Autotelic Architect

Changing world, changing practice

Sumita Singha

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317590484
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

Autotelic Architect explores how movements towards more self-initiated projects, greater collaboration and design activism have changed how architects and designers are practicing, as well as the kinds of projects they are working on. Similar to the autotelic self that transforms potential problems into enjoyable challenges, the 'Autotelic Architect' does not avoid societal changes, but instead learns to harness their creative potential. Using new research and case studies from past and present, the author analyses the educational and professional implications of operating as a 'non-conventional' progressive participatory design practice. Drawing on a range of global case studies of pioneering architects in the field, she reflects upon current and future trends at local, national and international level, and additionally examines marketing and practical issues for architects. Illustrated with more than 30 black and white images, this is a compelling read for any practicing architect.

1 Changing world, changing practice

There really is no such thing as an architect. There is only architecture.

Paraphrasing E.H. Gombrich’s original words¹ about art to architecture became for me a way to explore the origins of architecture, particularly that of the architect. In Gombrich’s book though, art is synonymous with architecture. He categorises architecture as a form of art: ‘I shall discuss the history of art, that is the history of building, of picture making and of statue making.’² He describes architecture essentially as utilitarian art, some of which may be more exciting and beautiful than others.³ Colin Wilson describes architecture as a form of ‘representational art’,⁴ while Samuel Mockbee described it as ‘social art’.⁵ Today, Guernsey⁶ does not recognize the architect as a profession but as a ‘master craftsman’. The Turner prize, which is given to the best visual artist under the age of 50, was won in 2015 by the architecture and design collective, Assemble. On the other hand, there are also non-architects who aspire to design buildings and structures.⁷ It perhaps reinforced the view that architecture is maybe more akin to art, but is it? There is of course art in how buildings are designed and put together. With knowledge of proportions and materials, there is a bit of an artist in every architect. Kenneth Clark (1999), in his book Civilisation, says that architects through history who were artists made better architects. But that is not the entire story – the reality is a bit more complicated. Architecture is more than the sum of these confines – utilitarian, social, technical or representational. To understand architecture and the profession, we will have to understand the people who practise it – the architects.

Who is an architect? Why do we need architects? The answers are perhaps more complex than the answers to: ‘Who is a doctor?’ ‘Why do we need doctors?’ As a profession we are new, and so is our course of studies. But buildings and structures have existed without architects – even animals and insects can build homes, colonies, defences and dams. Slums and shanty towns exist all over the globe, without the need for architects; and planners and vernacular expressions of the built form have always been around. Around 97 per cent⁸ of the world’s architecture is built by non-architects, and two-thirds of the UK’s planning permissions are applied for by non-architects.

Figure 1.1 Sir John Soane appears in the train toilet of Chiltern Railways. In 2013, train toilets were fitted with floor-to-ceiling vinyl images to coincide with the attractions to be found on the London–Birmingham route. However, not many people using the toilet recognised Sir John

Source: Clare Crosland.

Figure 1.2 The promise of technology was captured in this mural made by the artist Gordon Cullen in the listed Greenside school which was designed by Erno Goldfinger and built in 1952. Images include the first commercial jet, the de Havilland Comet, first flown in 1951, and the Britannia 70000, the first standard steam locomotive commissioned by the Railways Board and rolled out in 1951

Source: author.

Creativity for architects is not just an intrinsic quality – we are dependent upon external ideas and references as well as innovations from engineers, scientists and materialogists that we string together for design and construction. Despite the optimism of the Yellow Book⁹ produced by students of the Architectural Association in 1937 that ‘social, technical and cultural processes offer limitless possibilities for architectural invention’, neither architects nor their clients are able to make use of this limitless creative freedom – most work is really a reference to the past. We don’t make jumps, we take baby steps (like our clients). Unlike artists, architects are bound by context and the ephemerality of politics and economy, not least the client’s desires. While the more flamboyant expressions of modern architecture certainly get press coverage, their failure to be enduring icons of public admiration and even technical robustness do not validate them as utilitarian art. Talking about Assemble’s Turner prize win, a critic responded:¹⁰

Why bring it in as art? If you’re just looking for stuff that isn’t pretentious and is useful, why don’t you nominate B&Q or Oxfam? It’s great if art can be useful. But just because it’s useful doesn’t make it art.

As artists, our work speaks to a very limited audience, and perhaps that is why mass housing, for instance, continues to be built in iterations of the historic styles. That is not innovative. Our artistic and creative expressions may be limited but our social presence is vast. It is as people of the community that we must first speak.

Many books, reviews and conferences testify to the enduring fascination with whether architecture is art or science and its role in ‘place-making’. However, my question is more about whether architecture is a profession. The dilemma might be that while we think of ourselves as professionals, others see us as artists only. If it is art, then we must accept the consequences of being artists and the unspoken rules that go with that choice. But my analysis of both architectural practice and education shows that it is being practised and taught as a ‘hobby’, not as a profession. When an architect says that he spent one year discussing the design of a staircase within a larger project, it must beg the question as to how he supported himself, his family and his practice at that time. At least three architects (all female) said that they did not pay themselves, only their staff, until they started making a profit – all were supported by a partner who worked in another profession until then. These impressions do not support a view that architecture is perceived as a business by those practising it. They confirm the view that architecture is an elitist profession – that only those who have other sources of income can afford to tinker with architectural work until it becomes profit-making. When I interviewed architects for this book, I got the impression that it was vulgar to talk about profits and losses. At RIBA’s annual conference for small businesses, Guerilla Tactics, avoids we find many ‘soft’ topics such as leadership, branding, pitch, graphic design, etc.

It would appear from the study of the past that the image of the architect as a ‘bohemian businessman’ is a recent construct. It is certainly a romantic and appealing vision of a dilettante but restrictive and ultimately unfulfilling. Or perhaps, like the ostrich’s head in the sand, we have a cognitive aversion to goals or even survival. Most creative businesses are risky work. For architects, the cost of indemnity insurance is proportionally more than that of doctors working for the NHS, for instance, and the threat of litigation is high while Construction (Design and Management) duties keep piling up. There are some professions who have protected or growing markets such as doctors and lawyers. But a ‘creative profession’ – and I can only think of one: architecture – is work done at risk. When one developer says that ‘only architects give me art, creativity and excitement’,¹¹ other developers have been accused of ruthless cost-cutting where design priorities have been put at the bottom by developers and design fees have been cut. In no other professions is there such a delicate balance between artistic freedom and scientific rigour held together with the stress of liability. In ancient Rome, the story goes that the designer or engineer had to stand under the structure as the scaffolding was taken off. It was literally an extreme post-occupancy design review. We are not subjected to such tests any more but the profession of architecture seems to be under threat both internally and externally. What is the architect’s role in times of extreme change? Perhaps history can inform us.

In 1931, Chicago was in the midst of social and architectural upheavals. Criminal gangs and mafia, notably led by Al Capone, ruled the streets filled with ‘speakeasies’ (establishments selling alcohol illegally during the Prohibition era), racial tensions and shootings. At the height of the Great Depression, unemployment reached 50 per cent. But in the middle of all this, the city was building its skyscrapers – in total 25 were built by 1933 – and somehow the profession of architecture was flourishing. Four days before Christmas in 1931, a young man named Richard Crews sent letters to the offices of several prominent Chicago architects inquiring about the demands of daily life in the profession. Four of the architects wrote back: Howard White, a founding member of Graham, Anderson, Probst & White (successors to D.H. Burnham & Co. and the largest architectural firm under one roof during the first half of the twentieth century); Chas Morgan, an associate of the more famous Frank Lloyd Wright; Ernest Braucher, who designed arts and crafts-style residences; and Clarence Doll. Chas Morgan responded: ‘A real architect like a good man in any business does not waste any time whatsoever doing things of which he might be ashamed, he must above all be a sincere artist.’¹²

But the least known Doll came up with a very pragmatic response: ‘An architect’s work is quite varied from just drawing. He is much more of a business man than you may imagine, and for this reason a commercial course in his education is of great importance.’¹³ Written almost 85 years ago during a time of great upheaval, these issues are now being debated by both practitioners and students. But Doll was not the first one to see architecture as a business – the ever pragmatic and successful Sir John Soane had categorised the responsibilities of an architect in 1788:

The business of the architect is to make the designs and estimates, to direct the works and to measure and value the different parts; he is the intermediate agent between the employer, whose honour and interest he is to study, and the mechanic, whose rights he is to defend. His situation implies great trust; he is responsible for the mistakes, negligences, and ignorances of those he employs; and above all, he is to take care that the workmen’s bills do not exceed his own estimates. If these are the duties of an architect, with what propriety can his situation and that of the builder, or the contractor be united?¹⁴

Sir John Soane is an example worth remembering. Despite being so business like about the work of an architect, he progressed in an autodidactic manner from being a lowly brick layer to a member of the Royal Academy, with his designs studied at schools of architecture even now. Perhaps he was the first autotelic architect.

The structure of the architectural profession

In 2014, a poll of architectural practices revealed that AECOM in the USA¹⁵ became the first practice to employ more than 2,100 people and hold the position of the world’s biggest practice – one-quarter more than the second-placed firm, Japanese practice Nikken Sekkei. Gensler, which was the year before’s number one practice employing 1,614 architects, is presently in third place. The highest-placed British firm is Foster + Partners with 634 architects in 16th place, with the next highest UK practice being BDP in joint 32nd place with 358 architects. Indian, Korean, Singaporean and Chinese architectural practices also find places amongst the top 100. However, due to the vagaries of international exchange rates, the combined income of these Asian countries is much lower than their counterparts from Western nations¹⁶ – £440,000 or less compared to £1.2 million. Although five of the world’s largest firms are based in North America, with three in Asia and only one in the UK (Aedas, which ranked 5th, is dually based in both China and the UK), the UK has about half the number of employed architects as the USA. UK firms also earned almost as much in fee income – this discrepancy arising from global monetary value.¹⁷ But these numbers are still comparatively very small compared with many other industries such as banking, advertising, etc.

Unlike the 1950s–1970s when most archite...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Foreword by Peter Murray
• Introduction
• 1 Changing world, changing practice
• 2 Practice of architecture
• 3 The autotelic education
• 4 The autotelic architect: practising architecture in a changing world
• Bibliography
• Index