Who should design our new houses?

The Roman architectural writer Vitruvius defined the qualities essential in a good building as “Commodity, firmness, and delight” These three interrelated terms, which, in Vitruvius’s Latin text, are given as firmitas, utilitas, and venustas (i.e., structural stability, appropriate spatial accommodation, and attractive appearance). This is still true today. All three qualities are important. not just firmness.

Commodity means that a building should not only be fit for its present purpose, but should accommodate changes over time. If you watch any tv house buying programs you will often hear talk of the "flow" of the layout and how a house may or may not "feel right". The challenge for an architect designing for an individual client or family is to work with them to design the best possible house they can build on that site, at that time and within their budget, and also be able to adapt to future needs.

When designing for a developer there will be numerous issues - planning, environmental, commercial, political, and many more. The architect works with the developer to optimise the potential of the site in a way that could work well for a variety of people with different lifestyles and constraints. Matters such as disabled access, safety and low energy design have long been part of the Building Regulations and are continually updated but a good developer should aim to exceed the minimum standards. Obviously not all do.

Delight is an elusive quality as to some extent perceptions of beauty are subjective. It is certainly not about competing styles. There are guidelines for design which are timeless. An attractive house should be appropriate for its setting and no house can be truly beautiful if it is poorly constructed or unfit for its purpose.

I do know that structural design is an important aspect of the design of houses and indeed all buildings Katie59.

Structural engineering is part of an architects training and whereas an architect may often engage a structural engineer to carry out this work in other cases the calculations may be done by the architect herself. The structural design work is always checked as part of the Building Regulations approval process.

Varian I can assure that every building or structure has to be structurally sound and there are design principles that have to be incorporated. Every house built will have its own set of structural calculations, if they were printed out you would have a file an inch thick, thankfully a computer file replaces the printed calculations.

It’s very easy to build a house that will crack in the first storm or collapse under a heavy snow load.

Katie59

Namsnanny

I would have thought it would need an architect to design sustainable cement reduced buildings.

It has already been mentioned Architects are just the designers it’s the Structural Engineers that make sure it stands up. There is no difficulty making a house with no cement, timber, steel and other materials can be used, although there would need to be concrete foundations.

The 'architect/planner/designer' ect has to put forward a design for a sustainable building or house, designed to use less cement.

The fact that buildings can be built with other materials, isn't the problem.
Designs that fulfill the needs of the mass market, and the impetus to build them is whats missing.

Sand believe it or not is actually in short supply as a world resource.

Not every building requires a structural engineer but every building requires a designer and that person should be an architect.

Architects are the only professionals who have been trained in all aspects of building design and consruction and that does include structural engineering.

On some projects the architect may decide to engage a structural engineer, on some projects a quantity surveyor may be engaged, on some the team may include a planning consultant, landscape architect, transport consultant, ecologist, archaeologist, contaminated land expert, heritage consultant, interior designer ot architechtural technologist, but the architect should always be the leader of the design team.

Namsnanny

I would have thought it would need an architect to design sustainable cement reduced buildings.

It has already been mentioned Architects are just the designers it’s the Structural Engineers that make sure it stands up. There is no difficulty making a house with no cement, timber, steel and other materials can be used, although there would need to be concrete foundations.

M0nica

NotSpaghetti Our house is still around after 550 years.

Exactly M0nica
100-150 years is still small fry.

I would have thought it would need an architect to design sustainable cement reduced buildings.

Cement is the second most used commodity after water.
It's use has to be challenged if co2 production is to be curtailed.

So much for B.johnsons climate initiatives.

Architects practicing now may have designed many houses, but there are few opportunities to design cathedrals.

The master masons who were the architects of Gothic cathedrals learned through experience to understand certain relationships e.g, the height of a tower in relation to its base and wall thickness; the depth of foundations according to soil conditions, or the diameter and spacing of piers to support the masonry above.

Advancement would typically be through making mistakes - frequently catastrophic - and learning from them. A classic example is the collapse (in 1237) of the main tower at Lincoln Cathedral, and the collapse (1210) of the south-west tower of Chichester cathedral followed in 1635 by the collapse of its north-west tower.

NotSpaghetti Our house is still around after 550 years.

god that made me laugh

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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.