[Cartoon] Project Pan-handlers

Engine[er]

The Fall of the Design Dynasty

Updated! 7:37pm

Firstly I have got to say that I heard about this RIBA debate through Twitter. @Bldg_Futures were retweeted by one of the Architects that I follow on Twitter. As soon as I saw the title, I was hooked.

"THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT 'CONTRACTORS ARE THE ARCHITECTS OF THE FUTURE'" &
"IS TRADITIONAL, INDEPENDENT PRACTICE SET TO BECOME A THING OF THE PAST?"

What a wonderful topic. I booked a seat and headed on into London under cover of darkness.

I was very impressed by the turn out and settled into a great spot to watch and listen for anything of particular interest to us Engineers. I knew that the subject was going to be both an expansive and generative one, and if you haven't quite twigged why yet... then let me slowly reveal it to you.

Architects identities are under siege by heavily funded and motivated contractor war machines. Now, their tactics are not to storm the castle gates and over throw the design team monarchs by brute force alone. However, this tactic worked very well whilst assimilating quantity surveyors, then later [the easier prey], project managers: and of course our very own industry was one of the first to experience 'the grand assimilation'. BUT our industry has already lived through 5 or 6 generations of 'middle ground' engineers who have been marginalised, and stripped of their mojo. I make it sound like we were ambushed and sold into slavery, but in reality we allowed it to happen. Plain and simple.

Now Architects must allow it to happen to them too.

Why? Fighting the tide of this magnitude is a mugs game. In reality, the contractors need not have turned up to the debate or even justify their plans to deliver a single path of responsibility for the clients benefit. Again, why? Well, they have the clients ears already - that's why. Contractors, whether you agree with the motion or not, are delivering on their contractual promises. So why humour us? If this divergence of power is inevitable... why turn up at all? To rub the Architects noses in it? Perhaps. Because they felt obliged to thank Architects for putting up a valiant effort? Possibly.

My opinion is this, they are happy to wine and dine the motion because they currently do still NEED Architects. Never more than now, when change is afoot and clients are again tightly holding on to their purse strings. Currently Architects still hold massive amounts of trust and the ultimate Master Builder Status. Society and the client understand this. Bulldozing through Architects sensibilities is not a viable option for contractors - yet. Interestingly, I think there is more to this than meets the eye. I believe that Contractors are in fact trying to save Architects from themselves too.

An industry unable to agree amongst themselves on what to do, will go the way of the dodo. Contractors are demonstrating pity for Architects indecisive nature. A helping hand has been extended, and the burning question is... what are they going to do with it?

Well the vote result of the debate suggests that they are still frightened of the inevitable. Hence a vote against the house on Wednesday.

Do Architects think that by taking their proverbial ball away and restricting the use of the RIBA title to only Architects who are not affiliated with Contractors, is a winning strategy? If this is the truth, then I predict a future where they will experience the very same loss of social identity that plagues us engineers today. You lose out RIBA, big time.

Children will grown up and wish to be Bob the Builder or Colin the Contractor, and not an Architect. No one will know what it is that Architects do. Harsh predictions, but I wouldn't bet against it.

So what can Architects do? Study what happened to Engineers and learn from our mistakes. Do not waste energy abstaining or avoiding the grand assimilation. Once inside the inner sanctums of Contractors businesses, work towards owning them from the inside out. For example, some of the managing directors of large contractor firms are either run by Engineers, or were founded by them [Balfour Beatie, Osbourne, McLaren]. The same could be said of Architects for the future.

During the debate, a number of times infact, an observation was made that the polarisation of each industry present was indeed a fallacy; that the facts were that we all wanted the same thing. I'm not so sure about that one.

"Architects are the Bursars of the construction industry. No matter how bad you treat them, there will always be enough of them to go around" Paul Morrell, Chief Construction Adviser to Her Majesty's Government.

The same could be said of Structural Engineers.

If money was not as important, and as large a reward as it is in construction, then how many contractors would continue with this line of work? I know plenty of Architects and Engineers who would, AND DO! There is no need to take pity on ourselves though. We have ingenuity, design minds and feel such a social responsibility that indeed, Paul is right - we are and will forever be what's left when financial fall-out finally balances. Cockroaches of the construction industry. Indestructible. Not an entirely romantic expression to coin, but I stand by it for now.

The debate was lively and glimpses of Architectural futures were available for the assembly of Architects to see. For example, an Architect stood up and announced himself to be the go between for a contractor and series of Architectural practices wishing to 'date' their clients. He had the peculiar air of a man going to confession and seeking to off load an almighty guilt. This Architect represents a change in attitude, he may not feel comfortable or particularly loyal to the RIBA, he may have even been sneered at by his brethren.... but in my opinion he has the right idea believe it or not.

For your information, a collection of Architects is called a Curiosity. A collection of Contractors is a Murder [joking!] and a collection of Engineers should be called an Entourage... until we get our acts together that is.

Thanks for reading.


Engine[er]

I selected this post to be featured on my blog’s page at Engineering Blogs.

Engineers and Architects fight back: Part One

Sitting in the Slaughtered Lamb just round the corner from my destination for this evening. A debate organised by Building Futures.

This is an organisation who have come together to create space for open debates upon which questions surrounding the built environment and developments affecting big cities can be chewed over and documented. Great idea.

This evenings debate fundamentally asks the question, what is the future of Architects?'

This caught my eye obviously, but what is it that an Engineer might find interesting about this topic?

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT 'CONTRACTORS' ARE THE ARCHITECTS OF THE FUTURE and ARE TRADITIONAL, INDEPENDENT ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES TO BECOME A THING OF THE PAST?



Team 1 [FOR THE MOTION] Peter Trebilcock – Director for Design @ Balfour Beatty Northern
Chris Boyce – Design Director @ Capita Symonds


Team 2 [AGAINST THE MOTION] Jane Duncan – Director @ Jane Duncan Architects / RIBA Vice President, Practice & Profession
Paul Morrell – Chief Construction Advisor to HM Government


Well apart from a great line up, the two opposing teams of successful Directors, Contractors and Architects are going to pitch arguments for and against the undeniable trend of Architectural services being marginalised and absorbed into the contractors duties. Some would say that the contractors are doing quite a good job of it too...

Tell me Engineers, does this at all sound familiar to you?

I think that you know where it is that I am going with this, and why I am intrigued as to what the arguments for and against this phenomenon may be.

Is this a last stand being mounted by the beleaguered Architects? Or a monumental coup which will set the scene for a creative come back? OR is this a great template strategy for gathering back our Engineering Mojo?

I'm here to find out, and It all starts in 1.5 hours. As long as I can stay sober that is - this beer is going down a bit too well!


Engine[er]