This section explores literature focussed on architectural practices in order to develop an understanding of how they work. It also examines the implications of this understanding in terms of how lessons are, or could be learnt about how buildings adapt over time.
3.4.1. The Structure of Practice
Architectural practices come, like most businesses, in a variety of sizes. Cuff (1991) split practices into certain categories depending on the number of people they employ, which she argues, tends to also set the type of work they do and the management structure they employ. The list below shows the key elements of different sized practices Cuff (1991) identified:
Very large Practices (over 50 people)
Associated with large scale, complex projects
A wider range of services and specialisation
25
Midsized practices are somewhere in between, and exhibit a combination of the above traits.
However, Cuff (1991) argued that those practises typically lower their share of the market due to undefined traits or goals.
The RIBA figures for 2008 suggest that large practices only make up 4% of all architectural practices.
However, it has been suggested that they contribute more than 50% of the projects in the UK (Cuff 1991). This is likely to be due to the “client’s desire for a one stop shop” Cuff (1991, p17). The high number of small and medium-sized practices in the market could be linked to the individualism and creativity taught in architectural schools (Kohler & Hassler 2002). It is possible that the choice to be in a small practice might be linked to this perceived individualism, meaning that architects are more likely to strive to set up their own practices. This could have implications for understanding change in buildings; as with the considerable number of small practices it could be harder to distribute knowledge from practice to practice. Additionally it has also been suggested that, linked to the number of smaller practices, there is a lack of commonality in terms of design knowledge within the architectural profession (Heylighen et al. 2007b). Although the RIBA plan of works (RIBA 2008) gives guidance as to how to design a project, it simply provides guidance as to the stages to go through (Chappell & Willis 2013). This suggests that what an architect might learn at one practice could be completely different to another architect at the same stage in their career at another practice, and that vital lessons about the design of buildings are not shared throughout the architectural community. Clearly there is no current accessible and practice neutral knowledge base throughout the profession. Given the earlier literature findings with regards to education, it is also important to recognise that this knowledge base could have useful learning that could be fed back into the education system. However, it is important to understand the differences between practice and education in order to understand where knowledge can best be disseminated. These differences are explored in the following section.
26
suggest that there is a need to learn about design and complex social interactions within architectural education. Gunn (2007) also argues that the social interaction of design decisions is very important to learn. It could however be argued that although architectural education lacks contact with the construction professionals; this actually reflects practice, Lawson (2005). Thus, showing that architecture can be designed in isolation currently, this could lead to less lessons being learnt about the holistic process.
Perhaps an answer as to why architectural education and practice are different lies in the fact that, within architectural education, it is suggested that students are encouraged not to mimic the real world (Wang 2010, UIA 2005). This is argued to serve a very important creative and exploratory purpose; if they were not taught this within education, architects would be less creative in practice (Till 2012, Wang 2010, UIA 2005). This suggests that architectural education is a phase where the architect can learn to be creative with their designs, whereas when they are in practice they are very unlikely to be designing their own buildings straight away and thus, will not necessarily be using this creativity, initially at least.
The above arguments seem to suggest that there is a link missing between education and practice.
Whether it is intentional or not, combined with the suggestion of a lack of commonality in the industry itself (Heylighen et al. 2007a), it is possible to see how hard it might be to implement any sort of fundamental feedback mechanism or develop a common understanding of change. It is clear that architectural education must be used as a time to expand creative knowledge; however, it could be argued that if this incorporated an understanding of change, then this could lead to a greater understanding as to how buildings change over time, hence, have the potential to improve future design decisions. This is particularly likely if this aspect could match the underlying problem solving nature of the education as implied by UIA (2005), as this might generate creative solutions to current adaptability issues, given the heavy focus on creativity within education (Chappell & Willis 2013).
27
important in order to inform how best to approach improving design decisions.
3.5.1. Project Organisation
A fundamental problem with design practices is the setting up of new teams for each project. As Macmillan et al. (2002) argues that the concept stage is often disorganized and poorly structured as a new team comes together for perhaps the first time. Clearly a lack of cohesiveness in the team involved in this stage could have a significant impact on the quality of the work undertaken. As with the creation of any new team, there is going to be a period of getting used to each other (Cohen et al. 2005). The lack of team working capabilities could be linked to the fact that education focuses on free form architecture, where aesthetics and individualism take precedence (Wong 2010, Cuff 1984).
This could also be affected by architectural education’s inability to replicate the complex social interactions as suggested in section 3.4.2.
3.5.2. Lack of Authority
Another issue in the current market place is the waning authority that an architect has over their projects (Chappell & Willis 2013). This statement is supported by Buntrock (2002) who argues that
“the architectural profession’s emphasis on aesthetic and programmatic issues over technical strengths has caused architects to lose authority in the market place.” This suggests that architects are simply used to design the ‘look’ of the building and then the project itself is managed externally.
This is backed up by Kieran & Timberlake (2004) who argue that current construction projects and procurement routes tend to exclude the architect from participation in the “means and methods” of making, which turns architects into stylists.
This lack of authority could mean that once the building look is designed, the architect is likely to have a reduced role, which could significantly reduce the drive for them to learn from the building.
This lack of authority has problems, including conflicting goals between clients and architects. It is suggested that an architect often has to suppress creative resources in order to satisfy the clients brief, meaning that architects sometimes have little influence over the design and simply have to
28
that the architect has lost control as it is the builder who now decides how the building will be assembled which will affect the form (Kieran & Timberlake 2004).
However, Lawson (2005) argues that clients should be seen as a creative partner, and that good communication could improve an architect’s authority, however, current procurement route would have to enable this. This suggests that architects could work with clients to inform them of improved design strategies, if current procurement routes didn’t hamper communication between the client and architect.
3.5.3. Lack of Integration
A related problem within the construction industry is the lack of integration between different professions. This lack of integration is particularly problematic for improving adaptability, as Leaman et al. (1998) argue “commercial and professional pressures have tended to divide and rule so that integration between architects and engineers can be minimal sometimes, even in so called
‘integrated’ design practices. Parts of the design can easily fall in the gaps between areas of professional responsibility (no-one ‘owns’ the problem).” If no-one ‘owns’ the problem, it is very unlikely that anyone is going to take responsibility for it, which is always going to equate to further problems (Kumaraswamy 2014, Hartenberger et al. 2013).
3.5.4. Lack of Learning from Past Projects
A recurring theme within the literature is the industry’s lack of ability to learn from past projects, as suggested by Heylighen et al. (2007a), Heylighen et al. (2007b) and Bordass & Leaman (2005a).
When observing architecture firms, Bordass & Leaman (2005a) state that they believe that architects frequently fail to learn straightforward lessons from completed projects and end up repeating mistakes that could easily be avoided. It is argued that architects and the building industry in general have a tendency to disregard the past (Heylighen et al. 2007b). In addition, Duffy (1990, p18) states that “the whole industry is obsessed with finishing the job: the cameras flash, the tape is cut, the mayor leaves, and the caravan moves on to the next project. Records are utterly synchronic: a page of photographs and plans, a specification - nothing about the ongoing reality of building use”.
29
respond to the challenges of designing in the current day, including how architects learn about their buildings. Interestingly, the government has recently mandated some policies targeted to achieve exactly this; these are explored in the following section.