1 10 7 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/4f44d6c8f639a5b5732aed0039f61420.pdf 2bd92f381891de8ed2e572aa5f30313f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Progress Report Subject The topic of the resource Report prepared for the 2nd NAM Congress, Blackpool 11pp Description An account of the resource NAM � PRrvnTC WORKING CROUP The Net,' Architecture movement, North London Group November 1076 PROGRESS REPORT Prepared for the New Architecture movement Conference, 81 ackpool , November 26-28, 1976. 9 ADDENOUtm: Draft Propo'el for a more Representative, Lay—Control I ed ARCUK 10 Part One OUR POINT Research, analY9i9, debate and nctfnn towards moro democratic, effective end prcountahle oractire of architpcturp hag hardly hpqun. It i q our feel inn it 'dill not occur outside the context of gneci f f c campafnnq that en he lat'nrhod hy in the very near future. Such cemneinng nenerAte nuhlfcity and create the atmosnhere of credibility and action that attract to us the hum*n and material resources needed to carry out the task and will remove it from tho realm of idle groculation. We in the "Private Practice working Croup" have begun to enpronch our subject from that stand— noint. The privpte sector account9 for over half of the rrof999ion, and uri9hino won't make it on moreover, itå influence ig even greater than f ts "numerical 'trenotht' miQht sugpegt. Private practice hrs, by and large, orovided the model -——excess hierarchy and bureaucracy, elitism, over—central— i sat ion, nrofit-oriented accountino, lack of accountability, etc. ———for nuh— lic nrortire. Its influence on the structure of the orofeggion---its ethos, code- 2nd regulation-, control of nrofesgional even more nrofound, 99 is its influence unon architectural education. We are hopeful, therefore, that our analysis and proposals may be, at least in broad outline, relevant as well to the public practice of architecture. 'L'e do not believe, then, that the solution to the problems of orivate prac— t ice, from the point of viet,f either of the frustrated, exoloited and alien— *ted workers Within it or of the communities that suffer from its products, i 9 ten! ace it nublic practice we now know it. Vhile progressive chenoe in nublic practice may he both necessary end nosgible, we don't gee why chanoeg in private practice cannot go on concurrently. we believe that the shortest and suregt route from private practice as it now ig to a oract ice of •rchitecture Which is democratically—structured and directly account— able to the communitv i 9 the direct one. t.'e ere by now all familiar with the "crisis in architecture" end how it effects both the ','orkere in the orofe99ion and the communities who must use its nroducts. Without ignoring the underlying nolitical and economic frame— work of Which architecture is merely a minor part, we believe that the ta'av -echitecttJte is not,' rrpctised is prime cause of the trouble. for the •rchitecturel worker, private practice today means: lack of joh 90curitv end declininq real income; soeed-un and cuttinn of cornerr; excesqive hierarchy end bureaucracv; arbitrary and excessive division of labour; aliena- t ion of the nrchitoct at the drawino board from t" client, the uner and the product; count-or-productive competition betw on workers nnd division into etatug groups; excessive pay differentiale; undemocretic dociefon-makino structures; manaoement secrecy; etc. From tho noint of view of the community, the lack of accountehility 19 the key problem. Thi' 19 not unrelated to the effect9 of the profit orientation of nrivate practice: a lack of concern for the community which heg reached ncnndaloug proportione in cages like Centropoint, Summerland, end Poulson: end the generally poor quality of work regultinq from an inability effectively to mobilige the abilitieg end committment of architectural workers, an ineffective structure of responsibility, and the alienation of tho architectural worker from the product end the ugor. Part Two or ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE N.D. m. solution to the "cri9i9 in architecture" should be b*99d on the twin cornerstone's of workers' control (or "self-menanqment t') of architec tural practice end evqtem of direct eccountabflity to the local community which uses what i 9 produced. While we ought to make very clear our goals and criteria for developing a new model of architectural practice, thig model should not be too "utopian" or completely dooendent upon a prior totransformation of the political, economic and social structure of soci ety. We must, however, make clear What changes are needed in the existing context in Which architecture is practiced in order for any siqnificant prooress to be mede. We believe these changes include: 1. effective traHe union orqanigetion of architectural and allied workerq, 7. noeitive 9teoq towards restructurino of the entire industrv into 9 decentralisgH public degion (and eventually construction) service, and 3. orogresg towards fully-public control over the allocation of resources and investment. The criteria for develooino a new model of architectural practice follow from our analysis of the present problem. While these remain to he developed in detail, we can at least say that oractice ought to be democratic rather then puthoritaripn, itarian rather than elitist, decentrali99H rather than hier?rchicel , connerative rather comoefitive, efficient rather than I,tastpful, uqe-oriented rather than orofit-orientod, productive rather than bureucratic, sharino of various tasks reolacinp esceesively narrow d' vision lahour, etc. 'dork inc from such criteria, a credible model ran he develooed. '"e 999Ume it would call for basically small (but interdeoendent), locally—based gena non-profit basis. This need not rule or moro specialiged practiceq, perhapg non—imperialiqt export, Btr. '"e believe n model , the fol lowinn nreag urnent)y need 99,19tgm engurinn prcountahflftv to the user communftv, and method of oatronane (allocation of commissions) and definition of "congti tuency, size decision-makinq structure S. "manpower" allocation and enterinr end leavinp of staff, in relation both to functioninq of practice and individual career structure, 6. approach to the *i location of managerial, techriC91, clerical and menial tasks, 7 "scone" of the practice, includino it9 relation to related disciolines and to the construction 9ide of the industry, "inteqrity" of tho practice: its relation to other practices, degree and tyneg of specialisation. ond trance, relations nancing, legal structure, educational role, and IS. research role. "'e are convinced that a thorough study of the above-mentioned aspects, as well as a detailed evaluation of the isolated attempts Which have been made to set up "model" nractices, u'ill make very clear the need for general public design (and maybe construction) service as 9 context outside of which significant and extensive reform of orivate practice alono the 1 ineq we pro— oose be inconceivable. We are not yet in a position to oropoge What such a public design service (as a framework for small, locally-based col— lective rrpcticeg) WOU1d be. rts relation to (l)construction, planning end development control, (3) building control, (a) orofessional education, (S) research and development, (f) settino of "standards," (7) liability and insurance, (8) trade union organisation, and (9) nrofessional institutions •11 need to be carefully congidered. need to eddreqs as well thn cuegtionq of decent r?) i sat ion, control, r•eqources el location, h'ork location, end t s e relation in hoth the short and Iono term of guch a ouhlic ervice the orivate sector (i.e. , both nrivate oracticeq 2nd nrivate client'). thorouoh critical evaluation of National Health Service exrerience over the 1 Ast thirty years would be useful ouide In develooinq our nroposels. 0 Sit of research into the various architectural (and construction) sarvf cog are provided in some socialist countring %'0U1d orobably 9180 provtdo some "90fu1 19990n9. The next 9teo uyould be to outline 0099ib1e roads towards reali9inq tho new model .of architectural practice. We would obviously have to consider not only private practice 99 tho 9tartinq point but local authority and other oublic orectice 99 well. 'de should he oriented towardg both 9hort-term and lonq-term strateoieg. Any campeiong N. A.m. mipht launch or guooort renardfnn unioni92tion, the use of public patronage, ARCUK and then code of conduct" should take such 9trateqy into account. Some people in N. A.m. have urged that providing guidelines for architects wighino to convert a private practice into a gel f-managed "co-op" (or estab ligh a new practice along those lines) within the present totally capital int context should be orioritv of the "private practice workino oroup." While we don't u'Rnt to di9couraqe such pioneerinp efforts from beino made and ree thet there ig much to be gained by 9tudyino, evaluating and publici9ing their exoerience, we do feel that the main road to worker—controlled, account— able oracticeg lieg not through these "one-off" efforts but through the de velormpnt of ta'orkere' power (thus, unionisation), 9 public design service as a fr9mework, and far—reaching political changes. Dart Three ACTION camPAIGNS WHICH N.A.m. couto LAUNCH There ere three camnaions which we believe N. A.m. should launch as soon nossihle for concrete action in support of these proposals: trade union orqanisation of all architectural and allied workers, especi— 311 y in the almost totally unorqanised private sector, reform of the Architects Registration Acts (and ARCUK) in several key ways, end an attack uoon oublic patronaoe of practices which do not meet our critria. 0t the game time we should continue research, education end publ icity work on the subject of architectural oractice. As part of this, 99 well as in suoport of the three above-mentioned campaigns, we ask for your assistance in oromotino the "Interior Perspective" project Which is being launched at this conference. '-de believe also thet as part of its campaiqn for pccountabilitv, N. n. m. should try to develoo in collaboration with community action groups, tenants associations, trades councils, etc. joint campaion for tenant-control of housinm The housing aqsociation front may be particularly amenable to pro— �89 thi9 has been on area of frequent legislative concern and thn precpdent of tnnant-controllod housinq aggociationg already exists. 09 thig cnmpaiqn would depl nrimarily ta'ith the broader problem of accountability, the "private practice working group" hag not taken it on but hag concentrated its efforts on proposals for it9 three main campaigns. It should be noted, however, that housinq association, When doing its own architectural work "in house," provides an exist inq non-profit leoal form of orcani9ation which can be taken 99 en alternative to partngrships, companies, and local authorities. That scope for progrogs oxiot9 here hae been demonstrated by the Solon Housing Association, a comparatively democratic architectural or*ctice now being combined with tenant-controlled management. A campaign could at some point be launched to expand this little crack in the capitnl19t structure of the private sector, through publicity, lobbyinq for reform of housino association legislation and oregsure on thn government to channel it9 financial guroort, essential to housinp eggociations, into tenant-run hougino 9990ciation9 emnloyinq worker-controlled in-hougo or consultant architectural practices. In any event, ell democratically—organised, popularbased client qrouos are much more likely to patronise worker-run practices then ere authoritarian "establishment" clients and are, thug, deserving of our support and encouragement. 1. Ornanisation of Architectural and Allied Workers The "Private Prectire Workinrp Groun" is convinced that the democrati9Ation of prartice, as well thn development of accountability to users, can only occur through the act inns of architectural workers, who make uo nearly 904 of the "profession. Real control will never, to any significant extent, be handed over voluntarily by the hogseg. 'dorkerg' control requires workers' power, and Dower comes through solidaritv. Solidarity requires organigation. In our context, that can only mean trade unionism. Pt the oregent time, the 20,000 architectural workerq in the private sector ere almost comoletely unorganised. "Je get the highest priority, therefore, on the oreanisetion o' unorpanised architecture) ',torkers into qtrnnn, democr•tic 3nd hroed-mindod t rede union and the initiation thrownh that medium of milit9nt "shoo-floor" nnd "industry level" action for t,torkerg t control. This may nrovp to be a necessary orereouisite to effectively pur— suing the other two campeigns we ere oroposinr,. The subject of organisation has been dealt with in the Unionisation Working Croup's draft reoort orepared for this conference. 2. Reform of the Architects Reqi9tration Acts While there 19 a tendency to goe the Architects Reqi8tration Actg ag reac— tionary elitist and protectionist legislation, or at best meroly irrelevant, is our opinion that It 19 a fertile field for immediate N. A.m. action. The Architects Registration Acts established, however ineffectively, the principle of popular, lay control over the entire profession (even if it is by way of a pretty imperfect parliamentary system). Thi B principle could be exploited now in the context of great public disillusionment with the performance of the profession, following Centrepoint, Summerland, Poulgon and general dissatisfaction with the environment created (or destroyed) in the last 25 years. A campaign to reform the Architects Registration Acts, which form an interface between the public and the profession, will provide 09 99 well with an opportunity to spread our megsaoe and build solid base beyond the confines of the orofB9Bion itgelf and will coincide with effortq beinr; made for 1 ay control and accountability in other professions. The nrchitpctg Reti9tration Actg of 1931 and 193B restrict the use of the title, "architect," to those whose name rppears on the Register of Architerfs mefnfained hy the nrchitectg Reoiqtration Council of the United Kingdom (n o.C'-'V) %'hich established by the act. Entry to the Register ig now solely by academic exemination under the control of PRCUK'9 Education and Admissions committees. The Acts, unfortunately, rather than creatinn a "consumers' wetch— dog," put control of AECUK and of enforcement of tho Acts in the hands of erchitectural manaqemm t. Since its inceotion, ARCUK has by 2nd laroe deleoated ell its resnonsibilitåes for architectural education to the R IBP. The Architects Reoi9tration Acts thus established by statute a form of "man— power plannino" for the profession. In practice this has meant a loqally— sanctioned division of architectural workers into two classes, increasingly denyinn entry into the "orofesgion oroper" to peoole of workinn-clasg background or Who mipht otherwise tend to upset architectural management's neat little applecart. The increasing insistence on four or five yearg of full—time academic architectural education aims also to remove from the architectural employer his responsibility for on-the-job training and continuing education and to delay the architect's entry into the profession and into oroductive and remunerative work. Perhaos by that time the younn architect's awareness and expectations may be trimmed down to sixe and obl ined to take into account a family and a mortoape. The effects of this approach to the traininr of architects are, alas, for ell to see. ORCUK has also promulgated a Code of Conduct, which, in theory, must be fol- 1 owed by architects in order to remain on the Reoister. This code i 9 identical to thet of the employers' organigation and makes mandatory the use of the R IBP Conditionq of tnoeqement. The only parts of the Code, other AfiCUK regul t ions and provisions of the Architects Registration Acto which seem to be enforced urith any degree of seriousness at all are those Which aim to pro— tect the privileged position of architectural employers and keen competition among them operating in the interests of architectural employers ag a group. The Code does, however, clearly establish the principle of control "in the public interest" by ARCtJK over: I. what forms of practice are permitted among architects, 2. how architects may oet work, 3. hot.' erchitect9 may relate to one another and to their other employees, in business and orofeosional terms, and the architect' 9 resoons bility to "those Who may be expected to use or enjoy the product of his work" (which may be taken to mean both thoge who build buildinos and those who inhabit buildings). We believe that the main reason that ARCtJK has not exercised effective control over the profession in the nuhlic interest lieg in its control by ar— chitectural management. Of the 66 members of ARCUK, 56 (or 85<) are P. IBA members. There ere four non-RIBA architects and six "laymen" (04). Who are the six Four are nominees of the Councils of chartered institutions in related building orofessions and the remaining two represent employers in the building industry. Of the 60 architect members of ARCUK we have been able to identify the occunational status of 57 of them. (The other three ere, in any event, 911 R IBA members.) Of these 57, no less than 31 are partners in private oractice end two more are chief architecte in Biq Business. Thus, 58 4 ere 509999 in the private sector. Eight are chief architect9 or deputy chief architects in the public sector and three are professors or heads of schools of architecture. Thug, 44 of the 57 (or 77'.) are architectural menegement, ell RI BD.. Of the galaried architects, eight are in the public sector and only four in private practice. Some of those are presumably of "associate" status. So architectural workers, 'Jho make up at leagt of registered architects, have *round of the architects' representation on ARCUK. Yet oartners in nrivate nractice, who amount to about 15"' of registered archi— tects, have of the architectural representation on ARCL'K. We oropose that tho Prchitectural Reqistration Acts he amended to establish lay control over the profession, which will make a beoinninq towards account— ability. gy "lay control" we mean a lay majoritv on ARCUK, and a lay majority rerresentative of the general public es a whole, the real "consumers" of archi— tecture. The minority of architect members must also be more renresentative Of the nrofesqion. To encourqqe this, we nropose •n end to the nomination of architectural reoresentativeg hy the PI gn Council and similar bodi99, substituting direct elections within eech of the different interest orouD9 in the profeseion, with each group's representation baged on ite numerical 9trenoth In the profession. Pregumably, the orouoo would he, employers of, three or more peoole, other self-employed architecto, salaried architectural management, and all other 981aried or unemployed architectq: the architectural workers. We have already developed one 0099ih1e proposal for a more reoregentative and lay—controlled A9Ct!K. This nonearg in detail in the nppendix. In addition to rgform of PP.CIJK, we feel that N. n. m . should develop a reason*blv credible pronogal for chanqinn the restriction on the toge of the title, "erchitect," to rtJ1p out its use by architectural businessmen and bureau— crafs t,'ho have long 9ince ceased to desion buildinnq, prenare plans, and gunervi99 construction, as the word architect 19 commonly understood. They ghould oerhan9 be allowed to use titles like "ex-architect" or "erchitecturel executive." While such a proposal is unlikely to pet far enough to obl ine us to support the principle of protection of the title of architect, it might be useful for educational, organi9inp and oublicity ournogeq. r'Tther wo-k involvod Ir. d.n veloning a campafqn to reform the Architects Registration Acts would entail proposing a new, more explicit statement of purpose of the Acts and of ARCIJK'g brief, in line with N.A.". '9 goals of B democraticelly—organiged "profesgion, t' directly accountable to the community. We could outline a more epproprlete Code of Conduct or suggest a better way of ensuring accountability, democrecy, and competence. We would el so need to make proposals regarding ARCUK's control over architecturel education, ending its delegation to the RIBA and regarding entry into and removal from the Register. Ultimately, a realistic and equitable means of financing and structuring ARCUK as an effective working organisatlon In the public Interest would also need to be worked out. If N. A.m. Is to go further on the subject of the Architects Registration Acts, it Should be it can develop, mount end etJ9t9±n an effective campaion. If are not 9trong enough, the employers' oroanisetlone Will take the ornortunfty to ough throtJ0h harmless, phoney "reform." That, of course, may well haooen even tJIthotJt our Initiative. We are in a bit of a vicious circle, 29 well, since, we believe, only through such campaigns will N.A. m. be able to build up its strength. 3. Positive use of Public Patronaqe N. A.m. should immediately begin to develop criteria of industrial democracy, fair employment practices, and accountability, and system of applying these crftnrfn In the dl'penolnq of public patronage of architecture, as over of all architectural work 19, apparently, funded by the state. 'Je ought to research exactly where and to what extent the government ultimately pays the architect" foos and begin to demand that this money not bp used to support practices which do not meet these criteria. we might begin with a campaign to avoid supporting the most reactionary practices. In any case, a suitable strategy remaing to be developed. 'Je have as yet done little urork In th19 area but believe it could prove quite fruitful. It certainly COU1d begin to divert the "patronage debate" from the lese produc— tive arena of a simple conflict between the public and private sectors, where it ultimately workg mainly to the bosses' interests. 991 E r BIBL Ken Coates and Tony Tonham, The New Unioni'm: The Cage for Workers' Control, Penguin Books paperback, 1974. ESSENTIAL READING. Louis Hellman, "Democracy in Architecture," RIBA Journal, August 1973, PP 395-403. malcolm macEwen, ttWhat Can Be Done About The Architect Journal, 19 November 1975, op 1063-1084. Adam Purser, A Short History of the Architectural Profession, 1976. APPENDIX Draft Proposal for a more Representmtive. Lav-Controlled ARCUK Assuming 60 members of ARCUK, should ropregent the "profession" and the "lay" public. Of the 27 architectural representatives, 2 should be chosen by students of architecture and 3 elected by architectural technicians and assistants. The remaining 24 should be elected by registered architects. Each of the four groups of architects llsted below WOU1d be epportloned seats on ARCtJK in direct relation to its share of the total number of architects. Each group would then directly elect the required number of representatives from among its own number. The four groups are, architects who employ three or more people, other self-employed architects, salaried architectural management: chief architect9 and their deputies in public practice and private Industry and architects with positions of a comparable level in architectural research, education, etc., architectural workers: all other salaried or unemployed architoct9. The "lay" contingent would be open only to anyone not eligible to be elected to the "architectural" group. Of these 33, 14 9hOU1d be trade unionists nominated by the T.U.C. No more than half of the 14 should be union officials. At least of the 16, likewise split into officials end "lay" trade unionists, should be from the construction industry. The other 19 lay members, for 1 ack of a better system, could be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Environment, as follows: 1 . Five of these should be elected politicians, including two m.p.'g and three local councillors. Of the three locals, one should be from the GLC or a London borough, one from another urban county, end one from a rural county. Atleest one of these three should be from Scotland and another from Wales, unless ARCtJK to be devolved into ARCE, ARCS, and ARC'J. Two ghould be chosen from tenants' associations. Two should be chosen from gel f-managed houglng associations. Two should be chosen from voluntary associations. 5. Two Should be chosen from industrial and trade (employers) associatione. 5. Two Should be chosen from emong building control officers, district gur— veyors and public health officers. 7. Four should be chosen from other professions (e.g., engineering, law, medicine, planning and surveying), giving preference to those profession• not already represented. These 19 should be nominated after the other 41 have been selected end according to the f01) owino conditions. The 19 nominations must be used to redrege the balance in the total council of 60 to ensure, as as possible, that the followino groupg are not undor-ropreoonted on the Council In proportion to their percentage of the population of Britain: 1. womon, (non-management) employees, end people under the age of 45. Although all this may seem complicated, the principles are simple: lay control of the profession and e Council ag democratically-repregentative possible of the various interest groups within the profession end within society as a whole. ARCUK t 9 education and admissions committees ehould be constituted arrordfrq to agoug rr t,ncirlns. �4th N. A.M. Annual Congress 1978 Cheltenham 'Alternative Practice' Some Notes to Guide Discussion There has been no specific interest group in NAM concerned with alternative practice or 'community architecture' though there is a great deal of overlap vith the PDS group . ibvever there have been a number of developments which make it important for NAM members to clarify their position on these topics . These are The growth of groups such as Support , ARCAID , the Foinist Design and Build Group and so on . The attempts of the RIBA to get Government assistance and credibility for their ideas of 'coamunity architecture' The growing interest in co—operative models of employment in the private sector Firstly there seems little doubt that iB is feasible for a group like Support to be set up and find fee earning vork vith tenants , cotnunity; trade union and radical groups . The details of hov thig happens and the associated problems can be discussed . There are contradictions in vorking in the private sector and a debate vith the PDS group which may emerge at this congress but the demand for such a service from groups who vould shun conventional RIBA Architects must be acknowledged . By dealing with real and immediate problems it would be possible to carry out research and propoganda which vould aid the long term proposals of PDS . Meanwhile the working class and labour movement can be more effective if it has good buildings to live in and vork from Secondly there are some who advocate co—operation between NAM and the RIBA to support the Cotnunity Architecture Ibrking Group proposals for a Cocnunity Aid Fund . They are asking Reg Fresson for E 2 million . If we are -to critiscize the RIBA these critscisms should be more articulate and videiy understood . There are 'progressives' involved vith CAWG who would make overtures to NAM but independent approaches to FReeson are more likely to be in our interest . Thirdly there vas a very succesful seminar oa October 20 attended by about 30 architecst and others which discussed co—operative forms of organisimg practices . Mary Rogers vill be able co give a report on the results of this meeting It is suggested that in the morning vorkshop ve discuss general and political issues and the points of conflict and co—operation be discussed with the PDS group in the plenary . At 6p.m. in the evening ve hope that a nt.-caber of NAM members from different groups vill give short presentations vith slides about vork they have been doing Tom Woolley � Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Private Practice Working Group Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA/JM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Nov 1976 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/002230b0c0b8e3f24c7309c7bb425668.pdf cfa4fe2ef060f1ba71d99e99efdb4fe4 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Notes Subject The topic of the resource Alternative Practice to Guide Discussion' (1 side) Description An account of the resource 4th N. A.M. Annual Con$ress 1978 Cheltenham 'Alternative Practice' Some Notes to Guide Discussion There has been no specific interest group in NAM concerned vich alternative practice or 'community architecture 'though there is a great deal of overlap vith the PDS group However there have been a number of developments which make it important for NAM members to clarify their psition on these topics These are The growth of groups such as Support , ARCAD , the Feminist Design and Build Group and so on . The attempts of the RIBA to get Government assistance and credibility for their ideas of 'community architecture' The growing interest in co—operative of employment in the private sector Firstly there seems little doubt that it is feasible for a group like Support to be set up and find fee earning vork with tenants cotmnunity; trade union and radical groups . The details of how this happens and the associated problems can be discussed . There are contradictions ia vorkiag in the private sector and a debate with the PDS group which may emerge at this congress but the demand for such a service from groups who vould shun conventional RIBA Architects must be acknowledged By dealing with real and immediate problems it would be possible to carry out research and propoganda which would aid the long term proposals of PDS . Meanwhile the vorking class and labour movement can be more effective if it has good buildings to live in and vork from Secondly there are some vho advocate co—operation between NAM and the RIBA to support the Co:mnunity Architecture Group proposals for a Community Aid Fund . They are asking Reg Fresson for E 2 million . If ve are . to critiscize the RIBA these critscisms should be more articulate and videly understood . There are 'progressives' involved with CALG vho would make overtures to NAM but independent approaches to FReeson are more likely to be in our interest Thirdly there vas a very succesful seminar on October 20 attended by about 30 architecst and others which discussed co—operative forms of organis ;mg practices . Mary Rogers vill be able to give a report on the results of this meeting It is suggested that in the morning vorkshop ve discuss more general and political issues and the points of conflict and co—operation be discussed with the PDS group in the plenary . At 6p.m. in the evening ve hope that a number of NAM members from different groups vill give short presentations with slides about vork they have been doing Tom Woolley Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Tom Woolley Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/de47d02d3470650b4eccafa46490e3ff.pdf 06250635f1919ec1e222244d20669ce0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Occasional Paper Subject The topic of the resource Characteristics of Community Architecture 19pp Description An account of the resource �THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE AND COMMUNITY TECHNICAL AID Edited by Tom Woolley WHO IS PARTICIPATING? Towards a new professional role. N. John Habraken TOWARD A THEORY Of PARTICIPATION IN ARCHITECTURE C. Richard Hatch WHAT IS COMMUNITY TECHNICAL AID? A talk to the Annual Conference of the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres — Liverpool, April 27, 1985. Tom Woolley May 1985 �Preface 'Community Architecture' has received a great deal of attention from architectural papers and a small amount from national newspapers. However, attempts to define the term or to explain its characteristics and reasons for its emergence have been done in only the most superficial and journalistic terms. The three papers included here give a general overview of the subject but locate discussion of the role of designers and architects in a broader analysis of politics, economics and concepts of participation and professionalism and try to go more deeply into the subject. There is a pressing need for more detailed and specific accounts of the way in which lay people, user groups and comunity action can involve professionals but it is also essential that this should be informed by a broader view. All three papers here attempt to provoke discussion and debate around these broader issues. The first, by John Habraken, was given at an International Conference on Design Participation in April 1985 in Eindhoven. Habraken, whose ideas of 'Supports' were highly influential in the 1960s as a critique of insensitve mass housing, set up the SAR, a research unit in Eindhoven. In 1975 he moved to MIT in the USA. Habraken neatly stands the normal discourse on participation on its head. Instead of allowing people to participate, he argues it is the professionals who should be asking if thu can participate and what they have to contribute. This is a refreshing perspective when most of the journalistic accounts of community architecture give all the credit to the architects and invariably present them as the initiators of participation. The second paper by Richard H?tch sets out the principal ideas in the book, which he edited, The Scope of Social Architecture, (published by Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984). Hatch argues that the success of participation in architectural projects must be measured not so much through issues of design product and participation, but how such projects create opportunities for people to change their lives. While I reached similar conclusions in my PhD thesis (Community Architecture: An Evaluation of the Case for User Participation in Design, Oxford Polytechnic, 1985), I think there are dangers in the way Hatch presents his case. This is because he appears to be over-emphasising the idea that architects and professionals have a key role to play in changing peoples' lives and initiating projects. There are subtle differences here of emphasis and analysis but both papers should be a useful stimulus for discussion because of this. The third paper, not previously published, is the text of a talk given at the Conference of the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres in Liverpool in April 1985. In it I attempted to support •the case for Community Technical Aid as a model for how professional services for community groups and participation projects should be provided. There is likely to be a long and difficult debate about these issues as competition for Central Government funds increases. Hopefully, what unites all three papers is the idea that the yardstick for evaluating experimental professional servies, should be the way in which they benefit the users, the clients rather than the professionals themselves. Tom Woolley Glasgow, May 1985 2 WHO IS PARTICIPATING? Towards a new professional role N. John Habraken The idea of participation is a quarter century old, give or take a few years depending on how one interprets past events. It was in the early sixties that the role of the user began to be discussed in professional circles. I remember I found it encouraging that John Turner published a first article about his experiences in the barrios of Peru within a year from the publication of my own writing, based on observations in Holland. In those same years many began to speak and write about the concerns that bring us together today. But it was only in the second half of the sixties that the term "participation" came into use as a result of an intensified and increasingly politicised discussion. A review of the past must be left to the historian. I only recall the old days to suggest that the idea of participation has been around long enough for us to ask ourselves how useful it still is and to what extent the ideas can serve us in the future. This, of course, is very much a matter of conjecture and personal opinion, but it seems, nevertheless, a reasonable question to raise. I hope we wili formulate a new agenda for the future and do some projective thinking. Such thinking can not only be an extrapolation of the past but must also include a critical look at what happened so far. Perhaps the best contribution I can make as a "key-note" speaker is to give you some of my personal thinking on where we are, in the hope that it will stimulate others to the same. To begin with, I must confess that I have always been ill at ease with the term "participation" . try not to use it that frequently. It is easy to understand how the word indicates a certain position one can take relative to matters of habitation with which I sympathise. Used as a label for a common attitude I can, for instance, applaud the idea of a "participation conference" like the one we are engaged in now. The term, however, is used for two meanings that point in opposite directions. Some advocates of user participation mean user decision making power. They want to place under the responsibility of the user certain decisions that the professional is used to taking. In this case the word indicates a new balance that can only be achieved when some transfer of power takes place. It is a meaning that demands fundamental, structural change. The other meaning does not denote a transfer of responsibility; the professional domain remains the same. Here the term participation means that the layman is asked to voice his opinion. He is promised to be heard and to be taken seriously. This meaning indicates a change of procedure within an unchanged balance of power. The difference, obviously, is significant. The Dutch language has two different terms for it: "inspcaak" and "zeggenschap" . These can be translated to: "to have a voice" and "to have decision making power". Unfortunately, there are no exact equivalents in English. We all know the different positions one can adopt relative to these two meanings. I do not want to go into that now. There is another aspect to the term participation which is perhaps more pertinent to our meeting today. In the two distinct meanings we found so far the issue is the relation between the professional world and the world of the lay people; the users, as we call them. Those who advocated participation, in whatever meaning of the word, were always those who felt that we should reconsider 3 our professional the task.tacit belief The so called that professionals participation could movement do it was all. basicallyWe are a reaction to here because we know it takes both sides to have a healthy environment to Participation is advocated, in whatever and form, knowledge by those resides who refusewith the paternalistic model and know that experience lay people as much as with experts. But when we take a somewhat broader view, along a historic perspective, the term participation is peculiar. Because when we use it we mean that the user must participate in what we, the professionals, do. We want the people to participate in the emergence of their shelter. Yet, come at about the without same time thewe know that the majority of settlements still, today, direct intervention of any professional designer or, for that matter, any other professional except local craftsmen. We also know that, in history, most dwellings came about without the use of designers or engineers as we know them today. In the past the professionals we are thinking of when we argue participation, professionals like us were at best active in the design and construction of monumental buildings serving the temporal and spiritual powers of the day. We must also remind ourselves that we come from a more recent Western European tradition in a bourgeois society in which the architect was invited by the client to come and design his house. This relationship is still with us, in its pure form, when architects design villas for individuals who can afford their help. In other words, until a few generations ago, until the beginning of this century in fact, we were always to be invited by the user client to participate in the birth of a building. Earlier that same kind of building usually came about without a professional designer acting as the midwi fe. In this broader, historic perspective it is legitimate to ask who is participating in what? That architects at a certain point came to think that perhaps the user should participate, could only occur because in modern times something extraordinary happened. For a number of understandable and, I am sure, unavoidable reasons the responsibility for the shelter of a large part of the population in Europe came in the hands of a professional class: bureaucrats, lawyers, architects, engineers. This is the period of the mass housing projects. For several generations professionals could think that human settlement completely depended on them. Architects sincerely thought they carried the future of the built environment on their shoulders. (I remember a prominent colleague declare that, if we designed the right kind of cities, there would be no more war). To us, today, this notion sounds naive, indeed unbelievable. But that is the way it was and therefore, in the sixties, it had to be argued that this was impossible, if not plain wrong and it was proposed that the users be brought into play. Now, after all these years, we must again take a distance from what we are doing. What is happening in a broader historic perspective is, I believe, that a professional class is still trying to find the poorer way to participate in the age old process of human settlement. Indeed, it is us who must participate. Humanity has done without us for a long time, and would, we can be sure, survive and continue to build if we were to disappear overnight. Yet, we feel we have something important to contribute. What is it? This question is much less rhetorical than it sounds. I do not turn the participation issues upside down to make a witty remark, but because it illuminates the very quality of our task. By reversing the issue and asking ourselves how we can best participate, we ask, really, what it is we contribute to the process of settlement that no one else can. And this, • it seems to 4 me, is the question to be answered. We can not be responsible for everything, nor can we control everything. We participate in the drama of life and settlement, and the more precise we can formulate what exactly is our irreplacable contribution to it, the more effective we will be; the better we will be able to educate the next generation and the better we will project research and experimentation to improve our professional performance. The participation movement has questioned the professional's role. It was, inevitably in the beginning, a negative position. The advocates of participation knew something was wrong but could not know yet what the new professional model should be. This new model, I want to argue, is not that of the benevolent practitioner who lets people participate (in either of the two previously found meanings). It is the model that comes from the pserspective I propose here: that shelter is part of daily human life and will come about whereever and whenever people will share space. Today, in a new age where so much more is possible, the professional plays a crucial role in that process. Yes, our participation is important. That, I suggest, is the correct way to state our position. All this is to say we have passed the ideological stage. By now it ought to be possible to point out what are the makings of the new professional we represent. A professional is not known by what he does, but by the way he does it. Anything a professional does - building, designing, healing, writing contracts or teaching - laymen have done first and will continue to do. Professionalism lies in expertise and expertise rests on skill and method and knowledge. Much work has already been done on this score. Each of us, here today, has contributed by practical work, by experimentation, by thinking and writing and trial and error, to a new expertise. A new body of knowledge and professional know-how is emerging. Much of that experience has found its way to others by means of publications but even more circulates by word of mouth in seminars and meetings and through personal contacts and by papers and reports; world wide networks are working and overlapping with one another, all operating, in the true spirit of its participants, in an informal way. However, this implicit way of developing new expertise may soon no longer be sufficient. Today, we must become much more explicit about the skills, methods and knowledge we can bring to bear in the new role we have chosen. At a certain point more formal structures and more organised networks must be available to allow for further growth. This is particularly important in a field where the individuals who represent it are scattered over the world and still relatively small in number. There are very few institutions that actively seek to promote and support the development of the new knowledge we are talking about. National agencies, like those for aid to developing countries and, on an international scale, institutions like the World Bank may be providers of resources but do not play an active role in research for new methods and skills nor do they actively exchange information. Few architectural schools seek to educate the new professionals we have in mind here, and even fewer can find money for research or suffic— ient resources to build strong links with practice in the field. John Turner has been a tireless advocate for a better exchange of information among all concerned, but so far his valuable work remained largely exploratory. A magazine like Open House International clearly answers a need and can therefore survive on a minimum budget, . but could do much more if proper funding were available. SAR, here in Eindhoven, has begun to think about an international role but it is too soon to tell what the results may be. In short, we seem to be at the stage where stronger structures must surface that serve future growth of skills, methods and knowledge of the new practitioner who is already operating. 5 Our new professionalism — because and effective that is really organisational what we are steps talkingto about here - calls for practical secure its growth it and is necessary future development. to the vision But, that important must drive as us.this byExperiitself may be, ence must be gained, methods must be developed and tried, new knowledge must be codified and new teaching must be done. But all this will only happen if we know what we are about: if we of know the what new our kind participationgo about their really must accomplish. manner The practitioners and are not very interested in what the work in a self evident glossy magazines say. They do not measure their accomplishments against the teachings of professional and schools find of pride the and awards satisfaction of professional in the workorganisations. They go their way they do, keeping informed through those more informal, less pretentious channels. They may work for years to reorganise a squatter settlement, may be involved in upgrading an materials, old urban find quarter, a smart may little design program and developfor a simple components from local hand held calculator to be used in the field, or they may design an infrastructure for a new settlement, an expandable housetype, an adaptable building, and so on, and so on. We all know the variety of activities no one had heard of twenty years ago. How cen we describe this new role? Is there a model? It is, of course, difficult to characterise the common attitude of such a variety of individuals and activities. Perhaps it is even foolish to try. But I do believe I detect a common denominator in the sum of the incidental examples that come to mind. What brings us together here and what motivates so many others is what we discussed earlier: the knowledge that the environment is a phenomenon that will occur, spontaneously, wherever people live and share space ; the knowledge that we need not protect "Architecture" or determine "Its Direction". Our mission is to understand what is going on, how this natural phenomenon of settlement occurs, how it can stay healthy, how it gets sick, how it can recover. Most importantly, we see ourselves as those who not only study the health and well being of the built environment, but who know - a little bit - how to help it become better, how the single incidental act can contribute to the whole, how the whole can improve, can be nourished by our particular intervention. it is this knowing of our position towards the built environment that gives direction to all we do. Sometimes the well being of the environment requires physical design and the proposition of new forms, sometimes it requires the availability of certain resources, sometimes it means work with people and sometimes with materials. Sometimes it is geared to the specific conditions of a locality, and sometimes it has to do with general principles that are applicable under generally stated conditions. But in all cases we see ourselves, not exploiting a situation for the sake of an extraneous peer group standard, but nourishing something that is alive to make it better, stronger and beautiful. The attitude that I try to indicate here is the attitude - I have said it on other occasions as well - of the gardener who works to let plants grow, who knows what soil and light and rain they need and intervenes in a process to improve it. To have a good garden we sometimes must make an infrastructure: dig the soil, make paths and provide water. Sometimes we must reorganise the distribution of plants. Sometimes we must feed and stimulate. Sometimes we must weed and trim. At all times we must propose forms, suggests forms, help forms to come about. The gardener is in touch with physical things, working with his hands, but he also understands life and knows he can not make plants but can only help them grow and become healthy. 6 Our traditional role model is that of the carpenter. We are builders by inclination and know how to put materials together into a coherent whole. This is indeed the trade we come from, and the instinct for built form moves us. There is nothing wrong with that, but designing is not carpentry. be a carpenter one must work the wood. It is a trade to be exercised. The designer, on the other hand, puts down the piece of wood to think and propose to others how things might be put together. He stands between things and people. He cannot push aside people to impose his own form, nor can he just talk to people and be ignorant of buildings. I know metaphors have their limitations. However, what I like about the image of the gardener is that it. includes all the dimensions our profession aspires to: giving from, understanding a site, light, colour, texture, proportion, organic forms, nature and above all, environmental space. The gardener, like the architect, is conversant with all of this but something important is added: the dimension of change and growth. The gardener's subject has a life of its own. Trees will grow and make shadow. Shadow will make new species emerge, these will in turn stimulate changes elsewhere. What distinguishes the gardener from the carpenter is the dimension of time. The traditional architect was there to build the monument; his role was to defy time and place a stone in the river of life. This is a worthy role but a limited one, because it is only appropriate for the exceptional case, the new practitioner, I am sure, is the one who accepts the fluid movements of everyday environment and rejoices in them. He knows that life is rich, unpredictable and ever changing and that buildings and cities are part of life: are the product of life itself. Change is the key to our new professionalism. Not the technical change of flexibility - this technical term is inadequate here - but the change of everyday life. Not the disruptive change for the sake of "progress" either, but the change that comes from continuous adaptations and accommodations that are the heartbeat of the environment; the change that assures continuity. It is this kind of change that comes naturally like life itself and which is, indeed, hardly known when it is there. We only notice what goes too fast or too slow, not what goes right. It is remarkable that architecture, as distinct from engineering or the sciences, never acknowledged change as positive. Only when we study the transformations of things we will find what is constant. Therefore a body of knowledge, particular to architecture, will not come about unless we can identify the particular way in which architecture sees change in things as distinct from the ways engineers and physicists see it. I am convinced that the new professional attitude we are discussing here is the key to a new concept of architecture. Not, to be sure, a new style. Styles are results, not causes. dut a new discipline with its skills, methods and knowledge. Our newly gained interest in the dimension of time, and the uses we learn to make of it in our work, will render obsolete the skills of yesterday. By now I have moved far beyond the scope of participatory issues. This I did on purpose because I believe that there is a larger picture we should not ignore. The attitude of the gardener, the practitioner who, by intervention, seeks to participate in a live process is the model we have found to be effective. One can come to this attitude, it seems to me, by many routes, the route of participation is only; one. And if I am not mistaken, this is precisely what is beginning to happen. Let me try and explain the signs I see. 7 To begin with, there is architectural research. It is understandableof that much of what is called architectural research today is, in its way working, still close to engineering and the sciences. Environmental control, behavioural studies and building systems could already begin to develop without the new perspective we are exploring here. However, the new architectural understanding of the phenomenon of change is beginning to influence these very fields. In Holland at least, systems builders have begun to connect their products to specific levels of intervention. This link between the material system and the party who manipulates it over time was missing so far in the more general trend towards open systems. In Japan the nationwide investigation under the title "Century Housing System" is also interesting in this regard. Advocating open systems it likewise links use time to system's identification. In building economic* studies are conducted to introduce the concept of the building as composed of different systems with different lifetimes. An approach that emerged independently from the idea of user intervention, but is obviously compatible with it, bringing economists and architects together, comparing notes. Equally interesting from our point of view are the great many studies of particular environments that have been done in the last ten years. Observation is the foundation of all research. There is, among architectural students and researchers, a considerable interest in documenting everyday built environment; their forms, their transformations over time, their uses, their territorial interpretations and so on. It is almost as if we have begun to see, for the first time, the built world we live in. Some cf us, including colleagues here in Eindhoven, know, for instance, the work cf Fernando Domeyko who has spent many years documenting with the kind of relentless impartiality that can only come from great love, the ways and forms of everyday urban environments. He not only shows us the streets and the buildings but also the interiors and all the furniture and utensils that have their place in them. His work, never published so far, and ever growing, is unique in many respects. In a very different way, but with similar singleminded power, Christopher Alexander has brought to our attention the timeless patterns of the built environment. Patterns that come about, when people settle and are given a chance to cultivate their environments. There may be different opinions as to what they mean and to how we should use them, but Alexander brought them to our attention. People like Domeyko and Alexander make us see, and it is only when we accept the built environment as something that lives by its own energies, that we can begin to observe it in the ways they teach us. In that same attitude we find, in architectural schools, how each year students, when given the opportunity, begin to observe and document environments that they are familiar with, demonstrating a similar love and attent ion for details. They come with maps, photographs, written observations and it is astonishing how much knowledge comes to the surface once they discover that it is alright just to recognise an environment. There is no such thing as an uninteresting environment, there are only uninterested observers. We are beginning to discover the built world all over again, just at the time that we are in danger of losing it by the tragic ignorance induced by the "isms" of our ideological discussions. The experience we have through SAR is another indication that research begins to develop once one accepts the new attitude we are discussing here. The methods proposed by SAR could come about because the environment was seen as a complex form consisting of different levels of intervention with different actors on each level. We were not interested in the architect's ideas and personal values although these are obviously important, but in 8 the way the architect could contribute to the freedom and growth of forms under the responsibility of the users. We focussed on the interface between the professional and the living environment itself. This approach paid off when builders, manufacturers and managers began to see its potential. Here we have an example of architects' research feeding into technology and management. The irony is that it is therefore not recognised by some architects as relevant to architecture. It is precisely this broadening of the field, that is significant but it is understandable that it causes confusion in the beginning. With the introduction of the computer we find an increased interest among researchers to find out what designing is about. If we do not know what we are doing, how can we make a computer help us, or take over some of our tasks? Thus methodology becomes the key to the computer. Methodology, perhaps more than any other aspect of architecture, is based on the understanding of change in the built environment. It is the study of ways to interven% that is, to change. Change reveals the laws that are constant and it is on the constraints that methodology is founded. As a researcher I came to appreciate this connection and began to realise that my interest in participation was primarily because it makes the issue of change unavoidable. It was not, I must confess, the user's interests that drove me, but the broader interest of a healthy built environment which, without the users intervention is unattainable. If I have a message, therefore, it is that, today, we must begin to see participation as a component of a broader development. The ground is shifting in our profession making obsolete the labels of yesterday. It is the power of the new attitude we discuss here that it frees those who adopt it and makes them move into directions that are rejected by the traditional professional ideology as "not architecture" . It is again the younger generation that has the courage to trust its instincts. At MIT we find an increasing interest among architecture students to connect their design studies to other disciplines. Economy, management, technology, housing and so on. Of course, one can advance a practical explanation for this. Where jobs become hard to get, it may be prudent to have some additional expertise. But things ace never that one-dimensional. It also has to do with intellectual hunger and a feeling that we have drawn too tight a boundary around architecture. Where, on the one hand, the discussions about architecture become more and more esoteric there are, on the other hand, among the younger generations those who simply go into new directions venturing outside the ever higher fences around the increasingly barren fields of the post modern movements. Like those interested in the participation of users much earlier, they begin to explore new, uncharted territories. In a similar way, interests in participatory processes bring people from different disciplines together. The variety of disciplines on the roster of speakers in this conference is witness to this. Where I , in my old fashioned way, speak of architects and designing, Thys Bax and his group had the good sense to decide we should meet, not because we represent a discipline, but because we share an attitude. Ours are not the only professions that seek a new definition for their mission. Lawyers, and medical doctors are also discovering that life may go on and may find new ways, without them. At the time I was preparing for this address I saw an article in the New York Times by Henry G. Miller, a lawyer, titled "The lawyer is no. 2, not no. 1" and he states among other things: "There is no intrinsic necessity for a legal profession. They can do away with us. One may not easily conceive of a world without physicians or engineers, but the role of the lawyer could be supplanted by others". 1 would not be that at ease if I were a physician, but the fact that I found 9 this article in the paper right then was no coincidence. Signals like this have appeared for years to those who would listen. But while I am an architect and interested in the architect's new role,TOWARD A THEORY OF PARTICIPATION IN ARCHITECTURE you may permit me to return bias more to my than own anything field to else. conclude. My prupose All I who have was may to said,openRichard Hatch obviously, reveals my of beC. the debate. The question that is interest to the a new historian professionalismProfessor watching the addition current to scene the traditional is whether we architect's will see role the old? master There builder;maySchool of ArchitectureInstitute of Technology in replace as the Jersey emerge New or whether we will find the new professionalism more profound forceNewark, New Jersey 07102 USA only be a new kind of specialist. But I believe a attracts us and makes us seek a new role. Today the future of architecture will not announce itself by grand statements and manifesto's as used to be fashionable with the modernist generation. Nevertheless, there is a profoundINTRODUCTION shift taking place coming from a quiet of individuals but thoughtful who and do very matter-of-The widespread acceptance of the principle of user fact revaluation by a growing number into more interesting not shout andwhenparticipation is the major achievement of architecture in the they don't like what they see, but the just field. move This shift will change the veryrecent past. However, problems in participatory design theory promising directions, expanding all architecture. There always have limited the impact of this new direction in architecture. nature of our expertise and touch others who do not need will the beproposals for design participation, almost without exception, prima-donnas and there always will, of be the many profesion rests have looked to improvements in architecture user satisfaction as the measure haveof limelight to grow, but the future with those who seeksuccess. Adaptability, good fit, and to re-define its role.been set out as key criteria for evaluating participatory projects. It is important to note that these are all ways of describing buildings, or at best relationships between buildings and users. An alternative and potentially more effective approach would start with a theory regarding the effects of participation on the participants themselves——and then define architectural practice in terms of desirable individual and societal outcomes. PROBLEMS OF CONVENTIONAL PARTICIPATION THEORY The principal objections raised against conventional design participation——from both the right and the left——weakened the movement because they were fundamentally valid. First, participation rarely engages crucial guestions of social life and the city. The movement has had a strong tendency to focus on the individual and the nuclear family and view tends to minimize the importance of relationships at the workplace and in the community. This questionable emphasis on the private realm and the ideal of individual satisfaction has also limited the arena for participatory design. Housing is the program of choice, and even within this narrow scope the majority of schemes involve users only in the m configuration of personal space. The concept of architecture as collective as well as personal representations is lost. Second, the architects' traditional building orientation, found even in particpatory designers, reflects an impoverished view of human needs. The fascination with architecture as object continues to obscure a broader view of buildings as elements in a total environment meant to satisfy complex human drives . This is, perhaps, an inheritance from the Modern Architecture which stressed "the problem of dwelling" and posed the alternative: Architecture or Revolution. In its most simplistic formulations, human needs are reduced to so lei 1, espace, verdure, and that these should be 10 1 1 incorporated in correct dwellings (to be enjoyed, presumably, solipsistically) . Architects are still accustomed to thinking about needs only in terms that are tangible and quantifiable: numbers of families to be housed, acres of required parkland, work stations or hospital beds to be built.... The argument here is that there is a more fundamental level Of needs that has at its source drives to competence, to community, and to critical awareness, and that architecture——the process of making the capable of both creating and satisfying these fundämental needs. Third, the participation movement's preferred conception of the user as consumer exercising sovereignty over an expanding array of choices has its own difficulties. It is silent on guestions of energy and resource conservation. It appears indifferent to the socially-determined nature of consumer wants in a class society: wants that are exogenously induced and in constant change cannot be "satisfied" by participation. Sharing a contradiction with other proposals about consumer sovreignty, design participation is unable to explain how individuals might indicate a preference for collective goods, such as art, leisure, education, or equality. Lastly, it minimizes the importance of production: conceiving, making , exchanging. Proposals about the direction that participation ought to take, the issues to be stressed, the nature of the encounters between architect and user, and the distribution of authority over decisions reflect particular conceptions of human nature, history, and .the process of social change. An alternative theory of participation in architecture, then, begins with a proposition about architecture and human needs . ALIENATION AS PROBLEM FOR ARCHITECTURE The problems which participation in architecture must address——from the intractability of mass housing to the strong lack of affection most people feel for urban environments——are of relatively recent origin. It is my view that they result, not so much from the gap between client, user, and architect which followed the industrial revolution, but from the radical changes in the organization of life and work which accompanied it. The combination of urbanization and industrialization closed off many traditional avenues for the satisfaction of human needs without reducing the needs themselves. The history of Newark provides us with an example of the transformations that created new problems for society——and new tasks for architecture and for architects. In the 1830s, the Industrial Revolution loomed just over the horizon. But in Newark, craft production was still the rule. Shops were small, and following the familiar pattern, they were usually attached to the masters' houses. Women and children played important roles in the workshop as well as the home. The family was the basic unit of production as well as 1 2 consumption. Each worker owned his own tools; journeymen and apprentices reasonably expected to be self—employed one day. Small groups of workers made entire products in their independent shops. Products made in this traditional way were stamped with the personalities of their makers. As specialized workers, they were, of course, already tied into a market economy. In a market of these dimensions, economic interdependence was felt as personal interdependence. Exchange made these artisan households a community. By 1860, Newark's crafts had been industrialized or were well on their way to being so. Factory competition was intense: less than nine percent of male heads of households remained self—employed. The remaining workers, who possessed neither tools nor skills that were not generally available, were rapidly losing Control over the conditions of work. Hours were up; wages were down. The likelihood of rising to a position of ownership was becoming remote. Once forced to give up control over the arena of production, workers found that control of other crucial areas of life was also quickly stripped away. Workers no longer had discretion over the place of work, the pace of work, or the purpose of work. For most, employment came to be confined to a few simple and repeated operations. The ever—narrower division of labor, far from refining the skills of specialized workers, now ensured that each need know less and less about' the processes of production in which they are engaged. Adam Smith, whose very name is associated with the division of labor, correctly feared that the result would be "torpor of mind." The continuous process of deskil ling robbed work of meaning. Nothing has yet been found to restore it. The factory system finally broke the age—old nexus between life and work. The family lost its role in production and hence its independence. Dwel ling lost its sacred character and became another commodity in a world of commodities, allocated in accordance with the wage hierarchy of the workplace and organized into homogeneous communities based on class and race. Rather than the center of social existence, the family house became a place of escape, a haven in a heartless world. So long as home is consciously kept separate from the world of politics and power, participation in its design can be no more than an anodyne. In this sort of world, human capacities and desires tend to shrink to those that can be satisfied at a profit. Needs formerly considered among the most important——for creativity , for competence, for . It is my view that in this too brief historical analysis lies the agenda for participation in architecture: participation can be the means for overcoming alienation. Let me cite example from my own observation. 13 THE EXAMPLE OF CUBA In Cuba, with its heritage of this colonialism new role. and At exploitation,the victory of participation has in accepted 1959, the social situation there was an the Revolution exaggerated version sharp of spatial the general segregation history of of classes capitalistand development. A functions underscored the deep divisions within the cities—— and between the cities and the countryside. The separation of classes, and of manual and intellectual workers, was net. With little experience of self—government, no tradition of democracy or of self—government had developed. Almost from the start, the Revolution saw architecture as an instrument in the process of social transformation. At all scales, from the private to the national, architecture was called on to do more than make up the deficits common to underdevelopment. It was expected to change the relationships between men. architect Roberto Segre has written: The building oi socialism demands as a fundamental principle the creation OE an egalitarian society that permits to each member the maximum personal development and maximum choice between alternatives The designers of the physical environment have the reponsibility of interpreting these essential directives . In the early period, the need to build was overwhelming. housing, factories, schools, hospitals, roads.. . everything was needed. But raw construction was not enough. In 1963, Che Guevara wrote, "I am not interested in dry, economic socialism. We are fighting against poverrty, but we are also fighting against alienation." Grasping this truth, architects no longer focused entirely on guantitative results. The issues for Cuban architecture became eliminating segregation, challenging the narrow division of labor (and the low skill levels which it implies) , and creating active, engaged citizens . participation became the hallmark of the new era. Building programs were altered to maximize opportunities for popular involvement. Structural systems were invented which permitted intellectuals, farmers, and factory workers to contribute, along side experienced construction crews, to the making Of the new Cuba. New popular institutions were organized to channel the energies of citizens in campaigns for literacy, for improved public health, for cultural and educational opportunities, and for social construction. The microbrigade program is the outstanding example of participation in the -creation of the physical environment. Microbrigades are volunteer groups financed by their workplaces who come together to build new communities. On the large project site at Alamar in Havana, teams from the many of the city's varied industries and agencies are at work building badly needed homes, schools, factories, and shops. Professionals and mechanics, teachers and truck drivers work side by side. Because finished apartments are allocated through their different workplaces, this same rich social mix will end up as neighbors under the same roofs. Starting in their first year, student architects work on these construction sites, first as laborers, then as liaison between the designers and the future users, and finally as project directors——an exceptional professional preparation. At Al amar as on similar sites across Cuba, participation includes issues of personal satisfaction, but stresses more central issues of social life and work. And if the overarching goal is the creation of an egalitarian society, the objectives of participation are many: . Nation—building: participation in the creation of a modern Cuba is expected to build identification with the Revolution. . Growth of political culture: involvement in decision making and in negotiations between citizens and organs of the state is intended to lower the barriers between the governed and the government for the first time in Cuban history. . Women's liberation: significant participation opportunities for women have brought them out of the home and into the mainstream of national life. . Elimination of class divisions: carrying out common projects for the common good opens lines of commun— ication between groups and helps to overcome the traditional deprecation of manual labor. 5. Competence: an opportunity to shape the social environment generates creative energy, refines productive skills, and reinforces collective concerns. 6 . Transparency: direct involvement opens windows into the structure of society, its institutions, its values, and its technology. The formerly incomprehensible and alienating and managed for and by others ——is transformed into a place where people feel at home. NEW AGENDA FOR PARTICIPATION The central hypothesis of this paper is that the paramount purpose of participation is not good buildings, but good citizens in a good society. Participation is the means, and the richer the experience——the more aspects of the total architectural project opened to involvement, the higher the degree of participant control, and the more comprehensive the education that surrounds participation——the greater the impact on alienation will be, and the greater the recovery toward health. 15 WHAT IS COMMUNITY TECHNICAL AID? A talk to the Annual Conference of the Association of Community Technical Äid Centres - Liverpool: April 27, 1985 Tom Woolley Director, Housing & Rehabilitation Research Unit Strathclyde University, Glasgow As an architecture student, nearly twenty years ago, I once asked our Professor why our training did not include much about the people who would, after all, use the buildings we were going to design. ' If you are interested in people - you should become a sociologist' was his reply. Indeed, at that time many architects and planners believed that they could design environments that would ensure successful conditions whether it was through cities in the sky or streets in the air. Unfortunately, the sociologists did not tell the architects what people wanted, concentrating, quite rightly, instead on criticism of determinism: - the idea that physical environments could determine social behaviour. Unfortunately, few architects and planners paid heed to these criticisms and, to this day, many designers still believe that they as professionals hold the key to the solution of social problems. They see themselves as indispensible, an attitude which I want to call into question. But to come back to my personal story, I did not want to be a sociologist but I did want to learn about people, especially those who got the worst of our environment. Eventually I got involved in the Tenants' and Squatting Movement, but initially, my social conscience on my sleeve, I was sent by the University Settlement with a couple of others to decorate an old man's flat. The flat was damp and decaying and it was obvious the wallpaper would peel off after a few weeks. We had literally been sent to paper over the cracks. The old man, who was very poor, insisted on plying us with tea and chocolate biscuits and while we worked he criticised what we were doing. We should be in the Uniüersity, he said, learning how to be experts that would help people like him change society so that he could live in better conditions and relative comfort. I have never forgotten that simple political lesson and since then have searched for a way for professional expertise to be put to the service of radical political change. Such political change needs to be defined, not by the rigid programmes of political parties but the desire of everyone, if only they had the opportunity, to live richer and more creative lives. Lives enriched by the possibility, if they want it, to shape and manage the environment where they live, work and play. This morning, I want to emphasise the importance of a political perspective, something that is lacking in the development of technical aid, because we need to distinguish between those who pay lip service to such ideals and those who are genuinely willing to engage in the struggles that are needed to achieve them. To illustrate what happens when there is a lack of perspective, we need look no further than the current media interest in the development of socalled Community Architecture as typified by a recent article in The Times by Wates and Knevitt entitled 'Power to the People of the Twilight World. ' It is not clear who these twilight people are because we hear far more about the glowing achievements of the Government, the RIBA, the Prince of Wales and others. What is clear from this 'hype' , and that is what it is, is that someone thinks that professionals are indispensible, that it is they who hold the key to the problems of the inner-city. Articles like this largely create the impression that the credit for recent initiatives in the inner city goes to professionals, and not to the ordinary people who worked hard, often unpaid, to make them successful. 16 But what are these problems of the city, how are they caused and what contributions are professionals like architects and planners making to solve them? Inner cities and problems of environmental dereliction are only one symptom of a serious decline in social and economic conditions which are getting worse for most people, the poor, for women, ethnic groups, young people and the unemployed. Today 15 million people live below the official poverty line. The distributiom_of wealth. is also getting worse. In 1982 the wealthiest one per cent owned one fith of the total wealth, the richest ten per cent owned more than half. The poorest half of the population, which includes most of us, owned only four per cent of the wealth. In 1979 the twenty highest paid directors together received as much as 454 average male manual workers. By 1983 they were paid more than 722 such workers. The pay of managers has risen twice as fast as manual workers according to the National Managers Salary Survey. In Merseyside, with twenty per cent unemployed, we have one of the largest concentrations of low paid workers and yet the Government argues that it needs to scrap minimum pay legislation so that the people can 'price themselves into jobs. Despite increasiang poverty and bad conditions with 1.25 million dwellings unfit and 2.5 million affect by damp, the Government has made massive cuts in public spending on housing and social services. While many of these cuts have drastically curtailed unpopular and bureaucratic State services, they have still seriously undermined our quality of life. Furthermore, the cost of living has risen dramatically. For instance, rates have increased by 130 per cent since 1970 and this has largely been due to massive cuts in the rate support grant. Hackney has some of the most serious problems in the country and yet it has suffered heavily from cuts. Manchester has lost E73 million in real terms between 1981 and 1985. These are some of the statistics of the problems of urban reality is the withdrawal of State and industrial investment on a huge scale, with massive profits being made in speculation on the not re-invested in decaying areas. The outlook is bleak. Set context, the El million Special Grants Programme (which finances peanuts and only a few tiny crumbs of this go to groups inner city. The ,extent of activity which this small amount lates is surprising. Many of the projects with which Community Technical have been born out of a dissatisfaction with the paternalistic and ient public services the Tories are so keen to cut. So why are they taking to new initiatives?the money saved, . - the which local runs voluntary into Billions and self-help of Pounds, projects and giving that, Wates and Knevitt would have us believe, are pioneering solving the of the twilight world. Sadly, analysis of many initiatives will show that much of what money does come from the Government goes to professionals and contractors, even though some of their projects may be of people. A study for the London Voluntary Service Council showed help good was at fund a misnomer, raising, it with hardly the existed.right contacts It was and the knowledge professional system works who got access to resources in the inner city. This is why Community Technical Aid is important because Community I filter do not through think Technical which it is Aid resources ideal as a that model can it provides get should to be those a through source people of a who filter, information and advice.expert advice which is potentially accountable to people who need that 17 Of course, there are always some local voluntary groups that are so well organised that they know how to raise money, they know exactly what they want and they can hire and fire professionals, making sure they do what they want. But such qroups are rare indeed. My experience and research tells me that there is always a measure of dependence on the professionals. The professionals have expertise and information and they can use that power to reinforce dependence on, and the prestige of, professionals. This is why the model of the RIBA Community Aid Fund is fundamentally wrong. An elitist self interested, essentially Conservative body, receiving funds which it then disburses to deserving causes, usually architects, is no way to 'enable' (a favourite word of the RIBA). It is a recipe for ensuring that scarce resources are creamed off by professionals and that dependence on professional aid is maintained. Community Technical Aid, on the other hand, holds up the prospect of a vast network of locally based agencies providing all the skills and information required by local groups. Such agencies can be managed by those who use their services and can function in partnership with or even inside local authorities. Furthermore, they open up the possibilities of providing all the skills and information that user groups need. No private, commercial architect firms (even if they do call themselves Community Architects), can build up a pool of skills in architecture, surveying, planning, feasibility work, advice on grants, finance, accounting, legal knowledge and build up the necessary links with voluntary service councils, local authorities, builders and so on. Nor can they share expertise and experience in the same way. The architectural profession in particular is notoriously bad at this. One only needs to look at the almost complete absence of changes to architects' training to take account of these new areas of work. I believe that Community Technical Aid organisations have begun to provide a good service, especially in terms of process. Expertise in how to help get projects off the ground is well developed, though there is numerous scope for this experience to be better recorded and evaluated. I think we are less well advanced in terms of user participation in design and in the encouragement of lay people who can stand up at meetings and challenge the professionals who steal all the glory. The advantage of an organisation like ACTAC is that it can develop an agenda, a programme of changes which identify needs and take steps to tackle them, training, information, resources like a Participatory Design Laboratory, educational material, much needed publications. We have a great deal to do, we can pioneer the model of how expertise can be made available to lay people in a way that does not simply 'enable' This has become an over-used and out-worn slogan. We must empower people so that they are working, not only to mitigate immediate circumstances, but so they can change the whole way in which our environment is developed. Such a fundamental social change is needed whatever Government is in power. there is an upturn in public spending it must be under local control and not simply managed by professionals and bureaucrats as before, however sympathetic they may appear to be. Such empowerment can only come through working practices based on thorough political debate and shared understanding. Sadly there are opportunists among us who do not share a full commi tment to user accountability though I believe that such user accountability can be possible through both working methods and, or forms of, organisation. This means that in ACTAC we are not necessarily for one form of organisation only, model led on the Glasgow TSA or COMTECHSA and against private practice. 18 There are many members of ACTAC that are to all intent and purpose, private practices. However, they strive hard to ensure that, in their working practices, they are as accountable to their clients as possible. Furthermore, by joining ACTAC, we are all indicating a willingness to share our ideas, experience and knowledqe, rather than privatisinq it and using information to increase our power and profits. We are also working towards a situation in which Government finance to tackle social and environmental problems reaches those who really need it, channel led through organisations which can be accountable to local communities. This is why we need to join with the RIBA and others in establishing a working party to review present funding methods to ensure that Central Government understands the value of the CTAC model. We must be prepared to point out the disadvantages of channel ling finance to professional bodies which are not, in any way, accountable to ordinary people. What we must also do is to build greater support for what we are trying to do among ordinary people and among the organisations of the tenants' movement, housing co-operatives, trade unions and the voluntary sector. If we can do that, we need worry less about petty squabbles with the RIBA and others because there will be public demand for Technical Aid Services which the Government will ignore at its peril. For more information about Community Architecture and Community Technical Aid in the U.K. contact ACTAC Unit B688, New Enterprise Workshops South West Brunswick Dock LIVERPOOL L3 4AD Tel. No. 051 708 7607 ACTAC publishes a Directory of Technical Aid Centres: Price 5.00 plus post and package. This working paper is one of a series to be produced by the Housing and Rehabilitation Research Unit, Department of Architecture and Building Science, University of Strathclyde, 131 Rottenrow, GLASGOW GO ONG. Tel. No. 041 552 4400 ext. 3014. Many thanks to Dr R Beheshti Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands ings for permission of DPC Eindhoven to reprint 1985, the in Habraken three volumes, and Hatch can papers.be obtained The • full from proceed-the above address, price — 160 Dutch Guilders. 19 � Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Tom Woolley (ed.) Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 1985 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/5cd9edfe5d68d8c325d8388276e4dc53.pdf 794e5567f0480b49eebd3b04cccba6ca Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Article Subject The topic of the resource Practice Management Incorporation 4pp. Description An account of the resource Al CVS'B PRACTICE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATION Since changes in the Arcuk code in 1981 permitted architects to practice as limited liability companies, many partnerships have opted for the change of status. But there has hardly been the queue of architects at Companies House that some predicted. Ruth Owens talked to Ray Moxley, who has been considering taking the plunge, and to Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire who gave him some advice on the basis of their practices' experience. Michael Manser heads a west London practice with 14 staff, which became a limited company within a year of the code changes. 'The only thing that held us up was tax complications. Our commercial clients approved of the change, although one did ask to see our insurance certificate. Some asked why on earth we had not done it before,' said Manser. 'The insurance company assumed responsibility for the historical risks of the partnership on behalf of the new limited company. So, provided the company continues to exist, directors who were partners can retire with an easy mind.' Manser's original reason for making the decision was indemnity, but he has gradually discovered that a limited company is also a good way of doing business. 'Directors can come and go without causing the company to wobble. They don't have to be shareholders.' Other advantages he cites are paying tax by PAYE, the opportunity to leave money in the company after retirement, and the ability to diversify by forming subcompanies and to set up or borrow from pension funds. He has no regrets over winding up the partnership. 'There used to be some cachet in being a partner in a professional firm but not any more. There is a general drift away from partnership. Uncertainty is the main problem. Your partner can quietly run into deep financial problems and the law makes you bale him out. Partnership is a bit like marriage—very demanding of personal relationships.' RMJM (London) Ltd Andrew Derbyshire is chairman of RMJM (London) Ltd, a practice at the opposite end of the scale to Manser's with more than 150 staff. The original partnership was formed in the late 1950s and set up two offices, in London and Edinburgh, with a high degree of autonomy. They were each run by local partners meetings, and their activities co-ordinated by a policy committee controlling borrowing and work search. But around 1980 this set-up began to be questioned. 'In London we became dissatisfied with the structure, which makes each partner jointly and severally responsible for what the others do. In effect it meant partners had a right and duty to be involved in every decision. This was becoming cumbersome,' says Derbyshire. 'We needed to be able to respond more quickly to the changing market conditions brought about by the recession, the abolition of mandatory fees, and the code changes.' Various alternatives, including a co-operative, were considered over a four-year period until February 1984, when the London office began trading as a private limited liability company. As well as the Edinburgh office, some jobs in London for clients of long.standing remain under the partnership. 'The big advantage is that company structure is clearly understood,' explains Derbyshire. 'Eventually, within about five years, we aim to become a common ownership company, with all our senior employees on a council which controls the shares through a trust.' The council, made up of the London partners, elects a board chairman for a three• year term. The chairman selects the chief executive, deputy chairman and board members, and reports back to the council quarterly. The board is not composed entirely of the partners, nor are all partners on the board—some have found niches elsewhere in the organisation. The practice's jobs are assigned to one of five project groups, which report to an 'operations board' on organisational matters and a 'design board' (chaired by Derbyshire) on matters of design and quality. There is, however, no attempt to enforce a house style. 'Our buildings are noted for their diversity,' says Derbyshire. 'But in some areas our procedure can become more autocratic now. I'd like to enforce use of the National Building Specification, for instance, and draw up lists of good and bad products on the basis of experience.' Derbyshire sees the company structure as being well suited to RMJM's traditional characteristics. 'Our aim has always been to provide continuity of employment for good designers. We are not like those firms based on one or two personalities, which tend to disappear when the "big AJ IS January 1986 6t name" retires or dies.' Derbyshire's personal enthusiasm for multidisciplinary practice also led him to support the idea of becoming a company. 'New skills can be brought onto the board much more easily than making new partners: it is not such an irrevocable decision. I was keen on getting young architects and engineers into the management of the business and the company structure made this possible.' Dynamic structure Having learnt from the experiences of Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire and spoken to its accountants, Morley, Jenner and Partners decided to become incorporated. 'It seemed the best thing for us to do. It is a much more dynamic structure than a partnership—and the London office needs it,' says Moxley. 'l suppose the main advantages are first that a limited company is a legal entity, which a partnership is not, and second the organisational advantages it gives.' Architects trading as limited liability companies are required by Arcuk to take out adequate professional indemnity insurance in order to protect their clients, so the change does not reduce insurance costs. But if the company is sued, individual employees do not risk losing their personal property. Likewise, retired directors— unlike retired partners—are safe from future claims. 'In partnership, if one of you goes, you all go down together.' The organisational advantage, Morley believes, will be to allow more local autonomy and responsibility. 'It is difficult for eight 64 A' IS January partners to control the efficiency, direction and marketing of a practice based in three separate offices, each with its own way of working. The set-up was too amorphous for there to be strong central policies. 'Instead, we hope eventually to form three separate companies, allied for marketing, career structure and information transfer, but each with its own chief executive and its own local directors. The Cardiff and Bristol offices are to remain as partnerships within the group for the time being.' Taking a share Morley regards a company structure as highly democratic. 'The directors are responsible to the shareholders and elected by them. The directors in turn elect a managing director or chief executive to oversee the direction of the firm. 'It's like a ship—you can't have three or four captains. But if a director becomes ineffective you're not stuck with him for life, as in a partnership. The shareholders will vote him out.' The initial shareholders will be the former partners, but the plan is to broaden the base of the organisation by allocating shares to new associates. 'We've got one starting next week. Once he's proved himself, we'll give him some shares and make him a director,' says Moxley. Besides these major advantages, Moxley reels off a list of minor ones. Directors can contribute more towards pensions than partners, and have a slight tax advantage as well; tax is paid as you go along rather than in arrears, which can be an advantage when profits are falling; outside capital can be brought in if required; shares can be bequeathed to members of the family; and the company can build up more capital than a partnership, since it can set aside income before tax, whereas partnership income is tax paid. Client reaction Before the change was finally decided upon, the practice also consulted its clients. 'Two-thirds of an architect's new work comes from previous clients, so it is very important that they should support the change,' says Moxley. 'Fortunately, none of ours responded negatively. If any current client had objected, we would have had to run the partnership down over a period and there would have been two lots of bookkeeping to do.' Having avoided this pitfall, the only disadvantages he foresees are the need to file annual returns (and the consequent accountancy bills) and the increased National Insurance contributions for directors compared to those paid by partners. In view of the enthusiasm of those who have tried it, and the trend towards companies in other professions, it is surprising to learn that a RIBA survey in January 1984 found only 102 out of 4709 RIBA member practices were limited companies. The RIBA has no more recent figures available. 'It is only in the past two or three years that the climate of opinion among clients has changed and limited companies have become acceptable,' says Ray Moxley. 'Lots of other practices of our size could benefit from it. It simplifies relationships with outsiders because they understand what they are dealing with.' He cites the example of the Surrey Docks competition. 'We entered as a design consortium together with Chamberlin, Powell and Bon. The developers did not know how to relate to us. Now we have just won a competition for Chelsea Basin. We have set up a company with the others involved in the design and everything is much simpler. Everyone knows where they stand.' The future Manser, too, sees companies as the thing of the future: 'It's the way the rest of the world trades. I'm much happier trading as a director than I was as a partner. Companies are more autocratic than partnerships—because the commitment is not so hair• raising you can reach decisions much more easily.' Derbyshire, meanwhile, sets the trend in a broader perspective. 'The strain on the profession due to the recession, code changes, the need for more marketing, and the collapse of the public sector will lead to many new forms of practice. As well as setting up limited companies for design, architects will become involved in more multidisciplinary firms, and design and construction companies.' With the leaders of the profession turning to limited companies so enthusiastically, it seems that the days of the old-style architectural partnership could be numbered. ACA Index November 1190 December 119$1 For application see AJ 26.1.83 pp27 and 53. PRACTICE MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR PARTNERSHIP In AJ 15.1.86 p61 Ruth Owen examined Ray Moxley's very positive decision to practise as a limited liability company, heeding advice from Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire. Following representations from several of his architect clients, solicitor Gordon Jones now presents what he feels is a more balanced view, particularly for small practices. What prompted me to proffer some contrary views to those in Ruth Owen's article was the clutch of letters from architect clients that dropped on my desk asking why my recent advice on incorporation was so much at odds with the views of Ray Morley, Michael Manser and Andrew Derbyshire. I do not seek to challenge the wisdom of their own decisions. Many of their reasons are valid as general principles. There are, however, assertions and opinions I would question. Before outlining the pros and cons of incorporation the nature of the architectural profession should be considered. The 1984 RIBA census reveals that in private practice (including sole principals) the average number of principals per firm was approximately two. If sole principals are excluded, the average rises only to three. One therefore has to consider the most convenient business framework for a profession of creative individualists. A number of factors come into play. Limited liability Limited liability is the most often quoted benefit. It is a snare and a delusion. Ignoring directors' guarantees—often required by banks, landlords and hire purchase companies—it is true that the directors and shareholders are not, in normal circumstances, liable for the company's contractual obligations. However, if one of the directors commits the tort of negligence while about the company's business, he will be personally liable. It may be argued that his failure will not ruin the other directors and shareholders, but the directors will have 7. z shared the profits. Should capital is a possibility though they not share the uninsured the 'partners' may prefer to losses? I would certainly raise long-term loan capital advise architects and thus retain the benefit of contemplating incorporation the growth in the firm's to enter into a shareholders' profits. In this case a large agreement providing, inter partnership could just as alia, for contribution towards easily borrow. such claims. Liability under Profit-sharing can be fixed such an agreement survives or flexible under either death or resignation, thus structure, though there are sleep may not necessarily tax efficient profit-sharing be easy. schemes for rewarding employees with shares or Capital, profits and tax options on shares which are available only to companies. Historically, the capital of a These advantages may well be partnership has generally critical factors in favour of been provided by the equity incorporation for large firms. partners and is limited by A traditional method of their resources. In theory a increasing the capital of a company has greater firm is by retention of profits. opportunities than a Here the company has a major partnership to raise capital advantage in that retained from outside sources, but for profits will suffer only the an architectural practice is small companies tax rate of there a real difference? Not 30 per cent, whereas the for small firms. An outside partnership will suffer the investor, professionally partners' highest marginal advised, would be unlikely to rates up to 60 per cent. invest as a minority This 30 per cent may be the shareholder in a private maximum exposure to tax for company dependent on the many years if low salaries and architectural talents of a dividends are paid by the small band of architects. company, though Capital If all the required capital is Gains Tax may be payable on not easily provided by the disposal of shares in the architects themselves, banks company. and insurance companies will There are many tax aspects be the sole source of outside to be considered, but if capital whether the small firm partnership profits bring the is corporate or not. marginal rate of a partner's As for large firms, the tax above 30 per cent acquisition of outside equity incorporation may be advantageous. Timing, however, will be critical. Pensions The maximum rate of contribution for self.employed persons and partners is 17 • 5 per cent of earnings (though higher for persons born in 1933 or earlier). For companies, the maximum employee contribution is 15 per cent of earnings, but there is no limit on the company's contribution provided the Inland Revenue maximum benefit limit for the employee is not exceeded. If partners start early enough and pay maximum permitted contributions they can acquire as high a pension as from a company pension scheme. However, unlike a company, partners cannot adequately compensate in later years for insufficient funding earlier. Funding partnership capital is possible in both methods. For a large firm a self-funded corporate pension scheme may be an attractive option that can also assist with funding capital assets. For partnerships of seven principals or more there is the option of forming a friendly society to provide a pension scheme. Management control A partnership is owned and managed by the partners. A company is owned by the shareholders but managed by the directors, who need not be the same. Traditionally a professional practice had to be owned and managed by members of the profession. However, since the 1931 Act architects have been permitted to practise in corporate form provided the business was controlled and managed by a registered AJ 9 April 19B", 67 person. It is therefore possible to have non• architects as partners, shareholders and directors provided they are not in control. If non-architects are required by a particular practice it may choose either partnership or company form. Similarly, the form of management and administration within both a partnership and a company may be tailored to suit the firm's requirements. By the use of special articles of association and shareholder agreements many of the structural advantages of a partnership can be incorporated into a limited company. It is also possible to write into a partnership agreement many of the advantages claimed for corporate bodies, such as tighter control, more effective decision-making and stricter reward for effort. For each firm there may be one dominant reason for choosing partnership or company; that does not mean that it cannot gather many of the presumed advantages of the other structure. Consider the following: • Job security. It is often alleged against the partnership that it is generally for life and breeds complacency. The answer is to specify a fixed term—say, five years e Career structure. A partnership can offer associateship, salaried partnership, junior equity partnership rising to senior partnership. Profit sharing can be on a 'points system', reflecting the various contributions of partners from time to time • Decision-making. Ray Morley regards companies as at once democratic and autocratic! Like partnerships, they cannot be both at the Al 9 1986 same time—and it depends on your definition of democracy. Conventionally, each partner has one vote on all fundamental matters, but the larger the partnership the more likely that majority voting will prevail on even fundamentals such as admission of new partners, architectural style and profit sharing • Industrial democracy. The corporate form probably has the edge because it is easier to give shares in a company to the employees than shares in a partnership. But participation can be provided in a partnership; the critical factor is the *ill of the parties—both employers and employees e Statutory regulation. It is often alleged that a company is simpler to understand than a partnership but this is another delusion. The Partnership Act 1890, comprising 50 sections and no schedules, is of common law origin and codifies laws governing a group practise. There is very little statutory regulation of partnership. A corporate body is a creature of statute, an 'artificial person'. The Companies Act 1985 comprises 747 sections and 25 schedules. A company must pay a tax of one per cent on all share capital issued. It must maintain registers of shareholders, directors and mortgages; hold shareholders and board meetings; file annual returns and have professionally audited accounts. For a large firm these administrative obligations will be no problem, but for a small firm it can be a tiresome burden. Departure Superficially, the death of a partner may appear to cause more of a problem than that of a director/shareholder. In the latter case the company, being a legal entity, continues under the control of the remaining directors with the deceased's shareholding vesting in his personal representatives. However, the well advised director will wish to ensure that his or her investment in the firm can be realised by the deceased's family, and this can be achieved only by a shareholders' agreement making provisions similar to those in a partnership agreement. While technically death terminates a partnership, most deeds provide for automatic continuation among the surviving partners with payment of the value of the deceased's share to the personal representatives. Much the same applies on resignation or retirement. Conclusions • Corporate and partnership forms are very flexible e Partnership for the professional is a good motivator and is relatively simple. It must be right for most small firms • Capital requirements and pension provision may dictate a corporate structure for a particular firm e Management philosophy may fit one form rather than another e Ownership can be spread more easily through shares in a company e Client and public relations must be considered and the costs of conversion weighed in the balance • Limiting liability should not be a factor. That problem with regard to professional negligence needs legislation. Cordon Jones is the senior partner •f Church, Adams, & Co. Right of reply The AJ contacted Moxley, Manser and Derbyshire for their reactions to Jones' article. Both Moxley and Manser were still satisfied with their decision. Derbyshire did not disagree with Jones but challenged his view of the profession: 'Gordon Jones claims that the advantages of a limited company can be built into a partnership if anybody wants to, and this is true. But the real point is that they don't have to be built into a company. They are there already. This encourages members of a company to take advantage of the flexibility of management structure that is available. 'It is not easy to implant an executive management team into an existing partnership. A company provides freedom to select the appropriate leadership. 'All in all I need no persuasion that there are both advantages and disadvantages in changing to a limited company for the "average UK two.man practice". However, small practices that want to be ready for growth, able to respond quickly to changing needs and provide a better service to the building industry may decide that they will be better equipped for the future if they choose limited liability and multi.skilled diversification.' RIBA Services Ltd is holding a seminar on converting to a company on 8 May at the RIBA. Details on 01-637 8991. ACA Index February 120-39 March 12089 For application see AJ 26.1.83 pp27 and 53. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Architects Journal Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 15 January 1986 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/e9d8184aaaf53a2abdb044d1a9074d7b.pdf 7663b4a3788e9ef8ceb34fb6510298d7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Support Newsletter 1 Subject The topic of the resource Newsletter 13pp Description An account of the resource SIJI%DOAT newsletter 1977 Futlished and written by the Support Group nark Girason, „arrns, illnsle-• Colin T. a-erlor, "oolley ( teäporar" Q(idress) QC, Church noad, London 9P'Ä. Telephones: 01 965 10 or 27. iz Suoport? ?age 3Ilow Cupport Be e:an. 3. The Current Situ-ationo 5Support Projects. 50 ?.elationship ?areCoe,unity Architecture' 9 7. The -•uture 0-0 10 Alternatives in Gousir•• (.1 report on Self Juild in Dritain). The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the collective viewpoint of all Support mernbers, but ideas under discussion e 13 SUPPORT? It is currently an inforrral organisation of like minded people with a background in architecture, building, housing and planning. We are concerned with: proraoting socially resporsible work in these fields. developing alternatives to current professional ways of working. developing social and political work that Will bring benificial chances for the majority of people who, at present, have no control over the resources that produce and shape the built environment. to discuss the theoretical and practical issues that these involve. Support is both simple and comple%. It has developed in response to a sireple need of many organisations to find sympathetic and responsible 'experts' to work with them on buildings housing ana planning problems. then such grours as tenants associations, voluntary, self help, under— " priveleged croups and connunity advice and action centres think they need architect'-xal, buildinc or similar advice, it is often hard for them to find experts they can trust and who share similar objectives. In addition there are many new grouy•s with access to resources, like tenant co-operatives who find conventional professional services unsatisfactory. There are a crowin'" nnmber of asenciec dispensing assistance on welfa•e rights, the law, sonle aspects of housin— often through radical departures from conventional practice, many with official financial support, but it is only through chance or personal contact that useful help from an architect (for instance) can be found. in additions such croups often have difficulty finding the money to employ their own professionals and as we describe belove' there are many dangers in relyin€ on voluntary help uithout a well organised structure. Support is concerned with getting to grips with these problems, finding sympathetic experts to help groups and finding ways in which such experts can earn a living doing socially useful and responsible work. The demand is there and there are a few, though not enough 'experts t with the experience and ability to :neet it, The more complex side to Support appears when one asks why should 9C,; of the population be in a situation where conventional professional practices are of Ij.ttle use to them? .1hy should a growing number of youns professionals reject the methods of working that they have been trained for? What new principles shoulel emerge to structure the way society organises and uses specialised services? Developing a critique of pro-e.?.aioaali-sra and tryins to work with I-ew principles is more difficul€.• It raises trany issues about ideoloe•or and social change. it involves a comr;ittment to challenge current assumptions about the way things are done, codec of conduct, the mystique o: professional expertise and the relationship we all have to our work. The idea we have is that Support will retuin a cæparitavely ,smll informal organisation not a prozeure group in the conventional sen.ze, with a large ruernbership, nor will it be a conventional commercial firm. An adequate pressure srovp in the form of the new architecture iovernent alreadj- exists. Instead Support members will be involved in carrying out work which will be monitored and carefully anal;sed with each 2. member rharinc experience:z and di.acagsinc broader problems and Ciihe ideas developed will be spread by example and through research and publicati.ons, based on the practical experience of a workable service to meet speci.ic neeus. As we become more fIvent at explaining ourselves, briefer statements setting out the principles v.'iII emerge, but for the time being occasional publications such as this will e:cpLain the work and ideas in course of development. This newsletter doesn't represent a complete statement of our position and important caps will be filled in future newsletters. 2. GUPPCRT Support bec2n with discussions between a small group of staff and students in the Architectural Associaticn O chool o: Architecture (10k) about alterrative ways we co'ald worki outside an educational institution. Cne of the naira features of the 'unit t we were part of in the A. A. vas that students work involved puttint sone of the Support, ideas into practice through t live projects'. A great deal '.:as learnt from the Glistakes and achi everaents of thece projects 'out we were always inahibited by the pressure to confor:a to more traditional requiremezts, assessrnent and a different view of architecture which prevailed in the college as a whole. Current thinl:inc in architecture and architectural education will be a further discussion in future newsletters as there ic an increasing polarisation between those Who talk of architecture' and those with more cli Sist approach. Li-:e pro*cct work by Etuder.tz in the A.A. included:— 1 ) work with residents in a ilarringay Il. A..l. 2) with a resi,tent a-soc in a Zambetli }I.Ä.Å, 3) a repo:t on squatting. research on co—ops. work on rehab with association in a Urent G.I.Å. Desi-3i and helping to erect temporary building• with a o•roup of volunteers in owindon. the completion of report on self build housing. other interests included rural development in cngland studies of and traditional materials, chort life hous.inc. beginnings of work, with a group converting w•xrehouse in P,o+.herhitlaeo Currently students in the A .A. Unit 2 are working on:— 1 ) dtudies of a housing action area in Brent 2) .!ork in an in L eumbeth. A study of low cost conversion of industrial property in &ast London with the Joint Docklands Group. Vlork with a tenants in Southwark. ..'ork with the Community groups in the Isle of Dogs. It is not unusual for such student projec%s to continue beyond the academic year but because cf the voluntary rature of the students contribution, all sorts of problems can arise, another issue to be diccussed in more detail below/later. The result of this work taught us thnt an icr,portant distinction had to be trnde between work student— could do and a large der:nnd for help that couldn f t be dealt with by therne In addition the ideals, principles and political objectives discussed in college become much harder to apply, when thrust into the 'real world . Support, therefore, would be a moans to link experts, often isolated around the country — supporting them through opportunities to meet and discuss comrno'-l The links with the Architectural Acaociation are however, on the one hand marro' croups approach the A.A. lookin o• for the sort of help Support members can give. In addition we are able to give students the opportunity to corne into contact with our ideas. On the other hand wc are not keen to be associated %ith other work going on at the A. A. gorae Support members will continue to teach at the but it is hoped that Support itself will have a sepamte base. 'u'ith the dispersal of members of Unit 11 in the sunracr and the uncertainty of mny peoples' immediate 5 of us felt the need to form a workirac party to try and develop the idea of Sun,ort. w e have found that small selfdi.fici.plined meetings where we stick (by and lance) to an ac,enda and keep minutes has a 1101%'ed us to make a lot of progress. %'here have been 7 meetings since veptember 1976 and they large-my consider the following: 1 . Requests and enquiries that come in through variety of channels — to the A. A. , contacts etc., usually people asking for information, advice or needing building or architectural work done. discuss •,lho could handle such requests. Often this means coir-g back for more information and explaining to people that where are no soup kitchens' with unlimited nuraher.3 of voluntary helpers to assist a group. i;'e also have to explain that the architect and other j professional t T,embers are bound by law to work to a minimum fee scale we Ina-or not agree with it but we are not yet confident enough to Vick fights with bodies like the 2.1.z.A. }iowever, there are ways to find help or funds Cor Groups with very little money. In addition, number of other architect3 have established the ri"ht to provide free or flexi 'oly priced services to low income people and it i 5 likely that these arrangements may receive more fcr:nql recognition 'oefore longs 2. Je discuss people who might be able So take on work who we trust and can recommead because their abilities nvatch the 'clients' needs. have been able to find help for people as far apart as South ,/ales and London so far. Ile discuss work in progress i.e. any projecte that have come about as a result of a ;3upport contact. ,lho isworking on it, what problems are there, uh-at should be donet Ile discuss general issues about working and professionalism. •J e swap information about meetings, publications etc. , of interest. 6. There is also a crowing load of administrative work, all of which is undertaken on a voluntary basis with minimal funds (such as the production of this newsletter) . To date wc have resisted suggec.tions about forming a co—op, a company or association etc. , because Support GO far relies on trust and communication. There is little point in hiding behind an institutional label when the aims of the organization arei-n conctant developrnent , however the need to e,3ta'oIish things on a slightly more business like level are discussed below tocether with c'ar ideas on how the or-anisation might function in the future. Any work taken on through Support is taken on by individual meznbers singly or in geoups, contracting directly with their client. Support does not enter into any business relationship i!ith people needing survi ces Its members therefore have their own business or architectural practice. It has not been feasible to l:eep everyone in touch with the way things Inve developed and we 'nave generally relied on people taking the initiative themse Ives to find out what is happening. we felt it necessary to arrange the raeeting on I'larch 5th to bring everyone together and discuss recent develorrnents. This is a list of work undertaken by Support members with very brief descriptions of what the work iavolves. ..'e hope to publish material from time to time in this newsletter or as special papers about work ctkrri.ed out. haven 't listed here the many requests and enquiries that have been discussed at, Support meeting,3, which haven't led to projects 30 Law Centre — survey work to aid tenant, funded by Green Scheme, in council ovmed damp house, taking council to court. South dales ?overty action Carapxiga — Job creation sch erae in ,löercarni.d, co—ordinator to work on rehab and conversion o? a connunity building funded •J.C.r. Full tirne employment. Dri.dse Road i ,odernisation, Drent — advice to tenants association on inadequately annaged scheme to rehabilitate 32 council flats, with I-Brent Cornrnunity Law Centre — no fundc av.aj.lab]e. Brent Active Pensioners aud Disabled leople Day Centreo Plans and advice on conversion of cid church hall — will lead to help with building work funded by urban aid. ct. "ignes Place, nbeth — rehabilitation feasibility study. Survey and production of report about 1+9 houses to be demolished for a park. Part of a study called • IGaining Ground" bein• carried out by Garth Resources Research Limited, funds from trusts to E. R.R. 5. Architects could be homes for thirty years st Agnes to husband housing from Buckingham 10i. ecratc shortage of accommoda. La mbe•thv co uncil•c has moving out tenants and leav. commended demolition of the ing the houses empty to st dwellings. parkland on the site of the submitted t•.ith houses and the min. is nearlyoruens]olra. to tained the houses. that the The residents council sulitaVb!el says for shlllthelm •are pr.omptcd by its desire deal The architects say the cost of rehabilitation has been Mr Tom on and Walls l report Colin Taylorthe instructions prepared the of houses, mainly St Agnes withthree-storey Place consists terrace of 49 haveb been weakened wrecking biofn• SqumEarth Resources Research Ltd, units. Built in the nineteenth da mageu h{aas edeen uctausbcYd •bthy SQUATTERS SCUFFLE with police a: they try to stop the demolition in st Agnes Place, Kennington, after New threat to St Agnes Place " half of Lambeth ratepayers. GLC, of there collusion.could be no ques- " DANGEROUS STRUCTURES notices were served on Lambeth Before starting work. the CounCouncil last Friday. in a new cil knew an injunction was development saga, in writes the St RosemaryAgnes beang in three sought. parts Cranes. of the breach workingstreet,of Place street of Victonan days earlier, housesthe used demolition methods codes.in the council Righter. Two 49 Wednesday, The notices, under served the by Lambeththe dis- Tuesday Lambethiniunetion against which extension them. agreed of in theona trjct surveyor London to the Building Acts, require tion notices give Lambeth the The of securing the damaged option houses letter but recommends the surveyor'sdemoliing to further first-floor demolition level of eight" of tion and with " roof damage. It has four of sanng two small little hope houses.Agnes Place has been at St the centre a borough of fierce With controversy.17.600 in . families because on the of council plans waitingto delist. molish the houses and grass to take down, repaut• or other- (h lemma.Lambeth is responsible Cor the over The the council Site. proposes e',entwise secure " 14 houses. Tlur• teen Lambeth three were hours. on severely January employing darnageql 17, a in underby houses' vote against safety. have demolition. and qith choice a it councilwouldbut ualiy either to link the the tvso penni+ion street: parks but ontoit side of detnoli- appear to little tion team behind a barrier of to shore up the unsafe houses. has close neither the road. nor funds a.%oca. more than 200 police. One house Larnbeth's leader, Alderman Its budget untll the 1980s. pressure had a month been earlier vandalu.ed to prevent by Lambethsquat- evening David be St:mpson. served claimed until who as notices the thus on Fr:daywould'sut ek. ted Local cillors in houses have could beengroups shener and ccun•Latr,• ters tnoving ln. not commented that district the beth's homeless. The destruction was halted by surveyor as employed by the a Court injunction on be- �Carret Lane Law Centre, Wandsworth — New Law eentre converting old building, advice on arguement with D.S. about t structural alterations • Church End Estate (Brent) hrnting study with Brent Inw Centre and liarlesden Advice Centre on heatinc problemc in new council estate with electric ceiling heating. A number of other potential projects are currently under discussion. The central group rnembers keep time sheets on the work they do on the above projects and keep notes on the problems they experience. succest to other people who are working on other projects that they do the In addition •or e keep an information sheet or, each project. One of the key factors in attempting to work outside the limitations of the traditional relationship between the 'expert' and the 'layman the professional and the client, is the need to establish another working relationship which makes completely clear the roles and responsibilities of all involved. Critical to this new definition is the distinction between working in a voluntary capacity, and working in a contractual relationship with others. Acceptance of the contractual principle implies the need for change in the systern to allow a reallocation of control and resources. It also implies a new role for the expert of an 'enabler' with a committment to chare skills and demystify his field of expertise. The model of 'voluntary work' by experts for others is frequently adopted as an alternative to the traditional relationship, and the voluntary approach is well established in British Society. Voluntary work sets up a complex though usually ill—defined relationship between the 'doer' and the 'done—by' At worst, the motives and objectives of the volunteer be fundamentally in contradiction to those he is working with, though this may take time to become evident and the results may be irreversible. It may also prove difficult to refuse further intervention from the volunteer when his true role his been recognised. At best, the relationship can be confusing and wasteful of effort, and even when volunteers attempt to rake themselves accountable to those they are working with it is difficult to avoid an eleraent of paternalism. In order to avoid the pitfalls of voluntary work there must be a 'contractual' relationship of some kind. The normal professional/client relationship is one particularly limit inc form of contractual agreement. It works to a certain degree when an affluent and well—informed client needs an expert to perform a clearly defined task, although the client r.ray well find that the export has not fully answered his needs but that the expert is well protected by his professional status. Establishing contractual relationship need not always require the exchange of noney. host important is a clear statement of what is to be done, and a firm agreement as to who is going to undertake different parts of the work and with what decree of co—ordination. Peayment might be in kind (by an exchange of services or skills), or 'oy access to eome useful resource (i.e. floorspace, use of workshop etc.). 'Jhat is eccential is that there should be a mutually agreed contrac between the expert and the client group (for want of better ternc), and that the client croup is thus able to control the expert or to dispense with his services. 2he lack of this power of hiring and firing is raajor weakness of the voluntnry relationship. The concept of a contract, of a two way exchmnge, is vital in defining a viable wom:ing• relationship. Fcr the client group it alto implies an important chance in its political and economic relationship with 'the system % for it requires El redistribution of control and resources for the client group to be able to employ its own experts. This new relationship will also enable people with skills and expertise to earn a living doing socially responsible and useful work without compromise. Equally important in the definition of a new working relationship is committment to deravstify the area of expertise and to work with rather than for people, so encouraging the redistribution of control. It is easy to slide into an 'advocacy' role with the expert pleading for or standing—in for the actual group. The tendency of the client group will be to accept and rely on expertise without question, while the expert ray be tempted to get on with the solution to a problem in his own terns without expYQining and discussing it. This merely reinforces the alienated status o: experts and increases the dependence of others upon them, rather than enabling all people to broaden their control over their lives by increasing their knowledge and self— confidence. In previouc Support discuscions the tema•, ' cunbler' has develooed ac a useful description of thic new role. a ne enabler is aiming for the very opposite of the profeseional role in opening—up the design and process (in support case / to all whom it effects, rather than privatising information and expertise. It be recognised that this new relationship reguirec considerable enerc-jr .and tirae input by the client croup, and this can be a barrier unless responsibilities and objectives have been erefully discussed at the outset, This relates to the need for a clear 'contract ana to the importance of the client croup establishing control over resources. These on defining a new working relationship have been stated in nn abstract way. Iany of the points will be clearer when discussed in relationship to actual situations in future newslett.e+s, Community architecture is rapi.dly becor:äns a fashionable expression. It is used groups as disparate as 0.2C (Architects Revolutionary Council) and the R.I.iJ.A. It is important that our w.•rk and ideas can be distinguised fron this bandwagon which is inevitably attracting many architects in search for work. Public hostility to r.i0dern architecture has grown in recent years and it is not surprising that the establishment should be looking to inl..rove its image as radical croups er,er€e withiz, the profession. Zhis article deccr.i-bcs briefly some of these developments and future newsletters will deal with ther,i in more detail •The R.I. B.A. has established a community architecture working croup in an attempt, according to 'Building Design', ato win grass roots sympnthyil. Its objective is to gather information on innovations such ac Support and report it back to the R. I. 2.1. Council in June 1977 60 watch out: To this end a meetinz held in 2irminghara recently, to discuss 'cont:.unity architecture It was chaired by Rod Hackney the i'iacclesfield based architect who has established a reputation of working with communities. There was some disatisfaction on how the meeting was organised. Lie cnn supply more details of who was there and what happened, to anyoneinterested. Another group to emerge, Jkillpool, is a referral service with a Lexrge number of women architects which claims to 'serve the community effectively as possible but is primarily concerned with 'putting members in touch with each other for the purposes of obtainins work' (3'.ti1dins Design) . 'Che architects Revolutionary Counéil has close links with the A.Å. but has different aims and :aethods to It organises a community architecture office in the Colne Valley in Yorkshire with the help of the Rowntree ?rust and is holding an :-kC Inter:ntional in July which will cost you .25 or a day to attend. It established the New Architecture *loveraent which has a larce and growing Z'.embership who have rapidly dissociated themselves from Lar:ely supported by young disaffected enplo•jee and unemployed architects, it has produced an impressive number of papers, help several conferences and begun canpaicns to refor.%i the Architects Registration Act (to raalce architecte publicly accountable) and to get employee architects, especially in private offices to join a trade union. Support raeabers ray find it worthwhile to becoroe involved with activities with its broader pressure group objectives. '21kiui plans to hold an open meeting in I,ondon (on Larch 26th probabl") and will shortly be publishing a newsletter. There arc r.ore restrained stirrings in the surveying profession: a nunber of surveyors operate a voluntary work cchæe through Citizens advice 13ureau. k'hile one night have criticism of how it operates it is certainly a need with lese pretentiousness than nany of the architectural groups. For more ir,forrxation about the Groups referred to above contact Communitö' Architecture v/orking Croup, Charles Incr.enn, Royal Institute of 2ritish Architects, 66, Fort land Place, London, Architects levolutionary voancil, 10, Percy Ctreet, London l! .10 new architecture Mcvenent, 143 Whitfield Street, London, • I e Voluntary Zurveyors scheae, (Building and ßstates Surveyors) Dudley Lei rh, 15, ia1f Koon é%reet, Lond0'.u 11.10 The ortyanieation is in -'1 tionrll stage in which we have beon pre—occupied with the content or net, i vit,ir•• than its Il-scioutiornl form. Oe have enthusiacra for its tremendous potential prepared to put a great deal of energy into its development. As several of us need place to work cand support needs base we are setting up an office in the Clerkenwell '!orkshops near the City of London. Clerkenwell workshops is an iuteresting experiment in the provision of low rent working space as of a plan to revitQ1ize decaying inner city area. One P2rt of the building is occupied by snall scale producers, and service industries. The other part is used by ;roups like the 7:Ül+ Theatre Group, Coryunity lction ingazine, the Ghelter C0ä1nunit'J 2ction Tea:n, t Spare Rib' the wonene' nar•-.zine and the Distribution Co—op which distributes publications to alternative bookshops. will send out our full addrecc o.nd telephone number at Clerkenwell shortly. yeoo.le azsociated '„'ith ' hpport t have v:urying desrees of interest and the organisation will need to be amole to opente on two levelc. .orae want to commit themselves to workinty tozether and making a livi1T P"2rt time or even full time fron socially respoasible worlc. 'o•ailt up sor.le experience of What this involves. Others have full titae or are geocraphictllly isolated want to work in their spare time, or be a?le to respond to an occasional request they feel they can turaage. •.1e don't •tnnt to an exclusive croup but the core group of oeople are prepared to ret the office together, participate in reculaa• and frequent raeetin c•s tuncl help to organise or take on work an principles. •This can only happen between people who can develop a good relationship o: trust. 'Zhe wider group of interested people are just as inportant to Support and we need advice on how best to involve ther. •2he onus is on people aore loosely associated to Izeep in touch with us. We can organise occnsional general meetings, send out newsletters, produce papers and publications for sale etc. , but this will need financial aelp. zosentially there are three functions for ?upport: 1 . Operating referral cyztem where enquiries that cone to ,jupyeort can be discussed und people fron the central or wider group with the right skills cr Ijeocr•aphical location are found to take on resulting work. Individuals having diffieulties or needing '.vice or stipport would also contact the centrnl group. 2. ..:e would publish Vipers which would help ilith discussion of ideas and issues. This you-I d inc.l.uae research on particular topicc and pro'D1er..•s "2he office at Cierkenwell would build up infornation bank open to people associated with Surport. 90 IN ?IOUSING: report on Build in The report ' alternativcø in 710usinc? t has gone into its third printing which means that about 800 entogether have been produced. Chey Inve becn distributed through the Zookshop and the rublicztions Distribution Co—op. Je anticipate (hope?) that no :nore will be printed as the dexnnd generated by the various reviews has almost dried up and we have about 300 left at the moment. Inevitably the work on the report has fallen on the shoulders of the Support working party. On several occassions onc or other of uc has been •oked to talk about self build, •so in this way we have been Äb1e to make use of the work done in the It is available for 75p including postage from Jupport.�• SUP}ORT' is shortly to open an office in the Clerkenwell Rorkshops shown in these photographs ( reproduced from Architectural Design ) ) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Support Newsletter 1 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/af7b99d86b2281f8d958e9c1a3369191.pdf b11f443a03a6211b45a7747f4fd73051 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Description Subject The topic of the resource Brief summary of origins, aims and development Description An account of the resource ASSIST ASSIST is an architectural practice with offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh. It was created in the 1970s as a Research Unit of the Department of Architecture of the University of Strathclyde, from which it left in 1983 to become a Cooperative Practice called ASSIST Architects. Its origins are in the early days of the tenement improvement programme in Glasgow involving Senior Lecturer Jim Johnson. JM was offered a job with ASSIST in 1971 and was very impressed by the excellent design of their tenement flat improvement, having spent holidays in his youth in his aunt’s tenement flat. 24 May 2021 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ASSIST Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 2021 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/60d49f079ca96a6f6cb463cfd5a2c087.pdf d4ff985b169803e1dd171698ced4c8c4 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alternative Practice Description An account of the resource This investigated other forms of organisation of architects' offices based around the concept of cooperative working and shared equity. Several members went on to establish their own practices adopting such models. A pre-eminent example was Support Community Building Design, which emerged from a small group of graduates from the Architectural Association which went on to create a cooperative practice focused on potential client groups in society which traditionally were not the beneficiaries of the architectural profession which, we would have said, was essentially the handmaiden of capital. These groups eventually included local authority tenants, women's groups including refuges, ‘black’ i.e. racially self-defined groups. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Chelyabinsk Housing Project Subject The topic of the resource JM involved Architype in provision of Ecolite low energy housing for housing project in Chelyabinsk, Urals, Russia. Project did not complete due to 1998 Russian Financial crash Description An account of the resource ARCHITYPE Architype was established as a co-operative in 1984 by architects Jon Broome and Bob Hayes, specialising in environmentally friendly buildings and self-build projects, later becoming a commercial practice. Both Broome and Hayes previously collaborated with Walter Segal, with Broome acting as project architect on his self-build housing in Lewisham. This influence has carried through in the work of Architype who have used the Segal system in their self-build projects in Brighton. Broome has always been a fervent advocate of architects acting as agents on behalf of others and he has promoted self-build as a participatory technique that can empower users. Since his departure, Architype has switched emphasis away from self-build, whilst Broome still enables self-build projects through his own practice Jon Broome Architects and has also published a book on the subject, The Green Self-build Book. JM involved Architype in provision of its Ecolite low energy housing for housing project in Chelyabinsk, Urals, Russia. Visited Chelyabinsk twice with Jon Broome Architype. Project did not complete due to 1998 Russian Financial crash. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource ARCHITYPE Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 13-21 September 1997 and 14 March 1998