Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Last chance to fill out the survey: Should the title of architect be protected?


As the government begins its three yearly review of the Architects Registration Board (ARB) and its role, we want to know what’s most important to you in terms of protection of title and function

At the end of last year RIBA council reaffirmed its commitment to abolish the register and take over the statutory maintenance of architects’ title.

The institute intends to push ministers for the abolition of the board as part of the government’s triennial review of the quango’s functions later this month.

Whether you are an architect, an architectural technician, a student or working within the profession, we want to hear your views.

Is the current regulatory set up value for money? Should the title of architect be protected? Should the ARB really be abolished?


Readers' comments (19)

  • The £0.5M worse off that I am currently - having not managed to transfer from being an assistant to an employed ‘architect by title’ as yet - will have been in vain if ‘title protection’ were to be abolished!

    2017 is a long way away, in terms of [expensively] working towards my objective, meaning further wasted earning potential yet to come, in spite of my experience.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • John Kellett

    Not only should the title be protected, the function and role of architect should be protected to. Most of the rest of the developed World think it sensible to protect the public by such legislation, the Canadian system being of particular note.

    In fact, in the interests of public safety and protection from 'cowboys', the role of ALL construction professionals should be protected. For example there are no restrictions on who can call themselves a structural engineer, building services engineer, building surveyor or technologist. The only protection that the public has is 'Chartered' status but that is not backed by legislation as it should be.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • J Burden

    I'd like to revise my comment and say that protection is absolutely necessary for domestic clients who are still prone to using cowboy designers and builders with horrible and heartbreaking results.

    That said, I'd ask whether commercial clients really need protecting from pretend architects.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Relating to Architecture, all professional titles regardless the level of education should be implemented and protected at all costs, and penalize anyone using the same title if is not qualified for it, one should be able to identify an individual for the require need taking in consideration type of service require, that will determine the type of fee to be payed for the required project documentation.

    Regarding the function an Architect by rights he is an Artist, that has learned to combine his ability to visualize forms and shapes and has a basic knowledge of various materials for the realization physically for human and animal benefits. The main beneficial of an Architect is having the knowledge to design more accurately anything that he can interpret from someone else idea or requirements in conjunction with his ideas and knowledge for needed function.

    No one has the right to criticize or degrade any Architect or a matter of fact, any one else that is not an Architect that has created the design, the reason is just an idea to be considered, we are all independent individuals mentally. I know that is a very sore point that there are people that are non Architects that have design in the past and present fantastic buildings that have been built very successfully and get admired by many. Because you may see something that you personalty don't like, it not means that is the perception that everyone else has.

    We are living on a open liberal civilized world, that is fantastic to have varies pleasing ideas for looks in construction. Can you imagine if every designer will follow the same ideas of type of designs pattern with a restriction of expression ?

    Architects or any non Architectural degree individuals documentation ideas, need to obtain various types of calculation from Engineers, various professionals Consultants advice to be able to realize they designed vision. If not, his idea will be just an idea. So, if we want to be honest and realistic I cannot see the need for the protection of the function of any Architect, reason be, he will not going to erect anything by himself, he just merely placing forward his personal well designed documentation to various professions for his work be realized physically and appreciated.

    With today available means of open ready knowledge that we have in computers, there is no need to anyone not be able to distinguish the meaning and the value of a Architectural Professor, a Architect, a Architectural Technologist, a Architectural Technician or a Architectural Draughtsman, this type of available information at our finger tips it will give anyone a excellent idea, what one is going to lead with, for the required needs. This is one of the reasons that we must never underestimate the intelligence of the others, to be able to contract the right person for the job size that needs to be done.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When, oh when, will architects understand that their title IS already protected without the necessity for the ARB? The Fraud Act 2006 is far more effective in prosecuting those who, without qualifications, would fraudulently represent themselves as architects, and with significantly more teeth than the Architects Act 1997 which limits the amount of any fine, (the most recent was for a derisory £400). The Fraud Act by contrast allows for UNLIMITED damages against anyone pretending to any title which cannot be justified by qualification. Thus any Chartered Architect, or even any "unattached" architect is protected without the need for statutory protection by the Arb which is truly redundant.

    Architects, in the lifetime of the Arb have spent more than £30 million on less than 30 cases brought by the Arb; one test case brought either by an individual or the RIBA on behalf of its members would blow the Arb out of the water.

    It is not simply that neither the profession nor the public now requires this pointless organisation for protection, it is that the Arb consistently demonstrates its contempt for the profession that supports it, whether it is in controversially prosecuting small practices whose only redress is through the high courts at a cost of over £25k, (last year the Arb spent over £800, 000 of your money in legal legal fees), or in not recognising RIBA validated schools of architecture abroad, the Arb is doing the profession serious damage. I spent six years on the Arb Board fighting their distrust and contempt for the profession and, with the Arb Reform Group, heading off their attempt to impose their own CPD and annual monitoring proposals. This is an organisation which claims to protect the consumer but does not advise that its EU members can be registered without taking part 3. The list is endless and it is time for the profession to tell the government through the Triennial Review that this pointless and parasitic organisation, (nearly £1million of your money a year spent duplicating the RIBA's education programme), has to go.

    George Oldham

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The UK Government needs to bring in 'Protection of Function of Architect' to protect the safety of the UK public and their building investments.. The Irish Government have just legislated for 'Protection of Function of Architect' over growing concerns about the number of building failures being caused by the unqualified and non-architects designing buildings. The UK Insurance Industry are having to pick up the cost of poorly designed and detailed buildings on the publics home and buildings insurance cover.

    77% of countries in the developed world have 'Protection of Function of Architect to protect their people from building design failures!

    Germany has 'Protection of Function of Architect' and 'Minimum Architects Fee Scales' which ensures that their architects are receiving sufficient fee income to provide a professional service.

    According to Building Design 22% of UK architects are out of work and a further 9% have left the architects profession.

    According to the RIBA Insurance Agency UK architects fees have dropped by 40% since 2008. Yet the amount of Building Legislation in the UK is at an all time high! How does the RIBA expect UK architects to provide a professional service on that level of remuneration?

    UK developers are not engaging the architects profession, as a consequence the UK is being filled with the same banal little 'Toy Town' housing developments up and down the country.

    Yes, George Oldham, The latest Manchester Architects Salary Survey, with salaries indicated by 186 architects and comments from most, makes extremely sorry reading,

    George Oldham's comment: "Yes, the MSA survey makes sad reading, but “architects poorly paid” hardly news".

    I hope he is going to do something about it!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • UK should have protection of function of Architect. It should also protect the function of other design professionals including but not necessarily limited to those who submit documents to the BCB and Planning Authorities. So I include Civil and structural engineers, Building services engineers/ Fire Engineers.
    This would do a number of things,improve quality of documentation and build, making the BCOs life easier. It would improve the reputation of the professions and stabilise the fee base. This in turn would enable construction professions to be valued and would attract good new entrants to the industry.
    It is done in other countries in the EU, of which we are part , so why not the UK ?
    Perhaps because to UK Govt, cheapest is always best, at least for construction industry......or any sector other than financial services in fact.
    ps At the top...Architecture is not engineering, what is that supposed to even mean? I like the reply by Laurence Owen below it.
    J Beckett CEng MCIBSE

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am so late to reply but I came across it when searching if the term was still protected. Yes I think it should be protected. Moreover there should be a thorough standard definition of the word if it is to be a protected status. Over the last few years I have seen increased job roles advertised that call for various architects of all kinds. This is highly confusing and must add to the confusion of the client. Most recently is the new term Enterprise architects who are employed everywhere in business including some architectural practices but have nothing to do with architecture in the true sense of the profession at all. The term has been borrowed in business and is now used widely to describe people who "architect" businesses. I would like to see some clear guidelines for the use of the word if it is not to be confusing for a client who would like to appoint an architect.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with David Grube's statement above "UK developers are not engaging the architects profession, as a consequence the UK is being filled with the same banal little 'Toy Town' housing developments up and down the country." It is a sad state of the day when a beautiful city like Edinburgh has had part of its beautiful history often in stone torn down, to be replaced with some plastic faceless, meaningless out of place faced parading around trying its best to blend in but sticking out like something out a horror show. My largest regret was buying a new build home, oh my goodness, please don't let us go there. Who designed it? No-one is the answer it was not designed it was clumsily put together by a dysfunctional team of builders and developers missing an architect's input and it shows. How it remains standing is a mystery. That and all the other rocky horror homes I have witnessed as every developer will remind you, "squeeze in another room thats £1000 per square foot there" You can't leave that for anything remarkable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Show 1020results per page

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.