Legislating Design

The local Architecture Law, otherwise known as Republic Act 9266, has finally been effected last May by the local court arbitrating between the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) and the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP). With much controversy and noise, we architects finally got what we wanted since 2004. Six years. Don’t we just love due process?

Controversy and noise, the undeniable bed fellows of this law, range from the grave to the unbelievably ludicrous. The architects’ row with the civil engineers span almost a decade as the former fight to keep the latter away from their projects – the elusive goose that lays the golden eggs. Historically, immediately after the war, architects gamely shared the pie to the civil engineers to expedite the duty of nation rebuilding.

For 60 years, we generously allowed architectural projects to be accessed by the civil engineers, and now we want it back. The fight is nowhere near quick and painless to say the least. RA 9266 was supposed to seal the fate of civil engineers posing as savvy designers when it was filed in Congress more than half a decade ago. Now, no less than the Secretary of Public Works and Highways, and presidential candidate Hermogenes Ebdane hoisted the flag for the engineers when he recently signed DPWH Memorandum 02 in September  2009 ordering status quo: the pre-RA 9266 state of affairs. This directly contradicts the court ruling that upholds the Architecture Law last May. The issue is now with the Court of Appeals.

The gravity of the issue is worth loosing sleep over because it is landmark in its implications. Upon successful implementation, 9266 will clearly define jurisdictions and liabilities between architects and civil engineers. It will also embolden the interior designers to turn on their architect friends and claim what is rightfully theirs: the design of the built-environment within the architectural shell. When all of these this are brought to my serious contemplation, I’d rather have the alignment of the planets than the alignment of the design professions in this country. It’s just so dirty.

The grave, though, has it’s counterpart entertainment. Last October 2008, the PRC Board of Architecture issued a communication to the Inquirer in essence reprimanding them for using the word “architect” to refer to Joc Joc Bolante. If we can sourly recall, he figured in the alleged mishandling of millions in the fertilizer scam. PDI ran a story about it which, in verbatim, referred to Bolante as: “…the purported architect of the P728-million fertilizer fund scam…”. The Architecture Board did not take a liking to this as the word association “architect – bolante” is “potentially” ruinous and has dishonoring effect on the “countless men and women who lawfully practice the profession.”. The communication to PDI was obviously hinged on impeccable reference, more particularly RA 9266.

Without any offense to the board chairman, Armando Alli, the issue I feel is humorous as it is so trivial. The word association focused on the concept of “masterminding” or “master planning” rather than the secondary association to corruption. The readers are surely more intelligent than that. We might as well invite the doctors to howl in protest over the worldwide use of “doctoring” in defrauding a document if that were the case.

Right in the middle of the grave and the funny, is this very divisive issue of who is lawful to practice or not. Dragged happily or otherwise into this issue is Ed Calma, Felino Palafox and Budji Layug, to name a few. Ed Calma is embroiled in official and unofficial discourses about his legality to practise architecture. Palafox has openly denounced the flaw of the law in prohibiting the entry of foreign designers. Layug will be looked into for violations of the law for claiming credit in the design of architectural projects. Notice all three run successful and equally popular practices. The legitimacy of their counter claims stem from either association to a corporation, a licensed partner or by sheer breadth of his portfolio worldwide.

There is something in this law that makes our respected designers, and even more respected architecture board react and behave in such manner. I have two issues about it.

There seems to be a disconnection between the field and the high pedestals of our commissioners who enforce the law. It bothers me that the enforcement of it has somewhat been reduced to semantics rather than essence. Lawyers will tell you that the law is more than the sum of its parts.

If you will refer to the volume 02 issue of BluPrint magazine, Ed Calma made scathing remarks about the Architecture Law, which Alli has replied in defense. The reply letter was published in the following issue. In this recent “argument” between Alli and Calma, the latter was pilloried by the former for mocking the law. This was right after Calma was awarded his license. What is more distressing is the way that Alli retorted in his capacity as acting chairman then of the Architecture Board. He managed to reduce an otherwise potentially intelligent public debate into a kid’s fight by slugging it out on trivial semantics than essence itself.

I invite you to revisit the article and you will discover that Gerard Torres, the interviewer, and Calma were simply talking light of the matter. And the matter is the essence of the law itself. Think of it as a conversation over tea between intelligent and matured men. Alli, in his reply to Calma, decided to fight to the level of definitions and not of essence. He even went as bad as to mock Calma’s definition of international practise:

“The term “all over” should probably be qualified to mean more than just 2 European countries, if the intention is to project an international portfolio of architectural works.” – A. Alli

Given Calma’s reputation of artistic arrogance largely licensed by his exceptional talent, Alli should have taken the higher ground and took the side of propriety. A sophisticated elaboration of the essence of the law was in order from him rather than a point-by-point lecture on definitions. A good discussion on why corporate practise of architecture is not supported by the current law and reasons should have been given to support it. His juvenile comment on Calma’s term “all over” did not help his cause at all. This is the text of Calma’s statement to project a large practice that earned the comment from Alli:

“Our work is all over. Monaco, Austria… …so its all about collaborating with a local architect in place.” – E. Calma

My “architect -  bolante” issue above further reinforces this point. Continuing at this level of debate sends the wrong message to both our practitioners and aspirants. And the message that it reinforces is that the law remains to be an irrelevant relic of the post war era. The law, with its attendant screening exam is a hurdle that everyone just needs to overcome but neither spells your expertise nor your potential: a bureaucratic red tape. This is public perception.

By the lead of the board, engaging the architecture community in an intelligent debate at large, however, brings the law to the ground. It informs, at the same time, refines it in its continued discussion. The essence of it is democratically filtered through the opinions of the practicing community. And all of this shall be in the light of the controversial issue of Calma and all others who will follow.

Palafox completely summarizes my second point. In his interview for the PDI with Alex Vergara way back in August 2007:

“Discouraging the entry of qualified outsiders, (Palafox) reasoned, only makes their services more covetable. Allowing them to practice more freely in the country would demystify their reputations since they’re likely to become as common as the underrated Filipino architect next door.” -Alex Vergara

Letting the foreigners in with regulation brings about technology transfer. I would much rather have them here than us making an exodus to the Middle East and China to earn a living and acquire their technology.

Insisting to categorise the foreigners as contraband professionals will only make them more enticing to the Filipino developers. They all the more become rare and exciting.

Regard this excerpt from RA 9266. It is one of the four qualifiers for a foreign architect to practise locally:

“[That] he/she is legally qualified to practice architecture in his/her own country, and that his/her expertise is necessary and advantageous to our country particularly in the aspects of technology transfer and specialization” – Section 38, RA 9266

Who determines this rather subjective requirement of necessity and benefit to the country will be no other than the same body who is mandated to protect the enterprise of the Filipino architect. It’s like giving yummy donuts to a three-year-old for safe keeping. Among the four conditions, to this was attached an almost immeasurable criteria, while the other three were empirical. I say let the boys play and get bruised by the bullies. We would be delusional to even think that legislation wields more power over the market forces.

Again, the essence of our practice in general should be looked into and redefined. If we think we are as good as the foreigners, then let us compete fairly. Remove the “partida” and slug it out. If the market thinks we are not worthy of their business, then that is our problem, not the foreigners’.

When the APEC accord comes to full fruition on 2020, we will all be fair game. All the flood gates will be opened and whether we are a Locsin or an insignificant speck in the galaxy of our local practise, we will be eaten up by the deluge within the bigger universe of global architecture if we don’t shape up.

The law is the law, however. We need it to put our lives in order. Before our debate with the PICE reaches the Supreme Court, let us revisit and open the floor to more liberal discussion. By then, when all is completely legitimate and uncontested, we are ready with an amendment to promote more harmony within our ranks this time.

Ten Tips to Becoming a Happy Architect

(Hong Kong) Almost two weeks ago, our ever hard-working president Arch. Willie Chua encouraged me to write an article for the president’s newsletter. Upon my inquiry on what ten tips would this be about, he said it would be about anything. Anything? Yes, anything I wanted to write about. Architecture, I would suppose. I, naturally got excited as it is not everyday that you get to write about ten tips on anything about architecture.

I am now at the Airport Express train of the Hong Kong International Airport, tapping away on my laptop. I just arrived from Manila. My deadline for this article, you see, was last night. And in the event that I bump into Willie at down town Hong Kong, I would have at least something to give him. I heard he was on this side of town this long week end too.

Ten tips. Let’s see. It’s quite difficult to narrow down on something when you are given a direction as wide as the Amazon River, but I will try just the same.

Let me now talk to you about my ten tips to becoming a successful, therefor, happy architect. Architecture is a craft driven by virtues and gifts, I believe – positives ones. Success can be predicted just by looking at the virtues and gifts held by that individual. I teach at an architecture school and this are what I always drone to my poor students who don’t seem to get enough of my nuggets of wisdom.

There is truly no point in being an architect if you don’t have the gift of talent. There are various kinds, some common, some as elusive as the project of that next architect that you have been dying to have. Let me give you five.

First. Design. This is the talent that all of us architects are presumed to must have. In scholarly terms, design is the process or activity undertaken to provide organizational solutions to a particular generated problem. Good design, we’ll all find out, is that one right solution that the particular problem is looking for. This law is universal from the tiniest micro-chip to the biggest political government. A successful career in architecture is largely hinged on this talent to organize. It is what we are primarily expected to do, and do good.

Second. Style. Style is the soul of design. Organization, or the intentional lack of it, acquires the flair, the drama and the enigma through style. Style needs to be embedded in intelligence and thought. It is not random and empty. It is not, God forbid, by whim nor by chance. Style is what made Falling Waters memorable and the Guggenhiem at Bilbao atrociously famous. It is what told Frank Lloyd Wright to precariously extend his cantilevers to dangerous lengths when other cowardly no-name architects would otherwise not.

Where does style come from? It is innate. It is the product of the conspiracy of events that contributed to what is now called your life. Many of us have this sad misconception that style is learned. You either have it or you don’t. The fortunate part is, you’ll immediately know if you don’t. The unfortunate part is, when you find out you don’t, you can’t learn it.

Third. Communication. Architecture is a language. The conveyance of the two former talents to your clients rely on your talent to communicate. Successful architects know when to talk and when to talk some more. Don’t just wither and wilt in one corner when you are asked to engage and to share. A brilliant idea only acquires its brilliance when it is judged by others to be so. As they say, if a tree fell in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it actually make any sound?

Fourth. Business savviness. Read: savvy, not hungry. Architecture is not the business of making money. Architecture is the business of transforming people’s lives through your art. The universe will reward you with wealth if you deserve it, architecture or not. If you find yourself in architecture with the agenda of abundance, you do not belong in this industry. Be a trader, a merchant, or a politician even. But by God, if you pepper the landscape with ugly and stupid creations on your way to the bank, then shame on you.

Savviness is enlightened and stylish shrewdness. You know what is just enough and just right, both for you and your clients. You need this talent to put your practise in a sustainable position so you can propagate the vocation of architecture. Business savviness means you know that perfection comes before profit. It also means knowing when to stop being a doormat.

Lor Calma demonstrated it perfectly when he recounted how he instantly sold his own house to an eager client who was ready to buy it. He was still living in it and it was not for sale! But, the artistic value of the house was just so much that it practically screams “Buy me!”. It promoted how good he is as an architect, and it gave him the opportunity to create another master piece for himself. Along the way, he earned money from something that wasn’t meant to do so.

Fifth. Leadership. I have not met any successful person who is not a leader. It is a prime requirement. Leadership is a talent that will inspire your apprentices to perfection. It is what will drive you to make decisions in spite and despite. Architects are commissioned by clients to provide not only form to their dream, but direction to their aspirations. The absence of leadership will result in the demise of a firm or an organization. It will also result in the loss of clients and projects. Ultimately, opportunities will go the way of others and avoid your direction because you are unreliable. Leadership begets trust, and trust begets opportunities. When you see that opportunity come your way, grab it and lead.

Virtues form the next five tips. Virtues are personal characteristics that end in the goodness of that person and everyone around him. Architects, I feel, need certain virtues that, if complied, will certainly lead to a successful architectural career.

Sixth. Vision. How would one know where to start if he doesn’t know where he wants to go? Have a dream, and continue dreaming. Your dream is what will fuel your desire to succeed. Your dream is what will fuel your courage to say yes, when everyone says no. Your vision will wrap around your practise, your staff, your colleagues like a mantle that will hold it together. Everyone will look to it as their own and concert their energies to go where that vision leads them.

You remember that lonely, middle aged CAD encoder at the office who always grumble on how unfair life is? He is sorry, bent and tired. He never had a dream. He thought he did, but he never really did. Had he a vision, he would not have settled for a job that will make him stare at the monitor for ten years straight.

Vision should creep into the architect’s design in the same way it soaks everyone that works with and around him. Francisco Manosa had a clear vision of what Philippine Architecture should be. Talk to him once and his over zealousness will infect you. We may not completely agree on everything that he says. I certainly don’t. But, we like a man with a dream, a winner. We rally behind him in his cause of promoting our architecture. We hoisted him on this place of reverence precisely because of his vision.

Seventh. Innovation. “Innovation is the whim of an elite before it becomes a need of the public.” said the Austrian philosopher Ludwig von Mises. Needless to say, Architecture is an elite profession where few are called, and even fewer are chosen. By this virtue alone, you have the responsibility to contribute to the growth of your culture and society. Growth will not happen without innovation. Innovation is simply a new and better way of doing something. As architects, we trail blaze on innovation. We do it first, as the rest of the world watches. When we innovate, we are not settled on how things were done before. We hunger for how things could be done better, faster and cheaper. Relics who thrive on the doctrine of “This is how things are done here, so let’s just do that…” wallow in the safety of their universe. That universe, however, is stale and bland. I suspect, it is also musty and crumbling.

A perfect example of an architect who refuses to innovate are those types who are stuck up with reinforced concrete. Nothing in this planet will convince them that there is any better material. It is already the twenty first century and still, their buildings proudly show off this 80s look. When pressed to innovate and try on new materials and methods, he passes of an excuse that it is too expensive, too complicated and too inaccessible. The fact of the matter is, he is just too lazy to immerse himself into something new. Innovating will hoist him out of his comfort zone made of the same reinforced concrete where he has the formulas, the details and the suppliers ready at his beck and call. Now this very same lazy architect has the loudest voice in protest against clients who award their projects to foreign consultants. It can be a twisted world.

When innovation happens, fresh ideas are born and cultivated. Where we would cower in the safety of our conventional methods, we now bravely explore new materials, and newer ways of using old materials. Frank Gehry’s buildings would not have been possible without his innovation on the use of titanium as a cladding material. Neither would he have been successful if he insisted on using reinforced concrete.

Eighth. Excellence. Filipinos are deep in this muck called the “Pwede Na Yan” syndrome. We have never gotten out of it. This conveniently follows one’s apathy for innovation. When you are lazy to innovate, you would naturally convince yourself to settle for less. When you are too tired to walk the extra mile because it would mean a slight cut in your profit margin, you throw away excellence out the window. As an architect, you need this culture of excellence. Excellence is what brought fame and fortune to Manny Pacquiao. His discipline for excellence is legendary. Never mind his misguided ambition to enter politics. Never mind that his silly mother offends us with her atrocious accent and outfits. He is Filipino excellence personified. No Filipino architect has reached even a quarter of Pacquiao’s fame and recognition. Try removing “pwede na yan” from your vocabulary. It will do wonders for your practise.

Ninth. Foresight. Architects are basically planners of the lives of their clients. We anticipate and dictate through our architecture where and how they will behave in a particular situation in space. Given this, we need an extraordinary amount of foresight. Foresight is the ability to see events forward. Having it enables one to anticipate provisions to address possible aberrations to these events.

We, for instance, should have the foresight to understand that painting a building situated along EDSA paper white will mean the owner calling you up after six months. He will surely demand for an explanation why he woke up one day with a deep grey facade. On a smaller scale, having the foresight to advise your client thirty minutes early that you will be late will give him a chance to adjust his time and not wait for you. This is way better instead of appearing to your irate client thirty minutes delayed with no advice at all because you were just such a sissy to call earlier. Big things and small things, size don’t matter.

Tenth. There is no tenth. You fill this up as mortal participants in your own destiny as a co-creator of the universe. I have my own tenth, but of course, I won’t tell you. It’s what sets me apart from all of you. Your tenth will set you apart from all of us. When we’re all winners of the Pritzker, let’s share our tenth. It should be fun.