He also has to ensure that the office decor caters to the varied tastes of his departmental constituencies. The photograph of a smiling Smith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Clooney may appeal to film enthusiasts. Fine arts fans will be appeased by the modern selection Smith admits he put up “rather rapidly” on inheriting the office from Virginia Bottomley. But visiting sport or architecture delegations will look in vain for visible evidence of Smith’s interest.
Interior decor aside, the problem of finding meaningful time for architecture and urban design in such a diverse portfolio is a genuine one. As Smith acknowledges: “Up to now, I don’t think any British government has taken architecture seriously.” So, how can a culture minister – even one who seems genuinely keen to put architecture on the agenda – make sure that design can fight its way to the top of the in-tray? Smith, MP for Islington South and Finsbury, is hoping he has found the answer. His staff is currently sifting through 50 applications for the post of national “architecture champion”, the government’s new, high-profile architectural spokesman, advocate and arbiter. This is the person Smith hopes will “make a splash” and “put good quality design in architecture very much more on the governmental and public map”.
The successful candidate, to be named by the end of this month, will be the chairman of the provisionally entitled Architecture Commission and will decide much of its policy. But for a new body with large aspirations, the commission has a familiar-looking dowry. It will inherit the funding, premises and staff of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the £220 000 budget of the Arts Council’s demised Architecture Unit and £105 000 previously administered by the Royal Society of Arts.
With this £1m budget, plus Smith’s £300 000 going-away present, the commission will take on a “proactive brief” and a long list of expectations. It must retain the RFAC’s function of passing judgement on important schemes, and offer design advice to the government and other public sector bodies. Then it must encourage an understanding of architecture in education and develop a more regional dimension to all its activities.
Architects and the wider construction industry are supporting Smith’s plan, but watching with some scepticism. The principal doubts are whether a two-day-a-week champion can ever be up to the task, and whether an organisation with so much baggage can present itself as a new force with original ideas. “Unless they’re careful, it’s not the way to launch a new idea,” is a typical comment. “It could easily just be a rehash.”
There are also doubts about how far a London-based commission can extend its regional influence. And, crucially, there are uncertainties as to whether the new champion can influence the government’s £4bn construction programme, from the Ministry of Defence’s prime contracting to the NHS’ private finance initiative hospitals.
“How robust are the links between departments? Can they be improved? I’d like to see more cross-fertilisation between departments,” says another observer.
But the 47-year-old minister, who came to the post after a spell as shadow health secretary, is aware of the objections and ready with at least some of the answers. The finer details of how the commission will balance its time and resources are still being discussed by a seven-strong committee and Smith has to gloss over some awkward gaps. But he insists that the commission will be “rather more than the sum of its parts”, and its chairman “a true champion of good architecture”.
Marching into uncharted territory
Smith makes it clear that he expects the commission to march into the territory of other government departments. “We need to take the thinking through the government as a whole. There are other departments that are clearly of relevance, such as the Department for Education and Employment on the role of architecture in education. We are trying very much to approach this on a cross-governmental basis.”
Up to now, I don't think any British government has taken architecture seriously
And evidently not just on design promotion activities, but also in building procurement. “The government does spend several billion pounds a year on building work, and it’s important we get the design quality of that right. I very much hope the new commission will take as part of its role advice across government in an independent way.” The RIBA in particular hopes that this message will reach the MOD, currently promoting contractor-led prime contracting.
But all the cross-departmental committees in Whitehall will not help the Architecture Commission raise standards if its voice is drowned out by the number-crunching, lowest-price brigade. Likewise, the impact of the architecture champion could be minimal if he or she is simply one more name on a consultation list that includes local authorities, English Heritage, the Civic Trust and all the other usual suspects. So how much power will the commission really wield? again, for now at least, Smith is one step ahead of the critics. “My aim for this body is that it should be robustly independent. What we’re trying to do is create a body that, because of its standing and access to departments, will have real clout.”
For instance, he says that, if the Architecture Commission had been in place during the debate on the buildings for the Scottish parliament and the Greater London Assembly: “I hope it would have been drawn into early discussions by the relevant ministers and departments.”
On becoming more regional in its outlook, Smith expects the commission to “build on and co-ordinate the work of the architecture centres”. Here, his confidence may rest on shaky foundations. Existing centres, including Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, London and North Kent, see their role and priorities differently, and survive as much on the enthusiasm of the individuals running them as locally raised grants and sponsorship. The director of Bristol’s centre, Sasha Lubetkin, resigned in January, citing the lack of regular funding as the reason for leaving.
Barry Shaw, chief executive of the North Kent Architecture Centre and a member of the implementation panel, would be looking to the commission for “modest funding – perhaps £50 000 a year to secure the core work of the centre”. The commission’s modest budget seems unlikely to achieve much more than that.
Leadership and a public service ethos
The Royal Fine Art Commission had a tradition of not appointing an architect to its chair, and Smith appears open to the idea of maintaining it. “We’re looking for leadership, and not necessarily expertise in architecture.”
The chosen candidate will receive £30 000 a year for working two days a week, a salary that Smith agrees is only going to attract people with a sense of public service. More mischievous commentators point out that £30 000 is roughly equal to RFAC chairman Lord St John of Fawsley’s annual car budget.
Smith appears to have the issues in hand, and is ready to pledge the new champion to real influence. Against this background, it is disappointing to find that his personal views on architecture are fairly anodyne. His nominations for favourite contemporary architects and buildings – Richard Rogers’ Lloyd’s building, Foster and Partners’ design for a footbridge at Bankside, Nicholas Grimshaw’s Waterloo Terminal – smack of someone playing it safe. His appreciation of “new lottery projects coming forward” actually means nationally known projects approaching completion, such as Salford’s Lowry Centre and the Royal Opera House.
