Why not let Everyone be an Architect

Architects don’t like being called engineers.  The not so patient ones will look at your with an eye that is literally translated ‘how dare you insult me?’   The more social ones will take time off to explain their role and why they should not be confused with the lesser profession of engineering.  In the professions of the built environment, not so many of us take this seriously. It is mostly banter.   However, there is another group of people in the building industry that really wind up architects when they call themselves ‘architects’.  It is the draftsmen or technicians.  Most architects are fed up with these people using their title.  So what really upsets architects when technicians and/or draftsmen call themselves ‘architects?’

You see the title ‘architect’ is protected by law in this country and an institution that I lead, the Architects Registration Board, is supposed to take to court anyone and everyone who calls themselves ‘architect’ without being on the register to be fined or locked away.  This however has not deterred our assistants in the industry from hugging the title “architect”.   Architectural draftsmen and technicians calling themselves ‘architects’ isn’t new, and neither is the resentment felt by “real architects’ at what they see as the hijacking of a title they worked so hard to earn and feel ought to be protected as the law provides.  

Most architects feel that technicians and draftsmen are treading on their tuff and take work that is meant to be theirs, while others genuinely believe that ‘these people’ are the ones continuing to feed the chaos and confusion we have in our built environment because they simply have no grasp of what is required, as a result of their limited training.

The lack of jobs has only sharpened the architects displeasure, as hundreds of them that are unemployed and underemployed go through built environment feature columns in national newspapers and see people who spent only 2 years at a technical college authoritatively giving opinions and presenting designs (in most cases technically flawed) on a subject that took them seven years to get a grip of. 

In two Whats Appgroups for architects where I am a member, the Architects Registration Board (ARB) is usually attacked for being toothless and not doing enough to protect ‘our title’.   This subject usually elicits the most comments and they range from expressions of frustration to calls to boycott paying the ARB fees. “I really think the ARB should show what our dues do by taking on these people” said one architect.  While many agree that protection of the title is down to the Board, others have actively campaigned for the Uganda Society of Architects, a lobby group for architects, to retain it’s own lawyer and sue people who call themselves architects.  ‘Nurses do not call themselves doctors’ many of them usually grumble and ‘national newspapers will not quote nurses and refer to them as doctors in their news stories’ others will complain. ‘Why does it happen in our profession?’ many ask.   And to a large extent, they are right.  

So how exactly has this confusion persisted for almost a quarter of a century since the enacting of the Architects Registration Act?

We are discussing a title that is legally defined and legally protected here.  It is baffling that after almost 25 years, the group that generally rubs architects the wrong way continues to thrive while many of them go without jobs and others have been forced into a career change. 

First and foremost, the lack of knowledge about the law by those who transgress against it, the ones meant to enforce it and those it is supposed to help is simply astounding.   In my job as the Chairman of the Board, I have been to local authorities where those in-charge of approving building plans are not aware that there is a law requiring individuals practicing architecture to register.   I have interacted with members of the public that aren’t aware that this law is meant to protect them against bad or poor designs, people who take their money and don’t deliver and conmen who are out rightly just ripping them off.  To many members of the public, the real architects are expensive and they would rather not deal with them.  I will put it as simply as I can.  Most registered architects can work for the money you pay for ‘stamping’ that is why, the technicians will ask you for that money apparently to pay for the architect’s stamp.  

This brings me to the second point.  Architects themselves abet the misuse of their title.  One of the objectives of the law was to give an opportunity to people to use services of real architects and most local authorities (especially those in urban areas) attempted to ensure that Ugandans seeking development permission and building permits use the services of a qualified architect.  In order to assist these local authorities to identify these qualified and registered people, the Uganda Society of Architects came up with a green stamp, which every registered architect is given on completion of their registration requirements.  Unfortunately, this stamp has come back to haunt the members of the society in many ways than one. Firstly, in some local authorities, especially those found outside Kampala, there is an outright forgery of these stamps.  A colleague of mine was recently called by a district engineer from Northern Uganda to discuss drawings that he had never submitted.  Secondly and probably most embarrassing to the USA, a certain group within it’s membership (not more than 10) have decided to abuse (instead of use) these stamps for their own individual selfish gains.  They recklessly stamp any and all manner of drawings without studying them for as low as Ush. 50,000. This shameless group of individuals has gone as far as leaving their green stamps at Printing and Xerox houses, so that as soon as the printer completes his job, the drawings are automatically stamped.  Finally, some officers of local authorities take these stamps to be the ultimate seal of approval.   To such officers, drawings with a green stamp cannot be queried or interrogated.  They believe that they have been produced by the most qualified and cannot have flaws. Where drawings are produced by a draftsman and merely ‘stamped’ mistakes and technical flaws are abound; yet they are missed at the two checkpoints that were designed by law to protect the developer.

There is a group that is aware of the law but insist that the technicians should also be allowed to practice architecture.  Many of them argue that architects are only trying to act as a cartel.  That they are nervous about losing their patch and that is why they are putting all these legal hurdles in place.  I disagree.  Research shows that a well-designed built environment provides a range of economic, social and environmental benefits including higher rental levels, low maintenance costs, enhanced regeneration and increased support for public infrastructure development.  Good architectural designs are vital for healthy livable buildings and public spaces.  Only qualified architects understand this and can make positive difference because of their 5-year training.

It should be noted that there are draftsmen or technicians who have developed outstanding design skills over time and can do a better job than some registered architects.   Calls for letting such people practice are reasonable and need to be looked into.  But in the same breath, among the same group, there are people who completely lack the simple basics of design and unfortunately whose products have gone on to be built.  They are eyesores and a complete embarrassment to our built environment and the profession.