| Allan Wilson:
I welcome the
opportunity that the next 20 minutes or so affords to open this debate
on the role of architecture and the built environment in our national life.
The subject area is important, but all too often neglected as a matter
for debate. It is neglected, perhaps, because buildings are so fundamental
to our lives that we often take them for granted and regard them as simply
the given backdrop to our day-to-day existence. However, buildings are
not given, but consciously made and the way in which they are made has
a profound effect on the quality of all our lives. The way in which buildings
are made—the quality of their design and of the built environments that
they help to shape—should therefore be a matter of concern for us all.
We believe that
those are matters for concern, which is why we have made our commitment
to develop the first national policy on architecture for Scotland. We believe
that the quality of our buildings and of the built environments that they
help to shape is of profound importance to Scotland. We believe that good
building design and good architecture can bring benefits to people, both
as individuals and as communities. We also believe that good architecture
can help to meet a range of our social, cultural, environmental and economic
objectives.
Because buildings
are so fundamental to our lives, we relate to them and they serve us in
many and complex ways. Their primary purpose is essentially practical.
Buildings provide us with shelter and protect us from the climate; they
keep us warm in winter and cool in summer; they provide the space for our
activities and our belongings; and they deliver the services, heat, light
and water that are necessary to sustain our lives. Nevertheless, what we
seek from buildings is not always practical. We also expect our buildings
to respond to and sustain our social and cultural needs and aspirations.
Those needs and aspirations may be private and intimate, such as our desire
for a sense of security and well-being in our homes, or public and symbolic,
such as the need to express a sense of cultural and national identity in
our civic buildings. When buildings respond to those needs and aspirations—when
they provide us with more than mere utility—they become memorable places
that enrich our lives.
Buildings are
important not simply because, individually, they house our activities and
meet our practical needs. They are also important because, collectively,
they define and shape our towns and cities and irrevocably alter the character
of our landscapes. Just as buildings can bring order, meaning and value
to our activities as individuals, so our collective existence is made more
or less humane by the physical quality of our urban and rural environments.
That physical quality of our towns, cities and countryside is important
not just for our own well-being, but because of what it tells others about
us. We, as a nation, are largely defined in the imagination of others by
our towns, cities and landscapes, and Scotland is fortunate in having townscapes
and natural landscapes of world renown and of the highest quality. All
our buildings, therefore, have a critical role to play in maintaining and
enhancing the quality of Scotland's urban and rural places.
When we build,
we have a responsibility to respond not simply to what exists and what
has come to us from the past, but to the future. The buildings that shape
our towns and cities are tangible evidence of the social and cultural values
and traditions of past generations. The buildings that we make will mostly
outlive us and become our legacy for the future. They will provide the
means by which future generations will judge our collective values and
ambitions. We should, therefore, strive to ensure that the buildings that
we leave to the future will not become a burden to coming generations,
but will be regarded with affection and as worthy of preservation. John
Ruskin put that obligation to the future rather well when he wrote:
"When we build,
let us think that we build for ever. Let it not be for present delight,
nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will
thank us for".
Buildings are
of profound importance in our lives and our communities. They not only
serve our present and practical needs, but link us with our past and lay
the foundation for our future. Therein lies one of the great challenges
of building design—how best to mediate between the past and the future
in a way that properly serves and reflects our present. The purpose of
architecture is to take up that challenge; to bring imagination to the
solution of our practical problems; to make buildings memorable and enjoyable
places that reflect what is of value in our lives; to reshape for the better
our towns, cities and landscapes; and to contribute to the maintenance
of a built heritage of lasting value.
Good architecture
has the potential to deliver much by way of benefits, which I shall set
out in terms of their social, cultural, environmental and economic value.
The social benefits of architecture derive from the essential purpose of
all buildings—to provide for the many and changing needs of our society.
We need decent homes, places of education, health care facilities, offices
and factories, places for leisure and recreation, theatres, galleries and
museums. Our primary expectation of all our buildings is that they should
be practical and efficient. They should be adequate for their purpose and
suitably planned. They should provide a healthy environment and warmth,
light and shade. They should be free from defects, robust and easy to maintain.
They should be flexible and accessible to all.
Those are the
requirements and benefits of good building. However, good architecture
can deliver more than just good building. Through good, imaginative design,
architecture can provide housing that meets the many needs of family life,
creates opportunities for encounter and social interaction and strengthens
community life. It can provide places of education that support good teaching,
encourage concentration and are good places in which to study and learn.
It can make health buildings that give reassurance and dignity to those
who are ill and provide a comfortable and comforting environment in which
to recover from sickness. It can make cultural buildings that celebrate
the richness of our arts and culture and allow us to experience and understand
life more fully. It can make civic buildings that provide a focus for,
and are potent symbols of, our collective aspirations.
One of the distinguishing
characteristics of the architecture of modern times has been the way in
which it has sought to reaffirm that social purpose of building.
Michael Russell
(South of Scotland) (SNP): This is a fascinating
thesis—I congratulate whoever wrote it—but, so far, we have had six and
a half minutes of it without hearing what the Executive's policy might
be. Perhaps the Executive's policy is to have a thesis on architecture.
It would be nice to know what the policy is that we are meant to be celebrating
today.
Allan Wilson:
I made reference to the four policy areas
to which good architecture contributes: environmental, cultural, social
and economic policy. In the next 15 or so minutes, I intend to refer in
greater detail to those areas.
Through good
building design, modern architecture has sought to provide environments
in which people can live and work more enjoyably and efficiently and which
encourage social and working communities to flourish. That ability of good
architecture to deliver social benefit is vital if we are to meet our objectives
for an inclusive society that provides opportunity for all. I believe that
our ability to meet those social objectives will depend, to a large extent,
on the quality of the built environments that we make.
Mr Murray Tosh
(South of Scotland) (Con): Does the minister
agree that design standards in the affordable housing sector show distinct
promise and often exceed the standards of the private sector? Does the
Executive's national policy on architecture include a proposal to lay down
indicative or compulsory guidelines for space and design standards in private
sector development?
Allan Wilson:
A policy document that will address those issues will succeed this debate.
I want to consider
the cultural benefits of good architecture. As I have said, good building
design goes beyond the merely practical and provides more than mere utility.
At best, architecture is an art and a profoundly important expression of
our culture. We can experience and enjoy architecture as art on a number
of levels. A building may give us practical satisfaction in the way that
it fulfils its purpose, in its arrangement of function, in the efficiency
of its services and in the skills that are evident in its assembly and
detail. However, architecture has a further, deeper, cultural value. Architecture
both shapes, and is shaped by, the society and place in which it is made.
As I suggested, the existing architecture and buildings of our towns, cities
and rural settlements are a repository of our common culture and heritage.
They provide continuity and a unique sense of history and tradition. A
nation's architecture says much about how that nation is organised, how
its society works and what its values and ambitions are. When we make buildings,
we have an opportunity not only to connect with our past, but to assert
our present cultural values and to say something about who we are at this
time and in this place.
Good building
design does not only have social and cultural value; it can also deliver
environmental benefits. Buildings, by their nature, are interventions in
the natural world. They consume energy, materials and natural resources
in their construction and use; they generate waste and contribute to atmospheric
pollution, ozone depletion and hence to climate change. The way in which
we build now locks us into future patterns of resource use, waste emissions
and corresponding patterns of environmental degradation. Buildings have
a critical role to play in meeting our objectives for sustainable development.
Those objectives, which set a new and challenging agenda for architecture,
demand that we think anew about the way in which we design and manage our
built environments. If we are to meet that challenge and ensure that we
have a sustainable future, we need the imagination and vision in the making
of buildings that only good architecture can bring.
Dennis Canavan
(Falkirk West): What steps is the Scottish
Executive taking to ensure that good architecture is not achieved through
exploitation of underpaid workers, at home or abroad? Will the minister
comment on reports that some of the important materials for the new Parliament
building at Holyrood have been produced by workers who are on almost slave
rates of labour?
Allan Wilson:
I decline to comment on the latter question,
which is a matter not for the Scottish Executive, but for the Holyrood
progress group.
I agree with
the member's substantive point—the Executive's policy, when it is produced,
will ensure that sustainable development is at the heart of our future
architecture policy. Critical to that is the fact that price would not
be the only factor in determining what constitutes good architectural design.
The social,
cultural, environmental and economic benefits of good building design make
a compelling case for the value of architecture and for architecture being
a matter of policy. However, some people—not here, I hope—will suggest
that Government should have no role in relation to architecture. They will
say that the kind of buildings we get is entirely a matter for those who
commission them; that building is a commodity determined by market forces;
and that Government intervention will lead only to some sterile notion
of good taste. We do not accept those views; we believe that they both
trivialise the purpose of architecture and misunderstand our intentions.
We believe that Government should have an interest in architecture and
a responsibility for the promotion of architecture, for three principal
reasons. First, architecture is part of, and contributes to, our nation's
heritage. Secondly, architecture is a cultural activity. Thirdly, building
is one of the key delivery mechanisms for policies that are aimed at improving
social development and modernising the nation's services and infrastructure.
For many policy
issues, such as social exclusion, homelessness and crime, and in many policy
areas, such as housing, health, education, sustainability and industry,
the quality of our architecture and of the built environment that it helps
to shape are major determinants of successful policy implementation. Without
the capacity of architecture to create coherent, humane and sustainable
environments, our expectations for successful policy implementation would
be reduced.
We are not alone
in thinking that Governments should have an interest in architecture. Many
of our European neighbours, particularly the Scandinavian countries and
the Netherlands, have recognised the importance of building design and
the built environment to their social, cultural and economic life. We have
learned much from those developments and have been informed by them.
At the end of
1999, we published a framework document entitled "The Development of a
Policy on Architecture for Scotland". That document set out, in greater
detail than I am able to today, the value and benefits of good architecture
and the reasons why good building design is important to us all. The document
also set out what the Executive can do to promote good architecture and
the range of issues that policy might address.
The framework
document invited views and comments, on both its general content and the
proposed framework for policy development. Following publication of the
document, a series of public meetings was held to canvas views. At the
end of last year, I published a report on that public consultation exercise.
In general, there was widespread support for our proposal to develop an
architecture policy for Scotland. There was welcome for the Executive's
recognition of both the importance to society of the built environment
and, in particular, the relationship of architecture to public policy objectives.
There was general agreement that the document provided a sound basis from
which to develop policy.
Since last year's
consultation exercise, we have been working on the development of the detail
of the policy. The reasons that I gave at the outset of my speech for our
decision to make a commitment to develop a national policy on architecture
were, in many ways, quite simple. That is not to say that good architecture
is simply achieved—it is not. The making of buildings—the creation of a
decent built environment—is a complex activity and we recognise that the
development of policy will not be an easy task or achieved in the short
term.
The design and
construction of buildings involves many participants, who may have differing,
often conflicting, objectives. Its processes are regulated and bound by
statutory and contractual obligations, and it takes place in a competitive
market economy. Building is a costly activity, which takes time and involves
risk. In the process of design, it is necessary to reconcile the objectives
of those who commission buildings, often for their private use, with the
objectives and interests of the wider public community. The achievement
of good building is not easy and requires the creative collaboration of
many disciplines and players. All those who work in agencies and organisations,
or are engaged in activities or policies, that have, however indirectly,
an influence over the procurement of buildings share a responsibility for
the quality of the buildings and the architecture we create. If architecture
is to succeed, it needs sympathetic patronage, in the sense not only of
a particular commissioning client but of a society that has confidence
in, and enthusiasm for, what architecture can achieve.
In the development
of policy, we need to consider both the promotion and the implementation
of policy objectives. We must continue to advocate the benefits of well-designed
buildings, encourage debate and seek to ensure greater community participation
in development matters. We also need to work to implement change and put
in place conditions that will make a difference on the ground and help
to deliver better buildings.
A major promotional
aspect of policy has already been put in place. Last month, I announced
the award of a grant of £300,000 per year over the next three years
to the Lighthouse, which is Scotland's centre for architecture, design
and the city. The grant will support a national programme of activities
by the Lighthouse that is consistent with the aims of the policy. The programme
of activities that is being developed will include the development of a
virtual, online architecture centre to deliver information on architecture
and the built environment on a national basis; a programme of exhibitions
that will tour Scotland; a programme of seminars, debates and other events
aimed at encouraging community participation across Scotland in built-environment
matters; and a partnership fund offering small grants to local communities
that wish to develop their own projects, events, publications or exhibitions.
One of the key
strengths of the Lighthouse is its educational programme and we are looking
to develop other promotional initiatives in the educational field. We believe
that the opportunity to develop an understanding of architecture and the
built environment should be part of the social and cultural education of
all our young people and that such an understanding has a part to play
in realising our aims for social participation and inclusion. Architecture
and the built environment are rich subject areas and can be used not only
to illuminate and inform a range of curriculum subjects, but to support
a set of broader educational objectives. I intend to make further announcements
on the promotional aspects of policy objectives later in the year.
Bruce Crawford
(Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): Will the member
give way?
Allan Wilson:
I am winding down.
Dennis Canavan:
Winding up.
Allan Wilson:
I am winding down towards winding up.
In the short
term, some initiatives are coming to fruition. The forthcoming works procurement
guidance that will be disseminated to clients for building projects in
the Executive will contain advice on the role of good design in achieving
value for money. We are also working closely with the planning policy area
and collaborating on policy initiatives to raise the profile of urban and
rural design and on the production of guidance material. Lewis Macdonald,
who will close the debate, will say more about the initiative. In the coming
months, I intend to make further announcements on the detail of our plans
and on the commitments we have agreed to implement policy objectives.
I reiterate
why we believe that architecture and the built environment are of fundamental
concern. Buildings and the built environments that they shape touch almost
every aspect of our lives and, as a consequence, have a profound effect
on individuals and communities. Buildings are instrumental in realising
our social objectives for a fair, democratic and inclusive society. They
are a tangible manifestation of our culture. They tell the story of our
past and carry into the future a message of our present values and aspirations.
We believe that
architecture is too important to be marginalised as a matter for debate
and policy. If we are to meet our social, cultural, environmental and economic
objectives and confirm Scotland's status as a decent place to live and
work and a worthwhile place to visit, we need to have greater regard for
the quality of our architecture and of our built environments.
I move,
That the Parliament
acknowledges the social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits
that good architecture and a well designed built environment can bring
to Scotland and further acknowledges the benefits of a national policy
on architecture.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
