Regulate what architects do, not what we’re called

For an industry that likes to talk endlessly about innovation, we can be strangely conservative when it comes to ourselves. We have spent years debating titles, roles, procurement routes and professional boundaries, while a more important question has been sitting quietly in the background. Who is actually responsible for the key decisions that shape our buildings, and can they prove they are competent to make them?

The truth is that we have tied ourselves into a knot. We continue to defend a system built around protecting the title “architect”, even though the actual function of architecture has long since spread far beyond it. The Architects Act 1997, from which the Architects Registration Board was created, was always ill conceived. It was meant to protect the public by protecting the integrity of the title. But its biggest flaw is obvious. It tries to protect function through title, rather than by properly scrutinising who can carry out that function competently in the first place.

So, was it ever really protecting the public? That is the uncomfortable question sitting underneath all of this. If the title is protected, but the critical decisions that affect safety, quality and performance can still be made across a fragmented industry without the same level of scrutiny, then what exactly is the public being protected from? The profession still seems far more comfortable regulating identity than competence. That may be one of the biggest structural flaws in the whole system.

Buildings are delivered by a messy collection of consultants, contractors, specialists, suppliers and client teams. That is not necessarily a bad thing

And let us be honest about how the built environment actually works now. Buildings are no longer delivered by one neat profession operating in isolation. They are delivered by a messy collection of consultants, contractors, specialists, suppliers and client teams. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The world has become more complex and collaboration is essential. But the more fragmented delivery becomes, the more important it is to be crystal clear about who is doing what, who is making which decisions, and who is accountable when something goes wrong.

Too often, we are not clear. When a project goes well, everything can look seamless. Drawings are coordinated, packages move on, the contractor builds, the client gets a finished building, and everyone takes a share of the credit. But when things go badly, the gaps begin to show. Responsibility suddenly becomes harder to pin down. Decisions seem to have moved around the team without anyone fully owning them. Risk has been passed on, priced in or pushed sideways, but never really resolved. This is why I keep coming back to the idea of protecting function, not title.

In simple terms, function is the work that actually affects the outcome of a project. Design coordination is a function. Technical compliance is a function. Fire and life safety decisions are functions. Specification, material selection and site oversight are functions. These are not abstract ideas. These are the moments where buildings either succeed or fail. These are the points where risk sits. These are the points where the public is either protected or not.

Designers, technologists, contractors and specialist consultants are all carrying out parts of that function, often competently, sometimes with far less regulation. Again this is not necessarily a negative thing. It simply reflects a construction industry that has moved on, sometimes without architects’ involvement. The question is not whether others should be allowed to do this work. They already are, and they will continue to do so. The question is whether the function itself is being carried out competently, consistently and accountably.

Clients are interested in one thing: can you deliver? Can you solve the problem?

Clients are interested in one thing: can you deliver? Can you solve the problem? Can you navigate planning? Can you coordinate the design? Can you reduce risk? Can you get the building built properly? They care about judgement, competence and outcome. In truth, they are right to do so.

That is why it is fair to ask harder questions about the current model for architects. With the Architects Registration Board’s (ARB) subscription payments going up from around £70 to an eye-watering £225 for the protection of a name, was this ever the right solution? Imagine if all architects suddenly stopped paying their ARB subscriptions. The register would collapse. The Architects Act would become impossible to sustain in its current form. But would clients and the built environment stop needing architects? I think not. Architects will always have a role to play. The more likely truth is that the role will evolve into something else, or something broader, more accountable and more directly tied to value.

That is why the signs of movement from RIBA matter. The RIBA President Chris Williamson has shown real leadership on the issue by withdrawing from the ARB register, and RIBA’s Repeal, Reserve, and Regulate campaign has helped drag this debate into the open. In many ways, it is making RIBA more relevant than it has been for a very long time, whether you are a member or not. But the real point is bigger than RIBA politics or one president’s decision. The real point is that the profession is finally beginning to confront a debate it should never have avoided in the first place.

What is needed now is a more joined-up, built environment-wide approach to competence. The RIBA call for a Built Environment Council, or some form of single oversight body across the sector, feels like the right direction. Not because architects should reclaim a monopoly or somehow become master builders again. Those days are long gone and the industry has evolved. Others are just as competent to carry out parts of the role. Architects must work collaboratively with everyone involved. But collaboration without clarity is not enough. Protecting function means recognising that many people contribute to delivery, while insisting that the work carrying the greatest risk is clearly defined, competently performed and properly assured.

Far from weakening architects, it would push us to take on greater responsibility beyond image making. It would reward those who can genuinely add value where it really matters. A profession built around function rather than title would ask more from architects and other professionals, but it would also make us all more useful, more accountable and more relevant.

The future of the built environment will be based on competence, sustainability and place. Many people can help deliver those things, not just architects. But protecting the function would bring greater accountability, better quality and clearer value. Protection of title belonged to an earlier era. Protection of function feels much more like the future. Without it, the risk is not simply that the Architects Act becomes obsolete. The real risk is that the profession becomes increasingly irrelevant to an industry that has already moved on.