The ramblings of a local Architect

What should you look for from your Architect (apart from good design skills)?

2011-06-20T11:14:00.000+01:00

I realised today that it been a good few months since I last sat down and gave you the benefit of my 'wisdom'!

In some respects this is a good sign, work has been busy and, thus, my time has been fully occupied moving house whilst juggling the twin demands of being the boss of an increasingly busy practice and being a Dad to two increasingly demanding children. On the other hand, I have a head full of 'stuff' that needs to get out!

One thing that we have noticed in recent months is the wide variety of questions we are being asked when quoting, many of which are completely irrelevant and cannot be of any realistic help when the (prospective) Client is considering who to appoint to deliver their project. In fact, we are often NOT asked the three or four questions that I WOULD ask if I were in their shoes.

So what should you be asking? Here are my suggestions(in no particular order of importance). Your thoughts and comments would, as ever, be appreciated:

1. What are you professional qualifications and/or memberships?

2. Do you carry Professional Indemnity Insurance, if so what's the limit of any one claim?

3. Would you be actually working on my project yourself or would other people in your office actually be doing the work, if so, what are their qualifications and how will you be checking their work?

4. Will your quote break down what you have to do into manageable and clearly explained stages so that, if I decide to stop, I know how much I owe you as well as when you will be invoicing me?

5. Do you have any Clients I can speak to or completed projects I can visit that are similar to my project?

I plan to do a small series of blogs addressing why I think that these are the important questions to ask and expanding upon some of the important things that you should look out for in the answers and why - so watch this space!

Alternatively, you could give us a ring on 01279 444 904 and ask me my own questions and see how I answer them in real life - but only if you have a real project to accompany them!

Why should I ask about my Architect's insurance?

2011-06-17T12:42:00.023+01:00

This is the second part of a short series that is trying to give some guidance about the questions you should ask your 'architect' before entrusting them with your most valuable asset - your property!

My introduction to the series can be read here and the first post in the series, dealing with making sure your consultant is properly qualified, can be read here.

So, why should you worry yourself about your consultant's insurance cover - after all they're only doing some drawings aren't they!

Firstly, let explain what Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) is:

Professional Indemnity insurance is held by many different types of professional to cover them for claims for loss or damage made by a client or third party should they, the professional, make mistakes or are found to have been negligent in some or all of the services they provided.

Registered Architects are required to carry PII as a prerequisite to being registered and must keep up that insurance for a minimum of 12 years after they cease practicing. This is designed to protect you, the client, against the worst case scenario!

So what might go wrong?

Honestly - it's very unlikely that anything will wrong but, in the last few years, we have regularly been contacted by people who have been given incorrect advice by unqualified 'designers' which has led to them building extensions or making alterations to their property without the necessary permissions.

Legislation around building works has become more and more complex over the past few decades. Most projects will need Planning and Building Regulations Approval - both of which areas are constantly changing, in addition you may also need Covenants Approval and/or a Party Wall Award! If your 'consultant' gives you incorrect advice and you don't have all the necessary permissions you might have to undo the work that has been undertaken - a costly experience!

If your 'consultant' or 'designer' does not carry PII, or is reluctant to discuss this matter with you, it should set off alarm bells! It may be an indicator that they are not registered with an appropriate professional body such as the ARB, RIBA, RICS or CIAT.

The level of cover carried should be appropriate for the size of project. Most policies are 'each and every claim' which means that each (unlinked) claim made is dealt with on it's own merits so it is not always necessary to look for cover that exceeds your budget - most architects will ensure that they carry sufficient cover for the type of work they undertake.

So some pointers to conclude:

1. It is very unlikely that you will ever need to make a claim on a reputable, properly qualified, consultant.

2. All qualified, registered, consultants will carry PII and be happy to talk to you about the level of cover carried.

3. Most unqualified 'designers' won't carry PII.

Most importantly:

4. PII is carried to protect YOU!

Asking your consultant for details of their PII cover, at a very basic level, is a great indicator of wether your consultant is truly professional whose advice you can rely on or simply someone doing pretty drawings!

Don't forget - your property is your most valuable asset - can you afford to take the risk of using anyone other than a properly qualified, insured, registered professional?

Why should I ask about my architects qualifications and professional memberships?

2011-05-24T11:47:00.011+01:00

This is part one of a small series of posts that all stem from a post a couple of days ago (which you can read here) which suggests five keys questions you should ask when looking for an Architect.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation and then ask you a question:

The scenario: You have been fortunate enough to have been given (or to have bought) a high end sportscar (you can visualise whatever you like at this point). Your car now needs a service and some minor but essential repairs and you would also like a couple of added extras!

The question: do you use the authorised dealer or 'Big Jim' under the arches because he's a fraction of the cost?

Now, I am not fortunate enough to own a high end sportscar (one day *sigh*) but I suspect that whilst 'Big Jim' is cheaper most people would opt to use someone who works one their model of sportscar on a regular basis and knows what they are doing, after all, it's an expensive piece of kit!!!

So, let's look at that scenario again:

You want to do some work on your house (your most expensive asset) do you go to 'Really nice Russ' who works out of his garage conversion or someone who is a qualified professional but is likely to be more expensive?

I think that, when considering any alterations to your property, you should make sure that the person or company you decide to use are suitably qualified and experienced!

That's not to say that you should always use an architect because they may not have the relevant skills for your project! Most good architects will tell you, up front, if you really require their services and, if you don't, should be able to point you in the right direction.

Regardless of which 'brand' of consultant you require, the fact remains that the membership of a relevant professional body gives you some confidence that they are 'up to the job'.

For Architects you should visit the ARB website and check that they are actually Architects (it's an offence to pass yourself off as an Architect if you are not registered with the ARB).

For Surveyors and Structural Engineers, the RICS is a great starting point.

'Architectural Technician' is often a term used by unqualified designers but you can check with the CIAT to see if they are actually technicians or simply unqualified 'designers'.

Finally, a word of warning! There is no such thing as an 'Architectural Designer' - if your consultant says that this is what they are dig a bit deeper, after all you wouldn't trust 'Big Jim' with your Bugatti, why trust 'really nice Russ' with your Home?

Does Michael Gove have a point?

2011-02-08T23:46:00.158Z

If you read the same type of magazines that I do, you'll know that the Coalition Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has raised the blood pressure of "the architectural community" with some apparently ill considered and uneducated comments about the role (and cost) of Architects within the education sector. At the risk of being lynched by my fellow professionals I have been wondering whether Mr Gove does actually have a valid argument!

Firstly, lets actually consider what he said:

Prior to his ministerial appointment in the new coalition government Mr Gove said Architects were ‘creaming off cash’ under the £55 million BSF programme.

Then, on 2nd June, in the House of Commons and during a debate Mr Gove stated that:

"...I know that Building Schools for the Future makes a distinguished contribution to ensuring that we renovate and refurbish the schools estate, but I have concerns that under my predecessor the programme was not allocating resources to the front line in the most efficient way. It is critical that we ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy...."

Architects Journal

More recently, following a question and answer session at a Free Schools conference on 29th January he said:

“We won’t be getting Richard Rogers to design your school, we won’t be getting any ‘Award winning architects’ to design it, because no-one in this room is here to make architects richer.”

BDonline (Under Creative Commons License: Attribution)

It's interesting to note that the question he was answering was not reported and so his answer could well be out of context, however, on the face of it, the subsequent "outrage" amongst certain quarters appears to be fully justified but is he wrong?

To be clear (before I embark on professional suicide) I am a strong advocate of the argument that Architects can only add value to any project and believe that we, as a profession, have an incredibly important role in lifting the aspiration of students by providing them with buildings that are designed to be fit for purpose and of a higher quality than those that have gone before.

Having said that, I think that Michael Gove is, understandably, upset at how the BSF programme appears to have delivered great value for everyone apart from the Taxpayer. What he fails to understand is that this is not the fault of Architects!!!

It is widely recognised that the BSF procurement process was pretty rubbish (to put it nicely) and that millions were wasted before contracts were even entered into but did we, as a profession, "cream of cash" from the BSF programme?

I don't believe so, however, it is probably accurate to say that the architects involved in BSF were not the most 'cost effective' firms available! In my opinion, the Labour Government was overly obsessed with "starchitecture" as opposed to solid design - the bling over the practical!

I know many architects who have successfully completed a wide variety of education sector projects but who could never get close to a BSF project because they didn't have the 'reputation' in this sector. If the fees charged within the BSF programme were high it is probably simply a reflection of the calibre and profile of the architects appointed!

Taking Mr Gove's statement of June 2010, can we really argue with the sentiment that taxpayers’ money should be spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy...."?

Personally, I can't argue with the sentiment of his statement and think that maybe we, as a profession, are being overly sensitive because of his previous statement(s).

The key question for me is how do we ensure that investment in our educational building stock does not compromise investment in the front line? Whilst architects clearly add value, do we always have to use the most expensive firms and build architectural jewels every time or can a more pragmatic and cost effective solution be found?

Finally, Mr Gove had a dig at Richard Rogers and 'award winning architects', predictably, Mr Rogers threw his rattle out of the pram as did a number of other 'leading lights' in our profession - what a surprise!

Is it a crime to suggest that Richard Rogers and his ilk are not the only people that are capable of designing quality schools buildings? I hope not because if it is then I'll be drummed out of the profession before I get chance to pay my 2012 subs!

In my opinion, the obsession with 'starchitects' has caused great damage to us as a profession. Architects are assumed to be raking it in whilst the majority of us struggle to earn a decent living. Mr Gove can, in my opinion, be forgiven for not understanding that you don't have to use Richard Rogers to get good design BUT he shouldn't ignore the valuable contribution that architects make to public building projects.

If the Education Secretary wants to reduce the proportion of school building budgets that get spent on fees then he needs to look at current procurement practices that exclude all bar the largest firms. It's bizarre that, as a practice, we can work on £2million plus design and build schools projects as part of a contractor's design team but can't win a similar sized project in our own right! Relaxing the, frankly draconian, financial and PII minimum requirements will widen the range of practices that can bid for projects and will encourage smaller architectural companies with a track record in education to bring their skills to the table.

If the Education Secretary wants to reduce the overall cost of rebuilding our crumbling schools then he needs to be realistic about how grand he wants new schools building to be. Does every new school have to be an all singing all dancing modern masterpiece or is there scope for them to be more pragmatic exercises in good design?

The Education Secretary must not, however, lose sight of the fact that schools are hugely complex buildings that can't be treated with a "one soloution fits all" approach. Architects are invaluable in assessing and delivering designs that suit the particular needs and requirements of individual clients, regardless of the sector and, if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, we must be allowed to bring our expertise and knowledge to the table.

So, to conclude:

Did the profession 'cream off cash' in BSF? No but the fees were probably higher than they might have been because the Government wanted 'starchitecture' as opposed to good design.

Is it critical that we ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy? Absoloutely but you can't avoid paying fees for the professionals you need to deliver quality schools buildings for the future!

Does every school need to be designed by Richard Rogers etc? No, in fact having a wider range of architects involved in the schools programme can only benefit both the profession and the taxpayer!

Does Michael Gove have a point? Yes, however his statements before and after show a lack of understanding of the complexity of designing a school and that not all architects are Richard Rogers or charge fees like Richard Rogers but that we CAN deliver quality design when allowed to!

What Michael Gove needs to understand is that Architects are part of the solution (not the problem) but if we continue to get offended by attacks on 'starchitects' and fail to educate our Education Minister about the valuable and irreplacable skills we have as a wider profession we will be stereotyped, sidelined and labelled as an expensive luxury that the country can't afford at this time!

Local involvement in Planning - will it really work?

2010-12-16T18:36:00.001Z

As some of you may have spotted in the national press, the Coalition Government is pushing forward with a raft of proposals to transfer power away from Whitehall and into the hands of "local people".

One such proposed reform was announced last Monday (6th December) when

"Radical new planning reforms were announced [today] to hand powers down from Whitehall bureaucrats and down from Town Hall officials to communities so local people shape the character of the very neighbourhood in which they live"

(Department of Communities and Local Government press release).

The proposals are intended to give "Local People" more involvement in drawing up the framework within which Planning Applications are considered and, in some cases, will allow those communities to grant permission for development without the requirement for a Planning Application to the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

On the face of it these proposals sound great but, if the intention is to increase local involvement in the planning process, reduce centralised costs and promote development (through the use of financial "carrots"), will it actually achieve what it sets out to?

Let us consider, first, how the current system engages with "Local People" and the strengths and weaknesses of the system:

Development of Local Plans:

Each LPA is currently required to develop a Local Development Framework (LDF) which is the name of the new spatial planning system that was introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to replace district-level Local Plans. LDFs are made up of a collection of Local Development Documents (LDDs) which, taken as a whole, outline the spatial planning strategy for a local area.

In shaping the LDF, each LPA is required to carry out extensive consultation at regular stages with the local community and other interested parties (such as Architects who regularly submit applications to the LPA).

In my experience very few "normal" people take part in this consultation. on the whole responses are received from Community Groups (such as Civic Societies) - who see themselves as the self-appointed guardians of particular patches, professionals - who have to deal with the system every day (such as Architects, planners etc) and those who have vested interests in promoting development (such as developers).

Occasionally, the LPA will produce travelling displays that will be erected at Town Shows or in shopping centres to take the consultation process out to the community but this often produces relatively mundane responses - "that's pretty" or "we need more parking"!

The unfortunate truth is that most "normal" people don't have the skills to be able to understand the process of developing planning frameworks and the sheer complexity of balancing the differing pressures and long term implications that are implicit within such strategic documents - they focus instead on the things that affect them and their quality of life.

The Application Process:

It has long been established that planning applications are publicised by the LPA when received. Neighbours and surrounding houses who might be affected by proposals submitted for planning are notified both in writing and by the posting of a brightly coloured notice fixed at the boundary of the application site for a minimum of 21 days.

Representations made by the public are all recorded and, if more than two are received, an application must be heard by a Planning Committee before it can be granted permission. At committee stage "local people" can speak their piece in front of the committee members (who are all elected councillors) and the applicant has the opportunity to defend their proposals.

The sad reality is that, again, most people are only interested in what affects them directly (normally in a negative way) and very rarely attend these important meetings out of a sense of civic duty or to support applications that they feel would be beneficial to their area or town.

This week I had personal experience of one Planning Committee meeting and was also interested to follow the tweets of Andrew Johnson who is Leader of Harlow Council as he attended a very different Planning Committee in Harlow (as a spectator).

On behalf of a Client I attended a meeting of the London Borough of Redbridge Regional Planning Committee to speak in favour of an application for which I was the agent. the application was for the extension to a childcare nursery and had been recommended for approval by officers. Having ensured that I arrived some fifteen minutes early I was somewhat surprised to find that, when the meeting started, I was the only member of the public apart from one other applicant!

Andrew, on the other hand, was tweeting regularly from a Planning Committee meeting in Harlow that was considering, amongst other non-contentious applications, two items that had stirred up considerable local public emotion. As a result his meeting was packed to the rafters with opponents of the applications in question.

So will an agenda of "increased localism" result in an improved planning system with lowered centralised costs and an increase in development?

I remain to be convinced!

Firstly, mechanisms already exist that allow certain development to take place without the need for a planning application. This mechanism is called Permitted Development (PD) and it is a consistent set of rules that apply nationally and have been structured to ensure that any developments undertaken under this "relaxation" of the normal procedures are modest and neighbour friendly. Unless neighbourhood plans are going to allow development in excess of that allowed under PD they will simply be ignored in favour of the PD limits.

If local neighbourhood groups are to be allowed to approve schemes that go beyond PD limits, thus cutting cost centrally within LPAs, what training are they going to be given to enable them to consider the wider implications of their decisions and what safeguards are going to be put in place to ensure that decisions are made on the merits of the scheme as opposed to how big the brown envelope is?

The obvious route for enabling this is to use the existing Parish Council structure - allowing their Planning Committees to make decisions whereas now they can only comment on applications to the LPA. The fundamental problem with this approach is that almost every Parish Council I have had the "joy" of coming into contact with have been fundamentally against development on their patch and most of them are dominated by one or two individuals who drive through their particular agenda.

Secondly, if the aim is to engage "local people" in the town planning process then the existing process is not actually broken, opportunities exist throughout the life of an application for the public to comment, force an application to committee and then speak up in a public meeting. even in the context of the LPA developing strategic plans the public have every opportunity to make their comments known and to influence how a town is developed in the longer term.

In summary, the current system is not broken in the way that those with limited knowledge of the system think. Most decisions are taken by professional planning officers who test an application against planning policy that has been developed by other professionals who have taken into consideration those representations that have been made. The Planning Committee process is, on the face of it, a robust, democratic process and gives those who are interested the opportunity to participate in the planning process.

The fact that people only wish to get involved if an application affects them directly and they percieve that it will have a negative impact can not be blamed on the system!

Is the current system perfect? Of course not!

As someone who submits Planning Applications to a variety of LPAs every month, I know all too well how the system has become more drawn out, more bureaucratic and more costly over the past five years. I also know how poor the training and knowledge of some of those involved in the process can be.

Once upon a time a Planning Application simply consisted of drawings (plans, sections and elevations - proposed and exisiting) and an application form. Nowadays a valid application may consist of the drawings, application form, design and access statements, ground contamination surveys, sustainability reports, bat surveys, tree surveys, tree protection plans, lifetime homes checklists and any number of other "local requirements". All of these take time to prepare and, I guess, involve planning officers having to wade through reams of paperwork - all of this before the aesthetic impact of a proposal is considered!

I have learnt that if you want to reduce costs you reduce paperwork. The faster someone can process something the cheaper it is!

In addition the system is also suffering from a lack of appropriate training. Councillors and officers alike have to take into account any number of, often, conflicting issues when making their decisions and I am always shocked at how poorly informed Councillors are on issues of design and urban planning. Decisions made at committee stage are all too often preceded by ill-informed, inaccurate debate where incorrect statements by a councillor of an applicants case or scheme can't be corrected by the applicant and can often colour subsequent discussions and thus the decision.

To give you an example, my application to Redbridge was refused (I'm not bitter - we'll win on appeal) because of a lack of on-site parking. The councillors decided that, despite of the evidence provided to them (which they clearly hadn't read) there was going to be a significant increase in vehicular movements. Despite having clearly set out how the nursery was operating (sessions in the morning and afternoon) and stating clearly that the demand would only be limited to very short periods of time, the councillor decided to base their decision on the opinion of a member who "had done the whole nursery thing 15 years ago and everyone drives" - the fact that the nursery funding structure has completely changed since then which has completely changed the profile of the "average" client was completely ignored - his incorrect statement was taken as fact despite the evidence contained in our submission!

To be fair, Harlow Council's Planning Committee this week made some very difficult decisions - one of which was to approve an application despite significant public disquiet - but they are supported by an increasingly well equipped Development Control Team and they are prepared to listen to their officers opinions and advice - something Redbridge did not!

So what's the solution?

If I were Mr Pickles I would:

1. Scrap the plans for local neighbourhood plans and instead invest the money in establishing a programme that encourages people to recognise that it is a civic duty to be interested in the planning process and that attending a planning committee meeting can give them the opportunity to support what they see as positive applications as well as objecting to the applications that they dislike.

2. Review the rules for speaking at planning committee meetings so that it becomes easier for people to speak (at present you have to give at least 24 hours notice of your intention to speak) and for applicants to correct incorrect statements - there needs to be more dialogue with the public.

3. Spend the next month talking to people like me - small to medium practitioners who have very little influence in shaping Government policy but bear the brunt of its implications and asking our opinion about where the system fails the public;

4. Review the requirements for supporting documents in the Planning Application system - perhaps make it such that if an application is being lodged by a member of a recognised proffessional institute (RIBA, ARB, RICS, CIAT etc) then the requirements for some documents that relate to quality of design can be dropped in recognition of their proffessional training;

5. Invest money in specific training for councillors on Planning Law, Design and Urban design so that they are equipped for their role on planning committees - perhaps such training should be a prerequisite for membership of a planning committee?

So, Mr Pickles, if you get to read this blog entry - feel free to ring me or DM me via twitter - I'd love to discuss this with you further before you make a final decision!

For everyone else - normal rules apply, feel free to comment as I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Market Square - a design proposal for rebalancing the Town Centre

2010-10-18T15:06:00.001+01:00

As some of you will know, Alastair Howe, another local architect, and I recently presented proposals to Harlow Renaissance for the regeneration of Market Square in Harlow. As promised, the content to our proposals is reproduced below and we would welcome your comments, thoughts and observations.

Introduction:

Following the withdrawal of Stockland from Harlow Town Centre North Development Proposals in 2010, a group of local Architects, concerned about the stagnation of plans for the reinvigoration of the Town Centre, met with Andrew Bramidge - Chief Executive of Harlow Renaissance, to discuss their concerns, emerging thoughts and ideas for the future of Market Square.

Since that initial meeting, the architects involved have continued to develop their initial thoughts and concepts with the aim of producing a document that provides inspiration for the future direction of Market Square, recognising and addressing its shortcomings whilst building upon the strengths of the original concept, vision and urban fabric.

We hope that this document will help to inform future discussions, not only about the short term future of the Market Square, but also about the reuse and retention of the stronger aspects of Harlow’s Urban fabric and ground breaking master plan

Alastair Howe

Michael Cochrane

October 2010

Market Square:

A Market Square was mooted as part of the original 1947 Plan for Harlow New Town; it was considered that the town would develop as a Market Centre for the Region. A Square more or less orientated as it is now appears in the 1952 Master Plan drawing of the Town Centre. This area of the Town Centre was the first to be completed, with the first shops opening in December 1955. The Market Square was conceived as one of four civic squares in the Town Centre. The first market in the Square took place on 16 May 1956.

Frederick Gibberd recalled that he had “proposed that a market should be the principal space or focus of the north of the Town centre because of my love of the oldest form of English shopping. My grandparents' living room overlooked Nuneaton Market and the scene lit at night by paraffin flames, with its jostling crowd, strident colours and harsh noise has never left me.”

In recent years Market Square has deteriorated significantly. The original trees were removed to provide more space for market stalls, permanent market canopies erected and the surrounding buildings, as well as the surfaces finishes of the public realm itself, have suffered from a lack of regular maintenance.

In addition to these physical symptoms of neglect, Market Square has been significantly affected by the Water Gardens development. The migration of quality retail outlets and footfall to the southern end of the Town Centre has left Market Square somewhat distant and the quality of retail offer has subsequently declined, leading to a lack of animation in what should be a vibrant urban square as Gibberd envisaged.

The market, which should animate the square, has itself declined in quality. This probably has much to do with the wider decline in general of markets as opposed to the particular specialist offerings. When combined with the poorly considered permanent structures, street furniture and paving, this decline in quality has added to the sense of decrepitude, desolation and inactivity in Market Square.

A vicious circle is affecting the Market Square: A perceived lack of quality offer, retail or otherwise, has led to a decline in footfall which, in turn has led to a lack of investment which has affected the perception of the square which further affects the quality of the retail offering.

Recent initiatives to improve Market Square have met with mixed success. The creation of a temporary gallery (below) in 2008 for a variety of artists' projects, clad in a series of designs referencing current and past architectures in the town, was deemed to be very successful in increasing footfall through Market Square and subsequent activities in Market Square have had a similar effect.

The installation of a number of trees in planters in the northern parts of the Town Centre have also been successful in beginning to alleviate the sense of desolation although the lack of maturity and permanence of this greenery is very apparent and their positioning leaves something to be desired in terms of creating a legible urban environment.

Priorities:

We recognise that the first priority for proposals of the nature contained herein has to be to break the vicious circle. For any regeneration project to be successful, be it a new build scheme or an enhancement of the existing urban fabric, steps have to be taken to improve public perception of the area and to drive footfall though. It is only through an increase in footfall that retailers and landlords will be persuaded to recognise the value of Market Square and invest accordingly.

Rather than advocating a “knock it down and start again” approach, we favour an approach that relies on small to medium, targeted, interventions that will act as a catalyst for the release of further, private, investment. To this end, our priorities are as follows:

- Visible activity within Market Square when viewed from the main routes within the Town Centre (e.g. Broad Walk);

- A sense of place and destination within Market Square;

- A quality Public Realm and Urban Environment within Market Square

Obviously the state of the surrounding built environment does need to be addressed. One of Market Square’s great strengths is the quality of the design of the enclosing structures, although this can be hard to see given the clutter in the square and general state of disrepair of these buildings. It is our contention that these buildings, which form a set-piece of period design, could be resuscitated and enhanced to become a valuable asset to the town centre as a whole.

We recognise that the Local Authority does not have control of the surrounding buildings and must, therefore, rely upon the co-operation of the various land owners in achieving a full renovation of the square. However we firmly believe that if the quality of any interventions made by the Council is sufficiently high and if they are seen to be sufficiently permanent, the Council should be well equipped to encourage investment in the built environment that is outside of their control. An improved, vibrant, public realm will attract retailer demand and rental values which could be invested into the built environment, thus reversing the vicious circle.

The strength and clarity of the architecture in Market Square offers the opportunity to refurbish facades and clean up existing features to create a surprisingly contemporary backdrop for the activities that we envisage in the square itself.

Enhancing existing visible activity:

It is not enough to simply create activity within Market Square, the activity generated has to be sufficiently visible to draw people through the Town Centre, towards and into Market Square. It should also be planned such that it hints at further activity which is revealed as people move towards it.

Visible activity reinforces a sense of place and creates a sense of destination for those viewing the activity from outside.

It is also insufficient to create activity tied to specific times. A busy Market Square is no asset to the Town if, at night, the same square is deserted and foreboding. A successful urban environment must generate activity for a wider timeframe, one that includes early evenings and, potentially, late into the night.

Currently the main source of activity in Market Square is either transitory - people moving through the square on their way through to, or from, the more vibrant retail areas beyond or related to the market and bank. It makes sense to enhance this current level of activity as an early phase of a larger, co-ordinated, attempt to re-introduce visible activity into the square.

We propose that, further to the removal of the fixed stall canopies, the market be relocated so that it is visible, but does not dominate the whole aspect, from the main axis running up Broad Walk. This would reduce the area occupied by the market thus offering the possibility of an intensification of activity on this primary axis and would free up space for complementary activities within the square.

In relocating the market to the Eastern edge of the Square there exists an opportunity to reinvent and reinvigorate the market itself. One of the problems that the current arrangement creates is that the concept of a traditional general market has been lost. The current offering of stalls is somewhat varied and many traders have been allowed to sprawl across a number of pitches in an effort to make the market look larger than it is.

We would encourage the Council to explore the possibility of reducing the size of individual pitches to create a larger number of smaller pitches with a greater variety of goods. Whilst we recognise that the current economic circumstances and the rise of supermarkets have threatened the future of markets, we believe that a market that offers start up businesses and small traders an opportunity to display and sell their wares without the high overheads that a shop or similar premises would entail will generate visual variety and interest and, in turn, attract footfall.

By providing other activities within the Market Square, casual shopping at stalls could begin to occur. It is also possible that specialist markets could occupy stalls from time to time to tie in with specific events that might take place in the newly created activity space.

Pitch sizes could be determined either by the use of markers within the paving of this area or, alternatively, by the design and construction of properly considered semi-permanent stalls.

Creating new visible activity:

Strengthening the visibility of existing activity within Market Square is a sensible and cost effect starting point, however the introduction of new activity is central to restoring a sense of destination and purpose for this key urban square. The relocation of the market will not only make it more visible from the main shopping area of Broad Walk but will also free up space for other activities. Whilst a vibrant market may well be sufficiently attractive to increase footfall during the day and could function, on occasion, into the evening, it is unlikely that it will be able to generate additional evening activity in Market Square all year round. The right additional evening activity in Market Square could, however, increase the market’s night-time viability.

We propose that the Council refurbish the existing two storey building to the western side of Market Square. This building could accommodate a gallery and perhaps an information centre dedicated to Harlow New Town, its architecture, planning, sculpture, biodiversity and all the other assets the town possesses. The gallery could support the Gatehouse Arts Project as well as existing, established local artists. It could also provide a “neutral” exhibition venue for future consultation on the regeneration of Harlow.

Coupled with the refurbishment of this unused building, and key to increasing the vitality of the square, we propose that an external video screen be erected on the side of the building, facing the square, and an associated programme of public realm works be undertaken to create an outdoor cinema which could be used to screen films. We propose that this space would also create a venue for performance art, school shows, concerts or other such seasonal activities. During the day the screen could be used to raise revenue by screening adverts or perhaps screen channels such as BBC News 24, providing animation. It could display video art related to the gallery use.

By adjusting levels in front of the proposed screen, a stage area can be formed with a lower level area for seating. This area could feasibly be transformed into a skating rink in the winter months. We propose that the single storey Market Office be retained to form a plinth for a major piece of sculpture.

To support the newly created open air cinema and performance venue, we would suggest that one of the adjacent vacant retail outlets to hire out deck chairs, which would also potentially generate revenue. We would also encourage the Council to establish a programme of events and entertainment for this outdoor facility that coincides with the programme of exhibitions etc in the newly created internal gallery spaces. If properly considered, a programme of night markets timed to coincide with events could prove to be very successful.

The introduction of a facility such as proposed here will provide a much needed focal point for the square, during the day this new public space would provide a quality environment for those who work in the surrounding offices or who are shopping in the Town Centre and, at night, could provide an incentive for people to use Market Square as a social gathering spot. When coupled with a vibrant night market, the square can become, once again, the location for communal gatherings and celebrations in Harlow, with the jostling crowds, strident colours and sounds envisaged at the inception of the square.

Creating a sense of place and destination:

The reorganisation and reinvigoration of the market, coupled with the introduction of a viable use for the vacant building in Market Square will go a long way towards creating a sense of activity and “destination” but the square itself needs to be redefined physically to make it a more intimate urban space.

We propose introducing trees (see above) to define areas of the greater square as more intimate spaces to meet friends, rest and play. The trees will also provide a heightened sense of enclosure to the square as a whole whilst still allowing the capacity for larger gatherings. The proposed line of planting frames a view of the Adams House Clock and would establish a strong, natural, backdrop for the listed sculpture on the axis of Broad Walk. Introducing mature trees would provide a natural softening to complement the hard surfacing of the square and surrounding areas.

We also suggest that a high impact lighting scheme is designed and implemented for Market Square. The scheme should not only improve the levels of general lighting in the square at night, which will encourage people to gather in this important urban space, but should also highlight the physical attributes and features of the surrounding buildings, for example the clock and the concrete perimeter of the glazing to the building on the northern boundary of the square, helping to reinforce the sense of place and identity of Market Square.

Creating a quality public realm:

It is not sufficient to simply create and enhance activity in Market Square if the intention is to reinvigorate this end of the Town Centre and thus attract a higher quality of retailer to Market Square. For Landlords and Retailers to have confidence in the area, the interventions that are made must be seen to be made in a meaningful and committed manner. Key to achieving this is investment in the Public Realm: This should be a mixture of short, medium and longer term strategies to further enhance the urban space over and above the improvements outlined in this document.

In the short term, the strategy should focus on short term gains that can be made without great financial expenditure. For example painting the hand railings around the raised walkways and staircases of The Rows would indicate a level of commitment to the area immediately.

In the medium term, a full programme of refurbishment and replacement of pavings and signage should be developed as this will have a significant impact upon the visual quality of the square. The programme could be implemented over time, for example the removal of the permanent canopies could include the repaving and formation of the sunken area proposed elsewhere in this document however, an overarching design should be agreed as soon as possible to avoid abortive or repetitive works.

In the long term, we would encourage working with surrounding land owners to address the issues of poor maintenance of the facades overlooking Market Square. These works could be as simple as instigating a proper redecoration and maintenance programme. An example of a more ambitious approach would be to see Market House reglazed with a contemporary curtain walling system and have the projecting elements expressed, using coloured renders, as architectural elements. This building has the potential to become a striking, iconic, architectural feature helping to establish a strong identity for the whole of Market Square.

Reactions to "A manifesto for change - Part 1"

2010-09-09T17:33:00.001+01:00

My last post has generated quite a bit of reaction - I didn't realise that people might actually read it, silly me!

I received emails and comments through facebook that deserve to be read by people who read the original blog and to which I would like to respond in a public forum.

So firstly, the email I received from Andrew Bramidge who is the Chief Executive of Harlow Renaissance. Andrew's email is as follows:

"Hi Mark

I read your blog the other day – thanks for the comments and sentiments there. As you rightly identify, the critical question is what happens next and we will be working hard with the Council and others to ensure that there is a strong legacy and that much of the work continues. Clearly that will not be easy in the context of public funding cuts (and which is why we are having to close!). A key piece of work is the Design Guide and we will be pushing to get this adopted as formal SPD.

In relation to your comment on the town centre,

"Why not encourage Land Owners to partner with the Council to deliver meaningful redevelopment of individual properties or groups of buildings within an agreed brief and design framework?"

this is precisely what we [Harlow Renaissance] are now doing. We are working with our design team on a range of masterplanning options (reduced scale, less land acquisition and phased) which we can then discuss with existing landowners how they can bring forward developments that are consistent with this. We aim to have a draft of something in October.

For parts of Town Centre North where there is a multiplicity of owners we will still be undertaking an OJEU process, but we see scope for a number of developments coming forward against an agreed brief. In the current climate we feel this is a more realistic scenario for delivery.

I would take exception with one of your comments about us being a Quango (which we are not!) and that our existence meant that the future of the town was being determined by people with no connection with it. I could make the point that five of our thirteen board members live in Harlow and another two run business here and also that three of our six staff are long term Harlow residents, so to say that we have “no connection” with the town is just false!

However, that would actually be missing the point in that we are a delivery body and not a decision making one. We do not plan the future of the town (although at times I wish we did!) or have any responsibility for strategy. Our role is to implement the decisions that Harlow Council as the democratically elected representatives of the town have agreed upon. We actually have no powers of our own.

Regards,

Andrew"

I am really pleased that the momentum for change that Andrew and his colleagues have so successfully generated is not to grind to a halt during the next few months as Harlow Renaissance is "wound down".

The fact that the Design Guide is to be completed is great news and I urge the Council to adopt this as soon as possible as it is long overdue.

I remain concerned that the regeneration of Harlow Town Centre North is being approached from the perspective of a wholesale redevelopment on a grand scale. I would prefer to see a gradual replacement or refurbishment and adaptation of the existing building stock so that the urban grain of the town centre does not disappear. One of the major problems with the Water Gardens development was, and is, that it totally ignored the pre-existing urban grain and established it's own which is incompatible with the rest of the Town Centre.

I still remain convinced that some of the buildings that are in the Town centre are incredible pieces of early modern architecture and could and should be retained, brought up to date and form the skeleton of the new Town Centre.

Regards my use of the term "Quango", I apologise to Andrew - this was simply a lazy use of language which I have now rectified on the previous post.

For the record, the five board members who live in Harlow are as follows:

Cllr Andrew Johnson - Leader, Harlow Council
Cllr Chris Millington - Leader of the Opposition, Harlow Council
Cllr Mark Wilkinson - Leader of the Labour Group, Harlow Council
Cllr Eddie Johnson - Deputy Leader Harlow Council
Jackie Sully - Chair, Harlow 2020

In addition, I think that the two board members who run businesses in Harlow are:

John Keddie - Vice President of R&D Operations, GlaxoSmithKline
Steve Hammond - Former Managing Director, United Glass

Andrew is quite correct in stating that Harlow Renaissance are simply a "delivery agency" but the reality is that they have also been doing a significant amount or work in shaping the views of the decision makers in the Town. This is no criticism, in fact I am hugely grateful to Harlow Renaissance for the work they have done in this area. My concern is that without an organisation like Renaissance, the will to implement change will diminish and the skills that are needed to set out a long term vision for the Town will be imported from London without any thought to the skills the Town already has at it's disposal.

I also had some other comments via Facebook which I won't publish in their original state. Suffice it to say that I have always been an advocate of small businesses being part of the solution and Local Authorities often overlook such businesses because of their size rather than recognising their flexibility and, often, value for money!

My recent comment on Twitter which said something along the lines of "Well that's 2 yrs of networking & gaining influence down the tube!" was simply a statement of frustration that, after two years of building relationships with people like Andrew and through no fault of their own, any progress that we, as a practice, had made was effectively wiped out.

I am, as stated above, an advocate of small and steady changes when it comes to regeneration, rather than "grand gestures" and firmly believe that The Water Gardens was and is a disaster for Harlow in terms of urban planning. Future regeneration phases will find it extremely difficult to reconcile the urban form of the Water Gardens and the Town centre will, in my opinion, forever be split in two.

As I said in my previous post, please leave comments as you see fit or contact me through the usual channels as I firmly believe that the best way to maintain the momentum for change is to talk about how regeneration should be delivered in Harlow. You never know, my manifesto "part 2" might include some of your ideas!

The photos used in this blog are courtesy of the Harlow Civic Society

A manifesto for change - Part 1!

2010-09-06T22:52:00.001+01:00

If you've read my last post you'll know that Harlow Renaissance, Harlow's regeneration company, has announced that it is to "cease trading" at the end of the financial year. Since i wrote the piece last week, I have been giving some thought to what my "manifesto" would be if I were seeking office on the single issue of "Regenerating Harlow". This post is my fledgling attempt to articulate some of my thoughts and I'll probably return to the subject over the next few weeks and months as the situation becomes clearer and as my thoughts develop.

1. Harlow needs change and change is good

There is little doubt that Harlow, as a town, is in need of change! Many of the buildings are no longer fit for purpose and the infrastructure of the Town is sadly lacking. This need for change is not a result of failure, as many would have you believe, but of changes in the way we lead our lives that could not have been reasonably predicted 50 years ago and by poor quality and ill conceived development that, rather than improving the pre-existing problems, has in many cases undermined the solid urban planning principles that the town is founded upon.

Change can be a force for good, improving situations where hope has been long abandoned and bringing light where once all was dark.

Change almost always brings with it fear - fear of the new, fear of failure, fear of making things worse than they already are, but fear is not constructive, fear stops things happening rather than acting as an encouragement - now is not a time for fear!

As a Town we should embrace change and new ideas (we are after all living in a groundbreaking urban environment that was all about a new way of doing things) we should encourage innovation in our business sectors and we should support and spur on our Local Authority as they seek to bring in the necessary change to our built environment.

2. Small changes can be more effective that grand gestures!

It's easy to be seduced by the idea that a "grand gesture" will solve all the known problems in one fell swoop however I firmly believe that, whilst occasionally this may well be true, often small, incremental changes can be far more powerful drivers for improvement that wholesale redevelopment.

In Harlow, for example, the Water Gardens Development which was completed in 2004 was intended to improve facilities within the Town and created some 45,000 ft2 of "leisure spaces" and created a new Town Hall. It was a grand gesture that has been very successful in bringing new people into Harlow, mainly to use the new shops that have been attracted to the development. however, in creating a new shopping "zone" The Water Gardens development turns its back (physically) on the old Town Centre which had the (almost) immediate effect of killing off any chance that the northern half of the Town Centre ever had of passing trade. As a result Market Square is dying a slow and lingering death by pawnbroker and charity shop!

Any Town Centre development needs to recognise the importance of maintaining a balance across the whole of the retail offering and, in the case of Harlow, the strength of the urban form that exists. Yes Harlow Town Centre's buildings are suffering from old age and poor maintenance but this should not automatically condemn them to becoming hardcore. One of the, often overlooked, aspects of Harlow Town Centre is that, when you look beyond the grime and peeling paintwork, many of the buildings have the early DNA of today's contemporary masterpieces.

I would resist the lures of wholesale "regeneration" and embrace the opportunities that the existing buildings and urban environment offer for re-imagining the early days of Harlow New Town.

I would focus on re-balancing the quality of the public realm so that those areas that have been long ignored and overlooked become, once again, spaces that offer something new and different to the population of Harlow.

In these times of financial restraint, I would look to work with existing land owners to encourage them to partner with the Town in improving the quality of the space enclosed by their buildings which could only lead to increased footfall and trade and thus increased revenue streams and property values for them.

I would reject any attempts to bolt additional housing on to the outskirts of Harlow until the problems of poor housing stock and infrastructure in the existing neighbourhoods have been addressed and it can be demonstrated that the demand for new housing can not be met through intensification without damaging the individual and collective character of Harlow's neighbourhoods.

3. Change is more effective when it is made collaboratively, involving the people it affects!

Change is often, as I have said above, associated with fear and uncertainty, it can often be undermined before it has even got going by the inertia that doubts can cause. If change, at a town wide level, is to be effective, it has to be brought about with the support of local people, businesses and interest groups.

Consultation can often sound the death knell for any project if the purpose is not clearly stated at the beginning of the process. It will never be possible to get every single person to agree on what, where, how and when regeneration should happen. It is possibe however to give people to opportunity to express their thoughts and comments and to be heard. it is possible to make people feel part of the process of regeneration and to take ownership of the changes that result.

Alienating individuals and organisations by simply ignoring them because they might disagree with you simply stores up trouble for later down the line as campaigns and petitions gather pace.

I would look to set out clearly, at the earliest possible point in time, what the overarching aims and ambitions are for the regeneration of Harlow. I would use inclusive language rather than industry jargon and I would look to explain why the priorities are as they are and what the signs of success will be.

I would encourage local business to be part of the soloution and would look to use physical regeneration as a driver for the economic regeneration of the Town.

I would encourage local residents to contribute to the shaping of a new vision for Harlow in the 21st century and beyond - letting them know that their thoughts are just as valid and as important as the professionals and Councillors that will be, neccesarily, pulling together the various strands that will make up a Town wide regeneration work.

I would encourage the local politicians to put behind them any party political loyalties and work together as a body to bring strong leadership at a time where many will be looking for certainty and decisive decision making.

So those are my first three manifesto 'pledges' I hope they made sense and that you enjoyed reading them.

To summarise, change is neccesary, can be a force for good and can be more effective when undertaken in small, bite sized, steps with the involvement of those it affects.

Let me reassure you all that (at the moment) I have no intention of standing for any kind of office. However, if Harlow Council want to talk to me about shaping the future of the town they know where to find me!

As always I would welcome your thoughts and comments - interaction is always good!

What next for Harlow?

2010-09-03T21:08:00.001+01:00

After a few weeks of rumours and speculation, it has finally been confirmed that Harlow Renaissance, Harlow's regeneration company, is to cease trading at the end of the financial year.

Harlow Renaissance came into being in July 2006 and was charged with "driving forward the regeneration and growth process in Harlow". Their role was to deliver a range of renewal programmes in the short-term whilst paving the way for longer-term growth opportunities and a more prosperous town.

Opinions about whether or not they have suceeded in their aims varies depending upon who you speak to but one thing that can't be disputed is that they have been invaluable in giving those of us who live and work in the Town a single point of contact with regards regeneration and the formation of a vision for the future of the Town.

As a local architectural practice we have invested significant time and effort over the last two years in seeking out Harlow Renaissance, building relationship and in participating in their various workshops, brainstorming activities and trying to establish a constructive dialogue over how those of us who are local professionals can get involved with the reshaping of the vision for Harlow. Now, all that effort would appear to have been a waste of time, or has it?

The big challenge that faces Harlow Council now that this news has been confirmed is how do we, as a town, maintain the momentum that was starting to build behind the shaping of a new vision for Harlow and, then, delivering upon it. here are a few of my thoughts:

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

We must not lose some of the great work that Harlow Renaissance have done. The emerging Design Guide for Harlow is long overdue and MUST be seen through to completion if the Planning Department are to stand any chance of controlling the design quality of future development, for too long we have been held hostage by the Essex Design Guide which is better suited to rural environments and traditional architecture than the modern urban new town environment.

Don't be afraid to ask for help!

There are many construction professionals in Harlow who have a vested interest in helping to shape the future of the town, not just because development equals work but also because we live here and development will have a material impact on our lives and those of our children. One of the regular grumbles that I hear is that the "powers that be" are more willing to spend time and money listening to the advice of Architects and Urban Designers from London or Derby than they are to listen to the same professionals in Harlow - many of whom would gladly donate their time!

Don't be afraid to think outside the box!

The long term regeneration of Harlow has, for too long, been assumed to be dependant on either the development of Harlow North or the wholesale redevelopment of the Town Centre. It is becoming increasingly clear that, in these "post credit crunch" times relying on a developer undertaking to fund the redevelopment of whole swathes of Town Centre land (with all the complications of Compulsory Purchase Orders and opposition from existing land owners) is unrealistic. Not only is it unlikely that a commercially viable scheme can be compiled, in 50 years time Harlow will face the same problems it faces now! Why not encourage Land Owners to partner with the Council to deliver meaningful redevelopment of individual properties or groups of buildings within an agreed brief and design framework?

Be proactive!

Seize the initiative - Harlow now has its future in its own hands, not in the hands of a company headed up by people who have no connection with the Town. I assume that the responsability for the regeneration of Harlow will now revert to the Council's Regeneration Team, why not bolster their skills be co-opting in specific skills and professionals from within the Town to help strengthen the team and bring a sense of clarity to what can be achieved and by when?

Personally, I hope that our efforts over the past two years have not been a complete waste of time and that we will get the opportunity to contribute to the redevelopment of Harlow in the coming years. I for one simply want the opportunity to share my vision of what this town could become!

notes:

To read more about the future of Harlow Renaissance please visit either the News Section of their website or, alternatively, The Harlow Star.

The photos used in this blog are courtesy of the Harlow Civic Society.

Collaborate working - what's new?

2010-08-03T14:55:00.001+01:00

As those of you who follow me on Twitter will know from recent tweets, I spent most of the weekend at the Parndon Mill Open Studios mixing with the creative community that calls this amazing place home.

Parndon Mill was mentioned in the Domesday Book as having two hives and a goat and is now a hive of creative activity. The four storey mill and outbuildings provide studios and workshops for artists, craftsmen, designers and architects.

As a place to work it is not only fantastically pituresque but also a very real example of how individuals and companies in differing fields can come together to work towards a common goal and suceed.

Since moving in here three and a half years ago, we have worked with almost all the inhabiants of this building to achieve a number of different goals. we have worked on hospitals in Ethiopia with BuildAid who are on the floor above, made templates for handmade classical guitars, advised painters on how to approach large murals and developed sculpters plans for large scale public works.

We regularly have painters & other artists "popping in" to see what is happening in the world of architecture, they contribute to schemes that we are developing, casting a constructive eye across drawings & sketches & making observations that improve our concepts immeasurably.

The Open Days at the weekend were a public outworking of this mentality of collaborative working with everyone mucking in to serve teas and coffees, man the studios and gallery and generally make the event a huge success.

The trade magazines these days are constantly telling us, as a small practice, that we need to get our heads around collaborative working to survive. At the same time those publications are telling us, as Architects, that we need to re-establish our position & respect within the construction sector.

On the face of it this appears to be somewhat of a contradiction but, in my opinion, this is not the case.

During my time at the University of Westminster (BA Hons Architecture) the assumption was always that, as Architects, we would need to collaborate with others to make our designs a success. The University rightly took great pride in bringing together students of different diciplines to work on common projects and develop a language of cooperation and shared goals.

Once I entered the profession and started to see at first hand "the real world" of Construction I was shocked at how confrontational the process was with Clients, Contractors and Local Authorities all treating each other with distrust and, in some case, downright contempt! Ever since I have been absoloutly convinced that building a team ethic between stakeholders in projects is key to the project being delievered to everyones satisfaction.

I do not subscribe to the idea that collaborative working is a new idea but I do think that the current focus on small practices collaborating with larger outfits is simply one element of a larger picture. I believe that, for Architects to regain their reightful position within the industry, we have to be seen to be developing relationship with Local Authorities, Clients, other practices and Contractors alike so that we can initiate useful dialogue around projects and ensure that we genuinely add value throughout a projects gestation and delivery.

We have, for the last year or so, been working this out in practice and are starting to see the rewards. these vary from achieving a Planning Permission for a scheme that faced significant opposition but was approved because of the "high quality of design" through to being invited with another practice to develop proposals for the regeneration/facelift of a key area within Harlow. Neither of these opportunities would have come about without investment in relationships and building trust and respect and there is more fruit on the tree simply waiting to ripen.

If you are interested in developing a relationship with us as a practice, please contact me through our website or drop me a tweet!

What ever happened to quality public buildings?

2010-06-08T15:29:00.011+01:00

A few weeks ago my wife and I celebrated our 13 years of blissful marriage with a day trip to St Albans with our two kids. Having negotiated the one way system and found a multi storey car park we set out on foot to visit the Cathedral.

The History of St Albans Cathedral is somewhat chequered and was brilliantly brought to life for us by the guide who showed us (and our surprisingly attentive children) around.

Originally founded as a Benedictine abbey founded by King Offa in ad.793 the current building was begun in 1077 by the Normans and was extended in the "Early English" style as the congregation grew. this extension can clearly be seen as the Norman rounded arches give way to the more pointed style further down the nave.

In 1539, the various buildings around the Cathedral were demolished and sold as building materials to a local contractor, leaving just the main church and gatehouse still standing and the Town purchased the church from the King as a parish church.

The financial burden of maintaining the building became too heavy for the town to bear and, as a result, the building began to fall into a state of disrepair. In the 1800s Lord Grimthorpe stepped in and, on the basis that he was allowed a free hand with regards to design, funded the complete restoration of what we now see.

Now, it is clear that Lord Grimthorpe had no architectural training and (according to our guide) little taste, but he managed what must have been an incredible feat, turning a virtually derelict building into one of the finest churches in the region.

Having been wowed by the Cathedral, I was equally impressed with the 1980s extension, which is known as "The Chapter House". This addition was designed by Sir William Whitfield and the brief was very simple. The original chapter house (destroyed during The Reformation) had been the hub of daily life of the monastery and the new building should be its modern equivalent.

The Chapter House, crafted from over 500,000 reproduction Roman bricks, flows effortlessly from the Cathedral and the detailing, when combined with the use of the exposed brick and concrete, screams of craftsmanship!

I could not help wondering (as I waited for the family to emerge from the toilets) why it is that so much of our recent public architecture has failed to meet the standards of architecture and construction quality that is clearly visible in this sensitive addition to a much loved historic building.

There has been much debate in recent weeks about the quality of the buildings resulting from the drive to rebuild our schools and hospitals and there will be, no doubt, much pressure to reduce the cost to the public purse of such projects in the future, but is this a false economy?

The week before visiting St Albans I attended a design workshop at Harlow Council's relatively new Civic Centre. This is a building that was designed and constructed as a part of a wider project to redevelop the area of Harlow Town Centre known as the Water Gardens.

The project was privately funded and, in my opinion, the architecture and quality of what has been delivered leaves something (well actually quite a lot) to be desired. It's not just the poor quality materials that are distressing but also the lack of thought in the detailing.

I could not help wondering, as I walked along the corridor feeling every board of the access floor flexing and squeaking below my feet, how long the Civic Centre will last - is it destined to be a listed building of the future - I doubt it very much!

In these unprecedented times of financial restraint, should we be looking to short term cost savings when it comes to public building projects or should we, instead, be looking to ensure that the design and build quality is such that the building outlasts our generation?

In my opinion, we need to have a radical change of approach when it comes to the commissioning of public buildings. we need to throw off the thinking that says that cheap and quick is best - in the medium to long term the short term savings are thrown away as we revisit or demolish poorly conceived buildings that are no longer fit for purpose or fundamentally flawed by bad design

Instead we need to embrace the concept that public buildings should last longer than those who envisage them. We need to embrace good design - by appropriately qualified professionals - and accept that good buildings should be fit for purpose and capable of accommodating change. They should offer the occupants both visual and environmental comfort and should be a lasting statement of our era.

In short, we need a return to the Architect as the central figure in the design of our public buildings and realistic budgets that allow us to construct buildings that my Grandchildren can visit and marvel at when they celebrate their 13th Wedding Anniversary!.

Does the update to Part L really address Climate Change?

2010-06-01T15:48:00.002+01:00

Last week I finally got around to reviewing the new Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations which, for those of you who I have completely lost already, deals with the Conservation of Fuel and Power in buildings. Part L (as I shall refer to it) has, for some time now, been the primary tool of the Government for reducing the carbon footprint of both our residential and non-residential building stock through the application of ever tougher performance standards for the thermal envelope of a new building, the efficiency of any heat source used to heat said building and, latterly, requirements for some energy efficient lighting installations.

The basic aim of Part L is to drive down the CO2 emissions of buildings on an ever steeper curve until, eventually, new housing will be carbon neutral. The latest version of Part L comes into force in October of this year and, according to some, is likely to add around 6% to the cost of the construction of a new dwelling. The cost implications for extensions and refurbishments is talked about less and will probably vary - needless to say it won't be cheaper to build after October '09!

Last week I also got to go to the first day of the first Test Match against Bangladesh at Lords.

Now, you may be forgiven for asking what the connection was between these two momentous events, let me explain.

On my way to Lords and facing an hour long commute to St Johns Wood, I grabbed a free copy of the Telegraph courtesy of a free voucher. Having caught the train at Harlow Town station I settled down and opened my paper to wile away the journey and, on page 3, was confronted by the headline "A summer of '76 every decade (Met Office predicts)", it's worth a read (although I would suggest you read the rest of the blog first before clicking on the link above)!

The long and short of the article is that the Met Office, whilst dropping their seasonal predictions (after all who can forget the summer of unbroken Bar-B-Ques we had last year) the Met Office continues to provide the Government with long range forecasts and is predicting that climate change will result in extreme droughts occurring ten times as often as they do now with their worst case scenarios indicating an increase of temperature of 4degC from current averages! All of this is being compared to the Summer of 1976 which (so I am told - being two at the time) was excruciatingly hot with temperatures reaching record highs of 36degC. These exceptionally hot conditions led to reservoirs and rivers drying up, water being rationed, people being rushed to hospital with heat exhaustion and forest fires breaking out left right and centre!

Now, we should take this with a pinch of salt, after all it is only a prediction and a long range one at that, but it does raise an interesting point. Eleanor Burke, Climate Extremes Scientist with the Met Office, states in the article that:

"Britain has to prepare for 1976-style droughts. This could include designing buildings to cope with heat......"

Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations addresses the conservation of energy primarily through the use of insulation and air tightness to keep heat in but what happens when you want to keep temperatures low? The Approved Document does cover the control of Solar gain but, in my opinion, does not ensure that extreme air temperature levels outside the building do not affect the level of comfort inside the building.

One of the criticisms that can be leveled at Part L, is that it can promote a singular approach to energy efficiency (i.e. increasingly high levels of insulation) at the expense of other considerations, after all it was never originally designed to be a vehicle for driving down carbon emmissions! In doing so it fails to recognise the benefits that can be gained in providing a stable internal environment all year round.

As Architects, we often see buildings that have been constructed with a good level of insulation that have then needed air conditioning or other mechanical cooling devices to stop the occupants overheating in summer. This is particularly noticable in lightweight buildings.

We also see other examples, such as St Albans Cathedral (which I also visited this week - more about that in another post) where, through the limitations of building technology at the time, the building retains a stable internal temperature all year round due to it's massively thick masonry walls.

This use of thick masonry structures to regulate internal temperature is known as Thermal Massing. Thermal mass is a property that enables building materials to absorb, store, and later release significant amounts of heat. Buildings constructed to be thermally massive absorb energy (heat) slowly and hold it for much longer periods of time than lightweight buildings, which are designed to heat up quickly and rely on insulation to stop heat escaping.

This effect delays and reduces heat transfer through a thermal mass building component, leading to three significant benefits:

There are fewer spikes in the heating and cooling requirements, since mass slows the response time and moderates indoor temperature fluctuations.
A massive building uses less energy than a similar lightweight building due to the reduced heat transfer through the massive elements.
Thermal mass can shift energy demand to off-peak time periods when utility rates are lower.

The greatest advantage with thermally massive buildings, in the context of the Telegraph article, is that the effect is the same whether the heat source is internal (i.e. underfloor heating) or external (i.e. extreme external temperatures), the structure is slow to radiate heat.

If we are faced with the likihood of increasingly hot summers, it is not sufficient for Part L to simply look to make the heating of our houses and work spaces more effcient, it also needs to look to make the cooling of those same spaces equally as efficient and preferably passive.

Although the latest update to Part L is much welcomed, until it encompasses all aspects of achieving a comfortable environment for building occupiers, it will remain an ineffective way of addressing both the cause and effect of Climate Change!

Design and Build - a modern fairytale or just a tall story?

2010-05-18T00:06:00.005+01:00

Draw up a chair, pour yourself a glass of wine and let me tell you a tale of how public projects used to be commissioned in the olden days - things are so much better now-a-days, aren't they?

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, when Clients employed Consultants who were respected as professionals and Builders built things, buildings were conceived, designed, tendered and then built and everyone was happy with their lot.

In those days, Clients trusted their consultants to provide professional advice and to steer their particular project towards completion - on time and on budget (hopefully). Everyone in the process knew where they fitted in and what their roles were and, whilst there were risks, everyone took their fair share.

In those fairytale times, Architects and their ilk concentrated on ensuring that their designs were fully considered and resolved in the sure and certain knowledge that, the more confident a builder was about what was required of him (in those days it was pretty much all men), the keener his price would be and thus the Client could be reassured that, by paying some fees before the project hit site, they were getting the best possible value for their money.

Although we didn't know it at the time, those days were soon to be lost to us!

One day someone (probably a Client) wondered out loud why it was that Clients were paying for their consultants and the builder and yet still taking a share of the risks - that seemed somewhat unfair to them!

Shortly after someone else (probably a highly paid consultant from outside the construction industry) suggested a method of transferring the risk away from the Client and minimising the upfront cost - a win/win situation, a no-brainer - get the builder to do the designs and then build them!

And Design and Build was born!

Now, you may have detected a slight tone of cynicism in the story so far - and you'd be right. In my experience Design and Build has neither reduced a Client's exposure to risk nor the final cost of their project.

As a company, we have been fortunate to benefit from some Design and Build projects, doing construction drawings for builders and, in the vast majority of cases, have charged a fee very similar to the fee we would have charged the Client if the project had been commissioned through a traditional procurement route - so no saving there then!

On every single one of those projects the Client has retained an "Employers Agent" to provide the initial designs and to act as Contract Administrator - all roles traditionally fulfilled by the Architect - who's now employed by the builder!

So, just to recap, the Client employs a consultant to fulfill the role of an Architect (apart from the detail design bit of the job) then pays the builder to employ an Architect (or 'designer') to design the building - anyone else spotted the flaw in this 'cunning plan'?

Now, there are 'Employers Agents' and 'Employers Agents'! Most of the time the tender packages that we see, from builders asking us to quote, are little more than illustrated briefing documents with little or no detail and, in many cases, the existing buildings are not even drawn accurately and the proposals are often unbuildable. On these jobs we really earn our fee - goodness knows that the Clients consultants haven't!

Occasionally the tender documents are extremely detailed and our role is reduced to simply providing details of tricky junctions and holding the builders hand during the contract - a role that the Employers Agent would probably happily fulfil if given the chance.

At both ends of the spectrum the Client ends up paying not only for two sets of consultants, where one decent one would suffice, but also a premium for the privilege of transferring an unknown level of risk to the Contractor.

So the question is this: Does the Client really benefit from Design and Build? In my opinion, the answer is 'not really - they just think they do'!

As far as most Clients are concerned they are spending less on consultants and are immunising themselves from cost and time overruns - they are deceiving themselves!

All contracts make provision for extensions of time and for claims for additional costs arising from Client variations, regardless of the procurement route, and Contractors are very skilled at making those claims. Without robust tender documents the Client remains exposed!

My other concern with Design and Build is that the Client often (unwittingly) surrenders any control over the quality of the materials used. If the tender package is weak in detail, the contractor can minimise their exposure to unforeseen costs by down-specing the raw ingredients for the building. The Client may be expecting tiled floors but, if that's not specified, they'll end up with vinyl - but still be paying for that tiling!

In this period of "austerity" it is time that Public Sector Clients started to pay more attention to how they spend their much reduced capital budgets and regain control of their projects.

Employing one Architect, working up a detailed scheme with them and then getting competitive tenders based on quality tender documents has to be more cost effective (i.e. cheaper) than, effectively, employing two consultants and paying the contractor a premium for acting as Client without any real concrete guarantees on time, cost or quality!

If you would like more information on our Design and Build projects, please visit our website and peruse our 'Projects' section.

What price an architectural legacy?

2010-05-11T09:33:00.005+01:00

Architecture and buildings have, for some time now, been the darling of the television with programmes ranging from DIY SOS through Grand Designs and now, the latest kid on the block Restoration Man - my personal favorite!

The early incarnations of this genre of popular TV were focused on cheap thrills and the visual effects that could be achieved using Velcro and accesories (remember Changing Rooms?).

Latter attempts to do justice to this subject were much better at dealing with some of the real issues that, as Architects, we face every day - the inconsistancies of the Planning System, the rigidity of the Building Regulations and the unrealistic expectations of our Clients to mention but a few!

Great as these programmes are (I'm still banned from watching Grand Designs because I throw things at the TV in frustration) they fail to focus beyond the "trauma" experianced by the hapless family/couple embarking on the "greatest adventure of their lives".

Then along came "Restoration Man"!

Finally A property programme fronted by an Architect and one that knows what he is talking about! Not only does the programme cover the ups and downs of each project but it also draws out the architectural history of each building.

This weeks episode is a good example of how this genre could be. Yes there were ups and downs, battles with the authorities and the perenial "cashflow issues" that provide the drama, but in addition there was a genuine appreciation of the real craftsmanship on show in how the building was being slowly and sensitively returned to practical useage and an intelligent assesment of the processes and techniques being deployed.

The final result will (when finished) be a stunning home in a stunning location, even more so because of the attention to detail.

In this increasingly consumerist society we are in danger of sacrificing craftsmanship, quality and our architectural legacy in favour of speed and economy.

As an Architect practicing in Harlow, I am all too aware of the implications of such a cavalier attitude to our built environment. Yes our schools and hospitals are undergoing huge investment and renewal - but at what cost?

As an industry we need to exploit modern methods of construction but what's the point if the buildings we create are poorly detailed with an uncertain lifespan?

If we are to leave our great grandchildren a meaningful architectural legacy that can be adapted and restored as sensitively as the buildings featured in Restoration Man then quality and detailling has to be our priority - not just the cost and speed of construction.

As a profession we have a responsability to educate our clients not only about the practical aspects of the process (Planning, Building Regulations, Contract etc) but also the need to focus on the quality of design, detailing and construction of the overall project.

As a society we need to demand the very best of public buildings - not just in terms of environmental performance but in terms of anticipated lifespan, architectural quality and detail and in terms of future reuse. Doubtlessly there will still be bland, cheap, "shiny" new buildings that garner headlines but there also needs to be quality Architecture created that will last the test of time and establish a legacy that future generations want to preserve!

What impact a Hung Parliment?

2010-05-08T15:05:00.004+01:00

So the election is finally over (almost) and in theory at least, we know what the next few years holds for us in terms of political leadership. Of course, I am assuming that a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will actually happen and will last more than a few months.

The question that we still don't really have any answers to is how the new Government's policies will really affect architectural practices like mine.

One thing that we can probably safely assume is that, in return for supporting the Conservative Government, the Lib Dems will secure a referendum on electoral reform and some sort of input into the reform of the tax system but it is unlikely that they will be able to exert much influence over other areas of policy.

So this leaves us looking at the Conservative Election Manifesto for clues.

On the face of it there aren't that many policy proposals that are specific to Architects, in fact none of the Parties has really set out any "architectural" policy proposals during the campaign. Of the Tory manifesto pledges, I could only really find a few that I thought would have a significant impact on what we do, these are as follows:

- Abolishing Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning, devolving those powers to local partnerships of businesses and Councils.

- Rewarding Councils for building new homes, especially affordable homes.

- The creation of Local Housing Trusts to allow local communities to build the homes they need.

- Strengthening the powers of Local Authorities to stop "infil" and "backland" development.

- Extension of Government procurement to small and medium sized businesses.

The truth of the matter is that the policies outlined above will not really affect the majority of practices and despite much rhetoric on the doorstep about simplifying the planning process, no specific promises are made within the manifesto, nor is there any statement about design quality in publicly procured buildings.

True, for some practices (and certainly local planners) the abolition of the Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning infrastructure will have a huge knock on effect, but for those of us who have more modest practices, it is likely to be something that will pass almost unnoticed.

The emphasis on local communities building new homes is interesting and could, if implemented, bring a new stream of work into local practices. However, past experience has shown most local architects that their Local Authorities are unwilling to "risk" using small practices preferring instead the perceived security of a "brand" architectural practice. Unless the Conservatives can incentivize Local Authorities to look locally for Consultants, much of this new house building will, once again, be delivered by the mass house builders and their 'designers' and any sense of local character will be sacrificed for standardised house types.

The reality is that, for the last ten years or so, many small architects have increasingly been surviving on a diet of private clients doing small developments - often on backland or infil sites. the loss of these development opportunities could choke that regular supply of work and, unless it is replaced by an alternative source of work, this could lead to the extinction of small, independent practices as they are forced out of the market, merge with others in the same position or are simply swallowed up by bigger firms.

The other great unknown is whether the coalition government will scale back or call time on the Building Schools for the Future programme. For firms like mine this will not have a significant impact as we are already excluded from this work due to our size. It could however force many practices to reevaluate how they secure work and in which sectors they want to be active.

The truth of the matter is that we have no idea what will unfold in the next few months or years, the only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.

The funny thing is that, as a practice, we have been seeing an increase in both enquiries and actual commissions in the period that led upto the General Election. I think that many people were convinced that, by now, there would be a new government in power and that things would be much more certain than they are, lets hope they don't get cold feet!

In the vain hope that someone with some clout might read this blog, here are my suggestions for policies that a coalition government could introduce to make the business of a local Architect more profitable and sustainable:

Local Authority Projects:

- All Local Authority building projects to be delivered using directly employed consultants to ensure that the Local Authorities retain true control over quality and design.
- All Local Authority consultants to be employed through a simple tender process that recognises the fact that, in the case of "chartered" consultants, a high level of professionalism is guaranteed to ensure that even the smallest practice can compete with confidence.
- Professional Indemnity Insurance levels required on Local Authority projects to be set at a level that is appropriate to the scale of the project to ensure that realistic insurances are held by consultants and that small practices are not excluded from projects that they could otherwise carry out.
- Local Authority procurement guidance to place an emphasis on using local consultants, where possible to ensure that local capital expenditure is reinvested into the local economy rather than being lost to other regions.

Planning System:

- All Planning Officers to hold, or be undergoing training to hold, a design related qualification to ensure that design is at the forefront of the appraisal and decision making process.
- All Planning Committee members to be required to undergo regular CPD and design related training to ensure that the committee have at least a basic understanding of design issues and the construction industry.
- All Planning Applications to be signed, prior to submission, by a Chartered Architect (RIBA), Surveyor (RICS) or member of the CIAT to ensure that all applications submitted are of an appropriate design quality and accompanied by all the appropriate supporting information.
- All Local Authorities to establish design review panels of local design professionals and planning professionals to review all major applications prior to Planning Committee decisions to ensure that elected members have formal access to local design expertise.

Until then, we'll continue to muddle on providing our Clients with the high quality service and professionalism that they have grown to expect from us and hope that, through a growing reputation, we too can grow to compete with the big boys!

Business 2.0?

2010-04-29T19:18:00.007+01:00

As some of you may have noticed there's an election looming next week, the sharp increase in junk mail and personal visits from your MP (who you haven't seen for the past five years) might have given you some clues, and yet life for us mere mortals continues to plod along regardless and whoever gets elected change for us will be slow in coming.... or will it?

Since I last posted anything on this site we have seen more business drop through our letter box (metaphorically speaking) and yet the sources seem to have subtly changed.

Yes, we have still picked up work from old Clients who we have relationships with that go back years (a Hospice in Ealing through a partnership with a contractor), but we are also seeing a sharp increase in enquiries through our website (three in as many days - and all great quality) and referrals through Twitter!

These are all (except the long standing Client) leads being generated by an area of marketing that, up until a year or so ago, was under-resourced and consisted simply if a website which acted as an electronic shop window....no longer!

This afternoon I went along to Be2campEast, a half-day event aiming to help people understand more about Web 2.0 applications for professionals working in the built environment, from architects to property people, from facilities managers to construction marketeers, and it has made me realise that not only is the way we market ourselves changing but the way we work with other project partners may also have to change...Business 2.0!

As an Architectural practice, we have always prided ourselves on the way that we aim to work in a non-confrontational way with Clients, Contractors and Statutory Authorities but I think that we may have missed a trick.

Today, one of the things that really stuck in my head, apart from the fact that I need to sort out my Linkedin profile (thanks Su Butcher) and my Website content (thanks Lee Smallwood), is that Web 1.0 was about lecturing or offering a product whilst Web 2.0 is about dialogue and solving peoples problems.

Although I hate to say this out loud, as Architects we quite often offer up solutions that are "take it or leave it" options, rarely do we do dialogue....which is madness because, when we do, we are great at it!

Our practice has been built on developing relationships with our Clients and Contractors and Local Authorities where we submit the most applications...that has paid off handsomely, now the game is building those relationships (using ALL the tools at hand) and allowing them to develop not just through technical professionalism and quality of service but also through dialogue and involving everyone in the debate (although please Remember I'm the Blooming Architect!)

Change is happening, in fact it's already happened and the change from web 1.0 to web 2.0 can only have a similar (positive) impact on our business!

Who benefits?

2010-04-19T23:50:00.006+01:00

It's been an interesting start to the week and one that quite neatly illustrates some of the challenges of being a local Architect.

As with all Architects, we offer our Clients unbiased, professional advice with the aim of steering them away from the potential pitfalls (and financial exposure that accompanies them) and down the path to a well concieved, well constructed, end product - but events yesterday have made me question who really benefits from our expertise and do they recognise the benefit?

My first example is a small domestic project (approx contract value £90k). The Clients, whilst lovely people, are quite demanding and have caused us some twenty hours of additional work trying to identify cost savings to bring the tender return within budget.

Fair enough, you may say, you shouldn't have designed a building that was over budget! That would be fair comment if the overspend weren't the result of their list of "desirables" which have since become "essentials"!

We have managed to identify and negotiate the savings required without diluting the scheme and everyone is happy.....full speed ahead....apart from the fact that the Client is now querying our invoice for five hours of the extra time, even though it is clearly for work outside of our original commission.

Despite our success in saving our Clients about £15k and in ensuring that their dreams could be realised on their limited budget....our efforts were valued at less than the £375 (plus VAT) invoiced!

Do other professionals face this challenge, of course not! Now it may be that, because we don't charge the hourly rates of an Accountant or Solicitor, we aren't considered as much of a neccesity...but when was the last time your Accountant saved you £15k?

Another Client rang us recently complaining that we wouldn't instruct a whole bunch of additional work items on his commercial project!

Now, again, you might be of the opinion that we are out of order - until you hear that his building contract is at large and issuing an instruction at this stage will cost him thousands in lost Liquadated and Ascertained Damages AND he doesn't have Planning Permission for what he wants to do!

For what seems like the millionth time, we explained to him that our primary concern is his position - contracturally, financially and with regards Planning. In effect we are trying to save him from himself - yet I get an earful and (once again) questions about why he bothers to pay us!

Would you question why you pay your Solicitor as he stops you getting sued, ripped off or jailed? I think not!

On the other hand, we have recently had a Local Authority Building Control Department express their pleasure that we are involved in a project because the quality of our drawings and specification mean that they're not having to guess how the project is going to be constructed. We have also had a contractor express similar feelings.

It's a strange thing, but I am increasingly becoming convinced that it is clear that all parties to a building project benefit from the involvement of an Architect (especially architecture & design services Ltd - http://www.aandds.co.uk/) but it seems that the Client is often the last to recognise the value.

I was reminded this evening of the Project Manager who, wisely, observed that in order to be considered a great Project Manager you have to been seen to be great at putting out fires - not preventing them!

The challenge always used to be to get the contractor to value you as an Architect - now it appears that our challenge is to persuade our Clients that the benefit of employing us is that they won't always see the problems we solve or pitfalls we steer them clear of!

Welcome

2010-04-16T15:43:00.003+01:00

Welcome to our first ever blog!

I thought that a good starting point was to introduce both myself and us, as a practice!

As an RIBA Chartered Practice of Architects, We [architecture & design services ltd] have been based at Parndon Mill in Harlow for the past three years, having previously been based in Epping High Road.

We design carefully composed, innovative buildings and are committed to the idea that a successful building is one which responds thoughtfully, and gracefully to our client's needs and to local conditions.

We enjoy working with our clients to identify their future needs, and developing the brief and the design together. We believe that in working as a team with our clients, statutory authorities and contractors we contribute to producing buildings to be proud of.

I am Mark Cotton and I established architecture & design services ltd five years ago having left Stevenage Borough Council where I was Senior Architect responsible for the delivery of all the Council's capital projects, including new build sports pavillions and various residential projects.

I hope that this blog will develop into a record of our thoughts and observations as a practice on what it is like to be a relatively small architectural practice in a post credit crunch economy - balancing the need to be economically cost effect with the increasing demands of both the Planning and Building Regulations legislative environments

If you fancy taking a peek at our website click here