1. INTERPRETATION OF 2
CLAUSES- INDIAN ARCHITECTS’ ACT 1972
The Indian Architects Act 1972 is an act to provide for the
registration of architects and regarding the matters connected with it. It had
been applicable since 31st May 1972 and applies to the whole of
India. The act contains 4 chapters with 45 sections and 1 schedule.
In exercise of the powers granted by sub sections 1 and 2 of
Section 45, the COA makes the following regulations to promote the standard of
professional conduct and self-discipline that is required of an architect.
These regulations are called Architects
(Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989. The author will be discussing two
of the clauses from these set of regulations:
1. The architect should ensure that his
professional activities do not conflict with his general responsibility to
contribute to the quality of the environment and future welfare of the society.
2. If in private practice, the architect
should inform his client of the conditions of engagement and scale of charges
and agree that these conditions shall be the basis of the appointment
Author’s
Interpretations:
1. Professional Practice is different
for every architect because every architect has a path of his/her own. However,
as a larger collective, every architect holds a responsibility of preserving
the natural environment as well as the built environment which is productive of
sustainable living. As such, the choices made as a professional, regardless of
what the project, requires decisions based on this larger idea of what it means
to be an architect.
2. According to the Council of
Architecture, there are prescribed rates for public practice. There is a fixed
percentage of total cost for initial concept and a fixed percentage for tender
submission. However, in private practice, the cost can vary from firm to firm
and will change each year depending on the market, this is the ‘scale of
charges’. Also, the architect is required to form a contract with the client
that explains all that is expected from the client, architect, the scope of
work, timeline, etc. along with code of conduct. Such are the conditions upon
which the architect will be appointed for the particular project.
2.
The author has compared three competition projects by
answering the following queries:
- Who all were invited as participants for the competition?
- How was the competition conducted? How many stages?
- Is there a registration fee?
- How was the jury selected?
- How did the judging process take place and how many levels of judging were there?
- Was the project mentioned to the public or was it kept a secret?
- What was the level of anonymity the participants were supposed to follow?
- Was the entry returned to the participants?
- What are the awards and citations?
- Would the winning entry be executed?
- Did the jury had a right to modify the awards?
Based on the above queries, the information provided for each project is provided below:
SPIRETEC, Noida: This competition was an open competition, and it was conducted online through the competition website. It was a single stage design competition. Participants had to pay a registration fee of US 50$. The jury was a balanced mix of academicians and professionals, who were each an expert in the field. The judging happened in a single stage. They based their judgement on their own expertise, the work submitted, the information contained in the competition document, and the questions and answers that arise during the judging process. All submissions became property of the sponsors and was not returned. However, selected submissions were exhibited for the general public and could also be used to compile a booklet at the end. The names of the participants were kept anonymous till the end of judging, and each competitor was given a unique registration number prior to registration. The competitors and jurors were not allowed to contact each other during the process. Any member associated with the jury (partner, employee or associate) was not allowed to participate and participants were allowed one submission per registration. There were five honorable mention, three winners and one participant appointed ‘architect of design’. The architect of design held the responsibility of developing the design to a stage that local architects could develop and execute it. The jury could modify the awards as per their discretion.
Nalanda University,
Bihar: The
competition was organized by the university itself and was only open to
qualified architects and architectural firms. It was a single stage design
competition, the list of eligible participants were made by a selection
committee appointed by the university. The selected firms would have to submit the master plan for
the campus and the design of the buildings that would be constructed in the
first phase. The final design and the master plan would then be selected by an
international jury. The jury comprised of top architects from Singapore, China,
Japan and India. 79 proposals had been received and 8 final entries were
shortlisted and one winner was declared and given the design commission.
Contact during the competition could be done via email, however, submission had
to be delivered to the office through courier as hard copy. There was no
registration fee. The projects were exhibited for the general public to see,
and was credited and sited. But it was not returned to individual participants.
The jury was not allowed to modify the awards. Because the selection of
participants was based on a certain set of criteria, the participants were not
anonymous.
Dhashrath Manji Institute, Bihar: The competition was organized by
Bihar State Building Construction Cooperation. Only those individuals/ firms
that fulfilled the criteria mentioned in the project brief were allowed to
participate, which included mandatory registration of Principle/ Partner/
Director, with the CoA. Even in this competition, the selection of participants
was based on a certain set of criteria and thus the participants were not
anonymous. It was a single stage design competition. The submission was to be
submitted as hardcopy to the office. The selection process for this competition
was unique as compared to the above mentioned competitions. All the firms were
required to submit their design along with documents that proved that the firm
was eligible. All the entries were evaluated and given points. The firm that
scored the highest was offered a financial bid for the contract, and if the
negotiation for the bid failed, the contract was offered to the firm with the
second best design. The organizers held the right to display, exhibit and
publish the documents, and the firms were credited and cited. Unlike the
Nalanda project, queries in the form of oral conversation was accepted.
In each competition, there was the
need to first of all have someone who would come up with the brief. This was
usually someone associated with the clients or employed by the clients and
empowered by them to assess their needs and to come up with a proposal for the
competition. This assessor would not necessarily be part of the jury later on,
but remained essential to ensuring that the competition kept the clients’
interest at heart. In SPIRETEC, the assessor was a consultant hired by
SPIRETEC, in Nalanda it was the University board itself and in DMI Patna, the
assessor was the BSBCC based on previous case studies of labor institutes.
Based on the scope of work and the design that was required, the competition
was then either made open or closed. An open competition was usually open to
everyone in the field of architecture and construction - whether students,
professionals, individuals or firms and collectives. Closed competitions could
either be specific to only professional architects, or to architects whose
experience and portfolio reflected criteria that were essential to the
competition project. In such cases, invitations would be sent out privately to
the chosen architects. There was also a
varying degree of anonymity with regard to the competitors. In smaller
projects, where the evaluation was based simply on design and merit, there was
no need to know the names or portfolio of participating architects. It could
also be a more transparent procedure with respect to broadcasting the details
of the competition to the public. Projects that involved a prior selection of
more eminent architects could sometimes lead to more secrecy surrounding the
competition and the process itself. In
larger projects, the winners would usually have their work displayed for the
general public and for the architectural community as a whole. This would allow
for a general critique of the competition itself and if there was a larger
consensus that the deserving individual/collective indeed was awarded the
project.
Once the tenders are submitted, they
must be evaluated in order to arrive at the selection of the preferred bidder.
Bids are generally assessed first on a number of pass/fail criteria before the
single preferred bidder is decided on. For example: even if the evaluation
score is not based on a technical evaluation, a determination must be made that
the solution proposed by a bidder is possible and can be managed and delivered
on time, that it is based on reliable technologies, that it meets all minimum
technical requirements set and that the costs are consistent with the market
values for the solutions.
.A key issue is the choice of the
criteria for the evaluation and scoring of alternative bids. Occasionally, only
one bidder will submit a tender despite the client and the architect having
issued the invitation to tender to several shortlisted candidates. Should that
happen, in good practice, the question of how to proceed should be considered
case by case:
If it appears that bidder interest
was low because of deficiencies in the tender documents (including the
specifications or the draft contract) and these can realistically be remedied,
then the best solution might be to repeat the tender procedure after having
made the necessary corrections.
If it appears that the bid was made
in the bidder’s belief that there would be a good level of competition (and
this should be supported by actual market testing of the costs of the major
subcontracts), then the best solution might be to continue with the procurement
and consider the sole bidder to be the winner, provided that the tender is
fully compliant and meets all pass/fail evaluation criteria.
Also a minimum “standstill period” is
required between the contract award decision and the actual conclusion of the
contract to allow rejected bidders time to conduct their review and decide
whether they want to challenge the award. Previously, the sole remedy that an
aggrieved bidder could seek was to be awarded monetary compensation, but
nowadays an aggrieved bidder could seek cancellation of the contract. How the
various rights and obligations of the parties will be determined in this case
is left to Indian national law.
Due to such a painstaking and
sensitive process, the tender process itself and the documents that it consist
of require a very detailed explanation of the scope of work and technologies
required, the material to be procured, the terms of agreement and the code of
conduct for all practices involved.
4. ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE_2040
The author is a Nepalese, belonging to Kathmandu, Nepal. Having spent 18 years in Kathmandu, she has seen the valley grow from a populated city to an overpopulated, unplanned city. It is congested with buildings in every nook and corner. The author has always been afraid that this concrete jungle will slowly spread to the rural settlements in the hills, far away from the valley. In 25 years, the author pictures herself working on the village planning and building aspects, in the hills, so that villages, unlike the capital, is well planned and also aesthetically unique and pleasant.
The author
feels that architecture in Nepal is a relatively new concept. Although the
people have been attracted to the aesthetics of traditional buildings for a
long time, people have just begun to understand the value of incorporating good
design into their daily lives. Furthermore, after the major earthquake that
struck last year, the common man as well as the government has begun to realize
that contractors alone are not enough to build sustainable buildings. Thus the author feels that there is good scope
in Nepal in terms of innovation.
In 25 years’
time, the author pictures herself using architecture to solve problems of the
rural society in the hills of Nepal that has been relatively ignored in the
past few years. The issues the author wishes to tackle through architecture are
not only concerning good planning and aesthetics for the villages. She will
also tackle social problems such as girl trafficking, education, health and
sanitation, through building and design.
The firm
will be highly research based. The firm will do mostly primary research. Much
of the time will be spent travelling across the hills to reach the homes of
people who are not well equipped with basic services such as water and
sanitation and even education. Architects of the firm will be spending time
interacting with villagers in order to understand their way of living better.
The firm
will consist of 10 to 20 architects, who are enthusiastic about the work, and
are experienced in terms of building construction. The firm may collaborate
with nonprofit/ non-government organizations, or foreign companies who are
willing to fund the projects being carried out in the villages. The architects are not expected to be working
full time, and the firm will not necessarily be a primary mode of income for
its staff.
Besides the
professionals and member of other organizations, there will be an equal
involvement of locals from the particular community on focus. The architects
and the locals will be working as a team, so that both parties can learn from
each other and merge their ideas. Where the architects will give technical
inputs in building, along with innovations in design, the locals will give
inputs on the needs of the community, and traditional ways of construction that
they are familiar with. Together we will work initially as researchers, and
then use the research to carry out a ‘design-build’ approach.
Along with
the financial aid that the firm hopes to receive from organizations, every
building
constructed in the community will have shareholders who are part of
the community. By involving the community both through the process of design
and construction as well as finance, the community will have a sense of
ownership and pride to be building their village.
The thought
process of designing for the rural community of Nepal began when the author did
her dissertation in response to the earthquake and the loss that was caused
because of it. The dissertation was on ‘how healing spaces can help people deal
with loss in post disaster communities and its possibilities in Nepal’. Here
the author had explored possibilities of architecture that could help the
community. The topic of dissertation became a personal one to the author. Since
then, the author, in the future, aims to explore the possibilities of
architecture that builds communities.
Before
starting to deal with the community and its design process, the author aims to
work for a few years in a firm which provides various opportunities to learn
practical aspects of architecture. This includes construction details,
knowledge of materials, site work and interaction with fellow architects and
other professionals in an office environment. This experience will prepare the
author to manage her own firm in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment