BDA OPINION

The current controversy over the proposed use of only registered architects to design residential flats of 3 levels or more puts NSW at odds with all other states, and with logic, fair play and basic economics.

The Premier blames building designers and "draftsmen working in back rooms" for the worst of the ugly flat syndrome. But the irony is that the block of units, which first gave the Premier a dose of the aesthetic protestations, was in fact designed by an architect.

And it has been the NSW government’s own push towards urban consolidation, which has fanned the flames of home unit development in Sydney.

His response was to set up the Urban Design Advisory Committee to analyse the problem and to recommend solutions to government. Of the 233 seats at the Forum, 80 were architects, with two members of the Building Designers Association included at the last minute.

Considering non-architects account for 60% of all construction activity in NSW this was a dangerously unbalanced forum to begin with. Members of the BDA alone account for about 40%, or $3bn worth.

However, on the day of the Forum , reason prevailed, with the workshop groups arriving at a consensus that some type of accreditation based on proven competency rather than a single qualification was required. Thus, both architects and building designers could gain accreditation.

But it seems the real "back room" job was performed on the Forum’s recommendations somewhere between the close of the forum and the Premier’s announcement. It has been hijacked by one interest group to enable it to be used as a defence against the federal Productivity Commission’s Draft Report on the various state Architects Acts, which recommended their repeal.

This puts NSW out of step with every other state in Australia, and it begs the question: if non-architects don’t do the work, how would architects cope with a fourfold increase? The construction industry would grind to a halt. Purchase prices on the few home units constructed would be beyond the reach of their intended market - in short, chaos would rule, unemployment would rise again. And for those design practices forced to close, justifiable claims for compensation would add many more millions of dollars to the $1.5m earmarked to implement the UDAC plan.

So what is a Building Designer? Not a draftsman. 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.

Members are admitted only after demonstrating their design abilities, and are required to maintain continuing professional development. There are many other non-architects practising who would not be eligible for membership.

UDAC’s report suggests our members submit themselves to the Architects Board for accreditation if they believe they have the skills. Such a model clearly favours established architects interests. The Productivity Commission was quite scathing about the self-serving interest of the state Architects Boards.

The BDA will be suggesting an alternate model of assessment for Building Designers. BDA will recommend the establishment of an independent Building Practitioners Board for accreditation of all non-architects and related professions. The Board’s job would be to accredit a full range of Building Designer competencies including aesthetics. Such a model works well in Victoria.

Who is to be the judge of good design? Even amongst Sydney’s better known architects debate rages over the merits of each other’s work. UDAC proposes panels of such experts review designs before approval. I can see long queues forming to the Land & Environment Court! Peer review for the purpose of making design awards is one thing, but being judged for a pass or fail is quite another.

UDAC recognises that upskilling is part of the solution to better outcomes. On one hand we are led to believe by the report that architects are already in possession of all the skills however elsewhere the report concedes that undergraduate architect courses need a specialised design component focussing on residential flats. . The report constantly refers to the non-architect as the sector without the skills. This is an admission by default that current architects did not receive this sort of training.

There is also a proposal that local government will be provided with additional skills. All planners will have the opportunity for short course instruction in design. Elected councillors will also have the benefit of weekend instruction in design and how to read plans. Two days for them is equal to the seven years claimed as essential for architects?

Any argument that these measures will solve the Premier’s concern on design issues and lead to a better result for Sydney is false. It is nothing more than a concerted effort on the part of certain sectors within the RAIA to regain ground apparently lost in a free market making its own intelligent decisions.

The BDA NSW wants to work with a government which is representative of all sectors of the community, not just elitist interest groups, and to produce a framework where non-restrictive trade in good design can occur.

 

Ray Brown Immediate Past President Building Designers Association of NSW.