architecture: business & profession

Submitted as part of the professional practice course at Manchester School of Architecture 2010/11

----- 

The practice and business of architecture has been in a constant state of flux in recent decades, following the rapidly changing conditions of society, politics and the economy. Society’s expectations of architecture are constantly shifting, and the profession has been perceived both internally and externally to have been slow to adapt. This essay will discuss the development of architecture as a profession over the last fifty years in the UK, with a brief look at the formal organisation of the profession in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries.

The role of the architect in society, and in the construction industry, has been repeatedly questioned and re-evaluated: a debate often coinciding with dips in the economic cycle. With the recent recession opening up the question once again – this will be examined in its previous contexts, and in the current climate. Architectural education has also been the subject of argument within the profession and its value questioned politically in the past – with the current ‘age of austerity’, how can this lengthy and costly education continue to be justified. Architecture has two professional bodies in the UK – the duties and roles of these will be explored and questioned. The current economic climate has had a major impact on architecture as a business – the causes and effects of this will be discussed. Finally, the potential routes forward for the profession will be explored – how architects can continue to fulfil an essential role within society.

Normal Services will Apply

“There is increased potential within the industry for the architect to perform a wide variety of roles. Great care is therefore needed to secure any commission on the right basis as it can no longer always be assumed that ‘the normal services will apply’, or that there will be a common understanding between architect and client as to what the ‘normal services’ might mean.”

Dalziel & Ostime, RIBA Architect’s Job Book, 2008

The definition of the architect’s role is constantly shifting, and with the range, scale and complexity of projects ever increasing, it is likely that the architect’s role will continue to morph and specialise.

Image: Erno Goldfinger & Balfron Tower, East London, 1968 (from entschwindet und vergeht)

Mario Botta discusses (in ‘The Architect-Figure Today’, Berlage 2003) the erasure of the ideologically and politically motivated “heroic architect of the Modern Movement”, who could rely on a series of “building rules” of which he/she had encyclopaedic knowledge. This ideological and political motivation can be traced back to the foundation of the professional structure of architecture, with the establishment of the Institute of British Architects in 1834, which became the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in 1837 with the granting of a Royal Charter.  The RIBA’s founding mission was: “to advance architecture by demonstrating public benefit and promoting excellence in the profession”.

With the establishment of the professional body, architects elected to separate themselves from the builder and create a notion of independence from the client (Duffy, 1984, in Duffy & Hutton, 1998). This severance from the building trade and neutrality towards the client set up the role of the ‘gentleman’ architect, arbitrating the client/builder relationship, with remuneration based on a fixed percentage fee of the contract sum. This restricted notion of the architect became outmoded long ago, both commercially and in terms of the activities of the profession; as Duffy described in 1984, such a structure ‘imprisons’ architects. Elements of this imprisonment continue and ways of expanding the definition and expectations of the architect are needed.

The transition from welfare state, post-war Britain to the 1980s Thatcherite era of the market and deregulation was a particularly difficult paradigm shift for architecture. The number of architects directly employed by the public sector began to decline, with the architect slipping down the pecking order in the construction procurement process as the profession retreated behind brass plaques, with reduced engagement in policymaking. Contracts became increasingly elaborate, leading to the emergence of the most common forms of procurement today – Private Finance Initiatives, Design and Build, Management Contracting  - with a reduction in the role of the architect and the rise of other professionals including Project Managers and Quantity Surveyors.

The loss of the “official” town hall architect, the high-profile mistakes of local authority architects in post-war housing and the diffusion of the traditional architect’s responsibilities to a myriad of other professionals in the 1980s and 1990s, there is a need to examine the profession from academia to practice, via its institutions and regulation. By evaluating the profession from root to tip it is possible to envisage how it can continue to add value to society.the potential routes forward for the profession will be explored – how architects can continue to fulfil an essential role within society.

Architectural Education

Around the time of the founding of the RIBA, architectural education in Britain took the form of ‘articled pupilage’ where students would pay established private architects to train and educate them (Bottoms, 2010). This was in contrast to the prevailing continental system, where institutions like the French l‘École des Beaux Arts imposed some form of state control on architectural education. In response to the uncontrolled British system, a number of students of architecture and draughtsmen met in 1847 to form the Architectural Association (the AA), with the stated aims of:

'the association on the largest scale, of the entire body of our professional youth, for the end of self education, and with the good trust of simple self-reliance.'

Petitioning from the AA led to the creation of the RIBA’s Voluntary Examination in 1862; the association set up a class, considered to be the first systematic architectural education in Britain. In 1882, the RIBA exam became compulsory (Bottoms, 2010) and this set about the decline of pupilage and the emergence of school based architectural education, with the first university-based school being established in Liverpool in 1894. By the 1924 Congress on Architectural Education, pupilage had effectively disappeared in the major cities. Since this, perhaps necessary, divergence of architectural education and practice, a dichotomy between the two has existed and been the subject of much debate and consternation in the profession.

The 1924 Congress on Architectural Education firmly established the need for five years of full time training in ‘Recognised Schools’ of architecture, a need repeated in the Report of the Special Committee on Architectural Education in 1943. These recognised schools provided exemption from the RIBA examinations: a system that continues to this day through the RIBA’s validation programme and examination still exists as an alternative route to qualification.

The Oxford Conference

''Knowledge is the raw material for design… It is not a substitute for architectural imagination: but it is necessary for the effective exercise of imagination and skill in design. Inadequate knowledge handicaps and trammels the architect, limits the achievements of even the most creative and depresses the general level of design.''

Llewelyn-Davies quoted in Martin, 1958

In 1958, the RIBA Conference on Architectural Education was held in Oxford with recommendations for further reformation. One major area discussed was the need to increase entry standards, with an aim of increasing “competence at all levels” within the profession; the recommendation was to increase the minimum standard from 5 ‘O’ level passes to 2 ‘A’ level. Particularly pertinent to this essay is the call in the conference report for a “clear lead from the profession”. The difficulties highlighted in the report are still the subject of debate fifty-two years later: the staffing of schools by young practitioners who provide enthusiasm but may lack experience; the need for students to connect with the reality of a building project and the need for experienced practitioners to engage with education.

“It is simply no good for the profession to complain about the standard of education when those who have become skilled practitioners feel unable to collaborate”

Martin, 1958

Seemingly in contradiction to the call for the reconnection of students with ‘live’ building projects, the 1958 Conference recommended the cessation of part-time courses: an excellent way to maintain links with the realities of practice is to work whilst studying, along with the added benefit (perhaps more relevant in today’s higher education financial system) of earning a salary.

In the 1970s the RIBA’s strategy developed architectural education to include a combination of two years of practical experience (previously only one was required) along with five years of study: the creation of the ‘year-out’ between periods of study. The strategy at this time also began to include the idea of ‘lifelong learning’, now known as the compulsory Continuous Professional Development (CPD) system whereby registered architects must complete at least 35 hours of CPD activity annually with the aim of maintaining levels of competence and up-to-date knowledge.

Less Means Worse

With the increasing length of the course and escalating student numbers, the question of funding an architectural education needs consideration. In 1990 the Department of Education and Science asked the Higher Education and Funding Councils to consider the possibility of reducing the funding for architecture courses to a maximum of four years. The RIBA responded with its position ‘Less Means Worse’ in which the institute set out its arguments for continued full funding. The response contained nine principal factors:

·       architectural education starts in higher education, with no substantial foundation in primary or secondary;

·       the syllabus matched the requirements of the EC Architects Directive;

·       increasing application numbers, increasing numbers of women and a high employment rate for graduates;

·       a need for strengthening and expanding content, including EC/government promoted areas such as sustainability and health and safety;

·       the RIBA’s encouragement of interdisciplinary studies and links;

·       a growing public concern for the built environment;

·       the position of the UK as an exemplar system of education, along with the success of UK architects abroad;

·       the leading CPD strategy of the RIBA;

·       the essential part of architecture in the creative and dynamic small business sector, essential to the economy.

Tuition Fees

Having successfully avoided this threat of reduced funding, the financing of an architectural education has followed the path of all higher education courses with the removal of state-funded grants and the introduction of loans and fees, culminating in the prospect of £9000 annual tuition fees.  Consequently, the current recession decimates employment prospects and has encouraged a resurgence in ‘articled pupilage’, as year-out students offer their services for little or no remuneration in an attempt to gain the necessary experience to hold the title of ‘architect’. The consequences for architecture as a profession are the subject of ongoing debate; the Standing Conference of the Heads of Schools of Architecture warns the government that architectural education could become “highly exclusive and privileged” (quoted in Hopkirk, 2010). These consequences will be addressed in the final section of this essay.

Image: Student protests – the Riot Girls, from The Guardian, 25.11.10 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/25/student-protests-tuition-fees-schoolgirls-definace#)

Registration and Institution

After several unsuccessful attempts by the RIBA and other societies to obtain a parliamentary bill for the registration of architects, in 1931 the Architects (Registration) Act was passed. This established a central Register of Architects for the first time under the statutory body of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK). The Council was composed of representatives of all architectural bodies in the UK, plus representatives from the government and associated professions. The creation of the act and ARCUK afforded protection of the title ‘Architect’ which continues to be a topic of controversy within the profession. The protection of title regulates the use of the specific title ‘Architect’ when offering services or promoting a business: anyone using the title must be on the register – those using the title without registration are liable to prosecution. This statutory protection does not prevent other professionals or trades offering the same services as an architect (this kind of protection is known as ‘protection of function’, found in other professions such as medicine and dentistry).

The Warne Report of 1993 reviewed the need for a regulatory body and protection of title, recommending to the government that protection be scrapped on the basis of the need for an open market; architects could effectively self-regulate and the question of whether or not architects should be afforded special status as the only registered construction industry profession (Duffy, 1993 in Duffy & Hutton, 1998). Despite support from the RIBA Council, RIBA members opposed the recommendations. The RIBA then campaigned for retention of protection of title with a streamlined registration board (RIBA, 2004). This led to the creation of the Architects Registration Board (ARB) in 1996.

The ARB

Image: ARB logo

A major difference between ARCUK and the ARB is the composition of the board – ARB has a majority number of lay members, with a minority representation of architects (8:7 respectively). This reflects its duties as laid out in the 1997 Architects Act, with an emphasis on protecting the consumer and maintaining good standards of practice. The five duties of the ARB, as described on their website, are:

·       prescribing – or ‘recognising’ the qualifications needed to become an architect;

·       keeping the UK Register of Architects;

·       ensuring that architects meet our standards for conduct and practice;

·       investigating complaints about an architect’s conduct or competence;

·       making sure that only people on our register offer their services as an architect.

The issue of protection of title and the role of the ARB have been the matter of much debate in architectural discourse in the last year or so, with the RIBA lobbying the new coalition government for the abolition of the ARB and its functions to be absorbed into the RIBA (Klettner, 2010). The RIBA believes this would reduce the ‘regulatory burden’ on architects and be in the interests of the consumer. Despite this pressure from the RIBA and a climate of austerity (with threats of a ‘quango cull’), the government decided to retain the organization and its role:

“In considering the alternatives to the current model of architects’ regulation I took into account a broad range of considerations and came to the view that the case for change was not compelling.”

Andrew Stunnell MP, quoted in Klettner, 2010

Protection of Title

Image: ARB Table of Prosecutions for misuse of title

Aside from the issue of the survival of the ARB as an organisation, debate continues over its reason for existence. In a February 2009 BD article, ‘Should protection of the title ‘architect’ be abolished?’, George Oldham (member of the ARB Reform Group) and Owen Luder (former RIBA president) discuss both sides. Oldham, speaking in favour of abolition, suggests the current title means nothing to inexperienced clients, that the ARB was until recently ineffective and promotes the idea of the ‘gold standard’ title, “chartered architect”, in the absence of protection of function. Luder’s argument is more introspective citing the desires of the majority of the profession for continued protection of title, and the projected “cheering” of the other built environment professions at loss of protection, as reasons against abolition. The article is illustrated with an image of the British pavilion at the 2010 Shanghai Expo, designed by non-architect Thomas Heatherwick: British architecture is not limited to architects whether title is protected or not.

Images taken from BD 27.02.09 and 17.04.09

A BD survey of architects in April 2009 revealed that 84% of respondents were in favour of continued protection of title, 77% were in favour of introducing protection of function (legally obliging clients to use architects for specified work). These views were criticised by Sunand Prasad (RIBA president at the time) and Mark Kennett (president of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, CIAT) as “pure protectionism” without a hope of being realised.

 “The fact is a divided and confused profession cannot be taken seriously. Neither can its institute if it continues to promote a brass-plate type of architecture based on protection of title because it claims this is what members say they want. Those days are over.”

Baillieu, 2009

The RIBA

Image: RIBA logo

“The Royal Institute of British Architects champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members. We provide the standards, training, support and recognition that put our members – in the UK and overseas – at the peak of their profession.”

 The RIBA has a central role in the advancement of the profession since it’s founding in 1834. As previously mentioned it has major influence over the architectural education system (including the task of validating and assessing schools of architecture) and has played its part in the development of registration and protection of title. Also within its realm, the RIBA promotes the value of good design to the general public (through its awards, exhibitions, publications and events), lobbies the government and influences policy, publishes books and reports and administers the CPD syllabus. This is in addition to providing professional support services for architects and administering the ‘Chartered Practices’ scheme.

In September 2009, the RIBA released its ‘manifesto’, Buildings Matter. Aimed at the three major political parties, it set out four key policies that the institute urged the parties to adopt. These were:

• Four million homes should be retrofitted within the lifetime of the next parliament.

• Minimum design standards should be introduced for all public buildings.

• The same minimum space, design and environmental standards should apply to all new homes, whether they are privately or publicly funded.

• More support for local authorities to encourage good spaces and places.

The manifesto also includes recommendations for the introduction of smart energy meters and better value public procurement methods.

These key policy areas are issues on which architecture has influence and architects can provide the necessary knowledge to implement changes that move towards a sustainable society. As the RIBA states, the quality of the built environment has dramatic effects on people’s happiness, health and education and as such architects have a key role to play in effecting change in the buildings we live and work in.

The proposed Core Housing Standards were naively scrapped by the Conservative housing minister, Grant Shapps, who cites an additional cost to housebuilders of £8,000 for every home:

“Today is the first step of many towards reducing the unnecessary cost and hassle that the people who build our homes are forced to endure. Last year, housebuilding slumped to the lowest level in peacetime since 1924.”

Grant Shapps MP, Housing Minister, quoted in Hopkirk 2010

This backwards step was condemned by RIBA president Ruth Reed. While currently failing to influence the current government in its excessive drive for spending cuts, this is one of the RIBAs most important functions – to provoke debate, challenge policy and encourage change for the better.

Image: Typical new build UK housing (Findaproperty.com)

The RIBA has also had a role in monitoring the effects of the financial crisis on the profession, surveying its members monthly and publishing the results as part of its ‘Future Trends’ reports to produce a picture of the situation ‘on the ground’. The results of this are discussed further in the next section of this essay.

The Business of Architecture

In a climate of ‘plummeting confidence’, with 36% of architects expecting a decrease in workload and 43% expecting their workload to remain the same according to the November 2010 RIBA Future Trends Survey, the question of the value and position of the architect in society and the economy is raised here.

Architecture was one of the first industries to feel the effects of the ‘global economic crisis’ of 2007-2010, with mass redundancies and increasing numbers of unemployed architects. In September 2009, the AJ reported that the number of registered unemployed architects was 2055, equating to 7% of all registered architects. These figures do not portray the true severity of the impact on the profession, as they do not include Part I/Part II assistants and other support staff employed in architectural practice. The previously mentioned shift from the local authority architect to a brass plated profession at the whims of developers and their capital has turned architecture into a commodity, to be bought and discarded as much as anything else is in a capitalist economy.

Image: Abandoned construction projects in Asia. From the exhibition Lanwei, by Stanley Wong at the Chinese Arts Centre, Manchester (http://www.chinese-arts-centre.org/emails/e-invites/04-2010-lanwei-stanley-wong/chinese-arts-centre-15.04.2010-html-email-web.html)

Unfortunately for architects, and students of architecture, financial crises are symbolised by imagery of abandoned construction projects as investment capital retreats from speculative risk. As Owen Hatherley discusses in his essay ‘Architectures of Dereliction’, architecture can form a sound basis of an analysis of the causes and effects of financial collapse. Where council housing, the welfare state and interventionist planning provided ample work for the architects of the post-war era, speculative property development, excessive bonuses and irresponsible lending fuelled the workload of architects through the unsustainable boom times of the 1980s, late 1990s and 2000s.

The Skyscraper Index

The intrinsic link between architecture and the global economy is encapsulated in the ‘Skyscraper Index’. Andrew Lawrence developed this concept at leading German bank Dresdner Kleinwort in 1999. The index links the construction of the world’s tallest building to the next economic bust – whenever the building is completed, recession is in progress or impending. Most recently this is exemplified in the completion of the Burj Khalifa, completed in 2009 in Dubai, and renamed after the United Arab Emirates President following his crucial support in bailing out the overstretched Dubai economy. Ten months after completion rents in the building had fallen by 40%, with 92% of the building’s apartments lying vacant (Reagan, 2010).

“Over the past 100 years, there's been an uncanny correlation between the at­tempt to construct the world's tallest building and financial crises. Be it New York in 1930, Chicago in 1974 or Kuala Lumpur in 1997, almost all projects aimed at erecting mankind's next architectural monstrosity have proved a reliable precur­sor of a meltdown.”

Pesek, 1999

Image: Burj Khalifa as at 03.11.2008 (Aheilner, Wikimedia Commons)

“an impartial observer would surely conclude that the way in which architects like to configure their subject is at odds with the grosser reality of the market for construction. Few are the jobs which concur with their hopes, their desires, their interests and their scale of values.”

Saint, in Ray, 2005

‘A Marginal Profession’

The business of architecture is fundamentally connected with its position in society. In a society driven by economic growth projects like the Burj Khalifa represent architecture’s failure to promote economically, environmentally and socially sustainable development. This is in direct conflict with the principals that most individual architects and their institutions claim to hold dear, as discussed by Andrew Saint in his essay in ‘Architecture and its Ethical Dilemmas’:

“Architecture is a fairly weak and even a marginal profession… in proportion to their numbers, to the publicity which they nowadays seem able and indeed obliged to generate, and to the high cultural respect in which the best of them, past or present, are held, architects enjoy little clout. The underlying reason for this must be that neither the state nor the public thinks architecture awfully important.”

Saint, in Ray, 2005

Sustainable Leadership

In the absence of an extremely unlikely return to the centralised, state-sponsored building programmes of the 1950s and 1960s, architecture as a profession needs to exert influence over its private clients, asserted with the individual and collective knowledge held in its people and institutions, working with allied professions, to promote the sustainable (in all senses) development that will best serve society going forward. This will be discussed further in the following final section of this essay. 

Future Architecture – Sustainable Leadership

On the basis of the previous analysis of the profession’s historical and contemporary situation, the following are suggestions for the future of architecture in Britain, some of which are beginning to be implemented already, whilst others need further encouragement and development.

Future Education

·       Less does mean worse – any attempts to reduce the length, content or funding associated with an architectural education should be resisted. Given the potential for architects to lead in the vital promotion of sustainable development through creative and innovative application of knowledge to real world issues, it is essential that they achieve a level of academic maturity and experience. The area of funding is particularly important – if access to the profession is restricted to those whose parents can fund them through university and a year of unpaid ‘work experience’, it will become less diverse, less creative and therefore less able to address the needs of society as a whole.

·       Links with practice – a constant source of criticism for practitioners, practitioners are those in the best position to resolve this. By actively participating in teaching and projects at schools of architecture (as many already do), mutual benefits of exchange of knowledge and ideas can be encouraged, leading to more developed graduates, and more enriched practitioners.

·       Multidisciplinarianism – the culture of collaboration and sharing of knowledge and ideas should be engendered in schools of architecture by regularly engaging with other departments in joint projects and opportunities for cross-fertilisation. Of particular pertinence are the other built environment courses – planning, engineering, surveying and landscape architecture – however this should not be limited when opportunities may exist with other disciplines.

·       Broader skill base, later specialism – the dilution of the architect’s traditional role has partially resulted from the ability of other professions to move into specific areas, and do them better than architects could. Architectural education should provide the opportunity to acquire the broad knowledge traditionally associated with it, but also offer opportunities for qualification in useful specialist areas that society demands – environmental design, project management, disaster mitigation/reconstruction, infrastructure and so on.

Future Institutions

·       Abolition of the ARB – architects should not need protection in law – their value to society should be proven and demonstrable. Proven value and expertise can be recognised through a system of chartering (perhaps with specialisms), far more valuable than basing the awarding of the title purely on completion of the proscribed education and paying for the relevant insurance.

·       ‘RIBA as Custodian’ – the RIBA should continue to operate as a professional collective for the furthering of architectural knowledge, sharing and advancing the field through education, CPD, public programmes, symposia, lectures, exhibitions and publications. The RIBA is also best placed to take up the administration of the registration of chartered specialist architects.

Future Practice

·       Multidisciplinary design practices – as is already apparent with the larger built environment consultancies (Arup, Atkins etc.), a combination of professions and skills is needed to undertake increasingly complex construction projects, and these companies are particularly adept at winning bids that require pre-qualification and complex procurement methods. Small and medium sized practices may wish to look into setting up collaborative working, employing other professionals within their practice and increasing modes of collaboration to deliver projects more effectively.

·       Less protection, more collaboration – as previously mentioned, protectionism is not necessary, and holds the profession back. Only by working with the other professions (project managers, structural engineers, quantity surveyors) can architects find a successful and valued position in the industry.

·       Added-value – fundamental to architecture’s survival as a profession, and something that architects could excel at, is adding value. Not only in monetary terms by designing efficiently constructed and operated buildings, but also in other measures of value. These include brand value, civic value, social value, lifecycle value, operational value and desired outcomes. Morrell (2006) terms the sum total of these values as design value. Individual architects and the RIBA should continue to promote the areas in which good design can add value, and fight for ‘design value’ over pure ‘exchange value’.

“the value of architecture lies in the outcomes it enables, rather than the price of construction”

Morrell, 2006 

Collaborative Enabler

In summary, the position of the architect should be that of a collaborative enabler, working with every stakeholder in a project, applying expert design knowledge and skills and leading the way for a sustainably developed society. Some changes to existing structures and attitudes are required to attain this position, however the foundations of the profession, its institute, its schools, its history and its members are strong, placing architecture in a position to make an invaluable contribution to public life.

Bibliography 

Books

Dalziel, R. & Ostime, N., 3DReid (2008) Architect’s Job Book. London: RIBA.
Berlage Institute (2003) Hunch 6/7: 109 provisional attempts to address six simple and hard questions about what architects do today and where their profession might go tomorrow. 
Duffy, F. and Hutton, L. (1998) Architectural Knowledge: The Idea of a Profession, London: Spon.
Ray, N. (ed.) (2005) Architecture and its Ethical Dilemmas, London: Routledge.

Journals

Baillieu, A. (2009) RIBA must stop navel-gazing, Building Design, 11 Dec 2009.
Goldwyn Blumenthal, R. (2009) Eyes on the Skyscrapers, Barron’s, 07 Dec 2009.
Fulcher, M. (2009) Number of unemployed architects rises for 16th month in a row, Architects’ Journal, 17 Dec 2009.
Hopkirk, E. (2010) Riba condemns government for scrapping Core Housing Standards, Building Design, 25 Nov 2010.
Hopkirk, E. (2010) School heads’ fury over Browne report, Building Design, 15 Oct 2010.
Hurst, W. (2009) RIBA rejects advice to hold fire on Arb, Building Design, 11 Dec 2009.
Klettner, A. (2010) RIBA lobbies to take over Arb’s functions, Building Design, 15 Oct 2010.
Klettner, A. (2010) Arb survives as Reed rues ‘missed opportunity’, Building Design, 22 Oct 2010.
Lazell, M. (2009) Architects: give us protection of function, Building Design, 17 Apr 2009.
Morrell, P. (2006) The Value of Everything, Architectural Review, May 2006.
Oldham, G. & Luder, O. (2009) Should protection of the title ‘architect’ be abolished?, Building Design, 27 Feb 2009.
Pesek, W. (1999) Want to Know Where the Next Disaster Will Hit?, Barron’s, 17 May 1999.

Reports

ARB (2009) Annual Report 2009, London: ARB.
OGC (2007) Construction Projects Pocket Book, London: Office of Government Commerce.
Martin, L. (1958) Report of the RIBA Conference on Architectural Education, London: RIBA.
RIBA (2004) Report of the ARB Review Task Group, London: RIBA.
RIBA (2007) Protection of Title, London: RIBA.
RIBA (2009) Annual Review 2009, London: RIBA.
RIBA (2009) RIBA Manifesto: Buildings Matter, London: RIBA.

Electronic Sources

Bottoms, E. (2010) AA History, [Online], available http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/AALIFE/LIBRARY/aahistory.php [27 Dec 2010].
Hatherley, O. (2010) Architectures of Dereliction, [Online] Mute Magazine, available http://www.metamute.org/en/print/13425 [27 Dec 2010]
Reagan, B. (2010) Burj Khalifa rents tumble 40%, [Online] The National, UAE, available http://www.thenational.ae/business/property/burj-khalifa-rents-tumble-40 [27 Dec 2010].
Stevens, G. (2010) A History of Architectural Education in the West, [Online], available http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/Historyed.html [27 Dec 2010].