Comment - Irresponsible architects
- Published: 17 December 2007 12:23
- Last Updated: 17 December 2007 12:23
- Reader Responses
In Denmark architects have far more responsibility, says Teva Hesse, and this leads to better design
Has architecture in the UK become too fragmented, and the design process over specialised? Are architects in danger of becoming managers of other consultants' input into their projects? From the perspective of 15 years of practice in Denmark and my work in London over the past six years, my answer is an unequivocal yes on both counts.
The design and construction industry in a small country like Denmark does not have the scale or economy to support the UK's degree of professional specialisation. But this has not impacted the quality of buildings produced there. Danish buildings often achieve an architectural clarity which is enhanced by a more straightforward design process.
Architectural project teams in Denmark regularly fulfil the role of project manager, QS, townscape advisor, planning supervisor, accessibility consultant and planning consultant. This already halves the size of the design team, but several Danish practices go even further and integrate urban design, masterplanning, landscape architecture, construction management, space planning/fitout, industrial design and lighting design into their work.
It is unusual in Denmark for practices to farm out parts of the design such as specification writing, detailing or tender documentation on their projects. Practices typically work through all design and delivery phases, retaining control and responsibility for their projects from competition to handover.
Danish architects like to congratulate themselves on their holistic approach, but in truth the majority of professions today require their practitioners to think broadly. In practice every architect, whether in Denmark or elsewhere, has his/her particular strengths and weaknesses. There are visionaries, designers, technicians, managers, administrators and communicators; the strength of any office is in assembling these distinct skills into a team who collaborate in forging a common design goal. Most Danish architectural practices are organised in a non-hierarchical way; the daily work is developed by a team of individuals sitting together – testing, discussing, and openly criticising the design direction of a project.
Practice in London throws up a different set of challenges. The need to produce reports, design statements and other documentation detracts from design work. Specialist consultants are brought on board. As most specialists have a small slice of a great many projects, their fee only allows attendance at periodic meetings. As a result, their expertise is often applied in ways that do not really contribute to the design intent of the project.
There is no substitute for daily collaboration in the studio. Architects always synthesise specialist knowledge in their projects. The difference is whether this is digested by the design team or grafted on from outside.
Danish architects understand costs because they produce and maintain the cost plan. Furthermore, a typical but onerous Danish contract clause requires the architect to meet the agreed project budget at tender or redesign at their own expense. The cost plan, while not as sophisticated as one produced by a QS, is the result of direct experience or direct contact with manufacturers/suppliers/contractors; and who better to measure quantities than the team that creates them?
Having too many participants in the design process, and the requirements to deliver excessive documentation at each stage of design, does not result in better architecture. There is a real and avoidable risk of projects achieving competence in all the manifold areas of specialist design, yet failing to produce excellence in any one.
Teva Hesse is head of design at CF Møller Architects UK
