The final paragraph of your editorial is chilling: “But the question she [Margaret Thatcher] posed — what are architects for and what is it they do? — is one governments continue to ask, yet one the profession has still failed to adequately answer” (Leader April 12).

Margaret Thatcher with Zaha Hadid.

Asking questions: Margaret Thatcher with Zaha Hadid.

I don’t remember either Margaret Thatcher or “government” asking that specific question, but there is no doubt a big gap between what architects understand to be their skills and role and what politicians appear to know.

For BD to suggest that there might be a simple “adequate answer” to a question about the fundamental purpose of architecture is disturbing, but as architects we should engage more proactively in both the marketing of the profession and the debate about the importance of architecture to politicians and to the wider public.

We must embrace scrutiny of our role and encourage debate about architecture: the fundamental issues are no different than in art, music, politics, philosophy, journalism and economics (although arguably the sheer complexity of the job may be). There are relevant questions to discuss. What is good and bad architecture? What is the added value of good architecture? How do architects work at different stages in the development process? What is the relevance of architecture?

We must recognise that to raise the status of our profession there are many questions which require a continuing public discourse
and not just a discussion with our peers.

Charles Thomson
London EC2

Topics