Brickchat

Architects are entrenched in a rhetoric that speaks to power but not to society. It may be cynical of me to say it, but this is because power pays fees, while society doesn't. Stopping time to capture the Zeitgeist is an incredibly difficult thing to do, especially in a discipline as expensive and complex as architecture. Add to this the idea that 'society' is an entity that is constantly changing shape and you have yourself a soup of complexity.

Architects work hard to understand both the potential and the constraints for their projects. This is where our value lies, but the client and end users will rarely want a break down of all the complex processes and compliances that their projects have been put through. The aim then, is to devise simple, elegant solutions to complex problems and communicate them efficiently.

Those who teach architecture will refuse to admit it, but architects are trained in a way that separates them from the society they aim to serve. While studying, architects talk about hierarchy and juxtaposition, materiality and tectonics. It is rare to discuss the real world constraints to which our professional lives will be bound, instead being told by tutors, "don't worry about the practicalities because this (your building) will never be built."

The dramatic rise of digital design and data management has caused the architects' role to shift from master builder to consultant. The increasing in complexity of the construction industry has allowed for new sub-consultancies to be created to fill gaps in skills. The architecture profession is struggling to match these changes, the result is a profession being lead by technology and material science. Look no further than the rampant specification of aluminium cladding that was seen as cheap and fashionable, but in the end was a negative move for the industry. Why didn't more architects fight this from the beginning?

The architectural press play a major part in pointing architects towards a consensus, with editors and critics contributing to a central idea of what is good design. Add to this the plethora of design panels, competitions and awards ceremonies each year, and you have a look-book of what's what back down the years. It is only human to be taken in by trends and in no way do I think we should shy away from engaging in this conversation, but individuality is a precious and increasingly rare commodity. It isn't up to us to quantify our contribution, but it is up to us to make one in the first place.

Design is considered to be the last area of construction where architects have influence, but without a shrewd understanding of the entire process younger architects find themselves unable to deliver a design to its full potential, or they are cut out of the process altogether. This is a knowledge gap and as long as architects fail to improve their training process and the industry continues to evolve around them, this gap will widen. Future generations of architects will see projects wrestled from them and delivered without design input if we do not act now.

While young architects scramble to catch up with the movements of the wider market, the more experienced architects are eager to innovate. Sadly any architect trying to work in new ways will face significant pressure, because not only are they fighting to break away from their own prejudices, they have to convince others of their new direction as well.

My greatest frustration about the early years of an architect's training is only being taught to present our ideas to each other, never were we challenged to present in Plain English to 'outsiders.' The cyclical nature of the construction industry perpetually stifles any meaningful attempt to innovate its processes or legislation. If given the confidence and ability, architects could promote their ideas more effectively to a wider audience.

Construction is a conservative game, due in part to the disproportionate power that is wielded by incumbent players who by and large like things the way they are. Meanwhile back in architecture school we are still told the story that they we in control of this process we call architecture and that our vision is what leads any project. Of course given the choice all architects would work this way, but it is a privelige that has to be earnt with vision, planning and a lot of hard work.

If we don't give ourselves the tools to understand the complexity of our projects and the landscape they occupy, we will continue to deliver below our potential, and our answers will be far from simple.