Essay Part 1 | Essay Part 2 | Essay Part 3 | Essay Part 4
Architectural Competitions
Architects have always been great supporters of well-run competitions as a means of opening doors to new ideas and allowing fresh design skills to find commissions. Over the past few years there have been some exemplars: CABE at White City and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation with its CASPAR competitions in Birmingham and Leeds. They have provided a thoroughly considered design and planning brief, absolute clarity over the judging criteria, a reasonable programme and unambiguous conditions of engagement for the successful bidders. At best, they offered modest fee incentives for the first-stage shortlists to work up a detailed design in a second stage before deciding on appointment.
Some housebuilders also recognise the value of well-structured, fair-minded competitions and of appointing design advisers to contribute to their marketing briefs. There is another generation now convinced that innovative products will sell. David Wilson Homes recently initiated a competition with Design for Homes to explore new forms of town houses and appointed the winner, PCKO, to develop them thoroughly within strict cost limits. The houses are likely to be used on a range of sites after an initial demonstration at Sittingbourne. The designs make a useful contribution to the search for higher density solutions.
Procurement through design and build competitions has increased and the debate about the quality of results continues. Successful examples shine through where the architect has continuous input throughout the initial and detailed design stages and is not entirely cut out of site decisions.
The methods have a long history. The early development corporations, such as Hatfield, recognised that they needed to arrange marriages between the best architects and the housebuilders of the day to build mixed-tenure estates where rental and market sale housing shared a design quality within affordable costs. The corporations ensured the architects were employed to detail the approved designs and monitored the results with care. They achieved a rare standard of family houses for sale which were remarkable value for money at the time.
These methods were further developed by later development corporations and housing associations until, finally, responsibilities for initial and detailed design were separated. The employer's architects worked up the initial designs and the developer made a separate appointment for the working drawings and site visits.
The most successful results have been obtained where the employer has ensured that good designers are used for both stages - at best the same firm - rather than giving the contractor a free choice of technician for detailed design.
Recent competitions have generally recognised this arrangement as a necessary constraint if the objective is to procure higher standards of design, as with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and David Wilson Homes competitions.
Procurement Pressures
Housing associations face a dilemma over the level of design services. In adopting partnering methods, clients keen to maintain high design standards are trying to ensure that architects are retained beyond the planning stage. However, the financial pressure is moving towards reducing the level of design input to make the necessary "efficiency" savings. These partial services are more likely to reduce quality than to maintain it.
There is mounting concern over the increasing variations in procurement methods with less and less consistency of approach from project to project. The PPC user group set this out clearly in its March 2005 newsletter noting the underrepresentation of architects on the PPC 2000 steering groups. It made a case for architects / consultants to be full, effective and equal members of the partnering teams which often appear to be overwhelmed by legal, financial and contractual concerns. We badly need better procurement models to keep standards up.
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Cambridge Centre for Planning and Housing Research illustrated the difficulties HAs have been experiencing in securing sites, leading to the acceleration of affordable home provision through section 106 agreements with developers. The proportion has risen from about one-third in 2001 to almost one-half in 2003, and the trend continues.
With completions by HAs on land acquired by themselves falling sharply, this form of provision is here to stay. The Cambridge study found that HAs, local authorities and developers are becoming more comfortable with this method, although problems remain over the length of negotiations to achieve acceptable standards. There is no doubt that the design and quality outcome is variable and it would be worth immediate research to look at the results on the ground - with an appropriate team.
At best, when HAs are party to setting acceptable design and construction standards and can ensure good designers are employed, there have been worthwhile results - White City, for example. At worst, where HAs have been under pressure to buy off the peg to meet annual allocations, they have reluctantly purchased lower standards than they would normally build.
Back to top
Essay Part 1 | Essay Part 2 | Essay Part 3 | Essay Part 4