John Kellett's Comments
Comment on: AJ Survey: Who should be the next Labour leader?
Do the candidates know what architecture is and architects are? No other politician does! Since the majority of the population have no real idea about our profession either, merely a media induced impression, democracy will never create a decent urban environment anyway.
The only financial obstacle for those born without a silver spoon in their mouths (as it were) it that imposed by practices not paying a sensible salary to graduates entering the profession. How that issue is overcome is a very different issue to that of the cost of education and the proposed changes by the RIBA are a start. Speaking personally, getting a loan to cover the cost of my education as an architect would have been far preferable to the old grant system.
Comment on: RIBA councillor slams delegation to Israel
The RIBA Council has no mandate from members to get involved with foreign politics other than matters of direct architectural concern. Matters such as those discussed above may be of interest to architects as individuals but are of no concern of a professional body.
Oh, how lovely, more 'competitions'. I do so love working for free when I have a mortgage to pay and family to feed. There is no money to venture, therefore there can be no gain. Does the Labour Party have any grip at all on reality? Most architects earn less than most professionals. Including those professionals paid by the state, who are, apparently, all underpaid! Hours on PQQs when they should take minutes, designing 'competition' entries to Stage 3 and beyond without costs, etc. The RIBA may be a charity but few architect's practices are.
Spot on. A cause of bad design is the planning committee and other politicians, or fear thereof. House-builders are under pressure to keep NIMBYs happy.
There is probably not a skills shortage as such. There is a shortage of architects willing to accept salaries lower in real terms than they were eight years ago! Many architect jobs are being advertised at less than those of technicians. How many architects have accepted higher paying posts as 'technicians' and 'project/design managers' I wonder? Until the profession values itself we will continue to be undervalued by our clients and therefore unwilling to increase salaries appropriately and fees to a profitable level. Like CAD before, BIM is making us more productive, but instead of benefitting the profession is being bullied into producing more work for the same unprofitable fee. Daft.
Comment on: Gender pay gap: ‘beyond shocking’
Ian Goulty has hit the nail on the head. Do we know why there is a pay difference? Is it just a trick of statistics? If women take time out to look after children and retire earlier then the 'average' salary for women will inevitably be less. If on the other hand the statistics have been adjusted for such matters then the gender pay gap is a very worrying issue. It is important not to forget that ALL architects are not, generally, sufficiently recompensed for the skills possessed.
Comment on: Brady defends RIBA Council Israeli motion
I agree whole-heartedly with Stephen Games's comments. I doubt the vote reflects the opinion of architects and, more importantly, is not a matter the RIBA Council should be wasting time on, the profession is in complete disarray after 6 years of economic hell and an ineffective ARB is doing very little to uphold the law. Where does international politics feature in the Royal Charter?
Comment on: RIBA changes tack on ARB abolition
The ARB does not currently protect the public from those illegally calling themselves 'architect' and other charlatans purporting to carry out our role ('architectural designers' and 'architectural consultants' etc.). There appears to be very few prosecutions of the many guilty persons and businesses purporting to be architects. How would a slimmed down register enforce compliance with the Law? It needs to be given teeth, together with protection of function for ALL qualified construction professionals
Not only should the title be protected, the function and role of architect should be protected to. Most of the rest of the developed World think it sensible to protect the public by such legislation, the Canadian system being of particular note. In fact, in the interests of public safety and protection from 'cowboys', the role of ALL construction professionals should be protected. For example there are no restrictions on who can call themselves a structural engineer, building services engineer, building surveyor or technologist. The only protection that the public has is 'Chartered' status but that is not backed by legislation as it should be.
Comment on: UN warns of UK housing regression
The UN refers to Ms. Rolnik as an architect, but her name didn't feature in a quick search of Brazil's register of architects. That may be fault of the internet or the web browser I used but........
Why doesn’t the AJ update and republish “Activities and Spaces”? It was written by John Noble, published in the magazine in 1982 and in book form a year later. I still find it useful, but after 30 years it is probably due for an update!
A sensible view. However solicitors and doctors have ‘protection of function’ in order to protect the public. The public has very little protection from fraudsters and charlatans misleading their clients into believing that they are architects. Unfortunately many people believe that it already is illegal for unqualified people to design buildings and therefore see no difference between an architect and an ‘architectural designer’. In my County ‘architectural designers’ are even being given commissions for schools and healthcare projects. With moves by the medical profession to increase the coverage of registration (into cosmetic procedures etc) and the call by the Archbishop of Canterbury for bankers to be required to be qualified, the construction professions should be lobbying for a requirement for building designers to be suitably qualified.
Having just re-read Standard 12 of the ARB code of conduct I would very much like to understand from the ARB how using the phrase ‘the ethnics’ breaks that code. It would appear therefore that merely describing any aspect of a person’s appearance or character or background breaks the code implying that it is now impossible for anybody to be an architect in the UK. If a fellow architect describes me as ‘short’ (which I am) or who ‘looks down on me’ (they have to, due to my height), can I have them struck off the register? The implication from the PCC ruling is that I can! How odd.
A break from providing an architectural education that meets internationally recognised standards, such as the European Directive, is very worrying. The profession requires new members who are fully versed in the long term ‘needs’ of the profession not the short term financial ‘wants’ of the Universities. Students wishing to become architects are not going to benefit from courses designed lower standards or increase University income. Courses for architects need to be both broad and deep in order to cover the knowledge and skills necessary, an undergraduate degree cannot do that. To leave University with just an ability to prepare impressive drawings is not enough, graduates wanting a career as architects need to know how buildings are constructed, how construction is managed, costs and have a good knowledge of all the guidance and legislation that applies as well as the art of architecture. Designers of buildings in the UK are already under qualified to meet the needs of the C21, I don’t see how shortening the education courses can improve things. Better access to part-time and online / distance courses would be a great improvement that would not lower standards and maintain adherence to internationally recognised standards. Perhaps educators would benefit from re-reading Vitruvius’s chapter on the education of an architect?
Comment on: Is architecture gay-friendly?
The profession has much greater concerns at the moment than private personal sexual orientation issues. There is also rife, but mostly unintentional and unconscious, discrimination against the disabled, female, short, ginger-haired and state-educated throughout the profession. It is being marginalised by our un(der)qualified competitors who are profiteering on the break-up of an holistic profession into numerous specialisms. Specialisms that lack any overview of the project, as a whole, meeting the client’s requirements. What’s the point of being a diverse and egalitarian profession, if ‘society' thinks/decides it doesn’t want architects anymore?
The only reason practices can't pay is the desire to udercut their competitors by having more work carried out by unpaid students. My practice is under pressure from all directions to take on unpaid 'interns' under all sorts of 'official' apprenticeship type schemes. Should I bow to 'business' advice or stick to the moral high ground and hope my business can grow without 'cheating'? If students are doing useful fee-earning work the minimum pay legislation should apply, at the very least. An architecture graduate is after all worth a lot more than a 16 year old youth with no GCSEs or a 'media studies' graduate. But until the law is clarified and/or challenged loopholes will, unfortunately, be exploited by those without scruples.
Perhaps women are being cleverer by taking more 'dividend' and less 'salary' in order to take advantage of tax rules? Perhaps more women have got more sense than us chaps by getting out of a profession that currently has such little financial reward! I wonder how pay compares across the profession with other 'differences' such as height, accent, school, hair colour (ginger!), age and ethnicity etc? Speaking as someone who has been 'looked down on' most of his life I think you might be surprised by the results. Discrimination is not always intended. I read another study for another profession (I've forgotten which, it was a while ago) where the pay difference was due to women accepting lower offers. I'm not convinced by that argument but........
One aspect that appears to be missing from most commentaries on the issue of converting office buildings to homes is that many offices are in buildings designed for another purpose anyway. Houses, warehouses and agricultural buildings have all been converted to offices in the past. For those buildings, for which 'office' is now no longer a viable use, the Government 'initiative' is very good news.
"Externally, most office buildings are not suitable for residential buildings in terms of windows, balconies, etc and recladding is often required" Not true, nearly all office buildings that are now unsuitable for office use in towns and cities started life as residential buildings. "Most office floor plates from air conditioned post 1970s offices are usually very deep, which makes them unsuitable for residential units" True, but they can make very good offices or homes by creating atria, it can be a challenge to carry structurally within budget but not impossible. "Wholesale replacement of central plant and equipment to different heating, cooling and electrical loading requirements" Not necessarily and would be necessary in many cases to make the building useable as a modern office anyway. "Biggest issue is often structural alterations that may be required to make the original stair and lift cores work for a residential layout" Surely those office buildings will not be candidates for change of use then! Most ex-residential buildings that have been 'converted' to office use can be 'unconverted' quite simply, especially in terms of lifts and stairs.