THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE by Oliver Caleb Murray

THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE AN INVESTIGATION INTO EMERGING FORMS OF PRACTICE AND ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR A MORE RESILIENT DISCIPLINE

OLIVER CALEB MURRAY

MArch 2015

ABSTRACT The impact of the recent recession on the architectural profession was huge, with an unparalleled statistic for unemployment growth among architects of 800%. However, while this sparked a great debate in architectural circles regarding the impotency of the profession and its dependancy on the market economy, the vast majority of architectural practices simply waited for things to pick up again and now seem to be proceeding with business as usual as if nothing ever happened, even though further economic recessions are inevitable. A review of post-recession literature on the future of architectural practice however, has brought to light that a small, but growing sector of the profession, young architects in particular, have reacted and are now pioneering new and more resilient forms of architectural practice. In the majority of cases, this reaction was not merely due to a dissatisfaction with the status quo, but was rather a matter of survival for those who had been hit with unemployment, and for the small practices who found themselves commission-less. This gave rise to a new generation of firms, founded by some who utilised the down-time to rethink the future of the profession; and were inspired to invent new forms of practice and adopt alternative financing models to support them.

THE FUTURE OF ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE AN INVESTIGATION INTO EMERGING FORMS OF PRACTICE AND ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR A MORE RESILIENT DISCIPLINE

OLIVER CALEB MURRAY

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of MArch, 2015

â&#x20AC;Š

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writing and completion of this Dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance, support and guidance of the following people to whom I would like to show my gratitude.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Sarah Lupton, for her support and advice, and in particular for lending me her own copy of Reactive! Innovators of Dutch Architecture which turned out to be a very useful source of information and direction for this piece of research.

Secondly, I am indebted to the Welsh School of Architecture, and in particular to Andy Roberts and Jacob Hotz for accepting me on to the MArch course and for giving me the opportunity to write this dissertation, something I have wanted to do since finishing my Part 1 at Nottingham University back in 2010.

Thirdly, my thanks goes out to the members of my family and friends who read and provided much needed feedback on various drafts of this dissertation throughout this writing. Thank you in particular to Mum, Dad, Matthew, Bobby, Tom, Polly, Stephen, Chen, Rebecca, Daniel, Elliot, Paul, and most of all to Yiayia, the best grandmother/personal tutor I know.

Last but definitely not least it is my pleasure to thank the two most important people in my life; the Lord Jesus Christ, for His all-suďŹ&#x192;cient grace, and my dear wife for all her encouragement and motivation over the past year, the first year of our marriage, and the happiest of my life.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1: Author, Unemployment Growth for Bankers, Engineers, and Architects, based on a report from the U.K. Oﬃce for National Statistics which detailed the increase in unemployment for 354 diﬀerent professions from February 2008 to February 2009. Architects topped the list.

Fig. 2: Dominic Stevens, Photograph of Dominic Steven’s self-build house, (2011) <http:// www.irishvernacular.com> (accessed 8 January 2015).

Fig. 3: WikiHouse, WikiHouse - the open-source construction set <http://wikihouserio.cc> (accessed 8 January 2015). Fig. 4: Powerhouse Company / Christian van der Kooy, Bubbles (2012), from an exhibition called ‘SHIFTS: The Economic Crisis and its Consequences for Architecture’

<http://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/programme/2012/shifts-the-economic-crisis-and-itsconsequences-for-architecture> (accessed 8 January 2015).

Fig. 5: Blok Kats van Veen, Lofthome <http://www.pinterest.com/pin/299489443943819133> (accessed 8 January 2015)

Fig. 6: Design at News, Crowd-funded footbridge in Rotterdam. The Luchtsingel (2003) by Architects, Zones Urbaines Sensibles, is a crowd-funded pedestrian footbridge in Rotterdam, and only the first part in a wider project named “I Make Rotterdam”. <http://inhabitat.com/rotterdamswooden-luchtsingel-footbridge-is-a-fantastic-piece-of-crowdfunding-architecture/luchtsingelcrowdfunded-bridge-rotterdam-2/?extend=1> (accessed 8 January 2015)

CONTENTS PAGE

Aim (p.4)

Introduction (p.1)

Structure (p.4) Methodology (p.4)

C1 Architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Impotency (pp.2-3)

C2 The Reactivation of Architecture (pp.4-15)

2.1 Key Texts (p.5)

2.2 Diversification and Multi-disciplinarity (p.6)

2.3 Unsolicited Architecture (p.8) F3

2.4 Open-Source Architecture (p.10)

2.5 Chapter Conclusion (p.15)

3.1 Architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Dependency on Money (p.16)

C3 Archinomics (pp.16-19)

3.2 The Commodification of Architecture (p.18) 3.3 The Financial Architect (p.19)

M1 Share in the value, not the cost (p.21)

4.1 New Financing Constructs (p.21)

C4 Alternative Business Models (pp.20-29)

M2 Architect-Developer (p.23) M4 Consulting (p.25)

M3 Design it first, sell it later (p.24)

M5 Crowd-funding Architecture (p.27)

4.2 Chapter Conclusion (p.29)

Conclusion (pp.30-33)

References (pp.34-38)

Bibliography and Key Thinkers (pp. 39-42

INTRODUCTION AIM This paper’s initial aim was to investigate the future of architectural practice, however in light of the recent economic crisis, which exposed the impotency of the architectural profession, this paper asks how that same profession might evolve into a more resilient discipline, one with at least a degree of autonomy, which is less dependent on market fluctuations. This is broadly the question being asked, hence in order to address this question, the objectives of this piece of research are to (1) carry out a review of post-recession literature on the future of architectural practice, and (2) identify alternative business models or rather financing constructs which could grant architects more autonomy in their practice.

STRUCTURE Chapter one, titled “Architecture’s Impotency” presents the problem of architecture’s impotency, and provides the context and background to this issue, highlighting the immediate peril of the profession during the recent economic crisis and the more far-reaching consequences for architecture. Chapter two, titled “The Reactivation of Architecture” investigates the new forms of practice emerging as a result of, or in reaction to the crisis that may give clues to the future of architectural practice and its evolution into a more resilient discipline. Then chapter three, titled “Archinomics” considers the relationship between architecture and money, while chapter four, titled “Alternative Business Models” outlines a number of new financing constructs which are being or could be employed to facilitate more resilient forms of practice. Chapters one and three should be read as short essays providing context for the chapters that follow them, chapter two and four respectively. These chapters document two related areas of research; (1) “new forms of practice” and (2) “alternative business models”. The conclusion provides a summary of chapter two in particular and evaluates whether the “new forms of practice” highlighted point to a more resilient profession.

METHODOLOGY This paper should essentially be understood as an extended literature review, since secondary sources constitute the bulk of its content. Hence, this paper does not have a section titled literature review, for it is a literature review in its entirety. This review has been carried out by firstly identifying a number of key texts, which were selected due to their relevance to the topic and the date of their publication, post-recession. While these key texts have been highlighted and referenced significantly, other texts did make important contributions. After identifying key texts, a number of key themes were identified. In some cases, a few smaller themes were grouped together under one heading. A number of key thinkers are also listed after the bibliography. In addition to the main body of text, side notes provide definitions and contextual information to support the text and aid the reader (note - these can be considered as appendices as they are not included in the word count).

CHAPTER 1: ARCHITECTURE’S IMPOTENCY The recent economic crisis burst the bubble of the architectural profession. The first decade of the 21st century was one of excess, in which the ‘rampant displays of so-called progress and innovation went unchecked as architects tried to outbid themselves with tricks of excessive form and technique’1. Dubbed the decade of the starchitect, it was one in which ‘architecture became a consumable and architects became brands.’2 This ‘commodification of architecture’3 saw it become almost entirely dependant on capital, financing and banks, so when the western economy started to collapse in the 2008 recession and the construction industry came to a halt, inevitably architects were the first to lose their jobs, topping the lists of unemployment growth. ‘While in general unemployment rates doubled, there was an eightfold increase in the number of unemployed architects.’4 Furthermore, trends seemed to indicate that within the profession it was students and young architects who had been hit the hardest. A generation of architects were in danger of being lost, as young practitioners coming out of university were finding it almost impossible to find placements.5

Figure 1: Unemployment Growth for Bankers, Engineers, and Architects

Bankers

Engineers

Architects

Bubble A bubble refers to a good or fortunate situation that is isolated from reality or unlikely to last. (Oxford Dictionary)

Starchitect ‘Starchitect’ is a portmanteau used to describe architects whose celebrity and critical acclaim have transformed them into idols of the architecture world and may even have given them some degree of fame amongst the general public. Developers around the world sign up "top talent” in hopes of convincing municipalities to approve large developments, of o b t a i n i n g fi n a n c i n g o r o f increasing the value of their buildings. A key characteristic is that the architect's designs are almost always "iconic" and highly visible. (Wikipedia)

Unemployment Rates "A report from the U.K. Office for National Statistics detailed the increase in unemployment for 354 different professions from February 2008 to February 2009. Architects topped the list. While in general unemployment rates doubled, there was an eightfold increase in the number of unemployed architects. No other profession was even close. Brokers and financial managers, the ones who seemingly has caused the economic crisis, were only suffering unemployment at rates 1.5 times greater than before. Even professionals that also operated in the built environment, like civil engineers, had only increase their unemployment around 2.5 times over the prior year.” (Cesal, 2010)

Six plus years on, it seems that we have emerged or are emerging from this crisis. Yet while employment has picked up again, the crisis and its eﬀects ‘continue to resonate throughout the architectural community’6. It ‘left unmistakably deep scars in architectural culture’7, scars which ‘could well have far-reaching consequences for architecture’8, beyond those most immediate. Post-2008, architects began asking questions such as; ‘does the uncertainty in the current climate provide an opportunity for the profession to rethink the way we practice to create a

more resilient discipline?’, ‘how can architects who want to challenge the status quo and not just follow the market do so within the current regulatory system?’, and ‘does architecture need a revolution, or just reform, to become socially relevant?’9 While this paper will not to seek to answer all these questions, it will investigate how the profession might develop more resilience and evolve into ‘a more resilient discipline’. The architectural profession is far too exposed to the instability of the market and it has become evident that ‘new ways of working and behaving are demanded if architects are to avoid being impotent passengers on the roller-coaster of boom and bust cycles’10.

The economy however is not architecture’s only threat, for architecture’s crisis is not merely an economic one, but also a ‘crisis of relevance’11. Prior to the recent economic crisis, the architectural profession had been under a growing threat of marginalisation and fragmentation. Recent decades have seen significant changes in both the construction industry and the world beyond, changes which have brought the role of the architect under the spot-light and into question. More and more the "traditional" role of the architect is being eroded to other players, with architects being forced to specialise. To illustrate the profession’s

Resilience R e s i l i e n c e re f e r s t o ‘ t h e capacity to recover quickly f ro m d i ﬃ c u l t i e s ’ . ( O x f o rd Dictionary)

Marginalisation Marginalisation refers to a person or group being treated as insignificant or peripheral, and therefore relegated to the fringe of something. (Oxford Dictionary)

Fragmentation Fragmentation refers to the process or state of breaking or being broken into fragments. (Oxford Dictionary)

Evolution Evolution simply refers to the gradual development of something. Associated with advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, transformation, adaptation, m o d i fi c a t i o n , r e v i s i o n , reworking, reconstruction, and change. (Oxford Dictionary)

situation perhaps its useful to be reminded of Egan. In 1998, The Egan Report titled "Rethinking Construction" by Sir John Egan criticised the construction industry for being under-achieving, highlighting long-term fault lines such as; ‘client dissatisfaction, fragmentation, and a need to modernise’. Architectural Practice is often seen as isolated and disconnected from the construction industry, both by the rest of the industry and by architects themselves. Egan reinforced this notion by failing to even mention the word "architect" in his report even once. Naturally, architects criticised it for ‘excluding them and design principles entirely...asking; does Sir John Egan and his 'task force' see no future for architects in the industry?’12. Soon after in 2000 one article asked; ‘What is the future for architects - Extinction or Evolution?’13

Hence, now we come back to the evolution of architectural practice. Change can either be viewed as a threat or an opportunity14, and much has been written about the the role of the architect being under threat. This paper however opts to side with the argument which views that change as an opportunity, and attempts to investigate the evolution of the architectural profession in the wake of the recent economic crisis, particularly in relation to the development of resilience.

CHAPTER 2: THE REACTIVATION OF ARCHITECTURE In an article called “The Big Rethink”, Peter Buchanan of the Architecture Review said that ‘these are times of major transition, times in which to rethink almost everything, including architecture…In the past, major downturns in architects’ workload, and the free time and incentives to reassess things that this aﬀorded, resulted in major rethinking and reorientation in architecture. Now again, architecture will be compelled for many reasons to undergo major changes in the near future.’15 Times of change such as these present the architectural profession and those in it with an opportunity to challenge the status quo by re-thinking their practice and re-inventing their role.

In 2013, a book was published regarding the reaction to the recession by architects in the Netherlands specifically. “REACTIVATE: Innovators of Dutch Architecture”, by Indira van’t Klooster speaks of ‘the reactivation of architecture’ explaining that:

Since 2008, the economy of the Western world started contracting. Young, small firms found it diﬃcult to get access to new commissions via tender oﬀers or institutional clients. Furthermore, declining turnover in established architecture firms forced many architects to leave them. These architects have all started their own practices. What we are seeing here is the birth of a new generation of firms.16

Rethink To rethink is to consider or assess (something, especially a course of action) again, especially in order to change it. (Oxford Dictionary)

Indira van't Klooster Indira van 't Klooster (1971) is editor-in-chief of A10 new European architecture. In May 2013, she launched her book, Reactivate! Innovators of Dutch Architecture, about how Dutch architects are stretching the boundaries of the profession in times of change. (A10)

Reactivation To reactivate something is to restore it to a state of activity; to bring it back into action. (Oxford Dictionary)

Reactivist

Reactivity is a chemical concept that refers to the ease with which small units or functional groups enter into (not irreversible) chemical reactions. (Klooster, 2013)

Klooster describes these new firms and the architects leading them as being small, pragmatic and flexible, able to ‘respond quickly and intuitively to the evolving circumstances. Sometimes without actual buildings, sometime without clients (and therefore funding). Their attitude and the results can be described, borrowing a term from chemistry, as reactivist. The way they work is not opportunist, and not a way of killing time until the big money starts again. Even if the economy picks up again, a lasting transformation will have taken place.’17

This chapter will investigate how architects, like those described by Klooster, are fighting back, against adversity, in order to forge out for themselves new forms of architectural practice. For the purpose of this investigation, texts reviewed will be limited to those published since the beginning of the recent recession.

2.1 KEY TEXTS Four key texts, all published following the recession, have been identified which speak of the current state and future direction of architectural practice directly and each provide numerous examples (or at least speculations) of how the architects of the 21st century might think “outside the box” of the traditional in order to survive and “construct” a new future for themselves:  REACTIVATE: Innovators of Dutch Architecture (2013), by Indira van’t Klooster, includes 40 recent examples of young Dutch architects in particular taking a pro-active stance to the practice of architecture, postrecession. The title of the book pays tribute to what Klooster calls, “the reactivating architect” or rather a new generation of such architects who are reacting to the current economic situation by looking for new directions, and “taking matters into their own hands in order to find answers”18.

FUTURE PRACTICE: Conversations from the Edge of Architecture (2012), by Rory Hyde sets out to define the edge of architectural practice, and in doing so introduces and records 17 conversations with practitioners from both sides of the edge marked architecture, that is from those just inside and those just outside of the profession. Each interview oﬀers potential futures for practice in the 21st century and each represents an emergent role for designers to occupy.

SPATIAL AGENCY: Other Ways of Doing Architecture (2011), coauthored by Jeremy Till, Tatjana Schneider, and Nishat Awan, envisions a future for architects as “transformative agents”. The book includes the compilation of 130 examples of what the authors call spatial agency, oﬀering a diverse range of new approaches to architecturally practice. THE FUTURE FOR ARCHITECTS? (2011), by RIBA think tank Building Futures set out to explore the future role of architects, asking; ”who will design our buildings in 2025; what roles will those trained in architecture be doing then and how will architectural practice have changed as a result?”19 The report concludes with a number of propositions about the parts of the industry that could remain relatively stable, those with the greatest opportunity for growth, and those under the greatest pressure.

Rather than addressing each book individually, this review will attempt to draw out from them collectively a number of key themes, which correspond to the sub-headings, and are summarised at the end of this chapter. These themes are related to ‘new directions and approaches’, ‘potential futures’, and ‘emergent roles’, that may give clues to the future of architectural practice.

2.2 DIVERSIFICATION AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARITY One central theme in all the texts is diversification, which describes an expansion of the role of the architect and the application of architectural thinking in fields beyond building.

Spatial Agency started out as ‘a critique of the conservative tendencies of mainstream practice’20 but developed into what it's authors hoped would be ‘an inspiration as to how architectural intelligence can be exercised in a much broader spatial field, beyond the traditional role of the architect. Far from killing oﬀ any role for architects, the intent is to posit a much richer set of activities that give new scope, and hope, for

The role of the architect The word Architect is derived from the Greek word ‘arkhitekton meaning “master builder, or director of works,” from arkhi meaning “chief” and tekton m e a n i n g “ b u i l d e r, o r carpenter” (Wikipedia). However, “the conception of the architect as 'master builder' or 'grand master' in charge of the whole process is really an old-fashioned idea about how the built environment comes about (Hyde). “In the face of a continuing erosion of traditional architectural skills to other players, the profession seems peculiarly vulnerable to a nostalgic backward glance at a bygone age in which the architect was the undisputed boss” (Building Futures).

architectural activity.’21 Hence, the book encourages architects to diversify and is intended as ‘a useful and inspiring road map for anyone looking for other ways to deploy architectural intelligence’22. In particular, the argument is for; ‘a shift away from the concentration on the building as the primary focus of architectural production, promoting the application of architectural thinking in other expansive spatial fields other than building.’23

In a very similar way, Future Practice speaks of accessing and deploying ‘the considerable potential of architecture to solve genuinely meaningful and significant problems beyond the building’24. Hyde describes that; ‘while the mainstream may be slow to adapt, there are designers around the world eagerly carving out opportunities for new kinds of engagement, new kinds of collaboration, new kinds of practice and new kinds of design outcomes’25 and that ‘the examples drawn together in this book illustrate architects operating beyond their capacity as building design professionals, as custodians of the built environment’.26 The argument presented it these texts is one that calls for diversification of architectural practice with an expansion of the role of the architect, into other territories beyond building.

Perhaps the diversification describes in these two books is a natural evolution for architectural practice, a “spreading of its wings” so to speak, giving it freedom from its former dependence on the construction industry. This sort of “evolution” is likely to increase the resilience of the profession during future economic downturns.

Strengthening the argument for diversification, Building Futures predicted a brighter future in particular for Design Houses/Creative Agencies (not strictly architectural practices) who ‘will be judged by their ability to move easily between disciplines, to solve problems creatively in any field and to gather a vibrant and mixed range of skills under one roof. This type of practice, which is emerging out of the recent cohorts of graduates, is not committed to delivering architectural services, but is more flexible in following the market. They will continue to grow because they are willing and excited to try their hand at anything that involves ‘design thinking’.’27

Case Study: 00:/ Architecture An example of a multi-disciplinary practice, which features in both Spatial Agency and Future Practice, is 00:/ architecture, who refer to themselves as; "an architectural practice moving forward". Co-founder Saxby describes that;

We understand from the outset that there are many ways of solving problems, and depending on who you ask, you get a particular answer, not that the answer given is the best or most eﬀective one, it is simply the answer they have to give. So our medium, agnostic approach is that we will use whatever we think are the right platforms or infrastructures to solve a problem rather than prejudice it on what we historically have formal training in.

While some within the profession (representing the other side of the argument) warn that diversification will only dilute the profession, Saxby describes the ability of a multi-disciplinary practice such as his to be much more agile the a traditional or specialised practice, since its able to adjust and taylor it's approach for each particular project. Conversely, he alludes to the opinion that when a project comes to a traditional practice or a practice which specialises in one area, it's only going to have one answer to give for any given problem, ‘like a hammer which can only see

Dependance Dependance refers to the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else. (Oxford Dictionary)

Multi-disciplinary Multi-disciplinary refers to combining or involving several academic disciplines or professional specialisations in an approach to a topic or problem. (Oxford Dictionary) Interdisciplinarity is about creating something new by crossing boundaries, and thinking across them. (Oxford Dictionary)

00:/ Architecture 00:/ is a London based strategy & design co-operative founded in 2005 in London by British architects Indy Johar and David Saxby. The practice engages a diverse range of skill sets from economists and anthropologists to coders and architects.(00:/)

The other side of the argument Matthew Lloyd, of Londonbased practice Matthew Lloyd Architects argued strongly for specialism over diversification, putting forward the position that the best way for an architect to navigate the current changes in the construction industry is to specialise, as his practice has done with innercity housing and the renovation (or reinterpretation) of old church buildings. Lloyd argued that; ‘if we stray into other territories it makes us weaker’, and that such diversification will only result in the diluting of our profession, in the end killing it.’ Lloyd makes a good point that diversification could in fact erode the profession. If architects start getting into other fields beyond building, then there may come a point where they are not actually architects, but something else. H o w e v e r, d e f e n d i n g t h e traditional role of the architect seems like a diﬃcult corner to defend. (Matthew Lloyd, Interview)

nails’28 because it doesn't have any other tools. Even worse, it may have

to turn away the project if it doesn't have the skills to take it on.

With regards to resilience in the face of future recessions, multidisciplinary practices will be far better oﬀ than traditional practice, due to the diversity of their work and a proportionately looser connection with the construction industry. Furthermore, these practices may in fact have more clients coming to them in times of economic hardship, due to the strategic thinking they oﬀer as a consultancy, and the solutions that they are known for which don’t necessarily have to involve physical buildings. After all,

Unsolicited Architecture The concept was developed by Ole Bouman et al. At MIT before establishing the Oﬃce for Unsolicited Architecture (OUA).

Ole Bouman Ole Bouman was formerly director of the Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAi), and Editor-in-Chief of Volume magazine.

‘buildings are about the most expensive solution to any given problem’29.

To make the point, Alistair Parvin tells a story30 about a school that had a problem with congestion in its corridors between classes and assumed the only solution was to build a new school costing millions of pounds. But when they came to 00:/ architecture to design one for them, they were told not to, but instead to simply change the school bell, replacing it with several smaller school bells that go off in different places at different times to distribute the traffic through the corridors. Hence they solved the same problem for a few hundred pounds rather than several million pounds. This is the key thing that differentiate this new type of practice, specifically that they are committed to offering their clients the right solution rather than merely the one that they are predisposition to provide.

2.3 UNSOLICITED ARCHITECTURE One new form of practice that has emerged since the recession is what has been referred to as “unsolicited architecture”. The word “unsolicited” means ‘not asked for, not requested, or unsought’ and therefore selfinitiated. When work dried up, or young graduates found themselves with no job opportunities, some of these architects started taking things into their own hands, ‘going in search of new projects’, and even initiating their own unsolicited projects, despite the fact that no one asked them to. The term “unsolicited architecture” was quoined by dutch Architect, Ole Bouman. In Volume 14, dedicated to the concept of unsolicited architecture, Bouman presents his Oﬃce for Unsolicited Architecture (OUA), which proposes ‘a new form of practice that proactively seeks out new territories, addresses pressing social urgencies and takes advantage of the emerging opportunities for architecture’31. In an address to the Netherlands Architecture Institute, Bouman described unsolicited architecture as ‘the kind of practice that goes beyond the

commission’ and ‘beyond the direct questions of clients.’ Bouman explains quite convincingly that:

The economic crisis spurred a great deal of reflection upon the viability of a profession that is dependant upon commissions; not only are we financially exposed to the instability of the market economy, we perhaps feel a deeper crisis of relevance in only being able to react to a client’s wish. Unsolicited Architecture oﬀers an alternative to this reactive, service-oriented role, and instead calls for a new, more socially-motivated approach to procuring projects. The typical architectural commission can only proceed when the four pillars of client, site, budget and program are simultaneously aligned. In our consumer society, the projects that succeed in this quadrille are more often than not motivated by money, as opposed to social values. The unsolicited architect does not wait for this rare eclipse, but instead occupies the territory where at least one of these pillars are absent, thereby making the project undesirable or even impossible to tackle using the standard tools of the commercial practice. Unsolicited architects tackle the big issues facing society that are otherwise overlooked by the market; they create briefs where none are written, discover sites where none are owned, approach clients where none are present, and find financing where none is available.32

Entrepreneurial

To be entrepreneurial is to be willing to take risks in order to m a k e a p r o fi t . ( O x f o r d Dictionary)

Enterprising

To be enterprising is marked by imagination, initiative and a readiness to undertake new projects. (Oxford Dictionary)

The model of practice that Bouman is advocating, is on the one hand entrepreneurial and enterprising and on the other hand, socially conscious. Architects, pride themselves in their desire to make the world a better place, and naturally view themselves as custodians of the built environment. However Bouman points out that ‘architects are impotently incapable of addressing the needs of society’33 unless that society has specifically asked them to do so. He observes quite rightly that traditional service-oriented role that architects have occupied somewhat undermined their ability to make meaningful contributions to society. The traditional method of procuring projects, puts the fate of society in the hands of clients, who typically have a “capitalist” mind-set, rather than one which is socially conscious. Furthermore, in this system architects do not have the liberty of setting their own agenda. Rather this is determined by clients alone, which architects merely respond to a given brief. Unsolicited Architecture could be an evolution which sees architects take controls of their own agenda, and could result in more socially conscious architecture (assuming that architects are socially motivated).

This is exactly the sort of architecture promoted by the authors of Spatial Agency, an architecture which results from architects acting as transformative agents within and on behalf of society. They describe

agency as ‘the ability of the individual to act independently of the constraining structures of society’34 (structure is seen as the way that society is organised), with the hope that the creative actions of those individuals will effect positive change. This pro-active, self-initiated form of practice seems appropriate in these turbulent times of political and economic instability. The architectural practice of the future must be more resilient to future economic downturns, which are inevitable. It must be leaner, less rigid, and more agile in its approach to navigating ‘stormy weather’. Therefore, architectinitiated and architect-led initiatives seem to be a far more pragmatic way forward than passively waiting for the storm to pass. Furthermore, perhaps, as already suggested, these initiatives won’t be strictly architecture, but rather the application of architectural thinking in related or unrelated fields.

2.4 OPEN-SOURCE ARCHITECTURE The notion of open-source architecture is particularly relevant in the

Pro-active To be pro-active is to create or control a situation rather than just responding to it after it has happened. (Oxford Dictionary)

Open-source The concept of ‘open-source’ originated in the world of software development, but the term simply refers “to something that can be modified because its design is publicly accessible”. (opensource.com)

Source-code In computing, code refers to a set of program instructions, written by a programmer, in a particular programming language. Source code refers to the code in its original form rather than in object code, which is in machine language which only computers can understand. Source code on the other hand is the only format that is readable by humans.

digital age we live in. Speaking on behalf of the architectural profession in Future Practice, Rory Hyde points out that ‘the real potential of the digital world has so far passed us by; computers have changed the way we work and the formal complexity of what we can build, but we've largely failed to explore the consequences of technology on a social level.’35 However, open-source architecture represents a possible future for the profession that does begin to take advantage of the social implications of digital age for the practice of architecture. It is precisely for that reason that the ‘open-source’ movement and its consequences for architectural practice point to a potential future for architecture practice which if taken up on a broad scale could turn architectural practice inside-out.

The concept of “open-source” originated in the world of software development, but the term simply refers ‘to something that can be modified because its design is publicly accessible’36. It is now starting to be applied to the world beyond software and there are ‘multiple diﬀerent conceptions of what “open-source” might mean for architecture’37. “Open-source” denotes something for which the ‘source code’ is made freely available for anyone to use, modify, customise, redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source code is typically created as a

collaborative eﬀort in which collaborators make improvements and share the changes with the community. The concept relies on peer-review.

Open-source advocate, Eric S. Raymond, describes open-source as one of two opposing organisational structures, “the cathedral and the bazaar”. ‘The cathedral is the model for software like that of Microsoft which is protected by copyright - a business model with a distinctly hierarchical structure. The opposite of this is the Bazaar - a seemingly disconnected but functioning web of relationships’38 on which the opensource movement is modelled. Nicolas Bourriaud also uses notion of ‘the Bazaar’ as a model of ‘the site of a second-hand economy in which ideas and forms are passed on and thus acquire a diﬀerent meaning. The flea market or bazaar is a place where ‘something that was produced in the past is recycled and changes direction…an object that

Eric S. Raymond Eric S. Raymond (1957) is an American computer programmer, author and open source software advocate. After the 1997 publication of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Raymond was for a number of years frequently quoted as an unoﬃcial spokesman for the open source movement.

Bazaar A Bazaar is a market in a Middle Eastern country where goods and services are exchanged or sold, but is also used to describe the network of m e rc h a n t s , b a n k e r s , a n d craftsmen who work in the market. (Wikipedia)

was once used according to a certain concept finds new applications.’39

In “A communism of Ideas: Towards an open-source architectural practice” the editors of Archis state that; Open-source software is (typically) developed in response to an individual need for a specific solution. If it proves interesting for others, a group of users quickly form who pass on and improve the software. (Hence), design changes from a one-oﬀ action into a kind of evolutionary process, where design relates to advising on and implementing such models in concrete situations. The opensource movement has already proved itself perfectly capable of developing economically viable activity. The businesses concerned are mostly specialised in advising on, and implementing open-source software, or in other words, consulting. Open source would seem to be an attractive model for an architectural practice wishing to revive its pro-active role in spatial issues. Cooperation and the exchange of ideas give rise to a learning organisation that is able to evolve by reacting alertly to change.40

If for software development open-source means the recycling of code, then for architecture open-source could mean the recycling of architectural designs. Architects who have already been paid to produce a design for a particular building could share that design or even part of it (a certain detail for example), with the wider architectural community, through a market for ‘“second-hand” architecture, thereby allowing it to be recycled. The development of such a community with the culture which goes with it, could also create a new role for the architect as an advisor/implementor who takes existing designs, perhaps even the designs of others and adapts them for a specific situation or/and site.

Alistair Parvin of 00:/ architecture states that ‘open-source architecture is really just vernacular design with a web connection’41 and that:

Often code is developed through normal paid-for-work, but the designer chooses to share the result with everyone so that others can use it and improve it. It is not altruism as such: open communities have an intuitive grasp of a simple maxim, attributed to open-source pioneer Linus Torvalds: “Be lazy like a fox”. Do not reinvent the wheel with every project; take what already works and tweak it to your needs. Share the workload. The principle began to be applied not just to code, but to anything with a ‘copy, paste’ function; knowledge in Wikipedia, media under the Creative Common license. What these projects are creating are ‘commons’; shared community resources that anyone can use.42

Parvin goes on to argue that architecture is a discipline founded on the ‘copy, paste’ function stating that:

For architecture to publish its ‘code’ is actually less of a sacrifice than it is for software developers to do so. There are amazingly few intellectual property lawsuits in architecture, because architects know that is not really where the barriers or rewards are. Architecture is labour intensive because the real obstacles are context specific…The commons are not just a civic platform; they are also a market platform allowing designers and architects to collaborate (to be ‘lazy like foxes’) on a massive scale, and to actually expand their narrow market by ‘micro-selling’ their time even by the hour, selling their services not just to the few with a lot, but to the many with a bit - and still making a good living by doing.43

Vernacular Ve r n a c u l a r a r c h i t e c t u r e describes architecture which is concerned with domestic and functional rather than public or monumental buildings.

Linus Torvalds Linus Torvalds (1969) is a Finnish American, software engineer, who was the principal force behind the development of the Linux operating system. He later became the chief architect of Linux and now acts as the project's coordinator.

Commons In “Architecture of Money, Re:building the Commons” Inderpaul Johar speak of “The models have consciously created the capacity to bridge the traditional divides of public, private, and community: developer, lessee and leaser rebuilding the historic principle of the ‘common’ for the 21st C e n t u r y. T h e C o m m o n s h i s t o r i c a l l y re f e r re d t o a property, space, or an asset that was ‘owned’ communally by a group or village i.e. the common land and managed for the long-term good of the neighbourhood.” (Inderpaul Johar)

Since the real obstacles to architecture are context specific, the opportunities for open-source architecture may come through being an advisor or implementer of designs. However, Parvin describes the need for the building of infrastructure to make this possible. In speaking of ‘Architecture's social economy’ he says that; ‘Architecture does have a social economy, but we need to build its infrastructure, building tools for amateurs to build.’44

Two examples of open-source architecture are Dominic Stevens’ lowbudget self-build house and WikiHouse, an open-source construction set.

Case Study: Dominic Steven’s Self-Build House ‘One of the most noteworthy post-crash projects (2011) in Ireland is Dominic Stevens’ almost low-budget self-build house which cost only 25,000 euros and that anyone can make using the detailed, step-bystep instructions he has posted on his Irish Vernacular website.’

Creative Commons License A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that allow the distribution of a person's work. A Creative Commons license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and even build upon a work that they have created. (Wikipedia)

Figure 2: Photograph of Dominic Steven’s self-build house.45

Case Study: WikiHouse WikiHouse sees the open-source concept applied directly to architecture in the form of ‘an open-source construction set’ made using SketchUp which is made freely available via a Creative Commons license on an open library, from which anyone can download, customise, and ‘print’ using a CNC router, the plywood frame of a house, which can be assembled with minimal formal skill or training. This shell must then be finished with cladding, insulation, wiring, and plumbing before it can be inhabited.

Figure 3: WikiHouse, the open-source construction set

While possibly one of the best examples of an open-source architecture initiative to date, there are currently no inhabited WikiHouses, and only a small number of prototypes completed around the world. Furthermore, while genuinely exciting, the specific method of construction or rather

Alastair Parvin Alastair Parvin is a member of 00:/ architecture and cofounder of WikiHouse. He’s the author of “A right to build” and “The Profit Function”.

manufacture of CNC milling, employed by WikiHouse, perhaps limits its application. However development of other forms of digital manufacturing such as 3D printing could push this model further. At TED conference 2013, Alistair Parvin, co-founder of WikiHouse said that while WikiHouse itself is ‘still a small experiment, the bigger picture behind the project has the potential to disrupt the way we make housing and cities’46. In the future we could see a “wikipedia for stuﬀ”’47 which is made possible by the dual combination of (1) advances in digital manufacturing and (2) a wider application of the open-source idea to hardware. On a side note, some (including Chris Anderson) have hailed

Chris Anderson British-American author and entrepreneur, Chris Anderson was formerly; a writer with The Economist, and editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, and is currently the cofounder and CEO of 3DRobotics, a drone manufacturing company. He is also the author of a number of books including; The Long Tail, Free, and Makers: the new industrial revolution.

the current advances in digital manufacturing as “the new industrial revolution”48, which is being fuelled by; (1) advances in technologies associated with digital manufacturing, (2) the democratisation of those technologies which are becoming more widely available and inexpensive, with the release of numerous “desktop” digital manufacturing tools such as the MakerBot, a desktop 3d printer, and (3) a global “maker movement” connected via various online (and typically open-source) communities. Currently there is a race around the world to design the world’s first 3D printed houses, but this revolution is set to change not only what we can make and how we make it, but also where we make it. According to Parvin ‘we are moving into a future where the factory of the 21st century is everywhere” because the barriers to entry have disappeared.

Overall, the open-source idea fundamentally changes how architects relate both to one another and to existing and future clients. For example, it is likely to empower scattered sole practitioners, who currently represent about 20% of all architects in the UK49, by connecting them with each other via an online open-source community. It may also make the prospect of unemployment a lot less threatening, as the unemployed can quickly and more easily make the move towards becoming a sole practitioner with the help of those in the community, or may even set up a “networked” practice with other professionals through the community. Hence with regards to resilience, the open-source community goes some way to at least changing the playing field, specifically in providing much need support for the most vulnerable members of the profession.

2.5 CHAPTER CONCLUSION The key themes identified in this chapter; (1) diversification, (2) unsolicitedness, and (3) open-source architecture, all represent emerging forms of architectural practice that are in some way more resilient that traditional practice. Many of those who are already practicing according to one of these categories starting doing so in reaction to the recent economic crisis.

CHAPTER 3: ARCHINOMICS “Archinomics” is described by Ronald Wall, an urban economist, as ‘a strong overlap between the discipline of architecture and economics which is needed to eﬀectively develop cities within a globalising world.’50 In fact, ’Architecture is the only art that is wholly related to economics. The architect can virtually build nothing - and so cannot express his creative art - without incurring definite “costs”, which have an economic “value”’51 were the words of Jeﬀeriss Matthews OBE, in an address to the RIBA Conference, 1956. It is clear that ‘architecture follows money. No money, no buildings’52 and this was never more evident that during the recent recession. Hence, this chapter will investigate the economics of architecture in general, before exploring a number of alternative business models in the following chapter.

3.1 ARCHITECTURE’S DEPENDENCY ON MONEY With the 2008 economic recession being compared by economists to the Great Depression, it is perhaps fair to say that it was ‘no ordinary recession’53. Eric J. Cesal, named it “the Great Wake” in his book Down Detour Road: An Architect in Search of Practice. It certainly was a wakeup call for architects, and Cesal explains how ‘this is especially relevant for architects and other design professionals, because the subject of our work is expensive…and buildings are (predominantly) bought with credit.’54 He also argues that:

Society’s need for buildings is not going to disappear, we are going to have to fundamentally re-imagine how and why we buy them. As architects, we must rethink our methods to respond to this new reality, and not just wait for the work to pick up again…However we emerge from this crisis, we know that we will be changed for “the Great Wake” will reshape us and rework our values. Architecture, too, must change, as the professional topography will be diﬀerent.55

The publication “SHIFTS: Architecture after the 20th century” by Hans

Value Va l u e i s t h e w o r t h o f something, compared to the price paid or asked for it. Therefore, it should be understood as diﬀerent from cost. Eric Cesal defines value as “the diﬀerence between the perceived worth of something and its objective, listed cost.” He also points out that “value, not cost, is the driving factor behind economic decision making”. (Cesal)

Eric J. Cesal Cesal first gained international attention in 2010, with the publishing of Down Detour Road: An Architect in Search of Practice, a memoir/manifesto that is widely acknowledged as a roadmap to 21st century architecture. At the time of the book’s release, Cesal joined Architecture for Humanity, and led Architecture for Humanity’s Haiti Rebuilding Centre for two and half years. Cesal was recently appointed Architecture for Humanity’s new Executive Director.

Credit Credit is the ability of a customer to obtain goods or services before payment, based on the trust that payment will be made in the future. Something bought with credit is obtained before payment typically by means of a loan from a bank or some o t h e r k i n d o f fi n a n c i a l institution.

The Powerhouse Company The Powerhouse Company is a dutch Architectural Company founded by Nanne de Ru and Charles Bessard in 2005.

Lbelings and Powerhouse Company, which followed an exhibition in 2012 called, ‘SHIFTS: The Economic Crisis and its Consequences for Architecture’, described how:

Architecture is in many ways dependant on and determined by external forces, whether they be economic, demographic, social or cultural. All those spheres are currently experiencing changes that inevitability have and will have significant consequences for architects, architecture and architectural culture.56

Figure 4: Bubbles at the ’SHIFTS’ exhibition.

Jeremy Till Jeremy Till (1957) is a British architect, educator, and writer. He is currently Head of Central Saint Martins and Pro ViceChancellor of the University of the Arts London. Formerly taught at Kingston Polytechnic, Bartlett (UCL), University of Sheﬃeld, and University of Westminster. His published books include; Architecture Depends, Flexible Housing, and Spatial Agency.

Even more emphatically, in his book Architecture Depends, Jeremy Till argues with conviction that ‘architecture is a dependant discipline’57, dependant for its very existence on things outside itself. He explains that:

Architecture at every stage of its existence - from design through construction to occupation - is buﬀeted by external forces. Other people, circumstances, and events intervene to upset the architect’s best-laid-plans. These forces are, to a greater or lesser extent, beyond the direct control of the architect. Architecture is thus shaped more by external conditions than by the internal processes of the architects. Architecture is defined by its very contingency, by its very uncertainty in the face of these outside forces.58

Therefore this chapter and the one following it seek to investigate how the profession might lessen or at least loosen this dependance, with the goal of becoming more resilient in the face of future economic downturns. One thing for sure is that ‘persisting with architecture as if it is business as usual, could be detrimental to our anticipated future.’59 It seems obvious that for architects to respond to the problem of economics, they must first come to understand that problem, and their direct relationship to it.

3.2 THE COMMODIFICATION OF ARCHITECTURE

‘Architecture is frequently part of the problem, particularly when it concerns the economy.’60 In the introduction to Spatial Agency, Jeremy Till describes the commodification of architecture and how a dependancy on the marketplace is in many ways accountable for architecture’s recent downfall. Till argues against ‘the association of architecture with buildings’ stating that;

T h e e q u a t i o n a rc h i t e c t u re = b u i l d i n g m a g n i fi e s t h e commodification of architecture. Buildings are all too easily appropriated into the commodity exchange of the marketplace: "progressive", "innovative", "eﬃcient", "iconic" or "landmark" buildings are seen to have higher exchange value within this system, and it is thus that the signifiers of progress, innovation, eﬃciency and income generation have become the hallmarks of successful architects in times of fiscal growth. (However), aligning architecture so closely to the control and value of the marketplace not only shuts down other ways of thinking and operating, but also begs the question as what to do when the foundations of the market are undermined by its own excessive actions? Or rather, if buildings have been reduced to commodities, what happens to architecture when the commodity exchange of architecture is staunched? The answer was all too apparent in the early days of the 2009 recession.61

Cesal describes the process of architecture’s commodification in a chapter of Down Detour Road called ‘A Brief Economic History of Architecture’, in which he tracks a series of economic “bubbles” from the “get-rich-quick culture” of the eighties, through the “IT bubble” of the nineties, to the most recent “real estate bubble” in which ‘we began to understand our built environment as an investment vehicle’62. Cesal describes how housing in particular became a commodity to be exchanged. In other words, the house that was once conceptualised mainly in use-value terms as a home became reconceptualised as an exchange-value, that is, as a financial asset. Furthermore, Cesal explains what this means for architects, that:

If a man cares about his house and wants to live there, he will want the services of an architect, but if this man only sees his house as an investment vehicle, however, then he has little use for an architect…and consequently, architects participate very little in our domestic housing market63

3.3 THE FINANCIAL ARCHITECT

Cesal advocates the idea of “the financial architect” arguing that as architects:

We should care about everything that pertains to the ultimate disposition of our design ideas. Within that “everything,” finance seems paramount, or at least as important as some other things that have fallen under the umbrella of “design issues”.64

In Future Practice, Rory Hyde points out that ‘economics is a territory that's normally regulated to the developer or clients, we (architects) don't seem to worry about the money except about how much the buildings costs.’65 Alastair Parvin of 00:/ said ‘it strikes me that we talk very deeply about design, but actually there’s an economics behind architecture that we don’t talk about and I think we need to’66. In the same manner, Indy Johar, also of 00:/ has been quoted saying; ‘it's time for architects to start reading the financial papers’.67 An RIBA publication titled ‘Answering the questions every practice should be asking’ reinforces this notion stating that ‘it has never been more important for architects to be aware of and interested in the world in which they work: to read the financial and property press, to understand the political climate and how potential clients are responding.’68

However, the Architects Journal reported that; ‘Architects are not business savvy’69 and RIBA think tank Building Future’s reported that ‘only 50% of practices have a business plan’. This was confirmed by an independent report, produced for the RIBA, by Colander Associates reporting results of the 2013/14 RIBA Business Benchmarking Survey, which uncovered that in fact ’60 per cent of (RIBA registered) practices did not have a business plan and only 15 per cent planned beyond one year.’70 The report concluded that, ‘to run a successful architectural business someone in the practice needs to focus on a strategic vision and have both the skills and the passion to develop the business side of the venture.’ It seems evident that architects cannot remain ignorant of finance and business, and that there is perhaps an opportunity here for architects to rethink the economics behind architectural practice.

CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS In Future Practice, Rory Hyde identifies the traditional model of charging as a percentage of construction cost as ‘one of the most self-defeating constructs of the architectural profession’71 referring to it as ‘an antiquated fee structure that does little to justify the thinking and

Value Added Value Added refers to the amount by which the value of an article is increased.

Constructs Financing constructs is synonymous with financial models or financial structures.

intelligence embedded in the architectural process. This model implies an inability to distinguish conceptual value from production-focused value.’ It’s like a Picasso painting being sold for the value of the frame it comes in and not for the value of the painting itself. Building Futures point out in ‘The Future for Architects?’ report that:

Architects possess a huge range of skills, many of which go unnoticed, unused or most importantly unpaid! The vast majority of these skills come under ‘pre-project’ – all the community consultation and analysis, brief development, strategic thinking and preparatory work that lies behind the early design stages. There was a unanimous feeling amongst the practices interviewed that architects continually provide these sorts of services for free – and that this would never happen in any other profession.72

Eric. J Cesal shares this feeling stating that ‘architects readily, and openly, give away their ideas. For the price of a 7 percent design fee, we readily hand over our best ideas. We live in an idea society and an idea economy, and architects cannot continue to give away their ideas if they seek to be an empowered and respected profession.’73 If we believe that architecture creates value, we must start implementing business models that ensure we are rewarded for that “value added”. Volume Magazine presented a brief survey of existing financial models used in other disciplines asking how they could be applied to architecture, some of which provided the base from which the models discussed in this chapter have been developed. Volume magazine also stated that:

(The practice of unsolicited architecture, in particular) calls for a more speculative and entrepreneurial approach to attracting commissions. It is a challenge to the traditional role of the architect as a passive service provider who waits for the clients to request their expertise. But without clients - and the fees they bring in - how can we be expected to survive? Architects have become complacent in their dependency upon this revenue stream, however for many other disciplines, financing a speculative project is a daily routine, not an exception.74

Hence, this chapter investigates what new financing “constructs” have been developed or could be utilised to facilitate more resilience forms of architectural practice.

4.1 NEW FINANCING CONSTRUCTS

In a chapter of Down Detour Road called “The Idea Architect”, Eric J. Cesal discourses on the value of ideas, pointing out that:

Architects move into their professional lives expecting not to be compensated. We are taught that the ultimate reward for our eﬀorts is to see our designs realised in built form. The disposition of the built form and its externalities become secondary. All future economic benefits of the building, beyond the initial design fee, are set out of reach. The future cash flows from rent or leasing, the appreciation of the equity, the resale value, etc. are all retained by the owner (or developer). To some degree, this seems fair - the owner paid for the design, the construction, and the land. However, we can abstractly understand that a good design produces a good building, and that a good building is more valuable than a bad building. So who captures the benefits of the building, assuming that it turns out to be so good? What compensation is available for the good designer who produces the good design which produces the good building?75

Cesal seems to suggest that if good design is valued and adds value, then the architects who create that value should be compensated financially. The fact that the real situation is otherwise, suggests that the existing model is flawed and the architectural profession would do well to review it. In addition, it seems clear that if architects were given financial incentives this would encourage more good design. The following financial model alludes to this, suggesting that architects could be paid according to how much value they add.

MODEL 1: SHARE IN THE VALUE, NOT THE COST A real-estate developer invests in a property, conducts works to increase its value, and returns the property to the market for a profit. Architects are a core component of this procedure, deploying their design expertise to increase the value of a property and to create a saleable product. Despite their integral role in this process, architects are paid as consultants, earning a marginal fee as a percentage of the construction cost, at the point in the process of greatest expense. If the architect is in the business of generating value, doesn’t it make sense to be paid a percentage of the resale value, not the construction cost? This way the added value that the architect brings to this process is made more apparent and is justified financially accordingly.76

One issue with this is that value is diﬃcult to quantify and can be somewhat subjective. For this model to be successful, a particular method of valuation would have to be agreed on, one that determines the added value attributed to the design, rather than that created by

increases in land value for example. However, even if these diﬃculties in valuation could be overcome, it is still unlikely that developers are going to sign up this, unless they were forced to. Perhaps architects could learn from artists by reaping the resale:

The world of art collecting is all about speculation. Spot the talent when it’s young, buy the quality when it’s cheap, cross your fingers it increases in value as the artist increases their status, and sell at the top. The collector, not the artist, reaps the reward for the artists’ hard work. Artists are wising up to this scenario however, often writing clauses into their sale contracts that stipulate a percentage of the resale value when the piece changes hands. Architects could easily justify a similar claim to a cut of the future resale value of a property; value they have helped to create.77

This way architects would receive not only the initial design fee, but also a sort of one-oﬀ royalty, unless the product (building) is something repeatable, like a housing development, in which case, it would be like receiving royalties. Eric J. Cesal points out that ‘we must remember that a good idea is a valuable thing’78 explaining that:

A design is a professional service, it is essentially a design for a good building. In other services and disciplines, when an innovator births an idea and that idea is realised in the form of some thing, the innovator takes some perpetual reward out of the realisation of that idea. An author, an inventor, or a writer collects royalties. An architect does not, but more interestingly, the architect does not expect to.79

Cesal states further that ‘A client requests a certain building and perhaps provides a program. An architect designs a response to the design task and receives certain rewards. The architect receives a design fee, the publicity, the critical regard, perhaps a variety of emotional and psychic rewards, depending on how the design turns out’80, but receives no further financial rewards. It doesn’t seem outrageous for an architect (at least a good one), to stipulate receipt of a cut of the resale value, perhaps in exchange for a reduced design fee, or no design fee.

This method is called “no cure, no pay”. ‘It is precisely in the preliminary phase, when it is not yet certain whether the project with go ahead, that clients find the costs of the architect high. Once a project has actually gotten underway, and a client has materialised, the architect sends a bill, including a bonus for missed risk and interest.’81 We have already established that architects create a lot of value at the beginning, and this way the architect can claim back that value, only later. Architect, Tom Frantzen of Frantzen et al points out that ‘a contractor always has a

budget reserved to bring in a project. If we already have a project, he

Jonathan Segal

can use that money directly for the pre-financing of consultant costs and

Jonathan Segal FAIA is an San Diego based architect w h o s t a r t e d h i s fi r s t architect-developed project in 1988, and has since then fine tuned his ‘architect as developer’ model with his company ‘Jonathan Segal FA I A & D e v e l o p m e n t Company’. Segal now a c t i v e l y p ro m o t e s t h i s method of architectural practice via an online and oﬄine seminars for aspiring architects/developers aptly named “Architect as Developer”.

fees - the biggest expense in developing an initiative.’82

Alternatively, if architects became developers themselves, not only would they be directly rewarded for the value they create, but the developments themselves are likely to be of a higher quality, because those designing them have a direct stake in how successful they turn out.

MODEL 2: ARCHITECT-AS-DEVELOPER The business model of Architect as Developer, is an approach to practice where the architect is also the developer (and sometimes even the contractor). The concept of an architect becoming a developer is one that firstly; seeks to empower the architect with a greater control of the overall development process, with the hope of creating a better built environment, and secondly to provide architects with financial independence and satisfaction. While this concept is not new, and examples do exist such as San Diego based Jonathan Segal83 & New York based Jared Della Valle84 it is also not widely practiced. Why? Its a risky business. ‘Assuming the role of architect, developer, and contractor requires taking on more risk, but can result in more financial reward. It

Jared Della Valle

Jared Della Valle is a New York based architect who launched his own architecture development firm - “Alloy” in 2006, that designs, develops, constructs and even markets its own buildings. Alloy is a design-focused integrated practice, combining skills ranging from design and finance to marketing.

also gives the architect more control’85 over the scale of their impact.

While the increased risk may be a deterrent for most architects, for those who do choose to take up this model, the benefits if successful are definitely attractive to any architect. Greater risk is associated with greater rewards. For example, Architect-Developers should be in a better position to act as transformative agents within and on behalf of society, unshackled from the constraints that come from working with clients in a service-oriented role. In this sense, Architect-Developers definitely fall in to this category of unsolicitedness, with all the challenges associated ‘creating briefs where none are written, discovering sites where none are owned, and finding financing where none is available.’86.

To be successful, in the adoption of this model, will requires architects to have a good understanding of the real-estate and financial side of things to come up with development models that are economically viable as well as good architecture.

MODEL 3: DESIGN IT FIRST, SELL IT LATER Architects sell the promise, the idea. Armed with a portfolio of past projects, they hope to secure the next. This requires a leap of faith on behalf of the client, as they are forced to invest in something they cannot see first. The project home builder (or catalogue builder) knows this too well, and instead brings the strategies of retail to the field of construction by producing a catalogue of prototypes from which the client can choose.87

There are a number of successful catalogue builders, who offer the convenience of the purchase of a total product - a one-stop-shop, such as up-market Huf-Haus. At the other end of the market, BoKlok, developed by furniture company Ikea in collaboration with construction company Skanska is essentially catalogue homes for the affordable housing market. As architects we ‘like to think of our projects as unique responses to the site, client demands, and budget, none of which can be anticipated in advance. But still, instead of waiting for the ideal client to offer the project we want why not design it first and then find the client? People are much more responsive when they know what they are getting in advance.’88 One example of a practice carving out a market in this area is Blok Kats van Veen who does not consider the label of product developer to be a source of shame:

We are business people. We take financial risks and develop a product. This is also an architectonic risk.89

Blok Kats van Veen have 'developed their own construction product, Lofthome. It cannot be called a catalogue home, because it is still

One-stop-shop A one-stop-shop is a term that refers to a business or office where multiple services are offered; i.e., customers can get all they need in just "one stop." The term originated in the United States in the late 1920s or early 1930s to describe a business model offering customers the convenience of having multiple needs met in one location, instead of having to "drive all over town" to attain related services at different stores.

Blok Kats van Veen Dutch architects, Blok Kats van Veen describe themselves as an oﬃce which acts on the business and private market, both nationally and internationally. As autonomous and independent, with many projects achieved through their own initiatives and product development.

Lofthome Blok Kats van Veen’s Lofthome is a cube-shaped, sustainable, prefab housing concept of steel, glass and wood. The steel structure is also the support structure, so that the home can be partitioned at will.

custom-made, but on a modular basis’.

Figure 5: Lofthome, by Blok Kats van Veen

The development of modular systems could provide a means of microselling architecture, as advocated by Alastair Parvin who makes the point that:

We need to fundamentally lower the threshold (to make architecture more accessible). When you as an architect are doing a piece of work, how many people are your client? How many people are you going to sell that piece of work to? Is it 1? which is what we are doing most of the time. Or is it 5, 20, 100, or 2500? If you can get 2500 (sales) or more then you can really lower the price and expand down that long tail into the micro-architecture market.’90

The model of “designing first and selling later” involves an element of risk because there is no guarantee of future sales, but its also a model that is perhaps well suited to the open-source form of practice discussed in chapter two and resembles the business models employed by WikiHouse. The big economic advantage is that such a model supports the idea of mass-selling architecture as a sort of saleable product. In terms of resilience its a model that takes into account boom and bust cycles in that bust times can be utilised to focus on the research and development that is required to develop the next big “product” which can be sold to numerous customers during times when the economy is booming.

MODEL 4: CONSULTING Building Futures report, The Future for Architects? suggested a potential opportunity for architects to branch into general consulting. “I think that architects will have the greatest influence if they concentrate on highend consultancy and strategic thinking”91 stated a project manager of a global consultancy.

Professionals other than architects - doctors, dentists, lawyers or accountants for example - understand very well the value of their time, and use this time to determine their cost. To sit down with them and benefit from their expertise, you simply need to make an appointment and pay by the hour. Architects on the other hand, devise elaborate pricing schemes which only begin when the contracts are signed and the many moons of budget, client and brief are simultaneously aligned. If advice is what we sell, why not sell it by the hour? The architect could write an invoice on the spot at the conclusion of all preliminary consultations. Although this may turn oﬀ those looking for free advice, by clarifying the exchange for this advice, we as a profession may expose a new niche of people simply looking for direction, not to find a commission.’92

Architects tend to market themselves as producers of buildings, not givers of advice, but architects do in fact give plenty of advise and are well equipped to do so. At pre-project stage this advise is normally given

for free with the hope of securing a commission, but there is no reason why this should be the case.

In chapter two in was noted in relation to diversification that architects possess a particular kind of ability to think strategically that could be applied to situations beyond the design of buildings. This sort of architectural thinking could be oﬀered as a consultancy service, particularly during times of economic hardship when clients are looking for alternatives to the construction of physical buildings.

Furthermore, as mentioned in relation to open-source architecture, since the real obstacles to architecture are context specific, the opportunities for open-source architecture may come through being an advisor or implementer of existing designs and providing the services necessary to adapt those designs for concrete situations. Furthermore, just like doctors “on call”, architects could be on retainers to advise on the management of existing premises. Web designers operate on a model that relies on providing this kind of long-term support:

With broadcast media, the set-up costs are marginal compared to the ongoing costs of operation and content production. Web designers often oﬀer a very aﬀordable service to set up a website to get their foot in the door, in full knowledge that the real money is in the ongoing maintenance, where they can charge their full rate by the hour. Similarly, the true cost of a building is in it operation. Currently architects are well positioned financially at the start of a project, earning their fees from design. Could architects reposition themselves as consultants throughout the buildings life, and charge accordingly?93

By extending the architect’s involvement with the buildings they design, new roles and new revenue streams can be created for architects, while at the same time encouraging sustainable and responsible design.

MODEL 5: CROWD-FUNDING ARCHITECTURE The previous models discussed; fees based on resale value, becoming a developer, and consulting have explored new revenue streams that could change the way architects are paid, but these are also intrinsically related to how the projects architects are involved with are funded, hence the rise of crowd-funding as an alternative project funding structure could also impact how architects receive payment for their services and from whom they receive it, as well as changing the architecture itself.

Architect, Alastair Parvin, of 00:/ architecture makes a case for ‘massmicro architecture’, based on the idea that ‘1000 people with £1 is as good 1 person with £1000’94 adding that ‘it's just a structural problem of how we are going to re-change our procurement systems, our planning systems, and our urban economics around that idea.’95 Crowdfunding is based on this mass-micro principle, although its only recently been applied to architecture. Crowd-funding has its origins in the concept of crowd-sourcing, and is the application of this concept to the collection of funds through small contribution from many parties, typically via online platforms, in order to finance a particular project or venture. Numerous crowdfunding websites have been launched in the recent years including Kickstarter, Spacehive, and MakeArchitectureHappen which have been used to fund books, films, products, and now even architecture projects.

Kickstarter Kickstarter is a US-based crowdfunding platform launched in 2009. “People cannot invest in Kickstarter projects to make money. They can only back projects in exchange for a tangible reward or one-of-a-kind experience, like a personal note of thanks, custom T-shirts, dinner with an author, or initial production run of a new product.”

Spacehive Spacehive is a UK-based civic crowdfunding website, launched March 2012, “focuses solely on the built environment. It has successfully helped fund more than £1m of civic projects across the UK, the first of which was a £792,000 community centre in South Wales. Supported by the Big Lottery Fund, BITC and the BPF and co-designed by Deloitte, the social enterprise maximises funding sources by allowing cash raised through the site to be combined with grants and other funding streams.”

Make Architecture Happen Make Architecture Happen is a new US-based crowd-funding platform oﬃcially launched on April 30th 2014. It was set up s p e c i fi c a l l y f o r fi n a n c i n g architectural projects. So far only two projects have received any funding at all.

Case Study: The Luchtsingel (2003) The Luchtsingel (2003) by Architects, Zones Urbaines Sensibles, is a crowd-funded pedestrian footbridge in Rotterdam, and only the first part in a wider project named “I Make Rotterdam”. The crowd-funding model allows this improvement of the public realm to be financed directly by the public. The funding method for the bridge influenced its design: constructed with 17,000 wooden planks, each donor is entitled to have a message inscribed into the fabric of the bridge. This message can be advertising a business, a message to a loved one or simply their name, making this a truly public piece of the public realm.

Figure 6: Crowd-funded footbridge in Rotterdam.96

Crowd-funding is proving to be a practical and legitimate means by which the “unsolicited architect” can find both clients and funding to build meaningful architectural projects, as well as ensuring they receive payment for their hard work. The diﬀerence is that rather than being commissioned by a client and receiving a design fee from that client, they find and engage numerous clients in members of the general public and potential users of the finished project who are willing to put small amounts of money towards something they will also benefit from. The success of any crowd-funded campaign relies on their being suﬃcient demand for that particular project to be realised. Enough people have to have a stake in a project for it to come to fruition. With architecture this lends itself to community and civic projects where a large number of people have an interest in the development of their city or town, and that interest or stake may not be physical like with the Luchtsingel footbridge in Rotterdam, but could be financial like a pre-sold membership. And therefore, the method of funding directly influences the design.

However, in an article by David Hill on Online Architectural Database Architizer was titled “The Revolution Has Begun: How Kickstarter Is Changing Architecture”97 he explains that:

One drawback which prevents such “kickstarter urbanism” from taking oﬀ more is the way the (Kickstarter) platform constrains the design of the projects: construction elements are oﬀered as

rewards for the backers, who get to mark their contribution by having their name inscribed on the project itself. In response to this, other crowdfunding sites specifically tailored for designers have used diﬀerent models for raising money. Spacehive works by leveraging the interest of local people in an urban project, doing away with the rewards system in favour of the implicit reward of improved public space. But now, a new site called “Make Architecture Happen” is attempting to bridge the gap, providing a way to draw funds from a worldwide audience without compromising on design freedom.98

The key thing is that new forms of project funding such as crowdfunding can reduce the dependence of the architectural profession on traditional means of financing that involve credit, thereby increasing its resilience to global market fluctuations.

4.2 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS The new generation of practices discussed in chapter 2 recognise that the traditional financial model of a percentage of construction cost is ‘an antiquated fee structure that does little to justify the thinking and intelligence embedded in the architectural process’ and that new forms of architectural practice warrant reformed financials models. In this chapter, a number of alternative models have been identified including; (1) “sharing the value, not the cost” and the (2) “architect-as-developer” which seek to ensure that architect are rewarded for the value they directly create, (3) “design first and sell it later”, which changes when architects get paid (4) “consulting” which changes what architects are paid for, and (5) “crowdfunding” which is actually an alternative project funding structure.

CONCLUSION

The impact of the recent recession on the architectural profession was huge (with an unparalleled statistic for unemployment growth among architects of 800%) and yet while this sparked a great debate in architectural circles regarding the impotency of the profession and its dependancy on the market economy (as discussed in chapter one), the vast majority of architectural practices simply waited for things to pick up again and now seem to be proceeding with business as usual as if nothing ever happened, even though further economic recessions are inevitable.

A review of post-recession literature on the future of architectural practice however, has brought to light that a small, but growing sector of the profession, young architects in particular, have reacted and are now pioneering new forms of architectural practice, or “other ways of doing architecture” as described in Spatial Agency. In the majority of cases, this reaction was not merely due to a dissatisfaction with the status quo, but was rather a matter of survival for those who had been hit with unemployment, and for the small practices who found themselves commission-less. As Indira van’t Klooster pointed out in Reactivate, this gave rise to “a new generation of firms”, founded by some who utilised the down-time to rethink the future of the profession, and were inspired to invent new forms of practice (as discussed in chapter two) and adopt alternative financing models to support them (as discussed in chapter four). This new generation of architects are pioneers of notable and realistic alternatives to mainstream architectural practice, which are associated with at least one of the following terms; unsolicitedness, diversification, and open-source. Unsolicitedness marks a change to the approach of procuring work, diversification marks an expansion of the role of the architect, and the open-source idea marks a fundamental shift in how architects relate to both each other and their clientele.

(1) Unsolicitedness The concept of “Unsolicited Architecture” is one that could profoundly change the relationship of the architect to society, with a shift from a primarily service-oriented role to a more entrepreneurial role. The “traditional architect” is on the one hand committed to providing a service and to carrying out the will of a client, and on the other hand still attempts to deliver architecture that serves the whole of society. The twofold nature of his aspirations are often contradictory. The “unsolicited architect” resolves these contradictions by; becoming his own client, setting his own “socially motivated” agenda (assuming he has the same social consciousness as the traditional architect), and initiating and developing his own projects which tackle the big issues facing the society of the day. While not all architects will be willing to take on the risks involved with unsolicitedness, those who do take on this more pro-active and entrepreneurial role, will be far better placed to make significant, positive contributions to society and to be the true custodians of the built environment. In this sense the “unsolicited architect” is very similar to the “transformative agent”, as promoted by the authors of Spatial Agency, who acts within and on behalf of society, negotiating existing conditions in order to partially reform them. The assumption is that the rise of this new type of

architect will equate to more socially conscious architecture and could simultaneously see him regain the sort of standing in society that the “traditional architect” formerly possessed and boasted of.

(2) Diversification An alternative to unsolicitedness, which is a shift to the approach of procuring work, is diversification, which is a shift in the type of work architects are involved with. While architects had begun to diversify long before the recent economic crisis due to the threat of marginalisation (getting involved with things such as urban planning, landscape architecture, and interior design), it was while the construction industry was in deep hibernation during the recent recession, that architects started to look for other ways of deploying the capital of their minds, or rather their ability to think strategically, in fields beyond building, or outside ‘the edge marked architecture’ as Rory Hyde puts it in Future Practice. In a very real sense, architects without work were forced to diversify in order to find work. However, interestingly all four of the key texts discussed in chapter two identified diversification as an opportunity, rather than as the negative result of marginalisation and a lack of work. Spatial Agency and Future Practice in particular, call for the profession to embrace this sort of change, arguing that diversification should not be seen as a defensive move, but rather as something that will liberate the architect and expand his role and the scope of its impact. The association of architects with buildings was seen as something that limits the architect’s field of work, and both texts argue that architects are well positioned to deploy their architectural intelligence in other expansive fields beyond building.

This move towards diversification has given rise to a number of new multi-disciplinary practices, such as 00:/ architecture, who engage a diverse range of skill sets, from coders to economists and anthropologists, in addition to architects. While some within the profession warn that diversification will only dilute the profession, the advantages of multi-disciplinarity is that while specialised practices are like “hammers that can only see nails”99, multi-disciplinary practices have a range of tools at their disposal and the expertise to use them, and are therefore better equipped to address the needs of society than the traditional architectural practice who can only prescribe buildings to solve societal issues. To summarise, architects possess a particular kind of intelligence, an ability to think strategically, that means that they don’t, as it turns out, have to be restricted to employing that intelligence merely to the design of buildings. Even this realisation liberates the architect and unleashes a latent power to contribute more. With regards to resilience in the face of future recessions, multi-disciplinary practices will be far better off than traditional practices, due to the diversity of their work and a proportionately looser connection with the construction industry. Furthermore, these practices may in fact have more clients coming to them in times of economic hardship, due to the strategic thinking they offer as a consultancy, and the solutions that they are known for which don’t necessarily have to involve physical buildings. After all, ‘buildings are about the most expensive solution to any given problem’100. Hence, this is the key thing that differentiates this new type of practice, specifically that they are committed to offering their clients the right solution rather than merely the one that they are predisposed to provide.

(3) Open-source The open-source movement has already revolutionised other fields and is beginning to make an impact in the field of architecture. Like unsolicitedness and diversification, it too could expand the role of the architect by opening up new opportunities, but at the same time it also fundamentally challenges the exclusivity of the practice of architecture since it’s a system that empowers the amateur. The hallmarks of the opensource idea when applied to architecture include; (1) sharing, making designs available to all, (2) accessibility, making design itself available to all, since anyone can participate, (3) collaboration, fuelled by the exchange of ideas and peer review, (4) constant growth and improvement, because those who participate don’t reinvent the wheel every time, but rather “stand on the shoulders” of those who went before them, using, modifying, and customising existing designs, and (5) community, upon which all of the above depends. In other words, the open-source approach to architecture will produce a “commonwealth" of ideas. The development of an truly open-source architectural community would not be limited, for example, to RIBA members, or even architects globally, but would be open to all, professionals and amateurs (including students) alike, and could work both locally and globally. This community, most probably online, would function like a “bazaar” for all things related to architecture. It would be a place where architectural designs are shared and globally reviewed, which can then be recycled and repurposed, or simply reused. This would give rise to a “learning organisation”, where participants can learn from one another, and ultimately improve the quality of architectural output. For architects, sharing their designs online would not be altruism as such since they would typically have already been paid to produced those designs. Furthermore, the development of an open-source platform on which designs are shared may in fact create new roles for architects as advisors and implementors of both their designs and the designs of others. While many will have genuine and serious concerns about “going open-source” such as; copyright infringement and increased competition, it’s a movement that has already positively revolutionised other fields and could do the same for architecture.

A significant example of something along the lines discussed above is WikiHouse, an open-source construction system which is ‘being developed collaboratively by a growing community of individuals and teams around the world’101. During the writing of this dissertation, the design for a “garden” studio has been released which can be bought for £15,500 as a built and finished product. Alternatively the design can be downloaded for free, allowing anyone to produce the product or a modified variation themselves. WikiHouse 4.0, a two-story house has also recently been prototyped and displayed at the London Design Festival, and in the not too distant future, could well be available to buy for only £50,000 or once again to be “downloaded” for free. While genuinely exciting, the specific method of construction or rather manufacture of CNC milled parts, as employed by WikiHouse, perhaps limits its application. However development of other forms of digital manufacturing associated with the “new industrial revolution” such as 3D printing could push this model further. Alistair Parvin, co-founder of WikiHouse said that while WikiHouse itself is ‘still a small experiment, the bigger picture behind the project has the potential to disrupt the way we make housing and cities’. In the future we could see a “wikipedia for stuﬀ” which is made possible by the dual combination of (1) advances in digital manufacturing and (2) a wider application of the open-source idea to

hardware. Open-source architecture, at present in it’s infancy, represents a new future for the profession that fully takes advantage of the social implications of the digital age for the practice of architecture, for it fundamentally changes how architects relate to one another and to the wider world. It is precisely for that reason that it has the greatest potential to revolutionise architectural practice.

Summary As already mentioned, the architects practicing architecture according to one of the above categories currently only represent a small segment of the profession, but they can be said to represent a trend within the profession toward these alternatives, hence the proportion of architects practicing unsolicitedness, diversification, and open-source architecture is likely to grow. Perhaps in the future there will be two (or more) kinds of architect, with the latter being a more evolved form(s) of the former. On the one hand, there may always be the “traditional architect”, but more and more young architects and new architectural graduates in particular may choose (as some already have) to occupy a new type of role; perhaps referred to as "transformative agency” or “civic entrepreneurship”. This may lead to a further fragmentation of the profession, with a variety of quite diﬀerent professionals all practicing their own form of architecture, but this should not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. On the question of resilience which this paper set out to address, this new generation of practitioners are far better placed to navigate and negotiate future economic downturns because many of them were born out of the most recent one. They have new financial models that support forms of practice which are not as closely tied to the market as those traditionally adopted, and therefore have the potential not only to shape their own futures, but also to pioneer the future of architectural practice.

REFERENCES Jeremy Till and others, Spatial Agency: Other ways of doing architecture (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011), p.28. 1

Cliﬀord A. Pearson, ’What Now? Architecture at a crossroads’, in Architectural Record (January 2011), 51-60 (p.54). 2

Till and others, p.28.

Eric J. Cesal, Down Detour Road: an architect in search of practice (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2010), p.13. 4

RIBA, The RIBA Business Benchmarking Survey: Answering the questions every practice should be asking, (London: RIBA, 2014) pp.4-6. 5

Architizer, Architecture + Economic Crisis: Designers Get Creative During Cash-Strapped Times, (2012) <http://architizer.com/blog/cash-strapped-architects-get-creative-architecture-economic-crisis> (accessed 25 July 2014) 6

Hans Lbelings and the Powerhouse Company, SHIFTS: Architecture after the 20th century (Amsterdam: The Architecture Observer, 2012), pp.12-13. 7

Hans Lbelings and the Powerhouse Company, Back Cover.

Alastair Parvin, Challenging the profession: revolution, reform, relevance, (2012) <http://archive.org/details/ Acn_11.04.12_architectureSansFrontieres_expandingArchitecture-operating> (accessed 1 March 2014) 9

Till and others, p.28.

Rory Hyde, Future Practice: Conversations from the edge of Architecture (New York: Routledge, 2012), Introduction. 11

H2G2, Evolution or Extinction? - The Future of Architects (2000) <http://h2g2.com/entry/A472394> (accessed 25 July 2014) 12

Ibid.

Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2013).

Peter Bachanan, The Big Rethink Part 1: Towards a complete architecture, The Architecture Review, December 2011. < http://www.architectural-review.com/the-big-rethink/the-big-rethinktowards-a-

complete-architecture/8624049.article> (accessed 28 July 2014) Indira van ’t Klooster, REACTIVATE: Innovators of Dutch Architecture (Netherlands: Trancity*Valiz, 2013) p. 33. 16

Ibid., p.11.

Ibid., p.223.

Building Futures, The Future for Architects? (2011) <http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/buildingfutures/the-future-for-architects/the-future-for-architects-report> (accessed 25 July 2014) p.6 20

Till and others, p. 30.

Till and others, introduction.

Till and others, p. 28.

Rory Hyde, Future Practice: Conversations from the edge of Architecture (New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 20. 24

Hyde, p.20.

Building Futures, p.6.

Hyde, p. 23.

Alistair Parvin, Architecture for the people by the people, 2013, <http://www.ted.com/talks/ alastair_parvin_architecture_for_the_people_by_the_people/transcript?language=en#t-213480> (accessed 7 January 2015) 30

Ibid.

Ole Bouman, ‘Unsolicited, or: The New Autonomy of Architecture’, in Volume #4, 14 (2007). p.26.

Bouman, p.34.

Till and others. p.28.

Hyde, pp.126. In the introduction to an interview with Matt Webb of BERG (British Experimental Rocket Group). 35

What is open source?, <http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source> (accessed 25 July 2014)

Alistair Parvin, ‘The Architecture of Transgression AD’, in Architectural Design, Volume. 86, Issue. 6 (Nov 2013), 90-95 (p.95) 37

Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, O’Reilly Mdeia, Inc., (1999), quoted in A communism of Ideas: Towards an open-source architectural practice, Archis, No.3 (2003) <http://www.catb.org/esr/ writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/> (accessed 15 July 2014) 38

Nicolas Bourriaud , Postproduction, Culture as Screenplay: How Art Reprograms The World, (New York: Lukas & Sternberg, 2005), p22-23 quoted in A communism of Ideas: Towards an open-source architectural practice, Archis No.3 (2003) <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/> (accessed 15 July 2014) 39

Dennis Kaspori, A communism of Ideas: Towards an open-source architectural practice, Archis No.3 (2003) <http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/> (accessed 15 July 2014) 40

41Jeﬀ

Campagna, ‘We’re talking to WikiHouse pioneer Alastair Parvin, (2013) <http://arcfinity.tumblr.com/ post/54501120742/were-talking-to-wikihouse-pioneer-alastair-parvin> (accessed 25 July 2014) 42

Parvin, ‘The Architecture of Transgression AD’, p. 95.

Ibid.

Parvin, Challenging the profession: revolution, reform, relevance.

Hans Lbelings and the Powerhouse Company, p. 40.

Alistair Parvin, in video about WikiHouse <http://vimeo.com/52383144> (accessed 8 January 2015)

Ibid.

Chris Anderson, Makers: the new industrial revolution (London: Random House Business Books, 2013)

RIBA, RIBA Business Benchmarking 2012/2013 Executive Summary, (2013) <http:// w w w. a r c h i t e c t u r e . c o m / F i l e s / R I B A P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s / P r a c t i c e / B e n c h m a r k i n g / RIBABusinessBenchmarkingExecutiveSummary201213> (accessed 7 January 2015) Urban Clinique, Archinomics: When architecture meets economics, (2012) <http:// urbanclinique.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/archinomics-when-architecture-meets-economics/> (accessed 25 July 2014) 50

JeďŹ&#x20AC;eriss Matthews OBE (in an address to the RIBA Conference, 1956), quoted by Eric Loe of RIBA Future Studies, The Value of Architecture; Context and Current Thinking (London: RIBA, 2000) 51

Hans Lbelings and the Powerhouse Company, p. 40.

Cesal, pp.11-12

Ibid., pp.11-12.

Hans Lbelings and the Powerhouse Company, p. 5.

Jeremy Till, Architecture Depends, p.1.

Ibid., p.1.

Hans Lbelings and the Powerhouse Company, p. 57.

Hans Lbelings and the Powerhouse Company, p. 55.

Till and others, introduction.

Cesal, p. 70.

Ibid., p. 70.

Hyde, pp. 48-49.

Alistair Parvin, TED: Architecture for the people by the people, transcription from Public Interest Design (2013) <http://www.publicinterestdesign.org/tag/alastair-parvin/> (accessed 25 July 2014) 66

Hyde, pp. 48-49.

RIBA, The RIBA Business Benchmarking Survey, pp.4-6.

Max Thompson, New survey: Architects are not business savvy, in Architects Journal (2014)

RIBA, The RIBA Business Benchmarking Survey, pp.4-6.

Hyde, p. 58.

Building Futures, p. 32.

Cesal. p.140.

Bouman, p.34.

Cesal, p. 151.

Bouman, p.34.

Ibid., p.34.

Cesal, p. 151.

Ibid., p.139.

Ibid. p.140.

Klooster, p.117.

Ibid., p.117.

Architect as Developer, <https://www.architectasdeveloper.com> (accessed 31 August 2014)

Crains New York Business, <http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20131201/REAL_ESTATE/312019985/ architects-as-developers> (accessed 31 August 2014) 85

Archinect, <http://archinect.com/forum/thread/53912903/architect-developer-a-partnership> (accessed 31 August 2014) 86

Bouman, p.34.

Ibid., p.34.

Klooster, p.98.

Parvin, Challenging the profession: revolution, reform, relevance.

Building Futures, p.32.

Bouman, p.30.

Ibid., p.30.

Parvin, Challenging the profession: revolution, reform, relevance.

Ibid.

ArchDaily, Luchtsingel / ZUS + Hofbogen BV, (2013) <http://www.archdaily.com/346241/luchtsingel-zushofbogen-bv/> (accesses 25 July 2013) 96

David Hill, The Revolution Has Begun: How Kickstarter Is Changing Architecture, (2012), <http:// www.architizer.com/blog/the-revolution-has-begun-how-kickstarter-is-changing-architecture/> (accessed 25 July 2014) 97

Ibid.

Hyde, p. 23.

100

WikiHouse community page < http://www.wikihouse.cc/community> (Accessed 30.12.14)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Chris, Makers: the new industrial revolution (London: Random House Business Books, 2013)

ArchDaily, ‘Luchtsingel / ZUS + Hofbogen BV’, on ArchDaily(2013) <http://www.archdaily.com/346241/ luchtsingel-zus-hofbogen-bv/> (accesses 25 July 2013)

Bachanan, Peter, The Big Rethink Part 1: Towards a complete architecture, The Architecture Review, December 2011. < http://www.architectural-review.com/the-big-rethink/the-big-rethinktowards-a-completearchitecture/8624049.article> (accessed 28 July 2014)

Bourriaud, Nicolas, Postproduction, Culture as Screenplay: How Art Reprograms The World (New York: Lukas & Sternberg, 2005)

Building Futures (RIBA think tank), The Future for Architects? (2011)

Campagna, Jeﬀ, ’We’re talking to WikiHouse pioneer Alastair Parvin, (2013) <http://arcfinity.tumblr.com/ post/54501120742/were-talking-to-wikihouse-pioneer-alastair-parvin> (accessed 25 July 2014)

Cesal, Eric J., Down Detour Road: an architect in the search of practice (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2010)

Egan, Sir John, Rethinking Construction (Construction Task Force, 1998)

H2G2, Evolution or Extinction? - The Future of Architects (2000) <http://h2g2.com/entry/A472394> (accessed 25 July 2014)

Hill, David, The Revolution Has Begun: How Kickstarter Is Changing Architecture, (2012), on Architizer <http://www.architizer.com/blog/the-revolution-has-begun-how-kickstarter-is-changing-architecture/> (accessed 25 July 2014)

Hyde, Rory, Future Practice: Conversations from the edge of architecture (New York: Routledge, 2012)

Kaspori, Dennis, ‘A communism of Ideas: Towards an open-source architectural practice’, Archis No.3 (2003)

Klooster, Indira van’t, REACTIVATE! Innovators of Dutch Architecture (Netherlands: Trancity*Valiz, 2013)

Lbelings, Hans (and the Powerhouse Company), SHIFTS: Architecture after the 20th century (Amsterdam: The Architecture Observer, 2012)

Loe, Eric, ‘The Value of Architecture; Context and Current Thinking’, RIBA Future Studies, (London: RIBA, 2000)

McKnight, Jenna M., ‘Architects as developers’, Crains New York Business, <http:// www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20131201/REAL_ESTATE/312019985/architects-as-developers> (accessed 31 August 2014)

Ole Bouman, ‘Unsolicited Architecture’, in Volume #4, 14 (2007).

Pearson, Cliﬀord A., ‘What Now? Architecture at a crossroads’ in Architectural Record (January 2011)

Parvin, Alistair, ‘The Architecture of Transgression AD’, in Architectural Design, Volume. 86, Issue. 6 (Nov 2013)

Parvin, Alistair, Architecture for the people by the people, (2013) <http://www.ted.com/talks/ alastair_parvin_architecture_for_the_people_by_the_people/transcript?language=en#t-213480> (accessed 7 January 2015) Parvin, Alastair, Challenging the profession: revolution, reform, relevance, (2012) <http://archive.org/ details/Acn_11.04.12_architectureSansFrontieres_expandingArchitecture-operating> (accessed 1 March 2014)

Rahmadian, Eko, Archinomics: When architecture meets economics, (2012) <http:// urbanclinique.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/archinomics-when-architecture-meets-economics/> (accessed 25 July 2014)

Raymond, Eric S., The Cathedral and the Bazaar, (O’Reilly Mdeia, Inc., 1999)

RIBA, The RIBA Business Benchmarking 2012/2013 Executive Summary, (London: RIBA, 2013) RIBA, The RIBA Business Benchmarking Survey: Answering the questions every practice should be asking, (London: RIBA, 2014)

Segal F.A.I.A, Jonathan, Architect as Developer, <https://www.architectasdeveloper.com> (accessed 31 August 2014)

Thompson, Max, New survey: Architects are not business savvy, in Architects Journal (2014)

Till, Jeremy, Architecture Depends (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2013)

Till, Jeremy (and Tatjana Schneider and Nishat Awan), Spatial Agency: Others ways of doing architecture (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011)

opensource.com, What is open source?, <http://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source> (accessed 25 July 2014)

Wikemoo, on Discussion Forum titled ‘Architect + Developer: A Partnership’, on Archinect <http:// archinect.com/forum/thread/53912903/architect-developer-a-partnership> (accessed 31 August 2014)

WikiHouse, ‘WikiHouse Community’ < http://www.wikihouse.cc/community> (Accessed 30.12.14)

KEY THINKERS Jeremy Till Jeremy Till (1957) is a British architect, educator, and writer. He is currently Head of Central Saint Martins and Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Arts London. Formerly taught at Kingston Polytechnic, Bartlett (UCL), University of Sheﬃeld, and University of Westminster. His published books include; Architecture Depends, Flexible Housing, and Spatial Agency.

Rory Hyde Rory Hyde is a practicing architect working across research, publishing, broadcasting, curation and building. He completed a PhD on emerging models of practice enabled by new technologies at RMIT University of Melbourne. He is the author of Future Practice: Conversations from the Edge of Architecture.

Building Futures Building Futures is an RIBA think tank, and was established to create space for discussion about the needs of society from our built environment, and consequently, the build environment professions in 20 years and beyond. They published, “The Future for Architect?” report in 2011.

Indira van 't Klooster Indira van 't Klooster (1971) is editor-in-chief of A10 new European architecture. In May 2013, she launched her book, Reactivate! Innovators of Dutch Architecture, about how Dutch architects are stretching the boundaries of the profession in times of change.

Ole Bouman Ole Bouman is currently Creative Director as the Shenzhen Biennale for Architecture and Urbanism, and was formerly director of the Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAi), and Editor-in-Chief of Volume magazine.

00:/ Architecture 00:/ is a London based strategy & design co-operative founded in 2005 in London by British architects Indy Johar and David Saxby. he practice engages a diverse range of skill sets - from economists and anthropologists to coders and architects.

David Saxby David Saxby is a co-founder of 00:/ architecture, a qualified architect with experience in designing and delivering a wide range of sustainable building projects in the UK. Saxby is a co-author of “A Right to Build: The Next Mass House-Building Industry’, and is also a regular columnist for the RIBA Journal.

Inderpaul Johar Inderpaul Johar is a co-founder of 00:/ architecture, a qualified architect and regeneration consultant with a particular experience in socially driven sustainability. Johar is also director of the global Hub network. Coauthor of “Compendium for the Civic Economy”.

Alastair Parvin Alastair Parvin is a member of 00:/ architecture, co-founder of WikiHouse, co-author of “A Right to Build: The Next Mass House-Building Industry” and “The Profit Function”, co-editor of Makeshift. He is currently working on a research collaboration between 00:/ and University of Sheﬃeld School of Architecture, investigating the potential of user-provided housing as a scaleable housing model.