Prof. Ewa Kurylowicz on the condition of the architectural profession

25 of November '24

Prof. Ewa Kurylowicz

Photo: Maciej Zienkiewicz

What is the condition of the architectural profession in Poland today, and what should be the role of the SARP in shaping and raising the position of architects in the investment process? - we ask Prof. Ewa Kurylowicz of {tag:pracownie}.

Our professionalism eludes contemporary standards of narrow specialization. Using an analogy, we can say that while we have always played the role of playwrights, we used to be directors of a play/film, directors of a theater, and even managed to sell tickets. For, like Bohdan Pniewski, for example, we had, perhaps habitually, but a strong influence on the implementation of our script, that is, the proposed design concept, listen to the theater director, and it was the architect who largely decided on the use of the building, having an influence on its utility program. Those were the old days, and, of course, not everyone also enjoyed the same respect as Pniewski, and the arrangement and relationships of partners in the process of project development and implementation were different. However, even twenty years ago, in the process of creating the Focus Filtrowa building, its general designer, architect Stefan Kurylowicz, personally countersigned subcontractors' invoices, thus overseeing the quality of workmanship, in consultation with the investor, who trusted the architect and counted on his expertise. This was still a possible form of control over the process of building construction at the time - staying with the evoked parallel, directing combined with paying the actors' salaries.

I do not want to write a cause-and-effect dissertation, but only to point out the root cause of the regression of the architectural profession, which I observe with sadness. I think it should be sought, most generally, in the detachment of the ability of the author, the authors, to realize the concept. This occurs, among other things, in the promotion of the Design and Build process - design and build. The role of the contractor - the developer, the investor, who has the right to choose an architect for himself and dictate to him the framework of his activities on many levels, has taken away our decision-making, the possibility of proposing "full-blooded" visions, they are no longer expected of us.

As Julia Parks writes, the Design and Build process has a history that goes back to ancient Egypt and the construction of the pyramids. In its current form, it began its career in the 1980s. The main purpose was to protect public entities commissioning projects. In a nutshell, the problem arose from the dilution and removal of the architect's authority over the project. And yet, "good designers always ensure that the implementation exactly matches the design, and that building permits are for what was designed, not something that merely resembles it "*. Instead of giving responsibility to one entity, Design and Build effectively dilutes it. This does not serve the quality of architecture or the health of the architectural profession. We should move away from this as soon as possible, as architectural organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom are already trying to do.

The role of the SARP, as an organization that cares about the quality of architectural work, in rolling back this process should be leading. The Chamber of Architects, as a body tasked with policing the conditions of the profession, should also contribute to this.

The range of SARP's tasks is wide. In addition to the problem described above, it includes the organization of competitions and taking care of their level, which is done through the organizers of the competition process - the Secretaries appointed by the Association - and through the SARP Judges elected at the General Assemblies. Care should be taken to ensure that all Judges act with due diligence. An extremely important feature of SARP's activities is the promotion of something so perhaps already archaic, yet absolutely timeless, as camaraderie. It is not at all about altruism and sharing orders - it is about one voice in matters important to the environment, taking a stand in solidarity, sometimes even at the expense of losing a potential order, which is often "played out" by the commissioning party. Unfortunately, we have the infamous reputation of a conflicted environment - this should change. It seems that at present, some SARP branches, rather than the General Board, are more visible in their activities. As much as it is gratifying to see local activity, it is worrying to see the lack of effective activity of the central authorities and their troubles with managing the Association's common property, of which they make no secret. Maybe a realistic disposition of the assets they own and hiring a professional manager in charge of finances would be some solution here. I keep my fingers crossed for the newly elected authorities - may they succeed in reforming something positively.

My generation treated membership in SARP as a privilege, an expression of trust, membership in an elite club, understanding here the concept of elite as a highly professionally qualified group, cultivating the ethos of a professional with a good rapport with users of architecture, socially valuable and appreciated. This is what we must be in order to maintain the social respect that is currently being eroded.