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

EXCLUSIVE

Chipperfield: The RIBA is letting the profession down over Brexit

David chipperfieldi–ingrid von kruse
  • 7 Comments

As the UK prepares to leave the European Union, RIBA Gold Medal winner David Chipperfield has sent the institute a ‘Brexit memo’, accusing it of failing to shout loudly enough about architects’ needs

Last month a major competition was announced by the European Commission. Within the competition regulations, referring to Brexit, it warns British candidates that depending on the outcome of the negotiations, ‘tenderers from the UK could be rejected from the procurement procedure’. The reality of Brexit is no longer around the corner; it has arrived.

Despite this, the profession – and the RIBA in particular – has hardly stuck its head above the parapet. Apart from a recent survey of attitudes to our post-Brexit future and a few platitudes asking for reassurance, there has been little reaction from the RIBA, which is surprising given that architects still believe our role involves a profound engagement with societal issues. Can we imagine previous generations of architects being so quiet about an issue that will have such an important role in defining our future and what type of society we want?

While others from the creative and cultural sectors – artists, poets, writers, dancers and filmmakers – might share our concerns about Brexit, they don’t have the advantage of a representative professional body as we do. Why are we so quiet about a process that will change our view of the world?

The reality of Brexit has arrived, yet the RIBA has hardly stuck its head above the parapet

What is more worrying than the commercial consequences is that no one has been able to turn this decision into a vision. Brexit justifies itself only as not being something: not being subservient to Brussels, not accepting immigration and, most importantly, not sharing the regulations and standards imposed by others. We have not yet heard what we do want once we have discarded what we do not want. More importantly, those that are leading us into the fog have not been sufficiently challenged. This must be our responsibility; the failure for not doing so is not forcing answers.

A few months ago, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier asked what sort of society Britain wanted to be. Do we want to stay connected to the social-democratic tendencies of Europe or do we want to continue our Anglo-Saxon procession into deeper deregulation? The ideological masterminds of Brexit are motivated by the vision of increased deregulation, regarded as the enemy of enterprise. However unconvinced we Brits are about European habits, it is not so easy to openly lobby for deregulation and a lowering of standards and workplace protections.

Why is no one answering Barnier? If we want a new future that is not just a rejection of what we have, what is it? We should by now realise that this is not going to be delivered by the obscenely transactional politicians blindly leading us forward into an unknown future. 

Is this not our challenge? Should we not all speak up and hold their feet to the fire? If we do not do it now, then when? As architects, we are on the very front line of so many of the issues that will, and do, affect us all. Should we not demand realistic answers to the issues that will determine our future, not only commercially but morally, emotionally, societally? 

A healthy architectural culture depends on good education, good workplace protections, professional safeguards, cultural transfer and ambitious professional expectations. These topics require energetic demands and proposals beyond purely commercial considerations. 

What is the situation of foreign nationals who work in so many of our offices? Are we not in the position to demand clarity about cultural interchange, education and research, and programmes such as the Erasmus student exchange? Will we be eligible to participate in European competitions? What will be the consequences on building regulation quality and safety standards? What about employees’ safeguards? 

Where is the evidence that surrendering close relationships with our nearest makes us more worldly?

Of course, we know the government has no convincing answers, and there is a degree of futility in even asking, but it is more dangerous not to demand, not to make a clear representation, not to make our opinions and our concerns explicit and precise.

When Boris Johnson proudly announces that, in his new world vision, the UK’s services – and design in particular – are our great exports, can we not hold him to task and demand how, in a more culturally isolated and an increasingly market-led global economy, he thinks design and education are going to be protected, encouraged and developed? I have not witnessed any support, encouragement or help from our government.

Where is the evidence that surrendering close relationships with our nearest makes us more worldly? Surely we, as architects and planners, understand better than most the developing challenges of our times. We know better than anyone that issues of sustainability, transport, energy, intelligent use of resources, the role of proactive planning, the increasing awareness regarding quality of life – rather than only the growth of the market – are those that will define our future and that of our children. Who in their right mind can argue that workplace rights, common environmental standards, shared sustainability targets, monitored competition procedures and consideration for the longer-term social components of society are not critical to our professional environment and purpose? 

An unfettered private system does not instinctively take care of these issues. The problems of privatisation, of public-private partnerships created by an emaciated public system, and an underfunded and disrespected planning system are played out in front of our eyes. How can we possibly allow the ideologues of the Conservative Party to continue down this route?

We must unfortunately admit that the attitudes that have tended to dominate the RIBA over the last 20 years mirror quite uncomfortably the orthodoxy of the market-driven system. This mentality has confused the concerns of architecture and planning with the commercial necessity to make architecture more accessible and friendly to the market. By overestimating its role as a marketing agency, the RIBA has neglected to safeguard the professional conditions that we need and should expect. The route to good architecture is not found only by marketing, but also by protecting the professional environment within which we operate. 

The RIBA has neglected to safeguard the professional conditions we need and should expect

Why did the RIBA abandon recommended fee scales? Apparently to make us more competitive. But how can we benefit from undercutting each other and allowing the market to define our fees based on how it values our role? Why has the RIBA been so reluctant to lay down guidelines and recommended frameworks for competitions? Apparently because clients do not like these things. And yet it is instilled in us that our professional responsibility lies not only in the commercial task we sell, but in our responsibility to society. 

Our performance is more complex than the simple service that the market would describe it as. If the RIBA cannot understand that and help us negotiate this role by standing up for us, who can?

If there is any chance of salvaging something out of the next 12 months, it is perhaps that we can at least reflect a little deeper on what sort of society we want. While we are distracted by the Brexit soap opera, we are hopelessly driven to a future not of choice but of unplanned consequences. Strengthening the importance of the market and continuing to weaken the role of the public sector creates the conditions that we as architects have suffered from, perhaps more than others. What happens in the next months will define our relationship to regulations and the type of constraints we are willing to impose on ourselves regarding protection, resources and planning. The shift away from Europe is not just an issue of trade and markets; it closes our openness to ideas that challenge our own market-driven ideologies.

While I do not imagine that we need to assume the habits and ideas of our European colleagues, it has been good to hear what’s been happening in the next room. The issues of environment and sustainability, of planning, of traffic and mobility, of social housing, balancing investment and protection, considerations regarding the working environment, discussions about gender and diversity, professional codes, competition process – these are all issues that others are considering and articulating. 

We should be participating in these discussions and in the experiments that are happening throughout Europe. Instead we wallow in the toxic machinations of surreptitious ideologies while our future is decided by those totally detached from practice and experience, who are only driven by the supposedly responsible concerns of the market and an instinctive dislike of regulation, protection and professional expertise. 

As a profession we should have both an opinion and a voice about such things, but if our own institute only makes a few soft noises from the sidelines and we do not demand more, we will only have ourselves to blame for whatever type of future we wake up to and what happens to our island.

RIBA president Ben Derbyshire responds 

Crop ben derbyshire bw

David Chipperfield’s memo raises several important issues that face our profession post-Brexit. We share his concerns about the lack of clarity from the government and the impact this uncertainty is having on architects in the UK – particularly those from the EU who make such a valuable contribution to the success of UK architecture. 

At this critical time, as the UK prepares its departure from the EU, the RIBA is focused on securing the best possible deal for its members post-Brexit. 

Since the Brexit vote, the RIBA has had over 100 meetings with secretaries of state, ministers, parliamentarians and senior civil servants. In addition, we have published six impactful reports, worked closely with other professional bodies to develop a series of shared priorities and facilitated a roundtable with RIBA members and the Migration Advisory Committee. 

I’m delighted we’ve secured the unanimous support of the Architects Council of Europe for the RIBA’s motion calling for the continuation of mutual recognition of professional qualifications. 

Some of the biggest issues affecting architects are now on the agenda of both the UK and EU negotiating teams – including mutual recognition of professional qualifications. We have also been clear that the UK government needs to seek new agreements with priority markets in the months leading up to our exit.   

Raising fees and restoring the prestige of our profession is at the heart of my work as RIBA president. But current legislation bans professional bodies from providing recommended or indicative fee scales. I know that RIBA members have mixed views on the merits of fee scales, but the stark reality is that legally and politically they are a non-starter.  

The RIBA relies to a great extent on the contribution of its members. David has contributed much to this effort already. I look forward to discussing in person what more we can do together to improve the profession’s status and influence. 

  • 7 Comments

Readers' comments (7)

  • Chris Roche

    David Chipperfield's comments and intervention should be lauded by the profession, and trigger further, and louder demands for the RIBA to stand up, and speak out not just on Brexit, but also on professionalism, scholarship, the homeless crisis, and the role of the state as client and enabler of infrastructure. The President's response appears to mirror the vacuous responses of the Government, and fails to inspire confidence - "At this critical time, as the UK prepares its departure from the EU, the RIBA is focused on securing the best possible deal for its members post-Brexit". Perhaps he could have gone on to say if the RIBA cannot secure the "best possible deal" then "no deal is better than a bad deal".

    Chris Roche / 11.04 Architects

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Gordon  Gibb

    I am commenting more on the RIBA response than upon the main article, much of which is eminently sensible.

    The Problem with the RIBA response is that the RIBA is not the Competent Authority for Architects in the UK. Its comments and motions regarding the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications in Europe are therefore meaningless, because they are not an arm of Government.

    Right now, the "no deal is a good deal" policy of our UK Government means that there will be no Mutual Recognition of Qualifications in place post-Brexit. This means that we get to have no-one coming from Europe stating that they are an architect with rights in the UK, (for the benefit of those who think that to be a good thing) and we find in return that we are not allowed to call ourselves architects in any country with a regulated profession in Europe without breaking the law. Of course this isn't great for anyone wanting to export their skill and qualification, either as a practice or as an individual. That is evidently what some of us voted for, and what has to prevail, as now outlined by the Government.

    The RIBA does not have any locus in this. Wishing for something different with other groups of architects in our soon-to-not-to-be-trading-partner countries is a pointless act. To declare it as the full extent of RIBA policy on the issue is equally pointless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Phil Parker

    The RIBA is fat, lazy and fundamentally ineffective.

    The RIBA attracts to it’s committees and boards all but the great, good and able in our profession.

    The RIBA is run by career administrators, organisers and events people who have no interest in running a professional body nor preserving and furthering the interests of its professional members. They only pay lip service to this. Instead they waste money and resource doing anything but the core things they should be doing. And the architects who are at the RIBA sit back and watch this happen.

    It’s only when the shit truly hits the fans as in Brexit and tragically, with Grenfill, do we see just what a poorly equipped lobby body they are. The other big institutes run rings around them.

    The only answer I can see is clear out the really mediocre architects who have swamped every RIBA committee and board and banish them from the building. We need to attract able, capable, forward thinking professional practitioners to take back the reigns of our profession if it’s not to late.

    I find the current president’s response to Chipperfield’s rallying call to be lacklustre, lacking balls and clearly written by one of the institute’s over paid administrators.

    On the other hand, it may be too late.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • At the time I was surprised at the positive response of many architects to the outcome of the Brexit vote, and it's remarkable how the mood seems to have changed with further thought.
    Is it possible that the concerns of the profession mirror those of the wider public? - if so, the current dire warnings that re-running the Brexit vote would tear this nation apart need challenging because, viewed from Scotland, Brexit itself could yet tear this nation apart.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Brilliant article by David Chipperfield and well timed, during a period where discussion around Brexit and impact on our profession had gone uncomfortably quiet for a little too long.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • David Chipperfield for RIBA President!!!......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A mealy mouthed response from the President, to say the least.
    Could we ask that all candidates standing for the next Presidency identify clearly how they voted and where they currently stand on the disastrous policy of leaving the EU. - no nonsense about the democratic wish of the people. What are your beliefs on the merits of the EU and the damage leaving will do to the profession.

    Bob Giles

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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.