12 comments By
The real irony is we lost our fee scales because of a percieved monopoly! Ho Ho Ho! A principal Architect now averaging £70 per hour is less than an articled clerk ie recent graduate in the legal industry where their principals are commanding £235/hour billed in 6 minute increments!!
Protection of Function? That's fine for gas fitters, arboreoculturists, electricians, ecological consultants, bat and badger specialists, acousticians, transport engineers et al, ie everyone else associated with Planning Applications for the various reports now necessary for validation, but any old Charlie with a fag packet or CAD package can design the building itself! We've students unable to gain vital training experience and post grads unable to find work whilst at my own last survey of the weekly lists around my locality over 80% of applications are made NY those without qualification or advanced training in design. I am ashamed i was not able to employ a student this year and that is without having drawn from my business personally for over 12 months! No wonder most of the UK is blighted with 'Mr Potato Head' architecture!
Apparently it's not a 'competition for all' as you have to be a subscriber in order to access the details! :-(
I was saddened to read of the death of Steven; he and I shared studio space in my first job some 20 years ago. His enthusiasm for our vocation was apparent in everything he turned his hand to with vibrancy and flair. He took interest in and gave encouragement to my own professional progress becoming both a mentor and a friend; his encouragement has surely helped shape my own career.
His wit and delight will live on in the memories we hold of him.
I thought this was an interesting accusation by Gove when you compare the salary and benefits he creams off the taxpayer compared to the average Architect's remuneration: Govt Minister circa three to four times Architect...and then there is his expenses gravy train...
When an Architect gets their facts wrong they can find their PI being called upon; what news from Gove since?
It would seem that TCPA Chief Planner Hugh Ellis has missed the point somewhat. As I understand the proposal it is the principle of change of use that is being discussed; any permitted development resulting that had an effect on the exterior of the building, circulation, access, extension of, parking at, amenity for etc etc would still need an Application to be made to regularise such items through the normal channels...or do I have it completely wrong?
Aslo, quite a bold and concerning statement from Hugh, someone in a position where we would expect to find better informed opinion, when he says "...if we don't need Planning Applications we don't need Architects..."as if that's all we add!
The first comment from Barry Reid says it all really!
Standardisation worked to a degree for schemes such as CLASP or the Victorian Board system, but Mr Gove fails to appreciate aspects of site specifics and context; when dealing with delapidation the often necessary adaptation of standardisation is better dealt with by a clean sheet of paper; how could standardisation successfully cope with the two examples I give? His preoccupation with retailers misses the point that their various attempts at standardised formats over the decades blight most of our towns with meaningless pastiche. Only when forced to do so, in towns like Ludlow, can certain retailers be seen cut the Architectural mustard.
Sorry Ruth, but that reads like a weak response on our behalfs.
Congratulations Mr Spiller for striving to maintain standards.This is symptomatic of the unsustainable numbers now at higher education!
More detail would be useful here; it reads as if works on site progressed without the Architect's involvement, a common situation. Architect called in by Client when things start to go awry, again, a common situation. Even if Architect had been involved, 'supervision' of the works would be beyond their remit. Architect could however be accused of irregular inspection and reporting had they been engaged to do so. Did Architect take on role of Adjudicator? Had Client issued instructions direct to builder? I don't doubt ARB has fulfilled it's role, maybe it's the reporting which is lacking?
ARB exists to 'clean up our act' as suggested by earlier respondent, the reality is the unregulated who purport to fulfil our function create issues and 'poor blighters' like this every day without any recourse for the Client except for expensive litigation. Yet the public at large are oblivious to the role, the benefit and the value of using an Architect. They hear more about the failures than the successes. RIBA Regional Awards and Stirling Prize advertise generally large scale predominantly public projects and divorces us further from Clients such as this 'victim'.
The simple fact is once you remove the unnecessary sales gimics of separate utility, ensuite, conservatory etc, small can be far more than adequate, not for family life or even long term living, but as that first step onto the property ladder...
Thomas, well voiced, but you must understand by now that Paul does not engage in bilateral debate or recognise it's value: he is right, everyone else is wrong. (his opinion, not mine)
The reality is there is desperate need for some small scale housing, studio house, boutique house, call it what you will. Not affordable, but designed and built for affordability; for the young professional or newlywed first time buyers, to create half a rung up in the massive void that exists at the bottom of the market. We have recently designed such, self contained, with external amenity and off road parking at 600 sq ft; our Client aspires to build them for £60k to create a product for the FTB (average age now 37, requiring 95% national average wage as deposit to even consider current stock!) This is where we as Architects need to lead. Those who are worried about upsetting house holders are likely already sold out to them! My own experience of working with the housebuilder is estate planning using their already designed and well used standard house types; they are a rising tide of flood in the country as bad as concrete block paving!
Haven't they also had issues about paying 'interns' also? Will it be nil fee bidding next?