rumpelstiltskin wrote:Some of the most beautiful cities in England were destroyed by architects during the 20th century, so let's not be one-sided about it.
such as? York, Lancaster, Cambridge, Oxford, all still beautiful cities
markstephens wrote:Well said PlanE
knew I could count on good sense from my Mayo comrades
henno wrote:Absolutely not.
the basis to equate good planning to good design SHOULD be on the basis that bad design gets refused!!! Thats where this argument should be focused.
and who decides good design? not the planners, surely !! I would have thought that the appropriate forum for inculcating good design is the colleges of architecture.
henno wrote:Is Mrs Murphy from no 49 supposed to engage Mr HRH RIAI to 'design' her disabled extension? There are many 'architects' coming straight from college that couldnt tell you what TGD disabled assess is covered by. And is she then bound to pay 'suggested' riai rates??
after doing the Part 3 (ie. not straight from college), they are expected to know the regulations. And a good technician in support can provide help here, too
henno wrote:... that it simply couldnt happen... could it?? Whos to say this isnt the end-game of the BCA??
perhaps it is....
Wild Bill wrote:...and world domination !
I never thought of that ! good idea !
missarchi wrote:Architects are a reflection of society and all the differences it entails...
An Architect does not guarantee good design and never will...
Design in architecture practices is not benchmarked internally or externally you only see the good stuff... Plan E you should draw up an architecture rating from make like the BER from...
I think there would be many serious mistakes in planning applications if just architects where involved... Some practices have internal crits but it's the exception rather than the rule... Quality control = planning = government not tech vs tect
architect = client (maybe you should focus on this)
Most of the more senior architects have forgotten how to draw as well...
Your comments are just capitulation.
As I said above, if 5-7 years of training doesn't produce good designers, nothing can, but at least we should aspire to good design; I am well aware of architects producing dross, but I don't think it's the norm, and may well be a result of outside pressures such as commercial interests or client wishes. However, it is the norm that non-architect produced work is dire, and I make no apologies for saying that - I have first-hand knowledge of much that goes on regionally.
An architect does not = client. He or she should provide the best possible advice to the client. A client's interests are generally self-oriented, while a proper planning regime would ensure that the client must pay heed to common interests, such as history and context, all in the common good. And I repeat, if an architect can't draw (or detail or even know his regulations), then he should have and most likely will have good support in architects + technologists + technicians.
The aim must be an improved built and lived environment.
As DOC says, if it works for Germany...