Can architects restore faith in their technical expertise?

Architecture feels like a profession that is going through a protracted crisis. Once the undisputed lead consultant on most major building projects, often acting as lead designer, contract administrator and effective project manager, it is increasingly rare today to see an architect anywhere near contract administration, or even on a building site.

In many respects these once dominant members of the construction industry’s hierarchy have been reduced to bit-part players, now best known for producing feasibility studies, planning applications and tender packages.

Grenfell must necessarily loom large over any current discussion around construction. The final findings of the inquiry are still pending. Blame for the horrific loss of life is likely to be broadly distributed among politicians, clients, consultants, contractors, forms of procurement and product manufacturers.

But what many already perceive as one of the underlying causes of Grenfell – fragmentation and an almost complete lack of responsibility within the construction team – also goes to the heart of the crisis facing architects. The 2018 Hackitt Report identified a string of issues that needed urgent attention but lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities was high up the list.

For this and other reasons, the architects’ regulator, ARB, is proposing the first radical changes to architectural education since the 1950s, as well as introducing compulsory CPD for the first time. Can the profession reform itself in the wake of Grenfell, to re-establish its reputation for technical expertise, and professional leadership?

Where the architect was once seen as a competent professional with overall responsibility for the design, project administration and quality assurance of a building, now there is an ever-increasing number of consultants and subconsultants on most large projects. Architects are very often simply a service provider among many, and may not even be directly appointed by the client.

To many in construction this is not news – and some may even have welcomed seeing architects taken down a peg or two. Sometimes seen as arrogant and less technically qualified than they should be, architects have also often been perceived to regard themselves as separate from – and even superior to – the rest of the industry.

According to Neal Shasore, head of the London School of Architecture and a Building the Future Commissioner, architects have long felt the need to “distinguish themselves from others in industry”. The debate about what the architect’s role is, and their place within the wider industry, reaches back well into the 19th century.

Shasore believes that Britain’s perennial preoccupation with status and class is one factor in architects’ need to position themselves as the “intellectual” professionals, in contrast to the artisans and tradespeople who actually make buildings.

Although architects had historically mostly been trained on the job, as apprentices in architectural practices, over time the desire to achieve academic and social parity with doctors and lawyers led to almost all architects being taught in universities.

A disconnect consequently developed between the schools of architecture, architecture firms, and the wider construction industry. Architects and architectural education arguably became ever further detached from construction.

Being an architecture student increasingly became an end in itself – an introspective and solitary endeavour, centred on presentational pyrotechnics and individual attainment. Meanwhile, architectural practices found that fewer and fewer graduates had the technical knowledge or skills required in the workplace.

Rightly or wrongly, a growing perception developed that architects were pursuing their own agenda, separate to – or even in open conflict with – the needs of clients and end users.

In an attempt to seize back control over programme and costs, public and private sector clients increasingly utilised non-traditional forms of procurement, such as design and build. Architects were first marginalised, and then increasingly replaced in the leadership role by other consultants such as quantity surveyors and project managers – perhaps because they were seen as more amenable and aligned to clients’ priorities.

This summary doubtless includes many gross generalisations. A huge number of architects excel in their service delivery, and technical knowledge. British architecture firms have flourished internationally, although the service they offer is often focused on the early stage design, with implementation overseen by others. 

There have also been advantages for clients. Architects’ fees are almost certainly lower than they were historically (although this has presented challenges in terms of maintaining the service they deliver). Clients can more easily determine the way in which a consultant team is assembled to best suit their procurement methods and commercial imperatives. And perhaps the overbearing authority of a single consultant was never a good thing in the first place.

But in the wake of such change has also come a lack of clarity and – most worryingly of all – uncertainty regarding who has overall responsibility on a construction project.

Why does this matter? In one word: quality.

Without clear accountability for quality assurance, responsibility for not just fire safety but all areas of a building’s compliance, become progressively less clear.

One of the big questions now facing architecture, and the wider industry, is whether there is any desire for architects to step into a broader leadership role within construction. Are architects in a position to embrace the new principal designer role, as set out in the 2022 Building Safety Act? And, if not, could ARB’s proposed reforms help change that?

The regulator

Hugh Simpson is chief executive and registrar of the Architects Registration Board (ARB), the profession’s regulator

“A whole number of things have come together,” says Simpson of the recent move towards radical reform of architectural education. He highlights “a sense of urgency around the climate crisis and Grenfell”.

ARB’s reforms have emerged following discussions with the RIBA, as well as other professional bodies, such as RTPI and the RICS. Simpson says ARB is keen “to collaborate across related professions”, although RIBA has recently expressed significant concerns about the proposals.

Quality is too variable and access dependant on social networks

Simpson sees the move to reform architectural education as resulting from a desire to strengthen the profession and improve collaboration. He believes positive change will only come through equipping students with the “necessary skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours” to succeed.

One of the things he recognises that the reforms have not resolved is the issue around professional practical experience. “Quality is too variable and access dependant on social networks,” he says.

“Regulators get into trouble when they prescribe a particular route,” he says of the way in which the proposed reforms open up the sector to new models of architectural education. ARB is “keen not to mandate particular approaches” and wants “to encourage innovation”.

This will involve moving away from an education system that is currently still very much focused on the time that students spend in education, to more of an emphasis on “outcomes”. Simpson says ARB wants to move away from “mandating routes” towards “facilitating routes… Our overall message is: ‘are you competent to practise as an architect?’ ”

The employer

Dav Bansal is an architect and director at Howells

Bansal welcomes the way in which the reforms seek to open up entry to the profession “from various backgrounds”, including through apprenticeships and non-cognate degrees or professional experience. The changes should increase opportunity for “many more, hopefully improving access into our profession”, he says.

“I would like to see a more lean, pragmatic and engaging approach to architectural education, he adds. He believes ARB’s reforms need to combine academic and practice experience “simultaneously”.

Those who choose to undertake part-time education generally do better in the long-term due to their ongoing experience in practice

“We see many talented graduates who struggle with working in practice”, Bansal says, and argues that apprenticeships could go a long way to addressing this.

“At Howells, we sometimes find that those who choose to undertake part-time education generally do better in the long term due to their ongoing experience in practice. Their skills in working with colleagues and consultants as a team, appreciating real-life challenges and solving problems efficiently are just a few of the benefits in combining early experience in practice with education.

“I truly believe schools of architecture will struggle to train students for life in practice as this is not their area of expertise,” he says, arguing that engaging local practices to provide in-studio workshops or talks “will only go so far”.

“What is really needed is to develop a programme where working in practice to build core skills and competency while exploring your imagination and theoretical knowledge at university goes hand in hand,” says Bansal.

“Let the practitioners and professors do what they are best at and work together to train the architects of tomorrow. We are already seeing this approach work effectively in other creative industries including automotive – so let’s learn from this.”

The developer

Martyn Evans is creative director at LandsecU+I

Evans perceives a “conundrum” at the heart of the debate about the role of architects relating to how architects perceive themselves, and in turn how they are perceived by the wider industry. He believes the future shape of architectural education will play an important part in how architects choose to define their role.

Referencing the trail of unaccountability that led to the Grenfell tragedy, he ponders: “Where’s the responsibility? Nobody was clear whose responsibility it was.”

He notes that “people did die because of that” and believes the problem lines in “the system”, which “has to be put right”.

For Evans, architects face a simple choice. Do they want to accept their reduced status and role within construction, or is there a desire to address the crisis in industry and step up to fill the current accountability void.

Some are very savvy and can have a conversation about commercial viability. I’d like to see more architects understand development

He ponders why architects have lost responsibility within the industry. “Is it because they don’t want it? Or because industry doesn’t want to give it to them?”

He recognises that there is a significant mountain for architects to climb. “There’s a great lack of respect for architects from the developer community,” he says.

Evans perceives a “profound divergence between architects and developers as they get older”. He says that “when it’s bad, developers treat architects as just another line in the service providers”.

With a career that started as a creative in retail, working alongside Anita Roddick, Evans prides himself on “understanding” architects, but acknowledges that they are often perceived as “pie in the sky” thinkers by the rest of the industry.

By the same token, he believes that many architects “think developers are philistines”. He says he often found himself having to act as interpreter between the two groups, which led to growing frustration. “That lack of sympathy starts young,” he says.

He has made bridging the gap one of his key priorities. “I’d like to see people in my industry have more respect for architects and what they do.” In 2016, he established the Young Architects and Developers Alliance (YADA) to facilitate greater mutual understanding.

Evans teaches part-time at Manchester and the Bartlett, where he describes himself as providing “a real-world voice” for the architecture students. “I behave like a client. Some say it’s really useful. Some say I shouldn’t be doing it – it’s ‘stifling creativity’.”

He notes that qualifying as an architect takes a long time and is highly demanding. But he is also not the first to question what architects are actually learning. “What’s the seven years for? Is the quality of teaching delivering? It produces a lot of people who don’t seem to live in the real world.”

At the same time, he is very complimentary about what a good architect brings to the table. He thinks they are often undervalued and believes, at their best, they offer technical and regulatory responsibility and environmental expertise.

“Some are very savvy and can have a conversation about commercial viability. I’d like to see more architects understand development.”

For Evans there is also clearly a quid pro quo between what service architects are able to offer and the status and fees they can command. “Maybe it should be less onerous to qualify,” he says. “But, if it’s less onerous, you cannot expect [architects] to hold the same responsibility.”

>> Also read: Time for Plan BEE: collaborative learning that helps deliver a more competent industry

He asks” “If you reduce the technical teaching, don’t you reduce the likelihood [that architects] will bear the responsibility for the technical work?”

He believes architects have the potential to redefine their role and status. “It’s about architects working harder in a trying economic environment to be better service providers and value creators.”

At the same time, he points out that, if the industry wants architects to take on a greater level of responsibility, then industry needs to treat them differently. “If architects are to be held to account as highly qualified technically, they need to be treated that way. We need to hand them responsibility.

“If you treat them as just one on a list of suppliers, they will not respond.”