Trad rules??

[MartyC]

I find this forum very interesting and aside from the technical aspects of Revit and its implementation etc. the wide variety of designers and design product from so many parts of the world.

I am surprised at the extent of very traditional house architecture, especially from the US. Market forces and local tastes tend to drive a lot of design, so is this a major factor in the US as opposed to exploring more contemporay or even experimental design.

Experience in NZ and Australia is tending toward the wide scale exploration of contemporay architecture in the private house market designed by architects and designers. Many, if not most young designers tend to develop their early body of work in the exploration of modernism and beyond, and this is usually sought by a fairly well informed public who appear to be consistently growing in numbers. The catalyst seems to be in place for an explosion of new design in the years to come. Here in Brisbane we are seeing, I believe, to be the start of a rapid transformation of an old and well-worn city with negligible residential architectural values to a true 21st century environment. Are these trends happening elsewhere?, are the rest of you feeling the winds of change?.........or are trad styles predominant and firming elsewhere.

Some dialogue on international architectural opinion could be fun, and after all, thats what we all do after mastering families, sweeps and phases and all that stuff.

Cheers M

[beegee]

Actually I'm a bit surprised that you would select Brisbane as one of the centres of a modern movement given the powerful city council's town planning controls that virtually prevent and certainly strongly discourage "modern " architecture in a large area of the city.

I do a fair bit of residential work in the older "core" suburbs where there are strong demolition controls, heritage precincts and highly restrictive local plans, all aimed at reproducing the character of the traditional timber and tin Queenslander. It is possible to beat the system and eventually get a modernist design approved, but it takes a lot of work (read time and money ) for both the architect and client. This is something that developer clients shun and the "average joe client" cannot see the point of.

I recently said that Prince Charles would be very happy with Brisbanes town plan. Its what hes been rabbiting on about for years !

I do agree though though, that a modernist approach seems more widespread in Australia and NZ than in many other countries that I've been too. I don't know if that's due to market forces or not, since a small population base is by nature often more conservative than you find in a large country with a more diverse socio economic mix.

Just possibly, its the architecture schools ?

[MartyC]

Forever the optimist, and loving a challenge I figured Brisbane has opportunity. Also Brisbane is going through the same metamorphosis that Auckland (NZ) did in the early-mid 90's and is ongoing. Emerging trends here are very similar to what I have been doing for a while.

The RMA (resource management act) in NZ is an ominous creature, and has been responsible for vast amounts of frustration, cost and irritation for many over the years, so local issues here are par for the course where town planners are concerned. There does seem to be a glimmer of light at the moment with a mayor's policy thay may develop appropriate thinking :roll: However, it appears that political connection seems to have more influence than it should.

As an immigrant getting to grips with different rules I do find it somewhat bizzare having references to things like 'timber-and-tin' in a city plan as being the prime objective in the aesthetic considerations of residential architectural design. Wacky at the least. Whoever introduced that is a nutter! Historical significance yes, cherish it, but insisting on silly architectural charicatures in new work is plain folly. Good architecture if executed properly and sensitively will settle well within a traditional context.

The problem I have here is Development Approval by public comment backed up by ignorant town planning process. I will stick my neck out here: The only people fully qualified to judge architecture are those that have the knowledge base, experience and qualifications. Those people are architects, they are not town planners and they are not the general public, who in most cases of public comment are generally people with no idea, no knowledge, and often nothing better to do. A properly balanced peer review process to assist with pursuing the best integration outcome for a project that is assumed will be built is productive, rejection on bureacratic grounds does no-one any good.

It all brings to mind the Luddites, smashing the machines during the industrial revolution, many ignorant individuals prevent progress simply because they are unable to cope personally with the future. Architects are those that will provide the guidance and the means for a better built future. It is not Town Planners that historically create beautiful city environments, it has been architects. Architects make very effective town planners, not vice versa.

I will step off my soap box now, would anyone else like to vent..... :)

Cheers M

[PeterJ]

Here the residential extension market is defined largely by conservative clients or inexpensive jobs where the labour skills available largely prevent anything that doesn't look familiar being built. We have a number of more adventurous projects but they make up a smaller part of my portfolio.

With new development, either for private house-owners and developer clients, conservatism tends again to rule, but this is partly I think down to the fact that in many areas planning policy determines that street scene and fitting in are amongst the most important goals. Also unlike in some places private one off housebuilding is proportionately a much smaller part of the market here. I despair of one or two of the projects that we have produced recently that are well designed and workable plans dressed in grandpa's clothes so that they look comfortable to developer and client alike.

Mostly I think the UK residential market is conservative, but commercial stuff tends to be more interesting. We fight a continuing battle though: Few buildings are good enough to be listed (the term for our conservation control) but over time new ones get listed 'til ultimately the architect can't move for conserved ****.

I am looking at a site where there is a listed structure that we need to retain and it is two toothpicks leaning against one another masquerading as a barn. The planners have us over a barrel. We'll refurb it as a covered parking structure in the end I think, but that is just cynicism on my part, that of the developer and that of the planners and adds up to an unhealthy form of madness.

If you wish to seek out a reason for all of the above I suggest that a part of it is to do with the fact that we have, generally, an older building stock in Europe. As people get older they typically become more conservative and with building costs here typically around £1,000 - £1,300 per square metre plus tax at 17.5% for residential work you are unlikely to build much until you are pressing on in age. The combination of the two leads to a comfort in older a buildings and a desire to see more of the same when spending one's own dollar. Developers are generally fairly conservative types here and think they will get an easier ride through the planning process by cosying up to the surrounding buildings and also believe that people like the buildings they build for them, thus it becomes unclear whether the public wants what the public gets or the public gets what the public wants - if there is a difference. All that aside though, we increasingly find that people wish to live in modern spaces - more openness, much on the US and antipodean models - but looking like they were built around the turn of the last century.

Building technology moves on as do understandings of moisture movement in buildings and concerns about the level of embodied energy and other eco-based issues in buildings and the net result of this is that the softness, detail and scale found in dometic work largely constructed by artisan builders 90-150 years ago is replaced by clumsy lookey-likey detail, cost effective windows and so on and suddenly what seeks to look like something more familiar and older is actually a very very pale imitation of its origins and ultimately no one is terribly satisfied.

This last point is most strongly demonstrated in new estate housing in the areas about 15-30 miles outside any major city, or a bit more for London, Birmingham and Manchester, where the individual houses would not look uncomfortable in a village setting, though they would clearly be a much newer building, but set amongst 20 or 30 of their own type, all with a private front garden with a 2 car garage and clay paved drive and a rear garen with an 1800 high close boarded fence, all connected by an arbitrarily winding strip of tarmac, and the antispetic nature of the whole becomes a very very far cry from the idea of a village. The density is wrong. The hard edges, the winding road, the large front gardens, the forms made necessary through acceptance of the importance of the car all fight against the intimate villagey feel that the developers seek and yet more bizarre is the fact that by making these areas well suited to access by car the distances between points increase and suddenly it becomes uncomfortable for some not to rely on the car.

I've digressed and allowed my blood pressure to become unnecessarilty raised in the process. Perhaps I'll come back later and conclude my argument.

[beegee]

As an immigrant getting to grips with different rules I do find it somewhat bizzare having references to things like 'timber-and-tin' in a city plan as being the prime objective in the aesthetic considerations of residential architectural design. Wacky at the least. Whoever introduced that is a nutter! Historical significance yes, cherish it, but insisting on silly architectural charicatures in new work is plain folly. Good architecture if executed properly and sensitively will settle well within a traditional context.

I agree that good design will always be able to co-exist with traditional elements, if attention is paid to context, which must be the case with good design anyway.
Timber and Tin can work excellantly in a modernist context. Look at the superb work of Glen Murcutt (www.pritzkerprize.com/2002annc.htm), or the Queensland "beachside school " of Gabriel Poole, John Mainwaring and Lindsay Clare, who use this vernacular to create buildings of great energy and identity.
Murcutt, Mainwaring and Clare are even translating this formula into successful commercial buildings.

[PeterJ]

This is an argument best undertaken with a glass in one's hand.

I appreciate the contextuality argument but the problem is that there are few Glen Murcutts and many that would seek to do it so well and will fall way short of the mark. If those guys are not constrained by planning policy then they may do better in genres they are more comfortable with. Furthermore, the homogeneity of a thousand second rate timber and tin affairs with one or two gems amongst them is not beneficial to your architectural community's reputation or the built environment generally and that leads me to think that probably a greater variety of form material and style should be encouraged - that though is largely a response to the problems I have already highlighted above.

[MartyC]

With glass in hand...........

Indeed Murcutt, Poole, Clares et al, have produced some exceptionally good work in their resepctive genres, Theirs I beleive, is not the only correct answer. In the australian context, and the local context especially, the 'touch this earth lightly' philosophy appears to have been adopted in its entirety as being the only really acceptable solution. Personally, I am of the Ando 'school', touch this earth with force and meaning, slice the wall into the ground and let it stand as a symbol of deserving to be there! Build a monument, a sculpture, a hard form and give it life with nature; let the light express the form, and let the breeze deflect and play within the spaces, let the sound of water and the associated play of light together with the sun give movement. 'Ma' and 'Shintai' are very powerful concepts that are particularly well suited and totally appropriate to the natural Australian context.

While 'timber and tin' is ok if you're into it (and I can be in the right context), it is difficult to explore all the other wonderful opportunities when a dumb City Plan specifies only one acceptable solution. From experience, why explore the best solution when to do so is going to cost the client an extra 10+ grand, 3-4 months or more of planner procrastination and then council seeking comment from the public, who of course are far better informed than architects!

I am looking forward to that hectare on a hill up the Sunshine Coast where my house can emerge powerfully from the earth in all its raw concrete,steel,glass and aluminium glory......................I know, I can feel the fight brewing!!

Even Ando has placed some exceptional pieces slap-bang into an old/historical context, damn, even Corb did it pretty well in Paris. Those that make the rules have selective knowledge and memory.

Fix the rules and let the true nature of the art emerge en masse...............or let the luddites rule.

Better get another drink :shock:

Cheers M

[beegee]

<snip>I appreciate the contextuality argument but the problem is that there are few Glen Murcutts and many that would seek to do it so well and will fall way short of the mark. If those guys are not constrained by planning policy then they may do better in genres they are more comfortable with. Furthermore, the homogeneity of a thousand second rate timber and tin affairs with one or two gems amongst them is not beneficial to your architectural community's reputation or the built environment generally .<snip>

Murcutt learnt his craft initially in PNG and the influence of the New Guinea long houses with timber pole construction and open walls is one of the strongest elements in his architecture.

Geoffrey Bawa, the Sri Lankan architect, is another excellant example of an architect who is fully conversant with contemporary technology and international developments , but has a deep understanding and feeling for venacular traditions. His work can be a marvellous pointer to what is possible working in our environment. His philosphy, " A house is a garden", is highly appropriate for working in tropical and sub tropical regions.

The Queensland beach school are strongly influenced by boat building ( and surboard shaping ) and the lightweight construction methods of the old beach shacks. The harsh sunlight, sudden heavy rain, seabreezes and informal lifestyle all complement this and it's one of the strongest architectural influences on any young architect working in the region.

So the great majority of Queensland architects are entirely comfortable with a timber and tin aesthetic. Its what they study in the architectural schools and its what they usually start off building for private clients. Domestic work is after all, where most architects first reveal themselves.
The term "timber and tin" should not be taken literally to mean just those two materials. It encompasses the whole "lightweight construction" genre, including steel.

Although I'm strongly against the rigid town planning controls previously mentioned, they are in fact a direct response to the problem of "Tuscan Villas" being built cheek to jowl with the established timber and tin aesthetic, and in this respect alone , are difficult to fault.

[MartyC]

Although I'm strongly against the rigid town planning controls previously mentioned, they are in fact a direct response to the problem of "Tuscan Villas" being built cheek to jowl with the established timber and tin aesthetic, and in this respect alone , are difficult to fault.

I agree, but this is also the crux of the problem; town planning rules developed as a purely reactionary response rather than one of fore sightedness. Indeed, here in inner Brisbane there are some notoriously bad examples of residential architecture, the six-pack in particular (a six-pack is a three level, 6 residential unit development with garages on the ground floor and single units above, usually brick) to which the local council has reacted to with a typically conservative response. The 'Tuscan Villa' (a 2 storey bungalow with the eaves chopped off) is also a disasterous direction that has been reacted to by reverting to 'old is good' mentality rather more constructive guidelines. There are also some beatiful examples of traditional house architecture which should be preserved, but in between there is an awful lot of junk which when replaced, and it must be, should be allowed to explore and reflect current and future thinking, but admittedly within a thoughtful and sensitive context.

I personally have a passion for houses, as I beleive it is houses that make a city and not so much the commercial heart (which takes care of itself largely). The residential environment is one where given the public support of good design the architect can have the greatest influence on the overall quality of the built environment.

It is interesting to note that the huge majority of **** design does not come from architects, in fact what usually happens is an architect may devleop a spectacular idea or solution which is then copied with ever diminishing quality, with authority permission, to end up an aesthetic disaster. Sort of like a chinese whisper. Then in a knee-jerk reaction, is outlawed right back to the original idea.

Peer review, and learned comment and influence to assist a development to be the best it can be is the only solution. Let the architects write the rules and we will all see the world as it could be.

Are these experiences similar to others out there?

Cheers M

as a footnote, Here in Brisbane there is some exceptionally good residential work emerging and the winds of change seem to be heading in a good direction, even a few large developers are seing the value in design and presenting residential developments that although maybe a bit over-populated are quite beautiful examples of well executed current thought.

footnote to a footnote, the references to 'architects' in general is not intended to demean those many fine designers and others that have the same passion for architecture. We are really all in the same place in terms of our goals and reason for existing professionally.

Cheers

[bclarch]

Architects are not immune from the "let's stick with the past" bug. I once spoke with an architect from Oak Park who was bemoaning the fact that people weren't building more Frank Llyod Wright buildings there. As a solution, she was talking about enacting rules mandating prairie style designs. I reminded her that Oak Park was aleady known for it's Victorian and Craftsman homes before FLW opened up his practice. I went on to point out that had the town enacted architectural control ordinances at the peak of the Victorian building boom, FLW wouldn't have been allowed to build even one of the buildings that she so admired. She didn't know how to respond to that but was still somehow convinced that she was right. I did not even address the issue that a poor immitation might be even worse than a high quality, innovative design.

Sometimes context requires adhering to established styles and forms but, more often then not, innovative designs can be successfully integrated almost anywhere if handled with appropriate skill. The trick is in establishing guidelines flexible enough to encompass all situations. Architects also have a responsibility to police themselves with regard to the appropriateness of their designs. Unfortunately, the problem is easy to recognize but the solution is infinitely more difficult to resolve.

Approaching this from a design perspective is somewhat moot anyway since most design decisions are made based on money. The clients go with simple and vanilla because it is all that they can afford. As soon as a builder sees a drawing that varies in any way from the status quo they say "This is going to be way more expensive." It is hard to convince clients that beauty has value beyond mere cost. On top of this, the municipallities enact architectural control ordinances with the stated purpose of "protecting resale value for the welfare of the community" which is really just a cover for hidebound conservatism.

[PeterJ]

Here Town Planning is an important part of the development process, but if one reads a town planning document - usually a Unitary Development Plan - that part of it which relates to design and support of quality in the built environment is typically no more than a quarter. Planners and the public, however, seem convinced that the planning process is primarily about controlling design.

It is perhaps a European perspective on a particularly long ball game but a hand fall of Tuscan Villas and six packs in Brisbane, or the equivalent elsewhere, are a small worry in the grand scheme of things. They are not the buildings that will be left to our descendants as examples of important late C20 or early C21 architecture. The developers will see to that and take down the junk they put up in the first place as development pressure comes full circle. Maybe it is a bleak view but we are always likely to be surrounded by poor buildings of our own generation and perhaps that immediately before and only the stuff that makes the cut from the generation prior to that remains, giving us a skewed view of the quality of their output.

Also, it should not always be the case that context be considered the key to good architecture. Look at Canaletto's (http://www.worldgallery.co.uk/cgi/search.pl?key_search_fs=se_frameset.hid&keyword=canaletto&artist=&genre=) paintings of London or Durham Cathedral (http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/) to see how what at one point in time may have no relationship to its surrounds, in terms of materials, scale or language now seems part of a wider continuum. So while I understand the italicised view that 'timber and tin' should be taken to mean the entire lightweight construction genre I fail to see that where the lightweight construction genre has ruled supreme architects should be discouraged from looking elsewhere. Wright's Guggenheim doesn't sit well with its neighbours and Gehry's Guggenheim benefits from having no immediate neighbours to battle against but both are recognised as successful pieces of architecture. We would not have these if planning strictures had been too tightly applied.

Clearly there's not a right answer.

[beegee]

Clearly there's not a right answer.

On the contary Pete. I think you've found the answers I've been searching for.

1. Forget Town Planning because its not about controlling design.

2. Forget the odd handful of Tuscans and six packs, because the developers are self regulating and market forces will ensure their removal in the long term.

3. Forget context and coloquialism since whatever is built will morph into a wider continium, in which we will be left with the poor buildings of our own and at least the previous two generations, but with an homegenous scale, materials and pattern language.

A bleak view ? Not at all. Excuse me a moment while I close the windows and turn on the gas.

[PeterJ]

Wake up Beegee, Wake up.

Someone call an ambulance here..............

[beegee]

Thank Pete,

I'm alright ..... always wondered about that oven, ... never had any call to use it .... turns out its electric.

Looks like I'll be forced to drink myself to death instead. I always knew that training would come in good someday.

[PeterJ]

Let me guess you drive a solar powered car too. And your garage? Its lightweight and perforate.

I think you are missing my point. If we choose as a community to recognise Murcutt, or anyone else, it is becasue we accept that some architects are better than others. By default it means that not all buildings will be as good as each other. This is a slighty different argument to the main one, but if contextual arguments are based on the idea that what went before is somehow better than that which we do now then it is very important that we acknowledge that what went before had just as much poor architecture as we now see emerging, it just didn't warrant holding onto.

You will gather that I am not in favour of the thoughts of Leon Krier and Christopher Alexander, but this isn't entirely true, I just feel that a better approach is to consider why we feel things work and adress that analysis, rather than simply mimic what has worked previously.

[gregcashen]

On a slightly different subject, has anyone noticed that PeterJ's avatar has been fiddled with? Looks like your daughter is supporting another team.

[bclarch]

Statement 1. Society, and therefore architecture, is in a constant state of change.

Statement 2. Change can be good or bad.

Thesis: Regulations to limit change are enacted by those who want to maintain the status quo because they are afraid that the risk of negative change outweighs the potential benefits of positive change. Burdensome design regulations limit the ability of architectural design to respond to change in synch with the rest of society or to ever be the catalyst for change. Therefore, ill-conceived regulations that limit architectural innovation dimminish the value of architecture to society.

Assignment: Discuss the ramifications of this thesis. Leave one desk between you and your neighbor. When the bell rings put your pencils down immediately. Reference materials may be used. Grading will be on a sliding scale. (Or as the regulators might put it, those that toe the party line near the top, the rest at the bottom.) :)

[beegee]

By default it means that not all buildings will be as good as each other.
Agreed.

but if contextual arguments are based on the idea that what went before is somehow better than that which we do now
No, I don't think that is the basis of the contextural argument at all, if argued by design professionals. (Could be if argued by planners though.)



it is very important that we acknowledge that what went before had just as much poor architecture as we now see emerging
Agreed.


I just feel that a better approach is to consider why we feel things work and adress that analysis, rather than simply mimic what has worked previously.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we mimic what was done previously. Thats another planners argument stemming from a non-design background and its one of the things I find most distressing about current planning.
Certainly an analysis of why "people" feel things work, in a design, is instructive, but I suggest, almost impossible to reach consensus on. Even among design professionals, it will be difficult to achieve consensus on a range of design related issues. Marty's peer review comes into play here. Unfortunately , if you're even sat on a design review committee, or similar, you see that those "peers" often carry different agendas, to that you may have assumed. If the problem is defining a set of rational objectives to lead the design process to a mutually satisfying result, I don't see it being done through either mimicing past design paradigms or through community consultation, or through peer review.

I feel like getting the razor blade out again now.

[tmullins68225]

(Note: with a glass in hand...)

I'll jump in and have a go. Here are a few of my observations...

First, most Americans see their house as an investment, not a "home for the rest of their lives." A house is a savings account for the future. Therefore, if you buy something too "different" you might have trouble selling it later or won't make as much profit. (At least, this is the impression most Americans have)

Second, most Americans have a poor understanding of the history of art and architecture. Therefore it is hard for them to truly appreciate most of the contemporary work currently taking place. They may say they prefer "traditional" architecture, but if they saw a true victorian house in its multi-color glory they would probably call it tacky.

Third, Americans are constantly conflicted with wanting to be individualistic, and being "normal." It's the old society / individual conflict. When it comes to a large investment, like a house, people are conservative.

So what's the answer? Don't as me...

It's great to hear from some Aussies and Kiwis. I had the honor of visiting Australia this past year, and meeting with Glenn Murcutt, Peter Stutchbury, Richard Leplastrier and Lindsay Johnston. You are truly blessed to have such inspirational talent in your country.

[beegee]

Hullo Mr Mullins,
( Note - No glass in hand )

You've raised some interesting points, but I suspect they are not unique to the USA.

The house as an investment is probably basic in all western cultures now. The argument that conservatism is more likely to attract future sales than modernism only really works if people prefer conservative designs in the first place. I think people are always going to build and buy what they innately feel comfortable with. Architects trained in the visual arts, like the "moden" approach, while the vast majority of the public prefer something not far removed from what their parents generation had.

Americans possible have a better understanding of art and history than Australians, due to their larger population base. At worse, it would be about equal. Visual arts education in Australian schools is not a strong point. I can't speak for the UK, but I suspect they may be more appreciative generally because of their long history and large numbers of existing heritage buildings. Yet , the general public in the UK are probably less inclined to appreciate modern architecture than the general Australian public. ( Lots of generalising going on here ) I base that purely on my observations and reading.

The conflict between being individualistic and "normal' ( ie. accepted ). Again, I doubt that Americans can lay sole claim to the title. Isn't that essentially what teenage angst throughout the world is all about ?

So, I think those are 3 good reasons why people prefer conservative designs, but that doesn't really explain why some countries are more accepting of modern design than others.

There must be other factors at play. As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if one of those contributors is the eduction of the architects themselves. When it comes down to it, its often necessary to fight hard to get a modern design accepted, by the client and by the authorities. The architect is the only one who's going to do that. And the architect is only going to persevere if he really believes very strongly in his vision. That belief has to come from his training. Nothing else will get him there. Ask Murcutt and Leplastrier about some of their epic battles.
The architectural schools conserve and transmit the values of the profession, and in most countries are closely monitored by professional committees concerned with the setting of educational standards, to ensure they do not depart too far from conventional wisdom.

Could the answer be design method ?
Broadbent, in his book "Design in Architecture: Architecture and the Human Sciences " identifies four distinct methods of generating three dimensional form.. pragmatic, iconic, analogic and canonic.
Iconic design derives from the attempt to match climate control with the available resources and becomes a justification in itself for repetition of a house form, once it has been proved to work. ( Alexander disagrees )
But there are other pressures also leading to conservatism.

For one thing, house form and pattern of life become adjusted to each other. .... There are certain pressures too for retaining an established way of building. A craftsman spends long years acquiring the skills and aptitudes of his craft, learning the nature of his materials ...and so on. These pressures can become an economic imperative to maintain a style of building.
The major source of creative ideas in design comes from analogic design.
The old modern masters, Wright and Corbusier used it extensively.
However, it is not possible to draw a conclusion that a particular design methodology leads to a design style, since Broadbent has also conducted an extensive survey which shows that throughout recorded history, creative architects have used all four methods in combination, although usually with a certain emphasis on one or other of them.

Tom Heath, writing in "Method In Architecture", looks at the "task environment of architecture" and its here, I think ,that one of the answers may lie. Heath identifies the growth of bureaucracy as one of three aspects of the social macro environment of architecture contributing to a major design impact. He estimates that approximately 30% of all employment in the USA is provided by or depends on bureaucratic organisations, compared to under 20% in Australia. He discusses how bureaucracies influence design and how they develop a conservative personality... ( "psychologically incapable of dealing with anything that is not quantifiable" ) [/quote] Architecture has been deeply influenced by these ideals: rationality, impersonality, performance in terms of quantifiable values of cost and time. [quote] The adoption of "rationality" and "impersonality" ( Heath defines these terms ) has provoked some of the most bitter lay criticism of modern architecture. Heath also identifies bureaucracy as responsible for the proliferation of regulations and cites studies that reject the notion that standards (regulations ) are intrinsically beneficial.
Heath doesn’t stop at organisational bureaucracy, he also identifies a bureaucracy in public architectural offices and many large private offices ( MacEwen 1974 " Crisis in Architecture ")
So, in essence, bureaucracy could lead to architects following a narrow routine and quantifiable procedures, rather than a more creative methodology and thus promote conservatism.

Its not the only factor though. The speed of cultural change and the formation of counter or adversary culture also have a major impact on design today.

Just some ramblings.......

[Kirky]

We are indeed lucky to have such architects for such a small population base (only just 20 Million) Something about the Aussie spirit I guess.
(Consequently I wasn't too upset to see England win the Rugby World Cup, I had a mental image of England if losing, sinking into the sea with a single hand reaching out, as per King Arthur) :) I suspect a renewed confidence and optimism in the future will prevail and I think this will butterfly down to the indivdual. With even such seemingly unimportant events I think the effect can be profound.
The post war years i.e. 1950's was a time of renewed confidence and this reflected in the architecture (maybe too much, as many heritage buildings were lost in eager development.)

Here in Australia, we are told only about 5% of domestic houses are design by architects, some would argue this a good thing. :( Nevertheless there seems to have been a significant change in attitude towards architecture in Australia in recent times. I would suggest that we are currently riding a wave of national confidence with the economy pumping and with general sporting triumphs. People generally are more receptive to new ideas and they are also better informed. It seems that every T.V. show is about doing up your house and adding value. (I would like to say value to the human experience, rather than just money, but....)
There also a better understanding of the science of building and the wider environmental issues and therefore decisions are often not just based on what things should look like.

The answer is: to say no more often and be prepared drive to drive a taxi if need be.
(naturally only takings routes which have well designed buildings.) :)