Architecture regulates behaviour – from the way a home’s environment impacts a child’s development, to how the architecture of cities shapes whole cultures. But what prevents architectural malice and the misappropriation of this regulating power?
Architecture itself needs regulation. Malta’s Kamra tal-Periti (KtP) or Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers, describes itself as “a body for the self-regulation of one of the oldest established professions”. This two-part interview with its president, André Pizzuto, asks what it takes to be architecture’s watchdog.
Part one covers disciplinary influence over professional standards, conflicts, design reviews and the need for joint venturing. Part two addresses the chamber’s operations, representational parity and the role of awards.
Ann Dingli: The KtP has focused on regulatory issues under your leadership. Do you think the public understands where the profession stands with regulation?
André Pizzuto: I suspect there’s a sizable amount of people aware of what we’re trying to do. But I think there are others who associate us with the negativity the industry is projecting. And that’s partly perhaps a failing in terms of communication but also ‘guilt by association’.
The counterpart to this argument is that to fight this negative perception the profession must hold power of disciplinary action – meaning addressing issues through formal proceedings. The power for the KtP to regulate was introduced in the new political act of 2001, which we didn’t have before – it’s now one of the functions of the chamber.
I don’t think the public understands sufficiently that we’re campaigning to safeguard public interest. There may be scepticism in some instances because of our perceived conflict. People might think we have an interest in keeping things as they are, or that we’re promoting reforms biased in our favour, which is absolutely not the case.
AD: What does regulatory power look like in practice? How do you deal with conflict-of-interest within the chamber itself – which is made up of practitioners and figures from a tiny industry? Even if you decouple responsibility from the government, the chamber’s sovereignty is still corruptible.
AP: One of the first instances of regulatory power for the chamber was when we issued a directive to safeguard buffer zones of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Malta. Our mindset was: this is the standard we’re setting for the profession, if something doesn’t meet it, we’ll launch disciplinary proceedings. There are also certain provisions and recommendations, such as the use of Eurocodes*, that don’t require government involvement – and they agree that we should adopt the codes as professional standards.
People might think we (architects) have an interest in keeping things as they are- Ann Dingli
We want to accompany those codes with design guidelines. The industry would benefit from a central reference document for all operators. Like with loading capacities – if we’re going to talk about the loading capacity of stone, do we know what the different forms of construction require? A lot of it is not specified locally. The follow-up would be an impact assessment of the codes’ implementation. Because while in design the codes may be being applied, they may not be in construction.
With regard to conflict, we do [an internal] conflict check every time we open a disciplinary case, verifying that nobody has any business interests or friendship with parties involved. I don’t recall an instance where there was any hesitancy to discipline anybody when necessary. Our conduct processes also require two-thirds majority.
AD: You’ve discussed the introduction of Design Review Panels (DRPs) nationally, saying they should be independently adjudicated by the KtP. How will you support a workforce to run this? Are you proposing that the KtP oversees all DRPs for the entire country, which is inundated with development proposals?
AP: We’re not suggesting DRPs should be mandatory, we’re saying they should be optional. But resource is a fair question and I wish I could give a detailed response. But let me step back and explain what we’re trying to do in general about local architecture.
Our intent is to form a joint board with the government, specifically tackling architecture and urban design issues – because I don’t think it’s something we can do on our own. There are already existing examples of these partnerships between industry and the government. This joint venture would address the development of an architecture policy. We’re one of two EU countries that doesn’t have one and it’s tragic.
The DRPs could potentially fall under that board. But I’m not suggesting that all projects go through a DRP – it would be impossible to handle. The ones that should are sensitive sites or projects with significant impact, like towers, etc. Some of this could be funded by permit applicants – because it’s a service we’d provide. Aside from DRPs, the KtP still needs employees. Currently, we are working to set up a completely digitised system but we still need people to drive the things we want to do.
*Eurocodes are the 10 European standards specifying how structural design should be conducted within the European Union (EU).
Ann Dingli is an independent art and design writer, editor and curator based in London.