Architecture policies across Europe

Alison Minto, European policy researcher at CABE, steps back and looks at policy measures implemented by our European neighbours.

The quality of our built environment makes a daily impact on every individual's quality of life. However too often we do not see, or rather chose not to look at, the shabby, poor quality environments we are faced with. It is only the exceptional - the Canary Wharf station or the Tate Modern - which make us realise what is missing from the everyday.

As the Greater London Authority prepares its eight strategy documents setting the agenda for the future development of one of the world's most important cities we suggest stepping back and looking at policy measures implemented by our European neighbours.

We can debate the architectural success of the Grands Projets of Mitterand's government, The Grand Arche at La Defense, or IM Pei's Louvre Pyramid, yet it is impossible to dismiss the general interest and commitment by the French public. Something that in recent time in Britain we have found hard to equal.

This difference in approach is embedded in French law. In 1977 a law on architecture was passed with the underlying mandate that architecture is 'in all the public interest'. Within each French Departement a Conseil d'Architecture, d'Urbanisme et de l'environnement was created, the objective of these bodies was to develop greater public awareness and to generate an ethos of participation. Key elements of two papers on architectural policy published in 1983 include the fact that urban schemes must be developed at local level following the decentralization of financial and legislative powers, that the government demonstrate commitment within public sector commissions, and that increasing awareness of all citizens promotes debate.

France was prepared to make architecture a significant issue within public policy procedures. Making all public buildings, infrastructure and the public domain subject to a law and new projects receiving public funds subject to compulsory competition, has led to a greater understanding throughout all levels of the public process. This is leading to a society informed on the benefits of innovative, experimental architectural thought, which begins at education included within the curriculum.

In the Netherlands there have been 2 revisions of an architecture policy first published in 1991, 'Ruimt voor Architectuur'. Here policy for architecture and the environment that surrounds us has been part of public life for some time. The policy works towards a slow art form, aiming to generate quality through a series of exemplary projects fuelling discussion but also highlighting the way forward through enthusiastic and sophisticated solutions.

Through experience the Netherlands' policy revisions are recognizing shortfalls and progressing toward improvements. Making external appearance significant but not primary is one of the efforts to prevent the 'media-cised' effect of projects and works towards an overall quality that avoids superficiality. It appears that as the Dutch government has made architectural issues of importance they have allowed themselves some time to think and plan the moves toward the future.

In Ireland the story is somewhat different. Within the department of Arts Heritage, Gaeltracht and the Islands a small group has prepared a 6-point discussion document, working toward a government policy on architecture. Unable to resource a full policy they take small steps quietly allowing the ideals of the policy to infiltrate subtly into local plans and the built environment without the big bang that a full-blown policy would bring. The cultural expectations of individual countries lead to processes toward similar aims manifesting in diverse ways.

The Greater London Authority provides a model for taking the best of these policies and trailblazing them in the UK. Put aside the world city status and think about public acceptance and participation and maybe we will stop taking our surroundings for granted. Stop expecting instant results and take care over the implementation of policy and projects. Do not expect that this can be done on the cheap - compare how much our European neighbours invest in architecture centres to how much London is willing to spend. Ensure policies to make architectural and urban issues of relevance to the everyday of the city's occupants and there is a strong possibility that not only can we expect to start seeing, but that we will start seeing a difference.