CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS?
In the time since its launch in 2001, the Scottish Executive's Policy on Architecture has influenced a shift in the role of design in the process of creating new buildings in Scotland. The Policy itself is not necessarily credited with this influence, with the various professions granting more influence to the design and planning documents that have set the regulatory framework within their work.
Significant elements of the design professions do not see themselves as central to the process of creating buildings and among those who do, and most notably the architects, there seems to be deep disquiet about what the professions are creating. Across the built environment professions as a whole there appears to be deep discomfort that the sector is not living up to either its own aspirations or its potential. Yet it seems not to be for want of ambition or desire. There appears to be some sense of frustration among architects that the Policy restates their professional aspirations without challenging or changing the context within which they practice. An official statement that the Scottish Executive shares these aspirations is welcomed but the documents that give them leverage in improving design appear to be more welcomed and more influential.
Among planners, the Policy and the documents derived from it are much more influential. This is understandable since of all the professions involved, the Policy has enhanced the role and status of planning, placing design higher up the agenda of planning decisions and, it seems, allowing planners to ask for better design across the board rather than restricting them to only rejecting the very worst. While it is accepted that this role has created challenges for the planning profession, we found very little resentment or criticism of this among the other professions, partly reflecting the way in which local authorities have brought in design experience to enhance the capacity of their planning departments.
While there is widespread support for the objectives of the Policy there is some criticism of the emphasis of the policy that there is:
- too much focus on buildings that represent a one-off, bold design statement rather than an emphasis on better design for the mass market;
- a focus on the exterior rather than the inner workings of buildings and, in spite of Designing Places too much emphasis on individual buildings rather than places; and
- too much exhortation to be better and the creation of regulatory mechanisms to enforce better design and not enough emphasis on the market pressures and procurement methods that undermine design aspirations.
Indeed, it is in the role of market forces that the greatest gaps in the policy are identified. While there is agreement with the aspirations of the Policy, it gives little acknowledgement to the forces working against good design. Inflationary demand in the housing market waters down the design component in two ways. First, there is little incentive to innovate since there is a strong perception that whatever gets built will sell. More importantly, bold, creative design represents a risk for developers, both in terms of materials and construction and in terms of the market's perception of what will sell. Unless there is a strong individual or corporate ego demanding design or a strong indication from the market that good design will command a premium price, there is a market logic to appealing to the broadest market, which also means creating minimal challenge to people's expectations.
Public procurement exerts similar pressures - fixed price contracting and the system of 'design and build' are credited with shifting the balance away from design-led construction to cost-led construction. Design, in effect, becomes the budget contingency that is used to soak up cost over-runs. There is a strong perception among the design professions, backed up by those who develop buildings, that design is being squeezed out of the built environment by these combinations of market and procurement pressures. Commissioning is too often perceived to be based on minimising cost rather than on design. There is a preference among many for a higher recognition of design within the commissioning process, particularly where this being carried out by local authorities or the Scottish Executive. Many would like to see more competition for design in new public spaces as is perceived to happen in other countries.
Tables 4.1 and 5.5 provide important information for the future direction of the Executive's Policy on Architecture. There is clearly a strong belief in the role of education in improving the standards of design. Education and acknowledgement of good design is extremely important to the profession and fundamental to generating a cultural appreciation and demand for a better built environment. While the survey highlights the importance of raising public awareness and appreciation and closer working with schools and young people, there is some reluctance to actively involve local communities. The Scottish Executive and local authorities can lead by example in commissioning better building, raising the importance of design within the planning process and campaigning for a better built environment. There is also strong support for changes to the planning system, building regulations and public procurement rules. The creation of Architecture and Design Scotland (A+DS) creates an opportunity to re-launch the Policy, restate the Executive's aims for the built environment and invigorate debate about how the built environment in Scotland is to be improved. We see two main objectives for this. First, to bring into the debate those professions that currently see themselves as peripheral - the structural and civil engineers and surveyors who opted out of the survey, seeing themselves as having no role in the design process. Second, and depending on the remit of A+DS, to make an explicit link between the Policy and the various documents that have flowed from it, providing a new continuity and coherence to this policy area. It might be enough that the Policy's message is welcomed and appears to be getting through to the professions. However, it seems likely that the combination of policies would have greater effect if there was a consistent labelling and branding of the documents, establishing a clear link between the vision and aspirations represented by the Policy and the practical implementation of these through design and planning notes and other forms of guidance.