From national membership survey data one of the key activities expected of the Institute is to promote the value of architecture and good design.

Not a surprising expectation, but I think they are two different things.

The value of good design is about better outcomes through successful design. Some outcomes can be empirically quantified and some can remain less defined but should still be understood and valued. Health and workplace are two fields where improved design solutions can be validated by data which supports improved patient recovery and improved culture and productivity. Sustainability outcomes can be measured and assessed. We know this data exists and yet being able to communicate it simply and broadly seems to evade us. I think there is a role for the Institute here.

The other value of good design is less tangible. It is about beauty, and delight and the things that engage and uplift, foster and support the human spirit. Our awards programme speaks to some of these elements and we must find better ways of communicating this value more broadly. The human spirit exists also in correctional services, aged care facilities and the small business on an arterial road and while these seldom make for awards entries, we must still champion the contribution of good design there.

However architecture is a large and complex profession and we are not simply design consultants. Promoting the value of architecture is about promoting the many other things we do as well, and perhaps being less willing to hand them away.

Architects are the most broadly engaged professional in the development process. The involvement throughout a project timeline and the degree to which we interact with every input from authorities, to user groups, to consultants to trades and so on…is singularly unique. The depth of our specialties and expertise as a profession ranges from detailed technical knowledge to social and physiological understanding to broad master plan and feasibility thinking. Even with the plethora of professional inputs in larger projects, the scope of the lead architect still almost always involves resolution of the client brief, through to coordination of all the consultants and varied levels of administration of the construction. Despite this reality, we seem to accept feasibilities which consider only land use and costs without an architectural proposition, we seem comfortable with a role called ‘BIM manager’ separate to the architect who actually coordinated all the inputs that made the model, and on the presentation side, we hand out the design we created and the model we built for an external party to visualise…often with trees that don’t grow in South Australia.

If we are to be seen as the crucial partner in the development of the built environment, we must unwaveringly consider ourselves that way too.