Whilst an excellent idea what difference would that make? Architects very rarely design the mass housing that is rubbished in these reportes. Don’t they understand that the best way to improve The ‘design’ of buildings is to restrict the design of buildings to architects and the associated chartered professionals who are the only ones qualified to design buildings.
Actually, as in many cases, the end-user/client is only usually useful in terms of what is wrong with their current building. Any offered solution will usually be based on A very limited knowledge of the possibilities open to them. Hence the call to demolish buildings that can very easily and cost effectively continue to be used efficiently and safely
Comment on: The National Design Guide is a dog’s dinner
A far easier and cost effective solution to the poor quality of building design in the U.K. is to prevent unqualified (or under qualified) non professionals from designing them. Adding a greater workload into a planning system incapable of judging aesthetic (or often any other kind) quality is governmental lunacy. Especially when money has been spent needlessly.
Insisting on tradItional Design THEN Build contracts would help :-)
All those who achieve Part 1 should be able to design housing projects. Certainly at Bath, when I was there, we learnt more than enough about construction and design to be able to design housing. The course was deliberately hard with the first 5 terms joint with the structural and building services engineering students under the lead of Ted Happold and Michael Brawne. Why duplicate an existing perfectly sound system. Dumbing down architecture is NOT the solution. As it is chartered technologists have insufficient training in architecture to earn the title ‘architectural’. The construction industry would be better served by renaming the body CICT controlling a profession of construction technologists, for that is what they are. This is demonstrated by the fact that I can find no ‘architectural’ technology course capable of meeting the requirements of Part 1. Chartered Construction technologists would be useful to architects, contractors and manufacturers. By limiting their appeal to an area where they have little, if any, expertise CIAT is holding itself back. Yes, there are many technologists who could be architects and with the new apprenticeship route there is nothing to hold those ambitions back.
Our own profession should be making better use of those who stick at Part 1 or Part 2 and have no desire (or talent) to proceed further. That would be the correct inclusive route rather than separating out housing design as a specialism. There are no true specialisms for real architects, merely the building types, we as individuals, prefer.
When will these fraudsters learn?