I am standing for RIBA President because I am fed up with the state of the profession and think I could add some plain speaking, common sense and clarity to improve matters:
- from the state of education to the bureaucratisation of practice
- from the over-regulation of the construction industry to inadequate fee levels
- from the over-flattery of starchitects to the marginalisation of everyday experience
- from the interference of the Architects Registration Board to confusion of the Building Safety Act
- from the side-lining of critical opinions to the rise of litigiousness.
I am from Wales, I started my working career in the north-east, I studied at the Bartlett and in Birmingham, work in London, live in the north-west, and spent six years in China. I have been a lead architect, site architect, expert witness, sole practitioner, journalist, author, illustrator, NBS-documentary film maker, podcaster, and an academic. This portfolio career – always with architecture at its core – has provided me with a wide range of insights into various aspects of the profession, and allowed me to learn from all these experiences. Few of my insights are totally positive. As a matter of fact, I see a profession that is desperate for change… but with a side order of continuity.
I admit to being unconventional – potentially dissident – but I am committed to strive for improvement in all of the above. I am prepared to speak my mind and also to change my opinion when I am proved wrong.
My concerns are as follows. These are the headline topics that I hope to influence:
1. Build, Build, Build
Practically every government since the war has pledged to build 300,000 houses a year. Almost every year since, we’ve built around half of that target and today is no different. Imagine the workload that doubling the housing delivery could engender.
Sixty years on from the development of Milton Keynes, plans have emerged for a new ‘Forest City 1’ near Cambridge that tries to satisfy demand for growth in housing and much-needed infrastructure, including reservoirs, railways, hospitals and schools. It might be a pipe-dream, but this is the kind of ambition we need to revive the construction sector.
Decline is not inevitable, but it does require that, aside from planning reform, we reinstate the idea that growth, development, expansion and progress are positive ambitions. We are architects, after all. We build things.
2. Ideological orthodoxies
Everywhere you look in architecture these days, there is an emphasis on carbon emissions, sustainability, climate change, global warming, virtue signalling. It is as if architects believe themselves to be morally responsible for the state of the planet, and best-placed to determine other people’s behaviour. Of course, if this is what you truly believe, good luck to you. But many people do not subscribe to the prioritisation of these issues by mandate, and they should not be assumed as an unchallengeable dogma. Similarly, not everyone agrees that degrowth, social justice, wellbeing, EDI, retrofit, etc, are the central architectural issues of the day, along with costly regulatory demands to conform, especially for those trying to make ends meet.
If there are ‘political differences’ then shutting down debate is no way to encourage diverse opinions to flourish. I propose a more general conversation about issues of immediate and practical concern to architects and others in the construction industry.
3. Moral missionaries
Nowadays, the education and the practices of architects are regularly prefixed with words like ‘moral’, ‘ethical‘, ‘inclusive‘, etc. These are, of course, potentially good things, but they are also contested. If, in order to be inclusive you have to exclude others, that is more than a contradiction, it is clearly intolerant. As recent legal cases have shown, imposing an obligation on a member of an organisation to actively promote particular views against their actual beliefs (unless explicitly contracted) can be deemed to be direct discrimination and against the law.
Architects are free to grandstand, but architectural students ought not be mandated to recite the moral standards of others. Universities ought to be the bastions of critical engagement and challenging opinions with which one disagrees. I hope to see students recover a sense that they can not only challenge the brief, but they can – within reason – challenge their tutors.
4. Professional development
We live in a confusing world. Many construction professionals, especially those outside the metropolitan bubble might not be fully aware of the changes that are proposed (or already in place). Whether it is the role of Principal Designers or the end of Part 1 accreditation, whether it is the many U-turns in public policy, or the rapid emergence of AI, there needs to be clear, consistent, helpful advice available.
While resource-rich architectural practices, possibly with in-house legal departments, can negotiate their way through the regular avalanche of regulatory and legislative changes, smaller practices struggle to keep up. That’s why the really important service provided by RIBA Helpline or its Business Support Helpline means that RIBA Chartered Members can access free 15-minute consultations. It offers reliable information from specialist consultants on contracts, disputes, planning, regs, etc. But not enough people know about this, and it should be given higher profile.
For years, I have tried to help untangle the regulatory labyrinth by producing Professional Practice Podcasts – available for free – to try to offer key information by experts on a range of technical and professional subjects. I would want to encourage other similar, reliable, informative initiatives.
Freely available and accurate assistance needs developing; even if that means that Chartered members get advice under their subscription, while Registered Architects might pay for the service.
5. Listening to members
The ARB seems to publish a survey-a-week and often uses a high percentage of a low turnout as some kind of mandate for further regulatory changes. Too often, respondents are orchestrated lobbyists with time on their hands and drums to bang.
The results are often tone-deaf to real concerns of ordinary members. We need to hear about the everyday reality for architects and practices doing well, as well as those struggling to succeed. We need to learn from best practice, but also from difficult cases. And not just here, but across the world.
The RIBA Business Benchmarking Report 2025 claims that practices with fewer than 10 staff make up around 70–80% of all Chartered Practices. Just over 25%, that’s around 1,000 practices are sole practitioners. I would not want to indulge more unnecessary surveys, but it is important that we find out what makes ordinary architects and practices tick, especially including those in the regions, principalities, and abroad. Maybe a more comprehensive national survey – not just the usual suspects – would be useful.
What are your immediate concerns? And what do you suggest we do about it? Through regional gatherings, let’s commit to finding out.
6. RIBA’s spending
The refurbishment of the RIBA to create a “House of Architecture” at huge expense, is happening regardless, (which includes the necessary upgrade to its crumbling fabric). The current ‘proposal’ for an RIBA Gallery to show off the RIBA’s incredible collections is something I support. This idea for sharing its hidden treasures has real merit, but for two key points:
- The RIBA must work hard at ensuring that this is privately-funded and not an assault on members’ fees.
- I would like to ensure that we organise more public exhibitions and talks with connections to the local and global regions.
7. Budgeting
‘If you want to be rich, don’t be an architect’.
This is a truism, but fee scales are notoriously low and are keeping salary scales down. It would be good to publish – regularly – a fee scale benchmark (not a mandatory fee scale) that can be a reference point for clients and architects alike.
‘Cash is king’
It’s a truism, but many architects have not enough time to monitor performance profit and cashflow efficiently. It would be good if more training, education and meaningful advice could be given to smaller practices.
8. Educational rigour
Many architecture students today, paying £9,790 per year, are actually working for 3 or 4 days a week to earn the money to be able to afford the pleasure of university life. It is not uncommon for them to complain that they have to do a week’s student work in one-day. Universities then feel compelled to ease their burden with lower demands, simpler tasks, easier excuses, and flexible deadlines… while greedily grabbing at their fee cheques. It’s a potential spiral of decline.
Of course, there are wonderful, ambitious, intelligent and knowledgeable students out there, so this is not the students’ fault. But architecture departments and universities are in a critical condition: facing financial pressures, a desperate search for more classroom fodder, and responding in the only way they know how: by building more student accommodation and offering inducements. Ironically, the sidelining of educational content, per se – what used to be called “dumbing down” – means that university qualifications are less respected than ever before. Universities are fighting for a dwindling resource and lowering educational standards seems to be the first casualty.
The RIBA cannot and should not meddle in the internal workings of academic curricula – that seems to be the ARB’s sole purpose – but it must be possible for the RIBA to speak out in terms of leadership, and encourage universities to maintain standards, and honour students’ aspirations for high standards and stimulate the architectural educational experience.
I have organised independent Critical Subjects Summer Schools held at a variety of architects’ offices in an attempt to engage students in a ‘free university as it should be’.
9: Technology
In this ever-changing environment, the AI revolution and its implications for architecture and the construction industry is, in equal measure, fetishised and reviled. There is not enough space to engage satisfactorily with this subject but suffice to say it needs to be addressed as part of a wider conversation than just architecture.
As a kick-start to architects’ engagement with broader topics, I have series-edited the ‘Five Critical Essays’ books and I refer you to No 6: ‘Five Critical Essays on AI’.
10. The Public Understanding of Architecture
It seems that the only meaningful survey to have assessed what the public actually understands about architects was carried out 15 years ago, with just over 2,000 respondents. It showed that:
- 15% didn’t know that architects design buildings
- 22% didn’t know that they prepare detailed construction drawings for building projects
- 72% didn’t know that they apply for planning permission
- 91% didn’t know that they can deal with project finances.
While the ‘Registration of Title vs Function’ debate rages on, it seems that a large percentage of the public have little awareness of the function or a clear understanding of the title. Incestuous debates don’t help, especially as the practice of architecture is changing rapidly from its ‘traditional’ role.
Anecdotally, the ‘RIBA’ designation seems to enjoy greater public awareness and association with quality/prestige, whereas ARB is merely a mandatory regulator (although it is also the gatekeeper to the profession). Public trust tends to align with recognised professional bodies, and so the distinction between Registered and Chartered ought to be given more clarity.
It behoves the RIBA to maintain, rebuild and encourage the public’s trust through engagement in quality design, creativity, practical knowledge, the impartation of useful information; offering clarity and encouraging informed judgement.
I hope to stand up for the RIBA as a stimulus for real debate, knowledge, improvement, creativity, production and rewards. Campaigning for a Public Understanding of Architecture, might be a good start.
PLEASE VOTE WHEN POLLING OPENS: 15 June 2026
In synopsis, my manifesto to-do list is as follows:
- Build, Build, Build
- Architecture is a profession, not a soapbox
- Encourage free speech and open debate
- More consideration for hard-pressed practices
- Talk to the regions: Find out members’ concerns
- Spend wisely
- Share successful and failed practice
- Make qualifications meaningful again
- Reduce complexity: Minimise regulation
- Champion the whole of the industry: from small to large practitioners
I know that the Presidential position is a figurehead role, but in that spirit I hope to lead by example and encourage more architects to discuss, debate, challenge and feel confident in doing so.
I would very much appreciate your vote.
Austin Williams