CONSULTANT/CONTRACTOR
DICHOTOMIES:
Is Guild-Socialism the answer to Design/Build Procurement?
1_Introduction:
In rural and urban areas across the UK there are many developments, small and large, which are taking place without the engagement of traditionally run architectural practices. Jobbing builders, small-scale developers and homeowners continually carry out alterations and commence with new build projects, year upon year, intent on adding value and space to their own properties. Although common across the UK, the construction of ‘architecture’ without the use of architects is a global phenomenon.
Finn Williams, co-founder and CEO of Public Practice, referred to the RIBA’s stats in an article from 2017, where a mere, “six per cent of new homes,” [1] were constructed with the engagement of an architect. Williams continues, “over 200,000 homes were built in England without the input of an architect.” Many of these projects are carried out through, what is referred to as a Design/Build (D/B) procurement route. A ‘traditional contract’ involves a client approaching a consultant (architect) to carry out the design iteration and development of their own brief, and the subsequent appointment of a contractor to carry out the building works. In contrast, D/B contracts form when a contractor is approached by the client, being seen as, “a single point of responsibility for delivering the entire project.” [2]
Many contemporary built environment professionals see the shift in contractual responsibility from designer to contractor as a strong influential factor in the current “marginalisation” [3] of the architectural profession. The ‘traditional architect’ has to radically re-think how they engage with Design/Build in order to remain a relevant player in the built environment. Through reconsidering Part 1 Architectural Placement, and a revival of Guild Socialism, could it be possible to reframe D/B in order to integrate both “Artisan and Architect” under one professional identity?
[1] Finn Williams, “Architects Must Work on Ordinary Briefs, For Ordinary People”, Dezeen, 2017 <https://www.dezeen.com/2017/12/04/finn-williams-opinion-public-practice-opportunities-architects-ordinary-briefs-ordinary-people/> [Accessed 11 March 2020].
[2] “Design and Build Procurement Route”, Designingbuildings.co.uk, 2019 <https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Design_and_build_procurement_route> [Accessed 10 March 2020].
[3] Patrick Kingsland, “The Role of The Architect in 2018”, Design&Build Review, 2020 <https://designbuild.nridigital.com/design_build_review_issue_42_february_2018/the_role_of_the_architect_in_2018> [Accessed 11 March 2020].
2_Who is the Master of the Master Craftsman?
The relationship between the architect and builder is brought to the forefront when considering the role of Design/Build contracts in contemporary projects. Inherently, the reversal of the ‘traditional’ allocation of the professional, who is contractually ‘in charge’, brings about a significant change.
The relationship between these two entities, is a topic long discussed by architectural historians and practicing architects alike. In his book, ‘Architects and the “Building World” from Chambers to Ruskin’, Brian Hanson discusses the principles of notable British Architects from the mid 18th to 19th Centuries. Hanson compares two professional standpoints, through which the architect could seek authority to lead: “either by entering more wholeheartedly into the work of building, thus gaining the respect of craftsmen, or by seeking a vantage point well above the contingencies of building.” [4] (pp. 22) The former position of the ‘Architect Among Builders’ was championed by William Chambers, who headed the Office of Works and was appointed the Architectural Tutor to George III during second half of the 1700s.
It was John Soane (practicing primarily at the start of the 19th Century), however, who strived to push the profession in the opposite direction, aiming to “liberate the art of architecture, from its mechanical taint,” targeting to set the ‘Architect Above Builders’. The same period brought about the introduction of competitive tendering, where Master Builders would pitch to construct much larger projects. With the security of a successfully won bid, a Master was able to start sub-contracting the works to other tradesmen, which Soane abhorred. Soane lamented the loss of total control over a project once handed over to the master in charge of construction, as before this point, it was possible for an architect to obsessively hand-pick each individual craftsman working a project. Soane’s most eminent statement regarding the discourse between the Architect and Artisan is as follows:
“The architect, when become eminently superior in taste and skill, must necessarily depend in a great degree upon the ignorant and unskilful to form and embody his conceptions, and to produce that which his genius has planned… no care or attention, no possible accuracy of delineation, can positively and at all times, secure him against the consequences of the necessity he is under thus to commit himself. This is a difficultly peculiar to his art, and absolutely unavoidable.” (pp. 48)
The high regard, with which Soane held his ‘art’ and his dissatisfaction with having to rely on the “ignorant and unskilled” to fabricate his masterpieces, culminated in a transformation in his architectural style. Soane’s early work features honest architectural detailing where the builder’s handicraft is on show; this notion was subsequently opposed throughout his career. Soane sought to conceal masonry by specifying plastered mouldings carried out by a single craftsman from London, in whom he trusted, asserting his control, once again, over the building process. A change, which critic Gavin Stamp believed implied an underlying, “abuse of power.” (p.44)
Soane truly represents the epitome of the view that the architect is the, “elite professional independent of and superior to the building industry,” [5] an outdated model when considering the current condition of the UK’s built environment. Peter Buchanan, architect, urbanist and architectural writer for The Architectural Review, discusses the current disjoint between educational institutions and professional practice in his essay: ‘1989 July: What’s wrong with Architectural Education? Almost Everything’ (published in 2012). In a scathing tone, Buchanan emphasises the importance of studio engagement with physical construction and real-world programmes.
“In Britain, and in most other countries too, architectural education is based upon an increasingly irrelevant role model, that of the architect as an elite professional independent of and superior to the building industry and each architect, if not actually a principal in his own firm, at least a job runner and designer aspiring to genius. But the architect is being reduced to simply another member of the building team…”
Dr. Vincent Canizaro, an Architectural Philosopher at the University of Texas, unpicks D/B’s role in education in an article from the International Journal of Architectural Research. Taking a slightly different stance on the term Design & Build, Canizaro compares schools of thought across America, pitching the particular importance of ‘demystifying’ the current practices on actual construction sites, much like Buchanan. Canizaro highlights a current necessity for architectural schools to reclaim, “disciplinary expertise, given up for professional status,” [6] which he supports with a statement from Peter Wheelwright (professor at Parsons):
“… typical designer vs. builder dichotomies, which either decry the architect’s loss of connection to the material world, or their arrogance toward a perceived “underclass” (i.e., builders). Many academic design-build programs were founded with the explicit intention of redressing this situation.” (pp.23)
When considering the very real-world utilisation of Design/Build contracts, it is now more crucial than ever for young architects to revaluate the ‘traditional role’ of an architect as the project lead; instead of the Architect taking the role as the Master of the Master Craftsman, the two professional entities have to view one another as equals.
[4] Brian Hanson, Architects and the “Building World” From Chambers to Ruskin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
[5] Peter Buchanan, “1989 July: What’s Wrong with Architectural Education? Almost Everything”, The Architectural Review, 2012.
[6] Vincent B. Canizaro, “Design-Build in Architectural Education: Motivations, Practices, Challenges, Successes and Failures”, International Journal of Architectural Research, 6.3 (2020), 20–36.
3_From JCT to D/B:
The Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) founded in 1931 by the RIBA, symbolises another institutional endeavour, initially formed with the intention of enabling Architects to have further ascendancy and custodianship of the built environment. Issuing a series of standardised ‘traditional’ contracts to local authorities nationwide, JCT ensured that the architect maintained the principle role of development within the UK. The JCT has, however, acclimatised to a new construction environment, “accounting for and adapting to changes in industry practice, new procurement methods, and changes in legislation.” [7] Currently, the JCT offer 11 different constituent bodies of contract, featuring both the original and traditional ‘Standard Building Contract’ as well as a ‘Design and Build’ alternative. The JCT describes the relationship between both professional entities under the D/B contract as follows:
“Under this form of JCT Contract, the Contractor is given the same level of Design Responsibility as the Architect.”[8]
Design/Build procurement initially gained use and indeed popularity in North America during the 1980–90s, spurring on the foundation of the Design-Build Institute of America (or DBIA) in 1993. Sandra Hasegawa and Steve Elliott discuss Design/Build as the “‘Full Service’ Option” in the construction field in an article for Landscape Architecture Magazine in 1982; “The Design/Build trend gathered steam because of the pressures of inflation, competition for work, and a long-term tendency toward rational simplification of the development process.” [9](pp.74) In an increasingly economically challenged climate, the built environment has to strive towards becoming more efficient: With Design/Build procurement as an option, many clients are drawn to this ‘one-stop-shop’ solution, which in turn poses the question: How can, “the designer, contractor and client work not as adversaries, but as partners?”
[7] “Our History — The Joint Contracts Tribunal”, Corporate.jctltd.co.uk <https://corporate.jctltd.co.uk/about-us/our-history/> [Accessed 10 March 2020].
[8] JCT Contracting (London: Construction Link Ltd, 2019), pp. 2–9.
[9] Sandra Hasegawa and Steve Elliot, “Design/Build: The ‘Full Service’ Option”, Landscape Architecture Magazine, 1982.
4_The impact of D/B on current built practice:
As previously discussed, through the likes of Soane and Buchanan, the architect and the contractor have long been at loggerheads. Design/Build serves continue to ruffle the feathers of comfortable architects who were taught and practiced in previous generations.
A great proportion of the houses, which make-up the 200,000 homes quoted in Finn Williams’ article, were undoubtedly produced through the use of D/B Procurement. In many cases, the development which makes up a large part of change within the UK’s built environment are domestic projects. A client will approach a contractor directly, in order to get a functional extension through planning, and then subsequently, built. For these projects, there is a lesser requirement for design quality, the main consideration being dwelling expansion and planning consent. Therefore, a D/B approach is the suitable option. Richard Saxon, architect and former vice president of RIBA, speaks from a business standpoint:
“If you want control over quality, you are almost certainly going to avoid design and build (D/B), but if you are more concerned about risk you are going to go the other way.” [10]
D/B contractors carrying out these types of works often use in-house designers to provide a solution to the client’s brief, which puts local architectural practices out of a job. This area of design is a perfect sector for young architects to tap into, as experience of small scale, quick turnaround projects, provides exposure to the real world of construction.
[10] Richard Saxon, “How to Choose the Right Construction Contract”, Architecture.Com, 2018 <https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/how-to-choose-the-right-construction-contract> [Accessed 7 March 2020].
5_Reframing ‘Practical’ Experience:
In an interview with Nick McDermott (3rd March 2020) [11] a long-serving Stone Mason from Ulverston, Cumbria, he was posed the question: How would the current architectural education pathway be altered, with a view towards young architects qualifying with a greater understanding of the current built environment? McDermott, in turn, emphasised the importance of hands-on experience in education, which echoes many of the notions put forward by Canizaro. He believes that a length of time labouring on real-world construction sites, should feature as part of a newly graduated architects’ progression.
“The way I think you could become a good architect, is by spending a year working on an actual site. Get your hands dirty and experience putting things together…”
“… gain an understanding of how things are actually constructed, for less money. What works and what doesn’t.”
“You may even be able to make a design better, as you understand how the fundamental parts of the structure fit together.”
In-line with McDermott’s thoughts, a radical rethink of the RIBA’s Part 1 ‘Practical Experience’ could be appropriate. In their set of eligibility requirements, The Architects Registration Board (ARB) feature a rule ‘13(b)’, stipulating: “… [an applicant must have] recently completed a minimum of 24 months’ practical experience under the direct supervision of a professional working in the construction industry.” [12] In their student guidelines, the ARB continues to specify: “The ‘construction industry’ will include qualified professionals typically involved in the procurement, design and management of the built environment.” If architectural students were encouraged to work on-site for a year, as opposed to working in an architectural practice, the perceived hierarchical gap between the contractor and the consultant could start to be dismantled. What is more, the student gains the opportunity of working for a Design/Build firm and in turn could exploit working in an area of development within the UK, currently monopolised by contractors.
In an article featured in the Cambridge Journal, Prof. Sarah Wigglesworth discusses the experience of working within the Design/Build context, from the aspect of her own well-established architectural practice, SWA. Wigglesworth, pitches two very contrasting projects: One which demonstrates a laborious and unsatisfactory termination, and another which culminated in an efficient and enjoyable professional relationship. In her conclusion, Wigglesworth stresses, “… it is often not the letter of the contract but, more frequently, the “softer” aspects, that determine successful outcomes for all parties.” [13] [pp.216] Counter to many disgruntled architect’s, Wigglesworth notes: Design/Build procurement route is not the crux of project issues, but suggests that a healthy contractor, consultant and client relationship is essential to a strong project.
[11] Author’s Own interview, Nick McDermott, (Ulverston, Cumbria, 2020).
[12] Practical Training Guidelines — Frequently Asked Questions (London: Architects Registration Board, 2016) <http://www.arb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PTR_FAQS1.pdf> [Accessed 12 March 2020].
[13] Sarah Wigglesworth, “‘WLTM Caring Contractor’: The Dating Game of Design and Build Contracts”, Architectural Research Quarterly, 16.3 (2012), 210–216 <https://doi.org/10.1017/s1359135513000055>.
6_The Revival of Guild-Socialism:
It is possible to recalibrate the relationship between the consultant and contractor, through reframing both entities’ professional titles. A radical revival of guild-socialism could bring about new mutually beneficial Design/Build collectives, which aim to disregard the traditional statuses of ‘Architects’ and ‘Contractors’, in favour of being labelled: Master Craftsmen and Women in their own right.
In an essay called ‘The Builder’s Art and the Craftsman’, William Lethaby, a notable architect and theorist from the Arts and Crafts movement, sympathises with his peer, John Ruskin. Lethaby wholly refutes the state of his faculty at the time of writing and challenged architectural education to evolve from a merely paper-based pursuit. In contrast to Ruskin however, Lethaby strove to, ‘advance towards an architecture of the future,’ [14] rather than a regression to the Middle-Ages. He attempts to rally his readers towards an Arts and Craft goal; reaffirming the architect as a craftsman, aware of the technics of fabrication and material application; away from the class-dividing snobbery attached to their professional title.
“Will you sustain the ‘status of architects,’ the theory of the ‘good of a noble profession’; or will you devote your whole strength to becoming an artist in building — a chief workman?” [15] (pp. 163)
The concept of reclaiming architecture as a form of tangible and accessible ‘craft’, is a radical yet contemporarily relevant notion: Through which young architects could be absorbed into the Design/Build sector. Far from being a modern concept, Design/Build resembles the medieval role of the Master Builder where one entity took a project through all stages from conception to completion.
Young architects must aim to redefine the Design/Build context, forming collective institutions which encompass all levels of skilled workforces with a universal ‘craft’ title. Side-lining the traditional title of Architect in favour of practicing under a wholly collaborative and equal standing. D/B could provide a platform through which, Guild institutions can revive.
Following the end of World War I, the UK saw a brief burgeon of building guilds; their main purpose: “… the Ruskinian belief that by doing away with a system of production based on profit, the Guilds would restore the joy of labour and level of craftsmanship associated with the Middle Ages.” [16] (pp. 167) Among the key protagonists of this brief revival were Arthur Penty and Malcolm Sparkes, an architect and owner of a building firm respectively. Whilst Penty believed that the art of architecture relied heavily on the aristocratic purse, both he and Sparkes’ believed in the building guild’s capacity as a socialist tool, removing the profession from the clutches of a few high-powered individuals. The application of this common democratic goal can a good learning:
“According to Sparkes there were three essential features of a building guild. First, control by the rank and file. This meant not just operatives, but also technicians and architects, for a guild, as distinct from a trade union, had to include all workers in a given industry, professional and managerial as well as manual. Second continuous pay… Third, no dividends… [any surplus] would be ‘used for the improvement of the service’.” (pp. 183)
Two existing institutions or guilds stills harness the Post-Ruskinian concepts promoted by their 1920s forebears: The Art Workers’ Guild, “founded in 1884 by young architects and designers who wanted to create a meeting place for the Fine Arts and the Applied Arts on an equal footing.” [17] and The Guild of Master Craftsmen, (registered in 1975) which aims to: “bring together all artisans engaged in a craft, art, trade, profession or vocation, in order to safeguard the interests of both craftsmen and the public.” [18]
Perhaps we could exploit these guild institutions as outputs for collective Design/Build projects, celebrating the ‘craft’ of each member and disregarding each of their traditional professional accreditations. We could see an upskilling in architects’ practical outputs, appeasing both Buchanan and Lethaby alike. In addition to breaking down the hierarchical divide which plagues the built environment. A wholly Ruskinian notion: ‘The artist and craftsman must be one.’
[14] Deborah A. Van Der Plaat, “Architecture, Mysticism And Myth (1891): William Lethaby And The Foundation Of A Syncretic Modernism” (unpublished Ph.D, University of New South Wales, 2000).
[15] William Lethaby, “The Builder’s Art and The Craftsman”, in Architecture: A Profession or An Art (London: Murray, 1892).
[16] “A.J. Penty and The Building Guilds”, in Artisans and Architects (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989), pp. 167–188.
[17] “The Art Workers’ Guild | History”, The Art Workers’ Guild <http://www.artworkersguild.org/about-us/history/> [Accessed 10 March 2020].
[18] “Aims and Objectives”, The Guild of Master Craftsmen <https://www.guildmc.com/about-us/aims-and-objectives/> [Accessed 12 March 2020].
7_Bibliography:
“Aims and Objectives”, The Guild of Master Craftsmen <https://www.guildmc.com/about-us/aims-and-objectives/> [Accessed 12 March 2020]
Buchanan, Peter, “1989 July: What’s Wrong with Architectural Education? Almost Everything”, The Architectural Review, 2012
Canizaro, Vincent B., “Design-Build in Architectural Education: Motivations, Practices, Challenges, Successes and Failures”, International Journal of Architectural Research, 6 (2020), 20–36
“Design & Build — Dead and Buried?”, Building Design, 13 (1998)
“Design and Build Procurement Route”, Designingbuildings.co.uk, 2019 <https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Design_and_build_procurement_route> [Accessed 10 March 2020]
Garnham, Trevor, “William Lethaby and The Two Ways of Building.” AA Files, no. 10 (1985): pp. 27–43. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/29543471> [Accessed 12 March 2020]
Gonchar, Joann, “The New Master Builders”, Architectural Record, 2014
Hanson, Brian, Architects and the “Building World” From Chambers to Ruskin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Hasegawa, Sandra, and Steve Elliot, “Design/Build: The ‘Full Service’ Option”, Landscape Architecture Magazine, 1982
JCT Contracting (London: Construction Link Ltd, 2019), pp. 2–9
Kingsland, Patrick, “The Role of The Architect in 2018”, Design&Build Review, 2020 <https://designbuild.nridigital.com/design_build_review_issue_42_february_2018/the_role_of_the_architect_in_2018> [Accessed 11 March 2020]
Lethaby, William, “The Builder’s Art and The Craftsman”, in Architecture: A Profession or An Art (London: Murray, 1892)
McDermott, Nick, Design/Build and Young Architects (Ulverston, Cumbria, 2020)
“Our History — The Joint Contracts Tribunal”, Corporate.jctltd.co.uk <https://corporate.jctltd.co.uk/about-us/our-history/> [Accessed 10 March 2020]
“Our Mission — The Joint Contracts Tribunal”, Corporate.jctltd.co.uk <https://corporate.jctltd.co.uk/about-us/our-mission/> [Accessed 10 March 2020]
Pedersen, Martin C., “Continuing Education: How to Make Money”, Architectural Record, 2015
Practical Training Guidelines — Frequently Asked Questions (London: Architects Registration Board, 2016) <http://www.arb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PTR_FAQS1.pdf> [Accessed 12 March 2020]
Saxon, Richard, “How to Choose the Right Construction Contract”, Architecture.Com, 2018 <https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/how-to-choose-the-right-construction-contract> [Accessed 7 March 2020]
Spring, Martin, “Making Great Design Affordable”, Architect’s Journal, 2010
Swenarton, Mark, “A.J. Penty And the Building Guilds”, in Artisans and Architects (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989), pp. 167–188
“The Art Workers’ Guild | 2019”, Openhouselondon.open-city.org.uk <https://openhouselondon.open-city.org.uk/listings/2003> [Accessed 10 March 2020]
“The Art Workers’ Guild | History”, The Art Workers’ Guild <http://www.artworkersguild.org/about-us/history/> [Accessed 10 March 2020]
Van Der Plaat, Deborah A., “Architecture, Mysticism And Myth (1891): William Lethaby And The Foundation Of A Syncretic Modernism” (unpublished Ph.D, University of New South Wales, 2000)
Wigglesworth, Sarah, “‘WLTM Caring Contractor’: The Dating Game of Design and Build Contracts”, Architectural Research Quarterly, 16 (2012), 210–216 <https://doi.org/10.1017/s1359135513000055>
William Thompson, J, “Hands-On Education”, Landscape Architecture Magazine, 1992
Williams, Finn, “Architects Must Work on Ordinary Briefs, For Ordinary People”, Dezeen, 2017 <https://www.dezeen.com/2017/12/04/finn-williams-opinion-public-practice-opportunities-architects-ordinary-briefs-ordinary-people/> [Accessed 11 March 2020]
