Demographic information
6. Which of the following most closely describes your place of residence?
Please select from the drop down list
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
East of England
Radio button:
Unticked
East Midlands
Radio button:
Ticked
London & South East
Radio button:
Unticked
North East
Radio button:
Unticked
North West
Radio button:
Unticked
South West
Radio button:
Unticked
West Midlands
Radio button:
Unticked
Yorkshire & Humber
Radio button:
Unticked
Northern Ireland
Radio button:
Unticked
Scotland
Radio button:
Unticked
Wales
Radio button:
Unticked
Republic of Ireland
Radio button:
Unticked
Prefer not to say
Radio button:
Unticked
Other
9. Which of the following best describes you?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Academic (registered architect)
Radio button:
Unticked
Academic (other)
Radio button:
Ticked
Registered Architect
Radio button:
Unticked
Architectural assistant, designer or consultant (not Part 3 qualified)
Radio button:
Unticked
Architecture Student – undergraduate (studying Part 1)
Radio button:
Unticked
Architecture Student – graduate (studying Part 2)
Radio button:
Unticked
Architecture Student – Part 3 candidate
Radio button:
Unticked
Elected political representative e.g. councillor or MP
Radio button:
Unticked
Member of the public
Radio button:
Unticked
Other built environment professional
Radio button:
Unticked
Other
For registered architects
When did you qualify?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
0-5 years ago
Radio button:
Unticked
6-10 years ago
Radio button:
Ticked
11-20 years ago
Radio button:
Unticked
21+ years ago
What is the size of your architectural practice?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Small or self-employed (1-10 employees)
Radio button:
Ticked
Medium (11-50 employees)
Radio button:
Unticked
Large (51+ employees)
Radio button:
Unticked
I'm not practicing at the moment
Radio button:
Unticked
I work at another type of organisation (e.g. developer, local authority)
In which of the following types of architecture have you the most experience? Select all that apply
Please select all that apply
(Required)
Checkbox:
Ticked
Commercial (including office and retail)
Checkbox:
Unticked
Community or non-residential institution
Checkbox:
Unticked
Defence and security
Checkbox:
Ticked
Education
Checkbox:
Unticked
Healthcare
Checkbox:
Ticked
Heritage and Conservation
Checkbox:
Ticked
Housing: single dwelling (new build or refurbishment)
Checkbox:
Ticked
Housing: multiple dwellings (excluding high rise)
Checkbox:
Ticked
Housing: high rise residential buildings
Checkbox:
Unticked
Housing: institutional (including care homes, hostels, student accommodation)
Checkbox:
Unticked
Hospitality (including hotels and restaurants)
Checkbox:
Ticked
Inclusive design
Checkbox:
Ticked
Masterplanning or large-scale mixed use
Checkbox:
Unticked
Infrastructure
Checkbox:
Ticked
Sustainable design
Checkbox:
Ticked
Transport (including aviation and rail)
Checkbox:
Ticked
Other
If other, please specify
Arts, Culture, Performance
Survey
10. Chapter 4 of the discussion paper sets out the evidence we have analysed to date, and the conclusions we’ve reached. Is there anything you believe is missing from these conclusions, that we should also take into account as we start developing the outcomes-based approach?
Write your answer in the box
I believe that the following items are missing from your conclusions:
1, You note that queries regarding the length of architect's education may be related to the introduction of fees and loans. This is not surprising. The resulting conclusion, however, should be for the ARB to campaign for the removal of fees and loans and the re-introduction of universal maintenance grants and bursaries based on means testing. This can be the only serious approach to broadening access to education for all income groups without introducing a second tier or dumbed-down route to qualification that neglects important aspects of theory, research and design exploration at the expense of delivering equally important but more easily quantifiable skills regarding technical, health and safety, and procurement roots.
The discussion on ethics of the profession, requirement for additional fire training and understanding of procurement routes would be hilarious if it was not so tragic.
I have previously written to the RIBA in answer to their response to the Grenfell Disaster and the issue of the RIBA Fire Safety Compliance Tracker V1 Guide, as follows:
1. Jane Duncan states, ‘The RIBA has been vociferous in its advocacy for clearer, stronger and enforceable regulations’ – but she doesn’t explain why the existing regulations are not ‘enforceable’? Why is the focus on the ‘clearness’ of the regulations and not their enforcement? What is the point in changing the regs if the existing ones are not being enforced? Who should enforce the existing regs and why have they not done so?
2. JD again notes that, ‘In an ever increasingly (sic) complex design and construction industry, we also need to review the fire safety competence of our membership,’ – where is the ‘complexity’ coming from here and what evidence is there that this was the cause of the Grenfell Disaster?
3. The Hackett report refers to the ‘Golden Thread’ of project responsibility but it could be suggested that this thread is more likely to have be broken by de-regulation, design and build, self-certification, privatisation and austerity. If these are the elements of ‘complexity’ that Jane is referring to why does she make no mention of them in her introduction? The British Board of Agrement was privatised in 1994, for instance, and it is now clear that it has been cooking up test results for various manufacturer’s based on historic results ever since. Who checks that approved inspectors aren’t influenced by their employers interests and how can local authority building control inspectors carry out their jobs properly when LA funding has been slashed by 50% over the last 10 years? The Grenfell BCO took early retirement during the project because he was no longer happy that he could do his job properly with the limited resources available to him.
4. What testing information can Architects now rely on to assure themselves that they have met the requirements of this compliance checklist when the testing regimes themselves have been found to be wanting?
5. The new RIBA Fire checklist it contains the following status tick box:
• Constructed and Signed Off (CS)
6. Who does this ‘sign-off’ refer to? Is it ‘signed-off by the Building Control Officer, the Architect, the contractor, the novated architect, the client architect, the Project Manager, the client representative, the subcontractor, the structural, services, fire engineer or other consultant? If it is signed off by the Architect, under what appointment has this taken place? At present we hesitate to issue ‘As Built’ status drawings and prefer 'Final Construction Issue' given that it is not practical for us to inspect every detail of work in the building even if we wanted to or had the resources to do so, under what circumstances would we be able to tick this box?
Given the uncertainty regarding the regulatory, testing, certification and enforcement regime mentioned above, it is not surprising how many architects might feel they require further training regarding fire in buildings. Unfortunately, no amount of training can compensate for a regulatory, testing, certification and enforcement regime that is not fit for purpose. Given the current challenges of delivering net zero embodied carbon, and the importance of building in timber (and current paucity of information, standards or testing in relation to timber construction methods) this is especially important.
The sensible alternative would of course be for the government to give Architects legal protection of function, in which case we would have the power to enforce the existing (or new) building standards and appropriate fees to resource this work (and the associated insurance premiums). I’m surprised that the RIBA is not advocating for this this protection of function, rather than suggesting that architects have powers of enforcement that we currently do not.
Regarding transfer post-Part I from related disciplines, I would caution against this if the Part I syllabus were to continue to contain much of the basic technical, regulatory and health and safety content. First year could perhaps be omitted for applicants with previous design training.
1, You note that queries regarding the length of architect's education may be related to the introduction of fees and loans. This is not surprising. The resulting conclusion, however, should be for the ARB to campaign for the removal of fees and loans and the re-introduction of universal maintenance grants and bursaries based on means testing. This can be the only serious approach to broadening access to education for all income groups without introducing a second tier or dumbed-down route to qualification that neglects important aspects of theory, research and design exploration at the expense of delivering equally important but more easily quantifiable skills regarding technical, health and safety, and procurement roots.
The discussion on ethics of the profession, requirement for additional fire training and understanding of procurement routes would be hilarious if it was not so tragic.
I have previously written to the RIBA in answer to their response to the Grenfell Disaster and the issue of the RIBA Fire Safety Compliance Tracker V1 Guide, as follows:
1. Jane Duncan states, ‘The RIBA has been vociferous in its advocacy for clearer, stronger and enforceable regulations’ – but she doesn’t explain why the existing regulations are not ‘enforceable’? Why is the focus on the ‘clearness’ of the regulations and not their enforcement? What is the point in changing the regs if the existing ones are not being enforced? Who should enforce the existing regs and why have they not done so?
2. JD again notes that, ‘In an ever increasingly (sic) complex design and construction industry, we also need to review the fire safety competence of our membership,’ – where is the ‘complexity’ coming from here and what evidence is there that this was the cause of the Grenfell Disaster?
3. The Hackett report refers to the ‘Golden Thread’ of project responsibility but it could be suggested that this thread is more likely to have be broken by de-regulation, design and build, self-certification, privatisation and austerity. If these are the elements of ‘complexity’ that Jane is referring to why does she make no mention of them in her introduction? The British Board of Agrement was privatised in 1994, for instance, and it is now clear that it has been cooking up test results for various manufacturer’s based on historic results ever since. Who checks that approved inspectors aren’t influenced by their employers interests and how can local authority building control inspectors carry out their jobs properly when LA funding has been slashed by 50% over the last 10 years? The Grenfell BCO took early retirement during the project because he was no longer happy that he could do his job properly with the limited resources available to him.
4. What testing information can Architects now rely on to assure themselves that they have met the requirements of this compliance checklist when the testing regimes themselves have been found to be wanting?
5. The new RIBA Fire checklist it contains the following status tick box:
• Constructed and Signed Off (CS)
6. Who does this ‘sign-off’ refer to? Is it ‘signed-off by the Building Control Officer, the Architect, the contractor, the novated architect, the client architect, the Project Manager, the client representative, the subcontractor, the structural, services, fire engineer or other consultant? If it is signed off by the Architect, under what appointment has this taken place? At present we hesitate to issue ‘As Built’ status drawings and prefer 'Final Construction Issue' given that it is not practical for us to inspect every detail of work in the building even if we wanted to or had the resources to do so, under what circumstances would we be able to tick this box?
Given the uncertainty regarding the regulatory, testing, certification and enforcement regime mentioned above, it is not surprising how many architects might feel they require further training regarding fire in buildings. Unfortunately, no amount of training can compensate for a regulatory, testing, certification and enforcement regime that is not fit for purpose. Given the current challenges of delivering net zero embodied carbon, and the importance of building in timber (and current paucity of information, standards or testing in relation to timber construction methods) this is especially important.
The sensible alternative would of course be for the government to give Architects legal protection of function, in which case we would have the power to enforce the existing (or new) building standards and appropriate fees to resource this work (and the associated insurance premiums). I’m surprised that the RIBA is not advocating for this this protection of function, rather than suggesting that architects have powers of enforcement that we currently do not.
Regarding transfer post-Part I from related disciplines, I would caution against this if the Part I syllabus were to continue to contain much of the basic technical, regulatory and health and safety content. First year could perhaps be omitted for applicants with previous design training.
11. Chapter 5 of the discussion paper sets out the vision for our new regulatory approach. To what extent do you agree with our vision? Please feel free to explain your view, and make any suggestions as to what is missing.
1. Public Strongly agree Radio button: Checked Strongly agree | 1. Public Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | 1. Public Neither agree nor disagree Radio button: Not checked Neither agree nor disagree | 1. Public Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | 1. Public Strongly disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly disagree |
2. Profession and employers Strongly agree Radio button: Checked Strongly agree | 2. Profession and employers Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | 2. Profession and employers Neither agree nor disagree Radio button: Not checked Neither agree nor disagree | 2. Profession and employers Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | 2. Profession and employers Strongly disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly disagree |
3. Institutions Strongly agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly agree | 3. Institutions Agree Radio button: Checked Agree | 3. Institutions Neither agree nor disagree Radio button: Not checked Neither agree nor disagree | 3. Institutions Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | 3. Institutions Strongly disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly disagree |
4. Future architects Strongly agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly agree | 4. Future architects Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | 4. Future architects Neither agree nor disagree Radio button: Checked Neither agree nor disagree | 4. Future architects Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | 4. Future architects Strongly disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly disagree |
5. Regulatory Strongly agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly agree | 5. Regulatory Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | 5. Regulatory Neither agree nor disagree Radio button: Not checked Neither agree nor disagree | 5. Regulatory Disagree Radio button: Checked Disagree | 5. Regulatory Strongly disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly disagree |
Please write your explanations and/ or suggestions in the box
3, As previously stated, sufficient economic support for disadvantaged students to undertake a full degree course would be preferable to a fast-track option that risks diluting standards, breadth, research and quality
4, I agree with this but the route should be right for the public, the profession and practice as well as the future architect.
5, The danger of focussing on 'measurable outcomes' is that the UK architectural education loses the intangible, theoretical, research and design based strengths that have lead to it being acknowledged as one of the highest regarded if not the highest regarded architectural education system in the world. Delivering candidates who meet the requirements of practice is only one of the objectives of an architectural education and arguably not the most significant, hence the inclusion of two years of practice prior to full qualification.
4, I agree with this but the route should be right for the public, the profession and practice as well as the future architect.
5, The danger of focussing on 'measurable outcomes' is that the UK architectural education loses the intangible, theoretical, research and design based strengths that have lead to it being acknowledged as one of the highest regarded if not the highest regarded architectural education system in the world. Delivering candidates who meet the requirements of practice is only one of the objectives of an architectural education and arguably not the most significant, hence the inclusion of two years of practice prior to full qualification.
12. To enable institutions to innovate and to promote diversity, we think that the structure needs to change from the current approach of Parts 1, 2 and 3. What are your views on this?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Strongly agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Neither agree nor disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Ticked
Strongly disagree
Write any comments in the box
The response to increasing economic inequality and a broken student funding system should be to tackle inequality and student funding not provide an austerity-lite, dumbed-down architectural training that omits any of the key elements of technical, theoretical and practical education.
The ARB should campaign to improve funding for disadvantaged applicants to architectural schools, promote bursaries and champion quality.
The ARB should campaign to improve funding for disadvantaged applicants to architectural schools, promote bursaries and champion quality.
13. We believe that the best way to describe the competencies architects need may be to describe what an architect must KNOW, what they must be able to DO, and how they must BEHAVE. To what extent do you agree?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Strongly agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Neither agree nor disagree
Radio button:
Ticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Strongly disagree
Write any comments in the box
An architectural education should before all else equip the profession with members who are able to THINK. This is the distinction between EDUCATION and TRAINING.
Skills, Knowledge and Experience are critical but the ability to acquire these attributes is more important still. The role of architects as 'deep generalists' needs to be preserved and championed as outlined by Allan Jones in the following article:
https://www.ribaj.com/culture/deep-generalism-is-architects-usp-alan-jones-riba-president-opinion
Skills, Knowledge and Experience are critical but the ability to acquire these attributes is more important still. The role of architects as 'deep generalists' needs to be preserved and championed as outlined by Allan Jones in the following article:
https://www.ribaj.com/culture/deep-generalism-is-architects-usp-alan-jones-riba-president-opinion
14. Are there any other views you would like to share with us about this work?
Write any comments in the box
Architects need to be able to analyse what is the RIGHT thing to do, not just what is the EASY thing to do. This work risks enabling an approach that delivers the easy solution to the financial and business pressures of practice, institutions and government while neglecting what is the right thing to do for the public, the architectural profession and the future students of architecture who should serve them.
Questions of ethics should be directed, not only at architects but at the regulatory, funding, testing, certification, client and procurement environment in which architects must operate.
If the Grenfell Tragedy tells us anything, it is that these elements are profoundly broken and that the responses so far have failed to identify the key elements of this fracture, namely; privatisation, out-sourcing, de-regulation, self-certification, austerity, underfunding of local government and the pursuit of profit without sufficient restraints.
Questions of ethics should be directed, not only at architects but at the regulatory, funding, testing, certification, client and procurement environment in which architects must operate.
If the Grenfell Tragedy tells us anything, it is that these elements are profoundly broken and that the responses so far have failed to identify the key elements of this fracture, namely; privatisation, out-sourcing, de-regulation, self-certification, austerity, underfunding of local government and the pursuit of profit without sufficient restraints.