BookPDF Available

Spatial design leadership: the role, instruments and impact of state architect (or similar) teams in fostering spatial quality and a place-making culture across five European states

January 2019

Authors:

João Bento

University of Lisbon

European location of the five case studies

…

rish public consultation document on architectural policy (1996)

…

First Irish architectural policy (2002)

…

Second Irish architectural policy (2009)

…

+16

Scottish public consultation document on architectural policy (1999)

…

Figures - uploaded by João Bento

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by João Bento

Content may be subject to copyright.

SPATIAL DESIGN

LEADERSHIP THE ROLE,

INSTRUMENTS AND

IMPACT OF STATE

ARCHITECT TEAMS

IN FOSTERING

SPATIAL QUALITY

AND A PLACE–

MAKING CULTURE

ACROSS FIVE

EUROPEAN STATES

OR SIMILAR

JOÃO FERREIRA BENTO

Honorary Research Fellow

TERPSI LAOPOULOU

Research Assistant

4SUMMARY

SUMMARY

The design quality of our buildings and places has a

direct effect on people’s quality of life.

Although the importance of design quality in achiev-

ing a more sustainable urban development has been

recognized in several international declarations, in most

metropolitan and urban peripheries, places with good

spatial quality continue to be the exception rather than

the norm. Acknowledging that this situation is socially

and ecologically unsustainable, one of the main chal-

lenges ahead is how to change the current system of

production and its embodied values, so as to produce

more sustainable, economical and socially equitable

built outcomes.

In the European panorama, the public sector already

has a great inﬂuence on the design of the built environ-

ment, either by planning policy or by developing control

systems, and thereby involving almost all sectors and

levels of the state. This means that it is crucial to better

co-ordinate and reconcile design policy across many

different areas and priorities. Furthermore, the design

quality of places may be regarded as a ‘wicked prob-

lem’ as it is determined by a huge number of actors,

public and private, and is the result of embedded social

norms and cultural values. Considering its social and

complex nature, it is necessary to create a favourable

climate for good spatial design through a diversiﬁed

policy agenda that covers a wider spectrum of areas.

Departing from a broad view on public policy, this

research assumes that state intervention is a necessary

condition. Although the strength of the state appears

to be somehow diminished, it is widely accepted that

the state continues to play an important role in society,

namely in market regulation and in the steering of soci-

etal goals, place-making being no exception. To do so,

the role of the state has extended to a new dimension:

besides deﬁning the regulatory framework, it also takes

an active role of leadership, disseminating a message

of quality and promoting the general public’s apprecia-

tion of architectural, urban and landscape culture.

In this context, several countries and states have

appointed a State Architect (or similar) team within

their administrations to provide design leadership and

strategic advice to government to improve the design

of public constructions, promote spatial quality and

foster a placemaking culture. Although State Archi-

tect teams have long been established in several coun-

tries and states around the world, in several others, the

State Architect and their supporting team is a relatively

recent position within public administration. In addition,

in the European landscape, this is still the exception

and mostly a northern European phenomenon.

To better understand the impact of spatial design lead-

ership in processes of design governance, it is rele-

vant to clarify the speciﬁc contribution of a State Archi-

tect (or similar) team and examine whether or not it can

effectively improve the role of the state in promoting

high quality environments. Additionally, little is known

on the role and competences of a State Architect team

or similar unit whose aim is to push for better develop-

ment outcomes – for instance, on the different design

policy tools they have at their disposal and their impact

extent.

Therefore, this research’s main objective is to under-

stand how spatial design leadership and spatial aware-

ness (to arrive at more informed political decisions) is

being delivered in different European states through

the formation of State Architect (or similar) teams, or

through other means. More precisely, it will be devel-

oped a comparative analysis of the roles, instruments

and impact of State Architect (or similar) teams across

ﬁve European states: Denmark, Ireland, Scotland

(United Kingdom), Vienna (Austria) and Flanders (Bel-

gium). In some of those states, there is a State Archi-

tect ofﬁce in place, while in others the system operates

in other ways and through other instruments.

Following an inductive research strategy, this study

examines the operational system in place in the above

mentioned states, be it by a State Architect teams, or

any other form of an advisory expert group that pro-

vides the state with expertise on architectural and spa-

tial design policy, as well as other relevant actors. After

gathering information on existing stakeholders, the

study proceeds to a comparative analysis on the main

differences and similarities across the ﬁve case stud-

ies, allowing the extraction of policy lessons about the

different experiences and the added value of having a

State Architect (or similar) team. Finally, conclusions

are drawn on the role and impact of state design cham-

pions on processes of design governance and the

importance of a strong and committed governmental

spatial design leadership for achieving better places.

This analysis was contracted by

the Strategy Unit of the Government

Ofﬁce of Estonia and funded under

the Operational Programme for

Cohesion Funds 2014–2020,

priority 12 “Administrative capacity”,

objective 12.2 “Improving the

quality of policy-making”.

Acknowledgements

This report has been informed by

all the interviewees, including the

state architects and the directors

in the ﬁve European States,

listed in Chapter 2, as well as by

helpful comments from Barbara

Feller, Gerhard Jagersberger

and Veronika Valk-Siska.

Suggested citation

Bento, J., Laopoulou, T. (2019).

Spatial design leadership: The

role, instruments and impact of

state architect (or similar) teams

in fostering spatial quality and

a place-making culture across

ﬁve European states. UCL

Bartlett School of Planning.

Tallinn, 2019

Bartlett School of Planning, UCL

14 Upper Woburn Place London

WC1H 0NN

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 Context

1.2 Research questions

1.3 Aims

1.4 Spatial design as a holistic concept

2. RESEARCH

APPROACH AND

METHODOLOGY 12

2.1 Research approach:

a cross-national comparative inquiry

2.2 Methodology

2.3 Scope

2.4 Limitations

3. THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK 16

3.1 Design governance as a research agenda

3.2 Spatial design leadership

4. THE RISE OF

STATE ARCHITECT

TEAMS 24

4.1 The role of the State Architect

4.2 The State Architects in Europe

4.3 State Architects elsewhere

4.4 Other similar structures

5. SPATIAL DESIGN

LEADERSHIP IN

PRACTICE: FIVE

CASE STUDIES 30

5.1 The Irish case

5.2 The Scottish case

5.3 The Flemish case

5.4 The Viennese case

5.5 The Danish case

6. STATE

ARCHITECTS AS

DESIGN

CHAMPIONS 76

6.1 The role of State Architects

6.2 State Architects policy instruments

6.3 Limitations and challenges of State

Architects teams

7. SPATIAL DESIGN

LEADERSHIP IN

A COMPARATIVE

PERSPECTIVE 84

7.1 Public policy on architecture

7.2 State design champions

7.3 Other relevant actors

8. CONCLUSIONS 90

8.1 The role of and instruments of State

Architect teams

8.2 The impact of State Architect teams

8.3 Spatial design leadership:

pursuing a design agenda

9. REFERENCES 94

10. AUTHORS

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

NOTE 96

11. KOKKUVÕTE JA

JÄRELDUSED 98

11.1. Riigiarhitekti meeskondade roll ja

töövahendid

11.2. Riigiarhitekti meeskonna mõju

11.3. Ruumiloome eestvedamine:

eesmärkide saavutamine

8INTRODUCTIONBACK TO INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 CONTEXT

Although the importance of design quality in achieving

a more sustainable urban development has been rec-

ognized in several international and European conven-

tions and declarations1, in most metropolitan and urban

peripheries, places with good spatial quality continue

to be the exception rather than the norm. Acknowl-

edging that this situation is socially and ecologically

unsustainable, one of the main challenges ahead is

how to change the current system of production and

its embodied values so as to produce more sustain-

able, economical and socially equitable built outcomes.

Therefore, there is a need to better understand which

levers need to be pulled and how to ensure that suc-

cessful places are consistently created and maintained.

In what has been described as a shift from govern-

ment to governance, all around the world, national,

regional and local administrations have established a

wide range of non-statutory instruments, where the

use of negotiation and advocacy complements the tra-

ditional set of regulatory and control mechanisms. As

will be discussed, the design quality of places may be

regarded as a ‘wicked problem’ as it is determined by

a huge number of actors, public and private, and is the

result of embedded social norms and cultural values.

Considering its social and complex nature, it is nec-

essary to create a favourable climate for good spatial

design through a diversiﬁed policy agenda that covers

a wider spectrum of areas.

Departing from a broad view on public policy, this

research assumes that state intervention is a necessary

condition (see Chapter 3). Therefore, the basic ques-

tion is not whether or not the state should intervene,

but with which means. In the European panorama,

the public sector already has a powerful inﬂuence on

the design of the built environment, either by planning

policy or by developing control systems, and thereby

imposing a huge amount of design regulations which

deﬁne almost every aspect of the built environment.

Nonetheless, the role of the government has extended

to a new dimension: besides deﬁning the regulatory

framework, it also takes an active role of leadership,

1 Documents such as: Sustainable Developments Goals (UN, 2016);

New Urban Agenda (UN-Habitat, 2016); DAVOS Declaration

(2018); Conclusions on Architecture (EU, 2008); Leipzig Charter on

Sustainable European Cities (EU, 2007).

disseminating a message of quality and promoting the

general public’s appreciation of architectural, urban

and landscape culture.

In this framework, the present study intends to explore

the role of state leadership in processes of design gov-

ernance through the use of non-statutory design instru-

ments, namely, by the appointment of a State Architect

team, or similar institutional approaches. In fact, little

evidence is known on the potential value of governmen-

tal design leadership in enabling better places and fos-

tering a place-making culture. Even less is known on

the speciﬁc competences of State Architect (or simi-

lar) teams, which policy instruments they have at their

disposal and its impact extent on the overall system

of design governance, whose aim is to push for better

development outcomes. As such, a comparative study

of current practices is relevant to help inform the design

of public policy as well as to ﬁnd out what are the appro-

priate policy instruments to intervene in the design pro-

cesses and encourage a desirable societal shift.

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The starting point for this research was the observa-

tion that several countries and states have appointed

a State Architect team within their administrations to

provide design leadership and strategic advice to gov-

ernment to improve the design of public buildings and

enhance the quality of the built environment. In this

sense, it could be argued that a State Architect rep-

resents an innovation on design governance, embody-

ing a number of policy tools that improve the role of

public bodies in promoting better places. Although

State Architect teams have long been established in

several countries and states around the world (e.g.

USA or Australia), in several others, the State Archi-

tect and their supporting team is a relatively recent

position within national or state public administrations.

In addition, in the European landscape, this is still the

exception and mostly a northern European phenome-

non (Bento, 2012).

In this context, it is relevant to explore the role of state

leadership in processes of design governance through

the use of formal and informal design instruments,

namely to clarify the speciﬁc contribution of a State

Architect and examine whether or not it can effec-

tively improve the government role in promoting high

9INTRODUCTIONBACK TO INDEX

quality environments. This constitutes the background

research question that this will inquiry try to address.

Having this said, the following speciﬁc questions can

be raised:

• Does a State Architect team enable the delivery

of spatial design leadership across the different

sectors and levels of public administration? If yes,

what are its main policy instruments?

• To what extent have the State Architects had an

impact on design governance processes?

Considering that other countries use different institu-

tional approaches delivering the same set of goals, an

additional research question can be made:

• What is the role of spatial design leadership in

design governance processes?

1.3 AIMS

The research’s main objective is to understand how

the challenge to raise spatial awareness (to arrive at

more informed political decisions) in different Euro-

pean states has been tackled through the formation

of State Architect (or similar) teams, or through other

means. More precisely, develops a comparative analy-

sis of how spatial design goals have been achieved in

arriving at informed (quality) decisions that concern the

development of the built environment in ﬁve European

states: Denmark, Ireland, Scotland (United Kingdom),

Vienna (Austria) and Flanders (Belgium). In some of

those states, there is a State Architect ofﬁce in place,

while in others the system operates in other ways and

through other instruments.

Following this approach, it will be possible to compare

models of spatial design leadership equipped with a

State Architect with other models which provide spatial

design leadership by other ways and means. Therefore,

this study is expected to show the beneﬁts and down-

falls of the operational system in place in the above

mentioned states, to carry out certain tasks of the spa-

tial development competence unit, or the spatial com-

missioner’s ofﬁce / the institution of the State Architect,

or any other form of an advisory expert group that pro-

vides the state with expertise on national spatial plan-

ning and architectural design of the living environment.

1.4 SPATIAL DESIGN AS A

HOLISTIC CONCEPT

After describing the context and setting the research

framework, it is relevant to introduce its main concep-

tual frame. The term architecture has different accep-

tations and extensions, being considered a polysemic

term. According with its context, architecture may be

understood in its broad sense as ‘built environment

design’ (crossing several design disciplines, involving

not only design issues but also processes of gover-

nance, etc.); or it may be understood in its narrower

sense as the ‘design of individual buildings’ (usually

associated with the work performed by architects for

a single client). This conceptual gap is aggravated by

contextual factors, in which traditions and conceptual

frames tend to change from place to place (Bento,

2017).

When referring to the built environment as a whole, the

British prefer to use ‘urban design’ as its keyword. In

fact, the broad notion of architecture as built environ-

ment design is very similar to the deﬁnition of urban

design, which is focused on creating better places for

people (Carmona, Heath, Oc, & Tiesdell, 2003). In the

Scottish case, for example, the scope of its Architec-

tural policy has progressively expanded as new policy

versions were adopted. Although its ﬁrst policy focused

mainly on building design, the second policy expand its

scope to a wider urban and rural design agenda, intro-

ducing the concepts of urban design and placemaking.

A similarly broad approach is followed by Germanic

states, where the main concept adopted is baukultur,

which is broadly deﬁned as the design of the built envi-

ronment. In fact, the recent Davos Declaration (2018)

deﬁnes it as an aspect of cultural identity and diversity,

which ‘holistically embraces every human activity that

changes the built environment, including every built and

designed asset that is embedded in and relates to the

natural environment.’ The same is adopted by Vienna

(Austria), which will be discussed in Chapter 5.

By the same token, the more recent Swedish Govern-

ment Architectural policy prefers to promote the notion

of designed environment (2018), to complement the

restricted meaning of architecture and avoid misun-

derstandings that would restrict grasping the broader

picture. Therefore, the term architecture, even when it

is understood as built environment design, has been

losing strength as the policy subject expands to wider

environments, where other concepts appear to better

portray the complex set of interactions, rules and norms

involved in the design of the built environment.

As will be discussed in the following Chapter, an

important issue in cross-national comparative research

is the correspondence of concepts across differ-

ent socio-cultural contexts, as they constitute the

basic ingredient of any research endeavour providing

common reference points for identifying and grouping

phenomena. In fact, concepts are used as categories

for collecting and sorting information and its operation-

alisation allows the development of theory and enables

the test of hypothesis through empirical inquiry (Rose,

1991). Despite the difﬁculty in identifying concep-

tual equivalence in dissimilar contexts, Rose (1991a)

argues that it is possible to develop comparative anal-

ysis across nation states by identifying concepts that

are functionally equivalent among different contexts,

which in turn will provide a suitable conceptual frame-

work for conducting comparative analysis (Mangen,

1999; Rose, 1991).

This issue is particularly relevant for this investigation.

As discussed above, the concept of architecture is

not equivalent across nations, which raises a concep-

tual hardship in the selection and grouping of informa-

tion from ﬁve different national contexts. To overcome

this dilemma, it is important to make use of a sufﬁcient

holistic concept that may embraces all different mean-

ings associated with the notion of architecture and

the design of the built environment. In this view, this

research deliberately uses the term spatial design along

this report, which refers to design of spaces in a broad

sense, crossing the boundaries of traditional design

specialisms such as architecture, interior design, infra-

structure, landscape design and urban design.

12RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGYBACK TO INDEX

2. RESEARCH

APPROACH AND

METHODOLOGY

2.1 RESEARCH APPROACH: A CROSS-

NATIONAL COMPARATIVE I NQUIRY

As described previously, this research intends to anal-

yse the impact of governmental leadership in design

governance processes through the appointment of

State Architect Team, or other similar institutional

approach. To do so, it was decided to select ﬁve Euro-

pean states that would provide interesting examples

of State Architect (or similar) teams, in order to exam-

ine their roles, instruments and impact. After gather-

ing information on existing organisations, the research

would then proceed to a comparative analysis on the

main differences and similarities across the case stud-

ies, allowing to extract policy lessons about the differ-

ent experiences and some conclusions on the added

value of having a State Architect (or similar) team.

In this background, methodologically, this research is

an exercise in cross-national comparative research. In

the ﬁeld of policy analysis, this methodology has been

used, among others, to develop better insights on how

to deal with policy problems by drawing lessons from

the experience of other governments (Rose, 2005).

Even so, the aim is not to copy their approaches but to

learn under what circumstances and to what extent cer-

tain programs may effectively deal with a speciﬁc policy

problem. The study of policy differences between gov-

ernments regarding a shared problem offers several

advantages, namely the opportunity to compare the

strengths and weakness of different policies and draw

lessons for other countries (Ibid, p. 4).

2.2 METHODOLOGY

According to Hantrais (1999), a cross-national com-

parative research is concerned with observing social

phenomena across nations, to develop robust explana-

tions of similarities and differences and to assess their

consequences, whether for the purpose of testing a

set of hypothesis in different settings, drawing lessons

on policy experiences developed elsewhere, or just

gaining better insights of how social processes oper-

ate (1999, p. 93). Following this reasoning, cross-na-

tional comparative research is a methodology that aims

at making comparisons between countries regarding a

given phenomenon.

Although at ﬁrst sight cross-national comparative re-

search appears to readily generate national ﬁndings

that enable us to extract general conclusions on the

role and impact of State Architects (or similar) teams,

the interpretative effort dedicated to comparative anal-

ysis is not actually as simple as it may seem. As in all

methodologies, cross-national comparative research

presents several conceptual challenges and limitations,

which will be addressed in Section 2.4.

In practice, a cross-national comparative research

design does not imply a predetermined way to admin-

ister cross-national research. As in other approaches,

research methods are generally tailored to the research

questions, and, no less important, to the resources

available. In this case, the research ﬁndings are the

result of a research methodology that included desk-

based research and semi-structured interviews with

key stakeholders in the different case studies.

In this framework, the research work was divided

into three phases, spread between July and October

2018. The ﬁrst phase sought to take stock of the exist-

ing design governance landscape (identifying relevant

stakeholders, architecture and spatial design policies,

informal policy tools, etc.) in each of the chosen Euro-

pean states. As result of this, a brief review of the archi-

tecture policies development was carried out at the

beginning of each section on Chapter 5.

However, unpacking the policies’ discourse and gath-

ering information on the existing structures did not pro-

vide proper information on ‘how’ the State Architect (or

similar) Teams work in practice. Therefore, the second

13 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGYBACK TO INDEX

phase sought to collect different views on the main

virtues and limitations of the State Architect Teams in

a real-life context, or other spatial design policy units

that may exist, the range of tools available and impact

extent, through a series of semi-structured interviews to

the key players in each of the case studies (see below).

The ﬁnal stage sought to produce a report on the main

research ﬁndings, namely, a brief review of the archi-

tectural policies and of the role and tools of the State

Architect Teams or equivalent spatial design institu-

tions in each of the case studies. This was followed by

a cross analysis of the role and instruments of the State

Architect Teams across the ﬁrst three cases studies, as

well as a discussion on the similarities and differences

of the design governance systems and spatial design

leadership across the all ﬁve case studies. Finally, some

conclusions were drawn.

Selection of interviewees

The selection of the interviewees was based on the fol-

lowing rationale; ﬁrstly, the State Architects themselves

in the three states where this position was in place (Ire-

land, Flanders and Scotland). In the two states where

there was no such position, it was decided to interview

the senior ofﬁcer leading the correspondent unit or divi-

sion (Denmark and Vienna). Secondly, it was decided

to interview key stakeholders working at senior level in

other spatial design institutions in the different coun-

tries/states, to have an external viewpoint on the role,

instruments and impact of the State Architects (or sim-

ilar) Teams, such as: architecture cultural organizations,

national design champions and architects’ professional

bodies. Interview invitations were sent by email to

those institutions within the ﬁve case studies. Due to

the short time available, it was only possible to carry

out 13 telephone semi-structured interviews (see list

on the right).

List of Interviews

Ireland

Ofﬁce of Public Works /

State Architect

Kathryn Meghen

Royal Institute of the

Architects of Ireland

(RIAI) / CEO

Scotland (UK)

Ian Gilzean

Scottish Government /

Chief architect

Karen Anderson

Architecture and Design

Scotland (A&DS) / CEO

Denmark

Birgitte Jahn

Danish Agency for Cul-

ture and Palaces /

Ministry of Culture

Tinna Saaby

Copenhagen

City Council /

City Architect

Tine Weisshappel

Holmboe

Danish Association of

Architectural Firms /

Chief Ofﬁcer

Vienna (Austria)

Gerhard Jagersberger

Federal Chancellery /

Department for Visual

Arts, Architecture,

Design, Fashion, Pho-

tography and Media Arts

Barbara Feller

Austrian Architectural

Foundation / Director

Franz Kobermaier

Vienna Architecture and

Urban Design Depart-

ment / Director

Flanders (Belgium)

Leo Van Broeck

Flemish Government

architect / State Archi-

tect

Olivier Bastin

Royal Federation of Bel-

gian Architects’ Associa-

tions / CEO

Soﬁe de Caigny

Flanders Architecture

Institute (VAI) /

Director

2.3 SCOPE

The research study covers ﬁve European states: Ire-

land, Flanders (Belgium), Scotland (United Kingdom),

Denmark and Vienna (Austria) (see Fig. 1). The ﬁrst

three states were selected due to the fact of having

a State Architect Team operating within their adminis-

tration for several years; in the cases of Flanders and

Scotland for almost twenty years. The remaining two,

Denmark and Vienna (Austria), were chosen because

they did not have a position of a State Architect Team,

which could provide interesting counterpoint examples

of other ways by public authorities to exercise spatial

design leadership through the use of innovative institu-

tional arrangements.

Fig. 1 – European location of the ﬁve case studies

In terms of administrative structures, the present study

covers two unitary administrations (Ireland and Den-

mark) and two federal administrations (Austria and Bel-

gium). For the latter, it was decided to examine only one

state of each country as building and planning policy

are state competences. In Belgium, it was decided to

study Flanders because of the Flemish Government

Architect. In Austria, it was decided to study Vienna

as it is Austrian capital city, which in turn would be

equipped with a more diversiﬁed design policy tools

than the remaining eight Austrian states due the higher

level of ﬁnancial and human resources usually del-

egated to a capital city. In the case of Scotland, the

administrative structure of the UK is quite unique as it

includes four countries, each with their own system of

administrative and geographic demarcation.

2.4 LIMITATIONS

The methodology chosen for this research has some

limitations. First, as in any cross-national compara-

tive research design, an important issue is the equiv-

alence of concepts across different socio-cultural

contexts (Hantrais, 1999, p. 104). Concepts consti-

tute the basic ingredient of any research endeavour

as they provide common reference points for identify-

ing and grouping phenomena (Rose, 1991). The prob-

lem in cross-national comparative research is that not

all concepts travel well across cultural and linguistic

boundaries because the same term may embody dif-

ferent meanings and the same set of ideas may be cat-

egorized under a different term. This is the case of the

German term baukultur, which will be referred to in the

case of Vienna, or the term placemaking also referred

to in the Irish and Scottish contexts. To be able to

accommodate the different meanings associated with

the concept of architecture and urban design, the main

concept used for the present study was spatial design

(see Chapter 1).

Second, due to the short period of the time available to

carry out this research (3 months) it was only possible

to interview two to three people in each state, which

diminish the diversity and richness of viewpoints about

the role and impact of State Architects (or similar)

Teams. Considering that spatial design policy is shared

by several levels and sectors of the state, it is difﬁcult

to perceive the real impact extent of the State Architect

(and similar) teams across the administrative structures

as well as the wider system of production, without a

deeper examination of the current situation in each of

the case studies. Therefore, in future research, it would

be recommendable to carry out a higher number of

interviews per case study, to increase the range of the

individual viewpoints, including both private and public

stakeholders as well as actors from the consumer and

producer side of the market.

Third, the semi-structure interviews were mainly made

by telephone or videoconference (skype), which

decreases the openness of the replies and slightly

restrains the communication ﬂow between the inter-

viewer and the interviewee. However, due to time and

budget limitations it would have been impractical to

travel to each of the countries/states to collect the

information in person. Therefore, in future research, it

would be advised to carry out face-to-face interviews

with main actors and stakeholders in each of the case

studies to obtain information that is not easily collected

via telephone interviews.

Scotland

Ireland

Flanders

Denmark

Vienna

16THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKBACK TO INDEX

3. THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

Although this chapter does not offer a literature review

on the topic of spatial design leadership, it intends to

make a brief incursion on the debate around the gover-

nance of design, which will be used as a framework

to explore and discuss the different models of State

Architect (or similar) teams that exist within the ﬁve case

studies. To do so, the present chapter is two folded.

A ﬁrst part will start with a brief discussion about the

governance of design and the legitimacy of the state to

intervene in the design of the built environment. In addi-

tion, it will present a typology of design governance

tools. A second part will explore the notion of design

leadership ending the chapter with a small discussion

on the role and skills of individual design champions.

17 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKBACK TO INDEX

3.1 DESIGN GOVERNANCE AS

A RESEARCH AGENDA

3.1.1 The governance of design

The design of the built environment is the result of con-

tinuous intervention of a wide range of actors and deci-

sion-makers involved in the production of the built envi-

ronment. Almost all urban interventions are based on

capital accumulation mechanisms as they demand high

ﬁnancial investments and require previous careful plan-

ning and conscious forethought. Since each actor has its

own interests, goals and motivations, the development

process is marked by a constant negotiation system

leading to a fragmented and pluralistic decision process

(Adams, 1994: 2). This in turn leads to a complex pro-

cess of bargaining and negotiation over often divergent

interests and over how design quality came to be inter-

preted by the different stakeholders. Within these pro-

cesses, spatial design professions (architecture, urban

and landscape design) are essential tools for achieving

successful built outcomes. However, several external

factors, such as site constraints, client’s aims and regu-

lations have a strong inﬂuence on the choices made by

designers, who have to reconcile all these requirements

and come up with a coherent and appealing solution.

Among the vast number of agents that intervene in

these processes, the public sector has the responsi-

bility to guarantee the enhancement of the public realm

and to promote a sustainable development. Based on

these broad principles, the public sector seeks to regu-

late the development process and promote the efﬁcient

use of resources through the planning system, build-

ing codes and other regulations, and the provision of

infrastructures and services (Carmona et al., 2003, p.

227). By setting the public policy and regulatory frame-

work it provides the context for private sector invest-

ment decision-making.

Although there is a widespread agreement on the value

of architecture and good urban design, this goal is

not fully shared by the several players that intervene

in the built environment and more broadly the general

public. As the values and practices of market actors

have a major inﬂuence on the design quality of places,

the public sector has also the potential to inﬂuence

the quality of places through the use of non-statutory

instruments, such as information, education and man-

agement. So, the public sector has a powerful inﬂu-

ence on the design of the built environment through the

use of building and planning policy, by imposing a huge

amount of design regulations but also by the mobiliza-

tion of resources to inﬂuence actor’s behaviours and

change mind-sets towards better built outcomes.

Nevertheless, it is widely recognized that in the last

decades there have been signiﬁcant changes in the

role of the state in society, in which market forces play

an increasingly important role. The rise of neo-liberal

ideas, deregulation, privatization of public services and

public-private partnerships have all contributed to a

loss of power of the state. Despite these developments

it is argued that the role of the government should be

maintained and in particular should be inspirational,

leading by example (Harvey, 2008; Nelissen, 1999).

Therefore, the role of the government has extended to a

new dimension: besides deﬁning the regulatory frame-

work, it also takes an active role of leadership, dissem-

inating a message of quality and promoting the general

public’s appreciation of architectural, urban and land-

scape culture.

In this sense, the term governance rather than govern-

ment has gained popularity because it embodies the

notion that a whole range of institutions, actors, tools

and relationships are involved in the process of govern-

ing – a notion that better portrays a new way of think-

ing about state capabilities and state–society relation-

ships (Pierre & Peters, 2000). In fact, the concept of

governance reveals that the state actors must operate

in a new ways (Rhodes, 1997), which should not be

‘based on the use of authority and sanctions of govern-

ment’ (Stoker, 1998). Consequently, rather than com-

mand-and-control, the public sector’s principal instru-

ments become those of bargaining, negotiation and

persuasion (Steve Tiesdell & Adams, 2011).

In this context, the concept of design governance ﬁts

well to this new way of governing, changing the empha-

sis in policy delivery from (direct) management to (indi-

rect) enablement. Matthew Carmona (2016) deﬁnes

design governance as the ‘process of state interven-

tion in the means and processes of designing the built

environment in order to shape both processes and out-

comes in a deﬁned public interest’. This means that the

role of the state is much more than just ‘controlling’ or

‘guiding’ design and development form. As will be dis-

cussed, the public sector has the potential to inﬂuence

the development process and the quality of the built

environment through the employment of a wide range

of statutory and non-statutory functions.

3.1.2 Design quality: the need

for public intervention

Architecture and urban design are all around us and,

even if not intentionally, everything is designed. This

means that the design quality of our buildings and

places has a direct effect on people’s quality of life.

However, the processes involved in the production of

the built environment tend to somehow diminish the

importance of design quality in favour of economic

factors, resulting, more often than not, in unsatisfac-

tory environments. Acknowledging that this situation

is ecologically and socially unsustainable, one of the

main challenges ahead is how to change the current

system of production and its embodied values so as

to produce more sustainable, economical and socially

equitable built outcomes. To address these concerns

several countries have developed national architec-

tural policies recognizing the value of good design

and setting up public bodies to promote better quality

environments.

Before exploring the policy tools available to the state

to promote high quality environments, it is necessary

to address the broader question of the public sector’s

legitimacy to intervene in the processes of designing

the built environment. From an urban planning per-

spective, public intervention and regulation of urban

development are seen as necessary responses to

market failure (Adams, 1994). Therefore, the public

sector has, in principle, the responsibility to protect the

public interest as the market alone cannot ensure good

quality environments (Carmona et al., 2003). The prob-

lem of this equation is that the public interest is a com-

plex concept and in matters of architecture and urban

design most of the times there is no consensus on

what constitutes good design. For this reason, public

intervention in design processes, particularly in issues

of design control has been the cause of much con-

ﬂict and tensions between public and private actors,

typically with architects and planners in opposite sides

(Hall, 1996, p. 1).

The most persistent critique of design policy is based

on the argument that design is essentially a subjective

discipline. In this view, any attempt to inﬂuence design

through statutory processes is inevitably value-landed

and arbitrary and constrains design freedom and private

property rights (Carmona et al. 2003). However, most

of the criticisms about design control focus on aes-

thetic and stylistic aspects of development neglecting

important aspects of urban design, such as functional-

ity, integration, etc. Based on the argument that design

is largely a subjective matter and generally regarded as

a ‘no-go’ area for planners, some local authorities use

this as a justiﬁcation for not offering more construc-

tive advice about what good design might be (Ibidem,

p. 36). In this sense, the debate about design control

which focuses only on issues of architectural design

and external appearance is a narrow view. Instead,

design control should focus on an overriding concern

with urban design over architecture (design of build-

ings) and aesthetic issues (Carmona, 1996).

Nevertheless, the design quality of the built environ-

ment – buildings, streets, parks and public spaces –

has a deep effect on people’s wellbeing because every-

one uses buildings and their surroundings in their daily

lives. Consequently, the design quality of the built envi-

ronment is a matter of collective interest (AAP 1996).

As Simmons (2008, p. 2) points out: ‘No building exists

only for the people who paid for it or who use it. Every-

Fig. 2 - Formal (left) and informal (right) tools of design governance, ordered by degree of intervention.

Adapted from Carmona (2017, p. 6 & 19)

intervention

lesser

guidance

incentive

control

greater

intervention

lesser

evidence

knowledge

promotion

evaluation

assistance greater

19 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKBACK TO INDEX

body has to live with it. Streets and parks belong to us

all.’ This means that although many organizations and

individuals have an interest in the design and use of

places, design quality cannot be solely a matter of par-

ticular individuals. As a consequence, the conﬂict of

interests existing in society about the urban form and

environment need to be mediated by the public sector

in order to guarantee an effective balance between

particular and public interests. As Hall (Hall, 1996, p.

2) notes: ‘quality in the context of urban design is a

public matter and must (…) be derived, wholly or par-

tially, from the public interest and must also be a legiti-

mate concern of local government organizations.’

Assuming that public intervention on the design pro-

cess is a condition to safeguard the public interest, the

debate on design policy and control is not about the

need for ‘some type of intervention but rather about the

methods employed and the exact nature of design that

is being controlled’ (Hall, 1996, p. 2). Hall (1996) sug-

gests that if design quality is an important aspect for

the quality of life of citizens, then it is legitimate for the

public sector to attempt to inﬂuence and improve the

design quality of developments, mitigating inequalities

and safeguarding the public interest. This means that

the need for public intervention in design processes is

justiﬁed by the inherent limitations of the development

process.

The functioning of the market alone is not able to gen-

erate qualiﬁed urban environments. In general, devel-

opers are strongly guided by commercial interests

and market considerations, which do not assume a

longer-term view (AAP 1996). Aiming to appropriate

the development value of sites, their objectives are

essentially ﬁnancial and short-term (Carmona et al.,

2003, p. 223). Therefore, public sector intervention

and regulation of the development process is a natu-

ral response to the dysfunctions of land and property

markets (Ibidem, p.238). This means that some form

of public intervention and regulation of development is

inevitable.

3.1.3 The design governance toolbox

One of the strategies to face the issue of design qual-

ity is to adopt a mix of policy tools, which can address

different development actors and stimulate a beneﬁcial

circle of production. What exactly those tools are, how-

ever, or how they might be classiﬁed, remains an open

question. Different typologies have been proposed in

relevant literature but there is no widely accepted con-

sensus as of yet. For the purposes of this report, we

propose the typology presented by Carmona (2017) as

a useful model of examining the types of instruments,

approaches and actions that might be employed by

policy makers to inﬂuence the production of urban

environments – a ‘toolbox’ for design policy.

Carmona’s work is built upon two foundations: his con-

tinued examination of design policy literature over the

last years (e.g. Carmona, 2017; Carmona et.al., 2016)

and, on the other hand, his study of the work of CABE

(Commission for the Built Environment), an advisory

body operating in England from 1999 to 2011. The

particulars of CABE’s work are slightly out of the scope

here, and of course not easily generalizable outside its

particular national context. The academic research that

builds on this work though provides, we believe, a cat-

egorisation that transcends the original case study and

can be useful when examining the role of State Archi-

tects and similar organisations.

The ﬁrst distinction that Carmona makes in building

his typology is one between formal and informal tools.

Formal tools are tied to the regulatory responsibilities of

the state, as legally deﬁned – they are, in other words,

designed to execute what is required of the state. Infor-

mal tools, on the contrary, are discretionary, optional.

This is the major distinction that determines where

particular methods are placed in the toolbox. Beyond

that, a second distinguishing aspect is deﬁned as the

degree of intervention that a tool is built for – in a rela-

tional deﬁnition of lesser to greater (see Fig. 2).

This is a combination of the target of each tool as well

as its ‘directness’. Some tools focus more on the ‘prod-

uct’ of urban design (speciﬁc sites or projects) and are

intended to help shape a particular outcome (hence,

direct). Others focus more on the ‘process’ of creating

urban spaces, on inﬂuencing the decision-making envi-

ronment within which choices about particular places

are made. These are the more indirect tools, whose

impact is likely to be long-term and diffused; whereas

direct, product-focused tools are more immediate and

clear-cut in their impact (Ibid, pp. 4-5). This is not to say

that direct or formal tools are better though, quite the

contrary. In fact, part of the signiﬁcance of this typology

lies in its recognition of the importance of informal tools

and the long-lasting impact that they can have.

This typology then speciﬁes three categories of formal

tools (guidance, incentive, control) and ﬁve categories

of informal ones (evidence, knowledge, promotion eval-

uation and assistance). Very brieﬂy outlined, guidance

mainly includes design standards and coding, incen-

tive is about subsidies or bonuses and direct invest-

ment, while control refers to planning applications and

permits, developer contributions, or consent. Again,

these are of course mainly deﬁned to respond to the

particulars of the UK planning system, but direct analo-

gies can be made to other systems in the EU.

On the informal tools side, evidence refers to the

research or audit capabilities of governmental or advi-

sory bodies. Knowledge includes the creation of best

practice guides, case studies libraries or education &

training initiatives. Promotion is about awards, cam-

paigns and partnerships. Evaluation includes different

types of reviews and certiﬁcations, as well as, poten-

tially, competitions. Finally, assistance might involve

ﬁnancing of projects or the direct help of a public ofﬁ-

cial to applicants shaping a proposal (always via trans-

parent procedures).

In almost all real-life scenarios, it’s unlikely that just

one of these tools would be enough to accomplish a

desired outcome – a mix-and-match approach would

normally by necessary. Circling back to the position

of a State Architect (or similar), it’s also highly likely

that the intended outcome would have much more to

do with indirect effects (for example, inﬂuencing the

behaviour of actors involved in the development pro-

cess) rather than direct ones (changing one particular

project, for instance). It’s therefore plausible to suggest

that the State Architect position involves the use of the

informal tools, as deﬁned in this typology, equally if not

more than the use of formal ones.

To better understand which are the main instruments

used and initiatives proposed, the next chapter will

review the role of State Architects in a transversal per-

spective, providing practical examples of State Archi-

tects in Europe and beyond. Before that, the following

section will discuss the notion of spatial design leader-

ship and the role of design champions.

3.2 SPATIAL DESIGN LEADERSHIP

3.2.1 Place leadership as a tool

The discussion on the concept of leadership and the

set of attributes it entails has gradually transformed into

a specialized ﬁeld of research in management, busi-

ness and organizational literature. Management manu-

als usually deﬁne leadership as a process in which one

individual inﬂuences a group of individuals towards a

common goal (Collinge & Gibney, 2010). In this per-

spective, leadership encompasses the ability of an indi-

vidual or an organization to lead or guide other individ-

uals, teams or organizations. Nevertheless, according

to Northouse (2010), the notion of leadership tends to

have multiple dimensions and approaches depending

on the context it is being used. Addressing this issue,

after an extensive literature review, Winston and Patter-

son (2006, p. 7) offers the following integrative deﬁni-

tion of leadership:

“A leader is one or more people who selects,

equips, and inﬂuences one or more follower(s)

who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and

focuses the follower(s) to willingly and enthusi-

astically expend spiritual, emotional, and phys-

ical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to

achieve the organizational mission and objec-

tives”.

In this view, leadership is closely associated to the idea

of movement and getting a body of followers to move

in an intendent direction to achieve an institutional goal.

In management literature, the concept has also been

associated to the idea of design leadership where

the strategic value of design has become increas-

able important in differentiating products that compa-

nies cannot afford to ignore (Turner, 2016). Companies

such as Apple or Audi are usually credited with appre-

ciating the value of design quality and providing design

leadership.

In the scope of planning theory, place leadership has

been entangled within urban governance and collab-

orative planning literature (Healey, 1998), namely it’s

implication in place-making (Collinge & Gibney, 2010).

Within this ﬁeld, there is a huge amount of literature

examining the role of regions and local authorities as

‘place-shapers’ with responsibility for developing the

local economy and the built environment. Considering

that local authorities and politicians have an important

role in the deﬁnition of urban areas, strong and com-

mitted place leadership has the potential to enhance

place-making in the city. Frequently, city mayors are

referred to as visionary place leaders with strong inter-

est in better urban spaces (e.g. Mayor Pasqual Mara-

gall of the city of Barcelona) supporting the relation-

ship between quality of place and the ability of areas to

attract population, investment, employment and visitors

(UK, 2016).

In this context, place leadership involves creating the

right conditions under which better places emerge and

setting the urban agenda, enabling better built out-

comes (Adams & Tiesdell, 2013). Successful local

place leaders are able to coordinate and communicate

a vision of a fairer, more efﬁcient and sustainable city.

In addition, place leaders have the ability to balance the

economic as well as the environment and social quali-

ties of place. Therefore, place leadership is important in

place-making as it drives action towards a certain goal

in the future, reducing possible risks and increasing

public participation (Ibidem). According to Adams &

21 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKBACK TO INDEX

Tiesdell (2013), there are four speciﬁc tasks that char-

acterize good place leadership:

• Promoting a place-making culture – convincing

politicians, stakeholders and the public to move

further beyond standardized regulations as a

means to achieve place quality

• Charting a vision for the future – providing speciﬁc

goals to achieve in service of a wider agenda for

better places

• Inﬂuencing and motivating people – explaining the

speciﬁc value of creating better places for different

groups and engaging them in the process

• Mobilizing resources – facilitating partnerships

that might be able to provide the necessary

resources for projects

Although this study does not intend to review the grow-

ing literature on this topic, the notion of place leader-

ship is useful for the discussion on the role of the gov-

ernment in promoting better designed environments,

namely the role the State Architect teams plays and the

impact it may have on the wider system of design gov-

ernance. Considering the complex interplay of public

and private stakeholders that are continuously contrib-

uting to the transformation of the built environment, the

way that public authorities position themselves towards

the development process - as either a more passive or

proactive actor - will have a determinant effect on the

overall quality of places. If government wants to play a

leading role in the design and place agenda, it needs

to assume its responsibility in placemaking and provide

spatial design leadership.

Table 1 - Spectrum of archetypal design champion roles

Design advisor Change agent/design champion

Role • More limited

• Design support – to increase design capacity/skill

level, and to provide design support for mainstream

development management/control planners

• More expansive

• Change agent – to provoke,

enable and lead organisational

culture change

Focus • Operational, detail

• Engagement with planning as a

• reactive development control/

• management activity

• Architectural and urban architectural

• design (ﬁrst-order design)

• Strategic, broad brush

• Engagement with planning as a proactive

city-making/place-shaping activity

• Urban design and place-making

(second-order design)

Timespan • Continuous – permanent salaried position • Temporary – time-limited appointment

Activity • Direct (hands-on) involvement with projects,

planning applications, design review, pre-

application negotiations, design/development briefs

• Involvement with visions and organisation

cultural change at the strategic level

Proﬁle • Less public, less high-proﬁle role

• Limited engagement with local media

• More public, more high-proﬁle role

• Signiﬁcant engagement with local media

(Source: Adapted from Tiesdell (2011, p. 237))

3.2.2 The role of design champions

As will be discussed in the next chapter, in some coun-

tries there is an old tradition of having a State Architect

(in some referred to as Chief Government architect)

while in others this position has just been recently cre-

ated to champion design across public administration.

For example in the UK, several organizations have been

appointing individuals to act as proactive champions

of better design, entrusted with leadership, educational

and advocacy roles (Tiesdell, 2011).2 Addressing the

same aims, several countries has also created orga-

nizations to act as express design champions, such

as the case of the Architecture and Design Scotland

(A+DS), which will be discussed further ahead in this

report, or the former Commission for Architecture and

the Built Environment (CABE).

In this sense, the idea of ‘design champion’ embraces

individual positions as well as organizations. Examples

of the former include individuals appointed as design

champions within national or local authorities (state or

city architects) and private companies, generally sup-

ported by advisors and administrative staff. Examples of

the latter may include an entire department or advisory

board inside a public organization, a non-departmental

public body (NDPB) or a non-proﬁt private association.

This means that the role of design champion may be

performed by an individual as well as an organization

dedicated to promote and advocate for better places.

Although this research is focused on State Architects,

which are entrusted to champion design inside public

administration, the concept of ‘design champion’ will

be useful for this research because it helps to frame

different policy instruments that government may use

to offer spatial design leadership across the ﬁve case

studies.

3.2.3 Mission of design champions

Looking at the British context (although this problem

can be found in other countries too), Tiesdel & Adams

(2011) notice that the lack of design skills within local

planning authorities has long been a concern of the

design community, developers and policymakers. In this

sense, appointing a design advisor (and other design

staff) was a practical way of addressing this skills deﬁ-

cit. Analysing the role of ‘design champions’ in local

authorities in the UK, Tiesdell (2011) propose that the

role of design champions can be positioned in a spec-

2 According to CABE, in 2006 there were design champions in

England and Wales in 65 per cent of local authorities, 78 per cent

of primary care trusts, 67 per cent of local education authorities,

83 per cent of police authorities, and a growing number of volume

housebuilders (CABE, 2006).

trum - from a more limited role of the ‘design advisor’

to the more expansive one of ‘change agent’ or ‘change

leader’, as outlined in Table 1 on the left.

In one side of the spectrum, in its narrowest sense, the

design advisor “operates within, and adds capacity to,

the statutory planning system and is primarily develop-

ment-control-oriented, supporting ‘mainstream’ planning

ofﬁcers during pre-application discussions on develop-

ment projects and thereafter on negotiations and report

writing on formal applications” (Ibidem, 2011, p. 237).

Assuming a more proactive role, it is possible that the

appointed design advisor may also ‘help shape design

policies in development plans, development/design

briefs and area strategies/frameworks and masterplans’

(Ibid.).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, some local

authorities may appoint a design champion as change

agent, with a much more ambitious role. According with

the two authors, this is a “strategic and political role, in

which the change agent develops a vision of positive

change and leads a project to transform an organisation

by getting people – politicians, local authority ofﬁcers,

the local design and development communities, amenity

groups and the general public – to think differently about

place-making; to alter everyday working practices; and

ultimately to achieve better outcomes on the ground”

(Ibid.).

Not all cities and municipalities require such an

enhanced role to be assigned to their design champion,

of course. Where a place-making culture is already well

rooted it might well be more beneﬁcial to have advi-

sors operating at the more limited end of the spectrum.

In other locations though, a larger project of change

might be required, to establish, for instance, new and

innovative regulatory / planning frameworks for real

estate development – and to trigger a wider cultural

change in the way place-making and place quality are

regarded, for all of which the ‘change agent’ role is a

key part of the project.

3.2.4 The skills of individual design champions

As mentioned in the previous section, appointing a

design champion is a capacity-building instrument,

which represents an ‘investment’ in “strategic capacity

and typically involving organisational culture change”

(Ibidem, p. 237). In 2006, the former CABE published

a small booklet, directed to house builders, arguing for

the importance of the appointment of a ‘design cham-

pion’ within their corporation with responsibility for

delivering design quality. In CABE’s perspective, the

purpose of a design champion would be to “promote

23 THE RISE OF STATE ARCHITECT TEAMSBACK TO INDEX

good design in every area of the organization, ensur-

ing that design issues play a central role in corporate

strategy and deliver demonstrable commercial bene-

ﬁts” (CABE, 2006).

In this sense, it is argued that the added value of design

champions is not just for high-proﬁle projects but to

embed design quality concerns within the everyday

working practice of the organization, as dedicated and

determined leadership is required to be able to create

places with consistently good design quality. Accord-

ing to CABE (2006), the key duties of a design cham-

pion should include:

• leading from the front and generating enthusi-

asm for good design promoting the value of good

design as a catalyst for innovation and customer

satisfaction;

• ensuring that all relevant staff are aware of the

external advice available from public bodies pro-

viding a visible point of contact for external organ-

isations and internal discussion.

More speciﬁcally, a design champion should be/have:

• an executive or a non-executive board member

knowledgeable about design and able to persuade

colleagues both within the organization and in the

wider industry of the commercial and social bene-

ﬁts that design quality offers;

• able to work with all relevant teams within the

organization;

• able to see the bigger picture and help develop a

corporate vision;

• a commitment and passion for good design;

• signiﬁcant professional experience of design or a

recognised design qualiﬁcation;

• technical support available within the organization;

• an understanding of the industry context and

commercial relationships across the supply chain

(Ibid,).

Although most of the characteristics listed above are

quite ambiguous, they are relevant for the discussion

about the set of skills that a design champion should

have, to enable organisational culture change. As dis-

cussed earlier on the concept of leadership, a design

champion must be a person who is able to convince

others to change their way of doing things, towards a

speciﬁc direction. For achieving this, the level of power

or inﬂuence on others as well as the type of resources

available will be decisive elements. First and foremost,

the design champion’s place on the hierarchy will deter-

mine their authority within the organization, and there-

fore also the extent to which they are able to connect

different departments and maintain high standards and

consistency of approach – all of which requires a high-

er-level position.

Secondly, the professional experience of design or a

recognised design qualiﬁcation will be a relevant attri-

bute of the design champion. Most followers, in this

case, built environment professionals will only pay

proper attention if they recognize enough design skills

and competence in its leader. Personality and motiva-

tion will also be important characteristics of those key

actors whose role it is to champion design. A person

without a sincere passion and commitment for good

design will not be able to persuade colleagues both

within the organization and the wider system of pro-

duction of the commercial and social beneﬁts that

design quality can offer.

As will be seen in the case studies where there is a

State Architect ofﬁce in place, the selection process

for the State Architect position is very demanding, fol-

lowing a series of steps and interviews procedures

based on multi-criteria assessment, evaluating things

such as personality, ability to solve complex problems

and communication skills.

4. THE RISE OF

STATE ARCHITECT

TEAMS

The previous chapter introduced the theoretical back-

ground on design governance and spatial design

leadership that will be used as a framework to analyse

the different models of State Architect (or similar)

teams on each of the ﬁve case studies. Considering

the aims of this research – to examine the role, instru-

ments and impact of State Architect teams (or similar

bodies) in fostering spatial quality and a place-making

culture -, this chapter intends to provide a snapshot

of the different State Architect teams in Europe and

beyond. As was the case with design champions, the

position of State Architect team is an old tradition on

several countries and states around the globe, while

in others this position as just been recently created.

Similarly, the main functions vary across these local

contexts as each position tries to address speciﬁc

local issues and particularities, but there are certainly

also common elements and apparent inﬂuences across

regions and borders.

25 THE RISE OF STATE ARCHITECT TEAMSBACK TO INDEX

4.1 THE ROLE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT

At the global level there are many national and state

governments that have a public ofﬁcial within its admin-

istrative organisation entitled ‘State Architect’ or ‘Chief

Government Architect’ (for now on, only referred as

State Architect). The State Architect is often supported

by a small team composed of a group of ofﬁcials and

administrative staff, whose size and structure varies

according with its speciﬁc competencies (Bento,

2012). The State Architect and its subordinates usu-

ally form an organizational unit with the same name of

the State Architect (e.g. the Ofﬁce of the State Archi-

tect, Division of the State Architect, Chief Government

Architect Team, or similar).

Although the speciﬁc competences and areas of

responsibility of a State Architect vary according

with the national/state context, they normally involve

responsibility for the design and/or construction of

public buildings. With expansion of the welfare state,

governments needed to plan and built a wide range

of public facilities, such as administrative buildings,

schools, universities, hospitals, medical centres, justice

courts, defence and security buildings, etc. Therefore,

there was a practical need to have someone respon-

sible for the design of public buildings, usually within

the Ofﬁce of Public Works or similar body in charge

for the planning and development of public amenities.

This means that the State Architect will work closely

with other technical departments constituted by a wide

variety of professionals (e.g. structural and safety engi-

neers, surveyors, urban planners, etc.) as well ﬁnancial

or law departments.

However, the need for proper facilities for performing

state activities is shared by all sectors and levels of the

administration, involving almost all public policies of the

state, such as education, health, justice, defence, etc.

In many countries, each sectoral area has its own small

public works department responsible for the manage-

ment and maintenance of their sectoral building stock,

while in other countries this is centralized in major

building and property agencies3.

Regardless of the size and distribution of the architec-

ture pie slices, most of these state departments do not

have the capacity to prepare the designs and speciﬁ-

cations for larger public (as in, state-owned) building

projects. In this sense, the ofﬁce of the State Architect

helps in the process of selecting and overseeing the

work of architectural ﬁrms contracted by the state. Fol-

lowing this phase, in some cases it also helps review-

3 Danish Building and Property Agency

ing and approving designs prepared by private-sector

architects.

Taking in consideration the wide range of sectoral

departments involve in design, the role of the State

Architect is to provide leadership and strategic advice

to Government to improve the design of public build-

ings and spaces. Besides planning and design-

ing public buildings, the State Architect is also usu-

ally called to provide advice to the government about

building regulations or other related legislation. It also

contributes to policy and design advocacy, namely in

the deﬁnition and development of architecture and built

environment policy.

Although the speciﬁc functions of a State Architect

may vary from state to state, it may include:

• Preparing designs and speciﬁcations for state-

owned building or renovation projects;

• Selecting and overseeing the work of architectural

ﬁrms contracted by the public sector to prepare

designs and speciﬁcations for state-owned build-

ing projects;

• Reviewing and approving designs prepared by pri-

vate-sector architects for buildings owned by the

state such as schools, courts, hospitals, etc;

• Providing advice and participate in the develop-

ment of building codes and regulations;

• Developing and managing public funds for state

building construction programs;

• Coordinating and providing inspection programs

for public building projects.

It should be noted that the State Architect (or similar)

teams are normally separated from the licensing board

or professional institutions responsible for regulating

the profession through rules of admission (like exams)

and for licensing practicing architects in the country/

state. In some countries, such as in the United King-

dom, a person may only practise or carry on business

under any name using the word architect if it has the

title of architect registered at the Architects Registra-

tion Board.

4.2 THE STATE ARCHITECTS IN EUROPE

Speciﬁc case studies from Europe are of course the

focus of this report, presented in later sections. For

a brief overview of State Architects globally however,

it would be useful to take here a very quick glimpse

across the European panorama. This is just regarding

speciﬁcally the role of state or government architects,

in example places where that exists; and not the formal

government structures dealing with architecture & built

environment policy, such as ministries or departments

– although there are many cases where such depart-

ments take on some of the roles mentioned in the pre-

vious section, to varying extents.

The Netherlands have had a Chief Architect since the

beginning of the nineteenth century, under one name

or another (Netherlands, 2006). Nowadays, the Dutch

Chief Architect is assisted by a Board of Government

Advisors and a small staff team. Among other tasks,

the Chief Architect promotes and monitors the urban

integration and architectural quality of all government

buildings, harmonizing architecture with urban and

rural planning, monument preservation and the use of

art works.

The position of the Chief Architect of the Netherlands

later served as inﬂuence for regions of Belgium to

establish their own version of the post, called ‘Bou-

wmeester’, starting with Flanders at the end of the

1990s, which is one of this research case studies.

Then in 2007 the position was also introduced in Wal-

lonia leading to the creation of the ‘Architecture Cell of

the Wallonia-Brussels Federation’ and kept spreading

across the country. In 2009 the Brussels Government

chose their own ﬁrst Bouwmeester for a ﬁve-year term,

Charleroi followed soon after and Gent is expected to

follow suit.

In a case that will also be discussed in more detail later,

the Irish policy established the position of State Archi-

tect in 2009, essentially as an upgrade of the previous

position of ‘principal architect’ within a speciﬁc depart-

ment. Elsewhere, while the position does not ofﬁ-

cially exist today, Iceland’s ﬁrst State Architect Gudjón

Samúelsson (1887-1950) designed important public

building such as the National Theatre.

More recently, in September 2018, Sweden´s govern-

ment has appointed it ﬁrst national architect, who will

be responsible by the supervision of the new national

architecture policy for Sweden4.

4.3 STATE ARCHITECTS ELSEWHER E

In the United States of America there is a long tradition

of chief architect ofﬁce. At the federal level, there is a

chief architect for the Public Buildings Service (PBS),

of the General Services Administration (GSA). Consid-

ered one of the most inﬂuential architectural roles in the

government, the chief architect oversees thousands

of PBS owned and leased assets. At the state level,

4 Sweden’s National Bill for architecture and design

(Prop. 2017/18: 110)

there are several states that have the position of State

Architect: Ohio, California, Colorado and Tennessee,

to mention just a few.

The Division of the State Architect (DSA) of California

provides design and construction oversight for public

schools, community colleges, and various other state-

owned and leased facilities. The division also develops

accessibility, structural safety, and historical building

codes and standards utilized in various public and pri-

vate buildings throughout the state of California.

The Ofﬁce of the State Architect (OSA) of Colorado

is statutorily responsible for the administration of state

funded planning, construction, energy conservation

and real estate transactions at state agencies and insti-

tutions of higher education. Additional responsibilities

include: establishing policies and procedures, provid-

ing technical support and training, recommending the

annual controlled maintenance state-wide budget and

state agency capital construction budget requests to

the Governor’s Ofﬁce of State Planning and Budgeting

and the Capital Development Committee of the general

assembly.

The other place where the position of State Architects

is well established is Australia. Australia employs a

Government Architect for each of its territories except

for Tasmania, where the position was established 2009

but went under review and ﬁnally lapsed when its holder

resigned in 20125. New South Wales, Queensland and

Western Australia have had Government Architects

(under various names) since the 19th century, while the

Northern Territory, Victoria and Capital Territory posi-

tions were created after 2000.

Each territory ofﬁce is different, with slight variations in

its role and responsibilities. In general, though, the gov-

ernment architects’ duties involve providing advice and

expert opinion/evaluation on particular projects as well

as fostering collaborative relationships with external

bodies (universities, cultural foundations etc.). Advice

and consultation are provided to other governmental

bodies; government architects might assess private

development proposals but they don’t, as a general

rule, engage with private developers in the design pro-

cess. Also shared across territories is the responsibil-

ity to champion design quality and to promote the role

of, and appreciation for, architecture and urban design.

Finally, one rather unique element in the Australian case

5 https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/industry-news/

tasmanian-government-architect-resigns-position-un [accessed

20/09/18]

27 THE RISE OF STATE ARCHITECT TEAMSBACK TO INDEX

that is worth mentioning speciﬁcally is that the Gov-

ernment Architects are connected through a formalised

network, the Government Architects Network of Aus-

tralia (GANA)6. This is a national collaborative exchange

platform, with annual meetings, whose aim is to facili-

tate knowledge and information exchange between

the different ofﬁces and to enable them to beneﬁt from

each other’s experience, skills and resources.

4.4 OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES

Several countries have been supporting cultural orga-

nizations directly engaged with the promotion and

awareness of architectural culture. One of the main

aims of the architectural polices is to create a favour-

able climate for the generation of design quality. To do

so, they aim to raise awareness of the general public,

which in turn will have an impact on the quality of the

built environment by raising consumers (clients, buyers,

communities) expectations about the quality of design.

In this sense, the recognition of the importance of

communicating the value of Architecture to the gen-

eral public has led several governments to ﬁnancially

support new cultural organizations, mainly through the

ministries of culture, obtaining the remaining funding

from privative sponsorship and donations.

In this sense, cultural institutions have been develop-

ing programmes targeting different audiences, such

as young generations (via school workshops, teach-

ing materials etc.), professional designers (lectures,

debates, etc.) and wider public (exhibitions, open

houses, TV programmes, etc.). Although the scale and

concept differ between the different bodies, their main

objective is to present and provide information about

architecture and urban matters, creating spaces for

debate about the future of the built environment.

To ensure that design quality is a core aim of all state

departments and agencies many cities and municipali-

ties have created an architectural advisory body to pro-

mote design quality within the public sector. The con-

ﬁguration and competence of these bodies changes

considerably from country to country depending on

administrative structure and preferences of domestic

actors. Nevertheless, all have the general principle that

the state should lead by example, being a role model

for society as a building promoter, client and property

owner.

A characteristic example is that of Scotland and the

A+DS, which was brieﬂy mentioned already and will

be revisited when examining this case study. A+DS

6 http://www.gana.gov.au/

was established particularly to champion the highest

standards in architecture and placemaking, advocat-

ing a better understanding of the importance of quality

design in both the public and private sectors. A+DS

works through six programmes to advocate the ben-

eﬁts of excellence in design, including urban design,

design review, school design and healthcare design.

Other similar examples from different national contexts

include the following:

Ministerial Advisory Group on Architecture and

the Built Environment (Northern Ireland)

In 2006, the Northern Ireland government adopted the

Policy for Architecture and the Built Environment and

in 2007 established a publicly appointed group of pro-

fessionals. Now comprising a Chair, 7 Members and

21 Specialist Advisors, the Ministerial Advisory Group

(MAG) advises on the implementation and develop-

ment of the Policy.

The MAG Group undertakes its roles in a number of

ways including: brieﬁng and design workshops, design

reviews, consultation responses, site visits, sympo-

siums, position papers, research, advising and working

with government departments and district councils

Cellule Architecture (Wallonia – Belgium)

The missions of the Cellule architecture are articulated

around three main objectives:

I. Guarantee architectural quality in buildings and

spaces accessible to the public, by promoting a

creative architecture, integrating environmental

and energy performance, and by using the disci-

plines associated with architecture such as land-

scape, furniture design and signage, scenography,

etc.

To achieve this, the Architecture Unit accompa-

nies the implementation processes of the designer

designation contracts (assistance with the drafting

of programs, identiﬁcation of constraints, estab-

lishment of favourable conditions for the smooth

running of teams’ competition, communication,

etc.). The objective is to give the buildings of the

Wallonia-Brussels Federation to those it co-ﬁ-

nances or whose design it accompanies an exem-

plary value for the community.

The Architecture Unit has developed a series of

standard documents in a practical guide (choice

of procedure, terms of reference, timeline, organ-

ization of the jury, pre-analysis framework for the

ﬁles, sample selection PV and attribution, etc.) that

facilitate the work of local operators. Meetings with

the Walloon regional tutelage have also clariﬁed

its position, which is now in line with this way of

proceeding.

II. Support and develop the integration of works of

art in public buildings; for which we will not go into

detail here, and ﬁnally,

III. Promote architecture as a cultural discipline,

through a policy of implementation and support

for both public and private initiatives involved in

the identiﬁcation, promotion and enhancement of

architecture and its associated disciplines

MIQCP | Inter-ministerial Mission for the

Quality of Public Buildings (France)

MIQCP was created in 1977 to promote quality in

the public construction sector, which is considered

to include any new or maintenance work on buildings,

infrastructures and open spaces under the responsi-

bility of the State or local authorities. MIQCP works

mainly by bringing together different actors involved in

built environment projects, and its speciﬁc actions fall

under ﬁve key themes:

i. Client involvement, where the main goal

is to mobilise all clients and to foster pro-

ductive relationships with state and local

authorities, using its position as an impar-

tial body to mediate where necessary. In

this, the MIQCP acts as the expert con-

sultant, involved in the all stages of the

development process prior to actually

breaking ground, as well as in design

competitions.

ii. Contribution to the evolution of proce-

dures, which refers to general and speciﬁc

regulatory frameworks. MIQCP advises

on the preparation of legislation, engages

with professional bodies and acts as a

resource centre open to public clients and

project consultants.

iii. Training and increasing awareness, which

includes training courses and consul-

tations open to clients and professional

bodies, on themes such as the challenges

of maintaining design quality and the train-

ing of jury members for competitions.

iv. Communications, including undertaking

and publishing research, weighing in on

current problems, issuing recommenda-

tions etc.

v. and ﬁnally, sharing experience on an inter-

national level, by promoting the French

concept of ‘savoir-faire’ beyond the nation

and participating in discussions on harmo-

nizing policy and practices across Europe.

Local architecture advisory bodies

Some countries have created local architectural advi-

sory bodies dedicated to promoting design quality at

the local level. Some of these bodies give free tech-

nical advice to clients and local authorities as others

charge a small commission for their expert service,

such as helping to set up architectural competitions

(Bento, 2012). For example, the Netherlands created

the Architectuur Lokaal foundation, an independent

centre of expertise and information devoted to commis-

sioning building development in the Netherlands. This

lightweight structure (10 people) is subsidised by four

Ministries concerning architecture (culture, town plan-

ning, environment and transport), and is in contact with

both public and private clients: these include the local

authorities as well as real estate developers and private

individuals involved in building operations. AL mission

is to act as a link between national policies and local

practices, to help local agents apply national policies

as well as incorporate local practices and experience

into national decisions.

City architects

Several municipalities have appointed City Architects to

develop work as local authority design champions explic-

itly tasked with providing design leadership. According

with Tiesdell (2011), design leadership involves culti-

vating the conditions under which place-making rises

up the urban agenda, enabling better outcomes on the

ground. As will be seen in the Danish case, there are 7

cities in Denmark that have appointed a City Architect.

The same has happened in The Netherlands, where

several cities created with this position, as well as in

other northern European countries. For example, Riga’s

City Architect Ofﬁce has the following mission:

“to facilitate well-balanced and sustainable devel-

opment of Riga’s urban environment by improving

the work of municipality in supervision of archi-

tectural quality – upgrading the set of admin-

istrative instruments and maintaining a regular,

open, timely, comprehensive and professional

29 SPATIAL DESIGN LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE: FIVE CASE STUDIESBACK TO INDEX

discussion about the ideas and projects that are

signiﬁcant to the community and popularising the

best achievements in Latvian architecture in other

countries and cities.” (Riga, 2005)

Although with a different nature, the Mayor of London

Sadiq Khan has just appointed 50 Mayor’s Design

Advocates to work on the Good Growth by Design

programme, an architecture and spatial design strategy

of Great London Authority. According with the Mayors

webpage, the aim is for London’s public organisations

to create quality buildings and public spaces that will

enrich London’s communities now and in the future.

They will support London authority and address the

challenges facing’s our built environment.7

7 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/regeneration/advice-and-

guidance/about-good-growth-design (accessed 15/8/2018)

5. SPATIAL DESIGN

LEADERSHIP IN

PRACTICE: FIVE

CASE STUDIES

As discussed in the previous chapter, the position of

State Architect and its supporting teams has long been

established in several countries and states around the

world (e.g. USA or Australia). In several others, the State

Architect is a relatively recent position within national or

state public administration. In addition, in the European

context this is still the exception and mostly a northern

European phenomenon. As such, some questions can

be raised about the role and importance of such a posi-

tion. Which are the practical advantages of having a

State Architect? Does government need a State Archi-

tect position to deliver good spatial design leadership?

If yes, what are its main competences and instruments?

Last but not least, what has been the impact of State

Architects on processes of design governance?

This is the type of questions to which this chapter will

try to provide an answer. As explained in Section 2.3,

besides three states that have a State Architect team

– Flanders, Ireland and Scotland – it was decided to

also select two additional states that do not have such

a position – Austria and Denmark –, with the aim to

explore their design governance system, the design

advisor teams that may exist and the way in which gov-

ernmental spatial design leadership takes place. Fol-

lowing this approach, it would be possible to compare

models of spatial design leadership that feature State

Architect teams with models that provide spatial design

leadership in other ways.

In this context, this Chapter will describe the ﬁve

selected case studies. For each of them, there will be

a brief description of the public policy on architecture

and objectives, the main actors and its design policy

tools, as well as other relevant actors. The following

chapters will carry out a comparative analysis on the

different models found, in their main differences and

similarities. The ﬁrst (Chapter 6) will discuss the main

advantages of having a State Architect team, the main

policy instruments and any limitations. The second

(Chapter 7) will look across the ﬁve case studies and

discuss the importance of spatial design leadership.

Finally, a last chapter will present some conclusions on

the role, instruments and impact of States Architect (or

similar) teams in fostering a placemaking culture.

31 SPATIAL DESIGN LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE: FIVE CASE STUDIESBACK TO INDEX

5.1 THE IRISH CASE

5.1.1 The architectural policy of Ireland

The development of the ﬁrst Irish architectural policy

goes back to early nineties, when a working group of

experts was set up within the Royal Institute of the

Architects of Ireland (RIAI) to prepare a policy draft

and deliver it to the government. These efforts led to

the establishment of a governmental interdepartmen-

tal working group that developed a public consultation

document, which was approved by the Council of Min-

isters in 1996. This ﬁrst step represented a major mile-

stone for the Irish policy development as, for the ﬁrst

time, Ireland had an ofﬁcial document at the national

level recognizing the social and cultural importance of

architecture.

Fig. 3 – Irish public consultation document

on architectural policy (1996)

Despite these initial steps, it would take seven years for

the adoption of the ﬁrst formal Irish architectural policy.

In 1997, four months after the consultation process, a

ﬁrst architecture policy statement was approved set-

ting the basis for an action programme. However, due

to several political changes, only in 2000 a new inter-

departmental working group was established to deﬁne

concrete policy actions and initiatives. Finally, in 2002,

Ireland’s ﬁrst policy on architecture was adopted, under

the title: Action on Architecture 2002-2005.

Fig. 4 – First Irish architectural policy (2002)

As its name suggests, the ﬁrst formal Irish architectural

policy deﬁned a programme embracing action. The pol-

icy’s main aim was ‘to place architecture higher on the

political and cultural agenda and in so doing to remove

impediments to the achievement of a built environment

of good quality’ (Ireland, 2002, p. 5). However, at the

end of its implementation period in 2005, the policy’s

lack of practical results began to come to light. One

of the reasons for this was a strong restructuring of

the Irish government in 2002. The Department of Arts

ceased to exist and the architectural policy respon-

sibilities were transferred to the new Department of

Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Con-

sequently, only some of the actions envisaged would

come to fruition (Mee & Wakely, 2008, p. 24).8

Nevertheless, the architectural policy action 11, which

provided for the creation of a new Virtual Architecture

Centre, would facilitate the establishment of the Irish

Architecture Foundation (IAF), in 2005. As such, in an

indirect way, the ﬁrst Irish architectural policy facilitated

the creation of the IAF, enabling an institutional part-

nership between public and private actors in which

everyone contributed with a certain amount to support

the new Irish Architecture Foundation ﬁnancially, which

agreement is still maintained today.

After the implementation period of the ﬁrst architec-

tural policy, which ran from 2002 to 2005, work on the

development of a revised policy on architecture com-

menced. In October 2007, the government appointed a

steering committee with representatives from a broad

spectrum of the public and private sectors and three

focus groups. A series of public consultation meetings

coordinated by the IAF were held throughout the coun-

try, and a website was created as part of the public

consultation process. Finally, in June 2009, the gov-

ernment adopted the new policy entitled Towards a

sustainable future: Delivering quality within the built

environment.

Fig. 5 – Second Irish architectural policy (2009)

8 One of the few Architectural policy actions delivered was the creation

of a biennial award aimed at young practitioners.

Building on the previous policy, the 2009 policy docu-

ment introduced 15 new key policy statements, plac-

ing more emphasis on sustainable development and

urban design. As such, the concept of place-making

is more central than in the previous version. Never-

theless, it continues to ‘encourage and support high

quality modern architecture, incorporating architec-

tural heritage in a holistic, integrated manner’ (Ireland,

2009, p. 2). In addition, the new policy continues to

promote ‘awareness and understanding of the contri-

bution of good design to the daily life and well-being

of society as a whole’ (Ibidem, p. 6). The revised policy

contains 45 actions divided into six parts, covering a

number of recurring themes. Its implementation pro-

gramme extends for seven years and the execution of

its actions is distributed among several public and pri-

vate stakeholders.

Unlike the ﬁrst period, there was a strong commitment

from the government to implement the policy action

plan. One of the factors that contributed to the good

levels of success was the ability to work across differ-

ent departments. Considering the transversal aims of

the GPA, one of the main difﬁculties in policy imple-

mentation is to get enough political support to be able

to persuade the different departments and state agen-

cies to follow and execute the assigned policy actions.

As will be seen, this problem cuts across all the case

studies.

One of the ﬁrst actions that was put in place was the

change of title of the Principal Architect in the Ofﬁce

of Public Works (OPW) to State Architect of Ireland

(GPA Action 6). Besides the change in the title, the

State Architect also held a higher position in OPW

hierarchy. To improve the co-ordination of the policy

implementation, two structures were also established:

1) an Advisory Committee, a high-level advisory group

of stakeholders/partners to advise the government on

policy actions delivery and implementation; and 2) the

Implementation Group, an inter-sectoral platform that

managed aspects concerning the implementation of the

actions as required. In addition, to administer the policy

and better coordinate the actions, it was decided to

have a full-time person responsible for monitoring the

policy actions on an ongoing basis. The higher number

of actors involved in the delivery of the actions is note-

worthy, which may be a problem if the partners do not

collaborate. This will be examined in the next chapter.

5.1.2 The State Architect of Ireland:

role and instruments

As mentioned above, one of the ﬁrst measures put in

place by the second Irish architectural policy was the

change of title from Principal Architect in the Ofﬁce

of Public Works (OPW) to State Architect of Ireland.

According to the Irish architectural policy (2009), the

State Architect is responsible for ‘leading and man-

aging the OPW architectural team, with oversight of

the architectural input to construction projects, mainte-

nance of the quality of the fabric of the state’s property

portfolio and the conservation of heritage properties

in state care, as well as being the main advisor to the

Government in relation to architectural matters.

The Architectural Services division of the OPW is in

charge of architectural design, construction and sup-

port services for most public facilities except schools

and hospitals, and develops a wide range of projects,

including major restoration and refurbishment projects

for historic properties and cultural institutions, ofﬁce

accommodation for government departments and

other agencies, police stations, prisons, social welfare

ofﬁces, etc. Besides managing the Architectural Ser-

vices, the State Architect role also includes the follow-

ing functions:

• advising on the implementation of the Architecture

Policy Actions;

• contributing to the Government Construction

Contracts Committee (GCCC) to developing pro-

curement and contracting policies in support of

design quality in State funded projects;

• advising on legislation and regulations affecting

quality in architecture and the built environment;

• give unrequested advice regarding the design

quality of all infrastructural programmes.

In this sense, the State Architect assumes a multi-fac-

eted role leading the Architectural Services of the

OPW and promoting a culture of best practice inside

the state. In short, his role is to champion design quality

in public buildings, similarly to other States Architects

elsewhere (see chapter 4).

At ﬁrst glance, the change of the title by itself does

not seem to have much impact on how the other state

departments manage the design quality of their own

construction works. However, the current State Archi-

tect mentioned that the new title has given him a stron-

ger position inside the government as well as the abil-

ity to persuade other departments to raise the design

quality of their projects (2018: interview). In fact, the

State Architect sits at the board of OPW administra-

tion at the same level as the other ﬁrst line directors

reporting directly to the general manager. Therefore,

33 SPATIAL DESIGN LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE: FIVE CASE STUDIESBACK TO INDEX

his power of inﬂuence across OPW was reinforced

in terms of hierarchy, which also give him more status

inside the wider public administration (Ibidem).

The current State Architect of Ireland mentioned that

the new title has brought on a reinforced authority

to demand better buildings from other departments,

which otherwise would not feel obliged to receive

advice from someone outside their organization (2018:

interview). In this framework, he mentioned that the

status of State Architect has helped him in several sit-

uations, for example in meetings with different groups

or in making an argument for the need to pay greater

attention to design quality (Ibidem). Regarding public

agencies responsible for public-private partnerships

for example, which generally say that they do not have

to follow his advice because they are a different organi-

zation, the State Architect explained that “if they do not

[agree to] raise the design standards he would go to

the ofﬁce of the Prime Minister and complain that they

are not cooperating (ibid.).”

An additional perspective on the signiﬁcance of the

title was offered by Kathryn Meghen, the director of the

RIAI, who pointed out that it also carried a symbolic

importance, both within the country and as a senior

representative abroad (2018: interview). In her words,

“it shows an acknowledgement by the government that

they value what architects have to contribute” (Ibid).

In terms of his position within the ofﬁcial government

structure (as opposed to an independent role found

in other case studies), the Irish State Architect (2018:

interview) believes that it is vital for his work, mainly

because it means he gets to be part of policy making

early on in the process. In his view, having his ofﬁce be

part of the formal government structure means that the

State Architect is not a political appointment, afﬁliated

with any particular party, and can therefore ensure con-

sistency and maintain his inﬂuence as expert across

government changes.

Following the discussion on chapter 3 about design

leadership, it is possible to conclude that the position

of State Architect, attributed to someone with a rec-

ognized ‘professional status’, plays an important role

in championing design quality throughout the govern-

mental structure. To achieve this, it is necessary to have

a continuous action that is not awarded legal status

and cannot be measured in terms of speciﬁc outputs.

Most of these soft actions include informal talks with

key actors, convincing them for the need to raise stan-

dards and adopt a long-term approach towards a more

social and environmentally sustainable built outcomes.

Selection procedure

The position of State Architect in Ireland is a seven-year

mandate. According to the State Architect, the selec-

tion and appointment procedure is very demanding,

including several stages and interviews (2018: inter-

view). Applicants are required to take an aptitude test

and, in the ﬁnal stage, to present their vision for what

they want to achieve during their tenure and answer

questions on that. The application is publicly advertised

and open to anyone, including international applicants.

5.1.3 Other relevant actors

Built Heritage and Architectural Policy

Unit / Department of heritage

The Built Heritage and Architectural Policy Unit is

responsible for the development and cross-sectoral

coordination of the Government Policy on Architec-

ture 2009-2015 implementation, which involves ongo-

ing interdepartmental and agency co-operation. The

work requires the involvement of: the Department of

the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; the

Department of Education and Skills; the Department of

Arts, Sport and Tourism; the Department of Finance;

the OPW, professional bodies and institutions such as

the RIAI and the IAF; state agencies etc.

It also assumes the following functions and services:

• Providing an administrative, policy and legislative

framework to protect architectural heritage as a

national resource;

• Promoting increased public awareness and appre-

ciation of architecture and national built heritage;

• Ensuring that built heritage is conserved, managed

and planned, for an effective, sustainable manage-

ment of heritage resources;

• Promoting best practice in contemporary architec-

ture and urban design.

Irish Architecture Foundation (IAF)

As mentioned, in an indirect way, the ﬁrst Irish architec-

tural policy facilitated the creation of the IAF, enabling

an institutional partnership between public and private

actors in which everyone contributed with a certain

amount to support the new IAF ﬁnancially (Table 2).

Table 2 – Principal Core Funding

Contributions to IAF in 2008

Source Amount €

Arts Council 58,000

DOEHLG 60,000

Dublin City Council 30,000

Ofﬁce of Public Works 30,000

RIAI 50,000

TOTAL 228,000

(based on the Report of the Arts Council

Public Engagement & Architecture, 2008)

Following the discussion on chapter 3, IAF constitutes

a national design champion promoting the cultural value

of architecture and advocating for better design in the

built environment. Among several initiatives aimed at

broader audiences, it organizes expositions, educa-

tional programmes, etc. According to its website, the

IAF is a “focal point for the many people and organi-

sations that wish to champion the power of architec-

ture to transform lives and improve the places where

we live and work. Through a programme of self-initi-

ated events, it inspires people to become thoughtful

and engaged stewards of the visual landscape.”

As such, the IAF has become an important player in the

Irish context. Recalling its mission, its strategic focus

is to promote the value of architecture and engage the

public in design. Soon after its establishment, the IAF

managed the Loving Architecture festival (2005) and

since 2006 it has managed the Open House, offering

the public an opportunity to visit buildings of architec-

tural interest. In 2008, the IAF was responsible for man-

aging the public consultation process on behalf of the

government, aimed at informing the development of a

new national architecture policy, while also co-curating

Ireland’s entry to the Venice Biennale of Architecture.

Considering that IAF is a small organization, with only

two full-time staff, its importance seems to exceed its

current capabilities. The Foundation is linked to the

State Architect’s ofﬁce, by means of ﬁnancial as well

as operational support and board membership. As in

other case studies, this relationship between the State

Architect team and an external cultural body seems to

be beneﬁcial for both parties.

Arts Council / Architecture division

The Architecture division of the Irish Arts Council pro-

motes a national programme entitled ‘Engagement with

Architecture’, which provides funding for speciﬁc archi-

tecture culture initiatives aiming to enhance the pub-

lic’s experience of architecture. They also offer travel

& training awards as well as an open call for exper-

imental, ambitious projects. These schemes can be

awarded to architecture-related projects, but they are

open to a range of artistic ﬁelds and practices – and,

as such, it’s not the built environment per se that is their

focus, rather the cultural dimension of architecture.

Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI)

The RIAI is the professional body responsible for the

regulation of the profession, ensuring that standards

are put in place and upheld. They are also active in two

further areas, supporting and promoting. Supporting

refers to the representation of the views of Ireland’s

architects on a wide range of industry bodies and inter-

national organisation, while promoting includes events

and awards, producing guidelines for architectural

practice and supporting its members.

35 SPATIAL DESIGN LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE: FIVE CASE STUDIESBACK TO INDEX

Kevin Street Divisional Garda

(Police) Headquarters

Architect:

OPW Architects

Year: 2018

Location:

Dublin, Ireland

Photographer:

Artur Sikora

Ceide Fields Visitor Center

Architect:

OPW Architects

Year: 1993

Location:

County Mayo, Ireland

Masterplan And Landscaping

For Backweston Laboratory

Campus

Architects:

OPW Architects

Location:

Celbridge, Co.kildare, Ireland

Year: 2005

Wexford Garda (Police)

Regional Headquarters

Architect:

OPW Architects

Year: 2018

Location:

Wexford, Ireland

Photographer:

Aisling Mccoy

Kevin Street Divisional Garda

(Police) Headquarters

Architect:

OPW Architects

Year: 2018

Location:

Dublin, Ireland

Photographer:

Artur Sikora

Waterford Courthouse

Architect:

OPW Architects

Year: 2018

Location:

Waterford, Ireland

Conservation maintenance

and management works

at Skellig Michael (Sceilg

Mhichíl) (Unesco World

Heritage Site)

Architect:

OPW National Monuments

Location:

Ireland

OPW grant funds the Irish

Architectural Archive to the

sum of €30,000 annually

The mission of the IAA is to collect

and preserve material of every kind

relating to the architecture of the

entire island of Ireland, and make it

available to the public.

The collections housed by the

Archive comprise the largest body

of historic architectural records

in Ireland and as such constitute

a vital national cultural resource.

They include the most signiﬁcant

body of historic Irish architectural

drawings in the world, with in

excess of 2.5 million drawings and