search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
10 VIEWS


VIEW POINT


A continuing wage gap between architects working in different sectors is presenting a further obstacle to diversity of new entrants to the profession. Nigel Ostime from Hawkins\Brown suggests a different approach


E


conomic commentators are observing an increasing gap between the super- rich – the ‘1 per cent’ –and everyone


else. The conversation is not just about those who live below the poverty line but also about the ‘squeezed middle’. The gap is reckoned to be far wider than it has been previously and to be getting wider still. Worryingly, commentators on the increasing use of technology believe that this trend will continue and that the ‘rise of the robots’ will further exacerbate the situation. There is also a gap between the haves and the have-nots in the architectural profession. There is an economic gulf between large and small architectural practices in the UK. The challenge for the 45 per cent of practices with five or fewer people is to make domestic resi work – which, according to RIBA typically makes up around 70 per cent of their income – pay. Graphs illustrating the statis- tics all start steeply and have very long tails: income per employee is significantly higher in large practices and lower for the ‘micro’ practices, reducing as practice size reduces. According to the 2016 RIBA Business Benchmarking survey the median annual income for sole principals is just £24,000. Architects who have chosen to work as a sole principal or a two-person practice earn about half what principals in practices of up to 10 people earn and less than a fifth of principals in practices of 50-plus. Perhaps more perti- nent is that sole traders under-perform financially compared with all salaried archi- tects with over five years’ experience. Clearly there are economies of scale; the larger the practice, the lower the overhead per person. But it seems that designing house extensions doesn’t pay. And when you consider that these individuals will have undertaken the five-year graduate and post-graduate university course, and a


minimum two years (many take more), of preparation for their final professional exams – plus, for many, years of practice, the return on investment is poor. We have to ask, does it make sense for architects to do this small-scale domestic work? Should this be an area that we just give up and pass on to the non-architect ‘plan-smiths’? Certainly there are the more bespoke, high- end extensions that provide the opportunity for creative expression, paid for by wealthy and enlightened clients, but these are the exception, not the rule.


No doubt micro-practitioners across the country reading this will be exclaiming that they enjoy their lifestyle and accept lower remuneration as a trade-off (some will also be making a reasonable income from it). But is it really worth the enormous investment, particularly compared to other professions? If you want to undertake this sort of work, why bother with the expense of training as an architect? Surely you don’t need the full 7+ years to design what are typically sub- £250K projects?


A recent survey of architecture students highlighted a worrying trend of increasing debt and consequent mental health issues attributed to course fees and low subsequent income. Add to this the trend for the numbers of entrants to architecture being dominated by those from a wealthy middle class background and the consequent lack of diversity in the profession, and it is clear that something has to change.


Broader education thinking


There are already plans afoot to open archi- tecture to a wider spectrum of society. My practice, Hawkins\Brown, is one of a number of large practices who have signed up to an apprenticeship scheme that has the support of the RIBA and will provide routes to both


Should this be an area we just give up and pass on to the ‘plan-smiths’?


RIBA Part 1 and a combined Part 2 and Part 3 qualification.


For those who want to pursue a career in small domestic projects, perhaps we could look to an ‘architecture-lite’ course? To qualify and undertake projects up to a value of say £1m (index-linked to account for future inflation) students would undertake a course tailored to the needs of this scale of work. It might include a fourth year in practice and, critically, include training in running a small business as well as compre- hensive knowledge of the relevant regulations. Those completing the course would not be able to use the protected title ‘architect’ but could use a term such as ‘minor works architect’ (subject of course to ARB ratification).


For those who want to pursue the full architectural training, sponsorship (in a similar way to apprenticeship) might be a means to broaden entry. The employee would agree a contract tying them to the sponsor for a period of time, much as professional footballers do. Practices often decry the relevance of the training graduate students receive, so as clients to the schools they could be enabled in this way to have more say in the course structure.


If we want diversity in the architectural profession we must find ways to give access to all, regardless of their background and financial means. And maybe stop doing house extensions. 


Nigel Ostime is project delivery director at Hawkins\Brown Architects LLP


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


ADF SEPTEMBER 2017


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  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100