Report comment

Wholly agree, Amanda. For architects they both are. And it's another compelling reason for reducing the size, remit and fees charged by ARB.

One of several lamentable aspects of ARB's position is that they appear satisfied that a prefix such as 'Infrastructure' or 'foreign' indicates that the culprit is not pretending to be an Architect. Which rather begs the question whether they would chose not to pursue a genuine fraudster masquerading as an architect if he titled himself 'Design Architect' or 'Vision Architect'

Protection of title is meant to protect the perception and status (ha!) of the profession in the public's eye, but since Piano is unlikely to dupe a small works client into believing that he is qualified to do house extensions, there is some serious lack of perspective within ARB.

I have tended to feel that ARB have been given a hard time, but this episode has robbed them of a considerable amount of their credibility. And the grammatical errors in the correspondence reported elsewhere are simply shameful.