Reflections on Fifty years in Architecture

This year marks 50 years since I first earned a living doing what I love, so how did I get an OBE for that? And why did my late partner, Richard Feilden receive one 25 years ago? It’s a good question, and one that I have been reflecting on over the last month.

In Richard’s case it was more evident why he received an honour. It was for public service to the RIBA, dragging it kicking and screaming into the late 20th century- and for his work on raising design quality with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Why I should get one is maybe slightly less explicable. The Cabinet Office says nothing more than "for services to architecture" but I would like to think that my award reflects the environmentally responsive stance that dates from when we first started the practice.
 
For me that began at Cambridge where, together with Richard, we first had the notion that architects had an ability to change both the lives of people, and our impact on the planet. Yale University then kindled my interest in the use of solar energy in buildings. Strange as it may seem now, our primary concern when we set up the practice was that fossil fuels would run out and ‘alternative’ sources of energy would need to be found to replace them. We were aware of the ‘acid rain’ caused by burning coal, but we had been practicing for about a decade before we learned about the impact of fossil fuels on global warming. Our earliest experimental work, with EU research grants, was based around passive solar design maximising the winter heat gains from south-facing glazing walls and roofs.

In 1985, we discovered that by constructing homes and measuring their heat loss, we had been designing them to Passivhaus standards, long before the term even existed. We also discovered that ‘superinsulation’ airtightness and MVHR provided a more cost-effective approach to what we began to call ‘low carbon’ design.
 
It was this early research work that attracted the interests of clients such as Greenpeace and the Building Research Establishment, as well as the National Trust where we were privileged to work with the formidable Fiona Reynolds who transformed her organisation by creating a new headquarters which would bring all its employees ‘under one roof‘.

What intrigued us about this project was that not only was it the first major office complex where the roof itself introduced natural light, ventilation and PV electricity generation, but the concept of the building also transformed the organisation that occupied it. So the architecture was leading the way in providing both social and environmental impact. We monitored the building and its occupants two and then ten years after completion. There were minor issues around the environmental controls but the passive systems worked well, despite that fact that occupation of the building had increased to 50% more than the design target. Resilience is everything!
 
Shortly after, we began work on the Accordia housing project in Cambridge. Although I had very little to do with this project (at some stage maybe those responsible for giving out the honours will recognise that Keith Bradley has been responsible for all the projects that have got us onto Stirling shortlists!), it clearly met the social and environmental ambitions of the practice. The environmental aspects of the scheme were more focused around shared landscape spaces and the development of multi-level garden spaces. And post-occupancy social research studies showed a significant sense of community cohesion that was created around these areas.
 
We have been lucky to have enjoyed working on projects that have played to our interests, though some would say we have also made our own luck . The idea for a new city library and archive for Worcester that also doubled as a university library and provided learning spaces for children seemed to us to be an ideal brief, particularly as the client was also committed to reducing operational carbon emissions. What emerged was one of our most experimental projects combining a river-source heat pump and biomass heating with a wind-assisted naturally ventilated building. Its patterns of use and energy performance have defied expectations, and it continues to outperform many MVHR buildings that we have produced more recently.

As the climate crisis closes in on us the dilemma we face as architects is one of assessing whether any kind of building is justifiable when you take into account embodied carbon costs. Even though we are making huge strides towards decarbonising the electricity grid which will help reduce operation carbon, the construction industry itself is responsible for 10% of our current carbon emissions.

CLT based projects like Stephen Taylor Court which we can prove will be carbon negative for the next ten years are obviously easier to justify, one is hopeful that even without the PV installations we obtained planning permission for, the grid will have become decarbonised to meet the ongoing zero carbon expectations. But other new-build projects are more questionable on carbon grounds which is one reason why much more of our work is becoming more focussed on existing buildings.

We were pleased to receive two RIBA National Awards last year for work on Grade I listed buildings for Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings and Bath Abbey Footprint Project retaining and enhancing their heritage status as well as working towards decarbonising their energy systems.

Our continued survival will mean greater emphasis on adapting our existing buildings and infrastructure, and that requires changes in the way we educate and re-educate our profession.

Demolition, without recycling the carbon cost of materials needs be discouraged by legislation.  And the 25% of the non-recycled waste that comes from the construction industry is a national scandal that reflects on ourselves and our construction collaborators.
 
The environmental movement has gone through many rebranding exercises over the last 50 years. For me it started out as ’low-energy’ design and when ‘sustainability’ arrived it never sounded challenging enough. When ‘regenerative design’ became a new mantra about ten years ago it seemed fine for projects dealing with areas of negative impact but the idea of going beyond net zero seems too challenging for many projects. But we do need to constantly reinvent our approach to meet ever more challenging and changing circumstances. New theories and campaigns can ignite new generations of designers.
 
When I got my first ‘paycheck‘ (it was in the USA) there were no commercially available PVs or wind generators, no LEDs, no air source heat pumps and obviously no digital technology or AI to worry about. Overpopulation was a huge concern: the social costs of depopulation were beyond imagination. But what our philosophy and our architecture was based on was having a more direct and positive relationship with the planet. And that in itself has never changed.
 
As we generate a new succession plan for the practice we are, as we continuously have done, revisiting the original principles of the practice.  We are privileged going forwards to be looking at an exciting range of projects that will allow us to continue the experiments in social and environmental architecture. A new version of the Eden Project in Dundee and an extraordinary new development in Kigali designed as a precedent project to provide for rapid urbanisation are all allowing us to continue pushing boundaries.

The environmental movement has grown stronger despite recent setbacks from across the Atlantic to which we need to respond with an even greater sense of urgency.

Peter Clegg