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.

Remembering the ever-youthful Rick Mather

It was sad to see on the AJ website today that the architect Rick Mather had died. Sad because one never likes anybody to die, sadder because he had done and was still doing some excellent work. And somehow even sadder because, although he was in fact 75, he seemed so young. I remember that when Mather was elected to RIBA council in 1998, we ran a news story in the AJ saying how nice it was to see some new younger faces. Simple arithmetic tells one that Mather must have been 60 at the time. A fact that was pointed out to us by Sam Webb, the campaigning architect who was the most fierce critic of the large panel systems that led to the Ronan Point collapse in 1968. Webb was already a veteran of RIBA council and, by implication, a member of the old guard. Yet he was in fact, he said, a year younger than Mather. What a shame that Mather's youthful countenance couldn't guarantee him a longer life.

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?

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?

Zaha Hadid on page 3

A week of unexpected news (who could have predicted that we would be discussing the damage caused by meteorites, the resignation of the pope and the death of Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend?) ended with an architecture story in a hugely prominent position in the Observer.
Zaha Hadid was talking about misogyny in the profession, following up on the disappointing but unsurprising results of the AJ's Women in Architecture survey. Hadid told the newspaper, 'I have noticed it is easier for me in European countries than it is here. There is a different dynamic. In the UK it is more difficult. They are very conservative. There is a scepticism and more misogynist behaviour here. Although, while there were people against me, there were also people living here who were incredibly supportive.'
The irony is that, if Hadid had not become so successful and high-profile, there would not have been a poster-woman for the paper to interview, and so there would not have been a story - or at least not such a prominent one. But the statistics are sobering, particular in terms of bullying and pay discrepancies, and it is great that Hadid was willing to give this interview. She after all has forged a pretty successful career, despite all the difficulties. It is cheering that she is not pulling up the ladder behind her.

What is a reasonable way to work?

There is a discussion on the AJ's LinkedIn page about methods of working that can reduce the long hours culture. It was kicked off by the decision of architect Baumann Lyons to start working 38 hours in a four-day week, and shut the office on a Friday.
The thinking, presumably, is that most people will feel after they have done a solid 9.5 hours that they cannot give any more and will simply go home - that the extended day will not be able to stretch any further and so overwork will vanish - and presumably will any presenteeism which leads people to hang around doing not very much, or extending their work over a longer period just so that they look better.
The intention  is certainly admirable. But can it work in practice? There are several things against it. First, as commenters on the thread have pointed out, is the fact that clients are unlikely to be happy that the office is not manned on a Friday. Will project architects be picking up so many calls on their iphones that they would prefer to have gone in?
Secondly, my point above about 9.5 hours being 'enough' is probably not true for architects. Having come through an education system that encourages the 'all nighter', it is a habit that many are likely to fall back into, particularly when entering competitions.
The other problem is with flexibility. This week's AJ is a special women's issue, showcasing the shortlisted practices for its second Women in Architecture awards and also providing the results of a survey. It is no surprise, unfortunately, that many women are still overlooked and underpaid, nor that the biggest impediment to the success of women comes from the difficulties of marrying work and childcare. And of course this should not be a women-only issue. The best employers, such as Walters and Cohen, acknowledge that parents of both sexes benefit from flexibility.
I am sure that Baumann Lyons has thought about this and has an answer, but on the face of it working four long days looks extremely inflexible. This inflexibility of course is necessary if people are to be 'prevented' from overworking. For everybody - not just architects - work and leisure are creeping into each other's spaces. The real challenge is to offer flexibility yet still prevent overwork.

What sort of housing do we want?

Architect Alison Brooks, no slouch at housing design herself, talks in a discussion run by The Architects' Journal, about the appeal of Victorian homes.
'Why are people willing to pay so much for a flat in a Victorian house?' she asks. 'Why are things like high ceilings and big windows and good proportions, and all these very simple, basic things that the Victorians did, deemed to be above the minimum provision right now?'
It is true that the Victorians inhabited their houses far more densely than we do now (even if they are divided into flats) but it does get to the nub of the problem with housing, as with much else today. Despite the recession, this society is still richer than it has been for almost all our history, yet we are constantly told that there are things we can't afford. In terms of housing, it is, as Brooks points out, because we are measuring the wrong things. Valuations are done on the basis of number of bedrooms rather than on a more sophisticated basis. Just as planning seems to be over-concerned with box ticking rather than encouraging imaginative and appropriate solutions.
Housing is a tremendously complex issue. Sweeping away all regulation is not the answer, as MP Nick Raynsford points out in the debate. But it does need to be freed up, and the right kind of development encouraged.
It is a dauntingly complex area, but one that the AJ is to be applauded for tackling in its 'More Homes, Better Homes' campaign. It will be fascinating to see what comes next.

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.

Beware of bearing gifts

A long discussion has been running on The Architects' Journal's LinkedIn page about the Yunnan Kunming Wenhua Technology Co in China. The thread started six months ago, and is still active.
This is a company that is scamming aspirant architects by dangling potential contracts in front of them, and then asking for presents - cigarettes, mainly, but a lot of them - and also asking for money up front to defray bank charges before transferring funds.
The sums seem relatively small for the effort that goes into them - for instance the company has laid on lavish banquets - and gulled architects' seem mostly to suffer lost time and travel costs rather than having their accounts plundered in a serious way. Which makes it all a bit mysterious.
This is at another level from those international lottery wins and transfers of inheritances to which we have all become wise on the internet. China is a promising market, and architects know that it does not operate in the same way as the UK, so are ready for things to seem a little strange. They may not have suffered much financially, but pride must be dented at the very least, and it is not nice to see hopes of work evaporate.
Let's hope this scam dies out in 2013.

What is architecture all about?

Christine Murray, editor of The Architects' Journal, has written an open letter to the public trying to explain what architecture is for. This is in response to a survey that shows, shockingly, that the public has very little understanding of what architects do.
Murray's explanation is that architects design buildings that really work, and that will continue to work over time. 'A builder will build you a home, an architect will make you a home,' she concludes. It is a brave attempt to tackle a definition that can never be fully resolved, especially in a world where there is increasingly a difference between qualifications and the roles that people play. Non-architects are designing buildings (pace Thomas Heatherwick); architects and landscape architects are carrying out urban design; everybody is having a go at products. It definitely needs doing, even though no solution will be perfect. Good architects bring a certain magic and rigorous thinking projects that is hard to define but important to recgonise.
I have tried to tackle the problem from a different angle in a book with the rather hubristic title '10 Principles of Architecture'. It looks at what the defining considerations are in the design of buildings.

It's out in September.

Can infinite freedom be justified?

I was struck by something that Felix Mara wrote in The Architects' Journal as part of his review of the Arcelor Mittal Orbit. When he first saw the drawings, he said: 'I was determined to like it, as it would obviously be controversial and I happen to believe, as far as the appearance of their work is concerned, artists and architects should have licence to do whatever they want. There is no shortage of people intent on standing in their way.'
Irrespective of what you believe about this particular project, is this a valid position? Work by artists and by architects is not necessarily comparable.If the art is not 'public art' but will exist within a gallery or private space, then we are not obliged to see it, and one can easily defend the artists right to do what they wish, within certain very specific bounds of decency - and perhaps not even there.
But public art and architecture form part of our daily environment. There have been plenty of anomalies in both the law and the application of the planning system, and the new National Planning Policy Framework is only likely to throw up a new set. But surely this is not an argument for no regulation at all - for saying that any building, providing it is functional and energy efficient, can look like anything, wherever it is. There are some very bad buildings, and there are some highly inappropriate ones - possibly good buildings in the wrong place. Sustainability, we are always told, is about much more than just energy saving. It is about building sustainable environments. Should all architects (and artists) really have carte blanche, everywhere?

Re-use not recycling

There's a really interesting piece on the AJ's Footprint blog covering a workshop on demolition and recycling. So many calculations about embodied energy make assumptions about what will happen to materials at the end of a building's life, that it is fascinating to learn about what is done in reality, about the potential and the pitfalls. The holy grail, of course, is to actually re-use materials, ideally in situ. It was enlightening to see how little brick was actually re-used at the Olympics. On contrast, at the Everyman Theatre in Liverpool, 90 per cent of the brick from the previous building is being used - perhaps a question of scale? The re-use is assisted by the fact that the original building was old enough to have used lime mortar, which is much easier to break up than modern, cement-based mortars.
The AJ article also looked at Oxford Wood Recycling, an admirable organisation that belies its name by concentrating on re-use and recovery rather than recycling. It is unable to satisfy demand, an indication that there is certainly room for more such enterprises - especially if the demolition industry can get organised.