Add a Comment

Comment by phillip newmarch on September 20, 2011 at 23:18

I think we have a kind of 'mindset' problem here.  To talk of architecture as a 'registered profession' gives us a clue.

For the general public, the fact that it is 'registered' is a matter of absolutely no consequence at all.  Very few people are actually interested in "Architecture" the way architects see it.  Most are extremely conservative in their ideas about it - they have seen some buildings they like, and some they don't.  And if they come to actually building something, they will want one that is as close as possible to the ones they 'like'.  They like them because they feel they understand them, and they don't want to spend money getting into stuff they don't understand.  So the architect ends up like a kind of shop-assistant, whose job is to now what colours and sizes are available.  And of course, they need to be able to offer the latest 'fashion features'!

Also, clients have changed over the years.  There are no 'Brown and Sons' who want to build a shop on High St. There's Joe Average who wants an extra bedroom but can't really afford it,  Mr I M Posh who wants a suitable residence to show off his Very Important Status,  and then huge megalithic chains who build vast tracts simply for the sake of the investment returns, without having any interest at all in fancy stuff like 'environment' and the like.

Now Joe will just go straight to the cheapest builder.  Mr Posh will pay any amount for something swanky as long as the price-tag shows. If it doesn't show, he will try to avoid paying because that would spoil his 'poshness'.

The mega-clients make their money skinning anything they can.  And they are good at that, so they make sure that their architect does exactly what they tell him, and then make sure that he carries ALL the liability.  If he doesn't like their terms they just find another sucker who can't read the fine print.  

At the end of the day, an architect who manages to find a client who actually wants him to really DESIGN something, he is so pleased and exited that he forgets all about the account!

Professions come and go, and change to suit the circumstances all the time.  Architects have to learn that their 'Utopia's do not exist, and that the world is not going to change to suit them simply because they think it's good idea.  Trying to entrench outdated ideas of 'expertise' in the law, so that the public is forced to deal with them, is quite simply a public relations disaster.  No single architect can ever hope to be expert in everything.  Unless they are prepared to find a more co-operative way of dealing with other disciplines (and that means not necessarily being top-dog), they are going to die out like wheelwrights. And no one will shed a tear.

As Norman says, the larger parts of the architectural picture are defined by town-planning rules.  These in turn, are embedded in a rather impenetrable forest of vested interests.  We need to find a way into that.  There isn't much point in trying to design eco-friendly houses that can only be reached by 4x4.

 

Comment by Gerd Bolt on September 20, 2011 at 17:39

Well said, Schalk, and to all colleagues: Will we ever get any further along than to bemoan our lot? I think that "most architects" are waiting for someone to "do something about this". To all architects I have this to say: (do a small test). Get hold of the new SANS 10400 forms (SANS 10400-A:2010) and measure yourself against the requirements to be certified by a "competent person" (Schedule A and Schedule B). Then go to Form 2 and study the Application for Acceptance as an Approved Competent Person [in terms of Regulation A19]. Then go to Form 3: Declaration by a Competent Person appointed to design a component or an element of a System. After careful consideration of the information required to be provided under all the above headings, ask yourself if this for you as architect, or maybe that someone else will take care of all this. Then ask yourself if any of this is familiar and where SANS 10400-XA and SANS 204 fit in. Then realise that if you were the architect you think you are, all this is not daunting. If, however, you do not recognise any of the above and have no clue what I am talking about (or maybe you have but wish it is just a bad dream) and its is all very daunting [?] - please embark with huge effort to familiarise yourself with the new laws, the ones regulating the Build Environment + the Consumer Protection Act + OHS Act. DO NOT do nothing and fade further away in the unrecognisable jumble of "professions" involved in all of this. BE an architect, lead your team by expert knowledge, gain the respect of the Project Team by putting your foot down in project meetings, have the guts to precisely point out [to "the others"] the flaws in the making of buildings. Gain the respect of your Client "with the necessary knowledge and integrity" [Schalk van der Merwe]. After all, you carry the can, and it is your obligation to inform your Client about all matters pertaining to his liability as a building owner and/or developer. And while we are at it: realise that all the information (including "live" electronic data) so diligently dished out FOR FREE to PM's, Engineers and a host of "others" forms a huge basis for whatever they get paid for. Please stop moaning. Anybody out there who hasn't seen the SANS 10400-A Forms, go to http://www.sabs.co.za/index.php?page=standardsforms and get them for free.

Comment by Norman Gibson on September 20, 2011 at 16:55

Schalk - You have my support for the essential position that you take. How about we push this even further.

Why are the basic tenets of Town Planning Regulations not contested by architects, these regulations actually determine what the building is going to be and almost all of these regulations are pro the mechanistic issues and anti the human beings issues ie why does a block of flats alongside a railway or bus route have to have parking at slightly more square meters per unit than the unit itself, and then big roads to service the vehicles, resulting in gravestone buildings in a concrete parking yard alongside a railway line. Why is the Permissible Floor Area calculated to the outside face of the external wall, where the thinnest wall possible is required to give the developer the most serviced square meters of salable product, resulting in the most thermally inefficient external skin and minimal possibility for arcades or livable semi-outdoors spaces as the connector between citizens and civic space. Why the obsession with side spaces for light when tall buildings block out the sunlight of their neighbours. Why is there no consideration of north orientation for buildings on sites that have narrow north facing aspects. Why is there as more city surface area allocated for vehicles than for walking playing people.  

I suspect that these are the things that have been the primary drivers of the design process these past 40 or 50 years and that the resultant inhuman building and urban spaces are the main reason that our profession is in retreat. We are no longer seen to be the source of beautiful harmonious human scale and joyous places for people. We no longer believe that designing for timeless beauty is our most important role and so we are left scrapping over the stuff that would have been important if beauty were there but that can only be important for the making of money or egoistic status statements. .......... Perhaps a new age of costly energy will re-focus human beings on better nature integrated cradle to cradle environments for caring human communities in bio-diverse eco-systems where quality of being is the primary measure of personal and communal success. Whoooowee roll on the deep green revolution!!

Comment by Anton Siebrits on September 20, 2011 at 15:26

I can agree that speculative work attracts a degree of risk for all parties, however the primary risk during the feasibility and design stage, should not be with the architect. As long as architectural professionals do not fully appreciate the financial imperatives and time value of money, they will always sell themselves short. Please consider this, 'To what extent am I prepared to work for free and finance my client, in the 'hope' of getting the job off the ground. How will the clients value my service in future if I am prepared to work for free? Therein lies the rub...

Comment by Lourens Miller on September 20, 2011 at 15:11

I can't Agree more.However if you do not do risk work you don't work.our institute or body that YOU HAVE TO BELONG to is an absolute joke.(I have great issue here and will leave that discussion till I am answered by SACAP)They cant even control there own how are they going to enforce there Ideologies nation wide.Green building is a money making racket of note and the documentation is sadly lacking.Developer are skimming the market as they do not put there hand in the pocket but collect the biggest chunk of the fee. It is time for the professionals to toy-toy and stand firm.We are dictated to from the design thru to the finance and then expected to carry the can.

Comment by Anton Siebrits on September 20, 2011 at 12:03

The prevailing culture of 'risk work' being considered as the norm is also a significant factor that contributes to the devalued perception of our professional service. We should not be co-financing the fees on a project, the clients and developers should be responsible for financing. Architects should maintain their professional integrity by clearly identitify their scope of work, professional responsibilies and fee value to clients before commencement of work, and not allow themselves to be 'sucked into' risk based work.

 

Comment by Louis Phillips on September 20, 2011 at 11:08

You got this spot on, I cannot agree more! Our Institutes can certainly play a bigger role in ensuring our industry is regulated and controlled much better than it is currently. The believe the new SANS documents and especially the XA document on Energy efficiency in buildings will certainly put pressure on clients to ensure our service and scope of work is followed through in the Principal agent duties.

Comment by John Huneberg on September 20, 2011 at 10:55

The comments made are certainly valid, but the reality is far more complex.

We as a profession do not understand marketing and sales, the other host of movers and shakers in the industry do understand this and they target client bodies and developers and convince them of their skills in the building process.

The various Councils and Institutes(through their decisions and indecision)have over the years allowed the profession to become what it is today.

We need as a profession to stand together and market Professional Architects to the public.