Are poor relations between architects and developers the cause of bad design?

Yes, both sides should value each other more, says Cabe chief executive Richard Simmons, while Simon Hudspith of Panter Hudspith Architects believes the real problem is value and the profit imperative

'Yes'

There clearly is a lack of trust between developers and designers. Two thirds of planning applications for housing do not involve an architect.

Many housebuilders say that using an architect takes longer and costs more. Yet Wimpey’s Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners’ scheme at Oxley Woods in Milton Keynes is faster to market and sells off plan, thanks to its radical architecture.

We don’t see much of this kind of market leadership in suburbia. Interestingly, when a volume housebuilder recently advertised an attractive package for an urban designer, it elicited no responses. Did this silence arise from architectural snobbery about suburbia? Or is it a fear that housebuilders can’t understand that today’s customers aspire to more than a bastardised, miniaturised replica of 1930s’ Tudorbethan?

Both sides need to value each other more. Faced with a tighter planning system and the zero-carbon challenge, housebuilders are beginning to appreciate what design can bring.

The failure of design that results from the absence of an architect is most visible in the suburbs — where most of the 3 million new homes planned by 2020 will be built. It is here that the eye of the designer is needed most badly and, for architects, this could represent a major business opportunity, one of immense social worth.

Accordia, Oxley Woods and Abode are suburban schemes that prove great housing need not be confined to city centres. But at present, such collaborations remain the exception, not the rule.

'No'

This is a simplified polarisation of architects and housebuilders, who are only part of the complex equation of providing homes. The real protagonist is value — or what as a society we choose to value — and how this is expressed in the commissioning, designing, building and selling of our homes.

If the budget is right, relations between architects and house- builders are not an issue. We have done several design-and-build contracts where the right amount of money was assigned to the relevant subcontracting packages. This gives us and the contractor the confidence to do a good job — then relations are just fine.

Society has low expectations when it comes to housing. It is much more discerning about mobile phone technology than about the standards of its homes. If we stopped buying sub-standard housing, housebuilders would be forced to reconsider their values.

We must also stop using houses as quick ways to realise profit — resulting in so-called buy-to-leave apartments — despite the ever-increasing demands on housing.

This spiral of profitability is debilitating to quality. The higher the achievable profit, the more is paid for the site, and the higher the site cost, the less there is to spend on construction. Then the builder must spend the minimum in search of maximum profit because the purchase profit of the next site has become even higher.

This puts impossible financial constraints on both architect and builder, who inevitably pull in opposite directions.

What do you think?