Article below by Felicity Parsons, documenting A New Chapter ‘Un-Convention’:
“What do we want for the profession and how are we going to do it?”
A New Chapter was created in 2017 to lobby for change at the RIAS – the professional body for chartered architects in Scotland.
The unconvention was organised by Jude Barber and Rosalie Menon as part of the 2018 Architecture Fringe programme.
On 9 June 2018, A New Chapter’s unconvention brought together architects, academics, students and others to help shape its agenda.
“Being here means being involved.” Jude Barber
A series of nine provocations stimulated wide ranging debates about architects in industry, education and society as follows:
The nine speakers and their provocations were:
Chris Platt: “What is the point of a professional institution?”
Roger Emmerson: “A three-legged stool or a tetrahedron? Education and the structure of the profession.”
Peter Richardson: “Architecture and education: how long have we been losing the edge?”
Chris Morgan: “New professionalism and trust within the profession.”
Suzanne Ewing: “Reality check: re-vising and re-purposing the work of architecture.”
Ruta Turcinaviciute: “The student voice is currently overlooked in discussions regarding the future architecture profession.”
Anne Duff: “Unlearning after the recent RIAS events.”
Calum Duncan: “How can we empower and engage our young citizens in the design and politics of the built environment?”
Chris Stewart: “Sustainability: the theme that brings everything together.”
Looking beyond reform of the RIAS, the discussions coalesced around three main themes: the value of architectural thinking, how well architecture schools equip students for practice and the meaningfulness of architects’ codes of conduct.
“We need to overturn the shibboleths and create a new paradigm of architecture.” Roger Emmerson
Calling for a fundamental rethink of the values of architecture, Roger Emmerson argued that the traditional Vitruvian triad – firmitas, utilitas and venustas – is like a three-legged stool, which tilts when weighted unevenly. In place of this unstable paradigm, Emmerson proposed a flexible new model – a tetrahedron made up of three layers: aesthetics, pragmatics and ethics. This tetrahedron can accommodate a multiplicity of models of architecture, which – crucially – always include ethics.
“Architects as people need to behave properly.” Chris Morgan
Not taking ethics seriously enough is one of the reasons why architects have undermined their role in society according to Chris Morgan. He asserted that it’s easy enough to write a code of conduct that most people would agree with; what’s interesting is how individual architects look at the code – and they need to take ethics more seriously.
It was generally agreed that the RIAS, RIBA and ARB codes of conduct don’t reflect what’s distinctive about the ethical responsibilities of architects. As a result, said Chris Platt, the codes of conduct do little to illustrate how architects can contribute to the world. But Chris Stewart pointed out that the RIBA is drawing up a new code of conduct that focuses on sustainability. He suggested that sustainability could be the unifying theme behind the work of a reformed RIAS.
“Who campaigns explicitly to demonstrate our readiness to address 21st century problems?” Chris Platt
A recurring theme of the debate was the undervaluing of architects’ work and architectural thinking in our society. Peter Richardson noted that architects as lead designers often employ sub consultants whose daily rates are higher than the architects’ rates. But Suzanne Ewing pointed out that it’s not just the construction industry that doesn’t properly recognise architectural work as labour. She asked what the profession is doing by not valuing the time of its workers.
“Protect the work and the worker but not the title.” Suzanne Ewing
Representing Archischools, Calum Duncan made a strong argument for the value of architectural thinking. He said that the iterative nature of the architectural design process provides a model for learning, experimenting and problem solving in all fields. Chris Platt, too, contended that architectural thinking is essential to society. He suggested that promoting the value of architects and architectural thinking (as distinct from architecture) should be the main focus of the RIAS.
Chris Morgan said that architects should be sought after and paid for their judgement but they often lack essential knowledge of building construction, maintenance and performance. Roger Emmerson, too, thought that architects have become deskilled. He said that architectural education privileges aesthetics in order to obscure this deskilling.
“The public perception of architects is as glorified packaging designers.” Roger Emmerson
Peter Richardson argued that new graduates coming into practice need to be able to draw and to have some knowledge of construction, but architecture schools doesn’t properly equip them with these things. Nicola McLachlan, however, asserted that new graduates are very useful to practices. Calum Duncan agreed, although he suggested that having a variety of different training routes would provide a wider range of skills.
“Simplify education/practice links.” Sticky note on unconvention ideas board
This view was widely supported. Ruta Turcinaviciute, for example, said that having more routes to qualification would lead to a more diverse profession; the current system favours wealthier students. She described how her part-time part II course is simply the two-year full time course stretched over three years. As a result, the part-time students often end up relearning in theory what they have already learnt in practice.
Another speaker who had studied part time while working in practice was Anne Duff, an RIAS member for 60 years. She asked whose fault it is that the RIAS is in trouble and suggested that it must be the members’ fault. It isn’t good enough to pay the fee and put the letters after your name, but then leave others to run the institute.
Sally Stewart agreed, saying that the key issue is complacency in the membership. However, it was noted that people need to feel engaged. Chris Morgan said that time is an issue. He suggested that chartered practices be required to give their staff time to be involved in RIAS activities.
Bringing the debate to a close, Rosalie Menon said that A New Chapter needs to think about its next steps. One of these must be – as Anne Duff suggested in her provocation – to take the message to people who aren’t in the room.
“Participation must be the order of the day.” Anne Duff