This article written by Rob Imrie discusses how rules and regulations pervade and influence, or codify, architects’ practices.
Abstract: It is commonly assumed that building regulation and control is a technical and value neutral activity, and part of a bureaucratic machine external to the design process. For many architects, building regulations are no more than a set of rules to be adhered to, and are usually seen as ephemeral, even incidental, to the creative process of design. However, the main argument of this paper suggests that the building regulations are entwined with, and are constitutive of, architects’ practices. Far from being an insignificant part of the design process, as some commentators suggest, I develop the argument that the building regulations influence aspects of creative practice and process in architecture and, as such, ought to be given greater attention by scholars of urban design.
A subsequent article by Emma Street discusses the difficulties of terminology surrounding codes and regulations.
Abstract: As researchers an important part of our role is to engage critically with the terminology and related literature that intersects with our research interests. Whilst I do not wish to claim this paper offers a comprehensive review, it will demonstrate an engagement with the multiple, and frequently contentious debates surrounding the concepts of ‘regulation’ and ‘codification’ that we refer to in the title of our research.