Can architects ever retire?

The current successful celebratory exhibition in honour of Richard Rogers' 80th birthday, coupled with the incredible vigour of his former colleague Norman Foster, could make one think that architects never get old.

They are not the only examples of architects being vigorous and professionally engaged well into what many would consider the twilight years. While few are likely to match the late Oscar Niemeyer, who continued working into his eleventh decade, eventually becoming as famous for his age as for his buildings, it is an admirable and cheering prospect. Retirement after all is meant to be about doing what you like, and what many architects like best, particularly at the peak of the profession, is doing architecture.

But there is a downside as well, as the current story about the possible prosecution of two nearly nonagenarian architects shows.

Sir Andrew Derbyshire and Vernon Lee, both former directors of RMJM and definitely retired, are being pursued in respect of an asbestos claim. The story is tangled, with much debate about who actually holds the responsibility. And the contraction of a fatal disease is of course much worse than living under a leaking roof. But the fact that architects can never entirely slough off responsibility is the obverse of the joy of working as long as you wish.

It is interesting that Derbyshire and Lee's cases are being handled by their sons, both successful architects as well. Architecture, as we know, runs in families. And despite the gloom about the current state of the profession, many architects when asked in the interview on the back of BD what they would say to a child contemplating the profession say that they would encourage them to go for it.

Maybe this will make them think again. Especially with current earnings and the cost of living, many younger architects could still be working at 89 - not because they want to but because they have to.

Harsh financial truths about architecture

Last week The Architects' Journal published the AJ100, its annual survey of the UK's biggest practices. Much of it is a celebration of success, with awards, new entrants and even the respondents feeling reasonably upbeat about the future. But it also contains some sobering truths.
I found the most sobering aspect to be the table that showed the architectural fees delivered out of UK offices per member of architectural staff.
At the top was Populous with a very respectable £271,000 per architect. Foster and Partners, which everybody sees as a high earner, was in fourth place at only £171,000 per head but one must remember that much the work delivered out of the UK is built overseas and so was not eligible. What was really worrying was the bottom end, with several practices reporting earnings of less than £60,000 per architect, and the lowest, Reiach and Hall, scoring only £50,000. What makes this really disturbing is that, while Reiach and Hall has 21 architects, it employs a total of 37 staff - a fairly average ratio. So the fee earnings per member of staff are just over £28,000 per staff member - a figure that is certainly not sustainable, given that accommodation, tax, national insurance, computers etc all have to be paid for.
If this were a one-off it could be seen as a criticism of an individual practice and of bad management. But the other low-earning practices are in a similarly difficult position - and these are the UK's biggest practices and, by some measure at least, the most successful.
If you want an indication of just how quickly things can go wrong, then read BD's interview with Ian Simpson. His is a practice that was seen as, and really was, hugely successful. Yet the interview is headlined 'How I lost millions in unpaid fees'. Simpson describes how his world 'caved in' in one week in summer 2008, as he was, ironically, celebrating the practice's success. Jobs just stopped and on some he never saw the fees again.
He survived by cutting fees to the bone. 'We didn’t want to be discarded because we were too expensive so we always do a really detailed analysis of time and resources so we can determine where the money’s going,' he said.' I even know what we spend on pencils,'
These are hard times, and it is not surprising that we are seeing a rash of business failures. It is heartening though that Simpson, back on his feet, is now helping another practice that ran into trouble.

Canada House and Toyo Ito in the pink

I was amused to see that the top news story on the AJ's newsletter this morning was about plans to revamp Canada House in London. The building is certainly prominent, sitting on Trafalgar Square, and it will be a great opportunity for an architect to win work. But the story was actually published on Friday, and is it really bigger than Toyo Ito winning the Pritzker Prize, which appeared on the listing below it?
The reason it amused me is because Christine Murray, the editor of the AJ, is Canadian, and I wondered whether either she had decided to give the story prominence, or a member of her team had done so to please her. Possibly not, of course, but it is a reminder that news, both for the people who write it and the people who read it, is not an entirely impersonal set of values.
We are all particularly interested in things that relate to our working lives, our region, our friends or our hobbies. Nobody puts on their hat marked 'architect' and ceases to be a human being. It is well known that in surveys respondents always complain about gossip and sensational news, yet that is the stuff that they look at and talk about. Apparently there was considerable discussion at MIPIM last week about BD's agony uncle Matthew Barac's response to a question by an architect contemplating an affair with his boss's wife. That shouldn't surprise anybody.
And journalists, like architects, have personalities and interests and prejudices. They know they are there to serve their readers, but of course a little of their own preferences creeps in. And jolly good too. Who would want a news service generated by some kind of automaton?
And just in case you think you are above such things ... If you read the story about Toyo Ito, you doubtless considered whether you thought he was a worthy winner or not, and looked at the images of his buildings. But I bet you spent a little time at least looking at one of the portraits.

And thought, what is that shirt?

Plumbing the shallows of Twitter

One of the ways that you may have come to read this story is because I have tweeted it. I wouldn't say I have a love-hate relationship with Twitter - more a blowing hot and cold one. Rather like those annoying people in relationships who sometimes are all over you and at others just can't be bothered and would rather tidy their flat or drink with their mates, I have days of great activity and others of ignoring twitter altogether. Mostly I like it, although I am still not sure what it is FOR.
Anyway, Building Design has recently published a list of its top 10 architecture critics and journalists on Twitter. There is an unsurprising and acceptable degree of nepotism. The list includes executive editor Ellis Woodman and online editor Anna Winston, as well as former staffer Oliver Wainwright and regular contributor Owen Hatherley. Interestingly news editor Andrea Klettner didn't make the cut, although Peerindex placed her higher than Winston. And top of the list is Hugh Pearman, who edits rival publication the RIBA Journal.
Lists like this are always fun, and there is always a wistful moment of thinking 'could this have been'. My first reaction was to tweet a link to the story accompanied by 'Could try harder'. But of course the strength of Twitter lies in its diversity. Just as we don't all want to see the same films or eat the same food, so we should follow those who help, inspire, amuse or perhaps irritate us. In fact one rule may be that you should follow at least one person with whom you disagree profoundly.
For some Twitter is crucial - for instance the winning team of the recent Flitched competition who met through Twitter. For most it is fun, as long as you don't let it take over your life, and occasionally enlightening. And, like so many things, the best way to find out what it is for is to engage. You have nothing to lose except a few minutes a day.

Can we shed light on reform of rights to light?

The AJ and BD have virtually identical headlines on the proposed reforms to rights of light. 'Architects welcome right to light move' says the former, while the latter goes for 'Architects hail light laws reform'. But BD is intriguing. Its story is on page 3, and opposite on page 2 is its second leader. Its headline is 'Don't put out the light in our cities' and it argues that 'Changing the light legislation is a threat to the renaissance of Britain's urban centres'.
Why such diverging views? The legislation, dating back to 1832, is over 180 years old. It predates the electric light, and refers to very different cities from those that we have today. the news story quotes Andrew Beharell of architect Pollard Thomas Edwards, well know for its housing, saying, 'We know of projects which have suffered years of delay because adjoining owners have known how to manipulate the system, not for the legitimate protection of the enjoyment of their properties, but in order to negotiate large cash settlements.'
So why the opposition? The concern is that we may lose not only tiresome red tape but the spirit of the regulations - and those were to protect a fundamental human right and pleasure. We all want light in our buildings. We know how important daylight is to our well-being, and how much we want to be able to see out. The technology of artificial lighting is advancing rapidly, but it will never be a substitute for the real thing. Increasingly we are keeping light out deliberately to avoid overheating - but we want as much 'good light' as possible.
When we talk about the needs to densify our cities, I always agree, but find myself whispering under my breath 'but not to Victorian levels'. Of course some of the worst of the rookeries, where the poor lived in overcrowded, insanitary and dark conditions, were created after the rights to light were introduced. Sometimes we have to have faith in the spirit not the letter of the law. But how many of us are confident doing that today?

The right time for consultation

There is an old story about a man who ran a raffle to win a horse. When the winning ticket was drawn, he apologised that the horse had died and refunded the winner's money, keeping all the rest.
John McAslan and Partners must be feeling like that unlucky lottery winner - getting the prize and having it snatched away at the same time - in Glasgow's George Square competition. While there is no suggestion of financial impropriety, Glasgow City Council's behaviour leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
At one level its actions make perfect sense. It has listened to local voices saying that they do not want radical changes to the square, and has decided simply to refresh it instead. This would be a prudent, popular move - if it hadn't waited until after an international design competition to make it. In the council's terms it has wasted money on the entire process. Even if it considers this money well spent to come to the 'correct' conclusion, think of the 33 practices that entered, the six on the shortlist, and the impressive panel of judges who gave up their time.
Time is money for practices these days, with little spare capacity. Choosing to enter one competition means turning down another. When I wrote BD's White Paper on how to win work at the end of last year, we looked at the reasons for entering competitions and also at the capital that practices can make from near misses. But in this case all six shortlisted schemes are tainted with a sense of being not good enough, and the disappointing outcome will leave all the participants feeling cheated.
Let's hope Glasgow isn't planning any other major competitions any time soon - if it does it may meet an understandable reluctance to enter.

Danger is not where you expect

Guardian writer George Monbiot has created quite a stir with an article entitled The Grime behind the Crime in which he reports research finding links between levels of lead pollution and violent crime. Serious scientists were interviewed about this on the radio this morning, and it seems as if the research is pretty watertight. They are showing correlation not causation, but it is fairly easy to imagine a cause. Lead poisoning is known to show brain damage, and damaged brains can easily be imagined losing inhibitions against violent acts.
This reminds me of the assertion by the authors of Freakonomics that legalised abortion in the US helped to bring down crime. Again their assertion was based on statistics, and again they had a reason - fewer unwanted children grew up in misery to become criminals.
What does all this have to do with architecture? Yesterday Building Design covered a report by the New Economics Foundation which said that Secured by Design techniques were cutting off school students by turning them into fortresses. The report was co-written by Anna Minton whose excellent book Ground Control argues, among other things, that living in gated environments increases people's perception of threat. Presumably the same will be true of children in 'gated' schools?
In a week in which the sociologist Jared Diamond has a new book out on the lessons that we can learn from traditional societies, including the fact that children need to learn about risk by experiencing it, it is worth asking again whether our ever escalating security measures are counter-productive - especially when the factors that influence crime seem to be so different from what we have all fondly believed.

New year no money

Happy new year. But a lot of people may be wondering just how happy a one it will prove to be. In personal terms of course pockets will be feeling empty after the festivities (and perhaps some imprudent expenditure during the sales). But it seems that the world of architecture and construction is feeling similarly gloomy.
Building has just reported that the British Council for Schools Environments has closed down.
The organisation, set up by Ty Goddard during the last government to gather and disseminate knowledge that could make schools better, has run out of money. Although Goddard ( who left some time ago) was no unthinking fan of programmes such as Building Schools for the Future, it was an organisation that looked increasingly uncomfortable in the new mean, lean days of stripped down schools. Although perhaps needed more than ever. But with no money to keep it going there was no option.
The Architecture Centre Network was a similar casualty of lack of funding last year, but has now come back, the AJ reports, as the Architecture Built Environment Centre. Congratulations and good luck, but the main difference between the old organisation and the new is that the new organisation (as well as extending beyond England to all of the UK) has no funding and no paid staff. In other words, it will be dependent on good will from hard pressed organisations already trying to make their own Architecture Centres viable.
The architecture centres will be trying to find money in a number of ways, not least through paid-for design reviews. Which, on a national scale, is what Design Council CABE is also endeavouring to do. Organisations are increasingly dependent on the one hand on goodwill, and on the other trying to find money from increasingly smaller pots, finding private funding for what were previously deemed government funded goods.
And it is not only this not directly commercial activity that has suffered. BD reports the latest financial problems at innovative developer Urban Splash. Unfortunately one of the developer's USPs is that it operates almost entirely outside London - which would be fine except that London is the only place where anything is happening. In the latest issue of the London Review of Books John Lanchester highlights how London is rapidly becoming an entirely separate economy from the rest of the country, to the ultimate benefit of neither. He also takes the government to task for severe economic failure. Not much hope there then.
As I said, happy new year.

My first tweet up

Last week I went to my first tweet up, organised by Building Design and held at the offices of Feilden Clegg Bradley. I'm not sure that I came away able to tell the difference between a tweet up and a booze up, but it was certainly a good evening. I guess the difference is that it is a self-selecting group of common interest, rather than an invitation list that somebody had decided to compile. So more democratic - in the spirit of Twitter.
I was there specifically to give a brief talk about the white paper How to Win Work which I wrote for BD (with case studies written by staff members). This looks at everything an architect should do from determining their business plan and marketing strategy, to appraising competitions and deciding which to enter, right through the PQQ process and presentations to how to make the most out of a near miss.
It isn't the sexiest subject but really important and fascinating once you delve into it. So much of it seems like commonsense, but so few architects apply this commonsense. Interviews showed that many submit 'last minute' CGIs, don't research potential clients properly, and even seem bored at interview. I was shocked to learn from a survey BD carried out as part of the research that a third of practices employing more than 15 architects don't even know how much they spend on entering competitions.
The best lessons for me? That it is vital to get to know potential clients before entering a competitive situation, and that not publicising the work for which you don't want to be known is as important as publicising the jobs you do want to be known for.

Extensions are not easy

Despite a headline reading 'Industry backs Cameron's home extension plan', a story in BD this week was ambivalent about this proposed relaxation of planning. It stressed both that this was unlikely to make much difference to the overall health of the industry or provide a bonanza for architects, and also that it is important to retain design quality.
Domestic extensions - even entire new houses - are the way in which architects have traditionally started their careers. And the successful and established then often turn their back on this work, passing it on to colleagues who have just set up for themselves. The reason is that domestic work is so difficult and, properly budgeted, does not earn money. If you are a sole practitioner, with few overheads and plenty of time (ie not much work) then you can certainly earn something from it. But for a larger practice, with running costs that are substantial, it is likely to be at best a loss leader. The degree of complexity may be as great as in a project of five times the value, the client cares passionately and so is likely to change their mind, and their are likely to be unexpected discoveries plus all the difficulties of working with the small end of the building trade.
On the other hand, architect-designed extensions can be great, transforming not just the new space but the whole feel of a house. The best deal with levels and the all-important question of light. I saw a really good one yesterday, albeit on a house of a scale to which most could not aspire, which replaced a terrible off the shelf conservatory. Those conservatories are already a blight, and for larger extensions one could envisage other ill-conceived off the shelf solutions - perhaps going the other way, and being under- rather than over-glazed. Rooms which are currently well-lit could become poky and dark.
There is also the issue of paving over gardens, which may have serious implications for drainage on the larger scale if there are too many of these extensions.
Quick fixes are rarely simple.