Although I do not have direct evidence, I firmly believe that small and sole practitioners in the vicinity of the major RIBA offices do indeed benefit — not just from the reflected glory that membership brings, but also from practical help and resources (Debate April 26).
Unfortunately, there is no such support for members outside London and the largest cities, let alone overseas members.
The fundamental issue seems to be that the RIBA has not grasped why architects should choose to be members in the first place, when Arb registration fulfils not only the legal obligation but also the greater part of the public-access listing.
The resources the RIBA can offer to members disproportionately benefit those within reasonable travel distance from Portland Place. In our changing technological world, is this really the way to win and maintain members?
As a political lobbying organisation, yes, it does its bit for big issues and large practices, but what interest does it show in my struggle to win work against non-architects, since it is so silent on the issue of protection of function? And what does it do to manage expectations for compliance with ever more coruscating regulation?
So that leaves continuing education. But I can maintain my CPD requirement through other (cheaper) means. Do I owe (financial) loyalty to an organisation that I have paid handsomely over the years? I think not.
After 20-odd years, I recently decided not to renew my membership. Not a step I took lightly, but the only reaction was to have my name removed from the directory.
I did not expect to be assaulted by begging letters, pleading with me to return, but, in my naivety, I did expect that somebody would check whether there was a concrete reason — hardship, for example. But I’m not a big practice, so I really don’t count.
There is no question in my mind. By not being an RIBA member I am saving several hundred pounds a year and losing, well… nothing.
Basil Rathbone
via bdonline
No comments yet