I’ve just posted this on one of the discussion pages of the Facebook group Architects against low pay.

It’ll probably get shot down as a load of neo-con rubbish, but this is one of the few topics that gets me **really **animated.

I think that it is fairly clear that anyone can design a building (here’s an example).
I think that a much more pertinent question would be ‘can anyone design a building well?’
This is a much more difficult issue. An absolute base level of competence is mandated by the building regulations, and then any value that a client derives from the designer of their building is a bonus.</p>

I don’t think I could disagree more strongly with protection of the role of architects. Architects are currently (theoretically) well trained individuals, who should be able to deliver a service (designing a building) competently. When I wasn’t so bald I would get my hair cut at by hairdresser; during the process of cutting my hair we would often discuss the three years of training they had undergone to become a hairdresser. I’ve never asked to see a hairdresser’s certification, I have always been happy that their past record of cutting hair well is feeding them, and therefore they must be good enough. If I liked them I would go back again. If I was getting a particularly important haircut (maybe I’m going to be made prime minister) but I’ve never seen the work of this particular hairdresser I might ask to see some photos of previous work, or even talk to some previous clients.
To cut hair one needn’t be a part of any professional organisation. Membership of one might however add more credence to their skills, but there is no formal requirement.
If there were governmental hair cutting requirements, then if I got a non-compliant haircut, then I would have a way of seeking some recompense for my terrible bouffant. If the hairdresser was not a member of the professional organisation then in future I might tend towards using registered cutters.
The point that I’m inelegantly trying to make here is about choice and freedom. By mandating that only an architect is able to do certain things, you remove the choices of people who want to engage someone to do those things. What this means is the now there is no reason to choose an architect over a non architect as there aren’t any non architects. Therefore the name ‘architect’ no longer attracts a premium.
I’ve ranted at length about this before, and if pushed I’d be happy to again, but in a nutshell the argument goes:
By removing the legislation around who is allowed to design buildings, and increasing the requirement on the performance* then clients will naturally gravitate to whoever is BETTER at designing buildings.

If we continue to cultivate an ivory tower, then there is a good chance that the tower will stay where it is, and everyone else will have moved on.

*many metrics, cabe does quite a good job on the design quality side, but building regs need to be more stringent