On Architectural Education

A note on the journey.

With debates on social media and in particular BD 6th December 2013, regarding possible reforms to the RIBA education structure and potential abolition of part I, II and III as the qualification route, I find myself in a position of due to circumstances, having qualified through two routes, the BIAT route and the RIBA route and being able to offer insight into the similarities and the differences between the two, this is my story.

Note: BIAT has been through numerous name changes throughout its life. With the change of job title from Technician to Technologist, and subsequently the ‘British’ was replaced with ‘Chartered’ and as a result the current title is Chartered Institute of Architectural technologists (CIAT)

The journey started in 1987 I had been accepted on the full time BTEC Building Studies course at South Devon College of Arts and Technology, electing to pursue what I felt was a practical application of my skills as opposed to going on and doing A levels in the sixth form at the Grammar school. My chosen career goal at that point was to become an Architectural Technician as opposed to an Architect, the exact reasoning I am not sure now, but if memory serves it was linked to the perception that A levels and University seemed like a very long time before I could start work.

On leaving school, opportunities conspired to make it happen and I joined a small firm of Architects in my home town, Paignton as a trainee Architectural Technician, transferring to the part time mode of the BTEC Building Studies course.

The course was actually two courses: Ordinary National certificate (ONC) for the first two years, then Higher National Certificate (HNC) for the second two years, where you could choose between the Architectural stream or the construction stream, many of my colleagues worked for contractor, or local authority; planning, building control, highways, environmental health. I think I was one of four that were working in Architectural Practice. The courses were structured in units, and if I remember correctly this was a relatively new concept at the time. The units included: land surveying, building surveying, construction technology, Architectural design (taught by an Architect), contract administration, environmental science, structures, services, practice management, measurement, specification: Some of the assignments were quite in depth, including a full construction process from demolition and temporary shoring of adjacent structures, to structural systems, cladding, interior finishes. Another assignment involved supervising a JCT 80 construction contract, filling out the relevant certificates and correspondence to manage a live project scenario.

In the office the IT department was an Amstrad PCW8256 word processor linked to a dot matrix printer, there were also two instantaneous word processor/printers called typewriters, the office comms was a single grey Bakelite telephone with a dial and a very loud bell ringer, the fax machine was at Prontaprint, the print bureau down the road, reprographics was a dye line printer which you fed ‘negatives’, ink line drawings on tracing paper, to make copies for submissions...and of course  ‘production’ was drawing board and ‘T’ square. Production involved trimming the prints, and colour washing, not a magic marker in site. I used to love drawing and remember being called into the office of the head of building control at the Local Authority, and being told that the drawings I had submitted were the best he has seen in 20 years in the job.

The practice handled everything in the design and construction process...Urban design, masterplanning, construction detailing, site supervision, project management, even cost control. Over the next four years I qualified as an Architectural Technician and attained associate membership of the then British Institute of Architectural Technicians (ABIAT) and felt like I had made it. In reality one year later I was one year of practical experience away from achieving full membership (MBIAT) and a licence to practice. At that point in time I was running my own jobs, and managing my own work flow within the practice. The recession of 1992 meant that there came the came the inevitable day where I was handed my notice and my boss reminded me that I had been talking about going to University. 

The rest as they say is history, well almost. I immediately phoned Plymouth School of Architecture, my nearest Architecture school, thinking I could just go and attend the course to qualify as an Architect, I am already qualified as an Architectural Technician, that’s five years, so I have to do another two to top it up to being an Architect right?  Err...No it takes three years to get a degree, another two to get a Post Graduate Diploma and then another two in practice, and your qualifications might exempt you from the A level entry requirements to get into University...oh bugger! I had to go through clearing and quickly learned the difference between having A Levels and not, the top schools at the established universities were not interested, it was only the Polytechnics that were inviting me to open days and interviews but not for 1992 term start but 1993. So 1993 I joined what was Birmingham Poly the year previously, rebranded as University of Central England in Birmingham.

Needless to say I arrived at RIBA education under a bit of a misapprehension, I was a qualified Architectural Technician and already knew what I was doing, right?  I was accustomed to scoring 85% in assignments, thinking I was invincible, this should be easy. I remember showing examples of my work that I had done in practice to my fellow students, they were impressed, but I was told by our tutor ‘great drawings, but that is building, not Architecture’. He also told us at the very beginning of the course that Architecture is about people, not buildings...it did come as bit of a shock to me at the time.

The journey was one of discovery, learning and in some cases unlearning as the course became immersed in ‘Poetics of Space’ (Bachelard). and ‘Blade Runner’ (Ridley Scott/Philip K Dick). Based around studio projects with a strong emphasis on psychology; expression and representation of ideas using multiple media, art, verbal, film; all studio units were centered around presentation and discussion of ideas in a crit environment and sure enough had very little to do with building. The first year of the course provided a broad foundation to the study of architecture and landscape architecture in the context of the urban condition. Many projects were based on aspects of the 1960’s modern urban core that makes up Birmingham city centre, along with the industrial voids in the city and surrounding areas. Units were aimed at reading and interpreting the non-designed and designed environment.

The technical units such as Structures, Construction and Architectural Science were for me a repeat of the ONC, although ironically I struggled with Architectural Science, I think the subtle difference was the subject changed from Environmental Science on the HNC to Architectural Science on the BA, and with it a change of emphasis from the scientific angle to the human angle, the calculations were the same, but how the results were interpreted that was missing from before.

Site visits gave an introduction to Birmingham, from the founding of the Lunar Society to the first air-rights building over the canal, the vast grass bank that was to become Brindley Place, the subways, the sunken plazas a product of Manzoni’s Inner Ring Road, dubbed the ‘Concrete Collar’. Sandwell Valley and the formation of a nature reserve in a former open cast colliery. Projects were based around The Bull Ring and Rotunda, Birmingham’s Modern City Centre. Visits to London, took in not the sights, but The Bartlett, Sir John Soanes Museum, Grimshaw’s then soon to be completed Waterloo International, The concrete structures on The South Bank. A discussion took place on Waterloo bridge about the eastern skyline: the ‘City’ after the IRA bomb, Rogers’ Lloyds building, Canary Wharf tower on the Horizon. A later visit took in the Swiss Cottage, Saatchi gallery and the Oil Room, A visit to Bath took in the Roman Ruins, Georgian houses and the planning of the Renaissance city, in a nutshell, exposure to the examples of the complete history of Architecture in single academic year.

The second year was more technically biased and was easy for me as I was drawing a lot on my previous experience, in essence more repetition of ONC. A study visit to Paris gave a lot of design inspiration, taking in La Villette, Pompidou, Arab Institute as well as soaking up the atmosphere of the city in about 4 days. What I felt was a repeat of the ONC units were augmented by Architectural History, Urban History, Urban Design and the requirement to write research papers. The third year was based on the application of the science, construction, structures and technology to a design problem that was founded in the theory derived from detailed analysis of site, environment, brief and context. What was learned in becoming an Architectural Technician formed only small part of the requirement, maybe as low as 10%. Following the completion of the degree, the usual route comprises a ‘year out’ in practice which for most of my colleagues would be their first exposure to working in a real world environment, and the perception from the Practices is that this is essentially a work experience placement, and not a real job. I did take a position but not as a Part I but as an Architectural Technician, in essence picking up where I had left off before going to university, and I remember teaching my colleague who had gone through the traditional A levels/degree route some of the practical aspects, such as surveying that are not covered on the BA.

The return to University for the Part II was intended to be a lot freer in terms of design and theory. I had established with the head of school that my technical knowledge was sound, but my designs were lacking in theory. In terms of education, the environment is a lot more investigative than the degree. In terms of the technology, not surprisingly many aspects covered on the HNC, but somehow in less depth and as with the Part I, the emphasis is about application rather than knowing the data. On balance the Part II may have overlapped with the HNC by about 5%. The previous experience as a technician becomes something of a double edged sword following Part II, be treated as a Part II student with very little experience, or risk getting typecast as a Technician and not progress beyond that function.

Much of the meat of the HNC not surprisingly is not covered until Part III because it is associated with running a practice however, at Part III is much more in depth. For me the journey did not end with Part III, it continued as a Masters’ Degree continuing some of the investigation into design theory that for me had not concluded at Part II.

On balance the process of qualifying as a Technician through the BIAT route, taught me how buildings go together, and a lot about the design process but not about design. The lesson learned though subsequently qualifying through the RIBA route is that the design process is essentially the same, buildings go together in the same way. The huge difference is the RIBA route prompts a deeper understanding of the impact of design on the built environment, its relationship to context and people who will have to live with it.