John Kellett's comments
Hear hear. Architects ARE project managers, design managers, BIM managers, principle designers and technologists. It is why the training is long and difficult. It is also the reason why ALL building designers must be chartered professionals (engineer or surveyor etc) as a matter of public safety, as a number of recent events have proved.
Interesting. As an architect in rural area I’ve a shortage of clients and builders.
If architects are charging for the time it takes to do a project properly (professionally) in accordance with ASBA and RIBA guidance then they are not over charging. Fake architects and others charge less because they are not qualified as architects :-) Try discussing with architects the level of information you need, preferably using more efficient BIM workflows, and reach agreement that way so that you both make sufficient profit. A professionally and well designed building can be worth over 10% more than one designed by less qualified (or unqualified) people and businesses. That difference can more than cover the cost of using an architect :-)
There is not an issue of land supply:
1- there is plenty on non agricultural land that can be built on.
2- there are hectares of ‘brownland’.
3- there are hectares of single storey buildings that could be two or more.
4- there are hectares of parking that could be built over with homes and workplaces etc whilst increasing parking provision.
5- there are hectares of two and three storey building that could be four or five without disrupting the neighbourhood.
6- moving and creating businesses away from London through taxes and incentives would also help.
It is not rocket science and London is less important than it thinks it is :-)
A brilliant example of providing ‘housing’ differently to meet changing needs. A similar model could be used to replace proto-slum HMO conversions of much needed family homes.
The easy solution would be for there to be a mandatory requirement to use qualified building designers in design teams led by architects. Self-appointed under-qualified ‘experts’ are NOT a solution.
How? Architects are no longer, around here, in a position to even suggest to clients that architects have a professional obligation to something other than them. Very rarely in over 30 years has a client requested a low carbon / low energy building so save the climate nor their running costs. Unfortunate but true, perhaps the attitude is changing in cities?
I wonder what brought that on? Will Councils be obliged to use qualified building designers or will they be expected to obtain the cheapest services as usual?
This whole episode highlights how little the 'architectural experts' in local authorities, and elsewhere, understand about architecture despite irrationally sticking 'architectural' in their job titles. It makes it even more obvious that no building designs that are not by architect-led fully qualified design teams should be receiving planning permission. To allow unqualified people to design buildings and then have them 'checked' by differently qualified people is wrong. Which would leave planning committees to consider the geography and politics of town planning, their original purpose.
Surely Historic England and/or central government can reprimand the Council for acting illegally?
101% on target. Most house builders built to designs not by architects and then the public blame architects for the failings in their homes. I would suggest banning the word ‘architectural’ from any job role and just use architect. In the U.K. only architects have sufficient (above A level standard) training in architectural design.