On the Regulation of the function of Architects

Currently, an architect’s “title” – i.e. the word “Architect” – is protected by law, and yet anyone can do the work of an architect, because the “function” of an architect is not protected.

This means that anyone can do the work of an architect… but mustn’t call themselves and architect if they aren’t qualified.

There is a growing bandwagon of special pleading on this subject by architects, which is becoming a little unseemly. Their demand for recognition – the demand to ringfence their role – is even due to be raised in Parliament.

Of course, it is easier to mandate that an architect be used for a particular project, than architects having to convince clients by simply doing a good job, acting professionally, and getting on with it. These kinds of legalistic shenanigans increasingly sounds like a bunch of “creatives” who think that the world owes them a living.

The economy is in a parlous state, commissions are harder to come by clients have less money… and yet in this climate, architects want to rise above the concerns of ordinary people – potential punters – and demand that an architect MUST be used on, say, a kitchen extension, presumably on pain of prosecution.

Architects have always thought that they are above society – convincing themselves that they are relating to the public without ever truly being able to relate to the public.

Demanding respect is not the same as earning it, and this kind of condescending regulatory tick box will potentially exacerbate a lack of trust in the profession, not help it.