The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE: A POLICY ON ARCHITECTURE FOR SCOTLAND

This section reviews design professionals' knowledge and opinions of the Policy on Architecture. The survey established the extent to which each of the professional groups had heard of the Policy, alongside other related policy documents. It also asked about the impact of the Policy - the extent to which it had affected their day-to-day work. The follow-up interviews explored both awareness and the role of the Policy further and the opinions expressed by these respondents are used to illustrate and develop the issues identified in the survey.

AWARENESS OF THE POLICY ON ARCHITECTURE

60% of the design professionals interviewed in the telephone survey said they were aware of the policy on architecture. This was lower than the proportion that had heard of SPP1 - The Planning System, but slightly more than were aware of the other policy documents asked about. Table 5.1 shows the proportion of all respondents saying they were aware of each of the five.

Among architects, awareness of the Policy was 65%, which suggests that although knowledge is quite widespread among the profession, a significant proportion remains that have not heard of it. Given the vision outlined in the Policy and the expressed wish to highlight the importance of good design and raise standards, raising awareness of the policy among the architectural profession needs to be re-invigorated.

The head of a large practice in Glasgow commented that "I suppose they've got a policy on everything but whether I actually know what it is, is another matter. I think they probably should have a policy". Other architects who were more aware of the Policy welcomed the initiative and in the follow-up interviews there were comments expressing support for the Executive in developing the policy because of the recognition it gives to design and for …

… its performance over the last few years in showing a willingness to enter that debate. …I'm being phoned by people to ask what do I think about architecture. Hallelujah, this is fantastic…

Architect

However, there was greater awareness of the policy among planners, 77% of whom said they had heard of the policy. Indeed, across the five publications asked about, planners were better informed than any of the other respondent groups. Of course, it might be that since four of the publications are related to planning issues we should expect planners to be better informed. However, comparing the results with those for architects in relation to the Policy, suggests that perhaps the planning profession has been more successful in communicating emerging policy to its members and that there are lessons to be learned by the other professions. As one commented in relation to the Policy on Architecture "We need to drive it harder and then see what happens out of that".

Structural engineers appear to be least well informed about the various policies, although the number of responding engineers was quite small meaning that this result should not be taken too literally.

IMPACT OF THE POLICY ON ARCHITECTURE

In the survey, respondents who had indicated awareness of each of the policy documents were asked what impact, if any, each had had on their own work. Nearly two-thirds of architects who had heard of the Policy felt that it had no impact on their work. Among Planners almost three-quarters felt that it had had at least some positive impact and a fifth felt it had had a significant positive impact.

Table 4.2 also shows that a few Architects hold negative views of the Policy, with the various initiatives seen as official and 'public sector' interference in architects' work.

So Edinburgh and Glasgow are now at the top end of meddling and interfering with architectural integrity, whereas other authorities aren't very sure in getting involved in the architectural detail to that same degree

Architect

Across the range of policies asked about, planners are consistently more positive than architects. Among architects, the most positive opinions are expressed about the planning Advice Notes and Designing Places, although still fewer than half see these as having a positive impact.

The contrast between planners and architect was also clear in the follow-up interviews. For example, while a planner might comment that SPP1 had had a " Substantial impact. It leads the way we go about our business", architects' views of the Policy on Architecture were more along the lines of the following respondent:

I can't say it has had any direct impact on my work. I would like to think that in terms of the design aspirations of the document, I would like to think that most decent architects aspire to that anyway and always have done.

Architect

Similarly, a landscape architect commented, " I think from what I saw it looked like a good thing".

Although small, this comment encapsulates and to a large extent typifies architects' views of the Policy. While there is awareness that the Policy exists, recollection is distant and hazy - "I think…". Knowledge is sketchy and potentially incomplete - "… from what I saw of it" - and finally, responses are lukewarm - "it looked like a good thing".

A general issue that was raised about the general discussion of "good design" is that the focus of the discussion and the exemplars of good design are seen as tending to be large prestige projects or one-off builds. Thus, the discussion …

…tends to focus on the big projects or on projects where people specifically want good design and are prepared to pay for it. I think we should be looking at just the ordinary things that need to be designed better.

Architect

This perception, which derives as much from the professional journals as from any of the policies, means that it is relatively easy for architects in particular, to discount the Policy as largely divorced from the day-to-day reality of producing designs for clients with less interest in the quality of the design than in minimising the current cost (as opposed to the lifecycle cost) of building.

As the Policy reflects the core belief of architects in the value of good design, there is perhaps little scope for it to have a significant impact on Architects' work. However, the documents that followed, based on the aspirations of the Policy and which articulated the practical consequences of attaching importance to good design in the planning process, are seen as having had more impact. They provide guidance and set standards for proposals which are seen by others some as helpful in their discussions with clients and, ultimately, in providing leverage by indicating what will get through planning with least delay.

This aspect of the policies was also used by people working in local authorities as a way of shifting discussion about plans away from subjective assessments to principles of good design and conformity with national policy.

the increasing amount of Scottish Executive guidance, although some of it is a tad thin, is something that we can use because there is actually something that you can pin what you're trying to get through to the applicant

Urban designer

Most of the discussion of policy as a lever for enforcing design improvement came from the Planning profession.

I think in the past we have not, as planners, not necessarily had the ammunition, i.e. the policy backing for us to negotiate improvements in terms of architecture and design across the board. Of course there have been good quality architecture where developers are willing to pay for it or pay for flagship buildings, etc, but across the board on what you might call 'everyday development' I think we haven't had the impetus to improve that. That's now changing with the Scottish Executive's publication of policy documents such as Designing Places. We now are enshrining that into local planning policy so that we can have the statutory policy background to insist on better design.

Planner

IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE

A significant proportion of professionals had not heard of the Policy and among those who had, many felt that it had had no impact on their work. However, there is widespread support for the values that are embodied in the Policy, as Table 5.5 shows. Across all the professions interviewed in the telephone survey, almost 90% felt that all of the aims of the Policy were either very important or important in improving the quality of the built environment in Scotland.

In particular, around three-quarters think it is very important for the Executive to campaign for better quality buildings and to set an example in the work that it commissions. Two-thirds of design professionals feel it is very important for the Executive 'to increase public awareness and appreciation of good design in buildings and the built environment' and half feel it is very important they 'promote Scottish architecture at home and abroad'.

The majority of design professionals would like the Executive to work more closely with schools to make young people more aware of their environment. Few believe design is currently part of mainstream education. As well as attracting more young people into the profession, this would encourage debate in the future over the quality of our environment.

The public is influenced in a number of ways. Centres such as The Lighthouse play an important role in promoting good design. However, other sources increase public awareness including newspapers, consumer and design magazines, and visible examples of 'good' and 'bad' design. Many are critical of television programmes, such as Location, Location, Location and Grand Designs, but accept they increase public interest in the built environment and raise expectations.

I don't think it is a case of design professionals educating the general public. I think it's just a case of the dialogue opening…In other words it is necessary to bring awareness about what is happening.

Architect

Half (47%) of professionals say it is very important for the Scottish Executive to encourage debate on the role of architecture in national and public life. The clearest example of public debate has been the building of the Scottish Parliament. All agree publicity surrounding the building of the Scottish Parliament has thrust architecture into everyday discussion and demonstrates the importance of public buildings. While views may be divided over the Scottish Parliament, few disagree it is important for the Executive to lead by example in the work they commission.

As well as the Executive, many professionals believe local authorities have responsibility to improve standards and raise public awareness. New buildings are very public examples of acceptable standards. Views are mixed towards the effectiveness of the current planning system and the success of specific local authorities in raising standards. Commonly mentioned prominent examples of 'good' design include the Glasgow Science Centre and the Armadillo. Cumbernauld is often seen by the public as an example of bad design, however few professionals are critical of its original intention.

Many professionals feel, for the public, the most visible examples of new buildings are Greenfield and Brownfield housing developments. As already highlighted, views of each differ. However, few believe the public regarded them as examples of leading design. Most believe the public clearly distinguishes between the 'mass product' and innovative design.

Half (51%) say it is very important for the Scottish Executive 'to encourage greater interest and community involvement in matters affecting the local built environment'.

For example, the Island of Westray. Up there they're developing a sustainable community with joined up thinking which is breathtaking. Breathtaking in a way that has started to involve people in their environment and their buildings. Design isn't flavoured in style, its to do with the whole package. It strikes me that what's happening in Westray is people are becoming terribly articulate because they're involved themselves.

Architect

However, some professionals are reluctant to actively involve the public in the design process. They are cautious of the public's lack of knowledge, difficulties of 'design by committee' and the length of time for consultation. There is a consistently lower level of support for encouraging debate about the role of architecture and encouraging community involvement in the built environment, than there is for 'increasing public awareness', which suggests some mistrust of the public or a concern that encouraging debate and involvement will lead to conservatism. This perception of the public as conservative in relation to design came through strongly in the follow-up interviews.

I think they're probably more conservative than innovative. There's a lot of criticism obviously of the parliament building because of the excess spend but obviously it's a very adventurous design…There was obviously a lot of criticism for that.

Architect

The pressure of demand and the lack of supply are key ingredients. Many believe the public are prevented from demonstrating their interest and desire for good design by a lack of choice. Rising house prices and a desire to own their own home have, many believe, led to a demand for out of town, Greenfield developments. As properties continue to sell through lack of choice, design is lead by demand, are built quickly and to standard designs.

In a way I don't think they have a choice of perceiving because I think the marketplace is so awkward to enter into that the choice isn't there. People only perceive things when there's a choice. If you tell people you can either get the developer house there or you can get an architect and give him thousands of pounds to build an expensive house which will take forever to build. There's no choice.

Architect

« Previous | Contents | Next »