1. Hannah Ford and Bridget Sawyers, editors, International Architecture Centres, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2003, ISBN: 0-470-85327-1, and available through www.wiley.com

2. Press Release, 'CABE gives £1m to architecture centres', 18 June 2002, and posted on www.cabe.org.uk

Architecture Centres hit the big time

It seems that no city is now complete without at least one Architecture Centre. Are they about public participation, or an evasion of professional and political responsibility? A version of Miffa's article first appeared in Planning, the magazine of the Royal Town Planning Institute on 13 June 2003, and is kindly reproduced here.

This is the dawning of the age of the Architecture Centre, and what a prolific dawning it has been. From the summer of 2002 the Architecture Centre Network (ACN) has seen its membership boosted by a whole new generation of these so-called hubs, each offering its own very potent mixture of "participatory opportunities", "educational events" and other choice ways to spend a rainy Sunday.

To be honest, most of the UK versions do in fact compare very favourably to their overseas equivalents. Less showy perhaps, but with that endearing air of earnest endeavour that pervades so many New Labour institutions.

But, worthy intent aside, someone sooner or later is going to start asking difficult questions. Namely, what exactly is the value added of yet more talking shops, particularly if the conversations continue to involve an ever diminishing gene pool?

Don't get me wrong, some of the stuff which these people do is great but I can't help but worry that this is one more excuse to delegate the art of communication to third parties instead of getting design professionals to do it for themselves.

Now I know what you are going to say - the centres provide a '... new and different platform for debate'. Well, that maybe so but to be honest, any platform is only really as good as its audience. Moreover, the reality is that you can host as many exhibitions and design competitions as you like but nothing - and I mean NOTHING - persuades a cynical Joe Public more effectively than real change in the back yard.

So, the big question is will these centres actually deliver where it matters most? Well, according to the panel at last week's ACN sponsored debate, the answer has to be a resounding yes. In fact speakers from public, private and voluntary sectors virtually fell over each other to embrace the concept, most notably because these centres provide yet one more tool in the armoury of public engagement.

And, as we all know participating punters are happy punters - or are they? I for one am increasingly beginning to believe that in many instances participation in the design and development of the built environment is becoming a sorry excuse for: unrealistic wish lists; ill informed dialogue; as well as unsustained and unsustainable solution building.

Worst of all, routine public participation in architectural design is being used as a placebo, which has allowed all and sundry to brush real responsibility under the carpet.

Now if there is one thing that these new (but established) centres should fear, even more than a cut in CABE funding, it is the call to "empower the community" in the absence of any real power to change the way the development game is played. Miffa Salter 14 September 2003

Who decides the value of Architecture Centres?

Following Miffa's article we consider what government funding of the Architecture Centre Network means.

Compiled by the Architecture Foundation on behalf of the Architecture Centre Network (ACN), International Architecture Centres is the definitive guide to the network of architecture centres established in the UK Europe and North America. (1) It features papers presented at the conference The Value of Architecture Centres at the British Museum, London on 18 and 19 June 2002. The aim of the conference was to raise awareness of the important role of architecture centres in promoting architecture and design, and as public forums for debating the past, present and future of cities.

International Architecture Centres functions as a guide, presenting information about the network of centres; it also serves to define the role of architecture centres in contributing to ongoing debate on urban renaissance. The editors, Hannah Ford and Bridget Sawyers, insist that architecture centres '... can engage with government agendas of learning and social inclusion, regeneration, housing, sustainability, culture and heritage.' (1) If true that may explain much.

The Chairman of the ubiquitous Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, Sir Stuart Lipton, has confirmed New Labour's commitment to expanding the role and number of architecture centres. A keynote speaker at The Value of Architecture Centres, which was inevitably co-sponsored by the supervisory quango CABE, he announced over £1m of funding. This is distributed amongst existing and emerging centres, and goes to fund a co-ordinator for the ACN, a new post jointly financed by the Arts Council. Sir Stuart Lipton said:

‘The Regional Funding Programme makes it possible for Architecture Centres as far a-field as Newcastle and Bristol to put on imaginative, inspiring and thought provoking activities which will involve people in issues relating to the built environment, which we know they care about’ (2)

Recipients of funding may no-doubt think that amongst the growing number of architecture centres that money is too thinly spread. But that is to miss the point that the government, through CABE, is buying it's own credibility by institutionalising a great deal of previously voluntary passion and effort by architectural and educational enthusiasts. The CABE conference was really about the value of architecture centres to government. This is a cheap and ready-made way for New Labour to be seen to be encouraging agencies with a missionary zeal to engage the public in matters architectural and environmental, whilst inviting their begging letters for more assistance. Annie Hollobone, CABE’s Regional Co-ordinator was clearly of the view that CABE had bought a bargain:

‘The energy and commitment of the Architecture Centres is palpable. The Regional Funding Programme underpins everything that CABE stands for and will make a real difference to the way in which the public engage with their surroundings. We want everyone to know that Architecture Centres are places that are easy to access, offer interesting and enjoyable activities, and are on their doorsteps.’ (2)

'Sharing the government's aim of making architecture and the built environment accessible to the public through exhibitions, workshops, seminars and site specific projects, each centre has developed its own identity in response to the area it serves', (1) say the editors of International Architecture Centres. If that is true it is hardly surprising they have all sold themselves cheaply to CABE. Nevertheless, the price was their critical independence, not £1m.

The cost may yet be that a public, if disillusioned by the built results of whatever participation has been achieved, will blame architecture centres for false promises, and not the responsible professionals, developers or politicians.

Of course, the individual architecture centres may yet surprise us at audacity.org, and demonstrate that they are quite prepared to jeopardise their state funding in the process of finding a critical voice.

This website is maintained by abley@audacity.org and all material is Copyright © 2002 Audacity Limited where not copyright of the originator.