My thoughts on Frankfurt Stadium are as follows:
The “Park in the Forest” has given Franfurt a very specic context to refer to. It informs the approaches and the way it which the building responds to its edges.
We must be careful in PE that we do not take too many direct cues from this building. In as much as PE stadium is in a Park, it is more urban (trying to be).
The approaches to the stadium, the activity that happens on each of the boundaries of the site must inform the design and the siting of the buidling.
I enjoyed the way in which the levels cut into the podium on the “practice field” approach.
I was interested to see how the palyers and VIP’s crossed over public areas. (I am not sure where I got the idea that players and VIP’s were to be kept sterilised from the general public)
The feel of the Bowl was intimate and enclosed. (48000 seats we were told)
I was suprised to see no moat and no (inpeneatrable) physical barrier between the pitch and the seating.
I was interested to see the allocation of standing room only parts of the stands. I know that this is a south african tradition for both rugby and soccer, and am interested to find out why we are not planning for this in Port Elizabeth.
I was pleased to see the siplicity (almost roughness) of the detailing. Nothing luxurious.
Impressed with the use of precast concrete. very neat.
Interesting towers above the standby generators.
Berlin is a beautiful place. It seems very comfortable for people to live here, bicycles, busses, underground. Not harsh and diffuclult like jhb, or even pe.
The stadiums are lovely and very nice to have seen. things work here, they are designed and though through with consideration. I like that. we need to become like that at home. I am dedicated to bieng part of a growing movement to transform our cities into livable places for flourishing human habitation.
Saturday, October 14, 1995
Timothy Hewitt-Coleman, Young Architect.
“Ah, but its an old man’s profession”, is what established firms like to tell their young graduates when they complain about receiving pay cheques less than the sweepers at VW. This priceless wisdom is generally imparted with a patronising tone of finality that makes it clear that the subject of pay is not one that is to be brought up by the young and underly. And, after all, Frank Lloyd Wright never paid his interns at all!
But, is liberation from this bondage and “initiation” attained upon completion of the period of Architect in Training? No, sadly not; and in fact this whole article deals with the plight of the young Architect in the “Old Man’s Profession” and tries to look at ways in which the youth can claim the power they need in order to leave their mark on the profession and the built environment in general.
Architectural graduates not only leave university powerless but seem to grow very slowly out of their powerlessness into the full status of what an Architect is and needs to be. Now this is not because it is inhumanly difficult to learn all that needs to be learned, but rather because it is in the interests of those Architects who have this power and knowledge not to allow young Architects to grow powerful enough to challenge their domain.
In attaining full status as an Architect all of us must work through and grow old with three “Old Men’s” institutions; University, Practice and Institute. Each of these, in their own special, way add to the frustration of a young Architect trying to grow into the fullness of her chosen profession. Each of these promote the status quo of domination by established interest groups and each of these in the final analysis also play their part in damaging the profession and the quality of the built environment as a whole.
We must commend our university for the unquestionably high standard of education that it provides its Architectural graduates. A five year degree at UPE or similar courses at other universities equips the graduate with probably the most intense design training that can be obtained. Sadly however this rich training does not result in skills being acquired that are in great demand in the profession and the pitiful salaries earned by young graduates attest to this. The practice of architecture is a very specific kind of enterprise. It has very particular limitations, advantages and opportunities and it would seem that Architectural Graduates though highly educated struggle to apply their skills when faced with the constraints of Architectural practice. This situation makes it difficult for the Architectural Graduate to enter a practice with the confidence to demand proper reward for the work that is to be done, and having entered the practice on a weak footing, a low base is created from where salaries will be increased.
The second great shortcoming of the University, is the failure of the degree course to in any way equip the young Architect to enter into a practice or partnership of her own. Here the need is not for practical skills because those are learnt elsewhere. Rather the young Architect requires perspective and clarity on ways to apply the creative skills that have been acquired, to try and sell them on the market. This role of preparation for private practice must be assumed by the University because it is clearly not in the interests of established practices to do so. Even the Institute could face loosing the support of its established firms if it were to train young Architects in the mutinous skills of setting up for private practice.
Architect’s-in-Training are seen as a predictable source of cheap labour and are very seldom exposed to any structured training programmes within practices. The tradition in architectural practices has become that new graduates would endure a period of internship and then very slowly rise in the practice, being exposed to more and more responsibility and gradually gaining more insight. Of course only a very small number of Architects can ever become partners in established firms and therefore many hopefuls allow themselves to stagnate, believing that they will eventually be selected as a partner after many years of loyal service. This system may function well to motivate young Architects to do their best for their bosses, but it is not a system that best promotes the individual advancement of Architects into professional maturity. It is a system that has evolved to meet the needs of established and entrenched practices over many years but is being seriously challenged and questioned by a young generation of Architects with an appetite for free information exchange, transparency and open networks. These young Architects don’t take as easily to hierarchy, but work better witin collaborative management structures. Many progressive thinking young Architects are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the tendency of large firms to limit the exposure of the salaried architect so that she does not become familiar with the inner workings and management of the practice. Exposure that desperately needs to be acquired in order to function as a professional in the fullest sense. Skills essential to an Architect are not passed on to the youth. The profession suffers and the built environment suffers with it.
But what of the young architect who embarks against all odds and good advice to set up alone in private practice? The high design training received at varsity does not put bread on the table and she is lacking in important skills that should have been attained as an Architect-in-Training. But faced with the pitiful salaries offered to qualified Architects in private practices a few (more desperate) young Architects to go it alone. Only there, to be confronted with the overwhelming ignorance among small to medium sized clients about the role and funtion of the Architect. Larger clients, generally enlightened as to the role of the Architect in the construction industry, are harder to attract because they have been cornered by the established practices. Even more potential small clients are lost to young Architects because of a lack of awareness of what services an Architect could offer them. Clearly the marketing of the Architect’s profession in such away to assist small practices is not happening in any significant way. This kind of marketing (the same kind that encouraged the public to “ask their Pharmacist”) is what one would expect the Institute to co-ordinate but instead they seem to be concentrating their efforts at a national level in continuous negotiations with government and other sponsors of large construction projects destined for he drawing boards of the old established firms. (notice how much better of the established firms rate on the Pilot Roster than the small young firms!) The Institute of SA Architects has no visible programmes to assist clients in selecting an Architect appropriate for the project at hand and thereby entrenches the status quo where large commercial clients appoint the same firm time and time again making it difficult for the young architect to gain access. In fact the Institute has very little at all to offer young Architects in their plight. Here we must also remember to that by far the largest majority of young Architects are salaried and the only representative voice that they have is the Institute, who has repeatedly failed them, leaving them unorganised to ply their individual wits against organised established practices.
But perhaps now is an oppourtune time for young Architects to ensure that the new, voluntary Institute will represent there interests. If a voluntary institute is to be successful in any region in South Africa it will have to convince young Architects what programmes will be installed to further their interests. If the new institute does rise to this occasion it could become the platform from which young Architects reach out to the universities, the established practices and the potential client base and as a result not only advance the interests of young architects earning salaries but also those in private practice. If the new voluntary institute does however not embrace the concerns of young Architects, we will have to find some other means to secure our careers and our futures or we will have to be content to remain weak and powerless to the detriment of ourselves our profession and the built environment as a whole.
Tim serves on the main comittee of the East Cape Institute of Architects where chairs the “Habitiat” portfolio comittee. This commitee comprises Shaun Fogarty, Debbie Makan, Greame Eckley, John Blair and Tim Hewitt-Coleman. Together this comittee developed the wording of the manifesto below, which was tabled for adotion by the mebership of the East cape Institute of Architects on 10 November 2005.
Eastern Cape Institute of Architects
A Manifesto for Spatial Transformation
We the architects of the Western Region of the Eastern Cape, united by common training and similar skill, being diverse in background and persuasion, declare our commitment this region, this country and this continent.
It is out of this patriotism that we feel obliged and driven to declare our belief that the built form, the fabric of cities and towns, have a profound effect on the quality of life those who live and dwell in them.
To this end we, as a group, concur that the conceptualisation, formation and transformation of our cities and towns must take centre stage in public debate, discussion and action.
In the interest of promoting and leading that public discussion we all declare that we strive and act towards the creation of cities and towns that can be described as :-
Accessible and Compact
Safe and secure
Remembering the past
Sustainable and open to regeneration.
Providing adequate Housing for its residents
Promoting Vibrant Cultural Exchange
In Harmony with Nature
Distinctly South African
We recognise that as Architects our influence and impact is limited, but we commit nonetheless to the following actions:
To create and promote an urban environments that are accessible to all, by increasing the overall density of habitation and promoting public transport and access for the disabled.
To reduce crime and anti social behaviour by designing and promoting spaces that promote ownership by the community and reduce opportunities for vandalism, violence and theft.
To promote the conservation of buildings and spaces which reflect the diverse history that we inherit.
To recognise and promote the right of every person to be housed in a building of sufficient quality.
To promote an architecture that has a positive impact on each person and on their daily lives, which enriches life and allows people to relax and have fun
To create an environment in which a truly South African architecture can emerge – one which, whilst acknowledging the region and the continent, is specific to this country.
To create, through good practice and good design, a built environment which helps to alleviate poverty and promotes education and skills transfer
We the undersigned commit ourselves, our energies and our business towards strategies and actions in our everyday work which, we know, will move our region toward these spatial objectives.
We furthermore undertake to be vocal as a group in leading public debate around spatial issues. We will point out fault and folly where it occurs, and praise vision and brilliance where it is found.
Port Elizabeth, 10 November 2005