Owen Luder's Comments
I disagree totally with George Oldham's attempts to have ARB scrapped. Were he and the other members of the so called "action group" sucessful it is unlikely that its powers would be passed to the RIBA. The claim that ARB was set up as a "minimalist" organisation used by those seeking its abolition is not correct. I was President when the Act was passing through Parliament and the minimalist related to th size of the governing body. The 60 strong Board of Architectural Education was scrapped and the 62 strong ARCUK Council rduced to 15 - with seven lay members. As for ARB owers being reduced the oppoite was the case and the offence of "professional incompetence" added to ARB powers. Those who seek the destruction of ARB are misguided .Self regulation of "protected" professions is not favoured at present forobvious reasons. There would be the great danger of the statutory protection of the title "architect" would be abolished with catastropic consequences for the profession and the RIBA. Who would bother to train as an architect for 5 years when others would be calling themselves architects after short training courses - or with no training at all! Havibg said that the ARB disciplianry process are at times questionable and not properly considered. CertainlyI would support Geoge Oldhm's appeal against what appears to be a flimsey case that should never have been brought against him. Itlooks as though ARB has shot itself in the foot in this case. Owen Luder. RIBA President 1995-97when the Architects Act went through Parliament.
I am so pleased to see the Olympic Stadium on the short list. Before the Hillsborough Disaster in 1990 spotrs stadia facilities and design were appaliing. Hillsbough changed all that and suddenly the quiality of sports stadia design rocketed. When I gave the President's Building of the Year Award in 1996 (replaced the following year with the first Stirling Prize) to the new Huddersfield Stadium the Guardian expressed suprise that a football stadium could get such an award. Basically the same practice designed Arsenal's Emirates Stadium for which they have received insufficient credit for its design qualiy and built on time to budget. Despite the quality of the other contenders I hope the Olympic Stadium (by the same architects) wins as it will demonstrate so clearly to the world the difference architects (working with creative engineers) can acheive in changing what was such a "nobody cares about design" building type into top quality architecture that works and gives great pleasure to those who use it and see it. Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA.
It is not elegant. It is not friendly. It has no sublety. Wherever you are over a wide area it grimaces at you over the roof tops or in between buildings at street level. It is over assertive. Has no relation to its surroundings. The regeneration of this area was already under way without this very unfortunate addition to the Thames riverscape and London's skyline. Thjis practice has done and can do far better than this. Owen Luder .
I am not at all sure at the RIBA selectively supporting individual candidates for the ARB elections but I am more concerned with this continuing myth promoted by those that want to reduce ARB's role - some destroy it - that ARB was set up by Parliament as a "mimimalist" organisation compared with its predecessor ARCUK. The opposte is the case. I was the RIBA President reposnsible for steering the Architects Act through Parliament in 1995-7. The objective was to reduce the size of the ACUK Council from 64 to 15 and to remove the 60 strong Board of Architectural education completely. Boards were comprised of representives of a wide number of other organisations some of whom were not over friendly to architects and our protection of title. The effect of that was to give back to the profession control of educaton shared by RIBA and ARB. We had to concede a lay majority on ARB in return for continuation of protection of title. It is overloked that vthe Conservative government atv the time had decided to abolsh ACUK and protection of title and we were only saved by the intervention of the Consumer lobby who saw continuation of protection of title as a protection for clients - particularly the smaller clients - which is why ARB was never intended to be "minimalist" and its responsibilities for regulating "incompetence" as well as professional conduct required it to be a larger and far more effective in regulating conduct than its predecessor ARCUK. ARB may not be perfect and the RIBA needs to ensure it does not go beyond its statutory role and itis fair to architects as well as cients but those who attack it and its role are playing with fire if ARB were to be abolished the baby would go out with the bath water and we would lose protection of title. That would be distasterous for architectural education - who would study for 4 or 5 years to quaify as an architect if anyone could call themselves architects without any qualification or training. Also be disasterous for the RIBA reducing it to no more than a rump as an little more than an academic institution. The RIBA should be supporting those candidates whose policy is to work closely with ARB not destro or disassemble it. Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA
Comment on: Government unveils 55 new free school projects
Ironic isn't it? The Brixton School of Building was a famous vocational school specialising in theoretical and practical building and construction. I was there for a three year Junior course from 1942 - 45. The educational reformers in the early 60's first made it part of the South Bank Polytechnic which subsequently became South Bank University. The vocational aspect was soon lost and in time the building school disappeared. Years later we have realised the mistakes that vocational training is not second class to academic and we need people who are best at using their hands and can have a sucessfull life without an academic degree. So Aylesbury, Burnley Daventry and Southwark are to have Schools of Building. Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA
Mark Leeson is not quite correct when he says the selling price for housing is based on number of bedrooms. At the upper end of the housing market both flats and expensive houses a major factor in setting the selling price is the floor area being provided. However that housing is unlikely to be classified as shoe boxes! While I support the RIBA being involved positively in creating a public debate to improve mass housing design to concentrate only on size ignores other important issues which make so many spec housing estates so dismal in architectural and environmental design. Also it does not promote our unique skill as architects to maximise creatively the use of three dimensional space. And to allieniate such an important section of the industry and so many architects clients is a high risk strategy. Good at attracting headlines and getting emphatic media coverage but I suspect a lot of architects working on low and middle income housing will be feeling uncomfortable with the headllines the RIBA created. The alternative is to work for improvement within the house building industry and with government to raise the standards of housing and not to attack house bulders so publicly. The reason I guess why members of the RIBA Housing Committee have resigned. Yes there are restricted sites over developed with too many very small houses. But my concern with much of mass spec housing to argue for improving the architectural design and the quality of the environment created on dismal housing estates. Floor area is just one factor. The biggest houses are not necessarily the best. The smallest not necessarily the worst. Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA
Comment on: PRP reveals Myatts Field community hub and park
I have a particular interest in this area as I lived close to Myatts Fields during the war when In was attending the Brixton School of Building and after the war in my early days of my first marraige. It was always a very nice area in which to live and should now be even better with these proposals. Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA
For logical practical and financial reasons football clubs who are close to each other should share stadia. For the same reasons those stadia should be designed to be multi purpose to make maximum use of a very expensive entertainment.leisure facility. Wembley could and should have been designed in that way. If it had we would not have had to build another "National Stadium" for the 2012 Olympics. I designed a multi purpose stadium for Sunderland equi distant from Newcastle in 1970 hoping to get Newcastle to share it. Could not even get the Newcastle directors to even discuss the possibility. Governments, the planning system and the resistance of the FA to contemplate having athletics included when the design technology exists to overcome the problems. As an Arsenal supporter I am delighted that we have stolen a march on Spurs with our magnificent Emerites Stadium but it would have made far more financial sense if Arsenal and Spurs had developed a joint multi use facility stadium. The absurdity of the present situation with the 2012 "National" Stadia the issue of retention of athletics and future use should have been resolved before it was built not now. Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA
Still tough times ahead. Ian Salisbury attempt to link the Budget with his campaign to abolish ARB is very tenuous and dangerous. The last thing the profession or the RIBA need at the present time (if ever) is to do anything to risk losing protection of title. It will open up the opportunity for any Tom Dick or Harry to call themselves "architects". Small practices have enough competition from "non" architects without giving them the opportunity to call themselves architects. It would decimate architectural education. Who would study for 5 years if they could do a 2 year crash course to justify them using the title? The RIBA should work closely with ARB and accept it was set up to protect the interests of clients and not the profession. Owen Luder PPRIBA
The RIBA pressure on goverment to abolish ARB is very dangerous. It will be supported enthusiastically by those who want us to lose protection of title. Sel regulation is not popular - remember the M.P's expenses!! We cannot afford to risk losing protection of title. Every Tom Dick and Harry will be able to call them selves architects. Who will study 5 years to become an architect when you can take a short course or no course at all and use the title. The idea that the use of the title "RIBA Chartered Architect" will compensate is wishful thinking. Owen Luder CBE PPRIBA