Re: #Article: Adelaide architects failing in top-end design
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:31 am
It seems to me that there are several obstacles which tend to prevent good design triumphing over shite in Adelaide.
They can be summarised:
1. In commercial development - the owner/developer's desire for maximum net lettable floor area at lowest cost combined with statutory building requirements means that even before a building is built its form at least is almost set. For example, the building will be either concrete columns and floor plates or steel frame, depending which is cheaper at the time. The floor to floor height will be set by the minimum ceiling height plus the minimum floor plate thickness plus the minimum mechanical space above the suspended ceiling. The number of floors and the percentage of site covered will be set by the planning regulations. The structural design of the building will be based on a grid determined by the carpark requirements and the column size. For a four level building, the grid might be based on centre to centre dimension across three parking bay widths and the columns either side, meaning a grid of say 8400. This 8400 grid allows a 1200mm wide passageway and rooms either side of 3500mm square after allowance for partitions. The fire regs might determine 1000mm extensions of the floor plates in a concrete building beyond the windows between the floors to avoid the need for sprinklers etc. So we have the building floor area, height, construction method and basic external form decided before the 'designer' even does a preliminary sketch. What's left for the architect to do, in the case of one of these built to a price buildings? He or she can select the finishes (within the budget, of course), and maybe the door handles (subject to Australian Standards and the Disability Discrimination Act. Note to Shuz - the Seagram building in New York is a classic example not of this: Mies van der Rohe placed the building back on its site with a plaza in front. Whether the gift of space to the public was compensated by an extra height allowance on the smaller building footprint I don't know, but it was in any case a departure from the basic 'max floor area, sue the whole site' formula. As a result,the building is famous. The building itself is not what's remembered as being excellent design, it's the combination of the plaza and the building that does the trick. (See 'delight' below...)
2. The usual models of procurement have sidelined architects. This is partially the fault of the profession. Instead of the 'traditional' model in which the architect contracted to the client then the architect sub-contracted other consultants, for a number of reasons including fear of being sued, the separation of the various competencies required to deliver a modern building into separate consultancies and the rise of project management as a profession, the architect on large projects is now the design consultant at best on the same level as the electrical consultant, the vertical transport consultant, the HVAC consultant and all the others, the point being that the architect no longer has control of the project. It's hard to believe that architects have allowed this to happen. They've failed to defend their patch in the way that doctors and lawyers defend theirs. Architects have been too nice - they haven't been aggressive enough, but then they haven't had the basic protection that lawyers and doctors enjoy. Anyone can design a house for anyone else, but only a lawyer can appear in court for you, and only a doctor can take out your appendix.
3. There seems to be an unhelpful culture in Adelaide in which people generally don't value good design. In Melbourne, for example, where Prof Ian McDougal spent much of his working career, if you are building a house people might say 'Oh, great, what architect are you using?' whereas in Adelaide it's more likely to be 'Oh, my brother-in-law used an architect for their place and what a disaster, the wanker.... and it cost....' etc. No appreciation of the advantages of good design. Everyone in Adelaide, some seem to think, has the expertise of an architect - 'After all, I live in a house, of course I can design one'. Yet the same people would never question the need for a doctor, an accountant, or mechanic, despite their familiarity with the subject matter. Less than 3% of residential design in SA is the work of an architect. Unfortunately, the RAIA (now the AIA) is limited by funds and to an extent by policy in the help it can give to its members in promoting the use of architects to the community. Instead of celebrating good design and critiquing bad design, it tends to simply look after its own. Some years ago I raised a design issue about the Wine Centre, and was told that the RAIA could not say anything publicly about the building because one of its members was involved in the design. The RAIA's annual design awards are for members only, and are chosen from designs submitted by those members. Some offices spend a lot of time on presentation of their award submissions, while others don't have the time or labor to apply to that sort of work. And now, more than ever, the architects' professional body needs to spread the word that using an architect is not for silvertails only, is sound environmental practice among other things and can even save you money or get you a better result for the money.
4. This is my opinion anyway - all of the above combines to make architects too tentative about proposing if not off the wall or overly heroic design solutions then at least imaginative ones. They want to be paid and they're usually very time sensitive, so they tend to propose what they're fairly sure the client will accept, and pay for.
Finally, and generally, the same problem has existed for thousands of years. There is a historical complaint about his architect by a client in classical Greece - too slow, too expensive, too keen on his own ideas etc.
But there are also the writings of Vitruvius, often paraphrased by later writers on design: the best architecture has 'firmness, utility and delight'.
Firmness is easy - the building can easily be made strong enough to not fall down and built so that it won't leak. Any engineer can do that.
Utility - the building must be fit for the purpose - enough floor space, light, ceiling height etc for the use.
An engineer might stop there. If the structure is well built and able to fulfil its function, what else is there?
There's delight - the indefinable amalgam of ingredients that gives the owner, user or just the viewer of the building real pleasure. The Sydney Opera House has it, for example, as do many other well-designed structures. Think of your 'favourite house'. Might that not have 'delight' designed into it?
That's what you pay for with good design. If we don't value it, we might as well set up an algorithm to design our buildings, using the minimum material to achieve a useful configuration.
Little boxes, little boxes...
So what do we do? Our state government could take a lead, for a start. No more farming out big jobs to prestigious overseas or interstate firms (see cult, cargo and cringe, regional cultural). We have the design expertise here. If it's not as highly developed by use as it is elsewhere, then the only way we will develop the expertise here is to give it some locals a go. Forget the fear of failure. In Melbourne, where there is a strong design culture, the thinking is do it - if it's a disaster, undo it, or don't do it again. Look at the famous 'Yellow Peril' sculpture. It was built at public cost and was a brave effort by the sculptor. People hated it, and it was eventually moved to a discreet spot near the Yarra but not actually in it. But it didn't stop the enthusiasm for design. Melbourne had moved on, and was constructing Federation Square. In Adelaide, we'd still be arguing about whether or not we should build the Yellow Peril at all.
Good design is cool. We value it in fashion, in cars and in many other areas of life. Why not the built environment?
It doesn't have to cost more, but it still takes extra effort, but people have to be convincedn that the the extra effort brings results.
They can be summarised:
1. In commercial development - the owner/developer's desire for maximum net lettable floor area at lowest cost combined with statutory building requirements means that even before a building is built its form at least is almost set. For example, the building will be either concrete columns and floor plates or steel frame, depending which is cheaper at the time. The floor to floor height will be set by the minimum ceiling height plus the minimum floor plate thickness plus the minimum mechanical space above the suspended ceiling. The number of floors and the percentage of site covered will be set by the planning regulations. The structural design of the building will be based on a grid determined by the carpark requirements and the column size. For a four level building, the grid might be based on centre to centre dimension across three parking bay widths and the columns either side, meaning a grid of say 8400. This 8400 grid allows a 1200mm wide passageway and rooms either side of 3500mm square after allowance for partitions. The fire regs might determine 1000mm extensions of the floor plates in a concrete building beyond the windows between the floors to avoid the need for sprinklers etc. So we have the building floor area, height, construction method and basic external form decided before the 'designer' even does a preliminary sketch. What's left for the architect to do, in the case of one of these built to a price buildings? He or she can select the finishes (within the budget, of course), and maybe the door handles (subject to Australian Standards and the Disability Discrimination Act. Note to Shuz - the Seagram building in New York is a classic example not of this: Mies van der Rohe placed the building back on its site with a plaza in front. Whether the gift of space to the public was compensated by an extra height allowance on the smaller building footprint I don't know, but it was in any case a departure from the basic 'max floor area, sue the whole site' formula. As a result,the building is famous. The building itself is not what's remembered as being excellent design, it's the combination of the plaza and the building that does the trick. (See 'delight' below...)
2. The usual models of procurement have sidelined architects. This is partially the fault of the profession. Instead of the 'traditional' model in which the architect contracted to the client then the architect sub-contracted other consultants, for a number of reasons including fear of being sued, the separation of the various competencies required to deliver a modern building into separate consultancies and the rise of project management as a profession, the architect on large projects is now the design consultant at best on the same level as the electrical consultant, the vertical transport consultant, the HVAC consultant and all the others, the point being that the architect no longer has control of the project. It's hard to believe that architects have allowed this to happen. They've failed to defend their patch in the way that doctors and lawyers defend theirs. Architects have been too nice - they haven't been aggressive enough, but then they haven't had the basic protection that lawyers and doctors enjoy. Anyone can design a house for anyone else, but only a lawyer can appear in court for you, and only a doctor can take out your appendix.
3. There seems to be an unhelpful culture in Adelaide in which people generally don't value good design. In Melbourne, for example, where Prof Ian McDougal spent much of his working career, if you are building a house people might say 'Oh, great, what architect are you using?' whereas in Adelaide it's more likely to be 'Oh, my brother-in-law used an architect for their place and what a disaster, the wanker.... and it cost....' etc. No appreciation of the advantages of good design. Everyone in Adelaide, some seem to think, has the expertise of an architect - 'After all, I live in a house, of course I can design one'. Yet the same people would never question the need for a doctor, an accountant, or mechanic, despite their familiarity with the subject matter. Less than 3% of residential design in SA is the work of an architect. Unfortunately, the RAIA (now the AIA) is limited by funds and to an extent by policy in the help it can give to its members in promoting the use of architects to the community. Instead of celebrating good design and critiquing bad design, it tends to simply look after its own. Some years ago I raised a design issue about the Wine Centre, and was told that the RAIA could not say anything publicly about the building because one of its members was involved in the design. The RAIA's annual design awards are for members only, and are chosen from designs submitted by those members. Some offices spend a lot of time on presentation of their award submissions, while others don't have the time or labor to apply to that sort of work. And now, more than ever, the architects' professional body needs to spread the word that using an architect is not for silvertails only, is sound environmental practice among other things and can even save you money or get you a better result for the money.
4. This is my opinion anyway - all of the above combines to make architects too tentative about proposing if not off the wall or overly heroic design solutions then at least imaginative ones. They want to be paid and they're usually very time sensitive, so they tend to propose what they're fairly sure the client will accept, and pay for.
Finally, and generally, the same problem has existed for thousands of years. There is a historical complaint about his architect by a client in classical Greece - too slow, too expensive, too keen on his own ideas etc.
But there are also the writings of Vitruvius, often paraphrased by later writers on design: the best architecture has 'firmness, utility and delight'.
Firmness is easy - the building can easily be made strong enough to not fall down and built so that it won't leak. Any engineer can do that.
Utility - the building must be fit for the purpose - enough floor space, light, ceiling height etc for the use.
An engineer might stop there. If the structure is well built and able to fulfil its function, what else is there?
There's delight - the indefinable amalgam of ingredients that gives the owner, user or just the viewer of the building real pleasure. The Sydney Opera House has it, for example, as do many other well-designed structures. Think of your 'favourite house'. Might that not have 'delight' designed into it?
That's what you pay for with good design. If we don't value it, we might as well set up an algorithm to design our buildings, using the minimum material to achieve a useful configuration.
Little boxes, little boxes...
So what do we do? Our state government could take a lead, for a start. No more farming out big jobs to prestigious overseas or interstate firms (see cult, cargo and cringe, regional cultural). We have the design expertise here. If it's not as highly developed by use as it is elsewhere, then the only way we will develop the expertise here is to give it some locals a go. Forget the fear of failure. In Melbourne, where there is a strong design culture, the thinking is do it - if it's a disaster, undo it, or don't do it again. Look at the famous 'Yellow Peril' sculpture. It was built at public cost and was a brave effort by the sculptor. People hated it, and it was eventually moved to a discreet spot near the Yarra but not actually in it. But it didn't stop the enthusiasm for design. Melbourne had moved on, and was constructing Federation Square. In Adelaide, we'd still be arguing about whether or not we should build the Yellow Peril at all.
Good design is cool. We value it in fashion, in cars and in many other areas of life. Why not the built environment?
It doesn't have to cost more, but it still takes extra effort, but people have to be convincedn that the the extra effort brings results.