Ed,

Let’s start from the fact that Architecture exists. Yet, in Australia, you don’t need an architect to build a house.

When you want to build something, the law requires a builder, but the services of an architect is optional. This is a significant problem because, by sidelining architects, we are ignoring thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and learning.

The first person known to have written about architecture was Vitruvius, an architect and engineer from the 1st century BC. He wrote “Ten Books on Architecture,” where he defined architecture through three core principles: Firmitas, Utilitas, and Venustas. Firmitas means that a building must be strong and not collapse. Utilitas refers to the idea that a building must be useful and serve its purpose—for example, an airport works very differently from a hospital, and the same can be said for houses and even smaller projects. Lastly, Venustas means that a building should be beautiful.

These principles have varied in importance throughout history. In ancient times, when humans lived in caves, Firmitas was the most critical. During the Renaissance, Venustas captured everyone’s attention, and by the 1920s, Utilitas became the central focus of architecture.

Returning to Australia in recent decades, we face a dilemma: If the law doesn’t require an architect, why should we use one? Architects are often perceived as expensive, potentially adding 10-15% to your building costs. But if there’s no requirement, many may not even know what architects do. From my experience, the answers to this question are surprising: “Architects only design expensive houses,” or “Architects create interesting projects.” The word “interesting” is subjective, and architects don’t use them professionally—what’s interesting to one person may not be to another.

If we don’t understand the role of an architect, we are essentially rejecting knowledge. This is critical and affects our daily lives

José Delmas, Yamba