Planning in London

Dump dumbing down - retain the original architect

Dumbing-down of buildings during detailed design is now so widespread that it is threatening hopes for an urban renaissance, says architect John Assael.

Why is it that so many new buildings are a disappointment? Why is there often such a large gap between what was agreed at planning stage and what actually gets built to a point where some new buildings are hardly recognisable to those who granted permission to build them? What is routinely happening is quite transparent. Developers are employing architects to secure a planning permission often selecting a firm or individual whose reputation is likely to shift the balance in favour of a consent and then dropping them.

The crucial work of detailed design development is then entrusted to project managers, design-build contractors and, it must be admitted, more compliant architects with no personal stake in the original concept, who see the scheme through to completion. This 'dumbing-down' of buildings during detailed design development, often under the guise of 'value engineering', is now so severe and widespread that it is threatening hopes for an urban renaissance in this country. It is ironic that this should be happening at a time when expectations are rising; when the government and its agencies are striving hard to meet the public's aspiration for higher standards. Lord Rogers' Urban Task Force, the Urban White paper, the revised PPG3 and now the GLA's Development Plan all these serious attempts to raise standards are severely compromised by what amounts to a subversion of the democratic planning process.

Fortunately, a number of solutions are available. To begin with, officers and members could use their existing powers and simply refuse to countenance modifications to those parts of a scheme that subvert its true quality. They could also use enforcement notices more freely when completed buildings do not match the consents. But since these powers have not been much exercised in the past, perhaps the time has come to apply a new weapon namely, insistence on the retention of the original architect used to make the application. This suggestion is increasingly being voiced by officers, members and now more recently by design champions such as CABE chairman, Sir Stuart Lipton.

A common thread in the various new initiatives and regulations is the recognition that good design does make a difference, that the skill and integrity of the architect is fundamental, and that existing standards and processes should be applied more flexibly to reflect this. In that case, why not use Section 106 Agreements, not just to preserve features such as community benefits like river walkways and social housing, but also to secure the most important thing of all the overall quality of the scheme by requiring the retention of the original designer? Developers and housebuilders have bought into the idea that good design means higher densities leading to higher values. So they should be prepared to stick with the people who can retain that quality and deliver those higher values namely their original architects.

This is not to say that architects have all the answers, that we don't need all the help we can get from other professionals, or that value engineering necessarily means dumbing down. Nor am I saying that all developers are cynically exploiting the situation I am describing. Many developers genuinely aspire to a better product, but they have a problem in dealing with competitors who have been allowed to get away with murdering the design concept agreed at planning so they can build more cheaply. The answer must be to level the playing field by outlawing such unscrupulous behaviour. If a requirement to employ the original architect is felt to be too much of an encroachment on the commercial freedom of the applicant, then local authority officers could take a more pragmatic approach. They could require that many of the issues usually covered by planning conditions are resolved in detail prior to the scheme going to committee, particularly the completed external envelope and public realm areas. There is still another route that could be followed.

The original 'contract' between the officers, the architect, the developer and members is based on trust that the design intent shown in small drawings and coloured perspectives submitted at planning which are simple representation of the building that is possible will be retained. If the changes or details required to discharge the consent are not provided, or provided in a way that undermines the consent, then a new application could be called for. I would argue that, in any case, if the original architect is replaced before the concept is finally detailed and all the planning conditions have been discharged, then the contract between all the parties has been broken, and that the process should start all over again with a new planning application. Anything less will subvert our much needed urban renaissance.

Lets dump dumbing down.