Real world architecture

Not many of my colleagues will thank me for agreeing with some of Colin Harding's comments on architects (25 June). But his list of typical lapses will strike a chord with most architects.

Of course, buildings have to be conceived. They have to be designed and, generally, clients, contractors, surveyors, agents and administrators cannot do that. How many times have I sat round a table at the start of a project and listened to all the parties set out very articulately what they hope to achieve? Gradually the conversation dies away, someone coughs and says, "Well, perhaps the architect could go away and produce a drawing."

Contractors are essentially reactive. They need a proposal to criticise or a set of drawings to respond to. And, unfortunately, not many of them are good at that. They are very good at being wise after the building is completed but not so good at evaluating it at the design stage.

I have no desire to engage in a blow-by-blow debate with Harding, but to discuss the rapidly changing role of architects and their difficulties in adapting to the new world of design and build, partnering arrangements and construction management.

The real problem is architects' training, which has become institutionalised, academic and out of touch with reality. This is fuelled by a professional press that promotes a particular style of building and censors out the rest with Stalinist zeal. The result is an obsession with fashion and style masquerading as design. Function, cost of construction and cost in use are of no concern to the critics because most of them are art historians by training and background.

This is nothing short of a tragedy, because architects have unique skills. They are taught to organise space in two and three dimensions. They should understand the importance of light and sound, not to mention the building user's psychological need for shelter, security and comfort. But all too often these qualities are sacrificed to fashion and style. A wider understanding of the construction and development process would lead to our opinions and advice carrying more weight in the project team.

If architects are to continue contributing to the building process, they must give up the notion that a building is solely a work of architecture to be admired by their peers. They need to identify with the profit motive and understand how to work the planning system. They need to know when to apply imagination and innovation, and when to accept well-tried solutions.

Do we become marginalised as fashionmongers, or do we re-orientate ourselves to play a credible role in the building process?

Two recent articles in another professional weekly illustrate the problem. In one, concert promoter Harvey Goldsmith blamed architects for not thinking through how buildings work and for being wowed by the look of buildings.

The other was a double-page spread on a building for dementia care that appeared to pay scant regard to the economics of building form and perhaps even the needs of the users. It was the sort of project that would "normally go to a faceless grey office", said the architect. I wonder if, in five years, the client will wish it had done just that. It demonstrates only too clearly that, for architects and critics, image rules.

Here, bluntly stated, is the malaise of the profession. Do we become marginalised as fashionmongers, or do we re-orientate ourselves to play a credible role in the building process?

Architects must embrace the development process. Perhaps one solution would be for the RIBA and the RICS to set up a new, broadly based professional institute. Clients put their trust in quantity surveyors in a way that they do not with architects, because QSs and clients deal in a common currency – money. We need to become experts in the field we operate in and understand our clients' business if our buildings are to really satisfy their needs.

But contractors also need to equip themselves to foresee problems at the design stage. Responsible magazines such as Building need to continue and expand their building studies and include detailed descriptions of buildings both immediately after completion and after a number of years in use. This is the only way we can all get feedback and understand the implications of design decisions.