The Architecture Lobby, an organization familiar to most of our readers, dedicated to elevating the value of architecture and architectural work, has shared with us a letter they penned in support of the Future Architects Fronts’ open letter to RIBA. 

The Future Architects Front is a UK-based campaign that fights to end the exploitation of the next generation of architects. Their letter to the Royal Institute of British Architects has been signed by over 850 "architectural assistants," a UK-specific job title similar to an intern in the US, representing an architectural student or graduate with limited practical experience. 

The letter describes the problematic path the licensure/qualification, an issue American architects can surely relate to, and includes the results from a survey they conducted in December 2020. The letter outlines a reasonable list of expectations, including, but not limited to, an end to unpaid overtime, more oversight on the job role, and greater transparency into RIBA's financials. The complete letter can be viewed here.

Peggy Deamer, Elisavet Hasa, and Sben Korsh, representing the Architecture Lobby, responded to the letter expressing their solidarity with the situation in the UK while comparing the problems with those experienced in the US and elsewhere. They describe the global industry problem as "large-scale, attached to transformations in governments and the global economy." The Lobby's letter also addresses RIBA's response to Future Architects Front, by criticizing the group's failure to recognize the root of the problem. 

The full letter from the Architecture Lobby was provided to Archinect to share publicly...

Members of the Architecture Lobby write in support of the UK’s architectural assistants and students

Peggy Deamer, Elisavet Hasa and Sben Korsh
15 March 2021

We write in support of Future Architects Fronts’ open letter to RIBA — signed by over 850 architectural assistants and students in the UK — demanding an end to exploitation of their labour.

We recognize that a number of the conditions described in the letter are particular to the United Kingdom. Yet architectural workers in all countries experience overwork, underpay, and mental abuse. We know this from our network of labour activist chapters across the UK, US, Canada and Australia. According to the lived experiences of our members, such exploitation of labour underlies the global architecture industry. The reasons for it are large-scale, attached to transformations in governments and the global economy. From the lived experiences of our membership, we must recognize the global extent of such abuse endemic to the industry.

But beyond recognition, what is to be done? In response to their letter, Alan Jones, President of the RIBA has expressed surprise and outrage over the abuses the letter describes. Beyond pleading that the RIBA is democratic and doing its best, he should instead acknowledge RIBA’s failure to recognize the root of the problems facing our profession; problems that allow the ongoing labour injustices of our profession, and simultaneously make it increasingly less relevant to society-at-large.

In a recent op-ed in this outlet, Paul Finch countered the open letter, indicating that the architectural assistants and students were mistakenly fingering the RIBA with responsibility. While we deplore Finch’s condescension that the claims against exploitation sound ‘a bit pathetic,’ or ‘like an entitlement bleat’ — we do agree with Finch on a few things. But we suggest that the larger picture can and should be taken on. Since the 1970s, government regulations in the UK have banned fee-setting across the profession. These regulations mirror the antitrust laws passed in the United States around the same time, which ensured that the AIA (sued twice by the Justice Department for antitrust violation) is fearful of even broaching the notion of sustainable fees and wages. Based on conservative ‘free market’ economics, these laws force firms to compete — producing a mindset of paying workers less in order to stay afloat. 

Couple these market conditions with the fact that both the RIBA and AIA are expensive voluntary organizations of licensed architects, all but ensures they do not represent the interests of vast swaths of the industry. Left out are the underpaid young workers, debt-burdened students, and even their precarious lecturers. Instead, these organizations are structured around supporting firm owners, managers, and the already-licensed. Despite this, both Finch and Alan unfairly downplay the issue back onto the shoulders of young architectural workers. For them, it seems what should be done by the architectural assistants and students is: Prove your worth!

Our present condition is not inevitable; many of us in the field believe that architects actually do have the power to resist the neoliberalism pervading our countries and our discipline. We must focus on the culture of architecture which replicates the industry’s unjust working conditions and social irrelevance around the world. 

This starts by recognizing that if professional bodies like the RIBA or AIA exercise limited power — then other collectives and practices must fill the void. Here are some alternatives:

• Unions for workers, such as UVW-SAW, which advocate for the value and working conditions of their members.

• Worker-owned cooperative firms, explored in our Cooperative Network, that share resources and support each other through the lows and highs.

• Social exposure to make ‘hot’ firms go cold, such as the work of Archishame or Feminist Wall.

• Make firms with good labour practices (generally a sign of good social ethics!) be the coolest. Campaigns such as JustDesign aim to give certification to firms with recommendable labor practices. Activities such as this need to be international and globally coordinated.

• Do away with the exploitative divisions of professional licensure — which especially exploits Part 1 and 2 architectural assistants working their way through Part 3. Replace it with apprenticeship models governed by tertiary education, professional accreditation, and practice.

• Revise our fee and procurement structures. To have a diverse industry, we need to change the current status quo that makes underpaid work possible only for the (overwhelmingly white, male and) rich. If the professional bodies will not discuss higher fees and wages, we should take this on by other means. Perhaps firm owners need to organize themselves, like the trade union Architects Sweden, to fight for a better position in the wider economy.

Changing our culture also starts with rethinking and re-empowering the architectural academy:

• Students: Overwork deserves no kudos. An unclockable schedule does not make better architecture — organize against unreasonable hours. Consider joining the fight of Pause or Pay UK to gain better study conditions in the pandemic.

• Faculty: Stop priming the pump for a future of exploitation. A willing supply of cheap architectural labour starts in the studio. We cannot be ‘cool’ teachers, yet also expect students to sacrifice their health and future earnings. Also, organize with the University and College Union.

• Leadership: You have the most power to affect the above issues. Petition the Standing Conference of Heads of Schools of Architecture to effect big-picture change.

• Universities: The entire academy needs to campaign against rising tuition and the privatization of tertiary education. As long as architectural education is unaffordable, we will not get the racial and class-diverse profession our world so desperately needs.

In the end, there is no distinction between our ‘professional’ lives and our lives as citizens. We cannot be ‘progressive’ in our aesthetic yet perpetuate bad labor practices. We cannot be ‘too busy’ with work rather than attend to our communities and neighborhoods. Our work can only matter if we band together against a developer-driven economy that counts on architects willing to do anything to get that work. From the bottom up and the top down, we need to organize. Architectural workers of the world, unite.