Architectural Practice and the failure of leadership in the South African Urban Crisis

(This paper was first presented at the Biennial Conference of the South African Institute of Architects in Cape Town on 14 September 2012)

Good morning ladies and gentleman.

I am speaking to you today in a humble attempt to convince you of three things:
1.South African cities are in a state of crisis.
2.Architectural practice in South Africa is facing an impending crisis.
3.There is a pressing and urgent new role for the Architect to play in this Country.

We are living in a beautiful time, a time of elevated consciousness, a time of a new awareness of our intimate relationship with the planet as a living breathing, interconnected, but finite, sustaining system.

We are living in a time where we are coming to reject the ugly and embrace beauty:
•We have collectively rejected bad coffee
•We have embraced artisan breads and handmade cheeses
•The Arab Spring has rejected ugly leadership in a wave of contagious disgust.
•There is desire for all things authentic, fresh from the farm, BBC Food, pavement café’s.

•We have abandoned Macho, black hats for politicians and the stiff upper lip.
•We have slowly overcome the worst of our Victorian Puritanism
•We are dealing slowly with our bigotry.
We are living in a beautiful time.

Yet still, no matter how you look at it South African cities eighteen years into democracy can all still, without exception be described using the terms “Town” and “Township”.

Yet still, in spite good policy documents, South African cities have continued to become massive sprawling, polluting, fossil fuel dependent, crime ridden poverty traps. These cities, in which 50% of our population now live, are monuments to inefficiency and environmental arrogance.

To this day, our cities remain memorials to apartheid’s most visible and viscous social engineering projects; divided between rich and poor, black and white and well serviced and poorly serviced. But what is perhaps worse, is that far from undoing this divisive sprawl our model of development since1994 has continued to perpetuate and re-enforce this failed pattern.

As we speak, this pattern is playing itself out in the city to which I have dedicated my professional life thus far. Where, if big private capital has its way Nelson Mandela Bay will, in the coming months see massive new sprawling developments beyond Motherwell to the east and outside Sherwood to the west  of the metro.

The process is now well underway to obtain approval for a new R6 Billion “mixed residential” development beyond Motherwell, along the road to Addo and the EIA has been approved for a massive new regional shopping centre to the west along the N2.
The question, I suppose is:
•Have we, as a community of Architects, stopped to think what it is that we are allowing to happen here?
•Should we give up hoping that our cities too can become “things of beauty”?
•Are we happy that our cities and especially our “townships” continue their low density sprawl endlessly, like a tumour, consuming the landscape?
Government support for ugly, anti-urban developments of this nature seem strange, contradictory and confusing, especially since it has become generally understood that the economy can no longer afford to keep building environmentally destructive sprawling cities the way we have been building since the World War 2.

Government policy documents since “breaking new ground” to the first drafts of the National Planning Commission documents are clear that South African cities need to be “accessible”, “compact” and break away their “divisive spatial and physical past”.
To add insult to injury South African cities are also reminders of another massive mistake of recent history! The mistake, with which we must now rapidly come to terms, is that South African cites have been designed under the false assumption, and the lie, that cheap fossil fuels would be available in perpetuity. This is now proving to be a colossal and expensive mistake.

The International Energy Agency have told us that global oil production has continued to increase year on year, since oil was first extracted from the ground in 1859, but that production has now peaked. In fact the consensus is that oil production peaked sometime in 2006 already. In other words, each and every year since 1859 the world was able to meet the increased demand for fossil fuels by simply finding new oil fields or drilling deeper into old ones. But now, supply is rapidly declining, while demand continues to grow unchecked, most notably to meet the needs of the growing Chinese and Indian economies.

While the implications of peak oil are now broadly understood, what I would prefer to focus on is what this means for how we approach the design of our cities looking forward.

Firstly, I would suggest, let us concede that we have got it all horribly wrong up until now. South African cities are of a very low density and have sprawled very widely. The brutal truth is that the general public are going to have to pay a very heavy price for this design error. It is soon going to become unbearably expensive to move around in private motor vehicles. It is going to become unbearably expensive to distribute food and goods within our sprawling cities It is going to become unbearably expensive for police to patrol and for municipalities to collect refuse. Even if our cities suspend their sprawling today, it is still going to be very tough!
•But what are architects able to do about this?
•Is there a role for the architect to play in moving us out of this crisis?

The Architect in contemporary society takes on sometimes the guise of the teacher, sometimes the guise of bureaucrat, sometimes an employee of a private sector developer, but most of all it is the Architect in private practice that we see as being “typical”. The Architect in private practice makes up the majority of our kind and are perhaps most visible to the public.

But, I am afraid in practice we have had our energies diverted away from the challenge of envisioning a better urban future. We have become obsessed with geometry, blinded by fashion and seduced by style. Our students hang on every word of celebrity architects, who are perhaps better described as entertainers than champions of the built environment.

When on the rare occasion have come to work those in townships (areas most in need of intervention, areas experiencing the crisis most intensively, area where our cities display their most ugly selves), Architects seem to have completely misunderstood the question.

As Architects, we seem to have completely failed to see where our real contribution can be made and where it is most needed. We have allowed ourselves to get caught up in the notion that somehow marginalised people (read black in the South Africa context) are a “special case” that requires Architects to apply a special methodology and approach.
Our recent past has seen very many Architects, unfamiliar with townships or rural areas being tripped up and stumbling over an “appropriate cultural response”. Considering perhaps the users and their clients and being foreign, “different” and “peculiar”. These architects consider the brief for a Township project, as would an American casino architect considering a conceptual response to a commission in the South Pacific. “What are the symbols and materials that are meaningful to these strange people?” he would ask. Invariably the design becomes a patronising series of palm leafed, round poled, out of scale structures that speaks more about the Architect’s ignorance and his snapshot, whirlwind visit preconception of the South Pacific Island in question, than it does to the cultural aspirations of the subject islanders.
I would argue that Architects in practice are limited by their tendency to misunderstand the question.
I would argue that Architects are limited by underestimating their potential contribution to the larger more pressing urban challenges.
I would argue that Architects are limiting themselves in believing (without any supporting evidence) that some other grouping is best placed to provide the leadership and do the thinking that is required to turn our cities into quality environments supportive of good living. There is a vague, unsubstantiated view that Town Planners, or Civil Engineers or elected office bearers are dealing with getting all this fixed.
Even inside our profession we have begun to think that to contemplate the design of the “spaces between buildings” is somehow the work of secialists who call themselves “Urban Designers”. A further fragmentation, that weakens our role, in the same way as the fragmenting of project management as something distinct from what architects normally do. This fragmentation and this limiting view is contagious and severely limits the way in which client organisations (especially public sector clients) interact with the Architect in private practice. In public sector projects, the irrational and unsubstantiated belief among government departments is that the best way to harness the energy of Architects in turning our cities into happy, vibrant life supporting communities is to fragment design tasks into small unrelated and simplistic components and to put these fragmented design tasks out to tender where cost of fees will determine the architect most suited.
So, we have an urban crisis of massive proportions, but absolutely no public sector mechanism to channel the creative and leadership energies of Architects in practice toward the challenge. It would be understandable perhaps if our cities were in Southern Sudan or Somalia, where the human resource is simply not available to do the thinking and provide the leadership. But South Africa’s problem is rather the inability of our system to harness the energy skill and leadership that is locally available to us in addressing the urban crisis.
We have a “procurement system” designed by accounting minds to prevent corruption and ensure compliance. In the public sector the same system designed to procure toilet paper and fax machines is now used to procure the services of an Architect. The Brutal truth is, leadership and creativity cannot be bought this way. It simply does not work anywhere in the world.

We have recently come to do some work in China, where strangely, South African architects along with other “western” counterparts are held in high regard. And, I suppose, for good reason. South African architects come from a proud tradition where we have been routinely called upon to bring vision and leadership, not just a technical design skill, not just problem solving.

We come from the tradition of Vitruvius, Wren, Michaelangelo, Le Corbusier, Fuller, Khan and Wright. Chinese Architects are very good at problem solving and they are numerous. In spite of this fact, almost every project of any significance in China today is authored by a “Western” Architect.

The reason for this is quite simple. The rampant Chinese economy has measured architects in the same way as they have measured other sectors of their manufacturing dominated economy, by their ability to obediently carry out instructions, quickly and cheaply. The inevitable evolutionary result of course, is that what survives is a legion of architectural practices that work quickly and cheaply. Any Chinese architectural firm that has decided rather to question their instructions, contemplate the bigger picture and spend time and effort to be at the cutting edge of excellence, have fallen by the wayside in the headlong rush that has been the Chinese construction “miracle” of the last 20 years. But, now that Chinese public and private sectors developers are cultivating an appetite for “world class” urban environments, they turn around to the profession that they have systematically devastated and realise that their own architects are simply not able to deliver the required leadership and vision.

Sadly, these developers are left with no choice but to turn to “Western” Architects, whose presence in China serves to even more relegate Chinese architects to second class technical support and providers of local content.

While the Chinese experience is sad, we are even more concerned to see that this trend is playing itself out in our own country. Here private sector developers have for years seen the Architect as a convenient “gun for hire”.

Listed venture capital, life assurers and pension funds have over the last 30 years seen to the systematic destruction of high street economies in every city and town they have deemed worthy of their interest. From Klerksdorp to Kimberly, from Port Alfred to Port Shepstone, Architects working “at risk” are enlisted to prepare scheme upon scheme on cheap land on the urban periphery. Once inside the system, the Architect is compelled to persevere until eventually one of these schemes manages to jump all the requisite hurdles allowing him, exhausted,  to claim a significantly reduced fee from the cost cutting developer. The concentration of money in the hands of so few large private sector developers makes the comparatively disorganised Architect in private practice an easy target for saving a few thousand rands.

Architects are of course not the cause of the destruction of South Africa’s vibrant, complex and integrated high street heritage, but we have been willing mercenaries and we do have blood on our hands.

So too the maddening “town house developments” that have become the blight of our middle class suburbs, where architects play lapdog to a system that all of us know to our cores is delivering the poorest possible urban environments.

The crisis our profession finds itself in today is not something that started this year. It is not something that comes out of some recently scribed government tender rules. Rather, it is a global challenge that comes out of a 1980’s Thatcherite view that the unfettered “free market” must determine the value of everything. Every commodity, every service, every tradable item. This view became dominant among the Yuppie classes who became suspicious of Guild economies, like those regulated by the Royal Institute of British Architects (and of course their local cousin the South African Institute of Architects)

The Institute of Architects as an organisation of mutual benefit had evolved its systems over hundreds of years, carrying with it a tradition of honour where a fair price was fixed and an intricate system of peer pressure was put in place to ensure the delivery of architectural services was of the highest possible quality. For generations similar “guilds” so to the affairs of lawyers, doctors, tailors and cobblers. The system worked very well, but the powerful class of Thatecherite bureaucrats and industry captains have been determined in their effort to wipe out this tradition and replace it with a “dog eat dog”, no honour, no pride, no quality “short term cost only” system. The private sector started this viscous attack and with time governments in a desperate attempt to be “progressive” and “keep up with the times” followed suit.
As you can see, Architectural practice is therefore severely constrained. Those of us that were looking toward the Architect in practice to save the day are unfortunately going to become very disappointed and completely disillusioned.

We can also see how, by extension, the Architect as teacher is similarly constrained, in that regardless of the quality of the design skills imparted to the young architect destined for practice, the structure is such that the young Architects value in being able to re-imagine the city in all its component physical and spatial parts and to rethink the space and form into something original, liveable and beautiful, is lost and when squeezed and squashed into the limiting box that has become private practice.

While the large portion of young Architects (products of Architects in the guise of teachers), end up in practice, a fair portion of them end up in the employ of private and public sector developers. Here they are often able to do good work, acting as “interpreters” to the Architects in practice, working as friendly bureaucrats inside the system and for the betterment of the built environment. Generally though these bureaucrat architects are seen mistakenly by their bosses as “technical types” and don’t rise to levels of meaningful leadership, where they would able to influence meaningful urban change.
So, is the situation hopeless?
Are we destined in this country to have to endure, decaying conurbations of hostile and unliveable, car infested sprawl?
I am trying to convince you here today, that it is in fact hopeless…..
Unless and this is a big “Unless”.
Architects are able to develop the courage to step out of the traditional guises with which they have become so comfortable.

Architects must accept that, for better or worse, they are better equipped than any other profession or grouping to provide the leadership and vision required to guide our cities and towns from where they are now to where we know they can be. Architects must take the courage to be thought leaders, business leaders and where appropriate political leaders. Architects must write, they must talk, and they must take the centre stage. Architects must unapologetically seek the limelight in promoting a vision of the built environment designed and built for quality human interaction and the elevation of the human spirit.

The leaders of our profession must be sure that they make themselves available as advisors to cabinet ministers, premiers and presidents. Our towns must be run by architect mayors, Architects must go out and infiltrate chambers of commerce, gaming boards, Diocesan Councils, ward committees, development agencies and ratepayers associations. Architects must take their family fortunes and develop property of sustainable quality. Where leadership is required, Architects must be prepared to step in and provide it in a way that is biased toward the goal of a quality, people focused built environment.
I am not certain if this campaign will work. I am not certain if architects are able to slip out of their apathy and their self-doubt, but I do know that for us to continue doing what we are doing will steadily result in the decline of our beloved profession and rapidly result in the failure of our cities.
Architects; the next move is ours!

Toward the compact green cities of our future

Toward the compact green cities of our future

(This piece first appeared in The Eastern Cape Herald on 4 May 2012)
 If big private capital, has its way Nelson Mandela Bay will, in the coming months see massive new sprawling developments beyond Motherwell to the east and beyond Sherwood to the west. The multi-billion rand Baywest shopping centre along the N2 toward Humansdorp, this month obtained environmental approvals from the MEC, while the process is now well underway to obtain approval for a new R6 Billion mixed residential development beyond Motherwell, along the road to Addo.
The question, I suppose is: Have we, as a community, stopped to think what it is that we are allowing to happen here? Are we happy that our city continues its low density sprawl endlessly, like a tumour, consuming the landscape? Government support for these two proposed developments seem strange and confusing, especially since it has become generally understood that the economy can no longer afford to keep building environmentally destructive sprawling cities the way we have been building since the World War 2. Government policy documents since “breaking new ground” to the first drafts of the National Planning Commission documents are clear that South African cities need to be accessible, compact and break away their divisive spatial and physical past.
In spite good policy documents, South African cities have continued to become massive sprawling, polluting, fossil fuel dependent, crime ridden poverty traps. These cities, in which 50% of our population now live, are monuments to inefficiency and environmental arrogance. To this day, our cities remain memorials to apartheid’s most visible and viscous social engineering projects. But they are also reminders of another massive mistake of recent history! The mistake, with which we must now rapidly come to terms, is that South African cites have been designed under the false assumption and the lie that cheap fossil fuels would be available in perpetuity. This is now proving to be a colossal and expensive mistake.
The International Energy Agency have told us that global oil production has continued to increase year on year, since oil was first extracted from the ground in 1859, but that production has now peaked. In fact the consensus is that oil production peaked sometime in 2006 already. In other words, each and every year since 1859 the world was able to meet the increased demand for fossil fuels by simply finding new oil fields or drilling deeper in old ones. But now, supply is rapidly declining, while demand continues to grow unchecked, most notably to meet the needs of the growing Chinese and Indian economies.
While the implications of peak oil are now broadly understood, what I would prefer to focus on is what this means for how we approach the design of our cities looking forward. Firstly, I would suggest, let us concede that we have got it all horribly wrong up until now. South African cities are of a very low density and have sprawled very widely. The brutal truth is that the general public are going to have to pay a very heavy price for this design error. It is soon going to become unbearably expensive to move around in private motor vehicles. It is going to become unbearably expensive to distribute food and goods within our sprawling cities It is going to become unbearably expensive for police to patrol and for municipalities to collect refuse. Even if our cities suspend their sprawling today, it is still going to be very tough!
Secondly I would suggest that we do not expend any energy in trying to apportion blame for these design errors. We must understand and forgive our Town Planner friends motivated by a fee structure that for years encouraged hectare upon hectare of free standing sites in mundane suburbia and featureless townships. We should understand and forgive our Civil Engineer friends motivated by a fee structure that for years encouraged kilometre upon kilometre of suburban roads, sewers and storm water systems. To vilify these professions and the government departments that briefed them would be futile. Rather let us turn these skilled and committed thinking people to the task of imagining the new compact green cities of the future. Cities where people can walk to work or use public transport. Cities that produce their own food, cities that create vibrant live hoods and cultural diversity.
But thirdly, and most importantly we need to put an immediate stop to the popular myth that profit motivated big developers “know best” about what is good for us and our city’s future. The fact that a big JSE listed developer has acquired cheap land of the periphery of our city and can fill it with government subsidised housing or thousands of square meters of retail clothing stores we don’t need, does not mean that it is good for our city. It does not mean it is good for our economy. It does not mean that is good for our people. In fact, all it means is that our city becomes more sprawled, more distorted and more likely to trap ordinary citizens in an unbearably expensive future where no one wins. We cannot afford to allow this myth to continue any longer.
What I do know for sure is that our generation is equipped and capacitated to change all this, but what I am not so sure of is whether we have the courage to confront or the commitment to stay at it.
We will see.
Tim Hewitt-Coleman 20 April 2012

Architects, Green buildings and Climate Change

(This Article first appeared in The (Easter Cape) Herald on 22 November 2011)
Climate change is a serious threat to our continued success as a species on this planet.
Thankfully we have now developed the consensus that continuously growing human consumption and destruction are a cause for urgent concern.
Much of this continuous growth and destruction expresses itself in what we call the “built environment” The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) tells us that buildings through their life time consume 48% of all the energy consumed on this planet in any given year. That’s a lot!
This energy is consumed during the manufacture of construction materials, the transport of these materials, the construction process, lighting the building, heating the building, cooling the building, cleaning the building, ventilating and eventually demolishing the building and carting away the rubble.
But the UNEP also tells us that good news is that buildings (compared to manufacturing, transport and others) require the least amount of cost to release the greatest impact on limiting green house gasses.
More good news is that in South Africa, Architects and other built environment designers are very well informed of the strategies that are to be employed to transform the built environment. The strategies involve creatively and innovatively addressing aspects including the following:
  • Passive heating
  • Orientation
  • Passive cooling
  • Rainwater harvest
  • Grey water harvesting
  • Water saving
  • Promoting biodiversity
  • Local building material
  • Public transport
  • Embodied energy in Building materials
These strategies are not new. We just now, for the first time since the industrial revolution seem to have the collective will to do something about it and to change the way we build.
Clearly, changing the way we build and employing the strategies that we know need to be employed will require innovation, design leadership and creativity.
We are therefore very fortunate that we do not live in Somalia or Southern Sudan, because in South Africa we have access to the professionals able to provide top quality innovation, design leadership and creativity.
So, what are we saying?
  • Climate Change is a big Problem
  • Buildings are the biggest culprit in this problem
  • Building Industry urgently requires increased levels of innovation, leadership, design and creativity
  • The skill set is in fact already available and ready to be mobilised.
So, what then is the problem?
The problem is that we have adopted public and corporate institutional arrangements that are unable to effectively mobilise that skill to address the challenge. In fact, at a time when we are to rely even more heavily than ever before on our Architects, innovators and designers, we have been caught up in the systematic “commoditisation” of this critical form of leadership.
In both the private and public sector, we have become increasingly obsessed with standardising procurement and “supply chain management” issues. We insist that we procure the services of an Architect to innovate new solutions for the built environment in the same way as we procure toilet paper, grass cutting services or a fleet of refuse trucks. It’s crazy! What results from this standardised procurement practice where “cost is king”, is that the services of the Architect become progressively cheaper and cheaper. The cheaper the product, the poorer the service. Simple!
We are currently doing some work in a city called Chengdu in Central West china.
From our Port Elizabeth office, Architects trained at NMMU and nurtured on the Port Elizabeth design community are doing excellent work designing innovative green buildings in a country where we hear that they plan to build 800 new cities in the next twenty years!
But why are our company’s skills and the skills of hundreds or American and European firms in such demand in China? Not because we are cheaper, not because we are faster, not because we are more compliant than the thousands of Chinese architects. No. It is because we offer innovation, creativity and design leadership. The qualities that could have been abundant among Chinese Architects, if not for the wave of aggressive cost cutting, and “industrial efficiency” that became so widespread during the years of China’s construction boom.
China’s Architects and designers are now very cheap, very fast and completely compliant, but unable to live up to the expectations of the increasingly discerning Chinese private or public sector property developer. So, the developer turns to the “West” .Very sad.
But, it’s not too late for us. We can learn from these errors South Africa still has a very strong community of Architects and other designers focussed on excellence and committed to a better built environment.
So what must we do? What action must we take?
Can I suggest the following?
  • Architects: Can we please snap out of our silly obsession with fashion, Top Billing and playing to the whims of the super-rich and corporate gluttons. There is serious work to be done. We need to save the plan
  • Public and Corporate developers: Can you please make peace with the fact that most of the innovation, thinking and leadership you require to “green” you property portfolio will actually come from outside your institutions from private firms of Architects and other designers. (And yes you have to set up a process more sophisticated than the ones designed to buy pencils and toilet paper to get the best out of these firms)
If we build green buildings we can save the planet. It’s as simple and as dramatic as that . Failure is not an option. We must succeed!

Frankfurt Stadium


I arrived back in SA from Franfurt this morning:

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.

Ich bin ein Berliner (I am a pork sausage)


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.

The Old Man’s Profession

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.

University

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.

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.

Institute

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.