Are architects still relevant? No, really, are they?
In a world where planners dictate what the building forms and facades look like, where agents ordain what layouts and interior finishes should be, and where contractors and their suppliers mete out facade articulations and fenestration, what is the role of architects today?
Is it to put together the litany of cliches otherwise known as the Design and Access statement which architects recycle from project to project almost verbatim, basically giving planners what they want to hear? If the buildings are so contextual, why is it almost impossible to discern whether the brick-clad edifice is in London, Berlin or Oslo? How do the John Rocque maps manifest themselves in an ocean of brick slips and open-plan-kitchen residential layouts? I feel bored just writing about it.
Or is it to count builder’s-work-in-concrete holes and to detail inverted roofs? Tasks and responsibilities whose links to architecture are tenuous at best, tasks and responsibilities that can be done better by trade subcontractors and AI. I feel ashamed just writing about it.
Or is it to feel resentful when colleagues leave on time rather than burn the midnight oil to enjoy the perks of being an architect with no friends or life? Perhaps it’s not giving business cards to anyone below a certain level in an attempt to pull rank? I roll my eyes just writing about it.
Architecture is relevant. It underpins everyday life, and every single person interacts with it; however, architects have foisted on themselves a self-imposed obsolescence that has been growing for the last 40 years. The profession has grown stale and awkward, bereft and out of place, joyless and demoralising, sanctimonious and hitching a ride on the bandwagon of headline-making causes.
The profession behaves like a classical army fighting guerrilla warfare. It is a gargantuan phalanx commanding thousands within its ranks, yet slow, heavy and riddled with inefficiency and stifling bureaucracy. In a fast-paced battle, instead of delegating decisions to field commanders who can in real time appraise and take decisions, the profession centralises decision taking where every decision has to clear red tape and be processed by the proverbial ministry of defence. The profession values more office politics over genuine talent, more conformists over disruptors, more territoriality over collaboration, more diffidence over confidence to an extent that it considers any new ideas or any innovation, especially coming from younger staff, as an affront that needs to be punished and sedition that needs to be stamped out. The result is evident in most contemporary buildings around us, insipid at best and (unintentionally) vulgar at worst. The result is most certainly conspicuous in our shrinking fees.
The discipline has a lot to offer, and I do believe architecture can still pull a rabbit out of the hat if architects capitalise on what they were trained to do rather than what they think they ought to do to be seen by the construction industry as “adults”. There is no shame in being perceived as “fuddy duddy” designers and there is no glory in being perceived as “credible” builders. We have turned our backs on the essence of our trade to try to outdo contractors in theirs (and they do their trade superbly because they respect their discipline and they innovate). If we don’t take our discipline seriously, how do we expect others to? To take a leaf from VCCP’s sublime 2013 “Be More Dog” campaign for O2: Waterproofing is meh. blockwork packages are meh. Davit posts are meh. Yet, look at everything else connected to architecture: Design is amazing. Cities are amazing. Art is amazing. Fashion is amazing. Graphic design is amazing. Advertising is amazing. Style is amazing. Film is amazing. Theatre is amazing. Music is amazing. Tech is amazing. Entrepreneurship is amazing. Younger staff’s outlandish fresh ideas are amazing.
So, Architects: Why be so contractor? Why not be a be a bit more…architect?
Be less contractor. Be more architect. Be more dog.