On the identity of the architect

Being an architect is so much more than the curriculum that one can fit into the 5 years of university education, so much more than the accumulated work experience and building knowledge that comes from practicing and most definitely more than the legal contract jargon that supposedly gives you the right to call yourself an architect in the UK.

The justification presented by the RIBA for essentially copyrighting the word “architect” is that the professional title needs to be protected by people who are not approved by the government body, and can therefore pose a threat to the reputation of the profession. I am obviously simplifying but keeping the essence of the main reasoning. It does sound reasonable at first and to people that are not concerned with a more in depth definition of what an architect is and does, but I would like to argue that the act itself of protecting the word creates a very limited, narrow minded and highly specialised interpretation of the architect, which couldn’t be further from the true nature of the word and its intent.

It’s difficult to believe that there exists another field of knowledge with more definitions and interpretations than architecture. Its unique nature of dealing with creative and artistic visions and combining these with highly technical and scientific knowledge, material expertise and a deep understanding of employing craftsmanship makes defining the role of the architect an intriguing never ending conversation. Is he an artist? Is he a master builder? Is he a skilled manager? Is he a theoretician? Is he a scientist? Is he creative or practical? (Because society struggles to understand people that can be both) Is he a negotiator, a marketing genius, a budget wizard, a politician, a visionary?

This conversation should have been the RIBA’s main concern and understanding the complexity of the task would have surely broaden the scope of the Part 3 qualification. With so many skills to be mastered for an architect to become effective and to produce work that is meaningful, RIBA decided to focus on the contractual side of things instead.

Nothing cultural, political, ecological, humanitarian, historical, chemical, craft related, bioclimatic etc. but legal and contractual instead. This extended qualification that can get you the glowing accolade of being called an architect, takes away the numerous possibilities that come with such a complex word, a word that almost defies definition and equates an architect to a construction professional that can deal with building contracts between clients and contractors.

Language is such a powerful tool and it is used here to put architects into a box that is easy to understand, because undefined things are difficult to control. It’s not surprising therefore to see that most RIBA registered “architects” produce work that is utilitarian, one dimensional, uninspiring, box standard and highly unsustainable. The governing body did not prioritise innovation, invention, inspiration, rethinking and researching.

Being an architect should involve a free exam in front of a diverse panel of experts, discussing art history, architecture history and design, film, ecology and engineering, cultural context, building materials and technology, sustainability, politics and theory. Once you pass that you should be considered a qualified architect and can then choose to enrich your professional career with legal, contractual and budgetary expertise. This will shift the current rigid and uninspired definition and make it clear that further specialisations are just add-ons but do not make you an architect. Part 3 could then be incorporated into the university education, making it 6 years instead of 5 but providing a priceless diversity of thinking that will then produce creative architects that find solutions to problems within the rule framework instead of profit driven professionals, with no interest in improving the quality of living or the aesthetic of their built environment.

Author: Atticus Finch (2025)