Reactions to "A manifesto for change - Part 1"

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!

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?

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.

Collaborate working - what's new?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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