ISBN Prefix: 978-9966-092-40-3
Half a century ago, a group of architects armed only with a vision intentionally got together in Malta to conceive the idea of an association of architects in the Commonwealth. Resolutions were made in that inaugural conference in 1965, the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) was born and with that, the proverbial journey of a thousand miles for this profession in the Commonwealth began.
The CAA Golden Jubilee Commemorative Book traces this journey right from inception to create a fact-file about the Association, detailing its structure, profiles of the member organisations, schools of architecture and activities in the Commonwealth. Its forte is the priceless memoirs of past office-bearers reminiscing on the highs and challenges of their tenure.
In the characteristic fashion of publications meant for architects, the editorial team aspired to make this piece of work easy on the eye when telling each story by interspersing every captivating account with timeless photographs and images, a marked difference in style from its predecessor, the CAA Handbook. Although devoted exclusively to activities of this day
of architects in Commonwealth countries, it is hoped that this book will be a useful source, providing information to member organisations, schools of architecture, individuals, governments and official bodies both within and outside the Commonwealth.
For this reason, we carry information about the Commonwealth generally to remind the reader about the whole Commonwealth family including those countries we hope will soon join the fraternity but where at present there are no institutes, associations or societies of architects. Messages from the Queen, key individuals, professional organisations and other well-wishers with whom the CAA has over the years had a very close and productive engagement, go on to underscore the fact that, in bringing professionals of the world together, the CAA is a first among equals.
There are people who live in a dream world, and there are people who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other. If, by dint of their calling, turning dreams into reality is what architects do for a living, then a gathering of architects to celebrate can be no less than an ethereal event. The launch of this publication has found its perfect timing.
At fifty years since its inception the Commonwealth Association of Architects is sixteen years younger than its parent association, the Commonwealth, and twenty years younger than the United Nations at its seventieth anniversary this year. This lineage is central to understanding the CAA as an idea and an institution and what distinguishes it from any number of other national and international bodies. As an idea it shares the founding vision of the UN and the Commonwealth Association to articulate human survival, to uphold human unity, and to advance human dignity. As an institution it is the oldest international institution that is specifically concerned with human habitation towards survival, unity, and dignity: Architecture. Its accomplishments are nested within the broad history of architecture, its values within social and scientific advances in history, and its composition within the process of increasing social and political unification that has motivated the Commonwealth and culminates in the UN.
The history of this Association endows it with a legacy and a mission to provide a proactive platform of action for the three aims of Survival, Unity, and Dignity for humankind as it pursues its collective work, and its members continue their individual creative achievements. The Association is not alone in this mission. The three aspects of this mission are indeed those that are articulated in the UN’s fundamental agenda:
“Dignity, People, Planet, Prosperity, Partnerships, and Justice: these are six essential elements of an agenda for human and sustainable development which would enable nations to grow and develop in inclusive ways within the boundaries set by nature. This is a transformative agenda, and it is badly needed.”*
As this book on the 50th Anniversary shows, this association has come a long way since its inception. It has met many challenges in the course of its evolution and growth as would be expected. It has done much to advance architecture through the sharing of experience in individual practice, and in the importance of collective action. Institutions are the necessary means as well as the measure of collective achievements towards providing for the future of a profession. the CAA has done much to help in such institutionalization. An important part of this effort has been the CAA’s contribution and interest in architectural education. It has actively advanced this interest by establishing the first internationally formal system of validation for architectural programmesone that endures to the present. At 50 CAA is still in its formative years. That is cause for celebration. What we celebrate is not just the history of its past. We regard the past as aprologue for a future in which the vision of this association is even more relevant, and its collective energies more urgently needed to fulfill the fundamental agenda of the future.
The 50th Anniversary of the Commonwealth Association of Architects is a time to reaffirm the central place of architecture in the history of human civilization, and the growing need to organize individual and collective efforts and ideas.
The Commonwealth embodies the vision of a world united in recognition of the essential contribution of each culture to the vitality of the human legacy, without dominance of one culture over another. This is a balance that is as precious as it is precarious, and which challenges those bodies such as the Commonwealth Association of Architects to whom this legacy is entrusted to uphold and advance it. The history of how it has met this challenge successfully is indeed cause for
celebration at its 50th anniversary. Human advances in our means and values and ideals have enriched our culture and extended our reach and horizons beyond our own confines. So should our aspirations, and our efforts to apply those advances to meeting the practical needs of societies world-wide.
This is not an individual task. It requires cooperation and organization in the form of institutions that can bring together resources and maintain them in effective working constructs. This is the vision implicit in the formation of both the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth of Architects. The recognition and affirmation of this vision is indeed cause for celebration and best wishes for its continued effort in the future.
Building resilience is a Commonwealth priority, and is vital to realising our Commonwealth vision of nations and communities that are better able to withstand shocks – whether these are generated by external crises, natural disasters or the impact of climate change.
Architects contribute to building resilience both literally and figuratively. It is therefore fitting that in marking its Golden Jubilee and fifty years of service to our member states collectively, the Commonwealth Architects Association should take the theme of ‘Designing City Resilience’. The built environment has undergone enormous transformations over the past five decades, and the majority of our citizens now inhabit cityscapes and depend on infrastructures that in many respects would barely be recognisable to those who founded the CAA in 1965.
The social and economic impact of such change in the lives of our citizens is immense, and the degrees of global, regional, and local connection and interdependence have greatly increased in our rapidly compacting world. Commonwealth links do much to facilitate international collaboration, and to advance education and understanding between professionals working in a rich diversity of physical environments and cultural contexts. As a ‘network of networks’ the Commonwealth derives much of it strength from connections and partnership, whether formal or informal, that thrive independently of
official links. The depth and vitality of these ties makes the Commonwealth distinctive among international groupings of nations for the sense of kinship and affinity that exists between the people of its member states, and the ease with which they are able to work together.
The CAA is a fine example of how formal collaboration and networking between professionals in the Commonwealth can provide an extremely valuable platform for mutual support and for the validation of qualifications. This maintains confidence in the quality of architectural education provided by schools, and results overall in the progressive raising of professional standards in our member states. It can also contribute to a significant broadening of experience for individual practitioners.
In commending the CAA for its contribution to Commonwealth cohesion and international understanding over fifty years, we are able to draw fresh encouragement as we recall the dedication and energy of many eminent architects who have contributed to development and progress in countries throughout the Commonwealth. Carrying forward their work, and building on the strong foundations laid by earlier generations, gives cause to celebrate our rich inheritance. This leads us to reach out with confidence in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding to the promise of future Commonwealth cooperation, professional fellowship, and global connection.
Iam pleased to send this message of felicitation and warmest good wishes to the Commonwealth Association of Architects on the occasion of its Golden Jubilee celebrations. The Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA), with its dedication to the advancement of architecture, performs a most valuable service in promoting cooperation among member associations of architects in the Commonwealth. It has a commendable focus on the path to social progress through the advances of architecture in the world today.
In the past 50 years the CAA has contributed much towards the development of professional standards, and the use of innovative approaches to widen the scope and knowledge of architecture, to improve the built environment; and thus work towards social and economic development, in many countries of the Commonwealth. These
celebrations mark recognition of five decades of service to the Profession of Architecture, with a fresh commitment to further progress in the field and facing up to the challenges ahead.
I wish the Commonwealth Association of Architects the best in the celebrations of this Golden Jubilee, and in achieving new heights of success in the future.
This year, CAA celebrates its 50th anniversary. As the President, it is my privilege to mark this milestone, which is indeed an extraordinary accomplishment and epitomizes the will, determination and lasting success of an organization that has worked tirelessly towards advancing the mission of architecture and protecting the interests of its members.
CAA’s 50th anniversary is intended to be more than just a celebration; it is an opportunity to lay the foundations for CAA’s next 50 years - and beyond. This Golden Jubilee, will guide our direction into the future where our voice will be heard, our ideas will be received, and the impact of our contributions to society will be fully realized. I believe the energy of this event will firmly establish CAA among the pantheon of regional organizations.
CAA has grown and flourished due to the commitment of our members to its founding vision, the pioneering leadership of distinguished past presidents, their Councils and member organizations. During the past year in particular, the Council has taken several initiatives bringing in much needed innovations in re-branding CAA. I sincerely appreciate all their efforts and the teamwork. I am humbled by what we have so far accomplished, thrilled by what we are going to accomplish in the coming years, and convinced that the true message of this association is that together we can continue to uphold and to extend the reach of our field, Architecture, as
the primal expression of human survival and humanism as its value system.
CAA, through its activities, is working toward a Commonwealth in tune with the future as an organization that draws on its history, plays to its strengths, vigorously pursues its member’s common interests and seizes the opportunities open to it to shape a better world. Thus in response to the changing times, that CAA embarked on a process of restructuring and repositioning with a Strategic Plan ‘Vision 2025’ renewing our enduring commitment to the values and principles of the Commonwealth.
This Vision endorsed the principles of the Commonwealth’s Accord for Enhancing Development Effectiveness and its commitment to the rule of law, good governance, respect for diversity and human dignity, opposition to discrimination, and the promotion of peoplecentred and sustainable development. The focus was on delivering within a results-based framework and with priorities that reflected CAA’s comparative advantage.
With a broad-based consultative process, Vision 2025 has prioritized working on all necessary steps through our professional services to support the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and objectives of Agenda 21. The 2013–2016 period has been one of assessment of this Vision and deliberations on the new targets that would succeed them after 2016.
CAA’s Resolution in 2013 urging governments of Caribbean countries to implement legislation to regularize the profession of architecture and to register only professionally qualified architects in their respective countries will go a long way securing a strong future.
This is our role in Advocacy. The opportunity of reaching over 1.5 million people at ‘Transcending Horizons’ the first international exhibition organized by CAA on the eve of CHOGM 2013, in Colombo Sri Lanka marked a time of transformation for the organization. CAA was visible in advocating with the Heads of Governments with a Resolution insisting on the need to build Urban Resilience on matters relating to the Built Environment. We made it clear that the commonwealth must address climate change and its impacts with extreme weather already causing billions of dollars in damage and flooding washing away coastal infrastructure, and the world is already at a tipping point. The International Summit by RIBA during our Golden Jubilee, on the theme ’Designing City Resilience’ is taking this important message beyond its frontiers.
Practicing our professional Advocacy as agreed in the CAA Strategy for Advocacy; also in areas of Governance, Fighting poverty, Human rights, cross-connecting civil society, education, and sustainable development, we shall look beyond our shores to engagement with the world in ways that are both exciting and challenging.
CAA recognizes and values it place in the global development community and the strategic importance of the Commonwealth community of architects in taking up new and emerging critical issues of the future. It is incumbent on the CAA to promote many projects such as the ‘Listing of Specialist Architects’ Architects’ and P4P (Projects for Partnerships). While I am indeed happy that CAA is launching these projects on the eve of our Golden Jubilee, projects of this nature will make CAA not only relevant but also useful for practices, with commercial benefits to all stake holders.
The New Vision for the Commonwealth, in times of ongoing social and technological change places on the CAA a responsibility to achieve and maintain a position at the forefront of innovation in educational and validation of architectural schools, which has been one of the flag-ship activities of the association. CAA intends to pursue this activity with renewed vigor.
Today, CAA stands at a historically critical moment, a time of great challenges and opportunities. While we have achieved a great deal, there is much more to do as we move toward our lofty goal. I believe the best days of CAA are yet to come. I invite all architects in the commonwealth to join us on this epic journey; let us move forward with purpose and passion. The future is ours to create- let us write the most glorious chapter ever for the Commonwealth Association of Architects.
Stephen R.Hodder, MBE
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) is delighted to be hosting the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) 50th Anniversary from 15th-19th June 2015 in London.
The week-long programme celebrates the CAA’s first 50 years while also looking to the future. It incorporates the CAA’s general business such as meetings of its Council and General Assembly together with a significant International Summit on 16th17th June focusing on the theme “Designing City Resilience”. The event also forms part of the London Festival of Architecture which comprises a programme of activities, including exhibitions and talks, during the month of June. The list of speakers at the Summit include the Commonwealth Secretary General and the government’s Chief Scientific Officer.
The General Assembly and the Summit will be accompanied by the announcement of the results of the CAA Student’s Competition followed by the RIBA President’s reception with a formal banquet organised by the Worshipful Company of Chartered Architects, to be held within the spectacular surroundings of London’s famous Drapers Hall.
The RIBA is a vibrant organisation that reflects not only its long heritage but also the world of today. British architecture in the 21st Century has an almost unrivalled reputation around the world for daring, innovation, creativity and flair. From Beijing to New York and Doha to Mumbai, the expertise of our members is playing a major role in redefining the world’s cities and creating extraordinary buildings.
The UK has become an important global hub for architecture with many thousands heading here to study and set up practice. Of all the world’s cities, London has a greater concentration of architects’ practices,
engineering and built-environment consultancies than anywhere else. This preeminence means that British architecture today is a global venture. Working across all sector types – from airports to art galleries, stadia to skyscrapers - practices based in the UK are responsible for bringing to life some of the most outstanding and celebrated structures in the world. For both large and small architectural firms, working internationally is an essential part of what they do and architecture has emerged as one of our most significant and visible creative exports.
The continuing pressure on our cities coupled with the effects of climate change continue to challenge the profession everywhere. The success of RIBA members in international markets has been largely due to their ability to adapt to changing circumstances, coupled with their worldleading approaches to sustainability and their willingness to respond to different cultures and contexts, embrace new technology and pioneer best practice.
RIBA has been actively supporting its members in meeting these demands, and is actively engaged in the development of new technologies such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), which is an integrated digital platform billed to revolutionise the way buildings are delivered in the future, creating better outcomes and efficiencies for clients.
As part of its support for the CAA’s 50th anniversary celebrations, the RIBA will be hosting an international Summit focused firmly on the future and on the topic ‘Designing City Resilience’.
Recognising how the interdependency of systems, professions, vision, leadership, technology and design creativity can create cities that are resilient to the physical, social and economic challenges they face in a fast-
changing world, Designing City Resilience has been created to foster and support an international exchange of ideas between organisations, professions, sectors and city leaders to bring world-class thinking to the current and future challenges faced by cities across the globe.
Designing City Resilience 2015 will provide a platform for organisations to forge international relationships, prototype ideas, share knowledge and experiences and work together to deliver suitable solutions to local and global challenges caused by urbanisation, climate change and trauma. The two-day Summit offers a mix of presentations and practical working groups to:
• Promote transition to the theme of resilience from the humanitarian sector into the consciousness of public/private sector stakeholders
• Better define the theme of resilience in so far as it relates to cities
• Highlight the need for a new paradigm addressing the complexities and interdependencies associated with resilient cities
• Provide a forum for sharing experiences and exploring new ideas for achieving city resilience
The aim of the Summit will be to develop a set of key principles; a roadmap for change that will enable governments and the private sector to work together to strengthen economic, political and physical infrastructure and make cities adaptable, vibrant and robust. These solutions will be based on cross-fertilisation of ideas, interconnectedness, interdependency and inter-operability. Outputs from the event will form the basis both for a publication and a roadmap for change.
The Summit will also create a unique forum for policymakers, practitioners and business leaders to come together around the important theme of city resilience.
RIBA and the CAA look forward to engaging their members with globally important issues such as these in the years ahead.
As we look to the future, it is clear that unparalleled challenges and opportunities exist in creating sustainable, resilient cities in an increasingly interconnected and complex world which will require new approaches and partnerships, the breaking down of barriers and a process of constant innovation.
Designing City Resilience will bring together key groups involved in: design and construction; development and infrastructure; city leadership and governance; insurance and finance; technology and communicationsto share ideas, create strategies and to recommend and implement meaningful principles to make better cities capable of coping with the stresses of mass urbanization, climate change and unexpected shocks to the system.
to unite the architects of the world without any form of discrimination.
The Commonwealth Association of Architects, aneminent organization of practising architects in Commonwealth countries, shares the International Union of Architects’ commitment to architectural education, research, and professional development. The CAA and the UIA demonstrated their common values by signing a Memorandum of Understanding in 2010.
International organisations are crucial in influencing ethical and socially responsible development throughout the world. During the UIA World Congress in Durban in 2014, CAA endorsed the UIA Declaration for 2050 Imperatives, thus enlisting Commonwealth architects and their professional associations
in the global struggle for a sustainable built environment, and a better world. Throughout its 50 years of existence, CAA’s network of member institutes has been instrumental in leading the development of the architectural profession.
It is my pleasure to acknowledge that most CAA member institutes are also members of the International Union of Architects. That means that our activities which impact the profession are complementary. The diversity of our members symbolises the diversity of today’s architectural world. Together, the UIA and CAA enrich the development and meaning of architecture globally.
In this time of celebration for the Commonwealth Association of Architects, I wish you a happy 50th anniversary and look forward to meeting representatives from all CAA member institutes in London in June 2015. The mutual cooperation and coordination between UIA and CAA should be reaffirmed for the next 50 years.
On the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA), it is both a pleasure and an honour for me to express congratulations and good wishes on behalf of ARCASIA. Our two associations have always had a close affiliation throughout our history since six of ARCASIA founding institutions were also members of the CAA. Since 1965, the CAA has been faithfully committed to advancing
the practice of architecture, architecture education, promoting awareness of global issues, as well as forging close cooperation within its member institutes. These endeavors have uplifted the architecture profession through all regions of the world. I wish to commend the Commonwealth Association of Architects for its contribution to the architecture profession worldwide. ARCASIA pledges our full support to the CAA objectives and initiatives to further improve our wonderful profession. We also wish to strengthen a close working relationship between our two associations even further.
Once again, on behalf of ARCASIA, I wish to congratulate the CAA and offer my best wishes for a memorable anniversary celebration and continued success.
Times may change, but some things are only transformed. The links set up by the Commonwealth Association came from a world interconnected by trade of goods and political influence. ACE‘s collaboration with the CAA has been based on knowledge exchange, principally on matters relating to architectural education and practice.
Together we promote high quality professional standards and ethics and affirm the basic principles of professionalism internationally. We are bound by the fact that some of our Member Organisations are also part of the CAA – Cyprus, Malta, the UK. More importantly, we are all part of the network of architects committed to advancing architectural quality, supporting sustainable development, ensuring high standards of qualification, advocating quality in architectural practice and fostering cross-
border collaboration. We now face a new reality – more than just an economic crisis which suggests a temporary state – that will not go away. It is a situation to which we must adjust and for which we must prepare. Together we face the challenges of climate change, regeneration of our cities, fuel scarcity, standards of education, access to markets and the unemployment of our young professionals.
We must respond by settings our own standards which must be high and aspirational. By practising responsibly, we should regain the confidence that brings with it the recognition and credibility that may have been eroded over the years. In a shrinking world, where opportunities are globalised, barriers are being dismantled and collaboration is more important that ever.
We congratulate the CAA on its 50th anniversary and commend it for the excellent work it has done for its members and for society over the years. We look forward to a reinforced and ever closer relationship in the future.
CAA - How it all began
The CAA had its origin in a meeting of representatives of Commonwealth architectural institutes and societies when it became apparent that the time had come for a closer, structured and more explicit form of association amongst professional practitioners of architecture within the Commonwealth than periodic conferences on an informal basis.
The following two articles were originally published in the 25th anniversary publication of the CAA and have been extracted from the ‘Commonwealth Association of Architects 25 Years of Achievement 1965 - 1990’.
By Geoffrey Rowe
The beginning of the CAA I suppose, in some ways could be attributed indirectly to Bill Holford (Sir William Holford, eventually Lord Holford) when President of the RIBA around 1960 -1961. I say “indirectly” because during his Presidency Bill Holford felt strongly that the Royal Charter was out-of-date and inappropriate to the profession in the sixties. He discussed his ideas with senior RIBA council members and Presidents of Allied Societies like myself (I represented the West Yorkshire Society of Architects at that time on the RIBA Council).
He received a large measure of agreement that major changes were needed and accordingly held discussions on an informal basis with representatives of the Privy Council, Gordon Ricketts then Secretary of the RIBA being in attendance. By the time Robert Matthew became President (Later Sir Robert Matthew) the Privy Council had indicated that in principle they would agree to a new Royal Charter although they pointed out -and rightly -that it was likely to be a time-consuming procedure. I was asked to join the Charter Committee in 1962, and was elected Chairman of the Allied Societies and Vice President of the RIBA, remaining in these positions throughout the 1962/3 and 1963/4 sessions.
All the U.K Societies and Associations (and even some Chapters) were represented. Incidentally Ireland was represented both by the Ulster and Eire Presidents! Sir Robert Matthew realised that though small in numbers in the RIBA Council, the Overseas Societies who were in alliance with the RIBA represented a substantial part of the RIBA’s membership both numerically and in their importance. He also knew that the new Charter was likely to end the Alliance of U.K Societies with the RIBA on a formal basis, and to establish a system of Regionalisation. With a new system of voting for the RIBA Council, with nationally and regionally elected members in the proportion of approximately one National councillor to two Regional councillors, this was inevitable.
The old Societies, Branches and Chapters would no longer exist in “Alliance” with the
RIBA, their place being taken by a Regional and Branch structure to which funds would be voted annually by RIBA Council. There would be neither formal nor informal representation on RIBA Council by Overseas Allied Societies, so some formula had to be devised to assist RIBA members overseas in a practical way, without assuming responsibility in a patronising sense, once alliance had ceased.
Sir Robert suggested that he would take over the overseas problems and that would assume responsibility for the U.K through my Chairmanship of the Allied Societies Conference. Whilst I was consulting my colleagues in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales Sir Robert consulted with colleagues from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa and other parts of Africa. We had countless meetings with the Commonwealth Institute (whose headquarters building in London Sir Robert’s firm designed); the Commonwealth Foundation; the Board of Trade, and the Foreign Office as well as the Privy Council. Eventually we all reached agreement on the provisions for the new Charter and the setting up of a Commonwealth Association of Architects which was to be supported initially by a grant annually from the Commonwealth Foundation.
It was clearly understood that the grant was not to be of a permanent nature and should only pertain until the CAA became self-supporting. This might be achieved through a per capita membership levy on membership subscriptions paid by all CAA member Institutes or Associations. A meeting was held in Malta which I could not attend as was in the U.S.A. But I will not enlarge further except to say that I know Robert always had firmly in his mind that the CAA should become truly regional in its working, and that it should be strong enough through its constituent members to influence the way that the UIA should go. He certainly showed the way himself when he became President of the UIA and it was a sad loss to Architecture all over the world when he died in 1976.
This first exploratory conference was an outstanding success and… no one walked out. We decided to recommend the establishment of a Commonwealth Association of Architects serving five geographical regions “without distinction of politics, race or religion”. We set up a steering committee under the chairmanship of Robert Matthew to define objectives and to work out the details, and we accepted an invitation from our chairman to hold the Inaugural Conference in 1965 in Malta!
And so the CAA was launched. In those euphoric days, some envisaged an idealised professional world with freedom for architects to practise anywhere in the Commonwealth - universal registration! In this regard, astonishment was expressed when we had to point out that in Canada each of the ten provinces was autonomous, with its own conditions of professional registration; a Canadian, therefore, did not have, and still does not have, complete freedom to practise anywhere in Canada.
The RIBA’s universal influence, through its policy of the recognition of schools of architecture, and its examination system which established high standards and provided a means of entry to the profession in most Commonwealth countries, was envied, especially by emerging regional groups with powerful national aspirations. The slow pace of change as the old Empire merged into the Commonwealth, was irksome to those who wished to throw off the cloak of colonialism, and the century-old traditions and paternal character of the RIBA seemed anachronistic in a world where new nations were born overnight (Between 1945 when it was founded, and 1986 membership in the United Nations increased from 50 to 159, and of these 6 and 27 respectively were Commonwealth countries). The recognition of such undercurrents is essential if we are to understand something of the stresses and strains that inevitably accompany imaginative international proposals which sometimes cut across traditional, cultural and professional boundaries.
Administration -The Secretariat Seen from the viewpoint of Africa, Asia and even the Americas and Oceania, the RIBA seemed to exercise a disproportionate
influence over CAA affairs. For example, the exacting position of Secretary (in a Secretariat starved of funds almost to the point of extinction) has been filled by dedicated men educated in Britain, but with some considerable experience overseas. All, however, have been recognisably part of the establishment; all were, to use a convenient overseas expression, ‘Anglos’ (i.e. white, usually with war-service experience). This, it can be argued, was not unreasonable at the beginning because continuity, a knowledge of professional problems at home and abroad, good personal contacts, access to sources of information and infinite patience, are essential to the successful running of the operation.
The Secretariat was set up originally at the RIBA and, after several moves over the years to other premises, in an attempt to allay criticism of dependence on the Royal Institute, but to reduce costs, it returned to 66 Portland Place in 1988 -a sensible decision, if only on the grounds of accessibility to overseas visitors of which there are many. However, we have discussed from time to time the practicality of relocating the Secretariat in one of our other regions. The effects of such a radical move are impossible to determine, and no one yet has had the courage to take action. Situations change, of course, but at the present time the U.K. is still a desirable location; the country is politically stable and is the gateway to Europe: London has immense cultural and economic resources, it is an important communications centre and has available the unparalleled professional expertise of the RIBA. But the development of electronic media, and the ambitions of the next generation of architects, may make a move feasible and desirable in the not-too-distant future.
The Presidency
We have a gentleman’s agreement that the Presidency of the CAA will circulate among the five regions of the Commonwealth -Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. Incidentally, “’The Americas” is really a misnomer: it includes Canada and the Caribbean, Guyana, and Bermuda, but not the U.SA -although some overtures have been made to encourage participation by the American Institute of Architects, probably through a new kind of Associate
Membership. By giving each region, in turn, an opportunity to elect the President, one could be accused of discrimination, yet sometimes problems arise over nomination. It is the responsibility of the region involved to present to the triennial CAA Assembly the name of its nominee, who is then normally voted into office.
The position of President is also exacting: among other things he is expected to be an architect of high standing, experienced in international affairs; a diplomatist; and a strong administrator - perhaps most important of all, he should have a good sense of humour. The world is indeed his parish, and it is hoped that our Presidents will visit each of our regions, but the cost, in time and money, is high. Many of the President’s expenses must be underwritten personally, or by his firm, usually with the support of long-suffering partners, the faceless ones to whom the CAA owes a considerable debt of gratitude. In fact, a President’s expenses preclude all but the successful professional from holding office. In the educational field
our professional institutes, universities, technical colleges, and national granting agencies (CIDA in Canada. for example) have sometimes come to the aid of our council and board members, but their contribution fluctuates and is relatively small.
do not believe it is generally known that since its inception the CAA has paid, only on request, minimal transportation expenses to the President, Secretary, Board and Council member, plus GBP5 (about US $10) per day for all other expenses, such as hotel, food and taxis! Those of us who have worked for the CAA therefore, have contributed far more than time and energy to the cause. We really are a charitable organisation. And then, of course, there are the interminable and inescapable head¬quarters’ costs -rent, salaries, telephones, stationery, etc. Whether we like it or not, more generous funding is essential to the proper functioning of the CAA whose income is so uncertain. Perhaps this little book could be used to attract grants, major donations, and bequests.
The following quotation from the designer helps to explain how such a unique and meaningful symbol was achieved:
“Medals are my favourite form of expression. They are like short poems. When I make a medal, I first hold the clay in my palm, where it nestles comfortably. always hope that one day the medal will rest in another palm and give it the same joy that it gave me to create it.”
de PederyHunt
In the 1950s the RIBA gave a very handsome gold presidential medal to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. In the late 1970s the RAIC College of Fellows agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to provide a similar Presidential medal to the CAA and there was to be a competition for the design open to students from all the Canadian Schools of Architecture. Only three designs were submitted; none was considered suitable by the jury, and the students were paid off!
Subsequently, the commission was given to a well-known designer, Dora de PederyHunt of Toronto. She was asked to produce something suitable for all countries with no specific symbols which would relate to any particular country- i.e. no African elephants, Indian tigers, Canadian beavers, Australian kangaroos, etc. The final medallion, gold on a red and white ribbon, depicted a mature
tree of life whose roots represent the five member regions of the CAA; the strong trunk speaks of the members’ institutes gathered together to advance the cause of architecture; and the branches represent continuing growth of the membership, striving for continual improvement in their chosen profession.
The first medal was presented to President Ronald Gilling at a ceremony in the RIBA headquarters building in London. Identical medals in silver on a blue silk ribbon are presented to past Presidents for them to keep, while the original gold medal is passed on to each President in turn, to be worn while in office. The Council decided to present a silver medal to Lady Matthew in recognition of the late Sir Robert’s outstanding contribution to the CAA, and to Jai Bhalla as a former CAA President.
The Commonwealth Association of Architects had its origin in a meeting of representatives of Commonwealth architectural institutes and societies in London in 1963 when it appeared that the time had come for a closer and more explicit form of association than periodic conferences on an informal basis. By early 1964 nearly all societies represented at the conference had ratified its recommendations and the Commonwealth Association of Architects came into being. It is therefore just over one year old. Twenty-three societies constitute its membership and it virtually covers all Commonwealth countries where an established and recognised Society of Architects exists. Its objectives are to be found more precisely expressed in its constitution but the scope of its interests will be apparent in the various articles and notes below.
the International Union of Architects and the Commonwealth Association of Architects. The International Union of Architects has national sections and its Congress is primarily a meeting of individual architects. We are an association of institutes all very similar in outlook and habits and on this existing commonality of outlook, practical collaboration and joint action can be built in a way which is not readily achieved on a worldwide basis. Above all I think we can help in education. On another plane the richer parts of the world acknowledge an obligation to the poorer and if only to this end the Commonwealth Association of Architects can be an effective agency for already associated Governments and nations to give and receive aid.
The idea of publishing this handbook came from the Steering Committee when they met in Singapore in September 1964. We thought a handbook of this kind, being ready for the full Conference to be held in Malta in 1965, would first of all be a service to members as a straight reference book of information which has not so far been brought together in one document. The handbook could also be a mark of our sense of identity and purpose.
As President of the International Union of Architects I am perhaps prone to fall into pontifications on architecture’s international quality and mission. But it bears repeating that we are pre-eminently an international profession which, from the earliest days, has pursued and gained knowledge outside the borders of our own countries. For nearly a century there has been a free and vigorous movement of architects within the Commonwealth.
The basic organisation of the profession in our countries and our educational systems show a similarity having its origin in common cultural, educational and professional values. The Commonwealth Association of Architects is therefore able to give expression to the impulse to act internationally in communities which share the same values and are familiar. For this reason I think there is ample room for both
should like to stress the importance of mutual support in professional matters and the sustaining of professional codes which is one of our objectives. It is not easy in new countries to build up a healthy and accepted professional status. The authorities may not understand it; the background of economic and material factors in the building industry, the client’s attitude, and a very thin spread of architects on the ground may make it very difficult. But we should, I am convinced, not let expediency or material difficulties stand in the way of the architect taking up his classical status in relation to the client, the contractor, his colleagues, and societies at large.
Changes in the kind of client we get, new ideas on contract relationships, the demands of highly sophisticated preplanning techniques and other technical developments may be blurring the precise nature of the professional function. I am not myself sure where orthodoxy lies, but I have always been struck by the uniformity in the essentials of professional codes in many parts of the world and among Commonwealth institutes. Collaboration in asserting our beliefs and mutual support in securing their acceptance can be a very important part of the Association’s work. Finally, this is a place to acknowledge the generosity of the publishers of The Builder who have backed and organised this handbook and made possible its distribution to some 12,000 architects in distant parts of the world.
This article originally appeared as a foreword in the Handbook for the Commonwealth in 1965 published by The Builder for ‘Commonwealth Association of Architects
There have been several CAA publications. Snapshots of what their covers looked like are portrayed on 3 pages, showing what literary efforts have been put into documenting thoughts and ideas that the association has deemed important to its membership over this journey in time. However, the very first of these works is the CAA handbook.
But it was not until about twenty-five years ago that the idea of publishing a formal history of the CAA was firmly mooted by the Executive in September1988 when a Jubilee publication was needed for the Assembly in Kuala Lumpur, in September, 1989. It was agreed, therefore, that Past Presidents, Secretaries and others should be invited to submit
papers of their impressions, experiences and achievements during their term of office. It was thought that such individual contributions would be of special interest to readers both now and in the future.
The CAA once again commenced publishing an E-Journal from 2015 which is electronically transmitted across the globe to reach over 40,000 architects.
This Golden Jubilee book being the most recent publication of CAA, portrays the 50 years of the CAA and its influence on architecture of the Commonwealth. The book was an idea by the Council of CAA in 2013 and its actual production supported by Architectural Association of Kenya.
www.comarchitect.org/view-e-journal-of-caa/
The first Conference of the Commonwealth Association of Architects was held in Malta in 1965. It is instructive to note that some of the resolutions arising from the report on the purposes and achievements of the conference, are as relevant now as they were then. In this section, we sample some of them in the hope that in reading them members of the CAA will be stirred by the vision of the founding fathers and will stoke the dying embers of those noble goals and invent new strategies to address what remains unattained to
The architect, by his training, should be knowledgeable in the arts, humanities and social sciences as they affect structures and environment; and have the technical skills to direct the creation of buildings and groups of buildings. He should have sufficient knowledge of the specialist techniques related to architecture and planning to enable him to integrate these into designs that satisfy the requirements of his client and of society, functionally, economically and aesthetically.
The Conference set itself the aim of making substantial progress in the next few years towards achieving inter-recognition of architectural qualifications. The aim of the Association in promoting inter-recognition is to raise standards where necessary, to give the member societies in those countries a target to aim at, and to foster freer movement of architects from one country to another, and even within the same country.
A major step in the realisation of these aims would be the establishment of academic standards which could be recognised by all member societies and, in turn, by their registration authorities.
The Conference believed that twinning arrangements between schools in developed and developing countries should be encouraged to the fullest possible extent. It emphasised that twinning is a contractual agreement between schools on the basis of friendly collaboration and cultural exchange, which may include the provision and exchange of teachers and students.
The benefits do not necessarily accrue to one partner only. These agreements, made directly between schools, would not generally be the direct concern of member societies or of the Commonwealth Architects’Association, but the Association should be kept informed of links that are being formed and act as a channel of approach to assist schools which wish to enter into twinning arrangements. The
Association should circulate member societies with information about links that are formed.
Member Societies were advised that they should also try to recruit the best type of entrant to the profession by meeting parents, career advisers and pupils in secondary schools so as to explain the value and nature of the architectural career. Ignorance about it was widespread and action on these lines had paid handsomely in certain countries.
The Conference laid stress on the importance of all architects having a basic education in urban design and landscape architecture. These should be an integral part of the course to enable them to design buildings in their context, and to contribute as architects to the work of design teams in urban and rural areas. They should also have the opportunity for subsequent specialised study in postgraduate courses in urban design and landscape architecture.
Many countries were beginning to develop courses which provided for some joint training with other members of the building team. The examples of Ghana, Hong Kong, East Africa and Malta were cited. The pattern of the courses varied, but they often provided a common first year for architects, builders, building technologists and quantity surveyors.
Integration of education with engineers had not advanced so far, because it was more difficult to establish common ground. The common first year should be distinguished from the preliminary first year required to bring students up to matriculation standard. It was agreed that these developments were highly desirable and should be encouraged.
The Association should be asked to obtain and circulate information about these developments to member societies.
Indigenous traditions and methods should be respected in courses of architectural education.
Professor Sir Robert Matthew, CBE, ARSA, PPRIBA, Chairman of Steering Committee, President.
T. C. Colchester, CMG, Secretary.
Australia
Mr Gavin Walkley, FRAIA, FRIBA, MTPI, President, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Delegate.
Mr Max Collard, PRAIA, FRIBA, Past President, Member of Steering Committee.
Canada
Professor T. Howarth, FRIBA, FRAIC, Delegate, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, University of Toronto.
Mr J. Lovatt Davies, PRAIC, ARIBA, Member, Steering Committee.
Ceylon
Mr J. C. Nilgiria, FRIBA, Member of Executive Council, Ceylon Institute of Architects, Delegate.
East Africa
Mr S. C. Lock, ARIBA, AMTPI, Chairman, Education Committee, East African Institute of Architects, Delegate.
Ghana
Mr P. Turkson, ARIBA, AMPTI, Ghana Society and Institute of Architects, Delegate.
Hong Kong
Professor W. G. Gregory, ARIBA, Hong Kong Society of Architects, University of Hong Kong, Delegate.
India
Mr J. R. Bhalla, FRIIA, FRIBA, Vice~President, Indian Institute of Architects, Delegate.
Jamaica
Mr Donald Brown, ARIBA, Secretary, Jamaica Society of Architects, Delegate.
Ireland
Mr Pearse Mackenna, PRIAI, FRIBA, President, Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland, Delegate.
Mr W. A. Cantwell, FRIAI, FRIBA, VicePresident, Observer.
Malaya
Mr Hisham Albakri, ARIBA, Vice-President, Federation of Malaya Society of Architects, Delegate.
Malta
Mr R. Degiorgio, FRIBA, BE & A, President, Malta Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers, Delegate.
Mr J. Cachia Fearne, B.SC, BE & A, Observer.
New Zealand
Graham Dawson President, New Zealand Institute of Architects
Nigeria
Mr M. O. Onafwokan, ARIBA, MTPI, President, Nigerian Institute of Architects.
Mr Oluwole Olumiyiwa, ARIBA, Hon. General Secretary. Mr Augustine Egbor, ARIBA, Public Relations Officer.
Mr Adedokun Adeyemi, ARIBA, Council Member.
Mr E. O. Adeolu, ARIBA, Ahmedu Bello University, Observer.
Mr F. N. Mbanefo, ARIBA, Member, Steering Committee.
Pakistan
Mr Zahirud Deen, ARIBA, Vice-President, Institute of Architects, Pakistan, Delegate.
Rhodesia
Mr R. C. Brown, ARIBA, President, Rhodesian Institute of Architects, Delegate.
Singapore
Mr Lim Chong Keat, ARIBA, Vice-President, Singapore Institute of Architects, Member of Steering Committee.
South Africa
Dr D. M. Calderwood, MIA, ARIBA, AMTPI, President, South African Institute of Architects, Delegate.
Mr M. D. Ringrose, MIA, Observer.
United Kingdom
Sir Donald Gibson, CBE, PRIBA, President, Royal Institute of British Architects, Delegate. Prof. Arthur Ling, FRIBA, MTPI, Steering Committee Member.
Mr L. Hugh Wilson, OBE, FRIBA, MTPI, Chairman, Board of Architectural Education, Observer.
Mr Alister MacDonald, FRIBA, Observer.
Mr Wilfrid Woodhouse, FRIBA, Observer.
Mr G. R. Ricketts, Secretary, RIBA.
Mrs Elizabeth Layton, Under-Secretary, RIB A.
Mr Malcolm MacEwen, Under-Secretary, RIBA.
Miss K. E. Hall, Administrative Assistant, RIBA.
Trinidad and Tobago
Mr Alfie Franco, ARIBA, Trinidad and Tobago Society of Architects, Delegate.
1st GA and Conference Valletta - Malta
4th GA and Conference Canberra - Australia
and Conference Lagos - Nigeria
and Conference Nairobi - Kenya
GA and Conference Sydney - Australia
GA and Conference Ocho Rios - Jamaica
GA and Conference Nicosia - Cyprus
GA and Conference Wellington - New Zealand
19th GA and Conference Colombo - Sri Lanka
and Conference Brighton - UK
GA and Conference Kuala Lampur - Malasia
and Conference Mauritius - Grande Baie
GA and Conference Bloemfontein - South Africa
GA and Conference Melbourn, Australia
and Conference Dhaka - Bangladesh
1965 - 1967
Sir Robert Matthew CBE
United Kingdom
1971 - 1973
Jai Rattan Bhalla
India
1979 - 1982
Frederic Rounthwaite
Canada
1987 - 1989
Dato I. Hisham Albakri
Malaysia
1994 - 1997
Rusi Khambatta
India
2003 - 2007
Llewellyn van Wyk
South Africa
2013 - 2016
Rukshan Widyalankara
Sri Lanka
1967 - 1969
Sir Robert Matthew CBE
United Kingdom
1973 - 1976
Ronald Andrew Gilling OBE
Australia
1982 - 1985
Peter Johnson
Australia
1989 - 1991
Wale Odeleye
Nigeria
1997 - 2000
George Henderson
United Kingdom
2007 - 2010
Gordon Holden
New Zealand
1969 - 1971
Jai Rattan Bhalla
India
1976 - 1979
Oluwole Olusegun Olumuyiwa
Nigeria
1985 - 1987
John Wells-Thorpe
United Kingdom
1991 - 1994
David Jackson AO
Australia
2000 - 2003
Phillip Kungu
Kenya
2010 - 2013
Mubasshar Hussain
Bangladesh
President 1991 - 1994
My presidency began when Chief Dr. Wale Odeleye of Nigeria gave me the reins in Cyprus and ended with my handover to Rusi Khambatta of India in Mauritius.Some significant events that I remember marking my presidency: Hong Kong was returned to China with the potential of CAA losing a highly valued member. CAA resolved that countries that ceased to be Commonwealth members could if they wished continue with their CAA membership. This, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects did and has remained an active member ever since. This happened at a time when the Chinese profession was increasing its reach for exchange and contact with the rest of the world. Over the years, CAA has been represented in China on accreditation visits to its top schools. The phrase “Ecologically Sustainable Design’ entered the CAA lexicon for the first time when speakers covering building and landscape provided by CAA addressed ESD at a conference in Colombo. The phrase has morphed many times since then and probably is now simplified to Low Energy Design.
Institutes around the Commonwealth had very few people and Councils in their management who understood the value and benefits of the CAA. This was so, especially in the larger institutes of developed countries where membership of CAA was actually the most beneficial. It tended to be thought of as “old hat” like the Empire and contributions were low priority and the first to be cut on budget day.
Occasionally, CAA’s financial struggle, and generally in the countries where the profession was not able to get itself together to pay its dues, could be depressing, but the joy of meeting excited architects from every corner of the world because they had made it to their own international conference was deep. With this hindsight, it would be nice to do the job again but better.
President 1994 - 1997
When I was first confronted with the diverse nations of the Commonwealth, the uppermost thought was to bring forth a unity of ideas. The wide differences amongst the nations of the Commonwealth were a fact to be reckoned - with countries spanning from Australia in the East, to South Africa in the South, to Jamaica in the West. My experience with ARCASIA was similar; the only difference being that it was a group with Asian homogeneity. All the same, a common goal to enhance architecture was translated through exchange of education, practice and information, an interaction bearing in mind prevalent tradition, culture and technology rooted within the country. These basic principles being understood, it established a cordial relationship in spite of diverse conditions. The fact that we were all architects made it easier.
A constant worry in CAA is finance and this becomes a challenge for a number of countriesto afford affiliation. There is no doubt, that Institutes have realised the worth of relationship with CAA. It may be necessary to review the scale of subscriptions making it possible for a wider participation of Member Organizations in the Commonwealth.
Practice standards of developed countries are unacceptable in developing countries and vice-versa. Conferences have helped to sort out these differences, resulting in wider acceptability. CAA is in a better position as a viable vehicle to bring diverse parties across the globe to one podium in addressing some of the burning issues faced by mankind.
Web Portal listing Architects & Firms of CAA countries to facilitate networking and Joint Venture
The Commonwealth of Nations is poised for greater development activities in the decades to come. Global attention is focused towards its member countries, which will make them most sought after in terms of development and investments.
The Commonwealth over the years has been producing works of architecture and many of these have received worldwide acclaim. There is enormous potential, and the expertise of individual architects and firms belonging to CAA countries can be matched with what obtains in the developed world. These specialists have produced landmark buildings and projects of significant magnitude in their respective countries, through which their economies have benefited tremendously. However, the expertise gained through these projects has been limited only to the country in which it has been tested and applied, and the knowledge base has not been available to other counterpart architects to use. Technology transfer has not taken place and appreciation of these projects is only partly possible through the single media of written content in magazines and journals, although in a few instances there have been joint ventures, mostly through ad-hoc arrangements.
This issue has been addressed by the CAA Council, and with the assistance of professional bodies of member countries,the CAA has established a web portal listing of architects and firms as ‘trusted and inspiring specialists’. The listed specialists will have the capability, knowledge, experience and resources in terms of projects enabling other architects from member countries to select suitable firms/ practices depending on the project requirements for joint ventures. The list is named ‘CAA List of Specialist Architects’.
The listing of specialists will be limited to members of CAA countries while project categories will include, but not be limited to, Land Transportation & Traffic, Airports, Water Transportation, Healthcare, Electricity Generation, Leisure & Hotels, Mass Housing Technology, Specialized Commercial Establishments, Inclusive Environments, Landscape Architecture, Interiors and Architectural Education. The listing is a valuable repository of projects information in the Commonwealth for architects and prospective clients to refer to. The Web Portal was launched at the General Assembly of CAA on 18th June 2015 at 66, Portland Place, London RIBA marking the Golden Jubilee of the Association.
The Commonwealth is an association of sovereign nations which support each other and work together towards international goals. It is also a ‘family’ of peoples. With their common heritage in language, culture, law, education and democratic traditions, among other things, Commonwealth countries are able to work together in an atmosphere of greater trust and understanding than generally prevails among nations. The Commonwealth has no formal constitutional structure; it works from understood procedures, traditions and periodic statements of belief or commitment to action. Intergovernmental consultation is its main source of direction, enabling member governments to collaborate to influence world events, and setting up programmes carried out bilaterally or by the Commonwealth Secretariat, the association’s main executive agency.
The Commonwealth has established a framework for two broad pillars — Democracy and Development — upon which eight programmes are structured. These are Good Offices for Peace, Democracy and Consensus-Building, Rule of Law, Human Rights, Public Sector Development, Economic Development, Environmentally Sustainable Development and Human Development.
Environmentally sustainable development has been a prime concern of the Commonwealth Secretariat for more than 20 years. In 1989 Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed on the Langkawi Declaration on the Environment. The leaders recognised that development which destroyed the natural resource base and jeopardised future development was not really development at all. Importantly, they recognised that the environment is a global resource which required global responses ‘… our shared environment binds all countries to a common future’. In recent years this observation has
been brought into sharp focus by the growing consensus on the global threats posed by climate change. Drawing on Commonwealth principles, it also advocates the reform of international institutions to support more holistic and sustainable approaches to development.
The modern Commonwealth was established in 1949 as an association of free and equal sovereign states which had been part of the British Empire but were now independent and, in the case of India and Pakistan, on the verge of then becoming Republics. There are now 53 member states, with a combined population of 2.2 billion (approximately 30% of world population). Rwanda, the newest member joined in 2009, despite having no direct link to Britain.
The modern Commonwealth is a network of networks. Its members constitute more than 25 per cent of the membership of the United Nations, nearly 40 per cent of the World Trade Organisation, just under 40 per cent of the African Union, 90 percent of the Pacific Islands Forum, and 20 per cent of the Organisation of Islamic countries. In addition, five Commonwealth states are members of the G20, while Commonwealth countries are influential members of the European Union and the North American Free Trade Association. A few in the Commonwealth are some of the world’s fastest developing economies, and the relationship has allowed the technologically advanced markets to spread throughout the globe to new countries. More than $3 billion dollars of global trade takes place every year within the Commonwealth, and its combined GDP doubled from 1990 to 2000, and is forecast to grow by 15 per cent again by 2015. Affiliated to the Commonwealth as an officially recognized Pan Commonwealth professional Association, the CAA was formed in 1965 and is based in the UK as a Registered Charity.
The CAA is a membership organisation for institutes representing architects in Commonwealth countries.
Established to promote cooperation for ‘the advancement of architecture in the Commonwealth’ and particularly to share and increase architectural knowledge, it currently has 39 members spread over 5 regions namely Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. As a UK-registered charity, the CAA is governed by a General Assembly of Member Organizations which meets at least once every three years.
A Council comprising The President, Immediate Past President, Honorary
Secretary/Treasurer, 5 regional Vice Presidents, Chairs of Communication, Education and Practice Committees manages the Association. The Trustees are responsible for ensuring that the Charity complies with the requirements of the UK Charity Commission in particular and that activities remain within constitutional mandate.
The Trustees also make an annual report including independently examined accounts to the Charity Commission. The Association is known for its procedures for the validation of courses in architecture which convene multilateral visiting boards to visit schools to assess courses against set criteria.
Widyalankara (Sri Lanka) - President CAA BSc (B.E.), MSc (Arch.), FIA (S.L)
Hussain (Bangladesh) - Immediate Past President
Mansur Kurfi Ahmadu (Nigeria) - Chair of Education B.Sc (Arch),M.Sc.(Arch) .,Dip. (Plan),M.Sc. (PM).FNIA
Sithabile Mathe (Botswana) - Vice President Africa B.Arch (Hons) GU; Dip. Arch (PG) GSA, MNAL, MAAB, MBIDP
Jayantha Perera (Sri Lanka) - Chair of Communication BSc (BE), MSc (Arch), FIA (SL)
Kalim A. Siddiqui (Pakistan) - Vice President Asia, B.Arch., M.Sc. Planning, PCATP, FIAP, FIPP
John Sinclair (New Zealand) Vice President Oceania Alternate. Dip.Arch (Auckland), pp NZIA
Vincent Cassar (Malta) - Senior Vice President B.Arch., FIHEEM, FICE, C. Eng., A&CE
Steven Oundo (Kenya) - Chair of Practice B. Arch (Hons) UoN, MBA (Stra Mgmt) UoN, MAAK (A), MAAK (CPM), ACIArb.
Wycliffe Morton (St. Kitts & Navis) - Vice President, Americas, B.Sc (Arch), B.S.L.A., B.Arch, MLA, SKNIA, FCAA
Jalal Ahmed (Bangladesh) Vice President Asia Alternate, B.Arch, FIAB
John Geeson (UK) Secretary/Honorary Treasurer, Trustee, BA Hons, Dip Arch (Leics) RIBA AoU
Christos Panayiotides (Cyprus)- Vice President, Europe MSc. (Arch), MSc. B.Sc (Hons) Arch, Dipl Arch (Hons)
David Parken (Australia) Vice PresidentOceania, B.Arch (Adel), LFRAIA, Hon AIA, Hon FNZIA, Hon RAIC
Annette Fisher (United Kingdom) Vice-President Europe Alternate, Trustee, BSc BArch, RIBA, MNIA
Rukshan Widyalankara is the Principal Director and Chairman of RWPL, a practice involved in many buildings of note, and has received numerous awards of excellence for both academic and professional work. A distinguished alumni of the University of Moratuwa, from which he holds a bachelors and a masters degree in architecture, Rukshan has been an active member of the Sri Lanka Institute of Architects (SLIA) and later went on to become its youngest President in 2005. He was the Chairman of the Architects Registration Board in 2007 and has also represented Sri Lanka at many international forums such as UIA, ARCASIA, and SAARCH.
Rukshan is a recipient of numerous academic awards of excellence including The Young Architect of the Year Award by SLIA in 2003. Complementary to the practice of his discipline of architecture, he has devoted his professional life to the advocacy, debate and canvassing of a wide range of relevant issues. His dedication to work for the common good and willingness to undertake responsibility equip him uniquely for the leadership positions he has continually attained.
Mubasshar Hussain, served as the Vice President for Asia region in the CAA and was elected as Senior Vice President of CAA in Melbourne in 2007 and President in 2010 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Hussain is also a Past Chairman of ARCASIA. Prior to this, he served in various capacities in the Executive Committee of Institute of Architects Bangladesh (IAB) and was elected as its President in 2003-04, 2007-08 and again in 2009-2010.
He is the founder Managing Director of Assoconsult Ltd, a large and a respected practice in Bangladesh. He is a visiting faculty member of the Ahsanullah University of Science & Technology, Dhaka. In recognition to his service and contribution to the architectural profession, American Institute of Architects (AIA) conferred on him the AIA President Medal and Honorary Membership in 2009.
Mansur worked briefly with the then Kaduna State Ministry of Works and Housing before proceeding for his M.Sc. (Arch.) at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Mansur joined the Central Area Urban Design Team for Nigeria’s new Capital City, Abuja under Kenzo Tange and Urtec of Japan who were the team leaders. This afforded him the opportunity of working for six months in Tange’s office in Tokyo, Japan. During 1981 and 1982, he took leave of absence to study for a Graduate Diploma in Urban Planning at Architectural Association School in London. Mansur undertook a course at Reading University, U.K. gaining an M.Sc. in Project Management.
Mansur was made a Fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Architects (FNIA) in 1993, where he has served at various times as Chair of International Affairs, Chair of Education (Responsible for Validation, Professional Examinations and Seminars) and Director of African Union of Architects Congress that was held in Nigeria. He has been a Council Member of the Architects Registration Council of Nigeria since 1990. He has been a Council Member and Chair of Education at the CAA since 2007.
Jayantha first attended the CAA General Assembly in Melbourne, Australia in 2007 as President of the Sri Lanka Institute of Architects (SLIA). Jayantha has served as Dep uty Chairman ARCASIA Zone A for the period 2009-2010 and is a Past Chairman of SAARCH (South Asian Association for Regional Corporation of Architects). He was also the Chairman of the Architects Registration Board Sri Lanka. In 2007 as President of SLIA, he was instrumental in hosting ARCASIA in Sri Lanka to coincide with the Golden Jubilee Celebration of the Sri Lanka Institute of Architects. Jayantha currently serves as the Director for the UIA (Union of International Architects) work programme – Responsible Architecture. During the post Tsunami period in Sri Lanka Jayantha served as the chairman of the AFSTV (Architects fund to Shelter Tsunami Victims) a fund raising initiative to build houses for the Tsunami victims in Sri Lanka. Two projects were successfully completed in the south and east of Sri Lanka.
Currently Jayantha is a Faculty Board member of the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Moratuwa Sri Lanka and a Member of the Board of Directors of the City School of Architecture (Colombo) Ltd.
B.Arch., FIHEEM, FICE, C. Eng., A&CE
Vincent Cassar, a graduate in Architecture and Civil Engineering from the University of Malta, joined the Public Service in 1973.
Since then he has worked within the Public Works organization and was responsible for various projects including those for housing, healthcare and hospitals, and other major projects of a civil engineering nature such as roads, marine works, sewerage and waste management.
In April 2003 he was appointed as the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry for Youth and the Arts. With the establishment of the Ministry for Urban Development and Roads, responsible for urban development and land transport issues in February 2004 he assumed the responsibility for that Ministry as its Permanent Secretary. Vincent was appointed as Chairman of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, a post he still occupies. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Civil Engineers (FICE) and a Fellow of the Institute of Health Estate Engineering Management (FIHEEM). He also served as the President of the Kamra tal-Periti and is its National Delegate to the Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) and the European Council of Civil Engineers (ECCE).
Steven Oundo graduated from the University of Nairobi with a Bachelor of Architecture (Hons) Degree in 1997 and a Master in Business Administration (Strategic Management) Degree from the same University in 2014. He is the immediate past Chairman of the Architectural Association of Kenya (AAK) and has also been the chairman of the newly constituted National Construction Authority since 2012. He also served as Treasurer and 2nd Vice President of the East Africa Institute of Architects (EAIA) from 2006 to 2011. He has also served in a number of international professional organizations including the Africa Union of Architects (AUA) where he currently serves as Treasurer as from 2011 and has been the Chairman of the Association of Professional Societies in East Africa (APSEA) since 2013. He is also a partner and architect for Trioscape Planning Services Ltd.
He is an Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya Branch). Steven was awarded the Order of the Grand Warrior (OGW) by the President of the Republic of Kenya for distinguished service to the nation.
CAA Structure: Council Members
Sithabile received her architectural education from the Mackintosh School of Architecture, Glasgow, Scotland. She completed her Post Graduate Diploma in Architecture at Glasgow School of Art and in 1999 and received the Glasgow School of Art Representative to Scottish Woman of the Year Award. On graduating, she moved to Norway to work for HRTB Architects. In 2006, she returned to Botswana and established her own practice Moralo Designs (Pty) Ltd in Gaborone. She has also been involved in a feasibility study for the John Garang Memorial University Hospital in Juba, Sudan and has designed a diamond polishing factory located in the new Diamond Hub of Botswana.
Sithabile has served on the Architects Association of Botswana Executive Committee for several terms and now sits as a Council Member of the Architect’s Registration Council of Botswana. She has lectured at the University of Botswana Architecture Program and since leaving the University to date, she has been vice-Chair of the Accreditation Advisory Committee for the Architecture Program. She is a member of the Architects Association of Botswana, Botswana Institute of Development Professionals, and the Norwegian Association of Architects.
Wycliffe Morton (St. Kitts &
Wycliffe is a built environment architect as well as a landscape architect in his own private practice since 1997.
He received his initial training in a design/build architectural firm in St. Kitts and completed the study of both architecture and landscape architecture to professional degree level at City College of New York, CUNY. He then proceeded on scholarship to complete his Master in Landscape Architecture at Pennsylvania State University specializing in Caribbean Terrestrial Ecotourism facility development. He has been an external examiner for City and Guilds, and later a part-time instructor in the Associates Certificate program in Architectural Technology at the national Clarence Fitzroy Bryant College where he was retained as a full-time lecturer. He participated in local hurricane emergency response efforts regularly, which further reinforces the connection to the environment and the need for responsible design, construction and consumption methods. The furtherance of the profession and its leading role in the built environment and response to climatic and societal needs is paramount in both practice and instruction.
Kalim A. Siddiqui (Pakistan)
Vice President - Asia
B.Arch., M.Sc. Planning, PCATP, FIAP, FIPP
Christos Panayiotides (Cyprus)
Vice President - Europe
MSc. (Arch), MSc. B.Sc (Hons) Arch, Dipl Arch (Hons)
alim A. Siddiqui holds a Masters degree from Asian Institute of Technology (A.I.T.) Bangkok in Human Settlements Planning and Development along with a Bachelor of Architecture degree. Kalim carries with him a wealth of experience in project design & preparation, planning, monitoring and control acquired over the past more than thirty years in professional practice.
He was involved in the affairs of the Institute of Architects Pakistan and has held various positions as Office Bearer of the Institute over a period of more than 25 years.
At the National level he was twice elected Vice Chairman, Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners (PCATP).
At the International level, he has been involved with the activities and various programs of the Architects Regional Council Asia (ARCASIA) and served as its Vice President (20102012) representing Zone “A” countries comprising Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Architects, Pakistan (FIAP) and Fellow of the Institute of Town Planners, Pakistan, (FITP) and is registered with Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners (PCATP).
Christos P. Panayiotides completed his Degree studies (BSc (Hons) Arch) and Diploma course in Architecture (Dipl Arch (Hons)) at the North London Polytechnic, now the London Metropolitan University, in 1981. He worked for the London Borough of Enfield and The Ronald Fielding Partnership in London and was elected a corporate member of the RIBA and registered as an architect in U.K. in 1983. He was the principal architect and project liaison officer in the extension of the Dhekelia Primary School, designed and constructed in 13 weeks, to facilitate the arrival of a new regiment in 1992. For his services, Christos was awarded a Certificate for High Achievement in Design, by PSA International. In 1993 he established his own architectural practice “Christos Panayiotides Associates” in Nicosia, Cyprus.
Christos was elected as Vice President and a Council Member of both local professional associations - the Cyprus Civil Engineers and Architect Association and the Cyprus Architects Association. He was also elected as a Council Member of the Cyprus Architectural Heritage Organization.
David Parken is architect, advocate and former National President, and also the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA). David is a Life Fellow of AIA and a respected member of the architectural profession, having gained more than 20 years’ experience as a practicing architect and 14 years as a principal of the Adelaide firm Jackman Parken Evans Pty Ltd. David has been actively involved in the AIA from chapter committee level to national president over the past 10 years, having served five years on the National Council and four years on the Executive. At an industry level, David is actively involved as a member of the Australian Construction Industry Forum, Director of the Australian Services Roundtable, and an Executive member of the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) where he previously chaired the ASBEC Climate Change Task Group and now chairs the ASBEC Sustainable Built Environment Framework Task Group. David’s work for the AIA has been acknowledged internationally. In 2003, he was presented with the American Institute of Architects Presidents Medal and was honoured as an Honorary Member. In 2004 he received an Honorary Fellowship of the New Zealand Institute of Architects.
John Sinclair is a New Zealand architect with over 40 years experience in designing a wide range of buildings. After heading a large firm that worked throughout the Pacific, he merged with, and became a consultant to Architectus, a highly successful Australasian practice. John has been President of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, Branch Chairman of the Auckland Branch of NZIA, founder President of the Auckland Architectural Association, member of government working parties on reform of The Building Act, the Architects Act and the establishment of the Urban Design Protocol. He has represented NZIA in UIA and CAA. He has lectured at Auckland University and is currently on the Board of the New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit.
Jalal Ahmed started his professional career in partnership with two other architects in 1983. Later in 1997, he established his independent practice. During the last 32 years, he has designed various projects ranging from large academic campuses to small training centres made of mud blocks and from multifamily urban apartments to low-cost housing for the rural poor. Jalal has won prizes in a number of architectural competitions, including Franco-German Embassy at Dhaka Int. Competition (2009), North South University Campus Int. Competition (2002) and Mujib Nagar Memorial Open Design Competition (1984). Projects and articles by Jalal Ahmed have been featured in leading international architectural journals. He served as a part time faculty member of the departments of Architecture, of BRAC University, University of Asia Pacifica and American International University Bangladesh. He is currently the Vice President (National Affairs) of the Institute of Architects Bangladesh (IAB). He also has served as Honorary Secretary of Architects Regional Council Asia (ARCASIA) during 2009-10. He is a founder member of the architectural research group CHETANA, established in 1981.
John Geeson has worked in London for a number of major practices including Frederick Gibberd Coombes and Building Design Partnership since graduating from Leicester School of Architecture in the UK and registering as an architect in 1981. The majority of his career has been with his current company Haskoll where, after a six year spell in the 1980s, he returned in 1996, becoming a Director in 2002.
John joined the RIBA in 1986 and has been a member of the RIBA Large Practice Group for six years and the RIBA International Committee for four years. After being nominated by the RIBA in 2012 he was elected to the post of Honorary Secretary/Treasurer and Trustee of the Commonwealth Association of Architects at Dhaka, CAA council member. John is also a member of the Academy of Urbanism; he is currently involved with projects at three of the UK’s largest historic railway stations.
In addition, John has provided consultancy advice on low cost housing projects in St Lucia, as well as on commercial projects in Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine. He has participated in study tours to Canada, USA, Scandinavia and Switzerland and has an active role in the management of projects in over thirty countries in Europe, the Middle East and China.
Annette Fisher has nearly 30 years of experience in design and construction, and she has practised in the UK, USA and Africa. Since 1983 she has worked for major London practices (T P Bennett, Rolfe Judd, and Whinney Mackay Lewis). She spent 3 years in America, the first year with Moser Mayer Phoenix Associates, and later as a freelance architect. She was founding partner of The Littler Fisher Partnership in 1994. In 1997 she formed Fisher Associates. The practice work has included commercial, leisure, office, retail, restaurant and residential projects. She spent a year as a Director for Health and Education projects at TP Bennett architects London overseeing procurement of public sector projects and their delivery in the Health and Education Sectors.
Then restructuring the practice as FA-Global-Now extended to Nigeria engaging in major redevelopment projects by the Nigerian Government and the private sector. She is a proficient and popular public speaker and was a founding group board member of the Diversity Board at Places for People housing association, as well as Chairman of the Kush Board its then subsidiary. She was a CABE enabler from 2005 to 2009 (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). Recently she was co-opted on the executive board of the Architects Consultants Association of Nigeria (ACAN) a CAA council member Europe Alternate. She is a trustee of the Africa Centre Covent Garden, London.
Llewellyn van Wyk is Principal Researcher at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research’s Built Environment Unit. Llewellyn is a researcher, guest lecturer and designer with extensive international experience. He is a leading scholar of 21st century green building and green infrastructure design discourses, in particular, the contemporary innovative appropriate building technology movement in South Africa. He has received a number of awards for his work, including the CSIR Excellence Award, South African Institute of Architecture Project Award, and the Mayors of Cape Town’s Greening of the City Award. Llewellyn has published widely and appeared as a keynote speaker, conference speaker and guest lecturer internationally including the United States, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Malta, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Mauritius, Reunion, Guyana, Nigeria, Kenya, and Botswana.
Llewellyn is past-president of the Cape Institute of Architects, the South African Institute of Architects (where he was awarded Life Membership), and the Commonwealth Association of Architects. He is also a past Deputy-Mayor of Cape Town.
Gordon Holden was CAA President from 2007 to 2010 following terms as Oceania Representative, Education Chair and Senior Vice President. His contributions to CAA commenced at the Brighton General Assembly in 1987.
He has been instrumental in establishing high architectural education standards internationally through his co-authorship of the Commonwealth Association of Architects publication “Qualifications in Architecture Recommended for Recognition” (with Prof George Henderson, 2007) and for his leadership in helping to establishing the ‘Canberra Accord’ for international recognition of architectural qualifications. Gordon is the 2010 recipient of the Australian Institute of Architects Award the “Neville Quarry Architectural Education Prize” for outstanding leadership in architectural education.
Gordon was RAIA Vice-President Queensland 1986-1991, Chair of the National Education Committee (1986-1991), Chair of Queensland’s Planning and Environment Committee (1990-1992) and Chair of the Committee of Heads of Australasian Schools of Architecture (1996-1998). In addition to his contributions to Australian architecture, he has also served on the New Zealand Registered Architects Board.
Professor Holden is currently Foundation Head of the architecture program at Griffith University, Queensland. He researches, publishes and teaches architectural and urban design history, theory and practice.
The CAA being an Association of National Organisations responsible for the Architectural profession in Commonwealth member countries, among other things, believes that architectural education should be delivered to tertiary Institutions as well as educators and practitioners.
The CAA is therefore committed to a high level of architectural education in Schools of Architecture and beyond. In this context, CAA actively participates in, and facilitate activities to achieve these objectives in institutions and architects professional organisations. This commitment is supported through the following activities:
Validation
CAA carries out validation activities in member countries and other countries that may request such service through its council. Validation related activities are run by a Validation Ex-Com which reports to the Council. The guiding document, which is the “Qualifications in architecture recommended for recognition by CAA procedures and criteria” is reviewed periodically to enhance and reflect the changing needs of architectural education. Based on the provisions of this document, the following activities are carried out:
a. Canberra Accord
This is an agreement where various validation systems came together to ascertain that their qualifications are substantially equivalent and so mutually recognizable. The CAA is a pioneer member of this accord and has continued participating and promoting the activities of Canberra Accord towards a global recognition and exchange of knowledge in validation. This accord is discussed in greater detail on the subsequent page.
b. Direct Validation Visits
Schools make a request through their national associations for a direct visit and the Validation Ex-Com organizes a team that visits and make an assessment for consideration of their architectural programme course(s)as a substantial equivalent qualification. Programmes Schools so approved are listed on the CAA web site and that of organisations that have a systems agreement with the CAA.
c. National Visits (Systems Agreement)
The CAA has agreements with some member organisations whereby their validation system is acceptable as being substantially equivalent to the CAA system. However each report must also be presented to the CAA, and periodically the CAA sends an observer to selected visits. To further enhance this, the CAA also provides assistance to member organisations towards developing a robust national validation system that will meet global best practices. Current systems agreements include Australia/New Zealand, South Africa and RIBA.
activities
The CAA has continued to carry out International students competition every three years as a run up to the General Assembly, and encourage and support regional competitions. There are plans to encourage and facilitate where possible, student exchanges between different member countries. The CAA also plans to facilitate international students’ holiday camps that will enable students from one region to visit another region and interact with educators and students of different regions. So far, there are many international students’ conferences, seminars and workshops, some of which are run on regional basis and are supported and publicised by CAA.
Though CAA is yet to develop its own CPD, it continues to support programs by member organisations especially by deploying grants from the Commonwealth Foundation or some other organisations. Previously, programs in Ghana, Uganda and Nigeria were supported in such manner. CAA has been keeping articles and documents on its website. There is a deliberate policy of supporting international conferences and publicizing among member institutes for their participation.
Exchange of knowledge between systems
CAA maintains links on its website to education arms of similar organisations such as UIA/UNESCO, RIBA, NAAB and all members of the Canberra
for members to keep abreast of developments available elsewhere.
The Canberra Accord on Architectural Education: Recognition of Substantial Equivalence between Accreditation/Validation Systems in Architectural Education was signed on April 9, 2008 in Canberra, Australia.
The signatories are:
Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA)
Australia: Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA)
Canada: Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB/CCCA)
China: National Board of Architectural Accreditation (NBAA)
Korea: Korean Architectural Accreditation Board (KAAB)
Mexico: ANPADEH, replaced COMAEA in 2012
United States: National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)
The National Architectural Accrediting Board, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, and American Institute of Architects convened the First International Invitational Accreditation & Validation Roundtable in Washington, DC in 1996. Leadership from the architectural accrediting agencies of the U.S., Australia, Canada, China, Mexico, Korea, the United Kingdom, and the International Union of Architects (UIA), as well as leaders from the Commonwealth Association of Architects attended.
The purpose of the Roundtable was to determine whether these agencies had sufficient interest and equivalency between their systems of accreditation to enter into an accord on architectural education similar to that already in place for engineering. At the end of the 2006 meeting, the participants agreed to undertake a comparative analysis of their systems of accreditation based on a review of the documents underpinning each
agency’s system. The same participants reconvened in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada in May 2007with the primary purpose of reviewing the results of the comparative analysis conducted on the accreditation systems of each of the agencies. It was evident that there were significant similarities between the participants’ systems, noting that the systems analyzed could be accepted as substantially equivalent to each other. The participants retained the provision established at the first meeting that graduates from institutions accredited or validated by one system would still be subject to additional requirements imposed by local law. Therefore, it was possible to work toward developing an agreement sooner than expected.
In 2014 the South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP) and the Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE) were granted provisional status in the Accord. The Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA) has submitted an application that will be considered at the Accord’s General Meeting in 2015. The Canberra Accord is intended to facilitate the portability of architectural educational credentials between the countries whose accreditation and validation agencies have signed the Accord. It does not address matters related to professional registration or licensure.
The primary function of the Accord is for its signatory organizations to conduct periodic reviews of each other’s accreditation systems against criteria spelled out in the Accord’s Rules and Procedures in order to ensure substantial equivalency. Normally, the Accord’s review team comprises two persons - one practitioner and one academic - chosen from persons nominated by the signatories. Unless negative issues have been identified during the review, the reviewed system will be accepted by the other signatory systems, usually for a period of six years, as leading to outcomes substantially equivalent to those from the other signatory systems.
In 2014 the Canberra Accord conducted a periodic review of the Commonwealth Association of Architects’ validation system. The validation system was accepted as substantially equivalent with recognition ongoing for six years.
The Association is best known for its procedures for the validation of courses in architecture which convene multilateral visiting boards to schools to assess courses against set criteria. This results in a list of qualifications recommended for recognition by members. Since 1968 the CAA has periodically published “a List of Schools of Architecture whose qualifications it considered, after inspection, to be a sufficient standard to recommend to National Authorities that they be accepted for recognition as meeting the academic requirements appropriate for registration, accreditation, or acceptance as an architect.”
The means of producing this list is known as Validation - the granting of recognition to a course or programme which has been tested to produce results of a minimum acceptable standard against set criteria (i.e.
output related testing). In 2000, following complete revision of the validation system in consultation with member institutes, CAA published ‘Qualifications in Architecture Recommended for Recognition by CAA: Procedures and Criteria’ referred to as ‘The Red Book’. This was reviewed and re-issued in 2008 as ‘The Green Book’.
The procedures involve the convening of boards with CAA ‘out of country’ representatives together with those from the national institute and registration board. Requests for visiting boards by schools are only accepted with the endorsement of the CAA member organization of the particular country.
This unique multi-lateral system currently covers 85 schools in 12 countries.
This year, the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) will be marking the 50th Anniversary of its founding. CAA has published this book which is a great source of information over this period “providing reference material on professional organisations and other related institutions involved in architectural education and practice. This extends to cross border recognition of qualifications and construction industry information sources.”
Networking and communication among other functions are essentially important for the practice of architecture in The Commonwealth. With such a rich, diversified and spread-out membership across the 34 member countries, there will always be a strong case for enhancing information - sharing among these members and beyond across the globe in promoting the practice of architecture. This presents the chance for learning opportunities for architects to exchange ideas and build on their experiences as they foster strive and emulate best practices.
The need for architectural practitioners in the world to keep abreast with the ever-changing environment at a political, economic, social, technological and legal front gave birth to CPDs which are no longer a luxury but a necessity if at all an architectural practice is to strive in the competitive business environment.
Over the years CAA has continued to promote and encourage architects in the Commonwealth to attend CPDs. It is now common practice in architecture worldwide that an architect is expected to attend CPDs annually with a minimum number of points that must be maintained for his registration as an architect in his country to remain valid. Relevant themes to guide the thematic areas of discussion are put forth.
CAA on this front has been leading by example by ensuring that major architectural events worldwide are supported by a CPD program running parallel to the event. A case in point is the CAA General Assembly of 2013 held in Dhaka, Bangladesh where the CPD was hosted by the local institute with the theme “Architecture and Responsibility”. The General Assembly to be held in London will be no different with RIBA playing host.
Cities, human settlements and sustainability continue to be the major focus for thematic areas of most conferences held worldwide. In addition to CAA’s triennial conference, The Association collaborates with members to deliver seminars and workshops concerning aspects of sustainable practice. Support is also given by CAA members and schools by endorsing and promoting their events. CAA has achieved this through promoting advocacy and activities in the Commonwealth arena often working with other Commonwealth built environment professional organizations and collaboration with other international architecture organizations.
The mandate for Chair communication is dissemination of information on CAA activities related to architecture within the Commonwealth. Networking of member organizations is a high priority activity under Chair-communication, which is to be realized through the CAA web site and publishing the CAA E-Journal and other areas of communication are in the agenda.
The networking committee which was set up by the council to facilitate networking among member organisations includes Vincent Cassar, Sakia Rahman and Kenneth Ssemowogerere. The terms of reference for the committee was to organise a programme for the networking of member organizations and their activities as stipulated.
The interactive website ‘www.comarchitect. org’, which has information about the CAA was reorganized and launched in 2013. ‘comarchitect.org’ contains objectives of the CAA and information on the CAA’s governance and management. The site also publishes news related to its member organisations, the CAA calendar and its activities related to education and practices. Moreover, it reports activities of the Commonwealth related to the CAA. The website contains essential information such as contacts of the CAA officials, contacts
of member organizations including weblinks and also information on the CAA validated schools and activities of validation. Visitors can find other detail on CAA related social media activities and blogs from ‘comarchitect.org’ as well.
The site intends to improve itself on many platforms. A two core database on member organizations will be added. It includes data concerning the profession in all member countries and an expert list of Architects from CAA member organizations. Possibility of online CPDs and videos through the portal are being discussed. The domain will also be a searchable repository of academic papers, submissions by students for the student competition, etc.
An E-Journal will also be published on site which will act as an online resource centre for sharing and providing reading material related to architecture in the CAA countries. Additionally, it will facilitate networking of members of member organizations and provide information regarding their activities. The E-journal, the first edition of which was published in October/November 2014, is expected to be dispatched in the future as a flip file through the web every two months.
It is a pleasure to be able to write these few words on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Commonwealth Association of Architects. This is indeed a welcome opportunity for me when considering that the idea for the formation of the Association was prompted during the CHOGM meeting held in my home country, Malta, back in 1965. This is also a great opportunity for me as the year draws closer when I will assume the Presidency of the Association. I wish first of all to give recognition to those Presidents, Council Members and others who have contributed, and still contribute, to the development and well-being of the Association over the years. We are fortunate enough that the Association has already formulated its vision statement for the next ten years. Although this is not cast in stone - as it might need to be reviewed and updated as we go along - it will definitely be our road map for the future up to 2025. Moreover, the Association’s Accord of 2004 for Enhancing Development Effectiveness had already set the principles of commitment to the rule of law, good governance, respect for diversity and human dignity, opposition to all forms of discrimination, and the promotion of people-centred and sustainable development as the guiding values for its continued development.
These principles have successfully guided the Association throughout the last ten years. It is now up to us to take the Association through the next ten years and beyond not only by following and enforcing these same principles but also, in the process, strengthening it and making it more relevant as a Commonwealth Association.
We have an obligation not only to support the further development of the Commonwealth but also to support the objectives and achievement of international initiatives, such as Agenda 21, and the crucial move to renewable energy resources.
We recognize that sustainable development, a much quoted but at times not fully understood concept, has seen a global shift from a focus on environmental concerns to the more holistic approach of sustainable development that centres on environment, society and economy
and their interrelationships. The document ‘Vision 2025’ recalls that the world’s fastestgrowing economies as well as several of the slowest growing are in the Commonwealth and that it is our duty to ensure that our professional services employed on infrastructural development will deliver value to the communities they serve and to the investors who funded them. The same document among other initiatives also refers to our obligation to promote cultural diversity and the participation of women in construction, and respect for human rights when recalling the fact that one-third of the world’s indigenous people reside in the Commonwealth. Another aspect which we seem to neglect and which should be given its due importance is the fact that among our national Associations there is a wealth of expertise and resource which we seem to neglect. We need to tap this resource as its coordinated impact can be as effective, if not more effective at times, than that of governments.
The importance of youth as the leaders of the future cannot be over emphasized. We need to offer them more opportunities to involve themselves in the Commonwealth, and whilst encouraging more students to take up architecture, strive to make available to them adequate schools where they can take up these studies. Promoting the exchange and interaction of these students and their participation in the activities and proceedings of CAA needs to be studied further and encouraged.
The Association has a crucial role to play in raising the profile of architecture in the Commonwealth. This can only be achieved if, as an Association, we strive to have all Chambers and Institutes in all Commonwealth countries become active members of the CAA and if in return we keep regular contact with them and make such membership a valid and interesting one.
As we progressed in our profession all of us have gained experience and knowledge and we should be prepared to ‘give back’ what we have gained for the good of our communities. wish the Commonwealth Association of Architects ad multosannos
CAA runs two awards concurrent with each General Assembly: the Robert Matthew Award and the Student Design Competition. The Robert Matthew award is for a body of work that recognises innovative contributions to the development of architecture, in the Commonwealth context. The award is made to an architect or architectural office, nominated by a member institute, which makes an outstanding contribution having particular relevance to the country or region in which the architect or architectural office operates; the Student Design Competition invites students of Architecture to explore design ideas which align with CAA’s objectives to improve the world’s living conditions sustainably. Both awards commenced in the early-mid 1980’s.
An executive meeting in Kuala Lumpur led by CAA President Professor Peter Johnson in 1982 established the Robert Matthew Award to commemorate CAA’s founder Sir Robert Matthew who passed away in 1976. The first award was made at the 8th General Assembly in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, to Philip Cox from Australia.
The idea for a Student Design Competition was initiated by the Commonwealth Board of Architectural Education (CBAE) chaired by Professor Allan Wild (New Zealand) and attended by the writer at the Brighton, UK, General Assembly in 1987. The first student competition award was made at the 10th General Assembly in Kuala Lumpur in 1989.
The Robert Matthew Award
Past winners represent a distinguished body of architects who have provided many Commonwealth countries with significant and lasting architectural endowments.
i. Philip Cox of Australia (1983)
ii. Arup Associates of UK (1985)
iii. Raj Rewal of India (1989)
iv. Hampshire County Council of UK (1991)
v. Ian Ritchie Architects of UK (1994)
vi. Greg Burgess Architects of Australia (1997)
vii. TR Hamzah and Yeang of Malaysia (2000)
viii. Balkrishna Doshi of India (2003)
In addition to the award conditions that recognise innovation and outstanding
contributions to architecture, the criteria calls for cumulative contributions that have been made over the current session of the CAA Council and the immediately preceding session. This latter aspect caused difficulties in the 2007 judging wherein the jury appointed by the President, Llewellyn van Wyk, and consisting of Philip Kungu (Kenya), CAA Immediate Past President, Richard Hastilow, RIBA, CEO (Lay Person) and John Sinclair (New Zealand), CAA Oceania Vice President, were unable to make the award. This was because none of the submissions met the conditions of presenting a body of work over the current and preceding session of Council. Since 2007, no further judging of the Robert Mathew Award has taken place pending review of the Award conditions.
CAA Student Design Competition briefs have been highly imaginative while maintaining liveability and sustainability imperatives. They have ranged widely across building types including in recent years an eco-friendly hotel, sustainable sports centre, memorial to a memorable event and spaces for the elderly. For some time the competition has benefited from strong media and exhibition exposure through being published in the Architectural Review, the Commonwealth Foundation Newsletter, as well as the top designs being exhibited at the General Assembly and in forums in member countries including at the RIBA in London, in Cyprus, Malta, Dhaka and Australia.
The competition was initially conceived with eligibility criteria that restricted entries to students studying at a school of architecture in a Commonwealth country. From the inception the competition proved to be increasingly popular with each year seeing growing numbers of entries from students outside of the Commonwealth. For example, the 6th competition in 2003 received 222 entries including 20 from countries including Turkey, Japan, USA, Italy, Germany and Puerto Rico. This growing internationalisation triggered the decision to open eligibility to students from any country from 2006 onward; as this was seen as supporting the objective of spreading the CAA sustainability and improved living conditions messages wider. In 2006, the second prize and an equal third prize winner were students from South Korea
and Hungary respectively. In 2013, first and second prizes went to students from China and there were 24 countries represented.
Generally there are three major monetary prizes together with a prize for the top first or second year student. In addition, the judges may award a number of commendations. The top prize is currently GB £2000, a handsome reward that adds to the career prestige attributed to the student. Considerable thought and a long lead time is given to each competition brief which is usually announced about a year out from the closing date to allow schools of architecture to schedule the project into forthcoming semester studio timetables. Students may also enter the competition outside of preparing their designs within the formal studio setting. Brief writing is usually initiated by a CAA Education committee member in consultation with the CEO and colleagues.
The 2013 competition focused on a brief for Welcoming Inclusive Spaces for the Elderly (WISE) and was conceived by Associate Professor Clare Newton, CAA Validation Chair. Past Editor of Architectural Review, Peter Davey chaired several judging panels, with his successor Editor Catherine Slessor chairing the 2013 panel. In addition to Architectural Review Editors and prize sponsor representatives, heads
of architecture schools and distinguished architects including Dr Ken Yeang (Malaysia), Kerry Clare (Australia), Ian Athfield (New Zealand), Dr Esther Charlesworth (Founder, Architects Without Frontiers, Australia) and Peter Rich (South Africa). The CAA student competition is truly an international event that since opening it to all architecture students from 2006 still has seen students from Commonwealth countries win the majority of awards. No particular school or country has dominated over the past three competitions, with the top three prizes going to students from Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, UK and Zimbabwe.
As CAA moves into its second half century, the organisation is adjusting to new challenges, not the least being the rapid dissemination of knowledge with its tendency to defuse national and regional distinctiveness. CAA’s two award categories, the Robert Matthew Award and the Student Competition, like the organisation itself, encourages and celebrates difference and demonstrates to the world that the strength of the CAA is sustained by the commonalities of the network, the use of a common language and a shared heritage in the practice and education of architecture. Both awards promote the advancement of equitable and sustainable architecture in the Commonwealth and globally.
The CAA in 2015 is conducting a student Design competition, “Visualising the Future of the City- What will your city look like in 2065?” This competition is being organised and managed by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) on behalf of the CAA, as part of the CAA 50th Anniversary and International Summit hosted by the RIBA. The aim of the competition is to highlight the diversity of challenges, opportunities and responses faced by cities throughout the world, from large nation states to small island communities. Students are invited to share thoughts via a 150 word narrative, and a rich, street-level image showing how buildings, technologies, products and services might interact with the way in which people will live, work and play in 2065.
The subject of the competition has been inspired by the work of the UK Government’s Foresight Future of Cities project which has been considering the way in which some of these issues will affect the future of cities in the UK. All entries submitted to the RIBA will be featured in an exhibition to be held at the RIBA HQ in London between 15 and 18 June 2015 as part of the CAA 50th Anniversary and International Summit. The winners will be announced at the RIBA President’s Reception which will take place on 16 June 2015. The week-long event will also include an international two-day summit on the theme of ‘Designing City Resilience’, itself inspired by the work of the Rockefeller Foundation and Arup International Development around the theme of City Resilience. Entries will be assessed anonymously on the way in which they reflect an understanding of the issues
being faced by cities in the future and by the way in which they engage the viewer. They should be imaginative and provocative but grounded in reality and not the work of science fiction.
Submissions will be assessed against the following criteria:
a) The extent to which the submission demonstrates a depth of understanding of the issues facing cities in the future
b) The extent to which the submission reflects an imaginative response to the challenges and opportunities to be anticipated.
c) The extent to which the submission captures issues that are relevant to the city which is being represented
d) The extent to which the submission provokes a response from viewers and encourages them to reflect on the underlying issues.
e) The strength of the imagery, the power of the narrative and the clarity of the overall presentation
The following prizes will be awarded:
1st Place: £2,000
2nd Place: £1,000
3rd Place: £ 500
At the discretion of the judging panel the second and third prize may be split to award a highly commended prize. The competition is a call for Ideas only and there is no commitment to develop the winning scheme following the competition.
Eligibility
The competition is open to students of International Schools of Architecture.
On the eve of CHOGM 2013, CAA with the Sri Lanka Institute of Architects hosted ‘Transcending Horizons’, an international architectural exhibition of critically acclaimed works of architecture in the Commonwealth. The exhibition was partnered by Australian Institute of Architects, Royal Institute of British Architects, Institute of Architects Bangladesh, Geoffrey Bawa Trust, Ministry of Defence & Urban Development, Sri Lanka Tourism Promotions Bureau, University of Moratuwa, and City School of Architecture.
The exhibition was held along with the ‘Reflections of Sri Lanka’ from 14th-17th November 2013. Several award winning Architectural masterpieces were on display and over 1.5 million viewed the exhibition. Later the same exhibition was displayed at University of Moratuwa and at City School of Architecture.
The Commonwealth network is increasingly valued as a means of accelerating improvement in the world’s living conditions and to ensure a sustainable future for the
planet. The built environment has a key part to play and CAA works to ensure maximum participation of the architectural profession at all levels. This landmark exhibition brought to light architectural trends in the Commonwealth.
At CHOGM 2013, CAA also made a call to the Commonwealth Heads of Government with a resolution.
We, the Council of the Commonwealth Association of Architects,
Recognising that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to humanity and all living species on the planet and thus requires to be urgently addressed by all Parties, and acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emission,
Noting with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels,
Recognising that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme natural events with significant impacts on the natural and built environments,
Noting that the majority of the world’s population is now urbanised and that many city dwellers live in areas that will be severely impacted by extreme natural events and noting further that in many instances it is the poor that live in these areas,
Noting with grave concern the absence of urban adaptation and mitigation strategies in the Parties’ adaptation and mitigation pledges especially with regard to the increased exposure arising out of the geographical location of human settlements and the dependence on bulk service delivery,
Noting that the scale and pace of urbanisation has caught many governments and communities unprepared, as demand for land, shelter, energy supplies and social and environmental services has outstripped supply,
Noting that the citizens of every country must be active participants in the development process and that their knowledge of the aspirations and needs of different communities and social subgroups in society allows them both to
Rukshan Widyalankara CAA President
communicate popular concerns and to harness civic enthusiasm in support of development programmes,
Noting that where infrastructure development occurs it is based on a topdown, bulk engineered solution that, while it provides citizens access to water, sanitation, electricity and other infrastructure networks, is often not affordable to its intended beneficiaries,
Noting with grave concern the adherence to the current infrastructure development model with its concomitant emissions pathway through the energy/water/ emissions nexus,
Recognising that extreme natural events will increasingly interrupt bulk service provision such as water, sanitation, and energy reticulation to urban populations,
Call upon Commonwealth Heads of Government to build urban resilience by
i) Resisting further urban development in areas at high risk from extreme natural events,
ii) Implementing adaptation and mitigation strategies in existing areas at high risk from extreme natural events through accommodation, incorporation, and retreat mechanisms,
iii) Decoupling the energy/water/emissions nexus by pursuing alternative and innovative technologies aimed at building resilience among communities, especially the poor, through the provision of offgrid services,
iv) Norrowing the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways by reducing the demand for fossil-fuel derived energy associated with building heating and cooling loads through the regulation of high-performance building envelope standards,
and decide to establish an Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action to assist the Commonwealth Secretariat in exploring and developing urban adaptation and mitigation strategies in accordance with this resolution.
CAA took an initiative to approach the other built environment professions with the intention of forming a partnership of Built Environment Professions in the Commonwealth (BEPIC). This group, which includes the Commonwealth Architects (CAA), Surveyors (CASLE), Planners (CAP) and Engineers (CEC), had its first official meeting in Edinburgh on 23rd and 24th October 1997, prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. There was a strong belief that more could be achieved acting in consort than individually, and that there was an acute need to give greater professional impetus to disseminating and exchanging information that would promote the aims of the member societies in the Commonwealth as well as the global aims of the United Nations Habitat II Agenda.
It was agreed that BEPIC has immediate access to a world-wide network of the professions that influenced the built environment, through members of its individual Commonwealth organisations. This extensive database provided the foundation for BEPIC to play a central role in disseminating and exchanging information and the workshop set out a programme for immediate action: Collaborate, Communicate and Educate.
Since 1997, there have been representations by BEPIC at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. The Commonwealth Human Ecology Council (CHEC) convened a one-day Forum at the pre-CHOGM event in Durban South Africa in November 1999
to which BEPIC contributed. The theme centred on Human Settlement priorities in the Commonwealth as they relate to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda. Interim meetings of BEPIC were held in places such as Stamford in Lincolnshire and in London, some of them facilitated by CAA. In 2001 in addition to written and verbal contributions to the Commonwealth High Level Review Group by CASLE, other members of BEPIC also submitted evidence. The final document was accepted by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Coolum in Australia in 2002. In 2003, a one-day conference on sustainable development organised by the Nigerian Institution of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS), CASLE, including members of BEPIC and CHEC was held in Abuja, Nigeria prior to CHOGM in December 2003. This was followed by a BEPIC/CHEC partnership meeting to discuss Commonwealth progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.
A BEPIC workshop entitled ‘Towns and Cities – realising people’s potential through urban development’ was held in Kampala Uganda on 19th November 2007. In July 2008 a BEPIC workshop entitled “Facing up to Climate Change” was held at the Prince’s Foundation in London. The workshop, which was a follow-up to the workshop in Kampala discussed the future of cities and how to respond to the challenges which arise from climate change. In September 2010 a BEPIC seminar also took place at the Alan Baxter Gallery in London on ‘Climate change – Adaptation and mitigation’
The Commonwealth makes up some 30% of the world’s population and is growing rapidly. Almost half of the growth of urban areas is in slums with the number of slum dwellers growing at some 10 million per annum.
This growth obviously presents massive challenges. These challenges are often made worse by planning resources being very limited particularly in those countries experiencing the most rapid urban growth; also in many smaller countries planning education is virtually nonexistent. CAP provides an opportunity for planners across the Commonwealth to share experiences and work together to help tackle these and other issues.
The Commonwealth Association of Planners (CAP) was established in 1971 and represents the interests of over 35,000 planners across the Commonwealth.
CAP members are the national planning bodies of Commonwealth countries.CAP advocates greater collaboration between relevant national, Commonwealth and international governmental and nongovernmental organisations in all regions of the Commonwealth. An example of CAPs collaborative work is through the Built Environment Professionals in the Commonwealth (BEPIC) organisation.
BEPIC was formed over 10 years ago and brings together the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA), the Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy (CASLE), CAP and the Commonwealth Engineers Council (CEC).
BEPIC has held regular seminars addressing
cross-professional issues which are critical to the Commonwealth such as climate change and sustainable development.
CAA participated in the CAP-led workshop at the 2013 Commonwealth Peoples Forum (CPF) in Sri Lanka. This workshop entitled “Our Commonwealth Urban Future - Priorities for a Post-2015 Development Agenda” brought together members of BEPIC to explore critical issues around urbanisation and human settlements. The output from this workshop was influential in the final CPF communiqué.
CAP also has active networks for Young Planners and Women in Planning – the former very active in using various social media.Most recently CAP has been engaging with the UN regarding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) which will be replacing the Millennium Development Goals in 2015. CAP has been in existance for over 40 years, and through a wide range of initiatives and activities CAP is stronger now than ever before. For the future CAP looks to work with fellow built environment professionals and others to tackle the huge multi faceted challenges in the Commonwealth which necessitate combined collaborative action to help achieve a more sustainable future for all.
CAP is also working with other national and international organisations such as CAA in promoting the value of planning in tackling issues such as health, resilience and food security faced in the cities of the Commonwealth. On the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the CAA and on being a partner in BEPIC, CAP wishes CAA the very best in future endeavours.
Members of the Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy (CASLE) Management Board would like to congratulate the members of the Commonwealth Association of Architects & Rukshan Widyalankara, President, on reaching the 50th Anniversary of the organisation in June 2015.
The relationship between CASLE and CAA began as the result of a discussion with Professor Dr Alan Spedding, President of CASLE and the President of CAA. This led to agreement to approach the other built environment professions with the intention of forming a partnership of Built Environment Professions in the Commonwealth (BEPIC). This group which includes the Commonwealth Surveyors (CASLE), Architects (CAA), Planners (CAP) and Engineers (CEC), fostered the first official meeting which took place in Edinburgh on 23rd and 24th October 1997 prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
The CASLE conference and General Assembly in Brighton in July 1998 included a workshop led by members of BEPIC including John Anderson (CAP), Professor Dr Alan Spedding (CASLE), Dr Eric Wightman (CEC) and Mr Michael Mutter representing DFID who chaired the meeting. It was agreed that BEPIC has immediate access to a world-wide network of the professions that influence the built environment, via members of its individual Commonwealth organisations. This extensive database provides the foundation for BEPIC to play a central role in disseminating and exchanging information and the workshop
set out a programme for immediate action: Collaborate, Communicate and Educate.
Subsequently, the Commonwealth Human Ecology Council (CHEC) convened a oneday Forum at the pre-CHOGM event in Durban South Africa in November 1999 to which BEPIC contributed. The theme centred on Human Settlement priorities in the Commonwealth as they relate to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.
During this period interim meetings of BEPIC were held in places such as Stamford in Lincolnshire and in London, some of them facilitated by CAA.
In 2003 a one-day conference on sustainable development organised by the Nigerian Institution of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS) and CASLE and including members of BEPIC and CHEC was held in Abuja, Nigeria prior to CHOGM in December 2003. This was followed by a BEPIC/CHEC partnership meeting to discuss Commonwealth progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.
A BEPIC workshop entitled ‘Towns and Cities – realising people’s potential through urban development’ was held in Kampala Uganda on 19th November 2007.
In July 2008 a BEPIC workshop entitled ‘Facing up to Climate Change was held at the Prince’s Foundation in London. The workshop, which was a follow-up to the workshop in Kampala discussed the future of cities and how to respond to the challenges which arise from climate change.
In September 2010 a BEPIC seminar took place at the Alan Baxter Gallery in London on:‘Climate change – Adaptation and mitigation’
CASLE President, Professor Chitra Weddikkara collaborated with members of BEPIC in the CAA-CAP Breakfast Fringe event at the Commonwealth Peoples’ Forum in Hikkaduwa, Sri Lanka prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo in November 2013. The relationship with BEPIC continues and it is anticipated that there will be collaboration in future CHOGM events and a possible evening event in London in 2015.
in
as a federation of independent professional societies representing surveying and land economy in Commonwealth countries.It currently comprises over 40 societies in 32 countries; it has approved Associate Members and correspondents, some of whom are in 19 other countries. The professional societies represented cover the disciplines of surveying and mapping, land economy, and quantity surveying and costcontrol.
CEC is a professional body for all engineers of the Commonwealth.
Representing 45 engineering institutions in 44 countries across five continents, CEC is a global organisation whose aim is to advance the science, art and practice of engineering for the benefit of mankind. Engineering is at the heart of social and economic development.
CEC recognises the responsibility and the importance of working closely with other professions and with the engineering community at large.
Prof. Paul W Jowitt, President, Commonwealth Engineers Council
CBE BSc(Eng), PhD DIC,CEng CEnv,FRSE,FREng,FICE FIPENZ,FIES,FRSA,FCGI
On 15th June this year the Commonwealth Association of Architects will celebrate its 50th anniversary. On behalf of the Commonwealth Engineers’ Council, I am delighted to send many congratulations to the CAA and its President, Rukshan Widyalankara.
The CAA will soon be followed by the Commonwealth Association of Planners (established in 1970) and the Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy (established in 1969). Together with CEC, these four panCommonwealth organisations comprise BEPIC – Built Environment Professions in the Commonwealth. As we all know, the Commonwealth offers a unique global perspective and range of experiences drawn from different cultures and religions, from all the continents of the world, from nations great and small, maritime and continental, urban and rural and from economies at different stages of development. This is a rich diversity that only serves to bind us together. Now, one thing all of us in the Commonwealth need is infrastructure
– the platform upon which civilisation depends. It is important that the Built Environment professions share their knowledge and professional standards to advance the delivery and increase the quality of sustainable infrastructure across the Commonwealth.
look forward to working with CAA, CAP and CASLE ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta in November 2015 to provide some guidance on the importance and delivery of sustainable infrastructure.This would be very timely as the UN will have finalised its Sustainable Development Goals (as successors to the MDGs) and BEPIC could look at them from a Commonwealth perspective. Another area where we could collaborate is infrastructure resilience, not least in the face of the threats posed by climate change as well as a range of other natural disasters. In 2009 BEPIC Members produced – “The Built Environment Professions in Disasters Risk Reduction and Response”. A Guide on Infrastructure Resilience would be very timely!
The CAA Africa region has seven active members in good standing in 2015. The western region has Ghana and Nigeria; the eastern region has Kenya and Uganda and the southern region of Africa has South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. Currently, the sitting Vice President for the Africa region is from Botswana. Botswana and Namibia are the only active members who do not have CAA accredited schools of architecture but have an active membership of architects in practice.
The Uganda Society of Architects (USA) represents the architectural profession in Uganda. It is engaged in producing an extensive series of practice, management and law reports on matters related to architectural practices and building in Uganda.
USA’s corporate membership currently stands at 263 with active practicing architects at 165. USA, emerged initially from the East African Institute of Architects, Uganda Chapter - as it was called in 1952 - with its patron as the then President of Uganda Dr. Apollo Milton Obote. The Society, together with the Architects Registration Board, are the two professional institutional bodies for architects in Uganda.
The South African Institute of Architects (SAIA) is a voluntary association of affiliated and regional institutes established in 1996 and incorporates the previous national Institute of South African Architects (established in 1927) and the Regional Institutes of Architects of the former Cape (founded 1899), Eastern Province (founded in 1900 as the Port Elizabeth Society of Architects), KwaZulu-Natal (founded in 1901), Orange Free State (founded in 1921), Transvaal (founded in 1909), the Pretoria Institute of Architects established in 1993 and Border (founded in 1946 as the East London Chapter of the Cape Provincial Institute). The following new regional institutes were established in 1996: Northern Cape, North West, Limpopo (founded as Northern Province) and Mpumalanga.
The Institute is committed to the principle of striving to be an outstanding professional organisation, which upholds the dignity of the profession and its members. It aims to
promote excellence in architecture and it seeks to contribute to the enhancement of society and the environment.
In 1958, an eight-member study group was formed to carry out the detailed planning for the establishment of the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA) which ultimately culminated in its inauguration. The Institute was founded on the 1st of April 1960 as an association of independent professional architects with the aims and objective of fostering friendship amongst members, cater for their welfare and establish mutual support and cooperation amongst them. From a modest 13 member attendance at inauguration, the Institute has experienced a phenomenal growth in its membership, activities, stature and influence both at national and international levels. Total membership today stands at about six thousand.
The Namibia Institute of Architects, (NIA), is a non-profit, statutory institution established in 1952, under the previous title of The Institute of South West Africa Architects. The NIA’s objective is to promote architecture and sound architectural practice among the Namibian architectural profession and general public of Namibia, Southern Africa. Currently, the NIA has a membership of 111 registered professional architects, and is a member of the African Union of Architects, CAA and the UIA, ensuring an international representation. The NIA is also in close affiliation with the Namibian Council for Architects and Quantity Surveyors.
Established in 1967, the Architectural Association of Kenya (AAK) is Kenya’s leading association for professionals in the built and natural environment in Kenya incorporating Architects, Quantity Surveyors, Town Planners, Engineers, Landscape Architects and Environmental Design Consultants and Construction Project Managers.
The Association is registered under the Societies Act and brings together professionals from the Private Sector, Public Sector and Academia. The Association also acts as a link between professionals and stakeholders in the construction industry including policy makers, manufacturers, real estate developers and financial institutions.
The Ghana Institute of Architects (GIA) was established in 1962 as a professional body that seeks the advancement of architects and architecture in Ghana.
The objective of the Institute is the advancement of the ‘Art & Science of Architecture’ in Ghana and the promotion of research, education and the practice connected therewith. For the purpose of carrying out these objectives the Institute also promotes, guides and provides education, training and research in the Art and Science of Architecture and its related disciplines in the building industry. The GIA encourages and assists professions and occupations, which are auxiliary, kindred or complementary to the architectural profession and maintains a library and museum to further good relations and co-
operation between the Institute and similar organisations within or outside Ghana.
Botswana
The Architect’s Association of Botswana represents up to 150 members from Botswana ninety of whom are practising architects. The majority of these members are located in the main centres of Francistown and Gaborone. In order to achieve its aims, the Association runs a number of programmes and holds representation within a number of public bodies. It liaises with the government, media and public regarding architectural matters. It also has educational links with Universities and promotes continuous professional development courses for all architects and assists members with documentation and monitoring of issues which affect practice.
The Commonwealth countries in the Americas include the Caribbean countries and territories along with Canada. The Caribbean Community (CariCom) signed an Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union and this has resulted in the process of a Mutual Recognition Agreement which establishes a mechanism to recognize the qualifications of architects from each region. This MRA allows the simplification of translation of qualifications across borders to facilitate portability of services. It does not remove the need of registration, but allows the application for registration and recognition of qualifications by insurers to allow architects from the different territories to provide services across borders.
As a result of this MRA process the CariCom countries have developed a regional MRA process to allow for inter-regional cross border provision of services. Architects registered in any one commonwealth country in the Caribbean will have a process by which recognition of their qualifications in order to obtain temporary registration or establishment of presence in a host country. The MRA is expected to be ratified by all of the Architects Registration Boards and governments by the end of the second quarter.
The MRA process also created saw a similar agreement with the Dominican Republic which while not a CariCom country is a Caribbean country which is a part of the Economic Partnership Agreement with the EU.
The Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean has a grouping known as Association of Commonwealth Societies of Architecture in the Caribbean (ACSAC) which is the initiator of the Caribbean School of Architecture located in Jamaica, is studying the issue of a regional architect’s registration examination which also facilitate easier movement of architects and the provision of services across the entire region.
The countries of Grenada and Dominica now have architecture registration legislation in place since the convention in Bangladesh 2012.
The profession of architecture is developing in the Caribbean and the networking and partnering across borders is steadily improving. The CAA is helping to facilitate this process by engaging practitioners and institutes in the wider context and continues to offer support for member institutes in the region and represents the region in the global context.
Six member organizations from Asia represent Architects at the CAA. Each of these organizations is also a member of Regional organisations such as Architects Regional Council Asia (ARCASIA), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation of Architects (SAARCH), AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) as well as globally, the International Union of Architects (UIA). The member organizations from the Asian Region are represented at CAA by its elected Vice President. On behalf of member countries of the Asia region, I congratulate CAA on completion of its 50 years and feels it an honour to be contributing for the commemorative book “Architecture in the Commonwealth”. CAA has come a long way for the first 50 years with its efforts in shaping architecture and the profession of tomorrow. I am honoured to be a part of the CAA council celebrating the 50th Anniversary of its founding.
INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
BANGLADESH (IAB)
Institute of Architects Bangladesh (IAB) was established in 1972 in Dhaka. The Institute is managed by a fourteen-member Executive Committee elected for a term of two years. IAB works with different government organizations and offer education, government and civil society advocacy, to improve the quality of the profession in Bangladesh.
IAB has over 2,500 members including 861 Fellows and 420 Associate Members. Five educational Institutes in Bangladesh are accredited by IAB through Accreditation Standard of IAB (ASIAB). The Institute is also represented in the Government through the IAB President who is a Member of the City Development Committee of Capital Development Authority and Chittagong Development Authority.
THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS (HKIA)
Originally named The Hong Kong Society of Architects, it was formed in 1956 by 27 architects. It is recognized by the Royal Institute of British Architects as an Allied Society since 1957 and was renamed Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA) in 1972.
HKIA has more than 4,000 members, 170 architectural practices as corporate members and 180 Fellows. Management
of the Institute is vested in an elected Council. The Institute is entrusted with conducting HKIA/ Architects Registration Board (ARB) Professional Assessment, which is mandatory before obtaining registration. HKIA has a Continued Professional Development (CPD) programme and there are 2 educational institutes that offer both recognized and accredited pre-professional and professional degrees. HKIA has been publishing its journal since 1995.
CAA: About the Regions
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS (IIA)
Having started in 1917, Indian Institute of Architects (IIA) has more than 15,000 members. IIA is registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 as a voluntary organisation of Architects. IIA is represented in various national and international committees connected with architecture, art, and the building industry. The ‘Outreach’ programmes are conducted through its Chapters and Centres which communicate with the public in various regional languages by using the press and electronic media. The IIA publishes the Journal and a monthly Newsletter.
The Institute of Architects, Pakistan (IAP) was established in 1957 by a small group of architects trained in the West. IAP was formally registered in 1968 under the Societies Act, and subsequently registered in 1968 under the Companies Ordinance, with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The institute joined the Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) in 1965.
Through the consistent efforts and lobbying of IAP, the profession of Architecture and Town Planning received due recognition and protection with the establishment of the statutory registration body, the Pakistan Council of Architects and Town Planners (PCATP) in 1983. IAP
has conducted several architectural design competitions at local, national and international levels for both the Government and corporate clients. The institute has currently four Chapters covering the entire country.
The total number of Fellow, Associate and Affiliate members along with Honorary Fellows was 31 in the year 1965 and has now reached 2291. Over the years IAP has to its credit the establishment of the first school of architecture in 1954, which was subsequently upgraded to a five-year degree programme. There are currently 17 architecture schools in the country that are recognized / accredited both by the Education Board and PCATP.
The Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) was established in 1963 with the objective to promote the architectural profession and the built environment in Singapore. Its mission is “To champion excellence in architecture and the built environment” and the vision is to see “Singapore as an Architecture Capital”. The institute has currently 835 members. The management of the affairs of the Institute is the responsibility of an elected Council, comprising 26 members, one of whom is appointed by the Board of Architect’s Singapore, as an ex-officio member. There is only one recognized architectural school functioning in the country. The transformation of Singapore to what it is today is a significant achievement for the institute.
Over the years the membership of the Sri Lanka Institute of Architects (SLIA) has grown and the present membership is 1123 in 5 membership categories. It comprises 113 Fellow members, 1003 Associate members, 2 Registered members and 10 Honorary members and a further 384 Practices and 245 Students and graduates. SLIA is a founder member of the CAA, ARCASIA and the SAARCH. SLIA has made a significant contribution towards architectural education in Sri Lanka.
It has 2 established Schools and the educational standards are set by the Board of Architectural Education of SLIA. The institute publishes a quarterly journal by the name of “The Architect”, in addition to several other publications. The country also has a Green Building Council.
SLIA has conducted several architectural design competitions at local and national levels for both the Government and corporate clients.
There are three member organizations in Europe representing architects at the CAA, from equal number of Commonwealth Countries.
These being the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Maltese “Karma tal-Periti” and the “Cyprus Civil Engineers and Architects Association”, represented at the CAA council by a Vice President (V.P. - Europe) that alternates between the member organizations.
The Kamra tal-Periti (Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers of Malta) is a founder member of CAA and one of the very first activities of CAA was held in Malta in 1965.
In June of 1965 thirty-two architects from Australia, Canada, Ceylon, East Africa, Hongkong, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Malaya, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rhodesia, Singapore, South Africa and the United Kingdom attended the Commonwealth Association of Architects Malta Conference with the theme being “The Education and Training of Commonwealth Architects”. Also among those present was Sir Robert Matthew, then President of the International Union of Architects.
Since then the Kamra has participated fully in the activities and events of the CAA and supported it in its endeavours to uphold the status of architects and architecture in the Commonwealth.
It is also opportune to remark that the next CHOGM meeting will be held in Malta in November 2015 with the theme ‘The Commonwealth – adding global value’. This theme will provide an inspiration to make the most of the Commonwealth Organisation and should serve as an invitation for Commonwealth partners to come together as a community and work collectively to add value to its citizens, its member states and to the international community.
At the council meeting in Larnaca, Cyprus in 2009, hosted by the local member organization, a number of council members felt strongly the need for CAA to reexamine its role and set new directions and goals, to reflect its member organizations expectations and global nature, to explore the organizations prospective and member’s contributions more efficiently.
Decisions taken then, such as the extensive revision of the CAA Constitution, the increase of its worldwide member organizations representation, the rationalization for the larger member organizations subscription contributions and the reduction of the same for the smaller members, the promotion of working prospects between practicing architects from different member organizations worldwide (P4P), the self financing of the school validation activities and lastly but not least the curtailment of the administrative costs, were extensively considered and discussed during the three day council meeting in Cyprus.
The above were further promoted during the presidency of Ar. Mubasshar Hussain and the current president Ar. Rukshan Widyalankara, over numerous teleconferences and council meetings and General Assemblies hosted by the home member organizations at Colombo Sri Lanka and Dhaka, Bangladesh. Perhaps the most significant point for CAA’s new forward direction was that of the at Durban, South Africa council meeting in August 2014.
I now feel most confident that CAA, beyond celebrating its successful 50 years anniversary, is ready to set new and higher goals, welcome to its membership new and estranged member organizations and offer the world architects community better services, greater future and stronger cooperation between its members.
Oceania Region currently only has two active CAA member organisations with the Australian Institute of Architects and the New Zealand Institute of Architects. Other countries with active Architects or who have a school of Architecture include Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands.
The Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA) was established in 1929 and is the organisation that represents the profession of Architecture in Australia. It has almost 12,000 members including Students, Graduates, Architects, Academics, Affiliates and retired members. The Institute has Chapters located in every state and territory together with an International Chapter. The Institute runs a broad range of programs covering education, practice, sustainability, awards, prizes, continuing professional development, policy and government relations.
Mission:
To make the world a better place through Architecture.
Purpose:
The Australian Institute of Architects exists to enhance the cultural, environmental and economic well-being of the community by:
- advancing contemporary practice and the professional capability of members, and - advocating the value of architecture and architects.
Vision:
With the perspective of our stakeholders as paramount, we will create an Institute that members value, in partnership with organisations that are strong and aligned with our vision.
Our substantial and effective public policy on architecture and the built environment will influence governments, and the community will understand and value the leadership given by the architectural profession. We will have highly effective communication with all our stakeholders and exhibit exemplary employment practices and the highest standards of governance.
The Institute will be an innovative, learning organisation, which acknowledges its
presence and responsibility in a global context.
We will secure the future of the architectural profession through continuous knowledge development and transfer and by ensuring that members are committed to life-long learning for the benefit of the community.
Financially, we will have the strength to lead, and through effective, timely and transparent financial management, we will ensure accountability to our stakeholders.
Values:
In meeting the needs of all our stakeholders we will operate in ways that promote:
• One community: embracing diversity and open communication
• Innovation: demonstrating leadership with courage and creativity
• Accountability: acting with integrity, responsibility and sustainability
• Respect: relating with empathy and recognition of effort
• Collaboration: working together with trust, transparency and fun
The New Zealand Institute of Architects is a professional body representing more than ninety percent of all registered architects in New Zealand. In addition to supporting our members with a range of services, we are committed to promoting and celebrating outstanding architecture in New Zealand, and to creating greater awareness of the values and benefits that architecture brings to our built environments today and for generations to come.
The New Zealand Institute of Architects (NZIA) was first established in 1905, the Institute was later reformed under the Architects Act 1963 which split its previous functions in two.
The New Zealand Institute of Architects became the professional organisation for Architects, and the regulatory functions transferred to the Architects Education and Registration Board (AERB), now the New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB). The Institute has since elected to become an incorporated society (like many other building industry professional organisations), giving it the flexibility to identify and expand its range of activities and membership base.
The NZIA has around 3000 members. Approximately fifty per cent of these are registered architects working in New Zealand. New Zealand architects working overseas, architectural graduates who are not yet registered, architecture students, teachers of architecture and retired architects make up the balance of our members.
The objects of the Institute include:
• To promote excellence in architecture, the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge relating to architecture, ethical conduct in the practice of architecture and the interests of the profession of architecture in New Zealand and overseas.
• To advance the study and practice of architecture.
• To improve and elevate the technical and general knowledge of persons engaged in, or about to engage in the practice of architecture.
• To hold and promote competitions and to give prizes, certificates and other awards to promote excellence in architecture.
• To bring before government authorities, public and other bodies any matters affecting architecture and architects.
• To amalgamate, or combine, or confer,
or act temporarily or otherwise in conjunction with any other professional body or bodies, institutes or institutions having objects similar to those of the Institute.
Australia and New Zealand Governments have signed a Trans Tasman Agreement, which enables Architects to become registered in both countries through mutual recognition of their registration in the other country.
The RAIA and NZIA have been working collaboratively with the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) and the NZ Architects Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) to share both the Competency Standards and have a consistent Accreditation process for the Architectural Education Programs in both Countries. This has resulted in professional architecture courses in Australia and New Zealand being subject to accreditation jointly run by the Institute, the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) and Architect Registration Boards in each Australian state/territory and NZ.
50 Years: An Architectural Journey
Lanka’s rural architecture evolved via hybrid practices through settler co-habitation with aboriginals in sympathetic relationships to the landscape while urban traditions were colonial. Aesthetic traditions introduced by Aryan and Dravidian colonisers dominated with a subculture brought by Arab traders.
The historic cities of Buddhism, such as Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa, converted dry zone forests into vast irrigated expanses for rice cultivation, building monastic complexes for urban populations. A second urban tradition was introduced via European colonisers from the West. These traditions, large and small, aligned very differently with indigenous or colonial authority. They constitute modern architecture’s prehistory and sources.
Colonisation by the Portuguese, Dutch and British (1505-1948) introduced distinct metropolitan architectures to Ceylon alongside modern construction techniques. While the earlier colonisers accommodated local climate and materials, the British invented formal aesthetic hybrids both in the residential bungalows derived from the Indian bangala to the Palladian villas and mansions in Indic architectural styles. The late nineteenth century, Indo-Sarcenic, Travancore and Buddhist aesthetics embellished rationalised plans with decorative elements in an incipient indigenising practice. Colonial firms like Edwards Reid and Booth and the government’s Public Works Department applied this aesthetic to their institutional
buildings outwardly concealing the inflexible colonial cultural authority. As independence loomed as a political possibility, Buddhist aesthetics took on new significance authorising the shift of power to a majoritarian government with a Sinhala-Buddhist cultural orientation. The architecture of the Independence era, such as the new University at Peradeniya and the Independence Hall in Colombo largely referenced the architecture of Kandy, the last indigenous capital, and more specifically the Buddhist architecture of the Royal Palace. Such mono-cultural adaptations, fashioned by the architects of the buildings department, dominated the public sphere. Although the architectures of the Hindu, Muslim and Christian minorities had similarly indigenised their aesthetics along revisionist lines, most notably in the architecture of the Trinity College Chapel (1939) and the Protestant Cathedral in Colombo (1973), they occurred at the margins.
This early post-colonial moment evinced several political tensions that shaped modernism’s advent in Asia. Former colonial relationships were translated through pedagogical processes whereby foreign expertise and exogenous training influenced architectural practice. Conferences on Tropical Modernism and the Tropical Programme at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London oriented the first generation of architects to a particular Euro-centric script, during the nineteen fifties. Yet, the postcolonial rejection of the Commonwealth, regional
non-alignment and increasingly socialist economic policies produced competitive strains of modernism. Sri Lanka’s most pervasive public encounters with the liberationist strains of modernism arrived via Cold War alliances with Russia, China and East Germany. As evident in the architecture of the 1965 Industrial Exhibition, Colombo, they shed their cultural legacies for engineered steel and concrete alternatives. Modernism was introduced circuitously through a socialist translation of a European paradigm.
The 1973 Oil Crisis, exchange restrictions, import substitution policies, and a growing insular nationalism would quell this early rebellion. As nationalist sentiment hardened against internal and ethno-political dissent, public architecture would re-engage with its former cultural script. But, by then, the profession of architecture had undergone its own transformation. A generation of locals trained overseas, who had begun their careers either in colonial practices or the Buildings Department was ready to take the helm. They created the spaces that their apprentices would occupy, negotiating a labour-intensive colonial building culture, tropical modernism’s functionalist aesthetics, and the nationalist imperative to indigenise. Yet, socialist economic policies impacted the profession’s capacity and development. The Ceylon Institute of Architects (1957) and a tertiary level course at the state-run Institute of Practical Technology, Katubedde (1961) had the difficult task of adapting exogenous, post-industrial CAA (Commonwealth Association of Architects) professional systems and RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) curricula, with their embedded neo-colonial legacies of patronage1
This ideological contradiction between politics and professional pedagogy extended the colonial period public/private separation of architecture into the postindependence era, characterising reluctance for ethnoreligious identification in the private domain. This tendency was prompted by several forces, led by the desire for modernity, particularly amongst the emerging educated middle class. Abandoning the colonial bungalow as an urban precedent, they turned to two new inspirationsthe tropical modernist aesthetics learned via architects trained in the AA School of Architecture and the American, California style, residences disseminated via magazines. These modernist trends introduced a new architecture to metropolitan areas perfected in the work of overseas-
trained architects such as Visva Selvaratnam and Leon Monk. They were replicated in metropolitan suburbs by less-known designers and draftsmen. These architects introduced the modernist free plan, asbestos roofing, glazing and breeze blocks into the architectural vocabulary. These modernist idioms refashioned by the insular economy influenced the pioneers.
The pioneers include a much broader group than those discussed in this essay. Architects like Neville Wynne-Jones, Justin Samarasekera, Panini Tennekoon, Shirley de Alwis and Oliver Weerasinghe and later Turner Wickramasinghe and Jeevaka De Zoysa figure prominently contributing via the Buildings Department and State Engineering Corporation; as do engineers like ANS Kulasinghe; but their collective contribution is scantily researched. We are better advised on the work of private individuals who established practices during the 1960s and 1970s, among whom Minnette de Silva, Valentine Gunasekara and Geoffrey Bawa take pride of place. The reason for their prominence is not due to their architectural reputations, but their commitment to, and consistent development of, specific stylistic approaches when compared with the capriciousness of many of their peers. Indeed neither de Silva nor Gunasekara were able to maintain the scale of practice, international reputation or portfolio of prominent clients sported by Geoffrey Bawa. However, they are all three significant for an understanding of Sri Lankan architecture.
Interest in the vernacular as a valid source for indigenising modernism, as opposed to the Buddhist architecture of the Buildings Department, is broached in the writings of Minnette de Silva2. An actively political woman, her work, writings and energies along with those of her sister, Anil, were disseminated via the Indian magazine Marg (Pathway) of the Modern Architecture Research Group. De Silva’s architecture was initially influenced by her contact with Le Corbusier who advised her to return to her culture for inspiration. Her life in Kandy exposed her to this culture more intimately, since that city had resisted European colonisation until 1815. Its craft traditions, cultural preferences and customary practices were as yet embedded in everyday life. Fusing these with her education in modernism proved a new challenge. De Silva found a precedent in the work of Andrew Boyd, an expert in tea turned architect, whose interest in the vernacular shaped her idiom. Proposing a new architecture for monsoonal Asia
50 Years: An Architectural Journey
she indigenised the tenets of Tropical Modernism using a socio-cultural script. Her architecture was a hybrid of multiple sources: the island’s Indian heritage recast through Buddhism in Kandy, modern buildings systems and materiality and vernacular forms, spatial arrangements and social activities. Valentine Gunasekara’s unwavering commitment to the AA’s Tropical Modernism was inimical to nationalist sentiment, and seemed at the time to many, a reluctance to indigenise. Yet his designs were largely influenced by exposure to American Regionalism during a year spent in the USA on a Rockefeller Grant (1965). Travelling across the continent and meeting architectural luminaries like Louis Kahn, Richard Neutra, and Charles and Ray Eames; visiting Taliesan and the Cranbrook Academy and working under Kevin Roche in Eero Saarinen’s practice were formative experiences. Gunasekara brought to architecture the rationalised systemic and engineered responses demanded by concrete. He worked closely with engineer, Jayati Weerakoon and partner, Christopher de Saram, who had also trained at the AA. Yet he designed in a period of turbulent nationalist sentiment and insular economic policies inimical to Western influences. There were limited economic opportunities for his middle class clientele, who used tertiary education to escape their feudal roots. Gunasekara was additionally a practicing Roman Catholic, which while providing him with a number of small institutional commissions located him outside the public domain. His unwillingness to cultivate a feudal aesthetic and commitment to developing modern programmes
alienated him professionally, prompting his emigration in 1987. Geoffrey Bawa’s response to architecture was more flexible and better synthesised, indicative of his colonial upbringing and metropolitan distance from traditional or local concerns. His partnership with Danish architect, Ulrik Plesner from 1959-65 was pivotal in shaping new knowledge in the local vernacular. Plesner extended his country’s humanist tradition to an appreciation of rural vernacular architecture in Sri Lanka, leading a team of artists and students to document village buildings. The architecture fused through the Bawa/Plesner partnership combined technical knowledge of the vernacular with picturesque compositions producing architectures evocative of an uninterrupted past. In documenting the vernacular, Plesner included a number of walavvas, sprawling courtyard residential complexes of feudal elites that combined South Indian, local and colonial architectural traditions in an unpretentious aesthetic. These became the sources for what Perera has termed a ‘critical vernacular’, resistant to global architectural trends3. Both tropical modernism and International Style aesthetics were suppressed. Bawa’s career evolved instead through the sensitive translation of these vernacular forms and spaces into metropolitan programs, most notably urban courtyard spaces.
Unlike de Silva and Gunasekara, Bawa developed a metropolitan scale of architecture for both public and private programs, for prestigious clients in the local community. His location in Colombo and society-connections stood him in good stead. His contacts in Britain, his partnership with Plesner and his sophisticated metropolitan manners identified him as a cosmopolitan rather than an indigenous architect. It enabled his internationalisation, albeit through the production of an indigenous style. Bawa acknowledged heterogeneous sources refusing to subscribe to the SinhalaBuddhist cultural hegemony cultivated in political rhetoric. He maintained his distance from the discursive politicisation of architecture that attended heritage reconstruction. Yet the public commissions for which he was best known, the Sri Lanka Parliament and the university at Ruhuna are represented as culturally inscribed. They have been identified as examples of monumental regionalist architecture, a label Bawa never subscribed to4
The architecture of Sri Lanka gained international prominence during the nineteen eighties via three culturally inscribed streams of practice, occurring alongside marketisation since 1977. Meanwhile, the secession of political hostilities towards capitalism and the West saw a flood of new materials, commercialisation and construction boom. The tourism industry was invigorated by market forces. A new fee-paying school of architecture was created by the Sri Lanka Institute of Architects in 1986. The structural incongruities between the profession, local curriculum and their invigilating bodies overseas, the RIBA and the CAA diminished.
The first stream of practice and the most significant nationally, was the UNESCO Cultural Triangle Project that elevated the historic cities of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Sigiriya to world heritage status in 1982, reinforcing the island’s Buddhist heritage. These projects extended the intellectual and professional skills of several architects to archaeological conservation. They are largely responsible for
publications on architectural topics. The second avenue was the creation of a new capital city, Sri Jayewardenepura, and the construction of a parliament building, which brought its architect, Bawa, international fame5 While the identity of the capital reinforced emerging ethnonational currents, the parliament building was symbolically ambivalent, available for multiple vernacular and monumental associations6. Bawa’s design was celebrated by western architectural critics as regionalist. Both the conservation and reproduction of the ancient past and its reinvention through the postcolonial political present were constitutive elements in the imagined national culture of the majoritarian democracy. The third stream of architectural production was politically neutral; its relatively de-historicised cultural references closely connected to market forces. Experiments in residential architecture by many talented architects produced a rich legacy of resort style developments for which Bawa, and Sri Lankan architecture is renowned. They constitute what has been described as the Sri Lankan Style, a commodity for global consumption and direct source of revenue7 Although other metropolitan architectural trends undoubtedly impacted Sri Lankan society - including government focus on low-income housing - and involved design architects and corporate practices, these three were the most explicitly identitarian streams.
Bawa’s strength and indeed Sri Lanka’s lasting architectural contribution occurred in the private domain. The resort hotel, introduced into Colombo post-liberalisation through multi-national hotel chains, spread to coastal areas and spectacular sites. It created opportunities for a generation influenced by Bawa to take on dreamed-after commissions where luxurious environments could be imagined and recreated. Although subscribing to the colonial imaginings and iniquitous social relationships exploited by the tourism industry, they became sites for renewed focus on indigenous architecture and local craft. Hotels became the architecture of choice for a new generation of corporate design architects who had benefited from open borders and imported materials. These changes were reflected in their urban programmes - in international style, steel and glass multi-storey projects. Yet outside the metropolis, along its rural corridors their adherence to indigenous aesthetics was marked. The expansion of a vernacular program into metropolitan-style accommodation with modern amenities resulted in resource depletion, and the hotels were segregated from their rural surrounds. Yet, their iconic representations gave the island global prominence. Projects of a generation of architects were disseminated further afield in Asia, via vanity publications.
Bawa emerged as an architectural giant through his commissions for resort hotels, his influence traceable in
50 Years: An Architectural Journey
expatriate homes and other architects in Southeast Asia. He was responsible for 15 built, 22 unbuilt and 3 remodelled hotel projects from the 1960s-1990s with several designonly commissions overseas. The generation schooled by him produced elegant equivalents. These hotels were elaborate escapes from the protracted Civil War (1983-2009) that crippled the economy.
During the war years, multi-storey apartments dominated the residential sector, responding to the securitisation of the embattled public sphere. After the war, public buildings and spaces developed by the MDUD (Ministry of Defence and Urban Development) are transforming metropolitan spaces, preparing the nation for new forms of cosmopolitan globalisation. The compulsion to indigenise an exogenous tradition is not as evident. Local cultures and cultural spaces will need to be redefined.
1 Gunaratna K.L. ( 2006 Spatial Concerns in Development: a Sri Lankan perspective New Delhi : Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 149.
2 De Silva, Minnette 1965 / 66 Experiments in modern regional architecture in Ceylon: 1950–1960, The Journal of the Ceylon Institute of Architects 13 – 17. De Silva, Minnette ( 1953 A house at Kandy MARG, Modern Architecture Research Group 6 ( 3 ), June: 4–11.
3 Perera, Nihal 1998 ) Society and Space: Colonialism, Nationalism, and Postcolonial Identity in Sri Lanka Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 147.
4 Powell, Robert 1989 Ken Yeang: Rethinking the Environmental Filter, Singapore: Landmark Books, 15
5 Lewcock, R., Ozkan, S. and Robson, D.G. ( 1992 Profile – Geoffrey Bawa Arredamento Dekorasyan (Istanbul), 6, June (English summary 1): 78–93.
6 Jayewardene, S. (I.S.), 1984 The work of Geoffrey Bawa: Some Observations towards a Historical Understanding unpublished MSc dissertation, History of Modern Architecture, University College London, London University.
7 Daswatte, C. and Sansoni D. ( 2006 Sri Lankan Style: Tropical Design and Architecture Singapore: Periplus.
The architectural cultures of Australia and New Zealand are best known internationally for their production of highly refined single-family houses. Many fine examples are built every year, demonstrating the continuing strength of this area of design. But in both countries, population growth in major cities has increasingly refocused domestic architecture on medium- and high-density living environments. Growing performance expectations in relation to workplace environments and institutional settings such as schools, universities and hospitals have also driven innovation in architecture. Regional differences that were recently quite marked between different cities – particularly in Australia –have perhaps diminished, as expertise has moved around and architectural firms have developed new alliances and expanded their scale of operations. Simultaneously, awareness of the significance of indigenous building cultures to contemporary societies continues to expand in Australia, New Zealand, and across the South Pacific region
and NMBW; Greg Burgess’s sensitivity to both community and building craft; the urbane interventions undertaken by Peter Elliott Architecture and Urban Design; McGauran Giannini Soon’s flamboyant but socially-driven public housing; Hayball’s careful exploration of social program; the fine-grain urban montages of Six Degrees; the increasing abstraction and international reach of Denton Corker Marshall. Younger practices combine and develop aspects from this range of approaches and commitments in new ways.
But the current national profile of such hitherto uber-Melbourne firms as Ashton Raggatt McDougall and Lyons in any case puts to rest the idea that colour and architectural incident only had legs in the dull topography and under the grim winter skies of ‘the southern capital’.
The architecture of institutions and workplaces in Melbourne and Sydney have long been seen as having different design cultures. Contemporary architecture in Sydney is marked by a cultivated, tectonicallydriven minimalism, with Louis Kahn the tacit international model and Glenn Murcutt the local hero. Melbourne on the other hand, is the city where post-modernism never died, but formed an unholy alliance with parametric approaches; its visual excesses long surpassed the precedents of its international heroes, Venturi and Moore, and its still active local paragon, Edmond and Corrigan. These regional stories were always too simplistic – the Melbourne scene in the last twenty years has been particularly accommodating of a range of approaches and keynote projects that defy any single characterisation: the post-deconstructivism of LAB’s Federation Square; the taut skins and tight planning of Sean Godsell; the playful detailing and tectonic inquiry of John Wardle Architects; the inventive deployment of local design histories and refined references to vernacular building technique in Kerstin Thompson Architects
Lyons’ expertise with the programmatic complexities and changing cultures of academic organisations and of hospitals – evolved from their earliest projects for Melbourne suburban TAFEs (Trade and Further Education vocational training institutes) – has underwritten their success in winning major projects in Hobart, Sydney and Brisbane. ARM has had a parallel success in their recent Perth Arena, a project whose critical reception has been enthusiastic (compared for example to the hostility with which Canberra and Sydney critics received their design for the capital’s National Museum of Australia in 2001). The common ground between the ARM and Lyons projects is not merely their visual bravura but also their careful attention to brief, client needs and users: they share a focus on making an architecture based on unanticipated commodity and unexpected delight rather than the fixation on firmness in so much other Australian work.
If Melbourne work can be seen to have established a national paradigm for institutional or public work which is both programmatically innovative and visually and spatially rich, the conventional Sydney focus on refined details and surfaces has had a different impact. It could be seen to have established a similarly generalised model for
commercial work throughout the country. National practices such as Bates Smart and Woods Bagot have developed a sharp, neo-Miesian approach in their work, with highly refined and elegant curtain wall envelopes whose simultaneous reticence and anonymity is akin to the business suits of their denizens. But again, this is too simplistic. Bligh Voller Nield (BVN) can also turn on refined skins, but their work has been driven by an interest in changes to work practices as strong as that of Lyons. A decade ago, BVN’s headquarters for the National Australia Bank in Melbourne tried to play a bit of the Melbourne game with the use of strident colour on its facades,
but the real story was its reconfiguration of the workplace within, through sophisticated updates on bürolandschaft, with deep voids through the building to facilitate the sense of individual address within. This approach has been developed continuously by BVN ever since, increasingly incorporating sustainable design principles, and being expanded into a significant body of work that takes these new workplace approaches into research and teaching institutions. The coming together of BVN and Donovan Hill is part of a broader trend of architectural practices combining to form larger entities. One of the more curious is Architectus, an
association with Athfield Architects, with whom they have successfully collaborated on several other recent projects: AMI Stadium Christchurch (2002, significantly damaged by the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 & 2011); the Waitakere City Library and the Waitakere Civic Centre (both of 2006). While the rich, often flamboyant aesthetic associated with Athfield Architects is quite different from the neo-modernism that characterises Architectus (at least in New Zealand), what perhaps connects the two firms and makes their collaborations successful is their common inventiveness with program. Athfield Architects have in particular been
Australasian conglomerate that takes its name from the highly regarded New Zealand practice Architectus Bowes Clifford Thompson. Pat Clifford was the recipient of the New Zealand Institute of Architects 2014 Gold Medal, in acknowledgement of a body of work driven by spatial and tectonic rigour– informed by the office’s reading of similar lines of inquiry in mid-twentieth century modernism in New Zealand – and a commitment to the public realm. Their rigorous approach had its first major impact with the Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science building at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, completed in
1998. Perhaps the most transformative of several notable projects Architectus has for educational clients in New Zealand has been the Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) Campus Hub and Library (2013), a reworking of the lower levels of a major academic building and the university’s central library, connected by a generous new building volume with study areas, meeting spaces, cafes and shops. It has changed VUW’s wind-blown central campus to produce opportunities for informal group study and meeting, while nevertheless maintaining the quiet and calm of traditional academic libraries. Architectus worked on the VUW hub in
Auckland’s civic authorities that more could be done to foster public access to that city’s extensive CBD waterfront. The switch of such city locations as Auckland’s and Wellington’s waterfronts from industrial to public and commercial space is but the tip of an iceberg of urban change confronting cities in Australasia. Going as far back as the rebuilding of the derelict industrial area of Sydney’s Darling Harbour for the 1988 Australian bicentennial, past attempts at redevelopment of major brownfield sites have not been successful.
Smaller scale designed transformations of old industrial sites have succeeded when devised for specific purposes: Ballast Point Park (McGregorCoxhall landscape architect with Choi Ropiha), Carriage Works (Tonkin Zulaikha Greer), Paddington Reservoir (Tonkin Zulaikha Greer and JMD Design), Glebe Foreshore (JMD Design), and Cockatoo Island (Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, with various consultants), all in Sydney, are cases in point. But in large urban renewal projects, only the conventional street grid established with modestly scaled buildings as part of Brisbane’s Southbank seems to have really worked.
Darling Harbour’s most significant architectural success, John Andrews’ Sydney Convention Centre, has – along with the neighbouring Exhibition Centre by Philip Cox – recently been demolished to be replaced by a bigger, glossier convention and exhibition centre which seems destined to exacerbate rather than solve the problems of placing such vast buildings in sensitive sites. Despite major controversy, the development of Barangaroo– another large inner city site in Sydney recently released from port usage – will be dominated by massive corporate towers currently under construction. The long-term Melbourne Docklands redevelopment similarly entails vast expansion of the city’s CBD, incomplete and undigested before the State of Victoria has designated a vaster swathe of the adjacent Fishermen’s Bend area for similar office and high-rise residential uses, with no plan for new public infrastructure or facilities. Against this apparent shambles in large-scale urban redevelopment, driven by political decision-making at State level, however, has to be placed the considerable care that many municipalities exercise in reviewing developments where they have planning control over them, and in relation to urban design of their public spaces.
associated with innovative public and academic library projects since the success of their Wellington Public Library (completed 1993).
Architecture and urbanism
Athfield Architects has also been strongly connected to the improvements in Wellington’s waterfront public spaces, with notable successes at the Taranaki St Wharf area and Waitangi Park, both done in association with Wraight and Associates, landscape architects. The successes achieved latterly in the redevelopment for public use of the Wellington city waterfront (a project that has been underway – often falteringly – since the late 1980s) appear to have convinced
To encourage good outcomes for the public realm, Australian state government architects’ offices have become active in encouraging expert overview of the design of major projects. There are design review panels modelled on the British CABE precedent in Melbourne and Adelaide; Sydney has a Design Excellence program, while the Urban Design Panel plays a similar role in Auckland.
If large scale urban renewal projects in Australia appear to be somewhat troubled, medium density housing – another necessary plank in addressing the challenges of urban growth – has chalked up some real successes amid a flood of fairly ordinary projects. The State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) is widely regarded as having improved the quality and amenity of apartment buildings in New South Wales. Breathe Architecture has designed and developed The Commons,
their own excellent demonstration project on a tough site adjacent to a railway line. The non-profit Brisbane Housing Company works with a range of fine architects to provide high quality affordable housing, with projects – including the Cox Rayner-designed Constance Street Housing – exploring the potential of subtropical design in medium-density living. Architecture and indigenous cultures.
Post-colonial societies all, the nations of Australasia and the tropical South Pacific continue to evolve patterns of cultural hybridity between indigenous traditions, settler histories, and contemporary global flows of information and influence. Since most of the island states of the Pacific achieved independence in the 1960s and 1970s, where budgets allow there has been a tendency to incorporate the forms of traditional architecture in major public buildings, such as the Parliament of Fiji (1992, Vitia Architects), and the Great Hall Fale of the National University of Samoa, Apia, 1997. The latter project was built with a grant from the Japanese government – funds from China and Japan have in recent years supported significant public buildings across the Pacific, part of a pattern of aid from these Asian powers that has sometimes been to the consternation of Australia and New Zealand.The precedent of major public buildings taking the forms, symbolism, and sometimes even the construction techniques and materials of traditional architecture continues in the Fijian Great Council of Chiefs’
Meeting House (Suva, 2008, Jaimi Associates). The other major building type in the tropical Pacific in which architects have a strong involvement is resort hotels. Frequently this also entails references to local traditions, but often these are loose citations of a general ‘primitivism’ devised for the consumption of first-world tourists. Notable recent Fijian tourist developments include Likuliku Lagoon Resort, Malolo (2007, Architects Pacific); Whispering Tides, Vanua Levu (2000–2010, Architects Pacific); Taunovo Bay Resort and Spa, Viti Levu (2006, Grounds Kent Architects); and the Intercontinental Fiji Golf resort Natadola Bay Resort, Viti Levu (2009, DBI Design).
In New Zealand Maori culture is now widely integrated into expressions of community and public life. Educational institutions in particular have embraced this responsibility in their facilities - recently for example in the building of a marae (and also of a Samoan fale) at UNITEC Institute of Technology in Auckland. The marae and the wharewhakairo (carved meeting house) entailed a collaboration between Lyonel Grant (in the role of tohungawhakairo) and the architectural firm Design Tribe led by Rau Hoskins. Design Tribe has also been involved in a number of other innovative projects. Rewi Thompson, New Zealand’s most distinguished contemporary architect of Maori extraction and affiliation, has recently concentrated on teaching and consulting work on major design projects coordinated by others. However,
his competition-winning design with Stevens Lawson Architects for the Auckland City Mission complex (2007) is a recent demonstration of his own design talent. As yet unbuilt, this is devised as a group of buildings with jagged roofs and ‘tatooed’ surfaces around a courtyard, with the historic church of St Matthew-in-the-City to one side. The desire of New Zealand’s architectural community to engage with Maori – and with the Pacific more broadly – is expressed in the New Zealand exhibition at the 2014 Venice Architecture Biennale, its curatorial team led by David Mitchell and including Hoskins: visitor to the exhibition first encounters a carved pataka (elevated storehouse for treasures), the most striking of the images and artefacts in the exhibition. But this commitment does not yet extend persuasively into the full range of designed environments.
In Australia, indigenous culture is much less visible in the south-eastern cities, while Aboriginal disadvantage remains an entrenched national disaster. Poor housing has been addressed on the ground by architects such as Paul Pholeros (Healthabitat) and David O’Brien; but the scale of the problems requires political commitment which has not yet emerged. Meanwhile, Merrima Design within the New South Wales Government Architects’ Office, provides services to indigenous communities under the able leadership of Dillon Kombumerri. Tangentyere Design, an architectural practice
1 Jennifer Taylor & James Conner, Architecture in the South Pacific: the Ocean of Islands,
owned by the Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs has worked in housing and community buildings for Central Australian indigenous communities since the 1970s. Other architects are exploring new ways to negotiate between Australian architectural culture and indigenous knowledge. Kevin O’Brien’s Finding Country project seeks to reintroduce the many countries and spaces of Aboriginal Australia to Australian architecture.Jefa Greenaway and Rueben Berg have established Indigenous Architects Victoria, which encourages architects to be more engaged with indigenous culture, and the indigenous community to be more engaged with architecture. Led by Paul Memmott, the Aboriginal Environments Research Centre at the University of Queensland has supported a significant body of research over four decades and facilitated contacts between indigenous designers and design academics in New Zealand and Australia.
Australian architecture is gaining increasing international recognition, but this is based on individual projects - often houses - rather than its confidence and competence across a broad range of types and situations. There is also clear ability demonstrated in the work of architects from New Zealand and the Pacific, including successfully engaging with complex cultural and social contexts. This work is still not as widely known or recognised as it should be.
The celebrations for this significant Jubilee of the CAA took place in the very building in which it was created, namely the headquarters building of the Royal Institute of British Architects, located at 66 Portland Place in London, a building which is itself full of references to the Commonwealth.
History of the Building
The present headquarters of the Royal Institute of British Architects, opened on 8 November 1934 by King George V and
Queen Mary, was designed by G Grey Wornum, FRIBA (1888-1957), who won a competition which attracted 284 entries. The Institute’s former headquarters were at 43 King Street (1835-37), 16 Grosvenor Street (1837-59) and 9 Conduit Street (18591934). The foundation stone for the present building was laid by Howard de Walden on 28 June 1933.
In 1970, on the recommendation of the Historic Buildings Council, the building was listed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as a Grade II building
of historical and architectural importanceone of the very first examples of ‘modern’ architecture to be so recognized. It is therefore appropriate for us to take a virtual tour of this edifice.
Exterior
The six-storey building is steel framed and faced in Portland stone. The sculpted figures on the Portland Place front depict the spirit of man and woman as creative forces of architecture. The centre figure is by Bainbridge Copnall; the figures on the columns by James Woodford. Along the Weymouth Street elevation, above the third story window line, are five relief figures, by Bainbridge Copnall, depicting a painter, sculptor, architect (Sir Christopher Wren), engineer and a working man.
Entrance
The pair of massive cast bronze outer doors each weighing 1½ tons are the work of James Woodford. The deep relief design
depicts London’s river and its buildings, including the Guildhall, the Houses of Parliament (left hand door), St Paul’s and the Horse Guards (right-hand door). The three children on the right hand door represent the architect’s own children.
Entrance Hall
The walls are lined with Perrycot stone and the names of the Royal Gold Medallists incised on the left-hand side and Past Presidents above the Bar window – lettering by Percy Smith. The inner hinged entrance doors have silverbronze frames; the revolving doors, also silver bronze, were installed in 1975.
Henry Jarvis Hall & Foyer (downstairs) At the head of the left hand flight of stairs is a bronze of the architect Grey Wornum. The stairs lead into the foyer, which is separated from the Jarvis Hall, (a fully equipped lecture theatre) by a ‘disappearing wall’.
The central stairwell is the most striking aspect of the layout of Grey Wornum’s design. The main staircase is figured Demara marble and black bird’s-eye marble. The balustrading is silver bronze frames encasing plain and deep etched armourplate glass panels (by Jan Jura); the raked balustrades have an abstract pattern and those at the first floor level show the Royal Coat of Arms, the RIBA badge and the coats of arms of Commonwealth countries. All the panels can be lit from beneath. The handrails are polished gold bronze with ebonized mahogany in-laid centres.
First floor
Facing the stairs are the ceremonial doors to Gallery One (formerly the Reception Room) which is used for exhibitions, the café and functions.
Henry Florence Hall
On the far side of the landing is the Henry Florence Hall (named after a former Vice President), the building’s largest and most richly decorated public area, used for meetings and receptions, and now housing function and exhibition space. The main floor area is in polished Indian silver greywood and the two sets of five rectangular areas that flank it are in polished teak with black and grey bird’s-eye marble surrounds.
The most interesting decorations in this room are the very fine fibrous plaster ceiling reliefs (James Woodford) which illustrated various building industry trades and crafts and the craftsmen involved with the building itself; and the carved Perrycot stone window piers (Woodford) which depict ‘man and his buildings through the ages’. At the far end of the Hall is a screen of carved Quebec pine (presented by William Gerstle) which illustrates, in 20 separate panels, scenes from Commonwealth countries based on designs by Dennis Dunlop.
They are of heavily moulded English walnut and figured Indian laurel-wood, surrounded by an architrave of Australian walnut, ebonised mahogany and silver bronze strip. The floor panel, depicting animals and flowers, is by Bainbridge Copnall. Six finely moulded plaster panels (by James Woodford), depicting the main English architectural periods, are set in the ceiling of the landing area.
Second Floor
The wide gallery which runs from the lift area, passing the the leather-lined office room of president Aston Webb (RIBA President 1902-1904) room and Lutyens meeting room, is the best vantage point from which to appreciate fully the special ingenuity of the core of Grey Wornum’s design.
The Sir Banister Fletcher Library is at this level with an internal gallery containing the Periodicals section. There are over 130,000 books and 850 periodicals, the majority housed in the original open access book stacks. The rounded ends of the cases are radiators, an innovation in its time. The desks and most of the chairs are original. The Library represents the largest and most comprehensive collection of published material on architecture in Western Europe and one of the three largest in the world.
Fourth Floor
The only public area is the Council Chamber landing which features a series of finely modelled plaster ceiling panels
by Morris Wiedman, depicting scenes of the construction of the building. Note the figures reading books over the Library doors.
In 1934 the Council Chamber was the uppermost room in the building. In 2003, it was substantially altered to suit 21st century requirements, by agreement with English Heritage. The original floor remains under the now levelled one. The fittings have been preserved and the room could be reinstated in the future. The fifth and sixth floors of building were added in 1957 and were originally administrative offices. The floors have recently been altered and are now used for meetings and conferences.
The RIBA building, the British Architectural Library and Exhibitions are open to the public, admission is typically free of charge. A full colour guide to the building is available from the RIBA Bookshop on the ground floor entitled ‘66 Portland Place: The London Headquarters of the Royal Institute of British Architects’ written by Margaret Richardson and revised by Charles Hind. London: RIBA Enterprises, 2004.
50 Years: An Architectural Journey
India, like many other Commonwealth countries, is a melting pot of styles cultures, and this holds true for the field of architecture too. The Indian subcontinent had various distinctive styles of its own depending on the region, climate and the culture. The rule of the different colonists - French, Dutch, Portuguese and British brought about an advent of styles from these respective countries which after over 300 years of colonial rule became one with the indigenous styles.
Independence brought with it many quandaries – people had to come to terms with their new-found freedom and to carve out an identity for themselves as well. One name that comes to mind when speaking about architects and architecture of newlyindependent India is Habib Rahman. He said, “A building becomes architecture when it not only works effectively but moves the human soul.” Habib Rahman, having trained under Walter Gropius at MIT brought back with him to India an approach that emphasised functionality in design. After independence, austerity was the need of the hour and Habib Rahman’s philosophy echoed the same.
Another momentous occasion was when Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Independent India’s first Prime Minister declared his vision
for the new city of Chandigarh - “Let this be a new town, symbolic of freedom of India unfettered by the traditions of the past….. an expression of the Nation’s faith in the future”. While an American firm was initially selected, in 1951 it fell upon Le Corbusier and his team to shape the new city in accordance with Pandit Nehru’s dream.
It was in this milieu that architecture greats such as Laurie Baker, Achyut Kanvinde, Nari Gandhi, Raj Rewal, Hasmukh Patel, Anant Raje, Charles Correa and B.V.Doshi began their designing careers. What was noteworthy about their contribution was that they had to make a new beginning; they could not take off from pre-independence architecture since it would have had no relevance to the times, nor could they take from colonial architecture since it would have had no relevance to the place. Each one met this challenge in his unique style.
Laurie Baker demolished the myth that one architect cannot make a difference. He unleashed a new vocabulary for Kerala –one that was inclusive – involved the site and the context, the builder, the architect and most importantly the user. Nari Gandhi was known for his organic architecture.
Correa’s Jawahar Kala Kendra inspired by the original city plan of Jaipur, Raje’s contemporary interpretation of the forts and palaces of Fatehpur Sikri and Mandu;
50 Years: An Architectural Journey
Raj Rewal’s similar adaptations from Fatehpur Sikri in many of his projects or Kanvinde and Doshi’s timeless architecture that completely belongs, are some of the reasons why these greats have been considered the pioneers of postindependence Indian Architecture. They picked up the gauntlet and delivered masterpieces with aplomb. Present day architects take inspiration from such greats in creating spaces that hit the right balance of sense of style along with response to context.
In 1968, it was a defining moment when representatives from 124 nations came together on the outskirts of Puducherry in Tamil Nadu, for the inauguration of an ideal township –Auroville, conceptualized by Mirra Alfassa (known as The Mother) and designed by Roger Anger. In The Mother’s words, “Auroville is meant to be a universal town where men and women of all countries are able to live in peace and progressive harmony, above all creeds, all politics and all nationalities. The purpose of Auroville is to realize human unity.” This experimental town today paints a happy picture where globalization enables the coming together of citizens from all over the world in harmony. While globalization is an oft-used word today, it had a different connotation in times gone by. Today, international architects in huge numbers want to be a part of Indian projects and collaborate with Indian architects. The start to all this goes back to the vision of some great minds who strove to bring in talent from across the borders in order to inspire and kindle the creative spark at home too. Doshi who saw the value of Louis Kahn’s genius,
was instrumental in him being installed as the architect of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad in 1962. Louis Kahn and his philosophy - “Every building should have its own soul.” have many Indian followers even today. Doshi was also responsible along with Christopher Charles Benninger and economist Y.K.Alagh for the conceptualization of the School of Planning at CEPT University, Ahmedabad in 1968. Benninger is another stalwart whose firm’s philosophy is to deliver products that are affordable, durable, functional, ecological and beautiful. He was convinced by Doshi to move from his tenured position at Harvard to Ahmedabad as a Ford Foundation advisor to the Ahmedabad Education Society. This is still one of the finest schools of planning and architecture in India today.
Architectural education in Asia started with the first formal program that was initiated at the Sir JJ School of Architecture in Mumbai in 1913 but it is a little known fact that the first degree program in architecture in India was awarded in the year 1949 at Bengal Engineering College, now known as Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology. Today the website of the Council of Architecture shows a registration of 387 colleges in India! With such explosion in numbers of institutes and architecture itself undergoing a dramatic change across the world, one sees a huge influx of young architects bewildered by the range of possibilities and paths. While most do admire the work of the masters, they also take hope and impetus from the works of contemporary architects who are silently but steadily pursuing an
50
Architect:
https://thewansoul.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dscn0260.jpg
architecture of substance. Sanjay Mohe’s handling of light as a building material and his philosophy of respecting the five senses while working with the five elements finds appeal among the young brigade. Sharukh Mistry draws inspiration from the context and maintains peace through an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders including the stones, trees and reptiles on a site. For Shirish Beri, his practice of architecture, art or any of his many interests is an extension of the rest of life, with all facets coming together to make a homogenous picture. Nimish Patel and Parul Zaveri have a responsible practice focussing on sustainability, heritage and conservation where the traditional artisans and craftsmen have a crucial role. Hafeez Contractor has been known to change the look of the Indian skyline with his design interventions. Brinda Somaya inspires through her sensitivity to history and context, to spaces that she carves, to people and even to the families of the labourers who build her creations. Jaisim, an ardent educator has always led by example and believes “every built space can sing poetry”. India is fortunate to have a legacy of many more such influencers with their own idea and identity of sensitivity and sensibility. Ideologies such as socio-cultural inclusivity, sustainability, affordability and space management are the need of the hour in today’s India.
These maestros address these hurling concerns with utmost sensitivity and with a unique style of their own. These are the role models of today who are helping the younger fraternity realize the power that they wield – the power to make a difference with just a line, whether it is to a space or to a lifestyle or to a lifetime.
Architecture in the continent of Africa is as diverse as the constituent countries and varied further by the multiplicity of cultures within those countries. However, probably because of the drama the mega-structures suggest, it is often the historical architecture of Great Zimbabwe or the pyramids in Egypt that are referred to when speaking of the heritage of architecture in Africa. Vernacular architecture plays a less prominent role in the minds of the lay public.
In many countries across the continent the vernacular form of architecture has been discarded for modern forms without its real value being assessed or recorded. Its intuitive response to the landscape, the climate, its people and how it reflects the needs and the beliefs of societies in many countries has gone unnoticed. Those countries that have seen value in their vernacular building forms have often not had the human, financial and social resources to implement their preservation. This in turn has undermined the very essence of cultures to perpetuate its lifestyle, norms and language through the scope of time by reflecting it in its built form.
Historically, on the continent, settlement patterns had a large influence on the way in which societies built their architecture. Countries that have enjoyed more political and social stability have in turn been able to develop more permanent built forms which still exist today. In areas where inter-tribal relationships were fluid, whole communities could move at a moment’s notice to avoid conflict. The search for fertile lands, drastic weather changes and to a lesser extent marriage or death in families, could lead to relocation. For the built form, this often meant the setting up of temporary structures which were perceived to be easy to construct using available materials. In modern times, however, the reasons for changes in settlement patterns in Africa are usually more traumatic. Severe wars, debilitating famine and epidemics are more prevalent and with a larger population on the continent, turn out to be destructive.
Although the vastness of area, diversity of climate, culture and language prohibit the development of a generic built from response to the diverse vernacular from
country to country, the very nature of the emphasis in training received by formally trained architects right from the advent of its independence wave in Africa, ensured that very few of them working on the continent would take time to reflect over what indigenous types of architecture African were or could be. Often, their role was and still is limited to formal spheres such as planning areas, towns and cities. The compromise became references to regional architecture defined by ethnic group definition, for example, ‘The Architecture of the Bantu’, a misnomer. The main distinction between the modern and the vernacular was still visible between rural settlements and the fast growing urban settlements.
In many countries the vernacular forms still dominate in rural settlements and the modern forms dominate in urban settlements. Within urban settlements, there exists a further division between temporary and permanent modern structures best illustrated through ‘Shanty Towns’ and Golf Estates in many Southern African countries. Informal settlements in urban areas illustrate our lack of ability to address the real social needs within our communities and as architects we need to reflect over the reasons for this. In many African countries the majority of occupied spaces are built through informal processes that do not involve the formal participation of professional architects. There is always an unresolved dialogue between the formal and the informal which often begins through the definition of the two words. Contemporary architecture on the continent will need to mediate between the two.
There is a growing understanding that architects need to participate and engage in the development of the informal as well to improve the quality of the built environment. This participation has to be broad and explore new methods of communication and interaction with communities in addressing their needs. Often, these needs that have to be addressed are basic - functional housing that provides shelter from the elements, provision of clean water and sanitation. Urban infrastructure to transport people, recreational arenas, public facilities such as schools, medical facilities and so on. In some countries this means addressing the needs of refugees, vulnerable minors displaced
through wars and natural disasters. An entry point to address this is to start a process in our colleges that begins to re-format architectural thought at the basic formative stage. The apprentice needs to understand that to design, develop and build spaces that respond to real needs on many levels for communities is the key objective of our architectural education in this millennium. Although most architecture students are often drawn to the profession in the quest to design signature buildings, broadening their understanding of the profession would go a long way in encouraging this much needed dimension in the practice. Hand in glove with this would be a spirited campaign to educate the larger spectrum of society ranging from politicians and policy makers on what the true priorities are. For ultimately, it is the general public who are the main consumers of architectural space paid for by government funds, the largest spenders in any economy.
Apart from the lack of financial resources and human capital, one of the least addressed aspects of resolving these challenges is our inability to develop appropriate design skills specific to this emerging need. Creativity and innovation are essential to solving the new complex problems of our time. In part, this is developed by an awareness of our architectural heritage. Much of our shared history and heritage in architecture is not well preserved or documented. I believe that one of the many aspects that hinder our ability to be innovative in our design of new environments is our lack of understanding of our past. On the African continent there is a complex mix of pre-colonial, colonial history and contemporary works. All contribute to an understanding of our needs today. Our history can be a resource for the future as it holds clues to how we deal with our environment, our landscape
and even our lifestyles. Within our grasp we have technological advancements that can also play a pivotal role in the development of quality built spaces. Technological advancements that lay an emphasis on the use of local of materials and construction techniques can further enhance our ability to address these challenges.
The profession as a whole across the continent also needs to focus on the needs of the majority as well as those that are vulnerable and disenfranchised for various reasons – gender, ability and often ethnicity. As the demographics of our continent change rapidly to present a large young population, a large old population and a smaller middle age population the main typologies that we need to address are immediately redefined. A new type of thinking is needed in public works, schools, elderly housing, medical facilities, recreation for the young and shelter for the refugees to cite but a few.
Organisations like the Commonwealth Association of Architects have an opportunity to be part of this necessary dialogue going forward. Engaging with policy makers at an international level is also required and an illustration of our shared history. The collegiate of professions across the Commonwealth enables architects to share knowledge, experience and skills in working towards achieving these goals. We are bound by language and a history that has formed a large part of whom we are today. The mixed diversity of our cultures and countries continues to empower us as architects of the Commonwealth to respond responsibility and grow the wealth of knowledge of our profession and lend our skill and opinion o causes beyond our own.
TThe mandate to design the Tanzania Parliament debating chamber was given to K&M Archplans, an architectural practice based in Nairobi, Kenya but with an office in Tanzania after it won an architectural competition organized by the government of Tanzania. The actual construction started in September 2004 and was completed in May 2006.
In his solution, the architect’s aim was to design a building that reflected the rich Tanzanian culture and history. The concept therefore would spring from a common East African typology, the traditional hut (“nyumba ya msonge” in Swahili, the lingua franca in East Africa) with a conical roof widely used by communities around Tanzania but would be enriched by the wealth of detail in artifacts found in sub-Saharan Africa.
The building is rich in symbolism that cuts across the country from Zanzibar Island to mainland Tanzania. For example, elements of the building such as the domed entrance canopy and the saracenic-shaped entrance doors with zanzibari details were derived from Islamic architectural influences common in Tanzania. This abstraction however is not without limits; modern-day practices in the Commonwealth which inform parliamentary procedures in East Africa temper the extent to which contextual influences can be embedded in the design,
so that the main debating chamber may integrate harmoniously with other existing facilities within the parliamentary complex.
The sitting arrangement is unique –horseshoe with sufficient isles for movement.
In an attempt to ensure that the interior spaces provide an optimum environment for both work and speech, the chamber is complete with Integrated Digital Congress Network System to enable the assembly speaker to control the proceedings.
Universal design components that grant access to the physically challenged persons within the premises, include the use of special seats, ramps and appropriate space provision and furniture in the washrooms.
The Chamber with its associated facilities caters for 350 members of parliament; the gallery has 200 seats as well as 40 additional seats for diplomats.
The interior of the building is adorned with magnificent artworks, sculptures and murals created by Kenyan and Tanzanian artists reflecting the rich culture of the Tanzania people.
In short, the entire building borrows heavily from cultural forms found in Tanzania.
Images of the building, whether viewed through a panoramic sweep of the complex or eye-balled at close proximity to reveal detail will attest to one thing: the rich and curious art of the region.
William Harris M.Sc ( Architectural Engineering), MGIA
William Harris completed his M Sc in Architectural Engineering in 1992.
As principal for an architectural practice (Wihaup) since 2001, he also lectures at the University of Guyana, currently heading the Department of Architecture there. His research topics have included Disaster Mitigation, Indigenous Technologies and Appropriate Spatial Engineering for the Poor.
He served the Guyana Institute of Architects (GIA) as Secretary (19962003, 2013- present), and President (2006-2013). In 2007, he was appointed to the CAA as the Vice President-Americas Region, and completed that stint in 2013. WH has also served as the Chairman of Habitat for Humanity-Guyana.
Training of architects has taken impressive and contoured forms over our recent history, but essentially, after a period of five to six years, in almost any area of the Commonwealth, a new architect is born. As we look back at the past fifty years, we are challenged to assess the nature, contribution and direction of such graduates. Many have moved on to represent their halls of fine learning, and today, stand out among the praiseworthy designers at the tops of the local charts.
Sadly, however, little is known of those who, for some reason or the other, did not quite make it, or were somewhat siphoned off into other pursuits of professional endeavour. What appears to be a general success story, however, takes a twist for the dismal, when we take a step backwards and observe the overall contribution these graduates have actually made. Currently, it is arguably estimated that, around the world, only 11
- 13% of the global building stock (all the buildings constructed on Planet Earth) are the result of the informed contribution of qualified architects. In some isolated cases, especially where formal registration has not been secured as yet, this percentage appears even lower. It lobs to its current global indicator as a result of some sections of the Commonwealth, where greater professional standards are regulated. In such climes, many development plans are not approved if the signature of a certified architect is not affixed.
We may be observing the first throes of a global architectural crisis. If, and I think that all architects agree, spatial design and development is what we are trained for, specifically, then when buildings ‘happen’ without our involvement, things cannot be considered as usual. The final question would be whether architecture matters or not. Put more philosophically, can a link be established between many of our
social ills and the fact that the majority of our populations are currently living in inadequately designed spaces? If it does, then we need to ensure that more have it; otherwise we are aiding and abetting the demise or, at least, degradation of our collective communities.
To a major extent, this anomaly of the noninvolvement of qualified architects in most of the construction going on around us may also be traced to the nature of professional formation available at our universities and schools of architecture. Unspoken somewhere in our hallowed halls is the maxim that upon graduating, one should gravitate to the more affluent and endowed clients, which assures an early retirement. It is there that we go through the drill: offer the gracious services of client engagement, design briefing, preliminary drawings, working drawings and other construction
documentation. We also set ourselves for the long haul of supervising the construction of our creation to its successful completion and commemoration. Of course, we exact handsome fees for such services, and often eternally vie for ownership of the spatial works of art produced. It is not until we pay closer attention to what obtains in the unheralded 87% of building taking place (with no design approvals, works of engineers, draughtsmen, real estate and development agents, nor even the involvement of city officials and politicians), and cross the street into the shanty towns, favelas, squatter settlements, ghettos and barrios, that we recognise a glaring omission.
While our cultured clients invariably register a hefty 1:4000 human to floor-space (square footage) ratio (HFR) and above, the teeming masses of the exploding buildings and cramped communities experience HFRs
of 1:200, 1:100, sometimes even less than 1:10. What this begins to suggest is that we may have gotten this all wrong. In fact, it would seem that we have applied our skills and mastery to those commodious areas where they may be least needed, and sadly at the expense of those spaces where they were most needed. It is in the tighter spaces, often occupied by the poorer inhabitants that we as architects should apply our focus. It is they that have to do more with much less and consequently need a higher level of spatial organisation or architectural engineering.
Two assignments stare us in the face. First we must find ways to ensure that the masses of our communities and nations have access to complete architectural services. If we are willing to open our eyes wide and look around, we may be able to borrow a leaf from the community health services. In most countries access to a satisfactory professional health review and remedy are now ensured to everyone by care programmes, public hospitals and creative insurances. These have resulted from an understanding that if allowed to spiral out of control, then the entire population may be put at risk from a marching illness.
Somewhere in our thinking must emerge the dangers that a non-architectural community portends as it expands and envelopes the planet for an unconscionable period. Our second assignment requires that we also make the necessary adjustments in the way we teach and present architecture, focusing more on identifying the needs of the traditional non-clients, then actively pursuing interaction opportunities which elevate them to the status of clients. This constitutes architecture to the rescue!
This is probably, by far, the more onerous of our tasks, since this would require a fundamental re-calibrating of our social norms and comprehensions. It may be instructive to note that in the categories of buildings and spaces used in the past by the RIBA, the “Homes for Individual Clients” occupied the very highest. The challenge, in response to both assignments, appears therefore, to be only able to determine, as architects, how far this individuality extends. It is here we must radically expand our scale of human value. Concomitantly, there is need for adjustment to the scope, professional interest and works required to ensure that there is, effectively, no individual client, no human being, left behind.
The topic of human rights, equality and accessibility has been on the agenda for discussion since the 1960’s when armed conflicts and wars in various parts of the world resulted in human injuries and impairments at an unprecedented rate. Returning veterans to North America found their homes and communities hostile, unwelcoming and most of all, inaccessible to them.
Director, UIA Region IV Work Programme
“Architecture for All” Chairman, ARCASIA Committee on Social Responsibility (2012-14)
Global Chair, International Commission on Technology & Accessibility, Rehabilitation
International
Recipient, Champion of Inclusive Design Award by the Include Global Network
The term universal design and the thinking behind it have been in emergence for more than three decades, and though the term is synonymous with inclusive design in North America and Europe, in the case of Hong Kong this philosophy regrettably lives on mainly in the realm of legislation, best practices, and guidelines for accessibility for the elderly and the disabled (Preiser and Korydon 2011, 1.5; Wong 2008, 33). However, this is a common misinterpretation and underutilised opportunity for the principles behind universal design.
Universal design is really a design approach that aims to optimise usability for all, hence “universal”. Universal Design principles find common ground in equitability, flexibility, simplicity, perceptibility, and ease of use
(HKHS 2005, 16). While there are several published collections of best practices in Hong Kong for universal design by the government and non-profits (for example ASD, HKHS), they mainly focus on specific guidelines for design detailing, spatial planning and barrier-free access. We often conceive of universal design at the scale of household clearances, wheelchair access, and additional works for the visually impaired. But the principles are as applicable at as small a scale as product design (for example OXO peeler) as they are at the urban scale, especially in a city as dense as Hong Kong.
Hong Kong prides itself on its noninterventional positivistic development, both in economic and governance terms. Yet in Hong Kong, networks of footbridges, escalators, and people movers “grow piecemeal, built by different parties at different times to serve different immediate needs,” and over time, they form “an extensive network and a prevailing development model for the city’s large-scale urban projects” (Frampton, Solomon, and Wong 2012, 6). These impressive networks of pedestrian footbridges, tunnels, and public passageways weave in, out, up, down, and
through Hong Kong’s dense urban fabric. Unfortunately, by its very collaborative nature, the consideration for universal design is markedly absent, particularly at the interstitial points of development.
One of the commonly reported headaches includes “no ramp provision at elevated platform such as steps” (Wong 2008, 52). Lack of ramps poses an issue, especially in Hong Kong where one encounters frequent level changes. Even where there are ramps, they often “provide an alternative, less direct route,” and usually “use the maximum allowable slope,” which departs from the universal design principles of equitability and ease of use (Steinfeld and Maisel 2012, 206). Although “it is questionable whether the effort and time needed to negotiate a ramp between storeys really represents comfortable usability,” the case of Hong Kong is particularly severe, because while elsewhere “ground is a continuous plane and a stable reference point,” in Hong Kong we “enhance three-dimensional connectivity to such a degree that it eliminates reference to the ground altogether” (Heiss, Degenhart, and Ebe 2010, 54; Frampton, Solomon, and Wong 2012, 6).
But universal design applies to more than just ramps. Whilst “public transportation is a major consideration for universal design,” and is “especially true in urban areas where a large percentage of the public depends on public transportation”, getting on and
off a bus is just one facet of the issue (Null 2014, 190). It is a common occurrence in Hong Kong of a daily journey to “take a bus to a ferry to a train to a taxi” facilitated by “elegant intermodal switches” (Frampton, Solomon, and Wong 2012, 26).These modal adjustments often require navigating various level changes, but given the “lack of convenience and connectivity among lifts” that is reported, users face multiple challenges in everyday life in Hong Kong. They must deal with high switching costs during transit, and navigate multiple lifts and steps at entrances that have little consideration for universal access (Wong 2008, 52). Consequently, this is a city where the poor implementation of universal design principles has a larger impact on the disabled or the impaired than in most. In spite of this, the tendency and frequency for the disabled and the impaired to travel and use these transit and footbridge systems are no different from the rest of the population (Wong 2008, 60). It would be thoughtless to neglect their need for a comfortable and convenient living environment.
Universal Design may be structured as design guidelines for specific segments of the population, but it is really applicable to all. After all, if “a place is planned with [the handicapped] needs in mind, the place is apt to function more easily for everyone.”
For example, drinking fountains that are “low enough for wheelchair users are low enough for children”, and walkways that are
“made easier for the handicapped by ramps, handrails, and steps of gentle pitch are easier for all” (Whyte 2003, 434). Designing for accessibility for the elderly, the disabled, and the impaired should not be an afterthought; it ought to be an integral part of the process.
Hong Kong‘s cost for space is one of the highest even amongst the world’s most developed cities. It is common that when a building is being occupied, it complies only with the minimum standards of barrier free statutory requirements. There are often cases where an accessible toilet is locked up and converted into a storeroom. Universal Design is the principle of equitably usable by all, and to fully achieve the aspirations, space is required. In Hong Kong however, the property industry’s behaviour is primarily driven by profit margins so the idea of functional universal design is in almost all cases rejected from the onset. Often, to the everyday Hong Kong resident, there is indifference mainly seeing the issue as a nice-to-have item but personally irrelevant.
But the United Nations projects that by the year 2041, a staggering 2.6 million people in that city will be elderly. Old age and change in physical abilities such as loss of mobility, vision or hearing will be one of the major design challenges for the Hong Kong designers.
Hong Kong has yet a lot to do to utilise the concept of universal design to provide for a barrier-free, convenient and equitable built environment to benefit the community at large. As humans we do not live in isolation, since we are all connected and have friends and family who experience different levels of ability or disability from childhood to old age throughout their lives. Adopting the principles of Universal Design and Inclusive Design is designing a better world that is not only benefiting a small group of people but for ourselves and the generations to come.
Members of CAA, UIA and ARCASIA have a moral, professional and social responsibility to look for ways to act so that persons with disabilities are not denied the basic human right of access and kept on the fringes of society in all parts of the world.
This is how support can be offered:
1. Promote and implement full accessibility as an inherent human right, consistent with the spirit and intent of the United
Nations Convention for People with Disabilities, Standard Rule 5 and Article 9 - Accessibility;
2. Mobilize and educate your local community to support universal design, including enabling the entire community with focus on the aging population;
3. Engage and involve stakeholders across all sectors to adhere to barrier-free best practices in a non-discriminatory and universal/inclusive way;
4. Foster a ‘human-centred’ approach in the design of the built environment, by applying our wealth of talents, knowledge and resources to enhance the quality of life through enabled access both physical and the non-physical;
5. Effectively collaborate with peak organisations, local government bodies, individuals and industry; and contribute directly to the development and improvement of relevant statutory legislations and best practice guidelines with the incorporation of Universal Design.
References Frampton, Adam, Jonathan Solomon, and Clara Wong. 2012. Cities Without Ground: a Hong Kong Guidebook. Singapore:ORO Editions.
Heiss, Oliver, Christine Degenhart, and Johann Ebe. 2010. Barrier-free Design: Principles, Planning, Examples. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS). 2005. Universal Design Guidebook for Residential Development in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Housing Society.
Null, Roberta L. 2014. Universal Design: Principles and Models. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Preiser, Wolfgang F.E. and Korydon H. Smith, eds. 2011. Universal Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steinfeld, Edward and Jordana L. Maisel. 2012. Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Whyte, William H. 2003. “The Design of Spaces.” In The City Reader, edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout, 429–436. New York: Routledge.
Wong, Nga-shan, Jan, ed. 2008. Towards Understanding Universal Design in Hong Kong: Application and Direction in Accessibility. Hong Kong: School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
50 Years: An Architectural Journey
‘Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternalassociationsoftheEnglish-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.’ 1
Identifying the value of a special relationship, Churchill connected the Commonwealth and the United States. In doing so, he projected the idea of an extensive and interconnected set of cultures that formed a global network.The international influence of the United States of America and its impact on the development of modern architecture during the postwar years has been widely recognised.
buildings must be set’4 - recommendations that were in sharp contrast to the increasingly international style of corporate glass box modernism.
bombing was still evident while plans for the large-scale postwar reconstruction of infrastructure and buildings that had preoccupied politicians, engineers and architects and prompted energetic searches for the ‘new’ were already radically transforming towns and cities.
Brian Carter, a registered architect, worked in practice in the United Kingdom prior to his appointment as Chair of Architecture at the University of Michigan.
Subsequently he served as the Dean of the School of Architecture & Planning at the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York where he is currently Professor of Architecture.
A graduate of Nottingham School of Architecture he was awarded a Commonwealth Scholarship and went on to graduate from the M.Arch Program at the University of Toronto.
Brian Carter has worked in practice and taught in West Africa, Canada, Mauritius and Australia and served as an external examiner in Hong Kong, Canada and the UK. The author of several books on architecture he has curated exhibitions on the work of Peter Rice, Albert Kahn, Charles & Ray Eames and Eero Saarinen
That particular modern architecture was frequently characterised by the pristine abstraction of a glass box. And, as the concept and details of that glass box were perfected by Mies van der Rohe and Gordon Bunshaft, so the message that accompanied images of those boxes frequently referenced large new buildings commissioned by corporate clients and made possible by highly organized and equally corporate architectural practices. Such was the enthusiasm for this work that, by 1959, the editor of The Architectural Review was suggesting that ‘for the young European architect, an American Grand Tour is becoming as important as the Italian was to the eighteenth-century English gentleman’
At the same time, the US Department of State introduced other ideas. Between 1946 and 1951 the Foreign Building Operation, a unit within that Department, had commissioned designs for more than 600 new buildings3 These embassies, offices and support facilities planned for diplomatic staff abroad were initiated to define an international presence for the United States. As the program advanced, advocates looked to contemporary architecture to help further emphasise that presence. However, Pietro Belluschi, an architect and advisor to the US Department of State, suggested that each of these new commissions was also ‘an invitation to give serious study of local conditions of climate and site, to understand and sympathise with local customs and people, and to grasp the historical meaning of the particular environment in which new
Two of the most significant projects to be completed as a result of commissions from the Foreign Buildings Operation of the US Department of State were in the Commonwealth; an embassy in India, designed by Edward D. Stone, opened in 1959, and the new US Embassy in Accra was planned by Harry Weese between 1956 and 1959. In preparing the designs for these two buildings, the architects projected modernism beyond the anonymity of the corporate glass box. Instead they sought to respond to particular settings and climates by using local materials, developing new shading systems, inducing natural ventilation and scrutinising indigenous building forms for inspiration.
The US Foreign Building Operation was effective and the agency went on to commission many of the most accomplished architects of the second generation of modernism in the United States including Louis I. Kahn, Eero Saarinen, John M. Johansen, Ralph Rapson, Edward L. Barnes and Paul Rudolph. And while some proposals, like Kahn’s design for a new US Consulate and Residence in Luanda, were to remain unbuilt, many of the ideas traced out in drawings were to become increasingly influential in contemporary architecture.
Considerations like those highlighted by Belluschi in his recommendations to architects commissioned by the State Department were echoed in ‘Architecture without Architects’. The book, written by Bernard Rudofsky and published in 1964, was influential and prompted an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. That exhibition, which opened in the same year that the book was published, claimed to provide ‘an introduction to non-pedigreed architecture’ and made references to buildings in various parts of the world that compared ‘if only by implication, the serenity of architecture in so-called underdeveloped countries with the architectural blight in our country’
Architectural blight was more prevalent than serenity in the United Kingdom at this time. The devastation caused by wartime
Searches for the ‘new’ during that postwar period were also a a preoccupation throughout the Commonwealth. Expatriate architects, planners and engineers, working with the Colonial Office and local administrations, had been developing new standards for urban development, housing, healthcare and educational facilities throughout Africa, Asia, Australasia and Canada. Collaborations with colonial administrations spurred the development of research and initiatives that were developed through the School of Tropical Architecture at the Architectural Association and the Overseas Buildings Notes Series helped to transform that research into action. And, as countries within the Commonwealth celebrated independence, the development of a modern architecture that was not only ‘new’ but also emblematic became increasingly important.
During this period, numerous architects in the United Kingdom were commissioned to give advice in the Commonwealth. Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, two of the leading architects in that group, began working in Africa and their study ‘Village Housing in the Tropics, with special reference to West Africa’ was published in 1946. Presented as a manual, it was used by local people and administrators to plan settlements and design new buildings shaped by climate and informed by the vernacular. Fry and Drew went on to develop plans for other settlements, including Tema new town, as well as designs for university campuses, housing and educational buildings in West Africa before going to India where they collaborated with Le Corbusier on the design of Chandigarh.
Fry and Drew worked with the engineer Ove Arup on many of their commissions. By creating settings where architects, social scientists, politicians, local citizens, administrators and engineers could work together Fry, Drew and Arup initiated alternative forms of creative practice. Design became a more collaborative venture. They brought together a range of different people and ideas in ways that encouraged the development of innovative proposals and integrated a diverse range of considerations into the planning and construction of villages, towns and cities as well as campuses and buildings.
Ove Arup’s commitment to ‘total design’ and ‘the crucial role design plays in the affairs of mankind’6 prompted the formation of Arup & Partners in 1946. It was a practice that brought together different strands of engineering to connect the design of infrastructure, buildings and the environment and provided a basis for collaborative work with other architects. It was a way of working that was to become a model for creative design practice and shape contemporary architecture in the United Kingdom.
Arup Associates, a multi-disciplinary practice devised by Arup and his colleagues, was established in 1963. Building on earlier experiences, it brought architects into the office and enabled them to work directly alongside structural and environmental engineers,cost estimators and administrators in a series of design groups where a culture of integrated
design was encouraged. While the architect Albert Kahn had assembled professional design teams to work together following commissions from Henry Ford and other car makers in America, Arup Associates developed a particular multi-disciplinary practice that built an impressive portfolio of work consisting of projects that accommodated a wide range of uses and which responded to aesthetic, material, functional, economic and environmental needs. The many different buildings designed by Arup Associates demonstrate a remarkable sense of invention, integration and elegance.
Simultaneous developments in the United States saw the design of many new buildings that accommodated different uses. They ranged from educational facilities and university campuses, research laboratories, office buildings and corporate headquarters to libraries, houses, art galleries and airport terminals. In designing those buildings, architects advanced the concept of ‘a style for the job’. A widening range of forms was generated by teams of architects and engineers and construction was made possible by the availability of new materials and innovative systems of construction. It was a design approach that was particularly noticeable in the work of Eero Saarinen. Much of that work, rooted in material research and frequently tested through large-scale modeling and the construction of prototypes, was made possible by commissions from a group of corporate clients that included General Motors, TWA, IBM and John Deere and that enabled Saarinen to design and supervise the construction of many large and complex new buildings in a relatively short time. That work, and other buildings designed by his contemporaries, was published internationally. Projected widely by increasingly diverse and extensive media networks, it provoked intense architectural debate and attracted the attention of architects, critics and students worldwide. Many went to look at this new architecture.
James Stirling’s first visit to the United States had been in 1948. He went to New York where he worked while still enrolled as an architecture student at Liverpool University. The six month long trip, made possible by the Head of School at Liverpool who had a particular interest in American architecture and practice, made it possible for Stirling to live and work in New York City, travel, see the construction of Lever House that was underway and visit buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, Breuer, Gropius and Aalto. Inspired by what he saw, Stirling was enthusiastic to return and, in 1960, was invited to be a visiting critic at Yale University. In 1967, he was appointed Charles Davenport Visiting Professor in the School of Architecture there and, over the next twenty years, was to spend a significant amount of time in the United States. In addition to teaching he travelled extensively, met influential people and received important commissions. Those experiences influenced Stirling’s work significantly.
Other architects were also attracted by new work in the United States. Inspired by modern architecture, Reyner Banham’s writings about design and popular culture, the enthusiasm of numerous artists, conspicuous wealth, the speculations of the Independent Group and persistent messages from widening media networks, some went to look; others moved across the Atlantic to live, work and study there. Norman Foster and Richard Rogers met at Yale University, where they were both enrolled in the graduate program. Foster and
121 50 Years: An Architectural Journey 120
50 Years: An Architectural Journey
Rogers became acquainted with James Stirling, worked in America and travelled across the country before returning to the United Kingdom and working together before each established their own office in London.
‘New Architecture: Foster Rogers Stirling’, the first major exhibition of architecture to be held at the Royal Academy for forty years, opened in 1986. It was defined as an initiative organised “to provoke questions, and even controversy, about architecture and its place in our cities” Presenting work that was clearly inspired by classicism, the vernacular and traditional cities, the exhibition also reflected preoccupations with the machine, new materials, precision and industrial production – interests embedded in postwar developments in the United States, Europe and throughout the Commonwealth that have continued to shape contemporary architecture in the United Kingdom.
The exhibition at the Royal Academy focused on six buildings. That collection, made up of two major projects designed by each of the three architects, highlighted two buildings that were overseas, three unbuilt projects in the United Kingdom and one that had been recently completed in London. One was in the Commonwealth. Several of the projects that were exhibited, including the headquarters for the Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong that was designed by Foster Associates and opened in 1986, had also been designed in close collaboration with engineers from the office of Ove Arup. It was work that underlined the potential of special relationships and defined the extent of the global network.
The work of Foster, Rogers, Stirling and Arup, together with their various collaborations, provided an important basis for the development of contemporary architecture in the United Kingdom. While that work by Foster and Rogers referenced precision, industry, materiality, the value of research and the testing of ideas through large-scale modeling, Stirling projected other priorities. His experience in the United States, and specifically at Yale University where he had worked alongside Vincent Scully, Robert Venturi and Charles Moore while sharing an office with Craig Ellwood, had been combined with time spent with Colin Rowe and other European exiles. That experience, coupled with several significant commissions that he received in Europe, encouraged Stirling to look back at architectural history and examine the shape and form of traditional cities. This diverse set of interests, coupled with the design skills and multi-disciplinary ways of working offered by Ove Arup and his colleagues, defined a new contemporary architecture in the United Kingdom.
Subsequently many of the architects and engineers who had worked with Foster, Rogers, Stirling and Arup established their own practices and their work was also to have a significant impact on the development of design ideas in contemporary architecture. That work, and those architects, have been widely recognized with design awards, Royal Gold Medals
and both Pritzker and Stirling Prizes. David Chipperfield, Michael Hopkins, Caruso St. John, Tony Fretton, John McAslan, Rab Bennetts and Haworth Tompkins, to name but a few, have become leaders in the development of modern architecture both in the United Kingdom and internationally.
At the same time influential practices throughout the Commonwealth were also shaping modern architecture.
Geoffrey Bawa, an architect educated in London, subsequently returned to Sri Lanka where he designed civic buildings and landscapes of international significance while also defining a new architecture particular to the place where it is located. Similarly Richard England’s influence in Malta and buildings designed by Glenn Murcutt in Australia, Jo Noero and Peter Rich in South Africa, Denise Scott Brown in the United States, Arthur Erickson and John Andrews in Canada, B.V. Doshi and Charles Correa in India have all sought to advance contemporary indigenous architectures through work that is of international signiificance.
Subsequent generations of architects connected through special relationships have designed important new buildings. It is a group that includes Sean Godsell, John and Patricia Patkau, Shim Sutcliffe, Deborah Saunt, Studio Mumbai, David Adjaye, Omar Ghandi, Alison Brooks, Rahul Mehrotra and Kunle Adeyemi. Their work, developed through global networks and special relationships, is increasingly influential in the shaping of contemporary architecture both in the United Kingdom and more widely.
Fifty years after the founding of the Commonwealth Association of Architects, the world appears to be tightly bundled by global networks. Those networks have proliferated and, sponsored by commerce, are dominated by the image – something that is increasingly shaping contemporary international architecture. By contrast, special relationships rooted in language tend to be focused on spontaneity, discussion, personal contact and debate. In the context of architecture, these relationships are particularly productive for the development of ideas, collaborations and the inevitable rough and tumble that is a fundamental part of design and the construction of significant buildings.
Contemporary architecture in the United Kingdom continues to be deeply influenced by global networks and founded in long-lasting special relationships. It reflects commitments to collaborative work and performance in addition to serving a wide range of social needs. There is a focus on research that has been more recently informed by renewed interest in climate, materials, context, conservation and site planning. Economy continues to be a preoccupation of clients and an inspiration to designers – an inspiration that is, in turn, fostering design research in materials, construction techniques and digital technologies. Yet, as the needs of clients change, designers look widely and architectural practices form and reform, the quest for the ‘new’ persists.
1. Sinews of Power (Iron Curtain) speech, Winston Churchill, Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, 5,March 1946, http://www.winstonchurchill.org
2. Architecture USA, Ian McCallum, The Architectural Press, London, 1959.p.9.
3. TheArchitectureofDiplomacy, Jane C. Loeffler, Princeton Architectural Press, 1998.p.47.
4. Architectural Record, October 1957, p.237.
5. MOMA, Press release, December 10, 1964.
6. PhilosophyofDesign,Essays1942-1981, Ove Arup, Editor Nigel Tonks. Prestel Verlag, 2012.
7. New Architecture: Foster Rogers Stirling. Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1086. P.vi.
Architectural modernism in Bangladesh was launched in 1953 with two startling buildings by Muzharul Islam: a library and art college on the campus of Dhaka University. Since then, until the time of his passing away in 2012 at the age of 81, Muzharul Islam continued to mould architectural culture with his energetic spirit and vigilant intellect. He remained steadfast in his belief in a modernist ethos and its purposefulness not only for reforming an architectural culture but building a national destiny.
Modern architecture might have begun in Bangladesh with Muzharul Islam, but modernity has a long lineage and deep strata in Bengal. However, there is a reverse claim in the work and thinking of Islam in which he employs the principles of modernity in order to overcome what was perceived as colonialist rupture. Modernism, in Islam’s projects, becomes an attempt to “return home.”
The idea of modernity in Bangladesh, and by extension the architectural ideology of Muzharul Islam, can best be understood by that broad sweep of cultural and intellectual upheavals ushered into Bengal by the 19th century movement often described as the Bengal Renaissance.
His steadfast commitment to the modernist ideology stemmed from an optimistic, even utopian, vision for transforming society. His deep fidelity to Bengali culture did not dissuade him from pursuing the goals of a “world man.” “I have always repeated that one needs to be a Bengali,” Islam declared. “One needs to be a world man. You have to be a world man and a Bengali. It’s impossible otherwise.”
The “Return Home”
In framing the basis of modern Bengali society, the Bengal Renissance confronted a complex intertwining of acceptance and resistance. While a resistance was directed against both the traumatic experience of colonialism and the tyranny of tradition, the condition of acceptance, also two-fold, was more complex: it involved an outward voyage to embrace from a global repository anything that assured a new degree of social and intellectual liberation and, an inward journey, a conscious “archaeological”
excavation. This aporetic condition of what to hold on to, what to abandon, and what to absorb are embodied in Islam’s selfreflection: “How do we enter the twentyfirst century?”
A search for self-discovery presupposes a sense of alienation and remoteness from tradition and does not arise so long as, as the Indian philosopher Jaravalal Mehta observes, “we unreflectively live under its domination, or fail to see the novel present as it actually is and claims us.” It is within this condition of self-awareness, where tradition is no longer available unreflectively, that the idea of identity – cultural or national – can arise.
In essence, it is this paradox of self-discovery that creates the project of “return home”.
“Return home” is a metaphor, even if an exaggerated one, by which the the efforts of the Bengal Renaissance can be named.
Modernity, for Muzharul Islam, was as much a going forth as returning – it is a going away from the immediate colonial past, and a returning to an “essentialist” condition which seems free from specific religious ideology or traumatic heritage.
However, one can no longer return to what once was. Overt traditionalism, in most cases, is a sentimental return sheltering consumerist motives (as in the interior decorations of five-star hotels and props
for theme parks), and a lack of critical and intellectual rigour; worse still, traditionalism could, and does, slip towards national chauvinism. There is now only a transformed or a “constructed” return. Once selfawareness begins, one is forever fated to a “re-construction.” But what distinguishes this mode of construction from the facile method of instant traditionalism? What gives the former a greater degree of authenticity? As much politically avowed to
a Bengali identity and suspicion of Western machination, Islam did not transfer those stances immediately into architectural making. Muzharul Islam’s position has been dialogical and dialectical. Although hinged to a specific place and its socio-cultural milieu, Islam’s ideology did not falter in engaging in a “world dialogue”; it was also not daunted by the prospect that such engagements might necessitate a different, a new way of making.
Architecture and Nation-building
The American architect Stanley Tigerman, who has been a close friend of Muzharul Islam, relates how he found Louis Kahn distraught when they met at Heathrow Airport in 1974. Tigerman was on his way to Dhaka for the Polytechnique projects, which he was designing with Muzharul Islam, and Kahn was going back to the United States from India (and to his tragic death). Tigerman describes that the only thing that was bothering Kahn was the thought of Muzharul Islam and “how could he leave architecture for politics?” Kahn conceded that he could never do that, and yet, as Tigerman recalls, did not seem relieved by his own rumination.
The articulation of the nation as an outcome of the “Bengal Renaisance” discourse, and the political and cultural history of Bangladesh relates to the debate on “national” style in aesthetics that took place from the 1900 to 1930s. The most vivid record of a triangular tension of tradition, nationalism, and modernisation is seen in the development of “modern” Indian art.
Although these two strands – commitment to the idea of a nation, and to the realm of architecture – are tied up in Muzharul Islam’s thinking, his architecture remained consciously distant from nationalistic polemics. He understood that nationalistic posturing does not automatically lead to a “regional” architecture. Even if political
ideology and architectural fabrication enter an impasse, the two strands lie inextricably linked. The intertwining raises questions about the premise of architectural production, the subtle thread between artistic creation and vested interests, and the nature of social engagement of architecture.
The nexus brings to focus, on one hand, the figure of the truly artistic persona, as Rabindranath and the architect Louis Kahn, who are hesitant about political discourse, and, on the other hand, the impossibility of political aloofness particularly in nations like Bangladesh and India. Political engagement however convinced Islam about the insufficiency of architectural form to address social conditions, and gradually oriented him towards a more politicized role.
A New Architectural Paradigm
Initially led by the corps of British army engineers, and later by a new cadre of civilianized personnel, civil engineers gave leadership to the building activity. Even after independence from colonial rule in 1947, architecture remained within the hegemony of the civil engineering profession all across South Asia. Architectural culture was reduced to a mundane functional manipulation of the box, far removed from an investigation of the spatial, experiential or symbolic dimensions. Principles and typologies of Bengali building traditions remained largely unexplored.
It was in this imbalanced condition of cultural energy and architectural amnesia that Muzharul Islam began his career in 1953. For a thirty-year old working single-handedly, the task was immense: his architectural production involved, at one level, a resistance to the entrenched practice of the engineers, and, at another level, the formulation of a Bengali building paradigm. From the very first projects, the consideration of a new paradigm is addressed through a two-fold concern: the question of the house, and the theme of the city.
The paradigm of the modern house in the sub-continent is constituted by a chain of developments that originates in the colonial bungalow. The bungalow itself is derived
from the bangla hut of rural Bengal (and hence bungalow), adopted by the English as a model of dwelling in the moisture-laden delta, from where “one could see the sunset and the horizon,” and no doubt, keep a watchful eye on the natives too. It was the latter reason coming from an imperialist imperative that led to classicizing the bungalow, adorning it with Graeco-Roman motifs and accessories.
The ultimate twist to the bungalow came from modern architecture, especially the ‘scientism’ of tropical architecture that filtered the stigma of colonial architecture to produce a modern model of dwelling in the tropics. Principles of tropical architecture gave a climatic rationale to the bungalow in the hot-humid zone, while modernist language introduced an abstract asymmetrical disposition, jettisonning the classical-colonial imagery and breaking the cuboid geometry into a lyrical composition of planes. Architecturally, the pavilion model was seen as a machine for living in the hot-humid milieu. Sociologically, the modern house responded to the emerging aspirations of a new urban group, the middle class, who wished to live comfortably in a pragmatic sense but in tune with a modernizing world. Throughout the 1950s and most part of 1960s, Muzharul Islam experimented with a number of house types and construction techniques. The early works, in articulating the paradigm of the modern bungalow, incorporated the spatial and planar dimension of the classic houses of modernism, especially those by Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier and Paul Rudolph. This is evident, in varying degrees, in the basic skeletal configuration of the works, in the innovation of climate control (the umbrella roof of his own house recalling Shodhan Villa); in the sculptural animation made by varying reliefs, deep shadows and juxtaposition of materials; and, in the spatial composition (of the multi-levelled organisation of his own house).
The idea of the pavilion was also behind large projects, from the Public Library and the Science Laboratory to the NIPA building at Dhaka University. The Public Library (1953) was organized in a clearly Corbusian mode – a cubic volume on stilts, complete with ramps, sun-breakers and pristine white colors – but it indicated for Dhaka then a fresh approach to urbanism. The Art College, on the other hand, designed at the same time as the Public Library, came much closer to mediating with the conditions of the place in a sensorial and evocative manner.
Despite discontinuities that affected Muzharul Islam’s practice, the 1960s remain his most prolific period of building. He was also involved at that time in building up the Institute of Architects in Pakistan and later in Bangladesh, and impacting professional and educational culture in a variety of ways. He was instrumental in bringing Louis Kahn, Paul Rudolph and Stanley Tigerman to Bangladesh - the involvement of the American trio was seen as a necessary pivot for providing visual and provocative examples in the vacuous contemporary condition of architecture.
In the late 60s, with the commission of two university projects, involving large-scale organisation, Islam’s later phase began. The presence of Louis Kahn in Dhaka, ensuing into a dialogue with Muzharul Islam, is more than incidental for this shift. For large-scale projects such as Jahangirnagar University and the housing for Jaipurhat Limestone Factory, an “urbanised” order is created by a set of a priori geometry in which spaces and voids seem to be carved out of masonry solids.
The critical shift is most explicit in the National Library project (1978) in which a “distortion” of the idealized form became the generator of architecture, with the final form acknowledging more explicitly the contradictory conditions of place and programme. Replacing the transparent
clarity of his earlier skeletal work, the National Library presents a ponderous mass accentuated both by a centralized form and the use of brick. The Library; appears to be a surreptitious triumph - almost against Muzharul Islam’s own rational rigor - of the empirical over the rational, of the accidental over the planned, and of the a posteriori over the a priori. Moreover, what has been a materialist constant in his work – a privileging of reason that has led to a suspicion of mystery and the “unconscious” – is somewhat undermined. With the Library project, one can talk of the reification of the mysterious, and of such anti-Marxist stuff as wonder and amazement.
To the very end of his life, Muzharul Islam remained a quintessential modern figure who is not a tool or manifestation of the collectivity but an inveterate critic and reformer. Every piece he produced, every thought he articulated, was not merely a reflection on society but locating what was lacking in it, what was usurpable.
Even if taking on an idealized prospect, Muzharul Islam remained concerned with the wholeness of life, the full horizon of existence as a Bengali and world-man. With his office named Vastukalabid, recalling the ancient theme of vastushilpa, that literally translates as the art of “existing,” Islam remained to his last day dedicated to the project of an existential re-construction.
Fiftieth anniversary is an occasion to do many things: celebrate achievements, recognise those whose efforts contributed to those achievements and generally review the organisation’s past. And the Commonwealth Association of Architects has much to celebrate, as reflected in the pages of this commemorative book. It also offers a time to project, to anticipate what the next 50 years might bring, and to recalibrate actions in order to ensure that the organisation is relevant to the times.
A decade of two narratives
The past 50 years has been a tale of two narratives in general, and the 1960s in particular. In the decade the Commonwealth Association of Architects was launched, the global construction industry was progressing along a development pathway based largely on the precepts of the modern movement and its injunction to “make it new”. The world was optimistic: world per capita economic output grew about fivefold and gross world product more than quadrupled with most of that growth coming in the second half of the twentieth century.
Architects also embraced this call for the new and, energised by the many building opportunities created by global economic growth, adopted the language of the Modern Movement and the International Style as the expression of a newfound enlightenment. The city skyscape was to be dominated by high rise buildings: in the city of my birth, Cape Town, the Sanlam Centre office tower, constructed in 1957, was reportedly the tallest building in Africa at the time (de Villiers 1985:46) and boasted of foundations going down 23m (largely to get through the land reclamation which had pushed the shoreline back several kilometres). In the book A Tale of Three Cities the chapter dealing with the 1950s is described as “a new era of sophistication” (de Villiers
1985:47) while the chapter describing the 1960s is titled “the city takes on a new shape” (de Villiers 1985:51). On cue, in 1966 a copy of Mies van der Rohe’s 1958 Seagram Building was erected in Cape Town:it was also the first building in Cape Town to use a glass curtain wall. De Villiers notes that a “new generation of occupants made greater demands on office facilities;for example, airconditioning and more sophisticated electrics became the norm in new buildings” (1985:47). Le Corbusier’s Towards a New Architecture is supported by illustrations including a 40,000 kilowatt turbine for electricity (1970:249), mechanical ventilators boasting an output of 57,000 cubic metres an hour (1970:261) and ship’s coalers on the Rhine (1970:258),while its narrative describes machines “which serve to produce something and produce it admirably, in a clean sort of way” (1970:257) and “ there is no real link between our daily activities at the factory, the office or the bank, which are healthy and useful and productive….” (1970:257).
In town planning the motor car became supreme: the vision was one of families living in green suburbs connected by freeways (which turned out to be not-sofree in reality) to the city where the car would be parked in multi-storey car parks until the journey home commenced. In Cape Town, the growth rate of motor cars
entering the city was about 5 per cent per annum compounded – double the population growth rate (de Villiers 1985:51).
Again, on cue, the city engineer of Cape Town stated that the new roads under construction will be “of the freeway type, i.e., scientifically engineered highways in which every possible measure is taken to promote safety, eliminate congestion and
for his expertise in world urbanization, among other fields in sociology. In Human Society (first published in 1949 but republished in 1966 as a student version), he already recognized the significance of the growth of urbanization noting that “when the whole world becomes urbanized, as it seems it surely will, then human society will have undergone a major transformation”
obviate conflicting movement of vehicles” (de Villiers 186:51). The spatial growth resulting from the new vision demanded a supporting infrastructure: power supply had to be augmented by new power stations and water supply by new dams and reticulation systems.
It is of course as easy to be critical with hindsight as it is to seek forgiveness for not knowing what they did: yet, there were alternative narratives being simultaneously articulated by voices such as Rachel Carson, Kingsley Davis, and Ernst Schumacher, among others. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), although focused on the use of pesticides, “quite self-consciously wrote a book calling into question the paradigm of scientific progress that defined post-war American culture. The overriding theme of Silent Spring is the powerful – and often negative – effect humans have on the natural world” (Lytle 2007:166-7). Significantly the book ends with a call for a biotic approach to pest control as an alternative to chemical pesticides (Lytle 2007: 169-173), which she referred to as biocides (Lytle 2007:166-172).
Kingsley Davis, an American sociologist and demographer, is internationally recognized
(1966:322). In considering the future of the city he asks two significant questions namely: “Can the anonymity, mobility, impersonality, specialization, and sophistication of the city become the attributes of a stable society, or will the society fall apart?” and second, “How can devotion to a common system of values and a common set of mores be maintained in a highly literate, scientifically trained, individualistically inclined, and sceptically oriented population?” (1966:342). His response to those two questions is significant: “the answer is not clear.” Many would argue that some 50 years later the answer is still not clear.
Ernst Schumacher, an internationally influential economic thinker, statistician and economist in Britain, developed most of his economic theory during the 1950s and 60s, particularly his pioneering work in appropriate, user-friendly and ecologically suitable technology applicable to the scale of the community. In his influential book Small is Beautiful: A study of Economics as if People Mattered (1973), he argues that the modern economy is unsustainable; that natural resources should be treated as capital since they are not renewable;
that nature’s resistance to pollution is limited’ and that government effort must be concentrated on sustainable development. Around the world architects inside and outside of the Commonwealth were also exploring alternative urban and architectural narratives to the Modern Movement and the International Style. Lewis Mumford, in The City in History (1961), notes in his preface that “the city will have an even more significant part to play in the future than it has played in the past, if once the original disabilities that have accompanied it through history are sloughed off.” Peter and Alison Smithson, although most of their thinking was developed during the 1950s, published their Team 10 Primer in 1962, in which they challenged the doctrinaire approach to urbanism.Charles Moore (Moore, Lyndon, Turnbull and Whitaker) designed the Condominium 1 complex – described as one of the most significant architectural designs of the 1960s in California – along the Pacific Coast of California in 196364. Here, distinct from the rhetoric of the Modern Movement and the International Style, was a design inspired by barns and other farm buildings in the region and, with the help of landscape architect Lawrence Halprin, built to take into account the local ecology through a partnership with the site (USDI 2005).
Unintended consequences
One decade – two very different narratives. The expansionist and consumption-based narrative succeeded but along with this unprecedented growth came at least four (unintended) consequences: first, the same period witnessed a tripling of energy use (primarily fossil fuels) and its concomitant impact on climate change; second, urban sprawl required a massive but unsustainable investment in supporting infrastructure; third, significant biodiversity loss; and fourth, it came at the expense of rich local cultural and architectural traditions.
Fossil fuel use and climate change
Urban sprawl and infrastructure investment
The development and maintenance of infrastructure is crucial to improving economic growth and quality of life (WEF 2013). Urban infrastructure typically includes bulk services such as water, sanitation and energy (typically electricity and gas), transport (typically roads, rail and airports), and telecommunications. Despite the importance of infrastructure to economic growth and social well-being, many countries struggle to meet the increasing demand by growing cities for infrastructure services (ULI 2007; WEF 2013), especially in developing countries. In the case of Cape Town, twenty-one dams or reservoirs have been built between 1663 and 2009, and yet the water scarcity challenging the future of the city remains undiminished.
Biodiversity loss
Earth is rapidly losing species and it is happening faster than scientists can understand the roles these species play and how they function (NSF 2012c). With their disappearance come lost opportunities to comprehend the history of life, to better predict the future of the living world and to make beneficial discoveries in the areas of food, fibre, fuel, pharmaceuticals and bio-inspired innovation (NSF 2012c). In addition, their loss is accompanied by a loss of ecological goods and services, those actions undertaken by nature on which all living species rely.
Local cultural and architectural traditions
The Modern Movement and the International Style, through their one-size-fits-all application, did more than leave a legacy of unsustainable human settlements – it also superimposed a cultural and architectural layer at odds with local traditions. Reviewing changes to the urban landscape that occurred during the 1960s, Derek Jacobs noted that “an entirely new scale was imposed on the old city. The old city grid became fragmented, losing clarity and continuity of street frontage….incompatible with the remaining historic fabric of the city” (de Villiers 1985:60). But it was more than a question of scale or historic fabric: it was also the imposition of new technologies
It is widely accepted that human interference is occurring with the climate system and that climate change poses risks for human and natural systems (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014). Despite a number of climate change mitigation policies, total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continued to increase over the period 1970 to 2010, with larger absolute decadal increase toward the end of this period (IPCC 2014). Of the total GHG emissions carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78 per cent of the total GHG emission increase from 1970 to 2010 (IPCC 2014). Buildings contributed 3 per cent to this increase: however, this percentage increases to 19 per cent when emissions from electricity and heat production are attributed to the sectors that use the final energy (IPCC 2014).
that undermined Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). IKS have been defined as “a cumulative body of knowledge, know-how, practices and representations maintained and developed by peoples with extended histories of interaction with the natural environment. These sophisticated sets of understandings, interpretations and meanings are part and parcel of a cultural complex that encompasses language, naming and classification systems, resource use practices, ritual, spirituality and worldview” (ICSU 2002). Embedded in IKS may well be the answers to Kingsley Davis questions.
Built environment response
The construction and expansion of the built environment makes its own contribution to forcing mechanisms by contributing to environmental change through deforestation and land-clearing, industrialisation, urbanisation and megacity growth, and post-industrialisation: these activities are likely to continue given projected population and urbanisation growth (NSF 2012a). There are therefore significant challenges to be dealt with in terms of balancing needs like energy efficiency, maintaining water quality and deciding how best to manage the significant investments needed for civil and private infrastructure (NSF 2012a).
From a built environment perspective there is a need to determine how our built and governance systems can be made more reliable, resilient, and sustainable. These
systems have to meet diverse and often conflicting needs such as consumption of water for energy generation, industrial and agricultural production, and other requirements. The interplay of agriculture, cities, industry and nature across landscapes, as well as the contribution of direct-andobvious as well as indirect-and-subtle interactions will determine resilience to change (NSF 2012b).
Conclusion
At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in Sri Lanka in 2013, the CAA adopted a resolution, informed by scientific evidence and guided by foresight, aimed at building urban resilience. Hindsight is twenty-twenty vision: however, our contemporary experience of the impacts of past behaviour should teach us the benefits of foresight, and this is the greatest opportunity that this 50th year anniversary presents. What is known is that our actions over the ensuing fifty years are crucial for the survival of all species.
In the 1989 film Dead Poets Society, Robin Williams as the teacher John Keating poses the following challenge to his students: “That you are here - that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play ‘goes on’ and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?” Should someone be asked to write an essay for the 100th anniversary of the CAA, what will its verse be?
Adopted in June 1965, amended 1971, 1976, 1979,1980,1982, 1987,1994, 2000, 2003
ARTICLE 1
Title
The charity hereby constituted shall be called the: - COMMONWEALTH ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS, subsequently called “the Association “.
ARTICLE 11
Objectives & Powers
The objectives of the Association are the advancement of Architecture in the Commonwealth and the promotion and acquisition of knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith.
In furtherance of the foregoing objects, but not further or otherwise, the Association shall have the following powers:-
1. To promote co-operation between associations of architects with the object of ensuring the maximum contribution by architects to the well-being of society;
2. To promote and encourage the activities of Member Institutes on a regional basis for the purpose of studying common issues;
3. To make awards of medals or certificates in recognition of significant contributions to Architecture or its associated sciences;
4. To receive, administer and apply donations, studentships or scholarships or for any other general or specific charitable object or purpose connected with the Association or, for any other charitable purpose connected with Architecture;
5. To take or hold any property, which may be subject to any Trusts but shall only deal with or invest the same in such manner as allowed by law, having regard to such Trusts;
6. To acquire, hold or lease or occupy, or dispose of property in furtherance of its charitable activities;
7. To invest monies not required for immediate working purposes in or upon such investments of other assets as the Council shall think fit;
8. To borrow money for the advancement of its objects on such security as the Council may think fit but subject nevertheless to such conditions and consents as required by law;
9. To do all such things as shall further the aforementioned objects or any of them.
ARTICLE III
Membership
1. The Members of the Association are the institutes; associations and societies that may from time to time apply for, and be admitted to, membership. Membership shall be open to any national institute, association or society which in the opinion of the Council represents the body of Architects in a country providing that such institute, association or society subscribes to the purposes and objects of the Association and is constituted in a manner consistent with the policies thereof;
2. Membership is open only to institutes, societies, associations, groups and organizations that do not discriminate against their own members or potential members on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national religion or political persuasion;
3. Application for membership shall be made to the Executive Director, and admission to membership shall be a majority decision of all Council Members;
4. A Member Institute which, in the opinion of Council, ceases to represent the body of the architects in a country, and which in the opinion of Council, fails to uphold the objects of the Association, amends its constitution in a manner inconsistent with the policies of the Association or whose subscriptions remain unpaid for more than one year without special dispensation, shall be suspended from membership. Such suspension shall come into effect three months after
notice has been given to the Member Institute specifying the default; provided always that if such Member Institute shall rectify the default to the satisfaction of Council, the notice shall be withdrawn or the suspension revoked as the case may be;
5. A Member Institute which has been suspended by Council may have its membership terminated by resolution of the Association in General Assembly, provided that such resolution is carried by a two-third majority of the votes cast. A Member Institute which has its membership so terminated may apply for re-admission upon rectifying the default or defaults which were the cause of its original suspension;
6. A Member Institute intending to resign shall give notice no less than three months prior to the commencement of the next subscription year. Membership will terminate at the end of the current subscription year.
1. The governing body of the Association shall be a General Assembly of Delegates representing Member Institutes together with Members of the Council, which shall be responsible for the general policy of the Association;
2. The General Assembly shall meet at least once in every three years in a Country in which a Member Institute is located; the venue and date shall be determined by the Council and the General Assembly shall be convened by giving six months notice thereof to all Member Institutes;
3. Each Member Institute, with the exception of any which have their membership suspended, is entitled to appoint one Delegate to attend and vote at a General Assembly; and to appoint one or more Observers to attend but not vote; a Member Institute whose membership is suspended shall be entitled to appoint one or more Observers to attend but not to vote. Each member of the Council, except an ex-officio member, is entitled to attend and vote provided always that if such Member is also a Delegate he shall not become entitled to two votes;
4. Decisions by voting shall require a simple majority of those present and entitled to vote and shall be by show of hands unless the General Assembly shall otherwise decide. In the event of a tie, the President or Chair shall have a second or casting vote;
5. The business of a General Assembly shall include: - receiving a Report from the Council of the affairs and finances of the Association since the last General Assembly, approving a programme and budget for the next session, electing a President, a Senior Vice President, an Honorary Secretary/Treasurer, and Committee Chairs; appointing regional Vice Presidents to the Council, and any other business of which one month’s notice has been given to the Executive Director; 6. The quorum at a General Assembly shall be one quarter of the number of persons having the right to attend and vote.
The Council
1. The management of the affairs of the Association shall be vested in a Council or the Executive comprising the President, a Senior Vice President, the Immediate Past-President, Vice-Presidents representing each region, the Honorary Secretary/ Treasurer and the Committee Chairs. In the event that membership of the council when elected does not include two members permanently resident in the United Kingdom, the General Assembly shall elect an additional member or members to ensure that there shall be two members permanently resident in the United Kingdom;
2. The President, and the Senior Vice President, who may also be a Vice President representing a region, shall be elected by the General Assembly from candidates whose nominations have been received by the Executive Director not less than four months previously. A candidates shall be person who has been nominated by his/her national Member Institute and seconded by another Member Institute; to qualify for nomination he/she shall have served as an officer of a member Institute and for a minimum of two years as a Member of the Council of the Association. The President shall normally hold office for a period of three years from the time of election and will normally be succeeded by the Senior Vice-President at the Council meeting held immediately after the General Assembly, but in the event of the President’s death, resignation or inability to act, the Senior Vice-President shall assume Presidency for the remainder of the term. In this case the Senior Vice-President may continue in office after the next General Assembly;
3. The representative of each region shall be elected and appointed by a majority of the Member Institutes of which each region is composed and such appointment shall be notified to the Executive Director immediately prior to a General Assembly. A regional representative shall normally hold office as a Vice-President of the Association until the next General Assembly and may be appointed by the region for a second successive term, but in the event of his death, resignation or inability to act, or if the Vice-President assumes presidential office, the Member Institutes of which that region is composed shall elect a replacement for the remainder of the term. Each region is also entitled to appoint an alternate to
attend and vote at any Council Meeting, which the regional Vice-President is unable to attend;
4. An Honorary Secretary /Treasurer shall be elected by the General Assembly from among members residing in the United Kingdom;
5. The Chair of the Education Committee shall be elected by the General Assembly and shall be a full voting member of the Council;
6. The Chair of the Practice Committee shall, be elected by the General Assembly and shall be a full voting member of the Council;
7. The Chair of Communication shall, be elected by the General Assembly and shall be a full voting member of the Council;
8. The Council shall meet at least once between Assembly Meetings;
9. An Executive, consisting of the President, Senior Vice President, Immediate Past President, Honorary Secretary/Treasurer and the Chairs of the Education, Communication and Practice Committees shall meet at least once between Assembly Meetings and be authorized to take action on behalf of either the Assembly or Council;
10. The quorum at Council and Executive Meetings shall be four persons entitled to attend and vote;
11. The Council or Executive may resolve that a decision may be referred to all Member Institutes between General Assemblies; in such circumstances a referendum shall be conducted.
Officers
1. The Officers of the Association shall be the President and the Honorary Secretary/Treasurer;
2. The President shall take the Chair at the General Assembly and at all meetings of the Council when he is present;
3. In the absence of the President the Senior Vice President shall act as Chair for that meeting;
4. The Honorary Secretary/Treasurer shall be a member of the Board of Trustees, shall oversee the finances of the Association and shall report thereon at each meeting;
5. The Executive Director shall administer the affairs of the Association in conformity with this Constitution, the general policies of the Association and the directives of the Council.
The Secretariat, Board of Trustees and Notices
1. A Secretariat shall be established and maintained at such location, as the Council shall decide; the Secretariat shall comprise the administrative headquarters for the Association;
2. A Board of Trustees, comprising five Trustees (not less than three of whom shall be resident in England and Wales) shall be appointed by the Council (for a term of office). The Board of Trustees shall be responsible for the depository of the records of the association at such location in England or Wales as the Council may decide;
3. All formal Notices to the Association shall be addressed to the Executive Director and shall be deemed to have been delivered fourteen days after having been posted electronically and in the United Kingdom by first-class mail, and by airmail from countries elsewhere;
4. All formal Notices to Member Institutes shall be addressed to their Secretaries and shall be deemed to have been delivered fourteen days after having been posted electronically, in London by first-class mail to addresses in the United Kingdom and by airmail to addresses elsewhere.
ARTICLE VIII
Finances
1. The funds of the Association shall consist of subscriptions payable by Member Institutes, grants, contributions, bequests and the proceeds from sales. Such funds shall be applied exclusively to the purpose of the Association as directed by the Council and authorized by the Board of Trustees in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the requirements of the Charity Commission;
2. The basis of the annual subscription payable by each Member Institute shall be reviewed and adjusted by the Council after each General Assembly to provide the necessary funding for the approved programmes. Subscriptions shall be due for payment each year by 31st March; in exceptional circumstances the Council is empowered to grant special dispensation to allow subscriptions to be paid at a later date or by installments;
3. The Bankers to the Association shall be determined by the Council to the best advantage to the Association. The signatories to such accounts shall be the Honorary Secretary/Treasurer, the Executive Director and such other persons as the Council may decide;
4. The Council shall approve the appointment of Auditors or independent examiners;
5. The Honorary Secretary /Treasurer shall cause books of accounts of income and expenditure to be prepared and audited or independently examined and presented to the Council for approval. The financial year shall be from 1st January to 31st December;
6. The Association shall indemnify Member Institutes, officers and employees of the Association in respect of any action taken or any liability incurred by such Member Institutes, officers or employees in all matters for which they have express or implied authority to act on behalf of the Association;
7. The responsibility for payment of travel and accommodation expenses incurred by the Council shall be decided by the Council.
Committees
The Council is empowered to establish and disband Committees and to appoint or dismiss the Members thereof, as it may deem necessary for the works of the Association and the management of its affairs; any such Committee shall be constituted and given such terms of reference as the Council may decide, provided that no Committee shall be entrusted with any property belonging to the Association. All acts and proceedings of such Committees shall be reported in due course to the Council.
ARTICLE X
Amendment of Constitution
1. This Constitution with the exception of Article II, this Article and Article XI thereof may be amended by way of omission or addition at a General Assembly provided that notice of motion shall have been given to the Executive Director not less than two months prior to the date of the General Assembly and the resolution to amend shall have been carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast;
2. Upon receiving a notice of motion to amend the Constitution the Executive Director shall forthwith notify all Member Institutes and Members of the Council; the Council shall prepare a Report on such proposed amendments for presentation to the General Assembly;
3. Any amendment to the Constitution shall take effect immediately following the meeting at which such amendment is adopted.
ARTICLE XI
Dissolution
1. The dissolution of the Association shall be by a simple majority vote in a referendum following a resolution at a General Assembly at which the dissolution is properly upon the Agenda or following a General Assembly of which proper notice was given but which failed to produce a quorum;
2. In the event of the dissolution of the Association the Council last in office shall be responsible for disposing of all funds and assets to another Charity having similar objects and for the winding up of all outstanding affairs and in default of another charity having similar objects then to some exclusively charitable purpose.
a GPO Box 3281, Dhaka, Bangladesh
t +880 2862 4664-5
e mail@iab.com
w www.iab.com.bd
Architects 2438
Students and Graduates 900
CAA is a membership organisation for institutes representing architects in Commonwealth countries. Formed in 1965 to promote co-operation for “the advancement of architecture in the Commonwealth” and particularly to share and increase architectural knowledge, it currently has 34 members.
Countries in the Commonwealth
a 143 Nassau Street, PO Box N-3187, Nassau CB 13040, Bahamas t +1 242 326 3114
e manager@bahamasarchitects.com w www.bahamasarchitects.com
Architects
Students and Graduates
a GPO Box 3281, Dhaka, Bangladesh t +880 2862 4664-5
e mail@iab.com
w www.iab.com.bd
Architects 2438
Students and Graduates
a PO Box 951, Bridgetown, Barbados
t +1 246 430 0956
e admin@bia.bb w www.biabarbados.org
Architects 1250
Students and Graduates 20
a P.O. Box 502464, Gaberone
t +267 316 4014
e gaborone@nsa-arch.com
w www.iab.com.bd
Architects 90
a Annis Kominis 12, Nicosia, Cyprus
t +357 2 751221
e cceaa@cytanet.com.cy
w www.cceaa.org.cy
Architects 1250
Students and Graduates 20
a G. P. O. BOX 14948, Suva, Fiji Islands
t +679 331 2304
e stuiteci@unwired.com.fj
w www.fijiarchitects.com
Architects 19
Ghana Institute of Architects
a PO Box M272 3 Ninth Road, Accra, Ghana
t +233 302 229464 /+233 302 257 666
e arcghana@ghana.com
w www.arcghana.org
Architects 438
Students and Graduates 114
a 5 Vlissengen Road, PO Box 10283, Georgetown, Guyana
t +1 592 226 2265 / +1 592 22 5663
e rjaincorp@yahoo.com
a Box 20334 Hennessy Rd Post Office, 19/F One Hysan Avenue Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
t +852 2511 6323
e hkiasec@hkia.org.hk
w www.hkia.net
Architects 2985
Students and Graduates 172
Indian Institute of Architects
a 5th Floor DR. D.N. Road, Fort, Prospect Chambers Annexe, Mumbai 400 001, India
t +91 22 204 6972 / 288 4805
e iiapublication@gmail.com
w www.iia-india.org
Architects 2438
Students and Graduates 900
Jamaica Institute of Architects
a PO Box 251, Kingston 10, Jamaica
t +876 926 8 060
e jia@cwjamaica.com
Architects 107
Students and Graduates 574
a PO Box 44258, Nairobi, Kenya
t +254 2 224806
e aak@aak.or.ke
w www.aak.or.ke
a 18 Love Street, POBox 1478, Windhoek, NamibiaGeorgetown, Guyana
t +264 61 231 559
e nia@mweb.com.na
w www.nia.org.na
Architects 116
Students and Graduates 55
a PO Box 14766, Maseru, Postal Code 100, Lesotho
t +266 22 317 355
Malawi Institute of Architects
a C/o MD Initiative, POBag 570, Limbe, Malawi
t +266 22 317 355
a PO Box 2516, Auckland, New Zealand
t +852 2511 6323
e info@nzia.co.nz
w www.nzia.co.nz
Architects 1589
Students and Graduates 84
Nigerian Institute of Architects
a Sliema Road, Professional Centre, Gzira GZR
06 Malta
t +356 312888 / 356 2131 4265
e info@ktpmalta.com
w www.ktpmalta.com
Architects 708
Students and Graduates 237
a P.O.Box 10015, 2 Kukawa Close Off Gimbiya Street, Area 11 Garki, Abuja, Nigeria
t +234 9 4802518 / +234 8033047217
e info@niarchitects.org
w www.nigerianinstituteofarchitects.org
Architects 4500
Students and Graduates 10000
Institute of Architects Pakistan
a St-1/A Block 2, Kehkashan, Scheme 5, Clifton, Karachi, Pakistan
t +92 21 3587 9335
e info@iap.com.pk
w www.iap.com.pk
Papua New Guinea Institute of Architects
a PO Box 1511, Port Moresby, N.C.D.
Papua New Guinea
t +675 321 3020
e pngia.pres@gmail.com
Sierra Leone Institute of Architects
a 21 Charlotte Street, POB 1189, Freetown, Sierra Leone
t +232 22 226699/226378
Singapore Institute of Architects
a 79B Neal Road, Singapore 088904
t +65 6226 2668
e adminfinance@sia.org.sg
w www.sia.org.sg
South African Institute of Architects
a Private Bag X 10063, Ground Floor Bouhof, 31 Robin Hood Road, Randburg, Johannesburg 2125, South Africa
t +27 11 782 1315
e admin@saia.org.za
w www.saia.org.za
Architects 4271
Students and Graduates 800
Sri Lanka Institute of Architects
a 120/7 VidyaMawatha, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka
t +94 11 2697109
e sliasec@slt.net
w www.architecturesrilanka.com
Architects 746
Students and Graduates 781
Institute of Architects
a P O Box 519, Bassaterre, St Kitts and Nevis
e whmorton@hotmail.com
w www.sknia.org
St Lucia Institute of Architects
a P O Box 709, Castries, St Lucia
e slia.slu@gmail.com
w http://www.slia-sl.com/
St Vincent & the Grenadines Inst. of Architects
a POBox 1181 , Kingstown, St Vincent and the Grenadines
t +1 784 457 2072
e calvertb@hotmail.com
w www.svgia.comze.com
Architectural Association of Tanzania
a Room 200 2nd Floor Tetex House, Pamba Road, Dar-es-salaam, Tanzania
t +255 75 4283571
Trinidad and Tobago Institute of Architects
a The Professional Centre, Room B305 11-13 Fitzblackman Drive, Woodbrook, Port of Spain, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
t +1 868 624 8842
e administration@ttia-arc.org
w www.ttia-architects.org
Uganda Society of Architects
a PO Box 9514, Kampala, Uganda
t +256 31 2264 359
e arch.uganda@orange.ug
w www.architectsuganda.org
Royal Institute of British Architects
a 66 Great Portland Street, London, W1N 4AD
t +44 171 580 5533
e info@riba.org
w www.architecture.com
Architects 30399
Students and Graduates 10000
Zambia Institute of Architects
a C/o Ministry of Works and Supply, Building Department, RidgeWay, POBox 51224, Lusaka, Zambia
t +260 1 254512
e zia@zamtel.zm
Institute of Architects of Zimbabwe
a 256 Samora Machel Avenue East, POBox 3592, Harare, Zimbabwe
t +263 4 746826
e iaz@zol.co.zw
Monash University AUS Building F Level 2, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East VIC 3145, Australia Contact Person: Mr Diego Ramirez-Lovering
e: architecture@monash.edu
t: +61 3 9903 4931 www.artdes.monash.edu.au
The University of Adelaide AUS, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia
Contact Person: Mr Sam Ridgway e. architecture.enquiries@adelaide.edu.au t: +61 8 8302 0366 www.architecture.adelaide.edu.au
The University of Western Australia AUS, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Simon Anderson e. alva.admin@uwa.edu.au t: +61 8 6488 2582 www.alva.uwa.edu.au
University of Newcastle AUS, University Drive, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Mark Taylor e: archbe@newcastle.edu.au t: + 61 2 4921 5771 www.newcastle.edu.au
University of Sydney AUS, Wilkinson Building G04, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Tim Fitzpatrick e: sdubos@usyd.edu.au t: + 61 2 9351 2686 wwe.sydney.edu.au
The University of Hong Kong HK, 3/F, Knowles Building, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Contact Person: Professor Wang Wei Jen e: dept@arch.hku.hk t: + 852 2859 2133 www.fac.arch.hku.hk
Deakin University AUS, Locked bag 20000 Geelong VIC 3220, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Hisham Elkadi
e: ab-info@deakin.edu.au t: +64 3 5227 8301 www.deakin.edu.au
RMIT University AUS, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia
Contact Person: Associate Professor, Dr.Vivian Mitsogianni e. architecture@rmit.edu.au t: +64 3 9925 9799 www.rmit.edu.au, www.vivian.mitsogianni@rmit.edu.au
The University of Tasmania AUS, Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay, Hobart TAS 7005, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Stephen Loo e. enquiries@arch.utas.edu.au t: +61 3 6226 2999 www.utas.edu.au
University of New South Wales AUS, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
Contact Person: Associate Professor Harry Margalit e: architecture@unsw.edu.au t: + 61 2 9385 4799 www.be.unsw.edu.au
University of South Australia AUS, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Mads Gaardboe e: aad@unisa.edu.au t: + 61 8 8302 0366 www.unisa.edu.au
The Chinese University of Hong Kong HK, Room 106, AIT Building, Shatin, N.T, Hong Kong
Contact Person: Professor Ho Puay Peng e: architecture@cuhk.edu.hk t: + 852 3943 6583 www.arch.cuhk.edu.hk
Curtin University of Technology AUS, School of Built Environment, G PO Box U 1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia
Contact Person: Mr Paul Griffin e. charmaine.Cragan@curtin.edu.au
t: +64 8 9266 7258 www.humanities.curtin.edu.au
Queensland University of Technology AUS, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Paul Sander e. bee.enquiries@qut.edu.au
t: + 61 7 3138 2670 www.qut.edu.au
The University of Melbourne, AUS, Melbourne VIC 3010, Australia
Contact Person: Associate Professor Paul Walker e. envs-courseadvice@unimelb.edu.au, Paul.Walker@newcastle.edu.au t: +64 3 8344 6417 www.msd.unimelb.edu.au
University of Canberra AUS, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Contact Person: Associate Professor Eugenie Keefer Bell e: Collegeinfo@canberra.edu.au, college.info@canberra.edu.au t: + 61 2 6201 2178
University of Queensland AUS, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia
Contact Person: Professor Sandra Kaji-O’Grady e: architecture@uq.edu.au t: +61 7 3365 3537 www.architecture.uq.edu.au
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology Ghana Accra Rd, Kumasi, Ghana
Contact Person: Professor S. O. Afram e: aframso@yahoo.com, uro@knust.edu.gh t: +233 32 206 3736 www.knust.edu.gh
University of Technology, Jamaica Jamaica 237 Old Hope Rd, Jamaica
Contact Person: Dr. Rohan Bailey e: csa@utech.edu.jm t: +1 876 977 5944 www.utech.edu.jm
University of Nairobi, Kenya P.O Box 30197-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
Contact Person: Mr. Erastus Omil Abonyo e: e.o.abonyo@uonbi.ac.ke t: +254-020-2724528 www. architecture.uonbi.ac.ke
Victoria University of Wellington NZ, 139 Vivian Street, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Contact Person: Professor Jules Moloney e: architecture@vuw.ac.nz t: +64 4 463 6200 www.victoria.ac.nz
Tshwane University of Technology SA, Pretoria West Campus 0001, South Africa
Contact Person: Mr Sieg Schmidt e: schmidtS@tut.ac.za t: +27 12 318 5742 www.tut.ac.za
University of KwaZulu Natal SA, Durban 4041, South Africa
Contact Person: Professor Ambrose Adebayo e: mkhizem@ukzn.ac.za t: +27 31 260 1111 www.ukzn.ac.za
University of Witwatersrand SA, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein 2000, Johannesburg, South Africa
Contact Person: Professor Paul Kotze e: paul.kotze@wits.ac.za t: +27 11 717 1000 www.wits.ac.za
Rizvi College of Architecture IND, Rizvi Educational Complex, Off Carter Road, Mumbai 400 050, India
Contact Person: Professor Akhtar Chauhan e: info.asc@rizvicollege.edu.in t: +91 22 2648 0348 www.rizvicollege.com
Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of Architecture and Environmental Studies IND, Vidyanidhi Marg, Off 10th Road, Jvpd Scheme Mumbai 400049, India Contact Person: Mr. Anirudh Paul e: anirudh.paul@gmail.com www.krvia.ac.in
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya Box 6200 –00200, Kenya Contact Person: Mr. Evans J. Oino e: ejumaoino@hotmail.com www.jkuat.ac.ke
UNITEC Institute of Technology NZ, Private Bag 92025, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
Contact Person: Mr Anthony van Raat e: tvanraat@unitec.ac.nz t: +64 9 815 4321 (ex t 7141) www.unitec.ac.nz
Caribbean School of Architecture, Jamaica Faculty of The Built Environment, 237 Old Hope Road, Kingston 6, Jamaica, West Indies
Contact Person: Dr. Rohan Bailey, Associate Professor e: info@csa-utech.com, csa@utech.edu.jm t: +1 (876) 927-16808 www.csa-utech.com
The University of Auckland NZ, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
Contact Person: Associate Professor Dr. Elizabeth Aitken Rose e: archplan.assistant@auckland.ac.nz , e.aitken-rose@auckland.ac.nz t: +64 9 373 7599 www.creative.auckland.ac.nz
University of Lagos NIG, Senate House, Unilag, Nigeria
Contact Person: Dr M. A. Adebamowo e: informationunit@unilag.edu.ng t: +234 7061996033, 07043571876 www.unilag.edu.ng
Ahmadu Bello University NIG, Dept of Urban and Regional Planning, Ahmadu Bello University, Samaru –Zaria, Nigeria
Contact Person: Professor. Masud Abddulkarim e: masudzaria2000@yahoo.com t: +234 69550812 www.abu.edu.ng
University of Johannesburg SA, P O Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa
Contact Person: Mr Christo Vosloo e: christo.vosloo@gmail.com t: +27 (0) 11 559-4555 www.uj.ac.za
University of Pretoria SA, Boukunde Building 4/5, Cnr Roper & Lynwood Road, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
Contact Person: Professor Karel Bakker e: karel.bakker@up.ac.za t: +27 12 420 4111 www.up.ac.za
University of Cape Town SA, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa
Contact Person: Professor Alta Steenkamp e: alta.steenkamp@uct.ac.za t: +27 21 650 2699 www.ebe.uct.ac.za
University of the Free State SA, P O Box 339, Internal Bag 46, Bloemfontain, 9300, South Africa
Contact Person: Mr. Henry Pretorius e: yolandapretorius5@gmail.com t: +27 51 401 9111 www.ufs.ac.za
Makerere University Uganda, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda
Contact Person: Dr. Stephen Mukiibi e: smukiibi@tech.mak.ac.ug, unibursar@finance.mak.ac.ug t: +256 414 530872 www.mak.ac.ug
Arts University College Bournemouth UK, Wallisdown, Poole, Dorset BH12 5HH, UK
Contact Person: Ms Dan Meyer e: general@aib.ac.uk, international@aub.ac.uk, dmeyer@aucb.ac.uk t: +44 1202 533 011 www.aub.ac.uk
Contact Person: Mr Brett Steele e: nfo@aaschool.ac.uk t: +44 (0)20 7887 4000 www.aaschool.ac.uk City School of Architecture (Colombo) Limited SL, SLIA Secretariat, 2nd Floor, 120/7, Vidya Mawatha, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka Contact Person: Mr. Jayantha Udakandage e: sliacsa@sltnet.lk, sliabae@sltnet.lk t: +94 11 2 678254/5 www.slia.lk
UNITED KINGDOM
Architectural Association School of Architecture UK, 36 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3ES, UK
University of Moratuwa SL, Bandaranayake Mawatha, Katubedda, Moratuwa 10400, Sri Lanka
Contact Person: Archt. D.P.Chandrasekara
e: dpcha@uom.lk t: +94 11 2 650534 www.mrt.ac.lk
Kingston University UK, Knights Park, Kingston upon Thames Surrey KT1 2QJ, UK
Contact Person: Mr. Daniel Rosbottom e: d.rosbottom@kingston.ac.uk t: +44 (0) 20 8417 4646 www.kingston.ac.uk
London Metropolitan University UK, Spring House, 40-44 Holloway Road, London N7 8JL, UK
Contact Person: Mr Robert Mull e: r.mull@londonmet.ac.uk t: +44 20 7133 2199 www.londonmet.ac.uk
Nottingham Trent University UK, Burton St, Nottingham NG1 4BU, United Kingdom
Contact Person: Dr Martin Goffriller e: adbe.ug-queries@ntu.ac.uk, martin.goffriller@ntu.ac.uk t: +44 115 941 8418 www.ntu.ac.uk
Royal College of Art UK, Kensington Gore, London SW7 2EU, UK
Contact Person: Professor Alex de Rijke e: architecture@rca.ac.uk t: +44 20 7590 4444 www.rca.ac.uk
University for the Creative Arts UK, New Dover Road, Canterbury CT1 3AN, UK
Contact Person: Mr. Allan Atlee, Head of the School e: aatlee@ucreative.ac.uk t: +44 1227 769 371 www.ucreative.ac.uk
University of Brighton UK, Mithras House, Lewes Road, Brighton BN2 4AT, UK
Contact Person: Dr Catherine Harper e: architectureanddesign@brighton.ac.uk t: +44 1273 600 900 www.bton.ac.uk
University of Dundee UK, 13 Perth Road, Dundee DD1 4HT, UK
Contact Person: Associate Dean –Graeme Hutton e: g.hutton@dundee.ac.uk t: +44 382 345 315 www.dundee.ac.uk
University of Huddersfield UK, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK
Contact Person: Professor Adrian Pitts e: a.pitts@hud.ac.uk t: +44 1484 47 2281 www.hud.ac.uk
University of Liverpool UK, Leverhulme Building, Abercromby Square, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK
Contact Person: Professor Andre Brown e: archweb@liv.ac.uk t: +44 151 794 2606 www.liv.ac.uk
University of Nottingham UK, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Contact Person: Professor Michael Stacey e: michael.stacey@nottingham.ac.uk t: +44 115 951 3174 www.nottingham.ac.uk
Uganda Martyrs University Uganda Nkozi, P.O. Box 5498, Kampala, Uganda
Contact Person: Professor Mark Olweny
e: fbe@umu.ac.ug t: +256 79 323 1010 www.umu.ac.ug
De Montfort University UK The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
Birmingham City University UK, Gosta Green, Corporation Green, Birmingham B4 7DX, UK
Contact Person: Professor Raymond Quek e: artanddesign@dmu.ac.uk t: +44 116 257 7555 www.dmu.ac.uk
Liverpool John Moores University UK, St Nicholas Centre, Great Orford Street, Liverpool, L3 5YD, UK
Contact Person: Mr Ian Wroot e: recruitment@livjm.ac.uk t: +44 151 231 3704 www.livjm.ac.uk
Northumbria University UK, Ellison Building, Ellison Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
Contact Person: Mr Peter Holgate e: peter.holgate@northumbria.ac.uk t: +44 191 227 4722 www.northumbria.ac.uk
Oxford Brookes University–RIBA Examination in Architecture for Office Based Candidates UK, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
Contact Person: Matt Gaskin e: riba-obe@brookes.ac.uk t: +44 1865 483 413 www.brookes.ac.uk
University College London UK, Wates House, 22 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0QB, UK
Contact Person: Dr. Marcos Cruz e: architecture@ucl.ac.uk t: +44 20 7679 7504 www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk
University of Bath UK, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
Contact Person: Professor Tim Ibell e: absprj@bath.ac.uk t: +44 1225 826 654 www.bath.ac.uk
University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) UK, Lancashire Harris Building Corporation Street, Preston PR1 2HE, UK
Contact Person: Professor Akintola Akintoye e:cenquiries@uclan.ac.uk t: +44 (0)1772 892400 www.uclan.ac.uk
University of Greenwich UK, Mansion Site, Bexley Road, Eltham SE9 2UG, UK
Contact Person: Professor Neil Spiller e: gr.accommodation@gre.ac.uk, fab@gre.ac.uk t: +44 20 8331 9108 www2.gre.ac.uk
University of Lincoln UK, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK
Contact Person: Professor Derek Cottrell e: internationalwelcome@lincoln.ac.uk t: +44 1522 837 137 www.lincoln.ac.uk
University of Newcastle UK, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
Contact Person: Prof John Pendlebury e: andrew.ballantyne@ncl.ac.uk t:+44 191 222 5831 www.ncl.ac.uk
Contact Person: Mr. Kevin W Singh, Head of School e:kevin.singh@bcu.ac.uk t: +44 121 331 5110 www.bcu.ac.uk
Leeds Metropolitan University UK, Brunswick Building, Leeds LS2 8BW, UK
Contact Person: Dr Andrew Platten e: beenquiries@leedsmet.ac.uk t: +44 113 283 3217 www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk
London South Bank University UK, 103 Borough Road, London SE1 0AA, UK
Contact Person: Ms Mary Jane Rooney e: rooneymj@lsbu.ac.uk t: +44 20 7815 7102 www.lsbu.ac.uk
Oxford Brookes University, UK UK, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
Contact Person: Mr.Matt Gaskin, Head of School of Architecture
e: mngaskin@brookes.ac.uk t: +44 1865 483 200 www.brookes.ac.uk
Sheffield Hallam University UK, City Campus, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK
Contact Person: Mr Eamonn Cronnolly
e: sed@shu.ac.uk t: +44 114 225 4267 www.shu.ac.uk
University of Bath UK, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
Contact Person: Professor Tim Ibell e: absprj@bath.ac.uk t: +44 1225 826 654 www.bath.ac.uk
University of Cambridge UK, 1 Scroope Terrace, Cambridge CB2 1PX, UK
Contact Person: Professor Koen Steemers e: arct-info@lists.cam.ac.uk t: +44 1223 332 950 www.arct.cam.ac.uk
University of East London UK, Docklands Campus, 4-6 University Way, London E16 2RD, UK
Contact Person: Ms Signy Svalastoga e: study@uel.ac.uk t: +44 20 8223 3295 www.uel.ac.uk
University of Kent UK,Marlowe Building, Canterbury CT2 7NR, UK
Contact Person: Professor. Don Gray e: architecture@kent.ac.uk t: +44 1227 824686 www.kent.ac.uk
University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University UK, Chatham Building, Cavendish Street, Manchester M1 6BR, UK
Contact Person: Professor Tom Jefferies e: direct@mmu.ac.uk t: +44 161 275 6950 www.msa.ac.uk
University of Sheffield UK, The Arts Tower, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
University of Portsmouth UK, Portland Building, Portland Street, Portsmouth PO1 3AH, UK
Contact Person: Professor Flora Samuels
e: f.samuel@sheffield.ac.uk t: +44 114 222 0399 www.shef.ac.uk
University of Westminster UK, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK
Contact Person: Ms Kate Heron e: mrdmark@wmin.ac.uk t:+44 (0)20 7911 5000 www.westminster.ac.uk
Edinburgh College of Art Sctlnd, The University of Edinburgh, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9DF, Scotland, UK, e: architecture@ed.ac.uk Mr. John Brennan, Head of the School t: +44(0)131 650 2306 www.eca.ed.ac.uk
The University of Edinburgh Sctlnd, 20 Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JZ, Scotland, UK
Contact Person: Mr. Kenny Fraser e: architecture@ed.ac.uk, kenny.fraser@ed.ac.uk t: +44 131 6502342 www.eca.ed.ac.uk
University of Strathclyde Sctlnd, 131 Rottenrow, Glasgow G4 0NG, Scotland, UK
Contact Person: Professor Scott MacGregor, Vice-Principal e: help@strath.ac.uk t: +44 141 548 3023 www.strath.ac.uk
Contact Person: Mrs Pamela Cole e: architecture@port.ac.uk, pam.cole@port.ac.uk t: +44 23 9284 8484 www.port.ac.uk
University of the West of England UK, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1AY, UK
Contact Person: Ms. Elena Marco, Associate Head Architecture e: elena.marco@uwe.ac.uk t: +44 117 328 3000 www1.uwe.ac.uk
The University of Ulster IreLd York Street, Belfast BT15 1ED, Nothern Ireland, UK
Contact Person: Professor Hisham Elkadi e: online@ulster.ac.uk t: +44 8700 400 700 www.ulster.ac.uk
Robert Gordon University Sctlnd, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen AB10 7QB, Scotland, UK
Contact Person: Professor David McClean e: sss@rgu.ac.uk t: + 44 1224 263 700 www.rgu.ac.uk
University of Cardiff Wales, Bute Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3NB, Wales, UK Contact Person: Professor Phillip Jones e: JonesP@cardiff.ac.uk t: + 44 9 2087 4430 www.cf.ac.uk
University of Plymouth UK, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
Contact Person: Professor Alessandro Aurigi
e: alex.aurigi@plymouth.ac.uk t: +44 1752 233 600 www5.plymouth.ac.uk
University of the Arts UK, Granary Building, 1 Granary Square, Kings Cross, London N1C 4AA, UK
Contact Person: Professor Jeremy Till e: info@csm.arts.ac.uk t: +44 20 7514 7999 www.arts.ac.uk
University of Westminster The Queen’s University of Belfast IreLd David Keir Building, Stranmillis Road, Belfast BT9 5AG, Nothern Ireland, UK Contact Person: Professor David Cleland e: a.jones@qub.ac.uk t: +44 28 9097 4006 www.qub.ac.uk
Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (ESALA) Sctlnd, Department of Architecture, 20 Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JZ, Scotland, UK
Contact Person: Mr. John Brennan e: architecture@ed.ac.uk t: +44 31 6502342 www.eca.ed.ac.uk
University of Glasgow Sctlnd, 167 Renfrew Street, Glasgow G3 6RQ, Scotland, UK
Contact Person: Professor David Porter e: architecture@gsa.ac.uk t: +44 141 353 4500 www.gsa.ac.uk