What does the term architect mean to you?
Over the last few weeks numerous publications like the Washington Post have run news stories about “architects.” But instead of covering the work of Santiago Calatrava or Antoine Predock, the stories are about politicians or members of the Bush administration, people like outgoing White House adviser Karl Rove, who some have called the “architect” of Bush’s campaign triumphs.
In these cases, the media uses the term architect to refer to an individual who serves as a strategic leader in meeting organizational goals. But it’s not only in the realm of politics: in recent years the hi-tech industry has embraced the titles architect and engineer to identify lead project managers. In these instances the “architects” in question are not designing buildings or communities, but software programs and computer networks. And an anybody who’s followed the controversy over the next Architect of the Capitol (where some in Congress are suggesting that the next Architect need not be an architect) knows, not everybody believes that titles matter. Webster’s II New College Dictionary defines “architect” as: “One who designs and oversees the construction of large structures, such as buildings, bridges, or ships.” A second definition labels an “architect” as “a planner or deviser.” The first definition fits the legal definition of an architect held by every architectural licensing board in the country; however, the second description speaks to how the media and others have appropriated the term to describe non-architect positions.Has the term architect been altered too much to adequately and sufficiently explain what architects do as members of a profession? Or does the public understand what these different interpretations of the word “architect” mean? (Clients aren’t asking Karl Rove to design their houses, after all.) And do federal, state, and local governments need to play a stronger role in enforcing the integrity of the title architect?
Tell us what you think.