How do I become an architect?
A critical investigation into the routes to becoming an architect and a questioning of current educational and professional practice — will we need architects in the future?
Introduction
Why do we need to be called ‘architects’? What is it that we value from architects with so much of the built environment created without the appointment of one [1] and with expanded and compartmentalised design teams on building projects — where does or should the architect sit?
The prominence of Design and Build contracts further seems to bring into question this idea of what role the architect has and what they have worked and paid to become qualified for. This existential crisis of the architect is heavily linked to the education and institutions that create them with a system that remains largely unchanged since its creation in 1958 [2]. The static nature of large institutions such as the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) means that change is slow and layered with bureaucracy. Resistance to change and a lack of evolution is compounded by extortionate tuition fees which now are estimated to cost an architecture student anywhere of £50,000 to £90,000 through tuition and living costs just to become an architect[3]. This clearly creates barriers with an inaccessible profession with 45% of students claiming to rely significantly on parental funding[4] compared with free or paid education at the genesis of the ‘part system’. With this current climate of outdated systems, inaccessible and elitist costs combined with an unprecedented and evolving technological landscape there is both cause for concern and opportunity. To create contemporary and open systems for ‘architects’ and designers that fulfil current and future evolving criteria of building education and practice.
To investigate the relevance and status of ‘the architect’ and the educational institutions that prop it up, this essay explores the current climate establishing the current and future state of affairs in the profession.
A. Culture and inaccessibility of architecture
B. Technology
C. Futureproofing
These issues and opportunities (above) will then be used as tools to identify and distil what value we have as architects. Once identifying the current conditions of the profession and value of it, this essay will highlight key elements in need of reform and propose interventions and alternatives within these areas.
(A) Culture and inaccessibility of architecture
Currently, according to the National Union of Students and Architect’s Journal surveys, the cost of a tuition for the average architect costs anywhere in the region of £50k — £90k[5]. This mammoth and inaccessible tuition cost did not exist when the current part-system was introduced by RIBA and the ARB after the 1958 Oxford Conference on architectural education[6]. From 1962–1990s the cost of education was effectively free with additional maintenance grants given to those who studied[7]. Even during this period, architects graduating from Part 1 from different backgrounds felt pressures to get on with work. In an interview conducted with Ian Crockford of Marks Barfield Architects he says of his own experience: “I come from a farming background so the imperative to earn my own way as soon as I could was what drove my decision to take this route”[8]
The Royal Institute of Architects has to be aware of this and whilst is not responsible for increased tuition fees, it is slow to adopt serious reform which can only negatively impact on the future of architecture itself. How can we design for all with only the privileged designing buildings? Reducing the demographic of who can study architecture inevitably has serious consequences on what architecture is.
From this difficult situation comes opportunity for reform: alternative pathways and routes into the profession to be established with or without the support of RIBA. It is not a question one or the other but a question of necessity. The education that I have received from studying architecture has been incredible, challenging and rewarding. It has also been assisted and only made possible through financial help from my parents of which is represented in surveyed averages mentioned previously. Whilst my experience so far has been enjoyable, there is increasing anxiety of preparedness for real world situations of practicing architecture. Could the reform of architectural education reform spawned from this issue of inaccessibility also be an opportunity to provoke and ask for more?
In the same way that historic vernacular architecture derives from evolved and specific contextual forces to produce sensible and contextual architecture, we should use existing forces and challenges to create a style of architectural education that works and makes sense for all. This need not be the only way, but it should exist to challenge how the built environment represents society.
(B) Technology
The profession and entire built environment sector is changing so quickly in terms of scope and technology that it is impossible for one institution or one school to keep up with such things — as the same in that an apprentice (even if they are at a practice with a principal who is at the forefront of some technology) will only learn from one or a few perspectives. This can make sense for specialisation at later stages however if the architect as a role is to retain the title of designer of buildings more so than any other (which is questionable), then there is need for a flexibility and openness of education which can cater for this. As Peter Buchanan wrote in his 1989 article “What’s wrong with architectural education? Almost everything”[9], we can see that the static nature of education and even professionalism has not changed enough to match the realities of how the building industry changes. He writes of how ‘few schools teach anything about traditional construction’ or ‘management’ due to the retained ‘notion of the architect as universal all-rounder’ (Buchanan, 1989).
Construction technologies develop around architects rather than as a cause of them however we still operate in the world of qualifying architects aspiring or attempting to be the master-builder. With the advent of Building Information Modelling (BIM) we can see potentials for integrated building learning. It is conceivable that in the future there could be databases filled with infinite architectural details and suggestions (see image above) making and understanding everything from building regulation, construction time and making sure the building achieves passive or equivalent certification through the design process. Whilst this sort of image has potential negative aspects or areas for exploitation and abuse: it is not far from reality and so needs to be accounted for in architectural education and maybe has aspects to be taken advantage of. For example, imagine a Design and Build contract where before handing over the designs, you can instantly be in control of the value engineering, ensuring precisely how the building can achieve cost targets. Due to accessing such a database, being able to find more efficient details and materials that can also enhance the design.
Buchanan suggested in 1989 that we are failing to equip students with necessary skills to practice once graduating and of which aspects hold true however those skills have changed. We are now surrounded with a technological environment of which is changing so rapidly, no single institution would ever be able to keep up. We can hardly predict the next five years let alone set up or equip an institution to deal with this. And so in uncertainty, what is it that we know can be protected or future proofed?
(C) Futureproofing
Existing institutions such as the RIBA as much as its intentions are to be at the forefront, is a large and permanent mechanism. Just as the solid stone walls and bronze doors of 66 Portland Place sit rigidly in their context containing all knowledge, does the professional and academic practices currently sit stiff in their moments in time. If the profession is to have a chance at keeping up with the realities of changing technologies, then the way in which we see the architect’s role must also evolve.
Image of Warning pop-up. Caption: Illustration comparing RIBA as an established institute with growing open-source competitors based on cloud interconnectivity.
Established institutions can no longer avoid conversation and competition of newer open-source type methods of communicating and storing knowledge. The RIBA commissioned an internal RIBA Education Review starting in 2013 which took 4 years to complete, resulting in 5 recommendations coming into place in 2019/20[10]. If the process of review and implementation takes 7 years, then how can we rely on these institutions to be able to futureproof the profession? Open-source and shared knowledge should be something to embrace and be aware of as much as possible particularly in the interest of retaining a protected title such as the architect. This is an opportunity to share and grow existing and knowledge embodied in thousands of buildings and in countless minds in a way that is accessible, immediately confronting difficulties with issues of who gets to study architecture?
But if we still claim that the architects title could and should be protected, we need to identify and clarify what it is exactly that should be retained: what is the value?
Value
The current idea and value system that comes with the RIBA qualification route to becoming an architect is not based on exclusive professional knowledge, rather what is valued is the design ethic, practice and communication that we are tutored on. The professional knowledge we obtain is limited and set out through a mandatory RIBA scrutinised element of our studies known typically as ‘Professional Practice’. This module or programme as interesting, informing or challenging as it might be is still a module. From my own and shared experience of peers from a range of universities across the United Kingdom both current and past, feel it is an additional part to the course however it also feels to be the part that we are perceived to be qualified on. This documentation and learning of course already exists online and in books — is this what we value in the education? Ian Crockford says of the difference between Part 3 and other professions: “contractors without any formal training know contract law backwards. It pays to have formal training but, in my view, it could be compressed and made cheaper”[11]. Here, Crockford highlights how other professionals learn the same law that finally qualifies an ‘architect’ and they do not have or need a protected title.
Most of the built environment globally never experiences the use of an architect [12] we clearly don’t need architects to build buildings. What we value then, must be the design — the co-ordination and articulation of three-dimensional that aspires to achieve what is artistically and practically right for that project and context. In terms of education then we must deduce that the value is in the teaching of process: the ways in which we achieve this design.
“What I wish for in 2018 is that the RIBA grabs this issue by the horns and starts talking seriously about value: what architects bring to developers and society, and their ability to transform value through good design. The RIBA needs to counter the cultural shift that sees design as commodity, rather than a process”[13].
This value of architects as Bowles puts it, is in the creativity and the process. Currently, the RIBA education system and documents such as the RIBA Plan of Work 2019 do not set up infrastructure that inherently value design. They promote speed, technical design but the design is the value and technical design will be more and more not up to us if we don’t own it.
Alternatives (systems of change)
If we are to revisit these three points together with what is proposed to be the value of the architect, then we can highlight key elements to reform and propose alternatives.
A. Culture and inaccessibility of architecture
B. Technology
C. Futureproofing
(A,B,C)+ the value of the architect = x
To preserve and protect the value of the architect in existing and future conditions, a new fluid form of institution must be created. As previously described the calls for reform and evolving technologies outperform the motion and speed of established institutions. A new institution could replace or exist in addition to RIBA which aims to retain fundamental and core ideas of architectural design training. Piers Taylor, an architect and educator echoes these sentiments in an interview “generally the Part 1 is a pretty good grounding, but too often Part 2 is more of the same”[14]. Whilst you may disagree or agree with this, there is a sense of luxury which promotes a culture of who can and cannot practice architecture. There is need for integrated training and professional realities more with education, to take advantage of this. Where traditional design education cannot cope or manage with new technological advancements, connections with industries and practice can do so.
What could this look like as an institution?
1. Existing universities operate with their own curriculum however feed into a wider institution network of information sharing teaching and knowledge through an open-network institution: The Radical Network of British Architects (RNBA).
2. Post-graduate equivalent studies to Part 2 studies continue as full-time study however as part of the same cohort of students is a Part 2 with incorporated part-time placement work — after this you qualify with the title of Architect (qualified designer)
3. The equivalent to existing Part 3 is transferred to an architectural law conversion. This meaning you are able to undertake existing and traditional responsibilities (phased out in the future)
The aspiration of RNBA is not to lower aspirations of the architecture field or education. The aspirations and intentions of RIBA is to create the best and most competent architects and architecture, and this would not change with RNBA. Architecture does have an important role to play in the built environment, there are other ways to make buildings and possibilities to embrace other methods of practicing it without gross financial burdens and prolonged study and also to equip the ‘architect’ better with dealing in real life practice.
[1] Finn Williams. Looking Beyond The Numbers of London’s Housing Crisis. 2016. Architects Journal. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/looking-beyond-the-numbers-of-londons-housing-crisis/10008372.article
[2] Kirk McCormak. How Do We Learn To Be Architects?. 2015. RIBA Journal. https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/how-do-we-learn-to-be-architects
[3] Architects Journal Student Survey 2018. Architects Journal. 2018. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/student-survey-only-the-rich-need-apply-to-study-architecture/10033472.article
[4] Architects Journal Student Survey 2018. Architects Journal. 2018. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/student-survey-only-the-rich-need-apply-to-study-architecture/10033472.article
[5] Architects Journal Student Survey 2018. Architects Journal. 2018. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/student-survey-only-the-rich-need-apply-to-study-architecture/10033472.article
[6] Kirk McCormak. How Do We Learn To Be Architects?. 2015. RIBA Journal. https://www.ribaj.com/intelligence/how-do-we-learn-to-be-architects
[7] Robert Anderson. University Fees in Historical Perspective. 2016. History & Policy.http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/university-fees-in-historical-perspective
[8] Ian Crockford. Personal Interview. 2nd March 2020. Transcript available upon request.
[9] Peter Buchanan. What’s Wrong With Architectural Education? Almost Everything. 1989. Architectural Review. https://www.architectural-review.com/today/1989-july-whats-wrong-with-architectural-education-almost-everything/8637977.article
[10] RIBA Education Review (RER). 2019. RIBA. https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-education-review
[11] Ian Crockford. Personal Interview. 2nd March 2020. Transcript available upon request.
[12] Finn Williams. Looking Beyond The Numbers of London’s Housing Crisis. 2016. Architects Journal. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/looking-beyond-the-numbers-of-londons-housing-crisis/10008372.article
[13] Meredith Bowles. The Diminishing Role Of The Architect. 2018. Architects Journal. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/2018-predictions-will-the-profession-continue-to-be-marginalised/10026330.article
[14] Piers Taylor. Student Survey Reaction. 2019. Architects Journal. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/student-survey-reaction-is-architecture-a-middle-class-profession-hell-yes/10033492.article