Architects and developers. Like a Big Mac and fries or Jagger and Richards, how could one work without the other? But in an industry where no development can happen without such a partnership, I am constantly amazed at how little these two players really understand each other.
It starts early. Our schools of architecture are woefully bad at preparing aspiring architects for the real world of property development. A quick poll found no architect who had seen a viability appraisal during their undergraduate training in order to understand their ability to influence it by creating value. And did any budding developer on an estate management course ever tour the Stirling Prize shortlist for inspiration? In my 20 years in this industry, I have only ever worked with one developer who trained as an architect.
And it continues. How many architects subscribe or contribute regularly to this magazine? And how many developers read BD or the Architects’ Journal? How many Estates Gazette readers are planning on going to the London Festival of Architecture, which begins next week?
It’s like we live in two completely separate worlds, when we ought to be striving to understand each other better. We developers need to understand that architects are not creative fantasists or simply a line item on an cost appraisal, but a vital tool that, when used correctly, can create significant value for schemes, solve intractable problems and deliver award-winning developments.
And architects need to understand that a developer worried about costs isn’t a Philistine opposed to curves because they “cost too much”.
I spend a lot of time at conferences, in seminars and presentations listening to architects share ideas about how we can solve some of the more difficult problems we face, from affordable housing to town centre regeneration. Often the audience is made up entirely of other architects. Or students. All those good ideas just stay in their Powerpoint prisons unused until the next opportunity to share them with a new audience of architects. Other than New London Architecture’s morning seminars, which attract a good cross-section from our respective industries, there seem to be few forums where good ideas can cross the species divide.
And it doesn’t get any better as the relationship evolves through the development process. The biggest complaint I hear from architects is when, as original designers of a scheme, they don’t get novated onto a design-and-build contract. Never mind the issues that novation causes when, even if the original architect is retained, they become the client of the contractor and not the original developer, with the potential conflict of interest that produces. The main reason contractors cite for not novating originating architects is cost and skill at detailing. They say they can get a better, cheaper service from architecture practices that specialise in delivery – even, sometimes, shipping the work to emerging markets in the Far East.
I don’t understand why practices here don’t understand this imperative, offer a different, cheaper, specifically-skilled delivery service as an addition to their design services. If “delivery practices” can offer skilled, cost-effective services to contractors, so can others. That would give the best of both worlds – an affordable service and the opportunity for the original architect to retain a role as design guardian.
Of course there are great partnerships. I have enjoyed listening to Irvine Sellar talk about his work with Renzo Piano on the Shard, SE1. And schemes like Urban Splash’s Park Hill in Sheffield, designed by Hawkins Brown, and Studio Egret West’s Chimney Pot Park in Salford by Shedkm are projects where the quality of the architecture in difficult economic conditions created the opportunity for viability and value. We just need more opportunity to inspire each other.
