John Kellett's comments
The only reason that many buildings currently being built in the UK are badly designed is that around 90% of them are designed by the unqualified, untrained, non-chartered and unregistered. Decisions are made by those without the skills and expertise to do so. The government could fix that loophole very quickly and very easily by introducing legislation to ensure that building designers are appropriately qualified, and chartered/registered in their specialism. Planners, councils, clients, contractors, manufacturers, building materials suppliers, politicians, surveyors and technologists etc etc are not architects so don't expect them to be.
Planning legislation is not to blame. The PDR are not to blame for substandard HMOs and apartments, allowing those developments to circumvent the guidance and other legislation is.
As for the ridiculous planned 'competence' legislation, it is not possible to be a member of a professional chartered body without being competent and those that prove not to be can be thrown out. So why try to 'tighten' existing legislation when those calling themselves 'architectural' designers/consultants without any relevant training or qualifications are allowed to masquerade as architects and get away with it?
Very very very few homes are designed by architects, they are mostly designed by ‘architectural’ designers, builders, developers, planners and politicians.
Why not demand that housing is designed by those appropriately so to do? A very simple solution to implement.
Having entered the World of 3D architectural modelling software in the early 1990s with Architrion and then ArchiCAD, Revit before AutoDesk bought it was not bad. I have used Revit since but it is not the best for my workflow and I found Revit LT to be dangerous as it stripped any IFC information from the file. I now use Vectorworks because everything I need from SketchUp/Rhino modelling, energy modelling, graphic scripting and Cinema 4D quality CGIs etc can all be done within the software without needing additional software. AutoDesk’s marketing strategy is a prime example of ‘popular’ not ‘best’. Both Vectorworks and ArchiCAD were originally written by architects so have a tendency to ‘think’ the way architects think, not the way software engineers ‘think’.
Agee fully with you Paul. The government doesn’t seem to realise that the is a bunch of underworked highly qualified professionals perfect able to design to meet any sensible criteria of any BBBBC. Can anyone provide a sensible reason why an architect’s building design has to judged for aesthetic quality by a bunch of people with no knowledge of the subject?
I think people forget the simple fact that in NIMBY terms each and every Parish Church would have been a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend" as the places in which they were built were, at the time, nearly all consisting of tiny cottages. As indeed so would St Pauls Cathedral at the time of construction.
What is needed is for contentious planning applications be accompanied by 3D models that can be 'investigated' in VR etc. If only for the simple reason that some planning officers and committee members cannot read drawings.
Insane flow diagram. So Studio E are responsible for believing the technical literature to be correct when it wasn't. That is nonsense, no architect's fee is sufficient to independently test every project we specify for a building. Also, if the client or contractor or supplier or manufacturer can change the product originally specified then they should be responsible for determining that it is equal to the product specified, not the architect who rarely gets a fee for such work, as it would become prohibitively expensive. Architects and all specifiers have to rely on manufacturers and suppliers not to lie, it is not our job to police the whole construction industry. Not at current fee and insurance levels anyway.
Weird. The whole point of architects is too design architecture that lifts the human health and spirit by meeting the ‘needs’ of building users, not the ‘wants’ of their owners. Yet in order to keep the mortgage and bread on the table we are forced into the commercial world to meet the ‘wants’ of building owners and prevented from speaking to the end users. I don’t work in London yet have had to design schools for my client, the contractor, who in turn is working through an out-sourced ‘contractor’ who was working for the County Council that operated the school whose staff we were not allowed to meet or talk too in order to design the school they needed! How corrupt a system is that. The problem is not ‘software’ or ‘hardware’ but more ‘existentialist’.
I can only echo the frustrations of many architects (the ONLY profession fully qualified to act as architects) why there are no architects on the panel?
The fact that so little housing is designed by architects (and the few that are are often dictated to by developers and planning authorities) is one of many reasons why the general quality in housing is so low. The RIBA must do better with the other chartered building design professionals in lobbying government to ban the un(der)qualified from designing buildings. It would be a simple move that would be easy to implement and would improve the quality of housing for all parties. It is ‘the norm’ in most developed Countries with no proof it wouldn’t work.
In my opinion I think Michael Squire is closer to the truth. The same offices but fewer occupants due to more home-working, less working hours and shift working for offices with be the cost effective solution.
For other workplaces fewer people due to increased automation and increased productivity is the cost effective solution.
The difficult one is schools, UNLESS there is scientific evidence that proves children get the disease less and do not spread it to others. But it that may not ever appear distance learning has to become more common. The only issue is whether that it at home or 'managed' within community spaces to allow parents to work.
Only if social distancing is going to have continue for years is it going to impact much on architectural design other than giving more consideration to circulation spaces rather than enforced minimisation to please the bean counters.
Hopefully the pandemic can be used as a reason to enforce the use of chartered/registered professionals to design buildings and making the National Space Standards mandatory for ALL dwellings whether new or converted/renovated. But I doubt either will happen.
There is currently a requirement for all chartered architects to undergo CPD in a profession that it takes a lot of training to join. Yet it is perfectly legal for someone without any training whatsoever to design buildings. There is a mismatch there as it would be far more effective to ban those without the training, knowledge, qualifications or skills from designing buildings not making it more difficult for those with the training. Stupidity at the highest possible level to require any chartered professional to be more qualified when no qualifications, or independently assessed competence, are required under U.K. law.