Better Urban Design Report- BDA Response to the UDAC Report
BDAA Overview
The BDA wishes to place on record its response to the UDAC report. In general the BDA supports the state government’s desire to improve the design of residential flats. It agrees with parts of the recommendation but strongly disagrees with any initiative designed to limit the involvement of accredited building designers in the process.
This association wishes to continue constructive dialogue with the state government to identify a solution which satisfactorily addresses our members’ concerns regarding the potential impact of this SEPP proposal on their established business. Members effected by this recommendation employ staff. If these practices were forced to close, unemployment would rise. This is particularly true in regional areas where architects do not exist in sufficient number to take up the unemployed.
We find the report for the most part accurately summarises the contents of the BDA submission on page 37
"Use accredited architects or accredited building designer. Improve planning processes to provide predicability. Support design awards, competitions, and publicity. No support for design review panels. Improve skills at Local Government. Implement accreditation for competent building designers. National registration for building designers".
On this last point the BDA submission recommended "a nationally recognised registration regime" which has a different context to the suggestion that we supported one national registration system.
In its BDA submission to UDAC , the BDA sought to address what appears to be a lack of understanding and awareness on the part of government regulators about the affairs of this Association’s membership and to also make the point that it does not represent all non architect interests.
Who are Building Designers? Members of BDANSW have proven technical and design skills providing documentation for clients seeking local government approval. Our members must pass rigid pre-qualifying conditions before joining the organisation, so BDANSW members are much more than draftpersons. Generally they have technical qualifications in drafting and design solution at the diploma level and have through many years of experience and professional development honed their design skills to those comparable with architects. Many building designers started their careers as draftspersons, but through a type of informal apprenticeship, built on their raw talent for design, and took on the mantle of creating architecture. Some of the great names of architecture - Wren, Greenway, Frank Lloyd Wright, the Burley Griffins - did not qualify in the formal sense as we know it - they served apprenticeships in varying ways, learning on the job. (And yet St Paul’s Cathedral is over 3 storeys). A draftsman on the other hand, merely documents what another has designed.
The Building Designers Association considers its members to include the very best of Australia’s non-architects. Some of our members are involved at the highest levels in the production of documents and policies for government and non-government bodies including heritage, standards, and ecologically sustainable design guides. Why? Because they have the skills and experience to do so, and are recognised as such.
Definitions
The BDANSW does not support the definition of Building Designer listed on page 30 of the report. The statement that building designers "generally have technical qualifications in drafting, but do not necessarily have formal training in design" is factually incorrect. Some members of our BDA have Bachelor of Architecture degrees but choose not to apply for registration. They certainly have formal training! Likewise TAFE courses in Architectural Technology address design in their curriculum. What is true is that BDA members spent most of their time learning design skills on the job, choosing not to spend 5 years within the portals of a university.
Design is something that cannot be taught, only principles of design can be taught, then the self-expression and flair of the individual comes forward and backed with the technical knowledge, produces a Design. Design and creativity is truly a gift and some have more developed traits than others, in any event it still needs to be developed and nurtured and is not exclusive to any one person or organisation, regardless of their qualifications or titles.
Our members have focussed on expanding and nurturing themselves, their skills and above all their ability to communicate on all levels. Let’s leave the egos and titles in the back room where you will find those who search for those things!
Anecdotal evidence from those of our members who employ architects suggest that even after 5 years training some new graduate recruit architects come to industry with little in the way of practical design skills. These are often those with just a gift for passing examinations.
The BDA has accepted the criticism that while Building Designers (as distinct from draftpersons) in NSW are not required to be registered, there remains confusion in the market place. BDANSW has approached the NSW government unsuccessfully on several occasions over the past 5 years trying to correct this and recommending NSW follow the models of either the Victorian or Queensland Building Acts concerning registration of Building Designers.
The BDA now calls on the NSW state government to recognise recently published BDA Building Designers Competencies and enter into discussions to agree on a fair and contestable third party assessment process.
These competencies clearly state what are the expected skills of building designers and will allow all non architect designers possessing those skills to submit themselves to a transparent process for accreditation.
Rather than continue the argument architects versus building designers, this association takes the view that it should be left to a well informed consumer to decide who they want to do their design and documentation preparation. A registered building designer with independently audited competencies will result in a better-informed consumer.
The BDANSW notes this report was allegedly prepared in consultation with key stakeholders. We believe this is not entirely correct.
The Forum had 233 attendees, while the BDA was only able to negotiate 2 invitations and only after considerable pressure. Yet BDA members carry out a very large percentage of multi-residential design work. Given that some BDA members may be part of the problem, they should also be seen as part of the solution. The general public had no representatives. Architects had about 90 representatives, yet carry out only the same percentage of work as building designers.
represented. Although local Councils were well represented, their representatives were often not the most skilled or qualified person available. Often, it was the Mayor rather than the chief planner.The "Big end of Town" was heavily represented. Small business was not
Restriction of Design to Architects
BDA received no briefing papers or agenda prior to the summit, therefore no preliminary preparation was possible. On the other hand keynote speakers managed to deliver views on what the forum outcomes should be. Many speakers were architects and advocated a design monopoly for architects. Hardly a huge surprise!
The make-up of the Urban Design Advisory Committee UDAC was again heavily biased towards architects, planners and academics. No doubt their views are strongly held. BDANSW submits that representation from other sectors of the community would have given UDAC a more balanced viewpoint. The public is entitled to listen to all types of music - Rock, Jazz, and Classical - the full range - not just the views of a particular group.
The BDANSW agrees with the report statement on page 7 that
"If the design quality of residential flat developments is to improve, then the most significant challenge is to improve the skill levels of those preparing design proposals."
BDANSW notes with pleasant surprise given the overwhelming presence of architects that in the report’s full recommendation contained on page 7
"all but one of the 8 workshop groups at the Premier’s Forum recommended mandating the use of qualified architects, accredited architects or accredited designers."
Who is qualified to design ? - Dot point 2-page ii
Of considerable concern to BDANSW is that in all publicity releases the term "accredited designers" has been omitted from the design recommendation. This is one of several significant inconsistencies within the detail of the report, which we find of concern and will go into later in this paper.
This Association has taken note of the final report of the Productivity Commission Report into the Architects Act wherein it has recommended greater reliance on self regulation with some underpinning by state regulatory authorities based on competency rather than academic qualification.
While the BDA is pleased to see in the key UDAC recommendations,
"Regulations should also allow for the inclusion of equivalent competency standards that may be established in the future", it recognises that there is built in bias into the proposed assessment process.
In Para 2 of the same section of the UDAC report it states that accreditation of registered architects should be based on the existing and internationally recognised standard described in the Architects Act.
This attempt to tie any future new alternative expression of competency in building design to the statutory architects competencies described in the act clearly ignores the findings of the Productivity Commission report into the Architectural Profession. Viz.
FINDING 7.1
"The registration provisions (including educational standards) of the current Architects Acts (under review) are important determinants of the anti-competitive impact of those Acts. The absence of significant consumer input and the predominance of architects in setting these standards raises concerns that they may not be targeted sufficiently at the needs of consumers in the building design and related services market."
FINDING 10.10
"Contestable certification could be achieved in several ways — by allowing certification by other bodies recognised by government, through opening additional channels within the current Board system, and by facilitating certification through current channels. This would enhance the public interest by allowing competent practitioners with a range of qualifications and experience to be registered as architects."
BDANSW specifically rejects this UDAC proposal that non-architects seek accreditation via the architects registration process. We call upon the government to recognise finding 10.10 of the Productivity Commission and draft SEPP policy, which recognises alternate independent accreditation models.
More Detailed Response on a by-exception basis
UDAC Executive Summary
Scope-Page i
Details are not clear regarding the proposed scope of the SEPP. Does this mean only three stories and over? Is it intended to cover single storey buildings of 7 units? Does it include mixed development (basement parking, ground floor shops, first floor offices, two second floor flats). Does it include other types of residential accommodation (aged care, motels etc) or is it only flats?
Adequate Notice-Page iAssuming agreement can be reached on other matters for non architects and building designers, this association believes "adequate notice " would be two years.
Designers are at the very beginning of the supply chain process and while a vital part of the equation are often overruled by others further along the supply chain. We agree with David Borger - Lord Mayor of Parramatta…
" I don’t think developers are out there to produce bad design outcomes…They are trying to achieve what the Council wants but council doesn’t know what it wants."
We agree ……
"Time and money is spent by developers going through a process that doesn’t clearly describe what is wanted, proposals are therefore difficult to asses, and too often end up in court where more time and money is spent trying to resolve a conflict."
The BDANSW agrees that …….
" the challenge is not just to create good design but, importantly, to establish better conditions for its judgement in the development process".
The BDANSW supports those process initiatives that will provide greater predicability in the development process. It cannot agree that the introduction of a Review Panel of Architect Experts will enhance predicability.
Experts judging other experts are a formula for disaster. As late as this week there has been public mutterings ( Sydney Morning Herald 22nd Novemner 00) from architect "experts" disagreeing about the design of the Renzo Piano building in Macquarie St. (a building the Premier Carr allegedly loves)
"…The Piano Building itself is a rather disappointing work….It’s provocative and intriguing….but ultimately unconvincing in its external form and the space between the offices and residential buildings. That sunken space from the footpath will never work, in my judgement because it divorces people from the life of the street……. He also deplores the " hot" coloured terracotta cladding " the wrong colour for Sydney, which is a city of sandstone." "I don’t think the tower catches the spirit of Piano’s original sketch, and its promised relationship to the Opera House is tenuous at best"……James Weirick, Professor of Landscape Architecture at University of NSW.
This is at odds with the following comments contained in the same article….
"It’s transparency on the edge of the park is a lovely thing, and it’s a contemporary building that sits well with the whole range of Macquarie Street buildings:…..Mr Ken Maher …………Hassell’s &Associates , and Chair of UDAC"
Introducing yet another tier of approval will further delay a system in which it can already take 6 - 12 months to gain an approval. We must already gain agreement between the designer, the client, the neighbours, and all departments of Council. Who chooses the 'Design Review Panels" Who are "The Experts"? More 'registered architects'?
Where is the evidence that review panels will work? We understand two councils are to be chosen to run pilot studies. What are to be the performance criteria for these panels? How is success to be judged and by whom? Will there be an independent auditor to guard against a staged result?
How is this supposed to work in regional areas where incidence of architects is very sparse? Surely we are not suggesting architect experts be "imported" from outside the region? Building Designers are strongly represented in regions and enjoy strong local support. Are these design professionals with proven skills to be regulated out of business? Local communities are likely to regard this as high handed and unfair competition.
Who is qualified to judge design ?
It is in this section that we take the most issue. This question was addressed at length in our submission to UDAC , copy of which is attached.
Page 7. As pointed out in this paper’s overview, 7 of 8 workshops agreed to include accredited designers. The question must be asked as to why in the italics recommendation that follows discussion does the report drop the term "accredited designers?
Also to further clarify, the BDA did not in its submission express concern relating to the impact on draftsmen, since as already pointed out building designers are not draftsmen. It is the position of the BDA that any new regulation based on competency and not necessarily on qualifications will prove beneficial to draftpersons, forcing them to up-skill, to join the BDA, and take up continuing professional development.
Page 9. Para 5 Col1
The BDANSW expresses disappointment with UDAC and DUAP itself for allowing publication of the following quotation by Peter Spira ( yet another architect)
"What chance is there for having better designed buildings if you don’t have the appropriately qualified people designing them? After all we don’t allow butchers to operate on people, plumbers to fill teeth, how can we allow non-professionals to create something as important as the built environment? Peter Spira, Meriton Apartments, Premier’s Forum"
This appears to be an obvious political statement, which has no place in what should be a purely objective document. Its logic is flawed. Meriton of all companies should be ducking for cover on this issue. They use architects all the time (to the best of our knowledge) yet are amongst the most criticised for their lack of good design. It is possibly defamatory, and certainly smacks of gutter fighting tactics.
--'We don't allow plumbers to fill teeth'. True, but a stupid thing to say. We don't allow architects to do brain surgery-- so what? --'How can we allow non-professionals to create...' Architects often pull out this 'professional' thing like some sort of mantra. Architects are professionals, building designers are not. Who says? A 'professional' is just someone with a high opinion of his own job. There is no formal definition of a 'professional'. The term is meant as a scare-word.
Anyway based on share of market in the residential market it certainly does not appear to have scared the consumer away from the building designer.
Page 9 para 2 col 2
We have no argument with the statement that
" some registered architects are better than others, and that not all buildings designed by registered architects are necessarily of the highest quality"
This statement seems to defeat in one swoop the essence of UDAC’s recommendation that use of registered architects somehow removes the risk element in design. Why do registered architects not have to undergo similar periodic competency assessment for residential flat building? This is proposed by BDA in its competency assessment model.
It certainly is at odds with the report’s earlier statement…..
"Generally speaking, the body of work produced by registered
architects is of a much higher standard than the body of work produced by
those without this training and qualification. Certainly the best and most
innovative buildings are designed by registered architects, as evidenced by
the heritage register...".
At least it qualifies itself by suggesting it is a generalisation.?
Later under point 3.4 the report also admits current training in university does not adequately cover residential flat design. This report (composed mostly by architects) stresses how their training sets them apart. Yet the profession is always criticising architecture schools for providing terrible training (in Australia, the UK, and the USA).
Year after year we hear of endless complaints from architects about what a bad job the schools are doing. Graduates can't draw, don't know anything about building, etc. Most of this is actually learnt on the job, the very place that building designers learn it! If the architects want to keep saying how grand their education is, they should stop their criticism of the schools.
And, as a sidenote, we are led to believe architecture students consistently rate their education as extremely poor compared to graduates from other disciplines. Not so TAFE graduates!
Page 9, last paragraph. '...
"The title registered architect is the only existing method of recognising the skill and qualifications of designers of buildings in NSW and is an internationally recognised standard through the International Union of Architects (UIA) Accord".
The Accord is a short one-page document. It is a motherhood statement simply mentioning that architects must have education and experience, and should be examined. All very vague. The quote above implies some sort of formal recognition or accreditation by the UIA of NSW's registered architects. In fact, since NSW on paper permits registration of people who have not had a formal education, the Act may well be actually in breach of the Accord?
Further reviewing a document from the UIA entitled 'A Guide to Qualification Based Selection of Architects'. It says:
"In appointing an architect, a client should be guided by one primary consideration--the qualifications of the firm for the specific project to be undertaken" (p. 3)
Nowhere is education mentioned. Nowhere does it talk about the qualifications of the individuals. Nothing about registration. It says you should select for 'skill, reputation, rapport, past performance, technical competence and commitment to the client' (p. 3). This is precisely the BDA's position and stance.
BDANSW’s suggestion for a way forward
The BDA rejects both the suggested alternatives for design and the involvement of architects with a building designer’s practice. Working in alliance with an architect or employing an architect is unworkable. It would further add to the cost of documentation with no guarantees in design improvement. The report concedes this.
BDA does not accept that the NSW Architects Board’s current assessment processes are sufficiently transparent to ensure non-architect applications would be treated on their merits. Indeed anecdotal evidence suggests that many non-architects’ applications are unreasonably rejected for registration. Besides which it may be that the current all state working group formed to consider the Productivity Commission report into the Architects Act will recommend the Acts repeal and result in the disappearance of the NSW Architect Board altogether.
Notwithstanding this eventuality, the published architects’ competency standards AACA are general in nature, full of puff and lack performance criteria and evidence guidelines. The Board is considering a new document we understand. This attests to the fact that they may not be altogether happy with the document either.
The new BDANSW building designer competency standards are significantly more prescriptive in terms of competency expectations and proof requirements. So where do we go from here?
The BDANSW believes there are two alternatives with potential, which it intends pursuing with government.
The first option is our preferred model as outlined in BDA’s original submission. This is to emulate the Victorian Building Practitioners Board model within DUAP or DFT and use it to assess BDA competencies. The Victorian BPB embraces representatives from the several related professions involved within the design, build and construct supply chain. DUAP already accredit Building Surveyors under BSIAP and others. Each class of registration would require accreditation by an independent body.
As a side note, Victoria is also currently considering the merit of including architects under their BPB. Victoria may well see the gap in logic of keeping architects separate from other building service professions. This model has been the option BDANSW has sought to interest state government in for the past 5 years.
Within this framework accreditation of building designers for multi storey residential design could be accomplished.
A second and less preferred alternative would be to use a significantly reconstituted NSW Architects Board (assuming it remains in place) and which addresses the Productivity Commission’s criticism concerning it’s present biased and unrepresentative composition.
Assuming more non-architects and consumer representatives can be appointed to the Board and an independent audit process is put in place for hearing appeals it may be acceptable for this "new" board to manage the BDA external assessment process using BDA competencies not the AACA. This should ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for all applications.
The BDANSW is about finding a working solution to this issue. During the anticipated 2-year period of notice, BDANSW would like to join representatives of government on a working party to explore the detail. We will not "close the door" on any fair DUAP suggestion.
The current UDAC recommendation penalises designers with proven skills in multi residential. This association will take whatever action is available to it under the law to protect member’s rights.