Design standards

Press, 19 June 1986, Page 20

Design standards

Sir,—l applaud Bill Harrison’s perceptive comments on Christchurch’s changing urban environment (June 14). His definition of the architect’s role as “artistic skill in the service of the people” raises awkward questions. Do architects’ responsibilities extend beyond clients’ prejudices and their own egos? Do professional ethics condone replacing fine old buildings by mediocre new ones? Do commercial buildings have to appear as if designed for, and by, add-ing-machines? Public confidence in architects is not enhanced by their weakness for pretentious jargon, e.g. the intrinsically meaningless ‘post-modernism’ (when did modem times end?), or the “contextualism” (apparently signifying design adapted to the site, which competent architects have always done). Change is characteristic of cities, but the cumulative effects of development are too critical to leave to developers. If architects cannot collectively interpret public concern for design standards, others must do so. Can our reformed urban administration embody public monitoring of environmental quality?—Yours, etc., P. COLLINS. June 15, 1986.