6 Things That Should Happen to the Building Profession
Note: This is another post about the architectural profession. Those who couldn't be bothered with the last one should wait a day or so, when I will talk about Moon, Matt Smith's costume, and the new Harry Potter film, or something.
This is largely in response to a question raised at www.archipocalypse.blogspot.com , namely; what should the RIAI be doing right now? In the short term, of course, it's difficult to say; if no-one builds anything, then architects don't get employed. Short of linking up firms with the sort of debt-collection agencies that will threaten property developers with kneecapping if they don't pay up pronto, there's not a whole lot that can be done. Except shooting Mary Coughlan. I mean the singer, not the Tánaiste. Jazz pisses me off.
Long term though... if the profession wants to be taken seriously, it badly needs to reform itself; unfortunately, when it comes to self-reform, professions are just the laziest groups on god's earth and want nothing more than for everything to stay the same. The instant reaction is always "well what's wrong with the way we used to do things?" and that, as much as anything else, is part of the reason that no-one pays a blind bit of attention. A bit of self-reinvention might be called for here, and these are just a few starting points. Could be that some of them are arse, but - if we want to stop being a marginalised bunch of jokes whining on the sidelines - then this is the sort of thing that needs to be thought about.
This isn't just about architects; it's about providing decent building stock. The problem in Ireland isn't that there aren't enough great buildings (the Dept of Finance building on Baggot Street might be the most seminal Irish building since the Central Bank), it's that there aren't enough good buildings, largely because a lot of them are lashed up by unqualified people. We need to stop focusing on excellence - there will always be excellence - and focus on competency, on producing well-designed, well-made, building stock that's actually architecture rather than an investment opportunity in concrete.
And here's some vague thoughts about what might help.
1. Multi-Disciplinary Practices
An outsider, looking at how buildings were designed, would be shocked at the unwieldy system. Architects, Structural Engineers, Mechanical and Electrical Engineers and Quantity Surveyors all working in different offices? It's bananas. It's a structure that leads to needless duplication of information, all sorts of communication difficulties, and huge amounts of money being wasted (as well as four or five different professional guilds, all acting separately as their livelihoods go down the toilet). It makes architects nervous - all sorts of insurance and liability implications - but fuck it, just bite the bullet. At the moment, we have a situation where the different people designing the same building meet once every fortnight and talk a bit on the phone, with the engineers doing nothing and waiting for the architect to issue drawings. It really doesn't make a blind bit of sense; if a medium-sized office were to hire three engineers and a Q.S., they could deal with the everything themselves. Surely this just makes sense?
2. Third-Party Certification
We've now reached a point where self-certification clearly isn't working. It's too vulnerable to abuse, too vulnerable to architects signing off on non-compliant buildings, pressured by demanding clients and ludicrous deadlines. Third-Party certification at, say, tender stage, would provide a control as far as this goes; it would mean a neutral party with no vested interest would deal with the certification process, and it would also stop people going on-site without anything having been worked out. Whether this is done by a government body (as in the U.K.) or done by private firms (in much the same way that you can't provide a BER certificate for your own buildings) is a point of detail. Of course, it does lead to another layer of bureaucracy; but fuck it, buildings are complicated things, and that might not hurt.
3. Minimum Design Periods
At the moment, when a Health and Safety Plan is submitted to the relevant boring people, it has to state a build length for the project; the theory being that too short construction periods compromise safety. There's really no reason that this principle shouldn't be extended to design periods. Fast-track schemes are killing architects and leading to bad buildings, and one of the good things about the new government contracts is that they've effectively knocked these on the head. So, at the start of the project, the design period gets specified; if a 2 million job is down as going from start to tender in 5 weeks, the Authority just reject it on the grounds that it's not long enough. Buildings are important, dammit; they're there for centuries. People like to say "fast-track", but it's code for "just throwing any old shit up", and that's something that can't keep happening.
4. Sustainability Consultants
I hate - really really fucking hate - the word "sustainability". It's a meaningless buzzword that means nothing and just makes me want to set the whole planet on fire. But... well, we've reached a point where it matters. BERs, alternative energies, passive solar gain, embedded energies, thermal detailing - this is becoming increasingly specialised stuff, and it's expecting too much for the jobbing architect to keep it all in their head. Not only would sustainability consultants ease that workload, it could also address the millions of houses in the country that badly need upgrading. At the moment, people are going straight to builders for this, who a: aren't neutral and b: don't have the requisite knowledge. A new discipline just makes sense here (and is evolving anyway, so all we're talking about is formalising something that's already happening).
5. An end to percentage fee-bidding
It's simply ridiculous that architects are pricing jobs by sticking a percentage figure on the overall cost. Currently, this is leading to architects undercutting each other by going in at suicidal fees on whatever jobs happen to be out there. No-one benefits from this; the architects get pushed into further debt, and the client won't get the service they need as the architects desperately try and cut corners to save non-existent cash. And, of course, the building suffers. Designing a good building takes time and resources; the basic rule is that you get what you pay for, and sticking 1.6% down in the fee box doesn't require enough thought. Bid in absolute fees, and clients can require a breakdown of where their fees are going. They can see how many hours the architect is planning on putting into it, and what level of staff they'll be getting. In other words, they can make an informed decision, and if someone is going in at a fee that's too low, they'll be able to tell. From the architects point of view, it will force them to actually think about what the job will cost them, and put down a proper, thought-out figure. Percentages don't make sense, and the sooner they're gone the better.
6. Charge Retainers, for Fuck's Sake
We work for nothing, with no protection, and no deposit, and then we're surprised when people renege on paying us. This one's just basic stuff.
Any further contributions are welcome, provided they're not as good as mine.
This is largely in response to a question raised at www.archipocalypse.blogspot.com , namely; what should the RIAI be doing right now? In the short term, of course, it's difficult to say; if no-one builds anything, then architects don't get employed. Short of linking up firms with the sort of debt-collection agencies that will threaten property developers with kneecapping if they don't pay up pronto, there's not a whole lot that can be done. Except shooting Mary Coughlan. I mean the singer, not the Tánaiste. Jazz pisses me off.
Long term though... if the profession wants to be taken seriously, it badly needs to reform itself; unfortunately, when it comes to self-reform, professions are just the laziest groups on god's earth and want nothing more than for everything to stay the same. The instant reaction is always "well what's wrong with the way we used to do things?" and that, as much as anything else, is part of the reason that no-one pays a blind bit of attention. A bit of self-reinvention might be called for here, and these are just a few starting points. Could be that some of them are arse, but - if we want to stop being a marginalised bunch of jokes whining on the sidelines - then this is the sort of thing that needs to be thought about.
This isn't just about architects; it's about providing decent building stock. The problem in Ireland isn't that there aren't enough great buildings (the Dept of Finance building on Baggot Street might be the most seminal Irish building since the Central Bank), it's that there aren't enough good buildings, largely because a lot of them are lashed up by unqualified people. We need to stop focusing on excellence - there will always be excellence - and focus on competency, on producing well-designed, well-made, building stock that's actually architecture rather than an investment opportunity in concrete.
And here's some vague thoughts about what might help.
1. Multi-Disciplinary Practices
An outsider, looking at how buildings were designed, would be shocked at the unwieldy system. Architects, Structural Engineers, Mechanical and Electrical Engineers and Quantity Surveyors all working in different offices? It's bananas. It's a structure that leads to needless duplication of information, all sorts of communication difficulties, and huge amounts of money being wasted (as well as four or five different professional guilds, all acting separately as their livelihoods go down the toilet). It makes architects nervous - all sorts of insurance and liability implications - but fuck it, just bite the bullet. At the moment, we have a situation where the different people designing the same building meet once every fortnight and talk a bit on the phone, with the engineers doing nothing and waiting for the architect to issue drawings. It really doesn't make a blind bit of sense; if a medium-sized office were to hire three engineers and a Q.S., they could deal with the everything themselves. Surely this just makes sense?
2. Third-Party Certification
We've now reached a point where self-certification clearly isn't working. It's too vulnerable to abuse, too vulnerable to architects signing off on non-compliant buildings, pressured by demanding clients and ludicrous deadlines. Third-Party certification at, say, tender stage, would provide a control as far as this goes; it would mean a neutral party with no vested interest would deal with the certification process, and it would also stop people going on-site without anything having been worked out. Whether this is done by a government body (as in the U.K.) or done by private firms (in much the same way that you can't provide a BER certificate for your own buildings) is a point of detail. Of course, it does lead to another layer of bureaucracy; but fuck it, buildings are complicated things, and that might not hurt.
3. Minimum Design Periods
At the moment, when a Health and Safety Plan is submitted to the relevant boring people, it has to state a build length for the project; the theory being that too short construction periods compromise safety. There's really no reason that this principle shouldn't be extended to design periods. Fast-track schemes are killing architects and leading to bad buildings, and one of the good things about the new government contracts is that they've effectively knocked these on the head. So, at the start of the project, the design period gets specified; if a 2 million job is down as going from start to tender in 5 weeks, the Authority just reject it on the grounds that it's not long enough. Buildings are important, dammit; they're there for centuries. People like to say "fast-track", but it's code for "just throwing any old shit up", and that's something that can't keep happening.
4. Sustainability Consultants
I hate - really really fucking hate - the word "sustainability". It's a meaningless buzzword that means nothing and just makes me want to set the whole planet on fire. But... well, we've reached a point where it matters. BERs, alternative energies, passive solar gain, embedded energies, thermal detailing - this is becoming increasingly specialised stuff, and it's expecting too much for the jobbing architect to keep it all in their head. Not only would sustainability consultants ease that workload, it could also address the millions of houses in the country that badly need upgrading. At the moment, people are going straight to builders for this, who a: aren't neutral and b: don't have the requisite knowledge. A new discipline just makes sense here (and is evolving anyway, so all we're talking about is formalising something that's already happening).
5. An end to percentage fee-bidding
It's simply ridiculous that architects are pricing jobs by sticking a percentage figure on the overall cost. Currently, this is leading to architects undercutting each other by going in at suicidal fees on whatever jobs happen to be out there. No-one benefits from this; the architects get pushed into further debt, and the client won't get the service they need as the architects desperately try and cut corners to save non-existent cash. And, of course, the building suffers. Designing a good building takes time and resources; the basic rule is that you get what you pay for, and sticking 1.6% down in the fee box doesn't require enough thought. Bid in absolute fees, and clients can require a breakdown of where their fees are going. They can see how many hours the architect is planning on putting into it, and what level of staff they'll be getting. In other words, they can make an informed decision, and if someone is going in at a fee that's too low, they'll be able to tell. From the architects point of view, it will force them to actually think about what the job will cost them, and put down a proper, thought-out figure. Percentages don't make sense, and the sooner they're gone the better.
6. Charge Retainers, for Fuck's Sake
We work for nothing, with no protection, and no deposit, and then we're surprised when people renege on paying us. This one's just basic stuff.
Any further contributions are welcome, provided they're not as good as mine.
posted by Nyder O'Leary at
11:23
1 Comments
Links to this post
