Around the Table

8

Vo

lum

e 1

4Ill

ustr

atio

n b

y B

OEM

Around the table

V14_FINAL.qxd:Opmaak 1 12-12-2007 12:35 Pagina 8

Practitioners and Practice A Reality CheckVolume sat down with several specialists in architecture and construction to discussthe state of the art of architecture and options for improvement. Each participantsees a different role and responsibility for architects compared to a few decades ago.There is less consonance of outlook, but these experts all agree on the need for a change in the current building process.

Our first guest speaker is architect Matthijs Bouw, founder and director of OneArchitecture. Bouw’s practice is pragmatic yet engaged. His strategy is to rescuearchitecture (and the architect) from irrelevancy by creating a margin for interventionand action; he uses this strategy to engage the building process at a very early stage,when major decisions still have to be made.

Our second guest, Hugo Priemus, former Dean of the Faculty of Technology,Policy and Management at the TU Delft, champions a more exploratory role for thearchitect in order to lay bare options and identify possibilities. With years of experiencein the field, his argument for new challenges for architects are enmeshed withhistorical analyses.

Not surprisingly, according to building process manager Dik Smits the issue is not so much one of a new practice of architecture or a shift in architectural focus, butthe clarification of responsibilities and relations in the current building process. Smits’argument is quite provocative as he believes it is a matter of making the architectdirectly responsible for the consequences of his ideas and decisions instead of givinghim more responsibility.

Volume’s fourth interviewee, cultural economist Arjo Klamer advocates advancingthe organization of our economy, in effect creating a new paradigm, a change in ourvaluation of capital formation in terms of cultural and social capital. This, Klamer argues,would dramatically change the architect’s position in the building process.

The ‘urban landscape’ architects from the burgeoning office ZUS, Kristian Koremanand Elma van Boxel, practice unsolicited architecture which includes politicaldimensions lost since the late 1970s. These Rotterdam-Maaskant Award winnerspromote the independence of their day-to-day design practice.

Allow us to introduce five takes from current reality on the future of architectural practice.

9

Vo

lum

e 1

4


10

Vo

lum

e 1

4

Architect – Matthijs BouwThe architect must play the game called architectureon the chessboard that matters, the project devel -oper’s, for example. Matthijs Bouw on risk reduction,investment space and lobbying politicians.

Edwin Gardner What is the difference betweenOne Architecture and other architectural firms?

Matthijs Bouw We are concerned with the followingquestion: How can you create space for an architecturalpractice that is more comprehensive, a practice thatenlarges the field of play for architecture? I believe,there are three ways of doing this within architecturalpractice. The most eye-catching is what you can callthe ‘signature practice’. These are architects who havea characteristic handwriting in their designs, and areinvited for assignments on the basis of their signature.This gives them more scope to conduct their practice.

Second, there are the extra-large firms. Thanks to theirformat, they have all kinds of expertise and can createmore operational space. Finally there is consultancy.This architectural practice enlarges its field of play byintervening in the building process at a different moment,namely during the formation of the first ideas and theformulation of a scenario or assignment. The focus in this approach is on the conditions and potential, andin fact you are working on the question of where thedemand for architecture comes from.

EG How do you enlarge the field of play for architecture?

MB The Geertruidentuin project in Deventer is a goodexample of how we work. The old site of the DeventerHospital had to be developed because the hospitalmoved to a new location. We then talked to the directorsof the Deventer Hospital to develop a plan and a salesstrategy for the site in a new way. The concept was to

formulate a high quality urban plan fast while still givingspace to the developers to do their thing. Our urbanproposal leaves the old hospital building intact, exceptfor the demolition of a wing that had been added later. Theold brick building, consisting of a courtyard with wings,dates from the 1930s. As such, they are in harmonywith the rest of the residential neighborhood. We planneda repetition of this typology on the site to accommodatethe new housing program. The site was subsequentlyauctioned with a zoning plan and a visual quality plan inplace. The zoning plan describes the building envelopesin detail, but also gives margins for phasing and housingdifferentiation. The extensive visual quality plan was drawnup on the basis of historical research. One of the aspectsthat this touched on was the question of how to handlethe ways in which the building volumes are connected.

EG To what extent do you do the work of a developer?

MB Whether we have encroached upon the developer’s

terrain depends on your perspective. We drew up aplan that a developer would never make. The developerwould probably have preferred to demolish all thebuildings and then to divide up the site into extremelycompact plots and to build 1930s-style villas, becausethey sell the best. So with our plan the total financialyield of the project was lower by comparison with theapproach of a regular project developer. If there wasany encroachment, it was in the fact that we solved agood many problems in consultation with the hospital,the neighborhood and the municipality that wouldnormally be the responsibility of a developer.

A developer normally buys strategic land. A largenumber of risks are tied to a purchase of that kind. Forexample, the zoning plan is not yet what is will have to be (in our case the function was still that of a hospital)and it may be necessary to carry out some demolitionwork. This can lead to unpleasant surprises like asbestos.

Total yield traditional method

Total yield new method

Risk development traditional methodRisk development new method

Traditionally

Newproject developerDeventer Hospital

Lower yields caused by investment in quality

Extra limitation of risks through investing in quality

Time (years)

yieldestate owner

yieldestate owner

?

project developer

Dia

gra

m b

y M

atth

ijs B

ouw


The more risks there are, the less a developer will beprepared to pay for a piece of land.

Together with the hospital, local residents and the local authority, we soon came to an agreement andplan that met with the approval of all parties. This meantthat the change of the zoning plan could be dealt withquickly. Since we had removed many risks, the hospitalwas able to sell its land for a much higher price. Eventhough the total yield was lower, the hospital mademore money. One could say that part of the value ofthe site was invested on the site, and part went into the hospital fund.

Arjen Oosterman How do you prevent the project developer from still trying to implement his own plans?

MB In theory they can still do that, as the auction hadfew conditions. We did lay down, however, that rightfrom day one the other parts of the hospital had to bedemolished. Besides the other plan documents, this is abuilt-in guarantee that developers will implement the planin accordance with the framework laid down by us,because they have to invest from the start, and drawingup a new plan, and getting this approved, would simplytake too much time, with the interest meter running. For a project developer assumes an enormous risk if hedecides to alter a zoning plan that has only just beenaltered. It hardly pays off, precisely because he hasinitially already had to pay a good deal more for the land.Within the framework that we laid down, however, thereis still plenty of freedom for developers. The freedom liesin the housing differentiation, marketing, program ming,breakdown into stages, and building sequence.

EG Do you also have examples from yourpractice in countries where the regulations are not so sharply defined?

MB We came into contact with the biggest projectdeveloper in Georgia; the largest local bank is alliedwith him, as well as the largest exporting corporation,Borjomi. He commissioned us to make a design for abuilding complex in the centre of Tbilisi. It was to havea FAR1 of 8. After carrying out studies, our reaction wasthat it would be completely irresponsible to build withthat density on that location. In our view, the maximalFAR was four. We bounced the ball back to the clientby telling him that he should develop the different plotsof land that he owned in the centre of Tbilisi with acoherent urban development vision, because the cityruns the risk of becoming an unattractive area where noone wants to be. This is not in the interests of our clients,because they are in Tbilisi for the long term. On thebasis of this criticism, we were commissioned todevelop a master plan for a larger area. This unsolicitedcriticism enabled us to redefine the assignment.

Besides, we also went further. In Tiblisi there is an enormous influx of venture capitalists who throwthemselves en masse upon real estate. This has led to uncontrolled proliferation in the city. It is a totallyirresponsible development without any quality. To chartthis development and to make people aware of theimminent plans, we created the New Map of Tiblisi(by analogy with the New Map of the Netherlands)showing all of the plans for new buildings. So it wasunsolicited in the hope of activating the local middlemanagement.

1 Floor Area Ratio indicates the amount of square meters allowed on the site.

Building Manager –Dik Smits A contract does not promise ‘this is what we’ll get’,rather ‘this is what we shall aim for.’ Dik Smits on theresponsibility of the architect and his performanceas member of a building team.

Edwin Gardner Is unsolicited architecture aninteresting development?

Dik Smits It’s great that architects are working like this with this segment of the market, but presenting an urban development vision out of the blue to a localauthority is a risky business. There’s a 50% chance thatyou will hardly get paid anything. Such a consultancy-style practice is very dangerous. Architects lack the tools to be able to operate in that field. It’s truethat architects have to become more enterprising. They often think that it’s enough to be registered as architects.

EG How do you think the building market isfunctioning at the moment?

DS The market contains built-in patterns, prejudices.The contractor is convinced that the architect has onlyone thing in mind: building a monument for himself. It is supposed that the architect has not the slightestinterest in whether it is possible at all or how much it will cost. The regulation on architects’ fees [in theNetherlands] as a percentage of the total buildingcosts confirms this picture. This is one side of the coin.The other is that the architect is convinced that, inattempting to maximize profits, the contractor will doeverything within his power to torpedo the architect’sdesign. Moreover, in that case the contractor would let the client share in the resulting benefits of thosecuts. If this is how you operate in your profession, youwon’t make it. You become the consultant who is busygenerating work for himself. The assignment for aconsultant should be to make himself redundant asquickly as possible.

EG Why should the architect make himselfredundant?

DS As client, you want advice at the lowest possiblecost. At the moment an advice includes the recom -mendation to obtain a second advice (from the sameadviser), you’re involved with the wrong party. Of courseI also ask specialists for their advice because someaspects go beyond the capacities of a general buildingmanager. Then I break the problem down into stages.Each stage can mean a change of direction.

I will never allow an architect to force a contracton my client in which he lays down the entire process.I’m quite prepared to recognize the interests of thearchi tect during the whole process or to organize theprocess in a different way. In practice you often see the architect intervene in the process and organize it in such a way that he can secure his own position in the building pro ject. Then you are no longer acting as an entre preneur. As a good entrepreneur you try to deliver the best product at the lowest cost, but notthe lowest price.

EG Is there something wrong with the team spiritin a building team?

DS The term ‘building team’ isn’t all that it sounds. It is above all an agreement between the client and the contractor. The building team is repre sented by the11

Vo

lum

e 1

4


Vo

lum

e 1

4

12

well-known triangle: client, contractor and consultants(including the architect). There are contractual relations(and an exchange of information) between theconsultants and the client, just as there are betweenthe contractor and the client. But between thecontractor and the consultants there is only a flow ofinformation, not a contractual relation. In combination,this triangle delivers the product, namely the building.Within that building team, the client is represented bythe architect, so the latter is in fact his own consultantat that moment.

The underlying idea in the triangle is the divisionof responsibilities. The client is responsible for the designand the contractor for its implementation. The skill ofthe consultants is the responsibility of the client, so it is the client who runs the design risks. It often happens,however, that, because he is also a member of theteam, joins in team discussions and thinks he has aclear picture of the entire process, the contractor takes

over the design risks, even though he has had hardlyany influence on them.

I draw up a different building team agreement for the building projects that I manage. This agreementregulates the relations between all of the partiesinvolved. The client is the one who takes the decisions,unless he chooses to be represented by a buildingmanager. The contractual agreements with the clientare the same as in the case of the classic building team.The building team agreement, however, is different; theresponsibilities of all of the members of the buildingteam are laid down in contracts between the membersof the building team. In addition there is a frameworkagreement which contains nothing but the determinationof the pricing. For instance, by dividing the buildingproject up into several smaller sub-contracting agree -ments, it becomes possible to drive in the piles beforethe design has become definitive.

EG So you are in constant dialogue with thisgroup of people throughout the entire process?

DS Yes, every traditional building meeting brings tolight that the wrong decisions are taken with respect to all kinds of components of the building process. This can cause delays. In my arrangement, you take thedecisions at the moment that the decision has to betaken in connection with the implementation. Since thedecision is taken at the last moment, you know that it is the right decision and there can be no turning back.

EG How can architectural practice benefit from a method like this?

DS The architect must realize that he has limitations in relation to the assignment. An architect can certainlybelong to a particular school, or not want to designgabled roofs, but it is completely up to the market whohis partners will be. In the new system that I propose,you have more control of which figures come to sitaround the table. So you carry out a selection procedure

to see whether the people are right for the assignmentin question and for each other. This is above all aquestion of sensitivity, reading between the lines, andgrasping how people work.

The attractive thing in this new configuration is thatthe architect need not concern himself with implemen -tation. Everyone in a team like that looks beyond his ownresponsibility and also feels responsible for problemsin the other’s field of expertise. There can be no genuineinnovation in building without social innovation.

Consultants• architect• installations engineer• construction engineer• gas, water and electricity advisor• …

Consultants• architect• installations engineer• construction engineer• gas, water and electricity advisor• …

Contractor Contractor

• architect representing client Client

• building manager representing client Client

Between all the parties involved there is a free flow of information, both in building team Old and New. The differences are in the contractual relations between the parties.

= contractual relation

= party

Building Team Old Building Team New

Dia

gra

m b

y Ed

win

Gar

dne

r


Building Expert –Hugo Priemus ‘If we leave the primary league of architects out ofthe picture, construction companies, developers andlocal authorities have a rather touching image of thearchitect. One is taken more seriously that the other,but on a whole they play a marginal role in thedecision-making process of building projects.’ HugoPriemus on acquiring new positions for the architectbetween the building industry and public governance.

Edwin Gardner What is in your view the role of the architect in the building process?

Hugo Priemus A very long time ago, in the 1970s, I wasresponsible for teaching spatial design to first-yearstudents of the Faculty of Architecture at Delft Universityof Technology. One of my hobbyhorses was that anumber of stages in the building process are laid downin the regulations on the fees for architects of the RoyalInstitute of Dutch Architects (BNA, the Dutch equivalentof the AIA or RIBA): the preliminary design, the definitivedesign, the contract drawings, the building specifica tions,and the implementation. The Economic Institute for theBuilding Industry carried out an investigation at the time.This investigation revealed the share of firms of archi -tects in the implementation of all of the projects that hadbeen carried out in one year. I was astonished by theresult at the time.

EG What were the results of that investigation?HP Architects had roughly a 100% share in thepreliminary design and a slightly smaller one in thedefinitive design. The situation was still fairly good withthe contract drawings, but the architects were almostentirely absent from the later stages. A budget: ‘no, weleave that up to others’, final drawings: ‘we have otherfirms for that’, the organization of a call for tenders – ithad all been taken out of their hands. Let alone buildinginspector. At the time this was used as an extra argumentfor the setting up of a faculty department of Real Estate& Housing, which was specialized in questions of thatkind, but I have always regarded it as a very regrettableloss of ground for the architect. Architects were activein the conceptual stage, but the actual erection of abuilding had been taken out of the architect’s hands.The situation grew worse in the course of time.

EG Can you give an example of why this is problematic?

HP I experienced the nadir of this development whenI was a member of the ‘Bos en Lommer Plein’ committeeof inquiry last year.1 Of course things went very wrongthere. Eighteen months after the completion of thisbuilding, all of the occupants were hastily evacuatedbecause constructional faults had been discovered.The committee examined all of this in detail and wecame to alarming conclusions. One was that there werethree architects involved in the project, but that theirrole was so marginal that, if the case is taken to court,they are completely innocent. The committee questionedsome forty people. In the end some written informationabout the architects was requested, but we did not findit at all interesting to question those architects.

EG Should the architect try to regain the groundthat has been lost in building practice?

HP The architect can certainly aim for a moredifferentiated practice. All the same, I also think that

some of the architects must regain their role in buildingpractice. For example, when design and implementationare interdependent, they must be in the hands of oneperson. Furthermore, I think it is important for an archi -tect to perform different roles. I think this is alreadyhappening, but I have never seen it documented verywell. There used to be the estate agent who couldreceive payments from both sides. Later we said: ‘Lads,the agent is someone who is brought in either by theseller or by the buyer.’ Per transaction he representsone of the two interests, but he can represent one onone occasion and the other on a different occasion.The architect can play different roles in the same way.

EG What is your view of the matter?HP Two stages can be distinguished in the chaoticprocesses that lead, or not, to the realisation of a pieceof built environment. The first stage is everything thatyou can figure out, devise and think through to arrive at a functional program of requirements. Don’t call it adesign at this stage, but rather the raising of the innocentquestion: What are we going to do here now? This isnot determined by the market. For if that was the simplerule of thumb, there would never be any more greeneryor water, but just housing, preferably owner-occupied,shops and offices. At certain points there is nothingwrong with that, but it is not always the right answer.It is the responsibility of the authorities to assess whatthe potential of the area is, what the needs are, andwhich priorities they want to set. It is not their respon -sibility to determine exactly what must happen. Thefunctional program must not be determined too hastily.First an investigation has to be carried out of all of thepossibilities. If you then finally opt for a particularprogram, you know which programs you are turningdown. Cost and benefit analyses can be conductedand ideological preferences may play a role too, but it must all be prepared properly.

A good designer is capable of investigating thepotential of such an area at this stage, whether on hisown initiative or, for example, commissioned by thepublic authorities. Urban design and architecture arepretty intertwined in this investigation. Programming,however, is easily associated – at least at Delft Universityof Technology – with the regional level or a master plan,but it can also be applied at smaller scale levels.

EG What about the second stage?HP In the second stage the program of requirementshas already been drawn up, so it is a given. A govern -ment has then, for example, laid down everythingrepresenting public values. Everything that does notautomatically arise from the market is a part of this. For example, a program that answers such questionsas: Are we going to build housing there, are we goingto implement infrastructural facilities there, will be buildshops there, and roughly how many? More than thatdoes not need to be included in the program of require -ments. We have a tradition in the Netherlands, and thatis no different in many other countries, of drawing up a zoning plan in which we lay down the building lines.The question is whether that is right. Is it a public valuethat determines that building line? I don’t think so, I think it lies on a different level. There is a tendency tolay down far more than is necessary in the zoning plan,but in doing so we limit the room for manoeuvre ofthose who come after us. So the phenomenon of thefunctional program is, in my view, a phenomenon thathas not been well thought out and implemented.

Vo

lum

e 1

4

13


14

Vo

lum

e 1

4

EG Do you think this means that the challengefor the architect lies in the field of the projectdeveloper?

HP Yes, the project developer often has the tendencyto lay down a lot too and not to think too much ofalternatives. So they approach local authorities saying:‘This is how we planned it, this is how it should be, andyou are bound to agree.’ Most local authorities put up a poor fight, and so that is the way it goes.

1 In 2006 cracks appeared in the surface of a new square inAmsterdam above an underground car park and surrounded by housing. This turned out to be the result of errors in theconstruction, including insufficient reinforcement, possibly due toinadequate supervision of and coordination between the parties.

Cultural Economist –Arjo Klamer ‘Economics is primarily about the attainment ofvalues. Normally you weigh the costs and benefits,and on the basis of that you determine the optimalsolution. In the new economy that is coming uponus, production costs make up only a small part ofthe value of a good; it is increasingly about concepts,ideas and imagination’, Arjo Klamer states. On therevaluation of the role of the architect.

Edwin Gardner What do you regard as thechallenge for the architect in the new economy?

Arjo Klamer First of all, I would like to draw a distinctionbetween different forms of capital. The commonest is economic capital, the capital to enable a buildingto generate economic profits. But that form is alwayssubordinate to two other forms of capital. There issocial capital, that is, the capacity to generate socialvalues such as human relations, identity, and cohesion.And then there is what is perhaps the most relevantform: cultural capital, or the ability to inspire.

We are growing more aware of how crucialcultural capital is. It has a lot to do with what peopleconsider important and what people experience. Ifsomething that you experience accords with what youconsider important, then it’s inspiring. If you considerbeauty important, such as beautiful surroundings, thenin Venice you are overwhelmed by the effect of it all,and that is inspiring.

In that respect I would like to issue a challenge to architects.

It boils down to the fact that cultural capital isimportant, is growing more important, and that peopleexpect more of it. This is connected with prosperityand the fact that we are spoilt. Sometimes architectsrespond to that, but often they don’t. When they do not,people get disappointed; newly built city environmentsare not always what we hope for or what we expect. It isall about finding the link between value and experience.

EG How can the architect respond better to this?AK If you make plans, an important part is, of course,to present and visualise them. Play has an importantrole here. The challenge is to present them in such away that people are enchanted, seduced, and want togo along with your proposal. Then you have won yourassignment and you go ahead and make it. Of course,

your plans also need to meet economic criteria: theyhave to be economically feasible. That is the prudentside. But the seduction concerns the social andespecially the cultural dimension.

But I would like to introduce a change in thisprocess. The architect’s job is not finished once thebuilding has been completed. A building is given a life.An economic value is produced, but a social and acultural value are produced too. This should be a res -ponsibility of the community, and thus the builders andarchitects should share some of that responsibility too.Architects are partly responsible for the developmentof cultural capital.

Arjen Oosterman This touches on the problem of the architect with the double commission (theactual client who places the commission andsociety), and perhaps even triple, because thearchitect also has to work on his own portfolio.How do you see that?

AK Yes, a remarkable characteristic of architecture isthat it not only private, but usually has is public as well.When a company commissions a building, the buildingis private, yet its presence is public as everyone can seeit and enjoy the architecture. Getting attention is crucialfor the functioning of architecture. I like to use themetaphor of conversation: the architect wants what hemakes to be a topic of conversation. By that I mean thatpeople relate to it, take notice of it, and that other archi -tecture relates to it. Mies van der Rohe and Frank LloydWright are examples of people whose work remains atopic of conversation, to which other archi tects relate,about which people write, to which people refer.

AO The role of the architect in the buildingprocess today is essentially different from that of the ‘master builder’. More and more is beingdecided by other building partners. We supposethat the idea of unsolicitedness is becominginteresting because it involves a domain that is not a part of traditional architectural practice.

AK Hence my proposal. I’m currently working on amonitor to rate social and cultural capital in building. Aproject serves several goals: it does not only generateeconomic values but also is expected to contribute tosocial and cultural capital. When a developer, or who -ever is responsible for the project, sets certain goals onthe latter two, my monitor registers whether he meetsthose goals. If, for example, the goal is that localresidents feel better about their environment becauseof the project, the monitor measures to what extentthat has been the result. You can assess a project likethat and see what effect it has in all kinds of dimensions.Afterwards it has to be accounted for and a decision hasto be made on whether the project has been success -ful or not. Part of the fee can be made conditional onwhether the proposed aims have been achieved.

This proposal has far-reaching consequences forthe way in which architects work. If the distinctivenessof the architecture is set as one of the goals, thearchitect becomes vitally important for the client andwill have to be treated with care and respect.

AO What exactly is the problem analysis in that case?

AK Well, the problem is the discrepancy betweengood intentions and results. Now we settle the financialaccount, and we have become very good at that. But we are beginners when it comes to the criteria thatreally count. We work too anecdotally. In order to


change this, you have to start at the conceptual level.You have to begin with the awareness that you mustcontribute not only to economic capital, but also tosocial and cultural capital. The next step is to pin thosevalues down and to ensure that people can be heldaccountable for them.

EG In terms of economic capital, the facts areharder than those connected with social andcultural capital, aren’t they?

AK This is a big problem: not being able to calculate it,though that’s precisely what is at stake. In fact, we areseduced by everything that we can measure in economicterms, and thus often go too far in that direction. I alwaystell the story of the drunk who is looking for his keys

under neath a lamp post. I bump into him and ask: ‘Whatare you looking for?’ ‘Well, I’ve forgotten my keys.’ ‘Butwhy are you looking for them here, then?’ ‘Because thelight is shining here.’ That’s what we do, too: we lookwhere the light shines because we happen to be ableto measure it there, but that doesn’t mean that theanswer is there. So let’s shine some light on the thingsthat really matter. And that starts by developing such a cultural monitor.

It starts with what a project aims to achieve. Thenyou determine who the important stakeholders are. Ifit’s a question of architectural pretensions, then fellowarchitects are the stakeholders. The next step is to askpeople for assessments. You have to do that at differentmoments, so you can monitor changes. You ask people

to make comparisons, to compare what they findimportant with what they experience.

That difference is very important. If you are asked:‘How important do you find architectural quality?’ andyou give it a 9 (out of 10), and if you answer the questionof ‘How do you rate that building?’ with a 7, then it sayssomething very different from someone who gives thatbuilding a 7 too, but does not consider architecturalquality important at all and has given it a 5.

If you do this over time, you obtain a certainpicture of the development. The interesting thing aboutthis monitor is that this development can be charted in two ways.

It may happen, and that may be one of your goals,

that residents become aware of the importance ofgood architecture. So they rate importance with a 5 atfirst, but once it’s been built they give it an 8. Thenyou’ve done a good job. The economic term for that isvalorisation, the enhancement of certain values. Youshould also try to influence the experience people have.It all depends on opinions, but if you put that questionregularly to sufficiently large groups, it helps to reducethe instability of the answers.

AO The process of allowing people a say in build -ing and housing projects, a development of the1970s, only led to formal changes in the build ingprocess. Does your proposal run the same risk?

AK It is about the theme of property – whose is it?Normally we distinguish between private property – I pay

Vo

lum

e 1

4

15

STAKEHOLDERS STAKEHOLDERSEvery aim has stakeholders. Thus if an aim is ‘architectural excellence’, fellow architects are the stakeholders. If the aim is ‘social cohesion’, local residents are the stakeholders.

CONTRACT FEE

AIM A RESULT A’

AIM B RESULT B’

AIM C RESULT C’

IMPORTANCE EXPERIENCE IMPORTANCEEXPERIENCE

%economic capital

culturaland socialcaptial

+- +- +-+-

Cultural/Social Monitor Valorization:Valorization is defined as an improvement in stakeholder appreciation. For instance, someone who starts to appreciate the value of ‘good architecture’ more after a local building project is finished has valorized good architecture.

EXPERIENCE/IMPORTANCE Assessments:Ask stakeholders to compare what they find important with what they experience. This provides a qualitative judgment with which one can compare a project's aims and results. This mechanism can hold parties financially accountable for realizing, or failing to realize, cultural and social capital as defined by the contract's ‘aims’.

Dia

gra

m b

y Ed

win

Gar

dne

r


16

Vo

lum

e 1

4

for the building so it’s mine – and public property, whichthe state pays for. But the situation is somewhat differentin the case of architecture. It has public aspects, butalso private ones, because not everyone shares it orhas an interest in it. So I advance the concept of acommon good as an alternative concept. A commongood is a good that a limited number of people sharewith one another, and that may be a building. It may be that I have paid for the building, but that does notmean it is entirely mine. Others are taking part in thebuilding, too, as passers-by as people who developsome interest in it, speak about it. In a sense I share thebuilding with other people, whether I want that or not.The question is then how you realize the commoncharacter of a building, how you have other peopletake an interest in it.

If an architect designs to the taste of people, the design may become too easy, too obvious. It willnot stir emotions and may not stimulate conversationabout it. He may find out that the cultural monitorreveals the pro ject as a failure because of that. Thedesign goes down easily, and slips away just as easily.It doesn’t really have an effect on the relevant people.Good artists and archi tects know that they have toseek friction. Resist ance gives energy and possiblywarmth in the end. Friction brings about conversationand that is usually a good thing.


Documents

Around the Table