The case for more specialist pathways in architecture is growing stronger

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) recently announced that it is piloting three new pathways to associate and fully chartered membership. These will focus on residential retrofit, sustainability advisory and data analytics and intelligence. When they come on stream next year, RICS will have 24 separate pathways. It is a striking contrast with architecture.

For all the recent changes brought in by the Architects Registration Board (ARB), the profession still clings to a single, largely undifferentiated designation: architect. The old Parts 1, 2 and 3 model is in the process of being superceded in favour of a more flexible, competency-based system. This may open the door to those from different backgrounds and with non-cognate degrees, but the end point remains a single destination. You are either on the register or you are not.

That might sound reassuring. But given the complexity of modern construction and the challenges to architectural practice being thrown up by AI, is it still realistic?

Fifty years ago an architect could credibly claim to master most aspects of design and construction. That is far harder to sustain now.

Large practices are already full of specialists. Healthcare, education, retrofit and digital design are just a few of the areas where architects spend entire careers honing deep technical expertise. Yet the education pathways and qualification process makes no distinction.

The RIBA has for some time recognised one specialist field. Conservation architects can appear on a dedicated register. But that is the only exception in the sense of recognising a specialist area of practice.

For every other route, there is one generalist title. It raises the question of whether architectural training and registration is failing to acknowledge how the profession actually works in reality.

When I interviewed Hugh Simpson, chief executive of ARB, earlier this year, he was clear that important discussions on the future of the profession had not yet taken place. “Some of the debates we expected have not yet happened, like specialisation or post-registration standards,” he said. That observation ought to give the profession pause.

The idea that a good architect can turn their hand to anything remains a powerful part of the culture

Because it is not as though construction has stood still. The regulatory upheaval since Grenfell is only the most obvious example of how the ground has shifted. The Building Safety Act introduced the Principal Designer role, creating a statutory duty to plan, manage and monitor design for compliance.

As Jack Pringle, chair of the RIBA board, has argued, “The Principal Designer role is not a hindrance, but a great opportunity for architects to demonstrate collective commitment to a safer built environment, and to lead the way”.

RIBA, to its credit, is running a Principal Designer course, and maintaining a register. In other words, this is already another form of specialism emerging from outside the profession’s traditional pathways. 

The question is whether architecture wants to fully take control of this process, or continue to have it shaped for it by regulators, legislators and clients. At present, the profession’s scope of work has shrunk. Project management, planning and cost control were once seen as integral to the role of the architect.

Over time these functions have been ceded to others. The industry has grown comfortable describing architects as “design consultants”, confined to limited phases of work, with delivery often pushed to contractors.

It is easy to see how this hollowing out occurred. Education and training have for decades downplayed the technical, managerial and contractual aspects of practice. Students spend seven or more years qualifying, yet many emerge with little structured exposure to live projects.

The long generalist pathway does not always leave space for deeper expertise to develop early on. By contrast, surveying, engineering and medicine all offer routes to focused practice.

Why not architecture? Why not a route that leads to qualification as a retrofit architect, a digital architect, a healthcare architect or even a planning architect?

The generalist route could remain, but specialists would gain recognised status from the start of their careers. That would not only match the reality of what many architects already do, it would signal to clients that architects can offer depth as well as breadth.

Specialist routes would not dilute the profession. They could strengthen it

Specialist pathways could help rebuild lost credibility and underline the value that architects bring. If architects want to command higher fees and salaries, more specialist training and qualifications could be one way to achieve this.

In his recent interview with Building Design, RIBA president Chris Williamson makes a clear case for greater specialisation within architecture, arguing that the profession’s survival in the era of AI will depend on developing and recognising deeper expertise.

Linking this to his plans to raise pay and strengthen professional standing, Williamson says, “Most architects are concerned about low pay and low fees. To me, lifelong learning is a way of proving that you have got specialist knowledge, and usually specialist knowledge gives you an advantage when it comes to getting paid better.”

There are risks of course. Too many narrow tracks could fragment the profession or create hierarchies between “generalists” and “specialists”. But those challenges are not unique to architecture.

RICS seems willing to embrace them, and has judged that the benefits outweigh the risks. The fact it now has 24 pathways shows how seriously it takes the need to reflect the diversity of roles in practice.

Architecture has tended to pride itself on versatility. The idea that a good architect can turn their hand to anything remains a powerful part of the culture. But the pretence that one title can cover every form of practice is looking increasingly tenuous. 

The profession has two separate bodies shaping its future. ARB sets the criteria for qualification and maintains the statutory register, while RIBA runs its own chartered membership and has begun to develop distinct specialist registers alongside it. We are already seeing de facto specialisation creeping in through government legislation and piecemeal change.

From my recent conversation with ARB’s chief executive, it is clear that the regulator – and perhaps also the government – would be open to a grown-up, out-in-the-open discussion about where this could or should lead. The opportunity is there for significant change, particularly through the Principal Designer role, which could in effect begin to deliver a form of reservation of function for architects.

The alternative is to move slowly and be reactive. Let young architects continue to take the long generalist route, then hope they find opportunities to develop their own specialist interests later.

But early career professionals often know what they want. A system that fails to support their ambitions risks losing them altogether - oftne to careers in construction and project management.

Specialist routes would not dilute the profession. They could strengthen it.

They would show that architects are ready to take on responsibility in fields that matter to society, from retrofit to health to digital transformation. They could re-establish architecture as a profession with strength in depth, rather than one that too often finds itself sidelined.

As Hugh Simpson pointed out, the debate has yet to happen. Perhaps it is time it did.