Should the Function of Architecture be Protected?

said the function of architecture should be protected

53 respondents  |  Bespoke Careers industry poll

Anna Ifanti

Global Studios Business Operations Director, 10N Collective

Yes

“There is no doubt that the function of the architect’s professional role ought to be protected and supported by legislation, as the title protection alone means very little.

This would involve a joint effort from all relevant registration and regulatory architectural bodies, a collaboration between the ARB and RIBA, to lobby at government level for appropriate legislation changes which will enforce this.

Divisive polemic and highly publicised provocation as a means of “protest” from leadership figures of either organisation does not support this cause; it causes further friction and incoherence within our own architectural circle of practising and teaching professionals.

It is also disrespectful and disenfranchising to qualified architects, who are questioning the purpose of the certification process itself, which comes with years of hard work and very often, with heavy debt.

Renée Ballard

Design Strategist, Lex Design Agency

Yes

“Where government registration is required to practice architecture commercially, I think the function of architecture should be protected. Architects who faithfully serve the governing policies should be afforded a level of protection. However, in other regions around the world where this level of registration isn’t required, the reduced protections could provide architects with more freedom. Subsequently, we could see and enjoy a greater influx of creativity within contemporary architecture.

Philip Gillard

Yes

“Yes, the function of architecture should be protected.

Architecture once carried profound civic and cultural authority. From the enduring symbolism of the Parthenon to the national confidence expressed by the Sydney Opera House, architects were entrusted with shaping collective identity.

Historically, the title itself reflected that responsibility. The role implied stewardship, permanence, and accountability. To be called “architect” was to be recognized as a guardian of civic order and cultural continuity.

Today, that gravity has eroded. The title is often diluted — applied loosely in corporate, digital, and commercial contexts — while the profession itself is increasingly constrained by developers, branding strategies, and market speed. The architect’s authority has shifted from civic leadership to service provider.

Unfortunately, this erosion may already be too advanced to fully reverse. Yet the principle remains vital: protecting the function of architecture also means restoring weight to the title — reaffirming that architects are not merely designers of buildings, but custodians of the public realm.

Jon Arnott

Founder, adeptus.digital

Yes

“I have always believed that the role of architects must be clearly protected and defined. Our profession exists to reduce risk for the public, consumers, and users of the built environment by ensuring that not just anyone can design a building. Architectural training typically takes a minimum of seven years, and there is a reason for that: to ensure those practising architecture are properly trained, qualified, and accountable. It is neither appropriate nor fair for unqualified individuals, regardless of title, to undertake the same work and undercut those who are fully qualified.

The current system effectively creates a two-tier market. Fully qualified and registered architects are held to rigorous professional standards—including ongoing CPD, accountability, and professional indemnity—yet are often pressured to reduce fees to meet market expectations. Meanwhile, other practitioners operating under fewer regulatory obligations can deliver similar services at lower cost. This imbalance is unfair, undermines professional standards, and is driving talented architects away from the profession.

No other profession operates this way. Law, dentistry, medicine, and accountancy all protect high-risk functions and deliverables; architecture should be no different. What we are trying to do is improve design quality and safety and remove this two-tier system.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that other professionals should be excluded from carrying out certain tasks, such as planning applications. However, anyone delivering architectural services should be operating from the same playbook, held to the same standards, and accountable for the same responsibilities. The time for change is long overdue.

Wells Mason

Designer and Sculptor, Ironwood Industries

Yes

“Yes, the function of architecture should be protected tooth and nail. This should include strict licensing and resultant permissions for not just architects but also professional building designers, engineers, and interior designers. In the US, we’re experiencing alarming lapses in protections – largely due to public misinformation combined with ruthless cost-cutting measures – that have eroded respect for these professional fields and negatively impacted our built environment. We need a colossal reset.

Magnus Strom

Founder & Creative Director, Strom Architects Ltd

Yes

“Protecting the title alone achieves little. Real change would come from granting architects the authority to self-certify defined design and impact areas, even where specialist input is subcontracted. The architect remains the single accountable professional, certifying visual impact, sustainability strategy, heritage rationale, landscape integration and wider environmental responses without separate departmental approvals at each planning stage. This reduces fragmented sign-offs, removes duplicated conditions and restores clear authorship and responsibility to the role. With liability sitting clearly with the architect, the planning process becomes faster, more coherent and better aligned with design intent, while fees reflect professional responsibility rather than administration.

Ian Rudolph

Practice Director, Marks Barfield Architects

Yes

“Standards and quality need to be maintained and regulated with continual methods of individual improvement. Too much environmental irreversible damage could be done if left unregulated. Continual assessment in practice would also be beneficial.

Neege Allen

Founder, mono nexo ltd

Yes

“I used to be against the protection of function, but having lived and worked in Italy (as a locally registered architect) and in France, I see that architects, and their role, there are much more highly respected. This provides benefit also to clients, who value the expertise and cultural awareness of their architect more.

Kathleen Bainbridge

Senior Associate, JCB Architects

Yes

“At its core, the function of an Architect is to act as the Lead Consultant — responsible for coordination, communication, and the integration of all disciplines. An Architect is uniquely positioned to understand each consultant’s contribution sufficiently to guide the project holistically and maintain alignment with the overall vision.

The most successful projects I have been involved in are those where Architects, Consultants and Clients clearly understand and respect this leadership role. When the Architect is treated as a standalone consultant — or when the Architect themselves does not fully understand their responsibility as Lead Consultant — projects begin to unravel. Timelines suffer, coordination breaks down, design intent is diluted, and professional relationships deteriorate.

The role of Lead Consultant is fundamental to the function of the Architect. Clear parameters defining this responsibility would strengthen project outcomes and provide resilience across the profession. By supporting Architects to fully inhabit this leadership role — rather than allowing it to be fragmented or diminished — we protect the effectiveness of the wider consultant team.