Questions we are asked
We are a few months on from the start of New-works and it has been an exciting journey. Our approach to design has not changed from the work we did as TDO, but the way we are proposing to do it has. There are some really interesting questions coming from that. Here is an FAQ:
The recent take over of Great Suffolk Yard by Open City for their launch of Open House Festival 2024
Are you now a practice that just does planning and walks away?
This model of working in a silo - doing planning then ‘throwing it over the fence’ - already exists and is fairly widespread, but it is not what we are proposing.
While we are proposing the role of the architect is shared, crucially we are also proposing that we work together throughout the life of a project. We propose that the delivery practice be appointed before planning, and by the same token that we remain appointed until the end of the project. The delivery team can critique our work before they take the lead, and we can critique and learn from their work through detail design and construction. We are promoting deeper collaboration, shared learning and greater quality control throughout the project’s life, and not working in silos.
How will you control quality if you are not the architect after planning?
As above, we suggest that the role of the architect is shared throughout the project: that we work collaboratively together through the work-stages, and don’t walk away. We are able to share knowledge from our respective viewpoints, peer review one another’s work, and offer more, not less QA.
We often find funders - who dictate the procurement route - favour Design and Build (D&B) building contract.
Sometimes the argument is made that under a D&B the architect novated to work under the contractor can ensure the quality is maintained. Our experience of the different roles of an architect under D&B is that the power to control quality comes almost exclusively from the client-side relationship. The novated architect’s client is the Contractor. They have a contractual responsibility to take instruction from them. If this includes compromising quality, then there is a reliance on the Employer’s Requirements to counteract that. The guardian of the Employer’s Requirements is the Employer’s Agent. That is where we see the ability to control quality, and that is the role we are suggesting we perform during construction.
Is this way of doing things more expensive for clients?
The total architecture fee is not affected by this structure: the role is shared, not duplicated.
Do clients really want to appoint 2 architects with 2 fees and the potential for split liability?
This is an interesting question and one that has led us to change course slightly. We feel it is important that we share authorship, collaborate, work together through the life of a project, and peer review one another. How we propose to do this has evolved.
We set out proposing that to achieve this we be co-appointed with a delivery practice at the start of projects.
More recently we are proposing that we are the only appointment - mirroring a conventional all-services appointment - and the delivery practice is sub-consulted to us. This means we carry the liability for that choice, the client does not need to concern themselves with split responsibilities or liabilities.
Under a D&B procurement as the project progresses it is simple to split the team so the delivery practice is novated, while we stay client side, and the team avoids any conflict of interest.
Are clients not just better off hiring an architect who can do everything?
Our belief is that clients want the right resource on a project. Large practices with strong delivery teams will have times when they must resist the temptation to incorrectly resource a project under the pressure of deadlines and cashflow. Having visibility, let alone controlling that risk as a client is incredibly hard.
We are advocating for more specialism and collaboration. We are promoting the idea of concept driven practices - like New-works - collaborating with delivery-only practices. All team members in each practice are in their strongest roles, and the responsibilities are distributed accordingly.
We recently set this out in a meeting with a potential client. They work in finance and said the model made complete sense to them, explaining that innovation is sector specific. What looks like standard practice in one industry can look like innovation in another. The construction industry is notoriously behind the times. Other industries specialise and collaborate all the time, and it works.
Do delivery-only practices actually exist?
Yes, but there are not that many. We are advocating for more specialism and collaboration: we would like to see more demand for delivery-only practices, and for them to be celebrated for the invaluable contribution to the quality of the built environment. We don’t feel they should be the uncelebrated ghost-writers of the profession.
Tom Lewith, Founding Director, New-works