Wigglesworth attacks Gove's 'factory schools'
Sarah Wigglesworth
Architect Sarah Wigglesworth has launched a broadside against Michael Gove and the government’s plans for standardisation of school design.
In a blistering piece on the Guardian’s Comment is Free website, she argues that the policy of school standardisation exposes localism as a “meaningless” term.
And she accuses the government of being hasty in its judgment of the architect’s role.
Wigglesworth, who under the previous government researched and developed ideas for future school design, writes: “The ConDems don’t mind bankers getting richer, but demonise architects as freeloaders.”
Wigglesworth says City firms’ offices are designed to attract talent to the Square Mile; that patients recover faster in well-designed hospitals; that tourists flock to attractive places.
“If these are facts, then how can schools defy this obvious logic?” she asks.
The article goes on to say: “In the architect-free ConDem future, we can use catalogue designs to build cheap, under-sized state schools occupied on a rotational basis. People will care less about quality and more about profit margins and ‘shareholder value’.
“But the factory schools of the future will have little regard for the appropriateness of the design to the school’s educational aspirations – why should they? We are told that this is the teachers’ responsibility. But the question remains: why would a teacher want to teach in such an environment? What message does it send to our kids? Both would soon know their place: they don’t matter. How can this possibly aid learning?
“In pursuing the current policy we could easily see another generation of disastrous school buildings destined to be rebuilt in 20 years’ time. Professional expertise helps, and Gove should be seeking good design in any form, especially now that people are free to set up their own schools with no prior knowledge of how to do it.”
Read the full piece here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/22/schools-michael-gove-architecture?INTCMP=SRCH
Related Articles
- Wigglesworth named Royal Designer for Industry
12 November 2012 | Updated: 12 November 2012 11:28 am
- The James Review - view the full report
8 April 2011
- Test school saves government £4 million
28 February 2011
- Prasad rallies the profession on school design
24 February 2011
- Schools architects likened to oxen
23 February 2011
- Government claims to support architects under localism
7 February 2011
- Michael Gove in new attack on 'award-winning architects'
3 February 2011
- Robin Hood Gardens remodelled
28 January 2011
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (23)
Someone who is elected to a quango days before it is scrapped may be excused for sour grapes, but while in that position the rhetoric should perhaps be more circumspect?
Provided there is enough variety in the pick-and-mix offer, creativity need not be stifled and results can be clever and uncluttered. How many homes and offices daily rejoice in the affordable blessings bestowed by Ikea?
Sir
As a subcontractor I would suggest that The architectural profession adds only cost, not value.
Wigglesworth for President!
A subcontractor may only see the detail side of construction.
Value and the extreme amount of hardwork in getting a project off the ground happens well before the priced schedules come to fruition but rather in the initial phases of establishing the right size, fit and ambience for the intended occupant/user/client.
With often 20-30% in groundworks/structure, 25-30%+ in M&E, the remaining spend of IT, furniture, fittings and equipment leaves the architects with direct control of a small share of the works value. Granted architects often take design lead - but I suggest caution in landing the costs wholly on the architectural profession.
I would suggest that all professions involved in the building industry add cost, however it is frequently the architectural profession which adds value for free. In a society where the former remains more readily quantifiable than the latter, the deficit of creativity in the built environment seems destined to increase. It is in precisely these societies where 'quangos' such as CABE are utterly essential.
The BSF projects, while certainly not perfect looked at other ways to think about value of a school and the experience of learning- for example: what is the schools' relationship and contribution to the neighbourhood in which it was situated...? How could using new technologies, outdoor classrooms etc etc help craete new environments and ways of learning for young people- and how can decent architecture contribute to motivation and pride in young people...? ...I wonder how, after the work that staff and students have put in to these projects over the past few years, do these people feel about the projects being halted and their aspirations, ideas and expertise ignored?
Probably the simplest way to get schools built to an appropriate quality is to have a set of standards that architects and contractors have ready access to. If the hotel industry, where finish and maintenance are vital, can do it (see www.hotel-standards.com) then so can the government. Procurement is arguably where the biggest waste of government money occurs, so it makes sense to use that are proven to reduce cost whilst maintaining quality.
When I read this in the Guardian I was going to congratulate the author on a fine and timely polemic - but reading the extraordinary string of comments by un/under-employed bloggers gave up, with my mouth open. Then I find it in BD so decide this time to say 'Brava!' to the author. Even President might not be such a bad idea, but living in a heritage site which conflates Colin Firth, princely weddings and king's stutters, the republic may yet be some distance off.
Mr Moffat happily joins the chorus of voices I heard on every D&B school site, roughly to the tune of (very closely hold to what Mr Gove has as a heart substitute) why all tose details, curves, etc - surely a box with flat roof, four windows and a door would do!? Contractors in general have no clue whatsoever about the design, how can they? They are there to deliver what Architect, after massive amount of time and knowledge with experience appkied has designed to suit the budget and brief, in that order. I met great deal of phenomenal tradesem on building sites, extremely proud of what they were doing and equalle extreme frustrated by their firms higher echeleons (a.k.a. penny pinchers) because of whom they were not able to deliver the details as the design called for. Some of the best times I had as an architect were when talking to very experienced builders about particular details and to achieve them in a much simpler and better way!
But to get back to the subject matter, consider this, would it be appropriate to build exactly the same design of a school in London as in some coastal or highlands location? I do not even attempt ot try and argue the LOCALISM of architecture, utterly futile I am affraid...