Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

How should Part 3 change? John Neville-Jones

  • Comment

John Neville-Jones, director, KPF

More from: RIBA Part 3 debate

At Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF)we have always supported individuals who wish to take Part 3. We believe that, to become an all-round architect, it is important to gain both knowledge and direct experience of projects in the later stages and during construction.

At KPF we are fortunately still in the position of having suitable projects; but we are aware that not everyone can be assigned to such a project. We therefore try to enable people to shadow projects.

Every recession affects architects and, if the Part 3 course content has not been reviewed since the 1960s, then a review makes sense. But if Part 3 and the title of architect are to remain valuable, attempts to make Part 3 easier on the basis that experience is currently hard to gain should be resisted. 

In the long term it would be better to obtain Part 3 later than desired, rather than to find in retrospect that one has obtained a devalued qualification in a reduced profession.

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs