There have been some issues in my mind over the RIBA and the direction that it is headed. There have been quite a few instances but more recently an article on pro bono work, the post by @JBarch on the thread regarding the new Principal Designer role and the Negroni talks about fees.

Why should architects consider pro bono work?

If you search for the article on google it’s no longer available…the closest one I can find is this

https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/architects-and-pro-bono-work

The title of this piece is now ‘Why should architects consider community-based projects?’ But as you can see they haven’t changed the original link 😅. The offending term ‘pro bono’ has been removed from the article but the overall emphasis on free work, which is what ‘social value’ is another name for, is still there. The article itself is now no longer a member update but free to read by all…looks like they really don’t want to make this an issue.

However, the point of the article puts an almost positive spin on the fact that working for free is what we all aim for even when we are students. 

It is well known that there is a surge of enthusiasm for undertaking projects that deliver social value among the emerging generation of young architects.

Many will say that the idea of helping their communities via architecture is what attracted them to the profession in the first place.[

Personally I think that is misguided, you study hard, have student loans and finally get into work, the first thing you think about is that you are finally being paid (if you land a decent job). The good Samaritan may come well into the future when you are financially happy but when starting out with heavy debt, I think pro bono is the last thing you are thinking about.

In the article, TYPE is one practice that is taking on ‘social’ work along with their paid work, but how many others are doing this? They do not charge from stages 0-3, that is where all the hard work is, coming up with a viable design…once that is done anyone can take it forward. 

Sam Nelson is the Director & Co-founder at TYPE, but he is also a Part 1 tutor at Cambridge (part-time). This is a regular income while pursuing more charitable endeavours. Good luck to them in what they are doing but this is not for everyone. 

If you are financially secure, and you have a network around you that is also that way, finding clients who pay and the projects are varied and you gain a reputation is easier than those not as fortunate financially. There is already a divide in the profession and it looks like it is getting bigger, with those who can afford the ‘charity’ work and those who can’t.

The idea that the RIBA are even talking about pro bono work in the time of high inflation (where the profession in general requires more fees not less) is beyond belief. There is no value to free work, the question will always be, why are you working for free? Does it mean that your work is not good enough for payment? These are the questions that need addressing by architects themselves and most of all RIBA as an institution for the profession. 

A Principal Designer and Contractor become a legal requirement from October

@JBarch's recent post

It feels like RIBA is unintentionally encouraging a two-tier industry. Bigger firms like FCBStudios and Fosters can pay these fees without batting an eyelid but this is just another burdensome charge for the smaller practices

It has been ever increasing in how RIBA are almost suppressing the architect's role and not promoting the fact that the profession is already trained to take on this role instead of using this to create a PD accreditation as a money making scheme.

Negroni Talk #42 -Fees For Free: The Divide And Conquer Of Architecture?

LInk to thread: https://arqnetwork.com/forums/a-c-d-e/negroni-talks-ai-summary/

The RIBA /ARB were invited to the event but didn’t turn up. The overall conversation was good with a range of speakers from different aspects of architecture. (Thanks @foundational).

Eleanor Jolliffe talked about the historical aspect and the role of architects and how the fees have altered over time especially during the drive for competition, instead of increasing the fees and elevating the profession has been detrimental within the field. This has led to undercutting prices or working for free becoming the norm.

The topic of fees is a constant concern within the profession and has never been resolved by the RIBA. The fee scale has been pushed aside for the RIBA fee calculator (exclusively to RIBA Chartered Practices), this still does not help those architects that are not members. 

All these examples make me wonder about the divide within the profession and how RIBA are facilitating it (unwittingly I’m sure). They seem to cater for those that can afford to keep up the membership of being a chartered member/chartered practice, and who can afford to take on work at a lower/no cost.

But they seem to work against those that are struggling to get work to pay the bills.