Historically, many slum clearances happened without the agreement of residents, work was done ‘to’ them, and not ‘with’ them, and happily we no longer behave this way. But whenever I hear the word ‘decanting’ I feel that while we may have moved on in terms of how we work, but not all of us have moved on it terms of the way we think. Decanting is something you do to wine. Perhaps we should use the word ‘disrupting’ instead? Another point to consider is whether people on a housing waiting list are being treated fairly? Across England there were 1,183,779 households on social housing waiting lists in 2016. If we take an average household size of 2.3 from the last census, that gives us a figure of 2,722,691 people.

The needs of such people, often housed in substandard and often overcrowded accom- modation, at high costs to the country, should be given sufficient weight when deciding what to do in any situation. There may be a temptation to give more weight to people who are already living locally in any planning decision, but surely the need of those not present have equal weight, and if their need is dire, greater weight?


The second area of my investigation was the context for the physical building – the immediate location, the wider context and the global context, and to look at the question of whether we aim for the greatest good or the least damage for the planet. In recent years we have seen a huge rise in the amount of legislation, guidance and advice related to ‘greening’ the construc- tion sector. Building Regulations, green building standards and policy all pushed the sector to make massive improvements in the performance of buildings. But two issues remain; the policy has become patchy as first the Coalition and then the Conservative Government pulled back on the scope and level of intent of such policies, and the analysis of completed buildings demonstrates that many are not achieving the environmental targets that were originally set.

Should the architectural profession have a set of standards that give guidance and support even when clients or local policies don’t support or actively work towards environmental targets or where national policy vacillates due to political expediency? If we are to have a Coalition where the DUP claim that climate change isn’t real, we need protection against potential further


backsliding at a point where we are leaving the EU and will no longer have its substan- tial support for environmental protection. Should the profession refuse to work on

projects where there is an unwillingness on the part of clients to meet their environ- mental obligations? Would this strengthen our position as expert and impartial advisors, or weaken it?

Purpose and effect on users

Third in the key facets within ‘ethics’ I looked at is the question of who is affected by the purpose and use of the building – the client, the funders, owners, operators, those nearby, the neighbouring region and the rest of the planet. Do we aim for the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people? If so, how do we account for this and what do we mean by benefit? Is it financial gain, safety, better services? How do we compare these against each other in terms of the benefits they bring as well as the difficulties they cause?

Whenever I hear the word ‘decanting’ used, I feel that while we may have moved on in terms of how we work, not all of us have moved on in terms of the way we think

Some of these effects are covered by law, Building Regulations or a duty of care, but much of it isn’t. As we build at higher densities, issues occur which are new in the UK and poorly considered by our regula- tions. Other countries with more tall buildings are further advanced than us in some respects.

When more people move into an area, the balance of the community is changed. While some argue that an influx of new people into an area is beneficial as it brings more economic activity, those living in the area previously often feel threatened by new neighbours, rightly or wrongly. Increased levels of traffic is often a bone of contention, but is probably used as a stalking horse for the real objection, which is to new develop- ment, regardless of its impact on traffic. It is important that we are clear about the benefits that new development brings to an area as well as acknowledging the impacts that causes.

If we are to have a Coalition where the DUP claim that climate change isn’t real, we need protection against further backsliding as we leave the EU and will no longer have its support for environmental protection

User requirements

Last but definitely not least, we need to consider the range of needs of the users, from the most basic ones of shelter to the most sophisticated level of personal devel- opment. Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs provides us with a ready-made structure to use here, so we may only need to assess how this structure relates to our work as designers and whether we are giving due attention to the different needs of building users. A fundamental issue is whether we know how well or badly we are currently doing, before we even start to think about improving matters.

Maslov proposes that our human needs are hierarchical and dependant on each other. Only by fulfilling basic needs of shelter and nourishment can we begin to achieve well-being, good mental health and fulfilment. An ethical view of this would support a designer’s ambition to create buildings that help their occupants to flourish in that hierarchy as far as possible. From shelter on the one hand, to enabling self-actualisation on the other. This makes the basic point that buildings are for people, not for architects, and it is only by fulfilling the needs of the people living in our buildings are we fulfilling our own needs as professionals.

Do we know how well we are doing? Mostly not. Post-occupancy study happens in only a tiny fraction of the built environ- ment, even within the part of it that is designed by architects. Without a better evidence base we risk becoming irrelevant as others who lack our design drive are enabled by technology to ‘sample’ the needs and desires of people and to provide it to them through technology that bypasses us. A connection to our audience is essential for the profession to thrive, and our audience is the user of our buildings, not each other. 


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84