Get Sust! issue 38

FEATURE

Out with the ‘starchitects’; in with the all-rounders

In the past half-century, schools of architecture have concentrated on iconic design at the expense of practicality, but as delegates to the Oxford Conference 2008 heard, this is an approach that’s way past its sell-by date. And it’s down to the schools (with a little help from Get Sust!) to point the profession in the right direction.

It has been a turbulent summer, and no mistake. Students who applied for construction-related courses must have been wondering if they had made the right choice, given the dire state of the housing market and with contractors laying off staff right, left and centre.

Hopefully, though, there won’t be too many who opt to swap to other courses. For the construction industry is bound to turn around sooner or later (though admittedly, it might be later); and when that happens there will be an urgent need for new blood to reinvigorate the construction projects of Britain. And one thing is for certain: the staggering collapse of the financial markets, coupled with worries over the cost and availability of oil, gas and food, mean that sustainability – and sustainable construction in particular – are going to be higher up everyone’s agenda, as the 300 or so participants in the Oxford Conference (22-23 July) confirmed.

It is 50 years since the ‘first’ Oxford Conference. Back then, as RIBA President Sunand Prasad explained in his keynote speech at the 2008 event, the ‘schools of architecture’ were in crisis. There was all-round concern that standards of architectural education needed to be raised, and the profession needed to attract higher quality students – to develop the discipline away from the artisan and the practical, and to develop the theoretical and artistic. People left the 1958 event determined to do just that. And they succeeded.

Oh, how they succeeded! To the point where architecture as an academic endeavour has perhaps become too self-obsessed and isolated from complementary disciplines such as engineering, and where, says Prasad, many architects have lost the courage to hold out for high-quality urban design, and innovative buildings are few and far between because “People who know less and care less than [architects] are having more of a say”.

The problems we face for the next 50 years, says Prasad, mean that we have to reverse this trend. Architects and other construction professionals will have to confront the need to do things differently – to collaborate.

Prasad says the multi-disciplinary approach is already proven as a route to improving the overall sustainability of buildings; working within fixed limits (whether that’s carbon emissions or materials selection) can be used to drive innovation; and architects are well placed to engage people in the cultural change that is going to be necessary as climate change sets in.

These themes recurred throughout the 200 or more presentations over the two-day conference.

Dennis Andrejko of the American Institute of Architects, for instance, explained how the AIA decided to adopt the “Do no harm” approach to architecture – that is, to officially recognise the risks posed by climate change – and to encourage their members to “walk the walk”, by adopting an integrated approach to project delivery, including acknowledging the possibility that “leadership roles might be filled by someone other than the architect”.

He was followed by Chris Johnson of Gensler, who asked the question “Where is architecture going in the 21st century?” His answer was possibly not what many of the architects present had expected!

A survey by Gensler (christened ‘Faulty Towers’) has found that 61 percent of companies are ‘dazzled’ by iconic buildings – the kind that win the Stirling Prize – but it turns out that most clients would prefer to have efficient buildings. He cited Peckham Library as an example of all that’s wrong with recent practice: the building had to be closed so that books could be moved in order to change the light bulbs!

Johnson and his firm are adamant that sustainable does not have to mean ugly, that energy performance certificates (EPCs) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are positive incentives for change, and that designing for the well-being of occupants should be paramount. He was equally determined that these three factors should be pressed home in schools of architecture in the UK and overseas.

Numerous speakers bemoaned the current isolation from reality that many schools of architecture around the world seem to endure – where many are more concerned with churning out “starchitects” (a handy word coined by Nina Maritz) who win prizes, at the expense of well-rounded professionals who are ready to face the challenges of the “sustainability century”.

All of which brings us neatly back to the question of what should be going on in schools of architecture. Richard Lorch thinks he has the answer – research!

As Editor of Building Research & Information, you wouldn’t really expect Lorch to say anything else. But he had delved into the Oxford Conference 1958 archive and extracted a pertinent comment that remains true today:

“Knowledge is the raw material for design. It is not a substitute for architectural imagination: but it is necessary for the effective exercise of imagination and skill in design. Inadequate knowledge handicaps and trammels the architect, limits the achievements of even the most creative and depresses the general level of design.” R Llewelyn-Davis

One problem today, contends Lorch, is that research into architectural matters is conducted by post-graduates and barely reaches those who go forward into practice. This would be unacceptable in other disciplines: what doctor could get by without reading up on the latest research?

Lorch’s recipe for success is to reintroduce research into schools of architecture – to widen the boundaries of research so that it looks beyond pure design elements to encompass social and economic factors too; and for undergraduates to be engaged in the practical research of topics such as how buildings perform, which buildings survive and why, and the consequences of successes and failure:

“Research is vital in education at the undergraduate level to create:

• research and innovation literacy

• a ‘critical mass’ [of people] who can interpret, absorb, [and] act upon new ideas

• culture change: not only predicting (hoping) but validating, … and learning from ‘mistakes’

• and capability – [the ability to] work in an interdisciplinary team.”

The first day of the conference concluded with presentations of the Ecohouse Student Design Competition awards. There had been 178 entrants from around the world (36 from Britain). Here were gathered students from as far afield as Minnesota, USA, the People’s Republic of China, Peru, and Manchester!

But why so few? If students (and their tutors) were really taking sustainability seriously this should be one of the highest profile competitions worldwide.

So clearly, there is still a job for Get Sust! to do – to help disseminate sustainable construction research knowledge to the next generation of construction professionals. Let’s hope that next year’s competition attracts 1078 entries!

Learn more:

	•	American Institute of Architects www.aia.org/sustainability
	•	Details of the presentations at the Oxford Conference 2008 are at: www.oxfordconference2008.co.uk. Copies of the conference proceedings "The Oxford Conference: A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture" are also available for sale (£25). To receive a copy, please complete and return the order form.

© Melanie Thompson 2008