and what differentiates architecture from building?

Of these two positions it was the first that bothered me the most. I believe the differences between architecture and building are subjective and discussing these differences requires an element of philosophical meandering that I am less interested in. The term built environment seems to be a more useful phrase when discussing the human-modified environment, with awareness that this environment is a perturbed concoction of architecture and building. This first position then is the crux of the original question but it is perhaps more useful to expand it: “Do we need architects to shape our built environment?” Furthermore if architects are not always necessary then what other forces are at play? This was my first encounter with another uneasy professional position that underlies so much of the work of architects—the inherent dependency upon others.

These burgeoning interests underpinned the third year of my undergraduate studies, progressed during a year of professional practice, where I became acquainted with the intricacies of multi-disciplinary practice, and led me to pursue a Masters degree at the Manchester School of Architecture. I originally set out on the Masters programme with the intention of interrogating the social, economic and political forces currently acting upon the construction industry, with a belief that understanding these processes will be crucial in the creation of the future built environment. As the research advanced it became clear that the optimum site to focus my studies upon was the architectural profession itself and whether or not architects have a role to play in shaping the built environment of the 21st century.

There is currently a heightened level of debate surrounding the possible future role of architects and this research can be seen as part of this wider discourse, drawing upon these various commentaries in its construction. These discussions can be categorised in broadly two camps: manifestos, solely concerned with redefining the role of the individual architect; and descriptions of practice organisation, with which this project is more closely aligned. To date little has been written about how either of these would impact on the built environment and this research hopes to address this by not only speculating on the make up of practice but also how the built environment would be shaped, what new systems might be employed and how architects could fit within these.

The RIBA Building Futures debate in Manchester. (Image: Carrie Bayley)

The research project did not set out to provide a set of definitive answers but instead speculate on future trajectories for the architectural profession. By extrapolating from historical trends and expanding upon current discourses in the field this conjuncture also hints at possible future scenarios for the built environment. Existing discourse has been expanded upon through an extensive survey of over 100 individuals, on both the demand and supply side of the built environment industry, interviews, round table discussion groups, case studies, and my participation in a debate organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects’ Building Futures research group. Furthermore, it was important that, at all times, the research remained grounded in the pragmatics of the real-world and kept a practice orientated perspective in which the architect is just one agent amongst the dynamic forces of the design and construction process.

The Architecture of the Profession presents the research in three parts, a book that runs to over 130 pages, with a further 40 pages of notes. In Part I (Purpose) the role and motivations of architectural practice are investigated. This draws upon the work of Kostof (1977) and Saint (1983) to provide a historical context, and studies by Blau (1984), Cuff (1992) and Yaneva (2010), to offer a sociological understanding of practice, and analysis of the shifting obligations and responsibilities of the profession from antiquity to the present day. Part II (Practice) deals more specifically with the practice of architecture and how buildings are made. Using two projects designed forty years apart by the same practice, the stories of how each project was shaped and constructed reveals the changes that have taken place and suggest how things might continue changing. Finally, Part III (Prospects) deals with emergent forms of architectural practice, with these futures framed from the perspective of architectural production.

It is then the culmination of twelve months spent studying the complexities of the architectural profession, but is informed by 36 months worth of curiosity into these issues, and an even longer interest in architecture. It is hoped that the book moves beyond a simple description of the architectural profession and instead turns attention to the architecture of that profession. Below is a more detailed description of the three parts that constitute the final volume.

The Architecture of the Profession (Copyright: Luke Butcher)

PART I - PURPOSE

Part I examines the purpose of architectural practice, providing a general overview of the issues facing both architects as individuals and as a collective group. Chapter 1 (The Dualities of the Profession) begins with a condensed history of professionalism within British architectural culture, specifically the developments in the late 18th and 19th centuries that saw the role of architects within the shaping of the built environment change. Chapter 2 (Motivations of Practice) questions the key motivations of practice by first looking at the reasons for students entering into architectural education today and then how these impact on the future motivations of practitioners. Chapter 3 (Ethics of Practice) raises issues of ethics in architectural practice through the divergence of what architects feel they are responsible for and what they are legally obliged to do. Chapter 4 (The Valued Servant) is concerned with questions of value within architectural practice and the built environment, working through the perspective of clients, society and architects.

PART II - PRACTICE

Part II is concerned with the methods and organization of architectural practice, specifically the involvement of architects at the various different stages in the development of an intervention in the built environment. Chapter 5 (Someone Else's Questions) deals with a project in it’s infancy, when the idea of something in the built environment is first discussed and plans are made to intervene in that environment. Chapter 6 (Procedures of Practice) tackles the organisation of architectural projects from the initial vision through to executing that vision on site. Chapter 7 (Tools of Practice) looks at the various tools used by architects throughout their practice and how new tools have the potential to change the design process. Chapter 8 (Reflective Practice) asks what happens to a project once it is finished and whether architects can develop systems of evidence-based practice to benefit both their own practice and the built environment. Each of these chapters calls on observations made about two architectural projects undertaken by Building Design Partnership (BDP): the Head Office for Halifax Building Society, completed in 1974; and the Shafton Advanced Learning Community (ALC), due for competition in early 2012. Both projects share a number of similarities that enable comparisons to be drawn about changes in practice over the last forty years, and have been informed by interviews with members of the original design teams.

The BDP designed Halifax HQ was used as a
case study for the research (Image: BDP).

PART III - PROSPECTS

Part III deals with the future of architectural profession, speculating on the trajectory of emergent trends within the profession and in wider society. Chapter 9 (What Now?) questions what the future will hold, dealing with issues of uncertainty that make long-term forecasting particularly difficult before evaluating the key drivers of the profession in the near-future. Chapter 10 (Integrated Practice) introduces the concept of architects working in large, fully integrated firms tasked with full service provision through inception, design, execution and occupation of the built environment. Chapter 11 (Expert Practice) takes earlier signifiers of gradual disintegration of the architect as generalist to question the new role of the expert, specialist practitioner. Chapter 12 (Networked Practice) is concerned with the concept of networked practice as a model through which small to medium sized practices and other consultants can work collaboratively so that small-scale practice can carry out large-scale change. The RIBA Building Futures group’s recent research into the future of the profession has been used as a starting point in these investigations, principally the practice types identified in the report that show potential for growth, some that are under threat and others that are unlikely to change in the future.  Each of these was used as a basis from which to extrapolate future models of practice, interrogating and evaluating them against a range of criteria such as the size of practice, the types of tasks an architect in that practice would undertake, the clients they would work for and how that practice is likely to be perceived externally. Numerous other speculations about the future of architectural practice, including the findings from the authors own survey of the profession, have also been taken into consideration when developing these models. Thus the initial types identified by Building Futures have been consolidated into fewer practice models and in most cases considerably altered or expanded, so that they signal new ways of practising architecture. These evaluations were also read in conjunction with other observations about the architectural profession (Part I) and the processes involved in shaping the built environment (Part II), from which new trends became clear. Attempts have been made to refer each practice type to project scenarios, from the perspective of the architect, as an attempt to evaluate their impact on the future built environment.

Extracts from the book will be released over the coming weeks on this blog (Chapter 1, Chapter 7 and Chapter 9) to provide a taster of the ideas explored within it. The book will be available for sale via Lulu from Tuesday 4th October 2011 (further details to be announced on Luke Butcher Online and this blog). I will be giving a presentation about the research on Thursday 6th October 2011 at the RIBA Hub in Manchester, starting a 2pm, as part of the MA Architecture and Urbanism Colloquium 2011.

Hiatus

This blog has been neglected for nearly two months and I hope to rectify that situation in the coming weeks. In truth the reason that nothing new has been posted is that my attention has been fully focused on completing my Masters in Architecture + Urbanism at the Manchester School of Architecture. I submitted my Thesis, entitled "The Architecture of the Profession", one month ago and I am pleased that I have since been awarded a Distinction for my Masters work. An exhibition of work completed by Masters students at the school is currently taking place at the RIBA Hub in Manchester (see here), with a preview evening on Tuesday 4th October (starting 6pm) and a Colloquium on the afternoon of Thursday 6th October (starting 2pm). Over the coming weeks I will be posting further posts about my Thesis, were the research went and some further observations about the architectural profession.

The Architecture of the Profession (Copyright: Luke Butcher)

I have also started a new course at the Manchester School of Architecture: the Bachelor of Architecture (BArch) programme. I have entered into the final year of the programme and will be working in the [Re-Map]ICU unit, with project work focused on Stoke-on-Trent. Two project blogs have been set up, one concerned with the wider interests of the unit this year (see here) and a project blog documenting the area of Fenton specifically, both of which I will be contributing to (see here). As a unit [Re_Map] is preoccupied with data, mapping, networks and visualization and is interested in the contemporary city as a political, economic and cultural hybrid in flux rather than as a fixed place.

Review: Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture

Architecture “as a profession…is based on the need for architecture (as practice and product) to be the protected domain of the architect” (2011: 28). In a new book, Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, co-authored by Nishat Awan, Tatjana Schneider, and Jeremy Till, this narrow definition of architecture, and the limited discourses surrounding it, is restructured, providing an insight into the various approaches to the production of buildings and spaces that are separate, or external to, mainstream architectural practice. Part of a wider research project into ‘Spatial Agency’, that includes an online database and map, the book sets out the theory and practice of these ‘other ways of doing architecture’ in four extended essays and documents, in a partial lexicon, over 130 examples of these other practices. Across the essays the authors establish three main themes: that architecture should not only be left to architects; ethics should not be abandoned for aesthetics; spatial agency is open to multiple operations. The authors are keen to avoid “the temptation to ditch the architectural skills of design and spatial intelligence” but rather look to how these skills “might be exploited in different ways and contexts” (2011: 26). By reapproprtiating the 'traditional' skills of architectural practice the authors claim that spatial agency is capable of empowering others so that they can "engage in their spatial environments in ways previously unknown or unavailable to them, opening up new freedoms and potentials as a result of reconfigured social space” (32).

Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture (Routledge, 2011)

Defining the ‘centre’ of architecture is notoriously difficult, and as such it is equally difficult to define the margins around this centre. There is a danger, however, that if the practices explored in this book are described as ‘alternative’ it raises the question - ‘alternative to what?’ Realising the potential for the word 'alternative' to further marginalise these practices, running contrary to the book’s core idea (highlighting and attempting to raise the profile and credibility of these practices) the authors have opted to describe these practices as 'other'. By using the term ‘spatial agency’, the book “radically expands” (29) the number of actors usually taking into account when discussing contemporary architecture. The debate about architecture, the authors claim, should neither be restricted to the actual built environment nor to the “limiting” title of architect. Architecture should not be left to the architects. Running contrary to the current trend for a narrowing of scope in the services an architect offers, the book thus explores “how the role of the architect can be extended to take into account the consequences of architecture as much as the objects of architecture” (33). They do so by looking at alternative practices currently in the margins of architectural practice such as the Iquique Housing project by Elemental, where the architect has designed only 'half a house', allowing residents to appropriate and develop the space over time, as they required. In traditional production the professional (architect) envisages the end product, fully realised, however a key part of spatial agency is accepting that the citizen expert (and their practical wisdom), not just the professional, should take part in spatial production and is in fact key for the success of that production.

In an essay on the sites of spatial agency the authors outline where the actions of these groups or individuals takes place: knowledge, organisational structures, physical relationships and social relationships. The definition of the sites expands the traditional site of action in architectural practice, taking spatial “in the widest sense of the word – physical, social, metaphorical, phenomenal – and rarely limited by externally determined instructions and conventions” (55). Each of these sites point to “not just the possibility, but the real necessity of seeing that architecture can be played out through a multiplicity of settings, and that this gives new opportunities for architects and other spatial designers to work with” (65). This multiplicity is, in itself, reinforced through the difficulty in defining, as previously discussed, what constitutes architecture. Practice itself can be the site of spatial agency, which includes collaborative and interdisciplinary structures, as well as how the knowledge held by individuals/groups within these practices is disseminated, from DIY publications to other web-based formats. The attention given to both structures and processes, and the opportunities for design they present, is markedly different to the traditional physical relationships that architectural discourse focuses on. Spatial agency is seen as a way to expand the professional role, including the education system that has remained relatively unchanged since the 19th century, but also challenges the protection afforded to the professions. Furthermore spatial agency has the potential to more fully engage with the networks and structures that, due to the limited scope of the ‘profession’, others have claimed (30) and have reduced the architect to a technical facilitator “with decisions effectively made by others” (31).

The authors establish the motivations of spatial agency, in the first essay, and begin with the common reasons for students entering the architectural profession - 'to make the world a better place' - based on the belief that “there is a casual link between designing a building and making the world a better place, and it is this link that architects cling to through the thick and thin of practice” (37). This initial motivation can, over time, be replaced with “the more simple, and more controllable, motivation of making beautiful stuff” (37) and in so doing loose other motivations, with criticism from the authors about the relationship of ethics and aesthetics, “as if a beautiful thing will lead to a beautiful life” (52). The primary motivations of spatial agency are described as: ecological, ethical, pedagogical, political and professional.

The loss of political motivation in architecture is of particular interest in the development of the metamodern attitude, highlighted in the authors by the transition from modernism to postmodernism. Comments made by Charles Jencks about Pruitt-Igoe, in ‘The Language of Post-modern Architecture’,  are said to draw “on the myth that design was primarily responsible for the societal collapse on the estate…and so at a stroke demonises architecture’s association with social issues” (38). They acknowledge recent interest in “architecture’s complicity with prevailing political and economic forces” (39) but that these pragmatic laissez-faire theorists also fall into the postmodern trap of focusing on style. Spatial agency then relies on a complex combination of visions and solutions: "The conjunction here of practicality and imagination is important, because it brings two operations that are sometimes kept apart, and so asks spatial agents to be at the same time realist and visionary. This leaves the door open for architectural intelligence, founded as it is on the intersection of the creative and the real, to operate in a wider field.” (39). The political motivations are closely intertwined, in many cases, with the professional motivations and how professional bodies “are torn between public service and private protection, awkwardly criss-crossing the line between the learned body and subscription club” (43). The authors propose a new approach to the ethics of architecture (another trait of metamodernism): "The conjunction here of practicality and imagination is important, because it brings two operations that are sometimes kept apart, and so asks spatial agents to be at the same time realist and visionary. This leaves the door open for architectural intelligence, founded as it is on the intersection of the creative and the real, to operate in a wider field.” (39).

The ‘other ways of doing’ are presented, in alphabetical order and generously illustrated, make up the remainder of the book. Each of these approaches is as "proactive as they are practical” (82) and, contrary to what might be expected, examples are drawn from the last 50-100 years, although the majority are more recent. That the authors are able to highlight the trend for spatial agency over time shows how these practices are not new but have not been taken into the mainstream of architectural practice. The examples also highlight that spatial agency is not restricted to one country or region but is global. Spatial agency then, as the book shows, is part of the wider architectural landscape but if it is to make the transition from being an ‘other’ to being an accepted part of the mainstream there will have to be concerted effort to maintain the profile of these practices. What may pose the biggest challenge though is how easily these practices are accepted outside of architectural circles judging by the examples presented here though, it would appear that there is appetite for them.

If architecture is widened to include spatial agency, and if ethics regain a more prominent position in the social production of social space, the following operations can be discerned and are hence put back in the centre of architecture. The authors do not set out to provide a manual of the operations of spatial agency, with the authors stressing that these ‘other ways’ are not “limited to a specific scale or to a particular position” (69). This last statement is important if the ‘other’ is to not be marginalised as something different or only applicable to a certain type or way of work, but that the approaches have the potential to be taken and applied to any situation, which may or may not be mainstream practices at present. These operations are roughly defined as being: appropriation, dissemination, empowerment, networking and subversion. The book elaborates on the process of brief making/writing can be subverted to empower individuals. The current set up “tends to fix the building at a stage before the architect can contribute to the act of briefing in a creative way” and restricts the ability of architects (and others) from going beyond the restrictions of a prescriptive list of rooms or spaces (69-70). Furthermore the brief “presented as a technical fait accompli” disguises “the fact they determine social relations in a profound way” (70). Closely linked to brief making is the issue of project initiation and new methods for producing space. Once space has been produced the authors emphasise the benefits of returning to examine the consequences of the initial decision making process (including the design). As with brief writing, post-occupancy analysis is no longer seen as part of the architect’s role, and spatial agents undertaking this analysis may find similar difficulties in undertaking this as those who are trying to move beyond the restrictions of the brief.

Notes

This piece was originally prepared for Notes on Metamodernism, on the 2nd August 2011 here.

Awan, N., Schneider, T. & Till, J. (2011), Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture, 1st Edition, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge

‘Tough Times’ Student Forum

The RIBA’s ‘Tough Times’ student forum (21st June 2011), held at its Portland Place Headquarters in London, was an attempt to gather the opinion of students about the issues they are currently facing. 26 students attended the event, representing architecture schools from across the country, and although not every school was represented 6 main themes (highlighted by the post-even report prepared by Laura Broderick, Special Projects Co-ordinator, RIBA) were common concerns: finding a job, the cost of course related materials, relationship between practice and academia, low salaries, high tuition fees, and employability skills. Also present were the 6 external speakers, the RIBA President Ruth Reed, President Elect Angela Brady, RIBA student reps, the chair of Archaos and journalists from both The Architect’s Journal and Building Design.

Niall McLaughlin, Principal of Niall McLaughlin Architects and a visiting professor at UCL, chaired the forum and began with his own personal story – his father, a chartered accountant, discouraged him form a career in architecture as he believed that as a profession it was low-paid, ‘weak’ and struggled to define what it does and they value it adds. Now running his own successful practice Niall sees architects as “synthesisers” and that this is their unique selling point.  He also drew on his experience in academia, referring to the acronym ‘PTT’ (Portfolio That Thick!) with students under pressure to produce copious amounts of work and that there was a gap in expectations between graduates – who want experience on site – and practices – who want ‘CAD monkeys’ or read-made technicians.

Following the introduction Laura Broderick and Joanna Parry, RIBA Professional Education Manager, gave a presentation on recent RIBA initiatives designed to further understand and improve students professional experience: RIBA Student Destinations Survey, ‘Part of the Picture’ case study project, and changes to practical experience rules. Of particular interest is the new RIBA Appointments project called 'Part of the Picture' that attempts to demonstrate graduate value. The case studies show a sample of architectural assistants working in practice today. They highlight the contribution young professionals make to the successful delivery of architectural projects, small and large.

A panel discussion about the culture of architectural practice brought together Dale Sinclair, Dr Rachel Smart and Chris Hildrey. After an opportunity for each panellist to share his/her perspective on the culture of architectural practice discussions moved onto the importance of BIM. Instigated by Dale Sinclair, an architect with the global architectural firm Dyer and chair of RIBA Large Practice Group, he told students that “We know you can design but how are you going to deliver?” He said that students need to understand processes more and that BIM begins to question the status of the architect. Dr Rachel Smart, a management consultant educated as a designer, said that students “need to show imitative” and to “open [their] minds to what it means to be a professional architect”. Agreeing with Dale Sinclair she stressed the importance of understanding the architectural process and that students shouldn't “wait until your Part 3” to start doing this. She added that “Architects are problem solvers” and students should “use [their] design skills to tackle business and processes”. Students should also show an awareness of contract administration and management because architecture is a “synergy” of design and excellence in business. Chris Hildrey, a post Part 2 Architectural Assistant at Jestico + Whiles who is currently undertaking a piece of post-grad research at the Bartlett tracing the causes of unpaid overtime within architecture, spoke about the deficit of the cost of producing architecture and its value to/on the market. He said that as technology and systems advance different services are split apart, shrinking the remit of architects. In the past fees covered these ‘other things’ (an architect would ‘make back’ lost fee from the value-added process at the beginning of projects through drawing production information), but now architects are “just left with design”. In Chris’s opinion we now have ‘architects of systems’, with a focus on the construction side of the process and how can we design these systems. He closed by saying that the education system currently allows you to leave and become a ‘designer’ or become an ‘architect’.

The next session was focused on policy, pay and conditions, with Ruth Reed giving a presentation that aimed to provide attendees with a better understanding of the national policy context; hear what is happening at a government level with internships and student fees, and what the RIBA is saying to decision-makers. Ruth Reed explained that it now costs more to become an architect than any other profession and that the profession needs to try and remove the ‘self-imposed’ costs of the education system (models, presentation, ‘free work’, etc), this would require change within the profession, especially with regards to internships. She felt that for the profession and designers “creative thinking is our big export” but that “architects [in the UK] have consistently undersold themselves … forever”. She also spoke about a need to “rethink our obsession with vocational education”. Advocating BIM she said that it “leads to an integrated team working together much earlier on in the design process” and that this is a ‘complete game-changer’ for projects/architectural practice. It was during this presentation that she also voiced that apparently there is an opinion in the UK government (through conversations with civil servants) that ‘there are too many architects’. Ruth Reed explained that this was a very short sighted view as whilst there may be a surplus at present, as the economy recovers demand for their services increases. These comments were reported the following day in The Architect’s Journal the following day by Merlin Fulcher, at the expense of other discussions that had been taking place at the forum.

ZAP have been carrying out a survey into the cost of
architectural education in the UK

Led by Joanna Scott, RIBA Education Projects Co-ordinator, and Zohra Chiheb and Pol Gallagher, ZAP Architecture, students then took part in table discussions about ways to reduce costs in architecture education, topics included: model-making, printing, study trips, part-time work, portfolios and presentations. Students fed back ideas to the rest of the forum. ZAP, architectural design partnership led by Chiheb and Pol, are currently working on the ‘Pavilion of Protest’ project to uncover and share how architecture students feel about the cost of their studies.

Professor David Gloster gave the last presentation, emphasising the importance and benefits of an architectural education, speaking about initiatives, such as Polyark, that are designed to bring various schools of architecture together to work collaboratively. He also spoke about how design isn't just spatial and formal but it is everything needed to go from a hole in the ground to a building (doors, specifications, contracts, etc). Students, in his opinion, need to be “thinking politically and acting architecturally” and there is a need for a forum for “a call to ideas to empower ideas”. At this point the discussion was opened up to the floor and there was some debate amongst the audience about possible ways forward to ‘empower students’. Caine Crawford, Chair of Archaos, spoke of Archaos’ successes but also the difficulties it had faced in recent years. The two RIBA student reps felt that they were in the best position to directly interact with the RIBA although there was concern about why this wasn’t happening at present and whether just two students could be representative of such a large student body. The Architecture Students Assembly that had taken place in Manchester the day before (20th June 2011) was also raised (see previous post here).

The forum was closed with a brief statement form the chair and some closing comments from others who had attended the event. Their was a sense that the architectural community needs to work more closely together to support students during these ‘tough times’ but also, as James Benedict Brown put it in his piece in Building Design about the forum, “that students want a national student body with a wider membership; perhaps somewhere between the alluring summer school of the EASA in Europe and the well-funded political campaigning of the AIAS in America”. The RIBA Education team, following the event, has said that they will support any future initiatives and will look into the scope for the RIBA to establish an e-platform for students to communicate/debate issues with each other and the institute. Following the event in Manchester and the RIBA instigated forum there is perhaps the beginnings of new framework that will provide students with a platform to raise concerns, voice their opinions and take action.

A short note on housing in Cornwall

During a recent trip to the north coast of Cornwall (more specifically the area surrounding Polzeath and Padstow) I was struck by the level of modern design being implemented in the construction of residential properties there. In many cases these houses could simply be described as 'new' or 'contemporary' but are markedly different to the typical housing designs utilised across the UK by volume-house builders. The houses, generally, make use of local materials (slate, stone) with render and timber, simple geometries that evoke the more traditional pitched-roof forms of housing in the UK, and also feature extensive areas of glazing and careful detailing.

The reasons for the apparently wide spread use of 'new' architectural styles, as opposed to the kitsch re-imaginings of past architectural styles (such as mock-Tudor), could be anything from the fact that property prices in the area are considerably higher than UK averages, the climate may be better suited to it or more 'enlightened' planning officials, clients, builders, etc. It could be that there is fewer of the 'other' styles to reference although there are obviously considerable areas of Cornwall (and this area in particular) that have buildings of historic values in other styles. When these houses are seen in the picturesque setting of the north Cornwall coast line arguments that modern or contemporary architecture are unsuitable for anywhere but dense urban locations clearly don't stack up. It is as much about the visual quality of the design as it being representative of that time.

The reason I wanted to raise this point, albeit in a short post, is that over the past 12 months I was involved in trying to get planning permission for a small collection of residential dwellings for a small-scale developer in another rural area of the UK. The ambition from the developer was to build houses to a similar style and quality to these 'new' dwellings I saw in Cornwall but came up against opposition from the local authority. Without looking to go into the nuances of why or why 'contemporary' design was deemed appropriate in that situation I only wanted to bring attention to the successful application of the 'contemporary' and my belief that this needs to not be the preserve of certain enclaves but taken up across the country.

The First Architecture Students Assembly

The Architecture Students Assembly aims to be a new independent network of student representatives from the schools of architecture within the United Kingdom. It came about as a legacy project from the European Architecture Students Assembly (EASA) who last year (2010) held their annual event in Manchester. During the two weeks conversation with the Standing of Heads of Schools of Architecture (SCHOSA) took place, principally at the SCHOSA Summer Meeting on Friday 6th August 2010 that was held in Manchester, about the establishment of a new student network (and issues of European mobility). The conference on Monday 20th June 2011 was the next step in this process, having been instigated by the EASA organisers of the 2010 event and members of SCHOSA. Manchester was chosen as the venue for the event as part of the EASA legacy and because the Manchester School of Architecture were willing to provide a co-oordinator/secretary to help stage the event. Invitations were sent to every school of architecture in the UK, via SCHOSA, calling for two representatives from every school to attend the event.

Colin Pugh spoke about how SCHOSA was
eager to support an active student network.

Eleven students attended the conference, an additional 5 students who had expressed an interest in attending the event were unable to, and representatives from SCHOSA, Archaos, RIBA Education and EASA. The event began with a brief introduction from Tom Jefferies, Head of the Manchester School of Architecture, and Luke Butcher, a student at the Manchester School of Architecture who was chairing the event. Sam Patterson, a UK National Contact for EASA, gave a presentation that outlined the nature and scope of EASA, highlighting the sort of event that can result from communication between students across Europe. Colin Pugh, a Principal Lecturer at the Manchester School of Architecture and a representative of SCHOSA, then outlined how SCHOSA would be able to support the new student network and how they would like to see a durable network that would offer a point of reference of harness student opinion.

Following a lunch break, where students were able to view the Manchester School of Architecture End of Year Degree Show, the afternoon was a three hour discussion about the nature of this new independent network, what its aims should be, its structure and organisation. The original intention of the day had been to draw up a charter or constitution during this session but as the afternoon progressed it became clear that this would be an ambitious task. James Benedict Brown documented the discussion through two mind maps that were presented ‘live’ on a screen in the room, providing a live ‘map’ of the discussion.

Caine Crawford, a co-chair of the national student body Archaos, gave a brief presentation during the afternoon session about the role of Archaos and its achievements in its ten years of existence. Caine explained how he thought that the time may be right for Archaos to be refreshed by a new body of students and made an offer to the students that the new student network could take on the Archaos brand, 10 years worth of research and papers, website and funding.

A series of key aims were decided on however it was agreed that this would need wider discussion with a wider audience and that this would take place at a second event to take place in October, again in Manchester due to the financial support (in the shape of coordinator/secretary) being offered by that institution. The name of the network was also debated. The discussion about whether the new student network should be agenda or event based, or a combination of both, was mainly unresolved. Despite being unresolved the discussion and debate were both positive and constructive and it is important that this continues so that the new student network can gain momentum.

Moving Forward

With the first conference complete there needs to be continued discussion amongst those who attended the day and a wider audience who were unable to attend. A method/forum for this needs to be arranged.

A number of attendees were present at the RIBA’s ‘Tough Times’ Students Forum on Tuesday 21st June 2011 in London. The Monday conference was mentioned by Professor David Gloster in a talk about communication, raising awareness for the idea. Some members of the student audience, principally the RIBA Student Representatives believed that any new network should make use of and build upon the RIBA Student Representatives however others felt it should remain independent.

The conference was mentioned in Building Design Online in the following article from James Benedict Brown – ‘Could tough times spell the end of Archaos?’ – 22nd June 2011

A date for the next event will be announced in due course but in the meantime there needs to be more discussion about the agenda for that event. If you are interested in taking part or finding out more you can contact the Manchester Student Society of Architecture via email.

Review: The Architect

Inspired by real life events The Architect, by Charles Bancroft (2009), is a fast-paced thriller that tells the story of architect Rob Gilbert and the series of events that coalesce to potentially wreak his position in the pantheon of global architectural stardom. The story turns on the fatal collapse of a newly completed building that Gilbert has designed, to critical acclaim, with media swarm focusing on his role in the project. Whilst his career is unravelling his personal life is also coming apart, with deaths, affairs and the appearance of a mysterious woman adding an undercurrent of sexual intrigue. As the architect attempts to wrestle back control of his life he becomes embroiled in the sinister underworld of London, Russian gangsters, money laundering, computer hacking, people trafficking and prostitution, with the only constant being his constant level of intoxication.

The Architect (Raptor Press, 2009)

This is Bancroft’s first novel and the Brighton-based author, working under a pseudonym, draws on “25 years of service in construction and from the wealth of experiences, people and nightmares that exist in that industry”, to ensure the story stays grounded in the real nuances of the architectural profession. Familiar locations, such as Frank Gehry’s Serpentine Pavilion or The Building Centre, along with discussions about concrete testing and PI insurance, are though in stark contrast to the colourful characters. Gilbert, as main protagonist, is a character that could easily divide opinion, brazen in his arrogance he ticks every box one would expect from a self-obsessed, image consensus, individual. His relationship with the engineer, Alfred, is also stereotypical, and less about working in collaboration and more about the architect exploiting the professional services of his colleague (and friend) to enhance his own infamy.

The outlandish behaviour of Rob Gilbert has drawn
comparison to Will Alsop (Image: Sarah Lee)

As the story develops it begins to take on elements of a James Bond novel, with the short chapters lending the book a fast pace, quickly cutting between scenes in a cinematic style. In reality architecture is a secondary element, any number of other professions could have been chosen, and the real story lies in the complex character relationships and the consequences arising from the ethical dilemmas that lie behind professional and business decisions. The story is most interesting when these relationships are expanded upon and the stereotypes are not so heavily embellished.

Moving away from the methods of story telling utilised by Bancroft the book does raise some interesting issues for architects. The ethical dilemma facing architects (and other professionals) in who they accept work from is often debated, particularly in relation to the governments they choose to work for. Gilbert is happy to accept commissions from the Russian Mafiosi, turning a blind eye as to where the money is coming from, or the Chinese government, as long as it leads to projects that enhance his own image. The uneasy professional relationship this establishes is portrayed in the book although it seems unlikely that real life would take such dramatic turns. Similarly, posing the question as to who is to blame for the deaths from the building collapse, the architect, the engineer, the contractor or the client, raises questions about professional responsibility. Despite the act of building being a collaborative process it is often the architect who is singled out for a building’s success but this level of fame comes with a price when things go wrong, as Rob Gilbert discovers.

It is inevitable that any piece of architectural fiction is compared with Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, arguably the greatest novel with an architect as its main protagonist, and the character of Rob Gilbert presents a very different type of architect to Howard Roark. In many ways Gilbert draws more parallels with The Fountainhead’s Peter Keating, with an emphasis on wealth and image over morals. Both Roark and Gilbert though would seem to be uncompromising in the convictions of their designs, even if the motivations behind both are notably different. The two books present very different ‘images’ of architects that perhaps reflect the wider perception of the architect at their respective times. Whether or not Gilbert though is truly representative of architect’s today is highly questionable, the starchitect that he is obviously based on are in short supply, but if this is indeed the opinion of architects held by others it is worrying, particularly at a time when architects are being asked to justify their value.

The Architect then is an interesting read. I must admit that at first I found it difficult to get over some of the characterisations but once they had been established, and the characters were allowed to flourish in their own rights, I found the story thrilling, eager to see how the plot developed. If you approach it hoping to find a realistic account of the architectural profession you may find yourself disappointed. I recommend you take everything it says with a pinch of salt and remember that it is, after all, a work of fiction.


Notes

Bancroft, C. (2009), The Architect, 1st Edition, London: Raptor Press

Thesis: Online Survey Results

This post outlines the results from a recent survey that examined the perceived role of architects in the design and construction processes that shape our built environment and asked whether “architects have a role to play in shaping 21st century cities?’” The survey results are part of a wider investigation into issues of professionalism, the future role of architects and the complex design and construction processes that shape the built environment. The research is being conducted as part of the Masters in Architecture and Urbanism programme at the Manchester School of Architecture (2010-2011) and being supervised by Eamonn Canniffe and Dr Craig Martin. The survey was conducted online using the Google Documents service and was live for 28 days, between April 11th 2011 and May 9th 2011, with questions designed to test any assumptions drawn from various sources that have informed the research to date. Completed by 105 respondents, from both the supply and demand side of the built environment industry, invitations were sent out to every architectural practice in the AJ100 (2010), the largest engineering firms and contractors, and promoted online through social networking media.

The survey begins by examining the role of the architect and asks participants to select the tasks that they would expect an architect to undertake. In the next section the relationship between architects and wider society is examined, including questions on risk, liability and value. The third section presents respondents with a series of statements made by key figures in recent discourses on the future of architects, asking them how strongly they agree or disagree with them. Finally, respondents are asked how they feel the role of the architect, and his or her relationship with society, will change in the future. Demographic data was also collected, with participants filtered into two types: those who consider themselves to be part of the architectural profession and those who do not.

There is growing speculation about the future of the profession, highlighted in the recent report published by the Building Futures Think Tank at the RIBA – The Future for Architects (2011). This survey reveals that the majority of respondents do believe that architects have a role to shaping 21st century cities but that the way in which they practice, principally the relationship between ‘design’ and ‘construction’ processes will have to change for architects to continue to be relevant.

If you took part in the survey, or are interest in reading the full report, please contact me via email for a pdf copy at mail[at]luke-butcher[dot]com.

Demographics

Demographic data about participants was collected at the end of the survey but it is important, before beginning further analysis, to make some observations about those who completed it. The survey results should be considered in relation to this data as it frames the personal experiences of respondents and their relation to both architects and the architectural profession.

Respondents were able to select whether they classified their primary occupation as architectural or not and a larger proportion of respondents were ‘architectural’ (77%) than ‘non-architectural’ (23%). However, of those architectural respondents only 39% of these classified themselves as architects with 16% being students, 2% technicians or technologists, 7% academic and 36% classifying themselves as ‘other’.

Non-architectural respondents were further differentiated into those who work in the ‘built environment industry’ (79% of these respondents) and those who don’t (21%). Of those who do work in the built environment industry occupations and job titles included: civil engineers, mechanical engineers, environmental engineers, planners, project managers, developers, tradesmen and journalists. Interestingly a number of non-architectural respondents described their occupation and job title as something that other respondents considered to be architectural, such as interior designers.

International breakdown of survey responses

Information on the geographic distribution of respondents was also collected. 89% of all responses came from the UK, meaning that the survey results can be said to have a UK focus. Other responses did come from Europe (Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland and Spain), North and South America (United States of America and Chile) and Australia, although there were no more than 2 respondents from any of these countries. The majority of UK responses came from either the North West (32%) or the South East (31%), with two major metropolitan centres (London and Manchester) accounting for 51% of total responses.

UK breakdown of survey responses

Gender breakdown reveals that 54% of respondents were male, 41% female and 5% preferred not to say.

The Role of the Architect

The survey began by asking “what types of jobs/tasks would you expect an architect to undertake?” these functions were defined by those used in the 2005 report ‘Architectural Practice Around the World’. With the exception of ‘other’ all functions were selected by at least 60% of respondents. Of the functions with the lowest responses there are other professions within the built environment industry who would be accepted to carry out these tasks; for example, ‘Territorial Planning and Development’ (60%) could be handled by a planner and ‘Design of Structures’ (62%) by a structural engineer. ‘Design of Buildings’ (98%) received the most followed by ‘Drafting or Technical documentation’ (89%) and ‘Feasibility Studies’ (88%).

What types of jobs/tasks would you expect an architect to undertake?

The architect, according to respondents, is an individual whose primary responsibility is the design of buildings but who is also involved in a range of other activities associated with the built environment including producing technical documentation, feasibility studies, urban planning, conservation, interior design and the supervision and coordination of construction. These functions should be protected in law although the difficulties of doing so are obvious when you consider that an architect might be expected to undertake tasks that may be the responsibility of other professionals, such as the design of structures. As well as protection of function, the title of architect should be protected in law. Furthermore the practice of architecture is neither solely an art nor a profession but a combination of both.

How important is the architect in leading the design and construction process of ...?

Participants seem to agree that design and construction are treated separately under the current system although a greater proportion of those who do not classify their primary occupation as architectural view them as being separated. Within both design and construction processes respondents agree that the architect plays an important role in leading these processes. The architect is seen as being more important in leading the design process than the construction process but nonetheless has an important role to play. That the architect is less important in the construction process is reflected in the tasks an architect is expected to undertake, with more emphasis on design tasks.

The emphasis on design shows that architects have lost some ground compared to what a practicing architect would have been expected to undertake 50-100 years ago, when they would have been expected to lead both design and construction. Tasks such as controlling the construction costs would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the architect but with the advent of quantity surveyors they are less expected to do so, the same can be said where other professionals have emerged within the built environment industry.

The Architect in Society

If an architect is both an artist and a professional it can be assumed that, as a body, architects will share common characteristics with other professions. These include having a skill based on theoretical knowledge derived from an extensive period of education and having attained a prescribed level of competence in order to join a professional body or to work autonomously. This sets up an interesting relationship with society and the wider public and it is not uncommon for a professional body to have its own code of ethics, to monitor the relationship between those within the profession and those outside of it, including the public.

The survey asked participants to consider whether an architect’s primary responsibility should lie primarily with the client, who employs them, or society, who the work may have an impact on. Respondents could also choose to divide this responsibility between client and society and 39% of all respondents opted to share responsibility equally between both client and society. Perhaps unsurprisingly 95% of all responses showed that architects should accept some level of responsibility in the design and construction process. That 47% of respondents felt architects should accept more responsibility in the process is of more interest.

Should an architect’s primary responsibility lay with their client or society/the public?

Respondents were asked to give their opinions on why architects can or can not add ‘value’ to a project and to give an explanation of what they understand value to mean, when applied to architecture and the built environment. Common explanations of value given by respondents involved the architect adding a qualitative, social benefit that improves the quality of life, aesthetically and experientially, for all who use and experience the built environment. The idea of ‘doing more with less’ was also prominent, maximising potential with a given set of inputs. Some participants did stress the importance of economic and monetary benefits, with a number commenting that an architect can add economic value to a project through his or her expertise.

The general consensus from the comments was that architects are limited in the value they can add to a project. These limitations though are on both the demand and supply side of the industry. Architects were criticised by some for being ‘ignorant’, lacking integrity and professionalism, and for being short-sighted in their outlook. Concern was also raised over limitations from private and public clients who are only concerned with project margins and that certain types of contract, such as design and build, have shifted focus away from design quality. Some respondents were more optimistic, pointing out examples of where architects have been able to add value by working with society and working closely with the client.

The survey results would suggest that architects should have a relationship to society where they are equally responsible (and perhaps by extension accountable) to their client and society. Architects should be accepting both responsibility and liability in the design and construction process, and in the future the level of these should be at least equal to current levels but a large number of respondents believe they should accept more responsibility. Proportionally more non-architectural respondents believe that architects should also accept more liability in the process. There seems to be little appetite for architects to become further removed from positions of responsibility. It remains unclear as to whom they should be more responsible for and accountable too although it would seem that they should be accountable to both their client and society. The survey could have asked respondents to comment not only on issues of responsibility but also accountability as this is different to liability. It would appear that value can be added but it requires all parties involved to be working towards it. Architectural and non-architectural respondents both felt that architects do accept responsibility in the design and construction processes. They could though accept more responsibility.

Statements

In the third section respondents were presented with seven statements and asked to what degree they either agreed or disagreed with them. The statements were chosen to reflect the current debate on the role of architecture and the future for architects. Any number of statements could have been chosen due to the frequency of discussion at present. These statements could be assumed to be representative of wider opinion, due to the prominence of the individuals who make them or the medium in which it is presented. It is therefore useful to gauge opinion on them.

Recent discussions have focused on the social implications of architecture. These have been fuelled by the world financial collapse in 2007 (that forced many practices to reassess they way they worked) and the growing awareness of the ‘sustainability agenda’. It is also a reaction to the last 15 years of architectural practice where architecture was closely aligned to the market-driven ideology of ‘architecture as spectacle’.

It would seem that respondents share the views of these commentators at the forefront of the discussion. There is overall agreement that “Architecture is essentially a social activity” (Sir David Chipperfield) and that “Every architect should, at every minute, be aware of the sociological implications of his or her choices” (Eric J. Cesal). Further comments about the “dysfunctional relationship” with society and the “fragile professional position” (Sir David Chipperfield) this creates demonstrates that architects are not currently able to best serve the society they should be serving (based on results from the previous section).

There is less consensus about how “marginalised as a luxury” (Finn Williams) architects are as a result of their relationship to society, with no agreement as to whether architecture is “unnecessary” for the majority of the built environment. Evidence already presented in this report would suggest that ‘good’ architecture is necessary to improve the quality of the built environment and therefore it shouldn’t be considered otherwise, perhaps explaining the lack of overall support, for or against, this statement.

The Architect in the Future

If the role of the architect has changed over time it may be safe to assume that in the future architectural practice will differ from what has gone previously. The future for architects will be difficult to predict and may or may not be markedly different from the type of practice that dominates today. It is with the future of architects that the final section is concerned, with respondents asked to consider not just the future for the architectural profession but the current design and construction processes at work today.

Architects, based on the results of the survey, do have a role to play in shaping 21st century cities but it remains unclear what form this role will take. The architect in the future may have to be involved earlier on in projects to make the best use of their skill set and then remain involved as the individual ensuring the “vision is created on the ground, not just on paper”. Examples of architects already doing this exist, and were given by respondents, but perhaps the wider profession is restricted by the design and construction process itself.

Whilst some participants saw the architect as one of many specialists contributing to the processes that shape the environment others were wary of further specialisation, fearing that this will dilute the profession’s decision making abilities, and that instead fewer professionals are be needed, each accepting greater responsibility. It would appear that what are currently treated as two separate disciplines ‘design’ and ‘construction’ need to be closer aligned and that this will only take place following changes to the processes involved in both ‘design’ and ‘construction’. Few respondents expanded on the exact dynamics of these processes or how they could change, with many focusing on the need for change in procurement, legislation and politics, believing that this would in turn enact change in the profession and the associated processes. There was little said about the need to change the way architects actually work, with the exception of having a greater awareness of sustainability in their designs.

The majority of respondents, based on results in previous sections, would seem to agree that architects have a range of skills to enable them to contribute to the built environment. If architects are to have a role they also need to better promote themselves and communicate with other professionals, and the wider public, about the skills they have and the value they can add to a project.

Conclusion

This survey shows that architects do have a potential role to play in shaping 21st century cities but that the exact nature of that role is up for debate. The primary responsibility of an architect today is the design of buildings but they are also involved in a range of other activities associated with the built environment including the production of technical documentation, feasibility studies, urban planning, conservation, interior design and the supervision and coordination of construction. Respondents felt that both the title and function of an architect should be protected in law but as it is difficult to define an exact function this would prove difficult. Furthermore the practice of architecture is neither solely an art nor a profession but a combination of both.

Questions persist not just about the future for architects but the wider industry, with a consensus that both design and construction processes, within which the various professionals operate, need to change. Again, the exact nature of this change remains unclear. It would seem that ‘good’ architecture does enhance the built environment but that it is questionable if the architectural profession, in its current form, is best placed to maximise on this potential and in turn maximise potential for both society and their clients. Although there are many examples of successful architecture enhancing the built environment respondents are critical of numerous projects that do not. This is surely not just a criticism aimed at the architectural profession. Judging by the responses from architects, and other professions, they seem eager to improve the situation and are frustrated at other factors that are making it challenging for them to do so.

Participants seem unclear on whether the future will lead to greater specialisation within the industry or if reactionary processes will lead to a generalisation of the services offered. It seems unlikely that architects would be able to oscillate between these two positions and it may lead to them becoming more ‘specialised’, shedding certain tasks that are more suited to other professions and taking on responsibility for others. There does seem to be an appetite for the architect to act as some form of ‘enabler’ who is able to bridge between both design and construction and coordinate projects, although this will surely be dependent on other external factors, such as project size, procurement method and other professions. It would seem architects need to become better communicators and more focused on selling to others what skills they can offer.

In some respects the initial survey did not probe far enough into these possible futures whilst some questions themselves may have been unintentionally leading. It would also have been good to have more responses from the demand-side of the industry, and to make comparisons between the wishes and beliefs of architectural and non-architectural respondents a little easier to see. Certain question types also had their own inherent limitations; for example the Likert-type scales (strongly disagree to strongly agree) offer no indication of rating between the intervals, nonetheless they are still useful for indicating order.

The findings from this survey were used to stimulate the next stages of this research project, the next step of which included a series of interviews, round-table discussions and case studies.