The site and scale of the project is impressive. It would be fascinating to understand more of the conceptual thinking behind the retail centre
[ http://www.crepeaffaire.com/img/largemaps/6/l/bluewater_584.gif ]: it seems to be a stand alone centre with much in common with leisure destinations like Disneyland?
[ http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/kent/bluwatershoppingaerial.jpg ]

The shopping public give it a mixed review. Although I imagine they might be very happy for the experience in the light of the recent blizzards and snowy weather.
[ http://pagoda.jp/blog/archives/2003/03/blue_water_kent.html ]

My recommendation for 2011? A little more time contemplating ‘Blue Water Lilies’ by Monet
[ http://cdn.bartongalleries.com/paintings/800/010400_Monet_Blue%20Water%20Lilies.jpg ]….workshoping the retail brief, then some inspirational architectural and landscape interventions.

Merry Christmas!

I have been looking at a lot of Landscape architecture picture books (reading can be so tiresome) just for inspiration for my final projet. You are so right so many clever and cool projects in NZ and Oz as well as China, USA, France , Germany etc. UK we have the Thames Barrier park, which i think is great but not a space on the garden visit radar , as in Dixter, Sissinghurst etc. Never seen it on a Garden TV programme, a real shame.

There never seems to be people in the park, ie ‘a park without people is a field’.
‘
I think there is a slow move towards liking ‘the new’. As most people understand (to a point) modern art,and realise that twee 1980’s out of town shopping centres look awful , (Bluewater shopping centre, being a good example of how a modern approach can work, some excellent landscape architecture as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluewater, really hard to find pictures to do it justice, its a destination place, a meeting place and its modern).

Plus we are all getting sick and tired of Prince Charles waffling on about carbuncles, appealing to the blue rinse monarchists who are on every planning board ready to block anything that isn’t Mock Tudor.

Thanks to the Norman Fosters of this world as well as the success of Tate Modern, i believe there is a chance of this generation moving on.

Have a great Chritmas

That said the division between construction and design is real. The perception of new = failed structures is a peculiarly UK phenomenon. You wont find it elsewhere.

Sounds like some heads need to cracked together and look up and see the larger picture and the benefits of opportunity and communication, we need a Luther of design world to pin some statement to break this silly divide.

Are the professions really that frightened of people like me entering their world? I am really completely harmless, though some of my site language is umm err fruity. They need not worry with the new fee regime the working class will go back and be grateful for the morsels that are thrown from the top table. I think they call it ‘trickle down’.

Getting back on subject. I think there is a general like of modern, but suspicion when it comes to new builds, especially houses. Landscape Architecture tends to be associated with new gleaming projects from where i am sitting. When faith is restored in New being good rather than failed concrete structures we may see a change.

What do you think?

What happened. Well, the lecturer who taught construction and was also involved in organising the conference sabotaged my efforts. Why? In the university construction has the research dollars and design has the prestige.

So i’m sorry to say the problem is not just about university education or not.

Thankyou for the Ronan Point Apartment building article. It seems the flaws were in this order 1) engineering design 2) architectural design and 3) construction standards.

Yep, watched some brilliant programmes on the Normans and their Cathedral building.

True, never thought of the ‘self interest’ of the ‘lefty’ could run so deep.

Nail on the head!! technical skills should have equal weight in education, thus the status will go up, like in Germany.

It won’t happen all the time this Victorian attitude of profession =good, trade =failed profession remains.

Thats one of the reason i am jumping ship as no matter how good i am i can only go so far in the industry, unless i have that bit of paper.
Though i am loving the course, and have really learnt and continue to learn a lot. This will undoubtedly make me a better more rounded designer.

But the lack of trade taught in Universities still concerns me. Students leave having little or no idea how things are put together ,or why and when.

Why don’t the construction managers teach the students something about the industry?

Time?

I had the privilege of taking the one class on bricklaying (with the kind permission of Matt Woodruff) and seeing the penny drop in peoples eyes when they realised its not as easy as it looks. Also they all admitted that they couldn’t believe what hard work it was. I think a certain respect was achieved that day. So it was not about teaching bricklaying, but showing them that skills are not to be taken for granted.

Not so much me, me, me more TEAM attitude to design and build.

One day ,one day.

Off to Tunbridge Wells to meet an old student friend talk shop, drink tea, eat cake. Fantastic.

Hi Christine you are right about the two scenario’s.

There is a different attitude between the two.

When its money being spent by the company and not the person contracting out the work. Its the reputation of the person employing the contractor that is on the line, but its still not their own money. This can produce a detachment from the reality of what is going on, so consultants turn up which adds to the cost (or not if they produce a result). Peoples own money, now thats different!

Success is judged by firstly cost , then time taken to construct and lastly quality. Generally the idea of a craftsman means expense and corporations prefer the Fordist view (Toms abbreviation for Fords invention of the production line turning coach builders into automatons and or to put it another way turning people into monkeys then you pay monkey rate ,but suffer the consequences of employing monkeys, detachment from the job, resentment, just there for the money).

Getting back to Modernism for a moment, one of the big failures was this attitude of the ‘Price’ in the construction industry during that time, price work was encouraged tapping into the greed of the contractor and contractors (self employment became the norm , so no risk for the main contractor, no holiday pay, sickness, accident, redundancy, basically hire and fire as he pleases, i have worked on theses sites a real dog eat dog …animals again). So for a a short period of the housing boom in the sixties, was about speed, not quality, bodge it and scarper became the in joke, and like any joke more than a a hint of truth. System buildings were encouraged for their speed of construction on site and a production line mentality in the factories were they were produced off site. My Father was a site manager on a lot of these sites and the stories of ‘Ruff it up and get it up’ are numerous. In the 1970’s theses buildings started to fail with some catastrophic consequences (Ronan Point
http://matdl.org/failurecases/Building%20Cases/Ronan%20Point.htm ). To get a good price became everything, (and if you didn’t, as a sub contractor well you can guess the rest).

System building were about speed and cost, one of the shortcuts was to bend over the hoops in the concrete panels if the did not line up, so that the rods holding them together could inserted in at least some of the few hoops that lined up. The crane was costing money, the men were getting paid by the unit, they did not care and why should they ? Another common phrase of the time, ‘not my house.’ A whole housing estate was built with mortar ranging from 10;1 to 15;1 ratio, Washing up liquid instead of lime for a plasticiser, all increased speed and thus volume, and bottom line profit, but quality? I think not.

But its fool gold. The time and motion crowd didn’t like the fact that the builders were earning more money than them. so rates were cut, so the short cuts increased, driving quality down even more , a race to the bottom.. This was capitalism in its purest form and when not tamed people suffer.

So the backlash started in the 1970’s and builders have suffered with the poor image ever since. As considered not much more than simple labourers, due to the baggage of the failed price system, Thatcherite attitudes towards apprenticeships, a complete mis understanding of skills required for a efficient work force, and a education system that encourages a separation of designers and implementors. Fordism is alive and well in the industry today. The rush for cheap foreign labour, (note not skilled labour i have worked with these guys, great crowd but they have little or no experience. there motivation is the same as any human good wages by their home standards and surprise surprise they work hard) the hire them fire them self employment, short term work from a day to a ‘couple of weeks’ the list goes on and most of the country are either ignorant to it or choose to ignore it knowing ‘that price is king.’ Just look at the working conditions in China and india at the moment.

So when your builder turns up to price work it is from a background of failure not pride. The connection between design and trade was lost when architects no longer had to go through trade, and went straight to ‘Design School’. Suspicion and snobbery have arisen from both sides due to ignorance of each other skills.

So whats the answer for someone employing a Builder? Either as an employed person on behalf of the company or an individual?

1) Price is not king, buy cheap, buy twice. Speed often comes at a price, quality. In twenty years time the comment will be on the quality of what remains not the speed of build or price.

2) Reputation is everything, first hand accounts of previous work. We do it in every other industry. Lack of research by the employer is the reason that often poor contractors are employed. Does a school not check the references before employing a teacher?

3) Relationship, builders are people with emotions; communication, praise and appreciation go a long way and they are free!

4) Respect, a two way street. Listen to what they have to say, experience of doing is so much more valuable than theory.

5) Finally Price, My philosophy as a designer and contractor is that i want to be known for thoughtful, beautiful design and high quality construction, with no ‘come backs’. So people want ‘me’ more than the price. Ie BMW, mercedes, Marks and Spencers etc. It works i have not advertised for 18 years of my 21 in business. If people want to play the price game, i don’t get their work, then more often that not they come back two years later for my advice/skills, sounds a bit arrogant i know but its happened so many times.

A Swedish friend who is an incredibly successful man in industry, said “I judge people on their experience and attitude before price”.

There is a lot to be said for that quiet wisdom, in the noisy world of business.

Please excuse the rant, but the failure to see beyond price is fundamental, period.

Now Breakfast.

I suspect you are in a client’s market and should be able to obtain a very good and competitive price at tender, so locking in a price too early is not to your advantage. Plus the less is known the higher the price will be from the builder to cover for uncertainty and risk. You can start the conversation with the builder at tender stage and still get great and meaningful input. [Unless there is something unusual you are trying to achieve or the context is particularly unique and then perhaps having a consultant builder on the team might assist with process etc decisions ]

With a domestic scale project there is more freedom to engage the builder in the process from the get go (and perhaps no designer yourself excepted?) If so there is a simple client/builder relationship to mediate (no middle men and no extras?)

In price and percentages – scope of work, risk assignment and time/budget performance parameters are relevant considerations for all involved. I would recommend to the client to consider what they are trying to achieve (time/cost/quality) bearing in mind the construction market over the life of the project and to choose the contractual arrangements accordingly.