There's a perennial discussion in architecture forums like the WWISA about the role of the architect, and the discussion regularly degenerates into a debate between the broad and narrow views of what the architect does.
But I'm not sure that's the key question. I think the right question is "who are the architects?" Somehow, a number of tasks must be discharged, but how varies from project to project.
An architect can do any of three things in a development, whether that development is software or building construction:
Somehow, the set of "architects" on a development have to cover off all three activities. However, the "set of architects" can include "client thinking about architecture", "builder thinking about architecture" and "architect who works for someone else".
In the last year I've had a modest building project which tells an interesting story about how different people contribute to "the architecture".
In any area with high property prices (such as the South East of England) it's common for buildings to expand over time, progressively extracting more "value" from a given site. Over 50 years something like our bungalow can easily double in size - these are major changes at the structural layer of Stuart Brand's model. (Over a slightly longer period the site layer changes as well, typically as sites get divided.) Buildings change just as radically as software, only usually over a much longer time.
So we had our loft converted into new rooms. We did it in two stages - the front a few years ago, followed by the rear and new staircase.
The front was designed by a professional architect (with letters after his name). He produced the design, got planning approval, contracted a structural engineer, got building regulations approval and wrote the formal spec for the builders. We then found a builder and project managed the build. The result was fine, and does a great job of hiding the house behind a deceptively small and quaint front aspect, almost like the TARDIS.
However, when it came to the second stage, we took a different route. I didn't want another small room full of odd angles, as proposed by the original architect, and realised that a small change to the roofline would give us a large clear room, and about another 100 square feet.
Having sold the idea to the sanctioning authority (my wife), I then prepared new high level plans, mainly by Photoshopping the old ones, and these were adequate to get planning approval.
Building regulations approval requires more formality, so we engaged the structural engineer directly to calculate beam sizes etc., and create a set of formal, detailed plans. The structural engineer made his own architectural suggestions. One, to move the new internal walls slightly and create more space, we happily accepted. Another, repositioning the bathroom, we rejected as it would have spoiled the architectural integrity of our new space.
The build mainly followed the plans. However the builder persuaded us to change the materials for one wall, and increased the specification of some beams to allow for my weightlifting equipment. An intrusive buttress from the first stage was a problem, and he and I jointly designed a way to redirect the loads so it could be removed. Thus refactoring happens in building construction just as it does in iterative software development.
As in software, there's a challenge to maintain and ideally improve the architectural purity in the face of change. We still have a bungalow with 45 degree roof pitch and within the building line of the adjacent properties. But we've also managed to get rid of the flat roof over the lounge added in the 1970s.
All this resonates with my experience as a software architect. Good solution ideas come from many different players, and the true architect must combine these into an attractive, coherent vision. Parts of the architecture may be delegated to others, particularly specialists in a particular technology or process. And others will contribute to the architecture's evolution over time.
So who are the architects? Many people contribute to an architecture. You could say they are all architects. "The Architect", if there is one, is the person who guides these contributions into the whole.
If you'd like to comment on this article, with ideas, examples, or just to praise it to the skies then I'd love to hear from you.
© Questa Computing Ltd. 2005
Page last updated 14 May, 2015 13:35