John Kellett's comments
"plus you don’t earn much for the first 10 years."
You don't earn much for the next 20 years either!
As a profession requiring a high level of intellect the renumeration is, generally, pitiful. It does not take much intellect to realise that, unless committed, architecture is a financially unrewarding career.
Perhaps it is that which is behind the reduced numbers applying to start a course?
At current salary levels the 'debt' is one that won't necessarily be required to pay back!
It does rather have the look of a row of terraced slate quarryman's houses in North Wales: very harsh and very grey.
It is perhaps due to the lack of landscaping and the lack of a sunny day for the photos but......
Also: "had energised people to give up their time", "We have managed to absorb lots of free time and nobody has put a price on that", and "admits to having ‘squandered’ time on the scheme" do appear to be euphemisms for "work for free". I wonder who made a profit out of the scheme.
Just a small observation. Many of the listed people / businesses are not architects! Does ARB know? Does ARB care?
Not enough surely. The government (of all persuasions) seems intent on de-skilling the design of buildings. The majority of building designs submitted at planning application stage are not by architects and many are by 'architectural consultants' with few if any qualifications at all.
If the government wants good design it should be requiring ALL buildings to be designed by those suitably trained and qualified.
The other roles of the architect have been infiltrated by the inadequately qualified too.
How do we make government aware of the actual facts? They seem intent on listening to members of the construction industry with a vested interest in carrying out the role of the architect but without possessing the relevant skills.
The poor quality of the design of the built environment is, and can only be, due to the fact that most buildings are not designed by suitably trained, qualified and registered / chartered professionals.
I think the RIBA has enough to do with architectural issues without being 'human rights' issues in a foreign country into it.
China's treatment of chinese citizens is none of the RIBA's business. It would be odd for the Belgian Women's Knitting Circle to make a song and dance over the RIBA competition to design a new electricity pylon for example. We can object as individuals of course.
As for hanging banners....it is NOT easy. The RIBA has been exploring that very subject for a number of years now, 'planners' and NIMBYs are very much against the idea :-)
You state that Wayne Hemingway is a "Self proclaimed architect". Have you informed ARB? Has ARB taken any action?
There are enough charlatans and fraudsters claiming to be architects as it is.
A sighted person is kind enough to point out a large hole to a blind pedestrian and offers to construct a bridge or guide him/her around the hole.
Blind person decides to take advice from other blind, and partially sighted, friends and neighbours instead.
Blind person falls down hole.
I don't think we ever found out what was 'wrong' with the rather excellent scheme by Edward Cullinan!
An example of objective bad design would be the very large traditional sash window into a small bathroom (apparently clear glazed) as featured in project seen in the "3 Classicists" exhibition or perhaps cedar cladding 10 storeys up in the air as is quite 'fashionable' at the moment!
Town-planners and conservation officers insisting on repeating a bad detail just because it's 'historic' or insisting that 'in keeping' means 'copying' are other examples.
I'm really not certain about "expert opinion should be moderated by democratic principles". Expert opinion should always be 'informed' or 'respect' those 'democratic principles' but the most popular solution is often not the best!
Architectural ideologies and styles (subjective) are different. Most are valid and continue to fall in and out of favour throughout history. Bad design (objective), no matter how much it may be 'desired' by the un-informed and design-illiterate, should never be tolerated. Especially as a result of moderation by democratic principles!
The problem in a democratic society is, of course, to be able to differentiate between the subjective and the objective.