As “Master Builders”, architects once both designed and built structures. However, subsequent to the Renaissance movement, architects abandoned their role as the builder in favour of focusing on two-dimensional drawings to communicate their visions to the contractors. From the first basic dwellings conceived by early man to today’s mega-cities, the physical realisation of these structures has relied heavily on human labour. Advances in technology are beginning to re-work this established method of creating buildings as well as the role of the architect.
The contractor’s connection to the building, in most cases, stops when the project is completed and handed over to the client by the architect. Naturally, to the client today, the architect seemingly acts as the middleman; a mere mediator in the case of design and build. Technology is in the process of redefining how the architect acts as a designer with the end result, most commonly, in favour of the client and no one else. The ways in which the design input of an architect is changing due to technological advances shall be explored and analysed in this essay, along with thoughts on the future and suggestions derived from research on the topic.
Architecture has traditionally failed to adapt swiftly to the ever-changing sector of technology. This is not due to the nature of the individual architect but rather due to the nature of the profession itself. Construction of buildings is heavily laborious and famously prolonged. This lengthy process is inevitable due to the involvement of different specialists from different professions, each one of these working on a different time scale. Consider the once thriving tailoring trade which has today shrunk to one sixteenth of its original size, from 1920 to 1990. Mass production has replaced durability for savings, attention to detail for variation and material quality for transient fashions. To assume that this fall of an industry has little to do with architecture today would be naive. “Architecture, as an industry, broadly conceived, has become less and less able to deliver a superior evolving and popularly engaging product that can compete with other more successful products… And the less successfully architecture has competed with these diverse ‘growth industries,’ the less architects have been entrusted with time and money to perform work on a scale and with a quality that could perhaps turn things around,” (Michael Benedikt, “Less for Less Yet”, 1999). Today’s consumer lacks an understanding of the complexity and attention needed by the designer to create anything tailor-made; let alone a building. Clients of architects are often left shocked and frustrated with the process, especially since their initial desires for the project are often limited in favour of their budget. Although a small percentage of them still understands and enjoys the complexity of the process, many conditioned by the modern conveniences of ready-made shelf products and one-day delivery are left frustrated and defeated. If architecture is to survive the changing attitudes of people it must find ways of accommodating new technologies into the traditional ways by which is has always operated.
A major problem faced by modern architects is housing; it is an issue for designers, for contractors and crucially for clients. For a significant number of people, it is more difficult today than ever before to own or rent a house. Real houses prices have increased by 151% since 1996 while real earnings have risen by only 25% within the same time scale according to Redfern Review, conducted in 2016. A report by the ResPublica thinktank, states that 1.2 million are signed on housing waiting lists in England, while 6 million face no prospect of ever owning their own home. Millennials are having a particularly challenging time getting their footing on the property ladder. One bedroom flats can cost up to seven times their income and their lifetime savings are often only enough to cover their deposit. This situation is not sustainable for people. The people need a solution and they need it fast. Prefabrication is internationally hailed as the antidote to the housing crisis but can it be trusted?
Prefabricated housing refers to buildings consisting of separate elements (often modules or transportable sections) that have been fabricated off site in factories that require a minimal work force. This notion of prefabricated buildings has been the future before, predominantly in the 1950s and 60s. In the United Kingdom, temporary prefabricated housing was widely used for thousands of urban families that were evacuated from their homes during World War II. Focusing on cutting costs, the government reduced material quality, eliminated insulation and projected a 10 year lifespan; unthinkable in modern building-expectancy goals set by the government (at least 50 years). Although first conceived as a temporary solution to the housing crisis, many ‘prefab’ homes remained inhabited for years and even decades after the end of the war.
Prefabricated Housing in Edinburgh – 1964
According to prefabrication technology experts “prefab” homes can now be made to a very high standard of quality; there is no reason to compromise on materials. The prefab, modular housing of today is both time and energy efficient. The chief executive of Urban Splash, a property development company based in the UK, believes that production and line precision guarantee “extraordinarily” airtight homes that are highly customisable, suited to the client’s needs.
The British Department of Trade and Industry outlines in a recent report the advantages of building houses in factories: time efficiency, minimal disruptions due to weather, coordination of workers, waste reduction, quality and waste control. Although hailed as the sustainable solution to building, prefabrication is not as environmentally friendly as it seems. Prefabricated homes may be more energy efficient but critics argue that their component parts are overwhelmingly imported from overseas; the United States provide 80% of the prefabrication materials that are needed by the UK. On the contrary, 80% of materials used in traditionally-built construction are locally sourced. Whether this data will change over time as the industry develops and gains more domestic ground is up for debate. Fashion companies in the UK provide unusually affordable clothes to consumers because the products are fabricated overseas in extremely cheap labour countries such as India or Turkey. If the government is serious about following the notion of “prefabrication against the housing crisis” it should not only support companies that assemble houses but promote the development of resources within the UK. Prefabrication can become the successor of traditional timber construction if the industry is handled with care.
Perhaps the only role missing from the picture here is the one of the architect. Of course there is the need for one in the initial stages, where the design of the “templates” takes place and the array of personalisation features are created. This technology of personalisation and prefabrication of houses by the client causes the architect to lose his previously held position of designer. This notion of the designer is being handed over to the clients, and so are the benefits.
Consider a middle-class family of four with the financial resources to build a house where they can live in. In traditional methods, the family approaches an architect with their needs and requirements, perhaps ideas on style of build and more importantly an overall budget. The architect, once appointed, designs the house and he in turn, if in a design and build contract, will hire a contractor. The contractor after the completion of the house delivers the end product to the architect, who, in turn, delivers it to the client. This method can be easily understood as:
Client ⟶ Architect ⟶ Contractor ⟶ Architect ⟶ Client
With this traditionally practiced scenario, there are several risks the family needs to consider. As the client distances themselves from the construction site and as the architect seeks to satisfy not only the family’s requirements but the practice’s own expectations and aspirations from the project, there is a high risk of the house being built over budget. Additionally, the client’s own opinion of how the house should be can change while the development undergoes construction.
In the prefabricated and technologically adapting arena, this scenario changes: absent is the architect in the process. Now the timeline can be shown like this:
Client ⟶ Contractor ⟶ Client
At least in the eyes of the client. The architect is not completely thrown out of the picture; often his knowledge and public persona gains him access into the design process. The architect now limits himself to the backstage. He designs in the early stages of prefabrication, the basic character of the house. This grants the architect a design input on the final product and a sense of fulfilment in their job. For now, the consumer/client still understands and respects the position of the architect throughout a project. I believe that the architect is prone to facing difficulties in the future as he competes with prefabrication methods. The client becomes more involved in the design process and so his opinion contributes more heavily to the outcome of a project than in the past. Many prefabrication companies today recruit well known architects (in one instance a famous product designer) to create an array of options for the client to choose from ranging from room layouts to parapet design choices. This guarantees to the client that there has, in fact, been an architect’s input in the project and that the fabrication company is trustworthy. The client is left feeling as though their house was designated only for them by a famous “starchitect”.
Design customisation options on website of popular prefabrication company in the US – 2017
Prefabrication certainly does have the potential to be a force of good. It is an affordable solution for those in the middle-class population who would like to own their own home, a building that would fulfil their dreams. There is an element of competition between small architecture practices and prefabrication companies. The small practices must try to win over clients even though the service that they provide is more expensive due their traditional methods of design and construction. The future can be seen in other industries that are already facing the repercussions of modern industrialisation through technology, particularly in the furniture industry. Global enterprises are casting a shadow over traditional designers. Their products are of a low quality but cheap and so allow average income consumers to purchase more than ever before. The consumer can now have the house, car and sound system that he has always dreamed of without breaking the bank. With off-site construction rising in usage day by day, therefore eliminating the need of an architect on site, this example starts to appear as omen to the future of the profession.
For technology to continue to assist in the construction process it is vital that the architect comprehends how much technology will alter the profession and accept that conventional methods of design and build must change or adapt. Construction technology is a rapidly growing area so it would be wise to implement the technological way of thinking into the profession. One way of doing this is by fully integrating technology into architectural and design education. Through education, if institutions adapt accordingly, the importance of emerging technologies in construction can be established and embedded in the conscience of the future architects in practice. Educational institutions should adapt their curriculums according to advances in technology. As a good example of seamless integration of technology within the architectural education, an established university in London has been conducting a specialty ‘research program’ which gives to undergraduate and masters students the opportunity to experiment with different materials and ideas in construction, including finding ways where prefabrication can be applied to assist.
Prefabricated housing construction, where the client takes on the role of the architect, mostly benefits the middle-class. Out of this loss of the traditional design process architects must use this opportunity to use their knowledge and skills to benefit those who require emergency shelter and accommodation. According to the UN Refugee Agency, we are now witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record. An unprecedented 65.3 million people around the world have been forced from home. The greatest strengths of prefabrication are affordability, sustainability and rapidity, all of which make the process a possible solution to the problems being faces by those who have been displaced and live without a home. There are still issues to be resolved such as building at a faster pace, maximising affordability and providing a sense of comfort and safety to the inhabitants that have been displaced not only from their countries, but also from their culture, community and traditions. The solution is certainly not a one-design-fits-all scheme. There should be great consideration and attention to nuance in the customisation options presented to the client. For refugee families, the western house frame is not applicable here.
Inside a ‘Better Shelter’ housing unit in Kawergosk, Iraq.
The “Better Shelter”, is a flat-pack refugee shelter, co-developed by UNHCR and the Ikea Foundation. At $1,250, a Better Shelter costs twice as much as a typical emergency tent, but it provides security, insulation and durability, and it lasts for at least three years. A robust 17.5 sq m shelter that fits inside two boxes can be assembled by four people in just four hours, following the familiar picture-based instructions given by Ikea – substituting the ubiquitous allen key for a hammer, with no extra tools necessary. The praised design of the shelter, however, has made headlines in 2015 when Zurich ordered 62 to house asylum-seekers, but found it couldn’t use them because they were fire hazards. “The The humanitarian aid world doesn’t adhere to the same safety standards as you would for permanent buildings in Europe made of concrete and stone.” said Märta Terne of Better Shelter.
Examples like the Better Shelter, developed with minimal input by architects should act as a wake-up call for the profession. To take this and implement it in the western world, architects should work together with the government and prefabrication companies to establish an ongoing conversation on what accommodation means today and how we can change aspects of it to help not only the affluent, but everyone in need of a home.
The architect is losing ground, on a steady rhythm. With technology, the client gains more power over the design. Their priorities change and their focus turns to affordability and personal aesthetics. In the past thought to be part of the expertise of the architect, custom-made design, tailored to the client’s needs is beginning to disappear. In this change of role, it might be time for the architect to rethink their strategy and focus their energy on different, more pressing issues. As Alvar Aalto once said, ‘The ultimate goal of the architect is to create a paradise. Every house, every product of architecture should be a fruit of our endeavour to build an earthly paradise for people’. It seems that the privileged enough of the world, through technology, are getting closer to their dreams with the architect’s minimal input now more than ever. If we shift our efforts into establishing this paradise for everyone else, the architect will not only survive alongside technology, but he will have the power to change lives using to his assistance.