Posted on August 24, 2010

I have read with some sadness about the demise of BURA, however as Jim Coleman of Regeneris has put it

“I was not entirely surprised to hear the news. I don’t think that the organisation has managed to define its role in terms of the service it was providing and to whom. One would expect that a body representing the sector would lead the regeneration debate but it seems that, increasingly, Bura has followed it.”

Equally it is true that several other organisations occupy this space. Some of these such as CABE which have undertaken significant research, training and promotion of place are publicly funded. Others are subscription based including for example the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) and the Academy of Urbanism.  All of these organisations undertake fantastic work.

But what next?

Place, property and planning all have a significant role (but not exclusively) in regeneration.  I am purposely focussing on the built environment aspect, as this is what I know best and it would be my view there remains a need for an organisation, which “occupies this space” on behalf of practitioners working in this area.  This organisation should aim to bring both public and private sector together and ensure that critical issues facing this area of work are being dealt with.  This may include training and skills, generating debate on policy matters and disseminating best practice – all of what BURA did so well in the past.

The question really is how.  The proposal I have is that the professional institutions, to whom so many of us depend and pay our significant subscriptions, come together to form a new not-for-profit entity.  As with BURA there would be an elected board – with perhaps allocations for each profession and some others.  The running of the organisations could fall to the professional bodies using existing resources, thus reducing the burden of having significant central overheads.

I believe that using this approach the professions themselves will have a better understanding of the issues, be more effective, support their memberships and have a much wider impact than their own specific interests.

Equally it would make more sense than having RICS Award Ceremonies and then RIBA award ceremonies – all struggling for candidates and paying attendees – to work together.  Most of us work in mutli-disciplinary environments and this approach would be efficient and effective.

I would urge the institutions to have an early meeting to discuss this issue and perhaps even consider “adopting” BURA themselves.

Over to you Jackie!