NBS topic areas

Keep up to date with industry developments

NBS solutions|

Products and services for all construction projects

NBS Building

NBS Building enables you to write concise, technically accurate and up to date specifications for building projects.

RIBA Changing Practices Symposium

NBS Content Development Manager, John Gelder, attended the RIBA Research Symposium 'Changing Practices', in September 2009, and reports back.

Further to my article, Fall of skill, the rise of automation, I was hoping that several speakers at the symposium would be addressing the impact of IT. A reasonable expectation within the four themes of evolution, organization, ideology and future of practice. In the event, only one speaker (of 15) did so, but he more than made up for the general lack. Christian Derix of Aedas R&D demonstrated several pieces of software used in space planning (from urban to bookshelf detail in scale) which, in some cases, feed directly into the Building Information Model. This demonstrated very well my suggestion that IT would, in the future, replace some current skillsets (manually juggling bits of paper or rectangles representing spaces, to find a layout that works), and require the development of new ones (formally defining space relationships, and the ability to manipulate key parameters intelligently in order to achieve the best layout possible). These tools may not save time, but they should lead to much better results, as they give us the means to quickly explore many alternative solutions – something I would have appreciated when planning prisoner visitor facilities. You can play with the bookshelf tool, VITA, online at www.mdfitalia.it.

As for the rest of the symposium, which I also enjoyed, the general thrust was that the architecture profession needs to be more publicly responsible, more engaged at RIBA Plan of work 'Appraisal' stage A (e.g. obtaining project finances) and 'Post Practical Completion' stage L, and that their skills put them in a great position to 'do good'. No arguments there, so I'd like to pick up on a number of contentious (deliberately I suppose) comments made by a couple of the speakers.

Ethics

Professor Jeremy Till, from the University of Westminster, indulged in a bit of architect-and-Institute bashing. For example, he argued that architects are not ethical enough. They should have a responsibility to society, and it should be placed above responsibility to client, in the RIBA Code of professional conduct, as it is for engineers. Actually, the ICE Code of professional conduct lists public interest third, after professional integrity and competence, and architects do have a two similar requirements. One in the RIBA Code, where it is also third (3.1), again after integrity and competence, and the second in the ARB Architects Code (new version due late 2009). So he got that wrong – architects are required to be responsible to society, just like engineers.

He suggested that the mural at the rear of Jarvis Hall (the symposium venue) embodies the RIBA's patronizing attitude, as an organization blessing the developing world in its omniscience. He acknowledged that most of us probably haven't looked at it before, but didn't seem to see that this suggests that the mural is nothing more than a colonial era anachronism and means little to architects today. As he must be aware, the RIBA, and UK architecture, are well regarded overseas. Quite apart from the export success of UK architectural design, in 2008 there were around 4,000 overseas members of the Institute, and around 3,000 overseas ARB registrants. Many other young architects from Australia and South Africa, for example, spend a year or two working here. These are choices made by folk based overseas, not foisted on them by a patronizing UK profession. The colonial era is long gone.

Till advocated the burning of the RIBA Plan of work - he feels it is too restrictive, too linear. This is unrealistic – it merely reflects real-world project practice (design necessarily occurs before documentation, which occurs before construction). It also provides a useful framework around which discourse on construction has built. More to the point, his claim is unfair – the Plan of work allows non-linear sequences, for non-traditional forms of procurement, and provides a home for non-traditional architectural activities, e.g. at stages A and L.

Finally, he argued that the RIBA is an institute for architects, so self-serving. It needs to be recast, to serve architecture. But if there was no institute for architects, then one would need to be created, for their promotion and mutual support. There's nothing wrong with this. And, of course, the RIBA does serve architecture, specifically through the RIBA Trust, which operates the British Architectural Library and Special Collections, RIBA Awards (which Till criticized for their emphasis on aesthetics, even though this connects with the way that most people appreciate most buildings), the Development Office, and programmes. Architecture is in fact well-served in the UK – there are several institutes specifically for architecture, including:

CABE (an event sponsor) and its regional design review panels
A+DS
Georgian Group
Twentieth Century Society
Vernacular Architecture Group
Traditional Architecture Group
The Victorian Society

And architects, of course, are active in all this.

An angry young man

Indy Johar of 00:/ Architects also had a go at architects. He asserted that the profession doesn't have a body of knowledge. There was no recognition at all that validation of Part 1-2-3 courses is all about ensuring the profession's core knowledge and values are imbued pre-registration, nor that the RIBA's Core Curriculum for CPD is about ensuring the body of knowledge is maintained. He did complain about validation, though (as a block on teaching about working at RIBA Plan of work stages A and L, for example), but failed to make the connection. I suspect that his issue is actually that certain pet subjects are not at present a part of this body of knowledge, and so are not much taught to undergraduates. I can sympathize.

He also argued that we need to develop skills for delivering neutral advice at stages A and B (e.g. recommending the no-build option [1]) and get paid for doing so (he earns 40% of his income at these stages). He didn't mention that the RIBA has set up the Client Design Advisor programme to do exactly this.

Nevertheless, architects are, of necessity, taught to provide built solutions – somebody has to be! For no-build advice, other training is needed – but there are opportunities at schools of architecture outside Part 1-2-3 courses. One example is the Stage 4 (year out) Certificate in Architectural Practice at Newcastle University, which I ran for seven years. We delivered lectures on, you guessed it, the no-build option, along with briefing, the developer's view, specifying, POE (post occupancy evaluation), etc. All those pet subjects for which there is no room in architecture courses.

Other speakers

Other speakers included Anne Lacaton (interesting and creative approaches to new and existing public housing in Paris), Jim Saker (looking at parallels between the construction and car-making industries, suggesting that architects need to engage with their finished buildings), Simon Pepper (the rise (to a peak in 1976) and fall of the public sector architect), Keith Bradley (the studio approach to organizing a practice – sounds like fun), Jonathan Charley (Marxist? video in absentia), Liza Fior (breaking the brief for the public good), Stephen Hill (a planning surveyor, comparing architects with slime mould!) and Robert Webb (the urgency of dealing with energy through design).

Edited, illustrated transcripts of the presentations should be available on www.architecture.com/research from early 2010. Meanwhile, the day's proceedings were summarized live by James Thorp, and can be read in six instalments at www.ribablogs.com, along with Jonathan Charley's video (and blogs from previous events).

1 Stephen Hill gave an example of a no-build solution, where the architect's response to a brief to design a canteen was to turn up with a swatch of luncheon vouchers instead, incidentally benefitting the local community.