Fig 1 - Studio 47.

Contents Page

Introduction......................................................................................................................

A - The Architect through the AgesA. Summary.......................................................................................................................A.1 Architecture is an act of God...............................................................................A.2 The Vitruvian Architect..........................................................................................A.3 The Professional Architect....................................................................................A.4 The Lone Genius.......................................................................................................A.5 A Constant State of Flux........................................................................................

B - Practice of TodayB. Introduction.................................................................................................................B.1 Risky Business...........................................................................................................B.2 A Technological Age...............................................................................................B.3 Divisions of Labour..................................................................................................B.4 RIBA...............................................................................................................................B.5 Public Sector Procurement..................................................................................B.6 Architecture as Commodity.................................................................................

1

3711131721

23253337414751

C - Agents of Change.......................................................................................................

D - Studio 47’s PhilosophyD. Introduction..................................................................................................................D.1 The Social Agent.......................................................................................................D.2 The Visionary..............................................................................................................

E - ConceptE. The Proactive Architect.............................................................................................

F - StrategyF. Introduction...................................................................................................................F.1 Structure.......................................................................................................................F.2 Operations...................................................................................................................F.3 Finance..........................................................................................................................F.4 Marketing.....................................................................................................................F.5 Collaboration..............................................................................................................

G - Design MethodologyG.1 The Traverse................................................................................................................G.2 Pop Up Culture..........................................................................................................G.3 Live Project – Oxford Community Land Trust................................................G.4 The Metabolic Tower...............................................................................................

H - Reflection.....................................................................................................................

Interviews...........................................................................................................................

References & Bibliography............................................................................................

59

87

101103107117121125

129133157197

229

233

328

676979

Studio 47 – A Practice for the Future

Introduction

“In the face of a continuing erosion of traditional architectural skills to other players, the profession seems peculiarly vulnerable to a nostalgic backward glance at a bygone age in which the architect was the undisputed boss” (Robinson, 2011, cited in Jamieson, 2011, p.5).

It is believed by many critics that the future of the architect is uncertain. Changes in the approach to construction, the repositioning of risk amongst construction professionals and the perception of the ‘expert’ client are possible reasons for this uncertainty. Even the profession itself is concerned about the future role of the architect. In March 2011, the Royal Institute of British Architects commissioned the think tank Building Futures to investigate the architect’s role within the future of the construction industry, with some alarming conclusions.

As two students soon to become architects, Studio 47 is concerned as to whether this view has basis. We must consider what type of profession we will be entering and ultimately what role we will play within it. Studio 47 hopes to take this current topic of discussion and transformed it into something positive, this is an opportunity to understand these extraordinary times and formulate our own opinions about the future of the profession.

A Pra

ctice

for t

he Fu

ture

- Int

rodu

ction

Studio 47 will question whether or not there is any merit in Robinson’s view that the skills of the architect have been eroded. Through literature and a series of select interviews with construction professionals, the thesis will examine the historical role of the architect and explore how that role has evolved into what Studio 47 considers to be the architect of today. By closely examining that evolution, Studio 47 will go further than taking a ‘backward glance’ at the profession. The study will propose an alternative model of practice, another way of doing architecture. The model will aim to reshape the role of the architect by empowering the architect to practice their core values for the benefit of the built environment.

As part of the methodology, Studio 47 will test the alternative model through a series of design projects. Each project will focus on certain aspects of Studio 47’s philosophy. Studio 47 proposes to design an intervention that will act as a participatory device, as well as collaborating with Civic Architects on a live project for Oxford Community Land Trust. This brief demands a co-operative housing scheme that requires four affordable homes at code 5 of the Sustainable Homes Guide. Thirdly, Studio 47 will test its philosophy on a greater scale by designing a conceptual tower in the heart of Oxford.

1

Chapter A – The Architect through the Ages

A. Summary

The practice of architecture is defined as “the designing and construction of buildings” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2002, p.38). Architects who conceive the erection of buildings have existed ever since man has required the need for shelter. However, through the ages the architect’s role has changed dramatically. Gradually the architect’s field has become more specialised, and with that a professional body has emerged that governs the practice of its members.

There was a time in the Middle Ages (5th – 15th century) when the architect and the builder were one and the same person. This holistic approach came to an end with the introduction of the Italian Renaissance in the 15th century. The practice of architecture saw a separation of the designer from the craftsmen or trade operative. With the establishment of surveyors and civil engineers in the late 18th century the role of the architect became even more specialised. Today the construction industry continues to evolve at an alarming rate. The industry now requires technical expertise in specialist fields; disciplines once administered by the architect. Architects have become specialist designers, a distant memory from the master builder of the Middle Ages. A -

The A

rchite

ct th

roug

h the

Ages

- Sum

mar

y

3

Fig 2 - The Architect through the Ages. A timeline showing the evolution of the architect through the ages.

A.1 Architecture is an act of God

The title ‘architect’ originated from the term master builder, derived from the Greek root ‘arch’ meaning chief and the word ‘tecton’ meaning carpenter and builder (Chappell & Willis, 2007, p.7). The name master builder was used to describe the chief tradesman operating on a building site during the Middle Ages. He was responsible for the design, supervision and construction of Gothic architecture, a design idiom that was dominant during this period.

During the 12th century the specific identity of those responsible for the design, supervision and construction of buildings, was not recognised. The master builder “was subsumed in the person of his powerful master the patron-prince, or in the glory of the gods” (Kostof, 1977, p.60). Abbots, monks, bishops and kings [Fig 3] often took full credit for their buildings. Society believed that the production of architecture was an act of God, administered by a particular class of men who existed amongst them. These men were “not only the architects but also the masons of their buildings. They chanted psalms as they worked, and laid down their tools only to go to the altar or the choir” (Migne, 1857, cited in Saint, 1985, p.28). This distortion of actualities was eventually replaced by an acceptance that buildings were actually designed and built by master builders on behalf of their wealthy patron’s, who were often members of the Catholic Church.

Fig 3 - Scriptorium Monk at Work. A religious man working at his desk. During the middle ages, society believed that architecture was an act of God, administered by monks, bishops, priests and kings.

A - Th

e Arch

itect

thro

ugh t

he Ag

es - A

rchite

cture

is an

act o

f God

7

Fig 4 - Lincoln Cathedral. One of the finest examples of Gothic Architecture in Britain.

Gothic architecture continued to develop in the 12th and 13th centuries; a collective culture of master tradesman emerged and came together to form the Crafts Guild. Some of these master tradesmen were educated in monasteries but most “rose from the ranks of the building crafts, and took part on the actual process of construction alongside the building crew as one of their own” (Kostof, 1977, p.61). John Ruskin in The Stones of Venice summed up the collaborative culture of the medieval architect:

“No master should be too proud to do its hardest work. The painter should grind his own colours, the architect should work in the mason’s yard with the men; the master-manufacturer should be a more skilful operative than any man in his mills; and the distinction between one man and another be only on experience and skill, and the authority and wealth which these must naturally and justly obtain” (Ruskin, 1860, p.187).

As well as Ruskin, William Morris, the famous textile designer and utopian socialist, believed that Gothic architecture realised the consummation of a collaborative system. The Crafts Guilds were strong enough to wrest responsibility away from the feudal system of landlords, monks and priests. The guild members “were equal and free collaborators skilled in every aspect of their trade,” (Saint, 1985, p.38) each apprentice became a master builder after their training. Through the production of beauty these master builders worked amongst their tradesmen to build cathedrals that are “the work not of the individual but collective genius” (Morris, 1880, cited in Saint, 1985, p.38).

Despite the collaborative nature of the medieval building industry, the masters began to acquire significant status within society. To protect their interests the craft guilds became less democratic, taking on members who never rose to become masters. Divisions of labour began to emerge as well as an intellectual detachment between the master builder and his tradesmen. The medieval architect assumed a less hands on approach. Instead he chose to direct his tradesmen from a distance. The industry became a product of an early capitalist system that did not fully realise itself until the 18th century. The eventual separation from the master craftsman to the architect as the conceiver did not occur until the Italian Renaissance and the resurgence of Vitruvian principles.

A - Th

e Arch

itect

thro

ugh t

he Ag

es - A

rchite

cture

is an

act o

f God

9

Fig 5 - The Vitruvian Man. A world renowned drawing by Leonardo da Vinci, circa 1487. It was based on the notes made by the famous architect, Vitruvius.

A.2 The Vitruvian Architect

The 15th century saw the emergence of the Italian Renaissance; a cultural movement that encouraged learning based on classical sources [Fig 5]. In 1415, Poggio Bracciolini discovered Vitruvius’ treaties on architecture, De Architectura (Ettlinger, 1977, p.98). It was an authentic handbook of classical Roman architecture that provided a precise description of the architect’s role. These tasks were very different to those of the traditional medieval master builder. The culture of the Renaissance encouraged progressive architects to study Vitruvius’s manuscript and a new concept of architectural practice was born.

The Renaissance saw the rebirth of classical architecture through the study of Roman ruins. Vitruvius believed that the practice of architecture was an exact science, only to be carried out by educated practitioners or scholars. Leon Battista Alberti, an Italian Renaissance writer and architect wrote his own treatise of architecture in response the De Architecture, titled De Re Aedificatoria (Ten Books of Architecture, 1452) echoing Vitruvius in his preface.

“An architect is not a carpenter or joiner the manual worker being no more than an instrument to the architect who by sure and wonderful skill and method is able to complete his work…to be able to do this he must have a thorough insight into the most noblest and most curious sciences” (Albert, 1452, cited in Ettlinger, 1977, p.98).

Despite Alberti’s condemnation of the medieval craftsmen, none of the scholars “who were responsible for so many of the most celebrated Renaissance buildings were technician, and they all needed help when it came down to problems of structure or building method’ (Ettlinger, 1977, p.105). This demonstrates the problem that faced the Vitruvian Architect, the scholar who had to master both the theory and the practice. The Italian designers new everything about proportions and classical detailing, but were uneducated on

the practical side of building. They were dependent on the practical craftsmen, and collaboration between the two was essential. A division of labour emerged and the Renaissance introduced a new working relationship between the scholar-designer and craftsmen, one that is close to today’s modern interpretation of the architect and building contractor.

When Henry VIII (1485-1509) brought this new design idiom to the United Kingdom, it significantly weakened the position of the designer-craftsmen who had been so prolific during the Middle Ages. Renaissance architecture in Britain was built by native craftsmen and embellished by Italian designers. Following the abolishment of the Catholic Church, the Italian designers returned home only to be replaced by picture books containing illustrated examples of classical details. These illustrated books, used by patrons to instruct their craftsman, made the task of artificially imposing a new style of classical architecture other than the Gothic vernacular considerably easier. With the adoption of picture books, “design was no longer considered a secret of the craft” (Jenkins, 1961, p.33). Picture books became available to anyone who wished to buy them, and were responsible for a majority of our late 16th

century architecture. Patrons would conceive the design and employ surveyors to communicate their ideas to the craftsmen through drawings. The responsibility of design no longer rested with the craftsmen. Instead the surveyor-designer became the intermediate between the patron and the builder, a step closer to what we consider the role of the architect to be today.

A - Th

e Arch

itect

thro

ugh t

he Ag

es - T

he Vi

truvia

n Arch

itect

11

A.3 The Professional Architect

Although the Renaissance period heavily influenced the changing role of the architect it wasn’t until the 17th century that Britain realised its first architect in the Renaissance meaning of the word. This responsibility fell with Inigo Jones (1573-1652). He was an artist, who studied Renaissance architecture. Jones was part of a new culture of British scholars travelling abroad to educate themselves about intellectual methods in Renaissance design. “In Jones we have a true reflection of Alberti’s ‘man of science,’ the intellectual designer who worked by sure and wonderful art and method” (Jenkins, 1961, p.254). Despite Jones being the first true amateur architect in Britain, the duties of the architect still remained vague; the craftsmen rooted in the medieval guilds that had amassed a reputation in design still practised architecture as well. It wasn’t until 1750 that the conception of the architect as a specialist who designs and supervises the construction of buildings was accepted. The evolution from a medieval to a modern school of thought, coupled with a shift from “an agrarian to a capitalist based society through the industrial revolution” (Ely, 1961, p.180) forced the profession of architecture to adopt an increasingly specialised role.

The Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) brought economic growth and a population boom to Britain that demanded complex buildings. The “skills needed to erect these buildings were too diverse and technical for the old habits of work to deal with” (Saint, 1985, p.80). This forced the two classes of architects that co-existed to specialise into two defined roles; the craftsmen became the building contractor, and the amateurs, professional architects.

The Industrial Revolution fragmented the profession even further with the conception of the civil engineer. Vitruvius defined the role of the architect as a discipline that embraced ‘civil architecture,’ such as mechanics, fortification and bridge building. In the spirit of the Renaissance this tradition was continued in Britain during the 16th, 17th, and 18th century. During the revolution the demand for complex structures, communications, and an efficient infrastructure system encouraged architects to specialise in A -

The A

rchite

ct th

roug

h the

Ages

- The

Profe

ssion

al Ar

chite

ct

13

Fig 6 - The entrance to The Royal Institute of British Architects.

civil engineering works. The profession of civil engineering came to fruition, and the architect’s role became even more specialised. The capitalist system brought with it competition for work between the various specialisations that had emerged during the conception of the Industrial Revolution, this forced the different disciplines to protect their own interests and define their roles even further. John Soane, in 1788 wrote:

“The business of the architect is to make the designs and estimates, to direct the works, and to measure and value the different parts; he is the intermediate agent between the employer whose honour and interest he is to study and the mechanic, whose rights he is to defend. His situation implies great trust, he is responsible for the mistakes, negligence and ignorance of those he employs, and above all, he is to take care that the workmen’s bills do not exceed his own estimates” (Soane, 1788, cited in Darley, 1999, p89).

The first major act that consolidated the architect’s role as chief designer and supervisor of building construction came with the formation of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1834 [Fig 6]. This provided professional solidarity for the practice of architecture that had been struggling to identify itself ever since the master craftsmen of the Middle Ages. It “was an act of self protectionism. The defining feature of any profession is to distinguish itself from the ordinary: professions inscribe territories in order to better control themselves, and thereby give themselves status and economic power” (Till, 2009, p.153). The Institutes charter of incorporation was received in 1837, and it acquired the title of Royal in 1866. It was “founded for facilitating the acquirement of architectural knowledge, and for establishing a uniformity and respectability of practice in profession” (Wilton-Ely, 1977, p.193). In 1834 the profession of architecture had finally managed to manufacture a purpose for its being, a grand institute on Portland Street with a code of practice that clearly defined the role of the architect. The profession of architecture in all its apparent glory was born.

A - Th

e Arch

itect

thro

ugh t

he Ag

es - T

he Pr

ofessi

onal

Arch

itect

15

Fig 7 - Ludwig Mies Van De Rohe. Widely regarded as one of the pioneering masters of modern architecture.

A.4 The Lone Genius

The 20th  century saw the emergence of a new concept of architectural thinking that reflected the ambitions of a modern society. The architects of the modernist age had good intentions. The profession believed that “they could bring design within reach of all classes. They would create not only public facilities for education, sports, the arts and transportation, but also domestic affluence hitherto accessible to few. Good design could render the world good” (Habraken, 2005, p.88). Architecture was therefore no longer a product for the wealthy, but a product for the masses. It was during this time that the architect began to be celebrated as a figurehead of popular culture. The architect was seen as a genius of heroic status, acting alone to produce magnificent buildings. Ayn Rand’s seminal book, The Fountainhead, published in 1943, which would also be turned into a Hollywood film in 1949, represents this heightened depiction of the architect.  The book follows the struggle of Howard Roark, a young architect who chooses not to compromise his artistic ideals under the oppression of the capitalist elite. Instead, Roark who embraces modernism, battles on with limited success for the sake of architecture. The climax of the story is when Roark is put on trial for blowing up a tower he conditionally designed. This was done in retaliation to the design being altered without his approval. At his trial, Roark makes a speech of self-defence, epitomising himself as the hero of individualism. “No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free arrangement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men. The first right on earth is the right of the ego”  (Rand, 1943, cited in Saint, 1983, p.2). Howard Roark represent the modernist architect of the 20th century, in particular Frank Lloyd Wright [Fig 8], who was celebrated for undertaking a whole breadth of A -

The A

rchite

ct th

roug

h the

Ages

- The

Lone

Geniu

s

17

Fig 8 - Frank Lloyd Wright. A lone genius of the modernist movement.

building typology. As Habraken (2005, p.89) states it was “the belief that a designer should be in control of all levels of environmental form… [for instance] Mies Van der Rohe’s [Fig 7] simultaneous creation of both the skyscraper and the chair placed in the lobby.” Through Roark, Rand is arguing that the pursuit of individualism has been “increasingly frustrated by collectivism, to the detriment of society” (Saint, 1983, p.7). It is not so much an architectural statement, but a critique of the make-up of modern day society. It can be argued that The Fountainhead unintentionally demonstrates the failure of modernism. The modernists’ had good intentions. They believed that the lone genius, through centrally controlled design could manifest modern architecture for the benefit of society. However translating theory into practice proved to be ineffective. As De Carlo (2005/1970, p.8) declares “credibility disappeared when modern architecture chose the same public as academic or business architecture; that is, when it took an elite position on the side of the client rather than on the side of the user.” By this, De Carlo is stating that modernism was less about the users, but was restricted to capitalism and the fee paying client. The foundation of modernism was socially motivated. They sought solutions for a post war built environment to create a more balanced society. But this intention was fraught with individualistic desires dominating the architectural institutions, for instance Le Corbusier’s influence over the Congres Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM). As Habraken (2005, p.91) declares “the best and brightest talents of the architectural profession came to reject both past and present as they desperately sought to maintain self respect and artistic integrity. This created stylistic purism, free of precedent.”

A - Th

e Arch

itect

thro

ugh t

he Ag

es - T

he Lo

ne Ge

nius

19

A.5 A Constant State of Flux

The acknowledgement of the architect’s origin from the medieval craftsmen to the failures of the lone genius emphasises the ambiguity of the architect’s role throughout the ages. “No other connotation of a human craft has had such wide and ambiguous meaning. The term has been applied to figures ranging from head bricklayers to God (supreme architect of the universe), and this unlimited latitude of meaning has weighed enormously on the destiny of those claiming the title” (De Carlo, 2005/1970 p.5).

Throughout history the profession has been moulded by the society it inhabits, a product of the political, economic, and technological powers that consume it. From the holistic approach of the master builder, trained in structure, construction, aesthetic and form, the architect shed his responsibilities in search of status within a Bourgeois society during the Renaissance. The Renaissance scholars emerged educated in proportions, detached from the coarse reality of construction and materials. The Industrial Revolution brought with it a competitive nature, inherent with an emerging capitalist system. The profession was forced to fragment even further with the evolution of the specialist engineers and contractors. The responsibility of lead designer was seen as the only attribute worthy of the gentlemen architect. And finally, the materialisation of the Royal Institute of British Architects, that attached a

governing body to the title, subsequently drove the duties of the architect further into a realm of professional authorship and specialisation.

There has been gradual change in the architect’s role through the ages. The ambiguity of this evolution has left the profession of architecture in a state of flux. It constantly searches for new avenues that the discipline can explore and with it some traditional roles have been eroded even further. This discourse has continued into the modern construction industry of the 21st century and the professions vulnerability appears to be even more pertinent. Over the past 30 years the role of the architect has evolved at alarming rate and is continuing to gather pace exponentially. Today the political, economic, and technical powers are dominant, and “there is a sense of despair in the architectural profession that we have given up ‘control’ of the production of the built environment to others…What brings these supposed invaders of territory together is an attachment to a particular set of priorities, those of the neo-liberal marketplace” (Till, 2011).

A - Th

e Arch

itect

thro

ugh t

he Ag

es - A

Cons

tant

Stat

e of F

lux

21

Chapter B – Practice of Today

B. Introduction

We have seen how the practice of architecture has evolved over time. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century brought with it changing social structures, new technologies and a different way of working that ultimately forced the architect to shed more responsibility in search of professional authorship. Today, nearly two hundred years on, the accepted role of the “architect has long been to design the building, manage the design, select and appoint the contractor… and generally represent the clients interests as far as possible” (Murdoch and Hughes, 2008, p.18). However, the accelerated erosion of the architect’s role over the last thirty years has left the profession of architecture peculiarly vulnerable. Consequently, the architect’s role as project leader has been questioned. This vulnerability became all too apparent when the global recession crippled the UK construction industry, placing the profession of architecture at the top of the list of unemployment growth. Even the Royal Institute of British Architects is concerned. In March 2011, the RIBA commissioned the Think Tank ‘Building Futures’ to investigate the future role of the architect with some disturbing conclusions.

In the Building Futures report, Jamieson (2011, p.33) states, “since 2008 there has been a 40% reduction in the demand for architects services in the UK,” as well as claiming that the “profession is heading towards a consultancy role” (2011, p.32). When discussing the architect’s future responsibilities B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - I

ntro

ducti

on

in detailed design, commentators stated, “with increasing complexity of buildings technologies you cannot expect architects to have that role” (Jamieson, 2011, p.24). It was also argued that medium sized practices will eventually disappear, and in “ten years time we will probably not call ourselves an architecture practice anymore, it will be something entirely different” (Jamieson, 2011, p.29).

It is important to embrace these conclusions, but also formulate an opinion of your own. Like our architectural ancestors, the practice of today is dependent upon the ubiquitous construct of the society it occupies. This is where Studio 47 needs to focus our attentions to question the role of the architect, to create an alternative model of practice.

From a series of considered interviews, Studio 47 has identified a number of factors that have contributed toward the progressive erosion of the architect’s role. These include, risk, technology, divisions of labour, governing bodies, and procurement.

23

Fig 9 - Risk.

B.1 Risky Business

There are numerous definitions of risk that depend on its context, application and adopted perspective. However, The Oxford Dictionary (2002, p.720) defines risk as a “situation that could be dangerous or have a bad outcome. 2 the possibility that something unpleasant will happen.”

The economics of 21st century capitalism is dependent on members of its society taking appropriate risks in exchange for reward, monetary or otherwise. By implication those who adopt a risk averse approach will restrict their reward. Society attempts to systematically control risk, this is known as risk management. Risk management is defined as “The process of identification, analysis and either acceptance or mitigation of uncertainty in investment decision-making” (Investopedia, 2012). The susceptibility of risk management in the capitalist system was exposed with the collapse of the financial sector in 2008. Since then, attention has been very much focused on the documentation of risk. The construction industry is no exception. Construction professionals are being battered and bruised as risk is being transferred between different players depending on the particular procurement route of a project. This has had a profound effect on the role of the architect.

Risk management in the construction industry is concerned with identifying the outstanding risks, analysing the likelihood of them occurring and deciding how to manage the risks successfully for the benefit of the client. The type of building contract determines where the risk lies amongst the project team. This is usually dependent on the ability of a particular discipline to manage the risk effectively. Contractual risk reflects the true spirit of the capitalist system. The discipline perceived to take on the most risk has greater control (with control comes risk) over the entire process, and with it a financial reward. The basic principle is that wherever risk is transferred from a consultant to the owner that is reflected in the price of the work. The capitalist concept of risk = reward renders the debate of fairness in contractual agreements obsolete. As Wallace (1986, cited in Murdoch & Hughes, 2008, p.9) points out “any discussion about whether or not particular risk should be so included in B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - R

isky B

usine

ss

25

Fig 10 - Archi-prison - A conceptual image that imagines a dystopian future for the architectural profession. The image shows an architect at his desk in solitary confinement. The popularity of Design and Build contracts has meant that the architect has been stripped of his roles and responsibilities at the mercy of the building contractor. The contractor is shown passing the architect an instruction though the prison door. In this scenario the architect is detached from the client and disengaged from the tangible process of creating a building.

the price is a discussion of policy, and not fairness, morality or justice.” There are a number of contractual variations dependent on the type of work and the allocation of risk amongst construction professionals. These include the traditional JCT standard form of contract, the Design and Build contract, and the new NEC3 contract. Over the last 30 years we have seen a sharp increase in the procurement of buildings through Design and Build. What these contracts have in common is a dilution of the architect’s role, which has had grim consequences for the practice of architecture [Fig 10].

The traditional form of building contract known as the JCT Standard Form of building contract has been in existence since the end of the 19th century. For many years it was known as the ’RIBA Form of Contract’ that demonstrates how sympathetic it is toward the architect’s role during the procurement process. Broadly this procurement route involves the client commissioning the architect “to take a brief, produce designs and construction information, invite tenders and administer the project during the construction period and settle the final account” (Chapell & Willis, 2010, p133). In this scenario there is nothing peculiar about the architect’s role, it even agrees with John Soane’s definition of the architect’s duties in 1788.

“The business of the architect is to make the designs and estimates, to direct the works, and to measure and value the different parts; he is the intermediate agent between the employer whose honour and interest he is to study and the mechanic, whose rights he is to defend. His situation implies great trust, he is responsible for the mistakes, negligence and ignorance of those he employs, and above all, he is to take care that the workmen’s bills do not exceed his own estimates.” (Soane, 1788, cited in Darley, 1999, p89).

It is believed by many that this position of authority enables the architect to exercise the core values of the profession that can result in a better product for the end user. However, like all contractual agreements this responsibility comes with risk. The architect at all times is acting on behalf of the client and is therefore liable should anything go wrong. Over the last 30 years the profession of architecture has been notoriously risk averse. Neil Walters (to authors, 2011), a senior project manager at Second London Wall Project B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - R

isky B

usine

ss

27

Management commented that modern day “architects don’t want the liability…one of the continual banes that gives us grief is that it is very rare for a designer to live with the consequences of his decisions.” Along with this risk averse attitude, the architectural profession is notorious for its inability to administer the contract and manage a job effectively. There “has been an emergence of management teams because the architect was not doing the job very well” (Hall to authors, 2011), because of this traditional forms of contract were not delivering certainty to the client. When the construction industry operates within an economic system that is focused on managing risk effectively in order to make a profit, the failures of the architectural profession to cope with that risk has contributed toward a rise in popularity for alternative methods of procurement.

The JCT Design and Build system has grown in popularity over the last 30 years. Today “the minority of what architects do is traditional and the great majority of what architects do is Design and Build” (Norman to authors, 2011). Design and Build is a process that places the responsibility for both the design and construction of a building in the hands of the contractor. The contractor will design a scheme in accordance to the client’s specification, either through an in-house design team or more commonly contract the work to an independent architectural practice. This type of contract transfers all the risk from the client into the hands of the contractor. However, this risk comes at a premium for the client, but delivers certainty in terms of cost and programme.

This system benefits the type of client who view buildings as financial assets that can be exchanged for profit in the capitalist market. “One of the ways to make money is to transfer the risk away, and the way to do that is through Design and Build” (Benson to authors, 2011). These professional clients are commonly known as developers. This procurement process is also popular amongst the public sector because the government is accountable for the taxpayer’s money, therefore the process is cost driven from the very start. Because of this “over 50% of the construction value of UK architects’ workload is for contractor clients” (Jamieson, 2011, p.23) which underlines the popularity of this procurement method in the modern day construction industry.

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- Risk

y Bus

iness

Fig 11 - One Hyde Park. One of the most expensive residential developments in London was procured under a Design and Build contract. 29

Clearly the Design and Build process is beneficial to the client when managing risk associated with cost and programme. However “from the architect’s point of view the big disadvantage is that the architect is no longer in control of the whole process” (Norman to authors, 2011). It can therefore be argued the architect’s inability to exercise his professional values can compromise the overall design quality of the build. This is because the architect’s employer, the Contractor, has a different set of priorities. These priorities are to deliver a product that complies with the client specifications, on time and on budget, and in some cases sacrificing design quality in the name of cost to achieve that goal.

“The loss of quality that is so evident at every level of the spectacular language, from the objects it glorifies to the behaviour it regulates, stems from basic nature of a production system that shunts reality. The commodity form reduces everything to quantitative equivalence. The quantitative is what it develops, and it can only develop within the quantitative” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.36).

In this scenario, architecture is reduced to mere commodity, where the quantitative forces of capitalist production out weigh qualitative forces for aesthetical production. For example, when the architect is “trying to get a flush detail, where an oak floor runs into an art gallery wall, a Design and Build contractor will not be interested, it will be easier and cheaper for him to put in a skirting” (Norman to authors, 2011). In short, because the contractor takes the risk, the capitalist system dictates that the contractor drives the design process with the architect’s design authority being significantly compromised.

However, despite the argument that Design and Build contracts negate design quality, “one of the most expensive buildings in London, and allegedly one of the most expensive residential buildings in the World, One Hyde Park [Fig 11], was built under a lump sum Design and Build contract” (Walters to authors, 2011). The popularity of Design and Build contracts has created a new, and sophisticated breed of contractor organisations, “their evolution over the next ten years could see them grow into large, multi-skilled businesses directly employing a large number of architects” (Jamieson, 2011, p.23).

The 21st century capitalist system of risk = reward has forced clients to manage risk as effectively as possible. With this is in mind, the management of risk through contractor organisations will continue to grow in popularity. This proposes a significant threat to the future role of architect, and the built environment as a whole. The management of risk effectively places the control of our built environment into the hands of construction professionals who share a different set of values to the architect, those driven by profit. As McClain (2011) states, “we are talking about values here. Architect’s values are different. We are not driven by the same cost motives that contractors are. That is not what we train for, that is not what we care about.” However, contractor organisations continue to proliferate the architect’s role eroding their design authority and subsequently compromising their ability to exercise these values. Subsequently, the production of our built environment continues to be commodity driven by the powers that be.

Despite risk being a major player in transforming the role of the architect, other factors have contributed toward the progressive erosion of the architect’s responsibilities. In an age of advancing technologies the architect has been consumed by a digital generation.

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- Risk

y Bus

iness

31

Fig 12 - CCTV Headquarters in Beijing. Designed by OMA, the building used advanced CAD systems and construction techniques to design and build the 230m high tower.

B.2 A Technological Age

During the past 30 years technology has evolved at an alarming rate, from material science through to methods of construction. This rapid evolution of architectural technology has been a huge driver for continuous change within the profession. In the last two decades, architectural design has been hugely influenced by the use of computers, more specifically, Computer Aided Design (CAD). As Evans (to authors, 2011) states, “the way that practices have moved forward, for instance 8 years ago when I joined this practice, we had one computer set up to dial onto the internet, now everyone works on a computer... everything is now primarily done on CAD.”

The acronym CAD originally stood for Computer Aided Drafting, but drafting was later replaced by Design. This expresses the enormity of how this technology and its influences on the practice of architecture. It is no longer about just using the technology to draw what is already designed, it is used to conceive the design as well. As McLean & Silver (2008, p.133) state “the ability of the computer to help with design is largely a product of its ability to produce rapid mathematical calculations, and to hence (1) organise vast amounts of information and (2) simulate (model) the predicted behavior of both natural and artificial objects and systems.” CAD can be used for both structural and environmental analysis, having a huge impact on the production of architecture, which can be very beneficial in producing a sound building.

While the advancements in intelligent computer technology should be celebrated for driving architecture forward, it has however brought about a drawback for the architect. The architect’s role is again being diminished. In this case due to the complexity of such technology and the need for other specialist consultants to operate the software. For instance, lighting design specialists, mechanical and engineering specialists, the list continues and these were all roles the architect once undertook. This is also mirrored in other advancements in building technologies, where the architect once designed all the elements. It is now the case that other consultants specialise in certain aspects of the building B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - A

Tech

nolog

ical A

ge

33

fabric. Benson (to authors, 2011) in regards to a client contracting a specialist consultant rather than the architect, states “the client is not going to pay Mr Architect to design a cladding system, when he can just go to cladding specialist to design it because that’s what they do and probably at a quarter of the price” (Benson to authors, 2011). Due to the sophistication of such complex construction elements, the architect can no longer be the expert in all fields.

The dilution of the architect’s role is of great concern. It is diminishing the architect’s responsibility, and potentially diminishing architecture, where the individualistic qualities of a building design are being eroded. As architect turned project manager, Bramwell (to authors, 2011) states “a number of large complex buildings are starting to look very similar, because a lot the cladding systems are done by the same people. There are only 4 or 5 really good cladding specialists. The roofing systems will be very similar. There is a formula of the shell and core arrangement and even when you start looking at the really high quality buildings around the City of London, when you look at a buildings by Grimshaw, Fosters or Rogers, a lot of their work is starting to look very similar. I have got a theory that it is a lot about the availability of technology, and the fact that so much is being detailed by other specialists.” This is also reiterated by Awan et al. (2011, p.27) who believe that “there clearly are strong normalising tendencies of mainstream architectural production; we can see them all around us: the confronting city of office and apartment blocks, the city sameness, indifference and non-engagement, but also of conflict.” It can be argued that this is the result of the clients desire to drive down costs, as a consequence architecture is becoming a commodity driven, “a visual reflection of the ruling economic order – goals are nothing, development is everything” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.27).

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- A Te

chno

logica

l Age

35

B.3 Divisions of Labour

Today specialist consultants continue to proliferate the modern day construction industry as it shifts to accommodate the progressive technological, sociological, and economical changes of society. These specialist consultants tend to perform more complex design, construction and managerial tasks that were once administered by the architect. There has also been a shift of traditional roles amongst construction professionals in an attempt to deliver a more efficient product for the client. This division of task has seen a cultural change that has subsequently eroded the role of the architect.

The responsibility of management and contract administration has seen one of the most influential divisions of labour in the construction industry over the past 30 years. Traditionally, this responsibility fell into the hands of the all-encompassing architect. However, “20 years ago it started to change, from the point where the architect did all the contract administration, to the architect leaving some of the more tedious contract administration to somebody else” (Benson to authors, 2011). The specialist consultant who assumed the responsibility to manage and administer the contract is known as a project manager.

“The Project Manager is a construction professional who can be given executive authority and responsibility to assist the client to identify the project objectives and subsequently supply the technical expertise to asses, procure, monitor and control the external resources required to achieve those objectives, defined in terms of cost, quality and function” (Chapell and Willis, 2010, p.130).

This definition is worthy of note because it separates important managerial tasks that were once administered under the supervision of the architect and firmly places them in the hands of a new player with significant authority.

Cost and time are two influential factors that dominate the production of our built environment today. During the Renaissance and further afield these variables were irrelevant, as Walters (to authors, 2011) states “think of St Pauls, Sir Christopher Wren wasn’t thinking about program,” which arguably led to some of our most flamboyant B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - D

ivisio

ns of

Labo

ur

Fig 13 - Divisions of Labour. Honey bee colonies are notorious for their divisions of labour. Bees perform certain tasks depending on their strengths and weaknesses. This is usually determined by a bee’s genetic makeup. 37

architecture. The architect’s attitude that “it will cost what it costs, and will be finished when it’s finished” (Walters to authors, 2011) continued to proliferate the construction industry up until the 1980’s. Of course Walters view must be questioned to some extent, architects were still conscious of programme and cost, but it is likely that this wasn’t their their main priority. However, amongst the competitive market of the capitalist system cost and programme started to play a far more influential role when designing, constructing and procuring the built environment.

Project management subsequently grew “because clients lost trust in architects to put cost and programme as high up the agenda as design quality” (Bramwell to authors, 2011). The project manager is seen as someone who is deemed to be “driving that forward, making the team have a commercial edge, saying to the architect its all very well to create a work of art… but you have to deliver something which is efficient internally that is not round, but square” (Benson to authors, 2011). The architect’s inability to control cost and manage the team has allowed the project manager to exist, and like contractor organisations, they are driven by a peculiar set of priorities.

As well as managerial responsibilities, the industry has seen a fragmentation in design responsibility too. Design was once conceived as a single discipline controlled by the architect. However, with the advancing technological complexity of the industry there grew a demand for specialist designers who could embrace new technologies.

“We are no longer building in bricks, plaster, and tiles anymore, where everybody understands the technology right the way through the entire process. Once you are involved in some kind of walling system, there are several proprietary systems out there. Only the people who develop those systems can detail the whole system, so you’ve got specialist contractors “ (Norman to authors, 2011).

It must be noted that technology has probably had a greater effect on commercial architecture, domestic work still relies on basic forms of construction. However, in mainstream architecture, technological advancements have meant that the architect has abandoned certain design responsibilities. However, Martin Gruenanger (to authors, 2011), director of Space Group Architects states that “certain

disciplines aren’t that difficult, so the architect should grasp hold of these aspects.” Despite this optimistic view, the complexity of technological advancements coupled with the litigious nature of the construction industry has meant that architectural practices are reluctant to even write cladding specification. “They don’t want the liability (risk) so they delegate that off to detail designers” (Walters to authors, 2011). Consequently there is great debate as to what proportion of the building architects actually design, “even planning authorities are getting involved now, they are not supposed to dictate the style, but they do” (Benson to authors, 2011).

The progressive erosion of the architect’s design and managerial responsibilities through a division of labour strengthens the case for other consultants to lead the process. What this does is expose the process of building design to a peculiar set of values, values that are not prioritised by the profession of architecture, cost and programme. The realisation of the project manager is seen as a by-product of this, and the all-embracing capitalist system of the 21st century. They are values that reduce architecture to mere commodity, “this division of spectacular tasks preserves the existing order as a whole, it is primarily orientated toward protecting its dominant pole of development” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.47).

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- Divi

sions

of La

bour

39

Fig 14 - The entrance to the RIBA.

B.4 RIBA

The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) [Fig 14], a body funded entirely by its members and sponsors, was established in 1834 “for the general advancement of civil architecture, and for promoting and facilitating the acquirement of the knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith...” (RIBA, 2012). Today, the RIBA (2012) describes itself as “championing better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members.” Since its establishment, the RIBA has evolved into a body with many functions.

“At times a learned body there to promote the knowledge of its experts through lectures and reports, to regulate that knowledge through its educational influence, and to protect that knowledge in its library. At times a trade union there to protect the interests of the profession against the marauding hordes of surveyors and engineers, and to counter the insatiable claims of clients and contractors. At times supporting the practice of architecture through legal advice and best practice prescriptions. At times displaying and advocating the products through exhibitions and awards systems” (Till, 2009, p.154).

As an institutional body, the RIBA has a huge influence over the profession and the practice of architecture. Over the past thirty years the RIBA has undertaken some significant changes. The consequences of these changes have had a huge impact on the role of the architect.

In 1982, the RIBA abolished the compulsory fee scales. They replaced them with recommended scales until they were removed in 1992. Finally, in 2009, the RIBA deleted the fee scale graph from its publication ‘A Client’s Guide to Engaging an Architect’ (Waite, 2009). The fee scales gave a clear insight into how much an architect should charge for a particular project by using a percentage fee. Hall (to authors, 2011) states “when pricing for a new job, you would look at the graph, it was ever so clear, it told you what sort of work you were doing, the class you were in, and what the money was. If I chose refurbishment and extensions without listed building consent, it would be 12% and that was what everyone did.” The graphs were also a useful tool for the client. It gave them an indication of what an architect’s services were worth. As Drayton (2009, cited in Waite, 2009) B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - R

IBA

41

Fig 15 - RIBA. The gallery space.

declares “few clients genuinely understand what architects do, and fewer still appreciate the time involved.”

The RIBA abolished the fees scales on the grounds that they believed that such a method was outdated, and potentially harmful in a poor economic climate. Their intention was for architects to take a similar approach to other construction consultants, calculating fees based on resources, time, or value added. However, it can be argued that the abolishment of fee scales was an unsuccessful maneuver by the RIBA. Hall (to authors, 2011) expresses “they were abolished because it was deemed that pricing should be more competitive. But then the recession hit, which was in 80’s and 90’s, and people were doing things for nothing. They are probably doing this now. It has led to a culture of undercutting.” It is clear that the abolishment has had a detrimental impact on the nature of the profession. In order to gain work architects are hugely under pricing their services. Subsequently clients and other consultants undervalue the profession. Jones (to authors, 2011) states “once we have agreed a fee with the client, we find ourselves doing whatever is required to make that project as good as we can get it.”

It is disconcerting that an institution set up as an act of protectionism is failing to look out for its members’ wellbeing. It is often argued that the RIBA should do more to lobby on behalf of its members. Graeme Sutherland (2012, cited in Wilding & Hopkirk, 2012, p.1) of Adams & Sutherlands architects states “I have no expectations of the RIBA but they should be much more pro-active in raising public awareness of the value architects are able to bring to a project.” It appears the RIBA is more concerned with its prestigious status rather than acting as body that represents architects to help combat the problems facing the profession today. Till (2009, p.164) exclaims “the longer the profession holds to its false dreams the longer it will fail in its responsibilities to others, and the more it will be moved to the margins.”

The RIBA has recently been criticised in the architectural press for acting too slowly when it comes to protecting its members. This is in particular reference to the procurement process. Following the appointment of Angela Brady as the new RIBA president elect in 2011, she promised to ensure the reform of public sector procurement, placing it as a key

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- RIB

A

43

priority. However, the promised RIBA report for procurement reform is now five months behind schedule. The RIBA task force set up to write the report claims it needs more time to consult with other bodies, to reflect reviews of the industry not just architects. Woodman (2012, p.2) lambasts this as being out of sync with the purpose of the RIBA, which is to represent the interests of its members, who are architects. With the delay of this publication, more architects will have wasted valuable time bidding for work that they are unlikely to win.

Since Brady’s appointment, the RIBA has sought to revive the profession’s image. Klettner (2011, p.3) states that Brady “has radical plans to overhaul the physical presence of the institute, making it a ‘cooler’ place for architects to be.” She hopes to open a new headquarters in east London’s trendy Hoxton Square, believing that the 66 Portland Place is great, “but it’s a wedding venue [Fig 15]– not what members want it to be” (Brady, 2011, cited in Klettner, 2011, p.3). Brady wants the new venue to be more like a Soho House for architects. Importantly, Brady (2011, cited in Klettner, 2011, p.3) believes that “we need to start becoming a profession that looks out, rather than in.” There are criticisms of such an initiative, architect Ian Simpson (2011, cited in Klettner & Wilding, 2011, p.1) believes “the money would be better spent on the existing RIBA headquarters, to make it more accessible, rather than creating what would become an elitist clique.”

The election of Brady also came at a time of great uncertainty for the future of the profession. Subsequently, there have been calls for a RIBA led change in the education of architects. Daniel Rosbottom (cited in Klettner, 2011, p.3) of DRDH Architects believes it is now time for “the institute to work in dialogue with schools to redefine a sustainable model for education that engages with and critiques both practice and society at large. ” There has been a long history of tension between architectural practice and design education dating back to the late 18th century. But with so much uncertainty and a need for architectural education to respond to rapid technological change, Temple and Bandyopadhyay (2007, p.5) believe that “by attempting to codify the educational and training needs of the architect, there is an expectation – or hope – that the status and credibility of architectural

education can be secured in ways that seem to exist with greater surety – and precision – as in other professional courses, such as medicine. This is, perhaps, a reflection of a growing insecurity and uncertainty... about the relevance of architectural education... in a world of increasing specialisation and technological dominations.”

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- RIB

A

45

B.5 Public Sector Procurement

“Procurement is the biggest crisis facing architecture at the moment. It’s basically a system that acts against architects” (Murphy, 2011, cited in Hopkirk, 2011, p.1).

The public sector spends vast amounts of money purchasing goods and services from companies operating within the private sector. There are huge benefits for an architect gaining public sector work, for instance a wide variety of projects, prompt payment and less time pitching. However, the procurement process can be a great challenge for architectural practices, especially small ones, involving a high volume of paperwork and time.

Public sector projects are often procured in two ways, through project contracts being advertised directly in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) [Fig 16] with practices only having to tender to win projects, or more commonly, projects awarded through framework agreements. This involves a consortium of different consultants who partner together to deliver a series of projects. By securing a place on a framework, it does not necessarily guarantee work. However, it does limit the amount of resources a practice has to use to pitch for further work. Once a practice is on a framework it has already qualified to undertake the relevant work needed by any public organisation.

Framework agreements are offered and awarded through open competitions initiated with an advertisement in the OJEU, where contracts are valued at more than £100,000. There is great criticism for this type of procurement, as it favours larger practices with greater experience. As Jones (to authors, 2011) states “it makes it difficult for smaller, less established firms to break into. And pre-qualification questionnaires, which are the first round, make it extremely difficult. Smaller practices are unlikely to even answer all the questions, or to satisfy the conditions and parameters of the questions, let alone get to a stage where they are ultimately competing on quality of design, ideas or ability to engage with the client group and understand their issues.“

The procurement process is very time consuming for architectural practices. This can be very costly, and B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - P

ublic

Secto

r Pro

curem

ent

Fig 16 - The European Union Flag. 47

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- Pub

lic Se

ctor P

rocu

remen

t

link up with it, and I suppose the subscript is that the bigger practice provides the stability and capacity of staff, and then brings the cutting edge design and fresh thinking.” However small practices need to find a suitable practice that is willing to collaborate and shares similar values. Quite often this does not materialise, subsequently smaller practices seep into oblivion before they have ever really had a chance.

detrimental to the success of the practice if they do not win the tender. For instance, Norman (to authors, 2011) states “we end up spending half our time bidding to get work, as that is the only way to get work now, even if you have a good track record for something. If you are a biggish practice, you have a lot of clout and your chances are pretty good. But if you are smaller practice, they complain like hell because they haven’t got a track record, they haven’t got a turnover, they get discarded and it costs a lot of money to go for those things.” This is a cause for great concern, considering that a majority of the profession is being restricted. 79% of practices within the UK employ less than 50 people. Such practices are termed micro-businesses, and these practices employ 40% of UK architects (RIBA, 2011, p1). At the procurement stage, a practice must to turnover at least £1m in order to qualify. This excludes 50% of architects, and only allows 15% of UK practices to tender (RIBA, 2011, p2). Therefore the majority of public sector projects within the UK are undertaken by a handful of large practices, as Feilden, F. (to authors, 2011) states “80% of the public work goes to practices of over 200 people.” Subsequently, being a small practice with ambitions to work within the public sector is often unobtainable. As Martin Gruenanger (to authors, 2011) stated in an interview with the authors, “a large project of a few million pounds could easily be given to a small practice, and the client would most likely get an exceptional service as this would be the small practices’ primary focus. However for a larger practice, this might be a relatively small project, or just one of many, therefore the client does not get the same attention.” Gruenanger believes that the entire pre-qualification questionnaires process is unjustifiable. To add to this, it recently emerged in the architectural press that the Foreign Office procurement process was allocating 80% of the marks to cost and only 20% to quality. Hopkirk (2011, p.1) expresses that “this is adding further weight to the argument for pre-qualification questionnaire reform.”

However, it is possible for smaller practices to gain work in the public sector, this involves the small practices using their entrepreneurial initiative and developing collaborative relationships with larger practices. Jones (to authors, 2011) states “one way to overcome the challenges of procurement is to get a sugar daddy architecture practice that you can

Fig 17 - Procurement in the Press. The problems facing procurement have made the headlines of many architectural publications over the past year, including BD magazine. 49

B.6 Architecture as Commodity

We have seen that the practice of architecture in all its apparent glory is dependent. It would be presumptuous to assume that architecture is the only profession dependent on outside forces, “of course all human actions in any given field are dependent on others to a greater or lesser extent... However architecture is peculiarly exposed to these external dependencies” (Till, 2009, p45). Habraken (2005, p.36), in Palladio’s Children states that these forces make up the ‘field’ in which architects operate, “the term field encompasses all. Fields are only conceivable as coherent and enduring entities because they are inhabited, subject to and continuously reshaped by the unending actions and interventions of people who live in material fabric.” The political, social, and economic situation of the field we inhabit has undoubtedly transformed the role of the architect, who have become “mere pawns in an overwhelming regime of power and control” (Till, 2009, p.34).

Since the conception of the architect as master builder in the middle ages, technological advancements have rendered the traditional role of the architect obsolete. The capitalist system has brought with it a division of labour, where the “the profession has drifted away from a shared sense of mission. Each discipline has asserted itself with an increasing self interest” (Habraken, 2005, p.94). As well as this, the litigious nature of capitalist “society has established increasingly complex rules of performance and procedures,” (Habraken, 2005, p.134). Risk management, litigation, and bureaucracy have become dominant factors in the design of our built environment. These changes amongst the ‘field’ have meant that the profession is contingent upon other parties unqualified to make design decisions. This dependency is exactly what Alberti sought to escape during the Renaissance.

Society over the past 30 years has reshaped the way in which architects work. The entire design process has been opened up to the input and control of others, regulators, clients, contractors, project managers, consultants etc. Today, and quite rightly so, there is a “sense of despair in the architectural profession that we have given up control of the built B -

Prac

tice o

f Tod

ay - A

rchite

cture

as Co

mm

odity

51

environment to others; to developers, to project managers, to government procurement systems. What brings these supposed invaders of territory together is an attachment to a particular set of priorities, those of the neo liberal market place” (Till, 2011). Architecture has subsequently become a commodity, a product of 21st century capitalism.

When the commodity exchange of the market came to an abrupt end in 2008, mainstream architectural production fell victim to the economic excesses of the 2000s and left the profession of architecture topping the list of unemployment growth in the UK. This only highlights the dependency of architecture as commodity. Today the practice of architecture reacts to the short-term priorities of other players who shift risk and cut corners to reduce their expenditure and maximise their profits. They are “polishers of static form and technical manipulators of stuff in the name of efficiency and progress…activities that consolidate and pander to the demands of the capitalist production of space” (Awan et al., 2011, p.30). Architectures inability to practice its core values has meant that the production of space is beyond the control of the profession. It only responds to the short-term demands of the capitalist system, subsequently “the spectacle is the leading production of present day society” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.27).

The profession has attempted to adjust to this system in an ad-hoc way in order to survive. In short, there is a disconnection in the way architects perceive themselves and what they actually do for their clients. Consequently, the practice of mainstream architecture is outdated, ineffective and frequently contradictory. It has become increasingly detached from the field, unable to serve it as well as it could do, whilst contributing toward diminishing returns that succeeding generations of architects have grown dissatisfied with.

The practice of architecture needs to shift to find its most effective place for the benefit of the built environment. Questioning the methodology of architectural practice has seldom entered mainstream architectural discourse, but this is where Studio 47 must focus our attentions. As Till (2009 p.42) states, “we need to break up the ordered

surfaces that we might have taken for granted and in doing so, more positively reconstruct alternatives.” The alternative must empower the profession to practice its values. These values aren’t primarily driven by the commodity, but by the everyday.

B - Pr

actic

e of T

oday

- Arch

itectu

re as

Com

mod

ity

53

Fig 18 - An Alternative Model. A mapping exercise conducted by Studio 47 to help create an alternative model of practice. The pink path illustrates the problems Studio 47 have identi-fied. The grey path represents Studio 47’s philosophy, and the blue path represents Studio 47’s methodology of practice. The following section seeks to explain this diagram in detail.

An Al

terna

tive M

odel

- Map

ping E

xerci

se

57

C - Ag

ents

of Ch

ange

Chapter C – Agents of Change

At the very beginning of this research project, Studio 47 visited Occupy London at St Paul’s cathedral, an occupation of one of the remaining pieces of publicly owned land in the City of London. During our time there Tent City taught us an important lesson. What these protesters did was poignantly expose societies acceptance of the status quo. Regardless of whether you agree with their actions or not, it became clear that in order to establish an alternative, it was first necessary for us to question the norm. Subsequently, this research was set out of frustration with the conservative tendencies of mainstream architectural production.

The fatal attraction of the economic boom years has led the profession into laissez faire attitude toward architectural practice, reducing the production of architecture to mere commodity. The practice of architecture needs to reposition itself away from acting as agents for an increasingly bourgeois society to understanding the needs of future generations. This is a realignment of architectural values against construction professionals with other priorities. We have seen how these players have dominated the construction industry for the last 30 years with the progressive erosion of the architect’s role. Subsequently, mainstream architectural production has suffered, and the wellbeing of our built environment has been compromised.

Over the past 30 years we have seen “the excesses of stars that made up one percent” (Till, 2011) of our built environment. As Ken Shuttleworth (2011, cited in Hawkes, A. & Kollewe, J. 2011) states, “the age of bling is over,” where aesthetic compromises substance, “beauty maybe one approach to achieving betterment, but it is not a sufficient one“ (Till, 2009, p.37). Today we see monumental architecture disconnected from the cultural, social, and political context of its situation. Architecture designed for wealthy patrons who are obsessed with the object, spend money in search of self-gratification.

30 St Mary’s Axe [Fig 19], commonly known as the ‘Gherkin,’ is a material representation of architecture as a commodity.

59

Swiss Re wanted something “iconic that they could occupy. The fact that it was bigger than what they needed was irrelevant” (Walters to authors, 2011). Subsequently architecture became object, a commodified, indulgent, unnecessary expression of economic power in the City of London. This representation of architectural production pandered to the reviews, critics, awards, and glossy magazines of mainstream capitalist production of space. It is an example of architecture’s “illusory qualities designed to generate fervent allegiance to quantitative trivialities” (Debord, 2009/1976, p.49).

The notion of architecture as a commodity disengaged from the end user “tends to priorities the static properties of objects; the visual, the technical, and the temporal. Hence the dominance of aesthetic, style, form and technique in the usual discussion of architecture” (Awan et al., 2011, p.27). All over the world we see modernist architecture imposing its supposed values with little regard for its local connotations. Frank Gehry’s signature form that has been reproduced in various continents throughout the world epitomises this notion of thought. Whilst in its extreme case, the proposal at Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi, where a select group of architects have been appointed to design cultural buildings that are so different from one another, it is hard to imagine that they were ever designed with societies external dependencies in mind. These buildings are “just commodities mass produced for the abstract space of the market shattered from all regional and legal barriers and all the medieval guild restriction that maintained the quality of craft production, it also undermines the autonomy and quality of places” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.114). This type of architecture is indicative of the power of the market, an example of how easily architectural production can be appropriated into the commodity exchange of the market through its iconic status.

The relationship of architecture = commodity could not be more poignantly exposed with the construction of iconic buildings and the subsequent failures of the capitalist system. History has shown us that “there is an unhealthy correlation between the building of skyscrapers and the subsequent financial crash” (BBC News, 2012). Examples of C -

Agen

ts of

Chan

ge

Fig 19 - 30 St Mary Axe. Commonly known as the ‘Gherkin.’61

this include the world’s tallest skyscraper in Dubai, the Burj Khalifa [Fig 21], completed just before the Emirate went bust. A Barclay capital analyst stated that “often the world’s tallest buildings are simply the edifice of a broader skyscraper building boom, reflecting a widespread misallocation of capital and an impending economic correction” (BBC News, 2012). Clearly, the production of space has fell victim to the monumentality of the Vitruvian triad, where wealthy patrons design buildings in search of self-gratification at the expense of the financial market. “In placing the architect on par with his patron, it is understood that architecture as such is only built for the wealthy and powerful” (Habraken, 2005, p.42).

On the other end of the architectural spectrum, we have seen a repetition of unimaginative architectural dross [Fig 20] dominating the skyline of our twenty first century cities, “there clearly are strong normalising tendencies of mainstream architectural production...the confronting city of office and apartment blocks, the city sameness, indifference and non engagement” (Awan et al, 2011, p.27). Inadequate substance, wrapped in architectural skins that are cheap and reproduced, coupled with unsympathetic floor space that maximises the net lettable area in search of profit. This is the production of “dross” that the capitalist market dictates. It would therefore be naïve to disagree with the statement that this type of “architecture is a way of making money, owner-occupiers don’t really exist anymore” (Benson to authors, 2011), buildings are just exchanged like objects within the capitalist market. In most cases, what this architecture does is unashamedly ignore the end user and paint our cities with a thin aesthetic veneer, accommodating to the short-term demands of our clients and developers. Today, society assumes that this generic typology, “redesigned in order to become ever more identical to itself, to get as close as possible to motionless monotony” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.114) has become the vernacular of our modern day cities. Like the protestors at St Paul’s, Studio 47 need to question this status quo, and in doing so stop the strident forces of the capitalist market that have eroded the role of the architect and subsequently stunted the progression of our built environment through uninspiring conventions. C -

Agen

ts of

Chan

ge

Fig 20 - Architectural Dross. A residential complex in Oxford.63

Fig 21 - Burj Khalifa. The worlds tallest tower in Dubai.

This is an awareness that architectural production must deliberate. It must consider the social, the economical, and the ecological on an equal footing in search of ethical development. At no point should practice prioritise one over the other. It is the understanding that the creation of our built environment is not a matter of speculative investment that panders to the demands of the capitalist market, but about creating buildings that are social assets for future generations to appropriate and enjoy. As agents of change, architects have the ability to design these social assets. This is our opportunity to propose alternatives “that the developers, project managers, procurers and others in the thrall of the one percent simply do not have the understanding or imagination to create” (Till, 2011). This is where architects can add value, as visionaries who can imagine the unimaginable, as well as social agents who understand the long-term needs of a multitude of others. It is these core values that differentiate us from the other players and procurement systems that have dogmatically rested control of the built environment away from the profession over the past 30 years. For architects to exercise these values we must be proactive agents of change.

Chapter D – Studio 47’s Philosophy

D. Introduction

With the progressive erosion of the architect’s role, the profession must determine what values architects add to the process of designing and constructing buildings. These values must be unique to the practice of architecture, values that other players simply do not have the necessary skills to administer. It is clear that traditional roles once administered by the profession have been rested away from the architect and are unlikely to return. These disciplines were basic in their nature and easily adopted by other construction professionals. Subsequently, the architect must focus on the core skills that other construction professionals do not have the understanding or imagination to practice or deliver.

Studio 47 believes that architects are humanists, social scientists of the modern day construction industry. As social agents, it is the professions responsibility to empower others who live and work in the built environment in order to better the field. Secondly, architects are social visionaries. The practice of architecture has the potential to challenge the norm and provide intelligent solutions to even more complex problems associated with social structures, technology, and design. These values must define the profession as care takers of our built environment. They must also be recognised as values that are mutually dependent upon one another, taking the architect from space planner to social agent, which posits a much richer set of activities that will give new hope to the practice of architecture.

These values will help construct our philosophical position. They will form the very foundation of Studio 47’s alternative model of practice, a paradigm that suggests a richer way of doing architecture, shifting from mainstream tendencies to deliver Studio 47’s philosophy in the most effective way possible.

D - St

udio

47’s P

hilos

ophy

- Int

rodu

ction

67

Fig 22 - Occupy London. A non-violent popular uprising in protest of the inequality of the world’s wealth, being unfairly distributed amongst the 1%. The leaderless model of Occupy has allowed diverse voices to be heard meaning that every individual who partici-pates stands equal to everyone else making Occupy a true people’s movement.

D.1 – The Social Agent

“Architecture can be a powerful instrument to affect social change” (Lepik, 2010, p.12).

The global uprising of the ‘occupy’ movement [Fig 22], led by a protest against the inequality of the of the world’s distribution of wealth amongst the 1%, there is a concern for the 99% [Fig 23]. Architecture faces a similar dilemma. Have architects become overly concerned with the creation of buildings for the wealthiest in society, rather than looking out for the 99%?

As architects we have a responsibility to the users of architecture. It is Studio 47’s common belief that this should be reflected in our approach to design. Awan et al. (2011, p.32) state that it is about being “responsive to the longer term desires and needs of the multitude of others who build, live in, work in, occupy, and experience architecture and social space.” Of course, architects do not design buildings that purposely make the user miserable, as Till (2009, p.176) states “no architect sets out to behave badly or

to inflict unhappiness on the world. The problem is that their priorities as to what constitutes to good are so misplaced.”

Within the practice of architecture a large emphasis has been placed on aesthetics as if this brings about good moral ethics. There is an emphasis on the idea that “good aesthetics, in the form of beauty, leads directly to a good life, in the form of an ethical society, and equally that ethical society is the necessary context for the context of good aesthetics” (Till, 2009, p.175). It is Till’s belief that architects enter into a ‘comfort zone,’ believing that by designing something beautiful, they are doing good. However, this architectural ideal is not the case, as Bauman (2004, cited in Awan et al., 2011, p.37) states “beauty, alongside happiness, has been one of the most exciting promises and guiding ideals of the restless modern spirit.” By this Bauman is identifying that too much emphasis has been placed on the aesthetics in the hope that it will bring about a continuation of positive change within society. This is a false hope. Of course, it would be naïve to suggest that architects should ignore aesthetics when designing, but it is more about not allowing the aesthetical approach of design to overshadow and undervalue the other elements of architectural production, “beauty may be one approach to achieving betterment, but it is not a sufficient one” (Awan et al., 2011, p.37).

The production of architecture has pandered to the free market, driven by the desires of profit rather than the desires to do right by society. Lepik (2010, p.12) states “the recent global economic crisis – which arguably began with the crash of the U.S. housing market – has heightened the perception that architecture of the past few decades has placed itself too much in the service of economic and political interests and has had too little regard for social concerns.” This has been a misjudgment by the profession. Subsequently, architecture became too dependent on the booming economy. The economic downturn has seen a staggering amount of job losses within the profession of architecture. Lepik (2010, p.12) declares “with the rapid proliferation of high end architecture in fast growing economies around the globe and the powerful reshaping of cities such as Dubai, architects began to be seen more and more through the lens of celebrity.” Lepik lambasts the D -

Stud

io 47

’s Phil

osop

hy - T

he So

cial A

gent

69

Fig 23 - Occupy London, we are the 99%.

architects for their selfish desires to fit in with the celebrity culture of capitalist society. The profession has become so over obsessed with global success and stardom that the core values of the profession have been forgotten.

It is Studio 47’s belief that the critical attention of a future architectural practice should shift. Too often within architectural school, and practice, the profession has become obsessed by the image that has the potential to mask a bad design. Instead, Studio 47 will shift the attention toward the social consequences of architecture.

Social is an adjective of ‘society’. The Oxford Dictionary (2002, p.797) defines society as “1. people living together in an ordered community. 2. a community of people living in a county or region and have shared customs, laws and organisations.” Studio 47 acknowledges that the social implication of architecture is a concern for the people that the architecture affects. It is Studio 47’s belief that the user of the architecture should have a place, or more importantly, be empowered during the design of the architecture.

The idea of empowering the people consequently evolves the role of the architect, as Till (2009, p.167) states “the profession needs to shift the application of architectural attention from objects to agency.” This is echoed by Awan et al. (2011, p.32) who argue that “the agent is one who effects change through the empowerment of others, allowing them to engage in their spatial environments in ways previously unknown or unavailable to them, opening up new freedoms and potentials as a result of reconfigured social space.” It must be considered that architecture is not just about designing a static object, but as Cedric Price (1984, cited in Awan et al., 2011, p.31) states “the addition of a building is not necessarily the only solution to a spatial problem and that there are other ways of making a spatial difference.” This brings the ‘production of space’ to the forefront of Studio 47’s agenda.

The consequences of architecture must be more significant than the production of a static object. Bruno Latour (2004, Awan et al., 2011, p.33), an influential French sociologist, believed that the “critical attention of architecture must D -

Stud

io 47

’s Phil

osop

hy - T

he So

cial A

gent

71

shift as a matter of fact, to architecture as a matter of concern. As matters of fact, buildings can be subjected to rules and methods, and they can be treated as things on their own terms. As matters of concern, they enter into socially embedded networks, in which the consequences of architecture are of much more significance than the objects of architecture.” The architect should move away from solely designing buildings as objects, and take on a greater role, one which allows others to participate within the processes of design and production. With this, the emphasis of architecture must shift away from the production of object to the production of space. This is not in reference to empty voids that surround buildings, but a greater focus on the spatial context that the architecture is situated, the consideration of the political, economic and social context. Ultimately, it is about ensuring a greater involvement from the user. As Lefebvre (1992/1974, p.26) defines “(social) space is a (social) product.”

Lefebvre (1992/1974, p.38) proposed that there are three concepts responsible for the production of space – “Spatial Practice – revealed through deciphering space during the routine of daily life, Representations of Space – conceptualised space, the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers, as a certain type of artist with a scientific bent, and Representational Spaces – the space directly lived through... hence the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users’.” Lefebvre is clarifying that space is a socially motivated product, which is not defined solely by an individual, ‘the lone genius’, but rather by a group of people, ‘the ethical collective imagination.’ As Habraken (2005, p.63) argues “people are born, live and die within the built environment, adapting to it and translating it... Environmental knowledge is not the privileged expertise of any profession; it is based on the common experience of people. We operate within cultures that share common environmental forms.” Habraken declares that the user should not be isolated from the production of architecture, because they also posses knowledge about how the built environment should be formed. The profession has neglected this concept in an act of self-protectionism. This is the belief that the involvement of layman would present a threat to the expert knowledge of the architect. Instead, the D -

Stud

io 47

’s Phil

osop

hy - T

he So

cial A

gent

73

Fig 24 - Studio Tilt Workshop. In November 2010, Studio 47 experienced their first act of participation. Stu-dio 47 collaborated with Studio Tilt on a project for Oxford Hub, a charity that helps students get involved in social action projects.

As part of the design process Studio Tilt organised a series of workshops. They invited members of Oxford Hub to come along and participate in a number of activities that were created in order to challenge them about what they really wanted from their new headquarters. Studio 47 found the process very rewarding.

profession has continued to “cling to a perfected model of practice, neatly and simplistically summarised in an idealised version of the Virtruvian triad – commodity, firmness and delight” (Till, 2005, p.29). This methodology is problematic because it ignores architecture’s social responsibility.

It is Studio 47’s belief that the participation of the user must take place at the very beginning of the design process, and continue throughout. Too often, participation is seen as a buzzword, used as a matter of box ticking to ensure planning approval. During the interview process, Studio 47 asked how much emphasis is placed upon community consultation during the design process, we were informed by one architect that they had only ever done it once as a planning justification.

The participatory process has in effect become institutionalised by government policy, through the capitalist production of space. This type of participation is termed pseudo-participation. This is a technique of persuasion used to ensure the acceptance of decisions that have already been made. As Till (2005, p.27) states such “architects were prepared to engage in a participatory process simply to increase their acceptability by a sceptical public; this then allowed the architects to sneak their expert values through the back door. The whole process thus left a predetermined outcome unscathed by public opinion.” Instead, what is argued for is a new typology of participation, termed ‘transformative participation’, drawing on the notion of transformative theory developed by John Friedmann. This typology seeks a reformulation of the architect’s expert knowledge and the way it may be presented. Importantly it does not involve the rejection of the architect’s expert knowledge, or make it transparent. Instead, “the architect must project themselves into the spatial context, physical and social, of the users; the architect becomes an activist, working on behalf of and as a dweller... The architect should, in effect, be an expert-citizen as well as citizen-expert” (Till, 2005, p.33).

In order to achieve this status of both expert citizen and citizen expert, the architect must move away from their

D - St

udio

47’s P

hilos

ophy

- The

Socia

l Age

nt

75

Fig 25 - The Wick Curiosity Shop is a small scale archive and cultural space dedicated to the specific locality of Hackney Wick. It documents, hosts and promotes an eclectic collection of local produce, memorabilia, oral history, songs and stories from or about Hackney Wick. It does this through a series of live events, in which it temporarily assembles a display shop and stage.

common practice of expert problem solving. Instead, the architect must become a citizen sense maker, achieved through a mutual understanding between architect and user. In order for this to be successful, new models of communication must be sought. Till (2005, p.37) declares, “the key lies in recognising the power and validity of ordinary conversation as a starting point for the participatory process.” However, Till recognises that conversation is often seen as a lower form of communication, which may not avoid the imbalance of authority commonly found in the participatory process. Till (2005, p.38) deems “a more equitable and focused conversational mode is found in storytelling.” This is the belief that through this process the architect is moved from detached observer to engaged participant, understanding how the future user will occupy a space.

The use of storytelling as a method of community participation has recently been explored by the collaborative practice, Public Works. Their project, the Wick Curiosity Shop [Fig 25], presented a physical archive to narrate the community transition of Hackney Wick. A once thriving industrial area of the early 20th century, it has since lost most of its industry along with much of its population. However it now straddles the 2012 Olympic Park. For this reason, Public Works believed it was important that the deep history of the area should not be forgotten, or more precisely concreted over. They encouraged participation to ensure that the local community had a positive effect on the future of their area.

It is Studio 47’s belief that this transformative approach can be evolved even further, where storytelling is only one part of the process. The other part, should be a catalyst to encourage and promote community interaction through the use of an intervention. The idea of an interface that encourages interaction has been explored previously to great effect by the Japanese practice, Atelier Bow-Wow. Similarly, they believe in the principles put forward by Lefebvre, identifying with the concept of spatial practice. They also believe in the “new potential that exists between agents who create social platforms and individuals who use them” (Washida, 2010, p.254). Through such a participatory approach toward design, Studio 47 will move beyond architecture that is defined by the limitations of traditional

discourse in architectural communication. Instead, what evolves is a more empowering, richer form of architectural production, one that is socially engaging.

However, there are problems with this approach. Participation requires the architect to get involved at the earliest stage of a project, forming relationships with user groups. However, this is not considered within the RIBA Plan of Work. Subsequently, architects may find it difficult to charge for these services. This can be detrimental to the longevity of a practice, as rent still needs to be paid, and staff need a salary etc. To ensure that our practice can undertake this vital approach, as well as maintain a financially sound practice, it will require Studio 47 to be creative as well as visionary.

D - St

udio

47’s P

hilos

ophy

- The

Socia

l Age

nt

77

D.2 – The Visionary

Amongst mainstream architectural discourse the standard definition of an architect is someone who designs and details buildings. However, the concentration of the building and therefore the object as the architect’s primary concern brings with it certain limitations. In this scenario, it can only be assumed that the most visionary aspect of the architect’s role is concerned with the ‘innovative’ design of iconic buildings, detached from the everyday, these “blobs do not pass on ethics of motions they are at best, just blobs, at worst, part for the commodification of architecture and thus part of an ethically and aesthetically reduced world” (Till, 2009, p.177). The fixation of the object is therefore not visionary at all, quite the contrary. It only commodifies architecture, pandering to the short-term demands of the capitalist market. In Studio 47’s case, the visionary involves a much more dynamic set of skills that expands the role of the architect beyond the normal stages of the RIBA Plan of Work, a document that so stridently suppresses any form of visionary practice into neat sequential stages. The visionary architect must be entrepreneurial in challenging the status quo that has dogmatically wrested the control of the built environment away from the profession. This requires a very different kind of thinking.

Studio 47 believes that architects must cast away their attachment to the visual representation of the object. Instead, the architect must strive to participate with their users as chief interpreter, formulating dynamic briefs, developing social assets, offering alternatives, and in doing so tackle the problems that have plagued the practice of architecture for the past 30 years.

Architecture is dependent upon the society it appropriates. However, for generations the profession has chosen to

ignore these dependencies and design the field in isolation as the expert problem solver. The explicit content of architecture’s consequences when these dependencies have been ignored, were poignantly exposed with the death of modernism. Coined as one of the most visionary times in architectural history, modernists fervently believed that our built environment could be invented through centrally controlled design. This methodology was about imposing an architectural typology for all classes, but chose to ignore the very people that constructed these classes during the entire design process. Consequently, centrally controlled design was not visionary at all, “it was a low point in people’s perception of modernist architecture” (Bramwell to authors, 2011). It is clear that visionary “ideas developed away from the world may achieve semblance and purity – of truth and reason – but this purity will always be tormented by the fact that the knowledge has arisen with in the world and will eventually have to return to the world“ (Till, 2009, p.55). Studio 47 believes that the visionary architect must act as chief interpreter, translating architecture’s dependencies into architectural interventions, because “designers are beholden to the field; it shapes our interventions far more than our work can transform it” (Habraken, 2005, p.37). The architect must welcome these dependencies by decentralising his or her professional authorship through “communicating and facilitating the involvement of lay people in the design process,” (Jones to authors, 2011). During this process the architect must record relevant information that benefits the process of design generation. Acting as a visionary interpreter, the architect is responsible for translating this information into an architectural response. It is in this situation that the visionary architect adds value by creating a more socially coherent intervention. The process of participation is finally seen as an opportunity for the visionary architect to interpret architecture’s dependencies into more positive actions through the realisation of unpolished visions. After all “environmental knowledge is not the privileged expertise of any profession, it is based on the common experience of people” (Habaraken, 2005, p.63), who have lived, loved, worked and adapted to the field. This process is about enriching the architect’s role by empowering the visionary to interpret “common experience” into new spatial conditions that subsequently challenge the status quo of mainstream architectural production.

D - St

udio

47’s P

hilos

ophy

- The

Visio

nary

79

By acting as chief interpreter through the facilitation of lay people during the design process, Studio 47 believes that the architect can add social value to one of the most creative and subsequently visionary responsibilities of the architect’s role, the formulation of the brief. The progressive erosion of the architect’s role has reduced the process of brief making into an instrument of rationality, often “written by the client, with the assistance of surveyors, and project managers, briefs reduce architecture to an abstract quantity and are swiftly translated into deadening data sheets” (Till, 2009, p.169). The suppression of social values under the conservative norms of mainstream architectural production leads to uninspiring conventions that pander to the economic demands of the capitalist system. Subsequently, the architect becomes a space planner, disconnected from the social content, whilst arranging rooms with prescribed floor areas and functionalities. Visionary, perhaps in the dressing up of these ‘deadening data sheets,’ but only in the creation of the object, rather than the brief, which inevitably brings social value to the surface. If the visionary architect gets hold of a brief at the earliest stage of the design process they can challenge the status quo, and offer alternatives that other players do not have the imagination to practice. It is here that the visionary architect can add value to create a much richer architectural response. But the creation of a dynamic brief can only be achieved through embracing architecture’s dependencies, by understanding the social, political and economic context of the brief’s situation. The negotiation of the brief with others is therefore seen as a core responsibility of the visionary architect. Armed with this knowledge, the visionary architect can interpret the brief into new spatial possibilities in which people live, work and play.

As well as interpreting new social conditions through the empowerment of others, the visionary architect should “take on difficult sites…because they require a high level of professional skill” (Feilden, R., 1986, p.6). These spaces tend to be unconventional, often referred to as slack space.

The term slack is associated with “a part of a rope or line that is not held taut: the loose or unused part” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2002, p.787). In a spatial context, Studio 47 defines D -

Stud

io 47

’s Phil

osop

hy - T

he Vi

siona

ry

81

Fig 26 - Atelier Bow Wow. An example of void metabolism.

slack space as the neglected, left over, or wasted space in our cities. The creation of slack space occurs when a site is too challenging for conventional methods of architectural production to appropriate. However, the visionary architect must see the potential in slack space that other players simply do not have the imagination to conceive. Atelier Bow-Wow design “buildings that fill the cracks of the city” (Awan, et al., 2011 p.105). This process is called void metabolism.

The word metabolic “derives its name from the Greek word metabole, meaning living organism with biochemical functions” (Sebestyen, 2003, p.12). It is applied to systems that arrange their properties in response to external influences. Metabolic architecture therefore responds to the external influences of the city, the political, social, and economic forces that define the cities spatial conditions. Specifically, void metabolism is the process of responding to slack space constructed by the juxtaposition of the surrounding urban fabric through an architectural intervention. In short, it reacts to the awkward spaces that develop between buildings. The urban fabric that creates these spaces molds Atelier Bow-Wow’s architecture into new and exciting spatial conditions that consider the wellbeing of the end user as its primary concern [Fig 26]. Here the visionary architect can create a dynamic architectural response that benefits the local community through the regeneration of slack space into social assets.

Armed with the visionary capabilities of transforming unconventional space into new spatial conditions through metabolic architecture, Studio 47 believes that the visionary architect must act as a community entrepreneur. The architect must become a citizen sense maker, realising the needs of local citizens through the transformation of slack space into social assets. Together Architecture 00:/ and the community asset manager, Locality, developed a “social engagement strategy around the mapping and management of underutilised assets across the UK” (Archtecture 00:/, 2010), called the Place Station. The scheme introduces slack space to community entrepreneurs with ideas for transforming them into social assets through void metabolism. This is a natural extension of the architect’s role, serving the community by seeking out slack space D -

Stud

io 47

’s Phil

osop

hy - T

he Vi

siona

ry

83

whilst acting as a catalyst to promote ethical development in their area. Acting as community interpreter, the visionary architect can then formulate a dynamic brief that germinates into a successful social asset that reflects the real desires of the community it serves. For this process to be effective the visionary architect must concentrate “on setting up partnerships with local communities in order to develop with a human touch” (James, 1986, p.20). In this scenario, Studio 47’s primary concern is about developing a community network that will help identify ethical opportunities to create social assets. These assets will respond to the social context of a community, rather than the economic context of the capitalist market. It is here where the juxtaposition of the visionary architect collaborating with the local community in slack space, to create a social asset, adds value to the built environment.

The visionary architect must also challenge conventional ways of working in order to better the field. The RIBA Plan of Work is a series of stages that the architect abides to during the design and construction of a building. Like a conveyor belt, this linear approach describes when the architect should design, detail, and manage a project, regardless of its type, situation, or scale. The very nature of the visionary architect challenges this methodology. During the interview process, Studio 47 identified evidence of architectural practices offering additional services outside the formal agreement of the RIBA plan of works. CABE refer to this process as up streaming architectural services. Civic Architects’ philosophy encourages this methodology. In their case it “means working closer to the source of the design project, where the architect gets on board very early on, to mentor the group” (Jones to authors, 2011). Architecture 00:/ have also diversified “by offering a load of additional services” (Feilden, F., to authors, 2011), and subsequently market themselves as a design and strategy practice. For the visionary architect to be as effective as possible they must step out of the defined boundaries of the profession and embrace a much more diverse set of activities that produce new spatial conditions. Like Civic, Studio 47 believes in developing relationships with the user at the very beginning of the project to facilitate the design of social assets.

The fundamental skill of the visionary architect is the ability to identify problems and subsequently solve them. Jill Duncan, during a debate entitled This House Believes that Contractors are the Architects of the Future defended the value that architect’s add by identifying this particular skill set as one that only exists in architecture.

“Architects are problem identifiers, they aren’t just problem solvers, they identify the right problem to solve which is usually 80% of the solution. We are practical dreamers, but our ideas can solve large-scale complex and intractable problems helping millions. We can use our persistent application of imagination and look at things side ways until they appear the right way up” (Duncan, 2011).

It is this skill set that allows the visionary architect to question the status quo, interpret others, challenge briefs, appropriate slack space, and respond to architecture’s dependencies in order to better the field. The visionary architect is therefore a core value that is fundamental toward the creation of an alternative model of practice. The structure of this alternative model must empower the visionary architect to practice these values as effectively as possible. Currently, mainstream architectural practice fails to do this, which opens up the divide “between what the profession thinks it should do, and what practice actually requires it to do” (Till, 2009, p.163).

D - St

udio

47’s P

hilos

ophy

- The

Visio

nary

85

Chapter E - Concept

E. The Proactive Architect

During the past several decades the free market was believed to be the path to a golden future. However, repeated financial insecurities have compromised the superiority of the neo-liberal ideology. Subsequently, the capitalist system has been critiqued, and ordinary citizens have demanded change. Despite this, the domination of the capitalist system amongst western society continues to remain intact. Capitalism is still regarded as the strategy to prevent further financial meltdown. This is an act of self-preservation, for which Debord (2009/1967, p.27) describes as “nothing other than the economy developing for itself.”

“The festive consumerism-for-all” (Oosterman, 2011, p. 2) has left huge market debts [Fig 27]. This has facilitated the need for a recalibration of private and public spending from the coalition government. Budget cuts, and the privatisation of public services have been argued as a necessity to ensure the revitalisation of a stable economy. Previously, the transfer of public services to the private sector was sold to the public as a liberty of free choice. Today, where fiscal spending is now limited to a necessity, the privatisation of public services is presented as a potentially painful but inescapable reality. There is a common fear that with the transfer of public assets to the private sector, these assets will become no more than a commodity that the ‘free market’ will capitalise upon.  E -

Conc

ept -

The P

roac

tive A

rchite

ct

87

We must react to this. It is time for a major shift in this paradigm. Instead of large-scale privatisation, small-scale bottom up initiatives can compensate for the loss of public services. Studio 47 believes that the architect has a major role to play in this transformation, shifting the focus from the creation of objects to ‘making things happen.’ However, the challenge lies in how a profession that has been progressively eroded by other construction professionals promote any sort of change amongst the discordant forces of the capitalist market.

In the early 1970’s, Giancarlo De Carlo expressed that the common trajectory for most building projects was for the client to establish the function, find the location and arrange the finance. The architect then defined the spatial organisation, drew the form and structure, and oversaw the construction. The user simply used the building, and the client or owner ensured the management and repair along with the eventual demolition and replacement (1970, cited in Hatch, 1984, p.3). Since this time, De Carlo’s description of the architect’s role has been reduced. Significant changes amongst the construction industry, coupled with a laissez faire attitude amongst the architectural profession, has meant that many traditional roles once administered by the architect have been taken away by others players.

“I think we probably made a mistake when we started outsourcing so much. We all love designing but the reality is architecture is not only about designing, we do other things as well” (Gruenanger to authors, 2011).

The profession as a whole failed to protect certain roles and responsibilities, subsequently the services architects provide have become significantly undervalued. Architects charge little for a lot, and the profession’s influence over a building’s outcome has been significantly reduced. As a result, the production of architecture has seen great change. The national spread of buildings has become generic, they have lost their individual identity. Clients have become so concerned with the need to reduce cost that they have subsequently pushed the architect to the sidelines in favour of other specialist consultants, who can deliver monotonous products at a reduced price.

E - Co

ncep

t - Th

e Pro

activ

e Arch

itect

Fig 27 - The 2008 Financial Crash. The crash brought an end to the alledged superiority of the neo-liberal ideology.

89

This process inherently brings social values to the surface, the proactive architect is not held back by the short-term demands of the economic system, but focused on providing social assets that better the field.

In mainstream architectural practice “architects are seldom consulted about building location, size, or use and the assumption that developers or government officials make about the budget tend to determine the structure and material. All too often, the basic design concept becomes a matter of routine, leaving the architect to translate other peoples decisions into technical drawings” (Barnett, 1976, p.4). The age of the architect as space planner is over, the process of self-initiation involves the architect taking on a much richer set of responsibilities. Through self-initiation the architect is in a position of authority to act as citizen sense maker, interpreting the needs of others to determine the most appropriate solution to a site. Traditionally, a developer undertakes some of these roles, however, the solution to a site is usually determined by a development appraisal prescribed by the economic demands of the capitalist market. The self-initiator has a different set of priorities. These priorities are rooted in the specific needs of the community that they serve through the provision of social rather than economic assets. This disparity between the common developer and the self-initiator is what defines the proactive architect.

The architect-developer model is not something new. It has been in existence ever since the Industrial Revolution. One of the first architect-developers was Sir John Nash, he was criticised for his speculative developments that appeared to compromise design quality over cost. There is no doubt that a conflict of interest exists if an architect has a financial stake in a property. However, self “initiation goes beyond the architect-developer model, where architects simply cut out the middle man in order to generate their own business. Instead they use a range of skills to unlock potential on behalf of others, opening up new social, political and economic possibilities” (Awan et al, 2011, p.71). This process is about empowering communities through active participation to help them realise social assets that benefit their environment. It is about proactive architects joining

Amongst mainstream architectural production, clients have a different set of priorities. These priorities ignore any social value that can be added to a project in favour of making a quick profit. As a result, architecture has become commodified, for which Debord (1967, p.38) states “the spectacle is the stage at which the commodity has succeeded in totally colonising social life. Commodification is not only visible, we no longer see anything else; the world we see is the world of commodity.”

As caretakers of our built environment it is the architect’s responsibility to address this issue and act as an agent of change. It is clear that the passive role of the architect is ineffectual. The reactive culture of the architectural profession has compromised the field. Subsequently “the image of the architect as uncommitted professional awaiting a brief is unreal and has always been” (James, 1986, p.20). The profession must remove the shackles secured by other players who have so poignantly rested the production of our built environment away from the practice of architecture. They must erase the risk averse attitude, and in doing so shoulder the responsibility of the built environment’s well being. The architect must become a proactive agent, and exercise their values on behalf of society, not the economic demands of the neo-liberal market place.

Studio 47 has identified the core values of our practice as the social agent and the visionary. These values are a reaction to the commodification of architecture that has painted a thin aesthetic veneer over our 21st century cities. For these values to be effective the architect must become a proactive agent through self-initiated projects, to combat the strident forces of the capitalist system. In short, the architect must become a self-initiator, seeking out unique development opportunities to better society through the addition of social assets. This requires an act of entrepreneurship that “represents a potentially rewarding but risky means for getting work” (Lewis, 1998, p.229). However, through self-initiation, the proactive architect is able to take back the control of the design process. In this scenario the architect can act as the social agent and the visionary, uncompromised by the external forces of the capitalist market, using their social and visionary skills to implement projects of real value. E -

Conc

ept -

The P

roac

tive A

rchite

ct

91

Fig 28 - The Park Hill Development , by Urban Splash.

the 99% through bottom up initiative to realise social assets for the 99% not the 1%.

As the visionary and the social agent, the proactive architect can see the potential for social assets in any given area. It is the initiators duty to act as a catalyst to realise these assets. Once the visionary architect has located slack space amongst the fabric of a community, the social agent must participate with the community in order to formulate a visionary brief that develops into a considered asset for that community. In this scenario, the proactive architect can only realise ethically motivated interventions that benefit the community, rather than the commodity exchange of the capitalist market.

As well as going beyond the architect-developer model through the empowerment of others, the proactive architect must embrace some of the positive aspects of acting as an architect-developer. Barnett (1976, p.4) when describing the work of the architect-developer John Portman, states “by controlling both architecture and development, he has found new ways to give amenity and coherence to our everyday environment.” If the proactive architect embraces some of the positives attributes of the architect-developer, then the proactive architect is best placed to exercise the social agent and the visionary, which inherently leads to a better architectural response. This practice goes against the dichotomy of the capitalist system, a system that intends to create a freedom of choice, but has instead created the commodity, a culture fuelled by greed, driven by profit. The proactive architect must work within the neo-liberal market, but seek to shift the operational values so that huge profits will be replaced with social assets, that can be appreciated by the masses. This ethical approach to development is not new, as Manuel (2011) of LDS Architects stated, “there are examples of clients as architects or archi-clients, and developers like Urban Splash who actually share many of the same ideals as architects, just look at the recent Park Hill [Fig 28] redevelopment which is a really successful architectural statement, but also a project led by an archi-developer, Urban Splash.” This is a successful precedent for the proactive architect, an example of how the architect can assume the role of a developer by creating a financially viable building, as well as a social asset that betters the field.

E - Co

ncep

t - Th

e Pro

activ

e Arch

itect

93

Fig 29 - The Cineroleum. A Pop Up cinema in Clerkenwell, London.

The Pop Up culture that exists amongst young and upcoming practitioners also lays claim to successful examples of proactive architecture, “a younger generation are taking direct action and doing things for themselves, self building projects without direction and taking ventures forward with out clients” (Logan, 2010). A petrol station at 100 Clerkenwell Road, North London was “radically transformed [Fig 29] by sixteen young artists and designers into a pop up cinema” (Trench, 2010). The Folly for a Flyover [Fig 30] that sat under the Hackney Cut, was a temporary intervention that created an energetic use of public space that ordinary people wouldn’t even know was there. These projects “demonstrate the ability of a proactive group of individuals to positively exploit redundant, marginal privatised space for the spontaneous realisation of cultural and meaningful activity” (Logan, 2010). This consortium of designers, layman and volunteers were brought together by a group of self-initiating architects, who believe in bettering the field through the occupation of slack space. These values are inherent in the proactive architect and these projects highlight the success of its application.

Fig 30 - The Folly For a Flyover, sat on the edge of the Olympic Park under a flyover in Hackney.

Since the failures of the neo-liberal market place in 2008, and the subsequent financial crash, architecture has been forced to embrace a more proactive culture through self-initiated projects, “architecture is hit harder than most professions by the bad times, to which they [architects] respond by going and making their own work” (Moore, 2011). In conversation with Studio 47, Feilden, F. (to authors, 2011) reiterates this sentiment when he stated that today architectural practices are “being much more proactive, demonstrating more self-initiated projects. When the economy was booming and there was plenty of work, then people would come to you with a project, and it was all straightforward.” However, this only highlights architecture’s fragile relationship with the state of the economy, and its subsequent dependencies on the reactive culture of the architectural profession that has plagued its practice ever since the boom years.

It must be recognised that the proactive architect will need to embrace the business of making social assets financially viable. It is generally believed that “the architect can talk in terms of spatial quality, but there must be a balance with the financial side, which is seen as the negative” (Frantzen, 2011, cited in Oosterman, 2011) amongst the architectural profession. Small-scale interventions, like the Cineroleum do not carry the financial risks that projects of a larger scale might do. It would therefore be naïve for the proactive architect to disregard the financial implications of carrying out work like the Park Hill development. However, at no point should any financial implications compromise the architectural response. To ensure that the proactive architect practices the core values as successfully as possible, the triple top line methodology must be used as a guide for ethical development. This is a tool used to develop buildings as financial assets, as well as social and environmental assets.

The triple top line is an evolution of the triple bottom line [Fig 31] approach, which sets out the conventional design criteria within a fractal tripod, taking into consideration cost, aesthetics and performance. It has been used in business for many years. However, too often the emphasis is placed on cost, rendering the approach unsuccessful. Developers tend to be solely concerned with the financial implications of design, and will strike down design proposals that threaten E -

Conc

ept -

The P

roac

tive A

rchite

ct

97

Fig 31 - Development consideration diagrams.

demand, but only three out of every five suitable plots were used between 2000 and 2009 (Hope, 2011). There is also a growing consensus amongst the population to move back into our city centres, because they offer a richer quality of contemporary culture. Melhuish (2005, p.118) believes that “these tendencies have offered new opportunities to architects, particularly because the sort of inner-city sites typically available for new development is too small and awkward to attract the interest of commercial developers.” It is here where the proactive architect must focus his or her attentions, armed with the visionary and social capabilities to develop unconventional spaces into social assets through a dynamic approach to finance and design.

short-term financial return. This leads to the social and environmental considerations of the design being ignored, which could potentially enhance the economic viability of a project, but does not consider creating a better environment for the user. William McDonough, an architect and co-author of the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things is largely credited with the development of the triple top line. When discussing the triple bottom line, McDonough (2002, p.153) states “in practice we find that it often appears to centre only on the economic considerations, with social and ecological benefits considered as an afterthought rather than given equal weight at the outset.” But McDonough (2002, p.154) believes that when used as a design tool “the fractal allows the designer to create value in all three sectors. In fact, often a project that begins with pronounced concerns of Ecology or Equity (How can I create habitat? How can I create jobs?) can turn out to be tremendously productive financially in ways that would never have been imagined if you’d started from a purely economic perspective.” Studio 47’s evolved triple top line [Fig 32] includes the following three criteria – financial, social and environmental. To ensure a successful and holistic approach towards ethical development, the proactive architect will use the fractal triangle as a strategic design tool.

The proactive architect has the visionary and social awareness to see the potential in unconventional sites ignored by the common developer. During the early 2000’s there was a change in government policy towards the reuse of brownfield sites in urban areas. The UK is currently experiencing exponential population growth and our cities are expanding at an alarming rate. As Debord (2009/1967, p.116) states “the self destruction of the urban environment is already well under way. The explosion of cities into the countryside, covering it with a formless mass of thinly spread semi urban tissue, is directly governed by the imperatives of consumption.” To prevent the growth of the capitalist system into our peri-urban areas, the government is focusing on the reuse of brownfield sites in an attempt to densify the urban ecology. However, according to a report in late 2011 by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the amount of previously developed land is growing at a faster rate than it is being used up, the supply of brownfield sites outstrip E -

Conc

ept -

The P

roac

tive A

rchite

ct

Fig 32 -Studio 47’s evolved development consideration diagram. 99

Chapter F - Strategy

F. Introduction

The progressive erosion of the architect’s role is a matter of concern. We have seen how the neo-liberal market place coupled with bureaucratic legislation as well as the profession’s laissez faire attitude, has wrested away some of the roles and responsibilities once administered by the architect. Studio 47 has acknowledged that some of these skills are now beyond the reach of the profession. Instead, we are positively trying to reconstruct a future where architects can add real value to the process of getting something built, therefore “the invasion of the architect’s role shouldn’t be seen as a threat but as a natural change that can be exploited” (Jamieson, 2010, p.28).

As noted, Studio 47 has identified a set of core values that we believe only exist in architecture. However, it is considered general practice for architects to identify a set of core values that prescribe how they intend to practice. The challenge is to create a model of practice that empowers the architect to administer those values in the most effective way possible. This is where Studio 47 intends to focus our attentions. We must bridge the divide between the profession’s values, and its architectural outcome. There is a “disconnection between the way we as architects, perceive and explain ourselves and what we actually do. As a result, neither our way of working methods, nor our teaching, nor our values permit the profession to be effective” (Habraken, 2005, p.X).

The profession must reconsider the way in which it practices in order to better the field. This encourages an alternative model of practice, one that steps outside the restrictive boundaries of the architectural profession by embracing a much richer set of activities. These activities must empower the architect to deliver a product that reflects their values. These values must not pander to the short-term demands of the capitalist market, but to the betterment of the field. It is here where architects must focus on the business of architecture, after all “there is no point in having the talent, unless you have the mechanisms to apply it, you are only as good as the projects you bring in” (Jones to authors, 2011).

The core values identified by Studio 47 embody a number of key themes that Studio 47 believes are important to the realisation of social assets that benefit a particular place. Studio 47 have also identified that these values can only be practiced in an effective way by being proactive rather than reactive, subsequently each value is dependent upon one another. The proactive model must embrace a strategy that allows the social agent and visionary architect to practice in the most effective way possible.

F - St

rateg

y - In

trodu

ction

101

F.1 Structure

“Employees are number one. The way you treat your employees is the way they will treat your customers” (Branson, 2009, p.33).

There is a growing consensus throughout the western world for the redefinition of capitalism to promote economic growth and enable a fairer distribution of wealth. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, believe that this change can come about through the re-structuring of businesses. Subsequently, the government is promoting employee ownership as an attempt to overcome what Clegg describes as “crony capitalism” (BBC News, 2012). In January 2012, Cameron announced that the government would be introducing a Co-operative Bill before the next general election.

“A co-operative is a group of people acting together to meet the common needs and aspirations of its members, sharing ownership and making decisions democratically” (The Co-operative Group, 2012).

There is a large amount of bureaucracy surrounding the creation of co-operatives, which make setting up such an initiative complicated and costly. However, the Co-operative Bill will consolidate more than a dozen pieces of legislation into a single statute, making it easier to start up a co-operative. Cameron (2012) stated in his speech announcing the bill “we know that breaking monopolies, encouraging choice, opening up new forms of enterprise is not just right for business but the best way of improving public services too.”

The concept of a co-operative is not a new idea. In the early 20th century one of the most influential political theorists, John Stuart Mill, argued for the need to harness a greater partnership between capital and labour. In advocating the cause of employee ownership, Mill (1848. cited in Brione & Nicholson, 2012, p.9) declared “the efficiency and economy of production on a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into two parties with hostile interests and feelings...the relation of masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers with the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of labourers among themselves.” It is believed that employee ownership has an important role to play in boosting economic growth, promoting a fairer distribution of wealth, and giving individuals greater control and autonomy over their own lives. For this reason, Studio 47 will seek to establish an alternative paradigm of practice that is fully employee owned. Awan et al. (2011, p.61) states “the motivations for rethinking organisational structures often starts from dissatisfaction with received professional values.” In fear of losing control of the profession’s expert knowledge, the profession has ignored the rights of the users throughout the design process. Our core values of both the social agent and visionary reflect the need of empowering the user. This philosophy should be reflected in the structure of the practice, where employees are empowered through shared ownership.

In establishing a co-operative, Studio 47 will follow in the footsteps of the largest and most successful retailer in the UK, the John Lewis Partnership. Studio 47, will also take precedent from Make Architects, and one of the first architectural co-operatives, Edward Cullinan Architects. It is the belief that this structure will create a healthy work environment that encourages the production of social assets reflecting the studio’s core values. Brione & Nicholson (2012, p. 27) state “there is evidence, among other things, that more participative managed employee ownership can improve employee health and well being, including more job satisfaction and lower staff turnover.” This model improves the performance and productivity of a company because employees are working together towards common F -

Stra

tegy -

Stru

cture

103

Fig 33 -The Co-operative Structure.

goals. They can also identify with the success of the company, because this success will subsequently benefit them through shared ownership.

“It’s a fact of business life that people come and go. The offer of better prospects or career advancement elsewhere will naturally draw good people away from time to time... Managers often assume it’s a question of good pay. This is lazy of them. Yes, money is important. It’s essential to pay people fairly for the job they do, and to share out the profits of a company’s success. But throwing money at people isn’t the point. When people leave a good company, it’s often because they don’t feel good themselves. They feel marginalised. They feel ignored. They feel underused... Most are driven back into the jobs market by frustration. Their bosses don’t listen to them“ (Branson, 2009, p.23).

Through the creation of a co-operative that is fully employee owned, this methodology encourages the best architectural talent to join the practice. Practitioners will want to belong to a practice that respects and rewards their design thinking. This will also ensure that talented architects are retained and allowed to flourish through innovation and creativity, and not stifled by the demands of a hierarchical structure that is prescribed by the capitalist society. Importantly, each employee will have a sense of purpose and understanding that their contribution will be directly linked to the financial success of the practice, investing in the value of the projects as well as the value of the business.

The former chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, Sir Stuart Hampson (2010, cited in Brione & Nicholson, 2012, p.18) states that when “properly structured, and with appropriate attention to leadership and management style, employee-owned businesses have the potential to transform our economy and individual businesses, to spread wealth and make work a better and more fulfilling experience.” The practice will be structured to ensure the effective empowerment of its employees in several ways. There will be an elected Board of Directors, which is voted for by all the employees. The Board of Directors will be responsible for governing the practice. This will include setting the business direction, along with employing the management team. The Board will be accountable to the employees and will report back to them on a monthly basis. This holistic approach will encourage all employees to attend and discuss the future of the practice regardless of their roles and responsibilities.

Amongst the co-operative, there will be a management team responsible for hiring staff, programming practice development and general administration. The practice will also establish specialist teams that focus on performing particular tasks that ensure effective delivery of the core values, the social agent and the visionary [Fig 33]. Team Participation, is an in-house unit specialising in consultation techniques and participatory methods. This team will not just include architects, but also specialists from other fields, such as urbanists, anthropologist and sociologists. They will undertake the pre-project work of consulting with local communities, along with brief development and strategic thinking. Jamieson (2010, p32) states that “architects continually provide these sorts of services for free,” due to these skills being unnoticed and not falling into the traditional services of an architect. Team participation acts to highlight the crucial work that takes place before starting the design of a particular project. By acknowledging the participatory approach with a specialist team, Studio 47 is ensuring that these services can be charged for at an appropriate fee. The structure will also include Team Delivery, who will focus on managing projects from conception through to practical completion, acting in the interests of Studio 47’s values.

To ensure that the co-operative remains effective and the core values of the practice are adhered to, the number of employees within the practice will be limited to 30. Littlefield (2005, p.39) states “staying small allows an architect to keep a firm grip on the creative process, to respond quickly to client demand and to remain free of the inevitable administrative burden of employing large numbers of people.” Limiting the number of employees to 30 will reduce the likelihood of the practice becoming over burdened with corporate bureaucracy and hierarchical demands. However, an effective solution to managing growth, whilst delivering complex projects, can be achieved through the collaboration of a national spread of small practices.

F - St

rateg

y - St

ructu

re

105

Fig 34 -The Big Society.

F.2 - Operations

“The time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today” (Communities and Local Government, 2011).

In an age of austerity, where the financial crash of 2008 brought the capitalist system to its knees, measures have been taken by the coalition government to reduce fiscal spending to ensure the re-establishment of a healthy economy. Central to these measures is the redistribution of power from Whitehall to local communities, this is David Cameron’s Big Society [Fig 34]. Localism is the driving principle underpinning the changes to the policy framework. It incorporates a radical devolution of responsibilities from central government to local level, both cutting red tape and bureaucracy to give new powers and opportunities to councils and communities to plan and design their places. It is the belief that in these challenging financial times, such freedoms can enable local authorities to innovate and deliver better value with the taxpayers’ money. Along with this, bottom up initiatives from community or voluntary groups are being promoted to compensate for the loss of public services. The Localism Bill was published in December 2010. It sets out a series of proposals to achieve the shift from central government to local people. This included reforming the

planning system to ensure it becomes more democratic, removing the bureaucratic top down approach to allow for decisions that affect local people to be made at a local level. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published in March 2012, is a key part of this process. The NPPF’s ultimate aim is to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, while promoting sustainability and protecting the environment. This is set out in a 59-page document outlining the planning policies for England and how they will be applied. It provides a framework for which local people and their local authorities can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities. The NPPF introduces three important features to ensure effective community participation throughout the planning system: Neighbourhood Plans, Neighbourhood Development Orders and the Community Right to Build. The new approach to planning will have profound implications for the practice of architecture.

Localism offers a real opportunity for community participation through the empowerment of local people, giving them a voice about the development that can takes place in their local area. The RIBA (2011, p.12) believes that “architects will play a significant role in assisting neighbourhood planning to realise quality development. Their specific skills of analysis, interpretation and visioning of place are vitally needed, especially in a context where many people are suspicious of change and nervous about the type of new housing or development that might be built.” This bottom up approach through community F -

Stra

tegy -

Opera

tions

107

Fig 35 -The Spatial Network. A national spread of local practices.

empowerment correlates with Studio 47’s core values, the social agent and the visionary. These values can be implemented by supporting community involvement in the shaping of their local places. Studio 47 believes that for localism to succeed, it is crucial that architects empower people to manage change and give them an influential voice in the new planning system. This will require architects to get involved at the earliest stages of the neighbourhood plans. It is essential that architects form partnerships with community groups and local authorities within their local areas, this will be achieved through The Spatial Network.

The Spatial Network

“Think small to grow big” (Branson, 2009, p33).

Studio 47 has ambitions to work on a range of projects of various sizes. However, Studio 47 believes that the nature of practice must remain local. They should be embedded within the community they serve, rather than being a disengaged, centralised, super practice. For this reason, Studio 47 is proposing the creation of a long-term-expanding network of small practices that have a national spread across the country [Fig 35].

Importantly, these practices will be rooted in their community, understanding the social, economical and political context of a particular area. This empowers Studio 47 to act as citizen sense maker in practicing Studio 47’s core values in the most effective way possible. The concept reflects the true spirit of localism, empowering the community to realise social assets through bottom up initiatives. Studio 47 has termed this geographical spread of localised practices, The Spatial Network. The concept of a network of architectural practices has been explored previously. In 1986, George Ferguson established Acanthus Architects, a national network of independent practices. Whilst sharing collective employee experience and skills, the offices retain a personal service, local knowledge and a distinctive local character that reflects the situation of each practice. If required, the spatial network can collaborate to deliver certain requirements for more complex projects.

F - St

rateg

y - Op

eratio

ns

109

Through time, the national spread of architectural practices will grow organically. Existing architectural practices can join The Spatial Network, but they must adhere to the core values of Studio 47. Studio 47 has ambitions to expand into other areas to empower local communities throughout the UK. As stated previously, each practice must function as a co-operative and at no point exceed 30 members. A management board will be established on which two elected members from each practice, regardless of their size will sit. This board will meet on a monthly basis, to discuss various issues of practice, growth, and strategy.

The Spatial Network must strive to collaborate with one another to expand their project portfolio and offer additional services. Collaboration between the individual practices in the Spatial Network is essential to overcoming one of the most outstanding problems that faces the profession of architecture today, the procurement process. As Woodman (2011, p.4) states “by forging relationships, even modestly sized practices stand a good chance of breaking into new territories given sufficient determination.” In its extreme case, architectural practices can collaborate with one another in order to manage large projects though joint ventures. This is a way that small practices can overcome the challenges of government procurement, “to link up with larger practices” (Jones to authors, 2011), to deliver more interesting projects. A collaborative approach between The Spatial Network will harness a diverse range of experience and skills that will allow practices to bid for more complex projects as a collective, that smaller independent practice ordinarily wouldn’t have the resources to do. This enables the smaller practices that constitute The Spatial Network to bid for a diverse range of work, whilst retaining a local character that reflects the practice’s situation. This strategy has been used by a series of high profile architectural practices in the past. It is an intelligent method of managing growth, for example, the practices VHH, Fielden Clegg & Bradley, Alford Hall, Monaghan, Hawkins/Brown, Penoyre and Prasad and PM Buro Four, established PF15 – COLAB, which allowed them to secure a bundle of school projects without expanding their individual practices (Littlefield, 2005, p.59).

F - St

rateg

y - Op

eratio

ns

111

The Spatial Network is essential to the development process of the proactive architect. It is a way of empowering local communities through bottom up initiatives. The national spread of individual architecture practices rooted in the community they serve are best placed to empower the 99% through local initiatives such as The Community Right to Build. “The Community Right to Build gives groups of local people the power to deliver the development that their local community wants. Communities may wish to build new homes or new community amenities, and providing they can demonstrate overwhelming local support” (Communities and Local Government, 2012). The Spatial Network is a localised resource that helps facilitate community groups to deliver projects through the Community Right to Build. The individual practices must focus on forging “partnerships with local communities to develop with a human touch” (James, 1986, p.22) tapping into the resources of local endeavour and enterprise through the active participation with others, and the mutual exchange of local knowledge. Most importantly they must provide professional advice that empowers “communities to be part of the rebuilding and development of their areas” (James, 1986, p.37). It is in this scenario that the proactive architect can give power to the 99% through local initiatives.

The visionary architect should also encourage the realisation of social assets. The network of local practices should find slack space in their area that has the potential to be transformed into social assets. By forging relationships with community groups as well as developing local knowledge of a particular area, localised practices are best placed to seek out and identify slack space in the community they serve. Through the careful negotiation of a brief with a particular community group, practices can propose the best solution for a particular site. Once a brief has been formulated, a specialist team embedded in the local practice will facilitate the realisation of social assets by researching and identifying potential financial investors in their area, along with acquiring land. This team is called Team Acquire. Once the practice has secured enough funding the process of bringing the proposals to life will begin, ensuring that the core values of the social agent and visionary are adhered to.

F - St

rateg

y - Op

eratio

ns

113

Spatialnetwork.co.uk

The Spatial Network will be facilitated through an online resource that promotes Studio 47 and encourages ethical development in a particular area. Spatialnetwork.co.uk [Fig 36] advertises slack space that Studio 47 and community groups believe has the potential to be transformed into social assets. It provides a digital archive of slack space, a resource for social and community entrepreneurs to find sites that they can invest in to transform their local area.

This process gives Studio 47 the potential to form partnerships through joint ventures with local community groups (e.g. Community Land Trusts) and community entrepreneurs to develop sites ethically. It also acts as a digital space for local people to share ideas about improving their community. This information can be used as a design resource by Studio 47 to create social assets in a particular area. Studio 47 has coined this process ‘digital participation.’ Studio 47 sees digital participation as an act of community empowerment through the collaboration of Studio 47 with local citizens, community groups and entrepreneurs, facilitated by an online resource called the spatialnetwork.co.uk.

Spatialnetwork.co.uk is a way of giving power to local communities through bottom up initiatives. It is an act of digital participation between Studio 47 and local citizens throughout the UK. Studio 47 will provide expert advice, guidance and support concerning the transfer of slack space into social assets, developing them into long term social, economical and environmental benefits. This digital medium underlines Studio 47’s philosophy, as the visionary in seeking out potential sites, and the social agent in empowering others to realise community assets. The website allows Studio 47 and community members to upload sites that they believe have the potential to be transformed into social assets. Users can then search for sites that have been uploaded by typing in a particular area. It will then highlight slack space. Once they have identified a site that is of particular interest to them, the user can participate in a digital forum discussing potential

ideas that represent the true desires of a community. They also have the option of investing in a particular site. They can be the sole contributor or form partnerships with other community members/groups as well as Studio 47 through a joint venture. This process is called crowd funding and is commonly used to more democratically fund arts projects.

F - St

rateg

y - Op

eratio

ns

Fig 36 -Spatialnetwork.co.uk. A screen shot of spatialnetwork.co.uk 115

F.3 Finance

“The profession must face up to the reality that the context within which it now practices is continuing to change so dramatically that the skill set required must also shift – with financial skills now considered to be core” (Jamieson, 2010, p.34).

Architecture is commonly stereotyped as a profession that lacks an understanding of finance, where many architects don’t consider the true costs of their design implications. Walters (to authors, 2011) states “the architect hasn’t got a great reputation for managing the costs of projects.” This lack of attention toward finance is also mirrored in the business structure of architecture practices, where Jamieson (2010, p.34) states, “only 50% of UK practices have a business plan.” A business plan contains the detailed financial strategies of a practice, Jamieson therefore implies that the other 50% of UK practices have not considered a financial strategy. This can have negative implications for the longevity of a practice’s future. During the interview process, Studio 47 asked a number of architects whether they had a business plan, surprisingly many did not, but saw the advantages of having one.

Studio 47 believes that in order to grasp new “opportunities architects will need to develop greater financial nous and commercial acumen” (Jamieson, 2011, p.39). It is imperative that we create a business plan that contains a comprehensive strategy outlining how the business intends to financially operate.

Studio 47 is aware that the process of establishing a sustainable architectural practice can be a daunting venture. Initially, this requires huge investment in time and money that amounts to considerable outgoings. Currently, in the infancy of its research stage, Studio 47 operates from a spare room. However, when we seek to expand, the operation will significantly change. When employing staff, it will inevitably mean finding new office premises, which will have to be set up with the necessary equipment and software to allow for a fully functioning architectural practice. The RIBA (2005, p112) states, “the primary operational consideration in business is cash flow, and cash flow needs managing. The problem is timing. An architectural practice’s staff is its main

cost, and staff have to be paid every month come what may. By contrast, fee income cannot be relied upon to come in regularly...the time lag between invoicing and payment has to be financed.” To ensure that the new practice can sufficiently operate before it has a reliable cash flow, additional finances will be required. This will be sought through the negotiation of a venture capital loan from a bank. A comprehensive business plan, with long term financial and growth forecast will be required to secure this loan.

Once the practice is fully operational as a working co-operative, Studio 47 will deploy a financial strategy that is more suited to the philosophical values of an employee owned practice. Studio 47 believes that a traditional approach to financial performance measures, such as earnings growth, will be unsuitable for this innovative model. It is more applicable to use the Value Based Management System (VBM) as part of Studio 47’s financial strategy.

“Value-Based Management (VBM) is a customer-focused system built upon shared principles and core values, which is designed to instil an ownership culture within an organisation. VBM is catalysed by ‘authentic leaders’ who actively seek to empower others; it is developed and sustained from the ground-up” (Centre for Economic & Social Justice, 2010).

VBM will focus on better decision making at all levels of the practice, recognising that a top down approach of a command and control structure is not efficient in ensuring the best financial outcomes of the practice. In this scenario each employee within the practice will be able to voice their opinions and introduce strategies for the practice to implement at monthly meetings. Subsequently, “people become empowered to make better decisions…and work together more effectively as a team”(Centre for Economic & Social Justice, 2010). VBM will improve the economic performance of the practice and ensure a more efficient use of capital by establishing financial performance targets, along with offering workers an opportunity to participate as shareholders in the company’s equity growth. VBM also provides non-financial goals, for instance innovation and employee satisfaction. The objectives of the financial performance must be tailored to the different levels or market sectors that the practice is operating within. F -

Stra

tegy -

Fina

nce

117

An important part of the VBM financial strategy will be an understanding of the performance variables that will actually create the value of the business, which are defined as key value drivers, summarised as Growth, Operating Efficiency, Client & User Satisfaction, Employee Satisfaction, Time & Cost Targets, along with Operational Costs. Continuing financial information will be required in the form of profit and loss accounts, recording the practices trading income and expenditure. All employees will be able to regularly review these accounts at monthly meetings. This enables the practice to forecast a democratic plan for the future development of the company that reflects the desires of its employees.

Studio 47 will also use the services of a good accountant. This is a qualified professional with a greater understanding of finance, allowing the practice to focus on design. Littlefield (2005, p.1) declares “any serious business, needs to do three things: charge the right fee, manage cash flow and get a good accountant.”

Finance + The Spatial Network

“In addition to financial literacy, the client-savvy architect must be able to see beyond ‘building a building’ and offer a service that embraces the client’s broader aims, becoming a problem solver as well as a designer” (Jamieson, 2010, p.34).

In summary, The Spatial Network is a network of small practices that are spread across the country, all adhering to the core values of Studio 47. A primary focus of these practices is to identify slack space. Through community participation these sites are redeveloped into social assets. Team Acquire is a specialist finance and acquisition team, embedded in the localised practice. This team will assess the feasibility of each project, and seek funding to initiate projects through equity finance, from venture capitalists or angel investors in the local area. These investors will partner Studio 47 through a joint venture to help realise social assets.

Due to the major cuts in public spending, finance for community projects is unlikely to come from top down governmental bodies. Instead, finance will be sought from alternative bottom up initiatives. Spatialnetwork.co.uk is a digital archive of slack space that has the potential to be

transformed into social assets. The website present these sites to the local communities, as well as offering local communities the opportunity to upload potential sites they have identified. This website will be used as a platform for crowd funding. Crowd funding is “the practice of funding a project or venture by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people, typically via the Internet” (Oxford Dictionary, 2012). This concept is about a multitude of people contributing a small amount of money in order to attain a certain monetary goal. It is a new form of commerce, which is not about investment for financial return, but about a collection of individuals contributing a bit of equity in return for a unique product or experience. In the case of spatialnetwork.co.uk, it is about individual members of the local community, contributing towards a social asset that will benefit them as a whole.

Crowd funding has been used to great effect in funding creative initiatives. Kickstarter, is a crowd funding website for creative projects. Since its launch in April 2009, it has been a platform for more than $100 million of funding for projects in areas of art, design, film, food and music (Ricker, 2011).

Social media, such as facebook and twitter, will facilitate the community contributors to spread the word about a development project, encouraging more investment. Spatialnetwork.co.uk will be a national website, but will have a localised search facility to enable users to identify slack space in their area. Like the The Spatial Network, the website is in effect a method of implementing the government policy ‘Community Right to Build’, by offering a platform in which the community can initiate projects and manage their finance through a joint venture with Studio 47.

F - St

rateg

y - Fi

nanc

e

119

Fig 37 - Studio 47’s Twitter.

F.4 Marketing

The Institute of Marketing (2008, cited in Lupton, 2008, p201) defines marketing as the “management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements profitably.” This process involves exploring potential markets, and recognising ways to target those markets as effectively as possible.

The reactive culture of the profession, a symptom of the economic boom years, has meant the practice of architecture is reluctant to engage in active marketing. There is also a general consensus within architectural discourse that the promotion of architectural services disagrees with an architect’s code of conduct, after all “it used to be that architects could not solicit work” (Jones to authors, 2011). Subsequently, the “word marketing is hardly used in the vocab of architects” (Wilkinson, 2008, cited in Littlefield, 2008, p.23). Jones (to authors, 2011), when asked about Civic’s marketing strategy states, “we have never had a marketing strategy, and like most architects we are extremely bad at it.” Furthermore, when asking Feilden Fowles about their approach to marketing, Feilden, F. (to authors, 2011) states, “its something we have talked about

a lot, but we have never engaged any external consultants or anything like that.” Clearly, “architects are curiously un-commercial and consider the art of their profession ought not be sullied by the dirty art of marketing it” (Littlefield, 2008, p.27). However, when operating in the service industry, marketing is an integral part of any business. Architects must embrace this ideology to compete with other players who have aggressive marketing strategies. The very nature of the proactive model disagrees with the reactive culture that has cast a shadow over the architectural profession. Studio 47 must strive to promote their services to the 99%, this is an important way of developing relationships with community groups, and community entrepreneurs. The proactive paradigm is therefore dependent on an effective marketing strategy.

The gentlemen architect still exists amongst the architectural profession, they rely on traditional methods of personal recommendation and networking. This method is still effective amongst small-scale, regional practices that have a very particular audience. In conversation with Studio 47, James Evans (to authors, 2011) stated that one of their “biggest assets is Malcolm [Director] as a person, Malcolm is out networking a lot, and that is where we have got a lot of our work from.” Despite the success of this approach at a regional scale, architectural practices that have ambitions to expand beyond the confined boundaries of a particular area must be more proactive in reaching out to a larger audience.

Technology has become a major player in the promotion of architectural services. One of the most influential facilitators of this is the World Wide Web. “Most small and medium sized business owners quickly discover that there are a number of benefits of internet marketing that will enable them to grow their businesses at a faster rate” (The Benefits of Internet Marketing, 2012). Commonly, this is achieved through a website that advertise the products and services of a particular business. Websites present an effective marketing tool for the architectural profession. Gruenanger (to authors, 2011) states, “we get a great response to the website…and any potential clients I have ever met have always looked at the website before we have had the meeting.” Jones (to authors, 2011) also states that Civic’s website “is extremely

F - St

rateg

y - M

arke

ting

121

Fig 38 - The London Festival of Architecure. A screen shot from the London Festival of Architecture’s website, showing Studio 47’s proposed event in the summer.

valuable.” Amongst the digital age of the 21st century the Internet has become a useful instrument with a national and a global reach that cannot be ignored. In the UK alone, Internet usage has gone from 26.2% in 2000 to 82.5% in 2010 (Internet World Stats, 2012). Studio 47 believes that the Internet is an important tool to promote our services and empower the 99%.

As noted, spatialnetwork.co.uk is an online resource that promotes the values of Studio 47. It is used to encourage ethical development in a particular area through digital participation. It will advertise slack space that has the potential to be transformed into social assets. A member of the community or Studio 47 will be able to upload a site onto the website and recommend it as potential development opportunity. Community members can then participate in a digital forum discussing the potential for that site. This process is a fantastic way of marketing potential sites, and driving forward social initiatives toward ethical development. The website underlines Studio 47’s philosophy of empowering citizens through active participation. It also encapsulates Studio 47’s values as the visionary and the social agent. It is therefore a fantastic way to market the practice as well as engage people in Studio 47’s philosophical position.

Clearly the Internet opens up new and exciting possibilities for marketing ideas, products, services and philosophies. As well as websites, social media has become an influential marketing tool amongst the architectural profession. Feilden, F. (to authors, 2011) states that the social network provider, Twitter, “has been absolutely fantastic…people see partly what you are thinking, which is very useful.” Subsequently, Studio 47 has created a twitter account [Fig 37], which has been a great way of promoting Studio 47’s philosophy (follow us @ Studio47_colab). Beyond the digital realm, traditional methods of marketing through publications is still an effective way of advertising a practice’s services and products. However, publication in “architectural press tends not to bring the work in.” (Feilden, F. to authors, 2011) as Jones (to authors, 2011) states, “you have to know specifically who your market is…a technical article in BD is not going to potential clients but other architects.” Publication

should therefore be targeted toward the client end in order to get work.

Despite there being various ways of marketing an architectural practice “the best marketing tool is your product, but you have to make sure that people know about it” (Murray, 2005, cited in Littlefield, 2005, p.22). The architectural practice, M3, adopted a marketing approach that they termed ‘project making.’ This involved creating ambitious speculative proposals with no client that subsequently got them coverage in the national press. Many young architectural practitioners are also ‘project making’ by designing temporary interventions that appropriate public space. This is a proactive way of promoting a practice by taking their design philosophy out of the studio and into the public realm. These self-initiated projects include the Cineroleum, an outdoor cinema, and Frank’s Bar. These temporary interventions created an interest amongst the architectural and national press. Jones, T. (2010, cited in Moore, 2010) an architect who helped create the Cineroleum stated that “we had no idea it was going to be so successful,” but it inspired “a weird Internet frenzy” that put the group of young practitioners on the architectural map.

Studio 47 have taken precedent from this and engaged in ‘project making.’ The Pop-up Kitchen is an intervention designed by Studio 47. It occupies unconventional spaces amongst the public realm, providing a unique outdoor eating experience for the user. So far we have used it as a catalyst to promote Studio 47 through a series of public events in the city of Oxford, with future plans to take it to the London Festival of Architecture in June. This has been a fantastic opportunity to get out of the restrictive boundaries of the Studio and make something that reflects Studio 47’s philosophical position.

F - St

rateg

y - M

arke

ting

123

F.5 Collaboration – Specialist Consultants

Traditionally the architect was thought of as the client’s first point of contact, leading the design process and administering the contract. However, the construction industry has evolved at an alarming rate. Legislation, procurement and building technologies have become even more complex and we have seen an increase in the “expert client,” who place greater demands on the supply side of the industry. All of these factors have contributed toward a growth in specialist fields that provide a greater deal of technical and design expertise. Consequently each discipline has asserted itself with increasing self-interest, “these processes reflect the fragmented structure of the industry and sustain a contractual and confrontational culture” (Egan, 1998, p.19).

In Constructing the Team [Fig 39] and Rethinking Construction, Sir Michael Latham and Sir John Egan respectively, “recognised the need to bring in both construction management and specialist design input at an early stage of a project, and called for a more efficient and integrated approach to the design process and to procurement” (Lupton, ed., 2005, p.201). The idea of an integrated design team was based on the premise “that teams of designers, constructors and suppliers work together through a series of projects, continuously developing the product and the supply chain, eliminating waste in the delivery process, innovating and learning from experience” (Egan, 1998, p.19). Subsequently, we have seen a shift toward a more collaborative approach between construction professionals when designing and procuring the built environment. The Strategic Forum for Construction (2006) in its Business Case for Integrated Collaborative Working concluded that “the more integrated and collaborative your team is, the more successful your projects will be and the more benefits they will deliver.” With the progressive fragmentation of the construction industry, Studio 47 will aim to forge relationships with other consultants and “take the opportunity to add maximum value by being integrated around common objectives, processes, culture/values, reward & risk” (Egan, 1998, cited in Dodds, 2007, p.9). This collaborative approach must continue through successive projects in order to develop a Fig 39 - Constructing the Team. The front cover of Sir Michael

Latham’s report.

F - St

rateg

y - Co

llabo

ratio

n

125

Team Delivery will consist of project architects who are skilled in the delivery of projects beyond detail design. “It has become clear that there are some architects who are better at design than management, others who are better at management, and still others (the most valuable type) who are equally competent at both” (Murdoch & Hughs, 2008, p.18). Those who are skilled in management must become active agents in the protection of Studio 47’s values, through the considered delivery of a project. They must focus on creating an integrated design team through the collaboration with others to deliver social assets that reflect the desires of Studio 47 and our clients.

It would be naïve not to collaborate with other construction professionals, but instead, tap into the wealth of knowledge that exists in the industry today. However, this must be done in a considered way. Studio 47 should not compromise the philosophy of its practice, but instead have the necessary procedures in place to ensure that Studio 47 deliver a social asset that benefits the field. Team Delivery will take Studio 47’s visions through the strident forces of the construction industry, nurturing it and molding it.

team culture based around a similar set of priorities, which reflect the values of Studio 47. There has been widespread acceptance amongst construction professionals that a lead manager should always be appointed to co-ordinate the integrated team during this process. As Sir Michael Latham (1994, p.23) states, “the effective management of the design process is crucial to the success of the project.” This was once considered to be the traditional role of the architect, however the “progressive erosion of the architect’s role leads to the question of whether an architect should lead a project or should be just one of the consultants managed by a project leader” (Murdoch & Hughs, 2008, p.3). Over the past 30 years there has been an influx of project managers who have assumed the role of project leader. However, “while the architects importance in the delivery process has diminished significantly in the UK, in many other parts of the world architects continue to be the primary consultant, with power to influence the appointment of the whole design team” (Woodman, 2011, p.2). Clearly, the debate is still unresolved. Many construction professionals in the UK believe that the architectural profession should “focus on design and leave the more tedious job of management to somebody else” (Benson to authors, 2011). However Gruenanger (to authors, 2011), believes that the architect is best placed to manage the project, “because architects are heavily involved in the project anyway, and know the project better than anyone else.”

Like Gruenanger, Studio 47 believes that architects must be proactive in leading the integrated design team from conception to completion. Without managing the entire process, our core values are exposed to other players with a different set of priorities, those of the neo-liberal market place. We understand that some of the skills once administered by the profession are beyond the reach of the architect, but fervently believe that the architect is best placed to manage the design team to deliver social assets that better the field. Studio 47 intends to act as collaborative agents and bring the necessary people together to realise our values in the most effective way possible. It is therefore paramount that Studio 47 has an in-house team of consultants who focus on managing the process.

F - St

rateg

y - Co

llabo

ratio

n

127

Chapter G – Design Methodology

G.1 The Traverse

“One of the favorite play forms engaged by the SI [Situationist International] was the dérive, the art of wandering through urban space” (Andreotti, 2004, p.215).

This technique was used to explore the psycho-geographical effects of the city on the individual. Debord (1955, p.1), in his essay entitled Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography defines psychogeography as “the study of the precise law and specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organised or not, on the emotions and behaviors of the individual.” The belief that the immediate environment could evoke feelings amongst the individual was therefore central to the dérive. These feeling were used as the primary means of mapping the psychogeography of our cities. Despite the Situationists being so influential, the Letterists International was the first group of revolutionaries to explore, study, and map the pschogeography of the city. However, “Debord was careful to distinguish the dérive from such precedents, emphasising its active character as a mode of experimental behavior…undertaken in the spirit of adventure and discovery” (Andreotti, 2004, p.215). This type of urban roaming is a way of exploring the city with no preconceived agenda. It is here where Studio 47 must take precedent. As part of our design methodology the visionary architect must discover and explore the city in search of unconventional sites.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Trav

erse

129

Fig 40 - The Traverse. A traverse conducted by Studio 47 through Oxford in search of slack space. The red dots identify potential sites that can be transformed into social assets.

Studio 47 calls this process ‘traversing.’ The traverse [Fig 40] is the movement through a city in search of slack space that has the potential to be transformed into social assets. This process involves the visionary architect removing the shackles of conventional practice in search of unique sites to fill in the cracks of our cities. These sites tend to be awkward, unconventional, and subsequently inspirational spaces. Through active participation and void metabolism, Studio 47 will appropriate these spaces into social assets that better the field. Once a site has been chosen it is uploaded onto spatialnetwork.co.uk for digital participation. As well as this, the tactile process of participation in situ is one of the most effective ways to empower the 99%. The Pop Up Kitchen will be used as a device to promote community engagement on a site once it has been chosen. This urban intervention acts as a catalyst to promote discussion about a sites potential to better a community. The methodology allows the visionary architect to manifest a dynamic brief that reflects the needs of a community through active participation.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Trav

erse

131

Fig 41 - Frank’s Bar.

G.2 Pop Up Culture

As mentioned previously, there is a growing culture of young practitioners participating in the act of ‘project making’ through the Pop Up initiatives. This concept involves temporary interventions such as shops, restaurants and cinemas popping up to occupy unconventional spaces. These installations are “often appearing and disappearing faster than the English asparagus crop” (Sturgess, 2011). The Pop Up movement is by no means a new phenomenon. However, during the past several years, Pop Ups have become more popular as a counter culture to the saturation of the high street, and the limitations presented by the unmovable. Their choice of location, design and marketing is vital in maximising their impact and capturing the public’s imagination during their short existence.

One of the most exhilarating elements of a Pop Up is its ability to take a conventional activity and transform it. As noted, a successful example of this is the Cineroleum, a project that transformed a derelict petrol station into an outdoor cinema. Another example is Frank’s Bar [Fig 41], located on the top floor of a multi-storey car park in Peckham, South London. This is an area notorious for high crime levels and gang violence. Despite this, Frank’s Bar has become one of the most fashionable ‘hang out’ spots in London over the past three summers. The Pop Up structure consists of nine 50m long ratchet straps that loop around the entire floor plate of the car park. On the top deck each strap is supported by a set of three timber columns constructed from reclaimed scaffolding planks bolted together. A bright red PVC canopy is lashed to the straps, creating a roof for the bar. The cafe uses a minimal palette of material. The bar, roof structure, and furniture are all made from reclaimed timber. The red roof and ratchet straps were fabricated in a factory that produces drop down canvases for commercial lorries. Unskilled volunteers constructed the structure over a 25-day period. G -

Desig

n Meth

odolo

gy - P

op U

p Cult

ure

133

Fig 42 - Pop Up Kitchen - Exploded Axonometric

Pop Ups are often used as means for young architectural practitioners to establish themselves within the market. The hype surrounding Pop Up initiatives such as the Cineroleum and Frank’s Bar has led to publication in the national press. The “Pop Up culture is an opportunity for young practices to explore their protagonist socially-minded archi-urbanist agenda, through the re-imagining of neglected spaces within inner cities” (Fieldhouse, 2011). It is too often the case that “the role of architects in recent years has been relegated to giving form to the landscapes and cityscapes shaped by larger forces, notably of capital flows in a globalised economy” (Bergdoll, 2010, p.9). This is what the young practices of the Pop Up culture are so poignantly critiquing. They are devising new social orders through temporary interventions. Bergdoll (2010, p.10) argues “their conception of design extends beyond undertaking a building or a site plan to devising procedures for getting things to happen where there are no such procedures in place, and to creating new models of involvement for local populations.” Architecture is not a neutral profession, and for this reason, architects cannot retreat to higher ground. Till (2009, p.124) states “architecture is political. Full stop...political in that it affects the lives of citizens.” For this reason, Studio 47 believes that it is necessary to be proactive and join the Pop Up culture. With our passion for food, and belief that eating together can break down social barriers, Studio 47 designed and built a prototype of a Pop Up Kitchen. This represents our greater ambitions, but on a micro scale.

Studio 47’s initial design focused on the concept of a campfire. The idea was for users to gather around a central unit, which would contain a bar and a BBQ for cooking burgers. The Pop Up Kitchen would be mobile, transported in a van. The structure would then slot together in situ. However, Studio 47 realised that this design lacked the necessary mobility that was required.

Instead, Studio 47 developed a design inspired by Oxford’s love of cycling. It is a mobile unit pulled by a bike [Fig 43]. During transportation, everything that is required for the kitchen is contained within the main volume. When sited, the various elements fold out of the volume to create a

Fig 44 - Pop Up Kitchen - Section

Fig 43 - Pop Up Kitchen - In Transit.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Pop

Up C

ultur

e

135

Fig 45 - Pop Up Kitchen - In-situ.

preparation, serving and dining area [Fig 46]. Due to its size and mobility, the Pop Up Kitchen has the ability to occupy unconventional spaces. Studio 47 refers to this space as slack space, spaces that often have no real purpose, ignored by the commercial developer. The Pop Up Kitchen acts as an intervention within the space, the user then defines the boundaries. As Lefebrve (1992/1974, p.26) implies “(social) space is a (social) product.” The intervention allows the user to become socially engaged with the space. Most importantly the Pop Up acts as a catalyst to encourage interaction amongst different members of the community. The design follows the guidance of Cedric Price, who believed that the best solution to an architectural problem might not necessarily be a building.

However, the Pop Up Kitchen goes further than acting as statement of occupation within the urban environment. The Pop Up was also designed as an intervention to empower the community. It acts as a device to promote community participation. The Pop Up Kitchen is a key instrument for the proactive architect. Once an unconventional site has been identified through a traverse, the Pop Up Kitchen will be set up, and the local community will be invited to express their thoughts on what they require within the local area.

It is widely known that during the participation stage very few members of the local community actually turn up, rendering community participation ineffective. The Pop Up Kitchen uses food as a tool to entice the local community to get involved. The act of eating in an unconventional location creates an element of intrigue, but also lowers people’s defensive tendencies in social situations. This allows Studio 47 to enter into open conservations with the local community. The Pop Up is painted with black chalkboard paint. This allows the users to appropriate the intervention by illustrating and writing their thoughts on the Pop Up that reflect their desires for the community.

Fig 46 - Pop Up Kitchen - Pop Up Sequence.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Pop

Up C

ultur

e

137

Being a research studio, Studio 47 can test our design and participatory methodologies, rather than relying upon theory read in books. Through the tangible process of making the prototype [Fig 47], Studio 47 learnt a great deal about materiality, structural properties and functionality. Due to cost implications, Studio 47 was unable to build the prototype out of the chosen material, aluminium. Instead, we opted for timber. This had weight implications that meant that the Pop Up Kitchen could not be pulled by a bike. However, we overcame this problem by loading the Pop Up Kitchen onto a cart, which was pulled by a walking person. The other key element of the design still remained, in that everything folds out from a contained volume.

Construction

Fig 47 - Pop Up Kitchen - Construction Process.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Pop

Up C

ultur

e

139

Fig 48 - Pop Up Kitchen - Set up for The Design Research Exhibition.

Fig 49 - Pop Up Kitchen - Business Plan.

Studio 47 believes that the architect must become more proactive through self-initiating their own projects. To ensure that projects can be initiated, the proactive architect will require capital from external sources, such as a bank or an angel investor. To secure this funding a business plan will be required. The business plan is a written document describing the nature of the business, its objectives, its strategies, the market it is in and its financial forecast. The business plan will also act as a tool to measure the success of the business.

For the Pop Up Kitchen, Studio 47 created a business plan to send to various organisations to seek funding for the cost of construction. This included the Oxford Brookes Community Fund, The Oxford Rotary Club and the Oxford Hub. The Oxford Hub were very interested in the project, they saw potential for the Pop Up to become a mobile version of their Turl Street Kitchen, a hub for students in the heart of the city.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Pop

Up C

ultur

e

143

Fig 50 - Pop Up Kitchen - The general public and students gather around the Pop Up Kitchen at The Design Research Exhibition.

The Pop Up Kitchen’s first outing was at The Design Research Exhibition on Friday 24th February 2012 [Fig 50]. It was held at Fusion Arts, in the East Oxford Community Centre, just off the Cowley Road, in Oxford. The Pop Up occupied an open space at the rear of the community centre. For this event, Studio 47 decided that the Pop Up Kitchen would serve chowder because it was held in late February and the weather was still very mild. Consequently, the pop up was named the ‘Chowder Bar’.

The event was a great success. The general public, architects, and students came along to enjoy the exhibition and eat some Chowder. Once the attendees had explored the exhibition, they came outside and congregated around the Pop Up Kitchen. It was clear that the intervention acted like a social magnet, drawing people into the space to reflect on the exhibition [Fig 51]. As soon as the users started interacting with the Pop Up they defined the space creating a great atmosphere. Despite the relatively cold weather, the attendees were still determined to gather around the Pop Up, which is a testament to the success of its application. Attendees also appropriated the Pop Up, writing and illustrating their thoughts on its blackboard surface. Clearly the interventions had the desired effect, it became the focal point of the evening, a place where people would meet and socialise. The food played a major role in creating the right atmosphere.

Studio 47 had one minor issue during the evening, there wasn’t enough tension in the roof. However, following the event, Studio 47 rectified this by adopting a new design approach using clips to secure the canvas roof in place. Following the success of the initial event, we then tested the Pop Up Kitchen as a community participatory device.

The Virgin Pop Up

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Pop

Up C

ultur

e

145

Fig 51 - Pop Up Kitchen - Attendees enjoy some chowder around the Pop Up Kitchen.

Fig 52 - Pop Up Kitchen - Chowder. At The Design Research Exhibi-tion, Studio 47 served chowder with fresh bread from the Pop Up Kitchen.

Fig 53 - Pop Up Kitchen - Appropriation. The users appropri-ated the Pop Up Kitchen, using white chalk to write and illustrate on its black board surface during the evening.

Fig 54 - Pop Up Kitchen - Folded Up. At the end of the event, Studio 47 folded up the Pop Up Kitchen for the night.

Fig 55 - Pop Up Kitchen - Collage. A series of photos taken during the Pop Up Kitchen’s first event.

G.3 Live Project – Oxford Community Land Trust

During semester 2, Studio 47 was approach by Dan Jones of Civic Architects. Jones informed Studio 47 of a live community project taking place in Botley, West Oxford. The project is being run by the Oxfordshire Community Land Trust (OCLT), who intend to build four eco homes at Code 5 of the Sustainable Homes Guide for shared ownership. The Trust are currently seeking funding for the project, but required an initial design in order to do so. Jones subsequently contacted Studio 47 on the basis of forming a collaboration, whereby he would act as our mentor throughout a community liaison and conceptual design stage. Studio 47 decided that this would be an excellent opportunity to test our participatory approach with the use of the Pop Up Kitchen.

Fig 56 - OCLT - Site Analysis.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

157

Fig 57 - OCLT - Design Meeting. Studio 47 having a design meeting with Dan Jones from Civic Architects for the Oxford Community Land Trust live project. The Pop Up Kitchen provided a fantastic space to discuss ideas.

Fig 58 - OCLT - Design Meeting. Studio 47 having a design meeting on the Pop Up Kitchen for the OCLT live project.

OCLT was formed in 2004 to enable local people to acquire small pockets of land in their village or town, and to hold that land in perpetuity for the benefit of the local people. The land can then be used for any purpose that benefits the community it is linked to, for instance housing, workspace, leisure or horticulture. However, the OCLT is particularly focused on the provision of affordable housing across the county of Oxfordshire. A key aspect of any community land trust is that land cannot be sold off for private gain. Through this mechanism the OCLT aims to ensure permanent and affordable access to the land for whichever purpose the community needs.

There is currently a huge housing need throughout the whole of the Oxford area. An excess of 6000 people are on Oxford City Council’s waiting list for affordable housing. The OCLT is a bottom up initiative set up by a group of private individuals operating voluntarily to prevent an impending housing crisis in Oxford, providing those less fortunate with decent homes. The values of the OCLT mirror the core values of Studio 47.

The proposed site [Fig 56] is located just off Enysham Road, Botley, secured for £190,000 through local donations. This site is an example of slack space. It is a piece of left over land nestled between terraced and detached housing. To the south of the site is a post war estate comprised of semi detached social housing, and immediately to the north of the site are detached private dwellings. The site is currently being used for fly tipping, and has become an eye sore within the local area. Studio 47 believes that this site has the potential to be transformed from slack space into a social asset.

Initially, the OCLT requested that Studio 47 produce a series of designs showing possible options for the site. These designs could then be presented to the local community. Despite this, Studio 47 suggested that we should try to get the community involved in the design process from the earliest stage of conception. We proposed an action day on the site to discuss design ideas with the local community, using the Pop Up Kitchen as a device to encourage community participation.Fig 59 - OCLT - Client Meeting. Studio 47 having a client

meeting with Fran Ryan from OCLT. G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

163

Before the action day, Studio 47 and Jones met with the OCLT chairman, Fran Ryan, to discuss acceptable massing for the site [Fig 59]. Studio 47 presented eight different massing options [Fig 60 & 61], which Studio 47 believed were adequate for the size of the site. For the action day, it was agreed that Studio 47 would combine five of these options into three conceptual design proposal, each exploring a different site layout, housing typology and materiality. This would act as a feasibility study, providing adequate information about the amount of land available to build the required units. The concept would also act as a catalyst to promote discussion with the local community.

The OCLT informed us that they required a certain number of bedrooms per unit. They were flexible on the size of the units as long as they applied to the minimum space standards set by the Housing Association. Studio 47 accepted these conditions, but intended to go further than the minimum required by the Housing Association. Till (2009, p.120) states “the measure of space has a nasty way of becoming the dominant criterion of space.” Studio 47 believes that such space standards, though intently good, do not commonly provide adequate living space for families or individuals.

Minimum space standards for social housing were first discussed when leading members of the modernist movement met in Frankfurt in 1929 for the second Congres Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM). By defining minimum standards for housing, their intentions were to improve poor living conditions. They believed that architects had a social responsibility, and the authority to bring about change. However, in the present day, such perceptions of space standards have changed, as Ruby (2012, p.VI) states “instead of defining how much space and comfort a family needs to live a decent life, present-day social housing regulations intend to quantify how little is just acceptable enough before people revolt against their living conditions.” These words are also echoed by Till (2009, p.121) who argues “the good intent of the document in the name of social betterment in public housing masks a normalizing predisposition... that is symptomatic of all liberal democracies.” This is the belief that by establishing an appearance of harmony, it suppresses any ambiguity.

Fig 60 - OCLT - Massing. G -

Desig

n Meth

odolo

gy - L

ive Pr

oject

- Oxfo

rd Co

mmu

nity L

and T

rust

165

However, the commercial developer will only build to what they are told is required to be socially acceptable. Studio 47 does not believe that designing to the minimum is ideal, but instead, our designs reflect what is spatially acceptable to ensure a good standard of living. Of course we must consider the affordability of such an approach, but believe that this methodology is important in realising social assets.

Studio 47 produced three conceptual designs, each with their own unique character. Studio 47 believed that it was important to create a shared external space that would encourage interaction between the neighbours. This space was predominantly green and very flexible, parts of it could be used as a vegetable patch. In each concept, the housing typology was developed. In one of the options, Studio 47 explored the possibility of a three-storey dwelling with a roof terrace.

Fig 61 - OCLT - Massing.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

167

Fig 62 - OCLT - Option A. Site Plan.

Fig 63 - OCLT - Option A. View From Above.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

169

Fig 64 - OCLT - Option A. Ground Floor Plan

Fig 65 - OCLT - Option A. First Floor Plan.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

171

Fig 66 - OCLT - Option A. Second Floor Plan.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

173

Fig 67 - OCLT - Option A. Visual.

Fig 68 - OCLT - Option B. Site Plan.

Fig 69 - OCLT - Option B. View From Above.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

177

Fig 70 - OCLT - Option B. Ground Floor Plan.

Fig 71 - OCLT - Option B. First Floor Plan.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

179

Fig 72 - OCLT - Option B. Visual.

Fig 73 - OCLT - Option C. Site plan.

Fig 74 - OCLT - Option C. View From Above .

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

183

Fig 75 - OCLT - Option C. Ground Floor Plan.

Fig 76 - OCLT - Option C. First Floor Plan.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

185

Fig 77 - OCLT - Option C. Visual.

During the action day, Studio 47 set up the Pop Up Kitchen on the site. It was positioned so that the participants could look across the site to discuss the design options. Studio 47 placed each design option on the table of the Pop Up Kitchen. When entering the site, the community members were immediately drawn to the Pop Up Kitchen, where Studio 47 served tea and cake. Again, the Pop Up acted as an intervention for people to gather around and reflect on the design proposals. Studio 47 then embarked on natural, and informal conversation [Fig 78] with the community about the three conceptual designs.

The Action Day

Fig 78 - OCLT - Participation. Studio 47 using the Pop Up Kitchen as a participatory device to discuss the design options with the local community.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

189

Fig 79 - OCLT - Action Day. A collage showing Studio 47 pulling the Pop Up to the site in Botley, and then popping it up to meet the community.

Fig 80 - OCLT - Community Led Design. Studio 47 discuss-ing the designs with the local community.

Fig 81 - OCLT - Stickers. The sign that instructed community mem-bers to use their stickers to identify their preferred choice.

This was an ad hoc process, with the local community members turning up and leaving as they pleased. The very nature of the event tried to avoid any formalities of us (the expert) presenting to them, which often happens in this process. During the conversations, Studio 47 wrote down the valuable points that the community members made. The community members were offered the opportunity to write their thoughts down on post-it notes and stick them to the sheets. However, no one felt obliged to do so. Studio 47 believes the reason for this was because there was no initiator, and others did not feel comfortable putting their thoughts on paper. However this was not a problem. Studio 47 managed to write down most of their thoughts.

The most successful participatory approach was the use of stickers [Fig 82]. The community rated the options in order of preference using the coloured stickers, which we provided. Red represented their first choice, orange their second, and yellow their third. This was a successful exercise that sparked further conversation.

Overall the action day was a huge success, for both our design methodology but also for the OCLT. It enabled the OCLT to gain some great feedback, along with building new and worthwhile relationships with the local community. For Studio 47, the action day tested the Pop Up Kitchen as participatory intervention, which was very successful. Since the initial action day, Studio 47 has been invited by the community group to participate in more action days.

Fig 82 - OCLT - Results. The community members placed stickers on each option in order of preference. Red was their first choice, orange their second choice, and yellow their third choice.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Live

Proje

ct - O

xford

Com

munit

y Lan

d Tru

st

195

G.4 The Metabolic Tower

Studio 47 conducted a traverse through Oxford in March 2012. During this process Studio 47 discovered various sites that had the potential to be transformed into social assets. However, Studio 47 chose to focus on three sites within close proximity of Oxford’s train station and city centre.

The scheme will provide housing for the community of Oxford. Our research has shown that there is great demand for housing in the city of Oxford to avoid an imminent housing crisis. The adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001 – 2016 has set a target of 6,500 new dwelling to be provided in Oxford over the plan periods between 2001-2016 that equates to an annual average completion rate of 433 dwellings (affordable and market). However, Oxford’s Housing Requirements Study identified a need for 1,700 new affordable homes to be built per year. Therefore the current target of 433 houses a year, set by Oxford City Council, which includes both affordable and market value housing is well below the affordable housing need (Oxford City Council, 2005). This shortfall must be addressed, and every opportunity taken to build affordable homes that better the field. Common developers are discouraged to invest in affordable housing because their return is not as substantial as market value housing. However, the proactive architect is driven by a different set of priorities.

Residential Sorting

Despite the shortfall of housing, the provision of affordable homes must be considered in a sustainable way. The concentration of a single tenure in a particular area can lead to social implications. The Situationists were concerned about how capitalism has shaped our urban environment. Subsequently, Debord devised the concept of Unitary Urbanism. It was the understanding that Unitary Urbanism would encourage diversity and enrich lives by allowing present humanity to construct life freely, opposed to the fixation of people at certain points in the city. The Situationists believed that urbanism as it stands is a physical

Fig 83 - The Metabolic Tower -Strategy Diagram.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Meta

bolic

Towe

r

197

Fig 84 - Blackbird Leys. A housing estate on the outskirts of Oxford.

representation of the capitalist system, “building the sites that accurately represent it” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.108). The construct of the capitalist city creates class separateness. Debord believed that class does not only determine your social status within society, but how and where you are physically positioned within the city. “While all the technical forces of capitalism contribute toward various forms of separation, urbanism provides the material foundation for those forces and prepares the ground for their deployment. It is the very technology of separation” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.155). There are many examples of social divisions, and exclusion, throughout the cities of today, where the poor have been forced to the periphery, housed in poorly maintained accommodation. The largest housing estate in the UK, Blackbird Leys [Fig 84], sits on the outskirts of the affluent city of Oxford. This is a material example of social division, where the less affluent have been ostracized physically from those with greater monetary wealth. Like most UK housing estates, it is run down and inadequate.

This type of development is often referred to as monotenure. Monotenure is a planning term relating to the land tenure of neighborhoods where a particular type of housing is more prevalent. However, the term is generally used to describe a concentration of social and affordable housing that represents ‘class separateness.’

Residential sorting has been identified as a key contributor toward inadequate housing provisions and socially deprived areas, “this tends to segregate people by their capacity to pay for housing and leads to employed and workless people living in different places” (Communities and Local Government, 2010 p.4), which ultimately creates social problems. Mixed tenure developments are seen as a solution to this problem. In the Joseph Rowntree Publication, A Good Place for Children, Silverman et al. (2005) states, “sustainable regeneration is more likely to be achieved by changing the mix of people as well as the physical environment, and introducing some residents who are financially better off.” The scheme must incorporate a mixture of tenures in order to combat residential sorting.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Meta

bolic

Towe

r

199

Efficient Use of Land

Planning policy CP.6, Efficient Use of Land, of the Oxford Local Plan 2001 - 2016 (2005, p.16) states that there is a huge need for housing in Oxford, but only a limited amount of land available. To reduce urban sprawl, the City Council expects land to be developed efficiently. In reaction to preventing the “explosion of cities into the countryside” (Debord, 2009/1967, p.116), Studio 47’s proposal raises the buildings off the ground through three vertical cores, linked by a horizontal volume [Fig 86]. By densifying the urban ecology we can provide enough homes that help meet the demands of Oxford’s housing crisis.

Additionally, all three sites are at a high risk of flooding because they are located close to the River Thames. By raising the proposal off the ground it limits the risk of flood damage.

Fig 85 - The Metabolic Tower - Site Analysis.Fig 86 - The Metabolic Tower - Massing.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Meta

bolic

Towe

r

201

Fig 87 - The Metabolic Tower - Site Plan.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Meta

bolic

Towe

r

203

Fig 88 - The Metabolic Tower - Pixelated. The form creates shared external gardens.

Metabolism

The scheme took the generic tower that has been criticised for its lack of social cohesion and community wellbeing. Drawing inspiration from the dreaming spires of Oxford, Studio 47 cut away at the form to create niches that can be inhabited by the residents as shared community and social spaces [Fig 89]. The pixilated form generates clusters in the sky that act as mixed tenure neighborhoods [Fig 88], en-couraging diverse and sustainable communities that will naturally evolve over time. The tower bridges over the ex-isting infrastructure below, this provides space for a large horizontal park and community allotments. The provision of communal facilities is an important asset, encouraging so-cial and community integration.

The cores are left exposed. This is the idea that the super-structure can be colonised by adding or subtracting residen-tial units depending on the needs of the user. The Japanese Metabolists reacting to the pressure of limited space in their cities, “started in the late 1950’s to propose constantly grow-ing and adapting ‘plug-in’ mega structures where the liv-ing cells…would be reduced to prefabricated pods clipped onto vast helicoidal skyscrapers” (Frampton, 2002, p.282).

The Nakagin Capsule Tower designed by Kurokawa, pro-vides economical housing for businessmen working late in central Tokyo. The capsules are inserted into the concrete core of the mega structure, attached with four high-tension bolts. The structure can be adapted to the cities external influences through the exchangeability and recyclability of the capsules. Studio 47 recognises the importance of struc-tures becoming adaptable to their immediate context, ar-chitecture should be dynamic rather than static. However, Studio 47 is more concerned with the idea of appropriation through the active participation of others.

Fig 89 - The Metabolic Tower - Design Generation.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Th

e Meta

bolic

Towe

r

205

Fig 90 - The Metabolic Tower - Exploded Diagram. The prefabricated housing system.

Appropriation

John Habraken is a Dutch architect “who has researched mass housing and strategies for the participation of users and residents in the building process” (Awan et al., 2011, p.153). In his book Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing, Habraken talks about separating the physical infrastructure of buildings into support and infill, a reaction to centrally controlled design through the empowerment of others. As Habraken (2005, p.99) states “it was while all this was taking place that I first proposed the separation of support and infill in mass housing to allow inhabitants to design their own houses within an architectural infrastructure.” This concept of self-generating architecture does not impose a top down approach through centrally controlled design, but a bottom up initiative, where architects provide the infrastructure for the user to appropriate. This is an example of how the housing “system could be played for maximum diversity instead of mindless repetition” (Blundell Jones, 2005, p.135).

A successful example of appropriation is Elemental’s proposal in Iquique, Chile. The scheme provides housing with additional space that acts as a framework for residents to infill, “as the houses are added to over time, they gain value and their rather stark original design is softened through occupation and use’ (Awan et al., 2011, p.144).

The Metabolic Tower is a juxtaposition of ideas explored in the Pop Up movement and metabolism. Once the superstructure is in place, residential units appropriate the core over time. This is achieved through the active participation of the user and Studio 47.

Residential units are delivered to site as a prefabricated kit of parts. Through a collaboration between Studio 47 and the user, the residential units pop up on site through self-build initiatives. The kit of parts that construct the Pop Ups are designed by Studio 47 to be flexible in order to meet the demands of the different users [Fig 90]. The composite panels are lightweight and modular. The system allows the self-builder to change the module to suit their requirements. The floor plate can be extended or subtracted, and the user can define the layout of their home through the tactile process of building it, creating a sense of ownership. The system is influenced by Walter Segal’s self build homes, where the participants only require basic tools in order to construct their house. Once the Pop Up has been assembled, they are craned onto the superstructure and fixed with four high-tension bolts [Fig 91]. The Metabolic Tower grows organically over time responding to the needs of the user. G -

Desig

n Meth

odolo

gy -

The M

etabo

lic To

wer

207

Fig 91 - The Metabolic Tower - Appropriation Strategy.

Fig 93 - The Metabolic Tower - Appropriation, 2020.

Fig 92 - The Metabolic Tower - Appropriation, 2015. 2015

2020

Fig 94 - The Metabolic Tower - Appropriation Diagram. The tower grows organically over time as Pop Up units colonise the core.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Th

e Meta

bolic

Towe

r

211

Fig 95 - The Metabolic Tower - Crowd Funding

Finance

In comparison the Metabolic Tower is not dependent on a huge upfront investment in order to get it built. Like the concept of appropriation, this process happens over an extended period of time. The initial cost will be to build the tower’s superstructure, once that is in place, money is raised to build the residential units that appropriate the core. This relies on a multitude of others to donate money towards the project, or raise their own capital to self-build their home. The process is an extension of crowd funding explored by Studio 47 to realise social assets [Fig 95]. The strategy will be facilitated through spatialnetwork.co.uk, where local authorities and community entrepreneurs can help overcome Oxford’s housing crisis by donating a sum of money that allows the construction of more homes. The construction costs of the project are significantly reduced because the modular composite panels are manufactured off site. With the reduced construction cost, the capital raised through crowd funding will go a lot further in providing new homes for Oxford.

Management

Studio 47 believes that the architect’s social obligation should go beyond the practical completion of a building. The concept of appropriation encourages an act of responsibility that does not exist within the normal terms of appointment. Architects must ensure that their buildings are maintained as social assets that evolve over time.

“How buildings perform when they are finally put to use after the architect has taken his or her pictures of the unattained object is for most no longer of interest. Learning from a buildings occupations is not part of the standard list of services of an architect, which does not encourage regular reflection on the performance of buildings in use…the architectural process doesn’t stop with the handing over of the key to the client, but only when it is lived in and for as long as it is lived in” (Awan et al., 2011, p.78).

Studio 47 would manage the entire process during the tower’s lifetime, ensuring that the organic growth of the tower is as sustainable as possible in order to better the field. This is an example of architectural services extending beyond mainstream practice prescribed by the RIBA Plan of Work.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Th

e Meta

bolic

Towe

r

213

2025

Fig 96 - The Metabolic Tower - Appropriation, 2025.

Fig 97 - The Metabolic Tower - The Park. A horizantal park bridges the towers.

Fig 98 - The Metabolic Tower - Floor Plans.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Meta

bolic

Towe

r

219

Fig 99 - The Metabolic Tower - Bottom Floor Plan. Possible floor layouts.

Fig 100 - The Metabolic Tower - Top Floor Plan. Possible floor layouts.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- The

Meta

bolic

Towe

r

221

Fig 101 - The Metabolic Tower -Section.

Fig 102 - The Metabolic Tower -Parti Diagram. The scheme provides social, affordable, and market value housing. Shared communal facilities bridge the three towers.

G - De

sign M

ethod

ology

- Th

e Meta

bolic

Towe

r

223

Fig 103 - The Metabolic Tower -Section. Cutting through a residential unit.

Fig 104 - The Metabolic Tower -In Context. The pixelated form responds to the spires of Oxford.

Chapter H - Reflection

“It is precisely the advantage of the new trend that we do not dogmatically anticipate the world, but only want to find a new world through criticism of the old” (Marx, 1843, cited in Lowy, 2005, p.46).

After attending the Building Futures debate entitled The Future for Architects in March 2011, Studio 47 left the Royal Institute of British Architects unclear about the future of the architectural profession. Despite this, Studio 47 was determined to draw our own conclusions about the profession’s future, and in doing so, transform it into something positive. This was the beginning of an investigation to create an alternative paradigm for practice.

Due to the current nature of this topic, it necessitated the need for an investigation through primary research. Studio 47 interviewed a select number of construction professionals from both the supply and demand side of the industry. From this process, it was clear that the architect’s responsibilities have been progressively eroded, and that this erosion has seen exponential growth over the past 30 years. Studio 47 identified that procurement, legislation, technology and contracts are just some of the reasons for this change. Subsequently, construction professionals are starting to question the value that architects add. However, what the interviews poignantly exposed was that these players share a different set of priorities. They are not driven by the social value that a building adds, but by cost, program and profit.

Fundamentally, this is where architects differ. The profession’s priorities seek to provide the best architectural solution possible. However, with the progressive erosion of the architect’s role, the design of our built environment is in the hands of unqualified individuals, who pander to the demands of the capitalist market. It has become increasingly difficult for architects to administer their values effectively. As a consequence, the strident forces of the capitalist system have commodified architecture.

Being influenced by the Occupy Movement, and their willingness to stand up for the 99 percent, Studio 47 believed it was important to question the status quo. From critiquing the profession, and recognising its allegiances to the spectacle that is the commodity, Studio 47 believes that it is time for a shift in priorities. Rather than represent a system that is driven by profit, the architect must move to empower the user. To ensure the success of such a change, Studio 47 identified a set of core values, these being the social agent and the visionary. However, Studio 47 is under no illusion. It is not uncommon for architectural practices to claim a philosophical position. However, it is difficult to translate that into an effective model of practice. It was therefore clear that in order for these core values to be exercised, Studio 47 needed to formulate a new paradigm for practice, the proactive architect. Studio 47 believes architects need to become more proactive, through self initiating their own projects. In this scenario, their core values are not sidelined, but remain at the heart of the project.

H -

Refle

ction

229

Studio 47 created a new model of practice that empowers its employees, as well as the user, through a co-operative structure. This represents the ideology of empowerment, and brings equality to the work environment. Studio 47 also concluded that the size of the practice should be limited to 30 employees. This ensures that the practice does not become over burdened with bureaucracy, whilst representing the local community it serves.

This led to the development of the Spatial Network. The Spatial Network ensures that the core values have a national spread, as well as overcoming certain problems Studio 47 identified facing the profession through collaboration. The network empowers local practices to collaborate with one another. These local practices are best placed to identify slack space that can be transformed into social assets. Studio 47 took this concept and established spatialnetwork.co.uk. This is a tool that harnesses the potential of the internet. The website identifies slack space, as well as empowers communities to realise social assets through crowd funding, and digital participation.

Throughout the year, Studio 47 undertook a series of design projects. These tested and shaped the core values. The Pop Up Kitchen was an example of self-initiation on a micro scale. Studio 47 designed and built the prototype to be used as an architectural intervention, firstly to promote Studio 47, but secondly as a device for community cohesion. The Oxford Community Land Trust co-housing scheme offered a chance to practice our core values in a real life scenario, as well as using the Pop Up Kitchen as a method of community participation. The Metabolic Tower gave Studio 47 the opportunity to make a conceptual statement for the need for more affordable housing in Oxford to prevent an imminent housing crisis.

The journey for Studio 47 is clearly not over. The design research has laid down the foundations for our practice of the future. Studio 47 is now in a stronger position to go forward and implement the core values through a new paradigm.

H - R

eflec

tion

231

Inter

views

- Int

rodu

ction

235

Inter

views

- Civi

c Arch

itects

237

Inter

views

- Civi

c Arch

itects

239

Inter

views

- Cor

pora

te Ar

chite

cture

241

Inter

views

- Cor

pora

te Ar

chite

cture

243

Inter

views

- Cor

pora

te Ar

chite

cture

245

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

247

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

249

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

251

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

253

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

255

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

257

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

259

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

261

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

263

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

265

Inter

views

- Sec

ond L

ondo

n Wall

267

Inter

views

- Feil

den F

owles

271

Inter

views

- Feil

den F

owles

273

Inter

views

- Feil

den F

owles

275

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Arch

itects

277

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Arch

itects

279

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Arch

itects

281

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Proje

cts

283

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Proje

cts

285

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Proje

cts

287

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Proje

cts

289

Inter

views

- Bra

mwell

Hall

Proje

cts

291

Inter

views

- Spa

ce Gr

oup A

rchite

cts

293

Inter

views

- Spa

ce Gr

oup A

rchite

cts

295

Inter

views

- Spa

ce Gr

oup A

rchite

cts

297

Inter

views

- Spa

ce Gr

oup A

rchite

cts

299

Inter

views

- Spa

ce Gr

oup A

rchite

cts

301

Inter

views

- Oxfo

rd Ar

chite

cts

303

Inter

views

- Oxfo

rd Ar

chite

cts

305

Inter

views

- Oxfo

rd Ar

chite

cts

307

Inter

views

- Oxfo

rd Ar

chite

cts

309

Inter

views

- Oxfo

rd Ar

chite

cts

311

Inter

views

- Des

ign Co

nsult

ancy

313

Inter

views

- Des

ign Co

nsult

ancy

315

Inter

views

- Des

ign Co

nsult

ancy

317

Inter

views

- Des

ign Co

nsult

ancy

319

Inter

views

- Des

ign Co

nsult

ancy

321

Inter

views

- PBM

Parib

as

323

Inter

views

- PBM

Parib

as

325

References:

Literary

Andreotti, L. (2004). Architecture and play. In: McDonough, T. Guy Debord and the Situationalist International. London : MIT Press, pp.213-240.

Awan, N. Schneider, T. and Till, J. (2011). Spatial agency: other ways of doing architecture. Abingdon : Routledge.

Barnett, J. (1976). Architecture for buildings people use every day. In: Barnett, J. & Portman, J. Architect as developer. New York : McGraw Hill, pp.1-56.

Bergdoll, B. (2010). Introduction. In: Lepik, A. Small scale, big change: new architectures of social engagement. New York : The Museum of Modern Art, pp.7-11.

Branson, R. (2009). Business stripped bare. London : Virgin Books.

Chappell, D. & Willis, A. (2007). The architect in practice. 9th ed. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.

Darley, G. (1999). John Soane: An accidental romantic. London : Yale University Press.

De Carlo, G. (2005/1970). Architecture’s Public. In: Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. eds. Architecture & participation. Abingdon : Spon Press, pp. 3-22.

Debord, G. (1955). The great sleep and its clients. In: McDonough, T. (2004). Guy Debord and the Situationalist International. London : MIT Press, pp.21-24.

Debord, G. (2009/1967). Society of the spectacle. Sussex : Soul Bay Press Ltd.

Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking construction. London : Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Ettlinger, L. (1977). The emergence of the Italian architect during the fifteenth century. In: Kostof, S. ed. The architect: chapters in the history of the profession. Oxford : Oxford University Press, pp.96-123.

Feilden, R. (1986). Benefits of architectural development. In: RIBA. ed. Architect as developer, London : RIBA, pp.5-7.

Frampton, K. (2002). Modern architecture: a critical history. 3rd ed. London : Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Habraken, N. J. (2005). Palladio’s children: seven essays on everyday environment and the architect. London : Taylor & Francis.

Hatch, R. (1984). The scope of social architecture. New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.

James, A. (1986). Why become a developer?. In: RIBA. ed. Architect as developer, London : RIBA, pp.20-22.

Jamieson, C. (2011). The future for architects. London : RIBA.

Jenkins, F. (1961). Architect and patron. London : Oxford University Press.

Kostof, S. (1977). The architect: chapters in the history of the profession. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the team. London : HMSO

Lefebvre, H. (1992/1974). The production of space. Oxford : Blackwells.

Lepik, A. (2010). Small scale, big change: new architectures of social engagement. New York : The Museum of Modern Art.

Lewis, R. (1986). Architect? a candid guide to the profession. Massachusetts : MIT Press.

Till, J. (2005). The negotiation of hope. In: Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. eds. Architecture & participation. Abingdon : Spon Press, pp.23-41.

Till, J. (2009). Architecture depends. Cambridge, MA  : MIT Press Books.

Washida, M. (2010). Changes in art and the potential of new social space. In: Atelier Bow-Wow. The architectures of Atelier Bow-Wow: behaviorology. New York : Rizzoli, pp.252-254.

Wilton-Ely, J. (1977). The rise of the professional architect in England. In: Kostof, S. ed. The architect: chapters in the history of the profession. Oxford : Oxford University Press, pp.180-208.

Littlefield, D. (2005). The architect’s guide to running a practice. Oxford : Architectural Press.

Lowy, M. (2005). The theory of revolution in the young marx. 2nd ed. Chicago : Haymarket Books.

Lupton, S. ed. (2005). Architects handbook of practice management. London : RIBA Publications.

McDonough, W. (2002). Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. New York : North Point Press

McLean, W. & Silver, P. (2008). Introduction to architectural technology. London : Laurence King Publishing.

Melhuish, C. (2005). Modern house 2. London : Phaidon.

Murdoch, J. R. & Hughes, W. (2008). Construction contracts: law and management. London : Taylor & Francis.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2002). 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

RIBA. (2005). Architect’s handbook of practice management. London : RIBA Publications

Ruskin, J. (1860). The stones of venice. London : George Routledge.

Saint, A. (1983). The image of the architect. New Haven  : Yale University Press.

Sebestyen, G. (2003). New architecture & technology. Oxford : Architectural Press

Temple, N. & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2001). Thinking practice: reflections on architectural research and building work. Black Dog Publishing  : London.

Refer

ence

s and

Bibli

ogra

phy

329

Journals

Hopkirk, E. (2011). Anger as us firms chosen for embassy frameworks. Building Design. Oct 09, Issue 1987, p.1.

Hopkirk, E. & Wilding, M. (2012). RIBA urged to act more quickly over wasteful procurement. Building Design. April 05, Issue 2008, p.1.

Klettner, A. (2011). Angela Brady: overhauling procurement. Building Design. Sept 02, Issue 1979, p.3.

Klettner, A. & Wilding, M. (2011). Architects back new riba chief in cool revolution. Building Design. Sept 02, Issue 1979, p.1.

Oosterman, A. (2012). Architect as entrepreneur. Volume. February 12, vol. 30, pp.152-154.

Oosterman, A. (2012). Volume for sale. Volume. February 12, vol. 30, pp.2-3.

Ruby, A. (2012). Redefining the minimum subsistence dwelling today. Domus. March, Vol. 956, pp.VI.

Woodman, E. (2011). Fortune favours the brave. Building Design. December 16, Issue 1994, p.2.

Woodman, E. (2012). RIBA is taking too long to spell out the need to change. Building Design. April 05, Issue 2008, p.2.

Dodds, M. (2007). Profiting from integration. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.strategicforum.org.uk/pdf/ITGReport120308.pdf. [Accessed: March 015, 2012]

Fieldhouse, E. (2011). Assembling Hackney Wick. . [Internet]. Available from: http://www.blueprintmagazine.co.uk/index.php/everything-else/assembling-hackney-wick/. [Accessed: November 25, 2012]

Hawkes, A. & Kollewe, J. (2011). Gherkin architect declares end of London skyscraper boom. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/20/gherkin-architect-london-skyscraper. [Accessed: December15, 2011]

Hope, C. (2011). The Daily Telegraph: hands off our land. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8884269/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Enough-brownfield-land-to-build-1.5million-new-homes-CPRE-claims.html. [Accessed: January 27, 2012]

Internet World Stats. (2012). Internet usage stats and market profile. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/eu/uk.htm. [Accessed: March 015, 2012]

Investopedia. (2012). Risk management. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/riskmanagement.asp#axzz1sx8Ys5NX. [Accessed: March 15, 2012]

Logan, K. (2010). Contested urbanity. [Internet]. Available from: http://mysite.pratt.edu/~jwilli20/tarp/tarp_Logan.pdf. [Accessed: October 26, 2011]

Moore, R. (2011). The Guardian: meet Britain’s brightest young architects. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/09/young-architects-cineroleum-franks-hastings. [Accessed: October 26, 2011]

Oxford Dictionary. (2012). Crowd funding. [Internet]. Available from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/crowdfunding?q=crowd+funding. [Accessed: April 10, 2012]

Internet

Architecture 00:/. (2012). The place station. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architecture00.net/projects.php. [Accessed: March 01, 2012]

BBC News. (2012). Nick Clegg plans more employee ownership. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16570840. [Accessed: January 16, 2012]

BBC News. (2012) Skyscrapers’ linked with impending financial crashes’. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16494013. [Accessed: January 11, 2012]

Brione, P. & Nicholson, C. (2012). Employee ownership: unlocking growth in the uk economy. [Internet]. Available from:http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/employee-ownership.pdf. [Accessed: March18, 2012]

Centre for Economic & Social Justice. (2010). Value based management: a system for building an ownership culture. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.cesj.org/vbm/vbmsummary.htm. [Accessed: March 23, 2012]

Communities and Local Government. (2011). A plain English guide to the localism bill. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1818597.pdf. [Accessed: February 21, 2012]

Communities and Local Government. (2012). Community right to build. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/newsroom/pdf/1647749.pdf. [Accessed: February 21, 2012]

Communities and Local Government. (2010). Tenure and change in deprived areas. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1462924.pdf. [Accessed: March 03, 2012]

Refer

ence

s and

Bibli

ogra

phy

331

Oxford City Council. (2006). Oxford local plan 2001-2016. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/Planning_Policy_occw.htm. [Accessed: January 27, 2012]

Strategic Forum for Construction. (2006). Business Case for Integrated Collaborative Working. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.strategicforum.org.uk/pdf/SFfC14.11.07Meeting.pdf. [Accessed: March 015, 2012]

RIBA. (2011). About us. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/AbouttheRIBA.aspx. [Accessed: February 15, 2012]

RIBA. (2011). Guide to localism: opportunities for architects. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/GuidetoLocalism-Part1NeighbourhoodPlanning.pdf. [Accessed: February 21, 2012]

RIBA. (2011). Our history. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/Ourhistory.aspx. [Accessed: February 15, 2012]

RIBA. (2011). Public sector procurement riba position paper. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/Practice/MicrosoftWord-10-04-08PublicSectorProcurement-RIBApositionpaper.pdf. [Accessed: March 25, 2012]

Silverman, E., Lupton, R. & Fenton. (2005). A good place for children. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1905018126.pdf. [Accessed: March 03, 2012]

Sturgess, E. (2011). Pop-up restaurants: here today, gone tomorrow. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/26/pop-up-restaurants-this-summer?INTCMP=SRCH. [Accessed: November 25, 2012]

The Benefits of Internet Marketing. (2012). Benefits of internet marketing. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.benefitsofinternetmarketing.com/. [Accessed: March 015, 2012]

The Co-Operative Group. (2012). What is a co-operative? [Internet]. Available from: http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/widermovement/. [Accessed: March18, 2012]

Till, J. (2011). Occupational hazard. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architectural-review.com/view/occupational-hazard/8622908.article. [Accessed: January 21, 2012]

Trench, A. (2010). The Daily Telegraph: cineroleum, cinema in a petrol station. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-blog/7971777/Cineroleum-cinema-in-a-petrol-station.html [Accessed: October 26, 2011]

Waite, R. (2009). RIBA to bin outdated fee scale graphs. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/-r iba-to-bin-outdated-fee -scale -graphs/5209827.article. [Accessed: February 20, 2012]

Interviews

Benson, J. , Walters, N. & Else, J. (2011). Interview with authors. London. November 9. [Interview with the project manager firm SLW, who work on large scale projects within the city of London].

Bramwell, A. (2011). Interview with the authors. Oxford. November 22. Interview with the director of Bramwell Hall Projects, a project manager working on projects such as the Cutty Sark].

Evans, J. & Lang, A. (2011). Interview with the authors. Leicester. November 9. [Interview with Corporate Architecture, a regional architecture practice based in Leicester].

Feilden, F. (2011). Interview with the authors. London. November 16. [Interview with a director from Feilden Fowles, an emerging young design practice based in East London].

Gruenanger, M. (2011). Interview with the authors. London. November 22. [Interview with the director of Space Group, an emerging young architecture practice London undertaking a number of design competitions and with ambitions to work abroad].

Hall, J. (2011). Interview with the authors. Oxford. November 4. [Interview with the director of Bramwell Hall Architects, a sole practitioner undertaking residential work in Oxford].

Jones, D. (2011). Interview with the authors. London. November 4. [Interview with a partner of Civic Architects, a small practice based in London interested in community participation projects].

Norman, P. (2011). Interview with the authors. Oxford. November 29. [Interview with a partner of Oxford Architecture, a medium sized practice based in Oxford, but with another office in Bristol].

Refer

ence

s and

Bibli

ogra

phy

333

Debates

Duncan, J. (2011). This house believes that contractors are the architects of the future. Debate: London : RIBA, 30 November.

Manuel, T. (2011). This house believes that contractors are the architects of the future. Debate: London : RIBA, 30 November.

McClain, J. (2011). This house believes that contractors are the architects of the future. Debate: London : RIBA, 30 November.

Ryan, F. (2012). Oxfordshire community land trust business plan. Oxford : OCLT.

Saint, A. (1983). The image of the architect. New Haven  : Yale University Press.

Spedding, K. (2010). The really practical guide to starting up your own buiness. Milton Keynes : Author House UK Ltd.

Vaid, H. (2003). Branding. London : Cassell Illustrated.

Bibliography

Literary

Abrahams, T. (2010). Ideas exchange: the collaborative studio of Hawkins\Brown. Basel : Birkhäuser GmbH.

Baudrillard, J. (2010). The consumer society. London  : Sag Publications Ltd.

Betsky, A. (1990). Violated perfection. New York  : Rizzoli International Publications.

Conrad, U. (1970). Programmes and manifestoes on 20th century architecture. 2. London : Lund Humphries.

Harrigan, J. E. & Neel, P. R. (1996). The executive architect: transforming designers into leaders. New York : John Wiley & Sons.

Jamieson, C. (2011). The future for architects. London : RIBA.

Koller, T. (1994), Valuation: measuring and managing the value of companies. New York : Wiley & Sons.

Le Corbusier. (1964). The radiant city. 2nd ed. London : Faber and Faber.

Long, K. (2008). Hatch: the new architectural generation. London  : Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

Lupton, S. Cox, S. & Clamp, H. (2007). Which contract? choosing the appropiate building contract. London : RIBA Publishing.

MVRDV. (2005). KM3 excursions on capacities. Barcelona : Actar.

Power, A. & Rogers, R. (2000). Cities for a small country. London  : Faber and FaberLTD.

RIBA. (2003). Tomorrow’s architect. London : RIBA Publishing. Refer

ence

s and

Bibli

ogra

phy

335

Journals

Buxton, P. (2011). Recycling offices. Building Design. November 18, issue 1990, pp. 11-13.

Hopkirk, E. (2011). Global earnings of uk’s biggest practices up 25%. Building Design. December 16, Issue 1994, p.1.

Jones, D. (2008). Last word. Green Places. February, p. 22.

Jones, D. (2008). People power. Green Places. March 2008, pp. 28-33.

Klettner, A. (2011) Aedas to expand its presence in china. Building Design. November 25, issue 1991, p. 6.

Klettner, A. (2011). Working abroad: haptic architects. Building Design. November 18, issue 1990, pp. 6-7.

Roberts-Hughes, R. (2011). RIBA welcomes new localism act. Building Design. November 18, issue 1990, p. 3.

Travers, T. & Chambers, R. (2011). Should we build an airport in the Thames Estuary. Building Design. November 11, issue 1989, p. 9.

Wilding, M. (2011). Alsop opens offices in China and Canada. Building Design. November 11, issue 1989, p. 6.

Wilding, M. (2011). Foster establishes Shanghai outpost. Building Design. November 11, issue 1989, p. 6.

Woodman, E. (2011). Democratising planning. Building Design. November 11, issue 1989, p. 2.

Woodman, E. (2011). Specialists are winning out. Building Design. November 18, issue 1990, p. 2.

Henley, J. (2010). The Guardian: is John Lewis the best company in Britain to work for?. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/16/john-lewis. [Accessed: October 14, 2011]

John Lewis Partnership. (2011). John Lewis Partnership: about John Lewis Partnership. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html. [Accessed: October 09, 2011]

OCLT. (2011). What is a community land trust. [Internet]. Available from: http://oclt.org.uk/. [Accessed: January 25, 2012]

RIBA. (2011). RIBA response to ppn 11/11: executive summary. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/SmartPFI/RIBAResponsetoProcurementPolicyNote11.pdf. [Accessed: March 10, 2012]

RIBA. (2011). Royal Institute of British Architects: Localism. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/GuidetoLocalism-Part1NeighbourhoodPlanning.pdf. [Accessed: November 17, 2011]

Trench, A. (2010). The Daily Telegraph: cineroleum, cinema in a petrol station. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-blog/7971777/Cineroleum-cinema-in-a-petrol-station.html [Accessed: October 26, 2011]

Urban Splash. (2011). Urban Splash: our story. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/about-us/our-story. [Accessed: October 26, 2011]

Internet

Acanthus Architects. (2011). About Acanthus Architects. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.acanthus.co.uk/default.aspx?mid=1. [Accessed: October 13, 2011]

Achilles. (2011). Brief guide to public sector: EU procurement legislation. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.achi l les.com/Documents/Scheme%20Documents/UK/EC%20Services/Public_Sector_2011.pdf. [Accessed: March 10, 2012]

Benedictus, L. (2005). The Guardian. I want this to be the best studio in the world. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2005/may/02/architecture.regeneration. [Accessed: October 10, 2011]

Business Link (2009). Prepare a business plan. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?topicId=1073869162. [Accessed: December 01, 2011]

Design Council, (2009). Getting work through public sector tender. [Internet]. Available from:http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources-and-events/designers/guides/getting-work-through-public-sector-tenders/ [Accessed: March 09, 2012]

Elvidge, J. (2010). Yetanothergin review: frank’s campari bar. [Internet]. Available from: http://yetanothergin.co.uk/index.php/places/review-franks-campari-bar-peckham-carpark-london. [Accessed: October 17, 2011]

Foster & Partners. (2011). About foster & partners. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx. [Accessed: November 23, 2011]

Gelt, J. (2011). LA Times: night life: these businesses are built not to last. [Internet]. Available from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/16/entertainment/la-et-popup-20110416 [Accessed: October 22, 2011]

Refer

ence

s and

Bibli

ogra

phy

337

Interviews

Bates, F. (2011). Interview with the authors. London. November 30. [Interview with a Director at London based engineering firm Design Consultancy Engineers].

Jones, E. (2012). Interview with the authors. London. January 04. [Interview with a London based commercial developer, PMB Paribas].

Nicholls, J. (2011). Interview with the authors. London. December 15. [Interview with a Director at Make Architects].

Toon, J. (2011). Interview with the authors. London. November 30. [Interview with a structural engineer London based Design Consultancy Engineers].

Fig 9Unknown. Risk. [online image]. Available from: http://www.free-desktop-backgrounds.net/Miscellaneous-pictures/Signs-wallpaper-images/Play-at-your-own-risk-sign.html. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 10Studio 47. (2012). Archi-Prison. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 11Scott, M. (2011). One Hyde Park. [online image]. Available from: http://murrayscottphotography.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/one-hyde-park-092.jpg. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 12Montrasio, J. (2008). Central Chine Television Headquarters. [online image]. Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37803129@N00/2436481628. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 13Unknown. Division of labour. [online image]. Available from: http://biogeneamine.fu-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/markierte-Bienen-2011.jpg. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 14Beauty Scribbler. (2010). RIBA Entrance. [online image]. Available from: http://www.beautyscribbler.com/2010/09/im-baaack-few-wedding-photos-for-ya.html. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 15RIBA. (2011). RIBA gallery. [online image]. Available from: http://www.ribablogs.com/?s=gold+medal+exhibition. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 16Travel House. (2010). EU flag. [online image]. Available from: http://www.travelhouseuk.co.uk/travelGallery/index.php/flags-635972887/eu_flag. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Images

Fig 1Jones, S. (2012). Studio 47. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 2Studio 47. (2012). The architect through the ages. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 3Blades, W. (1891). Scriptorium monk at work. [online image]. Available from: http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Blades-Pentateuch/pages/scriptorium-monk-at-work/. [Accessed 02 December 2011]

Fig 4Cadman, S. (2008). Lincoln Cathedral. [online image]. Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/98115025@N00/2739691832/ Lincoln Cathedral. [Accessed 02 December 2011]

Fig 5Da Vinci, L. (1487). Virtruvian Man. [online image]. Available from: http://www.muir.ca/letour/harmony/images/VitruvianMan1000.jpg. [Accessed 02 December 2011]

Fig 6Cadman, S. (2007). RIBA Entrance. [online image]. Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevecadman/419764733/. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 7Blaser, W. (1962). Mies Van Der Rohe. [online image]. Available from: http://www.designboom.com/portrait/mies/b1.jpg. [Accessed 02 December 2011]

Fig 8Mitchell, E. (1959). Frank Lloyd Wright. [online image]. Available from: http://0.tqn.com/d/gosw/1/0/I/P/frank.jpg. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Refer

ence

s and

Bibli

ogra

phy

339

Fig 17Studio 47. (2012). Procurement in the press. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 18Studio 47. (2012). An alternative model. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 19Guichard, A. (2010). 30 St Mary Axe. [online image]. Available from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/30_St_Mary_Axe_from_Leadenhall_Street.jpg. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 20Studio 47. (2012). Architectural Dross. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 21Free Photos. (2011). Burj Khalifa. [online image]. Available from: http://www.free-photos.biz/images/architecture/buildings/burj_khalifa_005.jpg. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 22Cummings, N. (2011). Occupy London. [online image]. Available from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Occupy_London_Tent.jpg. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 23Gould, D. (2011). Occupy London. [online image]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/15/occupy-london-occupies-cif. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 24Studio Tilt. (2010). Studio Tilt Workshop. [online image]. Available from: http://www.studiotilt.com/blog/2011/02/. [Accessed 04 Jan 2011]

Fig 25Public Works. (2009). Wick Curiosity Shop. [online image]. Available from: http://www.publicworksgroup.net/2009/02/02/wcstransparent03.png. [Accessed 18 Jan 2012]

Fig 26Atelier Bow-Wow. (2008). Atelier Bow-Wow. [online image]. Available from: http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/1910549865_habw-18.jpg. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 27Jordan, L. (2007).Financial Crash. [online image]. Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30249912@N00/1393780566. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 28Urban Splash. (2011). Park Hill Development. [online image]. Available from: http://parkhillflats-sheffield.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/sheffield-housing-dream-is-left-in.html. [Accessed 05 March 2012]

Fig 29Stemberg, M. (2010). Cineroleum. [online image]. Available from: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01705/Cineroleum-photo-b_1705239c.jpg. [Accessed 02 December 2011]

Fig 30Jones, L. (2011). Folly for a flyover. [online image]. Available from: http://www.conrantalkingshop.com/uk/on-the-town/folly-for-a-flyover-photographer-lewis-jones/. [Accessed 02 December 2011]

Fig 31Studio 47. (2012). Development consideration diagrams. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 32Studio 47. (2012). Studio 47 development consideration diagram. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 33Studio 47. (2012). The cooperative structure. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 46Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen pop up sequence. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 47Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen construction process. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 48Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen set up. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 49Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen business plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 50Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 51Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 52Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen chowder. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 53Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen appropriation. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 54Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen folded up. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 55Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen collage. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 56Studio 47. (2012). OCLT site analysis. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 57Studio 47. (2012). OCLT design meeting. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 58Studio 47. (2012). OCLT design meeting. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 59Studio 47. (2012). OCLT client meeting. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 34The Conservative Party. (2010). Bige society. [online image]. Available from: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vxRM7z378Jk/TVFu1mk_OKI/AAAAAAAAoME/CnPGSPyuhk8/s1600/big.jpg. [Accessed 02 December 2011]

Fig 35Studio 47. (2012). The spatial network. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 36Studio 47. (2012). Spatialnetwork.co.uk. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 37Studio 47. (2012). Studio 47’s Twitters. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 38Studio 47. (2012). The London festival of architecture. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 39Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the team. London : HMSO

Fig 40Studio 47. (2012). The traverse. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 41Archibald, L. (2010). Frank’s bar. [online image]. Available from: http://blog.mawi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/franks3.jpg. [Accessed 08 November 2011]

Fig 42Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen exploded axonometric. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 43Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen in transit. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 44Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen section. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 45Studio 47. (2012). Pop up kitchen in-situ. Oxford : Studio 47

Refer

ence

s and

Bibli

ogra

phy

341

Fig 60Studio 47. (2012). OCLT massing. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 61Studio 47. (2012). OCLT massing. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 62Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option A site plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 63Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option A view from above. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 64Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option A ground floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 65Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option A first floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 66Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option A second floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 67Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option A visual. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 68Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option B site plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 69Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option B view from above. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 70Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option B ground floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 71Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option B first floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 72Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option B visual. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 73Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option C site plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 74Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option C view from above. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 75Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option C ground floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 75Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option C ground floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 76Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option C first floor plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 77Studio 47. (2012). OCLT option C visual. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 78Jones, S. (2012). OCLT participation. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 79Studio 47. (2012). OCLT action day. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 80Jones, S. (2012). OCLT community led design. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 81Jones, S. (2012). OCLT stickers. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 82Jones, S. (2012). OCLT results. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 83Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower strategy diagram. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 84Studio 47. (2011). Blackbird Leys. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 85Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower site analysis. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 86Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower massing. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 87Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower site plan. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 88Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower pixelated. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 89Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower design generation. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 90Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower exploded diagram. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 91Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower appropriation strategy. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 92Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower appropriation 2015. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 93Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower appropriation 2020. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 94Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower appropriation diagram. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 95Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower crowd funding. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 96Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower appropriation 2025. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 97Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower the park. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 98Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower floor plans in context. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 99Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower bottom floor plans. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 100Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower top floor plans. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 101Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower section. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 102Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower parti-diagram. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 103Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower detail section. Oxford : Studio 47

Fig 104Studio 47. (2012). The metabolic tower in context. Oxford : Studio 47

343