Standing up for ourselves

It is considered a virtue to accept with humility that humans are just one of many species inhabiting supposedly incomprehensible ecosystems.

Yet while rejecting ideas of a privileged position in nature, sustainability appeals to the humanitarian aspiration for a more equitable world.

Advocates use these environmental and social justifications for introducing constraints on development practice. So as the Royal Institute of British Architects promotes sustainability as a duty for architects, we may face onerous extensions to the legal scope of our professional duty of care. An environmental duty of care presumes a clairvoyant standard of foresight and planning that means we are all likely to be considered negligent.

Meanwhile experts have lost professional self-confidence, and rely on interminable and inconclusive public consultation exercises. Environmentally sensitive designers are careful to avoid the charge of arrogance, aiming to be practical construction professionals.

We want to challenge the myths that to be daring is reckless and that artistic expression is incompatible with industry. We ask whether a materialist and confident vision of society is in any way compatible with an ecological sensibility?

Most people would, I think, accept that we have responsibilities beyond ourselves to family, community, and future generations.

The question is who regulates, with what purpose and in whose interests.

Marco cannot, certainly not yet, establish any direct obligation on architects through the RIBA Code of Conduct beyond a moral duty.

A test of the potential for Codes to be effective is revealed in the Architects Registration Board's work

No one has yet been brought before the disciplinary committee of the ARB for breaching this standard, and nor will they be because it's an unworkable, unenforceable Code in this respect.

It would be stupid to introduce Codes and rules that we cannot enforce in law, and which would anyway lead to mass resignations from a voluntary organisation.

Sustainability will be an issue in its own right, not a part of technology, and it will be a central issue in assessing schools. We aim to increase awareness amongst students, persuade them to sign up to the agenda and equip them with the skills to deliver ecologically responsible design.

Architects have a duty of course to clients in this respect, which is a professional duty, but we also have a duty to the user of buildings, and to future users.

Click to go to the next presentation in this session by Phil Macnaghten

Does environmentalism turn humanism on its head?

James Heartfield (chairman) We have three distinguished speakers who are going to entertain us enormously on the theme of Standing up for ourselves. Our first speaker will be Paul Hyett, who (at the time of the conference) as Vice President for Education has done so much to put the issue of sustainability on the agenda at the Royal Institute of British Architects.

After him is Phil Macnaghten, from the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University, and the co-author of Contested Natures. This is one of the more fascinating analyses of environmentalism today. Our last speaker is Miffa Salter who is Head of Regeneration at the Office for Public Management. She has undertaken a number of large-scale research projects and has been seconded to the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, where she acted as specialist advisor on stakeholder engagement in regeneration to the Urban Task Force. Miffa will be talking on the business of consultation.

Paul Hyett Thank you very much. Well I am very pleased to be here. I have been asked to open this session, which is called "standing up for ourselves". This is a suitably ambiguous title.

"Ourselves" can be taken as the person singular, much in fashion with the late twentieth century western cult of individualism, inferring the qualities of selfishness and greed that are so much a part of consumerist mentality and essential to the market economies. Or as the plural, that is "ourselves" as a collective, or as a social group. Very much in decline as an agenda since the late 1970s and 1980s, the consumer in aggregate is society. It is responsibility towards this latter interpretation that interests me, both as a citizen, an individual architect in private practice, and as a representative of a professional institute.

Most people would, I think, accept that we have responsibilities beyond ourselves to family, community, and future generations. This last group is particularly important. They are the unborn, and as yet have no vote or influence. We hold the world in trust for them. In this respect we are the first generation to knowingly hand this finite, robust, yet delicate place that hosts our existence, that is our planet, on to our children in a worse condition than we received it.

Brian Edwards could tell you a lot more about that than me, but the decline is there and measurable and evident to anybody who can think. We are not doing well. Indeed an alien visiting would probably see us as a virus on the planet that needs to be treated rather quickly and effectively.

So the important word there is "knowingly". We understand what we are doing by and large and the wealthier societies of the first world both know most and pollute worst. For example Houston in America, one of the world's wealthiest cities, consumes 3.6 times as much energy per head as a typical European city, which in turn consumes many times more energy, and discharges many times more waste than less developed regions of the world.

Now the important thing about today is not to tell anybody what we already know. It is taken, I think, that people are signed up to this issue. They understand the importance of it and they understand the importance of progress, so I am going to move on from there. We know what we are doing. The issue is will we adopt more responsible lifestyles? Can we do this, or is the market democracy in which we live out of control and destined for self-destruction?

Let me stay with America to quote from President Kennedy's inaugural address some 40 years ago. "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty. This much we pledge - and more". The world is too complex to tolerate the unregulated freedom that this statement infers. The question is who regulates, with what purpose and in whose interests.

The key word in Kennedy's text of course "liberty". Liberty to plunder third world resources? Liberty to exploit world markets? Liberty to poison and pollute? These are issues we have to come to terms with. I make no particular criticism of President Kennedy on that respect. I am just saying the world is an extremely complicated place, and we cannot imagine we have the freedom to operate and exist in it as individuals or individual corporations or companies without any sense of responsibility. Of course not, but the issue is how can we achieve responsible lifestyles, and worthy progress and development within a context of political freedom.

This I suppose takes us to the heart of the sub-heading for this session: "Does environmentalism turn humanism on its head?" Before going into any more details, the answer is No! It will be our own efforts, calculated and deliberate, that will enable us to manage our environment responsibly. We must change our lifestyles and our methods of supporting those lifestyles. It will be those individuals, organisations, companies, corporations and institutes, together with those, local and national governments who adopt a humanitarian ethos that will deliver us from what is otherwise inevitable global disaster.

We live in a finite environment and our interests are irretrievably interrelated, person to person, nation to nation, company to company, corporation to corporation. We are at a crossroads. We are clearly going to have to review in every aspect of our lives the way in which we are organising ourselves.

Time is very short today so let me turn straight to our work at the RIBA. In doing so I will explore our potential with respect to Marco Goldschmied's statement, reported in the Architects' Journal on 14 October 1999 shortly after taking office as RIBA President. "Architects have a 'duty' beyond the individual projects to participate in this "human debate", bringing their vision, energy and intuition to work "for mankind". He added, "The profession does not deserve to survive unless it does. The planet will not survive if it doesn't".

Much turns here on the word "duty" and the phrase "beyond individual projects". In particular can "duty" be established in Code, for example in a Code of Conduct, or in law. This opens up a number of issues that I will briefly explore, but let me straight away simply say No! Marco cannot, certainly not yet, establish any direct obligation on architects through the RIBA Code of Conduct beyond a moral duty. The reasons are both political, in the sense of the politics of our profession and our members interests, and practical. By that I mean unenforceable in law. I am sorry if that disappoints people here today, but there it is. We can only work within our powers. To think otherwise is to deceive ourselves.

Let us look first at obligations upon architects that do exist. We have building regulations and EU codes and these are important. They are an external control on the construction industry and our profession and as architects we can influence the introduction of more responsible legislation. Legislation produces a level playing field for both architects and clients, especially developers, in the competitive market place and we can, as an Institute, have a useful role here with our fellow Institutes, the CIC, the BRE and the other organisations who contribute to work in building legislation.

We of course must also look at external issues like our competitiveness in global markets which must be maintained, and more expensive building costs, or running costs that can result from legislation affect that competitiveness, but that's another issue.

We also have the Union of International Architects. I was in Sydney 10 days ago at the UIA annual conference. Around the world they have 100 member institutes in 100 countries representing a million architects. They will try to impose Codes on member institutes upon respected architects in all of those countries. The RIBA is signed up to the UIA, we support them, and we like to think we influence the way they think. However these are generalised Codes and poorly publicised and there is little mechanism for ensuring compliance.

UIA principle 2 deals with obligations to the public, and states that "…Architects have obligations to the public to embrace the spirit and letter of the laws governing their professional affairs, and should thoughtfully consider the social and environmental impact of their professional activities". 2.1 provides a more specific standard, where "…Architects shall respect and help conserve the systems of values and the natural and cultural heritage of the community in which they are creating architecture. They shall strive to improve the environment and the quality of the life and habitat within it in a sustainable manner, being fully mindful of the effect of their work on the widest interest of all those who may reasonably be expected to use or enjoy the product of their work."

Well it is bold stuff and no one would disagree with it but it is still vague and, I suggest, unenforceable. The RIBA Practice Committee is, nonetheless, considering this Code. I am a member of the committee, because of my role in education, reviewing the RIBA's own Code of Conduct with respect to the UIA document. At present, the RIBA Code is fairly silent on environmental issues, but a test of the potential for Codes to be effective is revealed in the Architects Registration Board's work.

The ARB came into existence on 1 April 1997 - a good day! Their first effort came with the now withdrawn Code of Conduct and applied obligations under Standard 5. All of us as architects are obliged to comply with this standard in our work. I'll read it to you. "In carrying out or agreeing to carry out professional work, an architect should pay due regard to the interests of anyone who may reasonably be expected to use or enjoy the products of his work". Continuing with 5.1, "…In meeting his obligations under this Code an architect should have due regard to the need to conserve and enhance the quality of the environment and its natural resources".

So there you have it, an enforceable Code from a statutory body. You can be hauled up in front of them and, indeed, may be hauled up in front of them by any member who thinks you are behaving improperly. Standard 11 of the ARB Code requires that "…An architect is expected to promote the Standards set out in this Code". This last Standard places further obligations in that we must report "…any serious falling short of these standards on the part of any other architect". The Whistleblower's clause caused a lot of trouble.

Well can you imagine the ARB taking seriously or acting on a report from me that some architect for a major city gas guzzling, non-sustainable office block should be disciplined? It's nonsense, and what if they did? The firm that they tried to discipline, and they deal with individuals anyway, not firms, but the firm that they tried to discipline would immediately appeal to the courts and the lawyers would have a field day. A costly one at that and the ARB would get another bloody nose!

How, for example, could standard 5.1 be defined in terms of obligation? Think about when the lawyers go to court. I will read it again. "...In meeting his obligations under this Code an architect should have due regard to the need to conserve and enhance the quality of the environment and its natural resources". What is "due regard"? How is "conserve" or "enhance" defined? They are not measurable. It is no good standing up in court saying "…this architect did not have 'due regard' or did not 'conserve' or did not 'enhance'." You have got to be able to define it or we will be there all day and nobody will get anywhere!

They are not measurable. No one has yet been brought before the disciplinary committee of the ARB for breaching this standard, and nor will they be because it's an unworkable, unenforceable Code in this respect. I think anyway that the ARB is going soft on this issue. I have made my peace with the ARB so I am not here ARB bashing. Their new Code reads "…Whilst architects' primary responsibility is to their clients, they should nevertheless have due regard to their wider responsibility to conserve and enhance the environment and its natural resources".

Note that the obligations to clients now moves to the fore and with that unsustainable architects get their let out - "our client made us do it!" So it's meaningless. The point is that any such Code or obligation is virtually unenforceable whether by the RIBA as a voluntary organisation or the ARB as statutory board.

Let us look at the broader political issues. The RIBA is a member-based organisation and if we impose obligations that adversely affect members' commercial interest and competitiveness we damage membership. We currently have some 33,000 members here and overseas. The influence of our Institute is threatened if membership is eroded. Membership is not compulsory, and people will leave if we impose unacceptable rules on their conduct. Consider two areas of competition:

First, the American practices in the UK employ around 250 architects. They employ many Europeans and many British, but the Americans here are about 250 strong. Now they are protected in their own country by what is called a Certificate of Record, obligations that require a registered architect to sign off the drawings. American architects have protection of function. British architects only have protection of title. That title is pretty useless anyway because Americans can come here and not call themselves architects, and apparently nobody can do anything about it. They currently carry out half a billion pounds of our construction market just to support American staff. Now that is a lot of money and a lot of work. By introducing Codes of Conduct for our own architects do we really want to further disadvantage them in an already difficult market against the Americans?

Second, I also need not remind you that because we have no protection of function building design is done by non-trained designers. I do not mean to say that architects are perfect but by and large I think architect design buildings tend to be better across the board than non architect design buildings, but only 30% of planning applications last year were submitted by architects.

So we have to look at how we can protect our members, and a Code of Conduct which is applicable to our members but disadvantages them in competing for design work against other non-architect or non registered groups is not going to particularly useful or good news.

So with this stated, what can we do and what is our aim? Well it would be stupid to introduce Codes and rules that we cannot enforce in law, and which would anyway lead to mass resignations from a voluntary organisation.

We have a strong capacity to influence. Let us first look at education. We are involved in education with the ARB and with the British schools of architecture. From Chile to Hong Kong, Finland to Russia, Switzerland to South Africa, the RIBA is involved in overseas validation without the ARB. We have now been asked to validate schools in America and China, which is a whole different conversation. We are currently involved in validating 30% of the world's population of architectural students. This work is output measured, which means we look at the portfolios and we do not actually look at the inputs in great detail.

We encourage diversity and development so our curriculum is not prescriptive, but we have just introduced sustainability as an issue that will be considered in measuring the work of students in the schools. It has got to be a deliverable, and it has got to be evident in the nature of the project work that we see. That has been passed through the RIBA Council and is a huge leverage. Sustainability will be an issue in its own right, not a part of technology, and it will be a central issue in assessing schools. We aim to increase awareness amongst students, persuade them to sign up to the agenda and equip them with the skills to deliver ecologically responsible design. They must be able to measure their performance, target their ambitions and deliver those buildings. We want to put our weight behind it.

We are also involved in other areas such as continuing professional development. We are thinking seriously now about making sustainability a compulsory component of continuing professional development, which will be an absolute first.

Then there is liaison with other professions with regard to education in sustainability, such as quantity surveyors, project managers or agents. In this respect we pay particular tribute to the work that is being done in places like Reading University, with all their construction and project management courses, increasing the awareness of people that we interface with on the issues of process and product.

Most of all the thrust of our work will come from the influence that we can have on the education of architects. 2,500 newly qualified graduates emerge each year in the UK, 10,500 across the world. That is a lot of influence, and we seek to support the schools in equipping these people to join colleagues in the construction industry to ensure that we design intelligently and responsibly, and that through our work we move continuously towards a more sustainable built environment.

In drawing this piece to a conclusion, I want to look at the word "professional" as a basis for examining our duties. This is open to much abuse and misuse today. What does professional mean when there are professional car dealers and professional footballers? Anyone who is paid seems to be professional nowadays.

I like to consider it in terms of the surgeon who is faced with a patient who comes in with a suspected arthritic hip when his brother has just had a hip replacement. He wants a hip replacement too. Well the trader would say they could have two hips for the price of one and half. The professional surgeon will say, having examined the patient you have nothing wrong with your hip, you don't have arthritis, but you need physiotherapy, thereby denying financial gain in order to give professional advice in the interest first and foremost of the patient.

Architects have a duty of course to clients in this respect, which is a professional duty, but we also have a duty to the user of buildings, and to future users. I think was what Marco was getting at. To take the medical analogy further the key thing here is that unlike doctors, our duty does go beyond the individual patient. A doctor's duty usually does not.

There is a good story about Winston Churchill in Washington just after Pearl Harbour, trying to persuade America to come into the war in the European sector and not just the Pacific. He called for his physician Lord Moran in the early hours of the morning because he was complaining of chest and arms pains, and he was in quite a state. Moran gave him a very lengthy investigation. If he told Churchill he had just had a heart attack Churchill may not be able to take the news, Roosevelt would not have taken him seriously, Hitler would have been delighted, and so would the Japanese. Britain would have been badly damaged in our war effort. So Moran asked Churchill if he had been reaching over and stretching to open a window, and Churchill said yes he had. He said, "…well you have strained your chest and your arm, there's nothing wrong with you but you do need a bit of a rest." Now that was a breach in his professional duty to Churchill, but he went beyond that in terms of a duty to society at large. I think that is a problem we as architects face all the time.

So we could draw the parallel as architects and say we must go beyond the interests and needs of individual consumers. It is difficult to impose this but under Marco's presidency I think we are making real progress. We are seeking to educate architects further and better, and we are seeking to influence our allied professions, clients and the public at large to take these initiatives seriously. We are not alone, as I said, and many are involved and many have been involved in the past. We should not forget them in bringing the debate this far, but Marco has finally put sustainability at the top of the agenda, firmly and irreversibly, and it will be a great delight to people like Brian Edwards.

Marco's presidency has coincided with a growing public awareness, and that has helped, but we should use this new mood to maximum effect. That is what we are all about. That duty lies collectively with us all, albeit that it is best operated as a voluntary as opposed to mandatory obligation.

We operate most effectively through influence and inspiration in pursuit of our Charter, which is the advancement of architecture as opposed to the advancement of architects.

In this respect our principle duty as architects is to posit alternative visions for the future. I am not arguing that this is a particularly sustainable one, but it is certainly an obtainable one. Thank you.

James Heartfield The next speaker is Phil Macnaghten, from the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University, and the co-author of Contested Natures.

Welcome / What's New? / Activity / Services / Books / Shop / Links / Contact /

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