AT talks to… Bob Allies, partner at Allies and Morrison, who, reflects on his evolving role as ‘architect in residence’ for the City of Bath, working across council departments to enhance design quality, foster collaboration, and demonstrate the value of architectural insight in shaping the city.

How is it going in Bath?
It’s going well, I think. It’s funny — it’s almost exactly six months since I started and I’ve now got a better sense of what the job involves. But in a way, I won’t really know until I reach the end of the period. That’ll be the time when it becomes clearer what has been possible to achieve.

Let’s start from the beginning: how did the role come about?
The Liberal Democrats, who are now in power in Bath, put in their manifesto at the end of their first term that they were going to appoint an Architect in Residence. The aim was to improve the quality of design and architecture in Bath and North East Somerset.

That’s important because Bath is a World Heritage Site — actually it has two designations. One is for the Roman archaeology and the Georgian city and the other is as one of eleven European spa towns. That brings a particular context and responsibilities to manage the site well. If a World Heritage site isn’t looked after, it can lose its designation.

I think there was also a general feeling within the council that the quality of architecture in the city over the last 20 or 30 years hasn’t been as good as they’d like. There are good examples: Grimshaw designed the modern spa in the centre of the city, Eric Parry did a lovely extension to the Holburne Museum, and Grimshaw again (with Farrell) did the Herman Miller factory, now used by Bath Spa University’s architecture school. Some of the original Bath University buildings, including some by the Smithsons, are interesting too. But there’s still a sense that things could be better.

So that’s what encouraged the council to think along these lines. In the initial stages, it was fairly exploratory. I was approached about whether I might be interested in taking it on for this initial period of 18 months.

The role was developed as a collaboration between the city and the university. What they achieved was a part-time professorship — endowed for the duration of this pilot. I now hold the Medlock Fellowship at the university. Ninety per cent of my time is allocated to the city, and 10 per cent to the university and I now teach in the final year of the architecture school.

Bath Schools of Art and Design by Farrell Grimshaw in 1976 and Grimshaw 2019. The project was a finalist in the 2022 Architecture Today Awards. Learn more about the building here. (Credit: Chris Wakefield)

That’s quite an unusual role!
It is — or it was. Since I took this on, Sadiq Khan has appointed ten “town architects” in ten London boroughs. I haven’t yet spoken to any of them — they’ve only just started — but it will be interesting to compare notes in future.

The idea of a city architect exists elsewhere in Europe. For example, Finn Williams is city architect in Malmö. He’s more embedded, with direct responsibility. In other European cities, you often have people from practice brought in for a few years on a part-time basis. They contribute to how the city evolves but don’t run departments day to day.

There are UK precedents too. John Thorp was a civic architect in Leeds and was very effective over maybe 10 or 15 years. He brought together changes and developments into a coherent citywide strategy. He had this amazing thing — a huge drawing of the city that he would carry into meetings. It was a kind of double-A0 collage of different drawings and sketches, and in any meeting he would roll it out so you could see how any given project sat within the wider picture.

Another example is Richard Rogers. Ken Livingstone asked him to be a city architect, but he declined the salary and said the money should fund a small team instead. He gave his time for free and coordinated their work. That became the Architecture and Urbanism Unit at the GLA, which eventually evolved into Design for London under Peter Bishop. Peter once said they had no power and no money — but they worked to coordinate, influence procurement, and shape the bigger picture; it’s another interesting model.

So, in a way, part of your brief is to prove the idea works?
Yes, exactly. I think that’s part of the job — to demonstrate by the end of 18 months that it’s been a worthwhile thing. If I can show that having someone like me around in a city or town can be useful, then maybe other places will take it up too. It’s a relatively modest investment, financially speaking.

Do you think the role might evolve into something more permanent — say, a City Architect?
I did think about that. At first, I was a bit baffled by the term “Architect in Residence.” I spent time trying to think of alternatives. But “City Architect” implies a level of authority and responsibility that I don’t have. I’m not running departments or directing staff. Someone like Finn Williams in Malmö (read out interview with him here) likely does something closer to that. I’m here in a more lightweight way, contributing to different strands across the council.

I ended up thinking: ‘they used this phrase in the manifesto, let’s stick with it’. It signals the sort of role it is. I like that it brings someone from private practice into this context. I’m not tied to one department — I can move across planning, regeneration, sustainability, transport, and so on. I can act as a kind of bridge between different teams.

Can you give an example of how that plays out?
Sure. I’ve been visiting some of the major housing projects built in the last 10 to 15 years, trying to draw lessons from them. I’ve done this with landscape architects and planners, and I’ll be doing it with transport colleagues too. It’s allowed me to listen to all of them and give my own view.

Those departments don’t always naturally overlap. They tend to provide inputs from their own discipline in a relatively independent way. But if we can get everyone to think about things together, we may shift the dynamic slightly. That doesn’t happen on its own, but I think my role can support that.

Did you have a connection to Bath before this?
Yes, quite a long one. In the late ’70s and early ’80s, I worked for Michael Brawne. He was appointed as the first professor of architecture at Bath. The school was founded with support from Ted Happold — of Buro Happold — and Michael brought me in to teach. Peter Smithson and Patrick Hodgkinson were also teaching there and I taught alongside Neave Brown. So I’ve had a long connection with the school and I’ve also been an external examiner there since.

Of course, when you visit a place occasionally, you only see parts of it. Since starting this role, I’ve been spending every other free moment walking and exploring the city. It’s been genuinely thrilling. The historical parts are extraordinary, but I’m also fascinated by the areas that are changing — the riverfront west of the city, for example.

There are also parts of Bath facing real challenges — areas that need regeneration and support. Some places in the surrounding area, like Radstock and Midsomer Norton, were once thriving mining towns. They’ve lost out over the years. The council has already been putting effort into regenerating those places, and that’s something I hope to be involved in as well.

You mentioned your time is split 90/10 between the city and the university. What does your overall weekly schedule look like — including at Allies and Morrison?
Basically, I work two days a week in Bath. Allies and Morrison is in a moment of transition — Graham Morrison and I are handing over our shares and responsibilities to the next generation of partners. I’m still involved in the practice for probably another two days a week. But I’m no longer leading or running it day to day. That’s now in other people’s hands.

That’s made it possible for me to throw myself into the Bath role. I probably do more than two days a week, really. But that’s fine for me. If this becomes a longer-term role, though, there will be a question about how to structure it so people at the cutting edge of practice can take it on without it being too much.

When you started, what were your initial priorities?
To be honest, I didn’t know. I had to work it out. But certain issues have gradually become clear. One of them is design advice. I want to be involved in projects — probably larger ones — as they come forward, ideally at an early stage. That’s when you can have the most influence.

You might say: ‘well, the planners do that already’. And they do. But I bring a different kind of experience. It’s what I do in the office: look at projects, think about them, draw, explore how they might evolve. Sometimes it’s about the internal quality of the scheme. But more often, what I’m interested in is how the project interfaces with the rest of the world — with the surroundings.

A new project can really stimulate or resolve a piece of town or city. Often, it’s the edges of the project that are most important. We’ve learned that from projects like King’s Cross. The centre is relatively easy. It’s the edges that are hard — and they’re also where the opportunities lie.