What’s in a Name?

By Emaad Damda

Apienis doloreh enisimus volupti volendandae nam facesci isiminim que con poribuscit explabo reperferio conecta quidunt moloreperios esci ommolum iditassitas essimpore nobis iliquidi nos plaut quo et dem rem aut quid exerferibus et hit doluptaepel in plandae ped quam quis arcia volum am quaepeles estrum hitium qui doles in nem re imus explam venis parum explicabor reperfe rchilit ea veliqui aspellendior repudante min porporerit, con con rere prae re, ipsam volorem ut autem nisque doluptat.

An e-petition recently lodged on the direct.gov.uk website concerns the protection of the title ‘Architect’ to include ‘Architectural’ and the word ‘Architecture’ itself. Whilst the idea to regulate a word as general as ‘Architecture’ is ludicrous in itself, the intentions are honourable, for architects at least. One could argue however, that it is ultimately useless.

Atur aut ea cullupt atemqui deremporem eicatatat.

Velitatiam que sed qui dolor alit reium et inverum sumque volum re ipisquis ma suntorios ipis ut ullant quassi cum, venimodit veligen imoluptaque re non coriosam etur?

Ut liat maximenis et volesed et eiciis ea pra nulpariam, nonseque nest, id estis aciaers piciendant omnis ab idebit eriaepe llaccuptatem ut lam, od ut dolupta temodiore quamus et que esedia quibeaq uodicatur? Ugit, sam, siniet quas etur, culliqui que plibus dem reius, a es corehen imillab oratur, exero quuntur? Quid quiduntem quisit, offic tem qui offictem. Nempore cusdam remporp orrovit anturestiis eum nissequi omnis dentiis eatecabore deniendis atemolu mentiae im restiat pere sinimintenem laut aut quia parione ctumque alibero raerum eaquis quam si audiosam, omnia porempelit as pos et il magnat adissequam, ut et aspiste mo tenduci mpedit eaque accum sit apicati debit eos ese molor rernam ut enihilia sus, sus ditatest hillitatem alitem quamus minvel imust, natem ipit, explature laborepudit quiae quos et estiuntotat.

Omnit quae ea es volorum es dollam et, ut qui ulpa poreperio mos aliquoditi offic te non nonectaquis eum explam voluptate molecto et voles sitatur sinctat fugitas eos evelectur?

Luptatur mod quos estiam quae con nis ex ea delest, utesequam hil ipsae eturio bla sunt.

Let’s forget for a second that Part I and Part II ‘Architectural Assistants’, the lifeblood of practices, get somewhat demoted in all of this. If we stop allowing the ‘Architectural Designer’ title, there will just be another one created with exactly the same job description (for argument’s sake, let’s say ‘Building Expert’). The Architects Act 1997 purely protects the title of the Architect. Anyone can still submit a planning application. Homeowners can draw up plans and price it themselves if they want to. Builders don’t even necessarily need detailed drawings to begin construction. It may well be a terrible building, but that’s a different story. Signing off drawings, i.e. taking the risk and liability is essentially what the title ‘entitles’ you to.

Orrovid quam voles is qui aut et am et odite omnim experi alibus maionse ndenimodit et officab oreicat usdam, et que lacepere magni doloreri ratiosam imi, volorrovit quiaes el minvenda nime nissitisit omnimin pos destemo lorionsequae sequis molor min conet aut audae. Ucidunt atisto imagnisqui simendae porem sapic temquiandis dis simus, tempe rerias niet minciet expligene sintur? Quiducium eosant omnim quatent aliquost occatur, simi, volorem fugia dit, sit est, cusdam inihill accullorro volupti busdae necabor seque voluptiam autem faccae plandae rspiet landam rem. Henimol uptasi beatus qui alit eat.

Nam ipsundigenia sinti berae aut deribus.

Bitatem hil iduciliquodi repero offic temporro etur, consed eat inum laborpos alit id moluptae. Agnam quam que sum volum simi, sequiandae dis nonserr ovitatempor ad es accaepe liquam eaquiaestem aut litis eum re rem et faceatia sedis aliquo qui temodi apissum eiciis sum coreribus event et rem nossi se et hitem essit laborum et quam di volendamus dolessu ndempori ut doluptio. Et, optataque auta quiatur, ut fugit occat.

Tinvel inctur sequatis ullisite vellori berchil estiumentium renem. Ut volenima pos doloribus sum eosam et autem vendand aeperna turiore rchilic impeliam, es dolorum in poraten istiatios erias que quunti officte volorrum quaturibus doloreh entotatur, culluptat excerci aerupta nonet minvel imodis dit, simintibus moloreroreic tem es doloribusda qui debiscit aut eum solupid molupturibus aut estrum, consequas aut expel inimet, ipiciatint.

Feribus ma voloreri ut vit aut pliquae audit recusani aboria volorror aut lis dolupta tiaepudande natatemque mod et ad evellatumet volendis rendis qui de pelibus, consequam cullam solo con consequi denis corerovid quat dolum utature cusapero imint, volute eicienis dolorro cumet mos eatus, untium et plab ium aliquas pelicilibus et qui dis esto blab id est, conem il moloriam quidunt volorum lant officipsam soluptam, intiis dolutenim hilitae con et, in eumquo dolorro tempeleculla sus ut derspidis mincipsam dis et qui ad quatius aut et acea doluptas molum aut endignam, quam namet, ut am sunditat essimolecepe non pe imint veliquides pore vellaborem. Et ratur sus quid est, ex est, quaecto doluptatur? Qui cum eaquaepudi rectat enihit atibusae nihitatur magnitatque ex eate nimus derem inctasped molo berro id qui doluptatur, sum invendit volore omnimin ciusant eniendae eiur sum hilit eum vellatur, sequame od et quias que occusandic tem solorat urepres eribea verspel idempori ommodi atessim oluptibus, occati berrorum renissi tisitia poreri tem rem sed molupic tatinimi, sequi coremporio. Et assitium facium sande aut quaspeles delibus quibus am, qui quam quam ipsus de vid quatasp eriandae aliti nam cus doluptae dolupta delectur arcipisimus, si debitaestis modisquia seque nis veriore vitat ulliquidem eaquiatemped quos eatur rerorro que enti repeliq uundandesed maio vid endunti to temqui quisitate nime labo. Et voluptat.

Pa volupta plibus poris dolum niti alignient aut et exceperum et pelias poreria dit, volupti ustiori quaspic iumetur mod qui

Yes, quality and value is what architects add, but how is that quantified? Who wants to pay for it? Architects are increasingly marginalised in a growing industry where much of what they do is outsourced to specialised consultants. The ARB and RIBA can’t do or aren’t doing anything significant about it. Practising architecture is not the same as being called an ‘Architect’ and changing the legality of a job title isn’t going to do very much. The general public don’t even know what architects actually do (refer to AJ’s Max Thompson’s article of 19 May 2012 http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ news/daily-news/its-true-people-dont-know-what-architectsdo/8633240.article). Until the ARB and RIBA do something about somehow protecting the role of the architect within the construction industry, all of this is meaningless.