1 10 310 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/65146d3e8b2ebaf5e600643327f214f2.pdf 3c3a05b27c7ca1fffed2072662ed7bee 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 Feminist Group Description An account of the resource This developed a feminist agenda within the NAM critique. Alongside feminist consciousness raising and other feminist political groups, women within NAM came together to develop a feminist understanding of the built environment and building industry. The group acted to advise women in a range of campaigning issues. A special issue of Slate on feminism was produced in July/ August 1978. Emerging from the group was a' Feminist Design Collective' which became ‘Matrix' in 1980, producing the book ‘Making Space - Women and the Manmade Environment', which has been on architecture booklists for 35 years, and the design practice and Technical Aid Centre. <br /><br />The majority of this archive is held at the <a href="http://www.matrixfeministarchitecturearchive.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bishopsgate Institute</a>. 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 Working Womens Charter Subject The topic of the resource Poster for National Working Women's Charter Conference, Lanchester Polytechnic, Coventry 4pp Description An account of the resource Organised by the Working Women’s Charter Campaign in Coventry and London for al groups and organisations fighting for the demands of the Charter National Working Women’s Charter Conference YOU ARE INVITED TO THE 10th and 11th APRIL 1976 attheLANCHESTER POLYTECHNIC, COVENTRY Sponsored by Westminster Trades Council Coventry Trades Council ATTI Henley College, Coventry AUEW/TASS No.16 Divisional Council RACS Education Committee The Working Women's Charter WE pledge ourselves to agitate and organise to achieve the following aims: I The rate for the job, regardless of sex, at rates negotiated by the trade unions, with a national minimum wage below which no wages should fall. 2 Equal opportunity of entry into occupations and in promotion, regardless of sex and marital status. 3 Equal Education. Training for al occupations and compulsory day release for 16-19 year olds In employment. All over the country there are now action groups of al kinds including forty-nineWorking Women’s Charter groups, and two Regional Co-ordinating Committees, using the Charter as a framework for action in the localities and within the labour movement. The Working Women's Charter outlines the basic pieteduisites for complete equality at all levels of a woman's social, economic and Political life. The new legislation on Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination will by itself do little to provide these material prerequisites and will therefore have little effect on the lives of working women. The position of women will only begin to change if the organisation at a grass roots level becomes more effective, and if the labour movement (especially the unions) takes up al the aspects of women’s oppression and Not just those relating to employment and training. A struggle around the demands of the Charter could become the means of stimulating a real fighting movement both within and without the trade union movement. The National Conference hopes to Clarify perspectives and strategy for the campaign around the Charter, and within this framework to amend the Charter in order to make it a more effective weapon for the struggle in the forthcoming period. Without some form of structure, however, itwould be difficult, ifnot impossible, to implement decisions made at Conference, and it is hoped also that decisions will be taken on the development of both regional structure and some form of national structure. All groups and organisations supporting the demands of the Chaner are invited to send delegates and observers. Those which are interested but have not yet passed the Charter are invited to send observers only. The main themes of the Conference will be: Perspectives and strategy, amendments to the Working Women's Charter, and regional & national structure for the Campaign. PROVISIONAL AGENDA The Conference will start promptly at 10am Saturday. Saturday: 10.00 Registration and Coffee. 10.30 Analysis of achievements and problems; speaker; standing orders; the Standing Orders Committee will take a list of speakers (maximum of 5 minutes each) from the floor, under headings, and will be as flexible as possible given the number of contributions. 12.00 Workshops on the different campalans relating to the WWC, eg Nursery Campaign; the fight in the unions for adoption of the Charter, women's caucuses and unionisation; etc. The motions and papers submitted will be a guide as to workshop subjects. 1.30 Lunch. 2.30 Workshops. 4.00¢o fee; submission of amendments. 4.30 Plenary Session. Sunday: 10.00 Resolutions. 1.00 Lunch. 2.00 -5.00 Resolutions. DELEGATES The following organisations, providing that they support al the clauses of the Charter, are invited to send a maximum of four delegates each: Charter roups, women’s groups, other action groups, tenants associations, Co-op Parties, Political parties (constituency Labour Parties, Young Socialists etc), national unions, union branches, trades councils. Delegate Status will be related to the information given on WWC activity on the enclosed application form for credentials. Only delegates will be able to vote. OBSERVERS Observers. are invited from organisations which support or which do not yet support the Charter. Observers are required to give details of their organisation's activities on the Charter, or reason for interest, as observer status will be related to information given on credentials form. Those from supporting organisations which for any reason are unable to send delegates are requested also to complete this section. Observers can take part in the debate but not vote. Confirmation will go out a fortnight before the Conference, when delegate numbers are known. VISITORS Those who cannot come as delegates or observers and who support the Charter may be able to attend as visitors, but not contribute to the debate. FEES Delegates: £1.50; Observers: £1.00; Visitors: 50p per day, or free if claimants. (Pteawe make out cheques to the Working Women's Charter Conterence). 7 Eighteen week maternity leave with full net pay before and after a live child; seven weeks after birth if the child is still-born. No dismissal during Pregnancy or maternity leave. No loss of security, pension or Promotion prospects. 8 Family planning clinics supplying free contraception to be extended to cover every locality. Free abortion to be readily available. THE WORKING WOMEN'S CHARTER was drawn up by the London Trades Council in March 1974. Although this Trades Council no longer exists due to rorganteation by the TUC, the Charter has now been passed by at least thirty seven other trades councils from Edinburgh to Basingstoke. It also has the official support of the following national unions: ABAS, ACTT, ATTI, CPSA, Musicians’ Union, AUEW, NALGO, NSMM, NUJ, NUPE, NUS. Support comes, too, from forty five branches of other unions than those above, and eighty- five other organisations (eg Political Committee of the LCS Ltd., Nalgo Action Group, Brent Federation of Tenants Associations, Education Committee of the RACS, Constituency Labour Parties and Co-op Parties). 9 Family allowances to be increased to £2.50 per child, including the first. 10.. campaign amongst women to take an active Part in trade unions and in political life, so that they may exercise influence commensurate with their numbers, and to campaign amongst trade union men, so that they too may work to achieve these aims. sinieaia yOOOe 4 Working conditions to be, without deterioration of previous conditions, the same for women as for men. 5 The removal of al legal and bureaucratic Impediments to equality, eg with regard to tenancies, mortgages, pension schemes, taxation, passports, control over children, social security payments, hire purchase agreements. 6 Improved provision of local authority day nurseries, free of charge, with extended hours to suit working mothers. Provision of nursery classes in day nurseries. More nursery schools. MOTIONS Organisations sending delegates are invited to send in motions. Motions should be clearly separated into the following three categories: 1)Perspectives and strategy; 2)Amendments to the Working Women's Charter;3)Regional and national structure for the Campaign. In order that motions can be circulated in advance it is urgently requested that these, with papers and application forms, be returned by March 1st to: WWC Conference Secretariat, c/o Helen Gurdon, Flat 4, 39 Newbold Terrace East, Leamington Spa, Warwicks. (NOT, please, to London WWCC). Any motions sent in after March 1st will be treated as emergency motions, and must therefore be on ‘emergencies’. The final date for emergency motions is two weeks before Conference, i.e. 29th March, but any received after that date may be given sympathetic treatment. All emergency motions must obtain a two-thirds majority vote from Conference before they can be discussed. AMENDMENTS ELECTIONS PAPERS Organisations are invited to prepare papers. Those who can should produce 500 copies, and others, ifthey can, please send papers on dual stencils for Roneo and Gestetner machines, typed for A4 paper with a donation of £2 to cover duplicating costs. We cannot undertake typing. (If any problems, discuss with secretariats in London and Coventry.) Please keep Papers as short as possible and send to Leamington Spa by March 1st. CREDENTIALS APPLICATION FORM isenclosed. Ifmore are required, please write to: WWCC, 49 Lowther Hill, London SE23 1PZ (01-690-5518). CRECHE: there will be a creche available for both days. Will all parents wishing to bring children please state so on registration form and confirm by telephone to 0926-27813 by not less than one week before conference; and please bring toys, food etc. REPORTS of the Conference will be sent to all delegates after the Conference. | What You Can Do 1. Place it on the agenda of the next meeting of your organisation and, most importantly, ask that ENOUGH TIME be given for a thorough discussion of suitable motions to be sent and papers to be written. 2. Have dircussions In advance of the meeting on likely motions and the subject of Papers. 6. If you are unable at the last minute to attend the conference, send someone else In your place with a letter of transfer and the necessary papers. LONDON SECRETARIAT: 49 Lowther Hill, London SE23 1PZ (01-690-5518) for matters before March 1st. COVENTRY SECRETARIAT: c/o Helen Gurdon, Flat 4, 39 Newbold Terrace East, Leamington Spa, Warwicks, for matters after March 1st. Any amendments must be sent to the Coventry Secretariat by 29th March. They will also be accepted from workshops by close of session on the first day of Conference. The national structure decided upon may necessitate elections, so would delegates please come prepared to make nominations. These will be sent out with motions, papers compiled as conference notes, agenda, voting cards and an accomodation list, etc, two weeks before the Conference. PLEASE RETURN ALL FORMS, MOTIONS, PAPERS, TO: Conference Secretariat, c/o Helen Gurdon, Flat 4, 39 Newbold Terrace East, Leamington Spa, Warwicks, and NOT TO WWCC, 3. Ask your organisation to sponsor the conference In name and if possible financially as well, to a suggested minimum of £2. 4. Ask your organisation to advertise the conference In thelr very next mailing to members or affiliated organisations. 5. Make sure that all registration forms, moneys, and papers are returned by March 1st (to Leamington Spa, not London) in order to help with the task of organisation. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Working Women's Charter Campaign Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 10,11 April 1976 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/8da2b76ecb64388a591ce0649706e944.pdf 437ff12b6e27186ec39255a3714df58d 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 Trade Unions and Architecture Description An account of the resource Themes included action on asbestos and Health &amp; Safety, and involvement with Direct Labour Organisations and Building Unions. Following comparative research of possible options, NAM encouraged unionisation of building design staffs within the private sector, negotiating the establishment of a dedicated section within TASS. Though recruitment was modest the campaign identified many of the issues around terms of employment and industrial relations that underpin the processes of architectural production. 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 WORKING FOR WHAT? Subject The topic of the resource The case for Trade Union Organisation with Hellman cartoons Description An account of the resource | THE CASE FOR TRADE UNION ORGANISATION IN ARCHITECTURE AND THE ALLIED BUILDING PROFESSIONS WORKING FOR WHAT? i= Yn a NAM report 60 pence WORKING FOR WHAT? The Case for Trade Union Organisation in Architect- ure and the Allied Building Professions a NAM Report by the (Unionisation) Organising Committee of The New Architecture Movement Cartoons by Louis Hellman PREFACE This report grew out of the work of the “Unionisation Work- ing Group” of the Central London Group of the New Arch- itecture Movement,whichpresentedadraftreportonthe subject of trade unionism in architecture to NAM’s Second Congress, held in Blackpool, November 26-28, 1976, The draft report was enthusiastically received by the Congress, which set up an enlarged, national Organising Committee to develop realistic proposals for the organisation of the nearly 50,000 people prceetc in the almost totally uni ised private sector of the building professions and to co-ordinate and strengthen trade unionism among architectural workers in both sectors. The present report, then, is based on nearly a year of intense discussion among architectural workers and with trade union officials and activists, as well as upon study of the relevant literature. It’s purpose is to bring into focus and stimulate discussion upan a subject which requires urgent attention by all workers involved in the design of the built environment. As the experience of the authors is principally in architecture, this report concentrates on that field. We are confident, how- ever, that the present situation in the other building profes- sions (quantity surveying, structural and building services engineering, landscape architecture, surveying, town planning) is roughly comparable to that in architecture and that the proposals outlined in this report may, therefore, besimilarly relevant. The Organising Committee, in any case, welcomes comments and criticisms from people working in any of the building professions as well as from “lay people,” who, like ourselves, must live and work in the buildings we help produce. WHY ORGANISE ? Why are steadily increasing numbers of architectural employ- ces now seriously interested in trade union organising where they work? The present economic crisis in architecture, not to mention the more profound crisis of both confidence and identity within the profession and growing pressure for job satisfaction and “industrial democracy,” is merely bringing into focus a situation which people working in architecture share with professional, technical, scientific, creative and clerical workers of similar status and responsibility in other industries who have already begun organising. By now most teachers up through university and polytechnic level and journalists in the press and broadcasting are members of TUC.affiliated unions, as are some 5,000 doctors. Organisation is steadily growing among professional engineers and even Church of England vicars are organising now. The past year has also scen young lawyers beginning to organise within the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU). Staff at the headquarters architectural management’s of Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) are apparently already well along the path of unionisation. (Even soldiers — at least on the Continent and in the USA — now have their unions! Throughout al sectors of industry, the remarkable growth in “white collar” organisation, not to mention militancy, during the present periodof accelerated inflation and incomes policies, has been partly a result of the desire to win back salary and status differentials eroded by better organised manual workers, But it stems also from a growing realisation that only by collective action with the backing of a bona-fide trade union can the no-longer-so-benevolent paternalism which characterizes industrial relations in “the professions” be replaced with more democratic control over al aspects of working life. Architecture Today What is the situation in architecture? In the past, we are told, a young architect could reasonably look forward to the day when he would gain control over his work, win the respect of the community, achieve a level of economic well-being and fulfil his professional obligations by “becoming his own boss.” The “professional myth” perpetuated by the RIBA and the schools of architecture, with help from the media, would have us believe that the profession is still (if it ever was) a community of equals or near-cquals, with a partner- ship the eventual outcome of the typical architectural career. The profession is in fact made up of near equals as far as ability to do the work of architecture is concerned, which helps to keep the myth alive. The crucial reality, however, is that 90% of the architectural workforce (and even 80% of “‘architects’’) is already salaried. These figures increase steadily. The likelihood of somcone now beginning a career in architecture ever becoming a part- ner correspondingly declines and is hardly improved by the even more remote possibility of becoming a principal in the public sector, which has by and large modelled its hierarchical structure and bureaucratic methods on those of private practice. On the other hand, more and more architectural employees can only look forward to a continuing life of drawing board drudgery, insecurity and alienation. The Business of Architecture The fact that is dawning on architectural staff with ever- increasing clarity and force is that architecture is, first and foremost, abusiness. The cornerstone of architectural practice is, thus, a division of the people involved into a small minor- ity of architectural businessmen and bureaucrats, the manage- ment (“partner,” “chief architect,” etc.), on the one hand, and architectural workers, be they architects, architectural assistants, technicians, draughtsmen, secretaries, etc. on the other hand. We are concerned here with the people who by and large do the work of architecture — designing, drawing, specifying materials, supervising work on site — and those who provide them with essential clerical and administrative support. These are the “architectural workers.” SORRY OLD MAN, BUT THE S@UEEZE HAS HIT US ALL... /VE JUST HAD TO GIVE UP My THIRO ~ HOME For INSTANCE / two-thirds of the profession, is already down by about a third from its level at the end of 1974. In the better-organiscd public sector, the redundancies have only just begun. Tic official unemployment rate among all “architects” is estim- ated to be well over 10%, and it is predicted in some quarters that it will rise to 2 this year. The architectural worker already on the dole queue is reduced to waiting for the next building boom, though the fear is gaining ground that this may be a long way off if it ever does materialise. While the Partner may be deciding that investing in a third home just is not on this year, those employees still at the drawing board can only hope that the next round of redundancies will pass them by and are forced to look on helplessly while a growing number of employers unilaterally alter their contracts of employment to, for example, increase hours or discontinue payment for overtime work. Meanwhile, architectural work ers have seen their real income steadily declining during the past few years. This has been particularly marked in private practice, where trade union organisation is virtually non- existent. Alienation of the Drawing Board A deeper and broader dissatisfaction with the situation in architecture runs equally through both private and public practice. Taught to consider himself (or herself) technically competent, socially concerned, and professionally independ: ent, the architectural worker is forced to work within a sys- tem that gives him, just as the workers in other industries, no control over his working life. Ilis technical, creative and social concerns and capabilities are continually frustrated by the unaccountable power exercised, often quite arbitrarily, by the same people who are making his economic position increasingly untenable: the architectural businessmen who are more in sympathy with the directors, speculators and mandarins who deal out the commissions than with the workers in their offices or the people who must live and work in the buildings for which they are so quick to take eredit should the critics applaud. Each architectural worker is separated from his colleagues in the office by excessive division of labour, claborate status groupings and an individual competitivencss which owes more to the present harsh realities of employeremploy- ce relationships than it does to any creative pretensions. At the same time he is often denied the contact with the client, not to mention the people who will actually use the buildings he designs, without which itisimpossible for him properly to carry out his responsibilities. Contact with the building labourers and craftsmen who must use the drawings and specification he produces in order to build “his” building is hardly more frequent or profound. Sect in this context, the architectural worker's ultimate alienation from the product itself is inevitable. Additional copies of this report are available for 6 postpaid, from The New Architecture Marerant 5Rat Street, London W 1. Bulk orders of over 10 copies are available at 50p per copy, postpaid. The current economic crisis, which has resulted in large-scale redundancies throughout the entire building indusiry, has begun to clarify for many architectural workers i situation which persists through boom as well as bust. Architectural employment in the private sector, which comprises nearly Copyright 1977 (Unionisation) Organising C New p:rctitectine eorement We will sit happily et people we like reproduce anythin, mustfirstaskourperalanioeedSee aan Printed by Women in Print, 16a Iliffe Yard, London SE 17. While the “myth of the professional” has been wearing thin on the architectural worker, the so-called “crisis in architect- ure,” has been brought closer to the ignition point by the unprecedented collapse of public confidence in the architect- ural profession. This has quite understandingly followed from the Ronan Point, Centre Point, Summerland and Poulson scandals set against a backdrop of the profession's full-scale collaboration in the destruction of countless neighbourhoods and towns, whose only crime was to be out of step with the “demands of the market”, and their replacement with the shabby yet expensive wasteland of arbitrary and oppressive “estates” and “blocks,” motorways and parking garages, shopping centres, civic centres and cultural centres which signify “modern architecture” for the man in what used to be the street. It is becoming increasingly obvious both to architectural workers and to the public that architecture as it is now practised serves only the interests of the few and remains inaccessible and unaccountable to the community, despite all the committees, enquiries and reports, codes of conduct, pilot projects and pious sentiments about participation and public sery Communities want control over their environ- ment and architectural workers are begining to realise the need for control over their working lives, for a chance both to survive economically and to produce the technically, creatively and socially responsible architecture of which they are capable. But how has the architectural worker come to find himself in this situation of exploitation, isolation and alienation? The drive, which no enterprise in the market economy can avoid, towards an ever-increasing profit element and steadily declin- ing labour element has resulted in architecture, in larger and more hierarchical practices. Increasingly bureaucratic and arbitrary, remote and unaccountable, they are unable to utilise fully the human skills and material resources made available to them. To ensure higher profits, including the means to pay higher interest and insurance charges, the owners of practices have had to cut their labour costs by reducing manning, cutting salaries (both as a proportion of production cost and in real-income terms) and reducing the time and resources which can be allocated not only to cach project but also to “back-up” likeon-the-job training, continuing education, research and other “labour costs,"’ be they pensions, other payments, or social provisions. Of course, this cost cutting is not only against the interests of architectural workers. By preventing those who must do the work of architecture from doing a competent and responsible job, this cutting of “labour costs’ is against the public interest as well. The collapse of public confidence in the profession is no coincidence. Despite the occasional feudal remnants with which those in the profession are all too familiar, it is obvious then, that architecture has entered the age of capitalism, “unacceptable face” and al. What then, is the response of the architectural worker? It is in this context that we consider the question of trade unionism in architecture. AREAS FOR UNION ACTION Architectural workers are slowly and painfully becoming aware that their cmployment security, their standard of liy- ing, and the What? How? and Why? of the work they do, not to mention the quality of the environment which they share as members of the community, are as much at the mercy of the market system as those of any other working people. Not surprisingly then, they begin to look to trade unionism, not as a panacea, but as a way of beginning to come to grips with these problems, collectively, with the people with whom they work. Workers that were “proletarianised” long before have for over a century seen the answer in solidarity The trade union movement is the principal institutional form which that solidarity has taken. Through their unions, working people have defended their standard of living and right to work in the face of management's quest for more profit and power. At the same time, they have begun organising to replace the market system with more democratic control over all aspects of their working lives, so that the human, natural and cult- ural resources of the nation may be used, rationally, for the benefit of al, What could trade union organisation accomp- lish for people working in architecure? The Priorities THEYRE WORKING OUT NEXT Year’ PARTNG@S SUITE (KOE? ovr 8. andatanappropriaterate. d. A minimum of one month's paid vacation for all architectural workers. ¢. One unitied and adequate pension plan covering all architectural employment. f. Full implementation of equal pay and job opportun- ities for women and adequate paid maternity and paternity leave. g. Safe and healthy working conditions, including seat- ing, lighting and fire precautions, Sufficient time off with pay for attendance at relevant courses, conferences and meetings, as well as for trade union activities. XN 7 orrice StRuctuRE 7 EAR If overtime work is unavoidable, it should be paid, Beyond Bargaining: The Road to Progress in eH eCHEe 3 os Unionisation does not just mean collective bargaining. Those familiar with trade unions know how, in addition, they defend employees against discrimination, unfair dismissal or victimisation, either by legal representation at tribunalosr by more direct “shop floor” action. And while collective bargaining agreements are clearly the primary method where- by architectural employees could begin to take control of their own destinies, they could also act positively and effect- ively in other ways, in the office, the profession, the building industry and the community. For example: Beyond Bread-and-Butter Today, the situation in architecture makes it necessary for organised workers to go beyond these vital bread-and-butter issues. Through their union representatives they could demand, for example: 1. An end to “production line’ ig 7 2. 8. 4. 5. arbitrary division of labour and excessive separation of hi 1workers into “professionals” “technicians,” and “students.” The opportunity to do each job responsibly: no speed- ups and no cutting of corners. Adherence to a “code of conduct,” developed through the union which would prevent architectural workers from having to collaborate in the destruction of our natural and architectural heritance, the breaking up of coherent neighbourhoods, and the diversion of valuable material and human resources from socially-useful pro- jects to speculative, monumental, prestige, authoritarian and colonial ones. An end to secretive management and arbitrary decisions over the lives of architectural workers as well as over the lanning, design, construction and management of the Buite environment. Architectural workers need not mere- ly “open books,” but complete, democratic control over every aspect of architectural practice. Employers to contribute, per employee, to a fund which: architectural workers would administer through their union and which would establish small, democratically- organised locally-based “community design offices’ to provide an architectural service accessible to and accountable to popular-based community action groups, tenants associations, trades councils, etc. The union, in collaboration with the “‘client,”’ would staff cach office with architectural workers on “leave of absence.”’ Firms could be given the option of converting to small, non- profit, self-managed practices under a suitable frame- work ensuring accountability to the community and co- ordination with other such community design offices. Either way, construction from the grass roots up, of a democratically-organised and locally-controlled design service could begin. press demands for the right to produce well-designed, 1. If workers in architecture and the allied building profes- sions were well-organised, they, together with other organised workers in the building industry, could exert the political influence that is necessary to stop the cuts in socially-necessary building expenditure and invest- ment. The use of the building industry by successive g as a handy “ ic reg ” (howev ineffective) is partly a reflection of the comparative ik of trade union o} isation in the industry. Its disastrous effects, even in boom times when a reckless scramble for profits stretches inadequate human and material resources, are well known. But beyond merely fighting for reasonable employment prospects; architectaral workers,if organised, would be in a position to campaign for an end to the use of the building industry by the market system to ensure profit and power for bankers and speculators instead of decent housing, industrial, social and cultural facilities for the community. They could demand that the whole range of human, material and financial resources available to the construction sector be used for the good ofthe com- munity and not for the luxury of the few or to maintain clitist, oppressive and wasteful institutions at home or fascist and racist regimes abroad. Only if they are well-organised will architectural em- ployees be able to develop, articulate, and poreceny well-built, socially-useful, environmentally-sound and di ically-pl 9 buildi At Lucas Aerospace, a Shop Stewards Combine Committee representing all 14,000 blue-collar and white-collar employees in several unions at the 17 U.K. Lucas sites has begun to demon- strate that demands of this nature can be made “‘on the shop floor’ as well as in the broader political arena. After widespread discussions among the entire Lucas workforce, they have drawn up an alternate “corporate plan” to fight threatened redundancies by converting to the production of socially-desirable goods which make use of existing expertise and equipment and for which a need and a market has been demonstrated. Many of these incorporate “alternative technologies". An integr- ated energy system for housing, for example, incorpor- ates solar panels, windpower devices and pumping and switching equipment all based on past Lucas work (; The crucial first step is to organise and fight together to ach- teve recognition of their union as their representative and institute collective bargaining where they work as the means of resolving all significant issues of employer-employee relations. Depending on their priorities, architectural work- ers might then demand, for example: 1. An end to unnecessary redundancies. To keep going in time of crisis, excess profits and so-called “management expenses” should be trimmed, not jobs. Work sharing and early retirement should be fully utilised. Where redundancies are agreed in advance to be unavoidable they should be handled less arbitrarily and inequitably than at present. The Who? When? and How? must be negotiated in detail, and those made redundant given maximum notice, redundancy pay, and supplementary unemployment benefit, all in excess of the present inadequate legal minimums. n ° s Collective negotiation of salaries, hours, and all other conditions of employment, to ensure for al architectural Mone a reasonable standard of living. This would a. Stopping the decline in real wages and insuring that salary levels allow architectural workers to maintain their standard of living. .Reducing Pay differentials, where excessive and divisive, particularly by raising the grossly inadequate salaries of the lowest-paid architectural workers. - In order to share equitably the work available, a max- imum work week of 35 hours or even less and no overtime work as a substitute for full employment. There are other proposals in the areas of medical engin- ecring and urban transport. 2. Collaborate with organised building workers not only in their campaign to end the “lump,” but also to ensure decent, healthy and safe conditions on site and to dev- elop “Green Ban'-type actions blacking politically, socially or environmentally destructive projects. Archit- ectural workers could also begin to refuse to collaborate on projects unless the workers who build them are ensured fair wages, decent conditions and trade union representation, 8. To increase the accountablity of the profession, cam- paign for changes in the Architects Registration Acts in sive’ bread-and-butter trade unionism is particularly well- entrenched, large unions have recently pioneered collectively- bargained health and safety agreements and the giant United ion to envi Democracy at Work The Professional Myth The other classic argument is based upon another aspect of the “professional myth.” Again, itisusually applied to the “architect,” ignoring half of the workforce in architecture. The salaried architect, it gocs, will eventually become a partner and not only sees his security in a partnership rather than through the solidarity of trade union action but already shares the employer's mentality, He has no long-term interest in building the union; quite to the contrary, he already takes an active interest in the employers’ institutions. Myths do die hard, but with 80% of even “architects” already salaried and the figure steadily mounting, the “proletarianisation” of the profession is beginning to be understood. Reality can only so long be denied. The rapid growth of white collar and profess- dona’ trade union militancy in the past few years confirms this. Others argue convincingly that trades unionism can only be built upon solidarity and that “architects” will never over- come the individualism and competitiveness which stems from their middle-class backgrounds and education. (And with the employers’ control of ARCUK and thus of architec- tural education, the title, “architect,” is by now virtually restricted to people with that background and education.) Fortunately, the education system is les than 100% efficient and it has been demonstrated that even a middle-class back- ground doesn’t preclude the development of solidarity at work. A corollary to this argument is that the architect is anxious to maintain asocial status which places him in that increasing- ly select circle “‘above”’ trade unionism. How much remains of the architect's vaunted status today is another question. The current form of this argument is perhaps that trade who were sacked after publicly criticising, as professionals, a scheme being done by their employers in collaboration with a firm of property developers, were reinstated thanks to the backing of their union, NALGO. That is hardly an isolated example. Many non-union profes- sionals who have acted on their responsibility to serve the public interest have found themselves without a job and mysteriously unable to find a new one. Two cases from the United States may highlight the issue. A non-union professional engineer assigned by his very reput- able consulting engineers’ firm to supervise the welding in the construction of a nuclear power plant noticed many potentially-dangerous defects in the welding which could result in the release of radioactivity into the neighbourhood of the plant. He repeatedly tried to warn his employers of the situation. Finally, he resigned after being told by his employer that he was to be sacked for “lack of experience in welding,” an unusual charge against someone who had been a journeyman welder for 24 years and most of whose engin- cering experience was in welding. His court case against his employers floundered for lack of funds. He was unable to find another job and believes himself to be the victim of a blacklist. On the other hand, a quality control inspector at Gencral Motors car plant discovered a defect in the welding of rear- quarter panels which could permit exhaust fumes to leak into the car, After repeatedly pointing out the defects to his superiors, to no avail, he was transferred to another depart- ment. Finally, three years later, after at least four motorists had been asphyxiated, the company acknowledged the defect and recalled 2.4 million cars for repair. Subpoenaed as a witness in a trial involving the defective cars, the inspector found himself sacked upon returning to work. Through the order to remove control over the Architects Registration Council (ARCUK) from management and divide it between laymen representative of the people who use buildings and archi 1 employes and employers in proportion to their relative numerical strengths in the profession. A reconstituted ARCUK could promulgate and enforce a “code of conduct” in the interests of the public and workers in the profession. Such a code might permit among architects only non-profit, self-managed forms of practice which provide for direct accountability to the ity an I internal di . Protection of the title, “‘architect,” and control over architectural education should no longer be used to filter out those potential architects who come from working- class backgrounds or who might otherwise tend to upset architectural management's neat little applecart. Archit- ectural workers could fight for an end to education without jobs and jobs without education by demanding adequate on-the-job training and continuing education. 4. Collaborate with trade unions in other countries (part- icularly the EEC) to ensure that international policies affecting architectural practice, building and the environ- ment are in the interests of architectural workers and the community. There are very few problems facing architecture today that trade union organisation and action could not come to grips with and make a real contribution towards resolving, We believe that unionisation is the only way that architectural workers can begin to gain control over their working lives. At the same time it would be a positive step forward for the building industry and for the community. We don’t see organisation in the work place as a panacea. We sec itas one necessary ingredient in an interdependent, three-fold strategy for progress, alongside action in the community to develop Structures of direct involvement and accountability and political action on abroad scale. WHAT KIND OF ORGANISATION ? The real question now is, “What kind of trade union organ- isation is appropriate today for people working in architecture and the allied building professions?” An approach to trade unionism is needed which will not only facilitate organisation in the first instance but also maximise in the long run the benefits of organisation to both workers and community. The direction we recommend has already been implied in our analysis of the situation in architecture today and our sketch of what a union could accomplish. This direction has a long history which has continued to dey- elop and make a stronger impact on the British trade union movement. Witness the growing recognition of the key role of workplace representatives (“shop stewards”) in the union Structure, the industrial occupations and setting-up of self- ag workers’ peratives,” the exp d legislati for a b ig of some formalised “industrial democracy,” andthe far-sightedandpositiveattitudetowardsthescopeof union activity typified by the “Green Bans”pioneered in Australia by the Building Labourers’ Union of New South Wales and the proposals for conversion to socially-useful production which have been made by the Lucas Acrospace Strong, militant and democratic “shop floor’ trade union isation is not merely an essential means in the struggle for “‘workers’ control” but the embryo as well for the end which is being sought. While it emphasizes the primacy of the work place as the scene of the confrontation between two mutually-antagonistic conceptions of social organisation, it stresses as well the complementary need for active political mobilisation on a broader plane to replace the market system and the institutions which perpetuate it. This type of trade unionism is the most likely to be relevant to the concerns of architectural workers about the nature of the product they produce and the use to which it is put, about the way the work of architecture is organised, and about the satisfaction they receive from doing their job, Its explicit call for self-management is particularly relevant in architectural practice, where many of the “obstacles” to it which exist in industry are more easily overcome. Moreover, because of its broader appeal and its emphasis on strong shop floor organisation, it may also be most likely to achieve penis and lasting progress on bread-and-butter issues as well, The Shop (Office) Floor Architectural workers want a positive trade unionism whose aim is to combat both the material privations of the market system and the lack of accountability and humanity which it engenders. This requires a unionism based in the daily exper- lence of its members and accountable to their wishes, Trade union organisation firmly based on the “shop floor” will enable members to formulate policies in the context they know best. In this way, too, the everyday opposition of workers to the oppressive and de-humanising forces of the market remains undiluted by remote hierarchies acting on their behalf. CAN ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? Is there really any reason to believe that architectural em- ployees actually can organise, notwithstanding the need to do so and the benefits which would accrue for organisation? joni: predating plastics, iP and iology, isn’t interventionf his union, the United Automobile Workers, Auto Workers (which covers much heavy machinery and the aircraft industry as well)have begun to devote considerable qT . “trendy” enough for the architect. Unfortunately, one can’t pay the rent with “status,” and “trendiness” is no substitute for a full stomach, fulfilling work, and self-respect. This is beginning to dawn on those who have hitherto been too casily satisfied for their own good. It is also becoming increas- ingly apparent that architectural reformism is painting itself into a corner, despite the frenzied efforts of the media to market the latest panaccas. Employers of course, have always argued that trade unionism is incompatible with “ professionalism.” Industrial action, or even mere union membership is unprofessional, unethical, irresponsible. In the past, many white-collar unions would bend over backwards to accommodate this vicw as the situation of professional employees changes and as trade unionism among them becomes more commonplace, these slightly degrading rituals have become less necessary. In fact, professional, scientific and technical employees are increas- ingly finding that management's version of “professionalism” often paysFittle more than lip service to the public interest it is supposed to serve and that they can better turn to their own trade unions that to the employers’ institutes for a defence of real professionalism. It was widely reported in the press recently how two architectural assistants in Scotland DONT worry, t'M LOOKING AFTER “THE PUBLICS INTERESTS he not only got reinstated immediately, with back pay for time lost in court, but eventually was able to force his employer to give him back his original inspectors’ job. Fragmentation at Work More serious arguments against the feasibility of organising among architectural workers hinge upon the apparent frag- mentation of the profession. The classic form of employer- encouraged fragmentation divides architectural workers into several categories, each of which is alleged to have its own special interests which override any common ones. To rein- force what is often a difference in class background, there is the statutory division of architectural workers into those who are “‘architects” and those who are “architectural tech- nicians,” otherwise known as draughtsmen. This type of division is carried further by the creation among salaried architects in private practice of “associate” status. And the technician, is then placed one step above the clerical staff. Then there is a division of architectural workers “horiz- ontally” into distinct “crafts.” (The distinctions of course, can blur easily when there’s a scramble for work.) Thus we have the intricate and cultivated division of building design into tasks for architects or surveyors, town planners or the tradition of a strong but narrow and essentially “‘defen- This conception stresses the need for workers to gain full, democratic control over all aspectsof their working lives, not merely over wages, hours, job security and pensions. It does this not only out of a fundamental faith in democracy and egalitarianism, and their ability to mobilise people's product- ive and creative capacities, nor merely out of a recognition that low wages and insecure are not the only harmful and oppressive aspects of capitalist control which need to be met head-on. It believes that unless workers take the initiative and fight that system of control where they work, replacing “management prerogative”’ with democratic self-management, the fight for even decent wages and job security will remain a rear-guard, defensive action, increasingly unfruitful. shop stewards combine committee. Even in the USA, where One of the classic arguments against the feasibility of organ- isationisthattheincentivestojoinatrade es lacking {at least among “‘architects”). Architects, we are told, are well-paid; their employers are liberal; their work is neither back-breaking, impersonal nor hazardous and provides a high level of job satisfaction; and as “professionals” they enjoy a high level of control over the organisation of their work. Without beginning a discussion of whether this was ever an accurate picture, and for whom, it should be obvious by now that this no longer applies to the overwhelming majority of architectural workers, (including most “‘architects”) whose worries in the present economic crisis only thinly conceal a deeperuncertaintyaboutthefutureofthebuilding industry and the economy, not to mention the future roles of the various “designprofessions.” urban désigners, structural and services engineers, quantity surveyors, building control officers, etc. This division, we are told, is the result ofan inevitable historical process of specialis- ation for the purpose of maximising efficiency. EF FICIENCY! Though the trend has been towards increasing centralisation, the employment pattern in architecture, particularly in the private sector, has traditionally been characterised by a great number of small offices. This usually makes more difficult not only organising in the first place but maintaining what organisation has been achieved, especially when combined with high staff turnover, a characteristic of the profession when times are good, particularly in London where perhaps half of the architectural employment in Britain is located. At this point though, with the economic crisis pushing many small practices to the wall and with large, bureaucratic pract- ices in public and private sectors under increasing attack both from within and without, trade union supported “shop-floor” initiatives to convert practices to self-managed cooperatives directly accountable to user groups may be the only way out. The “typical” career structure in British architecture, when combined with the present form of the British trade union movement, adds a further obstacle to organisation. In one working lifetime an architectural worker may not only pass through the territories of two or three different public sector unions but may also pass back and forth from organised to unorganised territory, not a recipe for active trade unionism. The corollary is that the trade unions are also quite under- standably discouraged by this fragmentation from cither actively organising architectural workers or paying much attention to a small architectural “minority” of their mem- bers. LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE The idea of trade union organisation in architecture is not, in fact, entirely new. It is instructive briefly to examine the history of organising in architecture and to consider its implications. The “Architects? and Surveyors’ Assistants Professional Union” (ASAPU) was founded in 1919 amidst the intense industrial unrest and union activity which followed the 1914- 1918 war. In 1924, already 60% of the profession was salaried. The union grew in strength to 2500 by the mid- Twenties, at a time when there were only about 12,000 “architects.” In 1924, the name was changed to “Association of Architects, Surveyors and Technical Assistants” (AASTA). By the mid-Thirties, in the depths of the Depression, though 70% of the profession was by then salaried, unemployment was 30% and the membership was again 2500. It emerged from the Second World War as the “Association of Building Technicians” (ABT) with amembership which reached 3500, though it never had more than a thousand architects. By now it has hardly more than 200 architect members anda similar number of architectural technicians or assistants. In the late ‘60's it was absorbed into the Amalgamated Soci Woodworkers. That subsequently became the “Uni Construction, Allied Trades, and Technicians” (UCATT) and last year the remnants of the ABT were absorbed into its newly-formed “Supervisory, Technical, Administrative, Man- agerial and Professional” (STAMP) section, made up largely of site foremen and other supervisory staff transferred from the manual craft sections. A “Craft Union” During its heyday in the Twenties and Thirties, the union concentrated its energy on trying to get a minimum salary scale for the profession, to get representation for salaried architects on the RIBA Council and, in the tradition of “craft unions”, to limit the number of workers entering architecture by setting more stringent and time-consuming educational standards. Its main efforts on these issues were made in negotiations with the RIBA, rather than directly with the employer in the architectural office. It collaborated with the RIBA in supporting the passage of the Architects Registration Acts, apparently in “return” for expected RIBA agreement to a minimum salary scale. But surprise, the RIBA never did agree to one. AASTA then adopted a some- what more militant tone, and membership took an upturn. It didn’t affliliate to the TUC, however, until 1939. Why did this pioneering effort “fade into obscurity” as a trade union for architectural workers? Probably because, despite its numbers it never achieved any real bargaining strength where it counts, on the “shop floor’ (ic. in the office) and thus could never “‘deliver the goods.” It was apparently never strong enough in any private sector firm to achieve recognition as the representative of itsmembers in. collective bargaining, the first step for any union wishing to be effective. Historical factors certainly played a role in this. Less of the profession was salaried in those days and small offices were more numerous, making effective organising more difficult. The legislative and judicial situation then also made achieve- ing union recognition in the workplace moredifficult than it now is, especially since the passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1974, and the Employment Protec- tion Act of 1975. Much of the ABT leadership at one time apparently subscribed to the then current “socialism in one country” line emanating from Moscow and was perhaps not oriented towards industrial militancy in Britain. Instead, several rose to management positions in local authority (and even private) practice and to prominence in the employer- dominated RIBA, whether in pursuit of the party line or of personal inclination it is difficult to judge. Solidarity at the place of work too often took a back seat to discussions of “professional” issues at Portland Place. It is difficult to judge how the union was compromised by its collaboration with the RIBA. It fought for seats on the RIBA Council, helped set up the Board of Education, and supported the Architects Registration Acts. Yet it had never been in a position to deal with the employers’ isation froam position of gth Perhaps the key reason for the “failure” of ASAPU —AASTA — ABT was that as a “craft union” of architects, assistants and technicians it was unwilling to organise all employees, including clerical staff, in the office, clearly a necessary step in achieving any real bargaining strength. Union activity consequently came to centre around the branches and the national executive rather than in the office where people actually work and produce together and can be directly represented by “shop stewards.” This lack ofa strong organ- isation may be O.K. for a “friendly society,” but we believe it does not make fora strong union, may facilitate domination by a bureaucratic minority, and results in the leadership getting out of touch with the rank and file. Even in thepublic sector, where most of its members were, the ABT’s precarious position was gradually croded away by more general unions like NALGO which have the muscle to negotiate with em- ployers and deliver the goods. THE SITUATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Nearly two-thirds of all architectural employment is in the private sector. At present, trade union organisation among these workers is insignificant, though nevertheless growing. In addition to the occasional “individual” member of ASTMS (Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs), STAMP, TASS (Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section of the AUEW the engineering workers’ union), or TGWU, some people working in “in-house” architecural, Surveying or engineering departments in industry, commerce or the “voluntary sector” (e.g. housing associations) are represented by a union (typically ASTMS, TASS, Dissatisfaction, Apathy Many architectural workers in the public sector are dissatis- fied with the unions which represent them, and it is likely that the level of membership is somewhat lower among them than the average among public sector white-collar workers. None of the unions concerned could actually put their finger on the number of architectural workers who were members or on the percentage of their “architectural constituency” which was organised. Until recently, few architectural workers in the public sector have taken an active interest in the union which represents them. Perhaps part of the reason for this may be that they have rarely found these unions relevant to their day-to-day, “drawing board” concerns, as tiny minorities in unions other- wise having little to do with architecture. Yet the decline of the elitist, RIBA-endorsed “AOA” (Association of Official Architects) and of the “craft union” ABT (and the rise of more general unions like NALGO) confirms the undeniable fact that “the most appropriate union to join is the one that actually negotiates for your type of job” and which is broad enough to include the “industrial muscle” that must stand behind any negotiating position. As the cuts in housing, Social services, health, rail, etc. expenditure begin to bite and the rate of redundancies accelerates, it is inevitable that the importance to architectural workers in the public sector of the recognised unions will increase, as will the understanding of the need for close organisational alliance with other workers involved in the provision of these services. The lack of “craft” concern of the recognisedwhite-collar unions in the public sector is an obvious cause of the apathetic response of architectural workers to them. Yet it is also one which can very easily obscure far more significant causes. A typical white-collar worker in the public sector may spend his or her entire career within the “constituency” o! _one recognised union. The “typical career structure” in architec- ture, on the other hand, as has been indicated, may well pass through the territories of more than one union in thepublic Sector not to mention the unorganised expanses of the private sector. It has not been unusual for an architectural worker to move froma local authority to private practice, to teaching Or research, to central government or a nationalised industry, into a contractor’s office or private industry, and perhaps half-way back again, all in one working lifetime. This state of affairs hardly provides an incentive to the architectural worker to take an active part in his or her trade union and make the kind of long-term and deep-seated commitment upon which effective trade union organisation depends. What may be the most important reason forthe apathy of architectural workers towards the public sector unions which represent them has more to do with the general nature of those unions than with any special problems ofarchitectural work. Most of these unions began as paternalistic “staff associations” and were able because of this, and because of for the practical purposes of everyday working life. While the extent of union membership tends to decrease the farther up the ladder of salaried management one looks (though even the upper echelons are increasingly organised), some of these architectural managers have at times been able unduly to influence union activity (or inactivity) in their departments. They often share the outlook and concerns of architectural employers in private practice, within whose institutions they may take an active role. Given the career structure in archit- ecture, it is not unknown to move from a position of respon- sibility in the public sector to a partnership in private prac- tite, nourished by connections (to say the least) cultivated “in the public service.” It is obvious how sucha situation can not only weaken the effective functioning of the union in the workplace, but by calling into question the union's credibility as the bona-fide defender of the interests of the worker at the drawing board, it can prevent effective organ- ising in the first place. Public Sector, Private Standards Trade union organisation has a key role to play in the relat- ionship between private and public architectural practice. Because of the almost total lack of organisation in the private sector, and that sector's historical and numerical predomin- ance in the profession, thepublic sector employers, through their “‘professional institute” (and their control of ARCUK, the statutory body responsible for “regulating the profession” which has achieved recognition for or TGWU) dealing with a larger group of white-collar workers in the firm. = the “liberal” attitude of public sector employers, to gain Tecognition fairly easily and without the extent of industrial action upon which most unions with a consequent tradition for shop-floor activism and democracy have been built. Because of the procedure, now under increasing attack, of dealing with the employer through top-level “Whiteley” councils, there has been little involvement of rank-and-file members in negotiations or related industrial actions. And the historical development of these unions as “elite” non- manual unions has shielded them from organisation contact with better organised and more militant manual workers. This is only now and slowly beginning to be overcome (as with joint shop stewards committees) under pressure of common threats and with the growing “‘proletarianisation” of white-collar work which has made it increasingly difficult to get much mileage out of much-vaunted “professional” Status. continued spread both ofthe closed shop and of redundancies into the public sector, this percentage is bound togrow, There are at least eight unions which have achieved recogn- ition for representing architectural workers in the various arts of the public sector. The largest ofthese is NALGO, the ational Association of Local Government Officers, Sixty per cent of its membership is in local government and the rest is in regional hospital boards, water authorities, new towns, etc. The GLC Staff Association is limited to the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority. IPCS (Institute of Professional Civil Servants) covers the DOE, PSA, and other organs of central govern- ment; TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs Association), British Rail and London Transport; EPEA (Electrical Power Engin- cers’ Association), electrical power supply; and AUT (Assoc- iation of University Teachers) and NATFHE (National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education), architectural workers teaching in universities and polytech- nics. All of these, despite the names, are by now affiliated to the TUC. Most of the architectural membership of STAMP is apparently still in the public sector, but only at the Edin- burgh office of the Scottish Special Housing Association (despite the name, a public sector body) has it achieved bargaining rights, which itshares with NALGO. The “elitist” tendency of these unions has resulted notonly in this counter-productive separation from manual workers. The other side of the coin has posed another problem, even if less significant. While architectural work is structured more or less similarly in both public and private sectors, architec- tural management in the public sector (the “boss” to the worker at the drawing board) is salaried while his counterpart in the private sector is most likely to be the partner who owns the firm. The public sector unions, like the ABT as a craft union trying unsuccessfully to compete with the bosses’ RIBA, have always allowed membership not only to the architectural worker but also to the man who is the boss eS In the public sector, trade union recognition has come more easily. Membership in white-collar unions in the public sector is steadily growing and is now estimated to be over 75%. While there are extreme variations from office tooffice, probably between 50% and 75% of public sector workers in the building professions are members of the union which represents them in negotiations with their employers. With and controlling architectural education), have been able al- most unilaterally to dictate the shape of the profession, public sector included Their model of practice — excess hierarchy and bureaucracy, elitism and a “two-tier profes. sion, profit-oriented accounting, lack of accountability to users — has been imposed on the public sector as well. Their influence on the structure of the profession, its ethos, its codes and regulations, etc. is even more profound. Lack of effective trade union organisation among architect- ural workers in the private sector has no doubt encouraged some architectural workers there who are “fully-qualilfied architects” to become members of the clitist, anti-union RIBA (for the initials after their name, if fornothing else), despite their understanding that it represents primarily the interests of the employers. This bolstering of the “profes- sional institute” (often aided by the employer's insistence on his qualifiedstaff joining and sometimes by his willingnestso pay his employees annual and tax deductible RIBA subscrip- tion) inevitably increases its attractiveness to some architects in the public sector as well, considering the lack of a trade union there which seems relevant to their daily “drawing board” concerns. A Common Adversary There can be little doubt that the emergence of a strong, unified, effective trade union organisation in the private sector will weaken the hold of the private sector bosses over the entire profession and help to destroy the illusion of the RIBA as a “professional institute.” There can also be little doubt that the bosses will fight trade union organisation by al the means at their command, subtle and not-so-subtle. The support of public sector architectural trade unionists will be important in the struggle to organise in the private-sector, but they may give that support not merely out of solidarity but in their own interests as well, since organisation in the private sector (and the changes that could make in the prof- ession) will inevitably inject some fresh life blood into trade unionism among public sector architectural workers and help to weaken a common adversary: architectural bureaucracy, hierarchy, elitism and unaccountability. Making the Union Work This not to imply that improvement of the trade union sit- uation among architectural workers in the public sector must await organisation in the private sector. Increasing numbers of white-collar workers throughout the public sector are working within the unions which represent them to help transform them into stronger, more active, and more demo- cratic organisations, more responsive to the varying needs of the membership “on the shop floor."’ Shop stewards commit- tees are being formed and shop floor negotiation is gaining ground. The campaign against the cuts in housing, health and social services, rail services, etc., will accelerate the conver- sion of these unions into more industrially militant and politically active organisations while necessitating the devel- opment of stronger ties with blue-collar unions and other organisations of working people (tenants, claimants, squatt- ers, students, patients, etc.) who get hit by the cuts from the other side. It is important that architectural workers concern- ed not only about their job security but about what they produce and for whom they produce it should play their role in this process, Perfection and Purity It is often said that union members tend to get the union they deserve. As was pointed out in the excellent Autumn 1976 Case Con issue on trade unionism (referring to NALGO), “The union can be made to work. It takes time and effort, but it can be done.” In discussing organisation among social workers, it notes that “Faced with the immense task of building up a departmental organisation within NALGO, often in the face of hostility from right-wing members who control the branch, groups of social workers have turned elsewhere secking the Holy Grail of a trade union of perfec- tion and purity.” This has resulted in the launching of NUSW, a new “craft union” for social workers, apparently excluding al administrative and support workers. “NUSW may be able ultimately to negotiate for social workers, but it will never have any muscle worth flexing because industrial action by social workers cannot hit the power blocks of cap- italism where it hurts, by interrupting the productive process to slow the creation of profits.” “The supporters of NUSW argue that the strength and size of NALGO isoutweighed by the need for unity among different groups of social workers, and also that the diversity of NALGO membership means it is unable to do justice to the specialist concerns of social workers. But unity for what? Unity in purposeful action is the worthwhile goal to strive for, not the empty purity that NUSW offers. ...Leaving NALGO in search of the Holy Grail of perfection is copping out of the vital task of building a strong, effective trade union organis- ation, where officials and union policy are controlled by rank- and-file membership, and struggles can be generalised on an effective scale. ... During the past five years, there have been a lot of progressive changes in NALGO, mainly because an increasing number of people have come together and, build- ing on that solidarity, worked to make the union more demo- cratic, more forceful, and more meaningful to the majority of the membership.” Architectural workers throughout the various parts of the public sector, in the various unions which The Carve-Up To make recognition in the office more difficult, the employ- ers will attempt to encourage a vertical “‘carve-up,” with Separate unions for “‘clericals,” ‘‘technicians,” and “profes- sionals.” (With luck, they might even manage one union for architects, one for quantity surveyors, one for structural engineers, etc.) On the other hand, to further retard organis- ation and prevent the emergence of a unified organisation throughout the private sector, the employers willencourage a “hori: I" division, encouraging the employees in FirmAtochooseUnionXifthoseyes Bhaveorganised within Union Y. And the two tactics can be combined. These tactics have recently been attempted by the Council of ing conditions, an industry-wide pension scheme, systems of “workers’ self-management” and accountability to the com- munity in the specific context of architectural Practice, a professional code of conduct in the interests of theworkers and the community, progressive design and specification unions,” a process which has already begun in some of the larger multi-disciplinary practices. This is likely to be only a temporary setback and in some cases even astep along the road to isati More dination among loy would be Necessary in order to encourage the formation of a idance, on-the-job training and continuing education, etc. Such cooperation is the only way to keep divisiveness bet- ween workers in different unions (especially on issues of “work load” and in cases of possible industrial action), from playing into the hands of a management which is already well-coordinated. Beyond that, it could effectively lobby against cuts in socially-necessary construction and would probably be the only conceivable organisation which could produce an architectural workers’ handbook (and guide to architectural employers), a progressive journal of architec- ture, and be the “official” voice of architectural workers as a whole before the community, the state, and fraternal tame” trade union-in-name-only, as was unsuccessfully attempted by the RIBA in the Public sector. bodies abroad. s ee represent them, face a similar challenge. AN ‘ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS’ ALLIANCE” The logic of taking an active part in the trade union which actually represents one, and the utter futility of attempting once again to achieve an effective “craft union” encompassing all architectural workers, should not obscure the growing realisation of the need for some sort of “umbrella” organis- ation grouping all architectural workers, no matter in which sector they are employed nor to which union they belong. All architectural workers do share many common concerns, and if one thing is certain, it is that they are not, and never could be, adequately catered for by the employer-dominated, elitist, ineffectual RIBA. Architectural workers are small minorities in about cight public sector unions. A union in the private sector will add a ninth. The tendency for more and more architectural work to be done “in-house,” by architectural departments in industry, commerce, housing, health services, etc. in both Sectors, rather than by outside “consultancies” (private or public) may or may not continue, but in any case its exist- ence reinforces the “‘dual-industry”’ nature of much architect- ural employment. It also suggests the possibility that more architectural workers may join the appropriate union in the industry in which they are actually employed, which does not necessarily mean NALGO in the public sector nor the needed multi-industry union for architectural workers in the private sector. In order to compensate for the inevitable and understandable lack of one union for all architectural workers, and notwith- standing the pressing need for unorganised workers in the private sector to organise within one, and only one, union, architectural workers should as soon as possible establish and build up a strong “alliance” or “institute” of organised arch- itectural workers. Such a body could bring trade unionists in architecture gether to help ise the ised and to ag active trade unionism in a multi-industry, multi-union occupation where the career structure may make difficult a long-term committment to one particular union. It would eventually be able to speak progressively, clearly and coher- ently for 35,000 architectural workers on issues of common dustrial, professional and i " where individual unions with small architectural minorities would have neither the interest, the will, nor the means to do so. Only then will architectural workers be able effectively to counteract the reactionary influence of what is essentially an employers’ association dressed up as a “professional institute, the RIBA, with itsstranglehold over architectural education, qualification, and practice, and its claim, in the present vacuum, to speak for the “whole profession.” Coordination, Action, or Division? An “alliance” or institute’ of architectural workers could assist the relevant trade unions in developing and implement- ing (at gras roots rather than at headquarters level) co- ordinated policies and action campaigns on wages and work- Building up such an “alliance” or “insti architectural workers should bea priority of all trade union- ists in architecture and should win the support of al unions with a growing interest in public policy on the environment, housing, archi town pl land, energy, technical and professional education, etc. As architectural workers in the private sector will have their hands full in the next few years building an effective trade union isati the initiative must come, in the first instance, from the public sector. Workers in the other building professions may also feel the need to establish analagous bodies and develop close “inter-professional” liaison with that in architecture. THE NEED FOR UNITY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR How will private sector architectural employers respond to growing trade union organisation among their employees? There really is no reason to believe that their responses will differ significantly from those of employers in other areas of industry and commerce. Some will resist tooth-and-nail, using all the time-honoured methods of union bashing. Others will seek to delay and de-fuse organisation by encour- The “alliance” or “institute” should be constituted as demo- cratically as possible, with local, regional, and national structures organised from the membership level up, based on “shop floor” organisation in each architectural office or department. Periodic congresses could delegate central execution of policies as necessary. Research and publications facilities would probably be needed. Because of the relation- ship between practice, education, and training, membership should be open to d and hers (but not ag ment) in architectural education as well as to workers in practice. The most serious anti-union effort by the employers, acting independently as well as through their institutions, islikely, wever, to take the form of an attempt to encourage a multiplicity of unions in the private sector so that it becomes more difficult for any union to achieve recognition in an office and so that when recognition is finally achieved it will not be able to pose a unified threat to the employers’ claims to “speak for the profession.” aging the blish of “staff iations” or “ MANYUONIONS....2 pany 200,000 chartered professional engineers. In a report pub- lished last year, the C.E.I. noted that over a third of profes- sional engineers are already organised in bona-fide unions but pointed out that in the private sector, where over 60% of professional engineers are employed, only 10% are already ganised. The report d, therefi on that area. Pseudo-Unions and Passive Professionals? Noting the bread-and-butter incentives for engineers in the private sector to organise and, seeing the closed shop and some form of employee participation in management men- acing on the horizon, the C.E.I. urged them to join small, ineffectual “pseudo-unions” which are not affliliated to the TUC, which hardly have a chance of ever achieving recogn- ition in any office, and which appeared willing to dance to the Chartered Institutions highly paternalistic and clitist tune. This, it was hoped, would forestall the growth of bona-fide, TUC-affiliated unions like AUEW(TASS) and ASTMS who already have a foothold among professional engineers. The whole tone of the report was to suggest that professional engineers should passively “join a union,” picking and choosing among the C.E.I.’s worthies on the basis of personal preference as if one was purchasing an insurance policy, rather than actively organising their union among their colleagues. of ised Engi ing g ane Instituti an Same brela body groupithneg15 raat cate Se, Nse.ORONEPF =x nae TS ~xe, vv W>e¥ ~ vv a' —> SESey 10 12 While a similar approach will appeal to the mam short- sighted employers in architecture as well, it is hardly likely to satisfy the growing number of architectural employees who want an effective trade union organisation at their place of work. For them, the need to compromise with personal preferences in order to come toa collective agree- ment ona single, unified vehicle for trade union organisation among all the 50,000 unorganised employees in theprivate sector of the building professi is app Cc loining the carpenters, the plasterers went in with the build- g ELeereTdandbuildingmaterialsdriversintheTGWU, and the plumbers joined the elctricians in what is now known as the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU). call for timately works only in the employers’ interests. ul- ug! 's and Allied Technicians’ Association, and now the Technical, Administrative and Supecvisory, Section of the AUEW), APEX (the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs, formerly the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union), and ACTS (the Association of Clerical, Technical and Supervisory Staffs, part of the TGWU). Public sector unions, with the possible exception of the Electrical Power Engineers Association, will generally not organise in the private sector. Conversely, architectural workers trying to organise in the private sector will have their hands full even without attempting counter-productive “raiding” of workers in the public sector, something few unions are nowadays eager to do and which violates the TUC's “Bridlington Principles” governing relations between unions. The Unacceptable Alternative Still, there may be as many as half a dozen “appropriate” unions for architectural and allied workers in the private sector. The immediate prospect for achieving “one union” might not appear very encouraging. If architectural workers Straggle into a handful of different unions, which will happen unless they take a collective initiative, the result will be thatt Aatinevitabl iaatons Le 1 1 ad workers in the allied professions will proceed slowly, sporad- ically and hesitantly; will be unnecessarily protracted; will temain incomplete, and will never be able to contribute to the workers, profession, industry and community what an effective, coherent union could. The difficult initial organis- ing would become practically impossible without the realistic Prospect of an eventual coherent, effective trade union organisation of private sector architectural and allied workers. Up until now, however, no trade union has been seriously interested in launching in the building professions the kind of organising drive that would have arealistic chanceof success, considering the difficulties already described. Architectural workers should have no illusions about this. They should also consider the possibility that, should an effective organising campaign get started, hitherto lukewarm unions may show a sudden enthusiasm for organising, encouraged by anequally sudden interest by employers in “good industrial relations. Some form of trade union organisation in the private sector is inevitable. To achieve really effective organisation, and to achieveitwhenitisreallyneeded,however,suchobstacles must be overcome. This can be done by a carefully con- sidered strategy and committment, hard work anda willing- ness to take personal risks. Only architectural workers them- selves can provide this. If they do, the trade union movement will contribute the essential support that only it is in a pos- ition to provide. Both manual and non-manual workers, with growing concern about the built environment they must live and work in, are today increasingly likely to welcome the organisation of architectural workers and support their struggles. “Industrial Muscle” The need for one, and only one, union for al people working in the private sector of the building professions should be clear by now. A “craft union” for architects alone isjust not on. Unless al workers in the office are organised together, the bare minimum of “industrial muscle” to achieve even recognition will be lacking and an organising drive will face an additional, unnecessary and crippling burden with which it could hardly cope. In times of dispute, having the telephonist and secretary on your side can be useful. Somedefendnarrowlytheirowninterestswithlittleregard Whatresourcescantheunionmakeavailableforan Among white collar unions there are four of major significance in Gheprivate sector: ASTMS, TASS (formerly DATA, the Deaick In collectively selecting one union within which to organise, what types of choices must be made? Over the years, several different types of unions have developed in Britain. They can be distinguished by different conceptions of their “‘constit- uencies” as well as by differences in structure and orientation. for those of other workers, while other tinions see their own progress as inseparable from that of the labour movement in its broadest sense and act accordingly both on the shop floor and in the community. Some have a docile attitude towards management while others are militant and incorruptible representatives of their members’ interests. Some unions are run from the top down in a hierarchy mir- roring that of capital, while others function by a democracy built up from the “grass roots” and dependent upon an active rank and file. Some unions function mainly by full- time, permanent “professional” trade union “administrators,”” while others are essentially “amateur” operations, with the bulk of the task left to the “lay’’ membership rather than to the “experts,” and officials, generally elected, returning to their old jobs after relatively short terms in union office. In the history of trade unionism all those contrasting positions have existed, but today in Britain the differences between and within unions, while significant, are often of degree rather than of kind, can change over the years and are not always easy to discern from without. “Bourgeois Individualism”? organising driv {c.g., financial, personnel, legal, research, publicity, etc.) especially in the crucial first year? 1.6 How would the union's present specific organisational strength (c.g., industries, occupations, regions) be of particular aid to an organising drive among workers in the building professions? What specific “industrial muscle” (e.g., sections of membership etc.) would the union be able to bring to bear in support of a potential dispute involving work- ers in the building professions? What particular resources can the union draw upon to support the particular needs of professional, technical, and clerical workers (e.g., aid in negotiations, research, propaganda, etc.)? Would the union support the establishment of a membership level “alliance” (or “institute") bringing together architectural workers from the relevant trade unions in both sectors? STRUCTURE To what extent do the rank and file run the union, or is the union actually controlled from the top down? 2.2 Is there a union “priesthood” or do the workers themselves administer the union, returning to the “shop floor” after brief terms in union office? 2.3 How powerful are elected “shop stewards” in the union structure? Do they get full support from full-time union officials? To what extent does shop floor initiative and action get smothered under the weight of union bureaucracy and hierarchy? Are union officials elected or easily subject to recall? Is opposition within the union to its present leader- ship and official policics s!lowed freely to associate and to gain a platform for its views? ATTITUDES Does the union take a clear and uncompromising position in defence of the interests of workers when in conflict with those of management or its instit- utions? Will the union actively fight not only for better wages but for full control by workers of all aspects of their working lives, by both “shop floor” organisation and broader political action? It is further important that al employees in private sector building design, not just architectural workers strictly speak- ing, but also quantity surveyors, structural and services engineers, building surveyors, landscape architects, etc., be organised into one union. As co-producers of the same crs, p » P tc. though not easy, is essential. The alternative is having archit- product, mutual support in potential industrial disputes is 1 lumbers, etc.) ini of the medieval ectural workers straggling into a handful of unions, based on The carly unions developed along “‘craft” lines (e.g., carpent- We have emphasized the necessity of having one strong union for as many workers in the building professions as possible. The collective choice of one union within which toorganise, guilds. In order to match the growing power and flexibility of capital and to organise workers hitherto ignored by the craft unions, industrial unions developed, grouping all workers in an industry into one union. Because of the entren- ched craft union tradition and the growth of multi-industry “general” and white-collar-only unions, a true industrial union is hard to find in Britain, though the National Union of Mineworkers comes close. “Staff” or white-collar unions often organise across industrial lines, making a sort of ‘‘craft”” out of non-manual work, while the true general unions, like the TGWU, in principle organise workers at all levels in all industries, on the model of “one big union.” “Ideal Types” and Realities These “ideal types” hardly exist in practice today due to historical and practical circumstances. Public sector unions, having grown out of “staff associations,” define their con- stituencies in terms of the management structure of that sector, ignoring craft and industrial lines. The huge TGWU incorporates craft unions like the plasterers, has an industrial structure with sections for road haulage, docks, construction, i etc., in ition to its ional structure, and contains a white-collar section as well. essential And since one group is often capable of doing the same work as another (e.g., architects and surveyors), common organisation is essential to prevent not only explicit or de-facto “scabbing” on one another but also destructive competition for work at the other’s expense and jealous guarding of possibly outdated delineations of exclusive professional spheres which may prevent the pursuit of the common good as determined by al the workers together, in coordination withthe communities who use its products. “One Big Union?” The arguments for unified organisation have been put for- ward many times in the history of the trade union movement and have had, and continue to have, an important influence upon its development Witness the periodic batches of mergers, aimed at strengthening labour’s defences against the power and flexibility which capital has at its command through its companies, conglomerates, finance, state, and media. The fact is, however, that the historical development of trade unionism in Britian has not resulted in the formation of “one big union.’ Look, for example, at construction unions and white-collar unions, two areas of the appropriate for workers in the private sector of the building professions. In the building industry, after numerous amalgamations, the most recent in the late 1960's, there are three unions of major significance, though organisation as a whole remains comparatively weak. UCATT, formerly the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, includes now two other “craft unions,”thebricklayersandpainters.Whilethelatterwere bers’ inthe workpandinthe i anidentitycouldworkersinthebuildingprofessions toimprovingemploymentprospectsinthebuilding Perhaps the differences between unions in terms of structure and orientation are more significant. Some tend to be like friendly societies while others act more forcefully in the in- dustrial and political arenas. Some unions are concerned almost exclusively with bread-and-butter issues of wages, hours and pensions, while others take a broader view of their 1.3 What is the union's attitude towards organising salaried management in architecture? What safeguards can it provide which would prevent their gaining undue influence in an organisation of archijvctural workers? 3.3 What attitude will the union take towards existing pay and status differentials among architectural workers and what priority does it give to raising the levels of the lowest paid, both in architecture and in the broader economy? “personal preference.” Perhaps this is the first test of whether architects can overcome the “bourgeois individualism” which has condemned to failure or insignificance so many of their previous ‘‘reform”’ efforts. WHICH UNION ? The criteria which ought to be applied in making the collective choice of one union for the private sector are probably apparent by now. It is important, nevertheless, to make explicit the more important ones concerning the union's structure, its attitudes, and its potential role in a drive to Organise architectural workers. 1.0 11 ORGANISING ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS Is the union willing and able actively to organise al unorganised workers in the building professions, no matter what type or size of office they work in? 1.2 Will they organise al workers in such offices or departments, including clerical and administrative? 14 What degree of autonomy and how clear and coherent enjoy in the union? professions and to environmental issues as they 3.4 Is the union sympathetic to a broad-minded approach concern the community (e.g., “Green Bens,’ Lucas Aerospace shop stewards-type proposals, develop- ment of institutions for community control, ctc.)? Does the union identify employment security with the preservation of narrowly-defined “positions” rather than with a broader outlook on the division of labour and continuing education? 3.5 To what extent is the union willing and able to dev- clop cooperation and solidarity among al workers in the building industry? 3.6 To what extent does the union actively combat racism and male chauvinism among its members as well as in discrimination by employers and the state? Seu When the union invests (or even builds), does it take an environmentally, socially and politically respon- sible attitude? One Foot in the Construction Industry Of course, a union with an established presence in the construction industrywouldbepreferablbeu,tthatisclearly only one of many factors to consider, It must be borne in mind also that many of the clerical and administrative workers who will be organising along with technical and professional employees in the building professions might prefer a multi-industry union in which they could more likely remain should they switch to a similar job in another industry. The “‘dual-industry” character of “in-house” architectural departments also tends to reinforce the need for a multi-industry union. An architectural worker today may, for example, have one foot in the construction industry and the other in brewing, banking, housing or transport. A New Union? In applying the criteria listed above, it becomes apparent, for example, that no conceivably “appropriate” union gives a clear impression of an active grass-roots democracy, com- pletely unfettered by hierarchy and bureaucracy. If no exist- ing union satisfactorily fulfills all these demanding criteria, there always remains the possibility of starting from scratch and building up a new union expressly for workers in arch- itecture and the related building professions. This has obvious attractions, including the option of amalgamating in the future with a larger, more general union on terms preserving a reasonable degree of autonomy, as the Medical Practitioners Union did with ASTMS. Of course, considering the difficulties which an organising drive in the building professions is likely to encounter, the chances of getting a new union off the ground without the back-up which an already powerful union could more easily provide are pretty slim. Organising requires funds for person- nel, literature, legal fees and overheads and to cover for inevitable strikes, lock-outs, and victimisation. In addition, the expertise which comes from considerable trade union experience and the access to trade union allies in case of dis- putes are less likely to be easily available today to a new union, however genuine it may appear. But it has been done before and may conceivably be done again. Back to the Drawing Board In any event, the opportunity to begin organising must be seized. The subject israpidly moving into the spotlight and if the architectural workers don't move fast, the bosses no doubt will, accommodating as many as possible of the most docile unions they can find as soon as they perceive the threat of a really affective unionisation. So, back to the drawing board. . ...and Organise! SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY On trade unionism: Ken Coates and Tony Topham, The New Unionism: The Case for Workers’ Control, Penguin Books paperback, 1974. ESSENTIAL READING. Tony Topham, The Organised Worker, Arrow Books paper- back, 1975. Case Con, no, 23, Autumn 1976, “Union Issue.”’ 25p plus postage from Case Con, 74 Lytton Road, Leytonstone, London E.11. Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards Committee, “Dole Queue or Useful Products?”’ New Scientist, 3 July 1975. Dave Elliott, “Workers and the World Unite,’ Undercurrents 12. (On Lucas Aerospace shop stewards proposals.) “No More Work for Work's Sake,” Undercurrents 14. (On “Green Bans.") David M. Patterson, White Collar Militancy, Workers Educ- ation Association, 1975. 35p plus postage from WEA, 9 Upper Berkeley Street, London W, 1. On the situation in architecture: NAM Report on Architectural Practice, ARCUK, and the Architects Registration Acts, 30p postpaid from the New Architecture Movement, 9 Poland Street, London W.1. A Short History of the Architectural Profession. 20p post- paid from The New Architecture Movement, 9 Poland Stect, London W1. Malcolm Mac Ewen, The Crisis in Architecture, RIBA Pub- lication Ltd., 1974, Edited extracts published in R/BA Journal, April 1974. (See also his long article, “What Can Be Done about Competence?” in The Architects Journal, 19 November 1975, pp 1063-1084.) Louis Hellman, “Democracy in Architecture,’ RIBA Journal, August 1973, pp 395-403, and ‘Professional Representation,” Architectural Design, March 1976, pp 156-159. JUST OFF TO A TRICKY CLIENT MEENNG... KEEP UP THE GOOD Work, CHAPS / Appendix Alternatives to Unionisation? Are there any alternatives to unionisation? that |reformism, h fi ee Wal sy resourceful animal, may be running out of rope. Among the ways by which “architects of conscience” have attempted in the recent past to find a way out are thefollowing: Modern and Post-Modern Various “formalisms” and other attempts to seok “techni topoliticalproblemshavealwaysbeenpopularinSete: {Cynics might say that is the profession's main role,) From the late NineteenthCenturyuntilaftertheSecondWorldWar,thegreatesten- ergy of mony talented and dedicated architects want into the “crusade” for “Modern Architecture.”Some of its leading exponents were Social Democrats or Communists (and some Social Democrats and Commun- istspatronisedthestyle),thusencouragingtheNazistoattackthe rolepossiblewithinpracticeasitnowis,haveretreatedintoLe style. This gave it great credibility after the Second World War until Its massive shortcomings became so painfully and tragically obvious that they could no longer be glossed over. This “movement” hasby now all but gone Into pleas! though its influence persists and though > an of building continues to obsess a few die-hards and maki jeadway where traditional labour-intensive building methods ind skis have not yet been stamped out. With “modern architacture” discredited Gesignors |have desperately searched for more sophisticated and credible “technical” answers: for another would-be solution which avoids or obscures the need for changes in the structure of thepro- fession (i.e, hi ural education and theory. While there is no doubt that important contributions can be made in this field, aven at times in isolation from Practice, there can also be littledoubt that there isatendency among some of these people to erect a protective shelter of miystification around their somewhat vulnerable and isolated professional position, technolony. eneray conservation, etc.). Short-CuttoSocialism? Many who realisedtha ” Progress without Power? Seeing the need for basic changes in the professional structure itself, groups like the New Architecture Movement have begun to call for its reorganisation into a public design service of small, locally-based, aButwithoutourdev Sieiete eatPolitical poreir to begin to move in this direction, let alone to fully realise the pro- possi now theyevenbeabletorealisticallydeveloptheconcepts emselves’ Illusions, Allies, and Tactics In the late Sixties, some salaried architects in public practice, in col- with some . began the latest attempt to gain influence within the employers’ organisation. The “Salaried Architects Group” on the RIBA Council was formed and got the RIBA’s electoral system modified inthe hope of giving the salaried majority of RIBA members some control of the organisation. Tbe group has subsequently spent years ofSorsicerable effort achiev- would solve none of the underlying problems of architecture and only served to mystify the profession and the public put their faith into the extension .of “socialism=nationalisation” into the practice of architecture. For them, the local $ was to be th .The notion of d however, no longer has the “pull it once had. The failure of public sector privatepractice, gethei 1 relations in the production of architecture and its inability to with- stand the forces of the market system externally have created broed disillusionment with local authority practice, as 8 solution in and of ingt th ‘ Aitectina y itself, both from within and from the community. “One-Off” Progress In an attempt to learn from the mistakes of more conventional Practices, a few “‘enlightened” architects have tried to create small, feirly “responsive practices,” more or less “democratically” run as cooperatives or modified partnerships. As “one-off” cases they have been obliged to compete in isolation for patronage, manpower, fin- ancing, etc. in a completely capitalist system whose business and pro- fessional structure has been designed for their more bureaucratic, hierarchical arid profit-oriented competitors. Yet because of their internal advantages as well as the unusual emount oftalent, effort and committment which those involved have brought to them, some of these practices have achieved limited success and have even been seized upon by the profession and media as signs of progress. Signs of hope they are, but it would be foolish to believe that in the present context such a course Is realistically open to any more than a token number of practices, without the backing of a strong trade union Organisation. Community Architecture Others in a related vein sought to rectify the obvious lack of direct accountability to the community which has characterised both private and public practice and set up would-be “community architecture offices” in the wake of the planning” These have been involved, with varying degrees of success, in fighting the Planning and architecture establishment in the name of threatened local, generally working-class, communities and providing them with orchitectural services to which they would not otherwise have access. \tappears token, local may be if not encouraged, in order to give the profession a slightly more pro- gressive and dynamic public image and to keep busy and content Some of the more committed young architectural workers while at the same time isolating them from the “mainstream” of architectural workers in the offices “downtown,” there is also reason to believe that this direction is hardly accessible as a “general solution” on any scale without major structural changes in the profession. In the mean- time, lacking a consolidated power base and with tenuous sources of funadndisunppogrt,suchofficesmayevenruntheriskofcompetition from the professional establishment itself, seeking to move in on the new “market” they have opened up, recoup some respectability and ‘ensure that “things don’t go too far,” “Code of Conduct” whose “enforcement” is still entrusted to the employers. Meanwhile, involvement at Portland Place has tended to isolate these articulate and committed architectural workers from their “‘constit- uency” while their token presence has perhaps encouraged the illusion that the RIBA might someday be made accountable to its salaried majority. Yet, how seriously would the RIBA's “democratic frame- work" be taken if it were ploced in the architectural office itself rather than at Portland Place, given the absence of strong “shop floor” organisation of architectural workers. We doubt whether the charade could continue. By removing the scene of confrontation from the work-place, where the conflicts are to a so-called “professional inst- itute,” the illusion of democracy is more easily sustained. Tactically, by trying to deal with the employers within the RIBA framework, rather than at the ploce of work, the S.A.G. denied themselves the support of many architectural wokers who are not even eligible for (or interested in) RIBA membership, while allying themselves instead with some architectural management. All the above-mentioned “tendencies” try to solve the pro- blems facing architecture by solutions” which attempt to avoid the inevitable need for collective action on the part of I to begin to transform the productive relations within architecture itself. When architectural workers are well-organised, these tendencies can cease to be the ambiguous “‘diversions” they are in the present context and begin to make a positive and significant contribution to architectural and social progress. “Self-Build,”. “Drop-Out’” One step forther istaken by advocates of “self-bulld” who attempt to "drop-out" of the building industry and al its frustrations, though they sometimes do reserve a continuing role for the architect. A Challenging Model itive Others have chosen to try to minimise their connections with the Tienesiysiemnisselsib)sexingopinre “communes.”Thisagain, jough inting o lenging mi |, Ismotan ion numbersofpeopleinthepresentcontext. Suen ee A Protective Shelter Some thoughtful architects, seeing no socially or creatively CONTENTS Why Organise? Areas for Union Action What Kind of Organisation? Can Architectural Workers Organise? Learning from Experience The Situation in the Public Sector An “Architectural Workers’ Alliance” The Need for Unity in the Private Sector Which Union? Appendix: Alternatives to Unionisation? What isthe “N.A.M.” The New Architecture Movement ("NAM") aims, through the collec- tive action of architectural workers and other concerned people, to play an active role in radically altering the system of patronage and power in architecture. It seeks an architectural practice directly accountable to all who use its products and democratically controlled by the workers within it. NAM aims thereby to promote effective control by ordinary people over their environment and by architect- ural workers over their working lives. The New Architecture Movement was founded in November 1975 ata National Congress held in Harrogate for the purpose of building up a broadly-based, progressive force for accountability and democracy in architecture. Interest in NAM Issteadily growing. Membership in NAM cost £5 for employed people and £2 for students and unemployed and includes a subscription to NAM’s newsletter, “Slate,” which is also available to non-members for £2 (or 40p per single copy). All enquiries about membership, the newsletter, other NAM publications, and NAM activities should be addressed to The Secretary, The New Architecture Movement, 9 Poland Street, London wi, onmroanr FN = Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Unionisation Report Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/b0968196df39b294af41364765aca70e.pdf d012dcc2f78061087435653ecd354be8 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 Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. 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 Working Documents 1979-1980 Subject The topic of the resource Motion for a Resolution on exercise of profession of architect Description An account of the resource TARGETS 5 The Working Party next addressed the question of translating the percentage target reductions into target intake figures. In relation to Part 2 intakes, it faced some difficulty. The relevant paragraph in the Transbinary Group Report (8.20) refers to a reduction of 325 home students to a level of intakes of between 650—700 home students. Thig implies a bage line close to 1000 students rather than the 875 which entered in 1984/85. 6 The explanation lies in the fact that the Trangbinary Group was seeking a 30 per cent reduction from the level of intakes to Part 2 which would be reached when the recent increase in Part 1 intakes had worked through. Given that this Part 1 increase has been well over 100, it is reasonable to expect Part 2 intakes to be between 950 and 1000 in the peak years of 1987 and 1988. The Working Party therefore recornrnends the adoption of a target intake to Part 2 courses of 700 home and EC students. This is a 20 per cent reduction on the level achieved in 1984/85 but is likely to be close to the 30 per cent level recortunended by the Transbinary Group in relation to Part 2 intakes in the peak years yet to come. 7 In relation to Part 1 intakes, the report of the Transbinary Group is a little less precise. It argues the case for a lower percentage reduction in intakes to Part 1 courses on the grounds that an architecture degree qualification on its own, without the possibility of becoming a registered architect, will be attractive to some students. However, it recognises that it will take time for this change of emphasis to be understood and urges the need for caution in not allowing too large an intake to Part 1 in the itmediate future (8.21). A later paragraph translates this into a suggestion that "a reduction in Part 1 intakes of about 15 per cent from the high levels achieved in 1983 might be contemplated". 8 Taking all these factors into account, and working to round number targets, the Working Party recormends a target intake to Part 1 courses of 1,200 which reflects a reduction of about 17 per cent from the high figures of recent years and about 15 per cent on the average intakes to Part 1 over the past five years. INSTITUTIONAL ALLOCATIONS 9 In seeking to translate these overall targets into institutional allocations, the Working Party sought and received advice orally and/or in writing from DES and SED Inspectorate and CNAA, on courses in public sector institutions, from the UGC Technology Cormnittee on courses in universities and from RIBA on courses in both sectors. In addition, the Royal Society of Ulster Architects was consulted in relation to Queens University, Belfast. 10 On the basis of the arguments set out in the Transbinary Group report and the advice received, the Working Party identified the following criteria as most relevant to its consideration of institutional allocations:— quality, size, location, and relationship with education provided in cognate professions. •11 On the question of departmental size, the Working Party accepted the guidance set out in the Transbinary Report that in order to provide a range of specialist skills needed to support a viable Part 1 and Part 2 course with - 2 - present staff—student ratios, the normal minimum size for a School of Architecture should be about 150 full—time equivalent students. RIBA confirmed that this continued to reflect its own view. 12 The adoption of this figure leads to two important consequences. First, the targets cannot be achieved without the closure and/or merger of some schools unless all Schools of Architecture operate at or below the minimum level of intake. The Working Party did not consider the latter approach to be educationally defensible. Second, many university schools are already close to, if not below, the figure of 1 students. The scope for large scale reductions in the university sector therefore is limited, and could not be achieved without the closure or merger of a number of schools. 13 The Working Party took the view that the difficult question of which schools should be identified for closure was best addressed in terms of the advice received in relation to the criteria. On this basis, it proposes that the Schools at Queens University, Belfast, Huddersfield Polytechnic and North East London Polytechnic cease intakes to Part 1 courses in 1986 and to Part 2 1 courses as soon as possible thereafter and no later than 1989. 14 To achieve the full reductions required by our targets, some further rationalisation is required if all the remaining schools are to be of viable size. The advice we received on this was less clear, but following the suggestion in the Report of the Transbinary Group, the Working Party has looked at the possibility of some form of rationalisation in the major conurbations where provision is especially concentrated. It noted the large provision in Inner London within four of the five polytechnics, and took account of the fact that the ILEA Review of Advanced Further Education in Inner London, published in August 1984, recognised the possibility of concentrating provision in three centres. The Working Party reconunends that the allocation for ILEA should be provided in not more than three centres and considers that the Authority is best placed to determine how and where this might be brought about. 15 As far as Scotland is concerned, the Working Party has considered the provision in Edinburgh and Glasgow and has reached the view that the more irmediate opportunity for rationalisation exists between Edinburgh University and the Edinburgh College of Art. It recommends that an "Edinburgh quota" be agreed by the UGC and SED and that the two schools be invited to consider how they should in future collaborate to make provision in accordance. with the quota including the possibility of a full merger, and put forward jointly agreed proposals. In relation to Glasgow, the Working Party recottmends the UGC and SED to investigate the merits of a single combined school and to report the outcome of its investigations in time for the proposed review in 1987 (see paragraph 18). 16 The Working Party proposals for home and EC student intake targets to the remaining schools take into account minimum school size, recent enrolment record, and advice from the organisations identified earlier. In some cases, the intakes allocated fall a little short of providing for a minimum student population of 150. However, account must also be taken of overseas students who should ensure that almost all institutions will be very close to or above the minimum. The recormended allocations ace shown in Annex 3. TIMETABLE AND REVIEW 17 The Working Party reconunends NAB, the UGC and the SED to take decisions on thig report in time to determine intakes to Part 1 in 1986. The revised intakes to Part 2 courses cannot become operative until 1989 at the earliest, but the Working Party recormnends that the Schools which are to cease admitting Part 1 students in 1986 should also cease admitting Part 2 students as goon as iB feasible thereafter to allow an orderly run down of the School. Given the small number of institutions in thig category, it ig thought that the increase in intakes to Part 2 courses expected in the next few years can be absorbed by the remaining Schools. 18 The Working Party supports the recommendation in the Transbinary Group report that a regular review relating student numbers to likely requirements for architects should be undertaken. The Trangbinary Group began its own review in 1983, and in the Working Party's view it would be appropriate to carry out a further review in 1987, in time for the 1989 target intakes to Part 2 proposed in this report to be adjusted or confirmed in accordance with its findings. CONCLUSION 19 The Working Party recormends NAB, the UGC and the Scottish Education Department to agree the proposed intakes to institutions set out in Annex 3 the implementation of Part 1 to be carried out in 1986 and Part 2 in 1989. August 1985 0123H ANNEX 1 MEMBERSHIP OF ARCHITECTURE INTAKES WORKING PARTY Professor G Higginson — UCC Hr N Merritt - NAB Hr A H Rankin SED Hr B Baker - UGC Secretariat Hr L Wagner — NAB Secretariat - 5 - ANNEX 2 H 흐 0 N 0 N 卜 European Communities EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Working Documents 1979 - 1980 28 February 1980 DOCUMENT 1-810/79 MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION tabled by Mr GILLOT pursuant to Rule 25 of the Ru les of Procedure on a draft directive on the exercise of the profession of architect English Edition PE 63.332 흐 The European Parliament, Whereas : — a draft directive on the exercise of the profession of architect hag been under consideration for more than 15 years, — the draft which the commission is preparing to submit : to the Council of Ministers for final adoption has undergone so many changes that it now bears only a slight resemblance to the text submitted to the Assembly of the European Cottmunities in 1968, — it takes into account neither the importance which has come to be attached to matters relating to the environment in the last 15 years, nor the public concern which these generate, nor the national statutory provisions which have been in force for some years, — it engenders an unacceptable degree of confusion between a university qualification and the exercise of a profession which plays a major role in society, — the period of study prescr ibed cannot ensure that future architects within the Community are qualified as befits their task and would place them at a disadvantage on external markets, — this draft entitles persons with various technical qualifications to act as architects without adequate safeguards, — it provides excessively long transitional derogations in respect of recognized qualifications, — it fails to observe the important distinction between the qualifications of architects and engineers, — recent efforts to have this text adopted by the Council failed to take account of the resistance from the Liaison Committee of Architects in the Common Market (L.C.A.C.M.) , which was originally set up to present the views of all the professional organizations in the Member States to the Commission, Urges the Commission: 1. To amend its draft to take account of the proposals from the Liaison Committee of Architects in the Common Market and the necessity of ensuring that architects within the Community are qualified as befits their task and in such a way that they are able to face competition from abroad; 2. To initiate a new process of consultation of the Assembly of the European Communities which has become necessary in view of the growing concern about the quality of the environment, the major changes made to the original text which was considered by the previous Assembly and the changes which are still required to the present text. PE 63.332 ANNEX 3 RECOMMENDED INSTITUTIONAL TARGET INTAKES 1 PUBLIC SECTOR (ENGLAND) Part 1 Part 2 Birmingham 20 Brighton 35 25 Canterbury 30 20 London (3 institutions) 160 100 Humbers ide 35 20 Kingston 45 25 Leeds 40 20 Leicester 40 20 Liverpool 30 20 Manchester 35 20 Oxford 60 45 Plymou th 45 20 Portsmouth 40 30 TOTAL 640 385 2 UNIVERSITIES (EXCLUDING SCOTLAND) Bath 30 20 Cambridge 25 20 Liverpool 35 20 London 45 20 Manchester 20 Newcastle 35 20 Nottingham 30 20 Sheffield 40 30 WIST 50 30 TOTAL 330 200 3 SCOTLAND (CENTRAL INSTITUTIONS AND UNIVERSITIES) Dundee (DJCA) 45 Edinburgh (Edinburgh University and Edinburgh College of 20 Art) 60 35 Glasgow School of Art 45 20 Aberdeen (RGIT) 40 20 Strathclyde University 40 20 TOTAL 230 115 0123H - 22 E Walker Esq 28 Crab Lane Your reference Armley I have been asked to reply on Mr Finsberg t s behalf to your letter of 19 February about the draft EEC directive on architects' qualifications. The points you and your co—signatories have made about this draft directive have been noted and will be duly taken into account in any decisions reached by Ministers • Yours sincerely P M BERGIN E Walker 28 Crab Lane Amiey LeedB IS12 ZD G Fingberg of State for the Environent Deparuent of the Enviroment 2 Marghan Street Iondon SWIP 3DB 19th February 1980 Dear Fingberg DRAFT ARCHITECT'S DIRECTIVE We are Councillorg on the Architect t B Registration Council of the United Klndæ elected to repregent the 4,381 "Unattached" Architects, I.e. those not belonging to one of the Architecturü Congtltuent Bodleg on the Council, which hag 27 077 ArchitectB in total, on Its Register. At ARCUK t B Special Meeting on the 24th 1980, concemlng the BC Draft Archltect t B Directive, our membere voted egalngt a regolutlon the Councii t B continued opposition to the lategt m•aft Dlrective. Architecte In th.1B country ere not ag united In their opposition to the ex1Bt1Dc Draft Directive as you nay have been led to believe. We gupport the Draft Directive ae It BtandB. ttF0110w Up tt Academic Trdning: The Royal Ingtl±ute of mt1Bh Architects (RIBA) end thuBAEUK t B objection to the Directive concerned the Geman Fachhochgchulen propoBa1B for ttFoIIow—Up n trelnlng the two years after their three—yeer courge. In particular, the demand wag for a period of training longer then that proposed, that Buch training Bhould be guperviged by univergity—ievei educationei1BtB end that there Bhould be fom of ageegenent at the of Buch training. In the DC Cæ.dBB10ne B revised Article 4 and in a new Annex to the Directive, ail thege dunde are met. Safeguard — Review: In a article In the Directive, Article 33a, allowB for a Bafeguerd. It provideB for a review of the Directive on the baglB of experience, dter three yeare, if necessary to propoga1B for uendmentB. Educating ArchitectB8 The RIBA and ARCUK BeQ to believe that the Directive, If Impiuented It could "only to a reduction In profeBB10nd competence a poorer Bervlce to the cmunltyn . 1B the RIBA BO convinced that It hag found the beet only of edG-{xz architects, -2- i.e. the BritiBh DoeB our recent b.ilidlng production bear out that conviction? currently hag fou*teQ tmlvergity or tulverelty—equlvaient schoolB of Arohltecttu•e ud Yachhoehecbuien. me Äted heg thirty—eight SchoolB of Architecture. The mnnber of archltecttn•d BtudentB In training per thougmd population 1B high In in the United and Genaa.y hea a high level echitecturai unapioyment. 1B the RIBA'B objection then, besed on a *eer of Invulon by foreig tdentt Surely not,ln view of their conviction ag to the quality Of our architectural product, which would presumably men qort ratba• thu Import In architectural Yours faithfully E Walker , ARC vk On behalf of: Councillorg 1979-80 J S Allen RobertB Woolley S Jackson 1 rod R Meltz Marray Councillorg 1980—81 J S Allen M Roberts D Burnby D Roebuck Fear of Fachhochschulen From Anne Delaney, architect, and John Murray Sir: Bob Giles (AJ 14.2.79 p306) finds it difficult to see how NAM members representing the 'unattached' on ARCUK can vote for the EEC Architect's Directive recognising the German Fachhochschulen. We find it difficult to see how RIBA members can vote against the directive, since in its revised form it seems to incorporate all they have q; been fighting to achieve over the last few The British architectural profession's re maining objection to the directive had con cerned the Fachhochschulen proposals for 'follow up' academic training during the two years after their three-year course. In par ticular, the demand was for a period of training longer than that proposed, that such training should be supervised by universitylevel architectural educators and that there should be some form of assessment at the end of such training. In the EEC Commission's revised Article 4 and in a new Annex to the directive, all these demands are met. In addition, a new article in the directive, Article 33a, allows for a safeguard; it provides for a review of the directive on the basis of experience, after three years, if necessary leading to proposals for amendments. In the light of these concessions it is difficult to see what remains to be discussed. During the course of ARCUK's debate on the subject, several arguments were put forward. There was the argument (put also in Bob Giles' letter) that support for the directive could 'only lead to a reduction in professional competence and a poorer service to the community'. Is the RIBA so convinced that it has hit on the best and only way of educating architects (a view not apparently held by the president of the RIBA on the evidence of recent statements in the AJ and Building)? Does our recent building production bear out that conviction? Figures were then quoted. Germany currently has 14 university or.university-equivalent schools of architecture. It has 46 Fachhochschulen. The UK has 38 schools of architecture. The number of architectural students in population is twice as high in Germany as in the UK, and unemployment. Is the RIB.•Vs object;.on, then, based on a fear of invasion by foreign talent? Surety not, in view oftheir conviction as to the quality of our own architectural product, which would presumab!y mean export rather than import in architectural trade. Or.e RIBA praised the qua'.i:y of Fachhochschulen•trained architects he had worked with and then went on to vote against the directive. We did not vote with the RIBA because we share neither their fears nor their convictions. It is almost impossible to assess, as Bob Giles asked, whether our view would be supported by the 4000 'unattached' represented on ARCUK, in part by NAM members. This presents us with a real problem. Representatives of 'unattached' on ARCUK have no machinery for getting in touch with their constituents, except for a once-yearly communication which, apart from postage, is paid for out of our own pockets. We try to use what little access we have to the professional press to put across our arguments, and of course we always welcome views sent to us by our constituents. Bob Giles believes that NAM's policies are 'unintelligible to all but the NAM cognoscenti', but in this case 'cognoscenti' can be taken to include all those who write for details to NAM, 9 Poland Street. Those who take the trouble yill find NAM's reports as intelligible as anything produced by SAG and certainly less blinkered by professional self-interest. And of course if the 'unattached' do not agree with actions taken by their representatives they always have recourse to democratic procedures—they can vote us off ARCUK Council at election time—a course of action, incidentally, not available to members of the RIBA, salaried or otherwise; in respect of their ARCUK representative;. ANNE DELANEY JOHN MURRAY Cardiff 'Satanic Mills' proposals From David M. Ellis, a director of the Pennine Development Trust Sir: Would you allow me to correct a misconception that has arisen as a result of the SAVE 'Satanic Mills' exhibition currently at the Heinz gallery. The proposals for a regional park in the Pennines came from the Pennine Park Association, a voluntary body representing over 60 organisations in the area concerned. It is not often realised that the 'industrial' Pennines between the Peak National Park and the Yorkshire Dales National Park lie at the heart of the greatest concentration of population in Britain outside the south-east. However, the present proposals stem from hoc h s ch v lon the publication in 1972 of The case for a Pennine park and the subsequent national conference in 1975 at which the ideas were welcomed by Denis Howell, Minister for Sport and Recreation. Since that time the Pennine Park Association has been involved in a lengthy consultative exercise with organisations and councils in the area. The SAVE exhibition is a timely and welcome boost to our endeavours and might well mark a turning point in the development of a more appropriate attitude to the problems and potential of declining communities in a post-industrial society. DAVID M. ELLIS Hebden Bridge, West Yorks Small sites in Newham From Kenneth Lund RIBA, DiplArch, director of Planning and Architecture, Newham Sir: I would like to correct some of the many misrepresentations and misconceptions contained in your article on small sites in Newham (AJ 31.1.79 p217). The authors, in attempting to draw together two disparate strands—one, the problem of attracting private house building in Inner Areas and two, the particular problems presented by small sites—have succeeded in presenting a totally misleading picture of the borough. I Site available for use. regret that after my department had assisted them with some of their early research, the authors did not see fit to take up my offer of discussing further their work with my officers, which would, I feel, have enabled them to present a more accurate report. They have made the basic assumption wrongly that, outside the industrial belt, all small sites are suitable fot housing and should be developed in that way. The borough is very densely developed and is severely deficient in open spaces, both large and small, which would help to break up the large areas of terrace housing. this deficiency can best be met by larger scale proviston, this is not, for obvious reasons, DIRE)CTIV3 TO CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Benefits for UK Architects NATIONALITY 1. To be a beneficiary of the Directive a person must be a national of one of the twelve Member States . RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT 2. To qualify for this purpose a person must hold one of the diplomas or certificates prescribed in chapters 11 or 111 of the Directive issued in any MS. 3 . In the most likely case a UK national will have a diploma evidencing the passing of an examination at Part 2 level which currently is, or in the past has been, recognised by ÄRCUK; but he does not need to be or have been registered. 4 . In principle the person 90 qualified has the right to establish — as a principal or as an employed person — in any other MS subject only to the formal requirements authorised by Chapter V - of the Directive, and under the same conditions as apply to natives of that MS. 5. The benefits actually available measured against pre—directive conditions will vary according to the existing arrangements in each country and the measures taken to comply with the Directive. There is at present only incomplete information on the former and none on the later. 6 . However the range of possibilities seems to be : — a) In countries where there is no legislation regulating either the pursuit of activities in the field of architecture or the use of the title architect anyone is now free to practice under title: there is no restriction to be removed to comply with the Directive nor any benefit available. This may be the case in Denmark Netherlands and Ireland. b) In countries where use of title only is protected i.e. reserved to persons with prescribed qualifications the Directive qualific— ations should become prescribed and beneficiaries be authorised. to use the title, probably but not necessarily by being 'registered' . This may be the case in France Luxembourg Germany and UK which all have registration. c) In countries where certain functions (typically signing/ submission - bf plans/applications) are reserved to a specified class of persons , including architects, the Directive qualifications should admit the holder to that class, probably but not necessarily by 'registration ' This may be the case in Belgium Greece Italy Portugal Spain. PROVISION OF SERVICES 7 . Under article 22 a UK national who 'provides service' i.e. occasional, short—term,visiting activities without setting up an another MS is to be exempted from requirements for registration etc. but is otherwise subject to the same rights and obligations as natives. NATIONAL ADVISORY BODY FOR PUBLIC SECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE AND SCOTTISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. ARCHITECTURE INTAKES WORKING PARTY REPORT August 1985 NATIONAL ADVISORY BODY for PUBLIC SECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE and THE SCOTTISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ARCHITECTURE INTAKES WORKING PARTY REPORT INTRODUCTION 1 The Working Party was established early in 1985 following the acceptance by the National Advisory Body, and the University Grants Committee, of the central recormendations of the report of the Transbinary Group on Architecture for a reduction of 30 per cent in intakes to Part 2 courses, and a reduction of 15 per cent in intakes to Part 1 courses. The Scottish Education Department agreed to be represented on the Working Party whose remit was to consider how these reductions might best be achieved and to advise the parent bodies. The membership of the Working Party is given in Annex 1. DATABASE 2 The first task for the Working Party was to establish a firm institutional data base from which the reductions of 30 and 15 per cent might be calculated. Accordingly, all institutions in the UK were asked to provide details of their intake and total student numbers for the five years between 1980 and 1984 . These figures are shown in Annex 2. Information was also provided on staffing and post—graduate students. 3 The figures cover home and EC students calculated on a full—time equivalent basis, using a standardised weighting of 0.4 for a part—time student. Overseas student numbers are shown in brackets and are omitted from the sununary table. The data indicate that home and EC intakes to Part 1 courses roge from 1339 in 1980 to 1464 in 1983 with a slight fall in 1984. This increase is accounted for almost entirely by the growth in intakes to public sector institutions in England, and to some of the Scottish schools. Intakes to the universities in England have fallen primarily as a result of the closure of the School of Architecture at Bristol, following the reduction in university funding from 1981. 4 Intakes to Part 2 courses have fallen since 1980 to 874 full—time equivalent students but this reflects the pattern of Part 1 intakes in earlier years. The growth in Part 1 intakes in recent years is about to feed through to Part 2 intakes. The balance between the sectors has varied since 1980 reflecting this earlier pattern of Part 1 intakes, but by 1984 the intakes to public sector institutions in England was at about the same level as in 1980, while in the universities and Scottish public sector institutions it had fallen. - 1 - Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource EC Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 28 Feb 1980 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/b9dfbc598f5386cfdc8cfb0a6f7a9fcd.pdf 1eebf67c18ebce6161e7046d3023ce19 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 Education Description An account of the resource Many NAM members were engaged in the field of architectural education, either as staff or students, and pursued new ideas for course content and pedagogy, reassessing existing course structures and priorities in conventional architectural training. The concern to focus on socially necessary buildings and to find new and meaningful ways of engaging with building users and the wider community- both central NAM themes - illuminated much of the discussion. 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 Working Documents 1979-1980 Subject The topic of the resource Draft directive on exercise of profession of architect Description An account of the resource European Communities EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Working Documents 1979 - 1980 2B February 1980 DOCUMENT 1-810/79 MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION tabled by Mr GILLOT pursuant to Rule 25 of the Ru les of Procedure on a draft directive on the exercise of the profession of architect English Edition PE 63.332 The puropean Parliament, Whereas : — a draft directive on the exercise of the profession of architect has been under consideration for more than 15 years, the draft which the Commission is preparing to submit to the Council of Ministers for final adoption has undergone so many changes that it now bears only a slight resemblance to the text submitted to the Assembly of the European Cotmunities in 1968, — it takes into account neither the importance which has come to be attached to matters relating to the environment in the last 15 years, nor the public concern which these generate, nor the national statutory provisions which have been in force for some years, — it engenders an unacceptable degree of confusion between a university qualification and the exercise of a profession which plays a major role in society, — the period of study prescribed cannot ensure that future architects within the Community are qualified as befits their task and would place them at a disadvantage on external markets, — this draft entitles persons with various technical qualifications to act as architects without adequate safeguards, — it provides excessively long transitional derogations in respect of recognized qualifications, — it fails to observe the important distinction between the qualifications of architects and engineers, — recent efforts to have this text adopted by the Council failed to take account of the resistance from the Liaison Committee of Architects in the Common Market (L.C.A.C.M.) , which was originally set up to present the views of all the professional organizations in the Member States to the Commission, Urges the Commission: 1. To amend its draft to take account of the proposals from the Liaison Committee of Architects in the Common Market and the necessity of ensuring that architects within the Community are qualified as befits their task and in such a way that they are able to face competition from abroad; 2. To initiate a new process of consultation of the Assembly of the European Communities which has become necessary in view of the growing concern about the quality of the environment, the major changes made to the original text which was considered by the previous Assembly and the changes which are still required to the present text. PE 63.332 E Walker Esq 28 Crab Lane Your reference Armley I have been asked to reply on Mr Finsberg t s behalf to your letter of 19 February about the draft DC directive on architects' qualifications. The points you and your co—signatories have made about this draft directive have been noted and will be duly taken into account in any decisions reached by Ministers • Yours sincerely P M BERGIN E walker 28 Crab Lane Anley LeedB IS12 ZD G Flngberg Min1Bter of State for the Enviroment Depar%nent of the Enviroment 2 blarehan Street landon SWIP 3EB 19th February 1980 Dear Fingberg ARCHIECQ'S DmCTIVE We are Councillore on the Architect 'B RegiBtrat10n Council of the United (A.RCUK) elected to repregent the 4,381 "Unattached" Archltectg, I.e. those not belonging to one of the Architecturü Constituent on the Council, which hag 27 077 ArchitectB In total, on ItB Register. At ARCUKt B Special on the 24th January, 1930, concerning the EC Draft Architect' B Directive, our memberB voted a resolution continued opposition to the lategt Architecte In th.1B country ere not ag united In their oppodtlon to the Draft Directive ag you nay have been led to believe. We gupport the Draft Directive 8B It BtendB. tt?0110W Up ti Acadælc Trdnlng: The Royal Institute of Ä•1t1Bh Architects (RIBA) end thi.2%ARCUK'B objection to the Directive concerned the Geman ?achhochgchulen propoBa1B for ttFoIiow—Up n æadæle training the two yeare after their three—yeæ courge. In particular, the demand for a period of training longer then that propoged, that Buch training be gupervlged by univereity—ievei educationei1BtB and that there Bhould be fom of at the of Buch In the EEC CoadBBIon€B revieed Article 4 end In a new Annex to the Directive, ail thege denude are met. Safeguard — Review: In a u•tloie In the Directive, Article 33a, allowe for a Befeguard. It providee for a review of the Directive on the bas1B of dter three yearg, If to propoga1B for æxendmentB. ArchitectBt The FTM and eeæ to believe that the Directive, If Implemented It exigtB, could "only to a reduction In profeeglonai competence a poorer Bervlce to the 1B the RIBA BO convinced that It hag found the beet only of architectB, -2- e. the Dou our recent building production bear out that cmvlctlon? Gertnarv currently hag fourteen unlvergity or univerdty—equlvaient schoolB of Architecture ud Fachhoehgchuien. The müted hag thirty—eight Schoolg of Architecture. The number of architectural Btudente in training per thougud population 1B ag hlgh In as In the United and hes a high level of unapioyment. le the RIB1t B objection then, baged on a fear of Invulon by foreign talent? Surely not,ln view of their conviction AB to the quality Of our own architectural product, which would presumably meon qort rather than Import In architectura trade. Yours faithfully M Rob B Woolley S Jackgon 1 Tod Councillors 1980-81 J S Alien F Arnold Roberts D J Burnby D Roebuck Fear of Fachhochschulen From Anne Delaney, architect, and 'Ohn Murray Sir: Bob Giles (AJ 14.2.79 p306) finds it diß ficult to see how NAM members representing the 'unattached' on ARCUK can vote for the EEC Architect's Directive recognis• ing the German Fachhochschulen. We find it difficult to see how RIBA members can vote against the directive, since in its revised form it seems to incorporate all they have been fighting to achieve over the last few years. The Briush architectural profession's remaining objection to the directive had concerned the Fachhochschulen proposals for 'follow up' academic training during the two years after their three-year course. In particular, the demand was for a period oftrain• ing longer than that proposed, that such training should be supervised by university. level architectural educators and that there should be some form of assessment at the end of such training. In the EEC Commission's revised Article 4 and in a new Annex to the directive, all these demands are met. In addition, a new article in the directive, Article 33a, allows for a safeguard; it provides for a review of the directive on the basis of experience, after three years, if necessary leading to proposals for amendments. In the light of these concessions it is difficult to see what remains to be discussed. During the course of ARCUK's debate on the subject, several arguments were put forward. There was the argument (put also in Bob Giles' letter) that support for the direc• tive could •only lead to a reduction in professional competence and a poorer service to the community'. Is the RIBA so convinced that it has hit on the best and only way of educating architects (a view not apparently held by the president of the RIBA on the evidence of recent statements in the Al and Building)? Does our recent building pro• duction bear out that conviction? Figures were then quoted. Germany currently has 14 university or.university-equivalent schools of architecture. It has 46 Fachhochschulen. The UK has 38 schools of architecture. The number of architectural students in training! 1000 population is twice as h:gh in Germany as tn the UK, and Germany has a h;gh of architectural unemployment. Is the 's object:on, then, based on a fear of unvasuon by talent? Surety not, in view of their conviction as to the quality of our own architectural product, wwch would presumably mean export rather thon architectural trade, Yet pt the q c, of Fachhochschulen•trained architects he had worked with and then went on to vote against the directive. We did not vote with the RIBA because we share neither their fears nor their convictions. It is almost impossible to assess, as Bob Giles asked, whether our view would be sup• ported by the 4000 'unattached' represented on ARCUK, in part by NAM members. This presents us with a real problem. Representatives of 'unattached' on ARCUK have no machinery for getting in touch with their constituents, except for a once-yearly communication which, apart from postage, is paid for out of our own pockets. We try to use what little access we have to the professional press to put across our arguments, and of course we always welcome views sent to us by our constituents. Bob Giles believes that NAM's policies are 'unintelligible to all but the NAM cognoscenti', but in this case •cognoscenti' can be taken to include all those who write for details to NAM, 9 Poland Street. Those who take the trouble will find NAM's reports as intelligible as anything produced by SAG and certainly less blinkered by professional self-interest. And of course if the 'unattached' do not agree with actions taken by their representatives they always have recourse to democratic procedures—they can vote us off ARCUK Council at election time—a course of action, incidentally, not available to members of the RIBA, salaried or otherwise, in respect of their ARCUK representative;. ANNE DELANEY JOHN MURRAY Cardiff 'Satanic Mills' proposals From David M. Ellis, a director of the Pennine• Development Trust Sir: Would you allow me to correct a misconception that has arisen as a result of the SAVE 'Satanic Mills' exhibition currently at the Heinz gallery. The proposals for a regional park in the Pennines came from the Pennine Park Association, a voluntary body representing over 60 organisations in the area concerned. It is not often realised that the 'industrial' Pennines between the Peak National Park and the Yorkshire Dales National Park lie at the heart of the greatest concentration of population in Britain outside the south-east. However, the present proposals stem from See Eths •s S can (.//CI/Ä the publication in 1972 of The case for a Pennine park and the subsequent national conference in 1975 at which the ideas were welcomed by Denis Howell, Minister for Sport and Recreation. Since that time the Pennine Park Association has been involved 1 in a lengthy consultative exercise with organisations and councils in the area. The SAVE exhibition is a timely and welcome boost to our endeavours and might well mark a turning point in the development of a more appropriate attitude to the problems and potential of declining communities in a post-industrial society. DAVID M. ELLIS Hebden Bridge, West Yorks Small sites in Newham From Kenneth Lund RIBA, DiplArch, director of Planning and Architecture, Newham Sir: I would like to correct some of the many misrepresentations and misconceptions cone tained in your article on small sites in Newham (AJ 31.1.79 p217). The authors, in attempting to draw together two disparate strands—one, the problem of attracting private house building in Inner Areas and two, the particular problems presented by small sites—have succeeded in presenting a totally misleading picture of the borough. I Site available for use. regret that after my department had assisted them with some of their early research, the authors did not see fit to take up my offer of discussing further their work with my officers, which would, I feel, have enabled them to present a more accurate report. They have made the basic assumption wrongly that, outside the industrial belt, all small sites are suitable for housing and should be developed in that way. The borough is very densely developed and is severely defictent tn open spaces, both large and small, which would help to break up the deficiency can best be met by larger scale pro'.iston, this is not, for obvious reasons, Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom •et• to 73 Hallam Street London WIN 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 FYpgrar: Kenneth J. Forder M.A. Pursuant to No. 4 of the Council's Regulations a Special Meeting of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom was held on 24 Januaryø 1979 at noon M I N U T E S Present: Mr. Michael Metcalfe (Chairman) Professor Denys Hinton (Vice Chairman) Messrs. Barclay, Barefoot, Beckett, Miss Beddington, Messrs. Benroy, Berry, Bullivant, Buchanan Campbell, Miss Delaney, Messrs. Elphick, Giles, Godfrey—Gilbert, Green, Groves, Eaenlein, Hirsh, JohnSon, Knight, Latham, Leggatt, Macdonald, Meyrick, Murray, Roebuck, Sargeant, Mrs. Silves'ter, Messrs.: Thornley, Tomlinson, Waterhouse and Wearden Apologies: Dr. Allen, Messrs. Arnall, Bell, Bingham, Blair, Critchlow, Darbourne, Darvall, Professor Dunbar—Nasmith, Mrs. Foulkes, Mr. Janes, Professor Lipman, Messrs. Maltz, McKee, Morris, Outterside, Oven, Penning, Phillips, Smith, Storey, Taylor, Tod, Wightman, Woolley and Wright In Attendance: Mr. K J Forder, Mrs. E Layton, Miss H Smith and Miss C Owenson 143. Coanon Market. Architects' Directive (previous ref: Minute 137/78) The Chairman opened the meeting by saying it had been convened on his requisition and in accordance with the undertaking he had given at the December meeting of Council that the Council should have the opportunity of expressing its viev if the EEC draft Directive came to a head. A letter had nov been received from the Department of the Environment dated 28 December, 1978, the terms of which indicated that the Council of Ministers at its December meeting had been told that Britain was unable to lift its reservation on the Directive until it had had the opportunity of consulting the profession in this country on the proposals. The profession had now formally been called upon to let the government know its views before the end of January. In parallel the constituent bodies had been asked to feed in their views. All this information was consolidated in Annexe A to the agenda (copy inserted in Minute Book), including as it did the specific recommendation on page 2 which he vas cotmnending to the meeting today. 144. Mr. Waterhouse then introduced the paper indicating that •he had been a member of the LOXCM delegation since 1973. He referred to and expanded on each phrase in the recoanendation, and stressed that the feeling now reflected that •of some tvo years ago when it had been said that the profession would not accept three year courses, particularly without a final examination, because the total length would be inadequate and, probably most important of all, the curriculum contained no design vork. The LCACM had endorsed this view at every stage and had stated it unanimously at their meeting in December. 9/79/2 145. There vas no doubt that all the architects of the EEC (including GermanJ) were of a like mind. It was not the profession that had tried to prees for acceptance of the draft Directive in its present form, but member governments (apart from the British government which had •excellent •relåtions with.:the profession in this country) . lie proposed that the resolution should be accepted without reservation. 146. Mr. Thornley, as Chairman of the Admission Committeeßoutlined the possible effects of the influence of the FF.. He made several points referring in particular to the numbers of architect trainees involved. In West Germany trainees sprang from 14 universities and technical school faculties, and also from 46 FH although hot all •of these tried to identify themselves with the three year course. The number of students in training in West Germany amounted to approximately twice as many per thousand head of the population as in the Unite-' Kingdom. There were without doubt political pressures, and one had to relate the picture to the high unemployment rate in West Germany. The fact had to faced that the German view of architectural training vas not adopted in the interests of architecture but 'for' political •reasons. He said there were three pointers which indicated the lower standards: (i) graduates from the FH tended to go on to university indicating they had not had sufficient training; (ii) local government higher appointments in Germany were not open to graduåtes from the FH; .(iii) ARCUK's Advisory Panel had the task of assessing the qualifications of overseas applicants for registration and measuring them up on a Part 11 standard in this country; there was no doubt that the 'three year course at the FH could never qualify for this purpose; if it did so there would be tvo results; other interested parties would also press for three year courses, and (b) British students might •yell tend to go,' abr6ad:cf' • to train. 1471' Mr. Elphick suggested that the motion should be: supported as it, stood. He felt that Che public interest factor,. included in the content Of. sparagraph 5 of ghe memorandum, vas important. Mr. Hirsh referred. xo! the, Lelement in paragraph 11 pointing our that quantity of. instruction was not ..all that important — it did not represent what education vas :all -about. 148. Mr. Leggatt supported the recommendation but asked. the Council, to bear in mind the importance of EEC harmonization and warned •against giving an appearance of adopting an anti—EEC •cloak. He.åndicated 'concern particularly at the gulf between -governments and profession on: the Continent. _,149. Mr. Green, the Ministry delegate on the Council, referred to one or two points that had been made during the discussion. He said .that, there vas no question of intröducing a transitional period sihcé the possibility of this had already been thrashed out with the Germans• and 'there •Vere political rea c or.s against it. There had been no comparable problems when directives -had been 9/79/3 negotiated for doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons. Since solicitors had had reciprocity of operation within the Community for some years, the Architects' Directive vas the first in a new field to be tested. Council had to understand that at the December meeting of Ministers the draft Directive was actually accepted in principle, and that only an exchange of letters was now necessary to trigger the acceptance procedure. Mrs. Layton asked Council to bear in mind that the Committee of ViceÆhance110rs and Principals had expressed deep interest and they had written a letter to Prime Ministers supporting the stand taken by the profession. There was no doubt that architects were a test case and that the universities were anxious to give their support. Mr. Haenlein said that he supported the recommendation. He said that it could not be emphasised too strongly that architectural education was designed to foster the student's ability to make judgments. Those promoting the Directive did not understand the central issue of the cultivation of architectural judgment and it vas this that the profession had a duty to protect. 150. Mr. Murray expressed an opposing view and said that he felt the criteria outlined in the Annexe to the Minister's letter compared favourably to those contained in the curriculum of British schools. Miss Delaney supported Mr. Murray and she referred particularly to the draft Directive Article 33(a) which provided for a review after three years. 151. Professor Hinton suggested that this was a tenuous basis on which to approach the matter. He asked those apposing to look at the range of subjects contained in the proposals as a waiver which detracted from the standards itemized in Article 3 of the Directive. He went on to say it should be stressed that ARCUK's approach should not be seen as retrograde by appearing to be anti—EEC. Far from letting down the Common Market cause, the architectural profession would be letting Europe down if it agreed to the draft Directive in its present form. On what ARCUK decided today may turn the whole architectural profession of the Continent. No Directive vas better than a bad one. We should not agree to the notion of a Procrustes bed. 152. Mr. Groves said that the profession objected to training being measured out in terms of hours and minutes. Quality was what vas called for not quantity. He felt that acceptance of the draft Directive would mean letting down the profession on other countries. Supporting speeches were made by Mr. Sargeant, Mr. Latham and Mr. Knight. 153. The Chairman then moved the following resolution from the Chair: That the Council should maintain its stand. declare that the proposals are still not acceptable and ask the UK government to continue its opposition; it should also confirm the LCACM view that acceptance would have very serious effects on the standards of competence of the profession in Europe and adversely affect the standing of European architects in the rest of the world. 154. This vas seconded by Mr. Elphick and passed by 25 votes in favour and 3 against. 155. Date of next meeting: 14 March, 1979 at 1 p.m. followed immediately by the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting. The Chairman then declared the meeting closed at 1.05 p.m. Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom 73 Hallam Street London WIN 6EE Tel: 01-580 5861 Registrar: Mrs.-NoelOawson. MBE KENNETH J. fC%OER, m.a. 2/79 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING 24 January 1979 at 2pm in the HENRY JARVIS HALL at 66, Portland Place, London W. 1. A G E N D A 1 . Apologies for absence 2. COFff{ON MARKET Architects' Directive Report and Recormnendat ions Annexe A 3. Date of next meeting: 14 March, 1979 at 1 p.m. followed Illüediately by the Forty—seventh Annual Meeting. Kenneth J Forder 12 January 1979 Registrar ANNEXE A COI.t40N Archi tects' Directive Report and Recommendations A possibly decisive moment has arrived in the long drawn out negotiationg on this Directive. The attached letter of December 28th 1978 from the Department of the Environment aeks for the "considered views of the profession" on the latest proposals from Brussels before the end of January. The letter i 6 addressed to Alex Gordon as Head of the joint RIBA/ARCUK Common llarket Delegation and the DOE wishes to have the views of both bodies. The ARCUK Council has been called epecially to consider this matter, as it is of great importance to the profession. 2. The letter is concerned entirely with Article of the Directive which deals with the length of courses. All other issuee are deemed to have been satisfactorily settled, though the professional bodies in nost countries, including the UK, still have reservations about some matters. The crunch point is however the issue of three year coureeg. While thig is generally thought of as the "Fachhochschule ( Eli) issue" and the battle on this Article has been fought out principally between the Germans and the UK, it is of general application. We know the Belgians have similar courses and other countries could come up with them. It is therefore important to concentrate on the general principle and to recognise that the proposals, which have been devised to meet the German situation, could be applied more generally. 3. The issue is embodied in the attached Article where as an alternative to a minimum of four—years of full—time study it is proposed that a 3—year course can be supplemented by two extra years within an overall. 5—year framework. This can be referred to as the "3+2 alternative , the content and organisation of the +2" being at the heart of the argument. In this context it should be remembered that 5—year full—time courseg are the norm in most countries of the Nine as well as in the rest of the world. In France they are usually six. The reference to a minimum of If—years full—time study is in recognition of the fact that no German courses of architecture, even those in universities, are of more than It—years and the UK has a few such courses also ( though these are qupplemented by 3—years practical training making a total of 7—yearß before Part 3). Thus the 3—year FY courses, as they are now, are far below the norm. The UK does not quarrel with the 3+2 concept. It would be possible for a UK student to do a full—time first degree in 3 years and then to go on to a 2—year part—time course and have a satisfac tory education. -What i9 at issue iB what happens during the supplementary or +2 yeare and whether the continuity, content and quality of the education during thig period provides the • framework in which the student can develop and mature. •v Members are reminded that a CODY of the latest version of the Directive is available for study at the offices of ARCUK. 5. It 1B eagy to get bogged down by the detaile of the argument and to be reduced to haggling about hourg or weeke of etudy. 'me basic legue is, however, fairly eimple and wag well argued by the Liaigon Committee of Architecte of the Common Market (LOACM) in the Statement which it gent, unanimously, to the Prime Minigterg of the Nine on Decernber 2nd 197B. argued that:— the union between our countries, under the condi tions of the Treaty of Rome hag ag a particular object the maintenance and development of our culture and civiligation at •a• level, and that it would be tmworthy of mrope'o role ag inepiration and guide in guch matterg to adopt educational gtandardg which are inadequate. — in the economic field a gub—ßtandard level of architectural education in Barope would mean, for future generations, the logg of commiggiong and employment opportunitieg which are today entruged to ug by the whole world. — theee two argumente are enou&i to demonstrate that the refugal by some countriee to accept today the inveetLD€mt neceegary to raise the level of architectural education to the hiölegt profeoeional levels, which hiöily developed societieg require, will have far greater adverse effects for the Community as a whole than the immediate ehort—term economies." 6. the Commigeion in Brussels iB anxious to give the unpreegion that this iB a make or break situation and that no amendments to the lateet draft of Article 4 or the Annex are poBBib1e. 'me UK and Ireland, which are now the only countrieg retaining reservationg at government level, are aeked to accept or reject the new packageg ag a whole, ag its standB. If agreement is not reached in two monthe' time we are told that the whole Directive will then be put into cold storage indefini tely and movement between countriee will be dependent on exigting arrangements or euch new arrangementg ag can be negotiated bilaterally between countries. Vnether or not It Ig guch a make or break Bituation is open to argument. Only very recently the Germane have been persuaded to make further conceegione which are embodied in the latest draft. In the Delegation' B view it would be wrong to abandon the hope of further progreeg, eepecially ao our Baropean colleaguee are eo ingiBtent on the need to stand firm. We ehould not let them down. Recommendation 7. Memberg of the Common Market Delegation, who have followed the negotiations in detail month by month for 5 years, met early in January to coneider the DOE letter and their recommendations to the Council. After very careful conelderation they recommended That the Council should maintain ite stand: decl are that the propoga1B are Btill not acceptable and agk the UK Government to continue its oppoeition: it ghould algo confirm the ICACM view that acceptance would have very gerioug effects on the standardg of competence of the profeeeion in Ehrope and advergely affect the standing of baropean architecte in the regt of the world. the Council i e aeked to eupport thiB recommendation. The Pointe at iogue 8. The rest of thig paper 1B concerned with the detailed pointg at issue. 9. LYer ginee the Germans recogniged that their 3—year courses were unaccept— able ae they stood the arguments have centred round five iogueg:— i) how much additional time gpent in academic Btudy would level up the 3--year courgeg to the A—year minimum? ii) what kind of eduoa tion would take place during thig extra period? iii) how would the etudentB t level of achievement be aggegged at the end of the supplementary courge? IV) who would be involved in teaching and aegegement, to engure that etandardB were comparable with Diploma coureeg eleewhere and at university level? v) were the propooals generally vorkaole? 10. Before aseegeing the proposal o, which are embodied in the lateet draft Article 4 and the Annex, it Bhould be recogniged that the Germane have moved a long way tn meet the objections which have been raised over the laet three years. rrozn a three year course and Diploma on ite own they have moved on to offer eupplementary courseg, firet total ling 40 days and now 60 daye, spread over the next 2 years, ae vell as a new practical training echeme, log—book etc. To get up courgeg all over Gennany lasting days (i.e. 12 eeparate weeks spread over two years), to involve teachere of' architecture in theee and to Introduce a new two yeare practical training echemee iB a major exerciee. Imagine the UK having to or€aniee a Bimilar network of coureeg and practical training for the firet time. So the UK umgt pay tribute to the distance the Germans have been willing to go to meet the objectiong and the extent of the organigation they are prepared to demand of their provxncial governmentB to get their architecte from the 3—year coureea accepted ae equals in Europe. However for the reagons set out below there are Btill eerioug reservationg. i) Time 11. As explained above the Germane i'j.rst, offered 40 dayg of courses spread over two yeare (i . e. 4 geparate weeks a year for two years). me hag been etepped up to dayg (probably working out ae 6 weeks a year). rme Germane have argued that thie involves more instruction than many UK ptudente get in their laet two (Part 2) yeare. Thie miölt be BO .in terme of "course work", i.e. lectures and eeruinare. But the German argument takeo no account of the very large amount of time spent in UK coureeg on design projectB. The whole concept of counting the time ag 60 dayg or 4830 hourg epent in coursee betrays a migconception of the objectives of the extra period. part—time, Part 2, Btudent in the UK would epend at leagt 4/10 hourg in the School but ae much again or more on a seriee of deeign projecto and the final deei&l thesig. Hie full—time counterpart would epend even more. i) i) Kind of Archi tectural F,ducation 12. The above argument extende into the kind of education to be provided during the gupplementary period. Throuöiout the negotiationg our mropean colleagues in the IZACM (Liaison Committee of Architects in the Common Market) and the UK profeggion in i to digcugeion with the DOE have criticiged the German thinking behind the courgeg. tmege are conceived ag taudit coureeg, similar to, but with gome extended subject matter, to what iB tauélt — Borne. would gay overtauÖt — in marv Fachhochechulen already. Such courges are eagier to organige than degign work, but migg the point of providing the opportunitieg and support. for developing and maturing the synthegisin€ Bkillg of design. This is what much of the final two years of mogt archi tectural courgeg are about. UK efforts to put over the difference of concept to the Commieeion or the officiale in the German Government have failed. 13. A further conceln iB that the ligt of the subjecte in para 3 of the Annex infrin€eg a basic principle of the Directive which the UK helped to get establ iohed several years ago. Thi B wag that the content of courses should not be defined in detail but that Artie le 3, of the Directive, should only identify in broad termg the ability .1 Imowledge and Bkillg required by the end of the whole course. It would be contrary to the spirit and intention of Article 3 to add the detailed content now appearing in the preeent Annex, and would be a revergion to earlier and lees eatiefactory ideae about content. It is because a 3 year courge carmot meet the total requirements of Article 3 that we and other countries are critical. 11 i) Asgegement of Achievement at University Level 14. The original proposal of the Germane suggested that a certificate of attendance at the one—week courgeg Should be enouÖ to secure the Community's recognition of the proposed arrangements. Attainment at a univereity level of performance vag not part of the German thinking. Tae ICACM hae been unanimous in congidering that attendance wag not enoub and that a final examination or method of aggeggment or "evaluation" of each student's progregg and achievement at the end of the cow Beg vas eegential. 15. These arguments were put forward to the Gormang and to the Commiggion end have now been embodied in a single phrase in the first paragraph of Section 4 of the Annex (underlined in thig paper) as follows: ensure that the procedures set up by Member States for such ascertainment, which implies evaluation, are coherent and effective, the competent authorities of these States ehall transmit their draft on the matter to the Commission for examination". The UK profession hag been assured that this is intended to be an evaluation of achievement but as the text now etandB it iB ambiguous. ig one of many examples in the current text which ig unaatiefactory. While the Germane may fully intend to do what iB needed, it iB ungatiBfactory to accept a text which could be ueed to the letter 10 yeare from now. - 5 - iv) Who would be involved in the courses and evaluationg? In early vergione of the German proposals it appeared that the provincial (Land) registration bodies would be regpongible for organiBIng the courseg and marking up the students' "creditB" for an attendance of the .coureeg. The critics of the German propogalg have Btregged the need algo to involve teacherg of architecture go that the new gupplementary .coureeg and the aggesomen!e of etudentg would be comparable with thoge •in other countriee. 17. However, for reagong due almost certainly to the lack of understanding by the Commiggion drafterg, paragraph 1 of the Annex refers to the servicee of teacherg in higher education being enliBted in carrying out the organigation and gupervision of practical trainin€, with no reference to their involvement in the coureeg or in the aggeggment of the students' progreee and achievement. Thig iB almogt certainly poor drafting, but it illustrates yet again the great problem of accepting a draft in precisely its present form with no opportunity to Buggeet amendmentg. The tJK would want the Directive to eaor gpecificaliy that the teacherg are to be involved in the coureeg and their assessment. v) Workabil i ty 18. While it would be undiplomatic to guggest in Brueeelg that the Germang could not carry out what they are ready to undertake, especially in view of German thorouømesg, there must be grave doubte about the viability of the propoealg for the supplementary courses. Eleven gemi—independent provinces will be responsible for the execution of the scheme and their ability and enthusiasm will vary. If arrangements for euperviBing and aeeeeein€ degi&l projectg were to be added it would become more difficult still. Thie reservation about workability crust therefore lurk in the background. Role of the Advi gory Cornmx ttee 19. So much for the five points. Another approach is to look at the role of the Advigory Committee. On the initiative of the UK — firet raised in the House of lorde all the present profeBBiona1 Directivee, draft or agreed, provide for an Advisory Committee throuöl which the profeggion can advise the Commission on educational and training matters. mig applies to the Architects' Directive also; reference iB made to the Advisory Committee in the other parte of the Directive as vell ag in the propoeed new Article 33a (on the last page of the DOE appendices). hag been argued that the UK ohould concentrate ite energiee on getting thie body Into effective operation to engure that Article 4 and ite Annex are interpreted according to the spirit of the Directive. 20. UK Delegation conoidered thio argument, but felt that In the end it vag the letter of the Directive not the epirit which would count. While It had confidence that the architectural profegeion in Germany and the Government in Boon would try to operate the spirit, the climate could change. Supposing another country of the Nine used the letter of the Directive, what redress could there be? Conclugion 21 . All thege argumentg lead back to the recommendation in paragraph 7 that the profeegion ghould advige the UK Government not to agree to Article 4 and the Annex ae currently drafted. In maintaining its objectiong, the Council would algo be gupporting the viewg of the profeegion in Lürope. t*hile all must be digappointed not to reach an immediate conclueion to thig long—drawn out negotiation, the UK Delegation thinke It unlikely that thie will be the final word or that the Directive will be buried or scrapped. Commieeion and the German Government have already come a congiderable way to meet the critics — particularly the UK. It to be hoped that rather than digcard completely the work already done, the negotiationg can continue and the UK can give a 'No t to t the present draft qualified by a statement of willingxegg to continue digcueßiong. Michael Metcal fe Chairman   Department of the Environment Room SI 1/10 2 Marsham Street London Direct Iino 01-212 Switchboard 01-212 3434 A Gordon CBE 1.11) Dip Arch PPiUBA 28 December 1978 6 Cathedral Road Cardiff CFI Dear Alex, EF.C DIPiCTIVE ON ARCHITECTS AU I told you on the telephone, the Council of Ministere again to reach a decision on the draft directive when they considered it on 19 December. you know, there was considerable diploraatic activity the period leading up to the meeting as the Commission sought to find a e;01uÆon to the problem of the Fnchhochschtt).en (FED. At the meeting, our Minister, While accepting that the Commission' E tD06t recent propoga19 were desieaed F.o meet. our requirementG upgrading these courses, said vere unable to lift our recervat.ion antil we had had time to the profet;sion in this country on the propoaals properly. ttle ;riöh took b similar line (though they were more forthcoming than we verg about the acceptability of the propocals, fsubject to consultation). 'Die Germane indicated that they '.tould accept the Commission's proposalß if would. The purpoce of thiG letter ig formally to con6u1t you on the •text aa it vculd at and with the i Co:nrai.ssion'6 proposed amendments. You vill recall our basic negotiating position has rested on the Inadequacy 0$ the Germans' 1976 propocals for supple'nenting El couraec. IA . '.te have a•cgued: (i) that the 1+0 days of academic training proposed to be undertek9Q dui•ing the two years of practical training which are to follow three years at the was insufficient; (i i) tliut the authors ties" who would be responeible organising and tspperviGi1iB t.hib academic traininel should peraons with experience of architect t.•rul cå:tcation ut univergi%' (i i i ) that end t lie:-c chould be some torn ot uccornpl.i the period, 5. I attach a eop•,' of the te.'.t of Aci.i cle incorporating the {.55ion oposed and 01 a new draft annex to the directive ennui e uny on f.he conditions acceptable Ell no to any other 3 year coure;eg vhiGh be cla; .•.led J or mutual tee is intendQd to meet ali three of f Ite rointa in cyprevi st Increases the number dayli of CD; it: recti:iceo involvement c? teachere. 1. 0 of higher education; and it provides for a fortnal review procedure, specifica said to imply an "evaluation", at the end. Moreover, it involves the Advisory Committee in the procesc; of monitoring that the arrangemento in member gtatee actually meet these requirementg. I should now be grateful for the considered views of the profesgion on those proposals. At the Council meeting, member states were asked to reach a final conclusion "within two months". To enable ug to reach a deci6ion in Government within that timescale, I Ghould be grateful for a reply by the end of January. 5. I atn copying this to Elizabeth Layton and Kenneth Forder. Yourg sincerely, R J GREEN • Perhaps 1 should emphasize that, at this stage, there ia no scope for further drafting amendments. At the Council it was made clear that the proposals had been taken as far as was possible, and they should now be either accepted or rejected as they Stood. Art.i.cle Il 1. Tho eduoatlon and training refcrred to in Article 2 mugt gati6fy the requirementg defined in Article 3 and aloo the following conditions s (a) the total length of education and training Bha11 conglBt of a minimum of either four yeare of full—time Btudleg at a univereity or comparable educational egtab11Bhment, or five yeare of training of Which at Ioagt three mugt be epent In full—time otudieo at a univergj.ty or comparable educational eetablighment; (b) the total courge of education a nd training shall be concluded by BucceG6fu1 completion of an examination of deg•ee Btandayd or, If such examination iB taken upon concluglon of the three— year period of study, by the lgeue of an additional certificate by the competent euthorlt.y in accordance vlth the Annex th±g D.ix•eetlvo er,oc: has •veer. that the person concerned hag duly: — acquired two yearg t practical experience in the field of architecture, and — followed during this further training courgeg guperviged by that authority. 2. Recognition under Article 2 ghall algo be accorded to education and training which, as part of a BOC1a1 betterment scheme or a part—time univerglty courge, conforms to the requirements of Article 3 and leads to an examination In architecture gucceggfully undergone by pergong who have been employed in architecture for not legg than 7 years under the oupervlsion of an architect or firm of architects. Thig examination must be of deg•ee gtandard and be equivalent to the final examination referred to In paragraph to the Directive: "Minimum recui-rements for the perj.od of_yractica.l. exoerience orescribed in Article 4 (1) (b) The practical training shall be organized and supervised ( tractical training under cu--dance) by the relevant authority or public—law entity. The services of teachers in higher education shall also be enlisted in carrying out thic task. 2. This practical training under caidance shall last for 2 years (24 months) calculated from the start of the practical training itself. Following acquisition of their university diploma, those concerned shall take up work '.'!ith an employer whose field of activity covers the following: — the design and the technical and economic planning of buildings ; advising, guiding and representing parties for whom buildings are being constructed in matters connected with their punning and construction and supervising construction work; — the preparation of town and country planning work. To give an insight into the nature and extent of practical experience, trainees shall keep a course book .throughout the period of practi cal training, broken down into weeks. 3. To further tho inatruction of traineeg, univeroity—level courser? of a total length of 60 daygu that lg 1480 hours, ghall be orcanlged. The inatructicn ghall take the form of lectures, technical dlgcuggiong, eeminarg and exercigeg In related eubäectg, all theoe activities being geared to the programme laid down. The. courgeg in question shall be held at least once a quarter and gha11 take plabe on at least Il congecutlve working dayg, with 8 hourg t Instruction daily. The gubjectg for further instruction in theee couraeg mugt cover the following university—level gubåectg : — etructural, constructional and technical problems relating to building degl&l; the profeggion of architect and hig role in eociety; — hlgtory and theory of architecture end town planning; — knowléage o? Indueti'-'.eo, eraits, oreanieatioue, regulationg and prooedareg connected with the execution of congtructlon work; — plagtio design and colour deglga; — relationshipg between man An d hig natural and social environment and built— up and urban areas; — co—opeFation vith other disciplineg and their plang into overall plannlp€; — town pFnn1ng and planning technology. 14. A certificate shall be issued upon completion of the practical training. ThtB shall be legued by the competent authority after ascertainment a formal review that the courge—book haa been properly completed the courgee have been attended. To ensure that the procedures get up by liember States for such ascertainment, which implies an evaluation, are coherent and effective; the competent authorities of these States Shall transmit their draft on the matter to the Commlgglon for examination. Thig Annex to the Directive would be accompanied by a Commieeion Statement In the minutes of the Council ag followg:— "Since the Advieory Committee on training for architecte the task of adviol-nc. the Cc.anj.sg.f-on, the I-att- svateg that it vill consult the Con• , , e-Lee out f.h2 examinatioa provideä for in point 14 of the Annex toüae Directive. n rev Artic) e in t.he Mrcct./ve: "Article Not more than three years after the end of the period provided for In Article 314(1), the CommIBB10n ghall review the Directive on the bulg of experience and if noeeggary gubmit to the Council propogalg for anendmentg after congultin€ the • Ldv-4.e,ory Committee on Education and Training In Architecture. The Council Bha11 examine any euch propoga1B within one year. 't New recital: ttVhereas thig Directive Introduces mutual recognition of diplomag, certificateg and other evidence of formal qualifications giving acceee to profegglonal activåtleg, without ccncon±tant co—ordination of national provisiona relating to educat.ton and training; whereas moreover the number of members of the profession who are concerned varieg considerably from one Member State to another; whereag the firet few years of application of thig Directive must therefore be particularly attentively followed by the Commiggion. 't Council gtatement re Article h for entrv in the minutes: "The Council states that the terih3 "comparable educational establishment" and "examination of degree gtandardtt are conceptg not defined golely In terms of the national law of the Member State concerned, nor do they Imply that the educational egtabliehment 1B part of a university under the lav of that State." Statement by the Councll re Article "The Council gtates that the phrase "competent authoritiegtt should be taken to mean either a competent public authority or a body which, under national law, ig authoriged for the came functlong." 90/77 BAE/10/77 COMMON MARKET The Architects' Directive still has to be agreed and the stopping place is still Article and the 3 year German Fachhochschulen courses. As reported to the November meeting of the BAE, at a meeting in Bonn in September, 1976 between representatives from the DOE, ARCUK and the RIBA on one side and representatives of the German government and profession on the other, the German offerred to draw up proposals for a structured two year period of experience following the three year course and for providing some part—time courses during these two additional years. Unfortunately the German proposals when made known to the UK in December were not acceptable. They offerred only 8 one week courses spread over the two years (one week each quarter, equalling 1+0 days in all), some control of practical experience and no examination or final design project to assess the progress and achievement of the two years. We were informed, however, that the German proposals were accepted by the governments of all the other member states. The DOE suggested another meeting with the Germans and this took place in Brussels in January, 1977. The problem for the Germans is that they currently have no mechanism for running part—time courses and final assessments or for monitoring practical experience. From their point of view they had already come a long way in devising a scheme for one week courses and controlling practical experience and introducing something like a log—book. They indicated clearly that this was as far as they could go at present. Their position was all the more difficult in that they had to obtain acceptance of any proposals from all the eleven Lander. Since it appeared that the UK was alone in objecting to the German Government t s proposal it was thought unlikely that, despite the continued stand made by ARCTJK and the RIBA, the UK Government would make use of the right of veto on this issue. However, it now appears that Denmark and Ireland have had second thoughts and as a result of discussions which have taken place between UK, Danish and Irish government representatives a new version of Article has been drafted. This new draft whilst not meeting all the UK objections, does provide for an examination at the end of the two year Part—time course. If it is agreed by the Irish and Danes it will be submitted to the Germans by the UK. It may be possible to table the final version at the BAE meeting. Other matters that need still to be settled are "Prestation de Service'% and the ITOposed Advisory Committee on Training in the Field of Architecture. The UK representatives on the Liaison Committee of Architects in the Common Market are Mr. ilex Gordon, Mr. Hans Haenlein representing the RIBA; Mr. David Waterhouse and Mr. Michael Metcalfe representing ARCUK. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource EC Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 28 Feb 1980 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/a114c9fc0437cb74ba5d62926965d909.pdf 7fe162720c4893a762b4494a7e6a47ec 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 Feminist Group Description An account of the resource This developed a feminist agenda within the NAM critique. Alongside feminist consciousness raising and other feminist political groups, women within NAM came together to develop a feminist understanding of the built environment and building industry. The group acted to advise women in a range of campaigning issues. A special issue of Slate on feminism was produced in July/ August 1978. Emerging from the group was a' Feminist Design Collective' which became ‘Matrix' in 1980, producing the book ‘Making Space - Women and the Manmade Environment', which has been on architecture booklists for 35 years, and the design practice and Technical Aid Centre. <br /><br />The majority of this archive is held at the <a href="http://www.matrixfeministarchitecturearchive.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bishopsgate Institute</a>. 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 WOMEN AND SPACE Conference Programme Subject The topic of the resource Conference Programme WOMEN AND SPACE (2 pages) : Feminist Anthropology, Architecture and Community Description An account of the resource 1.00 p.m.: Lunch break. 2.00 pie SJ. 1b) i 1d) 19 Soe OPW) 2._ 30: Workshops. ————ee . Design Workshop (Anne Thorne). 445: Discussion. . Weekend \ehbol , Caxton House, 129 St John's Way, London N 19 (Archway tube) Admit One (£2 paid) KATE YOUNG ' Vib VENNESS ~ WOMEN AN SPACE aeee feminist architecture, antthitopology and community Saturday 10, Sunday 11 March - 10 am prompt to 5.30 pm each’ day | . Re ie”ag ee EG | j for women's solidarity of these different kinds of urban locality. is from the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University; a is a social anthropologist. She will say a few words on the effectu which the installation of piped water had on women's social life in a village in Mexico in which she did her field-work. = ,poaweA WA - pofrrervere 1 ly Ay?) 2 we af Veep mind Brattonafcrew « DENISE ARNOLD ” is a practising architect, and will look at the influence of design guides in reinforcing the privatisation of the nuclear family and the isolation and oppression of women within the context of mass housing. chairs the Housing Committee of the Islington (Labour) Council, and has been an active campaigner for working-class women's rights for a number of years. She will be discussing the practical difficulties which she has faced both inside and outside the council aS planning and architectural policies have changed within the area in recent times. PEGGY LAGLE is a N.U.P.E. shop-steward and women's representative on Greenwict. Trades Council. She will say a few words on “What kind of housing Etc like to see", particularly in the light of her experience living ina 30 year-old 8—storey block of flats. ite sasDa CN! i aes problems and Housing since the nineteenth century (Julienne Hanson). The political struggle for good: housing (Val Venness). Cuba: community, buildings, living and working spaces (Dr. Mo Mowlan). History and women's spaces’ (Susan House as an image of self-psychological perception (Claire Cooper). Design Guides, co-ops, creches, society co-operative dwellings {Sarah Strong). . Walker). ~AMFWh ere) 18 uF Sunday: 10.00 a.i.: SUSAN WALKER is an archaeologist at one: of the major London museums, participating in the preparation of an exhibition on everyday life in classical antiquity. She will be looking atywomen and physical space in antiquity, both in ceremonial and domestic life. JULIENNE HANSON will talk on developments in housing forms since the nineteenth century. She will be looking at life in traditional urban streets and in their modern counterparts~--high-density, high-rise estates and low-density ,.ldow=rise suburbs——-and will be examining the consequences for- women's solidarity of these-different kinds of unban locality. KATE YOUNG is from the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University, ava is a social anthropologist. She will say a few words on the effects which the installation of piped water had on women's social life in a village in Mexico in eee did her Pield-wopk ee : POU seein — pptwevt -e { yng, fend May) Yo aif wee mut Bir afar af srowTy « DENISE ARNOLD ” is a practising architect,’ and will look at the influence of design guides in reinforcing the privatisation of the nuclear family and the isolation and oppression of women within the context of mass housing. > as ViL VENNESS 4 chairs the Housing Committee of the Islington (Labour) Council, and has been an active campaigner for working-class women's rights for a number of years. She will be discussing the practical problems and difficulties which she has faced both inside and outside the council @S planning and architectural policies have changed within the area in recent times. PEGGY EAGLE is.a N.U.P.E. shop=steward and women's representative on Greenwictk Trades.Council. She will say a few words on “What kind of housing I'd like to see", particularly inthe Light of her experience living in a 30 year-old 8-storey block of flats. 1.00 p.m.: Lunch break. 2.00 p.m. Soe Des SH OW 2.30: Workshops. Housing since the nineteenth century (Julienne Hanson). The political struggle for good*housing (Val Venness). Cuba: community, buildings, living and working spaces (Dr. Mo Mowlan). History and women's spaces’ (Susan Walker). House as an image of self-psychological perception (Claire Cooper), Design Guides, co-ops, creches, society co-operative dwellings (Sarah Strong). . . . Design Workshop (Anne Thorne). | anW> Whe '. 10.00 a.m.: ANN BLISS 2,00 p.m, P\fZ EROGRAMME Saturday: 1.00 p.m.: Lunch break. WOMEN AND SPACE; Feminist Anthropology, Architecture ana Community. Weekend School: March 10-11, 1979. SHIRLEY ARDNER CLATRE COOPER 1. Women: and Builders (lea by Krystyna Domanska). 2. Women in Housing Co-ops (Seeenany 3. The St. Francis Sq. Case Study (Claire Cooper). 4. Women and Space (dulienne Hanson, Bill Hillier). 2. Women, Space and Human Evolution (Denise Arnold, Chris Knight). 6. Defining Female (Shirley Ardner),. ; £.00 poms: SHOESWRING THEATRE: "HOUSEWORK", tL will be looking at present-day housing from the standpoint of her own personal experience as.a woman with two young children and as qa social work assistant, and will talk about why she has, found anthropological knowledge concerning women in other cultures relevant.! BILL HILLIER and JULIENNE HANSON and teaching on the comparative study of architecture and spatial organizatioinn different cultures, BILL HILLIER will look at the social forces behind changes in urban Space which have taken place in the twentieth century. He will suggest a framework for discussing the relationship between the built environment and forms of community. JULIENNE HANSON will sketch an overview. of how different societies organize the relationships between men and women in space, suggesting how the organization of space can be used in weakening or strengthening women's solidarity. iS a social anthropologist at Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford. Her topic will be ‘Defining Female'—-the title of a book which she has recently edited, and which was sponsored by the Oxford University Women's Studies Committee. trained in &eography and urban planning, has worked as a planner and researcher in Britain, Sweden, Fuerto Rico and the USA, She is now Associate Professor at the Department of Architecture and Landscape at Berkeley. She will be talking about St. Francis Sq., a case study of an inner city multi-racial housing co-operative in San Francisco, both as researcher and as resident, i Pee Pay 4.00 p.m.: Workshops. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Feminist Group Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 10-11 March 1979 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/5bf574d5693026e440371fcd5e9efe4f.pdf b95d0da1fa365cae31f41e312ea04a22 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 Feminist Group Description An account of the resource This developed a feminist agenda within the NAM critique. Alongside feminist consciousness raising and other feminist political groups, women within NAM came together to develop a feminist understanding of the built environment and building industry. The group acted to advise women in a range of campaigning issues. A special issue of Slate on feminism was produced in July/ August 1978. Emerging from the group was a' Feminist Design Collective' which became ‘Matrix' in 1980, producing the book ‘Making Space - Women and the Manmade Environment', which has been on architecture booklists for 35 years, and the design practice and Technical Aid Centre. <br /><br />The majority of this archive is held at the <a href="http://www.matrixfeministarchitecturearchive.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bishopsgate Institute</a>. 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 WOMEN AND SPACE Subject The topic of the resource Letter to those who attended WOMEN AND SPACE Conference inviting them to take part in further activities Description An account of the resource Dear Sisters, WewamtcdtoWritotev€ery “Women un Space’ that came WP folowwe, ana Whice Ank we | magarie ,fom goodtvprintSomeTKS Si i sWww need Wwe women, Iv Showa we to put Part anr/ov the Ferrin 's caom-odp,fvrfopmeoiprlecwhtuGtuna-pieOESKM a Women S womenNi ke4ke Wow Contac nos, Fh Api Frames Aa Nase S315" Sha Framas 609 2976 Jwa Who JL5 F7o3 7775 Hor work core fw hind ve One evrtrovte Stolwve§ Tieinwve.Aopth. ? |,&grup havealvearty Contact: estigating alternatives, het evenyore WI Kew AoE not todisoms making ail Emma HenniowRA.E2. #7 sewardclstone COWwe Wwe W |MrK5 trontareaanhtrytogomtr | Kecxwld Pe Very WtWe a series F paper/sA we shew la pur 7 5yt howl be brtetuwe in conventi Mar Ait ee : Wav. OF iawowrenwe. )4- andtyalosoviintotyneWV Z ; accented notin \w bps bee volved iW setung mM putting; Ohne Wns Came tothe ve become thore Owe VIVES things mk FfHe Conference, win, PeopleWawa tr anchebig(AgtPersrenn Wha vawlh £ tendonay G bands He, Adon Wp i) wat at tre Stage when vb © ere Nee ee yee uae tien ee Ge /bwi / survey ing AC OX Abign Meer Aa pwdovpat We thavger otinv ames asotppeak,3 AadwhineSome— nsequk to have ask W oY 7 OneWA AbwmanOng God Yow possiblyfue - awscwsed .TsWWde, alo oyanvuAeJdONs abovd thr Wav im Alsign i af vA frp ovdem wilh wt Ve Nd LowyWhow 2. Vb Seems Covi ows thar Cane es troquevtoeplesWinch 3 i harbeen Suggertedthar ether an exibition OF ent. Tw wold chamenge the inaSi aga Avewtectwe Gry: y butdng. Theft The ho yad NSee/2 oo eeee i he iAmA a KayJ akToadDeintnaaeOinriteeck ib oS FOS, HE Ca Monday) prBothagainOttaeAIST i, ie Poland St. Nato aiea WL Cinbedhaps Se elaine a Ea Fin hoon mes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Francis Bradshaw, Sue Francis, Barbara McFarlane, Julia Wilson-Jones Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 9 April 1979 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/ed67a37ca4639ea16ab45ce7ebeeb88a.pdf 7f63f148b8b1dcc6c874f5dcae51092a 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Who's getting a free ride Subject The topic of the resource Letter from R Maltz Description An account of the resource The Architects' Journal 13 December 1978 1123 Letter The editor reserves the right to shorten letters. Short letters can be dictated to Lynette York over the telephone on Thursdays, for possible inclusion in the following issue of the A}. Who's getting a free ride? From R. Maltz, architect Sir: You recently reported that the RIBA treasurer complained that 'unattached' architects are 'enjoying a free ride' (AJ 29.11.78 p1028). This raises some interesting questions. Why does he pick on the so-called 'unattached' : are they the only architects who do not pay RIBA subscriptions? And who, in fact, is really getting a 'free ride'? According to the latest ARCUK figures, as of 31 October 1978, less than 78 per cent of UK architects were RIBA members, down from 85 per cent three years ago. Of the rest, while over 17 per cent are considered 'unattached' another 5 per cent, who also do not pay RIBA subs, are members of other organisations enshrined in Schedule 1 of the Architects' Registration Act 1931. Did the RIBA treasurer also attack the 6000 or so corporate members of the RIBA (more than all non-RIBA UK architects) who appear, from press reports of the RIBA's expected subscription income, no longer to be paying their RIBA subs? Perhaps before attacking other architects the RIBA treasurer could explain why the RIBA continued to carry these 'free riders' on its membership rolls. I think the RIBA treasurer ought also to provide a credible explanation of why he considers that the growing number of UK architects who eschew RIBA membership are 'enjoying a free ride'. (Many of those RIBA members who pay their E50 subs apparently think that the RIBA is getting a free ride from them ! ) Surely the RIBA treasurer isn't forgetting those mysterious benefits reserved to RIBA members only, which one of the RIBA's 'Gang of Forty' on ARCUK recently used to justify Safdie Lanski: producing an Israeli Disneyland? See Waksberg's letter, the amenity societies do all the fighting. All architects should : 1 Join their local amenity society, Civic Society or Conservation Area Advisory Committee (I guess only 1 per cent do at present). 2 Think not twice, but 100 times before being party to the destruction of a listed building. 3 Encourage the RIBA to be more active in conservation. 4 Press for SAVE's 14 recommendations. 5 Urge planning authorities to be much more flexible in granting permission for new uses for listed and ancient buildings. Does anyone know what happened to Grenville Powney's idea, launched in 1970, for a sort of Society of Owners of Listed Buildings? Such a group (300 000 strong) could collectively defend threatened buildings. H. Reginald Hyne Windsor Left to rot From Desmond Hodges RIBA, director of Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee Sir : Here is a recommendation to add to the stirring list which concludes the 'Special save report' (AJ 22.11.78 p1002) : 'To establish a fund to which owners of listed buildings could contribute regularly, and from which they could borrow to pay for repairs. 'Tax-free interest on such savings to pay for systematic inspection, organised by the fund. 'Savings to be transferred at face value to new owners, but to be spent only on eligible repairs.' Such ready cash might reduce procrastination and the consequent appeals for HBC funds to avert the ultimate catastrophe. In fact the HBC might save money in the long run by making incentive payments to savers (no pun intended ! ). Anyone interested in these ideas is invited to contact me. Desmond Hodges 13a Dundas Street, Edinburgh National Heritage Buildings Agency From R. W. y. Chitham RIBA Sir: It is very heartening to see that one of the conclusions reached in the SAVE report on the dereliction of historic buildings Agency should be set up. You very kindly gave the opportunity to float this idea in your columns some 18 months ago (AJ 30.3.77 p588) on which occasion I made the point that once you embrace the concept of an agency of this kind, you discover a broad range of functions which it would be Not only could it take on powers of intervention to save 1124 The Architects' Journal 13 December 1978 The Cresset: the pursuit of anonymous space? See Maplestone's letter. w eke Belfast support for Hackney Belfast councillors were urged not to demolish large areas of Belfast for redevelopment last week by architect Rod Hackney. Instead he recommended them to initiate self-help rehab schemes based at street and neighbourhood level. Speaking at a special meeting in the Lord Mayor's parlour in Belfast's town hall, Hackney suggested that, ironically, Belfast could be a decade ahead of some English cities. 'You haven't fallen into the abyss of thinking that everything over 60 years old has got to come down', he said. Hackney's man in Belfast, Dave Gregory, with local resident (left) outside the shop where he lives (right). 'You have tighter communities here with already established leaders', he went on. Following a presentation of his Macclesfield scheme, one councillor declared it was the 'most fantastically stimulating thing I've heard for a long time'. While another councillor appeared to be concerned that 'we haven't got the right people here', the Lord Mayor pledged his support for the idea. 'What better way of community development than people doing up their own houses?' he said. But he added, 'we've now got to get it over to the [Government] Housing Executive'. Hackney's intervention in Belfast's housing problems is no accident. He was approached by the Woodvale Shankhill housing association last year and, after persuading the Housing Executive to declare a Housing Action Area, was appointed to rehabilitate 114 houses. Community designer Dave Gregory has been appointed to live above the housing association office in a corner shop within a stone's thrown of the barbed wire defences of the Crumlin Road 'peace line' and run the scheme. Executive's demolition plan revealed The action area is, however, only a small part of the Protestant working-class Shankhill district. An internal document of the Housing Executive, leaked recently to the Save the Shankhill Campaign, reveals that the executive would like to demolish Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Architect's Journal Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/477fb45ddfe2347747d46172e3b06f16.pdf 3fb6f383652a7d1bffe0d22372ddfd89 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 Who needs the RIBA? Subject The topic of the resource "Who needs the RIBA ?" Article by Patrick Harrison, RIBA Secretary + letter from Mike Jencks Description An account of the resource RIBA? PATRICK HARRISON. THE MAN BEHIND THE SCENES AT THE RIBA, REACTS TO DAVID ROEBUCK'S TALK. TRANSPOSED IN THE LAST ISSUE. WITHOUT REFERING DIRECTLY TO THE TEXT. HE GIVES US AN INSIGHT INTO HOW THE PROFESSION VIEWS ITSELF. statutory body ARCUK for tho democratically controlled RIBA. And tho RIBA is gonuinoly democratic. Its record in responding to tho public interest and changes in public nood is far in advance of most comparable professional institutions. Its Council, Presidency and policios can and do respond to tho vigorous shake thoy rocoivo from membors. It is governed not only by 'bosses' but by many distinguished and able members, a tot of them salaried architects, who have chosen a modest path. Its work is well researched and well prosentod. It is effective. If it bo argued that the RIBA doesn't always win it must be rorncmbered that tho battles in which it is engaged aro very long and difficult. that victory can seldom bo spectacular and is often best not celebrated too ostentatiously. The moral Novor lot it be forgotton that tho forces ranged against good architecturo and good architects are very powerful. Tho distrust and suspicion of tho creative artist in industry and politics. oro intense. A truly disinterested professional servico also gets in tho way of short-term economics and convenience. This accounts as much for government scrutiny of architects as any interest in the welfaro of tho consumer, Do not imagino that tho world will automatically accord on offectivo rolo to a deinstitutionalised orofnssion. It will most likely out-manoouvro and ignoro it! Subvorgion can bo fun, but at con In this siutuotion. the thesis goos on. many talented and socially responsible salaried orchitocts are compelled simply to operate the svstom and are prevented from helping thoso who need them most. Oavid Roebuck therefore proposed that architects should remain 'unattached' and use ARCIJK to dislodge the RIBA from its dominance and so allow a more through Royal Commissions. tho Monopolies and Mergers Commission and Office of Fair Trtiding, from time to time call professions to account. Somo members of the RIBA certainly forget that the principal object of the Charter of 1837 is the advancement of architecture. not of architects. It is also true that the professions and the communist block. is notalso be dangerous. Architecturo �Faculty of Architecture. Planning & Estate Management Faculty Short Course unit Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource P Harrison 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 1986 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/e3f446cabf7d961552ec35ee644d6718.pdf 66d4a8c86a0c149cc0f1ea0100f05c84 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 Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. 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 When ARCUK finally flies its own flag Subject The topic of the resource Letter from J Allan Description An account of the resource Letters A building team Is a market not a with much to offer community BUILDING DESIGN, November 13, 1981 15 When ARCUK finally flies its own flag... From S S Stevenson WE are writing to you as underrecognised members of the 'Building Team' to which your paper is directed. We are consultants specialising in building maintenance management. In the past our methods have proven most beneficial to building owners and we can illustrate this by means of a number of building contracts we have been responsible for both in the the U.K. and abroad. Safe and economical upkeep of the building concerned, are accompamed by the obvious visual and environmental benefits. Our concern is for the life of the building after the owner takes possession. It is in this area, we feel, that the 'building team' requires more emphasis, ifthe buildin owneristohavea reliable pac age for the total care of the finished building. Building Design recently published a diagram, produced by the Economic Development Council (Building) depicting the 'Client' ship approaching the 'total building life cycle' ice berg. It is the hidden cost tactors shown in this diagram such as Cyclical Renewal, Operations and Maintenance, and Energy which are taken into account by our management services and techniques. We feel that this service to the client requires specialist attention, and that the public respect will be incrased for the Architect who ensures this service for his client. We would like to extend an invitation for you to come to our Haslemere presentation centre in order that you may appreciate our services more fully, we feel we have a lot to offer the Building Team. M T Stevenson Haslemere, Surrey facility? From L A Roche SWISS COTTAGEfreemarket — I hope that Philippa Jacobs and I are on the same side in this issue. She says there is no reason why a weekend market should not be accommodated in the public section... ' Agreed— if the necessary vehicle access for unloading is obtainable. The Council s intentions regarding the use of the public space are not clear to me; if the market is deemed acceptable why all the fuss? However, in her next paragraph Philippa Jacobs says the choice was never between an office building and a market but between the office building and a variety of community facilities...' Is this market not a community facility? The point I wished to bring out in my letter was that a spontaneouscommunityenterprise, developed over several years, was beink displaced and that, for thesa eofthe vitality of the area as a whole, it ought to be possible to bring it back (if the Council could be persuaded to alter its Brief to the Architects). Perhaps the Jacobs solution is the right one. Incidentially, I did not advocate and would not envisage an underground car park — merely under buildings. L A Roche London N 1 From John S Allan YOUR irrepressible compulsion to turn news into melodrama was more evident than usualin ourrecentcovera eof ARCUk Council, BD October 10). The Unattached Councillors neither tried nor failed to "increase the power of ARCUK", and I certainly did not make the fatuous "plea" that "all architects are equal". What I did say was the ARCUK's correct response to the DOE consultative paper on the Future of Building Control should have been to ensure the De artment was aware that all arc itects enjoy equal status under the Act, (ie that membership of a professional association confers no higher qualification), and that any criteria for the selection of certifiers should respect this fact. This, plus the suggestion that ARCUK should monitor developments, was the substance of the Unattached motion — the effect of which, if passed, would have been to safeguard the position of all registered persons in this uncertain matter — not simply the Unattached. It isjust vulgar to cast this asa bid to increase ARCUK's power. In rejecting the motion the Council simply and rather short-sightedly denied itself the right to participate in what is still a young discussion. After its dismal performance in the monopolies issue, ARCUK's reluctance to deal with government departments is probably understandable. Nevertheless, as the whole episode of the code changes shows, ARCUK is gradually learning to distinguish its identitv and role from that of the RIBA— a painful process after fifty years of subjugation. Naturally, we should like to think that this reorientation is due in some measure to the efforts of the Unattached in recent years. We have long argued tor a greater lay representation and direct professional elections to Council, but even without a reformed constitution, ARCUK, when it flies its own flag, may have a valuable role — and in such issues as eduction, perhaps even a critical one. To represent this evolution merely as a shrill partisan squabble both misinforms your readers and ignores undramatic but important changes. John S Allan London, W 1 Letters to the editor should be sent to Building Design, 30 Calderwood Street, London SE18. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Building Design 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 13.11.81 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/750edb1b3a91da269678c1361865ad15.pdf 00047d8401c8df8b4c757d241dfb42b7 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 Introduction and Origins 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 What is the New Architecture Movement? Subject The topic of the resource Description of NAM's Aims, Origins, Activities, Structure, Participation and Support, Enquiries. (12 page copy) Description An account of the resource JUSMISAOPT 01N{D9IIYOIY MON NeAM is a movement Of architects and laymen committed to radical change in the relationship of the profession to the public, and within the profession itself. NeA.M, Believes that architecture is a public service which should be equally available to all sectours of society. Therefore we are working to redistribute power in architecture among the 80% of the population who at present have no say in the design or use. of their environment, The following pages give a synopsis of our background, aims and programme of action. If you wish to find out more, or join us please contact:— John Browning, 36 Elm Grove, London N8 014-348-7669 . .>: : noe ° Au? ARGHITacTUR ie at 1. BACKGROURD . @ It has taken almost exactly twenty-five years for the ; impetus behind the first .odern jovement inthis, country to:be 7a exhausted. The festival of Britain 1951 and. jAIT- taken as the official niles tones at the amumataen and closure ef the period respectively, ‘e seem to stand new at the beginning cf a new phase , in which the eriteeia of ‘relevant! action will be determined as much by the understanding of our legacy as our current political standpoint, | The effeots of the piacese at radicalization induced by war emuld be seen in the arrival of the first. modern Socialist Government ih its far-reaching s>cial referms on the damestic scale, and in eur modified nation status in | ‘ate and the realization that we were no longer an imperial power. | : os cfenvironmenttheNewTownsMovement, the Town & Country Play ine Act ey iat hone the first expression of a new vision and omfidence that had already permeated other Bpoven) af BeOL Sys including for example the health services. The South Bank Pxhibitien and ue Associated Housing schemes in Lansbury, ast London epitomised the mixture of exuberance and ‘committed concern' while sheving that modern architecture was not simply a flat roof or a corner window, but a cemprehensive urban language. The underlying ideas, had of course been werked out long befare : it was tcedified visually in the 1938 Exhibition that is at about the time when @nthe threefold premise of cheap ! energy, expansionist economics and enlightened paternalism, | "progressive"architects and planners (now comfortably established in government institutions and Wall connected practices) were ready for the big boom, The extent of development, publicly or privatelys sponsered during thel960's, is unlikely te be equalled during the lifetime of anyone reaching this - and the housing, new towns, universities, tansport infrastructure etc., of this period will somehow fone be do for the majcrity of us and our children till the latter are middle-aged. of the Mars Group, which itself derived its premises from the parent CIAM movement in Barope. But theclimate of 1945 wasdifferentbointdehgreeandinkina. Thepost-warar.:.°fortheft timesawtheallianceofthe "new wisdom', hithertu phevecupation ef dissatisfied intellectuals and enlightened bourgeois patrons, withall ins executive farce of government and the major institutions. At the very moment that the pioneer's thesis appeared ts be vindicated, so the process ef institutionalizing its assumptions ean in its adeptien by a new establishment due ta become infinttery more sophisticated ~ and bureaucratic than any hitherte. Naturally it was intelligent° enough to abserb . the prece ss and perssnalities that would otherwise haye beew dynamite, and throughout the 50's the ’professions ef architectuarned planning were happy to be included in the monolithic drivefor reconstruction. Me anti-thosis which tan Tea a ins in conflict with¢ this centralist orthodoxy Speed ants in the 1960's in phenomens, ranging from the satire novenent, to student protest, But abteriés were hardening . In 1970 the DOE - a concept that would have seemed revolutionary 25 years earlier - established itself in the now familiar faulty towers, sited carefully separate from Waitehall ; and expressing so precisely its blant combination of technogracyand officialdom, to provide over a process -that was already: in decline. What would happen now? Obvious with hindsight ;& simple coronary case with enmplications. We ran out of fuel — petro-: chemical, financial, and most important social. For by new the assumed popular consent on which all this development had been based was solidly organised into community groups, environmentalists, conservation lobbies, spaceship earth economists, tec of increasing expertise. It began to seem once more that the people with the power were less intelligent than the people without it. The -complications? Almost as fast as the develapment boom fever was dying in the establishment the antihodies were being absorbed, Particpation, piecemeal planning,rehab and recycling have been hastily substituted in the official policies of national and local authorities and the professional institutilns such that concepts of ‘community Architecture' and Neighbourhood Participation! are already bandied with bogus fone and trendy humbug, without much noticeabje advantagteo the intended beneficiaries. The cur rent climate is pluralistic and diverse to the extent that, given the rifgt form of words , everyone can apparently claim to be progressive - the rg5, RIBA, most L.A. 's, the RTPIetc, ete - concealing the fact that major idealogical change is eccurring with little or no.commensurate redistribtuiion of power. Fnvironmental matters ccntinue to be detemminedon the basis +f power, not of need, and the status quo is effectively maintained. It is this situation that NAM was formed to study and pehetrate. So much for what amounts te the context in ‘the sutside world. Meanwhile, what ofour context in the profession? In the same perind the profession has transformed iteself from a craft-orientated elite of aesthetic gastronomes supported by forelock tugging draughtsmen, into and army of professionals dpeendant on a very different calibre of re cruit, a university educated, mainly middle class mass of aspiring principals whose habit of identifying with employers has blurred their vision of the pelitical reality within their offices and throughout the RIBA. Contessccoes Salatied architects, more direct and satisfying the majority of the profession, who may relationships with the users of their products, have little to be optimistic about because of the economic crisis, The professions. governing body, RIBA, is dominated by the interests of private practice and salaried architects have to realise that the NAM is the only*effective voice challenging the Private Practice Principal's Party , 66 Portland. Plage... Such a.state. of. affairs,.when 80% of a ea ake profession is misrepresented by default (or not at all) would be absurd at the best of times, now ‘that the crisis bites home the contrdietions | between principals and assitants, established and still at college. grow daily more apparent. The Middle East Klondike can only briefly disguise the fact that wheras the publiss access to lawyers and doctours was relatively easy, until the goverment. use of architects beaurocratic offices. cuts reduce this. too,: the publics. only existed by surrogate clients and a remote . ceeTe Ae hope for It is out of this uneasy climate of reality and alussion, wisdom and displicity that N.A.M. developed. At the unlikely venue of Harrogate a gathering of under a hundred people meet for a weekendi:n November, 75,- at the invitation of a small group called ARC, ARC had been preoccupied with such questions for a couple of years,— The outcome was the nucleus of a New Architecture Movement which has since distinguisheidt’s om identity from that of ARC and-at the same time consolidated its aims and membership. More on aims later. The two essentail characteristics of the Movement that Harrogate established ares- ‘ a. It must have a constructive attitude: founded on strong annalysis. Yet another vocal articulation seemed unnecessary and. abortive. b. That its. structure should be both federal and national, allowing the individual personal involvement and avenues of action. Apart from a rudimentary liason process the character of the movement is its diversity and localised basis. A centralised power elite was seen as alien and. unconstructive, Individualansdlocalgroupsspreadthrougthheocountrymakeupthe movement, all are ofan equal status and are free to.develop their own programmes in support of the generally agreed aims. Any material produced is signed, Edinburgh NAM Group, or NAM Cardif Group. The~ purpose of the small, at present London based, .Liason Group is to maintain and develop contacts and to set up the next National Congress, If you are thinking of joining we hope that our contact list has:a member close by you, if not then we would be delighted if you initiated your own NAM Group. Speakers and information can be sent to yOUs In time a network of groups should develop to cover the country, each one working out its own ideas wether localised or more universal. The Congress will be one way of communicating between groups and for working out overall.aims and strategies, a The key to this decentralised structure is that of individual commitmant and local autonomy. We are not a movement with presidents or celebrities, its strength lies in the involvement of you, and the help we can all give each other. , For a Schubert or’“a.Cangin such constraints as “imposed ‘by patronage — were minimal for they were in effect their own patrons dirécting thei creative energies towards thair own needs and conditions. But in architecturheis is by no.means so easy, for it is a rare occurrence for the architect to.act as nis own patron, except say, when he builds his own house. Of all the’arts, “then, architecture is particularly dependent on patronage. , for without patronage there is no building and without building architecture.enters the realms of graphics and sculpture. For those whose art is less dependeont on external- patronage for their well being there has been the opportunity ‘to liberate themselves from stereo-typed convention, but in architecture we have- ‘been trapped. Tach move into a mew mode of work is frustrated. Those whohave attempted to escape by side stepping the issue altogether have: fled ‘to the world of ‘alternative technology! or to the world of the 'conceptualists!. For the alternstive technologists there is bub one fate, the eventual take over by the owners of production who will appropriate their creations to further their owna@ids. Those inventions that have a potential for generating profit and maintaining the status quo will be exploited: those that do not will be thrown avay. For the conceptualists there is only the world of fantasy and dreams. Like the 'trip' one too maay it will end in trauma and despair, their self inflated bubbie w2.1l burst,for it has little content and no Substance, The New Architecture Movement offers a third alternative to this impasse. It is devising a strategy that attacks the heart of the dilemna, the principles of patronage. The notion of patronage encompasses 1 variety of associations but their common reference point is to an unequal relationship between benefactor and benificery. The benkficery of course is the architect. Hoi do we define patron2ge in our context patronage is the means by which the building needs of individuals and their institutions are determindd. ‘le realise that under any social system there will alvays be more users than patrons but we do not see this process of assessing building needs as an independent variable to the design problem. It is intrinsic to the forms that we will create. This is a »rinciple of our movement. Ye cannot wait for the real patrons to stand up. “ve must go to then, but this will only be achieved by removing the obstales in our own instituticns. ‘aArchitecture', it is suggested is the social art. Certainly the crertion of architecture is a prerequisite for civilisation. Undeniably, it effects everyone's aspect of peoples lives. And yet we have situations where architecture, which is about living, is practised by a group of veople, architects, who have erected barricrs around themselves, Our conclusions can only be thatthe barriers have been erected because either the practitioners are incapableo’f practising architecture or unnecessary, or their masters, the patrons, misuse their practice. Thus it is our belief that the institutions of architecture operate not only to the detrinmt of the non patrons but to architects themselves. As a creative activity architecture, supposedly represents values that exist beyond mere building. All creative activities experience to some degree or another three converging imagination, the power of technics and the exercise of patronage. ALE three interact through design and their’ megolution is~ the creation of forms, In the “sence of. patronag technics’ aes imagination have no context and thus no substance or meaning. onde? the force of the —2 NAM identifies these institutionass the way architects are organised, their education and their methods of sractice. Sach in turn reinforce and sustain the present system of patronage and moreover because the architect is the beneficery in an unequal relationship, they were intended to do so, .If we accept that patronage is ultimately exercised for its. own benevolence whether for prestige, profit or pover andifitisthemeansofassesthseibuinldgingneedsofsocietythan there is a prima facie case of ‘aiding, and abetting’. NAM intends to exemine each institution in turn. NAM will demonstrate the vay in which these institutions.act for patronagbey isolatins the practice of architecture. from..its. context. The RIBA claims to speak for architects as if they were one voice, Assension.and arguement is confined to the closed doors of Portland Place. It thefefore snuffs out any attempt to undermine a system of patronage at which it is the beneficery. Through education it produces students who aquiesSce to the status quo because the nature of their training has concealed from them the true nature of their work, The organisation of practice is so structured that it is only able to function in the context of the | existing patronase. the setting up of small scale loc lly based projects should be seen in the context of a national oxperiment. pimilarly. Housing associations, Housing .ctbion Areas and (IAs are controlled by professionals at the expense of the residents whom they purport to serve, In the long term, this can only render the professional impotent, for it is through real participation where the bases for decisions are exposed to all. that the orofessional will foster iis own development. Private practice is accountable only to the ae who weild power i.e. that.,small.sroup ve have identified as patvons. ‘here is no effective means of control by those who are affected by the buildings thus produced and there is little public awareness of the profits yielded by the. fee scale, ithin offices, a minority of employer architects exercise hierar— chical control,:due as much to their orn inclination as to their respon- Sibilities.sided: Partnership La» heir employees, lured by the carrot of eventual advancement ~— if chery find favour - are suspicious competi-~ tive and divided. Such a system will, in the long term collapse for Lt is-not sufficiently flevible to respond.to the wanging pattern of patronage: the dominance of the public ‘client and the increasing social. economic and environmental avareness expressed by the public at large. whether in conservation issues ‘or.politicel stances, N.aA.ii. therefore proposes a whole range of reforms within practice, from ensuring that private offices are subject to a form of local accountability, to office structures. based on the principleosf co-ownership. Salaried architects should be givena real opportunity to organise and join unions for without such strength they are at the mercy of the market. Hor the public sector architect there looms a different series of frustrations, Local Authority architects work in large centralised rigid | organisations which, while.professing to serve he public, in reality serve md are ecountable only to co.mittee chairmen, Direct contact between users and architects is at least discouraged or forbidden. “he monolithic internal hicrachy fosters the promotion ethos. Success isto méve out of architecture into management. Rarely does:the Chief Architects? heavy responsibility for huge expenditure to one client create an office’ spirit any more inspired thea vell-organised defensiveness. “hy is this so? Host public architects have a firm belief in the. sist 4Oe" of their cause... liany’ have gone.to good vublic offices tO essoane the partner bréathing down their. neck. -.-Might it be that the, system. has been so devised to tolerate the mediocreo,r that it is so. fail-safe that no practitioner is that importent? It is clear that es bureaucracies. develop, the definition of roles becomes increasingly restrictive. ‘he public architect is. insulated from the very problems which @e the substance | of building néeds; and: the exercise of his imagination and skill becomes 7 irrelevant BS r . the Wew architecture liovement believes that she bide which is continually croding the basis of the architect's vork can only be turned by surplanting the local authority service by a National Design Service based on de~ centralised local authority design teams and offering a freely available service to groups and individuals in local -reas, ‘hese teams vould be organised in such a vay that not ohly would they to help articulate the needs of residents but also implement them, Such an intimate relationship vould automatically introduce a means of accountability. this is not a vague notion of control or criticism but a participatory process by which the skills of architects do not hide behind a bushel but are exposed to the commonsense of the laymen. Architectural education is dominated and controlled by the RIBA through the Board of Uducation, yet it is society which foots the bill without any means of control, or rather it has vested its control in the hands of architects. iwhis has encouraged an introverted montality, H.A.li. has been disappointed, but in rotrospect not surprised,a& the failure of achitec tural students to respond to the «uestions that NAH. ete have -posed. ~The fostering ‘of architectural studies in a world of unreality;whether.in.“theworstoxcessesofon aoe orteetinical.5 fetishes, ‘is producing. anew sowense ion of ¢lraving-board fodder or drop outs.oa ;ioe : : : te. NAN, dhidnde: to set up a’ sia aby group to examine the cuestion of.education but -it is clear that central to our attitude is to arrange a marriage between schools:and:. their communities. Schools of Architecture have considerable resources: which could be used for. the benefit of the community. /In:general, we should be’aimingf.or more autonomy in syllabus in order to enable’ cach school to respond to varying local con- dittons ond opportunitics. i : here can be few: doubts as to our attitude to the way the profession is. at present: organised and:controlled. ighty per cent of architects wrote off the BIBA years. ago. . Yet, though it no longer has any meaning for most architects, its power is immense and Council is controlled by the same faces year aftcr year. NAH. seeks 0 echoes ornor ples of practice outside the RIBA in such a way that’ are not cosettcd in their own front: room but are excposed, tothe street. ‘whese new principles of practice will range from a set of ethics, perhaps in the: form.of an oath; model rules on procedure,to the abolishing of mandatory feo scale, so that a range: of architectural ARCUK which is Bevory afront organisation of the RIDA. servismcoreeswid:elyavailabie Controloftheactiviticsofthe profession should be returned to where it was originally invested, namely par Laem the Asthey stand, the Registration Acts are’administored by:--: NA.'isnota igoly ‘Itspressontemphasisonele and theory is a-prelude to a programie of action.: Yhat action is aimed at breaking down the barriers bet:reen society and architects, Links will be forged with the local communities where we live through: trade unions, -. tenemts associations, local amenity groups and locel councillors. TC. hall. work to raise jhe expectations of the service provided by. practices sient offices,.Onabroader.scale,our.intentionistoco-operate with other progressive groups. By lobbying politicians we hope -to achieve changes in the Registration Acts. ‘Our prograime is not: reformist for all our actions are to! be judged.in. the light of our desire to seck fundamental changes in the exercise of patronage. In practising community architccture our philosophy.is not. to offer @ndy to innocent children but to demonsttrate the failure of established institutions to respond to the peoples needs. Sy this means people themselves will seek their own solutions; and for architects there is tho reward of their own fulfillment. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Liaison Group 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 February 1977