The tough competition faced by architecture practices in the UK has led to the hiring of workers at pay rates that make commercial sense, and there’s not much the RIBA can do to change that.
Part 1 and 2 ‘assistant architects’ have turned to mass protest against the working conditions of the architecture profession with little to no hope for future prospects. Protesters appear to be most strongly after attaining higher salary levels for the profession--a problem that has haunted the professional life of architecture work for many years.
Tracing back to the 1970s, the Salaried Architects Group was a popular radical reform organization dedicated to changing the RIBA. The group had hoped to foster recognition of design work and the level of RIBA membership fees rather than salaries--since many members were architects. Since then, architectural workers have not seen improvement in pay, however, housing costs have rapidly increased. Architectural students entering the workforce are overwhelmed with student loans and costs of living with little to no disposable income.
Because the vast majority of architectural practice is outside of its control and in the hands of the Architectural Registration Board, it is questionable whether the RIBA has the capacity to undertake the problems protested. In the 1970s, legislation banned recommended fees and treated the RIBA as though any advice about what to charge was representative of an attack on public interest and an act of personal gain.
This greatly damaged the status and operating method of a profession that had once avoided competition by fee bid ever since the establishment of the RIBA in the 1830s. Architects were forced into the same position as contractors, facing intense economic competition and inevitably thrown into increasing amounts of unpaid design work in order to win commissions. With profitability and margins under threat, many practices resorted to hiring trained architects overseas.
Architects looking for work should not only be lobbying the RIBA, but these individuals must collectively determine what exactly they have to offer--depending on the stage of education they have achieved. Claiming that firms hire Part 2 graduates with years of work under their belt rather than a fresh Part 3 grad is a rather pitiful remark. Practices may hire whomever they wish--at a salary that they consider most reasonable. Protesting architectural assistants should not get lost in the argument by hiding behind entitlement bleats--rather, they should better prepare themselves for the adversity to come.
Change is necessary in order to better prepare architecture students for the future. Education systems should be redesigned to better combat the poor employment prospects and salary levels their students will soon face.
15 Comments
Love how you have a link for an article of your own website highlighting architectural firms with good labour practices after basically saying labourers should just suck it up and accept terrible wages and working conditions. Architecture is not higher and mightier than other professions. If other professions can do the work in 8h a day and get paid a decent wage after studying for 5+ years, then so can we. The reality is those higher up in practices profit from those at the bottom of the chain, justifying it by saying “that’s just the way it works in architecture”, but what if one day... it just wasn’t the way it works in architecture anymore? Practice leaders and directors need to look at the profitability of their projects without taking for granted the free and cheap labour of those at the beginning of their career.
Also, wages is only one of five points the Future Architects’ Front is trying to achieve. A 5+ min look at their instagram and open letter would tell you that, if you really had done your research. Other points actually would benefit how projects in the profession are procured and lift earnings throughout.
So thanks for the hot take, Maria Doku. But also, no thanks.
Woah, how are you interpreting this article as, "saying labourers should just suck it up and accept terrible wages and working conditions?" We'd love to figure out where your anger is coming from.
@archinect That was my take as well as epitomized by this quote at the end of the article: "Protesting architectural assistants should not get lost in the argument by hiding behind entitlement bleats--rather, they should better prepare themselves for the adversity to come". Just replace "accept terrible wages and working conditions" with "hiding behind entitlement bleats" and "suck it up" with "should better prepare themselves for adversity to come". Same meaning.
There is also PLENTY that the RIBA as a regulating body can do and has done in the past (e.g. fee scales of minimum architectural fees for tendering projects for all those in the charter).
Archinect, are you aware that the author of this article has pretty much plagiarised Paul Finch piece on the AJ? https://www.architectsjournal....
We're not familiar with any plagiarism. We will look into it. This topic was most recently addressed here: https://archinect.com/news/article/150256499/architecture-lobby-expresses-solidarity-with-uk-s-architectural-assistants
Opening the field of Architecture will increase competition. Competition is always good and comes with innovations. Good article.
Race to the bottom!
I don't think the issue is lack of competition, likely the opposite. Unless this was meant as Sarcasm.
That's no sarcasm. (i). What is the black population in England and how many of them are in Architecture?
I went to a public university located in a poor neighborhood, during protests to increase local poor people at the university NO ONE wanted to in to architectural program due to HORRIBLE PAY That was 40 yrs ago. No change since except gov't aiding real estate industry in marginalizing architects, making even discussing fees illegal, letting dozens of different invented '
Ekk just went off on a huge tangent and posted it who knows where - Here's a REAL FUNNY story about minorities in Architecture. So, 50 yes, 50 yrs ago I was at university which had found it's location over taken by poverty stricken minorities. Eventually the dichotomy hit home and the neighborhood began protesting what was elitism in their midst. Not oddly enough, NONE were trying to get into architectural program as they put it "we are poor, we NEED jobs that pay" Nothing has changed in 50 yrs. WOW. In brief, architects will not command livable fees for all it's staff unless gov'ts again return all project control to A/E of record soup to nuts anyone providing any services works for supervised by etc A/E of record inc owner reps if they are making scoping recommendation's. At the least the A/E gets to make 10 and 10 so to speak on ALL FEES.
This article is copy of an AJ article - how are we meant to take what it says seriously?
Everyone knows the culture in many (not all) architecture offices is exploitative, and know that compensation does not have a corollary to the expected level of education/ training, especially compared to other professions. What this article does is pass the buck, and not accept any real responsibility or propose any real change for practitioners. The most egregious example being in the last paragraph where the author blames architectural education for failing to prepare architects for a life of low pay/ exploitative working conditions/ and little to no work/life balance. I fail to see why it is academia's job to prepare graduates for this kind of life. This is a societal issue, and an issue of Capital. If workers want the profession to improve, we need entities like RIBA, the AIA, etc to start lobbying on our behalf, instead of fighting on behalf of developers and banks.
But I guess the long arms of 80's Capitalism still controls this discourse.
Brilliant Yes its lobbying it's laws it's putting architects back in the drivers seat All entities involved in a project need to be working for the A/E of record, to be liable to the A/E including owners reps, ANYONE who has input into scope / the work. As it stands large amounts of what used to be core work for A/E's and whose coordinated integration resulted in more efficient production for the A/E smoother construction and a better / more reliable end product is being done by non professionals w 'made up' I call them certifications and no liability often working for vendors suppliers contractors fabricators often directly under the owner whose only goal is cheaper faster. Given that the real estate construction and supply industry commands VASTLY more "lobbying" money than A/E's I hold no hope of change.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.