Divide – and fall

The damaging schism between concept and detail can be overcome, argues Rab Bennetts

God is in the details – the canonical phrase attributed to Mies van der Rohe of course – symbolised both the refinement of modernism and the presumption that the architect was, ipso facto, in control of both concept and detail.

Despite the reductivist tendencies of modernism, the evidence of richness was to be found in its details; indeed, the poetry of modern architecture depended on the craft and rigour of good detailing as, without it, the results could be barren. Depth of experience in construction and materials was required in support of conceptual clarity, thereby extending the centuries-old role of the master-builder. Moreover, the details in which God was to be found extended well beyond the shell of the building to the structure, lighting, furniture, art and by implication the way of life.
The engineer Ove Arup used the term ‘total design’ to embrace a multi-disciplinary version of the same idea, recognising that architects were never able to work in isolation and that design never stops, from the initial sketch to the details or from choosing a contractor to checking quality on site. The notion that the concept of a building could be separated from its detail was and is an anathema; yet that is what appears to be happening today.

The origins of this problem are not hard to trace, but few architects, let alone students of architecture who are entitled to retain an idealistic view, are aware that it is happening.

Losing ground
It could be argued that architects’ inability to recognise the importance of teamwork led directly to the litany of cost over-runs, late completions and technical problems that undermined the profession’s historic status. As a graduate of the late 70s, I entered an architectural world that had already begun to change, so I didn’t need persuading that a more collaborative approach was essential. 

It seems to me, though, that during this same period only a minority of architects have embraced the need for greater integration with the industry at large and, among contractors, the perception remains that architects are remote and self-absorbed. The government was so disenchanted with the conduct of the industry that it concluded in the 1990s that contractors should take the lead on design.

Putting aside the dire consequences of recession, this pendulum has swung at exactly the same moment that ‘design’ in its broadest sense has acquired greater prominence, especially for buildings in the public sector. With contractors or PFI consortia now in the driving seat, the logic is simple; appoint a world-class concept architect to wow the planners, but get someone sensible to execute the details. That is why we now see such bizarre contractor-led shortlists with globally famous architects, or young, ‘rising-star’ architects teamed up with commercially-driven executive architects. The risk of leaving the production to a design-led architect has become too great for many of those who commission important buildings.

Broken integrity
Put simply, what is now happening on quite a broad front indicates that architects who are recognised for their design skills will be used for concepts only, with second tier firms drafted in to carry out the bulk of the work. For project after project, I am now having to resist this division of labour not just because of the loss of income (which is reason enough) but because it undermines the principle of design integrity that has been the basis of so much of my firm’s work. The feedback suggests that our deep-seated interest in delivery is a rarity.

Contractors are also seeing the opportunity to dictate how buildings should be built more profitably, hiring their own in-house detailing teams and impressing clients with ‘standard’ forms of lower-cost construction. This loss of control over the detailed design and implementation is the long-term price of the architect’s inability to give delivery skills equal importance to those of design itself.

Then there are the architects themselves who, on the one hand, voluntarily link up with an ‘executive’ firm that is better able to churn out the production information and, on the other, set up their businesses as detailing houses aiming at turnover rather than their own architectural excellence. 

The net result of this is that, in the UK today, there is a rapidly increasing tendency to separate the concept from the detail, a divorce that leads in precisely the opposite direction to architectural integrity.

Surface fashions
There is another correspondence of events fuelling the exodus, which is the fascination among architects with surface and the fashion for arbitrary shapes that have little to do with the interior anatomy of the architecture. Is this cause or effect? Has the current generation of architects lost interest in integrity as a principle or has it simply been removed from our sphere of influence?

As can be seen in some other countries, deskilling and the separation of concept from detail lead to superficiality on a grand scale. There are many in the UK construction and property industries who would willingly go the same way, so what is the solution for architects who are unwilling to give up on cherished principles?

The main issue is to re-establish the importance of detail and production as the means of retaining the intellectual link between concept and implementation, as failure to do so will ensure their eventual separation. This is not a case of restraining artistic ambition or intellect, but it does represent a reaffirmation of craft over style and of well-built buildings over superficiality.

The creative architect needs to be the orchestrator, collaborating with like-minded colleagues within the same team, if integrity is to be secured. It will be interesting to see what shape of profession emerges from the depths of recession. If God is still in the details, will it be a religion of convenience or conviction?

Rab Bennetts is director of Bennetts Associates