Who should design our new houses?

Given how many disastrous buildings architects design. ones that leak, that have roofs that cannot be repaired, or only at an eye watering cost. usually because they are great at design but frequently rubbish structural engineers, I am left wondering what their 7 year training does prepare them for?

House design is a collaborative effort. They need to talk to ordinary people living in the houses to find what they want in a house and what is practical, structural engineers to ensure the property is soundly designed and that there are no inherent design faults that lead to leaking roofs and windows. they need to work with building service engineers to make sure the houses they design are thermally efficient and have heating and domestic servicees designed to be energy efficient. Housing estates need to be laid out to make suake solar systems and also solar gain.

An architects role is to make sure the resulting building is pleasing on the eye.

The point I was trying to make (badly) is that new builds should be as close as carbon neutral as possible to both build and run.

And a NEW building is easiest to make "green" - anyone who has tried to retrofit these measure into an old house will know!

Residential housing is designed on a computer these days with structural calculations already built in, every element has a size, an insulation value and a cost. If the house is built correctly it will be fine, cutting corners and poor supervision on site can cause lots of problems as it’s built.

There was a big house near me, £2m plus, was built with faulty walls - they cracked, it was demolished. Mistakes do happen, dry expensive ones in this case.

Katie59 ^ If the house is built correctly it will be fine^

I don’t think “fine” is enough when we are facing catastrophic climate change.

NotSpaghetti

Katie59 ^ If the house is built correctly it will be fine^

I don’t think “fine” is enough when we are facing catastrophic climate change.

It’s quite possible to build the perfect house - at a price, there is always going to be a affordability issue, modern houses are vastly more climate friendly than those built 50 yrs ago.

There is no point building houses no one can afford

But there are plenty of examples of low carbon eco homes that are affordable.

We just won't make it compulsory here.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/mar/06/eco-homes-become-hot-property-in-uks-zero-carbon-paradigm-shift

Here's an article on (mainly) social housing.
Plenty of people would choose to buy homes like these I think.

My late husband and I ran a successful building company and over the years had contact with many architects. Some were very good - others shouldn't have been allowed out without a minder!

One of the experience was when we were on site with a client and his architect. The architect was explaining some sort of feature he had in mind - my DH just said it couldn't be done, the architect then went into great detail explaining how his vision could be achieved, all the time talking to my DH as if he was lacking brainpower.

After the long explanation my DH very quietly said - it can't be done because it is against Building Regs. Collapse and departure of self important architect.

Instead of imposing types of building from the top, i.e., government, why are they not setting planet-saving rules and then allowing those with the knowledge be they builders or architects, to build. I would have thought every house needed an architect at some point even if it was to produce a standard building that could be used over and over again - as the large building companies seem to do.

More importantly - to me - is why have we not been using more of the modern, modular, eco-friendly homes that are available. They have long since moved from the reputation for shoddiness (not always justified in the first place) that was held by the old post-war prefabs. They often now outstrip bricks and mortar in their superiority when retaining heat, etc.

I just can't see how Parliament is justified in putting this idea forward without taking climate change and the economy of running a home into account first.

What a waste of peoples time on something where only large building companies and their donor recipients seem to have anything to gain. I doubt it will mean more people are housed in eco-friendly homes any time soon.

Sorry NotSpaghetti I hadn't read your highlighted article. That is exactly what I think we should be concentrating on. [Tue 18-May-21 09:44:09]

I have long had this idea of the movable extension i.e. an extra prefabricated room which could be bought, installed and used until no longer needed. Then it could be removed and sold on to another householder who needed more space.

This would mean that people could have a lifetime home, which would suit the family as it expanded or allow downsizing when the extra space was no longer needed. This would allow people to avoid all the hassle and expense of moving house as needs change.

In our case we could have added an extra bedroom with en suite when the DDs became to old and argumentative to share a bedroom. We would have kept it until they had finished Uni, started families of their own and bought their own houses. Then the extension could have been removed or (in our case) passed on to DD1 who had to build a 1 bed + shower room and toilet extension to her 2 bed house because she had a boy and a girl who could no longer share a room. The solution would also work for a family taking an aged relative to live with them, knowing that in a few years the extra space would no longer be needed.

Is this a good idea? or am I mad to think of it?

Not necessarily a bad idea Granny23 but there are a numbers of issues to be addressed -cost of moving, access to sites, appropriateness for each new location etc. If you had wanted to explore such an idea when you first needed the extra space an architect could have helped you weigh it all up and decide whether to develop your idea or design a more permanent extension.

www.architecture.com/working-with-an-architect/why-use-an-architect

It would work for some sites, but you’d have to be quite high up the price range to afford something with enough land to do that idea. It wouldn’t work in most cities and with first homes.

Nor I think on new build sites where even a small front garden is pretty non-existent nowadays.

Land is one of the biggest costs in housing.

Nice idea though.

NotSpaghetti

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/mar/06/eco-homes-become-hot-property-in-uks-zero-carbon-paradigm-shift

Here's an article on (mainly) social housing.
Plenty of people would choose to buy homes like these I think.

They’ve just built a very similar large apartment development in town close to me next to the railway station. I’ve no idea of the specification so can’t comment on that, the local policy is compact housing in town mostly apartments, so that cars are not needed, further out conventional suburban developments, places where families want to live.

M0nica

Given how many disastrous buildings architects design. ones that leak, that have roofs that cannot be repaired, or only at an eye watering cost. usually because they are great at design but frequently rubbish structural engineers, I am left wondering what their 7 year training does prepare them for?

House design is a collaborative effort. They need to talk to ordinary people living in the houses to find what they want in a house and what is practical, structural engineers to ensure the property is soundly designed and that there are no inherent design faults that lead to leaking roofs and windows. they need to work with building service engineers to make sure the houses they design are thermally efficient and have heating and domestic servicees designed to be energy efficient. Housing estates need to be laid out to make suake solar systems and also solar gain.

An architects role is to make sure the resulting building is pleasing on the eye.

I think that you will find that the "disastrous" buildings are more likely to have been designed by an unqualified person, rather than an architect.

House design is indeed a collaboartive effort and the three key members of the team are the client, the architect and the builder. For some projects the architect will undertake all aspects of design, gaining approvals and supervising construction.

There are other professionals who may be employed to assist or advise the architect - architectural technologists, technicians, land surveyors, structural engineers, environmental services engineers, planning consultants, landscape designers, ecologists, arboriculturalists, contaminated land experts, ,archaeologists, interior designers, heritage consultants, quantity surveyors, project managers, health and safety consultants and of course building product manufacturers and suppliers.

The architect's role is certainly not just to ensure that the building looks nice. If it were an architect would not need seven years training.

Architects are highly skilled and professionally trained to turn your aspirations into reality. They will guide you through the design, planning and construction process whether you are constructing a new building or adapting an existing property.

The training includes architectural history, design theory, psychology and sociology, environmental science, structural engineering, materials and construction, building economics, information technology, project management, conservation, building regulations, planning and law but the most important aspect is design, starting with site analysis and understanding the client's needs, formulating a brief, proposing and testing solutions.

Architects apply impartial and creative thinking to projects large and small. They add value, whether from maximising light and space, adding functionality, or achieving the best return on your investment.

Although computers are used, including BIM which integrates design, construction detailing and building performance, it is no more true to say that buildings these day are designed by computers any more that it would have been to say they used to be designed by drawing boards!

The best architects/ designers were the Victorians. You've only to see how many of their buildings are still standing !

Well said Varian. It’s interesting how some people love profession bashing!

Varian Sidney Opera House? Qite a lot of churches and public buildings. A local modern church Listed Grade 2 is going to be demolished because the cost of repairing the badly leaking roof runs into £millions. Another modern church in Sussex was being demolished because roof repairs were astronomic.

Surely all those buildings were designed by architects. I can tell the difference between an architect (ARIBA) and anyone else.

The designations ARIBA and FRIBA were discontinued I think about 50 years ago, M0nica, to be replaced by the designation RIBA which indicates whether an architect is a chartered member of the RIBA, the Royal Institute of British Architects which is optional for architects.

The way to check whether someone claiming to be an architect is in fact entitled to make that claim is to check that he or she is named on the current Architects Register, go to arb.org.uk/

EllanVannin the reason so many Victorian buildings are still standing is maybe because they built a lot and they aren't really that old!

NotSpaghetti they also built far more solidly and with a sense of civic pride (except the gerry built houses for the working classes). They also built large buildings with large spaces which makes them easier to repurpose

We used to live in a Victorian semi. 13inch solid walls, huge timbers holding up the roof, thoroughly over designed. Mind you there was slight subsidence in one corner, but it had settled and adjusted and didn't need to be remedied.

In the 19th century you were no more likely to get a building designed by an architect than you are now. Especially if it was the standard pattern house, whether it was a terrace or a big semi like ours.

Monica My house - built in blonde sandstone in 1886 has 24" thick outer wall, which means that it is cool in summer and retains heat in winter. Still has the original sash and case windows, with the original glass, but new sash cords since they were refurbished by by carpenter/joiner husband. He used to love when someone chapped the door wanting us to have double glazing fitted. He would explain that in the 1880s window glass was much thicker than modern glass, as the glass rolling process had yet to be refined. This meant that it retained heat better and, if properly fitted, cut down on external, e.g. traffic, noise. He was particularly amused when the salesman said that their windows were guaranteed for 10 years! whereas ours were still intact after 130 odd.

As the cottage was built on the order of Lord Abercromby as a retirement home for the family's Nanny, I assume that it was built well, to a high standard.

The "gerry built houses for the working classes" are, on the whole, still standing though M0nica.
My point was really that 150 years isn't that long!

My Grandparents bought a 'gerry built' house some time after the war and it was a bit of a ramshackle but it's still standing

"Still standing" is hardly the definition of a good building; let alone a good house.!