Regulation of the architectural profession, and particularly protection of function and title, are a hotly contested topic – especially now in economically tough times for the construction sector – and so it didn’t come as a surprise that this week’s debate on aforementioned topic was not for the faint-hearted!
After an introduction by host and RIBA Regional Chair, Anthony Clerici, our two debaters, Alun Nicholas of Amcanu’n Uchel and Philip Singleton of Facilitate Urban took to the stage to argue for and against protection of function, before handing over to the audience.
Sole practitioners and bigger practices – a world apart?
A recurring topic was the need expressed by sole practitioners for protection of title and function, as they find themselves in a unique set of circumstances not necessarily shared by bigger practices. This would protect consumers from people offering a partial service and would make sure that small practices could survive, as well as protecting consumers from misleading or erroneous claims of Architectural Services that are available on the market. This group of debaters’ consensus on the role of the RIBA was that more could be done to promote the value of architects to the general public, rather than the lofty idea of ‘good architecture’ that might not necessarily mean a lot to most people.
RIBA’s involvement in bringing local architects to the ‘Ask an expert’ stand at Grand Designs Live was pointed out as a good initiative, as well as the recent launch of RIBA’s HomeWise campaign.
The more the merrier?
On the other end of the spectrum opinions converged over the fact that collaboration and diversity amongst the professions is something to aspire to, not to avoid – only looking inward was not healthy for the profession. Some debaters’ experiences suggested that good design or competent planning submissions were not necessarily the monopoly of architects, and that on the contrary bad quality, as well as high quality contributions could be made by all professions. However, procurement was emphasized as a big issue that had to be challenged.
Protection of what?
One salient point the group could not agree on was that protection of function would actually entail. The only tangible key element of an architect’s work that would lend itself to protection of function was planning submission, but it was questioned whether a restriction of that kind would ever be accepted in today’s planning system. Aside from that it seemed difficult to pinpoint what function exactly could be protected within a profession as varied as architecture, within a sector as interlinked as the construction industry. On the contrary, having the vision and combined expertise spanning a variety of professions could allow architects to set themselves apart from the ‘specialists’ of the building industry.
The value of education
Debaters wondered why it was that a long and expensive architectural education could be undermined by competitors from any quarter of the building industry, without similar level of qualification or even any in some cases. Many in the room regretted that the UK Planning system does little to distinguish between categories of planning applicants as seems to be the case elsewhere in the European Union. However, one recent graduate argued that training as an architect was always a win-win situation since it gave them a definite advantage to do ‘higher level’ work that other untrained competitors couldn’t do.
The debate on education remained without conclusion, but it posed interesting questions about whether a change in education and accreditation would help to make distinctions between competing professions instead, or better equip new architects with the skills to compete in future markets.
Looking outward
Interesting comparisons were drawn between architecture and other professions, as well as other countries. Traditionally protected professions such as law have become more open to competition in certain aspects, for instance through legal executives or the more recent introduction of alternative business structures. This illustrated a general trend of deregulation that all professions had to adapt to, particularly within the UK, which for decades has been on of the least regulated countries in the Europe, with regards to the liberal professions. Comparisons with other countries also suggested that protectionism was not necessarily a guarantee for good design, and debaters compared strictly regulated Poland with unregulated Scandinavia to this effect.
Food for thought…
The debate left everyone fired up for more debating over some wine and nibbles at Glenn Howells Architect’s nest venue. The big questions of protection, procurement, education and value of architects continued to resonate with the attendees:
…should the RIBA ensure protection of title and function as their ultimate aim in order to protect architects, or were they happy enough to compete in a relatively unregulated market while working with a myriad of other building professions? Was there more that could be done in educating the general public about the value of architects that would help the profession as a whole? Would a resurrection of protectionism achieve the desired outcome, and be desirable in today’s markets or would it even hinder the profession in competing within the industry and better be replaced with adapting to change, and regulating other aspects of the profession, such as procurement or education?
Where do you stand? – Let us know your thoughts!
riba west midlands 