23 July 2018

It’s always pleasing to see media articles promoting the mandated use of architects for building projects. As a registered architect, why would one not want a guaranteed piece of the pie?

But the topic is in fact a lot deeper than guaranteed work for architects, the concerns are significant and valid, and of course the solutions far more complex than a single legislative change.

The movement put to the City of Adelaide by Councillor Moran this past week to mandate the use of architects for projects in the CBD is timely in the context of change of state government and forthcoming local government elections, but it also continues a focus on the quality and contribution of buildings to our public realm.

This focus has been topical recently in Adelaide with media based aesthetic assessment of some recent contributions to our skyline but also globally, with concerns about quality of construction and substitutions of materials.

The recently published Shergold Weir report makes a series of recommendations which include the training and accreditation of a broad range of practitioners and contractors in the industry, greater powers of regulation and inspection and indeed greater responsibility for architects to ensure thorough and compliant documentation prior to and during construction.

Aligned with the ministerial focus on building quality is the progression of test case law in Victoria following the Lacrosse fire regarding the degree to which specifiers and designers may have responsibility for communicating and managing amendments and substitutions in a project to clients, authorities and even the broader public when they are in a novated contract arrangement.

This last point raises a key issue with regard to Councillor Moran’s motion which is that the architect’s services continue throughout the project. The expectation being of course that the expertise, knowledge and application of the architect continues during value management and construction to ensure that the original qualities of the design be they functional, safety or aesthetic are maintained. The issue is that in all (to my knowledge) of the buildings under discussion in these various forums, architects have in fact been involved all the way through the project, and yet the outcomes are challenged.

A turn of phrase appealed to me at a recent talk by Sean Godsell when speaking of an architect’s involvement in a project once novated to the builder. He noted that it is not an architect involved… but rather a builder involved who has employed an architect in their team.

The recognition here is that while training and experience and indeed a framework of professional registration do without question bring assurance of a greater level of skill and capacity to a role, it is also the contractual positioning of the role which affects the quality of outcome.

I don’t believe that the world will ever return to a full documents lump sum approach to all projects and nor to I personally believe that is necessary or even appropriate. I do however suggest that we as architects need to be able to speak in an informed fashion to our clients and through all our areas of influence about the nuances of different contract types.

If architects were mandated for use in all projects, but early novation contracts with poor PPR documents were not eliminated… then we could run the risk of equally flawed outcomes after the guaranteed ‘involvement’ of architects, and this would be a far worse position than we have now.

The solution to quality is threefold. A quality brief, a quality team and a quality focussed contract and regulatory environment.

I commend Councillor Moran’s recognition of the value and contribution of our profession and the unique quality proposition we bring through our registration system. I also assert that along with the work of architects must be a focus on quality through client aspiration, construction control and regulation. We must ensure that there is a voice of strength for quality in design both in compliance with Planning Approval and also in construction to the NCC. The role of the independent architect may achieve this end, but I suggest that greater powers and resourcing of authority inspections and audit are also required.

Mario Dreosti
SA Chapter President