Three Questions
The Future Architecture Front (?) asked me to respond to three loaded questions in advance of the RIBA Presidential campaign results.
See Q& A below:
1. Right now, many architectural workers are effectively subsidising the profitability of their workplaces by working significant amounts of unpaid overtime. As RIBA President, how would you address this condition?
If you mean that some architecture staff are working for low wages, then I would suggest that asking for a wage rise would be a logical response. That said, the country is veering towards recessionary pressures on profits, a slowdown in the industry, high employment costs, and new technology pressures on profits, so it is hardly surprising that staff – from top to bottom – are getting squeezed, because employers are getting squeezed. Clearly that is not a good thing but advocating for growth, not degrowth; arguing for economic investment for a dynamic construction industry is one way to promote better employment conditions. In my manifesto – available on www.VoteAustinRIBA.org, I have advocated a benchmark survey of comparative fees in particular locations in order to embolden practices to ask for more/better fees.
I know that FAF considers unionisation to be the stock answer. Well, I used to be the shop-steward for the MSF Union in the 1990s [now Unite The Union], and if staff wish to unionise, it’s not that hard, especially in the light of the government Employment Rights Act… ironically, an act that will possibly have the unintended consequence of making it tougher to find entry-level jobs. But unions have changed and nowadays Union bureaucrats have joined the lanyard class and are more interested in policing its members than fighting for members’ rights; often reporting members to their employers for wrong-think, for speech codes, for so-called microaggressions. Unions have their place, but they aren’t what they used to be. As a matter of fact, union membership is falling and several key unions are disaffiliating and moving away from the traditional left-wing parties.
Of course, architecture is a job for some; a vocation for others, but in general treating it as a 9am til 5pm job is not in the spirit of a profession. Just as a surgeon doesn’t walk out mid-operation when the clock strikes 5pm, so architects’ offices sometimes have to hit deadlines requiring longer working hours.
2. We know the built environment is responsible for approximately 40% of carbon emissions, and bold new policies are needed to mitigate the profound risks of the climate and ecological crises. In the short term of the RIBA President, what would be your priorities regarding our ecological impacts?
The plethora of eco-think-tanks, lobby groups, carbon traders, pseudo-researchers, positions papers, Net Zero conferences, international committees, Framework Conventions and a million other talking shops are responsible for a huge amount of hot air on this subject. Everyone wants a slice of the very generously-funded pie. But international architect Reinier de Graaf says that most of the effort foisted on hard-pressed architects is merely performative lip service. I agree. Environmentalism is low on my list of concerns. If we seriously wanted to reduce carbon emissions, we’d advocate switching to nuclear power immediately, rather than trying to convince ordinary people to build their extensions in rammed earth and thatch.
My priority – as President of the Royal Institute of British Architects – will be to Architects and Architecture rather than to environmental science. I want to prioritise improvements in architectural education, which will involve minimising the contemporary fetish on sustainability and put knowledge, imagination and critical engagement at its core. I want to challenge over-regulation and stifling bureaucratic procedures that are stymying the industry’s growth, adding to unproductive labour and hence undermining profitability. It is another way to tackle Question 1.
On a broader point, I am an advocate of meaningful development, not Sustainable Development, I want the underdeveloped world to be raised to a standard comparable to the West regardless of their carbon emissions. Everyone’s conditions should be improved and not sacrificed on the altar of climate fears. Architects have a huge amount to offer. See my Letter on Liberty, “Greens: The New Neo-Colonialists” on this matter: https://academyofideas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/greens-the-new-colonialists.pdf
3. We are in the midst of increasing tension and violence along lines of gender, race, and sexuality throughout the world, with the far-right gaining momentum both within the UK and internationally. What role does the RIBA have in responding to these wider political landscapes, both in advancing its own EDI initiatives and taking a stance within wider public discourse?
I am the series editor of Five Critical Essays and last year we published “Five Critical Essays on EDI” (available for free, here: https://futurecities.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Five-Critical-Essays-on-EDI_final.pdf). In it, I argued that each of the words, ‘equity’, ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ individually convey valid ambitions in their own right, but sadly the ideological pursuit of these objectives wrapped up in the dogma of ‘EDI’ results in the polar opposite of what those words mean in everyday usage. Diversity is acceptable, but not diversity of opinion. Indeed the “wrong” opinions can lead to exclusion. Blasé use of the phrase “far right” to mean “those who disagree” is unhelpful, and cries wolf when there really is a growing problem of right-wing (and left-wing) racism. This tactic is merely a way of delegitimating legitimate political concerns. Even if you don’t agree with them, popular worries about immigration, sovereignty, gender, etc should be debated and not closed down by name-calling.
The ARB expects all architects to ‘advocate for equality, diversity and inclusion’ even though a recent government-sponsored report by The Inclusion at Work panel revealed that EDI practices are ‘polarising’, ‘counterproductive’ and in some cases even ‘unlawful’. If so, why would we advocate for them? Blindly compelling speech in one direction is silly, especially as there are many viewpoints out there that need to be heard. We need more argument, less orthodoxy.
In direct answer to the question, I don’t think that the President of the RIBA is in any position to solve various instances of violence around the world.
END
.
