Judgement and quality can set architects apart from any technological solution – and start to close the gap between profit and public good, argues Muyiwa Oki
Six months left. The clock ticks, yet still I find myself engaging in first-time experiences late into my tenure as president. Last month, I was giving evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, led by MP Florence Eshalomi.
The topic? The UK government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes. A bold commitment – but is our construction sector equipped to deliver?
I introduced myself by reaffirming RIBA’s purpose: ‘to advance the theory and practice of architecture, setting and enabling the highest design and delivery standards’. But how do we do so in a world where the only constant is change?
Professions are caught between a fast-shifting technological landscape and deep systemic challenges. We’re gearing up to launch a taskforce aimed at transforming architecture’s workplace culture.
Why? Because we’re stuck in a cycle that prioritises surviving over thriving. The structures that shape our industry, from economic incentives to workplace hierarchies, have not evolved at the pace necessary to foster meaningful, sustainable progress. That leaves us with a morality gap.
The more mediocrity AI generates, the greater opportunity for those who can cut through the noise
We hold architecture to the highest ideals: good judgement, precision and an unerring focus on quality. Yet we often fail to interrogate the systems that stifle those very attributes.
We should be responsible capitalists, serving nature, people and the common good, not just financialised real estate markets. But we treat architecture as if it is removed from the broader economic realities that dictate how (and for whom) buildings are made.
In healthcare, we would never consider axing regulations that protect patients. So why did we accept the erosion of standards under the guise of speed and cost-cutting?
Architects must show clarity and vision
In the face of AI’s relentless march, humans maintain the ability to discern, curate, and synthesise disparate influences into something distinct. AI’s composite of perspectives produces the median, the average, and the almost-good enough. But reaching the highest standard takes judgement.
That is where architects must distinguish themselves. The more mediocrity AI generates, the greater opportunity for those who can cut through the noise with clarity and vision.
Our ability to command a margin and to assert our work’s value hinges on cultivating a web of historical, cultural, and material references to inform our practice. Architecture is a discipline, a critical lens through which we shape the built environment. It separates the exceptional from the acceptable. But discussions of architecture are too often reduced to aesthetic preference rather than the rigorous application of good judgement.
Judgement is honed through experience – experiencing a city, feeling its rhythms, understanding the interplay of light and material, and engaging with the social and economic forces that shape our urbanity. It cannot be engineered or outsourced; it is our profession’s definitive skill.
Yet architecture is increasingly treated as just another commodity in an over-financialised economy. Our designs shape lives, communities and ecosystems. The economic system, however, prioritises short-term returns over long-term societal value. As a creative profession we must develop tools that communicate these tacit values, and embed proper feedback loops – mechanisms to ensure that what we build serves not just markets, but people and the planet.
The challenge before us is of productivity and purpose, even beyond delivering those 1.5 million homes. We must redefine what responsible capitalism looks like in our industry. We must close the morality gap between profit and public good. And above all, we must reclaim architecture as a discipline of quality and judgement.