RIBA’s annual Guerrilla Tactics event returns in early November (2024), with another symposium aimed at small practices and providing a forum in which to share ideas and innovations, meet fellow architects in similar positions and to stage problem-solving discussions.
The in-person conference will attempt to reveal the secrets to thriving in any climate, explore the transformative power of collaboration, learn from practices that have taken unexpected routes to success, as well as address the ongoing concerns about fees as AI challenges the architecture profession to rethink how it charges for its design services.
One of the speakers at this year’s in-person conference – Tim O’Callaghan, from London-based practice, nimtim – will take a closer look at the value of architects, and how they can best value themselves properly.
In an ever-changing landscape, one of the questions in this area of discussion surrounds the arrival of the Building Regulations Principal Designer role under the new Building Safety Act regime, and whether it offers architects a generational opportunity to reset fees so that the profession is more appropriately valued.
What are the keys to increasing fees?
Key to achieving a meaningful increase in fees is demonstrating the value of the architect’s role to the client, Tim argues.
The new building safety regime requires the Principal Designer to explain to the client how they now have a duty to ensure that designers are properly resourced to take on their responsibilities. For the Principal Designer, duties include managing and monitoring the work of all the designers involved so that the building is compliant.
In this context, the architect as Principal Designer has been handed a new opportunity to explain their value to the client (as well as to demonstrate that they can provide sufficient resources to comply with building regulations). In fact, it is not so much an opportunity as a legal requirement.
The prize here is far greater than any incremental increase in fees for some individual practices, Tim continues. If the profession can commit and succeed in making the Principal Designer role its own, it could lead to an unofficial protection of function, with a commensurate increase in fees to go with it.
How is nimtim approaching the new regime?
At his own practice based in South London’s East Dulwich, which designs mostly small projects (no HRBs), Tim and his colleagues spent time looking at the implications of taking on the Principal Designer role. Their conclusion was that it should be seen as an opportunity for architects generally, potentially opening up a new client landscape within which they could talk to clients about value.
Tim has spoken with other practices and sits on a working group within the London Practice Forum that has been looking at the issues surrounding the new Building Regulations regime and the role of Principal Designer. He is well aware that there are differences of opinion, with many taking the view that it isn’t fundamentally different from the lead designer’s previous obligations and therefore can be delivered for free. Others admit to feeling overwhelmed by the additional responsibilities.
“We have taken the view that this is a fundamental shift in our role and the way we think about designing buildings,” he says. “We’ve already found it informing our decision-making through the design process in our work. Rather than tending towards deferring issues of compliance to building control officers or other consultants, we are more aware of having to make judgement calls around building safety ourselves.”
Read more about why architects are best suited to take on the role of Principal Designer
How does the Principal Designer role fit in?
The Principal Designer takes responsibility for coordinating a building’s compliance with regulations, which exist, in the main, to provide for the safety of building users at the point of occupation. For Tim, this goes beyond simple compliance and places a moral and ethical responsibility on the Principal Designer.
It all comes back to convincing the client that they need to give their architect proper fee resources to do the job. Tim thinks this should become a pressure point in fee negotiations that architects generally should be applying.
Or to put it another way: “We need to start recognising the value we bring and start setting our fees accordingly. From a fee point of view, the profession should realise this is a big opportunity to demonstrate that the architect should be front and centre of the whole process.”
Read the full program and book your ticket to Guerrilla Tactics 2024.
Thanks to Tim O’Callaghan, founding director, nimtim architects.
Text by Neal Morris. This is a professional feature edited by the RIBA Practice team. Send us your feedback and ideas.
RIBA Core Curriculum topic: Legal, regulatory and statutory compliance.
As part of the flexible RIBA CPD programme, professional features count as microlearning. See further information on the updated RIBA CPD core curriculum and on fulfilling your CPD requirements as a RIBA Chartered Member.
